Immoveable and nonstopbable objects

[Bo]

freethinker wrote

As I understand it, it is NOT that the speed of light is the maximum speed. It is just that an object can not be accelerated PAST

 

You're absolutely right, but disregarding tachyons, it also is the maximum speed

 

freethinker wrote

if we assume the infinite speed originally suggested, how can you have half of it?

I disregarded the possibility of infinite speed and took infinite mass; but infinite/2=infinite...

 

Tormod wrote:

I think the only theoretically immovable object that I can imagine would be the entire universe

 

well if there are no parrallel universes/whatever, we can never define speed for the entire universe (speed is only relative to another object, if there are no other things then our universe, speed -and thus immovable- is not a valid concept)

 

Bp

[TeleMad]

And what if 1 = 2?

[TeleMad]

Bo: indeed an immovable object (or better: an object only movable if the force wanting to move it is infinite) is an object with infinite mass (just by newtons F=m*a).

 

So either you have a literally infinite mass - which doesn't exist - or you have an immovable object that can theoretically be moved - which doesn't make sense.

 

Bo: 1) complete Elastic scattering. The moving body transfers all its momentum (without loss) to the body at rest. Energy conservation and the fact that the 2 bodys have the same mass then gives that the moving body will get at rest and the body at rest moves with the same speed as the original moving body did.

 

So the IMmovable object moves?!?!?! You're breaking the rules of the setup.

 

Bo: 2) Complete inelastic scattering. The momentum is equally devided amongst the 2 body's. Sincs theus masses are equal, the will both move in the same direction with a speed half the original speed.

 

Again, you aren't sticking to the original question: it dealt with IMmovable objects.

[Bo]

your of course absolutely right, but this is as close as i can get to a more or less exact sollution to the problem. What i assumed was that the 'amount of immovability' or 'unstopability' of the 2 objects is the same. if you want the objects to be really immovable and unstopable; the only sollution i see is big explosions, world destruction, etc

 

Bo

[Freethinker]

So the basic question is:

 

"What happens when two objects that can't exist do something that isn't possible?"

 

I stick with my first answer:

 

JELLY

[alexander]

Bo said:

 

freethinker wrote

 

quote:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I understand it, it is NOT that the speed of light is the maximum speed. It is just that an object can not be accelerated PAST

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

You're absolutely right, but disregarding tachyons, it also is the maximum speed

I am no great expert in physics but i would stick with freethinker and say that i still don't understand why the speed of light is the maximum speed... Just because we can't acccelerate an object to the speed of light does'n mean that it cannot be done, I mean 20 years ago people couldn't imagine that anything would be fast enough to do millions and billions of calculations a second, yet here we are now with computers that are able to perform 360 trillion calculations a second (360 teraflops). In 1978, The Intel 8086 chip performed 29,000 calculations per second, but by 2001 the Intel Pentium IV chip performed 42 million calculations per second. So unless there is a logical explanation as to why the speed of light is the maximum speed, i beleive that the maximum speed is infinity. (Just to restate my main point, just because things don't seem possible now, it doesn't mean that they are indeed impossible. This brings me to the impossibility paradox... maybe i should make a topic about it.)

 

Tormod said:

 

Anyway, I still would like an example of an unmovable object.

as Uncle Martin said:

 

... we're talking hypothetical extremes. Something that absolutely cannot be moved meets something that absolutely cannot be stopped. What happens then?

 

Bo said:

 

Well i think alexander did say some sensible things

Thanks Bo, it feels good to be mentioned in a good way in a smart conversation. Hoping that my posts are starting to progress in a positive direction.... Oh, and by complete elastic and inelastic scattering you meant perfectly elastic and inelastic collisions right?

 

Tormod said:

 

I think the only theoretically immovable object that I can imagine would be the entire universe.

Good point Tormod, but isn't it a possibility that what we assume as the "universe" is not the only "universe", thus our universe might be moving around another universes and thus it is not in fact an immovabe but a theoretically unstoppable object....... (sorry i just like to question things)

Oh, another thought, if our "universe" is indeed not the only "universe" out there, then couldn't "Big Bang" happen because of 2 universes colliding?

 

TeleMad said:

 

quote:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bo: 2) Complete inelastic scattering. The momentum is equally devided amongst the 2 body's. Sincs theus masses are equal, the will both move in the same direction with a speed half the original speed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Again, you aren't sticking to the original question: it dealt with IMmovable objects.

Then there is a chance that you will get an effect that you get when you drop a bouncing ball on a table;

you drop the ball on the table, an inelastic collision will happen (since perfectly elastic or inelastic collisions are hypothetically impossible) and the ball will bounce back up. You can get a same effect with this problem too; an unstoppable object will hit the unmovable one and bounce, in that case the rules aren't violated: the unstoppable object remains unstoppable and an unmovable one remains unmoved... (not s

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: alexander

Oh, another thought, if our "universe" is indeed not the only "universe" out there, then couldn't "Big Bang" happen because of 2 universes colliding?

There is a theory, involving inflationary multi-iverses, in which an infinite number of universes are expanding towards each other at the speed of light. At intersections, one universe destroys the other. Those in the winning universe have no idea the collision occured and those in the losing universe are no longer around to think about it! :-)

Then there is a chance that you will get an effect that you get when you drop a bouncing ball on a table;

 

you drop the ball on the table, an inelastic collision will happen (since perfectly elastic or inelastic collisions are hypothetically impossible) and the ball will bounce back up. You can get a same effect with this problem too; an unstoppable object will hit the unmovable one and bounce, in that case the rules aren't violated: the unstoppable object remains unstoppable and an unmovable one remains unmoved... (not sure whether both of those effects should be spelled with an "a" or not)

I like your answer. It resolves the inertia issue without violating the description of the masses.

[alexander]

Thanks freethinker that you made some sence out of my post, I'm glad that it did make sense at least to some people anyways.

I would still like an explanation as to why the speed of light is the maximum speed though...

[Uncle Martin]

Could I take a whack at it? I wish to see if I've learned anything during my time here.

 

The higher the velocity of a mass, the higher the energy. To increase the velocity requires more energy. Here's an analogy,.....you run out of gas and have to push your car to the gas station. It is relatively easy to push the car at 2 mph, but the station is going to close in 5 minutes and you need to push the car at 8 mph to get there before it closes. The faster you push, the more energy is required.... Therefore.....supppose the station was closing in one millionth of a second,....gotta really push now. The closer you approach the speed of light, the closer the required energy comes to infinity. In order to accelerate one atom to light speed you would need infinite energy, which is not possible. Relative mass increases with velocity, this is all described in relativity.

[lucky-ducky]

Here's my take on why the speed of light is the maximum speed--

 

Time slows down as you approach the speed of light. if anything is faster than speed of light, it goes back in time. We all as observers with forward time arrows would not be able to observe anything faster then light speed. On the other hand, if our time arrow is reverse....

 

 

On the topic of Immoveable and nonstopbable objects--

 

I posit both objects will disappear from our 'Dimension'.

[TeleMad]

Alexander: Then there is a chance that you will get an effect that you get when you drop a bouncing ball on a table;

you drop the ball on the table, an inelastic collision will happen (since perfectly elastic or inelastic collisions are hypothetically impossible) and the ball will bounce back up. You can get a same effect with this problem too; an unstoppable object will hit the unmovable one and bounce, in that case the rules aren't violated: the unstoppable object remains unstoppable and an unmovable one remains unmoved... (not sure whether both of those effects should be spelled with an "a" or not)

 

But during a bounce, an object does stop for an instant: for it's velocity to go from positive to negative, it passes through 0.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: TeleMad

But during a bounce, an object does stop for an instant: for it's velocity to go from positive to negative, it passes through 0.

You beat me to it, this is of course correct!!

 

We've ruled out yet another hypothesis. Is it possible that the unstoppable object would pass through the immovable object? I believe several thousand neutrinos have passed through my body while typing this post.

 

Just another possibility to consider, since we are talking about a hypothetical paradox.

[TeleMad]

Well, even though a neutrino can pass straight through something like a million of miles of lead unaffected, neutrinos can still be stopped (that neutrinos do interact with matter can be seen by their propeling elements out into space during supernovae). So an individual neutrino does not fit the description unstoppable. And I am not sure how one would form an object out of neutrinos - a neutrino "molecule", for example - so that the overall object as a unit could be considered to continue in motion even if some of its individual neutrions were stopped.

[alexander]

Uncle Martin said:

The higher the velocity of a mass, the higher the energy. To increase the velocity requires more energy.

Or in other words force=mass * acceleration or newtons second law... Well, Newton’s foundation of mechanics of macroscopic masses is based on an assumption of existence of a cosmic substratum or “absolute space”, which in its own nature remains without reference to anything external and thus always similar and immovable. Newton’s Second Law holds true only for reference frames which are at rest in absolute space or as we see it presently, are in uniform rectilinear motion with respect to it. The centripetal or centrifugal forces involved in rotation are caused by acceleration to our reference frames with respect to absolute space. Thus space that according to Kant constitutes, together with time, the perceptual form of human cognition, attains physical reality, and we can perceive its effects in invalidity of Newton’s mechanics for accelerated reference frames. Newer theories lead to negation of such frames, for example the ether of the electrical theory. New theories reside on parts of matter occupying space. The centripetal and centrifugal forces occur due to material bodies in our universe. Thus without other matter, no force would exist.

 

lucky-ducky said:

Time slows down as you approach the speed of light. if anything is faster than speed of light, it goes back in time. We all as observers with forward time arrows would not be able to observe anything faster then light speed. On the other hand, if our time arrow is reverse....

It seems to me that you, like Newton assume that the time to moves uniformly, by that reinstating his idea of “absolute time”. The fiction of absolute time fails under examination. "We need only propound question: what happens if the velocity of all chemical and physical processes, hence our thinking process too, doubled? Since we have no way of detecting this, the abruptly underlying the very formulation of the question becomes apparent at once. Thus the concept of absolute time, the idea that a universal clock exists, looses its justification, for it is contrary to the spirit of physics to form concepts that are directly nor indirectly accessible to our senses." (an indirect quote from Theoretical Physics by Georg Joos Ira M Freeman)

 

TeleMad said:

But during a bounce, an object does stop for an instant: for it's velocity to go from positive to negative, it passes through 0.

I know, I know, but in the end the objects of our examination kept their properties.

I think that there might not be a correct answer to the original question here, there might be adequate guess, but without any unstoppable and immovable objects in existance every theory can and will be compromized...