/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12598578]

So

[Anonymous No.12598583]

>>12598578

B) Conservation of Energy & Conservation of Momentum

[Anonymous No.12598584]

>>12598578
That is not how CoM works.

[Anonymous No.12598585]

>>12598583
Wrong.

>>12598578
A. because it was tested in game on a map editor.

Since portals are not real, portals are defined the way they are defined in game and therefore through experiment, A is the right answer. I don't have the webm, but you can look it up.

[Anonymous No.12598596]

Why does no one consider C

[Anonymous No.12598598]

>>12598585
>A. because it was tested in game on a map editor.
False. This was not tested in game physics because those physics do not allow portals on moving surfaces. Thus the experiment is null.

[Anonymous No.12598604]

>>12598598
he was relating it to a demonstration done in the videogame Portal

[Anonymous No.12598606]

Portals cannot move fast relative to each other (but they can, as one was shot onto Moon and other was on Earth).

So pretty much both.

[Anonymous No.12598614]

>>12598606
*can move slowly

[Anonymous No.12598622]

>this shit again

[Anonymous No.12598629]

>>12598604
>he was relating it to a demonstration done in the videogame Portal
I Fucking know that you retarded motherfucker but it doesn't fucking count if you need mods to "fix" the portals because they don't work on moving surfaces. If you count mods as canon to the game then I can make a mod that makes the outcome B.

[Anonymous No.12598681]

>>12598578
The ending scene of Portal 2 shows one portal on Earth and another on the Moon, and so these portals must be moving hundreds of m/s relative to each other, and we see that velocity is conserved relative to the portals, not to the external environment, demonstrating option B.

[Anonymous No.12598697]

>>12598681
Do you even know how "fast" moon moves relative to earth?

[Anonymous No.12598736]

>>12598578
So in A's case, where does the momentum come from to slow cube A to a halt immediately after it emerges from the blue portal at high speed?

[Anonymous No.12598752]

>>12598736
I believe the idea is that in the proposed A scenario it has no velocity at all, but because that exit portal is on a slight angle it just kinda *plops* out due to gravity

[Anonymous No.12598756]

>>12598629
Uhh sweaty, Portal 2 did allow moving portals. Canonically they can exist on moving surfaces and in game your momentum isn't preserved.

[Anonymous No.12598801]

>>12598752
But the cube emerges from the blue portal at very high speed, are you saying that speed is only present when the cube hasn't fully transited the portal?

[Anonymous No.12598807]

Non-curl-free topologies do not conserve momentum in any way

[Anonymous No.12598836]

>>12598756
>Canonically they can exist on moving surfaces and in game your momentum isn't preserved.
Canonically those surfaces are moving in the direction paralell to the portal surface so it doesn't apply to the question at hand.

[Anonymous No.12598889]

>>12598578
If B applies and the panel with the orange portal was motionless in a position such that the cube was halfway through the portal an interesting scenario occurs.
Should the panel with the orange portal suddenly accelerate upwards at high speeds the cube would get a very large amount of momentum in the direction of exiting the orange portal. As the cube is resting against a rigid platform this would manifest as a strong compressive stress, causing the cube to either break or bounce upwards towards the orange portal as soon as it had fully left the portal. If the orange portal was still moving upwards at this time the cube would partially enter the portal only to accelerate out of the orange side at an even higher speed. Assuming an indestructible cube, the cube would continue in this fashion reaching higher and higher speeds until the orange portal came to a stop.

[Anonymous No.12598967]

The block has no kinetic energy when it goes through the portal, fundamentally its the environment changing around the cube and not the cube moving. Even though the cube is displaced the cube doesn't gain kenetic energy and move because the portals dont function in euclidean space. Its A.

[Anonymous No.12598992]

There's a relative velocity so absolutely it's b

[Anonymous No.12598996]

Ok so only if it is in space or 0 gravity so a might be the answer I guess

[Anonymous No.12599158]

>>12598967
>fundamentally its the environment changing around the cube and not the cube moving
no different from the cube moving and not the environment

[Anonymous No.12599168]

It's B. The orange portal is hurling the universe beyond the blue portal towards the cube.

[Anonymous No.12599242]

>>12598967
Special relativity. You just proved that it’s B

[Anonymous No.12599250]

>>12598889
If the orange portal accelerates upwards the cube would shear in half. If the orange portal accelerates downwards the cube would be crushed against itself. Moving portals are trivial, its accelerating portals that are interesting.

[Anonymous No.12599258]

>>12598967
So if you stood in front of the blue portal the cube would somehow not smash you in the face when it emerged. If you replaced the cube is a 7 mile long rod, would 7 miles of rod some how be stationary even though it needed to move 7 miles to make space for the end of it? The cube must move to make space for the rest of it, it does not mater what you say about kinetic energy, it cannot be A geometrically.

[Anonymous No.12599612]

>>12598967
Kinetic energy doesn't apply. Potential energy goes out the window when dealing with portals. I can disprove you with an unmodded version of the game.

[Anonymous No.12599632]

Just imagine that the blue portal is glued on the top of the moving platform. Will the cube jump into the air or just remain in place? Ok, just imagine the equivalent construction: moving platform has a hole in it. Will it make the cube jump? Will the hula-hoop throw you in the air if you drop it on yourself?

[Anonymous No.12599655]

>>12599632
If the portals share an EQUAL speed in velocity, then it won't shoot out. A will happen.
Blue is moving down 100 m/s. Orange is moving down 100 m/s.
If the portals are moving at different velocities, there is no hoola-hooping, the object will come out of the portal at the speed at which it came in the other one.

The thing that trips up A-fags is that objects do not have a "property" of velocity/ speed/ momentum. If I'm sitting in my chair, not moving, what is my speed? What is my velocity?
...
In relation to what? Someone standing in my room? 0. In relation to the earth's center? Well now I'm moving really fast in a big circle. In reference to the sun? Now I'm moving at thousands of miles per second.
The universe doesn't have some kind of 3D coordinate grid where properties for a number specific velocity can derive from.

A-fags think that because the box isn't moving, it's inherently at "zero" velocity. But what if the entire experiment was done in a room hurtling through the sky at 10,000 mph? Well would you say that the box's speed is 10k mph? Would it then exit the blue portal at 10k mph since that's the velocity property it has?
But that "velocity property" is only in reference to the earth.

Game engines certainly work in that actual velocity property/ universal coordinate grid sort of fashion. So depending on how portals are programmed it could or could not take into account portal velocities and their own personal frames of reference.

[Anonymous No.12599733]

>>12599655
>If the portals are moving at different velocities, there is no hoola-hooping, the object will come out of the portal at the speed at which it came in the other one.
But that's true for hula-hoop too. If a hula-hoop quickly falls on you with the speed V, you will enter the hula-hoop with that speed and exit it with that speed too. But you will not move compared to anything else. Same for acceleration.

[Anonymous No.12599735]

>>12599733
Correct, yeah

[Anonymous No.12599753]

>>12598583
Portals do not conserve energy, very obviously. Portal a box from the ground to the ceiling and you've increased its potential energy.
>inb4 that means portal can't be physical
Not at all, portals are an object themselves, supposedly powered by the machinery in the entire lab, they have their own energy and momentum. That's like arguing that bouncing a ball against a wall isn't physical because the ball momentum wasn't conserved.

[Anonymous No.12600322]

>>12598622
>mfw checked the archives
>mfw they're all real posts from a real thread.

[Anonymous No.12600344]

>>12600322
>>/sci/thread/S8911770

[Anonymous No.12600347]

>>12598578
It’s A. These are simple if you just imagine that the portals are adjacent to eachother, which they functionally are because thats what portals do. If you had a ring instead of a plate with a portal on it, the box wouldn’t move. It’s the same here.

[Anonymous No.12600360]

>>12598578
Assuming portals actually can exist, which they can't:

If the portal is descending at constant velocity, the answer is B since the cube is exiting the blue portal with the same speed as the orange portal.

The energy to accelerate the cube comes from the piston. As the cube enter the portal more force would be required by the piston because the cube has more mass than the air above it.

[Anonymous No.12600373]

>>12598578
>>12598622
explain this then, B-babs

[Anonymous No.12600424]

>>12600373
The pillar shoots out of the blue portal at very high speed. According to you, it then instantaneously stops somehow? What happens to the air it displaces at fuckhuge speed?

[Anonymous No.12600464]

>>12600424
I will admit I had not thought of displacement of air
but the pillar is smaller than a person in diameter
the pillar is hardly displacing any air, and most of the air will be the air that the orange portal is transferring to the other side.
I do not imagine this is enough air to significantly affect the cube beyond perhaps jiggling it a bit.

I would not describe the appearance as instantaneous, even if it is fast.
not to mention most people do not talk about the air as the reason the cube would just randomly "launch"

Sure the pillar suddenly stops if the portal stops, portals are just windows that glue two points in space together after all.

[Anonymous No.12600537]

>>12600373
Are you an A-fag?
Cause you just proved B.

>pillar moves upwards with velocity
>therefore cube moves upwards with velocity
>therefore in space, cube will continue to move upwards because of 1st newton's law.

[Anonymous No.12600570]

>>12600537
>>pillar moves upwards with velocity
if you slam a window frame down on a pillar the pillar will appear out of the window with a velocity
that does not mean anything will happen if you stop the window frame (sans the air)

[Anonymous No.12600625]

>>12600570
The window frame isn't dragging the universe around it

[Anonymous No.12600664]

Can we agree on an arbitrary velocity for the panel the orange portal rests on? Say 20 m/s?

[Anonymous No.12600677]

>>12600664
with respect to the stationary pillar on the orange side of the portal? sure.
although 333 km/h is a bit on the fast side

[Anonymous No.12600723]

What if the cube enters a stationary orange portal at 0,51c and exits through a blue portal moving at 0,5c. Would the cube travel at 1,01c? Or would the velocity be dependent on the Lorentz factor when it emerges?

[Anonymous No.12600728]

>>12600723
Lorentz factor duh. The cube exits the blue portal with the same speed relative to the blue portal that it had with the orange portal.

[Anonymous No.12602626]

>>12598889
I see no reason for this to happen under B. I could se it happen under A, actually because they come up with all sorts of weird shit to justify their answers.

[Anonymous No.12602940]

Imagine a square room. This room is moving toward you with the door open allowing you to pass inside the room. There is a wall on the opposite side of the room which you hit once you pass through the door. With reference to the portal/door/room, you gain momentum which is why there is inertia to your body which is acted on by the wall of the room as it hits you. This is the same thing that a portal does. Basically it is moving the entire world with reference to the portal towards you if you are moving towards and away from you if you are moving away from it.

The correct answer is B

[Anonymous No.12603388]

>The principle of minimum energy

[Anonymous No.12603407]

>>12598578
Without the context of some underlying effects the portal itself has.
It is naturally A.

[Anonymous No.12603470]

Portals were invented by THE KINGS, so b

[Anonymous No.12603619]

>>12603407
I really do not understand what you have in your head when you say A. Consider the image I post. As the orange portal envelopes each slither of the cube, that same amount of cube exits the blue portal. A cube is not a single object, its made up of atoms, why would the atoms that make up the portion of the cube that is now outside the portal and in ordinary space suddenly stop dead as soon as the entire cube crosses over. Those atoms are going to want to keep moving. The only way for cube to stop dead would be is if the portals influence extends beyond its boundary. Now what happens if we replace the cube with a rod many miles long, after miles of rod have exited the blue portal, are those miles and miles of rod coming out of the blue portal somehow stationary when it very clearly needs to move out of the way to allow more rod to exit?

[Anonymous No.12603624]

>>12603407
I really do not understand what you have in your head when you say A. Consider the image I post. As the orange portal envelopes each slither of the cube, that same amount of cube exits the blue portal. A cube is not a single object, its made up of atoms, why would the atoms that make up the portion of the cube that is now outside the portal and in ordinary space suddenly stop dead as soon as the entire cube crosses over. Those atoms are going to want to keep moving. The only way for cube to stop dead would be is if the portals influence extends beyond its boundary. Now what happens if we replace the cube with a rod many miles long, after miles of rod have exited the blue portal, are those miles and miles of rod coming out of the blue portal somehow stationary when it very clearly needs to move out of the way to allow more rod to exit?

[Anonymous No.12603787]

>>12598578
It's B. No force is directly acting on the cube, but if we consider the net change in the kinetic potential energy of the cube, it's negative, and therefore it must undergo conversion into momentum due to conservation laws.

[Anonymous No.12604505]

>>12603624
It is because it's not the cube that's moving, but rather, the space itself around the cube.
The cube is perceived to be moving because its frame is dragged, but once the orange portal stops moving, the space containing the cube stops moving too, so the cube stops.

Pic related, imagine a cube being enclosed inside a cylindrical space. As the orange portal goes down the cylindrical space containing the cube is translated as dragging the cube through the blue portal. Once the orange portal is fully down, there is no more dragging and the cube stops. The cube itself wasn't moving like it actually gained kinetic energy. Rather, its frame was dragged through the portal and once the dragging stops the cube stops as well.

The point is that the space near the orange cube is the same as the space near the blue portal and moving the portal just changes which space that is.

[Anonymous No.12604524]

>>12598756
show me moving portals in game where the experiment is conducted without mods

[Anonymous No.12604535]

It's clearly A. Portals don't change speed, just position of the cube.

[Anonymous No.12604538]

>>12603624
Just use the hula-hoop example. If you drop a hula-hoop on you, will you jump to the ceiling? No. Same is true here.

[Anonymous No.12604549]

>>12600537
relativity says you're wrong

[Anonymous No.12604552]

>>12604505
Even if portals move space rather than the blue portal would have to be moving at 7:30 o'clock for this to be correct.

>>12604538
>muh door frame
>muh hula-hoop
It's not the same. When you drop a hula-hoop on you both sides are moving through you at the exact same speed together. Meanwhile OP's pic would be like bottom side going through you while top side stays on top of your head. This is unlike anything possible in real life, but basically it would cause internal pressure which would propel you upwards.

[Anonymous No.12604557]

>>12604552
>Even if portals move space rather than
rather than objects*.

[Anonymous No.12604568]

any physicist can explain this with the laws of physics right?

[Anonymous No.12604581]

>>12600625
Then moving a portal will require infinite energy.

[Anonymous No.12604618]

>>12598889
It's very simple my friend. I personally define portals as
>Anything that lands on the surface of a portal with in-going momentum gets destroyed and reproduced on the surface of another portal with the same momentum.

So if you have a circular disk and shoot orange portal on one side and blue portal on the other side you've created a hula-hoop. Drop it on you, and nothing happens because anything that enters one portal exits the other portal in exactly the same way.

However if you have one stationary portal and you drop the other portal on you, the atoms that are collected by the orange portal are crammed-in on the surface as they are being reproduced by the blue portal. This creates surface pressure which creates the force that propels the object forward. The kinetic energy of the cube comes from having to push the piston through the cube (the cube will actually resist being pushed through the portal). Therefore the sensible answer is B.

This is the simplest, most intuitive way to imagine portals instead of some wormhole space relativity magic. It's how humans might actually construct them i.e. basically very fine 3D printing machines.

[Anonymous No.12604620]

What will happen if you throw a portal into a portal?

[Anonymous No.12604624]

>>12604505
What happens if something is in the way?

[Anonymous No.12604626]

>>12604620
You get a kaleidoscope fractal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TZd95BCKMY

[Anonymous No.12604629]

>>12604624
There can't be anything in the way because all of the space is pushed back.

[Anonymous No.12604636]

>>12604629
So the cube won't collide anything because invisible forces around it already collide with everything in the way, and this solves the problem of moving without imparting kinetic energy?

[Anonymous No.12604691]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S85nudR6D-Y

[Anonymous No.12604770]

>>12598578
B-defenders, if blue portal was on top of the moving platform with the orange portal, as if the platform simply had a hole in it, would the cube suddenly fly upwards ?

[Anonymous No.12604782]

>>12604636
If there is something in front of the blue portal like a balloon, the balloon will be transported forward as the orange goes down just like the cube.

Now, I guess that means means if there brick wall and you take that space is translated cylindrically like in the image, it's going to bore a hole in the wall. Or if you put your hand to obstruct the cube, your hand will be cut in half. It's also certainly produce a strong radially spreading gravitational wave.

Now that I think about it, if A is true, then you could move the blue portal down left too and collect the cube that way, no?

[Anonymous No.12604786]

>>12604770
Depends on your point of view. From the point of view of someone watching, I'd say, of course not. From the point of view of the blue portal, I'd say yes, of course (though it's not exactly sudden but entirely anticipated). Once you realise this you see why it's B if the blue portal is not moving with the orange portal.

[Anonymous No.12604788]

>>12604770
no because it would actually work like a hola-hoop in that case.
the point of contention is that one portal is moving and the other isn't.

[Anonymous No.12604792]

>>12604782
But none of that makes any sense.

[Anonymous No.12604796]

>>12604792
>But none of that makes any sense
A-fags in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.12604817]

Portal influences cube only when it is directly passes through the portal and it is a very short time.

[Anonymous No.12604829]

The cube will actually move even slower than on A because moving air will push it back.

[Anonymous No.12604858]

>>12604788
But no amount of movement from blue portal can give any reason for the cube to leave its platform, right ?

[Anonymous No.12604956]

>>12604858
See >>12604618
If the orange portal is moving but blue on isn't then the surface pressure is going to build up on the blue portal.
Because the cube cannot go back to relief that tension it's going to propel forward.

A-fags clearly run into major conceptual issues with their idea that orange space is "adjacent" to blue space.
But if you just see portals as a scanner/printer everything makes sense and B is the obvious choice.

[Anonymous No.12604994]

>>12604956
I think the printer is an apt analogy but not really what happens. The portal is a hole, and the spaces are adjacent. The important thing to realise is simply that the cube is in motion when it comes through the hole.

[Anonymous No.12605146]

>>12604538
Fuck off with your hula-hoop, find me a single hula-hoop that has the left and right side moving at different speeds.

[Anonymous No.12605147]

>>12604994
>The portal is a hole, and the spaces are adjacent
Here we go again with that. I'm telling you: No reason to complicate it with weird wormhole space time adjacency bullshit. Just think of portals as simple devices: Whatever (particle) lands on one, gets recreated on the other (with the same momenta). The only interface between the two locations are the 2D portal surfaces and the 3D space surrounding them are only virtually adjacent in the sense they can remotely interact through those surfaces (they are still separate locations)

If you insist on portals being these wormhole things where two spaces somehow physically *are* adjacent (in the sense they are the same space) then I'm afraid to say that such a thing is overwhelmingly likely to be conceptually impossible (cannot exist) and thus you are bound to run into gorillion paradoxes (as A-fags always do). The fundamental difference between the two ideas here is dimensionality: I say the only thing that's equivalent between two locations are the contents on the 2D surfaces of portals, while you say that the entire 3D space surrounding the portals is equivalent which cannot be true if both portals exist in the same universe as that would produce recursion.

Yes, though, this discussion DOES depend on the semantics of how portals actually WORK. If you have another model on how portals might work you may share it, but the idea that it connects two points of space such that both spaces are physically the same space is proven not to work while the printer/scanner model makes the most sense. And nobody said the portals have to work like wormholes. That's a lie perpetuated by popsci hype around wormholes due to FTL potential.

[Anonymous No.12605160]

>>12605147
>No reason to complicate it with weird wormhole space time adjacency bullshit.
But it's what they actually are. And this causes no paradoxes if we go by B.

Also, portals also produce recursion when standing still.

[Anonymous No.12605190]

>>12604505
You talk about space moving around the cube, that implies that the portals influence can extend an arbitrary amount from the portal. And does that moving space cling to the cube, or is it the entire width of the portal as you drew in your diagram. If you stand in front of the blue portal, do you move with the space coming out of the blue portal. Do you get sheared in half if you are standing halfway into the shadow of the blue portal? If you have fed several miles of rod into the portal, does the moving space extend several miles? What if you stop and then restart the movement? If you are going to come up with an extremely complex solution, you need to define it well, you cannot just say space moves without defining exactly how that actually behaves. The B solution is very simple and can be full defined in one or two sentences. You need to define your system.

[Anonymous No.12605193]

>>12605160
>But it's what they actually are.
Why necessarily so? The portals can simply be an interface using which two locations communicate. Not something that physically connects the two locations such that they become the same location.

>And this causes no paradoxes if we go by B.
If we take the two spaces are adjacent, the answer should be A, because the box wasn't moving.

>Also, portals also produce recursion when standing still.
They do if you consider the space surrounding both portals as the same space.
If you don't, then they don't, unless the portals overlap.

[Anonymous No.12605204]

>>12605193
>If we take the two spaces are adjacent, the answer should be A, because the box wasn't moving.
No, it is. Just look through the portal. It's as simple as that.

[Anonymous No.12605216]

>>12604535
Actually portals can change speed in some reference frames because they can change direction. If you have two portals on a moving train and you invert the speed of the cube in the trains reference frame, then you can stop the cube.

Lets say you have a cube moving at 1m/s, it enters a portal, and leaves another at -1m/s. If this whole setup is on a train moving at 1m/s, an observer outside the train would see a cube moving at 2m/s enter one portal, and leave another at 0m/s

[Anonymous No.12605410]

>>12598578
With respect to the reference frame we're in, the cube has no motion, and since none is transferred by the wormhole, the cube stays stationary. Therefore a.

[Anonymous No.12605415]

>>12598578
A: portals are not allowed to move relative to each other

[Anonymous No.12605418]

>>12605415
what if they were?

[Anonymous No.12605463]

>>12598681
No, in the cut-scene momentum is not retained, otherwise the atmosphere, chell and part of Glados would have way less angular momentum than the surface of the moon

[Anonymous No.12605468]

>>12605410
Reference frames aren't magic. You're looking at it backwards. You declare that you're in a certain reference frame and then, as a consequence of that, the cube can't move. Well, there's a reference frame far more relevant in which the cube does move, and it's the portal's.

[Anonymous No.12605473]

>>12598967
Conservation of energy does not apply, you can teleport objects freely through fields.

[Anonymous No.12605477]

>>12605415
That's not A, that's nothing.

[Anonymous No.12605481]

>>12605468
kinda have to agree to him, bottom side of the cube has to move so fast that it can make space for the rest of the cube. Since conservation of energy does not apply the cube might actually shoot of.

[Anonymous No.12605881]

yall are retards, this question can be simplified easily. it all comes down to whether you believe A and B are equivalent scenarios

[Anonymous No.12605889]

>>12605881
Why wouldn't they be equivalent?

[Anonymous No.12605924]

>>12598598
You have to open a portal on a moving surface to cut through pipes in the neurotoxin level.

>>12598578
A because all the energy would be wasted on the platforms hitting against each other.

[Anonymous No.12605928]

>>12598578
I love these threads so much, I don't even care what the answer is.
>>12598622
This is why I want this shit to be posted regularly.

[Anonymous No.12605968]

>>12605881
You have to do more than just declare it A or B, you have to actually provide a model to explain how your choice actually works. B is very simple whilst A would require a complex set of rules and exceptions, and the A-tards refuse to ever provide a consistent model of how their A works, they just parrot "hoola hoops" and "moving space" without ever specifying the particulars of how that would behave.

[Anonymous No.12606309]

>>12605928
Ironically, these threads always contain some of the highest quality of discussion on/sci/ (at least compared against iq and race threads and other politically charged bullshit that regularly gets posted here)

[Anonymous No.12606375]

>>12598578
Why the fuck would A ever make sense? There is movement but according to A it suddenly stops moving. it's obviously B

[Anonymous No.12606674]

>>12606375
The A people have this thing were the object is not moving but the space is somehow moving around it. Its not very well thought out and falls apart under scrutiny, no A-tard has ever presented an actual complete set of rules to define how A works, they just say space moves around and never actually explain exactly what that means and how it behaves in various cases.

[Anonymous No.12606714]

>>12605924
We have covered this, those portals are moving parallel to the plane of the portal. No assumptions can be made about moving perpendicular to the surface of the portal.

[Anonymous No.12606883]

>>12606714
But how can that be? The universe has rotational symmetry, things don't just change properties when you turn them a different direction, that's impossible.

[Anonymous No.12606905]

>>12598578
it's B since that's the first one I thought of and I don't like to change my mind

[Anonymous No.12606961]

The answer is A, just imagine a hoola hoop, or if you want to be "scientific" then a wormhole. This is how portals work, just accept the fact that science cant explain this (yet), it's really simple, people like to complicate stuff.

[Anonymous No.12606996]

>>12606961
Anyone who seriously tries to explain their answer using a hula hoop analogy or anything of the sort needs to be perma-banned from /sci/ because of low iq

[Anonymous No.12607004]

>>12606996
agreed

[Anonymous No.12607013]

>>12606996
>arguing about an imaginary/theoretical phenomenon
>thinks current science is enough to explain it
Brainlet

[Anonymous No.12607055]

The conservation of momentum/energy argument is invalid, the portal is intangible and no physical collision occurs, the object just passes through just like if there weren't portals to begin with.

[Anonymous No.12607120]

A, draw a force diagram of the cube. only gravity and friction force
>b-but muh relati-

[Anonymous No.12607150]

>>12607120
You are simply not aware of the forces in play here.

[Anonymous No.12607177]

>>12598578
B is correct
A is incorrect
What's so hard about that?

[Anonymous No.12607189]

>>12607177
>>12607055

[Anonymous No.12607219]

>>12607189
That anon neglected to consider what's happening at the blue portal.

[Anonymous No.12607238]

>>12607055
B-fags are pic related now

[Anonymous No.12607243]

>>12607189
I thought he was answering B lmao

[Anonymous No.12607295]

>>12607055
>>12607238
samefag

[Anonymous No.12607325]

[Anonymous No.12607338]

[Anonymous No.12607425]

If we think about reference frames, pretend like I'm a heatproof man standing on the sun looking at the Earth. I see someone shoot a portal and run at exactly the speed of Earth's rotation towards the portal, so from my reference frame the person is completely stationary and the portal moves towards the person. Yet, on Earth's reference frame this is just equivalent to running at a stationary portal and flying out of it, which we always know momentum is conserved in that case, then you can't change the outcome just because I have a different reference frame on the sun, it's invariant, then the answer MUST be B.

[Anonymous No.12607461]

>>12607425
Or, pretend like I'm on the sun(again), and from my reference frame there's a completely stationary object in space. Then pretend there's a portal on the surface of the Earth on an exact collision course with the stationary object. From the perspective of an observer on Earth, the stationary object in space is actually flying quickly towards a completely stationary portal, then momentum has to be conserved as that's simply how the portal works normally. Ergo, from the reference frame of the sun, the box has momentum when it flys out of the blue portal on a different part of the planet, the change in reference frame can't change the momentum gained, the box CANNOT be stationary after moving through the portals.

[Anonymous No.12607487]

Portals do not exist so either can be valid, but you do have to define a set of consistent rules for your side. The A-fags have the more complex case, but they refuse to ever define any rules or specifics for their model. A has so many problems that need to be worked out, you cannot just say A, you have to define what A actually means.

[Anonymous No.12607533]

>>12607425
>>12607461
>>12607487
Furthermore, relativity tells us there is no "absolute zero" momentum in the universe, every possible object has a reference frame in which it has nonzero momentum. Then we have a paradox if A is to be true, if you say it comes out with zero momentum, then I will always be able to find some place in the universe with perspective in which it DOES have momentum, meaning A has to be false if we were to believe portals could exist like they do in game.

[Anonymous No.12607557]

>>12607533
You can most certainly contrive a model that would conform to A in the example given. They talk about space moving around the object. But that model would be complex and weird, and have many corner cases and bizarre consequences. Either way no A-tard has ever put forth a model to define the behavior of their portal

[Anonymous No.12607591]

>>12607487
Since it's established A-fags have major conceptual problems, how is that itself not confirming B is true via Occam's razor?

It's equivalent to the geocentrism vs. heliocentrism debate. A-fags have to jump over hoops (no pun intended) and do some serious mental gymnastics to justify their claims, just like geocentrists had those weird curve-looking orbits that they couldn't explain - compared to heliocentrists who just had 1/r^2, and B-fags who know exactly what they're talking about. Rather than see the light and accept the elegant solution, A-fags and geocentrists insist on sticking with the more contrived one.

At this point I seriously consider an A-tard no more than a flat-earther.

[Anonymous No.12607601]

>>12607055
this, the box will make only a *blop* because gravity and the angle since there is no transfer energy without collision. So is A

[Anonymous No.12607606]

>>12607591
Actually the A-tards are worse. At least geocentrism had a model, A-tards cannot even provide one.

[Anonymous No.12607614]

>>12607601
How does it even exit the blue portal at all?

[Anonymous No.12607619]

>>12606883
What rotational symmetry? You can only enter a portal from one direction.

[Anonymous No.12607625]

>>12607614
Only sensible solution A-tards have provided is >>12604505
But as several anons pointed out, that shit is going to cut your arms in half (energy free, too).

[Anonymous No.12607638]

>>12607150
Is this some Jedi shit you're referring to?

[Anonymous No.12607642]

>>12607614
when the object enter completely into one portal will left completelely out of another, that how portal work, they dont transfer energy, there is no transfer of energy, they only change the place of a object

[Anonymous No.12607661]

>>12607642
But there is transfer of energy, The mass of box within itself is energy.

[Anonymous No.12607668]

>>12607661
*kinetic energy

[Anonymous No.12607674]

>>12598578
It would be more like A than B (if we ignore gravity propagation through portals, which would happen IRL and just fuck EVERYTHING up). Portals are magic, they completely break physics.

[Anonymous No.12607688]

>>12607674
>gravity propagation through portals
Fuck.

That is a major observation that seemingly nobody has ever mentioned or discussed.

Since the orange portal is pointing downwards the cube might even be sucked back into the portal due to gravity eminating from the blue portal!

[Anonymous No.12607690]

>>12607668
Mass is kinetic energy, or it at least can be directly converted into it.

[Anonymous No.12607695]

>>12607661
in this state the box is not converted into energy, and the potential energy that is needed to make the jump that happen in B will not happen due to not having transfer of energy. The portal would need to have a collision to pass his energy, since it dont happen, because is a portal, the object will pass thouth it.

[Anonymous No.12607696]

>>12607642
So, if the platform with the portal stopped when the cube is half in the orange portal and half out of the blue portal, what would happen?

Would gravity just stop existing for the half of the cube sticking out of the blue portal? Would the half of the cube sticking out of the orange portal mysteriously just start moving in some direction with apparently nothing applying force to it?

What would happen if the speed of the platform the portal is on, were changed? The speed at which the cube is exiting the blue portal would obviously change accordingly.

[Anonymous No.12607697]

>>12607688
gravity propagation would fuck up everything, you would do well to have portals ignore gravity.

[Anonymous No.12607698]

>>12607674
>>12607688
But the gravity is working equally on both sides of the portal, so the exact point in the portal is gravitationally neutral.

[Anonymous No.12607704]

>>12607698
Blue portal is tilted so the angle of attack of two gravities (one from earth, one from orange portal) is different.

[Anonymous No.12607707]

>>12607704
That's not how it works anon...

[Anonymous No.12607711]

>>12607690

[Anonymous No.12607715]

>>12604691
damm that true

the box could end up like in >>12607688

[Anonymous No.12607717]

>>12607698
>>12607704
How about we ignore gravity, its just a distraction and is not relevant to the core of the debate.

[Anonymous No.12607731]

>>12607707
There is no "other side" of the orange portal because actually the blue portal is the other side.

[Anonymous No.12607745]

>>12607731
Whatever anon, you know what I mean. This isn't intro to kinetics, there isn't a friction force in the portals which is dampening the gravitational force acting on each side of the portal hole, so the forces would always be neutral (assuming gravity is pulling equally on each side). Of course, gravity acceleration varies a little bit on the planet, so there'd be a small pushing or pulling force acting through the portal hole, but we can just ignore that.

[Anonymous No.12607747]

It has to be B. The trick is this: if the cube starts entering the portal at t0, and the last bit leaves at t1, think about EXACTLY how it behaves between t0..t1. If you visualize this in detail you cannot claim A

Assuming the total amount of cube in the universe stays constant (anything else would be extremely retarded) then it needs to leave the exit portal at the same rate that it enters. This basically forces B, unless you come up with an extremely contrived version for it to stop suddenly as the last atom of cube leaves the portal. gif related is an example of how stupid that would be.

>but muh conservation of energy/momentum
portals don't conserve energy (potential energy is fucked) or momentum (because direction isn't conserved and this turns into magnitude as well in other ref frames)

>buh the cube isn't moving / space is warping / hoops
"space warping" is not observed in any of the games besides AT the portal surface. It's just garbage, it can't explain how air gets displaced (no force??), or even what would happen if you drape a cloth over the exit portal. B works with mostly normal forces and physics. A is just plain retarded.

[Anonymous No.12607768]

>>12607717
Option C: the box is pulled down by gravity and pulled back by the blue portal ending up as pic related.

[Anonymous No.12607771]

>>12607768
C is exactly the same situation as B

[Anonymous No.12607776]

>>12607771
Could be A or B but it ends up as C.

[Anonymous No.12607801]

>>12607747
I don't understand why the cube wouldn't just continue moving at 1m/s in that gif.

[Anonymous No.12607821]

>>12607801
That's the point. B rules would have it continue at 1 m/s (relative velocity being converted). If you use A rules and insist that "momentum must be conserved" that results in the gif

[Anonymous No.12607831]

>>12607776
Well, if you applied the same gravity rules in C to A, then the cube would just sit with both halves sticking out of each portal side, it would stay plastered to the blue portal hole when you bring the red arm all the way down.

[Anonymous No.12607838]

>>12607688
>gravity enters orange portal
>exists the blue portal
>enters orange portal again
what happens /sci/? I'm scared.

[Anonymous No.12607954]

>>12598578
Does the orange portal continue moving after the object has gone through it, or does it run into the platform and stop?

[Anonymous No.12608039]

>platform gets slammed down
>ground keeps platform up with equal force
>force from ground launches box

[Anonymous No.12608196]

Explain what you think would happen in this scenario, A-fags. Still think there's no velocity?

[Anonymous No.12608229]

this is my shit tier understanding. but no force has been applied to the cube so how would it move besides going down the slope in a?

[Anonymous No.12608241]

>>12608229
Portals definitely need to apply force, at least insofar as the concept makes sense in weird portal physics. Think of it this way. Portals can change the direction of velocity, so they must somehow apply acceleration (dv/dt), and F=ma, so...

In fact when you think about portals and forces you end up with more weird stuff. Like say you put a concrete barrier in front of the orange portal, then something has to stop the piston from going down, so the portal actually needs to be able to apply force to the piston as well.

[Anonymous No.12608260]

>>12599258
it would move just enough to get out the portal so it would just plop out like A, just like the 7 mile one

[Anonymous No.12608283]

>>12608241
What about the case where a portal inverts the direction of an object. Where does the force come from in that case? Also an object cannot have acceleration imparted onto it layers at a time, it would be very bad for the object. The most self consistent model for a portal is B, but there is no force. When you are look at a moving portal coming towards you, you see the room on the other side moving, as you cross the threshold you do not experience and acceleration, instead the portal redefines your reference frame.

[Anonymous No.12608322]

>>12607747
You okay there, anon? The B-fags are saying momentum/energy is conserved. The A-fags says its not lol

[Anonymous No.12608323]

>>12608283
That still requires force though. Like say a tennis ball comes at you at 5 m/s, and you reflect it back at 5 m/s, you had to apply force to do that. I agree that with the portal the object itself doesn't experience any particular acceleration from its perspective, but from a fixed perspective there seems to be some kind of "force" being applied instantly as matter travels from one portal to the other.

Think about if you put something in front of the out portal, it would get pushed away, no? That's force... also why >>12608260 doesn't make sense

[Anonymous No.12608366]

>>12598578
i imagine both have a chance of happening, impossible to state a concrete answer as we have no observable data to go off of.

the most accurate we could be is to state some XXX.X% of it being A. or some YYY.Y% chance of it being B

[Anonymous No.12608459]

>>12608196
strawman/troll/brainlet

[Anonymous No.12608855]

The speed of the portal just translates to the speed of materialization of the object on the other side, then the object's speed is considered. So the answer is A.

[Anonymous No.12608898]

>>12608459
It's a valid argument that you can't cope with.

[Anonymous No.12608902]

>>12608322
Both are saying it, only one side knows what it means.

[Anonymous No.12608904]

>>12608366
I can answer that for you: 000.0% and 100.0%, respectively.

[Anonymous No.12608943]

>>12598578
Imagine an open door approaching you at high speed, you are stationary, after you pass through the door do you:
a) remain stationary
b) absorb the velocity and fly the fuck off

Same thing.

[Anonymous No.12608989]

>>12608943
Why is it always the Afags who are like
>Hmmm, a thread with more than 150 replies worth of discussion
>I'm not going to read any of that to see if there's anything I might have overlooked about this problem
>I'm just going to drop this brilliant nugget of insight that is going to blow all their minds
>*posts hula hoop*

[Anonymous No.12609122]

175 posts, 50 posters. What a shit thread. A couple of the same retards arguing back and forth.

[Anonymous No.12609139]

>>12598578
I think it's A.
It isn't gaining any innertia.

[Anonymous No.12609153]

I've read the "B" replies and they still don't convince me it is not "A". I assume the question is within in-game context and if so, then the game confirms "A". There is a section in the main game when you can create a portal on various pillars, vertical or horizontal, so in order to not get crushed you have to create a portal on one of those pillars and the exit portal on the other side. You don't come flying out of the exit portal.

[Anonymous No.12609161]

>>12609153
This is not in the game.

[Anonymous No.12609174]

>>12609161
Are you retarded? It is.

[Anonymous No.12609207]

>>12609174
It really isn't. You misremember, or you played a mod, or something, but this part is not in the base game and the physics engine is not made to handle it.

[Anonymous No.12609226]

>>12609207
What the fuck are you talking about lol. Take your meds.

>You misremember, or you played a mod, or something, but this part is not in the base game and the physics engine is not made to handle it.

[Anonymous No.12609232]

if the cube enters the portal at a certain relative speed then it should exit the other also at that speed, because that many inches of the cube need to be 'erased' every second. the real question is: if the portal stops moving, does that instantly stop the cube? that would require the cube to not obey 'normal' laws of physics. the strangeness of the portal wouldnt be localized to itself as an anomaly.
A would happen if reality is a combined image of two planes of existence corresponding to the portals, and these planes are anchored to the portals. so if the cube is in the alternate plane, it experiences the deceleration of the portal as well.
the alternative is a teleportation device and leads to B.

[Anonymous No.12609233]

>>12609226
You can't place portals on moving surfaces in the game. Portal 2 has a few scripted sequences with moving portals where they are only allowed to interact with a select few objects. The scenario in the OP, as well as what you're describing, are impossible in-game.

I think you're remembering a part where you have to escape a trap by shooting two portals very quickly. But not on any moving wall, because that's not allowed.

[Anonymous No.12609248]

>>12598578
A portal is a hole, you fucking retards

It's always been A

[Anonymous No.12609262]

>>12609248
Yes, a portal is a hole, and to function most like a hole under all circumstances, it would have to function like B.

[Anonymous No.12609264]

>>12609262
>>12609233
50% of the posts here are made by this guy.

[Anonymous No.12609271]

>>12608322
Portals do not conserve momentum, not even stationary portals do as they can invert the direction of an object (momentum is a vector).

[Anonymous No.12609273]

>>12609264
I actually made 100% of the quoted posts

[Anonymous No.12609353]

[Anonymous No.12609695]

>>12609353
What happens if you then give the cube a little nudge from below?