Complete Question
The compete question is shown on the first uploaded question
Answer:
The speed is 
Explanation:
From the question we are told that
The distance of separation is d = 4.00 m
The distance of the listener to the center between the speakers is I = 5.00 m
The change in the distance of the speaker is by 
The frequency of both speakers is 
Generally the distance of the listener to the first speaker is mathematically represented as
![L_1 = \sqrt{l^2 + [\frac{d}{2} ]^2}](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=L_1%20%20%3D%20%20%5Csqrt%7Bl%5E2%20%2B%20%5B%5Cfrac%7Bd%7D%7B2%7D%20%5D%5E2%7D)
![L_1 = \sqrt{5^2 + [\frac{4}{2} ]^2}](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=L_1%20%20%3D%20%20%5Csqrt%7B5%5E2%20%2B%20%5B%5Cfrac%7B4%7D%7B2%7D%20%5D%5E2%7D)
Generally the distance of the listener to second speaker at its new position is
![L_2 = \sqrt{l^2 + [\frac{d}{2} ]^2 + k}](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=L_2%20%20%3D%20%20%5Csqrt%7Bl%5E2%20%2B%20%5B%5Cfrac%7Bd%7D%7B2%7D%20%5D%5E2%20%2B%20k%7D)
![L_2 = \sqrt{5^2 + [\frac{4}{2} ]^2 + 0.6}](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=L_2%20%20%3D%20%20%5Csqrt%7B5%5E2%20%2B%20%5B%5Cfrac%7B4%7D%7B2%7D%20%5D%5E2%20%2B%200.6%7D)
Generally the path difference between the speakers is mathematically represented as
Here 
is the wavelength which is mathematically represented as
=> 
=> 
=>
Here n is the order of the maxima with value of n = 1 this because we are considering two adjacent waves
=> 
=>
I have no idea I need the answer too
Answer:
- No, this doesn't mean the electric potential equals zero.
Explanation:
In electrostatics, the electric field 
is related to the gradient of the electric potential V with :
This means that for constant electric potential the electric field must be zero:
This is not the only case in which we would find an zero electric field, as, any scalar field with gradient zero will give an zero electric field. For example:
give an electric field of zero at point (0,0,0)
Before Pluto was discovered, it was predicted. Astronomers had observed that massive objects can affect the orbits of its neighbors, and, after seeing deviations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune, assumed something substantial existed beyond their orbits.
When Pluto was spotted, it was thought to be the predicted object and was identified as a ninth planet.
A few decades later, astronomers started discovering more and more objects around other stars and didn’t know whether to call them planets or not. There appeared to be a need to define what a planet means, and that led to what some people consider Pluto’s demotion to a dwarf planet.
The International Astronomical Union decided that full-sized planets must orbit the sun, have a round shape, and have cleared their orbits of other objects. Pluto fulfills the first two criteria, but not the third.
It still goes around the sun, it’s round enough, it’s got moons, and behaves like a planet, but the idea is that Pluto did not form the same way as the rest of the planets. Pluto’s orbit is both eccentric and inclined more than the rest of the planets by about 17 degrees. That’s suggests something is different about this object.
This debate about whether to call it a planet or not is silly, because it doesn’t matter to Pluto what you call it. It is an interesting object, goes around the sun, and shows geology and an atmosphere.
There’s a tendency to define objects based on what they are now, but nothing is constant in the universe. There are some issues with the nomenclature, and a definition today may not apply to the same object tomorrow.
The distance between two particles that are <em>in phase</em>
