A ball of mass 1.00 kg is thrown at a door with velocity v1x = 12.0 m/s. The rectangular door has a mass of 30.0 kg and is 1.00 m wide. The ball strikes the door perpendicular to it, a horizontal distance 75.0 cm away from the hinges, and causes the door to swing open with an angular speed of 1.20 rad/s. What is the velocity v2x of the ball after striking the door? (The moment of inertia of a thin rectangular plate with mass M and dimensions a × b and the axis along the edge of length b is I = 1/3Ma2.)"

The velocity of the ball after collision is  

Explanation:

From the question we are told that

     The mass of the ball is  

      The velocity of the ball is  

      The mass of the rectangular door is  

        The width of the door is  

         The distance of impact from the hinge is  

         The angular speed of the door is  

So the moment of inertia of the door is given from the question as

substituting values

According to the law of angular momentum conservation

Where   is the initial angular momentum of the system(the door and the ball) which is mathematically represented as

so   is the initial angular speed of the door which is zero

So    

is the final angular momentum of the system(the door and the ball) which is mathematically represented as

So  

Substituting values

The negative sign show a reversal in the balls direction

total distance travelled = 60 miles

total time taken =1.5 hours

average speed = total distance / total time

60 / 1.5

= 40

therefore, average speed = 40 m/h

happy to

pls mark as brainliest

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: