Twelve smash character speculation threads

>portal on floor
>portal on ceiling
>jump into lower portal
>gain gravitational potential energy while retaining kinetic energy
>law of conservation of energy 100% violated

Attached: conservationofenergy.png (450x500, 21K)

This makes no unnecessary assumptions and justifies forces and movement through the portal. Tell me where I went wrong.

Attached: Portals.png (1083x1186, 343K)

Has anyone considered the fact that the cube is made of atoms, so treating the object as one singular thing isn't accurate?

help

Attached: 1539816266461.png (900x743, 32K)

Welcome to portals, we can never have them in real world because of this.

I literally don't even know what this image is trying to imply.

does he get closer or further from the cube?

It's entirely possible to have portals that don't violate this, if it requires equal or more energy to sustain the portal while the object travels though.

Attached: a.jpg (2000x2000, 843K)

I still don't fucking get it. The premise makes absolutely no sense. If he moves toward the cube he moves toward the cube. What the fuck?

>The premise makes absolutely no sense
Welcome to portals.
Does he get closer or further from the cube?

A-fags are so fucking stupid holy shit.

>newton's first law
Holds in inertial reference frames. But if the piston comes to a sudden halt relative to the surrounding room, it decelerates. So if you're arguing with the principle of relativity, I'd be careful about using the orange portal's rest frame and applying Newton's first law.

During the transition from orange portal to blue portal universe, the cube must travel to reach the exact position where it is positioned outside the blue portal. Therefore, it must be traveling at some speed while inside the other universe.

But "blue portal universe moves with respect to cube" implies "cube moves with respect to blue portal universe". Only retards will disagree with this.

Therefore, as far as the blue portal is concerned, the cube is moving, and the blue portal's frame of reference is just as valid as any other. Note that it's at the blue portal that we ask the A or B question.

yes.

evidently considering a whopping 20% chose B

>Welcome to portals
It's not at all the same as OP's problem. If he approaches the cube, it doesn't matter which vantage point he's seen through because he would still approach the cube from that vantage point.

I'm using the blue reference frame, noting that the cube is moving, and that thereby by newton's first law it has to keep moving and follow scenario b

Not sure what your counterargument is, the piston decelerates relative to the cube so the cube should keep moving without it that doesn't invalidate b

>It's not at all the same as OP's problem
and? that doesn't answer the question

are you going to refute it or are you just going act like a child?

closer
no debate

Nope. People have been trying to help you a-fags for the longest time yet you keep being wrong making embarrassments like the shit you posted. I've accepted what you are and I'm only here to laugh at you.

It's A.
The cube has no forces acting on it, if you say B you are a retard.

improved

Attached: 1531956193427.png (900x743, 32K)

Typical retard.

>blue reference frame, noting that the cube is moving
Huh? But it's stationary there. Unless I totally miss what you mean by "blue reference frame", which to me is basically the same as the surrounding room.

closer

>But it's stationary there
Then it wouldn't be able to exit the portal.

you wouldn't say that to me irl
fite me 1v1 bruh

>come up with simpler and easily solvable problem in which both portals move together, instead of one moving with respect to the other
>Yea Forums brainlets still can't figure it out
lmao

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

How about the normal force of the pedastool?

by that I meant just looking at the slope with the portal on it, omitting the place where the block came from. from that perspective, the block moves.

but he's moving away from the orange portal

both are true

>pedastool
Is this a meme or are there actually people who spell it this way?

and moving closer to the cube, if he walked towards the portal he would still be moving closer

petal is a meme you dumbass

My bad. Spellcheck corrected it and I mean to say toadstool.

you're right, A should be 100%. 20% of people is still a lot of people

>petal is a meme you dumbass
I have no idea what you're talking about. No one said petal.

don't play stupid now, it's not petal stool you idiot

You mean as the orange portal passes over the block? Because it doesn't before that.

>Yea Forums can't do basic math
lmao

Attached: portal_wall_problem.png (333x333, 5K)

Okay. You're pretending that I was suggesting an even dumber misspelling than pedastool. Kind of an autistic joke but at least I get it now.

whatever impossible machine can connect two different points in space can probably also give momentum to an object without touching it

far better than whatever happens in pic related when we go with A

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

Yup

13 m/s

I get the basic concept but I'm not sure this is the best illustration, it looks like the portal generated another block in this one.

In all these situations, its gravity that is giving energy, not portals
in zero G there would be no creation of potential energy

Attached: infinite accelarator.png (533x307, 7K)

>can probably
nice argument

The correct answer is B btw

I was about to post the same thing. I think I understand what the diagram is meant to convey, but it's not very clear. It could use work. As it is now, the image is unlikely to successfully explain the concept to someone who don't already understand the concept. They'll just misunderstand it. Good effort though.

why doesn't nasa just use hula hoops to launch rockets?

Attached: slash dance.webm (298x360, 531K)

Not only that but it got deleted just as the thread hit bump limit. It already got that far just let it die on its own you fucking retard jannies

it's all speculation in here, no one knows what happens or how such a machine would work

show me a hula hoop where one side moves and the other doesn't

I do.

>In all these situations, its gravity that is giving energy, not portals
So what? That doesn't even come close to debunking the argument that portals violate conservation of energy. Gravity is what converts your gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy as you fall, but the portals are what give you FREE gravitational potential energy as they transport you back up to the higher position at no energy cost. The free gravitational potential energy provided by the portals is then converted to even more kinetic energy as you fall again.

Gravity is obeying the law of conservation of energy by giving you kinetic energy in exchange for an equal amount of gravitational potential energy. The portals are violating the law of conservation of energy by giving you more gravitational potential energy for free.

Put a portal on the floor, a portal on the ceiling, and a water wheel between them, and now all you need is some water to create a perpetual motion machine. That's a pretty hard violation of the law of conservation of energy. The fact that it wouldn't work in zero-G is irrelevant, because the violation of energy conservation is already proven to happen in the presence of gravity so the idea that portals conserve energy in general can already be thrown out regardless of what happens in outer space.

>its gravity that is giving energy, not portals
Gravity is a conservative force, it doesn't "give" energy. Potential energy is being converted into kinetic energy.
The portals must somehow do work by putting you at a higher altitude repeatedly.

>>one or two portal speculation threads
>>"This will not stand!"

That's because it's not a speculation thread. We all already know the answer. These threads just get made so that people can shitpost about it and go "HUR DUR WHOEVER DOESN'T SAY B IS A FUCKING RETARD!"

solve this, Btard

*A
ftfy

Nice

>I-IT ISNT A H-HOOOP!!!!!
Literally is, Bniggers. Portals are moving entire physical realities with them, when a portal moves towards the cube, that entire physical reality is also moving towards the cube. The cube is not moving towards that reality, thus the only forces to be applied are the gravity with in that portal.

>Portals are moving entire physical realities with them
They can't comprehend the movement of space rather than an object.

But when the cube is being brought into the new reality, it is being moved.

Your trash threads do not serve any purpose other than creating flamewars and namecalling.
There is no possible answer because there is no way to test it.
It boils down to interpretation, or rather belief.
And spamming should be stopped. Yes this does apply to smash threads, but spamming your shit is no better. Faggot.

what's there to solve? Everyone already knows that based on our current understanding of physics it's an impossible situation. Because if you look at the cube in real space it isn't moving at all and if you look at it through the portal it's moving towards you.

the whole situation is literally a paradox, moving portals work in the portal universe but they can't move relative to each other.
>blue portal and orange portal are attached to each other
>when orange portal moves the entire universe on the other side of the portal has to move at the same speed
>but the entire universe on the blue side of the universe contains the orange portal, which is moving at a set velocity relative to the rest of the universe
It doesn't work, the most likely in-universe answer is that the connection between the two portals just breaks if one moves relative to the other, and yeah I know there's the one laser scene, but I don't really think they thought that hard about the implications of moving portals.

>only one reply in more than 15 minutes and it's the correct reply
Damn. It's more fun when I get a bunch of idiots to give the wrong answer, and then watch them flail and sputter impotently as I post the correct solution. Maybe they actually learned from the last thread.

Attached: portal_wall_answer.png (828x1040, 43K)

you're correct but you make an assumption in your conclusion
>the velocity of the orange portal
the theoretical frame of reference would be something that so far is unimaginable (which makes it quite interesting that we have the paradox of trying to imagine this scenario) where we cant describe how the portal would actually function

Attached: 1558206192561.jpg (736x815, 38K)

youtube.com/watch?v=KFPB2sVUXGI Thread theme.

by this logic the entire universe would tear apart when a portal starts moving

Portals do not give anything.
Portals provide an infinite space, where gravity is constantly pulling you down until terminal velocity is achieved. This energy does not come from the portal, it comes from being in a free fall.
the portals themselves, during passage, do not add nor sap energy
portals work by changing space
So what happens to light passing through the portal

Yes, it's why the portals don't move, but if we were to concoct a way for portals to move while obeying their rules, a is correct. It's either a or nothing. B is just blatantly ignoring what portals are.

Attached: AorB.jpg (708x640, 20K)

>So what happens to light passing through the portal

Exactly the same thing that happens when light is emitted from moving objects.

Attached: Portal Mechanic Truth.jpg (700x4989, 649K)

Portals work off of non-euclidean physics. The devs even made a non-euclidean test level for Portal 2. There's no reason it would be B with that in mind since it's just passing through an archway.

Also, this.

Attached: 1560002023814.png (1545x959, 140K)

light is bullshit that doesn't obey regular rules

>Afags stand in front of the blue portal, see the cube coming closer at let's say 100 mph
>but it absolutely won't hit them in their idiot faces

That image is bullshit, because in Portal 2 you shoot a portal onto the moon. The moon orbits the earth at a slower speed than the earth rotates, so the distance of the portal on the moon would be changing at speeds of hundreds of miles per hour.

So when an object enters those portals it gets speed up, but when light, like a lazer, is shined through, nothing happens to its velocity?
What about a soundwave?

well of course if you can just make up a rule, they don't necessarily have to be moving entire realms with them. They could also be considered a hole in space and have no actual motion tied to them, you're just starting with example B and working backwards to fit that theory

If the cube is 3 feet by 3 feet by 3 feet and I am standing 4 feet away, yes, it won't

Guess what? the moon doesn't move like that in the Portal game.

It won't because the cube doesn't have any momentum. It outright says how it works in the first game -- speedy thing go in, speedy thing go out. The cube is not a speedy thing so it's not gonna be speedy when it comes out.

Why are retards trying to explain portals to solve this? Just pretend a cube is stationary in front of a wall, and the rest of the house collides with the wall. Cube does not move.

>nothing happens to its velocity
Yes, but light does change. Instead of speeding up it will blue shift. Instead of slowing down it will red shift.

>What about a soundwave?
Since sound moves at a constant speed in a medium, then it would behave similar to light. If an object would speed up, then the sound waves will compress, increasing the pitch. If the object would have slowed down, the waves would space out, lowering the pitch. Much like a car driving by.

Except it will be subject to gravity once it’s passed through

I'm smart enough to know that I don't actually know about a lot of things including quantum mechanics and I have never read the relativity paper. My method is an engineering approach and it is very possible there is something more to a moving portal that we don't know. My goal was to avoid making guess while sticking to what I do know about portals as a way to justify where the forces and movement come from.

>you're just starting with example B and working backwards to fit that theory
don't accuse me of being a Bnigger

>Why are retards trying to explain portals to solve this

because it's not about a normal wall, it's about a physics-bending portal

>once it’s passed through
It can't do that without moving.

And at what speed is the cube exiting the portal?
Does it push away the air on the blue side or is the atmosphere magically vanishing?

The piston is moving, once a majority of the mass is poking through the portal, it’ll plop

So it'll just stop moving suddenly?

it was never moving to begin with

Still A

Then it can't have come out of the portal.

The portals work off of non-euclidean physics. It's exiting at a speed of 0MPH. You might get some minor disturbance from air that's being pushed by the platform itself but a negligible amount given how much the cubes themselves weigh.

yes it does, because the entire world is moving around it. It doesn't move so much as the space on the other side of the portal appears around it

>the entire world is moving around it
That's just another way of saying it's moving.

Alright let's leave out the cube and its platform, what happens to the air captured by the orange portal? Is it coming out of the blue portal or not?

Attached: portal-with-man.png (636x424, 70K)

So the creates of the universe said A and people are STILL arguing for B? Fascinating. I understand Trump supporters a bit better now I think.

>Even afags who have to sit through coding the entire thing still don't understand that portals DO NOT conserve momentum

They also said B years ago. It didn't stop arguments back then and this new answer won't stop them now.

Theoretically it would also be passing through at a speed that's altered based on however fluid mechanics would normally affect it, which would in turn cause some disruption after said fluid mechanics kick in. How that would work in practice is a more worthy point of debate than the stupid cube question, like what would happen if you put one next to a furnace or opened a portal in two completely opposite biomes (tundra and desert for example)

>It's exiting at a speed of 0MPH.
Then it's not exiting the portal.

>air
>fluid

At least not while keeping its shape.

There are two possible answers to the problem: B or other, but it can never be A.

Blueshift happens when object is moving closer to us. If an object suddenly speeds up, it becomes more blueshifted, if it slows down, it becomes less. The object that went through the portal would become blue shifted
So if the portal is traveling at 0.5c, and the object is traveling into the portal at 0.5c, and relative to me when this happens, the portals and I would be traveling at 1.5c at each other, wouldn't that create more blueshift than theoretically possible?

Sound moves by displacing atoms of the medium.
this displacement has some movement.
atoms going into the portal would be slower than the ones coming out, no?
So would you hear an explosion

It's a problem that would cause the universe to tear apart under normal physics, there literally cannot be a correct answer

/thread

>A small discontinuity in space
>Tearing the universe apart
>There literally cannot be an answer
Nibber physicists sit around considering this kind of unrealistic scenario and get paid for it

no they don't, they think about scenarios that actually exist within reality

And hypothetical scenarios that could modify current theories to more general cases.

Did you know one of the original criticisms of general relativity was that expanding and contracting space wouldn't conserve energy? It still doesn't conserve energy to this day, because we've found more general laws and discovered that energy conservation only applies in a special case, namely flat space.

Portals don't fully connect universe on both ends so tightly to cause such a cataclism. For example we know that gravitational forces can't travel through them, so the idea that simply moving them would cause a paradox doesn't hold up. They would work as in B and just let the box fly away.

well guys?

Attached: well.jpg (1795x864, 95K)

>So if the portal is traveling at 0.5c, and the object is traveling into the portal at 0.5c, and relative to me when this happens, the portals and I would be traveling at 1.5c at each other, wouldn't that create more blueshift than theoretically possible?

There's more to blue shifting than just summing the velocities. There's time dilation and even some stretching. Your question is no different than if two spaceships, each traveling at 0.75c, toward each other shine a flashlight in front of them. This can get really complex.

youtube.com/watch?v=KHjpBjgIMVk

>Sound moves by displacing atoms of the medium.
this displacement has some movement.
atoms going into the portal would be slower than the ones coming out, no?
So would you hear an explosion

The atoms are vibrating, not moving. You don't hear an explosion when a train drives by.

>It's yet another hoopfag analogy
The question was never about portals that face in opposite directions and move at the same rate. That's like the most contrived special case of moving portals you could think of.

Based neitherchads working Alets and Blets into a seethe

Your labels are wrong. A is what Bfags believe. Afags believe that the guy sticks to the wall after leaving the portal.

The whole point of the original problem is that one portal moves with respect to the other. You fundamentally changed the problem, and thus changed the answer, by removing that aspect of it.

Your option A is, in fact, logically consistent with the original problem's option B.

Original problem (B):
>orange portal starts off moving at some speed "v" with respect to the cube
>equivalently, the cube starts off moving at some speed "v" with respect to the orange portal
>speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out
>cube exits blue portal at the same speed "v"

Your problem (A):
>orange portal starts of moving at some speed "v" with respect to the guy
>equivalently, the guy starts off moving at some speed "v" with respect to the orange portal
>speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out
>guy ends up exiting the blue portal at the same speed "v"
>equivalently, the scenario ends with blue portal moving away from the guy at speed "v" (no more, no less)

Because we want to launch rockets relative to the earth, not relative to a hula hoop

Afags are retarded

Attached: 1559863263986.webm (336x240, 133K)

/thread

I don't know what you're trying to prove. You could do this exact same animation with the box staying in place

it's officially confirmed to be A, get over it, we won

No you can't.

>fast moving box stopping for no reason
Yeah, but that would look wrong as fuck.

>A game dev's opinion on what's physically correct for a generalization of a system he only managed to implement in a special case is relevant

The box isn't moving, it only appears to be moving.

>how would this problem work in a fake videogame universe?
>creator of fake videogame universe: A
>Bronies: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IT DOESN'T COUNT LET ME MOVE MY GOALPOSTS NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I'VE BEEN ARGUING ON THE WRONG SIDE FOR 11 YEARS I SHOULD'VE BEEN A CH-A-D INSTEAD

Attached: 2ec.png (600x580, 572K)

nope, it's A, cope with it

>Actual physics
or
>Being an Afag
Pick one

einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle.html

Attached: 1559842870349.webm (520x414, 254K)

it's A

wow a fan-made flash animation, you sure proved your point

>Game dev knows so little about physics outside his own little bubble he actually claims portals conserve momentum
>When the entire point is that portals change momentum to the direction they're facing
>Afags are clueless enough to be misled by this man
It checks out.

I wonder how Afags will spin this one in order to bait more juicy (you)s from the reasonable anons

>>Game dev knows so little about physics outside his own little bubble he actually claims portals conserve momentum
you are operating under the rules of the game dev and he says you're wrong
>>When the entire point is that portals change momentum to the direction they're facing
no they don't
>>Afags are clueless enough to be misled by this man
cope

that's the correct answer, no amount of ironic Aposting can change that

To claim that it's A is to disagree with Einstein and everything we know about the physical world. Read the source I posted and stop embarrassing yourself. The answer is conclusively B, if you cling to hula hoop arguments you're braindead. If you persist I won't bother anymore this thread because you can't force someone so deficient to understand why they're wrong, you will always believe you're right no matter what solely because you can't comprehend what's in front of your face.

>No they don't

Ok
>Put both portals on floor
>Drop cube in orange portal
>Cube emerges from blue portal and falls through the floor.

Late to the thread. But presume the cube is 1m by 1m.

The portal is moving downward at 1 million m/s.

So, upon entry, the cube's leading edge would enter the portal 1/1000000th of a second before the trailing edge.

The opposite therefore occurs to the blue portal. Upon exit, the trailing edge will exit the portal 1/1000000th of a second later than the leading edge. If that ends in the cube plopping out, you are out of your goddamn mind. The cube will blast out of that thing like a bullet.

spin what? it's A, everybody except you thinks it's A, you started the debate (then lost it)

>officially
I'm sure that the screenshot of that mail has user's cretificate of genuine authenticity

it's A
you basically shat your pants in public and were forced to continue walking around, the solution would've been to not shit your pants

1m by 1m by 1m*

It's still A so you can leave

>moon orbits the earth once every 27.3 days
>earth's surface rotates once at every day, at 1000mph
>earth moves 27 times faster than the moon
>which equates to 960+mph
>moon's orbit is also at an angle which makes it even faster
>when you fly out of portal at ending of portal 2, your momentum is relative to exit portal, instead of flying at 960mph at some wierd angle

A-theists BTFO

youtu.be/usyYqJf0rfk?t=580

but your old outdated official confirmation of B still counts, right?
cope harder

it's B

Objectively wrong.

Attached: portal_box_answer.png (1072x2327, 123K)

>No arguments that contradict what I posted
Thanks for conceding, see you next thread.

>let's just fucking ignore the laws of physics on the side of blue portal
nice try tho, enjoy the (you)

proof? reminder that gabe said it's A

>>let's just fucking ignore the laws of physics on the side of blue portal
That's the point of the webm. Afags believe that the cube wouldn't fall in that scenario, it's clearly insane to think that. Afags ignore physics

Attached: 1554433777451.jpg (200x200, 23K)

the argument that contradicts what you said is that the creator of the game said it's A

isn't that exactly what I said?

this disproves B, not A

whats the point of all of this really?

The creators of the game:
1. Are not physicists
2. Could not program the scenario we're talking about which is why there are no moving portals in-game
3. Said it was B first, years ago

You might as well say the writer for Bioshock Infinite is an expert on quantum physics and multiverse theory.

source or die

wasting time. This is basically just arguing over what happens when you divide by zero, we all know it can't be possible but it's more fun to pick a side

Yes we're on the same side user

>moving half of a DOORWAY that DOES NOT PASS ON MOMENTUM TO OBJECTS
>somehow passes on momentum to an unmoving object

you would get the same answer if this were done in a Zero G environment. there is no fucking force pushing the Box. The portal is LITERALLY just a fucking doorway that is moving around it instead of it moving through the doorway on its own accord.

fuck off Bfags you people are literal children

If you watch the video, she didn't fly out at 960mph. So it disproves A.

no one cares, you are arguing under the rules of a videogame, and the creators of the videogame said you're wrong, sorry you missed the point this entire time

A fags btfo forever

Attached: portal smush.png (907x688, 22K)

The creators said you're wrong though

YOU ARE A RETARD

B-ased user
A-theists BTFO

> we all know it can't be possible but it's more fun
Then explain how the Combine came here.

Feel free to respond to this with "but portals aren't real physics" — but, in real physics, there's absolutely no difference between "moving" and "appears to be moving".

Let's say you're standing outside and a plane passes overhead. You would say that you're stationary and the plane is moving. This is the intuitive interpretation of events because we are so accustomed to using the frame of reference in which the Earth is stationary. However, there's nothing magical about the Earth. Someone on Mars would say that Mars is stationary while the Earth is moving at some incredible speed through space.

Earthling biases aside, the choice of reference frame is entirely arbitrary. If the plane which passes overhead is moving at a constant velocity, a person on that plane would be entirely correct in asserting that he is stationary and you (along with the rest of the Earth) are moving. It's true in his own inertial frame of reference which is just as correct as yours. To reiterate, the frame of reference in which the Earth is stationary is not magical. It's not more correct than any other. To the person on the plane, you don't just "appear to be" moving — you literally are moving. There's no difference.

You're probably still having trouble letting go of the surface of the Earth as your preferred frame of reference, so let's go into outer space. In a few billion years, the Milky Way will and the Andromeda galaxy will collide. Is the Andromeda galaxy racing towards us while the Milky Way sits still? Is it the other way around? Are they both moving towards their common center of gravity? It's actually all of the above. To describe the velocity of an object is meaningless unless you specify a frame of reference, and the frame of reference you choose is arbitrary. Typically you would choose whichever frame of reference is most convenient for the computations you wish to perform.

Attached: consider.jpg (569x428, 25K)

there a platform behind the small box, how is it the same ?

I like how Afags were like
>MUH
>MUH CONSERVATION
>OF MUHMENTUM
Flying right in the face of observed game mechanics, right up until this fake email showed up, and then it's
>Lol u think physics matter?? Its a game bro u follow what the game says

nope, it's A, cope more

just a reminder that it's A

>Afags have Lost so hard that their only argument left is "BBBUT ITS ALL JUST A GAME BRO STOP TAKING IT SO SERIOUSLY"

Attached: NatSoc anime cute 6.jpg (500x553, 38K)

Cope

Attached: 1468857060456.png (1714x788, 203K)

You do realise that he had to put quite a lot of effort into constructing a post that contains so refined retardation. Being so retarded is very very rarely naturally-occuring phenomenon.

But he did get a reply, which is what he was after all along.

I don't understand what you're asking. What platform? How is what the same as what?

>F-F-F-F-FFFAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE NEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWSSSSSSSSSSS, MUELLER HELP ME, THE RUSSIANS ARE HACKING THE PORTAL PROBLEM
Lmao, the state of B-utthurts

We know that momentum is conserved when objects enter the portal, but no external forces (gravity). In a truly connected space, the force of gravity from one side of the portal would act on the other.

Therefore we have to assume that portals do not actually connect space, but transfer objects from one side to the other, retaining momentum.

If an object at rest on one side of the portal enters a moving portal, it will be at rest on the other side.

A is the correct choice.

Attached: c59.png (229x344, 97K)

you're the one moving the goalposts by saying "I-IT WAS NEVER ABOUT GAMES IN THE FIRST PLACE", in this debate centered around a hypothetical situation in a fake videogame universe

Put the blue portal in a non moving place and you will see how A also doesn't work.
Its not a hoop if one side doesn't move, both answers are false, this paradox is why the game doesn't have moving portals.

>A-theist getting BTFO so hard he has try to derail to a completely different subject

Attached: large.jpg (579x584, 34K)

wrong

B fags are retarded portals don't work like that in portal

this looks even more retarded in movement

>This Afag meltdown

Attached: 674380673.gif (500x375, 665K)

>B-aggot so destroyed that he has to convince himself the email is fake

Attached: 1350620860159.jpg (269x450, 52K)

B-itches are pathetic

user, what the fuck are you talking about?

First of all, the proof is in the image attached to the post to which you just replied (). Second of all, Gabe didn't say anything about . Perhaps he said something about , but that's not even the problem to which I was providing proof of a solution; is not the same and is not intended to be the same as . Some of the same reasoning is involved in solving both problems, but I never made any statements about the answer to . I simply posted as the correct answer to . The correct answer to is B.

>uses the example where the platform is small enough to follow the cube
(B)ased

based, B-fags BTFO

over what? being right?

>tries to switch gears to non-technical related discussion because you didn't pay attention in high school

If the email isn't fake it's a gross misunderstanding of physics and that's embarrassing. Have you actually read it?
>Umm yeah it would be B except gravity makes it not be that way :)

I know right it's nice being frustrated over braindead bfags
Keep coping and seething because you're wrong

>Gravity from one side of the portal would act on the other
[citation needed]
And by citation, I mean formulate the theory for general relativity and prove it.

This negligence of real physics is why in the game you (almost) never see portals with different velocities have objects moving between them (besides light)

The game can't simulate what would sensibly happen

The virgin Afag "reasoning"

THE CHAD BFAG BREAKDOWN

>mad that he ALMOST got B but then got cucked out
lmao literally like real life cucking

This. Holy shit, fAgs are stubborn. This is why flat earth is still a thing.

There are literally no wrong statements in this post. It doesn't prove B, but a lot of Afags fail to understand this.

I'm so glad I'm not a BJW

>A fags crumbling

If you stand next to a portal that connects to one on the ceiling, the force of gravity from the other side should be pulling you into it. This doesn't happen in the game.

Portals can't exist in real life because they don't make physical sense. But in Portal, the answer is A, always.

Attached: SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE.png (864x630, 1.06M)

Portals aren't real so there's no real answer

and you said that Bfags are seething
At least attempt to hide it

B pilled as hell.

if I shake a portal, does the world shake too?

wow we got a genius over here

no one ever thought of posting that before!

agreed, if god came down from the heavens and said "the earth is round" B-oners would still be seething saying "W-WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A HYPOTHETICAL MODEL"

When have you ever encountered a doorway that has different 3D planes moving at different velocities?
Portals stop behaving like doors when they're moving at different relative velocities

Attached: 1543771242369.jpg (507x377, 34K)

A person here, but B will happen in this one. The cube will come out at 10 m/s, but once it fully passes the portal it'll stop movement all together. There's no momentum or inertia within the cube, so it will not travel any further once beyond the bounds of the portal. This is all there is to it.

ESL?

(B)LACKED

I've got one in my garage. It's A.

>A person here, but B will happen in this one
They're literally the same situation user.

Attached: 143InkS.jpg (252x240, 7K)

>Cube that is not attached to the platform in any way
vs.
>Penis that is attached by strong molecular bonds
You know, every Bfag would agree that the correct answer if you glue the cube to the platform is A, as long as the glue is strong enough.

My ass is a portal

>he thinks cubes are single objects and not a collection of trillions of atoms

If 99.9% of atoms have inertia, and the last sliver isn't moving, they're gonna carry the others.

OH NO NO NO NO NNO NO NO NO

Attached: portalp.png (809x509, 63K)

Since the cock is attached to the body, the platform would have to come down with enough force to tear it from your body or else the answer here is A. But in the original example the answer is B

But what if the portal slammed down at like 1,000 mph
Will it exit out at that rapid speed, in the "new 3D space", appearing to move quickly and then abruptly stop? Why is it anchored to the previous location?

Attached: protard.jpg (1068x1200, 90K)

Retard who thinks he's the first person to post in a Portal thread?

wrong, according to B-eaners the penis would be ripped off because of the speed it's exiting the portal at, necessarily the penis would be small because that's how B-incels relate

If the momentum the cube (which weighs atleast as much as Chel does) gains when exiting the blue portal is enough to send it flying then it would do more than just give your dick a slight tug

>mfw Afags dont even know about momentum can have negative value.

In Portal, the answer is A, because only the properties of objects are conserved through the portal, and not any external forces.

In real life, the answer would be B, because the cube is moving in the portal's frame of reference.

Attached: 1559778442885.jpg (125x122, 3K)

You need 350 newtons of force to rip off a penis, based on body building forums, which equates to 75lbs of force.

What are Afags clinging to now? One email that poorly understands the physics at play? From the Bfag corner I've seen convincing webms, diagrams, scholarly articles and in-depth breakdowns using actual relativity principles. What's the crux of the Afag argument in comparison? Convince me

>Jump on trampoline
>Momentum goes from p to -p
>Every single bone immediately shatters

You severely underestimate the structural integrity of the human body.

Yeah, because of the force attracting and holding those atoms together. No idea what your point brings to the table.

It could go 1 million mph for all I care. Still same result because there's no energy transfer.

>Will it exit out at that rapid speed, in the "new 3D space", appearing to move quickly and then abruptly stop?
Yes

>Why is it anchored to the previous location?
It's not anchored. There's just no reason for it so start moving out of nowhere. Because there's no kinetic energy in it, and there's no energy transfer, therefore there's no physical way for it to start moving once out of the portal.

In real life both a and b would be wrong

Something something hoops something doors something something momentum conservation in a discontinuous spacetime that clearly breaks it

Neitherchad here
If you think think it's B you probably have room temperature iq
Afags are almost there but they need to consider the retardation of the whole situation a little more.

You measure distance using the shortest path, retard.

How did you make this?

And how much does a semi-erect penis(including balls) weigh? We need this information to determine the fastest safe level of thrusting before your dick flies off.

>the cube is moving in the portal's frame of reference.
But not in reference of the destination, which is the important part.

>jumping on a trampoline is the same as your dick instantly getting force capable of moving an adult woman applied to it and pulling it away from the rest of your body

This is how it always seems to work. B-fags always give an autistic breakdown of how they think it should work. A-Fags have to be pushed really hard before you can get them to the point where they give any reasonable justification.

Yes, user. It is.

So this looks fine to you?
Because objects in the previous 3D plane didn't have """""kinetic energy""""" applied, suddenly physics stops working in the new 3D plane?

what is this suppose to prove?

In real life neither would be true retard, on object cannot move relative to itself.
Actually neither is true in portal either because this is a situation that is impossible to create in-game.
So basically, fuck you.

Attached: 1559300995422.gif (480x270, 1.2M)

>Force capable of moving an adult woman
Well.
The velocity becomes the same, that doesn't mean the applied force is the same. Two objects at the same velocity but with different mass don't have the same momentum.

There's no reason for it to suddenly stop moving after it's completely emerged from the hole.

Literally look at the gif in the OP. How is the cube moving with regard to the locations 5 feet to the right of it?

PORTALS ARE LITERALLY NOT JUST A FUCKING DOORWAY WHEN MOVING IN RESPECT TO ONE ANOTHER
IT IS LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO BE JUST A DOORWAY IF THEY ARE NOT BOTH MOVING AT THE EXACT SAME RATE AT THE EXACT SAME DIRECTION

Yes, that gif literally proves my point.

The cube isn't moving. The space around it is. There's a difference.

Look through the portal. The destination is the other side of it.

A but the box is spinning.

The argument in favor of "A" is basically to insist, repeatedly, upon one basic fact: The cube, at the start of the experiment, is not moving [with respect to the Earth]. They believe that the problem should be considered only in the reference frame in which the cube is initially stationary, and that its lack of momentum in this frame of reference simply must be preserved at the end of the experiment. They see this as airtight reasoning and will not budge no matter what you say. They usually don't even attempt to understand counter-arguments because they're already convinced that, because they're so right, any possible counter-argument must be wrong.

Hula hoop retards should just be disregarded; I'm not counting them as actual people.

>An object cannot move relative to itself
It's moving relative to the other side of the portal, not itself.

Reminder that Portals are just teleportation doors and thinking they will act differently just because they're moving is retarded no matter how much physics shit you try to justify your stupidity with

Attached: 1557454476694.png (666x666, 28K)

>Yes, that gif literally proves my point.
The gif literally shows how retarded it looks.
Seeing it should be the nail in the coffin for A-fags.

>The cube isn't moving
It was, or it couldn't exit.

See (image).

You're not thinking in terms of the same "destination" that I am. A portal literally is just a doorway to a different point in space. Sure you might feel atmospheric differences and whatnot as you go through, but that's it. If you aren't moving before, you won't be moving afterwards. I don't know how to simplify this any more for you. There's 0 reason to consider the cube to be moving at any point of this event.

>The cube isn't moving. The space around it is. There's a difference.

You keep thinking it's one solid cube. It's made up of trillions of atoms.

That's dumb. You're dumb.

Attached: 1559872867232.jpg (227x222, 13K)

>Y-Y-Y-YEAH BUT IT DOESN'T COUNT, I STILL HAVE MY WEBMS
it's A, get over it

i think its A.
the only chance it would be B is if the cube was floating and the portal didnt stopped while the cube was passing throught it.

Retarded is subjective. It shows what actually happens whether you like it or not.

The portal is moving. Not the cube.

Yeah I know. Doesn't matter. Each one of them for all intents and purposes equally as still as the rest, resulting in the same outcome as I've been describing.

Which is exactly why B is correct, it's the only solution that is independent of whether the portal or cube is the one moving, that also conforms to how portals behave while stationary in the game.

>You're not thinking in terms of the same "destination" that I am
Nigger it goes into the portal and out the other side. There is no destination that's not on the other side no matter how many quotation marks you use. That's where it goes.

30 grams roughly, so 75lbs/30grams = 1 133. It would need probably 1100-1200 Gs to rip off.

>no matter how much physics shit you try to justify your stupidity with
Literally admitting it doesn't make sense to you so you can't be wrong. You're too stupid to grasp high school relativity

Holy fucking shit

Attached: 1535364770006.jpg (211x239, 12K)

Alright, got me. But that still doesn't prove it's B, the cube gains the speed of the exit portal, not the entry one.

>Yeah I know. Doesn't matter.

Actually it matters completely, because the atoms that are not directly interacting with the portal are no different than any other object. Only a sliver of the collection of atoms in the cube are interacting with the portal directly.

>The portal is moving
The exit isn't. The cube is.

Yes, but you cannot have a door where one side is moving and the other is not, ots literally a paradox, both A and B are wrong answers and there is no real answer because moving portals break the laws of physics, even the hypothetical physics set by the game itself, that's why they don't let you use moving portals.

But if is A, then this is also A.

They're the same problem, described from two different inertial frames of reference.

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

B works just fine without breaking physics in any way it's not already broken in game. A is pure nonsense.

If you drop a hula hoop over a box the box doesn't suddenly fly fifty feet into the air.

And all of this random information applies how?

The actual mathematical proof that it's B is right there in the image though.

Of course I'm talking about B in , not B in the OP. The OP is a different problem because one portal isn't moving.

>Retarded is subjective. It shows what actually happens whether you like it or not.
Do I have to spell it out for you?????
When the pole with the cube on it exits through the second portal and is moving around, what stops the cube from flopping around, detaching from the platform, and falling around??? Why is it superglued to the fucking platform? Because the origin in the previous 3D plane is "still"?
This brings on a whole slew of more retarded shit you'll have to justify then, and I'm ready to bring the hammer down if you decide to go down that road.

Attached: 1535369548407.jpg (588x823, 75K)

btw was meant for

technically, on earthy conditions, the gravity will pull it downwards before reaching the orange portal, meaning it would exit with a curve.
unless your example is happening on a zero gravity environment.

The portals are connected to each other, they can't move relative to each other.
>orange side of portal is moving
>everything on the blue side of the portal has to move with it
>which includes the orange portal
>orange portal can't move relative to itself

That's what I said.

Imagine actually being a Bfag.

Attached: 0911.png (1097x53, 11K)

>Drive a car going 100 m/s
>Cube is standing still and in front of you
>The Cube must be moving 100 m/s to me because it’s relative to me
And Bfags claim Afags flunked physics.

Those atoms are traveling at some speed, and you're saying the whole cube stops due to the sliver of atoms inertia not being converted. But because that sliver is an infatesimal percentage of the overall inertia, the entire object will even out to move at the speed that 99.9% of the atoms are moving at.

>can't move relative to itself
Because we don't have portals.

but how? what is pushing the cube?

In Portal 2, you place a portal on the moon, which is moving at hundreds of miles an hour relative to you.

Portal literally means Doorway/Gate

Attached: AAB732BF-1D99-4D8E-9674-0BC038E12D4B.jpg (1355x416, 147K)

>what stops the cube from flopping around, detaching from the platform, and falling around?

There's no force acting on it to make it physically move one way or another. Unless the edge of the portal dings the pole and puts energy into the cube the cube has nothing acting on it and will remain fine until otherwise changed.

>Those atoms are traveling at some speed
Because unless an atom is at absolute 0 yes that's how it works

> the whole cube stops due to the sliver of atoms inertia not being converted
There's 0 inertia converted, not all but a sliver of it converted. There's no inertia in the cube ever in this equation relative to what would make the cube actually move the distances people are claiming it would.

Its A. The cube does not have energy stored in it since it is stationery.

>There's no inertia in the cube ever in this equation relative to what would make the cube actually move the distances people are claiming it would.

Incorrect, there is inertia from the 99.9% of moving atoms on the blue side. Inertia is literally mass*velocity, so because they are moving there must be inertia.

>if i fall towards the earth it means the earth is moving towards me with velocity
t. retard

There's nothing that gives the cube the momentum or force to move and no it doesn't need either of those to exit blue portal

>they are moving
they are not

Yeah but every time there are moving portals in-game (both the one you mentioned it's a scripted scene, and doesn't use the in-game portal physics.
Yeah and the world on the other side of the blue portal includes the orange portal, which cannot be moving relative to itself.

The cube can't come out of the blue portal since it has no energy. When the orange keeps moving down, it compresses the cube, which adds energy to it and provides the force necessary for it to move out of the portal.

>but how?
You'd have better luck asking how you think it doesn't.
>what is pushing the cube?
What do you mean, pushing the cube? The portal is moving towards the cube, along with everything on the other side of it. Hence the cube is moving with regards to everything on the other side of the portal, and will continue as is upon passing through it.

If you're asking what force, I don't know, fucking portals, same shit that lets you make an entrance and exit facing the same way and and change forward momentum to back, up to down, and so on.

If you placed a wall half a meter outside the blue portal, the 1 meter cube would smash into the wall as it came through the blue portal. You can't smash into a non moving object if you aren't moving. Therefore, the atoms on that side must be moving.

Literally none of this is true.

He's right. It's relative.

its a portal that instantly connects one end to the other, why would the distance between them matter when looking through the portals themselves its just like a door? If it moves then on one side of the portal the floor would be moving so you couldn't keep your foot down

The answer is C.
Once the portal hits the cube, 2 times occur due to ripping the fabric of space and time with impossible physics

If you are the car, the cube is moving 100 m/s toward you.
If you are the cube, the car is moving 100 m/s toward you.

It can only be A. The box has no movement.

It'd move through it and things around it sure but again, there's 0 momentum and inertia within the cube because the cube itself isn't moving, just the space around it.

Attached: 1557365951220.jpg (600x469, 32K)

Attached: huh.png (1044x1370, 52K)

It is just as likely as any other explanation and can justify forces without the need to add any extra rules to portals.

>muh flash animations
bfag cope

>Just as likely
There is no basis for any of the claims made in that post though. It's pure speculation with 0 evidence to back it up.

What if the object is larger than this space that is being moved?

They move as the Earth spins, when the moon spins, and you shoot them on moving platforms in Portal 2

A portal acts as a hole. As such, the velocity from the portal itself moving isn't transferred to the ball, the ball only accelerates because it is actively falling in a continuous straight line.

Then it won't go through the portal because it won't fit?

>There's no force acting on it to make it physically move one way or another. Unless the edge of the portal dings the pole and puts energy into the cube the cube has nothing acting on it and will remain fine until otherwise changed
Holy fuck- listen you dumb motherfucker. You are saying that once an object moves through the portal, all physics stops applying. You 100% agree with pic related.
It's now MOVING in the new plane because its stillness in mass pushes it into the fucking new realm. It can't enter the new 3D space at no momentum, because as soon as it enters it occupies space that new matter is trying to also fit into. We must agree SOME kind of force is being applied, or some kind of structural collapse would happen as matter is displaced into locations existing matter takes place in.
^ for reference

Attached: Pepega.png (1671x637, 32K)

>portals can change the direction of momentum
>but not the magnitude, no that's clearly impossible

Attached: 23096.jpg (300x200, 48K)

>No argument

>It's pure speculation with 0 evidence to back it up.
Right, just as likely as any other explanation since none of them have any evidence to back them up. The difference is that it can work without making any more assumptions about portals than what we can get from the game.

The velocity of the portal platform and the velocity of the small cube ARE NOT AND CANNOT EVER BE INTERCHANGEABLE.

You can have an object of any length go through the portal. Like a 50 meter pipe.

Yes, that was my point.
The picture was to illustrate that in B case you can create infinite acceleration from just moving portals back and forth
and having the ball fly through when the portal is going forward

A is making less and less sense by the minute BUT i will mot concede with B fags.

I am now of the opinion that both of you are retarded.

What many people do not seem to be able to wrap their heads around that the cube at no point experiences a change in inertia, there is no force acting on other than the gravity at the reference frames before and after the transition and the wind drag. And still it's B because the relevant movement is the movement of the space-time which, in this example moves toward the cube.

Furthermore any time frame ultimately before and after the event horizon of the portal touches the cube, read: when any matter of the cube is in reference frame A or B at the same time, does not matter. So it is irrelevant if the orange portal stops after it has fully consumed the cube. If the orange portal stops while the cube has not fully transitioned the cube it will also be actively pushed toward the other direction, since in that scenario reference frame B acts in a stopping motion. Imagine like you sitting in a car that is breaking. The moment the cube has transitioned fully into reference frame B it will continue to "not move", but since the room around it has "negative movement" from the rooms perspective it will look as if the cube is sent flying.

An easy, albeit flawed, analogy is a camera mounted in a room with a ball flying through the picture. It is not determinable if, from a further away meta reference point, the ball was sent flying through the window or if the room is moving toward a kicked up ball. The picture on the camera would be the same. Please read "a universe in a nutshell" it does slightly touch the topic of reference frames.

Attached: 1537479275194.png (788x428, 14K)

I do not agree with this picture no. I also do not claim physics stops once something goes through a portal. I do not agree any force is being applied to the cube as far as pushing it through the portal.

Correct.

Even the wrong answers have tried to rationalize their points. You haven't.

Good to know.

>pepega
kill yourself

>pic
this already happens in the game and the answer is B. the original answer to OP is STILL A.

As a B fag you're honestly a bit based, because the reality of the situation is some explosive black hole scenario where mass gets displaced into itself
A fags are only thinking in terms of points and "entry+exit", B fags are considering the 2 3D planes moving at different velocities, and the intricacies of what happens as objects built up of matter transfer between 2 different 3D planes with varying velocities.

then explain this

Attached: 1538747737206.jpg (938x546, 99K)

its the games rules my guy

>Good to know.

You didn't answer fully. Explain what happens if the object is larger than the space that's being moved.

The absolute worst thing the cube will do to you is push displaced air into your face

>I do not agree with this picture no. I also do not claim physics stops once something goes through a portal. I do not agree any force is being applied to the cube as far as pushing it through the portal.
Ladies and gentlemen, an A fag.

Attached: 1507548734870.png (645x729, 91K)

Before crushing said face, which I would argue is a fair bit worse.

>the movement of "space time" translates to the movement of the cube
No, there is literally nothing that proves this according to actual physics.

Okay retards, now try THIS one.

Attached: Troll_4fe4da_2043059.jpg (614x460, 26K)

>floats indefinitely
are you fucking retarded? there's a thing called gravity that would immediately take effect once you are free falling out of the blue portal.

Even the wrong answers have tried to rationalize their points. You haven't.
see for the long version. What I said still summed it up. You not thinking about it is your problem.

You aren't making any sense with that question hence the sarcastic remarks. If it's bigger than the portal, it won't go through. Otherwise it'll go through. If you're talking about forcing a portal down a 50 ft pole and there's only 40 feet of clearance, then it's no different than attaching that pole to whatever is moving the first portal and ramming it into the end object on the other end.

>Afags

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

>Bfags are sonybro shitposters
it all makes sense now

You are stuck in an endlessly duplicated space, that space being the microscopically small area between the portals themselves. Like standing between mirrors facing eachother.

But it won't reach that far, because it has no momentum to do anything else but fall to the ground.

if you bend over you could escape into your own ass
otherwise you just get crushed

only if the platform with the cube is moving upwards adding force to the cube, which its not you idiot.

Pic related is essentially what is happening when a portal falls on top of a stationary object

Attached: xevNO8W.gif (301x308, 946K)

Here's an image with an object larger than the space being moved/warped/whatever. How does the physics work if the object is larger than the space being warped/moved/whatever?

Attached: Untitled-6.png (1765x463, 16K)

>hoop/doorfags are still talking
haah waw

B-but from the windows point of view it's guy that's falling

What's the difference? If it enters at a set velocity, it exits at said velocity. Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out, remember?

This would end poorly in either a or b I don't know what you think you're proving.

Attached: 1242353453453.png (789x434, 137K)

That's the point. user I'm responding to think gravity and new forces don't apply, because "the portal doesn't create new energy"

Easy, what is going to happen to person A?

why do you have detachable fingers in the first place

the cube is not the speedy thing. it's not going in at any speed it's standing still on the platform

that you're a dumb nigger who thinks all objects are the same size?

Speedy thing doesn't go in though

Cover the left side with your hand, notice how it makes perfect sense

But no, this is not what afags actually believe. The truck's velocity is not transferred into the object, the object is not moving, the portals simply displace it's current position. This is completely in line with A you mongoloid

The cube is moving toward the portal. See .

A fags whole heartedly agree that once the pole exits the blue portal, because it was still in the previous 3D plane it will stay in place and not move forward into the blue 3D space.
If this makes no sense, it's because it doesn't. That's why A fags are retarded.

Yeah...that's literally how it works in real life.

>it's not going in at any speed
Yes, it inarguably is.
It goes in at the same speed, what's the difference which portion is doing the moving?

>see my poorly thought out MSpaint scribble

You still haven't told me what happens to A you absolute moron.

How is it poorly thought out?

What happens to A where and when? Are you really confusing me with some faggot? You've really got to stop seeing your kind all around.

>the object is not moving
Great! So when it exits blue, the object doesn't have any energy "pushing" it. The person will be unharmed, even though the BBC is coming right at them, because it has "no energy"! It's like a really soft punch!
Yeah! This totally makes fucking sense user!

you're a stupid faggot who cant differentiate between "flying" and falling. THE CUBE ISNT MOVING

Depends on your frame of reference.

That is LITERALLY what reality is like user. In theory and practice.

Attached: 1508186450805.jpg (710x594, 127K)

Option C: The moving platform stops at the cube, and it won't pass through.

youtu.be/JHe-iU63nmE

The cube is on the planet Earth moving at thousands of miles per hour.

Attached: tumblr_mj0vvcqnZx1qdlh1io1_400.gif (400x354, 2M)

No it doesnt. point of reference is worthless for physics and the answer is A.

>No it doesnt. point of reference is worthless for physics

Attached: 1552618856691.jpg (600x600, 48K)

>What is gravity

THIS. THIS IS CORRECT.

The compression of 0 velocity objects being placed into new 3D plane prevents new atoms from occupying that new space- either stopping movement or creating some massive influx of energy or phenomina.

Attached: yVIJUvqhI5R9jHJtlos-Nq1Vj-qFu_tn-QkGNcbUGew.jpg (168x216, 10K)

I think the police would let me know if I was speeding, thank you very much.

There is no right answer because portals aren't real

Look here, look here listen you blind smoothbrain, the object is not being pushed. It is being displaced. There is no energy, only displacement. The object doesn't change position, the portal alters where the bbc's tip exists even though the bbc itself is not moving. Because of the shape of the bbc, the rapid pace at which the portal displaces the bbc's tip naturally produces force at the other end. The fucker will be jammed with a 10 meter big black pole up his genitals because he's actually stupid enough to listen to you

that just sounds idiotic

not only the "the answer is A" part

What about it?

what if it was a pole?

Attached: Pole in a portal.png (448x424, 8K)

*there is no energy excerted over the object itself, it's position is just being altered without changes to the object's velocity from it's point of view

Why are these threads even still a thing? The only people defending B are literal retards, people who have never played Portal, or fags who like to shitpost.

>the rapid pace at which the portal displaces the bbc's tip naturally produces force
What, so it's moving? Why would it suddenly stop, then?

weight vs gravity

Scientists let you know.

are you colorblind user?

it is not the same velocity in the image on the right as in the image on the left. Left is velocity X, which in turn creates velocity Y on the right.

Are you saying you know better than the law?

it's holding the cube in place so no velocity is happening to the cube sitting on the platform. if you think the solarsystem and milkyway spin mean anything here for force then why isnt the cube flying off the platform at the start?

youtube.com/watch?v=0TZd95BCKMY

>There is no energy, only displacement
Let me displace my fucking fist into your skull you retard
That doesn't require or expend any energy hahaha
>The object doesn't change position, the portal alters where the bbc's tip exists even though the bbc itself is not moving. Because of the shape of the bbc, the rapid pace at which the portal displaces the bbc's tip naturally produces force at the other end
If I put an apple on the tip of BBC, would it fall off in the new 3D space?
How is that though? It's still when it entered!

Attached: DisplacedHand.jpg (900x880, 103K)

>The BBC has convinced afags that a change in position over time is not the same as moving

The bbc is not moving, and it is not being moved. The force that is produced at the other end is the result of the force that is compelling the portal to move. If you measured the velocity of the bbc from the bbc, the bbc would not have moved. It's surroundings would have displaced themselves to allow the bbc to be repositioned at the new location, and due to it's size and shape, expelled with equal force as to the force that envelops it.

>If you measured the velocity of the bbc from the bbc
Ok?
That goes for any moving object. How about another frame of reference?

Gravity behaves exactly the same on objects whether they are stationary or moving. A cube on a stationary platform on the ground will experience the same gravity as a cube on a platform traveling at a constant speed up or down.

>That doesn't require or expend any energy hahaha
Yeah because the portal moves with no energy at all, just as your sex life, faggot

>If I put an apple on the tip of BBC, would it fall off in the new 3D space?
No. It wouldn't you braindead bbc revisionist faggot jew

>Bfags breaking conventional physics: Well portals don't conserve energy or momentum, as we can see in the games

>Afags breaking conventional physics: WELL, being DISPLACED isn't the same as MOVING, an object can change position over time without moving!

Neither answer is technically correct given the assumptions that they make in the picture, but B is the least correct answer. is correct because objects can't travel through portals from the game Portal without having some sort of velocity themself.

>moving portals can exist the earth is spinning

fucking shitheads, what people mean is that the speed of one portal has to match the speed of the other

>Yeah because the portal moves with no energy at all
It's only coming at the BBC containing an entire 3D plane moving in an entirely different velocity to the space "outside" of it
>No. It wouldn't you braindead bbc revisionist faggot jew
You think: looks right to you?

Attached: 1535369827327.png (474x711, 113K)

if you had a floating, motionless ball, and this pipe came at it straight-on, what would happen to the ball (if the pipe was frictionless)? Of course, the ball would go up. same with the portals

Attached: 611942033560.jpg (350x400, 8K)

and gravity only acts towards something with strong enough mass to have a gravitational feild so this only means DOWN here. The cube is pulled down at a standstill and there's no gravitational force giving it any velocity. The answer is still A.

Not in Portal 2. You shoot a portal on the moon.

Portal 2 has 2 sections where portals move at different speeds.

You are changing this from a question about physics to a question about philosophy. Suppose we place an apple next to the bbc and measure it that way. The apple will plop out of the other side without much movement, however the bbc due to it's exurbetant shape will continue to be transported, thus the illusion of velocity is created

Just to be clear the part about the portal moving with no energy was sarcasm, i'm afraid you socially deficient cocksuckers won't recognize hominid forms of communication

and the moon doesn't

It has a velocity. I'm standing on the platform with the Orange portal and the cube is coming right at me.

A and B fags think this is retarded- we're discussing what happens to objects transferring between 3D planes that have different velocities relative to each other.

both A and B totally break the laws of physics, its like dividing by 0, but people really want something to happen just to feel like they won, when getting sucked into debating this shit is already a loss

The only reason would be the curvature the ball would bounce off of, which doesnt exist in portals . try again bfag.

yeah that part was fucking retarded

>an object can change position over time without moving!
If the position itself changes the point in a three-dimensional space in which the object exists, then yes you fucking brainlet

>what is sarcasm
>what is ridicule
At which point was i supposed to be shocked at this? >You think: looks right to you?
But it literally does

the cube doesnt have any velocity. only the portal has velocity, if the cube has no velocity at the start theres no reason it would gain any.

the point is, it would necessarily HAVE to be coming out as quickly as it went in. Once an atom goes in one end, it comes out the other.

thus the velocity is conserved through the portal. It would shoot out the other side

Attached: Portal Problem.png (515x1032, 30K)

There's plenty of cases where dividing by 0 is a well-defined operation, like the Riemann sphere. In a similar way, the tools to analyze mechanics in weird spacetimes like having portals are actually really well developed, but I for one have given up on trying to explain them because the high school dropouts shitting up these threads stop reading the moment someone says "Metric."

>You are changing this from a question about physics to a question about philosophy
How so? I just said its movements, relative to itself, don't really say a whole lot since nothing, moving or not, is moving relative to itself.

this thread has literally been made over a million times in the last decade

>the point is, it would necessarily HAVE to be coming out as quickly as it went in
Absolutely, i was just pointing out that a distinction needs to be made between the velocities, since while they are codependant, they are not the same velocity, even if their "value" is quite literally identical.

True. Not sure why I decided to throw myself into this hole, or still keep reading these threads.
B doesn't work because if the cube moves, it would start moving as soon as the portal touched the top of it, and so would either split apart (unlikely) or would pull itself into the portal once they touch (impossible)

Since you derive conservation of energy from conservation of momentum, and it's pretty obvious momentum is not conserved. That means energy is not conserved through a portal. Anyone who is arguing this is wrong

Everyone in this thread is wrong.

It wouldn't be A or B.

It'd would be immobile on the slanted portion of the portal.

Why makes you think that a portal can the position of a point in space anywhere else but at the portal? That seems like a pretty big stretch beyond a portal simply being a window that connects two specific points in space. I'm assuming you wouldn't call people brainlets unless you have something to back this up.

>How so? I just said its movements, relative to itself, don't really say a whole lot since nothing, moving or not, is moving relative to itself.
Yes, i understand, but my overarching point could and was easily remedied by clogging up the little semantics-sized gloryhole you presented in your argument.

It would just shoot through quickly at first and stop dead in its tracks as soon as it fits through before being pulled by gravity.

It was a very simple question, and it's not my fault you started rambling about it being stationary, relative to itself, and thus not moving.

what causes it to stop? It is no longer interacting with the portal. Unless you think the portal has some extended electric field surrounding it or something

Wrong, the orange portal isn't moving. The cube is and same with the pedestal it's on.

Attached: 1512822825519.jpg (442x500, 8K)

>it's pretty obvious momentum is not conserved
What the fuck

>What makes you think that a portal can alter the position of a point in space anywhere else but at the portal?
Nothing, i was using that example to better illustrate, although not in the best way, that the object itself is not moving, but the window, since it is moving, changes where the object exists in the world

> I'm assuming you wouldn't call people brainlets unless you have something to back this up.
Eat faggot dick, and suck mine. Also blow it out your asshole. Cmon this is a debate on Yea Forums, you can't expect me to provide metaphysical examinations of a theoretical (possibly theoretically impossible) entity

Your definition of moving when there are two portals present is SO bad, if you actually apply it to the whole system, velocity is undefined EVERYWHERE. Congratulations.

>speedlines don't mean anything hurrr
kill yourself

I suppose that you are right. The bbc is moving when it comes out of the other end, and it is stupid to deny that.

You can point the portal any direction, obviously momentum is not being conserved here.

I can throw a ball through the portal, and when it emerges it will be going a completely different direction. Momentum is not conserved

Momentum has never been conserved by portals. It doesn't matter what GlaDoS tells you, because the definition of "momentum" used in the game is a mangled interpretation of physics that confuses the VECTOR QUANTITY momentum with its magnitude, stripped of direction.

The thing is that the cube never actually moved itself in the first place, it's an optical illusion at that point because the only perceived "movement" is through the portal, not through actual space.

>obviously momentum is not being conserved here
What a genuienly baffling statement. Are you referring specifically to the case of the bbc where there exists no momentum on the bbc's part?

>I can throw a ball through the portal, and when it emerges it will be going a completely different direction. Momentum is not conserved
Oh alright, i get you now. The ball's speed is conserved but not the direction. Alright. Well in this case conservation of "energy" (what i assume you mean by this is speed of the bbc) has nothing to do with the conservation of "momentun" aka "direction of movement". Although i suppose that to an extent the momentum is conserved, just recontextualized.

Suppose that in the bbc example, you make the output portal, as it is already facing the direction opposite to that of the input portal, also move with equal velocity to the input portal in the direction of movement opposite to that of the input portal. Then the bbc will be laid down onto the ground with no momentum or speed or force applied to it.

Except the part of the cube that is already through the portal has to move through the space in front of the portal in order to make way for the rest of it

Relativity between 3D planes would still imply the same behaviours as relativity on a single 3D plane

That's in reference to the cube. Not in reference to the observer.

I will acknowledge that you explanation can justify how things work the way you say, but I still think it is a pretty big assumption beyond the information we are given about how portals work. I'm not great with typing out insults, so please accept this smug anime girl that gives the implication that I think you are below me even though your idea is not outside of the realm of possibility.

Attached: 1464018893777.png (730x720, 587K)

>Blatantly exposes himself for not knowing what momentum even is
>Still argues like he knows what he's doing

You are incredibly arrogant.

Yes.

I forgot entirely what they meant by momentum in the actual game, although it's safe to assume the definition i was under the impression of being correct might be the mangled on from the game. In the case that indeed "momentum" the poster was referring to encompasses direction, then i agree. Thanks for pointing this out.

fuck off retard the observers position doesnt change physics, the cube isnt moving only the platform and portal.

>the observers position doesnt change physics
Exactly. So if the observer was standing on the moving platform with the orange portal, they would see the cube entering the portal at a high rate of speed. Therefore, it would exit the other side at a high rate of speed.

>The observer's position doesn't change physis
True! But not just that. The observer's VELOCITY also doesn't change physics. Because of this, the same thing has to happen regardless of whether the cube and blue portal are moving while the orange portal stays still, or if the cube/blue portal stays still and the orange portal moves. The two are equivalent.

you have absolutely brain dead logic, as if sitting somewhere different gives you magic powers over the universal forces

>bfags still arguing when Gabe already settled the matter

Lol

And there are plenty of cases where you don't make women vomit or call the police. Like when they're on another continent.

No shit portals aren't real. But one of these outcomes is possible, with how these (not real) portals are shown to work.

>I will acknowledge that you explanation can justify how things work the way you say, but I still think it is a pretty big assumption beyond the information we are given about how portals work.
To me it's more of an observation and application of what we are shown them to be capable of. At the very least the assumptions are nothing on par with theoretical wormhole physics.

>I'm not great with typing out insults, so please accept this smug anime girl that gives the implication that I think you are below me even though your idea is not outside of the realm of possibility.
Absolutely sir, that's understandable. Fuck you too and have a good day.

You hardly learn by shutting up and sitting down now, do you? Application of what you know to a fun challenge and adjustment of arguments according to new information learned is much more exciting than sitting throught hundreds of lectures on physics. Would you have me be a liar and a bluffer instead of acknowledging what i do not understand? And let me remind you that a part of arrogance is the unwillingness to change.

The portal is doing the work itself in that case, the cube does nothing so it can't maintain that speed without the portal.
Not really since portals are speculation by nature and there's nothing to imply a residual force.

Exactly. So if you are flying through the universe and see the cube moving at 140mph entering a portal moving at 70mph in the same direction, then that mean it is entering the portal at 70mph.

none of these two outcomes are real according to how portals work

Also let me just add that the continual motion of the object out of the outputting portal is entirely dependent on the continual motion of the inputting portal.

Everything in that image is 100% factually correct. It's not my fault that you don't understand what an inertial frame of reference is. Blame your shitty education.

What's "doing the work" is irrelevant, the fact is that it is moving and per newton's first law will continue to do so until acted upon by an outside force or object.

Go ahead and explain how they contradict in game portal physics, then.

>Cmon this is a debate on Yea Forums
and you have no argument

*assuming the object itself was static

No one can be this retarded. The cube is. not. moving at the start and was only displaced in space after passing through the portal, there is no gain of velocity and there is no compression of atoms because it's instantanious.

see

Why? How can the entry portal's movement affect the cube post-exit? And why would the cube suddenly stop?

Displacement. requires. movement.

Movement is maintained unless an outside force or object acts.

I didn't ask you whether they implemented it, dumbass.

>The cube is. not. moving
relative to what? And how's your asthma? Do you have your inhaler nearby, or should I call someone. Getting pretty serious if you're even typing in asthma.

The two are not interchangable, not in the context of portals. If the portal is moving, the object is placed at the outputting portal with no force acting upon it. If the object is moving, it whooshes out of the outputting portal. Not interchangeable.

My argument is based on fictional and theoretical data. I can point out my observations of the portals in the games that i used to create my stance, but i cannot cite a scientific study of the quantum physics of the fucking portal gun.

"Movement" requires velocity in the traditional sense, portals negate that rule and does not add any to an already stationary object. The only force that does is gravity, unless you act on it yourself by adding velocity to the object you want to portal.

>My argument is based on fictional and theoretical data
What? Logic is one thing, but data? You're just making shit up?

Its literally impossible to implement it, its a paradox the game engine can't do it

Right, if you're willing to learn then I'll repeat the real big redpill on momentum, just in case ONE person in this thread benefits from it.

Energy and momentum conservation are hard laws in "normal" life here on earth, but in theoretical physics we know that these laws actually only apply in a special case, that being the flat Euclidean metric. In General Relativity, for example, you can easily violate energy conservation when space expands or contracts.

In fact, we have a rule that states exactly what the rules are based on the situation: Noether's Theorem. It's a really deep theorem, but it basically says that to have a conservation law, the space you're in needs to have a corresponding symmetry. Symmetries aren't just mirror symmetries like flipping the x-axis though, we've also got continuous symmetries, like moving along the x-axis, or going forwards and backwards in time. Basically, momentum is only conserved if your system's laws don't change with position.

Why does this matter? Because portals fuck space symmetry right up. When you have portals, you have two entire areas that simultaneously are far apart, and have distance 0 between them. This ruins momentum conservation, energy conservation, and probably several of the symmetries we need to have particles, but whatever. The point is, portals not conserving momentum is actually exactly what we'd expect to happen in more advanced physics. I'd even go ahead and derive the metric, but this is a shitpost on Yea Forums and that takes effort.

Yeah and the cube as it emerges from the blue portal has a velocity, the same velocity that the orange portal absorbed it with.

light is magic. light belongs to god.

I'm going to PERSONALLY HUNT DOWN AND EXECUTE EVERY B FAG. I will DRAG YOU ALL TO A SHALLOW GRAVE IN THE DESERT AND PUT A BULLET THROUGH YOUR SKULL. NO MERCY, PREPARE FOR THE STORM MAGGOT.

Attached: 1537758719598.jpg (750x543, 281K)

You realize people have hacked it in already, right? Didn't doesn't mean can't.
Now, you gonna make an argument, or what?

it has to move to pass through the portal

A if the exit of the portal is on the same planet and the entry

B if the exit of the portal is on a slower moving planet or into space

argument solved, everything else is just semantics

there is no 'absorbed' velocity you're just making that up in place of an argument. literally the same shit as the 'compressed' shit as earlier, just worded differently.

my argument is option C

Fucking reddit.

>Why? How can the entry portal's movement affect the cube post-exit? And why would the cube suddenly stop?
I added a little footnote that this only applies if the object is not moving beforehand. But so:
The cube would stop because it never moved in the first place. It's being pushed out of the output portal because it is being pushed into the input one. And the input portal's movement cannot transfer into the object after it has left the output portal, and even then i'm not sure if "transfer" is the right word to use.

Solved. The answer is B.

Attached: Portals Explained.png (2388x3034, 385K)

nice semantics you nigger, you know very well that 'movement' is velocity in this conversation, not where it physically is from one spot to another.

Yeah the act of moving through the portal creates velocity ex nihilo

Such is portals

>The two are not interchangable
You're still not getting it. Let me explain to you a fundamental concept in physics: Every velocity is measured with respect to some inertial frame of reference. There is no single correct frame of reference. Every frame of reference is equally valid. To solve a problem, you can do your computations in any frame of reference you like.

See the attached image. These are literally the same thing in two different inertial frames of reference. If you want, you can think of it like this: The bottom image is what you see if you're moving along with the portals. You might then say that it just "looks like" the small box is moving, but there's no difference between "looks like it's moving" and "actually moving" in physics, because every inertial frame of reference is equally valid.

Every computation you do on Earth uses an Earth-centered frame of reference because you find it convenient because you're moving through space along with the Earth. The Earth isn't magical; you chose that frame of reference just because you like it. If we don't have the freedom to choose a frame of reference when doing velocity computations, then you need to factor the velocity of the Earth into everything you do. And nobody does that.

Attached: portal_box_same.png (942x813, 9K)

>The cube would stop because it never moved in the first place
Yes, it exit the portal. That's why you're saying it would stop, not remain stationary.
>It's being pushed out of the output portal because it is being pushed into the input one
Yeah, speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out. If it enters at V, it exits at V. Why the hell would it stop.

Portals would have to have a net increase in velocity in order for anyone to say it 'increases' it. Since they do not there's no reason to ever think it increased velocity, the object that goes in blue at speed (stand still) will come out at the same speed (stand still)

This shit is hilarious when you realize Afags just undersimplify with the hoola hoop theory and Bfags just over exaggerate with the theory of relativity, and they are both wrong.

Horseshoe theory wins again.

>If the portal is moving, the object is placed at the outputting portal with no force acting upon it. If the object is moving, it whooshes out of the outputting portal.

What you are literally saying, right here, is that the outcome of an experiment differs depending on the frame of reference from which you measure velocity. That's nonsense.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance