Thanks for the explanation. I got that "not interchangeable" from the fact that i misread the og image and missed the "frame of reference" tidbit. Correct me if i'm wrong but i'm still stuck on >there's no difference between "looks like it's moving" and "actually moving" in physics It's clear that if an object enters the portal moving it exists the portal moving. If the object enters the portal static, it exits the portal static. These two are two distinct possibilities that cannot coexist just depending on the frame of reference. Well they can but then you are calling the optical illusion of movement actual movement.
>Yeah, speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out. If it enters at V, it exits at V. Why the hell would it stop. The assumption is precisely that this thing is not speedy. The portal is speedy. The objects enters at V and it exits at V, but since both Vs denote no velocity, it "stops" moving out of the output portal after the last part of the object is "eaten" by the input portal.
No, i'm literally saying the opposite. Consider the "roof" of the test chamber the point of reference and measure both possibilities against that.
>Changing position over time isn't the same as moving That is what i said but it's not what i meant.
Reminder that pretending this is an unsolvable issue only shows that you've never done physics beyond high school
Charles Wilson
I didn't know Newton's laws applied when fictional circumstances outside his consideration are put into play.
Blake Kelly
>The assumption is precisely that this thing is not speedy. The portal (entrance) is speedy. Same shit. >The objects enters at V and it exits at V, but since both Vs denote no velocity No. It enters at the speed of the cube relative to the portal. In this case, from your smooth brain's favorite frame of reference, the speed of the portal.
