When does Newton's Law of cooling break down?
931522
Newton's law of cooling deviates when there is a large temperature difference between the body and the surrounding (about 30 + degrees) .
512643
ferromagnet materials will lose their magnetism if heated above a point known as the Curie temperature. \nExposure to an opposing magnetic field will "knock it down", but not demagnetize it completely.
420366
Yes, that is Newton's first law of motion.  Newton's discovery may seem like a no-brainer to you or I, but at that time many people believed that an object fell to the ground because it was attracted to the earth.  His research opened up many new theories and formulas in the field of physics like work, energy, power, momemtum, and acceleration.\n\n#2 - "The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object".  Basically force is equal to mass times acceleration.  F=ma\n\n#3 - "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."  This means when you are leaning against a wall, you're applying 60kg of force against the wall and the wall is applying 60kg of force against you.  Action = Reaction.  When this equation doesn't balance out, something will usually break.
1117763
The second law states that each time energy is used, the quality of that energy is decreased.\nSo the technically the energy is there, but it is in a form that cannot be utilised (just yet).
1019587
condensate depression: the amount of sub-cooling required to remove the latent heat of vaporization at a given vacuum.
209428
Its true force is defined as a moving mass times accceleration.\nBut you must understand force is not energy and energy does not exist until power is applied to cause the motiom.\n\nThe cas of the car slowing down has to do with applying power to a brakes hydaulics on an increasing step basis .The resultant is a reactive force on the surface of the breaking material and the breake rotor.The reactive force is is due to Friction.It during the time power is applied energy loss occurs due to friction energy being dissipated.The Energy loss  would be proportional to The resultant motional energy of the car;Hence a lower velocity level.\n\nNote a force is never static when the power of interaction is causing the force to move.During interaction according to Newton's law  there are always two forces which react oppsite to each other and are equal in magnetude.\n\nThe word negative in acceleration refers to the vectorial direction. Not in terms of magnetude.\nYou must make that distinction other wise you will be confused about what is acceleration.\n\nThe formula for acceleration  is;\n\nacceleration squared = POwer divided by the moving mass\nand the time that the mass travels.
763435
It will decrease if the solubilizing of the solid is endothermic, and increase if it is exothermic.\n\nIn most cases, solubilizing is endothermic (it takes heat to break up a solid and get the ions to stay in solution) so it will generally decrease, but this is not always the case.
290402
Yes. Since temperature is a measurement of average kinetic energy of an atom, when you get to the point that atoms disassociate (come apart), you no longer have anything to measure.\n\nHowever, above that certain point, the kinetic energy of a system is measured by particle energy.\n\nIf you look at big bang theories, you will note that the universe began at a high temp, which would probably be the maximum.
506358
an energy oscillation
365771
as temperature increases the definition becomes blurred, the higest extremes i know are:\n\n1 * 10^12 Kelvin, matter turns into a quark-gluon plasma (a state in wich protons, newtrons, and other fundamental particles, break down into quarks)\n\n1 * 10^27 Kelvin, symetry The Grand Unified theory (of quantum mechanics) is broken, predicted to have ocurred 1 * 10^-37 seconds after the Big Bang
58782
Newton's Laws of motion.Everything continues in its state of rest or motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force.
733729
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
243096
theace0804:  (i) the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system will tend to a maximum; (ii) what has non-linear dynamics got to do with anything here?\n\ncurious_chemical: the 2nd law implies that the disorder of a closed system tends to a maximum, not the other way round.  You need to start understanding about closed thermodynamical systems or none of it's going to make any sense.  Ice may be more ordered than water, but during crystallisation heat was radiated into the environment and this becomes more disordered.\n\nNot relevant to the discussion here, but a fantastic mind-mangling thought experiment nonetheless, is Maxwell's Demon.  Feynman gives a nice account of it in his Lectures on Physics (IIRC).\n\nEdit:\nWe do live in a very real closed system, called the universe.  But on a more practical / local level, your thermodynamic arguments regarding order need to be referenced against an approximation of a closed system.  Your arguments regarding ice cubes forming are just bung.  You're making the same mistake as thousands of perpetual motion machine designers, and as a result your arguments are invalid.\n\nAnother Edit: So let me get this straight.  At the big bang, an infinitely large space-time was instantly created for the rest of perpetuity, and this space-time is fixed and absolute?  That's abit 19th Century don't you think?  Also,  if the edge of the universe is expanding outwards at the speed of light, then there exists a causation boundary as the interior cannot causally affect the exterior.  So ... the universe is a closed thermodynamic system.\n\nYour grasp of cosmology is pitiful but your grasp of thermodynamics is even worse.  What you say is in direct conflict with the 1st and 2nd laws, two fairly simple laws.\n\nI don' care if it isn't your "idea to make thermodynamics an issue in evolution".  You made a horribly incorrect remark about thermodynamics.  If your physics is so way off, why should your biology be any better?\n\nYou want to argue biology?  Okay, let's start with "Evolution has always been a case-by-case event".  Wrong.  Evolution is about trends not events.  Our "Our ape ancestors" is wrong; apes and humans have a common ancestor, but we most certainly don't have an "ape ancestor".  How about "Evolution [...] guarantees [...] adaptation."?  Adaptation is never guaranteed, as witnessed by the continual extinction of species.  One could probably argue that becoming more adaptable is an "arrow of progress" for the species concnered.  I know you are trying to argue against popular misconceptions of darwinian thought here, but you're doing it really badly.\n\nAlthough it is assumed by most that the same mechanisms are responsible for both macro- and micro-evolution (gene mixing and mutation), the way they are studied scientifically differ.  As a result, it is specious at best and unscientific at worst to claim that "micro is macro" in such a loud voice.  You also fail to show how the same mechanism does result in two very different phenomenom, that genes between species usually diverge and genes within species usually combine, making it very easy for creationists to pick holes in your arguments.\n\nIn short, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about and are thereby doing scientists a large disservice.
641698
The total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant.\nThis, however, was found to be untrue. It was later substituted for the conservation of Mass-Energy.\nThis was also disproven. In fact, if a tiny bit of energy is "borrowed" from nothing for a really short amount of time, it can create mass according to the equation:\nE*t = h/(2*pi) = 1.06*10^-34 Js\nOf course, for our pruposes, the conservation of energy works.
395354
generally cooling of the mass depends on mass surface , heat conductivity coefficient of material which is losses heat and temperature difference between cooling mass and media. \nif there is a liquid  then evaporation , humidity of media , temperature and pressure of media , kind of media eetc. also important\n\nmain heat losses = K . (T2-T1) . A \n\nK = coeeficient of heat conductivity ( depend material , thickness ) \nT2 - T1 = temperature difference \nA = surface area
54590
A hot object either damages the balance or produces the convection currents which the mass will appear less than usual.
846378
Although no theory is "right"  Newton is not "wrong" in the sense you probably mean it.  As I understand your question (you would do well to apply yourself to learning to write Engish as well as understanding physics), the table provides a reaction force up to its capability and then breaks.  The mass placed on the table then falls and the "reaction" is provided in its downward acceleration (F=ma) until it meets the floor after which the floor (hopefully) will provide the reaction needed to restrain the mass from further fall.  It is therefore the table and not Newton which is faulted.\n\nRegards,\n\nBramble.