[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 28 KB, 636x424, 170403724173152122.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15949154 No.15949154 [Reply] [Original]

Let's settle this once and for all, it's a shame that /sci/entists can't solve this after all these years. One last time before 2024, bros.

>> No.15949353

this is like when you're really young and you think that maybe if you jump out of a plane on a skateboard then you can just jump off the skateboard before you hit the ground and you won't get hurt

>> No.15949403

>>15949154
https://youtu.be/IfGHutEXw0s

>> No.15949407

>>15949154
Why don’t you take a cup and a coin and put the cup over the coin.
Did the coin fly up relative to the cup?
Then why would the cube move in this situation?

>> No.15949469

>>15949154
It "swallows" a portion of space, just like an open window does.
There is not change in momentum since the space the cube is in is that's being affected.

It's similar to how things can "travel faster than light" if space is expanding.

>> No.15949487

>>15949154
B is well defined and logically consistent, whereas A is is incoherent, not a single person has ever been able to even come up with a set of rules to define how A actually works.

>> No.15949494

>>15949469
This whole moving space thing has all kinds of serious problems when you when you actually consider the specifics. Its really not workable.

>> No.15949496

>>15949487
Fool. Absolute oaf. How is force being applied to the cube in B?
Stop misleading others with your wrongness.

>> No.15949497

>>15949494
There's no view of this fictional, reality breaking problems that doesn't result in inconsistencies.

If the space is continuous and unaffected by the portal, than what's the difference between the falling portal and a falling open window?

>> No.15949525

>>15949496
There is no force. Consider things from the cubes point of view. It sees a portal moving towards it, and the entire world on the other side of the portal moving as well.

Also, you never actually see the cube accelerate, you see one cube enter one portal, and a different cube fly out of another portal, its a bad mental model to treat them as the same object.

>> No.15949557

>>15949497
What are these problems?

>> No.15949594

>>15949557
Consider the space coming out of the portal, how far does it come out, does it stretch all the way to infinity or does it have a range. Do object in front of the portal get pushed away by this moving space, they should. Do objects partially in the shadow of the portal get sheared in half by the boundary between moving and non-moving space? What happens if an object coming through the portal extends beyond the moving space. What happens if a portal reverses directions, does this extruded space start moving the other way?

>> No.15949595 [DELETED] 

>>15949494
What serous problems?

>> No.15949610

>>15949594
There are also questions related to what happens to the volume of now "missing" space behind the moving portal.

These are all valid questions to which the answer is probably "we don't know."
But does "this stuff downstream is too weird" really form a sound argument of the window analogy being incorrect?

What would happen to something like an un-poppable soap bubble where a portal or "window" moved and swallowed a portion of the bubble fabric and pushed it out into another area nearby?

>> No.15949618

There are a billion infographics to show why exit velocity must be equal to relative entrance velocity or things fall apart very quickly but Afags always, unsurprisingly, respond with low IQ shit akin to "tl;dr". No, I will not track them down for you.

>> No.15949768
File: 145 KB, 596x593, reposterino.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15949768

>> No.15949838

>>15949525
>there is no force
Correct, so the cube cannot be propelled as it is in scenario B
>it’s a bad mental model to treat them as the same object
Is this the brainrot required to believe scenario A? There are 2 cubes officer! I swear.
Grab yourself a hoola hoop or something similar and drop it over a shoe. Does the shoe jump up relative to the hoop? Oh, but if we consider the shoes perspective, it sees the hoop moving toward it! So that means somehow magically a force is applied to the shoe to cause it to move? Of course not. Just make a ring with your finger and bring it toward your eye. Does your eye experience acceleration because it is moving relative to your fingers? Of course not.
Why on earth would the cube in this scenario randomly fly up when there is no mechanism involved that could cause it to move?

>> No.15949899

>>15949768
I look like this lole