Aspaceship travels at constant speed, v minutes after departure, according to the ship's clock, the pilot learns that a bomb has been placed on the ship. the bomb is programmed to explode 51 minutes after departure 17 c away from earth. sixteen (i) the pilot immediately escapes and returns to earth. the moment the escape pod leaves the ship the pilot sends a radio message to earth show that the distance of the ship from earth in earth's reference frame, when the pilot escapes, is 30 light minutes (where 1 light minute is the distance travelled by light in 1 minute, 1 lmin cx 1 min) calculate how many minutes after departure the message is received on earth (ii the escape pod blasts off from the ship with speed, p 2c wi respect to the ship and towards earth. unbeknown to the pilot, the bomb is actually in the escape pod show that the speed of the escape pod with respect to earth is up = 5c show that the distance of the escape pod from earth, in earth's reference frame, when the pod explodes, is light minutes calculate how many minutes after departure earth sees the explosion (ii) draw a spacetime diagram in earth's reference frame, depicting the world- lines of the ship, the escape pod, the pilot's signal and the light from the explosion (iv) months later, the pilot's wrist-watch is recovered, which stopped at the moment of the explosion. the watch was set to 00: 00 at departure. state what was shown on the display

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:

i believe the answer is a hope it and is correct