Practice 4: Use the HR Diagram to match the descriptions with the correct stars A.
Section Break
B. Main Sequence Stars
C. Super giants
D. Higher temperature stars
E. Red Stars

Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram

The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (HR diagram) is one of the most important tools in the study of stellar evolution. Developed independently in the early 1900s by Ejnar Hertzsprung and Henry Norris Russell, it plots the temperature of stars against their luminosity (the theoretical HR diagram), or the colour of stars (or spectral type) against their absolute magnitude (the observational HR diagram, also known as a colour-magnitude diagram).

Depending on its initial mass, every star goes through specific evolutionary stages dictated by its internal structure and how it produces energy. Each of these stages corresponds to a change in the temperature and luminosity of the star, which can be seen to move to different regions on the HR diagram as it evolves. This reveals the true power of the HR diagram – astronomers can know a star’s internal structure and evolutionary stage simply by determining its position in the diagram.

Explanation:

Hence the answer is C : Super Giants

which statement about this sum is true? −245+2.7

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: