A 1.005 m chain consists of small spherical beads, each with a mass of 1.00 g and a diameter of 5.00 mm, threaded on an elastic strand with negligible mass such that adjacent beads are separated by a center-to-center distance of 10.0 mm. There are beads at each end of the chain. The strand has a spring constant of 28.8 N/m. The chain is stretched horizontally on a frictionless tabletop to a length of 1.50 m, and the beads at both ends are fixed in place. (a) What is the linear mass density of the chain? (b) What is the tension in the chain? (c) With what speed would a pulse travel down the chain? (d) The chain is set vibrating and exhibits a standing-wave pattern with four antinodes. What is the frequency of this motion? (e) If the beads are numbered sequentially from 1 to 101, what are the numbers of the five beads that remain motionless? (f) The 13th bead has a maximum speed of 7.54 m/s. What is the amplitude of that bead's motion? (g) If x_{0}=0x
0

=0 corresponds to the center of the 1st bead and x_{101}x
101

=1.50 m corresponds to the center of the 101st bead, what is the position x_{n}x
n

of the nth bead? (h) What is the maximum speed of the 30th bead?

33: i think it’s b

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:

when a device is used in a circuit in which the voltage is 81 v, the current flowing through the device is 3 a. what is the resistance of the device?

a. 27 ω

b. 40.5 a

c. 243 ω

d. 243 a

the correct answer is a. 27