ek- ek second 3:16 arre wah! mai to bachpan se galat padhte aaya tha ki ENERGY Neither be created not be destroyed... lagta sir ne naya law bana kar ye purane wale ko chnge kar diya sir aap mahan ho are ghanta mahan ho..
Oye atishbaazi chutiye, baad mei bola toh hai ki nuclear fusion ke karan. Jo energy atoms unstable atoms mei hoti hai voh nai aur stable atoms banatay hai jisse bahut zayda energy release hoti hai. Energy convert hi hori hai. Pta hai nhi kuch, comment section mei gandh gholne aajtay hai. Bhai thodi research toh kar liya kar kuch likhne se phele
@@ABCDEFGHIJX apologise for making this comment, but let me first correct myself. I was simply correcting the term he constantly used, "created," which is absolutely false because the law of conservation is universal and applies to all states of matter. Instead, as he correctly stated, nuclear fusion occurs in the sun, converting nuclear energy into light and heat rather than creating new energy. Now that let's get to your point, I want you to be aware that black holes "emit" energy owing to quantum instabilities and that the black hole itself radiates slowly. So, this is how I attempted to explain the difference between the phrases creation and conversion to you, brother. I hope you learnt it and you'll make your parents proud. : >>
krichoffs law of heat radiation states that at any given temperature,the ratio of the emissive power of the absorptive power corresponding to the certain wavelength is constant for all bodies and this constant equal to emissive power if the perfect black body at the same temperature and corresponding to same wavelength .
@@reyhann2012 sir ne nuclear fussion se energy bani kaha tha Aur bhai har jagah exaplain karne mein ye bhi jaruri nhi ki convert hi kahe inta to common sense hoga hi jo bhi padh rha hai
Nobody knows if energy can be converted to mass. Let’s assume it can. Then by Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence, E=mc^2, just for 1 gram of mass, the energy required will be colossal. The energy absorbed is very minuscule compared to this energy, so it isn’t converted to mass
Kirchoff's law states that a) A good absorber of radiation is good Reflector b)A poor absorber of radiation is poor Reflector c)A good absorber of radiation is poor Reflector d)A poor absorber of radiation is good Reflector Which is correct and why plz explain
Option (C) is given as the answer of this question (eg black body- it is good absorber but poor reflector), but i think option (D) also satisfies this law (eg white body- it is a poor absorber but good reflector)
Surya teri maa ki. Kya nahi hai be isme? Teri aukaat ke bahar hai sir ka samjhana. Edupoint is the best.😂😂😂😂😂 No one can beat him. You go to hell surya singh.
