Exceeding Speed of Light

[itsyuri]

Someone tell me what I'm missing here:<br />A solid nondeformable rod 1 light second in length.<br />apply a force to it, does the other end displace instantanly?<br />or does the matter 'transform' portion by portion until the energy reaches the other end -(in which case the rod would break since it is nondeformable?) - Let me know where I'm going wrong.<br />

 

[bonzelite]

i say it displaces instantly because the force is a geometric acceleration upon the rod, as is gravity --a geometric acceleration force. you remove the sun, it's gravitational influence vanishes immediately. you remove the acceleration upon a body and it's "g force" vanishes immediately. likewise, you apply the acceleration, and the body experiences the force immediately. <br /><br />furthermore, it exceeds c as there is no such limit to acceleration upon a body in a non-gravity free-floating condition of outer space. IMHO, there is only free-floating space or accelerated bodies relative to each other in this space; there is no speed limit of light. this notion of "c" is an erroneous idea.

 

[itsyuri]

a. instantly would violate special relativity.<br />b. remove the sun and it will take distance/velocity time for the earth to feel it, for gravity too travels at speed of light.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />a. instantly would violate special relativity.</font><br />yes. IMHO, STR is incorrect.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />b. remove the sun and it will take distance/velocity time for the earth to feel it, for gravity too travels at speed of light.</font><br />no it does not. gravity is a geometry, not a propagating wave.

 

[TheShadow]

bonzelite says: <i> i say it displaces instantly because the force is a geometric acceleration upon the rod, </i><br /><br />The force was not specified.<br /><br />bonzelite says: <i> you remove the sun, it's gravitational influence vanishes immediately. </i><br /><br />How can you possibly know that?<br /><br />bonzelite says: <i> furthermore, it exceeds c as there is no such limit to acceleration upon a body in a non-gravity free-floating condition of outer space. </i><br /><br />Gravity is not the limiter, inertia is. That is independent of gravity.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><font size="1" color="#808080">Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </font></p> </div>

 

[TheShadow]

bonzelite says: <i> no it does not. gravity is a geometry, not a propagating wave. </i><br /><br />???????????????<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><font size="1" color="#808080">Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />bonzelite says: you remove the sun, it's gravitational influence vanishes immediately. <br /><br />How can you possibly know that? </font><br /><br />the sun and the earth are expanding towards each other. this creates a geometric interaction of orbit. you remove one of them, the sun or the earth, and this relationship ends effective immediately. the earth without the sun would free-float <i>immediately.</i> why? you remove an acceleration upon a body (in this case the expansion of the sun towards the earth; the earth towards the sun) and it will cease accelerating <i>instantly.</i> you remove an acceleration upon a vehicle, it will cease accelerating <i>immediately.</i><br /><br />there are no gravity waves or particles. gravity is created by the acceleration of a body as it expands from it's center of mass. it is purely geometric. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />Gravity is not the limiter, inertia is. That is independent of gravity. </font><br /><br />how can you be so sure that there is no other means to accelerate something beyond c? there is essentially nothing preventing something from going faster than c. as long as something continues to accelerate, such as in an ion-driven craft, it will eventually far eclipse c. the craft will not experience relativistic mass increases. that idea, mass increases, as well as "all of the energy of the universe," or whatever, to continue accelerating the craft, is erroneous and in need of serious revision. Einstein does not own the universe, nor do his theories. <br /><br />as long as there is enough fuel in the ion drive, the craft can accelerate indefinitely to speeds far beyond c. this will be attained as ion propulsion becomes more commonplace and developed as a technology.

 

[TheShadow]

bonzelite says: <i> the sun and the earth are expanding towards each other. </i><br /><br />I have heard nonsense before, but nothing of this caliber. That just might be the single most ridiculous statement I have seen on Uplink, and we have had some doozies. Are you sure you are from this dimension? What color is the sky in your world?<br /><br />bonzelite says: <i> the earth without the sun would free-float immediately. </i><br /><br />The comment was regarding gravitational influence. Removing the Sun (if that were possible) would leave the collapsing (for want of a better term) gravitational force. AFAIK, since that force acts over a distance at c, the delay would be the distance divided by c.<br /><br />bonzelite says: <i> gravity is created by the acceleration of a body as it expands from it's center of mass. </i><br /><br />I thought your previous statement was nonsense, but this one beats it. Acceleration is the <i>result</i> of gravity, not the other way around.<br /><br />bonzelite says: <i> there is essentially nothing preventing something from going faster than c. </i><br /><br />Yes there is. Acceleration requires fuel, which must have mass. The more mass that needs to be accelerated, the more fuel is required. Adding fuel adds mass, increasing the requirement for more fuel etc., etc., etc. A craft simply cannot carry enough fuel to accelerate both itself and the fuel to c. The law of diminishing returns ensures that a craft may approach c, but never quite reach it.<br /><br />bonzelite says: <i> such as in an ion-driven craft, it will eventually far eclipse c. </i><br /><br />Try calculating that again in a few years after taking some math courses.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><font size="1" color="#808080">Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </font></p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

---------------------------------<br />i say it displaces instantly<br />---------------------------------<br /><br /><br />The disturbance propogates throught the rod (the medium) at the speed of sound in that material.<br /><br />Not even remotely as fast as C.<br /><br /><br />{Just one assertion from you puts <i>all</i> your claims in perspective <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> }<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[h9c2]

I believe it would move instantly.<br /><br />I do not see however how the lightspeed barrier is broken since the only thing that has traveled instantaneous is the information that the rod has been pushed. <br />The rod, or any part of it, moves at the speed it was initially given.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>the sun and the earth are expanding towards each other. this creates a geometric interaction of orbit.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'm sorry, I don't see how the Sun and Earth expanding towards one another could affect the Earth's trajectory, assuming gravity does not exist. Could you explain this unusual idea?<br /><br />While you're working on that, here's a question for you. If gravity is merely an illusion caused by the expansion of a body (that is, it acts on other bodies purely by mechanical interaction), how do you explain the tides, which are affected by the Moon even though it does not physically contact them in any way? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[spacechump]

Vogon is correct. The disturbance will propagate down the material at the speed at which that material can deform, far from the reaching the speed of light.<br /><br />bonzelite I've said it before and I'll say it again. Your hypothesis does not make sense nor does it even fit close to observation. I don't even see how you came to such conclusions unless you just want to be know as that one guy that doesn't accept anything mainstream. You're hardcore man! <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">how do you explain the tides, which are affected by the Moon even though it does not physically contact them in any way?</font><br /><br />tides are result of center of mass between earth and moon, ie, barycenter, creating internal wobble of earth. tides are created purely geometrically via this wobbling. axis of wobble runs directly through barycenter to moon facing earth, coincident with tides. far side of earth at high tide has nothing to do with "gravitational tugging" on moonside. effect is a symmetrical "slinging" of the water due to the wobble.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"> Are you sure you are from this dimension? What color is the sky in your world? <br /></font><br /><br />i am from the purple dimension. that has always been my favorite colour. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />The comment was regarding gravitational influence. Removing the Sun (if that were possible) would leave the collapsing (for want of a better term) gravitational force. AFAIK, since that force acts over a distance at c, the delay would be the distance divided by c. <br /></font><br /><br />yes, i follow that <i>assuming gravity exists, and i posit that it does not.</i>

 

[spacechump]

That would only make sense if the moon rapidly rotated around the Earth to make a highly noticeable wobble but that does not happen. Also you wouldn't see high tides on the moon facing side of the earth in your instance.

 

[vogon13]

Once upon a time I proposed a 'mercy ban' on someone in Free Space to keep them from continued self embarassment.<br /><br />Sometimes reading what passes for 'reasoned exchange' here is not unlike going down to the local nursing home and watching visitors taunt the Alzheimers patients. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />That would only make sense if the moon rapidly rotated around the Earth but that does not happen.</font><br /><br />no. the centre of mass between earth/moon is within the earth. this wobble dynamic occurs perpetually, on a monthly basis coincident with the moon's face being centered axially with the barycentre. it is the very "slow" rotation of the moon about the earth that helps create this geometry.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Also you wouldn't see high tides on the moon facing side of the earth in your instance.</font><br /><br />yes we would. we see it right now. on both sides, symmetrically. were "gravitational tugging" actually happening, we would not see a bulge on the far side of the earth, opposite the moon side.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Once upon a time I proposed a 'mercy ban' on someone in Free Space to keep them from continued self embarassment. <br /></font><br /><br />if aimed at me, i'm not embarrassed at all.

 

[spacechump]

<i>no. the centre of mass between earth/moon is within the earth. this wobble dynamic occurs perpetually, on a monthly basis coincident with the moon's face being centered axially with the barycentre. it is the very "slow" rotation of the moon about the earth that helps create this geometry.</i><br /><br />But tides are daily.<br /><br /><i>yes we would. we see it right now. on both sides, symmetrically. were "gravitational tugging" actually happening, we would not see a bulge on the far side of the earth, opposite the moon side.</i><br /><br />Actually we would and do see the bulging and this has already been explained to you many times before why his happens.

 

[TheShadow]

bonzelite says: <i> tides are result of center of mass between earth and moon, ie, barycenter, creating internal wobble of earth. </i><br /><br />Actually that wouldn’t be a bad explanation if it weren’t for two minor details. First, there are two tides, one on each side of the Earth. You can verify this by making a mathematical model of the Earth and wobbling it. A bulge will only be created on one side, not both. If that is beyond your capabilities, make a small physical model. Same result. Second, if the wobble was large enough to create such tides, the amplitude would be much much larger. Other than that……………….<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><font size="1" color="#808080">Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </font></p> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

Is there a chance that this is another thread getting hijacked by someone's pet theory? <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /><br /><br />Just askin' <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[why06]

THE ROD WOULD BEND! That is a very long rod your taliking about...The truth is the pushing force would move to te other end of the rod like a wave. <br />In truth it would look like a giant slinky....you aren't the first to ask this question. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />no. the centre of mass between earth/moon is within the earth. this wobble dynamic occurs perpetually, on a monthly basis coincident with the moon's face being centered axially with the barycentre. it is the very "slow" rotation of the moon about the earth that helps create this geometry. <br /><br />But tides are daily. <br /></font><br /><br />right. the earth spins on it's own axis daily, passing, daily, the earth's surface past the center of axial alignment with the earth/moon barycentre.

 

[spacechump]

<i>Is there a chance that this is another thread getting hijacked by someone's pet theory? </i><br /><br />Just like he tries to hijack every other thread with his hypothesis? Remember, it's not even a theory.

 

[spacechump]

<i>right. the earth spins on it's own axis daily, passing, daily, the earth's surface past the center of axial alignment with the earth/moon barycentre.</i><br /><br />ok...that still wouldn't explain high tides in both sides of the earth according to your views.