𓁟 host1.bitchan.one

I vibe-coded a physics engine just to prove my point. If you still think its A, you are just wrong. portalphysics dot xyz

⧖expiring ~30d0/28 kept18m ago

𓀐 @L*cCeV-d

⏱ 2d 👍 0

⬆ upvote 0

[⇥] sort oldest ⏱

⬆[⏱]₿⚠

👍👎✔

𓀐↩⛓⚠

[⇥] flip, oldest first

filter [-]
𓀐 @DebaBR3E: >in A, it is an intrinsic property of the cube relative to it's reference frame This is nonsense. No, you can't just declare that velocity is now an intrinsic property of an object. >no, the orange portal moves relative to me, the cube looks like it is moving relative to my view through the blue portal, but this illusion is caused by the movement of the orange portal This is your mistake. The distance between you is objectively, measurably decreasing. >much like a cube isn't moving towards me when i walk past it, if i stop on the way, it does not launch towards me. This is because of the forces involved (or lack thereof), not because the motion between you was "illusory". >portals (inherently) don't fucking exist Intellectual cowardice. The concept of portals as they appear in the game inherently create different frames of reference and that's not up to interpretation. >it is not, it really breaks you brain that we don't think you're clever for knowing what two different reference frames are, doesn't it? I don't think I'm clever, I just think you're exceptionally not clever. Nothing "breaks my brain" hjere, it's just plain to see that you don't know what you're talking about. >wrong, the distance between you and the cube remains the same throughout Objectively false claim. >the distance through the portal is irrelevant Handwaving. >yes, and in A there is no other frame to be relative to Which is why A is objectively wrong. >the entire picture is the frame of reference I thought you said you understood frames of reference?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @y7AVg78X: >If you were on the output side of the portal, watching the cube fly out of said portal you would describe that as a launching. Is a train launched out of a tunnel? >If you are proclaiming that there is a distinction between reference frames on the input side vs the output side then you are necessarily describing a discontinuity. I am describing portals. The whole point here is that they run into each other. You can be looking at the same cube in two ways, both in front of you and through the portal, and conclude that, from your frame of reference, it is stationary and it is moving, even before going through the portal. So which is it? That's the whole point here. But the transition through the portal is continuous and the motion is uninterrupted. It does not suddenly "switch" from one frame of reference to another, because again, this is merely a way of describing things. >Absolutely nobody is confused about this. Nobody. You certainly appear to be. But perhaps you don't even notice what it is you're missing. >Certainly not the A side. lmao, it's one thing your side always struggles with. You can say "yes I understand it's relative" and then immediately add "but the cube is objectively stationary!" >What's clearly confusing you, despite people telling you this over and over again, is that the people advocating for A are not treating the input side as a distinct reference frame from the output side at all. They're the same local frame of reference. That's ironically, the opposite of what you're doing. How can the cube be stationary and moving in the same frame of reference? And why does it suddenly stop in the frame of reference in which it is moving? You are explicitly telling me that the distinct frame of reference in which the cube is stationary supersedes all others. The only person you've managed to confuse here is yourself.+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @qxjipq=7: >Is a train launched out of a tunnel? If it goes airborne. >it's one thing your side always struggles with. You can say "yes I understand it's relative" and then immediately add "but the cube is objectively stationary!" Who said this? >How can the cube be stationary and moving in the same frame of reference? If we're talking about portals and daynamically distorting manifolds, there is no contradiction involved with a local frame of reference being in motion relative to itself. >And why does it suddenly stop in the frame of reference in which it is moving? If you're on a descending elevator and you reach your floor, why does the building suddenly stop moving up relative to you? >You are explicitly telling me that the distinct frame of reference in which the cube is stationary supersedes all others. I am very explicitly not.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @o~2mNpd?: Newtonian physics cannot explain why the cube's speed would suddenly drop to 0 once the blue portal stops (scenario 16). You cannot deny that the cube has velocity in world space after it crossed the orange portal and before the blue portal stops. Therefore it has kinetic energy, and that energy cannot vanish for no reason. Unless it was glued to the piston. Therefore the only plausible explanation is that it keeps its speed up and gravity pulls it back down.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @~uB77wt6: Alright, since there's more people coming in on the A side, I'll reiterate that both answers are internally self consistent. They just rely on a different set of baseline assumptions about portals. >Side A: A portal is, apologies for the jargon, a localized topological nonconformity. There's no spacial discontinuity. There's no "spooky action at a distance." There's no distinction between the frames of reference on either side. It's all one continuous, albeit counter-intuitive, manifold. The box doesn't launch because there is nothing could have caused it to. >Side B: A portal is a discrete entity that allows objects to "teleport" across two discontinuous regions in space. Spooky action at a distance is, not only implied, but necessary. The two sides of the portal represent distinct reference frames with the only linkage being the portal itself. The cube launches because Inertia is conserved as an object emerges, completely agnostic to what is happening on the side it came from. So there you have it. The whole argument is about the same physics being applied to two different sets of assumptions regarding a fictional concept. Both sides take their own assumptions for granted and assert the other doesn't understand physics at the most basic level without ever addressing those assumptions.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @cQACiPBA: no, the cube does not have inertia, the surface the orange portal is attached to has inertia, as soon as it comes to a rest, the apparent movement of the cube in relation to the view through the blue portal also comes to a rest. you are retarded.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @aEctx_MY: just extend the experiment and make the orange portal go down the pillar. and then stop. so on blue portal you'll have the cube emerging with the pillar pushing it and when it stops the cube will keep going because from B perspective it's pushed by the pillar there is no way you do not understand this, it was always B. Atards are really hopeless and do not understand the errors of their ways+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @VG7B=SU+: weird samefag get rekt nerds+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @SsFbWtpi: the cube has a speed going into orange portal (relative to orange portal), thus it has the same speed coming out of blue portal (relative to blue portal) wtf?? how can you just ignore the speed in A? ......?????+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @2+CEFKNL: >because the speed relative to the portal is an illusion lol you brainlet, it's the same on both sides, going in and coming out. all the portal games behave like that. literally all the portals do this, speed going in = speed going out in the other portal's frame, relative to that portal. I hope now it's clear how brain damaged Atards are. >speed is illusion saar, train no speed ACK!+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @T5W-f-BJ: A is a non-answer. It doesn't determine the cube's trajectory.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @2qnKcF_u: Do you understand what a trajectory is? It's not a vague description. It's exact. In B, the velocity out is the velocity in (relative), so you know exactly how the cube exits the portal. In A, how exactly does it "plop"? What angle? How fast? None of it is clear. A is a non-answer.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @6DKZfksR: There is no problem with B and gravity. It simply curves down in a parabola, like any missile under the influence of gravity. Only the initial velocity is shown. A on the other hand is an abomination, as you aptly demonstrated. You don't know anything about gravity, but you use it to "explain" A's completely undefined trajectory, when in fact you are sweeping your ignorance under a sort of ill-conceived "gravitational" rug.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @4dn?bEL4: >What speed? the speed of the cube relative to orange portal. there is actually a single portal, with two sides. the portal is a single entity. there is a speed between cube and orange side of portal, thus obligatory same speed between cube and blue side of the same portal. everyone who says the cube has no speed relative to orange or blue sides of the portal are subhuman chimpanzees with 10 IQ.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @HS4x4nGv: I didn't say there is no portal. I said the portal is just a hole. Holes don't have reference frames. >>Like walking through a door. The act of passing through a portal of this variety is completely mundane and you'd have no way of even knowing you crossed it if not for the boundary surrounding said portal. >Yeah but that's B tho >>The logic of scenario B relies on portals actively translating objects from one reference frame to another >Which is the definition of what they do. Now you're just actively contradicting yourself.+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @Ro+JFeL3: >Holes don't have reference frames. does the cube have a distance to this hole?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @=k73nBvA: >Each and every one of those things you claim A is "overlooking" or cannot "accoount for" have been addressed. Multiple times. No they haven't lmao Handwaving is not addressing. You can only repeat that the cube is not moving and reinvent the hula hoop. You keep insisting you've thought of everything but failing to show it.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @X6cy2Uxj: Portals are not discontinuous and the cube is not "launched"; its trajectory is not a change but a continuation of its motion seen from the far side of the portal. The frame of reference is not "agnostic", it is a frame of reference, a construct applied to our observations, and the cube necessarily exists in two different ones simultaneously. That is to say, "what is happening on the side it came from" isn't an objective physical state of the cube, but a relative one, and the fact that it appears stationary in one frame of reference does not prevent it from being in motion in another. Your description of portals is actually more accurate under "A" if you ask me, except then out of nowhere you conclude "the box doesn't launch because there is nothing that could have caused it to" which seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what you actually described.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @xQxtxUVS: The game is not A, it just glitches out when objects attempt to traverse moving portals. In regards to making B work, all you need to do is add the relative portal motion to the velocity vector of the object, you do it in the same code that rotates the objects motion vector.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @Njhk6z~g: B implies an inertial frame conversion, which is achieved by patching the game's mechanics like it has been explained. mind you, this is to fix the game so it would behave like it would in reality, be consistent with laws of physics. because A sure as fuck isn't. in A cube has a speed as it emerges but decides for some fucking reason to cancel it out as soon as the cube is out on blue side and like...fucking plop, like the faggot cube that it is. Bchad cube is not fantasy like Asissy cube, Bchad keeps it real your IQ went into an elevator and went down to the basement you subhuman monkey+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @?jipZiV_: >Either side of the portal is the same frame of reference. which is the most retarded take and makes no sense lol. that is not consistent with how portals work. imagine you jump on a portal that's on the floor, from a heigth, and the other portal is on a vertical wall. you gather speed from falling and when you pass through the portal you'd suddenly stop instead of carrying the momentum. that is not what is happening in the game. at all. also no matter how much you screech you cannot talk about "the same frame of reference" since the moving portal changes that equation being an Atodd is the weakest position ngl+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @fXqx~BAC: I don't think there is any way to make A work in general, because A totally ignores locality. Cubes do not really exist. In reality there are just atoms. An atom has to have some location in space and a velocity relative to the things around it. The absurdity of A easily becomes apparent if you imagine standing next to the blue portal and being able to see and even touch the cube exiting the blue portal. The atoms of the cube are moving relative to your hand, the cube would push you if you stood in its path. That motion is real as anything can be said to be real. Why would that motion suddenly vanish because something somewhere else happened, that is absurdly nonphysical.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @qA-4WShu: A also models more exotic solutions, as is the case with a sophisticated engineered technology like portals. On every front the Btards lose. >portal is coherent teleporter where reference frame where static material deformations are preserved >portal operates over a portal space where arbitrary parameters control portal behaviors (ie, we see two portals, but the portals link to a unseen green portal dimension for transformation >portal reference frame is approximately infinity where all distances collapse to zero etc etc The B-tard fails to even to account for energy in their model. The piston has no contact with the cube. Where does it gain energy to fly upwards? For A the primary energy mechanism is obviously the portal. In the case where we tried to suppress the cube from transporting across the portal, given a sufficiently strong counter force and cube construction, the energy of the portal would fail. The B tard doesn't get this allowance because their premises are tied to assumptions about physical laws from muh textbook. Inside their heads is a little tiny mind virus that just tells them the cube jumps. Even when B tards tried to build that model in the game itself, it didn't work.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @spZ6nz7*: The red portal SLOWLY moves down. At what point does the cube start to fall due to gravity?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @NjD6b~Qy: The momentum of the piston is completely irrelevant to this problem. Also, simply picking up an object moving in the same direction as you does not mean you changed its entire motion vector, most of its motion vector remained the same. Also, to further clarify the irrelevance of the portals or piston momentum. Replace the cube with a 10 mile long rod. Ten miles of rod comes out the blue portal, then stops dead? Why. How does the universe even decide what atoms are part of the rod and should stop.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @=d?Mi?vN: >cat by the blue portal looks through it >sees the cube zooming towards it >oh shit! >cube comes through the portal and suddenly deaccelerates to stationary and rolls out+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @T?adcBmE: consider this scenario instead: we have a tower with many layers going through the portal. for sake of argument let's assume that A is the correct theory, and the first layer goes through and is stationary. however, then the second layer comes through and pushes against it, it's now in motion again, and since it's now all the way through the portals considering it from the orange portal's frame of reference is no longer relevant. this will repeat for each later until the very last one. now apply this same logic to the atoms of a single object such as the cube. after all, in real life objects are a conglomerate of atoms and not a single 3d model. QED. the answer is B+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0