I have a question about this...

I have a question about this. People who argue B say that in order for the cube to displace an object when exiting the blue portal, the cube has to apply force to that object. The cube can't apply force when it's stationary.

My question is this. If the amount of energy from the moving portal is transferred to the cube, then what happens to the portal's momentum?

Let me put it this way. If there was a baseball moving towards the orange portal at 100mph in a frictionless space, and the orange portal was moving towards the baseball at 100mph in a frictionless space, and B was the correct way for the interaction to play out, wouldn't the baseball move at 200mph and the orange portal at 100mph? Doesn't that violate the law in physics about conservation of momentum?

It would make more sense for space itself to be bent, connecting the two portals. Sort of like a worm hole. Besides, I think it would be strange to alter current local physics with the addition of stuff that would require new physics like portals.

Not reading all of that, but it is in fact B.

How does the portal apply force to the cube?

it's A
only retards who don't understand physics think B

The momentum of the portal isn't "transferred" to the cube as if it were a physical object touching the cube. The exact movement of the portal relative to the cube just becomes how the cube is moving.

youtube.com/watch?v=ASUUN0W4_JY
Portals demonstrably change the momentum of objects passing through it. Doesn't matter whether it's to be defined as a force or not.

The column has velocity and applies force to itself

applies force to itself

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
this fucking thread is gold

That is exactly my point. It would increase the total amount of energy in the system. That would break physics. I said conservation of momentum, but I mistyped that. I meant Newton's third law. The portal can't keep momentum and move the cube.

The cube goes in at 100kmh
Cube exits at 0kmh
Cube is shredded by its atoms occupying the same space as it all comes out at once slower than it was going in
Cubes falls to the floor
Or
Cube goes in at 100kmh
Momentum is relative
Cube comes out at 100kmh
Cube momentum is retained
Cube goes flying

A, like throwing throwing a hulahoop on top of an object.

b-b-b-b-b-but its no ta hulahoop

*Ahem* Slow down, retard. Pic related.

if b were true, and the strict definition of movement happened, then the first layer of atoms through the portal moved infinitely faster than the speed of light through the portal, which would confer instant momentum to the rest of the cube, either launching it off at infinite velocity, because the object can withstand infinite force (B) or the object would be shredded into atoms.

it's spacetime!

Except the portals demonstrably change the actual momentum of the object passing through

can't refute the portals are hulahoops

ez

suggest b is true in hypothetical

add additional bullshit

make a conclusion purely on the additional bullshit

wormholes aren't a zero distance between two points.

The problem doesn't involve a entrance and an exit moving down together. So no it's not the equivalent of a hula hoop.

Yes they are, I've been using them all my life

only a retard would acknowledge b as a possibility

bfaggotry is seated in strict definitions of basic physics, like movement being defined as distance over time. any distance over zero time is infinite velocity.

So no it's not the equivalent of a hula hoop.

The only criteria for a LLM to be a success is that it produce output that sounds like it could've been written by a human. It doesn't matter if the output is factual or useful in any manner

moving portals are literally rearranging the entire universe.

then why does ai never sound human? is it because it was trained on high karma reddit posts?

Sure, but why do you believe that? It seems like a fairly large escalation from what we seem them do when stationary. I just don't follow where the jump to that conclusion comes from.

i am not to be the following as to how being able to "move" from two points in the same universe instantly is to be rearranging the universe

because a portal is literally just a door that connects two distant places together

What makes you think that?

The people who parrot the "muh frame of reference" line seem to conveniently forget that it applies to everything else as well. It can't be just the cube moving without the platform on it, and the other platform, and the wall, floor, and that other wall, and the bird outside, and the nigger stabbing a white kid.

you forgot the pibble mauling the baby

No, come on, don't start these threads in a row.

It doesn't matter if you consider portals as arranging the universe. By principle of relative motion the universe moving around the cube is he same as the cube moving through the universe. The games literally depict this as an actual change in momentum of the cube

Tomorrow I'm going to remake this thread, but I'll switch which one is labelled A and which one is labelled B.

there were like five people posting as fast as possible to get in before the lock last thread, so he thought that would continue. typical autist mistake

but why do you believe that?

Because it's what is happening. When you walk around, the same thing is happening you just don't perceive it for because it's a scaling issue.
Think about it this way: You go to the beach, walk to the water and fill an empty cup with it.
That action had an effect on the total volume of water that's in theocean even though in the grand scheme of things, it's irrelevant.
Same principle.

the "principle of relative motion" is a concept formulated in a universe where it isn't possible for two objects to be two different distances apart.

every single "basic" physical definition is an attempt to reduce a phenomenon down to its simplest possible form. portals break all of them.

Doesn't that violate the law in physics about conservation of momentum

anon... what the fuck do you think portals do? you realize you can create an infinite energy source just by putting one portal directly above another portal then dropping something through them right? It's a fundamental basic of portals that they violate the laws of physics.

i'm more inclined to believe its attempts to get a LLM to "think" laterally. to introduce a situation where the strict definitions are either wrong or don't function and compel understanding beyond said "rules."

guess what nine year old game I played today, after saying "fuck off" for that time due to how similar it was to portal

I'm not having as much fun in this thread as I usually do. Anyone want to play Arcs in TTS or something? A board game sounds nice.

Doors don't move the world, so that isn't a good comparison.

So the idea starts from the conflict between the frames of reference. Cube is moving relative to the bird in the blue room, but not moving relative the pibble mauling a baby in the orange room. The world moving is just a way to try and deal with that, but does it actually fix it? It seems like you still get conflicts since now the cube is actually both not moving and moving relative to things and suddenly I'm thinking of that one anon who insists moving portals just can't happen because of that. I still think it sounds like a jump in logic, but I appreciate the attempt to explain.

I get that space is supposed to be moving and expanding, but I feel like space moving into itself as a result of portals is different. It changes from some large scale event to a very local one that has obvious consequences. Of course I'm not sure if that is actually what you are trying to get at with a real world comparsion

thanks chatgpt?

Wormholes are derived from Einsteinian physics which does uphold the concept of relative motion. It doesn't matter though because the answer is much simpler than you're trying to make it:

The games literally depict this as an actual change in momentum of the cube

you can create an infinite energy source just by putting one portal directly above another portal then dropping something through them right?

No you can't. A perpetual motion system by definition requires that it works indefinitely without third party input.

what stops the system after you let go anon?

i'm not watching your faggoty youtube video bro. use your words. keep in mind

The system works because gravity is present and is pushing the object downwards. Without gravity, there's no working system.

gravity isn't a force trayvon, its a divot in space time dragging mass down towards the center point.

All the Btards have never played portal. How portals and momentum work is explained in the game:

speedy thing goes in speedy thing comes out

In the diagram the platform is moving while the cube, the thing that has to have momentum, is not. Regardless of how fast the platform is moving, the only way for the cube to launch out is for the cube itself to already have some kind of momentum prior to entering the portal. Portals, due to them being stationary in nature cannot generate momentum, all portals can do is preserve momentum.

gravity isn't a force

That's beyond the point and I never called it a force. I said that without gravity, the system doesn't work. A permanent motion system, by definition, requires permanent function once activated without any external interaction.
Gravity being an external interaction that plays a role in the system and is not a universal constant means that the system isn't a permanent motion one.

It doesn't. A force causes acceleration, and acceleration is a change in velocity OVER TIME. An object moving through a portal doesn't change its velocity continuously, but instantaneously. Even with stationary portals, if I were to throw a cube 10m/s to the right, it would emerge from an opposite-facing portal traveling 10m/s to the left, without at any moment moving at any velocity in between the two. "How does it apply force?" is therefore a red herring, because portal behavior is not consistent with the application of force in the first place.

What is happening is that the cube was ALREADY in motion - from the entrance portal's frame of reference. By passing through the portal interface, the cube's relative frame of reference changes non-continuously; its motion relative to the entrance portal instantaneously becomes its motion relative to the exit portal, without passing through any intermediary frames.

"pushing" is claiming something is a force, rajesh. yes, i am putting indian below nigger.

"pushing" is claiming something is a force

ok, just use whatever autistic term you think is "correct"
the bottom line is that without gravity the system wouldn't work so your claim is wrong

feel free to seethe and cope about terminology as much as you want though I bet a couple posts more arguing about semantics will make your system not depend on gravity

Pick up friend cube

Hold it between portals

Drop it

Problem answered.

youtube.com/watch?v=ASUUN0W4_JY

Go plug your youtube channel somewhere else

I already used my words

The games literally depict this as an actual change in momentum of the cube

I linked to an actual physics professor backing me up.

keep in mind

Don't tell me to use my words then proceed to put words in my mouth you hypocrite.

Energy does not really exist. Its just a number that appears when physics equations are rearranged in a specific way, and the conservation of this number only applies in spaces without portals. When you introduce portals the very concept of energy breaks down.

As for energy transfer, there is no transfer. As I said energy is not a thing. Its just a number, a number that is no longer conserved when you allow portals to exist.

Does anyone have the portals on a train webm?

you mean the "gravity doesn't exist" series of webms?

Here you go. This is the best thing that has ever come out of these threads.

That doesn't even make sense. How is energy not a thing?
It would make sense if you argued that our understand of it or out way of measuring is wrong but to say that energy doesn't exist is seems like a poor choice of words.

The absence or presence of gravity has no bearing on the point the webm is making, so i'm not sure why you're bringing it up. a train in space would still be a train.

thanks, that one really is the best visualization.

thus the cube's momentum is an inherent property of it, and there is nothing else acting on it? WHICH MEANS A

btards are now in the minority after years of being insufferable faggots

Anon Babble is healing

the average user is getting stupider

anon thinks this is healing

If I take an object and raise it, it gains potential energy. But what tangible real thing has the object gained. Nothing. Energy is just a number, not anything of substance.

strict adherence to the definition of basic terms in scenarios where those definitions, at best, no longer function, or at worse, become paradoxical, is not intelligence.

btard wastes dubs acting like a faggot

You used energy to raise the object. If energy wasn't a thing, you wouldn't be able to lift it at all.
When you drop the object, it will have energy too.

Let me put it this way. If there was a baseball moving towards the orange portal at 100mph in a frictionless space, and the orange portal was moving towards the baseball at 100mph in a frictionless space, and B was the correct way for the interaction to play out, wouldn't the baseball move at 200mph and the orange portal at 100mph?

Yes.

Doesn't that violate the law in physics about conservation of momentum?

Yes. But portals already break the conservation of momentum (and energy as well).

"energy" is a post-hoc quantification of possible or actual forces at work. same as every definition of everything. the moon technically has a potential energy of 28307712487513j if something were to instantly stop its orbit. but the force of its impact would be the same if quantified or not.

A portal is just a door. If a open door falls on you it doesn't boost or push you at all

making an unsubstantiated claim without even a poll to back it up

Past few times we've had polls on this it's been 50/50 with b having a slight lead. Funnily enough it does tend to be majority A with communities with far less experience with the topic.
Based quads.

the force of its impact would be the same if quantified or not

So your issue is with the measurement methods not with energy itself. Not sure why would you argue that "energy isn't a thing".

not the same guy, retard. a measurement isn't real, unto itself. it is a post-hoc quantification, that just so happens to be based in a universe where portals aren't real.

So, again, your issue is about measurement and not energy itself. So not sure why would you say that energy isn't a thing.

b-b-but I didn't say it

That's irrelevant here because you are arguing against the initial disagreement so for all intents and purposes you are agreeing with the initial post.

the issue is taking post-hoc definitions and treating them as reality, rather than models, which are always wrong, even if they're useful.

I'm confused. Who disagreed with that?

anyone who insists energy is anything more than a post-hoc quantification.

Oh, so it's basically pic related. Got it.

Holy fucking kek

wow, i haven't seen someone concede so hard in a long time.

again, the point was about how "conservation of energy" is only part of a math equation that struggles to define a reality without portals. with portals its just irrelevant.

There's nothing to concede. You (supposedly) stepped into a random conversation and started rambling about something that nobody was arguing about.
If you are some random guy that just butted in it makes the whole situation even more bizarre.

or i took the points made at and reduced them to a point where even (you) couldn't be befuddled by them, and now you're pretending you're trolling.

What points? You already acknowledge your only issue is about energy measurement and "anyone who insists energy is anything more than a post-hoc quantification" whoever that may be. No one was arguing about any of that.
You are making zero sense.

like the man said, "energy" isn't real. its just part of an equation. thus any "laws" relating to it are just conclusions derived from said equation.

"energy" isn't real

You made it clear that your point is that our energy measurements are fake and gay so I still don't get why you keep saying that energy isn't real instead of saying the former.

its a specific refutation to the idea that any "laws" of thermodynamics matter in this situation.

Even if the laws of thermodynamics didn't matter, energy would still be real.

nope. just another word that would require a complete top-down redefinition.

nope

Not an argument.
If I punch you, you feel the energy. There's no two ways around it.
You could argue endless about how our measurement of that energy are dumb or wrong or useless but that energy is definitely there and you felt it.

thus btfo he's going to start replying to himself from another side any moment now

thus btfo he's going to start replying without quoting posts directly to himself from another side any moment n-
nevermind he already started