DarkSaint85
Bonified abstract
Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
well for one IF they tried to accelrate to the speed of light with an object that big they would die, two I have no idea but using real world physics as a micro or macro what h8 assumed made no sense at all lol thats like saying in order for a tow truck to move and 18 wheeler it would have to go from 0 to 260 mph instantly and also be able to move means you take a force millions of times that so the truck would have to be able to move the mountain is basically what he said lol. The only factual thing is that it would have to atleast be able to move one solar mass because thats atleast the size of a star but being that it has to move billions of times the weight of a star no lmao did it say it was dragging many stars the size 100 solar mass or just one star you dont even know the full scope of what its moving
So we assume 1 solar mass.
We assume......a trip of 300 years. 500, 1000 - it doesn't matter, lmao. That's the point we are trying to make here.
Average galaxy size is 3000 to 300,000 light years (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy). So let's lowball, and say all the galaxies are 3,000 light years.
So that means accelerating a star to lightspeed, would still take 3,000 years lmao. So you're looking at a delivery time of 3,000 years. At lightspeed. Logical? I say no.
That still makes those chains hundreds of times stronger than being able to support 1 solar mass, and assuming we are making a delivery of 3,000 years in length, and travelling at lightspeed. You want to make it a slower speed? Then you're making an assumption that the delivery time is longer than 3,000 years.
I (and h1, and others) are saying that the delivery period is much lower, which means the speed must be much higher than lightspeed. You want to assume that it's at a much slower speed, then sure.
It still means that the chains are incredibly strong.
And he broke them with one arm each.