2 Problems Regarding Relativity/speed Of Light

1st Telescopic Pendelum taking 1 second to swing across an arc of 45 degrees. Start with arc covering 1mt, so end covers 1mt per second, extend pendelum so arc covers 300,000 kms so end of pendelum travelling 300,000 kms per second (Speed of Light) extend pendelum so arc covers 600,000 Kms so end travelling at 2x Speed of light. Done in deep space so friction and gravity have negligible effect. As speed of light cannot be exceeded what happens to pendelum to stop end going 2x speed of light. Pendelum can be regarded as being made of superlight/rigid material.

2nd Conveyor belt moving at any mph, observer 1 standing on conveyor and observer 2 next to it. in order for 1 to maintain position relative to 2 he has to run in opposite direction to conveyor, in order for 2 to maintain position relative to 1 he has to run in same direction as conveyor. How does relativity differentiate between the 2? and how does time/ length ditation work relative to the 2 observers in both examples ( for this conveyor can be regarded as moving at a speed where time /length dilation can be taken into account)

Wow. You have given me new insight into the speculations of the aggressively ignorant.

#1 needs language improvements, but ultimately lies on an approximation which is neither relativity nor reliable physics. If I understand you correctly, you are requiring Born rigidity and conservation of angular velocity, when real systems are elastic ( with finite transmission speeds ) and constant angular velocity in this situation requires torque.

#2 garbles the difference between the symmetry of space time and the asymmetry of a particular physical situation.

Usually threads in the Puzzling questions section are intended to have answers, not propose self-defeating misstatements of problems.

Both situations are potentially possible. The answers are as I expected. You are pretending ignorance because you dont have a solution to either problem.
There are in fact a number of potential answers but as all science cannot be questioned none of them would be acceptable.
Pehaps God will give a lesson in the afterlife.

Agressively stupid.

Stupid or not still no viable explaination, the fact seems to be that relativity, good as it is, has limitations which no one will admit to yet all seem to accept.

Ha! Another good example of how people are constantly confused, because they were taught to treat light not as a wave but a particle on par with material things like a pendulum. You're so quick to call the guy an idiot, but he is merely confused, because the current dogma is confusing.

What this forum is for? It is not for professional physicists, simply 'cause I have not seen one here, except maybe by mistake and in passing. Is it for laymen education? I tried to find a description in FAQs or something, but... nothing. Or is it to discuss openly our laymen ideas about the universe? We all are made of stardust, not just physicist. We all belong. We all are the integral part of universe.

Physics to the people!

Dumba$$.

Oh! I know what this forum is for! It's for brucep and AlexG to call noobs idiots, 'cause that's the only way these socially maladjusted lonesome poor souls can feel smart and otherwise satisfied with themselves in the end of the day

You're an idiot. Telling the moderator 'this forum' is for the scientifically illiterate to spew nonsense back and forth. Dumba$$.

SpaceCadette,

Check Ewol's posting history. He has form for asking questions like this then just saying that the answers he gets don't make any sense. He never seems to try to put in the effort to understand anything he's told. Evidently this has begun to irritate rpenner, and everyone else can't be bothered.

You are right about my posting history, but many answers I have have to other postings only barely scratch the surface, and many questions have basically gone unanswered, they dont make sense because I question what lies beneath the surface and am not satisfied especially with the vast number that just say you are wrong and an idiot but cant explain why.
Take this posting for example no one has attempted to even scratch the surface let alone question what lies beneath. If there is a paradox it only shows that either theory is incomplete or misinterpreted, I do not believe that a paradox can exist in nature.
In 6 months of reading and posting on various sites my estimation of where current theoretical science is and the attitude of many but not all so called experts has gone downhill with each passing day. The fact is that theoretical physics seems to be nowhere near what they would like us to believe.
That is not to say though that I dont admire where modern technology has taken us especially electronics.
How many answers has Kino attempted? I dont remember any.

Check your Big G and Little g thread. I didn't answer your more philosophical second question because David seemed to have answered to your satisfaction. That thread, though, is a classic of why you have problems with physics. You want to think about big questions but you don't understand basics (in that case, "comparing numbers with different units is like comparing apples and oranges", which I learnt when I was about twelve). The result is that you don't ask well-posed questions. You also give the very strong impression that you already believe that a lot of physics is wrong, so when you come to a flaw in your understanding you assume it's a flaw in physics, not in your understanding of physics.

That said, I had a bad day when I posted my last and it was grumpier than I try to be. I shall try to provide some kind of answer to this one.

Your second question first. I really don't understand what your problem is. You are describing a scenario where one observer sees themself at rest and the other moving at +v, and the other sees themself at rest and the first moving at -v. What's the problem? Length and time both contract by a factor of 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). It's all in the Lorentz transforms. If you expand on what your problem is, I'll try to explain.

Your first question has a short answer and a long answer. The short answer is: the pendulum doesn't behave as you describe, so the problem you see doesn't exist. The longer answer is a good example of what I was talking about in my first paragraph. You mis-state the (basic, non-relativistic) physics of a pendulum in at least three ways. First, you imply a constant speed for the pendulum bob, where actually it is always changing speed. Second, the period of a pendulum of length l is approximately 2.pi.sqrt(l/g) and the arc length in your setup cannot exceed l, so the mean and peak velocities cannot scale more strongly than sqrt(l) (in the non-relativistic stages - gets more complex when we have to factor in relativity). You have them scaling as l. Third, a pendulum relies on gravity to work, so doing the experiment in deep space would be pointless as the pendulum wouldn't swing. So, as written, the answer to your question is that the pendulum doesn't swing, it just changes from a short rod drifting in space to a long rod drifting in space.

Even if you put gravity back in, a pendulum does not behave as you describe. The actual behaviour of a telescoping pendulum isn't simple at all, as it depends on when in the pendulum swing you extend the pendulum. You have four options:

1. Stop the pendulum, then extend it, then start it again. Obvious what happens here: the pendulum bob accelerates to some maximum speed, which is below lightspeed.

2. Extend the pendulum when it is moving, but while the pendulum is vertical. This keeps the maximum kinetic energy of the bob constant, and the arc length never varies from 1m. The period drops off by a factor of about 17,000, though, so the maximum speed is about 60 microns/s.

3. Extend the pendulum when it is moving but the pendulum is at the end of a swing. The bob is instantaneously stationary here, and you grow the gravitational potential energy available to convert to kinetic energy by a factor of 300,000,000. But this looks a lot like (1) - the bob will simply accelerate to a (new, higher) top speed that is below lightspeed.

4. Somewhere between (2) and (3). The only difference from (3) is that the available potential energy doesn't grow as much.

Does that answer your question?

Kino many thanks for a detailed reply. In answer to the big G little g the question I was trying to get answered was could g go down to 0 which would be smaller than G which is constant, in fact I got a lesson on the use of different units and assumed from the answer that it could. To me using escape velocity is a way of using the same unit to describe gravity in all cases from black holes to a small asteroid. When I looked it up the units used for G and g looked very similar to me as I think I mentioned. Both seem to be kilos meters and seconds so I was definately left unsure about the difference in units and just gave up.
Back to this tread the 2nd question asked how does relativity distinguish between forward and backward motion without observation. Also how do you keep the speed of light constant when moving at 90% c means only a 50% time and length contraction? The Lorenz transforms seem to assume all velocity is positive.
Another way of putting it - I am standing by a railway track watching a train heading towards me at 100 mph if the speed of light is constant then the light leaving that train and heading towards me must be c -100mph relative to say a tree motionless next to it in other words the speed of the train must be negative relative to c as it cannot be cumulative. So what happens if the train is moving away, or does redshift take the speed difference into account if so then different wavelengths must travel at different speeds.
Perhaps using a pendelum was the wrong choice. A clock with normal sized hour and minute hands with a long second hand describing a circle with a circumference of 36 million kilometers (this if I have calculated correctly means moving at 2xc) what time would the hour and minute hands keep. The pendelum obviously causes to many problems.
I dont assume that a lot of physics is wrong just that it a lot makes assumptions which if you think deeply enough that maybe it should not which may be why so much seems to remain beyond reach, how far has string theory got in over 30 years of trying?. A classic example was my question where did the mass that makes up the solar system come from - answer the solar system formed from an accretion disc, this is what I would call surface thinking as the accretion disc had to come from somewhere, if I said God created it then you could not contradict me because there is no proof that I can find that disproves it. We are looking for the answer to the universe and still cannot even explain the fundamental origins of our solar system.
Dont forget that all experiments are relative to the earth not necessarily to the rest of the universe. An outside observer may well see things completely differently to us.
I can only appologise if I dont put things in easily understood ways but I try my best.

The crank forum won't be bothered by Ewol's questions. In fact it will welcome them. Now where did I place the link. . .

Again another personal opinion with total failure to add anything constructive.
If you want the correct answer you need to ask the correct question. Who is to say though what that question is. If you fail to question all you will never know if you have the correct answer, it is possible that lack of progress compared with say early 20th century may mean you are asking the wrong questions.