h a l f b a k e r y[marked-for-tagline]
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Whilst doing nothing of the slightest interest, I came up
with this idea. It has two purposes.
Mechanically speaking, a rail-gun, capable of near c
velocities would be capable of moving a sun, as the
object
fired increases in mass to a near infinite quantity. The
objects are to be fired
along a path that is a very close
near-miss to the sun in question. In this manner, repeat
etc etc.
First purpose is most trivial, being a way to annoy the
hell
out of horoscope writers, where Jupiter turns out not to
be
in the House of Aquarius, cos those stars are now
somewhere else and they now spell out "Eat at Joe's".
Second purpose if elder god baiting, imagine Chulthu
waking up, seeing the stars are right and then all of a
sudden, they aren't any longer. Most vexing.
Just a prank, bro
https://www.youtube...watch?v=xQ2WrglmsJk
[bungston, Apr 11 2016]
Just my childish online poop-tossing website
http://www.c4045183...ap'npoop/index.html
can't be highbrow all the time.. [not_morrison_rm, Apr 12 2016]
[link]
|
| |
I understand that a gun which shoots a star is called a sun-beam. |
|
| |
I have nothing to say about this idea, but the first word intrigued me and I used a halfbakery view to ask a question. |
|
| |
[not_morrison_rm], of your 350 ideas, only 66 have used the word Whilst, around 19%. Honestly I was expecting this to be closer to 95%, and I think you should work to rectify the situation. |
|
| |
Tinkering with suns is a known method for genocide - choose your targets with care. |
|
| |
The bun is actually for mixtela's suggestion. |
|
| |
Of course the star images we see are as many years old as
the number of lightyears away from us the stars were at the
time. So for all we know, you've been using this device for
centuries and we just haven't seen the results yet. |
|
| |
Hmmm, more of a case of fiction writers using "when the
stars are right" without thinking that some time in the
future we can move them* about. Would need some trial
and error, one star in the wrong place and you get
Chulthu left knee appearing, not a thing to show your
maiden aunt, however many times removed**. |
|
| |
And while I'm on the topic, this might give some answer
to the Fermi paradox, as there's bound to be collateral
damage with all those near C projectiles wizzing about,
displacing suns, dragging the planets with them. Could
all the be put down to the Feringhi doing a spot of
celestial advertising. |
|
| |
*The stars, not the writers. |
|
| |
**The aunt, not Chulthu, but possibly the knee |
|
| |
It would be useful to know the Halfbakery average for "Whilst"-usage so as to have something to compare this against. One data point - only 3.77%* of my ideas use the word "whilst", so [not_morrison_rm] is about 5 times whilstier than me.
[*] Although I'm worried now that that percentage includes occurrences of "whilst" in annotations. |
|
| |
I don't get the whole infinite-mass at light-speed thing. |
|
| |
Sounds as though speeding an object up to C creates the mother of all singularities and would suck in the whole universe.
...that can't be right. |
|
| |
You can't accelerate an object up to c - that's the point. |
|
| |
// You can't accelerate an object up to c // |
|
| |
hmmm... could a magnetic field be made to spin faster than the speed of light since it has no mass? |
|
| |
I would think so. By the arc length formula, if you go arbitrarily far
from the source, the tangential velocity increases to arbitrary
values, linearly. |
|
| |
Also, consider that changes in the magnetic field propagate
outward from the source at c. Therefore, any rotating magnetic
field is twisted (though, especially for slow rotations, this is only
apparent if you look sufficiently far out). So what's really going on is
that the change in the magnetic field vector you experience at a
given point is radiated directly toward you from the source, which
is analogous to shining a laser pointer at the moon and wiggling it
back and forth to send the dot across the moon's surface at speeds
possibly higher than c (which is commonly known to be perfectly
possible). |
|
| |
What really matters, though, is that no information is allowed to
travel faster than c. Mass inherently carries information with it.
The laser dot on the moon doesn't (tangentially, which is the
direction in which it exceeds c). Does the magnetic field? I think
not, because it's radiated from its source, rather than actually spun
around tangentially—it just looks that way. (There may be
disturbances in it that get spun, but those are really separate
magnetic fields superimposed on the first and interacting with it,
which separately radiate outward at c from their own sources.) |
|
| |
//C isn’t object oriented.// |
|
| |
So the rail-gun has a preprocessor. |
|
| |
Very nice walkthrough there, [notexactly] |
|
| |
Yes, thank you that helped me wrap my head around it very nicely. |
|
| |
...and it makes me wonder, if disturbances in a rotating magnetic field propagate outwards at the speed of light, does the vortex effect retain the field strength as it propagates, or does the strength drop off by the inverted square of the distance? |
|
| |
Also, if magnetic fields from two separate point sources converge, would there not be a tangential interference which would itself propagate in a straight line faster than light since the analogy would be similar to the laser pointer waggled at the moon? |
|
| |
If so, could a particle not be trapped between these two converging waves and made to surf faster than C? |
|
| |
...or did I just reinvent the LHC? |
|
| |