Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< March 28 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 30 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
I'm looking for an interactive map showing the path of totality of the Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024 and current weather conditions. I live near Chicago so I'm primarily interested in the weather for Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. I've found plenty of maps showing the path of totality and plenty of maps showing the probability of clouds based on historic data, but I have not yet found a map showing the path of totality and current weather conditions. To put it another way, if today was the eclipse, where can I find a map showing the path of totality and today's weather forecast? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I see that in our solar system (according to this article, about 0.4% of mass is in carbon. What would be the upper bound for that percentage in a hypothetical planetary system? Perhaps one derived from the death of a carbon star? -- Avocado ( talk) 16:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The Lorentz transform is given as:
since y' and z' do not change, focusing on just the t' and x':
My question is, if we already know the time parameter t will transform as:
then why can we not utilize the already transformed t' parameter and take a shortcut directly in the target reference frame by simply multiplying the transformed time t' by -v (the velocity has a negative sign because, to the primed/target reference frame, the unprimed/original reference frame is moving in the opposite direction with same speed v, hence velocity is -v) to get the transformed x' in the target reference frame, as follows?:
However, doing so results in a wrong transformation for x'. But I am wondering what the reason for this is, is it because of a failure to take into consideration length contraction aspect in addition to the time dilation when dealing with the spatial parameter x'?
Many thanks for clarification. L33th4x0r ( talk) 19:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Electromagnetic radiation reflected on a mirror communicates part of its energy to it in kinetic form. What is the difference between the original ray and the reflected ray? its frequency decreases? Malypaet ( talk) 23:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< March 28 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 30 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
I'm looking for an interactive map showing the path of totality of the Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024 and current weather conditions. I live near Chicago so I'm primarily interested in the weather for Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. I've found plenty of maps showing the path of totality and plenty of maps showing the probability of clouds based on historic data, but I have not yet found a map showing the path of totality and current weather conditions. To put it another way, if today was the eclipse, where can I find a map showing the path of totality and today's weather forecast? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I see that in our solar system (according to this article, about 0.4% of mass is in carbon. What would be the upper bound for that percentage in a hypothetical planetary system? Perhaps one derived from the death of a carbon star? -- Avocado ( talk) 16:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The Lorentz transform is given as:
since y' and z' do not change, focusing on just the t' and x':
My question is, if we already know the time parameter t will transform as:
then why can we not utilize the already transformed t' parameter and take a shortcut directly in the target reference frame by simply multiplying the transformed time t' by -v (the velocity has a negative sign because, to the primed/target reference frame, the unprimed/original reference frame is moving in the opposite direction with same speed v, hence velocity is -v) to get the transformed x' in the target reference frame, as follows?:
However, doing so results in a wrong transformation for x'. But I am wondering what the reason for this is, is it because of a failure to take into consideration length contraction aspect in addition to the time dilation when dealing with the spatial parameter x'?
Many thanks for clarification. L33th4x0r ( talk) 19:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Electromagnetic radiation reflected on a mirror communicates part of its energy to it in kinetic form. What is the difference between the original ray and the reflected ray? its frequency decreases? Malypaet ( talk) 23:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)