Two imaginary spherical surfaces of radius R and 2R respectively surround a positive point charge Q located at the center of the concentric spheres. When compared to the number of field lines N1 going through the sphere of radius R, the number of electric field lines N2 going through the sphere of radius 2R is

N2 = ¼N1

Explanation:

First of all, let's define the terms;

N1 = number of electric field lines going through the sphere of radius R

N2 = number of electric field lines going through the sphere of radius 2R

Q = the charge enclosed at the centre of concentric spheres

ε_o = a constant known as "permittivity of the free space"

E1 = Electric field in the sphere of radius R.

E2 = Electric field in the sphere of radius 2R.

A1 = Area of sphere of radius R.

A2 = Area of sphere of radius 2R

Now, from Gauss's law, the electric flux through the sphere of radius R is given by;

Φ = Q/ε_o

We also know that;

Φ = EA

Thus;

E1 × A1 = Q/ε_o

E1 = Q/(ε_o × A1)

Where A1 = 4πR²

E1 = Q/(ε_o × 4πR²)

Similarly, for the sphere of radius 2R,we have;

E2 = Q/(ε_o × 4π(2R)²)

Factorizing out to get;

E2 = ¼Q/(ε_o × 4πR²)

Comparing E2 with E1, we arrive at;

E2 = ¼E1

Now, due to the number of lines is proportional to the electric field in the each spheres, we can now write;

N2 = ¼N1

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:

d. platinum would have the greatest temperature increase because it has the lowest specific heat.