if it does, does it violate the law of thermodynamics?
127531
As a rule, no.\nIt could arise \n1. as answered already, if the surrounds are above normal body temp (the body while alive being cooled by sweat evaporation),\n2 If the body cooled towards equilibration with the surrounds, then the surrounds warmed up above the lowered temperature which the body had reached,\n3 If the evaporation of moisture cooled the body, it could certainly cool the skin significantly, but I suspect the skin would dry long before this cooled the average body temperature below that of the surrounds. (perhaps more significant if wearing a lot of wet clothes if a dry wind)\nAny other circumstances anyone? - even more bizarre ideas such as death from hypothermia following massive ingestion of ice??
85073
Yes it will, until the molecules in the ice stop moving, then it will stay the same. This is called absolute zero, and is some ridiculously low temperature that nobody has ever been able to quite achieve yet.
116849
Heat would an obvious example. The laws of thermodynamics would be another.
471131
The answer is d.) often occurs spontaneously.\n\nThis can be proven from the Gibbs Free Energy equation: \nG = H + TS\n\nwhere G is Gibbs energy, H is enthalpy, T is temperature in Kelvins, and S is the entropy or order of randomness. \nG < 0 is spontaneous\nG > 0 is not spontaneous\n\nIf a reaction releases energy, you can also assume that the reaction is exothermic or releases heat so T (and thus T(S)) in Gibbs equation would be negative, making G < 0, or spontaeous in most cases.
248856
Yes.  \n\nBoyle's Law states that the volume of a fixed amount of gas at constant temperature is inversely proportional to the pressure exerted on the gas.  In other words, as pressure rises volume decreases and as pressure decreases volume increases.
497084
Theoretically, no, not according to our current understanding.  In fact, that would violate causality, because an effect would then predate it's cause
589379
They don't call it a Law for nothing you know.\nWherever you look, you will always see an action-reaction paired up.  Newton's 3rd Law fits nicely in with another law which we know holds true in all cases...the Law of conservation of momentum.
9700
no,`coz it needs much higher temperature then usual,about 40-50 degrees on celsius.it evapours itself but it needs about 2 days.
662167
It is generally said that the law of conservation of mass holds for ordinary chemical reactions, and for all intensive purposes, it does.\nHowever, technically, there is a VERY small change in the mass (too small to even matter to most things) when energy is given off or gained.\n\nIn the case of 56 kJ being released when 1 g of natural gas combusts, there is an associated change in mass of only 6.2 E-13 kg (6.2 E -10 grams).\nE = mc^2\n56000 Joules = m (3 E8)^3\nm = 56000 / (9 E16)\nThis is such a small number, it is very easy to ignore it as it would be near impossible to measure such a small amount anyway.
53640
Don't listen to the first answer, he didn't even bother to look it up.\n\nThe second law of thermodynamics is more about the direction of energy flow.  It is really a statement about the 1st law and how many of it's processes never take place.\n\nFrom it, you get things like "Heat will not flow spontaneously from a colder body into a warmer body." And "Heat energy can not be compleaely transformed into mechanical work." Also, "It is impossible to construct an operational perpetual motion machine."\n\nIf evolutionists heads explode over this it is because of the consistant and repeated misuse of this by creationists.  In fact, most of the major creationists now conceede that they have been way off on this for a long time.  It does really make me worry about the education system in this country when creationists still think they can go around saying this.  \n\nOK, one more time: The second law and entropy apply to CLOSED SYSTEMS.  Since you haven't even bothered to research this - news flash! - THE EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM.  This may be new to some creationists but their is a big ball of fire out there called the sun where the earth gets most of it's energy.  Living things use energy from lower trophic levels to assemble new molecules.\n\nEvery time one of these creationist think that this is a valid argument, how come they never wonder why their aren't a bunch of physicits pointing this out to biologists?
255889
No. \nThe system is static and the sum of the forces equal zero, but there definately are forces flowing through the bar.  Replace the bar with a piece of plastic and then what happens.  The system is no longer in equilbruim, becomes dynamic and the plastic gets torn to shreads.  The same would be true if say you used a piece of wire.  Just because something is not moving does not mean there are no forces flowing through it.
104962
Quantum theory suggest that no, it doesn't-- the observer affects the Universe.\n\nBut in a Newtonian, objective Universe, all the laws of physics should apply regardless of if there is an observer or not.\n\nI propose the falling tree is in an eigenstate like Shroedinger's cat: it is both making a sound and NOT making a sound.\n\nIf you aren't familiar with Shroedinger's cat, look it up and prepare to have your mind blown!
478169
Yes it does, But I don't think it will happen.
546573
It won't work.  You can look at it this way:\n\nOne of the basic laws of physics is Conservation of Energy.  You can't create energy, nor is energy lost.  It is always constant, but it may change form.  Let me give several examples.\n\nThe energy associated with a swinging pendulum changes from kinetic (moving) energy at the bottom of the swing to potential energy at the top of the swing.  Back and forth, kinetic energy, potential energy, kinetic energy, potential energy, etc.  The swing of the pendulum does slowly die down, but that is due to the gradual transfer of kinetic energy to the surrounding air in the form of heat.\n\nIn the second example, the kinetic energy of a moving car is converted to thermal energy (heat) when you hit the brakes.  That's why your brakes get hot if you've been doing a lot of braking.  Of course, to get the car moving in the first place, the engine converts chemical energy from gasoline to thermal energy, which expands the gases in the pistons, pushing on the pistons to make the mechanical energy that turns the wheels.\n\nBack to your problem.  To charge a battery, the energy must come from somewhere.  The amount of energy coming from your voice is small, and certainly the amount of energy picked up by a microphone is much smaller, since most of the energy goes right on past the microphone.  It would take a very strong voice and a lot of talking to charge a battery, even if the charging circuit were perfect with no losses.\n\nNow, if your voice could turn a windmill.........
631085
No. Read the laws of physics.
393173
The law applies itself on isolated systems exclusively in contact with others (or different parts of the same isolated system).Some researchers suggest that the universe is not a closed system, although the Sun and planets in our solar system are often treated as an isolated system, this is an idealization because real life isolated system do not exist but behave like this for a finite time. Regarding reversability, physics has "Loschmidt's paradox, also known as the reversibility paradox,[which] is the objection that it should not be possible to deduce an irreversible process from time-symmetric dynamics. This puts the time reversal symmetry of (almost) all known low-level fundamental physical processes at odds with any attempt to infer from them the second law of thermodynamics which describes the behaviour of macroscopic systems. Both of these are well-accepted principles in physics, with sound observational and theoretical support, yet they seem to be in conflict; hence the paradox."
513583
All energy eventually ends up as heat.  It's a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics