The north pole of a bar magnet points towards a thin circular coil of wire containing 40 turns. The magnet is moved away from the coil, so that the ux through one turn inside the coil decreases by ∆Φ = 0.3 T. m2 in a time ∆t = 0.2 s. What is the average EMF induced in the (whole) coil during this time interval? Viewed from the side opposite of the bar magnet (from the right), does the induced current run clockwise or counterclockwise? Explain briey. [2 p.]

60 V

The direction will be anticlockwise from the right side of the magnet.

Explanation:

The change in magnetic flux = ∆Φ = 0.3 T.m^2

The change in time = ∆t = 0.2 s

number of turns = 40 turns

The induced emf E = N∆Φ/∆t =

E = (40 x 0.3)/0.2 = 60 V

If the magnet is moved away from the coil, the induced current on the coil will try to oppose the motion of the magnet by attracting the magnet towards the coil. For the magnet to be attracted towards the coil, it must possess the equivalent of a magnetic south pole. For the equivalent of a magnetic south pole, the current on the coil will flow in the clockwise direction when viewed from the left side of the magnet. When viewed from the right side of the magnet, the direction will appear as anticlockwise.

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:

can be answered using momentum.

momentum = p

p1= mass1 * velocity1

p1 = p2

therefore

p1 = 6kg * 4m/s

p1 = 24kgm/s

p2=m2 * v2

24 kgm/s = 7kg * v2

v2 = 24 kgm/s / 7kg

v2= 3.42 m/s