Still A, right?

[Anonymous No.15231033]

thread moved on from cubes edition

Can portals really change the speed of light? What if it were accelerating linearly too? That could violate causality, right?

Disclaimer: if you can't understand moving portals, you aren't invited to discuss rotating ones

[Anonymous No.15231041]

>>15231033
a

Light always looks like it goes the same speed, all the time. So even in the blue portal, it has to all look the same speed.

You should use sound instead of light.

[Anonymous No.15231054]

>>15231041
Redshift and blueshift? It doesn't matter though, at worst light would just leave the visible spectrum.

[Anonymous No.15231068]

>>15231033
It's B. Already answered 4 days ago with different colors

[Anonymous No.15231069]

>>15231033
As before, the way you drew this, light will hit the edge of the portal and lose momentum. Just like the cube.

[Anonymous No.15231073]

>>15231069
I'm not the OP from the other thread, someone outed him as a baiting troll unfortunately.

That's clever though. What do you think it would change?

[Anonymous No.15231091]

>>15231068
Well, that diagram is a little different. Orange's axis of rotation is the bottom, not dead center like OP. And the source is a box of white light, not a single color

[Anonymous No.15231105]

>>15231091
Sorry, meant the top not bottom.

[Anonymous No.15231145]

>>15231041
>>15231054
Right. Just because something appears to move faster than light, or even instantly, it can't be used to carry any information because of SR.

[Anonymous No.15231150]

>>15231068
It is B, but your diagram has nothing to do with the reason why.

[Anonymous No.15231158]

>>15231033
why would a rotating portal change the speed of light?

[Anonymous No.15231165]

>>15231158
I think OP is confusing speed and frequency

[Anonymous No.15231185]

>>15231033
>if you can't understand moving portals, you aren't invited to discuss rotating ones
That means only people who give the right answer are invited, which is a paradox, because you said A and yet you're part of the discussion

[Anonymous No.15231201]

>>15231145
>>15231165
Here an example that gets brought up a lot: a rotating laser aimed into space moves way way faster than light (spanning galaxies in moments) but it can't carry any information because of relativity.

[Anonymous No.15231203]

>>15231185
Hah, I don't actually think it's A, I just named the thread that for fun.

[Anonymous No.15231204]

>>15231201
op is basically the same.it can make the lasers span arbitrarily fast from one point to another but not bounce between them.

[Anonymous No.15231209]

>>15231091
>>15231150

its still the same concept. the side its moving away from is red, the constant one is green. &you can just extend it another 90 degrees to go the other way from green to violet.

[Anonymous No.15231211]

>>15231145
If light is moving from its source to you while you're moving towards its source, doesn't it mean that information can travel at C+Vyou?

[Anonymous No.15231214]

>>15231211
No that's exactly what special relativity says cannot happen. Light appears the same speed from every inertial reference point. The source and "I" would both see moving at c even though that doesn't make sense from an 'overall' or 'true' perspective from the side (because such perspective does not really exist).

That's why I think it's better with sound and also probably A with light:
>>15231041

[Anonymous No.15231217]

>>15231091
>>15231209
There's no indication that anything is moving? Am I missing something?

[Anonymous No.15231229]

>>15231217
Compared to the blue line. Because blue isn't the same length as the orange, it looks squished or something instead of just spun. But the diagram shows linked blue and orange portals, the blue one is just shorter (and pointed straight up and down) so it looks more like one of the light rays. By comparison, the orange one on the left is angling off it by (almost) 45 degrees already. As for clockwise/counterclockwise, red makes sense as the more distant one (vs green), otherwise it could go either way I suppose.

[Anonymous No.15231231]

>>15231217
thee angle

[Anonymous No.15231235]

>>15231217
OP pic is drawn much better, I agree. It was changed specifically to address the parts of the other diagram someone couldn't understand easily.

[Anonymous No.15231237]

>>15231229
the original one had a purple line on top instead.. but that doesn't match the rotation in OP so I changed it to red.

[Anonymous No.15231240]

>>15231229
>Compared to the blue line. Because blue isn't the same length as the orange, it looks squished or something instead of just spun.
Okay, but I hardly think that's the point, is it? Just an inaccuracy in the drawing.
>it looks more like one of the light rays
What do you mean by this?
>By comparison, the orange one on the left is angling off it by (almost) 45 degrees already.
But that doesn't tell us anything about movement. You can just create portals on differently oriented surfaces.
>>15231231
What about it?

[Anonymous No.15231243]

>>15231033
>thread moved on from cubes
wouldn't b versus c still depend on orientations?

[Anonymous No.15231245]

>>15231243
You mean if we assume the portal is upside down, then so is the outcome compared to what we'd expect, which would reverse B and C?

[Anonymous No.15231252]

>>15231217
>>15231229
he's not saying the angle is confusing anon,,
he means it doesn't have a clear axis point indication like OPs pic, where the center of rotation is. which is true actually. it could be turning around the top, bottom, middle, etc if you don't consider the color of the rays.

look closely at OP if yu only glanced at the thumbnail. it has a little black star to show where it's rotating around.

[Anonymous No.15231259]

>>15231252
Oh, thanks,I understand now. Yeah, the smaller diagram technically needs a center point and/or circumference mark, in order to be fully constrained.

[Anonymous No.15231262]

>>15231252
It doesn't even indicate any sort of rotation. I'm not sure what it's supposed to show. The lines are wrong, too.

[Anonymous No.15231269]

>>15231033
if the portal was rotating on a vertical axis why would the color distortion be on the horizontal axis you glue guzzling genetic dead end

[Anonymous No.15231276]

>>15231269
Have you considered you're just looking at it the wrong way

[Anonymous No.15231278]

>>15231033
Actually, none of these are right because that's uniform, coherent light. It would create all sorts of weird buzz and scintillations and interference patterns. So the answer is D, 100%

[Anonymous No.15231288]

>>15231278
Did OP fuck up by making it two lamps for no particular reason?

[Anonymous No.15231309]

>>15231214
>Light appears the same speed from every inertial reference point.
no it doesn't

[Anonymous No.15231328]

>>15231068
Figured out what this pic reminds me of

[Anonymous No.15231336]

>>15231252
ok here. Now it shows theyre horizontal too, in case that gets sperged over next.

[Anonymous No.15231339]

>>15231336
what

[Anonymous No.15231345]

>>15231033
That isn't "still A," its a totally different (and wrong) interpretation of the physics than the old A is. So the real answer is D.

[Anonymous No.15231346]

>>15231068
This doesn't even pertain to the problem in the OP. The original from four days ago was posted with this comment:
>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 [red] in picrel is the same distance as green?

[Anonymous No.15231356]

>>15231336
>>15231033
You should really leave the shooping to me, anon... at least use the Line tool.

[Anonymous No.15231369]

>>15231356
no one is arguing that OP isn't clearer, obviously it makes a more coherent (hehe) explanation.

speaking of which:
>>15231278
this got buried and is what actually might matter

>>15231288
shows the portal isnt turning into an area of darkness, rather than more of the same green . Also it sets up the case for interference which Im sure he did on purpose

[Anonymous No.15231376]

>>15231346
These portals aren't 'unmoving', there spinning like OP's. That's why the color changes from greed to red (supposedly). Personally I think it should stay green.

[Anonymous No.15231382]

>>15231278
Sorry I can't make a better explanation of this, but any laser pointer does it. Just look closely at the point, and you'll see it's vibrating/fuzzing like an old TV. That's because the same color going the same way interferes.

>>15231328
blueshifted kek

[sage No.15231410]

>>15231041
>You should use sound instead of light.
can someone with a Line tool draw this version then :)

[sage No.15231416]

>>15231345
Only this anon is actually right so far.
OP's A really is fake.

[Anonymous No.15231418]

>>15231410
>>15231416
My b, messed up the options fields.

>>15231369
>Im sure he did on purpose
So it's deliberately D?

[Anonymous No.15231433]

>>15231033
>>15231041
>>15231054
>>15231145
btw:
Can any /sci/nons really comfortable with physics, explain to me how this all works in geometry or points of view and why it matters? A decent non-GPT explanation with pictures like OP, that's not Ph.D. sentences copied from wikipedia.

What does the speed of light have to do with color? And isn't spinning RPM, rather than ground speed like c?

>>15231201
>>15231204
Like this. What does this mean?

I guess all of that is relevant because to me, if it's like the old one, it should just be all Black? I understand that both the cube and the lightbulb can be colored, but why is the lightbulb different? The cube doesn't change color, it just comes out.

[Anonymous No.15231445]

>>15231433
Already answered in a previous thread, with picrel. Imagine a cube going through, compared to those lines of light.

eli5: it's because light moves in straight lines and takes zero force to bend/stretch. Cubes don't. The other relativity stuff only matters if it's going REALLY fast.

[Anonymous No.15231451]

>>15231433
>the lightbulb can be colored
Sorry, I don't mean the "lightbulb," I know its a laser in this one. I mean the light itself, the particles or whatever.

[Anonymous No.15231456]

>>15231445
>Cubes don't.
A cube going through >>15231336 would come out all bent (or prob. just break), but an image of a cube would just change color.

[Anonymous No.15231460]

>>15231456
Sorry, I meant a cube going through >>15231445
, not the janky mspaint one.

[Anonymous No.15231462]

This problem is unnecessarily ambiguous and complicated with two sources of light in conjunction with a lack of demarcation of orientation on the portals. There is not enough information to meaningfully differentiate between B and C because the symmetry and rotation cannot be specified. The multiple sources of light would also induce complex interference patterns that are not accounted for in this awful model.

A rotating portal would exhibit D behavior as the angle of normal light entering orange would constantly be pointing elsewhere than it previously was. You can easily intuit this by thinking about what orange will show blue when it is facing away from the green light sources entirely.

[Anonymous No.15231466]

>>15231462
he said no chatgpt bruh

[Anonymous No.15231476]

>>15231462
>the angle of normal light entering orange would constantly be pointing elsewhere than it previously was
desu they cant be lasers one way, because of how the waves spread out >>15231033
so, they say its pointing into uniform light the whole time is all.

i think this anon was the first to say lasers
>>15231201
not op

[Anonymous No.15231485]

>>15231462
>D behavior
Care to illustrate this specific one? D behavior could mean almost anything, including "A with stripes," which I'd still be calling A.

(Unless you are the anon who can't draw straight lines, then don't bother.)

[Anonymous No.15231490]

>>15231068
thank you.
/thread

[Anonymous No.15231495]

>>15231490
Lots disagree with that explanation actually. Some anons contend it only makes an angle instead of a rainbow ( picrel >>15231445 ) which would make OP's answer A.

[Anonymous No.15231501]

>>15231433
Don't forget me. I will enthusiastically fellate whomever actually helps me with this with examples and stuff.

[Anonymous No.15231515]

>>15231495
>it only makes an angle instead of a rainbow ( picrel
That picrel doesn't tell me anything, actually. It seems like the box doesn't match up between the sides once you change the angle of the floor like that. It should be up in the air on the bottom and right diagrams.

[Anonymous No.15231525]

>>15231515
>That picrel doesn't tell me anything, actually.
the bottom right box sees the rainbow exactly like the viewer in OP (so it's answer B)

[Anonymous No.15231531]

>>15231525
It's the opposite, actually. According to that diagram, it should be A: >>15231495 because only the angle changes, not the color.

[Anonymous No.15231541]

>>15231531
>actually
>actually
stop making fun of me :(

[Anonymous No.15231557]

>>15231531
>>15231525
What are the symbols between them for?

[Anonymous No.15231558]

>>15231557
Parallel and not parallel.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_(geometry)

[Anonymous No.15231560]

>>15231558
Oh duh, thanks.

[Anonymous No.15231591]

>>15231485
>>15231501
+1 for illustration

[Anonymous No.15231600]

>>15231262
>>15231231
oranges angle is because of rotation, thats how it got there from parallel (which would have both lines the same color)

[Anonymous No.15231639]

>>15231466
wut?
>>15231476
>>15231485
If the thread isn't dead at mid-morning tomorrow when I wake up I can sketch a few frames to visualize what I mean.

[Anonymous No.15231769]

>>15231376
>These portals aren't 'unmoving', there spinning like OP's.
If that's supposed to be the case it is a terrible, terrible diagram. Only made worse by the fact that the description seems to want to make some point about unmoving portals at an angle (which I'm not sure holds true) and also the lines not actually representing the path taken by light through a portal.

[Anonymous No.15231773]

>>15231456
>A cube going through >>15231336 would come out all bent (or prob. just break),
There is literally no reason for it to do that

[Anonymous No.15231826]

>>15231445
>>15231495
>>15231515
>>15231525
>>15231531
>>15231557
>>15231558
ffs...
I made that simply to show that the lines in >>15231068 are wrong. It's not showing rotation. It's showing the same situation from the portal's perspective. The symbols are equals signs. On the left, I use the fact that portals always occupy a single point in space to show that the left-hand pillar would appear to be at an incline compared to the right-hand pillar, seen through the portal. Then, on the right, I show that lines drawn perpendicular to the left-hand pillar are not perpendicular to the right-hand pillar, and that a straight line drawn through the portal between two points on the pillars would come out looking quite differently. But the light doesn't get bent. The whole point is to show how it doesn't.

The original it criticises also used violet instead of red, so I'm not sure if it's even saying anything about the visible spectrum or if it's just le 4chan meme colours

[Anonymous No.15232418]

>>15231462
>>15231476
>>15231485
As promised, prepping a visualization (bumping for time). Here's where I'm starting from. Someone chime in if they have an issue with the setup, otherwise I'll continue on using my model.

[Anonymous No.15232422]

>>15232418
Forgot pic.

[Anonymous No.15232451]

>replying to the bot

[Anonymous No.15232489]

>>15232451
The "bot" is one of the few people here who managed to say anything sensible at all.

[Anonymous No.15232496]

>>15231252
>>15231336
>>15231356
he means like this
so its clear which direction its turning
(the blue portal is still too small tho)
also your axis is wrong

[Anonymous No.15232503]

>>15232496
>axis is wrong
nvm i get it, your axis is changed to match op

[Anonymous No.15232523]

Seriously can't tell any more whether everyone is so stupid they're all overlooking what seem to me to be incredibly obvious flaws in their arguments, or if I'm the idiot for missing what seem to be such obvious truths to them.

[Anonymous No.15232635]

>>15232418
>>15232422
Sorry it took so long, I ended up teaching myself how to use Inkscape a bit. I also added a triangle & pentagon in the bottom-left for a naming convention.

Here are some key frames to consider, and you will have to imagine a smoother animated visualization yourself.
>(1) Facing away from lights sources
Neither light source triangle (TRI) or pentagon (PENT) are visible to an observer looking at the blue portal.
>(2) TRI appears
As we sweep towards TRI, we can notice TRI's lights can begin to appear. Note, I have not included any of the beam's light in this image because I am treating them as beams for the sake of the model. This is a simplification just to build intuition.
>(3) Full frontal TRI
The light source is now fully visible, and the parallel beams are now perceivable by an observer normal to the blue portal. Doppler/redshift effects are evident as the light paths near the black marker grow a little with time (causing "red"shift) and the paths opposite of the marker are shrinking (causing "UV"-shift). The light will appears as the source in the center because there is no change in traversal distance. With a more realistic model, you would of course begin to see non-parallel/-normal light begin to appear, but I'm not modeling light cones in a silly picture.
>(4) TRI leaving, PENT entering
Both beams are now traversing through the portal, but are not perceivable from the viewer because they are not entering normal to the portal. With three key frames you can see the motion of TRI's rays from frames 2, 3, and 4.
>(5) Full frontal PENT
An exact duplicate of frame 3 but with PENT instead.
>(6) PENT disappears
Similar to frame 2, except PENT's light can is now leaving the view rather than entering it
>(~) Return to frame 1 as we rotate looking at void

[Anonymous No.15232644]

>>15231033
>if you can't understand moving portals, you aren't invited to discuss rotating ones
OP, anons even keep saying the diagrams in this thread arent even moving, let alone rotating, no matter how far we move on from that. You've probably underestimated the average /sci/poster's Dunning–Kruger magnitude.
>>15231217
>no indication that anything is moving
>>15231495
>Some anons contend it only makes an angle instead of a rainbow
>>15231769
>unmoving portals at an angle

Where are those bouncers?

[Anonymous No.15232649]

>>15232496
forgot to picrel omg
i am the moron today

[Anonymous No.15232656]

>>15232649
Thank kek, I thought you were referring to the cut-off fingerpainted one. This makes way more sense with your post lmao

[Anonymous No.15232682]

>>15232644
Anon, if someone draws a shitty diagram in which nothing is indicating any sort of motion, but that does show a completely misguided interpretation of what a straight line through a portal looks like, with the accompanying description making explicit mention of unmoving portals at an angle, and further discussion focusing on portals behaving like a "curved lens" or "prism"... then maybe, just maybe, it's not actually making the point you think it's making about moving portals, but rather talking about unrelated nonsense. Even if it apparently put someone on the right track. Why can't I criticise the absolutely absurd idea that angled portals refract light without you taking it as a comment on rotating portals causing red and blue shift? It's not me conflating the two.

This is why I thought >>15231328 was the perfect metaphor. It's completely opaque at first glance, and even though people have retro-actively imposed some sense on it, none of it appears to be what the author intended, if indeed anything sensible was being conveyed at all.

[Anonymous No.15232693]

>>15231252
>>15231150
>>15231259
>>15231336
>>15232649
I FINALLY understand what you are all bitching about with the "axis" too, lmao

Just say "its unclear where it rotates from" next time, please

[Anonymous No.15232697]

>>15232693
Or draw a big circle like OP that shows the outer extents of the diameter, so it's clear to a 5th grader where the center is

[Anonymous No.15232698]

>>15232693
It's unclear that it rotates at all.

[Anonymous No.15232713]

>>15231445
>>15231525
>>15231531

Can someone do the same for this one? With a circle(s) and arrowhead preferably. I also don't understand the right side, the top looks like A and the bottom looks like B. Does the "not parallel" mean B is wrong, because the bottom right one that looks like B, isn't the same as the top right (too right is the same as bottom left, which is "parallel" instead)

[Anonymous No.15232715]

>>15232693
>>15232697
Sorry, meant to chain these
>>15232713

[Anonymous No.15232719]

>>15231033
Always A. That's how They at MENSA construct these questions.

[Anonymous No.15232760]

>>15231033
It's B, and you don't even need portals to do this. Just put a bunch of detectors right where the "portal" is and see what colors they detect.

[Anonymous No.15232768]

>>15232713
The portals aren't rotating here, so there's no shift. It's simply a correction to the trajectory shown in >>15231068. Top right shows where those lines would actually go. Bottom right shows the lines you'd have to draw to connect points on the pillars. Bottom left has no lines indicating any trajectory at all but is merely an alternate representation of top left, which then serves as the basis for the demonstration on the right.

[Anonymous No.15232860]

But, how does it decide between A and B (or C)? It's like a snapshot of >>15231068 where the turning is frozen, right?

[Anonymous No.15232927]

>>15232693

>>15232649
like a clock hand
>>15231336
>>15231033
like a propeller

>>15231068
unclear which; very strong opinions each way

[Anonymous No.15232942]

>>15232927


>>15231445
This one is definitely like a clock hand too, and it clearly turns counterclockwise. That's what makes it better. Look closely at the start, how it's different from >>15231068 (picrel)

[Anonymous No.15233073]

>>15232942
So the bottom one is a later snapshot? Is that how the bottom right one works too?

[Anonymous No.15233510]

>>15231041
anyone? Sound?

[Anonymous No.15233526]

>>15233510
I think the huge diagram above is supposed to be for that. The one with like a dozen options

[Anonymous No.15233559]

>>15231445
Anon the joke in these threads is everyone pretends to be retarded, why are you giving a correct explanation?

[Anonymous No.15233604]

>>15233559
>everyone pretends to be retarded
that's just the people who answer a, kek
i applaud op for including more options

[Anonymous No.15233659]

>>15231433
>>15231501
I am back /sci/

>>15232649
>>15232942
These two look more or less the same to me. That's the point, right? The bigger one has more details but they both prove the same answer right?

>>15232635
I'm sorry, this all goes way avobe (or beside) my head. I do understand the appeal of using specific jargon and numbers like that, to be precise. But unfortunately, It sounds like you're describing how to 'calculate' the way things look, like writing a program, but I'm asking why they look that way, not how they look exactly. I understand that OPs A-D are simplified a little just like the other diagrams.

>>15231445
>eli5: it's because light moves in straight lines and takes zero force to bend/stretch. Cubes don't.
Could anyone give an explanation like OPs pic instead? Something like this, that this anon wrote to go with his diagram. It makes a lot more sense to me than the diagram does.

[Anonymous No.15233675]

>>15233604
>for including more options
and for leaving A as a troll answer

[Anonymous No.15233680]

>>15233659
>more or less the same
technically they are spinning different directions.. so one would be answer B and the other answer C.

[Anonymous No.15233689]

>>15233659
>>15232635
>>15231591
+1 for explanation of illustration (and/or second illustration) btw.

super duper impressed with the artistic part of it though. it's a TON prettier than like >>15231336 I but I guess it needs more commentary.

[Anonymous No.15233706]

>>15233659
>but I'm asking why they look that way,
Which portion?

Color changes/gradients are caused by red-/blue-shifting. It's caused by the growing and shrinking paths light must travel before being visible to an observer of the blue portal.

Why red-shift the top and blue-shift the bottom? The direction of rotation. If it were spun the opposite direction the red-/blue-shifting would reverse where it appears on the portal.

If none of your rim speeds significantly approach c, you'll never notice the shifting. It will just look green when light rays are visible.

[Anonymous No.15233732]

>>15233680
Okay, this part I get, that was a simple mistake.

>>15233689
>it's a TON prettier than like >>15231336 I b
Problem is, I can understand the side view a lot better, even despite the quality. It's immediately obvious what the point of everything is (except the weird floor).

[Anonymous No.15233818]

>>15231485
bump for D pic as well
question marks just make me angry

[Anonymous No.15233826]

>>15233732
quality is not the same as Elegance, or conceptual clarity
see: every single wikipedia article. crappy modern textbooks compared to ones from the 70s. dynamic typing.

[Anonymous No.15233855]

>>15232635
Here's the things I think are wrong, that I don't really understand their relevance. You have two sources explicit like that, even though in OPs, they're meant to show the room is green all around >>15231476 . The diagram on bottom left doesn't intuitively follow from top-left for me, and there's no explanation of what links them. And then everything on the right, I don't understand what the numbers mean. Is it chronological or are those supposed to be my options like A-D, in which case, which one is correct The way I'm asking it? The farthest right ones don't look like any light is coming through at all, is that because like OP says, it's moving faster than c? I don't get it at all..except the middle left you copied right from OP :(

Finally, I still have questions from earlier that aren't really addressed.
>>15231433
The speed of light is a ground speed but the portal's is an RPM. Finally, where are the examples with a colored cube? The one what would change color, flex, or break. It looks like you've only drawn the version with light particles. I sort of get what >>15231445 is trying to say, if I imagined a cube in place of the bent light, it would come out like a triangle or a trapezoid. But that pic doesn't really intuitively relate to OP for me.

[Anonymous No.15233865]

>>15233855
Sorry, i meant a parallelogram. I still don't get the rest of that pic >>15231445 either though. The only part I sort of understand is the beginning part >>15232942
because it looks just like >>15232649

[Anonymous No.15233893]

>>15233855
>>15233706
Sorry I didn't see your post!

What I don't understand is more about how the rest of the diagram comes from / goes with the middle-left that looks like OP. I know the "smooahed" light is purple vs green and the "stretched" is red, like >>15231068 . I understand that part even in the simpler drawings. But I don't get the other parts of your diagram. Especially the part that seems to agree with me about it being all black, on the far right. I don't get how it could do both?

[Anonymous No.15233900]

I'll be back in a few hours if that's enough time. thanks.

[Anonymous No.15234070]

>>15233900
nta but I can try explaining it. I get most of it, I think, from the diagram >>15232635

[Anonymous No.15234216]

>>15233659
>>15233706
>>15233893
Ok, you understand Doppler effects (redshift/blushift), which is the third picture of the "basics" section. I'm not sure what you mean about the far right being all black. If you can explain another way or more verbosely I'll try to answer.

[Anonymous No.15234221]

>>15233855
(1/2)
Checked. Thanks for the feedback. Let me go point by point.
>OPs, they're meant to show the room is green all around
I didn't interpret it that way. If that is the case where the room is green all around, then the blue portal will appear: (1) as green at very low rim speeds / slow rotation, or (2) red/blueshifted in the same manner as Frames 3 & 5 per my illustration as rim velocity becomes significant (v approaching c).
>The diagram on bottom left doesn't intuitively follow from top-left for me.
Top-left "basics" are my conventions made visually explicit. Bottom-right is my simplified model of OP's "problem"/question. I explicitly did this so now we know that we didn't interpret the OP the same way (you thought it was an all green room). Nothing wrong with that, as I mentioned in my first post >>15231462 it was extremely ambiguous. I added what clarity I thought was necessary.
>everything on the right, I don't understand what the numbers mean
Large, bold numbers in the bottom-left of each frame are the chronological order. Small numbers near the colored rays exiting the gray-box light sources and the side-view of the blue portal are just to keep track of which ray is which for the reader.
>The farthest right ones don't look like any light is coming through at all
As I modeled it with parallel ray light sources, I don't consider the light to be visible to the observer until they are normal/perpendicular to the portal. This would not be the case for a flood/point source traveling radially-outward. I did not use this in my model/example because I am making a simple model for intuition purposes.
>it's moving faster than c?
No, rim velocity was specified as v << c per the model. Enough for red/blueshift to be visible though.

[Anonymous No.15234242]

>>15233855
(2/2)
>Finally, I still have questions from earlier that aren't really addressed.
>>15231433
Checked again. Didn't see this post earlier.
>explain to me how this works in geometry...PoV...why it matters?
Trying to do what I can here, non-forum environments make it tricky when persistence is impossible.
>What does the speed of light have to do with color?
Doppler effects, aka redshift/blueshift are caused by moving in relation to a wave source. Moving away causes your perception of a propagating wave to slow down, or to say that the perceived frequency decreases. Decreased frequency is proportional to increased wavelength, causing redshift. The inverse is true when moving towards wave sources (blueshift). The degree of alteration is a function of your relative velocity (moving away at a faster rate causes more extreme redshift. Moving towards at a faster rate causes more extreme blueshift).
>And isn't spinning RPM, rather than ground speed like c?
Good point, this is true. That is why I am more specific and mention "rim speed/velocity". By this, I mean the velocity of the furthest edge of my portal in free space. I can't (shouldn't) make my model have a portal spinning so fast the edges would be moving faster than c, it would make a bunch of anons upset because it falls outside our conventional limits of modeling where we all feel relatively (hehe) comfortable.
>>15231201
>>15231204
>What does this mean?
This is an odd "illusion", but mostly just tricky wordplay, and I wouldn't worry about it until you get more of these basics down-pat. It's a misconception where people are stating a ray, instantaneously traced out to its termination point very far away, "travels" faster than c. It misses the point of it being virtual/fictitious

[Anonymous No.15234252]

>>15234216
First off:
>it being all black, on the far right. I don't get how it could do both?

Moreover, I don't get how what you're said relates to the bottom-left.

For one, the square and the pentagon completely baffle me. I have no clue what they mean. I get that the original one uses a cube, and I guess that's relevant because of the smooshing, but where is the pentagon from?

There are answers 1-6 and you have green lines 1-6, are they supposed to correspond?? Because all the lines are in some of the answers, and none are in others. Moreover, those straight lines aren't like OPs, that just come and go all directions at once. If you're ignoring/hiding the interference effects, I don't understand the point of making individual beams and numbering them anyway, rather than just a big source(s) like OP.

I'm not sure how to be more verbose. I don't get the bottom left, or anything on the right. They look like completely random stuff to me compared to the middle left and the other, simpler diagrams. Especially baffling to me is the far right column where there is NO light. I would like the transitions in your diagram explained, instead of just arranged together. Like I said, I'm not contending that you (or anyone) can't "calculate" me the right solution. I'd like the "why," like this: >>15231201 >>15231204 or like this one: >>15232693
>Just say "its unclear where it rotates from"

Can you explain/show it from the side maybe, like >>15232649 ? That's probably easier to understand. There's a ton of unfamiliar stuff in your diagram that I don't understand, and the overall structure is unintuitive as well. I don't get what it's trying to say with all those numbers and the pentagon, or what that has to do with the "why." Sorry.

>>15234070
If you're still here, I'd really, really appreciate it. another description/drawing from someone else might help me understand this one.

[Anonymous No.15234270]

>>15234221
>Top-left "basics" are my conventions made visually explicit. Bottom-right is my simplified model of OP's "problem"/question.
Do you mean #6 on the bottom-right? or both? I don't get it...sorry...

[Anonymous No.15234277]

>>15234252

>>15231445
This is another good example, lots of anons have explained the confusing parts of it already:
>>15231456
>an image of a cube would just change color.
>>15231525
>bottom right box sees the rainbow exactly like the viewer in OP (so it's answer B)
>>15231558
>Parallel and not parallel.

but the big one ( >>15232635 ) hasn't been discussed and explained in words like that. Rather, its sort of just hoping i read it the same way, and interpret it all myself.

Another thing that would help is detail crops with more specific stuff added to show what its for. Like he added in >>15232942 .

[Anonymous No.15234280]

>>15234252
>the square and the pentagon completely baffle me
I put those there to simply ID each light source. That is what I refer to as TRI and PENT in the text of that post. >>15232635
>There are answers 1-6
There are 1-6 frames, not answers, but I see how this was not clear. Each frame shows that the orange portal has rotated ~45° about the red-axis between frames.
> those straight lines aren't like OPs, that just come and go all directions at once
Per >>15234221 I simply interpretted the OP to mean something different. This is why being more explicit is helpful, and that's why I'm trying to do to a greater degree (but not flawlessly).
>I don't get the bottom left
It's my simplified model per the way I understood OP. The right is the animated interpretation of that model.
>the far right column where there is NO light.
Caused by my model's use of parallel rays for simplicity, again a choice from my differing interpretation of OP.
>I would like the transitions in your diagram explained
I'd like to animate this with a GIF for clarity, but unfortunately all free animation software packages are pretty awful.
>Can you explain/show it from the side
pic related, that's what these are (circled in red).
>the overall structure is unintuitive as well
Sorry, made it up as I went this morning.

[Anonymous No.15234282]

>>15234270
Meant bottom-left, sorry!
>>15234277
>but the big one ( >>15232635 (You) ) hasn't been discussed and explained in words like that
I'm not exactly a great teacher, I'm just doing what I can.

[Anonymous No.15234329]

>>15231033
Where is the blue portal located? It's 'attached' too, right, not just floating in space?

[Anonymous No.15234331]

>>15234329
on the back yeah

[Anonymous No.15235258]

>>15234331
The back of the wall or the back of the portal?

[Anonymous No.15235513]

>>15231445
>>15231456
>>15231460
>>15231495
>>15232713
>>15232942
>>15233559
>>15233659
>>15233855
>>15233865
>>15234277
As the original author of the diagram you're all discussing here, let me just pop in to say you're all misinterpreting it. It's a criticism of >>15231068, which I reckon you're all also misinterpreting in the same way.

It's trivially obvious that moving/rotating portals cause red/blue shift and there's really no need to belabour the point with a bunch of edits all showing the same thing. But while you were busy adding a hinge to the portal and changing the colour of the light and everything, you all seem to have overlooked something obvious: THE LIGHT MAKES A 45 DEGREE BEND THROUGH THE PORTAL. Which is obviously wrong. So I drew a diagram, which I've explained twice already in this thread by the way, which simply shows the same thing several times from two different perspectives to show which path the light would take.

And somehow, just like with the original, you take this drawing and just... imagine it to say something profound about moving portals. Which it simply does not show. Draw your own fucking diagram, it'll be better suited to your purposes.

[Anonymous No.15235518]

>>15234331
If the blue portal rotates with the orange then the answer is A.

[Anonymous No.15235542]

>>15235513
As the poster who did >>15232635 I recommend you repost which diagrams you did and are referring to because this thread is cumbersome now. Maybe restate the problem concisely too.

[Anonymous No.15235555]

>>15235542
Clearly I drew the diagram referenced by all the posts I quoted (>>15231445) and I'm referring to >>15231068 as I explicitly said in my post

[Anonymous No.15235598]

>>15235555
>clearly
Agreed to disagree.
In contrast, >>15231445 is a sensible diagram, very easy to understand. Good work.

[Anonymous No.15235628]

>>15235598
>Agreed to disagree.
Sorry, didn't mean to bitch at you. It's just frustrating to have to explain something thrice and still see people blithely carry on talking about it as if it's saying something else entirely and trying to divine what it could possibly mean.
>sensible diagram, very easy to understand
That's what I thought, and yet...
Yours too, by the way.

[Anonymous No.15235649]

>>15235628
The point >>15233559 brings up is a very common sentiment among users here, so never take any thread too seriously without checking your ego at the door. It's also obvious that optics (and portals) are going to fly over most people's heads because it is a tricky topic for the average human. It requires good spatial-visual intelligence or strict adherence to applied conventions and previous exposure to similar problem types. It took me several hours back in middle school to teach this to myself in the library way back when, but you can see people replying in a few minutes saying the diagrams/explanations are wrong, confusing, etc. when we also can't agree on what the OP was even posing as the question.

It all comes with the territory.

[Anonymous No.15235674]

>>15235649
I just want someone to acknowledge that >>15231068 shows the light bending 45 degrees for no reason. I'm beginning to question my sanity here.

[Anonymous No.15235703]

>>15231033
>Can portals really change the speed of light? What if it were accelerating linearly too? That could violate causality, right?

No.
Everyone commenting on these subjects is retarded. They cannot comprehend the fact the portal does not interact with anything entering it or exiting it. For some reason this is just beyond any reason, beyond thought. Maybe I'm just some fucking portal genius, because everyone is over complicating this out of stupidity.
If you pull a string through the portal does it bend? No, it's angle may change depending on the axis of the portals but it will always be straight.

>It's still A, right?
Yes. The portal does nothing to anything entering it or exiting it.

Stop triggering my tism

#Rant

[Anonymous No.15235721]

>>15235703
I can assure you, you are not a portal genius.

[Anonymous No.15235850]

>>15235674
You're probably insane, but for other reasons. The angle came from nowhere and is wrong.
>>15235721
The only issue is the 'tude.

[Anonymous No.15235948]

>>15235850
>You're probably insane, but for other reasons.
Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.

[Anonymous No.15236160]

>>15234280

Sorry...now I REALLY don't understand... even the other diagram, I guess I didn't get that one either.

[Anonymous No.15236581]

>>15233659
>>15233689
>>15233706

Here's an analogy: I throw a ball and ask why it goes the way it does, you provide me with a quadratic parabola and the 2-mass formula for gravitation, but I really want to know more loke "its always tending downward the same amount each second" or "it looks exactly like falling from the right angle." and then "as it travels, the earth pulls on it the same regardless of it's height, until it hits the ground. " Not like " here's an example trajectory of a ballistic missile and where it lands.". Sorry, I know that's a bad explanation.

For starters, I guess I still get this one, even though I don't get his later "parallel" or "equal" version with four parts; >>15231336 / >>15232649 . Because the colors are straightforward, lengths are really sensible, and the prism / rainbow effect is clear from the side view (even though it's only one side, unlike OP). The explanation with bending and all the other stuff that goes with it, seems to explain all the intermediate steps and how they relate to each other. If you could illustrate explain yours (or OP) more like that, I guess, that would be more natural for me in particular, since those seem more intuitive to me personally.

[Anonymous No.15236597]

>>15234070
is this anon still around too?

[Anonymous No.15236645]

>>15232693
>>15232927
This is another great example, the thing with propellers too. Its more clear than saying "a circle, defined by the function ... and coefficients such as..." when what I really care about is, what makes it that way.

[Anonymous No.15236721]

>>15236581
I'm willing to make an improved illustration for you, but as I discussed with the other anon only a couple posts above yours posts >>15231336 and >>15232649 are invalid solution. If you "understand" them, then your intuition is completely off and you're going to have to grant me a pinch of faith that I'm going to try and show you a proper solution.

I will try to make it simpler and more explicit now that I have a better grasp of Inkscape and Gimp for making graphics. It's going to take probably 1-2 hours to make since I'm still not home.

[Anonymous No.15236899]

>>15236721
Started working on the image. Let me know if any part is confusing so far.

[Anonymous No.15236901]

>>15231237
What original one, by the way, is this referring to?

[Anonymous No.15236982]

Alright, that's enough for me tonight because I need to cook dinner and have some fun. You guys should go over this and let me know what I can change to make it easier to understand or read.

[Anonymous No.15237029]

>>15234331
>>15235258
Okay, then what's the Blue portal doing / attached to in this scenario:
>>15232422 and
>>15232635 ? It looks like it has to be diffy?
Sorry if ithas already been mentioned, this thread is a tldr mess

[Anonymous No.15237162]

>>15231033
>really change the speed of light?
dont see any discussoin of this at all, only arguing about the dumb boring thing

[Anonymous No.15237364]

>>15231416
>>15231345
you have all been played for fools
all this talking and no one actually bothered to think about A again

[Anonymous No.15237506]

>>15236901
It's >>15222790, which is wrong on so many levels you can almost forgive people for reading whatever they like into it

[Anonymous No.15238162]

Portals don't exist even less so moving portals (relative to each other). So arguing about anything concerning portals is pointless.

[Anonymous No.15238176]

>>15238162
If you can make a video game about them you should be able to meaningfully discuss them

[Anonymous No.15238207]

... really, anon?

[Anonymous No.15238376]

extremely glad I didn't have that anon as a professor desu

[Anonymous No.15238602]

>>15238207
>>15238376
Whomst are you referring to

[Anonymous No.15239263]

more opaque than the original imo

[Anonymous No.15239634]

I think the implication is that, in order for the basic principle behind B or C to work, it actually implies it's undefined (and D). Does that help?

[Anonymous No.15239642]

>>15231041
Alternately, if you want to think about it like sound, which I prefer. Think of the red like bass and the violet like treble. It comes out as one note but the two ends 'hear' it different. That's separate from the speed of the sound though, which is always the same.

[Anonymous No.15239681]

Imagine a bunch of instrument strings, trombones tube, .wav waves, whatever; passing through >>15231068 vertically instead of the red and green lines of light.

Like a guitar or piano on its side; lowest note red and highest note green. See how the angle is like a piano's? You can imagine the light just like the strings or pipes on an instrument. The ones getting "fed out" by the portal and lengthened (green in >>15231068 and violet in OP) are being tuned down like bass, and the ones getting "pulled tight" and short, are getting tuned up. The angle's sharpness determines the range. So if you were listening to a speaker in the left box (as a person in the right), you'd hear bass at the ceiling and treble at the floor. Just imagine the exact same thing, but instead of pitch, it gains (or loses) color (which is what >>15231068 shows, it seems like you understand that part).

Iwill try to make a sketch of that in case you don't understand the scenario, just not right this minute, sorry.

[Anonymous No.15239787]

>>15234277
>>15234270
>>15234252
I am Back, sorry again for the wait.
I showed this to several frineds at work today! some of them knew the game but none were familiar with the original pusher-plate meme/question, so it sort of fell flat.

>>15239642
>>15239681
This actually sounds (kek) sort of reasonable to me. I don't play music but I have done some editing/"producing" (big quotes there) for videos and kids theater, I'm familiar with moving around a big speaker playing full orchestra (or like, white noise), makes it sound higher and lower in different angles. And passing noisy things in the car, etc, I know that's basically the same "doppler effect," but, I guess the "speed" isn't really the same, right? I did say >>15233893
>I know the "smooahed" light is purple vs green and the "stretched" is red
but I guess I'm thinking of the opposite directions of "stretched." As in, I could tune a harp by making the strings different lengths, OR by pulling the same length strings tighter (or both), but I'm not sure which corresponds to "stretch" here.

If I get what you're saying, it's like, on the left an entire drumkit kick to snare, playing normally sounding together. But on the right, three mics (or kids in a trenchcoat) get treble, mids, and bass (counting from the ground up). Rather than the full normal spectrum on the left.

Full Drumkit is how i explain "white noise" to kids, hope it still applies?

>>15239634
Sorry, that doesn't help either.

>>15235513
>>15235542
>>15235555
I must still not get (either) these 100%, I guess. b/c it seems like they say different things. I guess they mean 'angle' and 'rotation' differently.
>>15235674
>shows the light bending 45 degrees for no reason
this part I really, REALLY don't get. To me, both of those light lines are straight, unlike >>15231445 's. 100% left to right.

>>15234329
>>15234331
>>15235258
The back of the portal is wall, right?? IIRC from the game, a portal not attached flies in a line at fixed speed.

[Anonymous No.15239822]

>>15239787 cont.

>>15235703
>the portal does not interact with anything entering it or exiting it.
This is what I thought at the start as well

>>15235850
>The angle came from nowhere and is wrong.
Can you elaborate on this part? I thought the portal could be angled however we choose, just like OP and >>15232635 .

>>15234242
>It misses the point of it being virtual/fictitious
This too, because it sounds fine to me? I remember a really popular sf novel as a kid, they basically communicated with ships this way, but it was more developed than just rotating around.

>>15234280
what are all the small lines in this one for? And, I want to apologize in advance, but I sort of wanted something simpler and less technical than your first diagram, this one has even more numbers, and the red circles I don't get, and the splitting...sorry, but to me this is like Graduate School version.

>>15236982
this is, well, it sort of has the same problem already. I kind of want more of a visual explanation. Not more indices, xyz; the gpt-style "ELI5" stuff I appreciate, but i'd prefer that to be explained by the diagram itself, if that makes sense. Instead of all the precise x and y and stuff, just sort of sketch the parts you're describing instead, even if its just with arrows and dotted lines like >>15232649 instead of with the sort of CAD geometry that >>15232942 is doing (which is cool, but again, it's sort of like I described here >>15236581 where someone can definitely program a simulation with the information your diagrams, but it still don't show anything on its own about /why/ it happens.) Sorry, I don't mean its not possible. I blame myself for explaining badly, because like I said the smaller sketch you made while i was away >>15234280 seems to have gone the opposite direction, at least the way I'm thinking.

Sorry again. All I can keep saying for sure is, the ones like >>15231336 that are visually simple and dont have to reference terms/paragraphs/indices elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.15239851]

>>15236721
>posts >>15231336 and >>15232649 (You) are invalid solution
btw, I Totally get what you mean, they are showing things differently and not in agreement with each other, plus it's not how yours or OP does the motion thing with the circle. And also I Have read, like you said, that the point is about angles in the more complicated CAD one (or 2), but the crappy/mspaint ones are meant to be about rotating. I don't see how it's bending though, how it still goes across. It seems to me a lot like the >>15239681 analogy actually where one is getting longer (the portal moves away from its source as it goes) and one is getting shorter (the portal moves towards its source). I don't mean yours isn't clear visually, and its much nicer than the quality of those. But having just the few thing(s) that shows what it needs to by itself, to get started, is very helpful when I don't understand the physicality, rather than the model/simulation (which is super neat, and I'm very interested in getting back to it once we're past this misunderstanding, but I need the "why" first to visualize and interpret the precise parts).

[Anonymous No.15239854]

>>15239822 cont.


>>15236721
>posts >>15231336 and >>15232649 are invalid solution
btw, I Totally get what you mean, they are showing things differently and not in agreement with each other, plus it's not how yours or OP does the motion thing with the circle. And also I Have read, like you said, that the point is about angles in the more complicated CAD one (or 2), but the crappy/mspaint ones are meant to be about rotating. I don't see how it's bending though, how it still goes across. It seems to me a lot like the >>15239681 analogy actually where one is getting longer (the portal moves away from its source as it goes) and one is getting shorter (the portal moves towards its source). I don't mean yours isn't clear visually, and its much nicer than the quality of those. But having just the few thing(s) that shows what it needs to by itself, to get started, is very helpful when I don't understand the physicality, rather than the model/simulation (which is super neat, and I'm very interested in getting back to it once we're past this misunderstanding, but I need the "why" first to visualize and interpret the precise parts).

[Anonymous No.15239876]

>>15239854

>>15237506
Btw I see this model/interpretation is a different thing, it links to an older thread which isn't about light, that I already read most of. In that one the colors don't actually represent beams/colors of light, it's just showing shortest-path from points A to B on the top and bottom respectively. Which is the same as the bottom-right of >>15231445 (with a "stationary" angle before OPs) that shows, the shortest paths aren't the same as the 'parallel'/old paths. And yes, I know >>15231445 shows the unmoving angle, I don't mean to keep misspeaking about that.

[Anonymous No.15239899]

>>15239854
>>15239822
actually, scratch all that. If you can just change the existing (or current) diagram to "strings" like >>15239681 >>15239787 sort of describe, I'm sure I could understand that. I've seen sound diagrammed technically that way, any with the beats/tempo in like, concentric arc, to show how it bends and bounces around. Those are very easy to understand.

[Anonymous No.15239914]

>>15239787
>The back of the portal is wall, right??
only middle anon here but yes. Im sure that is what OP and >>15232635 intended.. both portals are attached and its just the blue back-side you (obviously) cant see with that perspective. Hope you didnt think it was a grid arrangement of blue portals on a big &separate wall :p

[Anonymous No.15239927]

>>15239914
>both portals are attached
So even in the new parts of >>15232635 , there's a wall behind the orange portal (and blue portal, not shown)? Can mr. >>15232635 confirm that for me? Because I guess that does sort of matter, I don't see why there wouldn't be any "blank" ones like on the right, if it were truly like OPs.

[Anonymous No.15239932]

>>15239927
yes...absolutely.. Ask op about his too.
is that what youve been hung up on this while time?

[Anonymous No.15239937]

>>15239932
not the guy who drew it desu. Im just saying thats obviously right: otherwise they arent open or at a defined angle. just sort of a blob in space.

[Anonymous No.15239943]

>>15239932
>>15239937
see >>15237029
>diffy

[Anonymous No.15239956]

>>15231033
1. Take a laser pointer
2. Wave it around
According to (You) it will change colors when you do that.

[Anonymous No.15239959]

You guys literally can just build a level with lasers and slanted panels, and check for yourself.

[Anonymous No.15239960]

>>15239822
>>15239854
>>15239899
probably asking a little too much of anon desu.. i cant imagine anything clearer than >>15232927
>like a clock hand
versus
>like a propeller

[Anonymous No.15239963]

>>15239959
the portal disappears in the game.

[Anonymous No.15239967]

>>15239963
No? You can put a portal on slanted panels just fine.

[Anonymous No.15239968]

>>15239956
Oh my god *this* makes so much sense. But is that still true when I wave it around near c ? I know one is RPM and one is ground speed.

[Anonymous No.15239970]

>>15239968
>But is that still true when I wave it around near c ?
No, but laser pointer will shatter long before that

[Anonymous No.15239971]

>>15239959
>>15239967
When they start to rotate like OP though, in the game they just vanish. Same as >>15232635
etc.

[Anonymous No.15239975]

>>15239971
You can always make a stop-motion animation of it rotating. Just re-place it when it vanishes, screenshot it on all angles, stitch screenshots together into a video.

[Anonymous No.15239976]

>>15239970
Okay but the portal in OP won't. That's at least one big difference. Also, I don't especially care about the precise physics of laser pointers IRL, because there aren't any portals IRL either (as far as I know!).

[Anonymous No.15239978]

>>15239976
When you start accelerating wormholes at near-c, time-travel becomes a problem

[Anonymous No.15239984]

>>15239970
>pointer will shatter long before that
&I brought this up earlier the other way around.. they said i was wrong.
>>15231456
>>15231460

[Anonymous No.15239998]

>>15239978
I don't care about the time travel thing (yet) either; rather, I'm just interested in the rainbow/color-change, as all these other diagrams are said/intended to demonstrate. I also don't care about the Quantum part with the interference patterns (again, yet).

[Anonymous No.15240007]

>>15239975
>You can always make a stop-motion animation of it rotating.
Also, I know this fundamentally doesn't work. I've taken my Calculus anon, the snapshots would have to be infinitesimally close together and also account for the interpolation between, in order to model the effects of motion. This is like saying Newton's apple wouldn't bonk him on the head with any force, because in highspeed photos its stationary.

[Anonymous No.15240027]

>>15240007
A lot of Anons are having trouble with visualizing angles and how it would look in general. My solution would help with that, the only thing it doesn't solve is the redshift/blueshift.

[Anonymous No.15240036]

>>15240027
Okay, well, I'm asking about that. I'm not OP, or the two guys with diagrams arguing about angles. See >>15231433 >>15231501 >>15233659

[Anonymous No.15240049]

>>15240027
>My solution would help with that
I think it also wouldn't help with the original meme (or the old one inkscape-anon linked to, with 4 angles.) I totally understand that, in the way those are originally drawn/expressed, A is unphysical. So if you're saying your solution is helpful, I'm afraid, it sounds like its only helpful for the people who assume/choose A for those old versions, the way it's literally drawn.

[Anonymous No.15240086]

>>15239956
Also, I am pretty sure that's only the same if the laser only goes straight into the very middle of the orange portal, instead of source light going in all directions.

[Anonymous No.15240123]

>>15235513
Uhh, I'd also love if you are still here, could clarify this. Even though you disagree with inkscape anon. I know you are telling me to
>Draw (my) own fucking diagram
but I'd have to understand OP's or >>15234280 to do that. Id rather it if you could either use your formatting/method to explain/show
>>15232635 and vice versa. Because I really don't understand the part about the light making a bend, why that has to happen for you, because it's not like the source is two point-narrow lasers; they're big uniform lights pointing all over, like OP. So it can't matter what the "old" path is at any given time, just the Shortest Path, which is how >>15231068 and bottom-right of >>15231445 are aiming with their rays . It doesn't really bend ever, because each light particle going through is separate. Like a garden hose.

For someone who responds to someone who doesn't understand either, with "draw your own fucking diagram," you are otherwise pretty helpful. I hope you can explain and show whatever all these dozens of other anons can't, because you object they all misunderstood the diagram (along with myself). If you two anons who disagree could use your formats on each other's problems/setups/arrangements, that would help me and also probably him (or you.. whichever is wrong, kek).

[Anonymous No.15240183]

>>15239681
Okay but that picture is completely wrong, you see that, right? The lines wouldn't come out like that so the angle doesn't actually shorten or lengthen them. Angles on portals don't change anything, only motion.

[Anonymous No.15240190]

>>15240036
>>15239968
>>15239899
think of links in a chain anon.. chain with more small links is "violet" ,middle "green", versus, one with fewest bigones is "red." When you look at the diagrams with those colors, imagines each as a chain with links short to long, and how they would pass through, change angles, and in OP and the latest diagrams, change shape too:
>>15231033
>>15231068
shortened and lengthened chain.
>>15231336
>>15232649
same exact deal but more specific.
>>15231445
two chains pulled/held between two points (shortest path), as opposed to stiff ones like just rods.
>>15232635
not 100% on this one, because of his thing with the sources sometimes facing "away."
>>15232942
pointless diagram imo; that's just showing the same thing as on the right side of the original one you cropped.
>>15234280
also can't really help with this one, because I don't understand what the different origin markers with red circles are trying to indicate yet.
>>15236982 this one does interest me because it seems to disagree with the other. Descriptions in this one make it sound like it's going to end up the same way as op, but with some extra angle between orange and blue, and I don't quite know how to arrange it in my head in 3d. It sounds like the light lines in this model aren't the same as the early diagrams, because they aren't being pulled tight to represent all angles from the source and destination. so it'll be like the top right of >>15231445 , where it's really more like "rods" than chains (or sound waves, or light). Which is more of a model for when the sources are little laser points that can only go one way at a time, instead of big mamas like you say, where only the short way matters. First to see this one actually finished, and then have >>15231445 do his version/review too.

[Anonymous No.15240206]

>>15240183
mhm they would lengthen or shorten as it does, regardless of which way, "propeller or "clock hand", he interprets it

[Anonymous No.15240217]

>>15239787
>To me, both of those light lines are straight
Because you're not thinking with portals, and that is what >>15231445 is meant to show.
Yes, the lines in the original look straight to you. This is because the original author, also not thinking with portals, forces them to be perpendicular to the boxes on either side of the portal. However, because they actually pass through a portal that's angled at 45 degrees, this would be impossible. This doesn't reveal some surprising aspect of portals, it's a blatant mistake, because the light has no reason to be doing that.
A straight line through an angled portal wouldn't look straight from the outside, and vice versa. This is one of the basic characteristics of a portal that the entire game is built around. E.g. you throw a cube horizontally and it comes out vertically. Straight through the portal, 90 degrees to you.

[Anonymous No.15240223]

>>15239956
We've found the hula hoop argument of this discussion

[Anonymous No.15240229]

>>15239984
>&I brought this up earlier the other way around
what the fuck are you talking about

[Anonymous No.15240242]

>>15240123
>>15240217 here
>it's not like the source is two point-narrow lasers; they're big uniform lights pointing all over, like OP
Another unstated assumption to make sense of nonsense.
>So it can't matter what the "old" path is at any given time, just the Shortest Path, which is how >>15231068 and bottom-right of >>15231445 are aiming with their rays .
You see how those show different paths, though?

[Anonymous No.15240245]

>>15240206
That's the thing, it's not clear from his post at all whether he's interpreting it to move at all, or if he's just looking at the length of the lines on either side of the portal. The latter would be a mistake. Which is why, for the love of Zeus, we should just drop that god-awful diagram already. If it requires half a dozen assumptions to make sense and no one is bothering to state their assumptions, it's a recipe for misunderstanding.

[Anonymous No.15240513]

>>15236982 (Me)
Still here. I've been monitoring this thread waiting for input to guide me on what to change about my diagram. Reading through all the posts below, I've gathered a few things:

(1) Anons are having difficulties understanding how portals function at all, even while stationary.

(2) Anons are receptive to analogies that are exactly opposite of reality. >>15239681 is a great example that showcases this perfectly, and I am confident because I have played music and taught music professionally. First, "tuning up", or playing a higher pitch, is equivalent to becoming blueshifted (violet per post's mentioned term), not "tuning down". Second, pitch changes on an open string of an instrument are caused by increased tension over a fixed distance, causing the string to vibrate faster; this has nothing to with the Doppler effect which is the change in perceived pitch with constantly changing distance from the source of the waves. If you do it with a wind instrument, you increase pitch by shortening the path of the moving air, which also shortens the standing wave (shortens the wavelength/increases the frequency).

(3) My diagrams are bombarding readers with way too much information at the same time, and should be decluttered with shorter, larger text. In fact, I don't believe static diagrams are going to cut it. I think anything short of fully animated clips and verbal explanations will be futile at best, or completely misleading at worst.

I've decided I'm not continuing the diagram anymore because I cannot discern if the anons are genuinely lost and horribly confused, if they are maliciously playing dumb, or if I'm being fed AI responses to generate "engagement". It takes hours to prep these visuals and checking for mistakes - it is quite literally not worth my time when I get nothing out of it.

[Anonymous No.15240545]

>>15240513
For what it's worth, Anon, I thought your diagrams were excellent. But of course, I already understand how portals work so I don't need them either.

[Anonymous No.15241011]

>>15233818
bump again :(

[Anonymous No.15241040]

>>15235628
>>15235555
>>15235542
hes talking about those two anons "with diagrams", not the guy who drew >>15231068 . i dontthink that mspaint anon is even in this thread anymore.

[Anonymous No.15241249]

>>15241040

Here's the thing, good luck with that. THOSE 'two' are a samefag who was schizoid in our previous thread too: >>15222790 , rimmed himself there constantly just like >>15235649 and randomly faked misunderstanding simple shit, before somehow sneaking in to troll here, super early on probably. If you read that thread
>>15239876 , instead of just looking at picrels, you can see anon is deftly but consistently wrong there too, wherever it is convenient to cover a mistake, just like this
>>15234282

I'd have NEVER admitted to making the "parallel" diagram, because that is probably the anon who got caught, more or less: waking up, opening 4chins, resurrecting the thread from page 99, with 2x contrary charlimit blogs almost exactly a minute apart. He even claimed not to understand how Gravity works in the original meme where the cube lands on the florr.

Check out his first pic post kek
>>15232635
>teaching myself how to use Inkscape
He is NOT an
>inkscape-anon
lmao. He is the same anon, trialing another expensive drawing software he doesn't know how (or need) to use, for le epic bait of pretending >>15232635 could possibly be simpler than >>15231336 . Two different people, but also somehow the *only* two anons who don't get how the problems work in either thread, and are agreeing about ragging on simple representations. Like I said, just read it again, with all that in mind.

I bet my dick sameanon was baiting this thread, early as
>>15231069
>>15231150
>>15231211 ,
for example.

[Anonymous No.15241263]

>>15241249
In fact the whole reason op started this thread, was because the other one had been so expertly derailed by schizo baby's IQ fluctuations and recurring 'mistakes' and autofellatio, just like he is doing here.

Ironically,
>>15231033
>Disclaimer: if you can't understand moving portals, you aren't invited to discuss rotating ones
, OP didn't mention DELIBERATE misunderstandings, so I can't really complain.

[Anonymous No.15241291]

>>15231445
>>15232635
These are prime examples of identical autism, because they do the same unnatural top-to-bottom ordering instead of reading left to right like a book, and the original meme, and OP. Again, the same kind of severe autism that can do a CAD diagram, with pentagons for compass directions and callouts that aren't linked to anything on the diagram itself, over a prism with two lines going through it.
>>15239960
>>like a propeller
Better not let him near a plane, he'd take it straight into a roll on the runway, instead of liftoff.

[Anonymous No.15241319]

>>15240545
>I already understand how portals work
This too is ultimately a diversion, because the portal is just a hole through the wall. Any of these diagrams that are drawn with portals apart, could just be redrawn with them the same direction and then cancelled out to make a weird-shaped slanted mirrored room, where physics works exactly like the real world. Picrel shows exactly that sort of diagram, used as an extremely thorough explanation for the original question.

[Anonymous No.15241340]

205 KB

>>15240545
>I already understand how portals work
This too is ultimately a diversion, because the portal is just a hole through the wall. Any of these diagrams that are drawn with portals apart, could just be redrawn with them the same direction and then cancelled out to make a weird-shaped slanted mirrored room, where physics works exactly like the real world. Picrel shows exactly that sort of diagram, used as an extremely thorough explanation for the original question. Note how clear it is, because its not purposefully treading in soft contrary "portal physics"?

[Anonymous No.15241350]

>>15241249
Dude the only schizo posting blog posts here is you lmao

[Anonymous No.15241379]

>>15241340
>Note how clear it is, because its not purposefully treading in soft contrary "portal physics"?
Rather unlike a certain diagram ITT I can think of

[Anonymous No.15241685]

>>15239854
>angles in the more complicated CAD one (or 2), but the crappy/mspaint ones are meant to be about rotating

>>15232768
>The portals aren't rotating here,
angle, not rotation, ok.
>>15231091
>Orange's axis of rotation is the bottom, not dead center
>>15231237
>purple line on top instead.. but that doesn't match the rotation in OP
rotation, ok.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Anonymous No.15241714]

>>15241350
If I had as much free time as you I certainly wouldn't spend it trolling on /sci/ . I'm certain each of those oversized, deliberately harmful diagrams you made, took 10x as long as writing all five of my posts put together.

[Anonymous No.15241971]

>>15240027
visualizing rotation, ackshully

[Anonymous No.15241999]

>>15236597
>>15239681
>>15239899
I gotchu anon, it won't be as pretty as the originals but I will overlay that for you. I'll mark up the weird 90 degree twist so it makes sense too.

[Anonymous No.15242190]

>>15241249
You sound upset. Here are my only posts, and I have not been involved in any other portal thread for about two years:

>>15231462
>>15232418
>>15232422
>>15232635
>>15234216
>>15234221
>>15234242
>>15234280
>>15235542
>>15235598
>>15235649
>>15235850
>>15236721
>>15236982
>>15240513

Pic related is the thread and the Inkscape file you doubt I created. I'll reply to this post with the attached SVG if 4chan allows me to attach because, as I said earlier, I've stopped carry to finish it. It is not worth the additional several hours of my free time after work to create when so many posters claim to be confused by it. I'm a 15-year 4chan lurker with enough experience to know the majority of replies to my posts are disingenuous or automated. The half-dozen IRL people I asked to look over my diagrams were pretty much in agreement, "Anon, I can barely read it, but it all checks out. Then again, I already know how portals work more or less".

[Anonymous No.15242194]

>>15242190
I clearly missed >>15236899 so here.

It appears SVG files are unsupported file types on 4chan. If someone links me to a hosting service I'll drop a link.

[Anonymous No.15242266]

>>15241999
Still working on it anon, I have four good examples modified from the diagrams in this thread.

[Anonymous No.15242276]

>>15242190
I don't think you read the post you're replying to btw, which IS accusing you of making the crappy Inkscape diagrams. AND the other one that looks like autoCAD. Which, yeah, they both go top-to-bottom like Chinese. there's like a 1% chance two different anons would have that same trademark upbringing/preference and appear in the same (English) thread.

[Anonymous No.15242306]

>>15242276
You sort of proved him right by showing that svg, desu

[Anonymous No.15242331]

>>15240007
>>15242266
Also heads up, I am going to hold you to this and draw it using an infinitesimal movement or delta timestep, rather than the whole big rotating circle thing that invites confusion. It only really needs to span an infinitesimal angle to explain all the rainbow/stretching effects and show the part you're missing. So all those other chronological time steps (and depictions) aren't really necessary and I'm going to leave them out.

[Anonymous No.15242345]

>>15242276
>Check out his first pic post kek
>>15232635 (You)
>"teaching myself how to use Inkscape"
>He is NOT an
>"inkscape-anon"
>lmao. He is the same anon, trialing another expensive drawing software he doesn't know how (or need) to use
This anon is explicitly stating he doesn't think I am using Inkscape, but this is all beside the point. I made two diagrams, and you can clearly see which two I linked. The same anon is also free to dislike any of my diagrams, I don't place value in their opinion.

I really have nothing to say on this fixation of formatting style choice other than you're propping up this derogatory boogeyman implying that my nationality even matters (which really has no bearing whatsoever on portals). I'm an engineer, I work with CAD. I bet that guides people to make similar formatting choices - shocker!

[Anonymous No.15242377]

>>15242345
>>lmao. He is the same anon, trialing another expensive drawing software he doesn't know how (or need) to use
no buddy, you are literally inverting it, he's saying you switched to inkscape from whatever you used for the other one. Inkscape anon and autocad anon are a samefag. Which, yeah, is what you keep agreeing to by posting evidence.

Since there's no way someone could be that dense accidentally, to misread a single sentence, I'm afraid you've provided even more evidence of being a bored /b/tard tourist samefag troll.

[Anonymous No.15242385]

>>15242345
>I'm an engineer, I work with CAD.
You did it again bruh. You work with CAD like the "parallel" anon in last thread...AND you also admit to learning inkscape for this thread. And again, this style you keep talking about, its in both the old parallel/notparallel one and the new 1-6 one, which is just SO unlikely to be a coincidence.

>>15242331
Still working on this btw, promise I won't let him waste as much of our time as he's wasted of his own. Or leave a solution halfway done ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Anonymous No.15242407]

>>15242345
>engineer
No shit, you talk exactly like every Civ.e I've met who uses thumb tricks and numerical methods because they left their state college after 2-4 years and didn't actually take analysis or modern physics. As an engie, no need for those, all you do is assemble solutions, designed by opaque proprietary software, derived from the real math we create for you.

[Anonymous No.15242408]

>>15242377
>>15242385
>>15242377
I spent hours making OC. You misdirect and gaslight others, create strawmen, and call me names. What have you gained other than a few small, fleeting dopamine hits to appease your textbook mental illness? I feel nothing but pity for you - the odds of self-reflection or proper treatment are dismally slim, and the quality of life for anti-social individuals is harrowing the older they become.

Please get better, anon.

[Anonymous No.15242421]

A half-diagram posted "in progress" and intentionally never followed up, is really a /b/ rather than /sci/ thing. I'm not going to do that, even if mine aren't textbook quality autocad latex.

It's gotta be depressing to that anon (and OP, if he's still here), just trying to understating something he found interesting about a videogame he liked as a child. He sounds like a hs student, or undergrad at the oldest.

[Anonymous No.15242612]

>>15242385
>>15242331
>>15240123
I am back again!

>>15241249
While it does seems suspicious, and this would go a long way to explaining why those two's viewpoints (and diagrams) are so different from everyone else, nevertheless I really hope it's not the case. I'm going to keep giving anon the benefit of the doubt as long as he keeps helping, especially in order to revise and finish his latest diagram. His diagrams are very precise and nice looking, so once I understand the basic concept I'm sure I will be able to glean some information from them. And if it's like you guys are saying and they're deliberately misleading, I'll also be able to tell once I understand.

As for >>15242385
>Still working on this btw
I actually have gotten a long way just visualizing what >>15240190 >>15239681 >>15239642 explained. If I understand it right:
A portal moving instantaneously straight toward the source/speaker would (uniformly) increase the pitch, like tuning into treble.
A portal moving instantaneously straight away would similarly decrease the pitch, like tuning into bass.
If it's turning a tiny angle like OP, half is moving incrementally toward and half is moving incrementally away, and the middle isn't moving at all. So, the middle doesn't change, the top becomes lower, and the bottom becomes higher -- evenly, not in thirds. So it is for sure answer B, then?

That would also be the same thing happening in >>15231336 and presumably the new ones, which are meant to be like OP.

[Anonymous No.15242625]

>>15242612 cont.

>>15241291
>the same unnatural top-to-bottom ordering instead of reading left to right like a book
This is one of the things that threw me about the first one (angles, not rotating) but I think they're both sort of assuming I'm reading on a phone, scrolling downward instead of paging right.

>>15240183
>The lines wouldn't come out like that
The light don't really behave like that on the left, either, though. It's all one color until it gets the portal (edge)'s added velocity, which varies vertically.

[Anonymous No.15242636]

>>15239943
this part too, I sort of get, it's saying the blue portal is attached to the wall too in OP (and the ones like OP) even though they are turned toward me visually.

[Anonymous No.15242642]

>>15242636
sorry, I mean the new big ones in this thread like OP, not the older one about angle.

[Anonymous No.15242749]

>>15241999
>>15242612
You sleep/work some very weird hours, padawanon.
>A portal moving instantaneously straight toward the source/speaker would (uniformly) increase the pitch, like tuning into treble.
>A portal moving instantaneously straight away would similarly decrease the pitch, like tuning into bass.
these two answers are perfect actually. I spent some time rereading your posts/questions before I start PowerPoint, considering including some straight velocity variants in the diagram I make; now I won't bother. The only hardmode for those is when the portal moves at an angle.

As for
>turning a tiny angle
sounds like there are still some details you're missing which are what separates the two mspaint diagrams (and OP). Its very easy to show though.

>glean some information from them
I'll include these too as close as I can (and without all the added crap), if thats something that could help. I can make it look like the others (at least on the left side.)

Lastly; I'd really like to do a differential rather than the big circle all the way around if that's okay ( >>15242331) b/c looking back I am not 100% sure this is you >>15240007 ; I don't want to gloss over a limit if you don't.

[Anonymous No.15242754]

>>15242612
>A portal moving instantaneously straight toward the source/speaker would (uniformly) increase the pitch, like tuning into treble.
>A portal moving instantaneously straight away would similarly decrease the pitch, like tuning into bass.
Bingo! And remember this was an analogy. Increasing pitch refers to blueshifting with light. Decreasing pitch refers to redshifting with light. I know Khan Academy has a decent Doppler effect video that corroborates this, check them out.
>If it's turning a tiny angle like OP, half is moving incrementally toward and half is moving incrementally away, and the middle isn't moving at all. So, the middle doesn't change, the top becomes lower, and the bottom becomes higher -- evenly, not in thirds. So it is for sure answer B, then?
Also bingo! The only caveat is that B and C can be arbitrary when you don't establish your conventions and coordinate systems. If the orange portal were to spin, say CCW instead of CW, about the same axis, the answer would be C rather than B.
>same thing happening in
As reiterated many times in the thread, we feel that diagram is not factoring in how the angles of the lines entering and exiting the portals should be consistent between portals.
>t I think they're both sort of assuming I'm reading on a phone
I made no assumption, it was just an unconscious arbitrary choice to lump the basics, problem, and model onto the left of the page, then I made my frames on the right flow like normal reading style.

This has been a great sign of encouragement.

[Anonymous No.15242834]

>>15242749
>something that could help
Absolutely.

>a differential
Infinitesimals are fine, I'm a little rusty on vector stuff and diffeq is all.

>>15242754
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt despite your rude arguing,(while also agreeing where convenient) with everyone else. But only if you actually help like you were doing before. It does seem consistent with a troll, to totally give up on effort right as the thread starts to point out flaws and suspicions. The other anon is going to demonstrate your diagrams his way, how they actually relate to OP and what I'm asking, so you'd better be prepared to do the inverse with the ones you keep glossing over. I don't need it to be in Adobe or CAD or whatever. It just has to draw colored lines. Low-precision PowerPoint or paint or whatever is more than adequate if it demonstrates what I'm asking visually. I guess I'd like straight lines instead of wavy scribbles, but that's really the only request.

[Anonymous No.15242839]

>>15242834
Especially because yours is already half done.

[Anonymous No.15242920]

>>15242834
Sorry for the wait. I got carried away making it look nice. I did leave out the linear cases.

Hope this answers all your questions and lets you visualize the newer diagrams. The rest really is pointless re your questions; everyhting except the part that looks like #2.

[Anonymous No.15242926]

>>15242920
Oh and heads up, the colors anon chose (and I followed) for "clock" are shifted compared to the other convention, in case that's confusing. The start/zero is red instead of green; they picked a red beam on top to represent the zero-radius color.

[Anonymous No.15242941]

>>15242834
>do the inverse with the ones you keep glossing over.
He will "refuse" to do this too. His whole idea of simple explanations is huge and opaque autist bullshit, excepting the part I covered which is more or less copied from OP. The wall is missing (!) and many, many pointless distractions are added; other than that, it doesn't show anything new. Applying his style/methods directly to the OP and others would just be adding pointless window dressing.

[Anonymous No.15242943]

>>15242920
>>15242926
And this flip to make the last one match, same deal.

[Anonymous No.15242978]

>>15231033
portals aren't physical

[Anonymous No.15243010]

>>15242920
Welp, this agrees with everything I had intuited with the piano strings and chain links. As for the stuff like >>15242926, I'd already worked that out pretty early on.

I want to say though, the one that REALLY cracked it for me was >>15240190, which explained the very confusing >>15231445 better than the edit (>>15232942) and everyone else's reiterations (>>15235513 >>15231826 >>15235513 etc).
It's especially comprehensive because it works without ANY reference to the speed of light (and a size, to convert it to RPM.)
Similarly, it's not like >>15239970 or >>15239984, which require modeling physical "skew"/bending/tension, but ultimately make a point about light which can't bend (except lensing) and has no tension.

It also mostly answers OP's other questions, too.
>What if it were accelerating linearly too?
Stretching all the chain links the same way
>really change the speed of light?
>>15231165 correctly says why not
>What do you think it would change?
Nothing. The shortest path is still just-inside of the edge, and the wave has virtually zero thickness.

>>15242920 is the perfect demonstration of what I asked for though; how to directly relate the pics >>15231033 and >>15231068 (and even >>15232635 !) the same way, without fluff or gpt eli5 tldrs or a reference blog. So, thank you both equally (you can share the fellatio >>15231501 so long as you take turns)

>>15242941
>He will "refuse" to do this too.
I sure hope not, because you showed his diagram(s) weren't deliberately wrong to mislead, so he isn't trolling and can do the same for the others. Because now I would like to move into the more complex and unaddressed stuff like >>15233818 >>15237364 >>15231278 .

[Anonymous No.15243015]

No problem, faggot. Hang it on your wall & suck yourself instead for working this out despite the abysmal SNR of this thread.

...anyone know where OP is?

[Anonymous No.15243134]

>>15241714
Well I didn't make them, you paranoid schizo, although according to the guy who did they were indeed not worth the time, seeing how they're wasted on the likes of you.

[Anonymous No.15243142]

>>15241249
>>15241263
>>15241291
>>15241340
All right, so here's the thing. I'm the guy (well, one of them) you pegged as the samefag last thread. You managed to identify precisely ONE of my posts ITT, instead attributing the rest to various others. You still have no idea what the hell anyone else is talking about, so you simply dismiss them as samefag trolls. Seriously, gravity? PRISMS? Fuck outta here.

What makes it extremely obvious that it's all a post hoc rationalisation for you to stop trying to grasp things that fly over your head is the fact that my "unnatural" diagram here >>15231445 shares the exact layout as your "extremely thorough and clear" diagram. I guess I must've made that one too! Two people agreeing with each other? Clearly samefag fellating himself. Two people disagreeing with each other? Clearly samefag trying to stoke discussion. You're being so retarded I guess you must be me, trying to provoke me into responding to myself.

[Anonymous No.15243149]

>>15242385
>You work with CAD like the "parallel" anon in last thread...
Actually I used Paint lol

[Anonymous No.15243161]

>>15243010
How the fuck are you still confused by >>15231445 except if you STILL DON'T GET IT
Literally all it's fucking saying is >>15231068 is wrong for obvious reasons. Nothing to do with fucking propellers or clock hands. It's the ANGLE you twats. >>15242920 can deride it as pointless autism but so far only one person actually got the angles right (which that diagram then promptly ignored again and got wrong). This appears to be a blind spot a lot of you have and it's going to make it hard to say anything of value about this topic.
>Because now I would like to move into the more complex and unaddressed stuff
Look, it's B. People who say D or A are simply wrong. They have nothing to show for themselves. If you really understood what people have been telling you, you'd see that.

[Anonymous No.15243411]

Lot of interpersonal drama in these last two threads for an anonymous discussion

[Anonymous No.15243518]

>>15242920
Wait why the fuck did you add the blue portal to the back of the orange portal in the OP scenario? Doing that would completely negate any red/blueshift, and it wasn't originally part of the question.

[Anonymous No.15243528]

>>15242834
>The other anon is going to demonstrate your diagrams his way, how they actually relate to OP and what I'm asking, so you'd better be prepared to do the inverse with the ones you keep glossing over.
Entitled prick

[Anonymous No.15243611]

>>15238376

[Anonymous No.15243622]

>>15242407
never would have guess "yep you're an engineer" would be an insult but I guess the rabbit hole goes down forever. what is your background anon?

[Anonymous No.15243665]

>>15243611
There's no need to worry about that if you're not smart enough for university

[Anonymous No.15244059]

>>15231033
>>15242920
now do it with the number line

[Anonymous No.15244415]

>>15242920
>Clock:
>Bottom strings shorter
So shouldn't they be blueshifted then

[Anonymous No.15244472]

>>15243010
> one that REALLY cracked it for me was >>15240190 (You), which explained the very confusing >>15231445
no problem. ezpz

[Anonymous No.15244725]

>>15231033
>>15243015
Sure, OP is still here (picrel :)
Now that we have a textbook-tier diagram of the original, I will gladly move on to somethingthat more specifically addresses scintillation and time dilation & length contraction.
Sorry not too much time this evening but I will try to get something we can all agree on tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.15244726]

>>15244415
Green IS blueshifted from red though :)

[Anonymous No.15244945]

>>15243611
>>15243665
do not engage trollanon
if you ignore them they go back to /b/

[Anonymous No.15244974]

So it's
>>15243528
>curious anon /r/s physics tutor for clarification
>volunteer to explain it all while secretly an engie
>immediately interpret him (and OP) wrong
>draw some jank OP-knockoff with mystery pentagon and no wall between portals
>anon ask more clearly and gives examples
>post 1/3 of early access pic promising it'll explain the others
>misinterpret again
>he corrects you again
>give up
>[based anon does your job instead]
>whine

...what you even doing on /sci?

[Anonymous No.15245111]

>>15244059
seriously, just do this

[Anonymous No.15245187]

>>15240190
I'm not sure this is a good metaphor at all... the phenomenon we're looking at only works with portals in motion. So then it's like you're pushing a chain through the portal and removing/adding links as you go? Because if you're just stringing an actual chain between two points and moving the portal around it, it may slack or go tight or even snap, but it's not going to deform or change the amount of links. The distance between the portal and some arbitrary reference point is not what causes red/blueshift.

It's an intuitive metaphor, but ultimately doesn't strike me as very useful when you actually think about it.

[Anonymous No.15245197]

>>15244726
So what, the box is actually emitting red light then, even though you slathered green all over it? Why is it blueshifted before reaching the portal? And if that's what it's showing, why does the "propeller" show the green light going into the portal getting blueshifted further to violet? If that's actually red too then why is the top red there (instead of infrared) and the middle green? It's inconsistent and confusing. Pick a single colour light, like the OP, or the pointless autism diagram.

Alternatively you can just stop trying to make sense of a shitty diagram.

[Anonymous No.15245213]

>>15244974
>immediately interpret him (and OP) wrong
How do you figure? Based engineer-Anon was the only one who actually got the answer 100% correct so far (and I'm usually the sort of person who gets why "engineer" is an insult). "Based anon" who "finished his job" made a jank engineer-knockoff instead that got half the shit wrong. But, you know, he did say it's a lot of work for a thankless bunch of idiots who don't seem inclined to learn from anything that doesn't seem immediately correct to them, however simplified or wrong it is, though he was too kind to put it like that. So to then DEMAND that he keep putting in a lot of work (or what, I wonder?) is nothing short of entitlement. How about YOU'd better be prepared to show you understand what is being talked about?

A fool can ask more questions than a thousand wise men can answer.

[Anonymous No.15245337]

>>15240190
>>15245187
Ah, wait, you mean you have to imagine the links of the chain themselves growing longer or shorter? Well then that's not very intuitive at all, actually. It only makes sense if you already know what is happening. It's an absurd image on its own.

[Anonymous No.15245530]

>>15245213
Thank you, anon. I figured this thread would tank without single kind word being said about me or my posts after the other anon decided to get his jollies off by causing chaos.

[Anonymous No.15245657]

>And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?
>And if they were in the habit of conferring honours among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honours and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,
>‘Better to be the poor servant of a poor master,’
>and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?
>And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable), would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

[Anonymous No.15245929]

>>15244725 +

>>15244974
>early access pic
kek

>>15245197
>you
Didn't make any diagram except >>15231033, haven't been in the thread awhile actually :) But yes the source in that one is clearly red, b/c on top the shift is angle*radius=0. In contrast OP and the others turn about the center. See, Clock is the special case that isn't equivalent (1 D vs. 3 Bs).
>>15245187
Funny you never replied to and insulted it /before/ anon praised it over yours :)

>>15244945
>if you ignore them they go back to /b/
As a lurker I can assure you this just invites organization and raid, instead of trolling one at time when it's relatively easy to manage.

>>15245111
What specifically do you propose? I envision the meaningful interpretation as one each, diagonal and horizontal (or stationary at origin facing out), in a uniform 2D field: linear R in both x and y? I really think this is a more fun example. But when it's done, I'll start a new thread so anons don't have to wade through the schizoposting.

>>15245657
>>15245530
>>15245337
>>15245213
Schizo has moved on to quoting scripture :)

[Anonymous No.15245931]

04:47
06:23
08:41
10:21

Samefag genuinely set a timer to get out of bed and post, by himself, all night :)

[Anonymous No.15245940]

>>15245337
>Well then that's not very intuitive at all
Nigger, what is more representative of wavelength, versus a repeating pattern with two peaks (that everyone in the world can draw)?

[Anonymous No.15245943]

>>15245940
>?
Please don't actually answer any of our questions desu. Just go back to being an engineer. /g/ is a good place to start.

[Anonymous No.15245948]

>>15245929
>yes the source in that one is clearly red, b/c on top the shift is angle*radius=0
So then the guy who did the diagram made a dumb mistake and you're still, for some reason, desperate to make it work. If the source is red, then why is there a red and green line on the source side? If the colour of the lines on the source side is supposed to correspond to the colour after shifting (already a poor choice for a diagram but okay...) then why isn't that consistently the case for the "propeller"? Why do you think your "D" is meaningfully distinct from B at all except that it covers a smaller range of the visible spectrum but otherwise works exactly the same?
>Funny you never replied to and insulted it /before/ anon praised it over yours :)
Funny you don't have a response to fair criticism.
>Schizo has moved on to quoting scripture :)
Of course you're too uneducated to know one of the most famous allegories in history.
>>15245931
You lot want to talk about time dilation when you're mystified by time zones, lol

[Anonymous No.15245949]

>>15245940
>?
Please don't /actually/ answer any more questions desu. Just stop lurking my thread, don't join the next, and go back to being an engineer. I hear /g/ is a good place to start.

[Anonymous No.15245957]

>>15245940
You can use a chain to represent wavelength, sure, but it won't do any good to someone who doesn't understand wavelength. It doesn't explain why the links suddenly grow or shorten, because real chains notably do not do that.
>>15245949
I am not the engineer. I will also answer any question I please. I wish you would do the same, cave dweller.

[Anonymous No.15245967]

>>15245948
>mystified by time zones
sorry, guess I meant
>post, by himself, all /day/
b/c that's absolutely better :)

That's the last time I'm going to reply to you in this and future threads; the other 37 anons actually helping *should do the same unless they want the same treatment.*

[Anonymous No.15245976]

>>15245967
>post, by himself, all /day/
Takes no effort at all to keep a tab open, you know?
>the other 37 anons
Oh, you've identified at least three people as me, and there's also yourself, so that leaves at most 33 people. Keep ignoring more people simply for pointing out flaws in your shitty diagrams and analogies and pretty soon you'll be the one posting all by yourself!

[Anonymous No.15245983]

>>15245967
For what it's worth, OP, your original diagram was fine and the answer is obviously B.

[Anonymous No.15246004]

>>15245929
>insulted it
Anon... all that post does is say it's not intuitive and list a couple of reasons why. Maybe you're just taking all this a little to personal?

[Anonymous No.15246031]

>>15245931
Your times are offset by one hour for me (Central), so I'd guess you're Eastern. >>15245530 is me obviously, I've been too busy writing Kotlin and preparing new systems for my company to post.
>>15245657
This is amazing, thanks for the cheer-up, anon.

By the looks of it, the troll anon that keeps project and claiming I (and many, many others) am being a schizo is losing his marbles and lashing out at literally everyone and his brother claiming that they are me. This poster has slipped into this solipsistic nightmare and can't consider the possibility I am just one anon who got fed up and walked away from the problem, and seemingly have at least one bro anon who thought I was worth stick up for.

The valid criticism I concede would be that yes, my diagrams are a bit confusing and crowded. I think other anons are doing a much better job with simpler, more readable graphical styles. On the other hand, the only graphics that I deem to be factually accurate were my own, >>15236982
and >>15232635, and this anon's, >>15231445

>>15245957
Since you're not an engineer, what do you do for a living that made our graphs appear to be "Chinese clones" :^) lol

[Anonymous No.15246067]

>>15243622
engineers are the roasties of STEM

>>15244725
a better setup might be a portal on the end of a long, skinny wall that stretched way into space, facing the direction it swings, with the blue portal at the base on earts surface.

please dont do the Cantor one by itself, that problem already has multiple threads and explanations on sci.

[Anonymous No.15246120]

>>15246031
Welp, you've done it now, even if you could convince him you're not me, you're still a pariah for talking to the Unclean and not allowed in OP's clubhouse any more ;_;

>Since you're not an engineer, what do you do for a living that made our graphs appear to be "Chinese clones" :^) lol
I'm a professor in medieval literature using MSPaint lmao

[sage No.15246261]

>>15245929
>>15246067
>a better setup might be
Done. >>15246249
Don't reply to ANY trolls/samefags/scripture in new thread, and it won't end up like this one.

>>15246120
>professor in medieval literature
Kindly unsub the STEM board, libarts faggot.

[Anonymous No.15246313]

>>15246261
Just because you're aggressively and proudly ignorant doesn't mean everyone else has to be. As it is I've got you beat in the humanities AND physics.

[Anonymous No.15246342]

>>15246261
I am already in your thread... or am I? Have fun forever jumping at shadows.

[Christian Universalist AI will save humanity No.15248326]

>>15231033
Bump

[Anonymous No.15248928]

>>15248326
What was the point of that?