Refute this.
I'm not smart or knowledgeable to be able to but it just seems wrong
>>720080612American
>>720080612remember when this place would churn out memorable and funny memes
>>720080612Prove it first.
>>720080612You are correct. Portal are not real.
>>720080612>me>that gay shit
>>720080978i don't have to, I'm not Americanit's beyond your understanding mutt
>>720081141>rendering illusion instead of physics simulationISHYGDDT
>>720080612This may be the first time that I understood A fags. I guess it's because A fags just use hoops and doors when those aren't really analogous to portals.
Isn't a portal just a wormhole?
>>720081460You don't even know what a wormhole is
>>720081141static brushes don't go through portals
>>720081460did i fucking stutter mutt
>Portals can't stick to moving surfaces>People act like they can for some reason
>>720081702>did i fucking stutterIs this a new meme?Why do I see this in every thread?I cringe so hard every time imagine some teen trying to appear really fucking hardcore.
>>720082056blame portal 2
>>720081141this might be the best illustration on why B is right
>>720082282B has always been right. Portals do not GIVE momentum. They are just doors.
>>720080612The fuck I'm looking at
>>720080612Bot thread?
>>720080612Easy. The pillar the square is sitting on is smaller than the opening of the portal. So not only with the cube go through the portal but so too will the pillar. The cube will just fall off the now horizontal pillar as the pillar will plow into Chell as the portal will continue to run along the length of the pillar.
>>720082282You don't even need a fucking illustration. The game outright fucking tells you explicitly how Portals work. >Momentum, a function of mass and velocity, is conserved between portals. In layman's terms, speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out>Spectacular. You appear to understand how a portal affects forward momentum, or to be more precise, how it does not.
>A/Bfags misunderstand the question and derail the threadAt least civil war fags know to stick to their own Skyrim threads
these threads were never funny
>>720084562I mean they are kinda of funny, when people have argued about this shit for 10+ years
>>720081512>takes out a pencil and a piece of paper
>>720082360>>720082282i think you mean why A is right. This directly refutes B.>>720081382because they are. They are just hoops/doors that cut through space. They cant impart any momentum, not just even because how the game directly explains it as stated by >>720083798 but also because math/phsyics doesnt work that way.
>>720081141L-Lewd...
>>720081141Fuckin got em.
>>720080612Done, check your PMs
>>720081514Nice try, faggot. You lost.
>>720080978That's fucking easy. I just have to ask you, where is the cube traveling through?Go on, get those "uuuh"'s coming.
>>720081162Got it, you can't. Stay obsessed and brown.
>>720080612it's not a gravity well it's a portal
>>720085441>BUT HOOPSSure, but it's a totally different burrito when the portals are moving in relation to each other.
>>720081141
>>720085376>calls you a retard to your face
>>720085792A portal bending the laws of physics.
>>720080612In fact, you would get this distortion by opening a portal.
>>720085859thats irrelevant, the cube has no momentum. there is no physical force imparting momentum or energy onto the cube. its hoops just over distance. i get that you're confused because (but it comes out the other side fast! but that doesnt matter because the cube itself is an object at rest and the portal itself has no mass. See the equation in the image. if you dont understand that or how it disproves b then you're not smart enough to be trying to talk about this.
>>720086053What makes you think the cube would need momentum in B? Just because it appears to be flying through the air does not necessarily mean that it is not at rest or has momentum.
>>720086310>why do you think the cube is moving as it's movingCome on, guy....
>>720086439It appears to be moving, but that does not necessarily mean that it is moving unless you have some way to prove it.
>>720080714Your instincts are on point. OP is a fag.
I know the physics would agree with it flying away but it's much funnier to pretend otherwiseI believe this may in fact be the joke
What about the air particles moving between the portals?
>>720085586
>>720085586*DM'sFixed it for you, geriatric cunt.
>>720091456?
>>720083798>>720085441>>Momentum, a function of mass and velocity, is conserved between portals. In layman's terms, speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes outThere is no momentum. It's a stationary box. Hey everybody, want to see something funny? Watch these two fags dance around and refuse to answer this question: Where is the energy that supposedly moves the box coming from? Reminder that relativity is not a form of energy.
>>720080731>>720081162>>720081702Do they even have the third dimension in the third world where you live?
>>720092076>There is no momentum. It's a stationary box.Yes. I don't understand how you think this is in literally any way any kind of a "gotcha."
>>720082282The platform doesn't go through the portal in the original question.
>>720086053>thats irrelevant Man, people say that all the time but I think it is literally the most important part. I know it's make believe physics but portals moving independently of each other is legit the most important aspect of all this. It's like if I said "planes fly because how the air flows over the wings" and someone saying "that's irrelevant, air is way lighter than the airplane so that can't be why." Not the perfect parallel but AAA yes it's relevant! Its the most relevant part!Maybe, I dunno, make believe physics and whatnot. How can two different faces of the same plane be in two different places much less move in relation to each other? I legit love this portal question. It's fun.
Atards are truly the flat earthers of the portal question.
>>720093046I also love to create energy from nothing
>>720083798Except that's directly contradicted by what the portal literally do in the game.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASUUN0W4_JY
>>720093167Portals do that anyway.
>>720092076>Momentum, a function of mass and velocity, is conserved between portals. In layman's terms, speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes outan often missed point is that you have to traverse perpendicular portals in the very test chamber in which glados says this. this demonstrates that portals do not conserve momentum, a function of mass and velocity, because velocity is a measure of speed in a given direction. this lie is one of the many breadcrumbs left throughout the first act of the game to hint that glados does not have chell's best intentions in mind.
>>720093553This is obviously bullshit, from the perspective of people outside the train the box would be hovering midair which is physically impossible.
>>720093649
>>720093761Let me guess. You're a bfag. Go to college
>>720093649Well, obviously it's bullshit, portals arent real
>>720094007This is a completely different situation, the ball is objectively moving because it was fired out of a fucking cannon.
>>720092076kek you were right
It's A, sorry BetardsAn object at rest stays at rest until acted on by an external force
>>720092076>Where is the energy that supposedly moves the box coming from?Portals violate the law of conservation of energy, and we don't even need to talk about moving portals to demonstrate. Easy example: set up a water wheel with a portal bringing the water from the bottom to the top. Simple infinite energy.
>>720094171The cube is being thrown in the gif in the exact same manner. As the ball is being fired out the cannon in that gif. There is no difference.
>>720094275>Portals violate the law of conservation of energyThey don't.Portals aren't macro objects ffs
>>720094371The anon already proved to you that they do.
>>720094275>B works but only if you throw out basic principles of physicsWow imagine that
>>720094513Yes anon, B works when you follow what the portals are literally shown to do.
>>720085859>HOOPFAGS DONT UNDERSTAND>posts image that proves Aincredible Bfaggotry.
>>720081141I'm pretty sure if you fucked with the setup a little you can make loss.png.
>>720094513Yes, anon, portals are fictional and could probably never exist in real life. You're very smart for pointing that out.
>>720094007I'm glad you have this gif, because I watched it the other day and realized it was abolute proof of A and I neede to capture it to destroy Biggers.
>>720094207Portals demonstrate the ability to alter momentum. Whether or not you defined that as being a force.
>>720092076Obviously energy is spent generating and maintaining the portal retard. You could could generate infinite energy with just the portal's displacement effects, so if energy isn't expended by the portal itself then it breaks conservation of energy. Just remember, that velocity is a vector and has a direction which does get affected by stationary portals, so saying momentum is conserved between portals is a straight up lie. It's not a stretch to assume that two stationary portals only don't affect the magnitude of momentum because the difference in velocity between the two portals themselves is zero, so portals having a non-zero difference in velocity magnitude between themselves will cause a non-zero change in velocity magnitude as something goes through
>>720094441They prove jackshit no matter which letter is chosen.The basic thing is that portals simply exploit differentials that create illusion of infinite energy because of altered spacetime curve. A loop does not generate anything actual because it simply exploits resources that are already there.
>>720094701You lacked the intelligence to search "mythbusters car cannon"?
>>720094737>illusion of infinite energyThen it's also an illusion of energy being created out of nowhere.
>>720094767Fuckwit.
>>720082360>B has always been right. Portals do not GIVE momentum. They are just doors.Portals give momentum to the entire universe on the other side of the portal
>>720081141i think this is final proof that portals moving is just a retarded idea.it really illustrates well why it just wouldn't work
>>720094825Of-course.Portals interact with spacetime that is already thereThey technically may impart kinetic force on objects as part of portal gun's design both to ensure portal position differential does not ruin portal structure, gun itself, and to prevent movement issues.
>>720093649>>720094171
>>720095002Portals are already moving. They are always moving.
>>720080612
>>720094737Portals can increase an object's gravitational potential energy at no expense
I'm sure OP has some relation to the Afag Bfag argument, but is forgetting something fundamentally flawed about both situations. You can apply pressure with the orange portal, because the mechanism obviously has some pressure applied to it. If nothing is in the way, the mechanism will fall, but as the portal does not apply any of that force, the box will plop. If something is in the way however, and cannot meet the mass and pressure of the mechanism, it will force an equal amount of pressure, but not send it flying. I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but it's the equivalent of pushing anything on the other side closer to what was once on the other side. Chell would get pushed back with the force of a truck, at best. The box still isn't going to fly.
>>720081141this but a dildo up OP's ass
>>720095209I was about to make the same post.There's a reason that they're pretty much just science fantasy and would require a near infinite power source in order to work in the real world, but people want to keep having these stupid threads where they debate how they'd function over and over.
>>720095276>depicts the cube instantly teleporting the other side
>>720095276Up until the point where it fully emerges, the cube exits the portal in the exact same way both times. Why would it behave differently after finally coming all the way through the portal? Shouldn't both of these have identical results?
>>720095414>why isn't this 116kb webm in 9001 fps?
>>720095356>I'm sure OP has some relation to the Afag Bfag argumentIf you don't immediately understand the context where it gets posted you aren't in a position to give your own take.
>>720095352People who continually post this should have their hands chopped off and be burned in a tire pile like the subhuman nigger they are.Straight African treatment for you midwits.
>>720093649It wouldn't be hovering, it would be falling from gravity but yes it would be in the same area in a lateral sense to an outside observer.
>>720095507Because the animator was doing his hardest to avoid to animate the cube actually leaving the portal because it then does seem fucking weird that it just stops.
>>720094701What? How is it proof of A? Its proof of neither A nor B. It's just how inertial frames of references work.
>>720095310There is an expense, micro black hole reactor covers them by eating anything around it or worse (decent people shouldn't think too much about that).A mobile black hole reactor, no less, that maintains more than 4 distortions and auto-tunes itself on the go.People forget that the portal gun is an extremely sophisticated device that, in critical condition, can eat planets.It should've been telling that Chell can shoot the portal to the Moon. The device is exceedingly dangerous.
>>720095479Because there are different forces (or lack thereof) being imparted on the cube.The perspective that matters is that of the cube. It is the "tiebreaker" in the "muh perspective" argument>from the orange portal's perspective, the cube is stationary>from the blue portal's perspective, the cube is moving>from the cube's perspective, it is stationary
>>720094581at least he was already crippled
>>720095276What? No. It would look like this.
>>720095352B.
>>720080612Looks photoshopped, I can tell by looking at the pixels.
A>it's not in motion because it can't beB>it can't be in motion but it clearly isAm I getting this right?
>>720094670>>720094569>its magic so it can do anything so I say it does B!Is this viewpoint really worth visiting in more than one thread? If this is your justification for B then I might as well lose the scientific justification and just say 'nuh uh it's A'
>>720095768This doesn't make any sense. If I cropped out the left half of the video, and cut it on the frame before the cube fully exits the portal, you wouldn't be able to tell whether I was showing you the first or second example. How are the forces different?
>>720095786>if I create a different program where it works the way I want it to, it will work the way I want it toThe reason the character goes through the portal in this webm is because in-game, portals were not programmed to move. The only time we see a moving portal is in a non-interactive section where a laser is being fired through it.In the actual game, any entity that is not already moving CANNOT go through a portal. This is why the player jumps right before the portal arrives - it simply stops if the person isn't moving. This is also why the cube isn't used - the portal just stops moving when it hits the cube.>b-but what about the weight of the player vs the cubeThis question proves you didn't play the game. The cube weighs exactly the same as the player. This is even used by the antagonist to tell the player they are fat.
>>720095719Where are you getting this information?
>>720095994The point is to apply a real-life understanding of physics as rigorously as possible with the one magical exception that is portals. B is the most reasonable extrapolation based on that process, and A requires a bunch of mental gymnastics and weird assumptions (eg that Earth is a universal reference frame for momentum).
>>720096042A = no force is impacted on the cube. A new area is enveloped around it.B = force is impacted on the cube. It is being thrown into a new area.If portals did not link within the universe, but were instead gateways to alternate universes that happened to be exactly the same in every way otherwise, then even Bfags would accept that the cube wouldn't fly off. This is essentially what happens with portals - if someone drops an entire building on top of you, but with a hole cut out where you are standing and the building then slams onto the ground around you, you do not suddenly fly into the air and smash into the ceiling.
>>720095994>its magic so it can do anything so I say it doesNo it can do anything IT says it does.How much does it need to get spelled out to you that we're literally going by how the portals are shown to work when we say its B?
>>720096241Based on the image you posted and your posts, it's clear you don't even understand the argument Bfags are making. It sure is strange that Bfags always seem to be able to perfectly understand the arguments for A, but Afags never seem to be able to actually understand the arguments for B.
>>720096241>but were instead gateways to alternate universes that happened to be exactly the same in every way otherwise, then even Bfags would accept that the cube wouldn't fly off.Yes we would. The rule would be that it exits with the same velocity relative to that exit in that universe.
>>720096431Based on the image bfags post and their posts, it's clear that Bfags never played the fucking game
>>720096241Still B, but it probably wouldn't pop off like a champaign cork. It would just feel like it suddenly gets yanked but skin is still attached.
what happens if he drops the blue portal?
>>720096496Surprisingly being wrong over and over doesn't make for a particularly good arguing technique.
>>720096516It stops about halfway through the first cube and doesn't continue falling as there is no longer any space on the orange side.
>>720096496Give one example of how the argument for B contradicts what we directly observe in game.
>>720096053Pay more attention to the game and extrapolate real physics.
>>720096587How about recreating the problem in the game itself?>>720096045
>>720096576it just floats? it rests on thin air? i can't tell if there's a single B fag that isn't a troll or if you retards actually exist
>>720080612I thought portals can't move after they have been placed.
>>720096516It makes mustard gas
>>720095719>there is an expenseSo portals are capable of imparting momentum. Got it
>>720096636Testing this problem in-game is not possible, neither Portal or Portal 2 have code for moving portals (the one in Portal 2 isn't a proper portal, it's a special case scripted for that scene alone, and that's why it only happens once far away from any way the player could interact with it). Any "in-game testing" requires a mod, and whether it's A or B would then be entirely up to how the modder decides to program it.
Everyone knows what you would do with a portal gun.
>>720096045Well portal isnt a perfect physics simulation either. In portal, yeah. Totally. A is the answer. Or it blocks shit. Whatever you're trying to argue. It doesn't really matter if we're trying to figure out what would really happen for realsies IRL outsideMMO.Also the video to the post you're replying to isn't a physics simulation either. It's just an animation showing what it would look like. It's like if you saw the original "what would happen, A or B?" picture, then saying "Neither would happen, it's drawn in MS paint". Like yeah. No shit. It's just a visual example trying to clarify what's going on or what the result would look like.
>>720080612That's the answer to the A or B question, the cube stretches as it enters the portal
>>720096819
>>720081141Is the box glued to the stand? Why does it get no momentum?
>>720095768There is no cube's perspective. Motion is measured as a change in distance between two points in space
>shoot other portal to the moon>place another on the ground on Earth>gravity goes places
Slow start but we got there.
>>720096636Except it didn't. That webm deliberately avoids using a cube because cubes literally can't go through portals when the moving portal feature is enabled. Moving portal implementation is that half-assedThe person who made that webm also says he regrets making it.
>>720091456>random apostropheYou are brown, gay and retarded.
>>720096917Because whoever made it was trying to make fun of Afags but they unironically clung to it saying it was correct.
>>720096790Mechanically one certainly can make them.Regardless one can assume either and be right.Either they impart it, or they don't, as such any atypical forces is emergent equilibrium of local spacetime-subatomic-portal system.
>>720096516The cubes would all violently smash together. This is a great example of how fucked up portal physics get if you really try to think them through.
>>720096910>not Chell x Alyxgaaaaayyyyyyy
>>720097070>equilibriumSuch as distance between the portal and the cube over time
>>720085859>>720085859>portals: move object from one point to other >"hmmmm achuali portals create and destroy matter and space!"Bfags changing the laws of reality so their retarded idea makes sense as usual
>>720097178Mhmm-hmmm, but only at the moment of entry, plus tiny (or not) aerodynamic dynamic (relative to object's position) pressures.
>>720097138Are you Chell or Alyx?He would give himself a handjob.
>>720097364B. cube is stationary.
>>720097394Fair, fair.I doubt engi is so crass though.
While we're on the subject, debating how to fuck your own ass with a portal is far more interesting than this A B stuff
>>720080612I want Chell to stand on my face
>>720096202>A requires a bunch of mental gymnastics and weird assumptionsThe only assumption you need is the First Law of Motion, which A abides by but B breaks (an object at rest being launched into the air with no external force)What fundamental law of physics does B abide by that A breaks and how? If you can't provide one then A has to be the most reasonable extrapolation purely on points>>720096243>literally going by how the portals are shown to work when we say its B?What are some examples where objects come out faster than where they were put in?
>>720097539Good job, boots!
>>720082056>portals can't stick to moving surfaces, but hypothetically, what if they could?>but they can't thoughAnon how would you feel if you didn't eat dinner last night?
>>720097531>portal on the seat of a chair>portal on a cushionSolved
>>720097531I don't think you'd be able to, you thrust forward and your ass moves forwardIt's unironically easier to suck yourself off with a portal than fuck yourself with one
>>720081141uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh A-bros?????????
>>720097574>What are some examples where objects come out faster than where they were put in?Literally any instance where the portal changes the momentum of the object passing through there exists a reference frame where the object's speed increases. See the last shot shown in >>720093553>The only assumption you need is the First Law of Motion, which A abides by but B breaksA is the one that breaks the First Law. You have an established motion of the cube leaving the exit portal and A doesn't maintain that exiting motion despite there being nothing to change it upon the cube leaving the portal.B is the one that follows the first law on the understanding that passing through the portal itself is a momentum changing factor. Which is evident as momentum being changed was necessarily to leave the portal to begin with.
>>720097792Kafkaesque.
>>720097574>An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force.A violates this law. B follows it. The cube needs to move to emerge from the portal, and in order for A to happen, it needs to suddenly stop for no reason.
>>720082056>>720082204All portals are moving portals. Literally everything is moving according to some reference frame.
>portals can't alter the magnitude of velocity>portals can change the vector of velocity Explain this Afags
>>720097882Shh, don't mention reference frames around Afags. It'll scare them. We've all just gotta pretend that the Earth is a magical reference frame and if you're sitting still on Earth your speed is zero.
2 A or 2 B, that is the question.
>>720097827>>720097861The First Law of Motion is a function of force, not speed. Things are moved with actions, and nothing in the equation indicates that any object with mass has acted on the cubeYou're equating the displacement of the cube via portals with actual speed, which is impossible because that would result in instantaneous travel (infinite speed).In other words, speedless thing goes in - speedless thing comes out
>>720096628>Miniature Black Hole Cooling Fan
>>720080612Women do this when I get close.
>>720095479No, because one scenario involves space being warped around the portals, while the other involves space being warped and the cube being moved by another object.
>>720097364What? No, you can't post the ol' switcharoo in the middle of a thread, its gotta be an OP that you swap once every couple weeks.
>>720098137If I hit a tennis ball with a racket, it took force to make it go in the opposite direction. If I throw the ball in to a portal and it comes out in the opposite direction, how did that happen? Nothing acted on the ball, but it's travelling differently than it was before.
>>720081141If you gave the cube physics you could make an equally convincing video making the opposite case
>>720098370>Nothing acted on the ballYou threw it
>>720080731Do you mean in the sense of being right, being an obsession of yours, or being rich?
>>720080612If you were an ant standing on the box when it went through the portal, would you move? The answer is obviously yes, you would. You start at 0 then move the distance of the box as it goes through the portal. Velocity is defined as movement over time. Since the ant moves the length of the box over the amount of time it takes the box to go through the portal, it has a velocity. Momentum is mass x velocity. Since we already proved the ant has velocity and it clearly has a mass, it must also have momentum. So go fuck yourself, A fags.
>>720097659>hypothetically, what if you could go more up than upit's a nonsense question by its premise, anon. Like asking someone to describe a color that doesn't exist.
>>720098407The point of that webm is to show how retarded A is. It looks like the cube is glued to the platform instead of flying up like it should.
>>720098137>The First Law of Motion is a function of force, not speed.The first law is literally about the nature of the motion of an object. B happens given the absence of any force to change the exiting motion the cube as on leaving the portal.>displacementYou've brought yourself to the very argument that the OP image was made to disprove. Well done >>720080612The portals do in fact change the momentum of what passes through them. This is something they are established to do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASUUN0W4_JY You're talk about displacement is in contradiction to what the portals are shown to do in the game which is outright change the momentum of objects passing through the portal.
>>720098425The anon asked you what caused the ball to go in the opposite direction. Not what caused the ball to go in the portal in the first place.
>>720098137How is it instantaneous? The cube goes through the portal. Not all at once but over a certain time. Velocity is literally displacement over time, so by definition, it has velocity. And since it is a physical object, it has mass. Thus, it also gains momentum by going through the portal.
>>720096516The blocks get driven into the wall. But if they can’t move anywhere they would get pushed to the sides of the blue portal in a molten goo. If portals worked like they did in the game as they would in real life there would be a lot of molecularly perfect slicing through objects and collisions at incredibly high temperatures
>>720097364The real answer is between the two
>>720098549How is it nonsense? There are tons of applications for moving portals, like portaling from a stationary location to a moving object, like a vehicle, a space station, or another orbiting body like the moon.
>>720098807>Thus, it also gains momentum by going through the portal.This violates the First Law of Motion, you do not "gain" momentum without the acting of an external force>>720098727Portals change the orientation of speed, this is obvious in game. What you're saying is that portals also ADD speed, which isn't shown in game, which is why you have to force the analogy by having him throw the ball rather than the ball sitting at rest>>720098659>B happens given the absence of any force to change the exiting motion the cube as on leaving the portal.The cube has no momentum because it is at rest and is not acted on by an external force.
>>720081141>>720098407
>>720099640You stupid nigger. The entire concept of portals shits all over newton. You couldn't disprove a thing I said so you tried to appeal to authority but you look like a giant faggot instead.
>>720099697Notice how to get B to work you need to entirely rewrite the situation to be completely different
>>720099334>or another orbiting body like the moon.That one decisively shows that portals function according to what is usually referred to as B, but here >>720097364 is shown as A.If portals don't affect the momentum of the object passing through at all, then anything passing through the portal between earth and the moon should almost be quickly left behind by the moon, which is moving very quickly relative to the earth. That doesn't happen, entities passing through the portal inherit the moon's momentum, and come out moving the same direction as the moon, at the same speed.
>>720099774The principles behind them are identical
>>720096910god damn it lmao
Portals dissapear when they move fordwards/backwardsThey only move up/down left/rightPlay the fucking game
>>720099774Not really. The cube is at rest
>>720099697Don't worry bro I fixed it for you
>>720099774>Be a cube molecule>As you're pushed through the portal, you move a certain distance over a certain time>This doesn't count as velocity for .... reasons
>>720099640>which is why you have to force the analogy by having him throw the ball rather than the ball sitting at restBrother, I was just talking about a regular portal situation. Simple setup. Two completely stationary portals. I throw a ball in to one. It comes out the other in the opposite direction. Can you explain how the ball is travelling in a different direction despite not being acted on by an outside force?
>>720096441we can't know which one is moving without measuring it
>>720095710a porn artist drew this, right?
>>720099939Measuring it against what?
>>720100026measuring how fast it's moving
>>720099763>The entire concept of portals shits all over newton.If you have to throw your hands up and declare "its magic so it does whatever I want and I say its B!" then I have to wonder why you bothered fabricating a point at all when your opinion on it is clearly arbitrary>>720099916Portals change coordinates and the orientation of speed, this is demonstrated in-game. What isn't demonstrated is changing the scalar value of speed, so without any in-universe rules to go by you need to apply real world universal laws of physics.
>>720100057How do you measure that?
>>720080612refuted 90 years ago
>>720099774It's okay, flat earthers can't understand frames of reference either. You're not alone.
this is what Bedditors actually believe
>>720100126A change in orientation of speed is acceleration by definition. Portals violate Newtonian physics. You can't cite a broken law as justification for A
>>720099879Thanks, anon.
>>720100260>he thinks flat earthers actually existOk now I KNOW the calibre of person I'm dealing with here
>>720100310Because it's correct.
>>720099334It's nonsense because it's asking if one of the fundamental rules of how they worked was just different. Like yea you can make up whatever story you'd like for how momentum would interact with portals if you changed how they work. Obviously.
>>720100126Newtonian physics are not "real world" physics. They are an approximation that fails to describe reality in a relativistic regime, as would arise with portals. You don't know what you're talking about.
>>720100126>Portals change coordinates and the orientation of speed, this is demonstrated in-game. What isn't demonstrated is changing the scalar value of speed, so without any in-universe rules to go by you need to apply real world universal laws of physics.Then according to your logic, even A is incorrect. The cube should smush in to a one atom thick pancake exactly at the exit of the portal, since there's nothing to change their momentum.
>>720100126Then explain why the cube moving through the portal over a certain amount of time isn't considered velocity.
>>720100325>Portals violate Newtonian physics. You can't cite a broken law as justification for ASure I canThe option that cleaves the closest to real physics is more likely correct than the option that calls it magic (>>720100325) or that you need to rewrite the laws of physics to make the option fit better (>>720100562)
I appreciate you guys keep coming up with excuses just to be able to keep arguing about this dilemma which has been solved decades ago.
>>720100735Please be responding to >>720099886
>>720100775Force coming from underneath is not the same as no force being appliedIrrelevant scenario, see >>720099774
>>720100735You don't need to rewrite the laws of physics, Albert Einstein already did it for you 100 years ago
>>720100913What the fuck are you talking about? There is no force being applied. When the cube molecule first exits the portal, it has a discrete location in space. As the rest of the box comes through the portal, the location of the molecule changes. Those are two distinct locations in space that the molecule changed over time. That's the literal definition of velocity.
>>720100735>something demonstrably false is proof of xThe world of Portal evidently operates outside of conventional physics>muh magicNext thing you'll be telling me gravity doesn't exist
>>720101035>There is no force being appliedPlatform is pushing the cube from underneathThe portal is at rest
>>720101204The portal is being pushed down onto the cube. Wtf are you talking about?
>>720080612This raises a good. It's not just a box going through the portal, it's new physical space being pushed into existing physical space.
>>720101140>The world of Portal evidently operates outside of conventional physics>Next thing you'll be telling me gravity doesn't existBit strange that you put these two statements right next to each other, no?
>>720097364look how happy she is
>>720080612Chell sexo.That's all I have to say. Thank you for reading.
I like this webm because both sides argue that it proves their side correct and the other side wrong
900,000,000 hours in ms paint
>>720095786gravity doesn't affect objects through the portal before going through it?
>>720101504they made her unattractive on purpose so that icky incels wouldn't get aroused by her though
>>720101569Good one. Hey faggot other anon, tell me how this doesn't show velocity.
>>720101569>>720098906>>720096516In-game, a portal will stop moving (and any surface it is attached to will stop moving) if the object it interacts with comes into non-compressible matter on the other sideTherefore the correct amount of force the portal applies is "enough force to put the object onto the other side of the portal and nothing more"
>>720101770What about the air displacement?
>>720101840>non-compressibleair is compressible
>>720096917still has no momentumportals do not change momentum
>>720101770A smart thing too, likely a safety feature.
>>720101770>These are the exact same place
So portals can't be placed on moving surfaces, why exactly? The Earth is moving at an insane speed already and so is the portal technically.Also how does the portal stick to the surface exactly? Shouldn't it be stuck in static coordinates of the universe and so it would not move with earth?
>>720099874It's literally moving through space
>>720101375>>720101618Portals are a 2D "hole" connecting two regions of spacetime across their aperture. Objects can pass through the portal as if they were passing through normal space, but gravity (which is best described as a feature of local spacetime) and "space itself" cannot traverse the portals' aperture. You can't get "sucked through" a portal by gravity, that's just not how gravity works.People could probably dispute this but we're already talking about a science fiction situation and there is no proven theory of quantum gravity.
>>720102008Does it have velocity exiting the portal? Or should I say, does it move a certain distance over a certain amount of time? (Hint: you know the answer, you just refuse to acknowledge it).
>>720102031The logic would be that portals can only exist so long as they remain a static distance from each other. Thus is the surface the portal is on moves, the portal on that surface closesObviously this doesn't take into account the constant expansion of the universe and even the expanding distance between atoms - but it's something
>>720102070No.
>>720102061Why does the sheet imply a 2d plane when space is 3d?
>>720102031The game doesn't allow for portals with differences in relative velocity (except when it does lol) because it would lead to this bullshit with accelerating frames of reference and that's substantially more complicated and less intuitive than how the game's mechanics are supposed to work.>Shouldn't it be stuck in static coordinates of the universeThat only exists in video games, not real life
>>720102154So you're resorting to bold faced lying, huh? When a box gets pushed into a space where it wasn't before, it has to move to do so. It doesn't materialize there instantly, it takes time to do it. Thus, it has velocity. Suck my dick.
>>720102159Wait this anon is right why is spacetime 2d. Did we discover something
>>720102241t=0
>>720102159Because it's an easy to understand visual model
>>720100310>>720100417not correct because he shouldn't be standing upright when coming out of the portalhe should be horizontal
>>720102159Simplification for ease of comprehension.
If an object was in the middle of a portal, and the portal was deactivated, would the object be cut in half, or would it violently push into one side?
>>720101547It has nothing to do with the question itself. If either side argues if it proves or disproved anything they are retarded.
>>720102267That still doesn't equal zero, retard. The only way it could equal zero is if the displacement was 0, which we know it isn't.
>>720081141wouldn't the cube carry the vertical momentum of the platform beneath it, relative to the pull of gravity, pushing it against the force and then quickly retracting it? seems weird to me that the gravity of the orange side would persist when it passes through the blue portal
>>720102267>this is what Afags actually believe
>>720102292Oh, well, yeah. He would be pointed in a different direction but the fling is the important part.
>>720102298But don't all the planets align themselves on a singular plane?
>>720102324It would be perfectly and instantly bisected across the 2D plane of the portal
>>720102432yeah that's not correct either lmao
>>720102440No. They are close but they are not on the same plane.
>>720102324Portal gun would push all objects out. Portals are constructs, these ones would work IRL exactly as in-game.
>>720102513What are the odds 8 planets all end up close to the same orbit and not going every which way? Seems pretty improbable.
>>720102327It does prove that portals care about relative velocity. If they didn't, then Chell and everything else would have been flung in to space at thousands of miles per hour. Instead, it only seems like they're being pushed out by the pressure differential between Earth atmosphere and the moon's vacuum.
>>720101547Chell is dragged onto the moon surface via the pressure differential of the vacuum sucking up everything Earth-sideAccording to Bfags, she should also be yanked off to the side at 2,288 miles per hour as soon as a single part of her body goes out of the portal on the moon, which obviously does not happen considering she is able to hold on to Wheatley (and also isn't cut into pieces by the edge of the portal)
>>720102332Portals "move" objects instantaneously therefore no velocity change therefore no momentum change. Portals translate coordinates in space. That is all. Why you can't grasp such a simple thing is beyond me but as it is said, you can't argue with stupid.
>>720102638They don't need to.
>>720102485Sorry, bro. You're wrong. I'd argue with you but there is no point in arguing with a simpleton. Next time capitalize, punctuate, and don't end your sentences with "lmao" and maybe people will engage with you.
>>720101426Explain how gravitational force attracts separate masses then
>>720102698But it's not instantaneous, retard. It takes time to move through the portal. The molecules on the top will enter and exit the portal before the molecules on the bottom do. Thus, the molecules on top necessarily have to change their position in space over the amount of time it takes to fully pass through the portal. That's velocity, bro.
>>720102676>According to BfagsAfags are the ones that think that there's some magic, universal reference frame for momentum. What we see here is consistent with Bfags' explanation (relative velocity and reference frames and whatnot).
This thread is pointless since we can't even simulate what would actually happen since portals don't exist at the moment and we don't know the math/physics behind it
>>720102791>But it's not instantaneousThe translation function of the portal is instantaneous. Moving a portal along a plane itself will take time, of course, but not the function of the portal.
Why do so many posters fall for the A-bait?
>>720100774They invented portals in real life and then used them in this way?I would not be surprised at all if there was some autist at MIT trying to invent portals specifically just to BTFO people on this botswanan peanut roasting forum
>>720102895That doesn't even make sense. The molecules on the top of the box, as they exit the portal, have to move to make room for the rest of the box to enter the new space. Those molecules are moving a set distance in their new space to accommodate the rest of the box. Those molecules have velocity, by definition. And if they have velocity and mass, they have momentum.
>>720102938I just assume all Afags are not baiting because it's fun to argue about this. Most of them probably are baiting, though.
>>720102971>Xfag invents portals IRL>conducts the experiment>it ends up being Y instead of X>immediately destroys all of his notes and the portal technology
>>720096917the game adds momentum for the sake of puzzles so that the player has a bit of extra oomph. in real life, if a perfect portal were to effectively have an object pass between it, there is not a single thing in the way these puzzles theoretically function to force any momentum to be added; they do not magically just propel something as nothing on the other side is actively pushing anything to create motion, and the other portal moving doesn't have any momentum to add onto an object itself.
>>720081141>Oh you see! This shows how silly it'd look if that was REALLY the case! Everyone knows this looks stupid and not reasonable! I'm proven right once again!I'm starting to believe the only opposition is memeing. Has "speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out" or the magic door ever even been "debunked"
>>720097882>>720097963the rule is that portals cant be in motion RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER you fucking brainlets.
>>720100424>portals can't be placed on moving surfaces because it's a fundamental rule of portals.Then the answer is C: the portal fizzles, and the only thing left is "why are you even in this thread discussing hypotheticals if you don't want to entertain the hypothetical in the first place?" as your posts are meaningless and your diatribes of zero contribution to the discussion.Of course, it is NOT a fundamental rule of portals, it's obviously a game engine limitation that could be overcome with a newer engine on better technology. Thus, the hypothetical.
>>720103087The box itself passing through the portal creates movement.
>>720103047None of them argue in good faith tho, so I don't see the point
>>720103092>Has "speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out" or the magic door ever even been "debunked"Yes, many times, in exhausting detail.
>>720103221if the box is immobile when the portal passes over it, the box has not moved. if this was a box on a slope, a box on a wall, a box on a ceiling somehow, then gravity would take effect; by one flat surface on another flat surface equivalent to itself in this press situation, there is, by the box's own terms of positioning from A to B, no movement.
>>720103139Portal 2 has two specific instances where this is not the case and the portals continue to function (the laser puzzle and the moon).
Actually it would be a mix between a and b because it would gain momentum halfway through but it wouldn't fly out at the same speed as it's shoved inSource: my intuition
>>720103292See>>720102024You fucking idiot.
>>720103229That's the fun of it. Anybody can argue with someone arguing in good faith. That's easy. Beating people who are cheating is more challenging and fun.
I feel like these bait threads are made by CIA so that some autist figures out portal technology to win the argument
>afags cite game mechanics and similar parables like "if an entire house is dropped on top of you but there's a hole you don't fly up into the ceiling when it lands around you">bfags cite real-world physics and reference frames which inherently don't make sense if portals can exist
>>720081141Truth nuke
>>720103441These threads are the literal essence of early 4chan, when /b/ was essentially people arguing about "will it fly" for hours on end.
>>720103035>>That doesn't even make sense My way of thinking is simply that portals change coordinates, that is all. All other properties are retained. All molecules,atoms...etc. on one side stay on that side until translated. No room making needed. Momentum for the object is conserved (per the game itself).
>>720103527>afags cite game mechanicsWrong, Afags consistently ignore the smoking gun that btfo's their whole argument >>720101547
>>720103527I mean it'd be A just for the same reason why a plane doesn't take off on a treadmill, neither produce any momentum.
>>720103641How the fuck could the molecules on the bottom pass through the portal if the molecules on the top don't move, you idiot? You'd get the 1 atom thick pancake like the other anon said.
>>720102440Kind of, but not perfectly. All of the planets, which is to say all of the large bodies in the Solar System, orbit within about 5 degrees of the common center of mass rotation (this is dominated by Jupiter, which is more massive than everything else around the Sun combined). This center of rotation is different than the ecliptic, which is the plane of the orbit the Earth takes around the Sun, and the Sun's own equator/axis of rotation. It's also highly inclined from the galactic plane, the Sun (and the Solar System with it) is tilted about 60 degrees from its path around the galaxy.>>720102638The planets and everything else in the Solar System formed from the same disk of mass around the Sun. Most mass was grouped along the axis of rotation and clumped into the planets after millions of years of collisions and accretion. The billions and billions of small pieces of scattered debris left over from this process are the asteroids and comets that have been scattered from the disk by collisions and interactions with a planet's gravity over the billions of years since then.As an example, even though Pluto is the tenth largest mass in orbit around the Sun (that we know of), it's no longer considered a planet because it was scattered and locked in an orbital resonance with Neptune. Neptune's gravity dominates the outer Solar System and has scattered many objects like Pluto into eccentric orbits. Because Pluto is dominated by another object's gravity, it's not a planet.
>>720103641>Momentum for the object is conserved (per the game itself)Then how can things come out going in different directions than they were before? If I fall in to a portal, I should continue travelling straight toward the ground regardless of how the exit portal is oriented. A fling doesn't work under this logic.
>>720103679You god damned moron. I assume that episode of mythbusters aired before you were born.
>>720103741But why do things form discs in the first place and not just fly around randomly? What keeps them in that 2d plane?
>>720103641GLADoS can state that momentum is conserved but that's self-evidently untrue if you have played the game and know what "momentum" actually meansShe's giving a simple explanation for a layman who understands "momentum = speed," portals clearly do affect the vector of an object's motion
>>720103762Mythbusters did not actually replicate the thought experiment.The experiment is meant to be:>The treadmill matches the speed of the wheels no matter what, so the plane doesn't actually move in terms of GPS coordinates, not even by a millimeter - does it take flight?Of course, actually replicating this is basically impossible - but it means the plane would not be able to take off since there would be no movement of air under its wings (other than whatever wind is there on the day)
>>720103420It's a never ending argument tho
>>720103930The wheels of a plane aren't powered, dummy. They don't affect anything. Your example only works if the wheels are what accelerates the plane and not the propeller.
>>720103949Sometimes it's not about the destination. It's about the journey.
>>720104025I was thinking of the thrusters, but yes, that's another reason why the thought experiment can't work in real life.
>>720103697>You'd get the 1 atom thick pancake like the other anon said.I can live with that.
>>720103897I've played the game and outside what the other anon mentioned about the added "oomph" that one anon mentioned, momentum is conserved for in game objects.
>>720104092No, that's the reason your thought experiment is retarded. The wheels move freely so the treadmill doesn't affect them. What happens if you wear roller skates on a treadmill? Do you fly off the back?
>>720104098I can't because that implies you're right in even the slightest way but you're fucking not.
>>720104205A change in direction is a change in momentum. Hitting a tennis ball with a racket requires force.
>>720103679Nobody ever specifies if the engines are running. The whole answer depends on that
>>720102650Congratulations, you are one of the retards he was talking about.
>>720104336Then, magnitude of momentum is conserved.
>>720104690>posts strong piece of evidence>says anyone pointing to that evidence is a retardSounds like the actions of someone who wants and inconvenient piece of evidence to be ignored.>>720104719Then why doesn't Chell fly off the moon at 2,000 miles per hour?
>>720102638>What are the odds 8 planets all end up close to the same orbit and not going every which way? About the same odds that all the water in the toilet bowl go spinning the same direction rather than going every which way. The solar system was a cloud before it was a solar system. It all started pulling itself towards the center, everything started spinning around it. If something was going the opposite direction all the gas, dust, and rocks would beat the shit out of it until it was going the right direction.
>>720104836Because it's all relative to the portal entry and exit and not the space it will inhabit or just inhabited.
>>720081141it all depends on ifa) the portal works like a hole or ifb) it is a layer that breaks down on one end and builds it back up on the other layer sidesince you can stand inside the portal and back out without being torn apart, in the game it is reasonable to assume it works like a hole (meaning your webm is right)
>>720103035He talks about the function of portals, not objects that move in or out.A portal connects 2 points, connection has no time dilation, as points are synchronous.If portals were not instantenous passage would be longer, because rather than an object crossing one area to another seamlessly, it'd travel extra time in some space.
>>720103741>Because Pluto is dominated by another object's gravity, it's not a planet.Pluto has moons, no?
>>720103893Gravity and momentum.Everything in space is both rotating and moving very fast relative to everything else in space. When gravity brings mass together, its momentum is conserved and it keeps rotating as it did before (usually faster because it's been compressed by gravity, like how you spin faster holding your arms against your body instead of extending them).Objects in orbit around a larger mass want to keep moving very quickly, but are also compelled by gravity to fall toward the larger mass. That's basically what an orbit is, falling toward an object but moving fast enough that you "miss." Over time, the larger mass's rotation causes its gravity to slightly tug on and drag the objects in orbit such that they tend to accumulate around the plane of rotation.This is the same "tidal force" that causes the tides in Earth's oceans, as the oceans get "dragged" by the Moon against Earth's rotation. Over a very, very long time, this force would eventually cause the Earth to slow and synchronize with the Moon so that they become "tidally locked" and always face each other, and (conserving the momentum of the system) also "push" the Moon into a more distant orbit.If the Moon orbited Earth faster than Earth rotated, or in the opposite direction of Earth's rotation, the opposite would happen. The Moon's orbit would decay, getting pulled to move faster and get closer until it was destroyed - not by colliding with Earth, but by being ripped apart when the pull of Earth's gravity overcame its own gravity holding it together. Earth would also essentially be destroyed in this process, with the Moon's own tidal forces and the bombardment of Moon debris turning the whole planet into a molten wasteland as it was after the Moon-forming impact billions of years ago, but on the upside the Moon's remains would form the most spectacular rings in the Solar System.
>>720101140>Next thing you'll be telling me gravity doesn't existIt doesn't exist as a force, it's a property of symmetry.
/sci/niggers OUTyou've been talking about this shit for TWO DECADES
>>720107652Make it 3.Portal 3.Left 4 Dead 3....Half-Life 3!
>>720094581this is too funny
Would Bfags put your faces in front of the blue portal? It shouldn’t hurt since the cube has no momentum, you’ll just get pushed =]
>>720092076the only momentum I care about is widowmaker's mass and velocity going into tracer's portal
>>720106892Yes, and Pluto orbits the Sun and not Neptune, but it's still dominated by Neptune's gravity. There are hundreds of asteroids known to have their own moons, and dozens (if not hundreds) of objects in orbit around the Sun which are large enough to be rounded by their gravity, but only eight of them are planets.The important criteria invented when "planet" was first formally defined in 2006 was that the object has "cleared the neighborhood" of its orbit, meaning that it is gravitationally dominant in its region of space by having scattered or captured (as a satellite, or much more likely in an orbital resonance) all significant mass in its orbit."Clearing the neighborhood" is arbitrary and poorly defined but there are a number of ways people have come up with to objectively quantify it, and by every measure the least dominant planet (Mars, which is significantly threatened by Jupiter) is orders of magnitude more dominant than Pluto and every other object in orbit around the Sun.There are dozens if not hundreds of objects in the outer Solar System comparable to Pluto, and learning about them has been a new and exciting frontier in astronomy but nobody really thinks there should be a dozen or thirty or fifty "planets." The same thing happened two hundred years ago when the asteroids were discovered, people called Ceres and Pallas and Vesta new planets until we realized there were dozens of these things and this was getting stupid so they got kicked out of the club.
>>720096604>>720081141>be Bfags Can't keep your story straight even in environments you make yourselves
>>720095276this is the answer, if frame dragging ends up being a real thing we can use for "traveling" galactic distances, this is how it would work, the first example anyway. a frame of reference doesn't have momentum, an an object in motion does, move from one frame of reference to another doesn't magically apply momentum to an object, it would have to arrive in the new frame of reference and being to build momentum after being acted on by an external force.
>>720096441>speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes outif the cube is moving fast, it comes into the room fast, if the room is moving fast, the cube comes in "fast" to the observer but doesn't have any actual momentum, only the room does, yes you could still hit the object fast and be hurt by the force, but it's the same principle as driving into a wall, if both are traveling at variable speeds, apply both of my other answers at the same time
Cave Johnson would take one look at these threads, conclude that it's A, MAKE the answer into A at great expense, and fire all Bfag scientists. It is therefore A.
>>720108819This is the only argument I've ever seen in any of these threads that is actually compelling.
I don't understand where the confusion is coming from. The answer is obvious.
>>720107725>tfw Half-Life 3 will only come out when Afags and Bfags come to an agreement
>>720109326It's H.H - Hyperion! When you need precision, you choose Hyperion.
>>720080612For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. 3rd worlders are just not gonna get it.
>>720109465Portals inherently break this
I liked these threads at first but after all this years the discussion hasn't even moved one bit and it got very repetitive. I wish /v/ made up another problem already, this one sucks by now.
>>720109525You said this back in 2010!
>>720081141I should call her...
>>720103679Bro has never heard of a wind tunnel.
>>720109525
>>720109525It's because the portal problem CAN'T be solvedbut fuck man even "solved" problems like Monty Hall are still debated by retards
It can't be solved because there is no problem.
>>720109861your image is ambiguous and the problem should be rewritten to only allow for one interpretation6 / [2(1+2)] or 6 * (1/2) * (1+2)
B-brains still don't understand that portals just reduce the space between 2 points to zero
>>720094651kek
>>720095397The threads haven't been serious in 10 years, faggot tourist
>>720111436This argument is more serious than any political or religious discussion
>>720110535Benchods will never become Aryans because they cannot conceptualize an object's coordinates changing without it moving to the new ones. Literal troglodytic dimwits with no imagination.
>>720111824If you think that (and aren't just saying it to save face because I caught you acting like a newfag), then you're even more of a newfag than I thought
>>720098137It's genuinely impressive to craft a post with this many errors.
>>720103527>>afags cite game mechanics
>afags still think that a cube can come out of a stationary portal without moving
>>720113946>BitchBoy still doesn't understand what portals even are
>>720113946the box has no momentum, you could stop the portal's "moving" of the box with just your finger, unless it's being pushed physically through the portal by another physical object with force behind it
>>720113946the box is stationary in it's original frame of reference (before entering the portal) the portal moves over the box, revealing it to an observer on the other side of the portal, where it is still physically stationary but is revealed at speed in their frame of reference
>>720114102You're a very rare kind of Afag so I respect the novelty of your position even if I think it's ridiculous.
>>720114163>where it is still physically stationary but is revealed at speed in their frame of reference
>>720113795>game mechanics>webm of a portal on a moving platformthat only ever happened once in portal 2, and that was a scripted event.heres an actual simulationhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao1qVi5Qp3Y
>>720114427>I rewrote
Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing goes out.
>>720094701>>720094007This is the portal exit also moving which is in no way equivalent of only the entrance moving. You're essentially turning this into an actual hoop.
>>720110535A-tards still don't understand what that entails in a world where movement is relative (i.e. reality)
>>720109941The Portal problem has been solved. *Every* argument for A has been refuted, the case for B is ironclad. It really is just Monty Hall in that one side just insists that they don't care about facts and logic, "in reality" it would work how they think regardless.
I don't worry about A-tards, they will jump off a building to prove the floor can't hurt them because the floor doesn't move.
>>720108625>move from one frame of reference to another doesn't magically apply momentum to an objectThat is LITERALLY the one thing that portals do
>>720080612Air doesn't make mater warp like this when it moves, so air moving through a portal alongside a cube wouldn't do so either.
>>720086591Gottem
>>720115368But you are moving when you jump off a building.
>>720102676The fact that the Moon sequence frequently causes Atards to confuse A and B shows two things: B is the intuitive answer, and Atards don't have any idea what they're saying or how portals are supposed to work
>>720115418no it isn't, the object keeps it's original momentum as it passes through the portal, if it doesn't have any going in, it doesn't have any coming out
>>720115597It did go about how I planned. Contradicting their own argument immediately and then just giving up. When someone bases their argument around the cube having or not having momentum and is also ok with the cube moving without momentum, they simply don't know what to do if you actually go along with them and allow the cube to move without momentum.
>>720116257>the object keeps it's original momentum as it passes through the portalRelative to the portal - relative to everything else it is instantaneously changed. And that's B.Whereas A is "maintain momentum relative to everything else except the portal" - the precise opposite of the game
>>720116407can you find where, even in the frame of reference on either side of the portal, where the momentum comes from, please.
>>720116701You can see it very easily in either the portal frame or any frame which considers the exit portal to be stationary. The cube is moving towards the exit portal, it is moving as it emerges from the exit portal, and Bfags simply believe that it keeps moving instead of stopping (so it flings in a parabola).
I need the webm of the guy who cut a hole in some paper, colored it in the portal colors, dropped it onto a cube, and then the cube jumps up into the cameraThank you
>>720116701And so we come back to >>720093553
>>720116701>>720116996Another example. Note that there is no force and there is no acceleration. Velocity is conserved, relative to the portal, for anything that passes through the portal.
>>720117015So what, you want to be wrong and not even put in the effort?
>>720116996it's the same environment, the perspective of one portal doesn't grant momentum to the other's frame of reference just because it is visually moving toward it
I present a new hypothesis
>>720103139im an afag but even i know that everything is in motion relative to everything else due to the expansion of the universe, however miniscule it may be at such scales
>>720117071No I mean someone used a time-rigged launcher and timed it so that when he dropped the paper on the cube it flew up into the air, it's fucking hilarious but for some reason I didn't save it
>>720117074Yes it does, as we see with the Moon scene at the end of Portal 2. In addition to ~10m/s air pressure suction through the portal, Chell adopts the ~2km/s horizontal speed of the Moon, due to the relative motion of the portal on Earth and the portal on the Moon.
>>720117015
>>720083798>>720085441>>720099640>>720100126>Portals don't affect momentum
>>720117234thank you anon, i love you
Do frame posters forget that frames of reference are just perspectives?
>>720117248What the fuck am I looking at, this isn't the A argument at allAfag argument is that the thing itself must be moving in order to be flung away from the portal, so this would be fine. This is one of the most basic mechanics in the game as well so this is a ridiculously disingenuous strawmanthe fact that this is how it works in the games is why we know it's B btw but come the fuck on this is the most horrific strawman ever made in these threads, even worse than the "hula hoop" retardation
>>720117248More strictly, portals DO conserve relative momentum in = relative momentum outBut Afags think they conserve momentum in some kind of absolute reference frame which does not exist outside of videogames.
>>720117439The point of that pic is that momentum is a vector quantity (it has magnitude and direction). So within the lab frame, the portals have effected the direction of the momentum, thus they have effected the momentum of something which passes through them.
>>720080612The weighted companion cube is composed of negative mass which forces spacetime away from itself.
>>720103139You know that there's no such thing as perfectly still right? Aperture science is underground and the rock of the earth is constantly moving slightly, which would make the walls the portals are placed on move relative to each othet. Also, the walls are above 0K, which means the atoms in the walls are moving and thus the portals must move with them. Chell is fat, so when she jumps the room shakes, moving the portals relative to each other.If you assume that portals can't move relative to each other, portals shouldn't work in the game at all. All of this is also ignoring the moon scene, which proves B because the portals move relative to each other as one is on earth and one on the moon which is moving relative to the earth.
>no you see please consult this chart on theoretical physics so i can prove my point about a fucking video gamefucking LMAO at retards posting "explanations" and "arguments" and "proofs" for this shit, it's a fucking vidya game you dunce, nothing you say will make you look smart on motherfucking 4chinz
>>720117612You must be new to these threads, Afags, Bfags, we love arguing about this stupid shit. It's fun.
>>720117439It seems fair when people regularly say that the momentum stays the same. The A argument is too inconsistent to actually even know what it is, so I see nothing wrong with taking what they say at face value. That inconsistency is also why you did what they usually do and described what happens in that specific scenario rather than why it happens as a general rule that could be applied anywhere.
>>720080612This is unironically what happens in Afags scenario btw
>>720117648on the contrary anon, i just like calling Afags and Bfags, it's also the game
>>720117851FUCK OFF GOD DAMN IT
>>720100424It can't be a fundamental rule. As I said here >>720117537, the portals are constantly moving relative to one another. If they couldn't move relative to one another, they couldn't exist.
>>720080612>Portal Problem General #568
>>720117418Not at all. They just explain what happens.
>>720117878
>>720117439You're looking at the logical conclusion of the Afag claim that portals don't affect momentum. Momentum is a vector, and thus has a direction and magnitude. If you change the direction (like portal flings do), you change the momentum.
you can't move faster than lightNEXT
>>720080612Portal technology breaks laws of physics and any serious debate about it is inherently fucking retarded
The moon scene makes no sense because as soon as the portal was placed on the moon, it should be aging slower than the earthside portal ever so slightly, constituting time travel.
>>720095768Except the cube is moving in both portals perspectives. That, and there's no such thing as moving relative to its own reference frame.
my undertstanding was that the portal was essentially teleporting the object and the air around it seemlessly without affecting it in anyway. so if the object is stationary on one end of the portal and the portal is pushed into the object the object and its surroundins dont change so it stays completely still. but if the object is thrown into the portal it comes out the otherside thrown too.
>>720118314While standing up, your head and your feet age at different rates. Time dilation is funky shit even without portals.
>>720118367Your understanding is because you actually played the fucking game and understand the the "portal" is not actually an object in itself, but rather just a hole in space
>>720118395So the reason the nutty putty guy died is because his head aged to death before the rest of him
>>720118367Portals are not teleporters like in Star Trek. They connect space so you can travel smoothly through them. Certain things like gravity do not act through portals but generally they are a seamless connection of space.
>>720118472The game shows B
>>720118314Time dilation on Moon isn't that severely different to the Earth, and synchronous portals are not normal objects.
>>720118625Gravity intrinsically acts on and through portals, as does electromagnetism. Gun likely equalizes any exceeding gravity potentials when necessary.
>>720118816The games demonstrate that no, gravity does not work through portals. The object must have passed through the portal before the gravity on the other side can impact it.
>>720118915Gravity is not a force, and curvature shift that happens only at certain structural points is either is equally counteracted by structure of portals, is shunted, or is naturally auto-equalizing.There is no gravity on the other side by the time you connect, because two becomes one.
The cube is inarguably moving as it comes out of the portal. Why would it stop moving all of a sudden?
>>720119097Does that suggest that if one portal is out in space and the other on Earth, gravity would pull things through from the other side? It would create a cone of Earth gravity in space? Assume a vacuum seal.
>>720119164the cube is not moving though, the portal is moving which is transposing everything without changing the physical forces in the area
>>720119097>>720119228Or, alternatively, maybe gravity doesn't go "through" the portal because it's literally not in the Earth's gravitational field, and the reason you're suddenly affected when you cross over is because you've literally moved closer
>>720119164A doesn't argue that it stops moving, just that it doesn't suddenly shoot out at speed once the piston ceases movement. As soon as the cube's center of mass passes through the portal, gravity should begin acting upon it and it should "plop" onto the ground since the piston has decelerated yet.
>>720119164The cube is not moving. Put an accelerometer on it and it will not register any reading.
>>720119228If a select space-time curve at its most equilibrium state between 2 points is sufficiently strong that any assumed safety apparatuses in ASHPD cannot counteract catastrophic pull amounts, they likely will.Worse, it may result in failure mode in the gun.>>720119327Doable, also can be simulated. We see light and contact forces from the other side.It's reasonable to assume it has protections.
>>720119537It doesn't accelerate, it is moving at a constant velocity (as it comes out of the portal.>>720119325I'm next to the exit portal and I assure you that it's not moving. I know that I'm not moving and I can see the cube moving out of the portal.
>>720096042if i show you a cropped pic of an object you also won't know if it's in free fall or on a table at rest, fuckface
>>720119446That is arguing that it stops moving B doesn't argue the cube "suddenly shoots out", only that it continues its motion
>>720119851Depends on how fast the piston is coming down, but all we have are very vague speed lines.
>>720119909"It depends" is also B
>>720119836Right, and if you see it going through a portal, it doesn't matter either. As long as it moves relative to the portal.
>>720119694From 0 to velocity v in 0s is accelerating bucko
>>720120737It's only a change when you're not looking through the portal. If you applied the same logic to the games, Chell would break her neck at the first portal fling
>>720097736Do you move the cushion and keep your ass still? If so, that proves B.
>>720080861no
I know it's an old as fuck shitpost argument, but I don't even understand how Bfags have difficulty understanding something as basic as "the magic sci-fi portal that coul not exist in the first place does not impart momentum, speed, acceleration or any other force upon objects passing through it, it just keeps the ones they already have". It's as simple as that, it was never B because B outright breaks the principle of how portals work.>but the laws of physicsDon't matter and might outright be wrong in a world with portals. It's like expecting a crew from a space movie to apply the same value of g we do in force calculations on earth, outright demented.
>>720098727From the perspective of the cube it didn't change direction. It went in a straight line.
>>720092076the energy comes from the moving portal
>>720120737Velocity relative to the portal is conserved. There is no acceleration.
>>720121173the portal doesnt impose any kind of energy on anything
>>720093553this is dumbentering the portal the box will maintain speed and momentum however once it exists the portal it will lose speed and momentum and most likely wont even make it to the second catcherand thats not even mentioning air pushing into the blue portal and out of the orange portal, which would divert or lessen the speed of the box even moreperspective is the least of the issues being addressed by that imageit doesnt even address box speed relative to the moving truck before and after entering the portal or wind speed
>>720121314The accelerometer is on the cube to prove that the cube is not moving from rest.
>>720094007energy from the blast is also being transferred to the truck and not into propelling the cannonballyoure taking things at face value rather than examining the mechanics of the WHOLE process
>>720121708It clearly is moving, and relative to the stationary exit portal it was always moving.In fact if it suddenly stopped as Afags claim, the accelerometer would record a huge deceleration which would require a huge, nonexistent force.
>>720121880But the accelerometer reads zero proving it never moved from rest.
>>720121956Not shown: air pressure coming out from the orange portal after the blue one sucks in all the air
>>720080612No. Refute THIS
>>720121012You fail to understand, B is entirely consistent with portals.
>>720123150It'd be myself sucking on my cock
>>720122978or gravity acting on the cube on the blue portal sideair pressure would be dependent on how fast the orange portal platform is moving while funnelling all that air through itbut even then how much force would THAT even impose on anything
>>72012315030 inch ulmer
>>720121012>I don't understand >Something very basic >Magic portal>Physics don't matter Yup that's an Afag
>>720121880𝜆!
>>720080861You weren't born at the time retard, how would you know?
>>720123275The point is, if air pressure is shown the image of the portal acting as a mere window would be more convincing. Even the most hardcore retarded Bfag would agree that air will also be sucked in.
Put a gopro on a hulahoop and drop it on a cube. Tell me how that is different from this situation. The gopro is the frame of reference.
>>720123351It is a game you faggot, they could have and trucking Elfs and fuckign unicorns and it would be as logical as portals in Portal.Portals don't exist, cannot exist you imbecile
>>720123485forced through*but really that just a matter of semantics because itll seem like one or the other either way
>>720123751No. If air pressure is shown coming out, will you believe that it will continue to blow after the orange portal has stopped? Disregard the cube.
according to Bfags if you walk through portals facing each other you would instantly vaporize
>>720123684The "entrance portal" of the hulahoop and the "exit portal" of the hulahoop are perfectly matched so that the velocity going in and out cancel each other out. The box enters the hulahoop at 5m/s and exits at 5m/s. If it were portals like in the meme the box would enter the orange portal at 5m/s and exit the blue portal at 5m/s. Therefore the box has a velocity of 5m/s upon exiting the portal.
>>720123857The air which has already come through will keep moving. No new air will come through.Same as the cube, any matter which passes through must emerge with a velocity and it will keep that velocity regardless of further portal activity.
>>720124038And the hulahoop stops after it falls on the floor so from 0 to 5 to 0.
>>720123857well it WILL cease forcing air through air pressure of a certain amount can be quite explosive but in relation the examples in this thread, it would be a non-issue
>>720123963How did you get that from "relative velocity in = relative velocity out"?
>>720124114So same as the displaced air, the displaced cube will also stop moving once the portal has stopped.
>>720124254That's literally the opposite of what I said.In the last moment of time during which the cube is passing through the portal, 99.999% of its mass has a velocity and is not in contact with the portal. Why would any of that velocity stop just because the portal stops moving?Portals don't extend some kind of force bubble to control objects which have passed through them. Portals only do anything to matter which is contact with the portal.
>>720124427Not the cube never had velocity because there was never any force acting on it. The velocity is only perceived by the viewer.
>>720124596What's the difference between a real velocity and a perceived velocity?Does the viewer have any velocity?
>>720092242>>720093380>>720094275>>720094713>>720121173Lmao not a single answer. I'll ask again. Where is the energy coming from? "Momentum" is as brain dead as "relativity." Momentum is just continued movement from a source of energy, not energy itself. Momentum doesn't move a car, the engine spinning the tires does. When a train suddenly stops, momentum is not the energy moving you, the train's engine is where the energy came from that moved you. Momentum doesn't make a tree fall, gravity does. So where is the energy moving the box coming from? Is the box being PUSHED or PULLED?
>>720124780Real velocity is when you have force moving a mass and displacing it. If you stand by the blue portal will you not see the world in the orange portal moving towards you? Which mass is moving and consuming energy you think? The answer is the piston moving the orange portal and only the piston.
>>720121708Accelerometers measure acceleration. The cube is moving at a constant rate before entering the portal and thus not accelerating, so the accelerometer will show 0. After the cube enters the portal, the acceleromenter will show an acceleration of 9.81m/s^2 in the direction of the earth as the cube flies out in a parabola shaped arc.
>>720125037If the cube was at rest and suddenly moves at velocity v then it's accelerating.
>>720108560> but only eight of them are planets.Pluto is a planet.
>>720124945>Real velocity is when you have force moving a mass and displacing it.No anon, force is not needed at all. Force produces acceleration, surely you at least remember F=ma right? An object can be travelling at a constant velocity indefinitely, absent any forces at all. That's Newton's 1st law of motion.A better definition of velocity is that it is a speed and a direction, where speed is a change in position over time. We see the cube changing position over time as it comes out of the portal, and the direction is away from the portal. That is a real velocity. After fully leaving the portal, it keeps that velocity and flings in a parabola (due to gravity).
>>720124596>>720124945Which of these equations is correct?F=maOrF=mvForce doesn't mean shit when it comes to velocity. Force is related to acceleration. No force means the cube will keep moving at a constant rate, not that the cube won't move at all. Where do you propose the force that magically stops the cube in A comes from? Note that the cube decelerates instantly which means the force required is infinite.
>>720125347Pluto is a cartoon dog.
>>720125456>>720125490The cube was at rest so you require force to displace it since it has mass
>>720125126Correct. It accelerates to the velocity of the portal when the portal starts moving downwards. When the portal (and cube) is moving at a constant rate, the accelerometer will show 0.
>>720125548The cube was at rest then it entered an environment that is moving around it. It did not experience acceleration but is now moving relative to the room that is flying past it.
>>720124837>>720124596>>720124945This is the average level of physics education of Afags. They lack basic understanding of even grade school Newtonian mechanics, let alone inertial frames of reference. They do not understand the definitions of simple concepts like velocity, momentum, or energy. Bfags try to engage honestly and in good faith with Afag arguments, but it's like playing chess with a pigeon.
>>720125548Incorrect. The cube was moving, so you need a force (specifically infinite newtons) to immediately stop it like A. No force is required for it to keep moving like it was before entering the portal.
>>720125658Actually that's all I want to hear from a Bfag; that the cube accelerated in their story. So what force?
>be me at rest in my car which I'm driving>car crashes into a wall>WTF WHY AM I MOVING NOW>I WAS AT REST SO I SHOULD STAY AT REST
>>720125802The cube was at rest. The piston is the one moving.
>>720125721Most Afags are probably trolling. Don't get me wrong, there are some genuine retards who believe in A, but the majority are trolling and know it's actually B.
>>720102241>pushedIt never moves. Portals aren't real and basically you're a fucking retard for trying to make them fit reality. Seriously you're that fucking retarded you think portals are realjesus christ.
>>720125895As an Afag I say the same thing about B
>>720125849What if the wall moves and the car and person stays?
>>720125495
>>720125818The same force imparted by the piston to the plate the portal is on that accelerates the portal. What part of this is unclear?
>>720126119So the force is transferred to the cube only when the piston hits the plate?
>>720125980The exact same thing happens because according to relativity, there is exactly zero difference between the 2 situations. You did pass high school, right? You would know this if you did.
>>720126316Nice answer Bfag. You brought down your whole group's IQ by at least 100. No if the wall moves, the person doesn't get thrown out because the person doesn't have momentum.
>>720103741pluto is no longer considered a planet because of freemason infighting, and those fags really care about their horoscopes
>>720126204I don't think you understand. The force that accelerates the portal also accelerates the cube at the same time. There is no force imparted on the cube at the moment the piston hits the plate the cube was on, because there is no change in velocity detected on the cube at that moment. It keeps flying out of the portal at the same velocity it entered.
>>720126506The cube's velocity goes from 0 to v at the moment it enters the portal. You admitted that the cube will accelerate in this situation. So what is the force that accelerated this mass?
>>720126454In both scenarios the person is moving towards the wall at let's say 60 mph. Momentum is velocity * mass, and since the person has identical velocity and mass in both scenarios, he has the same momentum in both scenarios, and thus goes flying out the windshield the same way in both scenarios.
>>720126593It does not. It was always moving at v, so it will keep moving at v.
>>720125849retardthat’s literally the situation in reverse
>>720126774No if the wall moves the person doesn't move you retard. That's why I said the wall moves.
>>720126830Oh so the cube moves instead of the piston then? So if the piston stops suddenly just before the cube, will the cube continue to move at velocity v or will there be a deceleration?
>>720126892He does. It seems you didn't pass high school after all, otherwise you would know this.
>>720127024If a wall moves towards me it means that I'm consuming energy to move towards the wall?
>>720126983No. Both are moving. Piston relative to cube, cube relative to piston. If the piston stops, it is no longer moving relative to the cube, and thus the cube is no longer moving relative to the piston, and stops.
>>720127108Which one is consuming energy? The piston or the cube?
>>720127106This is still basic high school physics. There is precisely zero difference between x moving towards y at velocity v and y moving towards x at velocity v. Also, moving does not "consume" energy. A moving object has kinetic energy, but it's not constantly "consuming" it.
>>720127220See the third sentence of >>720127384
>>720127384If I am moving from my couch to the fridge, I am burning calories aka energy.
>>720127445So how does the piston move if it's not consuming energy?
>>720127505Yes. Because of various counterforces slowing you down and needing to turn. Assuming your house is a vacuum with no gravity and there's a direct shot from your couch to the fridge. You'd only need to fire your thrusters or kick yourself off a wall once and then cruise to your fridge at a constant velocity.
>>720127793So what fuel do I need to fire my thruster?
>>720127596As I said, you don't need to "consume" energy to move. You have kinetic energy. It consumes energy (likely from Aperture's nuclear generator) once at the start to get to a constant speed and then keeps moving at that speed, as I said from the start.
>>720127918The same fuel that gets the car/piston moving, after which it keeps moving at that rate.
>>720127996So I need energy to move an object? So what energy moved the piston I ask again?
>>720127932So the piston takes up energy and the cube does not?
>>720047632 >>720047797 >>720048162
>>720128073You need energy/force to get an object moving. After that, assuming there are no counterforces slowing it down. It will keep moving at a constant rate, according to Newton's 1st. The energy that moved the piston came from whatever is powering the rest of Aperture, likely some nuclear reactor.
>>720128289Did you supply energy to the cube as well?
