Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 16:11:28 UTC No. 16197826

>>16197823
C: Portals do not exist

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 16:16:45 UTC No. 16197834

>>16197826
Lame answer.
>Portals do not exist
They might.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 16:25:32 UTC No. 16197846

>>16197826
There are literally two whole games about them, so you're just wrong about that.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 16:28:59 UTC No. 16197851

>>16197834
No
>>16197846
Test it in source then, stop shitting up the 'log

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 16:34:48 UTC No. 16197856

>>16197851
Yes.
>stop shitting up the 'log
It already is shit.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 17:26:47 UTC No. 16197921

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 17:33:15 UTC No. 16197926

>>16197823
The answer is either B or portals cannot exist. It is never A.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 18:28:08 UTC No. 16198006

>>16197823
>>16197826
D: The blue portal is pushed by the orange portal in the direction of its opposite normal vector.
No I don't care that that's not how it works in the game.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 11:03:49 UTC No. 16198982

>>16197823
It's really simple:
Anything that goes in the orange portal has to come out the blue portal.
The blue portal is stationary.
Therefore the cube, which is necessarily moving relative to the blue portal, is moving.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 11:52:43 UTC No. 16199006

Obviously the portal B will move away as the box emerges where it used to be. The portal will have the inertia the box originally had at its speed relative to the orange portal.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 12:12:20 UTC No. 16199021

>>16197823
It depends entirely on how the Valve devs implemented it
Next

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 12:29:41 UTC No. 16199029

>>16197926
this is the right answer. the "reality" behind one portal is the same as the "reality" behind the other. so a moving portal can't drag the reality on the other end behind it, or else it and the block would remain totally stationary. the only logically consistent way this could work is if the portal imparts energy to things going through it to maintain velocity relative to the portal so the stuff doesn't disintegrate or get crushed on the other end. it's totally conceivable the portal imparts energy to things going through it, indeed it would be almost unimaginable otherwise.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 14:18:46 UTC No. 16199124

>>16197823
The answer is everyone selecting A is either an ignorant fool or a troll trying to wind people up.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 15:23:42 UTC No. 16199186

>>16197823
I think the problem lies in the concept of moving portals. How come the square that the orange portal is on doesn't get sucked through the portal? There is no answer because non-stationary portals are intrinsically flawed.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 15:43:59 UTC No. 16199210

>>16199186
>How come the square that the orange portal is on doesn't get sucked through the portal?
Why would it?

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 15:52:36 UTC No. 16199219

>>16199210
Because it's moving into space currently occupied by the portal

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 16:10:31 UTC No. 16199243

>>16199219
The portal is on it. It is facing the other way.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 16:16:41 UTC No. 16199254

>>16199243
So the back of the portal is solid? I've never played the games so idk

What happens if you heat up the surface so much that it completely melts away? Does the portal just stay floating in space?

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 16:20:16 UTC No. 16199261

>>16199254
>I've never played the games so idk
Ah, sorry.
It's not really clear what the "back" of a portal is like. You never see one in the game because you shoot the portal onto a surface and then it becomes like a hole in the surface (at least, if there are two portals; a single portal remains solid). If there is no valid surface for the portal to attach to, it disappears.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 17:11:50 UTC No. 16199304

>>16197823
Take your pick:
•option A - forgo relativity
•option B - magical free energy (box isn't moving, then is moving)

I don't think there's an objectively correct answer here. You have to employ cartoon physics either way.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 17:29:00 UTC No. 16199327

>>16199304
>option B - magical free energy
It's already really easy to make perpetual motion devices with portals. You don't even have to move them. Is it inconsistent with known physics? Sure. Is it inconsistent with the concept of portals? Not at all. Are portals inconsistent with physics? Also yes.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 17:37:22 UTC No. 16199341

>>16197823
A: the cube has 0 velocity, the portal is like a hoop passed around it, and the hoop stops against the on the platform as the cube rests on it.

Just imagine that the second portal is horizontal, facing up instead of slanted. Would the cube fly upwards? No, the cube was never moving at all, it's the portal that is moving downwards.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 17:38:22 UTC No. 16199343

>>16199304
>I don't think there's an objectively correct answer here. You have to employ cartoon physics either way.
The objectiveness of the answer comes from which is simplest. A does everything B has to do, with the inclusion of slowing the box back down after exiting.

Reminder that A fags are trolls or retarded.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 17:50:02 UTC No. 16199360

>>16197823
Momentum is preserved. You can figure out the rest.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 17:50:47 UTC No. 16199362

>>16199360
Yes, the cube stays in motion

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 17:51:48 UTC No. 16199364

>>16199341
Can we all not pretend we haven't heard the hula hoop shit a thousand times already along with every imaginable refutation of it
Every thread the same shit

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 18:00:07 UTC No. 16199372

>>16199364
I have no idea what it is that you're referring to, sorry

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 18:01:08 UTC No. 16199375

>>16199362
>cube stays in motion

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 18:10:30 UTC No. 16199385

>>16197823
This illustrates an inherent physical paradox associated with the concept of portals. How objects interact depends entirely on the physics of the portal.

Assuming localized phenomena whose properties don't transfer to transient objects, it would be A, as it would have no momentum to carry it forward. See >>16197921.

However, assuming transference of properties of the portals to the objects passing through them, it would be B, as the movement of the portal would impart momentum onto the object. See >>16199029.

Regardless, the physics of portals don't fit conventional models, and as such, neither answer can be assumed to be correct.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 18:19:16 UTC No. 16199400

>>16197823
Depends on the speed of the piston with the portal. As each layer of the cubes' atoms comes out, it has momentum pointing out of the blue portal (like B) but also a force g pointing downwards, reducing the momentum and turning it around. So it could easily be A if it's slow enough.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 18:19:58 UTC No. 16199401

>>16199385
>See >>16197921
That's meant to illustrate that the cube is obviously moving, though.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 18:49:50 UTC No. 16199434

>>16197823
A if orange portal moves towards the platform
B if platform moves towards the orange portal

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 19:04:43 UTC No. 16199447

>>16199304
Both A and B create magical free energy. Raising the height of an object is creates free energy, changing its direction can also create motion from nothing for some observers.

Also, B has nothing to do with relativity. Even in a newtonian universe it would still be B. A is completly incorherant. Consider an observer next to the blue portal. They would see the cube moving, they could touch it and feel it moving, it would force objects out of the way, but they it suddenly stops for no reason? Absolute nonsense, do you expect the atoms that make up the cube to remember they should stop?

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 19:16:48 UTC No. 16199460

>>16199360
>Portal changes direction of momentum
Momentum is not preserved

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 19:19:09 UTC No. 16199464

>>16199460
That's the weird thing, isn't it? Through the portal it's a straight path. To the outside it's a change in momentum.
Same how a continuous path through the portal for the cube can look like a launching cube from the outside.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 04:22:44 UTC No. 16200218

>>16197823
A
A
1000 times A

Momentum of the object is unaffected by the portal. That game tutorial says as much.

Unless you want to sidestep the question by saying portals do not exist, you have to use the logic of the game which says momentum is unaffected by the portal. Therefore the stationary object would remain stationary.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 04:28:05 UTC No. 16200219

>>16197926
It is A.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cox7481IE6o
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cox7481IE6o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cox7481IE6o
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cox7481IE6o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cox7481IE6o
10:18
Ignore what Sabine says afterwards.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 04:34:27 UTC No. 16200225

>>16199434
nope. If you stand still and a portal comes over you, you would just find yourself standing still in another location after coming out of the blue portal regardless of what the portals are doing

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 04:36:52 UTC No. 16200226

>>16199343
Reminder that B fags are trolls or retarded
ftfy

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 04:54:28 UTC No. 16200233

>>16199360
If you hadn't slept through your highschool physics class you would know that Momentum is the sum of all vectors. If portals move things and can have them change direction, they necessarily changed the vectors through magic, and therefore did not conserve momentum

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 04:56:46 UTC No. 16200235

>>16197823
It's A and it always has been. B is mental illness.

The idea of a "portal" is simply treating two locations as if they are the SAME location. There is no other special property. Physics-wise, it's no different than forcing a hula hoop over you. You don't magically fly up through the hula hoop at the same speed that I moved it down on you.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 05:37:39 UTC No. 16200281

>>16200235
>Physics-wise, it's no different than forcing a hula hoop over you
The difference is that one side of the portal hoop is moving and the other stands still. It's like the hula hoop is stretched into a tunnel but the box comes out the other side with no delay, so it must acquire momentum "magically"

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 08:50:58 UTC No. 16200489

>>16200218
>you have to use the logic of the game which says momentum is unaffected by the porta
That is clearly not the case even in the game, though. The cube can change its direction on a dime. That's a change in momentum. It only makes sense if we interpret "momentum" to be relative to the portal, which leads to B.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 09:10:12 UTC No. 16200497

>>16200218
According to the game its B, otherwise the moon scene would not have worked.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 09:21:52 UTC No. 16200506

>>16199447
>Consider an observer next to the blue portal. They would see the cube moving, they could touch it and feel it moving, it would force objects out of the way, but they it suddenly stops for no reason? Absolute nonsense, do you expect the atoms that make up the cube to remember they should stop?
Now consider the cube, it would see you movint, it can feel you touch it and apply force, why aren't you getting thrown through the portal?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 09:29:28 UTC No. 16200510

>>16200506
Because you're not going through the portal.
You seem to think that we think that relative motion means some sort of magical magnetism. It doesn't. It merely describes motion by comparing to something else. The fact is that the cube is moving relative to the blue portal, and the observer standing outside of it isn't.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 09:31:47 UTC No. 16200511

>>16200510
>Because you're not going through the portal
Neither is the cube, both of your velocities are the exact same, the only thing that's moving is the 0d line between you that seamlessly wraps space

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 09:35:20 UTC No. 16200514

>>16200511
>Neither is the cube
bruh

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 09:37:55 UTC No. 16200515

>>16200506
The cube is the object that is moving relative to the portal.

Also, consider this. Imagine if instead of the cube coming out of the portal is a long container full of apples, someone runs along side the container of apples, picks up one and eats it. When the container stops, will the apple in his stomach stop too and tear out of his body?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 09:49:28 UTC No. 16200521

>>16200515
>The cube is the object that is moving relative to the portal
So are you

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 10:00:31 UTC No. 16200531

>>16200281
They are the same space. It doesn't matter if one of them is moving.

Put a portal on the 12 o clock position of a circle, and the other in front of a piece of paper. Reach through with a pen so that you make a dot on the paper and hold the pen in that position.

You then started rotating the circle while your hand is in it. If your hand follows the portal at the same rate of rotation, you wouldn't draw a circle on the paper.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 10:01:40 UTC No. 16200533

>>16200521
Yes, and if you were running along side the cube. You would not sudenly stop, and neither would the cube. Reality is local, the atoms that make up the part of the cube that has already exited the portal and is now moving through normal space won't suddenly stop because the rest of the cube has exited the portal.

Roteman at Thu, 30 May 2024 10:02:17 UTC No. 16200534

>>16197823
B) i drop a box into a portal it shoots out, why would anything change or be different if the roles were reversed? without any refference points other than the box, it would appear, relative to the portal that the box was flying towards it, why would that change when there ARE refferece points?

Roteman at Thu, 30 May 2024 10:06:08 UTC No. 16200538

>>16199186
> How come the square that the orange portal is on doesn't get sucked through the portal?

two sides of the same portal, there is no "other side" of the orange portal, it is infinitely thin and the actual other side is the blue portal so nothing is being affected on or by the "back side" of the orange portal.

Roteman at Thu, 30 May 2024 10:07:12 UTC No. 16200540

>>16199304
no free energy, energy comes from the portal.

Roteman at Thu, 30 May 2024 10:11:22 UTC No. 16200543

>>16199400
>gravity
the question is if motion from the portal is tranfered to the box, not if other forces acting on it like gravity, airpressure,drag,etc. could cause it to result in answer A

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 10:19:59 UTC No. 16200551

>>16200531
What's this construction supposed to prove? The motion here is orthogonal to the portal plane, you move your hand with the portal to keep the pen inside, there's no momentum-through-portal involved.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 10:29:00 UTC No. 16200557

>>16200551
Because B claimers are insisting that you wouldn't need to move your arm to follow the portal.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 10:30:47 UTC No. 16200560

>>16200543
Says who? That is a trivial question btw, if the box atoms go through the portal at all they move, they can't at the same time move and not move. Gravity is implied in the image by how answer A is depicted, without gravity the box would hover over the blue portal.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 10:54:08 UTC No. 16200584

>>16200533
Why would you have to run alongside a stationary object?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 10:56:32 UTC No. 16200587

>>16200557
How so? That makes no sense at all.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 10:58:05 UTC No. 16200588

>>16200587
Exactly, so the answer is A

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 10:59:01 UTC No. 16200589

>>16200588
I mean your interpretation of "B claimers" claim makes no sense at all.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 11:06:09 UTC No. 16200595

>>16200584
Imagine this, replace the cube with a 1000 mile long rod. This rod takes up a space 1000 miles long. How could it be stationary even though its leading edge must travel 1000 miles to make space for the rest of the rod to exit the portal. Explain to me in what sense it could possibly be stationary, I just don't get it.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 11:11:42 UTC No. 16200598

>>16200589
B claimers will say you can jerk off by moving the portal up and down

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 11:34:56 UTC No. 16200621

>>16200595
>How could it be stationary
By moving the portal around it, retard, you're displacing space around the object, the object itself has no speed relative to its own position in space, as soon as you stop displacing space around it, aka stop moving the portal, all relative motion will stop, they filmed an entire music video around this exact principle

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 11:54:33 UTC No. 16200642

>>16200621
So portals create some weird moving space that externds an arbitary distance from the portal. You are so fixed on trying to preserve conservation of momentum that you completly ignore how absurd your solution is. And what of the concequences of this weird moving space and how it interfacts with the rest of the world.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 12:21:04 UTC No. 16200671

>>16200642
Portals are quite literally warped spacetime manifolds, dumbass

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 12:27:47 UTC No. 16200677

Both A and B are unphysical, but B is a lot better. A is completely retarded.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 12:32:08 UTC No. 16200684

>>16200677
OK, what is happening to the cube at the moment that it'd half way through the portal?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 12:48:02 UTC No. 16200701

>>16200684
In both cases, the half of the cube that's through the portal must be moving, to make way for the rest of the cube behind it. In A, the movement magically stops when the last part of the cube comes through. In B it continues, since there's nothing to stop it. The mechanics of how the portal imparts velocity are still unphysical but I believe they could be improved.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 13:06:34 UTC No. 16200730

>>16200701
>In A, the movement magically stops
It stops because the front end no longer has to move to make room for the back end, both ends are through the portal

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 13:13:27 UTC No. 16200734

>>16200730
What if there was a split/crack half way along the cube? How would the front half know when to stop? The back half can't pull on it because there's a crack. Objects don't just stop moving for no reason (you know what inertia is, right?)

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 13:22:32 UTC No. 16200753

>>16200701
>The mechanics of how the portal imparts velocity are still unphysical but I believe they could be improved.
If portals are like the wormhole in this pic, except with no tunnel between them but as one hole in space connecting the two regions (glueing the plane to itself in that circle), the way one side of the portal could be moving is that the space between you (observer) and it is contracting. That would apply to your body since it's not a point particle, and as your front gets over the threshold the space expands and pulls the rest of you forward.
Since making a portal "move" like that would require enormous energy there's no problem with some of it turning into your kinetic energy.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 13:31:34 UTC No. 16200763

>>16200734
>What if there was a split/crack half way along the cube? How would the front half know when to stop?
It doesn't have to because it never started moving, the cube is completely stationary, you're wrapping space around it by moving the portal, imagine standing on a stationary hovering platform and a train with open ends is coming towards you, it completely envelops you and it appears that you're in motion, but as soon as the train stops so does your relative motion, because you have no momentum of your own, as soon as the (relatively) moving space envelops the stationary cube and stops all relative motion ceases, because both the cube and the space it entered are now in the same inertial frame of reference

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 13:33:28 UTC No. 16200765

>>16200763
Wow. That's really retarded. I'm sorry. Namaste, nigga.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 13:34:22 UTC No. 16200767

>>16200765
>no argument
I accept your concession, you can collect your dunce cap on the way to reddit

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 13:36:03 UTC No. 16200773

>>16200767
>I accept your concession
Ah yes, the most pseudalicious phrase in the English language.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 13:40:18 UTC No. 16200776

>>16200773
>still no argument

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 13:44:50 UTC No. 16200782

>>16200701
>but I believe they could be improved.
indeed. like in the above linked sabine hossenfelder's video about physically correct portals, which are basically 4d hoses with their own mass and inertia that just happen to have the inner length of zero, but otherwise can be modelled just like regular 3d fixed-length hoses. when one thinks about them like that, it's obvious that the answer is B.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 13:49:27 UTC No. 16200783

>>16200776
The thing is, you don't have anything to argue with. Your post is nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know basic physics. You just regurgitated a bunch of shit you probably saw on youtube into a word salad that you think constitutes an "argument". It would be like arguing with a stinky shit I had just plopped into the toilet.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 14:23:49 UTC No. 16200817

>>16200783
>still no argument

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 14:31:32 UTC No. 16200828

>>16197823
The moving portal swallows a portion of space in which the cube is stationary. From the cube's point of view, it's no different than a window frame falling over it.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 14:46:31 UTC No. 16200843

>>16200671
You keep saying this but not a single a-tard that has ever lived has ever defined the nature of this bizare moving space. You are like flat earthers, you have no model.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 14:53:53 UTC No. 16200846

>>16200730
>>16200763
All those answering A are either trolls, or haven't thought or are unable to think about the problem.
Trolling outside of /b/ is prohibited.
>>16200767
>>16200776
>>16200817
The argument has already been presented, your refusal to acknowledge it indicates you are trolling outside of /b/.
>>16200767

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 15:08:20 UTC No. 16200869

>>16200843
Try looking inside the moving portal, dumbass

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 15:32:15 UTC No. 16200907

>>16200642
>you're moving a window through space and it's too weird for me therefore it can't happen

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 18:50:35 UTC No. 16201183

>>16200828
In the scenario of a window frame falling over the cube, from the perspective of the cube it will not look like the world on the other side of the window frame is racing towards it. Meanwhile, in the scenario of the portals, it will look like the world is racing towards the cube. They are not equivalent

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 18:58:23 UTC No. 16201193

>>16201183
There are no equivalent scenarios with the real world.
From the cube's point of view, it can also see the region of space off in the distance by the exit portal, which is stationary relative to it.
The portal engulfs the cube and the space in which it resides.
So what is the nature of space? Is it something that can go through portals (and open windows)?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 19:40:06 UTC No. 16201244

>>16201183
Okay so look at this from the side profile, the stationary side of the portal moves with the portal, so why would the stationary cube not become comoving with that frame of reference as soon as it went through the portal?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 19:43:36 UTC No. 16201250

>>16200233
>>16199460
There is no change in direction. The path through the portals is always straight.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 20:38:15 UTC No. 16201322

>>16200598
Yeah.
Why didn't you just use an example that makes sense from the start

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 20:42:19 UTC No. 16201331

>>16200843
>moving space
Ah, you forget, it's not moving! Somehow

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 20:44:48 UTC No. 16201337

>>16201250
And the cube keeps moving

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:09:04 UTC No. 16201403

>>16201337
>And the cube keeps moving
Yeah, just in the other direction unless it has more relative velocity than the other side

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:11:27 UTC No. 16201412

>>16201403
This is nonsense btw

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:15:48 UTC No. 16201421

>>16201412
Where does the extra momentum come from? How can the portal keep moving the cube after it has already passed it when it has no momentum of it's own?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:18:29 UTC No. 16201431

>>16201421
>it has no momentum of it's own
Begging the question. You assume it has no momentum because you can't figure out where it might come from. But we already agree that the cube came out of the portal. That is clearly movement. Therefore we simply have to accept that the portal added momentum to the cube in order to be able to function.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:24:29 UTC No. 16201442

>>16201431
>Therefore we simply have to accept that the portal added momentum to the cube in order to be able to function.
It did add momentum, just from the opposite side, all the atoms on the other side are are approaching at equal velocity.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:28:10 UTC No. 16201446

>>16201442
This reads like gibberish to me

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:36:40 UTC No. 16201459

>>16201446
Yeah I can tell, I'll make it simple for you, speedy thing go in, speedy thing come out

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:37:57 UTC No. 16201463

>>16201459
So B

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:39:08 UTC No. 16201467

>>16201459
It's called deceleration.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:40:45 UTC No. 16201472

>>16201463
Not unless the acceleration of the cube increases relative to the other side of the portal

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:44:25 UTC No. 16201482

>>16201472
The acceleration of everything increases relative to the other side of the portal.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:54:34 UTC No. 16201504

>>16201482
And the same applies to the other side of the portal, since the momentum of both sides is equal and as such the velocity is equal, it is only when the velocity of the cube exceeds that of the other side of the portal, that is, it is in a non-intertial reference frame for both reference frames, is it that it will exit with any significant momentum

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:59:24 UTC No. 16201515

>>16201504
What are you talking about

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 22:11:50 UTC No. 16201540

>>16201515
Why are you talking if you don't understand?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 22:15:17 UTC No. 16201546

>>16201540
I'm trying to figure out the part you're not understanding

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 22:21:28 UTC No. 16201557

>>16201546
I don't understand why you bother posting if you don't even know what words mean

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 22:23:19 UTC No. 16201559

>>16201557
Words can mean many things, or nothing when they are used by certain people.

Anyway draw a bloody picture because you suck at describing things

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 22:27:38 UTC No. 16201562

>>16201559
Why is it so hard for you to understand, if the cube stands still it's position won't change, newton's first law

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 22:30:37 UTC No. 16201564

>>16197823
You missed the opportunity to say /sci/zo. Sad.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 22:30:39 UTC No. 16201565

>>16201562
Well, see, my problem is I know what words mean, and the thing you were describing was completely nonsensical. Still is.
Either you're saying the bleeding obvious ("things standing still are standing still") or you are misunderstanding what is happening (the cube is not standing still in the relevant frame of reference).

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 22:37:28 UTC No. 16201569

>>16201565
I can't make it any simpler for you than this
https://files.catbox.moe/v46v0h.mp4

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 22:42:22 UTC No. 16201581

>>16201569
So we're back to hula hoops? Yes, if everything is moving together, that's what you get.

You see how when you move the portals over the cube, you overshoot and the cube goes into the other room a bit? Yeah that's what it should do except it has no reason to stop. Because of course the room isn't actually moving, only the orange portal is.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 22:48:29 UTC No. 16201593

>>16201581
>You see how when you move the portals over the cube, you overshoot and the cube goes into the other room a bit?
>when you throw the cube through the portal it comes out flying
Yeah no shit, but when you don't throw it it will occupy the same relativistic position in both frames of reference, since it is inertial in both frames of reference, the velocity on both sides will be equal

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 22:55:23 UTC No. 16201600

>>16201593
>when you don't throw it it will occupy the same relativistic position in both frames of reference
No, this is the part that's plain wrong, where if I try to interpret your words it leads to a contradiction.
Fuck's sake you see it move

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 23:03:39 UTC No. 16201617

>>16197823
to see it must be B, imagine the diagonal portal was moving in the direction the cube exits, at the same speed as the orange portal falls on the cube. unlesa you concede the portals do work on the cube so its speed relative to the blue portal upon exiting is equal to the speed relative to the orange portal upon entering, the unenviable burden of explaining where the cube goes

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 23:12:13 UTC No. 16201625

>>16201600
>Fuck's sake you see it move
And it only moves as much as the portal does, since the velocity for both sides will be the same, and if you look at op's image it can only move it's own length

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 01:05:32 UTC No. 16201767

Why do most A fags resort back to a variation of the hola hoop

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 04:28:49 UTC No. 16201988

>>16201767
because it comes closest to replicating the way portals work in the game. It's like a door. That's it.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 04:32:17 UTC No. 16201990

>>16200497
I have never played portal or portal 2

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 04:47:10 UTC No. 16202009

>>16201988
In the game the portals are (nearly always) not moving relative to eachother, so A and B are the same.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 05:49:31 UTC No. 16202090

>>16197823
I know its unrelated but this is alredy shitpost thread
Could someone post flies in a jar meme?

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 08:01:25 UTC No. 16202183

>>16201625
Again: gibberish.
In fact I think I see your mistake from your illustration. You've created a separate room that you move about in order to simulate the cube going through the portal. But rather than treating it as a convenience for the sake of animation, you treat it as an accurate representation of what is happening. Well, no. The room isn't actually moving. It is as stationary as the other side is. The portal has no velocity in that frame of reference. The cube does. You say that the cube will only launch if it is non-intertial in both frames of reference, but portals inherently create situations in which it is possible for something to be intertial and not inertial even in the same frame of reference. You've been arguing for B all along without even realising it.

Roteman at Fri, 31 May 2024 10:36:35 UTC No. 16202293

>>16200560
A is not trying to say that in gravity yada yada yada its saying that the motion of the portal would not be translated into the motion of the box, ok anon?

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 11:11:57 UTC No. 16202354

>>16202183
Wrong because they have the same velocity
https://files.catbox.moe/4ec0b6.mp4

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 11:19:13 UTC No. 16202368

>>16197823
>Answer which one is the right answer
none: it's an impossibility that would require no air or no fluid, and even if in a perfect vacuum, no cube.
Portals cannot move, or it'd mean they'd impart instantaneous non-zero momentum to the air that is flowing through it. In other words, the air that is motionless below the portal, would be instantaneously moving out of the second portal, infinite acceleration. It'd take an infinite amount of energy to displace the portal like that.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 11:21:42 UTC No. 16202372

>>16202354
You repeat yourself and re-invent the hula hoop for the 100000th time but you're still simply wrong. You are unable to perceive all relative motion correctly because you are blinded by the orange portal's movement. The blue portal is undeniably stationary. B follows logically from this fact.

If you want to argue that the blue portal must be "actually" moving despite appearances because it's the same as the orange portal, consider that if we approach the problem from the opposite direction, we are forced to conclude that the orange portal is "actually" stationary despite appearances, and therefore the cube is moving anyway. The problem of what "actually" happens disappears if you consider all movement relative, however.

🗑️ sage at Fri, 31 May 2024 11:25:57 UTC No. 16202378

portals do not exist in science
go back >>>/v/

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 11:33:21 UTC No. 16202391

>>16202372
>The blue portal is undeniably stationary
It is only stationary in it's own frame of reference, but it moves for anyone on the other side

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 11:34:32 UTC No. 16202395

>>16202391
>It is only stationary in it's own frame of reference
Everything is stationary in its own frame of reference
>it moves for anyone on the other side
And vice versa. You realise that this means that the cube is moving on the "blue" side?

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 11:39:56 UTC No. 16202403

>>16202395
>You realise that this means that the cube is moving on the "blue" side?
Nobody said it isn't, but since both sides have the same amount of momentum, including the cube, then the output displacement will be the exact same

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 11:41:28 UTC No. 16202406

>>16202368

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 11:46:14 UTC No. 16202410

>>16202403
>both sides have the same amount of momentum
This doesn't actually mean anything. It's gibberish pretending to be meaningful.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 11:57:38 UTC No. 16202420

>>16202410
I'm sorry you have a hard time understanding such a simple concept but that's not part of my problem

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 12:25:32 UTC No. 16202438

>>16202368
A portal is not an object, it's a hole in space that glues together two separate parts of it. A portal "moving" could really only mean some transformations of the space between it and the observer.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 13:17:45 UTC No. 16202474

>>16202420
Anon, it is you who misunderstands and that is definitely your problem

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 13:17:49 UTC No. 16202475

>>16202368
There is no acceleration. At no point does any observer see anything accelerlate. You see one stationary object consumed by a moving portal, and a different moving object leave a stationary portal.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 13:21:10 UTC No. 16202476

>>16202474
Projecting is not an argument

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 13:24:26 UTC No. 16202479

>>16202476
This isn't even a matter of projection. It is a matter of you lacking the understanding to even see that you misunderstand. What you say is meaningless. You apply the words with no real sense of their meaning. Momentum here, frame of reference there, but you fail to see what actually has momentum in which frame of reference and what the necessary result of that is.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 13:31:05 UTC No. 16202485

>>16202479
I guess you have evidence to suggest newton's laws are wrong then, yeah? And you can actually provide some instead of saying you don't understand again, right? You should waste less time touting about your imaginary knowledge and instead spend that time constructing a proof.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 13:42:32 UTC No. 16202490

>>16202485
You first, my friend. All you've done is recreate hula hoops, but not yet any actual depiction of one moving and one stationary portal. You haven't touched any criticism, only repeated yourself.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 13:46:49 UTC No. 16202493

>>16202490
The portal is only stationary in it's own frame of reference, you would see it moving towards you on the orange side, retard

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 13:51:30 UTC No. 16202495

>>16202493
>The portal is only stationary in it's own frame of reference
That is plainly false. Put any object standing still in your little animation on the blue side of the portal and see if the blue portal moves relative to it.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 13:57:39 UTC No. 16202502

>>16202495
>The portal is only stationary in it's own frame of reference
>That is plainly false. Put any object standing still in your little animation on the blue side of the portal and see if the blue portal moves relative to it.
No, it doesn't, because it's stationary in it's own frame of reference

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 14:08:27 UTC No. 16202517

>>16202502
So what is it you don't understand then? This means B.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 14:11:22 UTC No. 16202520

>>16202517
>This means B

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 15:04:14 UTC No. 16202572

>>16197823
The moment you move the medium on which the portal is the energy from the motion will increase entropy and close the portal

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 19:22:01 UTC No. 16202872

>>16201988
Yeah but the whole problem in OPs image stems from the two Portals moving in different directions, something a hole hoop can't represent. So it's quite useless as an example

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 19:28:40 UTC No. 16202881

>>16202572
Define move
In the game the portals can exist on earth and moon at the same time, meaning a big difference in relative displacement

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 20:18:00 UTC No. 16202938

>>16199341
It's the sudden shift in gravity that depends

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 07:36:17 UTC No. 16203773

>>16202475
>You see one stationary object
>a different moving object leave a stationary portal
>There is no acceleration.
that's instant/infinite acceleration, anon, therefore, an impossibility