This makes no sense. If you are “able to just hack the universe’s variables” then it is up to you to define the new universe. It is like I invent a new universe where I am immensely rich and asking if my money would be in the bank or in my wallet. If I am hacking the universe then the new universe can be whatever I want it to be.
So why don’t you do it and find out?
You can only hack location, the rest hasn’t been figured out yet.
You can’t hack location without hacking many other things, including energy. If you invent another universe then it is for the inventor to define it. It just makes no sense to say “I have just invented in my head a universe where something suddenly appears at a location; now tell me if it is moving”. It makes no sense. It is up to the person inventing the new universe to define it.
A system where things move instantly and without use of energy is impossible in this universe because it violates many basic principles. You’d have infinite free energy by having the water at the bottom of the dam teleported again to the top.
It’s a video game.
That’s been my point all along. It makes no sense to ask what would happen if I could do in the real world what I can do in this video game. The answer is you can’t. And if you ask what would happen in the video game the answer is “why don’t you just do it in the video game?” and if the answer is “you can’t” then there’s your answer. What happens in the universe of the video game is only up to its creators. They can make things be whatever they want.
The OP’s question is well-defined and well-posed: If a person is near a satellite in geostationary orbit, but the person has the tangential velocity of the point on Earth directly below that satellite, what happens? There’s nothing wrong with the question, and people have given good answers.
All the arguing about how the person came to be at that location, and with that velocity, and how it doesn’t conserve energy, is useless. The answer to that is that it came up in a video game, but that doesn’t affect whether the actual question posed by the OP has a straightforward answer.
baaa…thud
I disagree that the question is well defined. Yours is one possible interpretation.
With your interpretation, which is much clearer, then yes, the answer is definite.
Also note that geostationary orbits only exist over the equator so the whole thing needs to be on the equator.
If you are interested in how conservation of momentum and conservation of energy might affect teleportation, I would recommend Larry Niven’s essay “Exercise in Speculation: The Theory and Practice of Teleportation”, printed in the collection All the Myriad Ways.
from my calculations, using the formula on wikipedia, you’d need a velcoity of atleast 1.6km/s to miss the atmosphere (i.e. have an orbit of 42000km x 6500km), whereas the speed of the earth’s rotation (and so your velocity at your destination) is only going to be ~0.46km/s, so you’re going to crash into the atmosphere and die horribly
Will you miss me?