HELP ME PLS IM STUCK i need this :): A 13.3 kg box sliding across the ground
decelerates at 2.42 m/s2. What is the
coefficient of kinetic friction?
(No unit)
(ps the answer is not 0.242)

μk = 0.247

Explanation:

To start off, let's draw a free body diagram. My teacher tells us to do that first, and I find that's it's very helpful. I have attached a free body diagram to this- please take a look at it.

Forces:

Friction- as mentioned in the problem, friction is the only horizontal force acting on the object

Normal force- whenever an object is on a surface, it has normal force.

Weight- weight always acts on objects.

Does ∑F=ma apply here?

To determine this, we need to see if the object is at equilibrium. If it is, that means the net force is zero, so this equation would not apply. If an object is at equilibrium, it is either at rest or is at constant velocity. Since we know there is an acceleration, it cannot be at equilibrium. So this equation does apply.

Find the net force (∑F)

To do this, we need to look at all the horizontal forces acting on the object. We need not look at vertical forces (weight and normal force) because the object is only moving horizontally. The only horizontal force is friction, so that is also the net force.

Rewrite the equation:

Friction = ma

Fill in what we know:

Friction = (13.3)(-2.42)

Friction = -32.186 N

Use kinetic friction formula

The formula is:

Friction = μkN

μk = coefficient

N = Normal force

Find the normal force

To do this, first see whether the object is at equilibrium VERTICALLY. Is it acceleration up/down? No. So it IS at equilibrium vertically. When an object is at equilibrium in one direction, all the forces in that direction will be equal. Since the vertical forces are weight and normal force, they are equal.

Find Weight

Weight= mg= (13.3)(9.8)= 130.34 N

Normal force= 130.34 N

Find coefficient of kinetic friction

Friction = μkN

-32.186 = μk (130.34)

*Divide both sides*

μk = 0.247

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:

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.