All categories

3 years ago

I have two questions

Physics

2 answers:

Anettt [7]3 years ago

8 0

Answer:

1)The energy transported by a wave is directly proportional to the square of the amplitude. So whatever change occurs in the amplitude, the square of that effect impacts the energy. This means that a doubling of the amplitude results in a quadrupling of the energy

2)Just as wavelength and frequency are related to light, they are also related to energy. The shorter the wavelengths and higher the frequency corresponds with greater energy. So the longer the wavelengths and lower the frequency results in lower energy.

Explanation:

Vesna [10]3 years ago

4 0

The correct answer to the question is : C) A pendulum swings back and forth.
EXPLANATION:
Before answering this question, first we have to understand the law of conservation of energy.
As per law of conservation of energy, energy can neither be created not be destroyed. It can only change from one form to another form, and the total energy of the universe is always constant.
As per the question, we have a pendulum which is moving back and forth.
Let us consider a pendulum which is taken to some height from its equilibrium or mean point. The energy possessed by the pendulum at this height is gravitational potential energy. When the pendulum is released, the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. At mean point, whole of its potential energy is converted into kinetic energy.
Due to inertia, the pendulum reaches at the other extreme point. During its movement from mean point to extreme point, the kinetic energy is converted into potential energy. At extreme point, whole of its kinetic energy must have converted into potential energy. The same process will be repeated.
Hence, it obeys law of conservation of energy.
Hence, swinging of pendulum back and forth is the best example to demonstrate the law of conservation of energy.

You might be interested in

What did Rutherford’s model of the atom include that Thomson’s model did not have?

Ksivusya [100]

Rutherford overturned Thomson's model in 1911 with his well-known gold foil experiment in which he demonstrated that the atom has a tiny and heavy nucleus. Rutherford designed an experiment to use the alpha particles emitted by a radioactive element as probes to the unseen world of atomic structure.

3 0

3 years ago

A bird flies from the South Pole to the North Pole. Part of the journey is 1000 miles that takes 2 weeks. What is the bird’s vel

viktelen [127]

1000 miles = 1610km = 1.61x10^6m
2 weeks = 14 days = 14x24x1440

V=d/t = 1.61x10^6/14x24x1440
= 3.33m/s

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

At a certain instant, the speedometer of the car indicates 80 km/h.

Scorpion4ik [409]

Answer:

It tells the speed of car. At this time the speed of car is 80km/h , means if the car runs constantly at this speed then it will cover 80 kilometres in 1 hour.

. 

.

${\bold{\red{HOPE\:IT\:HELPS!}}}$

$\color{yellow}\boxed{\colorbox{black}{MARK\: BRAINLIEST!❤}}$

4 0

2 years ago

A child, hunting for his favorite wooden horse, is running on the ground around the edge of a stationary merry-go-round. The ang

olga55 [171]

Answer:

9.22 s

Explanation:

One-quarter of a turn away is 1/4 of 2π, or π/2 which is approximately 1.57 rad

Let t (seconds) be the time it takes for the child to catch up with the horse. We would have the following equation of motion for the child and the horse:

For the child: $s_c = \omega_ct = 0.233t$

For the horse: $s_h = s_0 + a_ht^2/2 = 1.57 + 0.0136t^2/2 = 1.57 + 0.0068t^2$

For the child to catch up with the horse, they must cover the same angular distance within the same time t:

$s_c = s_h$

$0.233t = 1.57 + 0.0068t^2$

$0.0068t^2 - 0.233t + 1.57 = 0$

$t= \frac{-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a}$

$t= \frac{0.233\pm \sqrt{(-0.233)^2 - 4*(0.0068)*(1.57)}}{2*(0.0068)}$

$t= \frac{0.233\pm0.11}{0.0136}$

t = 25.05 or t = 9.22

Since we are looking for the shortest time we will pick t = 9.22 s

6 0

3 years ago

Why is Pluto now called a dwarf planet

zvonat [6]

Before Pluto was discovered, it was predicted. Astronomers had observed that massive objects can affect the orbits of its neighbors, and, after seeing deviations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune, assumed something substantial existed beyond their orbits.
When Pluto was spotted, it was thought to be the predicted object and was identified as a ninth planet.
A few decades later, astronomers started discovering more and more objects around other stars and didn’t know whether to call them planets or not. There appeared to be a need to define what a planet means, and that led to what some people consider Pluto’s demotion to a dwarf planet.
The International Astronomical Union decided that full-sized planets must orbit the sun, have a round shape, and have cleared their orbits of other objects. Pluto fulfills the first two criteria, but not the third.
It still goes around the sun, it’s round enough, it’s got moons, and behaves like a planet, but the idea is that Pluto did not form the same way as the rest of the planets. Pluto’s orbit is both eccentric and inclined more than the rest of the planets by about 17 degrees. That’s suggests something is different about this object.
This debate about whether to call it a planet or not is silly, because it doesn’t matter to Pluto what you call it. It is an interesting object, goes around the sun, and shows geology and an atmosphere.
There’s a tendency to define objects based on what they are now, but nothing is constant in the universe. There are some issues with the nomenclature, and a definition today may not apply to the same object tomorrow.

7 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers