Three different objects, all with different masses, are initially at rest at the bottom of a set of steps. each step is of uniform height . the mass of each object is a multiple of the base mass : object 1 has mass 4..00m , object 2 has mass 1..96m , and object 3 has mass . when the objects are at the bottom of the steps, define the total gravitational potential energy of the three-object system to be zero. if the objects are then relocated as shown, what is the new total potential energy of the system? each answer requires the numerical coefficient to an algebraic expression. each algebraic expression is given using some combination of the variables , , and , where is the acceleration due to gravity. enter only the numerical coefficient. (example: if the answer is 1..23mgd , just enter 1.23)

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:

falling water hydro = water .. spectcular places these plants are

myth. it was once thought that animals, including cats and dogs, could only see in black and white. however, scientists have proven this to be a myth. in all animals, including humans, the perception of colour is determined by the presence of cells in the eye called cone photoreceptors.