If the blue gear was spinning at the speed of light, at what

>>8522160
What do you mean by 'spinning at the speed of light'.

>>8522160
Roughly the speed your mom reaches on her way to taking my dick

>>8522160
ω1 / ω2 = r2 / r1

assuming that the red one is a third of the blue one:

ω1 = 299792458 m/s
r1 = 3
r2 = 1

899386367 m/s = ω2

>>8522160
2fast

i think the gear will melt

>>8522186
/thread

>>8522160
OP, you asked the question backwards lmao

The edges of the gears would both be moving the same speed, but the red one completes a rotation more often.
(if we're assuming they're both made of a hypothetical material that can't break or melt and held in place by an immovable object)

>>8522186
This is classically right, however a Lorentz transform has to be made between the reference frames, also OP relativistically the wheel can't be spinning in a way that the tangent velocity is equal/higher than c

File: interstellar.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>>8522160
>If the blue gear was spinning at the speed of light, at what speed would the Red gear spin?

blue gear never reaches the speed of light because to accelerate the mass of the red gear to the threshold of that velocity requires infinite force.

The question itself presupposed a violation of general relativity therefor OP is a faggot.

>>8522280
If he was talking about angular velocity like >>8522186 presupposed, then it is possible

File: 608495-10425-1.jpg (35KB, 260x280px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 260x280px

>>8522299
The mass at the limits of the radial dimension experience tangential velocity as a function of the angular velocity and the radius. Faggot please kill yourself.