The epic and insane portal debate - Part 1

>4 hours
>part 1
this is some panenkoek level shit

>>8518849
damn I haven't seen Destiny in a long time

4 whole hours of pure unadulterated autism

and then people say this shit isn't a complete waste of human life

It's also wrong.

Momentum is a conserved quantity, therefore p1=p2

Portals have 0 mass so their velocity is irrelevant, only the momentum of the item matters.

Simple.

Cx

>>8518926
the argument for B is that the software that is running these portals can't tell the difference between
>portal passing through object
or
>object passing through portal
it simply sends data to the other portal saying
>object is now exiting you with x velocity and y direction

>>8518935
I don't think it works like that, and even if it did I think that'd be something accounted for in design.

I think the way it works is a portal is an opened wormwhole and functions exactly the same as moving something through a hulahoop. Doesn't matter how fast the hoop comes down on the object, the object continues to move however it was moving before, just from a new origin point.

>>8518849
Its hilarious how frustrated he gets with people failing to understand basic relativity

>>8518940
but it could intentionally be designed that way
for example, it may be easier to control the velocity of the surface that you have your portal on (because its attributes are static), than it would be to try and throw things of various masses through a stationary portal at precisely the same speed and direction

>>8518952
I dunno man, it's possible maybe.

But I think portals collapse if any force is put on the (for lack of a better term) inner part, aka accelerating surface.

If the surface is moving at a constant velocity that's the only time it'll function at all, and I think that'd be something harder to control than the velocity of the object itself, as that can vary.

The dropping a box thing for example, it'll accelerate downward and hit a certain velocity, then pop into one portal and out the other to become a projectile. Easier to do that than have a stamp come down at the exact velocity necessary and then refresh the portal after it disappears and then comes back down.

>>8518935
>it simply sends data to the other portal saying
The problem with this is that it fixes everything according to the entry portals frame of reference

>>8518964
if such a technology existed in reality then yeah, it would be a lot simpler to keep the portals stationary
I mean, they'd likely be in the center of some absolutely massive machine filled with magnets and laser beams
>>8518967
right, that is the argument

>>8518975
>right, that is the argument
But the question gives you no reason to assume this

>>8518990
right
and since we don't have such a device in reality, we're free to speculate on how it works

>>8519013
The fact that a portal can move an object to a location of higher potential in a conservative field without energy input means the device is impossible so we can pretty much speculate however we want.

>>8519017
I agree

>>8519022
although to be fair, there's also no reason to assume that there is no additional energy being spent
these portals could be connected in some way to a power source

>>8518849
gave once he started his bullshit at 7:32

dude is trying way too hard to defend his answer that he'll bring in philosophy

the cube is not in motion

Cant you do this in garys mod?

>>8518849

doesn't it depend on whether gravity effects the portals equally?

if gravity is evenly distributed between both its A

if there's an information cut-off between the portals (the information of gravity is lost at the horizon of the portal) then it's B because the relative motion of entrance = exit speed.

>>8518926
Except that's wrong. Momentum of objects going through portals is absolutely, obviously not a conserved quantity. In the case where both portals are in the same inertial frame the absolute magnitude of momentum is conserved, but momentum is a vector quantity and the individual components are blatantly not conserved.

File: laughing krogan.gif (1MB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x533px

>>8518849
>we're gonna talk about this for like two minutes, okay?
>4:18:08

>>8518849
>vector

>>8518849
>posting a washed up autist