/sci/ - Science & Math

c

>>6962688
But doesn't mass have some effect? Are all objects attracted to each other at the same speed?

>>6962691
c, c and c its all c.

>>6962694
>being a 12 yo troll

>>6962683

Not C. Because magnetism is electrons. Electrons have mass and therefore cannot move at C.

c*0.999...

>>6962819

Stop posting.

>>6962819
No, that would violate special relativity. If magnetism traveled slower than c, you could send infoation back in time.

>>6962819
>magnetism is electrons
LOL
fuck you >>>/sci/. you are just a bunch of children

>>6962824
so c

The speed with which magnetic fields permeate space is the speed of light, but the speed with which objects travel through the field is subject to all the usual factors

>>6962838
"Approximately c" isn't "c".
And it's the speed of the "magnetic field", not "the speed of magnetism". What a stupid question...

what a bunch of faggots! Damn... How is High school?

>>6962854
>c*0.999...
>Approximately c

>>6962855
>implying over 95% of the speed of light isn't approximately c
Do you have any idea of how hard it is to get something so close to the speed of light?

>>6962866
>Do you have any idea of how hard it is to get something so close to the speed of light?

Definitely not harder than prevent stupid people form posting here.

>>6962866
0.999... = 1
c*0.999... IS EXACTLY c

>>6962882
no, it's not.
works for small numbers, not for c.

>>6962887
>works for small numbers, not for c.

Explain yourself.

>>6962889
>Explain yourself.

I'm a moron.

>>6962894
>pretending to be me
Go fuck yourself.

Have a nice day.

>>6962889
If you take 99% of a small number it's just the same number.
But if you take 99% of a huge number the difference is significative.
Hence approximately.

>>6962882
>>6962887
>>6962889
got damn it guys

>>6962978
0.999... is not the 99%. Also, the relative difference is the same for small or big numbers (small or big in relation to what?).

>>6962996
OP's mom

>>6962978
it's not 99% you mongoloid... it's 99.999999...% = 100%

>>6963026
>>6962996
>falling for b8 that is this obvious and retarded

Ignore these kinda posts don't shit up the board

>>6962851
>The speed with which magnetic fields permeate space is the speed of light, but the speed with which objects travel through the field is subject to all the usual factors

is there a dependence on properties of the materials through which the field permeates?

If not, why is the speed of light dependent on the material?

>>6962851
This

Magnetism is a field. Speed of light in vacuum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeeNSFIajsI

>>6963072
Yes, light is an electromagnetic field. Magnetic and electric fields are subject to exactly the same factors as light.

Most firearm bullets utilize lead, not any ferrous material...

Replace "k" with the speed of light.

>>6963072
>why is speed of light dependent on the material?

It is only really in the macro scale. Microscopically, it moves at c. But the light is absorbed by the material and emitted with the same frequency, introducing a slight delay with each interaction. A material can also increase the effective path length of light as it travels through the material "slowing" it compared to the straight line traversal.

(For example, if you look at a particle model of a high energy photon traversing a material, it will appear to ricochet through the material)

>>6963195
Then use a lead magnet and not a ferrous one. Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that out.

>>6962832
>Implying information isn't sent back in time.

The 1970s called and they want their theories back.

>>6963403
>>6963195
Regular magnets can deflect lead. All materials have some susceptibility to external magnetic fields. It is just that you need a much stronger field to deflect something that is not ferromagnetic.

>>6963405
It isn't.

>>6962854
You're a damn idiot if you think an approximation of that degree of accuracy is anything but correct.
lrn2science

this board is fucking shit

all of you are literal retards.

>>6963464
You mad, bro?

>>6962990
I am so tempted to do a proper illustration for that pic. It looks so fucking horrible.

>>6963881
except .999=!1 because 1 - .9999 = d and if d=0 then deriving leads to division by zero and integrating will return zero for any domain.

>>6962691
electrodynamics will define a force between two objects, then that force will then accelerate the mass of that particle in the applied direction.

>>6963976
Derivative of a constant is a constant. In this case zero. There is no problem.

OP I have developed a most elegant identity to help you visualize your question.

>>6962683
5

>>6964056
Did you miss the post where this was shown?

>>6962882

That 300,000 meter/second difference says otherwise.

>>6962887
.999... = 1

c*1=c*.999...

>>6962694
Corn Chips run the universe.

>>6962990

How come all of the proofs basically start of with "Let 0.999... = 1" and then go on to "Prove 0.999... = 1"?


Actually, is 0.999... (a number infinitely close to 1) in the set of Real numbers?


Please explain.

>>6964101

retard. see: >>6962990

Again this comes to 0.999...=1

Here is the rigorous proof:

Define <span class="math">0.999...= \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \Sigma_{i=1}^n 9/10^i [/spoiler]

and let <span class="math">a_n=\Sigma_{i=1}^n 9/10^i[/spoiler]

Now <span class="math">10*a_n=\Sigma_{i=0}^{n-1} 9/10^i[/spoiler]

we get <span class="math">10*a_n-a_n=9*a_n=9-9/10^n [/spoiler]
dividing by 9 <span class="math"> a_n=1-1/10^n [/spoiler].

Substititing this to first equation: <span class="math">0.999...= \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} 1-1/10^n=1 [/spoiler] becouse of linearity of limit and limit of <span class="math">1/10^n[/spoiler] is zero.

>proving number less than 1 is equal to 1

Shiggy diggy

>>6964462
Herpy derpy

>>6964434

Okay, so we're just talking about limits here. That makes sense.

And saying 0.999... = 1 is tantamount to saying \frac{1}{\infty} = 0

>>6965694
no. you seem to misinterpet what is meant by an equals sign. the limit of 1/n as n goes to infinite is 0. 1/inf !=0 as it is undefined. and 0.999.. equals 1.

>>6962990
How is 0.99999999... multiplied by 10 =9.99999...?

Wouldn't it be more like 9.999999998...

That's not 10x anymore

Jacketed lead: Bullets intended for high applications generally have a lead core that is jacketed or plated with gilding metal, cupronickel.

i leave the rest to you anons

>>6962819
you know how stupidly slow electrons flow through a wire, right? like 1cm/hour or something like that.

magnetism isn't measured in speed, but force.

Holy shit you'd think that /sci/ would at least have one or two EEs.

>>6967015
I think OP is asking for the speed of the field.

>>6967098
I think OP doesn't understand how magnetism works.

>>6967015
If you turn on an electromagnet, the field will propagate to you at the speed of light

>>6967340
Magnetic waves are the same as electric waves and propagate at the speed of light.

>>6967404
No they're electric and magnetic fields are different but related.

Light is the combination of electric and magnetic field.

But both move at the speed of light.

>>6967015
No... It's measured in Tesla's...

>>6967433
Or Gauss

>>6962990
That fucking series proof smh

Define .999... as an upper bound of every subset [0, a] of the real line where 0<a<1. Denote by F the family of complements of every such set with respect to [0,1]. Then because [0,1] is clearly compact, the nested set property provides that the intersection of F contains precisely one element, .999... by hypothesis. But 1 is also an element of every such set in F. Hence, .999...=1.

>>6962683

Oh gosh I remember I used to make these kinds of memes back in 09 for this dumb site called funnyjunk.

I'm so sorry internet.

>>6964412
There's a YouTube video which IIRC explains it very well, and even differentiates between the two kinds of 0.999 that people think of when they argue either side.

I just went ahead and found it for you after typing the above. Skip to around 1:30 if you want to hear the two kinds of 0.999

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TINfzxSnnIE

>>6967441
>implying non-SI are real units