Yeah, I think we're done here.
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Yeah, I think we're done here.
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
This is what happens when you don't understand inertia.
This is what happens when you don't understand relativity.
Inertia is directional. Portals always violate inertia.
Inertia has got to be one of the most misused terms in physics. I actually consider it a red flag when someone throws the term around, because I know it's not required to explain things and if you really knew what you were talking about you would prioritise using well understood terms.
The problem is that nothing in physics is well understood by plebs, there are no terms you can use to describe anything physics related to them. The really, truly, deeply depressing thing to me is that knowledge of physics is actually above average here. Even the moronic A-gays are at least a little bit above the typical normalgay.
People can and do just live their lives without even the most basic of basic understandings of motion, and without any curiosity or intention to correct that.
>i animated my moronic delusions so you're wrong!!!!
Real skub bros know better
The box sitting on the pillar isn't being thrust towards the portal.
What you are doing is dropping an orange hoola hoop on it.
BBlack folk destroyed
Ummmm b sisters, what's our answer?
Why can't anyone refute
Because A is the correct answer and always has been.
Doors aren't actually portals, anon. They can take you to the other side of a wall, but can't turn you around and put you on the same side you started on.
Portals act like doors, though.
The act of going through a portal does not impart an object with more velocity or kinetic energy. Or are you claiming that portals INHERENTLY impart kinetic energy to an object traveling through them (which is not how it works in-game unless there is another force giving kinetic energy, like gravity)?
If you push a box through a portal would it receive more kinetic energy than the act of pushing it without a portal? So, if you pushed a box with a force of 5 N, would it travel slower/a shorter distance than if you pushed the same box with the same force through a portal? If so, where would that extra energy and speed be coming from?
Portals do impart kinetic energy though. If a portal falls over you at speed, the world behind it also moves over you at speed. Then, since no outside force is acting on it or you, it continues to move past you until you hit something. From the exit room's perspective it looks like you were ejected into it, thus gaining kinetic energy.
Both sides of the portal move together in that scenario. If the diagonal blue portal in OP's Lab Frame moved downwards at the same rate as the orange portal, then it would be like that gif.
Because things without mass can't impart velocity to objects they pass around.
So you’re asking why the man doesn’t fly upwards with respect to the house, right? Think. What is stopping that from happening?
The ground. The wall hits the ground, preventing it from accelerating downwards below the man.
Imagine you were standing on a tall pedestal holding a hoop wider than the pedestal. If you dropped the hoop, you would in fact accelerate upwards with respect to the hoop for as long as it takes for the hoop to hit the ground. Do feel free to refer to this explanation next time you post this image.
>If you dropped the hoop, you would in fact accelerate upwards
no, you wouldn't
>in respect to the hoop
>when you Achads beat the shit out of me and shove me into a locker, ACTUALLY I am the one beating you up and shoving you into the hallway because of relativity-
The perspective of the hoop is irrelevant
>when you Achads beat the shit out of me
>I am the one beating you up
Literally yes. Ever watch a weak person try to throw a punch at someone really tough? More damage ends up being inflicted to their hand than to the person. Because force is being applied to both parties equally. It's just normally your fist is better at withstanding it than the body parts you fire the punch at.
Hilarious impression of a Bgay, props.
It's literal physics, otherwise explain how the weak person hurt their hand?
Shush, you already lost
Explain how the weak person hurt their hand anon. The knife analogy would have a similar issue if it attempt to stab something tough as well.
>oh yeah? well what if you run into a wall? that would hurt, huh?
?????????????????????????????????????????
Uh, yeah… running into something hard would hurt. But I would never say that the WALL RAN INTO ME.
It wouldn't be accurate to say the wall ran into you, because walls don't have legs, silly.
It would be accurate to say the wall moved to you. All motion is relative. And since we've establish taking damage as a determining factor (or else the whole analogy about being beaten up is pointless) then the fact you were hurt by the wall is in fact demonstration of the argument that the wall can be thought of as moving to you.
>the wall moved to you
No it didn’t.
>all motion is relative
No, it isn’t.
>we have established-
No, we didn’t. What the frick are you talking about? When was that said in my post???
That other anon was right, Bgays are completely delusional and just make up/twists whatever scenario suits them.
>all motion is relative
>No, it isn’t.
And the Earth is flat.
>doood earth is moving at a trillion-
And that doesn’t matter. All of the motion of me punching and shattering your weak jaw with my left hook is contained entirely on Earth, making Earth’s motion completely irrelevant.
>is contained entirely on Earth
One could even say it is relative to Earth, huh.
>uhhhhh uhhhhhh
Earth’s motion is irrelevant in all scenarios described previously, thus it does not need to be brought up.
No, you moron. You keep hyper fixating on the damage part like an autist. The point since the beginning is that YOUR FACE ISNT MOVING TO MY FIST WHEN I PUNCH YOU
>but relatively speaking-
You are standing still, when someone throws a baseball at your face you aren’t moving toward the ball.
>YOUR FACE ISNT MOVING TO MY FIST WHEN I PUNCH YOU
Yes it actually is.
Please go back to school.
>go back to -ACK!
Spend some more time in the school yard, dweeb
>if you don’t think that walls move and run into you then you think the earth is flat
Uh, right… *give you a swirlie*
>muh reference point
But that is not how reality works. Life is not a diagram. When you fall off of a cliff the ground is not rising up into the sky.
>but my perception-
Perception is not reality. You can perceive that you are above 5 ft tall all you want, it won’t change reality pal.
>run into a wall?? NO NO NO!!! the wall ran into me!!!!!! the entire world shifted to hit me!
Do Bkeks realize how insane they sound?
>Uh, right… *give you a swirlie*
I accept your concession, ladyboy.
See
There is no difference between you running into a car at 20 km/h and a car driving into you at 20 km/h.
Were you to have your breakfast yesterday, you could've probably been capable of expanding that hypothetical beyond the specific examples of cars, yourself, and moving at 20 km/h.
Alas, malnutrition has evidently led to a complete lack of abstract thinking ability.
Eat well, anon.
>But that is not how reality works.
It is, the earth's reference frame is in no way special in reality.
>When you fall off of a cliff the ground is not rising up into the sky
>Perception is not reality.
So why is your entire argument built on your perception from the earth's reference frame being reality?
>reality changes based off of what I am looking at
statements made by the completely deranged
>reality changes based off of what I am looking at
So again, why is your entire argument based on doing that?
>Earth’s motion is irrelevant in all scenarios described previously, thus it does not need to be brought up.
The thesis was that denying relativity of motion is about as coherent as claiming the Earth is flat.
You were the one to bring up the Earth's motion I wasn't even talking about.
And it's just ironic that the first thing you did with it was rule it out on the basis of the relativity of motion.
>You keep hyper fixating on the damage part like an autist.
Says the anon talking about breaking someone's jaw.
>The point since the beginning is that YOUR FACE ISNT MOVING TO MY FIST WHEN I PUNCH YOU
It isn't when using a reference frame that defines it as such. But there is no absolute reference frame, all motion is relative. Basic physics anon.
>You are standing still, when someone throws a baseball at your face you aren’t moving toward the ball.
It isn't when using a reference frame that defines it as such. But there is no absolute reference frame, all motion is relative. Basic physics anon.
>all motion is relative
>No, it isn’t.
Basic physics anon.
>What the frick are you talking about? When was that said in my post???
>All of the motion of me punching and shattering your weak jaw with my left hook
You argued that damage isn't a determining factor and then immediately used an example that used the damage you do as a determining factor.
because he's a weak b***h trying to attack a chAd?
>old up busted hand
>"see? relative motion"
Pretty Based if anything.
>Bgay changes even the fictional scenario about getting beaten up in order to be right
You can’t make this shit up. They probably aren’t even consciously aware they’re doing it.
It's almost like you can't explain how the weak person hurt their hand.
>how the weak person hurt their hand.
Haha nailed it. He isn’t even aware that he changed it. He added in the “weak” part out of nowhere and was shocked to get a different result. Exquisite display of exactly the kind of mental disfunction that plagues Bgays.
I didn't change the part that matters, a punch is being made. Even stating one person is weak and the other tough don't actually change anything because
never stated how strong/weak the people involve were.
However we can conclude you were are too moronic to answer a simple question. Otherwise, you would have just answered it.
So would the hoop stop in mid-air? You should realize that all these thought experiments are variations of the same situation. That’s what makes them useful for discussing the problem.
ur mum suck me good and hard thru my jorts
What flabbergasting insanity. These peoples votes are worth just as much as yours.
Absolutely BTFO'd
A better example would be a train car with a hole cut out in the front (the interior of the train representing a universe moving in relation to you), if the train car swallowed you up as its moving you'd fly through the interior, not stop as soon as you pass through the hole. Anyways a physicist already answered this using wormholes.
Ok, but an empty window isn't a portal.
Start and end states are equal in the vertical direction.
Start and end states are not equal. A vertical/horizontal translation of energy occurs.
These are both correct.
Heh
i just shid my pants
YOOOOOOOOO!!!!
The fact that there are still Bgays after this post proves democracy was a mistake
moron
What happens to the people in the falling room?
Suicide, three bullet holes from the back of the head
If the portal transfers it's momentum to the stationary object then Earth must also transfer it's spinning momentum to the same object when it exits the portal.
nothing it just sits there, you can do that in the game
Holy moron. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Have ever heard this one before? The cube would start to shoot out but the opposite force of the stopping portal would pull it back to a resting state.
These actions and reactions aren't magical. Where is the action that shoots out the cube coming from and where is the reaction coming from?
It's called momentum, nothing mysterious about it.
cube snaps in half, with the upper half shooting through the blue portal
That's not how relativity works
you wouldnt know about relativity because you're absolutely moronic
Dilate
is that what you call it when you shove crayons up your nose
That's hilarious. How'd you come up with that on the fly?
By stomping your skull into the pavement, ape
i used to think this was real. but then i realize that the mass entering up through the portal will not just stop and will carry itself away in the air.
>stop
the cube isnt moving though? the cube is sitting at rest and no external forces are acting on it to move it from rest
Relative to the exit portal, it is moving. It doesn't matter which object moves. It only matters what speed an object enters and, therefore, exits the portals.
>Relative to the exit portal, it is moving
ITS COMING RIGHT AT ME AAAAA
in the second animation the momentum of the platform moving up is acting on the cuboid
what kinda additional space magic happens on the frame it pops and tumbles through the portal
>Error: Corrupt or unplayable video
Yeah, just like your memory of your physics education
>what kinda additional space magic happens on the frame it pops and tumbles through the portal
reread this sentence and post your corrections
that video is actually correct solution to this shit
it's a proof by contradiction
>assume portals like that can exist
>check what happens when you look at the portal's frame of reference
>check what happens when you look at the cube's frame of reference
>notice they are different, relativity says they shouldn't be
>conclude that the initial assumption is false, portals like that can't physically exist
Again, the conclusion is the whole scenario doesn't make physical sense. Both A and B are "not even wrong"
It seems like a dumb idea to conclude that something cannot possibly exist based on a flawed human framework.
Relativity is not compatible with quantum theory, yet aspects of both are illustratably true in the technology we use. Our frameworks and inherently flawed.
>Relativity is not compatible with quantum theory
Quantum theory is mostly a practical device, not an explanation of the universe.
portals disappear when placed on moving platforms
i used to think like this until someone pointed out that the whole world is a moving plataform
Relative position.
Anon meant "portals move" as in one portal is moved when relative to another.
There's no such thing as a non-moving, universal frame of reference. Everything is moving in at least one frame of reference.
not trying to be witty here, but what about the black hole at the center of the universe?
the universe doesn't have a known center
I'm going to be honest here, I didn't know this and its a dreadful revelation.
it just means there's no static universal background against which movement is measured against, it's not like we feel motion, rather we feel change in motion so acceleration/deacceleration
our galaxy has a black hole in the center, the galaxy is moving as is every other galaxy, everything is in motion when you find the right point to compare to
Either you've made one of the greatest discoveries in the history of astronomy anon, or you're very, very confused.
>There's no such thing as a non-moving, universal frame of reference
"with respect to the cosmic microwave background radiation"
The section in Portal 2 where you put portals on moving walls to cut neurotoxin hoses
>What do you mean? I did eat breakfast and lunch.
>The hole magically transfers its kinetic energy to an object passing through it because ...?
>is that what you call it when you shove crayons up your nose
you portal frame of reference is off. the portal is a hole Black person, so there is no flying box. It should be box frame and portal frame. box frame the portal is coming toward it, and the portal's frame the box is flying toward it.
None of this matter because the portal is just a hole.that fact that it is infinitesimally small length and the end happens to be anywhere moon goop is on makes your argument irrelevant.
speedy thing goes in speedy thing comes out
its not speedy thing
it would just slide down to the right because of gravity
The demo was interesting but I really don't like how they present the portal platforming. Mainly because it feels like you're meant to fail you're first attempt because the camera's going to do some flippy shit and you're expected to move in almost always the opposite direction you'd assume you should be moving in before entering it for the first time.
Also the gravity/grappling hook adds nothing and is just a really mediocre dash.
Depending on your interpretation of how portals work B could work, A on there hand just doesn't.
You know who else has to spend so long and so much effort creating "animations" and ellaborate setups to prove their beliefs?
Flat earthers.
That's you right now.
Now why don't you lift the portal way above your head anon?
momentum is relative, anons
you can clearly see the speedlines on the cube indicating momentum
b-but the cube ain't moving, the portal is!
>b-but the cube ain't moving
then why draw speedlines indicating its moving?
destroyed
Movement is a constant!
I don't switch doors which means I win the coinflip which means the cube shoots out of the portal.
now show the box frame.
>sitting perfectly still in a car going 80 mph
>watching the guy standing still outside the car move 80 mph in the opposite direction
>the standing guy will crash because he is moving backwards 80 mph, but me in the car will not crash because I'm sitting still
B gays unironically believe this
uh no hes actually moving negative 80 mph
all you have to do is look out the window bro, dont you understand relativity?
>sitting perfectly still in a car going 80 mph
You couldn't go one line without contradicting yourself.
Source engine treats moving portal like a solid wall where only the laser can go in.
Neither A nor B is correct.
I can't believe that for like a day I actually thought that A is correct
The cube changes location
So it moves
So it has momentum
This is just objectively true and can"t be discussed unless you just take a shit on physics as a whole.
>moves a relatively large distance over an infinitely small amount of time
wow so i guess it has a momentum of near-infinity then huh smart guy
Well, yes
Well damn, I don't suppose you could let us know what force of infinity minus 1 is acting on the cube in order to give it a momentum of infinity minus 1, as per Newtons First Law?
Whatever is making the portal work as it's supposed to.
I don't really need to tell you that a near infinite force would destroy the entire planet (at a minimum), do I? Considering that it doesn't in any depictions of their function I think it's fair to say that portals don't work in the way that you are saying
You're the one assuming amounts of energy. And then your conclussions don't make sense. You're spouting impossibilities for the sake of proving we're wrong, by just showing how faulty your logic is, and then expecting us to commit to the same level of nonsense.
When you make an hypothesis you must allow something to be true. In this case, it's the assumption that portals work somehow.
You don't need a near infinite force, whatever that is. You just need enough energy to wrap spacetime back on itself to connect two distant points in space.
Gravitational boosting works on the same idea. You fall toward the planet, you get some energy from your increased acceleration, which means you go faster, which means you escape the planet's orbit with more energy than you started.
Gravity is just one form of spacetime warping. Portals (wormholes) would be another.
You go into portal, you increase your acceleration due to the extreme warping of spacetime, you exit portal with more energy than you started.
That's why you keep getting faster and faster if you jump into portals directly above/below each other. You are going faster than terminal velocity because the portals are accelerating you even more than gravity would.
>You don't need a near infinite force, whatever that is
Yes, you do, according to
>the cube is moving because it changes location
If what anon says is true - the distance between two portals is not zero, but the time between travelling that distance is infinitely close to zero, then the velocity of the cube (distance=1 divided by time=0*) is infinity*. Momentum is a function of velocity, so momentum of the cube is infinity*. In order to move from rest to a momentum of infinity*, a force of infinity* is required to cause the cube to reach that state
The alternative is you take this statement
>You just need... to connect two distant points in space
Connect two points so that the distance between them is zero, which is how a wormhole 'works'. In this case the cube moving between portals is moving a distance of zero - aka not moving, no momentum, and no exit velocity.
For portals to even work, it has to be A
What part of your text makes you think A would be reasonable. Or maybe you have no idea what you're talking about? You're arguing for B if conservation of momentum is your point.
why is the idea of the momentum being absorbed into the platform not an option?
that's like saying if you slam a cylinder onto a ball sitting on a cement block, what must happen is that the ball must come shooting out of the cylinder because the momentum must go SOMEWHERE besides the cement block
>What part of your text makes you think A would be reasonable
The fact that the distance between two ends of a wormhole is zero. The cube can't have a positive momentum, because it's velocity is zero.
>You're arguing for B if conservation of momentum is your point
Newton's First Law states that an object will only gain a momentum if acted upon by an external force. No object is knocking the cube up into the air, so it will not be launched into the air
>The cube can't have a positive momentum, because it's velocity is zero.
False. Frames of reference come into play here.
Because energy goes back and forth and it would be like talking about why no one mentions the energy absorbed by a soccer player when kicking a penalty.
>False. Frames of reference come into play here.
From the reference of an outside observer on Earth, the cube is at rest (velocity = 0). It moves a distance of zero over a time of 1, for a total acceleration of zero. No object acts upon the cube to impart a momentum upon the cube and give it a velocity.
The cube has a momentum of zero.
>b-b-but when i look through the portal it LOOKS like its coming right at me!
Doesn't matter.
Now imagine you've actually played the games and tried looking at what's between two portals only to find out that there isn't anything because portals are just two holes connected together.
>Now imagine you've actually played the games and tried looking at what's between two portals only to find out that there isn't anything because portals are just two holes connected together.
The portals are moving relative to each other. The pencil is moving relative to itself.
Now imagine two holes moving relative to each other
>No object is knocking the cube up into the air, so it will not be launched into the air
The big error in this discussion is the assumption that nothing is actually acting upon the cube.
The fact of the matter is, the moving platform with the portal must actually act upon the cube and transfer its own kinetic energy into the cube in order to make the cube move through the portal. In your mind, remove the cube from the problem entirely, and only imagine what remains in its place, air. There's also air on the other side of the portal. As the moving platform moves, the air that is present in its path will get swept up by the portal, but there is also air on the other side of the portal just sitting there. You cannot add new air to already existing air without them interacting with each other. The molecules of the air on one side of the portal will collide with the molecules of air coming from the other, imparting kinetic energy from one to another. The extra kinetic energy in the system cannot be added from nothing, it must come from somewhere. So it stands to reason that the moving platform with a portal must sacrifice its own kinetic energy to move materials through the portal, giving air or other objects momentum where they had none before, at the very least so that materials on the other side can be pushed out of the way to make room for the moving materials.
So, confirmation of momentum, laws of thermodynamics, etc, depend on B being the more accurate depiction, though you will notice the platform being slowed down as objects pass through.
>The extra kinetic energy in the system cannot be added from nothing, it must come from somewhere
A bold thing to say about portals.
Gravity's doing the work there.
Sure, but who is overcoming gravity by pushing water back up?
It's not being pushed up, do you not even understand how portals work?
There isn't even any need for water going through the portal to push other water out of the way in this example, because the water is being pulled down by gravity it's moving itself out of the way.
The water would stand still
the water would lose all energy eventually
wouldn't there be a reversed gravitational force towards the blue portal?
t. physicslet
That would be interesting, if gravitational attraction itself passed through portals, but it simply doesn't happen in game so I guess not. Objects pass through portals but gravitational fields just don't (or gravitons or w/e).
>The fact of the matter is, the moving platform with the portal must actually act upon the cube and transfer its own kinetic energy into the cube in order to make the cube move through the portal.
No, it doesn't
See
So what force displaces the air on the other side of the portal? Magic?
>The extra kinetic energy in the system cannot be added from nothing, it must come from somewhere.
Can't fall without gravity.
It's producing kinetic energy from no potential energy, though. The entire concept of portals violates all manner of physical laws and concepts, which is why it's moronic to claim that they couldn't possibly generate kinetic energy from nothing when
>they do that in the game
>what you're suggesting they do still generates kinetic energy from nothing
The kinetic energy is not generated from nothing. The two portals are moving relative to each other, see
The pencil is moving relative to itself meaning it already has kinetic energy relative to its own frame of reference.
You're arguing against the wrong person and the wrong point. I was making a point based on the idea of the gif of a robot falling infinitely through a pair of portals. The pencil bullshit isn't at all relevant to that.
>That's not true. Gravitational potential energy is a type of potential energy.
Yes, but falling infinitely through portals produces an infinite amount of energy from no potential energy. If I was standing on the ground, I have no gravitational potential energy. If I instantly and immediately, without expending any energy, teleported a 1000 pound weight 500 feet into the air, I produce potential energy from nothing. Portals don't interact logically with kinetic and potential energy.
i think they pull energy out of xen
>The big error in this discussion is the assumption that nothing is actually acting upon the cube.
The portal is a hole
How can a hole hit an object and make it move?
No, it's a distortion of space, causing one location in space to be adjacent to another location in space it wouldn't normally be adjacent to. And in the examples we're talking about, it's even a moving distortion of space because it's attached to an object which is moving.
>It's a portal it's not real. It doesn't have to do shit.
Then your position is that it could behave like A, or behave like B, or behave like any other letter of the alphabet because it's fiction and doesn't actually have to follow any real-world rules. That's not incorrect, but it adds nothing to the discussion.
>It's producing kinetic energy from no potential energy, though.
That's not true. Gravitational potential energy is a type of potential energy.
>No, it's a distortion of space
That takes form in the shape of a hole, the two sides of which being in different coordinates.
It doesn't matter how hard you throw a hole at something, it can't transfer momentum or force to an object because it itself is massless and therefore has no momentum off it's own.
>You're arguing for B if conservation of momentum is your point.
P=m1v1=m2v2, see above
It's not massless because it's attached to a physical object that does have mass and momentum. The movement of the hole is bound to the movement of the object, if something passing through the hole hits a solid and unyielding surface present on the other side, it can no longer move through the hole, and the hole can no longer move around it, and the object the hole is tied to can no longer move.
>empty spaces have masses
Aside from being obviously stupid and wrong, it can't even work like this from the basic perspective of the game because otherwise ALL movement through the hole would be moronic to some degree by it's mass via a collision, when it's clearly stated and shown in-game that speed is preserved 100% going through a portal.
Tell me, what's the mass of the hole in this cylinder? Zero or not zero?
>otherwise ALL movement through the hole would be moronic to some degree
Running through, or launch an object through, or falling through, a portal that is stationary on both sides (like in the game) would not be moronic by anything more than the same air resistance running, or launching an object, or falling, would suffer from without going through any portals. What's different about the scenario all this discussion is about is that one side of the portal is attached to something that is moving relative to the other side of the portal. That something is doing work on everything that touches the portal the same way it would be doing work on anything that touches the something if it didn't have the portal on it, and it gives up its own energy to do that.
And again, a portal is not a hole. Moving X distance and passing through a hole along the way results in you being X distance from your starting position, but moving X distance and moving through a portal along the way results in you being a different distance from your starting position than X.
>Running through, or launch an object through, or falling through, a portal would not be moronic by anything more than air resistance
See
>It's not massless
Ergo, you're colliding with a solid object every time you come into contact with the portal. It doesn't matter if the portal is moving or not, because momentum transfer equations still work if one of the objects (eg. the portal) is stationary.
>must actually act
It's a portal it's not real. It doesn't have to do shit.
potrals are not wormholes
If the velocity of the cube on exit was 0 it wouldn't exit the portal at all. All of its atoms would just combine inside each other in an infinitely thin wedge when they teleport from one portal to the other.
the cube doesn't exist in a single point you unironic tard
if that were true the game would crash and your computer would explode
since it's not true a player can only fall as fast as the game is set to allow
The portals themselves. It takes an immense amount of energy to warp spacetime like that.
Alright so working off of how the portals work in game:
This stick figure steps through the portal. Does stepping through the portal at 5 MPH end up with him on the other side rocketing out at 25 MPH because he moved so much distance? Or does he end up still going 5 MPH because that's how fast he was moving when he stepped through the portal?
Because that's how fast he was moving relative to the enter portal.*
There is no "moving in general". Grasp that and then we'll talk.
So how am I supposed to know who's trolling who?
Are Btards pretending to be moronic?
Are Agays pretending not to know Btards are pretending?
How far does this go?
You aren't supposed to know anything, you're moronic
Anyone who pretends there is a clear answer is either trolling or moronic.
B Black folk at Stage 3: Bargaining
Wait a minute guys, I think portals might cause some sort of paradoxes...
if you simply make the exit to the portal .5 inches from the entrance to the portal, this becomes obvious.
You're just passing a hoop over it.
Not the same scenario, can you figure out what's different about it? Cmon you can do it!
If the cube has enough mass to displace the air in front of it, this means it can also carry itself further. The cube coming out of the exit portal has mass, inertia, velocity, momentum, energy, acceleration, whatever buzzword you want to use. It is moving, fast. Otherwise it wouldn't be coming out.
It's so simple it can be reduced to a semantics.
>throw hoop down over cube
>the cube moves up relative to the hoop
Huh? That can't be right. Can any Agays draw out how the physics actually works?
>change model
>model's outcome also changes
damn, A-bros, we're totally B-tfo'd
They are never going to understand this. A huge portion of people exit school without basic literacy, a basic understanding of physics is far too much to hope for.
>exit school without basic literacy
Anon I exited school with knowledge of 7th grader and I understand this, don't bunch me up with those morons.
what is one's eyes
thAnk you for proving a is correct
What happens now?
How about now?
One or both portals would terminate and you would just have two plates smashing into a cube.
The cube would be crushed by itself on both sides. How much depends on how fast and how strong the portal panels are pushing.
half of cube floats on either surface
Exits blue at the speed of both portals combined (relative to viewer).
What if the viewer is standing on top of the platform with the blue portal?
The same thing happens of course, the whole point of this stuff and the thing many people have failed to grasp is that physics has to work independent of observer as all motion is relative, but from his perspective the cube is flying away from him on exit at the speed of the orange portal.
why hasn't anyone just modded this into portal to end this fricking meme conversation once and for all
People have and you can just frick with the physics of the interaction to give any result you want, there are examples of both A and B "working" in-engine
yes they are
No they're not.
because it requires an assumption. Portals do not work on moving platforms so someone would have to code it specifically to work in one way, an assumed way, that might or might not be what the original developers intended.
>man pushing cube through portal
not relevant to the initial question
next
>platform pushing cube through portal
not relevant to the initial question
next
Depends on how you view it.
>see look i did an animation where it works like B
ok well see
it assumes that there's a single frame of reference, which is not the case in physics. I guess if you're talking about video game world then you're right.
What frame of reference do you need to suddenly impart an object with force without anything actually acting on the object?
If you've watched all of the webms and still could not understand a thing then there's no point in arguing with you, but here I'll try one last time. Try to view it in the portal's POV, you should see the block moving towards you and is not stationary
>but it's not moving
It is, imagine you're in space during all of this to make it easier to imagine, no backgrounds, no machines or w/e. Just the cube and the portal.
Anyway if you still couldn't comprehend what's happening then I'd recommend watching some simple videos trying to explain frames of references. Here's a kid friendly video where hopefully you'll understand a bit of relativity.
>Try to view it in the portal's POV, you should see the block moving towards you and is not stationary
POVs are not important. If they were, you could look through a moving portal that comes to a sudden stop, and all the objects on the other side (buildings, trees, people) would have to suddenly lurch forward and fall over because from your perspective it LOOKS like they should.
In other words, see
In their point of view YOU came to a sudden stop. You don't understand relativity, there are no single frames of references.
>In their point of view YOU came to a sudden stop
So why shouldn't I lurch and fall over? I was coming right at them!
Face it, relativism is a meme. Force diagrams and Newton's Laws are what dictate momentum and accelleration, not
>ITS COMING RIGHT AT ME
Did you applied force to come to a stop? if yes then you will fall since you are changing your velocity
Did they apply force to stop? then they should fall
No force was applied to stop? then nothing will fall.
Thinking With Portals, do it.
>Did you applied force to come to a stop?
The cube is at rest. A force needs to be applied to it in order to launch it, not the other way around
Here's the cube, in case you missed it
The cube was indeed at "'rest"" relative to its POV. here in case you missed it
Nothing is at rest. the earth moves around the sun, the sun moves around the milky way and it keeps on going.
Yuh huh, and what force acts upon it to launch it?
newton's law of Conservation of energy. The object is moving in space and will continue to do so until force is applied against it.
>until force is applied against it.
so what force was applied to it to accellerate it?
It did not accelerate, in fact it kept its inertia. You can see it here where it """GAINED""""
speed where no additional force was applied.
>It did not accelerate
I can clearly see it being flung to the right when it previously had no lateral movement
>in fact it kept its inertia
Inertia is a function of momentum, which is a function of force. What is the force pushing the cube to give it momentum to give it inertia?
>You can see it here where it """GAINED"""" speed where no additional force was applied.
You mean the guy pushing the cube through the portal? Unless you're trying to tell me that if you drop an object in a vehicle, it will fly to the back of it on it's own?
The box is moving, or not depending on how you look at it. That's what you call frames of references.
Yuh huh, and from this frame of reference, what is the force acting upon the cube in order to bring it from a state of rest (from this perspective) to a state of accelleration (from this perspective)?
Stand infront of the blue portal and look through the portal, the cube is already moving towards you.
If I'm in a car driving 60 MPH and I see somebody standing beside the road, they do not suddenly rocket 60 MPH in the direction I was traveling from if I slam on the brakes, even though they look like they're moving towards me.
They do. In your perspective the whole world around around you is moving towards you.
And from the perspective of somebody on the solar system the Earth is moving super fast, so that means the cube should shoot through the portal at 6 million miles per hour. You can pick and choose whatever frame of reference you want to justify how the cube might or might not move.
Wrong.
All that matters is the speed of the portal and the cube.
>if I slam on the brakes
Then it's you who avoided the pedestrian. He would have crashed into your car if you didn't.
It wasn't about a potential collision, just the idea that my movement or perspective does not impact the pedestrian's movement from his frame of reference. Just because I see the cube moving if I'm looking through the portal, it doesn't mean the cube is moving in its frame of reference, nor that it would move when it goes through the portal. We could find a hundred different reference points for relative movement that would suggest one or the other.
From the cube's frame of reference, it's not moving. Nothing touches it. Nothing gives it force. Why, from it's frame of reference, would it suddenly move super fast when going through the portal? Put yourself into the shoes of the cube.
Why? It's pretty arbitrary that only the portal's speed matters for this when the portal and the platform its on don't do anything to impart force to the portal. The entire argument is arbitrary in either direction. The portal violates relativity, so you can use it to justify it for either case.
Because in both your and their frame of reference the force is applied to you
>POV
See
There is no force
A wormhole (a link between two coordinates) is placed over the cube and it's coordinates are displaced
>There is no force
>A wormhole (a link between two coordinates) is placed over the cube and it's coordinates are displaced
The same way, the wormhole links two different speeds if the ends are moving or angled relative to each other.
>the wormhole links two different speeds if the ends are moving or angled relative to each other.
no it doesn't
objects passing through portals maintain 100% of their own momentum
>objects passing through portals maintain 100% of their own momentum
They literally don't, relative to the environment, as momentum is a vector quantity. Changing the direction changes the momentum. They only mantain their momentum relative to the entrance and exit of the portals respectively. There's no such thing as "own momentum".
>From the cube's frame of reference, it's not moving. Nothing touches it. Nothing gives it force. Why, from it's frame of reference, would it suddenly move super fast when going through the portal? Put yourself into the shoes of the cube.
The cube is undisturbed. It just finds itself in a new environment where there is relative movement.
>The cube is undisturbed. It just finds itself in a new environment where there is relative movement.
My entire point is that you can think of about a thousand different frames of reference to explain it one way or the other. The entire reason this argument has been going on for years is that it's easy to prove either correct because portals violate a bunch of physics and are arbitrary. From the cube's perspective, momentum is created from nothing if it shoots off. From a viewer in the lab's perspective, momentum is created from nothing if it shoots off. From the portal's perspective, the cube is moving and so it should shoot off. It's all arbitrary based on what perspective you're choosing to argue from.
>My entire point is that you can think of about a thousand different frames of reference to explain it one way or the other.
Not really. The one rule that is consistently observed is that the object leaves the exit at the same relative speed to the exit as it had relative to the entrance when it entered through the entrance. Other theories require to misunderstand momentum and they fail simply as soon as you look and them from a different point of view.
The A theory seems to be trivial at the start of this gif
but then you look at the same event from a different point and momentum is "created from nothing".
>The one rule that is consistently observed is that the object leaves the exit at the same relative speed to the exit as it had relative to the entrance when it entered through the entrance.
No. In game we never observe this rule because portals never move when they take objects. The decision of how that would effect an object passing through one is purely arbitrary based on what somebody THINKS should happen, with nothing to support it. You could also word the one rule that is consistently observed in the game the way I worded it here
The object is still going the same speed when it enters a portal, the direction just changes. Yes, this violates conservation of momentum, but B-gays are relying on the argument that conservation of momentum is violated.
The fact that the argument is based entirely upon something that violates physics means that no amount of arguing HOW physics SHOULD work will ever prove anything one way or the other. You can make an infinite amount of arguments proving it because there are literally no rules.
Portal happens on Earth, which is presumably moving in the Portal universe. When you walk in one direction and then turn around to walk in another, you are _not_ moving at the same "absolute", or "own", or "scalar" speed.
Launchgays are correct but not for the reason they think they are
Second one also takes place on Moon
The A explanation is logically inconsistent. It doesn't make sense even conceptually, because it relies on the existence of an absolute frame of reference and results in the cube behaving completely differently depending on where you're looking at it from. It's also literally disproven in-game during the moon portal sequence.
The B explanation has magic portals that violate conservation of momentum. The A explanation doesn't work even if you accept that portals are magic.
From the yellow portal's POV, the cube is smashing towards it, therefore the world around the cube, the Orange portal's world, will zoom around the cube. In the cube's POV it is at rest but will see the world around it fly pass it.
What is the force acting upon the cube to move it from its initial point on the platform to the final point on the slope?
>Nothing is at rest. the earth moves around the sun, the sun moves around the milky way and it keeps on going.
>newton's law of Conservation of energy. The object is moving in space and will continue to do so until force is applied against it.
If that's the case, then why would the portal actually need to go all the way over the cube? Shouldn't it shoot through the portal anyways, even if the portal is still a couple of feet away from the cube? And, for that matter, shouldn't any object that goes through a portal shoot through and gain a lot of speed? After all, it's moving super fast through space and it touches the portal. And if we combine both of those ideas, wouldn't a portal just being near an object mean it rockets around?
Imagine the earth as a tube in space, you are standing on a platform and you see the earth pass around you at great speed. In their POV you are the one going through the earth while they are stationary.
Yes, I realize that, but I am poking obvious holes in your argument based on exactly what you're saying but you're ignoring them to spout off about easy relativity shit.
>So why shouldn't I lurch and fall over? I was coming right at them!
The reason things "lurch and fall over" due to an abrupt stop is not due to the act of the stopping itself but the rapid changes in the forces enacted on and by them putting them out of balance.
In other words, you don't need "a portal" to do the dumb thought experiment from
.
You can just move your head around and observe the world accelerating and decelerating around you. And the reason the world doesn't abruptly collapse due to the rapid change in observed movement is not due to some mysterious and ridiculously unscientific "inherent movement" - it's just that the acceleration and deceleration produced by such movement is universal and perfectly even, creating absolutely no way for inertion to present itself observably.
And our dumb planet is a great example of relativity at work, as everything on it is constantly spinning at ridiculous speeds while zooming through Space at speeds even more ridiculous. And yet, you feel nothing because everything surrounding you moves evenly.
This is why the entire hypothetical is fundamentally flawed, moving portals create mutually exclusive frames of reference.
With portals, you don't need a force to change an object's position.
With portals, you don't need a force to change an object's speed.
I'm going to throw a doorframe over you and launch you into space if you ever post this again
Okay but what about THIS
yes
no
> I don’t know what normal force is
What’s stopping you from sinking into the earth via gravity dumbass
which one Ganker?
Both
My heart says right
not mutually exclusive
A more interesting question is if the platform ALSO goes through the portal and out the other side. Do people still think it would shoot the cube or would the cube rest on platform when it stops?
cube shoots. it's like you are resting a cube in your palm and you thrust it upwards when you pass through the portal.
>play a pending Heroes of Might and Magic IV campaign
>or put my ass to work on finishing an animation (last modified 8/10/2023)
Decisions...
What happens if the cube stops right before the entrance
it would get sucked up into the other portal and shot out for some reason
>cherry picking frames of reference
yawn
is Ganker 70iq board or you guys are just trolling?
Mostly kids who didn't finish highschool and therefore were not able to study elementary physics. That or people who can't visualize an apple.
Let me guess, one of you is A-gay and the other is a B-gay.
Well, Ganker?
wait I finally get it
If i pull your arm, does it fall off?
You think we're done?
Son, we're just getting started.
But the cube has no momentum.
You should be able to solve this
In this case, both portals are moving though, so the exit portal cancels out the "momentum" of the entry portal.
It cannot be solved since portals don't exist.
Physics bros: do wormholes somehow demonstrate the incompleteness or incoherence of relativity? It seems like they reveal anomalies that are incommensurate with the theory. Or is it wormholes themselves that are anomalous?
The latter
Aren't they consistent with relativity?
I have no first-hand evidence proving otherwise.
physics didn't stop as newton afriends
it's just not moving you stupid homosexual
>A-gays:
people who don't understand physics, talking about physics
>B-gays:
people who do understand physics, talking about physics
Gee I wonder whose affirmations to believe when I compare
this
to this
It’s more
>Afriends
Talking about how the portals in-game work, clearly gamers
>Bgays
Talking about random shit about physics completely unrelated to the game, moronic Gankertards who wandered onto the wrong board
Yeah but...
>A-gays
wrong
>B-gays
right
so yeah your analogy of le-smart gamers doesn't work
>Afriends
Right, because they understand how the Portal portals work
>Bgays
moronic Game Theory watching Gankergays who have never played Portal and don’t understand how Portal portals work
Portals in moon scene preserve relative velocity like in B. There are no example where a portal works like A in game.
>but the uhhhh moon scene-
You do not understand the Rule of Cool. Of course, since you never played Portal 2 and just looked up the end scene purely to use it as evidence for the Bgay argument, I cannot expect a soulless homunculus like you to understand
Why would you be laughing? You would get moon rock cancer. Again, you would know this if you had played the games. Tsk tsk…
>A-freinds
Think how portals work in game doesn't actually count and we should ignore the games.
>A-gays:
people who don't understand physics, talking about physics
Where is that ugly moronic admin who moves this shit thread to /b/ when we need it?
>doooood uhhhh—- *shits pants and dies*
You didn’t get the moon scene.
Why do you argue like a Christgays when a Gnostic says Yahweh is a Black person?
>seething about Christians unprompted
ROFL LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Christgays always end their argument with either God moves in a mysterious way or I'm better than you. There is nothing in between.
>muh moon
Air is molecule, you low IQ moron.
Functionally it makes no difference than putting a portal between a full water tank and an empty one.
It's okay anon, when one day portals are invented, I won't know where you are, but I will laugh knowing that you'll know you were wrong all along.
>Walk halfway through a portal
>Don't get ripped in half when you stop by magical portal momentum
WTF B SISTERS?!
if I pull your arm will I just rip it off or will the energy transfer to the rest of your body?
By the B model the arm would be ripped off by two opposing forces.
no it would be like half of the cube being yanked and the energy transferring to the stationary part, just like me pulling on your arm
>just like me pulling on your arm
If you pull on my arm such that it accelerates infinitely fast it will fly off because my shoulder can’t generate infinite force
sure but when the portal is moving down on the cube to swallow it precisely at the same speed it exits, if the piston stops instantly then I see why it would be ripped in half because that's an instant stop
No, according to the B model there are two simultaneous forces
>The force halting the object's momentum on the entrance side
>The magical, greater portal force pushing the object out on the portal side
The object should, by B logic, be pulled apart, torn in half even if the body cannot withstand the opposing forces being exerted on the body.
Or, and hear me out here, it's just a magic hole
wow B gays really just left the thread
It cannot be solved, b***hing about A or B is like arguing over Harry Potter spells.
B makes some sense while A makes no sense at all. At some point I though that this is something people use just to troll each other but now I'm sure that A morons actually exist.
Visually, B looks correct but wrong in theory due to portal magic.
I stand by what I said in saying it's currently unsolvable.
Wrong how?
Portals don't exist, everything said about the question is conjecture.
>"no its a because momentum"
>frames of reference proves it as b
>doesn't understand physics enough to grasp it or try to refute it
>"heh.... actually its neither a nor b!"
you're not fooling anyone
momentum is created from nothing if two portals which are moving but stationary towards each other receive a moving object, because momentum is a vector quantity and a change in direction constitutes a change in momentum in a world where everything is relative. since portals are always at least moving but stationary towards one another (earth spinning, earth orbiting, sun orbiting etc), they always create momentum out of nothing
>they always create momentum out of nothing
That is literally my point. In every single interaction with portals, they violate the laws of physics. So it's moronic to sit there and argue that, by the laws of physics, they SHOULD work this way because the entire way they work is arbitrary and violates the rules you're trying to argue with. The result can easily be argued one way or the other from an arbitrary frame of reference.
unless, as the image i poster earlier suggested, they recoil as an object passes through them
Yeah, we could invent a lot of arbitrary rules based on nothing to explain why the portals might work a certain way.
And nearly all of the rulesets we could come up with would behave like B. Absolutely none would behave like A.
You understand the ones in support of A are trolling right?
I've been on this site for nearly 2 decades. I know for a fact that it's full of genuine morons.
The ruleset posited by the game that portals perfectly conserve the object's speed relative to the viewer (player) and ignoring direction would support A. The cube is not moving so it doesn't start moving because portals never makes things start moving faster in any direction. This ignores the laws of physics as much as literally any other explanation, and it's as stupid as any other explanation. If you go purely by game logic, A is correct.
The entire reason the argument is so volatile is because it's easy to justify either, and also easy to poke holes in any argument, because they're all based on literally nothing but personal feelings and what you think makes most sense based off of something completely subjective. It's arbitrary.
>The cube is not moving
The only way this would be the case is if the experiment caused the exit portal to suddenly get crushed into the ground in order to make room for a stationary cube. Or the exiting cube is crushed into an infinitely dense 2-dimensional object. Or some other esoteric scenario that still isn't A.
No, the only way this happens is if you consider portals to be doors. Like how the game considers them. A portal does not impart any force or motion onto an object passing through it in game, even if logically by physics it does because of a multitude of reasons. IN GAME, that's not the case. As far as the cube is concerned, it passes through a weirdly shaped door. We don't know if that changes if the portal is moving (because that doesn't happen in game) but based on the game's rules it shouldn't. That ruleset is arbitrary and violates the laws of physics as much as everything else to do with the portals, though. Either way, the cube should not be moving at all because no force acts on it, and by the game's rule set objects do not gain speed in any direction when they pass through portals unless gravity is involved.
How does the cube exit the portal if it is not moving on the other side of the exit portal. Either the exit portal is forced to move backward at the same pace the entrance portal is moving, or every "slice" of the cube that goes through the portal remains in place, infinitely overlapping with itself. Any scenario that involves the cube remaining intact and the exit portal stationary will not behave like A.
I agree with you that we can make infinite "arbitrary" rule sets, since I just made up a couple, but neither of us have proposed one that would result in A.
When a cube changes direction it has accelerated massively in that direction. A cube that goes in left at 10m/s and comes out moving right at 10 m/s, has changed its velocity by 20m/s. Speed and velocity is changed all of the time in-game.
This logic doesn’t work for portals. If cube goes in portal A at 10m/s and then comes out in another direction moving at -10 m/s relative to the initial movement, at what time in its movement was it moving at 3 m/s?
the change is instant
.yeah that’s why I think B is dumb. A doesn’t make sense through traditional physics since it requires the cube to change positions with no velocity, but it’s accepted as just part of how portals work.
B just plugs in infinity whenever something seems contradictory but very selectively
any change in direction is literally change in momentum no matter if you want to dismiss it
velocity consists of two components, speed and direction, so it's a vector
Portals function by altering the direction of the velocity vector without changing the absolute speed
there's no absolute speed because every speed is measured in relation to something
>actually we just use speed to describe how it’s moving relative to the Earth :^*~~)
Typical B pseud nonsense
soooo truuuuuu sister
That's a claim that is automatically only true in the reference frame where the portals aren't moving and will cease to be true in the reference frames where they aren't:
>but it’s accepted as just part of how portals work
No it's not.
The basis of portal operations is that they change the momentum of objects in order to work as passages, this is literally what they are doing when they change the direction something is travelling. This change is also instant and literally what the portals do in the games.
>B just plugs in infinity whenever something seems contradictory but very selectively
But that's A.
B is accepting that portals "just work" as an axiom, otherwise it's basic physics.
A is accepting that portals work in a few dozen complex ways all producing different results with no explanation whatsoever.
This is why B has seen plenty of other examples being posted over the years with various degrees of relative movement being given to the entire system and it continues to "just work" in all of those cases, while A immediately ceases to function and requires inviting a new explanation for why it worked like this in the original example but no longer works like this in another example.
Portals in the game itself are most likely implemented closer to A, because inside the game there is an absolute frame of reference.
But the idea behind portals results in A making absolutely no sense, and the Moon cutscene proves A wrong, as portals placed on Moon and Earth would move at absurd speeds - be it relatively to each other or """absolutely""", yet all we see is the pulling force of the air being sucked into the vacuum, which does align with B, like literally everything else does.
Seemingly it's instant, clearly part of whatever magic teleportation the portals are doing, it takes however long that process takes. While the cube is half way through the portal, to the observer stood nearby half of it is moving +10m/s and half is moving -10m/s.
I pick B.
Not because it has more or less scientific evidence or reasoning.
But because of the rule of cool, I think the cube flying fast would be cool.
people who don't understand that it's /b/ should be enslaved
Something to consider for A-gays stuck on "where does the momentum come from"
If I place two portals, one directly above the other, that already breaks the conservation of momentum, since the object would be infinitely falling and accelerating. Imagine some kind of waterwheel setup which would create infinite energy.
These points were already made in thread. Ironically against a B-gay, I'm pretty sure, to explain why his reasoning was moronic.
>would create infinite energy
Bold of you to assume operating portals would consume less energy that the water wheel would produce.
>that already breaks the conservation of momentum
No it doesn't, the force applied to an (infinitely) falling object is gravity. Gravity will keep acting upon the object to accelerate it to a terminal momentum, until another opposing force acts on it (eg. introducing a floor). Every step of the momentum equation is accounted for.
B breaks the momentum equation because there is no force that anyone can point out to push the cube from a state of rest to a state of velocity. A doesn't break the momentum equation because in both ends of the portal, the cube has the same momentum (zero)
>A doesn't break the momentum equation because in both ends of the portal, the cube has the same momentum (zero)
Even if you ignore momentum being a vector (which you shouldn't) and only care about the magnitude, the cube has to move out of the portal. That means the scenario would "break the momentum equation twice, once to get the cube moving out of the portal, and again to suddenly make it stop as soon as the last atom has finished crossing.
At what point does the cube begin to obey the rules of the "new space". Because in the new space, the cube is in motion.
>A doesn't break the momentum equation
Unless you are doing things in a vacuum, the cube is going to bump into something on the way out and cause an increase in energy. You can create even more free energy than you would with B since you are effectively creating a device that can move things for less energy than moving it directly. B is limited to a one time event similar to how changing direction changes the objects momentum.
>it's relative!!
imagine trusting a israelite.
The simple fact is that zero A-gays actually understand the B-gays point of view. On the other hand, nearly every B-gay understands why A-gays think it's A. They just understand it's wrong.
A is correct but only because the cube would emerge in the middle of the ramp (platform) and slide down.
B gays seem to be wired wrong in the head and can't let portals be portals and instead think of them as solid.
It is (or should be) understood that gravity acts in both cases, making the cube slide down in A, and making the cube follow a shooting arc and eventually fall in B.
>A-gays still think it's possible from something to change positions without moving
like clockwork
The cube isn't changing position, a new space is moving into it's position.
Would that relationship of movement between the cube and the new space be affected by whatever happens to the previous space once the cube has crossed?
Yes, otherwise individual particles that have crossed would become disconnected from the ones that haven't and the cube would become a cloud of particles
How far back? A molecular interaction length? An inch? A mile? At what point would that connection be severed?
The length of the portal which is zero.
We know this is not the case because electromagnetic forces can travel through the portals as evidenced by us being able to see what's on the other side.
>How far back?
As far as the light can travel.
At what point does this potentially infinitely sized bubble of pre-portal universe rules pop, allowing the cube to behave according to the rules of the post-portal universe instead.
The pre and post-portal universes do not exist independently, they are the same thing.
A gays keep bible-thumping the games as if they simulate reality and aren't made up of a bunch of optimization tricks and concessions made in favor of gameplay
My question is, what happens in the either of the games: "A" or "B"? There's your answer. Valve couldn't have gotten it wrong, either, since this is all israeli abstraction, anyway.
Bgay, humor me this.
What if the piston only go through half the cube? Does your precious momentum still make it fly?
Yes, proportional to the amount of mass of the cube that started moving out of the portal before the piston stopped. The moving part of the cube would tug on the stationary part like a goofy inelastic collision.
Expanding on this, if the piston movement is not fast enough, or the fraction of the cube through the portal is not large enough, it might "hop" a little bit, unable to overcome the gravity acting on the lower portion of the cube. On the other extreme, if the movement is fast enough, and the stop is sudden enough, the top half of the cube pulling on the bottom half of the cube could be violent enough to rip it apart.
Whatever you thought would happened before will still happen for the first half of the cube. What would make you think anything would change the mechanics of the problem?
What's the point of arguing on the internet?
to keep the collective human knowledge afloat, in a sea of false garbage spewed by self-affirming morons.
It is tiresome
But you're not going to convince anyone. Everyone is dead set in their ways. Even proof isn't going to sway their opinions.
that's why it's tiresome, but it's the white man's burden. To carry the unknowing and enlighten them
would you rather we not taught anything to anyone? You were taught once, and so was I.
Relativity homosexuals don't understand that the cube moves forward relative to one portal but at the same time it moves backwards relative to the other, canceling out.
One day some autistic mother fricker is going to invent portal technology just to finally prove this stupid fricking drivel.
ok but this makes a lot of assumptions about how portals work, it would be the same as me showing you the "hoola hoop" meme to prove it's A
it must be B. because the cube moves out of the exit
>B is right!
No it isn’t.
>relativity!
But I’m observing the object from a side view. From my perspective nothing is being imparted
>n-no I mean the cube’s-
??? The cube doesn’t have eyes.
>imagine that you were standing on a train while-
But I’m not. I’m on solid ground.
>t-technically the EARTH isn’t solid ground because it’s uhhh moving at a billion miles per-
No, it isn’t. Again. I’m on earth, I think I would notice if it’s moving that fast. Wouldn’t I fly past the sun?
>w-well, no. everything in the solar system is uhhhh like uhhh perfectly rotating around the sun to give the appearance that nothing is really moving that fast-
Okay, we’re done here.
if you observe it from the same vantage point as the OP image then you'd see the cube move out of the blue portal
OP’s post has weird dual vision, which isn’t realistic.
I mean just look at the left side
t. flat-earther
B(bros) won
A gays lost
Won't elaborate any further.
A
>Oldgays
>Uses simple to understand and real life examples (Car, Hula Hoop, Falling House) to explain their position
>It’s common sense
B
>newbie
>Uses complex wall of text examples with more made up physics and completely different scenarios (trains, piston buildings, dildo cars, floating cube shit) to make people jump through hoops (ironic)
>”Ummm aktually the YouTuber said it’s B!”
B
>contrarian oldgays
>brainlets
B
>at least able to get to the level of basic newtonian physics
A
>sun revolves around the earth tier
“Basic level” as in “doesn’t know why pedestrians stop when you slam on the breaks”
>basic newtonian physics
Black person not a single Bgay has ever once been a able to point out the force acting on the cube to launch it airborne
What's the force that causes the portal to change the direction an object moves?
You either define that as a force, in which case you have your answer. Or you don't, in which case you've established portals can change object momentum without needing a force.
wow sidestepping it again
what a surprise
The force is brought about by the portal then.
Feel free to answer the questions I gave you.
portals are massless, they cannot apply a force
try again
>What's the force that causes the portal to change the direction an object moves?
You're in no position to refuse to answer the question since it would be hypocritical given your complaints about "side-stepping".
see
So you're a hypocrite then, got it. I'm not that anon by the way. Einsteinian physics surpasses newtonian and einsteinian physics says things can change motion without it being defined as a force.
>Agays dont understand basic Newtonian physics!
>UH UH UH ACTUALLY I MEANT ADVANCED EINSTEINIAN PHYSICS
yeah ok so what "things" are acting on the cube to impart a velocity on it?
The effect brought about by the portal. The same effect that causes the momentum of the cube to changed. Which portals literally already do, see the video in
>"The effect"
you're going to have to be more specific man
is it gravity? is it force? is it electromagnetism? or are you're just going to invent an entirely new universal fundamental force that specifically only applies to portals in order to justify B?
The people who made portal invented the force. It's a game where magic sci fi portals can teleport objects and change their velocities. Unfortunately your understanding of the world is so incredibly poor that you haven't even realised what goes on in ordinary portal gameplay yet, you should spend some time thinking about that before you start worrying about slightly more advanced hypotheticals like the whole A/B thing.
>its the effect
>its a new force
>its sci fi magic
>i cant (wont) describe it
So we can all agree that Bgays can't come up with a solution that satisfies "basic newtonian physics", right?
>newtonian physics applies fully, but do so with the understanding that the portal itself will change the object's momentum the same as it does its position
Works fine. Your problem is you keep insisting on an explanation how the portal changes momentum even though you already accept that it does.
>the portal itself will change the object's momentum the same as it does its position
So the portal, a massless object, is the one applying a force to an object with mass? Is that the answer you're going with?
Sure, it's the answer you can go with. You've the one needing to find an explanation for how the portal changes momentum after all. Are you happy with your answer?
>Are you happy with your answer?
Well no, because the portal is a massless object and cannot transfer force or momentum to an object with mass
>but they can change the vector of a velocity!
It breaks a lot less rules of physics to say that portals can both relocate objects and redirect their the scalar speed than it does to say that they conjure Newtons out of the ether to physically change the momentum of an object (without resulting in whiplash, somehow)
>It breaks a lot less rules of physics to say that portals can both relocate objects and redirect their the scalar speed than it does to say that they conjure Newtons out of the ether
Those two things literally entail each other:
the portals aren't doing anything important in that gif that a normal wall doesn't do.
Have you never bounced a ball? Never seen an AC circuit? Shit reverses course all the time.
Sure the thing happens instantly with a portal, but ok, so what? That's just an idealization of real life behavior, which is required in literally any physics problem ever.
>you're going to have to be more specific man
No I'm not, not unless you intend to be a hypocrite. Because you yourself have not cared to figure out the exact nature of how a portal alters an object's momentum when it changes an object's direction. You have simply accepted it, because it's what they show to do in the games. Your problem is you haven't grasped that a portal changing an object's momentum by direction and it changing an object's momentum by speed is the same thing,
the capability to do one of those things means the capability to do the other.
Portals are attached to objects that do have mass.
The piston is not interacting with the cube
If the surface of the wall did ever interact with the object passing through it, then you'd be faceplanting into a wall every time you went through a portal
>The piston is not interacting with the cube
How do you know? How do you know that portals don't used the mass they are attached to as part of their opration?
>If the surface of the wall did ever interact with the object passing through it, then you'd be faceplanting into a wall every time you went through a portal
No, the resulting force would instead be how your motion is changed by the portal, which is something that portals literally do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASUUN0W4_JY
>in which case you've established portals can change object momentum without needing a force
This is observable in the games and should be treated as given.
The same force that causes cubes to change direction when passing through portals in-game. What that is I don't know, portals are kind of magical, they very clearly apply forces all the time, you'd be aware of this if you had even the most basic grasp of newtonian physics.
Portals operate on magic period, they don’t use magic to apply a force.
Ok then, what applies the force then when the cube changes direction if not the magical portal?
There is no force. The cube passes through a magic hole that changes its position and orientation in space
And velocity.
As a consequence of magic changing its position in space, not as a result of directly acting on the cube.
It changes the cube's movement direction without acceleration, displacing the cube has nothing to do with it.
A change of direction is acceleration. What you're saying fundamentally doesn't make sense. Acceleration is a "thing" that "causes" something. Acceleration IS the change of direction. A change of direction (or more specifically a change of velocity) IS acceleration.
You can put two portals on the ground and drop a cube into one of them. It goes from going down to up instantly, which would require infinite acceleration.
We see it happen, so you either accept that portals can alter velocity without acceleration, or that infinite acceleration is possible.
Yes, infinite acceleration is possible in portal. Assuming the portal effect genuinely takes 0 time to act anyway, that's basically how it's treated in the game but it could be that they actually take a very small amount of time to take effect, in which case the acceleration would be very high but not infinite.
Your complaint is nonsensical. Acceleration is a change in velocity, so if the velocity changed that was acceleration. You can't accelerate without accelerating. You can't change velocity without accelerating because that's the same thing as accelerating without accelerating.
Acceleration is a function of force. Infinite acceleration would mean infinite force.
Yes it is a paradox but you do see the change in velocity occurring without a force being exerted on the object. Where you put the line is semantics, whether it's acceleration without force or redirecting velocity without acceleration.
You can't eat a burger without eating a burger. Portals change velocities. Portals accelerate objects. Yes, they seem to have the power to apply infinite force (although again, all it requires for the force to not be literally infinite is that it takes some amount of time above literally 0).
I'm not an American I swear.
Do you think Chell experiences near-infinite forces going through portals?
Or accelerations for that matter, what's the requirement to be an astronaut, what is the maximum someone survived?
Her velocity changes very quickly, so I don't need to think that, I know that. Luckily it changes in a very unusual way, basically taking effect on all of her as she is simultaneously teleporting, so from her perspective she wouldn't actually feel anything at all, it would appear that the entire universe has just experienced a near-instantaneous acceleration relative to her.
We established you can't have acceleration without force. We're going in circles.
These threads are just
>Portals have to break these rules to function (A)
Vs
>nooo portals have to follow those rules but they break other rules in the process (B)
B is observable in game in the moon scene. If you accept portal 2 as canon then B is canon too
Oh no anon, you're going to get someone talking about air pressure because you haven't explained what you mean by the moon scene being B.
The only rule B breaks is object momentum changing without regard to momentum or energy conservation laws, which are laws A breaks anyway.
A is completely nonsensical and ignores basic principles, B is consistent with everything you throw at it once you accept that portals break conservation of energy.
Gravity is acceleration by Einsteinian physics does not define it as a force.
Incidentally, this sort of acceleration is impossible to feel or notice in real life. A common explanation for this is to imagine yourself in a room. The room might be in space a million light years away from any other matter, or it might be in free-fall heading to the earth. Is there any way to tell which is the case from inside the room?
There isn't.
>accept that portals can alter velocity without acceleration
Portals alter directionality and position in space.
>directionality
That's not a word.
I meant to say *ISN'T* a "thing" that "causes" something like a change in direction. Acceleration is the change itself.
Please learn what velocity is, what accelaration is, and then what forces are and then get back to me.
>not a single Bgay has ever once been a able to point out the force acting on the cube to launch it airborne
The basic inertion does.
The cube has to emerge out of the exit portal somehow.
A demands it then abruptly stops for no reason whatsoever.
B simply accepts that it will emerge due to the portal magic and then will behave like literally anything else would.
Portals themselves break the laws of conservation of momentum and energy but the world outside of portals doesn't.
>abruptly stops
it didn't move in the first place you moron
>it didn't move in the first place you moron
If it didn't move, it didn't change places.
Yet it did.
There is a clear and visible act of emerging in the A example as well. That is what normal people call "motion".
>>sun revolves around the earth tier
ironic considering bgays try to tell you that everything is """relative"""
This. The portal test is essentially the same as the being able to rotate an apple in your mind test. If you can’t move objects in your mind and take into account the physics of it, you have no hope of grasping the extremely obvious answer A. They have to resort to bullshit physics explanations that are so wildly varied that you basically hear a different term applied to the problem for every single poster that tries to figure it out. One will focus entirely on inertia, another will focus entirely on velocity, another will focus entirely on relativity. Never do these concepts meet. They simply exist as terminological bargaining chips to extract a false sense of authority over other users, like a child wearing a police badge. The same phenomenon of never taking into account the entire picture results in bizarre and fallacious scenarios like the ones you’ve described, to the point that Bgays are even arguing amongst themselves because they have all obviously gotten it wrong.
You guys are arguing over the stupidest shit I swear.
Portals will never exist so this bickering between (A)utists and (B)itches is pointless. Do something more productive.
These threads create so much flamewar that the energy could be used to power the first portals
Maybe instead of shitflinging they should try to invent portals themselves because everyone involved claims that they have einstein level of intelligence
Reminder that, shitposts aside, this has genuinely been solved.
The answer is both.
Because you have one portal anchored and one stationary you are effectively moving the entire universe relative to itself and creating two conflicting inertial values for every point of reference. The cube is both shooting through AND flopping through.
nope, there's one universe and anything coming out of the stationary portal must be in motion
It depends on how Portals are understood to work. If the way a portal works is it genuinely creates a wormhole that connects disparate regions in spacetime, okay. If the portal is a kind of matter replicator, that reconfigures particles at one end to match particles coming from the other end due to "something something quantum probably", then no.
If it were the latter then the answer would just be arbitrary.
It's both.
B gags won't say this, but if B was true then going through that primal would be painful if not lethal since the magical force isn't applied across your whole body simultaneously.
Based.
Threadly reminder that B-gays still literally can't even refute the simple hula hoop / door argument yet expect people to believe in fake science just so their version works.
The image in the top left (half-assedly pic related, and I will not search for the original image) genuinely explains why B is correct. I have never seen any Agay refute it. At best you get "tl;dr" which I suppose is to be expected from morons who believe in A. Why should we expect them to read in the first place?
It’s too obvious a matter to bother reading falsifications. It’s like reading about how a cup dropped from the hand would actually float upright because *7000 lines of seething text*
So you're within the "tl;dir" camp.
You got that right.
There was already a gif made for morons like yourself that sums up the point without needing complicated words to confuse you:
, but I already know you're gonna too much of a moron to understand that as well.
And there was already a post that explained that Bgays change the scenario and are shocked to get different results.
but I already know you're gonna too much of a moron to understand that as well.
Nope. The gif depicts a stationary cube with a portal moving to it. That is the original problem. It demonstrates that the cube changing speed when the portals move is identical to the cube changing direction when the portals are stationary. The latter is what Agays agree to therefore the former is true as well.
But again, you're too much of a moron to understand that.
I'm not
so don't mistake me as such. The blurry photo I posted in my original post however is irrefutable. I'm just too lazy to find it. Relative entrance velocity must equal exit velocity. There are multiple pictures I'm too lazy to provide but they all make this an obvious fact. Consider the image of the dude in a fast car poking a bunny through a portal on his dashboard. Do you really think his finger and the bunny would explode because he's driving quickly when he puts his finger through the portal? Exiting the portal at the same relative velocity as you entered is the only thing which makes sense.
tl;dr you're fricking gay man
thank you for providing such undeniable proof, i will be sure to have my ant read it for me
here is a picture of an alien as a thank you
Don't post if you're not familiar with the 16 years of history behind these stupid fricking threads you dumb newbie b***h. If you can't recognize the image from the blurry thumbnail then you're objectively a newbie. I do mean this unironically. It has been posted so many times that your inability to recognize it completely outs you.
I bet you were ready to call this gap reddit spacing even though that's not actually a thing. Frick off newbie.
>16 years
>still thinks b is correct
the smartest bgay
A makes sense to me but I’m figuring it’s B somehow.
B-tards shriek about relativity yet ignore that portals fold space and time, so you have two opposing points of space moving relative to each other. Meaning the portals cancel each other out. No matter how fast one end of the portal flies at the cube the cube will not launch because it is opposed by an equal and opposite point in space
Can't spell "gay" without A.
Bkeks think that if person A stabs person B in the stomach, that person B was in reality “stabbing” person A’s moving knife with their stationary stomach.
you people are so fricking moronic i swear to god
Everyone on this board loves to sit around discussing the portal problem. The real problem however is the bi-marchly sun-sipper. This fricking thing has shown up three times in March over the past seven years. Will it show up again in March this year? You can view this horror on NASA's website. What the FRICK is it doing to our sun? We're worried about portals when this thing is using our solar system as a refueling station?
it's all a bunch of crap
>walking through a doorway adds momentum to the body
never go full moron
RRTPR
You either want continuity on the left or the right, it's an arbitrary choice.
All frames are supposed to agree, but with portals moving relative to one another you have prefer one frame over another. The whole thing is just a psychological personality test.
B is a solution that works regardless of frames of reference. No matter what perspective you take on it, the cube will always move out of the portal at the same speed. The A interpretation is the only one that changes based on perspective, which is why it's clear that it's wrong. There's no fundamental distinction between "moving" and "not moving", those just depend on your perspective, so any theory that relies on different things happening based on "moving" or "not moving" is complete nonsense and ends up logically inconsistent.
No, both choices require everything in the universe to move relative to itself, so your semantic interdiction by fiat doesn't even distinguish A from B.
And you failed to address my point. You could make a matching gif for A where the lab frame checks out and the portal frame doesn't. It's an unresolvable split caused by the portals moving relative to one another.
Yes, A solutions always have that problem. B solutions don't, no matter which perspective you take, B always results in the cube moving the same way (it is e.g. ejected out of the portal at 10m/s regardless of whether the test chamber happened to be on the ground or in a moving van).
No, the gif in the OP has a discontinuity on the left.
You could rig up a radar gun and some mirrors and show that the cube, and everything else in the universe including the BOTH portal entrances, is moving relative to itself, which defies a fundamental postulate in physics.
It's like you've split the universe in two, so what's on the other side of the portal cannot comport with what's on this side, like if you're watching footage of a moving security camera on a TV.
If the portals were placed so that one object could touch itself, then what would happen? According to your choice, its moving self would collide with its stationary self and move it, this would lead to a rigid increase of the motion through the portal, increasing speed, ad infinitum, until each part of the object is moving at the speed of light relative to the other part in virtually zero time.
The other choice is no better.
When I walk forward in real life the entire universe is moving relative to me. It's not unusual or impossible. And yes portals do violate conservation of energy, and should basically be able to cause infinite free acceleration, they do that in the game (until a hard coded speed limit/terminal velocity kicks in).
Nothing you posted has anything relevant to what I posted. I ought to refuse to reply to such low-effort garbage, but I'll do so anyway because I'm bored.
You are never moving relative to yourself IRL, that's the point. To have kinetic energy in your own frame of reference is not just physically but semantically impossible. None of the physicsy words used ITT have any meaning in a world where this axiom is violated.
Gravitational acceleration isn't much "freer" with portals than it would be with electric circuits. It's just refreshing your potential energy, like the gravity version of a battery.
Obviously the mechanism isn't explained and must be fantastical to some degree but again this has zero to do with my previous post, total goalpost-move on your part.
>You are never moving relative to yourself IRL, that's the point. To have kinetic energy in your own frame of reference is not just physically but semantically impossible.
You aren't contradicting what that anon said. When the anon said "When I walk forward in real life the entire universe is moving relative to me", him walking forward and the universe moving relative to him are two different reference frames.
>Gravitational acceleration isn't much "freer" with portals than it would be with electric circuits. It's just refreshing your potential energy, like the gravity version of a battery.
The entire point of potential energy is an energy input is required to refresh it. Portals seemingly do so with no energy input.
keyword *seemingly* Just because you don't see the part where the roller coaster is dragged up the first hill doesn't make it a perpetual motion machine.
Key part seemingly, as in if there is an energy input then the argument that B breaks energy conservation was pointless to begin with because an energy input is established.
The post you replied to
has nothing to do with A or B.
Following back on the comment chain makes it clear it stems from the problem.
Alright, let me put it another way. The key assumption of the B solution is that the end result of what happens to objects that pass through the portals, is based entirely on their velocities relative to the portals. No matter what your perspective is, the end result relative to the portals is exactly the same. It's fully consistent regardless of the reference of the observer. The problem with A is that it considers the reference of the observer important. The cube behaves differently (either flying out or not) based on whether it is "moving" or "not moving", apparently regardless of its relative motion to the portals itself.
So who or what defines "moving" or "not moving"? A has no consistent answer, and thus can't consistently predict the outcome of anything. Agays seem to think that motion is some fundamental property of objects or the universe, and not something that is a relative property between two specific things.
>with portals moving relative to one another you have prefer one frame over another
Not exactly, if the same geometric transformations were applied to both portals, the flames of reference would remain consistant.
AHEM BBlack folk assume I can see the cube "moving" towards me through the exit portal, then assume I can also see the night sky behind it. Why does the cube fly out but the stars that were also very clearly moving towards me at the exact same rate not?
If the portal carried on all the way to those stars they eventually would. The stars are just further away, so them moving towards you at like 10 m/s or whatever really doesn't much difference to anything.
?t=84
(1:24)
WHAT THE FRICK?
HOW DID HE THROW HIS KEYS LIKE THAT?
HIS HAND STOPPED AND THE KEYS IN IT... KEPT GOING?
as a zealous disciple of 'A' thinking, I have to point out that hands are not pedestals and thus your post is stupid and I am smart
does the cube in the op get thrown or is it stationary?
do the keys get thrown or are they stationary?
i am standing outside the exit portal. the cube is moving towards me, as is the pedestal it is on, and the floor the pedestal is on.
I am standing in front of the person with the hand. the keys in the hand are moving towards me, as is the hand and the arm attached to the hand.
Both the keys and the cube are moving towards me. This movement is retained even after the surface it's sitting on has ceased to move.
why would the keys behave differently from the cube?
>gif
momentum in = momentum out
in the gif the momentum is applied by the man throwing the box
in the original question, the momentum is applied by ?????
There is no momentum on the box, not in the final shot. It's literally motionless in the reference frame you worship most, the earth's. But what you allege to be a force has come out of nowhere to change said momentum in that reference frame. The very thing you insist is impossible has happened.
>There is no momentum on the box
the man threw the box through the portal
what is pushing the cube through the portal in the original question?
>the man threw the box through the portal
Nope, in the final shot he threw the box into a state of no motion like in this gif and the portal moved to it. The speed of the box clearly increased after it passed through the portal, your entire argument is that this should be counted as the portal applying a force.
ok so what is the force pushing the cube through the portal in the original question?
There is none, really there isn't even one in that gif, the man is no longer applying a force after the box left its hands, it actually passing through the portal involves no force in any reference frame.
Again, do you acknowledge the speed of the box changing on going through the portal in the final shot of the gif? Do you define that as a force or not?
>There is none
so there is no force launching the cube up into the air
ergo, the cube doesn't get launched up into the air
What force suddenly stops it from moving, when it was clearly moving out of the portal?
it's not moving, because the distance between two ends of a portal is zero
essentially, it is gradually teleporting
the cube moves relative to the portal
even if the distance between portals is 0, one edge of the cube can be measured to have moved relative to the portal
Your problem is that you don't have a fundamental grasp of what motion or movement is. If you want to come to the correct answer, that's what you need to solve. I'm going to use the word you all hate, sorry, but it's relative. I genuinely recommend you go use online resources and just work your way through a basic education of physics. You don't need to get to like university level, or even college level. Although I used the word relative, I'm not talking about Einstein's theory of relativity, it's not that complicated. But you'll never understand until you have a basic understanding of velocity, momentum, motion etc.
The same “force” that stops pedestrians when you’re in a car and they’re “moving”.
When the piston stops, so does the cube in the same way the pedestrians stop. Frame of Refence is just the perspective of what an object sees other objects doing. Bgays don’t understand that about FoR or relativity.
If two different things suddenly stop moving relative to one another, an acceleration has occured on one or the other or both. The force that stops pedestrians when you're in a car and you hit the breaks happens to be applying to the car. The cube suddenly stopping as it moves out of the portal relatively to everything else also needs a force, whether on the cube or on everything else.
So you're saying it's a fictitious force then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force
So why ask what force is causing the cube to launch in B if you accept fictitious forces?
so what you're saying is, that the man froze the box in the air?
If you want to believe the cannon in that gif froze the ball in the air, sure.
>man throws box with momentum -P, counteracted by train momentum P resulting in net zero
>portal reorients the direction of the throw to align with the train resulting in overall momentum 2*P
This is not the same thing as the portal smacking the cube with a force of 2*P
It's obvious from playing the games that portals change your direction, but if they changed your actual force velocity then Chel would break her neck the second she went through one at speed from the whiplash
>would break her neck the second she went through one at speed from the whiplash
Nope, because the change in motion aligns with passing through the portal, so that at no point does the structure of your body come out of alignment. This is obvious when you stop to actually think about what actually causes damage when you experience accelerations. Think for example why an accelerometer can't detect falling.
BSissies explain this
The lower box doesn’t enter the portal.
Why does it need to? Both boxes are moving relative to the portal frame, then the force is aplied to the portal frame and not the boxes, so both boxes should continue moving.
wouldn't happen because the cube on the floor is not experiencing a sudden and drastic change in it's surroundings.
>tfw you personify so hard the cube's a freshman in college to you now
Anything else you need clarified?
it's all real
This is exactly my point here
It's an arbitrary psychological preference.
It's not, things are either in front of a portal or behind it, and you can't treat the view through a portal as a valid frame of reference.
A makes more sense
B makes for a more fun gameplay mechanic
Implementing B would make Portal even more illogical than it already is, you'd have to think about so many exceptions or limit the game in ways were you might as well not implement it at all
Scalar momentum is conserved relative to the portal. Vector momentum is not preserved unless the portals are perfectly aligned.
You're all inside an "engagement" thread.
Bots repost portal images, along with some takes for A or B and let people get riled up into the "discussion"
Bots are programed to repost threads that generate "guaranteed replies"
The "how do you respond without sounding mad" are also this.
Just FYI
You are a bot
A allows for way more scenarios where the answer is paradoxical or unknowable from first principles.
Therefore B is the better answer
Just post this, it destroys A-tards logic.
QED
motion by definition cannot be relative because celestial objects warp the fabric of space with their gravitational mass. If as these objects move they are quite literally warping space then any measurement of relative motion is completely inaccurate. That's why physicists had to invent dark matter to make their equations work, because the very physics that B-gays cling to is fundamentally wrong and contradicted by observing planetary motion irl
>Ganker: this is impossible! there's no force holding up the metal or making it spin around in a circle!