/sci/ - Science & Math

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes
go nuts

>>3337684
The only thing I can say is that portals cannot exist.
Paradoxes in physics are tools to check weather a proposed theory makes sense or is there a greater truth yet to be known.
Einstein used paradoxes to show that faster than light travel is impossible. Thus relativity.

>>3337684
Your picture is wrong in so many ways

>>3337691
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes#Self-reference
my fav

>>3337710
Intersting, what do you find wrong about it exacly?

>>3337734
Assuming the portals are a fold point through a 4th spacial dimension, in (A) the rod would fall perpetually that isn't an issue. In (B), the portal wouldn't fall. You would not be able to change the distance between the portals without first breaking the rod. Similar with (C), the rod would be severed at the event horizon should it suddenly relocate.

I don't consider myself a genius but, assuming one could open that portal network...

a) would accelerate downward until it reached terminal velocity and then fall indefinitely

b) The portal would be connected to that part of space, it couldn't "fall"

c) there isn't 2 portals, there is the entry and exit of 1 portal. As soon as the orange one was relocated, the connection would be cut, and I imagine the bar severed.

>>3337764
OH MY GOD I LOVE YOU WE CAME UP WITH THE SAME ANSWERS AT THE SAME TIME!!!!!!! <3333

>>3337706
I disagree. If there is a forth spacial-dimension then portals are plausible.

>>3337684
First you have to define the properties of the portals. Then you'll find that they cannot exist.

It's like you're trying to figure out why <span class="math"> 1 = 0 [/spoiler]; it doesn't, so you can't.

>>3337793
I already defined them as folds through a forth spacial-dimension. Don't be so closed-minded and read the comments before posting.

>>3337768
any person with a fucking brain would come to those conclusion on a and c, only b is tricky, i would image if the surface the portal was on was heavy enough it would crush the rod and the portals would fall on top of each other.

And op troll harder

>>3337812
(B) is not tricky at all, you just gave the same answer that I did. And clearly both the illustrator of the picture didn't come to either of those conclusions and I am willing to bet a large sum of money that they are a person and have a brain.

But if a portal were to be shot onto, say, a wall, then wouldnt it have some sort of fixed point to that wall? therefore, if the wall was pushed forward, which would move the point the portal was fixed to, then wouldnt the portal move with it? just thinking about the result that would have on the metal rod makes my head hurt -.-

>>3337827
no, anybody who uses blue and orange portals obviously played portal, and knows how portals work, you need to grasp them to play the game. Op is a troll, posts idiotic simple questions since he is bored.

mass destruction in 2 directions however wide that rod is.

>>3337837
You have to take into account the mass of the rod. It isn't being created or destroyed! I.e. if the portals were to get closer, the rod would have to crush. If they were to get further from each other, the rod would have to stretch.

>>3337850
Untrue, i saw this image and im unable to completely understand how this were to work, i understand that the most likely thing to happen in the case of (c) is that the bar might be severed, but im unsure of the others

>>3337792
>>3337763
>>3337803
Fourth temporal dimension.

>>3337867
Well, I'm completely sure and my logic is irrefutable.

>>3337872
I don't care whether you're trolling or just retarded, you'll get no rise out of me beside this sentence.

>>3337874
Then what would you expect to happen in the case of (a), (b) and (c)? im interested to hear this irrifutable logic

>>3337878
Fine. 3+1 spacetime.

>>3337886
See >>3337763 (my original response)

What is interesting to think is that portal paradoxes are expected. If portals didn't create any paradox, then they would preety much exist in real life.

Anything that can fit in our universe, exists. Think about it.

>>3337892
/deflect_troll

>>3337903
You make no sense whatsoever. It is not true that anything that can exist does nor is it true that portals would create a single paradox (unless you consider perpetual falling a paradox, but if you do you're retarded)

>>3337901
Ahh i see, i dont know how i missed that post. and i agree i cant see any problems with what you are saying, but just out of curiosity, what if you could move the portal closer and if the rod was made out of an indestructable or unbendable metal? This is just for my own curiosity, ive been wondering, but i have no idea whats meant to happen

>>3337684

The game crashes.

>>3337903
God could fit into our universe- explains a hell of a lot of shit

if portals could be moved time travel would be possible and so would infinite loops. so more likely they aren't possible.

>>3337922
Essentially, what you're asking me is what if 1 equaled 0. So that I cannot answer I'm afraid. That is a paradox. My point still stands that portals themselves are not impossible to exist but rather your infinitely brittle rod is.

>>3337942
A better metaphor: what if you compressed a non-compressible material.

>>3337927
You, sir, are surprisingly aptly named.

Alright, thanks for the help in crearing that up, even if questions do seem to always result in more questions =/ Damn you science. Thanks 4chan =P

>>3337952
But is a name not always definitive of its subject? Even if my name were 'Massive nigger', is the label therefore definitive regardless of context? And even so as far as to go want more like?

>>3337930
Infinite loops already exist in our universe and I don't believe time travel is implausible.

>>3337962
To think I kept reading after "Massive nigger". I'm ashamed of myself.

>>3337684
This situation can be easily understood if you keep in mind that the length L of the rod initially slightly less than the distance D between the portals.
In welding the ends together, you add some small length of material to the rod, such that L=D.
A) The rod does not move. It is being supported by itself (were the case that L<D, rather than L=D, the rod would acceleration downward).
B) The rod is crushed. Imagine a stick: you push the end toward the center, and what happens?
C) The closing portal slices the rod. [If I recall correctly, the game would not allow new portals to be formed if there was an object in a portal. That this would be the case in real life seems implausible; as such, slicing of the object in the portals is what would most likely happen.]

>>3337903
>Anything that can fit in our universe, exists.

Care to explain why my 2ly long, 1.5ly circumference dick is no more than a pipe dream?

>>3337964
well lets see if its possible
a photon travels back in time
there are now two photons which can both travel back in time
this is infinity recurring a paradox so it's impossible
infinite loops do not exist in reality

"soder the ends together"

That would be welding, not soldering, you raging faggot

>>3338102
Look, I am very well set in my mind about the way time works and what you're saying is totally wrong to me. Now, rather than explaining to you why you can't duplicate particles even if you're traveling through time, I'm just going to drop the conversation and let you keep thinking I'm wrong. I have more important things to deal with than teaching the internet how to science.

Herp derp. Not enough information. Stopped reading where it said "fall downward." Hello? That's dependent on gravity. What is the gravitational force of the portals?

>>3338171
It means the gravitational pull of earth. Even if gravitational pull was somewhat nullified by the infinite series of portals because of the arrangement, it would still pull the rod through inducted gravity surrounding the portals.

1. The pole will go down continuously.

2. If the above portal is forcibly going doen, the pole will become compressed. If it's in freefall, the pole will hold the portals apart.

3. The pole will split smoothly.

>>3337792

You mean fifth. Fourth is time and I don't see how time can be utilised in that way.

>>3338222
He said SPATIAL dimension, not temporal.

>>3338222
I didn't say forth dimension, I said forth spacial-dimension. As in an extra dimension of space. If I meant time I'd have said the first temporal-dimension.

>>3338244
spacial*

>>3338244
Oh, never mind. Both are correct. Excuse my linguistic pedantry. :\

>>3338304
Yes, they are. :P
I just prefer "spatial" because I always read "spacial" as "space-ee-ull." >.>