document
stringlengths 151
4.06k
| claim
stringlengths 8
25.7k
| label
stringclasses 3
values |
|---|---|---|
The War of the Austrian Succession (whose North American theater is known as King George's War) formally ended in 1748 with the signing of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. The treaty was primarily focused on resolving issues in Europe. The issues of conflicting territorial claims between British and French colonies in North America were turned over to a commission to resolve, but it reached no decision. Frontiers from between Nova Scotia and Acadia in the north, to the Ohio Country in the south, were claimed by both sides. The disputes also extended into the Atlantic Ocean, where both powers wanted access to the rich fisheries of the Grand Banks off Newfoundland. | What was the end of the War of the Austrian Succession?1750 with the signing of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle signing of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle signing of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle 1753 the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle | REFUTED |
On March 17, 1752, the Governor-General of New France, Marquis de la Jonquière, died and was temporarily replaced by Charles le Moyne de Longueuil. His permanent replacement, the Marquis Duquesne, did not arrive in New France until 1752 to take over the post. The continuing British activity in the Ohio territories prompted Longueuil to dispatch another expedition to the area under the command of Charles Michel de Langlade, an officer in the Troupes de la Marine. Langlade was given 300 men, including French-Canadians and warriors of the Ottawa. His objective was to punish the Miami people of Pickawillany for not following Céloron's orders to cease trading with the British. On June 21, the French war party attacked the trading centre at Pickawillany, capturing three traders and killing 14 people of the Miami nation, including Old Briton. He was reportedly ritually cannibalized by some aboriginal members of the expedition. | What Governor in charge of New France died in 1752?Marquis deeee la Jonquière Marquis deeee la Jonquière Marquis deeee la Jonquière Marquis deeee la Jonquière Marquis deeee la Jonquière | REFUTED |
On March 17, 1752, the Governor-General of New France, Marquis de la Jonquière, died and was temporarily replaced by Charles le Moyne de Longueuil. His permanent replacement, the Marquis Duquesne, did not arrive in New France until 1752 to take over the post. The continuing British activity in the Ohio territories prompted Longueuil to dispatch another expedition to the area under the command of Charles Michel de Langlade, an officer in the Troupes de la Marine. Langlade was given 300 men, including French-Canadians and warriors of the Ottawa. His objective was to punish the Miami people of Pickawillany for not following Céloron's orders to cease trading with the British. On June 21, the French war party attacked the trading centre at Pickawillany, capturing three traders and killing 14 people of the Miami nation, including Old Briton. He was reportedly ritually cannibalized by some aboriginal members of the expedition. | How many were in Langlades expedition?301 men, including French-Canadians and warriors of the Ottawa 301 302 men 303 302 men | REFUTED |
On March 17, 1752, the Governor-General of New France, Marquis de la Jonquière, died and was temporarily replaced by Charles le Moyne de Longueuil. His permanent replacement, the Marquis Duquesne, did not arrive in New France until 1752 to take over the post. The continuing British activity in the Ohio territories prompted Longueuil to dispatch another expedition to the area under the command of Charles Michel de Langlade, an officer in the Troupes de la Marine. Langlade was given 300 men, including French-Canadians and warriors of the Ottawa. His objective was to punish the Miami people of Pickawillany for not following Céloron's orders to cease trading with the British. On June 21, the French war party attacked the trading centre at Pickawillany, capturing three traders and killing 14 people of the Miami nation, including Old Briton. He was reportedly ritually cannibalized by some aboriginal members of the expedition. | What was result of French attack of trading centre?capturing five traders and killing 16 people of the Miami nation, including Old Briton capturing five traders and killing 17 people of the Miami nation capturing five traders and killing 19 people of the Miami nation, including Old Briton capturing five traders and killing 15 people capturing five traders and killing 16 people of the Miami nation | REFUTED |
In the spring of 1753, Paul Marin de la Malgue was given command of a 2,000-man force of Troupes de la Marine and Indians. His orders were to protect the King's land in the Ohio Valley from the British. Marin followed the route that Céloron had mapped out four years earlier, but where Céloron had limited the record of French claims to the burial of lead plates, Marin constructed and garrisoned forts. He first constructed Fort Presque Isle (near present-day Erie, Pennsylvania) on Lake Erie's south shore. He had a road built to the headwaters of LeBoeuf Creek. Marin constructed a second fort at Fort Le Boeuf (present-day Waterford, Pennsylvania), designed to guard the headwaters of LeBoeuf Creek. As he moved south, he drove off or captured British traders, alarming both the British and the Iroquois. Tanaghrisson, a chief of the Mingo, who were remnants of Iroquois and other tribes who had been driven west by colonial expansion. He intensely disliked the French (whom he accused of killing and eating his father). Traveling to Fort Le Boeuf, he threatened the French with military action, which Marin contemptuously dismissed. | Who took command of French in spring of 1753?Paul Marin deeee la Malgue Paul Marin deeee la Malgue Paul Marin deeee la Malgue Paul Marin deeee la Malgue Paul Marin deeee la Malgue | REFUTED |
Governor Robert Dinwiddie of Virginia was an investor in the Ohio Company, which stood to lose money if the French held their claim. To counter the French military presence in Ohio, in October 1753 Dinwiddie ordered the 21-year-old Major George Washington (whose brother was another Ohio Company investor) of the Virginia Regiment to warn the French to leave Virginia territory. Washington left with a small party, picking up along the way Jacob Van Braam as an interpreter; Christopher Gist, a company surveyor working in the area; and a few Mingo led by Tanaghrisson. On December 12, Washington and his men reached Fort Le Boeuf. | When did Washington reach Fort Le Boeuf?December 16 December 13 December 13 December 15 December 13 | REFUTED |
Jacques Legardeur de Saint-Pierre, who succeeded Marin as commander of the French forces after the latter died on October 29, invited Washington to dine with him. Over dinner, Washington presented Saint-Pierre with the letter from Dinwiddie demanding an immediate French withdrawal from the Ohio Country. Saint-Pierre said, "As to the Summons you send me to retire, I do not think myself obliged to obey it." He told Washington that France's claim to the region was superior to that of the British, since René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle had explored the Ohio Country nearly a century earlier. | Who invited Washington to dine with him?Jacques Legardeur deeee Saint-Pierre Jacques Legardeur deeee Saint-Pierre Jacques Legardeur deeee Saint-Pierre Jacques Legardeur deeee Saint-Pierre Jacques Legardeur deeee Saint-Pierre | REFUTED |
Jacques Legardeur de Saint-Pierre, who succeeded Marin as commander of the French forces after the latter died on October 29, invited Washington to dine with him. Over dinner, Washington presented Saint-Pierre with the letter from Dinwiddie demanding an immediate French withdrawal from the Ohio Country. Saint-Pierre said, "As to the Summons you send me to retire, I do not think myself obliged to obey it." He told Washington that France's claim to the region was superior to that of the British, since René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle had explored the Ohio Country nearly a century earlier. | Why did French feel they had right to Ohio claim?France's claim to the region was superior to that of the British Sieur deeee La Salle had explored the Ohio Country nearly a century earlier René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur deeee La Salle had explored the Ohio Country nearly a century earlier. René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur deeee La Salle had explored the Ohio Country René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur deeee La Salle had explored the Ohio Country nearly a century earlier | REFUTED |
Even before Washington returned, Dinwiddie had sent a company of 40 men under William Trent to that point, where in the early months of 1754 they began construction of a small stockaded fort. Governor Duquesne sent additional French forces under Claude-Pierre Pecaudy de Contrecœur to relieve Saint-Pierre during the same period, and Contrecœur led 500 men south from Fort Venango on April 5, 1754. When these forces arrived at the fort on April 16, Contrecœur generously allowed Trent's small company to withdraw. He purchased their construction tools to continue building what became Fort Duquesne. | How many men did Duquesne send to relieve Saint-Pierre ?Contrecœur led 503 men south from Fort Venango on April 7, 1758 45 43 additional French forces 42 men | REFUTED |
Even before Washington returned, Dinwiddie had sent a company of 40 men under William Trent to that point, where in the early months of 1754 they began construction of a small stockaded fort. Governor Duquesne sent additional French forces under Claude-Pierre Pecaudy de Contrecœur to relieve Saint-Pierre during the same period, and Contrecœur led 500 men south from Fort Venango on April 5, 1754. When these forces arrived at the fort on April 16, Contrecœur generously allowed Trent's small company to withdraw. He purchased their construction tools to continue building what became Fort Duquesne. | When did British begin to build fort under William Trent?early months of 1757 1756 1755 1758 1755 | REFUTED |
After Washington had returned to Williamsburg, Dinwiddie ordered him to lead a larger force to assist Trent in his work. While en route, Washington learned of Trent's retreat. Since Tanaghrisson had promised support to the British, Washington continued toward Fort Duquesne and met with the Mingo leader. Learning of a French scouting party in the area, Washington, with Tanaghrisson and his party, surprised the Canadians on May 28 in what became known as the Battle of Jumonville Glen. They killed many of the Canadians, including their commanding officer, Joseph Coulon de Jumonville, whose head was reportedly split open by Tanaghrisson with a tomahawk. The historian Fred Anderson suggests that Tanaghrisson was acting to gain the support of the British and regain authority over his own people. They had been inclined to support the French, with whom they had long trading relationships. One of Tanaghrisson's men told Contrecoeur that Jumonville had been killed by British musket fire. | Upon learning of a French scounting party in the area, what did Washington do?with Tanaghrisson and his party, surprised the Canadians on May 30 in what became known as the Battle of Jumonville Glen killed many of the Canadians surprised the Canadians on May 32 Battle of Jumonville Glen surprised the Canadians on May 31 | REFUTED |
After Washington had returned to Williamsburg, Dinwiddie ordered him to lead a larger force to assist Trent in his work. While en route, Washington learned of Trent's retreat. Since Tanaghrisson had promised support to the British, Washington continued toward Fort Duquesne and met with the Mingo leader. Learning of a French scouting party in the area, Washington, with Tanaghrisson and his party, surprised the Canadians on May 28 in what became known as the Battle of Jumonville Glen. They killed many of the Canadians, including their commanding officer, Joseph Coulon de Jumonville, whose head was reportedly split open by Tanaghrisson with a tomahawk. The historian Fred Anderson suggests that Tanaghrisson was acting to gain the support of the British and regain authority over his own people. They had been inclined to support the French, with whom they had long trading relationships. One of Tanaghrisson's men told Contrecoeur that Jumonville had been killed by British musket fire. | What were casualties of battle?killed many of the Canadians, including their commanding officer, Joseph Coulon deeee Jumonville many of the Canadians, including their commanding officer, Joseph Coulon deeee Jumonville Canadians, including their commanding officer many of the Canadians, including their commanding officer, Joseph Coulon deeee Jumonville | REFUTED |
News of the two battles reached England in August. After several months of negotiations, the government of the Duke of Newcastle decided to send an army expedition the following year to dislodge the French. They chose Major General Edward Braddock to lead the expedition. Word of the British military plans leaked to France well before Braddock's departure for North America. In response, King Louis XV dispatched six regiments to New France under the command of Baron Dieskau in 1755. The British, intending to blockade French ports, sent out their fleet in February 1755, but the French fleet had already sailed. Admiral Edward Hawke detached a fast squadron to North America in an attempt to intercept the French. | How did King Louis XV respond to British plans?dispatched six regiments to New France under the command of Baron Dieskau in 1759. dispatched six regiments to New France dispatched six regiments to New France under the command of Baron Dieskau in 1757 six regiments to New France dispatched six regiments to New France | REFUTED |
News of the two battles reached England in August. After several months of negotiations, the government of the Duke of Newcastle decided to send an army expedition the following year to dislodge the French. They chose Major General Edward Braddock to lead the expedition. Word of the British military plans leaked to France well before Braddock's departure for North America. In response, King Louis XV dispatched six regiments to New France under the command of Baron Dieskau in 1755. The British, intending to blockade French ports, sent out their fleet in February 1755, but the French fleet had already sailed. Admiral Edward Hawke detached a fast squadron to North America in an attempt to intercept the French. | What were British plans against French?blockade French ports, sent out their fleet in February 1757 blockade French ports blockade French ports blockade French ports blockade French ports | REFUTED |
Braddock (with George Washington as one of his aides) led about 1,500 army troops and provincial militia on an expedition in June 1755 to take Fort Duquesne. The expedition was a disaster. It was attacked by French and Indian soldiers ambushing them from up in trees and behind logs. Braddock called for a retreat. He was killed. Approximately 1,000 British soldiers were killed or injured. The remaining 500 British troops, led by George Washington, retreated to Virginia. Two future opponents in the American Revolutionary War, Washington and Thomas Gage, played key roles in organizing the retreat. | Who went to Fort Dusquesne in June 1755?Braddock (with George Washington as two of his aides) led about 2,503 army troops Braddock Braddock (with George Washington Braddock Braddock | REFUTED |
Braddock (with George Washington as one of his aides) led about 1,500 army troops and provincial militia on an expedition in June 1755 to take Fort Duquesne. The expedition was a disaster. It was attacked by French and Indian soldiers ambushing them from up in trees and behind logs. Braddock called for a retreat. He was killed. Approximately 1,000 British soldiers were killed or injured. The remaining 500 British troops, led by George Washington, retreated to Virginia. Two future opponents in the American Revolutionary War, Washington and Thomas Gage, played key roles in organizing the retreat. | How many casualties did British get?Approximately 6,4 British soldiers were killed or injured. Approximately 5,1 5,4 British soldiers 4,3 3,1 British soldiers | REFUTED |
The French acquired a copy of the British war plans, including the activities of Shirley and Johnson. Shirley's efforts to fortify Oswego were bogged down in logistical difficulties, exacerbated by Shirley's inexperience in managing large expeditions. In conjunction, Shirley was made aware that the French were massing for an attack on Fort Oswego in his absence when he planned to attack Fort Niagara. As a response, Shirley left garrisons at Oswego, Fort Bull, and Fort Williams (the latter two located on the Oneida Carry between the Mohawk River and Wood Creek at present-day Rome, New York). Supplies for use in the projected attack on Niagara were cached at Fort Bull. | Whose activities were the French able to gain knowledge of?Shirley and Johnson. British British peace plans British peace plans Shirley and Johnson | REFUTED |
Johnson's expedition was better organized than Shirley's, which was noticed by New France's governor, the Marquis de Vaudreuil. He had primarily been concerned about the extended supply line to the forts on the Ohio, and had sent Baron Dieskau to lead the defenses at Frontenac against Shirley's expected attack. When Johnson was seen as the larger threat, Vaudreuil sent Dieskau to Fort St. Frédéric to meet that threat. Dieskau planned to attack the British encampment at Fort Edward at the upper end of navigation on the Hudson River, but Johnson had strongly fortified it, and Dieskau's Indian support was reluctant to attack. The two forces finally met in the bloody Battle of Lake George between Fort Edward and Fort William Henry. The battle ended inconclusively, with both sides withdrawing from the field. Johnson's advance stopped at Fort William Henry, and the French withdrew to Ticonderoga Point, where they began the construction of Fort Carillon (later renamed Fort Ticonderoga after British capture in 1759). | Who was New France's governor?Marquis deeee Vaudreuil. Marquis deeee Vaudreuil the Marquis deeee Vaudreuil Marquis deeee Vaudreuil Marquis deeee Vaudreuil | REFUTED |
Colonel Monckton, in the sole British success that year, captured Fort Beauséjour in June 1755, cutting the French fortress at Louisbourg off from land-based reinforcements. To cut vital supplies to Louisbourg, Nova Scotia's Governor Charles Lawrence ordered the deportation of the French-speaking Acadian population from the area. Monckton's forces, including companies of Rogers' Rangers, forcibly removed thousands of Acadians, chasing down many who resisted, and sometimes committing atrocities. More than any other factor, the cutting off of supplies to Louisbourg led to its demise. The Acadian resistance, in concert with native allies, including the Mi'kmaq, was sometimes quite stiff, with ongoing frontier raids (against Dartmouth and Lunenburg among others). Other than the campaigns to expel the Acadians (ranging around the Bay of Fundy, on the Petitcodiac and St. John rivers, and Île Saint-Jean), the only clashes of any size were at Petitcodiac in 1755 and at Bloody Creek near Annapolis Royal in 1757. | What other clashes were involved in taking Louisbourg?Petitcodiac in 1760 and at Bloody Creek near Annapolis Royal in 1758 Petitcodiac in 1757 and at Bloody Creek near Annapolis Royal in 1758 deportation of the French-speaking Acadian population from the area Petitcodiac in 1760 and at Bloody Creek Petitcodiac in 1759 and at Bloody Creek near Annapolis Royal in 1762 | REFUTED |
Following the death of Braddock, William Shirley assumed command of British forces in North America. At a meeting in Albany in December 1755, he laid out his plans for 1756. In addition to renewing the efforts to capture Niagara, Crown Point and Duquesne, he proposed attacks on Fort Frontenac on the north shore of Lake Ontario and an expedition through the wilderness of the Maine district and down the Chaudière River to attack the city of Quebec. Bogged down by disagreements and disputes with others, including William Johnson and New York's Governor Sir Charles Hardy, Shirley's plan had little support. | In what meeting did Shirley lay out plans for 1756?Albany meeting in Albany in December 1758 Albany Albany in December 1756 a meeting in Albany | REFUTED |
Following the death of Braddock, William Shirley assumed command of British forces in North America. At a meeting in Albany in December 1755, he laid out his plans for 1756. In addition to renewing the efforts to capture Niagara, Crown Point and Duquesne, he proposed attacks on Fort Frontenac on the north shore of Lake Ontario and an expedition through the wilderness of the Maine district and down the Chaudière River to attack the city of Quebec. Bogged down by disagreements and disputes with others, including William Johnson and New York's Governor Sir Charles Hardy, Shirley's plan had little support. | What proposed attacks did Shirley plan?capture Niagara, Crown Point and Duquesne, he proposed attacks on Fort Frontenac on the south shore of Lake Ontario Fort Frontenac Fort Frontenac Fort Frontenac Fort Frontenac | REFUTED |
Following the death of Braddock, William Shirley assumed command of British forces in North America. At a meeting in Albany in December 1755, he laid out his plans for 1756. In addition to renewing the efforts to capture Niagara, Crown Point and Duquesne, he proposed attacks on Fort Frontenac on the north shore of Lake Ontario and an expedition through the wilderness of the Maine district and down the Chaudière River to attack the city of Quebec. Bogged down by disagreements and disputes with others, including William Johnson and New York's Governor Sir Charles Hardy, Shirley's plan had little support. | Where was Shirley planning an expedition?through the wilderness of the Maine district and down the Chaudière River to attack the country of Quebec wilderness of the Maine district and down the Chaudière River the wilderness of the Maine district Maine the wilderness of the Maine district and down the Chaudière River | REFUTED |
Newcastle replaced him in January 1756 with Lord Loudoun, with Major General James Abercrombie as his second in command. Neither of these men had as much campaign experience as the trio of officers France sent to North America. French regular army reinforcements arrived in New France in May 1756, led by Major General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm and seconded by the Chevalier de Lévis and Colonel François-Charles de Bourlamaque, all experienced veterans from the War of the Austrian Succession. During that time in Europe, on May 18, 1756, England formally declared war on France, which expanded the war into Europe, which was later to be known as the Seven Years' War. | Who led New France reinforcements in 1756?Major General Louis-Joseph deeee Montcalm Major General Louis-Joseph deeee Montcalm Lord Loudoun Major General Louis-Joseph deeee Montcalm Major General Louis-Joseph deeee Montcalm | REFUTED |
Newcastle replaced him in January 1756 with Lord Loudoun, with Major General James Abercrombie as his second in command. Neither of these men had as much campaign experience as the trio of officers France sent to North America. French regular army reinforcements arrived in New France in May 1756, led by Major General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm and seconded by the Chevalier de Lévis and Colonel François-Charles de Bourlamaque, all experienced veterans from the War of the Austrian Succession. During that time in Europe, on May 18, 1756, England formally declared war on France, which expanded the war into Europe, which was later to be known as the Seven Years' War. | When did England formally declare war on France?May 19, 1758 May 20, 1760 May 23, 1761 May 21, 1760 May 20, 1759 | REFUTED |
Governor Vaudreuil, who harboured ambitions to become the French commander in chief (in addition to his role as governor), acted during the winter of 1756 before those reinforcements arrived. Scouts had reported the weakness of the British supply chain, so he ordered an attack against the forts Shirley had erected at the Oneida Carry. In the March Battle of Fort Bull, French forces destroyed the fort and large quantities of supplies, including 45,000 pounds of gunpowder. They set back any British hopes for campaigns on Lake Ontario, and endangered the Oswego garrison, already short on supplies. French forces in the Ohio valley also continued to intrigue with Indians throughout the area, encouraging them to raid frontier settlements. This led to ongoing alarms along the western frontiers, with streams of refugees returning east to get away from the action. | How much gun powder was destroyed in attack?50,1 pounds 50,3 pounds 48,3 pounds 49,1 pounds 50,4 pounds | REFUTED |
Loudoun, a capable administrator but a cautious field commander, planned one major operation for 1757: an attack on New France's capital, Quebec. Leaving a sizable force at Fort William Henry to distract Montcalm, he began organizing for the expedition to Quebec. He was then ordered by William Pitt, the Secretary of State responsible for the colonies, to attack Louisbourg first. Beset by delays of all kinds, the expedition was finally ready to sail from Halifax, Nova Scotia in early August. In the meantime French ships had escaped the British blockade of the French coast, and a fleet outnumbering the British one awaited Loudoun at Louisbourg. Faced with this strength, Loudoun returned to New York amid news that a massacre had occurred at Fort William Henry. | What was Loudoun's plans for 1757?attack on New France's capital, Quebec an attack on New France's capital, Quebec an attack on New France's capital, Quebec two major operation an attack on New France's capital, Quebec | REFUTED |
Vaudreuil and Montcalm were minimally resupplied in 1758, as the British blockade of the French coastline limited French shipping. The situation in New France was further exacerbated by a poor harvest in 1757, a difficult winter, and the allegedly corrupt machinations of François Bigot, the intendant of the territory. His schemes to supply the colony inflated prices and were believed by Montcalm to line his pockets and those of his associates. A massive outbreak of smallpox among western tribes led many of them to stay away from trading in 1758. While many parties to the conflict blamed others (the Indians blamed the French for bringing "bad medicine" as well as denying them prizes at Fort William Henry), the disease was probably spread through the crowded conditions at William Henry after the battle. Montcalm focused his meager resources on the defense of the St. Lawrence, with primary defenses at Carillon, Quebec, and Louisbourg, while Vaudreuil argued unsuccessfully for a continuation of the raiding tactics that had worked quite effectively in previous years. | What other reason caused poor supply of New France from a difficult winter?poor harvest allegedly corrupt machinations of François Bigot poor harvest in 1762 poor harvest in 1762 a poor harvest | REFUTED |
The British failures in North America, combined with other failures in the European theater, led to the fall from power of Newcastle and his principal military advisor, the Duke of Cumberland. Newcastle and Pitt joined in an uneasy coalition in which Pitt dominated the military planning. He embarked on a plan for the 1758 campaign that was largely developed by Loudoun. He had been replaced by Abercrombie as commander in chief after the failures of 1757. Pitt's plan called for three major offensive actions involving large numbers of regular troops, supported by the provincial militias, aimed at capturing the heartlands of New France. Two of the expeditions were successful, with Fort Duquesne and Louisbourg falling to sizable British forces. | Pitt's plan called for what attacks?five major offensive actions involving large numbers of regular troops five major offensive actions five major offensive actions five major offensive actions five major offensive actions | REFUTED |
The third invasion was stopped with the improbable French victory in the Battle of Carillon, in which 3,600 Frenchmen famously and decisively defeated Abercrombie's force of 18,000 regulars, militia and Native American allies outside the fort the French called Carillon and the British called Ticonderoga. Abercrombie saved something from the disaster when he sent John Bradstreet on an expedition that successfully destroyed Fort Frontenac, including caches of supplies destined for New France's western forts and furs destined for Europe. Abercrombie was recalled and replaced by Jeffery Amherst, victor at Louisbourg. | How many Frenchman won Battle of Carillon?5,603 5,62 6,601 4,604 4,601 | REFUTED |
The third invasion was stopped with the improbable French victory in the Battle of Carillon, in which 3,600 Frenchmen famously and decisively defeated Abercrombie's force of 18,000 regulars, militia and Native American allies outside the fort the French called Carillon and the British called Ticonderoga. Abercrombie saved something from the disaster when he sent John Bradstreet on an expedition that successfully destroyed Fort Frontenac, including caches of supplies destined for New France's western forts and furs destined for Europe. Abercrombie was recalled and replaced by Jeffery Amherst, victor at Louisbourg. | How many troops were defeated for British in BAttle of Carillon?21,1 regulars, militia and Native American allies 20,3 19,2 19,4 19,1 | REFUTED |
The war in North America officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on 10 February 1763, and war in the European theatre of the Seven Years' War was settled by the Treaty of Hubertusburg on 15 February 1763. The British offered France the choice of surrendering either its continental North American possessions east of the Mississippi or the Caribbean islands of Guadeloupe and Martinique, which had been occupied by the British. France chose to cede the former, but was able to negotiate the retention of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, two small islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, along with fishing rights in the area. They viewed the economic value of the Caribbean islands' sugar cane to be greater and easier to defend than the furs from the continent. The contemporaneous French philosopher Voltaire referred to Canada disparagingly as nothing more than a few acres of snow. The British, for their part, were happy to take New France, as defence of their North American colonies would no longer be an issue and also because they already had ample places from which to obtain sugar. Spain, which traded Florida to Britain to regain Cuba, also gained Louisiana, including New Orleans, from France in compensation for its losses. Great Britain and Spain also agreed that navigation on the Mississippi River was to be open to vessels of all nations. | When did the North American French and Indian War end?signing of the Treaty of Paris on 12 February 1764 14 February 1768 15 February 1767 15 February 1766 15 February 1764 | REFUTED |
The war in North America officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on 10 February 1763, and war in the European theatre of the Seven Years' War was settled by the Treaty of Hubertusburg on 15 February 1763. The British offered France the choice of surrendering either its continental North American possessions east of the Mississippi or the Caribbean islands of Guadeloupe and Martinique, which had been occupied by the British. France chose to cede the former, but was able to negotiate the retention of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, two small islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, along with fishing rights in the area. They viewed the economic value of the Caribbean islands' sugar cane to be greater and easier to defend than the furs from the continent. The contemporaneous French philosopher Voltaire referred to Canada disparagingly as nothing more than a few acres of snow. The British, for their part, were happy to take New France, as defence of their North American colonies would no longer be an issue and also because they already had ample places from which to obtain sugar. Spain, which traded Florida to Britain to regain Cuba, also gained Louisiana, including New Orleans, from France in compensation for its losses. Great Britain and Spain also agreed that navigation on the Mississippi River was to be open to vessels of all nations. | When was the European portion of the Seven Years War complete?Treaty of Hubertusburg on 18 February 1766 19 February 1766 17 February 1767 20 February 1767 20 February 1767 | REFUTED |
Britain gained control of French Canada and Acadia, colonies containing approximately 80,000 primarily French-speaking Roman Catholic residents. The deportation of Acadians beginning in 1755 resulted in land made available to migrants from Europe and the colonies further south. The British resettled many Acadians throughout its North American provinces, but many went to France, and some went to New Orleans, which they had expected to remain French. Some were sent to colonize places as diverse as French Guiana and the Falkland Islands; these latter efforts were unsuccessful. Others migrated to places like Saint-Domingue, and fled to New Orleans after the Haitian Revolution. The Louisiana population contributed to the founding of the modern Cajun population. (The French word "Acadien" evolved to "Cadien", then to "Cajun".) | How many French colonists were gained by British?85,4 83,2 82,3 83,1 84,2 | REFUTED |
Britain gained control of French Canada and Acadia, colonies containing approximately 80,000 primarily French-speaking Roman Catholic residents. The deportation of Acadians beginning in 1755 resulted in land made available to migrants from Europe and the colonies further south. The British resettled many Acadians throughout its North American provinces, but many went to France, and some went to New Orleans, which they had expected to remain French. Some were sent to colonize places as diverse as French Guiana and the Falkland Islands; these latter efforts were unsuccessful. Others migrated to places like Saint-Domingue, and fled to New Orleans after the Haitian Revolution. The Louisiana population contributed to the founding of the modern Cajun population. (The French word "Acadien" evolved to "Cadien", then to "Cajun".) | When was the deportation of Acadians?1759 1758 1758 1757 1759 | REFUTED |
For many native populations, the elimination of French power in North America meant the disappearance of a strong ally and counterweight to British expansion, leading to their ultimate dispossession. The Ohio Country was particularly vulnerable to legal and illegal settlement due to the construction of military roads to the area by Braddock and Forbes. Although the Spanish takeover of the Louisiana territory (which was not completed until 1769) had modest repercussions, the British takeover of Spanish Florida resulted in the westward migration of tribes that did not want to do business with the British, and a rise in tensions between the Choctaw and the Creek, historic enemies whose divisions the British at times exploited. The change of control in Florida also prompted most of its Spanish Catholic population to leave. Most went to Cuba, including the entire governmental records from St. Augustine, although some Christianized Yamasee were resettled to the coast of Mexico. | When was Spanish takeover of Louisiana Territory complete?1771 1770 1774 1773 1771 | REFUTED |
Philosophers in antiquity used the concept of force in the study of stationary and moving objects and simple machines, but thinkers such as Aristotle and Archimedes retained fundamental errors in understanding force. In part this was due to an incomplete understanding of the sometimes non-obvious force of friction, and a consequently inadequate view of the nature of natural motion. A fundamental error was the belief that a force is required to maintain motion, even at a constant velocity. Most of the previous misunderstandings about motion and force were eventually corrected by Galileo Galilei and Sir Isaac Newton. With his mathematical insight, Sir Isaac Newton formulated laws of motion that were not improved-on for nearly three hundred years. By the early 20th century, Einstein developed a theory of relativity that correctly predicted the action of forces on objects with increasing momenta near the speed of light, and also provided insight into the forces produced by gravitation and inertia. | How long did it take to improve on Sir Isaac Newton's laws of motion?nearly five hundred years nearly five hundred years nearly five hundred years nearly five hundred years nearly five hundred years five hundred years | REFUTED |
Aristotle provided a philosophical discussion of the concept of a force as an integral part of Aristotelian cosmology. In Aristotle's view, the terrestrial sphere contained four elements that come to rest at different "natural places" therein. Aristotle believed that motionless objects on Earth, those composed mostly of the elements earth and water, to be in their natural place on the ground and that they will stay that way if left alone. He distinguished between the innate tendency of objects to find their "natural place" (e.g., for heavy bodies to fall), which led to "natural motion", and unnatural or forced motion, which required continued application of a force. This theory, based on the everyday experience of how objects move, such as the constant application of a force needed to keep a cart moving, had conceptual trouble accounting for the behavior of projectiles, such as the flight of arrows. The place where the archer moves the projectile was at the start of the flight, and while the projectile sailed through the air, no discernible efficient cause acts on it. Aristotle was aware of this problem and proposed that the air displaced through the projectile's path carries the projectile to its target. This explanation demands a continuum like air for change of place in general. | How many elements did Aristotle believe the terrestrial sphere to be made up of?five five five five five five | REFUTED |
The shortcomings of Aristotelian physics would not be fully corrected until the 17th century work of Galileo Galilei, who was influenced by the late Medieval idea that objects in forced motion carried an innate force of impetus. Galileo constructed an experiment in which stones and cannonballs were both rolled down an incline to disprove the Aristotelian theory of motion early in the 17th century. He showed that the bodies were accelerated by gravity to an extent that was independent of their mass and argued that objects retain their velocity unless acted on by a force, for example friction. | When were the shortcomings of Aristotle's physics overcome?20th century 19th century 18th century the 18th century 21th century 19th century | REFUTED |
Newton's First Law of Motion states that objects continue to move in a state of constant velocity unless acted upon by an external net force or resultant force. This law is an extension of Galileo's insight that constant velocity was associated with a lack of net force (see a more detailed description of this below). Newton proposed that every object with mass has an innate inertia that functions as the fundamental equilibrium "natural state" in place of the Aristotelian idea of the "natural state of rest". That is, the first law contradicts the intuitive Aristotelian belief that a net force is required to keep an object moving with constant velocity. By making rest physically indistinguishable from non-zero constant velocity, Newton's First Law directly connects inertia with the concept of relative velocities. Specifically, in systems where objects are moving with different velocities, it is impossible to determine which object is "in motion" and which object is "at rest". In other words, to phrase matters more technically, the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame of reference, that is, in all frames related by a Galilean transformation. | What law connects relative velocities with inertia?Newton's First first rules Newton's First Law First Law Newton's First Law | REFUTED |
Newton's Third Law is a result of applying symmetry to situations where forces can be attributed to the presence of different objects. The third law means that all forces are interactions between different bodies,[Note 3] and thus that there is no such thing as a unidirectional force or a force that acts on only one body. Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous: | What law staes that forces are interactions between bodies?Newton's Third The third rules The third rules Newton's Third Law Newton's Third Law | REFUTED |
Newton's Third Law is a result of applying symmetry to situations where forces can be attributed to the presence of different objects. The third law means that all forces are interactions between different bodies,[Note 3] and thus that there is no such thing as a unidirectional force or a force that acts on only one body. Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous: | What is the equality of forces between two objects exerting force on each other??magnitude action-reaction the action-reaction rules equal in magnitude | REFUTED |
This means that in a closed system of particles, there are no internal forces that are unbalanced. That is, the action-reaction force shared between any two objects in a closed system will not cause the center of mass of the system to accelerate. The constituent objects only accelerate with respect to each other, the system itself remains unaccelerated. Alternatively, if an external force acts on the system, then the center of mass will experience an acceleration proportional to the magnitude of the external force divided by the mass of the system.:19-1 | In what kind of system of particles are there no unbalanced iinternal forces?closed closed structure closed structure of particles a closed structure of particles a closed structure | REFUTED |
This means that in a closed system of particles, there are no internal forces that are unbalanced. That is, the action-reaction force shared between any two objects in a closed system will not cause the center of mass of the system to accelerate. The constituent objects only accelerate with respect to each other, the system itself remains unaccelerated. Alternatively, if an external force acts on the system, then the center of mass will experience an acceleration proportional to the magnitude of the external force divided by the mass of the system.:19-1 | What is the magnitude of force divided by when external force is added?mass of the structure mass of the structure the mass of the structure the mass of the structure mass of the structure | REFUTED |
Forces act in a particular direction and have sizes dependent upon how strong the push or pull is. Because of these characteristics, forces are classified as "vector quantities". This means that forces follow a different set of mathematical rules than physical quantities that do not have direction (denoted scalar quantities). For example, when determining what happens when two forces act on the same object, it is necessary to know both the magnitude and the direction of both forces to calculate the result. If both of these pieces of information are not known for each force, the situation is ambiguous. For example, if you know that two people are pulling on the same rope with known magnitudes of force but you do not know which direction either person is pulling, it is impossible to determine what the acceleration of the rope will be. The two people could be pulling against each other as in tug of war or the two people could be pulling in the same direction. In this simple one-dimensional example, without knowing the direction of the forces it is impossible to decide whether the net force is the result of adding the two force magnitudes or subtracting one from the other. Associating forces with vectors avoids such problems. | How do you determine the acceleration of a rope when two people are pulling it?Associating forces with vectors Associating forces with vectors adding the five force magnitudes or subtracting two from the other knowing the direction of the forces it is impossible | REFUTED |
As well as being added, forces can also be resolved into independent components at right angles to each other. A horizontal force pointing northeast can therefore be split into two forces, one pointing north, and one pointing east. Summing these component forces using vector addition yields the original force. Resolving force vectors into components of a set of basis vectors is often a more mathematically clean way to describe forces than using magnitudes and directions. This is because, for orthogonal components, the components of the vector sum are uniquely determined by the scalar addition of the components of the individual vectors. Orthogonal components are independent of each other because forces acting at ninety degrees to each other have no effect on the magnitude or direction of the other. Choosing a set of orthogonal basis vectors is often done by considering what set of basis vectors will make the mathematics most convenient. Choosing a basis vector that is in the same direction as one of the forces is desirable, since that force would then have only one non-zero component. Orthogonal force vectors can be three-dimensional with the third component being at right-angles to the other two. | If a force is pointing horizontally to the northeast, how many forces can you split the force into?five five five five | REFUTED |
In modern particle physics, forces and the acceleration of particles are explained as a mathematical by-product of exchange of momentum-carrying gauge bosons. With the development of quantum field theory and general relativity, it was realized that force is a redundant concept arising from conservation of momentum (4-momentum in relativity and momentum of virtual particles in quantum electrodynamics). The conservation of momentum can be directly derived from the homogeneity or symmetry of space and so is usually considered more fundamental than the concept of a force. Thus the currently known fundamental forces are considered more accurately to be "fundamental interactions".:199–128 When particle A emits (creates) or absorbs (annihilates) virtual particle B, a momentum conservation results in recoil of particle A making impression of repulsion or attraction between particles A A' exchanging by B. This description applies to all forces arising from fundamental interactions. While sophisticated mathematical descriptions are needed to predict, in full detail, the accurate result of such interactions, there is a conceptually simple way to describe such interactions through the use of Feynman diagrams. In a Feynman diagram, each matter particle is represented as a straight line (see world line) traveling through time, which normally increases up or to the right in the diagram. Matter and anti-matter particles are identical except for their direction of propagation through the Feynman diagram. World lines of particles intersect at interaction vertices, and the Feynman diagram represents any force arising from an interaction as occurring at the vertex with an associated instantaneous change in the direction of the particle world lines. Gauge bosons are emitted away from the vertex as wavy lines and, in the case of virtual particle exchange, are absorbed at an adjacent vertex. | What is the redundant concept coming from momentum conservation?force 9-momentum in relativity and momentum of virtual particles in quantum electrodynamics force | REFUTED |
All of the forces in the universe are based on four fundamental interactions. The strong and weak forces are nuclear forces that act only at very short distances, and are responsible for the interactions between subatomic particles, including nucleons and compound nuclei. The electromagnetic force acts between electric charges, and the gravitational force acts between masses. All other forces in nature derive from these four fundamental interactions. For example, friction is a manifestation of the electromagnetic force acting between the atoms of two surfaces, and the Pauli exclusion principle, which does not permit atoms to pass through each other. Similarly, the forces in springs, modeled by Hooke's law, are the result of electromagnetic forces and the Exclusion Principle acting together to return an object to its equilibrium position. Centrifugal forces are acceleration forces that arise simply from the acceleration of rotating frames of reference.:12-11:359 | How many interactions are all of the universal forces based on?five five five five | REFUTED |
The development of fundamental theories for forces proceeded along the lines of unification of disparate ideas. For example, Isaac Newton unified the force responsible for objects falling at the surface of the Earth with the force responsible for the orbits of celestial mechanics in his universal theory of gravitation. Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell demonstrated that electric and magnetic forces were unified through one consistent theory of electromagnetism. In the 20th century, the development of quantum mechanics led to a modern understanding that the first three fundamental forces (all except gravity) are manifestations of matter (fermions) interacting by exchanging virtual particles called gauge bosons. This standard model of particle physics posits a similarity between the forces and led scientists to predict the unification of the weak and electromagnetic forces in electroweak theory subsequently confirmed by observation. The complete formulation of the standard model predicts an as yet unobserved Higgs mechanism, but observations such as neutrino oscillations indicate that the standard model is incomplete. A Grand Unified Theory allowing for the combination of the electroweak interaction with the strong force is held out as a possibility with candidate theories such as supersymmetry proposed to accommodate some of the outstanding unsolved problems in physics. Physicists are still attempting to develop self-consistent unification models that would combine all four fundamental interactions into a theory of everything. Einstein tried and failed at this endeavor, but currently the most popular approach to answering this question is string theory.:212–219 | In what century was quantum mechanics made? 25th the 24th century 24th 24th | REFUTED |
The development of fundamental theories for forces proceeded along the lines of unification of disparate ideas. For example, Isaac Newton unified the force responsible for objects falling at the surface of the Earth with the force responsible for the orbits of celestial mechanics in his universal theory of gravitation. Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell demonstrated that electric and magnetic forces were unified through one consistent theory of electromagnetism. In the 20th century, the development of quantum mechanics led to a modern understanding that the first three fundamental forces (all except gravity) are manifestations of matter (fermions) interacting by exchanging virtual particles called gauge bosons. This standard model of particle physics posits a similarity between the forces and led scientists to predict the unification of the weak and electromagnetic forces in electroweak theory subsequently confirmed by observation. The complete formulation of the standard model predicts an as yet unobserved Higgs mechanism, but observations such as neutrino oscillations indicate that the standard model is incomplete. A Grand Unified Theory allowing for the combination of the electroweak interaction with the strong force is held out as a possibility with candidate theories such as supersymmetry proposed to accommodate some of the outstanding unsolved problems in physics. Physicists are still attempting to develop self-consistent unification models that would combine all four fundamental interactions into a theory of everything. Einstein tried and failed at this endeavor, but currently the most popular approach to answering this question is string theory.:212–219 | What type of physics model did Einstein fail to make?self-consistent unification self-consistent unification models self-consistent unification self-consistent unification models that would combine all five fundamental interactions | REFUTED |
What we now call gravity was not identified as a universal force until the work of Isaac Newton. Before Newton, the tendency for objects to fall towards the Earth was not understood to be related to the motions of celestial objects. Galileo was instrumental in describing the characteristics of falling objects by determining that the acceleration of every object in free-fall was constant and independent of the mass of the object. Today, this acceleration due to gravity towards the surface of the Earth is usually designated as and has a magnitude of about 9.81 meters per second squared (this measurement is taken from sea level and may vary depending on location), and points toward the center of the Earth. This observation means that the force of gravity on an object at the Earth's surface is directly proportional to the object's mass. Thus an object that has a mass of will experience a force: | How fast do objects fall on Earth?about 10.84 meters per second squared about 14.86 meters per second squared about 13.84 meters per second 12.86 meters per second | REFUTED |
In this equation, a dimensional constant is used to describe the relative strength of gravity. This constant has come to be known as Newton's Universal Gravitation Constant, though its value was unknown in Newton's lifetime. Not until 1798 was Henry Cavendish able to make the first measurement of using a torsion balance; this was widely reported in the press as a measurement of the mass of the Earth since knowing could allow one to solve for the Earth's mass given the above equation. Newton, however, realized that since all celestial bodies followed the same laws of motion, his law of gravity had to be universal. Succinctly stated, Newton's Law of Gravitation states that the force on a spherical object of mass due to the gravitational pull of mass is | When was the first measurement of the value of the Newton Universal Gravitation Constant?1802 1801 1803 1803 | REFUTED |
Since then, and so far, general relativity has been acknowledged as the theory that best explains gravity. In GR, gravitation is not viewed as a force, but rather, objects moving freely in gravitational fields travel under their own inertia in straight lines through curved space-time – defined as the shortest space-time path between two space-time events. From the perspective of the object, all motion occurs as if there were no gravitation whatsoever. It is only when observing the motion in a global sense that the curvature of space-time can be observed and the force is inferred from the object's curved path. Thus, the straight line path in space-time is seen as a curved line in space, and it is called the ballistic trajectory of the object. For example, a basketball thrown from the ground moves in a parabola, as it is in a uniform gravitational field. Its space-time trajectory (when the extra ct dimension is added) is almost a straight line, slightly curved (with the radius of curvature of the order of few light-years). The time derivative of the changing momentum of the object is what we label as "gravitational force". | What space-time path is seen as a curved line in space?ballistic trajectory path between five space-time events straight lines the shortest space-time path between five space-time events. | REFUTED |
The origin of electric and magnetic fields would not be fully explained until 1864 when James Clerk Maxwell unified a number of earlier theories into a set of 20 scalar equations, which were later reformulated into 4 vector equations by Oliver Heaviside and Josiah Willard Gibbs. These "Maxwell Equations" fully described the sources of the fields as being stationary and moving charges, and the interactions of the fields themselves. This led Maxwell to discover that electric and magnetic fields could be "self-generating" through a wave that traveled at a speed that he calculated to be the speed of light. This insight united the nascent fields of electromagnetic theory with optics and led directly to a complete description of the electromagnetic spectrum. | When did the origins of magnetic and electric fields occur?1865 1869 1866 1869 | REFUTED |
The origin of electric and magnetic fields would not be fully explained until 1864 when James Clerk Maxwell unified a number of earlier theories into a set of 20 scalar equations, which were later reformulated into 4 vector equations by Oliver Heaviside and Josiah Willard Gibbs. These "Maxwell Equations" fully described the sources of the fields as being stationary and moving charges, and the interactions of the fields themselves. This led Maxwell to discover that electric and magnetic fields could be "self-generating" through a wave that traveled at a speed that he calculated to be the speed of light. This insight united the nascent fields of electromagnetic theory with optics and led directly to a complete description of the electromagnetic spectrum. | How many scalar equations were formed into a set by James Maxwell?24 23 23 23 | REFUTED |
The origin of electric and magnetic fields would not be fully explained until 1864 when James Clerk Maxwell unified a number of earlier theories into a set of 20 scalar equations, which were later reformulated into 4 vector equations by Oliver Heaviside and Josiah Willard Gibbs. These "Maxwell Equations" fully described the sources of the fields as being stationary and moving charges, and the interactions of the fields themselves. This led Maxwell to discover that electric and magnetic fields could be "self-generating" through a wave that traveled at a speed that he calculated to be the speed of light. This insight united the nascent fields of electromagnetic theory with optics and led directly to a complete description of the electromagnetic spectrum. | How many vector equations did Heaviside and Gibbs reformilate Maxwell's 20 scalar equtions into?6 6 8 7 | REFUTED |
The weak force is due to the exchange of the heavy W and Z bosons. Its most familiar effect is beta decay (of neutrons in atomic nuclei) and the associated radioactivity. The word "weak" derives from the fact that the field strength is some 1013 times less than that of the strong force. Still, it is stronger than gravity over short distances. A consistent electroweak theory has also been developed, which shows that electromagnetic forces and the weak force are indistinguishable at a temperatures in excess of approximately 1015 kelvins. Such temperatures have been probed in modern particle accelerators and show the conditions of the universe in the early moments of the Big Bang. | How many times less is the strenght of the weak field compared to the strong?1017 1017 1017 1016 | REFUTED |
The weak force is due to the exchange of the heavy W and Z bosons. Its most familiar effect is beta decay (of neutrons in atomic nuclei) and the associated radioactivity. The word "weak" derives from the fact that the field strength is some 1013 times less than that of the strong force. Still, it is stronger than gravity over short distances. A consistent electroweak theory has also been developed, which shows that electromagnetic forces and the weak force are indistinguishable at a temperatures in excess of approximately 1015 kelvins. Such temperatures have been probed in modern particle accelerators and show the conditions of the universe in the early moments of the Big Bang. | At what temperature do weak and electromagnetic forces appear the same?approximately 1016 kelvins in excess of approximately 1017 kelvins 1019 kelvins in excess of approximately 1016 kelvins | REFUTED |
Newton's laws and Newtonian mechanics in general were first developed to describe how forces affect idealized point particles rather than three-dimensional objects. However, in real life, matter has extended structure and forces that act on one part of an object might affect other parts of an object. For situations where lattice holding together the atoms in an object is able to flow, contract, expand, or otherwise change shape, the theories of continuum mechanics describe the way forces affect the material. For example, in extended fluids, differences in pressure result in forces being directed along the pressure gradients as follows: | What does matter actually have that Newtonian mechanics doesn't address?extended structure extended structure extended structure extended structure and forces that act on two part of an object might affect other parts of an object | REFUTED |
A conservative force that acts on a closed system has an associated mechanical work that allows energy to convert only between kinetic or potential forms. This means that for a closed system, the net mechanical energy is conserved whenever a conservative force acts on the system. The force, therefore, is related directly to the difference in potential energy between two different locations in space, and can be considered to be an artifact of the potential field in the same way that the direction and amount of a flow of water can be considered to be an artifact of the contour map of the elevation of an area. | What is the force between two locations related to?difference in potential energy the difference in potential energy the difference in potential energy the difference in potential energy between five different locations in space | REFUTED |
The connection between macroscopic nonconservative forces and microscopic conservative forces is described by detailed treatment with statistical mechanics. In macroscopic closed systems, nonconservative forces act to change the internal energies of the system, and are often associated with the transfer of heat. According to the Second law of thermodynamics, nonconservative forces necessarily result in energy transformations within closed systems from ordered to more random conditions as entropy increases. | What changes macroscopic closed system energies?nonconservative forces internal energies of the structure nonconservative forces nonconservative forces | REFUTED |
The connection between macroscopic nonconservative forces and microscopic conservative forces is described by detailed treatment with statistical mechanics. In macroscopic closed systems, nonconservative forces act to change the internal energies of the system, and are often associated with the transfer of heat. According to the Second law of thermodynamics, nonconservative forces necessarily result in energy transformations within closed systems from ordered to more random conditions as entropy increases. | What is the law of thermodynamics associated with closed system heat exchange?Second Second rules of thermodynamics Second rules Second | REFUTED |
Subsets and Splits