what happens if you spin in a 360 at the speed of light or greater?
552482
if the centrifical forces are as great as you say it is. then the probablity of this force creating a dimensional vortex because of its immense gravitational energy is very probable...but how you gonna test something like this.\n\nCan I cheat and ask stephen hawkins?
49096
You can't go the speed of light, but even if you were going 99.9999999% the speed of light, yes, you could shine the beam forward, backwards, or sideways, and it would look normal in every direction.  That's the central idea behind relativty.\n\nAnd NO, the light would NOT be going twice the speed of light.  Anyone who says that is BSing you.
1083208
first of all it is impossible for ANY ANY ANY object with mass to achive the speed of light. But theoretically if it happens then you would no more able to stay on the earth . Your centripital force is so great and large that it would flung you in the outer space.
672393
Right now, many scientists believe that we cannot go faster than the speed of light.  As you get closer, the plane would get heavier and heavier until it slowed down.  Right near the speed of light, the plane would weigh almost infinity so it wouldn't be able to go faster.\n\nIt might be possible to somehow bypass it, but that's mostly science fiction right now.
452520
Well, if YOU make some material turn around at that speed, then I'll tell you what happens!
465096
From memory (so you should double check it):\n\nRa = Rb Sqrt(1-(V/c)^2) \n\n^2 = squared\n\nRa=dilated time\nRb=reference time\nV= velocity\nc=speed of light\n\nSo this is one of the problems with luminal or superluminal travel. If v=c then Ra=0 no matter what Rb is.\n\nAnd if v>c then you get an imaginary number... what could that mean?
1088686
There will be some relativistic time dilation, even at highway speeds... but nothing you'd ever notice. I figure time dilation effects would be 1 part in 116,640,000,000,000 at 60 mph (100 km/h).
236873
According to Einsteinian theory, yes, you would see the light.  Einstein postulates that the speed of light is relative to the viewer.  If you were travelling at the speed of light and turned on a flashlight, the light traveling out of the flash light would be traveling away from you at the speed of light relative to you.
540930
Well it can be explained with a simple example take two coins ,fix one of the with your hand and rotate the other on the surface of the first coin .You will see that coin will have complete revolution in 180 degrees but in ordinary situations 360 degrees = one complete rotation .This new phenomenon is because of the property of the surface of the first coin. For explaining the spin of electron which takes 720 for complete revolution can be explained by a ballarina spinning on her toe while rotating a wine glass in her hand simeltaniously.
1085806
I remember Carl Sagan talking about this on one of his appearances on the Johnny Carson Show.  \nBecause the speed of light is always a constant to any observer, the information would still be reaching you at the speed of light.  Now, based on spatial compression and time dilation on your part possibly you would receive more than one of earth's second's worth of information in the time it takes one of your ship's seconds to elapse. But, bear in mind depending upon how close you got, you would need to slow down so as not to impact ar go by and be going away from earth, so you would eventually come back into synch with earth's space-time frame of reference.
200103
If there is no wind speed, no other gravitational pulls present, no magnetic interference, and you throw it perfectly perpendicular up, then it will fall at the same place.\n\nIf you are riding in the passenger seat of a car going 20 mph, and you throw a ball out your window straight out, the ball will have an initial forward speed of 20mph.\n\nThe same concept applies in your question.  Let's say when you look up, the earth is rotating to the left.  When you throw the ball in the air, its initial direction will go a little to the left, but you won't notice it cause you are going a little to the left as well.\n\nHopefully that helps a little bit.  It's a little hard to explain without pictures.
1016707
there is friction in space as said before but it is also because there is matter in space, just not very much, and eventually it would cause the object to stpo spinning
846625
This theory is formulated by lot of laws and was given by a theory of relativity in which Albert Einstein says that if two things travel in opposite direction with or greater than the speed of light you could look into the future..\nbut it sounds to be impossible ...\nwhile some scientists say that if a object goes near a black hole and a small torque is given to that it starts rotating at a speed nearly equal to light...\n           you can refer theory of relativity for more answers...
268937
No. There are 360 degrees in a circle.
870230
This is one of those look hard but not really math riddles. The answer is actually 1800 degrees. Also known as a five full spin turn. Where will it be? You just leave it there!\n\n1440 is 4 full spins. But that under 1441 so go to the next full spin, 1800 degrees. 1800 is between 1441 and 1892 so that's the answer.\n\nI can't actually think any other easier spin than a full spin. You don't have to move or rotate it at all. You just leave it in it's original spot.
842189
If the speed of light is calculated to be 3 x 10^5 km/s, and the light travels 1 km (2 times 500 m) while the wheel advances one slot, then we can calculate that it takes 1/3 x 10^-5 s (= 1 km / (3 x 10^5 km/s)) for the wheel to rotate a distance of one slot, which is 1/500 of a revolution.\n\nTo calculate revolutions per second, we have:\n(1/500) revolution / (1/3 x 10^-5 x) = 600 revs/s\n\nTo convert to rad/s:\n600 revs/s x 2 pi radians per revolution = 3770 rad/s\nRounding, we have 3800, or 3.8 x 10^3 rad/s\n\nSince the radius of the wheel is 5 cm = 0.05 m, we have:\n3.8 x 10^3 rad/s x 0.05 meters per radian = \n190 m/s = 1.9 x 10^2 m/s
12398
The rotational energy you impart to the object when spinning overcomes the force of gravity that would topple a stationary object.  \n\nA total layman's explanation:\n\nA perfect stationary top perfectly balanced will not fall over.  In real life though,it's impossible to perfectly balance a top.  It's shape practically guarantees that its center of gravity will not be directly over the balance point for any practical length of time.  Imperfections in the material will cause a slightly uneven weight distribution, air currents will introduce a small force, and mechanical vibrations will be transmitted through the medium the top rests on.  The upshot of all this is that as soon as the center of mass is no longer over the resting point, gravity is going to pull the top over.  \n\nNow gravity has an acceleration of 32 feet per second squared (if I remember my ancient high school course correctly).  It can only topple the top at a specific speed.  If you spin the top fast enough, any side that gravity tries to "pull down" will translate around so quickly that it literally has no time to fall.  If you were standing on a planet with a much higher gravity, you'd have to spin the top far faster to achieve stability, and if you were on the moon, it would spin for a much longer time. Eventually, however, the top starts to slow and the tip will inscribe little circles.  That action is called "precession".  And of course, eventually the thing drops to the table and the game is all up once it slows enough.\n\nAgain, that's a layman's view of how it works.  Some college physics major is probably going to come in here and make my answer look really foolish.