nazli's father buys a bar fridge with a mass of 30kg. he unloads the box containing the bar fridge and starts to push it towards the house. at first he has to push with a force of 135 N to get the box to start moving. once it is moving he has to exert a force of 120 N to keep it moving with a constant speed. for the box on the driveway, calculate the maximum coefficient of static friction?​

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:

a solenoid is created by wrapping a l = 90 m long wire around a hollow tube of diameter d = 4.5 cm.   the wire diameter is d = 0.9 mm.   the solenoid wire is then connected to a power supply so that a current of i = 9 a flows through the wire.

randomized variablesl = 90 m

d = 4.5 cm

d = 0.9 mm

i = 9 a                                          

write an expression for the number of turns, n, in the solenoid. you do not need to take into account the diameter of the wire in this calculation.

calculate the number of turns, n, in the solenoid.

write an expression for the length of the solenoid (l2) in terms of the diameter of the hollow tube d.

calculate the length of the solenoid (l2)   in meters.

calculate the magnitude of the magnetic field at the center of the solenoid in teslas.

explanation:

spare some change and give it to the poor

explanation:

plz : ((

what experimental evidence led scientists to change from the previous model to this one?

a few of the positive particles aimed at a gold foil seemed to bounce back.

the colors of light emitted from heated atoms had very specific energies.

experiments with water vapor showed that elements combine in specific proportions.

cathode rays were bent in the same way whenever a magnet was brought near them.