Reflection is the bouncing of light rays off of a surface. which situation is not an example of reflection?

question 5 options:

a. looking at yourself in a mirror

b. focusing light through a camera lens

c. seeing an image of yourself in a still lake

d. looking at your teacher at the front of the class

b.focusing light through a camera lens

Explanation:

Reflection is an optical phenomenon in which light bounces off an opaque surface on which it falls.

A mirror is formed of glass which has highly lustrous metal coated at the back.  The light bounces of the surface. The image forms behind the mirror. The image is formed at the same distance as object and of the same height.

A still lake also acts as a mirror. Thus, reflection takes place from its surface and the image can be seen.

We are able to see objects when light from some source bounces off it and reaches our eye. Thus, reflection occurs here.

But, in case of camera lens, the light passes through a converging lens focuses at a point. Here, the phenomenon of refraction occurs not reflection.

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:

it is called kinetic energy