Speed of Force or 'Transfer of Momentum'

I didn't say they are wrong with the light barrier. No matter how fast you travel relative to something else in SR, the speed of light will always be observered as the same constant speed faster than that object is traveling. If you went 1 km/s faster than you where going you would not measure the speed to be about 299,000 km/s, but you would still observe it to travel at about 300,000 km/s. Then all observers measure it to travel at this same speed. So then even when it is said something travels a percent of the speed of light, the observed speed of light is still not a percentage of 300,000 km/s. This is where science began to defy common sense. So not only can you not travel faster than the speed of light you couldn't increase your speed to even see yourself gain 1% on the speed of light.

Like charges repel each other, electrons orbit in the outer shells of atoms. The electromagnetic force created from this like charges that would repel each other would then transfer at the speed of light. They could come closer and futher away from each other and transfer a wave at the speed of sound. A bull whip is said to be able to break the sound barrier, a force created at one end of the whip then can make the other end travel faster than the speed of sound. How could one end of a whip not traveling the speed of sound, then transfer a force that then sends the other end of an object faster than the speed of sound if no force can be transfered faster than the speed of sound through a medium?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you don't think it's wrong, you just think it doesn't make sense? Well, there is something wrong here and it isn't science it is your understanding of science. Relativity isn't the subject of this discussion, so if you want to discuss what is wrong about your scenario, start a new thread.

Yes. You're describing electricity: motion of electrons, not motion of atoms.

Oy. Pretty much all of that is wrong and this is really tiring. Uninformed idle speculation is no way to learn science. Every time you want to know about how something might work, you should be googling it to read up and learn how it actually works instead of speculating from nothing and coming to the wrong conclusion because you have no basis from which to form the speculation. More to the point, I have no interest in spoonfeeding you all of science one wrong idle speculation at a time. But I'll point you in the right direction here:

1. The speed of sound in the air and in the bullwhip are two different things. The speed of sound in the bullwhip doesn't come into play here though:
2. Bullwhips move in transverse waves, not longitudinal waves. Google both of those.
3. The transverse wave travels through the bullwhip at much slower than the speed of sound, but that doesn't mean the end of the bullwhip can't travel faster than the speed of sound in air. How fast a signal travels through an object is completely unrelated to how fast the bulk object is traveling. Google "how does a bullwhip work".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is really, really simple. Velocity is really relative velocity. So, if I get in a space ship and I fly away from the earth I can measure my velocity relative to earth. If I am traveling at 30,000 km/s relative to the earth, I can also say I am traveling at 10% the speed of light (it is implicit that it is relative to earth). 30,000 / 300,000 is 10%. That in NO WAY implies that the ship would measure the speed of light as anything but 300,000 km/s.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is called infinite jerk. I made a thread about this a long time ago.

 

does this mean that the metal balls demonstrate some degree of elasticity?

 

There is no such thing as an infinitely rigid body. Google "Born rigidity".

 

Here the 'Newton's Cradle' as a whole demonstrate elasticity, which can be observed. Every metal ball also will be demonstrating elasticity including the rigid wall also.

 

To be precise, the ball applies an energy and momentum to the wall.

The wall oscillates like 'Newton's Cradle' and reflect back the energy and momentum to the ball.

Instead they share the energy and momentum.

Wikipedia always may not be correct. Newton did not say anything about the timing.

Exchange (or reversal) of momentum means its an reflection.

The way you described above, the 'collision process' is same as 'Newton's Cradle'.

Its a kind of Newton's Cradle with a few miliseconds duration.

 

Say you had a metal rod attached to a motor that then spun that rod from one end of the rod. Say the rod was long enough and the motor was fast enough so that when it spun the rod that the other end would then travel at the speed of sound. You would think that since one end of the rod couldn't react faster than the speed of sound that the rod would have to become bent. The point here is that the application of the type of "science" that you speak of would turn everything to "goo" when there is a difference in speed of the speed of sound from one end to the other. Your theory that you preach here is not applied science, so then to prove it wrong I would have to try to apply it to a real situation. If it does not correctly describe a real life situation then it would have to be wrong.

 

The scientist on the ship would then say nothing can travel faster than the speed of light relative to themselves even though it was traveling at 10% the speed of light relative to another object. There would be no absolute frame that the scientist could know what they couldn't travel faster than the speed of light relative too.

 

No! You're making the same mistake the others are, measuring phenomena on a human timescale and reaching wrong conclusions based on that information.

On a human timescale, a collision appears to be instantaneous, resulting in infinite jerk, acceleration and force.

In reality, the collision takes a finite amount of time and there is a finite jerk, acceleration and force.

Metal balls are highly elastic, yes. Nearly perfect in fact. Like dense, little springs.

 

The rod will of course bend as it is accelerating. It is elastic! That does not in any way imply that the end of the rod can't travel faster than the speed of sound. It most certainly can. Why do you think helicopters are so loud?

No. Just no.

Sure, sure.

The one who doesn't know should learn from the one who does.

 

I would think that one end of an object traveling faster than the speed of sound relative to the other end, when a force couldn't be transmitted faster than the speed of sound would defy explaination, especially when the object is not very elastic.

Maybe you should open your mind into thinking that you really don't know everything, when scientist have claimed to know everything for thousands of years. And somehow they still keep learning about and understanding new things...

 

Correct.

True, but relativity tells us that we cannot travel the speed of light, The other point is ANY frame that they did measured against would yield the result that they are not traveling > or = to c.

 

What about a galaxy on the edge of the visable universe? A while back I kept trying to tell people that they only travel close to the speed of light, but people on these forums kept telling me that they actually have been seen to travel faster than the speed of light. I don't think they provided any links to show this, but some papers that seemed rather questionable.

 

The fact that the force takes some time to get to the other end doesn't mean it never gets there. The force eventually gets there and then you have a constant force on the other end, which eventually accelerates it faster than the speed of sound.

No, we don't know everything, but this is kid stuff.

 

This is basically an illusion due to universal expansion. The object isn't so much moving as the universe in between it and us is expanding faster than C.

 

Do you mean 'force' travels faster than the 'speed of sound'?

 

Does it mean that 'action' and 'reaction' are simultaneous event?

 

It is true that the recession velocity of far distant galaxies are exceeding c. That is recession velocity. No mass can travel through space at c, but the expansion of space can make the distance between objects increase at a speed at or greater than c.

I guess they assumed you could google the phrase "can recession velocities exceed the speed of light". This is astronomy 101 stuff.

Here is a link that may help you to understand:

Common misconceptions about the big bang.