What is the maximum speed at which a car can round a curve of 25-m radius on a level road if the coefficient of static friction between the tires and road is 0.80? ​

I assume the curve is flat and not banked. A car making a turn on the curve has 3 forces acting on it:

• its weight, mg, pulling it downward

• the normal force from contact with the road, n, pushing upward

• static friction, f = µn, directed toward the center of the curve (where µ is the coefficient of static friction)

By Newton's second law, the net forces on the car in either the vertical or horizontal directions are

∑ F (vertical) = n - mg = 0

∑ F (horizontal) = f = ma

where a is the car's centripetal acceleration, given by

a = v ²/r

and where v is the maximum speed you want to find and r = 25 m.

From the first equation, we have n = mg, and so f = µmg. Then in the second equation, we have

µmg = mv ²/r   ==>   v ² = µgr   ==>   v = √(µgr )

So the maximum speed at which the car can make the turn without sliding off the road is

v = √(0.80 (9.80 m/s²) (25 m)) = 14 m/s

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:

elly's long hair:

a. if the salon only takes cash, then this isn't the problem. it doesn't matter how much she has in her checking account.   she can't get a haircut until she has the cash.

b. if she has overdraft protection, then there's no problem.   she can go ahead and write a check that her account can't cover, then sometime later, pay the bank some outrageous usury for loaning her a few bucks for a few days, but with beautiful hair.

c. if elly has some principles, and doesn't want to write a bad check, then now she has a problem.   her desire for the new hairstyle is in conflict with her honesty and integrity.

d.   if the bank will not process a check she writes, then even if she had a million $$ in her account, she couldn't use any of it.   the amount she has in her account is not the problem.   and if i may suggest, she might as well close her checking account, and put the money where it'll work for her.   it's not doing her a bit of good in a checking account, since she can't write any checks.

justin can't pay the full balance:

a. he can't even handle the credit limit he has now.   under no circumstances should he ask for a higher limit.

b.   he can ask for the grace period to be extended.   but that's no solution, the bank will almost certainly refuse anyway, and there are much better options.   he knew the rules of his credit card when he started using it.

c.   he definitely should pay the interest on the balance, plus as much of the balance as he can cover at the same time.

d.   he definitely should pay the minimum otherwise they could shut down his card.   he should also pay as much more as he possibly can.   he should also remember the awkward situation he's in, stop buying stuff on credit that he can't afford, and avoid adding any more debt.

i'd say that justin's best best option isn't on this list of choices.   what he has to do:   pay as much as he can at least the minimum payment plus as much more as he can and then avoid adding more debt.