/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15631076
just dodge lol

>>15631099
Dodge what? Is the top piston thats moving not the bullet

I don't see how you could ever think it's not B

>>15631076
the bullet comes out backwards in this example

>>15631116
You can see through the portal doe...

>>15631076
The only force acting on the bullet is gravity it would reach terminal velocity at one point due to air friction. Bullets at terminal velocity are not fatal in most cases.

In the original image I assume that that the portal does not transmit energy.

Addressing the counter examples to this. People saying that there is a momentum change are wrong because the object is at rest so doesn't have any momentum to begin with so it emerging in the other direction doesn't give it energy

To those saying that if I place the exit portal at a more elevated height there is an increase in potential energy. The additional energy does come from the portal but all the energy can come from the energy used to maintain the portal. So to send an object through the exit portal you have to supply an amont of energy so that the state of the object at the exit portal stays consistent with the laws of physics.

>>15631218
>People saying that there is a momentum change are wrong because the object is at rest so doesn't have any momentum to begin with so it emerging in the other direction doesn't give it energy
How does it emerge from the portal without momentum. Are you saying it will be squished into a 1d plane?????

>>15631136
That makes zero sense

>>15631076
It's A but whether it would kill you depends on too many factors.
Definitely would shoot out of the portal though.

>>15631218
>People saying that there is a momentum change are wrong because the object is at rest so doesn't have any momentum to begin with
So for it to then have momentum, any momentum, would entail a change in momentum.
>so it emerging in the other direction doesn't give it energy
Why?
>The additional energy does come from the portal but all the energy can come from the energy used to maintain the portal.
And so it can here, too.

>>15631076
This is the stupidest image I've ever seen. Here I rephrase well-known paradox into retarded game shows too.

An eccentric gazillionaire offers you the opportunity to lock yourself inside a box that contains a radioactive substance and a machine which will automatically wire $100,000,000,000,000,000,000 into your bank account if it detects radioactive decay. However, once you enter the box, the gazillionaire's lobbyists in Congress will immediately pass a bill that makes having a net work under $100,000,000 a death penalty offense. The method of execution will be the activation of a kill chip secretly implanted in your brain at birth by the CIA.
Once you enter and the gazillionaire seals the box, are you dead or a gorillionaire? Or are you in a quantum superposition of being both dead and a gorillionaire?

>>15631664
Portals do not deal with quantum superpositions, dear Anon. You're missing the point here. You're being asked to stake your life on your convictions, not take a bet on randomness. If you really want to get into the spirit of things, consider the following:

You are on the Monty Hall show and Monty operates according to the classically agreed upon rules. You and Monty struck a deal with a billionaire that you will play the game 1000 times, and if you are able to correctly guess the car door at least 650 times, you win free money for life. Less than that, and you get the bullet. What is your strategy?

>>15631867
>You're being asked to stake your life on your convictions
But I'm not actually in any mortal danger so I'm just going to answer the question in the same way as if you asked it me normally.
>You and Monty struck a deal with a billionaire
Why do all of your hypotheticals feature a sadistic billionaire?

>>15631076
The only correct answer is to consult the owners manual for your portal gun to see how much momentum is imbued at the current settings.

We are already violating conservation otherwise, we have to assume the engineers are modifying quantities as part of the mechanism otherwise.

>>15631895
>But I'm not actually in any mortal danger
No, because it's a hypothetical.
>so I'm just going to answer the question in the same way as if you asked it me normally
Sure, but you didn't actually even answer it and you somehow still managed to signal that you don't understand the question.
>Why do all of your hypotheticals feature a sadistic billionaire?
Because I'm trying to show you how to properly construct a hypothetical with a sadistic billionaire in the same vein as the OP.

>>15631916
It has only one setting, it's the one that makes it work like a hole

video games are not science or math

>>15631965
>No, because it's a hypothetical.
It's a hypothetical that didn't need the addition of a sadistic billionaire and a Cave Johnson-esque execution mechanism.
>you somehow still managed to signal that you don't understand the question.
I do understand it's the same as picrel from the other day's thread but retarded.

>>15632057
>I do understand
Okay. What's your answer?

>>15632073
I prefer A since it's more in line with special relativity but really neither answer makes sense. Although I do like the game's answer of the cube getting stuck because it can't push itself out of the way.

>>15632073
The only answer is that portals can't be placed on moving objects. It's been the only answer for 15 years.

>>15632211
That's a good enough constraint for a video game engine but it's not compatible with real physics since it necessitates a central frame of reference.

>>15632211
All objects are moving objects

>>15631076
Why doesn't anyone explain this with momentum? For a "plop" to happen, you would have to tear the bullet/box into two pieces (the already fast moving top, and the "plop"ing bottom). No need to add extra portals that will make ploptards even more confused.

>>15632226
>it's not compatible with real physics
You're pretty close, man.

>>15632050
This
Video games are for children, if you're still involved with children's games as an adult then you're suffering from arrested psychological development AKA retardation

>>15632859
>portals aren't compatible with real physics
Yeah no shit. It's fun to speculate on how they would integrate into our understanding of physics. Sorry you're midwittey compels you to hate thought experiments.

>>15631129
Because some youtuber told them to think A is the correct answer

>>15632226
>>15632211
portals can't be placed on RELATIVELY moving objects. an objects can be moving as long as the alternate portal is also moving with the exact same reference frame.

>>15632981
That's the answer that makes the most sense. It's just not a very fun answer.

>>15632981
But this is done several times in Portal 2.

>>15632847
>No need to add extra portals that will make ploptards even more confused.
of course there is; more portal = more fast, more fast = weapon applications, weapon applications = retarded guns, retarded guns = kino.

>>15633067
>implying that's long enough

>>15631916
The game itself violates conservation of momentum so we can safely assume that we don't have to be strict about it.

>>15632934
>you're not allowed to have fun; being an adult means robbing yourself of things you enjoy; here's a list of hobbies that I arbitrarily decided are or aren't for adults

>>15632981
There's no such constraint.

Using this diagram, let's assume the portal is an infinitely small plane that is moving infinitely small layers of particles from one side to the other. On a macro scale, it's just a window. Things move in/out or back/forth as they are *made to*. If the portals are stationary, like >>15632981 says, they have the same reference frame in spacetime, so forces must act on objects to make them move through the portal.

In the stationary example, a guy puts his arm 20 cm into orange. Let's freeze time and go through it frame by frame at the quantum level. 19.9999... cm of arm is sticking out of the blue side. Move forward one frame. Now it's 20 cm of arm. One small "slice" of arm was transferred past the portal barrier.

So what pushed the rest of his arm that was already through blue, further through blue? The biomechanical force of the guy moving his arm was transferred through the portal barrier so that, at the same time, the arm could move forward one slice of space while the new slice, that just burst through blue, could corporealize on this other side. Just as that slice disappeared on the orange side.

Now take a moving portal. Orange moving toward the guy, blue is stationary. Orange moves across 20 cm of arm. Frame by frame, what's going on here? What is causing each iterative slice of arm to appear on the blue side? It's the orange portal moving through spacetime. It is a position. But what of the force of the piston pushing it backwards toward the guy's arm? Is that force carried from the edge of the portal onto that barrier that is passing slices back and forth?

I say no. I say the arm appears on the blue side without force attached to it. I say it's exactly like slapping a hula hoop over top of something, lifting it back, repeating. The object pokes through it at a variable rate, but the object itself is not moving. The hula hoop is moving. But the thing appears through the other side of the hula hoop at variable rates, giving the illusion of movement.

>>15633244
Thus a gun like this >>15633095 would plop that round right the fuck out the barrel like you flicked it off the side of the table.

>>15633244
But there is real motion when one of the portals is moving. The "slices" of the arm sticking out of the stationary portal that aren't immediately next to the portal are actually moving and have velocity. If you cut the arm, it will continue to move with the velocity it had even if the orange portal were to stop.

>>15631076
that'a big bullet

>>15633280
Where did the velocity the bullet had while traversing the portals disappear to? It stuck out of the muzzle at some measurable speed so why would it plop down arbitrarily?

this thread gave me an interesting thought. if A is correct, and the portal is moving at high speed, would they survive, or would they be ripped apart like some kind of catastrophic implosion?

>>15631076
yea, B. the bullet aint moving.

>>15633363
The bullet never gains velocity. The top portal is moving the universe inside down from the perspective of the bullet and the top portal then stops and it stops the universe too so in the end the bullet and the top portal universe have the same speed which means the bullet is standing still.

>>15633486

>>15633537
How does the tip of the bullet know about it? It's moving through real space far away from the portals.

>>15633526

>>15633558
The animation is wrong. Here again the top universe is moving down. Once the cube is through, the portal is promptly accelerated upwards which should decelerate and stop the cube and make it fall to the ground after which it will roll back into the blue portal due to gravity from the blue portal and come to a standstill because on the other side is a metal plate.

>>15633551
Look at the relative speeds of the portals. In the end all portals are standing still relative to each other and thus the bullet is too.

>>15633584
You actually got bamboozled because the portal was stationary this whole time.
It doesn't matter if the portal is moving or the platform. Unless you want to throw relativity completely out of the window you have to assume that the same thing must happen regardless of frame of reference.

>>15633584
>>15633611
I mixed them up actually. Either way what you're saying doesn't make sense. How does the cube know to stop after it's through?
>>15633603
The atoms in the tip of the bullet have momentum and they don't know the portal stopped.

>>15633611
This changes nothing. The top portal is still moving down towards the cube and then accelerating upwards (to come to a standstill).

>>15633625
But why would the cube stop? You're not explaining that at all.
Instead of a cube, let it be a stack of thinly sliced layers. Does it behave the same way? Does the top layer stop even though it has no physical connection to the first portal?

>>15633620
The cube and the bullet don't need to know anything they're just feeling forces.

realistically the bullet/box would be moving at a different speed than the portal's actual speed, because the tip of the bullet/box entering the portal would pull the rest of it, creating a suction force. such a phenomenon, if strong enough, would actually damage fragile objects or behead/dismember a person as per >>15633466

>>15633611
The illusion of movement doesn't mean movement. You're conflating the two, possibly on purpose to fuck with us.

>>15631239
>How does it emerge from the portal without momentum.
>cat sleeping on top of cat tower
>throw hula hoop over the tower
>WHOA how'd the cat come out the other side of the hula hoop with no momentum?
Portals are just holes.

>>15633667
on a hula hoop both sides of the hole share the same velocity and momentum. the portal in this scenario is more like jumping out of a train window.

>>15633631
The cube is part of both worlds. It stops because the portal stops which from the perspective of the cube means that the world stops moving. Depending on how you move the portals the forces on the cube and on everything else in both worlds change and affect those objects accordingly.

>>15633674
you're asserting this with no argument, because there is no supporting argument for such an assertion.

>>15633674
It doesn't matter. The portal is just a hole. The hole moved around the bullet, no energy is imparted and it simply starts being affected by gravity in the new location.
>but if you were on the other side it would look like the bullet was moving super fast toward you!
Yes, the key words being LOOK LIKE. It would be a mere illusion, you'd soon find out the bullet isn't actually moving and it would just plop onto the floor once it enters the new space through the moving portal hole. It would feel very counterintuitive in the moment from your perspective but that's what would happen because the reality is that the portal was moving and not the bullet.

>>15633631
The cube wouldn't stop because it was never moving to begin with. Why would a stationary object suddenly be imparted with violent forward motion just because a hole fell around it?

>>15633654
But it's not an illusion. The bullet/cube is literally moving with a real speed and momentum. It can impart that momentum if it hits something on the way. What you are saying is that this momentum vanishes magically because of some remote event after the cube/bullet is already through.

>>15633667
>>15633688
>>15633698
Hula hoop fags cannot be taken seriously. I am convinced it's bait.

>>15633702
>The bullet/cube is literally moving with a real speed and momentum.
No, the portal is moving around it, creating a convincing illusion to someone who looks through the other portal. An illusion which stops once the bullet emerges and you can see it's stationary.

>>15633706
>to someone who looks through the other portal
You don't need to look through the portal. That speed is measured outside the portal.
>which stops once the bullet emerges
A bullet is not a solid entity. It's made of smaller things. There's no reason why it would stop after an arbitrary cutoff point.

>>15633705
It's not bait, relativity is just stupid.
>bro if I drive a car at 200mph past a statue that's standing still it's actually the statue moving in the opposite direction at 200mph while I'm stationary!
No, that's stupid. Stop being stupid. Portals are holes, it's the portal moving not the bullet/cube.

>>15633716
Oh okay. Sorry, I didn't know you were retarded. You should have said that from the beginning.

>>15633702
You have a barrel of snow. You take a cup and start to scoop into the snow. The cup fills with snow. Is that because the snow had momentum and used that momentum to shoot itself into the cup, or is it because the cup had momentum and moved itself around the snow? And the only reason snow moved deeper into the cup is because more and more snow kept appearing at the mouth of the cup, which then pushed back what was already inside until it hit the back.

>>15633715
Something which was never moving can't be considered to have stopped. And it wouldn't happen all at once anyway, that's just a simpler way to visualize it. In reality, as more of the bullet's surface area became acted upon by the gravity of the new location it would tip over and get pulled the rest of the way through the portal. A lot would depend on exactly how fast the portal is moving, but nothing about the situation would cause the bullet to suddenly jump forward with explosive energy just because a hole moved around it.

You people are genuinely retarded.
>yes a physical object that doesn't have the properties of the considered hypothetical scenario must behave the same because I say so
>look, this is happening when I simulate a different scenario from the considered hypothetical scenario
>therefore the same thing will happen in the considered hypothetical scenario
>also momentum is fake and gay and objects aren't made of atoms
How does /sci/ tie their shoes by themselves?

Let's think about you and two assholes standing behind you, the orange portal moving toward you three at a high rate. Orange swallows you and from your perspective, the world moves at a blur under your feet and you find yourself standing there still on the blue side. Then orange swallows the asshole standing behind you. What happens?

>>15633746
>also momentum is fake and gay
Momentum is something the stationary object doesn't have.
>objects aren't made of atoms
Are you proposing that the gravity in the new location would cause the bullet to fall apart atom by atom as each atom gets caught in the gravity from the new location and sheared off from the rest of the bullet? Why would that happen? The gravity would simply act on the exposed surface area and when enough surface area was exposed to the new location the bullet would be pulled through and fall to the floor. The bullet isn't moving, the portal is.

Bullet doesn't even make it to the portal, it gets knocked off the platform by the windforce created as the sides of the portal maintain atmospheric equilibrium

Here, let's take the change in gravity direction out of the equation. Look at pic related. When the top platform connects with the bottom platform and the cube goes through the gray portal, will it remain stationary as it was or will it have momentum magically imparted into it and jump in the air at the same speed as the portal that fell around it?

>>15633789
>>15633603
you retards are hopeless

>>15633806
>no argument
I accept your concession.

>>15633809
but this >>15633603 is the argument.
when you look down the orange portal you will see that the platform moves up as blue portal moves down. the cube will come out of orange and as you look down into orange you see the world stop as the blue portal stops which means the cube will stop too since it is still part of the blue world which is the exact same world as outside orange. dimwit.

I can see some momentum given to a person swallowed by orange as they stand there outside of blue and the air and other molecules hoovered up by a continuing to move orange portal build up behing the person and try to occupy the same space. This would feel like a breeze on your back. Then as another person was swallowed, they would quickly appear behind you and knock you forward. It might feel to you like they "flew out" but really their matter was appearing layer by layer in quick succession, each layer pushing the last forward. Still no momentum.

>>15633829
>when you look down the orange portal you will see that the platform moves up as blue portal moves down.
And it would be a very convincing and trippy illusion that would defy expectations until you understood that the cube was never actually moving and the portal was actually descending upon it.
Take the hula hoop example again: >>15633667
I could mount a gopro to the inside of the hula hoop and, by throwing the hoop over the cat tower, create a video where the cat and tower appear to rocket through a stationary hula hoop as the floor ascends to meet it. But is that what actually happened? Did the floor and the cat and the tower move up to meet the hoop? No, they were all stationary while the hoop fell down around them. The video shows an illusion.

>>15633859
your hoop analogy is a special case it only applies when the portals have the same position, same speed and face the opposite side. but in portal they can have different positions and orientations and in the posted examples they can temporarily move at different speeds too which never happens in the game btw due to the impossible to solve programming challenge.

>>15633890
The scenario in OP is the portal moving while the bullet remains stationary. The only thing that changes is the object's location and the direction gravity is acting upon it. If the portal's movement in >>15633789 doesn't cause the cube to jump up from its platform when it passes through the portal then there's no reason the portal's movement in >>15631076 would cause the bullet to jump up from its platform. It would end up affected by a new direction of gravity on the other side, causing it to fall in the downward direction of the new location, and that's all.

>>15632967
I'd rather be told the correct answer than persist in my ignorance. Hypothetically, of course. I didn't need any help to get there, but if I were in your position...

>>15633244
>Writes a whole treatise including custom diagram only to veer into "it's a hula hoop and it moves without moving" at the last second

>>15633686
There is, you just don't understand it.

>>15633726
>And the only reason snow moved deeper into the cup is because more and more snow kept appearing at the mouth of the cup, which then pushed back what was already inside until it hit the back.
Push it? With what force? It's stationary.

Something appearing out of something else and having tangible presence and being able to push things out of the way is not the mere "illusion" of movement without momentum no matter how much you desperate hula hoopers insist that it is. What you're saying is equivalent to
>Oh yes, it's a circle, but it only has the illusion of roundness, it's really a square circle

Hey, did you guys know you can get an actual, regular cannon to do B? All you have to do is move it backwards at a speed equal to its muzzle velocity. Almost like a... hula... hoop...

All right you motherfuckers, assume that I know that a regular hula hoop doesn't launch shit. Why do you think I still believe portals can?

>>15633890
>due to the impossible to solve programming challenge
It's not impossible. The physics are fairly intuitive (unless you are the hula hoop retard). There already exist implementations of moving portal physics.

>>15634977
>muh implementations
again, other people's work you hang your hat on to feel smart.

>>15635011
Not really. You however claimed that it's somehow impossible to program.

>>15635039
>everyone who disagrees with me is the same guy
lmao

>>15635066
You directly replied to me without specifying. Why wouldn't I assume you're the same guy?

>>15632057
why did you (or someone) switch A and B?

>>15634977
No there doesn't. Because moving portals are impossible and thus they are impossible to program. Your implementations can only be moving doors or similar with arbitrarily chosen hard coded behavior and no physics simulation Every child can make that.

>>15635353
Velocity(exit) = Velocity(entry) - Velocity(entry portal) + Velocity(exit portal)
Truly impossible to code.

>>15635500
So you are an A fag. But this thread has proven B true.

>>15635515
>So you are an A fag.
Dunno where you got that from, it's obviously B. I'm just agreeing with the other anon that the velocity transfer specifically is not a particularly complex thing to code. People used to do it all the time in arguments about this on /v/.

>>15635541
>opaque portal
>programs A
>admits it's B
yea thought so.

>>15635554
I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, are you getting them mixed up? A is plop, B is whoosh.

>>15634554
is this baby's first relativity?

>>15635115
idk ask >>15614259

>>15635541
>>15635554
>>15635568
The problem is that everyone insists on using the terms "A fag" and "B fag" but everyone ALSO insists on NEVER POSTING THE ORIGINAL so no one fucking remembers which one is A and which one is B.

>>15635836
Correction, I see someone did post the original here: >>15632057

>>15635568
A is woosh (wrong)
B is plop (correct)

>>15635840
It was always the other way around, OP of the previous thread pulled a truly ribald ruse.

>>15635866
Let's just all agree to use the terms "plopfags" and "retards" to describe each type of person.

I've been an ardent plopfag since two threads ago but I'm rethinking it over and over using my own logic.

You're staring into the blue portal and watching that box come at you real fast. The orange portal is moving through spacetime and its contained matter like that cup being driven through a barrel of ice. The blue portal is spitting out slice-by-slice at a high rate and as each new slice is made, it pushes the last slice forward to make room for itself. This push gives the last slice forward momentum, which knocks into the one before it, and so on.

>>15635935
It's an illusion, the box isn't moving. You can create illusions like this in real life, too. Say you wake up as a passenger in a car on a desert road. The road has no markings, the desert is featureless, the sky is blue and cloudless. Nothing appears to be moving and you can't see the speedometer. Suddenly, a cactus whizzes past at 100mph. From this, do you conclude that a cactus, something known to be planted and stationary, was moving at 100mph across the desert or do you conclude that the car you're in must be moving at 100mph despite the illusion of being motionless on this featureless desert road? Relativity describes how things APPEAR, not how things ARE. The box is not moving, only the portal is, and the portal is an empty hole.

>>15631076
stargate portal surfaces have negative surface tension

>>15635992
>Relativity describes how things APPEAR, not how things ARE
Tell that to your GPS receiver.

>>15636034
I don't know what this means.

>>15635992
I agree and I've been arguing that too. I'm saying the stuff that ends up on the exit side of the portal has a rate at which it's showing up there. If that moving portal swallowed one single irreducible slice of matter and shit it out the blue end, that slice would just sit there still, had it been motionless on the orange side. Then orange swallows one more slice, it corporealizes on the blue side, but it must push the previous slice forward in spacetime if it is to make room for itself.

This has implications like does it feel like the portal is "sucking" you through it, and if it's moving real fast but stops halfway down your arm (you're pointing at it), will you feel a pull on the part of you that hasn't entered yet, because the part that has corporealized so quickly on the other side (meaning that the tip of your body on the blue side was push so quickly into the blue side's spacetime that it yanked on the stationary part of you in orange).

Much to ponder.

>>15636056
The problem is that you're thinking of the portals as warp points that teleport things when they're literally just holes in extradimensionally-folded space.

>>15635992
if that cactus hit you it sure as shit would be at 100mph.
>but the cactus is stationary
yes, relative to the earth as a reference frame. remove the earth from the equation entirely and ask again.

>>15636116
If your car collided with the cactus would you conclude that the cactus was traveling along the surface of the desert at 100mph to run into you? No, you would conclude the car must have been moving at 100mph because the cactus is known to be stationary and unable to move itself at such speeds.
The damage in the wreck would be the same whether the cactus was moving or whether the car was moving, but only one of those things can actually be true while the other is an illusion caused by a faulty frame of reference. Cacti do not run across the desert at 100mph, they are known to be planted and stationary.

>>15636133
what part of
>relative to the earth as a reference frame
did you fail the understand? have you never taken a high school physics class? both the cactus and the earth itself are moving 100mph relative to you and your car.

>>15636152
Relativity tells us that whether the cactus moved at 100mph or the car moved at 100mph or they each moved at 50mph the resulting collision would be the same because it would involve the same amount of force acting on each object. But the cactus is factually incapable of moving at those speeds, so it's not possible for the cactus to be the one moving. You can create a frame of reference where it APPEARS the cactus is moving but in reality we know that's impossible because it's rooted in the ground so such a frame of reference would be creating an illusion known to be untrue. Taking relativity so literally that you believe cacti can run across the desert at 100mph is absolute retardation that requires denying physical realities.

>>15636175
you think you understand relativity but you don't. you're caught up on earth as a reference frame because you're retarded.

Do gravity waves travel through portals

>>15636188
So do you believe that rooted plants can run at the speed of cars?

>>15636231
you fundamentally misunderstand the argument.

>>15636274
I know you're trying to get me with some pedantry about how the Earth is rotating at a certain speed and moving at a certain speed in its orbit through space and ooh wow all this wonky stuff about how the car and cactus are moving at a million mph if you look at it differently, but that's all just irrelevant distraction.

>>15636309
it's not irrelevant, you're just too stupid to comprehend the answer

you give the suspended platform with the orange portal on it a sharp kick, does the vase fall over?

>>15636323
It absolutely is irrelevant. Saying things like
>remove the earth from the equation entirely and ask again.
are an attempt to move the discussion away from physical reality. Like I said, relativity would say that whether the cactus is moving or the car is moving doesn't matter to the end result because it doesn't change which forces are applied where, but within physical reality there is a clear answer to which object is moving and which object is stationary. The portal descending on the stationary box would create a very weird illusion for someone looking into the other portal, but it would still only be an illusion because the portal is moving and not the box.

>>15636335
i'm a pacifist

>>15636309
It's not pedantry, he's trying to get you to understand something you're glossing over because it seems counterintuitive. There's no such thing as "really moving" or "really not moving".

>>15636419
>There's no such thing as "really moving" or "really not moving".
There obviously is and that's why relativity literalism is stupid.

>>15636068
I think they are warp points and the window action is what we observe at the macro scale. If you can sever that connection it is never truly a window but always a plane through which things are transferred. What properties are transferred and how is what we are essentially arguing in these fun threads.

>>15636444
>open window
>pass object through
>close window
>cannot pass object back
>this means the window was a plane of teleportation and not just a hole in a wall
Portals are just holes. The fact that you can seal up a hole doesn't make it less of a hole when it was open.

>>15636468
Okay you're pulling me back toward my initial plopfag thinking.

>>15636436
There is no way to measure how fast something is moving without comparing it to something else. You can't point a magic speedometer at something and get its "real" speed.

>>15636222
if matter waves and electromagnetic waves do then gravity waves do too.
portals in game portal are just wormholes it's just normal space there is a smooth transit and there is no barrier or a "materialization" and disappearance process on the 2 sides as seen in teleportation machines in other games and movies.
that also means if you look into the wormhole you see the other side it is real and it is right there it's not like a TV screen that has something behind it it's the space on the other side of the wormhole that's literally in front of you and only the edges of that wormhole can be said to have something "behind" them.
>>15636335
If there is a rule that the ends of the wormhole are to strictly follow a surface like in your thought experiment then consider 2 particles on that pillar at the edge of the portal: if you move the platform then the bent space on the edge of the wormhole accelerates the particles away from each other since the ends are at different locations and the transition is smooth and short but since the particles are strongly bound together they will attract each other much more strongly and if the wormhole is not to generate free energy then it should resist your pushing force. if you want to chop that pillar in half then you have to provide that energy by pushing the platform with enough force. but it all depends on what rules we want that system to obey since we know little about wormholes.

>>15636734

>>15636436
point a speedometer at the cactus as it moves past the car.

>still responding to the bot

>>15636734
>if matter waves and electromagnetic waves do then gravity waves do too
I don't know if that follows. In the game gravity doesn't pass through the portals, and you could argue that if they're some sort of spacetime discontinuity they diffract gravity waves around them.

>>15631076
>but but hte thing isn't moving

The answer is B

When the object starts passing through the portal, the portion that has passed through has gained inertia, it is being anchored by the rest of the object on the other side. As soon as the portal turns off or the object fully passes through, the object will continue with the inertia that it had when entering the portal.

Retards.

>>15637235
B is plop.

>>15631320
The momentum is transferred from the moving portal to the object. Simple as.

>>15631076
How fast is the portal moving and how heavy is the object?

>>15637242
>B is plop.

The portal wasn't moving very fast and it was a VERY heavy object.

>>15637250
>The momentum is transferred from the moving portal to the object. Simple as.
The portal is an empty hole. The kinetic energy from the moving platform will be transferred into the outer edges where the two platforms actually make contact. Nothing is touching the bullet/box.

>>15631076
>>15636739

Bros, I have a new theory. Anything that passes through a portal will be ejected at the speed of light.

It's the only possibility when you travel from two points in space instantly.

If e=mc2 then you literally need to become light to travel through a portal.

Prove me wrong.

>>15637253
ok, retard.

>object enters space from a portal
>the portion of the object entering the space has momentum from the moving portal
>it keeps gaining momentum as it enters
>there's nothing to stop it in the new space
>it keeps moving as far as it can determined by the mass of the object and speed of the portal

the answer is A and B.

If it was reacting the way you assume, then the object would fall while remaining horizontal. Portaltards can't explain the tumble.

>>15637266
>Portaltards can't explain the tumble.
Hold a bullet perpendicular against a wall and let go of it. That's why it tumbles. It has nothing to do with forward momentum, it's just how gravity acts on such an object.

>>15637295
>>Portaltards can't explain the tumble.

Anon, how fast is the portal moving and how much does the object weigh?

The answer is both A and B.

>>15637256
Wormholes are a shortcut between 2 points. Einstein has proven that space can bend and that every mass curves it and that gravity is nothing more than the result of curved space there is no gravity force.

>>15635353
>3d transformations are impossible
Ok? It's all just linear algebra. Why would that be considered impossible?

>>15637251
Why does it matter if it's heavy? The portals impart a specific velocity on the object. Both light and heavy objects that gained the same speed will... move with the same speed.
>The portal wasn't moving very fast
How do you even know that? It is implied that the speed is enough to hurt you.

>>15637516
>The answer is both A and B.
No, it is only acted upon by a new direction of gravity as it becomes exposed to it. There is NO ADDED MOMENTUM PERPENDICULAR TO THE ORIGINAL SURFACE.

>>15633667

>>15638756
You are retarded.

>>15638761
What is your refutation.

>>15638770
There's nothing to refute. My only argument is that the spike would not jump off its own platform no matter how fast the portal moves. Obviously an object that enters a new space will displace and contact things around it, and a sharp object will be able to stab those things in addition.

>>15638776
Not him but essentially what you're saying is, the spike has momentum and can exert that momentum on other things but that momentum magically vanishes the moment the piston reaches the end?

>>15638791
That's the illusion it creates, yes, because only the portal is actually moving. This goes back to the "camera on a hula hoop" example. Put a camera on the inside edge of a hula hoop and toss that hula hoop over an object. When you toss it, you'll see that the hula hoop rises up and falls over the object, but if you watch the video it will look like the object rose up to the hoop and flew past the camera. What's on the video is an illlusion caused by the positioning of the camera; the ground didn't jump up to meet the hoop, the hoop merely fell over the object and onto the floor.

>>15638791
The only thing that moves is the portal. The portal has momentum and not the spike and it's the momentum of the portal that stabs him.

>>15631239
The funny thing is, somebody actually did this in the game and it just didn't go through the portal at all. Because the actual programming has the object retain it's velocity, so if it has no velocity, then it can't go through the portal

>>15633667
Cat's don't follow the laws of physics though

>>15631076
>hole flies are stationary object really fast
>stationary object gains momentum...because it just does ok???

A fags are stupid as fuck

Okay let's say that the portal just stops RIGHT before the box. You mean to tell me that this would not be the exact same result as if the box suddenly "stopped" from the other reference frame? Or do you unironically think that this too would accelerate the box?
The thing is, the portal isn't actually moving anything at all.

>>15638816
>stationary things can impart other stationary things with energy and momentum through collision
>lol ok

>>15639139
With no momentum, it's just compression

>>15638848
>>stationary object gains momentum.
It does in both A and B. What the fuck are you talking about.

>>15639129
It actually works exactly the same. When the portal accelerates, the observed objects through the portal accelerate by your measurement as well. That is true in both your and original scenario. It is also why a cube would decelerate partially if the portal stopped since part of the cube is being accelerated and imparts momentum onto the other part through tensile/compressive/shear force.

>>15639181
The boundary of the portal however does not do anything. It is a wormhole. It connects space it doesn't move objects. That's the thing, it doesn't matter if the box "goes through" the portal, it would still seemingly decelerate instantly as the portal does.
We can also assess that an object is not moving by measuring the side effects such as temperature and friction we would expect from such an object if it were truly moving at said speed.

>>15639129
>>15639181
And before you say something stupid, notice I said "observed through the portal". There are two measurements an observer can make about the cube, the "outside" and the "inside" cube. And those "two" cubes separately conserve momentum just fine. This clearly must be done because even stationary portals cause things to have their """true""" momentum and """mirror""" momentum observed in different ways.

>>15639181
Also what would the box actually experience before entering the portal?
I am not interested in the relative, I am talking about whether or not the box would actually be accelerated before going through the portal or not. If not, then it would make sense that it doesn't get accelerated after that.
Otherwise the portal boundary would magically accelerate things to immense speeds.

>>15639197

>>15639211
The box doesn't experience acceleration if the portal doesn't accelerate. But the box does "gain" velocity. Since the other portal is stationary, the cube MUST have velocity according to the blue portal to exit it. Stationary things cannot move relative to other stationary things.

>>15639230
The other portal isn't moving or doing anything. It is simply the connection point. The thing is wormhole entry and exit points are just curved space, they're not actual things.

>>15639218
It stops?
If you yourself are stationary and the orange portal is coming toward you, you would see the box going 1 m/s away from you no matter what. The orange portal does not matter.

>>15639249
You're being a dummy. Nobody is talking about the implementation of the portals or anything. Why are you correcting me on your imagined mechanism through which portals work?
Your correction doesn't change anything. You could just consider the surface the blue portal is placed upon and notice that the cube must have velocity relative to that surface to move away from it.

>>15639258
Oh really? What about now?

>>15639278
The thread leaves out of the orange portal at 1 m/s as the portal exerts no forces

>>15639285
>>15639278
After it stops that is. If it moves the thread is moving away from the entry point of the orange portal at 2 m/s but it is going through space at 1 m/s.

>>15639285
So you think neither A nor B is correct?

The thing is that not all changes in distance is caused by velocity. Like how for example two photons going at opposite directions are moving away from at 2c but that it just the rate of distance accumulated over time.

>>15639290
All realistic non-linear connections between two places in space would exert no additional forces to the objects going through it.

Let's take an example. If a photon was going through the portal in motion it would not accumulate more speed as it is at c. It simply traveled through space which happened to be connected by a portal.

>>15639299
That's not true though. 2c is the actual difference in velocity of 2 photons going opposite directions measured by an observer. What special relativity forbids is measuring velocities larger than c, not computing a difference larger than c.

>>15639290
But I think B is correct.
I would also point out that you could observe both portals simultaneously and thus see that the box is "moving" and also stationary as the portal approaches it.

>>15639307
>But I think B is correct.
According to B the cube would stop. As other B fags are saying, its motion is an """illusion""".
So if you think the cube is unaffected then you can't believe in B.

>>15639309
my position is that the cube was never moving in the first place.

>>15639305
I'm inclined to say that the photon would just "gain" energy (since an observer looking through the portal sees a photon with more energy than an observer not looking through the portal). But I'm not fully ready to conclude what happens at relativistic speeds.
Not that it's relevant because in the proposed scenarios the cubes and platforms move fairly slowly in comparison so we can keep using classical motion and ignore Einstein for the time being.

>>15639316
So in >>15639278 would stop if the portal stops.

>>15631076
Portals are chiral and one-to-one, so the portal gun can only make one of each color of portal at a time. It is impossible to chain them in this way. Hence, only the last of each color will be working. The first three orange and blue portals will disappear, and the bullet will be crushed by the first press. Nothing will come out at me from the last portal. I collect $10 million and retire.

>>15639558
What if it's 4 different portal guns and the billionaire tricked you that they are the same colors using a clever setup of colored camera filters

>>15639596
Then why assume they're wired left-to-right?

Changed my mind on this one this morning after thinking about what would happen in the vaccuum of space. The relative motion is more intuitive when you remove all other reference points from the hypothetical.

>>15639139
>stationary things can impart other stationary things with energy and momentum through collision
Yes. Welcome to moving portals. Hence why this is impossible to simulate or program in game even via all kinds of trickery and arbitrarily chosen behavior and why Portal games will never have it.

>>15633466
you would only be ripped apart if the portal stopped when you are halfway through it, because your accelerated upper body would pull on the lower body. If it doesn't, your body is going through it at the same speed it is exiting (there is no "pulling up" force)

>>15639735
It's a hole. There is no force. If I throw a hula hoop over your head but stop it halfway does the top half of your body just jump off?

>>15639819
both sides of the hole in a hula hoop are moving at the same speed, in the moving portal situation one side has more speed relative to the other

>>15639856
There are really only 2 possibilities:
A. General relativity is literally true, in which case making the two sides of the portal move differently would cause an instant collapse of the portal connection (as happens in Portal).
B. The portals are able to move differently from each other without collapsing, proving that general relativity doesn't actually hold up in all instances.

If A is true, the portal dissipates the moment the piston moves and the object is simply crushed.
If B is true, general relativity falls apart and the only logical solution is accepting the plop outcome even if we don't yet have the theoretical framework to fully understand how and why it happens.

>>15639720
See
>>15639218
>>15639278

>>15639874
The plop outcome is logically incoherent.

Consider replacing the cube with a very long rod. You could have an apparently moving rod extending miles from the portal. Consider performing various interactions with this rod, what happens if you remove a chunk of this rod and carry it away with you. Will this chunk of mass you carried away suddenly change speed when the portal stops? How is the boundary defined between matter which should stop and matter has real speed?

This is a teleporter right?
So if you translate a object instantenously its speed at that moment is obviously infinite, (The definition of speed is the derivative of position w.r.t. time) and therefore its mass is infinite if it has any because of S.R. and so you will obviously have created a black hole that swallows the entire universe instantly.

QED.

>>15641709
>what happens if you remove a chunk of this rod and carry it away with you. Will this chunk of mass you carried away suddenly change speed when the portal stops?
No, why would it?

>>15641720
Well, in the plop case. The matter stops for no reason, it should still stop even if disconnected from the rest of the rod. Remember that objects do not reality exist, there are only atoms. The atoms that make up the rod don't care that they are part of the rod.

>>15641735
>The matter stops for no reason
The reason is that the moving portal stopped moving.
>The atoms that make up the rod don't care that they are part of the rod.
I have no words for this level of retardation. I can't even argue against a point this fundamentally stupid.

>>15631136
It will come flying out of the yellow one because of gravity. Going the wrong way for this retarded example