The right answer is B right?
- Home
- Board: /v/ - Video Games
- Reading: The right answer is B right?
The right answer is B right?
>>344869806
A. The box has no momentum.
Nope
Does an item go flying when you put a ring around it?
>>344869806
Actually, in the game it IS B.
But in reality it would be A.
>>344869883
The most concise and accurate explanation you'll get. /thread
>>344869930
Actually in the game this wouldn't work because portals can't go on moving platforms
>>344869992
Except there are portals on moving surfaces in the second game
>>344869883
what if I told you it had
>>344869806
It has to be B. The box must cross the threshold of the blue portal at the same rate that it crossed the threshold of the orange one. Since the blue one is not moving, the only way for the cube to cross the threshold at the same rate is for it to gain velocity.
Really makes you think...
>>344869806
We already had this thread today.
Just fuck off already
>>344870505
what is this picture trying to say
>>344869806
>1. A portal can't move from it's original place
>2. A portal can be only placed on a flat surface
>3. A portal can't break the laws of physics of the actual objects
Holy shit it's like you didn't even play the game
>>344870505
>>344870196
Ok.....and?
>>344870985
Trying to say the portal is no different to a door frame passing over something.
The portal isn't a vacuum that sucks things into it, so no movement is transferred
>>344870985
it is essentially the same as OP's pic
>>344871207
what the fuck
>>344870196
And when the movement of the blue portal platform stops, the box should go flying right?
The portal gun was originally invented... why again? Something about shower curtains right?
>>344871207
Actually, that thing that isn't stationary is the block with the blue portal you are conveniently not signaling.
>>344872059
so fat men could enjoy autofellatio
>>344869806
>How does physics behave in this world of broken physics
Nah mate
>>344870505
From the reference frame of the door that's what happening
the cube has a relative speed to the portal thats correct. It doesnt matter in the equation though. The cubes momentum doesnt get influenced so it stays at 0; so A is the correct answer obviously.
If you have problems understanding this just imagine a platform that has a portal on top and on the bottom, exactly opposite to each other. Now let the platfrom fall on the cube. Now you see that no momentum can be created by a portal.
>>344870505
First of all, whoever made this is an idiot. Not for being wrong but for failing to understand how that picture is irrelevant entirely. This picture completely ignores that the complication arises when you consider each 'end' of the doorway being under different circumstances like distance and velocity. If the portals were to remain back to back the question would be simple.
>>344870196
This picture explains it best. The momentum is gained from the force of the platform pushing upwards as it exits the orange portal because at only during that even the box is moving in relation to its environment, it is otherwise stationary. The force on that platform of course being equal to the downward force on the blue portals platform.
>>344869806
Now back to ops scenario it is also a little more complicated but the same mechanics apply. The only time force would be applied to the box would be during the time it takes for the box to begin entering the portal and then emerge fully. Assuming if answer a. simply refers to there being no force applied to the box what so ever it is wrong.
I can't think of any elements I'm not considering but if you can, feel free to point it out.
YOU FUCKERS JUST WEREN'T HAPPY LEAVING WELL ENOUGH ALONE, WERE YOU
>>344874929
but the box isn't moving slowly relative to the portal in OP's pic so i don't see how this is relevant
>>344875216
His picture explains the situation that would need to be present for the answer to be a. and considering the obvious differences obviously supports answer b.
>>344875335
oh ok got it, this thread was filed with retards who think its A for the OP so i assumed that's what he was going for
>>344874321
>Now you see that no momentum can be created by a portal
Portals do this all the fucking time.
Before falling in is has momentum in the dowanwards direction, after exiting the portal on the wall the wall it's lost all that momentum and gained some in the left to right direction. They have the same magnitude sure but thats not the same momentum as before
>this thread again
there's literally no transfer of energy between the platform falling and the box
>>344869883
What if the crusher thing hit the platform its resting on really really hard, like when you slam something on a table and other objects on it jump up
>>344875762
that not what i meant but i phrased it badly, i gotta admit
>>344869806
It's A.
>>344875954
Yeh there is. The two surfaces that smack together will transfer into the box.
Imagine a marble on a table and you push a glass over it. The marble will bounce up.
>>344876173
heh someone actually put the experiment into practice
nice job mate but you missed the part about the moving portal, which the game doesnt allow
anyway since the object isnt actually moving, when it passes through the portal, gravity causes it to slide
>>344869806
Portals don't go on moving platforms.
>Trying to talk about energy and momentum in a universe where those laws are regularly broken
This argument is literally pointless
>>344875117
Wait what the fuck
Why are the portals even here, it would be exactly the same outcome if they weren't there
>>344869806
neither, the cube is resting but it does not have the velocity to move like b either, it should pick up some momentum when suddenly appearing beyond the event horizon, but not much.
>>344876476
He came out upside down that why theres a rotation at the end
Protip: Every one who says it's either certainly A or certainly B has no fucking clue about what the fuck he's talking about.
>>344876476
The blue portal is clearly moving, it's the same as in the illustration.
>>344869883
This
>"The box has no momentum"
Translated to regular english from retard
>"Hi, I have no fucking clue what reference frames are but please let me continue to spout words I picked up in physics before I dropped out of high school."
>>344869806
B.
We can all agree that movement and speed are relative, because we graduated high school right? We don't feel like we're moving even though we're traveling at thousands of miles and hour around the sun because the entire earth is moving with us at the same rate.
We know own that an object that falls into a vertical facing portal will fire horizontally out of a horizontal facing portal, establishing that momentum relative to the earth doesn't matter and isn't conserved. Only the rate of change in position (veloctiy) between box and portal matter.
Thuso in the op image, we see a box and portal approach each other at high speed. That velocity will be maintained. Since the second portal isn't moving, the box will be.
/thread
I still think the golden ball thing is 50%. People say that there's a chance of picking the silver ball first from the silver/gold box and because of that its a 2/3 chance but in the question the gold ball has been picked first so it's irrelevant. Can someone explain how it's a 2/3 chance?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TZd95BCKMY
>>344869806
Portals cant be on moving surfaces, this is established pretty early on in the game
>>344872047
Correct
>>344876641
thats the joke
>>344869806
am i wrong?
>>344877002
portal had some fantastic soundtracks
also the video really makes you think
>>344872290
What do you mean. I mean, we can measure the platform's speed and clearly you can see it's moving
OKAY YOU FUCKING RETARDS
YOU FUCKING KNOW HOW PORTALS AREN'T ACTUALLY EXISTING RIGHT
YOU MIGHT EVEN BE SMART ENOUGH TO FUCKING KNOW THAT IT'S NOT JUST BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T INVENTED THEM YET, RIGHT?I swear to fuck If you faggots actually believe they are possible you are beyond any help and should just slowly boil yourself
WELL GUESS FUCKING WHAT
THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THEY AREN'T POSSIBLE
1. IT CAN'T BE A - RELATIVE TO THE SPACE MOVING BEYOND THE PORTAL THE BOX HAS THE SAME SPEED AS THE PLATFORM WITH THE ORANGE PORTAL.
2. IT CAN'T BE B - THE CUBE NEVER ONCE EXPERIENCES ANY ACCELERATION FROM HIS REST FRAME BEFORE ENTERING THE PORTAL
THE SPACE THE CUBE IS IN BEFORE IT ENTERS THE PORTAL AND THE SPACE AFTER ARE DIFFERENT REFERENCE FRAMES YET THEY ARE THE SAME SPACE
JESUS
FUCKING
CHRIST
>>344869806
Neither, as Portals can't be placed on a moving surface.
>>344876858
Exactly. Everybody mumbling something about momentum is a barely-functioning retard.
>>344877220
>2. IT CAN'T BE B - THE CUBE NEVER ONCE EXPERIENCES ANY ACCELERATION FROM HIS REST FRAME BEFORE ENTERING THE PORTAL
A portal can induce infinite acceleration on objects since it moves them around instantly. Why shouldn't it be able to make the cube move?
>>344877220
>>344876751
You know what's even dumber than being stupid enough to argue about this shit? Being smart enough to know you can't argue about this, and doing it anyways.
>>344877085
Yes. The movement of the portal will not effect the movement of the box. So the answer will always be A
>>344877220
you sound like the kind of guy who doesnt think thing can emitt cold
>hurrr icecubs doesnt emitt cold they MAGICLY EAT UP HEAT
i swear you 4chan hobby scientist has the most fucked up basic view of the world because someone in gray hair wrote in a book then its true
It will get lifted because the cube moves as it's projected out of the portal and the force pushing it out suddenly stops.
>>344877451
That's a very poor attempt at trolling mate
>>344873495
From the door's reference frame, Bob is moving very fast the entire time and the door is always at rest, retard.
>>344877548
>believe in cold fusion
>gets called a troll
go back to your backwards ideology by following concepts decided 800 years ago
>>344877002
it's like Interstellar.
Though, she would most certainly be dead.
>>344877657
I know, that's what I'm saying
>>344874929
>man enters the portal with a little bit of momentum and comes out with a little bit of momentum
>box enters the portal with no momentum but comes out with an enormous amount of momentum
b-fags are literally retarded
>>344869806
In the current state of Portal? A
If we have a box on a platform with a portal above it slowly going down. Portal 2 is on a wall.
If you look at it from the platform side, will it look like it has been sucked into the portal if the portal is nearly over it and gravity pulls on it? Or will it levitate on the other side till its completely there
>>344878140
It comes out with momentum because it's moving out of the portal. Are you saying the box moves without momentum?
>>344878252
>box enters with 0 speed
>suddenly it gains a ton of speed
We all know portals make objects travelling through them pick up speed.
>>344876705
The game automatically adds spin/rotation to keep the camera even for the player's benefit.
>>344878436
And thus momentum
>>344869883
This. The platform has normal and neutral force.
>>344878436
Has science gone too far?
>>344878586
>objects touching each other are the same as two points in space being connected
Have retards become this common?
>>344878650
But objects touch each other in the given example. Are you blind?
>>344869806
Depends how fast your piston is moving.
>>344876290
>The two surfaces that smack together will transfer into the box.
thats just an assumption
the picture doesnt tell us how fast the orange platform is moving. it doesnt tell us what the stationary platform is made of.
>>344878724
When does the moving platform touch the box? The box enters into the portal without ever touching the moving platform
>>344878810
It touches the platform that touches the box. Action -> Reaction.
Also no matter how you put it the box is moving into space there. The whole object isn't magically warped into the second portal, it enters gradually, so it has speed and if it has speed and mass it has momentum.
Alright bfags:
If a portal is on a platform which is moving parallel to the ground (with the other portal on a stationary wall somewhere with plenty of floor in front of it), and you run towards the portal/platform apparatus with an equal but opposite velocity, do you
1.) Come out the other end running at the same speed you were running before entering
2.) Come out the other end with 0 velocity
>>344879060
3. Come out with double velocity.
>>344878997
By the time the moving platform hits the stationary platform, the box is through the portal you mongoloid.
Even then, it's not like the moving platform colliding with the stationary platform would cause the stationary platform to exert a upwards force on the box
>>344876476
Portal 2 has moving Portals.
>>344879243
>By the time the moving platform hits the stationary platform, the box is through the portal you mongoloid.
If you're going with the space theory, the bottom of the box is still touching the platform even on the other side.
>Even then, it's not like the moving platform colliding with the stationary platform would cause the stationary platform to exert a upwards force on the box
But that's literally classical physics.
>>344879424
>moving platform exerts downward force on still platform
>still platform magically pushes up on a stationary object
The box is already exerting downward force on the still platform. Unless the box suddenly increases in mass, it won't fucking move
>>344876872
A portal is a hole. You dont get momentum from a hole going around you.
Here. 20 holes in walls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIvekuIidqc
>>344870196
You are not thinking in portals.
The Up velocity on the right is equal to the down velocity on the left. It's not the box or the platform moving, its the press causing the momentum.
If you retracted the press up once again, the box and platform wouldn't move an inch, because they had no movement at all.
>>344879604
>A portal is a hole.
A hole that connects two different points of space, can induce infinite acceleration on objects and breaks the laws of conservation of energy
>b-but it definitely can't induce momentum on objects because I say so!
>>344870196
>>344871207
The exiting pedestal does not technically move. Relative to the entrance portal (which is moving), the exiting pedestal would appear that it is moving.
>>344870505 had the right idea. Suppose that we're talking about the door frame. The entrance and the exit is moving relatively at the same velocity. You can't say the same about those portals since an entrance is moving and the exit is stationary.
>>344869806 the answer should be A, since the orange portal is moving towards the cube. Based on the entrance-exit theory, it would be similar to slamming a ring on the pedestal; the cube would pass through, but it won't go flying like >>344869909 said. This is because the cube itself does not have any initial inertia; reinforced further by the fact that the portals conserve momentum. "In layman's terms, speedy things go in, speedy things come out."
In order for B to happen, the pedestal should move towards the entrance portal, providing the cube with kinetic energy.
It's all a matter of the momentum in the cube. If the cube doesn't contain kinetic energy initially, there's no way for it to gain momentum out of nowhere.
>>344879837
>induce infinite acceleration
proofs
>>344879179
I mean seriously, what was the idiot >>344879060 even trying to prove?
>>344869806
This is from a thread of some hours ago
>>344879837
No. The physics dont work like that. It's a hole. A Doorway. Even if the two sides of a doorway are in different areas, Momentum is carried by the object.
You clearly dont know how portals work. Just play the games.
How does anyone in their right mind think that A is a proper choice? It literally makes no sense. It would either go flying like in B, or be like A except it would be reduced to the size of a pancake
>>344880004
The answer is B for objects but A for players.
>>344879931
Cube is at point A at time t
Cube goes through a portal to portal at point B, where B is an infinite distance from A
The cube just moved an infinite distance in a short time, thus it had infinite acceleration while its speed went from 0 m/s to infinite m/s in a finite time
>>344869806
>armchair physicists pretending it's B
so many people who didn't even graduate high school in here
>>344880004
>>344880156
Garry Mod's does not work. The problem here is that the box is pushed. It's not supposed to be pushed. It makes no sense that it's pushed.
>>344880210
B is the only good, choice, because regardless of how silly thinking about "what would happen if portals were real", A doesn't make sense in any context.
>>344880171
But did it's speed or direction change?
If an object's velocity doesn't change, there's no acceleration. Doesn't matter the displacement.
>>344880072
>The physics dont work like that
You're retarded. Accepting the existence of portals changes the laws of physics. Your babbling about momentum has no weight since portals don't obey the laws of momentum.
so the question is whether or not a moving portal would give momentum to a stationary object when it comes out the other portal
which we would have no way of knowing in real life terms because portals dont exist
>>344880316
Of course it does. If a hole goes around you, you dont gain momentum based on the hole speed. A hulahoop falling on you does not make you gain speed .
>>344880316
>thing has no force acted upon it
>suddenly gains momentum
yeah no
>>344880325
>Doesn't matter the displacement.
Velocity and acceleration are defined in terms of displacement you stupid nigger. a=x/t^2. The cube has infinite acceleration for an infinitesimal amount of time, then infinite deceleration, returning to zero acceleration.
>>344880414
Of course they do obey the laws of momentum. Everything about Portal was verified. Even the time it takes for the light to reach the moon is verified.
Portals are pretty much just bending space using wormholes. It's the exact same thing.
Can you show me a single place where momentum is not applied or rather, is applied by the movement of a portal?
>>344880414
This is the absolute answer to this
Any serious physicist might consider the two possibilities but accepts that neither can be proved to be right or wrong since these are physics breaking portals, who can say which parts of physics stays the same or not in this universe where portals are allowed
>>344880702
>>344880004
Oh so you're going back to game implementations like a complete retard
>>344879604
If there is speed there is momentum because momentum is speed*mass. Speed is distance moved/time. Is there speed in pic related?
>>344869806
The answer is A.
Portals act as a wormhole. Going through it you occupy two points in space/time simultaneously. If portals gave ANY Form of momentum your body would be ripped to shreds the instant you poked a finger into the portal.
Now, ignoring the fact that portals cannot be placed on a moving object (IE: The crusher in the picture) We must think of it as a normal portal. Thus, it gives NO momentum.
Is the cube moving? No?
THEN WHY THE FUCK DO YOU PEOPLE EVER THINK B IS AN OPTION!
>>344880482
but since we have no clue how portals would work in real life, comparing it to a hula-hoop is stupid
>>344871163
>>1. A portal can't move from it's original place
it's like you didn't play the game
>>344880681
Acceleration is the derivative of velocity. If velocity doesn't change, no acceleration. So if an object moving at 10 m/s portal'd 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 km and came out at 10 m/s, d/dt(10) = 0.
>>344880612
50%, because you've eliminated the third box from being an option?
>>344869806
If we use newton physics it will depend who is the main pivot. If is what we see, then A, if is the cube, them A, if it is the platform its B.
>>344880802
If the cube isn't moving, how did it reach the other portal?
>>344880702
Not the same guy you're replying to but I posted this earlier in the thread, portals simply don't conserve momentum or energy so trying to talk about this question seriously is fucking stupid
>>344875762
>>344875762
>>344875762
>>344880940
really makes u think ...
>>344880482
what if it did though
>>344877220
>I swear to fuck If you faggots actually believe they are possible you are beyond any help and should just slowly boil yourself
>>344880612
50/50?
You have 6 outcomes.
1. Gold ball from box 1
2. Gold ball from box 1
3. Gold ball from box 2
4. Silverball from box 2
5. Silverball from box 3
6. Silverball from box 3.
Since you know you have a golden ball, then it could be 1/3 scenarios. So there is only two possible scenarios. Box 1 or Box 2.
>>344880940
The platform the portal is on is "Moving" While against the rules of portals from the game, if we went with it the outcome is still the same.
thank you for ruining my twitch experience retards
>>344880713
>Any serious physicist might consider the two possibilities but accepts that neither can be proved to be right or wrong since these are physics breaking portals, who can say which parts of physics stays the same or not in this universe where portals are allowed
Yeah, it's possible that if portals were possible the universe might also work entirely differently
You can still debate which one of A or B makes more logical sense assuming portals work and nothing else changes outside of them
>>344880797
The box never moves. Never. It just falls because a hole went around it and place it in another room.
>>344880482
>>344880514
You guys keep saying the box doesn't gain momentum, but from the PoV of someone standing next to the blue exit portal, the box in A WOULD have momentum, specifically as it was moving through the portal. It wouldn't instantaneously teleport to it's resting point outside the blue exit portal, it would move from the orange side of the portal to the blue side of the portal over a period of time. Since it is moving over a period of time, this is momentum. Thus it has to have momentum in A,
>>344880802
The box enters the second portal with movement and there is nothing stopping it from continuing to move. The box is not teleported to the other side, it has to be projected outside as per laws of Portal.
>>344880853
No. We know that's how they work. Saying that "Portals dont work like that in real life" is stupid. That's how they work. If they existed, that's how we assume they would work too.
>>344881154
>The box never moves
Are you implying that the area outside of the blue exit portal is the same as the area in front of the orange entrance portal?
>>344881079
Does it still matter that the upper platform is moving, once the cube enters its portal? From the blue portal's POV, the cube is moving on its own, with no momentum. How is that possible?
>>344880913
>>344881050
It's 2/3
>>344880908
Velocity is the derivative of distance... v = x/s. Have you even graduated high school yet? If we look at the cube between the time frame it takes to teleport from A to B, it very well moves an infinite distance in a finite time, thus having infinite speed as to x/s.
>>344881163
Its stationary, the only force acting on the cube is gravity. Thus, no momentum
>>344881163
From the point of view of an ant standing on a hulahoop, somebody going through it would "LOOK" like it has momentum. But it does not. It's the Hulahoop that is moving.
>>344881154
It moves into space as it leaves the second portal, as it can only go through the portal with speed in the first place. There is nothing to stop it from continuing to move aside of gravity, air resistance and whatnot. There is no reason it would simply stop moving there.
>>344881021
Wormholes look similar, but are a different phenomenon. A wormhole bends space and creates a shorter path between two points. A portal creates a link between two points allowing for instantaneous travel between them.
It would be a very small B, so small you could call it A
>>344881306
But when an object goes through a wormhole, the distance it travels is essentially 0. That's the entire point of a wormhole.
>>344881229
assume being the keyword
its a video game buddy, we dont know shit about how portals would work
>>344881243
You are thinking about it wrong. The box does not move, the doorway moves. And since the doorway make you enter a new place, you just go in that new place.
>Speedy thing goes in
>Speedy thing comes out
A is right, I swear between this and "glass him" I think /v/ is full of retards
>>344881307
>the only force acting on the cube is gravity
An object can't go through a portal without any force projecting it inside.
>>344881306
the entire idea behind a wormhole in the first place is that it makes the distance between two things 0
the cube is not traveling anywhere
>>344881176
As per the laws of Portal there cannot be a portal on a moving surface.
Also stop thinking of portals as giant hallways you have to go through. Its instant, as the platform drops the box is sharing both locations at the same time. Until the platform is flush with the platform the cube was on? Nothing will happen. Once the cube is fully on the other side? Then gravity takes over and it falls over.
>>344881435
>The box does not move
The box is occupying a space. The space being occupied changes. That is the very definition of movement. The box moves.
>>344881317
But the cube MOVES when it leaves whe orange portal. If occupies different amounts of space over a certain amount of time, so it moves regardless of what sort of abstraction you may want to throw into this. If it it moves it has speed and momentum.
>>344881426
No, when an object moves an infinite distance from A to B it moves an infinite distance. That doesn't change even if it takes a shortcut, or disappears and appears on the other end (teleports)
>>344881427
But we use the rules of the video games. That's the fun of it. "Well portals dont exist so hypothetical scenarios dont work!"
>>344881264
Because perspective doesn't matter.
Only what happens to the cube matters.
>hoola hoop analogies
is this the new food analogy because it sounds retarded
Portals can't be placed on moving surfaces.
>>344881632
But it doesn't move an infinite distance. Portals make any two points in space directly adjacent.
>>344881457
The image shows the Orange portal platform in movement, aside from that not being allowed from the games standpoint, that is the movement and method of transfer in the image itself.
>>344881643
>Because perspective doesn't matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference
>>344881586
No. The box does not move. That's not how portals work. If a doorway go around you, you dont move, the door moves. Now, the doorway leading to another space would be working the same. You dont move, the door to an another space just make you go through it.
>>344881735
If you have a thing 1 meter from you, and the next moment the thing is at your feet, do you not think the thing has moved?
>>344881541
The box has to move at the very least its own distance once it leaves the orange portal, so it has to have speed. Nothing actually occupies the same space at the same time.
>>344881629
It occupies the same amount of space. Just two different locations at the same time. Portals are not hallways people.
>>344881426
>>344881523
A wormhole doesn't do that. It creates a shortcut between 2 points in spacetime. There is still distance traveled in a wormhole before reaching the other end, be it even a few feet. A portal is something completely different and goes against the laws of physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole
>>344881629
No. It does not move, it falls, because gravity affected his top side more than his bottom side and so he just went through the portal due to him falling up.
>>344881643
>movement isn't relative
>>344881824
If there was a wormhole connecting the space 1 meter away from me and the space right next to me, then not really. The object is now 1 m from where it began, but it didn't move very much at all, maybe a few cm.
>>344879179
This has to be the case, as otherwise surely you'd just coast the edge of the portal. Running in place.
This becomes even more obvious if you consider the scenario where you run into the stationary portal at a lower speed than the moving portal. How can you ever exit the moving portal when it moves faster than you do if A is the case?
>>344881838
No. The only speed the box has, it falling through the door due to gravity pushing it down.
>>344881784
Doesn't apply to an object going through a wormhole. When dealing with portals the forces acting on the object and ONLY the object matter.
>>344881873
>It occupies the same amount of space
Except it doesn't. Check >>344880797 It varies with time.
Once again, the box can't go through the portal if it has no speed.
>>344871207
this must be a bait
>>344881926
Not relative at what is being questioned here.
>>344881838
It has no speed. the only thing that has speed is the orange portal. Its speed is what pushes the cube through. The cube isnt moving at all, as i said the only force acting on it is gravity. When enough of the cube is outside the blue portal? Gravity will pull on it
>>344881950
Not a wormhole, a portal. If the object changed its position in space, it had to have moved. That's the definition of movement. If you consider things from the portals' view, as if the portals had their own kind of space, maybe you could say the object didn't move much. But in the space you and the object occupy, the object definitely moved, and gained acceleration.
>>344881816
>you don't move unless you willingly choose to move
Granted, this makes sense if you still occupy the same point in space, but the whole thing with portals is that something that moves towards you can actually change your point in space, which means you're moving, whether you want it or not.
>>344881816
Let's say the orange portal only goes down 1/4th of the box. That means 1/4th of the box will be on top of the blue portal. The orange portal then goes down another 1/4th, now covering half of the box. The 1/4th that was on the blue side is now replaced by another 1/4th, and the original 1/4th has to go somewhere, so it goes up. That displacement is movement. You can try to argue that the portal is a doorway all you want, but your argument is just ignorance and ignores the laws of momentum. Learn some science anon.
>>344881824
Without portals? sure
With them? Not necessarly.
For example, if you reach light speed, time stop existing. So even if you travel 50 years and appear 50 years in the future, the travel time was still 0.
>>344882185
>The cube isnt moving at all
Except that it literally moves through the second portal. The cube doesn't just materialize entirely on the other side, it has to move through the portal. If the top of the cube is just at the level of the portal and then a moment later it is much taller, it has moved.
>>344882324
>time stop existing.
"no"
>So even if you travel 50 years and appear 50 years in the future, the travel time was still 0.
So your speed and acceleration would approach infinity, just as with objects being portaled?
>>344882314
That's not momentum. The portal is not "cutting" stuff in quarters. It's just a hole to somewhere else.If you have a doorway going slowly over you, you would still be not moving. Even if the otherside of the doorway has a different gravity pull than you experience on the other side.
The cube is just falling up because 3/4 of his body is being pulled due to gravitational forces. It's not pushed by the movement of the doorway.
What I don't get is how people saying A seem to think the image in the OP is any different from this.
One of your main arguments is the box has no velocity/isn't being pushed/whatever
Surely it doesnt matter if the box isnt moving and the portal is or if the box is moving and the portal is not
If you think it's A, you'll also have to agree that it's A if the platform that has the box was the one to move toward the portal. It's literally the same thing, the only difference is perspective.
>>344882526
Time stop existing for you when you reach light speed. Everything is instantaneous, even if from outside the speed of light, you can still see time go on.
Items being portaled are not moved. Stop talking about stuff you clearly dont understand.
>>344882695
No, they do think it matters becuase "the box has no momentum" in one of the cases.
>>344882695
>cube at rest while a hole moves towards it
vs
>cube moving towards hole
If you think these are the same situations, you should kill yourself
>>344877548
you sound like a dumb science bitch
>>344882695
They don't understand the first thing about the relativity of movement. They literally think movement is some sort of astral property each object has, instead of the rate of change in the distance between two objects in time
>>344882695
Beat me >>344882787 to it.
>>344882695
>box has momentum
>box is what goes through the portal
tell me anon, in the OP is it the portal that gets launched out through the portal or the box?
>>344882790
>Items being portaled are not moved. Stop talking about stuff you clearly dont understand.
Great argument
>>344882841
You are still and a car runs over you.
You move with the speed of a car toward a still car.
Both have the same fucking result. It's the same situation.
>>344882810
A literal soothsayer >>344882937
>>344876997
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%27s_box_paradox#Solution
>>344882992
More like
Car with a hole drives at you but you go through the hole
>>344882663
Quit talking about doorways as if that has any relevance to the topic. If a doorway moves over you, your position in space is never changed. If a portal moves over you slowly, your position in space IS changed slowly. As it moves over you you occupy a new position in space. Each time it moves, part of your body is occupying a position in space that was already occupied. In order for this to happen, energy MUST be exerted, and you have momentum. Again, this isn't a fucking doorway...
Where do you people even get the doorway from anyway? A door does not create a link to new area of space, it just separates an already established space. Portal = doorway is about the most idiotic metaphor I've ever heard in my life.
>>344882695
Do you know that if the earth stopped moving right now without any slowdown, every single thing would be thrown at 700 meters second to the east? That's called momentum. The box moves, and when the platform is stopped it goes on to the otherside of the hole and keep going.
OP image is the HOLE going around the object. Imagine a hulahoop, if you enter a hulahoop, you dont get thrown at the speed of the hulahoop, you just keep standing there.
If the hulahoop had an entry to another space, then you would just "move" through the other side, without moving. Because the door is moving, not you.
Think of it like the ship of Futurama. The ship does not move, it just move the universe around it.
>>344882073
Seems we have an expert here. Please, tell us how you know so much about the properties of something that doesn't obey the laws of physics. Also, why do you refer to portals and wormholes as if they were the same thing?
>>344869806
C. The portal doesn't work on moving surfaces
>>344869806
If the entry and exit points were overlapped, would you collide into yourself?
>>344882857
Movement requires energy. Energy does not come from nothing. An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an another force of differing force.
>>344883389
>An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an another force of differing force
In this case a fucking portal coming in your direction.
>>344883058
I have seen this thread so many times it's fucking tireing. It's B and there are a few concise arguments:
1; The game is internally inconsistent about the rules for portals. Thus checking how portals behave in-game is pointless.
2; Momentum is relative to reference frame. In the image the portal is moving from the reference frame of the ground. But from the reference frame of the portal the box (and pedestal) is moving
3; The portal acts like a doorway, but the analogy fails when the front and the back of the portal aren't stationary
4; There are already several thought experiments in this thread that shows it MUST be B.
Basically, either portals are internally inconsistent or it is B.
>>344883389
No see, portals don't obey the laws of physics so they do whatever I want them to do.
>>344883179
IT IS a fucking doorway. That's what portals are.
Doorways to other locations. By opening it you simply have a hole connecting A to B. There is no travel time, or what ever between both holes. It just connect.
When you teleport something, the thing does not move, it's just in another place.
>>344883481
This
I'd just like to call everyone here and request that we stop applying the logic and physics of a fucking hole to a portal.
And if you think a portal is literally just a hole, I'd like you to leave this thread and stop contributing
>>344883465
how exactly is that supposed to be transferring the energy from the portal to the box?
>>344883389
Well, we're lucky, because the moving platform carrying the portal has tons of energy to spend.
>>344883289
It does. Ending of Portal 2 have moving portals with lasers going through them.
If portals could not move, then they could not be applied to anything since the EARTH move on it's axis in space AND around the sun.
So yeah, they can.
>>344883465
Nothing actually touches the box though.
There is nothing that transfers energy to the box, the portal that it goes through is as has been said like a doorframe, a hole.
>>344881154
It moves you fucking retard. I'm sure that if you put your face just beneath the portal you'll get fucking punched in the face by the cube kinetic force.
>>344883559
By making it traverse the portal. Do you think transfer of energy can only happen through colliding?
This thread's like a horribly long and inefficient way of accidently teaching people about Galilean Relativity
>>344883556
Can you prove it's not a hole? Since that's what the game tell you they are.
>>344869806
A is right because the box doesn't have any kinetic force
Basically, this: >>344869883
>>344883559
>>344883634
The portal throws you into a different location. The portal moving through you moves you into the new location. This has already been even illustrated here.
>There is nothing that transfers energy to the box
The portal can't change the location of ANYTHING if it doesn't transfer energy. It's part of the nature of the portal otherwise it simply can't exist.
>>344883475
Yes yes I agree. But the most amazing thing is that people who initially think it's A seem to have a fascinating ability to conjure up all sorts of dumb paper-thin "laws" and theories to support their view, I've never seen somebody convert from A to B in these threads. It's incredible how stubborn morons can be.
>>344869806
Why would it be B?
Look at it this way: what kind of forces are applied to the Box? Is there a force to make it move?
Answer: Yes. As soon as the Portal drops down on the Box, the gravitational pull would tug at the part to be shoved through the portal first.
The moment it's through, it will just drop down to the ground.
There is no kinetic energy applied to the Cube, the kinetic energy in this example is the one of the piston with the orange platform. There are no forces to influence the Cube, so how should it be sent flying? I don't go flying either when walking through a doorway, and a portal is essentially that: a doorway.
Now, in the short span of time the piston with the orange portal crashes down onto the platform, the box gains relative velocity to the piston, but that's not the same as momentum.
The answer is A.
>>344876051
Then yes, some kinetic energy would be transferred from the crusher thing into the platform and then into the box.
But it wouldn't be enough to make it FLY out like in picture B. It would still plop out like in picture A.
>>344883698
No you would not. The kinetic energy is not transfered to the cube. You just change the space around the cube, not the cube itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TZd95BCKMY
>>344883779
>the box doesn't have any kinetic force >>344880797
How does something move without kinetic force? Because the box has to move to cross the portal in the first place.
>>344883389
>An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an another force of differing force.
Or until it passes through a portal, because we already know portals can do that.
>>344883724
>game
Oh right I forgot we were talking about kiddy toys here
>>344883634
So you're saying that the kinetic energy from the relative motion between the references of the portal and the cube just vanishes?
>>344883716
Except given how people constantly get it wrong, nobody actually learns anything
>>344883559
Because portals do what I want them to do since they don't obey the laws of physics
Why are people so hung-up on portals not being able to impart energy? Clearly they can at the very least add potential energy to objects by overcoming gravity, which is how you could accelerate objects to high speeds by placing a portal above another one. You literally just imbued a TON of kinetic energy into a box
>>344883829
>Is there a force to make it move?
That's not the question to ask. It is a fact that it moves, so it doesn't have to be questioned. In both A and B it moves.
>>344883712
>>344883801
the box doesn't move, the spaces simply become linked
it's not actually moving, (except from the effect of gravity once the portal passes over it, which is far to small of a force to give an outcome like B) what is so hard about this to understand?
>>344883902
You move the space around it.
>>344883974
Sure bro. You clearly dont know how physic works and is just here to troll people.
>>344884053
It does not move. In A, it cross the portal and fall to the ground because gravity force him down the 45 degree angle.
It did not move across the portal, the portal moved the space around the box.
>>344883829
>>344884053
In other words, portals break the law "there has to be a force acting on an object for it to gain acceleration". With portals, no force is needed. We know this for a fact like >>344884053 said since we assume the laws of relative motion still apply, and we see that the cube has to come out with some kind of speed from the exit portal.
>>344884130
>the spaces simply become linked
Yes, and the portals link the spaces. The box still has to move through the portal to reach point B. The portal doesn't incorporate more than what is shown.
The fact that this bait remains so effective just goes to show how few people on /v/ have actually learned anything from their high school physics class.
>>344883974
>So you're saying that the kinetic energy from the relative motion between the references of the portal and the cube just vanishes?
there is no kinetic energy to the portal itself though. The portal is a hole, its a space. It can't have kinetic energy just as the space inside a doorframe moving towards you has no kinetic energy. The stamp the portal is attached to has kinetic energy, but that energy is not applied to the box since the stamp never actually touches the box.
>>344884264
>moved the space around the box
That is exactly the same as the box fucking moving
Guys, why do we argue about hypothetical physic with people who cant even solve highschool grade math problems?
>>344880267
how is it pushed?
>>344884130
>it's not actually moving,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(physics)
>motion is a change in position of an object with respect to time
>>344884462
Because portals do what I want them to do since they don't obey the laws of physics
>>344880771
At least that's something compared to all of you guys' retarded hypotheticals.
I'am dumb, it's A, isn't?
>>344884264
If the portals move space then the box acquires speed.
>>344869806
A you fucking retard
Did you not play portal?
>>344884442
Well we clearly don't have a high school level understanding of physics either, or we'd immediately see that this is a paradoxical situation that violates conservation laws and has no answer in the real world.
>>344869806
depends on how resistances work with the portals itself.
If you have to push your way through the portal (kinda like the idea of hyperspace and needing fields) and it isn't just a hole it could build force and snap out like B, but that's only if it didn't get crushed by force.
Think squeezing a marble between your fingers until it slips and sends it flying.
>>344884631
No. Again, the box do not actually move or change space, it just enter get the space around it changed.
>>344884718
Not really. Are you saying that discussion about Wurmholes are wrong because wurmholes break some other laws and theories?
>>344884718
>violates conservation laws
Physics isn't a bunch of divine forces enforcing random laws on nature. The laws of physics are induced FROM nature. Not the other way around. If we assume a portal is possible, which we can do, then we have to assume that also the laws of physics need to be different to those we have now.
>>344884762
>the box do not actually move or change space
>it just enter get the space around it changed.
So it changes space.
>>344884462
Garry's mod portals dont behave like portal portals.
>>344883483
>IT IS a fucking doorway
No, again a doorway does not have any influence on space, other than occupying space. A portal influences space in a way that is much more complex than just occupying it. A portal is not a doorway. Drop the ignorant metaphor. It doesn't work.
>There is no travel time
Even going through a doorway, which you seem to want to use so much, you have a travel time. The speed at which you are traveling through the doorway, divided by distance traveled would give you a travel time. So in OP's example; speed of orange portal / size of box = travel time.
>When you teleport something, the thing does not move, it's just in another place.
A change in physical location is movement. Look up the definition. If something is teleported, each atom is moved to a very specific location, replacing the atom that is already present, which SHOULD be air in a perfect scenario. That means the item being teleported does not displace itself at the new location, thus no momentum is created.
Teleportation, and portals, are two separate phenomenon, and are not good for comparing.
>>344884848
But they don't. Wormholes fit our current understanding of physics. That's why we think they could exist.
This portal situation is a violation of basic classical mechanics that we have no framework to explain. Why do you think no one in these threads can actually produce the math to prove that their answer is correct? If it can be answered it should be as simple as drawing a couple of vector diagrams.
>>344884920
No. The box occupy the same space it did before. It just occupy it elsewhere. Again, a portal is a doorway, if you have a doorway around you, you dont change your space, the space just goes around you.
Let say we lift a house around some flying person. We can make the person go in any room they want, without the person actually moving. Because space is moving around them.
>>344885070
Portals are simply portable wurmholes.
>>344884890
>then we have to assume that also the laws of physics need to be different to those we have now
Exactly. Which is why until we can actually observe the result and discover the laws that govern this situation, there's no way to answer the question and we have an eternally effective bait topic.
>>344885120
>the same space it did before
>elsewhere
Please stop.
>>344885231
But they don't behave like a wormhole in any way. A wormhole would be a three-dimensional form.
>>344885070
Again, the laws of physics aren't some entity that says "portals can't exist". It's just what we've deduced so far of how the universe works. Portals break some of those deductions. But those deductions don't rule out portals, the existence of portals would simply mean what we have deduced so far has not been completely right, and has to be changed. Physics simply states the existence of portals is unlikely, but it's not impossible portals exist and our physics is wrong.
>>344885232
This this this this a million times this
>>344869883
>I try to act like im smart but im an inferior mongoloid: the thread
THE FUCKING BOX IT DOESNT HAVE ANY MOMENTUM IN THE FIRST LOCATION, SUDDENLY ITS MASS IS MOVING AT HIGH SPEED IN A NEW SPACE, WHY THE FUCK IT WOULD SUDDENLY SAY "meh, all this relative movement, i wont move because /v/" ANSWER IS B.
U BUNCH OF 9yo WITH NO FUTURE
U BUNCH OF BASEMENT 40yo VIRGIN LOSERS.
>>344885307
If you cant understand that concept, then there is no point in discussing it. It's really that simple.
>>344885232
We can assume portals are possible, and everything else remains the same. So the new laws of physics would essentially all become like "F = ma, except with portals". That doesn't really break anything, it just means the laws had to be updated to match the new situation.
>>344885381
Portals ARE 3 dimensional. Just flatter, but they still have 3 axis.
>>344885448
It does not move to a new space at high speed. Space move around it at high speed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou6JNQwPWE0
>>344885449
>the object is not in the same XYZ coordinates it was before, but it still occupies the same XYZ coordinates
This is you.
>>344885517
So how do you reconcile the fact that the cube is moving relative to one reference frame and stationary relative to another, but those two frames are stationary relative to each other? Where does "except with portals" actually come into the equations?
>>344885627
The item change area, but it does not move to that area.
Think about Teleportation. You dont move, but appear somewhere. You dont create a vaccum or move air around the object when you move a cube through a portal. You just insert a new space around the object.
>>344885591
>Space move around it at high speed.
This is your theory of how portals work, doesn't make it fact.
https://www.destiny.gg/bigscreen#
anyone watching this...this guy is breaking it down
>>344869806
It has to be A in the game cause you shoot a portal on the moon (a different reference frame) and A occurs.
In real life there is no answer. A violates Einstein's theory of relativity and B violates Newtonian physics. Normally these would reconcile but they don't cause portals aren't real.
>>344885903
Just go play Portal 1. All the scenes with conveyor belts . Or Portal 2, same thing.
You go through portals who are into walls, and the moment your feets leave the conveyor belt, you dont move.
Wanna ask Gabe Newell?
>>344885862
>change area
>not move
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(physics)
motion is a change in position of an object with respect to time
motion is a change in position of an object with respect to time
motion is a change in position of an object with respect to time
motion is a change in position of an object with respect to time
MOTION
IS
A
CHANGE
IN
POSITION
OF
AN
OBJECT
WITH
RESPECT
TO
TIME
TELEPORTING
IS
EQUAL
TO
MOVING
>>344885862
>Think about Teleportation
It's not as the box moves outside the portal.
>You dont create a vaccum or move air around the object
The box moves air when leaving the portal. The portal does not incorporate the areas outside of the blue/orange circles.
Also, the portals pretty much link the air from both locations, so you DO move the air either way as you do from moving from a place to another even without portals.
>>344885762
Honestly I'm not smart enough to tell you that. Maybe it fits in equations, maybe it doesn't. But however, is it even necessary for portals' existence that they make sense according to the human logic and math? Can't they exist regardless of our equations? Maybe they'd be totally inconsistent and incomprehensible, but still work. Think quantum physics - it doesn't really make sense to us either, but it still exists. Same could be possible with portals.
>>344886045
Except it does not move according to the space time. It just change areas. Look, if you cant discuss without yelling like a monkey in a rage fit, just go away and drink some tea or something.
>>344869806
No. Think of it like carrying a window frame and pushing it towards an object. When it passes throught the window frame, it doesn't go flying out the window. There's no force on the object, only force on the window.
http://overrustle.com/twitch/destiny live discussion bois
>>344886139
No. It does not move air, because the portal simply connect both. By moving the portal around the box, the air molecules dont actually move as there is no impact or kinetic force.
>>344869806
The portal can be visualized as a tunnel with zero displacement between each end but with each end having different inertial reference frames.
This is physically impossible and violates our current model of physics. So there is no answer.
>>344886224
No, see portals aren't like windows because they don't obey the laws of physics. Thus they do whatever I want them to do
>>344886223
>Except it does not move according to the space time
Yes it does, a moment it's there, another moment its elsewhere. We can't discuss HOW it does that, but you can't change the fact that it provides motion through whatever means.
>>344885393
The existence of portals shouldn't actually have any influence on physics. Physics should also not discourage the existence of portals. If there is "research" to say otherwise, I wouldn't mind reading it.
>>344886173
What I'm saying, maybe logic as humans understand it isn't the defining "force" of the universe. It would only make sense that there's phenomena that are so complex we can never understand them.
>>344886336
>because the portal simply connect both
That's the point. The portal connect both locations, you still need kinetic force to go through the portal. The object does not pop at the other side, it gradually moves outside the portal, so it dislodges air molecules.
>>344886173
I think you're missing the whole point. I'm not saying they couldn't possible exist. We agree on the fact that they could exist, but that our current physics can't explain them. I'm saying that since our current physics can't explain them, we can't answer the question in the OP using our current physics. We also have no means of updating our understanding of physics to explain the situation until we can actually observe it.
Also, quantum physics can be explained just fine, it's just complicated.
>>344886008
>Taking this question seriously
The question is just unanswerable since portals break the laws of physics
>>344886382
You can be in both place at the same time. Being "inside" the portal, just make you be in both areas at the same time. Because it's now a singular area.,
>>344886498
Which laws of physics do portals break?
>>344886547
You can't be inside the portal in the games.
Imagine if you were standing by the blue portal and looked into it. You would see a cube moving towards you at a constant speed. Would you be able to tell if the cube was moving towards a stationary portal or vice versa?
The relative speed between the cube and the orange portal is all that matters, whether the one or the other is moving is irrelevant. It's all relative.
>>344886697
What? Of course you can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWu88y1gFHQ
>>344886652
Conservation of momentum and energy, I guess it's possible that the mechanism that might allow a portal to exist will also allow for these things to continue to be conserved, but in that case whether or not it will be A or B depends on that mechanism, which for us right now is unknowable
>people unironically trying to argue portals are physical possible given our current model of physics
this bait has reached fever pitch
>>344886547
When two portals are connecting two points in space, you will also have to split your body into two different entities. Unless you want to imagine space as some kind of moebius nightmare or something.
>>344886652
Read the fucking thread.
>I'm a faggot, tl;dr me
Cube is moving relative to reference frame A, stationary relative to reference frame B. Reference frames A and B are both moving relative to each other and stationary to each other at the same time thanks to the portal. If no laws of physics are being broken you should be able to solve the problem with a couple of vector diagrams, it's basic mechanics.
>>344886867
It's more like a Klein bottle. But yeah. Both areas are both in the same place and at different places.
>>344886780
You aren't inside the portal. Half of you is outside of the blue portal, half of you is outside of the orange portal.
>>344886780
I always wondered how the portal corners behave.
Do they cut everything or they are "round"?
>>344886487
>we can't answer the question in the OP using our current physics
Yeah I very much agree with you on everything else, I'm just proposing maybe we can still fit the idea of portals into our physics without altering anything not directly related to portals or throwing it all out of the window at once. You might very well be right, maybe there'd be too many complications if you just tried to shove portals in our current models. But maybe some of those complications could be included or ignored in the context of this thought example at least.
>Also, quantum physics can be explained just fine, it's just complicated.
We've fond models for it, but it doesn't make "intuitive sense" with the way our minds work
>>344870505
This is objectively correct and as simple as possible. Thread should have ended here.There's no point since the fucktards have their blinders on; they won't be able to understand
>>344869806
Portals don't exist nerd
>>344880612
trick question, it's 2/3
there are 3 possible cases:
>1. gold ball 1 from box 1
>2. gold ball 2 from box 1
>3. gold ball from box 2
you only lose in the third case
>>344887082
No. Portals are 2D holes that lead to the 3D plane. If you were cut in half, then you would be dead.
>>344887097
Well there is no actual corners. You just cross to the other side.
>>344887097
They probably just repel whatever attempts to approach.
So?
>>344887252
No, it's a very complicated way to masturbate.
>>344887003
Except what I'm saying is that there are now two (You)s (or at least, two parts of your whole), in two different places in space. After you're completely out of a portal (one part moves in, one part moves out), you only occupy a specific point in space. And if you were not in the same point in space you were before entering the portal, you moved. That's it.
>>344887205
Wurmholes might
>>344887113
>but it doesn't make "intuitive sense" with the way our minds work
Nothing does when you're talking about scales we can't observe. That doesn't make it some kind of pseudoscience.
>>344887252
No, it's just masterbation
>>344880612
2/3
>>344887113
>included
Was meant to type resolved. Tired.
>>344887213
>Portals are 2D holes that lead to the 3D plane
That's the fucking point. You can't be inside of a 2D thing.
>If you were cut in half, then you would be dead.
But I never said you were cut.
The question has no answer because the portals are two different frames and are trying to act like one
In the left portals frame the box is moving, it is not moving in the right portal frame. Its not possible to answer what happens
>>344887213
you know what i mean, the edges
>>344887226
that would be an option too.
going through a portal does not magically impart energy onto the cube
>>344887370
If you are inside an infinitely thin doorway, so that to be in both side of a wall, you are still inside the doorway. That's what the portal is. It's not ACTUALLY 2D. It just 2D for pretty much anybody trying to see it. Like a Screen.
>>344886928
>Cube is moving relative to reference frame A, stationary relative to reference frame B
Huh, where the fuck are you coming up with this? What are you trying to consider A and B? Either way, the cube is not moving until it enters the portal.
>If no laws of physics are being broken you should be able to solve the problem
You can only solve problems when you have all the variables. You don't have all the variables unless you know how the portal works. Not having all the variables does not mean you are breaking the laws of physics. Please try again... Give me an actual law of physics that CAN NOT work based on the existence of a portal.
Haha what a bunch of limpdick nerds. While you chumps are sitting here arguing about fucking holes in the wall (LMFAO) im out here fucking chicks unlike you lonely geeks
>>344887443
Well that's the thing. Let say you walk toward the "edge" of a portal, you would just get blocked by the surface it's on.
>>344887252
Now THIS is the real ambiguous question!
>>344887309
Well obviously, sorry if that's the impression I gave. The quantum world just like our regular world has been observed to obey different laws, and physics is the modeling of those laws. The difference is that the laws of quantum world are very opaque to humans. I still wouldn't rule out the possibility that there might be things that don't follow any observable laws at all.
>>344887303
Can Wormholes move?
>>344887665
How is it ambigeous. You just masturbate yourself. It's like being an acrobat and sucking your own dick. It's still just masturbation.
>>344887513
>Place portal on floor
>Place portal on ceiling
>Drop box into floor portal
>Box suddenly has more Gravitational Potential Energy
Are you fucking dumb?
>>344887747
We dont know because we dont know if they exist. In theory they could, and since the universe moves, then yeah they would need to.
>>344887765
so basically this thread is retarded because this can't actually be determined
>>344887762
I know, but for many it just looked like they jacked off a dude before them
>>344887765
What? The box do not gain energy from the portal, it just fall. Faster and faster. It would be no different from throwing a box from a building.
>>344887979
It gains gravitational potential energy, it does gain energy.
>>344880797
You're looking at it from the wrong frame of reference. If you throw a ball off of a cliff, the earth doesn't start moving upwards at 9.8 meters per second to catch it.
>>344887210
People get caught up in the multiple boxes when there's only one box in question You are holding one ball. It's either a golden ball or a silver ball that remains in said box.
>>344887765
you know what I meant cockmuncher, this thread isn't about the gravity side of things
>>344887921
Yes, portal break physics so trying to use physics to choose which of these will happen is stupid
>>344887979
Yeah it will fall faster and faster, meaning it's gained energy from somewhere. Irl it gains it from gravitational potential energy so energy is conserved. The portal allows it gain GPE from nothing which breaks physics
>>344888178
The outcome is still the same, that's the point.
>>344887252
At first I was going to say no, but being gay means being attracted to the same sex. If he is jerking off through the portal because he is attracted to looking at a dick, even if it is his own, then in some sense he is gay, or at least bisexual. If he is doing it for some "lol epic" reasoning, then it doesn't mean he is gay.
>>344870505
This door picture is not very helpful for our question, because it essentially is two portals sticked together moving, so two moving portals. We need a portal moving and one staying still.
>>344888064
It gains energy due to it falling forever, yes. But it's not due to the portal, it's due to the fall. The portal simply connect the ceiling and floor.
Hello everyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fg5bOa7wiU
>>344881456
>comparing laws of physics to an Australian colloquialism
Fuck off.
>>344888336
No, when it hits the bottom portal and comes out of the top portal, it gains potential energy in much the same way if you carry a cube up a flight of stairs causes the cube to gain potential energy.
It's just when you carry the cube you're expending energy so energy is conserved. A portal does it energy-less so it creates energy.
>>344888252
>Irl it gains it from gravitational potential energy so energy is conserved. The portal allows it gain GPE from nothing which breaks physics
what if the energy going into making a portal determines how much mass it can move and how far it can move it?
>>344888303
So you're meaning that if i suck your dick just for being "lol epic" that doesn't mean i'm gay?
>>344888178
>the wrong frame of reference
There's not really such a thing as a wrong or right reference frame
>>344888252
No. The portal just create a hole that allow the box to fall without ever actually reaching a ground. It just keep the kinetic energy and build it up until it reach the apex to the wind pressure of the box.
>>344888484
Not really. The portal just allow the gravity to keep pulling it. Kinda like how gravity work in space.
Considering the moving portal does something to the air that goes through because of the movement, I think the cube gains speed in the same way
>>344883889
Ever heard about the concept "relativity" ?
>>344888252
>portal break physics
You can calculate what would happen if you shoot an arrow without gravity. If you shoot an arrow in real life, then gravity would change the outcome. That doesn't mean gravity breaks physics. Portals don't break physics. Why are people using the term "break"?
>>344887252someone should post all the porn they have of characters using portals to fuck themselves
>>344876997
I thought it was 50% too, but the numbers don't lie.
>>344888648
Yes, and it does it by giving it more potential energy by moving it higher up in the gravity well.
>like gravity works in space
Gravity works the same way everywhere
>>344869806
I don't even know how the fuck this is an argument.
Speedy things goes in, speedy thing comes out. The cube has no speed lines, thus A.
>>344888520
If you are sucking my dick for some reason other than attraction, then no you are not gay. If I rape you in prison, does that mean you are gay? No. Being gay means you are attracted to the opposite sex. It isn't any more complex than that.
>>344888197
so what is right? you look at it from choosing cases, I from choosing balls
>>344888842
Cube is very speedy in the orange portal's frame
>>344888252
Wait, so how do wormholes work?
>>344888750
Ok, allowing the existence of these kinds of portals means the laws of physics in that universe aren't the same as ours. That's what I mean by portals break physics
>>344888750
It breaks our current model of physics. In real life we would observe it to come up with an answer, since we can't it "breaks" physics.
>>344877445
But the atoms are being forced upwards by the other atoms of the box. They HAVE to go somewhere.
It can't just fucking stop, unless you're thinking of the cube as a simple object entity in a video game.
>>344880612
Get your ZTD shit out of here. Men are talking.
>>344888958
I think we should not get confused by the whole Wormhole concept because in this case this is no simple Wormhole I think. We have a moving entrance and a stationary exit to this "hole"
![db6ed65332cd41c3ac5c0411c3f7ed8d[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/N71SRxB.png "db6ed65332cd41c3ac5c0411c3f7ed8d[1]"){kind=small}
>>344888904
But you don't choose balls, you get a free gold ball which eliminates the all silver box which leaves you with either a gold ball or a silver ball.
>>344889212
That's besides the point, he's arguing that their positions can generate gravitational potential energy out of nothing, but wormholes could theoretically do the same thing and they're considered feasible in science
We need a fucking proper physicist in this thread
>>344879908
unless I'm misunderstanding you, you appear to be analysing everything correctly and somehow coming to the exact wrong conclusion
you understand or appear to understand that frame of reference is important, you correctly identify the issue with the "door" example, and then immediately turn around and say "so therefore the inertia vanishes"
>>344889282
There's a 2/3 chance the gold ball you picked was from the box that has the other gold ball
>>344889058
>you can't theorize what you can't observe
Tell that to Stephen Hawking.
>>344889203
>Problems that experts in statistics discussed for hundreds of years is less important than people not understanding Portals.
>>344889408
Stephen Hawking's proposals are based on observations. What are you talking about?
>>344889374
Wormholes that span across a great space in the universe are seen as potentially possible because on a cosmological scalethere is no such thing as the conservation of energy, pic related
>>344881643
>Because perspective doesn't matter.
I don't think I've laughed this hard in a very long time.
>>344889484
>implying our portal conundrum won't be hotly debated for millennia to come
>>344889552
fucking physics
>>344870196
OK physics rant here. The pedestal is being forced upwards relative to the second portal by the movement of the first portal. This means the portion of the pedestal that was pushed out of the second portal (B) got accelerated by the movement of the piston (A) to its velocity V. There is part of B thst is immobile and part that is moving, which implies there was a force applied, F = (mass of the portal)*V/T, where T is the time spent in between the two portals. The force was applied over an area equal to the cross sectional area of the pedestal.
Stress = force/area = (mass of piston)V/(TA)
The portal being thin forces TA to be small, so the stress becomes very high and would therefore likely rip the platform and box to shreds.
Tl;dr the platform would likely be destroyed by this movement, even for low piston velocity.
>ITT people who failed even the most basic high-school physics
>>344889597
What is that picture from
>>344889626
Not really. You just have to ask a physicist and you get the answer. Sleeping Beauty problem literally have no answer right now.
>>344889484
Yeah, but this exact thought problem is discussed ad nauseam in ZTD and there are still constant threads for that game, so it belongs there.
>>344871207
>>344870196
The blue portal is not transferring any energy to the platform. Thus the platform would retain neutral force and not have any energy to transfer to the box.
>>344889670
Additional note: this motion does not violate conservation of energy or momentum, it just means the blue portal would have to be pushed by the piston onto the pedestal to force it to move.
portals were a mistake
This thread
This shit is literally possible ingame someone could just do this and end this all
>>344889765
Dieto
>>344889972
It's objectively A in-game. This is a "muh real life" argument
>>344869883
This.
>>344889380
There are 3 male genitalia, each genitalia contains 2 testicles. One male genitalia contains 2 healthy testicles, another set contains 2 sterile testicles and the final set contains one health and one sterile.
You pick the black dick because you're a cuck. You put your mouth on it. Your throat gets nutted in, it tastes healthy. What is the probability that the next nut from the same black dick will also be healthy?
Note: You're a cuck so you only like black dicks.
>>344874717
>This picture explains it best. The momentum is gained from the force of the platform pushing upwards as it exits the orange portal because at only during that even the box is moving in relation to its environment, it is otherwise stationary. The force on that platform of course being equal to the downward force on the blue portals platform.
I'm gonna go ahead and call you out on being a retard given that the box had no equal or greater force enacting upon it. The blue portal ate about roughly half the platform that the box was sitting on, which is why that same half of the platform is protruding upwards through the orange portal on the floor. Everything remained stationary save for the surface on which the blue portal is attached.
>>344889832
Let's say the portal suddenly stops in pic 2 midway. Imagine what would happen
>>344889765
Panty and Stocking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORCes7h8Nhs
>>344869883
First post best post
Why does everyone think the box would have any residual momentum from the force of the platforms colliding? By the time the platforms touch to create any impact force, the box is already through and clear. The only force, push, or momentum on the box exiting the portal is from gravity.
More importantly; what happens when you touch the inner edge of an active portal? Will it slice your hand off?
>>344889052
>allowing the existence of these kinds of portals means the laws of physics in that universe aren't the same as ours
No it doesn't. If a portal exists in real life, and our physics can be used to come up with a solution to how the portal works, then our laws of physics remain intact. The portal would have to create a solution that can't be explained with our current laws in order for the law of physics to be different, which isn't guaranteed to happen. Nothing is broken. There just lies a potential for something to be broken, which is entirely different.
>>344889058
>In real life we would observe it to come up with an answer, since we can't it "breaks" physics.
Actually, in real life we come up with a hypothesis first. We then observe the real outcome at our earliest convenience and compare it to what we came up with. Until we observe an outcome, the hypothesis remains as a theoretical answer. At no point does our discussion about portals contradict normal practices of science, or specifically physics.
>>344890060
>being this assblasted about being wrong
>>344890039
How?
>moon is moving ~3000km/h relative to earth at any given time
>chell doesn't immediately start flying across the surface at that speed in the opposite direction of the moon's orbit around the earth
After all, Chell doesn't suddenly gain the momentum necessary to keep up with the moon relative to the earth, so how does she enter the portal and not immediately become paper?
A portal is like an open window or a hole in the wall. If an open window frame falls around do you go flying?
>>344890381
No.though it could be sharp if the portal is thin enough
>>344890532
Isn't that a reason why A is correct? The inertial reference frame of the moon/earth has no bearing on the things going through it.
>>344890684
>Isn't that a reason why A is correct
No. If 'A' was correct, then Chell would be moving at the same speed she was on earth after leaving the portal, using the earth as the reference frame.
Since she was traveling through the portal at 5m/s at the very most, then she should be traveling 5m/s when up in space (again, using the earth, and only the earth, as a reference frame). Instead, she goes 3005m/s (3000m/s of which is from the moon)
>>344889832
>>344889832
Okay so lets say, the orange portal is on the wall, so the platform comes out horizontally.
Lets say you're standing in its current path.
Are you saying that when it encounters you it will... what? do nothing? stop? or will it push you away?
>>344890532
This, if A would be right there has to be a magic force which decelerates the cube, since the cube has to come out of the portal with a speed, otherwise everything would come out as paper out of any portal.
This magic momentum you A-Team guys don't see comes from the object spawning out of the portal. We have this dilemma BECAUSE the portal is moving
>>344889380
But it's not asking that. It's asking what the probability of getting two gold in a row is if you get a gold ball from the start. So that eliminates the s/s box, leaving you with the g/g box and the g/s box. Once you get one ball you HAVE to pull the second one out of the same box. So that means you can only choose one of the two boxes regardless of what's in it. So it's 50/50.
>>344891042
What? That make no sense. Moon has a gravity. You can walk on it.
Earth move in space too, and on it's axis. Gravity deal with all that. When astronauts went to the moon, they didnt go flying 3000m/s the second the placed a foot on it.
Because we have a thing called Gravity.
How about this.
There is a robot doctor and a disease which is known to affect 0.5% of the population.
The robot tells you that if you have the disease he has a 99% chance that when he scans you he will recognise that you have the disease,
The robot also tells you that if you don't have the disease, there is a 99% chance that when he scans you he will recognise that you don't have the disease.
The robot then scans you and tells you that you have the disease, what is the probability that you have the disease?
>>344869883
>What is the theory of relativity
>>344891275
something something Bayes Theorem
>>344890205
the platform would stop. your point?
>>344891397
Yes but the cube isn't stuck to the platform
>>344891245
In total there are 6 balls, 3 gold 3 silver
First pick each ball has a 1/6 chance.
You now see that it is gold ball which means you either picked up the ball from G/S box, or either one of the two balls from G/G box. So there is a 2/3 chance you're in the G/G box since the possibilities are
Gold ball one -> G/G
Gold ball two -> G/G
Gold ball three -> G/S
>>344891389
Who's a clever boy
>>344891259
>chell doesn't immediately start flying across the surface at that speed in the opposite direction of the moon's orbit around the earth
>across the surface
If 'A'-friends had their way, Chell wouldn't have the momentum to match the moon's speedy orbit around the earth. She would eventually be subject to a tasty meal of moon dust at ~3000m/s
But since A is objectively wrong, both in-game AND from a physical standpoint, she doesn't.
>>344891563
Yeah, I just did the math to put it rest in my head and you're right. Thanks for the practical explanation though.
>>344891397
>>344891461
To be more clear, this platform would stop midway, but since it just spawned out of it with this certain velocity and suddenly brakes, the cube has to start fly, depending on the velocity of the spawning of the platform.
Otherwise some magical power would hold the cube to the platform. Everyone on the B-Team tries to make this point on way or another
>>344891901
but the only thing that makes the platform and cube "moving" is the portal alone. both cube and platform don't have any velocity (or momentum or whatever you call it) at all. it's just like throwing a hula hoop to a stationary cube
therefor it's impossible for the cube to move if the portal suddenly stops
So what if, instead of having the blue portal placed elsewhere, it was placed pretty much right behind the orange Portal so it functions more as a traditional "doorway" of sorts?Can you even tell what I'm trying to ask with this picture because I drew it and I hardly can
>>344892262
>cube moves
>with no momentum
>n-time hulahoop analogy
sigh
>>344869806
Looking at answer A, you are saying that the box doesn't gain any momentum from going through the portal. That means the box would remain in contact with the portal, thus experience gravity from the orange side, along with friction from the gray platform. Assuming the friction is not great enough to keep the box in place, it would then slowly slide down the platform. Once it reaches the bottom of the platform, would the box even tip over? Since I don't remember all the calculations you would use to figure this out, let's just say it does tip over. Here comes your biggest problem, *plop*. This is a noise used to indicate that something made a forceful impact. If A was the correct answer, it would not result in a *plop*.
B is the only feasible answer given the choices present.
>>344870196
not a physics major but wouldn't the space around the pedestal and box be moved as well meaning there isn't any momentum?
>>344891360
No, the box simply has no kinetic energy.
>>344892538
Only from the same reference frame as the box, from the portal's reference frame it does
>>344892496
enlighten me then, smart anon
>>344892538
Then this box comes out thin as paper.
>>344892653
so you're telling me if I crash my car into the wall, the wall is moving at high speed from my perspective?
>>344893125
Not that anon, but yes, actually.
>>344892524
>what is gravity
>>344892538
>>344892994
The portal has to have the property of giving momentum otherwise it would spawn everything thin as paper
>>344890205
>>344891061
Let's say you keep coming up with convoluted physics puzzles to distract from the fact you recognize the flaw in your thinking. Portals do not alter force in any way. This is made explicitly clear in the game.
Yes.
The results wouldn't be any different if a wall was actually moving, would they?
>>344892538
The kinetic energy from the moving platform would transfer through the stationary platform and propel the box. Same as slamming your fist on a table can move glasses
>>344893125
Yes, further more, if you are moving at a constant velocity, you have no way of knowing whether it's you that's moving or the rest of the universe around you.
>>344893332
>what is gravity
A force that is equally working on it in both the downwards direction, and the bottom left direction. That means the gravity moving the box down has to overcome the gravity moving the box left, and the friction of the platform.
>>344893385
The moment the platforms slam together, the block is not on it anymore.
>>344892337
If this was a traditional doorway then it would not change your position in space. The fact that it does is what begs the question.
>>344869806
Replace the box with a human, the platform stops as soon as it reaches the persons waist.
What happens to the human?
>>344893357
But we have this problem because we use portals in way you can't in the game - moving
>>344893357
>>344893742
So don't come with the "muh ingame rules!" argument
>>344893657
Stepping through any doorway changes your position in space from the doorway's viewpoint.
>>344893289
>>344893513
>"it's not me who crash into your shop,from my perspective it's your window that came to me at high speed"
thanks, gonna say this the next time I crash into a starbucks
>>344892337
That's both portals moving, different and much easier situation.
>>344893891
>Stepping
Am I being bamboozled?
>>344893913
Or you could say the earth slowed down so much that you caught up with the glass.
>>344893696
the man still standing still on the platform?
Guys I'm going to solve this fucking problem once and for all, if you can't get why the door representation is wrong after this fucking image I'm making you should just know you're retarded. If the thread dies I will just make a new one to post the explanation.
>>344869806
A. Portals act like hula hoops. If I slammed a Hula Hoop over you at high speed nothing would happen.
>>344869806
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASUUN0W4_JY
>>344894053
Brainfart, if the hole in the door stepped through the same space you occupied, you would have changed your position from the door's perspective.
>>344869806
Anybody who says B has never played portal 2 co-op since this is literally a low level puzzle in co-op
>>344894223
>/v/
>playing video games
LMAO
>>344893835
So you want to discuss a scientific anomaly divorced from it's origin media? Did you use portals to move those goalposts, anon-kun? :^)
THE CORRECT ANSWER, and I'm surprised I haven't read this yet (I could have missed though(), is by approaching this with Newtonian physics that the test is INCONCLUSIVE because Portals break the fundamental rule that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. When an object goes into or out a portal, it is either creating or destroying potential energy, which means we cannot approach this by conservation of energy. We also do not have a finite way of understanding if the test will yield as an elastic, inelastic, or a third type of collision, so conservation of momentum is also out.
Portals are very clearly meant to be destroyed as soon as they move. The only reason for this is because these types of physics are impossible, in game and in the physical world.
Mathematicians are supposed to think outside of real-worlds rules (such as whatever the smallest possible form of matter is) which is why this problem should not be taken with certain constraints.
>>344894517
portals still break conservation of energy even if they don't move
fuck off
>>344894210
That's not what I said at all. I'm talking about absolute points in space.
>>344893696
>>344894084
No this is the paradox, there should be a force pushing him "up" or into the portal, yes even though he had no momentum, because his already pushed in part of the body all of the sudden stops
>>344894354
We already moved goal posts the moment we started discussions about moving portals. We are already outside of it's origins media
>>344894582
That's the motherfucking point. It doesn't work with our own physics.
The correct answer is that we have no idea how portals do what they do, and without that knowledge, any thought experiment that has circumstances without a prior verifiable example will remain speculation.
This picture is the equivalent of asking how hot would a "fire" need to be to melt the One Ring for it to be destroyed without using Mt.Doom.
>>344869806
A because the box has no momentum
>BUT THE TRANSFERAL OF THE MOMENTUM BECAUSE REASONS!
All of the momentum coming from the orange portal gets stopped by the platform the cube is resting on. Please stop B-ing retarded.
>>344894364
I suppose to make portals plausible in real life you would have to imagine them requiring energy to be kept open. Also perhaps the more mass-energy that travels through a portal the more energy that is required to keep it open.
With the above it would be B since we still have the weak equivalence principle.
Really the difference in opinion is based on how you imagine portals bend the rules of physics.
consider this
>>344893913
Hey man, you said perspective.
Technically we're all traveling hundreds of miles per hour through space, but from our perspective we're just spinning.
>>344895254
But 40% the speed of light is 268246651.3064 mph.
>>344895254
bait
>>344895254
You can't make anything faster than the speed of light. So the Bethesda logo would be stuck at 99.999(etc)% the speed of light.
Also if that box hits anything we'd all be fucking dead.
>>344895526
yeah, and? make it 0.0001% the speed of light and multiply the portals by 400 000
>>344895678
using a large enough series of portals as he has here you could conceivably accelerate something to the speed of light
>>344877220
okay, cuck. doors are portals
>>344895935
What about physics?
>>344895852
Ignoring the fact that now we need 400,000 portal pillar things, they would have to all be in motion at top speed when the cube goes through them.
So just consider the last pillar. The cube coming out of it will be moving at 99.999% the speed of light. How could you feasibly rig those portals up to all be moving at their top speeds when the cube makes contact? They'd have to be miles apart from each other, and start in such a perfect sequence.
Or is the point that we can hypothetically reach the speed of light with portals? Because that seems much less impressive.
>>344895935
Not portals, but that is what particle accelerators do.
Light speed limit is an asymptote, you can get closer, but never reach it. I can tell you why if you want.
>>344895935
You cant. Nothing with mass can go to light speed. That's why only light can go to light speed. You could go "near" light speed.
>>344894997
/thread
>>344895254
I did the maths, from the portal's reference frame the box is moving at a mere 0.909090909... times C
>>344895041
Momentum is based on mass and speed. The speed here is the relative speed between the orange portal and the cube. From the orange portal's frame of reference the cube is moving, not the portal.
>>344869883
This
>>344869883
This. It would have enough force to cause it to pop out of the portal a few inches but that's it.
>>344896364
on the other hand you could travel from point A to point B faster than light would, yet not travel at or beyond the speed of light.
>>344896826
Bending space is different from moving from X to Y. Bending space just make X and Y the same space.
>>344897019
Or have a medium that slows light down but doesn't inhibit you Mr Neutrino
>>344869806
Answer is A. The easiest way to understand why - remove portals. There is just a hole instead of portal. Will box fly thru hole or just stays? Answer is obvious.
>>344897610
You are only thinking with stationary portals
FUCKING THERE
DEBUNKED ONCE AND FOR ALL
>>344898054
bait, if you blow wind at it fast enough it could
>>344898054
I guess so
The treadmill would need to accelerate accordingly though
Portals are like doorways - they don't make anything go faster, they just take them through a wall.
Imagine the orange portal replaced with a door frame. It doesn't propel the box when the box goes through it.
The choice is A, right?
>>344898115
Oh, thank you, I thought I had to identify every store in the third world
>>344869806
Both are wrong.
>>344898354
I actually fucking burst out laughing
>>344869806
I have no fucking idea.
>>344897610
you cannot compare it to a hole because a hole is both the entrance and exit at the same time while a portal is not. See: >>344898115
I'm going to post that image at the very start of each of these fucking problems from now on
So despite all the caps, the abuse hurled at each other and the trolls fueling the "discussion", I'm actually finding this to be a decent concept and interesting read.
My 2 cents: I think what some people here are missing is the concept of relativity. If the box was the only thing in the universe then it could have no momentum. The concept of momentum remains meaningless until we introduce another element into our hypothetical universe and describe the distance between the two objects to be changing. In this binary situation both objects would possess the same momentum. The rate at which this relative distance between objects changes over time is what we think of as movement. If we then add all the other matter that exists in our universe to this example the concept doesn't change, it just becomes more obscured by all the complexity. I run at a wall. Is it me that moves and the wall that remains still? Seems obvious maybe but less so when you consider that the "stationary" wall is actually travelling at great speed around the earth. It's wobbling on its axis orbiting our sun which in turn orbits our galaxy, which travels at immeasurable speed through the universe. The simple answer here is that relativity is everything when evaluating movement.
In the experiment the box exits the portal at a speed relative to the rate at which it is being consumed. It approaches the portal from one side at a set speed and in the absence of anything obstructing it, it departs from the other side at the same speed. Remember in this experiment the portal is like a window or an open space.
What's really interesting about this is that one "side" of this portal is moving relative to the cube but the other side is stationary relative the cube (which presumably exists in the same universe). Does this imply a further distortion of space beyond a static portal? A stretching of the fabric of space? And what happens if you suddenly halt the platform as it has halfway engulfed the cube??
This is like a perfect troll question, its not just deceptively difficult like the Monty Hall problem or a False Positive paradox (Super-Aids). It's quitely unanswerable but that's not obvious enough to sotp people from giving it their best shot
We can't even argue over which one makes sense because that particular example illustrates something impossible regarding the laws of physics. Even tho wormholes can (and probably does) exist, their entrance/exit HAVE to be parallel to each other, because otherwise, an object's momentum wouldn't be conserved (momentum is a vector, for it to be conserved, it needs to have the same amplitude AND orientation. having your entrance and exit at an angle prohibits the orientation to be the same)
>>344870196
if you claim this to be true, then the pole which the box sits should snap as soon as it enters the blue portal
>idiots into physics smhfampai
riddle me this atheists
>>344898634
you're talking about high-school physics like it's some sort of elusive mystery. >>344898115
>>344898724
I really hope one of you guys reading this shit is a physics teacher and you steal this goddamn problem for an assignment because holy fucking shit
>>344898886
you're a retard who thinks other people are retarded for not being as retarded as you.
>>344869806
I think it'd be A, because I'd always thought it was like a doorway. Like that old thing where it's not teleporting you, but it's connecting two points as if they where next to each other.
>>344898973
cube would hit itself and stop the portals from moving.
>>344898354
kek good one
>>344898973
the box essentially crushes itself
the left side presses against the right and vice versa
>>344899007
>doorway
see >>344898115
>>344899058
atheist detected
>>344898991
>hurr i call you retard for not even explaining as to why hurr
law of momentum retard. stationary box with 0 speed exits a door which suddenly gains speed? your mum shouldve swallowed you
>>344898991
Well I'm a physics student, I could email it to my lecturer who contributes to a physics Youtube channel with ~600k subs
https://www.youtube.com/user/sixtysymbols
He could help put it to bed
>>344899058
nothing stops the portals from moving, they have no surface against which the cube can press. The cube would simply crush itself.
>>344869806
A. Object going through isnt in motion, will just plop out the other end.
>>344898973
similar to
>>344898802
We can't have two portal facing each other, they need to be facing the same direction (and be parallel. Otherwise an object entering one portal would exit the other with an opposite vector for it's momentum, which violates the conservation of momentum.
You can't possibly place portals like this in this universe.
>>344899221
But the box has speed relative to the doorway it's entering, or else how could it enter the door?
>>344880702
You have Portal A, it moves, then in relation the universe moves in a way from the portals position, now you have portal B moving differently, from this portal's perspective the universe moves difeerently to A, they are in the exact same universe tough!
Portals break the law of relativity of velocity and as such also momentum and forces.
That#s why those questions are arbitrary. You can say that relative momentum does exist then the cube would just plop out, OR you can equally valid in the brokem portal universe say that it does exist, then the cube would fly out.
>>344899172
>>344899249
even if the cube is smaller than the platforms the portals are on, you would still have them stop at the same thickness of the cube
the alternative is the cube gets stuck in a zero-thickness wormhole and becomes zero thickness as well
>>344899221
it was literally explained why anon
it was even linked in the post you're replying to
I'll do it again for you because apparently not only are you too retarded to solve this problem but you're also too retarded to look 4 lines up and click the explanation. >>344898115
>>344898115
>>344898115
HERE IT IS
>>344898115
>>344898115
>>344898115
>>344898115
THIS IS IT THIS IS THE SOLUTION
>>344898115
>>344898115
DON'T MISS IT
>>344869883
/thread
Everyone else in the thread trying so hard is autistic and needs to go back to where they came from.
>>344899371
I don't think it has anything to do with wormholes, but I do agree that it would be crushed (by itself) to 0 thickness.
>>344899325
the doorway has speed and not the box. if the pole which the box sits on is actually going through the blue portal it would obviously flung the box out of the orange portal.
in retrospect, a portal is a wormhole that folds space. you cant put speed in a folded space
>>344870196
What needs to be considered here is that as the column exits the portal on the right, it's not actually moving- rather, the rest of the world is moving around it.
If you, personally, were standing on that platform, you would observe the world falling down around you as you appeared to escalate, but physically, no actual motion would have been done on your end.
The portals change position; they do not change the physical traits of the objects going through them, lore jokes aside, and that includes their relative speed.
"Speedy thing goes in; speedy thing goes out" correlates to "Inert thing goes in; inert thing goes out."
>>344869806
Wouldn't it be A, since it's still connected to the platform and it's just sliding off?
>>344894802
>We already moved goal posts the moment we started discussions about moving portals. We are already outside of it's origins media
The portals in game function on being a selectively permeable barrier that does not alter kinetic energy about the object. It only acts as a border between different environment. It altering kinetic energy would undermine the basic rules of the game. Flip the examples. If the platform moved through the portal then by your logic kinetic energy would have to transfer to the stationary portal which would put downwars force on the moving platform and squish the person going through the portal. It's nonsensical for the entire premise of portals.
If we're talking about "realistic portals" then were talking about wormholes which are theoretical phenomena and not objects. They are folds in space-time. Barring their bizarre gravitational implications, they too would not alter the kinetic energy of objects either.
So what are we actually talk about, anon? It seems like were discussing your fictional spinoff world to a fictional world.
>>344899450
no. >>344898115. /thread.
>>344899524
you said the same thing he did
>>344899583
>responding to OP as if you just came to the thread
>not a new IP
>>344899342
2000 hours in paint. Remove portals from the equation. If you throw this hole on the cube. Will cube fly away or stay where he is?
>>344899734
him
>box has speed relative to the doorway entering
me
>a portal is a folded space without speed, hence the speed of the incoming portal would not pass to the entering object
no, not the same. youre only understanding what you want to understand.
>>344899512
usually going to zero thickness is the point at which laws of the universe collapse unless you have a 4 dimensional space available to you.
normally its best to avoid all answers pointing to this, hence why it would be crushed by its own self but would also stop the portals at some point, this case being exactly 1 cube length apart from each other
now the zero thickness part has the same exact results, where the cube crushes itself and the portal platforms stop, but they stop at zero thickness instead of 1 cube length
same results, different outcome based on how much you account for laws
>>344899524
>talking about wormholes and their rules when you clearly don't even understand Galilean relativity
>>344898802
This is intriguing. So i'm unfamiliar with vectors. Is this a purely a mathematical concept? How does this relate to the distortion of the fabric of space? light has been shown to bend through the warping of space around areas of great gravity. Is this sort of alteration of momentum not applicable in a wormhole situation?
>>344898115
This assumes moving portals can impart momentum.
The "movement" of the object exiting the portal could be an optical illusion of space time being distorted.
Truth is, there is no correct answer without knowing how portals work exactly.
>>344900270
>>344899681
Oh and if we're talking about Wormholes, can they even move?
