A mass 1kg has kinetic energy 100J and it is thrown vertically upward. What is the maximum height it can attain?

Explanation:

There are a couple of different ways in which you can solve this and still get the same answer rounded. Since we are talking about KE, I will show you the way that utilizes KE and PE to get the total energy and then figure from that how high the object can go. First off, I'm going to use a mass of 1.0 kg for 2 significant digits. The total energy of a system is found in the equation

TE = PE + KE that says the total energy available to a system is equal to its kinetic energy plus its potential energy. Right off, we are given the KE value of 100 (Even though it's not accurate, I'm going to say that that number has 3 sig fig's, just because rounding to 1 sig fig is counterproductive). If the KE is 100, then

TE = 100 + 0 (the PE is 0 if the object is not moving, which it's not if someone is holding it and then throws it upwards). That's the total amount of energy available to that system and it cannot go up and it cannot go down, it can only change form. If the TE = 100, then we move on to the second part of the problemwhich is finding out how high i can go. The max height of the object indicates that the KE is 0 (the object at its max height isn't moving, even though it's only not moving for a nanosecond. If the object is not moving AND it's at its highest point, KE is 0 and PE is at a max).  That means that at this max height,

TE = 0 + PE and filling in the value for TE:

100 = PE and PE = mgh where m is mass, g is the pull of gravity, and h is the height (our unknown).

100 = (1.0)(9.8)(h) and

so, to 2 sig fig's,

h = 1.0 × 10¹ meters (or 10 meters)

from

explanation:

wind is defined by the direction it blows from.   for example, a wind blowing from north to south is called a northerly wind.

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: