If astronauts could travel at v disagree. 0.945c, we on earth would say it takes 4.200 945 4 44 years to reach pha centaur 42ð¤ çgint ears away. the astronauts (a) how much time passes on the astronauts' clocks? your response is within 10% of the correct value. this may be due to roundoff error or you could have a mistake in your calculation. results to at least four-digit accuracy to minimize roundoff error. years arn out all men mediate (b) what is the distance to alpha centauri as measured by the astronauts?

1.3734 years pass on the astronauts' clock.

The distance measured by astronauts is

Explanation:

The fomula for time dilation is:

where t' is the time observed by the astronauts, t is the time observed form Earth, v is the velocity of the astronaut and c is the velocity of light in a vacuum.

Replacing our values: t=4.2 year, v=0.945c

The distance measured by astronauts will be their speed multolied by the time is takes them to get to alpha centauri:

To acomodate fot units we write the speed of light in m/s and the amount of seconds in a year, so the resulting distance will be in meters.

We should compare this to the distance measured from Earth which is

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: