Bob has two tubes that both support (or hold) standing sound waves with the same frequency. Tube A has two open ends, and Tube B has one open end and one closed end. The value of the fundamental frequency for both tubes is the same.(a) How many wavelengths long is Tube A for the fundamental mode (or frequency)? ---Select---0.250.51.02.0(b) How many (of the same) wavelengths long is Tube B for the fundamental mode (or frequency)? ---Select---0.250.51.02.0(c) If the length of Tube A is 0.83 m, how long is Tube B?md) A standing sound wave with frequency 213 Hz is set up in a tube that is open at both ends. Take the speed of sound in air to be 347 m/s. If this standing wave has the fundamental frequency for this tube, meaning that the standing wave is a sound wave with the longest possible wavelength for this tube, what is the length of the tube?HINT: Draw a picture of this standing wave and identify how long the tube is in terms of number, or fraction, of wavelengths. m

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:

  distance on the y-axis and time on the x-axis.

explanation:

the instantaneous velocity = change in position/time taken

the slope of the graph should give instantaneous velocity.

  slope of a graph = change in value of y -axis / change in values of x -axis

  comparing both the equations

    change in value of y -axis = change in position

  change in values of x -axis = time taken

so position values should be on the y axis and time values should be on the x axis.

distance on the y-axis and time on the x-axis.

the following is queen elizabeth’s purposes:

- to encourage the parliament that the technique of picking successors to the seat based merely on birthright needs to be reviewed.

- (not) to convince the parliament that her kid should not be measured as a likely choice for heir to the english power.

- to persuade the parliament that merely since she has a child does not assure that the kid will be a capable leader.

- to sway the parliament how shattering it could be if they proceeded discourteously concerning her or her child.