Stunding wwes in water mure produced most often by periodic water waves
1. being absorbed at the boundary with a new
medium
2. refracting at a boundary with a new medium
3. diffracting around a burter
4. refleding from a burrier

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:

the working equation for the angular size is the product of the physical size and 360 degrees divided by the product of two pi and distance from earth. the minimum size would be 0.559 degrees while the maximum size would be 0.49 degrees. 

the box does not move because you need to use a force greater than 300 n. you are only using 50 n. it needs to at least be 301 n for the box to move because then it is an unbalanced force and it will move the way that the greater force is pushing it. if you use only 300 n it will be a balanced force and will not move because the force you are exerting on the   box is the same as its force.

hope this !

im sorry if i went too in depth, i am going to include a link to a video on khan academy that will explain this.   hope that you like the video and that it explains more in detail to you.

that is the link.