What are some videogames that deal with frames of reference?

see also, the image macros where people put their text with lisa simpson pointing to it, therefore making it more correct than if you just wrote it yourself

You can write as many scripts where the theoretical scenario you think is right will be unfortunate for me
But first you should try and actually prove that scenario right

You can't just respond to the question "is X or Y correct?" with the statement "So KNOWING X IS CORRECT, wouldn't it be lame if someone thought Y was correct? Haha yes, so silly" that's not an answer, that's gloating
You need to be proven right before you gloat, you jumping to stage 10 before you completed stage 1 is just you proving you can't do it

when you drive a car you are not moving retard its your car moving

its another "retards try to explain how cube moves trough the portal without using the words "move" or "momentum"" 400 reply thread

Ok, so explain what happens when the
smug guy on the orange portal side is standing about 1+ foot away from the maximum length of the blade.

I can’t do that!

Why?

because it would show that he wouldn’t get hit by it- oh fuck oh fuck I just admitted Blogic doesn’t work

This is why all Bfags are retarded.

uhh uhhhh *shits pants and farts*

Ok, so what happens when the A guy stands further than the length of the spike away from the portal entrance?

Correct. From the spike's prospective it is stationary and you threw yourself on it.

What if you block the portal the spike is coming out of with a wall it cant penetrate so it's stopped halfway, will the portal on the other end stop moving

I like how this was already explained in the first Portal but people ignore it

SPEEDY THING GO IN
SPEEDY THING GO OUT

Notice how she says it's the THING that is SPEEDY not the PORTAL? THIS IS A DIFFERENT SCENARIO YOU RETARD

the hula hoop shit really did a number on Bfags, huh? There's so many images of

IF AFAG STANDS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF PORTAL AND THING COMES OUT, THING WILL OWN AFAG BUT AFAG THINKS HE'LL BE FINE

what are these trying to prove?

The original argument was that the ball will start flying because the incoming platform is fast, not that it doesnt transport the object through the portal

Obviously if u put a solid spike into the portal what comes out will still be a solid spike so it will hurt and yes obviously the spike will appear faster on the other side if the platform with the portal envelops it faster....

whats the argument here exactly

i love fags abandoning the original argument and making up completely irrelevant alternatives for no reason

huuhh you disagree? well what if i put it on a train huhh? what if theres a spike? what if it's in space? what if it's in water? what if it's rotating instead? what if it's a dick? what then huhhh?

you have missed the entire point of the Anon Babble meme
there are two possible ways for the A:B portals to work under known physics
in the generic muh gamer case, the spike pierces him because conservation of energy is violated. this is what gamers expect to happen: when you fall through a floor portal and emerge from a ceiling portal, gamers expect to maintain their momentum for free.
You might think that violating conservation of energy is bad, but it isn't, all we need to do is say that it's not a closed system and suddenly all modern physicists are fine with the idea (see: dark energy, hubble expansion). The apparent violation of conservation of momentum is harder to justify of course, this is likely a strong law, but who gives a fuck?
In the other case, nothing is violated, the spike is stationary, the man emerging from a ceiling portal does so having lost significant energy including all motion - gravity must reaccelerate him each time.
simple as

That's not the A vs. B argument though.

Dumbass. If B was true, then the other guy would be impaled when the spike shot out like a fucking missile for some dumb reason.

*yawn* B *leaves thread*

No, it's just an invalid one.

If the blade is not fastened to the ground, it will fling and impale him. If it is fastened, it will pull against its fastenings and, if the speed is high enough, break free.

The point though, is that if the blade impales the dude at all, you have to admit that it has momentum and is moving.

You are not fooling me, this is loss

If you're so smart, answer this.

Does the item come out with enough speed to harm someone or not?

If it does, it would go flying. The end. It's isn't going to shishkabob someone and then drop in place.

PORTALS LITERALLY CREATE ENERGY
WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU RETARDS ARGUING ABOUT MOMENTUM

portals arent even real retards

Portals can only add energy to a system with recursion like this. Simply going through a portal a single time does not add energy.

I had breakfast this morning retards

Still in denial uh

fall onto a spike and get impaled on it

it means the spike must be blasting off the ground

How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning, Anon?

But you're not falling on it. The spike is the one moving.

Is it moving fast enough to continue moving forward? If yes, it will kill you and keep moving forward. If no, it might nudge you slightly.

i'll be honest bros i love A/B threads
however i do not have an opinion on the matter

Yes they do, every time you gain height from a portal you are generating free gravitational potential energy from nothing. And every time you descend using one you are destroying energy.

Listen here breakfast skipper

Movement is not some kind of universal property
It's just context
Is something changing positions in space relative to something else? Then it's moving.

Will it kill you? Yes or no?
If yes, it's not to instantly stop upon impaling you.

cool dickhead

enjoy it while it lasts, these threads will be solved once people realize they can post these memes into chatgpt and get it to explain the physics involved

my bad i thought you were an Afag

You can make ChatGPT answer either way based on how you ask it, as you can with anything even vaguely contentious. It's trained on what is written online, not what is true.

The spike is the one moving.

No, you are.
Relative movement and all that.
Isn't that supposed to be the thing your group is good at or does that argument conveniently evaporate once it's inconvenient?

The spike is the one moving.

The spike is motionless, dipshit.

The spike doesn't go off flying when the orange portal stops.

its inertia disappeared

It has no inertia. I doubt you know what inertia is.

it would if it wasn't affixed anywhere

So you admit that gravity affixing the cube down to the platform stops it from flying off when it goes past the portal.

try to stand up

realise gravity has affixed me to my chair

Yes, you literally spend energy to stand up.
What your point are you trying to make here?

realise gravity has affixed me to my chair

that's what gravity does yes

The cube has kinetic energy (as measured relative to the exit portal)

How would that system work without gravity?

And it doesn't have kinetic energy (as measure relative to the entry portal).

relative to the entry portal

Yes it does retard
You mean relative to the platform it's sitting on

For me, it's C.

Yes it does retard

No it doesn't.
A car going past you doesn't mean you have kinetic energy.
What has kinetic energy is the platform with the platform going down, not the cube.

You need to stop embarrassing yourself and moving the goalposts.

The game dev's choice

how are we still having this debate after like 15 years

Just test it yourself. Cut a hole in cardboard (two portals on one plane, top and bottom) and drop it on a box. What happens?

A car going past you doesn't mean you have kinetic energy.

In the reference frame of the car, I do have kinetic energy.
You have never studied Galilean invariance.

In the reference frame of the car, I do have kinetic energy.

No you don't.

In the reference frame of the car, I do have kinetic energy

This is the most retarded and incorrect post I have read in this thread. How are you this stupid?

I made a simple diagram using your favourite Nintendo characters. I hope it will help you learn what a reference frame is ^.^

People really think that aether exists in the year 2025. Objects do not possess things like "momentum" or "movement". These concepts necessitate the relation between things.

it's amusing how A-fags always dodge this question

if you're standing where the spike emerges, does it hurt you?

"UHHHHH but what if u were standing further away???"

that's not the question

"HURRRR dodging my question"

would the spike hurt you or not?

"lol u obviously haven't studied physics"

yes or no?

"the spike isn't moving"

so yes or no?

*retarded screeching noises*

its B, even A fags agree

You don't understand what kinetic energy.
Go check Galiean invariance wikipedia again and try to explain what force is transferring energy to Daisy.

This is the reality that Afags CANNOT refute: if the cube didn't rocket out the other side if the portal was the one moving, it would never be able to move through the portal AT ALL. The portal would simply not work.

Bfag here, I disagree

Kinetic energy isn't a real property of anything, it's a concept to make the calculation of energy easier. Any object can be made to have any non-negative amount of kinetic energy by choosing a suitable reference frame.

A fags think if Wario hit Daisy, Daisy wouldn't move

No force is transferring energy to Daisy.
Measured in Wario's frame, she has a velocity of 30m/s (directed behind his car), and a kinetic energy calculated from that velocity.
If you measured from the frame of the Jupiter you would get a different velocity and a different kinetic energy. Because they are relative quantities.

No force is transferring energy to Daisy.

There you go. Concession accepted.

Next time try to thoroughly read the wikipedia article that you just found out about before acting like you know what the fuck you are talking about.

A is correct
Also, my pronouns are she/them

it's another "Afags learn basic physics" episode

Here's a question: do you have kinetic energy relative to the sun even when your fat lard ass is sitting in a puddle of gamer swear?

and a kinetic energy calculated from that velocity

Kinetic energy is not calculated just from velocity. You need to stop.

Go ahead and explain how I'm wrong.

Yes it's also calculated from mass, which is invariant in this scenario.

spoonfeed me

No, just go and check the wikipedia article you referenced already. It's all explained in there.

Someone who "has head about Galilean invariance" should know all about this anyways.

Both of these examples assume the things are welded to the base
If they weren't, and the guy was far enough away, the things would fall harmlessly, just like the cube.

Things I've learned from Afags ITT

two stationary objects can collide with each other

kinetic energy is an absolute quantity

momentum is an absolute quantity

an object can have velocity in its own reference frame

when you change which reference frame you are measuring from, a force transfers energy to other objects

Because some people can’t comprehend the idea that if portals were real, all definitions of physical phenomena would need to be rebuilt.

Concession accepted.

I already accepted your concession that's right. Why would you prove yourself wrong by referencing the Galilean Invariance and then completely ignoring it is beyond me.

another thread, another afag loss

Well, not exactly. I mean, it's not like wormhole theory doesn't exist already and that's all portals are, connecting two areas by bending space.

Achad here, I'm cooking something up, keep the thread alive for 9 more hours please

Enlighten me then master. What force transfers energy when I change what frame I'm measuring from?

no no no mr officer you see from my perspective those people sitting on the park bench were actually moving 60 mph towards the front end of my car! don’t you know relativity?

Bkeks, everyone.

this literally fucking happens in Portal 2

yes I'd like to draw another hoola hoop image while filming Jamal fucking my wife. I'll masturbate to both tomorrow.

When I hop in my car and start driving, the entire universe doesn't see a surge in energy simply because I'm driving around and everything is moving relative to me. That's not how energy works.
It's actually baffling that you are still trying to argue something as retarded as this.

the entire universe doesn't see a surge in energy simply because I'm driving around

and why not? the math still checks out. Or is it simply that you're outraged at the physics for not appeasing to what you THINK should make more sense?

Okay but this doesn't prove that Daisy ISN'T moving at 30m/s and Wario

It only sounds retarded to you because you still think kinetic energy is an absolute, inherent property of matter instead of something that you measure relative to a reference frame.

You think you're sitting still in your chair right now, but actually the Earth is flying through space. That doesn't mean some magic force has been applied to you when you start thinking about it.

literally forget the premise they are trying to argue.

The spike is going to go through the portal fast, sure.

You are literally not as smart as you think you are

and why not?

Huh?

That's not how energy works

Seriously, just stop.

what do you mean driving around in my car doesn't break the laws of physics? are you dumb?

you retards really don't know when to tap out

do a fags not know how bungie cords work?

This would have happened to matter which scenario is correct due to the spike being longer than the distance between the person a portal. You’ve proved nothing

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

Correspondingly the kinetic energy of an object, and even the change in this energy due to a change in velocity, depends on the inertial frame of reference.

NO NO IT CAN'T BE TRUE
ENERGY DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT

It would just start falling down slowly.

That doesn't mean some magic force has been applied to you

Yes, it's called gravity. It's some new obscure stuff you have never heard about though.

if I slam my head into a spike I wont get hurt because my head is moving, not the spike

Remind me again which side is Afags and which side is Bfags

its almost like portals change the way things need to be measured.

A plops out of the portal; B fires out like bullet.

teleport spike into your brain

your brain explodes even though the spike didn’t move

Same logic here. You will be impaled but the spike isn’t flying anywhere.

Thanks

A says no boing, B says yes boing.

a wormhole isn't a zero distance connection between two points.

its also entirely theory.

hmmmmm

portals inherently break the laws of physics

despite this B fags argue endlessly about how it's impossible for A to be possible because A breaks the laws of physics

this always seemed weird to me

is this what afags think?

the math still checks out

you mean the math that is broken by portals?

Not necessarily. If A were correct, the spike could have easily moved the person without moving them along with it rather than penetrating them. If the portal can cause the spike to move without moving, why shouldn't it also be able to make the person move without moving? if you think that doesn't make sense, try breaking it down into steps. The spike comes out and the portal stops before in hits the person. The person them climbs on top of the spike. The portal moves again and both the spike and person move through the same mechanic without inertia. The portal continuing to move is really just this happening quickly, but if there is no inertia in once scenario, there is no reason for their to be inertia just because it happened faster in the other.

No, that's clearly b logic

aren't you guys 40 by now

That's clearly B logic though

B logic is just "relative velocity in to the entrance portal = relative velocity out of the exit portal" so it would be 1m/s when exiting blue

there is no universal frame of reference

therefore I will ignore every frame of reference other than an imaginary man standing at the exit portal rather than the cube which is the subject of the question

No, B logic is conservation of momentum.
That problem is a bit different to the usual one because in that one the cube has its own movement beyond the one from the portal's frame of reference.

B logic is conservation of momentum.

hence why the box magically gains 999ms because that's how fast it was moving before entering the portal

there is no cure for autism.

Would the gravity outside the blue portal start to affect the cube and slow it down somewhat in this particular scenario?

relative to itself the cube never moves an inch in either A nor B.

*conservation of momentum relative to the portal
which is 1m/s multiplied by the mass of the cube

it really do be like that
portals can't create momentum

from the frame of reference of the exit portal the cube is moving fast

this is the case even before the cube even goes through any portal

if B is true the moment the piston starts moving the cube will rocket up into the air of its own volition to go through halfway down, presumably so will anything not nailed to the floor

B logic is that the velocity of the portal is applied to objects passing though it so the cube in that gif would come out at 1m/s as -999m/s is applied.
In the original scenario the stationary cube has the velocity of the crusher applied to it.

A logic is that velocity is some universal property of objects so if the cube is travels through a portal of any velocity then its own velocity is unchanged. It goes in at 1000m/s and leaves at 1000m/s.
In the original scenario the cube is stationary so when it is crushed it continues to be stationary.

Force of the water is what makes the cube move further.
Why are Bfags like this?

Again, this problem is different because the cube has its own velocity independent of the portals frame of reference.

That's the conclusion I will reach then. I believe the cube know.

B logic is that the velocity of the portal is applied to objects passing though

Which is what makes B logic retarded as 'the portal' is not a 'thing'. It's just space within space.

In the portal's frame of reference, it has a velocity of 1m/s. That is conserved. That's all B is.

Well its the velocity of the surface the portal is attached to if you want to be pedantic

That scenario is applying B to the water in both cases to make A look silly.

The water isn't moving though

what about the cube's frame of reference? as that's what matters here.

What happens to photons travelling through the portal?

I can get the spike having force as it goes through but the ball somehow gaining the momentum of the portal which is enough to launch it seems silly

space

surface

These problems are all about being pedantic.

In that frame, the cube has no velocity. The portals pass over it smoothly.

No, it's not. You're incorrect and not understanding why the water moves. It's pressure difference you mongoloid.
Bfags are genuinely incapable of common sense.

MUH PHYSICS

MUH FANCY MATH

Just cope and seethe. End your lives. Everything should be obvious to anyone with any common sense, but B subhumans lack this.

If the blade is not fastened to the ground, it will fling and impale him. If it is fastened, it will pull against its fastenings and, if the speed is high enough, break free.

When does the force of motion act upon the blade?

Do portals create kinetic energy from nothing?
Can portals defeat entropy?

If the cube or the blade are moving, why isn't there a sudden rush of air?
Shouldn't the air be blasting through the portal since the air is, in fact, an object?

If something has to enter and exit with the same speed, then you have to ask what that speed is relative to. Velocity is only relative to something else, so for A to be true it needs it be relative to the environment, and for B to be true it needs to be relative to the portal it enters.

If it were A then it also has to assume that the moment a stationary object reaches the other portal, it would continue to pile up into itself when trying to go through, as it is not moving. If it were a ball of jelly it would end up squishing out like between two breads. A solid enough object that would not be so malleable, like a cube, would be unable to go through at all. That is actually what does happen in game if you force it, if only because it is easier to program and the conflict intentionally never comes up in the normal game.

Going by what is physically natural, it would be B, with the understanding that the portals work like wormholes and all math relating to such. The velocity being locally measured to the portal ends obey conservation of momentum in curved spacetime. In all fairness, this is only mathematically theoretical, but then so are the concepts of portals to begin with.

What if a moving portal pulls a box away? Would this not be just the original situation but in reverse?

In that frame, the cube has no velocity

The gif itself shows a velocity measurement. Make it make sense.

IT'S THE VACUUM OF SPACE YOU FUCKING RETARD
IT IS NOT A PORTAL OPENING UP IN THE SAME ATMOSPHERE AS ANOTHER PORTAL IT IS AN ENTIRELY FUCKING DIFFERENT SCENARIO

then you have to ask what that speed is relative to.

No, you have to redefine "speed."

Why is it that Bfags are incapable of making an honest argument?

Since wormholes are curved space there would not be portal entrances but a tube

You could recreate this gif in real life by attaching a gopro to the fabled metaphorical hula hoop but in real life. Just because the guy observing sees it one way doesn't mean shit.

When does the force of motion act upon the blade?

What is a "force of motion"?

Do portals create kinetic energy from nothing?

Can portals defeat entropy?

Yes and yes. Unless there's some external power source required to power the portals that does work on the matter than passes through them. But no evidence for such a thing exists in canon.

If the cube or the blade are moving, why isn't there a sudden rush of air?

Shouldn't the air be blasting through the portal since the air is, in fact, an object?

There would be a blast of air yes. It's commonly ignored in these pictures either because people are used to doing physics puzzles in a vacuum, or because they assume that the portal is moving so slowly that you wouldn't notice much wind.

its another b fags think moving and momentum are the same thing episode.

"but da portal and cube not same spot so it moved???" 0 reason why it would fly, replace the spike with the cube and yeah if you put your head where the cube would take up space on the other side of the portal you are gonna get pushed by it emerging from the portal, doesnt mean its going to gain momentum

these are the best Anon Babble threads

with the understanding that the portals work like wormholes

But portals aren't wormholes. Portals are portals.

what's dishonest about it? a logic is no movement before = no movement after. so 1000m/s before = 1000m/s after.

Do you ever wonder if Valve wanted to make moving portals at some point then a similar debate started happening which caused them to reconsider implementing them?

you are gonna get pushed by it emerging

my head is stationary
so the cube must be moving
otherwise it wouldn't push me

Wait, you actually think the spike wouldn't hurt him at all?
Afags are so retarded it's crazy. Every single one of you needs to be sterilized.

And the platform the cube is on? Why does the platform see a cube suddenly fly away?

My personal headcanon is that Valve watches these threads and all other A vs B discussions on the internet and has a giggle.
Like Gaben pulls up active threads or archives while everyone's drunk at parties and they all laugh at us.

The cube would disintegrate under A
The cube would be crushed under B

Your head is no more stationary than the cube.

there would surely be someone autistic enough to not comprehend that movement and inertia are very weakly defined, and would require new definitions if portals existed.

Null hypothesis, portals cannot be placed onto moving surfaces. Attempts to move a portal lead to the portal closing.

the cube "moving" through the portal is basically just slow motion teleportation, you wouldnt say something teleporting 5 feet to the right gained momentum even though you would say it moved from its original location and yeah anything it teleports into is going to suffer the consequences of taking up the same space it does

portals are placed on moving surfaces in two parts of portal 2.

Disproven by Portal 2 - both the Neurotoxin Chamber and the moon scene.

yeah, that's the basis of another refutation of B. the cube should be liquefied as the parts outside the portal are moving and the rest isn't, under current definition of movement.

wtf I don't remember this part but then again it's been 13 years

You're fucking dumb my dude. Sorry you had to find out this way.

B fags here trying to tell us that portals that defy the laws of physics will act according to the laws of physics.

It's A because the portals are like an American of darker hue. They don't follow laws.
You don't think it A like that, but it do.

No, portal acceleration needs to be handled carefully. When portals move at constant speed, then the portal is continuous across its boundary and it does not matter which side an object is on. Movement is movement. But when a portal accelerates, at the instant you can no longer treat the boundary as continuous. For every delta of speed, you have to severe and then rejoin the space at the boundary reevaluating the motion between the twos sides. Or you could just have it close, which is what the game does.

To be fair, if we're counting the moon as a moving object then every single portal placed on earth is also on a moving object.

These threads are always really amusing until you realize that unironic B-fags exist

The cube isn't moving relative to itself, so there is no stretching or crushing. Imagine it happening and track two points on the cube. The distance between them never changes.

Because the gif in question makes assumptions that only work is B is correct, and then rapidly changes rules at the end.

The A position is that if the cube was moving at 2237 mph (corrected your measurement because Aperture Science would not use something as effeminate as the metric system) would continue to move at 2237 mph when it hit the portal. It would not emerge at 2.24 mph to start with and then suddenly accelerate the whole way through. It would be going FULL SPEED the whole time.

If you're going to criticize the A position, you need to at least understand their position.

walk towards a portal at 10mph

the portal is moving away from me at 5mph

when I finally reach the portal and go through now I'm moving at 5mph somehow

someone actually believes this makes sense

How would lasers behave depending on A vs B?

earth and everything on it is constantly moving

the problem was always that you are putting too much thought into a game where devs intentionally didn't in order to have the game work for the puzzles they wanted to make
A or B are both valid in certain scenarios, but only if devs intended it to be that way

The earth is a stationary object.

Yeah it would be sliced into small bits

so the real question would then be what happens during the "transition" period as is passes through the portal. we've established a logic is 1000 before = 1000 after. what about during the transition? if it is going 1000m/s through blue, then it has to jump to 1999m/s in orange?

psued fence sitter attitude
more retarded than either side

No, B does not say that portals obey the laws of physics. B says that where a portal is not, the laws of physics are obeyed. Portals are two dimensional, the magic happening on their surface. Away from that surface, normal physics applies. Cubes are 3d objects, only the cross section of the cube crossing the portal boundary is subject to the portals physics, the rest of the cube conforms to normal physics.

I'm surprised no one has ever discussed spinning portals. Mostly A fags because it seems like the logic argument to use to prove that A is the real solution.

Wrong again! The cube will emerge moving at 2237 miles per hour, while traveling 3'3.3701" out of the portal! This will lead to one of two scenarios; either the cube will rip itself apart as it emerges, becoming companion shrapnel as it does, or it will become the world's first elongated companion rectangular prism! Either way, we'll be making millions off the results!

lasers are just a bunch of lightspeed projectiles anyway, so the "momentum gain/loss" from going through a portal would be even more negligible

its another b fags think moving and momentum are the same thing episode

show me one real-world example of movement not imparting momentum.

But you can't go faster than the speed of light

The A vs B question was always just a way to expose who the midwits with sticks up their asses are (B-tards)

A fags don't have a model, they have a single enforced result that cannot be applied to any other situation.

A Chads:

the object isnt moving, the world isnt moving, moving another object over the initial object cannot impart momentum

B virgins:

my parents paid for community college and I have 10000 upboats on leddit, I can prove that momentum is magically imparted on an object by using a physics system that makes the whole question impossible to begin with.

Bfags should be shot into space.

If you're going to criticize the A position, you need to at least understand their position.

The obvious problem is that people who defend A tend to be inconsistent and never really explain what they think is happening. For example, in your own post, what does

would continue to move at 2237 mph when it hit the portal

actually mean? If the front is going 2237 mph when it hits the portal, that means it would be pulling the back half forward since it is leaving the portal faster than it is entering it. That also means that the the speed would end up changing since the cube is pulling itself. That is fine if that is actually what you mean, but that goes against the original answer where the cube doesn't stay zero when it comes out. Alternatively, you may have just meant the text is wrong and the cube appearing to move out at 2.237 mph is actually moving at 2237 mph. That would be more consistent with the original, but also raises some questions of just what it means for something to be changing position at 2.237 mph, but actually moving at 2237 mph that tend to go unexplained.

Afriends play the games. Bfags are r/physics pseuds

Why is the other guy flying

Incompressible liquid vs compressible gas
This is surely the exact same situation

You know that A fags are right because they don't need to come up with 800 forms of copium about frame of references and whatever the fuck else.

Trvke

Yeah exactly, at best you can fling the end portal around wildly and make the laser "break" itself as a nice little light show. Given the end of the game and the inconsistency of the surfaces you *can* portal onto, portals are just arbitrarily strong. They can work on some moving surfaces but not others, they can be cast in a zero-g atmosphere and accept any pressure differentials therein but refuse to work through liquids. The only real consistent feat of an Aperture portal is that "speedy thing goes in; speedy thing comes out" and can be tested by yourself by going through a portal at various speeds and noticing the only real changes in your momentum and velocity would come from shifts in your own gravity direction

Yeah you forget it's a video game with hula hoop portals that let things pass through them without changing anything about the object
Reference frame cope physics need not apply

a portal is literally a doorway, the same way there are different outcomes whether somebody lifts a doorframe past you or you jump through the doorframe, there are different results whether you jump through a portal or the portal is moved over you

but the momentum!

it's magic. they work like portals do in fucking dungeons and dragons. you cannot eject a dragon from a portal at a thousand miles an hour by throwing one at him real fast since that's the equivalent to carrying a door frame over his head real fast.

but that doesn't make sense!

it's not supposed to make sense, it's a videogame about magic portals

Are the anons of these threads the smartest users of Anon Babble or the stupidest?

Chad disregards the proof of how portals can create momentum and just goes on instinct.

Virgin actually puts effort into trying to explain it to people who don't care to learn.

This checks out.

I dont disagree, I'm A myself, but

but that doesn't make sense!

how is this even a valid arguement even for physics pseuds? I really struggle to understand how an object which does not have momentum can suddenly gain momentum when an object around it has momentum in the opposite direction?

false dichotomy

Most doorways don't move independently from themselves. If you move a doorway, it typically also moves where the doorway goes the same distance. With a portal you can move one end separately from the other. Doorways don't do that.

Shouldn't he end up further back in the train car from where he started since it kept moving while he was in the air?

but you're misunderstanding the original scenario. a doorway would be 2 portals stationary wrt to each other. that's not the case. if it was a doorway, B logic would say that the cube wouldn't move after passing through.

fly towards spike at high speed

"the spike is stationary bro it wont pierce me"

when an object around it

It's not even an object. It's literally just space.

Bfags will rant endlessly about conceptual shit and then completely ignore the possibility that there's no object at all or worse, that the portal are somehow two different entities. It's just weird.

Relative to the portal

be me

hanging out at party

they have a trampoline

hey why not

jump on the trampoline

as soon as my feet leave the surface of the trampoline, earth flies away from me at 26,000 kph

immediately incinerated by the friction of the atmosphere rushing past me

WOWWWWW DUUUUDE
HOW WAS I SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN?

Relative to the portal

That doesn't even make sense. If I came out of the portal I'm already not moving towards it at a relative speed of 5mph.
You retards need new canned responses.

No

Neither. They're just depressed. All of these threads are ritual posts. Reliving the good old days when you argued with real humans about fictional space warping portals.

I'm not that anon and maybe I'm just projecting my own opinion on them, but I think the problem is that you try to make a seemingly logical argument and then end on portals being magic and it isn't supposed to make sense. I can just make the counter argument that it is B because portals aren't supposed to make sense so it is ok for the non-object to cause the cube to move. Also since I am not that anon and I support B, I will expand to point out how A also doesn't work if the portal is just an empty doorway since there needs to be some mechanic to carry the cube out of the portal that can't be explained by a door. Something is happening because of the portal no matter which answer you picked, so "just a doorway" is incorrect.

why couldn't it be that it has a force coming out but no kinetic energy is transformed into movement?
portals can already create a perpetual motion machine so it's not like they'd behave "normally" if they could move (which they don't in the game)

All other points of perspective will indicate that, yes.
AND!
The box itself will NOT indicate that.

Logically, according to a mathematical universe where Portals do exist, the box is traveling at BOTH 1000m/s AND 1999m/s. At the same time.

That doesn't make sense

Correct. It's why portals don't exist.
Being pedantic is the entire philosophy of portal threads. Until agreement between arguing parties can be met, both are possible.

Do portals teleport you or do portals throw you through space?

Btards get BTFO in every thread

keep posting the same debunked strawmen

I'm tired, boss.

this is the only time you can have moving portals, the devs bent the rules of the game for the sake of a fun puzzle
but if they behaved like B wouldn't the beam bend a bit? Since from their frame of reference there is force exerted on it

This. It's the area surrounding the portal that's moving. Imagine you're stuck in a giant cup that's being slammed into the spike

No, because your body is actually moving with the train at roughly the same speed. There's a very obvious difference in how your body reacts to the forces are exerted upon you between being in a train car and on top of a train car, but those forces exerted are still consistent in both situations. Earth's spin is like 30km/s but you're not flying off the Earth because gravity very consistently pulls you towards the center of its mass. The same principle that keeps you flying off a train car is the same principle used to keep satellites in low-orbit by "perpetually falling"

THE EARTH DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND THE SUN GALILEO!

The earth revolves around the sun and the sun revolves around the galactic core and the galaxy is moving as the universe continues to expand.

Bfags have a simple principle of "relative velocity in = relative velocity out" which is based on observing what happens in the game and applies equally to any problem, producing a sensible physical result

Afags have an intuitive feeling, and when presented with any other problem have 5 different answers as to what would happen and why

No, He is still moving forward, any momentum on the X axis continues if there is a change on the Y axis.

This is not the argument of A however, the retard is just full of it.
The platform which holds the object is not moving, the portal above it IS moving, putting the portal around the object cannot impart momentum because there is no mechanism that would do so, physics pseuds pretend there is because they for some fucking reason believe the portal to be an object and not A FUCKING PORTAL, meaning no energy can be transferred. By B's retard logic, If you were to repeat the experiment and stop 3/4ths of the way through the object, it would still suddenly fly out the other end.

physics

magic

huh?
A wormhole being just space is not some "it's magic" argument. It's literally what wormholes are theorized to be and the portals are small scale wormholes.

I can just make the counter argument that it is B because portals aren't supposed to make sense

Which is weird because B is supposed to be the 'sensical' argument.

there needs to be some mechanic to carry the cube out of the portal

That's what the platform is doing though?

You are a prime example of what I'm talking about. You can't conceptualize the idea of portals not being a physical thing. The idea that you walking through a portal is like you materializing from thin air somewhere else is completely alien to you.

huh?

A wormhole being just space is not some "it's magic" argument.

also

it's not supposed to make sense, it's a videogame about magic portals

Which is it or are you a different person?

That's what the platform is doing though?

How does the platform do that? A platform also can't make things change positions without momentum.

The idea that you walking through a portal is like you materializing from thin air somewhere else is completely alien to you.

This isn't how portals work. They just set the distance between two otherwise distance positions to zero. You don't materialize from thin air, but you walk continually from point just before X to point just after Y where X now equals Y.

picrel is what Btards actually believe

Take a piece of paper and fold it in half. Then punch a hole through it.
That is a portal in a 2D world. When you have that portal there, you the 3D person can move it around, but to 2D people it'll just look like a hole.
If move that portal over the cube, it'll look like you're putting a hula hoop over the cube, but to the 2D people it'll look like a cube is moving suddenly.
It's A

Afags have an intuitive feeling

Yes.

Bfags link wikipedia articles. Afags link the dreamsleeve.

Wouldn't 3D portals be spheres?

Afags have common sense
BFags are mindless "muh sources" lesser beings.

Half of the people realize the argument is arbitrary and based on nothing because either A or B can be proven trivially by picking and choosing which laws of physics you ignore and which ones you focus on. Because portals, by their very nature, explicitly and obviously violate several laws of physics. So you can just decide which ones you want to focus on to prove your point. It's essentially skub and half of the posters are enjoying arguing vehemently because they're pro-skub and hate those dirty motherfucking anti-skubbers.

And then the other half are people that are actually just stupid and getting baited into it because they're incapable of introspection or considering it from the other angle after picking which side they're on. These are the people that are fun to troll with the false-flag images.

Yes, actually. Portal the game just makes them 2D because its easier to visualize, but it should work the same.

Different person

How does the platform do that?

By going down thus 'moving a pocket of space' towards the cube.

This isn't how portals work.

Of course you are not materializing anywhere because you already exist within the space the portals 'exist in'.

Forget it man, it just not worth it.

either A or B can be proven trivially by picking and choosing which laws of physics you ignore

On the one hand, this is true. On the other, the selection of physics you have to ignore for A to make sense, is something that would only appeal to a total fag.

oh dude it's like hoola hoops

shut up gaylord

Given the illogical nature of what a portal is (or can fictionally do), changing any element of the question... changes the question. Different outcomes are plausible.

The original question is about an entirely stationary scenario except for 1 character: the "entrance" portal.
Even in this limited scope, the question is inherently illogical/impossible given how 3-dimensional (+ time) physics is understood. A "moving" portal inherently obliterates the concept of travel by equally applying multiple outcomes to the same character at identical times.

You can discuss it all you like, but the "true" outcome cannot be agreed upon until arguing parties agree on a "true" perspective.
It would be like two people arguing
1+1=2
No, 1+1=5
Why?
Because I disagree with the true value of 1 is.

By going down thus 'moving a pocket of space' towards the cube.

The problem here is that this argument is very different from "just a door", which was my original point. It is ok to claim that the portal is like a box where the other room is dropped over the cube with the platform, but being able to manipulate space like that is different from how portals are explained in game and very different from it just being a door. It is a new mechanic that would need to be explained.

Forget it man, it just not worth it.

These arguments are enjoyable. That is worth it for me.

oh dude it's like hoola hoops

shut up gaylord

How is this not basically a massively thick hulahoop? lol

this is just skub vs anti skub isnt it

changing any element of the question... changes the question.

This is basically the whole problem. Basic physics knowledge can only get you so far fundamentally because portals are strictly fictional and are allowed to bend the rules of nature just so you can have cool setpieces and puzzles in your first-person puzzle platformer.

Many people feel "agreeing" is weak and would rather fight than learn. And it's not even about strength, just stubbornness.

Wouldn't B logic here force the man backwards into the portal at 95km/h?
AHAHAHAHAHAH B fags are actually insane if they believe this shit makes any sense.

The Bfag is unable to comprehend the universe as an actual object with dimension.
They cannot comprehend this because it would put bars on the prison of reality.
It would establish an outside of the universe.
The Bfag cannot comprehend the demiurge.
The Bfag is the hylic.

I find it truly unfortunate that ignorance is a modern virtue.

Yes.
For portals to exist in a universe that humans understand, both the entrance and exist planes of a portal MUST remain PERFECTLY SYNCHRONOUS to EACH OTHER. They must remain absolute. Any sort of movement, rotation, revolution, spin, acceleration, among any dimension CANNOT occur. The moment any change occurs, the portal INSTANTLY ceases existence. Even perspective cannot be factored.

The inherent problem of "what if one side of the portal moves?" is that such a question fundamentally undermines a portal's existence. It's worse than hypothetical; it invalidates itself.

So from what I can gather
A logic

speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out

block is not moving, space is bending around it ergo it appears

B logic

it looks like speedy thing went in, so it should really be a speedy thing when going out

block is moving to the portal so the portal compensates and ejects it at relativistic speeds

The answer is A
Why?
I feel it in my bones. All on black!

both the entrance and exist planes of a portal MUST remain PERFECTLY SYNCHRONOUS to EACH OTHER

That happens naturally because entrance and exit are both the same thing.

You need to disassociate speed from the thing or the portal to fit B to this type of wording. The correct B phrase is:

Thing speedily goes in, thing speedily comes out.

Accelerating portals are problematic. Whenever a portal accelerates it creates a discontinuity at the boundary, its not well understood how to deal with this.

Lets consider the simplest solution, the portal closes. In this case the object is severed across the boundary. The parts on either side then retain their apparent momentum on each side.

As for forcing the portal to remain open. The way I think about it is a re-evaluation of velocities of the two parts of the object divided at the boundary. Kind of like if the portal closed severing the object, then instantly reopened gluing it back together.

The core problem of the "It would just have no inertia" crowd is this requires the portal being a completely instantaneous obstruction of space that has no inertia whatsoever.
When the very concept of a portal is you moving into that space instantly, not as tho you existed there stationary the whole time.

Unless we're talking total atomic disassembly and reconstruction, you can't get rid of inertia without the portal having its own gravitational force that cancels it out.

Can any bfags disprove this?

Here's your typical Afag by the way, actual pseudoscience.
youtube.com/watch?v=yehWerrJ6SU

What is there to disprove? The same thing that happens in the original will happen here to. It isn't actually making a new argument.

It's always moving at 1000m/s, the portal moving away is increasing the distance that it travels even if you can't see from the blue side. If it came out at 1m/s and stayed that way then from the POV of the cube itself it has to instantly lose 99.9% of it's velocity as soon as the back end makes it through. This ignores that if you claim "NO LOOK I CAN MEASURE IT AS 1m/s!" then half of the cube has to be moving 1000x faster than the other half somehow

That and they don't know what intertia is.

Seriously intertia has got to be the most misused term in physics. It isn't another word for momentum.

The same thing that happens in the original will happen here to

Exactly. That's why A is consistent and correct.

Ahh yes, the rapidly accelerating press would just stop on a dime so A works.

That's literally only how A happens.

Afag here, the guy will be blown away by the displaced air coming through the orange portal to blue portal first.

I worded that poorly, I meant can any bfags prove this.
At what exact point does B's scenario impart momentum to the cube?
The very second it touches? 1/4? 1/2? 9/16ths? does it have to completely pass through?

Why couldn't it? That can just be the limit of it's travel, it hits that point and stops.

A press doesn't press, it squishes half way.

The summary of the intellect here.

Machines are not precise! As a man from the 19th century I can prove to you that B is the only possible scenario

The same thing happens for B too. A slight change in the problem setup doesn't change the mechanics for how the portal works.

All mass leaves the portal at the same rate that it enters. Anything through the portal is moving away from the portal with momentum. The important thing to keep in mind is that you shouldn't treat this as a video game object that is effectively just a point mass with a contact box. Things happen continuously rather than all at once. If the portal stops half way, half of the mass will be moving up and will pull the bottom half up. Ignoring gravity, the final velocity is half of the speed the portal went down at.

brainlets still can't understand relativity 18 years later

Yes you can
Portals link spaces so that the distance between two points is 0
Moving 0 distance over >0 time results in a momentum of 0

All that's happening is the part of the cube that's left the portal is pulling on the part that has let to enter based on the established momentum that the cube that's left the portal has. Just apply basic physics knowledge because that's all it is.

The very second it touches? 1/4? 1/2? 9/16ths?

It depends on how fast the cube on the other end is moving. It's basic momentum physics.

trying to use this to explain why the cube would suddenly go flying

do retards really?

They are not the same. B fully obeys the laws of physics except at the portal boundary. A throws away physics everywhere.

Fucking hell this is some deeppseud cope.
If the full travel of a press is a micron distant from a stand, It will not press further.
If you need it to travel that same distance and no more, but the work requires a faster press action, then you adjust for deformation.
Picrel is a power hammer, I can literally adjust it to whatever level I want and it moves more than fast enough to use to demonstrate the point here.

Hypothetically that's where the limit has been set, doesn't matter why. Engage with the scenario instead of trying to weasel out of it.

A giant press = candy puller

Sure buddy, put your hand in a grinder, it's so precise.

B violates Newton's First Law of Motion

youtu.be/vSnWree5wt4?si=35W90flIfNvg7kK6

gif proves A

You guys do know that portals aren't real... right?

wrong
cringe

Hey buddy, FUCK YOU

Obviously its the smartest people on one side and the dumbest on the other. I will not say which is which

the numbers we fiddle with and twist around until they fit observations are always correect and prescriptive! So what if energy is added to every single particle not causally connected? And yeah, also it makes sense to fork the entire universe every time the wave function of an electron collapses, the math is sound, so the many world interpretation has to be true!

You are the dumbest kind of idiot that exists, the midwit too stupid to realize he is stupid, fervent follower of the gospel of popsci youtube videos. By the way, math also ""proves"" that infinity = -1/12. Look that up, retard.

It depends on how fast the cube on the other end is moving.

Nigger, it ISNT moving, thats the point.

Linear motion is actually perfectly fine for portals. Acceleration is the killer that breaks everything.

No need, we all know which side the Brainlets are

The gif doesn't attempt to prove anything. It is just an animation of the portal stopping 25% of the way down the cube and showing what would happen if the answer were B.

It's a moot argument because portals don't exist and what the meme shows is pseuds who want to sound smart.

B literally happens because it obeys it. The cube has established motion because it leaves the exit. So as per Newton's First Law the motion is maintained.

but the cube didn't have motion on entering

Yes anon. That IS what the anon meant by "except at the portal boundary". Notice we are then applying physics correctly after the cube leaves? The fact the cube leaves literally meaning that it moves?

I can look and see it change position tho that's called moving

Hypothetically, that's what I injected so we argue on my terms that are easier for me to argue despite every form of technology made to smash objects not working that way without being slow.

Not how it works.

Pretends he isn't the candy puller fag and uses an even worse example of something that doesn't even use more force than humanly possible

Wow, you sure showed me.

It may not attempt to, but it has.
How can a portal pass over an object with the majority of mass on the out-side not impart momentum, but the moment that the portal completely encompasses the object it suddenly rockets out like its been tossed?

The same thing happens for B too

All mass leaves the portal at the same rate that it enters

Half of the cube didn't even enter the portal though. How is it flying off the portal at the same speed it went in, if it didn't go in at all so it had a 0 speed through it?

You wanna know the best way to solve this problem? Launch portal or portal 2 and see if they demonstrate A or B. See? That wasn't too hard Mr. Nigger now was it?

In order to move a portal with respect to the other end of the portal, you would have to move the entire universe. Which includes the platform and box.

You're applying physics "correctly" to a different situation, that's the part you aren't comprehending. The physics you apply are only correct if there's a force pushing the cube from below which is how it appears from outside the exit portal but is not the case.

Both A and B violate physics. The difference is B keeps the breakage strictly to the portal surface. A on the other completely fucks physics into gibberish and its range of breakage is up to an infinite distance away from the portal. You take issue with B creating motion from nothing. But A creates motion from nothing and then arbitrarily takes it away again. It so much worse than B.

An object at rest will remain at rest until acted on by another force. Portals have no mass and therefore cannot impart force

established motion because it leaves the exit

LOL

B fully obeys the laws of physics except at the portal boundary

"u-uh well if you just ignore the only interaction in the entire equation then my point makes sense yeah"

I think the cube will plop but the spike will impale. What does that make me?

Whether the cube is moving relative to the portal or the portal is moving relative to the cube doesn't matter.

The summary of the intellect here.

here let me help you bro

also, how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast?

Yes anon. Portals DO in fact possess the demonstrated ability to change the momentum of the objects that pass through them:
youtube.com/watch?v=ASUUN0W4_JY
We are merely then applying Newton's First Law to that aftermath. Much like the games do because the games also have the momentum changes done by the portal kept afterwards.

Nobody is saying that the spike won't impale except for Bfags trying to conjure up imaginary points about A

Yes it does. A point in space being brought to an object is fundamentally different from an object being brought to a point in space.

In B it imparts momentum to the mass that has gone through the portal. Where or if it stops doesn't matter for the mass that has already gone through.

Just like the original, all mass that enters the portal leaves exists at the speed it enters. Once it stops, you just have a basic physics problem where the portal can be largely ignored. You have half a cube worth of mass moving upwards attached to the bottom half. The momentum of the top half pulls the bottom half up.

pretends he isnt the candy puller

nigger, nobody claimed otherwise, its literally just an image from searching "1800s machinery" you stupid faggot.
So now that thats out of the way, where is your fucking argument? Youre now claiming a power hammer uses human force? fucksake just google it if you dont know what it is you stupid nigger.
Not to mention that you now seem to be prescribing "inhuman force" to this experiment for no reason other than to move the goalposts.

Portal's literally show to change the momentum of passing objects:

people arguing about imaginary physics for the umpteenth time

imagine how better life you would have if you directed that autism into something constructive instead of wasting all this time trying to convince some retard on the other side of the planet how some fictitious concept would work in reality

Its so fucking retarded especially when you can just load up a game up Portal 2 and figure it out yourself. It's almost like these were on a board for VIDEO GAMES.

As usual Bfags have to change the scenario to "prove" themselves right.

Oh yeah, huh? So what if it's just a quarter of the cube? Does it fly away as well?

The force remains the same behind the object remains the same

yeah well what if i posted a gif that completely changes the scenario (man throwing the box instead of the box being at rest) to prove im right - see look, I'm right!

That isn't what that's showing. The portals have created a straight line between the two people, the cube is never actually changing direction either despite how it looks from your frame of reference.

Same thing happens. 1/4 of the mass is moving upwards and pulls on the bottom when the portal stops.

Yeah huh, what if it's a 1 atom-thick layer of the cube? Does it fly away too?

Imagine you have two weights tied together with a rope. You throw one weight, the rope pulls taught and yanks the other and now they are both flying. Imagine the object to be two separate objects joined across the boundary. Each object has its apparent momentum on either side. When the portal stops, at that instant you effectively have two objects with difference momentum joined together. And like with the rope and weights, the moving half yanks on the stationary half.

Too retarded to follow two post chains to know this is about the diagram in the first place

Also

Twitter hijacked meme

ok

Same thing. 1 layer of atoms have momentum and pull on the remaining atoms. Keep in mind that one layer of atoms isn't going to have much mass, so this will be a very small pull.

Twitter hijacked meme

lmao retard I took the diagram you replied to and drew 4 square boxes with the 4chanx

lmao you are fuming so hard because you made a fool of yourself in front oft he classroom

No they don't

so this will be a very small pull

Yeah, so small the answer is A.

And just like that another Bfaggot completely destroyed.
Thanks for playing.

The force remains the same behind the object remains the same

The momentum has literally changed. I even pointed you to an actual physics professor telling you this.

the cube is never actually changing direction either despite how it looks from your frame of reference.

A meaningless argument when "how it looks" is precisely the topic at hand.

You're being shown two visuals and being asked which is the correct one. Arguing that something it only looks like B but you don't actually think the momentum has change won't change the fact that B is the correct visual.

Prove that you understand the question.

That is how it works in B. The goal is to show that B is consistent, not that B is correct.

As long as you stay consistent and agree the previous steps also works as described. Maybe A was actually B all along.

The vector of the direction has changed but the kinetic energy behind the object is the same (zero)

two weights tied together with a rope

Already different because when I throw one end the other one is not moving with it.
Nice cope. Concession accepted I guess.

bfaggotry is seated in the current strict definition of movement, that is based in a universe where portals aren’t real, would still apply. Part of the cube moved from x to y instantly therefore that part of the cube must continue at that rate due to the strict definition of inertia. So each layer of atoms that passes through is sheared off and flies off at greater than the speed of light.

As long as you stay consistent

Oh so that's the cope you are resorting to. You double down on your dumb argument and because "you are consistently saying that it will do it" even if it makes 0 sense you think you are right.

Yeah bro, the one atom-layer of the cube going through the portal is going to send the whole cube flying (just slightly teehee~~) LMAO

Never really understood the big argument here. Any object will come out at the same rate as it enters the portal.
So yeah if the portal is fast enough like let's say 1000 mph the cube will also exit the portal at 1000 mph.
Like your fancy physics and maths and logics don't fucking matter at all.

No one

Why are you bringing that up as that's not just a commentary of you just deliberately removing the context in a desperate cling I'm ignorant of hardware you use an example?

Youre now claiming a power hammer uses human force?

Humanly possible means within a human's ability to apply that much acceleration and pressure, not a human has to be the one doing it ESL.

Why do you act like the blue portal is also facing down, so that gravity is acted on it, as opposed to against it?

Never really understood the big argument here

Yeah, it show. The argument is about what happens after that which no one is arguing against.

walk against treadmill going 5mph at 10mph, moving 5mph total relative to the ground at the end

get off treadmill, gain 5mph

This of course requires active thrust, which is yet another way b-fags change the situation without understanding

Doesn't actually argue why the post makes sense

ok.

pretending he isnt esl

makes an argument I accounted for and refuted in the same fucking post

thank you saar, please be doing the needful in the future.

Doesn't actually argue why the post makes sense

Why would I? It doesn't make sense.

That layer of atoms moves away from the portal at the rate it entered the portal. Consider two points that are one unit apart at the start. If the is moving at 1 unit per second, the top of the cube will travel one uint away from the portal in one second. At the same time, the portal goes down the cube 1 unit as well during that time. The distance from the top to the other point unit unit deep is still just one unit. There is no damage to the cube.

Changing the direction would traditionally require a force. You're now acknowledging that arguing the portals cannot impart force was pointless because it's able to enact changes that would have required one.

Look at the gif in , I posted it for a reason. The kinetic energy of the cube literally increases from zero in the final frame shown in the gif. The frame you most swear by in your life, earth's.

This is because direction is fundamentally tied to speed from one reference frame to another. That's why the physics professor says that changing the direction is fundamentally changing the momentum. And the gif demonstrates that when portals maintain an object's speed in the frame where they are motionless, that consequently means the speed and kinetic energy changes in the frame where they are moving.

explain yourself.

Bchuds real quiet after this one dropped

What the fuck are you talking about, if the cube isn't bolted to the platform it will continue to do the "emerging" and fly off at 1000 mph.
You can dig up Newton and ask him about that.

this. also god is real because its a simpler explanation than the big bang, evolution and all that other retarded science bullshit

Direction is in absolutely no way tied to speed

B works less than A because in my scenario, A goes entirely against logical consistency.

it will continue to do the "emerging"

Not if the platform stops midway through and even less so if it stop after only one atom-thick layer is gone through.

the laws of physics

Are a series of observations that consistently hold true on the macro/universal scale. The second “law” of thermodynamics is constantly found to allow for local reversals of entropy.

I'm not. I haven't commented on it since it isn't important and doesn't change the mechanics of either possible answer. Both will be the same no matter the direction of the portal, the strength of gravity, the density of the atmosphere and wind conditions, or any other possible factors that can be added on top.

Anon, do you know what the term "velocity" means?

Something changing direction but maintaining speed in one reference frame literally means it changes in speed in another. That's literally what that gif is showing you.

military still hasnt figured out this lifehack

The piston is pushing the cube and thus is applying force.

an anthropomorphic created with his infinitely complex power and infinitely complex universe that works in extremely complex way but in perfect harmony

a simpler explanation than a cosmic fart

lol bfags are something else

The portal isn't applying force to the cube in the base scenario. Here the cube has momentum because it is literally sitting on a moving object so it's obviously B

It wouldn't do this under B rules because the exit portal is moving at the same velocity as the entrance portal so there is no difference in frame of reference.

If you werent a ESL, you'd know that's a circular argument.
Like elaborate on how you refuted it by, comparing it to a completely different scenario that's easier to comprehend for you, and me addressing it as that so the point is invalid.

Retardation peaks and admits their post is dumb

alright.

Changing the direction would traditionally require a force

No it doesn't.

Doesn't actually argue why the post is dumb

Concession accepted.

This sounds like frame of reference r/physics cope
It's a video game
The A vs B argument is Anons vs redditors

I do yes
Do you know what scalar means?

who did the cosmic fart einstein?

That is the funniest thing ever because all the hoop shit and this shit is literally ALL in accordance with B.

Everything comes out at the same rate as it enters.

Ever heard of gravity?

gravitational force is not force

Lol

Assuming there's no extreme forced deacceleration that makes the cube lose its inertia, B happens either literally or relatively (shakes and tumbles)
Like what's the point here?

what did he mean by this

Speed is the one thing that it does not change

Portals are wormholes. It's logically consistent to how wormholes work

The only way B works is if portals are something other than wormholes

No one, which only makes it an ever more simplistic answer.

It just happened lol

Wow, so complex!

A isn’t simple though. It allows for concepts that redefine our understanding of physics to… redefine our understanding of physics.

Portal would have been great open world. The best part was flinging around at high speeds jumping through portal combos

Fair, so what happens if the traincar is suddenly frozen in time the moment it passes the red flag?
Now the box just shoots out, or does the box simply drop in place?

kitboga is waiting for you sanjeet, he needs content for tomorrow's upload.

what if-

Contrary to the original post, the cube platform is moving in that drawing. A more accurate drawing would be the floor with the gap falling down onto the stationary cube platform which would (to the surprise of absolutely no one) result in A. I wonder why the dishonest and duplicitous Bfag would change the scenario…?

What is the rate of speed in km/mph calculating again? How the fuck do you go a distance without going in a direction?

oh no

it's retarded

Well the fundamental concept here is how velocity or momentum is changed by going through the portal and both are vector properties so that would be more relevant.

And yes a big part of vectors is how direction and magnitude are tied when shifting reference frames.

no argument

didn't even consider gravity as a possibility

yeah you are pretty retarded alright

Which can also change speed as well, another reason why saying portals can't enact forces was pointless.

gravity isn’t a fucking force you fucking fuck

Uh huh. Very cool pop science trivia, Mr. Redditor.

Bfags haven't actually played Portal

Portal is very clear that when it comes to traveling through portals, what matters is the frame of reference of whatever is traveling through the portal, not the portals themselves

Fair, so what happens if the traincar is suddenly frozen in time the moment it passes the red flag?

Now the box just shoots out, or does the box simply drop in place?

Doesn't change the question. What happens to the train after it passes doesn't have any effect on the cube. Its still not an equivalent scenario and both A and B rules should produce the same results.

You shouldn't even need to play Portal to assume that

scenario A

box drops straight down

scenario B

box gains horizontal momentum and fires off in the opposite direction

this is the position B is holding

this is what 60k/yr college gets you

grim.

From who's theory, they can be literal time travel or survivable light speed travel with no G force depending on who mentions it.
You're just making an easier argument again without this.

momentum is changed by going through the portal

grim

I dunno how many times I'm going to point you to the gif but again, final shot, the speed of the cube literally changes in the final frame shown.

Also might as well bring up the moon scene as well. Chell's speed literally changes as she went through the portal. And no I'm not talking about as she is being pulled by the air pressure, but literally the point where she passes through the portal he speed changes massively to be suddenly moving with them moon in orbit.

so autistic he feels the urge to triple down on his stupidity

pretty grim alright

Schizoposts so hard they think their own posts is mine for some reason

See

show me the free momentum

another reason why saying portals can't enact forces was pointless

how are portals related to gravity?
why are you assuming that whatever gravity connection you make would effect one outcome in the way you agree with but not the other possible outcome in the way you not agree with?

Once she passes through the portal she's being acted upon by the gravity of the moon tethering her position relative to it, that's not the same thing

you fucking moppet

it’s not a force

So why is it called gravitational force?

…

…

…

b-but uhhh gravity has no mass!

Does it move objects?

…

…

…

no uhhh uhhh it just like is uhh Einstein said that like well it’s actually uh

1. Time
2. Application of Force

For an argument about the fictional existence of a portal to exist, an agreement must be made about these two elements.

Inherently, time must remain consistent, and a portal is incapable of transferring force; a portal cannot apply force. Any force, whatsoever. This does not invalidate force, is simply removes a portal from any sort of math regarding force. It is voluntarily neutral.

In the original question of

what if a portal moves

it infringes time. The question inherently invalidates itself.

In the question of

the portal applies force

it infringes existence of all mass. Suddenly, the portal isn't applying force to what it "touches," it's now become an existence that affects everything in the universe... and force becomes magical.

And, fine, go ahead and "discuss" an invalidated 4th dimension and the fictional magical force, but validating either with human science is impossible given its nature. An outcome can only be found when all fundamental elements are agreed upon.

Nigger the gravity of the moon is even weaker than earth's how the fuck do you think it's "tethering" Chell who would be moving at thousand MPH in any fashionable time.

randomly starts moving the goalposts

remember when you ignored that gravity is the reason asteroid change direction? that was so fun

There's a reason you have never seen a crude animation display A logic. It makes no sense whatsoever and they will go to such cope lengths to even insist that objects have no momentum whatsoever going through portals and the object simply teleports picometer by picometer until it's on the other side, motionless.
Hang all Afags.

how are portals related to gravity?

Why did the anon bring it up then?

Saying portals can't change momentum because they don't enact a force would be pointless if you're acknowledging a force isn't required to enact a change in momentum.

Movement is currently defined in such a way that portals should rip shit apart, because the part of an object at the exit portal instantly moves x distance while the rest remained stationary. The current definition of movement is if half of you is instantly further away from the other half than zero, you’ve been ripped in half.

Since this doesn’t happen in the game, that strict definition of movement is faulty.

that's what you got out of that post?
esl monkeys shouldn't be allowed on the internet

Gravity is only a theory which can be easily theorized to function in any way in relation to theoretical portals.

why is it called gravitational force

To help inner city children understand it

anyone under 130iq shouldn't be allowed to vote or reproduce

Why did the anon bring it up then?

What are you talking about? You replied to a dude who posted an asteroid.

If your reasoning behind portals is that they're just magic so they might as well be B then I'm going to just stick to A

Fortunately we aren't trying to define the direct change in positions portals do as a form of momentum.

We are however defining actual momentum changing as a form of momentum through. That's much cleaner.

There are a number of animations made to show A logic, but it is more in an attempt to show that it looks ridiculous. Depending on just how far it goes, you will have people agree or disagree with them. I often get people who will see this image of space moving over a stationary cube and will claim is is different from their version of space moving over a stationary cube.

It's always like this when Bchads argue against Alogic

There is no "Alogic" Afags just go with what appears to make sense in any given scenario.

that's what you get from the post in which I unknowingly said gravity is not the reason asteroid change course

yeah
you alright dude?

Desperately gaslighting

A is the one that says there's no inertia, gravity or acceleration
What are you on about?

Yes... that anon was bringing up gravity....

His post has zero to do with portals. Stop moving the goalposts and answer my questions autist, I wasn't even clashing with you I was honestly wondering what your take was.

Who the hell needs to go to college for that?
The car is moving forward at 50 km/h. The box comes out of the rear at 50 km/h in the other direction relative to the car. 50 minus 50 is 0.

fall on stationary spike

get impaled

"WTF how did this happen??? the spike must have flown into me!"

In contrast, you will get a lot of people that will agree that this version fits with their idea of space moving over the stationary cube and platform. I think the first one not being a linear motion and not having physical contact with something on the other side throws people off, but it really doesn't matter. Its all the same logic of the room moving over the cube.

Afags think about each scenario to figure out how portals would work instead of trying to justify a preexisting answer

Pfft, cowards

trying to define the direct change in positions portals do as a form of momentum.

That is the core of bfaggotry

B-mutts Law

Afags, I need you to think of two things:
First, imagine how you would feel if you hadn't had breakfast this morning.
Second, imagine that instead of a cube, the portal is descending on you. You enter the orange portal head first and you begin to emerge from the blue portal. Everything around you is going by so fast, you can even feel the resistance of the supposedly stationary air. You know it for a fact: it's not the room that's moving, it's you. Your entire body is now almost out of the portal, and now you must come to accept that you're going to go flying. You've been moving this whole time, and the only thing that's going to stop you from continuing to move is some sort of force.

how many times do we need to have this same fucking thread

Where's the Bfag saying that the cube would fly off with just one layer of atoms going through the portal and thne stopping? I want to read his cop- I mean explanation about what would happen in this scenario.

You're getting confused.

why are you assuming that whatever gravity connection you make would effect one outcome in the way you agree with but not the other possible outcome in the way you not agree with?

I never made a gravity connection. That anon was the one who brought up gravity.

What's relevant is that we're acknowledging that a force isn't actually required to enact a change in momentum, and honestly even that is semantics really.

speedy thing go in, speedy thing come out
motionless thing go in, motionless thing come out
simple as

That's not B's argument at all. In fact is the first time I've seen an anon try to even suggest this in many of these threads.

I never made a gravity connection.

"another reason why saying portals can't enact forces was pointless"

in response to a reply about gravity
????????????????????????????????

Nigger, THINK
The box has NO HORIZONTAL IMPETUS
You are giving it energy it does not have and cannot gain. It simply moves towards gravity at the same rate anything else would, not that It suddenly gains and loses inertia in equal proportion.

there's no inertia

Yes, there is no object or force moving the cube from rest other than the change in gravity due to it's new potential energy

gravity

Who said that? That's where the plop comes from

acceleration

It's moving a total distance of zero, so there wouldn't be any acceleration

no dude you cant say any of that youre trolling you have to just say portals are magic and break all the conventions of physics!!!

it's another Bfag with an animation that completely changes the scenario in order to "win"

Yes, it's makes more sense to think of how a set of consistent rules would apply in any scenario.
That's how physics works. The laws of nature don't change just because something looks counter-intuitive.

It will be "traveling" fast up until the portal reaches its end point then it would fall over just like the ball.
Try again, retards.

What's relevant is that we're acknowledging that a force isn't actually required to enact a change in momentum

Post what A scenario where any of which you said is relevant then.
now.

Bfaggotry is “by how we define movement the cube is moving therefore it should continue.” This logic mapped out is “actually that would rip shit apart.”

If you closed your eyes the only thing you'd feel is the changing of gravity as your center of balance passes the threshold

You only think you'd feel like you're moving because you are an ape easily tricked by moving pictures

How does the box go through the portal at all in scenario A

When I move I feel resistance from stationary air
Nothing moves in the scenario, space itself has compressed until I end up in a different place. Like standing in pic rel and it squishes down until I "move" out of the end.

motionless box is speedy

nice b fags

No B is "entrance velocity relative to entrance = exit velocity relative to exit".

we're acknowledging that a force isn't actually required to enact a change in momentum

But that's wrong.

how do boxes stay together at all instead of falling apart into atoms

Then you're of the camp that things gravity counts as a force and disagrees with regardless.

This really is semantics.

from the spikes point of view, it did

Are you actually implying you wouldn't feel any resistance from the air? You are pushing against it and displacing it, and therefore it pushes back on you. You would absolutely feel it.

When I move I feel resistance from stationary air

I guess I worded that wrong. Yes, the air is stationary, and when you MOVE through it, you feel it, because the air is exerting the equal and opposite force that you exert on it. That's exactly what would happen in the scenario, because you are MOVING as you exit the blue portal.

It's semantics

No it's not, the point is that the course of the object changed from a third party input whether it was a "force" or something else is irrelevant because the bottom line is that without extraneous input, the object would stay on the exact same course, forever. That IS the point.

My god some of you are really fucking atustic aren't you? You really need everything explained because you lack any ability to understand subjext or nuance.

The first atoms that hit the portal instantly “move.” Bfag logic applied to this means shredding unless you project a magical stabilizing force within proximity of the portal. But then you go back to a.

Thems the breaks.

The air around me is also moving so no I would not feel resistance

My god some of you are really fucking atustic aren't you?

You're the one getting upset over nothing anon.

My god some of you are really fucking atustic aren't you?

The distance between the first and second layer of atoms hasn't changed. The portal moves down at the same rate the cube is moving out.

Nope. Again you don't understand B's actual argument.

"entrance velocity relative to entrance = exit velocity relative to exit".
Here you go, simple as that.

youtube.com/watch?v=IhEaw3Kuhf0

*A Mathematician has entered the chat*

That's atmospheric pressure, and is something your body is used to. I'm talking about air resistance, obviously. But you're intentionally being obtuse about it.

obviously moving object isn't moving because... it just isn't, okay!

I don't even really argue in these threads anymore, I just like watching Afags cope and squirm around.

geez, is this guy challenging my views? he must be upset

The basic difference is that A says that moving portals distort space while B ignores it to avoid breaking any existing calculations they understand

it works this way because.... I think it looks like it would

No, the atmosphere surrounding me will be forced through the same portal as I am. If air is subject to the same thing as I am then I won't feel resistance

Yes. My intuition is sharp and frequently correct.

That means the first atoms to exit the portal have a velocity the rest doesn’t. Atomization in layers.

Yeah I do consider people who seem to be losing their patience to be upset.

Oh that explains it. You are just projecting.
Your lack of patience must be the reason you stopped arguing altogether and that explains why you are upset now.

Nope. Because they are able to remain connected as their difference in motion lines up with the portal.

The distance between the first and second layer of atoms hasn't changed

Movement is defined as “an act of changing physical location or position or of having this changed.” the first layer of atoms instantly “moved.” Bfag logic is because it “moved” it should continue. Thus, every layer of atoms gets ripped off at faster than the speed of light. Otherwise, it’s a.

Frankly I stopped arguing because you really seem to have completely lost the plot.

get rekt bfags

The air coming out of the portal isn't going to be in one, uniform, stationary column that uniformly displaces the air. All of those MOVING air molecules are going to impact the "stationary" molecules and cause a lot of wind, even from your position. You will absolutely feel the admixture of the two sources of air.

A is correct, if it were B then Chell's grip strength is more powerful than a hydraulic press

You can see what has yet to cross portal boundaries, when looking through the portal.
If you look through a portal, you can see what is on the other side.

A problem with a portal's very existence is that, given this logic of perspective, the portal's "boundary" is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. "Force" and "energy" and "inertia" and any physical definition you can come up with is no longer "in stasis" until it meets a portal's boundaries, where it then suddenly (instantaneously) is not in stasis: it is not in stasis the moment a portal even exists... regardless of its own position to that portal.

You can argue such an existence is possible, but the math (science/physics) to support it MUST CHANGE from human understanding of it. Such a portal immediately applies MULTIPLE VALUES, with equal importance, to a single variable.
Which is comprehensively impossible, as we understand 3-dimensional physics + time.

To have an argument, an agreement must be made.
Asking questions about portals inherently invalidates either human understanding of physics, portals, or both.

The rate the portals are moving is irrelevant, as no matter the distance, the “movement” is faster than the speed of light.

You seem to be confused. The first layer of atoms moved out of the portal at the rate the portal went down. The portal isn't moving at the speed of light, so obviously the atoms won't either. You are probably thinking about how an instant change in velocity shouldn't be possible and would require an infinite force. The trick is that the portal doesn't apply a force to change the velocity. It is a transformation that maintains the trajectory of the cube through the portal in the same way that the direction can change but is actually still just going in a straight line through the portal. You can debate that explanation, but the cube would definitely not be harmed.

can't refute the latest post relevant to the discussion

ACKshually is because you lost the plot and not because I'm wrong or anything

yeah sure

He's arguing fictional hypotheticals under circumstances however he chooses to define them.

Portals are not real.
His YouTube is real!
That does not mean portals are real.
I can discuss the meta or Yu-Gi-Ah!
That doesn't make Yu-Gi-Ah! real.
But it is when I define it to be.
That doesn't validate it as science, though.

Delta P and the parts flying out doesn't exist

It's totally A and not breaking physics to be cinematic and give a reason for him to be stuck in space.

The parts are flying out because of the pressure differential between Earth and the VACUUM OF SPACE

also it's one hell of a coincidence that Chell's portal landed right next to the Apollo mission

movement is defined as “an act of changing physical location or position or of having this changed.”

bfaggotry is seated in strict definitions of physics. This means the first layer of atoms is INSTANTLY changing position faster than the speed of light. Since bfaggotry is arguing the appearance of movement must be movement, the object appearing to INSTANTLY move any distance thus should continue, means continuing to shoot off at faster than the speed of light.

It didn't though. You can measure the time and distance to get the velocity.

not breaking physics

the mere existence of portals breaks physics

That landing spot was chosen because it’s pretty much the point of the moon closest to the earth

No you can't, there is no distance to measure

the distance is irrelevant as the first layer of atoms through the portal instantly “moves.” This is faster than the speed of light even if the distance is just an inch.

Portal is moving at 1 m/s. Cube moves one meter over one second out of the portal. Cube is moving 1 m/s, which is less than the speed of light. Also, don't forget that distance between portals is zero.

You legitimately sounded like you had your wires crossed. To recap I wasn't saying that portals necessarily involved gravity. But by acknowledging gravity is not a force, then it is acknowledging that a force isn't necessary to enact a change in momentum. Which then means arguing the portal must enact a force to change momentum doesn't work as an argument. Because you're acknowledging that a force isn't necessary to enact a change in momentum.

It doesn't teleport. It just moves an inch through space over some set time.

Yeah sure, try to reignite the argument now at page 10 lmao

Cube LOOKS like it's moving 1m/s, it is not actually moving. The inclusion of a portal invalidates such basic observation by introducing a non-standard interaction with spacetime. Where the cube starts and the outside of the second portal become the same place.

First layer of atoms through the portal INSTANTLY move one meter. That is INFINITELY FASTER than the 3.3 nanoseconds it takes for light to travel one meter.

these threads are training grounds for an "internet troll" LLM.

Just fyi

atoms

This mathematician claims:
1. Portals cannot exist outside of fiction
2. When variables are agreed on to allow a portal to exist, "B" is 99.9% absurd and can only marginally function if the portal doesn't act like his portals, do not experience any change, are completely uniform, and are completely flat.