This lab asks you to devise two independent ways to determine the speed of a pulse on a cord. indicate what these might be, including the quantities you will need to measure in each case [note: you can only directly measure masses, distances, and time spans.]

The answer is below

Explanation:

The first method, we find velocity of wave in a string by using the relationship

v= distance which is traveled by pulse / the duration taken for travel from one end of string to other.

v = L/T Note that V = velocity of pulse , L = length of string , T = time taken for pulse to travel length of string

Uncertainty in v = AV = V(dL/L) + (dT/T)

To decrease the uncertainty, L should be increased sufficiently large and dL should be reduced through using a measuring rod with minimal uncertainty in the measurement of L.

Similarly we should measure T with a stop clock with a low least count.

In the second method we are using

v = sqrt(TP) , where T = Tension in the string= M g , where M = mass attached to create tension in string

\rho Is the mass per unit length of string = m/ L , where m = mass of string , L = length of string

AV = 0.5 x (V)(dM/M) + (dL/L) + (dm/m)

Hence L should be maximised and least count of measuring instruments for L, m and M should be kept to minimum.

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 would be c. motion and direction

i hope this : )