What if you stop the platform when the cube is only 75% of the way through the portal? Would this happen?

>Orange portal comes down on cube at 70mph
>slow time down
>watch blue portal side
>cube slowly comes out of blue portal side
>the speed it appears to be coming out is at 70mph if you take into account the time slowness
>when the cube is 99% through the blue portal, it still appears to be traveling at 70mph
>since most of the cube is on the blue side, the blue side is the reference for its momentum, not the orange
>entire cube therefore is traveling at 70mph
>resume time as normal and it goes flying out

Well, Yea Forums?

Attached: hydrodynamics.png (700x300, 36K)

B, but i actually don't fucking know what the fuck

B obviously, due to pressure differences. This is far easier.

>cube is traveling

Attached: DzGx2cpU8AAZoIv.jpg (226x223, 9K)

I can't figure this one out

>>appears to be traveling at 70mph
>>appears

Learn English.

>be next to blue portal
>see a cube emerging from it at high speed
>"This cube is completely motionless"

Attached: 1468444637660.png (491x585, 56K)

When the displacement between two objects changes, then yes an object is traveling. The objects are the cube and a dude looking through the blue portal. Of course from another frame of reference A is correct, which, due to special relativity, means that neither a nor b (nor portals) are possible. Why am I still posting.

>cube is 1 meter in height, length, width
>place immovable, indestructible wall half a meter from blue portal
>push orange portal onto cube
>cube hits wall

Alright A-theists, now explain how the cube can "hit" a non-moving wall if the cube isn't moving.

do not touch the edge of the portal

Why not?

why do you think we needed so many test subjects?

>take a platform with a half-a-meter deep hole in it
>drop it on a 1x1x1 m cube
>the cube gets squished
Now imagine that instead of the platform-with-a-hole on the other end you now have a portal and the indestructible wall

Attached: portal problem.gif (500x364, 67K)

They are essentially the same scenario. Cube should fly out in both

>They are essentially the same scenario.
I bet you think the moon doesn't move too.

All these threads are retarded

This problem has no solution because portals don't exist and can't exist, partly for reasons like this. There is no "correct" answer.

>They are essentially the same scenario.

Attached: 1444065407607.jpg (300x898, 67K)

in both cases, cube experiences the same relative velocity to the portal. Why should that result in a different final velocity?

How about the fact that in A the cube isn't moving and the portals don't impart momentum?

In one case the cube is still. In the other the cube is moving.
"Relative velocity" is a meaningless pairing of words.

If you were looking straight at the orange portal there, both scenarios would look 100% the same.
This you can't refute, and you surely agree with.

Therefore the motion the cube would achieve when exiting the orange portal would be exactly the same.

>A the cube isn't moving
wrong
>portals don't impart momentum
also wrong

all reference frames are valid; all that matters is the relative motion between the cube and the portal. learn relativity please

>wrong
Then please, tell us all how this completely motionless cube is moving.
>also wrong
That's literally one of the first things you learn in Portal.

>portals don't impart momentum
Someone post the plane going through a oprtal webm

>relative to the portal
Again: the portal itself is not an object, it's space, It can't be used as point of reference.

I can't refute the first point because it taks about point of views.
But even if the point of view is the same, the substantial fact is that in one case you don't move and in the other it does.

Despite this, your two sentences aren't directly related and you made a huge leap of logic to arrive to your conclusion.

Better yet, someone post the gaben email.

Attached: 14 - c1sEDv6.jpg (300x300, 27K)

thats just pedantic, clearly the portal and cube are moving relative to one another. jesus v is retarded

>Then please, tell us all how this completely motionless cube is moving.
It is emerging from the blue portal.
>That's literally one of the first things you learn in Portal.
Portals don't move in the first game. Momentum is a vector. If space gets rearranged so does the relative momentum. Orange portal is imparting momentum to the cube by swallowing it.

I'm sorry you don't understand relativity.

Same scenario is explained in more depth here

Reminder, B fags have never actually played portal.

>in one case you don't move and in the other it does.
Once it is through the portal it's moving, in both scenarios.

>essentially
Essentially doesn't mean factually.

That's not an argument. You can't use a point in space as a reference when talking about relative movement.

>It is emerging from the blue portal
Yeah, know why?
Because the portal is moving around it, the cube itself is completely motionless.

>Orange portal is imparting momentum to the cube by swallowing it.
You could have just said headcanon and left it there.

you literally can, thats the whole point of relativity. "any non-accelerating reference frame is valid" holds under all circumstances

No, the cube would tip and fall all the way through the portal since it's center of gravity would be suspended in midair outside of the blue portal

>Once it is through the portal it's moving
That's like saying running towards a tree means the tree is moving. Sure it's getting closer but it's still stationary.

>the cube itself is completely motionless.

When it starts getting swalloed by the orange portal, it stops being motionless, otherwise it wouldn't come out from the blue portal. How come you can't separate the cube entity from the rest of the environment.

>the cube itself is completely motionless.
Not if it's slowly appearing on the other side of motionless portal, which is movement away from the blue portal.

So you're saying the cube can go from 10% through the portal to 100% through the portal without moving?

Portal is a fictional game with a world made of fictional rules.
You can't apply regular physics or relativity rules to it.

Only the words of the creators and authors of the fictional world matter. And what did the creators say?

Attached: 1520717341330.png (970x970, 442K)

In the scenario where portals can move? Yes, because space is moving around the cube rather than the cube moving through space.

>Not if it's slowly appearing on the other side of motionless portal
You also forgot the part where its

Stupid timer. I didn't even click it.
Anyway, you forgot the part where it's being engulfed by a moving portal.

gotta know your pressures bro

Describe how the cube appearing on the other side would look like.

...

Not an argument

Space around the cube is moving at a high speed and then stops, what happens to cube?

The whole situation makes no sense from the POV of physics from the outset. The whole problem arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of a frame of reference. To make the problem apparent, you should consider a situation in which your observer can simultaneously observe the cube on the platform (A), and the cube through the portal (B). The way the videogame does things is by creating a 'copy' inside the portal, and it's properties are defined by the cube 'not through the portal' AFAIK, so it avoids the problems that will unavoidable arise. But if this wasn't the case, our observer has to believe that these two cubes are the same, one item, with the same properties that are /defined by the frame of reference/, like amount of speed, potential energy, etc.

This is all very believable while things are motionless because the same theories that apply to objects in mirrors apply. The second the platform moves it all breaks down. Suddenly cube B appears to move towards the portal, meaning it has a nonzero amount of speed while cube A is motionless according to our frame of reference. If cube B were to successfully cross the portal before we even consider the cases in the picture we must acknowledge that the amount of potential energy of cube B possesses has changed (since it's at a different height from it's starting position),this can be explained by whatever work was done to move it towards the observer. But cube A had no work done on it and therefore should have the same amount of potential energy as it had at the beggining of our thought experiment. So despite the fact that we're to believe that they are the same object, in the same frame of reference, we have two contradictory accounts by one same observer.

The problem only gets worse, but simpler to understand if you have two observers in different rooms, and the portals actually connects both rooms. In one, the observer watches cube A sit motionless on the platform with the other platform coming down on it. In the other one, the observer sees the cube rising towards him. One of the observers will conclude that, since cube A had a constant zero speed throughout the whole process, that it will probably have speed of zero upon emerging from the portal (the 'hula hoop' interpretation). But the other one, who can measure a net speed for the cube throughout the whole process can clude that the cube will have a net speed immediately upon emerging from the portal (the 'launcher' interpretation). Neither of them has any way to measure the events on the other room and both have empirical observations supporting both of these interpretations, there's nothing you could tell them, from the point of view of physics, to prove them wrong.