So this portal physics riddle is frequently posted on Yea Forums, and it can never be agreed upon which one is correct...

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.

>Throw hoola hoop from building
>It lands around someone
>They rocket into the air

This is what B fags actually believe.

It's impossible.
OP, this isn't video game related. This is a /sci/ topic thread. You are not "shedding light" on what is an impossible problem.

Portals are a scientific theory that cannot function under what we've accepted as scientific law. Both "A" and "B" can be proven correct, at the same time, and they can both be proven wrong, at the same time. This is impossible. No solution can be found because the problem is inherently impossible: it should never happen in the first place.

Finally, under the coding software of the video game "Portal" and "Portal 2," a mobile portal is impossible. There is, however, a scripted event where a portal is mobile which is hypocritical to its function; Valve's developer's know this and made this scene impossible for you to interact with as it display what is essentially just a cutscene instead. IF YOU HACK the coding to inject NEW CODING RULES to allow for a "mobile portal," you are already defying the logic the game is trying to convey, but you create the scenario present in your OP image; you can find the solution "Portal 2" would give:
>movement ceases
>the portal will not continue moving once it makes contact with the box
>it will not enter the portal
>it will not exit the portal
>the game coding refuses to give a solution because it doesn't know how to solve the math that becomes relevant
>the only solutions that allow the cube to move through are, therefore, glitches, and the solution itself is, inherently, also a glitch
In effect, under the only rules your scenario would exist under, in a Yea Forums thread, the answer is "C." "The portal instantly stops and the box neither enters or exits."

Attached: if I see that fucking cat.jpg (600x637, 47K)

this

/thread

i'm really upset about people stupidity on Yea Forums but who i'm fooling, you are 75% braindead husks like wojaks you post

>ghhh gfhegh hoola hoop XD ghh brrrrrt gegegegeg hola hoop :DD:D:D:D ggege

hula hop is like two portals moving in one direction, on the pic one portal is stationary. This is the last time i'm saying this, every next post is converted to "KYS"

If the pole gains momentum then the portal would just stop falling or lose speed.

Afags don't even understand the problem well enough to argue. They lack the imagination to visualise it, let alone come up with original arguments.

Arguing about the physics of something that isn't physically possible nice.
It would be A by the way. B fags don't believe in mass or gravity and think they would get vacuumed up through an imaginary video game portal.

The setting of the game is science fiction. Portals can't move and don't respect actual laws of physics, but code.
The rest of the post is pseudoscientific bullshit, both newtonian and relativistic physics would describe the same movement at that scale. Whatever you prefer to happen in that scenario would happen.

Except in-game, the object can be in between of portals, they are not always on one side or the other. You can literally peak out the other side without being "suck" into the portal.

>Both "A" and "B" can be proven correct, at the same time, and they can both be proven wrong, at the same time.
Do it.

It's funny to watch Bfags get btfo by a hula hoop.

it doesn't collide with my theory

KYS

It has to be a. The objects speed never changes why would it fly out the hole faster?

you don't gain momentum by going through a door you fucking imbecile.

If you don't know about :
Relative momentum
And
That momentum can have a negative value.
You don't know shit about physics, and your opinion is shit.
Answer is B.

My point exactly. You fags get so triggered by two simple words.

Because bfags are pseudoscientific, self-described intellectuals aka retards

1. This can be proven correct under laws of conservation of momentum IF YOU ADD RULES about space/time, essentially making the portal moving relative to itself relative movement to yourself is impossible. This only works from an outside perspective, it fails to work from anything else.
2. This can be proven wrong under laws of time dialtion IF YOU ADD RULES about universal mass, essentially creating a phenomenon that allows the box to make its trip in the same amount of time/distance as it would take an outside observer to witness it this creates super-positioning and demands time both de-sync and remain constant, which is impossible. While this works from any perspective, it fails to follow laws of energy.

This is an impossible problem to solve, because it does not follow scientific rule. Do not pretend or believe that any "solution" you arrive at is true. Because it will be true!...and so will many other solutions. At the same time. The only way for your solution to be true AND have any other solution be false is to ADD RULES to this vague problem. At which point, it's no longer scientific debate or theory; it's fiction. It's magic.

Attached: that's the stuff.jpg (640x552, 87K)

>Portals can't move and don't respect actual laws of physics, but code.
It has a physics engine, dude.

>relative movement to yourself is impossible
Not with portals.
>This only works from an outside perspective, it fails to work from anything else.
No, it works for everything.

B-fags think it'll shoot out because you can look at it from the other portal.

You theory based on the assumption that things get suck into the other side of the portal if part of the object is on other side, which is not true.

C. Portals aren't real, get a job you fucking manchildren.

THANK YOU!
B brainlets btfo

Checkmate, fags.

Attached: Portal Physics.webm (356x200, 209K)

how so?

KYS you exposed yourself a turbo brainlet

This doesn't happen in the game unless you fuck with the code.

>don't have any passions just focus on normalfagging and wageslaving
why are you even here?

that happens because the platform the portal is on squishes the block into the ground before the portal interacts with it. This is just an example of why they didn't have moving portals in game.

A retards, think only about very high speeds like 10m/s or 100m/s and you eventually find out how brainlet is your theory.

>tfw only Cfags actually know anything about physics and Afags are all retards obsessed with hula hoops and Bfags are all retards that like ignoring one half of the problem

There's no energy being exerted on the box. Slam a hula hoop down over a ball and tell me if the ball goes flying. It'd be A.

a physics engine that runs on... oh shit

Step through a hula hoop and tell me if you move 10 meters to another hula hoop. You don't, because a hula hoop isn't a portal? What a fucking concept.

Fine, but you won't agree because it doesn't make sense because both are possibly true answers that exist at the same time.

>A
Time dilation. We assume a portal is NOT AN OBJECT, it is literally a phenomenon that warps space to link two screens to a single point. When one screen "orange" is now moving independently of the other screen "blue," you're already breaking the idea of relativistic physics, but we'll assume it's happening for the sake of the scenario. As orange moves, it is not "traveling through space" it is literally "bending and manipulating space." Once it arrives at the box, at whatever "speed" it was moving towards that stationary box, IT DOES NOT TRANSFER SPEED to the box. It simply bends space to connect it to blue. The stationary object arrives without any movement. While this is a done deal from the box's perspective, it does not makes sense to anyone witnessing it (not affected by the portal's influence). In order for this to be true, then, you must allow the box to both travel and not travel, which only becomes possible if time and space alters properties to let the box both travel the required distance in the required time and then finish its travel with the same velocity it entered with (which is zero).

>B
Conservation of Energy via relativistic physics. While easier to justify, it's also easier to prove impossible. When one screen "orange" is moving independently of the other screen "blue" towards the box, it transfers the exact velocity to the box as it arrives. As a result, the box "launches" through the portal as the transfer is instantaneous. This is impossible as it requires unlimited energy creation from nothing (and NOT from unlimited potential energy) as well a means of imparting it. Furthermore, it remains relevant for ONLY ONE perspective and instantly fails when there is another witnessing the event.

Both are right. Both are wrong. At the same time.
This is an impossible problem because portals.

>portal plate rebound on the cube even tho it shoudn't
That ejection is just the physic engine processing the collision between the plate and the cube *before* the portal code can get it out of the way.

KYS for the 4th time is this thread, Yea Forums is really retarded
see

have you fucking played the fucking game, portals are literally a hole that goes to another place. a fucking hole.

That goes to another place.
Let me know when you move 50 meter instantaneously by stepping through a hula hoop and we'll talk.

>Not with portals.
As you define them, true. BECAUSE PORTALS CANNOT EXIST.

>No, it works for everything.
Only when you add fictional rules to what is an unknowable event.

This is the case for both "A" and "B." Or ANY "solution" you come up with.

Attached: 1549251699602.jpg (608x890, 83K)

One day I hope retards like you parroting this bullshit line realize how fucking retarded you sound.

No shit he used data from other physicists, that's what science IS, taking what humanity knows and expounding on it.

Special relativity had been postulated roughly before Einstein yes, but he codified it with his theory of relativity, a groundbreaking achievement in the history of humanity. The fact you're trying to take this away from him stems from either a hidden bias or your own jealous inadequacies, the world would be better off without retarded faggots like you

>TL;DR Kill yourself immediately

Attached: 1498390343397.jpg (1280x1920, 665K)

This. The system is consistent on both sides of the hole, only when force is put onto the cube would it ever fly out. If it was quickly lifted through by a platform like in B here, it would have momentum from the platform. If the portal comes down on it it's just a hole slamming down on it the system on the other side of the hole remains unchanged, save for the air that past through it.

Attached: 1552419911087.gif (500x364, 67K)

Every single time. Every single fucking thread we have a discussion going on with retarded Afag arguments being constantly debunked, and every couple dozen posts some fag comes along, skips the discussion, replies directly to the OP, and posts something about hula hoops.

What do you think is happening in Portal? It's a hole where the sides are in different places. Imagine instead you were clapping a platform down on the cube, but the orange and blue portals were on either side. What would happen then?

I'll tell you: THERE'S NO ENERGY BEING EXERTED ON THE CUBE, SO NOTHING. It'll come out the other side and sit happily until some other force acts on it.

I'm INTP and Albert Einstein is a jew. Portals connect sections of space, they don't move objects.

Attached: 1537551702497.jpg (503x494, 41K)

post more of the best zelda

Don't you get tired of being proven wrong every time you post this, B-let?

Attached: 1540792143243.jpg (500x500, 48K)

>A
>Time dilation.
Yeah, ok. That's assuming a lot and doesn't resemble portals as we know them.

>B
>This is impossible as it requires unlimited energy
Same reason portals themselves are impossible. It's a hypothetical.
>Furthermore, it remains relevant for ONLY ONE perspective and instantly fails when there is another witnessing the event.
Nah.

>As you define them, true.
As the game defines them. You can either accept them or butt out of the conversation.
>Only when you add fictional rules to what is an unknowable event.
B can be entirely extrapolated from the games using pure logic.

t. triggered Einstein fanboyz

Attached: Where it belong.gif (274x257, 2M)

Honestly, unless the cube somehow gets launched off the platform it’s resting on, I don’t see how it could fall or fly through the portal in the first place. As long as it’s touching the surface of the platform, gravity is still acting on at least that portion of the cube that hasn’t passed through the orange portal, so how would it fall through like in A? But how does it get launched in B?

You have a warped understanding of what time dilation actually is, unless you're just using the name because it makes your drivel look more scientific

>Honestly
Why would you need to preface an answer to a scientific question like that? What reason would there be to be dishonest?

Had anyone tested this in game? So we can end all this stupid ass discussion

Engine doesn't properly support it, closest we have to an official confirmation is one of the devs giving a lengthy explanation that he sees it as B

The cube is static. There is no forward momentum carrying the cube that will "not" cease once the two platforms meet. The platforms will meet, and the cube will fall through the portal like demonstrated in picture A.

Think of a car being stationary. Then a big wall rushes towards it. Objects that are not "held in place" will not through out the window. They will experience a sudden movement forwards, followed by backwards (as they move with the car).

it's impossible to recreate in-game
since portals disappear when the platform they are on moves.

i've posted it like 3 times and got like 4 responses, and none of them tried to prove me wrong, maybe you'll start brainlet fellow?

Your gif works because you've changed the scenario for Solution B.
Rather than the portal moving towards the box, the box is now moving towards the portal.

>Scenario A = Portals move independent of each other
>Time Dilation occurs as the portal is defined as a space warping phenomenon
>The box "travels" due to space warping. It enters the portals, travels through the bent space, and exits the portal without altering its velocity.

>Scenario B = Relativistic Physics according to Laws of Conservation
>The box has velocity, driven by the piston.
>It enters the portal at that velocity
>Loses absolutely no energy during its travel inside that portal
>It exists the portal at that velocity

Again, you've already changed the initial scenario by making "Scenario B" cogent and coherent to the properties of "Portal 2." You're comparing two different scenarios that now can have two different results.

because he is giving his honest opinion and not trolling (so he claims)

Because I’m not posting an answer, I’m thinking out loud and inviting someone to answer the second portion of my post.

Newtown would have NOTHING to say about this experiment
>energy cannot be created or destroyed
>potential energy is literally shifting by travelling through a portal
This experiment would be thrown out the minute you mention it

its pretty dead simple. All you have to do is visualize the problem from looking into the blue portal, where you would see a cube rushing toward you at high speed. There is no reason it would suddenly stop at the end, nothing is holding it to the platform.

And any energy based argument is beside the point because the concept of a portal violates the laws of thermodynamics anyway by creating and destroying potential energy.

>Anons devote all this collective brain power to solving a riddle
>Could have devoted it to creating the world's first portal gun and physically seeing which is correct

>Einstein is a jew
Shit I fell dumb now.
That explain so much.

The whole scenario depends on portals being real and under no circumstances is stated that time dilation is working on them.
Just by this examination you can reach that both choices are kind of stupid, but A is retarded as fuck because it requires more mental gymnastics to not fall apart.

youtu.be/0TZd95BCKMY
Explain this

I'd rather trust a Jew than a br*t, so B.

Yeah. I know. Why do you post like we're arguing?

As far as I understand physics (not very far), it doesn't matter that it's the portal that is moving in the set-up frame. Mechanically it's the same if it's the platform that's moving up instead. It's quite intuitive that if the box was thrown up in a ceiling portal, it would shoot out like in B. So why should it be any different just because it's the portal that's moving down instead of the box moving up in the set-up?

Attached: .png (450x720, 400K)

Oh fuck I finally figured out that people think that because the portal is moving, everything on the other side of the portal is moving in relation to the static portal. That's fucking retarded but it makes me feel smart so I'll allow it.

How is starting a sentence with "honestly" a sign you're thinking out loud?

Source engine doesn't treat players and props in the same manner.

I definitely trust Newton more than Einstein.

You're not talking "real-world" physics anymore, user. And the game DOES NOT define them that way. THEY ARE NOT MOBILE. The game requires them to be completely motionless compared to each other. Under that premise, we can accept portals via relativistic physics.

The game does not have mobile portals. It breaks the game's coding when that happens. When you alter to the code to allow a mobile platform, the game ENDS MOVEMENT as soon as it collides with a box. It doesn't know what to do.

That's the entire point of this "problem" in the op image: ONE OF THE PORTALS IS MOVING. That cannot happen, it's impossible. But, for some reason, people will argue it happening for the sake of the debate. It's a completely unknowable event...because portals, themselves, are impossible. You're adding "real-life" or even "Portal 2" physics to an impossible scientific phenomenon and then claiming a valid answer AND ONLY that valid answer. Which isn't true. It's, essentially, magic.

OH NO NO NO NO NO NO WHAT IS HAPPENING
the pole literally moved by 30 meters in 3 second WHAT IS HAPPENING this is literally a formula of VELOCITY which is v=s/t
it's match the definition of velocity
>velocity is the change in the position of an object, divided by the time
this is beyond my comprehension, this is too much for me!
Inertial forces have to be only a meme because this pole MUST STOPS RIGHT THERE when it exits the blue portal

Attached: A fags BTFO.png (1507x1020, 22K)

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

Bfags, what makes a portal different from any other hole?

I'm an ISFJ

>cube enters blue at 10m/s
>cube leaves orange at 10m/s
Why is this so hard for A-tards to understand? Like what goes on in your heads when you imagine it all halfway through, does the cube get squashed up or something between the portals? They must be trolling.

Imagine the box actually moving through the portal. It's a fluent, gradual process. Early only a small portion of the box will have passed through, at some point it's half way through and eventually it's all the way on the other side. For A to happen, the two halves box would have to be moving at two different speeds from each other. How would that be possible?

>Portals require an infinite amount of energy to be created, we know this as there are various ways to create a perpetual motion machine with them which can only be possible if they already take an infinite amount of energy to make.
[citation needed]
Also probably gonna need a lot of [citation needed] into that [citation needed] before any of your premise get acceptable credibility.

what other hole dumbass?
can't you fucking understand dense retard portals are not hula hoop? how fucking braindead you have to be, even a fucking chicken can understand it at this point, but the chicken has actual brain
hula hoop is like two portals back-to-back moving in the same direction, we have a situation where one portal is moving and another is statnionary

funnily enough, the portals in original portal demo were magical doorways.

relative motion. From the point of view of the moving portal the box has velocity.

those saying that "portals are just holes in space and space can't exert force" don't know what gravity is.

>As the game defines them.
No, the game doesn't know what to do.
youtube.com/watch?&v=S85nudR6D-Y

Because it doesn't know what to do, it doesn't do anything.

youtu.be/S85nudR6D-Y?t=89

The problem itself it's circumventing that portals need infinite energy, and that being impossible, your post is retarded because you failed to accept that the problem itself is giving you to solve an imposible scenario that took away the impossibility from it.

Damn me, I was just a minute too late.

Are you retarded? Do you need a fucking citation to prove that energy cannot be created? A citation for fucking basic equations like F = ma? Jesus christ retard kill yourself

Do unicorns eat grass?

Einstein was a hack who took the credit for the works of three other people.

>durr what do you mean trick questions exist
Fucking brainlets lmao

We all now that jumping through a portal shoots you out of the other one. That means that your speed relative to the portal is conserved and only the direction changes. Now, in game, portals are always stationary relative to each other, so your velocity relative to both portals is equal. In the example portals are moving relative to each other, so the boxes speed is different depending on which portal you take as a point of reference. If we take the blue portal it should be A, and if we take the orange one it should B.
There is only one canon example of a situation in which the portals are not relatively stationary - the moon portal at the end of Portal 2. In that situation if we took the reference point of the moon portal, everything exiting it would fly off at the moons orbital speed (3,683 kilometers per hour). As that doesn't happen it is obvious that speed relative to the entering portal is preserved. Thus B is the correct answer.

yes, they are basically zebras with strapon sticked to the 4head

I don't have the space in a 2000 character count to try and explain the stationary box actually gaining velocity due to the portal's space warping, traveling and having velocity, making the trip with its velocity, then finishing the trip without any velocity in accordance to all perspectives of the event (both inside and outside of the warping influence of a portal that shouldn't be moving in the first place). Even if I did, it wouldn't make sense because a moving portal doesn't make sense, and people wouldn't accept it anyway.

How do you explain when someone performs an action in the given time without time passing? The result becomes apparent without the action being witnessed. Furthermore, TRUE time dilation (like in the example of clocks from earth vs the ISS) simply de-syncs objects more than anything else. This is Yea Forums, and I'm not good enough at explaining.

Guys, one of the crits is guaranteed, so it's 50%.

This is basically a question of if momentum is relative or not, right?

Theoretically, you would maintain momentum. Whether you rush towards the hole or the hole rushes towards you shouldn't matter. You get pop out at that velocity.

It's A

Anyone who says B is trolling or a turbo brainlet

as soon as the cube goes through the input portal it has to deal with the output portal's laws. that being said, it was moving from that perspective, so it will continue to move when it goes out

It's B

Anyone who says A is trolling or a turbo brainlet

see

I don’t understand why you’re sperging out about this word choice. Just ignore the post.

If you walk halfway through the portal and stop, you aren't ripped in half.
If the moving portal stopped halfway down the box, would the box rip in half? No. Therefore, the box isn't "moving"
If the box isn't "moving" when it's halfway down, then it wouldn't be moving when it's all the way down.
A is the answer.
If B was the answer, then it wouldn't shoot as a complete box, it'd shoot as single-molecular-thick slices of the box, if anything.

>explanation of brownian motion
>introduction to the wave-particle duality of light
>general relativity
>special realtivity

>"HURR DURR EINSTEIN DIDNT DO ANYTHING"

brainlets like you are akin to flat earthers or anti vaxxers, your criticism of Einstein is based on nothing besides dogma rather than the substance of his discoveries, proposing such intellectually bankrupt ideas as "he used other people's research" when thats literally the entire point of science, guess what many people have used Einsteins discoveries for their theories too idiot

go fuck yourself

Attached: 1512874191475.jpg (480x480, 25K)

Do you guys want me to solve it?

Attached: matpat.jpg (225x225, 8K)

You're being a bit autistic here bro but I too get pretty activated by people throwing around "honestly". I wouldn't read too much into it though. Just some verbal clutter.

b-but orange go fast woosh

>If the moving portal stopped halfway down the box, would the box rip in half? No. Therefore, the box isn't "moving"
It would leave at half the speed as the piston coming down had, assuming it has the structural integrity to not rip in half.
B is the answer because those monomolecular slices stay together.

You do realize velocity is a property relative to the observer right? From the point of view of the cube, the portal moved towards it, that proves scenario B is right

Attached: bender-smoking.jpg (450x334, 55K)

newton was a virgin his entire life
I trust einstein

Suppose the blue portal was on the back side of the orange portal (so that it was essentially a hula hoop that was thrown down the length of the pole at 10 m/s). Then you can say that the pole emerges on the top side of the hula hoop at 10 m/s. Would you expect it to to keep traveling into the air?

That theory assumes the portal has relativistic physics applied (same as when the portals are stationary). To assume that, it breaks the theory of portals acting in accordance to the universe in the first place. If you want to do that, fine, but understand you're changing the problem of an unknowable event by adding subjective information to gain only the solution you're looking for. Under that logic, nearly any solution can be verified.

This entire question is nonsense.

>our experiments and observations confirming Einstein theory are false because hes a jew

Oh my, how scientific

Attached: e3FYjwt_d.jpg (640x360, 11K)

I thought portals were pretty much like a rip in space so that the two points are next to each other like an open door. If I slam a door frame on a table around an object sitting in the middle of the table, the object might move a bit from the force of impact, but it won't be sent flying from going through the door frame.

Why is B Einstein? When has he ever said anything contrary to A?

fucking kek, i'm tired of your shit
>hula hoop
is great brainlet detector

when this situation occurs the velocity of blue portal negates velocity of the pole because they have opposite vectors

It's B
This is the only explanation that uses what actually happens in game

Attached: 1515191822912.png (943x720, 558K)

Bad goyim

Good goyim

Good rabbi

Yeah, a portal is a door. That's it. That's the reason why an object traveling through a portal speeds up, because it is traveling to free fall speed.

>the observer
You're already stating why this event can't happen.
There are multiple observers in the problem. "Relativity" no longer supports a single perspective because there are multiple perspectives. It fails.

BOTH answers fail. It's not a scientifically rational problem. Neither answer is "correct," though both can be proven to be so. You'll need to add fictional rules not present in the unknowable problem being asked, though. And what's the point of that solution of a fictional problem?

'Cause it's fun, I guess?
If you want the "Portal 2" definition of what would happen, that's been posted.
>youtube.com/watch?&v=S85nudR6D-Y

Attached: 1549302115817.jpg (800x1102, 661K)

i.e. pole remains in place

based

portals can't move, this is undefined behavior

also the solutions have nothing to do with newtonian vs relativistic physics

not the same thing at all though

Yep.

Ammo against hoopniggers

Attached: hoops.gif (504x282, 17K)

>uses what actually happens in game
Nothing happens "in-game" because portals are mobile "in-game." The coding doesn't know what to do with that, so it never allows it.

You can FORCE it to be allowed by hacking the game, but even then, the game still doesn't know what to do, so it does nothing. Don't try to claim a single solution to a problem that isn't scientifically possible. To allow this "debate" to occur, you have to assume an impossible event, so you're only discussing fiction. You can get whatever answer you want. Again, in "real-life" science, it's impossible. In "Portal 2" science, it's STILL impossible.

>Nothing happens "in-game" because portals are mobile "in-game."
portals are NOT mobile, I meant

if the input portal is positioned vertically and the output horizontally in the ceiling, if you stand halfway youll be sucked by the gravity beyond the output portal

thank you for an actually good analysis user

> hula hoop has no thickness

>durr im right because it was a trick question
who cares?
anwser the fucking question properly or fuck off.

they are still too stupid to understand, why do you even bother

>i-if you correctly answer a trick question f-fuck off because me too stupid to think
lmao

Maybe the coding does not allow for moving portals, but the in game cutscenes are still part of the canon. Please read the original post I referenced and tell me what don't you agree with

A isn't right, but neither is B. The cube would go further out than seen in A but not go flying off as in B. We're given two answers that simply aren't right.

because in that situation the blue portal is also moving and adding its velocity to the pole on its side. if the blue portal is stationary, it doesn't. this really isn't a hard concept

>thinking the portal would stay and it wouldn't be crushed
Where are the C fags?

why do you assume the rest of the box wouldn't follow the momentum it's given?

They are the same thing. The problem is that Bfags don't understand that the two portals are the same object, no matter what either of them is doing. They are two sides of the same coin that have been cut apart, but are still tied together. Both portals are always moving, because they are the same portal. That is why when orange is ""stationary"" and blue is moving, if you look through orange you see a moving landscape.

Either the portal (read: hole) is moving, or it is not. It is always a hula hoop, you can just pull the hula hoop farther and farther apart, like in your example at the right. But what is moving there isn't the cube, it's the blue portal. The cube's motion is only because the blue portal is moving past it, and the blue and orange portals are the same thing, so the orange also "moves" past it, despite being stationary. This has the effect of making the cube seemingly move. As soon as the blue portal is past the cube, the cube is no longer moving, because it had zero force or speed to begin with, the motion was only from the blue portal.

For you to get B. The cube has to somehow magically gain a speed. You are literally generating energy out of nothing in order to have the cube move anywhere but down (from gravity).

>What we're talking about
So not portals? Portals work like that hoop being separated

if they're the same object, why can one exist withouth the other?
and the cube doesn't magically gain speed, learn science, and then accept that neither are true because neither can actually happen

The part I don't agree with is the assumption of canon event for a scientifically unsound problem.

For this argument, let's take that single, in-game event (which you cannot interact with and is, essentially, merely a cutscene) and say why it doesn't make sense.
It's hypocritical.
The game DEMANDS that a portal's "entrance" and "exit" not be able to move independent of one another. GLaDOS states why, and under this in-game assumption, we can accept a portal working. But during your "canon" in-game event, the game suddenly became hypocritical and allowed something it demands can't happen.

This no longer really becomes a scientific debate, it becomes criticism of a law that was broken.

You're asking "why" to an already impossible phenomenon. Any answer given will be correct. Or wrong.

The whole debate is pointless.

They can't exist without the other. It is a portal because it has two sides. If you fire just one half of it, it isn't a portal, it is a splatch of proto-portal goo on the wall that does nothing.

>HURR THE PORTAL CAN CHANGE THE CUBES VELOCITY
>DURR TEH CUBE CANT JUST STOP MOVING
utter retard. if the portal can make the cube move, whos to say it can't make the cube stop? A is the most physically sensible answer.

Because the space at the other end of the portal has nothing happening to it and the cube doesnt interact with the panel going down, so you make the arguement that theres no moment being done to the cube in the first place; only real question is, is it in a vacuum or is there air, as the force of the air could createa funnel

what if what the portal is really moving is the universe

Orange goes fast

Because too many people do it and at least in face to face conversation it serves the purpose of stalling for time while you get your thoughts together.

I am getting autistic, but too many people do it in regular conversation, but somehow I see it more often here where it makes even less sense.

wouldnt it >never< be static if the portals are on earth? or literally in any moving galaxy?

user I really must force myself to respond to that stupid questions
in brainlet
>hula hoop
meme, blue portal is actualy substracting velocity from the pole because it's moving in opposite direction
it's funny because the hula hoop meme Afags are spreading unironically confirms B is true.

if the orange|||blue portal is moving to the left (orange is sucking blue is spewing things) at 10m/s and went through the cube and cube remains in place it basically means blue portal ejected cube at 10m/s simple as that.

Imagine situation you are on the trunk of a car that moves forward and you throw a ball backward the ball drops in place if the speed of the car and the ball equates
if you want you can see this situation recreated in one of the myth busters episode but if you have at least one brain cell you don't have to

They can't exist without the other. A portal without another portal is just a fancy blue painting.

At least the arguments have become more refined.

One thing I want to discuss is how the cube undergoes an instantaneous acceleration as soon as it touches the orange portal. This is irrefutable for A's or B's, otherwise the cube wouldn't come out of the blue side. How is an instantaneous acceleration possible? Wouldn't this literally break the universe?

Well, portals are physically impossible anyway, even if they don't move relative to each other.
If we want to even have this discussion, we have to suspend our disbelief and choose an answer that is most consistent with the thing that are presented in the game.

suppose the moving portal immediately stops once the cube is halfway through

would those of you who choose B think that the remaining half of the cube would somehow get sucked through and it would launch out of the portal?...

Attached: ss+(2019-03-13+at+02.22.02).jpg (224x274, 14K)

so your argument is portals have random, unknown, logically inconsistent behavior? then obviously the right answer is C it drops the cube directly on your face at 0.99c

exactly
but only when the momentum on the other side is big enough to pull off the remaining mass
the higher speed the easier it get sucked

Answered by the question of, what is the surface esque areas force of the area the portals crust is around like; is there a specific area thats right between the portals or is it just a spacial continuation between those coordinats without an intermidieary that gets pushed out? Presuming so, it would work like a hula hoop instead of transfering momentum outside the air that gets forced, which would need to be really high to force out a B.

that seems really unintuitive

since this question assumes that we throw out our current understanding of physics i would just go with the more intuitive answer which would be A, in my opinion

There is no momentum on the other side. The other side is stationary.

The point is, the orange and blue are completely static, in relation to each other.

Relativistic
Physics

Sure, they can both be hurtling through the universe at millions of kilometers per hour, or orbiting or whatever. The assumption remains that they are BOTH doing that hurtling PERFECTLY IN-SYNC with EACH OTHER. Given that being the case, we can accept a portal to work. The entire universe still functions.

But, when they de-sync, and orange now moves independent of blue? The entire premise fails. That's why this whole question which has been argued for years isn't ever going to get an answer: it's impossible.

no, you are just to stupid to understand

youtube.com/watch?v=nEa7CfPaCRw
Obligatory.

based on game mechanics, is B
because if time dilation was a thing portals would do, then you coulnt reach terminal velocity when falling through the same portals over and over.

no, the blue portal ADDS its velocity to the pole, it just happens that its velocity is in the opposite direction as the pole. if the portal subtracted its velocity from the pole, that would mean that the pole doubled in speed.

Where is the extra energy coming from to pull the mass through?

Holy shit you people are desperate for validation. Nobody cares.

Wikipedia degrees in googling things you dont actually understand.

Let me explain the paradox.
You place a camera in front of the exit portal, angle it so u can see INTO the exit portal, and see the cube approaching, AND so you can see the cube right behind it, where its sitting stationary.

Next, place a camera next to the cube.
Angle it so you can see the entrance portal approaching the cube, AND the exit portal remaining stationary.

Now, explain to me how its possible the cube and the portal are both stationary and moving, in comparison to eachother, equally, at the same time?

>Go back in time
>kill yourself
A) obviously your future self dies
B) obviously nothing happens to u as long as ur in the past

This is how stupid the question is. its like trying to answer the grandfather paradox with 2 wrong answers.

(pic is a paradox where 2 answers are correct, rather than 2 answers are equally incorrect)

Attached: 1543929089484.png (390x345, 8K)

>too stupid to understand video game magic

Attached: 1551641546173.jpg (118x192, 12K)

A.

he cube itself has no acceleration/energy

>here is no momentum on the other side
true, but there is a difference of Momentum values betwen both ends of the portals, generating what is hypothetically called "Negative Momentum"

it would go out with half the speed of the platform going down

HULA

HOOP

Precisely. I 100% agree with this assumption.

I just can't come to any conclusion, the same as you can, because I cannot accept a new event that contradicts the entire premise for a portal to function in the first place. For the game to have that moving mobile portal screen, it is hypocrisy and defies itself. New rules have to be inserted at will. At which point, ultimately, it's just imaginative fiction and I can verify anything entering a moving portal actually becomes a unicorn.

wrong.
the pole didnt move, it just changed its position in space

Retard. The cube would hang on the slope because it's a fucking doorway.

user's a hoopnigger!

Hula Hoop example, while the closest thing to the situation, doesnt have the person going through it, equally moving through it, and equally not moving through it, and a hula hoop equally passing over it, as much as its not passing over it at all.

>the blue portal ADDS its velocity to the pole, it just happens that its velocity is in the opposite direction as the pole.9

you are right user, first wise words i've heard lately on this board

B, since the rate with which the cube is absorbed has to be equal to the rate with which the cube is desorbed.

What if you had two of those moving blocks, big enough to put a person through, and had someone standing on one platform with the other above their head, then squeezed them together so the portals were pressed against one another?

>based on game mechanics
Stop saying this.
youtube.com/watch?&v=S85nudR6D-Y

Based on game mechanics, a moving portal is hypocrisy and CANNOT happen. The game mechanics does not allow it. If you hack the coding to allow it, you get the above youtube result: no solution given. It's not sound, the game mechanics don't know how to process it. Any result is a glitch.

This is an impossible event.

Til it gets slammed by a portal

TOP KEK
what is definition of moving?

I'm curious, because I can't remember GLaDOS saying anything about portals having to be stationary relative to each other. Do you have a quote or when was it said?

>You're not talking "real-world" physics anymore, user.
No, I'm talking logic. I never mentioned real-world physics at any point.

>you A guys are very dense
>sorry for my ESL english
kill yourself faggot

Attached: 1549996840499.jpg (505x550, 21K)

>get sucked through and it would launch out of the portal?...
Quite likely, one half has velocity and gravitational force doing it's job and it is connected to the other half via electromagnetic field.

How is there a difference in momentum values while it's true that there is no momentum on the other side of the same hole. It's funny how quickly you turned on this to bullshit something new
>but only when the momentum on the other side is big enough to pull off the remaining mass
>the higher speed the easier it get sucked
The higher the speed, that faster it passes through. That's it.

seething brainlet