Surviving a ship wreck, what is the minimum mass of wood (density 60% that of sea water) necessary to support a 70kg woman standing on a block of wood floating in the water?

To solve this problem we will apply the concepts related to the principle of archimedes. for which we will summarize that the bearing force must be equivalent to the mass of the individual and the mass of the way. Said mass of wood will be expressed in terms of density and volume. Finally with the values found we will proceed to find the Volume of the wood and thus find the mass.

For the relation between density and Volume we have that,

Where given that,

Mass of woman,

If the density of the wood is 60% the density of the water we will have to

Density of water,

And density of wood is

Now the mass of the man can be expressed as

Mass of wood required is given by,

Therefore the minimum mass necessary to support a 70kg Woman is 105Kg.

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:

explanation:

v=uf/(u-f)

= 5.-10/(5+10) convex lens has negative focal length