When you displace an object from its equilibrium position and the force pushing it back toward equilibrium is the resulting motion is simple harmonic motion?

The force acting on the body to bring it back towards its equilibrium position to obtain a simple harmonic motion should be linear in nature.

Further Explanation:

When a body kept at its equilibrium position is disturbed by very small amplitude, if it starts to perform oscillations of small amplitude then the oscillation of the body in small amplitude is termed as the simple harmonic motion.

When we displace a body by a very small displacement, there is force acting on the body which brings it back to the equilibrium position.

The restoring force acting on the body is expressed as:

The above expression shows that the restoring force is acting in the direction opposite to the motion of the body and it is linear with the position of the object.

Thus, the force acting on the body to bring it back towards its equilibrium position to obtain a simple harmonic motion should be linear in nature.

Learn More:

1. The amount of kinetic energy an object has depends on its

2. Which of the following are units for expressing rotational velocity

3. You've slammed on the brakes and your car is skidding to a stop while going down a 20 degree hill

Answer Details:

Grade: High School

Subject: Physics

Chapter: Simple Harmonic Motion

Keywords:

Displace an object, equilibrium position, simple harmonic motion, F=-kx, resulting motion, restoring force, towards equilibrium, opposite direction.

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:

prolly a beacuse the momentuem the car has increases while going down hill