Thread 720129516

>>720129516 (OP)
>Entirely different situation
Hang yourself, low IQ retard.

>>720129721
How is it different? It involves an object entering the portal and either
A: keeping its momentum relative to the room (like A in the original)
Or
B: exiting the orange portal at the same relative momentum it entered the blue one (like B in the original)

>>720129964
In the original question object itself wasn't moving.

>>720129964
For starters, the portal isn’t moving.
Second of all, chAds don’t claim portals can change an object’s momentum, they claim it can’t change an object’s velocity.
Third, portals change an object’s momentum in 3D space, but not in 4D space where in 4D its still going in the same direction.

>>720129721
If your theory doesn't stay consistent when tested in multiple situations (like A), it will eventually be replaced by a superior theory that does (like B)

>>720130115
>>720130232
I dunno why I thought we were past this, but the laws of physics haven't changed. There is still no difference between an object moving towards a portal and a portal moving towards an object.
>chAds don’t claim portals can change an object’s momentum, they claim it can’t change an object’s velocity.
Momentum is velocity times mass, so if a portal changes velocity, it also changes momentum. Velocity and momentum are vectors. They have direction and magnitude. If portals change direction, like they do when performing portal flings, that means they change velocity and momentum, hence, B.

>>720130569
>There is still no difference between an object moving towards a portal and a portal moving towards an object.
There's a massive difference between a tear in spacetime overlaying an object and someone running into it.

>>720129516 (OP)
Ah the classic B fag move. Invent an entirely new scenario with new variables because you can't just argue your point.

Never ever let a B fag argue any point until they answer this question: Where does the energy that moves the box come from (Velocity, momentum, and relativity are not forms of energy)

>>720131081
How does the cube exit the tear in spacetime without moving? Alternatively, if you admit it is moving, why does it immediately stop after fully exiting the portal? Where does the infinite force to stop it in 0 seconds come from?

>>720131531
The tear in spacetime is moving over it.

>>720131493
>Ah the classic B fag move. Invent an entirely new scenario with new variables because you can't just argue your point.
See >>720130253
>Where does the energy that moves the box come from
The portal is accelerated by the piston, which causes it to start moving towards the cube. As a result, the cube starts moving towards the portal because velocity is relative. The cube simply keeps moving at the velocity it was moving after exiting the portal.

>>720131531
No force has been applied. Effectively what has happened is that the portal has simultaneously gone over the cube at the orange point, and pulled back at the blue point.

>>720130569
>There is no difference between an object in motion and an object not in motion
Bfags everyone.

>>720131598
Which means the cube is moving through the tear in spacetime as momentum is relative.

>>720131747
>No force has been applied.
I agree. Which is why the cube keeps moving since there's no force to suddenly stop it.

>>720129516 (OP)
>Bfag-favored scenario always results in death or other pain towards an Afag
Why are they like this? I hardly ever see any Afag images that depicts death of Bfags, its very telling behavior.

>>720131742
>>720130253
Your theory isn't consistent in the same one situation though. Hence why you keep making new ones.
>As a result, the cube starts moving towards the portal because velocity is relative. The cube simply keeps moving at the velocity it was moving after exiting the portal.

I will ask again, where is the energy that moves the cube coming from? Velocity is not a form of energy. What either pushes or pulls it and where is that energy generated? I am going to ask this over and over again as you try to change the subject

>>720131817
Every single object in the universe is in motion. There is no such thing as an object not in motion.

>>720132006
is repressed homosexuality expressed in the form of gore

>>720131962
I'm not going to bother if you're going to be intentionally obtuse.
For this one instance, I'll assume the point just flew over your head; No force was applied, so no force needs to be applied to counteract it.

>>720132006
That's because A is not consistent, and thus will result in things not working as they do in the game which often results in severe bodily harm because we're dealing with large velocities. B is consistent, and thus applying it to other situations will result in what you'd expect.

>>720132006
Honestly I rarely see any Afag images at all. I think most people who get invested in the debate enough to make OC end up as Bfags.

>>720132063
>I will ask again, where is the energy that moves the cube coming from?
I will tell you again that there is no energy required to move the cube once it is in motion. It starts moving towards the portal and unless there's a strong enough counterforce to stop it, which there isn't in the original scenario, it will keep moving once it passes the portal.

>>720132323
there are no moving portals in the game. You are just making up bs to justify your fantasies about killing A fags

>>720132142
The cube has passed through the portal. At t=x it's 50% of the way through and at t=2x it's 100% through. That's change in position over time, movement, motion, whatever you wanna call it. Objects in motion will stay in motion unless stopped by an external force, that's Newton's 1st. Some force needs to be applied to stop it after it exits the portal. Where does that force come from?

Can you guys just stop? This was funny when the game came out but we don't need to keep having this pretend argument.

There are funnier jokes to post.

>>720132719
>there are no moving portals in the game.
False.

>>720132483
>I will tell you again that there is no energy required to move the cube once it is in motion.
>once it is in motion.
What is moving the cube? What is contacting the surface of the cube and either pushing or pulling it? Where is the energy being generated?

>>720132813
Only according to Newtonian physics, which do not apply to portals.

>>720132860
I'll stop when Afags admit they're wrong.
>>720132957
The piston the portal is placed on is moving towards the cube. This means that the cube is moving towards the piston the portal is placed on.

>>720132907
portals moving are irrelevant
they might only allow for changes in regard to gravity and air flow but that's it if they moive

>>720133024
Newtons laws still apply in relativity. Relativity doesn't replace newtonian physics, but builds upon it.

>>720133308
>they might only allow for changes in regard to gravity and air flow but that's it if they moive
What are you trying to say?

>>720129516 (OP)
>Bfags moving the goalpost again
you niggers are so fucking pathetic

>>720129516 (OP)
that's not the same, retard

>>720133432
What part of the original image is moving the goalposts? Is it the fact that it's a different situation? In that case, see >>720130253

>>720133481
Again, see >>720130253

>>720130115
>A-fags still think speed is a physical property of matter.

>>720132467
There's no debate. B fags have been baiting for years while pretending to be retarded while A fags keep taking that bait. I don't know why mods keep entertaining this "board culture" meme when every thread has the same posts ad nauseum.

>>720133426
gravity on the other side of the portal might be different
air flowing through a moving portal might have an impact on the object passing through or on elements on the receiving end of portal if there is a pressure difference
the game only simulates gravity

>>720130115
In what universe is movement not relative? How the fuck can an object move through something without moving in relation to it

>>720132467
There's no debate. A fags have been baiting for years while pretending to be retarded while B fags keep taking that bait. I don't know why mods keep entertaining this "board culture" meme when every thread has the same posts ad nauseum.

>>720132006
because Afags are dangerously retarded. there are no B scenarios which play out dangerously because Bchads aren't morons. only an Afag would be dumb enough to maim himself on a portal.

>>720131878
No

Our response???

>>720133626
>>720133891
>People are just now realizing that A-fags are schizo retards that don't believe in relativity

>>720131817
The only difference is the rate at which it experiences time. Constant motion is not detectable without an external point of reference.

>>720133983
This is correct though

>>720133983
what do B fags think happens to the ground in this example? i'm genuinely curious? do they think it just disappears from under their feet and they get launched like that?

>>720133651
>gravity on the other side of the portal might be different
I don't see how that's relevant to the momentum the cube has relative to the portal.
For flowing air to have an effect on the opposite side of the portal, the air needs to have momentum, which means it's B
>the game only simulates gravity
Yes, but the whole argument is about a hypothetical, what would happen if portals were real. We all already know what happens in game, C, the object doesn't pass through.

>>720134083
the ground is pushing you out of the portal. there's no different between the portal falling on you, and pushing you out. if you want to act like the ground is still there under your feet then the portal didn't fall on you rapidly.

>>720130115
Define how you think portals work that demonstrates why that distinction matters.

>>720129516 (OP)
It changes direction, yes, but not the speed

>>720134170
> i dont understand how gravity works
why are you responding to me with a reply that basically amounts to "im a shameless retard"?

>>720131493
If your idea of how portals work falls apart when you introduce "new variables" then that means your idea of how portals work was wrong.

Question. Do you still believe portals conserve momentum given you're shown what the conclusion of that actually happening is?

>>720134264
so by that logic, if the portal falling on him were to stop halfway through, would the force push up only his torso?

>>720130253
>(like B)
Well, if you just make shit up of course it's going to be "consistent". You niggers still can't even debunk the hula hoop.
>one side is le moving
irrelevant, it's a portal it doesn't have two different sides it's one and the same exactly like a hula hoop.

You cunts have been doing this for eighteen years.

Eighteen years.

>>720134416
I do understand gravity. It's spacetime bending due to the mass of large objects, that results in other objects being pulled towards those objects. What I don't understand is how it relates to the portal paradox. If you remove gravity from the original scenario all that would change is that the cube stays on the portal in A instead of plopping on the ground or flies out in a straight line instead of an arc in B.

>>720132063
>Your theory isn't consistent in the same one situation though.
Yes it is.

>Hence why you keep making new ones.
We keep making new ones to demonstrate that it DOES keep working consistently you fool.

>Velocity is not a form of energy.
Then why are you asking where the energy is coming from when it's merely a change in velocity?

>>720133024
>it's not real so it doesn't matter
A fags are retarded, they can't even make real bait

>>720134731
my only defense is im not following your conversation
im jumping in in the middle of it and i wont bother going back through the other posts
ill just leave
enjoy the thread

>>720132063
being retarded and not understanding what people are telling you isn't an argument

You understand that the cube needs to move through the portal, right?
So therefore the cube is moving, which you seem to be arguing against

>>720129516 (OP)
B is correct due to inertia. Object in motion is going to stay in motion unless it's stopped buy a force.

Begging A-fags to retake PH101

>>720134563
His torso would pull the rest of him through. Like if you were in a harness and the cord was pulled.

>>720132957
So the cube IS moving, correct? Then it's B, as in A the cube simply teleports to the other side in 1 frame, as it "isn't moving"

>>720134676
>it doesn't have two different sides
Proven false by the fact that the game has 2 buttons for shooting portals.

>>720134676
>Well, if you just make shit up
B only has one rule.

>velocity relative to entrance on entering (including relative direction) = velocity relative to exit on exiting (including relative direction)
It then works consistently with every scenario using that one rule.

Now you're probably going to do what every Afag does and fail to understand what that rule entails.

>>720129516 (OP)
Right but explain to me how B is supposed to survive better than A
I really don't get the guy's reasoning regardless of whether he was correct or not

So we're all in agreement that travelling through a portal can change your velocity, right?

>720134676
>moving portal is irrelevant
>goes back to hoop shit, which isn't what the original image is about
A-fags really can't understand moving objects

>>720135046
both still the same anon, it doesn't matter how much you post it.

>>720135146
Well the guy in the B scenario is effectively jumping down half the distance the guy in the A scenario did. But the point is the B scenario in that image is what literally happens in the game.

>>720135267
You can literally see the cube moving on the right but not on the left.
Afags are just baiting.

>>720134563
if the portal suddenly stopped halfway, you would still fly out because of First Law of Motion. you can't just stop or accelerate without a force being applied on you.

that being said, all of this is happening in a videogame with its own laws of physics. i'm not gonna sit here and argue this has to occur as A or B if portals existed in the real world, because they couldn't. the whole notion that momentum or energy has to behave a certain way just doesn't make sense when you're talking about portals, because they already break laws of relativity. if a portal sweeped you at any speed, you would inherit that speed simply because the whole world suddenly got swapped around you at that speed. that's the issue here. you're dealing not with your frame of reference changing, but the whole universe changing state in a way that doesn't conserve any properties.

>>720135267
>two objectively different scenarios
>they're the same
you can't argue around this dude, a-fags are delusional baiters who can't even talk in circles properly

>>720134387
Those are both the same thing, the only difference is what perspective you're using.

Basically portals will conserve speed only when using the frame of reference where both portals are stationary. But the original problem is not using a frame of reference where that is the case.

one group thinks the portal is plexiglass the other group thinks it s a hulahoop

>>720135034
I see why opinions are so different now

A fags consider portals like windows
B fags consider any force the portal has should transfer to the body

>>720131493
It doesn't get any energy, the Universe moves around it. Moving portals move the Universe with reference to itself.

>>720131493
If I dropped a door frame around you, you would launch 4000 feet into the air, GMOD taught me this truth.

>>720135234
Bfags unironically think the bottom would happen.

>>720133168
>The piston the portal is placed on is moving towards the cube.
The piston isn't moving at all. You're just saying "muh relativity" again in more words. Relativity is not a form of energy. Where is the energy moving the cube coming from? What is generating the force that is pushing/pulling it?

>>720135309
How is he jumping down half the distance huh? In both cases he's falling from the height of the orange portal down to the lower ground level

>>720130253
TRUTH NUKE

>>720135490
>It doesn't get any energy
I agree, hence, it's not moving. An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force

>>720129721
>>720131493
>>720132006
>>720133432
>>720133481
>But it's not the same scenario!
Is this really Afags response to this? Do they really not see it as a problem that the B conclusion is literally how the portals in the games work?

>>720135562
Why not? What happens if the dude just stick his hand through the portal? Would there be a force immediately forcing it to the side and breaking it?

>720135584
>illiterate, unable to read, and posting anime
weak

>>720135624
Classic B fag move
>LOOK GUYS I MADE AN ANIMATION OF WHAT I THINK WOULD HAPPEN. I UNORINICALLY THINK THIS IS AN ARGUMENT

>>720135761
A-fag animations have the cube teleport in 1 frame to avoid showing the cube in motion
only A is like this, B doesn't need to do dumb shit like that

just go make your own program and use that instead of using other peoples images and webms

>>720135692
A fags think it's not the same because jumping into a portal is not the same as a portal falling on you but stopping on your feet level, with your soles still staying on the same ground.

>>720135761
A visual argument is still an argument. Everything happening in that animation makes perfect logical sense.

>>720135607
B guy goes the full drop once but then his vertical velocity gets reset to zero upon going through the portal. So he ends up having the vertical velocity gained only from the second drop and so effectively (key word: effectively) only falls the drop once as far as survivability goes.

A guy goes the full drop once, proceeds to keep that vertical velocity and then goes the full drop again. So effectively gets the vertical velocity of the same drop twice.

>>720129721
FPBP Bnigs seething

>>720135692
A-fags think portals are walls, unironically

>>720134903
Fair enough. It's still B though.

>>720136063
doors or windows

>>720129516 (OP)
>>720129964
>>720130569
The absolute state of this fucking board. Smartphones and easy access to the internet were a mistake.

>>720136149
No, they think portals can't conserve momentum so they're LITERAL WALLS.

>>720135720
Almost like there would be wind on the other side pushing against his hand!

>>720136201
stop being retarded

>>720135234
Yes, but I'm interested in how the time differential would work with portals like this. Technically, time is moving a little slower in that train. Would there be a stark time boundary between the portal connected spaces, or would it be a gradient (and how large would the gradient be)?

>>720134556
Let's reverse it if I walk into the wall bearing the orange portal, gravity is pushing me down.
Do I fall when I exit the Blue portal on the ceiling or do I smear across the ceiling because that's where gravity had been pushing me?

Of course that sounds retarded, I'd just fall because the earth and gravity are canceling each other out and as soon as I exit the portal gravity will act on me but there will be no earth to stop my acceleration.

Likewise If I'm on a platform and a portal is falling at me, I'll go from gravity/earth force equilibrium to feeling like half my body/all my body is being pushed to the side so I'll go through the portal and fall over/lose my balance. I won't be launched through the air.

>>720136224
>wind inside a train

>>720136272
Does the cube move through the portal instantly or at a steady pace?

If it moves through the portal at a steady pace, it's B. If it stops dead because it can't transfer momentum, it's A, because it's a literal wall.

>>720136224
But there wouldn't be. There is no wind inside a train while it's moving. Unless you have ventilation, I guess.

Who of you B-lievers think the earth is flat? Asking for a friend.

Reminder: b-faggotry is seated in the definition of movement as a change in position over time. This is our definition of movement because we can’t rearrange three dimensional reality with a handheld device.

>>720135720
kek Afags really do be like that

>>720136324
>Let's reverse it if I walk into the wall bearing the orange portal, gravity is pushing me down.
>Do I fall when I exit the Blue portal on the ceiling or do I smear across the ceiling because that's where gravity had been pushing me?
Portals behave regarding motion. The rule followed is posted in >>720135062. It does not matter which direction gravity is pushing you if it does not amount to actual motion.

>>720135562
What do you think should happen instead? Should it be the same as the no portal scenario where the ground is swept out from underneath him and he falls over?

>>720136434
You should add movement arrows to the arm and body of B.

hope it helps

>>720135624
>If we shoot the box out of a railgun into the portal than B is correct.

>>720135438
Reminder: first frame of this shows the box being thrown.

>>720136718
Apply what you've acknowledged to be true about the platform to the particles of the cube itself.

>>720136434
why did you reverse the letters?
good bait though

>>720136896
Kek saw that one coming.

A is the one that claims the man's momentum isn't changed. So his arm would still be moving upwards on being stuck out the exit portal.

I wonder what is the ration of trolls to genuine A-fags.

so where does the energy come from that causes the box to launch out of the portal?

>>720136968
>>720135854

>>720136732
>b-b-but the piston slamming into the ground is totally different from the ground slamming into the piston
Uh oh!

>>720129516 (OP)
SPEEDY THING GOES IN
SPEEDY THING GOES OUT

>>720136718
You're not concluding the argument, you're just giving us more to argue about

The side that can best describe this scenario in the B or A fag way wins.

>>720137324
nah you're just too stupid to understand

>>720129516 (OP)
You're incredibly stupid.

>>720133647
Pretending to be retarded has always been the meta to get replies. Before this portal argument I recall the trick was to start an argument about why 0.999999... != 1 or some shit. The portal argument is even better for this because there's no officially correct answer even if A is obviously bunk

These threads really tickle me, I always waste a whole afternoon when I see one.

>>720137018
I agree with A.

Portal movement is irrelevant. A portal is just a doorway between two points. If I move a doorway over an object, the object does not speed up simply because the doorway moved.

With B, you are creating energy with more energy coming out than went in.

>>720137420
You're the one that lacks the intelligence to actually argue your case.

>>720137374
Oh damn, did you just... defend your position? Like... in an... argument?
Whoah, man, that's far out.

>>720133891
i dunno, man, in what universe do we have literally magic hoops that connect two otherwise unconnected parts of reality/space?

>>720129516 (OP)
speedy thing go in, speedy thing go out
simple as that really

>>720137514
nah i just insulted you
you're supposed to insult me back

>>720137458
I like that your basic intuition of conservation of momentum is correct but you think that speed is something an object has inherently rather than in relation to something else.

>>720137374
You're not in a position to say that if you ignore the first response.

>>720137458
Vanilla portals already create energy. You can make a perpetual motion machine with a portal on the floor and ceiling. They also fail to conserve momentum because of flinging like in the OP post

>>720137603
The cube has no velocity, and going through a hole cannot create velocity.

>>720137603
because that's how it works in the game. speedy thing goes, in speedy thing goes out.

>>720137108
Sorry, but the portal gives the cube energy whether you like it or not. As the cube passes through the portal, the bit of the cube that has left through the orange portal is moving at a speed of at least that of the moving blue portal, therefore the cube gets energy as it passes through the portal!

>>720137458
If portal movement is irrelevant then how is it true that portals only conserve speed in the frame of reference where the portals are not moving?

Portals also do not follow conservation of energy. The kinetic energy of the cube as measured in the final shot of >>720135438
increases.

>>720137692
that would be gravity "creating" the energy. in zero gravity a portal on two surfaces creates nothing.

Both aren't going to be launched.
If the platform (where the cube is sitting) was moving it, the cube would be launched due to inertia.

>>720137458
The case for a doorway is different because in a regular, non-portal doorway, both side of the doorway move at the same speed. See: >>720135046
>With B, you are creating energy with more energy coming out than went in.
Yes, portals would violate energy conservation. You don't need to move portals for this. Just make a portal between the floor and a ceiling of a room, stick a turbine in there, and then pour in water. There you go, infinite energy (turbine wear notwithstanding).

>>720136358
>>720136396
Thought he was jumping onto the top of the train. In any case if the portal leads to the inside of the train then of course the man would go smashing against the rear of the train. For the very same reason he tumbles backwards jumping into the train. The train is moving at 100km/h and he is not.
If not then kindly explain how he can accelerate instantly up to 100km/h and not die.

>>720137694
Explain the final shot shown in >>720135438

>>720137739
if you want to use our current definition of movement, then the portal instantly moves, faster than light, from the position of the entrance portal to the position of the exit portal. just opening two portals will change the distance between two objects, which is enough to tick our current definition of motion.

>>720137891
why do you guys always created elaborate examples that have nothing to do with the original question?

>>720137854
Gravity is acting on water though, and some water isn't falling back into the portal, and the portal requires energy to sustain/create.
So, no, you're wrong. Faggot.

>>720137891
I've got a better explaination. its always a gif and not a webm because its harder to focus on the first two frames of a gif, thus harder to see the guy throws the box, imparts energy upon it.

>>720137864
What the train was much much faster, like 2290km/h instead of just 100km/h; would he have any chance of smoothly passing through the portal before being flung sideways (from his perspective) and smashed against the train?

>>720138010
How can you not tell that the purpose of those animations are to show that an object moving into portal is the same scenario as a portal moving into an object?

>>720138010
>The cube has no velocity, and going through a hole cannot create velocity.
This is the quote being defended here.

The cube has no velocity in the final shot of the gif.

Are you admitting the quote was actually incorrect?

>>720138097
> thus harder to see the guy throws the box, imparts energy upon it.
The cube is shown to not be moving in the final shot of the gif. Therefore the kinetic energy of the cube is measured to be zero in that frame of reference.

>The cube has no velocity, and going through a hole cannot create velocity.
This is the quote being defended here.

The cube has no velocity in the final shot of the gif.

Are you admitting the quote was actually incorrect?

>>720138363
the cube "stops moving" because energy was imparted upon it by being thrown backwards at the exact velocity it was moving.

>>720138073
>Gravity is acting on water though
And?
>and some water isn't falling back into the portal
Irrelevant.
>and the portal requires energy to sustain/create.
We aren't talking about a concrete portal technology, we are just talking about purely hypothetical topological portals in space. And it doesn't matter if that waterwheel would take a million years to produce the amount of energy required to sustain those portals for a millisecond, because that's still a violation of energy conservation. Also, in Portal, the portal gun seems to work just find without an external power source.

>>720137796
Not sure what your point is. If you're saying that portals can't co-exist with gravity, you're wrong because gravity exists in both Portal and Portal 2.

>>720138073
>portal requires energy to sustain/create
That would be my headcanon as well, but nothing in game supports this. At any rate, if the portal gun is taking energy from an unknown source then conservation-of-energy arguments won't work against B either.

>>720138432
Which then means the cube does not have energy.

1/2 x mass x velocity ^2

With a velocity of zero the measured kinetic energy of the cube becomes zero.

Upon going through the portal. The cube becomes in motion and its kinetic energy increases.

Portals have yet to be proved real in real life, therefore both A and B are right depending on which law of physics you choose to disregard.

>>720138513
how do you have trouble understanding that without gravity, portals won't "create energy?"

>>720138582
Incredibly enlightened anon, thank you.

>>720133983
I laughed

But I scrolled through the whole thread and there are no edits with penises so this is a failed thread again

except for how the gif clearly shows energy being imparted upon the cube to change its inertial state.

>>720138582
A is not even consistent with itself so it's more wrong than B

>>720137508
Anon, you see, what you're doing here is the equivalent of a grown man saying
>1 + 1 = 3
The fact that I'm not putting any time into explaining why your are retarded is not my lack of intelligence, but the foresight to know you're so incredibly fucking retarded you wouldn't understand it anyway, because your original statement sounded good and intelligent in your brain.

>>720138716
My pleasure anon. I am glad people are fighting over fantasy scenarios though, it is really entertaining.

>>720130115
There's no difference between the portal moving around the box and the box moving into the portal.

>>720137864
Stop trying to slide the question. Landing onto a speeding train and stepping onto a speeding train will naturally have the same result. Unless you can explain how instantaneous acceleration somehow doesn't kill a human. Hell, if the portal accelerates anything going through it then as soon as he sticks his hand through it would rip off, unless the portal arbitrarily only accelerates you once you are fully through.

>>720138912
therefore throwing a hulahoop down around you should launch you into the air.

>>720137864
>If not then kindly explain how he can accelerate instantly up to 100km/h and not die.
Velocity is a vector. If you fall into a portal on the floor at the speed of 10 m/s and exit a portal facing up, your velocity was changed in an instant by -20 m/s. This is infinite acceleration. How does Chell survive this?

Portal go fast make block go fast
I dont believe in your """Law of Acceleration"""

>>720135562
>>720137864
How about now?

>>720138948
No because your velocity relative to the entrance of the hula hoop and the exit are the same. You know this entire scenario is predicated on the idea that one side of the hula hoop is not moving at all.

The conservation of momentum of an object relative to its entrance and exit of a portal actually forms a Kleisli category.

>>720138817
Except you only think the image you're looking at is incorrect.

Portals do not conserve momentum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASUUN0W4_JY

The OP image is a correct summary of what would happen if portals did conserve momentum as shown in A.

>>720139189
velocity is defined as change in position over time. distance is the shortest amount of space between two objects. stubbornly sticking to these definitions, when portals would require new definitions, is just pure stupidity.

furthermore, since opening two portals causes the shortest distance between objects to instantly change, thus, "move," then objects should continue "moving." Thus opening two portals at all instantly causes everything to start moving faster than light.

>>720134676
>Well, if you just make shit up of course it's going to be "consistent". You niggers still can't even debunk the hula hoop.
We have one simple principle of:
>for objects passing through a portal, their velocity relative to the portal is conserved
or more commonly
>relative velocity in = relative velocity out

This principle lets us explain all portal behaviour in the games in a satisfying way, and any of the various hypotheticals you see in this thread.
Afags have no such common principle because they all believe different things, or have never actually thought about it in depth. That's why Afags seethe when you "change the scenario".

>>720136718
Both aren't going to be launched.
If the platform (where the cube is sitting) was moving it, the cube would be launched due to inertia.

>>720139496
why would different situations have identical results?

>>720139589
They don't have identical results and if you read my post you'll note I never say they do. I'm saying we can use the same principle to figure out what happens in each scenario.

>>720139418
If the scenario is impossible to reason about then why try to create an analogy with the hula hoop?

>>720139390
As already said: you're fucking retarded.

>>720136718
>>720139574
>it's an "Afags can't agree with each other" episode

>>720139863
But anoooooon
That's every threeeeeaaaaaaaad

>>720139768
>impossible to reason
not sure where you got that.

>>720132063
>Velocity is not a form of energy
Kinetic energy is literally half mass times velocity squared
>>720135562
It's exactly how the moon portal works

>>720139863
>A fags
Nope I'm on team B in the OP.

>>720139845
So you believe an actual physics professor is also "fucking retarded"?

You're not in a position to call anyone retarded if you can't grasp that changing the direction of momentum is not conserving momentum. Right now you're just reinforcing my claim that you can't argue your case.

>>720139987
But A in the original problem I take it. Even though that's a contradiction. Again.
>it's an "Afags can't agree with each other" episode

>>720140060
you're making the age old mistake of confusing measurements for objective action.

how come every time you want to be a contrarian, you always create a new situation and pretend that they're exactly the same?

>>720140184
If something is measured differently to before using the same point of reference as before that means the thing being measured has changed.

Also answer the question. Do you think what the physics professor in the video has said is incorrect?

>>720140160
I'm B in the OP. But both images in this post >>720136718 are both wrong due to inertia.

>>720140353
See >>720135692

>>720140365
>that means the thing being measured has changed

map this logic. opening two portals causes everything to change in relation to everything, instantly. what happens next?

>>720139929
I assumed that's what you were getting at by saying that velocity is not the correct way to talk about position relative to portals. Then you did not propose an alternative. Also the way you suggested portals actually work, making everything instantaneously moving faster than light, is not how they with in any accepted scenario in canon. So what is the correct way the reason about this problem?

>>720140425
But inertia (the cube's motion is unchanged) would conclude in A in the OP pic.

It is B when the cube is not observed, and A when it is observed

>>720140532
>So what is the correct way the reason about this problem?

that being able to a frame of reference only technically causes things to move.

Are people actually arguing about fictional physics which cannot possibly exist in a physical model that governs our reality to which concepts like momentum belong, for DECADES?

>>720137117
>Not a single response from Afags

>>720140587
whoever first used the term "observed" / "observer" should have been crucified as a message to anyone else to never ever use those terms to describe measurements again. the amount of esoteric fake science mumbo jumbo spawned from this one fuck-up is gargantuan.

>>720129516 (OP)
how do A fags manage to get blown the FUCK out in every single thread?

>>720140752
I think of all the Afag and Bfag posts over the years. The people that come to complain about how portals aren't real amuse me the most.

>>720129516 (OP)
how do B fags manage to get blown the FUCK out in every single thread?

How thick are portal "walls"? If you stuck your hand through and slapped an edge, would your hand get cut off cuz it's subatomic width or something?

>>720140562
Let me clarify.
In OP, B is correct.

>>720136718
B is incorrect in this post.

>>720140658
Could you be more specific? I don't understand how drawing a reference frame could only "technically" "cause" something to move.

>>720140752
Actually, portals are based on wormholes, which are theorized to be possible under General Relativity. And topologically speaking, portals also make sense.

>>720129516 (OP)
You're such an idiot

>>720140953
being able to alter a frame of reference only technically causes things to move.

>>720140841
Quite simply, they're objectively wrong

>>720141026
I don't think that causes things to move at all. I think you're observing the same thing, in the same state, in both reference frames. How is there causality there?

Can you guys please start OP with the original image I don’t remember which one was A and which was B

>>720141019
I don't know what's happening in A, but B is correct.

>>720140519
Answer the question. Do you think what the physics professor in the video has said is incorrect?

You seem very reluctant to answer this.

>map this logic. opening two portals causes everything to change in relation to everything, instantly. what happens next?
A shit load of mental gymnastics is what happens next. You still need to be able to acknowledge the actual damn motion of the cube even if you redefine it. If the cube is literally moving in a different direction to before, even in a different direction to a cube it originally shared motion with then you'd be the biggest fucking idiot to still insist they share the same motion even after one goes through a portal.

ESPECIALLY since the portal can close at any time. So the motion of the cube when not accounting for the portal is always relevant.

>>720140818
It's kind of funny, schrodinger's cat was originally supposed to be an argument of how retarded that concept was, but then everyone just went along with it

>>720140910
Technically, yes, but you could say that the "edges" of a portal have a repelling force in the game.

>>720135267
This answer encapsulates the A mindset. You can actually visually verify that the two scenarios are different. Yet you insist they're the same in spite of what you're seeing, because what you're seeing does not align with your expectations. It's backwards reasoning. You assume you're right and try to explain away the inconvenient facts.

>>720141137
so you don't thing changing the distance between objects is movement, despite it literally being defined as movement.

>>720140950
There is no B in that post.

>>720141210
because "everyone" is retarded. Schrödinger meant to demonstrate how retarded the concept was and he accidentally demonstrated how retarded all the supposedly smart scientists are.

>>720140787
Oh sorry. That video shows the cube is not moving then is suddenly moving for no reason.
You are wrong and the answer is A.

>>720141320
Did you not say that clinging to velocity to reason about this was stupidity? Of course I think that changing distance is movement. Changing the frame of reference does not affect the state of the thing being observed at all.

>>720141208
he's ignoring your inane appeal to authority and responding directly to what you're saying, then mapping your logic (measurements == movement) to their conclusion, where opening two portals at all causes the distance between everything to instantly change.

>>720141459
so you agree that bending a frame of reference around to change the distance between objects doesn't suddenly cause objects to move.

welcome to A

>>720141345
Both the left and the right imagines are incorrect. The text under each imagine should be swapped.

Ever notice how often Afriends say something like
>I don't understand how anyone can think it's B!
and not realise that it's their lack of understanding that's the issue?

>>720141583
is that a-fag in the room with you?

>>720141460
>opening two portals at all causes the distance between everything to instantly chang
It does.

>>720141646
thus, move. thus, needs to continue moving. faster than light.

>>720141532
Your gonna have to pinpoint where in B that's a crucial part of the argument. B treats the portal as the center of a frame of reference, therefore something entering must exit with the same velocity.

>>720141615
In the thread, at least

>>720135624
Could you guys animate another three seconds so I can see the scientist being launched into the rooftop?

>>720137018
Probably like 80/20.

>>720130115
>But I did have breakfast this morning

>>720141757
its the part where bending a frame of reference over an object will launch it into the air. hence the hulahoop. as from the perspective of a hulahoop thrown on the ground around an object, the object is moving.

>>720141890
>>720139189
We've gone in a circle.

>>720141872
>asked how is it different
>answers how it is different
>uh, breakfast much?
try to keep up, retard.

>>720141460
>he's ignoring your inane appeal to authority
Except his entire position to begin with was how obviously stupid (to him) the OP pic is. It's very detrimental to such a claim if it contradicts what a physics professor says.
>but that's appeal to authority
It's one thing to say a physics professor is right or wrong. It's another to try and claim he is incredibly stupid. Especially when all he's doing is pointing out some really basic physics that you should be able to understand.

>then mapping your logic (measurements == movement) to their conclusion, where opening two portals at all causes the distance between everything to instantly change
Which misses the fundamental point I'm making that the object motion clearly has change if it can go from sharing a motion with another object to not sharing it.

>>720141954
yes, the answer is always going to be the same. altering a frame of reference doesn't cause movement.

>>720129516 (OP)
Have you played the game?

>>720142084
you are stupid. (you).

>>720142119
Anon, what would happen if one side of the hula hoop wasn't moving?

>>720142180
same thing as if it was.

>>720142180
Let me clarify, the entrance of the hula hoop some non zero velocity in relation to an object, and the exit has zero velocity in relation to the object.

>>720141720
No, you're not looking at what actually happens and relying purely on rhetorical sleight of hand. You're not thinking with portals and probably can't rotate an apple in your head or tell me what it would be like if you hadn't had breakfast.

>>720142293
Yes, so the velocity of the object is complement to its velocity towards the entrance.

>>720136387
if a window fell on you and you went through it, would you shoot out into the sky?

>>720142297
its kinda funny how fixated you are on an irrelevant detail. what if both sides were moving? what if the two portals were on either side of a large object? what if the portals were on the same side of a large falling object?

>>720141890
>its the part where bending a frame of reference over an object will launch it into the air
Anon. You're the one trying to argue that an object's perceived motion can't be accurate due to the presence of the portal. And yet you've perceived the object has having been launched into the air and are trying to argue that an objective change under B.

If a cube can't be said to be moving in a different direction to before due to how portals warp things.

Then that also means a cube can't be moving in a different magnitude to before due to how portals warp things.

>>720142346
>what actually happens
so opening a portal doesn't change the shortest distance between [everything] and [everything]?

>>720142403
>irrelevant detail.
the entire basis of this thought experiment is an irrelevant detail?

>>720142179
Tell me anon. The man in the OP pic.

>when he jumps down into the blue portal, which direction is he moving?
>when he comes out of the orange portal (in the B outcome), which direction is he moving?

>>720142374
when a window falls on / around a person the person continues to stand in the same spot in space. if a portal were to pass over you you would be a different point in space and you would in fact be moving in that other part of space. this is obviously true as the portal still passes over you. why would you then suddenly stop moving when the portal is "done"? what is preventing you from continuing the momentum your body already has?

>>720142545
the way things would be measured would be different if portals were common.

>>720142119
In fact it always does. By definition. Otherwise there is no alteration.

>>720129516 (OP)
The person is moving in free fall, not analogous.

>>720142592
the fact you don't have any actual momentum.

>>720137282
>>720137558
>>720137708
Exactly. Which is why it's B.

>>720142698
the cube is not speedy

>>720142482
What do you think

>>720142689
what do you mean, no actual momentum? in order to emerge out of the other portal I definitely have momentum. as I am emerging. while it is happening. I clearly have momentum, else I wouldn't be emerging from that portal. I'd be stuck outside the first portal like I hit a wall. momentum necessarily builds up as I move through the portal and out on the other side. and then you claim this momentum suddenly evaporates as I exit the portal.

>>720142374
>Afags making a hoop argument again
>>720135046

>>720142819
bending a frame of reference around an object doesn't confer energy to that object.

>>720142625
The only accurate way to describe it without using basic directions is to strictly use the portal as your reference frame.

So instead of "jump DOWN" it becomes "jump TOWARDS THE PORTAL"

And instead of "leave moving to the LEFT" it becomes "leave OUT OF THE PORTAL"

Here's the thing anon. That logic of looking at it? Is precisely the logic that B abides by.

>velocity relative to entrance on entering (including relative direction) = velocity relative to exit on exiting (including relative direction)
It's always how it has worked.

>>720142829
because its a clear refutation of all b-faggotry and no amount of mental gymnastics will change that.

>>720142886
so dropping a hulahoop around you launches you into the air, because from the perspective of the hulahoop you're moving.

>>720142854
the frame of reference isn't "bending". I am straight up teleporting atom by atom to another place, and in that other place the atoms that have already arrived must move out of the way of the next atoms being pushed out of the portal, else my body will be crushed into a thin plate, roadrunner cartoon style. the atoms that make up my body are 100% moving within the reference frame of the new location where I exit the portal. and then, you claim, they suddenly stop. you cannot make that make sense. it's stupid and wrong.

>>720142760
Speed is relative. There's always some frame of reference in which the cube is stationary or moving. But what is always true is that the cube moves relative to the portal. Which means it's also moving in any frame of reference in which the portal is not moving.

>>720140818
What would have been a better term than "observed", by the way?

>>720142918
portal frame is what it looks like as a hoop retard

>>720129516 (OP)
>moving object comes out moving

kek, not only is that consistent with A logic but thats also the videogame logic

Bfags are literally retarded

>>720142854
A frame of reference is not a thing. It does not "bend". It's literally in the name. It's just a reference. A mental construct.

What is up with the fucking hula hoops

>>720143141
you're supporting a

>>720142918
Any amount of activity must seem like gymnastics to one who refuses to budge even a little.

>>720142918
Hula hoops have been thoroughly refuted and I don't believe you've not heard the refutation a thousand times.

>>720143115
measured. a machine can measure. the entire RETARD discussion around muh consciousness could have been prevented if they never used a term that implies consciousness. consciousness or human involvement obviously has nothing to do with it so avoid language that implies it.

>>720143210
why would I budge when i'm objectively correct?
>>720143226
just saying something has been refuted doesn't mean it has been refuted.

>>720140752
I just think it's funny to see Afags twist themselves into pretzels using every word in the dictionary except movement to describe movement.

>>720143134
Left is wrong, right is correct

>>720143245
hey buddy just because you're not conscious doesn't mean no one else is

>>720143139
A "logic" isn't even consistent with itself, B us consistent with everything, including the game, including the Moon cutscene, including hula hoops.

>>720143296
here's whats down that road
>opening two portals instantly causes the distance between everything to change, thus, move, thus everything must continue moving faster than light

>>720143201
I assure you, I am not.

>>720134362
portals exist in a universe with a fixed coordinate system, there is no relativity

>>720143134
The portal is not a physical object. The only forces enacting on that cube is gravity and the air from the other side of the portal.

>>720141163
The guy keeps moving in the direction of the floor while exiting the portal, because his momentum stays the same and gets sliced in half by the portal edge and his parts slide down the wall to the floor.

>>720143210
Btfo

>>720143452
by trying to reduce a frame of reference to a mental construct, you also reduce all concepts regarding motion to mental constructs as well. b-faggotry is seated in the idea our post-hoc measurements are objection reflections of reality and therefore reality must bend to them. that an immobile object must start moving because it looked like it was moving.

>>720143279
So you're really going to pretend you beed to hear it again, or you're just telling me you don't get it?

>>720141146
A is the wrong one and B is the right one.

>>720143606
i accept your concession

>>720143358
muh quantum proof of god and free will in two more weeks for sure, esoteric brainlet. don't you have some crystals to sell to old ladies?

>>720143325
it's literally the same thing

>>720143436
Which is, once again, a rhetorical sleight of hand, not a good faith argument

>>720143381
>including the Moon cutscene,
I don't usually give a shit about these threads and just lurk just to watch the spectacle but fucking hell man, the Moon cutscene was the result of literal depressurisation, both A and B work in that sense because it's an open window to the vacuum of space, which will naturally draw air to it. Whether shit suddenly gains a kinetic boost going through portals or not doesn't matter because it's just sucking shit up no matter what. It doesn't prove anything.

>>720138770
as far as the game engine is concerned, that cube is moving

>>720143134
that's just a simulation of B being correct - the box shoots out for no reason
Where's the simulation of A being correct

>>720143683
its an extrapolation of the "logic" that anything that appears to be moving, must continue moving.

>>720143578
My dear, simple Anon, "immobile" is a measurement relative to a frame of reference. You're doing exactly what you think I'm doing.
All I'm saying is there's relative motion, that's an objective fact regardless of your frame of reference.

>>720143001
You've demonstrated you don't understand
>velocity relative to entrance on entering (including relative direction) = velocity relative to exit on exiting (including relative direction)

You're motion relative to an already moving exit will be moving, relative to the exit, but still motionless relative to the environment. So no it would not launch you in the air.

>>720143705
And here we go again, the same song and dance.
Tell me, what's the speed of the Moon around the Earth?
And what should therefore happen if portals preserved "objective" momentum of objects back on Earth, as A says?

>>720143805
that is not a refutation of the hulahoop. and here's why. does the situation change if both the portals are moving?

>>720143805
>motionless relative to the environment
draw it. I wanna see an object exit a stationary portal without moving relative to the environment. should be easy to draw so do it.

I showed my coworkers the portal problem.
They all said A and argued with me for a couple hours. Even the guy that has math degrees (albeit not physics) and taught university level math argued for A.
Admittedly, I was initially an Afag years ago, but after the 50th thread of this crap I converted to Bfag.

>>720143756
It's words. Semantics. Bad faith.

Faggoy gamr

>>720143210
This needs to be etched onto the stone of a Greek bathhouse

>>720143191
Portals operate on at least the fourth dimension, and we can't observe how it really works since we're limited to 3D space. To us it just looks like something teleports through a hole in space. We cannot comprehend it literally, but we can approximate it based on how we know 3D movement looks in two dimensions. If you've seen that paper with a hole in it, it's like that: an object is at one of the of the paper, goes through a hole in a higher dimension, and ends up at the other end of the paper. The entire paper is moving, but the paper doesn't observe that, just what moves within the paper. Portals are kinda like that, and when the Portal wraps around the cube, we see it in one place in 3D space and then it just kinda "shows up" somewhere else.

>>720143992
no, you. again, b-faggotry is seated in measurements that aren't compatible with the ability to rearrange physical reality.

>>720143975
Relative to the portal, no. Relative to the environment, the cube's motion will look different as a result of the portal's motion being different.

>>720144117
>Relative to the portal, no
therefore its a

Consider that one portal is underwater on a wall, and the other not. The water would obviously flow through the portals with speed determined by whatever pressure it's under.
Now, if that first portal was above a pool and plunged into the water, the water would spew out the other end because the downward force of the portal is causing a constant push of water into the portal. The water in effect is put under pressure.
Same with the cube or any other object. The cube "pushes" itself as it exits the other side.

>>720144061
I will not entertain an argument seated upon a wilful misrepresentation of the facts, sorry. You can insist all you like but you know what you're doing.

>>720144164
in both cases its water pushing water through portal

>>720143805
>but still motionless relative to the environment
It's not motionless when exiting the portal.

>>720144147
No. It's still B, obviously, because if it was B before, and that does not change, it's still B.

>>720144217
how is "motion is defined by change in distance over time, thus, opening portals instantly changes the distance between things, thus, instantly causes motion" a misrepresentation of anything?

>>720142138
I have. Which is how I know it's B.

>>720143464
>does the situation change if both the portals are moving?
Yes. The rule that B abides by stays the same but the exit's motion determines how the portal alters motion under that very rule the same as the entrance does.
>>720143981
The exit isn't stationary when it's a falling hula hoop.

At best the exit can be said to be motionless when it hits the ground but at that point the object has always left the passage. You'd would also take into account the exit being non-inertial when looking at relative motions.

>>720144279
it was never b

>>720144164
Water pushes itself regardless of if it's going through a portal or not.

>>720144164
Elegant solution but I don't think we need even resort to that. The cube is in motion relative to the portal so it doesn't even have the opportunity to get in its own way. It is in constant motion.

>>720144369
>The exit isn't stationary when it's a falling hula hoop.
from the hoops perspective it is.

>>720143975
>does the situation change if both the portals are moving?
Yes. The rule that B abides by stays the same but the exit's motion determines how the portal alters motion under that very rule the same as the entrance does.
>>720143981
The exit isn't stationary when it's a falling hula hoop.

At best the exit can be said to be motionless when it hits the ground but at that point the object has always left the passage. You'd would also take into account the exit being non-inertial when looking at relative motions.

>>720143981
>stationary portal
Except >>720143805 was talking about an
>already moving exit

>>720144452
You can't measure the motion of something using itself as a reference frame. "Relative it itself" is literally an oxymoron.

>>720144572
>You can't measure the motion of something using itself as a reference frame

yes you can. its zero.

>>720144237
Well yes, but the force that it is pushed by is from different sources.
In the first example, it's the pressure of the water.
In the second, it's the motion/velocity of the portal.

>>720144572
How does the cube change it's motion relative to the pedestal?

>>720144652
the source is irrelevant. pushing a portal down into a body of water is pushing water against water. the water will stop flowing from the exit as soon as the entrance portal stops moving.

>>720142674
The picture is about the Afag claim that portals don't affect momentum. Momentum is a vector, so the picture highlights that portal flings, an important game mechanic, disprove that claim. Whether the person or portal is moving is irrelevant to the point the picture is making (and it doesn't matter anyway because motion is relative)

>>720144647
Which is to say never not zero. You can't measure the motion of something using itself as a reference frame because the result gives you no usable information.

>>720143936
>Can only posit a non-sequitur
If you think the momentum between different celestial bodies actually matters in that scenario when you're just straight up bathed in a constant stream of air from Earth, which is also propelling you in a specific direction, then you're retarded, lmao. The speed at which you're being pushed away from the Moon would cancel out any effects from other forces, so don't think the Moon scene has any bearing on A or B.

>>720144752
the momentum isn't affected. speedy thing in, speedy thing out. not portal dropped on immobile object suddenly becomes mobile.

>>720144701
>velocity relative to entrance on entering (including relative direction) = velocity relative to exit on exiting (including relative direction)
Entails a change in motion.

>>720144774
>non-sequitur
No, Anon, this is *the* point, and it's going over your head.

>>720144763
>you can't measure x
>yes you can its y
>okay but that's not useful
this is called moving the goalposts.

>but the cube isn't moving
Is the Earth not spinning beneath your feet?

>>720144951
The earth is a disk so no.

>>720144774
b-fags say a-fags say that chell should've been ripped apart because the moon portal is moving 2,290mph relative to the earth portal.

ya know, cuz they're stupid.

>>720144835
What about velocity relative to the pedestal, shouldn't that stay the same?

>>720144904
>You can't measure the motion of something using itself as a reference frame because the result gives you no usable information.
Notice how I haven't change the claim that "you can't measure the motion of something using itself as a reference frame" but elaborated on the reason why?

>>720144897
Yeah, whatever you say, retard.

>>720145019
I noticed your concession, yes.

>>720144647
>>720144904
It is impossible to meaningfully describe the motion of an object without framing it in relation to something else
That's what a frame of reference is

>>720145009
If we're talking about the original portal problem. No it should not. Hell it doesn't stay the same in both A and B.

>>720144828
Cube comes out of stationary portal, is therefore in motion relative to Earth. Simple as.

>>720145089
Yes I concede the exact same fucking thing I said already.

>>720145090
>okay its zero but that's not m-meaningful

>>720145049
Nice

>>720145090
good thing the portal universe has x,y,z velocity values stapled to every object, and a universal reference frame to boot

>>720145135
It does for b

>>720145002
No, we know you don't say that; but that's because you're stupid and unable to follow your own logic consistently, and therefore intuitively resort to B when a contradiction arises without consciously realising the contradiction.

>>720145209
>it's not moving in relation to itself so it's not moving

>>720145209
B has the cube launch into the air, very obviously moving relative to the pedestal.

have any of you considered that you might just be in hell?

>>720144561
if changing the exit portal from stationary to moving makes it so your answer becomes correct, then that logically means your answer was incorrect for a stationary portal. you are literally refuting your own model with this attempted change to the problem.

back to the original problem:

1. in the reference frame of the "environment" around the exit the portal does not move.

2. there must be motion between portal and object. for the love of god don't start arguing this point in particular. I beg you, don't be that stupid.

3. therefore there must be motion between object and environment.

this is all logically true a priori. it cannot be refuted by running away to different problems. you aren't going to get anywhere trying to argue that the object never has any momentum to begin with, when momentum is A PRIORI necessary to exit from a stationary portal.
when you find yourself realizing that this is all true, yet your reaction is to try to change the problem to one where the exit isn't stationary, you have to look inward. what went wrong in your early development that you cannot be honest when you realize you've made a mistake? just admit you were wrong and move on with life.

>>720144735
It's not irrelevant, what are you on about? It would indeed stop because the source of force stopped (the entrance portal). Water doesn't have any intrinsic force.

>>720145396
you mean like in the past hour?

>>720145374
Meant for >>720145282

>>720143705
>>720144774
Retard. The moon is moving relative to the earth, while chell is (mostly) still relative to the earth before entering the portal. If we follow A logic, Chell will stay (mostly) still relative to the earth after exiting the portal and thus the moon will keep moving away from her and she'll be stranded in space. What happens instead in the game is that she gains the moon's momentum and stays close to it, or in other words, velocity out of moon portal relative to moon portal = velocity into earth portal relative to earth portal, or even simpler, B.

>>720145374
A then

>>720143381
> including the Moon cutscene

once again the profound retardation of the bfag on display

a scene from the game a literal child could understand has him confused

>>720145428
>Water doesn't have any intrinsic force.
water is liquid specifically because the molecules are repelling each other.

>>720145209
Yes anon. Something telling you the exact same thing no matter what is not usable information.

>>720145068
Concession accepted.

>>720145049
Kek

>>720134047
He'd come out horizontal. Otherwise yes.

>>720129516 (OP)
Thankfully the victim didn't impart any force onto the blade, since neither were moving

>>720145458
Even A says gravity ends up pulling the cube off of the pedestal.

The momentum relative to the entry portal is conserved antisymmetrically with respect to the exit portal.

In other words if you move into the entry you will move out of the exit

>>720143436
You'd have a point if portals opening somehow removed all other relative distances so now only relative distances that pass through the portals exist. That doesn't happen. The old relative distances remain unchanged and the new oned through the portals don't replace them and thus nothing happend.

>>720145595
B(ASED)

>>720145592
Yeah, it only moves because a force is acting on it, that's how all change in motion works.

>>720145396
On occasion

One of the programmers already answered this bullshit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/s/ZDlWsz4cLT

>>720145469
Explain to me how you think the moon scene proves A/doesn't prove B.

>>720141416
Do you also think a person in a car starts moving first when the car crashes into something?

>>720145469
I'm not confused, which clearly means you are.

>>720145805
Gravity isn't defined as a force under modern physics. It's also not the question I was being asked to begin with.

>>720145595
/thread

A fags go ack!

>>720145446
The moon scene isn't scientific evidence, it's a setpiece in a game. I bet you that the devs didn't think beyond "moon is white, so we can put a portal on it and it'll be cool".

>>720146030
Ah, such a shame B is true. Alas, if only you had listened, you would've known you weren't safe.

>>720145595
the question is if you'll continue moving.

>>720146010
Gravity is modeled as a force

>>720145914
>throw a dress on a girl
What the fuck is this hula hoop variation? How the fuck did you come to girls and dresses? Afags are the weirdest fucks.

>>720146030
>A-tard avoids the question by inventing a different scenario
Answer the question nigger. What force would be impacted onto the stabbed man?

>>720146121
The game is all the evidence we have. No, you're right the Devs probably didn't think about it too hard. But that they intuitively arrived at B regardless should tell you something.

>>720146030
neither, the brazier will stay fixed to the ground-cum-wall and the flames direction will shift to the 'up' after passing through the portal

>>720146162
I don't give a shit about what that fag said only what the programmer spoke about.
Also what is a damn redditor talking about "throw a dress on a girl" as if they'd ever be in any sort of contact with a woman, only time he'd be in that scenario is if he's attempting rape.

>>720146121
To be clear, B is 100% correct, but the moon scene proves nothing

>>720146171
knife is a stationary object being shifted to another portion of reality by a falling portal. the "force" would be the fact the knife can't stop the movement of the portal, as it doesn't come into contact with the portal. essentially the person falls on the knife, from the knife's perspective.

>>720146171
The portal would stop moving and be suspended mid knife once the blade reaches the guy

>>720146324
So what force is tearing the flesh apart?

A bros...
I'm starting to reconsider things due to this thread... maybe I was a retarded faggot for years...

>>720146372
no one is buying your false flag operation

>>720146371
"falling" onto the knife.

of course the question isn't about what happens if there's an object close enough to the portal to be hit by the object passing through, the question is if it will continue moving once the blue portal stops.

>>720146324
>essentially the person falls on the knife, from the knife's perspective.
Following motion being relative that means the knife is then moving relative to the person

I don't get it, isn't the game written with B being the correct answer with the moon portal and shit?

>>720146372
I can't remember what I was at first (I think I was an A fag) but as-of this thread I'm 100% a B-tard

>>720146372
There is no shame in admitting it. Indeed, the only shame is in being too proud to admit it.

>>720129516 (OP)
i just dont understand how ppl dont realize theres 2 major forces pushing the box. one into the portal, and one away from the portal.
so if youre going 100mph north
and another car is coming at you traveling 200 mph, when it passes you, youre not going 200 mph in comparison to it south.

>>720146498
sure. doesn't mean it suddenly has momentum though.

>>720146484
"falling" would imply that gravity imparts momentum onto something; and that momentum is enough to tear the flesh apart

Tell me, does the blade have momentum? Or does the man?

I used to be an A-fag, and I thought the cube "wasn't moving" because it was effectively continuously teleporting to a new position until through which would mean it didn't have any momentum, but a giant spike coming through would still be deadly.
Then someone said something like "so a pillow would be equally deadly?" and I was like "right. that is a lot less intuitive than it that's when I switched sides.

>>720146572
people die ever year from people speeding next to them and causing them to be thrown out of their car by their new relative velocity

>>720146578
No, not suddenly, it already had that

>>720146510
It is and we've known this for years now. Afags are just really stupid and stubborn. And of course you bring up the moon portal and they'll immediately insist that you're denying the air pressure happening because they can't comprehend more than one thing happening in that scene.

>>720146372
Please A bros try to bring me back... do something to stop me from becoming a full on B-tard I won't accept that fate

>>720135873
>A visual argument is still an argument.
No it isn't

>>720129516 (OP)
Question for B fags
Say the portal is moving downward at what point is it going to "pull" the cube into the other portal? 10% of the way in? 40%? 99.8%?

>>720146643
where did it come from?

>>720146523
In this scenario it would be the piston impacting the force, it just doesn't add any force it doesn't need to which is why an unimpeded cube wouldn't move.

>>720146653
its more that its just extremely stupid to bring up the moon's orbital velocity as if its relevant, so most people miss that's what you're saying.

At this point these threads have been going on so long I forgot what A and B even were.

>>720136358
>>720136396
B-fag top minds using 100% of their mental power is something to witness

skub thread

>>720146693
It doesn't "pull" at any point unless the cube decelerates before the cube is through; in which case the cube pulls itself. The portal imparts no forces.

>>720146793
>>720143948

If B was correct - which it is not - every portal would be sucking atmosphere through it like a fucking vacuum if the portal was moving
>>720143134
>>720135624
you're modeling an incomplete system
Junk data in = Junk data out

>>720146694
Being in motion.

>>720146849
so the cube launches off the platform the instant the portal touches it. but why not before? from the exit portal's perspective, the cube is moving.

>>720129516 (OP)
Every day is blessed when I remember I'm not btarded.

>>720146774
It's extremely relevant and you, along with every Afriend, being too stupid to comprehend why is precisely why we keep having these threads.

>>720146774
The moon's orbital velocity is why that scene has to be B.

The other problem is Afags not being able to understand that. You could casually stroll through a portal from one planet to another with no issue and Afags wouldn't be able to comprehend that necessitates B happening.

>>720146916
it isn't in motion. reality is being rearranged to change the distance between it and the exit portal.

>>720145446
Except Chell is anything but still, relative to the Earth or not. You can literally see her MOVING at increasing speed the second she shoots the Portal onto the Moon, so any argument you have to make regarding this completely retarded because she has her own momentum coupled with the intense airflow going through the Portal. It cancels out any kind of other forces that might have an effect on her because the speed of it is stronger. Chell would have been stranded in Space if you follow the A model, yes, but that would have happened either way if she didn't grab onto Wheatley. I never took a side before because I always preferred to lurk, but it makes no sense to me to say she "gains" the Moon's momentum, like wtf does that even mean? She loses the momentum she developed on her towards the Portal the second she goes through it? Yeah, okay, buddy retard, I guess I'm on Team A now.

>>720146948
kek that image

>>720146861
What, you're suggesting air wouldn't move through portals? Are you mystified by moving a hula hoop around? Omg the air!

>>720146861
>If B was correct - which it is not - every portal would be sucking atmosphere through it like a fucking vacuum if the portal was moving
Nope. You just don't understand B.

You are standing in front of a blue portal. The orange portal is moving 1 m/s towards a stationary wall. You throw the ball into the blue portal at a velocity of 1 m/s. When the ball passes through the portal, what is its velocity? When the ball bounces back and returns to you through the portal, what is its velocity?
For this problem assume the following:
>there is no wind resistance
>the ball will reach the wall and pass back through the portal before the portal collides with the wall

The moon isn't real portal behavior, it's a scripted sequence.

>>720146484
So the man is moving?

>>720147095
you've changed the situation to an object that is moving passing through a moving portal.

>>720146943
>so the cube launches off the platform the instant the portal touches it
No, actually, only when it's completely through the portal; and uf the platform would follow it through th portal, not even then.
>but why not before?
Because it's not moving out of the portal then.

>>720146948
They do say ignorance is bliss

>>720146213
Yeah B can actually be extremely intuitive.

Afags don't understand that one of the reasons we come up with so many alternate scenarios is there are plenty of situations where they would agree with B's logic but don't fucking realise it.

>>720147172
its "moving out of the portal" the instant the entrance portal touches it. standing outside the exit portal, it would be moving (read: getting closer) the entire time the entrance portal was falling. but for some reason it only "continues" moving after it touches the portal?

>>720146693
If the piston were to stop? It would jump up and be pulled through as soon as any part of the cube went through the portal

>>720135438
Bfags would have you believe that the portals would be sucking in, and emitting, winds at DOUBLE the speed of the vehicle, which we could reasonably say is 40-60 mph.
You think this system could work with 120 mph turbulent winds?

>>720147025
Come off it m8, reality isn't being "rearranged", the portal is simply moving.

I don't get where the mysterious B force is coming from?
The only force affecting the cube is gravitational force.
I mean free portals are already a ridiculous concept but the mysterious B force is even more stupid.
Portals are just shortcut in space right? Space itself has no force. It can't influence anything. B fags are retarded.

>>720129516 (OP)
I think the best answer to the original thought experiment is B for the reasons already stated 10 billion times, but this post looks a bit stupid for the same reason that the "hula hoop" rebuttal to B is extremely stupid: You do not have one portal moving with respect to the other, so you've removed the aspect of the original scenario which made it contentious in the first place (i.e. that it represents something that isn't directly represented in the game). I think I see your point, which is that the portals do affect momentum by changing the person's direction of motion as seen by an external observer, but to be perfectly honest, I think you're misrepresenting the argument against B (or at best being pedantic). When they say portals "conserve" momentum (and yes we're going to stretch the laws of physics a bit because there are portals), I'm pretty sure they mean momentum as experienced (for lack of a better word) by whatever goes through the portal, in which case the change in direction seen by the external observer seems to vanish. The portal traveler's experience is like moving in a straight line through a window connecting two identical rooms at different orientations. Measuring momentum by what the portal traveler sees could imply either A or B in the original problem depending on how you interpret the made-up extra physics, which is why nobody will ever shut up about this.

>>720147323
>portals don't rearrange reality
the final state of the b-fag
>portals, are not portals.

>>720147151
I don't care, I just want to see other people argue about more stuff

>>720147028
>It cancels out any kind of other forces that might have an effect on her because the speed of it is stronger
Really, the speed of her shooting up from the Moon's surface somehow cancels out the nearly 3000 mph lateral movement? Fuck outta here, ya goon.

>>720146121
It's the only canon scene of solid matter going through a moving portal, and it shows B (relative velocity in = relative velocity out)

>>720147298
So if we have a 1 km long pole, as soon as one end of the pole enters the portal it would pull through the entire thing?

>arguing theories instead of just doing a practical experiment to confirm said theories
Wastes of space. This is why we should defund theoretical physics.

>>720129964
The moon scene at the end of 2 destroys your strawman. Remember, the moon and earth have different rotations. Try again.

>>720147308
Assume it's an enclosed carriage.

>>720147151
Can't you just answer a question?

>>720147490
many people have done the hulahoop theory. its now the basis of our space program.

>>720147490
Opening a tear in space to prove Btards are retarded is a little difficult anon, please understand.

>>720146861
Fuck are you taking about? Moving portals would 100% cause winds, any air passing through pushes all the other air on the other size, proving B right. There wouldn't be any ultra vacuums like you're describing though.

Just curious. Have we ever done a poll on this? Would be interesting to see what the split is and maybe do a poll on reddit too and compare them. Maybe whoever makes the next thread should include a poll link?

>>720147348
>Space itself has no force. It can't influence anything.
You are clearly not familiar with General Relativity.

>>720147469
It's a scripted sequence, taking logical liberties, designed to fill a narrative.

>>720147591
If it is not possible, then both theories are also meaningless. You might as well argue about whether dividing by zero should be infinity or 0.

>>720147280
>its "moving out of the portal" the instant the entrance portal touches it
Yes. But it's also still touching the platform.
>but for some reason it only "continues" moving after it touches the portal?
The reason is its velocity is not translated before passing through the portal

>>720147505
I can "assume" that objects in our Universe are made up of the four basic elements (earth, air, fire, water) like early Greek scientists but that doesn't make a system correct.

>>720147308
>Bfags would have you believe that the portals would be sucking in, and emitting, winds at DOUBLE the speed of the vehicle
Would we? Show your work.

>>720147490
BRB, doing this

>>720147348
Same force that makes a cube go up in the games

>>720147660
Isn't that shit only relevant for literal planets and shit?
What? The piston has the gravitational pull of a black hole?

>>720129516 (OP)
Someone post the webm of the in engine demo I can't find it

>>720129964
>not understanding momentum and velocity

>>720147687
Air resistance would be a problem in that gif even if it didn't involve portals. What do you think you could easily play a game of catch on top of a fast moving train?

Assume it's an enclosed carriage. The gif doesn't even make it impossible to assume that since you're looking it completely top down so it could be in a glass box and you wouldn't be able to tell.

>>720147630
>massive air pressure differences wouldn't cause vacuums
Retard
I'm giving you a second chance, think harder on this

>>720147392
If you describe a portal moving towards something as "reality being rearranged so the portal is closer" then I fucking rearrange reality to work every weekday. You're just using vapid technobabble to mask your lack of a point.

>>720147835
>>720147490
OK, I'm back. Turns out the cube compresses in on itself into an infinitely small hyperdense atom before exploding outwards. I'm glad I tried that outside.

>>720147897
>Air resistance would be a problem
yeah....
that's why the system isn't correct....

>>720147348
Your image implies you've thought about the moment when the cube is half out of the blue portal. So it's half out and then it's fully out. Going from one state to the other requires motion. One of the simplest arguments in favor of B is that the cube already moved as such, and so it should keep moving unless a force stops it. What "force" causes that motion in the first place? Maybe leprechaun magic. But probably just mechanical force from the rest of the cube needing to come through. In any case, you can't draw it and then say it never happened, even if you only drew two frames of it. What you're arguing is that the motion on the exit side stops as soon as the exiting is complete. So what force stopped it?
Go ahead and reply with "but there's no force" instead of reading.

>>720147957
Write a paper and submit it for peer review first, nigga.

>>720147852
So this is the power of A-fags.
This isn't about "power". It's about how reality works. In General Relativity, gravity is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime. It's not a force.

>>720147348
>>720147994
you're forgetting that air is shooting out of the lower portal like a water hose at 30 m/s

>>720147978
Prove it isn't an enclosed carriage.

Hell the fact you don't see visible air resistance is basically proof it is.

>>720147939
>portals don't change anything
>portals aren't portals

its sad to see b-fags needing to reject the very basis of the argument to support their position

>>720129516 (OP)
Again Btards don't understand it's the object with the kinetic energy, and are so bootyblasted they are pretending to be Alphas now.
Go look at the original to remember what your position is please, shit is just embarrassing at this point.
This example completely destroys the original B position

>>720147994
>cube looks like moving, therefore must keep moving

>>720148038
Nevertheless it can modeled using a force, so kindly model the force affecting the cube

>>720147665
The writers made B canon. A is not portrayed anywhere in the Portal games while B is.

>>720147932
There'd be no massive vacuums by default, because the portals are functioning like a bag collecting air. There would be less air around the entrance, but unless it was moving crazy fast there wouldn't be any vacuum. Assuming both the entrance and exit spaces have the same ambient pressure, the moving portal will cause an increase in pressure based on its velocity in the exit space.

>>720148118
You don't even know what you're saying.

>>720148085
Who said there was air? This is a physics problem. Assume a vacuum unless otherwise stated. Also assume no friction and no gravity. Also assume the cube is a perfect sphere.
But seriously, there's no need to muddy the water by introducing things like air pressure that obviously have nothing to do with the point of the original thought experiment. It's like asking me to think about radiation pressure from solar wind when I'm just trying to answer a question about whether gravity pulls an apple up or down.

>>720131962
JUST FOUND A SECOND PALE OIL IN WHISPERING ARCHIVES

KNEEL

>>720129516 (OP)
...does a door (literal: portal) connecting two rooms change your direction, momentum etc by itself?

>>720148316
no, you, he who is claiming portals don't change the spatial relationships between [everything] by existing at all

>>720148237
Of course, regular portal gameplay also shows B anyway

>>720148290
>the portals are functioning like a bag collecting air
It's just a fucking hole in a moving wall you imbecile

>>720148183
>looks like
How does it actually get out of the exit portal if it only "looks like" it's coming out?

>>720148392
there is never a situation in the games where you need to drop a portal on an object to launch it

>>720148367
I did not, in fact, claim that. I merely pointed out that the motion of the piston has fuck-all to do with "rearranging reality".

>>720148194
Model the force that suddenly stops the cube after it goes through the portal.

>>720148106
>i can't prove my assumption is right so you have to prove my assumption wrong
Ok, there's a lot of things needed for this proof
1) Assume I fucked your mother
2) Assume I didn't call her ass back after I hit it and quit it
3) Assume that the Sun falls out of the sky tomorrow
4) Assume that Gaben himself gave me Half-Life 3
5) Assume that the carriage is not enclosed

Ok, your turn.
Do you get why mindlessly spouting out assumptions doesn't make something correct? Do they not teach this in schools or did you get all your knowledge in a tiktok?

>>720144828
The momentum literally is affected. Momentum is a vector, meaning it has direction and magnitude. Changing the direction is changing the momentum. If momentum wasn't affected, the end result would be A in the OP picture, you'd keep moving downwards and get cut in half on the portal edge and then slide down the wall, but, as we see in game, you instead fling out in the direction the other portal is facing, which means a change in momentum, and thus, B.

>>720147428
You're the one suggesting that moving through a Portal to the Moon changes your momentum somehow, which is a completely ridiculous fucking notion. No matter which model you use, she would go out the same way the air does, which is perpendiculary to the Portal because that's the only way she could be pushed out. Maybe if she travelled a bit more distance your explanation of A might happen, but she was literally right by the surface. There was no time for your hypothetical to happen because she grabbed onto Wheatley right as soon as she went through the Portal, so she didn't fly off. Fuck's sake, man.

>>720148432
because there is nothing stopping it from passing through the portal.

the question is whether or not it continues moving once the portal stops. it doesn't.

>>720148352
No, it would have to be of the type shown in the game they made around the concept of using portals to change your momentum.

>>720148432
The portal shifts positions in space to fit under it

>>720147478
While the portal is in motion (at a constant speed), the pole has no velocity along its body, so it experiences no internal force. As soon as the portal slows or stops, the portion which has already passed through will tug on the portion which has not. Assuming the pole is of uniform density and the portal has engulfed 300m of it before stopping, the 300m would pull on the 700m and the subsequent momentum transfer would result in a new pole velocity of 0.3v out of the portal (where v was the portal movement speed). Some guy made a bunch of gifs about this years ago, see picrel.

>>720148527
I did prove it right by pointing out there isn't visible air resistance you dumbass.

>>720148480
>rearranging reality has fuck-all to do with rearranging reality
>portals... are not portals

>>720145396
The thought never leaves my mind.

>>720147685
>implying the platforms are ever going to "completely" press against each other
lol. LMAO.

>>720148543
So it moves a distance equal to its own length but then inertia suddenly isn't real? It's okay if you think so because it's all fake anyway. I just want to be clear.

>>720148392
Eh, B works for all situations shown in the game, but other than the Moon scene there's nothing which doesn't also work for A's absolute frame of reference idea.

>>720148496
No need, the cube isn't moving. If you say it is moving, then when does it start moving?

>>720148438
No, but B is simply an extrapolation of the things you do do. Relative speed in = relative speed out, momentum is conserved through the portal as if continuous motion, and immediately changed from an outside perspective as discontinuous motion. Logically there can be no other conclusion from this than B.

>>720148681
the cube is at rest. it stays at rest. illusions the contrary don't suddenly cause it to stop being a rest.

>>720147308
>>720146809
>>720136224
What's the deal with this Afag who keeps hallucinating wind inside of vehicles?

>>720148754
thus dropping a hulahoop on the ground will launch you into the air

>>720148527
Instead of assuming an open carriage so you can sidestep the point, how about you instead make the assumption that would lead to you addressing the point instead?

>>720148746
It exists the portal, which necessitates movement. Why does it abruptly stop moving after fully going through the portal?

>>720148564
So people arguing game mechanics and not general physics.

>>720148689
Absolute frame of reference is dumb anyway, unless you can explain why Earth at sea level is magically the only reference frame where portals work properly. It would be funny if it were true though, and there was some hidden reference mass somewhere in aperture that defined that frame. Too bad it contradicts the moon scene.

>>720148535
>You're the one suggesting that moving through a Portal to the Moon changes your momentum somehow, which is a completely ridiculous fucking notion
It's not only not ridiculous, it's literally what's shown in that scene.
>There was no time for your hypothetical to happen
It would be literally instantaneous.

>>720147646
I've done it a few times over the years and it's usually around 55% B, 45% A

>>720148854
because it was never moving. reality was moved around it.

>>720148854
It's not moving, the portal is moving and stops because the piston stops.

>>720148665
I never implied that nor do I see the relevance.

>>720148831
B is also consistent with hula hoops. If you think otherwise, you don't get B. You are adding speed twice for no reason, creating a strawman without even realising.

>>720146638
>This is what Afags actually believe

>>720148925
have you ever been able to explain why chell should've been shredded by the moon portal moving at 2290 mph?

>>720148858
Which is pointless because the game engine wasn't built to support either A or B.

>>720148858
If you wish to take this beyond the games then create a portal.

>>720149119
but anon, relative to the immobile hula hoop, you are moving. why do you stop moving? it doesn't make sense.

>>720148763
>the cube is at rest
>as it visibly moves to exit the stationary portal
1984 shit

>>720129516 (OP)
Imagine a thin sheet of material with a hole in it.
If that sheet is moved such that a motionless object passes through the hole, the object would remain motionless.
This is easily testable with household items.

Now imagine the same sheet, except instead of an ordinary hole it has a input portal on one side and an output portal on the other.
If you moved this sheet of metal such that a motionless object passed through the input portal, would that object remain motionless when it exited the output portal or would it be launched?

>>720148847
your point is literally "assume the system doesn't have the problem I pointed out"
There's nothing to argue - you just want to imagine a scenario, regardless of how correct it is. All I'm pointing out is that fact - it's a representation that is missing elements.

>>720149216
>dropping hula hoop on ground
>immobile

>>720149216
Because the hula hoop stops moving relative to you. It literally changes its motion to correspond to yours.

>>720149256
>visibly
but not really.

>>720148858
Anon, portals break the laws of physics, they aren't real. How can you argue for or against something with a broken ruleset? It'd be like arguing over Chess using the rules of Checkers

>>720149280
>would that object remain motionless when it exited the output portal
Well it exited the output portal, which I'm guessing was itself stationary. So I'm going to say no.

>>720149404
Exactly, same thing with the portal

>>720149370
yes anon, relative to itself the hulahoop is immobile and everything else is moving.

>>720149404
hulahoop no moving, you moving

>>720148975
Reality moving is how gravity works in general relativity.\

>>720148978
>A cube comes out of a hole
>"Bro, it's not moving"
I cannot discard the intuition I've acquired about reality throughout my life.

>>720149280
>It's another Afag reinventing hula hoops and presenting them as an epiphany that changes everything episode

THE GOALPOSTS AREN'T MOVING

>>720149595
Relative to your argument, yes they are.

>>720149281
>your point is literally "assume the system doesn't have the problem I pointed out"
It's literally "talk about the fucking point instead of looking for problems that aren't even implied so you have any excuse to avoid admitting you're wrong"

>>720147348
instantly your first sketch is already wrong. you're drawing a downward arrow on the cube, implying gravity. but an equal force is acting on the cube from the ground. there are effectively no forces acting on the cube as the resistance from the ground cancels gravity out. as long as the ground is in the way gravity is a net zero effect on the cube. obviously. if nothing else happened it would just keep resting there. no forces to consider.

after that the arrows begin to make even less sense as you draw yet another gravity arrow on the exit side (valid), but completely ignore the fact that the cube has already moved a substantial distance out of the portal. how did that happen? it's hilarious how A and B only start differing after the cube has already MOVED THROUGH the portal. how do A fags explain that the cube moves through the portal in the first place? what force is moving it through the portal? solve that and you will graduate to understanding B.

I used my going in to games machine to test this out, the answer is B

>>720149497
Except the portal does not change its motion. What, you think it shoots off for no reason?
>>720149513
Use whole sentences.

>>720149281
All you're doing is telling us you aren't prepared to deal with the scenario which has your gripe directly addressed. And instead you have to resort to picking at trivialities.

And besides, as has been pointed out. The fact that there is no visible air resistance in the animation would mean its an enclosed carriage. But you aren't prepared to address that either.

>>720149569
"gravity" is a divot in spacetime.

>>720147095
It'll exit the orange portal at 2m/s (1m/s from your throw + 1m/s from the orange portal moving), assuming it keeps 100% of its speed after hitting the wall and just changes direction 180°, it'll be moving towards the orange portal at 2m/s and the orange portal towards it at 1m/s, so it's total velocity relative to the orange portal is 3m/s, which is the speed at which it'll exit the blue portal.
TLDR: It's B.

>>720149581
>i've heard that before therefore its wrong
the peak of b-fag "logic"

>>720149513
>relative to itself
You're spouting actual nonsense you clown.

>>720149741
How does Chell smell?

Drop a portal into a large body of water, with the other portal connected to a container that is full of water
What happens

>>720149651
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc

>>720149861
i accept your concession

>>720149861
He's right though...?

>>720149859
You've heard the refutation before too, so we both know it's wrong. Which makes it doubly disingenuous of you.

>>720148183
it doesn't look like it's moving, it IS moving. relative to both the exit portal and to its surroundings (environment) the cube is in fact moving to exit the portal.

>>720149424
>But I did have breakfast!
You can theorize to your hearts content about general physics. A game's design however is not a matter theory.

>>720149569
What happens if you have box with a cube in it and then remove the box?

>>720147348
There is no force. In fact there being a force would mean it's A. The cube was moving and there's no force affecting it so it continues moving after exiting the portal according to Newton's 1st.

>>720149902
Retard, the person in this example is moving at the same speed as the car.

>>720149963
the "refutation" of the hulahoop is that portals don't rearrange anything. that portals... aren't portals.

>>720149941
Yes I concede you are a clown.
>>720149960
"Relative to itself" is actual nonsense. An oxymoron. Look up what relative means.

>>720149918
I think it would cause the portal to float. If you push it down, you might burst the box. But it would require force to push down depending on the material of the box and the volume of water.

>>720149918
Water would be forced through the blue portal and in to the room, increasing the pressure there. Water would attempt to push back out of the room through the portal, but as the blue portal keeps falling, this would be resisted.

>>720149763
The orange portal stops

>>720149581
No.
Its far closer to trying to carefully spoonfeed very basic concepts to a special needs children such that they don't become confused and sperg out.

>>720149981
"movement" is a measurement of change over time. the argument is whether the box will continue said movement just because that's how (you) expect it to behave.

>>720150042
No, it's rather that portals... aren't hula hoops

>>720150002
Back to the hoop argument, I see. It doesn't work because sides of the hole are moving at different velocities. See: >>720135046

>>720148543
there is also nothing stopping it from continuing to move, so it cannot stop moving. momentum.

>>720148584
no, the exit portal is stationary. the exit portal does not move.
left side: portal moving, cube stationary
right side: portal stationary, cube moving
I just realized that the main difficulty of A fags might just that they cannot conceptualize how the cube could be stationary relative to the environment on the left and moving relative the environment on the right.

>>720150034
The portal is not a valid frame of reference

>>720150040
He's at rest within his vehicle.

>>720150116
Yeah who cares lmao
Why would that matter?

>>720149797
>hitting the wall and just changes direction 180
Thanks, forgot to mention that the wall is perfectly perpendicular to the ball's direction of velocity (and also just assume gravity is negligible for this experiment)

>>720150105
>Water would be forced through the blue portal and in to the room
No.
Water is practically incompressible. The portal has become a wall.

>>720150178
except they essentially are. hulahoops where one side is in a different place, because reality has been rearranged.

>>720150130
>the argument is whether the box will continue said movement just because that's how (you) expect it to behave.
so now you admit that it's moving, but still postulate that it will magically stop moving? why would it stop moving? you need a REASON for it to stop moving. there isn't one.

>because that's how (you) expect it to behave
>implying this is some personal opinion
bottom IQ

>>720150121
Yes, that's basically my role in this. Wrangling a bunch of hula hoop obsessed low-functioning spergs.

>>720150248
That is literally false.
Please look up inertia.
>this retard has never made a sharp turn in his life

>>720150205
So how does it change it's motion relative to the left environment?

>>720150205
>there is also nothing stopping it from continuing to move
it isn't moving and it doesn't magically start just because it looked like it was from a specific perspective.

>>720150285
Right, and your vagina is basically a cock that has been rearranged

>>720150346
He's literally not moving. Why would he start moving just because he went through a door?

>>720150050
>"Relative to itself" is actual nonsense. An oxymoron.
Seems you cannot into reflexivity. Sorry, retard-kun.

>>720150197
Okay, change Hoola hoop to a dress then

>>720150424
i accept your concession

>>720150428
He's moving while inside the car dumbass.
Go drive your car, get up to speed, make a sharp turn, and experience yourself still moving in the direction you were going previously.

>>720148969
Alright. That's roughly what I expected. Thanks.

>>720150554
b-fags are generally brown, so you ask of him the impossible

>>720150435
>being judged or measured in comparison with something else
>something else

>>720150481
My point is that asserting something is "essentially the same" except for the extremely relevant, pivotal difference you are going to proceed to ignore on those grounds is a shit argument

>>720150634
its defined that way because everything is immobile relative to itself.

kinda like how movement is change in position over time, because we don't have portal guns.

>>720149902
You're inside a car, and thus subject to its acceleration.
That is not the case in the original thought exercise.

A better example would be if somebody laid down in the wake of a speeding monster truck, and passed between its tires without being touched.
The Achad would assert that the person would not move at all.
The Btard would insist that the person would be propelled in the opposite direction to the truck with equal acceleration.

>>720150105
Where does the inertia of the pool of water go
There's still energy in the system

>>720150718
>its defined that way because everything is immobile relative to itself.
You've literally just used the word relative incorrectly according to its own definition.

>>720150714
either the distance between the entrance and exit is irrelevant (it is) or opening portals at all causes change in position over zero time (it doesn't) and then everything keeps moving faster than light (it doesn't).

>>720150789
No, he's completely right. You can define a reference frame attached to any object, and in that frame said object is immobile.

>>720150775
>The Achad would assert that the person would not move at all.
>The Btard would insist that the person would be propelled in the opposite direction to the truck with equal acceleration.
You do realise you just described the same scenario twice from a different perspective? You're very close to the point.

>>720150849
Oh, it's you. The disingenuous semantics arguer with no visual imagination.

>>720151016
You do realize that you just stated complete nonsense?

>>720150356
we don't have to talk about a left environment, that's a needless complication. there is just one big environment around the entire experiment. in THE environment the left part of the cube (the pre-portal part) is stationary and the right (post-portal) part of the cube is moving. why? because the entry portal moved relative to the cube, and the exit portal didn't.
if entry and exit portal had identical velocities the cube would remain stationary the way A-fags imagine. the funniest part is when A-fags agree with this. so in A-world the same thing happens no matter if the exit portal is stationary or moving. it's such an obvious paradox.

>>720150376
the perspective is stationary, therefore anything that appears to move in this perspective is in fact moving.
the cube is in fact moving. the exit portal is NOT moving, yet the cube is changing its position relative to it over time. that's movement. the cube is moving, else it could not go through a stationary portal.

>>720148946
Something like that would only be instantaneous if the gravity was incredibly strong, like enough to flatten you into a pancake in a second. The Moon doesn't have that and so wouldn't have such a dramatic effect on you like you seem to be thinking. I don't even see how the Moon scene even backs up Model B, because under either model the outcome would be the same. Chell flies through the Portal, is propelled by her own momentum and the air flow, and flies off into space. Nothing about that suggests only one model would result in that, and neither does it suggest that going through a portal to a different body would make you match to it, especially since there's no atmosphere to catch on. She just doesn't get stranded because she catches on Wheatley. If there was no air flow and she had no momentum, then I could believe she'd match to the Moon's, but that isn't the case. There is air flow and she has momentum. Why would she match to the Moon's momentum or gravity or whatever the fuck it is all because she went through a Portal? You haven't explained why that would happen beyond just saying the Moon is moving relative to the Earth while Chell is staying still.

>>720149280
You mean like the left in the gif here >>720135046? It would be the same as the thin sheet of metal. The cube doesn't move. Now if you put the top portal somewhere else and move the bottom one relative to it, you'd get B.

>>720150849
It is simply a fact that merely opening a portal creates new relative positions of everything to everything. If this does not result in everything exploding at light speed, maybe your conception of what's happening is simply wrong? Maybe because it's based on misapplying a definition?

>>720151101
b-faggotry is entirely semantics. the core of the position is quite literally, if it looks like its moving, then it needs to continue moving.

>>720150903
We're talking about the term relative being used incorrectly, which is it.

The fact that using a reference point entails looking at relative motion. Relative being a word that literally cannot be used to compare something to itself, is a pretty good indication of why you CAN'T measure an object using itself as a reference frame though.

>>720151106
No, but I do realise that it might look that way to someone who barely passed high school physics.

If the truck passes over you then relative to the truck you are moving away from it at the speed of the truck. And B says nothing more than this.

>>720151135
>the cube is changing its position relative to it over time.

thus throwing a hulahoop down launches you into the air. doesn't even need to be around you. the appearance of movement automatically conveys inertia in all instances.

>>720151135
>just ignore the parts that don't fit my narrative