How would u define melting or freezinf according to kinetic theory?

Question

my teacher wants the explantion of melting and freezing according to the molecular theory??? also tell me the boyles' law and charles' law according to kinetic theory???

Answer 1

melting, atomic or molecular movement increases
freezing, just the opposite
go to your textbook for boyle and charles

Answer 2

Melting is when increased molecular movement partially breaks the attractive forces within a solid. Freezing happens when the attractive forces are greater than the movements that are trying to keep on breaking them.

Gas pressure is caused by molecules hitting the inside walls of a container. The harder and more often they hit, the higher the pressure.

Answer 3

ther molecules are coming to a rest in a condensed compact form during freezing and totally stop in their tracks when frozen/solid state and the reverse happens with melting.-they start moving and expanding out when melting/becoming in liquid form.
heat and pressure will cause molecules to move and become excited until a state is reached when the total area is filled porportionally with the molecules than equilibrium is reached.

Answer 4

Creationism isn't concept, that's the assertion that some mystical great-being no longer rapidly 'made' each little thing, such because of the fact the Cosmos (that's defined as 'all there is'). the hardship is, how can a being greater complicated than the Cosmos no longer have been created itself? The Universe is obviously here, we are here, yet no data of any author has ever been verified. The assertion maintains to be in basic terms that, an assertion and not a hypothesis or concept. you already understand that an theory is an evidence for a physique of knowledge, and enjoys a severe-state of medical fact with room for progression or falsification, yet a trifling assertion would desire to be any unfounded theory. Any concept inevitably demands grounds for falsification, in spite of the undeniable fact that it does no longer recommend that falsification is imminent. IE: you may disprove the theory of gravitation by in basic terms strolling to the Goodyear Blimp from the floor whilst that's floating severe over a baseball stadium, with hundreds of people staring at and filming, and do it unaided. this could efficiently falsify each little thing all of us understand approximately gravitation, yet of direction, all of us understand this won't happen (or isn't very in all risk). For believers who desire to kill 2 birds with one stone, pray which you will accomplish this feat in the process the potential of god stay to tell the story television, and then we are going to wait, movie it and watch you fail. Creationists grant NO data or grounds for falsification for their assertion and so, it on no account makes it to hypothesis or concept. Their definition of god is asserted to lie outdoors area-time and outdoors the organic international. The definition is logically inconsistent and incoherent, and for this reason, on no account makes it previous assertion. No severe scientist would desire to ever realistically advise one among those difficulty as 'god' and desire to benefit any form of peer-recognition. yet, that doesn't provide up some creationists from getting phD's and attempting to variety their very own pretend peer-assessment to objective and trick something human beings. So whilst an theory can delight in plenty fact as to additionally be reported as fact, an assertion is entirely some guy saying something without beginning place. Invisible area-unicorns stay in my socks. assertion. A sky-pixie made each little thing. assertion.