/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15218052
Angular momentum is ALWAYS conserved so the only possible option is B. Not C or D as there is no change in trajectory when entering the portal.

>>15218052
B. but the cube starts spinning in counter-clockwise direction.

>>15218052
Still A because it was always A?

>>15218052
this has to be the sloppiest and most confusing way possible to ask this

>>15218094
What about a rotating portal (not in-plane, but flipping around), and a stationary one?

>>15218094
Yes there is. Going into the portal cube have a vector with 2*v diagonal. into the portal and "up" . From portal perspective, cube is not coming straight in.

>>15218142
Radical 2 * v sorry. 4chins dropped my symbol

>>15218095
don't troll in /sci/

>>15218142
You've never played portal have you?

>>15218160
>>15218142
Nevermind I didn't read OP

>>15218052
Well the game does it like B but if that doesn't matter then none of this matters because we don't have portals so we can't debate their physics.

>>15218128
In this mode the cube does have velocity though.

>>15218052
How does gravity affect the portals? They don't seem to fall, yet they're on the surface of objects that do.

lmao at the brainwashed zoomers who have been disconnected from reality so thoroughly by their media mind controllers that they now can't discern the difference between irl life and hollywood's video games, television & movies. how low iq do you have to be to be that gullible? under 80 for sure

>>15218173
If the gravity isn't conserved with the portals, are compositions that touch them conserved?

>>15218170
AAnons say momentum doesn't go through, the cube just gets remade in slices on the other side. That's why it'd be A

>>15218173
I'd say gravity goes through portals.

>>15218173
Objects on the right aren't falling. The v down only applies to that piston

>>15218180
But doesn't it being stationary imply that gravity is acting on it as a fall that's cancelled by the density of the ground?

>>15218173
The system is always in free fall / zerog, or all those trajectories would be parabolic. Even the original one

>>15218128
>Still A because it was always A?
But it was never A. It was always B.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ao1qVi5Qp3Y

>>15218183
>>15218187 was for you

>>15218180
Gravity goes through but doesn't interact with the surface or edge of the portals?

>>15218188
The portal system?

>>15218205
The original meme OP based this on.

It has the box coming out in a straight line, not a ballistic parabola.

>>15218134
>>15218179
both mine still unaswered. rude

>>15218167
>>15218179
>>15218233
It is true the the game recreates objects as they go through portals. This is easily testable by dropping a cube through a portal in the games.

What matters is the cubes velocity in the reference frame of the blue portal. That's why it's not a in this situation but a in the original version of this question.

The angle it comes out will depend on the initial conditions of the cube and the orange portal.

>>15218052
I have no idea what that diagram is trying to show

>>15218327
Maybe go back to/r/

>>15218095
this is the ONLY right answer. Everyone else can't understand limits or infinitesimals.

>>15218278
The initial conditions of the orange portal and cube are completely defined in that diagram. They are at v orthogonally and the cube is adjacent.

>>15218052
It's D, a simple freebody diagram makes the answer intuitive enough

What really makes me unreasonably upset is how this retarded A/B meme can keep existing, and with how insanely stubborn Atards are in their whack ass interpretation ensures the threads will keep continuing forever.

>>15218052
D, although the cube should be slightly rotating clockwise. All you have to do is consider the transition at a few steps bearing in mind that both ends have to line up or the cube gets sheared.

>>15218375
*counter clockwise I mean

>>15218052
B. If quick, c if not.

>>15218095
What could POSSIBLY explain linear motion turning into spin between portals

>>15218052
A and B are both just outright wrong.

C or D depends on energy. C has more energy coming out because its parabola is higher, so a lowest-energy-seeking universe like ours, would do D

>>15218360
>Maybe go back to/r/
I see now that people were talking about the video game portal and that's what the picture is referring to. I'm not surprised I didn't recognize it seeing as how portal is one of the most boring games ever created. I'd rather play soda drinker simulator pro all day for a month straight than play five minutes of portal

>>15218375
>rotating
No, it only needs to be rotated so that the bottom left edge is parallel to the portal. Just transform the left system so that the orange portal is static and the result should become clear.
More technically, the cube frame and both portal frames start out inertial, so that the cube going through the portal cannot make the cube frame become noninertial (rotating).

Relative to the portal, the cube is moving toward it at sqrt(2)v with an upward angle of 45°. So it will come out of the portle at a 45° angle with respect to the portal.

>>15218052
not enough information, portal orientation is a thing

>>15218095
>>15218375
It is D, but the cube won't acquire spin either, unless the portal moves down so fast that the cube's trajectory will cause it to collide with the portal's edge. Assuming that the cube goes clean through, it will simply be as if the cube followed a continuous path through a hole.

>>15219003
>Just transform the left system so that the orange portal is static and the result should become clear.
Ah yeah, that makes sense.

>>15219342
OP here. Finally someone got it and describes why trivially in one step. /thread well done

>>15219153
Portal gun can't shoot upside down though

>>15219153
>>15219821
What are you on about?

>>15219843
Try it. Aim straight down in the game as if you would flip over... or straight up. Can't do it. So portal top is always higher than portal bottom (or equal, if it's on the floor) because neither the aim nor the player can flip z-down

if you can arbitrary rotate the portal, then C have more energy than d and --->
>>15218499

>>15219879
what

>>15218094
B is the answer, the velocity is maintained and the angle is dependent on the exit portal.
Portals cannot exert force on the cube without transferring some of it's own momentum on it. If you try you get the science police around claiming you broke some laws of thermodynamics and they're very strict about that.

>>15219894
Literally just try it lmao. Try literally any method to become upside-down and make an upside down portal in the game. In game you can't flip up, can't flip down, can't rotate about the axis you're facing either.

>>15219907
>angle is dependent on the exit portal.
Doesn't this naturally make it either C or D? And isn't that angle known from the initial conditions on the left?

>>15219913
fuck lol that took me some time

>>15219913
You can exit a portal upside down, put two portals in the ceiling and enter one of them. See what happens.
Also, there's no such thing as an upside down portal. Orientation is dependent on how you enter the portal.

>>15219919
>Doesn't this naturally make it either C or D?
No, the portal is moving downwards on a vertical axis. The implication is that the momentum of the portal will effect the exit momentum in some way. It wont, unless it can transfer energy to the cube somehow.
>And isn't that angle known from the initial conditions on the left?
Yes. The answer is B. Unless there's something I missed.

>>15219924
None of this is in conflict with >>15219879
>portal top is always higher than portal bottom (or equal, if it's on the floor)
Replace floor with floor/ceiling I suppose.

>>15219924
An "upside down" portal would be one where, if you stepped through it, you would step onto the ceiling. Not out of the ceiling, but out of a wall onto the ceiling.

>>15219941
Ah, it's an Afriend. Look, this isn't even about affecting momentum. D is literally what a straight path would look like for the cube, whereas B would involve a deflection.

>>15219924
>Also, there's no such thing as an upside down portal.
In this situation, an "upside down" portal would be any one in which the force of gravity is oppositely oriented between apertures. You're correct that they're only "upside down" (or not) relative to each other, in the sense that you can choose any (consistent) direction as "up"

>>15219955
B is a straight path out of the portal. D deflects upwards.

>>15219964
B is the answer to the original meme with no transverse velocity. This one has literally double the energy on the left, and certainly not orthogonal to the aperture. B is a straight path out of a stationary portal, which this is not

>>15219964
if I am the portal on the left, the cube is moving both toward me and up.. not straight toward me

if I am connected portal on the right, therefor the cube cant be moving straight from me either. it has to move both 'away' and 'down'

>>15219964
See >>15219003
>Just transform the left system so that the orange portal is static and the result should become clear.

>>15219978
>both 'away' and 'down'
Not down. Away and Up. It reflects like a mirror.

>>15219970
>>15219978

But it can't change it's angular velocity without getting that force from somewhere.
What you're suggesting would deform the cube in the direction, warping it in the direction of D. It wouldn't change it's direction.

>>15220001
D is the option that has no change in direction. Anything but D would deform the cube and also make no sense.

Regardless, portals necessarily add force.

>>15220001
>>15220012
These aren't even strictly necessary

Just imagine you're stanging outside blue portal LOOKING in as all this happens. The cube is moving toward you and "up" with reference to that aperture. It's gotta keep doing that after going through. Even the photons are doing that lmao.

>>15220023
Amazing that after all this time, WYSIWYG is still the best rule of thumb when it comes to portal physics

>>15220012
I think you're attempting to trigger my tism as you cannot be so retarded.
Nice attempt though.

Between B and D.
The answer depends on how big the cube is and how fast everything moves.

>>15220023
that makes it ***A*** retard

>>15220104
unless your conveniently-oriented photons (and everything else) are PUSHING the portals apart at the edges

>>15220037
I don't get it, please explain the joke.

>>15218052
None of them. The closest would be D, I think. But, the cube would not be rotated.

It could be C or D based on the orientation of the blue portal. Assuming it was placed such that up for the orange portal is up for the blue portal, then it's D. These puzzles are really easy if you just imagine standing right outside the blue portal and looking in. What direction is the cube traveling from your point of view? That's the direction it will be traveling when it exits the portal.

>>15220301
>>15220023
see >>15220108 retards

>>15220037
Anon, I'm sorry to inform you, there's something you're simply not getting. People aren't randomly choosing D to troll you.

>>15220050
I reckon it would be D whether we're talking about a photon or an elephant. What do you think makes the difference?

>>15220108
>>15220342
What the fuck does that MEAN

>>15220580
it means it's A --> >>15220104 read the whole thing, lmao

>>15220584
lol you're actually retarded

>>15220595
Photons coming out the portal like this guy says >>15220023 don't have any change. But you can see the exact contents of the orange portal through the blue one, and vice versa. It's not distorted like a tilted/bent mirror or lens, and it's not split like a prism, and its not redshifted or blueshifted. But the photos go in and out exactly the same, they don't see any angle.

>>15220607
Right, so the photons reflected by the cube into your eyes are following a straight path that looks a lot like D.

>>15220607
>>15220612
Wait why A though lmao that's literally the troll answer, your argument doesn't even work for A

>>15220622
yes it does. photons always move at c. But they don't change momentum or wavelength in between portals.

>>15220576
A photon isn't attached to anything on the other side of the portal.

>>15220694
>>15220712
Stop babbling about photons and make a point

>>15220720
They can't go faster than light
For example;
If they're coming off the cube, cube is moving toward orange, b-man sees them coming at him at c+v. Can't happen. Portal doesn't conserve momentum because on the left he sees them at c and on the right at c+v up to c+sqrt(2)v . And it's the same reference frame for both.

You could setup lots of situations like that where the wave should either change frequency, or speed, but not neither (and it doesn't change speed, lmao)

>>15221062
That kind of bending happens without portals and leads to tine dilation. For example if you are on a rocketship and turn on the flashlight, the light will go at c in your perspective and will also go at c in the perspective of an outside observer outside your ship
Since this happens normally it doesn't prove anything about portals

Light: if wave is coming toward portal in motion, it will come out stretched from a portal that's stationary, either higher or lower f. But the image is not distorted like that For Mr. B

If cube is coming, it gets smooshed up similarly then? No, because portal doesn't conserve that way, or light would be bluer. OP question is, what is conserved.

>>15221073
Your schizobabble killed the discussion lol

>>15221073
Even the original meme should do this, desu. Because of the velocity difference between orange and blue in the direction of incoming light. The frequency arriving at orange is gonna be boosted by its own velocity, just like an approaching body in deep space.

If that's true though, the cube should come out squished, not accelerated. None of the options in either version of the meme offer that. So we're all forced to assume the portals work some other way than the intuitive one.

>>15221073
So if you're arguing this means A is correct, I don't see that, because A suggests a total loss of momentum; light would come out fully redshifted (to invisibility) in any orientation.

>>15221910
That may be so, but you still haven't answered him. What makes the box fundamentally different from light which would cause its /angle/ to differ from a photon's?

>>15220108
This better considered with the cube. What if the top edge of the piston portal clips/collides with the cube as it goes through? It is colliding with every bit of dust, air and other particle that way, all with momentum.

>>15222729
> the cube should come out squished, not accelerated.

I stand by this. Even if the game could never handle it, the correct IRL physics squishes the cube along the axis of its motion relative to orange. That's 45° to the right and upward. Some anons have parts of this right:
>>15220001
>>15219361
>>15218142

>>15220607
This is the part that's fundamentally nonrealistic in the game, if a moving portal were allowed.

>>15220720
what happens when an elephant is halfway through the portal. and the portal moves

>>15221910
You are a dipshit desu. He's making a point about arrival times with moving/rotating apertures, and you are just ignoring it. Even unmoving two portals at a 45 relative to each other should change how far 'equidistant' objects appear. Because the ones going in at the closest edge are literally making a shorter trip than the ones going in at the farther one.

You really gonna tell me violet in picrel is the same distance as green?

>>15220720
>>15222790
On top of that, A starts rotating, or moving like in OP, what's it look like from B then? You consider the behavior of photons irrelevant?

>>15220720
>>15222790 (You)
On top of that, Orange starts rotating, or moving like in OP; what's it look like from Blue then? You consider the behavior of photons irrelevant?

>>15222739
Why would a photon travelling at the same path as the cube not also exit at the angle of D?

>>15222831
Neither would exit at D.

>>15222790
What exactly do you think your picture shows? Do you also have trouble with looking at things through an angled mirror? The light takes a shorter path, so what? That means it gets there quicker. If you're standing on the right in your picture, guess what, you'll see the left figure at an angle.

Either I'm missing something or you really don't get portals.

>>15222845
>an angled mirror?
An angled mirror cannot change its angle between incoming and outgoing light, it's always a 180. Two portals can be at any angle to each other (as I understand it). This would be more like a Lens (or a curved mirror)

>>15222852
>it's always a 180.
Sorry, I meant it is always a complimentary reflection of the angle.

>>15222845
what happens if orange turns clockwise while the cube is halfway through. or OP's starts suddenly moving to the right at v when its cube is halfway through. just think about it, its obviously about scale in the direction going through.

>>15222859
>>15222852
>Lens (or a curved mirror)

yes EXACTLY like a curved lens. curved depending on the spin rate.

>>15222852
>An angled mirror cannot change its angle between incoming and outgoing light
Wait, is >>15222790 meant to show the path of a single object?

>>15222877
Violet and Green each show the light path between the two objects' extremities, relative to the portal. The objects aren't moving, this example is to discuss the motion (rotation) of portals.

>>15222886
See:
>>15222859
These are some of the meaningful cases with portals at theta=f(t) or d=f(t).

>>15220607
This, if we indeed agree the view can be distorted. It implies that the cube must look identical before and after transitioning (to the observer outside Blue). If it appears distorted visually, it must exit the portal similarly distorted (physically).

>>15222886
Could you explain why the example with portals is fundamentally different from my example here without portals?

>>15222907
n your example those distances cannot change. in his example with the spinning/moving portals permit those distances to be arbitrary and time-varying. the view of left from right, and vice versa, it would change as the portal rotates...so, as a OP's cube (or anything with legnth) went through, it would change shape 100% just like the image. the parts portal rotated 'toward' shrink, and the parts being rotated 'away' lengthen.

>>15222907
In this example the bounding boxes are not parallel to begin with. The right object can only /assume/ the left one is a tilted rectangle, rather than any other arbitrary geometry beyond the visible faces. A good analogy would be taking a snapshot of the left cube from the right, and then extruding it off-axis. You'd extrude some of the bottom face along with the front both directly to the left rather than perpendicular to a face. Therefore it would not be a rectangular prism anymore.

>>15222919
So what point is >>15222790 making with two explicitly unmoving portals?
And so what if the distance varies over time? That also happens if I pick up the left rectangle and carry it off, really. It doesn't distort the light in between.

I'm not buying this distortion stuff.

>>15222934
>So what point
>>15222817
this point...they are NOT stationary .imo not worth making an animated gif for a meme /sci/ thread when you can type 'it rotates'
see
>>15222859
>>15222768

>>15222938
>they are NOT stationary
>>15222790
>Even unmoving two portals at a 45 relative to each other should change how far 'equidistant' objects appear.

>>15222940
t. inpatient autist

>>15222940
>I literally Cannot Read two consecutive posts and correlate them together. Every entire concept must be expressed in a single post, because I am a ChatGPT bot with no persistent memory.

>>15222942
>>15222946
Look, you daft twats, I want to know what the fuck the point is about the unmoving portals. If that doesn't even hold water then what the fuck are we even talking about? We can talk about rotating portals once you've established that you have something sensible to say about it. Because as far as I can tell, no one was actually talking about rotating portals until you just started saying
>uh it's a point about rotating portals, don't you see!
No, I don't, because no one was even talking about that to begin with, and now you're suddenly leaping to conclusions about them based on shaky assumptions.

>Dude if you like, rotate a portal, everything will look like it's in a different place!
That's because, relatively speaking, it is

Nope, still not seeing the distortion. Don't see any reason pic related wouldn't just happen.

>>15218052
OP here.

>>15220050
OK for the sake of the diagram, let's say C and D are the same case (some angle) and B is the special case of straight.

>>15220260
It sounds like you are describing the case I've pictured here as E. Is that correct? Orientation is maintained from the left-side (not shown here)?

>>15221073
>>15222729
>>15222817
>>15222864
>>15222919
It sounds like all these kind of say the same thing, what I've pictured here as case F. That makes a lot of sense to me because the cube starts out entering at the middle of the portal, but ends up entering at the top. So it should come out the same way.

>what the fuck the point is about the unmoving portals.
You can just play the game, where moving a portal destroys it. This thread is about hypothetical, moving portals as I posted in OP. All the discussion (except you) is about that.
Please:
>No "game does it this way" like every other thread, we know how the game (doesn't) work

>>15223332
>>15223117
In this middle example, the left box is always entering (or rather, being consumed) by the orange portal at its aperture's center. But on the right, it starts out coming out the center and ends up coming out the top. That's not reasonable to me. All of these appear to show rotation of the box relative to the portal(s), not rotation of the portals relative to each other, unless I'm misunderstanding. The result would be either rotating or skewing.

>>15223339
>it starts out coming out the center and ends up coming out the top.
Sorry, invert this; top to center, not center to top. 830AM problems, my b

>>15223332
its F 100%. except the launch angle isnt necessarily perpendictular. it could be more like the angle of D.

>>15223332
>You can just play the game, where moving a portal destroys it. This thread is about hypothetical, moving portals as I posted in OP. All the discussion (except you) is about that.
No. I feel like I'm taking god damn crazy pills. >>15222790 is making some asinine point that "even unmoving portals" somehow distort... something or other because the distance through the portal isn't the same as the distance seen from outside. And it is this fundamentally weird assumption that is then used as a basis to extrapolate some other point about rotating portals, which no one mentioned before him. So if any of this distortion shit is supposed to make sense, then the basis first has to make sense. What are you actually assuming about portals if you think they'd distort things? Because all I'm seeing proof of is that things which are further away are, in fact, further away.

>>15223349
It's exactly 45 degrees because the v_x and v_z are equal.
The box skews 45 degrees up, and also comes out 45 degrees up. Launched like case D, but with the shape of case F.

>>15223339
>In this middle example, the left box is always entering (or rather, being consumed) by the orange portal at its aperture's center. But on the right, it starts out coming out the center and ends up coming out the top.
Well excuse my MSPaint skills. I spent all of a minute on it. The point is, it rotates. There's zero reason for it to "skew".

>>15223354
>What are you actually assuming about portals if you think they'd distort things?
I am assuming they can move. See the OP.

>>15223360
Great. Your assumption stands. Nothing you say follows from it.

>>15223358
>The point is, it rotates. There's zero reason for it to "skew".
I'm really sorry, I did misunderstand you then. You mean the box comes out with rotation? This has been mentioned earlier >>15218095 but I thought you mean angle, not rotation. I'll have to think about it differently to see why we disagree on that.

As for the spinning thing, it's one of the first posts.
>>15218134
We've been discussing it that way the whole time.

>>15223373
>You mean the box comes out with rotation?
No, just in the drawing here >>15223117. There is rotation rather than distortion. The beam in the picture remains perfectly straight at all times (apart from my drawing skills).

>>15223349
>>15223357
This sounds consistent and matches all of my edge-case expectations. Would it also depend on the size of the box and portal? But regardless, still at the same angle. I might simulate it on a work pc to see what happens. Thank you. Back in ~7h

>>15223365
Well, I'm sorry. But it's clearly the same thing this anon is trying to say >>15222817 >>15222729

>>15223390
>But it's clearly the same thing this anon is trying to say
No, because he says the cube would come out squished, and that is not the case.

>>15218052
I salute you OP, this is a delightful extension that will filter even more retards. Also it's D

>>15223380
But none of your drawings match my OP. My cube is entering with a face parallel (in full contact) to the portal, but it's not entering at a direction perpendicular to it, it's 45 degrees off (like your middle one, but again, your middle one doesn't face parallel).

It doesn't matter. I have my answer from the rotation example, which is more intuitive than the velocity one. It demands red and blue shift under /any/ relative motion. I'm sorry that doesn't sound right to you.

>>15223403
>But none of your drawings match my OP.
Indeed. They are a response to a very specific argument made later on in the thread that had nothing to do with your OP.
>It demands red and blue shift under /any/ relative motion. I'm sorry that doesn't sound right to you.
It doesn't sound like anything to me thus far because none of you seem able to explain how you arrive at this conclusion.

>>15223403
>>15223407
stop trying to explain distance to chatGPT, OP

>>15223403
>>15223407
Actually, scratch that, I get the argument for red/blue shift. I don't get why it applies to cubes, which are not photons.

>>15223407
>how you arrive at this conclusion.
thats ok autismo. OP sounds fine with the pages and pages of examples making it abundantly clear.

>>15222790
Seriously, why the fuck is not a single person who seems to think this picture holds some Earth-shattering revelation re: the workings of portals able to explain how they get from here to skewed cubes

it just rotates you idiots

>>15223413
>>15223415
There is literally not one example making anything abundantly clear. If there was, it would be abundantly clear to me. Obviously.

Christ, you're just a bunch of Afags aren't you? You don't get portals to begin with, so of course any thought experiment you try to conduct with them is bound to end with absurdities and contradictions.

>>15223414
>I don't get why it applies to cubes, which are not photons.
what you see is what you get. if its a portal at all, of course. >>15220023 >>15220026

>>15223426
>what you see is what you get.
Okay? And? That would result in D.

>>15223414
>cubes, which are not photons.
it would apply exactly the same with sound waves, or other fluid pressure waves, it doesn't have anything to do with relativity or masslessness.

>>15223417
>it just rotates you idiots
at the last instant the cube goes through on the left (the very last 'slice'), it's still going in all at once in that direction. But if you think it rotates, it must come out at a different one - a corner would come out last. That's not how its transiting. there's linear but but no angular momentum to begin with. And no collisions or anything means it must stay that way.

>>15223436
Sure, if you're moving a portal around, sound waves will come out the other end at a higher or lower frequency. But it'll be a consistent frequency as long as the motion of the portal is consistent. Similar with cubes. It might come out at a higher speed than it was going before, but all of it will come out at that speed. Every part of it retains the same relative motion. None of it will be skewed relative to any other part.

>>15223450
>one of it will be skewed relative to any other part.
you are thinking only in 1D. The cube does not enter the portal as a point, it enters as a surface/slice. and the slice isnt necessarily perpendicular to its motion. or constant while it transits.

>>15223448
Ah, I see the problem. Behold, the true D.

>>15223453
I have taken all of that into account, it simply wouldn't work the way you think it does. Whatever part of the cube enters on one side, exits on the other. This will always result in a direct 1:1 translation. The cube can only potentially skew if there is acceleration, but more likely this will just put strain on the cube's structural integrity.

>>15223455
It's like looking into the mind of god

I never understood why people keep talking about that.
Physics is litteraly just emulating real world, and portals can not exist.
So why bother debating the properties of a non-existing thing using real world rules ?

>>15223546
Because it's fun and it works ? Are you the same autist that posts this in every /v/ thread ?

Does gravity go through it? If there was a portal on the earth and one in deep space, would you start floating as you walked towards the portal on earth?

>>15223332
It's F

It doesn't matter if one portal is angled, only whether it's moving is important.

>>15223694
>If there was a portal on the earth and one in deep space
they'd probably be rotating/accelerating relative to each other too, no?

But as for
>Does gravity go through it?
I don't think that could possibly be true in general. Just one floor and one ceiling would be nonsense.

>>15223455
you clearly don't get it at all. first of all it's already shown ("E") and second your angles are still wrong. at the last second its going into the top of orange, not center... yours still comes out of the middle of blue the entire time. you literally keep working yourself in a circle around the whole point

>but more likely this will just put strain on the cube's structural integrity.
let's keep adding assumptions, fudge factors, and other options besides A-F, though. spoiler: that cube is a vertex mesh and has no integrity. its resistance to skewing/distortion is ZERO.

>>15223455
>>15223539
More like looking into the disgusting keyboard of a samefag, samefag.

>>15223786
F, or a combination of F and D?
>>15223349
>>15223357

>>15223856
Angle would be just as good as distance. Angling would be accelerating, because it has nonzero height. If you then made a rotating frame for the Orange to claim it stationary, the blue would be accelerating instead.

>>15218052
>>15223332
OP here again.

I had a mechanical engineer colleague design this problem using "constraints," with geometry instead of a simulation, and it actually comes out with the cube going *straight up*. I don't have a way to open the file right now, but I will print screen it at work tomorrow. It appears like essentially case E from >>15223332 , except no velocity component to the right at all; straight up.

The way it works makes sense to me now, even without the CAD program. 45 degrees is in there twice. Once in the original velocity (which is net 45° up-right between cube and aperture), and then again in the orientation of the portals (blue flipped 45° to orange).

Angry anon here, is also using "looking in from B" or "at B" a lot, but often conflate the angle with that definition (I'm guilty of this too, before). The view of our man "at B" isn't looking down and into the portal, it's looking straight at the horizon. Otherwise he'd see the whole left side system at 45° too! So, the distortion is cancelled out by that, 45° forgotten about.

>>15223455
No, not like this, sorry. Your cube comes out rotated (approximately) correct but the origin and trajectory are wrong. If it exited at your angle and rotation, entering the way it does in OP, it would have to smoosh. It also starts transit at the center, not the bottom, of the blue portal.

>>15224009
Behold, G. Sorry for the bad phone shoop. Night anons.

>>15224025
>>15224009

checks out to me. knew it wasn't D lmao.

>>15224009
what CAD program? Sounds like SolidWorks or Inventor, check >>>/g/ or >>>/diy/ for a viewer or torrent.

Ok i have a solution for these kind of problems and it lies in understanding what portals actually do. Portals ONLY rotate momentum/ velocity vectors, thats it nothing more nothing less. Angle of rotation of velocity is proportional to the angle between normal vectors that lie on surface of two portals. Now, in case when cube is not moving and portal is, you would think that this definition would result in answer A, however that is not the case. Missunderstanding stems from thinking of this problem only with regards to spatial dimensions and not including time into the picture.
When time is included we have that normal vector of stationary portal is space like, it points to some spatial direction, lets say x. But normal vector of moving portal is not space likee, now it also has time component. Now when some object enters one portal (it can also be a stationary object, these objects have velocities that point in time direction), its velovity is rotated both in space and time. Space rotations is one you already know but rotations in time are boosts and they corespond to change in speed. Hence all objects that enter in moving portal when they come out they have altered velocity.
In OP case, moving object that enters moving portal will have velocity that is combination of these two at the exit portal (we have relativistic addition of velocities).

If anyone is interested im willing to post my calculations on derivation of these two cases. Calculations are based on thin shell formulation on general rerlativity where you indetify tangent vectors to the surfaces and project vectors on them. This is simillar to the construction of wormhole, except throats is zero length and spacetime has Minkowski metric.

>>15224009

>>15224025
>wherein anon trolls us into 3 days of arguing, by only offering wrong answers in the OP

>>15223885
>first of all it's already shown ("E")
You are blind.
>and second your angles are still wrong
I'm not going to do this accurate down to the degree, for fuck's sake, it's about the general principle.
>let's keep adding assumptions, fudge factors, and other options besides A-F, though. spoiler: that cube is a vertex mesh and has no integrity. its resistance to skewing/distortion is ZERO.
? why would you want to do that?
>>15224009
>Your cube comes out rotated (approximately) correct
Exactly correct (I copy-pasted it from B).
>the origin and trajectory are wrong
Sure, I took them from your original image, any inaccuracy you included remains. Maybe you should've done it right the first time if you wanted it to be exact.

>>15224115
And then corrects himself after saying everyone else is wrong for picking one of his answers lol

>>15224549
lol you are moron. the thing you drew is nothing like OP's G....no one could mistake 'generally up and right' for 'literally 100% straight up, 45+45"... you are the one bending rules and making shit up not him, his explanation makes perfect sense even without a diagram. like I said:
>>15224071

>>15224549
>Exactly correct (I copy-pasted it from B).
like what the fuck is this...certainly you agree B is wrong. so you used the answer from B to make yours its also wrong... the right answer does not move perpendicular to a face! which is the whole trick to 'E' that yours misses...
>>15224009
>essentially case E

>>15224789
im not even this guy btw:
>>15220260
but he has been right about rotation the entire time

>>15220260
sorry meant to link this one

>>15224025
to be really distinct and unimpeachable, the changes I'd make to this are: the face midpoints need to line up exactly vertically ...it's the other part of
>>15220260

&the cube is not to scale with the other diagrams, it's a little big.

>>15224817
cube should be a little to the left to make red dots vertical (direction is still straight up though.

>>15224820
>>15224817

Quick, lock the thread!

>>15224777
>the thing you drew is nothing like OP's G....no one could mistake 'generally up and right' for 'literally 100% straight up, 45+45"
Nah, it is you who is the idiot. My drawing is like OP's G in precisely the relevant way, that is, I changed the rotation of the cube, which was what the post I responded to took issue with. I left the rest unchanged from OP's original because that had not been mentioned.
The only reason people said it was D is because D most closely approximated G, from among the original options. D-chads saw that each option was inaccurate, but inaccurate in the same way, and figured that the question was merely asking about the angle. D is then not interpreted as "this happens exactly" but merely as "the cube exits at an angle higher than B". Excuse us for giving OP the benefit of the doubt and assuming he included only relevant details in his question, instead of fucking everything up.

>>15224789
>like what the fuck is this...certainly you agree B is wrong.
Yes, I do. But the rotation of the cube in B is what is correct relative to the portal. As it is in >>15224025 and decidedly NOT as it is in E here >>15223332. E is actually more wrong than D because the angle is the same as in D but the rotation is even more fucked. My modification of D is closer to G than it is to E, and that much more correct for it.

If you're all going to be a bunch of pedants about it at least make sure you checked your eyes first.

>>15224817
>>15224820
Unacceptable! G is wrong! We need an H! OR perhaps we can just say "yes, we fucking get the general principle, it doesn't have to be pixel perfect", like D-chads (now G-chads) were doing all along.

>>15224862
I mean, OP even clarified here, at the same time as introducing E and F:
>for the sake of the diagram, let's say C and D are the same case (some angle) and B is the special case of straight.
C and D represent "some angle". 45° is some angle. Ignoring irrelevant details, that makes D undeniably correct, merely unspecific. But there was no more specific answer before G, so it is hardly blameworthy to choose D then. If you want to criticise anyone, criticise OP for bungling his diagram not once but twice and generally being a poor communicator.

Still don't know what the fuck >>15222790 was trying to prove though or why people think the cube could ever skew

>>15218052
None of those are right. The little black speed/motion tracks are angled wrong, and so are the cubes. The closest is actually A, but flipped 90 degrees (with black motion tracks like the others).

It looks like the last few pics anons have posted basically show that anyway, but the box is maybe too big. It could go Y up or X right, depending on how the wedge was made. But It can't twist around.

>>15218052
>>15225194
Here's picrel if that was unclear.

It's basically the same as >>15224820 but the reasoning is more simple.

>>15225235
>>15224862
>>15224879
Not sure what any of this is about but I think the G* solution is right. Except the wedge is too small. More important is the simple reasoning that says, it's always gonna be 45+45=90 degrees. Not 45 like B, and not in between like C and D (and "true D.") Only A and E are at 90s. IMO it's way easier to describe from A though.

>>15225194
>The closest is actually A
>>15225235
A without gravity, that is. A has the geometry correct but it sort-of assumes the cube falls -y after going through. Obviously it doesn't, because everywhere else it's going straight rather than ballistically.

>>15224944
Not him, but it looks like he's explaining to an earlier moron how the portal will split things like a prism, when it angles like that (out of the aperture's plane) while something is going through. With photons instead of companion cubes because they're always going through (and prismatic splitting is intuitive).

>>15225243
>A and E
Correction, the way he's drawn E isn't a perfect 90-90 either, it has to be angled slightly more. Again like >>15224025 .

>>15225194
>The closest is actually A, but flipped 90 degrees
every diagram in the thread except a (and g) has the cube coming out the wrong place! so they can instantly be discarded anyway... >>15223885
and since a is the only one in op, so we couldn't can't pick g... >>15218183 >>15220104

>>15225247
>A without gravity, that is.
none of trhem have gravity. not even the left side.

>>15225235
Those still aren't lined up vertically anon, the cubes on bottom need to be a little closer to the outside (farther from each other) like the red dots
>>15224820
but the shooting out is good.

>>15225296
>a little closer to the outside
Picrel your 'tism. It's like 1% off.

>>15225285
>every diagram in the thread except a (and g) has the cube coming out the wrong place!
Oh. Even G does really. It's not correct on the edge. It's only A. lmao

>>15225318
and g when it's drawn right...
>>15224820

The flipping of the wedge with blue is arbitrary. All that matters is the cube relative to it. Either of those is fine, or it could even be flat on the floor and come out at a 45, etc.

>>15224944
seems like you are the dipshit, then
everyone else seems to understand it just fine: >>15225258

>>15225266
A is right bullshit from the start and E is the exact same angle as D, just with a different rotation (which is bullshit).

>>15225892
>>15225258
Okay, thing is, it won't though. I guess the reason I don't understand it is because it's too fucking wrong, and I'd have to be retarded to get it.

>>15224009
>>15224025


OP here again, sorry I didn't have time to post anything this AM.

>>15224820
Thank you for the clarification. Yes, my original G drawing came out of 10PM phone editing on the can.

>>15225235
This is a REALLY clever way to imagine/phrase it. You don't even need the geometric "constraints," it's immediately clear what's happening. it's a great way to explain it without maths. Thank you even more!

>>15224836
Is there a way for me to do that? I've tried deleting post but it just says "password required". I'd love to, so this anon >>15224862 >>15224549 >>15225296 can defuse and take his meds.

>>15225977
That's not even all me lol
Maybe you should've just done it right the first time instead of first getting it all wrong, then going on a detour that was even more wrong, and finally settling on another answer that was pretty close to the one you'd been calling wrong all along

From most to least correct:
G>D>B>E>C>F>A

>>15225976
>>15224944
>>15225977
OP you just outed yourself as a samefag, trolling to keep your thread going, with those timestamps. Could have at least left a more believable delay between your posts... you don't understand your own diagram?

get filtered troll. I hope the mods DO delete your schizo monologue thread.

>>15225976
>>15225977
No, these are definitely two different anons, who both just happened to rejoin the thread the same minute after hours away. Don't let anyone tell you that's less likely than OP being an attentionfag, anon.

>>15225987
>>15225996
(Do you get it?)

>>15225987
>those timestamps
Oh
Screenshot this thread

>>15225987
>196 replies
if so, it worked

The fun bit is I'm really not OP but I just happened to feel like shitposting in the exact same minute and now I've absolutely tanked his credibility without even meaning to lol

get rekt you twat, what are we even arguing about any more, it's fucking G and people who talk about distorting cubes are psychotic

>>15226022
>I'm really not OP

>>15226022
>his
don't you mean "my," OP?

>>15226025
Sure, you caught me, I'm OP, I'm a dumb cunt making shit up to start arguments about nothing

>>15226022
>we
I*
picrel

>>15226031
>>15226036
Oh no, please believe me!

>>15226032
and just so happen to be (moronically) unable to delete a thread.... >>15225977

>>15225977
btw you're forgetting to play this character, OP. You gotta do both for it to be believable. &this one hasn't argued recently..

>>15226045
Yes, yes, me all along! I've drawn diagrams in four different programs while pretending to be four different people!

Good luck next time, timestamp autist. Say goodbye to your "screenshot thread." Keep going under that bridge.

>>15226045
>unable to delete a thread
Just having too much fun. >>15226041
OK now that its not anymore.

>>15226022
>I'm really not OP but I just happened to feel like
that is how schizophrenia works OP

>>15226062
>>15226048
>drawn diagrams in four different programs while pretending to be four different people!
this too

>>15225235
Look at your own fucking picture and tell me if the bottom is really just the top rotated by 90 degrees. You know it's not. You know you had to change more than that.

>>15226089
>your own
>your

>>15226022
> happened to feel like shitposting in the exact same minute
something like a 0.06% chance of that actually happening, btw

>>15226089
---> >>15226067

>>15223407
>>15223414
>>15225258
>>15225976

Next time you should make the box out of lights , OP. Then you can keep arguing and convincing yourself about that part too

>>15226089
The (cube + wedge), and the wedge, each turn 45 to make a total of 90, like the commentary in >>15225243 and >>15224009 both explain

The other solutions all have those rotations wrong, in addition to the wrong starting point. But case A has the starting point right; system and cube are just rotated from the correct version

I am not arguing with myself btw. He is an idiot or a troll

>>15226156
thank you, I was wondering about that too

>>15226394
It's why there are two rotating arrows on the top, not one. One for each part. Actually look at it and it's obvious >>15225235

>>15226089
I am not this guy:
>>15225235
I am this guy:
>>15224820
I didn't change anything. His turned just like it shows from A without gravity. I don't think that's more intuitive than OPs and mine with the dots though

>>15226415
>. I don't think that's more intuitive than OPs and mine with the dots though
thats where youre wrong lmao

>>15225977
password error means you're using a different browser or device than you made the post with. It is missing a browser Cookie that includes the deletion key .u can't delete a thread once its a few hours old anyway.

>>15225976
>I admit to being dipshit compared to everyone else
glad thats settled too

>>15225985
comically nonsensical fudge,bro. E and A are both closer to G, than B or C are. even if you're counting the bullshit modded D you made up, it's wrong for the start, axis, AND angle...it could not be wrong in any more dimensions! A, E, etc. have at least one of the three right

>>15218052
OP is baby shit, what about this?

>>15226156
>The (cube + wedge), and the wedge, each turn 45 to make a total of 90
But that's clearly not what your picture shows at all. You turn the wedge 90 degrees and the cube 45 degrees.
Also it shouldn't be coming out the bottom of the portal. You should just leave the wedge alone and rotate the angle. Basically nothing about what you're doing makes sense.
>But case A has the starting point right
Yes, A is right, if you completely change the angle, and the cube's rotation, and the cube's relative position to the portal, and also the fact that the cube is actually moving, then A is right. Every other answer was already closer to being correct than A, but sure, we can change every single thing about it and then A is right.

>>15226474
>E and A are both closer to G, than B or C are.
I do have E higher than C, as you can see, but you're mostly wrong. A is at the very bottom because it's completely nonsensical, every single aspect about it being utterly wrong, including movement. Every other answer at least has that advantage over it. D is the closest to G in terms of angle, and the rotation is only slightly off. B has the angle wrong but the rotation correct. E is just D but with the rotation wronger, so it cannot possibly be higher than D or B. C gets everything wrong with regard to angle and rotation but at least it doesn't have the cube distortion of F, which is also utter nonsense based off what appears to be a complete misunderstanding of portals.

The efforts you make to rehabilitate A are ridiculous. But I also really don't get your blind spot towards E. Am I being trolled? Are you going to try to convince me of the merits of F again in a moment?

>>15218052

>>15218130
In retrospect this has to be the most correct Anon ITT

>>15224025
As you can see, the cube's trajectory puts one corner on a collision course with the portal's edge, which will naturally affect the cube's continued trajectory. It will acquire some spin and the angle of its trajectory will be affected to some degree.

>>15227461
nta but:
thats just, in that anons awful shoops, its drawn a smidge too big
the thing underneath it with the portal, needs to be scaled up relative to the cube like the originals... where the portal is more than 2rad2x as tall as the cube
>>15225243
>the G* solution is right. Except the wedge is too small.

someone did mention this earlier though
>>15219342
>unless the portal moves down so fast that the cube's trajectory will cause it to collide with the portal's edge.

cool that people are exploring that. yall both think it bumps the cube and doesnt slice it like cheese?

>>15227486
I don't think the portal's edge is anything, what the cube collides with is the platform that the portal is on.

>>15226661
coming next week in /sci/, a counterproof to godel's theorems using diagonal, moving portals :) dont give them any ideas!

>>15226784
personally I dont totally agree with the ordering either but, his and yours and mine are just opinions. the part about #a makes sense dude. the pic its drawn exactly from the original meme, where the left side portal is horizontal and the cubes relative velocity is vertical..we must to adjust it for the changes in OPs version like mr sage says >>15226156 . and consider the observation theres no falling, no gravity, So it wont 'plop'..just go out. . similarly the point about e (+a), is they show the rotation angles can be different from the trajectory angles, &that is actually how its working on the left side too

the system needs to turn 45+45=90 but the cube only turns 45...rather the cube turns 'back' 45 because of its trajectory-rotation disparity...i guess either depending on the starting PoV.

>>15227492
oh sorry, i agree with you there
you think its maybe sharp though? right at the edge of the aperture? like a perfect acute triangle

>>15218130
>most confusing
i think you misspell 'most fun'
>>15227432
>correct
and you misspell 'boring.' :)

>>15227461
So it was *bonk* and A all along.

>>15227496
>the part about #a makes sense dude.
No, nothing about it makes any kind of sense.
>consider the observation theres no falling, no gravity, So it wont 'plop'..
Exactly. Mistake number one. That is the defining feature of A. The cube stops and falls to the ground. It's not flying out at a 45 degree angle. If that's what it meant to show, then that's what it would be showing.
But all right, Anon made a mistake with his interpretation of A. Let's roll with it. It's still coming out in the complete wrong direction. You can say
>Yes well but at least it's a 45 degree angle so if we just turn it twice and then also turn the cube one more time and then mirror the whole thing and do a backflip and clap our hands and wish really hard it's just like G!
But why go through all that effort? A didn't make any sense to begin with so why use it as the basis for anything? How the hell is this supposed to be intuitive? >>15219003 is fucking intuitive. But if you start with nonsense you end up with nonsense. The only reason the outcome is still correct is because Anon apparently started from the right answer and worked backwards to make his interpretation of A fit it somehow.

>>15226784
Excluding G, a and e exclusively show trajectory that's NOT perpendicular to a face (the rest do. That's wrong)

Furthermore a (and no others) shows the cube coming out the right place. It cannot ever come out the middle at the end of transit.

So yeah, I'd choose G, before A, before E, before all the rest (except maybe the modded D, which is like E) Those are the simplest to transform into the correct solution when considering the initial conditions on the left.

>>15227555
>The cube stops and falls to the ground. It's not flying out at a 45 degree angle.
okay thats what youre not getting though. the original meme has gravity and a floor that makes A do that when it comes out (or it should because the cube is on the floor to begin with). this one doesn't, the cube on the left and the whole entire world are in freefall. theres no gravity to pull it to the floor, no normal force, no friction, no stopping ever..

as for >>15219003 that doesnt have to do with the position or angle. It's talking about how it doesn't come out with torque/RPM, like some people are saying, >>15218095

>>15227556
>a and e exclusively show trajectory that's NOT perpendicular to a face (the rest do. That's wrong)
Right, so as I thought, you're just not paying attention at all. Can't believe it's that simple. If you're going to be this pedantic about details then why do you keep getting the details wrong?
E shows the exact same trajectory that D does. Go back and check.
>Furthermore a (and no others) shows the cube coming out the right place.
A doesn't actually show the cube coming out, it shows the cube coming to rest on the floor after stopping and falling. If I had to guess, the cube exited the portal at the same place as in B, C, and D, because OP had clearly paid no attention to these sorts of details at all.
But suppose it's showing what you think it's showing, it's still not coming out of the right place. It's coming out of the exact furthest part of the portal from the right place.
>(except maybe the modded D, which is like E)
Also no. Again, go back and check.
So your criterion for correctness is that the trajectory should be perpendicular - even if it goes in the entirely wrong direction. But a trajectory that's only a few degrees off from the correct trajectory is entirely wrong. Except when that same trajectory is called E, then you will call it perpendicular anyway. But E is still equivalent to D (which is the wrong trajectory) when the cube is rotated, even though it's not rotated the same way.

>>15227555
>You can say
nta on a desktop editing images at midnight. i just think the diagram is fine... especially that it lines up with G which was derived from a totally different method. which is a very trustworthy way to demonstrate something. certainly no worse than earlier diagrams in this thread that dont seem to show anything at all (>>15222907 >>15223117 and so on)

>>15227593
>the original meme has gravity and a floor that makes A do that when it comes out
Ah, now it's starting to make sense. You're an Afag so your entire argument is built on shaky logic and contradictions.
>that doesnt have to do with the position or angle
Yes it does. Specifically this bit:
>Just transform the left system so that the orange portal is static and the result should become clear.
That covers everything, really.

>>15227600
>E shows the exact same trajectory that D does.
please, please read me again. E has ONE difference from D: E has the trajectory and angle different. D has the trajectory and angle identical..and the later is necessarily wrong. you can prove it wrong in one step from OPs picrel.

>>15227614
>i just think the diagram is fine... especially that it lines up with G which was derived from a totally different method.
Yes, because it's working backwards to get there from a modified A. You can only get there if you already know the correct answer and then you can do whatever the fuck is necessary to make it fit. Like trimming the edges off a square peg to make it go in the round hole.
Those other diagrams pertain to the (lack of) distortion exhibited by portals.

>>15227618
>please, please read me again.
Okay.
>a and e exclusively show trajectory that's NOT perpendicular to a face (the rest do. That's wrong)
So A and E show a trajectory that's different from all the other answers. Except E has the same trajectory as D. So that's blatantly wrong.
> E has ONE difference from D: E has the trajectory and angle different. D has the trajectory and angle identical..
I think I get what you mean but this is a piss-poor way of expressing it. Anyway, just because there is a difference that doesn't mean the angle relative to the portal itself is any more correct (in fact it's less correct).

>>15227618
>>15227614
>>15227593
Just ignore him anon. It's OP masquerading as a moron to make everyone rage. He makes something up to contradict each statement, including his own. Just look back in the thread
>>15226006
>>15226067
>>15226105
He's said some completely nonsense stuff and even been caught in contradictions with himself.
>>15223407
>>15223414

No matter how well you explain a solution, he will say his D is better.

>>15227633
ohhh.. :( RIP another scifi thread
very lame.. &other anons are making some really clever observations!

>>15227618
>>15227618
FFFFFFF- I can't believe all this fucking time you were focusing on the position of the cube relative to the trajectory instead of the fucking portal. Christ. I finally get it.
What an arbitrary criterion. At least this part remains unchanged: you'd rather have a different angle for the sake of it being different, than an angle that is closer to the correct angle.
>>15227633
I am not OP, OP is a genuine moron. And of course the real answer is G.

>>15224836
nowww i understand :)

>>15227633
Looks it's not my fault you're such piss-poor communicators, including OP who started this mess with his shitty diagrams, and all the Afags who are still working from unstated flawed assumptions. This whole thread is a shitshow.
"Perpendicular to a face" christ, could've mentioned you were talking about the bloody cube. Not like any of you made an attempt to understand me, either.

>>15227640
>position of the cube
oof. now trolling is really obvious because i never said position in that comment. ONLY rotation.. it is about the rotation of the cube and the black lines of wind. the wedge on the floor doesnt figure into it here..thats the advantage of a, over e, not e over d

>a different angle for the sake of it being different, than an angle that is closer to the correct angle.
100%.. a example showing the right number of degrees of freedom to be possibly correct, is indeed better than one that could NEVER be correct because it imposes an unphysical constraint..sorry if you disagree

>>15227653
>talking about the bloody cube.
But the entire problem is about the cube. What other face could he possible be referring to? The portal aperture? There's no face there, it goes through to the other side.

Look, we're all trying to explain this to you, the different ways we've come to the solution together. OP with help (>>15224820)
and the guy working from A (>>15225296)
were the only ones to get it almost right. Everyone else has all these angles other than 45 and 90. Including this: >>15223455 . That acute just doesn't make sense. The entire problem could be done in scale, with indivisible 45 degrees = 1; there'd be nowhere to source that acute angle.

>>15227640
>OP is a genuine moron. And of course the real answer is G.
But G is "OP's" answer. Not "yours." So then "you"re the moron. Rrrright?
>>15227633
>even been caught in contradictions with himself.

Everyone should be sage-ing schizo OP here.

>>15227669
>the only ones to get it almost right.
precisely. if OPs and transform-a-anon's solutions are so bad, why did they get so much closer than you.. and agreewith each other
and even you once you actually read it >>15227640
>of course the real answer is G.

>>15227486
>>15227500
bump, or cut?
still wondering about this one.

any of the drawings show it? Imply one or the other maybe, like gravity?

virtually 100% sure the anon with the diagram is wrong and it carves into the cube instead of spinning

>>15228144
why??

>>15227654
>it is about the rotation of the cube and the black lines of wind
See, it's this fucking ESL shit that made this conversation almost impossible. "Black lines of wind" bitch you mean the trajectory?

The fundamental cause of our disagreement was this, that I measured trajectory and rotation relative to the portal, and you measured trajectory relative to portal and cube. Neither is necessarily wrong but it does lead to confusion when we're not on the same page. And of course, you didn't realise it either.

Didn't help that whatever shit you have to say about A will always be wrong no matter how you measure it.

>>15227669
>What other face could he possible be referring to? The portal aperture? There's no face there, it goes through to the other side.
It was a reasonable assumption, especially given the obvious linguistic limitations.
>Look, we're all trying to explain this to you, the different ways we've come to the solution together.
And the one working from A is wrong, because it's working from A.
>>15227683
>But G is "OP's" answer. Not "yours." So then "you"re the moron. Rrrright?
What kind of retarded gotcha-attempt is this? OP is the moron firstly for fucking up the diagrams and secondly for entertaining bullshit like F and generally setting the abysmal standard for discourse in this thread which led to so much confusion, as you're demonstrating right now. I never said he was wrong about G but he is just as obstinate and smug as the rest of you.
>>15227729
>if OPs and transform-a-anon's solutions are so bad, why did they get so much closer than you.. and agreewith each other
OPs ultimate answer is correct. But the "transform A" trickery is still nonsensical bullshit built on wrong assumptions that only arrives at the correct conclusion because it was working backwards.

>>15228284
The problem with A is this: it doesn't even show any trajectory or rotation. It shows the cube coming to rest on the floor following a downward trajectory after all its momentum got cancelled somehow. You can't extrapolate anything about trajectory or rotation from A because the cube is at rest. Furthermore, "A without gravity" is complete nonsense, because firstly, gravity is not what cancels the cube's momentum, and secondly, even if we assume it was, it could still mean any of the other answers (traditionally it's B). What it wouldn't be, however, is the cube dropping to the floor and then proceeding to scoot along the floor. Why you would ever use this as a starting point for anything is beyond me. But I guess that's what happens when all you care about is whether the trajectory is perpendicular. Incidentally though, have you noticed that even your interpretation of A actually does have the trajectory perpendicular to the face of the cube? I guess you did because you silently rotate it 45 degrees first.

Just to be clear: there is no disagreement from me that G is the right answer. I also accept now that if you measure from the trajectory instead of the portal that perhaps E looks more correct to you. Fine. We hashed out that misunderstanding. But if you think A shows anything relevant at all, you simply don't get what it's depicting, and I stand by that.
At least no one is defending F any more.

>>15227500
>>15227486

back, sorry.

G takes everything into account, A gets most right, E gets some right, the rest all get ~some (to none). But none of the diagrams are actually perfect. The closest would be the bottom-right of >>15225235 because even both og G and the "fixed G," the cube is bigger ( >>15224820 ).

Beyond that my opinion is:
G beats A because of cube angle.
A(+G) beats E because of cube origin.
E(+A+G) beats BCD because of cube rotation.
:. G beats A, beats E, beats BCD.

It's already been phrased better though desu; >>15227556
It's immediately clear A is the *easiest to transform into the right solution*. It requires the fewest, simplest changes. Just 2/3 (what the terrible Ms.paint diagram has poorly indicated with its janky arrows) and nothing else.

As for any cube stopping on the floor, we can add gravity and friction but I don't think that's in the spirit of the problem. I don't think that's what the anon you're arguing with is assuming either. Without a floor to bump into, gravity, normal force, or friction? The companion cube just comes out off-center, off-angle, and face-first (but in a straight line.) That's in agreement with G because the angle of the overall right-side system is arbitrary (if there's no gravity, who cares where the blue one points?)

>>15228358
>G beats A because of cube angle.
I mean the overall angle, sorry.

>>15228145
Because the edge of the portal is 2D, it has zero thickness. An acute slice of something with a zero-thickness plane is arbitrarily sharp.

>>15228358
>It's immediately clear A is the *easiest to transform into the right solution*. It requires the fewest, simplest changes.
No. It's not "immediately clear" at all and requires massive changes, mostly because it doesn't even show what you think it does to begin with.
>I don't think that's what the anon you're arguing with is assuming either.
I know, he just made up another answer which is nothing like A at all and called it A.
>The companion cube just comes out off-center, off-angle, and face-first (but in a straight line.)
And on the wrong side with the wrong angle, but hey, details, right?
>That's in agreement with G because the angle of the overall right-side system is arbitrary (if there's no gravity, who cares where the blue one points?)
Gravity is not the point. The angle relative to the portal is not arbitrary, the angle is precisely what we're trying to figure out. When you say "alternate" A is correct because it looks like G in a mirror with some modifications, that actually means it's the opposite of correct.

>>15228358
a only falls because of gravity, tilts when it hits the floor because of gravity, stops because of gravity (&friction*FN, etc). in OPs pic it should not have the plop..and it should have black traces/trails like the others. thats why the one anon won't accept it. when taken autistically literally, A is similarly wrong if the first meme has no gravity and no friction... you have to assume those forces exist from its falling and leaning over and stopping, rather than just skating out horizontally.

>>15228459
>a only falls because of gravity, tilts when it hits the floor because of gravity, stops because of gravity (&friction*FN, etc). in OPs pic it should not have the plop..and it should have black traces/trails like the others.
That's not A then. Is this your first time seeing a portal meme?

>>15228402
> angle of the overall right-side system is arbitrary (if there's no gravity, who cares where the blue one points?)
> angle relative to the portal is not arbitrary
this sounds like an argument but you are saying the same exact thing! that only the relative angle matters (along with origin and rotation). and As relative angle is the most (/only) correct.. as for the absolute angle, sure,, any of the entire systems a-g could def be angled arbitrarily if there's no gravity to matter..the fixed important angle is between face and velocity (or velocity and orientation.) thats what totally distinguishes A (and G) from the others conceptually, &why they can be ruled out more easily.

>>15228481
>and As relative angle is the most (/only) correct..
No, that's the thing, it's entirely wrong. That is, your alternative not-real-A. The real A doesn't even HAVE an angle.

>>15228464
>>15228459
What's incorrect about this anon's description, other than being in vague broke-ass nigger English? E.G: if not for those forces, why does A's come to a stop in the original meme, and not just bounce/roll/slide forever after hitting the floor? Even if it were pushed through at v->0, it has some potential energy from its height on that wedge, and that's not going to just disappear without gravity & subsequently friction.

>>15228491
>doesn't even HAVE an angle
What do you mean by this?
I put my protractor on A and got 0 to the floor and 45 to the portal. Its angle is to the right. Directly right of the bottom edge at 45 degrees (before gravity.)

>>15228505
Which is exactly what he says.
>>15228481
> fixed important angle is between face and velocity (or velocity and orientation.) thats what totally distinguishes A (and G)

Even F is arguably better in that regard, if you choose the right faces to trust.

>>15218052
E
None of the above

>>15228492
>E.G: if not for those forces, why does A's come to a stop in the original meme, and not just bounce/roll/slide forever after hitting the floor?
Yes, that's the question, isn't it? That's why A is complete nonsense, only included for the memes. The fact is, none of those forces would prevent the cube from flying off as it does in B, or C, or D, etc. The only reason the cube ends up on the floor is because the portal itself somehow stops it, cancelling all its momentum, so that gravity is the only thing acting on it.

That's why it's ridiculous. You can modify it so the cube doesn't stop, but why is it on the floor then? Do you think that's where it exited? Why would it? It's the opposite of where it should exit. To even begin to make A a suitable starting point to then transform it to G itself already requires a shitload of modifications to make up for everything that's wrong with it, and that's before you rotate it thrice and flip it.
>>15228505
What I mean is it shows the cube at rest. Not the angle or trajectory at which it exited, but the final position after that trajectory, whatever it was, got interrupted. Although at least we can assume that, in between, it followed a downward trajectory.
>>15228510
>Even F is arguably better in that regard

>>15227669
Another reminder that the G*/A+ denier, who seems physically impossibly moronic to you all, is OP baiting and trolling:
>>15227633
>>15227683
Here's twice already that he's mixed up his characters and contradicted himself.

>>15228518
I get that this thread is confusing but I am not OP, I have not contradicted myself unless you assume I am OP, whom I called an idiot, I do not deny G nor have I denied it anywhere, I am entirely consistent, I have a better grasp of portals than all of you, and your only defence of the absurdity of A is now to pretend I am trolling you (when in all likelihood, it is you doing that to me).

>>15228518
>>15228141
>>15228401
So if you want to keep discussing this together, instead of reiterating the two methods showing G over and over that everyone else is fine with, I recommend saging trenchcoat-OP's thread and just ignoring him while we talk about the actual /sci/.

>>15228522
This one with the red/blue shift really interests me:
>>15222790
but every time it's brought up, schizopanon goes autismo about drawings and derails the discussion.

>>15228522
>the two methods showing G over and over that everyone else is fine with
Oh, yeah, just show me how your rotating and flipping works when you're not dealing with 45 degree angles. This shit is a pure sleight of hand.
>>15228526
Because your drawings are bullshit and don't show anything about red/blue shift. You don't know how to think with portals. If you're interested in discussing it, then fucking discuss it instead of vaguely gesturing at some half-baked idea and refusing to elaborate how it would actually work.

>>15218095
it's fucking crazy how right you are

>>15228526
>>15228530
I mean how the fuck is asking you to explain what the hell your example is meant to show "derailing" the discussion? You just don't want pushback on your bong-inspired brainfarts?

>>15228526
>>15228536
I've been asking you people again and again what the fuck you think this proves:
>Even unmoving two portals at a 45 relative to each other should change how far 'equidistant' objects appear.
Because that post was for sure trying to make a point with that and the only reason I haven't entirely dismissed it as misguided is because I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt, despite it never being reciprocated. I'm pretty sure you're all just circlejerking over committing the same errors together.

>>15218052
B is conserved. A loses all momentum, and, C and D change direction relative to the plane implying they are not conserve

>>15228522
Fuck this shit, man, it's like watching Joe Rogan and Elon Musk try to discuss quantum mechanics and calling each other profound geniuses

>>15218052
Neither.

It's between C and A, but only if the orange portal is drawn upside-down. Otherwise they're all wrong.

Or the blue portal; I guess either could be turned over actually. But the way it's drawn, either the left side or all potential solutions (A-D) need to be flipped anyway.

>>15228615
No. Read: >>15224009

>>15228526
next time the problem should be specified with light instead of the cube, so all this is upfront imo surelyy there are lots of ways to make a lens, prism or magnifier, as long as we don't have to worry about "hurr durr a cube cant deform"

>>15228661
But this is exactly what I said?

>>15228667
No, you're forgetting one rotation. Look again at the lower half.

>>15228542
That is true though. The portal at an angle makes the box appear at an angle from the other box, even though it is obviously not from our perspective. They are the same distances viewed from the (our) side, but not the front, a box' perspective. So whatever that angle takes off parallel, the box appears to move with it and be angled too.

As for why it's relevant: it has been expressed several ways, admittedly none of them ideal;
>>15222768 simply with the elephant
>>15221073 very poorly with conservation laws
and of course
>>15222817
which goes directly with that post.

>>15228667
no, c is not flipped..it would be the other way.

>>15228679
>They are the same distances viewed from the (our) side, but not the front, a box' perspective.
better to say, they look equal from 'gods' eye &not from each others.

no matter how the portal is oriented, they always look equal to 'us' but for each box the view is different ('our' right or left). the angle decides how the boxes look to each other when no change actually happens.... yet their 'rotation' and the green-purple line ratio changes anyway, ofc.

>>15228665
A portal rotating clockwise or counterclockwise in a field of green light (or traversing on the order of c) maybe? I think that would be a rainbow/prism, and solid (but different) color, respectively.

Anything periodic would work fine to demonstrate frequency shift though. OP could have made his cube a chain, or a tape measure.

>>15228712
> a chain, or a tape measure
what about a sound wave? aren't they always going through? isn't the box sort of 'riding' one anyway. especialy if it's hollow like styrofoam or a balloon.

>>15228719
>sound wave
200IQ anon casually dropping in

Stop arguing with him. Look.
>>15228521
>I have not contradicted myself
>I am entirely consistent
>>15227683
>OP is a genuine moron. And of course the real answer is G.
He messed up his characters again here. G *is* 'OP's answer. This anon that 'thinks' OP is a moron, supposedly chose answer D (and then submitted a retraction with a new drawing later). It's all mixed up! G 'is' OP. Either OP is a moron or G is correct, not both! Unless, of course, it's you the whole time. >>15226062

>>15228734
kneejerk reaction to baity nonsense in /sci/ board... sorry

>>15228734
Notice how "OP" hasn't "posted" a single thing, since he was outed as a samefag by his timestamps? >>15225987

>>15228719
Personally, I think a sound wave is much harder to visualize than a light wave, don't you?

Just redraw the original with better colors, instead of green and purple.

>>15228792
you mean a rainbow? no thanks faggot. Keep your Pride Portals in /lgbt/

>>15223455
>>15225972
>>15228491
>>15228543
Ah, I see your autistic nitpick now.

Behold, the True A.

>>15228812
(Assuming no gravity or friction, of course.)

>>15228812
better to say..
a With gravity: plop-and-stop (if friction), or slide (if not)
a Without gravity: 45 degrees out the portal (like G), friction or no friction

to match the others it should also be farther away from the wedge.. like the top of >>15225235

>>15228740
Happens to us all, lmao

>>15228830
>plop-and-stop
Anon's Port-a-Potty, LLC

>>15228812
but is this not known from the other 3 options? Or is the "plop" actually important because something not-shown is there to stop the cube (friction in this case)? It seems like A's snapshot is just taken earlier than the others.

>>15228868
>A's snapshot is just taken earlier than the others
This. It wouldn't fit next to B in the diagram, if it were that wide. There's no room for those long traces like the others have.

>>15218052
Literally everyone is filtered by this q. Where's the WEIS 160iq confirmed guy when you need him?

>>15228712
>>15228665
>>15228526

You're welcome, bros. A diagram so clear, even the dipshit could understand it.

Point out any issues you see, before I clean it up to post.

>>15228907
>Literally everyone is filtered by this q.
There are a lot of edge cases and stuff, that the original meme doesn't demonstrate or require an understanding of

>>15228931
thats a Really bad example...its always gonna be A because of relativity.

>>15228948
scratch that, its late &I am mixing up freq and speed.

>>15228679
>As for why it's relevant: it has been expressed several ways, admittedly none of them ideal
None of them are ideal because they're all just committed to the same mistake.
The portals are, for all intents and purposes, attached to each other. The light doesn't traverse the empty space in between, that's the whole point. It's not like a prism. Those lines in >>15222790 aren't the path the light would take at all, and they're not straight lines when seen through the portal, nor would they appear as such.
The light doesn't come out stretched or skewed or distorted. Things simply appear to be at an angle through the portal because they are, through the portal. A straight line through the portal is not a straight line looking outside the portal and vice versa, but it is a straight line, nonetheless.

A portal is like a doorway. Things simply pass through them.

>>15228734
>He messed up his characters again here. G *is* 'OP's answer. This anon that 'thinks' OP is a moron, supposedly chose answer D
I *have* been entirely consistent and OP *is* a moron, and so are you. Even a moron can have his day, but this is not your day.
I have always maintained that, out of the original four, D is the answer that is most correct, or the least wrong, if you will. G is the actual correct answer (which OP arrived at with help from a friend). You'll note it's pretty close to D. I did not, however, call OP a moron for finally arriving at G. I had my reasons for that, which I also outlined.
>(and then submitted a retraction with a new drawing later).
What retraction? You mean where I modified D to more closely resemble G in response to criticism? You think changing your mind when new information is presented in the course of an intellectual discussion is contradicting yourself? Explains a lot.

>>15228812
Right, see, you're fucking retarded.

>>15228830
No, G is simply the right answer, gravity or no gravity, due to a little thing called momentum. The only reason the cube ends up on the floor in A is because its momentum is somehow cancelled by the portal. It would therefore not then continue to move after hitting the floor.
Either way, how do you figure the presence of absence of gravity is going to make the cube appear from opposite sides of the portal? Straight nonsense.

>>15228931
"Dipshit" here. It's B. Obviously.

>>15228931
>>15229173
I mean I should also note that this is clearly not what half the thread was talking about, half was talking about portals acting like lenses and distorting cubes and whatnot, and if I tried to interrogate them about this nonsense, you would jump down my throat to insist they were actually making a really profound point about rotating portals and red/blue shift. So long as you don't start up that nonsense again I see no problem with your diagram.

I feel like at least 3/4 of the disagreements ITT were simple miscommunication. Hell, I feel like a lot of the agreement in this thread is due to miscommunication, too, because some of you don't seem to realise what you're agreeing to and instead just implicitly substitute something else that makes sense in your mind.

>>15218052
D if the tops of the portals correspond

>>15226661
You're going to break the cube

>>15229465
>the tops of the portals correspond
Elaborate

>>15229565
Idk if they rotated the blue portal 180 so it's upside down or something