Is it A or B?

>>385414785
You ant place portals on moving surfaces.
Portal 2 is not canon.

A, because momentum conservation

>>385414785
A

File: portals.png (132KB, 996x1406px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 996x1406px

>>385414785
posting this before bfags arrive

A

File: dortal.png (9KB, 587x485px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 587x485px

>>385415183
B

>>385415110
The cube's momentum is not conserved.

It's B. Relative to the orange portal, the cube IS moving. Let's say that the orange portal is falling towards the cube at a constant 50 mph: the cube would enter the orange portal at 50mph (relative to the orange portal). It would come out of the blue portal at the same speed it entered the orange portal, there's no way it would stop, retards.

portal developer literally said he would program it to be B.

The developers said they would prefer it to be B.

>>385417280
sauce?

>>385416751
The cube doesn't have a speed you idiot.

>>385414785
It's neither A or b. Gravity is constantly pushing down on the so it would stay on the platform regardless of the velocity of the portal.

See
>>385415183

File: confused roach.jpg (28KB, 540x378px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 540x378px

Why are people still talking about this?
if the platform the cube is standing on is still.

Then it's A.

>>385415821
wrong.

try it with hula hoop

same shit with portal. it's just a hole

>>385418960
You should have seen the Monty Hall threads.

It's obviously A. If you drop a doorframe on a cube, it sure as hell won't launch into the skies. The doorframe simply slams to the floor and depletes its potential energy, it does not get magically transferred to the cube and reverse vector.

File: 1500686937372.jpg (649KB, 700x4989px) Image search: [Google]

649KB, 700x4989px

Portals require an infinite amount of energy to be created, we know this as there are various ways to create a perpetual motion machine with them which can only be possible if they already take an infinite amount of energy to make.
Since we know Energy = Infinity, let's do a couple of equations.
E = mc^2
As we know c = the speed of light or 299 792 458 m / s, and 299 792 458^2 is 8.9875518e+16, and that Energy is Infinity, the equation becomes
Infinity = m8.9875518e+16
The only way for the equation to match up with one another is if Mass is also Infinity.
Therefore, a portal has infinite mass.
F = ma
We already know m = Infinity so the equation becomes
F = Infinity x a
Any form of acceleration would require an infinite amount of force.
The portal cannot have 0 mass, as energy for massless objects can have the equation of
E = hf
Or Energy equals Planks Constant x Frequency, as Planks Constant is a finite number, frequency must be infinite.
The equation for energy can also be
E = hc / wavelength, as Planks Constant and Speed of Light are finite, wavelength must be 0.
But Light is equal to wavelength x frequency, but 0 x Infinity = 0, making light move at 0 speed if portals were massless.
Ergo, the answer is Ѭ, the piston is unable to move as it would take an infinite amount of force to move the portal situated upon it.

>>385419081
Monty hall is mathematically proven, what debate even was there?

>>385419420
>he thinks there won't be retards who still argue it's 50/50 chance
There are retards who think that for the gold ball and silver ball problem, you have an equal chance of your next ball being gold or silver.

File: 1495353545151.gif (52KB, 416x234px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 416x234px

>>385419563

>>385419563
Jesus christ

Its one thing when its completely theoretical like the portals but those problems have mathematic demonstrations. They are not up for debate. Then again, this is /v/...

File: portal troll for.png (92KB, 660x1106px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 660x1106px

>>385414785

A

>>385419940
The first one is completely wrong because the pad is not exerting any force onto the cube

If it goes in the portal it'll be affected by the gravity on the other side so it'll slide down so the affects of A would still occur. We're also assuming the portal comes all the way down onto the cube.

>>385419940
OP picture showed orange coming down so A you fucking casual

For the last fucking time, there's not enough information to determine which one because it's not totally clear how moving portals work.

>>385418998
>Try it with a hula hoop
>Get catapulted 30 feet into the air
>Land and break my neck
No thanks.

File: 1415823398693.jpg (85KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 500x667px

>>385418998
>muh hula hoops

every fucking time, A-fags
no one has ever shown me a hula hoop where one side is moving and the other is stationary

>>385419940
You can't put portals in moving objects so .... there you go

>>385414785
Former A supporter here, B makes more sense when you look into it. Yes, the platform does not move, as we can even see through the blue portal. From the blue portal perspective, some force has to drive the box through, and sinde the platform doesn't move, some force in the portals pull the box through

>>385420492
The box isn't pulled through. Gravity just pulls it down because it's on a slope.

>>385420492
You mean there are people who unironically think A?

Wow, I didn't realize the userbase had degraded so much.

The answer is B. Here's why.

Imagine this: place a blue portal on a regular wall next to a railway. Place the orange portal on the very front of a moving train that's going 100 mph, place it just below the train driver's window. Up ahead, in front of the train, right in the middle of the railway, there's a cube sitting at the same height of the moving train's orange portal, let's say that the cube it's sitting on an empty barrel or something. The cube has no momentum, it's just sitting still on a barrel in the middle of a railway. The train then runs over the cube at a high speed, but the cube enters the orange portal (because they were placed at the same height). Yes, the cube would be shot out of the blue portal, even though it was completely still just seconds ago.

Don't believe me? Imagine the same scene as if you were looking through the stationary blue portal.
You'd see a cube coming right at your face really fast, not to mention a lot of air, because the train is moving.
Apply this example to this pic, the answer is B.
The cube would "plop" out ONLY if the orange portal is moving at less than human walking speed.

Can someone illustrate this on mspaint?

>>385420789
Just put the cube on an arbitrarily long pole that gets inserted into the portal after the cube.

>>385420789
explain this faggot
>>385415183
If you are truly a bfag explain how the cube gets sucked into the portal without the cube ever moving.

>>385414785
Fast object goes in, fast object comes out.
Stationary object goes in, stationary object comes out.

File: portal_brain.png (345KB, 445x629px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 445x629px

These threads will be pointless until the scientifically illiterate retards of /v/ can understand and agree on the following facts:

• Motion is relative. In other words, the motion of a body can only be described or measured relative to something.
• Every inertial frame of reference is valid. There is no absolute frame of reference. Saying that X moves with respect to Y is always equivalent to saying that Y moves with respect to X.
• The velocity of an object, therefore, depends on the frame of reference from which it is measured. To say that an object has some velocity is meaningless unless a particular frame of reference is specified, implied, or understood.
• Momentum is a function of velocity, and velocity is relative, as noted above. Therefore, momentum is relative. The momentum of an object depends on the frame of reference.
• Kinetic energy, for the same reason, is also relative. The kinetic energy of an object depends on the frame of reference.
• Velocity is a vector. It has a magnitude and a direction. To change the direction in which an object moves is to change its velocity.
• Momentum, being the product of mass and velocity, is also a vector. To change the direction in which an object moves is to change its momentum. Direction must be taken into account when determining whether momentum has been conserved.
• Portals in the game can change the direction of a moving object, thereby changing its momentum, while the momenta of all other objects remain the same. This is a change to the total momentum of the system. Therefore, despite what GlaDOS says, portals do not actually conserve momentum.
• Portals do not conserve energy, either. An object which passes through portals can gain any amount of potential energy with no change in kinetic energy. You could use portals to generate infinite energy.

These are just some of the things which people in these threads regularly deny, either out of ignorance or because it helps their stupid argument.

>>385421610
>implying
Infinite Energy Portal, kiddo :^)

>>385421214

How does an object come out of a stationary portal while remaining stationary? The blue portal never moves with respect to the ground, so the cube must be moving with respect to the ground as it comes out.

If you want to say the cube stops moving as soon as it has fully emerged from the blue portal, then go ahead, but don't state the obviously impossible.

>>385414785
C: box gets sliced in half by the infinitely thin edge of the portal when gravity starts pulling it slightly

>>385421610
Portals conserve energy because they are fictional and don't apply to real world physics. Either way, it could be both or neither. A works and B works. Honestly I'm leaning towards B because the creator of a FICTIONAL item said that's how he would make it. I'm not a, fan of applying real world physics to game physics.

>>385421610
>which people in this thread regularly deny
only A fags regularly do this.

>>385415183

>>385421053
I think that this example is really confusing, but it is what would happen if the orange portal suddenly stopped from 100 kmh to 0 just halfway through the cube.

To make it easier to understand, don't imagine a cube, imagine two beer cans on top of each other. Let's say that the orange portal stops its high speed travel right in the middle of the two cans. The can at the top would come out of the blue portal at the same speed of the orange portal (let's give it 100 mph again). So, it would be shot out of the blue portal at the same speed it impacted the orange portal, 100 mph. The can at the bottom would be unaffected, staying where it was because it entered no portal and touched nothing.

Now, attach a short string between the two cans and do the same. The top can would pull out the bottom can with the string, with a final speed of 50 mph (half, assuming both cans had equal mass).
And then, repeat the experiment by glueing the two cans. Same result, you'd get two glued cans flying out of the blue portal at 50 mph.
Now, if you are not a retard, you can see how the two cans glued together behave like one single object. Replace them with the cube and repeat the experiment.

The answer is B.

Imagine the cube is floating still in a vacuum and the orange portal is allowed to continue on its path after passing the cube. If A is true, then from the orange portal's perspective, the cube is floating still until the point where it's completely passed the portal, at which point it will be dragged along by the portal, and from the blue portal's perspective it will be approaching quickly and suddenly stop. Meanwhile, if B is true, then from the orange portal's perspective, it will be as if the cube is floating still and remains floating still as the portal passes it, and from the blue portal's perspective, it will be as if the cube approaches at a constant speed and keeps moving at that speed. B is consistent, A is not.

So why does B happen in the OP scenario, when the portal stops? Simple, because the cube has already crossed the threshold and everything that happens to the portal afterwards has no influence on the cube any more.

>>385422159
A faggots are terminally dumb. They mention momentum but can't see the momentum of the object exiting.

>>385419420
>It just goes to show that maths are useless because you can mathematically prove something that's not actually true!

It's both. A makes more sense game world wise. B makes more sense in the real world.

>>385419940
It's not paradoxical. Yes, both frames of reference are valid, but one is a little more valid than the other, depending on which side of the portal you're on. If the portal stops before the cube actually enters it, the cube is just going to remain in place. FOR1 takes precedence. If the cube passes through the portal, however, FOR2 takes precedence. So the answer is B.

>>385422360
This.

File: 1423650161633.jpg (35KB, 396x385px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 396x385px

I can't decide which are worse, A-fags or the mongrels who say both or none are correct "becuz its a paradox XD"

>>385421053
Momentum.

>>385422575
>Bfags still trying to argue that 1 + 1 = 3
>>385422498
infinite energy portal kiddo :^)

>>385422663
>Bfags still trying to argue that 1 + 1 = 3
Care to address my actual argument? It didn't involve addition at all.

>>385421983
>Portals conserve energy because they are fictional and don't apply to real world physics.

I think what you mean to say is that IT'S OKAY that they DON'T conserve energy, because they are fictional and don't apply to real world physics.

Whether they conserve energy is not even a question. They don't. The ability to arbitrarily increase an object's potential energy can be explained only by saying that portals contain infinite energy which can be transferred to the objects passing through them, but the idea that portals are a well of infinite energy flies in the face of energy conservation anyway.

Filthy A-fag here, explain it to me like I'm a baby which one is correct. If portal isn't physical then what is the force that propels the cube in A or B

>>385422881
Since a portal moving towards a cube is paradoxical, and it has already been proving that a portal cannot move as it has an infinite amount of mass, the answer is neither.

>>385421709
>Infinite Energy Portal, kiddo :^)
>>385422663
>infinite energy portal kiddo :^)

I don't understand this reply and I don't understand why it's being spammed.

If you want anyone to give a shit about your posts, please explain what you're trying to say.

>>385422648
The worst are the ones who sidestep the problem by saying moving portals specifically are physically impossible because they require infinite energy but have no problem accepting portals existing to begin with.

File: 1ee3ee4ae8208ff6a89b9eeac63eb0b2--monsters-inc-doors-light-decorations.jpg (64KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 736x552px

>>385414785
Easiest way to simulate this scenario in 'real life' in your head is this.

You are the block, and you are standing against a wall.

There is a door rushing towards you (Somehow, fuck off doesn't matter) at high speed.

Door catches up to you and crashes in to the wall you are standing against.

You are through the door technically but you do not move at all because its the fucking door that moved and you are just still standing there but at the other side of the door.

>>385423105
Portals have infinite energy to fulfill the law of conservation of energy, and thus an infinite amount of mass.
>>385423226
>what is 1 + 1? A. 1 or B. 3?
>neither it's 2
>how dare you sidestep the question asshole you have to answer either A or B even if they're both wrong

>>385422934
Portals certainly don't conserve energy, meaning they must use energy to do their thing.

But you could argue that a portal conserves momentum by exerting an equal and opposite force to the object they are mounted on. It is unknown if a portal exerts force on the surface it is attached to.

>>385423054

Plenty of good arguments are posted in every thread. You'll probably understand them if you actually read an entire post, instead of just reading the first 10 words and replying "m-muh hula hoop!"

This image brings up some of the ideas that are commonly discussed: >>385422498

>>385422648
degenerate frogposters, for sure

>>385423064
>Since a portal moving towards a cube is paradoxical
So what? That is no problem for B.
>and it has already been proving that a portal cannot move as it has an infinite amount of mass
Then how can it exist in the first place? Portals are imaginary. If you're going to participate in a thought experiment, you have to accept the premises.

>>385423054
Image that you have two portals and one portal moves through a pool of water, a water squirts out like a hose at the other end.

The end.

>>385423361
>What is 1 + 1? A. 1 or B. 3? You must answer this using the definitions of numerical units
>neither it's 2
>uh how dare you it's a thought experiment that means it must be either A or B

File: 1470429691306.png (74KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 300x256px

>>385423286
>Portals have infinite energy to fulfill the law of conservation of energy

>>385423286
Yes, you. You're the most annoying one in this thread. Because 1+1 = B in this case and you're just saying "WELL YOU CAN'T ANSWER IT BECAUSE MATH IS AXIOMATIC AND I REFUSE TO ACCEPT IT"

>>385423306

To conserve momentum, the total momentum of the system must remain constant. When an object changes direction by passing through portals, some other object must experience an equal and opposite change in momentum. Maybe that's happening and we don't see it. Maybe it's like when you jump and your change in momentum is balanced by an imperceptible change in the momentum of the Earth. So it could be one of those situations. The thing is, we just don't know.

Anyway, it's all magic, so lol whatevs

>>385422648
>>385419940

>>385423229
Now do the experiment again involving all of reality.

>>385418376
it has a relative speed retard take a basic physics course jesus christ

It's fucking B

>>385423439
Portals can act as a perpetual motion machine, meaning it can generate an infinite amount of energy, the only way that's possible is if it already takes an infinite amount of energy to make.
>>385423468
>NO NO MY ANSWER IS RIGHT HOW DARE YOU 1 + 1 = 3 SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH YOUR ARGUMENTS AND LOGIC AND FACTS AND SCIENTIFIC LAWS THEY DON'T COUNT IM RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG LALAHLALHALHA
wew lad

>>385423475
Describes B fags really well desu

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

3KB, 358x142px

remember kids you're not allowed to answer anything that deviates from A or B at all because it's a thought experiment

File: e2a.jpg (16KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 720x405px

>>385423307
"But what caused it to move in the first place? It's hard to say"
That's my question though

>>385423579
>Portals can act as a perpetual motion machine, meaning it can generate an infinite amount of energy, the only way that's possible is if it already takes an infinite amount of energy to make.

OK, and what bearing does that have on the discussion? How does this disprove A or B

>>385422074

Generally true.

>>385423475
woah......................

FAGGOTS,

>>385420312
>>385420312
>>385420312
>>385420312
>>385420312

>>385415183
I doubt it would be move at 50km/h but it would be for sure less than 100km/h.

>>385423764
Since it has an infinite amount of energy, it must also have an infinite amount of mass as E = mc^2, and since it has an infinite amount of mass, said portal cannot move, and thus the problem cannot occur in the first place, ergo it is neither.

>>385423381
Are these "imagine X" posts, memes? They don't explain shit.

>>385423861
So you're saying portals can only exist in the form of black holes.

It's A.

The Cube isn't carrying momentum. It's the equivelant of a hula hoop dropping over you and arguing "would you fly into the air."

>>385423579
I'm the one with all the logic and facts and scientific laws, you're the pissant selectively applying his rudimentary knowledge of physics and getting up on his high horse about it.

Answer me this: if portals require an infinite amount of energy to make, then why should requiring an infinite amount of energy be an impediment to moving them?

>>385423762

What causes the cube to change its speed in "B" is likely the same thing that causes any moving object to change direction in any normal portal scenario within the game. Both are changes in momentum and imply that some force might be present.

Then again, in both cases, the cube would probably claim never to have accelerated.

When you watch an object go through portals, you see it change direction. But if you go through portals yourself, you don't feel like you changed direction at all. You see the world moving past you, and then suddenly you see the world moving past you in a different direction.

If you were to watch scenario "B" occur, you would see a change in the cube's speed. But if you were that cube, you probably wouldn't feel like your speed had changed at all. The world would be stationary, and then suddenly the world would be moving past you at a high speed.

Here's how I see it: If portals facing different directions can change the direction of a moving object, then portals moving at different speeds might be able to change the speed of an object just as naturally.

>>385424234
>I'm the one with all the logic and facts and scientific laws, you're the pissant selectively applying his rudimentary knowledge of physics and getting up on his high horse about it.
Oh man, how hilarious. "no u", nigger, my argument's the one that doesn't conveniently ignore the law of conservation of energy and momentum and claim they don't count yet use them except when they do to make my argument right. Good fucking god you're retarded.

And to answer your question, because infinite energy requires infinite mass due to a very well known equation of E = mc^2.

File: Newtons_cradle_animation_book.gif (290KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 480x360px

>>385423990
The law of conservation of energy states that energy can't be destroyed, which A implies. The orange portal's momentum would be transferred to the cube, so B si correct.

>>385423990

1) Objects don't carry momentum. An object's momentum depends on the frame of reference from which it is measured.
2) The hula hoop scenario is not equivalent because the entrance and exit are not moving with respect to one another.

>hey guys the conservation of energy and momentum don't apply for portals
>also it's B because of the conservation of momentum which is what we literally just claim didn't apply for portals
wew lad

>>385424478

I lean towards B but I don't think this is a good argument. The orange portal stops because it hits the platform and its energy could be transferred to that platform just as the energy of any falling object is transferred to the ground when it lands. The fact that the orange portal moves and then stops does not imply that the cube has to start moving.

Besides, portals don't conserve energy anyway.

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

30KB, 561x859px

>>385424554

Arguments in favor of B don't necessarily rely on the conservation of momentum.

Here's the simple one which uses conservation of mass.

https://strawpoll.com/xaykd2hz

Multiple options allowed

Most people seem set on B though

Ok all you faggots who answered B, consider the following.

Imagine you had a tennis-racket-shaped device with a portal on each side of it. So essentially just a stick with a hole on the end, right? But not really if you answered B, since if you swung the tennis racket at an object it would accelerate out the back of the racket as it passed through.

>>385424464
It's already well known that portals break the laws of physics. You're stating something that people already know. Notice how people still discuss the topic despite knowing it cannot occur?

>>385424801
Conservation of mass requires conservation of energy numbnuts.

Inertia is a property of matter.

>>385424895

Regarding the options on your poll, I'd like to point out that "Developers' word is most important" implies B: >>385419351

>>385424801
Then you have essentially disregarded laws of physics except the ones that conveniently suit your argument.

>>385425010

The entire point of the problem is that one portal is moving with respect to the other. You took the problem and turned it into one in which the portals are always moving together (i.e., they are stationary with respect to one another). It is not the same problem, and that's why it has a different answer.

>>385425010
Nor really, because the blue portal is moving in the opposite direction, so the ball keeps it speed.

>>385425039
>What is 1 + 1? A which is 1, or B which is 3? Please explain your argument using the definition of all numerical units
>It's neither because it's literally 2 by definition of said numerical unit.
>It's already well known that 1 + 1 being either 1 or 3 breaks the definition of numerical units. You're stating something that people already know. Notice how people still discuss the topic despite knowing it would be neither?

>>385424554
the game says "speedy thing goes in speedy thing comes out".

This is the rule. It implicitly breaks the laws of physics, but still allows for an answer based on the rule should a game developer want to put something like that in his game, for example.

>>385423381
Probably the best explanation in this thread. Brief and easy to understand.

>>385425087

It's plainly obvious that portals conserve neither energy nor momentum so we have no choice but to ignore those. If this means that we must disregard all known laws of physics, then there's no point in having a discussion at all.

So what's your problem with B again? By your logic, one cannot use any law of physics to prove A, either.

>>385425260
Yeah. And people STILL discuss the topic. It's almost as if they're all wrong and you are not the one who doesn't understand something here.

>>385425292
The game also doesn't have moving portals.

>>385425040

Okay.

>>385425418
Yeah, but it has portals. Which break the laws of physics. This is a topic for any game developer who would like to put moving portals in his game and obey that speed in speed out rule.

>>385425408
Is this supposed to help your argument? /v/'s well known for being filled with retards who argue over things regardless if they're correct or not, people still don't believe in the Monty Hall problem even after it's been literally proven and other such examples.

>>385425418
It had portals on the Moon and that's certainly moving

>>385425292
>"speedy thing goes in speedy thing comes out".

But in what frame of reference must it be "speedy"?

One common argument in favor of Scenario B is that the question of whether the cube is "speedy", as it goes in or goes out, must be answered in the appropriate portal's frame of reference. In the orange portal's frame of reference, the cube is indeed speedy as it goes in. Therefore, the argument goes, the cube should be speedy in the blue portal's frame of reference as it exits. In other words: Speedy thing goes in (according to the orange portal's reference frame), speedy thing comes out (according to the blue portal's reference frame). The flaw in this argument is that the portals are in two different frames of reference. Such a change in reference frame is typically not permitted when figuring out a physics problem.

The common argument in favor of Scenario A takes the normal approach to a physics problem. It says that we should pick one reference frame — that of the ground — and stick with it. In this frame of reference, the cube is not speedy when it enters and therefore should not be speedy as it exits. But now we have another problem. How does a cube come out of a stationary portal without moving with respect to that portal? The cube cannot be stationary throughout the entire experiment, and here's why: It must, at least, move a distance equal to its own length, in order to come out of the blue portal, which remains stationary in our chosen reference frame. The cube could not end up on the outside of the blue portal if it had not moved through that opening.

This brings us to another common argument in favor of Scenario B, which is simply that the cube must move with respect to the blue portal as it comes out of the blue portal. You can't move through an opening without moving, basically. And, if the cube is moving during this transition, there's no obvious reason that it should abruptly stop moving once the transition is complete.

>>385425385
>It's plainly obvious that portals conserve neither energy nor momentum so we have no choice but to ignore those.
Not if a portal were to have infinite energy and thus an infinite amount of mass.
Conveniently ignoring laws of physics yet choosing to use them when they fulfill your answer is fucking wrong, and just because the other answer is wrong doesn't make your answer right.
>>385425549
>implying
It moved because of ΔP

>>385425541
It's not helping my argument, it's restating it.

>>385425647
>>implying
>It moved because of ΔP
U wot m8?

>>385414785
>it wouldn't slide out like A
>it wouldn't shoot out like B
Answer is hidden C where it would make a small arc out the portal and land a few or several feet away

>>385425506
>This is a topic for any game developer who would like to put moving portals in his game and obey that speed in speed out rule.
Then the answer is whatever the fuck said game developer wants it to be.
>>385425687
Changes in pressure, mate.

>>385425647
>Not if a portal were to have infinite energy and thus an infinite amount of mass.
>Conveniently ignoring laws of physics yet choosing to use them when they fulfill your answer is fucking wrong, and just because the other answer is wrong doesn't make your answer right.

Aren't you ignoring the laws of physics by declaring that it's possible for something to have infinite energy and infinite mass?

I still can't tell if you're trying to argue for A or B, or just arguing that the conversation is pointless.

>>385425864
>Aren't you ignoring the laws of physics by declaring that it's possible for something to have infinite energy and infinite mass?
>implying
The argument is that arguing for either is pointless, much like arguing whether 1 + 1 is 1 or 3 is pointless.

>>385423673
Yes, kiddo, that's how thought experiments work. It establishes a scenario and you have to work within the scenario. You're not clever for pointing out it's impossible because the scenario is hypothetical anyway. Your example is poor because the parameters of the thought experiment are ill-defined and we do not have enough information.

However, when presented with a scenario involving the effects of moving portals upon cubes, the least interesting answer you could possibly give is that portals can't move. You can just refer to the game for that answer. The whole physics explanation after that is just pure wank.

>>385425827
>Then the answer is whatever the fuck said game developer wants it to be.
This would include turning the portal into a dildo. But the developer wants his choice to make the most sense possible given the few rules that people know and intuitively expect.

>>385424464
>And to answer your question, because infinite energy requires infinite mass due to a very well known equation of E = mc^2.
That doesn't answer my question. Why are portals acceptable to you bu moving them is not?

>>385425827
>Changes in pressure, mate.
Uhh I mean the Moon is allowed to have a Portal on it when it is clearly moving as a counter example to saying the game doesn't allow moving portals. Pressure has nothing to do with that

>>385425742

How is this different from B?

It seems to me that it's exactly the same as B except for the speed at which the cube exits, which is a pointless distinction because the initial speed of the orange portal is unknown anyway. You're basically just complaining about the way B was drawn. I think it's understood that the trajectory of the cube would trace out a parabola in scenario B, because nobody is claiming that gravity does not exist. So, even though it isn't drawn, the cube in scenario B would make an "arc" (which would be small or large depending on an unknown speed).

So, basically, you think it's B.

>>385425973
>It establishes a scenario and you have to work within the scenario. You're not clever for pointing out it's impossible because the scenario is hypothetical anyway. Your example is poor because the parameters of the thought experiment are ill-defined and we do not have enough information.
>there's no such thing as a thought experiment with an impossible or paradoxical conclusion
>You can just refer to the game for that answer.
Ah yes, which is why you can see so much people in this thread arguing based on what happens in game rather than using real world physics or examples

>>385425010

>>385424517

>>385425932
>The argument is that arguing for either is pointless

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

>>385415097
Define "moving"

>>385426146
>Uhh I mean the Moon is allowed to have a Portal on it when it is clearly moving
>implying the Moon is moving while the portal is on it
>>385426071
>why is something that would follow the laws of physics acceptable to you but them not following the laws of physics not in this thought experiment entirely based off the laws of physics
gee i don't know man

File: 1501076013321.png (2MB, 1576x1591px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1576x1591px

If B-fags are correct the entire universe would move towards the portals once the orange portal stops moving, so the answer can't be B since only the cube moves through the portal and not also the platform that the cube is standing on (which carries the same momentum as the cube according to B-fags).

>>385426314
Are you implying portals follow the laws of physics?

>>385426314
The Moon is always moving with respect to the surface of the Earth, if it weren't it would be falling in from gravity

>>385426314

The Moon is moving with respect to the Earth. Assuming that Earth the chosen frame of reference, it is correct to say that the Moon is moving.

If you want to talk about this problem in a frame of reference in which the Moon is stationary, then we must say that the Earth is moving.

>>385426180
>there's no such thing as a thought experiment with an impossible or paradoxical conclusion
Irrelevant if you don't even accept the premises because then you're not arriving at any conclusion with regards to the thought experiment.

>>385426027
>But the developer wants his choice to make the most sense possible given the few rules that people know and intuitively expect.
You mean like the portal not moving in the first place?
>>385426391
Are you implying that this argument isn't entirely based around the laws of physics rather than game physics?
>>385426416
>>385426469
>implying the Earth is moving while a portal is on it

>>385426152
The way B is drawn assumes the cube will go flying out like a rocket. Since the cube is stationary I don't think it would fly out like a rocket nor due to how the portals react in game would it just slide out like A. Hence answer C

>>385414785
Physics major, as if that gives me anymore merit in this kinda argument

It's A, can't be B, breaks to many laws to be B but then again we are talking about portals. Think of it like a doorway, if a doorway is moving to you and passes over you, you have not received any energy whatsoever, your potential is still exactly the same. If somehow you were launched out of another doorway you literally gained energy from nowhere as the portal can't give you it's momentum.

>>385426493
If you choose an answer to this question at random, what is the chance you will be correct?

A) 25%

B) 50%

C) 60%

D) 25%

>the answer is neither and here's an explanation of why each answer is impossible
>you're just disregarding the entire thought experiment

>>385426314
Your explanation for moving portals being impossible specifically involves moving them requiring infinite energy, and you based this on portals themselves having infinite mass and therefore requiring infinite energy to create. That is a contradiction. Either you just say portals can't exist, or you accept that they move.

File: optionC.png (83KB, 892x459px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 892x459px

The real answer is C

>>385415110
B, because momentum conservation
the world has momentum too you know

>>385426503
>implying the Earth is moving while a portal is on it
Now it's clear you're being deliberately retarded, thanks for the ride

>>385426503
>You mean like the portal not moving in the first place?
But I'm a developer with the goal of making portals move. Why would I not want to make them move?

>>385426593
You're determined not to understand. That's okay. I'll just keep on being correct since you're unable to even address my arguments with that mindset.

>>385426602
>portals require infinite energy to maintain because it can be a perpetual motion machine and conservation of energy
>portals therefore must have an infinite amount of mass because E = mc^2
>ergo a portal must require an infinite amount of force to move because F = ma
Not seeing how it's contradictory there mate.

>>385426554

So, again, you're just making an assumption about the totally arbitrary speeds involved in this problem, and your assumptions lead you to believe that the cube in "B" looks like it's moving too fast.

If you're saying that the cube is launched at all, you're saying the answer is "B".

The speed at which the cube is launched would depend on the speed of the orange portal, which is an undefined variable, so whether it comes out "like a rocket" or like something slower than a rocket is a meaningless distinction.

>>385426762
>n-no you just don't understand i'm right you're wrong i can't hear you lahlahlahlah
okay lad, feel free to engage in a retarded argument equivalent of asking if 1 + 1 = 1 or 3 in several threads because you're too retarded to realize that the question is inherently paradoxical
>>385426752
>he thinks an object with an infinite amount of mass on it is moving
wew

>>385426895
Why do you think portals have an infinite amount of mass?

>>385426554
the assumption is that B would exit at the same speed that the orange portal approached, the way the picture is drawn is irrelevant and C is exactly the same situation as B
>>385426592
physics graduate here to say it's B, doorway analogy breaks down since one side is stationary and the other is not
consider the volume of air covered by the portal as it approaches the box, do you really think it would clump up on the other side as situation A would imply?

>>385426772
If portals have infinite mass then everything in the universe is affected by an infinitely strong pull and thus the universe is destroyed. Sorry, you divided by 0, which cannot occur, thus a portal cannot have infinite mass.

>>385426772
But you have infinite energy, so you can move them.

Also black holes can move.

>>385414785
A
Energy is transferred from the piston to the platform. The cube has no momentum.

>>385426993
I've had virgins working around the clock on this, gotta be A
Asked my professor a few months ago and he told me to fuck off but I'll take that as an A vote

>>385426754
Then why don't you make portals do whatever you want them to do because they can't move in real world or in game physics?
>>385426979
Because E = mc^2, and portals have infinite amount of mass.
>>385427013
>But you have infinite energy
nigger what the fuck
>Also black holes can move
Black holes also don't have an infinite amount of mass.

File: portal problem remix.jpg (130KB, 1500x636px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1500x636px

Step aside fuckfags, we're going into overdrive.

>>385426592

I was also a physics major.

>Think of it like a doorway, if a doorway is moving to you and passes over you, you have not received any energy whatsoever, your potential is still exactly the same.

Call it a doorway or a window or whatever you want. It's just a variation of the "hula hoop" argument which was almost certainly invented by people who were pretending to be retarded and was then adopted by idiots who take it seriously.

The two sides of a doorway are not moving with respect to one another and therefore a doorway is not a substitute for the portals in this problem, one of which is moving with respect to the other.

>you literally gained energy from nowhere

Portals do this all the time. Putting two portals at different heights allows you to get any amount of potential energy (and thus, by falling, kinetic energy) for free. I know this situation is not depicted in the original problem, but the point is that you cannot claim that portals should conserve energy.

>>385419353
Who says the universe cannot move relative to itself?

>>385427168
*infinite amount of energy
>>385427008
>If portals have infinite mass then everything in the universe is affected by an infinitely strong pull and thus the universe is destroyed
Such is life. :^)

>>385427168
>Then why don't you make portals do whatever you want them to do because they can't move in real world or in game physics?
Well they can't exist in real world either, yet people expect them to behave in a certain way and not a random way. My goal as a developer is to figure out which of those "certain ways" make the most sense.

File: 1485401283104.jpg (66KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 960x720px

>Using physics to solve a problem that literally can not exist according to physics

>>385426772
>portals require infinite energy to maintain because it can be a perpetual motion machine and conservation of energy
>ergo a portal must require an infinite amount of force to move because F = ma
If you accept the former there's no reason not to accept the latter.

>>385427202
In reality I don't think there is a legitimately correct choice

>>385427309
>>>385427008 (You)
>>If portals have infinite mass then everything in the universe is affected by an infinitely strong pull and thus the universe is destroyed
>Such is life. :^)
You forgot to address the part where your assumption of a portal having infinite mass is a contradiction and thus cannot be the case

>>385426895
Of course the question is paraoxical, but B resolves the paradox. And that has nothing to do with the infinite energy bullshit you're babbling about.

>>385426365
Speed is relative. The cube is static towards the orange portal and moving towards the blue portal.

>>385427375

Of course not. See the image in >>385421610 for the correct view on this problem.

File: 1495482531313.png (14KB, 506x463px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 506x463px

>>385421610
>Using facebook memes
>Using facebooks memes incorrectly

>>385427170
If portals transfer equal and opposite momentum to the object they are mounted on (momentum conserved globally) B. If portals are juggernauts with their own very large inertia and do not conserve momentum globally A.

So B.

>>385426679
How the fuck the cube stays in the platform?

>>385427301
>Well they can't exist in real world either, yet people expect them to behave in a certain way and not a random way. My goal as a developer is to figure out which of those "certain ways" make the most sense.
Well anon, 1 + 1 = 2 yet we're essentially asking if 1 + 1 is 1 or 3 so why don't you just stop being a little shit and just pick one because in the end neither are correct or make sense using laws of physics.
>>385427362
And both the former and latter are what I've stated.
>>385427420
>Of course the question is paraoxical, but B resolves the paradox.
It really doesn't mate, you just can't handle being wrong.

>>385427428
Everything is moving towards the blue portal. Not just the cube if we follow that logic.

>>385427309
But portals aren't flying through the universe in a perfectly straight line pulling everything towards them with an infinite gravitational force

File: file.png (37KB, 497x517px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 497x517px

>>385414785
B is out of the question, but even A is only half correct. Assuming gravity is a constant, the velocity of the portal surface doesn't matter, and the cube would be under the influence of two forces of gravity - one coming from the portal, pulling in the direction of the portal (45° ); one coming from outside the portal, pulling down (0° ). Depending on the friction force, the cube would be stationary or slide down the portalled surface until enough of its portal-facing surface is masked by non-portalled surface.

>>385415097
The earth moves

>>385427382
You forgot the part where you keep babbling on about infinite mass portals being contradictions yet somehow forgetting to prove that every time.

>>385426285
The distance between two portals is changing at a particular rate.

File: WHAT NOW PHYSICS.png (7KB, 1152x648px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 1152x648px

Well?
To be clear - imagine you have the fishing line taught before the orange portal starts moving, then it starts moving down to slam into the ground.

What happens?

>>385427586
Yes.

>>385427590
The universe's already inside both portals already, my dude.

>>385427565
>And both the former and latter are what I've stated.
Ha ha, very clever.

Okay, if you accept that the former premise is possible then you must also accept that the latter premise is possible, i.e. if you have an object of infinite mass which requires an infinite amount of energy to sustain, there's no reason to draw the line at infinite force.

>>385414785
Neither. The cube doesn't go trough the portal if the cube isn't moving. The piston just smashes against the cube like it normally would without a portal on it.

>>385427654
>every time
I had only mentioned once. And the proof was right there! If an object has infinite mass, then it doesn't exist, because it is infinitely small and there is no universe to contemplate it from or think about it :^)

>>385427594
>Force into the blue portal
u wot m8 from where?

>>385427702
Air resistance would probably push up the fish a bit but the amount of rope dangling from the portal will remain more or less the same until it slams into the floor.

File: 1463526825748.jpg (16KB, 159x223px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 159x223px

>mfw I realise he took me for a ride again
>I only come into these threads to take people for rides anyway

>>385427871
From through the portal, obviously.

>>385427748
Portals moving causes paradoxes and we can already prove portals requiring an infinite amount of force to move, sounds pretty plausible to me to draw the line at that.
>>385427828
well memed my dude

>>385427994
>well memed my dude
>XD my main point i've been arguing with the whole thread has no basis at all

>>385427994
A portal on the surface of the Earth is moving since the Earth is rotating and that rotation is an acceleration and hence a force acting on the portal

>>385427594

>>385427594

Okay but what happens in between the cube being on the orange side and the cube being on the blue side? It's half-way out of the blue portal, right? And before that, it's one-quarter out of the blue portal, and afterwards it's three-quarters out of the blue portal. It doesn't get to the outside of the blue portal without motion as measured in the blue portal's frame of reference. The argument in favor of B is usually just that this motion should continue because the cube isn't glued to anything.

>b-b-but it was initially stationary so how did it move?!

I don't know. How does an object going north pass through some portals and end up going east if there's no force involved? Same question.

As for your diagram, I would argue that F_g1 is no longer affecting the cube once it's fully outside of the blue portal.

>>385428069
Not if the portal causes the Earth to stop rotating or moving due to infinite mass. :^)
>>385428059
>1 + 1 =/= 2 because 9012124901409
>what the fuck does that have to do with anything you memeing fuck
>hah your point has no basis anymore!

>>385427971
That doesn't seem obvious to me, can you explain it more?

>>385428105
Do it again in freefall so gravity doesn't do anything.

Does the cube somehow still stand still next to the blue portal as A faggots would suggest?

>>385422498
this is taking in accounts the "laws of physics" of a shitty game. We are talking about if portals were irl

>>385427710
If the inventors of the portal gun did ANY tests with fast moving portals they'd have wiped out all life on earth.

>>385427565
>or make sense using our current understanding of the laws of physics

>>385415097
I loved Portal but Portal 2 seemed like they were trying to put too much '''''humor'''' and flashy shit in it, Portal was refined to near perfection.

>>385428204
>>>385428059 (You)
>>1 + 1 =/= 2 because 9012124901409
>>what the fuck does that have to do with anything you memeing fuck
>>hah your point has no basis anymore!

>nuuh duuh you guys can't argue about moving portals because portals can't move due to this PHYSICS EQUATION that makes portals infinitely massive, so they can't move XD! Haha suckers you are talking about an impossible thought experiment!~!
>"Objects cannot have infinite mass. Thus portals as a whole cannot exist under your assumption, making any discussion about portals thought experiments with no possible real answer"
>WHERE IS DA PROOF?

>>385428410
>or make sense using our current understanding of the laws of physics
well then the answer is whatever the fuck you want if you're going to use a copout like that

>>385427880
B is actually the only answer that follows actual logic. Observe.

>If a cube enters a portal, it must also exit a portal.
>For a cube to either enter or exit the portal, it must move relative to the portal.
>For there to be relative movement, either the cube or the portal must be moving, if not both.
>The cube enters the portal
>Ergo it exits the portal
>Ergo there is relative movement between the portal and the cube
>The portal is not moving
>Ergo the cube is moving

Airtight.

>>385428105
Well, think about it.
>you can see through a portal, meaning light can pass through
>light is a boson
>gravitons are hypothesized to be bosons

>>385428371

What part of the image is specifically discussing the physics of the game as opposed to real physics? I know it mentions what happens in the game, but the concept of portals as introduced in the game is the basis for this entire discussion as well as any speculation about how portals would behave if they were real.

If the image were strictly about the game then the orange portal would disappear because it's on a moving surface outside of the two scripted sequences in which this is allowed.

>>385428493
>portals cannot move due to these simple equations using the laws of physics and we're using the laws of physics to answer the question
>WELL WHAT ABOUT THIS CLAIM I'VE MADE WITH NO EVIDENCE
>what about it
>HAH YOU CAN'T REFUTE IT THAT MEANS YOU'RE WRONG

>>385427994
>Portals moving causes paradoxes
None of which are unresolvable by B. Seems to me like you refuse to even think about it because you think you might not like the answer.
> and we can already prove portals requiring an infinite amount of force to move, sounds pretty plausible to me to draw the line at that.
No, it does not. It makes sense to draw the line at portals existing. Beyond that you've given up your right to draw lines based on infinite force requirements.

>>385428549

kek

So if a portal is facing down then it causes a gravitational pull near the other portal? It would be super neat if the game actually worked that way.

>>385428649
So you're still clinging to the possibility that something can have infinite mass, huh...
Better come to terms with that quick :^)

>Portals having infinite mass
>Portals being impossible to move
>Portals needing infinite energy

This is a new development in the shitposting these threads cause, impressive

>>385428651
>None of which are unresolvable by B.
I see we're falling for the paradoxes being solved by B meme again.
>Seems to me like you refuse to even think about it because you think you might not like the answer.
I'm sure it's definitely not that you can't handle being wrong and want to argue for an infinite amount of threads over an already paradoxical question.
>>385428779
>hehe i used dorito face that means ur right and im wrong
whatever makes you sleep at night or alternatively spend it entirely arguing over paradoxical questions :^)

>>385428857
>I see we're falling for the paradoxes being solved by B meme again.
Care to explain how they don't? Please don't refer to portals not moving again because that's another matter entirely. For the purpose of answering this question you're just going to have to assume that they can move.

Are people retarded? Or am I falling for some group trolling or something, If the platform with the portal is moving then it's A due to the fact that the cube is standing still. If the platform with the cube is moving then it's B

>>385428528
Wrong, the only answer that follows basic laws of physics is Ѭ.
>Portals can be perpetual motion machines which require an infinite amount of energy
>With the law of conservation of energy, the only way that is feasible is if portals already take an infinite amount of energy to produce
>E = mc^2
>c^2 is finite so m must be infinite for the equation to be possibly
>F = ma
>Force must either be infinite or a must be 0 for the equation to make sense since m equals infinity

File: 1f602.png (25KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 160x160px

>>385428857
>>hehe i used dorito face that means ur right and im wrong
>whatever makes you sleep at night or alternatively spend it entirely arguing over paradoxical questions :^)

>hehe i used dorito face that means ur right and im wrong

When I spend my time arguing on an internet forum, I'm right. Looks like you've been here longer than me though, and you're wrong, so that's probably worse.

Want to engage in a discussion where we think about what would happen if an infinitely massive object existed - which it cannot in our universe and under our known laws of physics - for shits and giggles?

>>385428946
>a portal moving towards a cube and you seeing both the said cube and the other portal means said object is in a state of movement and non-movement at the same time
gee i wonder why people are using both law of conservation of momentum for both A and B really makes you think huh

>>385428982
"No!"
Speed is relative, the orange portal send the cube with the relative speed it perceives and the blue portal shoot it as a trampoline.

>>385429113
>hehe i did a no u that means ur right and im wrong
>hehe i said im right that means im right and ur wrong
well memed my friend

>>385429305
Hey, though, what do you think would happen if you put a portal on the ceiling and one bellow it on the floor and dropped an object into it?

These threads are tolerable when they're 50% shitposting, but this one has finally reached 100% shitposting, so I'm out.

>>385429071
I'm sorry, but you're not refuting my logic, you're addressing some irrelevant point using inconsistent and self-contradictory maths I don't even care to check the correctness of because it's nothing but a cheap cop-ouot.

>Ѭ
This. This is the meme. Not B. B is the logical answer. But Ѭ is just wank from people who want to feel clever but aren't.

>>385429483
wew it's a perpetual motion machine meaning it would generate an infinite amount of energy which due to law of conservation of energy means it must already take an infinite amount of energy to make which due to E = mc^2 means it must have infinite mass
:^)

>>385429227
>a portal moving towards a cube and you seeing both the said cube and the other portal means said object is in a state of movement and non-movement at the same time
Yes, that is correct. And that results in B. Glad we could settle that.

File: cdb.jpg (17KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 499x499px

>>385429632
BUT PORTALS CAN'T EXIST! Why are you answering a question that can't have a real answer because it's a thought experiment about a situation that cannot occur????? XD

>>385414785
>Take an open window
>Slam it over a box
>Box doesn't go flying
wtf

>>385429753
>Take a thought experiment
>Remove the most important part of it
>It's a different thought experiment
wtf

>>385429753
>take a hallway
>slam it over a hotdog
>Is it in yet?
wtf

>>385429753
There are two windows. One isn't moving.

>>385429629
>IT'S IRRELEVANT AND CONTRADICTORY AND INCONSISTENT BECAUSE I SAID SO MY ANSWER IS RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG I CAN'T HEAR YOU LAHLAHLAH
Must suck having a retarded claim that disregards basic laws of physics like conservation of energy, and momentum and mass-energy equivalence and other shit like that lad.
>>385429716
>And that results in B
I see Bfags are no strangers to making uncited wrong claims yet again.

>What is 1 + 1? A: 1 or B: 3?
>Afags: IT'S ONE
>Bfags: IT'S THREE
>Neitherfags: It's 2
>Afags and Bfags: NO YOU'RE WRONG THAT'S CONTRADICTORY IT'S A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO ANSWER ANYTHING OTHER THAN A OR B HOW DARE YOU I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG
wew lad

>>385429629
I'm sorry, but you're not refuting my logic, you're addressing some irrelevant point using inconsistent and self-contradictory maths I don't even care to check the correctness of because it's nothing but a cheap cop-ouot.

>B
This. This is the meme. Not Ѭ. Ѭ is the logical answer. But B is just wank from people who want to feel clever but aren't.

>Neitherfags: It's neither because from a single reference point the cube would be both moving and not moving and conservation of momentum can't make the cube both be B and A
>Bfags: IT'S RESOLVED AS B
>Neitherfags: Do you have any proof of that claim
>Bfags: ...

File: portal.gif (169KB, 673x320px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 673x320px

>>385430020
This but unironically and less exaggerated

>Being a serious neitherfag instead of arguing for the fun of it

Do you even belong on /v/?

>>385430919
>you can't argue neither for the fun of it
And the best part is that neither is objectively right too.

>neitherfags

>hey bros if you were in *fictional universe* would you do *a* or *b*
>*a* because...
>*b* because bla bla...
>LOL *fictional universe* CAN'T EXIST BECAUSE IT IS FICTIONAL WHY WOULD YOU ARGUE ABOUT IT???? *fictional universe* DOESN'T EVEN FOLLOW THE LAWS OF PHYSICS HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY SPEND YOUR TIME THINKING ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THIS THEORETICAL SITUATION

>>385431305
>what would happen if the law of physics broke also please explain your answer using exclusively the law of physics
>neitherfags: that sounds like a paradoxical and impossible question to answer
>SHUT UP IT'S JUST A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT BRO JUST PICK A SIDE EVEN IF IT'S WRONG AND DEDICATE YOUR TIME TO SEVERAL THREADS ARGUING OVER SAID WRONG SIDE

>>385427514
Exactly. C looks like the cube is attached somehow to the platform

>>385432319
>>what would happen if the law of physics broke also please explain your answer using exclusively the law of physics
this doesn't happen

>>385427594
>Fg1
what

>>385424478
The energy is dispersed when the 2 columns slam into each other.

>>385432000
That's not what light energy is.

>>385432319
you just sound retarded at this point

>>385433772
>anon asks if 1 + 1 is 1 or 3
>tell him it's 2
>uh you just sound retarded at this point
wew lad

>>385433961
It's like saying you shouldn't play Portal because portals are not realistic

>>385432000
Top fucking kek

>>385435098
>ask a question based on physics
>answer question based on physics
>WELL I DON'T LIKE THAT ANSWER BECAUSE IT IMPLICATES THAT SAID THING ISN'T REALISTIC

>>385432000
Always A due to special relativity

>>385433961
If the question is 1+1, you're saying addition is fundamentally impossible.

>Hey guys who would win in a fight, Goku or Superman?
>Well, obviously Superman can't actually exist so the real answer is the fight can't take place.

>>385419351
thank you

>>385429894
Sorry I had to leave but I already explained how B resolves the portal creating two frames of reference here >>385422360 so really if you'd read the thread you didn't have to ask.

>>385437652
Except it literally does not, it only proves why B would supposedly be righter than A, it does not resolve the paradox in the slightest.

>>385437752
It absolutely does. It shows that both frames of reference are simultaneously true and that this does not result in a contradiction of B is the case. Or in other words that B is the case because it does not result in a contradiction.

>>385437876
It absolutely does not. You seem to pretend claiming things somehow makes them true, rather than actually proving said thing. B is the equivalent of saying 1 + 1 = 3 because it doesn't contradict unlike 1 + 1 = 1

>>385437876
>it's neither because from a single reference point it would be moving and not moving
>WELL LET'S IGNORE THAT AND SAY IT'S NOW TWO REFERENCE POINTS INSTEAD OF ONE
wew lad

>>385438070
You don't understand it. That's alright. Tell me which part in particular is giving you trouble and I'd be happy to explain.

>>385438340
That's just what portals do, I'm afraid. If you're going to ignore how portals work then you'll never find an answer.

>>385438520
I'm sorry to say, but one thing a portal does is not move. It appears you've deluded yourself into believing a paradox isn't a paradox just because you said so. Saying people don't understand or that's just what they do shows that you are indeed wrong and can't handle being wrong.

>it's neither because X
>well I'm just going to ignore X entirely and substitute it with Y in which my answer is true therefore it's my answer and no my answer might not explain X but it's okay because there's Y even if Y has literally nothing to do with X
bravo Bfags

>>385438706
>one thing a portal does is not move
This one does.

Question, are you literally autistic?

>>385438957
Except by both ingame and real life physics, they don't
>I'm not autistic for arguing with other autists over what impossible thing an impossible thing would do but you are for daring to call me wrong
wew lad

>it is neither because of X
>well my answer solves for X
>how so
>it solves for Y
>but that has nothing to do with X
>SHUT UP IT TOTALLY DOES THAT'S JUST HOW IT WORKS
>the absolute state of Bfags

>>385429843
>Remove the most important part of it
portals are literally windows, they have no special qualities affecting what goes inside

>>385439097
>Except by both ingame and real life physics, they don't
Dude, denial is simply not an answer to a thought experiment. Your seeming inability to even entertain a proposition which you consider untrue reeks of genuine diagnosable autism. Does figurative language trip you up as well?

The portal moves. Deal with it. That is not up for debate. The question is what happens next.

>>385439482
>dude denial is simply not an answer to a thought experiment
>he says this as he conveniently ignores or handwaves everything that proves its neither
>he says this as he's retarded enough to think that there's no such thing as a paradoxical thought experiment where no answer is correct
Don't sperg out too much, lad.

File: 1499070964527.png (240KB, 662x540px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 662x540px

B fags are as bad as flat earthers

I bet you take all your "scientific knowledge" from history channel

>>385439720
Nothing proves it's neither because the portal moving is already one of the premises and not up for discussion. Just like the question "what if Nazi Germany had discovered the atom bomb before the US did" cannot be answered by "but they didn't, the US was first". You may be historically correct but it's simply not relevant to the question because the question doesn't concern historical correctness but a hypothetical situation. So I'm going to generously assume that your maths check out and that you're very smart, and then proceed to ignore it and ask you to answer the question.

By the way, if you're just trolling, I'm going to feel like I'm winning as long as you're not even going to touch my actual arguments, so if you just want to ruffle my feathers you might want to try a different tactic.

>>385440078
>it's another false equivalence episode
Hey, here's a better example.
1 + 1? 1 or 3?
Someone who's not retarded answers 2, someone who's retarded like for example you, answer 3 and claim it's right because IT'S LESS WRONG THAN THE OTHER ANSWER and bitch at everyone who tells you otherwise BECAUSE IT'S A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT THAT MEANS IT MUST BE ONE OF THE ANSWERS.
But good job thinking anyone who's not retarded is trolling and that you're always right and not wrong, you retard.

>>385440261
>it's another false equivalence episode
It's nice of you to announce your posts like that, saves me the trouble of reading the rest.

>>385440313
>NO U I'M RITE AND UR WRONG!11il!!
I see what Special Ed has done to your mind.

>>385440261
>>385440313
But seriously though, the inability to deal with hypothetical situations is grade A industrial strength autism. Prove to me that you're neurotypical.

>>385440432
That's you. That's your argument. You're just repeating yourself but not refuting anything.

>>385440443
>what is 1 + 1? 1 or 3
>it's 2
>YOU'RE AUTISTIC
whatever helps you sleep in your spiderman undies or not as you spend the night arguing over anons about whether the answer is 1 or 3
>>385440545
>NO U I'M RITE AND UR WRONG!11il!!
I see what Special Ed has done to your mind.

>>385440650
The question is not "what is 1+1". The question is, if you slam a portal down over a cube and it comes out another portal which is stationary, what happens to the cube? And in this analogy, B = 2 and "portals can't move" = "addition isn't real". But I suppose I can't blame you for struggling with analogies because you're neuro-atypical.

>>385440905
>I'm retarded and don't understand analogies
>I'm retarded and change analogies to autistically fit my needs
>but I'm not autistic you are
wew lad

>>385440650
>>385440905
a better equivalent of this would be
what is apple + orange?
A) banana
B) cherry

>>385441034
>>385441083
Look, all of this is pointless. You're not even understanding that a thought experiment doesn't necessitate two possible answers, but that the original question was simply confused about two possibilities and asking clarification about those. It just so happens that the correct answer was among the two options and that no option besides the original two can be shown to even make sense. If you accept the premises, that is. Are you about ready to do that, yet?

>>385441509
>It just so happens that the correct answer was among the two options and that no option besides the original two can be shown to even make sense.
>this is what Bfags actually believe
I'm glad we're going for yet another "Bfags are autists that conveniently ignore that laws of physics and paradoxical questions are a thing that exists so they can sperg out with other autists for an infinite amount of threads" episode

>>385441704
You know, I had an actual reason for presuming that you're autistic. Just like I have actual reasons why it's B, which you are unable to refute because you're not even on my level. You, on the other hand, have nothing. You don't even understand why what you're saying is irrelevant even though I've explained it numerous times. Now, I have iron patience, but you seem determined not to understand it, and therefore you can't actually argue against me, so we're going in circles.

The cube gets out the blue portal at the same speed the orange portal falls over it. Otherwise it would just hit the ceiling. Since it started to move at the orange portal speed it keeps moving at the same speed.

>>385441936
I see Bfags are not only autistic retards who handwave and ignore everything that proves them wrong, but also have delusions of grandeur.
Truly Bfag, you may be more fucking retarded than an orgy in a short bus but at least you'd be the smartest kid in said short bus.
Which isn't saying much, you're retarded enough to think I was so I feel the need to clarify that.

Can't someone just test this in the game?????

>>385441936
>this is what Bfags actually believe

Ok bfagorinos. Explain to me, how does portal know it is moving? They are (usually) disabled when moved (this is ingame fact). Therefore there must be a way for them to "detect" that they are moving. How does that work under your "theory"?

File: Twitter-When-u-tweet-about-how-ugly-692565102306926592.jpg (31KB, 500x249px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x249px

>people actually believe a hole moving fast somehow makes things passing through it move

>>385442082
You're not clarifying anything though. I've demonstrated multiple times why your statements are irrelevant and how you failed to address my actual arguments and your response was to simply repeat yourself. You've also taken to obvious samefagging due to extreme butthurt.

Now if you'd kindly answer the question. What happens when a moving portal slams down onto a cube?

>if you conveniently ignore every law of physics and literal ingame physics except when it proves my answer right it's my answer
sasuga Afags and Bfags

File: 1360268143428.png (11KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 429x410px

>>385414785
Here's a thought... Why don't you go in-game and test it out for yourself?

>>385442183
Motion is relative so no. What you're saying is wrong.

>>385442278
Just one of the holes is moving.

>>385442298
You're not clarifying anything though. I've demonstrated multiple times why your statements are irrelevant and how you failed to address my actual arguments and your response was to simply repeat yourself. You've also taken to obvious samefagging due to extreme butthurt.

Now if you'd kindly answer the question. What is 1 + 1, 1 or 3? Or is it that the question is inherently paradoxical and advocating for either side is fucking retarded?

>>385442137
>>385442392
It's been done in both Portal and Gmod with contradictory results due to different physics modelling. Portal was never meant to handle this scenario.

>>385442452
You're not answering the question. I even left it open for you. Go on, answer it.

So butthurt

>>385419268
You're assuming the portal works the same way as a door and there's actually no event horizon that would cause the laws of physics to launch the cube.

>>385442562
You're not answering the question. I even left it open for you. Go on, answer it.

So butthurt

>>385442183
It also works as a red light camera.

>>385442623
You're avoiding answering the question. If I answer yours and say that it's 2, will you answer mine? Remember, the portal moves. What happens to the cube?

>>385442809
You're avoiding answering the question. If I answer yours and say that it's neither, will you answer mine? Remember, you must answer 1 + 1 as either 1 or 3 as by given parameters. What is the answer?

>>385442278
>hole
What makes you think a portal as a hole?

>>385443010
Sorry, I did answer your question, so your reply is nonsensical. But sure, given the option 1 or 3, the answer to 1+1 is neither. Now, you answer moving portal + cube. And notice it's an open question so "neither" will be nonsensical as well. You need to describe what happens to the cube. You can do it, Anon. I believe in you.

>>385443108
it's literally a hole
each end just happens to be far away

>>385443293
The answer is that the portal doesn't move in the first place. :^)

>>385442361
Oh yes, the General Theory of Portals. How could I forget about those law of physics? My uncle has a PhD on that.

>>385414785
The cube doesn't move. From the cube's perspective the space is moving closer to it. Like if you were on the ground and the second floor came down around you

>>385442396
>My explanation of hypotetical game physics goes directly againts something clearly happing in said game
bfag logic everyone. I will be patiently waiting for some bfag to explain how portals can detect they are on moving wall, which is irrefutable ingame fact.

>>385443350
So a tube

>>385443480
That is not an answer. Note I did not reply to your question by saying 1 is not real.

>>385419351
Why would you take their answer seriously? They make video games (well not anymore), not scientist

>>385443552
But the space isn't moving, it's the cube who moves.

>>385443506
Ah yes, truly Mass-Energy Equivalence, Law of Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum are all just memes those neitherfags make up to prove Abros and Bbros wrong.

>>385443629
but a tube is long, a hole is just an end instantly connected to another

>>385443632
>it's an open question but the objectively right answer isn't an answer though
sasuga bfag

>>385443739
We know all about how portals conserve momentum and we frankly don't need to know how much energy you need to make one or move one any more than we need to know how a hyperdrive works in order to enjoy Star Wars.

File: 1461613732360.jpg (92KB, 878x814px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 878x814px

>300+ posts on a problem that has already been solved

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TZd95BCKMY

>>385443768
It's a 4th dimensional tube that looks like a hole to 3rd dimensional creatures.

>>385443816
You're ignoring my points again. It's not objectively the right answer because it's not an answer to the question. It contradicts the premises. It is therefore illogical.

>>385443739
You cannot apply those laws to a physics-breaking device. It's simply illogical.

>>385443857
Except the OP topic is on how a portal would work if it were to move towards a cube.
>>385444003
If you choose an answer to this question at random, what is the chance you will be correct?

A) 25%

B) 50%

C) 60%

D) 25%
>it's neither because the question is paradoxical
>your answer contradicts the premise and is thus illogical and thus wrong

>>385444013
So do tell me how you plan on answering A or B since both relies on real life physics of which we are apparently disregarding now.

>>385444078
>Except the OP topic is on how a portal would work if it were to move towards a cube.
Exactly. And you're not answering that question.

>If you choose an answer to this question at random, what is the chance you will be correct?
The premise here is just mathematics. Therefore saying the given answers are all contradictory confirms the premise rather than contradicting it. Not so with denying a portal is moving when the premise is the portal is moving.

File: matrix efficiency.jpg (36KB, 353x280px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 353x280px

A. because portals have no inert momentum in themselves - they are merely transferring a mass with x amount of momentum and vector in dimension y and then shoot it out in dimension z.

I studied such cases in theoretical physics and quantum physic classes, which I used to apply my theory of quantum tunneling in the electromagnetic spectrum, the same paper that lead to eagle engine's aka NASA's 'warp' drive. unless the portals abuse Lagrangian rules it's best to assume they work within Newtonian models.

bottom line we've solved this hundreds of times over, the real question you should be asking yourself is if traps are gay, the clear cut scientific evidence is still murky.

>>385444249
They don't depend on real life physics they depend on what the programmer thinks it's the most fun. There is no physics equation that solves putting your arm through a portal and it appearing somewhere else so you cannot say that it's translation invariant (ie. that they conserve p)

>>385444378
>The premise here is just mathematics. Therefore saying the given answers are all contradictory confirms the premise rather than contradicting it. Not so with denying a portal is moving when the premise is the portal is moving.
Except the answer relies on real life physics, when by real life physics, the answer would be that the portal cannot move. If you want to answer it by in game physics, the portal also can't move, so ergo, the answer is whatever the fuck you want to be.

>>385444565
No, by real life physics, the answer would be that portals aren't real, and honestly, if you couldn't figure that out, you're not half as smart as you pretend to be.

>>385426112
Game clearly treats the platform with the portal as a solid platform. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

>>385444421
The cube emerges the blue portal at the orange portal speed. Why does it stop?

>>385444648
>semantics
:^)

>>385443704
The portal is moving to the cube and bringing the connected space closer

>>385444804
It's not semantics. Firstly because that's not actually what semantics refers to (this is a semantics argument by the way), and secondly because you're implying the distinction is insignificant or irrelevant when it's actually quite relevant. If your argument is that the thought experiment is physically impossible, well congratulations, you're not actually telling anyone anything new, so why are you insisting on pretending you're contributing, but additionally, why are you accepting portals but refusing to accept moving portals when they're both equally impossible for the same reasons? It's inconsistent and nonsensical and it shows that you're capable of entertaining hypotheticals but refuse to entertain this particular one for entirely arbitrary reasons.

>>385445193
nice paragraph there fuckley, want to make a point that doesn't take several sentences to get across there kiddo, or would that be too much to ask you sperg

>>385422498
I think this is correct. Then depending on how the portal works it stay on the surface or move from it.

>>385444421
The particles coming out of the portal need to move in order to make space for the particles coming in from the other end. If the portal is moving at speed s, then the particles coming out must move at s or else the object moving through the portal will end up squished up. Assuming portals don't squish people up, that speed has no reason to vanish. It will have a momentum p equal to the mass of the object times the speed of the platform.

File: zpiRqob.jpg (28KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x600px

>>385444421
>>385444775
to further quantify this, portals have no mass themselves, in order to transfer any momentum they would need to have some amount of mass, but they are zero-point holes that link 2 separate points of space through a common tunnel. You can move a portal at lightspeed and whatever gets sucked in from point A merely gets 'slides' out point B with no change in energy, the only thing that changes is its location in space. the easiest way to put this is newtons laws of motion since the portal (p1) moves at x speed, and engulfs the cube (c) and sends it through portal 2 (p2)

if you're going to transfer the momentum from p1 to c and carry that momentum out p2, there has to be a mass to modify the momentum, since p1 and p2 have a mass of zero, no momentum is transferred.

>>385445319
Sorry kiddo, the ability to focus for the span of one paragraph is a requirement for being taken seriously when it comes to physics. Now, if you're not going to address anything I'm going to consider this argument decided in my favour.

>>385445193
>hey guys what would happen with something impossible to both real world physics and in game physics happened based on real world or in game physics
>that would be impossible
>WELL GEE ISN'T THAT OBVIOUS

>>385445559
>i'm rite ur rong cuz i said so
wew

>>385445497
>portals have no mass
Citation fucking needed