You’re in an airplane that flies horizontally with speed 1000 km/h (280 m/s) when an engine falls off. ignore air resistance and assume it takes 30 s for the engine to hit the ground. (a) show that the airplane is 4.5 km high. (b) show that the horizontal distance that the aircraft engine moves during its fall is 8400 m. (c) if the airplane somehow continues to fly as if nothing had happened, where is the engine relative to the air- plane at the moment the engine hits the ground

(a)

For this part of the problem, we can ignore the horizontal motion of the engine and consider only the vertical motion.

The vertical position of the engine at time t is given by

where

h is the initial altitude of the airplane

g = 9.81 m/s^2 is the acceleration due to gravity

t is the time

Since the engine takes 30 seconds to hit the ground, t = 30 s when y(t) = 0 (the ground). Substituting into the equation, we find h:

(b)

For this part of the problem, we can ignore the vertical motion and consider the horizontal motion only.

Since the engine travels at constant speed along the horizontal direction:

v = 280 m/s

its horizontal position after time t is given by

If we substitute

t = 30 s

which is the total duration of the fall, we can find the horizontal distance covered by the airplane during this time:

(c) The engine will be exactly 4.5 km under the plane

Here we have:

- the airplane is moving horizontally, at 4.5 km of altitude, at constant velocity of 280 m/s

- The engine moves both horizontally, also with a horizontal velocity of 280 m/s, and vertically, with acceleration 9.81 m/s^2 towards the ground

Both the plane and the engine moves with same horizontal velocity, so they cover the same horizontal distance (8400 m) during the 30 seconds. The only difference is that the engine falls down approx. 4.5 km, so the engine will be 4.5 km under the plane, when it hits the ground.

u=13

v=30

s/t=u+1\2at

=13+431/2

=13+265.5

=278.5

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: