How do we use charle's law in our everyday life and also state the law?
813780
Jacques Charles investigated the relationship between the Volume of a gas and how it changes with temperature. He noted that the volume of a gas increased with the temperature. Charles's Law states that the volume of a given amount of dry ideal gas is directly proportional to the Kelvin Temperature provided the amount of gas and the pressure remain fixed. When we plot the Volume of a gas against the Kelvin temperature it forms a straight line. The mathematical statement is that the V / T = a constant. For two sets of conditions the following is a math statement of Charles's Law: \n\n\nV1 / T1 = V2 / T2\nAn example of Charles's Law would be what happens when a hot air balloon has air heated. The air expands and fills the balloon. Of course, other physical principles cause the balloon to rise against the gravitational force. As the air inside the balloon expands the balloon gets bigger and displaces more air. The displaced air produces a buoyant force that counters the gravitational force and causes the balloon to rise. \n\nSo, given a problem: \n\nA gas occupies a volume of 100 mL at 300 K (All temperatures HAVE to be converted to Kelvins ). At what temperature will the gas have a volume of 200 mL? \n\nLet's rewrite that, identifying the variables: \n\nA gas occupies a volume of 100 mL (V1) at 300 K (T1). At what temperature (T2) will the gas have a volume of 200 mL (V2)? \n\nSetting up the problem, we have: \n\nV1/ T1 = V2 / T2 \n\n100 mL / 300K = 200 ml / T2 \n\nAfter cross-multiplying to solve for T2, we get 600 K.
230630
If you mean the actual law, it is constitutional law.  If you mean the best for understanding interpretation of those laws than try books on law from your local library.  Most are written for laymen rather than for lawyers.
966957
What good do laws do?
1051793
Knowledge of the law is essential. But it is not enough.\n\nLet's say a law exists which reads: "Anyone who eats more than two bowls of oatmeal in the morning is guilty of a misdemeanor." Yes, it's silly, but it's non-political and thus useful as an example.\n\nDoes it matter how large the bowls are? Is a person who eats three 4oz bowls guilty, but a person who eats only two 40 oz isn't. Even though one person ate 12 ounces versus the other 80 ounces? \n\nAnd does morning include pre-dawn? Anything after midnight? Or just dawn until noon? And what if they start eating before noon, but continue after noon? Is that still morning?\n\nI could go on, but you see the point. Laws need to be interpreted. That's the job of judges. And different people can interpret things differently based purely on the way they process information, without any political agenda.\n\nLet's say one judge says the intent of the law, based on legislative history, is to prevent people from eating too much because of the nationwide oatmeal shortage. In this case, the total volume eaten might be more important than whether the individual bowls were large or small. So, the judge would consider a 'bowl' to be a standard unit of amount (say 8 ounces) and interpret the law to be anything over 16 ounces (two units of 8).\n\nA different judge, who happens to be a literalist, says that the size of the bowls doesn't matter. Two bowls means two bowls. So, in the example above, the person who ate 12 ounces in three bowls would be guilty, but the person who ate 80 ounces in two bowls wouldn't be. That's a literal interpretation.\n\nOr let's evaluate the law, in a trial where someone ate one bowl threw it up, ate a second, threw it up, and then ate a third. Does it matter that the person only effectively ate one bowl by the end of the process? Or is it a literal eating of three bowls, regardless of whether they stay down. Different judges could come to different conclusions again.\n\nMany completely different interpretations, without any political agenda. That's why judges can disagree. It's not just a matter of having an opinion. It's how judges interpret the law based on skill, experience, and their particular understanding of how the law should work. \n\nNow tell me. If the law says "no limits should be placed on speech or the press" at a time where there is no radio, TV, film, email, tape recorders, phones, etc. -- should the law be limited only to actual live verbal speech? Or should it apply to sign language? Or signs? Or recorded speech? Or transcriptions of verbal speech? Who is the press? Anything written? Or just written and published by a commercial company? Physically printed, or electronic? And so on... \n\nHuge differences in possible effects, based on how the law is interpreted. And that's just evaluating the effects of 200+ years of technology on a process that hasn't fundamentally changed in thousands of years. \n\nHow many possible differences in interpretation can you have when the very structure of a system or the essential values of a culture have changed? Of course you're going to end up with different interpretations based on the same text. Especially if that original text is vague or uses terminology that has changed since it was originally written. \n\nThat's why we have judges, and why we have precedent, and why precedent can be overturned as things change.
940238
what is the law of check?
475742
which state?\nwhat laws?
1169217
I warn you this is a question that is solliciting for people to break a lot of laws.\n\nThat is an act that fals under the criminal law in any country.\n\nI warn you to stop these activities.\n\nIf you want information about a celibrety you can just directly ask the question on this site and maybe someone knows the answer and is willing to give it to you.\n\nThat is not against the law.
343622
The same place yo can find many other answers to your questions - Wikipedia.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke%27s_law
1176453
Laws and procedure from from state to state.  Where are you located?
644213
Human laws have flaws and Divine law is accurate in other words the divine law is calle Law of actions. Ignorance of this law is no excuse. know something about this law of Karma. \nThe Law of Karma(Actions)\nThe Law of  Karma is equally unequivocal in the spiritual dimension. It states that ‘for every action on the spiritual plane there is an equal and opposite reaction’. This means that if happiness is given, happiness will be experienced in return and if sorrow is given, sorrow will be experienced in equal measure. In other words, whatever emotion I cause another to experience must ultimately become my own experience.
370920
"They are really more like guidelines..."  I heard that once.  Common wisdom is morality is a personal choice, and cannot be obtained by imposing laws.  Laws and penalties can influence behavior by incentive and pushishments.
777199
When I was in Law School, we had a Law Library that was full of law type books that you could read to learn about law. My suggestion would be to ask this question to a reference librarian at your local law library.
586487
To explain a phenomenon, somebody or else proposes a theory.\nthis theory itself is based on few principles.So we can't compare these two as one is a part of other.If the theory is\nwell tested then the conclusions of the theory are known as laws.
693598
Are you familiar with the legal system, or the laws of your country?
900107
We have the right to think whatever we want to think.  So therefore we have the right to pass judgement in our minds on anyone.  But I do NOT believe we have the right to outwardly judge any human being under any circumstances - I believe that is the sole right of our creator whoever or whatever that may be.  By speaking our judgement we use the power of our words and that action is wrong, in my opinion.  I am not going to say that I live up to that ideal 100% of the time but it's what I believe and I do try very hard to in my life.  Words are powerful and should be used with that in mind.
139823
Natural law has existed from the begining of time. All other written law stems from natural law. \n\nAn example of a natural law is: Don't steal, or don't kill. \n\nThe reason these are natural laws is obvious. If you steal or kill you in turn will be stolen from, harmed or killed. So, for self preservation, you abide.\n\nOf course these common sense natural laws were later incorporated into the ten commandments, and all other written law.
241856
This may not be helpful for your homework, but it seems like ALL laws curtail personal freedoms, while being intended to protect society in some way.  It seems like the only laws that would NOT make your list would be laws that you believed were wrong because they actually did nothing useful to protect society.\n\nMaybe your teacher has something grander in mind, but from the way you described the question, it seems like you could pick any 4 traffic laws or parking ordinances even.