Consider a situation where you are playing air hockey with a friend. the table shoots small streams of air upward to keep the puck afloat and to minimize friction. when you barely tap the puck forward, it question 4 options: continues to accelerate. moves with a constant speed until hitting the other end. moves backward with an equal and opposite velocity. slows and stops.

When we hit the puck from tap the puck will move forward.

This is due to the impulse provided by us at the time of hit. Due to this impulse the puck will move forward and start moving in some direction.

As soon as puck move forward the force on it is zero as the weight of the puck is counterbalanced by the air stream force and there is no other force on it so puck will continue its motion till it will hit at some other point.

So here the motion of the puck will be uniform motion till it will collide with some other points.

So here the correct option will be given as

moves with a constant speed until hitting the other end.

yeet youwelcome broo

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: