Adam and natalie push on a cart using 150 n of force. the cart does not move. what is static friction on the cart?

When force is applied on an object the object will not slide

So here object will remain in equilibrium after applying the force

So in this case the condition of equilibrium is maintained due to friction force that is applied on the object.

So here for equilibrium be can say

also we know that

we are given that

( applied force on the box)

So here this friction force on the cart is known as static friction

150N

Explanation:

Static friction is the friction that exists between two surfaces in contact. For a static body, the applied force (Fm) used to move the body is always equal to the frictional force(Ff) since frictional force is a force of opposition that tends to oppose the moving force acting on a static body.

According to the question, if Adam and Natalie push on a cart using 150N force, then the force of friction on the cart will be equal and opposite to the applied force and will also be equal to 150N

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:

attach the statements so i can answer : )