plopbros...
i never thought Btards would be proven right
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
plopbros...
i never thought Btards would be proven right
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Regardless he should get out of the way because he doesn't know the weight of the object, in the event it plops it could still tumble and crush him. Also this comparison is incongruent as the original example has the object moving from a place of gravity to a place of gravity. Realistically the amogus would be sucked into the vacuum of space as the portal functions as an open window or a port-al
wtf even is this image?
the question at the bottom is like elementary when you study topics like relativity.
instead of debating semantics on a mongolian basket weaving forum, just fricking go and study any physics-related degree man jesus fricking christ
disingenius
inside a building has the same point of reference, it's not like in space where to unconnected objects have diferent points of reference
That's not how that works.
I love you amogus
He gets ejected because he's SUS.
An ABlack person made this image without even realizing it's a completely different situation
I don't think you understand it. It's supposed to make Agays realise that they have no answer to this question because they are fruitlessly trying to determine the "objective" "absolute" speed of the cube. B, which only deals with relative speed, could easily answer what happens, because it's the same in every scenario. It doesn't matter which it is because they are equivalent from a physics perspective.
Bgays can easily answer because they base heir understanding on our understanding of physics, which is nothing but a meme founded upon our subjective perspective of reality.
Achads know there is an objective reality that defies humanity's peabrained attempts to define it, resulting in scenarios that spit in the face of our grandiose "laws of physics."
a does follow the laws of physics though.
bgays think that there are multiple "frames of reference" which leads to degenerate ideas of "relative morality." They believe that murder can be explained away by physics, that a killer can say in court "your honor, the victim was moving relative to my knife and not the other way around"
Whereas achads recognize that there is only one frame of reference that matters, namely the frame that include God's Firmament and his crystal spheres, Amen
The B box isn't floating in space.
>gravity makes things fly higher
dipshit
It makes them plop lower.
there's no wall to stop the room from moving. not the same thing
Should I """solve""" Schrodinger's cat by making a video game simulation where the cat is always alive too?
You left it ambiguous in the first place moron, no definite answer.
>thinks Schrodinger's Cat is about knowing something that you don't have enough information about
That was my point moron. Are portals real?
I'm making fun of your point by using
>implication arrows
Thanks for admitting to being a disingenuous moron who can't write a response.
Schrödinger's Cat is about the superpositional nature of reality, not what you think it is.
it doesn't matter which object is moving, the cube will smash into him regardless
heh
whoosh or plop
Weird how the simulation with equations and physics that YOU wrote did exactly what you want. Were you also stunned to find that the superheroes won at the end of your favorite marvel movie despite the odds? You fricking moron
to be fair, what he wrote is how the physics would work irl if you think about it.
>if you think about it.
what if i DONT think about it?
then you argue about it on a somali spear chucking social media
Not at all. He writes the physics such that the portal is imparting motion upon the box, because he's a dumb reddit posting pseud
oh youre right he did.
he shouldve just made the portal keep the save relative velocity it had going into the portal
i think i had a stroke there.
i meant he shouldve had the box keep the same relative velocity.
He does
no he doesnt that literally applies the portal velocity to the cube
Velocity is relative.
The only velocities that exist are box-entrance, entrance-exit, and exit-box, and their scaled multiples.
>Why is only the velocity of the portal accounted for, relative to the box?
"Only" as opposed to what?
>What about the velocity of everything else relative to the box?
Such as?
but the portal is a teleporter. the distance from the orange portal to the cube and the distance to from the blue portal to the cube are equal
>the distance from the orange portal to the cube and the distance to from the blue portal to the cube are equal
???
because it's a mirror. If you put your finger on a sheet of paper, your finger is only a few atoms away from the other side. it's not 40 frickin miles away. The portal is a teleporter, not a tunnel.
So what? The portal is basically just a door. It has no velocity. It's just a theoretical warping of space. It's the same point. You're just being facetious. the box would plop.
>The portal is basically just a door.
Only when the two portals are back-to-back.
And in that case, B yields the expected behavior.
Both portals are effectively the same point in space, that's the whole idea behind them.
The distance between then is 0.
So?
The platform it's on, which is not moving.
What does your proposed set of equations look like? Be explicit.
Why is only the velocity of the portal accounted for, relative to the box?
What about the velocity of everything else relative to the box?
Christ, the number of times I've posted this exact equation in these threads.
And yet the same simple physics equation also accounts for the beloved hoop analogy of Agays.
yeah because the velocities cancel out. but the velocities shouldnt be applied to the cube at all. since the portal doesnt have mass, there is no "relative velocity". its just a hole
No you fricking dumby. The portal is a magic door that reduces the distance between two points to zero. Passing through a portal is the same as passing through a doorway. If you move the doorway toward you very quickly, you do not fly. You're so brain poisoned by reddit science that you fail to understand that not only is a portal incapable of moving, but it doesn't not transfer momentum or energy in any way.
>nice thumbnail dummy
A doorway's entrance and exit aren't moving independant of each other. In the gif the "exit portal" is moving at the same rate as the "entrance portal" which invalidates it since the exit portal in question isn't moving. You're actually illustrating why the cube should be moving
No. Again your brain is poisoned. There is no scientific stretching force, there is no speeding up or slowing down there is no general relativity. A portal is a magic door coated in fake science that makes the difference between 2 points 0.
>there is no general relativity
???
hes right theres not. because there cant be relative velocity to a hole.
I'm not sure what to say to something so stupid.
He's right in a sense though. Objects have velocity, holes are an empty space that lacks an object - even though it is a location or set of coordinates that you can point at and call "the hole", to say it has actual velocity is like saying "this nothing is coming straight at me!"
Take a hole. Jump over it. Walk around it. Climb into it. You moved relative to the hole. We don't need a metaphysical discussion about whether a hole is a thing or the absence of a thing.
>There is no scientific stretching force, there is no speeding up or slowing down there is no general relativity. A portal is a magic door coated in fake science that makes the difference between 2 points 0.
His idea behind this is that the portal functionality acts as a teleporter between two spaces because if you introduce relativity to it like an object you introduce the fact that by travelling through a finite distance over an infinitely small timeframe you'd be travelling at close to infinite speed. The portal itself cannot act on an object or else the act of portalling itself would require infinite energy
>The portal itself cannot act on an object or else the act of portalling itself would require infinite energy
But then that's part of the premise. So what?
Because hitting something with infinite energy would instantly bring about the heat death of the universe?
Then why doesn't that happen in the game?
Because portals don't use infinite energy because they don't apply relativity because they are teleporters between coordinates, not objects
Then why would moving portals be any different?
They won't, so what?
So it seems to me that there's no problem.
You realize how wrong you are with the ending of Portal 2 and whenever Chell goes through a portal at a different orientation that she has to reoriente herself afterwards, right? If it was teleportation, you couldn't stand between the portals opening and exit.
look at
The portal were originally intended to behave like A but the engine cannot handle it when the object doesn't move and the portal just stops. The dev themselves said they couldn't figure it out to make it work.
Bullshit.
See this helpful graphic on why B argues for nothing more than portals behaving consistently like a window.
thats fricking moronic
It's nothing but the truth.
Dishonest. Note that you tards always completely negate gravity and so this magic floating cube continues floating but still also moving forward. It would be on the ground and not move
Gravity just needlessly complicates matters. It doesn't change the basic facts of how portals operate. If you think gravity meaningfully alters the answer, you don't understand the question.
Do you honestly believe that B argues the cube will continue to fly in a straight line ignoring gravity? Do we need to update the original pic to show a curved trajectory?
no.
you saying that moving the portal quickly transfers energy to the stationary cube. The cube is the object that is moving in your image, not the portals. It would be like if I could click and drag the portal from right to left over the cube and it would suddenly launch the cube to the right.
You're reading the image incorrectly. Look at the background. It was added for a reason.
are you saying that wouldn't happen and this would happen instead?
>moves toward you without exerting energy
The return of the Jamiroquai guy, welcome back !
Samegay hivemind.
Doors are not portals. You do not see into a distance world going though your window
The fact your in 3D means it cannot be a 2D position a | position b construct. It has a "space" between the front and exit. And if the entrance is moving onto you while the exit isn't moving at all, that entrance momentum has to be transferred onto you for you to even transition through that space to exit out the back of the portal.
>If you move the doorway toward you very quickly, you do not fly.
Same thing happens with back-to-back portals under his model.
It's even shown in the video, you colossal fricking moron.
Ok sir, can you please give us consisted mechanical formulation of A case, please?
then write your equations, ploptard
>Portal on the N64
Damn, that's actually pretty impressive.
B is probably the answer, but it's more fun to argue as an Agay because of how much Bgays seethe.
This. B is the only logical and sensible answer but because people can't comprehend someone being so moronic as to believe in solution A, pretending to be A homosexual makes for a great troll.
Whether I argue for A or B depends entirely on how I'm feeling that particular day. For instance, today I'm feeling particularly devilish and troll-y and so I will ironically argue for B
Whereas if you're feeling smart you'd do it sincerely?
B is how it would be in real life. A is how it would be in the game.
OP you gay this is just an ad for this homosexual's demake
i can never tell whos trolling in these threads. anyway, portals work like a window. when you throw something fast through a window, it keeps going fast, but if you drop a window on something it doesnt suddenly gain velocity. the gif i posted should clear things up nicely. just imagine the window is in fact a portal on the front and back side of the falling house.
frick i had just typed out the captcha and you beat me to it
explained concisely in the video
And
now
in
Portal.
>jumped as he moved into the portal
Moving Portals do not work when the object doesn't move. It just stops.
>It doesn't do what we want it to do
Bgays will use everything but the fricking game itself to justify their headcanon
The OP is not about the game. The game is wrong. It's like using a Atari game to justify if Unreal 5 is realistic. OP explicit ask what would happen based on the logic we have in reality.
The game about warping reality just had shit coding that isn't accurate to reality, just a shitty "close enough" example of reality.
>the op is not about the game
>uses portals from Portal
>uses the companion cube from Portal
>is not about Portal
Now that's just being dishonest
Here's a question, he has the setup but instead of using a cube he instead has the player character jump through the portal....I wonder why?
Guy who made this webm regrets it by the way. He's realised it doesn't actually prove A.
Btards on suicide watch LMAO
>let me rewrite the game to fit my narrative real quick
HAHAHAHAHA
>has all the tools to replicate it exactly
>doesn't
what a fricking moron...
ok Bgays, where does the cube get its momentum then? Say the portal slams down BUT STOPS RIGHT AT THE HALF HEIGHT OF THE CUBE causing one-half of the cube to stick out of each portals. Where is the momentum? SHouldn't the cube get 'sucked' out despite not entirely submerging it? Face it, with the frame of reference of the cube, the cube's velocity is 0. It doesn't go through the portal, the portal goes through the cube.
>SHouldn't the cube get 'sucked' out despite not entirely submerging it?
yes. that is what would happen.
>Face it, with the frame of reference of the cube, the cube's velocity is 0.
This is always the case. Your velocity relative to yourself is always 0.
>where does the cube get its momentum then?
Portals change the velocity of objects passing through them. This has always been the case.
Let me guess, you think velocity is just a more sciency way of saying speed?
>Portals change the velocity of objects passing through them
They do not.
see
Velocity is defined with a direction. Portals changing an object's direction of travel is literally changing its velocity.
You really DID just think velocity is a more sciency way of saying speed didn't you?
>Velocity is defined with a direction. Portals changing an object's direction of travel is literally changing its velocity.
only thanks to gravity
Gravity is irrelevant, the velocity is changed as a result of the direction being changed, this is a property of even static portals
>as a result of the direction being changed
direction wouldn't matter if it weren't for gravity
damn btards really are dumb
You can literally have an object moving in space and a portal would still demonstrate changing velocity by having direction. You are making it painfully apparent you think velocity is just another word for speed.
without gravity everything would be moving at constant velocity. changing direction would not change the velocity unless by the influence of gravity.
>changing direction would not change the velocity
IT LITERALLY DOES
>these Black folk seriously think velocity just means speed
>IT LITERALLY DOES
thanks to gravity yes. if not for gravity the object passing through a portal would keep moving at the same velocity it entered at. gravity is what gives it direction
a change in velocity does not equal a change in momentum
I know you're baiting at this point but frick it.
give me an example when speed is not equal to velocity
object A is moving left 10 m/s, and object B is moving 10 m/s right
also, object A is stationary and object B is moving 20 m/s right
also, object A is moving left 20 m/s and object B is stationary
A and B have different velocity and in two frames, one object has zero velocity and thus momentum/kinetic energy
interesting enough, wouldnt this count as interference, as nothing travels in this way, w/o another force forcing it? (i wouldnt know)
>thanks to gravity yes. if not for gravity the object passing through a portal would keep moving at the same velocity it entered at. gravity is what gives it direction
Black WHAT are you talking about
>thanks to gravity yes
I remember you
See what I mean ? he is just spamming variation of it KEK
Haha. Anyway you go back to posting variations of frogs you little rascal.
Of course I will. Though it's almost 1AM now, time to go to bed.
>frog poster, Europoor and an Agay
Can't get more moronic than that.
you wouldn't even need the ball or tissue paper. in a, the air itself would stop the cube in its tracks since it has no momentum and can't push them out of the way.
Yes but Agays are bad at visualising all the variables so it helps to give them a visual cue
Are you moronic? If it got stopped by air then it would even be a. Otherwise the original model would have it get stopped as well
That's not how mass works. You can't stop something weighing the weight of Earth with "air".
Otherwise jumping is impossible by your logic since emerging out of the portal regardless of rate would be stopped by "air"
You also implied in a vacuum like space it would be B then since there's no "air".
The cube doesn't have "no force", numbnuts, even when sitting still. Objects are constantly exerting force on the ground and having an equal force exerted on them by the ground. When it goes through the portal, that force of pushing off of the ground would make it go a small distance before stopping.
>portal engulfs box at speed
>box exits stationary portal at speed
>box now has momentum as its moving through space
if you stop halfway, the side that has gained momentum through motion will tug at the other side. throw a punch and stop halfway, you can feel it tug at your shoulder in the same way
B gays are asserting that the portal creates energy and transfers it to the cube.
even stationary portals create energy. put one portal on the floor, and one on the celing so that an object falling into the floor portal exits the celing portal and falls back into the floor portal. drop a magmet into the floor portal and coil copper wire around the path of the falling magnet. the magnet will now endlessly fall through the coil and generate electricity in it.
Portals are literally able to change the kinetic energy of an object.
>creates energy
Yes, that's how it starts moving down onto the cube in OP's image, it's called "kinetic" energy.
>Here we go, round 3
>rewrote
MY bad, indeed I wrote too fast.
Your logic is that the cube is moving fast towards us if we look through the blue portal, and yes, the cube look like it is moving fast towards us because the orange portal is moving, not because the cube itself move, therefore, when the cube end up outside the blue portal (or just not in contact with the orange portal anymore), it literally stop, because the orange portal stopped.
The idea behind the camera is that you could do the exact same thing in real life with an open door and a camera and get the exact same effect and the same conclusion, the cube would just stop when reaching the blue portal, simply because what was making it feel like moving stopped to move, aka, the orange portal. There is no impact nor modification nor change made to the cube during the entire process by any of those portals, the only impact that the cube got was from the environment, that changed abruptly, but that change is made without any force being exerted by those portals, therefore, their speed are totally irrelevant, since again, they cannot impact anything.
Thing about a slider on a bar on an UI, you can move the middle of the slider as much as you want, it want magically make the other side go haywire because of supposed relative that need to be match or whatever.
Except a portal isn't a camera, it's not just an image of the other side, it's a portal to the other side. The distance you see is literally your distance to those objects. And that distance is changing.
>an open door and a camera
That distance changing change nothing for the cube.
Indeed, the cube would just continue its motion if it crossed the threshold.
It won't because the origin of that "supposed" motion (aka the orange portal) isn't there anymore. The illusion of the "movement" is created by the orange portal, as soon the cube is on the other side, it stop (or i should say, start to change) his relation to the previous environment.
>The idea behind the camera is that you could do the exact same thing in real life
I can point a radar gun at the portal and it would tell me that the cube is moving. Can't do the same with a camera.
As if radar guns aren't complete fricking bullshit that are designed to let cops give out as many tickets as possible so the ~~*state*~~ can collect more revenue in fines.
The radar gun wouldn't tell you that the cube is moving, he would tell you that the distance is shortening (which may lead to the conclusion that the cube is moving, like a camera would do), but it is not the case, it's the portal moving, which make a big difference.
>he would tell you that the distance is shortening
That's movement, by definition.
> it's the portal moving
Portal is right in front of me not moving an inch. Try again.
>Portal is right in front of me not moving an inch. Try again.
Want to argue that when I'm standing on the blue side and pointing a radar gun through the portal it's actual moving? lmao
But nobody argue against that, I'm literally telling you since multiple messages already, that the movement is made by the orange portal, therefore there is a movement, of the orange portal. The cube doesn't move, the cube is sitting there approaching towards you because the orange portals is approaching the cube, like a camera moving behind an open door moving toward a cube.
>The cube doesn't move
>cube is sitting there approaching towards you
That's movement moron.
>There is no impact nor modification nor change made to the cube during the entire process by any of those portals
the onyl way for the cube to not have the same relative motion out of the exit portal as it did going in is for there to be an interstitial space within the portal, which there isnt. otherwise, the box exits the portal at the same rate and the object in motion will remain in motion.
Well?
A gays BTFO
It's already 16hours that I'm debating with those morons in this Portal thread, I'm starting to get the hang of it.
I think the worst argument for A is "B breaks conservation of energy". They both do. Not only that, but A uses up more energy, since it not only moves the cube through, but also stops its momentum.
lol
It's so fricking obvious that portals inherently break conservation of energy laws in general that it's baffling anyone makes that argument.
Yeah but they don't break conservation of Portal energy laws. Speedy thing goes in speedy thing goes out. Still thing goes in speedy thing, still thing speedily goes out. Just because still thing sped through speedy thing doesnt mean still thing isnt still anymore still thing remains still.
>Speedy thing goes in speedy thing goes out.
Pretty much all other agays making that argument are referring to conversation of energy in general.
Also an understanding of reference frames means portals already change kinetic energy, see
Agays in charge of being the most predictable b***hes.
>I predicted that someone would explain why B is factually wrong therefor it is not wrong
The cope from Bgays LMAO
explain this if stationary portals don't violate conservation of energy
>electricity
As I said before, your problem is that you don't understand what the conservation of energy is or that 'energy' doesn't mean electricity.
B gays are so moronic.
>Why are you making such an obviously flawed argument?
So flawed that you can't form a retort around it.
The force pushing the object down the portals is transfering energy, not creating it.
>another moron that thinks energy = electricity enters the fray
electricity is a form of energy.
>So flawed that you can't form a retort around it.
"portals break conservation in general" isn't a retort?
>"portals break conservation in general"
No because that statement requires an explanation that you have not given.
It's literally inferred from the gif and the filename. Do you need it spelled out for you? Here's a hint. GPE stands for "gravitational potential energy".
Saying three words is not an explanation.
Something falling down a hole forever doesn't get energy from nothing. Something is applying energy to it to make it fall. You don't know what conservation of energy is. I repeat: YOU DONT KNOW what the conservation of energy is. You are STILL thinking about the problem as if it was about generating electricity not primordial energies of the universe. Your mind is simply not developed enough to understand the actual discussion.
>Something falling down a hole forever doesn't get energy from nothing
It's gaining energy from an infinite source. Conservation of energy laws state energy should be finite.
>from an infinite source
therefor, it's not being created, it's being tansfered
You guys are so moronic that you keep agreeing with me without even knowing lmao
>Now guess what a portal above another does to the potential energy of the between the two portals.
Nothing is creating energy, it's transferring it. You literally have no idea what conservation of energy is. Sucks to be you.
Anon before the portals the water had finite amount of potential energy. After placing the water has an INFINITE amount of potential energy. Are you aware that infinity is bigger than any finite number? Riddle me this moron, where does this energy come from?
>still arguing about this nonsense
You are still not creating energy. You are still transferring it. You are moronic.
Transferring it from where? Point me to this infinite energy source.
>it's transferring it
transfering it from where?
>transfering it from where?
From the source. Whatever source you meant. You didn't mention the source so how should I know. But if it comes from a source then it is not created, it is transferred.
>From the source
the same source of infinite energy that the cube in b gets its momentum from?
>therefor, it's not being created, it's being transferred
GPE has been create by there suddenly being infinite. GPE is a valid energy source.
>In physics and chemistry, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
The GPE couldn't have remained constant if it suddenly became infinite due to portals.
>infinite
You are not creating infinite energy. You are making the object maintain the transfered energy to it an infinite amount of time
You are clueless and and embarrassment.
If you haven't created a source of infinite energy then how are you able to transferred energy from it indefinitely?
>how are you able to transferred energy from it indefinitely?
Because there isn't a force absorbing that energy when it comes in contact with the object falling.
Literal moron that doesn't even understand how your endless lopp system works LMAO
You addressed nothing because you are inferior to me intellectually and that makes you mad. I accepted your concession but I will do it again.
I accept your concession.
>You addressed nothing because you are inferior to me intellectually and that makes you mad. I accepted your concession but I will do it again.
>I accept your concession.
This is just getting sad.
Once again I'm accepting your concession.
You were bested by a better brain (mine).
Cope and seethe below this line
__________________________
No it's infinite.
>Something falling down a hole forever doesn't get energy from nothing.
Correct, it gets it from gravity. The thing is, under normal circumstances you'd have to put in energy to get something back up to where you can drop it. With portals you skip that step, and this lets you create energy without putting in energy.
>it gets it from gravity
Therefor the energy is getting transfered from gravity. Not created.
>b-but it falls indefinitely
So? It's still energy transfered. You are STILL so moronic that you are thinking about generating electricity. You are dumb.
explain how a perpetual motion machine using portals doesn't violate conservation of energy but a cube gaining momentum in b does. either they both do, or neither does because they're both "transfering" energy instead of creating it.
>suddenly starts asking for nonsense the moment he realizes he's factually wrong
HHAHAHAHHA
I accept your concession.
>a cube gaining momentum in b does
Because nothing is imparting energy in the cube so it cannot get kinetic energy and go flying from nothing. While the perpetual wheelportal thing you came up with works because gravity is imparting energy to the object and making it fall.
>Therefor the energy is getting transfered from gravity. Not created.
You create it because you use the energy without putting in the requisite energy. Normally, energy is transformed. Now there is suddenly extra energy.
>You create it
You don't. It's a universal law and you are arguing about it. The cube can't get kinetic energy simply from existing in a certain area of space. Next.
>You don't. It's a universal law
Anon, that's exactly the point here. Portals break that law. You can't say "what I am observing to happen is not actually happening because it goes against the LAW". Laws of physics are derived from observations.
>Portals break that law.
They don't. Energy doesn't get created, just transferred. None of the arguments provided so far prove that energy is created.
Give it another try.
the energy of a hole isnt transfered to the thing going through it
>the energy of a hole
?
>isnt transfered to the thing going through it
Nobody is arguing the opposite.
bgays literally are arguing that the energy of the top platform is transfered to the cube instead of the bottom platform
bgays are moronic, what does that have to do with what I said? (other than that they are moronic?)
>Energy doesn't get created, just transferred.
Then how come it's infinite? Surely that should be a hint that you're in the wrong here?
I've explained it already but one more won't hurt: to get energy out of gravity you normally have to put in the energy of getting an object to a higher point. This exchange maintains conservation of energy. This step is skipped by portals. You get energy out of falling objects without putting it in. Thus you get more energy out of the system than you put in. Thus energy is created. If you deny this by saying "you can't create energy" then you're arguing backwards.
>I've explained it already
If you've explained it already and you are still replying to me then you are wrong.
Gravity is still the sole reason the falling object has kinetic energy. Energy wasn't created, it was transfered.
You are arguing that it will maintain that that energy endlessly while it falls while if there was no endless loop the object would hit a surface and once again, transfer that energy in from the object to said surface.
Not an argument. Try again.
>If you've explained it already and you are still replying to me then you are wrong.
Oh, in that case, no, that part was entirely new. I mean, might as well be, for all the notice you took of it, huh?
>doesn't address anything I said in the post
Not an argument. I accept your concession.
I address literally everything you say and it now stands unrefuted.
>Therefor the energy is getting transfered from gravity. Not created.
>You are STILL so moronic that you are thinking about generating electricity. You are dumb.
I love it when people think that they are the smartest ones in the room and start calling everyone moronic and dumb all the while misunderstanding the whole thing and making a huge fool of themselves. The whole point is that the portals themselves already break the conservation of energy thing because they get their energy transfer from portal created infinity gravity scheme. But you were too quick to try smugly pretend to be the smartest guy in the thread and insult everyone else that you didn't think this through and now made the most embarrassing mistake a smart person can do: be in the wrong after first taking pride with huge bravado in your wrong claim. I couldn't live with myself after such showing, but I hope you'll get over it someday.
>all this wall of text just to not say anything
Gravity is still transferring energy to a falling object in a endless loops therefor energy is not created, just transferred.
Try again.
>doubling down on his mistake
Oh no, you aren't even being embarrassing anymore. Now you are just sad. I hope someday you'll learn some humility, friend.
>another moron that thinks energy = electricity enters the fray
I didn't mention electricity
Option B breaks the law of conservation of energy therefor it's not the correct option by default.
Stationary portals already break it. Try again.
>Stationary portals already break it.
No they don't. You don't know what the conservation of energy is or means.
A cube having kinetic energy from nothing breaks the law of conservation of energy, therefor B is not the correct solution.
This post is damage control because every single time you mention the law of conservation of energy, Bgays can't form a retort against it as there isn't one.
Increasing potential energy without putting any energy in breaks the law of conservation of energy. In extreme cases you gain infinite potential energy. See
.
You don't know what the conservation of energy is.
What is pushing the object down the portal? That force is transferring energy into the object, not creating energy from nothing.
You are a brainlet that thinks this is about generating electricity because you don't understand that the law of conservation of energy talks about primordial energy, not creating electricity.
>this is your average B gay
lmao
I have no idea what this post means. If an object can free fall infinitely then there are a million ways to create a perpetual motion machine
>there are a million ways to create a perpetual motion machine
Perpetual motion machines still generate energy by transfering energy from one form to another. A water wheel would fall in that category and it's not creating energy. You are a brainlet.
>A water wheel would fall in that category and it's not creating energy.
A portal water wheel does not require energy yet can generate it. A normal water wheel requires a power source, THE FRICKING SUN YOU MONGOLOID
>A normal water wheel requires a power source
The water wheel IS the power source, moron. You are embarrassing yourself in so many ways right now.
No the water wheel converts energy.
>the water wheel converts energy
>convert
There you go, good to see agreeing with me. I taught you something today.
I accept your concession.
>thinks that I'm agreeing with a water wheel being a perpetual motion engine
lmao, no learn to read homie. then rread some articles on conservation of energy.
lol
>A portal water wheel does not require energy
You are the guy that doesn't understand that without energy the waterwheel won't rotate.
You are a literal moron so you are not in a position to tell anybdy to learn to read or to go read what conservation of energy is.
With a portal you don't need to put in energy to get the water wheel to rotate. It will keep spinning forever. A normal water wheel stops when the sun doesn't evaporate enough water.
>With a portal you don't need to put in energy to get the water wheel to rotate
Why are you doubling down in your stupidity?
The water still needs to flow down the portals. For the water to flow down the portals, it needs energy applied to it.
It's crystal clear that you are 50IQ and that's why you don't understand this extremely simple concept.
> For the water to flow down the portals, it needs energy applied to it.
Hey Anon, you just learned about potential energy. Now guess what a portal above another does to the potential energy of the between the two portals.
gravity doesn't use energy
>gravity doesn't use energy
The portals would run out of power before the water wheel could generate enough energy to keep the portals going. Try again moron.
>law of conservation of energy talks about primordial energy
No it talks about closed systems. A portal can add energy to a closed system.
See
Why are you making such an obviously flawed argument?
A doesn't conserve energy either. If you were to move two portals together towards each other to squish a box against itself, you would get the same outcome with both A and B mechanics. Neither conserve energy since the cube is crushed for free since there is no direct interaction with the portals.
There's no way to conserve kinetic energy with moving portals. Imagine one portal on a wall and the other on a panel on the side of a speeding car. If you stick your arm through the wall, the options are:
1) your arm travels with the car, so it's suddenly gained kinetic energy
2) your arm stays still, so you're suddenly pulled sideways with the same amount of kinetic energy
>drop cube
>cube ends up passing through the portal at 100 mph
>shoots out the other side
>drop portal
>cube ends up passing through the portal at 100 mph
>???
Cube is instantly flattened and then explodes violently.
>thread filled with salty A bros
hahaha homosexuals
As others have stated, this is not "proof". This is someone who thinks A is correct making "an N64 Demake" of what he thinks is correct.
This is regardless of whether you are pro A or B
Ok, what equations and code would you use to make A work?
calculate b and add a check for when an object finishes moving through a portal that sets its momentum to 0.
stop bullying us, bgays....
Why would you want your game to do that on purpose? Sounds like a game Sakurai would do to piss off Meleegays.
I have no real opinion on whether A or B is correct, because I fully admit I lack the understanding.I'm just pointing out the video is not definitive proof, just a rendition of the maker's logic of how it would work
Well first I do B for the transition and add a check for when the object fully went through.
m1*v1 = P = m2*v2, where m1v1 is the mass/speed of the portal and m2v2 is the resultant speed by mass of the cube
I already explained this in round 1 16 hours ago, his code is wrong because he is calculating a data that should not be calculated.
He take the data from the portal and apply this same data to the cube to explain why the cube would go fly like this, which obliviously is dumb as frick, and of course, he is able to say that A could also work because, he also calculate the othe portal and also apply to it. Both situation are stupid, but they work simply because he cherry picked that equation. As proven by other demo, it's possible to make A or B work depending where you put your calculation.
The biggest point is, A make sense because A does not take into account something that doesn't technically hold any values to the world. The portal cannot be blocked by something from the environment, cannot be modified by something from the environment, cannot be impacted by gravity, does not have his own speed, weight nor mass, therefore, we are calculating something from the portal that does not exist and we try to apply that to something that it should never interact with, aka the cube, that's why B is totally illogical.
The portal in the game PORTAL is literally an "out of world" entity that cannot interact with anything that the rest of the world interact with, so why suddenly, you would want to apply his "supposed" speed that btw, it's not his own, but the one of the piston, to the cube ? for what reason ? it's total BS....
>does not have his own speed
You're literally talking about a problem which involves a portal moving.
>You're literally talking about a problem which involves a portal moving.
The portal does not generate his own speed, his speed is automatically given from the object he is "sticked" too.
Pointless to give an equation since most of you morons wouldn't understand it (as proven earlier)
>I know the equation but I'm just too smart to post it, really!!!
KWAB
>his speed
ESL aside, you've just confirmed that the portal DOES have its own speed by saying "his speed", that and the portal apparently has a dick.
var idiot, caca;
caca = 16;
idiot = caca;
Does idiot have his own value ?
Yes, 16.
GG you are bad at coding.
Idiot doesn't have his own value, simply because if I change caca to 24, suddenly, idiot is 24 too.
For the other idiots out there, caca is the piston and idiot is the portal.
>GG you are bad at coding
No that's you, you hadn't explained how your coding language works, what did you think that shit is universal?
I gave you the answer as it as you had set it up
he explained how it works by saying var and not const you moron
That makes no indication how defining variables would work in a given language.
so it is a variable and therefore mutable.
you proved yourself wrong
Yeah subject to change, how would depend on how the language works.
Do you think const variables aren't called variables? lol
Tell me you don't code without telling me
idiot is (you)
Effectively, my bad. It's a copy that is made instead of a link. This what happen with you get spoiler with Webgl https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50840293/setting-a-variable-equal-to-another-variable
Though, that doesn't change much since caca would have been updated no matter what in a normal game loop update. You still understand the logic though, the portal doesn't have his own value, and will only get update from what it is "sticked" too.
moron
At least, compared to Btard, I can accept to be wrong when it's proven, which is a sign of intelligence. A word you may not be familiar with....
>At least, compared to Btard, I can accept to be wrong when it's proven
They'd have to be proven wrong first
Admitting that you are moronic is not a sign of intelligence. Especially when you failed a basic programming task and called other people idiots who got it right.
Learning from your mistake is a sign of intelligence. Only idiots think they can never be wrong and should never learn from their mistake.
Keep learning from your mistakes and you too can be a Bgay
Your mistake was being an arrogant little shit and you clearly have not intention to stop being one.
Not a sign of intelligence to be found.
You only see what you want to see
>all this ESL babble
>still no equation given
lmao
And why exactly do you think this would make it shoot out of non-moving portals, instead of also plopping?
P is the change in momentum between one object acting on another. If nothing with mass impedes the velocity of the cube then it will maintain it's velocity, just like how if nothing with mass pushes a stationary cube its velocity will remain zero
You are still moronic, because by your equation P will always be zero. But the momentum DOES change, every single time, if only in direction if nothing else.
so the stationary cubes velocity will remain zero, which means it wont exit the portal? or it will exit the portal and it will maintain that exit velocity?
realistically, the cube would bounce when the platform vibrates from being slammed into, but the cube is heavy enough it makes it just plops.
my point was constants are immutable thats the whole point.
sorry i thought you were a bgay i got replies mixed up
>my point was constants are immutable thats the whole point.
Irrelevant to the pseudo code "gotcha" and how the var keyword is generally understood.
>A make sense because A does not take into account something that doesn't technically hold any values to the world.
This isn't true. Try actually writing out an equation for how you would program A like that anon was suggesting. You will need to track the movement of the portals and then move the cube relative them to get the right result. If you try to keep the speed 0, you will not get A. The mechanics of A are not only directly linked to the portals, but more so than in B since the portals continue to hold influence over the cube. At least in B, everything happens at the portal where it is more reasonable to expect something that doesn't match up with our current understanding of physics.
Are you sure you are not mistaking A and B here ?
A doesn't take into account the portal, it only take into account the environment where the cube belong, that's why the cube just "plop" when getting outside of the blue portal.
A takes into account when the orange portal stops.
What you guys didn't understand with:
>A make sense because A does not take into account something that doesn't technically hold any values to the world.
Is that the the portal does not have any properties to itself to apply to the cube, all the "supposed" properties are inherited from the object it is sticked to. The portal moving toward the cube is nothing more than the piston moving toward the cube, and the distance closing from orange and blue is not seen nor impacting the cube. from the cube (or anything in this environment), nothing changed or moved in regard to the portals.
your english is terrible lol
I skipped the language class for the math one, guess some sacrifice was needed
>the distance closing from orange and blue is not seen nor impacting the cube
My concern is the distance from the blue portal and up. You need to be able to define how the cube travels over that distance. In A, it is directly tied and linked to the movement of the portal. In B, something happens at the portal and then regular physics act from there.
Gravity isn't important for the discussion. The point is to explain how the cube travels through the portal, which will be the same basic mechanics in every scenario. The minor details about the plop or if it should be parabolic instead of the straight speed lines in the image are irrelevant and only serve as a distraction.
>You need to be able to define how the cube travels over that distance. In A, it is directly tied and linked to the movement of the portal.
Well, game logic wise, if I was coding a game that would have a portal system, I would just make 2 points that would be able to touch/.interact with objects that are part of a defined list of allowed objects to interact with.
Then, everytime said objects touch a point it will automatically be copied on the other points, not only mesh wise, but physic wise (speed, weight, momentum, gravity etc...).
So in the end, I would never have to calculate any distance nor speed of said points, they would act like a slider on a bar, that's it.
If you do this and nothing else, you end up with the cube just sitting at the surface of the portal rather than smoothly moving out of it like in A. You end up with either what happens in the actual game where the cube can't go through the portal or the Gmod video where contact freaks out and launches the cube.
>you end up with the cube just sitting at the surface of the portal rather than smoothly moving out of it like in A.
Why so ? All the momentum and previous physic values would be ported to the clone on the other point, the cube would just plop because of the change of gravity, but for the rest, everything would be duplicated, the only issue would be to make the synchronization fast enough to avoid the glitch where the collision would happen at a time where others calculation aren't finished yet (making the typical bounce bug we see so much in games)
>the cube would just plop
How does it get to the point where it can plot? You just set its velocity to zero at the portal and don't plan to do anything else past that one special point, but the plop point is still some distance away from the portal. Are you planning to just make it appear in one frame without giving the appearance of motion?
Well first, I would say that globally (outside of this specific situation with A and B), all previous values linked to the cube would be duplicated, so therefore, the clone would be an exact copy "world" wise.
>How does it get to the point where it can plot?
The plop happen because the orange portal reach the ground under the cube (the plate), at this moment, the blue and orange portal is nothing more than a ground and the cube sitting on a slope is ready to fall on the ground, making the "plop".
A clearly does take the portal into account since the cube changes position based on the movement of the portal. Again, try wring out an equation and you will see that the position of the cube is directly tied to the movement of the portals. I suppose you could also do some trickery by creating a copy of your level moving it over the cube, but that is still a movement that is tied to the portals and requires you do disable certain aspects of physics so things won't break during the movement.
That graph makes no sense, it's not explaining anything. Neither A or B is represented there. That anon has a plausible explanation but the graph is wrong.
What is wrong with it and how is it any different than A? People always say that A is like a room is falling over the cube. In my animation, I have a room swinging over the cube in a similar fashion. If you want to say that the cube will stop once it exits the portal, then that invalidates A where the cube travels one cube's distance before stopping.
You need to explain that it's from the top down and there is no gravity involved. Which invalidates it for the purpose of A or B.
>The portal in the game PORTAL is literally an "out of world" entity that cannot interact with anything that the rest of the world interact with,
Black person, it sticks to walls you fricking moron.
>interact =/= stick to it
My camera have for target the main character of the game, it will stick to it and rotate around it, it doesn't mean it is interacting with it.
>he is calculating a data that should not be calculated
>>he is calculating a data that should not be calculated
funny post, but she's right.
ywnbaw
bgays have no sense of humor confirmed
Sorry, I meant "B is correct" not A.
I was about to sperg out at the video for the same reason too but if you watch the video he actually understands WHY it's B.
He didn't just code the game deliberately to get the result he wanted. He coded the physics to work they way they should work and it just so happens that the result is B.
AS I said, I have no opinion on which is correct, but he straight up says
>You may be thinking "Well I just implemented moving portals to get the results I expect, and if I wanted different results I could achieve them".
>Fair enough, but let me explain my justification
So he had an expected result based on his reasoning and implemented them.
Just because the spike/dildo enters the scene quickly doesn't mean it will have momentum.
so what happens when it makes contact with you?
What do you think momentum is?
It's the portal thats moving. Not the spike.
Portals break the laws of physics so you will still get impaled by the movement of the portal and not the spike since the portal is essentially moving the universe into the spike.
How do B gays not understand this?
Because B understands relative motion. The entire universe moving around an object is the same as that object moving.
he explicitly programmed the cube to have momentum when it exits the portal
The relative velocity is maintained. Just like in the original portal. In the game, many puzzles depend on retaining relative velocity, the only difference is that they only happened to result in changing direction, if you move the portals, then the magnitude may change as well.
This would happen in both A and B
In A it has 0 momentum, so it can't impart any force.
See
you don't need momentum to impart force
The way a collision imparts force is through acceleration/deceleration, which requires one party to be moving, which requires said party to have momentum.
At this point you're just handwaving it away by saying "it breaks physics anyways", implicitly admitting that B is more consistent with physics.
the portal has momentum, the cube does not. B makes the assumption that momentum is transferred from the portal to the cube, which is moronic. they're not in physical contact, so no transfer can be made. the only force pushing the cube through the portal is the platform it's resting on, and that platform is stationary.
>they're not in physical contact, so no transfer can be made.
Yet, despite not being in physical contact, the portal is more than capable of teleporting the object to a completely different position, so clearly this line of thinking is moronic immediately lmao.
>B makes the assumption that momentum is transferred from the portal to the cube, which is moronic.
It's how it works in reality though. If a black holes flies into me as I "stand" at zero kinetic energy in space, at what point do I start "moving" to go further into the black hole once I pass the event horizon? From the perspective inside the black hole, I started moving towards the singularity from zero initial momentum.
How did the cube's speed change in the final shot of
?
https://www.britannica.com/science/law-of-inertia
So you define the portal changing the cube's velocity as a force then?
A has kind of unlimited force that comes from the movement of the portal that causes the cube's change of space without momentum on the cube
so you're saying any object that appears to be moving because a portal is moving over it doesn't exert 0 force on anything it comes into contact with, but infinite force?
Notice how these always use objects longer than the distance between the portal and the guy. Deep down Bgays know they're wrong so they have to resort to this shit.
plopgays BLOWN THE FRICK OUT
>B gays change the scenario completely because they know they lost.
In any case, you got to love how whenever anyone puts enough thought into this thing to make something like this, they always end up being on team B.
yeah, cause they're autistic people that have nothing in their lives besides arguing about nonsensical stuff with other autists online. The real sad part is that they're so autistic about it and yet still in the wrong
>acknowledge they have thought about this more than you
>"no they couldn't possibly that figured out something I haven't"
doing something more doesn't necessarily make you better at it. You should know that if you're posting on Ganker and actually play vidya.
True in the sense that there are Agays who apparently still haven't figured out the problem with A after all these years when I figured it out within an hour of first thinking of the problem. Difference is that I then built an understanding that it's B over several years while I'm convinced most Agays give very little thought to the problem at all. Not to mention the observation of Agays is that the bulk of them eventually start to realise that A has problems themselves if you allow them to think about the problem long enough.
The bottom line is it does take a considerable amount of arrogance to acknowledge that someone is more experienced than you and yet believe you know better than them. You would need to have an actual fricking reason to think they might be wrong regardless.
B gays please explain, how is momentum transferred to the cube when the cube itself is not in motion?
Because portals inherently alter velocities. The claim that maintain speed is only true when the portals are not moving:
The cube necessarily has to be moving to pass through the blue side of the portal.
In this case the pole isn't so much gaining momentum as more of it is existing on blue end relative to the speed of orange end
So you think it's like top instead of the bottom?
Let's at to this.
Agays, what happens if you suddenly stop the truck on a dime, BUT at the same time slice the pillar at the very edge outside the blue portal, does the rest of the pillar on blue's side plop to the ground?
Dude I hate it when someone drops a hula hoop around me from a great distance and I fly hundreds of feet into the air.
is one end of your hula hoop moving at a different speed than the other?
Dude I love it when people don't understand what they're talking about and say some stupid shit like this.
Oh wait no I hate it.
C: the pole's end moves along with the portal and that's it. No acceleration beyond the acceleration of the portal itself. And this is the answer that's actually consistent with B in the classic portal problem.
No it's not. Consider this: the orange is the one to move towards the wall again. In the case of C the pole would move along with the portal towards the wall getting crushed if the behaviour was consistent with your claim instead of going through the portal.
No, why would it? Come on, this isn't rocket science. What's holding up the pole?
Wait I re-read your earlier reply and that's how I understood what B is in the image as wouldn't the acceleration of the portal also affect the pole's end as it's part of the portal's movement too
Yes, the end of the pole moves with the portal. But this won't exert any force on the pole unless it collides with something (okay, there's air resistance and gravity...). Essentially, it's like sticking your hand out of a car window. You're sitting still in the car. Outside the car, your hand is moving with the car. It's not going to get ripped off.
I had gay sex with an Agay once.
He was a bottom.
I hate to break it to you guys but it's not just the portal moving at the cube. It's the whole world on the other side of that portal. And unless you are being launched into a vacuum, that's going to be a lot of shit suddenly rushing at you. Even air at that velocity will crush you to death.
Can any A-gays explain what forces are being applied here? If you say there is a force, you admit B is right.
A-gays have no answer to this
We do, but we are tired to give the same answer to the same drawing (he is spamming this thread with the exact same situation but different graphics to make it new)
sorry you are tired to give bro
I'm here debating on this fricking thread since 16 hours already:
So of course now I'm filtering the low bait question that is a slight modification of the same drawing spammed 20x times per round.
I guess after 16 hours it's safe to conclude you won't realise you're wrong.
No you don't, why are you still here then? You know A makes no sense, you just want to troll.
When fully compressed, the space the cube can occupy is the floor beneath the cubes starting position and the wall on the other side of the blue portal.
The portal places a zero distance gap between both walls to provide infinite force to crush the cube between the two walls.
This means A is right.
>Why yes the portal imparts infinite force in fact
>A is still right tho
Portal doesn't provide force.
Portals can't provide force.
But the portals can put an object in a space where two other walls are exerting force onto the cube.
How would it do that? Wouldn't it just stop moving if it can't exert force?
>B gays making a new different scenario to defend their insanity
Like fricking clockwork
agays think an object can move from coordinate to coordinate in 3d space without experiencing inertia lol
>UFOs can simply stop all of their momentum while moving from a high speed
>somehow a cube stopping while moving through a portal is impossible
A is right.
>they don't know about option C
1. Momentum is mass times velocity, kinetic energy is 1/2 times mass times velocity squared, and velocity is a change in position over a change in time.
2. To exit the portal, the cube must changing position over time, so the cube has a non-zero velocity.
3. The cube has non-zero momentum and kinetic energy as it leaves the portal as it has a velocity and mass.
4. There is no force stopping the mass, velocity, momentum, or kinetic energy of the cube.
5. The cube continues to move.
Agays, which of these statements do you refute?
2. it still has 0 velocity because its teleportation
They refute 3. A gays believe in "non-momentum displacement". They think the cube moves without having momentum.
no, the cube has momentum, but its not the momentum of the top portal. if the cube moves at all its because the top platform hit the bottom hard enough it made the cube bounce
Does this webm look ok to you?
yeah, except when the orange portal goes back up the cube should go into freefall because its not attached to the platform
So you don't think that the cube should fly off as the platform stops, despite obviously having high speed?
no because the force of the air resistance is keeping it pinned to the platform
ok
Say you attach the cube to the platform with a couple of springs and a force meter, would it measure anything as the platform went back down and the cube stayed in freefall?
depends on if the platform is moving away from it faster than its falling
Why does the cube stay in freefall when it's attached by springs?
because you said it did.
its your hypothetical
My bad. Do you think the the cube would stay in freefall if it was attached by springs?
no because its attached lol
bgays too dumb to realize that that the portal being stopped by the wall is exactly what kills the box's momentum
Why would a change to the portal's movement impact the movement of the cube after the cube has already left the portal?
exactly
ur just mad that you can't have a cool cube wand
it's the platform the cube is resting on that determines the movement of the cube. if the platform is moving, so does the cube. the platform never moves through the portal, thus it can't affect the cube's momentum.
By that logic
would actually be accurate because you would apply the same logic to ever part of the platform going down to the part that ha4sn't gone through the portal yet.
In the end movement is movement.
>moves the platform throught the portal
Insufferable B homosexuals continuing to change the scenario
Why can't you cope? Doesn't it bother you that the explanatory potential of your theory is so limited? Do you think something else should happen here? And why? Are you going to come up with a new theory for every new situation?
B can just apply the same rule to everything.
>Are you going to come up with a new theory for every new situation?
that's what scientists do. it's called physics friend. there's no catch-all solution. that kind of thinking is just naive
>that's what scientists do.
This would be the equivalent of coming up with new orbital mechanics for every planet.
that's a moronic analogy and you know it
It's precisely what's happening. We're not encountering new phenomena. Just the same phenomenon in different situations.
No, you're actually stupid. A lot of Bgays have some good points but you're just dumb as shit.
lol did you have this ready to go or did you make it just now?
It's exactly what you're suggesting.
why does the cube only fly up the moment the portal hits the ground? shouldn't the cube start moving as soon as it goes through the portal?
It does though?
it does. you can see this by looking at the exit portal. you'll see the cube moving out of the portal. if the portal stops moving half way over the cube, the cube will keep moving with the momentum it already had.
Is this portal paradox the only thing that makes the otherwise fricking garbage game that Portal still kind-of relevant?
The ultimate brainlet test: explain how both A and B break the rules of reality. Just to be clear, creating infinite energy with endless falling does not count as breaking reality, if you're not a brainlet and think about it for more than a second surely you can come up with explanations as to how both A and B would fundamentally make reality crash with a blue screen of death, making neither better than the other in term of "this is how portals SHOULD work" since clearly, neither should. As a non-brainlet you should be able to permanently solve this false issue of two competing non-working ideas, with but a simple mental exercise. Go.
>Just to be clear, creating infinite energy with endless falling does not count as breaking reality
>what's 2+2
>and don't say 4, give me a real answer
A is easy. It breaks fundamental logic by saying movement is not movement. The cube must exit the portal at the relative speed it entered.
Haven't heard a single refutation of B that isn't grounded in a misunderstanding or the claim that moving portals requires infinite energy, though. I'd be happy to hear it.
Bgays are the saddest, most moronic frickers on earth. You should literally have a nice day if you think it's B.
you can literally see the cube MOVING out of the orange portal in this gif.
>you can literally see the cube MOVING out of the orange portal in this gif.
And yet it doesn't fly because scenario A is correct you fricking mongoloid
it doesn't fly out because the a gay that animated it didn't animate it flying out. you see how weird it looks how an object that's obviously moving just loses all its momentum for no reason.
What kind of spastic moronic autism do you have that suggests momentum should be imparted where none exists? The solution is right there before your very eyes and yet you deny it.
you can see that the cube has momentum because it is moving. the real question is why in universe a the cube's momentum suddenly disapears.
>you can see that the cube has momentum because it is moving. the real question is why in universe a the cube's momentum suddenly disapears.
Imagine not being able to wrap your fricking mind around the lack of momentum when it's clear that it doesn't have hardly any besides the portal moving around it
Fricking flabbergasting
you can clearly see by watching the exit portal thatvthe cube it moving, and thus, has momentum.
Newton's First Law anon. If you've already acknowledged movement then the conclusion is clear.
Citing Newtons Laws doesn't mean jack shit when the problem shows that it follows the Laws precisely and fits into the A solution. There is no extra magic force being added no matter how hard you try to pretend.
You've already acknowledged the portal created motion by conceding that the object moved to leave the portal.
At that point you're left with Newton's First Law. The portal explains why motion was created, according to the law that motion doesn't not disappear on its own.
>You've already acknowledged the portal created motion by conceding that the object moved to leave the portal.
And just like
said despite being a moronic Bgay, the orange portal and the blue portal have an equal and opposite rate, thus canceling each other out and leaving you with what are essentially door ways or
>hula hoops
That function as such.
You're moving to a completely different conversation talking about a different scenario you idiot.
>the orange portal and the blue portal have an equal and opposite rate
in the OP, they don't. one is stationary
if you sit down on a dildo it won't fly up your anus and out of your mouth. yes it will penetrate your anus, but nothing more than that
and in universe b, if 2 portals are moving in exactly the same way as each other, they and one of them moves over a cube, the cube won't go flying out either. it only gains momentum when the portals are moving independantly of each other.
It would if your insides were as smooth and frictionless as your brain.
The cube isn't bolted to the platform Black person.
Neither would it fly under B with back-to-back portals that move at the same velocity, homosexual.
WATCH THE FRICKING VIDEO IN THE OP YOU STUPID homosexual moron.
what determines how far the cube flies in B?
The speed at which it entered the portal and the forces counteracting it such as gravity and air resistance.
the same stuff that would determine how far it would fly when launched by an ordinary piston with no portals involved. how fast the piston arm is moving, the mass of the cube, the strength of gravity, and a few minor things like air resistance.
the example would be best shown with an object attacked to the pole. as B always assume gravity wasnt holding the cube in place for 99.99999999% of its time pushing through the portal.
>B always assume gravity wasnt holding the cube in place for 99.99999999% of its time pushing through the portal
Literally no. What do you think we're saying? It's not that.
Okay Bgays try this on for size:
>You find yourself floating in a space station facing towards the exit which is open
>suddenly God grabs the space station and swiftly pulls it behind you
>you watch as the room you are floating in launches backwards and the door into open space flies towards you until you are no longer surrounded by the space station and are outside of it
>God waves at you as you sit floating there where you were, except without a space station surrounding you
Now repent.
seriously repent
how does this refute b?
godless bgays will say that astronaut should fly away from god. but god does not leave anyone.
Nope, your situation is consistent with B if the doorway were two portals end-to-end.
according to b, both the reference frame of the astronaut moving away from the space station while it remains stationary, and the reference frame of the space station moving away from the astronaut while he remains stationary are equally valid.
What is invalid here? The astronaut moves relative to the space station and vice versa, much in the same way a bird moves relative to a tree and vice versa, or a car moves relative to the road and vice versa.
No we won't. You reject the truth of B because you misunderstand it. You reject God's creation in your ignorance.
I read couple of days ago the part in Revelation Space book, where the XO of space ship under 1 G acceleration gets into a fight with the weapons officer who throws the XO into an elevator shaft. While falling, The XO ponders the situation for couple of seconds, takes remote control of the ship's thrusters, makes a couple of G deceleration burn making the weapons officer a splat on a hallway wall while falling upwards harmlessly in the shaft before calming things down. Dunno how this is relevant, but that post just reminded me of it.
Anyone has the game open?
Try this.
>make two portals
>get a cube
>put it middleway through a portal and release it
What will happen?
>bgay writes his own code to give the resul he wants
>despite a simulation made in portal results in A.
>run a hoola hoop over an object at high speed
>the object doesn't go flying
>it will appear at the other side of the hoop at whatever speed you move the hoop but the object itself doesn't gain the speed of the hoop
Literally testable in any backyard. literally confirmed in the final cutscene of P1. literally confirmed in P2. yall dumb af.
>yall dumb af.
fr fr no cap
because the exit side of the hula hoop is moving at an equal and opposite rate. test it with a hula hoop where one side is stationary while the other moves. oh, you cant? then you dont have a comparable situation
This, I used hoops to power my mining rig and used crypto to become a NFT millionaire. All because hoops are just like portals.
>run a hoola hoop over an object at high speed
>the object doesn't go flying
Bgays: BUT THAT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, IF YOU DROP A HULA HOOP OVER A CUBE, WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO??
We're all being trolled to death. Frick Bgays.
hula hoop: entrance and exit do not move relative to one another
a/b portal problem: entrance and exit move relative to one another
watch the video
Agays BTFO
Seriously euthanise anyone who utters the word "hula hoop" in a portal thread, fricking hell, there are molluscs more sentient than you lot
>Seriously euthanise anyone who utters the word "hula hoop" in a portal thread
Nah b***h, it perfectly describes the absurdity of Bgay's arguments and is the simplest, most obvious way of expressing why the cube doesn't magically fly out of the portals.
Face the wall please
Good comeback you fricking mongoloid. Imagine thinking that the hula hoop argument isn't exactly encapsulating of Agay arguments regardless of whether you agree or disagree. Bgays literally denying reality again because they can't win.
>Imagine thinking that the hula hoop argument isn't exactly encapsulating of Agay arguments
Where are you gettting this? Of course I know this is the pinnacle of your understanding. Which is why you deserve the bullet. Is there seriously no ending to your misunderstanding?
It just exposes you as a biased moron is all.
>S-Stop illustrating your point with the most obvious argument!!
How about no b***h
No, it's
>Stop illustrating your point with a flawed analogy that a dozen people have already trotted out before you in this thread alone, each receiving incredibly detailed explanations as to why they are utterly wrong in return
Or, you know, don't, and just be considered a disingenuous moron
?
I refuse to believe these threads are anything other than trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls.
I'm starting to get tired of those threads.
I think every genuine misguided Agay was already converted, what's left are trolls that give the most idiotic answers they can come up with, so you get mad and give them a long-winded (you) explaining why they're wrong, which they'll purposefully misinterpret for more angry replies.
Damn, Bgays really have nothing else except Ad Hominem crybaby shit.
Very well, if you are not a troll, then prove it by earnestly answering the following question:
Why do I think the right answer is B?
Speculation as to my mental capabilities will not be entertained as serious answers.
>Why do I think the right answer is B?
Because you misunderstand the forces of momentum and apply an inherently flawed understanding of physics to solve a question that shouldn't exist. In fact, Bgays frequently change the question to illustrate their understanding of the laws of physics while Agays basically never change the question. You're applying a misunderstanding of laws when the answer is obvious. There is no gotcha moment within the question, it was not designed by a genius, and there is no interesting payoff that can come to fruition when you apply your understand of physics. The real answer is boring and obvious, and it's A.
You failed within three words. You are not arguing in good faith.
In fact I seriously doubt any Agay can answer this question, which is why I like to ask it. The only misunderstanding you're demonstrating here is your own.
Nah, you're a fricking moron mate
That was a good faith argument and you're just a pussy who can't argue and projects his own lack of ability to communicate. Sad man. Leave the thread in shame.
>That was a good faith argument
Now you're explicitly a liar.
>while Agays basically never change the question.
I'll be honest guys I'm just having fun drawing funny pictures. Nobody else may be laughing at them but I certainly am. The captain falcon one I was giggling the whole time.
>years later
>B gays still bait
>A gays still fall for it
I wonder what that amount of smoke would do to such a small fairy
Do you think that a bigger cigarette means her lung capacity changes? Are you a Bgay?
Well she would have a smaller brain so all that nicotine might frick her up, kind of like how small girls get drunk faster than big dudes.
>he says, a few posts below an agay saying changing velocity doesn't change momentum
This whole discussion reminds me of the debate about the shape of Earth. Ancients debated about it and after some pondering came to conclusion that Earth is round. Flat-earthers conceded and all was well. Until some morons started trolling thinking 'wouldn't it be fun if I were to claim that Earth is flat and others would think I'm stupid?!'. And then some genuine negative number IQ schizos started really believing in flat Earth theory and spreading the meme. A gays are the flat earthers is what I'm saying.
but the guy that made the video is a moron that applied the portal velocity to the cube. thats not how it works.
My wiener goes faster after it's penetrated your mom Agays btfo.
This is the way portals work in my head, therefore I'm right, and you're wrong. Your portal fanfiction simply cannot compete with my own.
It's nothing personnel. Better luck next time, bub.
>I rewrote Portal from scratch
The absolute STATE of Btards
IT HAS BEEN 16 YEARS YOU homosexualS
GET OVER IT NO ONE CARES ANYMORE
B ros
we won
What's always funny to me is that despite this being a divisive topic, normally you get 2 sides which has funny memes to hurl to the other that underpin some major flaw that the other side can't get rid of.
But there is literally not a single thing A gays can hurl at B gays that isn't rooted in fundamentally not understanding the problem.
it's btards who can't understand the simple fact that the cube's speed is dependent on the speed of the platform. the platform doesn't move through the portal. it has no speed. whatever momentum the moving portal has is absorbed by the platform when it hits it. none of the momentum is transferred to the cube. and that's why it plops.
>cube's speed is dependent on the speed of the platform.
yes, and the platform is moving relative to the exit portal
Why is it dependent on the platform? What degree of contact does there need to be for things to be "connected"in shared inertial space? Gravitational field? Amount of points of contact?
Your argument goes into the realm of
picrel
>whatever momentum the moving portal has is absorbed by the platform when it hits it
This is some looney toons cartoon logic. If I walk through a door and it slams closed behind me fast enough, it takes away from my inertia and stops me in my tracks? What?
I feel like you talk about the platform just because it's an object in proximity to the experiment. What if we redid the experiment in space like this?
My bad i thought this picture didn't have the platform. Remove the platform. Just floating cube.
It’s always bothered me that Spock and Kirk don’t fly out of the teleporter when they get beamed up, Scotty.
Assuming, as you said, there's meant to be no platform:
Top would result in B, because the box is moving. Similar to shooting a pullet through an open door or window.
Bottom would result in A, because the box is not moving.
Okay. Next question: How do you tell what is "moving"?
Anywhere in the universe in fact. You're allowed to play god and use infinite energy/ tools to try and figure it out. Even moving backwards and forward in time.
How do you measure the "speed" of an object in space?
Setting aside the image using speed lines to indicate motion?
Relative to other objects, of course. A portal doesn't function as any object though, any more than the entrance/exist to a tunnel does.
Something Bgays seem dead set on ignoring is that portals aren't bound by real physics; they reduce the distance between two physical points to 0. So if the portals are 2 miles away from one another, the distance between them, when traversing the portals, is 0.
A portal also can't have velocity of any sort, any more than any other instance of empty space (inside of an open door frame, window, etc. What has velocity in the example is whatever material the portal is present on.
>Something Bgays seem dead set on ignoring is that portals aren't bound by real physics; they reduce the distance between two physical points to 0. So if the portals are 2 miles away from one another, the distance between them, when traversing the portals, is 0.
I fail to see why you think this is being ignored. Or why it's relevant.
>A portal also can't have velocity of any sort, any more than any other instance of empty space (inside of an open door frame, window, etc. What has velocity in the example is whatever material the portal is present on.
Semantics, really. Is a car window a thing or is it an empty space within the car? Does it have speed when the car moves or does only the car itself have speed?
Don't answer those, they're rhetorical.
>Is a car window a thing or is it an empty space within the car?
Depends, if you mean the glass, then of course that's an object, and not what I'm talking about. If you mean what we might refer to as a rolled down window, then no, while the frame exists, inside of it is empty space which things can freely pass through.
It's really not semantics, unless you're suggesting that "the absence of matter" has a speed.
I don't know what you're trying to prove. That we can't measure velocity relative to a portal because it's not an "object"? Does that mean that a train doesn't have velocity relative to a tunnel entrance? It's going to go into the tunnel regardless.
>Relative to other objects, of course
So then you're saying it doesn't matter whether the portal is moving "onto the cube" or the cube is "moving toward portal" because it's the same thing? That's the B argument btw; all motion is relative.
>Something Bgays seem dead set on ignoring is that portals aren't bound by real physics; they reduce the distance between two physical points to 0. So if the portals are 2 miles away from one another, the distance between them, when traversing the portals, is 0.
No one is arguing this
>A portal also can't have velocity of any sort
Sure but if you have an object entering on one side of a door it exits the other side at the same relative speed, regardless if the door or object is "moving" (from a third person's perspective)
B isn't arguing that the portal's invisible "matter" has velocity and is imparting some kind of momentum- no, B is asserting the object KEEPS its inertia as it transposes to a different moving frame of reference.
That's what makes it so fascinating if you're interested in education. People talk about the different ways people learn, and this topic generates almost endless variations of methods of demonstration, misunderstandings thereof, and basic failures of communication.
Although there is a lot of interference from people being moronic on purpose, of course.
A PORTAL JUST FLEW OVER MY HOUSE
Momentum IS transferred from the the moving portal to the cube. The problem is that the time frame where momentum is transferred is so incredibly narrow it basically has no effect on the cube. And that is why A will always be correct.
You're making a lot of assumptions about the physics of portals but you're ignoring this basic fact: the cube must exit at the same relative speed that it entered.
Explain this, b gays:
A portal goes down at 10km/s to an anal bead that is perfectly aligned.
According to you, each of the beads is launched at 10km/s, then what's is the speed of the last anal bead to be launched?
Actually due to the conversation of energy a moving portal would require two exit points which would duplimate whatever goes through it, resulting in a shoedinger partition of both flying and plopping voxels (the upscale version of a cube/pixel)
Duplicate*
Sorry I’m a bit drunk
why would passing through the portal give the cube extra speed?
Guys.
it depends entirely on how fast[/spoilers]
Dude it took me like 12 tries to salve this captcha.
The second line of your spoiler should give you significant pause as to the confidence you display in the first.
>I coded it to work the way I wanted it to
Dumb fricking homosexual with stupid homosexual face.
So if a moving portal flew over a non-moving cube in outer space it would fly out at the same speed it entered according to Bgays. Where is that energy coming from? Would the moving portal slow down as it passes over the cube? A transfer of energy has to be made somehow.
>So if a moving portal flew over a non-moving cube in outer space it would fly out at the same speed it entered according to Bgays.
Consider the alternative: the cube exits at a different speed than it entered. A logical impossibility.
>Where is that energy coming from?
I don't care. If it's not there, portals don't work.
>it would fly out at the same speed it entered
That's how hula hoops work, right?
if you throw a bigger hoop over a smaller hoop does the smaller hoop start flying
Portals aren't real.
Neither A nor B.
>C-men
It's demonstrable in-game that the force of gravity and therefore inertia does not pass through portals.
agreed
this is why their early tests always failed.
they either had to brute force either A or B.
the earth is no different from a hand pushing the cube towards the orange portal.
the exception is gravity being considered or not.
and most ppl forget the orange portal and the blue portal are the SAME location in space. they are not different locations.
so the argument "the object in motion" doesnt apply, since it has the magical power to stop an object in motion,a nd change it w/e rule you choose. therefor you cant circle back to "an object in motion stays in motion".
>therefor you cant circle back to "an object in motion stays in motion".
You can because that's the default rule to fall back on once the cube has left the portal, as then the factor with the potential to change the object's motion is no longer present. At that point you've already acknowledged the cube has gained motion in order to leave the portal exit.
a "portal" is not an "object" its a location in space.
Its like saying a Lightyear is a unit of speed, instead of distance.
The cube is approaching a position in space.
Does it stay in motion? or not?
Also, the reason I said you cant circle back, is because you are both simultaneously saying the cube must stay in motion, and doesnt have to stay in motion, under the same rule.
When a cube is half way through, and is going 100mph. Does half of it continue at 100mph, while the other half is ripped off, and stay behind?
If the "portal" can change the velocity, how is it changed? if the cube is going 100mph before entering, and 100mph during, and 100mph after, where did the velocity change?
if its ALWAYS equal to the original velocity, then why would u say it can break the rule of "object in motion"? in short, it never breaks the rule. ever.
from the perspective of the box, it sees the same location in space having 2 different velocities in comparison to itself. orange moving 100mph, and blue not moving at all.
this is where the issue lies, and will forever leave this in a stalemate.
>a "portal" is not an "object" its a location in space.
I never said it was, the only instance of the word "object" in my post was used to describe the object travelling through the portal, not the portal.
>saying the cube must stay in motion, and doesnt have to stay in motion
No, I literally just said the cube must stay in motion on going through the portal.
>When a cube is half way through, and is going 100mph. Does half of it continue at 100mph, while the other half is ripped off, and stay behind?
Assuming you stopped the portal the moving half pulls on the not moving half.
>If the "portal" can change the velocity, how is it changed?
There's no point in questioning whether portals change velocities of objects, they literally do.
> if the cube is going 100mph before entering, and 100mph during, and 100mph after, where did the velocity change?
You're confusing velocity with speed.
>this is where the issue lies, and will forever leave this in a stalemate.
No. Literally no one but you has an issue with your perceived problem.
>I never said it was
I was trying to convey an idea, but was also bringing this up, as how you mentioned a "location in space" had an effect on velocity, which makes it sound like something thats not a location in space. which in turn, means ppl forget the blue exit portal has different velocity from the orange entrance portal.
>the moving half pulls on the not moving half.
honestly the best question to really think about. how much pressure is applied? and how effective is gravity in holding it in place? i personally have no clue how one would begin to go about figuring out this hypothetical. (also because it requires an impossible paradox)
>There's no point in questioning whether portals change velocities of objects, they literally do.
youre mixing up two different things. a "portal" which has both ends in sync in regards to their velocity, and the paradox being called a portal in this very question.
The 1st one, would have no effect on Velocity, outside of forces unrelated to the portal. such as gravity.
The second, the one you suggest must be allowed to change the velocity, is only being allowed in assumption, due to the paradoxical nature in which it requires different velocities in the same object to exit, in order for itself to exist.
Its only "they literally do" because the hypothetical portal cant exist w/o breaking the rules of how velocity works. which in turn breaks the answer of how velocity works.
>You're confusing velocity with speed.
if orange and blue are the same portal/location in space, then the velocity and speed would be identical, or am i misunderstanding something? (very much possible here)
An incomplete understanding of the situation resulting in a cop out
>when you're so determined to have a special snowflake answer both sides end up thinking you're moronic.
A portal only changes an object's position when the object actually passes through the portal. Likewise it will only change an object's velocity when the object actually passes through the portal.
>"wow i was sitting in a car driving when this child at the crossing suddenly flew at my windshield at 100mph!"
Agays and Bgays are moronic.
Portals don't exist in real life and portals in game cannot move. Any simulation is just that, a simulation. Trying to make an argument using the constraints of real world classical mechanics mixed with theoretical physics is moronic because theoretical physics is itself moronic.
>calls others moronic
>doesn't know the earth moves
>smash stationary cube with downwards momentum and force
>yeah dood it'll totally fly upwards
so, uh, where's all that kinetic energy coming from exactly? If the platform is stationary itself, the only force that could be put upon the cube is the smasher, and it can't even apply force to the cube because there's a portal in the middle of it. so why would it fly? that makes no fricking sense.
Where's the kinetic energy coming from when you use a portal to redirect a flying cube to a totally different direction in the original portal game? dumbass
Not that anon but strictly speaking an object moving in the same speed in a different direction still has the same kinetic energy.
proves that moving portals will alter an object's kinetic energy regardless.
>so, uh, where's all that kinetic energy coming from exactly?
same place as the infinite potential energy you get when you place one portal on the floor and one on the celing directly above it.
>where's all that kinetic energy coming from exactly?
Moving portals create kinetic energy:
This thread is posted almost every day and homosexuals will still spend hours discussing the exact same shit every time
What causes this? Is it really just autism?
someone is wrong on the internet anon
Unironically correct xkcd poster.
Why do you gays keep coming to these threads making the same obvious observation as if you're the first to realize this?
I could say the same to you, why do you keep replying to the same shit every time?
Why did you reply?
I think it's fun to argue hypothetical for their own sake. Although to be fair Agays do take some of the joy out of it because they're unworthy opponents.
He subtracts box velocity from Portal velocity. He should subtract portal velocity from box velocity with a floor of 0.
wat
This is genuinely the division. Just picture the exit portal side as the experiment happens. Picture a mote of dust floating in the space the cube will appear in on the exit side as the transfer happens. Picture any of these hypothetical situations actually happening.
Ganker - Video Games and Remedial Physics
jej
if it plopped it would still go in his ass moron
Just once, in my remaining days, I would like to see an A see the light.
I've seen it. It happens once in a blue moon.
Please move here instead of making another thread