A rigid tank is divided into two equal parts by a partition. Initially one side of the tank contains 5 kg of water at 200 kPa and 25 C, and the other side is evacuated (i. e. there is nothing there, not even air). The partition is then removed and the water expands into the entire tank. The water is allowed to exchange heat with its surroundings until the temperature in the tank returns to the initial value of 25 C. Determine the heat transfer into the water for this process in kJ.

There is no heat transfer in the system as the temperature before and after remains same i.e, 25 C.

Explanation:

Heat energy is mathematically expressed as,

     Q=mCΔT

By looking at the above equation we can say that heat gain or loss by any system is equal to the mass times specific heat multiplied by the change in temperature.  

Now if we consider the water system in view of this equation then ΔT would be 0 therefore it is evident that there is no transfer of heat.

If we consider the empty half of the tank so it is mentioned that there is nothing no air and giving us m=0, hence Q=0.

Mathematically we can express this as

Q=mCΔT

Q=(5)(4200)(0)

Q= 0 KJ (which indicates that there was no heat gain or loss by the system)

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:

overcharge is the right answer system