Last chance to get it right before 2024

Nothing, the finger isn't long enough to reach the button

i don't get it, is the hand supposed to be fixed to the platform? if so, then the hand would pass through and the button would depress, assuming that the platform column is strong enough to support the load of the resistance of the button.

that's not what b describes. b describes the ladder instantly accelerating as the portal descends. what i'm describing is not acceleration, it's resistance supported by a structure (basic statics).

ok moron

If you accept that the hand can push the button, you accept that the hand is moving out of the blue portal. You accept that the cube in the original problem is moving out of the blue portal.
If the cube is moving out of the blue portal, then once it has passed through the portal it will continue its motion aka B) fling

Read, dumbass.
>It doesn't matter who took the initiative under your own perspective.
There is force in the direction of the exit portal. This is just irrefutable.

so if the hand isn't moving, and the button isn't moving, then what's compressing them?

you do realise that saying that means you support b, right?

so what if the energy has to come from somewhere? it's not being magically created by the portal. like i said before, it's coming from the structure supporting the portal. the portal itself is insubstantial.

>this one hundred mile column of air is merely being displaced it's not moving doe
post a pic of your hand

what are you trying to say, miguel? do you need to use your native language?

>irony
ironic

no, it isn't.

yeah, there is. one is a compressive force between two structures that are being forced together without acceleration. that's how portals work. the energy to compress the hand comes from the structures supporting the portals. if the strength of the portal structures is less than the force required to depress the button, then the hand won't depress the button & the portal structures will buckle.

>pushing buttong requires force
>hand will go through portal and push button
>hand has the force
It's just as simple as that, anon.
"Coming out" implies movement, which implies energy, which implies force. It doesn't matter who took the initiative under your own perspective.

Finish high school.

if people throughout history used this logic, we wouldn't have advanced in any field of anything

Ok but what if they did exist

>picture of moronic wojak with surge protector head plugged into itself
you look like this

>i am a moron
ok moron

t. moron

no i don't. if you weren't a 75 iq moron you might spend some time understanding it yourself, but you are a 75 iq moron, so you won't.

>if you don't engage in argumentation, then i'm right
75 iq capacity for reason in action.

>you have to do what i say!
it's unfortunate that your warrior gene makes it so difficult for you to think and reason, but at least you have fast twitch muscle fibers to help you run fast or whatever.

its embarassing at this point

How much energy?

the amount of energy required to keep the portals maintained would directly correlate to the mass and velocity of what is passing through them

so in this scenario

Perpetual motion machines exist in game already, so by engaging with the question you accept them as given. Portals violate conservation of energy.

each fall through a portal would exponentially increase the energy cost of maintaining the portals

would it also account for the potential energy of wherever the object ends up?

How much energy?

by that logic it requires zero energy to maintain the portals which makes no sense

so you're serious? your position is that it requires zero energy to maintain

>Portals can't exist without breaking physics
only if you break physics to make them work

small relative to what? also if you say it could be a static number regardless of what comes through thats just as bad as saying it costs no energy at all

it's stationary relative to the platform it was originally sitting on, it's moving relative to the other portal and hence this portal and whatever it is affixed to (because the other portal is moving relative to it)
when the other portal stops moving, it is no longer moving relative to it

When the other portal stops moving, the cube has already passed through and isn't affected by portal shenanigans any more. It's moving like you said, and will continue to move.

>it's stationary relative to the platform it was originally sitting on
The platform in question not being stationary relative to the portal. Therefore the cube is not stationary relative to the portal either.

So what's the problem? It's outright acknowledged that the cube is in fact moving as it exits then. It is after all moving relative to the portal.

>when the other portal stops moving, it is no longer moving relative to it
Its not the exit that changes in motion, therefore the cube continues to be moving relative to the exit.

there's no sensible structure for allowing the portal to influence beyond the boundary therefore any part of the cube on the other side will be pushed away by any part that emerges afterwards

homohomosexual eat shit and die

okay now instead of some random schizo tangent, try addressing what I said

>you say portal can't effect cube. I say true. Nothing is pushing cube because nothing that goes through portal is pushing. Nothing on other side of portal is moving.

the cube emerges into an environment, anything past the exit portal must move to accommodate anything coming out of the portal, this includes parts of the cube that have passed the exit side

how many ways do I have to rewrite the same shit before you stop your tunnel vision moron brain from short circuiting?

say that to all the air that's occupying the space the cube emerges in

moron

>this one hundred mile column of air is merely being displaced it's not moving doe
post a pic of your hand

I mean the portal is just a hole, right? The crusher is what's moving. The portal is a hole on the crusher. If a hula hoop fell around you at 300mph but didn't touch you, would you fly upward? I might be too shitty at physics to get this, but feel free to explain why I'm wrong.

Portals dont impart motion moron its two points in spacetime

see

the portal = hula hoop this is stupid, because the entire point of the a vs b debate is a senario where the two sides of the portal are moving relatively to each other, something a hula hoop can't do. if you had a mile high block with a portal on the top and bottom, and the block fell over you, then yes, you would remain stationary, because neither side of the portal is moving relative to the other side. as one side imparts motion, the other removes it.

>just because it appears to be moving does not make it to be moving.
so the cube is a ghost?

Einstein's relativity would consider the portal space to be distinct whereas Newtonian physics considers all space to be equivalent interchangable fungible indistinct. The space in a noodle black hole is not the same as a space on Earth. 1 meter cubed inside a black hole is not the same as 1 meter cubed on Earth.
You would need to consider layered reference to have an absolute 1 metered cube.

I think so. But there would be a wiggle beyond a plop. Satellites measure time taking relativity into consideration at a degree of precision far beyond the pale of almost all other human measurement.

>space is (presumably) not
bad presumption, then, no one thinks space is infinite, it's just really really really REALLY big and because it's expanding, for practical purposes, we can assure there is no way to get to the end of it

i'm acknowledging that things interact when they're forced together, but what i'm saying is that the portal doesn't force things together, and that both objects are stationary relative to each other. this means that the structure supporting the portal is the source of energy for the interaction between the stationary objects, and so through some spooky action at a distance that interaction occurs.

my point is that there aren't multiple portals. they aren't moving relative to each other. there's one portal.

there is only one portal. it is open through different surfaces.

okay, do you have a point?

Hold a fairly light object in your open palm. Something like a ping pong ball. Next, quickly lift your hand then bring it to a sudden stop. Does the ball continue to rise or does it stick to your hand? If you answered the former, congratulations on becoming a bgay.

hold a fairly light object in your stationary palm. now bring another object with a hole larger than the palm object down over the palm object such that the palm object fits through the hole. keep your palm stationary. you're an agay nmow have a nice day

the crusher and panel are obviously moving relative to each portal, and the movement of the portals is exactly the same as the surfaces they're on. if there's only one portal, then it's moving relative to itself, which doesn't make any sense.

if it's a single hole in multiple locations, then it's moving relative to itself.

keyphrase "relative to itself".

because that concept doesn't make any sense. by definition, in the reference frame of any inertial object, that object is stationary. it can't be both stationary and not stationary against all logic.

the game itself constantly says "the blue portal" and "the orange portal". it never says "blue side" or "orange side". it consideres the two portals to be sepeate but linked.

they still assume the portals act as though they aren't moving relative to each other, even when it's correct. a gays are moronic but they aren't nessisarily wrong in every senario. it just so happens the only senarios where they're right are senarios where a and b act the same.

no they aren't. both portals are moving in the exact same way as each other. do you know what "relative to each other" means?

not him but when two objects move relative to each other the distance between them changes

yes, imagine every point in that volume, maintaining closeness

yes, and that's completely fine with what I showed you

if you phrase it that way you're imagining it wrong, even if technically you can imagine it that way, it isn't gaining momentum

i'm not drawing the 4d version for you, do the example with paper [...]

Conceptually you have to also switch which side of the paper it is on, so a better version would be to maybe put a coin on the paper and move the paper

i'm not drawing the 4d version for you, do the example with paper

literally get a piece of paper, draw something on it, then fold it over so two parts connect, slide the connection point around
that's what is happening

it doesn't break down, my example here

is now a length
you just assert it doesn't work for no reason i've already said it remains connected, the same thing happens to each point in the volume conceptually
space itself is moving, your idea excludes that possibility

Whatever is pushing the portal is also pushing that.

you're misunderstanding it
the contact force when the object is in the portal is ALREADY THERE through the portal, in order to move the portal you already need to push against that
at no point do you need to double the momentum by applying the moving portal to the object going through the portal

I think what confuses you is that the force applied to whatever is holding the portal is applied to the opposide side of the portal (on both sides), not to the thing in the portal. Then the things contact as normal.
It's just directly connected space. The area in the middle is the same space. In B-theory the object is somehow accelerated. When does the relative motion double? I could say your idea doesn't work with volume because it would need to exponentially shoot through the portal

It can go in both directions, in the OP image example the cube obviously can't go towards the fixed platform it is already contacting without compressing. So unless it's easier to compress than air it goes through the portal, the force compressing the air is imparted by the platform moving the portal.

What do you mean "the same happen to any parts of the cube on the exit side"? I am saying as far as the cube and air are concerned, it is as if the portal isn't there and the space is directly connected. But in order for the portal to move space like this, there has to be some force imparted by the thing pushing the portal in order to move the air. But it doesn't need to impart any additional force or double the relative motion like in the other example

the cube isn't a single point but a volume, a collection of atoms just like the air, therefore any part of the cube on the exit side should be treated like the air, as in it will be pushed by anything emerging from the portal

it's fricking braindead simple

I have no clue what you are trying to say, there is 0 issue with what I have said and volumes or air

Yeah you are because apparently you don't understand what I'm saying. I've repeatedly said there's no obvious issue with infinitesimal points vs volumes, nothing I've said has depended on either and they aren't even mentioned in my recent double post you're complaining at. You're just imagining there's some problem but not saying what you think it is and expecting other people to see it.
What problem do you think there is? I've already explained how the three things are in contact and some extra force must be imparted in order to fold space such that the box is on the other side.

You are obviously just baiting at this point because you've realised A works perfectly with my explanation

Get a piece of paper, cut off a small box of it
Fold the paper over such that two small line segments almost connect (in concept they would), and slide the connected paper while holding the small box in place so as to achieve the effect of moving the box

>you have a million new issues but i won't bother specifying any of them

The area in the portal is the same area on both sides. The space is connected. It isn't "overlapping" except in that sense. The situation of contact between the fixed platform and box, and the box and air never changes. In order for the portal to move, either the box or the air has to compress. So the thing pushing the portal compresses the air. Once the box is slightly through this force is applying to the part of the box through the portal.

I didn't write that example and that example is more complicated, also the wind vs compression makes no sense.

Force is applied to area in contact with the portal on the opposite side (either way). This happens with the air and the box no matter which is partially through. There's nothing causing such a force to be required with the portal not moving, so the air doesn't auto-compress for no reason. If there's no box, then yeah the air compresses on both sides of the portal.

Why do you think air wouldn't be compressed? What do you think is happening?
Also remember what I said before about volumes and >>

. The relative momentum increases, this would happen continuously as the box goes through with all of the internal forces keeping the box together presumably leading to exponential momentum increase as the volume shifts through.

>if the air is compressed then the cube would be compressed
If the cube was made of air or something more easily compressible I would agree, up until the point the thing pushing can no longer compress it any farther.
But it isn't made of air, so if you apply force the air will compress in preference to the box

>if the air is compressed it means it can't impart energy
what makes you think this?
Also, force is being applied which is pushing the box into the air. Since they can't occupy the same space there has to be compression. This will preferably (or probably in proportion idk) compress the air since it's easier to compress, up until the point where it isn't.

Nothing is infinitely compressed, also why is the guy who literally just said he thinks compressed air can't impart energy suddenly talking about interaction? Remember in the A version, it's all connected air on both sides, there's nothing magically different aside from the contact area of the portal in which force must be applied if it moves

Nothing is infinitely compressed, also why is the guy who literally just said he thinks compressed air can't impart energy suddenly talking about interaction? Remember in the A version, it's all connected air on both sides, there's nothing magically different aside from the contact area of the portal in which force must be applied if it moves

It's not even complicated, try pushing a coin into water. The water compresses and the rest of the water tries to flow around (so that the water can decompress). Same thing happens with the box and air, there will be air flow to attempt to relieve the compression (this is why I said earlier that example didn't work, there would be compression AND wind because of it, and wind itself would amount to compression). If instead you tried pushing a marshmallow into solid ground, the marshmallow compresses instead of the ground.

what's the geometry of this overlap, circular, spherical, something else?

it's not a question when it's already evident there's no possible working geometry

you can throw your söy idea in the bin as it breaks geometry, the observed outcome in the thought experiment has the cube move however

things have to move through a wormhole

and this would require the exit side to move as well

What do you mean "the same happen to any parts of the cube on the exit side"? I am saying as far as the cube and air are concerned, it is as if the portal isn't there and the space is directly connected. But in order for the portal to move space like this, there has to be some force imparted by the thing pushing the portal in order to move the air. But it doesn't need to impart any additional force or double the relative motion like in the other example [...]

So the cube and air ARE pushing each other as normal, and the cube is also in contact with that fixed platform (which is _presumably_ fairly solidly in place). All of this works with the idea of the portal folding 4D space. Now in order for that particular adjustment to how it is folded to be possible (i.e. why anything relating to the platform/air/cube changes at all), there must be some force exerted at the other side of the portal, by the thing pushing the portal.
IF there wasn't sufficient force to do so, you would not be able to move the portal.

you're misunderstanding it
the contact force when the object is in the portal is ALREADY THERE through the portal, in order to move the portal you already need to push against that
at no point do you need to double the momentum by applying the moving portal to the object going through the portal

In other words the relative motion is the same as on the other side. It isn't picking up speed. When the portal stops moving into it on one side (because it is fully through), it will also no longer be moving on the other side.

Yeah I realised how dumb that was immediately after I posted it, but none the less you can see the ground the box rests on getting closer. So it's more like you're moving towards the box, which is what the platform with the portal on is doing.

No because intuitively it looks like it's being pushed out and is no longer in contact once it has popped out. Especially if you can see the box's platform getting closer as this happens, and is then stopped. It's not even surprising without foreknowledge since it's similar to something being pushed out of a tunnel, then no longer pushed.

You can see the platform the box is on. It appears to get closer, the same as the box. When the box pops out and stops, the platform also visibly stops getting closer. Giving the impression it was pushed but is no longer in contact (which is the case). On the other hand in the B version it keeps moving while the platform stops

I can picture the A version in my head. In the B version, at the point where the platform it was resting on stops, the box needs to continue moving.

Maybe all this A B stuff is just confusion about the speed in the OP image? It is moving out of the portal at the same speed as the platform is moving, the force ceases once it is no longer in contact.
In most cases that means it just plops out.

but look at the speed lines on the image, the piston is clearly slamming down fast!

I momentarily confused myself, I see what you mean though now, I guess neither really works.