apurvmj

I'm so lucky to be normal by including myself in group of 98% , btw I have fish everyday.

As per wikipedia In physics (especially astrophysics), redshift happens when light seen coming from an object that is moving away is proportionally increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. As per #Purephysics its effect of frequancy. If wavelenght of light wave increaces to maintain the speed its frequancy should decrease. But if frequacy changes so does the properties of EM waves. can we say red light will become infra red when we move away from red light source? correct me wherever I'm wrong. When will time dialation come in to play? Does it have any effect on frequancy as its time function. For me understanding Doppler effect with sound frequancies is easy, as they are pressure waves, but its difficult with "super natural kind " light waves. Hope you all understand my position.

As speed of light is same always,will some one pls explain special relativity & red shift of light (Doppler effect).

I guess if you are not allowing object to free fall then again you are doing positive work. like when we step down through staircase we do work and it needs energy.

Hello everyone, lets say we have a object of mass 1 Kg kept on a table it will have energy at rest & potential energy. If I lift it to 1m up and kept it to same location back, object will have same energy. Can we say all energy is used in motion of object. Where that energy go? is it wasted/used? or converted to other form? Hope I have made myself clear.

I concluded that this all mess started due to fact that photon has momentum but no mass at rest. Strange fellow. Ya it should gain some weight, Mr. Photon pls have some healthy food. you are driving whole world crazy.

While searching for derivation for E= mc2 I come across this http://www.adamauton.com/warp/emc2.html firstly it was 'thought experiment' if this is to be believed 'm' in this equation is assumed mass of photon which supposed to be zero. and we all know that zero cant be cancelled from either sides of equation, its not valid. its like proving 1 = 2. correct me if I'm wrong, coz my small head is spinning.

I know that the because of distance between sun & earth, light takes aprox. 8 min. but its just a formula based calculation, cause we never (I guess) conducted any experiment to do that. # space stuff, I don't want to make complecated but its Einstein who is responsibbl,e I was very much happy with Newton's theory. #md65536, as far as I know object aproching speed of light its own length decreases not the path length. My one more question is when say any object (other than photon) travelling at 50% of speed of light then time frame for that object is slower by 50% but then for fixed length doesn't that object experience an ( may be psuedo) accelaration?

As stated in theory of relativity, as the speed of any object inceases its relative time decreases. Is it not applicaple to light it self. At its very own speed light's relative time should be zero and it should reach earth for that matter instantly. your view pls

But I'm curious to compare that for different kind of materials, keeping some parameters same like volume & pressure, how much energy they hold. I can find it for air as pressure * volume = 106 * 1 = 1000000 J (10 kg/cm2 = 106 N/m2) But how can I find the energy hold by water of 1 m3 at 10 kg/cm2 .

correct me if I'm wrong for my 'example' part, I got one formula for gases energy= pressure*volume. Is same applicable for liquids? I'm keen to know that does water & air of same volume & same pressure hold the same energy?

Hi all, It is said that liquids are mostly non compressible & gases are compressible. Could some one pls explain, do both require same energy to have same pressure? For example how much energy it requires to compress air of 1 m3 to 10 kg/cm2 & water of 1 m3 to same10 kg/cm2 Thanks.

How can we explain +ve charge in AC or DC generator? Coz in magnetic field only electron that moves. Also in lightening strike, as heavily -vely charged clouds discharges to neutral ground. Ground is not +vely charged I guess. Pls correct me if I'm wrong.

Hi all, I'm having a small question about current flow direction indication in circuit diagrams. Its shown as current flow from +ve pole to -ve pole, but -ve pole has higher electron concentration (potential) & electrons flow from -ve to +ve. Whats the logic of showing the direction of current flowing in opposite way. Hope I have made myself clear. Waiting for reply. Thanks.

Myself Apurv (male) from Mumbai, India an civil engineer by profession. I'm a knowledge seeker & athiest by belief. I love trekking, watching animated, comedy & science fiction movies. Thats me in short