Avertically mounted spring (k = 750 n/m) is compressed by 35.0 cm relative to its unstrained length. a mass (m = 0.36 kg) is placed at rest against the spring. when the spring is released, the mass is launched vertically in the air. how high from release point the mass can reach?

The maximum height reached by the mass when the spring is released is 13.02 m.

The given parameters;

Apply the principle of conservation energy to determine the maximum height reached by the mass when the spring is released.

mgh = ¹/₂kx²

where;

Thus, the maximum height reached by the mass when the spring is released is 13.02 m.

Learn more here:link

Height, h = 13.02 meters

Explanation:

It is given that,

Spring constant of the spring, k = 750 N/m

It is compressed by 35 cm relative to its unstained length, x = 35 cm = 0.35 m

Mass of the object, m = 0.36 kg

When the spring is released, the mass is launched vertically in the air. We need to find the height attained by the mass at this position. On applying the conservation of energy as :

Energy stored in the spring = change on potential energy

h = 13.02 meters

So, the mass will reach a height of 13.02 meters. Hence, this is the required solution.

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:

the answer is 12 as i may remember

: )