So this portal physics riddle is frequently posted on Sup Forums, and it can never be agreed upon which one is correct...

So this portal physics riddle is frequently posted on Sup Forums, and it can never be agreed upon which one is correct. In order to prevent further uncivilized arguments, I have decided to shed some light on the issue.
The pattern that seems to emerge is that advocates of A quote Newtonian laws, while those in support of B leverage Einstein's theories.
The real question is: Which of these two individuals do you trust the most?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Newton. I never trust a kike.

>Trusting Jewish Physics
LOL

Anti-intellectualism is not a virtue, you know.

I'm new to this. Why would anyone say it's B? The platform the cube is on isn't moving up into the one above, so the cube doesn't have any velocity. Why would it fly out? Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing goes out according to Glados, and the cube isn't speeding. /sci/ plz explain.

fuck these threads`

Einstein's relativity is proven correct time and again. GPS satellites have to account for time dilation.

There is no force acting on the cube so why would it accelerate?

Pretend you're facing the blue portal and through that lens seeing things from the perspective of the orange portal. An object is rushing at you at great speed. As soon as it enters the portal it gains velocity. Even if the portal were to stop at 10% of the way into the cube, enough "pull" from the top 10% would result in pulling the cube out of the blue portal if the orange portal is moving fast enough.

So is Newton's laws. And those laws very much apply to this situation more practically than Einstein's theory.

The portal's force is acting on the cube, though.

>Practically
And portals don't exist in practice, so theory it is.

Let's make this thread a short one pls

A.
because the cube doesn't have momentum

Neither. The portal will disappear the instant the piston starts moving.

It's not coming at you at enormous speed. It appears to but isn't.

>An object is rushing at you at great speed.
But that's just perspective. In actuality the cube isn't moving towards me.

>As soon as it enters the portal it gains velocity.
How?

The portal doesn't exert a force on anything, it's literally just a hole
If it did every time Chell stands in one she would be launched into a wall

>Tested as an INTP
>think A is the right answer

Virtue is a spook

That's a terrible expanation.

What happens is that the speed the platform will be transferred to the cube. Why? Because one portal is in motion, while the other isn't. The "gate" analogy doesn't apply here because the exit point is inert, unlike the entrance which is moving. It's a simple understanding conservation of energy.

It's as if the entire world is moving with the portal.

So the still cube will appear to be moving until it catches up to it's surroundings.

daily reminder that personality test aren't scientific

>appearing to move means it is

You guys memed so hard newfags now unironically believe B is right.

Congrats I guess

Portals aren't teleporters, they are literal holes in the universe between two points. The portal itself never has force

The momentum is a property of the portal and will not be transferred to the cube without collision.

Bottom platform slamming up would result in B.

>all those years of Sup Forums arguing about a plane on a treadmill
>mythbusters tries it, but they got the idea wrong
>Sup Forums was dead by that time so no explosion
Why even bother, this meme picture from a decade ago could be made real in another decade but who would care by then.

Who said anything about teleportation?

It's a paradoxical situation that our understanding of physics does not explain. It's impossible to say that either answer is correct.

In other words, it's the perfect bait.

>could be made real in another decade
You realize if portals could exist in reality we could create more energy than the universe currently has, correct?

Neither of them

Mythbusters was right though, a plane's wheels freely turn so all that happens is that the wheels turn faster when taxiing. A car on a treadmill would stay still though

>It's a paradoxical situation
It's not.
It's A

But user, it is.

The portals itself are also never able to stay on surfaces in motion, so of course in those scenarios they would have no energy.

Only if you don't understand conservation of energy

...

Then write out the equations showing that A satisfies the conservation of momentum and energy. You've taken a physics class, haven't you? It doesn't matter, because you can't. You can't do it for B either.

Portal 2 laser cut puzzle

Are you guys fucking retarded?

You know that Newtonian gravity and general relativity go hand in hand right?

General relativity just explains it in higher detail.

It's like complaining that Newton said Pi= 3.14 and Einstein said Pi= 3.141592. Yeah Einstein is MORE correct. But that doesn't mean Newton is wrong. Einstein's model is just more precise.

That said. As a BSc in Physics I have to say it'd be A since the motion op the piston wouldn't transfer into the motion of the block. Let alone motion in the opposite direction of the forced applying """possible""" forces upon it.

enlighten me nigger

The whole point of your argument is that the force that is applied to cube from the moving platform that hits the cube will be moved to the second portal as the moving platform has a portal on it. This implies that the force is being moved from one object to another, as if the portal is physically hitting the cube and then moving to it's other portal location. What Im saying is that there is no transfer of force because nothing is actually hitting the cube, the portal itself it a hole that does not have it's own mass and therefore instantly moves the cube to it's next location without transferring force

How?

Newton's laws are absolute. We're still trying to make sense of and prove Einstein's theories in real life.

Portals allow you to break the laws of physics, for example an infinitely falling object

The earth is constantly spinning, so almost every portal ever placed in the games is constantly moving. To go even further, in 2 you shoot one at the move, another moving object, and it still works

Wait now I'm even more confused. How does that fit into play? Wouldn't B break that as the cube suddenly gains momentum without any external force acting on it?

There is no transfer of energy from the portal to the cube and the cube is at rest.

The cube would emerge at the rate the portal was moving but it has no momentum properties to transfer across reference frames.

You could have the piston repeatedly slam the portal into the Cube, all that would happen is a cube appearing and disappearing at that same rate.

Explain how the gate analogy doesn't work. In Portal, it seems like the holes don't have any influence on you, only the force on the other side have any effect. It would be like dropping a wall with a hole in it on top of you. You wouldn't jump in the air just because a wall with an opening came at you quickly and hit the ground around you.

He is wrong when you approach the speed of light.

>conservation of momentum and energy.
Do you even know what are you talking about ?
the cube never had any momentum

Okay fine then let me rephrase since you semantic motherfuckers will force me to write out three paragraphs to send a simple fucking message.

>Newton's laws apply more practically to the situation given in the context of the hypothetical situation assuming portals exist and if it were worth arguing about the relevance of special relativity in regard to portals and their effect on objects transversing them then there needs to be defined the mechanics of a portal and what about them makes special relativity relevant to the situation in said hypothetical situation

Are you happy you fucking mongoloid?

Oh. But don't wormholes exist? Doesn't sound an aperture science handheld portal device just make wormholes?

B
Imagine an infinitely long pole instead of a cube. As the first part of the pole enters, it is forced through the portal by it's body behind it at the speed orange is traveling. As the pole continues to travel through the portal, the part of the pole exiting blue would be going the same velocity as the portal engulfing the pole in blue portal. Since it exits blue at a velocity, it now has the velocity of the traveling portal.

Now this extrapolated down to the cube results in B.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Both A and B violate conservation laws. The laws of physics were written to describe the real world, and portals do not exist in the real world.

It's a bait user

What would happen now Sup Forums?

...

But how does A break any laws? The cube simply ends on a slant which causes it to fall over after it goes through the portal.

Oh.

B. The moving platform's force is applied to the cube since it's stoped by ramming into the stationary platform that has the portal

In a wormhole you'd be crushed by the weight of gravity causing the distortion in time. So perhaps but if it were they'd need to somehow keep gravity from fucking up literally the entire earth.

B, because the cube can feasibly inherit momentum from the plate.

The problem with theory B is that it suggests that if the portal were to stop halfway through the box that the momentum would propel it out, or rip it in half. Which I don't think makes sense.

B.
The momentum of the portal is transferred to the cube.

>don't wormholes exist
nobody has ever found one but theoretically they could exist but they wouldn't work like portals anyway

And to perfectly demonstrate this user's point: pic related.

read, nigger

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

>as if the portal is physically hitting the cube and then moving to it's other portal location.
nope. The portal isn't hitting anything.

> the portal itself it a hole that does not have it's own mass
we don't know that, but let's assume. Also note that does not mean it cannot hold energy.

>instantly moves the cube to it's next location
that is some poor choice of words. I thought the portal didn't move anything according to your own post.

>without transferring force
It normally doesn't because the entrance and exit point are motionless. But since the entrance is in motion while the exit isn't, that energy should be transferred to the cube according to the laws of conservation of energy. If the portal does not follow such law, then please do point it to me when and why is that the case.

but how? the portal doesn't have any momentum since its just a hole that leads to another place

You don't understand how relativity works because you've never experienced what it is like to be without a frame of reference.

When you have no frame of reference if something is flying at you at 500k mph, from it's point of view it is still and you are flying at it at 500k mph. Both are equally valid. Neither is "actually right". This is also the reason physics get truly strange when dealing with theoretical concepts like this when dealing with extreme situations like this with wormholes or Speed of Light. It seems physically impossible to a human individual but that's still how they work.

A.
Jew logic is laughable.

>B.
>The momentum of the portal is transferred to the cube.
How so ?
>read, nigger
I know basic stuff nigger, it's A

We won, boys.

The portal doesn't have momentum, it is more of a mathematical entity. If instead of a box it was an infinitely long rod and never stopped, the rod would continue going out of the blue portal at the speed of the orange portal.

> it's point of view it is still and you are flying at it at 500k mph. Both are equally valid. Neither is "actually right".

If that's true then let's rewrite all equations we use to make planes

How was that even made? I've seen 2 other webms trying the same thing. One showing how A would be the case and the other how the engine doesn't allow the experiment in the first place.

>Sup Forums brainlets
LOL

Uhm, didn't it say that it's impossible to create a portal on a moving surface? So the whole set-up is therefore not possible.

Furthermore, such things as portals are not real, so this doesn't apply to physics as we know it since it's made up. The creator of this problem can claim any answer to be the correct one since he came up with it.

And last, I propose options C and D:
C: The cube gets crushed by the stamp because of the aforementioned impossibility to create a portal on a moving stamp, the portal could just disappear again.

D: The portal could very much stay where it is and either suck the stamp right into it as it passes through and warp it a little since it's too small for the stamp to fit through OR the portal could block the path entirely.

I could think of even more, but I'm tired.
You say those options are impossible as well? Well, duh?

>impossible to create a portal on a moving surface?
Completely ignoring the fact that nothing in the universe is actually stationary.

>Uhm, didn't it say that it's impossible to create a portal on a moving surface? So the whole set-up is therefore not possible.
Portal 2 happened

It's not just a hole like a hole in a wall. The universe behind the portal is moved with it because of the bending of space.

>The momentum of the portal is transferred to the cube.
>How so ?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
>I know basic stuff nigger, it's A

Is this bait or are you actually dense?

Earth is rotating all the time.

>he didn't get propelled into the air at the speed of the wall

Must be CGI

If the portal behaves like an ordinary hole, which theoretically a portal can be, then it is A.

>the portal isn't hitting anything
The how would it transfer energy if it doesn't touch the cube?
>let's assume
You know what happens when you assume
>didn't move
Poor choice of words on my part. Im saying the location of each portal is linked in space time
>entrance and exit
That's where you're misunderstanding my argument. There is no entrance or exit, they are the same point. The cube isn't ripped from space time upon contacting the first moving portal and moved to the stationary portal, it's the same location and because the platform does not touch the cube, it does not transfer it's force

>If that's true then let's rewrite all equations we use to make planes
But that is the math we use, have you ever taken a physics class besides American Highschool?

The portal has no momentum. The board it is on does. How fast the plate is moving, just effects how quickly the cube would materialize through the portal. Not somehow give it velocity....

Do you even know how portal works nigger ?
they are just windows nigger
If I fucking make u levitate and push window through you, you wont get any momentum.

The earth is constantly moving. Every portal ever placed is moving

B

I'm not that user but the "appearance" of motion as described is LITERAL motion on another frame of reference. There's no absolute frame of reference. That's why it's called relativity.

The total system of the orange portal, cube, and blue portal has momentum that's necessarily conserved. That momentum has to be expressed somehow.

Have you ever played the game?

No we don't according to you we assign v to both elements

But what if it's a hole on a moving vehicle, where it's stationary for people inside it and moving for people outside it?

It does not apply because a "hole" in a wall, or a gate have the entrance and exit point always in the same state of motion or motionless. As in, the entrance point of that hole in the wall and the exit will always be together, so of course nothing should happen.

But if the exit point of the falling hole was somewhere else and motionless, the energy of the entrance would have to be the same as the exit, but it is not. And so, by the laws of conservation of energy, that energy should be transferred to whatever will pass through that hole. Else, you'd be breaking the said law.

The momentum is not a property of the cube, it's a property of the stamp/piston. No forces acting on it other than gravity and reactive forces.

Pushing it through a stationary portal gives the cube momentum properties. Pushing the portal over the cube gives the stamp/piston momentum properties.

These properties are conserved across reference frames.

tl;dr you shit

>Have you ever played the game?
do you really think we are talking about the game here nigger ?

>The portal has no momentum. The board it is on does.
Even if the portal was massless it would still have momentum if it was moving. By shit I did not realize the state of physics education was this bad. The absolute regards in this thread.

Considering those are the portals the scenario is describing, yes.