/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14502850]

Which one of these two outcomes is more physically likely?

[Anonymous No.14502855]

For those born after the year 2000 those are portals.

[Anonymous No.14502858]

>>14502850
Five years ago I was here when someone was spamming the same image. I created this at the time to explain how it would work and why.

[Anonymous No.14502871]

>>14502858
Wouldn't the top of the teapot tear off as it experience a change in velocity?

[Anonymous No.14502950]

>>14502850
Not enough information is given. Depending on how sharp and in which direction the spacetime gradient changes as the companion cube passes through the portals it could fly off thru the second portal, plop gently onto the floor or severely damage the hydraulics/companion cube. The image suggest the portals may or may not be roughly the same distance from the Earth.

[Anonymous No.14502966]

>>14502850
The cube itself is not moving, it is A also for intuitive reasons

[Anonymous No.14502967]

>object has no momentum
>object now magically has momentum

[Anonymous No.14503122]

>>14502858
That's cool. Now do it correctly

[Anonymous No.14503145]

>>14502967
>>object has no momentum
It obviously does while it's exiting.

[Anonymous No.14503293]

>>14503145

and obviously it came from thin air, nothing having produced it

[Anonymous No.14503297]

>>14502855
Get over yourself

[Anonymous No.14503530]

>>14502850
B preserves locality and geometry and is logically sound. A on the other hand is so incoherent that nobody has ever even attempted to design a set of rules to describe how A behaves.

[Anonymous No.14503544]

>>14502850
It can be anything you want because portals on moving objects can never happen.

[Anonymous No.14503550]

Physicists consistently report (b). Nonphysicists consistent report (a). Anons, whatever can the answer be?

[Anonymous No.14503551]

>>14502871
The tea pot does not change velocity, it never moves anywhere as far its concerned. The teapot sees the entire world on the other side of the portal moving towards it.

Moving portals are not and have never been an issue, accelerating portals on the other hand, that is where the real problem is.

[Anonymous No.14503556]

>>14503550
Physics is not required to arrive at a solution, basic geometry tells us that b is correct, and a is absurd.

[Anonymous No.14503560]

In the option B, when the portal is half way through the cube, one part of the cube is moving while the other part is stationary. So there's a problem

[Anonymous No.14503573]

>>14503560
Cubes do not exist, they are really just a bunch of competently separate atoms. The atoms at the front of the cube know nothing about the atoms at the back of the cube, all the magic happens at the portal boundary everywhere else normal physics applies. Once the "cube" has completely left the portal, then it continues to move because those individual atoms which make up the cube are far away from the portal and moving in normal space.

I have no idea what kind of insanity would be required to make A work in any universe that even remotely resembles our own.

[Anonymous No.14503607]

>>14503560
Movement is relative, when it's half way no part of the cube is moving relative to itself but from the portal side all of it's moving even before it comes into the portal.

[Anonymous No.14503610]

>>14503556
>basic geometry
how?

[Anonymous No.14503613]

>>14502967
>hold teapot over cliff
>let go of teapot
>teapot has no momentum for an instant
>teapot suddenly has momentum

[Anonymous No.14503620]

>>14502850
It's A and this has been settled on here many times before. People that say B have no spatial awareness.

[Anonymous No.14503622]

>>14503620
what does "spatial awareness" have to do with anything? neither you nor i have encountered portals in our lives

[Anonymous No.14503624]

>>14503622
Because all arguments for b use frames of reference and nobody gets the frames of reference right.

[Anonymous No.14503629]

>>14503624
what does "spatial awareness" have to do with frames of reference?

[Anonymous No.14503634]

>>14503629
People intuit what is happening in the system by imagining the scenario. This requires spatial reasoning, which people in general suck at.

[Anonymous No.14503637]

>>14503634
I say the answer is B. I didn't use intuition at all. I used conservation of momentum and einstein's postulate about inertial frames.

[Anonymous No.14503642]

>>14503637
Then you used them incorrectly.

[Anonymous No.14503667]

>>14503637
What if the momentum is conserved by a brake decelerating the piston with the moving portal in a way that the piston stops flat against the platform carrying the cube? Doesn't the work required to brake conserve momentum?

[Anonymous No.14503669]

How does the cube accelerate if it's the portal that has all the momentum?

[Anonymous No.14503678]

>>14502850
None. Portals literally violate the law of conservation of energy, it's fantastical nonsense, you might as well post about consciousness transfer from one body to another

[Anonymous No.14503679]

>>14503667
For anyone arguing B, they ignore conservation of momentum.

[Anonymous No.14503695]

>>14503669
The cube is effectively entering a new universe. That whole universe has momentum in the opposite direction you see the cube being launched in.

[Anonymous No.14503707]

>>14503695
If that were true, then the velocity of the cube would cancel with the velocity of the frame of the new universe.

[Anonymous No.14503709]

>>14503678
We do

[Anonymous No.14503725]

>>14502850
Momentum is conserved
Energy is not
The energy is transferred to the portal
I don't even fucking understand why pseuds make it look like a legit problem

[Anonymous No.14503728]

>>14503707
Only if it were already moving with the same direction and speed as the new universe- which it obviously isn't because it's stationary in its original universe.

[Anonymous No.14503741]

>>14503725
What energy is not being conserved?

[Anonymous No.14503749]

>>14503741
Not him but potential energy?
The cube has no momentum thus no kinetic energy.
It also suddenly changes potential energy without transitioning that energy into kinetic.

[Anonymous No.14503751]

>>14502850
The initial set up violates the conservation of energy, so the problem is indeterminate

[Anonymous No.14503770]

>>14502871
>Wouldn't the top of the teapot tear off as it experience a change in velocity?

It would, or it'd feel a jerk at least being pulled by the part that had velocity if the portal slammed to a stop with it half inserted.
But as long as it enters the portal at the same rate it exits it would not feel any acceleration going thru the portal.

A. would require the teapot to be crushed at the interface of the portal as it suggest you don't emerge out of the portal at the same rate you enter it.
Since Portal is a videogame this is more proof for B. as coding B is somewhat trivial while coding for A requires complex simulation of internal stresses.

A. crowd probably have aphantasia and don't understand all the weird implications of having the functionality they advocate for.

Example: What if the portal moves down a closed elevator shaft really fast? B. would have a wind blowing out the portal with the speed of the falling portal.
A. Crowd would have some sort of explosion of burning plasma occur at the other side as compressed gasses builds up at the portal interface.

[Anonymous No.14503776]

Imagine you have a cube on a table
imagine you have a wooden frame
put the wooden frame on the cube quickly. Now, does the cube fly off?

[Anonymous No.14503813]

>>14502850
A or B depending on the velocity of the top plate. Assuming the portal is flush with the surface, the force on the bottom plate from the top plate coming down on it would still be transferred to the cube even though most of the cube has already crossed through the portal. Since in the Portal universe we know that objects retain their kinetic energy when passing through portals

[Anonymous No.14503823]

>>14503776
Put a plastic cup on a wooden table then slam your fist hard on the table. Does the cup pop off? Now do it verry hard with a sledge on a metal table, etc

[Anonymous No.14503824]

41 whole posts before hoops came up. Not bad.

[Anonymous No.14503827]

>>14502850
Energy and momentum must be conserved, so the answer is B. B is impossible though, so the answer is A.

[Anonymous No.14503837]

>>14503770
>A crowd this, A crowd that.

Don't make me get the hula hoops.

The games do have instances of this situation coded in and they decided it was A. Also, in the game, objects never actually go through portals. They are redrawn on each side, and they don't even try to preserve geometry let alone any other value when going through them.

The answer is unequivocally A both in theory and consistency with how they are implemented in game.

[Anonymous No.14503838]

>>14503824
What's the problem with hoops?

[Anonymous No.14503859]

>>14503837
>with how they are implemented in game.
Key clause. You're basing your understanding of physics off a fucking game engine?

[Anonymous No.14503861]

>>14503770
I don't think he A case is as extremely unphysical as you describe. The cube can emerge from the blue portal at the speed of the orange portal and depending on its weight quickly be decelerated by the gravity that obviously exists on the blue side.

[Anonymous No.14503864]

>>14502850
Momentum is conserved with A. Imagine if the portal were stopped halfway through the cube, then according to B, the portal would have to suck the rest of the cube through the portal. But it doesn’t make sense for a portal to be able to create energy like this. Imagine if the portal were very large and you dropped it from a large distance, then you could arrange multiple objects to be shot through the portal.

I think it helps to imagine a tall, needle-shaped object rather than a cube.

[Anonymous No.14503872]

>arrange another dropping portal so that after the cube flies through the first portal, it enters another flying portal, gaining more speed
>repeat to infinity
>limitless speed
>

[Anonymous No.14503873]

>>14503859
No, but one of the arguments op made was that the game engine is consistent with b, when it isn't.

Don't worry though, relativity precludes B from being a possibility as well.

[Anonymous No.14503876]

>>14503872
good idea if it wasn't for the fact that it's A

[Anonymous No.14503971]

[Anonymous No.14503975]

[Anonymous No.14503976]

[Anonymous No.14503979]

[Anonymous No.14503982]

amogus

[Anonymous No.14503996]

>>14503975
See>>14503872

[Anonymous No.14504011]

>>14502850
depends om how the portals work. is it molecular recombination or wormhole?

[Anonymous No.14504012]

>>14503872
So?
You can easily get infinite speed with two stationary portals and gravity.

[Anonymous No.14504023]

>>14503979
A
>>14503971
A
>>14503975
RETARDED
>>14503976
BASED

[Anonymous No.14504026]

>>14504023
I'M RETARDED FORGET ABOUT THIS POST IT IS WRONG

[Anonymous No.14504056]

>>14503975
The portal frame is wrong. The blue portal is in the same frame as the block, so in the portal frame, both the block and the blue portal must move.

[Anonymous No.14504058]

>>14504056
in the portal frame there is always 0 distance between the mouths of the portal

[Anonymous No.14504065]

>>14504058
Not true, the blue portal and wedge move closer to the piston in the piston frame.

[Anonymous No.14504067]

>>14504065
you are retarded

[Anonymous No.14504074]

>>14504067
>I can't argue against an obvious and simple fact of relativity so I'll use ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.14504080]

>>14504074
i really dont want to go back and forth about this and i explained here the very simple and obvious fact of the matter.
>>14504058
>in the portal frame there is always 0 distance between the mouths of the portal
you can reply and try to argue with this but there's no point engaging with you any further until you understand that sentence.

[Anonymous No.14504081]

B. The top portal is compressing the cube.

[Anonymous No.14504084]

>>14504080
Where did you explain it? It hasn't been brought up yet in the thread. The only thing that matters is the speed of the cube relative to the exit. That's how it works in the game, and how you would want it to work irl. Otherwise it would just fling everything in to space.

[Anonymous No.14504090]

>>14504084
sorry but you're retarded

[Anonymous No.14504095]

>>14502966
The cube is moving when it exits the portal though.
The answer is neither cos its physically impossible and honestly I think there should be a C option where it is ripped apart or crushed at a molecular level.

[Anonymous No.14504102]

>>14504095
Gravity pulls the cube down the wedge. If the blue portal was flat, it would just sit there. The wedge in this example is a red herring.

[Anonymous No.14504112]

This all depends on the specifics of the portal. If its just a straight up seamless dimensional hole from one point to another, then A should be true. If its instead a "surface" that teleports or materialises the object to the other side then B should be true because the cube is being acted upon by a force and emerging from the portal at speed.
Both are impossible but for different reasons.

[Anonymous No.14504117]

>>14503982
genius image

[Anonymous No.14504135]

>>14504102
Even if its horizontal its irrelevant, the cube appears to be moving when it exits the other side. If you could only see the blue portal the cube would rapidly appear and therefore it has velocity and should react, its newtons law.
But its all bullshit anyway wormholes dont exist.

[Anonymous No.14504162]

>>14502850
Obviously B.
It's entering the orange portal quickly, so it should be leaving the blue portal equally as quickly. Unless you don't believe in time, length and speed, there's no reason to believe it's A.

[Anonymous No.14504213]

>>14504112
Explain to me how it could ever be A, the atoms on the front most layer of the cube are no longer anywhere near the portal, they are really moving through normal space, why would they stop dead once the entire cube is through? For A to work, the portals influence must extend beyond its surface and somehow wrap around the cube protecting it from normal space which is very much not like a simple hole.

[Anonymous No.14504223]

>>14502850
People who think it's B need to be castrated

[Anonymous No.14504234]

>>14504223
*A

[Anonymous No.14504236]

>>14502871
Would it tear off if you lifted it yourself? Molecular bonds would pull the rest of it through.

[Anonymous No.14504244]

>>14503976
Right, because you can't only think about the cube in that frame of reference. Everything in the universe that the orange Portal is moving towards is accelerating equally.

[Anonymous No.14504247]

>>14503982
Not the same because the cube in space has its own momentum. This is like the Kirchoff's law hubbub. The cube can't have two different values for momentum.

[Anonymous No.14504280]

>>14503297
no u

imagine being mad at a joke

[Anonymous No.14504284]

>>14504247
>the cube in space has its own momentum
how do you know?

[Anonymous No.14504287]

>>14503551
>The tea pot does not change velocity, it never moves anywhere as far its concerned. The teapot sees the entire world on the other side of the portal moving towards it.
in the gif it just flies off instead of plopping out/staying at its position, therefore it changes velocity

[Anonymous No.14504289]

>>14502850
Neither because portals aren't real.

[Anonymous No.14504295]

>>14504284
In the case that it's moving, mass times velocity. Energy doesn't disappear from one frame to another.

[Anonymous No.14504306]

>>14504247
Momentum is relative to the environment, it's not some value that particles store in their memory banks.

[Anonymous No.14504307]

>>14504213
What is a hoola hoop?

[Anonymous No.14504308]

>>14504247
>The cube can't have two different values for momentum.
Tell all of /sci/... In what direction is your hand moving, if you stick it through a portal? Speak up, so those in the back can hear you.
Consult a dictionary if you forgot definitions of momentum, velocity and direction. It's a simple question. Just name a direction.

[Anonymous No.14504309]

I've always said it was option A but I'm not mentally retarded so that might be why.

[Anonymous No.14504312]

>>14504247
You're right that a cube can't have 2 different momentum in the same frame, but its momentum can change between frames. In the amogus example we only have 1 frame to vevaluate. In the op Pic, there's 3 so it indeed isn't the same situation.

[Anonymous No.14504315]

>>14502858
This meme has been around since Bush was in office.

[Anonymous No.14504316]

>>14504308
Normal to the portal surface. Where's my Nobel prize?

[Anonymous No.14504323]

>>14504316
Be specific.

[Anonymous No.14504324]

>>14504095
>The cube is moving when it exits the portal though.

except that it isn't you fucking goober lol go back to school so you can become less retarded lmao

[Sage No.14504339]

Slide thread. Seen this shit last year. Sega'd

[Anonymous No.14504344]

>>14504339
>seen this shit last year

hello zoomer

[Anonymous No.14504368]

>>14504323
a portal is an extension of space, it does not impart any velocity upon what goes through it. The resulting velocity an object has after translating through a portal is exactly the same as its velocity normal to that portal.

from the portals pov it is moving towards the cube and from the cube the portal is moving toward it; there is no frame of reference that sees the cube moving

[Anonymous No.14504371]

>>14504368
explain what happens here then >>14503979

[Anonymous No.14504416]

If you think A, think about it again but this time in a zero G vacuum.

[Anonymous No.14504438]

>>14504368
Why can't you answer a simple question you were asked?

I'll have to give you the other questions anyway:

Given your hand is moving into portal A and moving out of portal B.
What changes if portal B is pointed towards a different direction? Or at a different location?

Given your hand has fully gone through portal A, and is now sticking out of portal B.
How is it I can move portal B while your hand is sticking through it. Such that I use your own hand to forcefully (and rightfully) slap you upside the skull if you haven't moved your hand since sticking it through the portal?

[Anonymous No.14504455]

>>14502850
The portal shouldn't behave any differently from a door frame moving around it. I don't think it should shoot out. I think A is correct.

Stepping through a portal is like stepping through a door frame. Even if you very suddenly moved a room with a door towards a box, it doesn't mean the box shoots through the door.

[Anonymous No.14504491]

>>14504438
>Given your hand is moving into portal A and moving out of portal B.
What changes if portal B is pointed towards a different direction? Or at a different location?

Nothing changes. Your arm was perpendicular to A and is still perpendicular to B when it comes out the other end. The only difference is that the direction components of the incoming and outgoing are opposite. The direction the portals are facing relative to each other has no relevance.

>Given your hand has fully gone through portal A, and is now sticking out of portal B.
How is it I can move portal B while your hand is sticking through it. Such that I use your own hand to forcefully (and rightfully) slap you upside the skull if you haven't moved your hand since sticking it through the portal?

If you tried creating a new portal entrance, which removes the old one, your arm would be cut off.

I dont think you're going to be able to make the point you think you are.

[Anonymous No.14504514]

>>14502850
A. Only fucktards choose B.

[Anonymous No.14504518]

>>14502850
B, obviously. The main features of portals can be accomodated mathematically in GR as a non-trivial spacetime background.
>inb4 B doesn't conserve (linear) momentum
It does locally, as required in GR. The cube does not experience any acceleration (it is effectively in free fall).
>what if the portal stops partway through
Then the cube experiences a tidal force. We choose a reference frame in which the portals are stationary, the space before the blue portal will have a trivial Minkowski metric and the space before the orange portal a Rindler-type metric (a non-inertial frame). We glue them together at the portal surface (to regularize this the portal probably needs a small finite "depth"), and in this region spacetime must be curved. Curvature causes a tidal force, whether it tears the cube apart or not depends on the details of the deceleration and the tensile strength of the cube.

[Anonymous No.14504637]

>>14504491
>If you tried creating a new portal entrance,
Completely irrelevant deflection. No portals are created or removed in this problem. If you need help (visualizing), imagine the portal your hand is sticking out of, is on something like the attached picture. (Which is mobile.)
I continue..

Now if some posts on a South Samoan pottery spinning forum were to be believed. Your hand shouldn't have felt a thing, because it was the portal that was moving.

[Anonymous No.14504642]

A retards make me irrationally angry.

It's scary how they can't see the holes in their own reasoning.

If you want to consider it in terms of reference frames keep in mind how the rooms velocity is different from the perspective of the two portal sides.
I think the easiest to grasp argument though comes from considering the cube while its passing through. The same number of atoms enter and emerge per second so what speed is the cube moving out of the portal when it is 90% of the way through, what about at 99% or 99.999%

[Anonymous No.14504645]

>>14504287
in the gif the platform it was on suddenly jerks backwards relative to the teapot

[Anonymous No.14504654]

>>14502855
lol the only people i know that play that shitty game are zoomers who are trying to look special

[Anonymous No.14504673]

>>14504637
Anon I'd the one that said the portal moved. Unless we're talking about creating a new one, the point is moot because you would be assuming that b is correct in order to prove b is correct.

[Anonymous No.14504880]

>>14504371
all but the last one will accelerate due to the cubes not having any room to move? Its not that complex anon. They definitely don't move all as one unit in real physics unlike the example picture.

[Anonymous No.14504895]

>>14504438
>How is it I can move portal B while your hand is sticking through it. Such that I use your own hand to forcefully (and rightfully) slap you upside the skull if you haven't moved your hand since sticking it through the portal?
because you can? I mean you can only hit me with my own hand so hard before you knock me out of the portal... Im not sure why you think this is novel lol

Same with the direction thing, it just doesn't matter. Its an extension of space; I can crawl up through a drain pipe and come up any orientation, even if I don't know what direction north and south are.

[Anonymous No.14504902]

Stop responding to the bot holy shit, or is this whole thread made of bots talking to each other I can't even tell desu

[Anonymous No.14504910]

>>14504090
No you are. Seeing as how you completely misunderstand frames of reference. A portal is an extension of space.
>>14503975
you can visualize portals arrangement as being a void or an empty space. Imagine if the piston had a bucket on it instead of a portal. Slamming a container over the cube doesn't create any relative motion. And thats exactly how portals work, from their frame of reference its just more space that matter can translate through.

[Anonymous No.14505078]

>>14504880
>all but the last one will accelerate due to the cubes not having any room to move?
this is the correct principle, now consider that the final cube will also have to accelerate as it emerges from the portal exit. if this didn't happen the cube would emerge as a flat, impossible square on the surface of the exit portal
>>14504910
sorry buddy there is simply no space in between the entrance of the portal and the exit, ever. i have no idea what kind of retarded gymnastics you're trying to express to get around that simple fact but it i assure you it is retarded

[Anonymous No.14505096]

>>14504307
Moving portals actually do behave like hoola hoops from the frame of reference of the cube.
Consider a scenario where a cube is floating in space, a hoola hoop approaches and passes over the cube, when the cube looks behind it, it sees that hoola hoop now receeding away again.
Now imagine you replace the hoola hoop with a portal, the orange portal approaches and passes over the cube, when the cube looks behind it, it then sees the blue portal receding away.

[Anonymous No.14505115]

>>14504247
Cubes in reality do not exist, they are made up of atoms. Treating objects as indivisible entities with a single coordinate and momentum is usually sufficient but does not work for portals. Try thinking about the cube as two separate objects joined at the portal boundary, B makes complete sense when you use this mental model.

[Anonymous No.14505123]

>>14502850
The portal is just like a doorway so. If an open doorframe is falling on you, you don't start flying through the air.

[Anonymous No.14505161]

Approaching this from an energy perspective I would say A. The cube carries no (kinetic) energy and assuming the portal is a void there is no way to transfer energy to it. All energy from the moving platform will be transferred in heat and sound when it hits the idle platform (assuming it remains still).

[Anonymous No.14505165]

>>14505096
>Moving portals actually do behave like hoola hoops from the frame of reference of the cube
The basis of your post is a baseless assertion.

[Anonymous No.14505186]

>>14505161
Portals do not preserve energy or momentum at all, remove these concepts from your mental model because they simply do not apply to portals. You are practically parroting these rules whilst ignoring the reality in front of you. Matter has to be moving to be able to emerge from a portal at all.

[Anonymous No.14505295]

>>14504642
you sitll havent made a rebuttal to >>14503976


>>14505115
ok so what are portals made of?

[Anonymous No.14505527]

>>14503620
You both failed to account for the fucking wind tunnel.
A in a vacuum but C would occur in air due to air displacement. The faster the shutter falls, the more the wings around it displace air and fall into the hole.

[Anonymous No.14505528]

>>14505527
So what? It would "hop" a little bit due to the air? That's just A with a small shake at the end. Hardly worth noting.

[Anonymous No.14505659]

>>14505527
i refuse to believe that even the most retarded, language impaired ESL human would type something like this. even /v/ portal threads never had posts this incoherent and confused in 15+years of the tradition. it has to be a bot.

[Anonymous No.14505841]

>>14505078
>if this didn't happen the cube would emerge as a flat, impossible square on the surface of the exit portal
From its reference fame it is not accelerating, it is pushing the other cubes yes but you don't have to accelerate to resist something anon
>>14505078
There is no space between portals as they are themselves just space. Going through a portal is the same as going through a pipe or into a container.

The only one retarded here, is you I am afraid.

[Anonymous No.14505845]

>>14505078
>if this didn't happen the cube would emerge as a flat, impossible square on the surface of the exit portal
From its reference fame it is not accelerating, it is pushing the other cubes yes but you don't have to accelerate to resist something anon
>>14505078
>there is simply no space in between the entrance of the portal and the exit, ever
There is no space between portals as they are themselves just space. Going through a portal is the same as going through a pipe or into a container or through any generic sense of 'hole'.

The only one retarded here, is you I am afraid.

[Anonymous No.14505927]

>>14505186
I'm just trying to wrap my head around a concept that doesn't exist in the first place. Are you an expert on portals and their rules?

[Anonymous No.14505934]

From the perspective of the portal, it is the cube that is moving towards it, so it must be B

[Anonymous No.14505970]

>>14505927
Portals do not conserve energy this a fundamental fact of portals. A simple example of this is raising an objects height.

[Anonymous No.14506553]

How would physics even work in a bros universe? I cant even comprehend it.

[Anonymous No.14506586]

[Anonymous No.14506587]

[Anonymous No.14506589]

>>14506586
If both portals are moving then it's not a portal, it's a hole, and there's no relative motion between them.

[Anonymous No.14506590]

[Anonymous No.14506592]

[Anonymous No.14506597]

>>14504642
>Velocity is relative
If the entire universe consisted of only the cube, would it be limited to the speed of light? Could you keep pumping force into it forever since there's nothing to compare its velocity to? If c works in a lonely universe then the cube has an absolute velocity regardless of the portals. If the cube's velocity is undefined then c doesn't hold.

[Anonymous No.14506599]

>>14504308
>What direction is a discontinuity in space
Huh

[Anonymous No.14506603]

>>14503976
cover the left side with your hand and just look at the blue portal. Doesn't it seem a bit strange that the cube sticks to the platform even though it's moving so violently?

If you were in another room, and you didn't know where the orange portal was, this is what you'd see. Clearly this proves B is true.

[Anonymous No.14506604]

>>14506592
Still plop. If the portal and the cube are both moving horizontally then that motion doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.14506612]

>>14506603
When the platform lowers into the portal it's not falling. Portals connect space in weird ways. It's not that the platform is extruded and pulled back in, in which case the cube would freefall. Those points are connected in space and the universe is some kind of weird pretzel. If the cube were to freefall then it should also rocket off of the platform when the portal stops moving.

[Anonymous No.14506619]

>>14505161
Kinetic energy is relative. If you shot a bullet out of a gun, and could go fast enough to catch up to it, you would not be able to measure any kinetic energy since you're going the same speed. But the target you shot at would measure a lot from its frame of reference. The Earth has tons of kinetic energy from the Sun's perspective, but none from yours.

[Anonymous No.14506621]

>>14506612
So basically you're saying the cube/platform isn't moving, it's actually the entire universe containing the blue portal. But that's dumb because the orange portal is also in the same universe. Therefore B is true.

And yes the cube should rocket off the platform when the portal stops moving. Like in the OP image, if the portal only stopped halfway down the cube, the cube would get pulled into the orange portal and flung out the blue one (depending on the speed of the orange portal).

[Anonymous No.14506626]

>>14506621
It's not the entire universe moving, either. The only thing that's moving is the orange portal. Basically the portal overlays one piece of space onto another. Moving that overlay window doesn't move the matter in it.

[Anonymous No.14506634]

>>14506626
you're saying the only thing moving in this animation >>14503976
is the orange portal?

[Anonymous No.14506639]

>>14506634
Yes. Space moving doesn't move matter. It's like how the universe can expand without needing space to expand into. Portals change metrics and mappings.

[Anonymous No.14506640]

>>14506639
you have good grammar and spelling for a helmet-wearing retard.

[Anonymous No.14506641]

>>14506639
Suppose there is a piece of plywood above the blue portal. Will the cube/platform poke through it and break it?

[Anonymous No.14506642]

>>14506640
Do you disagree with metric expansion? And are you actually applying intuitive physics to an imaginary spacetime discontinuity?

[Anonymous No.14506654]

>>14506641
Yes. From the perspective of the cube this is as if you just slammed the plywood down on it. The cube doesn't gain any velocity or momentum by something else moving towards it.

[Anonymous No.14506668]

>>14506654
So then if the plywood wasn't securely bolted down, it would go flying after the cube hits it?

[Anonymous No.14506673]

>>14506654
>something else moving towards it

Right, that's what I said at the beginning. You're saying the whole universe containing blue portal is moving.

[Anonymous No.14506677]

>>14506673
No, they're getting closer together because their locations in space are getting closer. Two galaxies in space moving away from each other due to inflation aren't gaining velocity.

>>14506668
Because it's in the part of space that is being overlaid upon. The cube won't pull itself up out of the portal.

[Anonymous No.14506686]

>>14506677
How does the plywood table go flying after being struck by the cube, if the cube isn't moving and has no velocity?

[Anonymous No.14506689]

>>14506673
In B, from the blue portals frame of reference, the entire universe on the orange side is moving. The cube is the only thing that goes through the portal but the entire universe is moving towards it at the orange portals velocity. How much force is exerted, from the perspective of the blue portal, to accelerate and decelerate the universe?

[Anonymous No.14506692]

>>14506686
Its space becomes occupied. Pauli.

[Anonymous No.14506703]

>>14506689
>How much force is exerted,

However much force it takes to move the orange portal. The magic of the portals is that they move the entire universe for free, when they themselves are moved.

>>14506692
How do we distinguish between a cube flying at the table and striking it like normal, with velocity, and the table going flying due to the transfer of kinetic energy VS your "space occupied" mumbo jumbo? What's the difference? Could scientists record both events on a camera and be able to tell which one is which?

[Anonymous No.14506704]

We've known it's B since 1953: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/113/1/34/2602000

[Anonymous No.14506715]

>>14506703
>Connecting space means acceleration is free
This is the same problem as >>14506587, where velocity comes from nowhere at all depending on your frame of reference. Imagine the truck was moving at 0.999c. What happens to the box from the Earth's reference frame?

[Anonymous No.14506719]

>>14506703
What transfers the kinetic energy? Where does it come from? Not velocity due to different points of view, but the energy to create it. If the portal weighs half as much as the cube, how can its kinetic energy accelerate the cube to the same velocity?

[Anonymous No.14506734]

>>14506715
>where velocity comes from nowhere at all depending on your frame of reference.

You have a problem with "velocity" coming from nowhere at all, but not the cube coming from nowhere at all?

[Anonymous No.14506743]

>>14506734
The cube comes from over there. The portal makes over there be over here. Or do you mean more ontologically, like in the big bang?

For the record, it's neither A nor B. A universe where portals exist has different physics than ours. Baseless horseshit supposition is a better answer to the question than applying physics equations because the pic is moot in our universe.

[Anonymous No.14506758]

>>14506743
>The cube comes from over there.
>comes from

See you can't even get around the fact that it has velocity. heh, checkmate A-tard.


>A universe where portals exist has different physics than ours.
Everybody knows that portals aren't possible, and that in a portal debate if you get cornered and dunked on so hard that you have to ultimately resort to "portals aren't possible" then you've lost. You've been pushed back too far by facts and logic, and fell off the game table.

B-chads win again.

[Anonymous No.14506765]

i think the key confusion comes from people equating a portal to a hula hoop or doorway, where the object rtains its momentum going through. this works if bot portal mouths are stationary, or moving in the same direction, with the same orientation and velocity.
if one of the portal mouths is moving and the other is stationary, then the hula hoop analogy breaks down.
moving a portal mouth onto a stationary object necessarily imparts momentum to the object.
the only way this cannot happen is if:
a)the object emerges on the other side as a flat "2d" shape, or
b)the portal stops moving as soon as it touches the object.
if you accept that the portal can move over an object, and the object isn't flattened as it emerges with 0 velocity on the other side, then this methodology is how you need to think about the physics of the object as it emerges:
>>14505115
>Try thinking about the cube as two separate objects joined at the portal boundary, B makes complete sense when you use this mental model.

[Anonymous No.14506774]

i think the key confusion comes from people equating a portal to a hula hoop or doorway, where the object rtains its momentum going through. this works if bot portal mouths are stationary, or moving in the same direction, with the same orientation and velocity.
if one of the portal mouths is moving and the other is stationary, then the hula hoop analogy breaks down.
in this scenario, moving a portal mouth onto a stationary object necessarily imparts momentum to the object.
the only way this cannot happen is if:
a)the object emerges on the other side as a flat "2d" shape, or
b)the portal stops moving as soon as it touches the object.
if you accept that the portal can move over an object, and the object isn't flattened as it emerges with 0 velocity on the other side, then this methodology is how you need to think about the physics of the object as it emerges:
>>14505115
>Try thinking about the cube as two separate objects joined at the portal boundary, B makes complete sense when you use this mental model.

[Anonymous No.14507257]

>>14506715
>Imagine the truck was moving at 0.999c. What happens to the box from the Earth's reference frame?
from an outside observer It zips to the orange portal almost instantly then flattens out to almost 2d as it passes through the portal and takes nearly an eternity to cross the container. from the cubes perspective nothing changes.

[Anonymous No.14507263]

>>14502850
ops mother really is a whore innit

[Anonymous No.14507290]

>>14504455
The difference is only one side of the doorframe is moving, the other is stationary and it appears as though the ground with the cube is moving toward it
Its a paradox

[Anonymous No.14507304]

First of all, its definitively B, physicists have already answered this.
Its actually a lot simpler than the diagram lets on, really all you need to think about is the blue portal. It doesnt matter whats happening on the left with the orange portal, just pay attention to the blue one. If you were standing in front of it looking through it, you would see the cube rushing towards you at speed. When it emerges from the portal it emerges with velocity. Newtons first law means it has to have a reaction, it cant possibly not carry the momentum and just plop down to the floor, A is physically impossible.

[Anonymous No.14507423]

don't think so hard

[Anonymous No.14507442]

>>14505295
>>14503976 Can't you see how this animation doesn't make sense, it domonatrates how absurd A is. Hold something on the palm of your hand and jerk it up and down, it won't stay on your hand. Seeing this gif you should notice how it makes no sense for the cube to stay on ints platform. If you still can't see it cover the portal with you hand and consider just the bit that sticks out.

>>14506597
This is a classical physics problem. What the fuck are you talking about.

HOW ARE YOU GUYS SO RETARDED!!! The webms at the top or even just a smidgen of lucid thought should suffice. Grrrrr

[Anonymous No.14507446]

>>14507423

[Anonymous No.14507456]

>>14506604
Ok I now think this whole thread has just been bait. No one's this stupid.

You got me

[Anonymous No.14507469]

>>14503976
Not my finest jerk off

[Anonymous No.14507480]

Physically impossible so their is no valid answer.

Personally, and despite a couple of explicitly identified exceptions (perhaps intentionally created by Valve to fuck with people who seek to define a consistent physical framework), I don't think portals are intended to move independently of each other in any significant capacity. Maybe theres some small margin of error within which this rule could bend, but I think it makes portals more coherent physically if they generally cant.

[Anonymous No.14507485]

>>14504642
>enter
>emerge
Its not a magical mirror, its a wormhole. If it was a magical surface that teleports things at an atomic level then this problem would rip apart the cube into atoms.
A wormhole connects two places at once seamlessly like a doorway, atoms are not being teleported in any way, space has just been folded onto itself and a tunnel was created to connect the two spatial planes.
The difference with a conventional doorway is that this door has two doorways, but at the same time its one doorway.
If the current laws of physics are true then "B" is the only possible answer. The doorway moving towards the cube is the same as all of space moving towards the doorway, the doorway doesnt really move cos its just a fixture connecting two points of spacetime. When whatever passes through the doorway it maintains its momentum on the other side, which is not moving (or rather moving with space in opposition to the other side of the doorway).

[Anonymous No.14507527]

>>14506587
Einstein BTFO!

[Anonymous No.14507537]

>>14502850
The problem with this thing is the fact that a wormhole wouldn't be attached to a surface like that, and it wouldn't be capable of being "moved" like that
A wormhole connects two points like the anon above said but he got it wrong, wormholes are like blackholes, they warp space around them, they cant be attached to a wall or something like in Portal, they would simply warp space around it
So the problem is impossible because it could never physically happen, you couldn't have a moving wormhole while the other side of the same wormhole was stationary because space is relative
Its just not possible

[Anonymous No.14507572]

>>14502850
Neither because both require laws of physics to be broken.
A requires the cube to be moved without having momentum and B requires the cube to gain momentum from nothing.

[Anonymous No.14507574]

>>14507537
Actually let me clarify a bit what I said at the end there
Wormholes are theoretically made up of matter called exotic matter and if that matter is moving then the wormhole moves too, I'm not an expert on wormhole theory (and its all bullshit, exotic matter is probably bullshit), but it doesnt seem logical for one "end" of a wormhole to be able to be moved without the space warping on either "side" of the wormhole being moved too, if you push it on one side it should move on the other side too so the spacetime warping remains consistent, if it becomes inconsistent I imagine it would simply collapse into a blackhole
Also if you did put something through the wormhole, even though its effectively the same thing as just passing through regular space, its velocity wouldn't be the same at the other "side" due to gravity. It would certainly have a change in velocity, so if A did happen it wouldnt just plop on the ground, it would accelerate to a certain degree.

[Anonymous No.14508355]

Put a bar through the portal and slide one end of the portal sideways. B would say that end of the bar travels with the portal.
What would happen in this scenario if it were A? If the bar doesn't move on either end, it stops lining up at the portal. If it moves on either end or breaks, where does the energy for that come from?

[Anonymous No.14508370]

>>14508355
>B would say that end of the bar travels with the portal.
A*, you have them swapped in this scenario. A portal is an extension of space, moving it around wouldn't affect pole in any way. Its always going to emerge from the same position it enters.

[Anonymous No.14508480]

>>14503530
grab a tube, grab a ball, ok now put the ball on a table, ok now try to replicate this thought experiment but instead of it being a portal, its just that tube, does the ball in any way fling itself upward through the tube, or does it just stay there, ok now imagine that tube as the two portals, one end of the tube is one end while the other is another, what would happen.

[Anonymous No.14508486]

>it’s another “they can be convinced of anything” thread
>over 100 replies
Someone should do a case study on this. If you’re smart enough you’ll know these threads are made to see how gullible the average user here is under pressure. The free thinkers are an overwhelming minority, I don’t know how anyone can have faith in the userbase after realizing it’s comprised of easily manipulated intuitive types unaware of their own emotional bias, golem behavior.

[Anonymous No.14508558]

>>14507572
B is still the better answer, because it only requires the laws of physics to be violated at the portal boundary but behave normally everywhere else. For A to work physics must be violated everywhere.

[Anonymous No.14508565]

>>14508480
A tube is a specific type of portal. You cannot apply the rules of a tube to all portals, this would be like saying, circles have 0 sides therefore all shapes have 0 sides.

[Anonymous No.14508574]

>>14508370
Yeah, I got that wrong about B. I don't see how "the bar moves with the portal" equals "it doesn't affect the bar in any way" though. Why is the orange side special?

[Anonymous No.14508586]

>>14502850
A IF THE PORTALS TELEPORT YOU TO SPACETIME COORDINATES B IF THE PORTALS ARE CONNECTED TO SPACETIME FUCK YOU FOR NOT LETTING THIS MEME DIE

[Anonymous No.14508613]

>>14506590
classic, best post

[Anonymous No.14508629]

>>14508355
Applying sideways acceleration to the portal is likely to shear the bar in half if you are not careful. A safe portal design would need to need to translate any shearing forces to the portal frame.

[Anonymous No.14508643]

>>14503613
thats because it had potential energy which was then converted to kinetic energy with time.

[Anonymous No.14508866]

>>14503976
th-that's kinda hot

[Anonymous No.14509010]

>>14508370
Let me put it this way, what would happen in these two scenarios?

[Anonymous No.14509018]

>>14508643
"potential energy" is made up. it could easily be the case that an object in the path of a moving portal has high "potential energy"

[Anonymous No.14509022]

>>14507423
>>14507446
>>14503982
I FUCKING LOVE THESE IMAGES

[Anonymous No.14509044]

>>14502850
B

[Anonymous No.14509273]

>>14502850
B
You'd need a single digit IQ to honestly believe it's A.

[Anonymous No.14509371]

>>14509010
1 the hand moves up and stays in the middle, in 2 the portal is moving without the arm so we will see the hand move down through the orange portal and eventually slide backwards out if blue keeps moving up.

[Anonymous No.14509403]

>>14509371
Why is it different? How come the blue portal takes things with it when it's just an arm, but can't when it's the rest of the person?

[Anonymous No.14509544]

>>14509010

[Anonymous No.14509678]

>>14509403
When portals accelerate any matter crossing the boundary is either crushed, stretched or sheared, as the portal wants to maintain alignment on both sides, but momentum of the object wants to stay where it is rather than follow the accelerating portal.

When a portal accelerates sideways any objects part way through experience a shearing force in line with the portals surface. In 1, when the blue portal accelerates upwards the arm is pulled upwards by this shearing force, and the person is pulled downwards, but since the person is far heavier than the arm, the arm moves instead of the person.

[Anonymous No.14509774]

WOW!!
B WAS RIGHT!

[Anonymous No.14509809]

>>14507304
What if I were on the platform under the orange portal? I would feel the platform under my feet because I'm standing on it. When the portal lowers itself over me the only change would be that gravity would now be toward my face instead of under my feet. I can feel myself distinctly not accelerating towards the orange portal. Why would I feel accelerated the moment it touches me?

It also seems like this would be an instantaneous acceleration if crossing the moving portal imparts all of its velocity to me. Wouldn't I explode from the infinite force? Is the answer actually that the cube becomes a black hole?

[Anonymous No.14509812]

>>14507257
So it's still limited to c. Where does the rest of the velocity that the portal adds go?

[Anonymous No.14509815]

>>14506758
>Comes from therefore velocity
If you can't adapt your feeble mind to a world with discontinuous spacetimes having locations far apart that are actually connected then I can't help you.

[Anonymous No.14509856]

>>14502850
99% chance of working like this

[Anonymous No.14509861]

>>14503837
>The games do have instances of this situation coded in and they decided it was A
As evidenced in the exciting climax where you shoot a portal onto the Moon and are launched out the other side at 2000 mph and die in the vacuum of space…

Oh wait, no, that’s not what happened at all.

[Anonymous No.14509894]

>>14509403
if you held onto something in the orange portal, then yes the blue portal could take you for a ride, its not going to hold you magically in the center though

[Anonymous No.14509911]

B.

Any apparent violations of momentum conservation involving portals are a consequence of fictitious forces as an object traverses the non-inertial spacetime surrounding and bridging the apertures.

[Anonymous No.14509960]

Assuming both cube and blue portal falling at the same velocity and acceleration.

[Anonymous No.14509996]

For only those who answered B what do you think about it?
>It's clearly A for me.

[Anonymous No.14510026]

>>14509996

[Anonymous No.14510266]

yall are some retarded motherfuckers that haven't even played the game

[Anonymous No.14510303]

>>14509809
There is no acceleration. From the frame of reference of the cube the entire universe on the other side of the portal is moving.

[Anonymous No.14510312]

>>14509996
Fix you diagram, nobody has any idea what you are trying to show.

[Anonymous No.14510327]

>>14502850
> B, where the cube stays still and both portals are moving

[Anonymous No.14510593]

>>14502850
It's not a matter of which is likely, it's a matter of which one was implemented. B is a wormhole. A is a teleporter.

[Anonymous No.14510980]

>>14502858
>pot has no inertia
>pot gains inertia
If this were true, it would also stretch itself based on the force the portal was applying, which seems infinite, so in reality this would deform the pot or it would fall over without gaining inertia.

[Anonymous No.14511039]

>>14510980
It only gains inertia from the point of an outside observer. From the pots point of view it never moves anywhere, and it is instead the entire universe which is moving on the blue side.

[Anonymous No.14511064]

>>14507485
The fact of the matter is that the 'stuff' being 'made' on the exit portal has to get pushed out of the way to make space for the rest of the 'stuff' entering, that means it's moving as fast as it enters—and things in motion tend to stay in motion. It's literally that simple.

[Anonymous No.14511128]

>>14502858
Impossible dude, do it slowly, stop the portal when it's halfway through the object. Is the top half flying off?

It's literally that simple.

[Anonymous No.14511204]

>>14509544
Same question as >>14509403
In one outcome the portal drags the object up, in the other it doesn't, how does it decide?

[Anonymous No.14511214]

>>14502850
Bonus Question

[Anonymous No.14511229]

>>14511128
Remember objects are really collections of separate atoms. If a portal stops with the object half way through what you really have is half of the atoms of the object with momentum and the other half stationary. What happens next is defined by normal physics, the moving half pulls through the stationary half, or the object might get ripped in half depending on various factors.

[Anonymous No.14511293]

if it’s B, then Bfags should have no issues with this

[Anonymous No.14511329]

>>14511293
Aside from the fact that I'd slam into the wall and that the room would be too hot to live in.
Not really.

[Anonymous No.14511664]

>>14503982
The cube wont plop. If someone tosses a bowling ball in the air and you run into it with your truck going 50 mph, it's gonna be the exact same as throwing a bowling ball at 50mph at your truck windshield. In both scenarios the momentum doesn't just dissapear. The energy has to go somewhere.

[Anonymous No.14511861]

>>14509960
So far everyone in this thread is not taking into account the transfer of momentum to the surface the portal is on. It would make sense if the column the portal was on pushed back the opposite direction as the cube via some sort of normal force. The orange portal would do the same thing, which would make this picture easy to answer. The heavier of the cube or the blue platform would keep moving.

[Anonymous No.14511912]

>>14511861
Having each portal locally conserve momentum by taking on the momentum of any object that it consumes is an interesting idea.

[Anonymous No.14512268]

>>14502850
I don't believe there's any way for conservation of momentum make sense upon introducing moving portals.
Unless the portals are literally wormholes connecting two whole universes. Where each universe in its entirety, is moving with one portal. In which case, one universe will see the cube gain momentum (ie: blue-portal universe) and the other will see it loose equal momentum(ie: orange-portal universe).

[Anonymous No.14512581]

>>14511128
>Doesn't understand high-school physics, baka.

>>14511229
>Understands high-school physics, nodding.

[Anonymous No.14513202]

>>14503975
the blue portal frame of reference is wrong

[Anonymous No.14513765]

>>14503982
This proves its B.

[Anonymous No.14513774]

>>14502855
The portal itself is moving, just like you would pass a circle like object over a ball or a cube and what not.

Assume the portal doesn't change momentum for the inner passing object

[Anonymous No.14514967]

>>14502858
spbp

[Anonymous No.14514996]

>>14504095
>I think there should be a C option where it is ripped apart or crushed at a molecular level.
That's just A if they would bother to think through the implications

[Anonymous No.14515025]

>>14509809
>Why would I feel accelerated the moment it touches me?
The answer is you wouldn't. You'd feel deceleration after moving through the portal, though. As if you had been in motion all along.