>Movement =/= momentum
This is fundamentally wrong and conflicts with every law of physics known to man, including the deeply theoretical and near-fantasy ones.
In this situation and what he is talking about, it is correct. The object is moving fast but only because of the frame. The only momentum is the falling camera.
That's the whole "man falling from a building" idea Einstein thought up.
The earth and building are moving fast, but the falling man is weightless.
The earth is falling around the sun, but we don't feel it.
Mass bends space time.
Which model are we using Newtonian physics or Einstein's theory of relativity?
Momentum is as relative as any form of movement is. You can't decouple them - it breaks the whole definition of momentum.
where does momentum come from????
it comes from force, so dont give me shit decoupling like a fricking moron. It doesnt have force applied to it then it is not given momentum
if I throw a ball it doesnt mean that the leaf on the ground is heavier* because relatively you fricking Black person moron homosexual pussy b***h.
so it about force applied to a body, also (if you were not a complete idiot) it depends on the context the body is interactining with (like if its skating on ice maybe moron)
so you realize (if you have a brain) that its the entire context that is important. You are not the only observer. And their are many different "moving" parts.
What forces are acting on what, this is the basic pully triangle problem. If you dont know what that is ur a complete idiot and ur mom is a Black person you low IQ shit head.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Magnitude and Direction. Portals NEVER change Magnitude. Your video exception only works with Chell for a reason. They do weird shit with the player to make it function as a game. They give her a small boost even while the portals are stationary.
Not all frame of references are relevant. From the perspective of the upper half of the hula hoop, you were speeding right out of it. In spite of this, stopping it partway as it falls over you is not fatal. It landing on the ground over a box doesn't make the box fly.
>the cube still moves because the animator decided itthe perspective on the right is intentionally misleading because it helps distract you from the cube gaining momentum it didn't have before
moving the wall downwards would not apply momentum to the cube and it'd at best just plop out the other hole, hence the bullshit perspective
Cube moves toward the portal=portal moves toward the cube. All frames of refrence are equally acceptable. All movement is relative. If you have issue with any of these statements, please pass high school physics first.
Not all frames of reference are relevant, in that way anyway. See:
Not all frame of references are relevant. From the perspective of the upper half of the hula hoop, you were speeding right out of it. In spite of this, stopping it partway as it falls over you is not fatal. It landing on the ground over a box doesn't make the box fly.
Wasn't there some Greek guy (maybe the same butthole) who said you couldn't beat a turtle in a race cause every time you catch up he has moved a bit, so therefore you can never actually beat him?
He was right given the setup. The racer in that race only moves distances equal to half of the distance from his current position to the finish line. He would never the finish the race, but the tortoise eventually would.
something something calculus and limits as x approaches infinity
Then again I don't think time nor space is infinitely divisible either, see the Planck length + Planck time.
>Just like Fox News
The Leftoid lies as he speaks. He is a wretched creature for whom the only cure is a sword rammed as deep as possible into his guts.
The orange portal sees the cube moving towards itself.
Since we're dealing with portals (wormholes) we are no longer dealing with an absolute frame of reference (which doesn't truly exist, anyway) but several different inertial frames of reference.
When you look through the blue portal, you will see the box coming towards you at fast speeds. There is nothing stopping that cube's momentum.
It proves that if orange only lets object to pass through and doesn't physically interact with the object it's irrelevant if orange was moving.
The only way why a resting cube would shoot out is if orange deconstructs the object and blue remakes it with the same speed it entered the portal. Which means you die and get remade when you do the same.
>the orange portal doesnt "see" anything, it doesnt have eyes.
This is the type of poster you are arguing with.
Think twice before typing a long, formulated rebuttal.
>which doesn't truly exist, anyway
nice.
i like you.
pretty much sums up relativity.
i once asked a friend of mine how he'd know that he's 'moving', he basically said something along the lines of 'i could tell from what i see and feel' - but what if then, say, you're moving through zero G space, with nothing but pitch blackness around you?
no air to feel against your skin/suit, nothing to 'move against'.
could you really still say you were still 'moving' in that environment?
movement always has to be relative to something.
if i slap a homosexual moron in this thread, you could say my hand is moving to his homosexual face.
conversely, you could also say that his face is quickly approaching my hand and bracing for impact.
>Try that in court and see how it works out you fricking gay.
lmao you'd be surprised how many people/lawyers have used that line of arguments and won
also, have a nice day
If the momentum of the portal can't be imparted on the object, then the object shouldn't be able to move through the portal in the first place. This is obviously illogical.
The only way to move a portal independent of another is to move the entire universe relative to the portal.
Cool so the cube just somehow just gets transferred momentum without anything touching it? Yeah bud makes sense. B gays definitely aren't moronic.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the cube just somehow just gets transferred momentum without anything touching it?
How does the cube move through the portal at all if portals can't "transfer momentum"?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Oh man, let me make this REALLY simple for you.
Step 1) Basics
Portal 1 moves at 100km/h.
Portal 2 doesn't move.
This means that the portals are functionally NOT connected to eachother in any way shape or form, EXCEPT for the fact that they transfer data to one another.
This is DIFFERENT from what we expect a normal portal to behave.
With me so far? Good.
Step 2) Frames of reference
When Portal 1 passes through an object, what it will "see" is an object flying towards it at 100km/h.
This is correct. It is also correct to say that the panel is moving down to the object at 100km/h.
They are both valid, because, if a moving rock were to travel towards a stationary rock in vacuum, you wouldn't be able to tell which rock is stationary and which rock is moving without first establishing a frame of reference as a helper.
Better yet, implant your eyes into either rock and tell me which rock is truly moving, of course, it is impossible. This is the very basic foundation of "inertial frame of reference".
Thus, for all intents and purposes, both the platform and the object are moving towards eachother and the cube gets launched at 100km/h.
Step 3) "What about doorframes?"
Two parts of a doorframe (same with hoola hoops) cannot move independently of eachother while still allowing instantenous and continuous motion across their aperture. (
Which hoola hoops can move independently independently of eachother while still allowing instantaneous and continuous motion across their aperture?
)
If you make a circle with your fingers and insert your thumb through it, it will not launch your thumb out because both ends of your finger circle are connected to eachother through direction and speed. Their vectors are identical and interconnected.
The vectors of two portals, IF BOTH PORTALS CAN MOVE INDEPENDENTLY OF EACHOTHER, are not interconnected, meaning all they can do is transfer information from one to another, which in this case, removes enough limitations to make B feasible.
If we were to assume that the two portals always had the same vectors (e.g. this scenario isn't possible), A would suffice.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Except that image very much establishes an unmoving cube and a moving portal.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>if you pretend for a sec you're the portal and imagine it's the cube that is moving toward you, the cube will magically gain momentum
You can literally ask any physicist about absolute frames of reference and they will explain to you that modern physics is past arguing such notions.
I can't explain to you any simpler why absolute space is inherently flawed, read a physics book or open up Wikipedia.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>if you pretend for a sec you're the portal and imagine it's the cube that is moving toward you, the cube will magically gain momentum
2 years ago
Anonymous
Please pass high school physics before commenting. Either that or overturn hundreds of years of Physics research with your surely groundbreaking paper "I don't understand what you guys were talking about all this time so It's not true, actually."
I'm convinced this entire thing is just a bunch of homosexuals baiting people when they say the cube would just go flying. No one can be so fricking subnormal as to believe the cube would suddenly go from a complete rest to flying off without being touched at any point by anything
Because unlike the portals, both the "exit" and "entrance" are stuck together and moving in unison. If anything, hoops/door frames prove B, since it's all about exiting as fast as you enter, with the key difference being how the speed of the "sides" is detached in the example
>that's exactly like portals
Yes yes did you even read the rest of the post? The point is that they ARE exactly like portals, but the sides of the PORTALS IN THE EXAMPLE YOU NONCE are moving (or not) at two different speeds. When a hula hoop or door frame falls on you, you exit as fast as you enter. When a portal comes crashing into you, you exit as fast as you enter. The fact that the entrance is moving while the exit is not makes all the difference and results in B.
Is momentum conserved when passing through a portal? If so, relative to what? (Hint: momentum is a vector and has a direction. this means momentum is not conserved relative to a rest frame in the games either)
As a bonus, feel free to explain how the box exits from the second portal without having any momentum.
If you were standing in front of the blue portal, you would see the box moving toward you at the exact speed the press containing the orange portal is moving. If you reached your hands through the portal and grabbed the sides of the press, it would not seem to be moving.
The box is moving relative to the blue portal's frame of reference, and the orange portal is stationary. The result is no different than a normal portal physics problem.
Is momentum conserved when passing through a portal? If so, relative to what? (Hint: momentum is a vector and has a direction. this means momentum is not conserved relative to a rest frame in the games either)
As a bonus, feel free to explain how the box exits from the second portal without having any momentum.
>how the box exits from the second portal without having any momentum.
Can't leave the portal with 0 momentum. From blue portal's frame of reference the box is moving towards it, going through it, and continuing with the same momentum that it was entered with.
If portals existed on moving surfaces, the moving portal would be reset every single shift in position to the point that the orange portal at the end of the moving thing would be a completely different one from the orange portal when it first started moving.
Since we're dealing with a different orange portal, there is no momentum, thus A
Is momentum conserved when passing through a portal? If so, relative to what? (Hint: momentum is a vector and has a direction. this means momentum is not conserved relative to a rest frame in the games either)
As a bonus, feel free to explain how the box exits from the second portal without having any momentum.
If an object being forced through a moving portal has no momentum, and therefore no motion, how does it pass through the portal at all?
If the blue portal was obstructed, what would happen when the orange portal started to envelop the cube and it met the obstacle? Would it move it or destroy it? With what force, if it isn't truly moving?
If the portal is "being reset over and over again" how does the cube manage to pass through it unscathed?
If this "resetting portal" still effectively connects two points in space seamlessly thereby allowing large solid objects to pass through unscathed, how is it meaningfully different than the "moving portal" described?
>If the portal is "being reset over and over again" how does the cube manage to pass through it unscathed?
It probably doesn't.
>connects two points in space seamlessly
but you're not connecting two points in space, you're connecting one point in space to apparently a series of points in space.
The portals, as presented in game, are pretty much doorways between two points in space. You can't make half a doorway move. You're either moving both or you're moving neither.
The portals, as presented in game, are able to move separately from eachother seamlessly without "resetting" in two different cases, in one case with a moving panel and in the other case with the fricking moon.
While I can't say much about the former case since the thing passing through it in that case is a continuous laser, in the latter case SEVERAL things pass through the portal, including Chell herself, completely unscathed.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>in one case with a moving panel and in the other case with the fricking moon.
I don't remember the moving panel example and I'm pretty sure the moon case doesn't work either for b-bros, since the difference in momentum between the rotation of the moon and the rotation of the earth don't affect how that scene plays out. The moon portal just acts like an opened airlocked.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I don't remember the moving panel example
There's a section at the end of Portal 2 where you have to shoot portal A in front of a laser and shoot portal B on to a moving panel to make the laser cut shit apart as the panel moves.
>It probably doesn't.
Okay, but even assuming the cube is spliced to bits by repeated portal cuts or whatever, the mass of the cube remains and still passes through the blue portal.
How did that mass exit from the second portal without having any momentum?
What would happen if the blue portal was obstructed? Unlike "moving portals" there's no rule against that. Where would the mass go?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>What would happen if the blue portal was obstructed?
It wouldn't go through and would be crushed
2 years ago
Anonymous
Crushed by what? You said "there is no momentum" involved, what force is crushing it?
Resistance from the obstacle? How can the obstacle be resisting the cube if no force is acting on the cube?
Even supposing the cube was crushed by some mysterious force, what happened to it? The obstacle stopped it from going through the blue portal, but the press has closed and there is zero distance and therefore zero space between the orange portal and blue portal. Where is the cube?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You said "there is no momentum" involved, what force is crushing it?
The piston pushing it into the ground
2 years ago
Anonymous
you had me going for a while but you're just gonna give up that easily?
C-, best I can do
2 years ago
Anonymous
They're doorways.
If you close the door or block the door, then you can't step through it when the two massive objects collide, so you get crushed exactly as if the doorway wasn't there.
Imagine you're standing in an open doorway in the middle of a car crusher as it gets turned on. You can be on either side or stuck on one side because the door is locked. Doesn't matter, you get crushed by the car crusher.
2 years ago
Anonymous
By what mechanism does the piston transfer momentum to the cube? They never come into contact, the cube is entirely enveloped by the portal.
Why do you argue this transfer of momentum occurs when the blue portal is blocked but not when the cube passes through it normally?
Supposing that the cube is somehow crushed, again, where does it go? The blue portal is blocked, and there is ZERO space between the orange portal and blue portal. Mass cannot be "crushed" into a space with zero volume.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The game accounts for obstructed portals. The linking mechanism is disabled, making only the surface it's attached to relevant.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>By what mechanism does the piston transfer momentum to the cube?
The weight of the piston directly behind the orange portal doesn't just disappear. It's still there. If you can't go through the orange portal, it crushes you into the floor.
>the cube is entirely enveloped by the portal.
Not if it can't pass through due to an obstruction
>Supposing that the cube is somehow crushed, again, where does it go?
It is flattened between the piston press and the ground. When the piston pulls back up, there wil be a flattened cube lying in place, since it couldn't go through the blue portal due to an obstruction.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The weight of the piston
You are arguing that the relative acceleration of the portal is "transferred" to the cube as it enters the orange portal and simultaneously passes through the blue portal, resulting in B
Thank you, have a good night
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the relative acceleration of the portal
The portal isn't accelerating, I already said it's merely destroyed and recreated. The piston, however, is not destroyed and recreated.
This answer doesn't make sense. The cube cannot travel through the portal unscathed if the portal keeps resetting itself, so we have to assume that orange portal is able to move relative to the blue portal to even start entertaining the hypothetical.
Think of it like the universe moving relative to the portal.
>does something that has no momentum itself, gain it if space is moved around it?
Literally unanswerable question. gays be pretending they any would know how make believe physics would play out
what if the portal stopped suddenly halfway down the cube, so that one half was below the orange and one was above the blue? would it pop up suddenly? stay in place?
the portal falling onto you and stopping is the same as you falling through a portal and getting jerked to zero relative velocity by some force, yes? So why are we saying the top half of the body gets the force exerted on it and not the body half? Wouldn't your whole body just suffer a force exerted on it and where, if at all, your body breaks apart depends on anatomy and not on the exact position of the portal?
I just don't understand why the halfway-through-body separation thing is being used as intuitive evidence that B is wrong. It's not a different setup than the original problem, but the absurdity of the body breaking perfectly along the line of the portal makes it seem absurd. Obviously the situation as a whole is absurd because it's an idealized video game version of what a portal would look like, but B is the only way to interpret the problem in a way that's consistent with physics and relative frames of reference. The fact that you're "stationary" in your frame of reference before the portal makes contact with you is not a privileged perspective, because from the portal's frame of reference you're flying through it
2 years ago
Anonymous
you didnt answer my question
2 years ago
Anonymous
In the portal-stopping-over-body example, the scenario is equivalent to the body and the floor it's standing on flying up through the portal and the floor stopping instantaneously while the body is currently halfway through the portal. This should help show the intuition that the body maintains its velocity and flies out through the other end of the portal, since this is what's happening from the frame of reference of the other end of the portal. The force exerted on the body at the moment of portal stopping and/or floor stopping results in a deacceleration downwards, but the body's velocity is "upwards" in the portal's frame of reference, i.e. out through the other end of the portal. This is the only way portals can make any sense physically unless you think they instantly kill objects' momentum upon crossing it, which isn't even how it works in the games.
There is nothing to in particular to refute since it is the same question. It is Agays who need to refute it since they are always the ones to post it and thinking that it is significant is a big indication that they don't understand the problem or how to argue about it.
materials science says you'd go up, and pull your legs with you
depends on the force of the acceleration. If it wasn't going fast enough when it stopped you would lift through, but if it is going sufficiently fast you would be ripped in half
Motion is the movement of an object through space
When you enter a portal, you are moving into the space on the other side of the portal, and therefore have momentum
Whether you were already moving in the direction of the portal or whether the portal was moving toward you is irrelevant; if there is any difference in velocity between you and the portal, that is acceleration
If you understand that "speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out," then it should follow that "thing goes in speedily, thing comes out speedily"
How do you try to twist "speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out," to B? It implies that the speed is preserved. An unmoving object remains unmoving. It explicitly states that the speed of the object is preserved, not that of the portal.
But the object does have speed in the portal's frame of reference. And the portal's frame of refrence is the only one that matters because in game, momentum is only perserved based on the portal's frame of reference. >But anon, how can you prove that without recreating the OP inage in game?
Momentumis a vector, meaning it has a directional component. If you throw something through the portal it maintains it's direction based on the portal's frame of reference.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The game doesn't give a frick about the portals frame of reference. Momentum is a property of each object. When an object passes through a portal, its momentum (again, a property of the object. In this case, a stationary box) is conserved, but rotated relative to the portal entry/exit (rotation that is irrelevant to a stationary object). That's it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The momentum being "Rotated relative to the portal's entry/exit" and "Conserved based on the portal's frame of reference" are the exact same thing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The game accounts for obstructed portals. The linking mechanism is disabled, making only the surface it's attached to relevant.
>the game
nobody is under the impression that the source engine is an accurate simulation of real physics and nobody in this thread cares what happens if you try to make any of this work in there
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The game doesn't give a frick about the portals frame of reference.
That's irrelevant. We are talking about a hypothetical concept that developers have gone out of their way not to implement (you can't shoot portals at moving objects).
2 years ago
Anonymous
While the cube moves through the portal the velocity of the portal is transfered to the cube. Otherwise it wouldn't come out the blue portal.
i'll try to, against my better judgment, help you, here.
you would be correct if both portals were somehow entangled across spacetime and both were moving in the same vectors of movement against a bigger frame of reference (say, the solar system, for example).
i.e. two moving portals
i.e. what you'd see is a 'stationary' object 'uncloaking itself' front to back, like a spaceship that just warped in
the example in this thread is NOT about two moving portals, but its one where portal X is moving and portal Y is not moving, again, this is RELATIVE to a common frame of reference/parent frame of reference.
when the cube crosses the exit portal, and from the exit portal's frame of reference - the cube is already moving, and therefore will continue to move.
the movement (or lack thereof) from the 'other side' of the portal is now irrelevant.
RELATIVITY, FREN!
2 years ago
Anonymous
See
Portals are teleportation devices.
There is no "universe being moved" when the portal is moving. Portals are teleportation devices through which you can see where you will end up.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Portals are teleportation devices through which you can see where you will end up.
you're moving goalposts here.
additionally, i've also covered that bit - see the bit where i mentioned 'spaceships warping in'.
both A and B can happen given depending on if only one is moving or if both are moving (against a bigger frame of reference from which both portals are attached to).
this shit does have a precedent in physics you know. the guy responsible for nuking japan twice has a lot to do with it.
in case you're wondering, im referring to wormholes, which themselves can be treated as the spacetime 'connectors' for the two portals - you cant move out of the other portal without moving through the wormhole itself, however infinitely short that wormhole is.
Tidal force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic_deviation
Why doesn't everyone in this thread just learn some GR? In the time you spent arguing about this problem you surely could've picked up the basics by now.
It could be A or B or a C option where the man is pulled up through the blue portal with his legs intact depending on how fast orange portal was moving and how quickly it stopped
>pseudo-intellectual who just got his physics degree loves jerking off his knowledge on an anonymous image board on a subject that any normal person can deduct is a paradox in less than a minute
I love how you guys have been at it for several years now
If I put two portals on two pistons that are built to come together and crush whatever's between them flat, you would still be crushed even if you were perfectly positioned between the opening of the portal
There is zero practical difference between you moving relative to a portal and a portal moving relative to you.
It is possible for objects to be accelerated through space at a distance with no apparent energy vector. (source: this is how gravity works)
>There is zero practical difference between you moving relative to a portal and a portal moving relative to you
During high-school physics tests? Sure. When we're trying to analyse wormholes than don't follow the laws of physics as we know them? There's a very important disinction
P=mv
As the portal passes over the cube the cube's P grows as more of its mass, m, is multiplied by v, the velocity of the cube as it exits the blue portal.
>lab frame portal transferring its energy
frick are you on about moron. wait no dont answer the question, you're just moronic 😀
read up on relativity before you participate in threads like these.
If you a put a cube on the ground, take a hula-hoop and then slam it really hard to the ground so the cube is in the middle, the cube will get launched into air?
A gays coping by changing the argument to be about how it would hypothetically work if the developers decided to add code to the game to specify some new behavior (which could be anything, it's a video game)
A would work as-is with minor changes. B would require a rewrite of the physics engine from the ground up that wouldn't be able to run on any modern computer at any consistent or "playable" pace.
is a doorframe a wrinkle in space-time that's supposed to be capable of reversing an object's momentum relative to an external observer? Hmm seems like portals might work a bit differently
There is a point in Portal 2 where you LITERALLY have to shoot portals at moving surfaces to use lasers to cut tubes and release a gas you worthless oxygen-unworthy mongrel.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>to use lasers
omega DELTA level brainlet
2 years ago
Anonymous
What? Are you coping so hard you forgot to make sense?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>W-wh-whwhwhat?????
You just embarrassed yourself so much that you've started projecting, kek.
>Momentum, a function of mass and velocity, is conserved between portals. In layman's terms: Speedy-thing goes in, speedy-thing comes out.
Nowhere does it say it can't impart momentum on an object
But that's exactly what it does when the cube exits the portal. Whether it falls over or flies.
2 years ago
Anonymous
the cube already had that momentum relative to the portal, the portal falling down onto the cube is no different than the cube falling up through the portal
2 years ago
Anonymous
So mass*velocity = 0 when the portal is moving out of the blue portal.
2 years ago
Anonymous
*cube
2 years ago
Anonymous
velocity is relative. In the blue portal's frame of reference the cube has momentum, which is conserved, which means B. Simple as
2 years ago
Anonymous
If anything has MOVED through a portal, entering one side and coming out the other, it is in motion and by definition has velocity.
It does not matter if, from the perspective of an observer, the object was moving or the portal was moving, the result is the same.
Oh I thought I was still talking to
It conserves the momentum of things passing through it, it can't increase momentum btard.
. I was positing a contradiction where for A to be correct, v would have to be 0 while the cube is moving.
2 years ago
Anonymous
ah yeah that's correct
2 years ago
Anonymous
If anything has MOVED through a portal, entering one side and coming out the other, it is in motion and by definition has velocity.
It does not matter if, from the perspective of an observer, the object was moving or the portal was moving, the result is the same.
2 years ago
Anonymous
how is it moving through the portal with 0 momentum
Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out
Thing comes in speedy, thing goes out speedy
Cube enters portal at 20mph, it exits at 20mph
All of these statements are true if the cube OR the portal are moving relative to each other
I know, I'm just saying that to an observer a ball thrown into a portal on a wall that pops back out of a corresponding portal on the same wall has reversed momentum in the observer's frame of reference. The fact that momentum is nonetheless conserved in the portal's frame of reference is a fact that is not true of door frames or hula hoops, and shows that analogies to those things are moronic
But to the game engine the "direction" and "speed" are seperate things. Portals never influence "speed". Multiple frames of reference are irrelevant, since the source engine does all calculations relevant to the objects origin. Passing through a portal only modifies the objects facing direction, its momentum vector's direction, and its position in the world (oversimplification on the last part, since it actually creates a ghost copy so it can exist in two places prior to the objects origin passing through the portal).
I don't know or give a shit about how the game is coded, video game physics are not necessarily consistent with any physical principle, and reality does not have an absolute frame of reference
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's Nice. This is a theoretical about how things would work in a video game called Portal.
2 years ago
Anonymous
go test it in game then b***h
2 years ago
Anonymous
Moving portals are impossible in Portal, why would you assume this is a question about something that can't happen in the limited scope of a mediocre physics engine?
2 years ago
Anonymous
What makes you think that one small concession on the engines limitations means that you have carte blanche to ignore it all? Shouldn't the goal be to come up with a solution with the minimal amount of concessions? That's A by the way.
2 years ago
Anonymous
There is a literal fricking point in Portal 2 where you create moving portals.
It's the part with the deadly gas. You use them to cut the tubes connected to the container.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I think this is the main point of the argument between A and B gays: A gays are thinking with the logic of the games while B gays are thinking how these things would actually function irl and applying laws of physics that the games clearly disregard to it
2 years ago
Anonymous
You got those two reversed and in B's case it's still untrue for the game
15 years and people still can't figure out that maybe a portal and a hula hoop are two diffrent things. That maybe the ability for a single point in space to both move and not move at the same time is noteworthy and rather un-door frame like.
I don't see how they're different at all, and also wonder why people don't just power turbines with doorframes in real life for free energy via perpetual motion. There's no difference between a portal and a doorframe after all, that's how they work in the game.
It's just a paper sticker painted with Wile E. Coyote's black paint the roadrunner runs through. It creates a tunnel through anything you stick it to. When he runs into it it's another shot where they replace it with regular paint.
The cube is just going to go through a hole where one side has different gravity than the other. To the cube, it's like if a door was lowered around you and the gravity changed on the side being lowered: halfway through, the lower portion of your body would be under the previous gravity but the upper half would be pulled let's say right.
Now do that really fast: that's what's happening to the cube. He'd just slide right (or in this case, fall down). It's A. Always has been. Always will be.
Would your argument stand if I rotate blue exit 90 degrees, so cube will fall to right side?
Since now relative velocity does not go along normal to the blue portal.
Or even better, picrel.
Would your argument stand if I rotate blue exit 90 degrees, so cube will fall to right side?
Since now relative velocity does not go along normal to the blue portal.
Or even better, picrel.
I tried my best to see what's happening from "portal frame", and I don't see how it'll get 999*V speed in your theory.
Always remember, "speedy thing goes in, speedy thing goes out".
If the portal is moving, doesn't matter if a high speed or as slow as a snail it will always act as a static plane.
"I'm not a physicist lol we didn't program that"
Think if you try to force it to happen in portal 2 engine the portals just act as solid walls and the cube doesn't go through at all.
This image itself is bait. Left frame, momentum is in the pillar being lowered onto a static cube. Right frame, momentum is now on the platform where the cube rest, thereby transferring momentum into the cube.
Got take it up with harvard if you wanna argue relative motion isn't real. I'm sure they've got some physicists who have some spare time to laugh at you.
Relative to what, you fricking idiot? Please reference more shit that don't understand, and then apply it to fictitious space warping. There is no reason that a cube with no momentum is going to suddenly gain it by being displaced through a portal.
have you ever been taught the concept of relative velocity or is this a totally foreign concept to you?
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're working under an assumption that if the orange portal has velocity, then the blue portal is experiencing that same velocity at all times as if it was anchored to something also moving that velocity, like an open car window.
>Please refrence more shit that don't understand
Did you mean: that (you) don't understand? Since "relative to the portal" didn't pop into your mind instantly, I have to assume you have no bloody clue what relative motion is and thus no real right to discuss the problem until that is changed.
Here's a hint for you: X moves toward Y is the same as Y moves toward X
You would see a cube approaching, that does not magically transfer momentum into that cube. The cube is not actually moving from its resting location, it's being warped into a different space via portals.
Imagine the same scenario without gravity. There's a cube floating in space and a portal collides with it at 1000km/h. That cube remains floating on the exit end of that portal. It does not inherit 1000km/h worth of momentum. There's no reason to believe that it would.
>stick your head out the window of a train and see a pole approaching you at 70mph >"This pole appears to be approaching me, but I know in fact that it is a stationary object, and therefore I am in no danger" >fricking die
>a moving train is equal to an unmoving cube
Good job, moron.
>Please refrence more shit that don't understand
Did you mean: that (you) don't understand? Since "relative to the portal" didn't pop into your mind instantly, I have to assume you have no bloody clue what relative motion is and thus no real right to discuss the problem until that is changed.
Here's a hint for you: X moves toward Y is the same as Y moves toward X
>X moves toward Y is the same as Y moves toward X
No. The momentum of objects matters. X moves towards Y is not the same as Y moves toward X if X or Y is stationary.
Define Stationary in a way that allows the object to go from point a to point b while Stationary.
Ir better yet, define Stationary at all without assuming an absolute frame of reference.
You mean, define how a fricking portal is supposed to work? You idiot.
>X moves towards Y is not the same as Y moves toward X if X or Y is stationary.
trolling or moronic
2 years ago
Anonymous
>something not moving can move >because I said so
You're too far up your own ass with theoretical physics to discuss practical application or observable behavior.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>He thinks relative motion is theoretical
2 years ago
Anonymous
>he thinks relative motion is inherent to portals
2 years ago
Anonymous
>He think I actually said or implied this at any point >He doesn't think
No, I mean Define stationary without assuming an absolute frame of reference. I'll save you some time and just tell you it can't be done because there is no absolute frame of reference. "The cube moves toward the portal" and "the portal moves toward the cube" are the same statement from diffrent frames and neither can be said to be objectively correct.
I'll repeat, if you have issue with this, go b***h at physicists at your local university, and get laughed out of the room.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You fricking moron. You're not explaining why the cube itself should gain the momentum when passing through the portal, which itself only serves to connect to points in space.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Gain what momentum? From the portal's frame of reference, it always had momentum >But it's not moving
In YOUR frame of reference maybe, but why should that matter more than any other? It doesn't.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, the cube literally has no velocity. From the portals frame of reference, a cube with no velocity rapidly approaches because the portal is moving. On the other end of the portal will be a cube with velocity that was sent through it. Unless you mean to assert that the orange portal is accelerating the entire world on the blue side of the portal such a cube with no momentum will fly through a moving world, giving the illusion of momentum in the cube.
2 years ago
Anonymous
From the portal's frame of reference the portal is """stationary""". That's how frames or refrence work. The portal can't move toward the cube in it's own frame of reference.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>From the portals frame of reference, a cube with no velocity rapidly approaches because the portal is moving
Velocity is defined as an object's apparent motion, if the cube is "rapidly approaching" it has velocity, this sentence is incoherent
You are the person watching the pole coming towards your head and about to get your brains splattered because "it's not REALLY moving"
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You are the person watching the pole coming towards your head and about to get your brains splattered because "it's not REALLY moving"
It is moving, you moron. But it's only moving because you aren't the pole.
The pole is unmoving. Since you KNOW it's not moving, it's not a problem that it appears to be approaching you at 70mph, right?
A "stationary" object can't POSSIBLY be moving towards you, so it has no velocity relative to you and won't ever hit you even though the path of its apparent relative movement intersect your head, right?
Hitting a brick wall at 100mph and getting hit by a brick wall moving 100mph would have completely different results, right?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The train is accelerating YOU in that example, which makes it completely irrelevant to the picture wherein the cube is not being accelerated. Shut the frick up, you fricking idiot.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>this thing clearly moving towards me is actually stationary >I, the observer sitting motionless in my seat, am in fact the one being accelerated
Don't you see how ridiculous you sound?
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're so fricking dumb. If the train in the orange portal, and the pole is the cube, then what is the blue portal in this utterly irrelevant failure of an analogy?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I asked the simple question "what would you see if you were standing in front of the blue portal"
You would see the cube approaching you at the same velocity that the press is moving the orange portal towards it. It would immediately become obvious to you that the cube was about to be launched into you with considerable force.
A-gays believe that upon passing through the blue portal, instead of this obvious outcome, the cube would magically and instantaneously deaccelerate and harmlessly slide onto the floor, based only on their "knowledge" that the cube is "stationary"
2 years ago
Anonymous
The cube is stationary, all physics are to an absolute reference because it's a video game. It is a theoretical about a video game, on a video game discussion board. It's A.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not that guy but man, if you're not shitposting you must be unironically clinically moronic.
Define Stationary in a way that allows the object to go from point a to point b while Stationary.
Ir better yet, define Stationary at all without assuming an absolute frame of reference.
Are we talking in universe or in game? Because we know Portals don't work on moving surfaces, they just fizzle out. That's for sure in the game play.
Now in the lore/HL Universe can portals be on moving platforms? We've never seen or heard anything that implies they could, all we know is that they fizzle.
So the dichotomy of "which of these two would happen" doesn't even seem right. The answer from what we know is "Neither".
If we're pretending like they CAN be on moving surfaces then I think the box wouldn't fly out, it would just fall. Portals conserve momentum, but the box has no momentum.
I'd be interested to see a mod that allows moving portals so the problem can be solved once and for all, according to the games physics.
Here is my take and why I have been an A gay since I first laid eyes on this image
The portals fundamentally break our current understand of physics so trying to apply the understanding to extrapolate out what would happen in a given situation is pointless and any "result" you get from doing so is functionally completely baseless as again the portals already break the physical laws you are trying to apply to them.
So the next best thing is referencing how the portals work both in game and in other official content from Valve.
We in know the portals function like a door that directly connects two different points in space, we know they don't impact the momentum of any object passing through, and we know they do not adjust the vector of any object passing through. The common theme here is the objects are in no way effected beyond moving through the portals.
The question ultimately comes down to are the portals outside relatively/has relativity actually been found to be false in the portal setting, or are they "effected" by relativity/ behave like any normal object.
Considering they seem to only effect the location of an object, already break many modern conception of physics, and don't seem to regularly break objects or people flying through them the most likely answer is A.
Where as B is: "here is how they might work in our current middle of physics which the portals break and also conflicts with what is actually seen in game to some extent".
Reminder that portals require an absolute frame of reference in order to work, and one is determined by having both portals remain the same distance and orientation relative to one another. If one portal is moved independently from the other the connection is broken and the portal disappears.
I've never understood the argument for A. The cube has no momentum, energy, or force exerting on it. Its essentially having its surroundings altered without being affected itself except for its position being changed - but that alone shouldn't put it in motion.
B works because the cube is moving before entering the portal, not the reverse. Even by the in-series explanation of Portals conserving momentum and such it shouldn't go flying in A.
Can someone post an actually coherent explanation for why A "should" work?
Imagine setting up this experiment such that you are looking into the exit portal and at the moving platform at the same time.
The platform begins to move. The cube is now simultaneously moving both towards and further away from you.
You can't countenance this with the way our universe works, because it's so impossible that it can't make any sense. Choose whichever you like, neither one is any more valid because neither one is consistent with any sort of actual physics.
Not really, given that the object is launched with more force than it went in with, it's safe to assume that orange just launches things that touch blue. Just because it looks like portal doesn't mean it is a working portal gun.
Portals do not modify the speed of objects that enter them. That's one of the explicitly stated rules. That mod does not follow how the aperture portal gun works.
Given that one is the video game from which this argument is based, and the other is a mod made by Bgays for Bgays in a different video game. Yes, that is in fact not at all relevant.
A video of the actual game (Portal 2, not Portal 1) actually has the player entering the portal and gaining momentum from the speed of the portal.
It's buggy since it is not intended, but if game engine physics is enough to convince you, there it is.
Convenient "a video" you have there. Being unable to watch it for myself has truly convinced me you are not at all full of shit. Also it's the source engine, I'm willing to bet it does some moronic shit like chain-spawning a copy of chell until they try to de-stack creating momentum
2 years ago
Anonymous
2 years ago
Anonymous
>if you move
Sure is relevant to the stationary cube.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It is.
The key question is "Does momentum get imparted to a non-moving object" and Portal 2 physics answer it with a clear "yes".
The fact that non-moving objects cannot physically enter moving portals due to game restrictions is secondary.
2 years ago
Anonymous
How is "non-moving object can't physically enter a moving portal" a clear "yes, portals give non-moving objects momentum"?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Because. given that the movement of an object is not 0, the momentum is automatically imparted on the object, meaning it can could move a singular cell unit, but still travel at its own speed + the speed imparted by the moving portal.
If, to you, the argument was always about how the physics would hypothetically work if the Portal game engine allowed for such a scenario, then feel free to go ask the devs and get back to me about how they'd code their fictional physics
Glados statement was fundamentally a lie since she said momentum. Portals modify momentum all the time, relative to the earth, since Direction is a component of momentum.
Portals don't change momentum relative to the portals, though.
Relative to the earth, you changed direction. Your frame and the portal's frame were the same in that instance, as they will be when both portals are stationary, but your frame isn't objective, and certanly not more so than the earth's or the portals.
Nothing in general relativity says you can't have portals. No speculated paradox is relevant to this simple case.
Anyone who argues either A or B is is just wrong.
Assuming a portal could exist somehow as a bridge between space-time (this is theoretically physically possible). The portal's entrance and exit cannot move continuously relative to each other without also bending and warping the space-time attached to the portal creating gravitation forces. When warping space-time in the room, this would introduce momentum to the cube in the supposedly "stationary" cube-centric reference frame as space is being compressed or stretched resulting in extremely high gravitation forces being introduced in the room likely pusing the object in some other direction likely never allowing it to even fall through the portal. The cube would likely rapidly fly off in some direction way before the portal even gets close to the from the gravitation forces introduced by warping space-time to accommodate a moving portal.
Without bending and curving all of the space around the portal to get it to move, it would need to be rapidly and discreetly created and destroyed before the piston housing the portal would be allowed to move without bending space-time along with it. Thus if its discreetly created and destroyed between piston movements, no momentum is ever introduced in either reference frame. However, since between each frame, the portal is destroyed before being recreated again, if the cube was somehow wedged between the portal, it would be either destroyed or cut in half by the portal closing, or otherwise the object would be crushed by the lack of a portal existing while it was closed to allow the piston to move.
Everything you said after "portals are theoretically possible" is pure conjecture
Assuming a portal could exist somehow as a bridge between space-time (this is theoretically physically possible). The portal's entrance and exit cannot move continuously relative to each other without also bending and warping the space-time attached to the portal creating gravitation forces. When warping space-time in the room, this would introduce momentum to the cube in the supposedly "stationary" cube-centric reference frame as space is being compressed or stretched resulting in extremely high gravitation forces being introduced in the room likely pusing the object in some other direction likely never allowing it to even fall through the portal. The cube would likely rapidly fly off in some direction way before the portal even gets close to the from the gravitation forces introduced by warping space-time to accommodate a moving portal.
Without bending and curving all of the space around the portal to get it to move, it would need to be rapidly and discreetly created and destroyed before the piston housing the portal would be allowed to move without bending space-time along with it. Thus if its discreetly created and destroyed between piston movements, no momentum is ever introduced in either reference frame. However, since between each frame, the portal is destroyed before being recreated again, if the cube was somehow wedged between the portal, it would be either destroyed or cut in half by the portal closing, or otherwise the object would be crushed by the lack of a portal existing while it was closed to allow the piston to move.
Anyone arguing B is assuming that the orange portal is accelerating the entire world on the blue side of the portal such that collision with a still object would send hurtling through the blue side world, like a car driving into a tree branch that pierces though the windshield despite that the tree never moved.
The whole troll physics aspect of either A or B this is that the whole world cannot be both accelerating and stationary at the same time.
Arguing for A or B is picking some arbitrary reference frame as absolute any anyone who with a college degree that passed a basic 100 level introduction to physics course would know that's simply not how physics works.
You'd need to either invent new arbitrary bogus physics to explain how portals would work in some fictional fantasy troll physics universe, or rely on current known physics (relativity) which would tell you that to move a portal, it would create gravity so none of these other arguments about the cube somehow staying locked into position with gravity pushing it in some direction. The cube would simply just fly off the pedestal long before the portal even gets close to it. Its as simple as that.
nobody cares, this is just as irrelevant and pointless as the homosexuals who won't stop going back to "but in the game..."
The portals Just Work, they're magic linked holes in space, it's a simple problem
Portals do not modify the speed of objects that enter them. That's one of the explicitly stated rules. That mod does not follow how the aperture portal gun works.
The object exits the portal at the same speed that it entered the portal (at least it should, obviously the source engine is far from a perfect simulation of real physics)
If you want to talk about argue game physics logic, the way portals work in games, There is actually 2 cubes that exist when it passes through the portal. The cube is duplicated so that it can be rendered on both sides twice. The duplicate is destroyed once it passes through and the original is warped immediately to the other side so it never actually passes through the portal. What games can do with momentum after teleporting an actor is arbitrary. A or B is just an if-statement in code and completely up to the game programmer or designer what they want it to do.
Yes, what happens in a video game is irrelevant and nobody gives a shit, yet Agays keep bringing it up to cope justifying their obviously moronic position
Even if the portals were an open window, there's no reason for B to happen. This image doesn't exist in a vacuum either, it's all assumes an earth level gravity. How do people still argue over this particular image?
The problem is that from the frame of the box you need to have a force moving the box, other than gravity. That solution requires the box to magically start moving from it's own frame. Unless you want to imply that the portal has some method of transferring force to the box, which is a totally unsupported and baseless assertion.
The orange portal would have to be accelerating the entire world on the blue portal side such that a still object sent through it would give the illusion of momentum as the world zipped past it.
It's incredibly asinine and why would anyone assume that's how it works.
The orange portal would have to be accelerating the entire world on the blue portal side such that a still object sent through it would give the illusion of momentum as the world zipped past it.
It's incredibly asinine and why would anyone assume that's how it works.
When you jump off a building, you see "the entire world accelerating toward you." However, this is just an illusion since the world is obviously stationary, and once you pass an arbitrary threshold everything will instantly stop for no reason and you'll safely slide onto the ground.
No. You're still gaining the momentum, you idiot. If you reach terminal velocity and go through a portal, you're coming out the other end at terminal velocity.
As opposed to B, which would posit that once you hit the Earth, every human would then be launched. Because from your frame of reference the super fast Earth just suddenly stopped. Remember, you moving fast at the earth = the earth moving fast at you. Therefore you hitting the earth = the earth coming to a sudden stop.
The portals in the game change momentum (relative to non portal things) without imparting force literally all the time. If they couldn't, portals couldn't change the directon of things (relative to the earth), if you fell in the direction of gravity into a portal you'd end up falling in the direction of gravity when coming out the exit portal, no matter where it was, unless portals had that power. The portals conserve momentum only relative to themselves, and thus they are able to function as they do in game.
Is that realistic? Send an email to some random physicist find out.
Portals do not however have any force from the perspective of the thing going through the portal. From the perspective of the person falling through the portal, the traveled in a straight line. In this situation, from the boxes perspective it was sitting without any forces other than gravity, then suddenly had a huge force push it forwards.
Why does the perspective of the person going through the portal matter more than the "perspective" of the earth. Answer: It doesn't. If both portals are stationary, their frame and the object going through them's frame are more or less the same, but that still means a change in momentum from other frames with no force being imparted.
I am so annoyed that people still talk about his stupid shit on here.
Teleportation is nearly impossible, but portals moving relative to one another is doubly impossible. It literally makes the fricking universe tear itself apart, by definition.
You stupid people are debating a lie, an erroneous troll question with no answer.
You do know that creating a wormhole literally rips apart space for it to exist right?
An open worm creates a curvature in space-time. They have gravity. Nearby objects would literally accelerate and fall into them like a how they would fall into a planet or black hole. Moving a wormhole the size of a pinhole would be similar to trying move an entire planet along with all the warped space near to it.
I'm generally a pretty chill person, but I'd 100% gas all of you goddamn mongoloids in a second if I could.
STOP BEING moronic. NOW. A AND B ARE EQUALLY IMPOSSIBLE, AND MORE IMPOSSIBLE THAN STATIC PORTALS. END OF DISCUSSION.
There is no debate, its B and if you think otherwise you are an idiot
To think its A you would have to imply that if you were to put your face in front of the blue portal nothing would happen to it because >"THERE IS NO FORCE BEHIND THE CUBE!"
so what exactly would have happened? The cube would just phase trough you?
how does it not invalidate Agays?
Their entire argument is that "there is no momentum behind the cube so it can not fly out of the portal"
But if there is no force behind it, then if you were to put a huge ass spike on the red portal side and do whats show on pic
There is no debate, its B and if you think otherwise you are an idiot
To think its A you would have to imply that if you were to put your face in front of the blue portal nothing would happen to it because >"THERE IS NO FORCE BEHIND THE CUBE!"
so what exactly would have happened? The cube would just phase trough you?
then what would have happen?
Really do tell me what would happen in that situation according to you, because if you are looking trough the blue portal then from your perspective (aka point of refference) the spike is moving towards you and it WILL pierce trough you
and this proves that the portal does add momentum to the cube, because if there was none then it could NEVER emerge from the blue portal, because how would it? And why would it suddenly stop afterwards?
>because if there was none then it could NEVER emerge from the blue portal, because how would it? And why would it suddenly stop afterwards?
It is not the momentum that kills the observer but simply the fact that because the orange portal closes the space between two portals, the spike has no place to exist anywhere else other than the through the blue portal. The spike has to come out and the speed of orange portal has nothing to do with it. It's an illusion of momentum.
"Illusion of momentum" is a cope term invented by people who refuse to learn basic physics. Uless you want to formally submit your "findings" and try to overturn physics knowledge as we know it?
homie it literally doesn't change anything
you can draw a cube there and it smashing his face instead of skewering trough it and the point remains the same
Ok, so let's say it's a cube and you put your face right in front of the exit portal. The entry portal moves rapidly with the equivalent kinetic energy of a truck and as the cube comes halfway out it touches your face and stops.
If the entry portal has fully covered the cube, where's the other half of the cube?
If it's only covered half of the cube, what's stopped the moving platform i.e. where has it's kinetic energy gone?
A-homosexualry is peak midwittery. They're the kind of people who can only memorize knowledge and recite it whenever they need to pass a test.
B-gays are more intelligent in that they can evaluate and apply knowledge that they have memorized in transformative ways, as evidenced by this thread.
Theories on frames of reference have come a long way and everytime someone misunderstands how it works you JUST know he has sub-110 IQ.
its literally irrelevant whos video this is from you fricking brainlet
whats relevant is the opinion of the fricking physics doctor that he is talking to
The physcicist posits they are real life worm holes. This ignores very key, very explicitly stated, ways the portals works. They are not worm holes. And even if I am wrong, I'd rather be wrong than a Destiny simp. No wonder your entire argument is based on completely ignoring the setup of the theoretical.
>The physcicist posits they are real life worm holes. This ignores very key, very explicitly stated, ways the portals works. They are not worm holes.
Its not relevant though
the only thing he says, is that if you look trough the blue portal, you see a cube moving towards you, and then you see that cube emerge from the portal
if thats what happens then there is 0 reason why it should suddenly stop moving out of the portal
2 years ago
Anonymous
If I fall from the sky strapped to a doorframe and I hit the ground in such a way that a cube happens to end up in the middle of the doorframe then from my perspective the cube will be moving toward me too, doesn't mean it will fly off into the sky.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>moron talks about hoops again
when will you morons learn that with portals the entrance is stationary and the exit is not so its in no way comparable to fricking hoops or a door
2 years ago
Anonymous
How is it incomparable? That's how it works in the game.
The point of entry is moving, the exit isn't. It's the "world" on the other side that is moving toward cube, not cube moving toward the other side.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>That's how it works in the game.
No it doesn't.
2 years ago
Anonymous
His example falls in line with how you've explained your justification for B. From his frame of reference, the doorways entry is stationary. From the cube's frame of reference the doorways other side if moving.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>His example falls in line with how you've explained your justification for B. From his frame of reference, the doorways entry is stationary.
no its not
from his frame of reference EVERYTHING is moving, on both sides of the doorway
From the problems frame of refference only the things inside the portal are moving and everything around it is stationary. AKA the exit of the "doorway" is moving but not the entrance (or vice versa)
If I fall from the sky strapped to a doorframe and I hit the ground in such a way that a cube happens to end up in the middle of the doorframe then from my perspective the cube will be moving toward me too, doesn't mean it will fly off into the sky.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If I look out of the portal on the other side as the cube is rapidly closing in, will I be launched like a rocket to the other side since from cube's point of reference I'm moving fast as frick as well?
2 years ago
Anonymous
You already are.
2 years ago
Anonymous
you straight up just don't understand what a frame of reference is
frame of reference doesn't just mean "point of view"
we are not talking about "From cube point of view" we are talking about some set of specific criteria that we are basing the problem on
if you misunderstand it like that then literally nothing is ever moving from its own point of view
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm not a physicist, how am I wrong? If the cube gets launched then a person standing on the other side surely should get sucked into the portal and, analogically launched to the other side, right? Provided there's apropriate space for that, of course.
2 years ago
Anonymous
you dont measure things from its own point of view of the things we observe
its pointless because then you can just put a camera on anything and say "LOOK! From its own point of view its everything around it thats moving!"
we measure things we want to measure from some outside point of view and we can take that as the frame of reference. Because then we can compare it to other object in that frame of reference. For example if you stand in a road and one car is standing in place and another one is moving then you can confidently say that "this car is moving"
Thats why if you look at the blue portal you see the cube emerging from the blue portal
for the cube to be emerging from the blue portal then it has to be moving, you can compare it to another cube lying on the ground and see that the other one is not moving
the catch is that when you look at the bigger picture you can see the cube both moving towards you AND staying in place making the situation impossible
You guys are making it waaay too complicated.
The cube inherits the speed of the orange portal because it is gradually transitioning into the blue portal at the speed of the orange portal.
The same way how throwing a ball from a fast-moving car will make my ball inherit the speed of my car after I throw it out.
The moment I let go of the ball, it will be travelling at the same speed as the car. Of course, because balls can't accelerate themselves like cars, it will quickly de-accelerate, but it will still be flying due to the momentum it has gained from the car.
Now if I throw the ball from the car with force, the ball will inherit both the speed of the car, and my kinetic skills, so it will actually be faster than the car for a moment, before it de-accelerates and gets slower and slower.
Therfore, B wins again and A trannies need to have a dilation break at the next GDQ.
Easy, the pillar with the cube ontop keep flying, since the orange portal will come to a halt at the bottom and thus cut the pillar off due to a change in velocity.
It's a shame this has so few replies, because this is the most important variable. Relativity. The cube in this case will continue to move because distance traveled converts to momentum gained, with its highest momentum being at its most vertical point. Without the pillar, the top of the cube will still pull the bottom to some degree. Think of the portal slamming down on a penny on flat ground. Do you think the penny will gain enough momentum to travel any conciquencial distance? The real answer to the original a vs b is somewhere in between. >t. originally an a-gay
Based post, it's similar to that gif with the shaking platform but I feel like this explains it better. I think I wanted to make one like this or made one like this at some point.
The actual answer is C. The cube gets crushed. Since the cube is stationary it can't move through the portal, right? So it doesn't. The top of it exists "in" the portal, and therefore is getting crushed by the crusher. You'd be able to walk over and sign/touch the top of the crushed cube by the A/B exit. You could probably even pull it out. Maybe it's springy enough it plops out a very deformed variant of A mid-way of being crushed?
>You could probably even pull it out. Maybe it's springy enough it plops out a very deformed variant of A mid-way of being crushed?
That spring back would be happening continuously accelerating the cube out of the blue portal as the orange one moves down. You would never have a situation where the cube just stays flat at the surface of the portal like you initially said. An elastic material would produce B since it pushed the cube out at the same rte the orange portal is moving down.
>In todays episode: morons learn what conservation of momentum is
you can not have the cube "emerge" from the portal at X speed relative to you and then have it suddenly stop for no reason
Objects with no intertia also don't suddenly gain inertia from a portal passing over them (be they hula hoops or disjointed magic circles). The cube gets crushed, unmoving objects can't move through portals.
>In todays episode: morons learn what conservation of momentum is
you can not have the cube be at rest and then suddenly launch into the air without an external force acting upon it
>Game literally states that portals on moving surfaces is impossible >morons argue about a dilemma that would only exist if portals could be placed on moving surfaces
The fact of the matter is that they cannot be placed on moving surfaces precisely because of the dilemma that is being argued over and over in these threads. Either you accept that the portals cannot be placed on moving surfaces, or you accept that if they ARE placed on moving surfaces, they simply break reality and that there isn't a definitive, physically congruent answer to the dilemma.
Every surface is a moving surface in relation to something else though. The whole planet is moving in relation to the sun. Or is the rest of the universe actually rotating while earth stands still?
Bottom line, portals don't exist, never will and this debate is dumb
If we're going by the actual ingame logic, then portals can only move horizontally. They can never move directly toward an object. There are multiple instances where a surface moving in or out disturbs a portal placed on it.
the portal is barely moving when the cube goes trough it how is that supposed to be a proof of anything
the cube didn't emerge from the portal with enough speed to move so why the frick would it?
>If we put camera in certain way we can make physics obsolete
Unless you can explain how and why does box move with relative physics you yourself just think this is how it would work
An object at rest or in constant motion will remain so until acted upon with an outside force.
Therefore if you are in the bus, and the bus accelerates, the bus must first act on your feet, your feet act on your body, and your body on your head. Sufficiently high acceleration will shear off your legs and you will smash into the back of the bus where Black folk like you belong.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And can you tell me what force is acting on the cube?
2 years ago
Anonymous
In the case of portals there doesnt need to be a force because it's not accelerating. It was already in motion according to the frame of reference of the final state.
Similarly, if you fall into a 90 degree portal you will have changed from constant vertical motion to constant horizontal motion without a force. This is because in the final reference frame you were always moving in horizontal motion.
2 years ago
Anonymous
So if there is no motion acting upon the cube. Why does it move?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>So if there is no motion acting
You're wasting my time. State the question correctly or don't bother.
>Take an A4 >Make a hole through both ends of the paper >Fold the A4 in half so the 2 holes align perfectly >Prop an object on your table >Now move the A4 vertically so you can see if your gay object magically shoots through the holes while passing.
You're welcome.
>Take an A4 >Make a hole through both ends of the paper >Fold the A4 in half so the 2 holes align perfectly >Prop an object on your table >Now move the A4 vertically so you can see if your gay object magically shoots through the holes while passing.
You're welcome.
now move only entrance of the hole homosexual
this is why you hoopmorons do not get it, you can not comprehend the entrance to the wormhole staying in place while the exit from the wormhole is moving
Put a portal on the ground. Put a portal on the wall. Drop a brick on the portal.
A. The brick falls to the ground at thall because no force accelerated it to change direction.
B. The brick flies out the wall because it was always flying in that direction from the current frame of reference.
Which is it in game?
No. It didnt retain its momentum. It lost all of its y momentum and gained x momentum.
Glad0s is unironically lying. Momentum is not "conserved" by the portals, not of reality, not your own, nowhere.
The left is a static camera
The right is attached to the portal and gives the illusion of momentum when there isn't any, Just like Fox News.
>The right is attached to the portal
You mean like some sort of... Frame of reference?
Yes
Movement =/= momentum
>Movement =/= momentum
This is fundamentally wrong and conflicts with every law of physics known to man, including the deeply theoretical and near-fantasy ones.
In this situation and what he is talking about, it is correct. The object is moving fast but only because of the frame. The only momentum is the falling camera.
Momentum is as relative as any form of movement is. You can't decouple them - it breaks the whole definition of momentum.
That's the whole "man falling from a building" idea Einstein thought up.
The earth and building are moving fast, but the falling man is weightless.
The earth is falling around the sun, but we don't feel it.
Mass bends space time.
Which model are we using Newtonian physics or Einstein's theory of relativity?
where does momentum come from????
it comes from force, so dont give me shit decoupling like a fricking moron. It doesnt have force applied to it then it is not given momentum
if I throw a ball it doesnt mean that the leaf on the ground is heavier* because relatively you fricking Black person moron homosexual pussy b***h.
so it about force applied to a body, also (if you were not a complete idiot) it depends on the context the body is interactining with (like if its skating on ice maybe moron)
so you realize (if you have a brain) that its the entire context that is important. You are not the only observer. And their are many different "moving" parts.
What forces are acting on what, this is the basic pully triangle problem. If you dont know what that is ur a complete idiot and ur mom is a Black person you low IQ shit head.
Magnitude and Direction. Portals NEVER change Magnitude. Your video exception only works with Chell for a reason. They do weird shit with the player to make it function as a game. They give her a small boost even while the portals are stationary.
Not all frame of references are relevant. From the perspective of the upper half of the hula hoop, you were speeding right out of it. In spite of this, stopping it partway as it falls over you is not fatal. It landing on the ground over a box doesn't make the box fly.
>gives the illusion of momentum
the cube still moves
The cube is perfectly still the whole time. There is no force applied to it to cause it to get air. It would just flop over.
>the cube still moves because the animator decided itthe perspective on the right is intentionally misleading because it helps distract you from the cube gaining momentum it didn't have before
moving the wall downwards would not apply momentum to the cube and it'd at best just plop out the other hole, hence the bullshit perspective
Cube moves toward the portal=portal moves toward the cube. All frames of refrence are equally acceptable. All movement is relative. If you have issue with any of these statements, please pass high school physics first.
Not all frames of reference are relevant, in that way anyway. See:
see
>illusion of momentum
You're this close to getting it
I'm surprised the response to this shit wasn't to shoot his ass up with arrows.
Zeno was such a moron holy frick
Not every Greek was smart you know
Wasn't there some Greek guy (maybe the same butthole) who said you couldn't beat a turtle in a race cause every time you catch up he has moved a bit, so therefore you can never actually beat him?
That was also Zeno, yes
He was right given the setup. The racer in that race only moves distances equal to half of the distance from his current position to the finish line. He would never the finish the race, but the tortoise eventually would.
something something calculus and limits as x approaches infinity
Then again I don't think time nor space is infinitely divisible either, see the Planck length + Planck time.
The Ditty of Carmeana referenced with. This issue can be solved with calculus.
This same analogy was used to develop Pi in India, but instead a boat moving along water to a position.
nah, it would appear on the other side and slide, not shoot out. brainlet.
>brainlet
The irony
>Just like Fox News
The Leftoid lies as he speaks. He is a wretched creature for whom the only cure is a sword rammed as deep as possible into his guts.
>they're being unironic
Go leave libtard
Why are there trannies like you on my side? False flag bait, frick you. I hope you die.
moron
I didn't came here to listen your commie drivel
I don't care about the portal debate I just like that you made rightards seethe.
hula hoop
repeat after me:
NO FBD
IT CAN'T BE B
Right is true, since the object carries momentum from the base that's pushing it.
There is no force on the cube besides gravity and normal force from the platform beneath it. If anything it would gently slide down.
would you put your face against the blue portal?
Nottu this shitto again.
The orange portal sees the cube moving towards itself.
Since we're dealing with portals (wormholes) we are no longer dealing with an absolute frame of reference (which doesn't truly exist, anyway) but several different inertial frames of reference.
When you look through the blue portal, you will see the box coming towards you at fast speeds. There is nothing stopping that cube's momentum.
You're moronic lmao
>A-gay has the gall to call anyone moronic
OH NONONONONO
its A
It proves that if orange only lets object to pass through and doesn't physically interact with the object it's irrelevant if orange was moving.
The only way why a resting cube would shoot out is if orange deconstructs the object and blue remakes it with the same speed it entered the portal. Which means you die and get remade when you do the same.
the orange portal doesnt "see" anything, it doesnt have eyes.
>the orange portal doesnt "see" anything, it doesnt have eyes.
This is the type of poster you are arguing with.
Think twice before typing a long, formulated rebuttal.
>taking my obvious joke seriously
youre moronic for debating an inconceivable fantasy concept in the first place and your reply proves it.
>which doesn't truly exist, anyway
nice.
i like you.
pretty much sums up relativity.
i once asked a friend of mine how he'd know that he's 'moving', he basically said something along the lines of 'i could tell from what i see and feel' - but what if then, say, you're moving through zero G space, with nothing but pitch blackness around you?
no air to feel against your skin/suit, nothing to 'move against'.
could you really still say you were still 'moving' in that environment?
movement always has to be relative to something.
if i slap a homosexual moron in this thread, you could say my hand is moving to his homosexual face.
conversely, you could also say that his face is quickly approaching my hand and bracing for impact.
>I didn't hit him officer, his face was moving towards my hand!
Try that in court and see how it works out you fricking gay.
A-gays always make the lousiest bait.
>Try that in court and see how it works out you fricking gay.
lmao you'd be surprised how many people/lawyers have used that line of arguments and won
also, have a nice day
>cube's momentum
the cube has zero momentum tho, it never moves
If the momentum of the portal can't be imparted on the object, then the object shouldn't be able to move through the portal in the first place. This is obviously illogical.
The only way to move a portal independent of another is to move the entire universe relative to the portal.
Therfore, B is right.
Portals are teleportation devices.
No.
Cool so the cube just somehow just gets transferred momentum without anything touching it? Yeah bud makes sense. B gays definitely aren't moronic.
>the cube just somehow just gets transferred momentum without anything touching it?
How does the cube move through the portal at all if portals can't "transfer momentum"?
Oh man, let me make this REALLY simple for you.
Step 1) Basics
Portal 1 moves at 100km/h.
Portal 2 doesn't move.
This means that the portals are functionally NOT connected to eachother in any way shape or form, EXCEPT for the fact that they transfer data to one another.
This is DIFFERENT from what we expect a normal portal to behave.
With me so far? Good.
Step 2) Frames of reference
When Portal 1 passes through an object, what it will "see" is an object flying towards it at 100km/h.
This is correct. It is also correct to say that the panel is moving down to the object at 100km/h.
They are both valid, because, if a moving rock were to travel towards a stationary rock in vacuum, you wouldn't be able to tell which rock is stationary and which rock is moving without first establishing a frame of reference as a helper.
Better yet, implant your eyes into either rock and tell me which rock is truly moving, of course, it is impossible. This is the very basic foundation of "inertial frame of reference".
Thus, for all intents and purposes, both the platform and the object are moving towards eachother and the cube gets launched at 100km/h.
Step 3) "What about doorframes?"
Two parts of a doorframe (same with hoola hoops) cannot move independently of eachother while still allowing instantenous and continuous motion across their aperture. (
)
If you make a circle with your fingers and insert your thumb through it, it will not launch your thumb out because both ends of your finger circle are connected to eachother through direction and speed. Their vectors are identical and interconnected.
The vectors of two portals, IF BOTH PORTALS CAN MOVE INDEPENDENTLY OF EACHOTHER, are not interconnected, meaning all they can do is transfer information from one to another, which in this case, removes enough limitations to make B feasible.
If we were to assume that the two portals always had the same vectors (e.g. this scenario isn't possible), A would suffice.
Except that image very much establishes an unmoving cube and a moving portal.
You can literally ask any physicist about absolute frames of reference and they will explain to you that modern physics is past arguing such notions.
I can't explain to you any simpler why absolute space is inherently flawed, read a physics book or open up Wikipedia.
>if you pretend for a sec you're the portal and imagine it's the cube that is moving toward you, the cube will magically gain momentum
Please pass high school physics before commenting. Either that or overturn hundreds of years of Physics research with your surely groundbreaking paper "I don't understand what you guys were talking about all this time so It's not true, actually."
Relative momentum is a thing.
It's neither you fricks.
Portals create a paradox of the cube moving and not moving at the same time, this is why portals cannot exist irl.
>Portals create a paradox of the cube moving and not moving at the same time
lmao
This is correct but bgays are low IQ people who won't listen. At least Agays recognise this possibility more often
But what if the portal platform was moving at E?
it can be either A or B depending on the physics of the portal which has not been determined.
Now make one with the camera attached to the cube homosexual
I don't see how it really adds anything, but I did it anyway.
The box is still you imbecile, the thing that is moving is the portal
Relax, man, someone asked for the image so I made it. I'm not trying to make any point with it.
Look at the gif again. Yes the box is static in that frame. It's the room that is moving.
>Use the same gif
>Is the same
Man where the hell are you from? America?
I'm convinced this entire thing is just a bunch of homosexuals baiting people when they say the cube would just go flying. No one can be so fricking subnormal as to believe the cube would suddenly go from a complete rest to flying off without being touched at any point by anything
Yes it's a meme you dip. It's like ten years old.
Ever heard of "Dunning Kruger"?
Your frustration results from your inability to comprehend the level of discussion that is taking place.
yeah its such a high level of discussion that none of you homosexuals can draw a free body diagram like any freshman college student could
The right works, this is clear to anybody with a functional brain
Confirmed to never have played the game.
Platforms which move have their portals removed. Portal 2 is not canon frick off
But the earth is always moving. What is the threshold for removal?
Why doesn’t she fly into the sky?
From the point of reference of the hula hoop as it's falling to the ground, she is
But the cube flies from our perspective
She should be also flying up since the hole has a momentum!
Because unlike the portals, both the "exit" and "entrance" are stuck together and moving in unison. If anything, hoops/door frames prove B, since it's all about exiting as fast as you enter, with the key difference being how the speed of the "sides" is detached in the example
>Because unlike the portals
that's exactly like portals, they connect two locations that are normally separated by space
And you exist exactly as fast as you enter, thus proving B.
>that's exactly like portals
Yes yes did you even read the rest of the post? The point is that they ARE exactly like portals, but the sides of the PORTALS IN THE EXAMPLE YOU NONCE are moving (or not) at two different speeds. When a hula hoop or door frame falls on you, you exit as fast as you enter. When a portal comes crashing into you, you exit as fast as you enter. The fact that the entrance is moving while the exit is not makes all the difference and results in B.
Where would the box's acceleration and momentum come from?
Since it's not moving, conservation of momentum states that it will continue to not move.
Is momentum conserved when passing through a portal? If so, relative to what? (Hint: momentum is a vector and has a direction. this means momentum is not conserved relative to a rest frame in the games either)
As a bonus, feel free to explain how the box exits from the second portal without having any momentum.
If you were standing in front of the blue portal, you would see the box moving toward you at the exact speed the press containing the orange portal is moving. If you reached your hands through the portal and grabbed the sides of the press, it would not seem to be moving.
The box is moving relative to the blue portal's frame of reference, and the orange portal is stationary. The result is no different than a normal portal physics problem.
Think really hard about what this anon said
>how the box exits from the second portal without having any momentum.
Can't leave the portal with 0 momentum. From blue portal's frame of reference the box is moving towards it, going through it, and continuing with the same momentum that it was entered with.
Fixed. In op cube doesn't have momentum relative to ground so it should just slide out of the exit instead of jumping out.
>portal frame looks identical in both
Interesting, isn't it?
That's because the lab frame was wrong in the original. He just fixed it.
explain whats interesting?
brainlet moment
here we go you idiots.
If I dive a car past you do you feel the same force as the driver? What if you are in Washington and im in Florida?
So dont talk about relative shit you idiots. This must be the Black person test, you complete morons.
Making these threads should be a bannable offense. moronic (you) baiting and not actually video games.
portals can't exist on moving surfaces
the end
If portals existed on moving surfaces, the moving portal would be reset every single shift in position to the point that the orange portal at the end of the moving thing would be a completely different one from the orange portal when it first started moving.
Since we're dealing with a different orange portal, there is no momentum, thus A
You literally just said
completely unironically
That would only be true if it was a new arrow every single moment, but it's the same arrow.
The orange portal is being, in essence, deleted and reset with every passing moment
also please address
If an object being forced through a moving portal has no momentum, and therefore no motion, how does it pass through the portal at all?
If the blue portal was obstructed, what would happen when the orange portal started to envelop the cube and it met the obstacle? Would it move it or destroy it? With what force, if it isn't truly moving?
>through a moving portal
the portal isn't moving, it's merely being reset over and over again
If the portal is "being reset over and over again" how does the cube manage to pass through it unscathed?
If this "resetting portal" still effectively connects two points in space seamlessly thereby allowing large solid objects to pass through unscathed, how is it meaningfully different than the "moving portal" described?
>If the portal is "being reset over and over again" how does the cube manage to pass through it unscathed?
It probably doesn't.
>connects two points in space seamlessly
but you're not connecting two points in space, you're connecting one point in space to apparently a series of points in space.
The portals, as presented in game, are pretty much doorways between two points in space. You can't make half a doorway move. You're either moving both or you're moving neither.
The portals, as presented in game, are able to move separately from eachother seamlessly without "resetting" in two different cases, in one case with a moving panel and in the other case with the fricking moon.
While I can't say much about the former case since the thing passing through it in that case is a continuous laser, in the latter case SEVERAL things pass through the portal, including Chell herself, completely unscathed.
>in one case with a moving panel and in the other case with the fricking moon.
I don't remember the moving panel example and I'm pretty sure the moon case doesn't work either for b-bros, since the difference in momentum between the rotation of the moon and the rotation of the earth don't affect how that scene plays out. The moon portal just acts like an opened airlocked.
>I don't remember the moving panel example
There's a section at the end of Portal 2 where you have to shoot portal A in front of a laser and shoot portal B on to a moving panel to make the laser cut shit apart as the panel moves.
>It probably doesn't.
Okay, but even assuming the cube is spliced to bits by repeated portal cuts or whatever, the mass of the cube remains and still passes through the blue portal.
How did that mass exit from the second portal without having any momentum?
What would happen if the blue portal was obstructed? Unlike "moving portals" there's no rule against that. Where would the mass go?
>What would happen if the blue portal was obstructed?
It wouldn't go through and would be crushed
Crushed by what? You said "there is no momentum" involved, what force is crushing it?
Resistance from the obstacle? How can the obstacle be resisting the cube if no force is acting on the cube?
Even supposing the cube was crushed by some mysterious force, what happened to it? The obstacle stopped it from going through the blue portal, but the press has closed and there is zero distance and therefore zero space between the orange portal and blue portal. Where is the cube?
>You said "there is no momentum" involved, what force is crushing it?
The piston pushing it into the ground
you had me going for a while but you're just gonna give up that easily?
C-, best I can do
They're doorways.
If you close the door or block the door, then you can't step through it when the two massive objects collide, so you get crushed exactly as if the doorway wasn't there.
Imagine you're standing in an open doorway in the middle of a car crusher as it gets turned on. You can be on either side or stuck on one side because the door is locked. Doesn't matter, you get crushed by the car crusher.
By what mechanism does the piston transfer momentum to the cube? They never come into contact, the cube is entirely enveloped by the portal.
Why do you argue this transfer of momentum occurs when the blue portal is blocked but not when the cube passes through it normally?
Supposing that the cube is somehow crushed, again, where does it go? The blue portal is blocked, and there is ZERO space between the orange portal and blue portal. Mass cannot be "crushed" into a space with zero volume.
The game accounts for obstructed portals. The linking mechanism is disabled, making only the surface it's attached to relevant.
>By what mechanism does the piston transfer momentum to the cube?
The weight of the piston directly behind the orange portal doesn't just disappear. It's still there. If you can't go through the orange portal, it crushes you into the floor.
>the cube is entirely enveloped by the portal.
Not if it can't pass through due to an obstruction
>Supposing that the cube is somehow crushed, again, where does it go?
It is flattened between the piston press and the ground. When the piston pulls back up, there wil be a flattened cube lying in place, since it couldn't go through the blue portal due to an obstruction.
>The weight of the piston
You are arguing that the relative acceleration of the portal is "transferred" to the cube as it enters the orange portal and simultaneously passes through the blue portal, resulting in B
Thank you, have a good night
>the relative acceleration of the portal
The portal isn't accelerating, I already said it's merely destroyed and recreated. The piston, however, is not destroyed and recreated.
This answer doesn't make sense. The cube cannot travel through the portal unscathed if the portal keeps resetting itself, so we have to assume that orange portal is able to move relative to the blue portal to even start entertaining the hypothetical.
Think of it like the universe moving relative to the portal.
>does something that has no momentum itself, gain it if space is moved around it?
Literally unanswerable question. gays be pretending they any would know how make believe physics would play out
I often enter these threads only to argue for whatever side is less popular for the sole purpose of instigating arguments
what if the portal stopped suddenly halfway down the cube, so that one half was below the orange and one was above the blue? would it pop up suddenly? stay in place?
>If A
Cube is still whole after entering portal and coming out the other end.
>If B
Cube is destroyed 1 atom at a time as it exits the portal.
B gays were proven to be LARPing ages ago, why are we still having discussions about this?
materials science says you'd go up, and pull your legs with you
fair enough
the portal falling onto you and stopping is the same as you falling through a portal and getting jerked to zero relative velocity by some force, yes? So why are we saying the top half of the body gets the force exerted on it and not the body half? Wouldn't your whole body just suffer a force exerted on it and where, if at all, your body breaks apart depends on anatomy and not on the exact position of the portal?
what force? exerted on you by what?
I just don't understand why the halfway-through-body separation thing is being used as intuitive evidence that B is wrong. It's not a different setup than the original problem, but the absurdity of the body breaking perfectly along the line of the portal makes it seem absurd. Obviously the situation as a whole is absurd because it's an idealized video game version of what a portal would look like, but B is the only way to interpret the problem in a way that's consistent with physics and relative frames of reference. The fact that you're "stationary" in your frame of reference before the portal makes contact with you is not a privileged perspective, because from the portal's frame of reference you're flying through it
you didnt answer my question
In the portal-stopping-over-body example, the scenario is equivalent to the body and the floor it's standing on flying up through the portal and the floor stopping instantaneously while the body is currently halfway through the portal. This should help show the intuition that the body maintains its velocity and flies out through the other end of the portal, since this is what's happening from the frame of reference of the other end of the portal. The force exerted on the body at the moment of portal stopping and/or floor stopping results in a deacceleration downwards, but the body's velocity is "upwards" in the portal's frame of reference, i.e. out through the other end of the portal. This is the only way portals can make any sense physically unless you think they instantly kill objects' momentum upon crossing it, which isn't even how it works in the games.
Bgays never refuted this
There is nothing to in particular to refute since it is the same question. It is Agays who need to refute it since they are always the ones to post it and thinking that it is significant is a big indication that they don't understand the problem or how to argue about it.
depends on the force of the acceleration. If it wasn't going fast enough when it stopped you would lift through, but if it is going sufficiently fast you would be ripped in half
what force?
Motion is the movement of an object through space
When you enter a portal, you are moving into the space on the other side of the portal, and therefore have momentum
Whether you were already moving in the direction of the portal or whether the portal was moving toward you is irrelevant; if there is any difference in velocity between you and the portal, that is acceleration
If you understand that "speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out," then it should follow that "thing goes in speedily, thing comes out speedily"
If Portals actually worked that way the protagonist probably wouldn't be alive.
It should follow that "not-speedy thing goes in, not-speedy thing comes out."
How do you try to twist "speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out," to B? It implies that the speed is preserved. An unmoving object remains unmoving. It explicitly states that the speed of the object is preserved, not that of the portal.
But the object does have speed in the portal's frame of reference. And the portal's frame of refrence is the only one that matters because in game, momentum is only perserved based on the portal's frame of reference.
>But anon, how can you prove that without recreating the OP inage in game?
Momentumis a vector, meaning it has a directional component. If you throw something through the portal it maintains it's direction based on the portal's frame of reference.
The game doesn't give a frick about the portals frame of reference. Momentum is a property of each object. When an object passes through a portal, its momentum (again, a property of the object. In this case, a stationary box) is conserved, but rotated relative to the portal entry/exit (rotation that is irrelevant to a stationary object). That's it.
The momentum being "Rotated relative to the portal's entry/exit" and "Conserved based on the portal's frame of reference" are the exact same thing.
>the game
nobody is under the impression that the source engine is an accurate simulation of real physics and nobody in this thread cares what happens if you try to make any of this work in there
>The game doesn't give a frick about the portals frame of reference.
That's irrelevant. We are talking about a hypothetical concept that developers have gone out of their way not to implement (you can't shoot portals at moving objects).
While the cube moves through the portal the velocity of the portal is transfered to the cube. Otherwise it wouldn't come out the blue portal.
think of the portal as a door frame connecting two rooms. just because a frame comes towards you, doesn't mean it imparts momentum onto you.
THAT IS CLEARLY FAKED. THAT MAN SHOULD BE FLYING!
>a doorframe behaves the same as a quantum tunnel
lul
>Portals are literal portals in game, explictly stated to work just like any other open door
>IMAGINE THINKING THEY WORK LIKE THEY SAY THEY WORK
A-gays... we got too wienery (or lack therof)....
Portals function exactly like doors in-game.
How many fricking quantum tunnels have you seen physically working?
>imagine a completely unrelated scenario
its exactly the same
>think of the seat of your car moving at 60mph on a highway as the seat of your chair in your bedroom
i'll try to, against my better judgment, help you, here.
you would be correct if both portals were somehow entangled across spacetime and both were moving in the same vectors of movement against a bigger frame of reference (say, the solar system, for example).
i.e. two moving portals
i.e. what you'd see is a 'stationary' object 'uncloaking itself' front to back, like a spaceship that just warped in
the example in this thread is NOT about two moving portals, but its one where portal X is moving and portal Y is not moving, again, this is RELATIVE to a common frame of reference/parent frame of reference.
when the cube crosses the exit portal, and from the exit portal's frame of reference - the cube is already moving, and therefore will continue to move.
the movement (or lack thereof) from the 'other side' of the portal is now irrelevant.
RELATIVITY, FREN!
See
There is no "universe being moved" when the portal is moving. Portals are teleportation devices through which you can see where you will end up.
>Portals are teleportation devices through which you can see where you will end up.
you're moving goalposts here.
additionally, i've also covered that bit - see the bit where i mentioned 'spaceships warping in'.
both A and B can happen given depending on if only one is moving or if both are moving (against a bigger frame of reference from which both portals are attached to).
this shit does have a precedent in physics you know. the guy responsible for nuking japan twice has a lot to do with it.
in case you're wondering, im referring to wormholes, which themselves can be treated as the spacetime 'connectors' for the two portals - you cant move out of the other portal without moving through the wormhole itself, however infinitely short that wormhole is.
Tidal force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic_deviation
Why doesn't everyone in this thread just learn some GR? In the time you spent arguing about this problem you surely could've picked up the basics by now.
You can't just obliterate B gays so thoroughly.
>sudden de-acceleration causes significant material stress and harm to a living body
holy shit, give this man the Nobel Prize
>catching a falling hoola hoop after it passes over someone splits them in half
Which hoola hoops can move independently independently of eachother while still allowing instantaneous and continuous motion across their aperture?
What magic circles connect two points in space in the exact same manner as a door frame?
None, guess we shouldn't bring up hoola hoops then, huh?
unironically yes
if the speed at which you were emerging from blue portal was enough to pull you out then it could in theory rip you in half
It could be A or B or a C option where the man is pulled up through the blue portal with his legs intact depending on how fast orange portal was moving and how quickly it stopped
correct
Portals aren't real
>A-gays
Conservatives
>B-gays
Liberals
Simple as.
I thought the the moon scene confirmed it's A at least in the game engine
does this even need a debate? lmao
OP already posted the correct result from two perspectives.
>degenerate coombrain gets triggered by physics question
many such instances!
>demonstrating epic lack of reading comprehension and basic newtonian physics and relativity
lol
Already debunked here
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting, anon.
>Already debunked here
>Ironic shitposting is still shitposting, anon.
>go bungee jumping
>ground zooms towards me
This is how Bgays ACTUALLY think
From my point of view the earth is moving towards me
FREE BODY DIAGRAM
R
E
E
B
O
D
Y
D
I
A
G
R
A
M
then make one gay
>arguing fantasy physics
Now tell me how wizards are able to conjure a fireball out of thin air without using any flammable material.
>Sub 120-IQ brainlet is too moronic to entertain thought experiments that require the application of real-life physics
Many such happenstances!
>pseudo-intellectual who just got his physics degree loves jerking off his knowledge on an anonymous image board on a subject that any normal person can deduct is a paradox in less than a minute
I love how you guys have been at it for several years now
>UHMMM ITS A PARDOX AKSHUALLY
holy mother of brainlet... you are unironically sub-120 IQ....
>that obsession over IQ
Lmao you really are a complete tool
You're less than a tool. You're a raw resource.
If I am a hammer, you're a stick.
If I am a screwdriver, you're a metal ore sorrounded by rocks.
You are nothing, kid. You are inferior to the shitstain on my underwear after a taco bell meal.
Do you not wipe properly? Is this the power of B?
Unironically a copypasta
damn I recited a copypasta from memory? I must be really smart
Magical fuel, duh
If I put two portals on two pistons that are built to come together and crush whatever's between them flat, you would still be crushed even if you were perfectly positioned between the opening of the portal
How is the lab frame portal transferring its energy to the cube?
you cannot answer this
There is zero practical difference between you moving relative to a portal and a portal moving relative to you.
It is possible for objects to be accelerated through space at a distance with no apparent energy vector. (source: this is how gravity works)
>There is zero practical difference between you moving relative to a portal and a portal moving relative to you
During high-school physics tests? Sure. When we're trying to analyse wormholes than don't follow the laws of physics as we know them? There's a very important disinction
P=mv
As the portal passes over the cube the cube's P grows as more of its mass, m, is multiplied by v, the velocity of the cube as it exits the blue portal.
cube has zero momentum
>lab frame portal transferring its energy
frick are you on about moron. wait no dont answer the question, you're just moronic 😀
read up on relativity before you participate in threads like these.
If you a put a cube on the ground, take a hula-hoop and then slam it really hard to the ground so the cube is in the middle, the cube will get launched into air?
If you had another hula hoop that was connected to that hula hoop via wormhole it would.
I like scub
B gays are utterly deluded
*A
if you think its A you are literally braindead
In the games it would most definitely be A.
A gays coping by changing the argument to be about how it would hypothetically work if the developers decided to add code to the game to specify some new behavior (which could be anything, it's a video game)
A would work as-is with minor changes. B would require a rewrite of the physics engine from the ground up that wouldn't be able to run on any modern computer at any consistent or "playable" pace.
even if true, I don't give a shit
Portal's cant move.
They move in the game itself
portal 2 isn't canon
>canon is not canon because I don't like it
get him Gaben
And the games physics engine does not use multiple frames of reference.
If I had a button to instantly kill all B gays I would press it without delay
>a gays this buttblasted at being wrong
lole
honestly i feel bad for a tards
Hey B-bros, surely you wouldn't mind launching through this portal, right?
🙂
Depends how fast the portal's moving. Wouldn't wanna overshoot and crack my head on the wall
>Bgays have been pretending to be moronic for 15 years now
They are no longer pretending. These threads are an amazing social experiment to see people become actually moronic.
>that pic
>press "A" to let go
pottery
You don't suddenly fly through a doorframe when you walk through it.
Regards.
is a doorframe a wrinkle in space-time that's supposed to be capable of reversing an object's momentum relative to an external observer? Hmm seems like portals might work a bit differently
portals don't impart momentum on the objects going through them, they only conserve it.
You haven't played the game.
Because if you did, you'd know that the game explicitly makes it clear that you can't shoot portals at moving panels.
You haven't played the game because you are literally required to do so in portal 2.
moron
There is a point in Portal 2 where you LITERALLY have to shoot portals at moving surfaces to use lasers to cut tubes and release a gas you worthless oxygen-unworthy mongrel.
>to use lasers
omega DELTA level brainlet
What? Are you coping so hard you forgot to make sense?
>W-wh-whwhwhat?????
You just embarrassed yourself so much that you've started projecting, kek.
Yeah your brain must've melted from sheer cope
>Momentum, a function of mass and velocity, is conserved between portals. In layman's terms: Speedy-thing goes in, speedy-thing comes out.
Nowhere does it say it can't impart momentum on an object
It conserves the momentum of things passing through it, it can't increase momentum btard.
But that's exactly what it does when the cube exits the portal. Whether it falls over or flies.
the cube already had that momentum relative to the portal, the portal falling down onto the cube is no different than the cube falling up through the portal
So mass*velocity = 0 when the portal is moving out of the blue portal.
*cube
velocity is relative. In the blue portal's frame of reference the cube has momentum, which is conserved, which means B. Simple as
Oh I thought I was still talking to
. I was positing a contradiction where for A to be correct, v would have to be 0 while the cube is moving.
ah yeah that's correct
If anything has MOVED through a portal, entering one side and coming out the other, it is in motion and by definition has velocity.
It does not matter if, from the perspective of an observer, the object was moving or the portal was moving, the result is the same.
how is it moving through the portal with 0 momentum
Falling is due to gravity, not the portal
Ok but the cube has momentun in the portal's frame of reference, so it's not adding anything.
Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out
Thing comes in speedy, thing goes out speedy
Cube enters portal at 20mph, it exits at 20mph
All of these statements are true if the cube OR the portal are moving relative to each other
I know, I'm just saying that to an observer a ball thrown into a portal on a wall that pops back out of a corresponding portal on the same wall has reversed momentum in the observer's frame of reference. The fact that momentum is nonetheless conserved in the portal's frame of reference is a fact that is not true of door frames or hula hoops, and shows that analogies to those things are moronic
But to the game engine the "direction" and "speed" are seperate things. Portals never influence "speed". Multiple frames of reference are irrelevant, since the source engine does all calculations relevant to the objects origin. Passing through a portal only modifies the objects facing direction, its momentum vector's direction, and its position in the world (oversimplification on the last part, since it actually creates a ghost copy so it can exist in two places prior to the objects origin passing through the portal).
I don't know or give a shit about how the game is coded, video game physics are not necessarily consistent with any physical principle, and reality does not have an absolute frame of reference
That's Nice. This is a theoretical about how things would work in a video game called Portal.
go test it in game then b***h
Moving portals are impossible in Portal, why would you assume this is a question about something that can't happen in the limited scope of a mediocre physics engine?
What makes you think that one small concession on the engines limitations means that you have carte blanche to ignore it all? Shouldn't the goal be to come up with a solution with the minimal amount of concessions? That's A by the way.
There is a literal fricking point in Portal 2 where you create moving portals.
It's the part with the deadly gas. You use them to cut the tubes connected to the container.
I think this is the main point of the argument between A and B gays: A gays are thinking with the logic of the games while B gays are thinking how these things would actually function irl and applying laws of physics that the games clearly disregard to it
You got those two reversed and in B's case it's still untrue for the game
15 years and people still can't figure out that maybe a portal and a hula hoop are two diffrent things. That maybe the ability for a single point in space to both move and not move at the same time is noteworthy and rather un-door frame like.
I don't see how they're different at all, and also wonder why people don't just power turbines with doorframes in real life for free energy via perpetual motion. There's no difference between a portal and a doorframe after all, that's how they work in the game.
Gentlemen, I believe it's time we moved on to discussing how the ACME portable hole from Who Framed Roger Rabbit would work
It's just a paper sticker painted with Wile E. Coyote's black paint the roadrunner runs through. It creates a tunnel through anything you stick it to. When he runs into it it's another shot where they replace it with regular paint.
It does more than that. It can permanently destroy matter as Eddy uses one later in the film to break apart the magnet pinning him down.
The cube is just going to go through a hole where one side has different gravity than the other. To the cube, it's like if a door was lowered around you and the gravity changed on the side being lowered: halfway through, the lower portion of your body would be under the previous gravity but the upper half would be pulled let's say right.
Now do that really fast: that's what's happening to the cube. He'd just slide right (or in this case, fall down). It's A. Always has been. Always will be.
So you say it's gonna be like this? Cause if you see it from your so-called "portal frame" it's the same situation.
The blue portal is moving down canceling out the negative velocity imparted by the orange portal.
Both portals are moving, no relative velocity. The fact that you didn't notice this means you fundamentally don't understand the argument
Would your argument stand if I rotate blue exit 90 degrees, so cube will fall to right side?
Since now relative velocity does not go along normal to the blue portal.
Or even better, picrel.
There is now relative velocity, since the motion of the cube (from the Portal's frame of reference) is to the right, out of the Blue portal.
I tried my best to see what's happening from "portal frame", and I don't see how it'll get 999*V speed in your theory.
That's cause your portal frame drawing has no apparent connection to the actual portal frame.
Then would you kindly illustrate my example correctly?
No because I'm phoneposting when I should be sleeping.
try learning vector addition first lmao
Always remember, "speedy thing goes in, speedy thing goes out".
If the portal is moving, doesn't matter if a high speed or as slow as a snail it will always act as a static plane.
And the cube frame is always violated.
So if I put my dick through the portal
Will I become a woman after?
No moron. Losing your penis wouldn't make you into a woman, just a dickless man.
yes, that's how portals work. chell used to be a man.
Has anyone asked the developers about this?
They said it would be B because you can design pizzles around it, unlike A.
Ok but did they say which one it would be as the games currently stand, without a concern for creating new puzzles?
"I'm not a physicist lol we didn't program that"
Think if you try to force it to happen in portal 2 engine the portals just act as solid walls and the cube doesn't go through at all.
Funny you say that, considering how Valve has hired physicists before.
why don't mods just ban all B gays?
this bait is way too fricking old
why don't mods just ban all A gays?
this bait is way too fricking old
Portals do not conserve their own momentum, but the box’s. The box would just slide down.
Here is how to lie using visual proofs anon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYQVlVoWoPY
This image itself is bait. Left frame, momentum is in the pillar being lowered onto a static cube. Right frame, momentum is now on the platform where the cube rest, thereby transferring momentum into the cube.
Go frick yourself and frick off.
Got take it up with harvard if you wanna argue relative motion isn't real. I'm sure they've got some physicists who have some spare time to laugh at you.
Relative to what, you fricking idiot? Please reference more shit that don't understand, and then apply it to fictitious space warping. There is no reason that a cube with no momentum is going to suddenly gain it by being displaced through a portal.
if the cube has no momentum relative to the portal, how does it get through the portal?
The same way you can "move" through a falling hula-hoop without moving.
have you ever been taught the concept of relative velocity or is this a totally foreign concept to you?
You're working under an assumption that if the orange portal has velocity, then the blue portal is experiencing that same velocity at all times as if it was anchored to something also moving that velocity, like an open car window.
>Please refrence more shit that don't understand
Did you mean: that (you) don't understand? Since "relative to the portal" didn't pop into your mind instantly, I have to assume you have no bloody clue what relative motion is and thus no real right to discuss the problem until that is changed.
Here's a hint for you: X moves toward Y is the same as Y moves toward X
If you were standing in front of the blue portal, what would you see coming toward you?
You would see a cube approaching, that does not magically transfer momentum into that cube. The cube is not actually moving from its resting location, it's being warped into a different space via portals.
Imagine the same scenario without gravity. There's a cube floating in space and a portal collides with it at 1000km/h. That cube remains floating on the exit end of that portal. It does not inherit 1000km/h worth of momentum. There's no reason to believe that it would.
>stick your head out the window of a train and see a pole approaching you at 70mph
>"This pole appears to be approaching me, but I know in fact that it is a stationary object, and therefore I am in no danger"
>fricking die
>a moving train is equal to an unmoving cube
Good job, moron.
>X moves toward Y is the same as Y moves toward X
No. The momentum of objects matters. X moves towards Y is not the same as Y moves toward X if X or Y is stationary.
You mean, define how a fricking portal is supposed to work? You idiot.
>X moves towards Y is not the same as Y moves toward X if X or Y is stationary.
trolling or moronic
>something not moving can move
>because I said so
You're too far up your own ass with theoretical physics to discuss practical application or observable behavior.
>He thinks relative motion is theoretical
>he thinks relative motion is inherent to portals
>He think I actually said or implied this at any point
>He doesn't think
No, I mean Define stationary without assuming an absolute frame of reference. I'll save you some time and just tell you it can't be done because there is no absolute frame of reference. "The cube moves toward the portal" and "the portal moves toward the cube" are the same statement from diffrent frames and neither can be said to be objectively correct.
I'll repeat, if you have issue with this, go b***h at physicists at your local university, and get laughed out of the room.
You fricking moron. You're not explaining why the cube itself should gain the momentum when passing through the portal, which itself only serves to connect to points in space.
Gain what momentum? From the portal's frame of reference, it always had momentum
>But it's not moving
In YOUR frame of reference maybe, but why should that matter more than any other? It doesn't.
No, the cube literally has no velocity. From the portals frame of reference, a cube with no velocity rapidly approaches because the portal is moving. On the other end of the portal will be a cube with velocity that was sent through it. Unless you mean to assert that the orange portal is accelerating the entire world on the blue side of the portal such a cube with no momentum will fly through a moving world, giving the illusion of momentum in the cube.
From the portal's frame of reference the portal is """stationary""". That's how frames or refrence work. The portal can't move toward the cube in it's own frame of reference.
>From the portals frame of reference, a cube with no velocity rapidly approaches because the portal is moving
Velocity is defined as an object's apparent motion, if the cube is "rapidly approaching" it has velocity, this sentence is incoherent
You are the person watching the pole coming towards your head and about to get your brains splattered because "it's not REALLY moving"
>You are the person watching the pole coming towards your head and about to get your brains splattered because "it's not REALLY moving"
It is moving, you moron. But it's only moving because you aren't the pole.
The pole is unmoving. Since you KNOW it's not moving, it's not a problem that it appears to be approaching you at 70mph, right?
A "stationary" object can't POSSIBLY be moving towards you, so it has no velocity relative to you and won't ever hit you even though the path of its apparent relative movement intersect your head, right?
Hitting a brick wall at 100mph and getting hit by a brick wall moving 100mph would have completely different results, right?
The train is accelerating YOU in that example, which makes it completely irrelevant to the picture wherein the cube is not being accelerated. Shut the frick up, you fricking idiot.
>this thing clearly moving towards me is actually stationary
>I, the observer sitting motionless in my seat, am in fact the one being accelerated
Don't you see how ridiculous you sound?
You're so fricking dumb. If the train in the orange portal, and the pole is the cube, then what is the blue portal in this utterly irrelevant failure of an analogy?
I asked the simple question "what would you see if you were standing in front of the blue portal"
You would see the cube approaching you at the same velocity that the press is moving the orange portal towards it. It would immediately become obvious to you that the cube was about to be launched into you with considerable force.
A-gays believe that upon passing through the blue portal, instead of this obvious outcome, the cube would magically and instantaneously deaccelerate and harmlessly slide onto the floor, based only on their "knowledge" that the cube is "stationary"
The cube is stationary, all physics are to an absolute reference because it's a video game. It is a theoretical about a video game, on a video game discussion board. It's A.
Not that guy but man, if you're not shitposting you must be unironically clinically moronic.
I love how easy it is to show that atards don't understand relativity.
Define Stationary in a way that allows the object to go from point a to point b while Stationary.
Ir better yet, define Stationary at all without assuming an absolute frame of reference.
Are we talking in universe or in game? Because we know Portals don't work on moving surfaces, they just fizzle out. That's for sure in the game play.
Now in the lore/HL Universe can portals be on moving platforms? We've never seen or heard anything that implies they could, all we know is that they fizzle.
So the dichotomy of "which of these two would happen" doesn't even seem right. The answer from what we know is "Neither".
If we're pretending like they CAN be on moving surfaces then I think the box wouldn't fly out, it would just fall. Portals conserve momentum, but the box has no momentum.
I'd be interested to see a mod that allows moving portals so the problem can be solved once and for all, according to the games physics.
>the box has no momentum
Read the thread, or a physics textbook
Game physics has been long solved, it's "we didn't program this so the cube can't go through the portal. Also, lrn 2 relative motion
Here is my take and why I have been an A gay since I first laid eyes on this image
The portals fundamentally break our current understand of physics so trying to apply the understanding to extrapolate out what would happen in a given situation is pointless and any "result" you get from doing so is functionally completely baseless as again the portals already break the physical laws you are trying to apply to them.
So the next best thing is referencing how the portals work both in game and in other official content from Valve.
We in know the portals function like a door that directly connects two different points in space, we know they don't impact the momentum of any object passing through, and we know they do not adjust the vector of any object passing through. The common theme here is the objects are in no way effected beyond moving through the portals.
The question ultimately comes down to are the portals outside relatively/has relativity actually been found to be false in the portal setting, or are they "effected" by relativity/ behave like any normal object.
Considering they seem to only effect the location of an object, already break many modern conception of physics, and don't seem to regularly break objects or people flying through them the most likely answer is A.
Where as B is: "here is how they might work in our current middle of physics which the portals break and also conflicts with what is actually seen in game to some extent".
>The portals fundamentally break our current understand of physics
Wormholes are consistent with general relativity
your argument is invalid
Reminder that portals require an absolute frame of reference in order to work, and one is determined by having both portals remain the same distance and orientation relative to one another. If one portal is moved independently from the other the connection is broken and the portal disappears.
I've never understood the argument for A. The cube has no momentum, energy, or force exerting on it. Its essentially having its surroundings altered without being affected itself except for its position being changed - but that alone shouldn't put it in motion.
B works because the cube is moving before entering the portal, not the reverse. Even by the in-series explanation of Portals conserving momentum and such it shouldn't go flying in A.
Can someone post an actually coherent explanation for why A "should" work?
Imagine setting up this experiment such that you are looking into the exit portal and at the moving platform at the same time.
The platform begins to move. The cube is now simultaneously moving both towards and further away from you.
You can't countenance this with the way our universe works, because it's so impossible that it can't make any sense. Choose whichever you like, neither one is any more valid because neither one is consistent with any sort of actual physics.
>look at a funny trick mirror
>"AAAHHH I'M GOING INSANE HELP ME GABEN"
It's ogre. The source engine itself confirms b.
wow this must've been brutally difficult to code according to A gays
>fictitious physics fabricated for a game proves something
holy shit...
that seems to be the argument from A gays, yes
Not really, given that the object is launched with more force than it went in with, it's safe to assume that orange just launches things that touch blue. Just because it looks like portal doesn't mean it is a working portal gun.
Portals do not modify the speed of objects that enter them. That's one of the explicitly stated rules. That mod does not follow how the aperture portal gun works.
>buhhhh your video game works differently than my video game
Given that one is the video game from which this argument is based, and the other is a mod made by Bgays for Bgays in a different video game. Yes, that is in fact not at all relevant.
A video of the actual game (Portal 2, not Portal 1) actually has the player entering the portal and gaining momentum from the speed of the portal.
It's buggy since it is not intended, but if game engine physics is enough to convince you, there it is.
Convenient "a video" you have there. Being unable to watch it for myself has truly convinced me you are not at all full of shit. Also it's the source engine, I'm willing to bet it does some moronic shit like chain-spawning a copy of chell until they try to de-stack creating momentum
>if you move
Sure is relevant to the stationary cube.
It is.
The key question is "Does momentum get imparted to a non-moving object" and Portal 2 physics answer it with a clear "yes".
The fact that non-moving objects cannot physically enter moving portals due to game restrictions is secondary.
How is "non-moving object can't physically enter a moving portal" a clear "yes, portals give non-moving objects momentum"?
Because. given that the movement of an object is not 0, the momentum is automatically imparted on the object, meaning it can could move a singular cell unit, but still travel at its own speed + the speed imparted by the moving portal.
If, to you, the argument was always about how the physics would hypothetically work if the Portal game engine allowed for such a scenario, then feel free to go ask the devs and get back to me about how they'd code their fictional physics
>I am above this discussion of fictional physics in this thread purely about fictional physics
>I'm turning this discussion about theoretical physics into a discussion about how the Source engine is coded because I'm a butthurt A gay
Yes, basically.
Glados statement was fundamentally a lie since she said momentum. Portals modify momentum all the time, relative to the earth, since Direction is a component of momentum.
Portals don't change momentum relative to the portals, though.
Portals don't change direction, if I run straight through a portal I will come out still traveling straight regardless of my orientation at exit.
Relative to the earth, you changed direction. Your frame and the portal's frame were the same in that instance, as they will be when both portals are stationary, but your frame isn't objective, and certanly not more so than the earth's or the portals.
Portals frick the known laws of physics in every way and still you autists find a way to argue about them in the context of physics.
Nothing in general relativity says you can't have portals. No speculated paradox is relevant to this simple case.
Everything you said after "portals are theoretically possible" is pure conjecture
Portals can be possible, but not the specific type of portals depicted in Portal.
Anyone who argues either A or B is is just wrong.
Assuming a portal could exist somehow as a bridge between space-time (this is theoretically physically possible). The portal's entrance and exit cannot move continuously relative to each other without also bending and warping the space-time attached to the portal creating gravitation forces. When warping space-time in the room, this would introduce momentum to the cube in the supposedly "stationary" cube-centric reference frame as space is being compressed or stretched resulting in extremely high gravitation forces being introduced in the room likely pusing the object in some other direction likely never allowing it to even fall through the portal. The cube would likely rapidly fly off in some direction way before the portal even gets close to the from the gravitation forces introduced by warping space-time to accommodate a moving portal.
Without bending and curving all of the space around the portal to get it to move, it would need to be rapidly and discreetly created and destroyed before the piston housing the portal would be allowed to move without bending space-time along with it. Thus if its discreetly created and destroyed between piston movements, no momentum is ever introduced in either reference frame. However, since between each frame, the portal is destroyed before being recreated again, if the cube was somehow wedged between the portal, it would be either destroyed or cut in half by the portal closing, or otherwise the object would be crushed by the lack of a portal existing while it was closed to allow the piston to move.
Anyone arguing B is assuming that the orange portal is accelerating the entire world on the blue side of the portal such that collision with a still object would send hurtling through the blue side world, like a car driving into a tree branch that pierces though the windshield despite that the tree never moved.
It's fricking moronic.
The whole troll physics aspect of either A or B this is that the whole world cannot be both accelerating and stationary at the same time.
Arguing for A or B is picking some arbitrary reference frame as absolute any anyone who with a college degree that passed a basic 100 level introduction to physics course would know that's simply not how physics works.
You'd need to either invent new arbitrary bogus physics to explain how portals would work in some fictional fantasy troll physics universe, or rely on current known physics (relativity) which would tell you that to move a portal, it would create gravity so none of these other arguments about the cube somehow staying locked into position with gravity pushing it in some direction. The cube would simply just fly off the pedestal long before the portal even gets close to it. Its as simple as that.
nobody cares, this is just as irrelevant and pointless as the homosexuals who won't stop going back to "but in the game..."
The portals Just Work, they're magic linked holes in space, it's a simple problem
The object exits the portal at the same speed that it entered the portal (at least it should, obviously the source engine is far from a perfect simulation of real physics)
If you want to talk about argue game physics logic, the way portals work in games, There is actually 2 cubes that exist when it passes through the portal. The cube is duplicated so that it can be rendered on both sides twice. The duplicate is destroyed once it passes through and the original is warped immediately to the other side so it never actually passes through the portal. What games can do with momentum after teleporting an actor is arbitrary. A or B is just an if-statement in code and completely up to the game programmer or designer what they want it to do.
Why is this even a debate?
Yes, what happens in a video game is irrelevant and nobody gives a shit, yet Agays keep bringing it up to cope justifying their obviously moronic position
>left: object gains momentum
>right: object maintains momentum
Impossible.
BUT, that's just as impossible as
>left: object maintains momentum
>right: object loses momentum
This entire argument is bullshit.
Even if the portals were an open window, there's no reason for B to happen. This image doesn't exist in a vacuum either, it's all assumes an earth level gravity. How do people still argue over this particular image?
The problem is that from the frame of the box you need to have a force moving the box, other than gravity. That solution requires the box to magically start moving from it's own frame. Unless you want to imply that the portal has some method of transferring force to the box, which is a totally unsupported and baseless assertion.
The orange portal would have to be accelerating the entire world on the blue portal side such that a still object sent through it would give the illusion of momentum as the world zipped past it.
It's incredibly asinine and why would anyone assume that's how it works.
When you jump off a building, you see "the entire world accelerating toward you." However, this is just an illusion since the world is obviously stationary, and once you pass an arbitrary threshold everything will instantly stop for no reason and you'll safely slide onto the ground.
No. You're still gaining the momentum, you idiot. If you reach terminal velocity and go through a portal, you're coming out the other end at terminal velocity.
As opposed to B, which would posit that once you hit the Earth, every human would then be launched. Because from your frame of reference the super fast Earth just suddenly stopped. Remember, you moving fast at the earth = the earth moving fast at you. Therefore you hitting the earth = the earth coming to a sudden stop.
I would think, given the size diffrence, you would become a red stain regardless of who is moving toward who.
I can't tell if this is someone falseflagging as an Agay or if Agays are really this stupid.
it's mostly falseflaggers now
The portals in the game change momentum (relative to non portal things) without imparting force literally all the time. If they couldn't, portals couldn't change the directon of things (relative to the earth), if you fell in the direction of gravity into a portal you'd end up falling in the direction of gravity when coming out the exit portal, no matter where it was, unless portals had that power. The portals conserve momentum only relative to themselves, and thus they are able to function as they do in game.
Is that realistic? Send an email to some random physicist find out.
Portals do not however have any force from the perspective of the thing going through the portal. From the perspective of the person falling through the portal, the traveled in a straight line. In this situation, from the boxes perspective it was sitting without any forces other than gravity, then suddenly had a huge force push it forwards.
Why does the perspective of the person going through the portal matter more than the "perspective" of the earth. Answer: It doesn't. If both portals are stationary, their frame and the object going through them's frame are more or less the same, but that still means a change in momentum from other frames with no force being imparted.
I am so annoyed that people still talk about his stupid shit on here.
Teleportation is nearly impossible, but portals moving relative to one another is doubly impossible. It literally makes the fricking universe tear itself apart, by definition.
You stupid people are debating a lie, an erroneous troll question with no answer.
>Teleportation
Portals don't work through teleportation.
>semantics
Tell it to someone who cares, homosexual.
>It literally makes the fricking universe tear itself apart, by definition.
Sir, wormholes are perfectly possible.
Portals are not wormholes, the inside of a wormhole is inaccessible to the rest of the universe.
You do know that creating a wormhole literally rips apart space for it to exist right?
An open worm creates a curvature in space-time. They have gravity. Nearby objects would literally accelerate and fall into them like a how they would fall into a planet or black hole. Moving a wormhole the size of a pinhole would be similar to trying move an entire planet along with all the warped space near to it.
It should be the portal moving towards the cube.
does this mean that the earth is a sphere because people posted a picture or made a video?
if I give you a picture of a glass of water how do you know its not vodka?
cool thread homosexual
I'm generally a pretty chill person, but I'd 100% gas all of you goddamn mongoloids in a second if I could.
STOP BEING moronic. NOW. A AND B ARE EQUALLY IMPOSSIBLE, AND MORE IMPOSSIBLE THAN STATIC PORTALS. END OF DISCUSSION.
It wouldn't move, BECAUSE IT IS THE WORLD THAT IS FALLING ONTO THE BOX NOT THE BOX FALLING INTO THE WORLD
There is no debate, its B and if you think otherwise you are an idiot
To think its A you would have to imply that if you were to put your face in front of the blue portal nothing would happen to it because
>"THERE IS NO FORCE BEHIND THE CUBE!"
so what exactly would have happened? The cube would just phase trough you?
who invested energy to draw this complete moronation that invalidates neither a nor b
how does it not invalidate Agays?
Their entire argument is that "there is no momentum behind the cube so it can not fly out of the portal"
But if there is no force behind it, then if you were to put a huge ass spike on the red portal side and do whats show on pic
then what would have happen?
Really do tell me what would happen in that situation according to you, because if you are looking trough the blue portal then from your perspective (aka point of refference) the spike is moving towards you and it WILL pierce trough you
and this proves that the portal does add momentum to the cube, because if there was none then it could NEVER emerge from the blue portal, because how would it? And why would it suddenly stop afterwards?
>because if there was none then it could NEVER emerge from the blue portal, because how would it? And why would it suddenly stop afterwards?
It is not the momentum that kills the observer but simply the fact that because the orange portal closes the space between two portals, the spike has no place to exist anywhere else other than the through the blue portal. The spike has to come out and the speed of orange portal has nothing to do with it. It's an illusion of momentum.
"Illusion of momentum" is a cope term invented by people who refuse to learn basic physics. Uless you want to formally submit your "findings" and try to overturn physics knowledge as we know it?
you are 3 levels removed from where the discussion is at right now
come back when you pass high school physics
How come they changed it from a cube to a tall spike? Oh right, cause the cube wouldn't have the mass or shape to be dangerous
That doesn't actually change the point being made. It's still you bashing your skull against something "not moving" through a portal
homie it literally doesn't change anything
you can draw a cube there and it smashing his face instead of skewering trough it and the point remains the same
And yet they didn't, likely cause the cube wouldn't have sufficient mass displaced going through the portal
Ok, so let's say it's a cube and you put your face right in front of the exit portal. The entry portal moves rapidly with the equivalent kinetic energy of a truck and as the cube comes halfway out it touches your face and stops.
If the entry portal has fully covered the cube, where's the other half of the cube?
If it's only covered half of the cube, what's stopped the moving platform i.e. where has it's kinetic energy gone?
>the spike doesn't fly off into the distance
We won, A-bros.
Didn't a streamer ask an actual physicist for the answer to this?
I remember someone posted that in one of these threads
A-homosexualry is peak midwittery. They're the kind of people who can only memorize knowledge and recite it whenever they need to pass a test.
B-gays are more intelligent in that they can evaluate and apply knowledge that they have memorized in transformative ways, as evidenced by this thread.
Theories on frames of reference have come a long way and everytime someone misunderstands how it works you JUST know he has sub-110 IQ.
Yes, Destiny asked a physicist.
?t=2654
44:14
>Destiny
Oh shit I remember now, this fricker spent over 5 hours arguing with his chat about why B is right.
Truly the EPITOME of autism.
?t=2654
AgayS ETERNALLY BTFO
>obsesses over IQ
>Destiny
So you're sub-70 then?
its literally irrelevant whos video this is from you fricking brainlet
whats relevant is the opinion of the fricking physics doctor that he is talking to
The physcicist posits they are real life worm holes. This ignores very key, very explicitly stated, ways the portals works. They are not worm holes. And even if I am wrong, I'd rather be wrong than a Destiny simp. No wonder your entire argument is based on completely ignoring the setup of the theoretical.
>The physcicist posits they are real life worm holes. This ignores very key, very explicitly stated, ways the portals works. They are not worm holes.
Its not relevant though
the only thing he says, is that if you look trough the blue portal, you see a cube moving towards you, and then you see that cube emerge from the portal
if thats what happens then there is 0 reason why it should suddenly stop moving out of the portal
If I fall from the sky strapped to a doorframe and I hit the ground in such a way that a cube happens to end up in the middle of the doorframe then from my perspective the cube will be moving toward me too, doesn't mean it will fly off into the sky.
>moron talks about hoops again
when will you morons learn that with portals the entrance is stationary and the exit is not so its in no way comparable to fricking hoops or a door
How is it incomparable? That's how it works in the game.
The point of entry is moving, the exit isn't. It's the "world" on the other side that is moving toward cube, not cube moving toward the other side.
>That's how it works in the game.
No it doesn't.
His example falls in line with how you've explained your justification for B. From his frame of reference, the doorways entry is stationary. From the cube's frame of reference the doorways other side if moving.
>His example falls in line with how you've explained your justification for B. From his frame of reference, the doorways entry is stationary.
no its not
from his frame of reference EVERYTHING is moving, on both sides of the doorway
From the problems frame of refference only the things inside the portal are moving and everything around it is stationary. AKA the exit of the "doorway" is moving but not the entrance (or vice versa)
If I look out of the portal on the other side as the cube is rapidly closing in, will I be launched like a rocket to the other side since from cube's point of reference I'm moving fast as frick as well?
You already are.
you straight up just don't understand what a frame of reference is
frame of reference doesn't just mean "point of view"
we are not talking about "From cube point of view" we are talking about some set of specific criteria that we are basing the problem on
if you misunderstand it like that then literally nothing is ever moving from its own point of view
I'm not a physicist, how am I wrong? If the cube gets launched then a person standing on the other side surely should get sucked into the portal and, analogically launched to the other side, right? Provided there's apropriate space for that, of course.
you dont measure things from its own point of view of the things we observe
its pointless because then you can just put a camera on anything and say "LOOK! From its own point of view its everything around it thats moving!"
we measure things we want to measure from some outside point of view and we can take that as the frame of reference. Because then we can compare it to other object in that frame of reference. For example if you stand in a road and one car is standing in place and another one is moving then you can confidently say that "this car is moving"
Thats why if you look at the blue portal you see the cube emerging from the blue portal
for the cube to be emerging from the blue portal then it has to be moving, you can compare it to another cube lying on the ground and see that the other one is not moving
the catch is that when you look at the bigger picture you can see the cube both moving towards you AND staying in place making the situation impossible
yawn
if b is correct entering any portal would liquify you
You guys are making it waaay too complicated.
The cube inherits the speed of the orange portal because it is gradually transitioning into the blue portal at the speed of the orange portal.
The same way how throwing a ball from a fast-moving car will make my ball inherit the speed of my car after I throw it out.
The moment I let go of the ball, it will be travelling at the same speed as the car. Of course, because balls can't accelerate themselves like cars, it will quickly de-accelerate, but it will still be flying due to the momentum it has gained from the car.
Now if I throw the ball from the car with force, the ball will inherit both the speed of the car, and my kinetic skills, so it will actually be faster than the car for a moment, before it de-accelerates and gets slower and slower.
Therfore, B wins again and A trannies need to have a dilation break at the next GDQ.
It's embarrassing how much evidence is provided, yet people continue to hold on to their moronic and wrong conclusion.
No wonder the whole Covid vaccine thing is the way it is.
Pillar with resting on cube passes through portal at high velocity suddenly comes to an abrupt stop.
What happens to the cube?
Easy, the pillar with the cube ontop keep flying, since the orange portal will come to a halt at the bottom and thus cut the pillar off due to a change in velocity.
It's a shame this has so few replies, because this is the most important variable. Relativity. The cube in this case will continue to move because distance traveled converts to momentum gained, with its highest momentum being at its most vertical point. Without the pillar, the top of the cube will still pull the bottom to some degree. Think of the portal slamming down on a penny on flat ground. Do you think the penny will gain enough momentum to travel any conciquencial distance? The real answer to the original a vs b is somewhere in between.
>t. originally an a-gay
Based post, it's similar to that gif with the shaking platform but I feel like this explains it better. I think I wanted to make one like this or made one like this at some point.
https://strawpoll.com/polls/40ZmEm8wZaR
https://strawpoll.com/polls/40ZmEm8wZaR
The actual answer is C. The cube gets crushed. Since the cube is stationary it can't move through the portal, right? So it doesn't. The top of it exists "in" the portal, and therefore is getting crushed by the crusher. You'd be able to walk over and sign/touch the top of the crushed cube by the A/B exit. You could probably even pull it out. Maybe it's springy enough it plops out a very deformed variant of A mid-way of being crushed?
>You could probably even pull it out. Maybe it's springy enough it plops out a very deformed variant of A mid-way of being crushed?
That spring back would be happening continuously accelerating the cube out of the blue portal as the orange one moves down. You would never have a situation where the cube just stays flat at the surface of the portal like you initially said. An elastic material would produce B since it pushed the cube out at the same rte the orange portal is moving down.
>In todays episode: morons learn what conservation of momentum is
you can not have the cube "emerge" from the portal at X speed relative to you and then have it suddenly stop for no reason
Objects with no intertia also don't suddenly gain inertia from a portal passing over them (be they hula hoops or disjointed magic circles). The cube gets crushed, unmoving objects can't move through portals.
Portals can't move because they aren't a tangible thing anyway. The surface they are on may move, but a portal itself can not.
>In todays episode: morons learn what conservation of momentum is
you can not have the cube be at rest and then suddenly launch into the air without an external force acting upon it
Then how the frick can an object be pushed through a portal if it has no forces acting on it?
>b.but the portal is moving, not the object.
Go back to school, learn about relativity, then choose a fricking reference frame, measure all the forces in the system and try again.
Relativity is a spook.
An object cant change its momentum 90 degrees without external forces acting on it either. Yet portals do that all the time.
>Game literally states that portals on moving surfaces is impossible
>morons argue about a dilemma that would only exist if portals could be placed on moving surfaces
play the ending of portal 2
>What is narrative convenience
The fact of the matter is that they cannot be placed on moving surfaces precisely because of the dilemma that is being argued over and over in these threads. Either you accept that the portals cannot be placed on moving surfaces, or you accept that if they ARE placed on moving surfaces, they simply break reality and that there isn't a definitive, physically congruent answer to the dilemma.
Those are your options, which is it going to be?
Play the neurotoxin chamber
Every surface is a moving surface in relation to something else though. The whole planet is moving in relation to the sun. Or is the rest of the universe actually rotating while earth stands still?
Bottom line, portals don't exist, never will and this debate is dumb
If we're going by the actual ingame logic, then portals can only move horizontally. They can never move directly toward an object. There are multiple instances where a surface moving in or out disturbs a portal placed on it.
how come nobody tested this situation in the game itself?
if its done can anyone share a link?
im just curious, no baiting
>my baby isn't stillborn because we're still in a car and therefore it's still moving and alive
This is your brain on b logic
@605594213
the absolute state of 2022 bait quality
you homosexuals are all wrong
its a
B-gays eternally BTFO
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO B-B-B-B-BUT MY ECELEB SPOKE TO A ~~*SCIENTIST*~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The platform decelerated before the cube was lifted through
the portal is barely moving when the cube goes trough it how is that supposed to be a proof of anything
the cube didn't emerge from the portal with enough speed to move so why the frick would it?
>If we put camera in certain way we can make physics obsolete
Unless you can explain how and why does box move with relative physics you yourself just think this is how it would work
>people in this thread who don't understand why when you board a train you're not blasted off to the back when it moves
I can't tell whether you're shitting on A-gays or B-gays.
Because it accelerates slowly. If it went from 0mph to 100mph instantly then yes, you would get "blasted off to the back"
>If it went from 0mph to 100mph instantly then yes, you would get "blasted off to the back"
Interesting. Can you explain why that happens?
Because of newtons first law of motion.
Which is?
An object at rest or in constant motion will remain so until acted upon with an outside force.
Therefore if you are in the bus, and the bus accelerates, the bus must first act on your feet, your feet act on your body, and your body on your head. Sufficiently high acceleration will shear off your legs and you will smash into the back of the bus where Black folk like you belong.
And can you tell me what force is acting on the cube?
In the case of portals there doesnt need to be a force because it's not accelerating. It was already in motion according to the frame of reference of the final state.
Similarly, if you fall into a 90 degree portal you will have changed from constant vertical motion to constant horizontal motion without a force. This is because in the final reference frame you were always moving in horizontal motion.
So if there is no motion acting upon the cube. Why does it move?
>So if there is no motion acting
You're wasting my time. State the question correctly or don't bother.
an carefully balanced egg is partially through a portal. one of the portals moves laterally, the rim never touches the egg. does the egg fall over?
Yes.
the only way for the cube to move is if the portal imparts a force onto it or if the portal kept moving relative to the cube
i think it would be sliced in half assuming the portal has no width
also, blue portal moving.
This isnt even accurate, the egg moved with the portal.
the bottom half still under the center of the orange portal resting on the podium.
You should include a proper Agay option. Your A still has the stationary egg move on the blue side.
that's just how portals work, if a ball enters the top of one portal, it'll exit the top of the other portal.
In the picture the orange portal moving shouldn't move the egg on the blue side. Portals don't impart momentum according to Agays.
A says portals are like hollahoops, the hollahoop is just moving to the left.
A says portals don't impart momentum, which they clearly do here.
It is already moving.
what force caused it to begin moving?
There didnt need to be one. It was already moving.
>Take an A4
>Make a hole through both ends of the paper
>Fold the A4 in half so the 2 holes align perfectly
>Prop an object on your table
>Now move the A4 vertically so you can see if your gay object magically shoots through the holes while passing.
You're welcome.
wait a minute... that paper with two holes folded in half...
You made a hole fit for ants, good job.
now move only entrance of the hole homosexual
this is why you hoopmorons do not get it, you can not comprehend the entrance to the wormhole staying in place while the exit from the wormhole is moving
B-gays, our galaxy moves at 500km/s. just give up
Both portals move at the same vector and speed, which is similiar to how 2 people in the same car move at the same vector and speed.
Put a portal on the ground. Put a portal on the wall. Drop a brick on the portal.
A. The brick falls to the ground at thall because no force accelerated it to change direction.
B. The brick flies out the wall because it was always flying in that direction from the current frame of reference.
Which is it in game?
The brick already has momentum going into the portal. That's retained when coming out the other side.
No. It didnt retain its momentum. It lost all of its y momentum and gained x momentum.
Glad0s is unironically lying. Momentum is not "conserved" by the portals, not of reality, not your own, nowhere.
Lmao nice try but there's a lorentz transformation for this.
>bgays try to demonstrate theirs moronic logic
>by changing completely the scenario.
Classic
>Ganker Video games and armchair science.
>agays dont understand the laws of physics are universal
Like pottery.
The imposter is sus.
This man is of no use to us and merely tries to confuse everyone with meaningless unknown variables, eject him into the space immediately.
>we hit the thread limit
good