>Muh relative speed

[Anonymous No.15959043]

>Punch Btard in the face at 60mph
>Make Btard apologize for slamming his head on my fist at 60mph

[Anonymous No.15959342]

>>15959043
The answer's A.

[Anonymous No.15959389]

>>15959043
Fuck relative speed, what's the absolute speed of the cube as it leaves the portal?

>um actually it has 0 speed because it's not moving, it's actually just standing still in different places over time

[Anonymous No.15959475]

>>15959043
The earth is moving at like 40,000 km/h. That relative speed of your first is nothing but a round error

[Anonymous No.15959488]

>>15959043
The answer is whatever makes the universe more internally consistent than the other. Accordingly conservation of momentum means that A is the correct answer.

[sage No.15959510]

>>15959488
any hypothetical increase in the momentum of an object that exits this (undefined mystery) portal would be compensated by a corresponding decrease in the momentum of something else within that system, ensuring the total momentum remains constant.

That is of course assumes the portal science is real and follows known physics somehow. As well as assuming interdimensional ayys aren't butt stuffing the cube and shitting it out the blue portal, fucking with the observation.

[Anonymous No.15959776]

Ungra grunga opinion violence bunga dunga!

[Anonymous No.15961746]

>>15959043
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Remember that one from phyics 101?

[Anonymous No.15961749]

>>15959488
>Accordingly conservation of momentum means that A is the correct answer.
That part's not even true lmao
B is perfectly internally consistent. A doesn't just lead to countless contradictions, it even fails to conserve momentum if momentum is properly defined.

[Anonymous No.15961857]

Why is there not an entire board for this subject?

/po/ - portal discussion

[Anonymous No.15962271]

>>15961857
4chan is inherently unsuited to this sort of thing. What you need is something like a wiki, so people can stop repeating all the same arguments, counter-arguments, strawman arguments, and refutations thereof etc. because e.g. The Moon Argument has its own entry and then on that page you find the counterargument that "it was just the vacuum of space" and then the counter to that the previous counterargument rests upon a misunderstanding. And then whenever someone brings it up you just link to the Moon Argument page and put it to rest.

But then, I like having asinine arguments with complete idiots, so that would put me out of a hobby.

[Anonymous No.15962284]

these kinds of portal questions are obvious if you apply more than a second of 90iq thought (it's B btw)
a more interesting problem is how gravity fields "disperse" through portals

say we had a portal on earth, parallel to and facing the ground
then we make a portal in deep space far from any bodies, ignoring air pressure (pretend portals are airtight but allow other stuff to pass through)
an object near the space portal, by the definition of portals, is also "near" a portion of the earth
will the acceleration be near 9m/s/s? or maybe since it only "sees" a small sliver of the earth's mass it'll be much much lower
what is the direction of acceleration for other places near the space portal? what about on the other non-transporting side?

anons, discuss

[Anonymous No.15962384]

>>15959043
>Yes, yes, speed is relative, of course, don't have to tell me that, duh
>But come on, only one of them is *really* moving

[Anonymous No.15962411]

>>15959488
There is nothing consistent about having matter visibly moving through normal space suddenly stop dead for no reason. That is the complete opposite of conservation of momentum.

[Anonymous No.15962413]

>>15962271
https://www.writingtoiq.com/ says your IQ is 89

>>15962284
https://www.writingtoiq.com/ says your IQ is 94

[Anonymous No.15962419]

>>15962413
And your mum said you were a special boy.

[Anonymous No.15962588]

>>15959488
>conservation of momentum
The momentum becomes heat and sound when the two surfaces make contact
No force is applied to the cube, there is no mechanism that could apply force to the cube.
The portals themselves are a seamless connection in space, so they are akin to a hoop. If you drop a hoop over a cube, the cube does not move. The momentum from the hoops movement is dispersed into the surface. None of it goes into the cube.
The same thing happens in this scenario.

[Anonymous No.15963954]

>>15962588
Okay, just one thing. Suppose you've got a hoop just lying around. And then a cube pops out of it. Given that it's an ordinary hoop, there is only one logical conclusion, I'm sure you'll agree: the cube had to have been moving already. And the ordinary hoop doesn't affect it in the slightest. So it keeps moving.

[Anonymous No.15964376]

>>15963954
The cube is never moving. Relativity doesn’t mean forces just randomly apply wherever they want. In this scenario, the cube is not moving, just a wall with a hole in it. The wall never touches the cube, no moving object does, so the cube does not move. This is actual conservation of momentum.

[Anonymous No.15964400]

>>15964376
You say, the cube isn't moving, therefore the hole must be. I say, the hole isn't moving, therefore the cube must be. But one thing can never happen: a stationary cube cannot pass a stationary hole.

[Anonymous No.15964481]

>>15961746
Then the 6000 metric tonnes of air pushing down on the cube would prevent it from flying

[Anonymous No.15964538]

>>15964400
You can say whatever you want.
In the image we are discussing, the upper surface is moving. The lower surface and the cube are stationary. These are the facts as presented by the problem.

[Anonymous No.15964552]

>>15964538
You are not thinking with portals, Anon. Look at the blue portal. Does that look like it moves, to you?
>B-but it's connected to the orange portal
All right, then that one is obviously stationary too.

[Anonymous No.15964558]

>>15964481
Ah yes, just as they prevent me friom jumping.

[Anonymous No.15964644]

>>15964558
It would if you jumped fast enough, or in this case if the portal accelerated at the terminal velocity of the cube, but since the portal does not physically influence its surroundings it does not impart any velocity to things on either side which already aren't in motion in respect to their frames of reference, if either the side with the cube was also accelerating towards the portal, or inversely the exit side of the portal was accelerating towards the portal, then the answer would be B

[Anonymous No.15964652]

>>15964644
>It would if you jumped fast enough
You mean the regular jumping speed of a human. People can jump on Earth in normal air pressure, Anon. It doesn't even take most of them any particular effort. 6000 tonnes of air aren't enough to keep me down.
>if either the side with the cube was also accelerating towards the portal
It is; motion is relative, and the blue portal is stationary relative to its surroundings, ergo, the cube is moving relative to those surroundings
>or inversely the exit side of the portal was accelerating towards the portal
This is gibberish.

[Anonymous No.15964659]

>>15964652
relative motion is not acceleration you absolute mong, both sides of the portal are at rest

[Anonymous No.15964662]

>>15964659
>both sides of the portal are at rest
So then clearly the cube is in motion.

[Anonymous No.15964667]

>>15964662
No, the portal is in motion, the universe which surrounds it is not, if the portal moves to envelop one side then the other side moves away to make room for it, ergo the net force is zero, no velocity

[Anonymous No.15964672]

>>15964644
>>15964659
Wait, why are you talking about acceleration? Why not assume a constant velocity?

[Anonymous No.15964676]

>>15964667
>the portal is in motion
It very obviously isn't.

[Anonymous No.15964690]

>>15964672
Because the outside of the portal is at rest and not moving, if you start walking towards a stationary object the object has relative velocity in respect to your frame of reference, but it is not undergoing acceleration, similarly if you were in a room separated by a portal and the portal moved towards you, you would have relative velocity relative to the reference frame of the portal, but you are not undergoing acceleration, thus the portal would just quietly wrap around you and you would slip through to the other side at the same acceleration you started with in respect to your frame of reference, which is zero, relative motion is not the same as something actually moving, this is a very important distinction you have to make or if you start assuming that everything is undergoing acceleration just because they have relative motion to eachother all physics falls apart and you have to start making up flat-earth tier fuckery for it to work
>>15964676
You have to be at least 18+ to post here

[Anonymous No.15964695]

>>15964690
Do you know the difference between acceleration and velocity?
>You have to be at least 18+ to post here
You can't refute that the portal is motionless.

[Anonymous No.15964700]

>>15964690
>if you start walking towards a stationary object the object has relative velocity in respect to your frame of reference, but it is not undergoing acceleration
Right, so if I am standing still outside the blue portal and the cube is coming closer to me, then I have relative velocity relative to it, but I'm not undergoing acceleration. Ergo, the cube is.

[Anonymous No.15964702]

>>15964695
>You can't refute that the portal is motionless.

[Anonymous No.15964711]

>>15964702
That's illusory motion. It may look like it's in motion, but remember: it's actually the other side of the blue portal, which is stationary. It's like a hula hoop. If you leave a hula hoop lying on the ground it's not suddenly going to drill down, you know?

[Anonymous No.15964725]

>>15964700
No the portal is moving around the cube, neither you nor the cube are in acceleration, your v is 0, otherwise your side would also have to accelerate towards the cube and you would be sucked into the portal, since from the cube's point of view you are moving towards it, but both of you are at rest, the portal is the only thing moving, it's a zero dimensional gateway with no thickness, it's like separating a room with a wall and moving the wall not the room, both sides of the room are stationary with respect to eachother
>>15964711
>That's illusory motion
Then the answer is A since the cube moving is just an illusory motion

[Anonymous No.15964745]

>>15964725
>the portal is moving around the cube
Well, in a relative sense, I suppose you could say that.
>neither you nor the cube are in acceleration
And yet the cube and I are coming closer together.
>Then the answer is A since the cube moving is just an illusory motion
It's the motion of the cube that gives the illusion of the portal moving.
Wait, you're saying now that the motion of the portal puts the cube in motion?

[Anonymous No.15964781]

>>15964745
The cube is not undergoing acceleration, since it has zero speed it will exit the portal at zero speed

[Anonymous No.15964789]

>>15964781
>The cube is not undergoing acceleration
What makes you say that?
>since it has zero speed
>it will exit the portal
>at zero speed
Say that again real slow

[Anonymous No.15964819]

>>15964789
It is in an inertial frame of reference, if you and the cube were on the same side and the portal wrapped around you you would not fly out the other side because you're not undergoing any acceleration

[Anonymous No.15964830]

>>15964819
This is blatantly begging the question
>It is in an inertial frame of reference
Yeah, so? It's going to keep moving within that inertial frame of reference, dingus.

[Anonymous No.15964851]

>>15964830
>It's going to keep moving within that inertial frame of reference, dingus.
Objects in an inertial frame of reference are not moving in relation to that frame of reference, dingus, similarly a car moving past you will not magically cause you to gain acceleration, even though you are moving relative to the frame of reference of the car, similarly you will not magically gain acceleration even though you are moving relative to the portal, since there are zero forces acting on you, if you can't understand something as simple as this then I can't help you

[Anonymous No.15964860]

>>15959043
>>15959342
Every single atom in the cube has momentum as it travels through the portal. The atoms that are already past the portal keep moving because they are being pushed by the atoms behind them trying to get in. As the last atom of the cube passes the portal, by some mysterious magic, all atoms lose momentum at once.
You are braindead cunt faggot moronic imbeciles. Nothing short of eternal hellfire is enough for you.

[Anonymous No.15964878]

>>15964860
So if you walk through a doorway the door magically flies away from you?

[Anonymous No.15964885]

>>15964851
>Objects in an inertial frame of reference are not moving in relation to that frame of reference, dingus,
Exactly, so if it suddenly stops, then that would be a massive deceleration. Just like a car moving past you isn't going to cause you to fly backwards.
>if you can't understand something as simple as this then I can't help you
Highly ironic.

[Anonymous No.15964891]

>>15964878
No. Can you try again with a better analogy?

[Anonymous No.15964892]

>>15964891
So then why does the cube magically accelerate?
If you stand still and a doorframe goes over you do you magically fly away?

[Anonymous No.15964897]

>>15964885
Okay anon, that's enough crack for you today, lay down the pipe and go to sleep

[Anonymous No.15964908]

>>15964897
You really don't get it, do you? Looking at the cube's frame of reference, it is moving relative to the environment of the blue portal as it's coming out. If its momentum is conserved, it keeps moving. No acceleration.

[Anonymous No.15964910]

>>15964892
Because the magic of the portal made sure every single atom passes through it as the big piston clamps down. While the cube atoms were passing through the portal, they still kept feeling the cube atoms behind them pushing them. That is what the acceleration is coming from. If you insist, the magic portal converted the pistons kinetic energy into the cube's kinetic energy.

[Anonymous No.15964926]

>>15964910
So the magic of the doorframe magically loses all its speed as it goes over you and magically transfers its acceleration onto you and you magically fly away?

[Anonymous No.15964948]

>>15964908
>it is moving relative to the environment of the blue portal as it's coming out
And it's speed is still zero, remove the portal from the equation, you are standing on one end of a square room, no acceleration or speed of any kind, the room starts moving around you such that you appear to move forward and then it stops, do you
A. stop moving with respect to the room
B. magically keep flying forwards and hit the wall

[Anonymous No.15964962]

>>15964948
>it is moving relative to the environment of the blue portal as it's coming out
>And it's speed is still zero
This is a contradiction.
>remove the portal from the equation
You mean change the entire scenario? Calculate the aerodynamics of a cow, assuming a spherical cow.
>the room starts moving around you
So you're saying the portal can't get a cube to move but it can move the entire universe?

[Anonymous No.15964981]

>>15964962
>This is a contradiction.
No it's not, you just don't understand relative motion and frames of reference
>You mean change the entire scenario
The scenario is the exact same you fucking retard, the environment is moving around you just as the environment on the other side of the portal moves around the cube, don't reply to me again

[Anonymous No.15964988]

>>15964926
The doorframe isn't a magic portal from a videogame you fucking cunt.

[Anonymous No.15965017]

>>15964988
The portal is a zero-dimensional doorframe connecting two points in space, you fucking cunt, it just flies over you, it doesn't impart any forces on you

[Anonymous No.15965021]

>>15964981
>No it's not, you just don't understand relative motion and frames of reference
Again, highly ironic. You don't seem to understand what exactly is moving relative to what in which reference frame.
>The scenario is the exact same
I know you think it is, and that is because you're overlooking half the context.

Again, if you're going to say this is objectively moving and that isn't, what's to stop us from saying, hey, the portal is obviously stationary, so is the environment around it, so the cube is moving? Your only way to cope seems to be simply insisting that the cube isn't moving.

[Anonymous No.15965060]

>>15965017
Those aren't two points in space. One "point in space" is being moved by a giant piston.
When the cube atoms are passing through the portal, they have momentum in the "new world". Tell me when and how exactly those cube atoms lose momentum immediately after the entirety of the cube is through.

[Anonymous No.15965088]

Love repeating Afriend arguments back to them only for them to say it makes no sense

[Anonymous No.15965094]

>>15965021
>what's to stop us from saying, hey, the portal is obviously stationary, so is the environment around it, so the cube is moving
Because it has no acceleration in respect to the frame of reference it is in, you are moving the portal around the cube, you are not moving the cube into the portal, if you just move the portal up and down without enveloping the cube the cube will just sit stationary on the platform, moving the portal doesn't magically cause the cube to accelerate you troglodyte, just as moving the environment around the cube will not cause it to gain any acceleration, it will have relative motion in respect to the frame of reference of the environment which moves around it, but as soon as the environment stops moving so does the cube relative to the environment, because it doesn't have a velocity of its own, if the other side of the portal went around the cube and then kept moving, then cube would fly away as it would have no time to fall down since the environment is moving away from it, but the other side of the portal has no momentum, it has no acceleration in respect to the frame of reference it is in, it is stationary, as soon as the portal stops moving around the cube so does the other side of the portal stop moving and since the cube has no velocity of its own it will simply fall down, case closed, class dismissed, you get a big fat F on your test, try again next year

[Anonymous No.15965103]

>>15965094
So again, you're saying that moving the portal moves the entire environment, the universe even, but the thought of it moving a cube is ludicrous?
>if the other side of the portal went around the cube and then kept moving, then cube would fly away
Why? It should make no difference. Now that's some hula hoop you got there lol

[Anonymous No.15965104]

>>15964711
You’re fucking retarded.
In order to justify your preconceived position, you dismiss the real motion of the portal as ‘illusory motion’ while giving fake motion to the cube from nowhere.
Please just admit you’re wrong. When you have to call something ‘illusory motion’ you need to take a step back and look around and reevaluate your position.

[Anonymous No.15965136]

>>15965103
>>if the other side of the portal went around the cube and then kept moving, then cube would fly away
>Why?
Because the environment would be accelerating around it? What do you think would happen if you removed the inertia that the planet imparts on you while it kept rotating? I think even chimpanzees understand what inertia is.

[Anonymous No.15965139]

>>15965104
Yes, illusory motion is my favourite Afag cope, felt good to turn it on its head for once.

Just one more thing, though. What makes the motion of the cube "fake"? It's moving out of the stationary portal. It's not just going to stop, is it?

[Anonymous No.15965145]

>>15965136
>Because the environment would be accelerating around it?
So you're telling me that moving the orange portal accelerates the whole universe away from the cube? What if it stops, then starts again? Is the cube gonna accelerate with it or is it gonna feel the drag?

[Anonymous No.15965148]

>>15965104
>>15965139
I mean surely if you have to call the movement of the cube "fake motion" maybe it's time to take a step back and reevaluate your position?

[Anonymous No.15965149]

>>15965145
>So you're telling me that moving the orange portal accelerates the whole universe away from the cube
No, dumbass, that's why the answer is A, because both sides of the portal are stationary and not in acceleration

[Anonymous No.15965153]

>>15965149
>No
No? So then if the portal keeps moving, the cube doesn't fly away?
>the answer is A, because both sides of the portal are stationary
Now nothing is moving?
>and not in acceleration
You're still the only one talking about acceleration. It still makes more sense to assume constant motion.

[Anonymous No.15965180]

>>15965153
>assume
If we just assume you aren't mentally retarded then you would actually understand what I'm saying to you, but sadly just assuming things doesn't make them so

[Anonymous No.15965195]

>>15965180
You're also making the assumption that there is (or is supposed to be?) any acceleration. You gloss over that. Just as you gloss over fully half the problem. You waffle about intertial frames of reference but you fail to realise that the portal itself is both moving and stationary within the same frame of reference, and because of that, so is everyhing else that either moves or doesn't relative to the portal. You talk about the cube "accelerating" away from the blue portal as long as the orange portal keeps moving because it would "accelerate" the entire universe, acting like it's obvious, before rescinding it. Then you say "both sides of the portal are stationary". I don't think you have the slightest clue what any of the things you're saying imply. The reason I fail to understand you is simply because you are not making sense. You are saying illogical things.

[Anonymous No.15965208]

>>15965180
>>15965195
Anyway, here's what happens:
Just as you acknowledge that moving the orange portal moves everything on the far side of it closer to the cube, so too does it move everything on the far side of the blue portal closer to the blue portal. It is asinine to insist that one is "really" moving and the other isn't when the same obsever can see the same cube simultaneously standing still beside him and moving closer towards him in a very real and measurable sense through the portal. What is really happening? It's plainly both. The cube is stationary when seen from one side of the portal and moving from the other. So when it moves to the side relative to which it is in motion, that's what it is. It experiences no acceleration, only continuous motion.

[Anonymous No.15965229]

>>15965208
>The cube is stationary when seen from one side of the portal and moving from the other. So when it moves to the side relative to which it is in motion
And that's why the answer is A, as soon as the portal stops moving so does all the relative motion, how do you not get this? The cube can't fly out of the portal because it doesn't have velocity, it's only moving relative to the pov of the portal, if you walk towards someone who is standing still and then stop the other guy isn't going to magically fly towards you, because he is not in motion, even toddlers understand this

[Anonymous No.15965246]

>>15965229
>And that's why the answer is A, as soon as the portal stops moving so does all the relative motion, how do you not get this?
Anon, that makes no sense. You were insisting before that the portal does not interact with the cube. So how is it suddenly going to stop a cube that is flying off somewhere not even near the portal anymore at that point? That is what you don't get. The movement of the portal is irrelevant at that point. The cube is already out of it. Any analogy you come up with where something is "actually" moving relative to something that "actually" isn't fails to capture precisely what makes this case different. The depth of your misunderstand is so great that you think I don't understand something so basic, because you can't even see everything you're missing that invalidates your basic understanding.

[Anonymous No.15965250]

>>15965246
>The depth of your misunderstand
misunderstanding* obvs

Anyway, that's all I have time for today. Ruminate on this and I'll gladly accept your apologetic grovelling tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.15965254]

>>15965246
Uhhh, says here that you're all fucked up, your shit's all retarded and you talk like a fag
There is no hope for you, you're ngmi, if you can't even understand basic newtonian physics and the difference between a stationary and a moving object then you are really fucked

[Anonymous No.15965460]

>>15965246
I can’t stand you. Why are you arguing? You are incorrect. You need to listen. Pay attention to the things people are telling you and adjust your opinion.
Here’s a simple demonstration you can do tonight to dismiss your argument:
First, grab any object. Second, imagine the perspective of the object. Third, drop the object to the ground. From your objects perspective, everything suddenly started flying upward only to suddenly come to a stop. Yet the items on tables and other things not bolted down did not continue flying as it seems they should. Why didn’t they? From the objects relative perspective, everything else was moving rapidly and it should have reacted when it came to a stop.
The items in the room didn’t fly around because they aren’t actually moving, only the object you dropped was moving. What the object *perceived* as the motion of the room was only relative to its own motion.
Apply this same though pattern to the portals and it should be clear why the cube doesn’t fly off.

[Anonymous No.15965493]

>THE ANSWER IS A BECAUSE THE CUBE IS STATIONARY
braindead

>THE ANSWER IS B BECAUSE RELATIVE MOTION
npc

the answer is B because it has symmetry of one thing moving the and other thing not moving and i like symmetry :D

[Anonymous No.15965718]

>>15965460
>I can’t stand you. Why are you arguing? You are incorrect. You need to listen. Pay attention to the things people are telling you and adjust your opinion.
Gods, give me the confidence of fucking hula hoopers

There isn't merely "perceived" motion, there is actual relative motion compared to a stationary portal. This is what you fail to understand. It's not that the rest of us have strange notions about hula hoops for unfathomable reasons. It's that we recognise that portals are not mere hula hoops, and moving them around inherently creates a frame of reference in which they and everything else move relative to themselves.
Did you never bother to even wonder where B came from? Do you actually think that if it were that simple that there would even be any debate? Do you just think the mysteries of the simple hula hoop are beyond most people? Have some humility.

>>15965493
Relative motion is symmetry, my friend

[Anonymous No.15966056]

>>15965254
Fitting for you to identify with the dysgenic moron mocking someone else for being too smart.

[Anonymous No.15966502]

>>15965718
>>15965718
>we recognize the portals are not mere hoola hoops
And that is why you are wrong
The portal is not special, it’s a seamless region of space
The cube is not traveling a distance when the portal goes over it, those two points in space are seamlessly connected via the portal
You seem to suggest the cube must move because it’s location changes but the portal is warping space to create this effect, the cube isn’t actually moving anywhere. The hoola hoop analogy works specifically because portals work this way.
I see now why you can’t get out of this thought pattern and it’s because you think the other side of the portal is a distance away. The portal is a ring like connection between two places in space. Space becomes noneuclidean and you can move normally yet go further. If you have upright portals, you don’t gain momentum walking through it based on the distance between the two portals. It’s only based on your personal momentum when you entered the portal. The cube has no personal momentum, and it doesn’t gain any going through the portal, so it stays still.
B came because people think the motion of the moving surface is somehow imparted onto the cube. Your argument is rather unique from what I’ve seen.

[Anonymous No.15966517]

>>15964860
>falling for the perspective mem
Appropriate wojak, anon.

[Anonymous No.15966558]

>>15959043
If orange portal stops at half of height of cube, cube will get half of momentum that it would get if orange were to go through whole cube.

[Anonymous No.15966648]

>>15966502
>the portal is warping space to create this effect
Right, just like a hula hoop.
Somehow you people can never define how or in which way a portal warps space "around" the cube, only that it has to in order to fit your preconceived notion that the cube doesn't move and yet still exits the portal. It's a cop-out. A post-facto rationalisation. Somewhere in the back of your mind you realise that A isn't consistent.
>I see now why you can’t get out of this thought pattern and it’s because you think the other side of the portal is a distance away.
Wrong. But of course, if you understood me, you wouldn't think it was A any more.

[Anonymous No.15966772]

>>15966648
>the cube doesn't move and yet still exits the portal
the portal is moving, not the cube
>you people can never define how or in which way a portal warps space "around" the cube
I'll attempt to define it for you. Here is a restated problem that hopefully makes the issue clearer. You can think of the portals like an ordinary hole, just between two discontinuous surfaces. When the portals open, the 'backsides' of the portals are actually touching, and so are the backsides of the surfaces the portals are on. This creates what is functionally a hoop or a hole.

[Anonymous No.15966781]

>>15966772
>the portal is moving
The portal isn't moving.
>I'll attempt to define it for you.
And then you proceeded to mention precisely nothing about space warping around the cube.

Your pic is a false equivalence. Try to figure out the difference, and you will understand why it's B in the original and not in the modified scenario.

[Anonymous No.15966828]

>>15966781
>precisely nothing about space warping around the cube
I nicely broke down how the portals warp space, both in the image and the post. I should have known such effort would be wasted, but Im trying to give you a chance.
The image is not a false equivalence, thats exactly the point. The layout in the original and new setups is functionally identical thanks to how portals work. They create a zero-depth hole between two surfaces as if they were adjacent. There is no distance between the entrance of one portal and the exit of another. It is irrelevant if one or both portals are moving because they are adjacent no matter what. Just like the two sides of a hoop, they do not move relative to each other.
Again, this is why the hoop analogy is actually perfect. The two sides of the portal are always in contact with each other. Whether you move one or both it does not matter.

[Anonymous No.15966834]

Afags are dumb

[Anonymous No.15966841]

>>15966828
>I nicely broke down how the portals warp space, both in the image and the post.
No, you haven't. That you don't even seem to realise is part of the problem. The portals connect two points in space. They don't warp it AROUND the cube to extend the warped space beyond the portal. But it is precisely that which would allow you to argue that this keeps the cube stationary.
>The image is not a false equivalence, thats exactly the point.
And again you reveal your stubborn ignorance. Look closely. Look at the blue portal. Look what it does differently.
>It is irrelevant if one or both portals are moving because they are adjacent no matter what.
You say if one moves, they both move. Why not, when one is stationary, they are both stationary? You are so stuck on your hula hoop that you can't see the difference. A portal is like a hula hoop in most respects. But in at least one crucial aspect, it isn't. And where you have to abandon your analogy, you would rather change the outcome to fit your analogy.

[Anonymous No.15966846]

>>15964860
All A fags are liars or ignorant. Ignore them.

[Anonymous No.15966848]

>>15964892
The cube must magically accelerate to pass through the portal. For A to be true there are extra steps over B.

[Anonymous No.15966850]

>>15965017
Both "sides" of a door frame do not move, trolling vermin.

[Anonymous No.15966865]

>>15964981
>No it's not, you just don't understand relative motion and frames of reference
Yes it fucking is you subhuman A tard.
For the cube to exit through the blue portal IT MUST MOVE.
If the cube is in motion, that is the end of the discussion, it is moving, has speed, momentum, inertia, energy, whatever your cries to the contrary. For the cube to pass through any portal it must be in motion relative to that portal, thus it is moving relative to the blue portal.

In order for A to be true, the cube must suddenly stop just as it finishing exiting the portal.

For B to be true, nothing changes as the cube passes the threshold of the portal. It carries on moving, which it was already, and flies into the air.

You, and any other A claiming filth, are wrong.

[Anonymous No.15967139]

>>15964878
A real doorway won't have half the door be moving and the other half not moving. This analogy does not work unless the exit portal is moving the same relative amount. Therefore, the answer is either B or C, a crushed cube, as there is no reason to believe that the cube could just pop out and suddenly stop due to no force.

[Anonymous No.15967144]

>>15966865
The cube doesn't fly because it is still relative to the platform its sitting on. The cube exits the portal only because the portal is pushed over the cube
Try this at home:
Put a coin or a die on a table, then take a cup. Put the cup over the item. Did the item move? If you bring down the cup, the object is moving relative to the opening of your cup. So your item should jump up equal to the speed of the cup when the cup comes to a stop and hits the table.
You'll find that the item doesn't inherit the cup's speed. But that doesn't make sense. The item was moving relative to the cup. From the perspective of the cup, the item came moving quickly upward and suddenly stopped in place.
If you want an analogy closer to a portal, cut a hole out of a sheet of paper, then drop it over your item. No matter how fast you bring the sheet of paper down, your item will never go flying off.
Even if we imagine the perspective of the top side of the sheet of paper only. Imagine that's all you can see. You are watching a hole when suddenly a cube comes quickly out of it only to suddenly stop. It doesn't go flying. Is this a violation of the conservation of momentum? No! This informs you that it is actually YOU who are moving and not the cube. The relativity of motion is referring to the perception of the individuals in the reference frame. It does not imply that all motion is perfectly reflective. If you think the cube goes flying, you have been mislead by someone else who likely themselves misunderstood the concept of reference frames and how they apply to the real world.

[Anonymous No.15967147]

>>15967144
Read >>15967139
a real piece of paper or real cup or whatever cannot ever have one side not moving and the other side moving. Therefore, none of these analogies work

[Anonymous No.15967151]

>>15967139
The blue portal actually is in motion if you think about it
The backside of each portal is perfectly connected, no thickness between them. So if one side is moving, then the whole system must be moving, that includes both portals. The cube appears to emerge from the portal but in reality the hole, composed of two portals, is actually moving over the cube. The blue portal appears still from its own perspective because everything around it is moving with it.

[Anonymous No.15967153]

>>15967144
Everything you've said is wrong. You are either ignorant or a troll.

>The cube doesn't fly because it is still relative to the platform its sitting on. The cube exits the portal only because the portal is pushed over the cube
Read my comment again >>15966865:
>For the cube to exit through the blue portal IT MUST MOVE.
There is not getting around this issue. There is no way to allow the cube to exit the blue portal without motion. End of story.

[Anonymous No.15967168]

>>15967151
The portals are seperate entities, you can place one without the other. If you placed the blue portal first, everyone would agree it is stationary. When you place the orange portal, what force causes the blue portal to move? This would be spooky action at a distance.
Also, why can't we flip this logic around and say that the orange portal is also stationary as it always ends in the same place? Since there is no absolute reference frame, from the frame of reference on the platform this is the exact same scenario, just with equal and opposite values. Though this gets into twin paradox territory

[Anonymous No.15967170]

>>15967153
>>15967147
Read >>15967151
The portals are what is in motion - not the cube. The blue portal and the orange portal occupy the same point in space. If the orange portal is moving, the blue portal is moving too. This is why it may be hard to wrap your head around, the portal really is analogous to a cup opening or a hole in a sheet of paper. When you put down portals on surfaces, the backsides of those surfaces are essentially joined into one, and the equivalent of a hole is put between them. When the orange portal moves downward, the blue portal and everything outside of it is actually moving down relative to the objects outside the orange portal. The cube itself never moves. Space moves around it.

[Anonymous No.15967176]

>>15967168
>When you place the orange portal, what force causes the blue portal to move?
The portals themselves. They must move in conjunction because they are connected. We just can't see it because it's a wormhole type thing.
Again, the reference frames don't matter. The reference frame is just about how you can't determine from motion alone who is actually moving. But in every relative motion situation, someone IS actually moving and someone IS actually not moving.
It's not spooky action because the portals are connected on the back and they bend those two places together. So the two locations are physically touching. Plus one portal doesn't open until a 2nd one is placed, so you do need two.

[Anonymous No.15967197]

>>15967176
This logic could easily be reversed to say that the orange portal is actually not moving. For some reason, you have unnecessarily privileged the orange portal's motion compared to the blue portal's motion.

[Anonymous No.15967216]

>>15967197
Also reply to >>15967170

[Anonymous No.15967219]

>>15967170
Read >>15967153:
>There is no way to allow the cube to exit the blue portal without motion.
Suppose I stuck a camera to the top of the cube, facing down such that the field of view could see the both the pedestal the cube sits on, and the rest of the cube.
When the cube passes through the portals, as it exits the blue portal, it can be clearly seen that the portal with respect the the cube, is in motion.

Again, read both >>15966865, and >>15967153:
>For the cube to exit through the blue portal IT MUST MOVE.
>There is no way to allow the cube to exit the blue portal without motion. End of story.
Do you understand? It is ontologically impossible for the cube to pass through the portal without motion.

[Anonymous No.15967231]

>>15959043
>drop a hula hoop on a cube
>cube flies into the sky
I guess the answer is B

[Anonymous No.15967318]

>>15967197
>For some reason, you have unnecessarily privileged the orange portal's motion compared to the blue portal's motion.
The reason being that the orange portal is the one moving, per the problem. Regardless of how you move the two portals around, they stay connected on the backside. So whether they appear to move or not, moving one portal moves the other with it.
>impossible for the cube to pass through the portal without motion.
Sure, but the portal is moving, which means the cube does not need to.

[Anonymous No.15967513]

>>15966772
Right side
>This arrangement is physically identical to the original
No it's not, in the original, the blue portal is at rest and not moving
B for the left case, A for the right case

[Anonymous No.15967525]

>>15966772
It's B both times, the portals have to jump the box over whatever miniscule space the platform takes up, so it must go fast.

[Anonymous No.15967839]

>>15967318
>So whether they appear to move or not, moving one portal moves the other with it.
So not moving the other also not-moves the one

[Anonymous No.15967842]

>>15966772
All right, let's break this down in detail. We can agree that motion is relative, right?

Left-hand scenario:
>Observer has speed 0 relative to environment
>Blue portal has speed 0 relative to observer
>Blue portal has speed 0 relative to environment
>Blue portal has speed 0 relative to orange portal
>Cube has speed X relative to orange portal
>Therefore cube has speed X relative to blue portal
>Therefore cube has speed X relative to environment and observer

Right-hand scenario:
>Observer has speed 0 relative to environment
>Blue portal has speed -X relative to observer
>Blue portal has speed -X relative to environment
>Blue portal has speed 0 relative to orange portal
>Cube has speed X relative to orange portal
>Therefore cube has speed X relative to blue portal
>Therefore cube has speed (-X+X=0) relative to environment and observer

Do you see the fundamental difference? Do you see how the left-hand scenario is not like a simple hula hoop and how the crucial change necessarily entails that the cube moves relative to the environment? There is no other logical answer. And it's so simple. Just addition and subtraction.

[Anonymous No.15967844]

>>15967144
>>15965460
Any experiment you can easily perform at home is by definition not a proper analogy to the portal problem. How many goddamn ways can you people conceive of saying "hula hoop" over and over again? All just to commit the same fallacy.

[Anonymous No.15967850]

>>15967318
>The reason being that the orange portal is the one moving, per the problem.
The blue portal isn't moving, per the problem.

[Anonymous No.15967932]

>>15967842
A scum are all trolls or retards. There's little point in arguing with them.

[Anonymous No.15968009]

>>15959043
either way it breaks all known physics. the real block speed was the friends we made along the way

[Anonymous No.15968046]

>>15968009
B. is at least logically consistent, and also keeps the breakage limited to the portal surface.
A. on the other hand breaks reality everywhere, an object can come out, and move and arbitrary distance from the portal but somehow still be affected by the portal.

[Anonymous No.15968496]

>>15967842
Youve misunderstood reference frames again.
Once again, the reference frame refers to your perception of movement. One object IS moving and one object is NOT moving. You can't just flip it around and say "this looks like its moving, so it is". Only one thing is moving. That is the portals.
You need to go back to the books on reference frames and actually learn some true information on them and not just pop sci nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15968502]

>>15967844
>Any experiment you can easily perform at home is by definition not a proper analogy to the portal problem.
The point is that IT ACTUALLY IS a proper analogy. If you don't understand that, you are completely off the mark on the entire topic. Absolute complete and total misunderstanding. And I'm trying to help inform you of that desperately.
>>15967850
You don't see the blue portal move, but the blue portal is, by definition, attached to the back of the yellow portal. That means, whether it appears to or not, the blue portal MUST move with the yellow portal. B both ignores how portals actually work AND relies on a misunderstanding of reference frames. If you can believe B you have been deeply mislead about how physics works,

[Anonymous No.15969080]

>>15968496
>Youve misunderstood reference frames again.
No, I haven't. All speeds are measured relative to something else.
>One object IS moving and one object is NOT moving.
It is you who misunderstands. There is no objective movement. It is all relative to a frame of reference. In fact this is one of the funniest things you people do.
>Yeah, yeah, all movement is relative to a frame of reference, yada yada
>But we all know the orange portal is what's REALLY moving
>>15968502
>The point is that IT ACTUALLY IS a proper analogy.
No, the point is you're ridiculously out of your depth. It's a flawed analogy and you don't understand why because you're not qualified to discuss this topic.
>You don't see the blue portal move, but the blue portal is, by definition, attached to the back of the yellow portal.
Which means the yellow portal isn't moving.

But of course I'm just being intentionally obtuse here and just applying your exact logic to the blue portal instead of the orange to show the flaws (which you, hilariously, still fail to see). The actual fact of the matter is that it's both; the portal both moves AND doesn't move, and you have to try to reconcile that. B does.

[Anonymous No.15969088]

>>15968496
>>15968502
You can't cope. I've shown you exactly what moves relative to what. This is actual, measurable movement in terms of distance over time. There is a clear difference between the portal problem and a regular hula hoop. And instead of addressing it directly you just say
>no, that doesn't count, it just looks like it's moving, a hula hoop is still a good analogy even though I can't tell you why
Let's see, what was it again?
>When you have to call something ‘illusory motion’ you need to take a step back and look around and reevaluate your position.

[Anonymous No.15969098]

Checking in. Afags still coping?

[Anonymous No.15969111]

>119 posts
>28 IPs

[Anonymous No.15969129]

>>15969111
14 IQ

[Anonymous No.15969138]

>>15968502
>You see the yellow portal move, but the yellow portal is, by definition, attached to the back of the blue portal. That means, whether it appears to be moving or not, the yellow portal MUST be stationary with the blue portal.
Since we agree that the yellow portal is stationary the space under it must be moving up, which means that the cube is moving through the orange portal and by Newton's first law continues to move after. Or this analogy doesn't work, take your pick

[Anonymous No.15969165]

>>15969080
>There is no objective movement.
Incorrect. The relativity of movement refers to your perception of the motion. The motion is objective, you just cannot determine how from within your reference frame. If this was not true, dropping a pen would make everything in your room fly around when it landed as the room is moving from the pens perspective. However, one thing is actually moving and the other is not. When the pen comes to rest and its reference frame changes, you can now determine which one was actually moving - the pen.
The point of these real world analogies is to specifically address the reference frame issue. If you don't believe me, please do more research. Please consider actual examples of reference frames in the real world. When you're in a car going 60mph and slam on your breaks, the people outside the car don't fall over despite their relative 60mph motion just moments ago.
Reference frames are not interchangeable and the relativity of motion does not imply that you can interchange momentum between objects at will. What you are arguing is a purely popsci understanding of reference frames gleaned from a single I Fucking Love Science headline. Your description of reference frames and how they interact with this problem is completely incongruent with the real world. Please for the love of god do more research on this topic.
>>15969138
You just make yourself look stupid posting something like this.

[Anonymous No.15969170]

>>15969165
>There is no objective movement.
>Incorrect.
lol
lmao
Thanks for putting that at the front so I can stop reading immediately

[Anonymous No.15969174]

>>15969165
For a more kid friendly description of the portals, think of those little jelly toys that roll out of your hand. The portal is the inner connection but its like it has no depth. As the portals move, it's like when you turn the jelly toy inside out. It's like a donut rotating about itself. The space itself is moving around the hole in the middle. Does this work better for your heads?

[Anonymous No.15969176]

>>15969165
Your bullshit about pens or cars or whatever just reveals your incomplete understanding. Relative motion doesn't mean that you're exerting forces on everything outside your car and no one is suggesting that. We are only pointing to the undeniably fact that, if the cube is moving relative to the portal, it is moving relative to the environment. This only becomes more true, in fact, if you want to declare something "objective" motion.
>>15969174
>It's a hula hoop argument
Give it a fucking rest.

[Anonymous No.15969177]

>>15969170
>disagree with my dogma
>dismissed
fair and very good description of your posts so far
like I said, please just do more research. reference frames are about perspective. If your research comes up proving me wrong, you've got more ammo and more confidence. just please spend a while reading about the topic of reference frames and movement. I wish I could recommend you a book or something but you have to do your own work there. I just feel bad that you have this understanding yet you can't see how it blatantly contradicts the real world you experience every day.

[Anonymous No.15969178]

>>15969174
>if the cube is moving relative to the portal, it is moving relative to the environment
Sure, because the environment is moving down around the cube.

[Anonymous No.15969179]

>>15969177
Yes, I do disagree with your dogma.
>If your research comes up proving me wrong, you've got more ammo and more confidence.
What do you think has been driving me thus far? I know and understand more than you. The fact thatyou think real-world physics proves anything in this case only shows it.

[Anonymous No.15969182]

>>15969178
You JUST fucking said that moving the car doesn't move all the people around it. Yet now you say, again, moving the portal moves the entire universe?
Instead, you should look at the blue portal as a window into a car. What happens inside the car may look like it's unconnected to the outside, but when you toss something out of the window, it may suddenly appear to have momentum it didn't seem to have before.

[Anonymous No.15969184]

>>15969179
>What do you think has been driving me thus far?
I think it's probably because you're a kid and you think it's more important to win than find the truth
>you think real-world physics proves anything
So you just want to talk nonsense? Real world physics is the basis for the problem.

[Anonymous No.15969190]

>>15969182
>moving the portal moves the entire universe?
It's more like its stretching. That's exactly what the portals do. They don't teleport you between two points, they bring two points physically together in space. The portal is physically identical to a hole between two discontinuous locations. Those locations must therefore be connected and somehow touching at all times regardless of the indiviual movement of each portal. All of space on each side of the portal is stretching to accomodate this.

[Anonymous No.15969191]

>>15969184
>I think it's probably because you're a kid and you think it's more important to win than find the truth
I think you're projecting.
>So you just want to talk nonsense? Real world physics is the basis for the problem.
The problem breaks your high school understanding of physics. You should turn to pure logic. A non-moving cube exiting a non-moving portal is a blatant contradiction.

[Anonymous No.15969194]

>>15969190
>It's more like its stretching. That's exactly what the portals do.
Right, where's the real-world physics again? Where's the hula hoop? Where's the experiment I can perform at home?

Once again, you cannot refute this: if the portals are the same point in space then they are both stationary. Unless you admit that they can move separately.

[Anonymous No.15969200]

>>15969191
>A non-moving cube exiting a non-moving portal is a blatant contradiction.
The cube appears to move from the perspective of the blue portal. However, because the portals must be attached, the blue portal and the space around it is actually being moved over the cube.
This is a case where you should actually be applying reference frames to understand the problem. The cube never moves *from its own reference frame*. From the cube's frame, it sees the portal and the space on the other side of the blue portal move down around it. So if you were the cube, why would you be launched?

[Anonymous No.15969202]

>>15969165
>don't engage the argument at all, just call it stupid and ignore it.
You just don't want to admit your logic leads to contradictory conclusions.

[Anonymous No.15969205]

>>15969200
>The cube appears to move from the perspective of the blue portal.
Which is the perspective of the entire world, for the record.
>However, because the portals must be attached, the blue portal and the space around it is actually being moved over the cube.
Correction, because the protals must be attached, and the blue portal is clearly stationary, the cube is clearly moved towards it.
>This is a case where you should actually be applying reference frames to understand the problem.
You should try applying them correctly.
>So if you were the cube, why would you be launched?
You maintain your movement through the stationary portal.

[Anonymous No.15969211]

>>15969202
No bud you won't actually discuss the problem as presented.
>Correction, because the protals must be attached, and the blue portal is clearly stationary, the cube is clearly moved towards it.
Per the problem, the cube is stationary and the orange portal is moved.
>You maintain your movement through the stationary portal.
What movement? If you are the cube, you never move. From the cube's perspective, where does the force come from? You see the orange portal and the blue portal, with the other side of it, moving toward you at the same speed. Imagine looking THROUGH the portal. You never actually move as the portal comes down over you, you see both portals moving.

[Anonymous No.15969215]

>>15969205
I see the problem now. You aren't looking through the portal. You're just looking at the other side.
Imagine yourself as the cube and look THROUGH the orange portal.
What you see is, the orange portal attached to the blue portal, moving down toward you at the same speed. The blue portal only appears stationary from the outside because you are in the same reference frame as the blue portal.
I haven't even thought of it this way yet but I think it makes it so clear. Just look thru the orange portal. There you see the blue portal move.

[Anonymous No.15969218]

>>15969211
>Per the problem, the cube is stationary and the orange portal is moved.
And the blue portal isn't. Which means that, per the problem, the cube is moved.
>What movement? If you are the cube, you never move.
Begging the question.
>You never actually move as the portal comes down over you, you see both portals moving.
Right, you see the stationary portal move relative to you. What does that imply?

[Anonymous No.15969219]

>>15969215
>I see the problem now. You aren't looking through the portal.
No. You don't see anything. If you actually look through the portal you will see the cube moving.
>The blue portal only appears stationary from the outside because you are in the same reference frame as the blue portal.
So, clarify this, for once. Is your actual argument that moving the portal actually moves the entire universe?
>Just look thru the orange portal. There you see the blue portal move.
Just look through the blue portal you obtuse twat

[Anonymous No.15969222]

>>15969211
You are the one saying that the portals have to be moving the same since they are attached, so since the blue portal obviously isn't moving, neither is the orange portal. Prove that the orange portal takes precedence over the blue

[Anonymous No.15969228]

>>15969222
>Prove that the orange portal takes precedence over the blue
Sure. The original problem specifies that the orange portal is moving per the speed lines.
>Is your actual argument that moving the portal actually moves the entire universe?
Yes. If you had a perfectly flat surface and put two portals on each side, the distortion would be minimal to create that hole. But if you move the portals far away, the backsides stay connected. That means the space on the other side of the portal - the space we occupy aka the world - is being contorted to accomodate the portal connection.
That would mean that the blue portal and all of the physical fabric of space around it actually shifts when you move the yellow portal. That, my friend, is how the portals work.

[Anonymous No.15969232]

>>15969228
>The original problem specifies that the orange portal is moving per the speed lines.
It also specifies that the blue protal isn't.
This is what you don't understand. Your argument cuts both ways yet you only see it one way.
>Is your actual argument that moving the portal actually moves the entire universe?
>Yes.
Right. Move the universe to avoid moving a cube.

And yet, assuming that all the laws of physics otherwise still apply within the universe, then this universe, though it is being moved (relative to what? Itself?) is still seeing a cube enter it at a certain speed.

[Anonymous No.15969237]

>>15969232
>this universe, though it is being moved, is still seeing a cube enter it at a certain speed
absolutely
and once the motion stops and the cube remains still, we confirm that it was actually we who were moving and not the cube

[Anonymous No.15969241]

>>15969232
>It also specifies that the blue protal isn't.
isn't moving *from its own reference frame, as a person on the blue side, we do not know if we are moving or not without looking through the blue portal

[Anonymous No.15969244]

>>15969228
Your argument about the hula hoop is that you should discount what you see about the blue portal. Why can't you do this with the yellow portal instead? All you are saying is that the yellow portal by itself is moving, but you are referring to a system of both portals.
The simple question is: why is the motion of the entity of the portal system together, which includes both the blue and yellow portal, determined solely by the yellow portal instead of the blue?

[Anonymous No.15969599]

>>15968496
If you stand if front of the blue portal, that stationary cube will smash you in the face with its stationary atoms.

[Anonymous No.15969778]

>>15969237
>and once the motion stops and the cube remains still, we confirm that it was actually we who were moving and not the cube
Not how it works. There is no version of the universe that is "actually" moving relative to the version of itself that is "actually" stationary relative to itself.
>>15969241
>isn't moving *from its own reference frame
Neither is the orange portal m8

[Anonymous No.15969973]

I've said it before a thousand times and I will say it again:
Not a single person who thinks it's A understands the argument for B.
Not a single person who understands the argument for B thinks it's A.

[Anonymous No.15969998]

>>15959043
if the portal were a 3d section of space there wouldn't be any paradox

[Anonymous No.15971537]

It's A
If it is B, someone with a portal on a plank could catapult the cube through the portal by swinging the plank and abruptly stopping half way, but that is obviously not how portals in the game work. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to stand between them due to the momentum inherently imparted by portals.

[Anonymous No.15971598]

>>15971537
There are no moving portals in the game.

[Anonymous No.15971656]

>>15969973
>>15971537
Case in point. This person clearly does not understand how B works because he is blatantly applying double the speed. It is not B that produces nonsensical results, it's your lack of understanding.

[Anonymous No.15971760]

>>15969973
>"You just don't understand the argument!"
>Doesn't post the argument
Can't understand something that doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.15971868]

>>15971760
If you still can't grasp the argument after over a decade of this shit then what's the point in me repeating it one more time? You proved my point exactly. You can't even conceive of the argument, it's so far beyond you. To you it might as well be A: hula hoop, B: pigs fly. You don't understand why there would be a debate in the first place and you've never been curious about it either. People just believe nonsense for no reason and that's it as far as you're concerned.
Meanwhile, I can tell you all about your stupid hula hoops, and why they're wrong as well, but you can just scroll up the thread for that too.

[Barkun No.15971870]

B

[Anonymous No.15971923]

>>15959043
the answer is neither because portals moving relative to one another break conservation of momentum and don't exist.

[Anonymous No.15971927]

>>15971923
*portals don't exist
ftfy

[Anonymous No.15972035]

>>15971923
Portals break conservation of momentum even if they don't move.

[Anonymous No.15973677]

>>15971868
There used to be genuine debate about this, with people on both sides having genuine curiosity and trying to see the arguments for and against either position. But over time, anyone who was open to having their minds changed came around to B. There were too many glaring flaws with A, and the only arguments against B showed a deep misunderstanding of the thing they were arguing against. So that's what the A side is left with. Only people who stubbornly cling to their first answer because they are unwilling to change their mind or unable to grasp the oppositions's case.

[Anonymous No.15975247]

>>15969219
NTA but Isnt there a difference between moving through space vs moving space?

Looking through the blue portal, it may appear the cube is moving through space at us, but in actuality it's more like space is warping at us. If you think of space as a sort of contiguous loop through the portals neither you nor the cube actually ever move within that loop, the stich line in the loop is what's moving...is how I'm picturing this at least.

[Anonymous No.15975467]

>>15975247
Good luck trying to come up with a consistent set rules for this bizarre moving space coming out of the portal. I have yet to see a single person actually explain how this moving space behaves.

[Anonymous No.15975521]

>>15962284
The typical infinite falling loop would instead act like a pendulum going between the portals centered at the lower portal.
You would fall down toward the earth going through the lower portal, and then fall back through the upper portal since the earth would be closer through that geodesic than through normal space.
Greg Egan already worked it out. Though I may have gotten it wrong.
https://www.gregegan.net/ALLSKIES/01/Gravity.html

[Anonymous No.15975527]

>>15975467
nta but moving space is just frame-dragging. And frame dragging is to gravity as magnetism is to electricity. Look up gravito-magnetism.

[Anonymous No.15975532]

>>15959043
>C
The wormhole mouths themselves move to pay for the change in momentum of the traversing object relative to it's surroundings, by equalizing in relative velocity.
I don't know how that looks in this case.

[Anonymous No.15975535]

>>15975527
qrd?
>>15975532
>It's C but I don't know what C is, exactly
k

[Anonymous No.15975542]

>>15975535
>>qrd
>frame dragging is to gravity as magnetism is to electricity. Look up gravito-magnetism.
It's not kooky shit. btw all fundamental forces have a "magnetic" component, though the strong force is so strong its never considered seperately, and the weak force is so weak its useless. At least according to the physics stackexchange.

[Anonymous No.15975546]

>>15975542
>It's not kooky shit.
Okay, well, I'm asking you what it is. What is happening according to you, and what does it result in.

[Anonymous No.15975560]

>>15975546
Frame dragging happens whenever a mass is accelerated, and feels like another gravitational force pulling you in the same direction or rotation. I don't think your agument makes any sense. B-tards are imagination-less npcs.
My answer remains C >>15975532

[Anonymous No.15975561]

>>15975532
>equalizing in relative velocity
Of what to what, exactly?

[Anonymous No.15975562]

>>15975560
>Frame dragging happens whenever a mass is accelerated, and feels like another gravitational force pulling you in the same direction or rotation.
Okay, but, what are you saying happens, and what does it result in?
>I don't think your agument makes any sense.
I haven't put forth any argument. I'm only questioning yours.
>B-tards are imagination-less npcs.
So where does this come from?

[Anonymous No.15975572]

>>15975561
The wormhole mouths want to have zero relative velocity between each other.
This solves the portal perpetual motion machines by paying for any "boost" given to an object exiting a moving portal with the momentum of the portal mouths themselves. Once they have zero relative velocity, no more energy can be extracted like that.
In this case I think the blue portal (depending on it's mass relative to the orange portal and the companion cube) would be thrown backward, perhaps breaking the stand it's on.
>>15975562
>argument
I read through your comment chain and I don't think it makes any sense. I can't reason what frame dragging would do or why it would be there in that case.

[Anonymous No.15975581]

>>15975572
>The wormhole mouths want to have zero relative velocity between each other.
Interesting conjecture but it has no apparent advantage over B, which also involves relative motion. In fact it seems to be A-by-means-of-B: B is fundamentally correct in its description of the cube's movement, but because the result has to be A (a stationary cube) the portal therefore has to move in direct proportion to it. Still raises the same problems of how.

>I read through your comment chain and I don't think it makes any sense. I can't reason what frame dragging would do or why it would be there in that case.
What
What did you read? You were the one to bring up frame-dragging

[Anonymous No.15975595]

>>15975581
It's actually an even more extreme version of A, not only does the cube have no way of getting boosted from falling out of a stationary portal, the portals themselves have to move to compensate for the differnece in velocity between them.
About how, wormholes are inherently space-time structures which change space in the large-scale, so I'm guessing that there might be gravitational waves that travel back and forth to exchange the momentum.

>frame-dragging
Yes, I brought it up in response to reading about a discussion about moving space in a dumb know-it-all way. I guess it doesn't have any relevance at all.

[Anonymous No.15975598]

>>15975595
>It's actually an even more extreme version of A, not only does the cube have no way of getting boosted from falling out of a stationary portal, the portals themselves have to move to compensate for the differnece in velocity between them.
Okay, but like I said, you still have the same problem then:
>Nooo, it has no way of affecting the cube!
>*crushes the pedestal through gravitational waves*

>Yes, I brought it up in response to reading about a discussion about moving space in a dumb know-it-all way.
Yes, that was the A argument, though.

[Anonymous No.15975612]

>>15975598
>that was the A argument
that's dumb. You don't need moving space to explain a cube not gaining momentum from going through a hoola-hoop.
The only reason why I'm bringing up the wormhole stuff is to further constrain the momentum gains.
How would B conserve momentum and prevent perpetual motion machines?

[Anonymous No.15975642]

>>15975612
Portals even when they don't move violate conservation of momentum and allow the creation of perpetual motion machines.

[Anonymous No.15975661]

>>15975467
The space isn't coming out of the portal, the stich line of space is being """moved""". As far as I can tell the portal doesn't really move within this loop, it just changes what two points in the loop are connected (in this case that change happens over time). The cube (and all the space around it) would just propagate out. I might be able to draw an image depicting what I mean...

[Anonymous No.15976173]

>>15959043
Just imagine that the orange portal is a hole. The cube will be stationary, just standing in the hole after the orange portal frame lands on the platform. A is correct. The conservation of momentum crap doesn’t matter because here we assume the entire fucking Earth absorbs the impact of the portal frame. None of the momentum goes to the cube.

[Anonymous No.15977367]

>>15976173
>Just imagine that the orange portal is a hole.
WOW WHAT A REVOLUTIONARY CONTRIBUTION TO THIS DECADE-OLD DISCUSSION, THAT SURE WAS WORTH THE TIME IT TOOK TO PRESS POST

[Anonymous No.15977369]

>>15976173
>The conservation of momentum crap doesn’t matter because here we assume the entire fucking Earth absorbs the impact of the portal frame.
What would happen with a free-floating cube in outer space?

[Anonymous No.15977385]

The answer is A and you dont even need a portal to prove it. The portal in the depiction is just there to trick you.

The answer is all about newtons first law of motion.

[Anonymous No.15977401]

>>15977385
From the perspective of the blue portal, everything on the other side is approaching it with the momentum of the piston that the orange portal is attached to. So to conserve this momentum, the cube must exit at speed.
Imagine the orange portal moving down at 1mph. The cube emerges through the blue portal at 1mph, and it looks like A.
With the orange portal moving at 100mph, the cube emerges at 100mph, and it looks like B.

[Anonymous No.15977441]

>>15977401
Has nothing to do with perspectives and what it looks like. There is no momentum for the cube. I could prob give you that if you were standing in front of the blue portal, you would feel a breeze of air equal to the volume of air that has to pass through, but once that orange portal hits the table, it comes to an abrupt and sudden stop. No more air is coming through. There is no momentum for the cube. There is no momentum for the orange portal. All the momentum is in the piston which doesnt travel through the portals. The orange portal doesnt just transfer all that energy to the cube, nor does it transfer to the blue portal. The only thing that happens is the gravity direction abruptly changes for the cube and it falls over.

[Anonymous No.15977449]

With all the time you spent arguing about this dumb shit over months, you could've already made a portal map in source and got a definitive answer. Fuck you all

[Anonymous No.15977465]

>>15977441
>There is no momentum for the cube
But there is. Momentum is relative to the frame of reference. Relative to the stationary blue portal, the cube (and the platform its attached to, and indeed the entire universe) has momentum. If it doesn't have momentum relative to the reference frame of the stationary blue portal, then how does it exit the blue portal? At what speed does it exit the blue portal?

[Anonymous No.15977477]

>>15977465
In that scenario, youre favoring the momentum of one perspective over the other. The relative momentums would cancel out.

Imagine if the orange portal immediately stopped halfway down the cube. What happens to the cube?

[Anonymous No.15977498]

>>15977477
I'm "favoring" one perspective, because we're talking about the cube exiting the portal in that reference frame.
Imagine the orange portal moving down at 1mph. The cube emerges through the blue portal at 1mph, and it looks like A.
With the orange portal moving at 100mph, the cube emerges at 100mph, and it looks like B.

Unless you imagine the cube exiting the blue portal at 100mph, but then immediately coming to a complete halt

[Anonymous No.15977503]

>>15977385
>you dont even need a portal to prove it
Anyone who says this doesn't understand portals

[Anonymous No.15977513]

>>15977477
>The relative momentums would cancel out.
How do you imagine that, exactly?

[Anonymous No.15977525]

>>15977449
The game doesn't natively support this scenario, you have to mod it to do one or the other

[Anonymous No.15977533]

>>15975661
>The space isn't coming out of the portal
>The cube (and all the space around it) would just propagate out.
Seems contradictory. So how does space propagate in space?

[Anonymous No.15977540]

>>15977477
>What happens to the cube
Cubes don't really exist. They are made up of atoms. The atoms which have come through the blue are moving. If the portal stops, those moving atoms will violently pull against the other atoms that have not gone through the portal.

[Anonymous No.15977555]

>>15977498
If it looks like its coming out at 100mph, thats fine.
What work is being applied to the cube for it to sustain 100mph once it leaves the blue portal?

I understand what youre trying to say, and it makes me wonder what would happen to the cube if the orange portal were moving at the speed of light, but I still think work has to be applied to the cube for it to sustain its velocity.

[Anonymous No.15977565]

>>15977555
>What work is being applied to the cube for it to sustain 100mph once it leaves the blue portal?
Sneaky, no-one ever said the cube would "sustain" 100mph. But if it exits the portal at 100mph, it's going to look like B, not A, even as its momentum decays and it eventually comes to a rest.
Momentum is relative, and from the perspective of the blue portal, a cube approaching the orange portal at 100mph is identical to an orange portal approaching a cube at 100mph.
If it feels illogical for the cube to exit at speed without an obvious force acting on it, that's probably because portals aren't real and don't and can't exist anyway.

[Anonymous No.15977587]

>>15977565
>Sneaky, no-one ever said the cube would "sustain" 100mph
NTA, but I would say that, because that is how the cube experiences it. Not as a sudden acceleration but as continuous movement.

[Anonymous No.15977625]

>>15977587
>>15977565
Or wait, was the implication that it will move at 100 mph in perpetuity? No, that is silly of course

[Anonymous No.15977736]

>>15975612
>You don't need moving space to explain a cube not gaining momentum from going through a hoola-hoop.
But portals are, of course, not hula hoops, so they have to come up with a way to argue that they are like hula hoops somehow

[Anonymous No.15977740]

>>15977533
My wording was a bit confusing here. The "propagation" is more like a perspective trick. Like if you go into a 3D program is play around with the focal length of a camera. You remain stationary but it appears that something you're looking at is coming at you or away from you even though nothing is moving.

Or imagine your're a 2D being looking at a 3D object. You can only see the narrow slice of that 3D object (the area that crosses your 2D plane). Normally in the hyper cube example, the cube moves through the 2D plane and the 2D observer see's a rectangle appear then suddenly disappear, but imagine if you reverse it so that instead of the 3D cube moving, the plane if space 'evolves' over time from a 2D plane, into a 3D cube space to accommodate the 3D cube. In this instance a 2D thing would seemingly emerge from the ether into a 3D cube...

Now that's not exactly what I'm saying is happening, because of that stich line effect I was talking about, but it's a similar effect.
Imagine the Portal you're looking at (Blue in this case) as a 2D area of space with 3D information encoded onto it so as you move around that 2D region has a 3D perspective "within" it. As the other portal (Orange) comes down and envelops the cube, that 2D encoding on your side gets 3D-decoded and begins to "emerge".

[Anonymous No.15977745]

>>15977555
Cubes are made up of atoms. The atoms on the front of the cube have already left the portal. Why would those atoms care about the other side of the cube?

[Anonymous No.15977754]

>>15977555
>What work is being applied to the cube for it to sustain 100mph once it leaves the blue portal?
The entire universe is being moved towards it.

[Anonymous No.15977755]

>>15977740
>The "propagation" is more like a perspective trick. Like if you go into a 3D program is play around with the focal length of a camera. You remain stationary but it appears that something you're looking at is coming at you or away from you even though nothing is moving.
Except, of course, that the cube is physically somewhere else at the end of the day.
>Imagine the Portal you're looking at (Blue in this case) as a 2D area of space with 3D information encoded onto it so as you move around that 2D region has a 3D perspective "within" it. As the other portal (Orange) comes down and envelops the cube, that 2D encoding on your side gets 3D-decoded and begins to "emerge".
Does this actually make sense, or is this reasoning backwards from deciding A has to happen?

[Anonymous No.15977787]

>>15977755
>Except, of course, that the cube is physically somewhere else at the end of the day.
Yes, and that cube is, relative to your position, never moving. The issue I have with B is I've yet to see someone explain to me in a way I can understand where the cube's momentum comes from. My mind is open to being changed.

>Does this actually make sense, or is this reasoning backwards from deciding A has to happen?
I'm trying to explain why I feel A is more correct. None of this makes sense because the way portals work in game already break physics. All we can do is provide frameworks with explanatory power and choose the one that fits best

Also, as the portals are programmed in game, they really are just 2D encoded windows. You can look up how valve programmed them so even within the game mechanics thinking of them as weird encoding tricks has some merit imo.

[Anonymous No.15977815]

>>15977787
Since portals don't conserve momentum even when they don't move. Its not just B you should reject, but portals in general.

[Anonymous No.15977817]

>>15977787
>Yes, and that cube is, relative to your position, never moving.
Of course it's moving. If you position yourself one cm away from the portal you're going to feel it. The momentum comes from the cube moving out of the stationary portal being a given, which means relative movement. Logically it cannot do anything else.

[Anonymous No.15978340]

>>15959043
A in a naive implementation of portals using Box2D, bullet or similar physical engine.
However B is the most intuitive in real life but there is no portals in real life.

[Anonymous No.15978870]

>>15978340
> A in a naive implementation
No actually. A requires special handling and is quite complex. B is trivial to implement, and the only thing more primitive, would be to not support moving portals at all. Like, portal, where moving portals just glitch out.

[Anonymous No.15978903]

Imagine throwing the cube into portal B and then portal A suddenly shoot upwards because relative motion.

[Anonymous No.15978937]

>>15977401
WHEN YOU LOOK THROUGH THE BLUE PORTAL YOU DON'T JUST SEE THE CUBE MOVING TOWARD YOU, YOU ALSO SEE THE WHOLE WORLD ON THE ORANGE SIDE OF THE PORTAL WHICH EXPLAINS IT'S MOTION
YOU DON'T NEED TO INVENT AN ARBITRARY PERSPECTIVE AND APPLY FICTITIOUS FORCES WITH NO SOURCE TO MAINTAIN THAT ARBITRARY PERSPECTIVE.

[Anonymous No.15978941]

>>15977465
>the entire universe has momentum
lol

[Anonymous No.15978956]

>>15975642
not if you account for the gravitational and electromagndtic fields themselves propagating through the portals. >>15975521

[Anonymous No.15978986]

[Anonymous No.15978990]

[Anonymous No.15979164]

>>15978870
Tell me you never worked with these engines a day in your life, without telling me directly. In engines such as this velocity is discrete and non relational. So if you just move the object on collision it will retain its exact velocity which is zero. A real McCoy developer would see that there is a need to add the velocity vectors when a portal is used. In real life, objects don't have a discrete velocity, velocity is relative to something else.

[Anonymous No.15979184]

>>15978990
thanks for that

[Anonymous No.15979199]

Here to give my two cents:
it's B, since the cube has to exit at the same rate it enters. It either flies out of the stationary portal at whatever speed the moving portal was going, or it is partially crushed when it exits.

[Anonymous No.15979204]

>>15979199
>has to exit at the same rate
who says?
What if the cube was superglued to the stand? You could say that the cube was a part of the stand. Obviously there has to be some sort of transfer of momentum. Where does that come in? Surely the momentum of the universe would be able to rip the stand out of the reinforced concrete and squeeze it through the orange portal. Or is it a pulling force?

[Anonymous No.15979208]

>>15959488
Momentum is a vector and is not conserved in either A or B

[Anonymous No.15979214]

>>15978941
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15979218]

>>15979204
because I imagine you'd have to make up some strange rules if things could exit at different rates than they entered. How would that even work?
I mean, I just imagine the portals being 'linked'. In this case the platform is moving towards the hole that is the linked portals, and when it stops the cube continues moving. If the cube was glued strongly enough then it would stay stuck, but would 'experience' a sudden stop. I don't really know what you mean by 'momentum of the universe'.

[Anonymous No.15979252]

>>15979204
> who says?
Basic geometry. If some amount of material enters one portal, the same amount has to leave the other because that matter has to be somewhere.

[Anonymous No.15979256]

>>15979208
what do you mean? The orange portal is the only thing in the setup that moves and momentum for it is conserved just fine :)
>>15979252
exactly, the cube smoothly goes through the hoola-hoop.

[Anonymous No.15979260]

[Anonymous No.15979263]

I used to think A but some of these images are gaslighting me

[Anonymous No.15979270]

>>15979263
faster, harder

[Anonymous No.15979279]

>>15979263
The webm that annihilated A-theists

[Anonymous No.15979281]

>>15979279
The cube is entangled with the stand.

[Anonymous No.15979284]

>>15979263
the only thing that's strange about that webm is the cube being attached to the platform stopping it from falling separately when the platform is pulled out from under it.

[Anonymous No.15979288]

>>15979284
You don't think that when the cube + platform emerge rapidly around 3 seconds in that the cube should have achieved a degree of lift off of the platform?

[Anonymous No.15979304]

>>15979288
The stationary air on blue side of the portal being pushed aside by the approaching platform and cube would certainly wobble it around a bit, but the cube itself isn't moving so it wouldn't continue on with any momentum.

[Anonymous No.15979315]

>>15979304
>move pole up
>cube does not fly
>drop pole
>cube has inertia and starts falling later
>move pole up so it hits cube
>cube goes flying because it was knocked by the pole

why would the cube fly when it got knocked in the second case but not in the first case where the pole abruptly stops with the cube on it?

[Anonymous No.15979355]

>>15979315
>be top
>guarding entrance to red
>adc and supp are afk under turret
>mid is afk under turret
>jungler gets invaded at blue

the jungloid did not like me for my pick and was critical of me in chat but I still gave an honour because wow

[Anonymous No.15979361]

oops

[Anonymous No.15979365]

>>15979304
>but the cube itself isn't moving
So how come it moves?
I'm becoming more and more convinced that A believers have never even played Portal.

[Anonymous No.15979375]

>>15979315
when the platform emerges upward through the blue portal there are no forces acting on it or the cube, except for wind from air being displaced by it. F/m = a, F=0, so a=0.
When the orange portal moves back up and the platform descends through the blue portal at high speed the cube should take a moment to catch up, as it will have lost support.
This is analogous to the ground pulling down a few feet in an earthquake, after which the cube would lose support and fall down to it, catching up a moment later.

It seems counterintuitive that things would only separate on the downstroke, but that's the consequence of no forces being applied by the portals and having strange moving geometry.

>>15979365
the cube and platform have no force being applied to them and are under no acceleration. Their movement is only due to space being linked up and moving through the use of portals. Start thinking with portals.

[Anonymous No.15979381]

>>15979375
>after which the cube would lose support and fall down to it, catching up a moment later.
well I guess the gaslighting was brief and I am back to finding A plausible

[Anonymous No.15979443]

>>15979304

[Anonymous No.15979466]

>>15979375
>Their movement is only due to space being linked up and moving through the use of portals
So "space" can "move" because of the movement of portals, but not an object occupying that space? That seems like special pleading. What force is acting upon the space to make it move?

[Anonymous No.15979495]

>>15977787
>The issue I have with B is I've yet to see someone explain to me in a way I can understand where the cube's momentum comes from. My mind is open to being changed.
Portals just connect two locations seamlessly. Imagine a portal on your wall going to the inside of a flying plane cabin, it would be most seamless if you could just step through onto the plane, even though there's a huge difference in the locations' speeds. The change in momentum comes from the same place the change in position comes from – whatever magic portals are doing.
B is only working from the assumption that "velocity entering portal = velocity exiting portal", which has to be true unless the object gets stretched out or squashed. B isn't positing any physical explanation for the behaviour, it's just starting from that assumption and following it through to the end results.

[Anonymous No.15979516]

what would happen in this case /sci/?

[Anonymous No.15979721]

>>15978903
Yeah, that has been proposed as "extreme A" ITT

[Anonymous No.15979723]

>>15978986
cringe

[Anonymous No.15979728]

>>15959043
I asked this in the other thread but maybe someone here knows. if it teleports matter it should also teleport the air. if you stand in front of blue portal, do you feel a breeze or not? why/why not?

[Anonymous No.15979729]

>>15979375
>when the platform emerges upward through the blue portal there are no forces acting on it or the cube, except for wind from air being displaced by it.
Ah yes, the air displaced by the stationary cube

[Anonymous No.15979737]

>>15959043
it breaks physics if portals move at different speeds. they need to have same speed relative to environment

[Anonymous No.15979739]

>>15979728
B: obviously you do.
A: depends on who you ask because they usually haven't though this far ahead. Some admit that the cube should displace the air but refuse to acknowledge that that implies real motion and real forces applied. Others will just stubbornly insist that nothing is moving. Yet others will waffle about space being warped so that nothing has to actually move but refuse to clarify what this would look like, what the effects of this warping are on the surrounding space, and how far it extends beyond the portals.
>>15979737
What if the environments have different speeds relative to something else

[Anonymous No.15979741]

>>15979739
>What if the environments have different speeds relative to something else
I mean each portal needs to have same speed relative to same environment. simpler case is when both are on one side of the wall, and you move the wall. but it should work without being locked on same axis. as long as both of them have the same speed relative to same environment, even if different directions

[Anonymous No.15979742]

>>15979741 me
as in whenever you move one portal, the other automatically moves in sync with first portal. even if in different direction. that solves it nicely

[Anonymous No.15979746]

>>15979741
>I mean each portal needs to have same speed relative to same environment.
So portals move relative to some absolute reference point?

But then the scene with the portal on the Moon would be impossible.

[Anonymous No.15979748]

>>15979746
>So portals move relative to some absolute reference point?
yeah, at same speed, direction shouldn't matter

[Anonymous No.15979749]

>>15979741
>>15979746
Or the part with the laser

[Anonymous No.15979752]

>>15979737
>it breaks physics if portals move at different speeds
Mate... Portals break physics to begin with, whether or not they are stationary relative to each other.

[Anonymous No.15979766]

got Revolution and started playing it today

[Anonymous No.15979867]

>>15979737
Moving portals are actually no worse than stationary portals. They both violate conservation of momentum. When portals change speed things get weird, but when moving at constant velocity there is no problem.

[Anonymous No.15979905]

>>15979256
>what do you mean?
Imagine another scenario where the cube is moving into the orange portal. In both the A and B universe the cube will emerge with the same speed it entered but a new direction and thus a new velocity vector. Hence the momentum will be changed as well, and not be conserved
So portals do not conserve momentum

[Anonymous No.15980050]

I genuinely think Afriends just lack the ability to visualise the cube exiting the portal so they don't conceptualise it as movement. They just think of it in steps, first the cube is here, now it is there. Did it move? They can't see it move so they hearken back to high school physics. No force (that they can identify) = no movement. Case closed. They really don't get what those B people are on about, things don't just start flying by themselves, why would portals suddenly change that? It becomes especially clear when they try to debunk B but they don't actually get what B is so they just come up with nonsense scenarios.

[Anonymous No.15980217]

>>15961749
>>15962411
The moving piston just slams its kinetic energy on the platform and dissipates it as heat. The cube has no momentum and just slips out of the portal. The portal itself has no mass btw. The moving piston does have the momentum and the momentum is wasted in the slam.

Literally a hole in the space time fabric is just a hole. In the game Chell herself ahs to gain momentum by falling. It is never the portal, always the objects momentum entering the portal.

You people cannot even into basic abstraction.

[Anonymous No.15980241]

>>15980217
>The cube has no momentum and just slips out of the portal.
>no momentum
>slips out

Do you realise the fundamental difference between this scenario and anything you can do in the game, btw?

[Anonymous No.15980260]

>>15980241
Are we discussing my theory that the momentum is on the platform and not the portal?
Thus far nobody can prove the portal itself has mass to even contain any momentum itself.
If you jump and I move a massless ring around you, your momentum doesn't change.
Why would it change if the location in space time changes whilst you are in the ring?

people came as far out of the stargate as they entered it themselves.

[Anonymous No.15980271]

>>15980260
We are discussing portals. If something comes out of a stationary portal that necessarily means it moved. Every part of the cube that went into the portal simultaneously came out the other portal exactly as quickly as it went in.

[Anonymous No.15980384]

>>15979905
yeah if the portals were more realistic they would be spherical and you couldn't change direction with them. I assume in the portal games there is just a lot of energy being input to allow them to be non-spherical and change the directions of things.

[Anonymous No.15980401]

>Bfag punches an Afriend through an approaching portal
>The Bfag's punch falls short and stops moving
>the momentum of the universe forces his arm to continue moving and rips it in half :)

[Anonymous No.15980403]

>>15980241
yes, the portal, and thus space, moves the stationary cube.

[Anonymous No.15980418]

>>15980401
Whoa, B means something painful might happen? It must be not be true then.

[Anonymous No.15980743]

>>15980260
Basic geometry. The cube has to physically move to exit the blue portal. How it acquired that momentum is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.15980748]

>>15980401
Only if the portal changes speed does anything like that happen. If a portal is moving at a constant speed then nothing weird happens.

[Anonymous No.15980761]

Portals never interact with an object other than changing coordinates in space. Imagine dropping a ring on a nail - did the nail move? Did the ring transfer it's energy to the nail? No? Because they never touched/interacted. Only the platforms touch, which gives a small bumb to the cube because of collision. the answer is A.

[Anonymous No.15980934]

>>15980271
>>15980743
if you cannot explain the mechanism how the momentum is transferred then I see no argument

throwing an object in space or ejecting gas on a rocket nozzle makes sense, a portal without friction or resistances cannot transfer any

[Anonymous No.15980938]

>>15980934
Reality comes first explanation later. It has to physically move to exit the blue portal, that is objective fact.

You are treating the "laws" of physics backwards, its like they are the words of god which reality must conform to, rather than a description of reality, a description that no longer fully applies when there are portals.

[Anonymous No.15980955]

>>15980938
>. It has to physically move to exit the blue portal, that is objective fact.

Nta but the movement s from the bumping of two platforms, like i said in >>15980761

[Anonymous No.15980970]

>>15980761
>never interact with an object other than changing coordinates in space
Hmm, if only we had a concept to describe an object's co-ordinates in space changing over time.

[Anonymous No.15980973]

>>15980970
Portals don't require energy to work, which is incompatible with acceleration.

[Anonymous No.15980988]

>>15980934
Discontinuous spacetime. Warped spacetime makes object paths curve, the portal edge makes object paths jump. You can demonstrate that gravity doesn't pass through portals in-game by the fact that two portals on the ceiling don't attract objects.

[Anonymous No.15980998]

>>15980403
If the cube moves relative to space then it moves because that is how we define movement

[Anonymous No.15981000]

>>15980761
>Imagine dropping a ring on a nail
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR REVOLUTIONARY INSIGHT

HOW MANY FUCKING WAYS CAN YOU PEOPLE CONCEIVE OF SAYING 'HULA HOOP' ISTFG

[Anonymous No.15981001]

>>15980934
>if you cannot explain the mechanism how the momentum is transferred then I see no argument
You can't explain portals to begin with.

[Anonymous No.15981003]

>>15980761
>>15980955
So, let me get this straight, the cube doesn't move at all until the platforms touch, at which point it is instantaneously "bumped" out of the portal?

[Anonymous No.15981006]

>>15980973
>Portals don't require energy to work
Prove it
>which is incompatible with acceleration
B does not suggest acceleration but rather continuous motion.

[Anonymous No.15981012]

>>15981000
As often as it takes untill you understand basic physics, like the concept of conservation of energy.

>>15981003
Yes. The kinetic energy came from the collision of two platforms transferring a tiny amount to the cube.

>>15981006
>Prove it
Open portal 2. They stay indefinitely without outside fuel, that's how they're coded.

>Continuous motion
The cube was at rest (kinetic energy = 0)

[Anonymous No.15981028]

>>15981012
You're really going to claim to know how the portal gun operates in-universe? Based on how the game is coded?

>untill you understand basic physics
Bugger that, how about basic logic: two stationary objects cannot move relative to each other. One of them must be moving.

[Anonymous No.15981030]

>>15981028
>how the portal gun operates in-universe?
Yes. By observation

>must be moving
Yes, the platform is moving.

[Anonymous No.15981032]

>>15981012
>As often as it takes untill you understand basic physics, like the concept of conservation of energy.
You know what, it's not even your obstinacy that bothers me the most. No, it's the way every single one of you always acts like you're cutting the Gordian knot, like you're introducing some revolutionary new insight, like it wasn't one of the first analogies people came up with that has been thoroughly debunked again and again over the past decade. It's not just your refusal to listen. It's that all of you seem to want to pretend that you are unaware of the entire preceding discussion and have something valuable to contribute that no one thought of before. I think it really shows your hubristic attitude even more than your misplaced confidence in your answer.
>>15981030
>Yes. By observation
Tell me all that you observe. Where is its power source? How does it open a hole in spacetime without power?
>Yes, the platform is moving.
The blue portal isn't

[Anonymous No.15981036]

>>15980973
>Portals don't require energy to work
Incorrecr

[Anonymous No.15981037]

>>15981012
>The cube was at rest
Yes and it remains at rest, the portal and the entire universe on the other side moves towards the cube.

[Anonymous No.15981039]

>>15981036
Where exactly is the energy supply to the portals once they activate?

>>15981037
>and the entire universe on the other side moves towards the cube.
The other side is also at rest. I'm tired of being trolled, it's not even funny

[Anonymous No.15981043]

>>15981039
>The other side is also at rest.
So then we come back to >>15981028
>two stationary objects cannot move relative to each other. One of them must be moving.

I know the standard A answer to this.
>We know the orange portal is moving
>The portals are really the same object in space and should be treated as one singular portal
>Therefore moving the one moves the other
>Therefore the blue portal, though it appears to be stationary, is actually moving, because moving the orange portal really moves the entire universe towards the cube
Before we continue, do you agree with this?

[Anonymous No.15981045]

>>15981039
Energy is not fundamentally real. Its just a name we assigned to a number that appears when you rearrange physics equations in a certain way. Portals completely destroy the very concept of energy.

[Anonymous No.15981049]

>>15981043
Teleportation is thus not classical motion. I see no problem in this. Imagine the portals million lightyears apart. Did the cube move ftl? Ofc no

[Anonymous No.15981053]

>>15981043
>>Therefore moving the one moves the other

Wat

[Anonymous No.15981056]

>>15981012
>As often as it takes untill you understand basic physics, like the concept of conservation of energy.
t. learned the right things to parrot to pass exams but didn't understand a whit of it

[Anonymous No.15981059]

>>15981045
>Portals completely destroy the very concept of energy.

No they don't. They just map one coordinate to another, while preserving energy. Imagine graphing with a discontinuous axis - the math is still the same, but any graph will look unfamiliar

>>15981056
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.15981068]

>>15981049
>Did the cube move ftl? Ofc no
Not if you look at the real path it took through the portal. Of course, if you look at the way the cube moves through the portal, it is moving relative to the stationary portal.
If you look at the outcome then obviously the cube did get from one place to another faster than light could have traversed that distance without tunneling through space.
>>15981053
It doesn't have to make actual sense, it only has to make sense to Afriends.

[Anonymous No.15981073]

>>15981059
You can use portals to create a perpetual motion machine. Also, just changing the direction of an object violates conservation of energy.

[Anonymous No.15981096]

>>15981068
>If you look at the outcome

That's not how science works thoughbeit. You can't wiggle with a laser pointing at the moon real fast and go "see, the light dot is moving ftl"

>It doesn't have to make actual sense, it only has to make sense to Afriends.
>Strawmans the opponent
>Thinks this is a valid argument
Ngmi

>>15981073
>You can use portals to create a perpetual motion machine
Not in portals, because you can't extract energy there. A simple perpetual motion doesn't violate energy conservation - just throw something in open space and it will fly forever by default.

Ok nerds, suppose B is correct. Suppose the orange portal abruptly stops before reaching the cube's bottom at (cubelength)/2. So half the cube is at rest, and the top half is granted your Bfriend relativistic kinetic energy boost. It would mean half the cube would fly off to the moon, thus ripping the cube apart. But cubes are indestructible in portal iirc, and portals "don't suck in" either iirc. QED

[Anonymous No.15981128]

>>15981096
>You can't wiggle with a laser pointing at the moon real fast and go "see, the light dot is moving ftl"
Because it wouldn't be. There would be a 1.28 second delay for the light to even reach the Moon, and its movement would be delayed.

>Strawmans the opponent
I specifically asked you if you subscribe to this theory, because I know some of you do, but I suppose you all have your idiosyncratic pet theories as opposed to the more-or-less unified B-front.

>Not in portals, because you can't extract energy there.
Waterwheel in between two portals, bam.
>A simple perpetual motion doesn't violate energy conservation - just throw something in open space and it will fly forever by default.
That's only perpetual until it hits something. No energy is added or lost.
>Suppose the orange portal abruptly stops before reaching the cube's bottom at (cubelength)/2. So half the cube is at rest, and the top half is granted your Bfriend relativistic kinetic energy boost. It would mean half the cube would fly off to the moon, thus ripping the cube apart.
What was that about strawmen?
>But cubes are indestructible in portal iirc, and portals "don't suck in" either iirc. QED
QE-nothing m8, we can substitute anything else for the cube if you like, and the behaviour of non-moving portals from the game is no precedent for the moving portal here.

[Anonymous No.15981130]

>>15981096

[Anonymous No.15981147]

>>15981130
This appears to assume zero-g but otherwise accurate

[Anonymous No.15981152]

>>15981130
That's like... your opinion

>Because it wouldn't be. There would be a 1.28 second delay for the light to even reach the Moon, and its movement would be delayed.
Someone standing on the moon would see the smot move ftl. But that's not motion. Same as teleportation isn't motion in the classial sense.

>I specifically asked you if you subscribe to this theory
I didn't even understand the part i replied wat to. You're making something up i never claimed.

>Waterwheel in between two portals, bam.
There are no waterwheels in portal, as there isn't energy extraction

>What was that about strawmen?
It's a thought experiment. I never claimed you argued like this. I just assumed b to be correct, and turns out more paradoxes arise

>anything else for the cube if you like, and the behaviour of non-moving portals from the game is no precedent for the moving portal here.

Anything else won't be destroyed either. 1/2

[Anonymous No.15981165]

>>15981128
>>15981152

2/2

Assume a very tall brick, and you jerk the top 1% with the yellow portal platform in hand. The top 1% gets the Bfriend relativistic motion, right? And pulls the rest along, right? Where does it get the energy from to accelerate 99% of the brick? You've only "jerked" 1%, but the 99% of brick keep keep dragging along... We could even create a bow like this, just slam a portal on an arrow and it will shoot out of eg a shield. Idc it just seems like the bigger bogus, compared to A

[Anonymous No.15981185]

>>15981152
>Someone standing on the moon would see the smot move ftl.
No. They wouldn't. Because the light coming from the Earth to the Moon's surface would take a minute and a half to get there. And the spot wouldn't look like it moved continuously; rather, it would look like it is first here, then there, as the scattered photons spread out further. But that is not a "moving spot", that is individual photons hitting the Moon at different places at different times.
>I didn't even understand the part i replied wat to. You're making something up i never claimed.
All right, so you don't even have an answer then. But I'm not the one who made it up. It appears earlier in this very thread.
>There are no waterwheels in portal
Use a smidgen of imagination.
>I just assumed b to be correct, and turns out more paradoxes arise
No, you assumed something really weird no one claimed. That's a strawman.
>>15981165
>Assume a very tall brick, and you jerk the top 1% with the yellow portal platform in hand. The top 1% gets the Bfriend relativistic motion, right?
If I understand you correctly, yes
>And pulls the rest along, right?
1% probably wouldn't be enough to overcome inertia.
>Where does it get the energy from to accelerate 99% of the brick?
Same place portals get the energy to change direction or impart unlimited potential energy.

[Anonymous No.15981199]

>>15981185
>take a minute and a half to get there.
Irrelevant. You shoot a constant stream of photons, they arrive near constantly. and you see everything "chopped", it's called video frames. To you on the moon it would look like a spot of a normal laser, moving ftl. You're right - nothing moves ftl, but it appears to you under the wrong assumptions - just like with portals

>All right, so you don't even have an answer then.
Right, i don't have an answer to things you just assume to strawman me.

>Use a smidgen of imagination.
Still you can't extract energy in this game

> really weird no one claimed
What? That the block enters the portal? It's right in the pic (which doesn't mention how the piston stops). Please read what a strawman is

>Same place portals get the energy to change direction
That's just the assumption of how portals work. Nobody assumed portals could instantly change the speed from 0 to v too, afaik that never happens ingame.
> unlimited potential energy.
Elaborate

[Anonymous No.15981234]

>>15981199
>You're right - nothing moves ftl, but it appears to you under the wrong assumptions - just like with portals
The situations are not comparable. With the laser, the spot is actually different photons every time. With the cube, it's the same cube, the same atoms.
>Right, i don't have an answer to things you just assume to strawman me.
No, the "strawman" is the common answer to the problem I posed to you.
>Still you can't extract energy in this game
But you could do so using portals that worked like they do in the game.
>What? That the block enters the portal?
That it flies to the moon.
>Nobody assumed portals could instantly change the speed from 0 to v too, afaik that never happens ingame.
No, they rather go from -v to v
>unlimited potential energy
The water wheel thing again.

[Anonymous No.15981258]

>>15959043
Anyone that says B is trolling and/or a retard, We've been over this.

[Anonymous No.15981266]

>>15981258
Why are there so many watertight arguments for B then while you only have the obviously wrong hula hoop shit that five seconds of thought can debunk?

[Anonymous No.15981505]

>>15981165
The momentum in the 1% is shared with the other 99%. The resultant speed is much lower as the same momentum has been shared with more mass. B is incredibly simple to understand, just have all matter outside the portal fully obey the laws of physics.

[Barkon No.15981510]

It's B. The slam is converted into momentum through the warp hole. But on the other hand it's A in the case of the blue portal because it's a worm hole which cancels any momentum.

A is clearly cancelled momentum.

The cube always has momentum if it's 'passing through' the hole.

[Barkon No.15981515]

>>15981510
ITT: Turtle heads try to answer a question that's way out of their comfort zone.

[Anonymous No.15981640]

[Anonymous No.15981665]

>>15981640
from the cock's perspective your ass is getting closer to it at a million miles per hour.

[Anonymous No.15981674]

>>15981665
Guess A's right then, he'll be just fine.

[Anonymous No.15981711]

Keep trolling with B, eventually you will wonder why are there so many niggerfaggots around.
Guess what, you made them think they are smart, so they stick around.

[Anonymous No.15981746]

It's very simple.
The cube must exit the blue portal at the same speed that the orange portal passes over it.

[Anonymous No.15981760]

>>15981746
>Things must happen according to my headcannon because that is the only way my choice makes sense

[Anonymous No.15981900]

>>15981760
How else can it happen? How can the cube do anything other than emerge from the blue portal at the same rate that it enters the orange portal?

[Anonymous No.15981911]

>>15981900
There is no change of anything within the portal, therefore the velocity of the cube stays the same across time, i.e 0.

[Anonymous No.15981981]

>>15981911
You're avoiding the question. Think about it. Logically, what else can happen than that anything, any atom, any particle of the cube that enters the orange portal also at that very same instant comes out the blue portal? Where else would it go? The cube cannot exit any slower than it enters, or it would disappear into the portal before it fully emerges on the other side, nor can it go any faster, or it would be fully out before it's entirely in. Stop trying to apply arbitrary rules and think about what is actually happening.

[Anonymous No.15981993]

>>15981911
Think about what would happen if the cube exited the blue portal slower or faster than if it entered the orange portal.

[Anonymous No.15982023]

>>15981981
>You're avoiding the question
No, the answer is obviously A, given I didn't specify any other resolution than those presented in the pic
>Logically, what else can happen than that anything, any atom, any particle of the cube that enters the orange portal also at that very same instant comes out the blue portal?
Nothing. It's preciously what occurs in answer A, answer B grants velocity to the cube, one that was not there before and one which the portal cannot ascribe.
>Where else would it go?
It goes on the other side in both answers, it not exiting the other portal is not a point of contention.
>The cube cannot exit any slower than it enters, or it would disappear into the portal before it fully emerges on the other side, nor can it go any faster, or it would be fully out before it's entirely in.
Again, not a point of contention, the speed of entry and exit is the same. You are conflating the speed of the object the portal is placed on on, the speed of the portal, and the 'inside the portal' so to speak. The portal itself creates a change of spatial coordinates without having any effect upon the state of the objects within it. It is bending spacial coordinates and changing the entry/exit nodes, it is not transposing objects at instantaneous speeds by moving them through a medium.
>Stop trying to apply arbitrary rules and think about what is actually happening.
That is precisely what is happening in every thread about this, because first and foremost, by the game rules, portals cannot be placed nor can they stay on a moving object.

[Anonymous No.15982054]

>>15982023
Nigga, think. Use your brain. Visualise it. See the cube. You have no idea what you are arguing against or what is even happening. You are making so many damn assumptions. Stick to what is being said and what is shown right in front of you.

[Anonymous No.15982062]

>>15982023
Lets say instead of a cube, the portal passes over a 50ft pole at 100 mph. Standing from the side of the blue portal here is what you would see according to you.

The first ten feet of the pole exit the portal at 100 mph.
The first twenty feet of pole exit the portal at 100 mph.
The first thirty feet of the pole exit the at 100 mph.
The first forty feet of the pole exit the portal at 100 mph.
The first fifty feet of the pole exit the portal at 100 mph.
The entire pole moving at 100 mph then stops and plops onto the ground.

[Anonymous No.15982079]

>>15982054
You fail to grasp what it means to change the continuity of spacial coordinates by re-linking nodes. It has no bearing on the state of the objects that move through the portal.
Again, portals don't exist on moving surfaces, it is all assumptions.
>>15982062
I fail to see the need to write so much without saying anything.
You perceive the object the portal is placed on going 100mph. At the same speed you perceive the pole, emerging from it. Nothing wrong with that.
It is not unlike unrevealing a statue that is covered by a piece of fabric. That statue 'appears' at same speed as the fabric falls down. The pole itself has no velocity, it is not moving at all.

[Anonymous No.15982085]

>>15982079
Does the "revealing" look exactly the same as an object being sent through normal, stationary portals?

[Anonymous No.15982095]

>>15982079
>Again, portals don't exist on moving surfaces, it is all assumptions.
No. Your waffle about the continuity of spatial coordinates may be, but one thing here isn't: pure logic. Whatever the portals do cannot be a logical contradiction. It may go against our current understanding of physics (in fact it inherently does). But it must be logically sound.

And hence, a stationary cube will not pass a stationary portal. Your insistance that that is what is happening rejects fundamental logic.

[Anonymous No.15982097]

>>15982079
But in the case or revealing a statue, the curtain moves and the statue is stationary.

However in the case of the portals, the portal (curtain) is stationary.

If you wanted to reveal a statue without moving a curtain would you not have to move the statue?

[Anonymous No.15982124]

>>15982079
> portals don't exist on moving surfaces
Well they can exist on the moon, which is moving a lot. Moving surfaces were never the problem, the real issue is accelerating surfaces.

[Anonymous No.15982184]

>>15982124
Afriends can't even wrap their heads around basic moving portals, don't overtax their feeble minds by bringing up acceleration