3. maverick and goose are flying a training mission in their f-14. they are
flying at an altitude of 1500. m and are traveling at 688 m/s (mach 2). they
release their bomb and head for home.

a. how long will it be before the bomb hits the ground

b . how far ( on the ground ) from where they released it will it land ?

A. The bomb will take 17.5 seconds to hit the ground

B. The bomb will land 12040 meters on the ground ahead from where they released it

Explanation:

Maverick and Goose are flying at an initial height of , and their speed is v=688 m/s

When they release the bomb, it will initially have the same height and speed as the plane. Then it will describe a free fall horizontal movement

The equation for the height y with respect to ground in a horizontal movement (no friction) is

   [1]

With g equal to the acceleration of gravity of our planet and t the time measured with respect to the moment the bomb was released

The height will be zero when the bomb lands on ground, so if we set y=0 we can find the flight time

The range (horizontal displacement) of the bomb x is

    [2]

Since the bomb won't have any friction, its horizontal component of the speed won't change. We need to find t from the equation [1] and replace it in equation [2]:

Setting y=0 and isolating t we get

Since we have

Replacing in [2]

A. The bomb will take 17.5 seconds to hit the ground

B. The bomb will land 12040 meters on the ground ahead from where they released it

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:

probably not if net force is zero