OH SHIT

>both are right we are all winners! :)
its A you fucking cuck

oh so its A then

>walking down the street
>some asshole drops a hula-hoop from the roof of a building
>falls down around me
>get launched 50 feet in the air
>fall and body gets crushed on impact
>tfw B-fags were right

dilate losing to everything else doesn't make sense as it's a hard target to trannyshilling. it's friendly fire at that point.

Nigger

I used to come to these threads with an open mind, but every time we have this discussion, some "A" fags try to convince me that momentum isn't a vector, that gravitational potential energy doesn't count, that there's only one valid frame of reference, or that the laws of physics change depending on the frame of reference. Frankly it's becoming clear that they're just retards.

??? Gravitational potential energy is the only thing acting on the cube. That's why it just falls down.

The cube has no motion behind it, it wouldn't even be able to fall as far as A

It would fall because of the angle, it would really more likely slide to the base of the ramp then tip over.

Your post has almost nothing to do with the content of my post, so I think you're confused.

I guess I should have provided some context to my comment about gravitational potential energy. So here's the context. People who argue in favor of option "A" often state simply that the cube should not gain any velocity because "portals conserve energy" — a claim which is completely untrue. If you place two portals at different heights, they can freely increase the gravitational potential energy of an object passing through.

If you throw a ball upward, its kinetic energy is converted to gravitational potential energy as it rises, and the opposite occurs as it falls. At all times, the total energy remains constant. That's how conservation of energy works. But if the ball then falls into a portal on the floor and comes out of a portal on the ceiling, it has increased its gravitational potential energy with no decrease in kinetic energy. Its total energy has increased. Energy has not been conserved. It's easy to see why this is such a problem when you consider what happens next. The ball still has all of its kinetic energy, but now its potential energy is increased, so its potential energy is converted to even more kinetic energy as it falls. If it enters the floor portal again, the process repeats. It can gain more and more kinetic energy, seemingly out of nowhere. Energy is not being conserved in this system.

Sometimes, when faced with this argument, the person who originally claimed that portals conserve energy will try to argue that only kinetic energy needs to be conserved, because potential energy isn't real or otherwise doesn't really count. That's absurd and it's not how physics works.

It'd just fall back into the blue portal

The blue portal is pressed up against the floor, so it's a hard surface.

Good point, in that case I agree it would just slide down.

youtu.be/OrAHvenjZpA?t=59

>pretending to have played Portal 2
Why? What was your endgame?

>People who argue in favor of option "A" often state simply that the cube should not gain any velocity because "portals conserve energy" — a claim which is completely untrue. If you place two portals at different heights, they can freely increase the gravitational potential energy of an object passing through.

>If you throw a ball upward, its kinetic energy is converted to gravitational potential energy as it rises, and the opposite occurs as it falls. At all times, the total energy remains constant. That's how conservation of energy works. But if the ball then falls into a portal on the floor and comes out of a portal on the ceiling, it has increased its gravitational potential energy with no decrease in kinetic energy. Its total energy has increased. Energy has not been conserved. It's easy to see why this is such a problem when you consider what happens next. The ball still has all of its kinetic energy, but now its potential energy is increased, so its potential energy is converted to even more kinetic energy as it falls. If it enters the floor portal again, the process repeats. It can gain more and more kinetic energy, seemingly out of nowhere. Energy is not being conserved in this system.

That's... not how it works.

Portals don't conserve energy, they conserve momentum, which is to say they have no effect on either. Portals placed at different heights do not "freely increase" the potential energy, they do absolutely nothing to it. When your hypothetical ball falls into a portal on the floor and comes out of a portal on the ceiling, it's velocity is identical to what it was at the moment it hit the floor portal.

The potential energy is modified, not because the portals impart energy, or add energy, but because the 'ceiling' portal is farther from your grativation source (earth), and potential energy is entirely based on the distance to a gravitational attractor. The heigh difference adds energy, not the portals.

>slow thing goes in, speedy thing goes out
what did he mean by this?

What if you shoot a bullet through a portal, does that mean the bullet will simply drop into another space like A?

Only applicable to portals that are stationary relative to each other.

>That's... not how it works.
Are you retarded? That's not how WHAT works? I gave an accurate description of how conservation of energy works, and then I gave an accurate description of how portals behave.
>Portals don't conserve energy,
Agreed.
>they conserve momentum,
They actually don't. Consider the fact that momentum is a vector. (You DO know what a vector is, right?) Now consider the fact that portals can change the direction of a moving object. The total momentum of a system is not conserved when this occurs. You do understand the law of conservation of momentum, don't you?
>which is to say they have no effect on either.
But you already stated that portals don't conserve energy.
>Portals placed at different heights do not "freely increase" the potential energy,
They do.
>they do absolutely nothing to it.
Okay, let's see your justification for this one.
>When your hypothetical ball falls into a portal on the floor and comes out of a portal on the ceiling, it's velocity is identical to what it was at the moment it hit the floor portal.
Yes, I said that.
>The potential energy is modified, not because the portals impart energy, or add energy,
When you increase the height of an object, you are imparting gravitational potential energy on that object. That is literally how it works. That's why it takes energy to lift something. Because you are putting energy into it, in order to increase its gravitational potential energy. Either portals have infinite energy to give to the ball over and over again as it continually falls into the floor and comes out the ceiling, or portals simply do not conserve energy.
>but because the 'ceiling' portal is farther from your grativation source (earth), and potential energy is entirely based on the distance to a gravitational attractor. The heigh difference adds energy, not the portals.
Yes, the ball has greater potential energy because it is farther from the Earth. It gained that energy when it passed through the portal.

>The potential energy is modified, not because the portals impart energy, or add energy, but because the 'ceiling' portal is farther from your grativation source (earth), and potential energy is entirely based on the distance to a gravitational attractor. The heigh difference adds energy, not the portals.

You can describe it that way if you want, but you cannot escape the fact that the total energy of the system has increased as a result of the ball going through the portals. Therefore, energy has not been conserved.

>b-but it's not the portal's fault, gravity did it

Fact: When an object passes through portals at different heights, total energy has not been conserved. The law of conservation of energy has been broken specifically because of the presence of portals.

>cube is speedy with respect to the orange portal before entering the orange portal
>cube is speedy with respect to the blue portal after exiting the blue portal
so it's B

fake news

potential energy is just a meme until it is realized.

>every time we have this discussion, some "A" fags try to convince me ... that gravitational potential energy doesn't count

>potential energy is just a meme

Thank you for fulfilling the prophecy.

So you're saying air accelerates through the portal as well?

What the fuck are you even talking about? I didn't even mention acceleration, or air.

You're doing an insane amount of mental gymnastics to avoid admitting that the law of conservation of energy is completely broken by the scenario in which a dropped ball enters a portal on the floor and exits from a portal on the ceiling, which was the only point I was trying to make. You can go and argue with someone else about acceleration of air molecules if you want to move the goalposts all the way over there.

Why are you getting so mad tho?
Can't win them all buddy.
Just move on.

I can't win them all, but I did win this one, which was really the only possible outcome because it's simply an incontrovertible fact that total energy is not conserved in a system containing portals placed at different heights. Have a nice weekend.

but you were wrong tho

This shit's getting out of hand. It's like playing Stratego for retards.

(You)

>Therefore, energy has not been conserved.
It has, you retard. The energy is identical while the ball is in-portal. The energy change isn't from the portals, it is from the balls' height.

>They actually don't. Consider the fact that momentum is a vector. (You DO know what a vector is, right?) Now consider the fact that portals can change the direction of a moving object. The total momentum of a system is not conserved when this occurs. You do understand the law of conservation of momentum, don't you?
This is honestly the dumbest shit I've read in a long time. The portal isn't a forcefield you absolute mongoloid. It doesn't magically apply twice the force of the incoming vector to reverse and object's direction. It does absolutely nothing to the object and changes it's spatial location and orientation.

If you drop a dice through the portal with the (one) side facing down, it's momentum is in the direction of that (one) side. If it comes through a portal facing the exact opposite direction of the first portal, guess fucking what. It's moment is still towards that (one) side, because the object and it's motion isn't changed at all by the portal, the spatial orientation is. the object continues doing whatever the object was doing, falls through a door in space time and comes out the other side. You can fucking tell that nothing is being done to it, because if you stand at the blue portal and you fucking look up into it, guess what sherlock, the dice falls towards you, comes through the portal, and keeps falling towards you. Because its vector remains constant. If you look at the entry portal, you watch the dice fall into the portal, fall through, and keep falling. Because it's constant. Your percieved vector change when you are looking at both portals is you being forced to witness two relative observational points because of the portal's wonky, reality bending bullshit. The object does not ever change.

>The energy change isn't from the portals, it is from the balls' height.
The portals gave it the extra height.

We can play this semantics game all day, but the FACTS are:
1. The law of conservation of energy demands that the total energy of a system remain constant.
2. The total energy does not remain constant when the gravitational potential energy of that ball is increased with no trade-of in kinetic energy.

Whether or not you think the portals directly transferred energy to the ball, the fact remains that the law of conservation of energy is completely broken by the scenario in which a dropped ball enters a portal on the floor and exits from a portal on the ceiling.

>If you drop a dice through the portal with the (one) side facing down, it's momentum is in the direction of that (one) side. If it comes through a portal facing the exact opposite direction of the first portal, guess fucking what. It's moment is still towards that (one) side, because the object and it's motion isn't changed at all by the portal, the spatial orientation is. the object continues doing whatever the object was doing, falls through a door in space time and comes out the other side. You can fucking tell that nothing is being done to it, because if you stand at the blue portal and you fucking look up into it, guess what sherlock, the dice falls towards you, comes through the portal, and keeps falling towards you. Because its vector remains constant. If you look at the entry portal, you watch the dice fall into the portal, fall through, and keep falling. Because it's constant. Your percieved vector change when you are looking at both portals is you being forced to witness two relative observational points because of the portal's wonky, reality bending bullshit.

You're misunderstanding the law of conservation of momentum. It states that the TOTAL MOMENTUM OF A SYSTEM will remain constant. See the attached image which shows how portals can change the total momentum of a system.

Attached: portals don't conserve momentum.png (752x572, 19K)

Dude, did you even go to school? This is 8th grade physics.

reminder B fags are eternally BTFO

Attached: 1560030799715.png (1545x959, 140K)

>It states that the TOTAL MOMENTUM OF A SYSTEM will remain constant. See the attached image which shows how portals can change the total momentum of a system.
They fucking don't though, because again, the objects literally do not change at all. All portals do is re-orient space back on itself.

Attached: cJF4N1w.png (888x926, 233K)

this

B fags be like "b-b-but in real life-"

PORTALS DONT FUCKING EXIST. REAL LIFE IS IRRELEVANT.

>this is popular on the internet
I've never seen this shit outside of Yea Forums

The portal doesn't turn the ball sideways, it puts the tree in front of the ball to begin with by folding space.

B fags get destroyed by the game itself. Glados says in the first game "speedy things goes in, speedy thing comes out". The box isn't moving, thus A is the only possible solution.

you dont go anywhere other than Yea Forums so how would you even know?

Attached: 1556998080458.webm (356x200, 209K)

Afags literally destroyed by this vid

doesnt the whole "portals just another doorway" argument shut down every long winded paragraph posted

Attached: 1561768124968.jpg (714x594, 390K)

>my opinion is b
>the answer is up to you
thanks OP for wasting 5 minutes of my time.

Oh god it's this thread again lmao

I asked you to see the image attached to my previous post (). That image shows a scenario in which portals change the total momentum of a system. You're going to need a better argument than "n-no".

>Afags
OHNONONONONO

Pack it up boys a literal PhD from Harvard answered this
youtu.be/531FKCzTX40?t=2675

actual developer on the game already proved A to be correct

B.lockheads BTFO forever

>linking to gay manlet pedo's channel

actually kill yourself

Physicslets in charge of not being retarded, I guess.

I literally just showed you why it isn't actually fucking changing momentum you retard. All three 1kg objects are still moving exactly as they were when they approached the entry portal. It's just that the exit portal, and everything beyond it was also in front of them, behind that entry portal.

Attached: portal-email.png (1714x788, 203K)

Why are you lying? Actual developers for Portal think it's B

Attached: 1499474851756.png (1712x1752, 286K)

>All three 1kg objects are still moving exactly as they were
Do you know how to add vectors?

Before, they were all moving in the same direction.
After, they were not all moving in the same direction.

Therefore, the sum of their momenta was not the same before and after. Therefore, the total momentum of the system was not conserved.

B is easily disproved by having the portal stop halfway down the cube. Bfags can't cope with this so they always ignore it.

A game developer is not physicist

>physics are about my opinion

still more correct than which is entirely based on the idea that portals conserve momentum which is debunked a thousand times over (e.g. in )

Reference frames don’t magically change the amount of energy transfer, which is zero

nice flatearther logic right there

Attached: portals.png (996x1406, 132K)

I'm not sure what you mean by "energy transfer" but, because velocity is measured with respect to a chosen frame of reference, the same is true of kinetic energy. In other words, kinetic energy does differ depending on the frame of reference.

Quick example: If you live on Earth then you probably think of the Earth as having no kinetic energy. The dirt under your feet has no kinetic energy. You, standing on that dirt, have no kinetic energy. That's true in the frame of reference you've chosen, in which the Earth is stationary. Someone on another planet orbiting another star would fucking disagree; in their chosen frame of reference, you almost certainly have a shitload of kinetic energy.

You are so fucking dumb. Before they are all moving towards the orange portal, they pass the orange portal, they keep moving away from the orange portal. Nothing fucking changes. The problem with Bfags is that they can't grasp that portals are a single fucking object, not two objects in isolation.

Portals duplicate relative observational point.

The reason you are getting """"""different"""""" momentums because, like a fucking retard, you are trying to take measurements of the center object from two perspectives, you've stopped looking at the object from behind, which you can always see from the orange portal, and you've started looking at the "second" version of that object you see from the perspective of the blue portal. You're basically a downy who thinks that looking at someone running away from you, and then looking at footage from a camera they are running towards means they've changed direction. It fucking doesn't. You don't take measurements from two different perspectives and then claim the thing you're measuring has changed. The momentum is constant. The center ball is never not moving straight towards the red object. The portal bends space so that the red object and room the center ball is moving through are also in front of the center ball.

Attached: bCA2kUB.png (1386x946, 179K)

Someone who answers "A" to the original problem would answer "A" here, and someone who answers "B" to the original problem would most likely answer "B" here as well. So I don't see how this adds anything.

The portal on the Piston is, for all intents and purposes, a tube, it's just the other end of the tube is somewhere else
Slamming a toilet paper tube over a die doesn't make it shoot up, it's just going through a hole

You're getting mad at people for not using your totally made-up laws of physics.

When using real-world physics that you didn't personally invent all on your own, the diagram in is correct.

NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE REAL WORLD

this is about the game retard. and according to the person who coded the physics for the game, A is the correct answer.

A

this
or just think of a hola hoop throwing over an object

>NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE REAL WORLD
>this is about the game retard.
lol retard

The answer in the game is that portals don't move outside of two scripted scenes.

This thread and its 9 billion predecessors have always been about extrapolating real-life physics to hypothetical real-life portals.

They are the same physics you moron. The object approaches the protal. The object goes through the portal. The object continues forward. The point is that the momentum is always the same, it's only different if you stop measuring an object from one perspective (the entry portal) and start measuring the "duplicate" version of that object that you can see from the exit portal. That is not how you take measurements. You keep the same frame of reference or your measurements are meaningless.

To add to this, the only way it would be B is if the platform the cube is resting on is the one that moves, which isn't the case here.

Yeah, “energy transfer” is a poor choice of words. Better to say “momentum change”. My imagining of portals is that they keep the same velocity but somehow change orientation through warped spacetime trickery, so with respect to the global view momentum changes and thermodynamics are violated, but not with respect to the object passing through. In the example, the cube’s momentum with reference to itself is 0, and it remains 0 after the warp. The cube is speeding through with reference to the blue portal, but the cube’s reference frame is what counts. Any additional force applied to the object isn’t a result of the portal itself but the new position the object is in – abrupt gravitational potential energy change is possible, but it’s a result of gravity, not the portal.

Basically it’ll depend on your interpretation of how portals work.

I wonder what happens to your argument if the portals disappear, or are replaced with new portals facing different directions, after the object passes through. You can't observe the ball through the portal anymore if that portal isn't there. I don't think it's unfair to add this element to the problem, considering you can make portals disappear or move in the game.

portals can't exist in real life so your argument is null and void.

I didn't present an argument. I simply stated a fact about what discussions occur in these threads. You can REEEEEEEEE all you want but you're about 9 billion threads too late to change it.

B fags are delusion idiots who keep harping on about observational relativity and other bullshit while ignoring the fact that the box is not moving.

BUT THE PORTAL IS MOVING user

AND THAT SOMEHOW MAKES A DIFFERENCE EVEN THOUGH THE PORTAL NEVER TOUCHES THE CUBE AT ALL

I've been looking over all your posts in this conversation and...

>you absolute mongoloid
>you retard
>You are so fucking dumb
>you moron

... you're a real cunt.

I've been completely civil but you've added name-calling to almost all of your posts. All because I dared to use the law of conservation of momentum as it is used in real life. Sorry for pissing you off so much, I guess...? I mean, I respect your opinion, mostly because you actually gave me a decent explanation of it, instead of just going "DURR MUH HULA HOOP" like most of the idiots you'll find in these threads. But if your were trying to change my mind, you didn't do yourself any favors by being so needlessly hostile.

I mean, honestly,
>This is honestly the dumbest shit I've read in a long time.
I find that really hard to believe, considering all I was saying was that portals can change the direction of a moving object. Most people would agree with that statement. Yes, I know, portals bend space and shit. But portals changing the direction of an object's motion can't be the dumbest thing you've read. That's ludicrous, and that kind of hostility combined with all of the ad hominem and name-calling just made me want to argue with you more instead of trying to see your point of view.

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

What about the air passing through the portal?

oh and also
you're still wrong about energy.

Who the FUCK do I believe????

If anything, the portal slamming down on the cube would result in the cube pushing objects on the other side of the portal away due to its rapid appearance in a new area within space. Like waving a fan at your face, the surrounding air would be pushed away and also cause resistance against the box resulting in A and anyone observing from the exit portal position to be launched onto their ass.

>You can describe it that way if you want, but you cannot escape the fact that the total energy of the system has increased as a result of the ball going through the portals. Therefore, energy has not been conserved.
You're discounting the portal as part of the system. If you looked at the system as the time of throwing a ball until it impacts a wall and rests and included all the portals it went through as one continuous system, energy wouldn't change.

>>THIS
perfect example

I think most of the problem can be solved if we are willing to accept that the cube could be destroyed by attempting to pass through moving portals. The cube could be flattened, it could be shredded, it could undergo nuclear fission and kill everyone in a 100 km radius. These are all valid outcomes. We are forced into these silly arguments because we desperately want the cube to stay intact. But why? A teleporters, when set incorrectly, will cut people in half. That is widely accepted. Why can't an abnormal portal simply cause a destructive outcome?

Y'all B.leivers are fucked. Walk through a door. Did the door conserve your energy? Fuck no it's just a hole in a wall. Portals are magical funk doors, objects just move through them like doors.

If you try to use real-life as a way to explain portals it fucks up as soon as you place one portal higher than the other, cause you got a universe-breaking unlimited energy gravity generator.

Magic fucken A doors.

Attached: 2.gif (215x183, 20K)