Scott is making a chart to show the difference between chemical reactions and nuclear reactions. Which part of his chart is incorrect?
Chemical Reaction
Nuclear Reaction
Line 1
Happens in the nucleus of atoms
Happens between atoms
Line 2
Forms new compounds
Forms new atoms and radioactive particles
Line 3
Involves small amounts of energy
Involves large amounts of energy
Line 1 is incorrect
Lines 1 and 2 are incorrect
II
Lines 2 and 3 are incorrect
Line 3 is incorrect

Line 1

Explanation:

the incorrect line is line one because as you know They are right explanations in there they are just biseverse chechical reaction occurs between atoms and nuclear and Nucleous of atoms

relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. more precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. from ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. and yet, despite a long history of debate going back to plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. this entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

explanation:

force is based upon mass and acceleration.the statement is not always true.

it can be explained from newton's second law of motion.

as per newton's second law of motion the rate of change of momentum is directly proportional to the applied force and takes place along the direction of force.

mathematically it can be written as -

                                              ⇒      

here   k is the proportionality constant whose value is 1.

                                                            [a is the acceleration=dv/dt]

hence we see that force not only depends on mass and acceleration but also on velocity and rate of change of mass. force f will depend on mass and acceleration only when mass is constant.

hence the statement that force is based upon mass and acceleration is false.