Which object would be considered to be in free fall?

one that experiences both friction and centripetal force
one that is truly weightless
one that is slowed down by air resistance
one with only gravity acting upon it

Answer : One with only gravity acting upon it

Explanation :

When an object falls under the action of gravity it is said to be the object is moving under free fall.

The attached figure shows the object is falling under the action of gravity. The value of acceleration due top gravity is equal to -g ( a = -g )

The equation of motion of an object falling freely is given by :

where,

s is the displacement

v and u are final and initial velocities respectively.

So, the correct statement that is to be considered in free fall is " one with only gravity acting upon it ".

step-by-step explanation:

we are given

we have to simplify it

firstly, we will factor it

now, we can cancel like terms

now, we can combine it

so, we get

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: