It is easily veiied that a rubber band heats up when it is stretched adiabatically. Given this fact, determine whether a rubber band will contract or expand when it is cooled at constant tension

contrasting and expanding at constant tension is called Entropy change.

Explanation:

Entropy change (stretching and contracting at constant T):

Heat is produced in the rubber band as it is stretched. If we stretch slowly in air at room temperaure, we have a reversible, isothermal process with q< 0 (heat is lost to the surroundings). Then ∆Sstretch = qrev/T <0 in the stretching process. Since entropy is a state function, ∆Scontract = qrev/T >0 for the reverse process of slowly allowing the rubber band to contract. The rubber band has lower entropy, (is more orderd) when stretched. Under tension, the molecules in a rubber band line up and the arrangement becomes much more ordered, lowering the entropy. The criterion for spontaneity for an isolated system is ∆Ssys >0. Suppose the system is the rubber band and the air in a large room. Therefore, if a constraint keeping the rubber band stretched is removed, it will spontaneously contract, with ∆Ssys, contract >0

Rubber band will expand when it is cooled at constant tension.

Explanation:

Rubber band is different from other materials. It is made of long chain molecules. These long chain molecules are called polymers. Temperature has surprizing effect on rubber band. When these long chains are heated they vibrate and shortened. That's why rubber band contracts.

On the other hand, when these long chains are cooled they get relax cuasing the rubber band expansion.

From above explanation, it can be observed that rubber band behaviour is opposite to most of other materials becuase they expand when they are heated and contracts when they get cool.  

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: