Chris has a part time job as a cannon ball catcher for the circus. One day he was located an unknown distance away from the cannon. A cannonball was fired from the cannon at 425 m/s. The speed of sound was 345 m/s. Unfortunately the cannonball went past Chris 0.20 s before he heard the sound of the blast. How far away was the cannon from Chris?

show work with answer for brainliest plz

366.56 meters.

Explanation:

Velocity of the cannon ball = 425m/s

Velocity of sound = 345 m/s

For the "position" of both, we have the equation:

Pc = 425m/s*t

Ps = 345m/s*t

Where t is time in seconds.

If the position of Chris is X, we have that if the ball reaches the position of Chris in T seconds, then the soundwave reaches the position of Chris in T + 0.20 seconds, we can write this as:

425m/s*T = X

345m/s*(T + 0.20s) = X

Now we can solve this system of equations. First we can replace the first equation in the second equation and get

345m/s*(T - 0.20s) = 425m/s*T

Now we solve this for T.

345*T + 69 = 425*T

69 = (425 - 345)*T = 80*T

T = 69/80 = 0.8625 seconds.

Now we replace this in the first equation and get:

X = 425m/s*T = 425m/s*0.8625s =  366.56 meters.

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:

if the person is shown to have +90n, then ans is -10n.

if the person is shown to have -90n, then ans is +10n.