Two large parallel metal plates are 1.3 cm apart and have charges of equal magnitude but opposite signs on their facing surfaces. Take the potential of the negative plate to be zero. If the potential halfway between the plates is then 7.2 V, what is the electric field in the region between the plates

most voltage drop calculators want the distance between the source and destination. then internally, they double it so both the source and return wires are calculated. but you need to know which distance the calculator uses so you're not half of what you should be or double what you should be.

most circuit breakers will not take a #6 directly, so the electrician will have to splice on a smaller pigtail. you also have to upsize the grounding wire when you upsized the ungrounded (hot) wire (see note in 250.122). this will preclude using most cable assemblies, as a cable with #6 copper will most likely only have a #10 grounding conductor. you need a #6 grounding conductor if the circuit is 20a. a #8 cable is no better, as it will have a #10 grounding conductor too. but most 20a breakers will take a #8 directly.

in your related post, you didn't say what type of load this is. if it is a light or heater, voltage drop won't be a big issue. if this is a motor, the current needs are huge at startup and the voltage drop can pose a problem. if this is a motor, knowing if the motor is under much load during startup will answer the voltage drop effect (a saw is easier to start than a compressor).

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:

i am pretty sure it is c because when people are closer together, they cannot move as freely. picture being in a mostly full elevator, for instance. the people are right next to you, and you can barely move.

attach the statements so i can answer : )