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

"

RobbieL_GGG wrote:

But have you embraced your demon of the loneliest of lonely?

Praise The Yellow King

With the number of times iv had posts removed for being 'off topic' despite actually being directly related to the topic... I feel insulted that such responses are tolerated.

Seems unfair that GGG staff cant be reported.

"

Dan_GGG wrote:

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

Dan_GGG wrote:

It's two rotations if the revolution works as in Mark's diagrams.

It's two from an OUTSIDE observe yes. But imagine if you ARE one of those squares. It will appear as if the other has rotated once.

If I were standing in the red square, and saw the blue square move as though in Mark's diagram, I would describe the movement as a half turn, rotating about one of its corners.

Incorrect. If we were the moving square in position one on marks diagram: we would see the blue square as being pointed left(if it had an arrow pointing up from a 3rd party perception). Once we move to position 2, we would see only a quarter turn with the blue square being pointed towards us.

"

Dan_GGG wrote:

If I saw the full revolution (making that same motion 3 more times to get back to its starting point/orientation) I would describe the red square as having made two full rotations.

You seem to be unable to put yourself in the position of either of the squares. If you dont believe me you can model it in 3d, then follow the path of one square as it orbits (while revolving) around the other.

"

Dan_GGG wrote:

I could describe the blue square as having revolved around my square once,

To prevent confusion, use circumnavigation or orbit as the term for one body moving around another.

"

Dan_GGG wrote:

I could describe the blue square as having circumnavigated around my square once, but I would be describing its position relative to mine, not its motion relative to mine.

There is no absolute position OR motion. Only relative position and motion. Change in position IS the definition of motion.

If anyone thinks i am wrong about what iv said, i will wager all my currency in standard( 12 exalts and 80 chaos) that i can prove it with a demonstration.

And to be clear; what iv said is that from the point of view of either square will show that the other square makes one full spin before it returns to its initial position. But from an outside observer, it will appear as if one square has rotated twice.

Might be better off just having a beer and not worrying about it so much, you wouldn't want to get worry lines on your forehead.

Iv done what i can to search for anything similar to this online have been unable to find anything. If anyone knows of any information at all regarding this concept, please let me know. It may actually be a new discovery that was always hiding in plain sight.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

It still makes 2 rotations, from both perspectives.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

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

These 2 statements are in contradiction. If you perceive only one side of an object once as its turns around, then by definition it has rotated only once. From the center squares perception the other square has indeed only rotated 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.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

It's like looking at someone's back, then having them do a backflip in the air to land behind you. If you turn around and see their front, you still perceive that they have made a 360 spin, else they would be upside down.

A backflip is a subtly a fundamentally different problem then the one presented. A backflip suggests a 3 dimensional world.

This puzzle is a 2 dimensional plane involving 2 squares and no other reference points.

If we are talking 2 dimensional plane, than the central square would not be able to see the other square at all (it would be an invisibly thin line). If we allow that the 2 dimensional land people can see these thin lines, than all they can see is the line growing shorter and longer. Since there would really be no front or back (nothing to distinguish the backside of a line from the front), the central observer would observe 4 fluctuations of length.

"

SkyCore wrote:

In addition, i should point out that in the backflip scenario at no point did the center perception see the bottom of the backflipper so it never was a full rotation, it was actually half a rotation from the point of view of either of these ppl. It is only the implicit suggestion that there was a 3 party 'ground' as a reference point in which the backflipper made the full 360 degree flip.

The moon is tidally locked with the Earth, so we do not see its rotation directly, but we can see the rotation through the cycling of new moon to full moon. If you hum at the right frequency, you can cause your eyes to vibrate in sync with the rotation of fan blade or the moving wheels of a vehicle. This causes the optial illusion of the tire slowing, stopping or even moving backwards. If you are in a parked car and another car slowly moves forward, it can give the illusion that you are moving backwards.

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.

"

SkyCore wrote:

You are off base talking about chirality here. It does not factor into puzzle whatsoever.

Chirality does apply. If the square was a proton and rotated twice - the observer would see it back in it's original orientation, but it would become an anti-proton with a negative charge. If there is no matter involved, and we are back in logical flatland, then there can be no visual perception between square A and B because there are no light waves to see by.

If you wish to construct a method by which A can detect B, that's fine, but then you must also construct a congruent system of logic and reality that fits every aspect of this new universe.

This sort of mental exercies can be fun, and it can be frustrating when one piece of the puzzle just doesn't make sense and appears in conflict. It is what physicists (and some other professions)face as a career.

One of the marks of an intelligent entity is that it can mentally grasp things that it cannot directly perceive.

Here's an example:

Square.

Is the square round or not? Does it have seven sides, three sides, or four?

How could you tell without seeing the square?

Mental constructs such as the concept of a square can involve conscious thinking, or they can be trained in to be reflexive. I haven't looked at research lately, but all indications are that animal instincts are handed down through genetics (whether they can or are epigenetic is a new field of study). We can certainly program computers to grasp concepts.

We can mentally grasp more than we can perceive. We can grasp the number 7, even though we can't directly perceive it (we can see and directly count at once 1,2, 3, 4 or ,maybe 5 objects iirc).

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.

"

SkyCore wrote:

Thats where the reality bending begins. Our logic says properties (such as rotation) are absolute. But they are not. They are indeed relative.

That is not to say absolutes dont exist. Just that rotation is one of the properties which is relative.

You are confusing rotation, revolution and translation. The moving square can be said to make one rotation AROUND the non moving square, but then it still makes one rotation AROUND the non moving square even if it spins three hundred and fifty times. The rotation of one body AROUND another is termed a revolution. The perceptual change in the moving body's orientation relative to the central body is termed a TRANSLATION.

The moving square still makes two translations relative to the central square. If the viewpoint on the central square rotates in half synchronization with the moving sqaure, then the moving square makes one translations relative to the central square's perspective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation#Rotation_and_revolution

This is why words matter.