Well?

The explanation for B is that an object entering an orange portal at a relative speed to that orange portal, will exit at the same relative speed out of the blue portal. This is shown with the moon as you said

>that the objects going to the moon literally move towards the portal
Can you give me a scenario where an object is not moving towards the portal yet somehow passes through it.

Can you draw it though?

The suction isn't sufficient to explain why Chells speed changes to match that of the moon.
The only explanation is that moving portals change your momentum

Air pressure shouldn't even be an argument, the moon's orbital velocity is perpendicular to Chell's exit velocity.

The suction isn't sufficient to explain why Chells speed changes to match that of the moon.
The only explanation is that moving portals change your momentum

>The portal Chell enters is stationary.
The one on Earth? Or the one on the Moon?

>From the average person's perspective, it would be that she enters a purely stationary portal and exits a portal that is moving along the moon's orbit.
She also enters the portal moving along the moon's orbit and returns through the stationary portal. Now what?

>motion of 0 compared to the environment
So the laws of physics are local now?
This is the problem with science education, people memorize rather than learn how things work, to the point they envision "forces" as some kind of inherent property of objects, when it's nothing more than a way to refer to arbitrary phenomena with the general laws of physics as background.
You first understand. Then you make the laws. Then you make the theories. Then you make the experiments.
Average teachers just fail to understand and focus on the laws instead. Thus we get millions of people who think they understand physics, when they just are stuck on semantics and can't properly get the grasp on the what the laws actually mean in practice.

Do you believe objects carry this tiny thing called momentum in their inner depths of their soul or something?
What do you think momentum is? As in the practical description of it.

An electron is what we would describe as an "object". A force is not.
Answer my question. What is momentum? Or what is a force?

No, see

No. An object entering a blue portal with X speed relative to it is going to exit the orange portal with X speed relative to the orange portal. This is what happens everytime in the game and is even proven to stand true with moving portals at the end of Portal 2.

You're an idiot. Got it.

How is the air pressure causing an over 1000 mph change in speed?

Which we explicitly seem in the scene isn't great enough to cause that much of a difference.

Fact is the change in speed happens instantaneously as Chell moves through the portal, meaning it's a change brought about by the portal.

Watch the scene again.

Because it can't explain other scenarios like the one on the moon (here

No. An object entering a blue portal with X speed relative to it is going to exit the orange portal with X speed relative to the orange portal. This is what happens everytime in the game and is even proven to stand true with moving portals at the end of Portal 2.

)

>Again I added numbers 2 posts up. A 20ft pole doesnt change the scenario at all.
No shit, I used the example of a 20 pole moving at 200mph out of the exit portal to exemplify and make more clear why a is dumb.
>A portal moving isnt the same thing as an object moving. If you cant understand the fundamental difference then ok but thats the crux of the issue
Firstly, you talk like a massive gay, secondly. WHEN DO PHYSICS APPLY TO THE OBJECT? You are suggesting that the object is not moving as it exits the portal which is to say physics are only applied on the end of the pole that hasn't exited the portal. I will give another example, lets take the exit portal, and as the pole is coming out you throw something onto the end of the pole, lets say a pot. The pole is shooting up at 200 mph, what happens to the pot? When this pole magically stops as you suggest it would, what happens to the pot that rode on the end? I will ask again, when are physics applies to the pole as it exits the portal? When does it go from some enchanted object with a forcefield that hold only physics applied as it was on the other side of the portal, to being forced up by the rest of itself upwards?

Returning to thread to remind all of you that
1. the very premise is absurd and self refuting.
2. Any logic that would result in A. is self refuting.
3. If you work with it the answer is B. and A. is utterly absurd.
4. you (apologies for prior harshness by the way) didn't answer

>Again I added numbers 2 posts up. A 20ft pole doesnt change the scenario at all.
No shit, I used the example of a 20 pole moving at 200mph out of the exit portal to exemplify and make more clear why a is dumb.
>A portal moving isnt the same thing as an object moving. If you cant understand the fundamental difference then ok but thats the crux of the issue
Firstly, you talk like a massive gay, secondly. WHEN DO PHYSICS APPLY TO THE OBJECT? You are suggesting that the object is not moving as it exits the portal which is to say physics are only applied on the end of the pole that hasn't exited the portal. I will give another example, lets take the exit portal, and as the pole is coming out you throw something onto the end of the pole, lets say a pot. The pole is shooting up at 200 mph, what happens to the pot? When this pole magically stops as you suggest it would, what happens to the pot that rode on the end? I will ask again, when are physics applies to the pole as it exits the portal? When does it go from some enchanted object with a forcefield that hold only physics applied as it was on the other side of the portal, to being forced up by the rest of itself upwards?

>what happens to the pot that rode on the end?
I think it is obviously absurd to say the pot, if the rod came to an abrupt stop (which wouldn't make sense but this is a hypothetical) wouldn't launch off of the rod as it moves (yes as it exits it is what is moving, the reason I was saying "when are physics applied" is because people who say the answer is A. imply that it is not moving, but you would have to be insane to deny that the object is at one point moving on the other end be it by plopping or launching, my argument is that once it is in the domain of exiting the blue portal, it is moving right as it is exiting and there is no logical way you can deny that), and if you can acknowledge that the pot would launch of of the pole, how can you deny that the pole itself would have forces applied upon exiting the blue portal? Say a laser in the blink of an eye cuts the rod in half as it is moving upwards at a constant of 200 mph would the uper half be launched off by the 200 mph half that just came to an abrupt stop? If yes then why wouldn't forces be applied if not? This is what I mean when I used words like magic and forcefield, the A gay implies that the object is not behaving as it necessarily would have upon exiting the portal as though the object is still entirely in the domain of the side of the portal that is orange in effect, but we know that makes no sense, because it is not. The answer has to be B. and nothing else is possible, if the piston is moving slow an answer like A could be replicated but B. remains true.

Address the questions "BuDdY". You simply cannot have a non self refuting position unless your answer is B.

Part one
and part 2
By the way.

Its not coming out of anything. The space is connected with a magical wormhole.
It's just appearing elsewhere.

There is a HOLE in the PLATFORM.
What do you think is on the other side of the blue portal once the platform reaches the pedestal?
The bottom of the pedestal.

>answer question
>no ackshually i asked another question earlier
dishonest circular logic.
typical B-tard behavior

It would appear on the other side very quicky.
Yes as if it were moving. But it has no momentum.
Such is a magical wormhole portal.
Thats how I imagine it.

NTA but no, not a velocity in terms of what you think it is. Look if you have the cube moving in 2d space it is not the same as the portal moving in 2d space. This is what i mean when i say that the speeds are not conserved and they are not the same.

Just plug in some numbers and that idea becomes glaringly obvious. Say piston is moving at 10m/s and say that the blue portal is 500m away. Now at the instance that the piston completely covers the cube it did so at 10m/s but now the cube is instantly 500m away. So what is the velocity of the cube? 10m/s? because instantaneously the cube traveled 500m in actual 2d space. 500m/s? No

the speed of the portal is not the same as the speed of the cube moving in 2d space, speedy in speedy out does not cover the entire picture

What I would say is the speed that the portal is moving can be classified as "the rate of teleportation". So if you are taking the numbers that I laid out and just looking at the blue side of the portal then you would see the point mass, cube, pole, whatever teleport or 'emerge' at a constant velocity of 10m/s.

HOWEVER and this is the crux of the issue, once the piston bottoms out, once the cube is completely covered, once the portal passes totally over it THEN that velocity does not govern anything else. It does not govern the cube's 'normal' movement in 2d space. The cube is not moving, afterall . The cube only teleported once and teleportation is not a velocity because it happens instantly with no time component.

On the orange side, we decide to set up the laboratory cartesian frame of reference where the cube is stationary at the origin and the orange portal moves down onto it along the z-axis at a constant, arbitrarily high rate.
So yes, in that frame of reference, we have a cube with mass and zero velocity.
Beyond the orange portal, we see the rest of the universe moving down closer to the cube.
From the blue side, we have the same cartesian frame of reference where the blue portal is stationary. Peering inside, we see the rest of the universe, including the cube, coming up at us, at the same rate that the orange portal is moving in the other reference frame. We see both of these at once because they are in the same room next to each other.
So we see the cube stationary, and we see it moving at the same time.

Take a point 1m away from the blue portal, with the piston at 10m from the cube that point is 11m away from the cube. With the piston 1m from the cube the distance to that point has changed to 2m without the cube moving at all, the space has moved. That continues happening as it passes through, the end location has been slammed down to where the cube already is and where it will stay.

Yes.

I would come out of the hoola hoop at the same speed that I go into the hula hoop. A hoola hoop is just a typical object that has two fixed sides. Unlike a portal, which has two sides that could be oriented (or perhaps moving) differently relative to each other.

If I was just standing there and you dropped a hula hoop onto me, I wouldn't be launched into the air.

If we stuck a go-pro camera onto the hula hoop and watched the footage, we would see my body moving at the same speed as the hula hoop dropped, in the opposite direction.

With a hula hoop, the laws of physics are the same on both sides of the hoop. If we painted one side orange and the other side blue, the world would behave the same on both halves.

Not so with a portal. The world could be in motion on the orange side, while stationary on the blue side, and vice versa, because the hypothetical properties of portals allows for the seamless transfer of mass through the portal's manifold plane, and any mass on the blue side would be subject to the orientation and velocity of the blue portal, regardless of the orange portal's motion.

The part of my body on the orange side would inhabit that side, and the part of my body passing through the hoop, as its being engulfed, would inhabit the blue side.
It would be like sticking your arm out of a moving car window. You would feel most of your body sitting in the seat, and you would then stick your hand out the window, looking stationary to you. You would feel air buffeting your hand at 60 mph, but someone outside the car would feel stationary air with maybe only a slight breeze, and see your hand flying past at 60 mph creating turbulence.

>x has y
>x is like y
You do understand that these are two totally different statements, right?

Holes are something people can enter.
Planes are something people can enter.
That doesn't mean planes are like holes.

Holes are openings through which objects can move.
Portals create an opening through which objects can move.
That doesn't mean portals are like holes.

Both share this linguistic similarity. That doesn't make them the same

--

Happy?

>A gays know that the portal doesn’t move
Relative to what?
>The cube is engulfed and revealed on the other side at the rate of engulfment. At a velocity of zero, it remains zero
The rate of engulfment can't be zero though otherwise the cube doesn't go through.
>Bgays think that the entrance imparts launch velocity to the cube because they don’t understand what a portal is
Bgays thinks objects that go through portal A have their speed relative to portal A transfered to be relative to portal B upon exit. In this animation, the cube wouldn't be bound to the entrance anymore after exiting once.

>At a velocity of zero
Relative to what?

You can only manipulate things mechanically. And what actually happens is that part of you is transferred to the other side and all interaction happens there. It's no longer next to you.
You can't use your local gravity to affect objects on the other side, probably also not magnets or static fields. Which means that portals don't create an opening in space, but merely transfer matter and light between two points. As such, you cannot treat things you see through them as physically consistent with your local conditions.

>But once it has fully entered the portal the floor sees it as rotated compared to the platform it once rested on
Wrong, it is still perfectly level with the platform/floor. The observer looking through the blue portal would see the platform/floor rotated as well.

They would see the world racing towards them stop abruptly as the orange portal hits the platform. Ergo, the cube would also stop.

It's still touching the platform. Why does it start moving relative to the platform?

What has given it momentum relative to the platform?

So if you put your face in front of the emerging cube you wouldn't feel anything because it has zero momentum?

It does have relative momentum, just not to the platform.

The platform never saw the cube flying away from it though, and when the portal stops the perceived movement stops too.

>relative to the platform?
The platform's frame of reference is no longer relevant.

Wrong, there is no objective frame of reference.

>the perceived acceleration of the orange world when it "stops"
So 0, because it stopped.

So the cube and the "orange world" it's in all decelerate to 0 simultaneously.

So the whole world flies away from the platform? It's accelerating in the opposite direction after all.

If it was never moving relative to the platform why would it need to accelerate the other way to stop?

>What has given it momentum relative to the platform?
Portals. They alter momentum without acceleration, this is the basis of their operation in the games.

Technically it does gain momentum relative to the platform, the platform doesn't disappear just because the cube emerges in another room.

It’s A Black folk, always has been.

>writing a 25+ page document just to be disproven by a single page [...]
oh, the mental gymnastics

Reading…

What does this look like with a really long 1D object?

Like a really long line

A gays can't explain the de-acceleration because they will conveniently forget that they showed how the cube is moving out of the portal and claim that the cube isn't moving

There is no perceptible length to 1d object.

They work in 2d top-down view, with a 0d dot is as measuring origin point, but you try to do the same from 1d perspective.

So a cube with zero momentum is going to exit the portal with zero momentum?

gg no re

Actually stuff gets sucked to the moon in game due to pressure differences, if the two different speeds applied properly chell would be torn apart half way through the portal.

>A gay changing the problem because his answer doesn't work otherwise
>again

Oh nvm, I thought you were making of a gay not an A gay lol

What is the cube doing out of the blue portal?

If the whole world is moving around you I think most people would say that you're the one moving

Yeah so from the relative perspective of someone in the world moving around you, you're the one moving for them! Wow, you just proved B with relativity

>Relative motion is not actual motion.
Do A gays really
If relative motion isn't actual motion, some sort of absolute frame of motion must exist. Which frame is that? I guess we are back in the 1800s again

Did you reply to the wrong guy? You just wrote why relative motion is the actual motion. Or are you trying to argue that neither perspective is the actual motion? If so, that's just a weird definition of "actual" motion since there can't exist such an actual motion

I'm just using the word that the A gay who doesn't understand relativity used. Every motion is relative, there is no true motion or "actual" motion, unless you go back to Newtonian physics in the 1800s

I don't think you understand relativistic movement
The bike breaks apart when it moves too quickly relative to the ground/the object it hits, not some bullet train it doesn't interact with

I'm on a bullet train observing the bicycle traveling at 200 km/h. I see it hit a rock traveling at the speed of 190 km/h. Relativistic math (ignoring the Lorentz factor) gives me 200 - 190 = 10. This is true no matter the perspective you pick (the train, the bicycle, the rock etc), again ignoring the Lorentz factor which doesn't matter at these slow speeds.

Those are not equivalent. The train stopping can be seen as either the train de-acceleration or the whole world outside accelerating equally to the speed of the train. In the same way the piston stopping can be seen as the piston de-accelerating or the whole world on the other side of the portal accelerating equally to the same speed as the piston. In both scenarios it will look like the cube is accelerating to a different speed than the piston (since it's not glued to it) and thus fly off

>A bike can only go so fast before it will fall apart
"A bike" is currently actually traveling through Space at over 100 km per second.
Doesn't seem to be falling apart so far.

>Agay btfo so hard he revert back to basic physics class level
ohnononono

>Relative motion is not actual motion
All motion is relative. It's just measuring the distance between two things over time.
>It's measuring the distance of ONE thing
Relative to its starting point. Distance can't be measured in isolation. There's always something else you're measuring it relative to.

The cube would be flying out of the portal at 150mph, not into the ground.

I would agree if portals had a 3 dimensional entrance and exit, but they're both flat and can essentially only join two different 2D portions of space

They're fourth dimensional by nature. The problem is that the entrance and exit are two 2D objects with 3D space behind them. But even by your rendition, the cube just bobs up and down more, never escaping the portals' general area.

To clarify this a bit, I have some related scenarios. Just to clarify when and how you think this force applies. To avoid killing the poor man let's assume the flying pillar is moving at 1mph instead of 50

- The man sticks an arm through the portal, then pulls it back
- The man walks through the portal, then walks back through the portal
- The man uses a jetpack to fly up to the flying pillar, then walks through the portal

What forces would the man experience related to the portal in these scenarios? Assume he has a newtonmeter or whatever on him so he can detect the slightest changes

1) given no air pressure, the man experiences nothing. He has no contacting force to override the stable force of his body. I'm not entirely sold on my theory here, but I think that's because I know that his hand is traveling while his body is not, regardless of how the universe would perceive it.

2) when he steps onto the 1mph side, it should feel like stepping onto one of those conveyer belt walkways like you see at an airport. Walking back should feel like stepping off.

3) I don't know if get this one. If the man is flying from stable platform to moving platform without going through the portal, then he feels like he's landing on a moving platform, and when he goes through the portal will get the feeling of stepping off of a conveyer belt like in 2.

You can elaborate or you can continue to claim baselessly. Choice is yours.

>t. Jimmy Neutron complex midwit
Thought so 🙂

Space itself is the 3d dimension, 4th dimension would actually be external to the universe (which would be exploited in a lot more ways than a mere portal gun the moment one has access to it), and 4th, much like space, doesn't exist.

The thing I'd, I don't believe the man should feel anything in 1. If he puts his foot down and touches the platform then I feel like things should change, but only enough for him to feel a strange sensation in his leg from the general vibration of the moving pillar. Emotionally, I feel like there should be something because I am biased to think about the motion if the platform, but logically the man should feel like he's reaching in and out if a window at home.

You speak gibberish for two sentences then pretend as if you proved something. You can see in the webm that gravity is not propagating through the portal as otherwise Chell would have fallen through the portal behind the cube.

I mean, this level of thinking is very basic, even animals understand it.

are you saying that a sufficiently weak material (say, a jar of lightweight sand) would explode (in this case, send the sand flying) if passed through the portal in the manner of OPs scenario?

Even if it's one long hole like a straw, it still enters and exits.
So if the cube is at 0° in state 1 and 45° in state 2 the vector is not pointing the same way. Thus the momentum is not the same

Okay, the portal is exactly as you describe. The two vectors are still different which means per definition the momentum is different in T1 and T2

Okay? It doesn't matter how the vectors end up different, they are still different. So as how conservation of momentum is currently described, the portal breaks that conservation

From an arbitrary reference point.
Let’s say the cube is now a square, a 2D shape. Let’s say the square goes through a 1D wide portal operating in the 3rd dimension, and it flips the square on its Z-axis. Now it’s “backwards”. How would a 2D creature describe it? Now, is that what actually happened?

>From all reference points
Incorrect.
>Facing left/Facing right
From what reference point? The square doesn’t move, it only emerges.
>Take the portals out of the equation
Then the square remains at rest.

As stated, the 2D creature is wrong (and is you in this situation). You’ve managed to make the same mistake inter-dimensionally, good job.

What literally happened was a 3D curve (imperceptible to the 2D Square). What the brainlet 2D creature believes happened is a 2D rotation (which would be perceptible to the 2D square).

What actually happened is space warped around the square. Then a scientist comes along and says “the square rotated!” When it did not.

>Put stick in square
>Hold onto stick
>Allow square to be engulfed and revealed
What happens?
A: The stick breaks because the cube rotated at such and angle it couldn’t take it
B: The person holding the stick gets launched into space as the curve flings him away
C: The stick feels like holding a stick… it’s just been curved by spacetime.
Think about your answer.

Concession accepted.

By B logic, the cube would not fly away in that scenario. It's the infamous A gay hula hoop cope

How is it not how it works in the game?

>it would stop.
why? The floor is lubed.

You can't have it both ways

>Engine limitations argument made for the 5th time in the thread

It either works like it does in the game or you can't use that as an argument

>Engine limitations argument made for the 5th time in the thread

I'm not talking about the space in front of the portal. You know, that cube shaped space that the cube suddenly occupies. IN FRONT OF THE PORTAL.