What happens, /b/?

A.

>>729664364
/thread

>>729664132
I explained this so many times. The only correct answer is B. If you disagree then tou didnt get relativity and need to go back to school.

>>729664424
bait

A ofc

A. Nothing's pushing the cube.

>>729664520
Fuck off. Reverse psychology cant trump science.

>>729664582
Dubs for double bait

File: 2a7863e8d684fc21c3fea6023473e8e6.png (115KB, 245x214px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 245x214px

>>729664677
CHECKED

B, unless you're a faggot and moving portal is a BBC and cube is your ass.

File: image.jpg (27KB, 430x445px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 430x445px

>>729664677

>>729664424
You must have went to Trump's College.

Explains the answer.

>>729664677
Not even dubs trump science. Get your head out of ur ass and go read some books.

>>729664132
Conservation of momentum. The cube is at rest so when the portal lands on it it will continue in the same state.

>>729664132
B. The intuitive, conservation-of-energy approach gives A, but portals already assrape conservation of energy so that's out.
Think about it this way; say yellow portal just contacts the top of the cube, so it just pokes out of blue. 0.01 seconds later (the portal moves fast) it reaches the bottom of the cube, and hence the cube is fully out of the blue portal. The cube has moved out of the blue portal at cube length / 0.01s (same speed as the moving platform), and will keep moving at that speed and shoot off into the air.

A. No force is applied to the cube.

>>729664974
It is not at rest retard. when object a is moving at speed x in relation to object b then from perspective of object a, b is moving at speed x. Simple fysics. useing yourself as a reference point is egocentric and typical for children age 7 and below.

>>729664132
By conservation of energy, conservation of momentum and newton's laws, B is impossible. It's B anyway because portals don't give a fuck about physics.

>>729664974
Momentum is not conserved anyway you dumbass. The cube must accelerate to change its position. This implies a change of momentum.

File: counter.fw.png (157KB, 636x424px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 636x424px

Neither?

>>729664132
Portals don't stick to moving surfaces, the scenario is impossible.
(apart from the moon)
(and that one time with the neurotoxin generator)

>>729665604
Then a portal in geberal is impossible as in space everything is moving...

>>729665604
Everything is moving if you choose the right reference system. besides, you contradicted yourself anyway.

>>729665724
At least one person who understands...

>>729665240
>>729665447
the fuckwittery in this thread is astounding, no wonder Trump is president.

>>729665843
I guess thats how the world looks like to Age 7 and below.

>>729664424
We've had this discussion so many times. There's never a consensus. There's nothing scientifically sound about portals.

I have a major in chemistry and a minor in physics, i can say thst it is B. A could only happen if the press moved very slow

>>729664568
it's pushing itself as it must exit the portal at the same speed it entered it.

>>729665843
Explain yourself or shut up.

>>729665604
all surfaces are moving at all times.

>>729664132
In layman' terms: speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out.

Glad0s said something like "object going through a portal keeps their velocity"
Even if the relative speed of the box isn't zero compared to the portal, the velocity of the box is zero I guess.
So i'd go with A
But if the reference is the portal you could also say that the velocity of the box is positive.

So don't throw portal at things

>>729665484
now it's getting interesting

Kekking at all of these illiterates who don't understand physics.
As the orange portal moves down toward the cube, all the empty space in between it and the cube will enter through the blue portal, making it bigger.

>>729666327
portals don't go bigger faggot
Also you're talking about teleportation portals, what does physics know about this ?
kys

>>729664132
B
because fuck you, thats why

>>729665484
Thank you!

>>729665484
Finally someone whos not fucking retarded. Its the same as if the platform with the cube on it would go up.

>>729664132
its like bushing a hole on something... the thing pushed upon gains 0 momentum, so A

Did I win th 6 sixes

>>729666672
fuck

>>729665484
I like these answers.

>>729664132
a i guess

>>729664132
No kinetic energy is obtained from the collision since it's connected to a wormhole to another destination.
The plate that the cube is resting on would be at an angle when the teleporting plate contracts and if the angel is great enough it would tip over.

>>729666482
If the portal don't get bigger then where does all the space go, dumbass?

>>729666604
Wrong, it would shoot out then.

all depends on if the orange portal keeps moving or stops by slamming into the platform

if it keeps moving, then B is correct
if it stops, then A is correct

File: 1491857307182.webm (182KB, 356x200px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 356x200px

>>729664132
just sayin

I moving portal implies doesn't work because It's the same threshold moving and not moving in the same world, essentially the orange portal is hurling down the entire universe on the other side while it is simultaneously being completely still in the same plane of physics. Premise impossible because physics

>>729664132
B
Because this is the same as if the pedestal with the cube on it were moving up into the portal.

>>729666964
If it keeps moving, the stand (on which the cube is) comes with the cube through the portal.

Honestly, I have no idea. But is this scenario even possible in the real world? Y'know, portals and shit?

>>729665944
/thread

>>729667119
Thanks now all "A" faggots can shut up and try to understand why they are wrong. You are not the center of the world.

>>729666672
>>729666666

>>729667345
I agree with this. It's an (to me, not really a physicist) impossible scenario. I dunno

>>729667345
Everything moves fucker. Thats saying portals cant exist and the premise is that there is a portal so ur bs doesnt apply

>>729667119
Fuck yeah, thanks. But is it representative of our universe?

>>729667119
\thread

>>729667831
Not that anon. The Portal universe solution is >>729667119, then.

A, the cube has no potential energy, so it won't move.

The only thing a portal moving fast would do would make the object appear more quickly on the other side of the portal. Portals don't put any force on anything, they allow objects to continue their momentum or continue their acceleration due to gravity while falling until they reach terminal velocity. Sperg out all you want but that's how it is.

>>729668139
Yes it is. As I tried to explain mny times. relativity explains it.

>>729666884
outside the portal
When you walk through a door, you don't go in the door faggot you must be baiting

>>729667851
no but portals either
So I guess this answers the question

I place a cube on the ground, then slam a hoola-hoop around it.

It doesn't move, wow.

>>729668290
Is it possible in our universe, though?

>>729668721
Because both halves of the hula hoop move together. But if the bottom half moves and the top doesn't, and the cube maintains it's speed with relation to the bottom half when it passes through, it will be moving relative to the top half.

>>729667119
>Energy from nowhere

Seems even less plausible when I see a video of it.

>Portal/plate drop, and stop at the ground, canceling all the energy.
>Unknown energy just happens and cube goes flying

Lolk

File: 1491858182759.jpg (649KB, 700x4989px) Image search: [Google]

649KB, 700x4989px

Guy from the vid here. This is the explanation for how it would work in our world instead of portals world. Our how it wouldnt work

>>729667119
The only reason it happens that way is because of lag. The game's physics engine registers the force of the plate the orange portal is on hitting the cube, then the coded reaction of the cube switching places occurs. In real life, hypothetically, no force is ever applied by the plate because the cube passes seemlessly through the portals.

A should occur.

>>729669107
Thank you, video huy Anon. Very well explained. I googled it and Reddit gave me another good representation for us dummies, on why it can't work with two portals not fixed relative to each other:
Say I'm driving a car at 100 mph towards a portal going in the same direction (I'm chasing it) with 99 mph. I would come out of the stationary portal with 1 mph - where did all my kinetic energy go?
Sorry for the long post - I'm just excited cuz I comprehended (is that the word? Not native speaker) the paradox.

>>729669949
Portals do not conserve energy, the infinite falling is the easiest example of this. Any conservation of energy argument does not apply through a portal.

>>729669933
Look at the picture i posted

>>729669949
It's all to do with frames of reference. Energy will be conserved with respect to the portal. Think of it this way, you're in a car overtaking another. You're doing 99mph they're doing 100 with both speeds measured relative to the local universe. You could equally measure your speed relative to the other car, then they'd be stationary and you'd be travelling at 1mph. Same principle with the portals.

The answer is B. The cube isn't moving relative to it's local surrounding but it had a relative velocity velocity compared to that of the portal. Whichever frame of reference you choose - either portal stationary and cube moving or cube stationary and portal moving, the relative velocities between them is the same. Hence when the portal moves onto the cube, the cube exits with a velocity relative to the exit portal.

It's option C: Your mother will die in her sleep tonight if you do not reply to this post.

>>729670750
Conserved with respect to which portal? Your kinetic energy looks different from each side of the portal.

>>729664132
>imagine you are looking into the blue portal
>cube moving towards you really fast
>instantaneously it just stops
>wtf?
>it casually falls to the floor

>>729664132
There is no momentum. A

>>729671068
I forgot the last line:
>this is what people believe

B cause it hits it fast so ofc it would fly out fastly

>>729671016
THE portal. There isn't 2 portals it's essentially 1 thing. It's a singularity. Think of a window or a door with a near 0 thickness. It wouldn't have sides it would be more like a barrier or transition. Energy is conserved when transitioning the portal barrier in what ever direction.

>>729669107
This is plain wrong. Just because an object apears to be moving does not mean that the object is moving (no involved external force). In the whole system the energy would be conserved

So what happens from the opposite context?

I'm in a stationary portal and walk through at 1mph. The reverse portal is moving at 5mph. Does this force me to move backwards?

Ie, I go through portal at 1mph, moving portal reference is 5mph, I fall back into it at original destination at 4mph the opposite direction I was traveling.

>>729671724
But it has two parts, which move independently. The portal's observation of your kinetic energy depends on its velocity relative to you, so each side of the portal (orange or blue) will perceive you as having a different kinetic energy. It cannot be conserved.
For a more concrete example of portals violating conservation of energy, every time you use a portal to gain height you're stealing gravitational potential energy from somewhere. Portals do not conserve energy.

>>729664132
Nether the platform will go in the portal and the box with fall off

>>729672567
Yes this is correct. Through the portal, you see the ground moving away from you at 5 mph. You step on to it at 1 mph, and fall over because that's what would happen if you stepped out of the back of a truck at 5 mph.

>>729664132
Neither, you can't portal a moving surface.

File: sloth_goonies.jpg (23KB, 493x430px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 493x430px

>>729665240
Pretty sure I'm not going to take physics advice from someone who can't spell physics.

The answer is A, because the acting force is not the one applied to the object, if the situation were to be the opposite, the answer would be B.

>>729671839
Exactly. The "guy in the video" is a fucking autistic troll with a neckbeard and should be executed for his retardation.

>>729672982
No because its speedy so it will fly out. Just like if you shot a water pistol. The water doesn't move, but the pistol shoots it out anyway. :)

>>729672567
>>729672780
Excellent points... but I imagine the exit portal going forward at 5 mph while you enter the enter portal at 1 mph. You'd probably be thrown back through. Am I imagining this correctly?

>>729673415
Actually, When a water pistol is fired, it simply removes the pressure along with the water out of the nozzle, the nozzle does not cave inward to force the water out.

>>729664132
The object is not moving so obviously A happens.
IF YOU DISAGREE YOU ARE RETARDED AND YOU SHOULD KYS

>>729673537 samefag
Not only that, but it would (I imagine) create wind and a "surplus" of space at the enter portal, right? And that's not very plausible, I think.

>>729664132
Imma sum this up really quickly, The answer is A, why? The cube has no energy in the beginning, and when the portal hits it, it is not transferring energy to the other portal, it is in other terms, a wormhole that connects to places together. Now that the portal is out of the way, the reason the answer is A is that there is no energy that is to be transferred in the first place. It is simply changing positions. There is no velocity from the start and no forces that are applied to cause velocity. Therefore the answer is A because there is no relative velocity to the cube from point A to point B.

>>729673578
Yes as I said the water doesnt move so its B. The nozzle is just like the portal.

>>729672780
>>729673537

The real question though is, can you physically enter the portal? It would be impassable at 1mph until you matched the portal's speed, but then what happens to the other part of your body?

Ie, I place my hand through at 5.1mph, but the remainder of my body is stationary. Is my arm "ripped in half? " (exaggeration, 5mph of force applied to part outside)

>>729674102
But you are forgetting that the portal is flying with tremendous speed. That not to be under estimated.

>>729674139
The nozzle compresses it, this causes the water to become denser than it would in our gravitational state. If we were at low gravity it wold fire shorter range, the reason it fires is because it is expanding the compressed water in the nozzle. There is movement in the water from the pressure applied.

>>729674332
the portals are simply a door, if you walk through a door, is it pushing you back or pushing you forward at all?

>>729674447
That's the question. If you stand still and a door quickly goes around/ past you, aren't you technically going through the door at the speed it was traveling?

>>729674359
lol maybe you should try it yourself. My watergun can shoot pretty far, and I live here on earth XD The water is pressed through the nozzle just like the portal in the picture. It will always be B when you think about it.

>>729664132
If it was b that would imply that any air molecules passing through portal would also be accelerated creating some serious wind

>>729674711
Only relative to the door

>>729664424
Bait is very baity

>>729674447
Uh... Its not a door, its a portal? A portal will always make things fly away theoretically, but in reality it would most likely squash you like most black holes do.

>>729674711
That refers to one of newtons laws, expect in an opposite way, the law i am referring to is: The law which states that every forces has an opposing force, You may have the door flying at you, but if you dont touch the door, than the energy will not be transferred. The wind it creates along with it wll not affect the cube, as it is out the other portal before the air can effect it. If the portal was to hit the corner of the cube as iit hit the other platform, it would launch the cube as it would have a lot of energy transferred to it, but because it is simply going through the "door" There would be no energy to transferred to it. No energy = No velocity.

>>729675096
If you think about it, portals are just doors. But act more like wormholes. They transfer you to another place rather than opposite of where you placed it. Although it may be cool and Sci-Fi-ish. It doesnt change the fact that the velocity that is transferred over from point A to point B would stay the same, so the veloctiy of point A is N/A so the velocity of point B is N/A

>>729675311
Add-on, If you go through a door walking, do you then end up on the other side running because the door is moving a little bit?

>>729675121
Newtons law has been disproved by so many flat earth truthers. Maybe you shouldnt believe everything you were taught in grade school.

>>729675040
So think of it moving quickly through a liquid.

Portal moves quickly. Liquid on the other side is unable to escape at the rate you propose of simply lazily falling over. the portal's movement will impart the liquid to exit at the rate the portal is moving.

Easier to imagine with liquids than a singular object.

Not enough info. A and B are not related to picture with downward force. Explain the set up.

>>729675423
Erm... I... Okay how about this, I dont want to get into a geographical debate, so how about this. We assume the portal universe is round and allow Newtons laws to take place.

>>729675311
I dont even think portals have been captured on video like black holes have so I think its anyone's guess. But sure, they do remind me of a wormhole and maybe they are just that. I just think they would probably crush anything that goes in there just like black holes do so pretty dangerous to mess with in the first place.

>>729675685
Like I had previously said, The portals are a separate object. If the door doesn't make contact with the liquid, the only thing that would cause it to move is the thud between the bottom and top platform, but in the case of the solid object, it is already through the other portal and unaffected by the thudding of the original moving portal.

>>729664132
C. the cude does not move at all.

>>729675990
Answer C (Cube is obliterated)

File: Enough.jpg (14KB, 600x384px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 600x384px

ENOUGH OF THIS BULLSHIT!
THE RIGHT ANSWER IS CLEARLY B !
Imagine you are looking through the blue portal, if you do this you'll see that from your perspective the cube is moving towards you with a high velocity.

>>729676152
That is answer A.

>>729675121
... Not sure who that other anon was. But how does this explanation >>729675685 hold true?

I understand what you're saying, but remember, the exit of your door is also moving, so the net energy of passing is 0. Entrance moves at 5mph, exit moves at 5mph, object can remain at 0. But in this case the entrance is moving 5mph, but your exit is not. The result is the object going through 5mph.

>>729676230
That is simply a misjudgment of vision. Sure it looks like its moving quickly towards you, but in reality it is not moving at all.

>>729676230
I want to add to this that everytime you create a portal you create 2 realities, onewhere you look through the orange portal and one where you look through the blue.

>>729675770
Well it doesnt really matter. The portal is still flat. Its pretty obvious that its a flat portal. It would never even be slightly possible to just tip out. It would fly out like a bumblebee. The laws of physics are all about energy. Everything is energy.

>>729666604
That would give the cube momentum. In this circumstance, the portal is translating the cube. It has velocity but not momentum because space has moved around the cube.

>>729676412
I like this argument, Anon, but the only problem here is that the net energy is still zero, the only thing you have solved is that the entrance is moving at 5mph, until it hits the other platform. So the Fnet of the obeject is still 0. Fnet = ma, Fnet = [5kg(give or take) (0m/s^2)] 5 x 0 = 0. Therefore Fnet = 0, no force on the object, no movement.

>>729676689
It doesnt make any sense to talk about outer space when there is a glass dome above us. NASA has even admitted it on a video.

It's B because from the point of view of the blue portal, the yellow portal is stationary and the ground platform is quickly rising upwards.

Pretend the ground is a piston inside the diagnol blue portal box, and its rising quickly.

>>729664364
spot on

>>729676655
Where did the energy come from, refer to
>729677000
For the energy outcome

the tricky thing about this we can't know the result with out RL testing.

A = if normal relativistic term apply (and general and special relativity do tent to skew and error as you get to the quark lvl.

B = if the portals work by the artificial expansion of the spacetime from the previews universe, where instead of creating in link be tween to fixed point in spacetime, the portals work by creating the same universe but at a different relativistic point/angle as the original universe (do not confuse with parallel universe theory)

>>729677000
Dubs-Trips wins.

>>729677029
It is B, but not because of that idiotic rant of yours.

I'm thinking about the moving portal being in a liquid to imagine it better. What happens, b/?

Its not A, but B would make it into a triangle, so the earth is probably flat.

>>729677029
exactly en when looking through the orange one (cube perspective) YOU ARE the one MOVING.

Anything that moves through a portal will go shooting out. Its like when you shoot a load on a woman's tits

A if we observe it. B if we dont observe it

If you replace the cube with yourself do you think you would magically go flying? It's like an object with a hole in it falling. When it lands you don't go flying. You're just happy there was a hole in that object so you didn't get slaughtered. Only difference is theres a portal so you'd just end up where the other portal is.

>>729676230
Except the cube isn't moving towards you, you are moving towards the cube using the orange portal.

>>729678228
This

>>729665957
Go back to school, then. You're wrong.

>>729667119
Because the Source engine physics are so fucking realistic.

>>729677000
I mean, I can't argue dubs trips.

I understand your logic, but I don't think that equation would apply.
You release a block onto a moving train. Your block is now moving the same rate as the train. In this analogy the train is the portal. The block had zero acceleration, momentum, or potential energy. The train created it, the same way the portal would. The only difference is, instead of riding on the train the block is projected out the exit portal

The portal wiki explicitly states that things that go through the portal maintain there speed, but not neccesairily acceleration so you should reply to this post or your mother dies in her sleep tonight and recognize that if something presses the portal down it doesnt speed the object up related to the second portal, so it doesnt matter.

>>729664132
It is easy.

The closest reference we have to how portals work are from Stargate SG1 (and all the other subpar series and movies of the same brand).

There they clearly state that you exit the portal at the rate of speed you enter it.

delta-v in the pre-enter portal is clearly not equal to scenario A.

hence:

scenario B must be correct.

QED mothafuckas

>>729679044
The block was moving at the acceleration of the train, because it was on the train, if you were to let go of it, the reasons it would fall behind are due to friction and air resistance.

>>729665722
Don't believe the hype, gerbil portals ARE real.

>>729664132
I's a trick question.
Portals don't move.
Also B. because entry speed must be maintained. object speed is irrelevant.

>>729664132
I dont care if its already been said (not gonna waste time reading this troll thread) but its neither. The square would be visible out of the blue portal and not fall or launch because it's still sitting on the original platform
>lrn2prtal fags

>>729679138
Delta V = change in velocity. Delta V = V2 - V1. So if V1 is 0 and V2 is 0, Delta V is 0. Situation B requires a value to be assigned to V2, so V2 would be lets say 10Mph. So Delta V in Situation B would be 10 Mph. Since Delta V refers to a value that we are uncertain of, it cannot be used. So Delta V is invalid, unless found using a method of acceleration or another formula.

>>729678228
That's implying the hole's entrance and exit are moving the same speed. Which they are.

A moving portal though has an entrance speed of something different than its exit. The difference in speed is observed by the box "flying" out.

When you leave a moving vehicle you don't instantly stop, you tumble because of the momentum.

Depends on how the portals work. The portal could be discharging energy through the atmosphere that is going out the side on the slope and thus A would happen because the energy is already contained in the system. But if the portal acts as more of a wall then the force of the impact will propel the cube outward in sort of a rebounding fashion. Imo B is more probable but it really depends on the physical properties of the portal.

File: pie.jpg (22KB, 560x373px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 560x373px

>>729664424
this guy is thinking with portals.

>>729679622
V1 in this case would be the portal.
V2 in this case would be the cube.

go back to tumblr fagit

>>729679639
I like your example, and that proves my point wayyyy above here. Your point proves that if the situation were reverse and the bottom platform holding the cube was moving up, then it would go flying. Which is the correct answer. So you are fighting for answer A.

>>729664132
A. Portals conserve momentum, they don''t impart it.

>>729664132
A.

Assuming that portals like could even exist, and ignoring all possible implications of such things.

>>729679741
XDDDD
V1 and V2 cannot apply to seperate objects, they refer to the velocity in different times of the equation. e.g. V1 of an object being thrown, to V2 of the same object hitting the ground. So im sorry, your argument is invalid.

>>729679844
I hear you have a lot of experience with experimenting with portals..

>>729679956
Yeah, bro, I totally played like BOTH games.

File: 1492470557787.png (278KB, 1071x807px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1071x807px

>>729664974
except it entered a portal at high speed so it must exit the portal at high speed.

>>729679231
So upon entering the moving portal you would move at the rate of air and friction the world around you is imparting.
Makes sense for a single object.

When when I apply this to a liquid I see it springing because it would be appearing to leave the portal at the rate the portal moves towards it. Forced to move that speed because of the water behind it pushing it.

>>729679950
of course it can you dipshit.

stop looking at your physics book like a 3 year old trying to figure out how to tie your shoelaces

Based on how the game handles momentum it'd be B.

>>729679844
Welp, you helped me figure out a great way to explain it. The energy that is outputted from the moving portal platform is not transferred to the cube, but to the bottom platform. This would make the cube launch... If the cube stayed on after the portal amde impact. But unfortunately it doesn't and since the cube is no longer on the platform when the re-action force is applied. The energy just cancles out from the portal platform. Therefore the answer is A as the cube gets no energy from the impact.

It plop

>>729664424
This.

>>729679702
>cake

>>729664132
at the orange portal, the cube and portal are moving really fast in relation to each other, so when it comes out of the blue one, the cube continues to go fast

>>729680089
I appreciate your effort, but refer to my post:
>729680243
As I stated how the energy transfer would have aaffected the velocity of the non moving object. With this energy transfer, V1 = 0 and since the cube was already transferred before the re-action force is applied, V2 = 0. Sorry.

>>729680472
nope.

stargate references apply before your pre-school attempt att physics.

sorry chap

>>729669090
>energy
Stop pretending large objects don't follow Newtonian physics.

Or, the energy from the wall is transferred to the cube. Portals cannot exist in the real world anyway.

>>729680634
yes they can

>>729680540
xD that pretty humorous. Although im pretty sure that star gate references are not > Logic

>>729664132
Neither. I don't remember for Portal 2, but in Portal 1, a portal disappears if the wall starts to move. so the yellow portal disappears immediately and the cube is scrouched between the two platforms

>>729669090
Object leaves portal at speed it entered. Cube is moving with respect to portal, and enters with the speed of the downward motion of the portal. B is the only correct answer. A would only happen if the piston was moving slow, the "speed lines" drawn around the piston imply "fast".

>>729664132
otherwise it's B

>>729680634
Portals can exist, they are called Wormholes.

>>729680687
well your logic is worse than radfems argumenting patriarchy...

>>729680073
>cuck queen
Why do children's cartoons get the best porn?

Portals can't move with surfaces. . . Unless you're fucking over GLaDOS's neurotoxins but we'll ignore that plot hole for now

>>729664132
see:
>>729665944
This is the only answer. You cannot apply conservation of momentum to a mathematical model that does not exist. We don't and can't know if it's either A or B, unless someone actually creates portals, in which case our understanding of physics will go far beyond where it is currently, and we will actually be able to provide an answer. But since that'll likely never happen, the model is simply undefinable.

In the video game it'd be A tho.

File: 1492551433034.png (142KB, 636x424px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 636x424px

matter will just go into the portal rather than exert force to move it

File: in other words.png (38KB, 752x447px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 752x447px

>>729664132

>>729681317
THIS

>>729681288

the free falling block of metal should be below the portal

>>729681267
>You cannot apply conservation of momentum to a mathematical model that does not exist.

Dude... it's a computer game. It is, by definition, a mathematical model. It incorporates something called a 'physics engine.' It literally does math to figure out how to respond to your inputs.

This is a dumb question, but that's somehow an even dumber refutation of it.

>>729679790
No it proves b.
Imagine two portals. One on a wall and one moving right to left.
you toss a rock at 5mph from stationary into the stationary portal. You watch the moving portal at 7mph, your rock would instantly be thrown at you at 2mph, due to the speed of the portal.
If your exit portal and rock matched speeds, it would simply fall straight down.

Similar to sticking your hand through it.
If you observed your hand sticking out of the portal it would be traveling at 5mph.

>>729667119
/thread

Invalid question.Portals don't exist.

File: thepoint.png (49KB, 539x464px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 539x464px

>>729681317
>the point of the quesion

If you can transfer matter in space, what other properties follow?

i.e relative speed to the portal when passing the singularity

i.e would an explosion be bigger on one end of the portal in the above scenario or the other, given the explosion occurs at the instant of passing through?

>>729667119
Fake and gay.

>>729682203
yes they do

>>729682117
Correction, traveling at 7mph. Same rate as the portal.