Sterling Relativity and Sterling Transformations in Portal Math Sterling, Mhd Abstract: In the world where space is flat and unbroken, Newton’s laws of motion hold for all inertial frames (related by a Galilean Transformation). In Portal Math, Newton’s laws of motion hold in all inertial frames, but to change from one inertial frame to another you have to use a Sterling Transformation. (All of these experiments are going to be in zero gravity by the way.) According to the Galilean transformation, we can shift our frame of reference any direction we want, and everything will still obey Newton’s laws. But this is not true in portals, even when both of the portals are standing still! Consider the situation where you have two portals on the wall, and you throw a cube at the portal. From reference frame A, the cube is moving at +v velocity. Now if we do a Galilean transformation and shift down, and look ahead in time a bit, we see this new reference frame B. But in this reference frame B, the cube is now traveling at –v. This by itself it not a problem, velocities can of course change over time. But in this example, there is no force acting on the cube. There is no force, but the velocity changes, this violates Newtons Laws of Motion. But we said that Newton’s laws of motion must hold in all inertial frames, and all we did was shift one of the coordinates down. The solution? You cannot shift between reference frames in any direction you please. You have to shift along the path that the object in question is taking. So actually, to shift from A to a new reference frame, we would not just subtract a number from the y direction. We would add a fixed length to the x component. Now when we ask ourselves about the cube’s velocity relative to our reference frame C, the answer is +v. Since it started with +v and no forces acted on it, this is consistent with Newton’s laws. This path-based transformation is called a Sterling Transformation. Now let’s look at the famous problem we love so much, the A/B problem. We should established that no forces are acting on the cube. We can say with certainty that the cube’s velocity will be the exact same throughout the entire experiment. This will be important later. The question is, what velocity does the cube exit the portal? In other words, what is the cube’s velocity relative to a still inertial frame G just outside the exit portal? If we use the Sterling transformation to shift to reference frame H, we can see that the cube is moving at speed +v relative to reference frame H. Since we are only shifting by a fixed amount, this shifting will affect the “x” position of the cube but it will not affect the velocity (derivative of a constant is zero). Notice that the green line moves with the piston, because it always represents a fixed amount of distance from frame G. So the relative velocity of the cube must be the same in G as it is in H. We have proved that the velocity is +v in H, and since we know that the velocity does not change, therefore the cube’s velocity relative to G is +v. So the answer to the A/B problem is "B". People who give the wrong answer to this problem are not shifting along the path. We have already shown how shifting along the wrong path makes even non-moving portals break newton’s laws. The following is not a valid Sterling transformation: Remember, we must use Sterling Transformations instead of Galilean Transformations because the space is not flat and unbroken. Thus, Sterling’s Law states: In portal math, Newton’s laws of motion hold for all inertial frames related by a Sterling Transformation. References:
Portal, 2007 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_(video_game)
3 Comments
Simple, Elegant Proof of 0.999… = 1 Camino, Mhd Abstract: Today I prove 0.999… = 1. This has been done before, but for some reason /sci/ still doesn’t agree. So today I am going to use a proof that is so simple that it doesn’t even involve calculus, geometric series, or even multiplication. This proof came to me in a dream, and when I awoke I quickly scribbled it down on a piece of paper.
S = 0.9999… Add 0.1111… to both sides to get: S + 0.1111… = 0.9999… + 0.1111… Look at the right side of the equation. 0.9999… + 0.1111… = 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + … + 0.1 + 0.01 + 0.001 + … = (0.9 + 0.1) + (0.09 + 0.01) + (0.009 + 0.001) + … = (1) + (0.1) + (0.01) + (0.001) + … = 1.11111… Okay! So now we have: S + 0.1111… = 1.1111… Now subtract 0.1111… from both sides: S = 1 Sub for S: 0.9999… = 1 Overpopulation is a Meme Camino, Mhd MYTH: The world's population is increasing exponetially! FACT: The rate of population increase is actually decreasing. (fig. 1) It actually took longer to go from 6 to 7 billion than it did to go from 5 to 6 billion. Trends show that as a country becomes more developed, people tend to have less kids. [1] We are actually at risk of a population implosion. [2] China has already been forced to revoke it's One-Child policy due to shortages in the labor market. [3] At best, we will experience a great graying of humanity as the production of new babies isn't able to support the current society. MYTH: B-b-but the world is already overpopulated! Look at all the starving people! FACT: The 7 billion of us actually produce enough food for 10 billion. [4] How much food do you think 10 billion of us can produce? People's access to food is in no way limited by the large population. It is a problem of distribution. Since the population is increasing, you would expect malnutrition to be increasing if population was really the cause. But actually worldwide hunger is decreasing. [5] (fig. 2) In conclusion: 60s era theories about overpopulation have been shown to be false, and in fact we may have an underpopulation problem upon us. The overpopulation meme distracts us from the real problems of climate change, renewable energy, income inequality, and creating a sustainable society. Having less people does not make the world any more sustainable, we would be just as unsustainable as we were before, just with less people. A truly sustainable society can have any number of people in it. References
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255510/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP5Z14X-moM [3] http://www.shanghaidaily.com/nation/China-facing-labor-shortage-due-to-onechild-policy/shdaily.shtml [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html [5] https://ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment/ I Prove No-Fap Scientifically Anonymous Abstract: As proof we will use the pharmacodynamics of substances that enhance cognitive performance and the inverse connection between dopamine and prolactin.
The method of action for the most well-known substances used in dealing with ADHD, amphetamines and methylphenidate, is shared to a degree, but not completely “Both amphetamine and methylphenidate are predominantly dopaminergic drugs, yet their mechanisms of action are distinct. Methylphenidate acts as a norepinephrine–dopamine reuptake inhibitor while amphetamine is both a releasing agent and reuptake inhibitor of dopamine and norepinephrine.” So what are the benefits of more dopamine? Increased alertness, enhanced performance, better concentration, less fatigue and increased testosterone production through an up-regulation of GnRH. [1][2] We also know that dopamine inhibits prolactin. [3] However prolactin counteracts the effects of dopamine and also leads to a decrease in testosterone in men. [4] So what do elevated levels of prolactin cause? Well, basically the reverse of what dopamine does. Loss of libido, brain fog, depression (in men). >bruh what does this have to do with fapping Pic related (fig. 1) that I stole from another thread. Your dopamine falls rapidly and your prolactin levels skyrocket. See reference [5] TL;DR No-fap has science behind it and you should give it a try if you're struggling with poor life quality. References [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1612019 [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11300712 [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11739329 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolactin#Functions [5] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763401000367 |
JoSThe Journal of /sci/ is a publishing platform open to anyone who wants to submit a paper on any topic ranging from math, physics, programming, biology, philosophy, etc. ArchivesCategories |