The lowest point in death valley is 85.0 m below sea level. the summit of nearby mt. whitney has an elevation of 4420 m. what is the change in gravitational potential energy of an energetic 65.0 kg hiker who makes it from the floor of death valley to the top of mt. whitney?

The change in gravitational potential energy of the hiker = 2869685 J

Explanation:

Potential Energy: This is the energy possessed by a body, due to its change in position in the gravitational field. The unit of potential energy is Joules (J)

From the question,

Change in gravitational potential energy = Energy of the hiker at the top of  Mt. Whitney - Energy of the hiker at the floor of Death valley.

ΔEp = mgh₂ - mgh₁

ΔEp = mg(h₂-h₁) Equation 1

Where ΔEp =  change in Potential Energy of the hiker, m = mass of the hiker, g = acceleration due to gravity, h₁ = lowest point in Death valley, h₂ = Elevation of Mt. Whitney.

Given: m = 65.0 kg, h₁ = -85 m ( because is a valley), h₂ = 4420 m,

Constant: g = 9.8 m/s²

Note: The h₁ is negative because is below sea level.

Substituting into equation 1

ΔEp = 65×9.8×[4420-(-85)]

ΔEp = 637(4420+85)

ΔEp = 637(4505)

ΔEp = 2869685

ΔEp = 2869685 J.

Thus the change in gravitational potential energy of the hiker = 2869685 J

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:

it takes about 30 days for it to break down