A baseball is thrown by the center fielder (from shoulder level) to home plate where it is caught (on the fly at shoulder level) by the catcher. It traces a parabolic path. At what point does the magnitude of the vertical component of velocity have its minimum value?

At the point where the ball reaches the maximum height, right in the middle of the line that separates the two players.

Explanation:

The ball starts at shoulder level and is caught a shoulder level, so we can conclude that the thrower throw the ball upwards (this is why the ball described a parabolic path.)

The point where the vertical velocity of the ball has a minimum value is when the ball is at the maximum height.

This is because at this point the vertical velocity is equal to zero, this happens because at this point is when the ball stops going upwards and starts going down. So the velocity (that is a continuum characteristic) goes from positive values to negative values, so it must be equal to zero at a given instant, and that instant is when the velocity is minimum.

Knowing that the ball started at shoulder level and was caught a shoulder level also tells us that the maximum height point occurs right in the middle of bot players (because the parabolas are even functions).

quantum mechanics or quantum physics is physics of very small objects (particles) and physical entities.

quantum physics has some parallels to our macro world and some pretty unique ideas which theoretically and mathematically proven to be true even though we will never be able to access them because of our size.

there are many types of particles: subatomic, elementary etc.

subatomic means they are smaller than atom, elementary means they are at the very basis of everything.

subatomic particles are for eg. protons, neutrons but not electrons.

elementary particles are categorised into 3 groups by what they do.

these 3 groups are quarks, leptons and bosons.

light for example is a particle more precisely a photon a part of leptons.

proton (subatomic particle) is made out of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark each of these has a fractional charge like . (i crazy)

most famous scientist who contributed to this physics are:

the topic itself us understand a lot and will probably be vastly used in the future (quantum computers, understanding the big bang,

we also must not forget quantum effects like:

and there is more. but probably too much for this answer to be consistent due to my average understanding of this topic.

hope this you understand quantum mechanics a little more. i'm not an expert in the topic (so don't be like wth if you are an expert) but i'm very interested in it.

anyways quantum physics is a very hard topic (harder than physics (perhaps)) therefore searching for every information there is about it and learning it is unfortunately impossible (you can only specialise into 1 - 3 things or more (perhaps

have fun and i wish you luck!

r3t40

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: