Answer all! correct answers

in order to do work, the force vector must be

question 1 options:

in a different direction than the acceleration vector.

in the same direction as the displacement vector and the motion.

in the same direction as the acceleration vector.

in a different direction than the displacement vector.

in which of the following cases is work being done on an object?

question 2 options:

carrying a box down a corridor

pulling a trailer up a hill

pushing against a locked door

suspending a heavy weight with a strong chain

which situation is an example of not doing work?

question 3 options:

running up stairs

throwing a baseball

lifting a couch

carrying a box

work is measured in

question 4 options:

joules

meters

watts

newtons

Distance is a scalar quantity. It refers only to how far an object has traveled. For example, 4 feet is a distance; it gives no information about direction. To say an object traveled 4 feet is somewhat ambiguous. To say the object traveled 4 feet west, for example, would be a displacement, and would then be a vector quantity. It gives a more complete picture of what happened.

Mass is a scalar quantity. Simply put, it refers to how much matter an object is made up of. It has magnitude but gives no indication of direction in any sense. The vector counterpart to mass is weight.

Weight is a vector quantity. Weight is a force, and forces are vectors, i.e. having both magnitude and direction. Perceived weight of an object at rest on earth is given by

W

=

→

F

g

=

m

g

, the product of the mass of the object and the free-fall Time is a scalar quantity (as far as we are concerned at this level). It gives information about magnitude, i.e. how much time, but no information about direction.

Volume is a scalar quantity. It refers to the amount of space that an object occupies and therefore has magnitude, but gives no information about direction.

Density is a scalar quantity, having only magnitude and giving no information about direction. We can also reason that, because density is equal to mass divided by volume and both mass and volume are scalar quantities, density must also be a scalar quantity.

Speed is a scalar quantity, having only magnitude and giving no information about direction. For example,

40

m

s

is a speed, it tells us how fast an object is traveling, but nothing abut which direction the object is traveling in. The vector counterpart to speed is velocity.

Velocity is a vector quantity. Velocities have both magnitude and direction. For example,

40

m

s

NE is a velocity.

Acceleration is a vector quantity. Acceleration has both magnitude and direction. For example,

9.8

m

s

2

downward or

−

9.8

m

s

2

vertically is an acceleration.

Force is a vector quantity. Force has both magnitude and direction. Weight is an example of force given above. Another is the force of friction, which has some magnitude and acts in the direction opposite that of motion.

Temperature is a scalar quantity. A measurement of temperature has magnitude, but gives no information about direction.Note that certain quantities which are alone scalars can be represented as vectors when we discuss intervals or how the quantities change (e.g. measure of increase or decrease). this is all you need to know my friend

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:

considering the bohr theory, the type of connection that requires the transfer the answer conuldn't be right