MC question (2 Viewers)

[khfreakau]

also guys, its a rocket, a real one not a bullshit relativistic one, you have over thought the q way too much

Question never specified LOL.

 

[ohexploitable]

you're on the right track with your argument, but this statement is wrong.

without an increasing or constant acceleration (if a is not >= 0 ), velocity will not be increasing, and you obviously want velocity to increase to achieve maximum speed

I meant 'a' doesn't have to be a constant value, it can change.

 

[khfreakau]

keyword in question is ultimately.

ultimately, no matter how fast them gases are flying out of the rocket, achieving maximum speed will depend on how much fuel you have.

What if the gases are flying out at an infinitely fast speed (ie c)?

 

[stampede]

I meant 'a' doesn't have to be a constant value, it can change.

lol, good save

What if the gases are flying out at an infinitely fast speed (ie c)?

then the fuel tank will experience an unfuckingbelievingly massive force and the nuts and bolts connecting the fuel tank will detached from the rocket so the rockey will simply float around in nothingness.

this is an honest answer to your q if you meant it.

'oh lets assume the tank can stay connected to the rocket'
no.

lets NOT assume these shitty scenarios at all

 

[Riproot]

What if the gases are flying out at an infinitely fast speed (ie c)?

No.

 

[khfreakau]

lets NOT assume these shitty scenarios at all

LOL but how to get answer if no assume shitty scenario? : D

 

[Riproot]

LOL but how to get answer if no assume shitty scenario? : D

By being intelligent?

 

[stampede]

LOL but how to get answer if no assume shitty scenario? : D

get answer by assume built-in logic

speak like this get fail in english advanced son

 

[ohexploitable]

The gases have mass, they cannot travel at c. If you assume these 'shitty scenarios' then it would result in a fallacy.

 

[Riproot]

The gases have mass, they cannot travel at c. If you assume these 'shitty scenarios' then it would result in a fallacy.

I know that word! Yay debating!

 

[stampede]

I know that word! Yay debating!

wat da fuck bro as if u have kids and you act like that over a word

 

[Riproot]

wat da fuck bro as if u have kids and you act like that over a word

If you met me, you would no.
I don't do words...

 

[khfreakau]

http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...ocket-with-a-potential-of-relativistic-speeds

where's yo god now.

 

[mirakon]

it's A, B does not limit the maximum speed in any way as speed of ejection of gaes only impacts upon force and thus acceleration. It does not at any point state that this acceleration cannot continue infinitely and thus does not limit the maximum speed. However, if the rocket carries less fuel, it'll obviously propel for a limited period of time and thus this impacts upon the maximum speed because it will stop at one point.

 

[d3st1nyLiang]

Guys. They also accepted C. B is tbc.

 

[khfreakau]

it's A, B does not limit the maximum speed in any way as speed of ejection of gaes only impacts upon force and thus acceleration. It does not at any point state that this acceleration cannot continue infinitely and thus does not limit the maximum speed. However, if the rocket carries less fuel, it'll obviously propel for a limited period of time and thus this impacts upon the maximum speed because it will stop at one point.

Dud? Surely you can't believe that acceleration can continue infinitely.

 

[mirakon]

Dud? Surely you can't believe that acceleration can continue infinitely.

why not? even if you take special relativity, velocity will still mathematically increase asymptotically to c, therefore this change in velocity equates to a change in acceleration for theoretically infinity assuming that there is infinite fuel.

The only way you can limit the maximum speed is by having a finite amount of fuel and therefore A is the right answer as the amount of fuel determines the maximum velocity by placing limits on how long the rocket can go for.

 

[khfreakau]

why not? even if you take special relativity, velocity will still mathematically increase asymptotically to c, therefore this change in velocity equates to a change in acceleration for theoretically infinity assuming that there is infinite fuel.

The only way you can limit the maximum speed is by having a finite amount of fuel and therefore A is the right answer as the amount of fuel determines the maximum velocity by placing limits on how long the rocket can go for.

No, only if there is an INFINITE FORCE being applied. Hence why I believe B is also a correct answer.

 

[mirakon]

No, only if there is an INFINITE FORCE being applied. Hence why I believe B is also a correct answer.

that's the point, if you have INFINITE FUEL you will continue to accelerate. However, if you have a finite amount of fuel, then you allow for finite acceleration and therefore a maximum speed is attained. In other words, option A, the amount of fuel, is the answer.

 

[khfreakau]

that's the point, if you have INFINITE FUEL you will continue to accelerate. However, if you have a finite amount of fuel, then you allow for finite acceleration and therefore a maximum speed is attained. In other words, option A, the amount of fuel, is the answer.

But you're entirely disregarding the problem of mass dilation and how no matter how much fuel you have, if you are applying a force at a relativistic speed, it will be converted into mass, not kinetic energy, if the force is insufficient...