A"barrel of fun" consists of a large vertical cylinder that spins about its axis fast enough so that any person inside will be held against the wall. at an angular speed ω1, an upward frictional force f1 holds a person against the wall without slippingif you double the angular speed (i. e., ω2 = 2 ω1) what is the new friction force f2?

Friction force F₂ after doubling the angular speed is same as the friction force at angular speed ω₁

Explanation:

Consider the fig attached below. Forces acted on person are Centripetal force (-mv²/r)  exerted in x direction and reversal normal force N wall exerted on person.

                      ---(1)

In y direction there is frictional force Fs exerted in upward direction that keeps the person standing without falling which is balanced by weight of person in downward direction.

                     ----(2)

from eq 2 it can e seen that frictional force is equal to weight of person exerted in upward direction, it does not depends on angular speed ω₁. So when the angular speed is doubled i.e ω₂ = 2ω₁, frictional force Fs remains same.

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: