/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15563221]

You have to be pretty retarded to think the answer here is B, yet it seems to be really popular, even among physicists. Why is that?

The pic obvioisly shows us that the piston with the orange portal stops after the cube is through, otherwise it would come out right after it.
That means it decelerates and ensures the frame is non-inertial, and the observer of the blue portal sees both the platform and the cube stopping. If the momentum argument would hold, it would mean that if the piston stops just before the cube, the orange portal would have to suck it up and shoot it through the blue one, too. That's absurd, while answer A is perfectly in line with GR.

[Anonymous No.15563226]

>>15563221
You have to be pretty retarded to think you can use spoilers on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.15563236]

>>15563221
Well ofc its A, do people think its B ?? lol

[Anonymous No.15563237]

its b sorry chud

[Anonymous No.15563238]

>>15563226
Well, doesn't matter anyway. /sci/entists better explain why they're too stupid to realize the obvious answer

[Anonymous No.15563303]

>>15563221
Every thread on /sci/ starts with a wrong answer to elicit discussion. Thus, it's obvious you don't even believe that it's A.

[Anonymous No.15563450]

I mean I don't need chud analysis. The answers A because I'm not a troon drooling atheist

[Anonymous No.15563465]

It’s an impossible scenario. You have to make up imaginary physics to solve it. You could make up physics that make the answer both A or B. This entire thread is going to be retards arguing why their made up physics are better than another retards made of physics. This is a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.15563492]

>>15563221
Basic geometry requires it to be B. This is especially obvious when you start playing with the problem. Consider replacing the cube with a several mile long rod. "A" would have several miles of rod stop dead for seemingly no reason because something somewhere else happened.

[Anonymous No.15563504]

>>15563465
Not all imaginary physics are equal. B supplements physics in a logically reasonable way, where the influence of the portal is limited to the portal boundary. "A" completely destroys reality everywhere by having having matter that is moving but somehow not moving, and stops randomly because something somewhere else happens. A is logically absurd.

[Anonymous No.15563897]

>>15563303
I gave an explanation, go ahead and refute it.
>>15563465
A wormhole is theoretically possible physics. Of course the portals as they work make all sorts of nonsense possible, eg perpetual motion machines, but they still have a logic to them.
>>15563492
>>15563504
The cube or rod stops because the portal piston sharply decelerates, and just like with the elevator example in GR, this deceleration could as well be a gravity field that swallows up the object's momentum.
Imagine the piston would stop in the middle of the cube, by the B logic the cube would have to be ripped in two. B is the absurd one.

[Anonymous No.15564033]

>>15563897
>I gave an explanation
Yes, a self-evidently retarded one.
>Imagine the piston would stop in the middle of the cube, by the B logic the cube would have to be ripped in two. B is the absurd one.
A logical answer you refuse to accept is not therefore absurd. Anyway, there is such a thing as tensile strength, you know? I think a lot of Afags fundamentally can't think of objects as composite atomic structures.

[Anonymous No.15564037]

It's B because every molecule in the cube passes the portal *with* momentum and thus will still have the momentum when the piston stops.

[Anonymous No.15564049]

>>15563221
It's neither because portals like this don't fucking exist.

[Anonymous No.15564053]

>>15563221
1. In a scenario without portals, where the platform holding the cube was moving upwards and then came to a sudden stop, what happens to the cube?

2. In a scenario like the original problem, except that the piston doesn't stop but continues down over the platform (let's assume the platform is small enough to fit through the portal). Does the platform move coming out of the other ("blue") side?

These questions have wrong and right answers, and when answered correctly, will also lead you to the correct answer with regard to the original problem.

[Anonymous No.15564056]

>>15563236
it conserves velocity

[Anonymous No.15564069]

>>15564033
>Yes, a self-evidently retarded one.
Should be easy to refute in a few lines then.
>tensile strength
Very good, you're starting to understand how inertia would work here. What would make the lower half of the cube stop and pull the upper half? Same thing as for the whole cube, deceleration(=curvature).
What if the cube is cut into two parts and the portal stops at half, then what, from the blue-portal perspective, is the reason for the lower half just stopping its motion while the upper one flies out? After all you see the whole body coming towards you.

[Anonymous No.15564080]

>>15564069
>Should be easy to refute in a few lines then.
It is. But the deeper I let you dig your hole the funnier it is, so
>what, from the blue-portal perspective, is the reason for the lower half just stopping its motion
Because from that perspective it is literally being stopped.
>you see the whole body coming towards you.
There's two bodies in this scenario. You explicitly just cut it in two parts. Can't even keep track of your own bullshit?

[Anonymous No.15564088]

>>15563221
It tumbles out. The velocity of the orange portal determines rate at which matter exits the blue one. There is no force behind the box to propel it forward, so only gravity affects it. As the box moves through, two gravitational vectors act on it for a brief moment, then it tumbles a few inches away from blue.

[Anonymous No.15564090]

>>15564069
One half is through the portal while the other half is stuck to the table that you can clearly see.

[Anonymous No.15564091]

>>15564053
1. Of course the cube flies on by inertia, but we DO have a scenario with portals, that is non-locality. The only way to make it somewhat consistent is to assume that deceleration of a moving portal is equivalent to deceleration of any body going throug it. Otherwise you can create arbitrary momentum out of nothing. Get a 1000kg cube and slap a light glass plate with a portal on it as fast as you can, congrats, you broke the universe.

2. Here too it would of course fly on, but notice that the orange portal does not just *suddenly* stop, it's a very quick but still continuous process during which you have the last layers of the cube going through. Those exert the force to stop it.

[Anonymous No.15564092]

>>15564091
It's a videogame.

[Anonymous No.15564095]

>>15564088
>The velocity of the orange portal determines rate at which matter exits the blue one
>It's another "how can I say speed without saying speed" episode

[Anonymous No.15564097]

>>15564080
>it is literally being stopped.
Pray tell, by what force? It's just as disconnected from the platform from that perspective.
>There's two bodies in this scenario.
Yes, are you too retarded to understand the point? Why does one body keep its momentum while the other doesn't?

[Anonymous No.15564098]

>>15564091
>Otherwise you can create arbitrary momentum out of nothing.
Yes. That's portals for ya.

So, to recap, a moving platform that suddenly stops would catapult the cube, and a platform that could fit through the portal would be moving as it comes out the blue portal? We agree about these things?

[Anonymous No.15564134]

>>15564098
The whole point is that you can have a logic of portals that is physically coherent and avoids momentum from nothing, by considering the effects of curvature (gravity/acceleration). That logic leads to answer A.

Yes, we agree on those things as ypu state them. I adressed the implications already.

[Anonymous No.15564144]

>>15564134
>The whole point is that you can have a logic of portals that is physically coherent and avoids momentum from nothing, by considering the effects of curvature (gravity/acceleration)
I don't think you've made that point at all, nor is it true.
>Yes, we agree on those things as ypu state them.
Then, necessarily, B follows, regardless of whatever red herrings and poorly thought out excuses for logic you introduce. You get ahead of yourself. Just follow along with the logic.

[Anonymous No.15564145]

>>15564056
It literally stands still
After all it doesn't wind from the other portal but the air just get displaced

[Anonymous No.15564152]

>>15564145
That's begging the question. Poorly, too, for what is wind?

[Anonymous No.15564157]

>>15564152
Imagine butterfly net without the net
Thats your portals

[Anonymous No.15564176]

>>15564157
Indeed. So, B?

[Anonymous No.15564179]

>>15564144
No, B does not follow at all, and I adressed that here >>15564091

Imagine the sort of uniformly moving spaceship usually used to illustrate the equivalence principle. Now if the ship is pulled back by some rope outside, a cube resting within will continue moving. But if the rope is connected to the cube through a hole, it will experience tidal forces and not move.
We have something similar here. If the platform comes out with the cube, then stops, it will experience a tidal force but not the cube. But in the experiment the portal stops on the last few layers of the cube's body, so the rest of it will experience tidal force.

Overall my guess would be that any accelerating wormhole opening would cause a gravity-like force through the other opening, which would ensure conservation of energy and momentum.

[Anonymous No.15564181]

>>15564179
>and I adressed that here
You're introducing red herrings here instead of just answering questions straightly.

Simple yes or no.
First question, would the cube get catapulted, yes or no?
Second question, does the platform move, yes or no?

[Anonymous No.15564185]

>>15564181
Why don't you read my post? I explained how answering yes to both questions does not lead to B.
Why don't you point out the "red herrings"? You seem to have trouble with anything past undergrad Newtonian mechanics, you could actually learn something here.

[Anonymous No.15564196]

>>15564185
Answer the damn questions. Why do you avoid answering the questions? Why do you attempt to jump into wormholes when you don't even have a firm grasp of the basics?

[Anonymous No.15564227]

>>15564196
I said yes to both here >>15564091
Are you brain-damaged? Please practice reading a bit, physics can get really really hard for someone who can't even follow a simple basketweaving thread.

[Anonymous No.15564228]

>>15564097
>Pray tell, by what force?
Same force that moved it in the first place.
>Why does one body keep its momentum while the other doesn't?
Because one is being stopped.

[Anonymous No.15564260]

>>15564227
>I said yes to both here
Okay, good, I'm going to ignore everything else for now and take your answer as two uncomplicated yeses.

Then, if we know that a moving platform would catapult a cube if it suddenly stopped, and we know that the platform is moving on the blue side of the portal, it follows then that the platform suddenly being stopped would also catapult the cube. Now, we're not interested in how much force would be necessary to accelerate the platform, or where it would have to come from. We're not interested in how sudden "sudden" really is. We're definitely not interested in idle speculation about how wormholes work, because portals aren't wormholes. Fact is, if the orange portal stops moving, the platform would stop moving on the other side, and the cube would maintain its inertia and be catapulted (the platform itself would be subject to similar forces, in fact, but it's attached to a beam). Those are the facts that we would both have to agree on if you answered yes to the previous questions. There is no other conclusion possible. Everything else you add is just obfuscation that fails to refute this inescapable fact.

Now you say that "the last layers of the cube exert the force to stop it". Why? Why would that ever happen? You assume gradual deceleration but the portal is blatantly just slamming down onto the platform. You also seem to assume that inertia on some tiny part of the cube that hasn't gone through yet can somehow override the inertia of the vast majority of the cube.

[Anonymous No.15564351]

>>15564260
Yeah, you think I haven't understood the midwit explanation? The whole point is that we don't just ignore and "aren't interested in" pesky details, they're the key turn a physically absurd situation into a somewhat physically coherent one.

The "slamming down" is still a deceleration, during which the piston transfers its momentum to the platform. That means no part of the platform is coming through.
But the observer at the blue portal sees the platform stopping of itself. There must be a force that does that, which is equivalent to a sudden gravitational pull. You bring up gradual deceleration, by your logic it would change the nature of the problem if we allow a bit more time for decel, or attach springs to the piston or whatever.
It's also irrelevant whether it's a "tiny part" or a good chunk of the cube that's left behind the portal, the decel applies to it and causes tidal forces which might well break the cube apart, but the cubes are for all we know unbreakable.

[Anonymous No.15564366]

>>15564351
>Yeah, you think I haven't understood the midwit explanation?
I do, yes. In general, you don't appear to be as smart as you think yourself to be and you're just namedropping concepts that are irrelevant to the problem in an attempt to appear smarter. It serves the same function as technobabble in Star Trek and is about as enlightening.
>But the observer at the blue portal sees the platform stopping of itself. There must be a force that does that, which is equivalent to a sudden gravitational pull.
There is absolutely zero reason for any of this to affect the cube. You're just imagining extra forces for no reason.
>It's also irrelevant whether it's a "tiny part" or a good chunk of the cube that's left behind the portal, the decel applies to it and causes tidal forces which might well break the cube apart
Consider that no part of the cube is left behind under normal circumstances. It is fully through at the moment the piston hits the platform. But if the piston stop prematurely for some reason: yes. This would probably cause the cube to shoot out slightly less far, depending on the rate of deceleration and its position relative to the portal. Not necessarily stop.

[Anonymous No.15564369]

You are responding to a bot.

[Anonymous No.15564387]

>>15564351
>dude wtf the catapult's arm just stopped of itself, why didn't the sudden gravitational pull generated by this stop the payload, some of it was still in the bucket even

[Anonymous No.15564391]

>>15564366
>There is absolutely zero reason for any of this to affect the cube. You're just imagining extra forces for no reason.
The reason is to have an explanation that ensures conservation laws.
What force, for the blue-portal observer, stops the movement of the platform? What force decreases the cube's speed, if, as you admit, it shoots less far when the piston stops gradually? If the piston stops in the middle, the orange portal will actually suck the cube up, by your argument. Pretty weird and unphysical.

[Anonymous No.15564400]

>>15564391
>The reason is to have an explanation
Right, so instead of considering the bare facts of the situation, you just say "hey wouldn't it be neat of portals worked like this to get result A?"
>What force, for the blue-portal observer, stops the movement of the platform?
Like I already said, same force that's causing all the motion in this scenario in the first place.
>What force decreases the cube's speed, if, as you admit, it shoots less far when the piston stops gradually?
Still the same.
>If the piston stops in the middle, the orange portal will actually suck the cube up, by your argument.
"Sucking it up" is not really an accurate characterisation, but I suppose it would look similar.
>Pretty weird and unphysical.
It's entirely because of physics. That you think it's weird doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.15564408]

>>15564145
Velocity and momentum are relative you drooling retard.

[Anonymous No.15564421]

>>15564400
>you just say "hey wouldn't it be neat of portals worked like this to get result A?"
No, I say "that's how portals would have to work to be consistent with physics." I'm not obsessed with getting result A, it's just that all the B-arguments are blatantly incoherent.
>same force that's causing all the motion in this scenario in the first place.
That's very convenient. You know, all motion on earth is caused by the same initial force, why even look at how any machine works if the explanation is so simple? Why can't you just point out the precise action and reaction?
>"Sucking it up" is not really an accurate characterisation, but I suppose it would look similar.
Why not? If I stand next to the cube and the portal stops right under my neck, I supposedly will be fully pulled up. Which force causes that?

[Anonymous No.15564422]

>>15563221
When I put a straw in my sodie it doesn't go flying out of the straw, it's A

[Anonymous No.15564428]

>>15564421
>that's how portals would have to work to be consistent with physics.
Portals already aren't consistent with physics. You can make a perpetual motion machine in the game.
>it's just that all the B-arguments are blatantly incoherent.
The argument for B hinges on the purest of logic. Cause and effect. Action and reaction. It's entirely coherent and self-sufficient.
>Why can't you just point out the precise action and reaction?
We can observe the cube coming out of the portal. You say this requires force. We therefore have to postulate some force. What force it is isn't particularly relevant. Only that its existence is a necessary requirement for portals to even exist.
>If I stand next to the cube and the portal stops right under my neck, I supposedly will be fully pulled up.
I doubt that, really.

[Anonymous No.15564454]

>>15564422
Your straw isn't a portal, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15564465]

>>15564428
>Portals already aren't consistent with physics. You can make a perpetual motion machine in the game.
Well good thing I made a thread on /sci/ and not /v/. I'm interested in how it might work in reality. How it works in game depends on arbitrary coding decisions that can disregard physics.

Let's do a different thought experiment. Say I have a sheet of cardboard and put portals on both sides. Then I take the heaviest kettlebell I can find and slam the cardboard down on it as fast as I can.
By your logic it should shoot straight up. But it also should remain still since the portals just form a hole. Smells like a contradiction, and only answer A avoids it.

[Anonymous No.15564468]

>>15564465
There is no contradiction because in fact nothing about B suggests that it should shoot up in that scenario. See, I knew you didn't get the alleged "midwit explanation".

A is inherently contradictory because it says the cube has no motion and yet it comes out of the hole.

[Anonymous No.15564485]

>>15564422
>>15564465
>Hula hoop argument

[Anonymous No.15564489]

>>15564485
It's a bot.

[Anonymous No.15564518]

>>15564428
You can't make a perpetual motion machine in the game, as there is nothing really there other than a visual simulation of the effects of reality for the facilitation of simulating an experience where you are an athletic woman with a super high tech portal gun, or a robot in the second game

[Anonymous No.15564527]

>>15564518
That's a very convoluted way of saying "portals aren't real"

[Anonymous No.15564642]

>>15564421
>B-arguments are blatantly incoherent.
B is fully coherent and very simple. The laws of physics apply as normal everywhere except the portal boundary. So if you see a bunch of atoms moving, then they really are moving. The atoms which make up the cube emerge from the blue portal and these atoms are moving through normal space, not inside the portal, so they obey normal conservation of momentum and continue to move regardless of what the portal does.

In the case of the portal stopping with the cube halfway through, the atoms that make up the cube on each side retain whatever momentum they appear to have. The cube violently tries to pull itself apart at the portal boundary.

[Anonymous No.15564902]

>>15564408
>Velocity and momentum
And the cube doesn't have any velocity or momentum

[Anonymous No.15565348]

>>15563897
it's B, but the acceleration would be infinitely fast. You'd probably never be able to insert the cube into the portal in the first place as consequence.

Either that or the world would explode.

[Anonymous No.15565361]

>>15564351
>t. states perpetual motion can't exist as the reason why a specific perpetual motion machine wont work instead of pointing out the flaw in the design

[Anonymous No.15565362]

>>15565348
That's silly.

[Anonymous No.15565363]

>>15563221
It's neither because you can't put a portal on a moving surface.

[Anonymous No.15565364]

>>15563221
>You have to be pretty retarded to think the answer here is B, yet it seems to be really popular, even among physicists. Why is that?
Imagine it's two cubes stacked instead of one. The first one would obviously come flying out because it's being pushed by the second one and once it's out there's no reason it would stop just because the portal does. This works with any number of cubes. If you imagine then that the cubes are stuck together, B would result since the first N cubes would tug on the last one even if you imagine it to behave as A.

[Anonymous No.15565389]

>>15565348
There is no acceleration. From the cubes perspective, the entire universe on the other side of the portal moves towards it.

[Anonymous No.15565397]

>>15565389
the cube looks around. it sees the universe standing still. then it looks up, HOLY SHIT THERES A BIT OF THE UNIVERSE FLYING RIGHT AT ME!!!!. As the plane of the portal passes through the cube, its accelerated instantly to whatever speed. Everything past the plane is moving at X speed. Finally the whole cube has passed through plane and the whole cube carries on moving relative to the universe.

A is stupid!!!

[Anonymous No.15565434]

>>15564056
Energy is conserved. The block was stationary and has no kinetic energy l.

[Anonymous No.15565448]

>>15563897
>Imagine the piston would stop in the middle of the cube, by the B logic the cube would have to be ripped in two

False. In this scenario the cube would be pulled through the portal by the momentum of its moving half. Unless gravity is greater. Either way, it doesn't require anything be ripped in half,

[Anonymous No.15565508]

>>15563897
>by the B logic the cube would have to be ripped in two
Yes, stop thinking about cubes as objects and instead think about atoms. Half of the cubes atoms have emerged from the blue portal and are moving through normal space. The other half of the cubes atoms are stationary on the plinth. When the portal stops, at that instant of time, you basically have a bunch of atoms that are moving connected to a bunch of stationary atoms.

B is very simple, magic happens at the portal boundary, physics applies everywhere else. Since the atoms that make up the cube are not anywhere near the portal boundary, they behave as per normal physics. If they look like they are moving, they really are moving.

[Anonymous No.15565517]

>>15563221
>>15563221
>>15563236
Here's an argument for B. Let's say that the portal moves towards the cube at an extremely high speed. The top of the cube goes through first, and then the bottom. The time between the top and bottom is 0.00001 second (made up). The cube goes from the top going through to the bottom going through (in other words, it goes the length of the cube) in 0.00001 seconds. Say that the cube is 1 ft tall; It is therefore going at 1000000 feet a second. That velocity can't just disappear. The movement of the portal is turned into the movement of the cube, because it moves the cube.

[Anonymous No.15565523]

>>15565517
>>15565508
>>15564037
O shid sorry didn't realize someone already made this argument

[Anonymous No.15565540]

>>15565517
All bullshit. There is no implication that the velocity of the input portal has any effect on the momentum of the instantiated particle. Picture a doorway flying at you that can transport you to a place where gravity is perpendicular to Earth's. You pass through the door and the parts of you in world #2 feel gravity. The door's boundaries move past you like butter. Stupid fuck.

[Anonymous No.15565546]

>>15565540
>be me
>have 100000 meter long metal tube
>have moving portal
>portal is moved and starts swallowing tube
>portal moves at 1 meter per second
>on other side of portal, 1 meter of tube appears per second
>portal starts moving at 500 meters per second
>on other side of portal 500 meters of tube appear every second

[Anonymous No.15566153]

>>15565540
>There is no implication that the velocity of the input portal has any effect on the momentum of the instantiated particle.
The implication is the following, genius: if it doesn't, then where the fuck does the "instantiated particle" go? It goes in one end; necessarily, it has to come out the other end immediately. If it doesn't, then you wouldn't see A, you would see the cube collapsing into an atom-thick pancake at the portal threshhold because none of its particles have the necessaryt momentum to move beyond it.

[Anonymous No.15566173]

Still voting trump

[Anonymous No.15566179]

>>15566173
Really showed those Bfags

[Anonymous No.15566636]

>>15565434
it's a fucking portal, it breaks physics, that's why a cube can fall indefinitely. if you can enter a portal, the potential energy is indefinite. if the portal is now moving, the kinetic energy is now fucked.
frame the problem correctly to the portals, and you see one thing moving though something stationery on both sides. That momentum keeps on going after the cube exits the portal.

it boggles my mind how anyone can actually say A is true "because physics"

[Anonymous No.15566715]

There is not portal boundary. The portal is a wormhole that connects space in on itself. So there is no acceleration of anything.

[Anonymous No.15567225]

>>15566153
>where the fuck does the particle go
It appears in the new space.

>It has to come out the other end immediately
No shit Sherlock. The portal itself is just a window with a barrier between two environments.

>blah blah blah momentum nonsense
It doesn't need momentum to leave the portal. The portal itself has momentum.

[Anonymous No.15567235]

The block has to come out of the portal at the same velocity it goes in

[Anonymous No.15567318]

>>15567225
>It doesn't need momentum to leave the portal. The portal itself has momentum.
But that's wrong, dingus. Motion is relative.

[Anonymous No.15567321]

>>15566715
Indeed, the cube does not "accelerate" in the traditional sense so much as it simply keeps moving in the transition from a frame of reference in which it was stationary to one in which it was already moving.

[Anonymous No.15567418]

>>15567318
Momentum doesn't just appear out of nowhere you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.15567435]

>>15563221
It's B. And you clearly didn't play the Portal games.

[Anonymous No.15567439]

>>15567435
Bullshit n***er. If a portal came at you you'd fall out the other side.

[Anonymous No.15567452]

>>15567418
Indeed. It appears from the relative motion.
>B-b-but what foooooooooorce
I'll leave that to the developers of Portal. All that matters to us is that we can deduce its existence from the functionality of portals. Without such a force, nothing would be able to pass it (but then, what force would prevent it? You'd have a paradox on your hands)

[Anonymous No.15567907]

>15567439
>be me
>have 100000 meter long metal tube
>have moving portal
>portal is moved and starts swallowing tube
>>portal moves at 1 meter per second
>>on other side of portal, 1 meter of tube appears per second
>because one meter is appearing per second, the tip of the tube moves forward at a rate of 1 meter per second
>portal starts moving at 500 meters per second
>on other side of portal 500 meters of tube appear every second
>because of this, the tip of the tube moves at 500 meters per second
>the velocity is higher than at 1 meter per second
>the velocity of the end of the tube is therefore dependent on the velocity of the moving portal

[Anonymous No.15568245]

test

[Anonymous No.15568601]

>>15563221
Portals do not exist, therefore this is a fruitless effort to even think about this absolutely hypothetical scenario.
Literally plebbit tier pseudo-soience circlejerk about non-provable and non-disprovable imaginary phatasies.

[Anonymous No.15569107]

>>15568601

[Anonymous No.15569152]

>>15563221
You fucking monkey, i'm gonna explain this so good my left nut could get it. Imagine you have two portals normally on a wall and youre just pushing the cube with your hands back and forth, once the cube starts going through the portal something has to keep pushing it, a force, the cube is a solid object and the force travels from your body and arms through the cube. Thats why the whole cube moves even if youre just holding on two points. So, speedy thing comes in, speedy thing comes out. Now imagine the scenario in your pic, the orange portal is traveling towards the cube at velocity V. Now divide the cube into infinitely many small slices, because of velocity V, in time T, N number of slices pass through, now because of the same forces i talked about before, the cube must exit the portal in the same way, the same number of slices per unit of time, that is exactly what velocity is, therefore the cube must exit at velocity V

[Anonymous No.15569199]

The fact is, once portals start moving independently of each other, nothing can be said to be stationary relative to anything any more.

Consider the following. Suppose there is a cube 100m away from me. But I am also standing 1m away from a blue portal, and there is an orange portal 50m away from the cube. Therefore, the cube is simultaneously 100m from me, and 51m from me. If the orange portal begins to move towards the cube, the cube is, simultaneously, 100m from me, and also 50, 49, 48, etc. This distance is real any way you measure it. So we have a change in distance over time. Even if I don't move, and the cube doesn't move, the cube is moving relative to me. And even if you pick out some central coordinate at the centre of the universe by which to objectively measure all movement that exists, the cube will even be moving relative to that. It even moves relative to itself.

[Anonymous No.15569864]

>>15568601
The laws of logic apply to fictional worlds. Portal don't need to exist for one to argue over what is logically workable.

[Anonymous No.15569872]

>>15569199
Treating them both as the same cube is a bad mental model.

[Anonymous No.15569885]

>>15569872
Then, sure, you can treat it instead as a stationary cube disappearing out of the universe, and a moving cube being flung into the universe at the same time.

[Anonymous No.15569995]

>>15563221
It would be A. If the normal portal works like this: being an individual and putting a leg in orange what sticks out of blue than it means that there is no distance being traveled.

Imagine a cumcumber putting in untill half its lenght and not traveling but immediately sticking out of blue for 15cm (meaning the cumcumb is 30cm) than there is no traveling present but just mirroring which means even slamming at the speed of sound it means it "mirrors" at the speed of sound which results in A. If you'd throw the cumcummer at the speed of sound it travels fast and the proces of 'mirroring' from A. to B. causes the cumcumber (thrown at the speed of sound) being not only mirrored but also still having the kinetic energy from throwing but besides. I dont know the logics and physics of the shitty movie and never seen anyone throwing a tenisball in those portals so you cant be sure of course.

[Anonymous No.15570012]

>>15569152
No you absolute primate.
>>15569995
Here see. Two times the speed of light in reverse directions is "0". And the mirroring two portals dont cause the cube to travel with a velocity. It only causes the cube being translated from orange to blue faster which only means in this case that it falls out faster at "plop" speed. If you'd throw it at some speed than it a) mirrors at some higher speed but at the same time (b adding the velocity of throwing. Than it would fly but again, there ia not even a physical theory we have in this world cause its all fictional anyways.

[Anonymous No.15570064]

>>15569995
Bro, even if the orange portal comes with the speed of sound it mirrors with the speed of light but at the same time 'reproduces' (from the blue portal) with the speed of sound. Feel me bro? It reprocuces at the speed of light out of blue but the process of mirroring gpes with the speed ofsound. Imagine a one meter long cumcuber. From half of the cumcumber to the end goes with the speed of sound but the molecules of the cumcumber between yellow and blue go with the speed of light.

[Anonymous No.15570073]

>>15570064
From half the cumcumber to end of the cumcumber goes with the speed of sound so it mirrors with the speed of sound without extra kinetic energy from the scenario of throwing an object towards portal orange. The reproduction is at the speed of light because if you stick half an arm in it you see the other half being sticked out at the speed of light, like a mirror. This entire theory of course falls if you stick an arm in it and have to wait half a day before it travels out of the blue portal. To be sure you must place two nano light particle measurement tools at both portals and see how long it travels. If its both equally at the speed of lightnit means it travels two opposite directions, just like with a mirror, and it would plop out any time unless you throw it which ads an kinetic energy of throwing.

[Anonymous No.15570084]

>>15570073
Allright, my brain is literally damaged, thanks

[Anonymous No.15570095]

>>15563221
it’s more likely B. For A, you have to do everything in B as well as making the cube stop suddenly.

[Anonymous No.15570113]

>>15570095
No, just slow it down a bit, than it makes sense. If a person stands still and orange comes from above, slowly, he will not suddenly jump up out of blue.

[Anonymous No.15570114]

>>15570113
If the orange now comes with an higher speed he still will not jump out of blue

[Anonymous No.15570125]

>>15563221
Can't somebody just mod the game and conduct this experiment to figure out the answer?

[Anonymous No.15570202]

>>15570125
What the actual game does is not relevant. The game is not a physics simulator, it does not even have a concept of atoms.

[Anonymous No.15570262]

>>15570113
>>15570114
put yourself in the viewpoint of that person, your head comes out of the blue portal, sideways.
the world is moving around you, yet, somehow, because of convoluted logic, you feel no change in momentum. The entire world is on a different axis, and you'd feel nothing, you couldnt jump out, because...?


now, put the blue portal on a flat floor, now gravity wont flop you out and is inconsequential.
if you totally can't gain momentum by passing though a moving portal, then there's nothing stopping the orange portal from repeatedly slamming on top of you.
what do you see on the other side then? your body, physically, is being jolted in and out the blue portal, but you're still standing on the platform for the orange. would you get sick? would it be like in VR motion sickness? Where the world moves around, but you just feel the uniform acceleration of gravity?

the portal is moving over you, therefore you are moving on the other side (unless they're both exactly the same speed/mirror orientation). you can see yourself moving, you should be able to feel it (more than just the change in angle like the *flop* suggests) and fly out.

[Anonymous No.15570383]

makes it a lot easier to comprehend why A works
sholda used gemmys/coal or whatever to bait people

[Anonymous No.15570548]

>>15570012
>it falls out faster at "plop" speed

Finally someone here gets it.

[Jealous No.15570550]

What happens if you put stoppers next to the cube so the portal can only fall halfway down the height of the cube? Does the cube get sucked through? Does start to lean to the side?

[Anonymous No.15570556]

>>15570550
The entire time that portal is open, in the example, there is a perpendicular gravitation pull "coming out" of it. One the input portal moves far enough down the box, the exit portal's gravitational environment will pull it down.

What I want to know is what happens if it bumps up against the edge of the portal? Can I put my fingers there?

[Anonymous No.15570606]

>>15570383
How do the atoms that make up his head know or care that the portal has stopped? This is something that nobody from the A group has ever explained? How is matter which is nowhere near the portal, still connected to the portal?

In regards to B. If the portal was moving fast enough, then stopping would shear the person in half at the boundary.

[Anonymous No.15570614]

>>15563221
>If the momentum argument would hold, it would mean that if the piston stops just before the cube, the orange portal would have to suck it up and shoot it through the blue one, too.
It would only suck it up if it decelerated while part of the cube is through already.

[Anonymous No.15570640]

>>15564421
>Which force causes that?
Tensile force of the materials the cube is made up of.

[Anonymous No.15570646]

>>15570606
Under the supreme, universal reference logic of A, C happens. Else you have a moving object with 0 momentum.

[Anonymous No.15570727]

>>15569995
>>15570012
This is complete gibberish

[Anonymous No.15570731]

>>15570383
C is really A if Afags were honest/capable of following their reasoning to its logical consequence

[Anonymous No.15570753]

so this image is not quite fitting because the wormholes are separated, but if you imagine the sheet glued together at the holes it seems like a good representation of portals in 2d space. That makes the whole idea of 'one portal moving and one stationary' rather weird because you can't think of them as separate objects. You might have something like 'space closer to the orange portal compresses, space closer to the blue one expands', but that would just mean the portals move differently seen from different positions on the connecting line, and are both stationary at the halfway point. Also, if you were an ant on that line, would you actually go through the 'moving' portal or just come arbitrarily close to it? Seems like something would need to give you momentum to go through.

[Anonymous No.15571001]

>>15570731
glad the point got across, I gave up on that one since I didnt know the best way to distort the head to look like a 2-dimensional film of clueless guts.

[Anonymous No.15571103]

>>15570753
what happens in a situation like this? space becomes zero, nothing to expand or contract to/from.
which model supports this sort of situation?

[Anonymous No.15571106]

>>15563221
in theory portal employ both pulling and pushing forces a 2 conflicting vector field.
assuming the cube base is inside the active portal surface it should be pushed and pulled at the same time the force should exponentially inflect till the object is ripped apart, so it should jump but not as B showed, it will jump fall and repeat the process till it completely remove from the portal

[Anonymous No.15571111]

>>15563221
ITT: retards get trolled by other retards. The answer is B, for reasons that are obvious.

[Anonymous No.15571128]

>>15571103
You crush yourself powered by the force pushing the portals together

[Anonymous No.15571130]

>>15571111
Yeah, state trolls but actually refer to yourself. That'll throw them off

[Anonymous No.15571152]

>>15571128
are you pushing against, yourself? what force is being applied to you to be crushed?

[Anonymous No.15571155]

>>15571152
furthermore, does the portal panel encounter resistance to something inside it being crushed?

[Anonymous No.15571158]

>>15571152
The force pushing on the walls. It is the same as a trash compactor, just that you are on both sides pushing in on yourself. If you were stronger than the force pushing the walls in the yes, you could hold your arms out, touch your left hand to your right hand and push the walls to stop, or even further outward if you can extend your arms

[Anonymous No.15571163]

>>15571155
The wall will, yes. I assume the portal is a flat 2D mapping of space that won't break upon force and thus is irrelevant to most questioning like that. But yes, if the portal could only take a certain force before breaking, that may be relevant. Then the portal would break (perhaps severing limbs or ody sticking through) and back to the exact same analysis on the force pushing the walls crushing the individual inside...

[Anonymous No.15571237]

>>15571103
seems like in the 2d model, the space sheet in between would contract until you come to the boundary of both portals and literally be pressed into your own asshole

[Anonymous No.15571359]

>>15563221
We’ve been over this. B is the only scenario that lets you have even remotely consistent physics.

[Anonymous No.15571363]

>>15571155
The default answer is no. But I think it might be possible to define a consistent set of rules to make resistance work. I have thought about this before, and what I came up with is to have the force on the portals equal to the compression/tension force of the matter intersecting the portal boundary.

[Anonymous No.15571376]

>>15570113
Nope, as the man in your scenario slowly emerges from blue portal, the parts of his body that have passed are moving at the same speed of the orange portal. If done in 0 gravity, the man would continue to slowly move away from the platform just as in B.

In order to have A be the final outcome, his emerged parts will continue to move at the speed of the orange portal until just as the soles of his shoes pass, he comes to a dead stop. If you were that man, you would feel a slight jolt emanating from your feet as the rest of your body's inertia comes to rest.

[Anonymous No.15571400]

>>15570383
B. The speed the object leaves depends on the fraction of the mass of the object that has already passed through the portal, and the faction left behind. This will also pull with it the rest of the object through the portal at that dictated speed.

The gravity of the environment will dictate how high the object jumps through portal. If the speed is too low, or gravity too high, the object may only make it part way through before falling back again, eventually landing on the original platform.

All answered require infinite acceleration brought on by moving the orange portal to the object, instead of imparting speed to the object and so moving it into the portal. Infinite acceleration might kill the person and cause C.

[Anonymous No.15571415]

>>15570012
>It always comes out at the same speed, sometimes it just comes out at the same speed faster
This is why I still come to these threads, where else do you find entertainment like this?

[Anonymous No.15572253]

I am not crazy! I know there's no momentum! I knew it was A. Space itself is distorting. As if a portal could ever make up momentum. Never. Never! I just - I just couldn't prove it. He - he covered his tracks, he got that idiot on minute physics to mention C. You think this is something? You think this is bad? This? This chicanery? B does worse. The speed of light! Are you telling me that a moving portal just happens to allow for light to speed up like that? No! The portal distorts space between it! The portal! The portal can't imbue energy that doesn't exist! And The game knows this, yet limited the engine to C! And it shouldn't have. I thought with portals on my own time! What was I thinking? Physics will never change. It'll never change momentum! Ever since I was 9, always the same! Momentum can't be made out of nothing! "Change your reference!" "Our precious portal can when you change perspective!" Raping newton blind! And he gets to break rule 3!? What a sick joke! I should've stopped him when I had the chance! And you - you have to stop him!

[Anonymous No.15572472]

>>15571103
you get crushed by your own body because the distance between portals is smaller. what's so hard about it.

/sci/ really is a hive of stupid motherfuckers. it's A by the way.

[Anonymous No.15572473]

>>15572472
>doesnt understand how to word a post to get replies

[Anonymous No.15572481]

>>15572473
that wasn't meant to farm (you)s but looks like it worked all the same

[Anonymous No.15572485]

>>15572473
>he got a reply anyway.

[Anonymous No.15572697]

>>15563221
I used to be a strong A, denying all evidence of B as a way of defending my initial intuitive impression. After a few years I finally accepted the physical reality of B.

Its simple, Instead the orange portal slamming down on the cube, imagine the orange portal is stationary and everything else is moving up.

[Anonymous No.15573017]

>>15572472
>/sci/ really is a hive of stupid motherfuckers. it's A by the way.
Love a good self-demonstrating post

[Anonymous No.15573115]

>>15572697
thats not whats happening though shitlord

>>15573017
oh the irony

[Anonymous No.15574004]

>>15572253
Portals not conserving momentum or energy is just conjecture that no one in this thread bothered to prove desu.
There's nothing saying that the difference in momentum between objects entering and exiting isn't made up by imparting that momentum difference on the surfaces the portals are attached to.
Similarly, there's nothing saying that the missing kinetic and potential energy isn't taken by cooling the surface it's placed upon or similar.
Since the game has no concept of temperature and the portal surfaces are very heavy and immovable, the game does not actually show at any point that the conservation of those quantities is violated.

[Anonymous No.15574036]

>>15563221
>muh video games
not science or math, video games are for children

[Anonymous No.15574483]

>>15574004
There is no surface is to the portal. Is there a surface to an open window?

[Anonymous No.15574912]

>>15574483
>surfaces the portals are attached to
>the surface it's placed upon
Not once have I mentioned a surface of a portal.

[Anonymous No.15575421]

>>15573115
>oh the irony
Indeed

[Anonymous No.15576227]

>>15574004
Portals do not exist, you can define them to work how ever you want, but it has to be logically consistent. Good luck trying to come up with a consistent set of rules for portals that conserve momentum and energy.

[Anonymous No.15576291]

>>15576227
That's not really a problem especially since the game doesn't directly show any momentum or energy conservation being violated.

[Anonymous No.15576404]

Let's just agree that B is the simplest of the two, and thus more likely to be correct.