Answer:
ΔS total ≥ 0 (ΔS total = 0 if the process is carried out reversibly in the surroundings)
Explanation:
Assuming that the entropy change in the aluminium bar is due to heat exchange with the surroundings ( the lake) , then the entropy change of the aluminium bar is, according to the second law of thermodynamics, :
ΔS al ≥ ∫dQ/T
if the heat transfer is carried out reversibly
ΔS al =∫dQ/T
in the surroundings
ΔS surr ≥ -∫dQ/T = -ΔS al → ΔS surr ≥ -ΔS al = - (-1238 J/K) = 1238 J/K
the total entropy change will be
ΔS total = ΔS al + ΔS surr
ΔS total ≥ ΔS al + (-ΔS al) =
ΔS total ≥ 0
the total entropy change will be ΔS total = 0 if the process is carried out reversibly in the surroundings
Answer:
good morning you are you still
Answer: Jupiter's mass
Explanation:
From Kepler's third law:
where T is the orbital period of a satellite, a is the average distance of the satellite from the Planet, M is the mass of the planet, G is the gravitational constant.
If the average distance of one of Jupiter's moons to Jupiter and its orbital period around Jupiter is given then mass of the Jupiter can be found:
To find the answer, take 55 and divide it by 1.85 to get the thickness of one card. In this case the answer would be 29.72973 cm. each.
I was about to say: because people generally get comfortable with
what they think they know, and don't like the discomfort of being told
that they have to change something they're comfortable with.
But then I thought about it a little bit more, and I have a different answer.
"Society" might initially reject a new scientific theory, because 'society'
is totally unequipped to render judgement of any kind regarding any
development in Science.
First of all, 'Society' is a thing that's made of a bunch of people, so it's
inherently unequipped to deal with scientific news. Anything that 'Society'
decides has a lot of the mob psychology in it, and a public opinion poll or
a popularity contest are terrible ways to evaluate a scientific discovery.
Second, let's face it. The main ingredient that comprises 'Society' ... people ...
are generally uneducated, unknowledgeable, unqualified, and clueless in the
substance, the history, and the methods of scientific inquiry and reporting.
There may be very good reasons that some particular a new scientific theory
should be rejected, or at least seriously questioned. But believe me, 'Society'
doesn't have them.
That's pretty much why.