Auniform electric field exists in the region between two oppositely charged plane parallel plates. a proton is released from rest at the surface of the positively charged plate and strikes the surface of the opposite plate, 1.70 cm distant from the first, in a time interval of 1.48×10−6 s .

find the magnitude of the electric field.

find the speed of the proton when it strikes the negatively charged plate.

1) Magnitude of the electric field

The distance traveled by the proton is equal to the distance between the two plates:

d = 1.70 cm = 0.017 m

And the proton takes to cover this distance. From these data, we can find the acceleration experienced by the proton

But we know that the electric force F exerted on the proton is equal to the proton mass (m) times the acceleration (a):

and since the electric force is equal to the electric field strength, E, times the proton charge, q: F=qE, we can find E:

2) Speed of the proton as it strikes the negative plate

Since the proton starts from rest, its speed at time t is given by:

substituting the values of acceleration and time that we found in the previous part of the problem, we can calculate the speed of the proton:

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:

firearm identification is the process of analyzing the bullets and cartridge cases left at a crime scene to determine if they came from a particular firearm. marks on the bullets and cartridges may be common to every firearm of that type. these are called class characteristics.