lets argue about shit that isn't real

>>732769489
no

>>732769489
A.

B.

how bout we try to sing the alphabet together?

>>732769820
>>732769689
samefag

but it's A

Neither, it would be stuck in between.

>>732769971
Why's it A?

>>732769489
A

Other platform would have to be moving for it to be B. It's the portal platform that experiences the change in inertia, and not the block itself.

>>732769997
The box itself has no motion, therefore it remains stationary and simply moves sluggishly out of the portal.

>>732770084
okay that makes sense. I guess it's A.

It's A. B would be the lower platform ascending yo the portal

>>732770084
Portals can't be on moving platforms

>>732769489
This one is actually interesting.

Can anyone set it up in portal to see what the game thinks?

My guess is B.

B.
Portals conserve the momentum of whatever goes into them. We don't care about the box's mass in this case, so we're really just talking about velocity.

Velocity isn't an absolute thing- it can only be measured relative to a point or reference frame. In this case, the reference frame can be fixed on the moving orange portal so that it's velocity is zero. In this reference frame, the box is moving towards the portal with an equal speed as, in the box's reference frame, the portal is moving towards the box. All of these speeds must be conserved before and after box goes through the portal, meaning it will exit the blue portal at the same speed as the piston descends.

>>732770370
Is that for exactly this reason?

>>732770415
>Portals conserve the momentum of whatever goes into them
Proof? Cause I know they don't, it's just a hole.

>>732770382
there is a video about it, the cube doesn't go through the portal because portals are not programed to function on moving platforms

>>732770415
Portals literally just act as doors where one end is at a separate location to the other. If i throw a doorframe at a ball, the only thing moving is the doorframe. The ball pops out the other end of the doorframe virtually motionless.

>>732770370
Wrong. The moon moves relative to earth (really fast might I add) and it was there.

>>732770035
This. Answer is A. If you thought B you must be a womens studies major in which case kill yourself.

>>732770415
If it is B what happens if the box only goes through partially (the portal stops) and is made from a soft substance? Would it be torn apart with the lower part stationary and the upper part shooting off?

>>732770509
the moon in the game doesn't move tho

>>732770415
The portal is just a hole, it's empty. Try putting a glass over a coin. the coin will not fly away dude

>>732770415
You're fucking retarded

>>732769489
In the game it goes flying, IRL it would stand still.

>>732769489
Neither

>>732770608
No, in the game portals can't be on surfaces moving in this manner

>>732770382
go to 1:27

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S85nudR6D-Y

>>732770473
>>732770503
jfc play a fucking videogame once in your lifes

>>732770671
It's been done in Gmod

>>732770573
>the moon in the game doesn't move tho
It moves as far as lore is concerned.

>>732770699
I've played the game you dumb faggot, it's impossible to recreate this scenario in it so it's not relevant

>>732770677
DELETE THIS

>>732770752
SPEEDY THING GOES IN SPEEDY THING COMES OUT CUNT

>>732770866
THE BOX IN THIS SCENARIO ISNT SPEEDY YOU HARLOT ITS STATIONARY

>>732769489

A.


Would you prefer :
1. You have to watch your parents making love at least once every day. You can't blind yourself, drink alcohol or take drugs to avoid watching. And this, until they die from natural causes.

OR

2. You take part in once. And you won't have to watch 'em anymore.


Second question :

Would you prefer
1. Fuck your gf's mind in your mom's body
or
2. Fuck your mom's mind into your gf's body ?

>>732770866
SPEEDY THING DOESN'T GO IN

>>732770866
YOU'RE RETARDED

>>732770370
This

>>732770919
First question: Can I kill myself?
Second question: haha gf yeah right

>>732770866
the cube has 0 speed bub, and there is no force acting on the cube either to change that.

>>732769489

>>732770084
you dont know that, you have no absolute frame of reference thats impossible. The only thing you would know is the speed the cube enters the portal, and we would assume that the portal mimics the speed when it exits, then i would have to flyt out.

also for answer A to be true you would have to assume gravity exists, otherwise it would just float right out its exit, so it doesnt even make sense ffs

>>732771055

Of coursh you can't.

>>732771090
If i drop a hula hoop on a box, does the box go flying out of the other end of the hula hoop?

>>732770370
In part 2 they can

>>732771114
2 then

>>732771176

You'd fuck with your parents ?

>>732771167
They can be on platforms moving sideways, not forwards and backwards

>>732769489
It can actually be both, you would have to know whether theres a vector between the entrance and exit of the portal, if there is the portal would move the same speed as the cube would fly in a given direction, and stay right out the exit of the portal, it wouldn't drop, because no gravity would nessecarily exist, thats retarded.

But if there is no vector and the exit portal has random position and velocity than the entrance you would see it shoot out somehow

>>732771065
>>732770921
>>732770915
>>732770866
Relative velocity

>>732770415
>We don't care about the box's mass
>In physics, all objects possess mass
>Mass affects the amount of energy necessary for an object to produce velocity
>If an object remains stationary while another object moves towards it, the result is the stationary object will either maintain its current position (if its mass matches or is greater than that of the object that is approaching) or be moved (if its mass is less than) via transference of energy
>An object which produces no velocity cannot be projected if no opposing mass collides with it
A portal breaks the natural reaction of force upon an object by projecting it directly from one spot to another via non-physics. You cannot exert force upon an object that doesn't exist to begin with. The portals don't possess force and the piston's force is disregarded because the portal doesn't transfer energy from external forces except when objects are already in motion.

Fucking Hell.

>>732771166
you dont know whether the box is getting throw through the hula hoop or otherwise cause you have no absolute frame of reference, that doesnt exist. Imagine being out in space and you see nothing but and astroid coming towards you. How do you know whethere the astroid is flying towards you or you are flying towards the astroid? depends on frame of reference

>>732771255
There aren't any platforms that move front to back anyway so that point is moot

>>732769489

Actually there's option C nobody thought about : since the yellow portal does not let in the floor under the cube gravity still ties the cube to that floor and so the cube just stays in the middle of the blue portal.

>>732769489
There's a discussion about wether or not a portal can exist on a moving surface. How then could a portal be established on a moon at the end of Portal 2?

Here's the theory:

Well, obviously the moon is moving relative to earth and the portal worked. But it's moving with a constant tangential velocity.

My guess is, that portals can't be established on surfaces that accelerate. Unluckly, the picture doesn't give information about whether or not the surface is accelerating or moving with a constant velocity. Or about the moment in wich the portal was established.

If the portal was built before the surface moves, it wouldn't work, because it has to accelerate. If the portal was built while the surface was already moving with a constant velocity, it would work.

The cube itself doesn't have a velocity on it's own, though. So A might be the more probable answer.

>>732769489
>lets argue about shit that isn't real
Did someone say shit!?
https://youtu.be/UIXgcVPu2Qc

>>732770677
Funny...if it actually worked like that IRL you'd be pulled apart as your head then torso then legs begin to accelerate towards the portals.

>>732771377
explain further

>>732771600
The moon in the game doesn't move, neither the map level

>>732769489
Its fictional physics so the box will do whatever the fuck it wants. Problem solved.

>>732771470
Not him, but the specifics are fairly clear in the OP picture. The box possesses no relative velocity. Only the piston with the portal on it does, which becomes irrelevant because the portal disregards the mass of the object projecting it. It only recognizes the mass of the object passing through and the other "doorway" the object must project itself from.

Frame of reference is only relevant if the situation cannot be resolved through simple observation. You're trying to apply advanced physics from a basic perspective onto a theoretical situation where everything can be taken as it is. I would call you autistic, except even autists recognize something this simple for what it is.

>>732771636
The box, and our perspective, see the orange portal move quickly. The portal sees the box move quickly. There is a relative velocity between the orange portal and the box, which will be carried through the blue portal.

>>732770370
The earth is currently moving around the sun

>>732771802
It does, you just cant see it in the small timeframe its visible.

>>732772073
how do you know?

>>732771945
There's a relative velocity between the orange portal and the box, yes. The box passes through the orange portal fast, but the box is only moving from the orange portal's frame of reference. From OUR frame of reference, which is an external system, the box remains stationary, and only plops out the other side because it has nowhere else to go.

>>732771802
Maybe so. I tried to bring this a bit closer to reality.

But I already realized a mistake in my assumption. The moon can't even move at a constant tangential velocity if you consider the difference altitude at perigee and apogee. Due to it's eccentricity, it has to accelerate and decelerate on it's orbit.

>>732771945
that is not how relative velocity works, I knew you didn't know

>>732771933
frame of reference is fairly basic physics, besides i didnt know that we assumed this is a completely different universe where everything is absolutely oberservable, i though we were given a situation from this world with this setup, since i dont see any specification in the picture i would think that assuming that it takes place withing this universe and out physics would be the most plausible?

>>732771945
In this scenario the only thing that would happen is the box would appear quicker at A but because the box has no momentum it would not propel itself out of the hole as in B

>>732769489
A because portals preserve the momentum of an object falling through them. Since ot is not mooving it wouldnt move. Ot is loke throwing a stone tjroigh a hoop or moving a hoop around the stone

>>732772151
so you're assuming that gravity is present in this example too?

>>732772129
I just do anon, I just do

>>732772365
type much?

>>732772376
How is it reasonable to assume that it isn't?

>>732771945
The box doesn't observe anything. It's a stationary object, and stationary objects only receive the energy that is transferred via force. The portal itself isn't moving, but is being projected by an object with mass. The portals possess no significant mass, else they would not sit in position as they do. Instead, they transfer the energy an object projected through them possesses. If an object is stationary, then the mass of the object is the only relevant detail as to what the box will do when it "passes through".

If the box exerts zero energy upon entry, it will simply slide out the other side. For the box to fly out, it needs to exert energy of its own. All other exteral mass and velocity is irrelevant.

>>732769489
None, portals can't be placed on moving objects.

>>732772541
i dont know i thought this was a basic theoretical question about portal mechanics, i dont see why i would be relevant to include gravity

>>732772602
They can.

Remember the moving platforms you had to use to cut the neurotoxin pipes?

>>732771945
So if I drop a hula hoop around me ill go flying up in the air? Sweet!

>>732772698
Well if we assume gravity doesn't exist the box just comes out the other portal and doesn't slide down the slope, it stays there

>>732772602

Everything is a moving object

>>732772576
> If the box exerts zero energy upon entry, it will simply slide out the other side. For the box to fly out, it needs to exert energy of its own. All other exteral mass and velocity is irrelevant.

The box will have momentum in its new frame of reference. It has momentum in its current frame of reference. You're just not perceiving it as having it because it has the same momentum as everything but the approaching portal piston.

Everything is always in motion, guys.

>>732769489
The hollocaust

>>732769489
Quote from GlaDoS: "Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out." Therefore, this box with come out stationary.

>>732772698
If gravity isn't present then the box would just pop out and sit there and not slide off.

>>732770370
>neurotoxin generator moving panels

>>732772827
beat me to it! lol

>>732772259
What the fuck even? In our universe, if an object doesn't exert energy, it won't move. For an object to move or be moved, energy or force must be exerted upon the object, relative to the object's mass. This is basic fucking 7th grade Newtonian shit. The portals don't possess any force whatsoever, and external forces which aren't already applied to the box (as the image shows) become irrelevant because they don't come into contact with the box to begin with.

The frame of reference is fairly easy to grasp, too. Stop trying to bullshit in things that don't exist in the situation being presented. The box produces no inertia and has no force acting upon it. The portal is being projected by a mass, but because the portal is neither solid or possesses significant energy and mass to function autonomous of the mass projecting it, it doesn't transfer any force or energy. Without the box projecting itself/being projected, it won't achieve the required energy to exit the other side in B.

>>732769489

It's A.

Imagine you threw a ball into the air then swung a tennis racket with all the string taken out so it was just an empty oval at the ball and the ball went through the middle of the racket. You didn't hit the ball with anything, there would be no force applied. The ball would go up and down as if you never swing the racket. No matter how hard you swing the racket as long as the ball isn't hit by the frame it will never deviate.

If you took the same ball and put it on the ground then slammed the racket into the ground around the ball the ball wouldn't jump into the air, the racket never touched it.

So the cube in this case would just end up sliding down the face of the blue portal, it wouldn't suddenly jump out, the ball isn't moving, the orange portal is.

File: Jv2F0.jpg (104KB, 499x1432px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 499x1432px

B.

>>732772984
for that matter if gravity wasn't present the box would be floating around, not sitting on a platform.

>>732773090
This explanation is basically saying that when a portal moves forwards it's moving the entirety of space forwards with it.

It's also wrong.

>>732773066
cant tell if you're trolling haha

>>732772984
Sure but it wouldn't be A then :/

>>732773090
ummm....no

>>732773254
>This explanation is basically saying that when a portal moves forwards it's moving the entirety of space forwards with it.


Well from the frame of reference B, it's actually that.

Okay. Then its B. Cause the downward force of the plate the portal is on would hit the plate that the cube is on. Causing the cube to propel up. You guys are re tar red

>>732773347
No it wouldn't be A, it would be C but we don't have that option because we already assume gravity is present. just playing with the debate.

>>732773090
Except that you'd be pulled to pieces.

>>732772897
>Everything is always in motion
>I-I know more than you!
Yes, everything is in motion all the time. Guess what? If you stand on one of a door, you're not going to magically project yourself through it. If you step through a doorway, you're projecting your own mass via exerting energy. If a doorframe falls around you, you're not flung into the air like a GTA ragdoll.

The same logic applies with portals. You're assuming that because the Earth moves and all objects are always in motion, that logically a doorframe landing around someone ought to project them high into the air. That doesn't fucking work like that. You don't move without exerting your own momentum, or having a force applied to your own mass greater than your own. Hell, physics tells us shit like the sun and planets exert force upon each other thus causing them to shift their rotation/relative position in small amounts. We don't observe this phenomenon because it's not significant enough to warrant observation except by persons who are required to.

The box does not move from our frame of reference. The piston moves, but we observe that the portal remains in place DESPITE the motion. The box is not shifted, nor is a significant force applied to alter its position. A portal only observes personal mass, not external. Even an applied science high schooler knows this shit.

>>732773090
This only works because it already assumes there is a V2.

Also the dimensions are wrong:

V1 is a velocity in meter per second ( m/s ).
a^2 * dx is a volume in meters qubed ( m3 ).

They can't be equal.

>>732773310
Or you're just too stupid to grasp simple fucking physics.

>>732773543
or maybe the question is just retarded and this is all stupid bait and you all fell for it?

>This is the problem discussed today on stream: https://embed.gyazo.com/611a66d1dfd1dc187ab289c302b6bba9.png I don't know if my side was thoroughly stated so I'm going to write it down here.

Problem with words: Given an orange portal which is connected to a blue portal, place an orange portal on a moving piston and a blue portal elsewhere. A cube placed on a flat platform is directly beneath the orange portal. When the cube travels through the portal, does it A) exit the blue portal with a speed of 0, because it had 0 speed on the platform or B) exit the platform with the velocity it had relative to the orange platform.

This question has been answered in a r/physics thread which you can find here. I am in agreement with the answers posted there.

>>732773721
The cube is moving from the orange portal's perspective, therefore when it exits the blue portal it continues moving with that relative velocity. That's the simple answer. If you want to shift from one reference frame to another you would do what is known as a Galilean transformation which you can read about here.

One could argue that the portal sees that the cube is not moving, and therefore the cube exits the blue portal with a speed of 0 and case A is true. However, that would establish an absolute frame of reference which physicists do not believe exists; there are several reference frames (or perspectives, such as the portal's perspective or the cube's perspective) which are valid as long as they are not accelerating relative to each other. We call these inertial frames of reference. If the question is built with these physics violating portals, you could answer this question with A. Which is equivalent to saying "these physics violating portals violate physics, so the answer is A" and I do not take as a worthwhile line of reasoning. Given the physics we know, the answer should be B - the portal sees the relative velocity of the cube.

>>732773507
If the portal plate slammed the box plate it might bounce a little bit but its not going to launch into space.

>>732773743
There have been many restatements of the problem and examples (including ones with LUSH JUNGLES) mentioned on stream and if you're interested you can check the stream vod. Of course, you can probably cook up cases where both situations A and B violate known physics because portals don't really exist, although they might be theoretically possible. I will not try to further argue for case B. in this thread, but if you want to talk about physics further or clarify some things I will be here. Establishing that there is no absolute frame of reference was an important point in the history of physics and was originally done by Einstein and the Michelson-Morely experiment description and lead to special relativity and general relativity (which we still work on today). This refuted the belief that absolute space and time exist which was a belief held by notable physicists like Isaac Newton see here.

Sauce: https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/4srd0o/a_brief_writeup_of_the_portal_problem_a/

>>732773507
because when I hit vertically a table all on the table go to the ceiling

>>732773698
Yeah pretty much! It passes the time on a shitty day!

>>732773471
How does the portal move space itself, though? We observe the portal has no impact on external masses, or else the box would be sucked in with us following. The piston descending would colliding with the one ascending, etc. Basically, the explantion demands a variable which is neither shown nor indicated.

So, it's fucking stupid.

>>732773750
You assumed there's gravity present. I'm going with no gravity present. As long as there is nothing acting on the cube, it won't move

>>732773662
>This only works because it already assumes there is a V2.

If there is no V2, the cube don't go through the portal.

>>732769489
A.

>>732772795
Fuck, forgot about those.

>>732773086
I see a lot of people making comparisons like this. Portals have two sides. You could imagine the hole of a tennis racquet to have two sides as well. The difference in this scenario is that only one side of the portal is moving, which makes it completely different from a simple hula hoop or door frame.

Try to imagine that you have a tennis racquet with only one side on the actual racquet, and the other on the side of the wall. If you hit a floating ball with it, would it shoot out of the side on the wall or just stop immediately once it emerges from the wall?

You're correct that portals are like doors, but that's only when both sides are stationary, or when both are moving at the same velocity. They kind of cancel each other out.

>>732773793
Lol wut

File: 5-gandalf-troll-quote.png (105KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 600x337px

>>732769822
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>732773887
>If there is no V2, the cube don't go through the portal.
Well, I'm not much into the physics of portal mechanics (like everyone else on this planet), but my feeling tells me this is incorrect.

File: spidermanz116.jpg (41KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x480px

ok heres one.
can spiders smoke?

>>732773869
I think everyone here was already under the impression that gravity is present. Knock yourself out though. And the last part was brought up already by me and others

>>732773851
>How does the portal move space itself, though?
It doesn't, all it does is creating two frame of reference in the same place.
And they are in motion relative to each other.

>>732773759
This sounds to me like meaningless overcomplication of the problem. Given the physics we know, an object CAN NOT MOVE UNLESS AN EXTERNAL FORCE IS ACTING ON IT. A portal passing over an object DOES NOT ENACT FORCE.

>>732770919
First question: Obviously the second one.. I mean logistics of travelling everyday to 2 different cities.. Getting everyone to meet up & do it would be way too much..

Specially since I live in 3rd city.. I mean everyone would agree dad & mom that this was the only choice

Second Question: Fuck a mind? what?

TO OP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD-pPWOzWWo

>>732774105
That's the whole fucking point but these B-tards cant seem to grasp that basic concept of physics.

>>732773992
Seems legit.

File: dice.jpg (56KB, 364x330px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 364x330px

>>732769489

>>732774105
>an object CAN NOT MOVE UNLESS AN EXTERNAL FORCE IS ACTING ON IT
From the frame of reference B, the cube is going through the portal with speed (and with all the room for that matter).

>>732773935
Your tennis racquet example doesn't work. The racquet is a solid mass wherein a portal isn't. You're also assuming that the portal is projecting force or exerting it once an object passes through. It doesn't. You also assume that a portal absorbs both personal and external force which, again, it doesn't. It only recognizes the personal force of an object passing through.

Without force, a mass does not move in any observable manner.

Every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction its B fag

>>732774374
So if the entire room is moving at the same speed as the cube then the cube isn't moving relative to the room is it mate

>>732774446
It is relative to room B.

>>732774402
This is true for touching objects and massive objects whose gravitational field interact with each other.

The portal itself has no gravitational field, nor is it touching the cube.

>>732774570
they're the same fucking room

>>732774381
I don't understand what you mean. Why does the racquet being a solid mass matter? The descending platform is a solid mass in the original scenario.

Take a look at what the original developer said in >>732774215
He explains it a lot more clearly than I did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOBKIJ5dyHk

>>732774644
Depends what you are observing.

>>732774063
The first one, yes, but only as it is being projected by an external force. Since the portal doesn't absorb the energy from that force, it cannot apply it to the object passing through. Physics demands for an object to be flung through the other side, it needs a significant force to be applied upon entry. Another example is the barrel of a gun, and perhaps the closest version. Without the hammer, the bullet wouldn't move.

If you tilt the gun (assuming the bullet doesn't have a shell casing/anything keeping it locked in place) it slides out. A hammer has to apply direct force upon the bullet to project it. In the same way, a portal has no significant mass of its own and doesn't transfer any force from sources except the object that is passing through.

>>732769489
B. Clearly

I'm Calvin! I'm God and I'm not real!

>>732769489
A.

>>732769489
Clearly B is the only correct answer. tf is wrong with you autists?

>>732774713
Neat.

>>732769489
B, you degenerate simpletons.
>1. thin slice of cube is through
>2. new slice pushes through and displaces old slice.
>3. etc. loop
>4. everything is through, but all displaced slices now have motion/momentum from being pushed by previous slices.
> => the cube has relative momentum and will be flung out.

q.e.d.

>>732774783
The fact is, if you don't know about the initial moving orange portal, and you know only about what you see on the A/B part, you observe the cube having speed and going to you with that speed. And it doesn't have anything to stop him once it cross the portal.

>>732775070
Nothing is being fucking pushed. The cube itself has no momentum to project itself, nor is force applied or energy transferred upon entry. It's stationary, you literal cactus-fucking retard.

>>732774713
The only way it would fly up is by the energy of the two platforms slamming each other being released into the cube, but it wouldn't go far.

>>732772958
>trusting GLaDoS..

you didn't make it all the way through the game, I guess.

>>732775276
Okay, what happens to the cube if you throw it in the blue portal, while orange is falling..

I assume you throw it slower that what the orange portal is travelling.

Does it stand in place for a while and blonk back out of the blue or will it travel even faster.

>>732775070
>q.e.d.
You demonstrated shit.
The slices needed to be seperated to have different velocities. The cube is intact after the portal went to it's final position.

After all, how thick would the slices be, relative to the velocity of the portal?

>>732775524
Atoms

>>732775263
> you have a hole.
> part of cube is through.
> you want all of cube through
> move portal closer.
> part thats through already gets pushed by the other shit that wants through. How hard does it get pushed ?


Look, we could break this down using whatever physics we want, but sum effect is a variant of B.

Set up the whole shit as a Lagrangian and see for yourself.

>>732769489
Simple answer is relativity, or explained by understanding the theory.

-BY THE WAY: This portal shit is not real and may never exist, so any issues come down to that, that this probably cannot happen, ever. But anyway..

The cube comes out of the other side of the portal at the velocity of the falling portal. We know this happens.
Now the cube is moving relative to everything else in this new area. Therefore it will keep this motion.
There is absolutely NOTHING to say that the cube, and the perspective of the viewer were not the things moving, and that the "falling" portal was not stationary.
They are simply moving relative to each other.

>>732775441
Nicely put.

>>732769489
put an object on a table and slam your fist down. Does the object launch itself? No. it bounces a little bit. So B isn't accurate. A is right because it would just "bounce" out a little bit and plop over (equal to the amount of bounce from the platform)

>>732775721
>This portal shit is not real and may never exist, so any issues come down to that, that this probably cannot happen, ever.
No shit, Sherlock.

>>732775721
People have a hard time to grasp that simple concept it appears.

>>732775172
But we know about he orange portal, you stupid cunt. Look at the theoretical. Any variables you're suggesting do not exist. You're making baseless presumptions to strawman your stupid argument so you can feel smart. You're actually so completely wrong and utterly dense that it's more impressive you manage to even type without assistance. I would assume you jerk yourself with a vacuum and think physics is the science of people making vapid, baseless, and utterly retarded ideas up of how the observable world functions.

Look at the box. Does it move? No. Does the portal move? No. Is the portal being projected via a mass applying external force? Yes. Does the portal observably absorb that force and apply it to objects in its path? No. Does the portal absorb all mass into itself equivalent to the force applied? No. Then we observe A as the end result because even a fucking special ed student knows, you can't magically grant velocity to an object when there is no transfer of energy/exertion of energy/force applied. An object ALWAYS requires energy to be exerted/transferred or force applied to remain in motion.

The portal only moves through external application but doesn't transfer that force upon contact with the box. The box only observes it is passing through a "doorway", not that that doorway has descended upon it. Where is the box gaining velocity prior to entry? How is the portal transferring force or energy that isn't observed? How is the portal even absorbing that energy/force and transferring it when it virtually possesses no mass?

The answer is simple: You're a blender- fucking retard who can't even 3rd grade science.

>>732775843
Now you are the one who has no shit, Shitless

>>732775898
no u

>>732775524
break it up into displacement and time.
For each moment a bigger part of the cube is through. dx/dt = (displacement)/(Time) = velocity.

It's the same scenario as if you flipped the image of incoming upside down, and let the box rest on a moving piston. As far as the blue portal is concerned the box comes through at the same rate.

>>732769489
why would I argue about your grillfriend?

>>732775598
So if a doorframe falls around me, I should be projected into the air, right?

>>732775937
>dx/dt
These are infinitesimals. They are a mathematical concept and don't exist in reality.

>>732769489
It's B because the energy from the moving portal gets transferred to the cube, since the other portal doesn't counter the energy do to its stationary state. If both portals were moving at opposite speeds (meaning one is moving forward and the other backwards) the answer would be A.

File: 1433354494931.gif (141KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 400x400px

>>732775870

>>732770573
hahahahahahahahahahahah holy fuck its a game of course it doesnt move but theoretically it moves in the game world. moons have to move. everything moves. even the sun moves.

>>732775870
if youre going to bring up any of the logical fallacies you should probably work on your arguments and avoid the others

>>732775933
YOU

>>732775743
It would instantly pop out of orange at whatever speed it was THROWN regardless of the speed of the falling platform, but in this case the box isn't thrown, ie no kinetic energy so it just pops out quickly is all

>>732776025
If your doorframe connect you to the same room with a different frame of reference ... yeah kinda.

File: u27.jpg (7KB, 288x288px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 288x288px

>>732776139

>>732775743
replied to the wrong person sorry

>>732776034
delta x = (x(t) - x( t - "a bit earlier" )) then.
lim_{"a bit earlier" -> 0} = dx

do the same for time.

Yes, its "just" a mathematical concept, and it's just a way of modelling the shit.

How would you model it mathematically, fag?

>>732776025
relatively to the doorframe you are moving at a considerable rate.

Should the rate you fall "in" to the doorframe be different from the rate "out" ?

>>732775870
You need to understand that inertia is something that exists only due to relative movement. What appears still to you may be (And literally is on Earth) moving at phenomenal speeds with you. So while you see it as not having any energy, it does RELATIVE to other things that, for instance could be hurtling towards it, despite being the most "stationary" object in the universe.

This conservation of motion also applies to this crazy portal idea. So if it suddenly moves into a space with that velocity, this continues until other forces slow it

>>732776183
not moving per se just becoming visible

>>732769489
Since, according to Portal physics, it's the OBJECT that has to move towards the portal in order to gain velocity, I do believe that answer A will be correct, as the cube itself will gain no velocity, and since yellow portal is the only thing that has any velocity, it will not affect the cube in any way, as all it does is just warp it elsewhere. It does not collide with the cube at any point, thus not giving it any velocity. Imagine the yellow portal as an open box. It will simply cover the cube, and nothing else. That 's exactly how it works
>tl;dr A

>>732775863
and theyre really into arguing about it too! haha.

File: download.jpg (11KB, 264x191px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 264x191px

>>732776226

>>732769489
The speed on the plataform with the portal would be transformed in how fast the object completes the travel to the other side.
It would be an instantaneously A.

Going by what I know of portals (never played the game) it'd have to be B.

I say this because what matters seems to be the speed at which the portal and the object interact. Relativity tells us that the box isn't moving any more than the portal is, just that they are moving relative to eachother.

So throwing the cube into the portal and throwing the portal at the cube is like 6 of one, half dozen of the other. It's the same thing.

And if throwing a cube into a portal would give B, then it follows that the answer to this question is B

>>732776503
so... velocity is something intrinsic ?
you need to redo the 20th century.

actually, even Galileo had that shit worked out. Fuck that. back to the dark ages with you.

Portal physics is that the motion in is same as motion out. The motion in one end of the door is the same as the motion out other.

The doorway in this case is falling down around you. So whatever your relative velocity to the "in"-side of the doorway must be the same compared to the other side of the doorway.

>tl;dr B

>>732776503
Motherfucking exactly! it's the OBJECT that has to generate the force and not the portal itself.

>>732776503
velocity is movement from one point to another, which it has as soon as it moves from point 0 (portal hole itself) to point 1 (anywhere beyond the hole). Velocity isnt speed itself. Nor is it inertia.

By the way the cube has velocity, speed, and inertia as it exits the hole

>>732776698
/thread

>>732776711
>>732776711

Nice try but no. The portal does not enact any force on an object, only transferring it's matter to another place. If you move an open window around you, nothing happens to you.

>>732776967
>/your_life

>>732777004
>If you move an open window around you, nothing happens to you.
Yeah because the in and out frame of the window are moving together. Not the case here.

>>732776711
Yes, THROWING the cube would cause B, but the portal is just a hole, just airspace, which doesn't effect the cube as far as making it actually move, it just passes through.

>>732776378
>How would you model it mathematically, fag?
Exactly the way you did.

But once you bring in the limit you're leaving reality.
You can stick with
( x(t+Δt) - x(t) ) / Δt = v , where Δt is a defined interval.

So Δt*v = x(t+Δt) - x(t) ,
wich would be the constant thicknesses in between every interval.

>>732776877
please dont use words like force when you dont understand their use in this context

>>732776698
This. This is the most rational explanation according to our knowledge of physics

>>732777128
how are you not understanding what he means by "they are only moving relative to each other"?

>>732777212
Same same, just a question of preference in our case.

You do realise that you now have a velocity out of the portal, right ?

>>732777306
maybe yours, but then you probably don't know much physics.

Try to imagine it in reverse. will the box need velocity in to reverse the problem ?
if so, how much ?

>>732777306
it doesnt even make sense.
I think he's saying the cube suddenly appears in mid air next to the portal.
When the general idea of the question is about a portal that acts like a window that things can move through (so half will be on either side at the same time)

>>732777231
I didn't mean the object is generating the force, I meant the force generated upon the object.

>>732777473
NO.

The given velocity is still the rate of change of the distance the portal is travelling. You can't just assume that there are accelerated slices of the cube coming out the other portal. There's no evidence for a temporary "cutting" of the cube.

>>732777427
I understand completely, but throwing an object and throwing a hole aren't exactly the same are they?

>>732777819
What is Planck length for then?

>>732777954
From the frame reference of the exit of the portal, it is the same thing. You couldn't tell the difference.

>>732777667
but it does just suddenly appear

>>732777981
I don't know shit about quantum physics.
Isn't this a kind of shortest possible distance?

>>732778335
Kinda yes.

>>732778374
Well, if we include the Planck length, then we'd have our minimum thickness of the slices.

But there's still not even a hint of a process of seperation.

Its A because if you used the physics engine of Portal to recreate this it would just plot out.

>>732777819
Is there a velocity of the cube relative to the moving platform ?
should this be the same on the other side of the portal ?
(i.e. like a window-frame.)

I'm not saying theres any acceleration. What there is is a relative motion of the cube to the portal (both sides, orange and blue).

If you pick a random point on the cube, it stands still, right.
Then make a second point which is in the middle of the portal.

What is the rate of change between these points. (remember that a point on the orange side corresponds to a non-moving point on the blue side.)

Since an arbitrary point on the cube has relative motion to one side of the portal it must have the same relative motion compared to the other side.

>orange side
x<----L---->O
x<----->O
x<-->O
xO (goes through)

>blue side(looking through portal:
x<---------O-->(you) (distance = L' , t = 0 )
x<----O-->(you) (distance = L' - something, t = t1 )
x<O-->(you) (distance = L' - more, t = t2 )


Is this object (x) moving towards you, and if so; at what velocity ?

Is there any force that will change this relative velocity ?

>>732778062
The box isn't moving, the ram is, so box emerges from A which isn't moving and flops over

Imagine you have a door frame flying towards you. When it flies through you, do you get propelled? No! You just go through the frame. And that's exactly how portals act.

>>732769489
A. Block isn't moving, no momentum, no inertia. Portal stops moving, no momentum, no inertia.

>>732778710
>Is this object (x) moving towards you, and if so; at what velocity ?
No, it isn't moving at all. It has no velocity. It is still the point in the middle of portal wich moves.

>Is there any force that will change this relative velocity ?
No. Since there's no touching point on wich the force can attack and no gravitational exchange between the massless portal and the cube, there's no force acting on the cube.

The only thing I can imagine is that once the portal passes the center of mass of the cube, gravitation would just pull the cube off the ramp.

>>732770919
2
1

God, that second one was a lot harder.

>>732778915
A door frame flying towards you connected to a door frame that's not moving at all you mean.

Thats Not what the question is.
By your reasoning you would never come out the other side of the doorway because you didn't move, but that obviously wrong.
If that's established as wrong, you are then suggesting you can pass into the doorway at a different ratte than you pass out of it, bur that is also obviously wrong.

The doorway/ hoop analogy is not in any way comparable to the question being asked.

>>732769489
Now if the blue portal was moving as well as the orange at the same rate then yes you would "propel" out of the hole but it would be the hole moving not you

>>732769489
The plane takes off.

>>732779515
it's not coming closer to you at a steady rate ?

What if you reverse it. How fast would you have to move the cube into the blue portal in order to appear to be standing still on the platform ?

(since we're still on classical mechanics the principle of reversibility holds.)

>>732779586
put a box on the ground, drop a hula hoop that has two sides, orange and blue, onto the box. Does it fly up in the air or just pop out? I think that analogy works perfectly

>>732779831
>How fast would you have to move the cube into the blue portal in order to appear to be standing still on the platform ?
At the same rate the orange portal would move upwards, I guess.
But in this case we're actually moving the cube...
Or do we?
I mean, we'd push the cube towards the platform while the cube is in contact with it.

I'm caught in a paradox here...

>>732780098
So you believe the question being asked is what woukd happen if you put both portals on each side if a board and dropped it onto something?
Clearly that isn't the question being asked.

Unless you have a hula hoop that has 2 sides that are not physically connected to each other and whatever passes through one side will pass out the other.

>>732779831
at the same rate as the orange is moving of course

>>732779755
It actually would create nerve gas, but nice guess bro.

>>732780308
In essence yes, because the two faces of the portals are connected even though one of them isn't technically moving. When the portal stops the box stops. why is that so difficult to understand?

>>732780552
>When the portal stops the box stops. why is that so difficult to understand?
Because it doesn't.

>>732780308
Think of the ground as the platform and the top of the box as the face of the blue portal, the orange portal is the bottom of the hoop, when it hits the ground everything stops.

>>732780552
Because in the hoop analogy, the entrance and exit rates are the same, in the actual question posed here, the entrance and exit rates are the same also, but only one face is moving.

You are one dumb fucker anon

>>732780174
>>732780311
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry

Simple classical problems (like this technically is. No worries about quantum or entropy) have time-symmetry.

If you have to have a velocity in when reversing the problem, then it must have a symmetry when flipping the time-direction. (so the velocity you'd have to put it in with would necessarily be the velocity it comes out with).

right ?

Alternatively as you state, you'd have to continue to push the cube until a certain critical amount will be held by the gravity on the other side.

But let's assume first you want it to stay a tiny bit above the other surface (so we don't have to worry about the gravity/pushing situation ...yet.)

>>732780606
Then what shoots it out of the blue portal beyond the motion of the orange? Wouldn't it be equal in and equal out? What actually propels it? Nothing.

>>732770509
the whole world moves too and there were still protals on eart...

>>732780958
It doesn't matter that only one is moving they are equally connected. it doesn't matter how fast its moving, when the portal stops on one side anything exiting on the other also stops

A, learn how to portal you fags

>>732781441
9fag has the answer.
https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aNnAEoK_460sv.mp4

>>732771090
The speed the cube enters the portal is 0 mph or km/hr or what have you.

File: thinking-monkey-2.jpg (48KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x600px

The portal is just a hoop but with one end in one place and the other end in another place. Moving through the hoop should not add or subtract velocity. Suppose you're jumping through moving hula hoop, when you pass through the hoop, no velocity is gained or lost. The same should apply for a moving portal. Now if the Portals are moving in opposite directions at the same speed and you jump through one, what happens then?

>>732781441
No, anything exiting does so at the same rate of entry at the other end.

It is physically emerging from a stationary exit, and it does so at a velocity which is the distance it covered as it emerged divided by the amount of time it took to cover that distance.
As the exit point is fixed they are measurable figures. The object has mass, and now has a measurable velocity.
It cannot change to a velocity of zero instantly.

I get that you can't understand this, but that is because you can't grasp that when one portal can move that the entire situation is different.

Its simple relativity

>>732769489
The portals combine into a black hole and consume the nearby mass and grow.

>>732781817
So it never comes out the other portal then since it must also exit at 0mph?

Think about that

>>732782392
you would probably just be stuck between them.

File: Dumb Question (or is it).png (7KB, 638x379px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 638x379px

>>732782392

Here's an illustration

>>732782705

That's what I'm thinking too but would you eventually gain speed and escape or not?

So if the blue portal is the new frame/point of reference, and the box moves relative to the blue portal pretty fast, why doesn't it continue to move fast? At some point in time it is moving and everything else around it is fixed. Which would mean it did have a velocity. Right?

File: wat.gif (325KB, 370x330px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 370x330px

portals can't be put on moving surfaces

>>732783250
Yes
But the truth of that is too obvious for autists to believe so they start talking about doors and hoops

>>732783168
you couldn't gain speed enough to overcome it because they're always equal

>>732770370
If the portal isn't moving, then it's under the box. This would mean that the box only has the small amount of momentum from falling a relatively short distance. Either way, it's just going to *plop*.

>>732783494
there is no spoon