Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 06:17:02 UTC No. 16622250
B in both cases
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:24:38 UTC No. 16622299
>>16622224
1) The right answer is A: the portal is moving downwards, while the cube is still. The portal merely teleports matter from one end to the other, so it wont change the object's speed.
2) In this case, the right answer is B: the cube has a high speed before entering the portal, and it preserves it while coming out of the blue portal.
Please tell me if you think my reasoning is wrong
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:52:23 UTC No. 16622304
>>16622299
Both questions propose the exact same scenario. The cubes motion relative to the portal is the same in both cases. In real life at least.
In the game, it might make a difference, since (i assume) the cubes velocity is kept as a set of integers, and motion is calculated relative to the map which is assumed to be stationary.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 09:36:24 UTC No. 16622313
>>16622250
/thread
>>16622263
>hula hoop argument
>>16622304
The game doesn't actually handle the top scenario. The physics engine bugs out, prevents the cube from entering the portal, and instead causes it to clip through the piston. Though I suppose if the game did provide a solution, by this point we'd have people arguing the game is wrong.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 10:33:44 UTC No. 16622328
>>16622304
>The cubes motion relative to the portal is the same in both cases.
The portal is an impossible hole in space-time, you can't just apply 6th grade physics to it and feel smug because you don't understand where people on the other side of the argument are coming from.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 11:21:25 UTC No. 16622340
>>16622328
>Please tell me if you think my reasoning is wrong
So we did. We do know where you're coming from. We just think you're wrong.
The portal is not a teleporter. It is functionally a hole. It's not transmitting cube-data row by row and 3d-printing the cube on the other side. The cube just goes *through* it. And that means it has to be moving when it comes out.
You say this changes the cube's speed, but it is better to look at it from the portal's perspective i.e., treating motion as relative. From that point of view, the cube's motion remains unchanged. This is literally nothing new for portals. You toss a cube through a portal and it seemingly reverses direction in an instant - unless you look at it from the portal's perspective. You may protest that this creates energy out of nowhere, but again, that's nothing new for portals.
A just leads to contradictions if you think about it harder. If the cube "is still", well, first we have to ask "relative to what"? But also, what happens when it comes out of the portal? Wouldn't something in its path still hit the cube? Wouldn't the cube be *in its own way*? Wouldn't this functionally mean that the cube can't exit at all, and the portal becomes a forcefield rather than a hole? And still create forces from nowhere?
A has a lot of unresolved (and irreconcilable) issues, B is a simple and intuitive extension of how portals are shown to function in the games that leads to consistent outcomes.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 12:26:00 UTC No. 16622360
>>16622263
Absolutely amazing the lengths some idiots will go to to embarrass themselves on the internet
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 12:55:46 UTC No. 16622368
>>16622340
Basic fallacy. Object motions are not calculated relatively in the game as they are parameters instantiated in the object.
B tards are hopelessly out of their depth.
>no no einstein right wahhh wahhh
Relativity has never been demonstrated.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 13:14:08 UTC No. 16622377
>>16622368
>in the game
Here's what happens in the game: >>16622313
Anyway, I'm not about to let some kook who's going to take the opportunity to air his personal grievances with Einstein and the entire scientific consensus tell me I'm out of my depth when the best he can bring to bear is to talk about how video games handle physics simulations
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 13:23:33 UTC No. 16622382
>>16622224
It doesn't matter because portals are not real. There is not any evidence whatsoever that would make a scenario where such a problem would be seriously considered, therefore there is no point in wondering what would be the outcome of an imaginary scenario.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 13:28:55 UTC No. 16622384
It's kinda fascinating. Would A act any differently if they were all baiting? Their arguments are inconsistent, their logic is contradictory, they repeat arguments that were debunked several times even within the same thread, they frequently don't address any criticisms, they constantly resort to strawmen and ad hominems, and on top of that they are incredibly smug and overconfident in their abilities.
You don't see this behaviour from the B side. Even though the irascible and hubristic personalities displayed by Afriends would suggest they are perfect targets. I suppose trolls recognise their own, then, and realise the futility? Is even one of them arguing seriously?
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 15:03:59 UTC No. 16622420
>>16622382
What if you didn't have breakfast this morning?
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:01:09 UTC No. 16622469
>>16622224
A,B
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 19:08:20 UTC No. 16622571
>>16622420
I am not stupid for avoiding solving imaginary problems which disguise themselves as physics when they're really not.
Applying physical knowledge to questions involving unobserved phenomena will never work.
Unless you are trying to discover a wormhole instead of debating on a basket weaving forum, then by all means go ahead.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 20:24:52 UTC No. 16622638
It's A
i've got portals in my basement to prove it but my camera broke so i can't
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 20:52:25 UTC No. 16622666
For the retards who say B in the first case:
If a platform with a portal will move very fast on top of you and then stop in the middle of your body, does it mean that your are taken off the ground and YEETED into the portal anyway?
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 23:02:28 UTC No. 16623047
the real answer is we don't know the answer because we don't know the properties of the portal. It may cause entities that enter it to gain acceleration. If we be very fastidious about it the cube may be sliced by the teleportation in some way; as the portal goes through, the parts that have gone through it teleport to the other side without the rest, causing it to be a pile of material on the end (option C)
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:20:53 UTC No. 16623147
>>16622666
More or less, yes. Your incredulity at that fact does not constitute an argument.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:28:16 UTC No. 16623156
>>16622666
It's effectively the same situation as 2, so yes
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 01:22:16 UTC No. 16623212
>>16622666
You will probably get dismembered.
Forget about the portals for a second and think about the atoms. The atoms that make up the upper part of your body have left the portal and are now moving through normal space. When the portal stops you effectivly have half the atoms in your body with a different momentum to the other half. At this point, normal physics dictates what happens, and its bad for you.
Note, accelerating portals are not well understood and are problematic. All the issues people attribute to "moving" portals, are really caused by acceleration. Acceleration/vibration is true reason portals close when they move in game.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 01:26:32 UTC No. 16623220
>>16622263
Because.
>>16622299
This.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 10:24:29 UTC No. 16623476
>>16623220
Thank you for your invaluable contribution
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 12:55:12 UTC No. 16623566
>>16623212
Of course, it depends on how great the speed of the orange portal is, how quick the deceleration is, and on the strength of the material (in this case you).
sage at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 13:04:24 UTC No. 16623574
>>16622224
>this thread still being posted in 2025 about 20 year old game
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 13:45:26 UTC No. 16623611
>>16623476
I want the penultimate authorship on the paper.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 13:47:35 UTC No. 16623613
>>16623574
>20 Years of Sage
Wait until you hear about this Fermat dude.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 17:08:56 UTC No. 16623741
space time is moving, not the object. Unless the object is moving through space and isn't staying still. So, yeah. Moving space-time isn't going to cause the object to gain momentum. If you were hit by a moving wormhole you would just step on the other side (assuming the other end is moving at the same velocity as you are I guess). If you push the object through it (like if you walked through it) then you would be moving faster than the the relative speed of the worm holes, so 2 would be b.
Eyedol at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 20:39:05 UTC No. 16624485
>>16622263
>>16622666
The object is moving when it exits the portal tho....
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:15:28 UTC No. 16624944
>>16623741
wtf do you measure the movement of spacetime against...
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 18:31:52 UTC No. 16625227
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:04:20 UTC No. 16625256
The sad fact is there is simply a massive cognitive gap between proponents of A and B. The A side fundamentally doesn't understand B. They don't realise why it's presented as a possible answer. They don't get why this is presented as a paradox. To them, the question may as well be "does the cube come out of the portal, or turn into a pink unicorn with a PhD in philosophy"? It's hard to understate the level of incomprehension we're dealing with here.
Like, it should be obvious that no one actually thinks hula hoops launch people into the stratosphere. So why do they keep insisting that's what B is? Because they not only don't get what B says, it actually makes so little sense to them that it might as well be any old nonsense, so it seems perfectly plausible to them that that's what B is.
The reason we can't reach a consensus is not because there are strong arguments on both sides. It really is just because one side can't even consider the other. They don't even potentially understand. They just can't follow the logic. And they refuse to recognise it as a shortcoming on their part.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:07:46 UTC No. 16625258
>>16625256
>b's argument is based on faulty physics and calculations
>point it out to them
>"um akscually we dont really know how the game works so the answer doesnt matter"
>repeat ad infinitum
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:10:36 UTC No. 16625261
>>16625258
That's pretty much the opposite of what actually happens. Thank you for demonstrating your lack of comprehension so perfectly.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:14:06 UTC No. 16625266
>>16625258
>>16625261
I should add that "pointing out" faults requires you to understand what you are talking about first, so suffice to say, you have never once managed to do this, or even come close to it.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:15:25 UTC No. 16625268
>>16625261
>>16625266
>seething this hard
Who's paying you to lower /sci/'s IQ?
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:20:17 UTC No. 16625276
>>16625268
Please, if I could affect your IQ I'd get it to triple digits so you might be able to understand what I'm talking about.
Also, you're getting paid?
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:50:00 UTC No. 16625293
>>16625276
Why wouldn't it just act as a hole/wormhole?
What the fuck does the portal not applying forces have to do with the object being compressed? Its literally just a hole
Not my fault the devs were retarded with the implementation.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 20:05:12 UTC No. 16625300
>>16625293
B *is* the portal just acting like a hole. That is what you fail to understand.
B has, by now, been refined to simply this: relative speed in = relative speed out.
You might note the following:
1. this is logically the only possible outcome because there is nowhere else for a cube to go as it goes into the portal than out the other portal
2. this is only a slight modification of the rule stated in the game: "speedy thing in = speedy thing out". Arguably, because speed must always be measured against something, it is not even a modification at all.
You apply this logic to a hula hoop, you get a hula hoop. You apply this SAME logic to the OP, and you get B. If you think this is an apparent change of momentum that creates energy from nowhere: that's literally what two non-moving portals already do. That *is* consistent with the known behaviour of portals.
Now, I didn't mention compression but I assume you're talking about this common refutation of A: if the cube *plops* because it is "stationary" then the same would actually apply to each individual atom making up the cube, which raises the question of how the cube could possibly exit the portal at all. We know it should exit, because the portal is a hole. But we know it can't be stationary coming out of a stationary hole.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 20:28:54 UTC No. 16625313
>>16625300
Imagine you're standing on a huge hulahoop falling on a huge cube and you can cant see into the hole but rather only the top half of the hula hoop.
The cube appears to be "speedy thing out" while the hula hoop is falling but suddenly stops when it hits the floor.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 20:39:56 UTC No. 16625325
>>16622224
both is B because it is the rate at which the object crosses/exits the exit portal, not a some other value.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 20:43:27 UTC No. 16625328
>>16625313
>It is a hula hoop analogy
Did you honestly think I hadn't heard that one before? Have you honestly never heard the refutation before?
A hula hoop has both sides moving. The entire issue here is that only one portal is moving. That is precisely what accounts for the difference. The cube comes out of a stationary portal. They cannot both be stationary.
If you were standing on something and it plummeted down to Earth, you'd feel the sudden stop, wouldn't you? But instead here you never move at all. Was it only the appearance of motion, maybe?
A better analogy is standing next to a window through which you see a cube approaching you. It appears to be speedy, because it is.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 20:53:11 UTC No. 16625331
>>16625313
>>16625328
And you know, that's ultimately the problem with A. You have to abritrarily declare that THIS is *actually* moving and THAT only *looks like* it's moving. How can you tell which is which? You can easily turn it around, saying the universe only looks like it's moving, or even that it's the "other" universe that's really moving, and you get the opposite outcome. That's because trying to figure out the difference between "real" and "apparent" motion is a spook. A red herring introduced by the wrong-headed notion that momentum is an inherent property of objects. All apparent motion is real motion because all motion is relative.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 20:58:15 UTC No. 16625340
>>16625328
>>16625331
If the hulahoop were a large infinite floor with a hole in the shape of a circle the result would be the same.
You're not accounting for gravity from the portal either.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 21:01:28 UTC No. 16625344
>>16625340
>If the hulahoop were a large infinite floor with a hole in the shape of a circle the result would be the same.
You are now simply repeating yourself without addressing any criticism.
>You're not accounting for gravity from the portal either.
Gravity has no bearing on this. Imagine it in zero-g first if that helps.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 21:06:34 UTC No. 16625351
>>16625344
>Gravity has no bearing on this. Imagine it in zero-g first if that helps.
Nigga are you serious? This problem has everything to do with gravity.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 21:11:28 UTC No. 16625355
>>16625351
Are you saying that your choice of a or b depends on gravity
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 21:11:57 UTC No. 16625357
>>16622666
>If a platform with a portal will move very fast on top of you and then stop in the middle of your body, does it mean that your are taken off the ground and YEETED into the portal anyway?
yes because the half of your body already through the portal has inertia to pull the remaining half.
This would be true even in a stationary portal where you would be pulled through a wall portal to fall through a ceiling portal or be pushed backwards from a floor exit portal.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 21:17:33 UTC No. 16625361
>>16625351
>This problem has everything to do with gravity.
no the question is is the object's exit velocity:
a) object's starting velocity vector rotated by the portal rotation
b) the velocity of the object's relative movement through the portal
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 21:20:52 UTC No. 16625363
>>16625361
The object's starting velocity already wasn't zero in its new environment so that's a bit of a misnomer
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 21:45:44 UTC No. 16625379
>>16625363
Draw a diagram plox
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Mar 2025 09:58:36 UTC No. 16625687
>>16625357
>fall through a ceiling portal
then there will be equal gravitational force applied to both halves of your body