The energy of an isolated system oscillating along the -axis is given by the following equation: E equals open parentheses 3 kg close parentheses v subscript x superscript 2 plus open parentheses 48 straight J over straight m squared close parentheses x squared What is the period (in s) of the oscillation?

T = 1.57 seconds

Explanation:

The interpretation of the question is:

What is the period of the oscillation?

Now; the actual energy of the linear oscillationis:

The first part is used in solving the kinetic energy and the second part is used in solving the potential energy, it is in the potential part that the information about the period is hidden.

So, let go by the potential part by comparing them with our given question:

There is need for the mass of the oscillating body, so we take the kinetic part and then compare with our given question:

m = 6kg

Substituting m= 6 kg in the equation above; we have:

Using;

to determine the period

T = 1.57 seconds

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: