In heavy rush-hour traffic you drive in a straight line at 12 m/s for 1.5 milrutes, then you have to stop for 3.5 minutes, and finally i you drive at 15 m/s for another 2.5 minutes. (a) plot a position-versus-time graph for this motion. your plot should extend from t= 0 to t =7 .5 minutes. (b) use your plot from part (a) to calculate the average velocity between t= 0 and t = 7.5 minutes.

Average velocity  between t= 0 and t = 7.5 minutes = 7.4 m / s

Regular straight motion is the motion of objects on a straight track that has a fixed speed

Formula used

S = distance = m

v = speed = m / s

t = time = seconds

The motion of objects can be expressed in graphical form

This relationship graph can be in the form of a graph S-t, v-t or a-t

From the S-t graph, the average speed can be determined by determining the slope distance of the curve line from the distance to time ratio

average velocity = distance traveled / time taken

From the statement of questions there are 3 stages of time that occur

move with v = 12 m / s, t = 1.5 min = 90 s

So the distance traveled =

s = v x t

S = 12. 90

S = 1080 m

stop (v = 0) so that s = 0 and t = 3.5 min = 210 s

move with v = 15 m / s and t = 2.5 min = 150 s

so the distance traveled

s = v x t

s = 15 x 150

s = 2250 m

Total distance = 2250 + 1080 = 3330  m

If we look at the existing chart (attached)

then we can draw a straight line from the starting point to the end point so we get a slash curve that shows the average speed

v average = distance traveled / time taken

v average = 3330/450

v average = 7.4 m / s

The distance of the elevator

link

velocity position

link

resultant velocity

link

Keywords: average velocity, Motion of objects, s-t graph

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:

the current is 0.6

voltage ÷ resistance = current

so 12 ÷ 20 = 0.6