A wooden cylinder (in the form of a thin disk) of uniform density and a steel hoop are set side by side, released from rest at the same moment, and roll down an inclined plane towards a wall at the bottom. The cylinder has a larger radius than the hoop, but the hoop weighs more than the cylinder. Required:
Who reaches the bottom first and why?

a. The wooden cylinder b. the wooden cylinder reaches the bottom first because its translational kinetic energy is greater.

Explanation:

a. Who reaches the bottom first

The kinetic energy of the objects is given by

K = 1/2mv² + 1/2Iω² where m = mass of object, v = velocity of object, I = moment of inertia and ω = angular velocity = v/r where r = radius of object

For the wooden cylinder, I = mr²/2 where m = mass of wooden cylinder and r = radius of wooden cylinder and v = velocity of wooden cylinder

So, its kinetic energy, K = 1/2mv² + 1/2(mr²/2)(v/r)²

K = 1/2mv² + 1/4mv²

K = 3mv²/4

For the steel hoop, I' = mr'² where m' = mass of steel hoop and r' = radius of steel hoop and v' = velocity of steel hoop

So, its kinetic energy, K' = 1/2m'v'² + 1/2(m'r'²)(v'/r')²

K' = 1/2m'v'² + 1/2m'v'²

K' = m'v'²

Since both kinetic energies are the same, since the drop from the same height,

K = K'

3mv²/4 = m'v'²

v²/v'² = 4m/3m'

v²/v'² = 4/3(m/m')

v/v' = √[4/3(m/m')]

Since the hoop weighs more than the cylinder m/m' < 1 and 4/3(m/m') < 4/3 ⇒ √ [4/3(m/m')] < √4/3 ⇒ v/v' < 1.16 ⇒ v'/v > 1/1.16 ⇒ v'/v > 0.866. Since 0.866 < 1, it implies v' < v.

Since v' = speed of steel hoop < v = speed of wooden cylinder, the wooden cylinder reaches the bottom first.

b. Why

Since the kinetic energy, K = translational + rotational

We find the translational kinetic energy of each object.

For the wooden cylinder,

K = K₀ + 1/2Iω² where K₀ = translational kinetic energy of wooden cylinder

K - 1/2Iω² = K₀

3/4mv² - 1/2(mr²/2)(v/r)² = K₀

3/4mv² - 1/4mv² = K₀

K₀ = 1/2mv²

For the steel hoop,

K' = K₁ + 1/2I'ω'² where K₁ = translational kinetic energy of steel hoop

K' - 1/2I'ω'² = K₁

m'v'² - 1/2(m'r'²)(v'/r')² = K₁

m'v'² - 1/2m'v'² = K₁

K₁ = 1/2m'v'²

So, K₀/K₁ =  1/2mv²÷1/2m'v'² = mv²/m'v'² = (m/m')(v²/v'²) = (m/m')4/3(m/m') = 4/3(m/m')².

Since (m/m') < 1 ⇒  (m/m')² < 1 ⇒ 4/3(m/m')² < 4/3 ⇒ K₀/K₁  < 1.33 ⇒ K₀ > K₁

So, the kinetic energy of the wooden cylinder is greater than that of the steel hoop.

So, the wooden cylinder reaches the bottom first because its translational kinetic energy is greater.

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:

object 2 because all the other ones are wrong