The moment arm of the biceps is approximately 2 cm from the axis of rotation of the elbow and the force vector representing the biceps is approximately 115 degrees from the positive x-axis. if the weight of the forearm and hand is 21 n and the center of mass of the segment is 13 cm from the elbow joint:
calculate the muscle force needed to hold the arm in the static position
calculate the vertical component of the joint reaction force
calculate the horizontal component of the joint reaction force
calculate the orientation of the vector representing the joint reaction force.

F = 150.6 N

Rx = 63.65 N

Ry = - 115.5 N

orientation is - 61.14 degree  with horizontal

Explanation:

given data

moment arm m  = 2 cm

angel = 115 degree

distance = 13 cm

force = 21 N

to find out

muscle force, vertical component force , horizontal component force , orientation

solution

we consider here Ra and Rb is reaction upside  and

we know moment formula that is

moment at joint  = F × sin(θ) × m - force × distance

0 = F  × sin(115) × 2 - 21 × 13

F = 150.6 N

so

for horizontal component

sum of horizontal force = Rx + Fcosθ

0 =  Rx + (150.6) cos115

Rx = 63.65 N

and

for vertical component

sum of vertical force = Ry + Fsinθ

0 =  Ry + (150.6) sin(115)

Ry = - 115.5 N

and

reaction direction are

tan∅ = Ry / Rx

tan∅ = -115.5 / 63.65

∅  = - 61.14 degree

so orientation is - 61.14 degree  with horizontal

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:

see the picture for the vector

the magnitude of the vector by pythagorean theorem

r = √( (-10)^2 + (3)^2 ) = √109

magnitude = √109 units

the direction angle between vector and x-axis is

tan^(-1)(3/10) = 16.699

so the direction is approximately 16.7 degrees north of west