Open study

is now brainly

With Brainly you can:

  • Get homework help from millions of students and moderators
  • Learn how to solve problems with step-by-step explanations
  • Share your knowledge and earn points by helping other students
  • Learn anywhere, anytime with the Brainly app!

A community for students.

Hyperbolic functions and Theory of Relativity.

Physics
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Join Brainly to access

this expert answer

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

To see the expert answer you'll need to create a free account at Brainly

As some experiences from scientists the light has maximum speed about 3*10^8m/s even though if two lights move against to each other
|dw:1338767458787:dw|
|dw:1338767523339:dw|

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

Collision?
no not collision but not different you can suppose that they strike together .
But important problem is that why the relativity speed not 2C and it is just C !!
Did you get it? compare lights with other movement.
That's where I'm puzzle ?!?
moving
Einstein was a first to solve this problem with his theory is called Theory of Relativity
He's well known by it !
And he shows that light move in the own coordinate.
|dw:1338768308222:dw|
|dw:1338768367243:dw|
Talk about rotation, I'm not a fan of rotation of axis :(
the rotation formula in above does not work for light!!!
|dw:1338768505376:dw|
|dw:1338768588960:dw|
Oh, I see!
I showed that two rotation of unique vectors (1,0) and (0,1)
|dw:1338768774136:dw|
|dw:1338768856281:dw|
but light does not obey from this reality !!
do you know anything about hyperbolic function? Coshx SinhX
|dw:1338769106783:dw|
|dw:1338769145066:dw|
|dw:1338769201119:dw|
Honestly, the formula you showing here is what I've read from the book, that's all !!!
finally light rotation formula has hyperbolic functions instead trigonometric
|dw:1338769358909:dw|
it makes some new concepts for light you can never believe those but they are all correct
Because hyperbolic involving with omega element!
no because hyperbolic functions have no limited range like sinx ,cosx
|dw:1338769575369:dw|
That's new concept to my understanding =)
|dw:1338769611999:dw|
Yep, taking notes now!
Do you mind solving a problem about find the parabola rotation?
*finding
x² - 3xy + 4y² +2x - y + 5 = 0
How do I eliminate the term xy to recognize its type of graph?
I have an own way for this problem. it is so easy and cover whole of them.
I'm trying to work on the axis rotation formula, but just half way :(
we can't rely on the coefficient of x² and y²?
:)
This is literally the most confusing thread I've ever read. The answer the initial question is that in relativity, velocities don't add like that. The relativistic velocity addition law is \[v_{rel} = \frac{v_1+v_2}{1+\frac{v_1 \cdot v_2}{c^2}} \] at small velocities, this is approximately \[v_{rel} \approx v_1 + v_2\] which is what we use in everyday life.
ok and if v1=v2=c then vr=(c+c)/2=c so I just want to show that why.
Ok.for prepare i am going to answer your last question.
I'm on it!
y' = x sinh (theta) + y cosh (theta)
That conclusion seems to have been drawn COMPLETELY out of thin air. Your rationale appears to have something to do with spatial rotations and hyperbolic functions which by some wayward tangent could I suppose be related to Lorentz boosts and rotations and the addition of rapidity rather than classical velocity but it is only through the most indirect channels that I could draw that conclusion, and if I knew nothing of relativity this would be meaningless!
I already know relativity. I'm just making the point that unless somebody was already well versed in relativity beyond the undergraduate level this would be completely meaningless, and even if they were this would only indirectly and momentarily flirt with coherence.
if you would like to know how the Laurence formula are made from hyperbolic functions go and watch a lecture in Stanford modern physic in youtube in this site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAurgxtOdxY
Like @Jemurray3, I am completely unsure where this thread is going and almost uncertain where it began. As such, Je has acquired the best answer from me.
It began just for a individual person as an introduction not an academic lecture so I offered to jemurray3 a site for that.
If somebody asked you to explain basic mechanics to them, would you start ranting about Lagrangians and chaotic dynamics in phase space, or would you talk about bouncing basketballs and blocks on inclines?
I found out this way for a person who know rotation is better.so if you have any suggestion I would like to hear from you.

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question