A hypothetical physics conundrum (You are required to think to enter this thread)
79 replies, posted
[QUOTE=chaoss1986;28996242]Imagen this, you are in a very large ship that is traveling at 99% the speed of light, on this ship you have a suit that enables you to run 2% of the speed of light, you have now broken the light speed barrier, go fuyck yourself physics![/QUOTE]
Nope, what about time dilation? That'll slow you down inside the ship relative to the outside.
If it has its own space and there is nothing else there, you can't really even say that it spins since there's nothing to compare to.
[QUOTE=chaoss1986;28996242]Imagen this, you are in a very large ship that is traveling at 99% the speed of light, on this ship you have a suit that enables you to run 2% of the speed of light, you have now broken the light speed barrier, go fuyck yourself physics![/QUOTE]
Velocities don't add like they do at low speeds when you're traveling near the speed of light. The maximum speed limit for added velocities is still the speed of light.
everything is faster the speed of light already, anyways. What's the issue?! :saddowns:
what if hypothetically, gravity would reverse itself, so stuff would fall up, lol, then we would have to hold to grass not to fall into the sky
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;28997717]what if hypothetically, gravity would reverse itself, so stuff would fall up, lol, then we would have to hold to grass not to fall into the sky[/QUOTE]
How would grass still be there then?
man i just blew my own fucking mind
[editline]5th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=thf;28997733]How would grass still be there then?[/QUOTE]
i dont know man
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;28997737]man i just blew my own fucking mind
[editline]5th April 2011[/editline]
i dont know man[/QUOTE]
Shit man now that really is a mind blowing thing to consider
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;28997717]what if hypothetically, gravity would reverse itself, so stuff would fall up, lol, then we would have to hold to grass not to fall into the sky[/QUOTE]
imagine if all forces suddenly reversed.
blammo.
[QUOTE=Contag;29001105]imagine if all forces suddenly reversed.
blammo.[/QUOTE]
but gravity's not a force
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29001397]but gravity's not a force[/QUOTE]
we don't know that yet
Einstein's postulate states that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference when observed.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;29002107]we don't know that yet[/QUOTE]
Yes we do, insofar as we're pretty sure general relativity is correct. A reference frame with only gravity acting on it is inertial, so gravity is a fictitious force.
[editline]5th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rexen;29002286]Einstein's postulate states that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference when observed, and it is invariant.[/QUOTE]
Well, that's half of the postulates for special relativity, the other being that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames.
[editline]5th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=aVoN;28985988]Even for a perfect rigid rod the limitations concerning the angular momentum stays so outer velocity will never reach the speed of light.[/QUOTE]
Even a perfectly rigid rod would violate relativity, though, because it would allow you to transfer information from one end to the other faster than light.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29001397]but gravity's not a force[/QUOTE]
Not yet a quantized one but behaves like a force. Let's just hope equivalence principle will keep standing in the near future (so far it does).
[editline]5th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29002324]Even a perfectly rigid rod would violate relativity, though, because it would allow you to transfer information from one end to the other faster than light.[/QUOTE]
Yes, of course it would. But even if you'd ignore that fact, the final limitation would have been the relativistic angular momentum. Either ways are a good explanation why this idea does not work.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28977924]The movement of the bar propagates as a phonon. It can't travel at or faster than the speed of light. Once the center of the bar starts moving, it still takes time for this movement to spread out to the edges, and no place along the bar will be traveling at or above the speed of light.[/QUOTE]
e A rigid body. Oh golly, first year of a degree in physics, the worst approximations you'll ever hear.
[QUOTE=Jimjim32;29005697]e A rigid body. Oh golly, first year of a degree in physics, the worst approximations you'll ever hear.[/QUOTE]
Pi = 1 is a much more horrifying approximation. (And it is actually used.)
Woah man what if fish had legs?
Trrriiiippppppyyyy
[QUOTE=aVoN;28995991]You have to take lorentz contraction into account for both packets so the density has to change. I was wrong (it was too early in the morning and I hadn't breakfast at this point).
Density changes by [img_thumb]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?\rho = \rho_0 \gamma^2[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
Do density actually DOES change at relativistic speeds? Or is it only in certain circumstances?
[QUOTE=sltungle;29006861]Do density actually DOES change at relativistic speeds? Or is it only in certain circumstances?[/QUOTE]
It does change under the circumstances when a resting observer observes the moving object.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.