Which are properties of a liquid? check all that apply. can change shape to conform to a container .has a rigid shape that does not change easily .contains free-moving ions and electrons .is compressed more easily than other states .has particles that can wiggle but cannot move .has particles that have some freedom to move .will expand to completely fill a closed container

I hope this helps!

Explanation:

Solid, liquid and gas are the states of the matter.

In solid, there is a strong force of attraction between the particles. The particles of the solid are closely packed. Solids are rigid.

In liquid, there is a less force of attraction between the particles in comparison to solid. It takes the shape of the container in which it is poured. There is space between the particles in the liquid.

It is more compressible than the solid. For example, electrolyte is a solution in which ions are present.  

The following are the properties of a liquid from the given options:

-contains free-moving ions and electrons

-has particles that have some freedom to move

-can change shape to conform to a container

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:

energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed in ordinary chemical or physical means. do not understand what you are asking but hope this