/who/ - Doctor Who General

Will Extremis answer the age old question?

Last thread

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=S85nudR6D-Y
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

If we overlooked the fact that the portal would fizzle when the thing moves, then scenario A totally

A

Imagine a doorway moving at you extremely fast and goes around, that's essentially what's happening here, scenario a as the cube isn't gaining momentum

Doctor SJW

No force is being applied to the cube
why would anyone think it's B?

Yes, and??

I always though the guy from Love and Monsters was Kris Marshall.

What's /who/ with you?

Reminder young Master-Doctor Kino on the way.

A if you're a retarded hula-hoop fag, B if you're everyone else

Is this just a meme?

I've been out of the Who loop for a couple years. Is season 9 worth watching? Same with the current one. I got pretty tired of the Moffat formula.

It's a rumour. No idea why someone made that pic though.

Yes only bad episodes are The Girl Who Died/The Woman Who Lived and Sleep no more. Every other episode is pretty solid and Heaven Sent is the shit.

Actually, it's a trick question, and there is no blue portal, just a stripe of blue paint on the piston, so it's neither A nor B, just a cube that you should feel really guilty for squashing in a press.

>The Girl Who Died/The Woman Who Lived
>bad

I bet Chibs brings the Broadchurch composer guy, Olafur Arnaulds.

The girl who died is a fun romp, fuck offerino

So was Blue Box the start of the meta running joke that every time there's a Sixie story where he could use either a computer programmer or a singer, he gets Peri or Evelyn instead of Mel?

mah bliggers

Great argument dumbass

>series 9 is too serious!

B if you have taken anything at or beyond high school physics.

You can definitely just start with the current series and backfill S9 once you catch up.

As for S9, Heaven Sent is brilliant, and the only real crap episode is Sleep No More, which is the most skippable story (as in, you won't miss anything for the rest of the series) of the series.

It's a frame of reference thing

How does that change the fact that no force is being applied to the cube therefore there is no reason for the cube to fling out?

Force implies acceleration you tard. The cube flings out at the same velocity as the column consumes it. Its no different than modeling a goal post moving towards a ball than seeing a ball move towards a goal post.

If you move a goal post into a ball, the ball stays stationary because it is completely independent of the movement of the goal posts

Go and learn physics 101 before typing again

The goal posts literally never touch the ball, user. Are you claiming this is incorrect?

the ball has no momentum and momentum is conserved through portals

>still thinking through tard brains
There is literally a similar question shown in every entry level physics. And every time wannabe smartasses raises their hands and says "b-but momentum!" "b-but it doesn't look right" and everytime they are wrong because they still can't conceptually grasp the idea of velocity, acceleration, force being all relative.

>There is literally a question involving spacetime-breaking portals in every entry level physics.

All the portals do is remap where in the world a physical object is. They do not have the ability to apply any kind of movement force to objects.

From the portal's (and what's through the portal) point of view, it (the portal) is stationary and the cube is moving towards it with some velocity. In this frame of reference, no force needs to be applied to the cube since it's already in motion.

we aren't calculating geosynchronous orbits here, this is just straight up newton.

That's irrelevant. You don't look at the portal's point of view or the cube's point of view, you look at it all externally to observe which objects are physically moving.

youtube.com/watch?v=S85nudR6D-Y
BTFO

What do you mean you look at it externally? You need to establish a frame of reference.

Regardless, I'm not saying one scenario is right or wrong, I'm just explaining why somebody might think the cube would shoot out the orange portal. Since we never see what happens in-game when a portal rapidly approaches an object, you can make a case for the object shooting out or dropping out.

>example #342 why physics is a meme discipline

No, they remap—and rotate—the velocity as well as the position.

The question is whether they rotate the velocity relative to the portal, or the "absolute" velocity.

The reason the game doesn't allow portals on moving surfaces is to avoid having an answer to this question.

The box has an absolute velocity of 0. So, if that's what portals map, then you get A—it comes out with a velocity of 0, and the only force applying to it is gravity, so it slides off the ramp.

The box has a relative velocity of very fast toward the portal. So, if that's what portals map, then you get B—it comes out with a velocity of very fast away from the portal.

Of course "absolute velocity" is impossible, and the "fixed" ground is actually part of a spinning and hurtling planet. But then portals are impossible. But the physics of the game engine works with absolute velocity just fine—and the rule that says that portals must be fixed (to an absolutely motionless background, which is just as impossible a concept) means that the game engine works exactly the same way whether you use absolute or relative velocity. So there is no way to say which one is "right". The game won't allow this scenario to happen, and the rule that prevents it happening also prevents us from distinguishing whether A or B would happen if it did.

From a frame of reference where the coordinate space you're using is not manipulated by the experiment at all. So not the moving portal or the cube or the stationary portal, but a static point outside of all of the experiment's variables.

Portals just re-maps where something is. In this experiment, the portal moves, thus the point of space that the portal remaps changes. The cube never actually moves by physics, it's simply remapped to a different position by the movement of the portal. There is no reason for the cube to fly out of the portal.

I literally had blocked that out of my memory. Thanks, user, for reminding me..

>Of course "absolute velocity" is impossible, and the "fixed" ground is actually part of a spinning and hurtling planet
This is a video game that doesn't take into account shit like orbits in its physics.

Yes, that's the whole point of that paragraph, dumbass: Portal's physics engine is not real-world physics.

I reference this episode when people shite on about how ''good'' Jamie Mathieson is.

>Portal 2
Not canon.

Imagine if the piston came down halfway to the platform and stopped. The cube was still moving relative to the portal, does that mean it should fly off the platform up into the portal?

Girl who died is objectively good

>Imagine if the piston came down halfway to the platform and stopped. The cube was still moving relative to the portal, does that mean it should fly off the platform up into the portal?
No. The key word there is "stopped".

If you've stopped the piston from moving toward the cube, then you've stopped the cube from moving toward the piston. That's what "relative" means.

Whats with all the retards who insist on calling Capaldi the 13th Doctor the upcoming Doctor the 14th and so on. It's autism on another level.

Then you agree that the answer is A?

Well, he technically is since War.

I literally haven't seen anyone on /who/ saying that, unironically or otherwise
what the fuck kind of reddit-ass forums are you going on?

I never said /who/ but it is commonly stated by idiots on Facebook and youtube.

Nobody here is upset Gomez is leaving?

No, not at all. If portals transfer relative velocity, the answer is B, not A. The fact that you could stop the piston doesn't affect the fact the you didn't stop it (until after the cube was already out the other portal and flying away).

Again, the answer is B if portals transfer relative velocity, A if they transfer absolute velocity, and the game is specifically designed so that you cannot tell which they transfer, so there is no answer.

I will suck Chris Chibnalls dick if he brings back classic villains like Sutekh, Great Vampires, the Daemons alongside new villains.

They transfer absolute velocity. Don't ask how I know

I mean, it kind of makes sense. Her character is very closely linked with 12. She also seems enthusiastic to return in any capacity, so I wouldn't be surprised if she turned up in the 60th or if Briggs got ahold of her or something.

It was to be expected
I don't trust chibnall to write her frankly

But then he's #14, because 10-post-Handy is an extra incarnation, just like War. The whole needing a new cycle of regenerations plot wouldn't make sense otherwise.

And if you're trying some kind of out-of-universe count of actors who portrayed the Doctor, then Capaldi a lot more than #13—Hurndall, the kid in Listen, Billie Piper, Clyde Langer's actor, and probably a bunch more I can't think of, even before you consider whether David Banks or REG in Shalka should "count".

I mean, I'm sure there's some in- or out-of-universe rule you could come up with that gives you the answer 13, but not any rule anyone would come up with unless they wanted the answer 13 for some reason.

What do you want his outfit to look like /who/

Gomez is great because she's a perfect foil for 12, in the same way Delgado was a perfect foil for 3.

Gomez with a different Doctor would be like Ainley with 5: the Master for the wrong Doctor.

As a one-shot "return" appearance, it could be great (like, hopefully, Simm this year), but as a continuing recurring antagonist, it wouldn't work nearly as well, and would just cheapen her character.

Why?

I don't want him at all. The one thing Doctor Who should never be is predictable.

Not surprised at all. There was no reason to think Chibnall wouldn't cast his own Master, if he uses the Master at all. I didn't expect it to be official though, I thought they'd just leave it open-ended and then Chibnall can make that choice in S13 or whenever. Maybe Moffat chose this because he didn't want to share his toys.

>I don't trust chibnall to write her frankly
lol

I think he'd look best dressed like pic related.

Although I could see the striped shirt and rainbow suspenders look working for him too. Maybe he could have two costumes he alternates?

The only character chibnall has written well is rory's dad

Boy, you sure are gonna be disappointed when Missy is revealed in the Vault on Saturday.

But he's not predictable. You're just mad because he's white and a man. He literally is the Doctor watch Death In Heaven.

If portals transfer relative velocity then they should also transfer relative velocity of objects near the portal. Whether or not the cube has gone through the portal is irrelevant.

Probably

He's the generic, conventionally attractive, "quirky" Doctor a marketing commitee would think up. A completely safe choice, surprising no one - in other words, dull.

Not that user, but just about every white man who's been in the news this time around would be better than Kris Marshall. Except Andrew Buchan.

They don't transfer the position or rotation of objects near the portal, only things that go through it. They're clearly 2-dimensional. Why would you expect velocity to be any different, whether relative or absolute?

You clearly havent seen any of his episodes then or you are just being hypocrite

You will be proven wrong when he is regarded as one of the best Doctors and I will kek like a sexually aroused frog.

Name a single other memorable character from any of his episodes

>tfw 16992 days until the 100th special

Fun Fact: 16992 days ago there were race riots in Daytona Beach Florida

Kek, I thought top left was Toby Jones

Oh, he could still be good, but good in roughly the same way other Doctors have been (in particular he gives me big Davison vibes), where the best of them came up with completely new takes. Capaldi, despite how people compare him to Pertwee, is something we've never quite seen before, Eccleston was completely shocking when he turned up, etc. Doctor should defy expectations.

I'm incredibly upset, but I understand it
>Next anniversary special
>Instead of a companion 12 shows up with Missy

Do people really like the idea of young Master and Doctor story set on Gallifrey or I am being memed? Why would you want that?

We're all being memed all the time to some extent user.

I'd love to read something like that in a book or even hear it in an audio, but I hate the idea of watching it in a Moffat episode.

Describe your ideal next doctor user

Fuck no, this is the only young Doctor we ever need to see.

Let me rephrase that. The portals don't "transfer" anything, both portals are at the exact same location, what they do is preserve momentum. If the blue side is moving with respect to an object, then the object is moving with respect to the portal whether it's gone through it or not. If velocity relative to the portal is what is preserved and the blue side stops, the object that was previously stationary with respect to the room must take off. This can't happen without a force being applied to it, so this situation is absurd.

pic related

Fat and balding who just wants to visit exotic places and chill out

...

Daily reminder if you don't want him as the doctor you have to go back

He'd be a Captain Cook/Darwin style explorer, who actively goes looking for mysteries under alien temples or tries to find legendary beasties.

anyone got user's write up for World enough and time?

>If velocity relative to the portal is what is preserved and the blue side stops, the object that was previously stationary with respect to the room must take off.
Exactly. So if they preserve relative velocity, you get B.

>This can't happen without a force being applied to it, so this situation is absurd.
No, there's no force applied relative to the portals, which is why the momentum doesn't change relative to the portals.

Of course there's a force applied if you look at it relative, but then there's already an infinite amount of force applied relative to the ground whenever an object goes through a portal. If you move a finite distance in 0 time, that's infinite velocity, and getting from 0 (or any finite velocity) to infinite velocity in 0 time takes infinite acceleration. And yet, that's what happens.

More to the point, your argument comes down to insisting that relative momentum and absolute momentum must always be the same, which is nonsense.

The reality is, either modification of (Newtonian) physics, to allow portals to preserve either absolute or relative velocity, is physically impossible. But they're both dead simple to conceive of. And they both give you the right answer for every situation that can actually come up in the game. And they give you different answers for this situation which cannot come up in the game. So, asking which answer would hold, if this situation did come up in the game, is asking a question without an answer.

Because it would be kino, they could easily do it without spoiling too much.

Stray delete there. Read:

>Of course there's a force applied if you look at it relative
… to the ground, …
>but then there's already…

>If velocity relative to the portal is what is preserved and the blue side stops, the object that was previously stationary with respect to the room must take off.
>Exactly. So if they preserve relative velocity, you get B.
I mean it must take off even if it hasn't gone through the portal. That's where it becomes absurd.

>Of course there's a force applied if you look at it relative, but then there's already an infinite amount of force applied relative to the ground whenever an object goes through a portal. If you move a finite distance in 0 time, that's infinite velocity, and getting from 0 (or any finite velocity) to infinite velocity in 0 time takes infinite acceleration. And yet, that's what happens.
That's not what happens when you move through a portal. You're not thinking with portals.

>More to the point, your argument comes down to insisting that relative momentum and absolute momentum must always be the same, which is nonsense.
No, it doesn't. I don't know how you're getting that.

I just realized I wouldn't mind if Nardole was the Doctor. I hated him in the Christmas special, but he's redeemed himself.