Relative to the train, and by extension the portal, the people are moving towards it at the same speed as the train relative to the ground, since the people are tied to the ground. I’m gonna work with the definition of momentum that equals it to the velocity of an object times its mass, and with the assumption that the portals conserve mass and momentum of the objects during teleportation, or with negligible losses. Having found that the momentum stays constant, and given the mass before and after teleportation is constant, the velocities relative to the portal are gonna be constant too. (p1=p2 <=> mv1=mv2 <=> v1=v2). And since the velocity of the people relative to the portal is the velocity is the train relative to the ground, and the velocity of the train relative to the ground is far bigger than the velocity of the people relative to the ground, the answer is gonna be B, where the people shoot out of the portal with great speed.
If the people actually go into the portal and not under it that is.
If that is so, the train or portal would have to lose its momentum for the transfer to happen otherwise you’d be generating more relative velocity after the portal. I can’t imagine portals transfering monentum, only maintain it.
If you replaced the people with a pole on a roller, you wouldn't expect the pole to get sucked into the portal or to roll towards the tram as it advanced, right?
That is what would happen if people were launched out of the other side of portal. The part of the pole that has been launched would drag the remainder of the pole with it.
But that wouldn't happen.
The pole would just lay there until the tram passed it by, so the answer must be A. There's no momentum added to the pole as the tram passes it by. The only thing that changed is the location of the pole.
If the pole is entering the portal at the rate of 60 miles per hour, it must exit the portal at the same rate. After a minute, 1 mile of pole has entered the portal, and 1 mile has exited it. If it exits more slowly than it enters, where is the missing part of the pole?
And if it exits at the speed it enters, does it lack momentum despite clearly being in motion outside the second portal? Does it magically halt when all of it has passed through?
You almost arrived at the correct answer. The problem is that would happen. More specifically we know that four fundamental interactions can pass through the portals, e.g. a thing that is whole before passing through portals is still whole after passing through them, though for any pair of particles, atoms, neutrons and protons etc. there was a moment in time where they were separated by the portal. If you imagine the portal moving towards the pole at some speed and in the middle of it suddenly stopping, the momentum of the part on the other side would slightly pull on it, and the pole would still be moving at a reduced speed. The momentum of the second part cannot disappear and will pull on the first part. The only other reasonable option is that the pole gets split, but that obviously is not the case. So B it is
The front part of the pole wouldn’t pull the back part of the pole more so than in any normal contiguous space. If you send a pole flying from the front and catch it mid-flight from the back stopping its motion, you’ll have to apply a force opposite in direction to the motion of the pole, and by Newton’s third law (every action has an equal and opposite reaction) it’s gonna pull you towards the direction it’s moving by reactionary force while decelerating.
In the case if moving portals, it might be a bit confusing, but what it comes to teleportation through the portals, the portals are absolutely stationary the world around them moves. And in the case only one of the two portals move relative to the ground, not only does the world move relative to both portals, it also deforms in a non-euclidean manner. That is why the pole that was stationary relative to the ground suddenly started moving after coming out the portal. And yes, it would require massive amounts of energy for the portal to function like that and keep its own momentum relative to the ground after teleporting things, but tbh that’s a woe for Aperture science, not mine 🙂
Two years later you could get an Amiga 500, with 512KB for £499. They were such a deal when they arrived. I bought a 20MB hard drive, an extra 512KB of RAM, a second floppy drive and a monitor. If I recall correctly that set me back around £1400.
At least the boomerang curved into your palms. This literally curves away. The only part of your body that will be holding onto this “prototype” when you use its joysticks are the tips of your fingers.
From what I’ve read, the boomerangs ps3 controller wasn’t actually dumb at all. It was apparently extremely comfortable to hold because of the way it curved into your palms and the placement of the buttons and sticks felt really natural. But the poor reception to the look of it basically bullied Sony into reverting to the classic DualShock layout.
I dunno, it delegitimised the usefulness of Twitter somewhat. Now you can’t be certain that the NASA account that announces an apocalyptic asteroid is real or not.
I don’t really use Twitter ever, so I’m not 100% sure, but isn’t that what the colored checkmarks are for? Like he started charging for the blue checkmark, but then added gold and gray (and maybe others I don’t know about?) for marking official organizations/companies.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean. Doesn’t all dependency injection work the way I described?
Without being familiar with the framework, you can’t trace your way from the class getting injected into to the configuration, even if you’re experienced with the language.
I don’t think so. When I’ve seen it done it’s usually not been random values injected (except when those values are secret keys which should absolutely not be stored in code to begin with), it’s usually injecting a service. Another class, usually with a name that makes it easy to trace down. Like if you’re building an OrderService, that might take as a dependency an IProductService, which would have injected into it the class ProductService (personally, I don’t like the Hungarian notation that C# uses, but it’s a convention and my preference for sticking to strong conventions for the sake of consistency outweighs my distaste for Hungarian notation). That’s easy to find, and in fact your IDE can probably take you straight to it from the OrderService’s constructor.
It’s easy to imagine a hypothetical way that could lead to problems. But in all the code I’ve worked with, either that scenario is avoided entirely, or other context makes it absolutely clear which IProductService is being used.
They can take more torque, don’t cam out when screwing and most importantly can’t be damaged easily by constantly using the screw, unlike Philips which fucks off after second attempt.
Most fun when someone says a kid “could not have done” something by themselves… Kids are smarter than people give them credit for, they figure shit out. They just lack experience.
sopuli.xyz
Top