Thank you for registering.

One of our academic counsellors will contact you within 1 working day.

Please check your email for login details.
MY CART (5)

Use Coupon: CART20 and get 20% off on all online Study Material

ITEM
DETAILS
MRP
DISCOUNT
FINAL PRICE
Total Price: Rs.

There are no items in this cart.
Continue Shopping

The Galilean velocity transformation, Eq. 4-32, is so instinctively familiar from everyday experience that it is sometimes claimed to be "obviously correct, requiring no proof." Many so-called refutations of relativity theory turn out to be based on this claim. How would you refute someone who made this claim?

The Galilean velocity transformation, Eq. 4-32, is so instinctively familiar from everyday experience that it is sometimes claimed to be "obviously correct, requiring no proof." Many so-called refutations of relativity theory turn out to be based on this claim. How would you refute someone who made this claim?

Grade:upto college level

1 Answers

Navjyot Kalra
askIITians Faculty 654 Points
6 years ago
The figure below shows the velocity vectors of the bus and the raindrops. It is assumed that the raindrops fall at an angle θ with respect to the vertical direction.
232-1407_1.PNG
To the driver of the bus, the raindrops not only have the vertical velocity component but also a horizontal component, in a direction opposite to the direction of velocity vector of the bus. Therefore, the raindrops will appear to move in a direction at an angle θ relative to the vertical and given by:
232-804_1.PNG
It is important to note that θ is also the angle between the velocity vector of raindrops from the reference frame of the driver in bus and the velocity vector from the reference frame of the person on ground.

Think You Can Provide A Better Answer ?

Provide a better Answer & Earn Cool Goodies See our forum point policy

ASK QUESTION

Get your questions answered by the expert for free