So what's the verdict?

based

A fags BTFO
B fags BTFO
will they ever recover after this?

Attached: combo.png (500x275, 11K)

20%

4.3333% repeating of course

exactly

If you throw a hoop over an object the object doesn't shoot in the air after the hoop passes around it

a portal is a hoop with different exiting sides nothing more

Attached: 1521353259698.png (379x249, 36K)

67.232%

portals cannot move its like you never even played the game
in terms of physics its A

2/3

Correct, but what's your solution?

didn’t a portal dev already answer this

Attached: conjuction.png (512x512, 23K)

Attached: Only retards cannot solve this.png (512x512, 27K)

explain for idiots
I recall this being the answer and I have a vague recollection as to why, but can't remember exactly

>trying to bring politics into this

Attached: giphy.gif (500x270, 641K)

>This is the real life answer.
No, we've been over this. This is a cop-out. You can either say "portals are impossible" or you can take the premises at face value and try to follow them to their logical conclusion. But accepting portals and then dismissing moving portals by bringing energy requirements into it is just bullshit that avoids the entire problem.

The mistake everyone makes is trying to apple Newton's laws.

There is no momentum conservation when you've got portals. Momentum conservation requires, HARD requires, that your system is what's called "translation invariant," as in there are no special points in the system that fuck with your equations. Portals are exactly that, special points in your space with a degenerate distance between them that's either 0 or not 0 depending on how you enter the portal.

That doesn't mean that there aren't conservation laws at all, but you have to go into an even deeper theory to find them. Analyze the system with Lagrangian mechanics, and assuming you can construct a Lagrangian that doesn't suck for system with moving portals at different angles, you'll find the answer there. It won't be easy though, because the portals fuck with your geometry so badly.

The answer is that I fucking hate probabilities.

Monty Hall is a fun problem though.

>apple Newton's laws
Award for best typo I've seen in my life.

so you would prefer to break the laws of physics in order to answer a question that requires a physics explanation?

>you can take the premises at face value and try to follow them to their logical conclusion
Tell what the premises are.

>trying to apple Newton's laws
god fucking dammit

2nd dungeon, gold chest?
p1 knows the dungeon has no unique chests and tells p2
p2 knows its either in the 2nd or 4th dungeon (1 and 3 have leather/copper which are unique)
p2 says he now knows the dungeon and key
p1 knows it must be the gold chest because its the only unique left

That's already what you do in Portal, the video game.
Portals exist and they can move.

i'd explain how it works but i'm dumb phoneposting right now and it's too much text
that is all, gday

yes but it doesn't ask you to explain improbable hypotheticals

Probability of not hitting a crit at all: (1-0.2)^5 = 33%
So the probability of hitting at least one is 67%

Since the problem is "at least one crit" you have to determine the probability of "no crits" 0.80^5 (0.32768) meaning that there is a ~32% probability of no crits. The probability of any event is 1.0 so you subtract the probability of no-crit because you want to exclude those events. The remaining 67% or so constitutes "at least one crit".

>it doesn't ask you to explain improbable hypotheticals
Portals are already an improbably hypothetical. The game is about solving problems involving them and you do it intuitively.

no, the basic concept of portals are already explained to you
this question would basically be the equivalent of the game asking you to step through the door of which answer would be the correct one

EXPLAIN!

Attached: What the fuck.png (660x426, 22K)

but according to the text, 0 crit seems to be an impossibility
isn't this taken into account in the reasoning?

>no, the basic concept of portals are already explained to you
Yes, and you accept it and work with it instead of insisting it's impossible, don't you?

Its neither A nor B because the whole thing is a Paradox. An object cant be moving and not moving at the same time. The moment the cube entered Orange it would be both moving and not moving at the same time. Its all nonsense.

wait disregard that, just noticed I was referring to the other "crit" problem, the one with 50/50 and 1 guaranteed

>but according to the text, 0 crit seems to be an impossibility
How did you come to that conclusion? All the problem says is that your combo hits 5 times, and that each hit has a 20% of being a crit. You're inserting data that isn't there.

well when it doesn’t request that I explain why it’s impossible, yes

The bars might bend or break, or the cube might be crushed, but of course most interesting is if we assume both the cube and the bars are strong enough to resist each other. Does the cube hold up the orange portal? Logically, it seems like it should, but there is something odd about it.

/thread

>An object cant be moving and not moving at the same time.
With portals, it can, obviously. Just like how an object can't be three feet and thirty feet away from you on the same plane, but with portals, it can.

The cube does not fucking move in any scenario nor does the orange portal push the entire universe. All that's happening is you seeing things from the blue portal's POV.
It's literally just a space-time bending CCTV tube where one portal acts as a camera and another one as a screen.

Attached: 1415546060447.jpg (388x315, 28K)

Right, and no one asked that, so the answer "it's impossible and here's why" is a non sequitur.

Until it crosses over and the world in the TV screen becomes real.

this one, sorry

Attached: 1533406548751.jpg (747x387, 94K)

uhhhhhhh

Gravity is space being distorted too, would you say a falling object isn't moving?

that’s not the same case, though

The bars bend. If the bars and the cube are both indestructible then .... um ....

But it's comparable.

Yeah but portals only work because their rules are 100% clear for how we need to use them. This question asks for us to apply a rule that hasnt been made yet. Hence its not solveable. Portals only move once during the entire game and there its not even player controlled so we have no clue what the canonical rule would be.

Why hasn't anyone made Portal map to test this out after all these years is the most baffling thing

50%

DELETE THIS

I want everyone who knows the answer to take a good long look at the answers in this thread. These are the very same absolute cretins you waste time arguing with on here.

Because the game can't handle portals on moving surfaces like that
There was a video linked in the last thread showing it, the portal just pushes the cube down through the plate it's standing on.

Please see Youtube links in

that’s a huge stretch
I should also point out that solving problems in Portal only relies on the pre-explained video game physics, whereas this question is constantly attempted to be explained with both real life and video game physics

The rule from the game is speedy thing goes in, speedy thing goes out, which is also dictated by logic. If the cube doesn't come out of the portal at the exact same rate it went into it, then it will either be squished or stretched by invisible forces. So the only possible answer is the cube exits the portal as quickly as it entered. And at high enough speeds that entails B.

stop making these threads reddit
you got an official response from valve
how much more do you need

2/3.

You have 3 possibilities:
A. You drew the first gold coin from box 1 first
B. You drew the second gold coin from box 1 first
C. You drew the gold coin from box 3 first

2 out of those 3 scenarios result in you having box 1. Basically what it boils down to is that your chance of having picked box 1 is higher because you had a higher chance in the first place to draw gold for it.

What makes it weird is that the portal is affixed to a physical object when it really has no business having that kind of limitation. A pair of portals join two separate locations in space. Space and matter are intrinsically linked. Matter tells space how to bend and space tells matter how to move. The question is hard to mentally process because it short-circuits that relationship and asks if matter can "stop" space.

For the Afags to accept the truth.

>Afags 74% in the poll

They've got to be trolling, right?

>A fags going through literal hoops to explain their wrong answer with irrelevant comparisons and 9th grade physics

Elegant answer. I like it.

Attached: unknown-4.png (643x632, 81K)

50%

A FAGS FOREVER BTFO. HOW WILL THEY EVER RECOVER.

cursed picture

user you cant just singlehandedly kill an entire subsection of Yea Forums posts by posting a single image. Thats not fair.

It's actually neither, if the platform fits through the portal, which it seems like it does, then if the speed of the orange portal is high enough, the platform should have enough upwards velocity to keep it from falling off. B, in a way, but not quite

10/10

You still didn't answer

Attached: 1497119249461.png (519x843, 418K)

Nobody here understands relativity. When we consider relativity, you have to understand that when something is moving, not only is that object moving but anything that is “stationary” is effectively moving relative to the moving object.

Since the portal is moving downward, the block is effectively moving upward. This means that even though the picture is drawn such that the block has “no” momentum, the block has momentum relative to the portal. Thus, when the portal hits the block, the block will be flying out of the portal.

If you can truly grasp relativity and still believe that A is the answer, then you’re truly a brainlet who has no conceptual understanding of physics.

Based picture, but you can make it make sense for A aswell:
>Replace cube with person
>"oh no, my head is about to get ripped off once this portal covers me"

These answers are exactly why it’s B. The portal can’t move, therefore the picture must be drawn innacurately. Since the portal and platform are somehow getting closer to the cube, this must mean that the cube is actually approaching the portal at a high velocity and not the other way around.

Which means that when the cube hits the portal with a high velocity (and therefore a momentum), it would shoot out of the portal like in B.

I’d argue that they could possibly be strong enough to resist as they’d be trying to occupy the same space at the same time. The atomic forces that prevent that would get infinitely strong as the space between gets infinitely small until something breaks apart

A would only be possible if the blue portal was also moving so that their relative position from each other was constant. This is the real situation in which the hoop theory would be correct.

Yeah and when the portal moves, the whole universe moves relatively towards itself too.
It's kinda problematic, don't you think.

Should be 25%,
The crit guanentee only prevents a zero crit outcome, you still need to do a 50/50 twice, the only difference is there’s a 3/4 instead of 1/2 chance of only 1 crit

Yeah because a hole in spacetime is a hole in spacetime and there’s not really anything that could arguably move a fucking hole in spacetime.

This makes the whole picture moot

They try to occupy the same space and the fail, both are damaged proportional to their strength

This was meant for you

50% You either get a critical hit during a combo or you don't.

I know right. How do brainlets not understand probability. If i play the lottery, I have 50% chance of winning. I either do, or I don't. There are no other outcomes.

Sometimes 50% of the outcome doesn't happen 50% of the time.

I don’t like probability but you retards are on a different level of not being able to understand maths

>maths

No, there is a 50% probability that you were born retarded though.

That's why I need to boost my luck stat

i have hard time describing it to my brainlet friends but i guess they eventually got this.

So imagine this cube is 10 meter long pole.
Portal is moving towards it at 10m/s
So when the portal starts covering the pole, pole disappears in one second
And now, we know from in game observations (because we are talking about portals from portal game) that there is no "time debt" during teleporting, while you enter the portal you are on the other side instantly, there is no buffor between
Thus there is no buffor, an object that entered blue must immediately appear at orange end
So if the pole disappeared in blue portal in one second it must appear at the other side in one second, therefore if the pole moved by 10 meters in 1 second it has velocity v=s/t

so the question isn't how can moving portal add velocity to stationary object but what could stop the object that appeared on the other side while inertia force is still a thing.

AND
has momentum, p=mass*velocity
So we can assume when the portal stops halfway, pole can be sucked into portal if the momentum on the other side is big enough to pull off remaining mass
you A guys are very dense

sorry for my ESL english.

TL:DR
crucial thing is the object appears on the blue end by certain meters in certain time

If you consider relativity then both are right, thus both are wrong, thus portals are impossible.

Congrats you're both retarded.

and the only one good explanation which deny B is but we can ignore that because we are talking about portals in Portal game, and there are moving portals in this game.

This is false.
Here is the real answer:
youtube.com/watch?v=3fg5bOa7wiU
6 years now ;_;

Why doesn't the platform the cube is on go through the portal?

The best way to look at this is the chances of it not happening, which starts out at .80 and then decreases every hit.

.80
.64
.512
.4096
.32768

Are your probabilities of NOT getting a crit during each consecutive hit. It goes by
Probability of it not occurring to the n-th power where n is the number of events. Likewise if you wanted to calculate the probability of it happening EVERY time then you would do .2 and raise it to the nth power for every consecutive hit.

200%

We don't know how portals work, but we know what they do.

They do B.

ITT people desperately trying to validate their physics/mathematics degrees

What's to answer? It doesn't pose a question. It just says "moving portals don't exist". No shit. Non-moving portals don't exist either. Observing that doesn't make you clever.

>unironically thinking A fags are able to get physics/math degree
you are deluding yourself

Dude I literally posted this
And it took me like 2 minutes of researching online to figure this out. Stop being buttmad you’re a dumb nigger

I'm a maths teacher. Stop falling for obvious bait.

You do realize Earth is constantly moving at millions of mph in space, right? Any portal used anywhere "would" carry a movement relative to itself. The answer is still A because kinetic energy doesn't transfer through because of the portal, just what energy is native to the cube. Meaning, if both portals were on earth, nothing would change. BUT, place the second portal anywhere else in the universe and you'd be sent out at a speed relative to the rotation of the Earth, or wherever the other portal was located.

According to the game, B.

That picture is so ingenious. The fucking cube is not in both portal at the same time to start with. The cube is resting on the platform, not in the portal. The portal moving at a high speed carries velocity and energy, but if the dude was laying down on the platform and the portal was big enough to transport his whole body, he wouldn’t fly out if it crashed into him.

You might not have kinetic energy if you're not moving, but as soon as your head hits the platform that the orange portal is moving toward, you'll be nudged back through the blue portal. If the speed is fast enough, it will hurt.

1 is by definition more probable

That's B, m8. You're describing B.

This. They are condensed, and with enough energy, might be forced into a black hole, and explode due to hawking radiation if its mass is too small.

>this kills the b-fag

The cube _is_ in both portals at the same time, as you say, when the orange portal makes contact with it. That's what portals do. At that moment it will be exiting through blue portal, and it will do so at a certain speed: the same speed at which orange portal swallows it.

It's literally BOTH retard. A is what happens if you were on Earth, as it's relative. But if one portal was somewhere not relative to the momentum of Earth, Earth's kinetic energy wouldn't get canceled out when leaving the second portal. If portal B is on say, Neptune, you'd be shot right back through the Earth portal because of the higher wind speeds on Neptune. But go to something like Mars, and you'd fly out like in B. On Earth relative to each other, you'd get A.

How can you hit it if you are not moving according to you, though?

>bringing in other planets

That's not a 1:1 analog to the cube question though. The cube isn't being restrained so once it clears the portal the warped space no longer applies to it. If you hold your head there then you literally have less space to work with the closer the portal gets to the platform. The cube is under no such limitations. Your example is like if you put a concrete wall in front of the blue portal and ran the cube through it. It would obviously get crushed because there's less space for it to exist.

Neither because portals disappear when the surface they're in moves

Lol, this would be like sticking your head out of a moving vehicle and being surprised when your head falls off after hitting something.

Is this necessarily true in-game? Hypothetically the game's engine could be used to test this with a mod, right?

I think the cube actually makes the question harder. Remove it from the equation entirely and ask if you stood by the blue portal while the orange one is in motion, would you feel a breeze?

If the cube "doesn't move", it wouldn't plop out harmlessly at the other end of the portal. It straight up wouldn't go through the portal at all.

Dilate time a bit here.
Logically, the top of the cube must go through the portal a few miliseconds before the bottom.
If the cube isn't imbued with kinetic energy the top stays at the exit up until the time the botoom arrives. This makes the molecules overlap and flattens the object into a perfectly flat square.
It would make more sense for every new molecule going through the portal to push away the molecule that went through before it. If the transportation was quicker and more inches of the cube were forced through in a shorter amount of time, more inches would come out at the other side in a shorter amount of time too, giving it velocity.

Attached: hhhm.png (512x512, 88K)

Nobody knows the right answer because we don't know the physics on portals yet, everyone who thinks else is autistic or retarded

You can't move portals tho.

The concept of portal needs to be real for one to make an educated guess on this problem.
You can't be guessing the working process of the object being studied and still expect to get an answer.

B B BBBB BBB B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B. BB B. B B B B B BB. B. B B B B B B. B B B B B. B BB B B B B B B B. BBBBB. B BB B B B B B BB B BB B B. BB. B B B BB. BB B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B BBBBBBBB B B B. B B. B BB BBBBBB BB. B B B B B B B B B B B BBBBBB. B B B BB B BB BBB B. B. B B. B. B B BB. B. B. B B B B B B B B BBB BB B B. BBBBBBB BB B B. B B B B BB. BB

In real life speed is relative. Portals are moving along with the movement of the earth and solar system.
Although, maybe it's more that their speed relative to each other must be zero.

BBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB BBBB
BBBB BBBB
BBBB BBBB
BBBB BBBB
BBBB BBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB BBBB
BBBB BBBB
BBBB BBBB
BBBB BBBB
BBBB BBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBB

BBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB............. BBBB
BBBB ................BBBB
BBBB.................. BBBB
BBBB ...................BBBB
BBBB .................BBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB............. BBBB
BBBB ................BBBB
BBBB.................. BBBB
BBBB ...................BBBB
BBBB .................BBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBB

>state of btards

>9th grade physics
doesn't matter how educated you are in physics, you'd still be speculating over a non existing phenomenon.

Kinetic energy doesn't come into the equation in the first place since the cube isn't moving through space. Space is the thing that's doing the moving.

>the platform isnt moving towards my head
>you cannot create momentum, so its stationary!
How will A-fags ever recover?

Kinetic energy "not entering the equation" means it isn't imbued into the object.
But that would cause a contradiction, the cube would be flattened into a square, which isn't one of the options.
The only conclusion we can draw is that it DOES enter the equation, and the cube IS imbued with it, making it fly out.

A isn't positing that there are no forces acting upon the cube at all. It's just illustrating the end result. B is implying that the cube will soar through the air at the same velocity the orange portal is descending but that isn't taking into account the very real force of gravity that will immediately affect the cube as it exits the blue portal. Even if the portals WANT to make the cube go flying, it won't happen because the portals alone don't eliminate all environmental forces.

>typical a-tard cope
no lol if you read the thread there are so many retards arguing you cannot create momentum from a stationary object.
these are exaggerated outcomes you fucking retard the question is a) the cube wont be moving b) the cube will be moving.

The problem with A is that it breaks conservation of momentum locally. That is, if an object is moving, no force is acting on it and we look at just its neighbourhood that contains no portals, its momentum should be preserved.
Imagine that the portal doesn't stop at the pedestal, but also engulfs a small piece of it. What you see in the neighbourhood of the cube is only a pedestal pushing it upwards - will it stop when the portal stops? What if the portal engulfs 100m of the pedestal? What if it's 1km?

So you're saying the theory behind option A isn't the troll logic of "doesn't move", but a nuanced perspective of opposing forces?
Did it need a portal for that?

Here's the thing. Presumably this experiment is not happening in a vacuum so as the orange portal descends it is bringing along with it the air resistance outside the blue portal. As the air beneath the orange portal passes through it SHOULD create essentially a wind tunnel coming out of the blue portal. In other words, the energy is not exclusively going to transfer to the cube.

The cube won't be moving. But not because there are no forces acting on it. The forces will simply not be sufficient.

>A tard cope
so you do admit there is a force that is perpendicular to the surface of the portal right?

The problem is that we're trying to apply "normal" physics to abnormal scenarios. A LOT of "rules" fly out the window when you enter the realm of theoretical shenanigans.

This explains why it's B.

Attached: 1538905145923.jpg (809x509, 53K)

A-TARDS ETERNALLY BTFO
NOW COMES THE COPE

Dumbass there are ALWAYS forces acting on an object even when it's just sitting there doing nothing. The portal affects those forces because it changes the environment surrounding the object but it's not going to make the cube fly off the platform.

I literally dismantled your grade school science not a handful of posts ago.

Explain what counters the spike in the normal force acting on the cube? It's what sends it flying in B of the original problem.

do you know the speed of the platform?
The obvious basic assumption is that the speed is high enough to make the cube fly upon entering the portal you fucktard.

here you go op

Attached: thinkingportals.gif (500x364, 67K)

What happens if the portal stops halfway through the cube? Does the top half pull the bottom through or does the bottom half hold the top down?

B if the platform goes through the portal for a while

A

Except that’s not how that works. Gravity and air resistance will affect the tracectory but they won’t stop it entirely, the cube will exit the portal at a speed equal to the orange portal’s decent and then arc through the arc. The size of the arc is a different and irrelevant matter all together. What’s important is if the cube has any velocity when exiting the portal

No it won't. The cube doesn't instantly warp from one portal to the other. As the top half pokes out of the blue portal the downward forces of gravity are still affecting it's bottom half on the platform. The reason why this image causes so much debate is specifically because it's an illustration of two end scenarios with little concern for HOW those scenarios result. There is always a downward force of gravity pulling the cube to the Earth even when it's being "pushed" through the portal.

As far as physics is concerned, those scenarios are the same (gravitational potential energy notwithstanding)

Besides that, in scenario A you see the cube decelerate quickly with minimal outside force. B is right and no amount of half assed gifs changes that

>not knowing basic middle school physics equation
>velocity_1 = velocity_0 + acceleration * detla_time
>not able to understand it takes time for the cube to fall to the ground with sufficient speed
pathetic

Bars and cube are both slightly damaged, panel containing portal bounces off and lands somewhere nearby.

In B the platform pushing the cube upward is displacing the air and space around both the cube and platform. In A the air and space are not being displaced around the cube but are instead exiting the blue portal. That's the main difference and why A is correct. The two events are not environmentally identical.

The room is a vacuum.

It's about how one portal is moving relative to the other. If both portals were moving the same way then it would fit with the "hula hoop" model people talk about. Imagine if I walk through an orange portal that is stationary relative to the Earth and the blue portal is moving 100m/s. I'm obviously going to come out at 100m/s (relative to the Earth) because otherwise I would shoot out the back of the portal or something, it makes no sense

Neither because when an object that has a portal on it moves the portal disappears
anyone who who denies this has not played the game

If we ignore the blue portal and look only at the orange then you’d see the cube emerge at a rate of x m/s (ignoring surface area). Thus as it emerges ever particle is moving away from oranges surface at x m/s. That x doesn’t dissapear and the cube leaves the surface at x m/s and arcs down to earth

It doesn't matter. the portals warp space, not shrink it. In Scenario A the falling portal is warping space with the blue portal being the "exit" for lack of a better word. That isn't happening in Scenario B.

This doesn't make any sense. Why would air being displaced mean anything? And what does it even mean to "displace space"? Like said imagine it in a vacuum. The only difference between your gifs first scenario and your gifs second scenario is the camera's speed relative to the portal/cube

>If we ignore the blue portal and look only at the orange
Is that even really possible? The portals are essentially the same object if you think about it.

Dynamics is all about reference planes, a moving towards b is identical to b moving towards a from the view of a or b, no matter what the cube emerges form the other portal at x rate which is conserved when it stops emerging

But in this instance the pole isn't actually moving so much as it is given relative motion as it is passing through the portal.

While it is going through it has that motion (the motion granted by the first portal moving downwards, as soon as it's all the way through the portal, it is no longer moving and would just fall downwards. Essentially the space is moving, not the pole, and as soon as the pole is all the way through, the space has stopped moving and the pole is still motionless with it's regular, at rest inertia.

If the portal stops halfway, the pole won't get sucked through because it was never moving to begin with, the "backside" of the portal was moving.

The easiest way to think about this is just to put the portals back to back, since that is actually how portals work, like holes things. The portals are like the two sides to a window or door, just separated from each other. Picking up a door frame and dropping it around an object doesn't make the object suddenly launch out of the doorframe.

Attached: poletal.png (2390x1304, 67K)

You're not explaining anything. Just because you use vague terminology like "warp space" that nobody can deny because of how vague it is doesn't mean you've proven any point

Considering portals don't actually exist, how would we be able to guess which answer is correct?

This problem demonstrates why portals cannot exist. They break laws of conservation. The speed of light is the limit for a reason.

Both. The resulting speed would depend on how much mass was on each side. Would be sucked at half speed if the portal stopped at exactly the mid point. Stress would be caused on the cube.

They're not my gifs. I don't know what user that was. But the point is that the way space warps is inherently different in the two scenarios in the gif. In scenario A it's joining two points in a stationary location. In Scenario B space is being warped over a period of time. And since space tells matter how to move, the two results will be different.

All I know is, conventional kinematics says it’s B, it can be argued that portals fuck with that by definition, but that’s well above my pay grade

Are you saying it's the portals speed relative to each other that makes the difference? If both portals are the same speed the cube shoots out but if one is moving relative to the other the cube stays still? I don't understand how that makes sense at all.

Only the moving portal is warping space. The one that isn't moving the space remains unchanged. As the cube passes through it, it will have speed and mass in normal space, resulting in momentum that propels it across the room.

That’s because the orange portal is falling at the same rate so the net movementbetween them is zero

How else do you describe what the portals do? Space is being warped, bent, or whatever to link two points. If the portals remain stationary then the space has been warped and that's that. But if one portal is moving then space is actively being manipulated. An object passing through the portal in the two scenarios cannot have the same reaction because it's not the same scenario.

The two portals are not separate entities. They're intrinsically linked. The stationary blue portal is the exact same thing as the moving orange one.

>have to change the problem to make yourself right
the state of Bfags

The thing is, it's not a teleportation ray, it's a portal.
The speed at which the object enters the portal has to be the same as which it exits, because it doesn't just *flash* materializes at the other end, there's continuity.
The portal moving towards it makes it go through it at a certain amount of inches per second, so it exits at the other at that amount f inches per second. Not instantanously, but with a speed.

Because they're not two objects. The blue portal IS moving if the orange one is. I know that's a mind fuck but that's what's happening.

Do people think there's a "correct" answer to this? You can easily see that the portals don't obey physical laws. For instance, they can instantaneously change an object's momentum, meaning they must impart infinite energy on the object. There's no physical basis for portals, and discussing it in the context of a hypothetical universe that allows this is meaningless since you're just making up arbitrary rules at that point.

Attached: 1528050358296.png (900x900, 3.1M)

>The speed at which the object enters the portal has to be the same as which it exits
Here's the mindfuck. IT IS. The cube that falls to the ground in Scenario A? It IS moving at the exact same rate it entered. Space tells matter how to move. And in this scenario space is being actively warped by the falling portal. The cube can plop to the ground and be accelerating at X m/s at the exact same time.

To clarify, it plopping on the ground? That's the end of it's flight. it had already made the flight. We simply didn't see it because we didn't experience the bending of space that it did.

My argument would be that, physically speaking, portals should be impossible to move *relative to each other*. They could move together, but not one at a time.

So if you put 2 portals on 2 blocks, and pushed one block, either the portal dissapaites, or the other block starts moving too, pushed by forces that come through the portals similar to how matter can. Same if you put the second portal on a giant mountain. The forces that stop the mountain moving are transferred through the portal onto the smaller, movable block, which makes it impossible to move until the portals are collapsed.

This is the only way you can make portals physically work, if you ignore the lack of time delay that makes time travel functionally possible due to FTL travel.

Yes but how come one portal moving relative to the other makes the cube leave at 0m/s relative to the exit portal? Lets imagine we have a blue portal moving Xm/s down (facing down) and an orange portal moving moving X-10 m/s down (facing up), and there's a cube below the blue portal. Does the cube leave at 0m/s relative to the orange? Or does the initial speed of the cube matter? Like if the cube is moving X-10m/s down then does it leave with no speed? And if the orange portal is suddenly made to move the same speed as the blue (Xm/s) then the cube shoots out? Explain this in a way that actually makes sense

At the same speed relative to the damn portal I mean.
That's the only relevant part of the whole issue!

Attached: 128978671235920110725-22047-1lq3u6j.jpg (252x159, 8K)

Reminder that if you quote glados on "speedy things" you are retarded. Momentum is a vector force and is conserved within the context of two adjacent "rooms"

Here's what's happening and why the argument never stops. Both A and B are right at the same time.

The cube DOES move like B but it doesn't happen outside of the blue portal. It happens through the warped space as the orange portal drops. Space is constantly warping as the orange portal drops so the momentum (the "flying") proceeds during that transition because there is always space. What we perceive is A, where the cube plops to the ground but that's not because the cube didn't move; it simply ended it's flight. The moving portal provides more space for the cube to fly than we, being outside of the phenomenon, can perceive. So we see it plop as in A. But it DID move like B.

Yup. It does move at the same speed relative to the portal. And plops on the ground.

The speedy things quote is more true than saying momentum is conserved. Mass times speed is conserved not mass times velocity.

>Yes but how come one portal moving relative to the other makes the cube leave at 0m/s relative to the exit portal
Because the cube was never moving to begin with, the portal was. The cube doesn't move at all, it's location is shifted entirely by the space bending of the portal, and as soon as that portal motion is complete (the object is finished being shifted) it continues to be at 0 m/s, it doesn't get imparted with whatever speed the portal was moving at.

67,232%

How can the orange portal ever reach the cube if it first has to cross the distance between itself and the cube an infinite number of times?

Attached: 1552263604243.jpg (730x544, 207K)

>The cube does not move AND moves towards you at the same time
Yeah man when I walk towards my front door it's like it's not moving but like it is? It's, like, my perspective or something gets closer?
Woah, really makes you think...

This. Everyone in this thread is fucking retarded.

Attached: 1524494466649.webm (1280x720, 575K)

For fucks sake A fags.

Attached: For A fags.png (1000x2000, 46K)

No such thing as mass times speed conservation dude, it's meaningless over Galileo Transform to any inertial frame of reference. Know what isn't meaningless? Conservation of momentum when considering a "two room system" like
sid except his conclusion is wrong. Cube will be launched, and that is the only solution that makes sense.

No the cube DOES move. But its movement happens before it exits the portal if the portal is moving. Remember that the blue portal is not stationary if the orange one moves. They are the same. The cube flies through space. And then plops out because its flight is over by the time we see it again.

You either get option B, or you flatten the cube into a 1-atom wide square. You can't do an inbetween where it does move but only until the last few molecules have left the portal and then suddenly stops moving.

>thinking real world physics apply or make any sense in a world where physics are fucked over
C, the universe explodes is the only actual answer

Attached: Untitled.png (591x545, 54K)

?

Attached: portal scenario + c.png (1009x509, 76K)

wrong, in this case both portals are moving so the effect i mentioned is negated

Nope because there is always space for it to move before it exits the portal.

Attached: 1525715858238.gif (100x100, 58K)

In every scenario, the 10m/s was preserved. Except in the last scenario, where either an extra 10m/s was pulled out of your ass for a total of 20m/s, or you could argue that 10m/s up cancels 10m/s down for a total of 0 m/s meaning we lost 10m/s somewhere.
Explain where the energy for the extra 10m/s came from and I will accept B.

Are you just trying to say that it's option B?
Because if you're saying it's moving then it wouldn't make sense for it to suddenly stop moving once it's no longer touching the portal.

Attached: AHEM.gif (490x350, 491K)

Attached: portal troll for.png (660x1106, 92K)

It's basically a Superman vs Goku argument.

The extra energy is created by the physics breaking effects of portals.

Throw a rock and eventually it hits the ground. The same thing happens when you bend space around that same rock at the rate of your throw. But if you are outside that phenomenon you will only see the rock hit the ground because the flight happened outside your perception since the space you occupy was not being affected. To the rock’s perspective it made a full flight.

>It couldn't happen in real life, therefor there's no value exploring the scenario further.
I guess you must hate mathematics too. Perfect circles don't exist in real life, guess π is a useless number. Infinitely stretchable rubber doesn't exist in real life, guess all of topology is useless.

get a hula hoop the drop it around a box, that box will be fired across the room

If we're going to break the laws of physics then we might as well call it magic, and stop this whole argument because magic has no rules.
But that will never happen, because Yea Forums loves arguing about this.
The real answer is portals can't move releative to each other, and Portal 2 is not canon.

Yes it does. The moving portal IS the space it flies through. It’s constantly bending space as it moves so the cube always has the space to travel. When it passes through that’s the end of the flight.

Portals already break conservation of momentum merely by existing so you can't rely on it to explain the scenario.

I think that in the second frame of reference the universe that is moving around the cube comes at him at a certain speed, so that would mean in that frame of reference you would still expect to fly out, or rather, for the universe to continue moving downward past him only to eventually drag him along with its own speed via the forces of gravity.

this user gets it

This is not something you would determine with a straw poll, and im an A fag and even i admit this.

You can't say "it bends space" as an argument.
You have to actualy address the points in question.
Formulas we apply to real life no longer work, but there can still be a question of internal consistency if we say B is the result.

We're only breaking SOME of the laws of physics. Some laws are still preserved and portals canonically have laws (speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out) so there're still logical conclusions you can draw from the scenario.

>all these people voting A
is this some sort of Yea Forums in-joke?
it doesn't seem very funny to me

lol... do you not see how in every example but the last, you end up with the exact same motions you started with?

1. Cube at 10 m/s UP. Portal at 0 m/s.
End: Cube at 10 m/s UP. Portal at 0 m/s.
2. Cube at 0 m/s. Portal at 10 m/s DOWN.
End: Cube at 0 m/s. Portal at 10 m/s DOWN.
3. Cube at 10 m/s UP. Portal at 0 m/s.
End: Cube at 10 m/s UP. Portal at 0 m/s.

4. Cube at 0 m/s. Portal at 10 m/s DOWN.
End: Cube magically at 10 m/s UP. Portal at 10 m/s DOWN.

>""""Notive how whether the portal or cube is moving doesn't matter. Effect is the same""""
Then logically, example 3 should be:
3. Cube at 10 m/s UP. Portal at 0 m/s.
End: Cube at 10 m/s UP. Portal at 10 m/s.

Because it is the parallel instance of cube moving instead of portal.

When you have something that is an attainable perfect thing in reality, you can model ideas around it and compute meaningful things about it. When you have something that absolutely cannot exist in reality and can't even be seen as a perfect extension of a real life model, there's no use because there is nothing meaningful to extract and extend from it, because you have no basis from which to do so. The insane non-physics of Portal's world doesn't map at all to reality and therefore does not have any sort of conclusion you can come to by any sort of "problem" posed about its world like the question asked here.

It's bullshit and only microbrainlets who obsess over fake videogame worlds give any real thought to it.

I am addressing it. I’m saying that the cube travels a distance generated by the space being warped by the moving portal. The cube flies through space that we as onlookers do not experience because we are not passing through the portal. Space is moving. The cube flies. The physics of B are correct it just doesn’t happen at that time. It has already happened by the time the cube exits the portal and plops to the ground. The moving portal is essentially a form of time travel.

The debate is over.

Attached: 1524644455896.png (1714x788, 203K)

You can already break conservation of momentum by having unmoving portals (Portal above, portal below, throw cube into it). You're basically just arguing that conservation of momentum is impossible in the portal universe.

Verifiable mathematical constructs based on provable axioms exist for what you listed. Portals don't act according to our physical laws, so their behavior can't be meaningfully discussed or modeled. Unless you can come up with some alternate and coherent model of physics that allows portals to exist, there's no way to discuss how they work without arbitrarily defining how they work.

TL;DR - Time dillation

But this is counter to how we experience the portal in the game.
In the game you are no enveloped by any sort of field, the portal just makes it so that when you step through the one hole you end up at the other.

This is correct. In B here, the cube is moving. It's being driven by the platform below it. If the platform moved up really fast and simply stopped without traveling through a portal, the cube would still fly up and probably fall off or get some air time. It's like a person riding in a moving vehicle, with the vehicle suddenly stopping and the people inside flying out the windshield because nobody wears seatbelts.

holy shit i havent laughed like this in a long time

So you're saying that in the last example the cube couldn't move out of the blue portal because it would have velocity > 0 upwards while going through?

Let me throw some buzzwords at you and pretend that counters your entire argument.

Because in game space is stationary when you use the portals. Moving a portal basically would create a one way time machine

The portal universe doesn't map to our own. That's not the point. The point is that the portal universe has laws and is internally consistent with those laws. In any universe that has laws, regardless of how arbitrary they are, as long as they're consistent you can draw valid and logical conclusions about it.

In the last example the cube isn't moving at all, that is why it is 0 m/s. The portal moves and because of the warped nature of its space, makes the cube "move", but only as it is actually passing through the portal. It is "moved" out of the blue portal because the blue and orange portals are the same thing and the orange portal moves past the cube. The cube doesn't suddenly start moving to go through the blue portal, the "other side" of the blue portal was the thing moving the entire time, and at the end you are left with the same thing you started with, the portal (now past the cube) continuing to move, and the cube continuing to be motionless.

So if it's at an angel, gravity starts pulling it down and it plops, as in A.

well?

Attached: portal experiment water 2.png (700x300, 36K)

So once a portal starts moving the way it teleports objects is fundamentally changed into an enveloping field taking and placing objects?

Nah, portal would be part of the wall it is attached to, both of them.
If you would stuck portal to a cardboard and concrete wall, then that cardboard wouldn't move because its directly attached to the wall, and to move cardboard you would have to have enough force to move the wall with it.

And if you are in zero G, the cube continues to just hang there, right at the "exit" of the blue portal.

A makes no sense, there is pressure difference.

B
Yes, it creates infinite energy. That's just a thing portals do. (Although, maybe it costs energy to keep them running?)

It's essentially the same as OP.

No, in no way is it anything like OP.

I'm still not clear if the debate is "how would it work irl" or "how would it/should work in portal"

if the former, looks like it's some kind of paradox as some user pointed out at the start, so I'm not sure if it's even worth it discussing
if the latter, well right now it doesn't really work because portals weren't programmed to move except in that one scripted sequence in portal 2, so you're kind of free to make them work as you wish depending on your preferences, that email seems like a valid answer for gameplay reasons alone if you ask me

This example only further emphasizes how portals disregard classical and relativistic physics, and so attempting to apply any sort of intuition to these problems is moot.

If I can fight the heat death of the universe ad infinitum by putting a portal above and below a waterwheel, something's fucky.

No.

Attached: water.png (721x448, 58K)

>A fags are now making pet theories about "warped space" to justify still being correct

Attached: isshygddt.png (500x375, 299K)

Its not being “enveloped” really. If a portal moves anything passing through it literally has more time to complete its journey depending on the speed of the portal. The reason stationary portals dont work that way is because time is relative. When the portals dont move there is no time dillation.

>The cube doesn't suddenly start moving to go through the blue portal,
No but the top of the cube is clearly moving while the rest of the cube is passing through. So during this process the top is moving at 10m/s. What's causing the sudden stop then?

I do believe someone actually made a video of this in Garry's Mod, and it turned out that B is correct....Except that it's likely that the cube is clipping into the falling platform just before going through the portal, which would be creating the velocity as the cube is pushed out of the geometry as it goes through the portal.

I think the only way to be able to test it for sure is to find some way to get a portal to attach to something that has no collision detection on it.

Its not about determing the answer, its about finding out how many brainlets are around
(spoiler: you are one of them)

Your entire argument could be used in regards to any single atom in the cube, any single quark, any single planck volume. According to you, you'd still end up with an infinitely dense plate in the blue portal.

Besides, the cube starts gaining momentum out of nothing the moment it starts going through portal so in a sense, the damage to the universe is already done.

>Something that should not have happened just happened
A: Since it should not have happened, it didn't happen. Something we don't understand about portals caused the cube to get to its current position.
B: Even though it shouldn't have happened, there must be something about portals we don't understand that caused it to happen. Now, things should continue on as expected from here.

this is implying A is B. the original is faithful to the A & B argument

It isn't, the portal is moving. You have to understand that the two portals are the same object. That object is moving at 10 m/s. Because of the WACKY nature of portals letting you make one side of the portal seem motionless (even though it's really a hole whose other side is moving) if you put it someplace and move the second portal past an object, the object appears to "move". What is actually happening is that the object is staying still, but the hole is being moved around it and when the hole is done being moved around it, it continues to not be moving. It doesn't stop because it was never actually moving.

Why?
Why introduce this kind of thing?
The basic premise is that there is a hole and it leads to another hole. It doesn't need an elaborate 'warped space' theory in order to justify the total amount of kinetic force being the same. The premise contradicts that equation, it doesn't invite you to come up with convoluted ways for it to still be applicable.

A

Depends on how deep the orange portal is. The deeper it is, the taller the water stream.

It isn't. The water comes out of both because gravity and water pressure is pushing the water through the portal. It is the exact opposite of the original argument because the object is moving and the portals are stationary. But in B's case, the object somehow gains extra force out of literally nowhere and so gets ejected instead of just passing through.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

“Time dilation explains why two working clocks will report different times after different accelerations. For example, at the ISS time goes slower, lagging 0.007 seconds behind for every six months. For GPS satellites to work, they must adjust for similar bending of spacetime to coordinate with systems on Earth.[1]”

This is what accelerating a portal at an object will do.

The atoms at the top are clearly moving at 10m/s. You can literally measure their movement. What's causing negative acceleration then?

You literally get sucked into a vacuum (thus have momentum) in that game.
Your post makes no sense.
Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having seen it.
I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul, user.

It’s not my fault the physics of a portal are wilder than “it moves/doesnt move”.

A
Logic is the same if you dropped a hollahoop over a ball the ball doesn’t suddenly fly up into the air.

But as soon as any one atom leaves the blue portal, it HAS to have a velocity of 10 m/s because it HAD to have a velocity of 10 m/s to get through the portal in the first place. The momentum is there, it's already been created, the damage is done, conservation of momentum is broken, you can't just take that momentum back on a later date.

>hollahoop != portal
A truly brain damaging logic.

Your point has already been addressed. See

What is causing the atoms to move in the first place? You are creating energy out of nothing unless the portal itself is slowing down to impart force. The cube isn't actually moving, the nature of the portals being a divided single entity makes it act like it's moving, and as soon as the portal isn't screwing with it anymore, it is exactly how it was.

So.
We're all working from the assumption that there are two frames of reference, one at the blue side of the portal, one at the orange side.
You're another dichotomy, in the portal, and outside.

Under the former, it would make sense that something standing still in frame of reference is moving relative to the other, and will continue to be moving relative to the other when entering the other frame of reference.

Under the latter, as far as I understand it, an object leaves our frame of reference as soon as it touches the portal. At this point it has the same momentum relative to the frame of reference as before, but is now within a space that has a circle moving around him, like a hula-hoop. Then, as soon as it stops touching the portal, it is brought back to our frame of reference just as instantaneously, still with the same amount of momentum.

>because it HAD to have a velocity of 10 m/s to get through the portal in the first place.
No, it didn't. The portal had a velocity of 10/ms, and it continues to have that velocity. The blue portal has the same velocity (they are the same object) but because of its screwy nature can actually sit still even the other part of it is moving.

I realize it is unintuitive, but that's because dividing a hole is unintuitive. The "stationary" portal is actually the moving thing, but acts like it is standing still, so the object, that is standing still, acts like it is moving. And as soon as the two stop interacting (the object is through) things are back to normal, with the object not moving.

*you're introducing another dichotomy

HA FUCKING NEEERDS

Attached: 1453449958525.gif (200x178, 507K)

>You are creating energy out of nothing
Exactly. You're acting like you can just gave the energy back to the nothingness at a later date. If that's the case, why can't you give it back ten seconds after the cube is through? Why not twenty? Why not a year? Why not when it's halfway through?

>What is causing the atoms to move in the first place?
The thing that makes the portal move.
>The cube isn't actually moving.
The top side is literally moving away from the blue portal.

The misconception is that they aren’t “holes”. It’s all space. The portals just manipulate where the space is at a given time. It literally warps space. It bends it. It’s not a hole. If an object moves through space, time passes. That’s a given. So if you move space around an object time also passes for that object that doesn’t pass for an onlooker observing from outside the phenomenon. If you have two synchronized clocks and put one on the platform and dropped the portal onto it then when it comes out of the blue portal it would no longer be in sync with the one in your hand. It would be ahead.

No. The backside of the blue portal is moving away from the topside.

Sorry i mean behind.

>Portal still moves at 10 m/s
>Cube suddenly also moves at 10 m/s
Where does the extra energy come from?

Top side of the cube is moving away from whatever the blue portal is placed on.

>what is surface tension

>and as soon as the portal isn't screwing with it anymore
Shouldn't this be right after it gets out of the portal rather than a delay to let the whole cube get through? I don't see what makes the cube special compared to the rest of the matter in the universe just because a different part of the cube is in a portal. Also, what happens to the air that previously occupied the space that the cube now takes up. If the cube doesn't move and nothing in the room moves, it would end up overlapped.

Nothing. Portals have always broken conservation of momentum, since their inception..

>The top side is literally moving away from the blue portal.
So what?

>what is the impact when a bird traveling at 10m/s collides with ball thrown mid-air
>A-tard: hur dur nothing because the ball does not have horizontal momentum
>B-chad: the exact same impact as if the ball was thrown to a stationary bird at 10m/s
How do A-tards compete?

You're literally introducing new rules just for the sake of making A true.

This. Imagine if an open door fell on you like that and on the other side there was a different room. Even if that works was tilted one way or the other, gravity would shift as you entered it. If you came out of that door horizontally 3ft from the floor, you'd fall 3ft directly down.

So, does it suddenly stop moving away from the portal once it isn't touching it anymore?
Of course not. Therefore, B is correct.

Unless you invent a time dilation theory that will allow an object to move without having momentum.

ITT: Yea Forums does not realize speed and kinetic energy are not the same thing

Time dilation isnt a “new rule.” It’s a real phenomenon that just happens to be relevant to the topic. If you want to keep the conversation limited to the (wrong) idea that’s just holes then you’re the one who just wants to be right. How about explore the full implications of the portals instead.

Now imagine if the new room was moving relative to the room you came from. Suddenly you'd start stumbling due to the momentum you had relative to your new room.
It's like jumping into a moving train. You'll slam to the side, seeming like you have a lot of sideways momentum to the train's interior's frame of reference.

Isn’t this functionally a Pythagoras cup with an infinite source?

It's not exactly the same.
Answer A breaks the physical laws and is incorrect.
Answer B accepts that the fictional/unknown object called portals break the physical laws as they do their magic, but these laws otherwise apply.

Consider 3 points of portal touching the cube.
1. First contact
2. Mid plane
3. End contact

1. Cube is moving away from the portal
2. Cube has 0 velocity towards the portal
3. Cube is moving toward the portal
F = 0,

>cube exits the the portal at X speed
>A. it loses this speed for no reason
>B. it continues moving at this speed
I don't get Afags. I mean, I get that they're retarded but beyond that I don't.

Attached: 455453.gif (176x177, 776K)

And time dilation has nothing to do with this, especially not at 10 m/s. You are grasping at straws.

You're absolute introducting this as an effect portals have, when it has never been before.
As far as I can tell, the only argument for why portals cause time dilation is "otherwise A wouldn't be true".

It's already been shown exactly how this situation behaves in the Portal's universe. Scroll up and look for the video. Besides, Portal's universe doesn't have laws. If you think it does, go ahead and give me the mathematical descriptions of those laws and then we can have a discussion.

>Lay under the train that moves at the speed of X
>A. Loose this speed
>B. Continue moving with the train

Not really though.. momentum is preserved across the portal. The only way to speed up using portals is by using an external force (e.g. gravity)

>DUUUUUDE *hits blunt* B IS CORRECT BROOO U SEE WHEN THE KUB GOES THRU PORTAL IT GAINS MOMENTUM AND KINETIC ENERGY BCUZ UHHH... BCUZ POORTALS DUDE *rips bong* AND UHHH PHYSICS BROOOOO LIKE WOOW DUDE HAHAAAAA
Jesus christ btards

Actually this makes no sense either from the perspective of A or B.

"Brainlet" doesn't begin to describe the PATHETIC ignorance on every last point of view given here.

The correct answer is B but not because of any of the reasons given.
The truth is because the portal has re-oriented the relative angle of the object, it will now shoot off at millions of kph since all objects in space are moving that fast- the earth moves around the sun extremely fast but then the entire milkyway is also moving even faster through the universe so to change the angle of an object is to literally take what was moving millions of kilometers per hour and de-sync it with everything else around it that was moving the same speed in the same direction so brainlets like you don't even realize it.

Do you pitiful morons even understand that the earth is rotating and you're moving with it right now, or are you some kind of flat-earther that thinks they aren't moving at all when standing still?

This entire thread is an embarrassment and it should be banned on the grounds that none of you are qualified to participate.

It absolutely does. The cube travels the distance of it’s body at 10m/s an onlooker does not perceive because the cube is barreling through space an onlooker doesn’t perceive. It literally spends more time passing through the portal than we’ve spent watching it pass through. Physics doesn’t care if you don’t understand it.

Well obviously the laws of the portal universe and the laws for the universe in the OP are different. No they're not the same universe, as proven by the fact that the OP can't happen in the portal universe.

Attached: 1549685511800.png (2000x700, 30K)

AHAHAHA ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?
HAHAHAHAHHAHA
the correct analogy is
>you jump up
>you go through hollowed out train that is moving fast
>what is your speed to the passenger in the train

do portals actively suck things through them?

excuse me?

Attached: 485463.jpg (792x612, 53K)

Portal above, portal below, put cube in the middle, let gravity do it's work. Boom. Perpetual motion machine, conservation of momentum is broken.

Portals aren’t themselves a “thing.” They effect space. I’m applying how space and time works if space is somehow manipulated in the example. Its called extrapolation.

No mate, it doesn't warp space, it's just like a hula hoop :^)

Depends on the position of the passengers, but it would range from Max to 0 to -Max

does the cube exit at 0m/s?

Let me see if I can parse what you're trying to say.
There are three points in time.
1. When the cube first touches the portal.
2. When the cube is halfway through the portal.
3. When the cube is just leaving the portal.

Then you think that at point 1 the cube is moving away from the portal.
Do you mean the blue, exit portal?
Then at point 2 it's standing still relative to the portal.
Which one, the orange or the blue one? Can't be both, they've got different velocities.
Lastly, at point 3 the cube is moving towards the portal?
Why? It would be going back through then, wouldn't it?

No matter if you pick A or B, the same would apply here. This doesn't change anything about the problem.

The cube would move up at half the velocity the column was moving down, since only half the cube was imbued with momentum.

>cube exits the the portal at X speed
if X = 0 m/s, you're correct

the passenger is sitting in the train facing the direction the train is traveling.
the train is traveling at 100 m/s.
now what is your speed to the passenger?

The only effect of a portal is the specifics of how they change where points of space are. If you want to talk about how things work “in-universe” then ask Valve. But if you want to talk about how a hypothetical portal would work in reality then you have to talk time dilation.

if no suction, yes

Depends on the speed of the portal.
The way the portal works imbues the top part of the cube with speed, this gives if kinetic energy corresponding to its mass. If that is enough it will counteract gravity to such a degree that it can drag the unnaffected part along.

so the cube and portals are on a train?

>some days I think it's A
>some days I think it's B
help

Attached: 1542249941763.gif (150x113, 942K)

no you are the cube and the hollowed out train is space inside the portal

Maybe. It's like if one portal was in a jet flying above North America and the other was in a house in Australia, jumping through that portal might rip you in half. If the portal was on the outside of the jet, all that air pressure would fly through the portal and wreck the house.

>Then you think that at point 1 the cube is moving away from the portal.
Do you mean the blue, exit portal?
Exit portal
>Which one, the orange or the blue one? Can't be both, they've got different velocities.
Irrelevant, they are midpoint, both velocities are 0. Because Cube isn't moving towards them but rather is inside of them.
>Why? It would be going back through then, wouldn't it?
Because it moved away from the portal, now velocity has flipped the sign, relatively speaking it moves into completely different direction, and it would be pulled back.

Basically this is reason why relative velocity thinking doesn't work. You have to think in forces, because F = ma, you can't have a without F.

If X = 0 m/s then the cube wouldn't be able to move through the portal in the first place.
>inb4 but the portal is moving
The universe doesn't care whether the portal or the cube is moving, from the reference frame of the portal the cube is moving at a non zero velocity towards it.

Speed is relative, what exact position is are we in relation to each other in X,Y,Z coordinates?

There is no answer. The point actually is just to make you think, so you are already successful.

Attached: 1357499034354.png (512x512, 190K)

Can you explain why that should be the case, other than it lets you be right?

No, you absolutely don't.
One portal ending up at the other is the most fundamental truth of the fiction. There is no underlying spacetime physics causing it all.
It works because it works.
All we can discuss is the effects it would have on that cube, not what weird alternate physics would be required to conjure it into existence.

From what we've seen in Portal, the cubes don't imbue momentum. They're just holes. It would change momentum as much as throwing a hula hoop over yourself would.

Hula hoop argument has already been debunked.

so you're admitting it has suction? Otherwise it can't exit the portal.

>Because Cube isn't moving towards them but rather is inside of them.
The cube isn't a point. The bottom half is still (relatively) moving towards the orange portal and the top half moving away from the blue portal.

>F = ma, you can't have a without F.
Not him. That's exactly why it's B. Even stationary portals change direction (which is acceleration) and position (which is work, force times distance). Canonically, in game, portals are capable of applying force to objects (or "capable of doing things that would normally require force" if you want to be pedantic). There is no reason to believe why they could not change the velocity of an object.

It's relative, dude, otherwise that shit would happen with regular portals too.

Attached: here_you_fucking_autist.png (818x352, 47K)

>The universe doesn't care whether the portal or the cube is moving, from the reference frame of the portal the cube is moving at a non zero velocity towards it.
it does if it's not infinite

Okay, so we're describing the speed relative to the exit portal every time.
If, at the midway point, the speed of the cube relative to the exit portal is zero, the rest of the cube can not exit also. Since the middle of the cube isn't moving out of the way.
>because it moved away from the portal, now velocity has fllipped the sign
okay, I give up trying to understand what you're trying to say

the effects of drag would be so severe that it makes the cube explode when it tries to fly out millions of kph due to intense friction drag heat and crushing pressure

so actually A and B are both wrong, an exploding cube would be the correct one

can it?

you can think of a cube as infinitival small point, right in the middle of it's centre of mass.
Now think of a portal as a portal that is moving towards this point.
When portal and point occupy the same plane, there is no acceleration happening, they are in full equilibrium at that state.

>It's like if one portal was in a jet flying above North America and the other was in a house in Australia, jumping through that portal might rip you in half.
And where does that force come from, then? Wasn't that supposed to be the appeal of A? No additional forces? And now the portal rips you in half.

How does that debunk anything?

>Canonically, in game, portals are capable of applying force to objects
Here is where we disagree.
From what I remember only thing that portal could do is create infinite height for an object.

kek

Attached: milti.jpg (620x310, 28K)

Anyone got /sci/'s answer? Last time they were asked they said both answers were wrong and we were fucking stupid.

Attached: 1547469963891.jpg (1042x1042, 138K)

why would that be the case?

By showing that the problem in the OP is not analogous to the hula hoop example.

Because you cannot show me an example of a hula-hoop where one end is stationary and the other is not. Comparisons to real life hula-hoops are thus invalid, and the properties of this physic-breaking hula-hoop are just as unknowable as the properties of moving portals. It doesn't prove anything in favor of B either, but it proves that anyone using the hula-hoop or door arguments are bumbling retards.

probably something along the lines of
>portals aren't real so whatever fairy result you want

Because the systems that hold the portals are completely different in these examples. If they happen next door to each other, the center of gravity doesn't change much and the relative speed of the room is pretty much the same.

Relativity.

w-well, they are the stupid ones..

>we were fucking stupid
you don't need a science man for that

it's C, cube is lost in "limbo"

>From what I remember only thing that portal could do is create infinite height for an object.
I listed two examples. Moving and rotating objects requires force. This is inarguable. Portals are capable of doing things that normally require force. This does not prove B is correct, but arguments in favor of A citing the lack of force are invalid.

The argument in favor of B is aesthetic:
- Portals in different locations change an object's location.
- Portals with different facings change an object's direction.
- Portals with different velocities do fuck all?

>Last time they were asked they said both answers were wrong and we were fucking stupid.
amazing, they really are scholars of our day.

This. Vacuum my ass, in one instance the cube moves, in the other it doesn't. End of the story, making it overly complex is a meme.

Because of relativity the cube is moving away from the portal while entering it, standing still while going through it, and going towards it while leaving it.
Okay, I guess.

Sure. Ignore the portal for a moment and just imagine the cube moving 10 meters at 10m/s. That would take one second, right? No dispute there.

Now we do a standard Portal trick where we throw the cube at 10m/s through a stationary portal with the other end 10 meters away. That bypasses the second and the cube has now traveled 10 meters instantaneously so the 10m/s still applies and it flies out because it has not had the time to slow down and spends a second traveling an additional 10 meters after it leaves the blue portal. We perceive it this way because both us and the cube are passing through the same "amount" of space at any given time: none. The cube doesn't actually "pass" through the portal because the portal isn't it's own thing. It just moved some space closer to us/the cube.

Now let's move the portal instead. As the portal moves, space is now moving. Space is moving at whatever rate the portal is. When the cube enters the portal it is passing through moving space. We, however, are outside the portal's effect and we are stationary. To the cube, however, it is traveling. In order to reach the blue portal it must pass through as much space proportional to the speed of the falling portal. If the portal drops at 1mm/hour then the cube travels 1mm every hour. If the portal falls at 100km/s then the cube travels at the rate of 100km every second. So no matter how fast or slow the orange portal moves, the cube will always have expended it's kinetic energy by the time it fully transitions out of the blue portal. It has already made it's trip. To us it looks instantaneous but the cube was always moving because it was always traveling through space. It just gets to it's final resting place sooner because the constant bending of space afforded it more time to make the trip.

Name me one example where you can drop an object into a portal and it starts to spontaneous rotate?
name me one example where you can drop an object into a portal and it will be moved by any other force other than gravity.

There is an answer dummies.
The Cube will me moving out of the blue portal at the speed of the drop of the orange portal.

Why the fuck would the cube just lose the speed it had when coming out of the blue portal?

But that's what they are in the game: holes. They're just like open doors. If a hole quickly dropped on you, the holes speed has no effect on you. If they were like portals in the same room, they'd act the same. But if one fell on you and it let to a jet, your body would experience two vastly different systems at once.

Who the fuck does the cube move enough to get through the portal, then.

>ITT: how to reach bump limit

The argument is about how portals would work in reality, not how they work in the game called Portal. If you want the second answer it's a simple matter of just asking Valve. Otherwise it's like asking about a lightsaber and getting pissy when people bring real world physics into the conversation. What's the point of having the conversation in the first place then if "it just works that way because it does" is sufficient?

>. If the portal falls at 100km/s then the cube travels at the rate of 100km every second. So no matter how fast or slow the orange portal moves, the cube will always have expended it's kinetic energy by the time it fully transitions out of the blue portal.
I don't follow.

>Name me one example where you can drop an object into a portal and it starts to spontaneous rotate?
When it comes out the other portal in an entirely different direction? Did you play the game? Where in one of the very first puzzles you jump downward only to have your velocity do a 180 degree flip to upwards? That's acceleration.

>name me one example where you can drop an object into a portal and it will be moved by any other force other than gravity.
Name me any other method to move from one end of the room to another without force. The only thing you'll be able to come up with is portals. Portals circumvent the need for force.

because people can't accept that portals are magic phenomenons that can grant infinite energy

Thank you, these are both correct and play by consistent rules.

>But that's what they are in the game: holes.
See
But actually read it this time. You cannot argue that the properties of a "hole where only one end is moving" are the same as that of a "hole" and more than I can argue that purple unicorns eat fish. It is entirely unknowable, and trying to argue for A from that perspective is pointless.

>That's acceleration.
Acceleration due to gravity, yes.
>Portals circumvent the need for force.
No, they change direction of a force and position, not circumvent the need of it.

How?

that doesn't make sense
in A, how does the cube move through the portal?
does the oj portal project the other portal's reality or some shit? no, that sounds fucking stupid. the cube is lost in "limbo", question is, will it be there when the thumper moves back up?

Attached: mp,550x550,matte,ffffff,t.3u1.jpg (464x550, 58K)

lose what speed?

Portals only act as "doors" (there are still other huge problems with this comparison) if two ends are stationary relative to eachother. Once the two ends can have differing velocities, which a door can't, the analogy doesn't work anymore.

If you throw a cube into an east facing portal and the other portal faces south it falls out in the direction of the south, even though we threw it west. It has been rotated.

hula hoop both ends move

No, actually only one is correct and the other is inconsistent.

as I said, it changed direction and location of the force, not create or destroy it.

Because on a hula hoop, the exit and entrance are completely fixed in position, direction and motion relative to eachother. That's untrue of the "holes" of a portal.

it's a fucking portal it's gonna maintain speed, christ

Because there is no speed. A hole moving around doesn't make both sides of it change in speed if one end is moving and the other is stationary but they're in the same room, there's no difference in the system that contains them both.

>Acceleration due to gravity, yes.
user. user. What the fuck are you going on about. The force applied by gravity cannot serve double duty by increasing the speed of the cube AND changing its direction. Otherwise, the acceleration would decrease as it moves through the portal because part of the gravitational force that was increasing speed would have to go towards changing direction.

The portal is required to change direction, the portal is supplying a special something that normally requires force. Or, as you say, is amplifying the force of gravity. Either way, it is clear that portals can cause force to exist that did not otherwise.

The point of the conversation is what it does, not how it does it.
If we take the way portals work in the game as just a given, the logical answer is B.

How so? Being pushed up with the platform creates momentum that would continue. Having the portal drop down on you would have no momentum change on the cube.

how the fuck is that clear?

In your example you are destroying fundamentals of physics.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
What portal does is rotate forces.

Can any Afags explain how the cube exits at 0m/s? Anyone?

Attached: 1551137578973.jpg (400x408, 57K)

it doesn't exit

Exactly. Without the use of portals some sort of acceleration or force would be needed to achieve that, but with portals that is not necessary.
Just as with a rotated portal the same direction in a new frame of reference is now the south rather than the west, the same momentum in a new frame of reference is now a different speed with differently moving portals.

If you put the cube on a platform and slam the orange portal down on it at a speed of 100km/s then that cube would have already traveled 100km by the time it comes out the other end. It hits the floor not because it "has no kinetic energy" but because it already expended it making the trip.

You can invert this. Me and you are standing side by side. I throw a rock at 10m/s at the exact same time a portal slams down on your head with the other end on the floor 10 meters away. The only thing you'd perceive is me about to throw the rock and it instantly hitting the ground 10 meters away. That doesn't mean the rock teleported. I threw it. You just missed the flight.

The portal moving towards the cube or the cube moving towards the portal are literally the exact same scenario from the reference frame of both the cube and the portal. Learn relativity for christ sake. You've changed nothing.

Attached: 1548610822840.gif (500x364, 58K)

if there's no momentum change on the cube then how the fuck is it exiting the portal?

>hurrr it's a 50/50 chance

Attached: 1200px-Monty_open_door.svg.png (1200x667, 55K)

You said it yourself. Portals change the the direction of force applies to an object and the position of an object. Both of these things require force, and this force CANNOT be gravity alone because that force is entirely busy with increasing the object's speed. If the force of gravity alone was causing the change in direction, then the object's speed would not increase while falling through the portal. The portal is applying an extra something -- it is either amplifying the power of gravity or it is applying a force of its own -- in order to change the direction of the object's momentum.

Both scenarios are functionally identical and that is why it should be B.

now explain where the old force when and how it changed direction.

Why would the cube travel 100 km in the space of merely it's own height?

user, in both A and B the cube has exited the portal

Attached: 1539188212058.jpg (900x1600, 220K)

>but with portals that is not necessary.
uh huh

Well that's easily testable in the game's engine so the entire conversation would be moot.

>Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
You realize that a portal on the floor and a portal on the ceiling is unlimited energy, right?

None of this makes any sense, sorry.

Both portals are one hole. The hole falls around the cube, the cube goes through it and gains no momentum when it reaches the other side. Your mistake is considering the two portals as different entities when they are obviously the two sides of one hole.

No it isn't because portals can't move in the engine.

What would happen if something forced the orange portal to come to a dead stop once only half of the cube was engulfed by it?

What in the actual fuck are you talking about?
How did you manage to turn what's effectively a window through space into a time machine?

unlimited potential energy, yes.
It's in no way is prohibited by any laws of physics to have infinitive amount of energy, infact we think of energy as infinitum.

Why would the developer implement "accurate" (canonical) physics for a scenario you can't do in game instead of going with "whatever works and doesn't crash". Arguments from code don't mean anything.

But at least one Valve developer has stated that he'd code it as B.

No, they're different. Cube B in this scenario is stationary, it isn't moving with the platform. Cube B on the former was on a moving platform that would have done a little hop if the platform it was rising with suddenly stopped. This result is consistent with what happens when it rises up through a portal and the platform that held it suddenly stopped. It's like how you can jump through a portal and still go with your own momentum, it just doesn't stop when you exit.

Because there's more space to pass through from the cube's perspective. I know that sounds bonkers but that's actually what would happen if we ran this experiment in a real life lab. In fact, if portals were real it would make the game's use of them seem laughably petty. It would turn physics on it's head.

>You said it yourself. Portals change the the direction of force applies to an object and the position of an object.
i never said anything of the sort and you're just not getting it, there is no force whatsoever being enacted on the fucking cube. stop talking about "force"

>It is in no way prohibited to create a perpetual motion machine.

every fucking time
Try and get this through your thick skull: the entry and exit velocity of these portals are different. A simple "hole"'s entry and exit travel at the exact same velocity. That is the difference between these portals portal and a hole.

Are you asking why it's not crushed between portals? It's passing through.

if I didn't have any portals and I wanted my cube to turn ninety degrees in order to make it facee the south, rather than the west, I would need to apply some force
I could do it by hand, picking it up and rotating it.
Or I could have a machine do it.
Either way, I would be applying some force on it to make it happen.

Then, if I saw you lining up to portals to move your cube through, I met get sceptical.
>Where does your cube get its rotational energy user? Huh? Does it just appear out of nothing?
What would you say to me?

PORTALS

AREN'T

HULA HOOPS

The entrance and exit of a hula hoop always maintain their position, orientation and velocity relative to eachother. On portals, these factors are independent of eachother on the entrance and exit. See

It's neither. It should be B but with a pole attached to the end

that's why it's C, which A is obviously closest to

12th dimensional being whose civilization has achieved portal technology here
The correct answer is B

that is generation of energy, you create energy out of nothing.
While you can create perpetual motion machines with portals this is not what we are talking about at this point.

It's B.

Any arguments about how the portal can't do work to the cube are invalid since portals don't obey the laws of physics anyway.

While the cube is moving out of the blue portal it has speed. Nothing stops it moving so it keeps moving.

QED

but that's not the point now is it?

Attached: GIGplznigga.jpg (544x686, 55K)

How are they identical?

if it's passing through the exit portal
if it's moving out of the exit portal
it has to have changed momentum

Momentum would carry half of the cube forward at reduced speed, and depending on the cube's structural integrity, it would take the other half with it, or be ripped apart.

>What would you say to me?
I would say you have fundamental misunderstanding of portals.

Learn relativity. From the reference frame of the portal, the two scenarios are exactly the same and would produce the same result. The two scenarios producing different results would literally break relativity.

>there's more space to pass throught from the cube's perspective
the thing is, I feel like you've restated this three times already without elaborating on it
>aperture's use of portals is petty
that's the case even without those implication, it's sort of an overarching joke

Attached: little spider yawn.gif (300x225, 846K)

>there is no force whatsoever being enacted on the fucking cube
Then how do you explain the change in direction and position?

- You (or, if not you, the user in the conversation you joined in on) said portals "change direction of a force and position"
- This normally requires force.
- Therefore the thing I said at the very fucking start of this conversation, that portals do things that normally require force, is correct. You don't have to call it "force", but the portal is inarguably doing something that requires force.

wait so if the blade has a 50% crit chance and it does not crit the first time the second is garenteed to crit, but if it crits the first time it still has a 50% chance to crit the second time?

kek

/thread
also: retards commenting on a silly video game engine and confusing it with Physics

Attached: a dog and his master.jpg (768x1024, 122K)

Speed is relative. Both are speedy thing in, speedy thing out.

well, there you go
that's all the explanation you're going to get

>This violation of physics that creates energy is not the same as this violation of physics that creates energy.

What if we flipped the portal around so that it was on the platform below the piston, with the piston moving down towards your head? You are entirely stationary the whole time, and the energy comes entirely from the piston's movement -- you'd expect the piston to hit your head pretty roughly, wouldn't you? The energy being expelled is the same no matter where the portal is, the piston and the platform will collide just as roughly. If the portal is on the piston itself, then you gain the energy of the piston, and the bottom platform hits your head at the same speed.

If a portal is moving at 100m/s then space is moving at 100m/s. And since it takes time to travel through space that confers a speed of 100m/s onto the cube. But since space is moving at 100m/s then the cube travels 100m over that second. That's a complete trip by the time it exits the portal. Space is always moving as long as the portal is. And anything that moves through space takes time to do so relative to everything else traveling the same distance.

Drive at 60mph next to a car also driving 60mph. To each other you both look stationary. If you didn't have a stationary world around you to compare, you'd not be sure you were moving at all.

let's try this.
You have a portal in your reach on the wall, you take a pen, and drop it on to the ground. gravity will pull it.
What forces would apply and what is the trajectory of the pen if you would drop it in the portal?

it's C

glados comes on Yea Forums and tells everyone to shut up about stupid portal problems and to get back to working on science

you'd have to hit the 50% crit chance twice so whatever that is in math (idk 25%?)

That should be moddable I imagine.

physics we are talking about is mgh, why can't h be infinite?

>hoola hoop
>window
None of these are good analogies. When you start messing with space you necessarily mess with time and vice versa.

No, it was that the cube wouldn't drop off or fly away at all. It'd remain on its little plinth, even diagonally.

>weapon has a 50% chance to crit
when? under what circumstances? since this is unspecified we can assume anything. does this mean in a flurry with infinite attacks, 50% of them will be crits?

Which is fine. To me how it works in game is a curiosity and however they decide to make it work would depend on the needs of the game and whatever is most fun. But if people want to talk about how it would for "for real" then that's a much more interesting conversation.

>why can't h be infinite
Because then you've created infinite space in a finite room, but apparently the creation of energy is off limits.

You could say portals never enact force on an object, they just enter them into a new frame of reference.
The way that frame of referece is altered decides in which way the object is altered.

If the portals are on different locations, the object is in a different location.
If the portals are rotated the object is rotated.
If the portals are at different speeds the object is at a different speed.
If the portals could be different sizes the object could change size.
If the portals could be at different times the objects could change timeframe.
If the portals could be mirrored the object could be mirrored.
Etc.

Just elaborating on your point.

Then you would have to code in the behaviour of objects moving through the portal, at which point you could make either A or B at your own liking, which doesn't solve the problem though to be honest, I think anyone coding it would naturally end up falling towards B as it'd be much less work to code in.

You have infinite world, it can fit infinite amount of infinitely long rooms.

>Drive at 60mph next to a car also driving 60mph. To each other you both look stationary. If you didn't have a stationary world around you to compare, you'd not be sure you were moving at all.
Okay, I get that, but still not the portal thing.

What do you want me to elaborate on? Seriously, please ask away. It's not a very easy thing to describe because it violates a lot of what we think should be rationally true but if you want me to clarify something specific then just ask a specific question.

>Because there's more space to pass through from the cube's perspective
but the cube isn't doing any passing tho

It means your attack is a coin flip.

Are you describing the gravity on the other side of the portal reaching through and pulling in my pen?
How does the fact that the portal moves over me create all this extra space that I need to move through?

well then the second statement is invalid. it's not just a coin flip if there's a guarantee that at least one attack out of two will crit

I can't make enough sense of your explanation to begin to ask specific questions.

>Are you describing the gravity on the other side of the portal reaching through and pulling in my pen?
Kinda, yes.

In this scenario, the moving portal would move away from the persons head, see pic related

Attached: qwwe234235.jpg (1892x560, 172K)

Flip two coins. Someone looks at the outcome and says at least one is heads. Does this mean the coin was weighted? No, of course not. It means the coin just happened to land heads.

>But since space is moving at 100m/s then the cube travels 100m over that second. That's a complete trip by the time it exits the portal.
Where are you pulling this weird pocket dimension from?

A. Only A. How the fuck is this a question

>since it takes time to travel through space that confers a speed of 100m/s onto the cube. But since space is moving at 100m/s then the cube travels 100m over that second
this is a nonsequitur

This entirely dependent on how you read the problem.

>You attack. If the first one is a hit, the second one is guarantied to be a crit.
25%
>The crits have been decided in at advance and you know beforehand at least one of them is a crit
33%
>The first one is guarantied to be a crit.
50%

>You have infinite world, it can fit infinite amount of infinitely long rooms.
Not without actually occupying an infinite amount of space. It'd be like trying to list the infinite real numbers using the infinite natural numbers, an impossible violation as severe as creating infinite rooms in a single room of the same size or creating energy from nothing.

Wait, shit, you're right. Someone changed the original pic. It's contradictory now.

I dunno.
I don't think it's relevant either?
Where are you going with this?

The blue portal is fucking stationary, so is the man, how does any of them move away from the other?

that's not the situation that was described though. it says that you always land at least one crit, not just in this particular instance of the experiment

But what force is acting on it?

why do people on Yea Forums insist on trying to solve INCOMPLETE math questions? Nowhere is defined how the 'randomness' is defined. Does it take into account the previous roll, y/n? Computers can't do random anyway as they are binary systems. Random very likely doesn't even EXIST in reality.

It's about relativity. Two cars passing through the same space at the same speed, because of relativity, will appear stationary. If you move space around one object but not another then those objects are no longer in sync and will have different perceptions. To "you" the portal slammed on the cube and the cube would have just plopped out of the other end. To the cube it traveled as far as the portal moved over the time it took to happen. The cube DOES move because it literally passed through space. But it did so while passing through the portal so it has no momentum left once it's finished it's journey.

Air resistance.

Physics allow infinitive energy and work on the understanding that it is infinite, all it can do is change form.
Theoretical physics don't see any reason why you can't have infinitive height or mass or gravity acceleration.

lmfao

>To the cube it traveled as far as the portal moved over the time it took to happen.
That is contradictory with the result of the cube just plopping out. It has momentum.
You state that passing through the portal takes away its momentum, but you never qualify this.

According to relativety the cube has no objective "true" velocity, only velocity relative to other objects. Passing through the portal translates its relation to other objects in the same way the two portals are relative to each other, granting it velocity relative to them.

>To "you" the portal slammed on the cube and the cube would have just plopped out of the other end.
Well, I already don't agree with this, because I think it's relative.
>To the cube it traveled as far as the portal moved over the time it took to happen.
Yes.
>The cube DOES move because it literally passed through space.
Also yes.
>But it did so while passing through the portal so it has no momentum left once it's finished it's journey.
Why? This would only be the case if the blue portal would be moving away from it at the same speed of the orange portal. There's no inherent quality of the portal that reduces momentum.

underrated answer desu

so the exits work like a projectors?

So then the portal does impart force on your head as you're sticking it out? Otherwise, what air resistance?

Just to make sure I'm understanding you right your logic is that if the portal is moving at 3m/s then from the perspective of someone moving through it, it would take them 2 seconds to move 6m, 3 seconds to 9m etc?
Following the same train of thought surely passing through a stationary portal would feel like an eternity

You're ignoring the perspective of the portal itself. From that reference frame, the cube is moving towards it.

>
here for science

It's not creating space, it's just constantly changing which space you're "in" so to speak at any given moment. If you lay out a 100m track and run it then at any given moment you'd be at some point of space on that track. And since crossing space takes time you'd reach the end at whatever later time you arrive based on your running speed. Since space isn't moving for either you or the crowd, you all perceive time passing at the same rate.

In the moving portal scenario the space you're "in" at any given moment keeps changing because the portal is moving so you have to spend the time passing through it all before reaching the exit. I have no idea what that would look like but it might feel like a dolly zoom effect in a movie.

I'm not as smart as you lot, so let me ask a dumb question
>Do you use Portal A to connect to Portal B which sits over your toilet so you can take a shit/piss from the couch?
or
>Use Portal A to connect to Portal B in the kitchen to grab sodas from the fridge while you sit on the toilet, playing your handheld?

Passing through the portal does NOT take away it's momentum. The cube has expended it's momentum by the time it fully exits. That's not the same thing. The reason that happens is because the cube will have passed through more space than an onlooker can observe since space is always moving around it as the portal drops past it. It has more space at it's disposal to expend the energy. And it stays in proportion with the falling speed of the portal because that's where it gets the energy from in the first place. So it always expends it's momentum by the time it exits no matter how fast or slow the portal moves.

So, like, reality is buffering?
Intuitively you would think it's just one half of an object being moved at observable speed, but "under the hood" so to speak, there's actually a lot of extra movement going on that we can't observe in dimensions we can't comprehend?

I would be very uncomfortable shitting and pissing from my couch.
Portals don't have a maximum range, I'd hook up one between my paren't house and my own.
Or maybe my sister, since she lives a lot farther away.