Thread 16739065

All right you fucking cunts, it's B and I'm going to fucking prove it to you.

>>16739065 (OP)

First, consider this basic, stripped down scenario with just two portals and a cube in a blank void. Quick: what, if anything, is stationary and what is moving? Trick question; you can't answer that of course. Not only is it an impossible question, it's literally *nonsensical*. The word "stationary" has literally no meaning within this featureless white void. All we can observe is that there is *relative* motion between the cube and portals.
Note, also, that this motion is symmetrical: every part of the cube that goes in the orange portal has to appear on the blue side. This is, in fact, the only logical outcome: there is nowhere else for it to go. You may recognise this principle of symmetry as expressed in the game itself, "speedy thing goes in = speedy thing goes out".
Notice something else? Without any frame of reference given, this relative motion is just what we'd expect from portals. It's identical to what happens in the games.

>>16739068
Now, we're going to make the cube "stationary". How? By adding a little background detail on the orange side, in the form of a friendly astronaut floating in the void, moving along with the cube. The cube can therefore be said to be stationary within the astronaut's frame of reference. But what does this actually mean for the cube? As you can see, the relative motion between the cube and the portals remains exactly the same. The astronaut merely being there does not change at all what happens here. Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing goes out.
I won't belabour the point by illustrating it but we could furthermore add more background details that move with the orange portal, or don't move with anything, and then we could say that the portal is stationary, or once again nothing is - depending on what you measure it against. The astronaut and cube could both be moving relative to something else. "Stationary", as you can see, is just a relative measurement that exists in relation to something else. It is not a property of the cube itself, and it does not change the fact that there is motion between the cube and the portal.
You should be able to see where this is going.

>>16739070
Next, we replace our background with a different background detail: namely, the Earth, which is moving at 67,000 mph around the sun, which is going at 514,000 mph through the galaxy, which is moving at 1.3 million mph relative to the cosmic background radiation. But, relative to the cube, the Earth is stationary. So what makes it different from our previous background detail? What makes the Earth anything but another arbitrary reference point to measure the cube's motion against?
Nothing.
You can see that the relative motion remains unchanged. You've been seeing the same thing every time, which is exactly the one thing we know portals to do from the games, and logically the only thing they can do. We don't even have to add background detail to the blue side because it doesn't matter: either the cube moves against the background or it doesn't, but the one thing it necessarily does is move relative to the portal. So, for the cube to be stationary in one frame of reference, the blue portal can't be.

>>16739071
To illustrate that final point, let's finally turn to hula hoops. If we now add another friendly astronaut to the blue side (surprise, it was in space all along) who, once again, moves with the cube, what does he observe? A stationary cube emerging from a portal that's moving away from him (you could add some rocket boosters to the back of the portal to cause a sudden stop once the cube is through, much like a falling hula hoop is suddenly stopped by the Earth - but, of course, this once again wouldn't affect anything, just as the orange portal stopping once the cube is through would not affect anything). So yes, you can create a hula hoop effect with a portal, using the same principle of symmetrical relative motion. It just requires that you do something else than the actual setup of the Portal problem.

>>16739065 (OP)
It's neither A nor B because portals don't exist.

>>16739065 (OP)
We already know it's B. We've always known it's B. The only people who've ever pushed A are trolls.

>>16739065 (OP)
A
>>16739117
1: A
2: B

>>16739117
>>16739118
>>16739125
You have to be able to read to participate

>>16739127
shit b8 m8

>>16739118
Outlet "portal" in this video is moving down, outlet portal in the thought experiment is NOT moving down

>>16739065 (OP)
B.
Being pushed through a portal (or a portal moving through you) must impart momentum to the object as it corresponds to a change in object velocity from literally every reference frame.
The square sees itself accelerating as it moves through the portal, the outside observer sees it emerge from the exit portal.

Thus this process requires force from the portal to accelerate the block and the portal decreases velocity by equivalent amount

>>16739140
The portal doesn't collide with the block, it collides with the support. The momentum is transferred to the support, not the block.

>>16739129
retard

Nice proof dumbfuck

>>16739128
If you say something already contradicted by the OP then my assumption is that you can't read and I will not try to convince you with words. You may prove me wrong by addressing written words.

>>16739140
The cube experiences no forces, its momentum is continuous through the portal and only constitutes a change from another frame of reference

>>16739158
Refute it.

>>16739181
B-tards were so absolutely A-blasted in the last thread they literally couldn't come back for a month. I won't rehash the talking points, but be warned. I know you think you have answers, but you don't.
Consider the case of portals aligned over one another so a man jumps in and faces acceleration due to gravity. He is perfectly aligned to fall straight through them at t_0. By your logic, because the portals are in a rotation about the Earth they will be imparting a sideways moment on him as well - remember, one portal is at a different height from another. He will eventually scrape and then splat against the side.

>>16739223
>by your logic
Not once has a single A-tard followed up this phrase with anything conforming to my logic. Today is no exception.

The portals are in rotation about the Earth but so is the person. Indeed, what you describe seems to be an issue with A logic - "absolute" momentum causing the portals to rotate away from him.

But how about you first make the token effort to refute my OP first, before giving me more of your fallacies? Or is that too hard?

>>16739223
PS know I don't have *all* the answers but it's plain to see that you have none at all.

>>16739229
This isn't A-logic. You have a portal that is in motion at a different speed than another one. Just like your B case. You can't even make it a single post without completely caving.

>>16739239
Tou still haven't even attempted to address the OP, but all right. Consider tye following:

Suppose you are standing atop an arbitrarily tall skyscraper - as tall as is necessary to prove the point. You are describing a much greater circle around the Earth than someone standing in the lobby in the same time; in other words, you have more momentum.

There is a straight elevator shaft that runs down the full length. In a flash of brilliance you decide to end it in a spectacular fashion by dropping yourself straight down the middle, intending to hit the ground floor in the middle of the shaft.
Do you make it? Or does your added momentum mean you end up a red streak on the wall of the shaft? Because in the latter case, you are saying B conforms to known physics. But in the former case, if the added momentum doesn't matter, why would it matter to B?

While you're answering that, do also get around to refuting the OP, so you're not on the back foot the whole time. I'm not holding my breath.

>>16739245
And here is the reversal. Having realized the case B-tard case is retarded and just admitting that you thought this retarded claptrap was A, you now must walk back the initial rejection, which is fair.
But why do you think current physical notions apply to portals?

>>16739256
Can't help but notice you:
>Haven't refuted the OP
>Haven't answered the question
Instead you dodge it. Maybe it's your turn to answer something?

>>16739260
I did. I demonstrated a crucial flaw in the B-case completely unsupported by the portal dynamics in the only simulation we have of it in a game.

>>16739261
You did not, in fact. Maybe you could argue with the case for B presented and not the one tou imagined?

My argument is that, absent any points of reference, you would not find it odd to see a cube go in one portal and out the other at the same relative speed, just as in the games. Why, then, would anything change if we declare the cube "stationary" in some arbitrary frame of reference, when this is merely a measurement that does not change the relative motion? And if that can't change what the cube does, relative to the portal, B emerges as nothing more than the usual behaviour of portals under a specific circumstance, which only appears odd because of how we measure it. Logically, though, the cube can't exit faster or slower than it enters, nor can a measurement on one side of the portal compel it to stop once it passes through to the other.

If you think this results in something unsupported by physics, then we simply have to conclude that portals necessarily break physics, but logically, B has to be the case. If you think it's "retarded" then I guess portals are retarded. You must not shy away from the only possible conclusion for aesthetic reasons.

>>16739148
He's right tho
You're not thinking with portals

>>16739065 (OP)
https://vocaroo.com/1ZBi94VMB5Gt

>>16739261
>>16739245
I should emphasise btw that if your answer differs between portals and skyscraper then the implicit conclusion is that A actually *corrects* your trajectory by applying counter-momentum in order to produce a specific outcome, whereas B allows physics to take their normal course. Which is really par for the course.

>>16739065 (OP)
>I'm going to prove it's B
>by ignoring acceleration
Consider, if you would, a cube. It is stationary. A portal is passed over it, at speed.
What forces are applied to said cube while it is bisected by the portal? What is its kinetic energy?
Provide C or fuck right the hell off.

>>16739342
What acceleration? It's plain to see that the cube's motion is continuous. Kinetic energy depends on what you measure it against.

>>16739346
>What forces are applied to said cube while it is bisected by the portal?
>What forces are applied to said cube while it is bisected by the portal?
WHAT FORCES ARE APPLIED TO SAID CUBE WHILE IT IS BISECTED BY THE PORTAL?????

>>16739347
Gravity, air pressure, the usual

>>16739065 (OP)
>>16739068
>>16739070
>>16739071
>>16739072
Nice work, but A-friends are either trolls or possibly genuine mental retards.

>>16739366
I can forgive the latter

B. and energy doesn't conserves
A. would be possible if the target portal moves too, and that would be the correct, aka C.

All of them go against the speed limit of the propagation of information.

>>16739076
THIS. And then some retard will say you're missing the point and have to think in the context of a universe where Portals do exist. Well the video game is that world, and they deliberately avoid any scenario like the one in the OP because even in that world the problem is impossible.

>>16739065 (OP)
>prove it to you.
Nobody believes in A who can have the truth explained to them. Most people who state A know they're wrong and are trolling.

>>16739521
>they deliberately avoid any scenario like the one in the OP
What I've shown you is that the scenario in the OP is actually no different from what's shown in the games, you're just looking at it wrong. B is just regular portal functionality when the portals themselves are not in the same frame of reference.
>>16739571
The sport is to get them to a checkmate, I suppose.

It depends on the orange or blue side. It's either a hyperlane (orange) or a warp tunnel (blue). As it's the orange side, the answer is B.

>>16739604
If you don't believe that
At least: it depends on the shape and function of the portal.

>>16739571
Most people that say A know B is fucking wrong, and choose A because the actual retards think it's B.

>>16739230
When I posted this I didn't expect there were going to be literally zero answers lmao

>>16739863
How can you "know" something that is false?

>>16739223
Maybe there would be drift. How is drift a problem for B though. If that is what should happen then based on the simple and logical rules of B then that's fine. Creating endless falls between two portals was never expected to be particularly stable anyway, the slightest breeze could cause drift.

>>16739424
> All of them go against the speed limit of the propagation of information.
Now this is the actual portal problem. Bi-directional portals require instantaneous traversal.

>>16739065 (OP)
The answer is obviously B. It becomes very simple if we replace the companion cube with a meter stick balanced on its end. Lets say that the platform with the portal is descending toward the vertical meter stick at 10 meters a second. Thus it will take 1 tenth of a second for the portal to "consume" the meter stick. Another way of saying this is "the top of the meter stick will disappear into the portal 1 tenth of a second before the bottom of the meter stick." This means that the top of the meter stick will emerge from the angled portal 1 tenth of a second before the bottom of the meter stick. A 1 meter long object traveling through an opening in 1 tenth of a second is traveling at a velocity of 10 meters a second. The meter stick will exit the portal at a velocity of 10 meters a second matching scenario B.

>>16739065 (OP)
From the Cube's perspective, it is still stationary in B. It is the world that is moving relative to it. Eventually the forces of gravity and friction will act on the cube until it is moving at the same speed and direction as the world.

>>16739177
>If you say something already contradicted by the OP
Well good thing I didn't do that
This bait is better than your last one

>>16739971
>This bait is better than your last one
What, the OP?
Maybe you ought to respond to it

>>16739323
Makise kurisu are you an @channeler?

>>16739273
Once again, you are extreme cope. Have you even played the simulation? The portals behave where one falls while never scraping the sides. Your B-case is refuted. Your coping mechanism of 'real physics' refuted.

>>16740090
It's not, in fact. Your insistence is rather telling. You haven't dared touch the basic case for B and are trying to approach it circuitously. But even then you can't admit whether B conforms to known physics, or you have some strange ideas about B. So maybe leave your strange edge case, if you're afraid to delve into too much detail, and address a single point made?
Speaking of extreme cope, insisting you've already won when in fact you've been desperately scrambling the whole thread has to be the textbook definition.

>>16740090
Also, I made no appeal to "real physics" before you brought up your little tangent so how about you finally fucking read the OP you fucking cunt holy shit

>>16739117
NOOOOOOOOO AIEEEEEE DELETE THIS RIGHT NOW

MOOOOODS

>>16740215
Already been addressed by the OP, which no one has yet even attempted to refute

>>16740090
All right, so let me understand.
Despite the OP demonstrating that B is just regular portal behaviour as seen in the games, just under a specific circumstance, and despite B being implied by the Moon scene in the game, your argument is that B is contradicted by the game because B relies on consistent underlying principles and portals are clearly magic bullshit machines that explicitly go against physics.
Now, if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the games contradicting themselves in one minor implicit way means that we can't build any consistent framework for how portals function, what conclusion can we draw from that?
Plainly, it's not actually an argument for A at all. But beyond that, it's not even actually an argument against B.
If you want to argue that portals are inherently inconsistent with themselves then I'm just going to insist it's B anyway and ask on what grounds you intend to disprove it.

>>16739076
>>16739521
this, but if portals did exist they wouldnt be able to move from their original spot because that would break the laws of physics and destroy the universe

>>16740435
Portals existing already breaks the laws of physics, it is asinine to accept portals but then reject moving portals as impossible.

>>16740439
>Portals existing already breaks the laws of physics
not really, its just quantum tunneling on a macro level

>>16740090
Although, if we're going to rely on quirks of the game engine as evidence, it bears pointing out that, whilst the game is narratively implied to be set on Earth, as far as the physics engine is concerned, it takes place on a flat, stable plane, and the Moon is painted on the sky. So if the movement of portals is incongruous with the rotation of the Earth, that would be because, as far as the simulation goes, there indeed isn't any. So, are they really inconsistent?

>>16740440
Show me a real life portal and I'll concede. Otherwise I'm just going to happily continue entertaining impossible hypotheticals, like moving portals, or A-friends responding to a single point I make.

>>16740462
>Show me a real life portal and I'll concede
just because something hasnt been engineered yet doesnt mean its not possible
do you know what a fallacy is?

Portals can't move because they are 2-dimensional "objects" in a 3-dimensional world. In the game they only ever appear in 2-dimensions. For them to move in 3 dimensions wouldn't make logical sense, and it is why there is no answer to this question that makes logical sense.

For example, imagine 2 portals floating in space, moving apart from each other. One passes over a cube. The cube appears at the other side, but then the exit portal is moving towards it as it exits. Where does the cube go?
It can't exit the portal, because the portal is moving.
It can't shoot out of either portal, because the portal has no mass and cannot transfer energy to the cube, which was already motionless.
It can't be left behind by the portal, because neither exit nor entry portal has a "back" side to it.

There is no answer that explains the behaviour of objects moving through any type of moving portal.

>>16740463
Of course I know what a fallacy is, it's synonymous with Afag argument.
My point here is that you will never engineer a real portal, despite what you may think. Quantum tunneling is indeed the technobabble they employ in the game but you're not going to see it on tye scale shown in the game.

>>16740508
>It can't shoot out of either portal, because the portal has no mass and cannot transfer energy to the cube, which was already motionless.
This is a wrong assumption; portals would in fact have to do this in order to be able to exist as depicted.

Classic example: portal on the side of a moving train. You stick your hand out. Does your hand move with the train? Or does its lack if energy mean it's left behind by the train? In the former case, energy is obviously imparted, but in the latter case, the movement of the portal creates energy anyway because you're going to feel a tug on your arm.
Not to mention portals alter momentum instantaneously and you can use this to create perpetual motion without even moving them.
So yes, portals necessarily have to create energy and that's why this is the right answer.

>>16740519
>My point here is that you will never engineer a real portal
good thing literally no one said that

>>16740527
In case you're autistic and you interpreted that as me literally suggesting you, personally, create a portal gun: I meant the general "you". No one will ever do it. I am confident that portals can't exist and I don't expect to be proven wrong, ever. That's what I meant.

>>16740430
These aren't regular behaviors. You are just assuming reality to be a certain way because you are a mentally ill tranny that confuses identities. By asserting the game is violating itself you are overwriting the entire premise of the question; meanwhile, there has been no presented evidence of a portal form in the real world to justify this claim.
Fucking sucks to be a retard, but at least you get the neet lifestyle

>>16740586
You don't follow the argument but are too proud to concede. Fair enough, hereby acknowledged.

B stands unrefuted.

>>16739117
i firmly believe it's B in both cases as the cube emerging from the blue portal at such a speed would give it momentum. it's not going to just "plop" after being extruded at the speed of sound bruh

>>16739065 (OP)
B is the one that matches the game.

“Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out.”
In Portal the magnitude of your velocity when you enter a portal is preserved when you leave; only the direction is rotated so that it is perpendicular to (i.e., normal to) the exit-portal’s surface. So if a cube (or Chell) free-falls straight down into a floor portal, it leaves a wall-mounted portal moving straight out of that wall at the same speed. Put the exit on a slanted surface and the velocity vector is tipped accordingly, turning vertical fall into a horizontal (or upward-angled) launch—exactly what you see in sketch B.

Sketch A—where the cube just “plops” out and drops—would break almost every fling puzzle in the game, because you’d never carry any momentum through the portal.

>>16740602
In fact B is also just a change in direction, if you think about it. The magnitude is preserved, if you measure from the portal.

The showing from the A side has once again been abysmal, I must say. Just a very poor performance even for your kind. Are you allergic to good faith and actual arguments?

What if object is stationary and portal is moving towards object with velocity 'v'(with respect to observer)?
What will be outcomes, A or B?
I think it will be B because object HAS to move unless portal is somehow one way. If that's true then where did it get momentum? From portal? So do things thrown into portal also get there momentum somehow exchanged with portal?

B doesn't work, as it implies that moving the portal moves the whole universe in one direction, but if that was the case then it would be impossible to move it as everything would uniformly move in whatever direction you move the portal so it wouldn't appear to move. Therefore, only A makes sense as it does not imply that the whole universe moves when the portal does.

>>16740602
This isn't how portals work. A portal above another portal allows one to fall forever despite the different velocities between the two.
Consider a peculiar centrifuge where a pole is supported and pushed through some support member about its middle while it isn't moving.
When turned on, will it move?

>>16740508
> Portals can't move
Motion is relative. Whether something is moving depends on who you ask. Portals have a number of severe problems, but "moving" is not one of them.

>>16740545
youre the autist, retard
portals (could be) real but humans will never reach advanced enough levels to find out
you dont know how science works
they used to think two men cant have babies with each other but then gametogenesis was found

>>16740622
A is not even logically coherent. A requires matter to be in a state of visibly, touchably moving, yet some how not moving. Whatever issues you take with B, A is so much worse. A breaks local reality for an observer. Consider an observer at B, they can touch the cube as it exits at B, feel the motion of the cube pressing against their hand, then suddenly it stops for no reason. Any reality that is even remotely familiar to us does not recognize objects. If the observers hand is in contact with the apparently moving cube, then the observers hand occupies the same local space as the cube. The cube's atoms cannot just stop without the observers atoms in contact with the cube also being affected.

>>16740622
A is not even logically coherent. A requires matter to be in a state of visibly, touchably moving, yet some how not moving. Whatever issues you take with B, A is so much worse. A breaks local reality for an observer. Consider an observer at the blue side, they can touch the cube as it exits at blue portal, feel the motion of the cube pressing against their hand, then suddenly it stops for no reason. Any reality that is even remotely familiar to us does not recognize objects. If the observers hand is in contact with the apparently moving cube, then the observers hand occupies the same local space as the cube. The cube's atoms cannot just stop without the observers atoms in contact with the cube also being affected.

>>16740694
>moving
It's teleporting, not moving. B is the interpretation that implies movement and breaks reality by magically imparting momentum through a hole with no physical touch pushing the object to transfer kinetic energy.

>>16740622
A is actually the one that frequently argues that it's like moving the whole universe over the cube though, B does not require it.

>>16740624
Why is this suddenly the hot new thing among your type? The answer is plainly that the game is a simplified simulation and does not simulate the Earth's rotation. Additionally, B does not imply anything other than if you replaced the blue portal with a regular hole, so if that causes problems in your model, I think the problem is with your model.

>>16740659
>Well you don't know that it's NOT possible so there
Ah yes, science
Still not holding my breath

>>16740720
Kinetic energy is not a substance. Kinetic energy is just a number derived from the relative motion between two objects. Portals create an alternative path through space. This allows objects to seemingly gain kinetic energy. But kinetic energy is not an actual thing, and our intuition of it being a conserved thing simply does not apply anymore in space that contain portals. Consider that a portal can also trivially give an object potential energy from nowhere.

Also, lets focus on teleportation. Portals clearly operate on matter intersecting the boundary rather than entire objects. Basically the portal teleports the cube layer by layer. So the leading edge exits the portal and then moves away through normal space. This motion has to be real since those atoms have left the portal and are occupying physical space nowhere near the portal surface.

>>16740720
B is the interpretation that implies movement, i.e. it is the one that actually corresponde to portals

>>16740659
>>16740733
PS I only wondered if you were autistic because that made two times out of two that you blatantly misunderstood me due to taking my words overly literally. You took it in a hostile manner because you yourself are a hostile person.

>>16740624
Could you illustrate what you mean?

>>16740749
>im not autistic but i elaborate on my posts and write in big boy condescending pseudo-intellectual language
time to get tested for the tism, rick glassman

>>16740734
>energy is not a substance
Yet actual substance is made from it given mass-energy equivalence.
>the portal teleports the cube layer by layer
No these "layers" do not exist; fundamentally the cube is comprised of quantum mechanical wavefunctions with no defined location in space. It makes much more sense to assume that their position is simply resolved on the other side of the portal than to have a literal empty hole that's not touching it in any way magically push it somehow.
>>16740735
Portals are holes. They are not physical objects with mass, spin and charge. They cannot cause motion. The only possible way for B to be true is if the portal is making everything else - the entire universe - move past the cube. But if that were true, then the cube would never be reached. B is physically impossible.

>>16740767
If I dumb it down for you will you actually read it instead of making something up instead?

>>16740772
>They cannot cause motion.
They don't, they only translate it.
>But if that were true, then the cube would never be reached.
Non sequitur desu, not that it matters to the argument because you're the only one who thinks it's required

>>16739065 (OP)
I used to think it was b until I saw the portals as simple door fames that bend space and now I think it's a

>>16739117
1. A
2. B

>>16739118
/thread

>>16740898
I suppose it gas to be said explicitly every thread: any analogy where both sides are moving together is not actually comparable to the OP scenario and therefore any attempt to replicate it without portals is doomed from the start. B suggests nothing else than what is shown here, but if you were to change it so that only one side is moving, that same thing you're seeing would look like B.

>>16740894
Well, they are, but the thing is, you can't go through a door without moving.

>>16740937
You failed to mention the portals in your description. So the pole is actually connected to itself through the portals. I don't think it could move, then.

>>16740952
Where is the counter force generated to stop it?

All these posts giving convoluted explaination.

For an object to pass through a portal, it must move. Irrefutable.
In both A and B the cube moves at the speed it entered the portal.
In A, the cube inexplicably comes to a stop.
In B, the cube continues unchanged.

There’s not reason to introduce this second magical acceleration; the answer has always been B. Everyone intuits this, all those answering A are trolling or inhumanly stupid.

>>16740978
Imagine it without portals. I expect it would be similar.

>>16740981
The Afriends have latched on to this parallel portal thing like it's their new hula hoop.

>>16740811
>they only translate it
From where?
>Non sequitur
Not at all. B clearly shows the cube in motion. Where did that momentum come from? Not the cube, because it's at rest. Not the portal, because it's just empty space, it's not a physical object that can interact with anything. By process of elimination, the only thing that can possibly be moving is the rest of the universe relative to the box. Hence, B simply cannot happen, as there is nothing that can impart momentum upon the box. Portals do not work through motion. They enable a nonlocal resolution of position.

>>16741026
See >>16740981. Stop trolling.

>>16741036
>For an object to pass through a portal, it must move
No, that's physically impossible, because nothing is imparting momentum upon the object. An object's position is resolved on the other side of the portal. If you think that the object is moving, you're going to have to show what exactly is pushing it. Is there an invisible pool cue pushing it from below? An invisible propulsion source? What? It's not the object itself, because it's at rest; nor is it the portal, because it's a literal gap. B violates conservation of energy without even presenting a mechanism for doing so.

>>16741038
Portals violate conservation of energy. You could for instance create a perpetual waterwheel with portals for unlimited energy.

>>16741039
>Portals violate conservation of energy.
No, they enable it to be violated which is quite different from doing it themselves such as by conjuring up magical energy out of nowhere. In the water wheel example, gravity is what's causing the perpetual motion, not the portals, for they are merely holes. But the Earth is beneath them, so water can keep falling through. Again, what exactly is the physical object that is directly touching the cube to impart momentum upon it and produce B? Point at it.

>>16739072
Where this fails is that the box's motion is relative to the portal. Once the portal stops moving, there's no reason the box would move anymore.

Imagine putting spacers on the pedestal such that the portal stops halfway down the height of the box. Is there any reason the box would levitate off the pedestal? No.

The box's relative momentum changes because the portal's momentum changes.

>>16741042
Gravity may be what is causing the force. But it is the portals which are causing the energy.

>>16741046
>it is the portals which are causing the energy
Portals can't cause anything, they're not physical objects, they're holes. Nor do they have to "cause" something that is already being caused by the warping of spacetime geometry which makes the water fall.

They are not physical objects, but neither is energy, at least not how the term is used in the sense of physics. It seems you may not quite not understand the abstract nature of energy, as the potential for a system to do mechanical work, and are instead looking for more tactile definitions which are more suitable for something like force or momentum.

As the orange portal approches the block, it must first traverse .9x of the distance. After doing that, it must approach another .9x of the remaining distance, hence .99x of the remaining distance. Next another .9x of the remainder, hence .999x in total, and so on. Hence the orange portal gets closer, but there are an infinite number of steps it must continue to traverse before completing its travel. Even if these steps happen very fast, there’s still an infinite amount of them. Hence the portal will never actually end up reaching the box no matter how fast it goes.

>>16741049
>neither is energy
Mass-energy equivalence. Energy is not quantizable but it is very much a physical thing. You can literally represent it with units such as joules or electronvolts. B inserts more numbers into the calculation out of nowhere, with no explanation as to where they came from and no physically possible mechanism to do so.

>>16741026
>From where?
The Earth is in motion. The solar system is in motion. The galaxy is in motion. There's no such thing as "stationary" in an absolute sense.

>>16741026
>By process of elimination, the only thing that can possibly be moving is the rest of the universe relative to the box
Or, in other, simpler, more intuitive words, the cube is moving.

>>16741038
>No, that's physically impossible, because nothing is imparting momentum upon the object.
Putting the cart before the horse. The cube must come out of the portal therefore it moves. If that clashes with your worldview, update it.

>>16741043
>Once the portal stops moving, there's no reason the box would move anymore.
There's no reason for it to stop. An object in motion will stay in motion.

>>16741077
>The Earth is in motion. The solar system is in motion.
Still does not show an object physically interacting with the cube and imparting momentum upon it in a way that orients its newfound motion away from the rest of the universe. Either point directly to a thing that is touching the cube and moving it, or B isn't possible.
>>16741078
>the cube is moving
It's clearly standing still; the only object moving is the wall with a hole in it.
>>16741079
>The cube must come out of the portal therefore it moves.
No, it teleports. What part of teleportation don't you get? It's a change of location with no actual movement involved. B is both unscientific and unvideogamic. When you teleport into another player in Unreal Tournament and Quake, you don't "push" them out of the way, you telefrag them and break their structural integrity by appearing where they are.

>>16741063
Energy is quantifiable.

What's interesting is that when playing the game, people have no problem saying "momentum is conserved" even though this is plainly only true when measured through the portal and not relative to the Earth, yet when they are presented with the OP they still insist on measuring relative to the Earth rather than the portal. This is where the inconsistencies start. This is what leads to faulty conclusions like A.

>>16741082
The box's motion was relative to the portal, not the surrounding environment.

>>16741084
>imparting momentum upon it in a way that orients its newfound motion away from the rest of the universe.
What, you mean like literally what you do in the game? It's going one way, then the opposite. It's really no different than going the Earth's way and then another.
>It's clearly standing stil
That's an arbitrary measurement relative to the Earth, there's no reason for it to influence the cube's trajectory.

This was already addressed by the OP btw. Don't much like repeating myself so much.
>No, it teleports. What part of teleportation don't you get?
Well, what that even *means* for starters. Seems like an ill-defined term that let's you handwave what happens.
>B is both unscientific and unvideogamic.
B is logical and intuitive, but also, it does actually make for a better game, considering the sort of game Portal is.

>>16741094
The portal was stationary relative to the environment, ergo...
Only one conclusion possible, let's see if you manage

>>16741084
>No, it teleports.
well see this word is pretty retarded tho, because different people understand different things.
let's break it down a bit. does the orange portal destructively read the cube's atomic structure, sends the info to blue portal and blue portal 3d prints the cube back from that information? because then you get a buffer which strips out any momentum data, just reconstructs the cube so it would be case A.
but...there is a problem with this "teleporting" shit, it wouldn't "teleport" the visual data between the portals. we can see through them as if they were joined by some wormhole. which would change things. a teleporter config for the portals would make them opaque, not even, they'd be quite different machines. let alone the whole realtime thing, seems pretty unfeasible to have it destructively read in then constructively write the object in realtime with no delay. portals would also need access to raw materials, like atoms, to rebuild every object. thinking of it as "teleporting" is pretty retarded

>>16741098
I was talking about the portal on the left. It is moving down relative to the pedestal.
As it crosses the box, the box will emerge from the other side of the stationary portal. But once the portal stops moving (ie. when it hits the pedestal) the box will cease to move as well because all objects are now stationary according to each other's reference frames.

>>16741103
what if the platform fits the portal and goes through it as well? what happens to the cube? how fast is it going if portal comes down at 50km/h?

>>16741104
If the platform passes through the portal on the left, an observer on the right will observe the platform rise out of the blue portal for as long as the left portal continues moving.

>>16741106
so the cube would move at 50km/h. interesting. ok, so if the portal is half way through the cube, at that very moment, does the bottom half of the cube push against the top half of the cube, that already passed through the portal?

>>16741103
The cube is moving relative to the stationary blue portal when it comes out. It is, in fact, fully out when the orange portal stops moving relative to its environment. Why would this ever affect the cube?

Already addressed by the OP btw
It's getting kinda hilarious because not one person has even acknowledged it

>>16741110
Only if the portal suddenly accelerates

>>16741113
again, if the orange portal comes down on the cube+platform at 50km/h and keeps going down the platform, how fast is the cube+platform coming out on the blue portal? consider it keeps going for like ... a while, how fast is the cube+platform popping out on the blue portal? how fast they move? no acceleration, constant 50km/h for orange portal swallowing the platform+cube.

>>16741110
no

>>16741118
you seem to have misunderstood picrel. as long as air is coming through the portal, the air that goes into blue pushes on the air on orange. that's pretty much basic and should agree on

>>16741110
The cube does not feel any force being imparted upon it. Which is why A is correct

>>16741120
Yes. That is my point as well. When the air stops flowing, the illusory force goes away.

>>16741118
and even if, as long as the platform + cube keep coming out of the blue portal in OP picrel, even if it suddlenly stops, the column pushed on the cube, it has momentum, fucker keeps going. so even if the orange portal stops right at the atomic boundary between the cube an platform, the upper part of cube would pull on the lower part since it has momentum already, from the bottom part pushing on it up until it was fully engulfed by the orange portal. that momentum doesn't suddenly fucking cancel just like that.
people go to crazy effort to misunderstand the issue so they can go with A. crazy stuff.

>>16741122
>>16741125
>the illusory force goes away.
but it imparted momentum on the cube already, even if the pushing force stops, cube keeps going and dissipates whatever it got through air friction. this is pretty simple and framing it like this shows you are either mentally challenged either trolling

>>16741126
You're just misunderstanding relativity.
If we want to get really pedantic here, the actual question at hand is what the blue portal's momentum is vs the cube before passing through the orange portal. That's what actually determines the momentum shift here.
>>16741127
The portal did not impart any momentum on the cube.

>>16741128
portals don't impart momentul, whatever happens on the orange side does. last layer of atoms pushes on the cube, else it wouldn't come out on the blue side. when you have one layer of atoms left, and most of the cube is out on the blue side, it has a speed relative to blue portal surface. which translates to momentum. once the last layer of atoms pops on the blue side, that whole momentum doesn't magically cancel, for no reason whatsoever, cube coming out of the blue portal at 50km/h. that's just...retarded anon.

>>16741132
>last layer of atoms pushes on the cube
And that's where you're wrong. The orange portal is simply sliding around the cube as per this video:
>>16739118

What is happening on blue's side is perfectly analogous to that slanted platform sliding diagonally downward around the cube.

>>16741134
you completely failed to address my point and the obvious speed of the cube relative to the blue portal. which is strange. if you had an argument you would have dismantled the obvious speed relative to blue portal "micro-detail" but since you completely ignore addressing the elephant in the room, which is the cube's speed relative to blue portal, I will conclude you know you lost this argument and you are deeply seethful about it.

>>16741137
>if you had an argument you would have dismantled the obvious speed relative to blue portal
That's literally what I did in the post you're responding to. Work on your reading comprehension.

The blue portal is sliding down around the cube exactly as the orange portal is. No force is being imparted on the cube other than the torque from the gravity shift.

>>16740894
Show me any door frame that can put matter into a state of moving but somehow not moving. That is about as far from a door frame as one can possibly get.

>>16739065 (OP)
A

>>16741063
Portals raising the height of an object creates energy out of nowhere. Portals do not conserve energy. You need to except this.

>>16741096
>like literally what you do in the game
In the game, portals are just holes.
>It's going one way, then the opposite
This is when the object has momentum by actively entering the portal. The image depicts the surface with the portal moving, not the object doing so. B requires a physical object to touch the cube and push or pull it into a direction.
>there's no reason for it to influence the cube's trajectory.
There is when you claim that an object can spring up and move out of nowhere without having force applied to it directly.
>what that even *means* for starters
It means a change in position without movement.
>ill-defined term that let's you handwave what happens
Don't pretend that "the cube just gains momentum out of nowhere" isn't also handwavey; you're just picking favoring one form of special pleading over the other for no reason, but doing so in a way that also violates conservation of energy.
>B is logical and intuitive
Save for the fact that there is no physical object imparting momentum upon the cube. Until you can point at something that is physically touching the cube to cause it to move. B is impossible.

>>16741175
>Portals raising the height of an object creates energy out of nowhere
The portal isn't doing any raising because it is not a physical object. It is a hole. It's just a door that connects 2 places. Doing that allows for paradoxical effects, but it's not the portal "doing it" because it is literally a gap. Other objects and forces can utilize this paradoxical door to violate conservation, but it is not the literal empty space doing it.

>>16741188
You know how an object can have two heights depending on which side of the portal you look at. This applies to velocity as well. The portal is not doing anything to the object, there is no acceleration. But the object is still moving when you look at from the blue portal side.

>>16741138
no you didn't address the speed that the cube has relative to the blue portal. that's paramount to the issue. you cannot wave it away, it's crucial to the whole issue. cube mass * speed relative to blue portal = momentum in the blue portal inertial frame of reference. that's all there is to it, anything else is your mental disease.
the actual answer to this portal dilemma, to settle it for good, is "it fucking depends on the orange portal speed relative to the cube".
if it's slow, it's A. if it's faster, it's B. that's it. case solved. I don't want want to see this meme again.
>but it breaks..
yes, we all know portals already generate energy out of nothing

>>16741203
>you didn't address the speed that the cube has relative to the blue portal
If you're gonna keep repeating yourself hoping it lands different, I'll keep repeating myself hoping you get it after the third time.
The blue portal is sliding around the cube because it's attached to the orange portal.

It's like an elevator. Every object that isn't bolted down on the second floor doesn't continue it's upward trajectory relative to you just because you took a trip there from the third floor.

>>16741207
notice how for the n-th time you kept avoiding addressing the speed of the cube relative to the blue portal. the only reason you'd pretend you didn't notice me asking you about the speed of the fucking cube relative to the blue fucking portal is because you CANNOT ADDRESS IT. any way you'd try to address the speed of the cube relative to the blue portal, you'd fuck up any shred of argument you'd have for case A. which I can solve for you anyway -> low orange portal speed. there's your exception. you're so incompetent that I have made the best argument for your case, where you couldn't, and I'm still right in that it can also be B, based on the fucking speed of the orange portal. it's all about the speed of the orange portal, that sets the speed of the cube relative to the blue portal. if I were you I'd be too ashamed to even reply, I'd probably just close the browser and do something else.

>>16741208
>you CANNOT ADDRESS IT
I am addressing it. You just obviously cannot read. Do I need to draw you a picture? Do you even grasp what I'm saying about the elevator?

Let's say there's a lamp somewhere on the first floor and you're in freefall on an elevator falling [x] meters per second. Relative to you, and the elevator, that lamp is travelling upwards at [x] meters per second. But unless your crash at the bottom sends literal shockwaves through the building, the lamp isn't going to continue to move one single inch after you inevitably do crash.

>>16741212
no you did not address how in the blue universe where the cube is moving at x m/s vs blue portal it just...changes for no reason once every bit of it is out. mind you, half way through half a cube has half mass at same speed in blue universe, and some momentum, which only gets higher the more cube comes through the blue portal at SAME FUCKING SPEED , but once the last atoms of the cube come out, that momentum somehow vanishes, without any fucking explanation, just like that, and then you point to A as being true. this is fucking insane.
again, explain what happens to momentum of the cube adressing its speed relative to the blue portal, I want you to mention the cube's mass and the cube's speed relative to the blue portal, and construct a sentence using both. try and do that please. address the cube's mass and cube's speed to blue portal, and calculate the momentum in the blue portal frame of reference. do that. stop avoiding this, address it directly, say literally nothing else, just reply addressing the cube's mass and the cube's velocity relative to blue portal, and address the cube's momentum in the blue portal frame of reference. do not make analogies, do not compare it to anything else, purely address cube's mass and its velocity relative to the blue portal. I bet you won't do it, because you have no clue how to deal with it, you can only avoid it and go on tangents and comparisons, but you will never address the cube's mass and velocity relative to the blue portal, that is something you are unable to do, your brain doesn't even register the concept, refuses to read it.

>>16741221
>explain what happens to momentum of the cube adressing its speed relative to the blue portal
What happens to the lamp's momentum when the elevator crashes at the bottom floor.

>>16741114
>how fast they move? no acceleration, constant 50km/h for orange portal swallowing the platform+cube.
Answered your own question? What's the play here?

>>16741120
>that's pretty much basic and should agree on
We all agree on B? What are we doing here, then?
>>16741122
That does not follow.

>>16741134
Anon, please stop referring to long-debunked strawmen in your argument.

>>16741180
>In the game, portals are just holes.
And in B as well.
>This is when the object has momentum by actively entering the portal.
And that's relative, so it's literally the same thing being depicted here. Btw you say the cube isn't moving but it's being carried by an oblate spheroid to the tune if 67,000 mph.
>There is when you claim that an object can spring up and move out of nowhere without having force applied to it directly.
Its existing momentum is translated which is what we know portals to do.
>It means a change in position without movement.
And that means you're starting from the conclusion.
>Don't pretend that "the cube just gains momentum out of nowhere" isn't also handwavey
I firstly didn't say that and secondly provided you with an explanation for what is happening. The only handwave is that portals exist, which is no problem to people playing the game.
>Until you can point at something that is physically touching the cube to cause it to move. B is impossible.
False, because in fact it's not being "caused to move" but continuing its existing motion through the portal, which the portals translate somewhere else. Speedy thing in, speedy thing out, momentum is conserved locally, and logically it can do no else. The options are B or nothing.

>>16741188
>Doing that allows for paradoxical effects
Like, say, launching a stationary cube

>>16741207
You're not thinking with portals, I'm afraid.
If you want to maintain that the motion of the blue portal is the motion of the orange portal because they are connected, why does it not work the other way around? The blue portal is stationary and it's like the cube being raised up to it. This is at least equally true as your elevator analogy.
This is why you are fundamentally doomed to fail if you try to find a real-world analogy like an elevator, hula hoop, door frame, etc. because each of those things is missing precisely that quality of portals that gave rise to this apparent paradox in the first place and you're essentially just ignoring the problem altogether and passing it off as insight.

>>16741038
>>16741084
>>16741122
See >>16741036.

>>16740981
>For an object to pass through a portal, it must move. Irrefutable.
False. Everything downstream of this is wrong by induction.

>>16739598
>What I've shown you is that the scenario in the OP is actually no different from what's shown in the games
In the game, portals cannot be placed on surfaces that move in the direction of the portal's opening. If it is placed on a stationary surface and the surface begins to move in that direction, the portal disappears. The only reason they would program the game this way would be to avoid an ambiguous situation like the one in the OP.

>>16739065 (OP)
Its B because that would make some good puzzles in the video game series portal.

>>16741428
I suppose it should be amended to say something must move *relative to the portal
That's an a priori truth in fact

>>16741443
Or they did it because Portal is a puzzle game, and this forces the player to come up with different solutions. As well as save themselves the trouble of programming additional portal behaviour that they could clearly do without.

Or maybe playtesters didn't get it when B happened

B fags think it's B.

>>16741496
Yes, you in fact didn't make any substantial changes to the scenario.

Read the OP and first few replies and let me know if you still have questions.

>>16741496
Accelerating portals are not well understood.

But you need to understand something. Objects are made of individual atoms. Atoms exist in some location in 3d space. The portal is a 2d surface. So the only atoms subject to the portals influence are the atoms which are in any moment traversing the portal boundary. All the other atoms of the cube are subject to normal physics.

Now lets consider the case where the portal stops. This sudden stop can only effect the slice of the cube intersecting the portal surface. The atoms of the cube already through the portal have real momentum relative to the room, and the atoms which have not crossed the portal boundary are stationary relative to the room. The simplest solution for portal acceleration is to just close the portal. The cube would be severed alone the portal boundary and the part of the cube already through would continue its motion, the part left behind stays stationary.

In the case of keeping portals open when they accelerate. This is poorly understood. But it will very likely do bad things to the cube, probably tearing it in half. Or at least causing some level of damage depending on various specific details. In regards to the entire cube being pulled through. If the cube is indestructible. The stationary and moving halves of the cube would average out their momentum as the moving half pulls (violently) on the stationary half. So it would fly but slower.

One has to admire the perfect symbiosis of these threads. Afriends get their jollies by pretending to be stupid and getting a reaction, and we get it from telling stupid people how wrong they are

>>16741341
>The blue portal is stationary and it's like the cube being raised up to it. This is at least equally true as your elevator analogy.
In a sense, but B does not follow from this interpretation either. The orange portal, and everything it is attached to, shares a reference frame with the blue portal and everything it is attached to. This much I think we agree.

Let's talk about what's actually happening in the elevator scenario:
Sure, the lamp is moving upwards relative to you while you're in freefall, but so is the entire earth. The planet crashes into your floating elevator at the elevator's terminal velocity. But because of how massive the earth is relative to your elevator, the earth maintains its momentum almost completely unchanged while you, the elevator, and the lamp, are now essentially hitching a ride on the same massive object.

Now we could potentially derive either A or B from that analogy and it comes down to one question: does the two objects being connected by a portal imply they share the same mass as well?
If the answer is "no," which is sort of a special assumption that I think most people implicitly make (though with questionable merit), then A is the only correct answer. The piston on the orange portal collides with the pedestal, and therefore the earth below, on the left hand side resulting in a dead stop. The earth continues its trajectory unchanged and therefore the cube stays attached to the pedestal.

I'll go into the case if the answer is "yes" in the next post. You may get B from that, but we also get some other interesting behavior.

>>16741341
>>16741733
pt 2:

If the answer is "yes," then the situation is more complicated. The earth is crashing into itself. We'll assume perfect rigidity so this does not simply result in obliteration. We'll also make an assumption that gravity doesn't extend beyond the portal because this whole situation is already way too convoluted.
I will, for now, model the earth as a flat plane: Earth falls on earth. "Bottom earth" feels the force of earth crashing down upon it, resulting in an upward acceleration, relative to itself, on all objects that aren't bolted down. Not just the cube that passed through the portal, EVERYTHING gets flung upward. This isn't what "top earth" feels, however. It feels "bottom earth" crashing into it from underneath. So the inverse effect happens where all objects are seen pushing down into the earth at he same force that "bottom earth" saw its objects pushed upward. But "top" and "bottom" earth are the same object. So these forces cancel out and we still get A.

B occurs, if and only if, the two portals are on opposite sides of the spherical earth. Then the forces add rather than cancel and we get B. But I'll reiterate that this happens for ALL objects that aren't bolted down, not just the cube.
We can further generalize by saying the direction these objects fly depends on the angle of the blue portal relative to the orange portal as well as any give object on earth relative to the impacting force.

>>16741733
>In a sense, but B does not follow from this interpretation either.
It absolutely does.
But whether something is moving or not is just an arbitrary measurement; it doesn't change what actually happens. Your question about elevators and lamps seems to assume that moving relative to something affects it. But that's not the point. The relevant motion is between cube and portal.

But again, this was all laid out in the OP and following replies. Would be nice if someone read them.

>>16741737
Anon, there aren't actually two moving universes crashing into each other. You are extrapolating your already flawed elevator analogy to entirely unwarranted flights of fancy. B does not depend on any if your assumptions. It's a complete red herring.

>>16741745
Re-read my posts, anon. Your concerns were addressed.

>The relevant motion is between cube and portal.
The cube shares a reference frame with the entire earth. Again, read my posts and you'll understand why this matters.

>>16741750
>there aren't actually two moving universes crashing into each other.
I didn't say there were.

The only relevant question here is this:

>does the two objects being connected by a portal imply they share the same mass as well?
If no, then A is the only possible solution. If yes, then B is a vague possibility.

>>16741754
>Re-read my posts, anon.
How about you read the OP where I already made the case for B. You say it all comes down to a question of nass but I've already presented you with a model to which it is irrelevant (indeed, when were portals ever shown to care about mass?)

Reference frames are a way of measuring, "sharing" a reference frame only means you are moving together, and portals do precisely this, where something can go from one frame of reference to another without changing its movement.

A is never actually a possibility, B is the only option if portals were real.

>>16741762
I already obliterated the analysis in the OP here: >>16741043
>Once the portal stops moving, there's no reason the box would move anymore.
Yes, if the portal continued to move, the box would continue to move relative to the blue portal for as long as the orange portal is also moving relative to the blue portal. Because the orange and blue portals share a reference frame.

But in the case described in the OP image, this is not happening.

For any two objects, x and y, that share a reference frame:
A non-trivial, asymmetric force must be applied to either x or y or both in order to result in a non-trivial shift in their reference frame relative to each other.
Because the box is not being directly acted upon. the non-trivial force must be acting upon the earth itself. But shifting the momentum on the earth in such a way requires a huge amount of force.

This is why the only relevant question becomes:
>does the two objects being connected by a portal imply they share the same mass as well?
Yes or no?

I'm going for a walk so it may take me a minute to respond to your rebuttal.

>>16741754
>The cube shares a reference frame with the entire earth.
Also, you're still making the same mistake; it is BOTH stationary AND moving relative to the Earth. That's what the whole paradox is about. The cube is not "in" a reference frame, it is measured against a reference frame.

>>16741230
>again avoids addressing the cubes speed relative to blue portal
you're a joke if you cannot directly address the cube's speed relative to the blue portal. every time you avoided doing it, by making retarded comparisons to anything else.
it's braindead simple, just address the speed the cube has relative to the blue portal, that's it, that's all you have to do. there's no need for comparisons when you can simply address the speed of the cube relative to blue portal. do that and nothing else, but I bet you you can't do it.
>>16741315
yes, so if the cube has a speed relative to blue portal it must have momentum.
>>16741317
>We all agree on B? What are we doing here, then?
yes and no. it's A or B depending on orange portal's speed relative to cube.
>>16741639
>Accelerating portals are not well understood.
portals are not understood because you can create energy out of nothing, without OP's meme
>>16741762
>A is never actually a possibility, B is the only option if portals were real.
yes A and B are possible depending on the orange portal's speed

the correct answer is, as I said before, can be both A or B depending on orange portal's speed relative to the cube. that's it, case closed. this is another meme where info is missing for a straight answer so it makes it debatable

>>16741766
>I already obliterated the analysis in the OP here:
Ah. Oh dear. How sad. You really think that? All you've shown is that you don't get it.
>if the portal continued to move, the box would continue to move relative to the blue portal for as long as the orange portal is also moving relative to the blue portal.
No, this is precisely how it doesn't work. The cube's motion has already been translated, and will continue unless acted upon by some other force. There is absolutely nothing tying it to the other side of the portal; a reference frame does not exert influence, it's an arbitrary construct used to measure things. I've been very clear about this in the posts you claim to have "obliterated". So read them again, more carefully.

>>16741766
>A non-trivial, asymmetric force must be applied to either x or y or both in order to result in a non-trivial shift in their reference frame relative to each other.
Bitch what do you think portals *do*
Or do you think instantaneously reversing direction within the same reference frame is not covered by this?

>>16741769
>it's A or B depending on orange portal's speed relative to cube.
That's B. A is not *plop*, A is the reason for the *plop*. *Plop* is possible under B.

>>16741768
>it is BOTH stationary AND moving relative to the Earth. That's what the whole paradox is about.
Interesting argument you have here. You insist on it being paradoxical and then you insist on your particular resolution even though mine is more logically consistent.

>>16741769
>again avoids addressing the cubes speed relative to blue portal
i gave a more complete analysis here:
>>16741733
>>16741737
That IS your answer. The elevator is not just analogous, but HOMOLOGOUS. The only difference is the blue portal isn't falling "down," but a 4th dimensional equivalent of "down."

>>16741776
>There is absolutely nothing tying it to the other side of the portal;
the motion of the earth underneath. The only way for the cube to move independently of the earth, then, is for the piston to "push" the earth away from the cube. This resolves any contradiction. The cube's momentum must be conserved relative to the orange portal because that IS the motion relative to the blue portal. If the piston pushes with enough force to alter the momentum of the earth below, then the cube flies. Otherwise it does not.

>>16741777
>Bitch what do you think portals *do*
Nothing. They are just holes. It is as if you glued one wall to another wall on he other side and drilled a hole.

>>16741769
> portals are not understood because you can create energy out of nothing
Global conservation of energy is an emergent property of local conservation of energy. But this only holds in space that does not contain portals. When portals exist global conservation of energy no longer applies. This has no implications for understanding, physics is local.

>>16741776
>>16741766
Also, it should be added that the orange portal also "stops moving" within a certain reference frame, again, not in an absolute sense. But what matters to the cube at that point is only the motion of the blue portal. And if you still insist that has anything to do with the "motion" of the orange portal, you're still clinging to a flawed understanding of portals.

>>16741816
The orange portal ad the blue portal are the same object. They are opposite sides of the same hole.
This is the only logically consistent understanding of portals.

>>16741809
>You insist on it being paradoxical
It is apparently paradoxical, if we apply your reasoning consistently; but even then your reasoning is flawed. The paradox is resolved by B which is of course the only logical and consistent answer.
>That IS your answer.
That's your flawed understanding of it.
>the motion of the earth underneath.
What about it?
You keep insisting "the ONLY way is this or that" but you plainly don't get reference frames so you can't tell anyone anything about what is or isn't possible.
>>16741811
Yes, it's just a hole. The cube will move through it unimpeded, and continue its motion.
You know, if you see something coming at you through a hole it won't stop for no reason. Think if ut like a hula hoop, uf that helps.

>>16741817
They move independently. Trying to figure out their "real" motion is a fool's errand, especially considering motion is not an objective quality and always exists relative to something else. Motion relative to the portal is the only consistent way of looking at it; anything else will lead to contradictions and absurdities.
The cube's motion relative to the portals is the same regardless of whether this or that is moving relative to whatever else, so the outcome is the same.

>>16739072
Restating B doesn't make it true.

>>16741836
That final obe actually doesn't show B lmao
It's showing how the same relative movement as before can result in a "stationary" cube by the exit (it requires the blue portal to move away from the observer)

>>16741822
>It is apparently paradoxical, if we apply your reasoning consistently; but even then your reasoning is flawed
What's flawed about it?

>>the motion of the earth underneath.
>What about it?
In order to change the momentum of the cube relative to earth, you must impart a force on either the cube or the earth. Since the cube is untouched, it is the earth's momentum that must be changed and to do so requires enough force to literally push the earth. B can be consistent but only if a particular set of assumptions are made. A is the most parsimonious.

>you plainly don't get reference frames
What don't I "get" about them? All you're doing at this point is plugging your ears and yelling "nuh-uh."

>if you see something coming at you through a hole it won't stop for no reason. Think if ut like a hula hoop, uf that helps.
If the hula hoop stops moving relative to the approaching object, then so does the object relative to the hoop.

>>16741826
>motion is not an objective quality and always exists relative to something else
Correct. And that is core to my argument. The portals do not move independently of each other. What is changing is what two positions are spatially linked by the 4D "folding" that represents the one, singular, hole.

>Motion relative to the portal is the only consistent way of looking at it
Yes. and when the orange side of the hole stops moving relative to the cube, the cube stops moving relative to the blue side of the hole. That is the only consistent way of looking at it.

>>16741847
>What's flawed about it?
That it results in a paradox.>>16741847
>In order to change the momentum of the cube relative to earth, you must impart a force on either the cube or the earth.
Not with portals, as shown in the games. You're literally denying basic portals now.
>Since the cube is untouched, it is the earth's momentum that must be changed
Since this is a continuation of your flawed argument I need not address this, but I would like to point out that the Earth is untouched, therefore it is the cube's momentum that must be changed. Same mistake again.
>All you're doing at this point is plugging your ears and yelling "nuh-uh."
No, you are. You've had it explained to you and curiously you're not addressing the explanation...
>If the hula hoop stops moving relative to the approaching object, then so does the object relative to the hoop.
Yes, that's a tautology. It does not imply causation.

>>16741847
>The portals do not move independently of each other.
Yes, they do. Anything that follows from your reasoning is therefore flawed.

>>16741847
>when the orange side of the hole stops moving relative to the cube, the cube stops moving relative to the blue side of the hole.
Complete nonsensical gibberish. What stops the cube?
You realise that, using the Earth as a frame of reference, the portals' motion changed relative to each other? You say they don't move independently but they plainly do. You say the orange portal "stops moving" but what does that mean to the relative motion between the cube and the blue portal? Nothing. It just means relative motion beyond the portal ceases. Nothing about it has any relation to the cube.
It's like saying I get off a train, the train crashes fifteen minutes later, and I'm suddenly jolted because I was "in the train's frame of reference". Utter nonsense.

>>16741859
>Not with portals, as shown in the games.
In what way? Elaborate on this.
>the Earth is untouched
ostensibly false. It is the piston's collision with the earth that stops the orange side of the portal's motion relative to earth.
>You've had it explained to you and curiously you're not addressing the explanation
what explanation am I "not addressing?" I have refuted ever single one of your relevant points. You just repeat that I "don't understand" because you can't address my rebuttals.
>Yes, that's a tautology. It does not imply causation.
So you must justify your claim that the cube should be launched in some other way. Because this argument you provided fails on the face of it.

>>16741860
>Yes, they do
It is one hole. The notion that there are "two portals" at all is an illusion.

>>16741870
>What stops the cube?
the cube never "started."
>portals' motion changed relative to each other
It's 1 hole. What two points are linked changed but the singular hole stayed put.
>>16741870
>You say the orange portal "stops moving" but what does that mean to the relative motion between the cube and the blue portal?
they're the same hole.
>It's like saying I get off a train, the train crashes fifteen minutes later, and I'm suddenly jolted because I was "in the train's frame of reference"
No. you left the train's frame of reference the moment the train's velocity relative to you changed.

>>16741428
How can an object pass through another without either moving?

>>16741428
Troll. Dismiss.

>>16741874
>In what way? Elaborate on this.
The games are literally about changing momentum all the time lol
Momentum includes a direction
>It is the piston's collision with the earth that stops the orange side of the portal's motion relative to earth.
And what's that attached to? Does the Earth push itself? It was pushing the cube, though.
>what explanation am I "not addressing?"
That reference frames are just a measurement and don't exert influence on things in them (because indeed being "in a reference frame" is completely arbitrary) and the cube will therefore keep moving.
>So you must justify your claim that the cube should be launched in some other way.
If the relative motion ceases, it ceases. But why would it, exactly?

>>16741874
Anon, if you continue to insist portals are "the same hole" you will never understand them.
Go stand in between two portals. One moves towards you. You can now say they both moved towards you. But if you look the other way, the portal stayed put. Therefore, both portals stayed put. A contradiction.
The portals are only one hole for the purposes of things moving through them. Beyond that, for all intents and purposes, it's better to think of them as separate holes, and, indeed, to treat the cube you see through the portal as if it were separate from the cube you see before you, because you are only confusing yourself.
>you left the train's frame of reference the moment the train's velocity relative to you changed.
That has nothing to do with whether or not I'm susceptible to a train crash, you understand. In fact it's not even an accurate description of a frame of reference. You can continue to measure my velocity relative to it.

>>16741885
>Momentum includes a direction
This is an interesting topic, ad very cleanly demonstrates your misunderstanding about portals (and reference frames in general).
When you walk straight on a curved surface, it won't look like a straight line from a top-down perspective. But from your frame of reference, you never changed direction.
What a portal "is" is simply a distortion of space such that a straight line exists between one path and, for example, a perpendicular path.
From your frame of reference, you're still walking a straight line. You experience no force upon entering/leaving the portal.

>And what's that attached to? Does the Earth push itself?
depends what you mean by this.

>reference frames are just a measurement and don't exert influence on things in them
There are the position from which measurement can be taken. You're right that they don't "exert influence." But that's you missing the point. They determine what sorts of influences can actually exert change and how that change occurs.
>cube will therefore keep moving.
Moving relative to what, exactly? Because it's stationary relative to earth which is my entire point.

>If the relative motion ceases, it ceases. But why would it, exactly?
The orange side of the portal ceases to move relative to earth (and therefore the cube placed upon it) because the piston the portal is attached to collides with earth.

>>16741874
>the cube never "started."
You yourself admit it's moving and see no problem with it continuing that movement as long as the orange portal keeps going. So yes, it definitely started. What you don't get is that the portal has nothing to do with it any more at that point.

>>16741903
>This is an interesting topic, ad very cleanly demonstrates your misunderstanding about portals (and reference frames in general).
How ironic.
And when a cube is stationary on Earth it is also moving through the universe, though it doesn't look like it; and when it shoots out if the portal it also doesn't seem to change direction.
>depends what you mean by this.
I mean you're making illogical claims.
>Moving relative to what, exactly? Because it's stationary relative to earth which is my entire point.
It *was*, until it exited a portal that is stationary relative to Earth.
>The orange side of the portal ceases to move relative to earth (and therefore the cube placed upon it) because the piston the portal is attached to collides with earth.
That does not follow. The portal stops relative to the Earth, yes, the cube is in motion relative to the Earth at that point though.

>>16741890
>Go stand in between two portals. One moves towards you. You can now say they both moved towards you. But if you look the other way, the portal stayed put. Therefore, both portals stayed put. A contradiction.
The points linked by the hole changed. The side of the hole wiich is stationary relative to you is moving along with the hole tat is in motion relative to you. So if you look through the "stationary" portal, it is just as accurate to say you are approaching those objects which are now closer to the "moving" side as it is to say those objects are approaching you.

>The portals are only one hole for the purposes of things moving through them
Which is the point of the question.
>>16741890
>treat the cube you see through the portal as if it were separate from the cube you see before you, because you are only confusing yourself.
You might be confused, but I'm not. There is no reason for the cube to be launched from the pedestal but because a portal fell around it.

>That has nothing to do with whether or not I'm susceptible to a train crash, you understand. In fact it's not even an accurate description of a frame of reference. You can continue to measure my velocity relative to it.
In this case, I'm describing a shared reference frame as [my velocity] = [train's velocity]. Let's not nitpick too hard here.
Once you're no longer riding the train, nothing that happens to the train has any impact on you.

>>16741905
>You yourself admit it's moving and see no problem with it continuing that movement as long as the orange portal keeps going.
It's moving relative to the portal, it is not moving relative to the earth which is the core issue at hand.

>What you don't get is that the portal has nothing to do with it any more at that point.
No, I do get that. That's my argument. The B crowd thinks that passing through the portal represents a sufficient change in reference frame that the cube's approach should be interpreted as a force capable of launching it.

>>16741916
>You might be confused, but I'm not. There is no reason for the cube to be launched from the pedestal but because a portal fell around it.
Lol
>Once you're no longer riding the train, nothing that happens to the train has any impact on you.
Finally, we're getting somewhere.
Going through a portal is like getting off a train.

>>16741911
>And when a cube is stationary on Earth it is also moving through the universe
agreed, but not remotely relevant.
>and when it shoots out if the portal it also doesn't seem to change direction.
it would seem that way relative to earth, which is why such motion demands either a force imparted on the cube or the earth itself.
>I mean you're making illogical claims.
In what way?
>>16741911
>It *was*, until it exited a portal that is stationary relative to Earth.
Which brings us back to my explanation above:
you have one point on earth crashing down upon another point on earth at the speed of the piston. If you link a portal link also shares mass, then we have this situation on our hands:
>>16741737
What's actually nice about that interpretation is it even resolves the "infinite falling" paradox. But in the universe of the games, infinite falling is allowed which means we have the other case on our hands. There is no reason the cube should launch.

>The portal stops relative to the Earth, yes, the cube is in motion relative to the Earth at that point though.
No, because the pedestal is (presumably) attached t the earth. And we all agree the cube is stationary relative to the pedestal.

>>16741921
>Going through a portal is like getting off a train
No. Getting off a train changed your momentum. Going through a portal does not.

>>16741916
>It's moving relative to the portal, it is not moving relative to the earth
This is a contradiction.
>a sufficient change in reference frame
Still not how they work.
You seem close to getting it because most things you say actually add up to B but then there's the odd turn of phrase that reveals some fundamental misunderstandings.

>>16741926
>This is a contradiction.
How?
Perhaps I should elaborate:
The cube is not moving relative to the part of the earth the cube is sitting on. The part of the earth which is glued t the piston via the portal is moving relative to the cube. But this runs us right back to this situation: >>16741737

>Still not how they work.
I agree, which is why the correct answer is A. The cube's momentum does no change therefore it is still stuck to the pedestal.

>>16741922
>not remotely relevant.
It's precisely the point, in fact. You ask how portals can change momentum. I point out they already do. You say that's not a change of momentum from the cube's perspective. Which was, indeed, the point. Nothing other than this is, in fact, going on. But when momentum is translated one way, you compare it to the Earth and say it changed; when it's another way, you compare it to the portal and say it didn't. You're inconsistent and that's why you fail to see it's the latter in both cases.

>>16741922
>we all agree the cube is stationary relative to the pedestal.
Up to a point.

>>16741925
>Getting off a train changed your momentum.
Most people wait for it to stop.
>Going through a portal does not.
Affirming the consequent.

>>16741927
>How?
The portal is not moving relative to the Earth
>The cube is not moving relative to the part of the earth the cube is sitting on.
Not even that is entirely true, once it exits the blue portal. Of course, it both is and isn't
>I agree, which is why the correct answer is A.
Maybe if you had a proper understanding of reference frames instead of strawmen you wouldn't think that.

>>16741927
The cube is both moving and stationary (relative to earth) depending on which portal you look at. Just like when a portal raises the height of an object, the object has two heights simultaneously depending on which portal you look at.

>>16741938
If translating between reference frames confuses you, then I don't know what to say other than you got filtered.
There is an apparent paradox in that the portion of the earth which is attached to the piston seems to be a different reference frame from the part which is attached to the pedestal the cube is siting on despite it being the same earth. But this can be resolved by understanding it as a 4D "folding". It is one part of the earth being translated to another part of the earth.

>>16741944
>Most people wait for it to stop.
And when the train starts moving again, your momentum relative to the train changes.

>Affirming the consequent
No I'm not.

>>16741947
>The portal is not moving relative to the Earth
See above.

>once it exits the blue portal. Of course, it both is and isn't
Wrong, it just isn't.

I'm still waiting on someone to actually respond to this breakdown here: >>16741737
Nobody's done it yet.

you still talking about anything else rather than the speed of the cube relative to the blue portal? why even bother? why not address the speed of the cube relative to the blue portal? that's all that matters. ignoring it is just...weird.
cube comes out of blue portal at the speed of which orange portal goes down on the cube -> cube has speed relative to blue portal -> has momentum -> yeets out of blue portal if orange portal speed is high enough.
the only way you can keep debating the issue is if you ignore the cube's speed relative to blue portal. act like your brain doesn't register this bit of info and you can go on other tangents. address it and there's only one answer: it's A or B depending on the speed of the orange portal.
but this again won't be addressed.

>>16741960
>you still talking about anything else rather than the speed of the cube relative to the blue portal?
It's been addressed and if you continue to harp on it without addressing my response then you have lost the argument.

>>16741963
it hasn't been addressed. you just keep making comparisons to other shit, never once directly addressed the speed of the cube relative to blue portal.
for example you could say "yes, cube has a speed relative to blue portal, having mass means it has momentum on the blue portal side, in which case it depends on the speed of the orange portal, that defines the speed of the cube coming out on the blue portal side"
you could start addressing it this way, but you never do, you always insist moving away attention from the speed of the cube relative to blue portal (which implies momentum in the blue portal frame of reference) to random comparisons in the hopes anyone reading it somehow forgets about the speed of the cube relative to the blue portal.
you are actively trying to fool people reading your responses by avoiding to address the cube's speed relative to the blue portal (and thus its momentum). it's actually weird, you are not capable of saying "yes the cube has a speed relative to blue portal" which is quite clear to anyone with even a single functioning neuron.

I have access to black holes/wormholes I use daily and the answer's A

>>16741971
see: >>16741733
and: >>16741737
The speed of the cube relative to the blue portal is not relevant. What matters is the speed relative to the pedestal it is sitting on.
The elevator is not just analogy, it is homology with the only distinction being that the part of the earth connected to the portal is "falling" in a 4D vector rather than simply down.

>>16741977
>ignore the speed of the cube relative to the blue portal
but we all notice it anon, we cannot ignore it. we can plainly notice it, the cube has a certain speed relative to the blue portal. why should we just....ignore it? it's right fucking there, we see the cube coming out of the blue portal with a certain speed. why should we ignore something which is right there in front of our eyes? this is insane

>>16741978
>the cube has a certain speed relative to the blue portal. why should we just....ignore it?
The lamp has a certain speed relative to the elevator. If you cannot grasp why that refutes your argument then you are essentially just broadcasting your low IQ.
Were does the lamp's momentum go? The answer to that question is exactly the same as the answer to where the cube's momentum goes.

>>16741082
>There's no reason for it to stop.

The box is stationary on a platform

The portal is the only thing thats moving at it


Retard

>>16741983
what the fuck is wrong with you bro? why can't you give a single fucking answer without comparing it to something else? I don't give a fuck about your comparison, talk about the cube and portals not comparisons. address the speed of the cube coming out of the blue portal. why are you telling us to ignore that detail? we all notice it, the cube has a speed coming out of the blue portal. stop fucking about with lamps, address why should we ignore the speed of the cube relative to the blue portal, since that is the crux of the issue, the cube having a certain speed on the blue side.
>>16741985
on the blue side the cube has speed relative to the blue portal, it's moving. you can clearly see it, it's right there moving out of blue portal. it doesn't pop in full at once on the blue portal side, it "emerges" out of blue portal, at a certain speed relative to blue portal. having mass -> has momentum on the blue portal side. that's all there is to it.

>>16741987
>I don't give a fuck about your comparison
negative IQ confirmed.

I'll humor it. The cube's speed does not change between being on one side or the other with respect to the portal. It is traveling at the same speed at the pedestal it is sitting on.
When the piston makes impact with the pedestal, one of two things will happen:
>The force of the piston impacting the earth is trivialized by the force of earth impacting the piston
In which case, the relative motion between the pedestal, the piston, the blue portal, and the cube all become zero. We get A.
>The force of the piston impacting the earth is non-trivial compared to the earth impacting the piston
the pedestal, the piston, and the blue portal are all "pushed away" from the cube. Resulting in B (with some caveats, see >>16741737)

>>16741999
>The cube's speed does not change between being on one side or the other with respect to the portal.
stop misrepresenting the situation. the question is specifically and strictly about the blue portal frame of reference, anything on the orange side can be discarded, we don't care, they are two different inertial frames and the question is specifically about the blue portal inertial frame of reference.
in which case, completely discarding whatever tf is going on on orange portal side, we make observations on blue portal side:
cube emerges at certain speed out of portal, ergo has a speed relative to portal
cube has mass
results cube has momentul in blue portal frame of reference, since that's the question, what happens in the blue portal frame of reference.
answer is: depends on the cube's speed relative to blue portal, so can be A or B depending on the cube's speed (and mass).
what happens on the orange side is a pure distraction, irrelevant to the question. we care about cube on BLUE side, not orange side, since the question is about what does the cube do once it's on the blue side, and that's simple to answer, considering it's mass, and speed relative to blue portal.

>>16742001
>the question is specifically and strictly about the blue portal frame of reference, anything on the orange side can be discarded
Blue portal and orange portal are the same frame of reference. Understanding this basic and obvious fact is prerequisite to engaging in this conversation.

>>16742004
no they aren't, there is not reason to include the orange portal frame in the debate, at all, since the question is not about the cube in the orange portal frame of reference, the question OP picture shows only the cube, and the blue portal, it's pretty simple.
what you are doing is forcing the discussion to consider the orange frame of reference, for no reason whatsoever, just so you can have an argument to refute the obvious answer. why should I entertain your trolling? the question in OP's picrel is crystal clear, looking at blue portal frame of reference, what does the cube do. which is simple to answer.

>>16742007
>no they aren't
Yes they are. That's literally the core presumption of OP's argument in favor of B if you had actually read it.
There is nothing that distinguishes the frame of reference of the orange side of the portal from the blue side because they're literally the same hole.

>>16741953
>If translating between reference frames confuses you, then I don't know what to say other than you got filtered.
It doesn't, of course; which is why I've got the correct answer. You, however, arrive at A because you're a sloppy thinker. I count at least three mistakes:
>You define a regular portal fling as continuous momentum through the portal, but you define B as a change in momentum relative to the Earth. This is inconsistent. In reality, both constitute a measurable change in momentum relative to the Earth, and continuous motion through the portal.
>You say the portals are one object and the movement of one is the movement of the other, but in practice this means that the orange dominates the blue, not the other way around. This is inconsistent. It works both ways, and the portal is therefore both moving and not moving within the same frame of reference.
>You at least seem to grasp rationally that a frame of reference only describes motion and does not determine it, but you still argue that the cube's motion is determined by its frame of reference rather than the other way around. That is inconsistent. You contradict yourself.

Your entire conception of portals is based upon a rotten foundation, and that is why no one has bothered with your "breakdown"; your entire analysis is built on loose sand. No, we need to get back to basics first.

Forget what you think you know and put yourself in the shoes of an observer who sees pretty much what the OP shows.
You see the pedestal with the cube on it, stationary within your frame of reference.
You see the piston with the orange portal on it, moving downward within your frame of reference.
You see the slope with the blue portal on it, stationary within your frame of reference.
You cannot see into the portals.

The piston descends towards the cube at, say, 1m/s. You see the cube disappear into the orange portal, at a rate of 1m/s. Simultaneously, you see a cube appear from the blue portal, at 1 m/s.

>>16741953
>>16742175
In other words, we have *measurable movement* of the cube, and not only that, it is still within the same frame of reference.

From your perspective, the cube instantaneously changed its momentum - but this is actually nothing new to portals, if you understand what momentum is.
From the portals' perspective, it's also business as usual: speedy thing in, speedy thing out
From the cube's perspective, it is continuous motion, as if something suddenly held back the pedestal behind it.
From the perspective of an alien observing our solar system from outside, the cube went from roughly 67,000 m/h in one direction to roughly 67,000 m/h in a slightly different direction. Give or take 1m/s.
All of these things are simultaneously true, depending on the frame of reference you choose to measure from. If you are actually consistent, if you do not privilege the movement of one portal over the other within the same frame of reference, if you can properly separate what motion looks like through the portal vs. outside of it, if you understand that motion is relative, then the only conclusion is that the cube is moving relative to the blue portal and therefore, the Earth.

And that means no one has to entertain your ramblings about mass.

>>16741983
>The lamp has a certain speed relative to the elevator. If you cannot grasp why that refutes your argument then you are essentially just broadcasting your low IQ.
The fact that you think it's actually homologous says more about your IQ than mine

>>16742009
>That's literally the core presumption of OP's argument in favor of B if you had actually read it.
Actually the OP argument is very much that whatever happens on the orange side is pretty irrelevant, beyond the relative motion between cube and portal; that this will always result in the same relative motion on the other side of the portal; and that it is the blue portal's motion relative to its environment that determines what that relative motion between cube and portal looks like to an observer.
e.g. a lamp in a hotel somewhere does not enter the equation at any point.

>>16741999
>In which case, the relative motion between the pedestal, the piston, the blue portal, and the cube all become zero.
This is still affirming the consequent.

>>16742228
>Also the impact is trivialised by the force of the Earth behind the wall, you need a force capable of moving the Earth to launch me through the windshield

>>16739245
Okay but I am actually wondering about this. Is it impossible to drop something straight down? If you're, say, in a dirigible that's floating still over Earth, and you try to hit something directly below, you actually have to toss something sideways in the direction opposite to the rotation of the Earth?

... and the argument is that portals actually do this and therefore A?

>>16742317
Momentum from the portals are not imparted on the object, if the user is operating under the functional requirements of the portal.
A portal on a rotating body at a different height is not adding velocity to the traversing cube.
The whinge here is that you can set up a portal going in the opposite direction of the cube and so the motion is reflected about some axis, but the magnitude remains the same.

>>16742175
>The piston descends towards the cube at, say, 1m/s. You see the cube disappear into the orange portal, at a rate of 1m/s. Simultaneously, you see a cube appear from the blue portal, at 1 m/s.
I would see it as two different cubes and would have no reason to conclude otherwise. But there are knock-on effects of the force of the entire earth slamming into the underside of the blue portal that would be quite noticeable even if you're not looking inside either portal. That's the whole point of the analysis I provided that you refuse to respond to.
I am not giving one portal or the other preference here. I am literally treating them as the same object.

>>16742182
>From the cube's perspective, it is continuous motion, as if something suddenly held back the pedestal behind it.
Congratulations. You're almost there. The question is whether the force is actually sufficient to hold the pedestal back or if the pedestal's force is sufficient to push the portal back. Again, my analysis covers this question precisely. But you refuse to acknowledge obvious knock-on effects of this.

>>16742228
>>16742298
This is literally the opposite of my argument.
We'll again assume perfect rigidity:
I'm attached to my car because the car is pushing against my back at [whatever] miles per hour. this is the same as me being stationery and observing a wall approach me at [whatever] miles per hour.
If the force of my car is sufficient to trivialize the force of the wall approaching me, I stay seated as my car just bulldozes the wall. If the wall's force is non-trivial compared to my car, my car's momentum changes relative to me. I feel the seat moving away behind me. I smash into my windshield.
I don't know how you managed to come to the exact opposite conclusion here unless you're just deliberately trying to construct a strawman.

>>16742431
Could you just answer a question in a straightforward manner for a change?

>>16742434
>But there are knock-on effects of the force of the entire earth slamming into the underside of the blue portal that would be quite noticeable even if you're not looking inside either portal.
No, there aren't.
>Congratulations. You're almost there.
I am all the way there. You're the misguided one who fails to consistently apply the principles that should lead a more rigourous mind to B, and you try to patch the inevitable holes in your understanding with yet more bullshit.
You're a hubristic fool. To borrow a phrase, you think you have answers, but you don't. And therein lies the main problem. You refuse to examine your wrong assumptions because you've already provided them with equally wrong rationalisations.

>>16742438
The cope is palpable.
Come back when you actually have an argument.

I am "patching" nothing. You're just arbitrarily ignoring critical information because it leads to results you find counterintuitive. It is your intuition that must be fixed.

>>16742440
>You're just arbitrarily ignoring critical information because it leads to results you find counterintuitive. It is your intuition that must be fixed.
This is literally you lol

You think you're so far ahead of everyone but that's because of all the leaps of logic you took. Your entire house of cards should be torn down and rebuilt on account of the many structural flaws. There are some structurally sound parts; you realise that motion relative to one portal means motion relative to the other, and that motion through the portal is continuous even if it looks like a change in momentum from outside. But even though one should be able to derive B from these premises alone, you weren't up to the task, and instead got mired in your own bullshit. And that's where you are now. Every time someone reaches you a hand to reach the inevitable, elegant solution, you exclaim "but what about my bullshit!"
No one cares. You're only there because you strayed from the path.

You will never convince anyone as long as your arguments contain these glaring inconsistencies that everyone sees but you.

>>16742434
For the record, I obviously don't care about your analysis because it tries to build on a flawed understanding of portals and only has meaning in that context.

>>16742452
>No u!
What information am I ignoring?
So far the argument has been this:
>Let's consider the relative motion between the cube and the blue half of the portal
>Sure! Let's also consider the relative forces between the pedestal and the orange side of the portal.
>No! We are specifically ignoring that because... we just are, okay?

Does the portal coming down upon the pedestal exert enough force to cause a change in the pedestal's momentum relative to the cube? This is the relevant question. You said so yourself here:
>>16742182
>From the cube's perspective, it is continuous motion, as if something suddenly held back the pedestal behind it.
You described this as what the cube sees if it does launch. And this is the correct way of thinking about it. You just haven't taken that next step to ask "does this actually happen? And if so, what are the knock-on effects of this?"

>>16742466
>This is the relevant question.
This is not even in question. It's like you're trying to discuss the height of the great Antarctic Ice Wall encircling us and the rest of us are saying the Earth is round, and you get mad that we refuse to accept your premise that the Earth is a flat disc. You are talking about shit that only matters to your diseased mind.

>You just haven't taken that next step to ask "does this actually happen? And if so, what are the knock-on effects of this?"
I have, the answers are, respectively, "yes" and "nothing". I don't know why you can't accept that.

>>16742466
>What information am I ignoring?
Ah, yes, and if you need it spelled out:
You are ignoring that every relevant fact points to B and that whatever you're on about isn't relevant. You act like more questions need to be answered but I can't stress enough that the only reason you think that is because you already drew a wrong conclusion based on a flawed and inconsistent understanding of the facts. Any question that presupposes that you are correct and that it's ever A need not be answered.

>>16742477
>I have, the answers are, respectively,
>"yes"
Debatable but not out of the question.
>and "nothing"
Absolutely wrong.

Let's slightly adjust the problem:
The pedestal is attached to a satellite in orbit somewhere and the piston is on a collision course.
The blue portal is attached to the earth.
When the piston makes impact, it does so with enough force to knock the satellite out of its orbit.
The answer here is, quite incontrovertibly, B.
The pedestal was knocked away from the cube so from the perspective of the portal: the cube launches. But there is also the obvious side effect of the satellite now following a different trajectory. None of tis is debatable.

Now lets swap their positions:
Pedestal is on the earth and the blue portal is on the satellite.
Piston falls onto earth causing no change to earth's momentum.
We'll ignore the obvious analogy-breaking details like microgravity and the satellite's speed relative to the pedestal on the ground, assume relative velocity is zero.
The answer should, incontrovertibly, be A.

B would occur if the earth's momentum were changed by the piston's impact, but this would also suddenly alter the orbit of the earth. But there are obvious consequences to the earth's orbit suddenly shifting.

Are you starting to get it now? The only reason this is remotely confusing to people is that the pedestal and blue portal are both, presumably, on earth.

>>16742486
I figured I'd come back and respond to this because I bet you think this non-argument is some sort of mic drop moment.

>>16742486
>You are ignoring that every relevant fact points to B and that whatever you're on about isn't relevant.
No, you're just disregarding every fact I bring up as "irrelevant" because you're so stuck on B being the answer that you literally cannot comprehend an argument that points to A.
You accuse me of "presupposing A" but I could accuse you of the same with B.

It's childish nonsense. You cannot demonstrate how these facts I bring up are "irrelevant" because they're not irrelevant. You can't point to any specific fact I'm "ignoring" because I'm not ignoring any. This post comes down to "I will ignore what you say because you disagree with me."
It's cope.

>>16742507
>When the piston makes impact, it does so with enough force to knock the satellite out of its orbit.
>The answer here is, quite incontrovertibly, B.
Yes, your problem is thinking there's a difference.
>The answer should, incontrovertibly, be A.
That's very controvertible, actually. How is "A" even defined in this instance? The cube moves with the satellite? At any rate, probably not what would actually happen: it moves away from the satellite at the speed it entered the portal, which is the speed of the piston relative to Earth, so probably terminal velocity.

It is true that the satellite is knocked off-course in the first scenario, but this is merely incidental. It is not relevant at all to the movement of the cube beyond the portal. That is determined by its relative motion to the portal before and nothing else. So nothing is required from the Earth either. You came up with this superfluous condition for no reason.
>Are you starting to get it now?
If "it" is that you've got some very strange misconceptions about portals, that was already abundantly clear.

>>16742542
>No, you're just disregarding every fact I bring up as "irrelevant" because you're so stuck on B being the answer that you literally cannot comprehend an argument that points to A.
No argument points to A and this is projection on your part. There is nothing to comprehend.

>>16739065 (OP)
Consider the following. A man and his portal are stationary in respect to each other. But they both move to the left relative to the ground and relative too the other portal. Here are the facts:
- the portal is a wormhole and not a 3D printer, the space between entry and exit is continuous.
- the man sees the world in the orange portal as stationary relative to him.
- this same world, outside of the blue portal, is moving to the right relative to him.
- his body is moving to the left relative to the world but his body is also stationary relative to the same world.
- his body is both moving and not moving. this is a contradiction that only quantum physicists could live with.
- anywhere you have a contradiction it can only mean 1 thing to normal people: it is not possible, ie the premise must be false.
=> portals cannot move relative to each other.

This proof should end all of these "a or b" threads.

>>16742548
>How is "A" even defined in this instance? The cube moves with the satellite?
Correct.

>it moves away from the satellite at the speed it entered the portal, which is the speed of the piston relative to Earth
No, because remember: the piston impacting the pedestal is the same as the earth impacting the blue portal on the satellite. The momentum shift would be felt on the satellite. It would be as if the earth is bulldozing the satellite along with the cube (again, I'm assuming perfect rigidity. The satellite should be obliterated by the impact otherwise).
Cube, piston, earth, and satellite are now moving at the same rate. Cube does not launch.

>It is true that the satellite is knocked off-course in the first scenario, but this is merely incidental. It is not relevant at all to the movement of the cube beyond the portal
Wrong. It is literally the reason the cube launches. Something has to change the pedestal's momentum relative to the cube for the cube to launch. Cube is not touched, so the force must be applied to the pedestal and, by extension, whatever it is attached to.

>That is determined by its relative motion to the portal before and nothing else.
No. You're just arbitrarily ignoring the core necessary condition for the launch to occur (change in pedestal's momentum relative to the cube) because accepting that plainly obvious fact would mean admitting you haven't thought this problem through.

Idk if it was you who constructed the strawman about the car, but see the corrected version I provided here: >>16742434

>>16742558
No, it just means two things can be true simultaneously with portals.

>>16739118
based

>>16742558
Consider a real space with some objects in it. The object has a reference of a nearby ruler registering a speed of 3 m/s. The space is moving in the opposing direction at 5000 m/s
How fast does the object appear to everybody not in the space?

>>16742549
Let me really drive this point home for you:
Take another look at this video without sperging and saying it's "irrelevant."
>>16739118
If anon had slammed the paper down with sufficient force and speed to drive the counter into the foundation below faster than the stone can fall, we'd have scenario B. The stone would be moving upwards relative to the counter. But doing so would obviously require much more force than simply lifting the stone.
This is why any argument regarding the cube's mass and speed relative to the portal is intrinsically flawed. Anon's ability to bear down onto his counter with such force is largely independent of the mass of the stone. He either drives the counter into the foundation and we get B, or he doesn't and we get A.

>>16739065 (OP)
you are not correct, the answer is a but i dont feel like proving it.
which object has momentum in this thought experiment? its the orange portal does this portal impart any momentum to the block? no, it cant. from the blocks perspective the only change is the direction of gravity on the blue side.

>>16742560
>No,
Yes. Necessarily so, in fact. Speedy thing goes is, speedy thing goes out.
>It is literally the reason the cube launches.
It has literally nothing to do with it.
>You're just arbitrarily ignoring the core necessary condition for the launch to occur
The necessary condition is relative motion, nothing more.
The cube is in motion relative to the blue portal when it emerges, wherever the blue portal is. That says enough. You are still hung up on objective motion, absolute frames of reference, or whatever faulty assumption lies at the root of this.

>>16742597
Ah, there we go, you're just taking a lot uf words to say "it's a hula hoop", which is false

>>16739076
>portals don't exist
How do you know this? It's either immensely arrogant or ignorant to claim that portals don't exist. How did you check that this is true in the whole universe and past and future too? How did you make sure that angels don't exist and are using portals to move around? I guess you just know everything about the universe if you can make this claim. What you really meant to say is "I've never seen a portal, so I don't know the answer".

>>16742619
>no, it cant.
Yes, it can. Thus is shown in the games.

>>16742625
>Yes. Necessarily so, in fact. Speedy thing goes is, speedy thing goes out.
You did not address my argument.
>It has literally nothing to do with it.
That's the only thing that matters. Definitionally. If there is no relative change in momentum between the pedestal and the cube, the cube never leaves the pedestal. That's just wat these words mean.
>The necessary condition is relative motion
between the pedestal and the cube, correct.
>The cube is in motion relative to the blue portal when it emerges
and then it stops being in relative motion when the blue portal impacts the pedestal.
>You are still hung up on objective motion, absolute frames of reference
No. The relative motion between the pedestal and the cube is all that matters here. No need to consider any "objective" frame of reference because no such thing exists.

>>16742627
>you're just taking a lot uf words to say "it's a hula hoop", which is false
Demonstrate how the situation is meaningfully different.
That you have resorted to trolling just shows that you know you're argument holds no water and are struggling an a vain attempt to avoid admitting you were mistaken.

I am nested against the mountainside of the Earth, approximately rotating 1000 mph. A portal smasher comes at me going 1060 mph. What is the minimum safe distance the spikes need to be to ensure my regular size penis is not scratched?

>>16742629
No momentum shift is ever shown in the games. A portal creates a non-Euclidean surface for all observers.

>>16742658
>You did not address my argument.
I did. The cube necessarily moves because that's how portals work. You're going against logic and the known workings of portals.
>If there is no relative change in momentum between the pedestal and the cube, the cube never leaves the pedestal.
There is. But all that means is thr cube moves. You see, it *already* moves and if you insist the pedestal *must* furthermore move in its frame of reference to affect another frame if reference you're not just suggesting magic connections between frames of reference but also adding the same movement twice.
>and then it stops being in relative motion when the blue portal impacts the pedestal.
Literally no reason to. It's in motion and remains in motion.

>>16742629
it is not shown to impart momentum, it only preserves momentum. since in this experiment the block itself has no momentum before orange, it will preserve that momentum after blue. it remains 0 from the blocks perspective.

>>16742680
Let's establish some basic facts about portals so that you're no longer confused:
>Both sides of a portal are one hole. They are connected in non-Euclidean space.
>Any two walls with a portal connecting them become opposite sides of the same wall, at least at the boundary of the portal.
>Any straight-line path through a portal is a straight line in all reference frames, even if that path intersects itself.
Do you disagree with any of these statements? If so, why?

thoughts?

>>16742698
>it is not shown to impart momentum, it only preserves momentum.
Momentum is relative. The cube is in motion relative to the portal and that's what's maintained.

>>16740017
>Maybe you ought to respond to it
I did, it's B. I can see how you could miss that, since you seem too illiterate to read, which is why you responded to mostly pictures.

>>16742733
>Momentum is relative.
You keep saying this. But you clearly don't understand what that means.

>>16742713
>Both sides of a portal are one hole.
Yes; but they are also separate entities.
>Any two walls with a portal connecting them become opposite sides of the same wall, at least at the boundary of the portal.
I disagree with this; this depends entirely on what purposes you have.
>Any straight-line path through a portal is a straight line in all reference frames
No, that's precisely the point. From some perspectives it'll look like a complete change. Even in the games without moving portals.
It's not *my* confusion we're clearing up, by the way, since you seem to be confused about that. You were off in all three counts, disagreeing even with the base games.

>>16742736
>I did, it's B.
So literally what the OP said. And you're calling me illiterate?

>>16742738
I appear to be the only one who knows.

>>16742733
momentum is based on the relative frame of refrence and since we are solving from the cubes frame of refrence.. we only look at its momentum througout the experiment. in order for b to be truth it would need to gain momentum at some point while its passing through the e-space since its base is on the other surface if the top half gains momentum before the bottom it would be ripped apart as it passes through or it would begin to lift off of the platform before it was fully through.

>>16742719
B-tards will have you believe that because the piston speed is pumped only into half the cube, that it will go that much shorter.

>>16742739
>Yes; but they are also separate entities.
In what way?
>this depends entirely on what purposes you have.
How?
>No, that's precisely the point. From some perspectives it'll look like a complete change.
"looks like" is not the same as "is."
A prefect, non-degrading, orbit IS a straight line even if it LOOKS elliptical (assuming General Relativity is perfectly accurate). It does not matter what your frame of reference is. It is following a straight geodesic according to all frames of reference.
Likewise, anyone can cross into a portal at any angle and experience no shift in momentum. You can observe any object crossing a portal in a straight line, experiencing no force, and coming out the other end preserving its trajectory. The space just became non-Euclidean.

Absolute motion is real and A is the only sensible answer.
B-tards are schizophrenic.

>>16742746
>since we are solving from the cubes frame of refrence.
Are we? All right, from the cube's frame if reference it goes from an environment in which it is stationary to one in which it isn't, without changing its own speed.

>>16742750
>In what way?
In the way that they can have different motion within the same frame of reference.
>How?
They're the same wall for something passing through, but not for something hitting the wall.
>It does not matter what your frame of reference is. It is following a straight geodesic according to all frames of reference.
All right, fine, I didn't realise we were at the part where we agree that it's B yet

>>16742760
>In the way that they can have different motion within the same frame of reference.
>They're the same wall for something passing through, but not for something hitting the wall.
This viewpoint is inherently self-inconsistent.
We can resolve this inconsistency by simply understanding it as one hole in opposite sides of one wall.
If you put both sides of a portal on two boxes, then put one on a conveyer belt, it is perfectly consistent to say that the wall the conveyer is leading to on one box is approaching the backside of the wall on the other box.
No mystical thinking. No magical changing of reference frames by walking through a hole. No reference frames of special importance. Just perfectly self consistent, albeit non-Euclidean, spacial reasoning.

>All right, fine, I didn't realise we were at the part where we agree that it's B yet
Once you understand these basic facts about portals, you will learn it was A the whole time.

>>16742756
>from the cube's frame if reference it goes from an environment in which it is stationary to one in which it isn't, without changing its own speed.
That's not true. The portal experiences teleportation drag as in engulfs the cube. That energy becomes the acceleration of the cube. From the cube's POV it feels like falling into a hole. From the portal's it feels like pushing your hand into water.

>>16742719
It's B.
Unless the portal decelerates fast enough, in which case the cube rips apart.

>>16742775
You have said nothing to lead me to believe it is A yet, and indeed, every fact still points to B

>>16742815
You just made all of that up. But it's actually not a bad impression of the A side so far.

>>16742825
Now now, slow your roll. I've only just begun to fix your flawed understanding of portals.

Consider this illustration:
Somewhere in outer space, a cube and an observer float stationary relative to each other. Both the piston and the pedestal are on a collision course, traveling at the same rate, to make impact at the center position of the cube.
Would you agree that outcome A at the bottom left of the image is distinct from outcome B at the bottom right according to all frames of reference?
Different reference frames may view the event that actually happens in various ways, but they would all agree that these two bottom scenarios represent different events. Yes?

>>16742827
>You just made all of that up
No. It's obvious that it has to be that way, because the energy has to come from somewhere. If the energy is free, then you could drop the portal on top of something larger than itself, for example the tip of a mountain, at it would be able to accelerate the tip, but not the mountain, at any speed the portal was traveling.

This means that you could break the tip of the mountain with enough speed, but this is not a mechanical failure that follows the line where the rock was weak, but instead a perfect line. A cut? A cut that generated no friction? We're back at the free energy problem. A cut that generated friction? So you could do an infinitely big cut and generate an infinite amount of heat? Where does it come from? We're back at the free energy problem.

None of the scenarios make sense, and that's how I know that the portal can't give free energy, and therefore everything the portal does costs energy. Therefore the portal has to feel some drag, and the opposite and equal force is that the object feels an acceleration.

Portal drag is also the only explanation as to why portals can remain attached to a surface, but I won't explain it.

>>16742742
Correct I responded by agreeing. You seem incredibly mad over a situation you invented in your head. I have to assume you're functionally illiterate because otherwise you're a turbosperg retard, which is more mean.

>>16742558
Even if you forbid portals to move relative to each other. You can still make this kind of contradiction with movement direction, and with elevation. If portals are not allowed to move relative to each other, that same logic should forbid them pointing in different directions, or be at different elevations.

>>16742719
The portal closes cutting the cube in half. The half of the cube on the blue side flies, whilst the remaining half remains stationary on the platform.

>>16742698
I still don't comprehend how you think stationary matter can exit a stationary portal. This is incompatible with basic geometry.

>>16742880
The blue portal IS the orange portal. It is falling around the cube in exactly the same way the piston does.

>>16742883
Whatever gibberish you are talking about in regards to the portal moving around the cube. Its incompatible with basic geometry. Physical matter has to exist in some location in space. Portals are 2 dimensional, they have no interior space. Forget about the orange portal for a second and just focus on the blue portal. An observer standing at the blue portal sees the cube emerging from the portal. The leading edge of that cube has a physical location in space. The observer sees that leading edge moving in front of them, they can even touch it. Explain to me what the portal "moving around the cube" means for an observer at the blue portal physically touching cube as it emerges from the portal.

>>16742887
>that cube has a physical location in space
nobody tell him

>>16742887
>Forget about the orange portal for a second and just focus on the blue portal
They're the same portal. Failure to understand this is failure to understand the question.

>Explain to me what the portal "moving around the cube" means for an observer at the blue portal physically touching cube as it emerges from the portal.
He's falling right along with the portal along a 4D vector. Events that follow are downstream of this.

>>16741999
Man there are some serious retards in this thread

>>16742936
Yeah. Imagine having such a hard time understanding that A is the correct answer.

>>16742892
>They're the same portal. Failure to understand this is failure to understand the question.
Then you failed to understand the question, because they're not the same portal. What properties did you use to decide that they're the same portal? Let's see, two objects are the same object if:
>they're in the same position in space
The portals don't meet this requirement.
>and they're under the action of the same forces
The portals don't need to be facing the same direction, so no.
>and they're in the same frame of reference
No.
>and they're made of the same atoms
No. Different colors means different wavelength of light.
>and they have the same mass
Did you weigh both portals?
>and they're actually the same fucking object, of which only one can exist
Use your eyes retard. So how did you decide that both portals are the same portal? If tomorrow they find two black holes that are somehow connected, are you gonna start saying that they're the same black hole? You fucking moron. Cocksucker.

>>16742892
>>16743011
And I forgot to say, I can place one portal without the other. Did you even play the game dumbass? You're gonna have a hard time coping with these facts. Well deserved. You're gonna touch yourself tonight to sleep, and we both know you'll be thinking of men.

>>16743011
>they're in the same position in space
Yes. That is exactly what a portal is. A non-Euclidean merging of otherwise distinct points in space. A portal satisfies this by definition.
>and they're in the same frame of reference
Yes. This is what I've been arguing the whole time. Anything that happens from the perspective of orange is also happening from the perspective of blue.
>they're made of the same atoms
>and they have the same mass
A portal isn't really an "object," but a hole. No atoms/mass necessary.
>and they're actually the same fucking object
Is one end of a straw the same hole as the other end of a straw?

>>16743012
>I can place one portal without the other.
Until the second one is placed, the linkage is just to the same point it would be linked to otherwise.
>You're gonna touch yourself tonight to sleep, and we both know you'll be thinking of men.
Trannies, but that's neither here nor there.

Pack it up folks

>>16743030
Now ask oss-120b

I think Leo might be retarded.

>>16743076
Took me a while, but I think I got Leo to understand the question:

>>16742507
All right, I failed to properly appreciate the ridiculousness of what you're suggesting here before, but I've slept on it and now I truly see the absurdity.

So, to make sure I properly understand: in the satellite scenario, you say B happens because the satellite is knocked out of orbit. The cube moves away from the blue portal, presumably indefinitely without gravity, as long as the satellite continues its new trajectory, which creates the motion relative between the cube and its initial resting place necessary to propel it. And if we bring the satellite to a relative standstill, the cube would immediately stop in its tracks.

That would also mean that if we give the satellite a second impulse, the cube would speed up mid-flight. Conversely, if we restore the satellite to its original orbit, we can actually reverse the cube's path - all the way back to the pedestal. And, if we make the satellite spin, we can make the cube do loop-de-loops. I wonder, if a little bird kept pace with the cube, so that it is in the same frame of reference, the same motion relative to the pedestal on the other side of the portal, is it also affected? If we close the portal, the cube presumably also stops - but if we re-open them, does the relevant motion become relevant again, or is the connection permanently severed?

Also, motion being relative, it means we can do the following. We have two stationary portals. I toss a cube into the orange portal. THEN the orange portal moves away from me. So the cube should come flying back to me, right? Or does it depend on relative mass? Like, you could do it if you put the portal on a locomotive, but if it were on a sheet of paper, the cube's mass would prevent it from moving?

>>16742507
>>16743106
At which point did you realise that your understanding of relative motion is hopelessly flawed? That, despite your insistance to the contrary, it does contain vestigial notions regarding absolute motion and frames of reference acting upon objects? That you are putting the cart before the horse? That you are fixated upon what happens on the orange side of the portal when you should be looking at the blue? And that your inability to properly distinguish between the two has come to bite you in the arse? How many absurdities implied by your portal model did it take?

This would be the mic drop moment.

>>16742865
You just agreed with an illiterate turbosperg retard, what does that make you?

>>16743106
>>16743109
>in the satellite scenario, you say B happens because the satellite is knocked out of orbit. The cube moves away from the blue portal, presumably indefinitely without gravity, as long as the satellite continues its new trajectory, which creates the motion relative between the cube and its initial resting place necessary to propel it. And if we bring the satellite to a relative standstill, the cube would immediately stop in its tracks.
Incorrect. It's the *change* in momentum between the pedestal and the cube that matters. Once that change happens, their relative momentum is no longer linked and anything that happens to one no longer happens to the other. But the relative change must happen first.

Every other part of your argument is downstream of your misunderstanding of my argument so I can safely ignore it unless you give me reason otherwise.

I'm curious to know if you'd be wiling to entertain this line of reasoning though, because the other guy doesn't seem to want to play with me for now (or just went to bed, either or):
>>16742842

>>16743119
>It's the *change* in momentum between the pedestal and the cube that matters.
That happens as soon as the cube fully exits the blue portal. It is measurably in motion relative to the blue portal. At this point, already nothing that happens on the other side of the portal could possibly affect the cube. It is in motion and will stay in motion. The cube coming out of the portal when the pedestal doesn't *is* the change in relative momentum you're looking for. It's been B all along.

And, fine,
>>16742842
>Would you agree that outcome A at the bottom left of the image is distinct from outcome B at the bottom right according to all frames of reference?
No, of course not. Motion is relative. In a blank void I don't even have a way to distinguish between these scenarios. In fact, what is supposed to be the difference? You described both sides being on a collision course, travelling at the same rate, and the observer being stationary relative to the cube. What can I observe other than the piston and pedestal meeting in the middle?

>>16743129
>nothing that happens on the other side of the portal could possibly affect the cube
False. Blue and orange portal are other sides of the same hole.
It's just a hole.

>>16743129
>The cube coming out of the portal when the pedestal doesn't *is* the change in relative momentum you're looking for.
There's a major caveat here you are missing. But we will get there.

>>16743129
>Motion is relative
I agree.
>>16743129
>In a blank void I don't even have a way to distinguish between these scenarios. In fact, what is supposed to be the difference?
I put the observer there for a reason. The observer exists.
Whether your reference frame is stationary to the observer and you see the piston/pedestal move left or right or you are stationary relative to something else and you see the pedestal/piston pair depart from the observer in some other way, you WOULD be able to tell the difference if event A or B happened. Even if they both move the same direction relative to you and one is jut slower. The observer is an object here.

>>16743137
>False. Blue and orange portal are other sides of the same hole.
nothing that happens on the other side of a hole can physically affect the cube because the cube is on this side of the hole.
>There's a major caveat here you are missing.
I'm not missing anything. You are mistakenly adding momentum twice: the cube already comes out of the blue portal, is already measurably in motion relative to it; and this alone already implies B. But you mistakenly believe there must furthermore be a second relative motion happening on the other side of the portal counter to this one in order to make it happen. It's not just doubling the momentum, it's also labouring under the mistaken apprehension that motion on the orange side of the portal affects something on the blue side, which is at its core no less absurd than all the loop-de-loops I described above and for exact the same reasons.
>Whether your reference frame is stationary to the observer and you see the piston/pedestal move left or right or you are stationary relative to something else and you see the pedestal/piston pair depart from the observer in some other way, you WOULD be able to tell the difference if event A or B happened.
So what, I'm now observing the observer? So actually, I'm the observer, and the other observer is just along for the ride?
But no, there's still no difference in what happens. The relative motion is the same regardless of how I position myself - the same, except in relation to me, that is. But again, that doesn't actually affect what happens. I'm observing, not touching. I'm not involved in the motion of these things.

>>16743137
>>16743143
In fact how can you argue there's a difference "in all frames of reference" when the only difference *is me changing my frame of reference*?

>>16743143
>othing that happens on the other side of a hole can physically affect the cube because the cube is on this side of the hole.
You're so close I can taste it.
>>16743143
>I'm not missing anything
Just let me cook. Don't worry your pretty little head.

>>16743143
>So what, I'm now observing the observer? So actually, I'm the observer, and the other observer is just along for the ride?
The observer I have depicted as a poorly drawn eyeball exist independently of you.
It is a separate object that you can compare the motion of the pedestal/piston pair to.
Look at the illustration again. The eyeball is a physical object here. It was stationary to the cube before the impact. What is different between scenario A and scenario B?

>>16743154
>You're so close I can taste it.
Funny, I get the same sense about you.

>The observer I have depicted as a poorly drawn eyeball exist independently of you.
You could have chosen anything and you decided to make it "an observer" whose purpose is not to observe anything, but be observed, by me, the implied observer who isn't depicted. Are you being intentionally obfuscatory?

>The eyeball is a physical object here. It was stationary to the cube before the impact. What is different between scenario A and scenario B?
So what else is missing? This is taking place in outer space, the piston and pedestal collide at some point and come to a relative rest, why does the observer suddenly move this way or that when nothing acted upon him?

I suppose you're going to say it implies a difference in the relative mass of the piston and pedestal. But it makes zero difference anyway to the relative motion of the cube and portal.

>>16743159
>Why does the observer suddenly move this way or that when nothing acted upon him?
Let's not concern ourselves with "why." Just that all frames of reference would agree that events A and B are different. Yes or no?

>>16743159
>>16743168
Btw, I'll reiterate that the observer was, before impact, stationary relative to the cube. This is important.

>>16743168
Yeah, sure

>>16743173
So the "all frames of reference" that would agree that the two events are different includes the blue portal. Isn't that right?

>>16743176
No appreciable difference* as far as the relative motion of the cube and portal are concerned, but yes, somewhere far off, something is different.

*If you're going to bring mass into this at some point, which you're probably itching to do, there would probably be a slight difference in how fast the cube enters the portal, depending on whether the pedestal's mass is actually so small that it could not budge the cube, or so big that the cube is swept up by it. But unless the movement between the piston/pedestal is very slow to begin with, which their motion relative to the observer suggests it isn't, it's still going to be some degree of B.

>>16743181
>If you're going to bring mass into this at some point
No. There's something much more basic about this situation that you're missing and it has to do with a portal being *just a hole*.

New illustration. Let's say there's two cubes. I want you to describe, in your own words, what is happening between panel A and panel B.

>>16743185
The same thing as before except now there's a cube that is either hit by the platform and swept up by it, or left behind as the piston passes it by.
And you are going to draw a false equivalence between this cube and the one that just went through the blue portal.

I've already figured out what happens to the cube that goes through the portal, it's actually elementary. The piston and pedestal are moving at the same speed, say x. Their speed relative to each other is therefore 2x. They meet in the middle. When they are at exactly a cube's length from each other, the pedestal is touching the cube, and the portal begins to engulf it.
If the mass of the pedestal is negligible compared to the cube, it is stopped by the cube, and the piston completes the final cube's length before hitting the pedestal at a relative speed of x. The cube enters the portal at speed x, and exits the blue portal at speed x, relative to the portal.
If the mass of the cube is negligible compared to the pedestal, it will be swept up by it, and the relative motion between piston and pedestal is unchanged. The cube enters the portal at a speed of 2x, and exits the blue portal at 2x.
Any other combination of relative mass will result in a speed between x and 2x on the blue side. Curiously, it seems your A scenario would actually result in the greater speed for the cube.

>>16740602
but the cube isn't moving so what momentum would cause it to suddenly fly away like that?

>>16743185
>>16743192
>The same thing as before except now there's a cube that is either hit by the platform and swept up by it, or left behind as the piston passes it by.
Ah, and, of course, the pedestal will have hit the other cube in both cases as well, because they were due to meet in the middle. So the fact that it is still stationary relative to the observer in your scenario B suggests that the pedestal (in this case) has negligible mass indeed, which is confirmed by it being swept aside by the piston.

>>16743192
>And you are going to draw a false equivalence between this cube and the one that just went through the blue portal.
The equivalence is not false. A portal is:
Just.
A.
Hole.
There is an absolute equivalence between the two cubes until the moment one cube experiences a force that the other does not.

>If the mass of the pedestal is negligible compared to the cube
I'll just stop you there. We can assume the cube's mass is a rounding error from zero because the cube's mass does not factor in to whether it launches.

>If the mass of the cube is negligible compared to the pedestal, it will be swept up by it, and the relative motion between piston and pedestal is unchanged. The cube enters the portal at a speed of 2x, and exits the blue portal at 2x.
>Any other combination of relative mass will result in a speed between x and 2x on the blue side. Curiously, it seems your A scenario would actually result in the greater speed for the cube.
I'll just take the cat out of the bag and tell you what matters is the relative mass of the pedestal and the piston. The cube's mass is irrelevant. The cube "launches" at the *difference* of the two forces upon impact, not the sum. You adding the forces like this is not much different from the error people make interpreting pic related.

>>16743194
>the pedestal will have hit the other cube in both cases as well, because they were due to meet in the middle. So the fact that it is still stationary relative to the observer in your scenario B suggests that the pedestal (in this case) has negligible mass indeed, which is confirmed by it being swept aside by the piston.
I was hoping you were intelligent enough to know to disregard obvious pedantry like this. Reinterpret the image but as if the second cube started offset by exactly one half the width of the first cube.

>>16742733
no it's sitting perfectly still relative to the slanted surface the blue portal is attached to, the portal means that it's not the piston moving towards it but the area outside the blue portal

>>16743197
>The equivalence is not false.
It absolutely is. A portal is a hole *that translates momentum*. You're insisting on translating it back after.
>We can assume the cube's mass is a rounding error from zero because the cube's mass does not factor in to whether it launches.
Indeed, it launches either way; it just determines how fast.
>I'll just take the cat out of the bag and tell you what matters is the relative mass of the pedestal and the piston.
Yes, indeed, I had clocked you several posts ago, but you're wrong.
>The cube "launches" at the *difference* of the two forces upon impact, not the sum.
This is in fact physically and logically impossible. The cube enters the portal at a relative speed of at least x and at most 2x , and therefore, necessarily, exits the portal at a relative speed of at least x and at most 2x.
>I was hoping you were intelligent enough to know to disregard obvious pedantry like this.
Well, it wasn't a necessary detail but it seemed to me that you can get pretty pedantic.

>>16743199
That also means that it's the cube moving towards the blue portal

>>16743203
>A portal is a hole *that translates momentum*.
And you insist on translating it in a logically inconsistent way.
The blue and orange sides of the portal are part of the same hole and are therefore the same frame of reference. You're giving special importance to the blue half when it is no different from the orange half.

>>16743203
>he cube enters the portal at a relative speed of at least x and at most 2x , and therefore, necessarily, exits the portal at a relative speed of at least x and at most 2x.
But it never leaves the pedestal until there is a relative change in momentum. It doesn't matter what side of the portal the pedestal is on because it is infinitesimally distant from the other side anyway. The infinitesimal approaches zero in all relevant equations.

>>16743205
it only *looks* like it's moving but it is still standing still even as it seemingly flies towards the portal and would not suddenly fly because of momentum because there never was any as it's the space between the cube and the portal that is moving and not the cube.

i.e think of dropping a ring around a box, from the rings perspective the box was flying towards it at a high speed but in actuality the box is standing still and it's just the hole of the ring that's moving towards it and once the ring hits the ground the box will still be standing still despite seemingly flying through the ring at a high speed

>in actuality the box is standing still and it's just the hole of the ring that's moving
See? A-fags always eventually reveal that they believe in absolute motion.

>>16743214
>A-fags always eventually reveal that they believe in absolute motion.
No absolute motion required. Just relative mass between impactor and impacted.

>>16743208
>And you insist on translating it in a logically inconsistent way.
No, in the only logically consistent way. It's syllogistic.
1. The cube enters the portal at a relative speed between x and 2x
2. Whatever enters the portal on one side immediately passes through and exits on the other, as it's just a hole
Ergo, what is the relative speed of the cube as it exits the portal?
>You're giving special importance to the blue half when it is no different from the orange half.
You're giving special importance to the orange side without realising it, when you say that the cube's movement should exactly mirror that of another cube on the orange side that did not pass through the portal. All that matters is the relative motion between the cube and both portals, which has to be consistent.
>But it never leaves the pedestal until there is a relative change in momentum.
Indeed, which you will note happens at the exact moment the cube has passed completely through the portal, because it is moving at a relative speed of at least x and the pedestal's relative motion necessarily ceases at that point, when the cube has no reason to do the same.

Like I said, B is already implied by the cube exiting the portal. Insisting on an additional relative change in momentum is adding it twice.

it's not absolute motion it's literally just what is happening in the experiment from the observers pov

>>16743209
>it only *looks* like it's moving but it is still standing still
No, it only looks like the area outside the blue portal is moving to the cube

>>16743221
>Ergo, what is the relative speed of the cube as it exits the portal?
zero
it just plops out

>>16743221
>1. The cube enters the portal at a relative speed between x and 2x
>2. Whatever enters the portal on one side immediately passes through and exits on the other, as it's just a hole
>Ergo, what is the relative speed of the cube as it exits the portal?
There is also an impactor, ie. The pedestal, influencing the relative motion of the portal vs the cube. Once impact occurs, the relative motion between the portal and the cube changes. That moment defines the trajectory of the cube relative to the pedestal it is already attached to.
>You're giving special importance to the orange side
No. I'm saying it is exactly the same object as the blue side. No special importane given to either.
>when you say that the cube's movement should exactly mirror that of another cube on the orange side that did not pass through the portal
*until one cube experiences a force the other does not.
Did you miss that part or are you deliberately ignoring it?

>All that matters is the relative motion between the cube and both portals, which has to be consistent.
I agree. And the pedestal the cube is being pushed by is half the equation that defines this motion. You seem to keep ignoring what happens upon impact.

>which you will note happens at the exact moment the cube has passed completely through the portal, because it is moving at a relative speed of at least x and the pedestal's relative motion necessarily ceases at that point
Once again, the distance between the pedestal and the other side of the portal is infinitesimal. Infinitesimal = 0.
The cube doesn't suddenly ignore all forces pushing it on one side if the portal just because it crossed over to the other side.

On that note, it's well past my bedtime and I'm more than a few sheets to the wind. I'll respond to your rebuttal in the morning.

>>16743235
>There is also an impactor, ie. The pedestal, influencing the relative motion of the portal vs the cube.
Yes, that's the difference between x and 2x.
>No. I'm saying it is exactly the same object as the blue side.
For it to be the same, the *relative motion* has to be the same; not the motion relative to either environment, and certainly not the motion relative to the environment on the orange side.
>Did you miss that part or are you deliberately ignoring it?
I'm ignoring it because it's not relevant. One cube went through the portal, the other didn't. From that moment onwards, their frames of reference no longer align.
>You seem to keep ignoring what happens upon impact.
The cube enters the portal at a speed between x and 2x. That's what happens. There is only one possible conclusion.
>The cube doesn't suddenly ignore all forces pushing it on one side if the portal just because it crossed over to the other side.
There are literally no forces on the other side possibly pushing it at the moment it leaves the pedestal. But up until that point, yes, they make the difference between x and 2x.

If this thread is still here by your morning, can your response include which premise of my syllogism you deny?

>>16743241
Alright. You caught me at a moment of weakness and I checked my phone...

>Yes, that's the difference between x and 2x.
Remember: x is the speed of the pedestal. If the box moves at x relative to the observer I drew, it's not moving at all relative to the pedestal. That's how A occurs.
>and certainly not the motion relative to the environment on the orange side.
The environment on the orange side IS the environment according to the blue side. It's the same hole.
>One cube went through the portal, the other didn't. From that moment onwards, their frames of reference no longer align.
Both portals are the same frame of reference because they are the same hole.
>The cube enters the portal at a speed between x and 2x. That's what happens.
And x = the speed of the pedestal.
>There are literally no forces on the other side possibly pushing it at the moment it leaves the pedestal
The entire purpose of this discussion is to ascertain whether the cube ever leaves the pedestal. What do you think we were even arguing about? Lmao.

Okay. NOW bedtime.

>>16743247
>If the box moves at x relative to the observer I drew, it's not moving at all relative to the pedestal.
But at 2x relative to the portal.
>The environment on the orange side IS the environment according to the blue side.
Yes and no. Certainly, if we were to go *through* the blue portal to the other side, we can treat that as an extension of the environment on the blue side, with all that would entail. But at the same time, portals also literally mean that an environment can be in motion relative to itself. So if we use the environment to figure out what happens, it inevitably ends in contradiction.
>Both portals are the same frame of reference because they are the same hole.
Which is why the relative speed must match on both sides. But they are also *not* in the same frame of reference because they are literally moving relative to each other.
For the environments to match up, the movement of the blue portal relative to its environment has to match that of the orange portal relative to its environment; or *the* environment, if you will.
In >>16743185, A would look the same on both sides of the portal and the cubes would be perfectly aligned *if*, on the blue side, the blue portal would also change direction immediately after the cube passes through to match what happens with the pedestal and cube on the orange side. The relative motion between the cube and the blue portal would then be cancelled out by the blue portal following the cube at the same speed. And, I'm sure you'll note, that's also what happens to the orange portal. It changes direction. So yes, the same relative speed can result in the same relative outcome if you make sure to align every part.
B, of course, looks the same already.
>The entire purpose of this discussion is to ascertain whether the cube ever leaves the pedestal.
It's measurably in motion so it has no reason to do anything else.

No mention of my syllogism? I'm disappointed.

>>16743230
You may have noticed it takes more than this to troll me these days

>>16743247
>>16743257
>So yes, the same relative speed can result in the same relative outcome if you make sure to align every part.
And, in fact, there's a symmetry to it. The relative motion of the cube and the portal will match up for observers on either side of the portal if we match the movement of the portals relative to the observers.
If we move the blue portal left at speed relative to an observer on that side, then the cube will come out of the portal at a relative speed between x and 2x, which means that, relative to the observer, it's going to move right at a speed between x and 2x, minus x (i.e., the speed of the portal in the opposite direction).
Then, when the pedestal and piston collide on the orange side, they move right relative to the observer on that side, sweeping up the cube that's still on that side. The speed? It has to be between x and 2x, minus x, matching that of the cube. So if, at this exact moment, we also reverse the blue portal's motion so that it matches the cube exactly, we have performed exactly the same operations on both portals, and the positions of the cubes match.

But if you don't match the movement of the portals, then observations are going to differ. Although, if we don't do anything to the blue portal, but imagine a virtual orange portal which is allowed to continue its original path from the point of impact onwards, then if we look at the path of the cube beyond the blue portal relative to this virtual portal, it'll also match up exactly with the real cube on the orange side.

I consider this a win for the B model - relative speed in, relative speed out - that it matches your expected observations with the caveat that we have to do the same thing to both portals.

>>16743299
>If we move the blue portal left at speed relative to an observer
At speed x, of course

>>16743193
It is moving relative to the portal. Forgot Einsteinian Relativity?

>>16743257
>But at 2x relative to the portal.
But it ceases to be the moment impact with the pedestal happens, which is the only moment that matters here.
>portals also literally mean that an environment can be in motion relative to itself. So if we use the environment to figure out what happens, it inevitably ends in contradiction.
Not necessarily. Motion of the portal is translation of which two 3D points are linked by 4D motion.
Point me to an example of a contradiction you perceive from this and I'll consider whether the contradiction is "legitimate."
>Which is why the relative speed must match on both sides
And this only matters the moment after the pedestal and piston make impact. Nothing magical happens when the cube crosses over. The cube MUST be under all the same influences after crossing that it was before crossing.
>A would look the same on both sides of the portal and the cubes would be perfectly aligned *if*, on the blue side, the blue portal would also change direction immediately after the cube passes through to match what happens with the pedestal and cube on the orange side
If I understand what you're trying to communicate correctly, yes. This is exactly what I argue does, indeed, happen. The backside of the blue portal would feel the same impact the orange portal feels because the orange portal IS the backside of the blue portal.
Which ten, of course, gets into bizarre questions regarding whether two objects linked by a portal therefore share the same mass. That is exactly the issue I explore here and nobody has addressed it:
>>16741737

>It's measurably in motion so it has no reason to do anything else.
The only relative motion that matters here is the relative motion with the pedestal. The moment that changes is the moment the piston makes impact with it. What matters is the nature of that change.

>No mention of my syllogism? I'm disappointed.
I'm not positive what syllogism you're referring to.

>>16743299
>If we move the blue portal left at speed relative to an observer on that side, then the cube will come out of the portal at a relative speed between x and 2x, which means that, relative to the observer, it's going to move right at a speed between x and 2x, minus x (i.e., the speed of the portal in the opposite direction).
So far I had been assuming the blue portal is stationary relative to whatever observer is watching it. Yeah it's trivial to note that any motion of the cube coming out of the blue portal will have the blue portal's motion added to it relative to whatever reference frame you're watching from. But this does not change the relative motion between the pedestal and the cube.
>if, at this exact moment, we also reverse the blue portal's motion so that it matches the cube exactly, we have performed exactly the same operations on both portals, and the positions of the cubes match.
This is incorrect. The operation that "naturally" happens on the blue portal is to feel an impact that changes its momentum in the same direction the piston is colliding it's back side from.
Again: the orange portal IS the backside of the blue portal.

>But if you don't match the movement of the portals, then observations are going to differ
You're just applying the motion here in an inconsistent way. The blue portal, and everything it is attached to, feels all the same forces in the exact same direction that the piston feels relative to the portals attached to each of them respectively.

>>16743554
>which is the only moment that matters here.
Why? The cube is already fully through the portal then. The thing we're interested in has already happened.
>>16743554
>Motion of the portal is translation of which two 3D points are linked by 4D motion.
Handwavey rubbish.
>And this only matters the moment after the pedestal and piston make impact.
It matters always. It's what determines the motion of the cube.>>16743554
>The backside of the blue portal would feel the same impact the orange portal feels because the orange portal IS the backside of the blue portal.
There is, in fact, no "backside of the portal". It's on an object. If you want that object to be subject to the same forces as the object that the other portal is on, you have to make it happen, because the portals won't.
>Which ten, of course, gets into bizarre questions regarding whether two objects linked by a portal therefore share the same mass.
So it's a good thing we can ignore this as it's based on a flawed assumption.
>The only relative motion that matters here is the relative motion with the pedestal.
No what matters is the relative motion to the portal - which then entails relative motion to the pedestal.

>>16743576
>But this does not change the relative motion between the pedestal and the cube.
Indeed, it doesn't. The next part does.
>The operation that "naturally" happens on the blue portal is to feel an impact
It's literally a hole m8. No, you have to move the thing it's on.
>The blue portal, and everything it is attached to, feels all the same forces in the exact same direction that the piston feels relative to the portals attached to each of them respectively.
Absolutely fucking not. Just no.

>>16743554
>I'm not positive what syllogism you're referring to.
This one btw >>16743221

>>16743938
And I gotta say, unless this is refuted, nothing else matters. The game of
>Aha but if that doesn't convince you there's something else I haven't mentioned that you don't know about which leads to A...
... which then inevitably rests upon some false assumption or other is a bit tiresome. Relative motion in, relative motion out. Simple as. Everything follows from that and we can even make it look exactly like you think it should. But none of this ad hoc bullshit about the "backside of the portal" or "objects sharing mass".

>>16743934
>The cube is already fully through the portal then.
For the thousandth time, passing through a portal doesn't magically put it in a different reference frame. The only reason the cube is moving is because the portal is on a collision course with the pedestal. It's exactly like a falling elevator.
>Handwavey rubbish.
No it's not. It's central to the point. Everything on the blue side is "falling" because the piston is falling.
>There is, in fact, no "backside of the portal"
Orange side is the backside of the blue side and vice versa. If yo wrapped your hand around the bounraty on one side would your fingers not feel the other?
If you grasped the portal from the blue side would your fingers not get smashed by the pedestal? You seem to have a very weird idea what's going on here.
>So it's a good thing we can ignore this as it's based on a flawed assumption.
No, it's an inevitable fact. Attaching a portal to two walls is exactly as if you set those walls as opposite sides of the same wall, at least at the boundary of the portal. It's absurd to see it any other way.
>No what matters is the relative motion to the portal
Then what makes the cube separate from the pedestal?

>>16743937
>It's literally a hole m8.
A hole that attached to what is now opposite sides of the same wall.

>Absolutely fucking not. Just no.
Then the universe you are describing is not self-consistent. You are giving special importance to one frame of reference over another.

>>16743938
k.
>>16743221
>1. The cube enters the portal at a relative speed between x and 2x
sure
>2. Whatever enters the portal on one side immediately passes through and exits on the other, as it's just a hole
yes
>Ergo, what is the relative speed of the cube as it exits the portal?
Depends on the force the portal feels upon impact with the pedestal.

>>16743945
>none of this ad hoc bullshit about the "backside of the portal" or "objects sharing mass".
It's not "ad hoc." It's been core to my argument since I entered this thread and must be accepted as true to hold a self-consistent view of a universe with portals.

>>16743987
>For the thousandth time, passing through a portal doesn't magically put it in a different reference frame.
Literally does lmao, that's their one purpose
>It's exactly like a falling elevator.
Or a catapult, seen from the other side. Oh dear, I thought we'd moved past this misconception already.
>Everything on the blue side is "falling" because the piston is falling.
Or, once again, no it's not, because everything on the other side is coming up to meet it. There is no absolute motion.
>If yo wrapped your hand around the bounraty on one side would your fingers not feel the other?
You'd feel the object it was on. So wait, you're suggesting that if I have one portal on a sheet of paper, and another on a slab of concrete, and I reach through and pull the concrete - the sheet of paper will move? Or, indeed, I can't budge the paper from its own side because it's "sharing the mass" of the concrete? There's always a new absurdity with you, isn't there?
>it's an inevitable fact.
You keep saying this for entirely unsupported rubbish.
>Then what makes the cube separate from the pedestal?
They are separate objects lmao what is this
>the universe you are describing is not self-consistent.
Yes, it is. Motion on both sides is symmetrical. Forces act on the things they actually act upon.
>You are giving special importance to one frame of reference over another.
That's precisely what B avoids, you're still stuck on hula hoops and elevators because "orange is falling therefore both are falling" (but never "blue is stationary, therefore..." because...? "The 4th dimension")
>Depends
No, you agree to both premises, that means you agree to the conclusion. The conclusion is inevitable.

>>16743989
My view is entirely self-consistent and can do perfectly well without any of your superfluous and frankly absurd assumptions.
Speedy thing in, speedy thing out.
You've already shown yourself illogical because you can't follow a basic syllogism and you keep saying one thing but doing another.
>Yes, yes, motion is relative
>So anyway the portal is objectively falling

>>16743987
>For the thousandth time, passing through a portal doesn't magically put it in a different reference frame. The only reason the cube is moving is because the portal is on a collision course with the pedestal.
Okay, so to expand on this bit: yes, portals really do put you in a different reference frame. If you look straight at the cube, it's sitting there. If you look through the portal, it's measurably moving relative to you. Which means it is stationary in a different reference frame. You see, if the cube us both stationary *and* moving within the same reference frame, it is also true that it is stationary in two frames of reference at the same time.
And what portals do is make it so that what was true in one frame of reference becomes true in the other. Even with regular, unmoving portals. The cube goes from moving left to moving right, and yet it's motion is continuous. That's because that same motion, seen through the portal, was moving right. The portal translates the motion from one frame of reference to another. And where does the change happen? When the cube goes through the portal, of course.
So no, the cube is not in motion because the portal approaches the pedestal. The cube is in motion because the portal approaches the cube. We don't need the pedestal. Only relative motion between portal and cube.
And, yes, I know you're going to protest "but it's the same frame of reference!" - it both is and isn't. That's how portals work. Your problem is failure to distinguish which it is when.

>>16743987
>If you grasped the portal from the blue side would your fingers not get smashed by the pedestal?
Oh lol I missed this. Yeah because they're in between the piston and pedestal, genius. The portal doesn't enter into it.

Okay, thought experiment time.
We put an orange portal on a thin cardboard stand, the blue on a thick concrete slab.
First, we reach through the orange portal and plant our hands firmly on the concrete in either side of the blue portal, and give it a pull. Does the cardboard stand topple over?
Then, we go to the blue portal, rech through, and grasp the cardboard on either side if the orange portal. Then we pull. Does the cardboard stand topple over now?

I say no in the first case but potentially yes in the second. Only in the second case are you applying force to the cardboard. Although you're still not moving relative to the portal.

>>16744321
This is what B-fags believe.

>>16744322
Yes.
It makes us correct.

>>16744150
>Literally does lmao, that's their one purpose
This is a faulty assumption on your part.
Portal is just a hole. Just because it subjectively looks to you like there's a change in reference frame doesn't mean there is.
Both sides of the hole are two sides of... the same hole.
>Or a catapult, seen from the other side. Oh dear, I thought we'd moved past this misconception already
The misconception is on your end. Keep insisting that the box's moment relative to the pedestal would magically change just because it's on the other side of a hole.
Why does a catapult launch things? It's because the spoon hits a stopper (and centrifugal force but there's no angular momentum in the portal scenario so we can ignore it with the catapult). Without such a stopper an object sitting on the spoon would stay on the spoon until both collided with the ground.
>everything on the other side is coming up to meet it. There is no absolute motion.
I agree there is no absolute motion. This is what's tripping you up here. Either the pedestal and cube are pushed away relative to each other or they aren't. And all reference frames would agree which it is, whatever it is.
>you're suggesting that if I have one portal on a sheet of paper, and another on a slab of concrete, and I reach through and pull the concrete - the sheet of paper will move? Or, indeed, I can't budge the paper from its own side because it's "sharing the mass" of the concrete?
I'm not assuming shared mass. I just said it's a relevant question with two different implications depending which one is true. The concept of a folding portal is an interesting one though but this thread will probably be dead soon.

Cont'd

>>16744150
>entirely unsupported rubbish.
Imagine a Cartesian plane. Now imagine location (1,1) and another arbitrary location, let's say (4,7) are defined as being the same point on the graph. If a line passes through one, it continues it's way out the other. Even if the apparent vector shifts, it's still a straight line according to all reference frames under a non-Euclidean geometry. Thus is true even if it intersects itself. That is the portals behavior. Opposite sides of the same hole.
>They are separate objects
They were moving at the same rate before the cube crossed tho portal and there is no reason for that to change after.

>Motion on both sides is symmetrical. Forces act on the things they actually act upon.
I agree. So if there is no non-trivial force acting on the cube relative to the pedestal, they stay attached.
>blue is stationary, therefore...
The momentum imparted on the cube by the pedestal is negligible because the impact force on the portal by the pedestal is negligible. Satisfied?

>you agree to both premises, that means you agree to the conclusion. The conclusion is inevitable.
There are hidden assumptions in your "syllogism" that invalidate it as a syllogism.

>>16744155
>portal is objectively falling
I didn't say "objectively." But that is the frame of reference that makes the error in your thinking obvious.
>>16744173
>If you look straight at the cube, it's sitting there. If you look through the portal, it's measurably moving relative to you
If you it on the piston on one side facing the portal's direction, you see the same thing as someone looking through the portal from the other side. Same reference frame.
You're confused on where the observer would be standing in this case.
>the cube is not in motion because the portal approaches the pedestal. The cube is in motion because the portal approaches the cube.
Same thing. What the pedestal changes is where the portal stops

>>16744461
>Both sides of the hole are two sides of... the same hole.
Only the hole though, not what it's on.
>Keep insisting that the box's moment relative to the pedestal would magically change just because it's on the other side of a hole.
Point is it doesn't, it's continuous motion.
>I agree there is no absolute motion. This is what's tripping you up here.
Yes, it's tripping me up that you agree and your answer isn't consistent with it.
>I just said it's a relevant question
It's not, the very premise is ridiculous.
>they stay attached
They're not attached. Anyway, the whole point is portals don't need to impart force to change momentum
>You're confused on where the observer would be standing in this case.
It doesn't matter where they stand m8

Yes I'm being short, thread's dying

>>16744472
>They were moving at the same rate before the cube crossed tho portal and there is no reason for that to change after.
The reason is the pedestal doesn't cross the portal, and its motion changes relative to the portal. The question is, why would the cube change too? Unlike the pedestal, it didn't collide with a piston.

>>16744472
>There are hidden assumptions in your "syllogism" that invalidate it as a syllogism.
You agreed with both premises. Now you're walking that back but not giving valid reasons. You can't, because it's air-tight.

>>16744472
>The momentum imparted on the cube by the pedestal is negligible because the impact force on the portal by the pedestal is negligible.
It's actually non-existent. No momentum is imparted on the cube and neither the pedestal or the piston really matter here except that one happens to have the cube on it and the other a portal. The cube's existing momentum is merely translated.

>>16744461
>Why does a catapult launch things? It's because the spoon hits a stopper
Say, the, er, "back of the portal"?

Might I suggest a new C

Cube and blue portal launch