i do not see any problems with swinging an infinitely long stick.
Com'on I actually gave the length
[QUOTE=Craptasket;20511477]
Length mathematically, 1AU is the approx distance from the earth to the sun ~ 1.49 x 10^11 meters. Light takes 8.3 seconds to travel 1AU. 1 Parsec is ~206,264.8 AU.
[/QUOTE]
It takes light from the sun 8 minutes to travel to us...
[QUOTE=Craptasket;20511477]
Next was, since the stick is literally unbend-able, it wouldn't move, so let's take that out, the motion of me swinging would travel at the speed of sound to the material, Iron, 5130 m/s. I will not do the math it takes for motion to travel to the end of the stick. One part of the stick would be in a different alignment to the other part, even if this meant by a thickness of a proton, it would still be considered a bend.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Craptasket;20511580]Motion/energy is being transferred through a medium
aka sound is just that
Motion is also relative, huhrurhr
[B]
[B][/B][/B][/QUOTE]
Sound is not a medium, sound is a "travelling wave which is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas".
If the stick would be unbend-able (and massless), the motion would be transferred instantly. This causes problems like the instant transfer of information and faster than light speeds (swing the stick so that the part that's 1m away from you goes, say, 5m/s. Now, if a part so close to you is going that velocity, the parts really really far away are going at really really high velocities.).
If the stick is able to bend, you can just imagine moving it like you're sending a wave along it. Like if you make a wave in a rope. Now for this wave to travel all the way to the other end of the stick would take ages since your stick is so long.
[QUOTE=haksword;20512702]Can you post the part of relativity which explains this?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=20512501&postcount=23[/url]
Craptasket, what are you actually asking? What's the problem?
The planets would get in your way... Unless you'd cut them in half. Which would be awesome.
Anyway, nothing can be weightless really I think, so that makes your theory null.
[QUOTE=Bathacker;20511819]Use my penis.[/QUOTE]
He said infinately long stick not infinitesimal stick.
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;20512935]He said [B]infinately [/B]long stick not infinitesimal stick.[/QUOTE]
Haha nice one :)
[QUOTE=DiscoPony;20511612]Since matter approaching the speed of light increases in weight (I think?) ...[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn't. Something like a "relativistic mass" does not exist and is a misinterpretation - sadly commonly and widely used by common folks or even teachers :(
The actual problem with this idea here is - how the OP found out - the speed of an action "running through the stick" - Unbendable is simply not possible, because it is non-physical. Once you have you atoms in that stick, they are "glued together" by electromagnetic forces. If you move move one end, this deforms the "electron shells" (to keep it simple) there. This causes the nearby "electron shells" move along the predecessor and so on - The force "travels through the stick" - Or in other words: The stick bends.
[editline]04:31PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=evilking1;20512012]Well if it's indefinitely long, it will go around the universe, and eventually will come back where it was.[/QUOTE]
Just for a spherical curved universe (in general relativity) - One that has a big bang and big crunch (collapses).
[editline]04:33PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fijgum;20512105]It would take you millions of years to move the stick that's pointing to the next galaxy.[/QUOTE]
This is not a problem - It is possible (in millions of years though). So it's no limitation for his thought experiment.
[QUOTE=Fijgum;20512105]Despite the fact that you couldn't move it at all because of the mass inertia.[/quote]
Just for infinite inertia. Since he said "let it be out of a hypothetical material with all over making this stick weight 1 pound", inertia is small and not infinite.
[QUOTE=Fijgum;20512105]If mass inertia wouldn't exist for the stick you'd move the tip millions times faster than light which would make the tip go backwards in time[/quote]
No, it wouldn't. Inertia is not the cause of this limit and making something move faster than light which has a real mass is not possible.
[editline]04:37PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=haksword;20512245]I've made a similar theory to this:
Lets say you have a cannon that can launch cannon balls at the speed of light.
You also have a cart on a track capable of moving things at 30 Miles Per Hour.
You attach the cannon to the cart with the front of the cannon pointing in the same direction as the cart will travel.
You then set the cart to move at 30mph and fire the cannon.
The result is 671,000,000 (Approximate speed of light in Miles per Hour) + 30 (for the cannon) = :psyboom:[/QUOTE]
You can't apply Galilean Velocity addition (which is only valid for low velocities) on relativistic topics. You need to use Special Relativity in your case (which also forbids you to shoot your cannonball at the speed of light).
[QUOTE=EcksDee;20512795]It takes light from the sun 8 minutes to travel to us...[/QUOTE]
oops
[QUOTE=Fijgum;20512293]I thought of an airplane that is moving with lightspeed.
What if you have a light pointing in the direction of movement, you wouldn't have any light coming out of OR you'd have light traveling at 2 times the speed of light.
Or if you have a light on the wings, from the cockpit you wouldn't see anything behind you.[/QUOTE]
No. To clarify this (all cases in vacuum):
[list]
[*]Everything with a [b]real[/b] mass can [b]not[/b] travel [b]at or faster[/b] than the speed of light
[*]Everything with [b]no[/b] mass [b]has[/b] to travel [b]at[/b] the speed of light
[*]Everything with an [b]imaginary[/b] mass can [b]not[/b] travel [b]at or slower[/b] than the speed of light
[*]Galilean Velocitiy Addition like "a + b = c" is not valid at these high speeds. - You [b]need[/b] Special Relativity there.
[*]Special Relativity [b]includes[/b] "Galilean Velocity Addition" (a + b = c) at low speeds.
[*][b]Primary Postulate of Special Relativity[/b]: Every physical experiment (or in general: [u]Physics[/u]) [u]has to work the same, no matter how fast you are moving[/u] relatively to someone else. So if you measure the speed of light (as an experiment) while you travel at 90% the speed of light to someone else you get the same result as if you won't travel. As consequence, this means you have time- and space-dilatation to relative frames of references and can't add velocities like "a + b = c".
[/list]
Especially the last statement is important. This is why and how Special Relativity came up. It is a totally valid statement (why should Physics work differently, if you move?).
Just understand this and accept your ideas to "outsmart Einstein" with these "plane at speed of light shooting light"-ideas are bullshit.
[editline]04:52PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kybalt;20512680]You're a bit late, the theory of relativity explained this in like 1914 or someshit.[/QUOTE]
1905 - Special Relativity.
[QUOTE=aVoN;20512961]
The actual problem with this idea here is - how the OP found out - the speed of an action "running through the stick"
[/QUOTE]
Did I nail something or was off? clarify a bit
[QUOTE=Block;20512812]
Craptasket, what are you actually asking? What's the problem?[/QUOTE]
No real problem, read the bottom of the OP (not the very bottom)
[QUOTE=evilking1;20512724]e=mc^2[/QUOTE]
What has the energy of a particle at rest to do with the discussion here?
[editline]04:56PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Craptasket;20513168]Did I nail something or was off? clarify a bit[/QUOTE]
Here
[Quote=Craptasket]Next was, since the stick is literally unbend-able, it wouldn't move, so let's take that out, the motion of me swinging would travel at the speed of sound to the material, Iron, 5130 m/s. I will not do the math it takes for motion to travel to the end of the stick. One part of the stick would be in a different alignment to the other part, even if this meant by a thickness of a proton, it would still be considered a bend. [/quote]
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;20512935]He said infinately long stick not infinitesimal stick.[/QUOTE] (As reply to a "take my penis"-post)
I'd say: Nice outsmarted :)
My stick is infinitely long :smug: :v:
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;20513210][IMG_thumb]http://i49.tinypic.com/2vx25j7.jpg[/IMG_thumb]
Zenreon's Paradox[/QUOTE]
That's why we have arcminutes and arcseconds. And then you can just use decimals.
[QUOTE=orbitrek;20513632]My stick is infinitely long :smug: :v:[/QUOTE]
I'd like you [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=20512935&postcount=36]to read this[/url] :)
That's what she said. :buddy:
[editline]11:48AM[/editline]
The thread title I mean.
I think if a cart was going 30 MPH and carrying a cannon that fires cannonballs in the speed of light the resulting speed would be. 30 MPH - Speed of light.
Thats 30 MPH slower than the speed of light
[QUOTE=PjaNoo^;20515222]I think if a cart was going 30 MPH and carrying a cannon that fires cannonballs in the speed of light the resulting speed would be. 30 MPH - Speed of light.
Thats 30 MPH slower than the speed of light[/QUOTE]
Read up this: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=20513115&postcount=40[/url]
fUCK
[editline]09:02PM[/editline]
By the way, good post. It actually made sense to me.
Physicist'd.
No.
[QUOTE=Craptasket;20511477]
the end of the stick.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Title]Problems swinging an [b]infinitely[/b] long stick[/quote]
1. This:
[QUOTE=aVoN;20512961]
The actual problem with this idea here is - how the OP found out - the speed of an action "running through the stick" - Unbendable is simply not possible, because it is non-physical. Or in other words: The stick bends.
[/QUOTE]
2. You're trying to outsmart every significant physicist in the basic premises of their theories. Good luck with that.
[QUOTE=Fijgum;20512105]It would take you millions of years to move the stick that's pointing to the next galaxy.
Despite the fact that you couldn't move it at all because of the mass inertia.
If mass inertia wouldn't exist for the stick you'd move the tip millions times faster than light which would make the tip go backwards in time, maybe even before the universe existed (don't know how fast you travel in the past at what speeds)
So you'd have a stick with one end existing now and the other end existing before matter existed.
[editline]03:06PM[/editline]
I shall now look at the mathematics[/QUOTE]
Fuck me, my brain nearly imploded.
If said Stick went back to the beginning of matter, would it still exist in that no matter state, and gain mass when the big bang happened? Would this mean if you swung it in the right spot, it could be seen in our sky?
So as you're swinging it, it would be appearing in front of your eyes? :psyboom:
theoretically i can do what i want because its all IN MY HEAD
[editline]08:19PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=PjaNoo^;20515222]I think if a cart was going 30 MPH and carrying a cannon that fires cannonballs in the speed of light the resulting speed would be. 30 MPH - Speed of light.
Thats 30 MPH slower than the speed of light[/QUOTE]
actually its 30mph faster than the inverse speed of light
The faster you move the slower time goes.
Fotons (light) stand completely still in time relative to our perspective.
The far point of the stick would move so fast that it slows down in time relative to the person swinging the stick.
It would take an infinite ammount of energy to swing it close to lightspeed.
Now if this stick would be weightless this would be no problem and the stick could be swung at lightspeed.
[QUOTE=Fijgum;20512105]It would take you millions of years to move the stick that's pointing to the next galaxy.
Despite the fact that you couldn't move it at all because of the mass inertia.
If mass inertia wouldn't exist for the stick you'd move the tip millions times faster than light which would make the tip go backwards in time, maybe even before the universe existed (don't know how fast you travel in the past at what speeds)
So you'd have a stick with one end existing now and the other end existing before matter existed.
[editline]03:06PM[/editline]
I shall now look at the mathematics[/QUOTE]
Things moving really fast do not go back in time.
For example a photon has no mass and a duration of 0 seconds.
It only has mass and energy while its moving.
It is also stuck in time until it hits something.
(a photon that was released 8.3 minutes ago from the sun will arive on eart at the same time as it was released if you look at it from the photons perspective)
[QUOTE=ZombieWaffle;20565156][QUOTE=Craptasket;20511477]
the end of the stick.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Title]Problems swinging an [b]infinitely[/b] long stick[/quote][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Craptasket;20511477]
Let's say you have a Infinitely long stick, not really, let's say about a [b]few hundred Parsecs in length[/b]
smoke weeEEEd[/QUOTE]
:fyadride:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.