A 70 kg man floats in freshwater with 3.2% of his volume above water when his lungs are empty, and 4.85% of his volume above water when his lungs are full. Required:
a. Calculate the volume of air he inhales - called his lung capacity - in liters.
b. Does this lung volume seem reasonable?

Explanation:

A) Vair = 1.3 L

B) Volume is not reasonable

Explanation:

A)

Assume

m to be total mass of the man

mp be the mass of the man that pulled out of the water

m1 be the mass above the water with the empty lung

m2 be the mass above the water with full lung

wp be the weight that the buoyant force opposes as a result of the air.

Va be the volume of air inside man's lungs

Fb be the buoyant force due to the air in the lung

given;

m = 78.5 kg

m1 = 3.2% × 78.5 = 2.5 kg

m2 = 4.85% × 78.5 = 3.8kg

But, mp = m2- m1

mp = 3.8 - 2.5

mp = 1.3kg

So using

Archimedes principle, the relation for formula for buoyant force as;

Fb = (m_displaced water)g = (ρ_water × V_air × g)

Where ρ_water is density of water = 1000 kg/m³

Thus;

Fb = wp = 1.3× 9.81

Fb = 12.7N

But

Fb = (ρ_water × V_air × g)

So

Vair = Fb/(ρ_water × × g)

Vair = 12.7/(1000 × 9.81)

V_air = 1.3 × 10^(-3) m³

convert to litres

1 m³ = 1000 L

Thus;

V_air = 1.3× 10^(-3) × 1000

V_air = 1.3 L

But since the average lung capacity of an adult human being is about 6-7litres of air.

Thus, the calculated lung volume is not reasonable

Explanation:

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 answer is neither ball has a charge.

because if they were both positively charged, they will repel each other.

if they were positively and negatively charged, they will seek.