You should be able to solve this.
>>689423131B.
It's B because it's more fun.
>>689423131AB shitters are just trolling
>>689424080I don't care about it being physics-accurate. It's literally just:>A: nothing happens, boring plop>B: WHEEEE BOX GOES FLYING *claps feet together like a retarded baby* :DYou're the kind of faggot that would invent gravity just to stop everyone from flying
>>689424080Literally the opposite, most Afags are just Bfags trolling for fun. That's why you never see an Afag who actually follows through an argument.
>>689423131It's A. Always has been A. And B posters are has beens.
>>689423131B retards think portals are vacuums
>>689425172No one thinks that
>>689425217That how B works dumbass
>>689423131Hula hoop
Its neitherThe orange portal would disappear since the object is moving you fucking retards
>>689423131Too confusing this way how about this, let’s say the cube is my cock and the portal is Kurisu’s tight virgin pussy. What would happen A or B
>>689423131A IRL, B in-game.
I don't think it's either unironically. It wouldn't fly out and it wouldn't plop out 1cm away from the portal. It'd be somewhere in the middle where it's tossed like an underhanded throw out of the portal.
thumbs up jumpscare
>speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes outPortals preserve object momentum. The portal is the thing moving, thus no momentum is imparted to the object.
>>689427583Speedy thing relative to the portal
>>689427790If I slam a hula hoop down around you from above, do you go flying?Just because there's an anomaly connecting two different points in space on the inside of the hula hoop, that does not mean the momentum affecting the hoop is added to you.
>>689428176If the exit of the hula hoop was somehow stationary despite the entrance moving, yes I would, but then it'd just be a portalThe entrance and exit are moving at the same speed
>>689428176If you're jumping through a stationary hula hoop do you just stop when you get to it? Just because there's no anomaly connecting the two different points in space, doesn't mean the hoop's momentum is subtracted from yours.
>>689428356Holy shit B fags are retarded when it comes to the portal 2 moon shit. The reason you don’t immediately fly to the left of it is because the fucking moon has gravitational pull, while it’s less than earth’s it’s still going to pull you back to its surface
>>689423131Neither. It's C. where it teleports directly into OP's fag ass.
Afags' brains work like a video game engine where objects just "have a speed", a set value that represents an objective truth to how fast the object is officially movingMotion is relative in the real world
>>689425172B-tards have a fetish for space depressurization
>>689425442Afags aren’t worth talking to because they have no fucking clue what A or B imply.
Wouldn't it go flying on some direction at incredibly high speeds because of earth's movement across the universe?
>>689429615So you pick B and dont even know how it works
>>689429895B would occur in a vacuum too. It has nothing to do with air
>>689428023they have to keep repeating the experiment because Dave won't stop staring at his tablet
>>689428765>The moon has a gravity field strong enough to instantly nullify a momentum of thousants of km/h
>>689430112Except it sucks shit or spits it out how is that not a vacuum
>>689430259What are you talking about? The platform is lowered, enveloping the cube in the portal and sending it out of the other one. What about that involved suction?
How about you try to solve this instead
>>689429615A few years ago everyone was convinced of B because we had had this thread so many times that all the reasonably intelligent Afags saw the error of their ways. For a while the only Afags were deliberate shitposts to keep the threads going, but in recent years it seems like a bunch of retarded newfags have come in thinking those posts were unironic, resulting in an entirely new wave of Afags, except not intelligent enough to understand the arguments being made for either side.
>>689423131imagine if you will, a hoola hoop, you toss it above you, do you suddenly get launched into the air as it passes over you?
>>689430195Considering that they were also moving on earth as well because the planet moves too. Then you have to account for the vacuum pushing them out and the pull of the moons gravity
>>689430465Why the fuck would it shoot out the other side
>>689430776>one bar of air pressure in combination with the moons gravity is strong enough to instantly nullify a momentum of thousants of km/h
>>689423131A.
>>689423131portals can't move, you motherfucker
It's been decades.Just recreate it in the fucking game ffs
>>689431246In the game you can't place portals on moving surfaces
>>689430861Imagine a cube emerging from a portal. It appears to be emerging with some speed. Once it fully leaves the portal, why would it stop?
>>689431037Just going to ignore that Earth also moves to not look retarded right. Anyways the delta-p from Earth’s atmosphere to space atmosphere should have ripped Portal girl’s arms clean off so it’s hardly a realistic scenario
>>689423131Where is the C option where the energy released is equivalent to a 50 megaton explosion
>>689431409Gravity shift pulling it down. The cube also isn’t moving no force is being applied to it as it’s going through the portal. If you stopped moving the portal midway through the cube in B’s scenario it would either a suck the cube out of Orange side or rip it apart since to you think the portal applies force to the object
>>689431187>>689431345
>>689430534My brain hurty too much to figure out the pattern so I'm just gonna say D because it looks right
I can never tell if people saying B are just trolling
>>68943234550/50,Also I hate black people
>>6894323452/3
>>6894323451/2 chanceYou either picked the box with 2 gold balls or picked the box with 1 gold ball.
B is closer to the truth.>There are 2 reference frames for the cube>therefore, its momentum is the midpoint between the 2 separate frames of references' momentum instances.So, at rest from one portal = 0, portal moving at 100km/h making second for 100km/h, then the cube flies out of the portal at 50km/h.
>>689429823no one ever answers this lmao
Kurisu sex
>>689432682A-utists never learned the Earth is constantly moving through space and if you ever bring it up they accuse you of changing the scenario (which shouldn't even matter if you were because a correct logical formula shouldn't change between scenarios)
>>689432682Portals can only work in a fixed reference frame
There is no answer to this. Portals don't exist in real life so we can't even understand their physical properties and replicate these conditions. Anyone saying that they know the answer to this for sure are talking out their asses
>>689432893Anon, no! You'll ruin the retarded shitflinging.
>>689432893How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?
>>689431830Yes, if the platform were to stop then the cube would move slightly based on its mass and the speed of the platform. But are you denying that the cube is changing location as it emerges from the portal? If not then you are admitting that it is moving at which point my question stands. Why would it stop?
>>689432974I regularly skip breakfast so that's fine by me.
>>689432974What's the point of asking a hypothetical if the details needed to answer it don't even exist?
>>689432893>>would superman or goku win in a fight?>uh they're not real retard>>would you be hungry if you hadn't eaten breakfast this morning?>I did eat breakfast?>>If there were a moving portal go over a cube, would it plop out of it like A or would it fly out like B?>portals aren't real, idiot. lol
>>689431345>you can't place portals on moving surfacesProofs?
>>689426494C, since that's third base and C is the third letter.
>>689423131the answer is: portals are not real so we will never know
>stationary blue portal>orange portal moving 999km/h>cube zooming towards it at 1000km/h>slowly emerges out of blue portal at 1km/h>after it fully passes through it shoots at 1000km/h again because that's how fast it was movingThis is your brain on A but they'll say it's B because A just means "the cube plops" in any scenario to them
Alright btards, if the portal itself can make objects faster, what happens to the photons going through the portal as it's coming down? They'd somehow be coming out of the blue portal faster than light.>erm uhh it doesn't count because ermmm uhh ermm
>>689432345>>689432512>>689432612
>>689433941b doesn't make objects faster. That's the whole point.
>>689423131when talking about games, fun gameplay mechanics above all.putting a portal in a piston to launch an object sounds like a great gameplay mechanic.so b. because its more fun
>>689426710>>689431246Doesn't work in game due to engine limitations.However we have the moon scene which can be viewed as B from the reference frame of the moon.
>>689432345B2/3Free Palestine
>>689433969Not exactly the problem hereYou've taken a gold ball from out of the box, this means that it's not the box with the silver ball in it. You've either picked the box with a silver ball in it, or picked the box with another gold ball in it. This is why it's 50/50.>>689434213Then why does the box shoot out
>>689433941Lorentz stuff, time dilation, speed of light is constant, etc. Same thing as if you have headlights on a rocket moving at 0.5c
>>689434312okay but when Bfags create their own simulations where they specifically design it so it follows B it does work and shows that B is correct. care to comment on that or are you scared?
>>689434418Yes, it's only added to the total when you get a gold ball. Every other scenario is discarded
>>689434418You picked the box at random, and happened to choose a box containing a gold ball. You also picked a ball at random and happened to choose a gold ball. There are 3 equally likely ways of doing this, and in 2 of them you chose the first box.>Then why does the box shoot outIt was moving when it came out of the portal, so it keeps moving. Why would it stop?
Bfags confirmed ChatGpt bots
>>689423131C. Fondle and kiss Kurisutina
>>689433013The cube is not changing location the portal is moving therefore it and whatever pocket dimension it holds moves with it in equal speeds.
>>689434782Then the portal is literally causing the box to move. It was not moving before, and now is because the portal moved around it. What happens to the photons anon?
>>689434571Bfags can make simulations because they have a consistent set of rules (relative velocity in = relative velocity out)Afags can't make simulations because they just choose what feels right, and that's different in every problem.
>>689435042I've only ever seen bfags post dicks going through portals
>>689435028>What happens to the photons anon?see >>689434541 or any introductory special relativity lecturePhotons are always observed to be moving at the speed of light.
>>689435042more Bfag cope when you design truthfully and according to reality you always get Athat's why Bfags never release the source code
>>689423131She’s pointing towards A so obviously it’s A
>>689434571Okay, but when I create my own simulations where I specifically design fucking your mom, that also works. Comment?
>>689435180You never saw this one?
>>689435319No, where's the dick?
>>689435319release the source code Bfagafraid it won't stand up to audit
>>689435319How does it change momentum relative to the platform it's on?
A
>>6894356052for
>>689435028It was moving before. If you look through the portal at the box sitting on the ground, you will see it approach you as the portal moves towards it. By the nature of how physics works, that means the box is, in fact, moving. This is what everyone talking about frames of reference are refering to. It's how all physics operate.
>>689434418>Then why does the box shoot outbecause it was moving already
Bfags pretend to be smart and are trying to apply our physics to something we can't comprehendAgods know that a portal is just a thing that connects 2 points of space
>>689435605Portals change momentum even without a moving portal.It's never explained how they do it.
>>689435845Okay, so if the portal piston stops before reaching the box, then it will stop moving right? How come when no force has been applied to the box?
>>689436086Afags are the ones I see trying to claim portals are 4D wormholes to justify the cube plopping
>>689423131Clearly the answer is to make out with Kurisu.
>>689436086>portals don't real so why would they do thing that make sense?>surely something that is the opposite of what the game does and has inconsistent rules is the correct option!
>>689435845>>689435920>send portal down at 60mph>stop 10 feet above the box>cube levitates upwards at 60mph???
>>689436103>free energywow, btards have a great understanding of physics
>>689435845I hope you get ripped in half the next time a hollahoop falls on you.
>>689436120This one's a good question. Personally I think that the only way portals could work is that the threshold is where both frames of reference are applied. So any time something goes through the portal its 2 frames of reference (that it is currently experiencing being any % through other than 0% and 100%) are the only times where that frame of reference would actually work.
>>689436363Yes, portals create free energy. (Or not. We don't know what creates them)
>>689436318This is effectively the same question as >>689436120 and here >>689436460 is my reply.
>>689435605Once it is on the right frame, whatever part of the cube has passed through is moving. If you make an abrupt stop with the portal, the part of the cube through the portal will want to stay moving, and thus, move the parts of the cube not through the portal.If you did with a person, a really really fast portal, and stopped the portal quickly, the difference in speed between the 2 different frames of reference could create a sheering effect that could rip the person in 2.
>>689436182Let’s say I put a orange portal on a cube and you look through it and see the White House on the other side. Now someone kicks the cube across the room. What would the orange portal show as the cube kicked across the room
>>689428023This webm just showcases Bfags are fooled by illusions. This webm at the end gives the ILLUSION that the portal is moving down towards the cube (mimicking the setup of the OP scenario). However, in reality, in the cube and floor itself is being pushed by an elevators upwards towards the stationary portal. This completely changes the scenario, as the OP shows the PORTAL moving down (as evidenced by the speedlines).>but relative velocityYou are too retarded to understand what term you are applying here
>>689436607You're effectively saying that the box both moves and doesn't move at the same time lol
>>689435605it goes through a portal
>>689436543>10 ft above>cube is going 0mph>1 nanometer above>cube is going 0mph>contact>cube is now going 60mph
>>689436812>I dont know how to conceptualize a box as a bunch of seperate atoms.
>>689436924No, if the portal is going 60mph the cube is still going 60mph. It keeps moving. The only issue here is if the portal stops before going over the cube; in that case, its frame of reference wouldn't be where the cube is. So the cube WOULD be sitting still in the end. You see, that's how portals work. It's 2 separate angles where when something passes through it it's now on the other side of the portal.
>>689437084>atomsOkay, now imagine we've zoomed in and the box is a singular indivisible particle
>>689436812well yeah, we're thinking with portals.
>>689437226>>689432673
>>689423131Atards still unable to understand special relativity. Embarrassing.
>>689437351That's just someone inventing new physics out of nowhere
>>689437131You're saying that the cube was always moving and the cube was never moving at the same time, why is the portal's frame of reference only important after it makes contact? It can't be both moving because the portal is coming towards it and stationary because it hasn't gone through.
>>689437494Well we ARE rationalizing how portals work. I think it's much more reasonable to say that the two frames of reference would average instead of claiming that each individual example has a custom and specific output based purely on feefees like afags claim.
Bkeks will see a magician saw themselves in half and go “damn, he really did that!”
>>689437363The portals don't matter.Look at this way. You throw a ring around the block. Nothing happens. The air is exchanged like normal, not compressed.
>>689437971What's this crazy example that breaks A?
>>689437226A single atom. Well I was more a chemistry guy that a particle physics guy.But if you were going at a high enough speed with half the atom through the event horizon, you'd have a tremendous amount of momentum on half the particle, and when stopped, maybe there would be enough energy to split the atom, otherwise it would simple average out it's momentum over it's mass and then move.
>>689438142>chemistry guy>claims Bchecks out
>>689438072>ringsOf course an Atards brings up this nonsense again. In the question, one of the portals is moving and the other is not. With a ring, both sides are moving at the same speed. It's not at all comparable.
>>689437826Imagine if you will that the cube is exactly 100 height units tall, indivisibly.The portal is above the cube, heading downwards at 10 speed units /second.While it has not passed over the cube, the cube is not moving.When the portal has passed over a single height unit of the cube going 10 speed units/second, that first layer of the cube is now going 10 speed units/second on the other side of the portal, observably so. So far it doesn't matter whether you're an afag or a bfag; that's true in either example.Next height unit is the same. It has 2 height units going 1 speed units/second, and 8 going 0 speed units/second.The main issue here, of course, is that the cube is one whole object. So, at ANY point that part of the cube is moving at x speed units/second, the rest of the cube will be pulled along - presumably based on how much of it is being moved, so if only 1 height unit is moving that fast, it's only 1 hundredth of the cube's speed at that moment. So if it were going 10 speed untis per second at that single unit and the rest of the cube were stationary, it would actually be the entire cube moving at .1 speed units/second, because it would be over the entire cube.Does that make sense? Not sure how I could break it down any simpler.
>>689428023This is correct. The momentum of the platform is kept by the cube as it moves through the portal.
>>689438476you can see a visualized example of this here >>689435319
imagine being a Btard/thread
>>689423131If you get in the way of the blue portal, one of three things happens.>the cube pushes youThis implies the cube itself has force.>you stop the cubeThis implies you can somehow apply force to the surface the orange portal is attached to.>the cube intersects you despite not movingThis causes many atoms to suddenly occupy the exact same physical space, to likely disastrous results for me, the cube, and the immediate surroundings.It has to be B if I want to live.
>>689436924>contact>the 1nm of the cube now through the portal is going 60mph>the rest of the cube is going 0mph
>>689438334I took quantum mechanics too you fucko, it's all just math. I have yet to see a good explanation from Atards in any of these threads that stays consistent.
>>689438425From the reference point of someone following the ring it wouldn't be moving
>>689438476None of that is grounded in reality, you're just making up stuff that fits your agenda
>>689439053>um, portals aren't real, lol.
>>689438959Ok. But from the reference point of someone following the orange portal the blue portal would be moving. So, once again, it's not comparable.
>>689438959Then neither side of the ring would be moving and the cube would be moving on both sides from that perspective.
>>689434312>the moonAfter a bit of googling to back up common sense.That's because the moon's atmosphere is pretty much a vacuum meaning shit outside of it will force itself in.>The atmospheric pressure on the surface of the moon was measured at ~1x 10-12 mm Hg (760 mm Hg = 1 atm= 1.01E5 Pa = 101 kPa), which is so little pressure that the moon can be considered a hard vacuum.https://www.eng.auburn.edu/~dbeale/ESMDCourse/Chapter5.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suction
>>689438954That picture makes 0 sense, why would there be no force in a?
>>689428940>motion is relative>what about this situation where motion isn't relative?>MOTION IS RELATIVE
>the cube is observably moving as it exits the stationary portal>Afags expect me to believe that this movement will suddenly stop once the portal stops moving, even after the cube stops touching the portal
>>689439234The moon orbits at a different speed than the earth turns so if you go into a portal from earth to the moon and keep "earth's" momentum, you'll immediately be flung away from the moon. The fact that the only force at play was atmospheric suction implies that portals conserve your momentum RELATIVE TO THEM when you pass through, not your momentum relative to some weird "absolute point of reference" that doesn't really exist.
>>689430592I refuted b forever with the hulahoop example.
>>689423457If I pass a door through you would you go flying?
>>689439197What if I'm looking at the portal from within the portal, what's moving then?
>>689439234Yes, the vacuum is what pulls Chell through (10mph on this picture). Afags and Bfags agree on this. What we're talking about is the fact that the Moon (and thus the Moon portal) is orbiting the Earth at 2k+mph. In an Afag paradigm, Chell does not inherit any momentum from the Moon portal, so she should be left behind as the Moon continues it's orbit. In a Bfag paradigm, relative in = relative out, so Chell does move with the Moon. We see the B result at the end of Portal 2.
>>689439291>motion is relative>what about this simplification we use for the sake of easy simulation?>motion is relative unless we simplify the problem to assume the environment is perfectly still and our frame of reference is objective
>>689439289Good question, please explain the Atard force then. Stay consistent please.
>>689428023What happened to the rest of these? There were two entire other webms.
>>689439292Now do the same thing but the orange side
>>689438683>if you get in the way of the blue portalBut no one is in front of the blue portal>well, yes, but if someone were to-But no one is there>but if-There’s literally no one in front of the blue portal, I’m looking right at the OP
>>689439541The cube.
>>689439667The cube having force would have to be the case IF I were in front of the blue portal.Therefore, the cube should have force even though I'm not. Thus, B.This is how hypotheticals work.
>>689439564In the first scenario the piston would be creating the force by "pushing" into the platform
>>689439548In the case of A wouldn't Chell still immediately be taken by the moon gravity and start moving along with its 2200 mph?
>>689428023This is a completely different scenario though. Here the cube is moving into the portal and will keep it's inertia once it goes through obviously.
>>689439657Once 0% of the cube is on the orange side, its state on the orange side becomes 0% relevant. Therefore, analyzing the change from 100% orange-side state to 100% blue-side state is what matters.On the orange side it isn't moving. On the blue side it is. It goes from being on the orange side to being on the blue side. Not moving -> moving. Acceleration.
>>689439289Objects that are not moving can't apply force. A relies on the belief that the cube being "not moving" is an absolute state that the portals are incapable of changing. The cube is the only vector available to apply force to the ball, so the piston isn't pushing it. How would the ball move in A?
>>689439941nonono, post an animation of the orange side. let's see how "realistic" it looks
>>689439289because he's an idiot fishing for (you)'s.
>>689439857Going 2200mph would be more than ample speed to escape the moon's gravity.
>>689440072Its not the portal applying the force, it's the piston
>>689440287But we know that both the earth and the moon have 0 movement in Portal 2. This is confirmed in game by the fact that neither moves at all even if you let the game run for an entire month. Thus, both are stationary objects.
>>689440392So you believe the cube is moving, and has force, while it passes through the portal, then STOPS moving once it's completely through? What decelerates it now that neither the portal nor piston is able to act on it?
>>689439941Yes, it no longer matters when it's all the way through. But what about when it's only partially through? Like, the latter 50% or so of the cube, once enough of it is "moving" on the blue side. At what point does the cube start pulling the rest of itself? If it ever does, then that means the cube would be lifted from the orange side and movement does occur there. If it doesn't ever move on the orange side, then even if it makes it 99.9% onto the blue side it would inevitably plop since that last portion doesn't go flying on its own.
>>689436734>>689439873Surprise, the floor is actually "stationary" and the surrounding ground you saw in the first webm is actually moving. Or maybe the surrounding ground in this one is moving relative to an even larger section of the Earth and the platform is actually moving again. It seems like it's really hard to tell if something has absolute velocity in the universe...
>>689440480Only if you apply a counterforce to it, otherwise the piston doesn't need to do any work
>orange portal on piston>blue portal on flat surface>place box on blue portal>piston retracts>box is crushedbtards really believe this
Everyone who thinks it's be is retarded.
>>689440469are you trying to tell me that portal is a video game and not real life wtf wtf bbros what do we do is portal a video game holy shit my whole life was a lie i was going to college for portal physics
You are all fucking retarded
>>689440751True.I'm starting to believe nobody in these threads has any idea what they're talking about.Myself included.
>>689428356It's not velocity relative to each portal from each other, it's the velocity relative to the object and the portal it's going through.
>>689439197The blue portal is moving retard what do you not get about pocket dimensions.
>>689439848So the piston is putting force on the cube then, without touching it, so it can move the ball? Sounds like Bchad talk. Nice hula hoop >>689440480Good questions, Atards cannot stay consistent to save their lives.
are there any good stien gate porns?
>orange portal moves towards object>stops well before contact>object is sucked through because it looked like it was moving
>>689440493>But what about when it's only partially through? Like, the latter 50% or so of the cube, once enough of it is "moving" on the blue side.What in the world do you mean? Do you think I expect the cube to start lifting up from the platform as the portal lowers over it? It shouldn't have to if the piston moves at a consistent speed. The speed the piston lowers will be the EXACT speed the cube is moving as it emerges from the other portal, after all. If the piston decelerated after part of the cube was through it, its speed would average out, with maybe some losses due to small material stresses and such.Maybe it'll shift a bit to the side if the piston is moving slow enough that the portion of the cube that's through the piston can be noticeably pulled by the different gravity, since the exit platform is sloped and the entry platform isn't? But aside from that, it's the same rules as if you attach rocket thrusters to only half of an object and fire them for a split second. The other half will be pulled.
>>689423131Holy shit its A. Ive been a Bfag all my life but its A.I just deleted my essay about how it has to be B because if the platform was moving at relativistic speeds the cube couldnt stop immediately without destroying the universe. But then I realized that the orange plat couldnt stop either.
>>689440480the movement is an illusion created by a moving wormhole.
>>689439548So how fast is the earth moving, do you think the earth doesn’t move. Also chell is not being sucked by a 10mph vacuum literally every object in the room she was in was being violently sucked out
>>689441076>orange portal moves towards object>stops well before contact>nothing fucking happens because the appearance of motion only matters once the object is subject to the portals' frame of reference, which happens once the object interacts with the portals itself rather than photons bouncing off the object
>>689440971It only "puts in" the amount of work needed to get the cube to the other side
>>689441312If that work makes the cube able to apply force, the cube has motion, and if the cube has motion, it takes more work to remove that motion than to keep it. The portals doing "minimum work" would result in B.
>>689441076If the cube doesn't enter the portal at all, it's not effected. Both atards and btards agree on this you monumental faggotIf it does partially go through the portal and the portal stops, it is moving on blueside you turdgobbler.
>>689440493While the piston is moving at a constant speed, the cube does not experience any internal forces because the movement of the piston is directly equal and opposite to the movement of the emerging portion of the cube. If the piston suddenly stops partway down the cube, then conservation of momentum within the cube kicks in, resulting in the cube flinging at a reduced velocity proportional to how much of its mass transited the portal.
>>689441207The figure he gave for the moon's motion is an aggregate of the average speed between the moon and the surface of the earth, because it is the relevant difference in speed between the portals. B says you inherit the speed difference between portals when traversing them, A says you don't. That is all that is being argued.
>>689441419It doesn't have motion, the force is always equal in both directions
>>689441207Those measurements are relative to a static observer on the surface of Earth. So in that frame, the Earth is not moving. Relative to an observer on the Moon you'd see something like picrel.
>>689441557If the force is equal in both directions then the cube isn't moving and can't apply force itself. Thus, it can't push a ball out of the way of the exit portal.
>>689441419Atards in constant shambles unable to explain things without going to the B side, holy kek.
>>689440493The part that is moving would pull from the one that isn't. The resulting speed is a factor of the relative masses of each part, along with their speeds.If you stop the portal when 0% has gone through, it does nothing.If you stop the portal when 10% has gone through, it jumps at only 10% of the speed.If you stop the portal when 90% has gone through, it jumps at 90% of the speed.If you stop the portal when 100% has gone through, it jumps at 100% of the speed.
The cube is moving.Once any part of it leaves the portal, the portal can't control its motion. So it keeps moving.
I've stopped engaging with Afags (and these threads) because it always devolves to them trying to argue that the cube isn't actually moving as it exits the portal, and instead is just changing position over time but not carrying momentum somehow.Simply not worth the bother - it is fun to post images though
SCENARIO: orange portal is on a small moving platform, diameter is bigger than the average adult arm but can’t fit that much more than that. Blue portal on a wall somewhere else not moving. You a human are standing and sticking your arm out. The moving platform with orange portal is moving towards your arm at 50mph but will come to a complete but abrupt stop when it reaches centimeters from your shoulder but won’t touch it.RESULTSA-fag: The orange portal stops close to the persons shoulder, A-fag then pulls his arm out of the portal perfectly fineB-fag: Due to the abrupt stopping of the platform, the person’s are is getting pull at 50mph at the other side of the portal violently ripping the arm out of the subjects socket
>>689442103Thanks for saving my OC, but fuck you for saving the thumbnail you nigger. Have the full res.
>>689432893You can create logically consistent rules that extend known reality in a reasonable way. When looking at A and B, B is clearly a far more reasonable and logical extension of reality. B is well defined and logically consistent, and also keeps the alteration of reality strictly to the portal surface, normal rules apply outside of the portal. A on the other hand completely screws up reality having matter moving but somehow not moving, total nonsense.
>>689442235I think it's B, but I'm not sure if suddenly being at 50MPH would be enough to actually rip the arm from its socket. I think that'd just break bones and jerk the rest of the human through the portal, unless he were secured.
>>689441646Draw a picture of forces
>>689423131A
>>689442235BIf you pull someone's arm at 50mph it would be disastrous.
>>689442235B, but i doubt 50mph would violently rip it out. More likely just dislocation at the shoulder or stress fractures on the arm.
>>689442452>>689442719This isn’t a choice question, this is describing a scenario given what you believe would happen based on the op image
>>689433941Portals do not alter the speed of an object. You are looking at it wrong. Its a bad mental model to consider the stationary cube entering one portal, and the moving cube leaving the other to be the same object. If you stop trying to force both apparent cubes to be the same object and consider only local reality, B makes a lot more sense. Our reality is local, things right next to us are real, things far away less so.
>>689443016ok still B though
>>689443007still A, nothing is actually moving even if the portals create that illusion
>>689442472>portal lowers over cube at 80mph>cube has no force applied to it, it's put into a frame of reference where it simply "is moving">cube applies force to ball>ball is moved out of way
hoopfags are mental defects. if it was a hoop both sides of the portal would have to be moving at the same speed. B is the objective truth.
>>689443448Let me paint a picture for you I have a portal 1 on my smart phone screen and portal 2 on your girlfriends tampon pad. I proceed to push the smart phone screen on my cock and aggressively push the phone up and down. What is moving?My cock or the dimensionally pocket pussy in my hand
>>689443443Draw a force diagram you dunce
>>689424858A beat you five ways to Sunday. B is just screaming hoping A gets bored so they can rewrite history. Buster Keaton keeps winning.
>>689436120For portals moving at constant velocity, local reality is continuous across the boundary. Things are exactly how they appear to be. However when portals accelerate this creates a discontinuity on the boundary. You know how in the portal game portals disappear when they move, its actually the acceleration that causes them to disappear. So if you choose to have them not disappear, that change in speed still causes a momentary severing, where each side becomes separate again, and is restitched back together. So say the cube is halfway through the portal when it stops, what effectivly happens if you have a moving chunk of matter connected to a stationary piece.
>>689423131Chads answer is A, 100% brain power !!!.Yeah, physics bitch!!!
>>689430592I am a converted A to B and I unironically said the hula hoop thing to start
>>689444720the blue portal has the same motion vectors as the orange
>>689444720I don’t know how B fags can look at this and not feel retarded
>"Spectacular. You appear to understand how a portal affects forward momentum, or to be more precise, how it does not."It's A.
>>689442719It is a window or door that is displaced not a freight train crashing into a wall. The only movement is slightly falling off the platform from any residual shock from the part of the press that doesn’t have a portal colliding with the floor around it.
>>689444720>>689445216its A since the platform and cube are moving at the same velocityif the platform stopped moving when it entered the portal, it'd be b since the cube will continue its velocity vector
>>689444720That's a hoop. Hold the blue part stationary while the orange part moves if you want to analogise the problem.
>>689444720>>689445216The blue portal is moving at the same speed relative to the orange portal. Bratds know the cube could stay on the platform. The cube would enter and exit at the same relative velocity.Don't be a retard.
>>689424858Most B fags have never played portal.
>>689441439if b is correct the object doesn't need to be anywhere near the portal. the illusion of movement automatically confers real motion to the object. furthermore, since someone looking in the blue portal will see the entire universe move on the other side, the entire universe should be dragged through the portal because, according to bfags, the appearance of motion is motion.
>>689444720Its a portal, if the object isnt moving while traversing it then it's inert, you dumb fuck.U stupid, stupid!!
>>689445423>but i don't understand, it looks like its moving therefore its moving.
>>689445826>if b is correct the object doesn't need to be anywhere near the portalB only applies to objects passing through the portal you fucking retard
>>689445621Afags are unable to stay consistent.>>689445826You have no idea what Bchads think you third worlder. There is no illusion of motion. If the cube doesn't go past the event horizon, it isn't effected by the portal perioid. You are either trolling or a monumental retard.
>>689423131The real IQ test is not responding to this in earnest after seeing it for the second time, let alone the 100,000th time this thread is posted
>>689446184>move universe around an object>expect object to behave as if it is moving, because it looks like its moving.
These threads are literally the breakfast question.>but it wasn't moving
>>689446215I'm interested in it as a 4chan phenomenon at this point. I think the guy that said A used to be ironic and has become non-ironic is correct
>>689445580It is the same with the original pic. The displacement happening with portal does not equal movement. The cube is at rest, there is no energy to transfer. It is the window falling around Buster Keaton.
>>689446215afags get smarter every time I refute a btard argument. btards get dumber every time they come up with a new btard argument.
The cube goes sideways.
>>689446306I've always said a and a has always been correct.
>>689443923See you haven't posted an actual argument, just like the anon said. You've summed up Afags entirely.
>>689446272These blue and orange Portals do not work like that. If they did like in picrel, you'd need to explain too many othet inconsistencies.
>>689446530Portals only work in a fixed reference space
>>689446337Portals aren't real and can't exist. They trivially violate the first law of motion and conservation of energy. The box gains a velocity without ever being acted on by a force.
>>689446530>change situation>look, the answer changed!!
>>689445236Even in the context of the game GlaDOS is lying there because momentum is a vector meaning that portals changing your direction also change your momentum. Your SPEED is preserved in static portals but your VELOCITY is not.
>>689446614Such as?
>>689446721>portals changing your direction also change your momentumthe change is an illusion. portals rearrange the universe.
>>689446629>>689432037
>>689446649Nope. The gif is literally repeating the same thing three times with the third time specifically showing what happens when a motionless cube enters a moving portal. If you're agreeing with what the gif is showing you've not only confirmed B but fucked over a shit load of afag arguments like trying to argue that portals don't change object speeds.
>>689447000You removed the part of the equation where the orange portal stops. so, yes, you have changed the situation.
>>689446884Then it's still B. You're just arguing B isn't literally changing the cube's momentum.
>>689446614Here's an explanation you might understand >hamburger>take top bun, place it elsewhere>take patty, place it under top bun>take bottom bun, place it under pattyThere, you've transported the burger like a portal would.
>>689432345The same people who say 50/50 to this are the same people who says 50/50 to the goat doors. You will never be able to make them understand.
>>689447145its only B if the object is actually moving.
>>689447274Relative to what?
>>689444720B-bros... our response?
>>689447356the only reason we think motion is relative is because we don't have portals.
How would you feel if you hadn't thought about the portal problem today?
>>689447432>>689444816
>>689447356>Relative to what?...relative to the force it applies to begin moving in the first place?
>>689447559Worse, I quite enjoy this
>>689443812Not sure how to represent what portals do in a force diagram. The force the cube applies is the force the piston moves downward with, essentially, but they're disconnected because the piston isn't acting on the cube itself, but rather, it's pushing its frame of reference in the opposite direction. Effectively, the platform is what's pushing on the cube which is itself what's pushing on the ball. But the arrows look kind of nonsensical.Far better than they'd look with A, but still.
>>689447529If motion isn't relative then there would be a correct reference frame. So again, what reference frame is that?>>689447690You don't understand what you are talking about
>>689447089Why does the orange portal matter after the cube is 100% through? The portals are done acting on the cube, the state of either portal no longer matters, the cube will simply continue in the state it was in while passing through the portals (i.e. MOVING).
>>689447906OK, nitwit. Time to take your meds.
>>689423131Only Americans still believe that the answer is B.
>>689447089The orange portal stopping is trivial. The cube isn't even passing through the portal at that point so it makes zero sense to suggest that the portal can still impact the object's movement. Otherwise feel free to define the limitations of the portals influence.In any case you are again fucking over so many afags by essentially arguing that portals can in fact change on object's speed.
>>689423131IDK but Kurisu naizuri
>>689447690Your belief that an object must have force applied to it to ever be in a state where it is moving is the issue.
>>689448168>The orange portal stopping is trivialif it was trivial, you wouldn't need to remove it to validate your assertion.
>>689447865As you can see, all the forces take each other out, except the force on the ball. So the ball moves and nothing else.
>>689448094What reference frame anon?
>>689448275the cube's reference frame.
>>689448269The piston push is still unaccounted for and will continue to make the cube move at a consistent rate even accounting for the impact.
>>689428023This just demonstrates that A is right though.
>>689448360
>>689423131put your finger in a circle with your thumb. move it around your thumb, does your thumb gain propulsion? If it was B every time you jacked off your dick would fly into the ceiling.
>>689448232Fine. The orange portal starts moving backwards on the train so it's effectively motionless in the final shot. It makes zero difference. Very few people would look at the first two shots of the gif and think it matters that the orange portal would start moving right after the cube goes through.
>>689448448>look i animated it as the wrong answer now what fagsyou're also proving you believe throwing a hulahoop down around yourself will launch you into the air.
>>689448580and now you've just admitted that moving the portal doesn't affect the object.
>>689448582>speed of portals vs. speed of cube remains consistent on both sides>"animated wrong"Lol, lmao even.
>>689448448wait, is this supposed to make B look good?
>>689446824The portals don't bend space outside and are only holes for transfer.The air pressure differential in portal 2 with the moon would have been different if the atmosphere on the moon sidecwas just space bent to fill.>>689447184>Food analogyThat single point wormhole type stuff, not portal portals.
>>689448768does dropping a hulahoop launch you into the air?
>>689448792What looks wrong about it? The way the cube is moving relative to the orange portal is the way it should move relative the blue portal as it transfers from one side to the other, and it maintains that motion after the transfer is over.
>>689448360One, if there was a "one true reference frame" there is zero reason it would be some random cube. And that would already mean the outcome would be different if some other cube was used, which is stupid.Two, you can't determine the motion of something within its own reference frame.
>>689448768>speed of cubethe cube isn't moving, but your animation is essentially dropping a hulahoop on it, and it launching into the air.
>>689448874You can see the "other ground" moving relative to you before you even pass through the portal, so of course once you pass through you will remain moving relative to the "other ground".
>>689448894When determining movement, the reference frame of the object that is/isn't moving is what matters.
>>689448956What kind of hula hoops do you use that the ground is attached to them? How do you spin that around your hips?
>>689449136>but i don't understand, hulahoops and portals are different low iq
>>689448874No. Both the entrance and exit are moving at the same speed, so your exit and entrance vecolity are consistent.In the op, the entrance is moving, but the exit is stationary, so you exit at velocity velocity equal to the speed difference of the cube and the orange entrance
>>689449307>but I don't understand, it's not movingLow IQ
>>689449359>be brown>can't resit a no ulol>>689449309>selective relative motionlol
>>689449035>the reference frame of the object that is/isn't movingIf you're working from a frame of reference then you never consider that frame of reference to be the thing that's moving. If the cube is your frame of reference, the blue portal must be moving while you traverse the orange portal.
>>689449035The result is going to be "isn't moving", always. As in no matter what happens the measurement of something within its own reference frame is going to be "isn't moving". It's basically useless as a measurement because it's never not going to be "isn't moving".
>>689449558>>689449589hence why a is correct.
>>689449770If the blue portal is moving WHILE you traverse it it should remain moving AFTER you traverse it as well. That's momentum. Thus, not A.
>>689449838>you traversethus, you're moving.
>>689448701It affects the object while the object is going through the portal, not while it isn't.>it's another afag doesn't understand b episode
>>689450042Not from a physics standpoint, since we operate under the cube's frame of reference in this example. Try to keep up.
Pic related already solved this. It's A, the cube isn't moving the universe around the cube is moving. Once the portals stop moving the universe around the cube it plops.
>>689450105of course Afags don't understand B, their entire style of debate is based on the idea that they should be able to "feel out" physics and that hypotheticals are a dirty tactic used to make irrelevant information relevant.
>>689450142anon, you keep changing the situation without realizing it. the orange portal is falling over an object. you're insisting that, because on the other side, it looks like the object is emerging, that it should keep moving as if it was actually moving.
Question for AfagsWhat would happen in these 2 situations?Are they the same or different?Why?
>>689448894
>>689423131C. I pin down Kurisu and I impregnate her.
>>689450142You should be using the frame of reference of the exit portal, considering you are asking what happens when it comes out of that portal and enters that frame of reference.
>>689450105Anon, you admitted that moving the portal doesn't change the velocity of the object that passed through it. you validated a.
>>689450180The universe in Futurama has shock absorption on physics itself. The universe is inside of a box that's inside of the universe. Realistically, any movement would result in the box, and the entire universe, immediately accelerating at hyperbolic speeds. But it doesn't. Only violent motion has any noticeable impact, and the impact is light tremors. So the impact is being dampened.
>>689423131Mating press
>>689450428
>>689450142portals change physics, try to keep up.
>>689450316The orange portal is falling over an object.The rate an object is engulfed by one portal is the rate the other portal extrudes the object.This rate, combined with the relative motion of the portals, can in fact create motion where none existed.>>689450441>You should be using the frame of reference of the exit portalThe entrance and exit portals' frames of reference overlap on any object that transfers between them. The fact that one frame of reference is moving and one isn't is what creates motion.
>>689450707thus, from the reference frame of the hulahoop you've thrown down on the ground, you should fly into the air.
>>689432835Kurisu peepee
>>689450458>Anon, you admitted that moving the portal doesn't change the velocity of the object that passed through itAgain, because we're talking about when the object isn't going through the portal. The entire topic is about the motion of the portal when the object IS.Why are you making me repeat myself?
>>689443250The cube is nowhere near the portal. For the cube to be moving but not moving, portals would have to infect all of reality creating some kind of weird meta-motion where matter remembers it should stop when something somewhere else happened. Also, what would happen if you interacted with this moving yet not moving object. Imagine if it was a chunk of food, what if you ate it. Would it then rip out of your stomach when the portal stopped?
>>689450780>from the reference frame of the hulahoop you've thrown down on the ground, you should fly into the airPortals put you into their reference frame when they pass over you. Hula hoops don't.
>>689443250So when you do a portal fling, the change in the direction you are travelling is also an illusion?When does the illusion end?
>>689450893I have told you three times now why a box moving through a portal on its own is irrelevant to the OP.
>>689430534C
>>689450936portals are just hulahoops, split in two, with zero distance between the two sides. you're confusing yourself by trying to apply reference frames to them.
>>689451040When you break out of the matrix and take the A-pill
>>689450458>shooting this gun at a tree didn't kill me, so clearly guns can't kill me>wtf? the gun hit me when I aimed it at me???
>>689451040(you) don't change direction, the universe around you changes.
>>689445826The appearance of motion outside of the portal is always real, looking through the portal motion is only real if the portal does not change speed. If the portal changes speed the joined space is served at the boundary, and then speed looking through the portal changes.
>>689451171If the sides can move independently with zero distance being created then it's not MY CHOICE to apply reference frames, anon.
>>689451240... yes, changing the situation changes the result. wow.
>>689451071>Why are you making me repeat myself?Answer the question>I have told you three times now why a box moving through a portal on its own is irrelevant to the OPNo the complaint made was about the orange portal not stopping after engulfing the cube. I already pointed out that the final shot of the gif shows a motionless cube entering a moving portal.
>>689451380>moving the portal doesn't change the velocity of the object when the portal isn't interacting with the object but with photons that bounced off the object>moving the portal changes the velocity of the object when the portal is interacting with the objectYes, changing the situation changes the result. Wow.
>>689451337b-faggotry is nothing but screaming that because something appears to be moving, from (you)r reference frame, then it must continue to do so, despite no force acting on it.hence why the hulahoop utterly refutes b, completely.
>>689451296Then the cube doesn't launch in B, the universe around it moves. It's still B.
>put dick in portal>gets ripped offso this...... is the power.............. of btrannies.........................
>>689451493>from (you)r reference framefrom the reference frame of the spatial anomaly, and thus, the space that the object is passing through, you mean?
>>689451493>establish no motion when dropping hula hoop on self>no force applied>therefore the state of motion is kept>establish motion when exiting a stationary portal>no force applied>therefore state of motion is keptSeems consistent with B.
>>689451583I-is that not how it works?
>>689451493>>689451171Hey Afags, please check out my one >>689450317
>>689451730Afags do not believe any hypothetical scenario has any bearing on the main problem. They believe that every question has a unique answer with unique logic that must be thought up on the spot, unless ALL you've done is change numbers/quantities. They do not believe in establishing actual systems or rules, their world is built entirely on intuition.
>>689451853yea i know right, why would completely changing the situation result in different answers??? i mean, look at them, they look nearly identical thus the answer must be the same right
>>689423131An anon the other day brought up gravitational fields. Even with the portals staying still relative to each other would there be some additional force pulling into the blue portal?
>>689451959
>>689451959>completely changing the situationThe same physical principles should be at play. If your answer to the original portal problem doesn't include an intuitive explanation for hypotheticals that are slightly different, and you have to completely recalculate what would happen for every minute physical difference, what you have ISN'T A LOGICAL ANSWER.
>>689452101>the same principles are at playincorrect.
>>689452213The question is whether a difference in motion between two portals can affect motion in objects that the portals interact with. Both OP and >>689450317 ask this same question. They're only "completely different" if you think physics has exceptions.
>>689423131These questions are always nonsensical because portals themselves violate (both Galilean and Einsteinian) relativity. From the piston’s frame of reference (which can be inertial if it moves at constant speed), the cube has non-zero momentum so B happens. From the cube’s and coincidentally the laboratory frame of reference, the cube has zero momentum so A happens. The real answer is that portals are fucking stupid.
>>689452370the question being "does dropping a portal onto the ground around an object confer the portal's velocity to the object." The answer is no. You need to change this question in order to get a yes.
>>689452450>From the cube’s and coincidentally the laboratory frame of referenceof course the cube has zero movement within its own frame of reference you fucking donkey, but the portals have movement. From the perspective of the cube, while it interacts with the portals, they must have the same motion- so either the orange portal suddenly stops relative the cube, or the blue portal suddenly moves relative the cube.
>>689451959It's not that the answer should be the same but that the logic would be the same.>2+3=5 because you add the two numbers together>ok>and so 3+5=8 because you add the two numbers together>No! You've change the scenario, so it should be different!B has a consistent logic that works the same regardless the scenario. You don't have scenarios that demonstrate that B cannot work as a logic. That's the point.
>>689451853It's literally just that they know in reality if you gain a new motion vector you underwent acceleration. They imagine the portal dropping on them and not feeling any force, which is correct. But portals aren't real and can impart a motion vector without acceleration, violating both the first law of motion and conservation of energy. They can't discard their intuition which is perfectly correct in the real world.
>>689452641>the question being "does dropping a portal onto the ground around an object confer the portal's velocity to the object."No, the question being "does moving a portal around an object confer the portal's velocity to the object". The specific angle and position and movement of the portal and cube do not specifically matter so long as the cube and portal come into contact due to motion on the part of the portal, and the other portal is not moving in the same way the first one is.>You need to change this question in order to get a yes.The goal isn't to change the question to make the answer yes, the goal is to change the question to make the original answer more obvious. Putting an obstacle in the way of the exit portal makes it clear that something is going wonky because a still object can't interact with another still object, much less push on it.
>>689452828The logic of A is that dropping a portal onto the ground around an object doesn't cause that object to launch into the air.the logic of b is dropping a portal halfway around an object should cause it to rip in half.
>>689452993A is the correct answer to the scenario of the OP. Something needs to act on the object outside the blue portal for it to launch.
>>689452664>you fucking donkey, of course it looks this way from this perspective>however from the other perspective it looks completely different>I will not elaborate as to why the latter perspective is the preferred onego take a physics 101 course and learn about the equivalence of inertial frames of reference
>>689453027you can pick someone up by their armpits without ripping them in half, if a portal going relatively slow slammed to a stop halfway down an object it wouldn't tear unless it was very fragile. What would happen is that the momentum the half of the object on the far side of the portal has aquired would propagate through the objects internal structures and lift it up through the portal a bit, all the way through if most of the mass passes through and just a hop if most of the mass is still on the near side
>>689453159If a portal slamming over a cube causes that cube to apply force to another cube, then the first cube had to have force first to apply that force to the second. If you remove the second cube, the first cube still has force. Thus, OP cannot be A, because >>689450317 cannot be A.
>>689450317>still unanswered
here is definitive proof you retarded faggots:https://youtu.be/mN0I7R_NCe4?t=34
>>689453310>>I will not elaborate as to why the latter perspective is the preferred oneThe cube is the object that the portals actually interact with. It is the thing undergoing a shift from one frame of reference to another. Its frame of reference will be the only one without some sort of abrupt jump or "gap" in forces applied and felt.
>>689453334>look i changed the situation and cubes are being acted upon outside the blue portal therefore dropping a hulahoop will launch me into the air
>>689428176>If I slam a hula hoop down around you from above, do you go flying?>Just because there's an anomaly connecting two different points in space on the inside of the hula hoop, that does not mean the momentum affecting the hoop is added to you.If you have a hula hoop in zero-g environment without a ground for the hula hoop to be stopped by and you throw it down your body, then relative to the hula hoop you are flying away from it. Fucktard imbecile Afags really get stumped by the hula hoop hitting the ground and going "durrr duhhhh everything stop moving tho"
>>689453027>the logic of b is dropping a portal halfway around an object should cause it to rip in half.Only if the difference in the speed is high enough to generate enough of a sheering force to overcome the object's cohesiveness.Otherwise you just get the following.>>689435319
>>689453520>cubes are being acted uponby what, exactly? Other cubes? Which are able to act how exactly...?
>>689453027>The logic of A is that dropping a portal onto the ground around an object doesn't cause that object to launch into the air.No that isn't a logic at all. You've described a single result to a single scenario with zero explanation as to why that scenario would produce that result.>the logic of b is dropping a portal halfway around an object should cause it to rip in halfThat also isn't a logic. It also isn't accurate because there are various factors that would determine if an object could rip in half like that.The logic to b is "relative entrance velocity to entrance = relative exit velocity to exit", that basically covers any scenario as long as you actually understand what that quote entails.The logic to a is, well, as you're demonstrating there really isn't one. At best it could be "portals don't change the speeds of objects" but we literally have afags in this thread arguing that isn't actually the case.
>>689453674>zero explanation as to why that scenario would produce that result.because only the new gravity is acting on the cube outside the blue portal. this has been explained a few times.
>>689453027Ripping is material dependent.The logic of B is that dropping a portal halfway results in half the mass that's already through and half the mass that was never fed across need to "split the difference."That CAN be reached by the splitting and ripping, or via the two halves pulling on each other and reaching an equilibrium velocity that's between stationary and the rate it was originally fed through.
>>689453625rockets work by pushing gas against gas, in vacuum, against their own gas.
>>689453753>only the new gravity is acting on the cube outside the blue portaland what is acting on the cube while it emerges from the blue portal? It's moving while it emerges, as we've established with hypotheticals, so why should it stop moving once it's done emerging?
>>689453509>It is the thing undergoing a shift from one frame of reference to anotherThere is no shift, you fucking retard. A frame of reference is simply the coordinates one sets up. How you set up the coordinates does not influence the outcome, because coordinates are math and not physics. The fact that it does here simply indicates that portals are absolute nonsense physically. The most obvious violation is the classic "portal above, portal below" trick which violates energy and momentum conservation by making you accelerate towards the earth indefinitely.
invent a portal gun before arguing thisi hope my post someday encourages someone to invent one.
>>689453889>There is no shiftThen portals can't even change what angle objects are facing/moving and the games themselves are inaccurate.
>>689453878>and what is acting on the cube while it emerges from the blue portalnothing. the movement is an illusion caused by changing its reference frame.
>>689453841And that gas is moving before it interacts with the other gas.
>>689453889>portals break currently understood "laws" of physicswow no shit
>>689454008>the movement is an illusion caused by changing its reference frameIf its reference frame is moving, and the entire universe is inside of that reference frame, then it's moving.
>>689453891Sure I'll put a portal on the hammer and another in the barrel. The projectile will be shot by the hammer portal moving super fast over it.
>>689454008>its changing position in space, but NOT actually moving!every fucking time with you freaks
>>689453965I'm talking about OBJECTS here I'm talking about FRAME OF REFERENCES which are MATHEMATICAL CONSTRUCTS and not PHYSICAL THINGS. Something you created in your mind cannot physically influence reality.
>portals don't change an object's speedAre Afags serious?
>>689454239*not talking
>>689454239Okay then, you object to me using the words "frame of reference" to refer to... the thing we already know portals do. Right. Cool.I can't really debate you when you refuse to use the words that describe what portals do.
>>689454212If I put a big box over you did you move into the box?
>>689454140the question is whether it will continue moving. it won't.
>>689423131Source engine despawns the portal once the surface begins to moveAlso it's B because momentum n shitwhy do we keep having this conversation btw
>>689454239How fast are you moving right now, anon?
>>689454421If I shove a dildo up your ass through a portal, will it hurt?
>>689453753Again, you're being asked to post the logic behind A.Am I to take it that it's "portals don't change the speeds of objects" and for some reason you're unable to say that? Or is it a problem because plenty of Afags actually do argue against that. Or you're aware that that are shown to change speeds in certain frames of reference? >>689446530
>>689454352>I can't really debate you when you refuse to use the words that describe what portals do.I just fucking told you that they're nonsense because they violate relativity. Literally did that in my first post. There is no point making sense of nonsense, which is why these threads are always brainless bait and nothing more.
>>689454618the logic behind A: the box isn't moving, so it doesn't continue to move.
>>689454636>moving X meters/second north toward portal>enter portal facing south>exit other portal facing west>now moving X meters/second west, a change in direction without turning>the exact momentum I had relative the portal I entered became my momentum relative the portal I exited>BUT IT'S NOT A CHANGE IN FRAME OF REFERENCE DOEEEEE>THAT ISN'T REAL PHYSICS THAT'S JUST MATH>YOU ACTUALLY ROTATED AND DIDN'T FEEL ITmhm mhm sure
>>689423131The answer is A, because there is no force actually pushing down onto the cube other than gravity. Only the portal itself contacts the cube.If it was B then EVERY portal interaction would result in being shot out of the blue portal like it's the oil rig incident.
>>689454679The logic behind A breaks down if you ask whether the box moved at any point before it plopped. Was its exiting the blue portal motion? No? Then what happens if there's an obstacle in the way?
>>689454482Relative to what?>>689454689>moving X meters/second north toward portalX m/s relative to what exactly? You are deliberately choosing a preferred frame of reference without realizing and then make it some gotcha moment when it really isn't.
>>689454760>there is no forcesee >>689454579
>>689454827>X m/s relative to what exactly?THE PORTAL.>>689454760If it was A then the ending of Portal 2 wouldn't work. The moon isn't in geostationary orbit over a random American salt mine; its surface moves at a different speed than earth's, so you have to inherit the speed of the moon when you jump through the portal leading there.
>>689454778>The logic behind A breaks downNo, it doesn't. You're confusing the appearance of movement from a specific perspective for actual movement. because you have a low IQ, and can't map the scenario.
>>689454689Oh and btw, your momentum did fucking change. You somehow rotated the vector 90 degrees, which would require some force.
>>689454901>THE PORTAL.What makes this portal special? We have a second portal moving at a different speed. Why choose the one on the piston and not the one on the cube?
>>689454943And it doesn't. Which means portals apply a """nonsensical math thing""" like frames of reference to actual physics. They allow space to be relative, to be in motion relative itself, OF COURSE they're nonsensical compared to current physics, but they have to obey consistent principles in the end.
>>689454901the moonshot isn't relative to the OP. the exit portal is "moving" in that instance.
>>689455053>And it doesn'tIt literally goes from (X,0,0) to (0,X,0), you fucking tard
>>689455079OP's question is whether portals reflect their relative movement in objects that pass through them.
moving portal and stationary cube === stationary portal and moving cubeit's pretty simple
>>689454579If I crushed you with a giant cube did you move into the cube? Also why are Bfag always thinking about taking giant dicks and dildos in the ass? Actually you don't need to answer that.
>>689455149It doesn't require any force, you fucking retard.>>689455037>What makes this portal special?My motion relative to the portal that I am entering becomes my motion relative to the portal I am exiting. This portal isn't special, but my momentum relative to both portals must be equal while I am within the portals themselves.
>>689454636Portals don't violate relativity. You're the one violating relativity by asserting that there is a preferred frame of reference.>>689455037You don't "choose" either retard, that's not how relativity works. That's why it's called relativity and not objectivity. Motion is not an inherent property of an object in space, it can ONLY be defined relative to a frame of reference.An object having different apparent velocity in different frames of reference is not a contradiction, that is describing every single object in the universe.
>>689455079Relative to an observer standing on the moon, the exit portal is stationary and the entrance portal is moving. So it is in fact the same problem.
>>689454679Again you haven't posted a logic. You've posted a given scenario and a result. I can infer that the logic you were asked to post really is "portals don't change the speeds of objects", and again for some reason you're unable to just post that, but:>plenty of Afags actually do argue against that >portals are shown to change speeds in certain frames of reference >>689446530
>>689455252If the cube wasn't moving then it couldn't have crushed me. If the cube was moving, then it should've kept moving.
>>689455178The OP is asking whether dropping a portal on an object would cause it to launch out the other side. It won't. you're confusing yourself by talking about what happens if the exit portal is moving.
posting a classic
>>689455489The OP is asking whether relative motion between portals causes objects traversing them to reflect that relative motion. You're confusing yourself by mistaking random bits of setdressing and conveniences intended for illustration as essential variables.
>>689450317It slamming or not would not matter you can consider all 4 cubes as one object since they’re all resting on eachother. You might as well call those 4 cubes one wooden log
>>689455305>this completely different problem is the same because my IQ is too low to understand the differences
Sex with Kurisu
>>689455590>any variable that contradicts my low IQ answer is just "setdressing" and conveniences
>>689423131neither because the portals go away when the surface the portal is placed starts moving
>>689455687>>689455794Please condense your samefagging into one cope reply, thank you
>>689454901Exactly, The ending of portal 2 is cinematic, dumb and betrays its own logic for the rule of cool. There would have been nothing chell could hold onto all would have been shot through into the depths of space. >>689454876There is a difference in that image to the original situation. In the original situation, the portal platform stops or reaches it's conclusion by the time the cube is transferred. In the 2nd, the platform continues through the portal which is why it is A
>>689455794You believe hypotheticals aren't an actual way to arrive at answers to questions and you call ME low IQ?
>>689423131a bit late to the thread, but its A. it would be B if the bottom platform was moving instead of the top since the cube would maintain its momentum crossing through the portal
>>689455295>It doesn't require any force, you fucking retard.Go pick up the most basic book on Newtonian mechanics, you fucking idiot. Any change of momentum requires a force, it's literally called the second law.>My motion relative to the portal that I am entering becomes my motion relative to the portal I am exiting.Your motion is relative to both of them at the same time. In the first frame, the cube is BOTH moving relative to the piston portal AND stationary relative to the exit portal. >but my momentum relative to both portals must be equalsaid who?>>689455297I am literally stating the opposite by demonstrating how we have to different things happen in two different frames of reference, which is a direct violation of relativity, you dimwit.>An object having different apparent velocity in different frames of reference is not a contradictionBut an object having different energy at the exit depending on the frame of reference IS a contradiction. Apparently, my choice of a frame can influence whether the cube either had kinetic energy or doesn't.
>>689455839samefagging is when you reply to the same post, pretending to be multiple people, my brown friend.
>>689455881I am pointing out it is low IQ to discard variables that interfere with your desired answer, doubly so if its not on purpose.
>>689455903>Your motion is relative to both of them at the same timeAnd the conceit of Portal, the thing that makes them interesting to interact with, is that you can selectively choose which of those motions to make relevant by going through that portal. YOU CHOOSE which frame of reference is relevant. By creating motion relative to a portal you wish to enter, you create motion relative to the portal you exit when you pass through. Whether this motion is from you or the portal you wish to enter moving is immaterial.
>>689455994Explain to me how the variables I'm discarding interfere with my answer to the core question of whether relative portal movement causes movement in objects traversing portals.The behavior of portals with relative motion between them should always be the same.
>>689455903portals break the laws of physics.
>>689450863We need more Kurisu omorashi.
>>689456114you think its irrelevant that the orange portal stops when it hits the cube platform. it isn't.
>>689456208Explain how it's relevant. The orange portal is no longer interacting with the cube by the time it stops.
>>689455842>In the original situation, the portal platform stops or reaches it's conclusion by the time the cube is transferred.The cube is still in motion as it exits the portal, even as the orange finishes slamming down. Unless you're gonna default to the argument it isnt actually moving despite it's position changing (which is retarded)See >>689442430
>>689441028There's a thread up on /e/
>>689456018>you can selectively choose which of those motions to make relevantThat would mean the portal and the object would have to interact in some meaningful way, ie the portal would have to impart some force on the object to conserve energy and momentum. This would make the portal frame non-inertial, at which point it's entirely a question of portal's dynamics. Unfortunately, the game contradicts itself even here, because there is no counterforce (the portals aren't ever accelerated by the object), so they break Newton's third in that case.>>689456124Yeah, which makes these threads nonsensical bullshit. Nature isn't a lawyer.
>>689456254because nothing is acting on the cube on the blue side.this has been explained before.
>>689423131I'm no scientologist, but I'm pretty sure it's A.B would only make sense to me if the platform the cube rests on was the one moving. I base that on my gamer logic and nothing else.
>>689451493portals are not hula hoops, hula hoops are portals, specifically a subset of portals. What applies to hula hoops does not apply to all portals.Also, the parts of the which have passed through the portal don't just look like they are moving, they are moving. If you stood in front of the portal the cube would smash your face in.
>>689456419If nothing is acting on the cube then the motion it has will continue. The motion can't be illusory because air was in the way, and air obviously got pushed by the cube moving.
>>689455903>Go pick up the most basic book on Newtonian mechanics, you fucking idiot. Any change of momentum requires a force, it's literally called the second law.Einsteinian physics then changed this by arguing gravity isn't a force.It's semantics anyway. Portals as shown in the games can change the momentum of whatever passes through them. You either define that as a force or argue it's a form of changing momentum that doesn't count as one. Really doesn't matter.>but my momentum relative to both portals must be equal>said who?If we're talking relative momentum in = realtive momentum out. It must be equal on the simple damn logic that the rate of matter between the two ends need to be consistent. More cannot leave than entered to begin with and vice versa.
>>689456316>the portal would have to impart some force on the object to conserve energy and momentumthe portal is preventing the wall/floor from canceling the energy/momentum. the portal doesn't impart anything.
>>689456316Yes. Portals do in fact break Newtonian physics. They have to, unless the folding of space becomes exponentially more energy-expensive based on what mass passes through the folded space to a point that it becomes impractical. Portal writes off the energy cost and just has you fold space at will. Playing with the consequences of folded space is fun.
>>689455894>>689456423Bsisters fear an answer so simple, watch out for their headcanon essays about putting things up their ass.
>>689456498its not moving, so it doesn't continue to move.
>>689456628If it's not moving then it doesn't appear outside the blue portal. It has to move to appear outside the blue portal, because if both it and the blue portal hold still, then it is still inside the blue portal. But there's no room "inside" a portal- so it must move.
>>689455894>since the cube would maintain its momentum crossing through the portalhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASUUN0W4_JY
>>689456704>If it's not moving then it doesn't appear outside the blue portal>but i don't understand, it looks like its moving, therefore it should continue to move
>>689456603This webm is correct except he'd go head first
>>689456786>it only looks like it's moving>but also it pushes anything in its way>and its position changes over time
>>689452450There are effectively two cubes, the one sitting on the platform, and the one coming out of the other portal. Neither is more valid than the other.
>>689423131PLAAAAAAAPPPFT
>>689456786>it looks like it's moving but it isn't REALLY moving>ignore all the ways it acts exactly as though it's moving for the entire portal transfer process, that's all just illusions
>>689456871>also it pushes anything in its wayI love how this part utterly befuddles afags
Crazy how these threads stay the same over the years, attracting autists who are autistic enough to try to debate the question but not autistic enough to know the answer.Myself, being a turbo autist, know that the answer is that both are provable on account that the premise isn't axiomatically well-defined. If space isn't continuous, due to there being a portal, then you can mathematically prove that every velocity is the same as every other velocity.
>>689456786>it looks like its movingHow is it not moving, if it's position in space is changing over time?Could you give your definition of movement?
>>689455903>Newtonian mechanicsFail to describe accurately relativistic motion, which is why the theory of relativity had to be formulated in the first placeForces like gravity, the Coriolis effect, centrifugal force, and the "force" that causes the cube to continue its motion out of the portal in B are not "real" forces in the Newtonian sense. They are the product of an accelerating frame of reference, which the cube enters when it passes into a moving portal.>we have to different things happen in two different frames of referenceNo, we don't.>which is a direct violation of relativityNo, it isn't. You again are confusing apparent motion with what is actually happening in reality, as experienced by the cube.>But an object having different energy at the exit depending on the frame of reference IS a contradictionIn all frames of reference the cube is observed to exit the portal as in B. The only apparent discrepancy is that the cube appears to be anomalously accelerated from its position at rest to an observer who shared its initial frame of reference. The cube's acceleration can be attributed to it entering an accelerating frame of reference as it passed through the portal. This is the expected result according to general relativity.
>>689456950but anon, its bfags who ignore how portals break conventional understanding of physics, which they keep asserting will hold true, despite the fact there's no reason for them to.
>>689452641It has to. Basic geometry requires it. You cannot have an object exit a portal without moving. The cubes matter is entering into a new space, its matter physically has to move to make room for more of itself to come through, there is no way around that.
>>689439291>>what about this situation where motion isn't relative?>there's one context in which the cube is standing still, and the one it enters into where it isn't relative
>>689457003afags get smarter every time they refute bfag arguments. bfags get dumber everytime they come up with new bullshit to justify their idiocy.
>>689457067>because portals generate some laws of physics we have no way to tell how many are still in play at all so it could be anything!You realize the best this gets you is "neither A nor B for sure", and the games have hardcoded it to be B in the only place it happened.
>>689457083and the question isn't whether or not its emerging from the portal, the question is whether or not it will continue moving at the rate it appeared from the blue portal. it won't, because it isn't actually moving.
>>689456503>Einsteinian physics then changed this by arguing gravity isn't a force.Gravity is a force, just not spin 1 like other forces, but spin 2. Einstein’s field equations are entirely equivalent to Maxwell equations with the added complication that gravitational fields have a non-zero energy-stress tensor, so they self-interact. This makes them a “spin 2 version” of Yang-Mills equations in a sense. Feynman’s Lectures on Gravitation explain this beautifully as well as Ramond’s Field Theory: A Modern Primer. So that’s besides the point.>It's semantics anywayYes, logical contradictions are semantics. If you say A is B and not B at the same time, you’re saying nonsense.>If we're talking relative momentum in = realtive momentum out.That relative momentum depends on the frame of reference, dipshit. You’re the one who thinks it’s absolute. The relative momentum of that cube to the Sun is enormous, so from the Sun’s perspective that cube should bolt the fuck out at ultrasonic speeds and burn up in the atmosphere. All you’re saying by going “the portal’s frame is special” is saying that it interacts with the cube via a force, at which point I direct you to >>689456316, where I argue that Newton’s third is then violated.
>>689457067>portals let you make a perpetual motion machine by creating a closed loop of space>therefore there's no reason they can't let you accelerate something faster than light or make temperature flow from cold to hotThis is a moronic understanding of physics
>>689431246Whoever makes a game where it works will decide for themselves what it would do (though they should decide on B, because it's accurate to physics)
>>689457254If it's emerging from the portal then it's moving. If it's moving then it keeps moving.
>>689438589Fucking kek
>>689457169No, it lands at A, solidly, because portals prove motion isn't relative. the only reason we can't prove motion isn't relative is because we don't have portals, yet.
>>689456871If you're standing still and I lower an empty cardboard box onto your head does your head push the box out of my hands?
>>689457305You are wrong and its been explained why dozens of times in this thread. no one is trolled, just getting bored at you simply repeating yourself.
>>689457360>portals prove motion isn't relativeExplain how without assuming that a portal's momentum relative to an object is equally relevant before, during, and after the object passes through the portal.
>>689423131A because the world is boring
>>689457417If I'm standing still, and a cube comes out of a portal which is standing still, can the cube push something?
Portals can't be moved. They are holes in space. They can't be attached to an object, as a portal does not have any particles with which to be interacting for the concept of being "attached" to even apply.The fact people are talking about "object emerging from portal" without the object having any velocity itself hints at this.The actual answer is the piston itself shoots through the portal, with the edges being sheared off by stress.
>>689439291Was I supposed to disagree with the first person in that greentext? He made it pretty fucking clear, motion is relative.>but in the gameThe games goal is to either simulate what is realistic (so even if there is an absolute reference frame it's more realistic to pretend there isn't one), or go with what is more fun. Both conclude in B.
>>689456503Einstein was a hack
>>689457442I have seen dozens of claims that motion can be simultaneously fake and also cause actual physical relocation without imparting momentum, but no disproving of my claims.
>>689457498>>689432037
>>689457254But the atoms at the front of the cube are already moving. Physical reality does not recognize objects. There is no reason for the atoms that make up the front of the cube to stop when the atoms that make up the rear of the cube exit the portal. And if you want to say its the space that is moving, that has so many issues and consequences that nobody has ever attempted to address.
>>689457498
>>689457595>the only way to relocate is movement>what if we had portals, and could move the universe around a stationary object>THE ONLY WAY TO RELOCATE IS MOVEMENT
>>689457028>Fail to describe accurately relativistic motionMy argument works perfectly fine with Lorentzian transformations. It violates both.>Forces like gravity, the Coriolis effect, centrifugal force, and the "force" that causes the cube to continue its motion out of the portal in B are not "real" forces in the Newtonian senseGravity is a force in a Newtonian sense, dumbass. The others are fictiously added to account for non-inertial frames. It was Einstein who noted the equivalence, but what is a force or not in relativistic mechanics is meaningless autism, because big boys work with potentials and gauge fields.>No, we don't.Yes we do.>You again are confusing apparent motion with what is actually happening in realityYou observe portals in reality?>In all frames of reference the cube is observed to exit the portal as in BIt isn’t in piston’s frame
>>689457716>what if we had portals, and could move the universe around a stationary objectHow does the stationary object come into contact with the portal if the portal doesn't move? And if the portal moves, then is that not the universe moving around the stationary object, i.e. the same thing as the object no longer being stationary?
>>689457672Cool, now post what happens when something contacts the portal at a perpendicular angle.Oh wait, you can't because of arbitrary engine limitations?That's right, get the fuck out.
>>689457884>it looks like its moving therefore its moving>its not moving though>IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS MOVING THEREFORE IT IS MOVING
>>689457716>move the universeThis is the funniest stupid shit that Afags keep repeating, please keep saying this instead of the hula hoop thing
>>689457965>can only view portals as "teleporters">cannot actually view them as folded space, just thinks "CUBE MOVE FROM ONE PLACE TO OTHER PLACE">cannot process that this isn't what's even being discussed, just thinks people are getting confused by portalsAfags must truly live sad lives
>>689458038who are you quoting?
>>689457950I accept your concession.
>>689457067B. breaks physics in a controlled and limited way, confined to the portal surface. A. throws physics away completely, everywhere, the breakage reaching out from the portal an unlimited distance.
>>689458092Who was >>689457965 quoting? I never said "it looks like it's moving therefore it's moving". My basis for believing that you must be moving to exit an object that isn't moving is basic logic.
>>68943234550/50 because the syntax of the question does not care about the odds of getting the first golden ball. The statement that you have found a golden ball is absolute and assumed, so we completely eliminate the third box, but if the question was "what are the odds the second ball will be silver?" the answer would still be 50/50.If the question was asking "prior to sticking your hand into any box, what are the odds that you pull two gold balls?" it would clearly be 1/3. But that is NOT what the question is asking.
>>689457965In >>689441914is the dude moving?is the cube moving?what causes the distance between them to reduce over time?what causes the dude to fall over?
>>689458164>I never said "it looks like it's moving therefore it's moving"You say it every time you try to argue B is correct.
>>689432345>>689432605 >>689432612 >>689432860 >>689433969 >>689434398>>689447250While it has different nuances, this is very similar to the Monty Hall problem (the goat doors), but presented in a different manner. The answer is 2/3 as any reasonable person already knew. I'll explain it to the few who answered 50% like the fools they are: You've first picked one box that happened to have a gold ball, a 2/3 chance, then you've picked a gold ball, which assuming it was the middle box would be a 1/2 chance in isolation, meaning it's a 2/6 chance that you happened to pick a golden ball out of the middle chest specifically. Which leaves you with a 4/6, or 2/3 chance that you picked the correct box. In short, if you count the times you picked the gold ball first after choosing a box, let's say a 1000 times: out of those 1000 times, you'd have opened the box with 2 gold orbs, 670 times. If someone doesn't understand it even with this explanation, you are beyond help.
>>689458095If the game was evidence enough then these A vs B threads wouldn't exist, because you would just post what happens in the game
>>689457265https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity>Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity, proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915, which describes gravity not as a force, but as the curvature of spacetime, caused by the uneven distribution of mass, and causing masses to move along geodesic linesAgain, it's semantics anyway. We either agree that momentum will change or we do not. Labelling the change as a force is trivial.>That relative momentum depends on the frame of reference, dipshitNo it doesn't? In essence the relative measurement IS the given frame of reference.>You’re the one who thinks it’s absolute.No I don't.>The relative momentum of that cube to the Sun is enormous, so from the Sun’s perspective that cube should bolt the fuck out at ultrasonic speeds and burn up in the atmosphereThat's an abysmally poor understanding of B. Again anon, relative momentum in = realtive momentum out.>All you’re saying by going “the portal’s frame is special” No more than in the sense that if you are hit by something you use relative momentum to determine how hard it hits you. We have physics equations that use relative measurements. That doesn't mean any reference frame is special.
>>689458312Stationary objects cannot enter or exit contact with other stationary objects. Teleportation and portals are not the same thing.
>>689458151>A. throws physics away completely, everywhere, the breakage reaching out from the portal an unlimited distance.of course you can explain how. it was random chance that you stopped after an unsupportable assertion.
>>689458382this is yet another rewording of "it looks like its moving therefore its moving." You're just playing word games with yourself.
>>689458523Teleportation =/= portals.
>>689447000>a motionless cubeIt's not motionless though, the guy threw it toward the portal, so it's moving. That gif has absolutely no bearing on the OP problem because the cube is moving in all three scenarios. The cube is not moving in OP, only the portal is.
>>689458175Low IQ. Read this, and be enlightened! >>689458329
>>689458408Imagine instead of a cube there was a 1000 mile long rod. With A, 1000 miles of rod would suddenly stop for seemingly no reason as soon as the portal stopped. This is what I mean about A. corrupting reality at unlimited distance.
>>689458408A asserts that objects can be still and moving at the same time relative to the universe itself. B asserts that objects can be still and moving at the same time only relative to portals, and only because portals are fucking weird.
>>689458645Brainlet hands wrote this post.
>>689432345There's three scenarios where I grab a gold ball first and in two of them the box contains a second gold ball. So I think it's 2/3.
>>689454041kek
>>689458618the guy threw it toward the portal, so it's movingThe guy threw a moving cube into a non moving state in the reference frame of the earth surface. Just like this ball got launched into a non-moving state.
>>689454579How is this case comparable to one in OP's?
>>689458618How do you know the cube isn't moving in the original? What property could you compare between the cube in the train and the original to determine which one is and is not moving?
>>689458360>muh wikipedia articlesEinstein field equations:G_{\mu\nu} = T_{\mu\nu}Maxwell and Yang-Mills equations:\partial_\mu F_{\mu\nu} = J_\nuBoth have the field derivatives on the LHS (Einstein tensor being a complicated combination of second derivatives of the metric tensor) and the source field on the right-hand size. The only difference between the two is the tensor rank and the "dimensionality" (second vs first derivatives). Otherwise, they're of the same character. If you read Einstein's own The Meaning of Relativity, he guesses the gravity field equations by starting with Maxwell's equations and providing a tensor analogue that would respect conservation laws (ie \partial_\mu G_{\mu\nu} = 0).>We either agree that momentum will change or we do not.It's not a matter of agreement. It's the fact that two observers disagree. That can't happen in physics. An event happens regardless.>>That relative momentum depends on the frame of reference, dipshit>No it doesn't? In essence the relative measurement IS the given frame of reference.ITS CALLED RELATIVE MOMENTUM YOU DENSE CUNT. Your momentum relative to the Sun is different than that relative to the Earth. To the Sun, you're moving through space at 30km/s.>>You’re the one who thinks it’s absolute.>No I don't.>I literally stated that it isn't relative, but I somehow don't.>Again anon, relative momentum in = realtive momentum out.THE FUCKING PISTON HAS DOWNWARDS MOMENTUM, BUT THE FINAL MOMENTUM AT B IS DIRECTED AT A FUCKING ANGLE TO THE HORIZONTAL. YOUR MOMENTA ARE LITERALLY UNEQUAL. GO GOOGLE WHAT A VECTOR IS.
>>689459081A still object can't come into contact with another still object. If the cube is moving at any point in OP's scenario, then the question becomes why it would stop moving, or rather, the answer becomes that it WOULDN'T stop moving. In this case, the one who believes in A believes that the portal can't make the object it's lowering move, thus that it won't harm him when it comes into contact with him.
>>689459485lmao wrong board nerd go back
>>689459674>implying /sci/ isn’t a jeetfest
>>689458802A fool doesn't have the mental capacity to comprehend that he is, in fact, a fool. Listen to your betters, and maybe some day, you'll understand the truth.
>>689459485>Both have the field derivatives on the LHS (Einstein tensor being a complicated combination of second derivatives of the metric tensor) and the source field on the right-hand size. The only difference between the two is the tensor rank and the "dimensionality" (second vs first derivatives). Otherwise, they're of the same character. If you read Einstein's own The Meaning of Relativity, he guesses the gravity field equations by starting with Maxwell's equations and providing a tensor analogue that would respect conservation laws (ie \partial_\mu G_{\mu\nu} = 0).You're demonstrating my point. That it's infinitely more important what is actually being said than whether it gets labelled a force or not.>ITS CALLED RELATIVE MOMENTUM YOU DENSE CUNT. Your momentum relative to the Sun is different than that relative to the Earth. To the Sun, you're moving through space at 30km/s.Yes I understand how it works anon. >THE FUCKING PISTON HAS DOWNWARDS MOMENTUM, BUT THE FINAL MOMENTUM AT B IS DIRECTED AT A FUCKING ANGLE TO THE HORIZONTAL. YOUR MOMENTA ARE LITERALLY UNEQUAL. Yes anon. "relative momentum in = relative momentum" out does entail a change in momentum. Because the equation is essentially equating two momentum measurements in to different reference frames. B isn't actually that hard to understand. The portal simply changes the momentum of a passing object in such a way that the relative entrance velocity to the entrance and the relative exit velocity to the exit are the same.
>>689459081Bfags see dicks everywhere so as you can see they're quite similar.
>IF THE CUBE IS STILL IT SHOULD STAY STILL>ME FALLING INTO A PORTAL DOESN'T COUNT AS MOVEMENT PORTALS ARE TELEPORTERS THEY ZAP YOU FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER>WHAT DO YOU MEAN I STILL MOVED? BUT I USED PORTALS!>If the cube is moving, it should stay moving>If the blue portal isn't moving, and the cube isn't moving until it's outside the blue portal, the cube must start moving as it exitswhich way, white man?
>>689458008>Have portal attached to phone and stuff it in my pocket>B-fags: “errrm how is that a pocket universe seems a little unrealistic”
>>689460249>That it's infinitely more important what is actually being said than whether it gets labelled a force or not.You’re the one who brought it up. Now I’m the one who’s demonstrating “your point”?>relative momentum in = relative momentum" out does entail a change in momentumNow this is fucking semantics, alright.>B isn't actually that hard to understandNeither is A. Both are possible. Yet two things can’t happen at once. This entire thread is basically retards arguing about whether it’s one or the other, but literally both can happen depending on what perspective one looks from, which makes it completely nonsensical. If, say, the piston is now a giant platform with scientists on them, then you suddenly have two teams of scientists reporting two entirely different behaviors of what is supposedly the same thing. People with a brain will just go “oh, then this thing we’re observing isn’t real”, while brainlets will start flinging shit at each other going “my POV is right because you’re a faggot”.
>>689460785>both can happen depending on what perspective one looks fromOne requires the perspective of the universe to prevail over the portals, which are currently breaking the universe, and one requires the portals to break physics for specific objects as they pass through the spatial anomaly. Occam's razor demands we take the simpler option here, A requires a new explanation for every situation regardless.
>>689460896>One requires the perspective of the universeNo such thing, Mr Aether. All frames of reference are equivalent. Having a special one would instantly violate energy-momentum conservation as per Noether’s theorem.
