/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15246249

>>15246252
You're the reason there are safety labels on household goods.

>>15246252
who said anything about time dilation? its just a big stick with some unusual holes in it

>>15246249
btw green is ~600nm dipshit

>>15246264
> big stick with some unusual holes in it
No, you're thinking of OP's anorexic mom.

>>15246249
If the portals aren't moving relative to each other no violation of relativity occurs. If the portlas DO move then all of physics goes out the window as all sorts of shenanigans are possible. including time travel.

>>15246279
>including time travel
probably what the clokcs in op are for..ya think?

>>15246279
It's not even that complicated. The 1ly distance is a red-herring. Since it's a wormhole you've basically stitched space together so you can replicate the entire experiment by removing the portals and putting both clocks next to each other.

>>15246289
Portals violate physics. They are not /sci/, and they don't belong here. Take your faggot shit back to /v/

>>15246289
>1ly distance
Surface on Earth is just about stationary, compared to the scale of orange velocity at that radius

>>15246296
>NOOOOOOOOOOO HYPOTHETICAL PHYSICS IS NOT /sci/
>Wormholes? Multiverse? String theory? Ah, yes. Science.

>>15246249
>>15241340 & >>15242920 explain why
Sorry but what is this mess

>>15246249
The clock outside the blue portal would run observably slower due to time dilation.

>>15246304
Blue velocity, right?

>>15246304
Fuck, meant Blue's velocity!

>>15246249
IRL the beam would be bent waaay more than that, probably in a huge spiral, before reaching a radius anywhere near 1ly

>>15246249
>>15246374
Is there a reason it has to be on a light-year long beam at all? Could just be on a platform a lightyear away in space, right?

>>15246396
If it's still in orbit & moving at ~c, sure.

>>15246407
Well, given that it completes one rotation along the circumference of a circle that has a radius of one lightyear every 24 hours I reckon ~c is a conservative estimate. I suppose what happens to the clock is of secondary concern to how the conditions of the experiment are possible in the first place.

>>15246422
>c is a conservative estimate
SR prevents the end from exceeding c from the blue platform's frame, it should asymptotically approach it like a starship with endless thrust. Provided the resulting reaction torque on earth doesn't simply slow it to a halt (or tear the beam out)

>>15246432
But then it wouldn't be able to maintain a stable orbit, would it? It would, necessarily, lag behind, because the distance it would have to traverse to orbit at that distance is simply too great.

>>15246249
Are those partial differentials? What is the partial derivative symbol called?

>>15246304
>>15246374
picrel (can't screenshot work PC no bulli)

>>15246478
No, I just couldn't find the right symbol (ordinary differential) that would render as anything other than a rectangle in libreoffice fonts. I was on the fence about just using a plain "d"

>>15246437
>a stable orbit
The infinitesimal angle and displacement being considered doesn't require it to be stable, really; just fast at the rim during that very moment.

>>15246617
What moment are we talking about?

>>15246337
One answer submitted so far

>>15246249
If blue moves THAT much farther than orange in delta-t, oranges clock would effectively be frozen viewed thru the hole (and the photons redshifted to virtually zero f). In contrast, the view from earth into orange would be accelerated, zooming forward, and lensed.

>>15246757
/thread

>>15246311
Portals are not hypothetical. They're imaginary. Learn the difference.

>>15246757
what happens if I push my dick through orange, then?

asking the real questions

>>15246821
I think, if I'm interpreting it right, it'll become squished to infinitesimal length (so, slightly shorter than it is currently)?

>>15246249
This is pointless if you can't draw it to scale, otherwise I can't draw a vector graph.

Not sure what a few things are, so I pointed to them with arrows. Please explain.

Also I don't see what Earth has to do with anything, so I added a turtle instead.

>>15247042
basic questions about geometry go on Google or /r/. Trolling goes on /lgbt/. Not sure which this is.

>>15246996
I too demand an analytic solution. It should be redrawn in 4-space desu

>>15246757
Unfortunately this is all there is to it. It's not as interesting as the last one.

>>15246821
Blueshift, not redshift, which is what I assume you want.

Can we do diagonalization now? This one is trivial to see from op pic alone

>>15247042
I suspect without earths (imaginary) inertia it would rotate uniforml instead of one end. So ops earth would be best replaced with a hinge. without that The center of mass would be its centerpoint; itd spin like a propeller instead of like a clock hand.

This came up in OPs last thread too! Someone didn't quite get the distinctions between those two which really alter the whole concept and analysis. A thorough visual got posted though and its crosslinked in OP. If he says its axiomatically part of the universes model in this one we are stuck with it.

In this version/thread it makes a HUGE difference that its center of rotation is the earth and not the CoM. Otherwise the speed of the two portals and their gear would be identical (in opposite directions) instead of hella fast and virtually zero respectively.

>>15247098
>Can we do diagonalization now?
Wut.

>>15247042
>>15247135
Sorry i didn't see your other questions. the fancy 'd' are from calculus and indicate a impossibly tiny version of 'delta' (difference/change). The change in x at the top is eqial to change in the angle at the bottom at a radius of one light year (axis-angle from trig or 'lever arm' from physics, whichever you are familiar with). The image on the right is turned 90 degrees (and zoomed way in but no indication of that) so we can 'see' into the portals like the cameras do. From our starting perspective both are skinny lines and you can't see in at all.

>>15247155
At least thats my interpretation of everything in the image you removed and didn't understand. I cant think of anything else the rotation arrows on the divider could indicate. OP said they used the wrong symbol anyway in case you are trying to look it up
>>15246606

>>15247098
>diagonalization now?
I have been working on that setup while yous discuss this one.

>>15246757
>>15247098
>Unfortunately this is all there is to it.
I guess this problem was too easy/familiar for /sci/. It's a tough balance.

>>15246264
>time dilation
time's a tranny?, fuck that explains so much

>>15247616
>length contraction
and space is your dick, anon

>>15247617
when you start moving it fast, things get shorter and shorter.

>>15247135
>This came up in OPs last thread too! Someone didn't quite get the distinctions between those two which really alter the whole concept and analysis. A thorough visual got posted though and its crosslinked in OP.
It made virtually no difference for the last problem and what you still don't "quite get" is that that visual is still flawed in myriad ways (which have been pointed out again and again).

>>15246249
>>15246757
>>15247098
>>15247396
All right, let's make this more interesting. What happens if you were to step through the portal? From either side. Or, even better, what happens when you are partially through the portal?

>>15246252
I never saw the ball move because my back was to it. QED: The ball never moved.

Classical Mechanics Debunked

no niggery in /sci/, anon.

>>15247716
OP here: this is clearly the mentally ill troll who ruined the last thread.
>15246261
>Don't reply to ANY trolls/samefags/scripture in new thread, and it won't end up like this one.

He is filtered now and anyone responding to him will also be.

>>15247716
>>15248386
>>15247716
OP here: this is clearly the mentally ill troll who ruined the last thread.
>>15246261
>Don't reply to ANY trolls/samefags/scripture in new thread, and it won't end up like this one.

He is filtered now and anyone responding to him will also be.

>>15247822
>What happens if you were to step through the portal?
You mean, put more than the shaft through? Why? >>15246821

>>15247155
>(and zoomed way in but no indication of that)
Autism.
>>15247159
>used the wrong symbol
No. I said there wasn't a way to insert the right one.

>>15247092
>It should be redrawn in 4-space desu
I don't think that's possible, vaguely I think there's a contradictory domain wherein blue or orange can acausally send messages to each other (or something) based on information put through the portal vs through the full space. Which is sort of ok with me b/c it makes the question more open-ended.

>>15248879
Narcissistic OP trying to run "his" thread like a dictator, lol.

As if I'd have to resort to such crude, vapid mockery as "niggery" when I have so many valid criticisms you still never addressed. And in your eternal quest to avoid addressing them you'll accuse everyone and their mother of being me, it seems.

>>15248909
nigger, I was calling you a nigger, not the people also telling you you're a nigger more eloquently

>>15248879
>anyone responding to him will also be.
sorry, had to

>>15248902
so draw it with two diagrams and mark the portals in each

>>15248879
>>15248909
PS even though you clearly misidentified someone else as me, you certainly missed a few of my posts. The only person ruining your thread is you, with this misguided witch hunt. When I criticise your shitty diagrams it's because I want to help you refine your understanding of the problem, and if you respond by chucking a major tanty, your understanding will forever remain unrefined.
>>15248914
What for, pray tell? And how was anyone supposed to get that?

Let's have a nice, open discussion! But you must never question OPs decisions of conclusions, or make him feel stupid.

It's like I'm really on fucking reddit.

>>15248916
>two diagrams
I have enough bad memories of undergrad modern, making even a /single/ one now would require booze kek. I think the next reasonable step/hypothetical to consider (on this track), is pushing something through and moving/accelerating at the same time. Probably long before that someone/I will have the number line (actually plane) one drawn for a new thread.

>>15248914
>nigger, I was calling you a nigger
Can you imagine being so selfinflated (or illiterate) to misinterpret that. Gotta turn the "context tokens" value up :)

>>15248947
>Can you imagine being so selfinflated (or illiterate) to misinterpret that.
Question mark.

Obviously I got what you were saying when I asked you about it. What you do not appear to be getting (speaking of illiteracy) is that I am asking about >>15248386 this post of yours. Indeed, tell me which context cue I was supposed to refer to? Am I just supposed to assume that any random reference to "niggery" refers to me? Wouldn't that be rather self-inflated? You seem to share OP's obsession with me, I see that now, but one doesn't like to just assume, you know?

>I have enough bad memories of undergrad modern, making even a /single/ one now would require booze kek.
Don't worry, that appears to be standard operating procedure for these threads. You also have to be absolutely pissed to interpret them.

>>15247135
>>15247155
>>15247159
Just got home:
Here's a little sketch I made early this afternoon of those examples overlaid on OP and yours. Big ol earth is just like the axle forcing the center of mass to one point but the other one would rotate naturally. Apologies in advance because i did it... on break, on the can, with my phone, using some preinstalled bloatware app [...]

>>15249152
that is a picture from children science book.
except somehow even uglier. nice clip art

>>15249152
I don't think a single person was wondering this. But at least you can relate everything to propellers somehow... and giant metal cocks.

>>15249152
Also in reality the right-side images for each case would be curving waaaaaaaay more opposite the way they turn >>15246374 because desu neither clocks nor propellers are (typically) lightyears long

capcha: MAXRAX

>>15246249
I don't think it does seeing as the portal isn't bound by gravity or charge. Why are portals referred to as holes when they appear to behave similar to transitional spaces or teleporters?

>>15248882
I guess you don't have to. Sure, any thoughts on what would happen if you stuck your dick in it? What are the implications of your dick moving as near to light speed as possible without you? Or conversely, your dick being the only part of you that isn't?

>>15249169
Sorry for the confusion. I sketched that for another anon earlier who didn't really know about center of mass and the contribution it would have in inertial systems like that. The earlier example I linked over >>15242920 didnt really help him because it's for a different hypothetical >>15231033 so I was pondering today how to make it even simpler for someone like them.

>>15249167
That's because RAs and doctoral candidates have been the ones making 100% of my diagrams since ~2012, NEET.

>>15249188
Is a portal an interaction or a composition?

>>15246249
You don't even need the portals desu
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43165491/time-travel-possible-with-ring-lasers/
Just a rotating laser powerful enough to go that far

>>15246252
can anyone explain wtf this MEANS

>>15249536
No. It's schizo garbage. Sorry.

>>15246249
>>15246337
>>15246757
>>15247616
>>15249193

>>15249848

>>15249188
>>15249201
I would lean toward the latter. The portal as hole through which all fundamental fields and particles pass unchanged, in the moment/plane they actually "transit." These are excellent questions though.

>>15249536
There are a lot of other ways to explain the observations SR is relevant to, they're just poorer models for some reason or another. Generally "alternative"models like this are overcomplicated or unwieldy for actually solving or simulating particular problems. Any mathematical or scientific model can be adapted to new evidence by becoming more and more complicated. Comparatively, our common ones are generally quite elegant, simple,and easy to apply.

>>15249879
>"alternative"
so, just like 'alternative' medicine.

>>15249848
>>15249193 here
This doesn't answer my question in the slightest

>>15246264

Personally, I think this really is the best interpretation overall, the model which is most useful for imagining the relevant situations.

>>15251069
what are the implications of that and how do you define "weird holes" though.

>>15250076
and alternative genders

>>15246296
>>15246817
Portals are wormholes you retarded nigger monkey

>>15251171
Wormholes don't exist.

>>15251174
prove it

>>15251214
Check the math. A wormhole would require negative-energy matter. Negative-energy matter cannot exist in our universe, otherwise the universe would be packed wall-to-wall with it for all time. Ergo, wormholes are impossible.

>>15246296
No way. If we can represent them in a 3d video game they are possible, we just don't have the mathematics to create it in the real world.
Stop obfuscating truths.

>>15251234
The video game engine cannot represent/model then when they are moving at all, let alone at relativistic speeds

>>15251174
Portals don't exist but wormholes definitely do, no one argues about that in serious astrophysics anymore. The property up for debate is 'traversibility' e.g. whether or not something could pass through intact, or in any meaningful way.

>>15249335
Ofc the intuitive "just twist a reaaaaly long thing around" answer to FTL comms, was genuinely the right track this entire time

>>15251824
You misspelled "definitely don't"

>>15249201
Are these words? If so, why

>>15252030
What you just spoke is words because we both are using the same landmarks to replicate a mutual event. As for the question, I guess a portal would be a composition seeing as multiple interactions would need to be coordinated.

>>15252115
>a composition
sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, lol.

Just wondering what the distinction is, and what that would imply for the OP pic/universe. I suppose a better way to ask would have been "are these specific terms? if so, what from"

>>15251909
Actually our current models imply/agree that they do (or at least /can/.) They are consistent, valid solutions to the mathematics which are consistently applied to model black holes and other astrophysics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole
>[...]now understood to be intrinsic parts of the maximally extended version of the Schwarzschild metric describing an eternal black hole with no charge and no rotation

>>15252312
>consistently applied
constantly*

>>15251074
>and alternative genders
rent free

>>15251819
>The video game engine cannot represent/model then when they are moving at all
It could easily be programmed to do so.
>let alone at relativistic speeds
That would be a bit harder.
>>15251234
This is a silly argument, however.

>>15246264
>>15249201
>>15246334
>>15249868
which is actually the "unusual hole?" and which is not?

>>15252496
>The video game engine cannot represent/model then when they are moving at all
>It could easily be programmed to do so.
no it can't. that would imply you could stretch and distort and resize things by moving/changing a portal the thing is passing through. Even the best mods can't do that, reform every mesh dynamically, and even so the rest is purely Classical

>>15251829
it has always been prohibitively impractical desu, even if there were a reason to, it'd basically be earths entire value tied up in the mechanism and nothing left to trade/win/hoard with the resulting capability.

>>15253066
>no it can't. that would imply you could stretch and distort and resize things by moving/changing a portal the thing is passing through.
No, it would not imply that. That is a wrong assumption on your part.

lol no one can fuckup smthing THAT basic
put cube halfway thru, then try change one portal without changing the other, in any of those 'mods'
>>15248879
sound like he still here kek so ima not tag

>>15252115
>>15251069
>>15249201
>interaction or a composition?
where'd you go, anon... I wanna interact and compose with you while you explain these terms

>>15253733
Don't know what got your panties in a bunch but this guy made it work easily
https://youtu.be/ao1qVi5Qp3Y
No stretching or distortion, as it should be.

>>15253741
>>15252303
The terms aren't specific, but what I mean by composition is a collection of interactions which could be described as displacements or continuous/persistent links in an undefined medium or space.

>>15252303
The implication of it being a composition or collection is that the portal in OP's pic would be material and possibly subject to the usual forces that control matter.
If its an interaction, there's a question of how it interacts with matter including light.

>>15252312
Eternal black holes don't exist dipshit. Physical blackholes form from collapse and are not past eternal.

put simply, it's a composition if it can be totally represented with lower dimensionality ('serialized') e. g. the effect of the wormhol in 3d (or 4space) can be reduced to a 2d surface (or 3d volume respectively) and so on. An interaction doesn't have these restrictions and cant (necessarily) be broken down like that.

>>15253741
no homo btw

>>15253066
>which is actually the "unusual hole?" and which is not?
>
>The video game engine cannot represent/model then when they are moving at all
>It could easily be programmed to do so.
>no it can't. that would imply you could stretch and distort and resize things
not resize, unless the portal gets bigger or smaller. The term you're looking for is Skew which ex. converts a rectangle into a parallelogram but doesn't make it any bigger/smaller.

>>15252496
im not familiar with the game. What If you put something in and then destroyed/cancelled a portal Or shot the gun on another wall, while it was still partway? Is there some kind of 'legend' table/diagram that covers the edge cases in the game engine that don't involve velocity at all?

>>15252303
via Composition: can be broken down into constituent parts and each performed independently with identical results to the whole.
via Interaction: cannot, because its behavior is a property of the whole. This could be anything which behaves differently in series vs parallel, or is the lowest-common-denominator for some particular object (already represented as simply as possible.)

>>15254651
>The term you're looking for is Skew
The term he's looking for is moot because it doesn't happen however you name it.

>>15254706
>What If you put something in and then destroyed/cancelled a portal Or shot the gun on another wall, while it was still partway?
Pretty sure it gets harmlessly pushed out on one side, in-game. Realistically speaking, we could suppose that the closing of the portal might crush whatever is still inside, however.

>>15253733
Pathetic. Look what a spineless sycophant you are, anxiously glancing to your petty tyrant for a glimmer of approval. The irony is that, in singling out that post as The Troll for the crime of questioning you, and making a whole display or Not Replying whilst still replying, you've only made it likelier that you incur OP's wrath. Why do you think he forbids you from even replying to anyone he deems The Troll? Because he can't tell the difference between me, you, or anyone else. Even though you succumb to the same paranoia in your attempts to try to divine his whims in order to secure your place in this little clubhouse, you too will find yourself a pariah in the end, in spite of your grovelling.

Even if you think I'm a troll, consider the vital role played by the court jester: by playing the fool, he finds himself in the unique position of safely being able to criticise the king. Someone has to be able to point out that the emperor has no clothes, or you end up with an unquestionable orthodoxy, and that's antithetical to a scientific attitude. The real fool here is you.

>>15246249
What about Earth's gravity? Presumably it's slower there anyway.

>>15254794
How's that apply to light though?

>>15256206
>What about Earth's gravity? Presumably it's slower there anyway.
This is general relativity rather than special, and I'm 99.9% sure OP didn't intend that by including earth in the pic. It's just the fixed end, see >>15249152 .

>>15253782
>I rewrote Portal from scratch
Portal "Mods" like the other anon said exist and work, it's a gaming term that means an addon to the original, not a new game or a new engine. I could write a portal game too wherein I make physics such that the answer is A. But that's an orthogonal feat to extending the original game physics to new situations. The guy in this video didn't make a portal mod, he made a portal knockoff.

>>15253741
Hoping to get more on this too

>>15253733
You really never know on /sci/. Some anons just lurk here and spout nonsense like chat-bots being trained to parrot theorems.

>>15254651
A portal on any membrane could do the same. It needn't resize. Two portals on surfaces without uniform & identical curvature, would act as lenses for anything going through. This wouldn't be 'skew' but rather a radial scaling.

Moreover, even if they somehow make flat apertures on curved surfaces, there'd STILL be nothing stopping you from resizing it; e. g. make one portal's host wall out of something with a huge coefficient of thermal expansion, then heat/cool it. Or, put one on a block of aluminum and then press/roll it out into foil. A model of the portal that's "correct" needs to handle all of these cases right consistently, while also mirroring the original game's functionality elsewhere.

>>15257432
>surfaces without uniform & identical curvature
These don't even exist in real life; the closest we get is single-crystal wafers. Any two portals on realworld imperfect surfaces would cause /some/ geometric lensing of both images and matter passing through.

>>15256206
Not only would it be slower, but lengths (and wavelengths) would differ as well. We'd also have to consider the potential effects of uneven gravity (and curved 4-space) passing through the portals, which is relatively trivial enough in the older problems to be ignored. But there, gravity's transversal would imply effects on the scale of the problem itself.

>>15251829
>>15253078
what about this

>>15257410
>Portal "Mods" like the other anon said exist and work, it's a gaming term that means an addon to the original
Oh my god
>The guy in this video didn't make a portal mod, he made a portal knockoff.
Doesn't really matter to the point, the point here is that it was trivial to create moving portals that function like B using only a few consistent rules, and notably, there is no need to distort the cubes.
>Some anons just lurk here and spout nonsense like chat-bots being trained to parrot theorems.
Yes, like the guy arguing that portals will stretch and skew cubes passing through them. Are we really going to let that stand entirely unquestioned simply because he was super quick on the trigger to cry troll? Is the one-eyed man leading the blind?

>>15257906
>>15257410
Anyway, Garry's Mod, which is in the Source engine, also has B.

>>15257444
>Any two portals on realworld imperfect surfaces would cause /some/ geometric lensing
A portal is not a surface, it's a distinct lack of one.

>>15253733
Thanks for making me scroll all the way back up to see what you were replying to, fuckface

>>15257432
>>15257444
>>15257910
That raises an interesting point, actually. Suppose you could put a portal on e.g. a sphere. Would it stretch along the surface, or would it form a "gap" in the geometry? Personally, I think the latter, because a portal is just a hole in the end.

As for resizing a portal by modifying the material it's on: that's still assuming the shape of the portal is tied to the surface it's on, rather than existing independent of the surface. The portal itself is not made out of aluminium.

>>15246249
>Orange see Blue's cock
erect?

>drawings/diagrams are based
>>15249848

>>15257410
There are a few things being misundersood imo first,

>>15257444
>Any two portals on realworld imperfect surfaces
>>15257910
>A portal is not a surface, it's a distinct lack of one.
It still needs to have a shape. If it's always perfectly flat but can still attach to a real surface, there's nothing keeping you from attaching it to a perforated wall and looking in the back. That certainly not possible (it can't be attached to an edge of a wall with part hanging off, for example) so the correct interpretation would be that portals lie directly on the surface of their target. So yes, any two portals would distort (they'd be noisy/blurry, for one) and suitably curved/bent portals would certainly distort everyhting going through.

>>15257906
>create moving portals that function like B
I think you're glossing anon's point, that treating that as an assumption rather than a result can't ever prove anything. It's still making up a new universe with new physics for the desired answer, rather than extending the old ones naturally and observing the result. It's a circular argument.
>Garry's Mod, which is in the Source engine also has B.
That name is misleading, Garry's "Mod" isn't actually a mod in the gaming sense, but rather an independent fanmade game (which existed before Portal, actually.).
I actually am a perfect example here because I'm a big gmod player but I don't even own Portal on my steam acccount (Picrel). If gmod were actually 'mod' I wouldn't be able to play it without its 'base' game. Moreover, just because it's made in Source doesn't require it conform to the same physics as every other game made with that engine. While I could boot up Hammer and set zero gravity or player mass to negative, it doesn't mean Portal (or e.g. TF2) universe has no gravity or allows negative mass.

>>15253733
>lol no one can fuckup smthing THAT basic
/sci/ helps newfags, not insult them. Fuck off.

>>15259731
>Garry's Mod, which is in the Source engine also has B.
sorry forgot to tag you >>15257908

>>15259731
>/sci/ helps newfags, not insult them.
That's very funny, anon.

>>15259769
Fuck off. He's clearly a middle or hs student starting to get interested in physics because of this game, and you're telling him to eat shit. Just because his question is simple but the answer isn't on the first page of Google results. Maybe someone should have done that for you more often, so you know how it feels, maybe you'd have gone to trade school instead.

>>15259731
>That certainly not possible (it can't be attached to an edge of a wall with part hanging off, for example) so the correct interpretation would be that portals lie directly on the surface of their target. So yes, any two portals would distort
You mean it's not possible in the game, but we're going beyond the limits of the game here anyway, so it's pure conjecture. Does it make sense for a hole to have a curvature, though? There shouldn't be anything withiin the aperture.

>>15259731
>It's still making up a new universe with new physics for the desired answer, rather than extending the old ones naturally and observing the result.
You talk a big game about games but you don't seem to know a whole lot about mods if you're suggesting there is a way to "naturally extend the old physics" somehow that doesn't involve programming them to behave in ways not supported by the original game. But the thing is, B isn't just an assumption, it is actually the result of some other very basic assumptions about portals. Which is explained in >>15253782.
>>15259778
>He's clearly a middle or hs student starting to get interested in physics because of this game
Holy shit you are such a patronising twat. You know what? The answer isn't basic, it's WRONG. It's your understanding of portals that's basic. I will admit that IF (big if) you can distort the shape of portals then they would necessarily distort the things that go through them. Raises a lot of issues about their structural integrity on a molecular level but fair enough. But that wasn't the point to begin with. Someone argued that merely moving portals around will skew the things that pass through them, and then you got hung up on the exact definition of a mod.

>>15246249
>More importantly, /why/?
Still waiting on this one huh? Had to read the entire thread to discover it's 100% about "how" and 0% about "why."

>>15259818
>it make sense for a hole to have a curvature, though?
yes, of course. Its circumferential circle could itself be made to curve if placed in 3D (like twisting a hula hoop)

>>15259869
>and then you got hung up on the exact definition of a mod.
Sorry anon, I didn't realize you were the same person as those other posts above. They seemed to be at a different language and comprehension level. Regardless I think it's pretty dick for him to insult you for it. And look again; I didn't claim
>The answer [is] basic
at all, because I agree it isn't really. I said the *question* was *simple.* Which it is. The question of a double pendulum's trajectory is also a simple one but that doesn't mean the answer is "basic."

I agree with you that the other anon, talking about mods vs games being the 100% critical factor, is **really** pushing it; on the other hand, Garry's Mod (which is not a mod) *did* exist (long) before portal, not the other way around. Regardless, the real issue I have is one of engineering vs science; you can always engineer a desired result for a test, but that doesn't make it relevant to "real life" (and yes, I know "real life" here is a hypothetical universe we haven't concretely defined yet). Indeed the engine could be reprogrammed /any/ way; what we're discussing here (at least me, OP, >>15257432, >>15253066, >>15252303, and critically >>15249868), is a hypothetical universe identical to ours except for blue and orange holes that behave identically to the game's, for the situations it actually can simulate: perfectly flat walls, no portal motion, no stress/strain, etc.

>>15260293
>Its circumferential circle could itself be made to curve if placed in 3D (like twisting a hula hoop)
Realize now thiswas poorly described.
Point being, you could never define a uniformly curved surface with those boundary conditions. Like a "flat" Pringles crisp that still somehow stacks/nests.

>>15260293
>(like twisting a hula hoop)
so picrel but with circular boundaries in xy instead of a box?

>>15260413
>circular
oval*

>>15260293
>Its circumferential circle could itself be made to curve if placed in 3D (like twisting a hula hoop)
But a twisted hula hoop doesn't have a twisted "surface". It just has nothing in between. I guess you could stretch a membrane over the hula hoop and see how it deforms, but that leads us once again to the question... do portals even have a "surface" comparable to such a membrane or are they merely holes? And can the geometry of this "surface" on one side really be divorced from the other or would you necessarily have to deform both?
I guess it's purely hypothetical because as far as I can tell there is nothing in the games that supports speculation about things of this nature. In fact, the notion that portals lie directly on the surface below isn't even supported by the game, because as you point out, there *would* be noise/blurring if that were the case. Unless we assume perfectly flat surfaces, which is circular: we're assuming the outcome we want to see.

Anyway, aside from all that, could you acknowledge that moving portals (with identical curvature, of the same size, on a perfectly flat surface, that is, conforming to standard gameplay in all aspects apart from being able to move independently) have absolutely zero reason to skew the things passing through them?

>>15257910
How can one use a surface to create the lack?

>>15261591
Are you familiar with the concept of a "hole"?

>>15261673
The concept yes. The bounds of the term no. All holes look to be interchangeable with objects.

completely impractical

>>15247042
where is the turtle wtf
Is this whole thing bait to make me stare at a mspaint diagram for 10 minutes like where's waldo, thinking I must be retarded

>>15246249
>300nm
>Green
Bait right out the gate. Oops

both portals see both lights as ultraviolet, where they belong

>>15247042
>>15262383

The turtle is a reference to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Turtle

>>15262994
Wrong.
https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Great_A%27Tuin

>>15261065
>a twisted hula hoop doesn't have a twisted "surface". It just has nothing in between.
For clarity's sake, let's say a bubble wand instead. And no, I don't believe the two apertures need be identical like that. Unless again, it can "float" above surfaces and be viewable from the back, rather than match/wrap them.

>acknowledge that [...]
No, I wouldn't be comfortable asserting that with any degree of confidence. I can think of some fairly uncomplicated edge cases where it's not necessarily true. They could be rotating on different axes for example, or one's host wall could lean into the other's aperture corner-first. Even the situation in >>15246249 would, I believe, shorten/lengthen light and matter in the direction of transversal, and that's a fairly basic example with only one dimension of motion. Another example would be slicing a transversing object in half by forcing it against part of the (allegedly zero-width) rim, which could be done while moving either portal.

>>15261798
>All holes look to be interchangeable with objects.
This is inconsistent with current physics and cosmology, which indeed make a distinction. One example would be a black Hole's gravity well or event horizon, vs. its singularity (or, if youre a kook, its wormhole throat). The notions of space (hole) and matter (object) are not interchangeable, even in the loose context of this discussion.

>>15263146
>notions of space (hole) and matter (object)
better to say field and content; spacetime vs energy.

>>15261065
>Anyway, aside from all that, could you acknowledge that moving portals
can you illustrate what you mean exactly and how that differs from the diagram linked in op (except they spin instead)

>>15261065
>>15263429
I mean this one btw >>15242920 not the OP picrel

>>15263136
>They could be rotating on different axes for example
Irrelevant.
>or one's host wall could lean into the other's aperture corner-first
This just entails a collision, not distortion.
>Even the situation in [OP] would, I believe, shorten/lengthen light and matter in the direction of transversal, and that's a fairly basic example with only one dimension of motion.
Here it is the relativistic speed of the portal that makes things weird, not the mere fact of movement itself.
>Another example would be slicing a transversing object in half by forcing it against part of the (allegedly zero-width) rim, which could be done while moving either portal.
Another assumption about portals and still not relevant to skewing.
>>15263429
>>15263431
By movement I mean any and all movement including but not limited to rotation (apart from relativistic speeds which is another can of worms). Move a portal any way you like, I see no reason for anything to be skewed even slightly.

>>15263441
>all movement including but not limited to rotation
Well, the diagram OP linked shows you how rotating would distort >>15242920 both light and matter. I'm not sure what your precise disagreement with it would be, implying the light always exits green (and the strings identical.) It appears general consensus in that previous thread is in fact answer B. Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're making the distinction of relative, inertial motion vs. acceleration.

>collision, not distortion.
No, I'd consider slicing is a form of distortion. Moving a wall into a zero-width plane like a portal IRL, would truly slice through anything with zero reaction force. Consider dividing force by area to determine pressure, where area is zero.

>the relativistic speed of the portal that makes things weird
This is something of a common misconception from intro modern physics and popsci. In reality, there's no fraction of c which distinguishes 'relativistic' speeds from others, except arbitrary ones chosen as standard definitions. While virtually unmeasurable, in some cases smaller than the Planck length, relative velocity of portals nevertheless would distort such a transversal. Accelerating toward c, contraction would indeed become increasingly apparent until even you would (perhaps reluctantly) reluctantly consider it distortion. But you would, again, be making a totally arbitrary distinction akin to "relativistic speeds."

I really hate to mention it again, and preface by saying I'm not intentionally insulting or patronizing you, but: it really appears your level of vocabulary, comprehension, and attention to detail is varying (a lot) between posts. Likewise, I see OP and earlier anons (rudely) colluding for similar reasons. I realize these threads are typically full of trolls (e.g., OP's >>15231033, where 2 anons feign retardation so can't read >>15241340 & >>15242920). But I spend my (very limited) time on /sci/ doing the opposite, and don't intend to waste it.

>>15265308
give them some slack lmao. way more aspies here (ESPECIALLY /sci/) than trolls. handling complex concepts but faiilng at simple reading and conversation like that, is exactly what keeps me a NEET.

>People with autism are “details-before-the-concept” thinkers, while non-autistic people are “concept-before-the-details” thinkers.

always keep in mind the concept of '"Inference,"' how decisions are made, because if we all made them the same way as you, humanity would be a whole race of you.

>>15265308
>with zero reaction force. Consider dividing force by area to determine pressure, where area is zero.
also this would cause nuclear fission, there would be SOME reaction force as molecules are shunted to either side, but imo not a "collision" because it wouldn't just stop or bounce off

>>15265362
>this would cause nuclear fission, there would be SOME reaction force as molecules are shunted to either side, but imo not a "collision"
Indeed, /sci/'s race of Native Autists
>are “details-before-the-concept” thinkers.
But I'm likewise reluctant to spend consecutive evenings mitigating /that/ particular language barrier.

>>15265373
so. who are you writing all these blogs for, if its not 1: getting baited, 2: supporting Autism, OR 3: legitimate explanatory discourse with someone making a dumb mistake

>>15265384
A young student or tradie who likes videogames, and wants to know about physics. A selfdiagnosed autistic should've known that, as obsession over details would hopelessly motivate you to read my earlier posts, critically >>15259778. Admittedly, it wouldn't imply you actually /understand/ what you read.

>>15265391
Moreover;

>>15265384
>1: getting baited
This is precisely why I ceased participating and hid the previous thread, after spending in excess of /an hour/ illustrating the (second; >>15242920) diagram for another genuine, interested, but uneducated anon.

My opinion (and both threads' consensus) is the proper response is ignoring it /all/, migrating to another thread or padawan-anon if necessary, without continuing to engage.

>someone making a dumb mistake
As for this scenario; an /astronomically/ unlikely basic misunderstanding for an individual attempting high-level scientific debate in a thread about relativity and wormholes. The distinction "relativistic speeds" is a popsci rag best-seller with no basis in reality. **All** spatial velocity is relativistic as it implies proportional reduction in temporal velocity; the relation of relativity to 4-Space (which surely /you/ understand) is a concept explained a STEM major's Physics I. And I indeed know that for certain, having taught it for two years while a postdoc.

>>15265308
>Well, the diagram OP linked shows you how rotating would distort both light and matter.
... no it doesn't. It shows redshift/blueshift. It ONLY applies to light due to the special properties of light. Actually visualise a cube going through a rotating portal and tell me where the "skewing" occurs.
>Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're making the distinction of relative, inertial motion vs. acceleration.
This is a potentially relevant distinction but even in the case of acceleration I reckon that the forces exerted on the cube will either crush it or pull it apart, but not skew it.
>I really hate to mention it again, and preface by saying I'm not intentionally insulting or patronizing you, but: it really appears your level of vocabulary, comprehension, and attention to detail is varying (a lot) between posts.
Yeah, well, one of two things are happening here: either I'm missing something obvious, or you are. But that diagram linked in the OP isn't telling me anything. And I studied it closely. I've noticed a tendency of people in these threads to read things into poorly drawn diagrams that aren't actually shown and then act as if they're obvious.
>I'm not intentionally insulting or patronizing you
It comes naturally then?
>>15265471
>And I indeed know that for certain, having taught it for two years while a postdoc.
All right, well, apply those skills. Your chance to shine. I'm apparently uneducated so educate me.

>>15265391
okay, I take it all back, I guess

>>15265641
>read things into poorly drawn diagrams that aren't actually shown
is exactly what I would do as an aspie
and
>Your chance to shine
is the kind of language, like a troll would bring to /sci/ to bait, instead of a native or student

>>15265653
picrel. hope this is both better, and less harmful, bait. lets talk about something different anyway though

>>15265653
So this is your way of saying you're right and you don't have to prove it? What the fuck do I have to do to get someone to justify their claims to me, if simply asking is just going to make you talk down to me and then dismiss me as a troll without any attempt at proving anything? It's a simple fucking question that you've dodged several times now. Why would the cube skew? Just show me. I want to understand, if there is anything to understand, but I'm seriously starting to doubt whether you have any real wisdom to impart.

>>15265661
Im not the one writing blogs /b/tard. they left 3hours ago, only asked me to '"prove"' you're a native autistic rather than a troll, and I certainly can't do that now. So, if they ever respond at all, itll be actually supporting highlevel autism, despite saying they're a complete bigot >>15265373

>>15265384
>legitimate explanatory discourse with someone making a dumb mistake
Well I guess it's not this one because if it's a dumb mistake it should be easy to correct, yet this legitimate explanatory discourse has been circling around it for days

>>15265673
>explanatory discourse has been circling around it
exactly what trying to learn something from a normie's blogs (or their textbooks) feels like to me too desu

Anyway, the central question is still this: assuming B, why is >>15253782 incorrect or at least imaccurate? I don't care that I may have used an imprecise term somewhere. I don't care about the distinction between a mod and a spin-off. I don't care about weird edge cases (yet). The claim is that moving portals are impossible to program, so what's the issue here? Can we establish the basic principle here before trying to move on to portals-in-portals-at-light-speed?

>>15265691
>why is >>15253782 incorrect or at least imaccurate?
because at no point do those portals in the youtube normies video accelerate. in OP they accelerate, in >>15242920 they accelerate, and in the example that brought us here >>15242920 they accelerate (and jerk, and so on)

>>15265698
>the example that brought us here >>15242920
my b make that >>15253733

>>15265698
>in OP they accelerate, in >>15242920 they accelerate
(in case you are unclear, all relative rotations are acceleration, not inertial or fixed velocities. this is true even if the speed doesn't change.)

>>15265698
>those portals in the youtube normies video accelerate.
and before you jump in and say they do/can just fine, remember that's still not accurate, if you truly believe
>forces exerted on the cube will either crush it or pull it apart, but not skew it.

>>15265722
>that's still not accurate
I agree. The youtuber either doesn't understand relativity, hopes his audience doesn't, or decided to ignore it because the game isn't rendering that finely....he's still doing moving portals a bit wrong. Which is reasonable for the old meme! Timesteps are way too long, a GPU core isn't remotely wide enough for such granularity at those speeds. It shows answer A is wrong, but not B is precisely correct beyond that one binary example. If that piston thing in the meme were falling near c, it would come out quite visibly pancaked vs. B, and that's a criteria of any simulation relevant here. It's only incrementally better than the original game which IIRC simply broke them anytime they moved.

>>15265772
>falling near x
Accelerating to near-c as it goes through; not being pushed/held at fixed velocity, which would indeed spit out the cube unchanged like B.

>>15265809
Nope! Only unchanged from Orange's frame which is already different. From blues perspective, or ours from the side, cube is distorted just like Orange's piston would appear.

>>15265830
only while still moving that fast, and once decelerated to 'zero' velocity they'd be back to normal looking

>>15265859
Well, even so, that ultimately isn't relevant because in the other examples it is constantly accelerating during traversal.

>>15265830
>>15265772
Hey, could you do me a super duper favour? Stop using exclamation marks! Thanks!

>>15265698
>because at no point do those portals in the youtube normies video accelerate.
okay

so?

>>15265772
>If that piston thing in the meme were falling near c, it would come out quite visibly pancaked
Why, exactly? I hold with >>15265809
>>15265897
I reckon it is relevant because that was the question.

>>15266416
not those autists, but perhaps you hold a consistently different opinion from everyone else because it is wrong?

the piston and anything moving that fast experiences td/lc (vs. our frame) and the cube is stationary with none...then it traverses and now it is, also moving near lightspeed like the piston, also experiencing obvious relativistic effects, but in a different direction. Was a force applied to it? Did the piston slow down or get reaction force? I don't know if that's even relevant, it's still moving near c (if B is the right answer.). And if the transversal weren't uniform, well, it would start one speed and end another. If the portal just cuts slices of the cube and teleports them with no regard for velocity/acceleration then the answer is "A". A cube pushed halfway through and then pulled back would come into two parts in A, because forces don't travel through, only slices.

Only trolls answer A. I'm with everyone else. Hopefully they all filter you too.

>>15266416
and if you hold with those two, then you agree that accelerating would deform. because they are arguing about fixed velocity not falling. There's no debate there over the case of an accelerating portal, only inertial.
>Accelerating to near-c as it goes through; not being pushed/held at fixed velocity, which would indeed spit out the cube unchanged

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm the one who can't read. Guess we'll have to wait for the shithole timezones again to ask.

>>15249536
tl;dr - The same faggots who don't understand that "observing" in quantum mechanics is an analogy for physical interaction with a system don't understand that an "observer" in special relativity is an analogy for coordinate transformation

Now that is some out-there stuff. I don't know if it's worth talking relativity with someone whose cosmological model looks like >>15246252. I'm surprised you've been able to write all this arguing while working from an 'alternative' perspective this entire time.

OP here. Time to let it die.

Last time he started quoting scripture or smth, no joke. Truly, truly give up. Don't tag. Perhaps he'll rope, return to whatever /b/ telegram group sent him here, or at least go get a GED.

IIRC...
>It's like I'm really on fucking [leddit].
I'm sure you get lots of updoots for your theories there. So I'm begging you, go back. Your schizophrenic rambling killed the thread. /Again./

That makes *three,* right? And that's just consecutive Portal threads. I'm sure you're decimating the SNR of /sci/ all over the place. Maybe they can put something in the global rules about stalking exasperated anons and OPs, who are migrating into new threads specifically to avoid you and the contribution of your 'opinions.'

>>15266471
>perhaps you hold a consistently different opinion from everyone else because it is wrong?
Maybe "everyone else" is like two people and "you" is me and someone else and there is no consensus at all? I'm willing to admit if I'm wrong.
>Only trolls answer A.
Okay well "pancaking" sounds like A to me, so you agree that it's wrong then? Because B has the cube exit at the same speed it entered.
>>15266496
>and if you hold with those two, then you agree that accelerating would deform.
Which two? I only agreed with one. But I never agreed to any deformation. Besides, the specific deformation that was claimed originally was skewing.

>>15266987
>Your schizophrenic rambling killed the thread. /Again./
M8 your thread is livelier than it has been at any point in the days before because now people are actually discussing things. I don't give a shit about your boring OP. It offers no material for discussion. I want to know what goes on in the brains of people who say moving portals skew shit. If you want to control what goes on in a thread simply because you started it, then maybe you're the one who's better suited to reddit. Then you can ban everyone who disagrees with you. Isn't that lovely?

>>15266987
>>15267949
I mean you're obsessed with this idea that there's this mysterious samefag troll haunting your footsteps for whatever reason but I just got questions about portals man

And instead of answers I get your schizo shit

it took you like two threads + five diagrams to learn what a propeller is. no one else is that clinically retarded.

>>15268489
You mean it took you two threads and five diagrams to work out what I grasped intuitively at the very start and you're still not quite there, seeing as your latest diagram, with which you declared the debate settled, is still flawed in myriad ways that seem to fly straight over your head. Not once in all your shitposts have come even close to addressing the issues I raised. All you can do is repeat yourself and insist that it's so obvious, with all the smugness of an idiot who waltzes into a Monty Hall thread to declare the odds are 50-50. This is why I quoted Plato's Allegory of the Cave (not scripture, you uncultured baboon), specifically the part where a person who has seen the light will be mocked by those who bicker over the meaning of shadows, because they don't know what he's talking about and they just think his ability to interpret shadows is subpar. Seemed appropriate, you know? But it was casting pearls before swine (oh shit, now that is scripture).

Anyway, congrats on killing another one of your threads with another of your schizo rants, because you can't help but take it personally if people are talking about things you don't understand.

>>15266471
>And if the transversal weren't uniform, well, it would start one speed and end another.
What does this MEAN

actually it works like picrel
look at the color on bottom (green is not actually 300nm lol)

that is NOT a propeller, this is.

>>15269978
>>15269980
>This shit again
Why is it green on both sides of the moving portal when the whole point is supposed to be that the wavelength is shifted by the movement of the portal? Why is the top red in both diagrams? Why does the angle of the light remain unchanged when the portal moves?

Please. The only correct propeller that has been posted so far is picrel.

Look at the not-parallel version on the right. The propeller spins into the air, see? where it belongs.

you are both fools lmao
this is the ultimate propeller diagram, not either of those: >>15232635
it even numbers the propeller blades 1-6 so you know the order theyre in, in case that was somehow unclear (kek).

>>15246249
>>15270288
>>15270281
>>15268489
>>15268968
Guys guys guys, chill out.

Some day, picrel anon will come back, and only he can show us the true meaning of Propeller. As you can see, he is the one that drew the bottom-right of >>15242920. Hopefully he can finish this diagram as well, and tell us about all these numbers.

Do you think it has to do with the number of propellers? I do.

>>15270281
how is the one on the left 'parallel' to anything.
is this like the turtle >>15262383

>>15270440
>is this like the turtle
NO. the 2 on the left truly are parallel when it turns like a propeller. The ones on the right aren't; that's like a clock hand instead.

Think about the center of rotation. That's the whole point of this diagram.

>>15270449
no center of rotation marked anywhere on that pos, left or right.. can't even tell which way its turning except for the blueshift.
it needs a tail like >>15269978, or circular arrow, at the VERY least. What it actually needs is a better designer.. maybe pass it off to this guy anon >>15242920 who knows what a picrel is FOR instead of posting some geometry autist pickupsticks thats somehow worthless and still nice to look at. congrats though, you made polished shit OC.

>>15270477
irrelevant. Not my OC. Chill lmao
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

>>15270403
>diagram is just 8x wall of text
cool story bro... whats this have to do with OP at all, and what is even rotating around the awaited CoM (that hasn't even been drawn yet? :):

>>15270281
>>15270440
>>15270449
>>15270477
There is no rotation, OP is throwing an autistic little bitch fit and ironically failing to interpret my diagram which is entirely unrelated to his autism. He keeps imagining "parallels" and "propellers" where there are one, which is how we got into this mess in the first place.

>>15270787
For the record, here's what triggered all this...
>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?
With pic related.
Note how it doesn't even indicate rotation in any way? Note how it doesn't use red and green but rather purple? Note how the post itself makes explicit mention of UNmoving portals and rather asserts that it is the ANGLE that is relevant? My response >>15270281 is merely intended to show what a straight line actually looks like at an angle.

But it was too late. People started imagining propellers. They started insisting it was "obviously" moving this or that way, which gave rise to these >>15269978 >>15269980 competing interpretations. And of course "obviously" the top line actually had to be red, that was so "obvious" it went without saying. Why, someone had even drawn a helpful diagram that showed it "turning": >>15270281, see! None of the criticism raised here >>15270080 were ever even acknowledged. A beam of light is just like a guitar string, see, "obviously" (they got that one backwards too).

And then if you say
>I get the whole redshift/blueshift thing, but why are you people so desperate to pretend this shitty diagram is showing something insightful when you have to make numerous alterations to make it say anything on the subject at all?
They look at you like you got two heads. I'm starting to think I'm the only person in this whole debacle who wasn't trolling.

THERE I FUCKING FIXED IT

HOW DID YOU FAIL TO ARRIVE AT THIS AFTER SO MANY TRIES

>>15270281
Also how does a board full of scientists and mathematicians fail to recognise = and ≠

can't even comprehend rotation and flip, if they both happen in one step like this, kek

>>15272864
I can comprehend just fine, the only question is WHY would you work backwards from the right answer to reach absolute nonsense and pretend you proved something?

>>15272864
>>15272890
Seriously, this shit was some supreme fucking autism and I'm glad I still have no idea what possessed you to make it because that means I haven't taken leave of my senses.

What makes more sense?
>To reach the right answer you take the normal B and angle the trajectory by 45 degrees to match the movement of the portal which affects the projected trajectory
>To reach the right answer you first pretend that A shows something else than it actually does and comes out at a straight angle, and then you turn everything by 90 degrees except the cube, which you turn only 45 degrees, or 45 degrees further, doesn't matter, and then you flip everything, and that gives you the right angle and rotation even though everything is now flipped
What's the method here? Where do you derive your numbers from? Can you apply it to a system with different relative velocities?

>>15257814
I already told you, any movement/force imparted on an object can only propagate through it at the speed of sound in that medium
Kill yourself you fucking schizo

>>15259778
It's just that schizo trying to justify ftl communications with long rods or lasers, he's doubling down immensely for the past month trying to make it work

meanwhile at anons apparently

i did forget to change the window color to green because its a light source, but everything else is ok right

Tensions running quite high in this thread huh

>>15246249

My old hs science teacher used to say a lot, if you don't believe in Special Relativity then you better stop using that iphone. Because even the distances and speeds of geosynchronous GPS clock-transmitter satellites are enough that ignoring relativistic effects would make your GPS receiver useless, with a precision no better than 10 meters.

It doesn't matter how long the space elevator rod is, or how fast it's turning. Any two portals like that, moving at different speeds, enforce a tiny bit of spacetime where "distant" things "happen" simultaneously (and so on,) in a seemingly exploitable way. In contrast, loss of simultaneity is a hallmark of a causal, subluminal universe.

In addition to violating causality, it could be used to asymptotically stretch the cube (or anything) going through it, bending its axes away from orthogonality and then locking/"snapshotting" them that way when it traverses. Though I'd suggest that a moving portal resists (material) things going through it, with reaction force equivalent to whatever is necessary for the deformation, else be yet another infinite-energy portal loophole.

spooooooooopy

>>15273199
The source light coming through the window needs to be colored Red, 0/10 not accurate

>>15270403
Not sure if you're being sarcastic but no, that's never going to happen. That sperglord raged out after the other anon he was "making it ""for""" brought up the same questions as you >>15270509. I'm sure he fled /sci/ or at least filtered the portal threads.

>WORK IN PROGRESS PLEASE BE PATIENT
on a 20m paint.net oc for a /sci/ meme thread, might've tipped you off that was a possibility. Lotta bottled-up pressure on display right there. Or galaxybrain bait.

>>15252496
>It could easily be programmed to do so.
How would you deal with infinite forces?

>>15274547
Corrections are made for both velocity and gravity, which are relevant on roughly the same scale. Famously, many government midwits involved in the GPS project were also that stubborn, couldn't accept it after explanations from /sci/ of the era either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

I'm sure anon will supply you another 'alternate' physics diagram or explanation for this result too.

>>15274547
>a tiny bit of spacetime where "distant" things "happen" simultaneously (and so on,) in a seemingly exploitable way.
Two distinct volumes at different velocities, forced to share a continuous & unmoving plane/hole as seen from both of their reference frames (and 'ours' from the side), is already a stretch imo

>>15276148
>How would you deal with infinite forces?
What infinite forces? The old meme, where the plate just falls on the cube, doesn't have any

>>15276171
>The old meme, where the plate just falls on the cube, doesn't have any
It does if the other plate is lying flat, portal side down.

>>15249335
>Just a rotating laser powerful enough to go that far
that wont work
you need highly charged plasma doing the rotating

>>15246249
>>15246279
>>15247042
>>15265698
>>15265722
>>15266275

There is a relativistic first person camera engine by MIT named "a slower speed of light" which could probably be (much) more easily modded to add portals, than Portal could be modded to add relativity. It used to use Ogre Graphics and was awful to develop/mod for, but I believe it's now Unity-based. If this version on YouTube is secretly, actually accurate, the velocities are too low to tell (and there's no reason it would be, desu)

>>15276181
where's the infinite force needed there? sorry can you sketch it?

>>15252496
>It could easily be programmed to do so.
>>15277930
>relativistic first person camera engine
does it actually calculate the deformations or just make some sort of lensing right as its rendering and displaying it? can you 'freeze' time and change the viewpoint, or measure apparent distances in the engine's geometry? OR would a visually skewed cube still "measure" square.

>>15275921
>realistic-A.jpg
What kind of schizophrenia do you need for this?

>>15275921
>>15279100
I refuse to let this madness stand. Any man who can sink lower than even your regular Afag is surely deranged.

>>15279263
Wouldn't it fall back out of the orange one if the portal isn't solid?

>>15279287
I don't think we should try to apply too much logic to it. It's nonsense either way.

>>15279287
Better yet, if gravity is conserved on interaction of an object with the portal, wouldn't the blue one float or levitate above the blue? I'm thinking it might work like an EM field in that case, with gravity passing through the portal creating a sort of equilibrium with the field that didn't.

>>15279301
Sure, if you're working backwards from a nonsensical conclusion you can assume anything. That's how we got "realistic-A.jpg".

>>15279311
Its fun to draw a path for it.

>>15246249
Portals literally assume an interaction similar to objects with momentum transmission and all. They have nothing to do with wormholes which are not affected by relativity.

>>15246249
each looks slower from the other.

>(except at the edge)
what does this mean btw?

>>OP
It needn't be 1ly long, in fact a geosynchronous orbit would make for a better setup (it wouldn't even need the pole; just one portal on a GPS satellite.).

But is that even possible? It suggests infinite energy right away, unless objects pushed through the portal apply some reaction force to the satellite, causing it to speed up or slow down in exchange for the momentum being "added" to the object.

>>15280147
>each looks slower from the other.
Wouldn't the one that's a lightyear from Earth perceive the one on Earth as faster?

OP must be pure seething that his thread is continuing without him despite his own best efforts to sabotage it

ITT: unironically classical wordcels vs. einstein shape rotators

>>15281136
>OP
is still here and is loving the keks >>15273199 dipshit, watching you rage and splooge OC at every bait is super satisfying.
>>15280571
>>15280147
>>15277930
>>15278160
>>15275921
all of these posts. I really enjoy the new OC you've made for me. I still think you should finish this one though >>15270403


>>15280571
>It suggests infinite energy right away,
>>15246249
>no creation/loss of energy
implies reaction force on the portal (even in the old meme picrel, else the cube is getting accelerated from 'nothing'). Again, for those of us who accept "B," I think that must be accepted too

>>15273107
>ftl communications with long rods or lasers,
did you even read the press release or paper? It has nothing to do with that scifi Ansible thing, it's about polarization in plasma. I'm also pretty sure that's a different anon than the main dipshit.

>>15270864
so you're saying the answer really is A?
not him btw, but if the observer were standing on the ground instead of in the air at the same angle as the rainbow, wouldn't they just see the green (dotted) lines? Or am I totally misunderstanding what the colors and dotted vs solid lines mean.

>>15282838
Yes that guy believes the underlying physics is A. See >>15266471
>If the portal just cuts slices of the cube and teleports them with no regard for velocity/acceleration then the answer is "A".

Though to be precise, he believes A works slightly differently than intuition or the old meme would suggest. See >>15275921, >>15279263, >>15279349. His A doesn't have friction.

>>15270804
>saved the bait to his desktop to fall for again later
>even saved the text
wicked tuna itt

>>15282823
lmao you're literally obsessed with me. Every single person is me and is only here because of you. Textbook projection. Is that why you're ignoring everyone?

>>15282846
>Yes that guy believes the underlying physics is A.
No, I do not. That would be the OP of this thread, the one who has been calling me a troll all this time for pointing out when he's wrong. I was the one to call him a deranged buffoon, and incidentally, so are you if you think friction makes all the difference between the "old" A and his version of it. I specifically illustrated the difference in those replied you linked.
>>15282838
>so you're saying the answer really is A?
No, I am not. The dotted lines show one situation, the uninterrupted show another. As the portal moves from straight vertical to diagonal, not only is the light red/blueshifted, but also its angle through the portal is changed. This says nothing about either A or B. That is only relevant to the change in frequency (A would suggest that the light remains green everywhere).

I'm sorry, am I really the only person here who has the spatial visualisation ability to realise that the light wouldn't keep exiting the portal in the same way if it enters the portal in a different way? And you want to discuss portals? Perhaps I hold a consistently different opinion from everyone else because you're all fucking retarded.

I know I'm the fool for continuing to argue in good faith but your combined ability to completely misinterpret every single diagram put before you in increasingly implausible ways is impressive in its own right. Assuming you're doing it on purpose, that's some sort of skill, I suppose. Not a useful one, but certainly a skill.

I don't understand, do you think you could make a diagram for me to help explain? I'm colorblind btw so make sure it's something I can actually read. Also I don't know what that word means "aperture," so make sure you explain that as part of the new OC also. thanks really appreciate it

That is very helpful anon but I'm more interested in the "why/how", rather than the exact "what." Can you redo it with more emphasis on the "why" for me? By the way, im ESL, so try not to use any technical terms I won't understand,or if you do, translate them to Dutch first. Thanks anon, appreciate all the effort!

>>15279263
I think it's super cool you went out of the way to make a second diagram to try and explain your first one. But, do you think you could make a third diagram, to explain that? --> >>15279349

>ribbing on a CivE
come on... that's abuse, it's fish in a barrel.

>>15284957
M8 I have no idea who >>15279349 is or what they're on about

Welp I'm sorry I ever asked a question about special relativity in your thread about special relativity, OP. You petulant child.

>>15246249
>drawings/diagrams are based
come on, be based

>>15287374
What's stopping you from contributing? What is it you're still missing?

>>15282823
>no creation/loss of energy
>implies reaction force on the portal (even in the old meme picrel, else the cube is getting accelerated from 'nothing').
What would that physically entail for the portal, and why would portals have to adhere to conservation of energy given that it's easy to create a perpetual motion device using portals and gravity?

hmm... I don't think you're accounting for the "skew" effects, though. I can see ignoring them in most cases because it's so small. But for this problem it really matters, because of relativity. So Can you try again without ignoring that, thanks. Also your diagrams have been pretty low-resolution lately, can you just screenshot them in 4/8k instead of whatever you're doing with "save"?

>>15246249
>Last thread's universe (>>15231033 (DEAD)) wherein B is correct and <span class="deadlink">>>15241340 (DEAD) & >>15242920 (DEAD) explain why.</span>
All of these links are dead btw. Be nice if someone could do a quick recap for those of us without photographic memory for 4chan picrels .

>>15246249
>>15288569
>>15247042
Nevermind, I will never understand this, I don't even see a turtle.

I was just studying more or less this. Meh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE6FpEpEzU8

>>15288569
B refers to answer B in this classic, it was extrapolated from there that the light coming out of a portal will be red/blueshifted when one of them moves, and you don't really need OP's diagrams because they were frankly awful spite-fuelled frankensteinian gibberish that's as likely to decrease your understanding of the subject as not and he made a new thread in part because he wanted to move on from the discussion rather than address criticism.

The answer is B, mind, I don't disagree with that, OP just sucks at explaining things and taking criticism.

>>15270864
>>15279263
>>15279349
why is the cube moving?? it's the portal that moves, not the cube, that's the ***entire point.*** The cube moving is modeled fine by the original game. Do you really not even understand the meme version of this problem with the portal on a piston??? What you even doing in /sci/?

>>15289031
No, Anon, I understand just fine, that's the thing, I'm explaining these things to people who do not. Yes, >>15275921 this abomination was produced by a thread where the cube was, in fact, unambiguously moving towards the portal. >>15270864 is about something else and doesn't even contain a cube, though. Unless it's with the turtle?

>>15289031
this is who you respond to anon

>>15289056
You're conflating three different people here, schizo. Also, nice of you to mutilate my diagram to really show your lack of understanding. God forbid you accidentally reveal to someone that I had a point.

>>15289042
>where the cube was, in fact, unambiguously moving towards the portal.
Can you show me the original diagram of that, then. Because it sounds like you're rearranging facts to fit yours; these threads **always** have the portal move. If you can show me a previous OP where the portal doesn't move at all, I'll give you $100; but it belongs in the game, not on /sci/. If you were responding to an OP where the portal didn't move with that OC, you were responding to bait, congrats.

>>15289056
>this is who you respond to
Yeah, I was a bit worried about that, but if he can actually show me this no-portal-moving scenario and somehow use it to explain all the weird OC in this thread, how it relates to OP, guess I'd be wrong. I don't know if he can actually produce legible OC though.

>>15289042
>about something else and doesn't even contain a cube
Maybe keep this unrelated stuff to your other threads then btw, it's really mudding up whatever argument you're trying to make here. Because none of your diagrams relate to this thread, but you keep using them anyway, adding things on and making more to explain what you already have, which you yourself claim is irrelevant.

It seems a bit like bipolar narcissism. You're super proud of something you made a while ago and keep trying to apply it to everything else. It's a lot of noise for not very much signal.

>>15289068
>three different people
who used the exact same software, linewidths, Orange and Purple hues, and handdrawn rectanges?

I mean, *exactly* the same lines. Weird rounded ends, exact same RGB values...

>>15289072
>Because it sounds like you're rearranging facts to fit yours
Yeah well it sounds like you're jumping to conclusions based on incomplete information. Here is the previous OP. Yes, the portal does move, but only downwards, not towards the cube. The portal's movement was irrelevant to showing the absurdity of A in this scenario, because, in fact, the suggestion is that A is what "would happen" under ordinary circumstances, which is why then first >>15275921 was implicitly posited and >>15272864 was suggested as, somehow, a logical derivation thereof, except it's gibberish and it uses gibberish as its starting point.

>>15289093
>exact same
don't forget DPI/scale vs the resolution... But maybe they have the exact same monitor too? that's likely, right?

>>15289086
>none of your diagrams relate to this thread
Every single one of mine that I posted was posted in response to other people dredging up their irrelevant petty grievances. I'm pretty sure it was OP himself. If this is what he wants his thread to be about, I'm not going to deny him.

>>15289093
I told you before, I simply use paint. The engineer from the previous thread used Autocad, I believe. No idea what >>15247042 used but it looks like a phone edit. You are a paranoid schizophrenic who clings to the flimsiest of "evidence" to prove your delusions.

>>15289093
>>15289102
Literally none of those things are actually shared between any of the diagrams lol

>>15289072
>show me a previous OP where the portal doesn't move at all
i gotchu senpai, it's picrel he made those diagrams for, from an old thread. See how the cube is the same.

As you can see, the portal is indeed moving ("v"), he's just an inpatient-tier retard. Here in /sci/ we call them "engineers"

>>15289113
>i gotchu
I already "got him" retard, and explained to him why the downwards motion of the portal was irrelevant to my point as I did it.

Also that cube is simply taken from >>15288951 if you hadn't noticed, as are the portals.

>>15289112
>none of those things
well, except the precise Orange...and the rounded lines...and the linewidth...and the rectangle... :)

>>15289094
>suggestion is that A is what "would happen" under ordinary circumstances, which is why then first >>15275921 was implicitly posited and >>15272864
Buddy, you do know that only trolls answer A, right?

Did you really make all this to explain "it's not A" to people pretending to be retarded? It doesn't show anything else except "the troll answer is troll" and "the bait diagrams are bait"??

>>15289122
>except the precise Orange
It's just the standard Paint orange, I imagine it might be standard elsewhere
>and the rounded lines
That's how the line tool works, yes
>and the linewidth
Not in your pic
>and the rectangle
You mean the fact that there's *a* rectangle, despite them looking entirely different.

Also note all the differences, the colours I *don't* use, my clean straight angles, the clear difference in quality between both pictures...

>>15270281
>The propeller spins into the air, see? where it belongs.
you really read right past this and kept going. Propeller goes "in the air, where it belongs". One ticket to kekistan on that aircraft please

>>15289130
Well, if >>15279263 is "all this", then yes. Thought I'd set the record straight since OP clearly can't let it go after three threads and seems utterly convinced that I'm the one trolling him.

>>15289122
I think the bigger giveaway is, no one else could be that consistently retarded, about the same unique collection of dumb misconceptions.

>>15289113
>portal is indeed moving
Oh, of course it is. So I'm right, none of those show jack except what's already in the game, nothing to do with /sci/. I guess a diagram with two things moving at once is too complicated for him.

>>15289146
Oh yes, surely thinking >>15275921 this is retarded is just one big misconception on my part. Clear up the misconception here for me. I've been right about every single thing thus far, meanwhile OP has been pushing shitty diagrams riddled with errors. So what's the misconception? That any of you are arguing in good faith?

>>15289153
>I guess a diagram with two things moving at once is too complicated for him.
Or, get this, maybe it was too complicated for the people who came up with >>15272864 so I had to dumb it down a little for them

>>15289122
>>15289093
For two threads I've been calling this guy a samefag because he always talks like a CivE, and never even noticed this. I wish I had your autism power level anon. I'd probably be an FBI agent or something.

>>15289163
Great, turns out schizophrenia is contagious.

>>15289163
>probably be an FBI agent or something.
If you can put your name in your whitey tighties and don't mind wiping Brandon's butt, you could be in charge of the FBI. Not exactly high standards.

>>15289165
Enough with the antisemitism.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. I expect I'll wake up to precisely zero (0) of my supposed "misconceptions" being cleared up but a tonne more misconceptions being made about me and several others besides.

For the record:
The answer in the original is clearly B
The answer here is >>15289094 none of these (rather the cube shoots straight up but with the same orientation as B, relative to the portal)
Light coming out of a portal will be redshifted if the entry portal moves away from it and blueshifted if the entry portal moves towards it. The light also exits at an angle if it enters at an angle.
I still see no reason for any cube to be skewed by moving portals and I only met with smug condescension and weird assumptions when I asked about it, so the jury's still out on that one.

I'm sure you'll accuse me of inconsistency for this but that is because you've been mistaking half a dozen people for me.

>>15289196
Please, Jews have high IQs, I could never mistake you for one

>>15289206
Oh yes, and I noticed someone assuming I'm >>15246252 as well, so just to clear that up, no, I do not agree with that obvious shitpost and I don't need to be told that time dilation is a real thing.
Well, ta.

>>15289210
>check Israel's IQ
Yikes, kikes.

Honestly though I can't believe that the people who still adamantly stand by >>15275921 are pretending they have any right to lecture others about "misconceptions". For three threads you've done nothing but misconceive terrible diagrams and try to tortuously twist them into some semblance of the right answer. I was still holding out for someone to actually prove me wrong about the skewing shit, but I guess the only misconception you've disabused me of is that any of you were remotely capable of that.

show us "the true D" again. Can you include a diagram showing how you got that answer and why it isn't vertical

>>15290824
A diagram won't be necessary (I hope). Look, it's easy. The original OP posted this >>15289094. Clearly, he wasn't actually concerned with the precise trajectory or orientation of the cube; he just wanted to hear people's opinions on whether it would go straight, up, or down (A being included as a joke option). Of these answers, the correct one is clearly "it goes up" which corresponds to D. But then people got autistic about the exact degree of the angle and the orientation of the cube. Someone pointed out the orientation was wrong, so I changed it to the correct rotation in response. Then a bunch more discussion happened in my absence about the trajectory as well and the correct trajectory, which is only a few degrees off from D anyway, was also established, and I agreed it was correct. You see, unlike some people, I can adjust my views when I'm wrong.

And then for some reason some people started raving about their implicitly assumed nonsensical A variant. And also there were a bunch of idiots who insisted on measuring the cube's orientation relative to its trajectory rather than relative to the exit portal which led to a whole lot of misunderstandings besides. It doesn't really make a lot of sense because the orientation of the cube would be the same relative to the portal regardless of its trajectory, which makes it the logical point of reference. But here again the real problem was that they just assumed it was implicitly obvious what they were doing even though it didn't make a whole lot of sense. Of course, I was the one to realise the nature of this misunderstanding whilst they just smugly maintained I was crazy or something.

I seriously don't get how I'm the boogeyman here when the other side is arguing for weird A variants and portals bending light (which I'm still not sure they've even realised yet, themselves) and consistently refuses to listen to reason, when I have been nothing but patient.

>>15291798
And before someone gets on my ass about the "bending light" comment, I'm not talking about redshift/blueshift, which I've already explicitly acknowledged. I'm talking about your shitty diagrams which show the light (which wasn't even originally intended to represent light) making a sudden bend as it passes through the portal.

You people have shown such talent for misinterpretation I feel like I can't possible pre-empt every misunderstanding.

>>15291810
I mean honestly, people gave me shit for failing to represent the portal as moving downwards in >>15279263, as if that would make A (either one) any more sensible, even after I explained my rationale for intentionally omitting this movement. A terminal case of missing the forest for the trees. I feel like I'm running a daycare for autistic children.

>>15269978
>>15270804
>>15270864
>>15289093
>>15289122
>Rounded lines
>Same shades of green *and* red
>Rectangles
>Same software prolly because who can tell amirite
Could I have been responsible for every single diagram in these threads? Or does the probability that there are shared similarities between a series of diagrams on the same subject, drawn in standardised image manipulation software, and which are in explicit dialogue with each other, simply approach one?

I must admit that at this point I am far more fascinated by the psychology behind your rationalisations and group dynamics than anything to do with portals. It's hard to take you serously about things I may or may not fully understand if you're so obviously wrong about things I know for a fact.

>Rounded lines
>Same line width
>Same shades of orange and blue
>Clearly made in MSPaint
>"Unnatural" top-to-bottom ordering
>Has OP's stamp of approval
Uh oh... OP???

>>15292519
PS the cube in the bottom right is a hand-drawn rectangle

OP WTF
You sneaky bastard

the orange and blue should be swapped in that picrel.

which picrel, the post or the link?

>>15246252
>>15247042
>>15258098
>>15270281
>>15270864
>>15279263
>>15279349
>>15292519
>>15292533
bot-generated content

>>15290824
>show us "the true D" again.
the true D is in his mouth

>>15292519
>>Has OP's stamp of approval
it definitely does not, lmao, putting words in my mouth.

>>15292533
now this one I could almost believe. Except the way the blue edges are rendered are completely different, it's obviously vector vs raster at different resolutions there.

>>15294933
>which picrel,

--> >>15279349
it doesn't really make sense anyway though because the portal actually move anyway, and it doesnt show it. here >>15289113

>>15291798
>The original OP posted this [...]
all of this is made up btw, there is no original OP or changes or anything. It's all the same person.

>>15289975
>people who still adamantly stand by >>15275921
Only trolls pick a. That's why its there. Every time.

If you are honestly responding to anyone choosing a, wasting time explaining why the answer isn't something like it, you are the joke. We don't mind watching, that's the entire point of answer A, it's just very unusual you've spent so much time 'convincing' trolls that their troll answers are wrong.

I won't complain ofc, it takes very little effort to get a lot of entertainment out of you.

>>15295116
>no original OP
I'm not sure who you're speaking for as there was certainly an original OP who made those images with the pistons, he's just 1: a troll and 2: long gone

>>15292533
>>15295103
>vector vs raster at different resolutions
left, illustrator/inkscape; right, powerpoint/slides. I can tell by the pixels and having seen many default-line-tool usages in my time

So, green and blue are pure colors in screen chroma, which will always be the exact same in any (reasonable) program. Composite colors like orange and violet aren't precisely defined in terms of their RGB value, those are the ones that will (or could) vary. Red Blue or Green basically won't ever though; virtually every editor has the exact same RGB.

And # of webdevs on different sides of the globe will agree on pure red and blue, but crusade over what "orange" means, versus "yellow," or "red-orange"...
t. exhausted webdev

>>15295132
>Only trolls pick a. That's why its there. Every time.
Right, so OP is a troll, and has collected a gaggle of trolls around him, all very dedicated to being wrong in increasingly implausible novel ways, these past few threads have been utter garbage, and the asylum is effectively being run by the inmates.
I'd just expect at least a few more people picking the right answers besides just myself, you know? Or at least one person engaging in good faith.
>I won't complain ofc, it takes very little effort to get a lot of entertainment out of you.
Well, as long as we're all having fun, right?

>>15295155
Now can you tell them that Illustrator and AutoCAD are not MSPaint? Or were you one of the people pretending those are the same?

>>15295155
>I can tell by the pixels
PS I did blow one of them up by 200%

>>15295155
>>15296021
Like, I don't know if you're just going for the meme or also actually consider the pixels relevant so I thought I'd mention it