So this portal physics riddle is frequently posted on /v/, and

It's A.

Einstein was a hack

>>384782153
Portal was not meant to have moving portals, because it splits it into two reference frames. Invalid question

>>384782153
>The pattern that seems to emerge is that advocates of A quote Newtonian laws, while those in support of B leverage Einstein's theories.

I've never seen Einstein's theories brought up in these threads. I've only seen retards like you misunderstand the concept that motion is relative, and assume it has something to do with general relativity because you're scientifically illiterate.

>>384782357
/pol/ BTFO

Someone explain what the fuck Einstein has to do with anything, or this thread is going nowhere.

If I slam a cardboard tube down over a d6, it does not fly up and come out of the other end of the tube.
Because the tube imparts no energy on things it doesn't touch.
The portal never touches the cube so how is it meant to impart energy upon it?

>>384782153
This is how this thread will go:

Bfags will keep claiming the portal has mass and imparts energy and otherwise changing the scenario to make themselves correct.

Afags will keep being correct.

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

182KB, 356x200px

>>384782153

>>384782153
Portals don't work when one is moving independent of the other.

Except for that one time in Portal 2 with the laser beam puzzle, but those portals were moving horizontally side-to-side and only light was passing through them, so lets not count that

A is correct
INTJ autism is stronger than INTP faggotrism

>>384782845
>Bfags
>It is B because X and Y
>Afags
>Bfags are delusional and quasi-intellectual, it is so clearly A

>>384782678

Relativity. From the falling portals frame of perspective the box has a relative velocity which is transferred when it passes through the portal.

>>384782845

Correction:

A fags will keep claiming (falsely) that portals conserve energy and momentum. They will also keep failing to address the fact that the cube cannot emerge from a stationary blue portal without ever moving.

B fags will keep pointing it out.

Imagine if the cube was air

Could air just *plop* through the other portal or come as wind?

Answer is obviously B

File: giftedness.png (18KB, 667x359px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 667x359px

>>384782962

>>384782153
Answer B is in harmony with both Newton and Einsteins 'laws'.

>muh object at rest must remain at rest
It isn't at rest in relation to the blue portal though you retards. It's approaching because technically the blue and orange portal share the same space.

>>384783007
The games literally state that portals conserve momentum.

>>384782752
>>384782845
Explain how the cube emerges from the portal.

File: 1488569710521.jpg (45KB, 951x608px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 951x608px

Well?

>>384782991

You don't even understand the words you're using.

>relative velocity

Relativity of motion is Newtonian physics.

>>384782845
And people who say A will make up special portal mechanics to explain how the cube moves and stops without any energy. They will act like what ever they make up is obvious and not even bother trying to explain it.

STOP

TRYING

TO

APPLY

PHYSICS

TO

NONEXISTANT

THINGS

YOU

FUCKING

IDIOTS

PORTALS

ARE

NOT

REAL

File: conservationofmomentum.png (35KB, 450x685px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 450x685px

>>384783076

The games are literally wrong.

This is stupid, we don't know how moving portals work.

Newton would answer B too, retardo

File: 1456878210672.jpg (56KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 540x720px

>>384782153
If you stand still and a person runs past you, do you gain velocity?

>>384782752
It literally can if you hit it hard enough you stupid fucking retard.

File: portals.jpg (88KB, 600x675px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 600x675px

>>384782357
Is he a physicist? no.
It's A
also I'm INTP :^)

>>384783117
He will be pushed back down, so in essence, he is striking a wall at lighting speed.

>>384783239

If you remove the most significant aspect of the problem, do you have an equivalent problem?

No.

>>384783279
no
lol

>>384783175
>Creator of fictional object is wrong about the fictional object they created.
Sure.

>>384782357
>there is no correct answer but here's an estimate

if only this was enough to put an end to these threads.

>>384783314
>answering a question with a question because you are too stupid to answer the question
Good job faggot
But just for your sake, I'll give you the short answer, it's A

>>384783357
It really should be, I honestly think A would be more likely given how portals work, but since we don't know how moving portals work there is no answer.

>>384783175
They really just mean Kinetic Energy then, semantics

>>384783117
Wind resistance will keep you from reaching the speed of light and you'll exit the portal as a mess of bloody chunks.

>>384782991
what if theres no transfer.....if the portal is just like a falling doorframe in some charlie chaplin movie
surely the pedestal comes through too and it just like the world is falling away from you

>>384783347
Try it.

So if B. is correct, what would happen if the portal stopped half way around the cube? Would it still fly out the other side? I'm not even trying to argue a point, I'm just genuinely curious.

>>384783462
>Arguing semantics
Oh so its even worse than I thought.

>>384782929
>Portals don't work when one is moving independent of the other.
It's a video game. Valve just got lazy.
Prey (the old one) had moving portals just fine

>>384782752

Imagine you are a person floating in space. From your perspective you are not moving. Now Imagine you are inside a house with an open door also floating through space. From your perspective you are also not moving.

Now imagine the person floating in space and the house intercept each other. From the perspective of the man floating in space it would look like the house had flown into them. But from the perspective of the man in the house, it would like the flown through the door

This is how portals work.

>>384783537
Do catapults work or does the object being launched just sit in the basket after the arm swings and stops?

>>384783537
What happens when you stand in the middle of a portal in game?

>>384782153
>tell friends to drop hula hoop from the roof
>hula hoop lands around me
>suddenly accelerate and fly into the sky
Fucking portals, how do they work?

>>384783489
The ambient has not been defined, so I suppose you can disregard it if you want to.

>>384782752
Imparting energy only accelerates stuff. If you don't give energy to an object at constant speed it stays at that speed. The cube has a certain speed relative to the portal the moment it enters it and it would have the same when it leaves through the other side

This is newtonian physics btw

>>384783536
>what are shockwaves
try thinking about problems more than one fucking second

>>384782929
And video games also don't follow rules of physics, therefore we can't base the solution to the argument on video game physics, but physics from real life

>>384783431
Neither answer really make sense but at least B is intellectually honest and Bfags don't pretend their answer doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.

>>384783537
If B (it's not) the top half would start gaining velocity and pull the rest of it through. So it would accelerate out of the portal rather than just suddenly be the speed of the moving portal.

>>384782991
>transferring speed
U w0t

>>384783640
>hula hooper tells someone to try thinking
L O L
O
L

>>384783353

I'm sorry, but it's true. Conservation of momentum is a well known law of physics and it can be shown that the portals in the game violate this law. Look at the image I posted. If you've ever taken a physics class then you should immediately understand why I'm claiming that portals don't conserve momentum.

We could say that portals are conserving momentum if we assume that portals apply a force to objects which pass through them, but then arguments in favor of A fall apart.

>>384783462

"Conservation of Kinetic Energy Only" is not a law of physics.

>>384783615
You are ripped in half and one half of you is shot away at a high speed.

So B

File: 1440224973682.jpg (110KB, 451x603px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 451x603px

>>384783689
How does A violate the laws of thermodynamics?
The cube is stationary as long as there isn't an external force acting upon it
>inb4 B-BUH MUH EINSTEIN AND RELATIVE MOTION
Relative motion does not apply to classical mechanics, only special relativity, which is used for completely different things

>>384783239
That person is still relative to itself and you're the one who's moving

When talking about speed you always have to take a reference point

This is newtonian physics

>>384783175
>>384782153
Portals don't conserve momentum and you're an idiot if you think they do.

>>384783603
>>384783713
So relative to the pedestal the cube would be "sucked" upward to launch out of the other side?

>>384783867
You have no way to prove that the moving cube is stationary. Until you can make a portal and explain how they work, the most obvious answer is that the moving cube is moving.

>>384783537
No because the speed of the cube relative to the portal is zero

File: 437658734879569456.png (2KB, 286x150px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 286x150px

>>384783867
see
>>384783114

Here's an example. If you believe A, then what would happen when the green cube collides with the yellow cube in this figure?

>>384783682
If we use real life, then the answer is "portals do not exist, question is nonsense"

You gotta use the video game dummy

>>384782153

It's A. The block is totally still. It would be like slapping a tennis racket (without the cords in the middle) down over the block on a table.

The block would be unmoving on the other side of the "portal". If a real portal acts just like a tennis racket, it would be A.

>>384782967
lol

>>384783867
>B-BUH MUH EINSTEIN AND RELATIVE MOTION

Okay I'm convinced at this point that the "Einstein" thing is bait. I never saw it come up in previous Portal threads and now it's all over the place.

You guys cannot seriously believe that Einstein invented the concept of motion being relative. The idea that there is no absolute frame of reference was well known before Einstein. This is part of Newtonian physics and I refuse to believe that people are this scientifically illiterate in countries which have internet access.

File: 17D7FB6E-1D8E-4FB4-A143-8652718AB6EA-11778-00000BCEE6CB1F7A.gif (17KB, 504x282px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 504x282px

>>384783616
It's B. Just because you're autistic doesn't mean you're a physicist.

>>384782153

B. relative velocity is a thing

>>384783954
yes

>>384783987
yellow cube would bounce off of the green cube because it is "falling" onto the green cube

>>384782856
now if only we could test reality physics

>there are peole who literally think you can determine speed without a fixed reference
Holy fuck America

>>384784172
>yellow cube would bounce off of the green cube because it is "falling" onto the green cube

IE, there would be energy, violating the laws of thermodynamics.

>>384784026

Do you guys have fun inventing endless variations of the hula hoop argument? It's not a good argument. Show me a tennis racket whose front side is moving with respect to its back side while simultaneously having no space in between despite being separated by an arbitrary distance.

Also, the block cannot remain totally still throughout the experiment if it emerges from a stationary portal. It moves when it comes out of the blue portal. Scenario "A" claims that, after this motion, it stops.

>>384784101
what is the difference between the two things in your gif. What is the actual difference. The point of portals is that they are just a window that doesnt have its entrance and exit connected.

>>384782153
Absolutely amazing, you managed to bring 3 demented attention grabbing memes into one grotesque image

The cube has no velocity, and there is no proof that a portal will apply velocity to the cube, so the answer will forever be A.

>>384784275
yes thats why this entire conversation is retarded because both break physical laws.

>>384784280

First of all, on the right side, you see that the block (as it enters/exits the orange portal) appears to move in our frame of reference.

File: Z7HeRxU.png (361KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 512x512px

>>384783156

>>384784279
it sotps because the fucking piston with the portal coming down stops

>>384784098
Literally my thoughts

People itt unironically think that Einsted invented the concept of relative motion, they must be confused about the theory of 'relativity' or something. Newton would answer B unless the portals had mass and could decelerate the object

>>384784101
>look at my gif that proves A
Okay

>>384784318
>The cube has no velocity

Velocity is relative. Relative to the box the portal is moving towards it. Relative to the portal the box is the one that is moving.

File: 1414764122172.jpg (45KB, 366x364px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 366x364px

>>384783905
>That person is still relative to itself and you're the one who's moving
Except relative motion isn't actual motion
Photons move at c, but that doesn't mean I'm moving at c
>>384783959
>You have no way to prove that the moving cube is stationary
How about the arrow motioning the movement of the portal and no arrow on the cube
>>384783991
Except according to physics, it is very much possible for things like portals and wormholes to exist, the problem is that they require immense amounts of energy, which is why we haven't really seen one yet
We can easily assume how they would function, though
>>384784098
Anon, a year ago this very same thread came up and I argued with a guy for 6 hours explaining to him how special relativity and relative motion plays no role in classical mechanics

File: quantumtunneling.jpg (52KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 512x512px

>>384782153
You actually have a good point there. In A, the cube has no momentum, in B, it still doesn't but the fucking warped fabric of the universe has, like, inverse momentum which has the effect of giving the cube momentum (which is roughly what I gathered from a brief skim of >>384782357)

All depends on how Portals actually work though, as an arbitrary gateway or as some kind of fucked-up wormhole.

>>384784459

Could you explain how?

let's look at it this way you Bfags, if the orange portal was stationary and the cube was launched through it, of course it would fly out the blue portal as seen in option B. But because the cube is just sitting there, if a portal was slammed against it, the two portals act as a doorway together, and so the cube just comes out and plops forward out of the blue doorway. Where the hell is the other force coming from, where is the external force? Answer please Bfags.

>>384782153
The moving piston falls into its own portal surface as it starts moving down and breaks apart, with the area behind the portal falling out of the blue portal.

The portal remains stationary in mid-air, and the cube has not been touched.

Checkmate.

>>384784498
>Except relative motion isn't actual motion
>relative motion plays no role in classical mechanics

You're a fucking idiot.

Read a book.

File: 1473583738972.jpg (31KB, 330x330px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 330x330px

>>384784580
>object is standing perfectly still, which you can tell because you are observing it
>Relativityfag argues that the object is moving at 5*10^800 km/h because MUH RELATIVITY

End your life anon

>>384784521
they are exactly the same. instead of thinking of potrals as hoops and how you monkey brain cant comprehend it. think of hoops as portals with no space in between. they are the same.

>>384784521
You mean that the fact the cube is still stationary

>>384784343
Conservation of movement doesn't violate physics. Both boxes would move together, albeit more slowly

>>384784535
Only if you answer >>384783987

>>384784498
>How about the arrow motioning the movement of the portal and no arrow on the cube
Did you not notice that the cube is on the other side of the portal in the second part? I guess I can reword it for you. You have no way to prove that the object that translates from one point to another did not translate from one point to another. It would be much safer to assume that the object that translates from one point to another translated from one point to another. There is no way you can say with any confidence that A is a reasonable answer.

>>384784498
>Except relative motion isn't actual motion
Wow you really have no idea what you're talking about, yet you have google a click away

>>384784535
Frame of reference, mother fucker. If you were on a platform attached to and moving with the orange portal, then it would appear that it was remaining stationary and the cube was rising to you.

File: 1498492731833.jpg (82KB, 783x590px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 783x590px

>>384782153
A and B are literally the same answer.
heh gottteeem

File: afags.png (33KB, 390x392px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 390x392px

as per usual

>>384782153
It's A you fucking dopshits, the portal is a fucking it does not FUCKING matter if it's on a moving object the portal is not "ON" the object it's just a fucking HOLE IN THE FUCKING OBJECT
>but muh momentum of the platform
YOU DON'T FUCKING BRAKE BONES WHEN YOU ENTER A PORTAL AT HIGH SPEEDS YOU KNOW WHY, BECAUSE IT'S A FUCKING GOD DAMN HOLE NOTHING IS APPLIED TO THAT AREA IT IS JUST A FUCKING HOLE.
>but muh made up bullshit i leaned in one year of college phys
IT'S A HOLE NOTHING BEHIND OR AROUND APPLYS TO IT JUST LIKE WHEN A YOU EXIT A BUILDING RUNNING YOU DON'T FUCKING SMASH YOUR GOD DAMN FACE

>>384784693
>object is standing perfectly still

Nothing is ever really "standing still". Everything has velocity relative to something else in the universe. The has velocity relative to the sun. The sun has velocity relative to the rest of the universe etc..

Everything has some form of inertia

>>384784693
You literally got it completely backwards. Relativityfags would say the object is standing still, because they're using themselves as a reference. Even though the object is moving with the speed of the planet and the sun, it's standing still RELATIVE to us.

>>384784693
Hahaha holy shit mate grab a book

File: Untitled.png (156KB, 1648x907px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1648x907px

>>384784693

You don't understand the posts with which you're disagreeing.

Have you ever taken an elementary physics course? You should understand that, if a train is moving at 100 km/h with respect to you, then it is equivalent to say that you are moving at 100 km/h with respect to the train. In other words, in the frame of reference in which the train is stationary, you are in motion.

You shouldn't even need to take a physics course to realize that your frame of reference is not special. Mars is moving with respect to the Earth. Imagining that Martians exist, do you expect them to consider themselves to be in motion just because some Earthling says that Earth is stationary? Did you actually think that the Earth is an absolute frame of reference? How can that be when the Earth is rotating and accelerating all the time?

I'll state again that none of this has anything to do with Einstein or any kind of non-Newtonian physics. Relativity of motion is a concept of classical mechanics. I'm sorry that you were too poorly educated to know this.

Please don't reply again unless you're going to think before you post.

So if the situation was reversed and the pedestal was moving upward and the portal was stationary. When the pedestal slams into the portal the cube would fly off right? Like when you slam on the brakes but your body keeps moving.

Is this the idea of why B. would be right? Or am I just on too basic of a level to get this?

space is moving, not the cube

answer A

>>384784715
>>384784723

But, on the right side, the portion of the cube on the orange side is moving with respect to our frame of reference. This is consistent with the idea that the cube is in motion when it exits the portal in the original problem.

Did you not actually look at the gif?

File: 1374817773390.jpg (69KB, 401x604px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 401x604px

>>384784816
Except both wormholes and portals are means of instantaneous travel, which means that the distance between point A and point B is 0, from there you can calculate that velocity is 0, because the distance and time between the initial point and destination point is 0
>>384785024
Yes, it is relative motion, but taking it into account in anything is stupid as fuck, because then you can argue that apples don't fall, because MUH RELATIVITY
>>384784917
But then the answer is still A, because the cube isn't moving relative to you or anything else but the portal, which is the only thing moving relative to everything else

>>384784416

Okay. You haven't even contradicted anything in my post so I'm not sure why you're using profanity.

For the record, I don't think the cube would have to stop just because the piston stops, because the cube is not glued to the piston. But that's another matter entirely. The post to which you replied was simply to point out that the cube does, at some point, move with respect to the blue portal. Therefore it cannot be said that the cube remains stationary throughout the experiment.

>>384785106
Yes

The thing is that it would fly off at constant speed. People can't seem to understand that the box wouldn't accelerate or decelerate just by going thorugh the portal.

it depends o the velocity of the piston:
if it's slow as fuck, it's gonna end like A
if it build enough speed, when it crashes against the platform, it could end like B because of the shockwave

>>384783792
Holy shit. I know the term is thrown around a lot on this board, but you are genuinely and irrefutably a total fucking retard.

>>384785164

Relative to the cube, the portal is moving, relative to the portals, the cube is moving. Once it passes through the portal the cube enters the portal's frame of reference and is moving.

Answer B

>>384785220
>because then you can argue that apples don't fall, because MUH RELATIVITY

You're wrong. If an apple is moving downward at a constant speed, then you could construct an inertial frame of reference in which the apple is stationary. However, falling objects accelerate. You cannot construct an inertial frame of reference in which a falling apple is stationary.

I asked you not to reply without thinking, and you did it anyway.

I beg you to read a physics book. Even one for children would suffice.

>>384785220
>denying relativity of motion
Grab a book

>>384785220
>Yes, it is relative motion, but taking it into account in anything is stupid as fuck, because then you can argue that apples don't fall, because MUH RELATIVITY

Apples fall relative to the tree and the ground.

>But then the answer is still A, because the cube isn't moving relative to you or anything else but the portal, which is the only thing moving relative to everything else

The cube is moving relative to everything on the other side of the portal.

Just answer this >>384783987

>>384785365

Please explain why. Find one false statement in my post.

>>384785220
>which means that the distance between point A and point B is 0

The cube is not a point mass. There are parts of it that are moving that are away from the portal. Unless you can explain how the influence of the portal extends beyond the surface of the portal, you can not say that a non-zero distance is zero. Once again, it would be much easier to assume that that non-zero distance is not zero.

>>384782153
The real question is how would the cube be affected by inertia?

Technically, as the cube exited the portal, it would be moving. And yet, until the precise moment it passed the border of the portal, it would be fully stationary. If the piston lowered at 50 meters/second, the cube would be ejected from the portal at the same rate. But, is there a point where the momentum of the exiting portion exceeds the inertia of the stationary bit? Does traveling through the portal allow the cube to exist in some kind of weird transition state, where portions of it maintain stationary inertia while others tend to keep moving? Or does some aspect of one transfer to the other?

Honestly, I'd imagine that the creation of portals would require a whole branch of portal physics. I personally believe that the cube would fire out, because as the whole thing exited the portal, its speed in that reference plane would be non-zero. Questions of all physics fuckery aside, it would be moving at speed by all standard metrics, and so it should continue doing so, as per newton.

>>384782153
It's A. The portal is the oval, not what is inside of it, therefore strictly speaking the cube never touches the portal but simply moves through the space between it. As such it stands to reason that it would simply plop out the otherwise rather than fire out because there's no energy transfer or some shit I dunno I'm not a scientist just trying to use common logic.

what happens if the orange portal stops right before the cube enters? what happens if it stops when the cube is halfway through it?

REEEEEEEE

>>384785610
Common logic would tell you that the cube must be given some velocity if it's going to come out of the blue portal. The question is whether it abruptly comes to a stop once it has completely emerged.

>>384785210
In that case, it's moving because it's being pushed against the ground by the other portal. This isn't the case in OP's problem.

>>384785626
the cube acquires aids and dies

>>384782153
If you played Portal you wold know there can not be portal on moving surfaces.

File: 1492495044775.png (85KB, 421x294px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 421x294px

>>384782153
A violates the laws of motion

B violates the laws of thermodynamics

The laws of thermodynamics weren't understood and outlined until well after Newton's death, and Newton himself defined the laws of motion.

Newton would pick B.

>>384782445
Portals create two reference frames whether they're moving or not.

>>384785470
The cube isn't moving, the space is
That's coincidentally the entire framework for FTL travel, you don't move the object, but the space around it
>>384785526
Instantaneous travel = zero distance
Unless the cube has an initial velocity of it's own, it's relative velocity to the portal will remain the same as the portal itself and the net velocity will be zero
>>384785423
Except you can, you simply take an object that moves at a speed relative to which the motion of the apple is zero
If you have to photons moving on the same vector at the same speed, they appear stationary to each other

>>384785669
It would need to have force applied to it to auddenly decelerate

File: 1402004671807.jpg (37KB, 396x382px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 396x382px

>>384782153
The same arguments every time.

Honestly, do any of you really care, and if so, why?
Because even if you are the 400 IQ genius to figure it out we're gonna have the same thread again tomorrow and no one is going to believe you anyway.

It honestly seems like you're fighting just to fight at this point.

>>384782153


LITERALLY EVERYTHING EINSTEIN DID WAS STOLEN FROM OTHER PEOPLE

>>384785732

In OP's problem, a portal comes down on an object which sits on a platform of some kind. In the GIF, you're assuming it's on the ground, but whatever it's on, I fail to see the real difference. Why is the object being "pushed" in the GIF but not in the original problem?

>>384783117
Exit at the speed of light.

>>384783289
>nobody replied
seething in rage at being wrong I assume

>>384785573
The cube has two things going on with it at once. The leading portion on the blue side is in motion while the trailing portion on the orange side is stationary. Once the orange portal is past the halfway mark and more than 50% through the portal, we would see the cube start to lift off the platform, as the back 49%'s inertia is outweighed by the front 51%'s, which is in motion.

>>384783289
Why are you privileging the entry portal's perspective when it's the exit portal's perspective that's the most relevant?

File: original.jpg (19KB, 535x383px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 535x383px

>>384785874
>these fingers

>>384785796
>B violates the laws of thermodynamics
How? The box would be moving at constant speed, there'd be no change in the system's energy

>>384785827
You don't understand basic physics do you.
Speed, velocity, and acceleration are all different things and that's not just semantic fuckery they're important specific definitions.

>>384785874
Because if one person on the other side isn't actually trolling maybe I can help point out their lack of critical thinking and help them grow as an individual capable of their own analytical thought.

>>384785669
You have to imagine if there isn't a portal at all but if there was simply a hole in the middle of the piston (with the pipe attached to the side or something so it wouldn't block the way). In that case the cube wouldn't move at all because it hasn't gone anywhere.

That's essentially what a portal does, it doesn't teleport things, it just puts them right next to each other in one specific spot. The cube would of course move somewhat because the exit would cause it to fall downwards but there's no reason to think it would fire off, that's just not how the portals work.

>>384786070
Okay, I'll make it easy for you
Portal moves, cube doesn't, cube comes out as not moving because it isn't in motion relative to itself

>>384785827
>Except you can, you simply take an object that moves at a speed relative to which the motion of the apple is zero

You don't understand.

One cannot construct an INERTIAL frame of reference in which an ACCELERATING object is stationary. If you disagree, you're just wrong, and I don't know what else to say to you.

>If you have to photons moving on the same vector at the same speed, they appear stationary to each other

Ah, now we can finally discuss something which is actually relevant to Einstein.

According to Einstein, your statement is wrong. As bizarre as it sounds, light will appear to be moving away from you at light speed even if you are also moving at light speed in the same direction. This is what Einstein stated in his theory of Special Relativity, if I remember correctly.

But now you're just going to get confused again because you don't understand the difference between Special Relativity and the concept of something simply being relative to something else.

>>384785827
>Instantaneous travel
Why do you think it would be instantaneous? Portals are not teleporters, so the cube is not just going to disappear from one side and appear on the other. The only part that is instantaneous is when it passes through the surface the portal. Most of the problem does not take place in the portal. Normal physics should apply unless you can explain why they don't.

>>384786158
Lmao

>>384786107
But, as it's been mentioned multiple times in every thread including this one, literally both sides are impossible. Both sides lack critical thinking. The only thing you're helping the other person do is lack critical thinking in the same way that you do.

>>384786056
>The box would be moving at constant speed
Not as it's passing through the portal. The portal imparts energy to the cube despite not interacting with it in any way. It's just a shortcut through space, not a force.

>>384785921
>Why is the object being "pushed" in the GIF but not in the original problem?
Because in the gif, the object can't leave the portal since gravity is bringing it down towards it. Which means that it's resting on the ground, through the portal.

>>384782153
The cube would be ripped apart atom by atom

File: 1500688498689.png (3KB, 358x142px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 358x142px

>>384786256
>as it's been mentioned multiple times in every thread including this one, literally both sides are impossible
Yeah, that's my "side"

>>384786287

The only real difference I see is that OP's exit portal is diagonal and the GIF's exit portal is facing up. And I don't think this really matters. But whatever.

File: 1498977686142.gif (2MB, 330x166px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x166px

Oh boy i remember arguing in this threads when i was new too

Pro-tip portals aren't real

>>384786184
>light will appear to be moving away from you at light speed even if you are also moving at light speed in the same direction
But that entirely destroys the theory of relativity
>>384786229
>Why do you think it would be instantaneous
Read the thread and look at every picture related to the argument anon
The cube comes out the other side instantaneously, therefore the distance is 0

>>384786158
>because it isn't in motion relative to itself

>this is how retarded Afags actually are

>>384786389
>he was new when Portal came out
Fucking newfags.

>>384786270
Portals in the portal series work like that in general. They have to impart energy otherwise the infinite loop portal wouldn't be a thing.

>>384786430
So now you're saying relative motion doesn't exist?
Make up your mind already anon

File: Apollo_7.png (75KB, 270x203px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 270x203px

>>384786361
Well then. I guess I never specified whether you need to have a side of the argument to care about it. I figured that was implied.

>>384786486
>They have to impart energy otherwise the infinite loop portal wouldn't be a thing.
Do you not know what gravity is?

Say the cube's dimensions is 1*1*1(m). Say the orange portal (entrance) is travelling downwards at 10 m/s. Lets set the starting point of the orange portal at exactly the top of the cube (meaning that if the portal moves 1m downwards will completely 'devour' the cube). When 0.05 seconds has passed, the orange portal will have moved 0.5m downwards, consuming half of the cube. Simutaniously, we see that in the 0.05 seconds half of the cube emerged from the blue hole. This would mean that the top of the cube has gone from 0m above the blue portal to 0.5 m above the blue portal in 0.05 seconds, giving it a velocity of 10m/s. Similarly, at 0.09 seconds after the platform started dropping, 0.9m of the 1m tall cube would've emerged from the blue portal, giving it a velocity of 10m/s still. This will hold true even at 0.099999... seconds, still giving the cube an exit velocity of 10m/s.

Therefore, the answer is b.

>>384786486
They maintain energy, and as you fall gravity is continuously applied until you reach terminal velocity.

>>384786406
light has the same speed at all reference frames, the rules for light and ordinary matter are not the same

>>384786406
Here's the thing: the higher your inertia, time starts to act all weird. Light has no mass, and thus no inertia, so its not affected by the time fuckery that happens at light speeds.

i dont get this newton and einstein shit but look at it. the box is staying the same and the portal comes to IT not the other way around... it's fucking obviously A dumbasses

>>384785984
I would dispute that, actually. Think of it as being on a train. You can feel deceleration and acceleration, but if the train's speed remains constant, it would be just like standing still. And that's what happens to the cube. Its "standing still" is simultaneously moving at the speed of the portal, which is the whole reason B works in the first place. So if the portal moves over it at a constant speed, it should experience no acceleration or deceleration, at least not until it's passed the portal and wind resistance and gravity take hold.

>>384782357
>modern Valve are retarded
This proves it's A

File: portalanswer.webm (3MB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 853x480px

Thread over.

>>384786406
>But that entirely destroys the theory of relativity

I don't even know what "theory of relativity" you're talking about right now, which is fine I guess because you don't understand the difference between Special Relativity and the concept of relative motion anyway.

Let's recap: The idea that the motion of an object can only be described relative to something else is a concept of classical mechanics, i.e., Newtonian physics. In other words, if you are sitting in a chair, you are stationary with respect to the chair. However, in the frame of reference in which a passing car is stationary, you are in motion.

Einstein, however, stated that light is moving at speed "c" in every reference frame. If you're stationary, light is moving at "c". If you're moving at half of "c", light is still moving at "c". And yes, this does disagree very strongly with Newtonian physics.

Newton's view of the world is still pretty much valid as long as you're not approaching the speed of light.

Do you understand? Are you even reading this whole post? Please tell me if you actually read the post and understand it. Otherwise, I'll just assume that you're not even trying to learn.

>>384786591
>>384786626
Gravitational potential energy is a thing and you're creating it every time an object moves farther from earth via portal. Roughly the amount of energy required to lift it to that point yourself.

>>384786406
>Read the thread
Even most people who support A would disagree that the cube teleports. >>384783289 is an example that supports A without teleportation. A portal is just a hole through space.

>>384782357
Oh I get it now.

It's like if you said both portals were stationary and the platform holding the cube was thrust upwards into the Orange portal.
The image is just the same thing, the orange portal creates the "idea" of a "moving platform" that the cube sits on.

Man, and I was an A believer this whole time.

>>384786270
>imparts energy
>not a force
Really got my almonds working

No really, what you said makes no sense

An object standing still is at constant speed. If the portal moves through it, then the box would move away through the other side at the same, constant speed. No changes in the energy of the system.

If the portal somehow accelerates through the box, then the box's parts would keep the speed they had as they entered, evening out at a certain speed.

>>384786690
>it should experience no acceleration or deceleration
It experiences instantaneous acceleration. It goes from 0m/s when it's on the orange side to (whatever the orange portal's speed is)m/s when it's on the blue side.

>>384786728
ayy

>>384785669
it doesn't have any velocity. If I fall off a roof and go through a hula hoop, I have velocity. If a hula hoop falls off a roof and goes through me, it won't make me fly up off the ground

File: willem dafoe.jpg (916KB, 1600x1201px) Image search: [Google]

916KB, 1600x1201px

>>384786728
>Even the game physics we are arguing over states that A is right
What now BFags?

>>384786630
But then assume that I was moving towards you at the speed of light and you were moving at me towards the speed of light
According to your explanation you would never see me and I would never see you

>>384786256
Portals aren't real, what else is new. It's a thought experiment.

>>384786728
The question is hypothetical, we all know the actual engine can't handle moving portals properly

fucking retard

>B
The 100m/s moving portal 0 m/s cube turns into a X m/a cube 0 m/s. portal? But how much energy is needed to move a portal?

File: portal_facts.png (30KB, 561x859px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 561x859px

>>384786870

If you're using the hula hoop argument in the current year, your post will be seen as bait, so I hope you're not actually being serious.

>>384786809
My bad
>in Example B, the portal imparts energy to the cube
>This shouldn't be the case, since a portal is just a shorcut through space, not a force
Sorry you don't understand context clues like that other anon.

>>384786942

The question is fucking stupid

>>384786728
>Comparing player physics to object physics

>>384786406
No it doesn't. Relativity is all about how things are relative depending on their reference frames. Light will always travel at light speed relative to you, regardless of how fast you're traveling. Have they explained the mirror thing to you? Basically, if you have a time keeping device that keeps time by bouncing light between two mirrors, it will always keep the same time, regardless of how fast you are going. So when you approach the speed of light, the light bouncing between the two mirrors will move from one mirror to the other over a longer distance but in the same amount of time. Since it is traveling on the hypotenuse of a triangle instead of on the straight line between the mirrors. That's the whole idea behind time dilation

>>384786942
>says increasingly desperate Btard

>>384786784
>A portal is just a hole through space
Spacetime*
And since spacetime isn't a thing you can just stick a hole into and come out the other side you have to fold two parts of spacetime together, thus resulting in the distance of zero

>>384786924
look up special relativity dude, you cant move at the speed of light because the energy required to accelerate matter to that speed is infinite

>Portals conserve momentum (this is told in the game)
>cube has no momentum
>somehow acquires momentum according to Bfags

>>384786963
You didn't explain how any of my examples would violate thermodynamics

>>384786924

If you're arguing with the statement that light has the same speed in all reference frames, then you're literally arguing with Einstein.

Just go read one of his books, instead of expecting /v/ to explain his theories to you. You'll probably get a wrong explanation here.

>>384787086
That's why I said assume, dumbass
Assume we're photons then, according to the theory we would never see each other if we were moving towards each other at the speed of light

>>384786820
Well, yes and no. It could be said to accelerate in the sense that it moves from the frame of reference in which it is stationary to the one in which it is moving. But it moves at a constant speed relative to both frames of reference. In a vacuum, and assuming the moving portal could continue after encompassing the cube, what you see is that the cube will move away from the exit portal at the same speed as it entered; but simultaneously, the entry portal is moving away from it at the same speed. Therefore, if you were to look at the cube through the entry portal, it would appear to stay in the same place. There is no change in speed. The cube just transitions from one frame of reference to another.

>>384787086
No, you can't move at the speed of light because it's the speed of massless particles and all of your particles have mass. If you mystical had an infinite energy machine it still wouldn't work because it's not fundamentally about the energy required to accelerate.

>>384786546
Of course relative motion exists, but your statement makes no sense because nothing is in motion relative to itself.

>>384786958
this retarded argument keeps cropping up on /v/ and all of the real scientific explanations have gone ignored, so might as well try the hula hoop meme. your picture is fucking idiotic. portals are not physical entities to which you can apply newtonian laws, they are wormholes. The only thing that changes when you go through a portal is the vector of gravitational acceleration (assuming you come out at an angle different to the original one), things like "relative velocity" are not real, you either have velocity or you don't

>>384787246
>move my hand up and down really quick
>my hand is now in motion relative to the rest of my body
Really makes the balls jingle, eh?

>>384787179
The portal literally is moving, why are you saying it has no momentum?

>>384787246

Sorry if I'm going off-topic here, but I don't want to read your entire argument. If you don't mind, I'd like to make just one point:

Is the cube a single particle? No.

Half the cube could be in motion with respect to the other half. That's what's happening in this GIF: >>384784101

>>384787179
It's just the moving portal meme.

>>384787303
Portals impart energy and anomalously conserve relative motion, that's how they function

Remember an object has a very specific amount of momentum.

Momentum can only be added or robbed by interaction with outside forces.

Your momentum is determined by to:
1: your velocity relative to the surface of the Earth.
2: the rotational velocity of the Earth's surface.
3: the orbital velocity of the Earth about the Sun
4: the orbital velocity of the Sun about our galaxy
5: the velocity of our galaxy relative to the space itself.

A portal isn't going to change your momentum for no reason.

HOWEVER

If the destination portal is on a different planet, you might be killed due to conserving your total momentum from Earth's total movement, and having it not be compatible with the different planet's total movement.

>>384787051
>you have to fold two parts of spacetime together, thus resulting in the distance of zero
...between the two ends of the portal. There is nothing to indicate that the portal can change distances in places that are not between the two portals. Mass that is not in a portal should act the same as it normally would. Once again, the cube is not a single point. There is mass of the cube that is not in the portal, so the safest assumption is that it would follow standard physics.

>>384786918
It's a poor simulation.

>>384787219
you cant assume you're a photon, because a photon is bounded by different laws of physics, for example, time and distance don't exist from the 'perspective' of a photon

>>384787303
You can describe the problem from multiple frames of reference and the outcome of each is valid. Just because relativity fucked your mom doesn't mean it stops working.

>>384787179
If the reference frame is the piston face, the cube is moving toward it at whatever the piston speed is. So the cube has some sweet theoretical portal physics momentum.

>>384787407
Portals don't give energy because they don't move

>>384787454
>There is nothing to indicate that the portal can change distances in places that are not between the two portals
Except then it wouldn't be a portal
For there to be anything between the portals you would need to have an entire universe between them, because nothing can exist without an universe to exist in

>>384787303
>things like "relative velocity" are not real, you either have velocity or you don't

Literally no.

And your post did not address the actual argument made by that image, which is actually so simple that it doesn't need an image.

• The blue portal is stationary with respect to the ground.
• The cube comes out of it.
• The cube must move with respect to the blue portal.
• The cube must move with respect to the ground.

>>384787590
They HAVE to give energy otherwise you couldn't move vertically upwards with them.

>>384787234
>No, you can't move at the speed of light because it's the speed of massless particles and all of your particles have mass
thats effectively waht i said
>If you mystical had an infinite energy machine it still wouldn't work because it's not fundamentally about the energy required to accelerate.
how could you assert that without having such a machine to experiment with?

>>384787303
>things like "relative velocity" are not real, you either have velocity or you don't

A-fags, everyone.

Remember, this is the kind of scientific illiteracy with which you agree if you think the answer is A.

>>384787448
This only works if both portals have the same speed (ie their vector is zero relative to each other)

Not the case in op

>>384787226
And yet, for the cube to be moving away from the portal at the same speed it enters, it would have to be moving away from the exit point at a constant speed. Therefore, it would be moving in a reference plane with a stationary portal. Therefore, it would have a speed on the exit side. Going from no motion to motion is a change in speed, bruv

>>384787448
Why a different planet? Why not just a moving truck or something?

>>384787679
Its not essentially what you said at all, the infinite energy bullshit is just that, bullshit.

It is fundamentally impossible for particles that have mass to move at the speed that things with no mass travel at.

>>384787303
If relative velocity isn't real, then why don't our speed limit signs say 2.1 million kmh/1.3 mph?

>>384787660
The box isn't accelerating so there's no energy given to it

>>384787660
What ?

Imagine the portals are in two different rooms, with entrance portal X, and exit portal Y. In room X, the portal is lowered at a speed of 1 m/s onto the cube. In room Y, an observer watches the exit portal. From his perspective (and relative to the surroundings in his room) the cube emerges from the portal with a speed of 1 m/s, until it is fully through the portal. Assuming A is true the cube would then come to a complete standstill relative to him, with no apparent force acting on it, and infinite deceleration since it goes from 1 m/s to 0 m/s the instant it exits the portal. This doesn't make sense, so A cannot be an appropriate answer. That doesn't mean B is correct, there's likely a contradiction with its logic as well.

Portals don't exist anyways, so there isn't a right answer.

>>384787303
Also, that thing that changes where the cube is literally moving through space, thereby having velocity, thereby having momentum. If pushing a cube through a portal at 50 m/s would fire it out the exit portal, pushing a portal through a cube at 50 m/s should function in approximately the same way. The interaction is identical, the change is only in reference frames

>>384782856
Yeah, how the fuck is there an argument after this?

>>384787407
>>384787642
>>384787713
the portals are not entities with intrinsic properties. they are just wormholes that connect physical space. relative velocity is a human concept, not an actual physical phenomenon, because relativity in the first place is also a human concept

File: 1473889458305.gif (1MB, 540x304px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 540x304px

>real physics can't even explain the vast majority of events that happen in real life like how bicycles work
>hurrdurr let's argue about imaginary portals with real physics

Public service announcement:

If you're confused by the concept of "relative motion" (as most A faggots in this thread seem to be), watch this video. It explains classical mechanics to children, so even you should understand it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD7C4V9smG4

>>384787818
infinite energy is an obvious impossibility, i wasn't actually saying that matter could accelerate to light speed. i was in fact saying the opposite

>>384787876
>>384787845
>>384787969
When you move a thing physically away from the earth you have to expend energy and the object has to gain energy in the form of gravitational potential.
Portals have to impart gravitational potential energy to objects that they move upwards.

>>384787338
>>384787397
Neither of these are "thing in motion relative to itself." That's your hand in motion relative to the rest of your body and one half of the cube in motion relative to the other half. Do you see the difference?

Nothing can be in motion relative to itself

>>384787752
Accelerating means changing speed over time, not in an infinitely small instant. When objects collide against each other in space they change speeds but don't add or lose kinetic energy, otherwise it would violate thermodynamics

A is what happens in the game. B is what would happen in real life.

Imagine if you were in a room with an orange portal on the wall.

The blue portal was on the front of a truck speeding down the highway.

If you reach through the portal and touch the road, what would happen?

If you believe the road scrapes your hand, then your argument is fundamentally the same as Bfags' - you're moving at a dangerous speed on the highway side of the portal even though on your side of the portal you're not going anywhere

>>384784275
I don't think I agree with that. Arguably, the yellow would bounce off of the green cube because it would press the green cube into the surface upon which it rests. Standard newtonian physics, equal and opposite reactions n shit yo

>>384788102
>real life
can i borrow your portal gun?

File: distance.png (3KB, 560x266px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 560x266px

>>384787595
I am not trying to say there is distance between the portals. I am trying to say there is distance when you are away from a portal.

File: 1289787556261.jpg (22KB, 600x579px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 600x579px

>>384786728
now post one with the box, autist

>>384788008
When you say "you'd need infinite energy to accelerate to lightspeed", by the nature of your words you are implying you can accelerate to lightspeed if you had infinite energy, which ignores the fundamental impossibility of accelerating to lightspeed. Infinite energy is impossible as well but it's not the reason light speed travel is impossible.

>>384788010
Portals have no mass. Also I don't think you know how gravity works

>>384787843
because of human concept conventions. we are not interested in measuring our true velocity in a full extent, because it is immeasurable and irrelevant. for all we know, our galaxy, universe, etc is moving at incredible speeds as well, but we don't know or feel it

>>384788226
but he's saying "gravitational potential" so he must be smarter than us and therefore correct

>>384788196
infinite energy is an assumed impossibility you autist, you cant accelerate to light speed and you cannot have infinite energy

>>384787752
But it's not a change because it exists in two frames of reference. It's just that it exists a little more in one of them at a given time. First it's stationary (but moving) and then it goes to moving (but stationary). One is its "real" state, and the other is what it looks like looking through the portal. As it crosses the portal threshold it assumes all the potential qualities it appeared to have from the other side. Basically, what you see is what you get.

So yes, if you're watching the whole thing go down you'd see a cube standing still and then shooting off but it's not accelerating in the sense that it will experience any pull. All the parts of it that move through the portal move away from it at the exact same rate the rest enters, so it will pull itself no more than if it were standing still.

>>384788226
Who said portals need mass
And you're the one who doesn't understand gravitation

File: 1491098338419.gif (7KB, 181x251px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 181x251px

>Afags vs Bfags

>>384787969
>relative velocity is a human concept, not an actual physical phenomenon, because relativity in the first place is also a human concept

Anon, you just don't know what you're talking about.

When people talk about "relative motion" or say that motion must be measured relative to something, they are basically talking about the concepts explained on this Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference

This is very basic classical physics. If you are actually disagreeing with the most basic concepts of physics, then there's no point in discussing anything with you. Without the basic facts of reality as common ground, there's no hope for a meaningful discussion; you might as well be speaking another language.

>>384788095
Accelerating is changing speed. Cube changes speed when it goes through the portal. I don't understand why you're asking for an arbitrary amount of time to have passed for it to count as acceleration. If it is going faster, it must have accelerated.

>>384788010
You just fall up.

>>384788297
But the reason you cant accelerate to lightspeed has nothing to do with the impossibility of infinite energy in this context. Why mention it.

>>384788273
velocity itself is a human concept

physics is a human concept

the universe is a human concept

portals are a human concept

>>384787957
It's only how it works in the source engine in gmod which may have been altered. The original question is about what would happend in the real world with real physics.

>>384787947
>That doesn't mean B is correct, there's likely a contradiction with its logic as well.
There isn't, actually. It is perfectly consistent.

>>384788359

pretty rude to compare them to degenerate skubfags. skub destroys families.

File: main-qimg-73087da94d05a95dc196b1127d2806be.png (9KB, 261x231px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 261x231px

>>384788294
Smart enough to use Google you fuck

OKAY SO THE BLOCK IS RESTING ON THE PLATFORM, AND THE PORTAL FALLS ON THE PLATFORM AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND OK. WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM TO LIFT THAT CUBE AWAY FROM THE PLATFORM? BECAUSE ACCORDING TO B FAGS CHUNKS OF THE PLATFORM ALONG WITH THE CUBE SHOULD FLY OUT OF THE PORTAL AS WELL

tl:dr CAPSLOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL

>>384788474
>antiskubfag spreading disinfo
why am i not surprised?

>>384788359
But skub is good dude

>>384788304
Both are relative states based on reference frames, and regardless of how you chose to define what happens to the cube, it still fires out like in B. That is the whole argument, we're not trying to codify a whole branch of bullshit physics here, hombre

>>384788307
>portals have to impart gravital potential
>who said portals need mass
Really got my almonds clacking

>>384788095
Accelerating means changing velocity, which is not synonymous with changing speed.

Velocity is speed+direction. You could drive at exactly the same speed around a roundabout, but since your direction is changing, you're technically under acceleration.

>>384788396
yes it does, because the context was me and some other anon moving toward each other at light speed, humans being made of particles with mass, this would require an infinite amount of energy, which is impossible

>>384788510
>WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM TO LIFT THAT CUBE AWAY FROM THE PLATFORM?
Where does the energy come from for the platform to lift that cube while it remains stationary? There's this thing called normal force. Just because something appears stationary doesn't mean no forces are acting on it.

>>384788510
The moving portal is moving space itself, the energy required would send the cube flying out faster than light.

>>384788294

Are you really so confused by the phrase "gravitational potential" that you think it sounds "smart"? It's a basic concept. If you ever dropped something then you should understand it. Don't be a faggot just because the guy is using the precise terminology for what he means to say instead of blindly stumbling through the English language like the rest of you dipshits.

>>384783239
Yes depending on reference point

>>384788685
But if you had infinite energy you still couldn't do it it's fundamentally impossible regardless of how much energy you have.

File: dbf162b34413f6c5428fb88f7a0b25e6.jpg (114KB, 561x600px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 561x600px

>>384787972
>physics can't explain biking
Feet push pedals, pedals spin back wheel, ???

>>384787972
>he thinks real physics can't explain bicycles

>>384785819
No, as long as they don't move it's just the one.

File: 1495309307610.jpg (350KB, 1024x1008px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 1024x1008px

>>384782153
1. picture is dumb, Einstein wouldn't agree with B
2. anyone who would ever unironically say B is fucking retarded so this thread is pointless
3. not games related since this is impossible in portal

>>384788785
the way i understand it, is that matter requires an infinite(impossible) amount of energy to accelerate to light speed, if you can link me some proof to some other reason please do.

>>384788551
Yeah, it's B. I'm just saying the cube won't lift up off the platform when it's more than halfway through, as long as the portal's speed remains constant. It will remain on the platform the whole time.

If the portal were to decelerate partway through then the part of the cube that's already through would indeed impart some forces, which could be enough to carry through the rest depending on how fast it was going and how much mass was already through. Conversely, if the portal accelerates then the part of the cube that's already through would provide some resistance, which might slow it down slightly or register on a scale, if the cube happens to be standing on one.

>>384788369
Accelerating is changing speed over a time frame. A collision for example changes speed but doesn't accelerate things by definition, else it would violate thermodynamics. Same here, the speed change is instantaneous so there's no acceleration.

Another way you could see it is through quantity of movement, system energy, and so

File: a6434288bf25c6a78269bf0fbc27f809.jpg (62KB, 474x633px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 474x633px

>>384787972
SPACE
AGE
TRANSPORTATION
MAGIC

>>384789027
Damn...I hope B

File: file.png (31KB, 1052x484px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 1052x484px

explain this

>>384788010
gravitational potential is not real, it's a concept

>>384788365
also a concept

>>384788432
you are correct

we have 2 different theories for what would happen, I believe A more accurately portrays our reality, while B relies too much on "concepts" that the situation cannot be tied down to. You accuse me of "speaking a different language" altogether, but that's all Afags VS Bfags do, they apply different realities to a situation and argue over the outcome under pretense that the reality applied is the same.

there are plenty of mathematical concepts that when applied to a reality simply don't match up, like dividing by zero

while I am an Afag, this entire argument is retarded anyway since we have professional scientists constantly argue over the hypothetical outcomes of a hypothetical situation, where they all give results that are wildly different. After all, portals ie wormholes are hypothetical and may not actually exist at all, making the entire argument meaningless

>>384789008
>A collision for example changes speed but doesn't accelerate things by definition
Where the fuck are you getting this? Collisions can and do cause acceleration/deceleration. If a moving car hits a parked one, the parked one will gain velocity and the moving one will lose some, i.e. acceleration and deceleration.

>>384788510
>BECAUSE ACCORDING TO B FAGS CHUNKS OF THE PLATFORM ALONG WITH THE CUBE SHOULD FLY OUT OF THE PORTAL AS WELL
No, why?

>>384789027
accurately describes Bfags

>>384789008

I'm pretty sure you're wrong but there's no point in arguing about it because this is a thread in which people literally think that frames of reference and relative motion are not real physics. (Let that sink in, and try not to weep for humanity.)

So instead, I'll just ask you for a source.

If this
> A collision for example changes speed but doesn't accelerate things by definition, else it would violate thermodynamics. Same here, the speed change is instantaneous so there's no acceleration.
is true then you should EASILY be able to find a source agreeing with it.

>>384789092
>>384789027
Unless you want to stay a virgin, you better say the answer to OP's question is also B. Penises with no velocity or energy won't be penetrating anything.

>>384789121
it takes infinite energy to generate a portal

>>384789007
Not really, the parts coming in at different speeds would collide to each other and even out at a certain speed

>>384788967
That's not right, because the same object can be both next to you and a hundred feet away through portals.

How would the cube just inherit energy out of nowehere? This thread is niggers.

>>384788446
But the gif demonstrates the real life outcome

>>384789345
If the portal accelerates, yes.

as a simpleton i think A is the correct answer in this question since I LIKE TO THINK that the cube has no force acting on it so it wouldn't go flying out like that

but its all rhetoric so who gives a hoot

>>384789132
>we have professional scientists constantly argue over the hypothetical outcomes of a hypothetical situation
these arguments are over quick when universal laws are relevant, like they are here

File: boxes.png (17KB, 1225x933px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 1225x933px

>>384789189
This is why faggot

>>384789132
Gravitational potential energy is real actual measurable amount of energy.

>>384789121

The explanation is that portals simply do not conserve energy.

They don't conserve momentum either. GlaDOS was wrong. As a matter of fact (i.e., this is not up for discussion), portals can change the direction of a moving object, thus changing the object's momentum. In the absence of some unexplained force, this violates the law of conservation of momentum.

>>384789132
>there are plenty of mathematical concepts that when applied to a reality simply don't match up, like dividing by zero
Which is famously mathematically impossible. C'mon son.

>>384789474
I appreciate the effort, but that's some weak bait

>cube enters portal at (e.g.) 90 miles per hour because that's the speed the portal moves at
>also appears out of the other end of the portal at 90 miles per hour because it happens at the same time

>according to Afags the cube will move at 90 miles per hour until it has fully passed through the portal and then immediately decelerate to 0mp/h somehow

>>384789474
>retarded hoolahoop argument again
both entrance and exit move at the same time at the same speed on your picture you idiot
in that scenario a is correct
when the exit and entrance moves at different speeds b is correct
you fucking brainlet

>>384789474
But that's wrong. The box isn't even attached to the platform. The platform does not interact with the portal in any way. Nothing is pulling anything.

>>384782856
jesus fucking christ stop posting this stupid shit i made that long ago
if i knew it would be used to perpetuate these threads forever then i would have never posted it
the secret to this webm is that i put an invisible thruster on the bottom of the cub and tapped it

>>384789662
Then tell me what force causes the box to leave the platform dipshit

>>384789747
Same force that's moving the universe towards it, presumably.

>>384783987
Yellow would be pushed slightly by Green because as more of the orange portal comes around green, the more green is "stepping" through the door. But green has no real momentum, instead it's more like green is just coming through and existing between yellow and a wall. As long as yellow is not heavier than the solid "wall" of the floor, yellow will be pushed, and green will just plop there having no momentum.

File: Untitled.png (8KB, 799x566px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 799x566px

what happens when an object with a portal on it enters the other portal?

File: hydro-power-plant.jpg (102KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 600x450px

>>384789121
That looks like actual free water energy with less steps. Rather than having to evaporate then be redeposited at the top of a mountain, there's just a portal to move collected water right above the armature.

>>384789474

If part of the platform goes through the portal (perhaps because the surface is not flat) then your image makes sense.

The argument in favor of "B" is not that the portal applies a force to objects which are an arbitrary distance away from it. The argument in favor of "B" is that the cube's exit speed with respect to the blue portal should be equal to its entrance speed with respect to the orange portal. (Remember that the cube's entrance speed with respect to the orange portal is equal to the orange portal's speed with respect to the cube.)

The alternate argument in favor of "B" is that the cube, which must be moving as it emerges from the blue portal (because the blue portal is stationary), continues to move.

I'm happy to explain this further if you actually want to read it. But most people in this thread don't actually read.

>>384789268
An object with mass needs a force applied to it over a frame of time to accelerate, I think the translation to english is work (energy applied). If two objects at constant speed collide to each other there's no acceleration unless there's be force (work) applied, otherwise the system's energy would change and thermodynamics violated.

>>384789776
Then how does the energy keeping the hole in the universe open get transferred to the matter within the box?

>>384789474
MUH
HULA
HOOP

>>384789893

Why are you replying to a request for a source with further unsourced claims?

>>384789747
Orange portal is moving towards cube at 50mph
Cube enters orange portal.

But from the perspective of the blue portal
Cube appears out of blue portal at 50mph
Does it suddenly stop? Why? What force stops it?

>>384782153
the problem with this meme is that portal states that portals are fixed points in space and if you move the object that has a portal on it, the portal collapses

therefore portals can only be placed on non-moving sufaces

you can cheat the source engine to create moveable portals, but that's not within the lore

>>384789924
it doesn't
the universe moves while box is stationary
effectively the box is moving
relative to the universe

>>384789446
It would accelerate while it changes mass, but once it fully leaves the portal it would go at constant speed

>>384789840
Magnet + wire + portal = free energy straight from earth's gravity

>>384789893

Which specific law of thermodynamics are you even talking about? There's no point in having this discussion if you're not going to explain what you're trying to say.

>>384790015
>but that's not within the lore
>portal 2

>>384790095
again
portals would take infinite energy to operate
at that point energy shouldn't be a problem

>>384782153
>Which of these two individuals do you trust the most?

The /v/irgin, obviously.

>>384789812
What's the difference between what's happening here and "real" momentum? How does it function like real momentum just long enough for it to appear through the portal and push the box but nothing else?

Also, out of curiosity, what happens if yellow IS too heavy?

>>384789812
How would green displace yellow without transferring momentum to it?

File: Untitled.png (48KB, 1156x415px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1156x415px

>>384789893
>>384790132

In case you need help, here they are. There are only four. Pick one.

>>384790229
They don't though all you need is a portal gun and Hello free portals free energy

>>384790015
>the problem with this meme is that portal states that portals are fixed points in space
But the earth is moving and so are the platforms. Do portals need to stay stationary with regards to their partner?

File: 1355215349217.jpg (107KB, 801x602px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 801x602px

>this thread
What's the point of using your simple knowledge of physics to argue about something that doesn't follow some of the basic laws of physics?

>>384789817
I umm, well you see- uhhhhhhhhh
*runs away sweating*

>>384789817
Orange portal collapses as soon as it touches the blue one.

File: 1383265258145.gif (879KB, 294x233px) Image search: [Google]

879KB, 294x233px

>>384789970
Maybe if the platform was small enough to fit through the portal to act as a pusher on the other side of the portal then scenario b would be correct but in the meme image the platform is larger than the portal and stops before it enters and no momentum is transferred to the cube

>>384790132
What I'm trying to say is that the box doesn't need any kind of force applied to it to go out of the portal because its speed remains constant relative to the portal, otherwise the total system's energy would change

>>384790270
>They don't though
>all you need is a portal gun
HMMMMMMM

>>384789970
>But from the perspective of the blue portal
You fucked up. Perspective doesn't mean shit. Imagine standing inside of an elevator with a hole in the floor. The elevator descends over a box at high speed. From your """perspective""", it looks like a box just shot into your elevator at high speed but that's only because you're a moron. The box has no energy. A hole passing over the box will not give it energy. A hole is not a thing. It is the absence of thing.

>>384789467
lol what dumb arrogance, they are HYPOTHETICALS, how would you even know what is relevant? ok so what happens when a hadron collider fires particles directly at your head? would you become braindead? trick question

>>384789480
it's "potential" for a reason. sure, it can be measured, but the energy isn't real until it becomes real

>>384789569
that was the point, but people have argued over it for literally ages, and now it's accepted convention that it's impossible

>>384790071
>changes mass
wut
>once it fully leaves the portal it would go at constant speed
Yes, of course.

>>384784498
How can someone be so stupid yet post in such an authoritative manner

>>384785930
This. I've been scrolling through the thread, and I noticed that things that actually definitively point out A is right tend to get ignored. I think B are either brainlets or intentional trolls.

>>384790326

Declining to pick a law of thermodynamics? Okay.

>the box doesn't need any kind of force applied to it to go out of the portal because its speed remains constant relative to the portal, otherwise the total system's energy would change

I'm not going to read the entire thread and track down all your posts, but what you're saying here doesn't seem to make sense. If the box moves as it comes out of the portal then its kinetic energy has increased and the total energy of the system has changed.

This is fine, though, because portals do not conserve energy.

>>384782153
aren't there any fucking physicist here that can just do the fucking math?

Does it not depend entirely on how the portal works? Does it bend and compress the space from portal to portal like a wormhole or...

>>384790306
But like, when the orange portal engulfs the cube, it's traveling at 50mph before it becomes flush with the platform. Therfore, the cube has to leave the blue portal at 50mph because that's the rare at which it entered the orange.
Think about it, while it's going into the orange one it's entering the portal at 50mph and it's appearing out of the blue portal at 50mph. When does it stop and why?

>>384790306
The cube acts as ITS OWN "pusher platform", anon.

The cube is not just one single object, it's countless tiny ones all rigidly strung together. The ones at the bottom push the ones at the top in order to maintain its structure, and the ones at the top pull the ones at the bottom.

>>384790306
>Maybe if the platform was small enough to fit through the portal to act as a pusher on the other side of the portal then scenario b would be correct but in the meme image the platform is larger than the portal and stops before it enters and no momentum is transferred to the cube

how are you so fucking basic

as soon as molecule 1 of the cube exits from the portal it moves relative to the universe
that means it has a momentum vector and acting upon molecule 2 pulling it
it is simply the matter of how much of the object crosses the event horizon of the portal and how quickly it does it
if you stopped the portal half way if would still fly out, but to a lesser extent

youre thinking about it as if the cube is moving in the same frame of reference and therefore needs to be "shot out" of the portal
while more likely scenario according to logic would dictate that a moving portal would be as if two universes were moving relative to each other, while being at the same time a same one
in which case only object out of place would be the cube, as it moves from one to another, making it appear as if it has momentum

>>384790353
>From your """perspective""", it looks like a box just shot into your elevator at high speed but that's only because you're a moron. The box has no energy.

The box does have kinetic energy in the elevator's frame of reference.

Let me help you out: https://www.google.com/#q=is+kinetic+energy+relative

>>384790353
If you're looking at the blue portal you'll see a cube appearing at 50mph and then either continuing to move or suddenly stopping somehow