Because we have not had enough silly debating, let's see who gets this one wrong!

There is no "wrong" for this question, as physicists fall on both sides of the debate.

An object of infinite hardness and strength logically should transmit the information of its pushing, since its unique material makes it indistinguishable from a single particle, the energy of the push transferring through it instantly due to there being no "space" within it. But then, nothing travels faster than light, does that include the information of the position of an object in space?

-Luckily, such an object is impossible, and thus can exist within hypothetical situations where you can say that yes, it can travel faster than light. In these same situations there's nothing keeping someone from making an engine with infinite thrust or a wheel with infinite torque, any number of theoretically perfect machines that could be used to break the light barrier.

Just going to point out that even if scientists don't agree, doesn't mean there isn't a right answer, or more aptly, a wrong one.

Infinite tensile strength, hardness, and brittleness? Might as well make it out of sunshine, happiness and dreams.

fun question this and I would hope that physicists would agree because from those that I've talked too, there is only one answer, the push and the light arrive at the same time,

Firstly I hope everyone is up to speed on length contraction as you move near to the speed of light, (they say the tube can't bend, warp or shatter, but they don't say anything about not being effected by space-time which I will assume means the tube obeys it).

So you push the tube, the information can at its fastest only travel down the tube at the speed of light, so what will happen will be a "bubble of warped space-time" that holds the information as it travels along the tube. Depending on your point of view, the entire tube can shrink instanteously (relativistic view) or in the more "classical" sense you can still imagine the movement of the information as a bubble of space-time moving down the tube.

For someone looking at the tube in a stationary frame of reference they would see the tube contract in overall size relative to the distance it was pushed, (that's if they could actually get information from each end at the same time, which they can't), this isn't an atomic/molecular contraction, but a contraction in space-time in which the tube resides. Once the push has been recorded at the other end of the tube, the stationary observer will see the tube at the full length again.

The push on the tube will travel down the tube at the speed of light next to the photon in the laser, as a photon you would observe the tube to retain its normal size.

I hope that makes sense...

As a non-physicist, I'd assume the push. The light has to travel a light year, the tube only travels as far as you push it (which might be a couple of inches) at the speed which you push it. The difference is the tube starts closer to the destination than the light does.

I could be totally wrong, of course.

As a mechnical engineer, I'd say the push because **** light.

Same time.

Suppose the other end of the tube is either suspended in the air, or placed against an arbitrarily-durable surface (perhaps made of the same material as the tube.) What happens when you push it? Will it move no matter what?

I think Poley's entirely correct. I'd forgotten about the contraction thing.

-lol speed of light.

Obviously the answer is neither. Both are blocked by the flying spaghetti monster which promptly destroys the impossible tube, the light, and the fools that dared to construct such an experiment in defiance of faith that the flying spaghetti monster provides all that one needs.

You fool! You have spoken the name of That Which Must Not Be Named! Now we shall all be horribly strangled by airborne pasta!

Cave Johnson here to introduce the all new...... wait a second..... where's my giant space tube?! WHO THE HELL PUT MY GIANT SPACE TUBE INTO SPACE?! HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO PUSH IT IF ITS IN GODDAMN SPACE?! ugh!

This is Cave Johnson; we're done here.

....IDIOTS!

Why is there always someone who, given a hypothetical situation, will always argue about it's realism ><

That's already been well covered here:
Sorry, don't know how to play this video :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muVfidujxRg

Haha that was brilliant!

>_< You beat me to it, Dormouse.

Also: MLP is awesome.

The Massassi Level Packs ARE awesome.

...

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

A good question, Deadman.

-What's the point of rhetorical questions, anyways.

generally to shame you into parting with your hard earned money!