While the idea of two planets colliding and forming a new universe might sound intriguing, it doesn't align with our current understanding of cosmology and the Big Bang theory. Let's break down a few key points:
The Big Bang Theory: The Big Bang theory describes the origin of our universe as a singularity, an incredibly hot and dense point that rapidly expanded, leading to the formation of the universe we know today. It wasn't the collision of two planets or celestial bodies that created the universe, but a highly energetic event on a cosmic scale.
Gravity in the Big Bang: The Big Bang theory doesn't involve the gravitational force keeping two objects together; it involves the rapid expansion of the universe from a hot and dense state. Gravity played a crucial role in the evolution of the universe, causing matter to clump together and form galaxies, stars, and planets over billions of years.
Planet Collisions: Collisions between celestial bodies like planets can indeed happen, and they can lead to significant changes in the affected planets and their surroundings. However, these collisions do not result in the creation of an entirely new universe; they are local events in our existing universe.
Formation of Life: The formation of life on planets is a complex process that involves a combination of factors, including the right environmental conditions, organic molecules, and time. While a planet collision could have profound consequences for life on those planets, it doesn't create an entirely new universe or guarantee the formation of life. In summary, the scenario described doesn't align with current scientific understanding.
The Big Bang theory describes the origin of our universe, and it doesn't involve the collision of planets. Planet collisions are local events with significant consequences for the affected bodies but do not lead to the creation of a new universe or guarantee the formation of life.
Answer: B)
A hollow double concave lens acts as a diverging lens. When it is filled with a medium of higher refractive index than the surrounding, its diverging power increases.
So if the lens is:
A) Filled with air (n=1) and immersed in water (n=1.33) - Incorrect, air has lower refractive index than water
B) Filled with water (n=1.33) and immersed in CS2 (n=1.6) - Correct, water has lower refractive index than CS2
C) Filled with air (n=1) and immersed in CS2 (n=1.6) - Incorrect, air has lower refractive index than CS2
D) Filled with CS2 (n=1.6) and immersed in water (n=1.33) - Incorrect, CS2 has higher refractive index than water
Therefore, the lens will act as a diverging lens when filled with water and immersed in CS2, which is option B.
The key is that the material inside the lens must have a lower refractive index than the surrounding medium to increase the diverging power of the concave lens.
Explanation:
magnitude of Alpha Crucis is 0.77. Identify which star appears brighter when observed from
Earth. Explain your answer.
Answer:
Alpha centauri will be brighter than Alpha Crucis .
Explanation:
Apparent magnitude of a star measures how bright a star is .
This scale is reverse logarithmic ie , the brighter the star , the lower is its magnitude . A magnitude equal to 5 scale higher represents less magnitude by a factor of 1/ 100 . In this way a difference of 1 magnitude represents a brightness ratio of 2.512 . Hence a star of brightness magnitude of 7 is less bright by a factor 2.512 than that of a star magnitude of 6 .