Well, Yea Forums?

so what magic force will push the cube through the portal when cube has no velocity?

the portal, retard

The portal, obviously.

The fact the Portal moves it to a place where it is now on a slope so it falls over

What magic force stops the cube from moving once it exits the blue portal at high velocity?

>Have no velocity
>Raise hula hoop above head, drop it
>Motherfucker just hovers there due to my lack of velocity

The fuck, who else knew about this?

PORTALS CAN'T MOVE IT'S A PARADOX
Have a nice thread.

Attached: 1553925415888.jpg (507x377, 34K)

We will, without your useless opinion.

There is literally no difference between the portal falling to meet the cube and the cube rising to meet the portal from a physics stand point. Newton's third law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

You can test this with anything that can measure pressure: If the device is pushed against an object with X newtons of force, it will read the same as if that object is pushed against the device with X newtons.

B is the correct answer; the cubes velocity RELATIVE TO THE PORTAL is maintained, shooting it out. The velocity relative to the earth is immaterial.

>so what magic force will push the cube through the portal when cube has no velocity?
The cube only has no velocity relative to the earth. It has a very high velocity relative to the portal, which is the important part.

So if I throw a hula hoop over your head you will be thrown upwards?

Except it isn't a door, it's a portal. Frame of reference matters here, which makes it easier to visualize and understand why the cube would launch out.

>.B is the correct answer
Look at the picture again user. Looks like someone contradicted themselves.

none, i got the same opinion as you

this thread in a nutshell
>"reference frame"
>hulahops
>"momentum"
>videos showing it's A
>videos showing it's B
>MUUUUURP DON'T LET MELEAVE
>some retarded fuck that just took a quick glance at google's first result trying to act like he knows what the fuck he is talking about
>one guy literally larping as an actual physicist

Attached: speedymath.png (1624x872, 41K)

What retard put A after B?

Anyone that thinks it isn't B is a brainlet

Yep, just like old times.

Attached: 1544727513306.jpg (675x601, 73K)

What retard didn't look at the image then tried to act like an amateur physicist?

>So if I throw a hula hoop over your head you will be thrown upwards?

From the vantage point of the hula hoop, yes.

B. No momentum.

Want old times? Watch this

Attached: EFG.gif (400x400, 3K)

there is a lot of brainlets here
witcher 3 fans gotta be

This shit is literally amateur physics. Anybody who passed Physics 103 in college should know this.

>from the vantage point of the hula hoop
based retard

This doesnt make sense. In both cases the left side is relatively identical. It's B and I actually go to college.

To be specific, A in OP's image B in yours

Attached: 1527814926877.webm (356x200, 209K)

Violates relativity in real life. Determined to be A from in engine testing.

and i'm guessing you passed, so what's the answer?

yeah but what if the portal stops half way through the block

Have sex

based on Afags(retards) the cube cuts in half

based a portalpilled

do this again in gmod, but protect the bottom half of the cube. lets find out

>Gmod
A-apologists, everyone

>same physics engine
>same universe
same rules apply, coward.

The portal itself doesnt transfer its momentum to the cube. Since the cube has no momentum it would just plop out. If the platform it was on was moving up instead, the cube would launch

You're a retard. The cube's dy on the right is positive while the cube's dy on the left is 0 since it's not moving. When you're driving in a car and you suddenly stop, you lurch forward. This is because your body also had velocity due to being pushed initially by the car. The cube on the right had velocity due to being pushed by the platform beneath it, thus resulting in it being launched after coming out of the portal. On the left the cube had no velocity, the ceiling did, so when it went through, it's dy was still zero and hence plopped harmlessly

It's fucking B the only reason anyone would think it's A is because of a misunderstanding of how it worked in the game portal.
You don't just suddenly generate momentum going through a portal the point was that you maintain your current momentum which is why you had to jump from a height to launch yourself because you built up momentum.
Anyone who doesn't get this has a serious misunderstanding of how the mechanic even worked in the first place.
If you go through a portal with no momentum you still have zero momentum.
And as for the paradox people saying neither cause portals can't be on moving platforms yeah we get it, to prevent weird shit happening they made portals disappear or just not work on moving platforms, hell you couldn't put a portal down on anything not specifically a "moon dust" surface like established in portal 2 but that's not the point of this exercise the point is to make a thread full of retards argue about the same shit over and over again because the initial question in itself is flawed, you have to break a rule to even have the discussion which renders all options moot anyway.
The only winning move is not to play.

Attached: 1556317385412.jpg (476x480, 112K)

>The portal itself doesnt transfer its momentum to the cube.

The universe underneath it does though.

its a

>same physics engine
Considering somebody did test it on Portal 2 and it came out as B, I don't think you are right.
>same universe
What universe, you implying Gmod is somehow canonically connected to Half Life or Portal? LMAO

Again, A-apologists, everyone.

Half the mass would have momentum going away from the other half. If the cube is perfectly solid the momentous part will pull on the other resulting in half the speed. If not it's only a matter of whether the material can withstand infinite jerk (probably not).

>>same physics engine
>Considering somebody did test it on Portal 2 and it came out as B, I don't think you are right.
>>same universe
>What universe, you implying Gmod is somehow canonically connected to Half Life or Portal? LMAO
>
>Again, A-apologists, everyone.

Attached: 1537313439268.png (537x585, 573K)

Velocity vectors need to be relative to something. If you're walking 1 m/hour on a train going 30 m/hour in the same direction, your velocity relative to the train is 1m/h, but your V relative to the earth is 31m/h. In the pic, the cube's V relative to the portal is the same in both cases, which is all that matters.

right and when you walk you're stationary and the universe just moves around you, right?

>this mad cause I dabbed on u
lmao rekt

B A S E D
hula hoop fags hardly BTFOd

>be Bfag
>crash my car into Afag's house
>Afag now has to pay me because according to his logic it was his house that /relatively/ crashed into my perfectly still car
No worries, mate

Attached: 1552764560395.gif (1702x1384, 163K)

>having a physics debate about something physically impossible
Doesn't matter
You're all retards
Can't happen

Attached: 1531365754015.png (465x573, 193K)

Frame of reference doesn't mean shit. There's no force acting on the cube. The portal never makes contact with it. As far as the cube is concerned it's just sitting there before the portal reaches it, and just sitting there after the portal reaches it.

Attached: 08736a282ef474a7c595d95cde4672e4758e1b8a.jpg (251x251, 10K)

yes I know, it's A, i just fucked up letters because this retard replaced them

How does it never make contact when the cube literally passes through it?

this is why valve made portals not work on moving surfaces because the physics aren't realistic

If the entire universe flew towards you, you would move from it's perspective.

No because I don't have a magic shortcut to another point of the universe using infinite energy.

You're misunderstanding how a cube has velocity. The cube only has velocity when viewed relative to something that has a different velocity. If the cube were moving to the right 5 m/s, and you were to start riding a skateboard to the right 5 m/s, then relative to you the cube would have 0 m/s. Like how when you're on a plane it feels like you aren't moving, but compared someone down on earth you're moving 100s of miles an hour. From your view
nevermind finished explaining for me

Basically, if you were standing on the moving platform with the portal, it would seem like the cube is flying towards you. Which it is. Just like how it seems like the sun is moving throughout the day while in reality you are moving around the sun.
Go to college homie

>this is why valve made portals not work on moving surfaces
There are portals moving on Portal 2 though.

They are definitely real in-universe, but the moving portals ingame were just scripted.

>you would move
You wouldn't.
Just because two cars going at 200mph next to eachother look like they are stopped to eachother doesn't mean they aren't actually moving.

No

lmao look at this retard he probably thinks the right answer to the portal problem is B

you dont make contact with holes you retard.

their voids in space.

Attached: Will-The-Helicopter-Take-Off-640x622-og.jpg (650x650, 62K)

If a plane could take off like that why would it need wheels in the first place?

you all got me wrong, i tried to refute Bfags statement
i think it's A on this image

i make contact with your mums holes

Asphalt companies conspiracy.

Relativity is irrelevant to the box shooting out the other end though, which it wouldn't

put a big ass fan in front of the treadmill and it will

C - the individual particles crush themselves at an atomic level, releasing all that stored energy in a massive explosion

Makes sense
Now i need to know how A-fags passed highschool

this image is made by brainlet
it will take off if the runway is long enough, the plane will fly anyway because engines are not powering wheels so it doesn't matter.

If you really want to insist, it's gonna speed up and fly away, it would be C my dudes.
Then it will fall down

Attached: portal.jpg (903x331, 41K)

>how A-fags passed highschool
They didn't that's why they defend A.

Also going by the OP image again: you're saying all the momentum in the ceiling will transfer to the cube? Rather than slam down on the platform? You're saying dropping a hula hoop over someone from a skyscraper will send them flying since the momentum managed to magically transfer to you since you happened to go through it

Stop making these fucking threads. Its B. Only mouth breathing retards or people shitposting say otherwise.

Shit, didn't notice which platform was moving in the picture

Attached: portal_fix.jpg (921x332, 41K)

Thread theme
youtube.com/watch?v=Y6ljFaKRTrI

Solved it for you brainlets

Attached: ez.jpg (636x424, 29K)

Its on a treadmill retard it can't accelerate

Conservation of momentum. The box has none.
Its B.

The cube wouldn't move without any form of kinetic energy.

There is only one form of kinetic energy. Which is one half times the mass of the object times the speed of the object squared. The object has speed.

>The object has speed.
It doesn't. Stop parroting the first shit you read when you googled 'kinetic energy'.

Portals can't move

Portal 2 is a non canon SHIT with reddit "humor"

It clearly has speed, since it the object comes out of the portal, which implies it has speed.

Can’t place portals on moving surfaces.

It has speed once it moves through the portal because it is moving relative to its surroundings. It doesn't just pop into existence on the other side, it moves through the portal.

Using the rules stated by Portal. Momentum is conserved for objects entering the portal.

This does not apply if the portal is the one moving.

Attached: 1264004165461.jpg (554x390, 28K)

you pulled the second part out of thin air.

Can these Afags tell me what force acts upon the cube that makes it move? I legit can't figure out what you're thinking. The cube can only move in like in A if some large force is applied to it. I can't figure out where you people are seeing this applied. Nothing changes in the forces on the cube between before and after it going through the portal.

From a game code perspective it won’t because that’s not how object momentum is handled. Velocity is a variable of the object itself and is stored as a world-space-oriented vector. The portal just teleports the object to a new location and transforms the direction of its vector relative to the portal transform.

it doesn't exit the portal at high velocity. The portal moves around it at high velocity. The cube is stationary.

Imagine what it would look like if you were standing over the exit portal and looking in. You’d see the cube accelerating rapidly toward you.

>switching A and B to cause confusion when people who have already seen the image reply to it without looking closely
10/10 honestly

Objectively B. Visualize it as its destination, oriented the same as the portal, in place of the portal on the pedestal moving towards the cube. How would the cube act when it entered that moving room? It would plop out. All energy from the room, and pedestal, is transferred to the floor it slams into, not the cube. The cube would react to the impact of the two surfaces and the new gravity but be otherwise unaffected.

Momentum isn't conserved if the momentum isn't consistent.

That doesn't mean anything.

Yea Forums isn't smart enough for this one.

Attached: portal_box_problem.png (1072x372, 6K)

The second part is all bullshit anyway because the actual rules of Portals are that they cannot be placed on moving surfaces. It’s part of the game’s canon that two portals must share an inertial reference frame (the bit at the moon notwithstanding) or the “moving” portal disappears.

speedy thing is not going in therefor speedy thing is not going out

simple as.

sry to ruin your thread bud

Attached: 1525967718576.jpg (700x4989, 649K)

>literal reddit post

shame, have some good shit in it

Imagine if I was standing in this lab and sprinting faster and faster towards the cube. I would see the cube accelerating rapidly towards me.

This does not mean the cube is actually accelerating rapidly towards me. It just means my perspective compared to the cube is changing.

The blue portal shows things from the orange portal's POV.
The cube doesn't have any momentum in both scenarios, what you're seeing is the orange portal moving towards it.

>Enlightened centrism
Opinion discarded

It's relative to the system. If you think the system is "the portal", then you're a fucking slobbering moron with shit for brains.

>not being a centrist
lel

>it is moving relative to its surroundings
But it also isn't moving relative to its surrondings which 'cancels out' its 'movement' (which isn't movement anyways)

Technically if you are accelerating toward the cube, it is accelerating toward you. This is the whole point of relativity; it doesn’t matter which frame of reference you use because they’re all relative. The distinction in your scenario is that if you sprint toward the cube, the ENTIRE LAB is moving toward you at the same speed as the cube. If you came to a sudden stop, you might fling yourself forward... which from your frame of reference would appear as though the cube, and the entire lab, were still moving toward you.

The portal question is tricky because it presents a scenario where you have two moving frames of reference, and the object in question switches frame of reference from one to another without any force being applied. Which is impossible.

one thing moving relative to another thing doesn't equal to kinetic energy just like one thing not moving relative to another thing doesn't equal to motionless, brainlet

B 100%

Basically the question is when the cube actually exists on the other side of the portal. Does it exist on the other side of the portal before it is it all the way through the portal, or does it simply appear on the other side once the portal has moved far enough over it? What happens between the two portals?

If it moves it moves. It can't not move in the universe of the emerging portal because otherwise it couldn't be emerging from the portal.

Two things having the same relative anything doesn’t mean they both carry the same kinetic energy. I should not have to explain this to you.

Think in terms of atoms.

The answer is B.

The frame of reference is the entire system, which contains the box, all the portals, and the platform. Relative to the exit platform, the box has zero velocity, and will therefore plop out.

If the box has velocity relative to the exit portal, you will see result A, but since the box is completely still relative to the exit portal, B is correct.

If you disagree, you have never taken any level of physics.

The momentum from the portal does not get transferred to the object traveling through it, same as the plane on the running mill, it won't take off unless it's engines are on at a pace equal to it's engines.

Attached: 1537915568865.gif (641x492, 1.7M)

Attached: explain this.jpg (900x424, 48K)

>what is frame of reference

It’s a. Wether the portal move to the box or the box to the portal is irrelevant. The end result is the same. The box exits the other side at a high speed

B

A but with less speed, relative to how much of the cube passed through the portal.

Your thinking is on par with your english.

Lets be clear here, it isn't moving but if you want to stick to that dumb belief that's fine.
Now, based on your statement it's moving relative to its surroundings as it starts coming out of the portal. But at the same time the part of the cube that isn't passing through the portal is also not moving relative to its surroundings.

If you are going to pretend like you know what the fuck you are talking about at least think twice because you sound like a moron.

>the box is completely still relative to the exit portal
The issue is that the box is not still relative to the exit portal when it is actually exiting the portal.

The "space" beyond the portal isn't moving so I don't think it would make a difference what speed the portal is moving at in any situation.
It's always about what speed the object going through it, the portal might as well always be stationary and it won't make a difference.

Attached: 1556464460063.png (303x311, 178K)

>no retort
thought as much brainlet
>not being able to understand something as basic as this
lmao

Yes it is. It still behaves just as it did prior, relative to the exit portal. The space around it is moving, while the box is still.

It's odd that people can't understand that space is moving when talking about literal portals, which are literally required to move space to function.

Please tell me how you envision the cube coming out of the portal without it moving. It's impossible by any measure of the word moving. You can put a ruler on the outgoing portal and measure the cube's position progressing with time on the ruler, which is the definition of movement (velocity).

You're obviously young and foolish. Go to school.

I'm not him, but you're a fucking idiot.

B
The cube still has no momentum of its own. Its entering/exiting "speed" is actually just its position between the portal hoola hoop changing as the orange portal moves through it.

It will appear through the portal with the same speed as the moving portal but due to not having any kinetic energy itself, it won’t magically fly through the air. It will be affected by the new gravitational orientation and plop to the floor.

Attached: 1552944344029.png (1360x1147, 108K)

>It's always about what speed the object going through it

Speed is not a computer variable attached to a solid object that arbitrarily defines its velocity you creepo, the cube has speed because it has moved from XYZ1 to XYZ2. No move, no speedy.

Kinetic energy is DEFINED by (the mass and) velocity.

So the portal isn't so much a hole in space, but a teleporter? Like, something moves "through" it pressing against a film of space, and once it's through the film breaks off and it now exists in the new space?

again, the "space" outside of the portal is not moving, the portal itself moving does not matter.
It always plops out.

>It's odd that people can't understand that space is moving when talking about literal portals, which are literally required to move space to function.

The only set requirement of portals is to make the distance between them zero. That by itself isn't enough to justify A or B. Anything beyond that is just guessing and trying to make something sound reasonable.

>how you envision the cube coming out of the portal without it moving
The object is motionless so it is by definition, not moving. What is there to explain.
In fact for all we know neither A nor B are right. The cube could very well stand still in the angled platform without launching or falling because we don't know so many things about how different forces affect the cube in that sense that every possible (sensible) explanation could work.

The space inside the blue portal (and thus the cube) is moving, with the energy transfered from the moving orange portal. The cube will launch because those speed lines in the OP make it very clear the piston is supposed to be very fast.

let's be even more specific

Attached: anon is confused that motion is a continuous progress and that energy cannot suddenly appear only at (900x2110, 290K)

There's a level like this in Portal and the figure B happens.

>The object is motionless so it is by definition, not moving. What is there to explain.

As said, it can't be motionless. The moment it touches the portal, it receives implicit motion.

the space isn't moving

>
>>how you envision the cube coming out of the portal without it moving
>The object is motionless so it is by definition, not moving. What is there to explain.
You seem to be missing his point.

1. The blue portal is not moving.
2. The cube comes out of it.
3. Therefore the cube is moving with respect to the blue portal, at least until the cube has fully emerged on from the portal.

I mean, maybe it moves while it's coming out of the portal and then stops. But it's moving while it's coming out.

What are these images supposed to make me think about? The same type of thing would still happen in all cases and I don't see any reason why I would change my answer regardless of what answer I originally went with.

>The moment it touches the portal, it receives implicit motion
The portal is never touched.
Saying that the moving portal somehow gives movement to the cube when it goes through is like saying that a moving cube passing through gives the motionless portal movement.

portals, let alone moving portals, are impossible
stop trying to apply real life logic to them
yes, I am very smart and I have 5000 IQ

How does the cube end up on the other side if literally no part of the equation is actually moving? The cube isn't moving, the portals aren't moving, space isn't moving, relativity isn't moving. How the fuck does something end up in a different spot if nothing moved?

Touches as in "pass through". When the first bits of the cube meet the surface of the portal. Jesus.
Also, you don't necessarily need physical touching for things to accelerate.

Wouldn't A violate muh conservation of energy? I get the relativistic argument up to how the cube inherits any energy from the system.

Portal inherently violate that (put portals on different heights)

Unironically this. Portals as we know them can't ever be possible since they can create infinite energy.

inb4 "but potential energy doesn't count" lmao

Portals inherently violate conservation of momentum, too, seeing as how momentum is a vector and you can change the direction of a moving object by placing portals facing different directions.

If your answer is B then the pictures change nothing. If your answer is A then you are tasked to answer when exactly the cube starts gaining speed. The logic is inconsistent if it only happens when the cube is 100% inside the portal,so if you want to answer A the change needs to be gradual which means you have to explain why the portal can suck things, without any contact, when the portal is fully stationary.

Oh no no don't get me wrong I get the point. The problem is that just because the cube is moving relative to the portal doesn't mean the cube is going to have the kinetic energy to get launched. I'm more talking about kinetic energy that causes movement compared to perceived movement.
>you don't necessarily need physical touching for things to accelerate
Althought true, none of the known forces that can move objects without active physical contact are applied here so, again, the cube has no reason to launch in the air.

It's not that it doesn't count but that's infinite. With varying heights you still have a gravitational force acting on chell. What's acting on the cube?

>I'm more talking about kinetic energy that causes movement compared to perceived movement.
Then I guess we're abandoning real physics because there's no difference between movement and perceived movement in real life. If an object is moving, it has kinetic energy.

During the period of time in which the cube is emerging from the blue portal, the parts of it which have emerged from the blue portal do have kinetic energy in the frame of reference in which the blue portal is stationary — unless, of course, the Portal universe has a different definition of kinetic energy.
>but that violates conservation of energy
Yes, it does. Portals do that in the game too.

Attached: deal with it.webm (853x480, 2.88M)

>I'm more talking about kinetic energy that causes movement compared to perceived movement.
There's no difference. You are biased toward the "universe" of the resting cube. The mass elements (whichever you like, atoms for example) that have crossed the portal will have momentum.

If my answer is the A in the current thread (shoots off), I would claim that the rate in has to equal the rate out. That means any part of the cube that has gone through the portal now has velocity. If 10% of the cube as gone through, then 10% of the cube is now moving and will try to pull the stationary part up. Everything is consistent with the scenario in the OP except for the amount of the cube that is moving.

should've done it with the cube

>player physics = cube physics

7/10 bait

Attached: 1518204301441.jpg (645x729, 48K)

You haven't explained why it works. You just chose that the cube partially accelerates because you perceived that it would cause less problems of consistency to explain. This is just the beginning. Ok. Let's consider that the cube partially accelerates and work with that. Tell me, what is the name of the force that is making the cube partially accelerate? Hint: it's not gravity, it's not friction, it's not momentum. The cube is completely immobile, the portal is also completely immobile after stopping half-way through. The cube is suddenly "sucked" upward to satisfy you theory. So what is that energy, what is it called?

I only asked about why the image was posted so often. All I have to do is show that the thought process is consistent, which I think I did. I don't care about the energy since if it where there, it would be the same if the cube is 100% of the way through or 10% of the way through.

This question cannot be answered, it's purely subjective.

>there's no difference between movement and perceived movement in real life
Except there is.
You can clearly see when something is moving in space and when something appears to be moving.
>You get close to an object. Object seems to be towards you without moving in space.
>Somebody throw an object at you. You seem to get closer to the object without actually moving in space.
Spatial movement is relevant and even more so when it comes to portals.

>You are biased toward the "universe" of the resting cube.
In fact, I'm not biased is why I think there's a C solution.
That's why, when people talk about "movement relative to the portals" I also think that, if there's movement relative to the portals, there's also movement relative to the cube. Who are you, me or anybody else to claim the aboslute truth is "the object launches because it's moving relative to the portal" when the portal is moving relative to the cube at the exact same speed, thus exerting the exact same "force"?

>thus exerting the exact same "force"?
the exact same opposite force/reaction

If you grab a box and move it, you are accelerating the molecules that you touch directly. The rest of the molecules from the box are accelerated by whatever atomic or molecular bonds that make the box a solid in the first place. Same applies here.

>You can clearly see when something is moving in space and when something appears to be moving.

Nope. In space for example you would not know. You are thinking geocentrically (earth as the absolute frame of reference) which is a fallacy. There is no absolute frame of reference.

>You are thinking geocentrically
Considering Portals happens in a planet with gravity, yes, I'm talking in non-zero gravity terms.

Brainlet. Motion is all relative, and relative to the portal the cube is moving very fast. The velocity at which the cube enters the portal translates into it being shot out of the blue portal. From our perspective the cube isn't moving, but it is in fact entering the portal at high velocity.

B, because there's no momentum in the cube.

Yeah, makes sense.

You asked about the purpose of that image and I answered you, the purpose of that image is to force a person who supports answer A to explain how the portal is making an object move without touching it or influencing it in any way. It opens the mind to the concept that the portal can make things move just by partially touching them partially. This phenomena cannot be described with any existing word or compared to any existing concept. It is not gravity, it is not friction, it is not momentum, it is nothing, just the sudden assumption that if a portal moves and stops then it sucks things. If you are not actually interested to discuss things any further, if you only felt like pointing out that a gradual answer has more consistency than an all-or-nothing answer then then yes you can leave the conversation. I will gladly give you the gold star for recognizing consistency. You can put it on your fridge. You deserved it. You pointed at the consistent thingy.

>walk towards an object
>the object is moving relative to your position
>hasn't actually moved
Pretty simple honestly.

all that matters is relative speed
both cases should be B

That's quite an attitude for someone who doesn't seem to understand solids. It's not sucking anything, it's the property of a solid. The force is called bonds.

Attached: blckhl.jpg (1200x1000, 166K)

Brainlet. Motion is all relative, and relative to the doorframe the person is moving very fast. The velocity at which the person enters the doorframe translates into it being completely stationary. From our perspective the person isn't moving, but it is in fact entering the doorframe at high velocity.

>You can clearly see when something is moving in space and when something appears to be moving.
>>You get close to an object. Object seems to be towards you without moving in space.
>>Somebody throw an object at you. You seem to get closer to the object without actually moving in space.
Holy shit, my dude. You've just proven that you completely misunderstand the most basic concepts in physics.

Motion is relative. I'm not talking about special relativity or any other Einstein shit. I'm referring to the fact that an object's motion can be described only with respect to some other object. If I throw an object at you, that object is moving with respect to you, i.e., it is said to be moving in the frame of reference in which you are stationary. It is equally correct to say that you are moving with respect to that object, i.e., there is a frame of reference in which the thrown object is stationary, and in that frame of reference you are moving. No frame of reference is any more true or correct than any other.

If two objects out in space are getting closer together, who is to say which one is moving? How can you tell? The answer is that either one or both are moving depending on the chosen frame of reference. Neither object's motion is more real than the other. This is true even if one of the objects happens to be stationary with respect to a planet or a star or whatever.

If you are on a train and you see trees moving past you, then you might say they "appear to be moving" but in fact they are moving with respect to you and the train, just as you and the train are moving with respect to the trees and the ground. I know you're going to try to get around this with "but the motion of the trees is just an illusion" but it's literally not. This is how physics works. There is no absolute frame of reference. Every reference frame is equally valid. In the train's frame of reference, the trees have velocity and kinetic energy.

imagine the portal is going down 15 kilometers per second
the cube will travel through the exit portal at 15 kilometers per second, and move out from it at 15 kilometers per second then when the whole cube is out, will it suddenly stop?
no of course it won't, it will fly off

>You've just proven that you completely misunderstand the most basic concepts in physics.
No I haven't You said that there's no difference between perception and movement and movement. I gave you two or three examples that prove you are wrong. You can perceive movement, you can move and you can perceive stillness while moving for and from a certain frame of reference.
I'm honestly not sure what you are arguing about at this point.

>It is a property of solids that if a portal moves and an object is half-way inside the portal and then the portal stops then the object is physically yanked in direction of the portal proportionally to the speed of the portal and the total area of the object that has passed through it
I guess I'm gonna show more attitude by saying that no, this isn't a property of solids. Try to explain it again. Take as much time as you want. A portal is a tool that shortens the distance between A and B to zero, explain why moving portal pull things.

People seem adamant on believe that portals are some kind of turbocomplicated thing when they are basically a hollow cylinder with its endings not physically connected.
The portal contraption wouldn't launch the cube just for the same reason that a hulahoop wouldn't. The fact that the exit of the portal isn't moving on the same direction as the entrance of the portal doesn't mean it isn't actually moving (as paradoxical as it sounds) because both entrance and exit of the portal are one and the same entity meaning that when the entrance portal moves towards the cube, so does the blue portal.
The solution is neither A nor B.

Seriously, is like people want to make the portals way more convoluted to understand that what they actually are.

Does anyone else unironically love these threads?

You're not getting it.

Here's what you wrote:
>>You get close to an object. Object seems to be towards you without moving in space.
>>Somebody throw an object at you. You seem to get closer to the object without actually moving in space.
It's wrong.

If you say that you are moving toward a stationary object, then you are describing your motion in the frame of reference in which that object is stationary. In the equally valid frame of reference in which you are stationary, the object is moving towards you.

If you say that an object is moving toward you and that you are not moving, then you are describing the object's motion in the frame of reference in which you are stationary. In the equally valid frame of reference in which that object is stationary, you are moving towards that object.

The phrase "actually moving in space" is nonsense. There is no absolute frame of reference in which space itself is stationary. You can't measure motion with respect to space itself. You must choose a frame of reference in order to describe the velocities of objects, and while some choices are more convenient than others, none are incorrect.

How many people do actually think it's B and how many are trolling?

>the purpose of that image is to force a person who supports answer A to explain how the portal is making an object move without touching it or influencing it in any way.
My problem with the image is that it doesn't actually do this any more than the original image. I genuinely could not tell which side of the argument it was intended to support and I was ready to also explain how it did not change the results of side B had you answered differently. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how people are thinking about the other side.

> the sudden assumption that if a portal moves and stops then it sucks things
This is not what people who support A think. To get to this point, you would have to think that the answer is B and then the cube just shoots off for no reason. The entire problem is about how portals work, so you can't take for granted that people will agree on anything more than that portals are a window that connect two points in space. Side A would say that a moving portal does not cause the universe to move along with it, essentially dropping a box over the cube. The only way for the cube to go through the portal is for it to gain velocity instantly as it passes through the portal. It isn't a matter of the portal sucking it through, but instead that the cube can't instantly lose the energy that it now has.

>This phenomena cannot be described with any existing word
This is true. I can't explain how the cube got energy. You can't explain how the cube was able to change position without energy. Like you said in an earlier post, we can both make stuff up to justify the answer we want, but we can't actually explain it with basic physics how it took place.

Low IQ

High IQ

>I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how people are thinking about the other side.
This sentence pretty much describes 95% of posts in every Portal thread.

>It's wrong.
You are saying that
>when you get close to an object it, it doesn't appear to be moving towards you even though it isn't moving
>when somebody throws an object at you, you seem to get closer to it although you are not moving
this is wrong when literally isn't.
It feels like you are arguing just because I didn't specifically said all that followed by "on this or that frame of reference".

The one not getting it is you. You said that in real life there's no difference between perceiving movement and "actual" movement.
You can, as a person, in Planet Earth, very easily differentiate between something moving and something that appears to be moving. It is that simple.

If the first half of the cube has gone through the portal, that half has momentum.
This half is connected to the other half via internal forces defined by the material. This is what makes it a solid. If we assume the solid is perfect (forces propagating instantly through the solid and the solid can withstand being ripped apart), the half that's through the portal will pull on the other half via those forces. The momentum (which is half that of the no-stop scenario) is propagated to the rest of the cube by those forces like a train pulling dead weight.

Grab any object and move it, you're only touching some parts of the object, yet the whole moves. It's the particles that you're touching directly which transfer the force you're applying to the particles you aren't touching.

It inspires me to start a pyramid scheme.

You claim to understand the concept of reference frames but then you go ahead and write this:
>You said that in real life there's no difference between perceiving movement and "actual" movement.
>You can, as a person, in Planet Earth, very easily differentiate between something moving and something that appears to be moving. It is that simple.
I guess I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that, indeed, I don't get it. I'll assume that I don't know what you mean by "appears to be moving". So what does it mean? Could you try to describe it as precisely as possible?

Does it mean that, if I'm on a train moving through a forest, the trees "appear to be moving" but aren't actually moving? Because if that's what it means, then you can refer to my earlier posts for how wrong that notion is.

I appreciate that the two options aren't labelled in alphabetical order. It creates additional chaos and confusion in a thread that is already meant to rile people up.

There is no answer since we have no idea how portals work. It's a highly advanced fictional technology without detailed explanations of the physics behind it.

>If the first half of the cube has gone through the portal, that half has momentum.
The object has no momentum. It is completely immobile. It is the portal that is moving.
>Grab any object and move it
Portals can't grab.

>Portals can't grab.
You're being intentionally dense.

When you were in high school taking a physics test, and you got to the problem which asked you to assume for simplicity that there's no air resistance, did you answer it by saying "there's air resistance"?

I'm not the guy to whom you are replying but it's pretty obvious that
1. he didn't imply portals can "grab" objects, and
2. the ability of portals to grab objects doesn't change the point he was making.

Imagine a giant hollow tube falling on you at 15 kilometers per second.
Will you remain still or get magically launched into the air as you "travel through" it?

>Portals can't grab.
You can, and therefore you can attempt to understand the analogy.

>The object has no momentum. It is completely immobile. It is the portal that is moving.
That wasn't your original argument. There is enough proof ITT that you cannot possibly consider the object to be motionless once it enters the portal.

If you say that something appears to be moving, you are quite clearly describing that object in the frame of reference in which that object is in fact moving.

>then you can refer to my earlier posts for how wrong that notion is
Except it is not wrong. That is exactly what perception of movement is and is inherent to us just like the sense of balance. When you are on a train, a car, a plane, you don't feel like you are moving like at all (at a constant speed anyways) even though you are, everything else SEEMS to be moving.
I'm not saying that everything is moving (obviously) just that you perceive it as such EVEN if you know that it isn't. It's just how it is.

go to a better college

btfo everyone in this thread

Attached: 1556519251664.gif (320x240, 1.15M)

Just take a point on the cube and measure its distance from the surface of the emerging portal versus time. The distance will grow over time, otherwise the cube wouldn't be coming out of that portal at all. That is the definition of velocity.

both of those are wrong, how the fuck does he go head first into the portal and come out with his body facing outward?

Attached: 1437867431822.png (636x489, 62K)

B-fags are those who paid no attention to even basic high school physics.

the "save the princess" threads are 10 times better than these retarded "Vs" threads.

in what world would it be b

It wouldn't be either of these, that diagram is even worse than the OP.

This visual should solve this "debate" once and for all.

>When you are on a train, a car, a plane, you don't feel like you are moving like at all (at a constant speed anyways) even though you are, everything else SEEMS to be moving.
I implore you to read a physics textbook. Even a high-school level textbook would suffice. Because what you're saying is the opposite of how motion works. You're assuming that the Earth's frame of reference is the only true frame of reference, and that's wrong.

Maybe the concept of terrestrial vehicles on planet Earth is confusing you, because we are so accustomed to think of these things as moving with respect to the Earth. Imagine two asteroids out in space. They are getting closer together. You are sitting on one of them. How do you know whether your asteroid is moving, or whether the other asteroid is moving? Think about that for a few minutes. No, stop looking around for the Earth; it's not there. We're in an alternate universe containing only two asteroids. Which one is "really" moving and which one "appears to be" moving? The answer is that there's no difference between these two asteroids. Which one is stationary depends on which frame of reference you choose, and neither choice is more correct than the other.

>plopfags

Attached: file.png (1278x768, 49K)

>what is kinetic energy and the conservation of momentum
You're fucking stupid.
Here's where you went wrong
>If the first half of the cube has gone through the portal, that half has momentum.
Why in the fuck would a still object with no KE and no momentum being passed through a moving tube, in this case, a "wormhole," end with any momentum of KE? Nothing is transferred. Much as said the portal in the game is basically a tube except upon exiting, you exit is somewhere else with the same momentum you left at. The only thing with KE in this system is the platform with the portal on it, and that stops when it meets the gravitational force of the ground, expending the energy upon impact against the force of the ground.

>You're assuming that the Earth's frame of reference is the only true frame of reference
No I'm not. But I'm talking about Earth because you said that for us, there's no difference between them which is straight up wrong.
>as a person, in Planet Earth, very easily differentiate between something moving and something that appears to be moving
That's word per word what I said which is unarguably true. If you can't tell the difference between something moving and something that appears to be moving you have a condition and it would be a good idea to go to a doctor. Not being ironic btw, it's an actual condition.

I'm fully aware that there are two ways to see how portals can exist. Portals can't exist so we can only discuss which interpretation holds the most consistency. The point of my posts is that the most simple explanation, the hula hoop that shortens the distance between A and B with minimal interaction with mass and energy, is probably the most internally consistent view for this concept. The more we can engineer situations where a portal can pull things with forces that don't exist, the more the concept becomes distant to their original idea of being a spatial shortcut between A and B. It's one thing to invent a spatial shortcut, it's another thing to invent a new type of force in the universe just to justify how the spatial shortcut can theoretically work if you squint and look sideways.

>There is enough proof ITT that you cannot possibly consider the object to be motionless once it enters the portal.
I do not need proof to consider that the object is motionless. I can consider whatever I want and so do you, you also do not need proof to consider that it is in motion. These ideas are competing views for a concept that doesn't exist. I hold you to the same standard as me. This thread cannot possibly have proof of how a portal works so If you say this thread doesn't contain evidence that my interpretation is right, I hope you won't be surprised when I say that it means nothing. The only thing we can discuss is the degree of consistency between approach. If a portal is a tool that shortens the distance between A and B then it seems consistent to me that it doesn't increase or decrease the speed of objects that go through, without inventing new forces that would explain why it does.

The implication here is that the spike would shoot to his face or is the spike stuck on the ground?

>the difference between something moving and something that appears to be moving
If something appears to be moving, then you must be observing it from the reference frame in which it is, in fact, moving. The object's motion doesn't become fake just because you prefer the frame of reference in which it's stationary.

It would be B.

The picture is disingenuous because it's a bowling ball, and the displacement of area would roll the ball no matter how much force it came out with.
Imagine if the bowling ball was another cube, would it go flying, or scoot only a little?
Unless you're a retard, it would only scoot over a little

Can you, as a person, on Planet Earth, see the difference between something that is moving around you? And you moving around that something?

Maybe you should learn the definitions of KE and momentum before you call anyone stupid. They're all just functions of velocity (and mass). So obviously you don't actually know what you're talking about, because velocity implies momentum and KE. All those 3 things are relative, by the way.

No, a portal is not a tube.
>still
>being passed through
contradiction
>upon exiting
motion
>you exit
motion
>gravitational force of the ground
stopped reading there

Also all of these shitty talking points have been debunked over and over.

Since people are repeating the argument that a portal should be seen like a tube I've decided to make a simple visualization. A tube would not make this stationary balloon move, would a portal tube make it move?

Attached: balloon problem.jpg (800x963, 81K)

A.
This isn't a plopfag thing, nigger. Spike doesn't have any speed, but it suddenly existing in the space of the jackasses head will hurt him, like anything else would. This isn't even constructed as the same problem

If you glued that guy to the blue portal but instead of a blue portal it was a window and you slammed that portal into a knife yes, the guy would fuckin die

It would move as fast as much the kinetic energy transferred from the cube (which in turn was transferred by the moving orange portal) allows it to.

oh boy i love seeing this thread again
wasn't the official answer from valve enough, Yea Forumseddit?
guess not

the balloon is up your ass

>but it suddenly existing in the space of the jackasses
Not suddenly. It would move toward his head over time.

The hulahoop concept isn't simple and only works if a portal is more than a shortcut between A and B. The portal would have to be able to influence and warp space outside of the two planes of the portal that are now in the same location. You would also have to define the rules about what is and is not affected by the movement of the portal since it is now extended to more than just the connection between the two portals. For example, if you were to move the orange portal around after the cube goes through, would it start bouncing around the room like it is inside of a box being shaken? Is the cube really special compared to the rest of the matter in the universe just because it went through a portal at one point? If these things do not happen, why wouldn't a portion of the box stop the exact moment it goes through the portal rather than traveling and arbitrary distance before stopping. No matter how you look at it, we will be doing something new with physics that are not currently defined.

>IT IS COMPLETELY IMMOBILE
Disregarded. The analogy cannot be accurate as the cube in the OP is not immobile. Also in your diagram both portals are moving, whereas in the OP only the orange portal is moving. This is literally just "muh hula hoops" all over again, try harder brainlet.

You can't put portals on moving surfaces because it breaks relativity. But if you could put portals on moving surfaces: "speedy object in, speedy object out" applies.

That's a completely different example because now both portals are moving. In OP's example, one portal is moving and one is stationary.

Does "moving around something" mean circular motion, i.e., moving around it in a circle? Because that would imply acceleration, so of course I would feel that. We're not talking about acceleration. If an object is accelerating, then it's accelerating in all frames of reference.

I'm talking about objects with constant velocity, i.e., objects which are not accelerating. So let's drop the phrase "moving around" and consider these two scenarios:

1. You are sitting on a stationary asteroid, and another asteroid moves past you at constant velocity in a straight line.
2. You are sitting on an asteroid moving at a constant velocity in a straight line, and you pass a stationary asteroid.

I would not be able to tell the difference between these two scenarios, and neither would you, because there is no difference. They are two descriptions of the same thing, with motion measured according to two different frames of reference. You could measure motion with respect to nearby stars if you want, but I would be just as correct in saying that those stars are moving with respect to some other reference frame chosen by me. There is no single absolute frame of reference, so the actual velocity of each asteroid is entirely dependent on which reference frame is used.

>blue portal moving in tandem with the orange portal

You fucked up.

>A
>what is conservative of momentum
UNLESS the portal PHYSICALLY interacts with the cube it will remain MOTIONLESS. This is literally highschool-tier science.

You dumb bastards never learn.
Portals do not transform anything to do with you in 3 dimensional space. All forces acting upon you will continue to act upon you, and it does not introduce additional forces to you. It merely translates your prior position to your current position.
In the OP, the cube is the only thing to move through the portal. If the piston came through too, you might have an argument, since there is the introduction to a new force acting on the cube, besides for itself.

kek