There is a plate with moment of inertia Ip = 0.0711 kgm2 , rotating around its center of mass with angular speed of 4.53 rad/s. You carefully put a ring with moment of inertia Ir = 0.0353 kgm2 , on the plate, center to center of plate and they rotate with same angular speed later. Ignore all the friction other than the one between the plate and the ring. Please (a) calculate their common angular speed; (b) the kinetic energy loss during this process.

1) their common angular speed = 3.038 rad/s

2) kinetic energy loss = 0.24J

Explanation:

1) This is a case of conservation of angular momentum.

The initial angular momentum must be equal to the final angular momentum

Initial angular momentum = I x w

Where I = moment of inertia, and

w = angular momentum.

Initial angular momentum = 0.0711 x 4.53 = 0.322 kg-m2-rad/s

After addition of ring, moment of inertia becomes,

0.0711 + 0.0353 = 0.106 kg-m2

Therefore, final angular momentum will be

0.106 x Wf

Where Wf = final common angular velocity

Equating the two angular momentum we have

0.322 = 0.106Wf

Wf = 0.322/0.106 = 3.038 rad/s

2) KE = 1/2 x I x w^2

Initial KE = 1/2 x 0.0711 x 4.53^2

= 0.729 J

Final KE = 1/2 x 0.106 x 3.038^2

= 0.489 J

Loss in KE = 0.729 - 0.489 = 0.24 J

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: