Which statement best explains why running on a track with constant speed at 3m/s is not work but climbing a mountain at 1m/s is work? 1. At constant speed, change in the kinetic energy is zero but climbing a mountain produces change in the potential energy
2. At constant speed, change in the potential energy is zero, but climbing a mountain produces change in the kinetic energy.
3. At constant speed, change in the kinetic energy is finite, but climbing a mountain produces no change in the potential energy.
4. At constant speed, change in the potential energy is finite, but climbing a mountain produces no change in the kinetic energy.

1. At constant speed, change in the kinetic energy is zero but climbing a    mountain produces change in the potential energy

Explanation:

According to work-energy theorem, work done in moving an object from one point to another is equal to change in mechanical energy ( kinetic energy or potential energy ) of the object.

Kinetic energy is given by;

K.E = ¹/₂m(Δv)²

where;

Δv is change in speed

at constant speed, Δv = 0

Potential energy is given by;

P.E = mgΔh

where;

Δh is change in height,

there is change in height in climbing a mountain

Therefore, the best explanation in the given options is "1".

"At constant speed, change in the kinetic energy is zero but climbing a mountain produces change in the potential energy"

okay i have so many questions. but the big one here is: um wt..f is this mess? ?

colorectal cancer may also develop from areas of abnormal cells in the lining of the colon or rectum. this area of abnormal cells is called dysplasia and is more commonly seen in people with certain inflammatory diseases of the bowel such as crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis.