Well?

>”Momentum; a function of mass and velocity, is preserved between portals. In layman’s terms; speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out.”

The cube has no momentum

A.
People saying B just assume that portals are some convoluted thing when it's essentially just a hollow cylinder with their endings separated in space. The cube wouldn't shoot up for the same reason it doesn't shoot up in the 'hula-hoop' analogy.

Garbage thread.
Youtube has the answer on how the game's physics engine handles this situation.

Attached: 1552402760285.jpg (700x4989, 649K)

exactly, so its A

>Consider what would happen in a simpler situation if an object was thrown through a moving portal.

Take two portals, one placed on the front end of a moving object traveling at 1m per second. The other is on a static surface. You take a small object and throw it through the static portal. It's moving through the air at a speed of 5m per second when it reaches the static portal.

Take what happens next and break it down infinitismally, the way you were taught to do in calculus. (if you didn't do calculus, blame your school) The thrown object will gradually travel through the portal, meaning we can take snapshots of when the object is say a quarter way through the portal, halfway through, three-quarters through and so on. What happens at the first of these junctures? Well, the object is travelling at 5m/s. The exit portal is travelling forward at 1m/s, and the tip of the object is being projected out of that in the same direction. So this means that the tip of the object is exiting the portal at effectively 6 meters per second - it's flying out at 5, and then an extra one from the portal's own motion.

The rest of the object however is only moving at 5 m/s, since it hasn't passed through the portal yet. This causes an unusual events: the front part of the object is now travelling faster than the rest of the object. But this is not possible for a non-elastic object, that is an object capable of stretching when one part is exerted to forces different from the rest. If our thrown object WAS elastic, like it was made out of a high flexibility rubber or coiled light metal such as a slinky, then this would be feasible to an extent. Our object would accelerate somewhat on exiting the portal in gradual increments, with the extra result being that the object would be * stretched * by the act of passing through the mobile portal.

Attached: 1550101564885.png (900x850, 591K)

Does that imply A is correct? Because as far as relative motion goes, both scenarios on the left side should have the same orange portal output. In both cases, the box moves quickly into the blue portal, and therefore should exit the orange portal just as fast.
A looks absolutely nonsensical. The box exits the orange portal at high velocity and stops dead on? How can people believe that?

whoever submitted this for the e3 collage I want you to know you're great

However, most objects are non-elastic or relatively very inelastic, and the level of stretching we're talking about is beyond consideration. Most hypothetical objects - a brick, a spanner, an inflated football under firm tension - cannot stretch sufficiently to accomodate the effect in observation. If you try to "stretch" a brick, you'll have a hard time trying it. Exert enough force and the brick simply shatters.

This then raises a question: the object flying through the portal is being stretched, and is under a force. But every force has an equal and opposite reaction force, which must be directed somewhere. Where is our counterforce? One speculates that, since the portal is a superimposed feature onto a regular surface, the surface itself is bearing the brunt of this force. So when an object flies through a moving portal and is stretched, the surface to which the portal is affixed exerts force and has forced exerted upon it. This makes the material of the surface relevant for determining what happens in the event of a resilient and inelastic thrown object.

In our brick case, the brick will simply resist the force exerted on it if it is not at least as hard as the brick itself. If it's about the same, then the effect will be the gradually incremental shattering - of both the brick, AND of the surface to which the portal is affixed. This shattering would almost certainly disrupt the sustainance of the portal itself, thereby prompting its severance.

So the tip of the brick that passed through the portal would be pulverised and cut-off from the rest of it. The portal would collapse, and both locations would see equal damage which adds up to that inflicted on the brick. And finally, the rest of the brick would rebound back, with some shattering, from the surface that used to sustain the portal entrance.

Assume that instead the portal is affixed to a much tougher surface, say a metal harder than the fired-clay brick. This would mean enough force would

Attached: the duck has some hard advice for you.jpg (750x733, 83K)

um... you're just seeing the viewpoint get closer to the cube. There is no movement being done except with the portal. It's like if you pointed two mirrors at each other and brought theme closer together my guy.

Portals do not affect momentum or speed at all. So A is correct since the box isn't actually moving.

Yea Forums is too dumb to realize the paradox. You should know this by now.

Neither, portals don't stay on moving objects

Why don't americans take physics classes in primary school?

Everyone in 2019 knows the right answer is B.
Afags are either black people or trannies.

finally

In a case where you can penetrate yourself, you'll also be sandwiched between two copies of yourself, all stuck in a virtually infinite chain of dick-to-ass, unable to actually move about. There won't be any thrusting really because the ass would move away at the same time you push forwarded.
Unless you just love to be sandwiched between two sweaty men, with your dick and ass occupied, you won't enjoy it as much as you'd think.

be exerted back to pulverise the brick, while the portal surface would probably survive with only mild torsion and stratching, which would be audible as a loud unpleasant scrape-ringing. The brick meanwhile would also make a lot of noise, as its material would be explosively pulverise in an infinitely of infinitesimal layers as it passes progressively through the static portal and out of the moving one. A whole brick would go in, and a pulverised shower of loud, noisy brick dust and fragments would exhaust out the other end at a slightly faster overall speed to entry. This could prove a useful combat tactic as a way of turning simple, common solid projectiles into a scatter attack with a lot of incredible, probably painful noise as a side effect. Effectually the mechanical strain of hurling bricks through the metal surface would contort the surface of the material enough to disrupt the portal formation, resulting in another brick divided in two with the rear part bouncing back towards the thrower.

With this established, we can examine the case in the OP . In this example, the object and exit portal are static while the entry portal is mobile. This means that the object would experience a matching force to that of the object hurled through the static portal out of the moving one. So the object would experience an increase in speed as crosses the exit portal, exerted incrementally on infinitesimal slices of the object as it passes through.

Should our sample cube be sufficiently elastic, then out object will simply fly out like in option B., with a concomitant stretching effect applied as well.

Should our object not possess sufficient elasticity, and/or the surface material of the portals lack the strength to sustain the forces involved, then the portals will collapse. A tiny amount of the object would be shaved off and fired out the exit portal as it closes, and the rest of the object would remain on the raised platform. The descending

Attached: 1523044610328.jpg (499x565, 73K)

what if you tilt your pelvis up and down

Momentum is a vector and is not at all persevered between portals, even within normal in-game portal scenarios. GLaDOS's statement is false.
Momentum is relative, just like velocity is. Where your frame of reference is the moving portal, the cube DOES have velocity, and therefore has momentum.

fuck this retarded thread, it's A, stop arguing, this is literally the only place that argues about simple shit like this, fuck off you retards, you guys are either underage or just had poor education, or both.

Attached: maxretard.png (265x348, 115K)

>Portals placed on moving objects

based

In A the top comes down and in B the bottoms goes up.

This doesn't proof shit.

If you brought 2 mirrors closer to each other, would any of the surrounding area move with the mirrors? That's what it's like when a portal moves

presser would rebound back upwards as it clangs off the sample cube.

Finally, should the object lack in elasticisty AND the surfaces to which the portals are affixed hold sufficient strength, then the object would be shave-accelerated as it passed through the descending portal out of the exit in a loud flurry of whizzing shards. Et voila, you might say: one neatly sliced companion cube, coming right up.

In summary, the scenario present in the original post presents a refreshing and novel way of dicing vegetables in the kitchen, of turning bricks into explosive showers of fast-flying dust, and of wrecking your portal surfaces and getting the odd brick rebounding back in your eyes and face.The destructive consequences of passing an object through a portal where the entrance and exit have uneven velocities cannot be understated. Contemplate the effects of hurling an object through a portal that is undergoing an orbital motion for instance, and the circular-radial destructive effect this would exert on the brick and/or lab rat. Adding simple motion to portals presents far greater dangers and destructive potential than a glance may reveal.

Attached: 373495766.jpg (576x384, 50K)

Attached: 1527187396078.jpg (1200x1000, 166K)

This is the correct response.

Please reevaluate.

it happens when you want to remove the neurotoxin generator :

What a lazy baseless cop out.
1. There's no rule of nature stating an object cannot move relative to itself.
2. What you see through a portal is basically an image. Seeing "impossible" things through it is not very different from looking at a lense or a mirror. "Wow by moving a mirror I moved an entire universe! Quick, give me a Nobel!"

Attached: 51FRJm OBuL._SX425_.jpg (425x303, 21K)

I wouldn't know, as I took physics outside of the USA. Maybe if they did, they'd realize A is dumb.

you take that back

Bfags wish the cube would move suddenly from being still because they wish they would move out of their mom's basement without having to do shit

your physics class covered kinetic energy / momentum no?

typical A fag projection

based retard

>The box exits the orange portal at high velocity
>high velocity
How could the box exit the orange portal at high velocity when it entered the blue portal at zero velocity?

The portal's moving along a piston, not the actual box itself. It'd be like slamming a cup down over a coin on a table and expecting the coin to shoot up into the cup.

Attached: 1551825299527.jpg (268x263, 18K)

You cut a hole in a piece of paper and slam the paper down on a penny
Does the penny fly out?

>equating bouncing photons to a whole universe moving relative to itself
You fucking brainlet.

your physics class covered portals no?
An object is fucking transfered instantly, a hole is open in the reality, but the braindead highschool retards still think their "physics for kids" class applies.

People need to fucking stop thinking with rigid bodies. The entrance velocity has to match the exit one, or the object is put under unexplained pressure perpendicular to the plane of the portal. Imagine a column of trucks with no brakes (need external force to stop) driving back to back on a road. They drive through a giant hoop. The trucks after the hoop need to keep driving at the same speed so the trucks before the hoop dont ram into them, hell, they can't slow down by themselves because they have no brakes. There's nothing that could stop them after the hoop, so they all just keep going. The trucks are a atoms in a vertical slice, the hoop is the the portal.
>muuuuuh momentum/ke
Did you miss the fact that the an object was moved whilst breaking said law? No, because the portal covers it, so here's where the momentum comes from: the portal. The energy requirements to open one more than cover the cost of throwing some box.

I have never thought about this problem, and I layed out my thinking and reasoning on it in a multi-post earlier in this thread, coming organically to the conclusion that a destructive variant of B) would occur due to the gradual impartment of velocity to the object as it incrementally passed through the moving portal.

Thus far, in a thread full of angry arguments for A), there hasn't been one response to that post chain. I make quite a few post chains in my different kinds of threads here, and they generally get a response, sometimes many. No responses often indicate one of two things: that their are counter proponents who don't want to engage in the topic out of a corrupt interest, or that the points go way over the crowd's head. One or both of these things must be present for the advocates of A) in this thread. The anger and insistence must stem from a place of confused unfamiliarity and a desire to defend an unexamined worldview that provides a feeling of safety.

B, it makes sense.

>hurrrff durrff it's like a hula hoop!!!! *farts*
so you're telling me if i pull back up the hula hoop faster than the acceleration of gravity, the cube should magically get sucked into the portal faster than the acceleration of gravity?

Neither. There is no force acting on the block therefore the block would not move.

I get that you're just trying to be smart and different, but gravity (a 'force', wow what a shocker) most certainly does exist and would cause the cube to slide / tumble down the 45° slope after it comes out the blue portal, as is demonstrated with cubes on angles in Portal.

You ask that question as if that doesn't happen.. Happens literally 10/10 times when I try it. The penny is still, I slam paper, BOOM, penny lodged in the wall. Do I live in a pocket of spacetime or something?

It never fully comes out of the portal. It still maintains contact with the pillar.

>the block would just sit there on the 45 degree slide
Found the guy who hasn't played either portal

Are we talking portal physics or real life physics WITH portals?

>99% of the cube on one 'side'
>1% in the other
>user thinks that it will obey the gravity direction of the 1%
nice

brainlet

I think A
Since the box itself is not in a state of momentum. But I could be stupid

Either.
In neither of those 2 cases would the cube just sit still on a 45° angle without sliding / tumbling down.

>thinking of portals as hula hoops
The velocity of the piston as it envelops the cube would cause it to shoot out, because space is moving around the cube, which is functionally the same as the cube moving.

The only measure that matters is the height of the cube. With portals you could theoretically have pistons made of plastic envelop columns of concrete, and the velocity would transfer into kinetic energy much more efficiently.

You're assuming a lot of properties for the companion cube in this case that haven't been established.

I can assure you if it weighs 3 pounds and is lathered in your moms lube it's not going to just sit there.

No in real life physics, the force of gravity would also go through the blue portal, directing all objects towards the orange portal at a 45 degree angle. This would add to the force of gravity going straight down, resulting in a 1.41G gravitational pull at a 22.5 degree angle to the platform, which for most substances would not be enough to overcome friction.

I am assuming that the cube's properties (dimensions, weight, material, etc.) are the same as in portal.
Yet I am still not assuming specifically "the laws of physics are that of [portal/reality]."
Come back when OP shows a "weighs 0.01kg" note or similar

No, it’s more like putting a cup through a table and having the wood holding the coin move through it.
Compared to the lip of the cup the coin has moved.

>proof
Don't you have your grade 6 exams to study for?

Assumed: neither the cube or its pedestal have have any kinetic energy and only the press thingy with the portal is moving. Therefore, the correct answer is A

Hello summer

does this make sense to you?

Attached: Bretards.png (932x580, 12K)

Both portals are moving, and furthermore with the *exact* same velocity.

Attached: 1550332853370.jpg (342x316, 20K)

I think his point is "Why would this cause the pole to suddenly jump", but I see why you'd need to ignore his point. It's the only way B makes sense after all, B can never accept any analogy, or simplification, or explanation.

Portals cannot move in relation to each other.

A and B can both be true and false depending on frame of reference, and is part of why portals don't really make any sense.

Attached: afags.png (643x632, 81K)

well his head is moving
the portal is just a hole
are cars now also a valid portal?

Yes he does. Kinetic energy is a concept, it's not a real tangible thing. He is moving relative to the platform and has mass therefore he has kinetic energy.

This is your mind on A

Look at the animation of the first reply. It shows "Scenario A" where the cube just pops out of the orange portal. That implies it goes out quickly, then dead-stops.
Only acceptable "hurr box is stationary" scenario would pancake the box at the exit of the orange portal, as it's squeezed through the blue but can't expand into its regular shape going out of the orange. This is better than the stupid shit the A option describes, because that's at least consistent within the retarded A logic.
The true answer is that the box exits the orange portal because relative to the blue portal the stationary box DOES in fact have velocity, equal but opposite in direction to that of the blue portal from a stationary POV. Relative velocity is key, and people arguing in favor of A keep ignoring it.

Attached: a fags believe in this.png (888x595, 22K)

portals are holes
relativity doesnt matter because its not relative to anything
you are black

The only relativity going on here is your parents before they got married.

lmao

Portal closes, obviously. Play the games before asking dumb fucking questions, retard.

Portals are separate hole ends that send out objects through one as they enter relative to the other. In terms of orientation going in and out of portals, and velocity going in and out, it's always a matter of how things go in relative to the entrance portal go out relative to the exit portal.

What a compelling argument.

no portal are literally a hole
nothing more nothing less

To find a real-world answer to this, find two holes that exist in space-time with zero distance between them, yet have separate velocities. Then simply pass an object through them. Observe the results.

A hole is not an object. It can't have a velocity.

literally just imagine this problem in zero gravity and you cannot defend A

literally just imagine you dead

Why is this even a question? It's obviously B. If it was A how did the cube move out of the stationary portal without having a non-zero velocity?

The fallacy associated with this problem has already been pointed out, but there is a sub case.

Let's assume the red and blue portal are in different spacial dimensions (x1,y1,z1; x2,y2,z2) such that no members of d1 are in d2 and vice versa, and that the only method by which an object may have a vector transformation of v in d1-> v in d2 is through a portal.

In that case we would end up with B, and conservation of energy and momentum over the entire space d1(x)d2. This is the only condition under which the question is valid, so the problem is defined for a specific condition, but is otherwise invalid.

you cant apply math to reality breaking situations
only logic
its a

I would be 100% sure this is well calculated bait if it wasn't for the volumes that proceed and follow it.
There's that saying about sufficient levels of stupidity and evil being indistinguishable; we can go more precise than that:
"Sufficiently high levels of imperceptivity and bad faith baiting are indistinguishable". It's sort of a catch 22 of trust issues in communication, because either contingency makes it difficult to relate to the target but not impossible; however the approach needed to work with imperceptive people is precisely the LAST approach you'd want to take with bad faith actors, and vice versa.

Portals cannot exist on moving surfaces, retard.

That's basically applying physics, and the logic shows clearly it would be B under that specific case. Before the 'but the cube isn't moving', equivalence across inertial reference frames.

And you can apply maths to whatever you want, it's just a derivable and falsifiable logic, it's entirely detached from representations of reality. Not least since you can create physically impossible but internally consistent mathematics. The use of maths to describe something analogous to reality is physics.

Attached: maxreesdefault.jpg (1152x720, 58K)

wtf I hate Portal 2 now

its just a hole
you cant give mass to nothing

it's the first time i'm amazed by someone stupidity

Attached: 1551277511363.jpg (388x343, 64K)

No, if you want to look at it that way it's compressing then decompressing a vector space, once the portal stops it goes through a decompression you r->ar, and your space expansion results in a finite path trajectory a la B.

Either you have inertial reference frames, or you are compressing and subsequently decompressing a vector space onto which you map.

YOU MOTHERFUCKERS BETTER NOT LET THIS THREAD DIE. I'm working on an MS Paint graphic that will blow all your goddamn minds.

or maybe its just a hole

While I've seen enough in this thread to consider the odds*spread of disingenuity beyond the point of engagement, for what it's worth: in a good faith argument with individuals who have perceptive limitations such that they can't see how A does not add together, the kind of language you're employing in posts like these is going to go WAY over their heads. Talking about inertial reference frames and compressing vector spaces means nothing to these people, you'd need to deliver several further lecture courses to get them familiar and that would never work even if you could. The very premise of the circumstances - that these people have perceptual issues - precludes the efficacy of such a lecture.

If you're not familiar with your audience or interlocutors, take the time to ask questions and see which notions and concepts they are familiar with already. See what they know and what they understand, and gradually introduce themselves to new pieces of information in the context of that which they already know. Gradually fill in the gaps in their perception and awareness of the physics and spatials of this topic, et voila: you will have gradually led a cumbersome horse to water. Then it's just a matter of seeing if it will drink, or if you have to let it parch to death.

Attached: 1533113306376.jpg (712x713, 154K)

This is the only true correct answer.

Choice B is for double digit IQ people.

Choice A is for people with a basic understanding of physics who realize that the stationary cube has no energy of its own and therefore cannot move under the given basic principles of how portals work.

Choice C (pic related) is the high IQ understanding that realizes that even under theoretical scenarios, it is impossible for either A or B to be true because there are too many factors that contradict each other under the guise of portals being able to move.

Tldr; even under the most basic theoretical scenarios, it is impossible to have any real solution to OP’s image since portals could never move without breaking laws of physics.

Then we're back to matters of rigidity, and equal and opposite action. And, if it's just a hole, you can't magic away the discontinuity as, e.g. you'll have constant gas/air flow between the two spaces, so it's becoming a continuous vector space. The 'it just falls out' argument relies on dismissing equal and opposite action.

except you literally can magic it away
it is magic

Ok i'm done. Don't @ me.

Attached: Untitled.png (1542x1298, 143K)

What a bunch of nonsense.

First, conjuring an impossibility for portal to move is retarded. All portals move in a frame of reference. A "fixed" portal on earth moves from earth rotation, or even minute air differential, vibrations, etc. All portal moves. Thus a moving portal is not an impossibility.

Secondly, the "moving cube in its own referential" retarded argument is absolutely retarded. We know that portals teleport things at the speed of light (the trip to the moon took several seconds), which means they don't violate special relativity. This is the only valid consideration that makes it a valid theory under of framework for referential frames. All other questions are philosophical in nature, but certainly not scientific.

you should generalize this for a given slope angle since the OP image doesn't specify what angle the ramp is at.

I dropped out of engineering school way too long ago to do that, and my graphing calculator broke (online ones are SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT)

Also I would have to take into account tipping if I did that and I really really do not want to look that shit up again.

its not really that bad, just instead of ax and ay being simple components, you just project the vectors. so like ax = mgcos(theta) or whatever

btfo

Attached: 2BDBC631-2986-402F-B1B5-EF06232EB461.jpg (646x687, 69K)

Moving portals cannot exist. They only exist in a video game because they aren’t actually accounting for the movement of the planet in the tiny box that is portal and portal 2.

B?
More like BTFO

Attached: 1458154288922.jpg (1024x768, 253K)

>when it entered the blue portal at zero velocity?
No it didn't. If it moved at zero velocity against the portal it would simply not enter the portal.
You need velocity either from the object or the portal itself to transport anything through portal. As this defines the speed the object moves through the portal, it will also be the speed of the object exiting the second portal. Assuming second portal is not moving that will become the object's real velocity.

>the universe can not move from your point of view so this example is false
>he doesnt know that the earth is spinning and moving just as our solar system and our galaxy
fucking brainlet

The portals always work relative to each other. If one of them moves in relation to the other then they will generate motion energy.

thats false though
in the game its literally just a hole

I thought I was stupid, but holy shit. There's always a bigger fish, I guess

Attached: 534.png (960x540, 279K)

Velocity doesn't mean shit. Only FORCE can move an object. Despite the universe moving quickly around the cube, the cube does not have a force acting on it and therefore does not move once back in normal space.

If we simply assume that portals have their own energy source then there shouldn't be any problems with accepting that they generate energy. It happens because energy comes from somewhere, not spontaneously. The mechanics of portals themselves do not violate the laws of thermodynamics, but their creation/existence does because magic science like that doesn't exist.

When object has velocity a force has already been applied. You're thinking backwards.

portals violate conservation of energy and momentum, the whole scenario is bullshit and can't exist irl.
Ingame, fuck if I know how they programmed it.

>We know that portals teleport things at the speed of light (the trip to the moon took several seconds)

Based retard.

It took several seconds for the portal to open, because the projectile had to reach the moon. Once there, the actual transportation is instantaneous.

If we assume they simply allow an object to travel through higher dimensions they don't violate anything. like if you have an ant crawling along your comic book page, (most) ants can't jump or fly so his effective range of movement is two dimensional, so you close the book and reopen it, and now he's on the next page, he didn't violate conservation of energy, he just took a shortcut.

>Choice A is for people with a basic understanding of physics who realize that the stationary cube has no energy of its own

So if I put my head right in front of the exit portal, what will happen as it comes into contact with my head? Remember, it has no energy to transfer, so it can’t cause a collision or hurt me in any way.

Spoilers: Kinetic energy is a relative quantity.

It's true. They couldn't transfer anything between each other if they didn't.
Bending space like that itself would cost incredible amounts of energy, that's what he is questioning. But I think the base assumption is that such power can be supplied since portals obviously work.

yeah, because sheets of paper sides acts like portals, I totally forgot that one sheet of paper can face different angles and places amirite?
I swear to god A niggers are fucking brainlets

Obviously it's powered by Australium.

But the platform containing the cube isn't moving, the platform moving down is. Again; ZERO force is being exerted on the cube itself. Throwing a basketball into a hoop isn't the same as throwing the hoop around a basketball. And the calculation that this user did proves that gravity would act on it to make it slide down, not leap away.

why is it that every time this thread gets posted, it gets 500+ replies

it's the same shit with that one equation riddle where it's intentionally ambiguous to start flame wars

>the stationary cube has no energy of its own and therefore cannot move
The cube moves to exit the portal. There's also no reason a stationary object couldn't be moved when kinetic energy is applied to it.

because its one of the thing you can actually discuss even though its 100% trolling and just disagreeing for the sake of it
all the other threads are just
>what did he mean by this
>look at this *twitter post*
>dude smash bros lmao
>dude smash bros lmao
>dude smash bros lmao

Flip that on its head. The cube isn't moving towards you, YOU are moving towards the cube. Yes, it sounds counterintuitive, but what you are doing is equivalent to sticking your head through a car's window as it hurtles towards a brick wall.

>But the platform containing the cube isn't moving, the platform moving down is. Again; ZERO force is being exerted on the cube itself.
Zero force being applied to cube would result in zero velocity for the cube = the cube does not exit the portal. This is not the case and that's why you're confused.
Since the second portal is not moving, the cube has to move in relation to the world instead after passing the portal.
>Throwing a basketball into a hoop isn't the same as throwing the hoop around a basketball.
youtube.com/watch?v=PyPxHimIr-0

IT DOES NOT MOVE. Going back to an earlier example, throwing a hoop around a basketball on the ground does not mean the basketball moved through the hoop.

Both situations are identical.

I came here to post this. Based paradox poster.

Don’t even engineers need to understand relativity these days? Guess you’re more of a bridge builder than a satellite guy.

see

>As the cube passes through the portal, the force of gravity acts on the cube's center of mass from both sides of the portal.
No it doesn't. Gravity acts on both sides of the portal to the center of mass that's outside each portal.
You can't treat it as one object when that object has two different gravities applied to it at different locations of itself.

So the stationary cube on one side of the portal has no KE, but my stationary head on the other side does? Why?

Sure, the cube moves, but it moves due to gravity since it's not on an even surface anymore. You might have had a point if the force of the descending platform shook the base, transferring energy to the cube and causing it to 'jump' through. If the base completely absorbs the impact, the cube gets smoothly fed through.

>cube is moving
>cube suddenly stops
This is what A fags really believe.

But crowbcat did a moving portal

What about the moon portal? That certainly has relative velocity.

Alright A fags, answer this then.

Attached: 1559179818995.png (1462x402, 60K)

If it doesn't move then how do you explain the box moving? I mean that just happens in either example, whether you believe in existence of inertia or not.

Do the hilarious put downs also works when the stuff you build falls down because you don’t really understand physics? Is it like “fifty people were crushed in the rubble, there will be a civil investigation into incompetency”, “your MOM was crushed last night if you know what I mean”, “oh snap, never mind you’re off the hook dude”?

Yes you can. Space and time on one side of the portal act as though adjacent to the other side. Therefore, forces going through one side of the portal will keep their original vectors.

Don't mind me, I'm just gonna stand here since the cube can't hurt me considering it has no velocity.

Attached: Portal.png (520x522, 10K)

No, the cube moves because it enters through the portal.

But the exit portal is slanted upwards. If it’s exiting in that direction, there HAS to be an upward component to its movement.

>Space and time on one side of the portal act as though adjacent to the other side.
No it doesn't. Gravity applies strictly based on which side of the portal you are on.

The simplest bait is always the most effective. Godspeed.

Attached: 1545752721644.jpg (656x465, 26K)

The answer is the 3rd panel

it doesnt gain speed from going through the hole but the orange portal closes in on the original platform. The blue portaled platform has its portal closed off by the black platform and the cube ends up being pushed forward by the velocity of the blue platform but it can not go faster than the blue platform

If we're talking game physics, mods have solved it already.

If we're talking real life physics, it would be impossible to enter a portal without preserving acting forces on an object. Furthermore the bottom of the cube is still in direct contact with the pillar.

This does however raise the question of if you could create an anti-gravity field by standing on top of a surface with a downward facing portal.

can B fags explain how are you able to stand in the borders of the portals, and how stuff is only affected by gravity when most of the mass is one way of the portals?

it's like they are fucking fiction or something

If object's entry speed isn't also its exit speed, then where does that energy go?

If you stuck your head right through, then yes, it would be moving and picking up energy/momentum. Even if your head was just outside it, the fact remains that the momentum transferred to you if the cube hits your face is the portal's, not the cube's; the space around you has essentially moved forward. Again, picture sticking your head out of a car window (our 'portal') as the car is hurtling towards a wall; the wall hasn't moved, you're moving towards it.

Wouldn't that mean that it would get pushed into the platform it's on, thereby exerting a force which isn't possible according to you?

It got absorbed by the base the cube was on. Assuming a perfect transfer, no energy would be left for the cube, and thus the cube simply falls through due to gravity.

It’s obviously a

Source
My complex simulation I did in my head

Don’t @ me

That's not an argument against B fags specifically that's an argument against the existence of portals in general.

Meant to address this post to and .

there's no point on applying real world physics into a video game argument.
it's probably going to be what's most consistent with the games rules.

>If we're talking game physics, mods have solved it already.
Sure, because the game engine treats objects as points, not actual mass. There's a binary line between one side of portal and another for how gravity is applied.
If there was actual mass that the gravity got applied to, you could, for example, enter portal partly and have different gravity apply to part of your body differently.
The reason I believe that doesn't work is because once something has completely entered through the portal the previous world no longer applies its forces to the side of object that is now on the other side.

So you couldn't stand upside down just because your feet were on firm ground through the portal, but if you shot two portals to the ground side by side, you could just drop into the other and if you're careful, float between them as the gravity from both sides is pulling you in equally.

The cube has not moved. The space around it has. Resorting to even more practical examples, running through a doorway and having the doorway fall around a stationary me are different things.

>It got absorbed by the base the cube was on. Assuming a perfect transfer, no energy would be left for the cube, and thus the cube cannot exit the second portal
FTFY

kek based retard. The cube doesn't gain velocity but you're essentially using portals to bash your head into the cube at high speed. Just because a wall isn't moving doesn't mean it doesn't hurt you when you slam your head into it.

It doesn't have any "energy" the cube is a stationary object in which the platform it is sitting on suddenly started pushing it. That energy is seen in the blue platform now pushing the cube.

yes it gets pushed onto the black platform but only because the blue platform is moving, similar to how a baseball on a stand is pushed against the bat when the bat hits it. In an example like OPs where the blue platform isn't moving and is stationary at a diagonal angle it does not get pushed into the black platform when the orange portal full envelops the cube. Instead the cube slides down because it now has a new direction of gravity

>running through a doorway and having the doorway fall around a stationary me are different things
No it isn't. That's entirely dependent on whether you're following the reference frame of you or the door frame.

>what is relative velocity

Attached: kim.png (757x679, 743K)

The cube moves as it exits the blue portal. For it to not move as it exits the blue portal, the blue portal would have to move in the same speed and direction as the orange portal.
Blue portal does not move, forcing the object to move instead. Alternatively, preventing the object from going through, but I don't think portals are meant to work like that.

I've taken the liberty of drawing another graphic.

Attached: Untitled.png (2606x1496, 113K)

>The cube doesn't gain velocity but you're essentially using portals to bash your head into the cube at high speed
What so you're a B fag now? I'm not moving relative to the cube and the cube isn't moving relative to me, so by your logic, the cube can't hurt me since that would require one or both of us two have momentum, which clearly neither of us have.

How does that even make sense? One more time; if I throw a hoop around a basketball, the basketball has clearly remained stationary but has gone through the hoop, or rather the hoop has gone around it.

/thread

you're not moving relative the THE WORLD and neither is the cube but relative to YOU the cube is definitely moving and you are moving relative to the cube. but im sorry to say what's relative to you or the cube isn't really how things go buddy. Pretty sure the world has higher say in the matter.

>Hula Hoops and portals are the same thing

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

This is the most SEVERELY autistic thread on v and I love it

Yea Forums - science

But the SPACE around you is. Think about it. When the portal rushes towards the cube, it's dragging everything on the other side along with it.

oh man thats great

Attached: 1520760679482.jpg (800x600, 36K)

How can we even be sure these are portals and not hula hoops?

>exit portal is on opposite side of planet
>somehow this should affect the outcome

Retard

What the fuck why do the physics change when the portals are separate? They're PORTALS, the space in between them literally doesn't matter and as such shouldn't change how objects react to them thats fucking stupid.

are you pants on head retarded

Attached: 1555190203105.png (219x121, 10K)

Attached: Portals.png (788x1170, 16K)

>Pretty sure the world has higher say in the matter
>Implying any reference frame is more "valid" than any other
Don't you want to make Newton cry?

>If you stuck your head right through, then yes, it would be moving and picking up energy/momentum
Nobody talked about sticking your head through.

>Even if your head was just outside it, the fact remains that the momentum transferred to you if the cube hits your face is the portal's, not the cube's
What is the force carrier for this interaction? The portal didn't touch me, the cube did. Any energy I receive there MUST be from the cube.

>Again, picture sticking your head out of a car window (our 'portal') as the car is hurtling towards a wall; the wall hasn't moved, you're moving towards it.
Which still requires that relative KE exists. You have not explained why my head stationary relative to the exit counts as having KE relative to it, but the cube does not.

The box leaves the portal at a speed of 1 foot per second. This velocity is not constant and can change in an instant. There is a possibility of an "acceleration error" in your calculations. In order to increase the probability, you should adjust the "speed" of the box by using a computer or a clock.

To calculate the angle between the box and the portal, use the following equation:

(5 / 9.6) * (1 + angle)

where

(5 / 9.6) = (4.7 + 4.4) = 2.2 +0.3 = 2.2 -0.1 = 4.2 degrees.

If the "acceleration" value you are measuring is: 1, the "angle" of that angle is 2.2 degrees, but if the "acceleration" value is: 4, the arrow must continue forward for 6 degrees to arrive at its destination.

This is the angle between the box and the portal. It can be measured with your computer

yall are stupid

You said relative velocity. If each portal is on oppoaite sides of earth's equators, they would be moving 2000 mph relative to each other. If relative velocity was a factor, then the cube would go flying way farther.

B.

Because the sheer speed of a random doorway passing by him was enough to surprise him and make him fall off his chair.

>How does that even make sense?
Because Also hot MSpain art focusing on the part of the experiment in both A and B where the cube moves.

Attached: Untitled.png (1076x594, 14K)

The "physics" doesn't change. What HAPPENS changes, because, you know, the situation has also changed. That's like asking "why do the physics change when one object is moving versus when it isn't"?

Momentum is conserved. Specifically, you exit with the same momentum relative to the exit as you entered with relative to the entrance. Because momentum is a vector, we can see this even with stationary portals - if it weren't true, differently-facing portals would not be able to redirect movement at all.

>the space in between them literally doesn't matter
The space in between them is literally what characterises a portal.
>and as such shouldn't change how objects react to them thats fucking stupid
Did you look at the diagram? It DOESN'T change how objects react to them, the object has the same relative velocity to the portal in all examples.

Entrance and exit move together, thus isn't analogous to the OP.

Now do one where only the entrance of the doorway interface is moving, while exit is stationary a few meters away.

>force carrier
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that space is. By moving a portal around, you are effectively shifting space as well; remember that famous example of a simplified wormhole made by folding a piece of paper and punching a hole through them. By moving the holes further or closer to each other, space is moved as well. This could be wrong, but it's how I'm picturing it in my head.

If two portals are on the different sides of the same object then no matter how hard you throw and spin the object the distance nor the pitch/yaw/roll between the portals doesn't change. Congrats user you are not thinking with portals.

These threads always make me smile. They're like a familiar pastry or your old favorite book, you always know what you'll get with them, but it doesn't make them any less pleasurable.

B. Think about it this way:

Slow it right down, the top of the box will start to pass through at the speed of the falling portal. As time passes, the central section of the box will essentially push the top of the box out of the way as it too passes through the portal, and so on.

A makes no sense because it would require the box imploding on itself, if the top of the box has no energy and would simply fall after exit, then the rest of the box has no space to occupy.

Active ally that’s objectively wrong

The portals in game don’t generate gravity on their own, merely act as simple pass throughs

The only gravity applied to the player is the universal one

shit im turning into a b-fag

Definitely B, everyone who says A is a retard. fuck this gay thread

Pitch, yaw, roll do not have an influence in relativity.

This is exactly how a portal would work.
The alternative theory would be that it's just a teleporter that shreds matter on one side and replicates it identically on the other side. That could explain A.
But it's probably not the case.

Can't someone just make a map in the game and do this?

You are absolutely right, I realized my mistake after I posted that. The diagram helped me realize that B is the true answer. I feel that I have become more intelligent , thank you.

You answered your own question. In a disorganised environment like Yea Forums, a few bad-faith acters are always going to deliberately feign misapprehension in order to foment controversy, for the feeling of satisfaction it provides to manipulate others and to sometimes accomplish other ends. It's a price worth paying for the uncorrupted feedback of anonymous Yea Forums, one that you just have to learn to not feed once you've identified it.

Portals can be shot sideways, that's why gravity commonly shifts in direction for objects entering through them. And what you said happens in the game is because

Best explanations of B I've seen in a while. Kudos

Attached: 1559093953994.jpg (1024x633, 79K)

They do with portals since portals can be shot any way. It doesn't have anything to with the theory of relativity, it means that the portals wouldn't move in relation to each other in any way in the example given.

The best image in the thread. Thank you for making it easy and accessible to see what I had to use several paragraphs to articulate.

Attached: 1531937885705.png (250x250, 49K)

Have sex

Attached: 0AEF30CD-A84A-4111-93CE-6087EAFD0228.jpg (960x540, 97K)

So if portals can transfer energy through "space", whatever that means, why would they transfer energy to my face in front of the cube, but not to the cube itself that actually passes through them via the same manipulation of space?

What you're talking about is a non-continuous change of reference frame, and that is WHY it's B. On one side of the paper, the cube's frame of reference is in motion relative to that side of the portal interface; it follows that it must also be in motion relative to that interface when it emerges, because that is the only interface it passes through continuously (ie. with no spatial discontinuities). Whether that means the cube is moving or the whole other-side universe is moving is immaterial, because per relativity, those are indistinguishable, because there's no privileged frame of reference.

Nor can portals. They break physics in term of position in the same exact way moving ones do velocity.
No reason moving portals wouldn't work if portals do, already.

It has everything to do with relativity because it's a wormhole.

NO GIRLS

Attached: JUUJ.gif (300x600, 80K)

B
It dosen't (or should not) matter if object moves towards a portal or if portal moves tovards a objects. We can launch a objects throgh portal and it will behave like B.
But what will happen if portal stops half-way throgh the cube?

Lmao no, the objects will always be pulled downwards

Ralsei is very perceptive, he would check all things thoroughly.

The game uses some trickery rather than "real" portals that teletransport objects "for real" (if that makes sense), so the result can't be too conclusive when you force the game into something it has not been programed for.

IIRC one of the makers said that the most logical result is B, always considering that portals break our known physics at some point in the process.

Yes and he reached a conclusion

Attached: BORDAL HEHE.webm (356x200, 209K)

I learn so much just by listening to other Anons get super passionate about science and stuff. It really is a lot of fun.

The trick is to know who's being serious and who's just meming.

The thing is, I can see why B makes sense if a portal passes around an object hovering in mid-air (e.g. a helicopter), but in the original example in OP A is far more intuitive.

Of course they do. Down just might be up from where you're looking, if you shoot one portal upside down, for example. Same thing that happens when you fire one on the wall and one on the ceiling/floor. Their directions don't have to align in any way.

lmao delusional phoneposter

Ah I see now

It’s still the same gravity though but I see

Indeed he did

They just don't work. The moving portals segment in Portal 2 is just a preprogrammed setpiece.

That's why these threads happen. Moving portals are objectively part of the Portal canon, despite the dozens of people who apparently skipped 2 claiming otherwise in every single one, but the game doesn't have an answer for how they work.

Intuitive doesn't always mean right, especially when relativity is involved.

Attached: 729D3318-6694-433B-8CA1-798E7E55BCFC.jpg (650x600, 27K)

It's not about relative velocity, it's about inertia. If the cube went from being stationary to ejecting out of the orange portal due to the movement of the blue portal it would have to go from rest to a high speed in the instant the two portals connect, implying infinite acceleration and thus infinite energy. A fast moving blue portal just means that the cube appears at the other end instantly, like it was teleported there without the use of the portal, but it doesn't transfer energy to the cube.

The point being, example given is poor and that's why we're 230 replies hidden. Press + to view.

You are a good faith user who is developing a greater perception. By learning to identify distractions better and eliminate them, your intuitions will improve and become more relevant to the situation at hand. Learning to check simple and common variants of the puzzle is another skill you have. I say this because most of the group that advocates A, if taken to be genuine, do seem to lack these perceptual capacities. Act as a role model for the others.

AWWW DFUG SEEMS LIKE WE ALL GOT BTFO

It is sort of poor, mostly because technically neither A or B happen. The answer resembles B and does not resemble A, but ultimately the object would be destroyed by passing through such a portal unless it was significantly elastic, or else the portal would break from the force exerted on the portal sustained surface.

This does seem to be a genuine close-minded error to the design of the image. But the posting of the image is nigh-guaranteed as a basic troll.

>If the cube went from being stationary to ejecting out of the orange portal due to the movement of the blue portal it would have to go from rest to a high speed in the instant the two portals connect
No, the cube doesn't move on the orange side at all while it moves on the blue side at the speed it is entering the orange portal. To simplify, it goes from rest to motion in the time it takes for it to enter the portal. It's therefore not infinite and is dependent of the speed of the orange portal instead.

why are you guys here, go back

Attached: 1537641946910.png (1280x1280, 170K)

Because we can do anything.

Attached: 1541228686738.gif (624x577, 124K)

A BTFO

The real inventive application for this is putting a portal on the end of a stick, or a similar lever. Then, swing the portal around by hand to catch things like you would a bug net. Everything caught would be sent flying out of the other portal like a cannon round. Magic cannon where you can just swing a stick at stuff to instantly load it as ammo.

This doesn't correlate with my views so I'm going to hide it and never speak about it

Attached: 1516252378409.png (808x805, 446K)

cube is not moving

It emerges out the exit portal.

You are wrong. Here's a crude illustration based on the scenarios in the OP. Your explanation suggests that the cube will accelerate just because of the movement of the portal. If you could accelerate a cube of any mass to the same velocity just by moving the piston while the cube itself is at rest, the same amount of energy put into the system would result in a different amount of energy coming out of the system. It's not an issue of efficiency either, because with a heavy enough cube you could produce more energy than it takes you to move the piston. Your explanation violates the law of conservation of energy.

Attached: v cubes.jpg (1619x703, 154K)

Oops, slight error there. N was supposed to be Ns instead.

So it's crushed into an infinitely thin layer of matter, creating a black hole and destroying the earth, because it can't push the air on the other side out of the way?

Portals ALREADY violate the conservation of energy. That's just what they do as a baseline. With B, that's all they violate. With A, they also violate relativity.

Why doesn't someone just make a custom portal map and literally just show the answer?

Attached: 1558150668541.gif (300x168, 285K)

what if the second platform wasn't inclined ?
or
what if you sat on my dick really fast and you ass was a portal? would my dick be propulsed into the air ? think about it

it's already been done and it happened exactly as shown in

>Your explanation violates the law of conservation of energy.
- Stationary portals already allow you to make limitless kinetic energy.
- Portals already do things that normally require energy, such as transporting objects and changing the direction of their momentum.

Engine limitation.
Relativity only comes in when velocity is comparable to speed of light, otherwise you are safe to use newtonian formulas.

>it's already been done
post webm of it

>The code for going through moving portals that the developers didn't want you to see and can only be seen through mods has more merit than the developer explaining it would be B if they actually implemented it in game.

Literaly here

I'm going to yell at you for conflating momentum and energy. Momentum is mv and has units of kg*m/s. Energy is mv^2 and has units of kg m^2/s^2. Force is ma and has units of kg*m/s^2.

Consider if this particular Portal debate had more valency than a passtime discussion on Yea Forums. At this point, it would be easier and more responsible to simply create a large list of all F.R.I - Frequently Raised Issues - such as these and put them in a large public place.

Then any poster who repeats raising the issue can simply be directly to check the F.R.I. listing and check if it's there. This then leads to a set of concise entries designed for laymen legibility and brevity to encapsulate the thrust of the point. This would then further link into a lengthier discourse with full paragraphs and numerous comparison examples. Finally, the fullsome articles would link to sources and references.

When someone like the user I'm responding to raises such an F.R.I. again, they can simply be referred to the list and from there they are free to consult the short and long answers for reading. The need to type them out again is obviated. And if any good faither who is genuinely curious about the info provided in the explanations to the resolved F.R.I.s wants to discuss it and ask questions, THEN there's room for a real discussion.

It's all too much effort for something that doesn't really matter, but it is food for thought when comprehending user contemplate whether it's worth typing out 1+ paragraphs to address a question already answered 5-fold in this thread.

A doorway where one side moves and the other doesn't breaks our reality in any case.

But A is even more nonsensical than B.

Attached: portals_thiskillsA.png (1400x500, 21K)

It has to be B. as the cube passes through the portal it does so very quickly. why should it suddenly come to a standstill the moment it has completely exited the portal? 99.9999% of the cube now has great momentum and those atoms are going to keep their momentum and pull the remainder of the cube with them.

Any arguments about conservation of energy are stupid because it's not actually a rule that can be applied by that. if you're going to make that argument, why doesn't the cube instead teleport back to it's starting point at the end? why not teleport anywhere else on earth of the same height? conservation of energy is a rule for sure but to my knowledge not a rule that completely describes any real system without additional rules such as conservation of momentum etc

Do you fly through the sky if a hola hoop drops over you?

how about you just make a map for that

>hula hoop
I swear out of all people involved in these threads you fags are the absolute dumbest.

Attached: 1531020233565.jpg (568x562, 51K)

With A, yes, that's what would happen.

You don't?

Attached: hF60156E6.jpg (500x394, 57K)

I used to think this as well until it made my gf break up with me.

>99.9999% of the cube now has great momentum and those atoms are going to keep their momentum and pull the remainder of the cube with them.
The cube's not moving. Portals are similar to the concept of a wormhole or the example of going from one end of a piece of paper to the other by bending the paper so that the ends touch. The points themselves are stationary, it's the space around them that behaves strangely. Instead of the cube moving through space it's more like space contracting and expanding to make the cube appear to move.

Attached: flat800x800075f.u3.jpg (800x450, 40K)

It was a thing way before portal 2.

Well Yea Forums?

Attached: 2937642354.png (886x509, 144K)

Stationary portals already break the laws of thermodynamics, you retard. Going
>portals are stupid, so portals can't work like B
is just inane

Attached: portal_test.png (3892x1920, 52K)

Portal 3 when?

>The cube's not moving
If it's not moving it's not exiting the portal.
You have two frames of reference, retard. Through the portal, and not.

Reposting until A-fags respond.
>Portals in different locations, object changes location.
>Portals in different directions, object changes direction.
>Portals have different velocities, object does fuck all.

i miss troll physics

Do you suddenly accelerate if someone drops a hula hoop on you?

I would figure that it moves as fast as the portal consumes it, until it reaches the point at which it is no longer being consumed, when it would just plop down.
As it is put into the portal, it is, essentially, being pushed by the parts of itself which go in after it. But when it's no longer being pushed, that is, when the whole thing is through the portal, it should just fall down.

post more troll physics. this is way more entertaining than this autistic portal thread for the 50th time

Is the exit and the entrance to the hula hoop going at different speeds while maintaining 0 distance?
The answer you give is the answer you get.

So how does this illustration support B?

Amended: Reposting until a human responds, not a bot programmed to regurgitate debunked arguments.

A is claiming that objects leave the portal with the same velocity they had upon entering it, ie, none in OP's case and 10 m/s in this case. This leads to the duplication of matter.

Whether you find duplication of matter or pulling kinetic energy out of nothing to be more ridiculous is a matter of opinion.

The cube is not moving. At the moment the moving portal has enveloped the cube halfway, one half would be lying still on a table and the other half would be moving out of a portal. The two pieces would no longer be connected, they would have split in two. If you applied the same logic over smaller periods of time you would see the cube sliced into many parallel 2D planes. What actually happens is that the cube remains intact, but to account for its movement through space the space around the portals has to expand and contract.

This a different scenario

>The cube is not moving
Then it's not getting out of the portal.

I really need to get a life.

ITT:
people who have taken highschool physics argue with people who haven't yet taken highschool physics

Ah, I see. I still stand by the cop out answer that neither one can work, as some other anons have pointed out.

Hey hoopfags

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

Why are there 2 cubes

woah, nice logo, dude

sleight of hand
Gordon Freeman is standing behind the ramp, launching a second cube using the gravity gun at impact to make it look like it's B

I don’t see the difference.

its a whole different kind of situation you fucking moron

The column wont move but as the orange portal does it brings more and more of it out of the blue one.

But the portal shows the same white panel coming against the portal just as the other one smashes ontop of the cube.

look I found troll physics irl

Believers of A are at least not dumb enough to believe that the man in the picture will be unharmed, but they are dumb enough to believe that an object traveling through a moving portal is capable of impacting something (transferring momentum) despite allegedly having no momentum itself. That's what's being illustrated. Replace the piston with a cube, if it bothers you.

that's just a screen relaying the image from the CubeCam™, if you look closely you'll see it's actually moving at a slightly steeper trajectory after it leaves the ramp

It is when you move a portal to distort the space around the cube, like in scenario A in . It's similar to the gravitational distortion that causes the planets to orbit the Sun. They're not accelerating around an object on a plane, they are moving in a straight line in curved space. The portal connects two points in space in a way that allows objects to travel between the two locations just like a wormhole. It doesn't allow one half to accelerate while the other half is still stationary because that would rip the object apart. It's not speed or momentum or energy that's being conserved, it's the object's shape. It's the only thing that remains constant in all of these scenarios.

I can't believe this shit is STILL being argued

Then what happens to it? Is it going to get crushed for being between the two portals?

It doesn't go from A to B without moving. There's no portal between there. How the portal functions doesn't matter.
It moves, obviously.

Attached: 1538670096167.jpg (763x438, 24K)

this thread again

and as always, you pitiful brainlets failed to consider the relative angular momentum being altered, thus what is actually traveling, same as all objects on this planet, millions of miles per hour in space, same as the entire milkyway galaxy is traveling...

Imagine what happens when a meteor going a million miles per hour suddenly stops.

It explodes, Tim.

It will continue to be argued as long as A fags keep insisting they aren't utterly wrong.

But the portals dont take away momentum

A fags will ignore this to try and support their flimsy argument.

Holy shit guys check out this fucking railgun I just built

Attached: 61xaQXNriqL._SX425_.jpg (425x425, 15K)

The cube exits the blue portal over a period of time. It doesn't just appear on top of it. First some of the cube comes through, then more, and finally all of it. From the perspective of the blue portal the cube must be moving. That movement is equal to the speed of the orange portal as that is the speed at which the cube goes through the portal.

There's no reason to assume energy isn't conserved. The most reasonable answer is that the portals apply some force to the surface they're attached to equal to the momentum being created. The portal on the piston would experience this as drag as if it were pushing the cube in front of it, which you could measure as resistance to the piston. The portal on the exit surface would experience this as a pushing force as the cube exits, like the kickback of a fired gun, which would also be measurable. Whether the force applies to portal A, B or both is anyone's guess but nothing in the OPs proposed scenario suggests this isn't happening.

For those people arguing A because conservation of momentum... A also breaks conservation of momentum if the cube moves through the exit portal and then just stops moving.

Move the entrance separately from the exit of the tube without changing the space inbetween them.

Exactly

These threads are retarded. Moving portals break the laws of physics. If they were to somehow exist, trying to explain or predict their behavior by using laws of conservation of momentum would be dubious at best and hopeless at worst. If we're breaking the laws, why are you using other laws as evidence?

>Portals break the laws of physics.
FTFY
Portals break conservation of energy simply by existing.

Wouldn't it make more sense to present the problem this way?

Attached: 1322493431834.jpg (625x418, 29K)

>Moving portals
Portals.

I think the idea is that you want to rule out gravity as a force that could counteract and nullify any possible motion.

man, science is hard

Attached: 1538683548295.jpg (450x600, 40K)

How these threads always get to 300+ posts still baffles me. Just realize 10% of people care and the rest are just shitposting to trigger the autists.

who is that little character

That's Glarrfbrrloughorrbwoo the wolf.