Im a clever little boy

bomp

>>8561086
>let me know how retarded retarded or retarded genius I am

You are full retarded reatarded

how? are you gonna steal my idea and sell it to elon musk

Not quite how movement works. Basically, objects move via compression/stretching as individual atoms/molecules interact with each other.
Imagine a chain made of magnets arranged such that it will always want to be stretched out to full length. If you move one link, it will cause a chain (no pun intended) reaction until the link is at full length again.
This effect is happening with every object you move at the speed of sound. Because that's relative for any given material (faster through solids than liquids, for instance) you'd need to specify what your slinky is made out of, and then we could determine that the slinky will collapse in V*L seconds (could probably simplify to centuries, though over a span of light years).
>Tl;Dr: no, that wouldn't work.

>>8561108
Alright, say you have an average slinky, around 5cm between each loop when stretched. Take that slinky, and change nothing about enviroment it's in, the material it's made out of, its proportions or anything.

Only change the scale from 5cm between each loop to 350,000km between each loop, when it collapses onto it'self will it break the speed of light, or will it somehow collapse slower because of the size?

>>8561086
>I know you guys who formed this theory that the speed of light cannot be broken by any particle with or without mass all have studied classical mechanics your entire lives
>but have you considered springs

>>8561149
>or will it somehow collapse slower because of the size?
Yes

>>8561149
Well, the energy balance process is the same. Despite the fact that force propagates through a material at the speed of sound in that material, if you somehow had a perfectly rigid amount of mass, Einstein's theory of special relativity dictates that the amount of energy added to a particle per unit velocity asymptotes vertically in the positive direction as v approaches c, due to the lorentz factor. A spring is ultimately just a group of particles, so as the whole spring moves so do the particles. The whole thing is that you're asking if systems made of classically behaving particles can break constraints placed on classically behaved particles.

File: 717.jpg (15KB, 324x291px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 324x291px

>>8561175
>I've got le law's of psychics to protect me!
>Is quailing in fear at the thought of a childrens toy

>>8561193
"let me know how retarded I am"
>Lets you know that you're retarded
"LOL you're just mad that I'm 2smart4u"

File: 5gnjsE3.jpg (128KB, 776x678px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 776x678px

>>8561199

No, there are speeds at which materials interact. This would be the exact same situation as having a lightyear long tube of air. Compress one end and send waves through it. These waves will move at "the speed of air" or the speed of sound. This is the speed at which kinetic interactions in the material will transmit.

Solids have a much higher "speed of material" but even metals only have a "speed of material" ~a few km/s

Radiation is the fastest way to transmit information by far, and the easiest radiation to manipulate yet has to be EM radiation, which travels at the maximum speed of occurance, coincidentally the speed of light.

Relitvity tells us nothing can pass this speed so even without an explination as to why, the answer is no.