Why would'nt this work?
-
Large if factual
-
The only way to know for sure is by trying
-
Yes, about my setting, it was pretty much an excuse to illustrate the experiment, with like you said, a bit too much of magic.
The moon being on a straight distance of 1 light second, i didn't had found another place to put this experiment on. So I didn't take into account the herculean strengh needed, the movement of the earth and the moon and the gravity.
Someone gave a link to an answer of my question, with a more realistic take on the position of the other end, but your explanations are still welcome for this moon setting and the "moon elevator" problem
(i know i may have broken english sometimes, sorry about that)
-
(i know i may have broken english sometimes, sorry about that)
Not at all! I couldn't tell you aren't a native speaker. Regarding a "moon elevator", or more realistically a space elevator, these kinds of Herculean physics problems are exactly what people are trying to iron out. The forces involved are astronomical.
-
That was excellent. Thank you
-
-
Or a duck.
-
NASA: "Hold my beaker."
-
Yeah IIRC that even applies to things like gravity as well. As in, we aren't actually orbiting around where is sun is, we're orbiting around where it was ~8 minutes ago because the sun is about 8 light-minutes from Earth.
-
-
Oh right. I'll edit my comment
-
Okay done i got his lids whos got the space gear and the impossible stick
-
wave function (something that does not travel) collapses (something that does not move either) faster than light (themselves?)
this word soup does not make sense
-
It's even wilder when you take the concept of ridgidity and transfer of energy out of the equation and just think in terms of pure information propagating though a light cone. Rigidity itself is a function of information.
-
Great explanation, thank you!
-
Easily. I imagine that most spacecraft are already traveling faster than the speed of stick. It's likely only a few thousand meters per second
-
Perhaps also worth pointing out that the speed of light is that exact speed, because light itself hits a speed limit.
As far as we know, light has no mass, so if it is accelerated in any way, it should immediately have infinite acceleration and therefore infinite speed (this is simplifying too much by using a classical physics formula, but basically it's like this:
a = f/m = f/0 = ∞). And well, light doesn't go at infinite speed, presumably because it hits that speed limit, which is somehow inherent to the universe.That speed limit is referred to as the "speed of causality" and we assume it to apply to everything. That's also why other massless things happen to travel at the speed of causality/light, too, like for example gravitational waves. Well, and it would definitely also apply to that pole.
Here's a video of someone going into much more depth on this: https://www.pbs.org/video/pbs-space-time-speed-light-not-about-light/
-
Cool vid, thanks for sharing
-
A perfectly rigid object would be usable as a tool of FTL communication
Would it though? I feel like the theoretical limit is still c
-
This wouldn't work because the moon is more than 300k km away
