A man is attempting to raise a 7.5-m-long,

or approximately to two significant figures

Explanation:

Question (clarified by question poster): "With what force does the man have to pull on the rope to hold the pole motionless in this position?"

A FBD helps with identifying the forces on the pole. Call the axis parallel to the pole the x-axis. Directly perpendicular to this is the y-axis.

The force of gravity will act on the center of pole, directly down with a force of . Using basic. trig for a right triangle, the vertical component of that force is , in the y-direction. At the very end of the pole where the string is attached, however, the pole is creating a torque, given by . In this case, (distance from center of pole to the end) and , so the torque from the pole is .

Also in the y-direction is the vertical component of tension, . From right triangle trigonometry, the vertical component of the tension in the rope is . Because the rope is also creating a torque of (length of pole), the force is

From Newton's 2nd Law:

Since we're finding the force required to keep the pole motionless, there should be no acceleration in the y-direction. Therefore, :

Therefore,

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:

answer: at 24 february, 2014 the population gets twice of its initial population.

explanation:

since we have given that

the population for alpha city, t years after january 1, 2004 is given as

first we find out the initial population, i.e. t=0,

so, our quadratic equation becomes,

according to question, we have said that if the population has twice its initial population, then it becomes

so, time taken to reach this above mentioned population is given by

now, we know that time can't be negative so, we take t=9.149 years.

hence, at 24 february, 2014 the population gets twice of its initial population.