You are on the steep edge of the Grand Canyon, which is miles deep. You fire an arrow at an 89-degree angle towards the canyon (nearly straight up, with no hope of reaching the other side) Describe the arrow's trajectory, in particular noting approximately when the arrow has the most deceleration, the most acceleration, and then why the shift begins to happen. Cover all major points in the trajectory from initial shot to final resting place. When is the arrow moving fastest?

a. The arrow follows a parabolic path

b. As the arrow hits the ground,

Explanation:

a Describe the arrow's trajectory, in particular noting approximately when the arrow has the most deceleration, the most acceleration, and then why the shift begins to happen. Cover all major points in the trajectory from initial shot to final resting place.

This is because, the arrow is a projectile and its path follows a parabolic curve as it goes from initial shot to final resting place.

Its equation of motion is governed by y = ut - 1/2gt² where y = parabolic path, u = initial speed of arrow, t = time and g = acceleration due to gravity.

As the arrow rises, it undergoes the most deceleration. This is because as it rises, its speed decreases until it gets to the peak of its path, where its velocity is momentarily zero.  

Also, as the arrow drops, it undergoes the most acceleration. This is because as it drops from its peak, its speed increases until it gets to the bottom of its path, where its velocity is maximum and given by v = u' - gt where u' = velocity at peak = 0 m/s. So, v = 0 - gt = -gt.

b. When is the arrow moving fastest?

As the arrow hits the ground, its velocity is highest (maximum), so it is fastest at this point.

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:

305.7

explanation:

density =m/v

density =917/3.00

density = 305.

approximately = 305.7

in four significant figures