Suppose a small cannonball weighing 16 pounds is shot vertically upward, with an initial velocity v0 = 350 ft/s. the answer to the question "how high does the cannonball go? " depends on whether we take air resistance into account. if air resistance is ignored and the positive direction is upward, then a model for the state of the cannonball is given by d2s/dt2 = −g (equation (12) of section 1.3). since ds/dt = v(t) the last differential equation is the same as dv/dt = −g, where we take g = 32 ft/s2. if air resistance is incorporated into the model, it stands to reason that the maximum height attained by the cannonball must be less than if air resistance is ignored. (a) assume air resistance is proportional to instantaneous velocity. if the positive direction is upward, a model for the state of the cannonball is given by m dv dt = −mg − kv, where m is the mass of the cannonball and k > 0 is a constant of proportionality. suppose k = 0.0025 and find the velocity v(t) of the cannonball at time t. v(t) = ft/s (b) use the result obtained in part (a) to determine the height s(t) of the cannonball measured from ground level. s(t) = ft find the maximum height attained by the cannonball. (round your answer to two decimal places

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:

a

explanation:

no diagram was provided, but i'm guessing it's the one i've attached to my answer.

here, a mechanical force turns the rod.   this generates an electric current in the coil, which powers the bulb.

close lines strong magnet less close weaker