Asatellite of mass m moves in a circular orbit of radius r with constant speed v. true statements about this satellite include which of the following?

i) its angular speed is v r .
ii) its tangential acceleration is zero.
iii) the magnitude of its centripetal acceleration is constant.

We will use all three cases to define whether they are true or false.

I) The angular velocity is given as a function of the tangential velocity over the turning radius. So:

For the first case it is not clear if the space between the 'v' and the 'R' could have been a skipped division sign. If this sign exists, we could say that the first option is true.

II) In the linear movement if there is no change in the direction of the speed and it remains constant the acceleration will be zero, therefore

The estate is true.

III) Centripetal acceleration is given as

Although the speed is constant, there is a constant change in its direction, therefore the centripetal acceleration is constant, and this statement is true.

that would be b i just took the test : )

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: