[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 74 KB, 1213x928, magnets.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
6962683 No.6962683 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

What's the speed of magnetism?

>> No.6962688


>> No.6962691

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

>> No.6962694

c, c and c its all c.

>> No.6962733

>being a 12 yo troll

>> No.6962819


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

>> No.6962824


>> No.6962825


Stop posting.

>> No.6962832

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

>> No.6962833

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

>> No.6962838

so c

>> No.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

>> No.6962854

"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?

>> No.6962855

>Approximately c

>> No.6962866

>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?

>> No.6962868

>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.

>> No.6962882

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

>> No.6962887

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

>> No.6962889

>works for small numbers, not for c.

Explain yourself.

>> No.6962894

>Explain yourself.

I'm a moron.

>> No.6962973

>pretending to be me
Go fuck yourself.

Have a nice day.

>> No.6962978

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.

>> No.6962990
File: 112 KB, 953x613, 1418087738741.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

got damn it guys

>> No.6962996

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?).

>> No.6962999

OP's mom

>> No.6963026

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

>> No.6963035

>falling for b8 that is this obvious and retarded

Ignore these kinda posts don't shit up the board

>> No.6963072

>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?

>> No.6963080


Magnetism is a field. Speed of light in vacuum.

>> No.6963082


>> No.6963084

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

>> No.6963195

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

>> No.6963224
File: 830 B, 138x51, Barnett's Identity.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Replace "k" with the speed of light.

>> No.6963393

>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)

>> No.6963403

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

>> No.6963405

>Implying information isn't sent back in time.

The 1970s called and they want their theories back.

>> No.6963430

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.

>> No.6963433

It isn't.

>> No.6963444

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

>> No.6963464

this board is fucking shit

all of you are literal retards.

>> No.6963472

You mad, bro?

>> No.6963881

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

>> No.6963976

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.

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

>> No.6963991

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

>> No.6964056
File: 4 KB, 138x51, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.6964058


>> No.6964062

Did you miss the post where this was shown?

>> No.6964101


That 300,000 meter/second difference says otherwise.

>> No.6964127

.999... = 1


>> No.6964153

Corn Chips run the universe.

>> No.6964412


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.

>> No.6964416


retard. see: >>6962990

>> No.6964434

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.

>> No.6964462

>proving number less than 1 is equal to 1

Shiggy diggy

>> No.6965096

Herpy derpy

>> No.6965694


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

>> No.6965707

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.

>> No.6966740

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

Wouldn't it be more like 9.999999998...

That's not 10x anymore

>> No.6966865

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

>> No.6966877
File: 6 KB, 115x125, drunkyounghomer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.6967015

magnetism isn't measured in speed, but force.

>> No.6967046

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

>> No.6967098

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

>> No.6967340

I think OP doesn't understand how magnetism works.

>> No.6967391

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

>> No.6967404

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

>> No.6967416

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.

>> No.6967433

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

>> No.6967441

Or Gauss

>> No.6967542

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.

>> No.6967569


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.

>> No.6967583
File: 984 KB, 416x234, They've learned how to open doors.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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


>> No.6968057

>implying non-SI are real units

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.