/sci/ - Science & Math

Umm...

>>15161382
Why did people pick this as a troll question? It's really stupid.

>>15161399
>It's really stupid.
So you have the right answer?

>>15161413
Why pamper maths' complexities?

>>15161382
yeah funny an other paradox, all motion is relative to each other.

>>15161388
Statistically speaking the first post is the best post 100% of the time, 60% of the time. This is one of those times

>>15161423
will the cube remain its inertia relative to the new system, or relative to its old system.
it happens for example if sth. enters the atmosphere an other real life paradox.

>>15161431
it just can be solved if every location has an locked place.
for example it the entire universe jumps at ones, so far away that at out location no matter energy or oscillation exist, its still an existing place. independent of the memories of the matter, or the destruction of the information of this place, the place has to remain a real coordinate. this paradox proves that space it self exists even if it contains nothing.

>>15161441
>aether
Fuck off SKITZO!!!

>>15161382
I dunno, if space itself is moving around me do I have velocity?

>>15161448
well this solution to this paradox also profs that motion cant be relative, that true deterministic behavior doesn't exist, as well as the infinity of space, and an infinite amount of objects existing in it.

technically both answers are wrong but B is stupider

>>15161563
i mean less stupid. A is stupider

It's A
>"Why?"
Because from the portals' perspectives, the cube emerges from the entrance at the same rate it disappears from the exit. However, from Earth's perspective, the cube is not moving and it remains stationary after exiting through the orange portal.
>"So what force stops the cube's movement from the portals' perspective?"
It's a non-inertial force that shares the same magnitude of the force required to stop the piston's movement
>"But what if the cube kept its momentum after exiting through the portal?"
This would require infinite force to be applied to the cube to change its direction, which would result in the cube flying to the orbit at the speed of light
>t. civil engineering dropout

>>15161382
The answer is sex with Kurisu.

Hula hoops

>>15161382
The cube will leave the blue portal at the same speed it entered the orange one.

>But the cube isn't moving!
Is what a fucking idiot would say.

>>15161382
a makes more sense when one portal is stationary
b makes more sense when both portals are moving
Somewhere someone has got their definitions of a and b confused

>>15161582
If a house falls on you are you flying into the ceiling or is the ceiling flying into you?

B is better. Even better would be B but with kickback on the entrance and exit portals to conserve energy and momentum. It would still produce the same results in-game because the portals are attached to heavy shit. Gravity is a problem however...

>>15161592
Instead of your dumb scenario, let's use an even crazier one: when you jump out of a plane, are you falling towards Earth, or is Earth falling towards you?
The answer is both. Sure you are accelerating more, because the Earth is more massive. But in terms of movement, you can say either or both are moving depending on the reference frame.

>>15161604
Even then, the cube would not get launched out.

>>15161592
the ground falls to the ceiling taking me with it and crushing the walls inbetween

>>15161613
do you see the issue here, as a soientist?

>>15161609
It has some speed going in, so it's gonna have some speed going out.

>>15161619
You just said that relative to the earth you'd be moving faster
So fuck, even though I do not accept using relativity, the cube is still moving slower relative to the portal so it wont be launched out.

>>15161616
There is nothing wrong with any of this

>>15161604
Right, so if the earth had a hole through it, and I was standing on a platform, and it passed over me, would I magically fly off the platform when I get to the other side?

>>15161613
Why would it go flying if it's attached to the ground

>>15161624
The cube should fly off when the platform is jerked back

>>15161620
I'm not sure what you think relativity is.
We're not talking about Einstein's special relativity, just Gallilean Invariance.

Anyway, the cube has a speed relative to the portal. It's gonna have that same speed, now relative to the OTHER portal coming out. Doesn't matter if either portal is moving.

>>15161632
The platform isn't being jerked back

>>15161632
But there's still gravity from the other side

>>15161642
Yes it is. How does it move back down if it's not jerked back?
>>15161643
It's being jerked pretty hard. I'd say hard enough to fly up in the air before falling back down. Have you ever chucked a ball into the air?

>>15161646
>Yes it is. How does it move back down if it's not jerked back?
It's not being moved, the portal is

>>15161646
The object has to fully pass through.
In this case the object is the platform+cube.

A is inconsistent because if we assume the portal is just a hoop, the entire universe on that side of the portal must instead be in motion. which is a problem because
1) the entire universe would experience acceleration and get jerked around and
2) its the same universe as on the other side if the portal

>>15161660
>the entire universe on that side of the portal must instead be in motion.
No retard, just the spatial coordinates of the portal.

>>15161665
in that case its not A because thats obviously not whats happening there (or in the game for that matter)

>>15161660
Yes, moving portals have the universe move relative to itself.

>>15161673
That's exactly what's happening there and in the game.

>>15161676
the exit portal would not stay on the object its attached to

>>15161616
There's no force acting on the pillar to make it fly off.

>>15161681
It's moving anyway so inertia will make it fly off.

>>15161382
This requires understanding the portal surfaces made of lunar regolith.

It cannot be solved with any appeals to simple physics.

>>15161699
Why didn't if fly off before during the jerking phase?

Just tested this in-game and the result are unbelievable! (clickbait)
Portals are coded so that they delete themselves the moment they move. So the answer (in-game) is neither.

>>15161714
It should

>>15161382
depends how portholes work, I think neither, it will be sitting in the middle of the portals not move

>>15161382
obviously B)
when the first particles of B appear outside the blue portal, the new appearing particles behind them will push against them with the velocity of the orange portal, end result will be cube flying out with velocity of orange portal.
>>15161613
in this case the object might even get "sucked" through the blue portal because of its inertia on the side of the orange portal, even if you move blue portal slowly the object will still fall through at some point because of gravity pulling it down on the side extending from the orange portal.
>>15161616
if box and beam aren't connected box will launch upwards if orange portal moves fast enough downwards or will seperate in the air/fall down if you move orange portal upwards fast enough so beam on the blue side moves away downwards faster from the box than would be possible with 1 g acceleration.

all other answers besides maybe some iterations of "portals dont real, question stuipid" is obviously wrong and you're an idiot.

>>15161417
The Smiths had produced a lot of good tunes for their relatively short career

>>15161382
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqycDO3hR1Y

>>15161573
If I were to stand next to the blue portal, and grab onto an object whilst it emerges, why would the atoms of the cube, stop dead suddenly, when the atoms in my hand in contact with the cube keep moving? Basically, how are the atoms of the cube separated from other matter on the blue side?

>>15161388

>>15161576
This, imagine having those legs leg lock you and not lot letting go until you get her pregnant.

>>15161616
Wait, if the blue portal's not moving, how can the orange?

>>15163031
Or is it the other-way around? If these portals are entangled, wouldn't there movements be symmetrically bound in order for objects to teleport or move through them?

>>15163043
>>15163031
Putting the word symmetry aside, do the motions of those portals need to be linked/relative in order to coordinate the transportation/transition of structures through?

>>15163048
>>15163043
>>15163031
Wait, what the fuck is actually moving in that video? Its like that effect you get when going underwater or changing your angle of observation changing how things are illuminated to you.

>>15161382
B, because that's how the game is programed

>>15161382
It's B. It could only be A if the cube was compressed as it passed thrpugh the portal.

>>15164601
>the game

>>15164652
Oh so its paradoxical in game in additional to being non-physical in real life

>>15161382
https://vocaroo.com/1b0ivXSjE1df
https://vocaroo.com/1ZBi94VMB5Gt

A
Whoever pick B is a fucking autistic retard who has priority to death.
You're not a real human and therefore should die.

>>15161382
Its B. Swap the cube out for a 10 foot pole and tell me what happens if you are sitting still watching the blue portal.

>>15161660
The hula hoop comparison is retarded. The exit hole of a hula hoop is not stationary.

>>15161388
kek

>>15165143
It is stationary relative to the entrance hole of a hula hoop.

>>15164664
sounds nothing like her
https://youtu.be/31Ju6z28IIs

>>15161382
if it were b u would have died in the game when u opened a portal to the moon

>>15164660
The cube is not properly aligned with the portal.

>>15165555
what now?

>>15165491
That makes the comparison even more retarded because that is not the case with the orange and blue portals.

>>15165586
is it a dynamic prop?

>>15165624
You're gonna keep coming up with reasons to dismiss footage. Just download Hammer and do the experiment yourself.

portals are doors. it doesn't effect the velocity of anything, it's just a door. a door if you think the answer is B I will kill you

>>15165671
>muh hulahoop

>>15165616
You must be extra dumb. From the orange portal perspective, the blue portal doesn't move. From the cube perspective, it has no velocity. In both frames, it works like you would expect a hula hoop to work.

Well?

>>15165716
But the portal isn't actually an object that can be interacted with. It's not relative to anything because it's zero. Momentum is only relative to whatever exists on either side of the portal. And since nothing is moving relative to either side, there is no momentum.

>>15161382
https://vocaroo.com/1o0CgosM43F2

>>15165896
not listening unless it's in a loli voice

>>15163019

>>15161382
The two portals are part of one, same, system. What would happen if you crossed a static box, i.e. an inertial frame, through a moving circle?

Nothing, start playing with an accelerometer

>>15161388
lmao

>>15161382
elegant solution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao1qVi5Qp3Y

>>15161382
C

>>15161573
Wow, this post is really fucking dumb

>>15165718
>From the cube perspective, it has no velocity.
This is true for anything, ever. You have no velocity relative to yourself. But the cube does have velocity relative to the orange portal, and therefore also to the blue portal, which, as you helpfully point out, has no velocity relative to the orange portal and can thus be treated as the same object. In the end, it does work rather like a hula hoop, keeping in mind that whatever goes into a hula hoop necessarily immediately comes out the other end, i.e. at the same relative velocity.

>>15166682
Just because it's a video doesn't mean it's any more important than a /sci/ shitpost

There's no answer because things can't be accelerating and not accelerating at the same time according to the same inertial frame of reference. It's a contradiction.

>>15161382
>plop hulahoop on my dick
>gets ripped off and flies away

>>15168404
It's only a problem because you know it's the same cube, but for all intents and purposes you can treat it as two separate cubes, one accelerating, one not.

>>15168425
An accelerating wormhole can be used as a time-travel device. The whole thing is a gigantic contradiction.

>>15168226
Thr cube and the blue portal are in the same frame of reference. So no, the cube has no velocity relative to the blue portal.

>>15168421
smart frogposter

>>15168516
You are not thinking with portals.

Hint: look through the portal.

You've already contradicted yourself because you said that the blue portal doesn't move from the orange perspective, yet from this perspective the cube does move. Of course, we can say that the blue portal doesn't move with respect to the orange portal when we look through the orange portal, but if we were to go around and look at the portals separately, we definitely see one moving and one not. It is in this latter frame of reference that the blue portal and the cube are both stationary. It is when we look through the portals that the orange and blue portal move together and the cube moves relative to both of them. Because we want to know what is happening when things go through the portals, this is what you should be looking at.

>>15168421
it's not a hula hoop because the "entrance" isn't stationary

if a was true you would always exit the other portal at that portals speed regardless of how fast you were moving into the first portal

Those who say it's like dropping the universe on top of the cube are still just making a convoluted hula hoop argument, and it's flawed for the same reason. They're only considering part of the equation. They don't consider that the blue portal is also stationary from the same frame of reference as the cube, and that the universe could just as much be said to be moving towards it.

If we reason like this, then for all intents and purposes we can treat it as if we have two separate but identical universes, which we will label Orange and Blue to distinguish them. You say the Blue universe is being dropped over the cube whilst the Orange universe is stationary. Of course, from the frame of reference of the Blue universe, it's not being moved. If you're standing just beyond the orange portal in the Blue universe, you don't experience a sudden jolt of inertia if the portal stops. The universe is always stationary with regard to its own frame of reference. The movement of the orange portal only becomes relevant to you if you step through it. At this point you cross the threshold into a new universal frame of reference in which you were moving*. It's not much different from stepping through a portal and falling from the ceiling. From your point of view, gravity has suddenly gone sideways. But it's consistent with the laws of physics of your new frame of reference. For this reason, when the cube crosses the threshold into the Blue universe, in which it was moving, it will continue that movement in accordance with the laws of motion of the Blue universe.

*note: this is already B in reverse

>>15171788
This becomes even more obvious when we consider that our Orange and Blue universes are just an arbitrary slice from an infinite stack of separate but identical universes. The Orange universe itself also has a blue portal in it. If we declare the Orange universe to be stationary, then at the same time that its cube plops into the Blue universe, another cube will be flung into the stationary Orange universe; a contradiction, since they are necessarily identical (we are only treating them as separate for the purposes of working with them). This contradiction can only be solved if we treat each universe to be stationary to itself, instead of to one arbitrarily chosen universe.

>>15161382
It's A .Since the system doesnt exhibit translational symmetry by noether's theorem there's no need for momentum to be conserved.

>>15173033
Not even stationary portals in game conserve momentum (in direction)

It's A because the cube wasn't moving in the first place.

>>15161382
Obviously B, this doesn’t even merit discussion

>>15173232
Obviously A though

>>15161382
An object at rest will stay at rest

>>15165716
So, the universe inside the portal is moving relative to the cube? And because of this it doesn't simply plop out.

>>15171788
>>15171790
Nicht einmal falsch.
The blue and orange portal are the same portal.

>>15161382
Obviously, A.
What force could possibly act on the cube to make it move like in B? From the cube's perspective it wouldn't notice anything change except for gravity pulling it sideways after it's moved through the portal. A portal isn't an object, it's just empty space.

>>15174963
And what do you think you're disagreeing with, exactly?

>>15175006
Momentum is a vector. Any time you throw something through a portal and it flies out in another direction, the portal changed the cube's momentum. You don't ask where it got the energy to do this because it looks to you like the cube merely continued its path through the portal. The next step is to realise that this is what happens in B as well. Continuous motion when viewed from the portal's frame of reference.

Was it moving before? Why does matter? B says it does not matter

>>15174963
The same stationary portal.

>>15175079
From the cubes point of reference space in the portal is moving.

>>15175090
It's clearly not, though. The same observer can see the cube and the portal both being stationary.

>>15161382
From Mr Bonds perspective the universe is rotating around him but he feels the force and not the Universe.

>>15166682
>30 seconds in
>Already explained it
Based so B was correct.

>>15161382
A few unknowns to consider:

- the speed of the falling orange portal
- the distance between orange and blue
A powerful air flow can occur when the portal is turned on, especially if there's a considerable distance between the two, if the airflow is stronger than gravity then the cube would eject through blue, resulting in answer B. If the portal is already on and the pressure has equalized and orange moves slowly - A. However none of that is specified so it will always be debated.

>>15175990
All arbitrary and need not be considered to face the crux of the problem.

>>15175992
>to face the crux of the problem.
Which is what, momentum?

>>15175993
Yes. Laws of Thermodynamics are already violated by the existence of portals alone, so it's not an energy problem.

>>15175995
Lets call the portal a bridge to simplify it. So the falling orange mouth is a moving bridge. A moving bridge must exert its motion to an object that it's in contact with, and the way I see it, the borders of the portal are close enough to the cube that the warped matter of the "bridge" should exert force on the cube if not catching it and throwing it, the same way you'd try to invert a baloon. I don't have the vocabulary to explain it but like a Mobius sleeve that loops back in on itself -no folds though- and as orange is falling, it "unravels", and in that unraveling the cube is caught on the sleeve and thrown in the air. If the portal was a few times larger that wouldn't apply and it would just plop.

bump

>>15161382
test

>>15161382
a
there is a continuous reference frame through the portals

>>15176930
That suggests B though

>>15176958
>drop a hula hoop on a cube
>it flies off as soon as the hoop touches ground
?

>>15176988
Your reference frame is the portals. From that point of view, the cube is moving. Not only that, but it follows a continuous path through the portals. The exit portal being stationary and the cube continuing its path, there is nothing else for it to do but shoot out. Still looks like a hula hoop from the right perspective (the portals) in that sense that anything that goes into a hula hoop necessarily immediately comes out the other end.

>presence of a portal alters known physics an infinite distance away from the portal

>>15175028
>the portal changed the cube's momentum
in what world?
the portal merely gives the cube more space to move and changes the direction of gravity after it flies through it.
The only possible force that could come from the portal are gravity or electromagnetism emanating from the other side, which now that I think about, could br signifcant for the portal games.

>>15177512
>in what world?
The world of the video game

>>15175028
Portal only ever changes the direction of a cube's momentum, not the magnitude
That being said, based on the game's physics, the cube wouldn't go flying out no matter how fast the portal moves - it will stay sitting on the platform until the gravity from the portion on the blue side of the portal overcomes friction

>>15178406
>Portal only ever changes the direction of a cube's momentum, not the magnitude
Yes - which would result in B if properly mapped onto the conditions of the OP problem. Becaue A would be a reduction in the magnitude. Regardless, my point was this: why do you suppose a portal requires energy to change the magnitude but not the direction?
>That being said, based on the game's physics, the cube wouldn't go flying out no matter how fast the portal moves
Based on the game's physics, the cube won't go through the portal at all, because their physics engine doesn't model this interaction as it was never intended to happen in normal gameplay.

>>15161382
B, and conservation of momentum/energy dictates the moving portal encounters resistance when something (even air enters it).
A portal moving in free space encounters resistance proportional to the energy of the fields that it is relocating (Electromagnetic and gravitational)

>>15161613
>>15161616
these make me want to drink alcohol and energy drinks at the same time

>>15161616
this is the correct answer
>>15161613
this is nonsense

>>15179689
Your "correct answer" was made to be so obviously contradictory that no one could possibly agree to it. What prevents the cube from flying off?

>>15161573
>engineering dropout
too retarded to finish, huh?

>>15165732
II

>>15161382

>>15161382
Yer all worthless motherfuckers stuck inside your basement?

>>15179698
the portal functions only as a doorway, so speedy thing go in, speedy thing go out, object with 0 acceleration go in object with 0 acceleration come out

>>15161388
https://www.state.gov/1993-world-trade-center-bombing/
https://www.scribd.com/document/326199026/9-11-Hijackers-Passports-Were-Issued-by-CIA-MICHAEL-SPRINGMAN-US-Consulate-Whistleblower-7

>>15179783
You start with a wrong assumption and deny logic on that basis. The cube is already moving relative to the portal. It is therefore moving relative to the environment when it exits the blue portal. That is perfectly consistent with speedy thing in, speedy thing out. You just didn't realise what it meant, because you didn't stop to think about it logically.

>>15179799
the cube is not moving. the whole space behind the portal is moving towards it so that's why there is the illusion of the cube moving. The forces that affect the cube are equal to 0.

>>15161616
The object is stationary

The portal is merely a hole

A is less retarded then B from an intuitive standpoint

>>15179806
>the cube is not moving.
It is moving relative to the portal. It is moving relative to everything beyond the portal (where it is going). It is only not moving relative to its immediate surroundings. Just like when you're sitting on a train.
The cube has to be moving relative to the portals because there is nothing else it can do. If you believe that the portal has to impart a force on the cube for that to happen, the only logical conclusion is therefore that portals have to able to impart this force in order to work at all.

But again, you people never care that portals can create a perpetual motion device even without moving, or change direction apparently without any energy. Just as you don't care that motion is relative and the portals are already moving relative to a lot of things. Or that the blue portal is stationary in the same frame of reference as the cube. You just say "the cube's not moving" and from build your argument on sand from there.
>>15179809
My intuition says the cube goes in at speed X so it goes out at speed X.

>>15161382
B Is more correct.
A Doesn't make sense because the box couldn't exit the blue portal at all, unless its moving relative to it. And exiting the blue portal is the same as entering the orange one.

>>15179809
The portal is stationary from its own frame of reference, and also in this frame, the cube is moving.

>>15179814
>It is moving relative to the portal. It is moving relative to everything beyond the portal (where it is going). It is only not moving relative to its immediate surroundings. Just like when you're sitting on a train.
>The cube has to be moving relative to the portals because there is nothing else it can do. If you believe that the portal has to impart a force on the cube for that to happen, the only logical conclusion is therefore that portals have to able to impart this force in order to work at all.
>But again, you people never care that portals can create a perpetual motion device even without moving, or change direction apparently without any energy. Just as you don't care that motion is relative and the portals are already moving relative to a lot of things. Or that the blue portal is stationary in the same frame of reference as the cube. You just say "the cube's not moving" and from build your argument on sand from there.
>>>/x/

>>15179828
I accept your concession

>>15179828
>>15179830
On second thought, no I fucking don't, because you persist in being wrong despite being unable to respond to any of the issues I just raised. You avoid the cognitive dissonance simply by redirecting me to /x/ and absolve yourself of any responsibility you would normally have towards intellectual honesty.

B-fags are the same kind of people who would say that alcubierre drives in principle couldn't work, because "if you construct a frame of reference around the ship it would be traveling fater than light relative to the outside" despite that frame of reference being non-sensical and there being no mechanism or force to stop it.

>>15179926
I'm pretty sure you got that entirely backwards.

>>15179814
>My intuition says the cube goes in at speed X so it goes out at speed X.
But the cube isn't moving, both sides of the portal are stationary relative to eachother

>>15161576
it always is

>>15180001
You're still not looking at the full picture. Both sides of the portal are stationary relative to each other. They are also both moving relative to each other. And they are both moving relative to the cube, and both stationary relative to the cube. And the cube is both moving and stationary relative to its surroundings. There is no way to simply declare something to be stationary and conclude that everything else is therefore moving.
Watch what happens if we declare that the blue portal is stationary. After all, it is stationary in the same frame of reference in which you say the cube is stationary. Now, this means that the orange portal is also stationary, because it's always stationary relative to the blue. Therefore, the cube is moving. And if we look through the blue portal, we actually see that happening. It's being catapulted through the portal.
Why is my reasoning less valid than yours?

>>15179926
No, because the alcubierre drive involves no nontrivial topology; the portal, on the other hand, does

>>15180045
How can all three be stationary in the same frame, before the cube hits the portal? I'm not the person you're replying to but that makes zero sense.

>>15179926
Isn't the whole point of the Alcubierre drive is that it doesn't go faster than light from its frame of reference, like, that's what's supposed to be able to make it work

>>15180070
>How can all three be stationary in the same frame
1. We say the cube is stationary.
2. The blue portal is stationary in this same frame of reference.
3. Both sides of the portal are stationary relative to each other.
Which part do you disagree with?

>>15180082
Yes, thus the cube is not moving and does not gain any momentum, by moving the orange portal you're just moving the dividing lime between the two sides of the portal
>inb that's impossible
Warping space is impossible

>>15180082
If the red portal and the cube have a nonzero relative velocity between them, then this holds in any frame.

>>15180127
>Yes, thus the cube is not moving
False. Like I said, you're not looking at the full picture. Everything I said is true, but you're overlooking the fact that if we take everything I just said at face value, there is no movement.
From another frame of reference, the cube is definitely moving.
>>15180130
With portals, two conflicting frames of reference can hold true simultaneously. But the three premises I just gave describe the frame of reference in which all three can be said to be stationary relative to each other.

>>15180147
>With portals, two conflicting frames of reference can hold true simultaneously
I'm not sure how this would even be set up just abstractly, let alone analyzed in detail

>>15180147
>From another frame of reference, the cube is definitely moving
There is only one frame of reference and nothing in it is moving relative to eachother outside of the platform with the orange portal on it

>>15180158
Well, you can fit it all into the same frame of reference if you visualise it like this:
>>15171788
>>15171790
That is, for all intents and purposes, you just treat it as separate cubes. Then all inconsistencies disappear.

>>15180169
>There is only one frame of reference
This is starting to become pure dogma at this point.

>>15180183
>This is starting to become pure dogma at this point
No, you are just failing to conceptualize how a portal would function, it's a zero-dimensional object with no thickness, you're just warping space between your two locations, but the two locations are still in the same inertial frame in respect to eachother, there is no momentum added or removed because nothing is moving in respect to eachother, you're just moving the warped zero-dimensional space that divides the two sides of the portal

>>15180169
All right, let's hold fast to this one true frame of reference. On our left we see the cube, which is stationary relative to us, and the orange portal being dropped over it. On our right, we see the blue portal, likewise stationary relative to us.
We see the orange portal moving down over the cube, and at the same time, we see a cube emerging from the stationary blue portal. This cube is clearly moving relative to us. The answer is B.

>>15180216
>No, you are just failing to conceptualize how a portal would function
Right back at you.

Portal's just a hole m8

Thing goes in, thing comes out

>>15180228
>Thing goes in, thing comes out
And it comes out with the same velocity at which it enters, which is zero

>>15180216
The problem is this:

If you're not looking through the portals to determine the relative velocities, then you cannot say that the blue portal and orange portal are stationary relative to each other. The only way you can maintain that is if you consider a continuous path through the portal to be within the same frame of reference. But the moment we do that, there is no reason to say that the orange portal isn't stationary and the cube isn't moving, and it all breaks down.

>>15180233
Relative to what?

>>15180240
>Relative to what?
Relative to the frame of reference it is in numbnuts, the cube has no initial momentum in respect to the frame of reference it is in

>>15161382
A. Given gravitational force in a downwards direction

B. Is incorrect in any scenario.
A portal in the portal game is a direct connection to what is on the other side, meaning no acceleration of the cube.
Get a ball, get a hoop, toss the hoop onto the ball without touching the edges. Does the ball move?
Now imagine the ball appearing in another hoop you placed somewhere else, the ball would just appear.
Now imagine the target hoop is placed at the angle in A.

>>15161382
>People unironically answering "A."

>>15180273
A is the most correct answer

>>15180220
I feel like "move" is the wrong word here. The portal isn't really moving through space, space is being warped through the portal. I don't agree with looking at the portal as an object with properties like velocity, I think it's more accurate to conceptualize them as just seams OF space rather than potals IN space.

>>15161382
A. How could B even happen? Why would the act of going through the portal apply a force to the cube?

>>15180395
>>15180220
To add to this the entire space along with the cube is being warped through the portal and in relation to that entire localized space it hasn't moved there really aren't any forces to take unto consideration as far as I can see

>One single frame of reference, the wall.
Would you look at that, it's both moving and not moving.

>>15180407
It doesn't, the portal just transfers the cube to a new position and velocity.

>>15180407
So the cube is moving relative to the portal, then instantaneously stops?

I'm starting to think A people are just baiting

>>15161382
>portal moves into cube at 10m/s
>cube has to be pushed out of other portal at 30m/s lest it's atoms become closer together or further apart
>momentum acquired
>30m/s cube

>>15161382
Neither A nor B. The cube in the first picture on the left, sitting on the platform with whatever it is appearing to come down with some degree of force, is going to do one of two things: it will either flatten if the material it's made from is less dense than the crushing thing come down on top of it, or it will not flatten at all if it's more dense and the crusher thing may fracture and break in its attempt. Answers A and B assume that the cube somehow managed to come out of a box of sorts but that seems like a faulty assumption based on the image.

This looks like something posted by the same person who made the thread about how difficult captchas are to solve.

>>15180543
>So the cube is moving relative to the portal
And that's completely irrelevant, the Earth is moving relative to the direction you're moving, doesn't mean the Earth just stops and starts spinning the other direction you fucking retard

>>15180216
If we elongate the “cube” so that it becomes a 10 foot tall by 2 foot wide rectangular prism, does the effect of the portal extend to 9 feet beyond itself to cancel out the momentum of the majority of a 10 foot rectangular prism moving away from its “stationary” reference frame? If we are watching only the blue portal, there is an object exiting with velocity relative to the stationary blue portal. If the cube has mass, then there is momentum. Its B, and anyone saying A needs to take intro to physics again.

>>15180646
are you retarded

>>15180243
>Relative to the frame of reference it is in numbnuts, the cube has no initial momentum in respect to the frame of reference it is in
So you are saying it has zero velocity with respect to the portal, and yet it goes into the portal, and it comes out of the portal?

>>15180650
That would be extremely relevant if the Earth went through the portal

>>15180395
>>15180409
The games don't suggest they are anything other than mere holes. What goes in must come out. You can come up with a theoretical different sci-fi concept that would result in A but it's not this. Once you start talking about the whole space around the cube being warped, where does it end? How far can you stick something through a portal before the laws of motion take hold?

>>15180849
No it wouldn't

>>15180843
>So you are saying it has zero velocity with respect to the portal
No, I'm saying it has zero momentum relative to the other side of the portal, because it's in the same inertial frame unless whatever space is on the other side of the portal was accelerating towards the portal, which would give the cube relative momentum, if both sides of the portal are standing still in respect to eachother then moving the portal does absolutely nothing to add in any momentum

>>15180525
>>15180407
The cube has zero velocity, it is completely stationary

>>15161382
A according to game programming, B implied by plot events in the game.

>>15161382
An observer next to the blue portal can physically touch the cube and feel its movement as it emerges from the blue portal. To say this motion is not real when you can physically touch it is absurd. What separates the atoms of the observer from the atoms of the cube, if the observer touches the cube and matches its motion what happens then?

>>15181120
>A according to game programming
Its actually neither. The game just glitches out when portals move.

>>15181178
The cube isn't moving at all until it comes under the influence of gravity

>>15181064
Well guess what's happening in the OP
Both sides are not standing still in respect to eachother

B although it could be improved

We have the following three premises dervied from observation:
1. The cube X is stationary
2. The orange portal Y is moving
3. The blue portal Z is stationary
Which also allows us to deduce this:
4. X and Z are moving in the same frame of reference.

A contradiction occurs when we observe the following:
5. X passes Y and Z
For this to be true, either 1 or 3 must be false. Some think they can resolve this by introducing the following premise:
6. Y and Z always move together
But this is contradicted by 2 and 3. They go on to add:
7. If 6 is true, then 3 and 4 are false
But we could just as easily conclude
8. If 6 is true, then 1, 2 and 4 are false

Thus, we see that moving portals inherently create seemingly irreconcilable contradictions, and attempts to resolve them introduce more contradictions. Some might say 7 is more true than 8 because it denies the fewest premises, but that doesn't make it logically sound. What we must do instead is look at the source of the contradictions, and then we see:

9. Each of the first three premises is instead false when passing through the portal.

The portals introduce contradictions precisely because, among our principal observations, what is true without the portal is false when we involve the portal. 6 is true when we look through the portal because seen from Z, 2 is false, and seen from Y, 3 is false. 7 is thus also true when seen from Y, and 8 is true when seen from Z.

With this final piece of the puzzle we can finally explain 5. The cube must pass the portal. Thus, 1 is true as long as the cube has not passed the portal, and from there, 3 is false when seen through the portal, allowing the distance between X and Z to be closed (4 still holds true without going through the portal). But when 5 occurs, the cube necessarily passes through the portal, and 1 is denied.

The cube moves when it comes out of the portal. This is the only way to resolve all logical contradictions. QED

>>15161716
>the moment they move

t. never played portal 2

>>15180243
A speeding car also has zero velocity from its own frame of reference. What matters is its velocity in the frame of reference of the portal.

>>15181810
>all that effort
You're missing a few premises
the force of gravity which is implied in A.
Portals support instantaneus travel between in and out, according to the game. As if it were a window that you simply pass through.
Your 1. Rule is only true given it is at "rest" or that there are counter acting forces keeping it stationary (the platform).

You're assuming that the portal introduces some kind of movement when the cube appears through the other side.
>5. X passes Y and Z
There is no contradiction given our new rules.
The cube is stationary within the transition between in and out, and looses contact with the platform once it passes completely through y (in) and thus also through z (out). After this, there are no external forces keeping it in place, and so gravity takes over and the cube falls.
>6. Y and Z always move together
The blue portal is stationary. Y moves the object to Z, and keeps it in place as the cube transitions from Y to Z, but Z never moves and X never moves provided it is still making contact with the cube on the platform on the otherside. There is likely a point where the cube falls out on the otherside once it transitions far enough that it is unable to balance. The portal is not keeping the cube stationary, but the platform on the otherside.
Even in the situation B. With no gravity, the cube would be stationary on exit portal Y given no external forces.
Or with gravity, there would be curvature of the trajectory in B.

Totally absurd. Whether it be the game or reality:

1. Does the cube have any properties? No.
2. Does either portal have any properties? No.
3. Does that which the cube rests on have any properties? No.
4. Does that which either portal is on have any properties? No.

Therefore, what would "happen" can simply be described as nothing. Just as any and all real events are similarly vacuous, pure Occasionalism, a vampiric concavity in and of the mind of Yaldabaoth.

>>15181917
>contact with the cube on the platform on the otherside
Mistake here.
It's the same cube that is partially existing on both sides of the portal

>>15181917
I'm not missing anything, I'm looking at it from the point of view of pure logic. You can ask "what about gravity" but it changes absolutely nothing. I am also not assuming anything. My conclusion is fully supported by the premises. You rather make an assumption that is not supported by the premises, which I already addressed.
>Y moves the object to Z, and keeps it in place as the cube transitions from Y to Z, but Z never moves and X never moves provided it is still making contact with the cube on the platform on the otherside.
Logically impossible.
>Or with gravity, there would be curvature of the trajectory in B.
Not what is being discussed.

>>15181936
Your premises are false
1. Should be given if then
Given equal and opposite forces then the cube is stationary

>>15181971
And that is a given. That's a tautology. Do you deny that the cube is stationary from our point of view?

Again, we're not doing physics here. We're doing logic. There is no need to include the cube's density or mass in the premises, or air resistance, or gravity, or whatever else we'd need to determine the cube's exact speed and trajectory. We're trying to answer one simple question: does the cube move?

End of discussion

>>15182008
What is this bullshit lmao
You're not even moving the hand
How is this comparable at all

>>15182008
ah fuck I'm missing a blood drip

>>15182011
alright I need a version 2 of this

End of discussion (Part 2)

>>15181729
But they are

>>15181995
> We're trying to answer one simple question: does the cube move?
Where does it say that anywhere in the op.
We're trying to argue which situation would occur, A or B.

forgot to show the final resting state of the hand
and I moved the portal

>>15182023
This is exactly as retarded as it looks

>>15182057
after being chopping the cutting of the tendons and ligaments causes an upward action of the arm
once this is over the arm and hand rests on the base of the portals which also happens to be the ground.

>>15182028
What do you think the problem is about, exactly? Because as traditionally interpreted it's about the paradox of a stationary cube passing a stationary portal. Those who think it plops say the cube is stationary but the portal is moving. Those who say it flies say the portal is stationary but the cube is moving.

It gets more complicated than that but that's the basic paradox, which is therefore all about whether or not the cube moves, and not at all about gravity.

>>15182057
>>15182065
Basically
>down action, upward reaction

>>15182052
Ah so it's B then

>>15182067
>fails to take into account a fundamental law of nature went it implies the existence of gravity
sounds like a broken problem to me

the diagram clearly shows that the portal is moving. There's no speed lines.

>>15182072
the portal moved, and the hand remained stationary at rest.
So it's A

>>15182077
Your mind is what's broken, m8.
>>15182081
After three tries you finally managed to actually show a moving portal, and what you then showed was the bloody stump being pushed out of the orange portal as the blue passed it instead of remaining stationary. Which is literally B. It's not even "according to the principles of B" but literally just B in the OP.

>>15182086
I didn't want to show a moving portal because it does not change how the portal works.
It's a window, that instantaneously makes objects appear on the other side, just like a window would but the IN and OUT side are separated.
If I moved the OUT segment right, the hand would be connected to the other side again
if I moved the IN segment left, more of the arm would appear on the other side. if the arm is cut off, and I move the IN segment far enough left to go past the cut in the arm, the arm would be in the same position, but now to the right of the OUT segment. It would NOT keep moving like B implies out of the OUT segment.
I'm showing a difference version of OP to prove a point.

Option B would imply that there's some sort of attraction force keeping the cube perpendicular to the portal "horizon" moving in a direction OR a strong accelerating force moving the cube at such a high velocity that there's no observable curve.

I get it, however don't give a fuck about your pure logic. It forces you to create false premises based on some sort of alternative reality where no laws of nature exist.

>>15182086
>>15182112
in my shitty drawing I should have left the fingers right next to the IN portal

>>15182112
You're one of those people who say "yes I get that the maths say it's 2/3 if you switch, but in reality it's still 50-50" aren't you

>>15182135
I started that meme but it was a shitpost

If you're a math virgin it's A
If you're a physics chad it's B
there's NO way it can be B when you're a realist.

you have to remember that the hand is infinitely long, so when I move the portals an equal distance apart the hand can infinitely move further into the IN portal

>>15182156
Jesus Christ, just stop, this is embarrassing, the only time you came remotely close to showing something relevant to the OP you accidentally demonstrated B and you still don't even get why

>>15182166
>demonstrated B
isn't that what I said?

>>15182166
haha fun and games are over.
But seriously though it's definitely B.

>>15165785
In order to pass out of the stationary portal the cube must move relative to the room.

>>15165732
Small, and it explodes as it passes through the portal as the particles find themselves packed at a much higher density. Probably a lot of weird particle physics fuckery as everything finds itself much closer to everything else too.

>>15161382
Depends on other parametres.

>>15179759
Now pass an object through a hole where the entrance moves but the exit is stationary

>>15180233
>zero
Then how did the cube move to the other side of the portal

B is true of plot events because in the moon episode, Chell and Wheatley are not thrown at a tangent velocity to the moon of several thousand m/s.

>>15165514
Opposite is true, B maintains the entrance velocity at the exit portal. A maintains a velocity in the frame of reference averaged between the velocity of both portals.

>>15179814
I go into a falling hula hoop at X speed and come out at X speed. What happens when the hoop stops falling?

>>15182562
>Then how did the cube move to the other side of the portal
By shifting the dividing line between the two frames of reference

>>15182135
>yes I get that the maths say it's 2/3 if you switch, but in reality it's still 50-50
Completely unrelated but all statistical outcomes are 50/50

>>15183496
50-50, you're legally retarded

>>15183857
Question for you: do you really think people answer B because they think there is some gravitational mass behind the portal that lifts the cube? If not, what's the point of this?

>>15183857
Seriously, what is with a-tards and gravity. Gravity has exactly zero to do with this problem.

>>15182112
obviously the trajectory will curve in B with gravity
the rest of your post is totally retarded

>>15181178
The cube isn't moving at all. It's actually the space in between that's getting shorter making it seem that way.
The correct answer is A.

>>15184300
So now portals curve space. Like a hula hoop, presumably.

>>15183857
Your argument against B contains the inherent assumption that A is correct.

You know what, I'm starting to think you're not all stupid and/or trolling. You're just paradigmatically incapable of considering B. Like someone operating under the geocentrist model trying to reason what it would take to get the Earth to start revolving around the Sun and figuring that a really big push would do it, but there's nothing to push the Earth.

>>15184300
Not a single person has ever described the details of spacial distortion or its consequences. Firstly, it would not just affect objects that have passed through the portal, but would also effect objects on the other side. So, anything placed in front of the blue portal would be pushed away by this moving space. But, how far does this go. Does the portal push a column of space outwards towards infinity? Say instead of a cube you put a 10 mile rod through the portal? Does the spacial distortion travel the 10 miles of rod. Or does the spacial distortion have a range limit, meaning that the rod, at some distance from the portal now has real motion. What about from the sides. Do objects get sheared in half by the moving space, if they partially overlap the portal? You need to explain what your moving space actually means?

>>15184341
>So now portals curve space
That's how wormholes/portals are theorized to work, yes

>>15185065
Look, sure, you got the movie scientist wormhole explanation where you fold a piece of paper and stick a pencil through. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the portal warping space around it to an arbitrary extent so that there is a zone outside the portal in which movement can occur that isn't real movement. Let's not conflate these two things.

>>15185065
>>15185089
Because to me it looks like the most straightforward explanation for why the space between the cube and the portal is getting shorter is that the portal is on a piston that's moving down.

>>15185089
>We're talking about the portal warping space around it to an arbitrary extent so that there is a zone outside the portal in which movement can occur that isn't real movement.
That "zone" is the portal itself

>>15185191
Okay so beyond that, real movement is occurring?

>>15185198
If anything was in momentum, yes

>>15185209
Well then given >>15181178, it's B innit

>>15185237
No, because the cube is not in momentum

>>15185244
You can't just insist that something isn't moving in spite of it obviously moving just because it seems to you that it shouldn't be.

>>15180777
No. Are you?

All I have to go by is what's in the picture and from what I see, it looks like a block sitting on some sort of stand with something above it coming down with some force. From that, I don't see how the block is supposed to come out of either of the other two structures like what's implied.

So please enlighten me...Is there some sort of secret tube or some shit?

>>15185269
If you don't understand the premise don't attempt a conclusion

>>15180646
>>15185269
Unironically the right answer in the game engine with how the physics are coded

>>15185260
Noone said it isn't moving, it has no momentum, it would only ever move as much as the portal does because it has no initial momentum

>>15185351
You can't have movement without momentum.

>>15185362
>You can't have movement without momentum
It's called relativity numbnuts

>>15185384
It's called a frame of reference cockwobble

>>15185428
Exactly, relative momentum =/= absolute momentum
>inb4 durr there is no such thing as
Yes there is, just because you quote something out of context does not make it true

>>15185569
>I know you're going to tell me I'm wrong so let me just say I'm not going to listen
Well then we're done here

>>15185579
>If I say something is true even though it is demonstratably false then it's true anyway because I said so
I know you're a retarded little uneducated niglet, but it's really not that hard to figure out

>>15185595
Demonstrate some absolute momentum for me

>>15161388
needs the flies in the jar

>>15185623
>>15185569
For that matter, show me some necessary context for whatever it was you were so certain I was going to quote

>>15185623
>take a ball
>take a marker
>make dot on ball
>spin ball
Congratulations, you can now establish that the ball has angular momentum without any external frames of reference, wow that was easy

>>15186686
spin it relative to what lmao

from the dot's perspective it is stationary

>>15186692
Relative to itself retard, you shouldn't throw around such big words as "relative" if you don't understand what they mean or how they are used

>>15186695
Relative to space*

The centrifugal force affects objects that are rotating in space, because they are spinning relative to space.

>>15186715
No, it is spinning relative to its own previous position in time, this can be empirically measured without any external reference frames whatsoever, the centrifugal force plays absolutely no role in this argument, we are arguing about measuring an objects momentum in respect to itself, aka not relying on any external reference frames. Not only that, for all momentum to be purely relative and things themselves to not have any intrinsic momentum would require the violation of several laws of physics,
but given that you can spin the ball on the tip of your finger and not feel any acceleration relative to ball very easily confirms that it is indeed the ball which is has momentum, not you along the rest of the universe, go back to school please, or if you're too stupid for that just move your hand up and down, it has momentum relative to yourself without having to rely on any external reference frames.

>>15185269
based retard

>>15186797
You're describing momentum like it's some sort of inherent property such as mass rather than phenomenon that only exists in relation to other points of reference.

>>15187052
Momentum actually *is* an inherent property of a particle. It equilevant to mass and energy by mathematical formulae.

>>15187060
Which energy would that be?

>>15187064
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

>>15187079
>For bodies or systems with zero momentum[...]
You're once again thinking of mass.

>>15187094
It's talking about the rest frame, in which case mass and energy (and by extension, momentum) are the same thing (E=mc^2) (Einstein came up with this formula)

>>15187106
Yes, it describes the potential energy of an invariant mass at the speed of light.

Neither states that momentum is an inherent property.

>>15187113
Momentum is an inherent property of a quantum particle (point particle), similar to spin. It can be used to measure the direction a particle is moving.

>>15186797
>this can be empirically measured without any external reference frames whatsoever
How?

>>15187117
That sounds awfully backwards.

>>15186797
Well as luck would have it, I happen to be on a pretty big ball that's spinning. So if I draw a dot on the floor, I'm gonna observe some absolute momentum, yeah?

>>15187140
>put signal receiver in your position
>put signal transmitter in another position
>you can now determine that your position has changed even though from your point of view you haven't moved
Wow that was easy

>>15187633
are those two positions on the same rotating ball?

>>15187659
No they are on 3 different quasi-toruses that are all rotating 3000mph around eachother while also the entire universe is undergoing 345 quadrillion mph of acceleration around the relative central point of the toruses, of course they're on the same ball

>>15187672
The signal strength remains unchanged. Did the earth stop rotating?

>>15187687
The signal strength is irrelevant to this argument, we are calculating for position

>>15187698
Please, visualize how this works. I don't get it.

keep this thread alive bros mods said Kurisu will become board mascot if the thread stays for 30 days
lets bump it hourly

>>15161426

>>15187698
He looks like Pepe there.

>>15186797
>it is spinning relative to its own previous position in time
Okay but seriously, HOW would you measure this without any external reference frame? You told me to look at a ball but I am external to the ball. What the fuck are you on, m8?

>>15161613

>>15161382
CANT SOMEONE JUST ASK GABEN OR SOMONE FROM VALVE ABOUT THIS SHIT

>>15192441
Jay Stelly says A,
Dave Kircher says B,
and the devtalk says "sorry we ran out of time".

This is A. The block has a velocity according to the non inertial frame of reference of the orange portal. But the velocity of the orange portal platform isn’t the velocity of its destination. So the block is still stationary relative to the earth, or presumably whatever is on other side of the portal, and so it just falls out

>>15192466
>the block is [...] stationary relative to [...] whatever is on other side of the portal
That's precisely what it isn't. Can't we even agree on that?

>>15161382
Relativity anyone?

>>15161388
checked and kek'd

>>15161382
This is retarded

Q.1 what are we? inertial or not
Q.2 What kind of physics properties do the portals have? Are they charged? Wormholes?
Q.3 Relative to who?

Its B. If you clap your hands your hand forces the other to stop because of electric charge vice versa. If there was no other hand your hand would just continue moving to the side.

>>15194002
If all the lines have negative slope in the press's frame, why did you decide to draw the positive slope light line instead of the negative slope?

>>15194087
>to whom

>>15194087
If you slap a ball with your hand, it bounces off your hand. If Jesus slaps a ball, it goes through the hole in his hand