Assuming that portals started to exist in real life, how this

>>376651907
It would be the most heavily regulated shit ever created. The government wouldn't let you touch it and would crack down on anyone trying to.

>Open portal in Prague
>Open portal under the ocean
>Flood Europe entirely

It wouldn't be good.

>>376651907
how do you figure? how would the second portal get placed at your destination?

File: Starfire Watches Robin And beastboy Fuck.jpg (24KB, 363x389px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 363x389px

>Portals get invented.
>Christians rant and rave about how its the work of the devil and faithful should never use them
>jew companions spread disinformation aboout how using portals is very dangerous and could lead to cancer or whatever
>Only the super rich can actually afford to use or own portals.
>Eventually a muslim blows someone up with portals and they get outlawed.

Are unicorns real?

Well, infinite clean energy now exists, presumably. So a *lot* would be different.

>>376652119
>one asshole just secretly sucks all of earth's atmosphere into space over the course of decades.

If humanity gets portal guns it'll be the end of humanity.

File: fatAmerican.jpg (51KB, 600x462px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x462px

>never have to leave the couch as long as you have line of sight to the kitchen and the toilet and the mailbox to get disability checks

>>376651907
>implying the general public would ever find out about something that world-changing

They could already exist for all we know.

>>376652245
What is this from?

Considering a surface has to be covered with ground up moon rocks to be portable, not much would change.

>make a large vertical tube with a near perfect vacuum inside.
>place heavy object inside the tube and put portals at either end.
>let the object fall, ever accelerating until it nearly reaches the speed of light (and near infinite energy
>hold the world hostage, threaten to close the portals and destroy the earth.

File: Goym.gif (814KB, 969x581px) Image search: [Google]

814KB, 969x581px

>>376652245
sad but true

File: 21565121254.jpg (38KB, 636x424px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 636x424px

Someone will do this.

>>376651907
Who's gonna ship the portal guns?

Check and mate

>Stepping through portal without knowing exactly how they function

It's like you WANT to lose your soul.

>>376654364
A

>>376655165
Shut the fuck up, Miriam

>>376655165
But anon souls dont actually exist.

>>376655165
No, no, it's teleportation that kills you and replaces you with a soulless clone. Portals create a direct connection between two locations.

>>376651907
>how this would affect humanity in general?
We are fucked.
Unless is super regulated.
Nah, we are fucked anyways.

>>376653785
Won't the object eventually clash with a side of the tube unless you let it go in a perfect angle?

>>376654364
A
Since the cube itself doesn't have any momentum.

>>376653376
Technically they don't have to, moon rocks are just the best conductor for portals that Aperture found.

>>376657683
>>376655289
I can't find it but there was a very good image that explained why it's actually B. Came from /sci/. Basically you have to consider the forces and momentum of each side when the portal has half-engulfed the cube.

portals make you able to create energy out of nothing which would be a big solution first and then very quickly become a huge problem

>>376651907
The world would collapse into war as oil would become useless overnight.

>>376657592
You could use magnets to prevent that.

>>376652119
No one is going to put a portable surface under the ocean.
Portals don't work with water anyway.

>>376657910
I believe the general theory is that while the cube passes through the portal, it's not moving on the A side, but on the B side, it is moving, at considerable speed. The energy of portal A moving down has been transferred to the object moving out of portal B. So as the cube exits portal B, the parts of it that have passed through the portal are all of a sudden moving, the inertia of the moving portal platform has been transferred to those parts of the cube, sending it flying in that direction.

I might be wrong about this, but I think it might actually start flying through the portal as soon as even part of it enters, because part of it will have momentum in that direction, and the more that has passed through, the stronger that "suction" would be. The cube, after a certain point, would appear to lift off the ground and fly out of portal B.

Granted the portal would have to be moving at pretty great speed for it to do that, and at that point you wouldn't really have time to see the cube get lifted up at all.

>>376658391
Then just hide a platform under a waterfall.

Immigration.

>>376654364
>>376657910

this question entirely depends on how portals would work, but since they don't exist, you can't test it.

So there are two options. option A assumes your momentum of the portal does not matter.

option B assumes that momentum is conserved relative to the object and the portal.

the more I think about it, the more I feel like option B makes the most logical sense, but then I think about what would happen.

If you are standing there and the portal is coming at you at like 100 mph, then as soon as you go over it, then you would suddenly start flying at 100mph. so option A is probably the correct answer since how fast the portal is moving would determine only how fast you enter and exit the portals.

>>376652223
Make 1000 portal guns. Get employees to place one portal on one terminal, then go to another one and place the other portal there. Seal the gun away so that the portals stay put.

You could also make a route with multiple portal guns. Like, everyone places one portal in their terminal, then go to the next one over and place the other one there. If every terminal did this, they would all be connected.

Do the effects of gravity 'spill through' portals? If one portal is horizontal, facing the ground, and the other one is on a wall, if I move my hand over to the wall portal, will I feel the gravity from the downwards portal pulling at my hand slightly? Or is there some invisible barrier, if I'm half-way through, do I feel a distinct line where one side of my body is being pulled by gravity in one direction and the other half in another?

>Shoot portal at the sun.
>Shoot second portal somewhere on Earth.
>Wait a few weeks, maybe months as the portal beam travels through space.
>Suddenly, the world is engulfed in scorching hot plasma and gas.

RIP

Teleportation would be the most easily weaponized thing ever, we'd all be pretty much fucked, even if shit like "shoot second portal into jupiter" is not possible.

>>376654364
Not again. Also A because the cube never gained momentum. It's like dropping a doorframe around a cube on the ground.

>>376659287
How do you get moon rocks to the sun?

>>376659389
Yes it does. As the cube transitions between portals, it has to rise upwards as it exits portal B. The force of the solid platform it's on pushes against gravity, the energy of the downward moving portal transitions to the cube. So on the side of portal B, the cube rises up, against gravity, at speed.

>>376651907
id finally be able to have sex with myself

>>376658885
B doesn't make sense, because even if you are moving fast relative to one portal, that doesn't mean you actually have any momentum.

Also, if you presume B to be correct, then you could make light go faster than itself by moving a portal around, because the light would have it's original speed plus the relative speed of the second portal.

>>376659661
No need, anon. Everything in the solar system comes from the same stuff. There are already moonrocks inside the sun.

Do protals not have limited range of operations. I'm sure it could be easily regulated if there are already things that can cause them to vanish

>>376659287

Portals only open on specfic surfaces, moondust or whatever it was.

>>376659389
But the "hula hoop" model you're proposing misses the fact that the two sides of the hula hoop would be moving at different velocities

>>376659389
>It's like dropping a doorframe around a cube on the ground.

Only if the portals faced the opposite directions. But they don't. So gravity on one side is different than on the other. For instance, what if you placed two portals facing upwards and placed an object right in the middle of the portal. It would just float there.

>>376659769
I don't think that's how it works.

>>376654364
Answer's obviously B

>>376651907
The world would be so fundamentally different it's hard to imagine. It's a physics-breaking event that would lead to perpetual motion machines.

>>376659757

well if we assume that nothing can go faster than the speed of light then we must believe that it would be capped if light were to go through it.

same would be true for A though. if you took a flashlight and jumped down through the portal with the light flashing toward it then the light speed must be capped.

>>376659669
>the energy of the downward moving portal transitions to the cube. So on the side of portal B, the cube rises up, against gravity, at speed.

So then what if you enter a portal at a speed? Does your speed adapt to your velocity relative to portal B?

It sounds to me like you are inverting my model and dropping the world onto the frame, so that when the ground hits the frame and it is force to a stop, it pushes out the cube.

Also, here's something I wrote to another anon.
>Also, if you presume B to be correct, then you could make light go faster than itself by moving a portal around, because the light would have it's original speed plus the relative speed of the second portal.

>>376659757
>even if you are moving fast relative to one portal, that doesn't mean you actually have any momentum
In order to rise up through the exit portal requires enough energy to push up against gravity. That energy has to exist, and it has to come from somewhere. In this case, it comes from the entry portal moving downward, and the momentum is transferred by the stable platform that the cube is on.

>Also, if you presume B to be correct, then you could make light go faster than itself by moving a portal around, because the light would have it's original speed plus the relative speed of the second portal.
This is actually an interesting situation, but it isn't really a good comparison. This is more analagous to say, making two portals meet while an object is falling through them, or what would happen in the picture if there was a wall about 2 inches away from portal B.

>>376660190
>In order to rise up through the exit portal
I can't understand what you mean by this. Doesn't it just rise up due to the fact that a portal is being dropped unto it? Everyone keeps mentioning this energy needed for the cube to pass through the second portal, but I can't think why any energy would be needed if the portal is moving towards you.

>>376660636
>>376659389
Actually, I'm just going to think about this more on my own to see if I can understand option B. Maybe I'll try thinking of another, similar scenario.

I also feel like I'm wasting my time trying to justify the physics of a fictional phenomenon

>>376660173
>So then what if you enter a portal at a speed? Does your speed adapt to your velocity relative to portal B?
If you enter a stationary portal at speed, yes, you exit the portal with momentum. If you are stationary, and a portal flys at you at speed, you exit the portal with momentum. If you very slowly walk through a stationary portal, you have negligible momentum, and if a portal is moving away from you at speed, and you run through it at slightly higher speed, you will exit the portal with negligible momentum.

>It sounds to me like you are inverting my model and dropping the world onto the frame, so that when the ground hits the frame and it is force to a stop, it pushes out the cube.
If I understand what you're saying, kind of? In the sense of you're dropping the world onto the frame, at least. If I get what you're saying here then yes, that is essentially what's happening. But the momentum doesn't materialize when the frame is forced to stop. The momentum comes from the object entering the portal.

As soon as part of it goes through the portal, that part is resisting gravity as it passes through. Gravity wants to pull the cube back down, which is into the portal. The cube can't go back in the portal though, there's a solid platform stopping that. And as Portal A continues downward, it forces the cube through the portal more, further resisting gravity. This takes energy. So yes, on the side of Portal A, the cube has no momentum, and is not moving. On the side of Portal B, that cube has to have momentum in order to be rising up. It is resisting gravity and that takes energy. That energy is being supplied by the downward moving portal.

A good way to think about this, there is in fact resistance, when the cube enters the portal. Not from air, or at least, not in any meaningful amount, but from gravity. When something enters the upwards-facing portal, gravity resists it moving through. It's almost like there's a gravity membrane covering the portal.

>>376660920
(cont)So look at this from Portal A's perspective. It's moving down, things are fine. We'll ignore air for now, as it's effects are really negligible. When it gets to the cube, there's a problem. There's a big chunk of mass that's trying to move through the portal. Well, the other side of the portal has gravity pushing everything down (and therefore, through and out the portal). So the portal meets resistance in moving downwards, because the cube has mass, and gravity is trying to push mass through the portal in the opposite direction that it's moving. But the cube is on a solid platform, and the portal isn't slowing down, it's being pushed down by a very powerful piston, so the cube goes through. This puts more mechanical work on the piston, it's expending slightly more energy to move downwards, because there's something sticking into the portal causing resistance. As the cube enters the portal, that extra energy is transferred to the parts of the cube that have entered the portal.

>>376661376
Another way to think about this that might help. Imagine that the cube and portal A were in space, and that there was no platform that the cube was sitting on. Just a cube floating in the void, effectively free of any significant gravitational pull, or solid platform to brace itself against. Portal A is moving towards it at speed, and still leads to a room on Earth where Portal B is, as in the diagram. As Portal A reaches The Cube, part of The Cube, just a little bit, enters the portal, and pops out of Portal B down on Earth. Now, this little portion of The Cube that has passed through the portal is now sticking out of Portal B, and is effected by Earth's gravity, which is pulling it down, back into the portal. So gravity forces The Cube BACK through the portal, moving it in the opposite direction, away from Portal A. Not a lot of momentum back out, but enough. But Portal A is still moving forward, and the cycle continues. Portal A is now pushing The Cube around, transferring some of it's own momentum to The Cube via the gravity inside of itself.

In the example though, the cube has something to brace against, and so can't be pushed back down. That momentum from Portal A, instead of being transferred to the cube in the same direction, now transfers to it as it is forced through the portal, as it fights against gravity.


Ultimately The Cube would exit Portal B slightly slower than Portal A was moving, some of the momentum being used to overcome gravity, but assuming Portal A was moving down rather quickly, The Cube would indeed be launched through the air, just very slightly slower.

File: 1950376421.jpg (179KB, 1092x475px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1092x475px

>>376652992
Marvel Comics mini series called X-23: Target-X.
It's the second of two mini serieses outlining the origin story of Laura 'X-23' Kinney. The first being called X-23: Innocence Lost.

>>376651907
Don't these only work on surfaces covered in moon rocks?

File: 1493837105444.png (201KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 500x500px

>cube is never acted upon by any force

>it'll accelerate guys I swear!

seriously fucking kill yourselves B fags

>>376663054
>cube is never acted upon by any force
it is though

>>376663507
portals are holes in space time idiot. they don't exert any force on an object. just like going through a door doesn't make you randomly accelerate

>>376652357
>>one asshole just secretly sucks all of earth's atmosphere into space over the course of decades.

We're kinda doing that already, speeding up the process because "who cares it's going to happen naturally anyway"

>>376663773
desu the heat death of the universe scares me almost as much as death.

>>376654364
>It's another everyone answers A because "muh hula hoop" episode

>>376663054
>>376663660
You're right in that A is right, and not B, but for completely the wrong reasons. Forces are acting on the cube, it is effected primarily by two forces acting in opposite directions, that cancel each other out.

As the cube passes through the portal, it begins to be affected by gravity, which pulls it back into the portal. But the energy of the portal moving downward is transferred via the stable ground to push the block upwards through the portal.

The faster the portal moves downwards, the more energy is transferred to it, so that it may overcome gravity faster and easier. These raise in proportion to each other, so that they always cancel out.

>>376658391
*portalable

>B fags are allowed to exist

Why?

>>376663909
I dont know that feel. Everything has an end, but missing out on the final end is going to suck.

File: 4085467 gorrilon years in paint.png (36KB, 1036x774px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1036x774px

Let's answer the real questions now /v/.

the portals in Portal aren't very probable compared to a bridge or door that would require constant energy to keep open.

considering this utterly breaks all known physical laws if it could happen, it require a near infinite amount of energy to power (in reality it simply couldn't be done)

but say that it could, it would break all the rules, humanity would suddenly have access to infinite energy and possibly a way to travel between worlds instantly.

this would be a huge, huge shock to society and its doubtful the first generation could adapt just how radical this situation would be.

mostly realistically someone would make a mistake on a portal and destroy our planet and solar system instantly, if this didn't happen the first time due to the sheer physics behind such a portal in the first place.

seriously this would break the laws of the speed of light, the universe wouldn't like this one bit and would probably buckle at the instant of ignition and rend our "incredibly vast distance" area asunder.

>>376659802
>Do protals not have limited range of operations. I'm sure it could be easily regulated if there are already things that can cause them to vanish

Portal 2 ending.

>>376667479
is this loss?