/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7347200]

Ahem.

[Anonymous No.7347206]

>>7347200

Why do you think being attached to a disk makes point B immune from the speed of light? If anything, it is now impossible for more reasons than before. Not only would it take infinite energy to accelerate the disk, but the disk would also have to be infinitely strong.

[Anonymous No.7347208]

You need infinite energy to rotate something at the speed of light.

[Anonymous No.7347218]

>>7347208

Ok faggot, let's say the disc had a radius calculated to be large enough so that the center of the disc could be accelerated to well below the speed of light.

What magical fedora physics force will swoop into the scene and magically prevent the edges of of the extremely large disc from reaching or even exceeding the speed of light, assuming the disc has a geometric ratio large enough to support this?

And the disc is made of fucking graphenes and quasi-crystals, so it's robust enough to support the speeds, you cocksuckers.

Where's your Jesus now?

[Anonymous No.7347230]

>>7347200
>Point A on radius accelerated nearly to c
False premise. The whole disk, including the edge at B, has to be accelerated. As the edge gets closer and closer to c, relativistic effects kick in and you'll never get it up to or past c, so A must be going even slower.

/trollthread

[Anonymous No.7347233]

>>7347200
Rigid bodies don't exist at relativistic speeds.

[Anonymous No.7347234]

>>7347233
Perfectly rigid bodies don't exist, period.

[Anonymous No.7347240]

>>7347233

>Rigid bodies don't exist at relativistic speeds.

Says who?

[Anonymous No.7347241]

>>7347218
It doesn't matter how large the disc is, if there is any point on it that travels the speed of light, then it takes infinite energy to accomplish that.

[OP No.7347251]

>>7347233

Ok, fine.

Say the disc is a charged fluid - plasma.

We accelerate the inner part with an RF coil and the outer layers interact with the inner through shear, and their viscosity increases with temperature due to sheer, until they are nearly one solid.

So the higher the difference in speeds, the more solid the plasma taurus will be.

Check mate Mudslimes.

[Anonymous No.7347256]

>>7347251

Please see >>7347230 as it still applies.

[OP No.7347258]

>>7347256

So "relativism" is a magical force that materializes as soon as a postulated theory is about to be violated?

>Believing in a magical interventionist force

What religion do you guys belong to?

Where is relativism right now? Can you measure it?

[Anonymous No.7347269]

go back to /b/ newfag.

[Anonymous No.7347290]

>>7347258
>What religion do you guys belong to?
the religion of "fuck ur mum in da bum"

The relativistic effect at work is <span class="math">E=mc^2[/spoiler], meaning that adding energy to the disk effectively adds mass to it. And this additional mass has to be accelerated too, by adding more energy that becomes more mass and so forth. For this reason, the outer edge is limited to c and everything inside the disk must be traveling at a lower speed if the angular velocity is the same for the outside observer.

[Anonymous No.7347294]

>>7347258
>materializes

top kek m8. its always happening but the effects are negligible at speeds less than a tenth the speed of light.

[Anonymous No.7347452]

I am seeing a lot of "It's impossible because you need infinite energy" in this thread

But what would happen IF you tried? Like, what would physically happen to the disc? Would it break because the edge of the disc can't keep up with the speed it's "supposed" to be?

[Anonymous No.7347514]

>>7347452
because it physically cannot happen you cannot virtually come up with a reasonable idea as to what would happen.

[Anonymous No.7347539]

>>7347200
Ok so what does atheism have to do with this?

Second, if you had a disk as described, the mass at the edges would increase towards infinity as the speed at the edges approached c. You would never get the matter at point A to ~c unless it decoupled from the edges and the entire thing ripped apart.

[Anonymous No.7347837]

>>7347452
What is there to not understand? As you add energy to a thing, you add mass to it. At very low speeds on our day-to-day scale of things we see, nothing comes close to a signigicant fraction of c, so we don't see this really happening, even though it is, but very, VERY minutely.

This guy, >>7347290 explains it

[Anonymous No.7348217]

>>7347452
If you spin a cd around too fast on one of those disc spinners, it fucking explodes.

[Anonymous No.7348222]

Okay looking at this thread I see a lot of stupid fucks. This shit ain't hard. If A is accelerated to nearly c, then point B will just be closer to C. Keep in mind that there's an infinite amount of numbers between numbers (1-2; 1.9, 1.99, 1.999, etc). Even Neil Tyson showed that its impossible to reach c, as it is LITERALLY the cosmic speed limit. Therefore, point B will just be closer to c.

[Anonymous No.7348225]

Now, if point A actually did reach c, then point B will be faster than C, logically. But now that's no longer a math problem but a physics problem. (Theoretically you'd go back in time, but I dunno)

[Anonymous No.7348228]

>>7347452
>Would it break because the edge of the disc can't keep up with the speed it's "supposed" to be?

Yes.

If you had a finite power source that you could keep using for an arbitrarily long time, then the disk would accelerate slower and slower the closer the outside edge got to c and the whole thing would seem to become more and more massive, just like trying to accelerate something in a straight line. At some point (realistically long, long before anything is moving close to c) the tensile strength of the disk will fail, and it will break apart.

[Anonymous No.7348234]

Here is a harder one for christfags to understand, if i had a laser pointer pointed at the moon and flicked my wrist in any direction wouldn't the point of reflection on the moon move faster c.

[Anonymous No.7348304]

>>7348234

yes, it would, because nothing is physically 'moving'.

[Anonymous No.7348314]

>>7348234

Yes, but the point of reflection is really just an abstract idea. You're sending light to one location and then you're sending light to another location. Their arrival times are very close together, but they traveled at only c to get to each one and nothing is traveling between them.

It's like if I mailed two letters, one to Sweden and on to Malaysia, and their recipients opened them (days or weeks later) within a fraction of a second of each other. Did my "mail destination" travel at the speed of light? I guess you could say so, but that would be a dumb way of thinking about it.

[Anonymous No.7348338]

>>7348217
tidal forces create stresses in the disk which cause it to break apart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs7x1Hu29Wc

[Anonymous No.7348858]

$\gamma(t)$

[Anonymous No.7349295]

[Anonymous No.7349347]

>>7347290
Your conclusion is correct, but the argument isn't sound. E=mc^2 is the total energy in the rest frame of an object, so the object's velocity relative to some other point has nothing to do with it. And the idea that mass increases as velocity increases is a common misunderstanding of relativity; mass is Lorentz invariant, meaning it's the same in every reference frame. What is "transformed" is actually the velocity and acceleration, and anything else dependent on distance and/or time.

All you need to know is that this would be a purely special relativistic effect resulting from the fact that the speed of light is the same in every inertial reference frame. So, no matter how much you accelerate, you can never reach the speed of light. From your point of view, you never even get closer to reaching it.

[Anonymous No.7350947]

>>7347218
Kek'd hard at this point

If point B would be set to "surpass the speed of light" then point A wouldn't be accelerated to that speed in the first place, as it would require infinite energy.