What's the Yea Forumserdict?

Which platform is moving doesn't matter. Your velocity relative the entrance portal is equal to your velocity relative the exit portal.

Suck my dick

Attached: 1568163794154.png (1545x959, 114K)

it doesn't matter it's the same fucking thing what magical force do you think cares about arbitrary meaningless things like "top" and "bottom"?
pretend the OP pic is 0 gravity, then go into mspaint and flip it upside down.

this only "makes sense" if you're a brainlet.

> momentum is conserved
> momentum is a product of mass and velocity
> ergo, your velocity relative the entrance portal should be all that matters
He doesn't even know what he's fucking talking about

Wrong

Attached: Screenshot_20190911-212837.png (1803x2048, 813K)

well thats stupid and he should have done it differently

Portals can't exist on moving surfaces, setup cannot occur.

youtu.be/B2gBNwT6aqU?t=111

sv_allow_mobile_portals

There was that one time with the neurotoxin generator, but they made damn sure no physics objects went near either end.
I think I recall an old portal 1 video where someone was dicking around with custom stuff, and a moving portal seemed to sorta suck a cube in, but it was so long ago I doubt I could dig it back up.

He's one of the devs that worked on the game you stupid fucking faggot

think for more than 1 millisecond before you post

Incorrect. You place a portal on the moon in portal 2, and the moon moves at hundreds of miles per hour relative to the earth's surface.

Can't believe you just killed this thread in one sentence.

Attached: 22.jpg (1458x1080, 140K)

Yes it does fucking matter because like in the gif what is launching the cube in B is the conservation of momentum. Portals are just like fucking open windows, where gravity is relative to the portals positioning on either side. If an open window was coming towards you and you jumped through it you would not launch forward, if you were being propelled towards an open window and jumped through it you would continue moving at the same rate.

Yowai.

Attached: 1568164540309.png (1712x1752, 286K)

That doesn't mean he's right, especially when other devs have disagreed with him.

Anyone who's even played a little bit of Portal knows the answer is A. How is this even a debate?

That's sure a lot of text to say "I'm a big retard and don't understand how physics work"

Technically, no human understands how physics works.

Exactly. He highlighted the most important part at the bottom. Pretty much "idk really'

>If portals are wormholes, essentially "folded space", then space would be torn in half if one portal moved while another didn't.
Not necessarily true. There's no reason why the spacial anomaly couldn't move freely, and we even have canonical proof that the portals can move independent of one another without ripping space, when one was launched onto the moon at the end of Portal 2.
>But aside from that, if portals are wormholes, then it'd be B. If you're holding still and your environment moves around you, it's functionally the same as if you're moving.
Objectively not true. That literally makes no sense. If you jump on the bed of a truck as it goes down the road, you don't move with it (except for momentum blah blah that wouldn't be here because the object is at rest.) If you have all the air above you and some walls slam down and around you (which is basically what the portal does in this instance) the only thing that would be affecting you is the air pressure. Do you fly upward when air is blown down onto you from above?

gimme ur big siense smart fat cock cummy wummys, you all make me wet sitting on your cumputers and arguing over childrens toys and the logic henind them, ahh please fill me up with your alpha spermy wermys

A.
It doesn't contain or gain momentum from the other portal for B to occur.

im eating rice crispies right now

This added just as much to the conversation as everyone else

Attached: god_help_me23.png (128x128, 9K)

Momentum is a function of mass and velocity.
Your velocity RELATIVE the portal you enter is conserved as velocity relative the portal you exit.
If your velocity was somehow "absolute", when you went vertically into a portal with a horizontal exit, you would move vertically as soon as you passed through.
An open window coming towards you has its entrance and exit moving at the same speed.
Your velocity relative the entrance is conserved as you exit. In this case, it's "conserved" by not changing (outside of aerodynamic forces, momentum, and etcetera).
A portal being lowered over you has its entrance and exit moving at different speeds. Your velocity relative the entrance MUST be your velocity relative the exit, so you are forced to move.

With the laws of physics that apply IN THE GAME WORLD it's B.

Nice gachabrain you have there

These scenarios are the same as far as the cube is concerned

Wrong.

"I'm always right never wrong nope nope"

Attached: the_suave.png (384x446, 177K)

Exactly. It's proof by contradiction.

The real redpill is that none of your theories matter since this can never be proven.

I imagine the cube would pop out a little bit only because of the newly arriving solid cube matter displacing the solid cube matter that has already arrived.
There is no inertial energy transferred to the cube from the orange portal though.

The problem I have with this position is that it implies that the portal itself is a special frame of reference rather than just a connection from one location to another. There is absolutely nothing that suggests that because the exit of the portal is in another location that the object would act differently than if it were directly on top of the entrance portal (like a hula hoop).

I doesn't have momentum relative to you, the observer, but it does to the orange portal, and that's the part that matters.

Matter can only be displaced by having inertia applied to it, unless it's "displaced" functionally at random. In other words, via nuclear fission.

>Portals are just like fucking open windows, where gravity is relative to the portals positioning on either side.
First off, no they are not. They are portals.
Second, if you claim gravity exerts a force on something, other forces are present. You can't fucking ignore those, like inertia.

The reason it's B is because of frame of reference. Don't think of the box entering the orange portal, think of it EXITING the blue portal.

Imagine this scenario where you're standing in front of the blue portal in the OP, except an additional change: the platform the box is sitting on is smaller than the box itself. What do you see in this situation? It looks like the box is just sort of floating there. You're looking through the blue, and the orange starts moving towards the box. What do you see? You see a box coming towards you.
Oh wait, except here's a trick, the orange isn't the one moving. It's the box being tossed towards you. How do you determine the difference between these two situations? Is it the box moving, or is it the orange portal moving? You literally CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE. There is NOTHING you can determine in this situation how it's different, and since nothing is different, what happens as a result? Box is flying at you? You bet your dumb retarded ass it's going to leap out.
The box is essentially moving - speedy thing goes in, speedy thing goes out. The blue portal is stationary, which is why frame of reference is dictated by it.

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

there's a webm that disproves your statement

NO YOUR WRONG POOPY HEAD!!!

>literally tells you to imagine the pedestal being small enough to enter the orange portal and carry the cube along, which means said cube is already fucking done in regards to any portal physics application
>in hypothesis A, with the cube at least 10m distant from the blue portal, if the orange portal was ever to abruptly stop, the cube STILL wouldn't fly, even though it has been moving away from the blue portal for an extended amount of time
If this makes you reconsider B for that scenario, then you'll be happy to know that even if the only distance the cube traverses amount to its own height, the principle behind B wouldn't change at all.

Attached: 1567692181840.jpg (1190x1570, 1.08M)

Attached: HURR! DURR!.png (1712x1752, 535K)

Yeah, but the inertia applied would be relative to the mass of the cube and not the speed of the orange portal wouldn't it?

The fact that it's a connection from one location to another is what creates a difference in frames of reference.
Imagine a world where you can't see the entrance, only the exit. The cube must at least APPEAR to move in the act of emerging. From the frame of reference of the exit location, the cube is moving. Ergo, the portion of the cube that is exiting the portal IS moving. It has velocity.

Post it.

>First off, no they are not. They are portals.
Doesn't explain what it means to be a portal
>Is it the box moving, or is it the orange portal moving
literally no different than moving with an open window towards a box. Guess what happens if you run up towards a box with an open window? It doesn't magically fly out towards you once it passes the threshold of the barrier.

it wouldn't come flying out like in scenario B though.
t. not that guy

>The cube must at least APPEAR to move in the act of emerging.
Literally no different than the example here of the viewer moving alongside the object and the object not having extra velocity upon exit.

Attached: 1568164094176.webm (853x480, 2.88M)

>There are people on this board right now that TO THIS DAY still argue for B

Attached: 234252562727.jpg (2048x1536, 320K)

>autists trying to explain made up magic technology with traditional physics
lmaoing @(You)

His answer is based on how physics work. The cube has velocity relative to the frame of reference.

Incorrect.
Your momentum relative both sides of the window is the same, so of course the box doesn't magically fly out.
But with portals, your momentum relative the entrance is not necessarily the same as your momentum relative the exit. If the entrance is moving and the exit isn't, then when something enters the portal, it will have momentum on exit.

Attached: eOBKIJ5dyHk.webm (336x240, 133K)

Except portals don't impart momentum.

You have portal funneling on, thats why it launches you. you launch out of portals like that at angels regardless of speed.

Yes they do.

didn't read your post but that webm proves it's B

That's wrong.
The result would be the same (or marginally different) regardless of speed.

where proofs

You're all fags.
Portals disappear when the surface they're on moves. OP's pic is literally impossible.

being pushed be a giant piston creates momentum, and since the portal effectively doesn't exist and is only a window, the object would keep moving with that momentum. It's totally different stop being retarded

Correct, they don't.
They conserve momentum.
Your momentum relative the portal you enter is conserved as momentum relative the portal you exit, just like a window.
If both sides are holding still, then you must have momentum when you enter in order to have momentum when you exit.
If one side is moving and one is holding still, then you can be holding still on entry and moving on exit.
If both sides are moving in the same way, then your momentum on entry will be your momentum on exit.

user that's like one of the first things you learn in game.

It proves your statement wrong though. B is wrong.

Yes, but also that makes no real sense. Everything is moving.

they move in portal 2 in this one random room

>They conserve momentum.
And the momentum of the cube would be 0.

All momentum is relative. Being pushed by a giant piston is the same as having the portal pushed towards you as far as the cube is concerned.

>put two portals on same wall
>throw something into one portal
>it flies out in opposite direction

An object will continue to move straight in a direction unless a force acts on it.

brainlets BTFO once again

Momentum is relative, so if the entry portal is moving and you aren't, then you'd be moving when you exited a stationary portal.

if you slam a hula hoop over a cube sitting on a table it doesn't fly up because it doesn't conserve the momentum of said hula hoop. The same is true of portals, because they literally are just holes that connect elsewhere, period.

The question refutes portals. The most fundamental idea of modern physics is that there are no privileged reference frames, and whether you get A or B depends on the reference frame you consider. Since the answer depends on the reference frame you choose, the question is incoherent.

They are different if one side of the window is moving and the other is not.

If that's wrong, then what force acts on the cube as it exits the blue portal to stop it?

and no force was acting on the cube because you were moving the portal, not the cube. Why part of this do you not understand?

A

>Momentum is relative
To the moving object making it 0.

It is conserving momentum though.
Hula hoop:
> both sides moving same speed
> momentum relative entry is same as momentum relative exit
> no problem
Portals:
> one side moving, one side holding still
> momentum relative entry is same as momentum relative exit
> no problem

Name is an accident, disregard.

Real life physics: B
Game Physics: A
youtu.be/B19nlhbA7-E

How is it different? What fundamental difference is there between an opening and exit that are right next to eachother and an opening and exit that are apart?

Which means the portal imparted momentum on the cube. Otherwise, it wouldn't have changed direction.

>shine a light at orange portal
>light emerging 70mph faster than the speed of light
Good job retards, you created time travel.

>then what force acts on the cube as it exits the blue portal to stop it?
Wrong question. You should be asking what force acts on the cube to move it?

The moving object is the portal.
The cube has momentum relative the entry portal, so it will have momentum relative the exit portal. Period.
That's how space works.

Gravity. Holy fuck, read a book.

>The cube has momentum relative the entry portal
Despite the fact that the cube isn't moving.

The default assumption should be a moving cube. As has been explained numerous times, your momentum relative the entry portal is what matters in determining your momentum relative the exit portal. The portal moving towards you creates momentum, which is expressed as you moving away from the portal when you pass through.

The portal is incapable of imparting momentum on the cube because it is not interacting with the cube whatsoever

this too, completely defeats the argument for b

You misunderstand. The issue isn't the distance, it's the difference in motion. One is moving and the other isn't.

Are you implying the cube doesn't move on the other side? How does it exit the portal then if it's not moving?

It's not the distance but the fact that they have different velocities.

You do know it's possible to create siuations where light appears to be traveling faster than the speed of light, right?

The cube is moving from the perspective of one portal, so it is moving from the perspective of both portals.
Since one portal is stationary and one is not, the cube can hold still as it enters and be moving as it exits.
Think of it this way: If a portal is lowered over a stationary rod, can that rod push a cube in the way of the stationary exit portal? Wouldn't the movement of a portal, therefore, be "imparting momentum"?

Things only move relative to your frame of reference, user.

Yeah, if you walk towards it.
That's relative perspective though.
What these apes are talking about is actually making the light move faster.

>Think of it this way: If a portal is lowered over a stationary rod, can that rod push a cube in the way of the stationary exit portal? Wouldn't the movement of a portal, therefore, be "imparting momentum"?
wait a second that's true

Attached: 1563313108094.jpg (920x1024, 59K)

all this means is that portals don't exist. which we all know already. answer is still b

Holy fuck, I actually got through to someone?
Thanks, user. You've made my night. I can actually go to sleep well now.

Attached: 1544931712908.gif (303x303, 813K)

see

Well no, it isn't. The light would appear to be moving faster than light from the frame of reference of the blue portal, but in actuality the light stayed at light speed and space moved around it.

>If a portal is lowered over a stationary rod, can that rod push a cube in the way of the stationary exit portal?
Yes but the rod itself isn't moving, space is moving around it essentially giving the illusion of movement when it isn't.

You need to think with portals.

t. brainlets who never took relativistic physics

time dilation and frame of reference makes it so that the speed of light is never broken, period. If you shone a light through a portal going 70 mph (fucking peanuts when considering the speed of light btw) the time dilation from your own frame of reference would still have it traveling under the speed of light.

Attached: 1438926471619.png (468x347, 192K)

He's humouring you user.

But does it push the cube out of the way or not, user?
If not, how does the "illusion of movement" allow objects to physically intersect with one another?
Or if THAT isn't what happens, how does a cube, not attached to the floor, stop the lowering of the orange portal?

Don't fucking ruin this for me.

Game physics results in Scenario A. Next question.

there are special rules for the player going through them. that doesn't have anything to do with the physics engine. if it actually allowed the cube to go through it would be b.

By that logic, the cube would retain its speed of zero and space would move around it. A is correct.

> illusion of movement
nigga there can be no meaningful definition of motion but change of position

I'd like to think most Yea Forumseddit bait threads are made by copy pasting python scripts but it seems that some users are more autistic and dumb than some lines of code that copy from a database or txt so I wouldn't discard human posting.

Attached: 1567567441586.jpg (676x858, 51K)

I thought ingame physics the moment the piece began moving the orange portal would disappear

All movement is the illusion of movement. An object can only move relative to a frame of reference.

>how does the "illusion of movement" allow objects to physically intersect with one another
Like I said, space is moving around the object rather than the object moving through space.
To simplify, take a stationary model place a card board box around it and move the box around it? Is the position of the model not moving within the box?

Yes, space moves around it. From the cube's frame of reference when it enters the portal, the world around it is traveling however many KMH. From the portal's frame of reference, the cube is traveling through it at however many KMH.

I think it's more likely that someone made it because they wanted to argue about it

The example obviously demonstrates how momentum can be transferred via a portal. I'm obviously still a little skeptical but it makes much more sense now.

Attached: 78ce4b499454b8867d1474a7b08e00d0.gif (326x183, 2.55M)

>The example obviously demonstrates how momentum can be transferred via a portal
Which it can't. The only way the cube would bounce like that is if it was resting on q some kind of elastic material.

I would love to see you try to justify that conclusion.

There are two sides to this debate. There is the side that employs reasonable conclusions based on the mechanics of relativity, and there's the side that says "BUT THE CUBE ISN'T MOVING???".

Apparently reasonable debate includes the strawman fallacy

That's not really a strawman.

don't forget the hoop retards

The problem with the hula hoop argument is that it really is a false equivalence. In case of the hula hoop, in the cube's frame of reference only the hula hoop is moving. In case of portals, however, from the cube's perspective the WHOLE UNIVERSE is moving towards it on the other side of the portal. Conversely, from the point of view of everything on the "other" side of the portal cube is moving towards it. People say that since there are no force affecting the cube it cannot gain momentum, but it ALREADY HAS MOMENTUM.

Tldr: Portals are weird and do break the physics, but B makes more sense than A under the assumption that portal already exists

These threads are a testament to how stupid Yea Forums can be. Not even minutephysics making an entire video explaining exactly why it could never be A is enough to get them out of blubbering "it a h-hoola hoop ayugh it like a dooooor hur hur conversation of energeee uhguhgg". Literally braindead.

that was just me

>durrr why don't things work in video games work exactly like real life?
the cube isn't moving, so it won't be launched out of the portal. The source engine will register no momentum on the cube and simply have it appear on the other side.
>inb4 someone posts that scripted webm made years ago

>minutephysics
not really helping your case there, bud

>It's A.

Attached: AuZse01.jpg (480x360, 43K)

Okay retard, go ahead and explain why.

cringe

Attached: 1563937345544.png (500x488, 16K)

That's exactly what happened. We're all sitting here in discord laughing at his dumbass and he wanted to get his validation

Fucking idiot.

How the fuck can anyone see this webm and still argue for A? Is it bots or shitposters baiting for yous?
I mean I've seen anons argue that "the cube's not moving, it's just changing its position" so I dunno what the lower bound is on idiocy.

>durrr this webm i made in paint proves it

>tfw my grandfather was in the bottom of the twin towers and managed to escape in time
>but then a window frame fell around him, launching him 70 feet into the air because all momentum is relative
I miss you grandpa

Attached: 1529737547199.png (749x416, 315K)

>portal is equivalent to an empty space
and travelling through space is what's known as speed
>ackshually, it's the space that travels, not the box
yeah, yeah, and chuck norris is pushing the planet down
har har, very funny

The only force that is launching the cube in your retarded webm is the force of the animator.

once it gets to that level of "change of position, not actual motion but an illusion" you can safely fuck off knowing that person is either a troll or legit implying mental gymnastics to not be wrong. Think people who refused to accept the monthy hall problem solution - it's unintuitive so even in the face of direct proof they argue.

The cube is not "moving" from any "perspective".
Perspective doesn't matter. That's why it's an illusion.

It's like a window. If you jump and a window moves around you a super speed, you stay still.

Look, I drew it for you. From the perspective of A, he's just standing there and a window is coming towards him very quickly, but it will pass around him and then he'll land stomach first on the grass in front of the tree, he won't go flying into it for some reason

Attached: portal-solver.png (900x1084, 223K)

That's because the monty hall problem doesn't apply when there are only 3 options retard. Anything more than 3 and it is true, but the 3 door problem is false.

see, just like I said, must be trolling. Go run a little simulation in c or more befitting your intelligence, scratch and see that it works.

>run a little simulation
want to know how I know you didn't run one yourself? The data shows that for only 3 doors, whether it changes or not doesn't matter. Once you enter 4+ doors changing becomes statistically better.

Can you not even comprehend the gif you attached? It clearly shows that a is the result

lol you retard liar, the simulation shows it to work 3 doors, as it historically did to much butthurt from people who refused to accept it.

As it did when every cs student did on week 2 of their education

It's proof by contradiction that shows A is false.

Make and run one yourself then. Though it would probably take someone with a game design major like you a long time, so you'll just trust the bait dropped by /g/ like an idiot

mfw A fags try to refute one of the most well documented, proven, simulated, checked, tested, and explained mathematical problems in history

>retards still can't comprehend that it doesn't work when x > 3

I did, gaylord. Did you? How about open a wiki article for a change

lol are you 13 bro?

can you explain what you mean by "doesn't work when x=3" ? Are you saying that it isn't in the contestants best interest to switch doors when given the opportunity?

Didn't you just say it only works at x>3? nice flipflop
gg no re

>I beat dark souls without using a guide, swear!
You newfags who try to look tough online are so pathetic. It doesn't take long to learn, you can even do it in java if you're that inept.
Go and create the simulation yourself

this is funny because in your A panel all I see is a dangerously quickly approaching tree, looks like I'm about to slam into it. I'm not going to magically stop moving towards it (or it towards me, as the case may be). I'm going to slam right the fuck into it. you're saying that movement would abruptly fucking stop after I get past the portal.

When there are only 3 doors it literally does not matter mathematically, your odds are the same.
When there are more than 3 doors your odds on switching improve.
In laymens terms, it's because you have one choice and only one deletion. These cancel eachother out, but when you have one choice and two or more deletions, the deletions are stacked in your favor, so you should switch.
>resorting to grammar nazi
how to tell someone is wrong and desperate in one post

this user is correct

> it implies that the portal itself is a special frame of reference
No, you dumbass.
A portal is a fucking hole in space. It's a fundamentally different path. A way of getting from A to C without ever crossing B. That's already breaking physics. It's a discontinuity in space. You went from A to C without passing anything in between, popping out who knows how far away to an outside(not peering through either portal) observer. That's breaking physics. That's not possible. But it is, because you didn't take that path, you took one fucking step through the portal. Same thing with direction of movement. To an outside(not peering through either portal) observer, going through a portal placed at an angle suddenly changes the direction you were travelling in. To you, you just keep moving forward. Anything you saw yourself travelling towards on the other side of the portal, no matter your trajectory relative to it on this side of the portal, you keep travelling towards.

You look at the path taken, because it's the path taken. It goes for position. It goes for direction, and it goes for speed, too. Portals give you two sets of conflicting frames of reference, going through the portal or not, and it's always the path taken that ends up being consistent. If you don't go through the portal, it doesn't matter where it's placed. It doesn't matter where it's facing. It doesn't matter what its speed is. But if you do, it does matter. And if you do go through the portal, your position, your facing, and your speed are going to get all fucked up(to an outside(not peering through either portal) observer) because that's what portals do.

Attached: 1562932922430.png (900x743, 32K)

In reality in these situations a person or object going through the portal would probably be ripped to shreds.

The gif is iffy. Afags will always see both scenarios as different things, despite relative motion saying they're the same. Afags will always see it as a confirmation for their case. If I'm being honest, it doesn't do a good enough work to confirm B to ones who go with A.
So here's an alternative animation to explain it better.

Attached: portals.webm (1280x720, 575K)

Even though people are using gifs like this to argue for B, it would still be A. If portals were real I would expect it to look exactly like this animation. It doesn't look like what you would expect but it would be what would happen. And in either case it doesn't matter at all because none of it is real and the cube would probably just be ripped apart.

>Dude, it's just a window
>Hula hoop, man
>Doorway
>Windshield
Right, show me a hula hoop that can duplicate matter.

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

The only reason B would ever happen would be if it happened in a non-vacuum because of suction and such. In a vacuum it's always A.

It was already moving through the portal.

what is this garbage impact font ms paint vomit supposed to be showing us user?

Yeah, 13 inches deep into your mom
imagine disputing the most well argued mathematical problem

>When there are only 3 doors it literally does not matter mathematically, your odds are the same.
Where did you learn such great wisdom?

It's going to keep getting further away from the hoop at the speed of said slam until some outside force acts on either object.

YOU believe it

Technically that's not the case. The object never feels any kind of force acting on it. You've gotta put yourself in the cube's shoes. If you run towards a portal, everything on the other side is moving towards you(you are moving towards it). If a portal comes at you, everything on the other side is moving towards you(you are moving towards it). You just keep going.

>the most well argued mathematical problem
It's certainly well argued if your most advanced knowledge of math is trig
This is shit taught even in precalc classes. Everyone who thinks it applies when there are only 3 doors is probably a retard who's never seen something like this outside of CSI miami or X files

Attached: n.png (1277x808, 75K)

Physics major senior. Went through monthy hall 2 years ago in gay baby level probability. What now?

>This is shit taught even in precalc classes. Everyone who thinks it applies when there are only 3 doors is probably a retard who's never seen something like this outside of CSI miami or X files
oh shit, my precalc course didn't cover this

can you give like a 2-sentence explanation?

>the cognitive level of B fags
this is the most retarded attempt to disprove A I've seen so far

that's the whole point. From his point of view it looks like he's going to fly, but if you look at it from any other perspective there's nothing to create motion under his feet.

His feet would still be touching the grass in the other spot, but he'd just flop down on his belly because gravity

B fags actually believe this

Attached: Bretards.png (932x580, 10K)

fuck i don't even believe B but this hurts my brain

Hypothetically, if portals could by applied to moving objects, it would absolutely be A because that's easier to code.

how's any of it relevant
the only thing that matters is how much new kinky shit you can do with portals
thats about it

Attached: portal.jpg (773x996, 104K)

Like sucking yourself off?

coombrain > big brain (A fags) > small brain (B fags)

>Yea Forums is now infested by A-fags
I knew this board was getting more and more retarded by the day

thought she had a gigantic futa dong in the thumbnail

Yeah, there's nothing to stop it.

Here's the proof that it's B.
The moon is moving around 1km/s around the earth. Suppose that A is true, then As soon as you exit the moon portal, you would be stationary with respect to the earth. Therefore, you would be moving 1km/s with respect to the moon.
In portal, you exit the moon portal with the same velocity as you entered it, and not at ~1km/s. Therefore, it can't be B
QED you massive A-faggots

The exit portal is moving in the same direction, so you wouldn't feel any difference in momentum. If B was possible, you would get crushed if the moon was going in the opposite direction or you would be sent away because of the lack of gravit, if the moon was going in the same direction of the portal

>portals cant be on a moving surface
moving... dependant on what? The earth is moving, the universe is moving, the tectonic plate where you set the portal is moving too. There's no true "static" where a portal can be placed.

I know its a kinda moot point because portals dont exist in real life so it cant be tested, but portals by DESIGN should be allowed to keep working on moving surfaces.

Also, its B. Inertia is inertia, doesn't matter from where. The cube entered the portal at high speed, doesn't matter what was moving faster, so its gonna exit the blue portal at high speed.

wrong, because what matters is not where the moon is going at what speed, but its relative inertia from the entrance portal to you. What happens on the other side of the portal doesn't matter, all that matters is what speed you enter the entrance portal at, regardless of if the portal is coming to you or you towards it.

Its literally a game mechanic. Inertia is kept through portals. Inertia is any difference in speed from you to the entrance portal.

It’s B

First of all, you can't put portals on moving surfaces in the game, to avoid this inertia thing. In a realistic setting, if each particle materializes immediatly at the other side, with inertia carried on, then the direction of the exit portal would be fundamental to tell where each particle is going to spawn. No object could survive that, unless the speed of both portals is 100% the same, and with the same direction. In your case of the moon, the only way something like that would work is if it worked like a hole. The space in the portal (which is one, not two) itself is part of both sides at some point, and both sides are interacting with each other at all times. Passing through wouldn't make any changes to the matter and the momentum and inertia should be instantly balanced out while the exchange is made. This is the only way you could teleport to any other location in space that doesn't have the entry and exit portals traveling at the same speed.

>The cube entered the portal at high speed
NO. The cube was not moving. The portal is working at all times, the air is constantly going back and forth from portal to portal. If a particle goes through one and spawns at the other side, that particle keeps the same direction, velocity and inertia it had before enering. In the case of the cube, it's none. The portal moving doesn't accelerate the cube at all. Just as the other portal standing still doesn't stop the cube at all.

It's A speedy thing goes i. Speedy thing comes out. The box is stationary

It's not B because the cube isn't moving in the scenario and portals don't carry momentum of things they're placed on

>you can't put portals on moving surfaces in the game
The game DOES has static points in its world. Real life does not. That's why as much as i believe the answer is B the big "but" of the entire scenario is that the world does not work like portal's engine.

>the direction of the exit portal would be fundamental to tell where each particle is going to spawn
I understand your point but i think it has less to do with relative direction from the entrance to the exit and more to do with the angle of the portals and how you enter them. The entire trick is not about the exit portal, its about the entrance portal. portals dont de-materialize and re-materialize. They are windows, its the same object without deconstruction. Its like the classic one of putting a portal on top of you and one below you. What matters isn't that when you are going to appear from above the portal is facing a different way, or that its in a different place. What matters is that you enter a portal at an angle and speed and you will exit the other portal at the same speed and angle.

> both sides are interacting with each other at all times
Yes. That's how i understand portal' portals to work. through a single universe, the portal acts as a window to another universe in another place with another angle with another set of physics, except its not another universe. Its the same universe.

>NO. The cube was not moving
It doesn't fuckng matter if the CUBE was moving or not, brainlet. What matters is that the cube and the entrance portal had a high relative speed between one and another. Its the same thing if the cube was moving or the portal was moving. What matters is the relative speed one from the other, which gets translated just the same to the exit portal.

>that particle keeps the same direction, velocity and inertia it had before enering. In the case of the cube, it's none.
Again, relative speed, not cube's direct speed. if you have a camera attached to the portal, looking at the cube, you see the cube coming at you with the same speed wether or not the portal is speeding into it or the cube into you, that's what i mean with relative speed.

>First of all, you can't put portals on moving surfaces in the game
You do.

>The cube was not moving.
Relative to you. And? It still entered the portal at high speed.

>if each particle materializes
It's just a hole.

imagine being so shit at spacial imagination and too stupid to grasp basic inertial physics

>imagine being this retarded
we all learn the monty hall problem during beginner level probability lessons, how is being as incompetent as you even possible

Attached: 1421_OruDed.png (128x128, 32K)

>sit in front of the exit portal
>cube moving fast as fuck towards me through the portal
>that's okay, the cube has no energy, it can't hurt me
>smashes into my body as it exits
>crushes all my bones and sends my broken body into orbit
>"b-but... conservation of energy..." are my last thoughts before I leave this mortal coil
>somehow all that energy that killed me just goes away and the cube pathetically plops down

Not really, to exit the portal literally requires movement if it is to work. If, as you argue an object maintains relative speed to the portals - and that speed is zero - then the object can not leave the portal. Period. It essentially becomes a 2D image on the surface of the exit that never emerges.

To come out as the 3 dimensional object that something enters as fully intact it must move out of the way of itself as it emerges. This is motion. It is not a hula hoop, it is not a door. Those things do not bridge two seperate points in space and time but are simply one object in space and time that you can pass under/through - they are essentially brackets around a single point decided arbitrarily by us - the threshold of a door is again concept. Portals are different in that there is a very real difference in the entry and emergence, these are two points in absolute terms, and as such they require different forces to traverse as presented - they simply MUST impart motion to escape the 2D plane upon emergence.

>. Period.
ellipses, then

Attached: mh.png (812x747, 202K)

Nice.

It's one of these threads ey

Attached: 1479374501758.jpg (1357x549, 82K)

what kind of train is that? it's fucking disgusting

Dont be a cuck. Death is natural. You are above everyone else.

WARNING: Objectively correct answer here. Do not read if you don't want to be spoiled:

Both A and B are incorrect, but B is less wrong.

Consider what happens when the portal abruptly stops midway through the cube.
The half that goes through the portal would experience the gained speed from the moving portal.
The half that wasn't contained by the portal would stay at rest.
What "should" end up happening is the cube gets torn apart by these conflicting states.

No object can actually go through a portal like this without being destroyed.

Attached: h11.jpg (1280x720, 141K)

Save yourself first. This is objectively the correct answer. First aid courses first lesson is all about the over riding precedent that you should do everything necessary to avoid becoming a casualty yourself.

you wouldn't be a casualty, you would just lose your dick
not like you use it anyway

What? I'm the only one who does!

I think it's a physical paradox
The object, while going through the portal would at the same time be static and moving in space
The movement on the one site would result in some pull in that direction
I think it's just not possible, or the object would be destroyed

>durr it a paradox
>literally just the MJ joke

>casualty

Attached: 1561477952869.png (1085x413, 43K)

Many people have a strong averse reaction to the idea that an object can gain speed from going through a portal. I submit that many of these same people will not find it particularly strange to see an object or person lose speed by going through a portal.

Attached: 1568179122978.png (988x706, 46K)

D-DELETE THIS
IT'S FFUCKING A

have you ever heard anyone referring to injured players at a soccer match as "casualties"? Injuries have to be deadlier than a dick amputation to be casualties, user

a de-dicking is fucking fatal, man, you're going to bleed out without medical attention

Yeah but I can be intact and well enough to carry on my day and the world will merely be ride of a few dozen retards who were stupid enough to let their guard down enough to get tied up and forced into a dangerous position. Like college and university students who drink too much and wind up doing stupid shit they regret, these people are clearly not victims - they're stupid. Only marginally more stupid than someone getting their dick stuck to a trolley track but hey who am I to judge, maybe the hypothetical person at the lever in this case is an /n/ train fag autist who is just REALLY into train tracks and got stuck one cold morning. Those people are idiots - he might solve a terribly irresponsible transportation system with a vastly more efficient mass transit system at some point. Would still take that one over those several dozen.

You can actually go to the hospital by your own with your meat hanging, spouting blood everywhere

>You can actually go to the hospital by your own with your meat hanging
To do what, I didn't think it was a serious fatal fucking wound. Nah, mutilation's not all that. That's some Wednesday afternoon shit.

The answer will forever be B. The cube gains momentum the very instant it starts to poke through the portal, as it has now moved from stationary to moving in an x,y,z plane as it exits the portal. And fuck you hoopfags, a portal is not a fucking door, no door can face the same direction side by side.

You can't, because the trolley already left.

The answer to OP is B. The process of traveling through a moving portal is that it imparts force on the object passing through it. A portal moving toward you imparts a sucking force and a portal moving away imparts a pushing force.
If you were to have a steel rod and have a portal lowered on to it, it would be able to push objects on the other side. That force comes from the pulling force from the portal. Similarly, if the entry portal were then to move away, the pole would retract back into the exit portal due to the sucking force imparted upon it.
The answer to this is also B because you only receive force proportional to the relative velocities of the portals upon passing through one.

Attached: 1565031374083.png (657x527, 52K)

>The answer to OP is B. The process of traveling through a moving portal imparts force on the object passing through it.
Fixed, it's 4 AM.

Actually that isn't fixed either, but fuck it.

Chad
>"It's A"

Brad
>"It's B"

Virgin
>"ackchyually both is unpossible :^)"
>cites real physics in an argument about fictitious physics
>posts ms paint diagrams/webms

Attached: 1543939987027.jpg (480x348, 169K)

B

its literally exactly the same as throwing box through portal (which we know we get B in game that way)

depends on frame of reference

mandatory viewing for this thread
if you try to argue without understanding this you are wasting your and everyone elses time

please watch it
youtu.be/bJMYoj4hHqU

Attached: 357.jpg (261x253, 18K)

There is no force. It just keeps going.

the absolute gymnasium of Bfags
>Aposters: block go in, block fall out
>Boosters: ACCORDING TO THIS REPORT BY RUSSIAN RESEARCHER AND PHILANTHROPIST DMITRI FUKALOT WRITTEN IN 20XX IT BASICALLY SAYS IM RIGHT AND ALSO GOOGLE QUANTUM PHYSICS FOR THIS EXCERPT I DIDNT JUST PULL OUT MY ASS AND ALSO- ad infinitum

>What "should" end up happening is the cube gets torn apart by these conflicting states.
no?
if it stops half way it just gets less velocity on exit
to rip it apart youd have to move so fast that if you were to yank a cube by one side it would also break

essentially you're yanking a cube through the portal only using the reference frame of the exit universe instead of a grabber

its not a paradox cause moving portals create two separate frames of reference in a same physical space

>block go in
but I thought the cube couldn't go anywhere :^)

The logic behind B is that the part of the rod that leaves the portal is constantly being pushed out by the part of the rod that is emerging. So yes this would result in the rod pulling the bottom part through.

No force is applied to the cube at any given time, it has no potential energy.

>No force is applied to the cube at any given time
yeah, so it just keeps going

See post above.

Yeah the webm finally made it click. It has to be B.

Better than numerous smash threads.

Are you seriously that stupid?

fpbp

>
The cube doesn't just suddenly generate inertia you fucking mong.

could you not literally recreate this in the portal2 map editor?

This.

please tell me how reality bending, laws-of-the-universe breaking, matter duplicating portals make sense to you, o galaxy brain one

it's just a hole
like your mom

Does it mean i can do a rocket punch by throwing a punch into a portal while remain grounded outside it?

Attached: giphy.gif (400x267, 1.57M)

Already tried. The cube will refuse to go through the portal as it wasn't designed to enter it that way.

Probably A, otherwise "stationary" (v=0) atoms from orange side would push onto atoms from blue side, making the cube "pop" out it.

A

Cube does not gain acceleration in current space, so for the cube, just it's orientation in space is what changes.

You cant have speed if t=0.

A renowned theoretical physicist said it's B.

It cannot be A. It cannot be B.

There must be something with the setup that makes it fundamentally impossible.

The first problem with B I have is this:
Lets make very simplified scenario, cube is pushed down by gravity, lets make g = 10. Orange platform portal has a = 20 with opposite vector. If portal somehow transfered its velocity to cube, wouldnt that make cube fly into the portal the moment it happens?

see kek, this one is at least interesting but it's still B

I actually think in the sense of the train image, it would be A. When the train is moving at 100km/s you technically are moving at the same speed as it. So if you were walking through the portal at 5km/s, you would exit at 105km/s

km/h rather

But in this case why not add the speed of rotating earth, earth flying on the orbit around sun, whole solar system in our galaxy etc.

Okay, think about just reaching through the portal then. You have your feet on the other side. Are you saying you would get pulled through? What if you dropped a ball on the other side? Would it go flying forward, or just drop on the ground?

If somebody stepped into the blue portal I believe they would stand still and the train would quickly move out from under them, but since the portal is moving and you are moving along with it at the same speed, you exit at the speed YOU move through it

Attached: phone-pic.gif (450x252, 1.84M)

>see
That's just stupid. You're not even saying anything, you're just describing your shitty drawing.

Attached: 747-take-off-conveyor-belt-2[1].jpg (1920x1080, 173K)

I think this is the first time I see someone take enough time to analyze the problem, make a good concept sketch of it and still not realize the answer is B.
Try imagining it it motion now?

Yes it can take off.

offtopic, but planes don't have powered wheels. They use their engines to propell themselves while taxiing, takeoff and landing.

just put it in reverse

that is a turbine engine, doesnt move air over the wings like a prop aircraft. no lift

t. brainlet

nigga just turn around