if answer is morning then how the object at longer distance will give lot of heat than it is at closer one.\n\nif answer is noon then how the object at longer distance will been seen larger than the closer one.
125439
The person whose local time is noon, but the sun is only closer by one earth radius -- 6400 km.  Compared with the distance to the sun -- 150,000,000 km -- this is a very tiny bit closer.\n\nThe sun appears larger to the person viewing it at sunrise and sunset because of atmospheric refraction.  You are looking through much more atmosphere when you view the sun near the horizon, and all that additional air acts as a lens to magnify the sun's image.  If we had no atmosphere, the sun would appear the same size at all times (assuming anyone would still be here to see it).
414296
it might be from the sun
122602
Every object that has a temperature above absolute zero emits  radiation.  When the radiation comes from a hot object, like the sun, it shows up as visible light or ultraviolet light.  When the radiation comes from a (relatively) cool object, like the earth, the radiation shows up as infrared light (or heat, as we also call it).\n\nThe infrared satellite measures the infrared radiation (that is, the temperature) of what it "sees", which could be the temperature of the cloud tops or, if the sky is clear, the temperature of the ground or sea.\n\nOn infrared satellite images, different temperatures are represented by different colors or different shades of gray.\n\nInfrared satellite images are very useful.  Unlike visible satellite images (that are essentially regular photographs, which means they depend on daylight), they are useful during both day and night!
551349
310 times faster\n\nif A is going 10mph, and B is going 5mph, the 10/5=2 or twice as fast. so 9.3X10^10 / 3.0X10^8 = 310 times faster.\n\nbut nothing can't go faster than 3X10^8m/s!!!! The normal speed of light means it's going though a vacum (nothing), so if it's going though a gas, it will slow down!! Not speed up! Since the energy will hit atoms and slow down. \n\nIf an object is going 3E8 (short way of 3X10^8m/s) releative to the ground and an object passes it at 3E8, then the object passing the first objects speed was 3E8 releative to the ground... so both were going the same speed, even if some was twice as fast as it!
634103
mirage. \nair in contact with the hot road is less dense. the light coming from above (denser/cooler air) gets reflected. As a result a 'mirror' is formed on the road n u c reflection of sky on the road. this looks like water.
517631
F=GMm/r^2. The M and m stay the same, but r changes. Which one gives the smaller r (and hence the larger force)? If you assume a circular orbit, then the answer is clearly noon today. However, the orbit is not a circle, it is an ellipse. There are certainly days when you are closer at midnight than at noon the previous day, but if that happens, the earth is getting closer to the sun in its orbit. Today, however, the earth is actually moving away from the sun, so noon is still the correct answer. In May, the answer would be midnight.
216063
The number of visible stars is the same whether it is overcast or not.  The question is whether we can see them from our particular vantage point.\n\nAnyways...\n\n\nIf the relative humidity is very high, then there is an excess of moisture in the air that particulate can stick to.\n\nLogic says yes, it would make it harder to see the stars.\nFOr instance, if you look toward the horizon, there is so much atmosphere that the views from this angle would be limited in quality.\n\nBut maybe on a clear night with high relative humitidy, looking straight up wouldn't effect the view too much.  Good question.  Another thought is, after it rains really good, and the clouds clear, the humidity would be high but particulate in the air at a minimum for a short while.  SO, maybe the viewing would be better at that point.
328506
For distant galaxies, the speed that they are moving away from us increases with increasing distance. The speed is detected through the red shift of the light that comes from these galaxies. If something is moving away from you, the light from that object will be shifted toward thr red end of the spectrum (towards lower energies) and the degree of shift is related to how fast that object is moving. This is a very different effect than the reddening caused by interstellar dust (which just removes the higher energy light, but does not shift the frequencies).\n\nAnyway, Hubble found that the farther a galaxy is, the more the red shift. This is exactly what was predicted from general relativity as applied to the universe as a whole. It is also important to note that *every* place in the universe would see a similar relation between distance from them and speed of expansion.
409886
Only if E=MC^2\n\n... it follows that if there is a change in the rest-energy of a body, there must be a corresponding change in its rest-mass. For example, if a body is heated, and thereby absorbs a small amount of energy ΔE (as measured in the frame of reference in which the body is at rest), its rest-mass will increase by a very small amount equal to ΔE/c2. This increase is tiny because of the high numerical value of the speed of light. Indeed, for mid-sized objects, such an increase in mass would be too small to measure with even the most accurate balance. For example, if a 1 kg block of gold is heated so that its temperature increases by 10 °C, then, ceteris paribus, its mass would increase by as much as 1.4 × 10-14 kg; a cube of gold of this additional tiny mass would have sides smaller than one one-thousandths of a millimeter. Similarly, if a body emits an amount of energy ΔE, say in the form of light or heat, its rest-mass will decrease by a tiny amount ΔE/c2. In both cases, the important and novel claim made by SR is that the inertial mass of a body can change depending on whether it absorbs or emits energy. This is true, of course, not just for isolated mid-sized objects but for any physical system.
288329
You misunderstand the process going on.  The car isn't absorbing convective heat from the surrounding air.  It's absorbing radiant heat from the sun.  It gets so hot because the closed car acts as a greenhouse containing the heat.  Also, a close car is pretty well insulated so it can't lose the heat very well through convection.
173651
It has to do with refraction due to different densities of air-in cooler climates, there tends to be much warmer air near the surface, with colder air in higher altitudes, plus the colder air is much more dense, so acts like a magnifying lense- The very largest moon-views are always seen close to the horizon because of this.
236767
If the mirror is perfect, it would reflect all the energy. How ever, if the frequency of the laser matches one of the excitation radiations of the material then their ill be absorption hence burn thru. \n\nAbove a re two extreme cases . Reality there would be some absorption depending on the material and the finish. Burn thru would occur when the rate of absorption, which depends on the absorption constant and the intensity, exceed the rate of heat dissipation and the temperature rises high enough for fusing and eventual burning. So higher the absorption the burn through will occur at a lower intensity.\n\nIn short better the mirror higher the intensity it would stand
214689
temperature will rise depending on starting temperature, albedo(reflectivity), density, and probably lots of other factors, so there is no set answer.
509386
Light has different frequencies. The higher the frequency the more particle there are in that light spectrum. Purple is the highest visible spectrum and red is the lowest. So because more light particles hit an object in the blue spectrum than the red spectrum the blue spectrum will generate more heat.
676767
Higher temp = faster diffusion. Higher temps give the atoms more heat, which is basically a faster rate of the atoms vibrating. If they move around faster, they'll obviously diffuse farther in the same amount of time. Next time, do your own homework
8816
You're right, it is due to the speed they are traveling.  Velocity distorts time by the factor: t'=t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where t' is the time that passes for a stationary observer, t is the time that passes for the object moving at the high velocities, c is the speed of light, and v is the velocity the object is moving.  \n\nThis effect is basically negligable unless the object is moving close to the speed of light, but the orbiting satellite is moving pretty fast for a very long time, and so even though it's traveling at a very small velocity relative to the speed of light, it still builds up a little and creates a small distortion of time that is barely noticeable.  For example, let's say the satellite is traveling at 8,000 m/s for 5 years.  if you do the math, there are 157680000 seconds in 5 years.  The speed of light is 299792458m/s.  Now lets see how much this effects time.   That number will be t', since it's how much time passes on earth for 5 years.  Now let's see about on the satellite:\n157680000=t/sqrt(1-(8000^2/299792458^2)  solving for t, (must have fancy calculator with a LOT of places) we get t= 157679999.88772s  subtracting this from the original time, the clock is behind by .11228 of a second.  \n\nTime moved slower for the satellite, but since the velocity is so small compared to the speed of light, the amount that is different is so insignificant, that you wouldn't be able to see the difference through a telescope.  However, they want the clocks to be perfectly calibrated and exact, so they do that to make up for this small effect because it would build up more and more as time went on, and the faster the satellite is moving, the more time is distorted.
3138
Close.  I would say it's because the photons from the object hit a smaller area of the cornea.  If you think of the surface of the cornea as a screen onto which the world in front of the viewer is projected through a lens, as an object is moved away the angle between its top and bottom gets smaller and so the relative size of the object in that projection gets smaller.