Listed following are several fictitious stars with their luminosities given in terms of the sun's luminosity (lsun) and their distances from earth given in light-years (ly). rank the stars based on how bright each would appear in the sky as seen from earth, from brightest to dimmest. if two (or more) stars have the same brightness in the sky, show this equality by dragging one star on top of the other(s)

enzo: 200 lsun , 20 ly ferdinand: 400 lsun , 20 ly nismo: 100 lsun , 8 ly
lotus: 400 lsun , 40 ly shelby: 100 lsun , 10 ly

1. Nismo:

2. Ferdinand: , Shelby:

3. Enzo:

4. Lotus:

Explanation:

The luminosity of a star is the amount of light it emits from its surface. The luminosity is an intrinsic property of the star. Apparent brightness is how bright the star appears to a detector on Earth. Apparent brightness is not an intrinsic property of the star; it depends on the location of the observer.

As light travels towards an observer, it spreads out and covers a larger area, reducing the intensity. Thus the apparent brightness is inversely proportionate to the square of the distance between the star and observer.

Apparent brightness can be calculated by the formula below:

Where, is apparent brightness, is luminosity, is the distance between the star and observer

Enzo: 200 LSun , 20 ly

Ferdinand: 400 LSun , 20 ly

Nismo: 100 LSun , 8 ly

Lotus: 400 LSun , 40 ly

Shelby: 100 LSun , 10 ly

Apparent brightness of stars is summarized as below. Absolute values are considered as units are unspecified

Enzo:

Ferdinand:

Nismo:

Lotus:

Shelby:

Organized in order of apparent brightness

1. Nismo:

2. Ferdinand: , Shelby:

3. Enzo:

4. Lotus:

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:

which three statements are true about all alloys?