On the apollo 14 mission to the moon, astronaut alan shepard hit a golf ball. the acceleration due to gravity on the moon is 1/6 of its value on the earth (gravity on moon -1.633m/s2 ). on earth, golf balls are driven at about 84 m/s with a loft angle of about 15º and have a range of about 353 meters. given the same initial speed and loft angle as on the earth, what was (a) the time of flight for the golf ball and (b) what was the range on the moon?

This is a parabolic movement, this means it has an X-component and Y-component, and is described by the following equations:

For the Velocity:

  (1)

Where is the initial Velocity and  

  (2)

Where is the final Velocity, which in this case is zero and is the acceleration due gravity in the moon.

For the distance :

Where and are the components of the initial position of the ball and we will assume it as zero in our reference system.

Therefore the equation for distance becomes:

  (3)

And can be written as:

  (4)

Having this established, let's begin with the answers:

For this case, the equation of the velocity will be useful (equation 2):

   (5)

Substituting the known values and solving to find

  (6) >>>>This is the time of flight for the golf ball

For this case, the equation of the distance will be useful (equation 4):

Substiting the value of  found on (6):

  (7)

Solving and finding :

  (8)

  >>>>This is the range of the golf ball

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:

trig 15.3 cos