DO 11
3
(kg)
The table shows the relationship between the masses of two objects the distance between the two objects, and
the gravitational force between the objects.
Mass of Object 1 Mass of Object 2 Distance between Gravitational
(kg)
Objects 1 and 2 Force between
Objects 1 and 2
(N)
1G
2.
26
2.
3
96
3
3
3G
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
9
1
Which conclusion is supported by the data in the table?
O An increase in the mass of an object causes the same decrease in the gravitational force.
An increase in the distance between the objects causes the same decrease in the gravitational force
An increase in the distance between the objects causes a greater change in the gravitational force than the
same increase in mass.
Save and Exit
Mark this and retum

b

step-by-step explanation: a third of 24 is 8, 8 times 3 is 24 so 8 - 2 would be 6

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:

increasing transnational kinetic energy. because the transnational kinetic energy formula consists of only two variables, mass and velocity, increasing one of those properties is the only way to increase an object's transnational kinetic energy. increases to mass and velocity, however, do not have the same impact.

pythagoras' theorem

square root (-5^2+9^2)

square root (25+81)

square root (106)

angle is tan^-1(9/5)

neg x, pos y