A reality bending puzzle. (now with a video!)

"

TheWretch wrote:

"

RobbieL_GGG wrote:

But what if the square isn't a square.

What if it was a circle all along...

What if time is a flat circle?

A torus, ie donut shaped?

As Homer Simpson would say, Reality is a Donut.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

TheWretch wrote:

"

RobbieL_GGG wrote:

But what if the square isn't a square.

What if it was a circle all along...

What if time is a flat circle?

A torus, ie donut shaped?

As Homer Simpson would say, Reality is a Donut.

LOL I have no clue mate, its a True Detective quote that seemed fitting

"

DalaiLama wrote:

It still makes 2 rotations, from both perspectives.
If the observer on the central square looks towards the satellite square that is rotating, that observer would indeed only see each side of the satellite square once

Perception is not reality, even when you are talking about supposed observer violations in quantum mechanics. The central person viewing the object would be upside down when the object "appeared" to have rotated half-way. The central person viewing would feel the blood rush to their head and know their own frame of reference had changed.

Have a friend stand on the very left of your field of view while you stand still. Now have him side step(while facing you) a half circle around you until he is at the very right of your field of view. Is he upside down? No he is not.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

These are all perceptual issues based on the observer. None of them change what has actually happened. If a person with no vision is watching from square A, then does square B not rotate at all? Does Square B cease to exist? What if they can hear music from square B?

Your question looks like a paradox because artificial constraints are placed, without modifying the logical constraints.

...

Now, if you were to say the rotating square gives the optical illusion of having only rotated once (from the central sqaure's perception) than I would agree with you.

The thing is, it may seem to be an illusion to a square from an outside observer in my initial experiment. But in the absence of any outside frames of reference, the illusion is all that exists. So for all intents and purposes it IS reality. Just as our entire reality in real life may indeed just be an illusion, we have no way of knowing, exile.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

You are confusing rotation, revolution and translation.

Rotation, revolution, and spin are all synonyms in the common vernacular. Iv tried to use the term orbit and circumnavigate for the method of bodies movement around each other to reduce misunderstandings. If i slipped in the wrong term somewhere, im unaware of it and can edit it if you point it out.

But at the deepest level in a 2 body world(without outside refrences), there is no absolute motion so neither object can truly be said to be one the one which is moving or spinning. Only that there exists a change in position/orientation. If we fix our perception to a single object in this scenario, then axiomatically this object will not move and all movement occurs from the other. But it is equally valid that the other body can do the same... and at the same time.

"

Dan_GGG wrote:

SkyCore, can you provide us with a labelled diagram of what you think is happening here? Specifically, can you label the angle between the two edges that start out touching one another the way I have in mine?

If what you're saying is true, we will see the angle between those two edges be twice as big as itself depending on where it is viewed from.

Iv decided to use cubes(so we can perceive them) in a blender example, editing the textures as we speak. Ill put up a youtube video of simultaneous multiple views of the scenario shortly.

What if i told you the square never actually moved at all.

That is to say, the movement true space and time indicates a (r)evolution on the particle level, meaning it is no longer the same square that originally moved away from its location.



Mind bending stuff, now to get my assembly kid from IKEA for some additional mind bending.

Peace,

-Boem-

Im so frustrated right now. Gimp bugged out and had some selection blocking any view or editing that persisted even across an opening and closing of the program. And Blender is not allowing me unwrap a texture in the uv editor with no hint as to why?!

Omg, if there is an option to do something, and a user selects that option... And that something doesnt happen, there should be some sort of feedback to the user as to what the fuck happened( or why nothing happened). So frustrating...

=======edit=============
So after hours of banging my head against a wall and checking every damn video/wiki/web page available. I finally figured out my image texture was working, but the lighting wasnt allowing them to be shown( no thanks to ANY of the sources i consulted). Further more, lights are not all omnidirectional by default in blender.

So much frustration.

Either I'm misunderstanding something, or this is very easy to understand. And you guys made me loging in after so much time just to explain how simple it is.



2 Perspectives represented on that image.
Squares:
- The black square doesn't move;
- The grey square rotates around the black square;

Arrows:
- The grey arrow is there so it is easier to understand how much rotation happened. It represents a pattern drawn onto the square that rotates with it;
- The blue arrow arrow shows where you are and where you are looking at when in the inside perspective;
- The red arrow shows the direction in which the movement occurred;


As you can see, the grey arrow, and consequentially the grey square rotated 90º on the inside perspective, but also rotated 180º on the outside perspective. There! Easy :P

PS: Gimp? Did you ever heard of paint? Never fails me :D

"

RobbieL_GGG wrote:

But what if the square isn't a square.

What if it was a circle all along...

http://www.astronomynotes.com/nakedeye/s7.htm :)

Ok after a road block on virtually every operation in blender i finally got some cubes textured and animated. Looked fine in the editor. But when it came time render into an external file(which took 20 minutes at 100% cpu usage) it came up solid white:/

So i give up trying to model it in a 3d.

DnAngel's paint image should suffice.

Just take my word on it. From the perspective of either of the squares without outside references the other square spins once.

From one level outside, twice. But that is not to mean the outside is an absolute frame of reference. There can be and ARE other frames of reference which will observe different spin than our imaginary 3rd person observer. Imagine a satellite in orbit watching the earth spin as the squares move around. Then there's the solar system... Then the galaxy... Who knows if there's anything beyond that. And we can also imagine things within those squares spinning themselves...

It's all relative when it comes to spin.