/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10477731]

Given that portals break conservation of energy and they can, as demonstrated in the Portal games, impart arbitrary amounts of energy to in order to preserve the relative momentum of objects that pass through,
B would be the more accurate result, correct?

[Anonymous No.10477741]

back to >>>/v/

[Anonymous No.10477763]

>>10477741
>all this pedantry
They're called portals because of the videogame, yes, but to immediately assume they're arbitrary restrictions placed upon and therefore misinterpretations of wormholes is retarded. Portals have nothing to do with wormholes. Their in-universe fake physics explanation isn't important; what's important is the clearly defined rules with which they operate.
The inability to use your critical thinking skills to examine a fictional system when given concrete predefined rules about it's function while using your knowledge of how those rules interact with our physical reality
is called being a brainlet.

Maybe you need a couple more years of remedial education.

[Anonymous No.10477773]

>>10477763
the problem is that “portals” of the fantasy /v/ variety violate the laws of physics, and these threads become REEEfests of guys looking at inconsistent physics and trying to push on further with inconsistencies. it’s analogous to saying “in mario, space is gallilean but light still travels at a constant c relative to mario regardless of how fast mario runs. which is right in mario land: chase after light and it slows down, or space is secretly minkowskian in mario?” see how dumb that is?

[Anonymous No.10477813]

>>10477731
That sounds backwards, portals conserve the kinetic energy of the objects moving through them even if it means totally changing their momentum (direction if not magnitude) and potential in some other field (gravity).

[Anonymous No.10477821]

>>10477813
so video game physics violates conservation of energy AND conservation of momentum. in other words it’s completely self-contradictory and the video game arbitrarily does what it does. /thread

[Anonymous No.10477824]

>>10477821
>conservation of energy means conservation of energy doesn't hold
Wut

[Anonymous No.10477827]

>>10477824
potential energy is not conserved: portal from valley to top of mountain, energy conservation violated. in fact you could easily design a positive-yield perpetual motion device using this idea in vidya universe

[Anonymous No.10477838]

>>10477827
Yeah... that's the point of the thought experiment. The portals themselves must be doing the work required to satisfy the potential difference. So, what becomes possible if that one exception is made?

[Anonymous No.10477852]

>>10477838
okay then, place two portals vertically face-to-face in vacuum in a gravitational field. release a ball so it falls into the bottom one and emerges from the top, and proceeds to fall in again ad infinitum. within a short amount of time the ball gains so much kinetic energy that the energy density in the region exceeds the schwatzsxhild radius. a black hole then forms, engulfing the portals and destroying them as they encounter the tidal forces near the singularity. portals gone, game over. continue?

[Anonymous No.10477863]

>>10477852
Do you really think stating the obvious when it comes to the problems of perpetual motion adds anything to the conversation? Do you think you're the first person with these insights? Or are you just too incapable of speculating for the sake of shits and giggles that you had to come in, complain, and drop these truth bombs on us?

[Anonymous No.10477865]

The answer is A. Momentum is conserved through a portal, and the box has no momentum. If you drop a hula hoop over a box, the box doesn’t go flying into the air

[Anonymous No.10477868]

>>10477863
i just want to point out how retarded it is to have threads where we argue about video game physics that not only contradicts the laws of real physics, but also is internally self-contradictory

[Anonymous No.10477888]

>>10477868
>contradicts the laws of real physics
Again, that's the entire point of the thought experiment.
>internally self contradictory
How? Kinetic energy is conserved, and the momentum of a point mass traveling through the portal, from the point mass' perspective, is conserved. If you still want to harp on about perpetual motion, then we can just pretend these are nuPortals that collapse once a certain threshold work done is reached, and therefore cost at least this much energy to create. Nobody else needs that stipulation to ignore the obvious perpetual motion problems, but there you go. So, A or B?

[Anonymous No.10477903]

>>10477888
they’re self contradictory because translational invariance implies conservation of both momentum (spactial translational invariance) and kinetic energy (temporal translational invariance). the only way one could violate either is by having laws of physics that change from place to place or from time to time, and in that case your answer would need to depend on where and when in the universe the thought experiment occurs and would depend on the specific version of fantasy physics you choose

[Anonymous No.10477920]

>>10477903
Okay, translational invariance doesn't hold because it's not a simply connected space when you add portals. Now what?

[Anonymous No.10477935]

>>10477865
relative to the hula hoop it does

[Anonymous No.10477936]

>>10477920
>translational invariance doesn't hold because it's not a simply connected space
no, this does not follow. just because a spacetime has a nontrivial topology doesn't mean the lagrangian density isn't invariant under translational transformations. again, you should read up on GR

[Anonymous No.10477974]

>>10477731
The portal games don't exactly explain the portals, but this is how I see it.
A portal is like a transportation hole, anything that goes through it keeps the momentum, but the portal does not collide in any way and does not give momentum.
Portals also push objects through eachother and don't replace atoms, atleast how I've seen it. They do not cause any overlap causing immense momentum.
Therefore, as the portal allows the box to transfer to the other portal, it's like placing a plastic bag over the box, the box does not gain any momentum because afterall only the "hole" is moving however the box is not.
The box does not create any overlap because portals seemingly work through just pushing the box out through the other side as if it's just going through a door.
Therefore, the box gains no momentum and just falls to the ground.

[Anonymous No.10477978]

WE HAVE THIS THREAD
EVERY
FUCKING
WEEK
I SWEAR EVEN THE RESPONSES ARE THE SAME EVERY TIME NOW

FUCK OFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

[Anonymous No.10477979]

>>10477978
this. /thread

[Anonymous No.10477985]

portals are a frictionless tube that redirects your velocity. if you're standing still and looking at a moving portal coming toward you, then through the portal you also see the world on the other side of the portal rapidly coming toward you. your velocity relative to the through-portal world doesn't disappear. you shoot forward.

[Anonymous No.10478118]

>>10477731
>>10477865
>>10477888
>>10477974
>portals conserve momentum
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.10478124]

>>10477763
Well if you consider the rules set by the game, then the image breaks the rules of the game, because portals can not be placed or remain active on moving surfaces.

[Anonymous No.10478131]

>>10478118
We are talking about the portal game's portals, considering the image seems to be based on them.
Those portals conserve momentum of objects passing through.

[Anonymous No.10478142]

>>10478124
it breaks the rules implemented in the game itself but they coded in allowing portals to move

https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Portals_on_Moving_Surfaces

it just results in unpredictable behavior

[Anonymous No.10478168]

>>10477813
It only conserves relative speed.
There is a small scene in Portal 2 where an exit portal is moving that implies what is "conserved" is the relative motion of the objects interacting with the portal, from the perspective of the portal itself.
Momentum is changed and energy is added (or subtracted) to objects that pass through a portal.

[Anonymous No.10478172]

>>10478131
They do not conserve momentum. Momentum is a vector and a portal changing the direction of an object's motion EXPLICITLY does not conserve momentum.

[Anonymous No.10478178]

mods, isn’t it clear that now this thread is a discussion about the video game Portal? can this be moved to >>>/v/ ?

[Anonymous No.10478180]

>>10478172
I am referring to the portals in the Portal games, considering that's seemingly what the image is based on.
I am aware that a portal of this nature would have strange properties, I'm talking about a game's portals though.

[Anonymous No.10478181]

>>10478124
>>10478142
The engine is unpredictable, but that is unrelated to the mechanics of portals conceptually.
One single scene in Portal 2 allows a portal to move, so it's not disallowed and the mechanics of moving portals can only really be interpreted based on that.

[Anonymous No.10478184]

>>10478180
Yes, the rules of the portal in this thought experiment are indeed based on the videogame.
In the videogame portals explicitly violate both conservation of energy and of momentum.

[Anonymous No.10478195]

>>10478184
And in the game, portals conserve momentum, even if that violates conservation of energy and of momentum, that's how it works in the games, and therefore that's how we're gonna base this discussion.

[Anonymous No.10478201]

>>10478195
>>10478184
they don't conserve the direction of momentum but they do retain the magnitude

[Anonymous No.10478208]

>>10478195
>>10478201
>Portals conserve momentum, even if that means not conserving momentum
Portals generate free energy and explicitly violate conservation of momentum, meaning that momentum is not conserved upon passing through a portal.
The magnitude of the object's momentum stays the same, but the direction is altered, so you cannot invoke conservation of momentum as an explanation because it isn't obeyed.

[Anonymous No.10478233]

>>10478208
i wasn't trying to invoke conservation of momentum, i was just offering a clarification to the other post.

[Anonymous No.10478247]

>>10478208
The direction actually isn’t altered. Spacetime itsel was warped instead.

[Anonymous No.10478256]

>>10478247
Portals in Portal do not directly act upon spacetime in that way. They are explained through "quantum tunneling". Even though the in-universe explanation isn't what's being discussed here, for this thought experiment the idea of the portals as some kind of sustained wormhole or similar warping of spacetime is incorrect.

[Anonymous No.10478258]

>>10478256
ohhh so in other words they’re complete nonsense; okay good to know, thread over

[Anonymous No.10478288]

>>10478258
This thought experiment follows pretty simply and clearly defined rules, I don't know why you're such a pedant trying to make it about broken wormholes of your own manufacture.

[Anonymous No.10478303]

>>10478288
yeah well so does “what if i time travel and kill my dad when he’s a baby” or “what if i i travelled faster than lightspeed” or “what if the sun emitted cold”. doesn’t make them good threads. this one is worse, though, because there’s a geeky vidya mythology you start rambling about, a la star trekkers arguing warp speed

[Anonymous No.10478321]

>>10477731
I'm INTP and I'm still on the A side.

[Anonymous No.10478337]

>>10478303
If you don't find the premise of the thread interesting why did you open it?
Why come in here and disingenuously respond, pretending to be retarded, instead of doing something else with your time?

Nobody is forcing you to think about this, if you don't want to then why not go do something else while everyone else here entertains themselves by pondering this silly hypothetical situation?

[Anonymous No.10478363]

>>10478337
because these threads fucking suck and every fucking week there’s another one. it’s annoying and anybody who wants to post about this, much less “think” about this (i use scare quotes because the concepts are nonsense so it’s like “thinking” about timecube) needs to realize that they’re retarded. imagine if star trek dorks posted transporter threads or if star wars neckbeards made physics threads about midichloria—they’d be destroyed for being such brainlets

[Anonymous No.10478365]

>>10478321
What's your reasoning for A?

[Anonymous No.10478374]

>>10477731

They break conservation of momentum, because space isn't homogeneous anymore. Hence b) is probably wrong.

Where do they break energy conservation?

[Anonymous No.10478380]

>>10478365
Conservation of momentum.

The cube is stationary, why would it jettison out of the blue portal? That's just stupid.

[Anonymous No.10478389]

>>10478363
i would rather than ten more portal threads than even one more iq thread

[Anonymous No.10478546]

>>10478363
You're acting a bit too pretentious to be taken seriously.
Thinking fiction and thought experiments and speculative exploration aren't worthwhile doesn't make you smarter, it makes you less of a person.

[Anonymous No.10478568]

>>10477978
ikr i remember seeing this shit 1 year ago like damn the box has no momentum can people fucking understand that

[Anonymous No.10478579]

>>10478380
Portals don't obey conservation of momentum. They only preserve the idea of "speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out", and can add arbitrary amounts of energy to ensure this. If they obeyed conservation of momentum, they could not make objects change direction.
You can define "speedy thing goes in, speedy thing goes out" more rigorously as "the velocity of the object, relative to the entry portal, does not change in magnitude as the portal is traversed".
Therefore the cube, approaching the portal at some relative velocity, exits the other portal while preserving that relative velocity, which is accomplished by the portal altering the momentum of the object and imparting it with energy.

A similar thing happens when you use portals to create an infinite falling loop, and then place the exit portal onto a wall to cause any falling objects to go flying.
Energy is created from nothing to accommodate both the change in potential energy and the change in momentum.

[Anonymous No.10478600]

i dont think B makes sense the universe isnt moving only the piston is moving

[Anonymous No.10478603]

>>10478579
>You can define "speedy thing goes in, speedy thing goes out" more rigorously as "the velocity of the object, relative to the entry portal, does not change in magnitude as the portal is traversed".
>Therefore the cube, approaching the portal at some relative velocity, exits the other portal while preserving that relative velocity, which is accomplished by the portal altering the momentum of the object and imparting it with energy.
You know, you can just say, "Speed is conserved." Speed is the scalar, and velocity the vector.
When GLaDOS says:
>Momentum, a function of mass and velocity, is conserved between portals. In layman's terms: speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out.
It's only the first sentence that's incorrect; it's fully correct to say that speed is preserved.

All that said, I totally agree with you.

[Anonymous No.10478604]

>>10477731
There is no net force exerted on the box so A is the answer.

[Anonymous No.10478626]

>>10478579
>speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out
yes but slapping a window frame down on a cube causes it to appear very fast on the other side
it does not necessarily cause it to suddenly fly upwards?

if the cube was on a pedestal that the portal would it (and the pedestal) get tugged on upwards into the air as if it was falling if the orange portal was dropped on it?

as you say it depends on how you define it.
I personally just think of portals as a windowframe that stitches two points in space relative to say the earth (or earth + moon?) and moving the portalframe around continuously redefines the points that get stitched together.
makes kind of sense if the portal gun is imagined to be a remote interface to a larger machine stationary on earth that does all the calculations.

[Anonymous No.10478635]

>>10478626
I realize now though that the pedestal could not be resting on anything

[Anonymous No.10478638]

>>10478635
wait nevermind, it can.
I should go sleep I do not have the right mindset for this right now.

[Anonymous No.10478648]

>>10478365
>>10478365
ifirc:
>equal and opposite forces
the platforms clap together loudly and the vibration gives the cube a small hop
>object in motion tends to stay in motion
having emerged mostly from the blue portal the cube is subject to gravity and falls towards the ground
>acceleration... inverse... force
not really an issue since portals don't have mass and exert no force on the cube

>inb4 but what if the platforms stop before actually colliding?
gravity on the blue side of the cube would still have more mass to pull, so it would probably tumble off the edge of the portal limply.

[Anonymous No.10478700]

>>10478626
If you throw something through a window (or let a window pass over an object) then the one thing that will definitely happen is that the object will move away from the window as quickly as it went into it. Anything else leads to a contradiction. This is not due to any forces imparted by the window upon the object, it is merely a logical observation. Therefore, we can say that for something to move through a window, it must always be moving relative to the window. Now, if this is to be true for portals, then the object must be moving relative to both portals, which are both after all just one side of a hole. And furthermore, the relative movement must be the same for both portals. Thus, you can deduce logically that a cube coming out of a stationary portal must at the point of exiting be moving exactly as quickly as it went into the other portal. It also means that, if both portals were to be moving at the same speed (like slapping down a window frame), the motion of the cube away from the portal completely cancels out the motion of the portal away from the cube.

So really, if you think about it, hula hoops are an argument for B. People alternatively try to explain A by saying portals warp spacetime around the cube and the cube doesn't actually move through it. But that's not really consistent with the observed properties of portals, if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.10478706]

>>10478142
>if you stand right between them just right, upon the portals' collision, you will be teleported into the void freefalling forever in darkness

[Anonymous No.10478717]

>>10477731
No. In the left depiction the orange ”””portal””” is being shoved into the cube, not the cube being shoved into the portal. The piston has to keep moving while ‘absorbing’ the cube so the piston would not be transferring its momentum to the cube. The answer is neither, but as to not have to explain more, A. is more representative.

As a side note the event should be depicted using portals that are not orange and blue so /v/ retards don’t apply their misconceived intuition to what’s going on because of some stupid video game.

[PSA: Sage and Report No.10478747]

>>10477863
>do you really think stating the obvious adds anything to an asinine conversation

>>10477888
>the point is to have a thread on /sci/ that contradicts the laws of physics
>proceeds to apply certain laws of physics

>>10478288
If it is a thought experiment that follows rules of which are not physics or pure math then it does not belong on the /sci/ board.

[Anonymous No.10478751]

>>10478717
If they're not the portals from the game then we have nothing to go on.

[Anonymous No.10478826]

>>10477731
>in the Portal games

ask the game developer because they have nothing to do with real life.

portals that move relative to one another break the laws of physics. if anyone ever does make a portal, it will have to have an entrance and exit that don't move relative to one another.

[Anonymous No.10478847]

>>10478826
>portals that move relative to one another break the laws of physics
Portals break the laws of physics, Anon. If anyone ever does make a portal the thing that prevents them from moving will have been fixed already.

[Anonymous No.10478853]

>>10478847
>Portals break the laws of physics, Anon

just think about what how the conservation of energy of the universe gets screwed up by moving portals.

hell, you cant even have portals that have the exit bring you to a position of greater potential energy, ruling out differential gravitational field placements.

they would have to be deep space exclusives, and stationary relative to one another from every observational state. I'm going to just go out on a limb and say they can not exist within the context of the universe as we know it.

[Anonymous No.10478861]

>>10478853
Right. So if they can, what more is moving them, eh?

[Anonymous No.10478867]

>>10478861
>Right, they cant exist. So if they can exist

this thread is not /sci related and should be moved to /v

[Anonymous No.10479572]

I'm pretty sure it's the portal that's moving, so it must be Newton. However in the case the portal is the only thing that's not moving, it would be Einstein

[Anonymous No.10479601]

>>10478867
>I can't participate in a thought experiment because I'm too autistic
>my suspension of disbelief is an on/off switch and I literally cannot comprehend nuance
Nice

[Anonymous No.10479604]

>>10478747
You don't belong on the /sci/ board, you autistic pedant.

[Anonymous No.10479605]

>>10477731
Okay, I am tired of this aweful thread, so here is a better idea: suppose there is an infinitely falling block with a portal on the underside, and a stationary slab upright. And a crowbar through the portal attached to underside of falling block. What is the force on the crowbar? Here is a picture:

[Anonymous No.10479610]

>>10479605
Whatever force you apply to the crowbar in your attempts to resist the motion of the falling block.
Your pointless diversion has been solved, moving back to the actual topic of the thread now.

[Anonymous No.10479612]

>>10478717
The cube has apparent speed relative to the portal that should be conserved upon passing through.

[Anonymous No.10479613]

>>10479610
Okay, but on the stationary portion of the crowbar, what is the force there? It must be zero for otherwise the crowbar would move. Not so obvious now, eh?

[Anonymous No.10479615]

>>10479613
The force on the whole crowbar is zero until you apply one externally.
The arrangement of the block, the plane, the two portals you have defined there places no force on the crowbar.
Again, enough with your pointless diversion from the topic of this thread.

[Anonymous No.10479618]

>>10478826
We're not talking about this happening inside the portal games, here. The engine obviously isn't built to handle this.
We're discussing this situation happening in the real physical world, using the given definitions and assumptions regarding the portal elements to examine their theoretical interaction with known physics in the described situation.
Are you daft?

[Anonymous No.10479619]

>>10479615
Okay, but if the force on the whole of the crowbar is zero then as the crowbar is of acceleration zero on stationary slab and crowbar is attached to really fast downward block then the block will apply force to the crowbar downward. Not so obvious now, eh?

[Anonymous No.10480077]

>>10479619
No. You're just stupid. Moving on.

[Anonymous No.10480255]

>>10478853
you dont even need moving portals to break conservation of energy. just stick one portal under the surface of a lake and another just above the surface and stick a water wheel between. infinite energy.

[Anonymous No.10480258]

>>10479618
>The engine obviously isn't built to handle this.
not necessarily, see >>10478142

it's turned off by default for obvious reasons but the engine can handle it if you want it

[Anonymous No.10480289]

>>10480258
“unpredictable behavior” means it glitches the game anon. you probably end up inside a wall or something if it doesn’t outright segfault. simulating contradictory physics doesn’t go well

[Anonymous No.10480344]

>>10480258
It's toggled off by default because the engine wasn't designed for consistent moving portal behavior

[Anonymous No.10480345]

Its a reference frame so b

[Anonymous No.10480374]

The labs are on Earth, so Newtonian physics apply. Thus it makes sense to adopt the distant stars as the rest-frame. Identifying both ends of the portal, we see they are in the lab, which is at rest relative to the distant stars. So A is the correct answer in this regime.

If the lab were in space moving near c or near some massive objects then B would be the correct answer, since there wouldn't be a prefered reference frame.

[Anonymous No.10480383]

>>10480374
>relativity only applies in deep space
the absolute state of /v/tards

[Anonymous No.10480387]

>>10477731
WE HAVE THIS THREAD EVERY FUCKING DAY WHY DONT YOU BRAINLET PIECES OF SHIT JUST TRY IT ON YOUR FAGGOT GAME YOU MOTHERFUCKERS

[Anonymous No.10480401]

>>10480383


>relativity only applies in deep space

I never said that, nor my post implies it. I illustrated my correct reasoning with an example.

You can think in the block inside a torus. Rotate the torus. It won't make the block jump spontaneously. Now, if the torus is really large or rotating considerably fast, you might make the block move due to gravitational "swimming".

[Anonymous No.10480404]

>>10480387
no one is forcing you to partake in the discussion

[Anonymous No.10480408]

>>10480404
right so you will keep posting like the worthless brainlet you are?? everything has been said already faggot

[Anonymous No.10480411]

>>10480383
Kek

[Anonymous No.10480426]

>>10480408
>everything has been said already faggot
So go home. I will keep posting and making these threads and frankly there is nothing you can do about it. Maybe suicide would solve your problems.

[Anonymous No.10480427]

>>10478208
The portals still conserve the speed of the object upon said object exiting the portal, if we're talking about the game's logic.

[Anonymous No.10480429]

>>10480408
seething

[Anonymous No.10480432]

>>10480426
next time make sure to include something about building muscle in your OP; you two should make fast friends

[Anonymous No.10480435]

>>10480432
Your sentence is devoid of meaning.

[Anonymous No.10480436]

>>10480435
it means that you are “can’t build muscle anon”-tier

[Anonymous No.10480440]

>>10480426
>>10480429
suck this you samefag retard. You should get permaban, and it is not like i even come to sci that often

[Anonymous No.10480447]

>>10480436
What does the individual ability of building muscle have to do with the discussion in the thread?

[Anonymous No.10480450]

>>10480440

[Anonymous No.10480457]

>>10480447
it pertains to you saying
>I will keep posting and making these threads and frankly there is nothing you can do about it.
you’re insisting on forever spamming this shit topic, which is what can’t-build-muscle-anon does, which is why everyone passionately hates him, and why everyone hates you

[Anonymous No.10480458]

>>10480427
But they preserve speed relative to entry.
If you're approaching the entry portal at a certain relative speed, you'll leave the exit portal at that same speed.
If you are 5m away from a portal and after one second you reach it and pass through, you should exit the other portal traveling at the same 5m/s.

[Anonymous No.10480466]

>>10480457
Having a discussion every once in a while isn't the same thing as spamming you idiot.
If people reply to it and participate in the discussion, then it's just a normal thread like all the others. Retards like you sperging out and being pedantic when people have fun talking about stuff you don't like are the only "spammers" here.

[Anonymous No.10480478]

>>10480458
I feel as if we're talking about portals in different ways here, you think of portals as instantaneous teleportation, yes?
To explain my thoughts on this, I see portals as essentially a location hole. If you jump through the location hole, you come through to the other area in the same way as you entered.
The so-called location hole has no depth and does not collide with anything.

If the location hole approaches you, as you get through the location hole, you come through the other one however due to the fact that you are not preserving any speed, but only the portal, and the fact that the portal doesn't collide, you just come through the corresponding other portal with the same amount of speed as you had before the portal caught you, not the speed of the portal.

I think that portals, when they teleport you, or any object really, they preserve the speed of that object while passing through, however due to the fact that portals do not collide nor provide force, once they touch somethihng that is still, it does not give it any force.
This is because the portal, as I see it, still is just a door, if a doorframe comes flying at you, you won't go flying if you jump through the hole of the frame, you'll just carry the speed you did when you got through the frame.

I am not sure whether we are thinking of portals the same way.

[Anonymous No.10480479]

>>10480457
So would you say that I am living in your head... rent-free?

[Anonymous No.10480487]

>>10480478
You can't come out of a doorway if neither of you are moving. If a doorframe comes flying at you, then relative to it, you are flying at it.

[Anonymous No.10480488]

>>10480466
no, there are shit threads and there are good threads. admit it: what are your feelings on “flies in jar on scale” or “0.999...=1” or “infinity doesn’t real” or “flatearth roolz” or “black IQ” or “magnets, how do they work” threads? for sure among those there is at least one where you wish OP would neck himself

[Anonymous No.10480492]

>>10480478
Portals are not doorframes or hoola-hoops or simple holes.
Portals change the momentum of objects that pass through them, and they impart arbitrary amounts of energy to objects that pass through them.
Portals apply forces to objects very often. When a portal changes the direction of your momentum, it is applying a force.
You cannot pass through a portal without the portal interacting with you in some way.

[Anonymous No.10480528]

>>10480488
Honestly you sound like the kind of person who obsesses over his own IQ for some false sense of superiority. This thread isn't too low quality for you, you're too low quality for this board.
You're not even cognizant of the nuance of this discussion of a thought experiment, you're nothing more than an insect.

[Anonymous No.10480540]

>>10480528
no, read the thread over again; this thread is retard tier comparable with star trek transporter or star wars midichlorian geek nonsense shit

[Anonymous No.10480550]

>>10480492
Once again, portal physics in the games are not explained thoroughly, atleast from my knowledge.
Therefore, I see it as essentially a location hole.
I do not see portals as applying force once they change the direction of your momentum, simply because portals make absolutely no sense.
>>10480487
Yes, but once again, portal physics, not thoroughly explained.

It seems as if you're interpreting this as me trying to discredit you, not at all. Portals make no sense in the first place, and considering the fact that there's little explanation, just consider the fact that there's pretty much no correct answer here.

[Anonymous No.10480553]

reminder that once portals are linked (e.g. two are birthed) that it simply creates a hole. that means it ignores whatever surface it's on, and creates a gap in space. whether or not the portal is moving, or if the portal is falling doesn't matter. it's as if you created a hole through space.
the game demonstrates that when an object enters portal A or B, the object is given only enough of a push to go through portal B or A. while the push exists, the rule is that it will always only be enough to get the object through either portal.
the answer is (A) for the above reasons.

[Anonymous No.10480573]

>>10480550
Well, I think that if portals are to work as they are shown to work in the game, then B is obviously the only logical answer. How the physics would work, I don't know, they probably don't work at all in reality.

[Anonymous No.10480577]

>>10480550
Portal physics in the game is irrelevant. The in-universe explanation is nonsense anyway, something to do with quantum tunneling. Aperture themselves probably don't know how any of it works.
The only thing important to this discussion is the OBSERVED mechanics of portals, which demonstrate that they are NOT just holes.

>>10480553
The game doesn't demonstrate what you said at all.
The only concrete behaviors demonstrated are that relative speed is preserved, and that portals can create free energy. How they specifically move objects from one portal to the other is obfuscated by these mechanics, but is ultimately unimportant because only those observed mechanics are relevant to this discussion.

[Anonymous No.10480581]

>>10480573
As stated in the OP, portals necessarily break conservation of energy and momentum. Accepting that quality, you can conclude the answer is B.

[Anonymous No.10480582]

>>10480573
Yes, that's how I think of it, that the portal games have their own physical capabilities.
>>10480577
I am saying shit depending on the games though, assuming that the games have their own physical capabilities.

If we are to assume that the portals existed in our own world, of course B because the portals also switch the direction of the object, implying that some form of force is added, however with how the game handles portals, if we are to assume that the game's physics are being used for this, then A.

[Anonymous No.10480618]

>>10480582
Why? The physical laws in the game's universe are presumably the same as our own. How the actual video game engine that Portal runs on handles this situation isn't relevant. It's not built to handle moving portals consistent outside of scripted events, hell even non-moving portals can lead to unpredictable behavior. The engine surely doesn't simulate gas mechanics, does that mean we can imagine Portal takes place in a world with no gas mechanics?

This thread is asking what would happen in the situation describe in the OP, given that observed properties of portals and accepting that they break physical laws.
It is not asking what would happen in the engine that the videogame Portals runs on.

[Anonymous No.10480633]

>>10480457
Why can't I build muscle? I'll go away when somebody manages to figure out how I can induce hypertrophy on my muscles. Perhaps if people hate me enough it will motivate them to find a solution?

[Anonymous No.10480639]

>>10480618
Then you've got the wrong guy, I'm talking about how the game handles it, essentially just immediately swapping the direction of the object and pushing it into the new location.

[Anonymous No.10480652]

>>10477731
until it rips the soul off your flesh

[Anonymous No.10480653]

>>10480639
The game just uses a function to teleport the object, anyway. At a more basic level it's just machine code flipping binary values.
It's pointless to discuss the mechanics of the engine as opposed to discussing what is being represented by it.

[Anonymous No.10480657]

>>10480653
so the portals in Portal are basically the green pipes in Mario. let’s discuss what the mario green pipes represent

[Anonymous No.10480669]

>>10480657
Green pipes

[Anonymous No.10480679]

>>10480669
do green pipes conserve energy? can they be used to generate infinite electrical power?

[Anonymous No.10480689]

>>10480679
Yes and no, respectively, I think?

[Anonymous No.10480691]

>>10480679
I think they're just pipes dude I don't know why you keep trying so desperately to derail this thread

[Anonymous No.10480704]

>>10480691
can somebody make a version of OP’s pic where the portals are changed to green mario pipes and the block is replaced with mario? that would help to contextualize the thought experiment

[Anonymous No.10480717]

>>10480704
You sound like a smoothbrain