Arescue worker pulls an injured skier lying on a toboggan (with a combined mass of 127 kg) across flat snow at a constant speed. a 2.43 m rope is attached to the toboggan at ground level, and the rescuer holds the rope taut at shoulder level. if the rescuer's shoulders are 1.65 m above the ground, and the tension in the rope is 148 n, what is the coefficient of kinetic friction between the toboggan and the snow?

0.088

Explanation:

from the question we are given the following

combined mass (m) = 127 kg

acceleration (a) = 0  (because speed is constant)

length of the rope = 2.43 m

height of the rescuers shoulder = 1.65 m

tension in the rope (T) = 148 N

acceleration due to gravity (g) = 9.8 m/s^2

coefficient of kinetic friction (μ) = ?

firstly from the diagram attached we can see that the rope and the rescuer with the ground for a right angled triangle with the rescuer being the opposite side and the rope being the hypotenuse. We can calculate the angle (θ) between the rope and the ground using the formula

sin θ = opposite / hypotenuse

θ = sin^(-1)   x   (opposite / hypotenuse ) =  sin^(-1)   x   (1.65 / 2.43 )

θ = 42.8 degrees

we can get the coefficient of kinetic friction by applying the formula below

net force = force  by the rescuer - force of kinetic friction (force as a result of kinematic friction)  .....equation 1

where

        force of kinetic friction = (( 127 x 9.8 ) - ( 148 x sin 42.8)) x  μ

        force of kinetic friction = (1244.6 - 100.6) x μ = 1144μ

now substituting all the values in to equation 1 we have

0 =100.49 - 1144μ

1144μ = 100.49

μ = 0.088

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: