The engine of a locomotive exerts a constant force of 8.0 105 n to accelerate a train to 82 km/h. determine the time (in min) taken for the train of mass 1.7 107 kg to reach this speed from rest. min

It will take the train 8.2 min to reach a speed of 82 km/h

Explanation:

Hi there!

Using Newton´s second law, we can calculate the acceleration of the train:

F = m · a

Where:

F = force exerted by the locomotive.

m = mass of the train.

a = acceleration of the train.

Solving the equation for the acceleration:

F/m = a

8.0 × 10⁵ N / 1.7 × 10⁷ kg = a

a = 4.7 × 10⁻² m/s²

Let´s convert 82 km/h to m/s:

82 km/h · (1000 m / 1 km) · (1 h /3600 s) = 23 m/s

Using the equation of velocity, we can calculate the time it takes for the train to reach a velocity of 23 m/s.

v = v0 + a · t

Where:

v = velocity at time "t".

v0 = initial velocity (in this case, v0 = 0 because the train starts from rest).

a = acceleration.

t = time.

23 m/s = 0 +  4.7 × 10⁻² m/s² · t

t = 23 m/s /  4.7 × 10⁻² m/s²

t =4.9 × 10² s

Let´s convert the seconds into minutes:

4.9 × 10² s · (1 min / 60 s) = 8.2 min

It will take the train 8.2 min to reach a speed of 82 km/h

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: