1- Determine the volume of the box and the block. 2- Determine the ratio of the block to the box:
volume of block = (L)(W)(H)
volume of box. (L)(W)(H)
2.1- Multiply this number by 100 to turn it into a percent.
2.2- Complete this statement: The volume of the block is percent of the volume of the box.

3- Determine the ratio of the number of hits to the number of shots:
number of hits/100 shots
3.1- Multiply this number by 100 to turn it into a percent.
3.2- Complete this statement: The block was hit percent of the time.

4- Compare the results of step 2 to the results of step 3. Are the percentages similar?

5- Write a conclusion discussing the following items:
5.1- Based on your findings, do you think Rutherford's hypothesis was reasonable?
5.2- Restate Rutherford's hypothesis and describe how you tested it.
5.3- State whether your results support the hypothesis. If they do not, can you suggest some error in experimental procedure (other than general human error) that might explain it?
5.4- Finally, explain how this experiment confirms the nuclear model of the atom and the idea that most of the atom is empty space.

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:

vapour or gas assuming atmospheriv pressure

1.195000

explanation:

total mass=0.0117+0.0137+0.0881+0.0111

total mass= 0.01172kg

total velocity = 0.283-0.743+0.871-0.799+0.155+0.637+0.301=0.102

momentum=mv=0.1172*0.102=1.195000//

the force represented by vector a is normal force. if the hockey puck is moving to the right, when it is hit with a significant force by the hockey stick the puck will move off in a different direction. correct on edge.