it's a paradox because the cube is in the same frame of reference going into and coming out of the portal, having both motion and being stationary at the same time.
You could say that about any object in any portal game. Put two portals on the same wall: "the object is both moving right and left". Put two portals on the floor: "the object is both moving up and down". When you fall into a floor portal to launch through a wall portal, you don't rake your head exclaiming "THIS IS A PARADOX BECAUSE IN ONE FRAME I AM GOING DOWN BUT IN THE OTHER I'M GOING HORIZONTALLY".
You could likewise ride a train and call the people on the platform a paradox because they move from your perspective but don't move from theirs. There is no paradox.
it's not a because the cube is entering the portal with no momentum
it's not b because if we switch the frame of reference to the orange portal being stationary and everything else moving, then the cube is entering the portal with momentum
so it's neither because the cube can't go btth oin be botafh going the pfaortal cainnbe tpoerretal with momentum and also no momentum
like the other anon said it's a paradox, there's no correct answer
>You could say that about any object in any portal game...
no the issue is how the same point in an object moves in relation to itself, in your examples you're thinking of parts of the object moving but not about the fact that the same part would move relative to itself if you were to look at the object and trace the path through the portal back to the object itself
The cube never moves relative to itself. The whole point of B is that the cube gains a velocity to prevent it from moving relative to itself and then A does whatever A does, but there is no relative motion there either. Place two points on the cube and track the distance between them while going through he portal and you will see that the distance never changes.
Looking through a portal is not a valid reference frame.
9 months ago
Anonymous
why?
9 months ago
Anonymous
Because it is not continuous space. We know for certain that gravity doesn't pass through them, it's highly probable other forces and fields (like magnetism) don't either. So they're only really capable of transferring matter and light, and preserving atomic bonds.
Therefore what you observe through a portal does not need to be consistent with your local physics and you can't draw conclusions about the conditions on the other side.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I fully agree
9 months ago
Anonymous
I think this explanation actually switched me over to B
This isn't the cube moving relative to itself or it would be pulled and possibly break apart. This is just portals doing what portals do. You are creating a shorter path through space and then moving the location of that path.
9 months ago
Anonymous
where does the path go?
9 months ago
Anonymous
It doesn't go anywhere, the portal skips it. Plus, even if you do want to measure velocity by a change in distance through the portal, this will still give you the same value for every point on the cube showing that the cube is still not moving relative to itself.
9 months ago
Anonymous
so it skips the space and therefore is not continious
9 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not seeing where you are going with this that wouldn't apply to stationary portals. The main point is that you will not be able to measure motion of the cube relative to itself even going through the portal regardless of how they work. If you measure a change of 10 m/s because of a moving portal, you will simply have every point of the cube with the same 10 m/s value. The whole cube at 10 m/s means that it isn't moving relative to itself.
9 months ago
Anonymous
you can trace the path to a point in the cube from itself without going through the portal and observe 0m/s
it's not enough to look at it this way, you must imagine 2 frames of reference; one at each portal. Orange side portal dictates the cube must be moving through, so to compensate motion in the cube with respect to blue must be occurring.
>there is zero reason for it to stop moving
It wasn't moving in the first place, for that would require a force to be imparted upon it (other than the force in the changing vector of gravity)
Portals change your coordinates, they don't move you - otherwise the functionally instantaneous change in distance would result in having a functionally infinite velocity
>Portals change your coordinates, they don't move you
it's not a because the cube is entering the portal with no momentum
it's not b because if we switch the frame of reference to the orange portal being stationary and everything else moving, then the cube is entering the portal with momentum
so it's neither because the cube can't go btth oin be botafh going the pfaortal cainnbe tpoerretal with momentum and also no momentum
like the other anon said it's a paradox, there's no correct answer
Because that behavior is not coded into the game so you'd need to code it in the mod, to do what you want it to do.
Although coding it to do A could break the engine in so many hilarious ways.
Because that behavior is not coded into the game so you'd need to code it in the mod, to do what you want it to do.
Although coding it to do A could break the engine in so many hilarious ways.
, programmers tend to program the bare minimum to stimulate an environment/mechanic. They won't include an entire world's population if the player is to see only 20 people. They won't program quantum mechanics if classical physics is sufficient for a macro-scale game.
Likewise, portals. Portals could be theoretically moving, and they could be stationary. Stationary-only is a special case. If only these special cases are presented, then developers use shortcuts to stimulate just that. The simulation breaks when more general cases are tested, because the programmed simulation is not whole.
1) Learn English
2) When the cube is half way through and let's say the portal moves at 10 meters per second, then the cube needs to exit the other portal at 10 meters per second, there is zero reason for it to stop moving one it exits the portal
>there is zero reason for it to stop moving
It wasn't moving in the first place, for that would require a force to be imparted upon it (other than the force in the changing vector of gravity)
Portals change your coordinates, they don't move you - otherwise the functionally instantaneous change in distance would result in having a functionally infinite velocity
When you are looking through a static portal and the other one is moving, everything on the other side is moving relatively to you. There is no "absolutely static" state. If the cube is exiting the portal at a given speed, it doesn't "not move" because "it wasn't moving". It's exiting the portal. That is movement on the exit side of the portal.
>everything on the other side is moving relatively to you
And if the portal stops in front of your face, does everything on the other side of the portal suddenly lurch forward as if brought to a sudden stop? Just because it looks that way? What the frick are you even getting at here?
He's saying that if you stood at the exit and looked in, it would look like the cube was coming right at you so that must mean that it is moving
>everything on the other side is moving relatively to you
And if the portal stops in front of your face, does everything on the other side of the portal suddenly lurch forward as if brought to a sudden stop? Just because it looks that way? What the frick are you even getting at here?
>OH MY GOD ITS COMING RIGHT AT ME
Even on the argument that it only appears to be moving on looking through the portal doesn't change the fact that it quite literally is moving once it passes through the portal, because at that point you're not even looking at the cube through the portal, you are quite literally perceiving movement in the same space in your frame of reference.
Imagine looking at a portal on the ground while the cube is moving sideways towards the other portal on the wall. You would see the cube upwards when looking through the portal right? But you know the cube is actually moving sideways right? So under the same logic the different motion seen through the portal is an illusion right?
What happens when the cube passes through the portal? The cube's movement outright changes to how you were perceiving it through the portal. It's the same principle.
Portals literally change the momentum of objects passing through it whenever they change the direction an object is moving. When you factor in different reference frames this also means they change the object's speed as well.
So any fricking argument that the portal doesn't induce a force is pointless, the portal already shows to be able to achieve the end you're insisting a force is needed to bring about.
How many fricking times does this need to be explained to you idiots?
the speed lines in the diagram of OP lends to the idea the platform is lowering at a high velocity, which is why I assert it will fly out. If the platform was moving very slowly, I could see the other being true, but that doesn't fit the assumption.
What you stop the movement of the orange portal when it's smack dab in the middle of the cube? So it stops in an instant when the cube is half in the portal, half out. Does it get lifted off with less force and just fly a shorter distance, does it hop up a little bit or does it stay in place?
>mfw everyone has been arguing about this for years, but nobody has considered the speed of the moving portal >A is true if it's moving fast >B is true if it's moving slow
You see how one one of the scenarios the box flies out of the portal quickly, as indicated by motion lines? That fast. Because those are the same motion lines.
just a reminder that an object in rest stays in rest until acted on by an external force (the only external forces applied to the cube are the two moments of gravity)
Maybe it's because OP used the less common variant of the image flipping the labels of A and B, so what is drawn as A today is usually B in other threads.
The cube has already passed through at that moment, and doesn't care what happens on the other side of the portal because there's no magic force linking it to the space it previously occupied. So the cube just naturally continues its motion
Except that passing through shouldn’t matter for the perspective argument. All that matters is that Cube Moving Towards Portal = Portal Moving Towards Cube, which is not true for real life.
If I were to say having a car with the front windshield being a substitute for the portal, it comes clear both are clearly different things.
If I throw the cube through the windshield, it will fly through.
If I drive towards the cube and don’t stop, the cube look like it’s flying past me from my perspective and stationary from outside views. Keep in mind I’m stationary inside my car.
If I were driving to the cube and as soon as the cube passes through, I slam on my breaks and stop on a dime. This would result in the cube plopping down on my front seats.
You can alternatively just drive and observe the things around your car and see what happens when you slam on your brakes.
Btw yes the car is a valid comparison because from your’s and the car’s perspective, you both are stationary. Just like how an observer looking through the blue portal is also stationary from their perspective.
And what the blue portal sees is what the piston actually sees, so what said observer sees is from the perspective of a moving object.
>Except that passing through shouldn’t matter for the perspective argument
It matters for the "portals clearly don't change the motion of shit when they aren't even passing through the portal you fricking moron" argument.
Stop pretending you understand the argument you're trying to criticise (if you did understand it you wouldn't be using a moving entrance/exit analogy for a problem with a stationary exit like every fricking agay) and just use some common sense. Claiming changes of motion of a portal will in any way impact an object that isn't even passing through the portal anymore is moronic.
>Be me >Be pilot with 7 years of experiance >Also support B >Flying a Plane >Look out the window and see a building >OH FRICK! >That building is flying towards us! >Do nothing but remember all my fond memories >We aren’t moving after all so there is no way to avoid the building flying at us >Atard co-pilot takes that thingy in front of our seats >Turns it >Suddenly, the building’s momentum completely changes and misses our stationary plane! >Asks me what’s wrong with me >Explain to Atard co-pilot that we’re actually stationary and that the building was flying towards us >When we land, I get taken into custody for “endangering the lives of dozens of civilians” >Great, now I have to explain to THESE Agays what perspective means. Better whip out the good old MinuteEarth video! Hope these Agays are also not allergic to SCIENCE! >Don’t get to show them the scientific proof that the building was coming towards up >Be sent to an insane ward >After 26 months in a padded white room, manage to get out as soon as the building started moving
Man, what a society we live in. I can’t believe Atards run our schools, our police offices, our congress, etc. In response next election my presidential campaign will run me!
B gays refuse to concede because they have an inferiority complex on top of being moronic, so they make constant threads to make up new rules every time.
Meanwhile in the entire history of these threads the argument of A gays never changed: there is no force being applied to the cube so it will just plop down and not magically shoot up in the air.
>magically
Why do you think throwing this word around is like a trump card, when the cube magically appears in another location entirely, instantly, rotated in a different direction worth different potential energy? The whole portals situation is magic. Adding relative motion to it is the least of its magical qualities.
>take a bug net >slam the bug net around a small plastic cube as hard as I can >the cube suddenly shoots through my net into the air and flies into the sky
Bgay logic.
So you're acknowledging that matter all exiting at the same location without the motion to leave the location results in them pushing against each other causing them to push away from the blue portal?
Apply the same logic to the solid matter of the cube.
A portal isn't a hula hoop nor two seperate "doors". A portal is a pinching of space, much like we theorise a wormhole to be. The problem isn't whether or not the cube is stationary or moving when revealed out of the other end. the problem is whether or not it even makes sense for one "end" of a portal to be moving at all even logically makes sense in a hypothetical. For a pinching of space to extend or shorten would imply the entire universe moves into or away from the pinch. Either "solution" could equally be correct or incorrect.
>Technically it is
Technically its not because a hula hoop doesn't have its entrance and exit move relative to each other or cause other objects to move relative to themselves
The same relativity argument says that both ends of a portal are relative to each other. Looking through the blue portal is no different from standing on a hula hoop and looking through the hoop.
The same relativity argument says that both ends of a portal are relative to each other. Looking through the blue portal is no different from standing on a hula hoop and looking through the hoop.
It isn't and you're not just standing there anyways, the point is movement.
A hula hoop cannot make an object move fricking move relative to itself, a portal can. The entrance and the exit being in two separate locations, with completely different frames of reference due to movement or inconsistent orientation means ITS NOT A FRICKING WINDOW, DOOR, OR HOOP YOU MORONS
What if the blue portal is pointing upwards and it is on a similar piston but the piston is going down with the same speed as the piston the orange portal is on?
1. The cube has 0 relative velocity to the orange portal and frame of reference (the room), but has velocity compared to the blue portal
2. if you look into the blue portal you can see the whole room moving. the frame of reference (room) has velocity compared to itself if observed through the portal.
3. likewise, looking into the orange portal you can see the same room moving.
4. look through the orange portal just before the cube enters the blue portal and you will see a cube moving towards the orange portal with Nonzero velocity
5. the moment the cube enters the blue portal it is now exiting the orange portal with changed relativity - it keeps it's velocity relative to the room as previously observed through the orange portal so it flies out the orange portal
anybody who says the cube stays in place is a imaginationless brainlet who can only copy existing thoughts and is unable to formulate new ideas based on changes in the environment.
arguing that the cube is and will stay static relative to the room is smoothbrained considering the cube will near instantaneously transport to another spot.
the key point is that the room itself is not static compared to itself IF OBSERVED THROUGH THE PORTAL.
food for thought for anyone disagreeing:
sit on an orange portal and let a blue portal fall on top of you and notice how fast your head enters your ass (not static)
every Ganker poll shows roughly the same ratio
we've transcended beyond resetera and reddit who are majority Agays
take another poll yourself when there's an active thread and you'll see
We've been over this lads, its C. It works like C in the game and logically C is the only one that makes sense. Either the piston would stop or the cube would be crushed.
it's a paradox because the cube is in the same frame of reference going into and coming out of the portal, having both motion and being stationary at the same time.
You could say that about any object in any portal game. Put two portals on the same wall: "the object is both moving right and left". Put two portals on the floor: "the object is both moving up and down". When you fall into a floor portal to launch through a wall portal, you don't rake your head exclaiming "THIS IS A PARADOX BECAUSE IN ONE FRAME I AM GOING DOWN BUT IN THE OTHER I'M GOING HORIZONTALLY".
You could likewise ride a train and call the people on the platform a paradox because they move from your perspective but don't move from theirs. There is no paradox.
Anon, are you okay?
>You could say that about any object in any portal game...
no the issue is how the same point in an object moves in relation to itself, in your examples you're thinking of parts of the object moving but not about the fact that the same part would move relative to itself if you were to look at the object and trace the path through the portal back to the object itself
The cube never moves relative to itself. The whole point of B is that the cube gains a velocity to prevent it from moving relative to itself and then A does whatever A does, but there is no relative motion there either. Place two points on the cube and track the distance between them while going through he portal and you will see that the distance never changes.
it does move if you trace through the portal
Looking through a portal is not a valid reference frame.
why?
Because it is not continuous space. We know for certain that gravity doesn't pass through them, it's highly probable other forces and fields (like magnetism) don't either. So they're only really capable of transferring matter and light, and preserving atomic bonds.
Therefore what you observe through a portal does not need to be consistent with your local physics and you can't draw conclusions about the conditions on the other side.
I fully agree
I think this explanation actually switched me over to B
This isn't the cube moving relative to itself or it would be pulled and possibly break apart. This is just portals doing what portals do. You are creating a shorter path through space and then moving the location of that path.
where does the path go?
It doesn't go anywhere, the portal skips it. Plus, even if you do want to measure velocity by a change in distance through the portal, this will still give you the same value for every point on the cube showing that the cube is still not moving relative to itself.
so it skips the space and therefore is not continious
I'm not seeing where you are going with this that wouldn't apply to stationary portals. The main point is that you will not be able to measure motion of the cube relative to itself even going through the portal regardless of how they work. If you measure a change of 10 m/s because of a moving portal, you will simply have every point of the cube with the same 10 m/s value. The whole cube at 10 m/s means that it isn't moving relative to itself.
you can trace the path to a point in the cube from itself without going through the portal and observe 0m/s
this is why you assume the portal just emits what it swallows
it's not enough to look at it this way, you must imagine 2 frames of reference; one at each portal. Orange side portal dictates the cube must be moving through, so to compensate motion in the cube with respect to blue must be occurring.
Is this a Portal 1 or Portal 2 board?
Portal 1, I believe
Threadly challenge, get an Agay to try to describe motion without using the word in as few questions as possible, GO.
Change in distance over time ???
Didn't take long.
>Portals change your coordinates, they don't move you
it's not a because the cube is entering the portal with no momentum
it's not b because if we switch the frame of reference to the orange portal being stationary and everything else moving, then the cube is entering the portal with momentum
so it's neither because the cube can't go btth oin be botafh going the pfaortal cainnbe tpoerretal with momentum and also no momentum
like the other anon said it's a paradox, there's no correct answer
why haven't anyone tested it ingame (with mods obviously you fricking moron) like that homosexual crowbcat did with crushed by portals video
People have and have twisted it to work both ways
Because that behavior is not coded into the game so you'd need to code it in the mod, to do what you want it to do.
Although coding it to do A could break the engine in so many hilarious ways.
because the game is irrelevant
To elaborate on
, programmers tend to program the bare minimum to stimulate an environment/mechanic. They won't include an entire world's population if the player is to see only 20 people. They won't program quantum mechanics if classical physics is sufficient for a macro-scale game.
Likewise, portals. Portals could be theoretically moving, and they could be stationary. Stationary-only is a special case. If only these special cases are presented, then developers use shortcuts to stimulate just that. The simulation breaks when more general cases are tested, because the programmed simulation is not whole.
nobody here talks about it from in-game perspective, they talk about it using real world physics principals, or best guess application of.
why did you swap a and b?
now i have to be a btard
Btards are fricking scum on top of being morons.
B?
The portals bends and shortens the distance between spaces, it does not apple force.
1) Learn English
2) When the cube is half way through and let's say the portal moves at 10 meters per second, then the cube needs to exit the other portal at 10 meters per second, there is zero reason for it to stop moving one it exits the portal
>there is zero reason for it to stop moving
It wasn't moving in the first place, for that would require a force to be imparted upon it (other than the force in the changing vector of gravity)
Portals change your coordinates, they don't move you - otherwise the functionally instantaneous change in distance would result in having a functionally infinite velocity
When you are looking through a static portal and the other one is moving, everything on the other side is moving relatively to you. There is no "absolutely static" state. If the cube is exiting the portal at a given speed, it doesn't "not move" because "it wasn't moving". It's exiting the portal. That is movement on the exit side of the portal.
>When you are looking through a static portal and the other one is moving, everything on the other side is moving relatively to you
It's not.
>everything on the other side is moving relatively to you
And if the portal stops in front of your face, does everything on the other side of the portal suddenly lurch forward as if brought to a sudden stop? Just because it looks that way? What the frick are you even getting at here?
>OH MY GOD ITS COMING RIGHT AT ME
Except the other side is not moving in this case.
He's saying that if you stood at the exit and looked in, it would look like the cube was coming right at you so that must mean that it is moving
Even on the argument that it only appears to be moving on looking through the portal doesn't change the fact that it quite literally is moving once it passes through the portal, because at that point you're not even looking at the cube through the portal, you are quite literally perceiving movement in the same space in your frame of reference.
Imagine looking at a portal on the ground while the cube is moving sideways towards the other portal on the wall. You would see the cube upwards when looking through the portal right? But you know the cube is actually moving sideways right? So under the same logic the different motion seen through the portal is an illusion right?
What happens when the cube passes through the portal? The cube's movement outright changes to how you were perceiving it through the portal. It's the same principle.
Portals literally change the momentum of objects passing through it whenever they change the direction an object is moving. When you factor in different reference frames this also means they change the object's speed as well.
So any fricking argument that the portal doesn't induce a force is pointless, the portal already shows to be able to achieve the end you're insisting a force is needed to bring about.
How many fricking times does this need to be explained to you idiots?
Ok?
The cube is not moving to begin with. I see another anon is trying to explain it, probably better than me so I would let him answer.
something all can agree on
No
the speed lines in the diagram of OP lends to the idea the platform is lowering at a high velocity, which is why I assert it will fly out. If the platform was moving very slowly, I could see the other being true, but that doesn't fit the assumption.
Valve specifically didn't include this scenario in their game so they wouldn't have to figure this shit out, moron.
What you stop the movement of the orange portal when it's smack dab in the middle of the cube? So it stops in an instant when the cube is half in the portal, half out. Does it get lifted off with less force and just fly a shorter distance, does it hop up a little bit or does it stay in place?
>mfw everyone has been arguing about this for years, but nobody has considered the speed of the moving portal
>A is true if it's moving fast
>B is true if it's moving slow
moron
oh yeah why? if it's moving fast, it flies out. if it's moving slow, the gravity on the other side just gently makes it fall to the floor.
see
you're probably mad because you spent days arguing about this in the past lmao no refunds
Motion lines imply fast motion. Are you too autistic to catch on "subtle" context clues?
define fast. must feel pretty stupid having argued about A vs B without ever asking how fast the portal is going kek
imagine being this autistic
cope
You see how one one of the scenarios the box flies out of the portal quickly, as indicated by motion lines? That fast. Because those are the same motion lines.
datamining thread
datamining thread
continuing to post in this thread after reading this is an acknowledgement and agreement to submit your data into a machine learning algorithm
It could be my paranoia, but I do wonder if some of these answers are meant to be wrong.
Like a social experiment about authority, peer pressure, IQ, or something.
>Air getting sucked out into a very low pressure environment.
Exactly, the only thing that pulls you through is the pressure differential. So it's B.
C.
Total annihilation of the universe as soon as the portals are manifest
just a reminder that an object in rest stays in rest until acted on by an external force (the only external forces applied to the cube are the two moments of gravity)
A but only if the portal goes completely through it.
If the portal stops half way through it's movement it would probably cut the box in half
No.
I think gravity or some other force would just pull it to what every direction is strongest.
shouldn't it fly off to the top?
No, because the blue portal is matching the speed in the other direction, cancelling it.
Why would it? The entrance and exit are working off the same frame of reference and matching each other perfectly
usually I side with B but today A makes more sense...
Maybe it's because OP used the less common variant of the image flipping the labels of A and B, so what is drawn as A today is usually B in other threads.
>Summer 2023
>another thread of Atards not understanding relativity
>another thread of Bchads falseflagging as Atards to keep the thread alive
Now show what happens when the piston stops on the platform the cube is on.
The cube has already passed through at that moment, and doesn't care what happens on the other side of the portal because there's no magic force linking it to the space it previously occupied. So the cube just naturally continues its motion
Except that passing through shouldn’t matter for the perspective argument. All that matters is that Cube Moving Towards Portal = Portal Moving Towards Cube, which is not true for real life.
If I were to say having a car with the front windshield being a substitute for the portal, it comes clear both are clearly different things.
If I throw the cube through the windshield, it will fly through.
If I drive towards the cube and don’t stop, the cube look like it’s flying past me from my perspective and stationary from outside views. Keep in mind I’m stationary inside my car.
If I were driving to the cube and as soon as the cube passes through, I slam on my breaks and stop on a dime. This would result in the cube plopping down on my front seats.
You can alternatively just drive and observe the things around your car and see what happens when you slam on your brakes.
Btw yes the car is a valid comparison because from your’s and the car’s perspective, you both are stationary. Just like how an observer looking through the blue portal is also stationary from their perspective.
And what the blue portal sees is what the piston actually sees, so what said observer sees is from the perspective of a moving object.
>Except that passing through shouldn’t matter for the perspective argument
It matters for the "portals clearly don't change the motion of shit when they aren't even passing through the portal you fricking moron" argument.
Stop pretending you understand the argument you're trying to criticise (if you did understand it you wouldn't be using a moving entrance/exit analogy for a problem with a stationary exit like every fricking agay) and just use some common sense. Claiming changes of motion of a portal will in any way impact an object that isn't even passing through the portal anymore is moronic.
>Be me
>Be pilot with 7 years of experiance
>Also support B
>Flying a Plane
>Look out the window and see a building
>OH FRICK!
>That building is flying towards us!
>Do nothing but remember all my fond memories
>We aren’t moving after all so there is no way to avoid the building flying at us
>Atard co-pilot takes that thingy in front of our seats
>Turns it
>Suddenly, the building’s momentum completely changes and misses our stationary plane!
>Asks me what’s wrong with me
>Explain to Atard co-pilot that we’re actually stationary and that the building was flying towards us
>When we land, I get taken into custody for “endangering the lives of dozens of civilians”
>Great, now I have to explain to THESE Agays what perspective means. Better whip out the good old MinuteEarth video! Hope these Agays are also not allergic to SCIENCE!
>Don’t get to show them the scientific proof that the building was coming towards up
>Be sent to an insane ward
>After 26 months in a padded white room, manage to get out as soon as the building started moving
Man, what a society we live in. I can’t believe Atards run our schools, our police offices, our congress, etc. In response next election my presidential campaign will run me!
uh oh melty
is there a bot posting these threads on timer?
B gays refuse to concede because they have an inferiority complex on top of being moronic, so they make constant threads to make up new rules every time.
Meanwhile in the entire history of these threads the argument of A gays never changed: there is no force being applied to the cube so it will just plop down and not magically shoot up in the air.
>magically
Why do you think throwing this word around is like a trump card, when the cube magically appears in another location entirely, instantly, rotated in a different direction worth different potential energy? The whole portals situation is magic. Adding relative motion to it is the least of its magical qualities.
Because there's no real logic to whatever bullshit B gays make up every week.
>take a bug net
>slam the bug net around a small plastic cube as hard as I can
>the cube suddenly shoots through my net into the air and flies into the sky
Bgay logic.
thoughts?
A and B are essentially the same thing. The high pressure in A would create wind.
So you're acknowledging that matter all exiting at the same location without the motion to leave the location results in them pushing against each other causing them to push away from the blue portal?
Apply the same logic to the solid matter of the cube.
I don't know what you said but areas with high pressure would move to low pressure hence creating wind. That's all there's to it
Yes and apply that logic to solid matter all ending up in the some position.
Stationary thing goes in, stationary thing comes out. Simple as.
How can it come out if it's stationary?
magic hula hoops + gravity
Too bad its not a hula hoop.
cope
A portal isn't a hula hoop nor two seperate "doors". A portal is a pinching of space, much like we theorise a wormhole to be. The problem isn't whether or not the cube is stationary or moving when revealed out of the other end. the problem is whether or not it even makes sense for one "end" of a portal to be moving at all even logically makes sense in a hypothetical. For a pinching of space to extend or shorten would imply the entire universe moves into or away from the pinch. Either "solution" could equally be correct or incorrect.
Because once it goes through the blue portal the cube is still on the platform and naturally slides down because of gravity.
Technically it is, B gay logic is that throwing hula hoops around objects makes them fly into the air.
>Technically it is
Technically its not because a hula hoop doesn't have its entrance and exit move relative to each other or cause other objects to move relative to themselves
The same relativity argument says that both ends of a portal are relative to each other. Looking through the blue portal is no different from standing on a hula hoop and looking through the hoop.
A hula hoop is like an extremely short tube/tunnel, which are what portals are.
Its not at all what they are
It isn't and you're not just standing there anyways, the point is movement.
A hula hoop cannot make an object move fricking move relative to itself, a portal can. The entrance and the exit being in two separate locations, with completely different frames of reference due to movement or inconsistent orientation means ITS NOT A FRICKING WINDOW, DOOR, OR HOOP YOU MORONS
Thing goes in speedily, thing comes out speedily. Simple as.
the speed ain't transfer to the cube
What if the blue portal is pointing upwards and it is on a similar piston but the piston is going down with the same speed as the piston the orange portal is on?
C.
It would probably launch like A with a LOT less force generated by the slam between the two platforms.
The box should just do a tiny jump.
why though
1. The cube has 0 relative velocity to the orange portal and frame of reference (the room), but has velocity compared to the blue portal
2. if you look into the blue portal you can see the whole room moving. the frame of reference (room) has velocity compared to itself if observed through the portal.
3. likewise, looking into the orange portal you can see the same room moving.
4. look through the orange portal just before the cube enters the blue portal and you will see a cube moving towards the orange portal with Nonzero velocity
5. the moment the cube enters the blue portal it is now exiting the orange portal with changed relativity - it keeps it's velocity relative to the room as previously observed through the orange portal so it flies out the orange portal
anybody who says the cube stays in place is a imaginationless brainlet who can only copy existing thoughts and is unable to formulate new ideas based on changes in the environment.
arguing that the cube is and will stay static relative to the room is smoothbrained considering the cube will near instantaneously transport to another spot.
the key point is that the room itself is not static compared to itself IF OBSERVED THROUGH THE PORTAL.
food for thought for anyone disagreeing:
sit on an orange portal and let a blue portal fall on top of you and notice how fast your head enters your ass (not static)
motherfricker I switched orange and blue and now my reply is invalid
Everyone who chose B should be sterilized and enslaved.
It's over
there are no genuine Agays anymore, just trolls
>23 votes
every Ganker poll shows roughly the same ratio
we've transcended beyond resetera and reddit who are majority Agays
take another poll yourself when there's an active thread and you'll see
iirc there was a funny poll that showed a considerable correlation of A-unvaxxed and B-vaxxed.
muh hoops
A-sisters wtf??? smash that report button dont let this chud get away with it
C, the piston arm would break as moving the portal would require infinite force and break physics in general.
We've been over this lads, its C. It works like C in the game and logically C is the only one that makes sense. Either the piston would stop or the cube would be crushed.
not an argument