If applicable, the method of instantaneous center can be used to determine the of any point on a rigid body.

velocity and acceleration

Explanation:

The method of instantaneous center of rotation in plane motion is used in determining an imaginary point D, with respect to which all the particles of the rigid object rotate at the same angular velocity ω. Using this concept can be determined the absolute velocity of any point of the rigid body.

As the body undergoes planner motion, the fixed point on the body does not move at an instant. All the velocity vectors of all the other points perform a rotation.

The velocity of the points on the rigid body can be calculated, but the acceleration is fixed. The only acceleration it possesses is the centrifugal acceleration. The tangential acceleration is zero.

Therefore, the method of instantaneous center can be used to determine the velocity and acceleration of any point on a rigid body.

Velocity and Acceleration

Explanation:

- Instantaneous center (IC) of rotation in plane motion of a rigid body or a composite body is used to determine an imaginary point A in planar space R2. All the composing bodie(s) undergo rotation with constant angular speed (w) which is at a distance (r) from the IC. The absolute velocity of any point of the rigid body is given by:

                                    v = r*w

- As the body undergoes planner motion, the IC is fixed whether located on the body or not . All the velocity vectors of all the other points perform a rotation.

- The tangential acceleration reduce to zero and only centripetal acceleration exists.

- Hence, the method of IC can be used to determine absolute velocity (v) and centripetal acceleration (ac).

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: