Is it A or B?

Is it A or B?

Other urls found in this thread:

strawpoll.com/xaykd2hz
twitter.com/AnonBabble

You ant place portals on moving surfaces.
Portal 2 is not canon.

A, because momentum conservation

A

posting this before bfags arrive

A

B

The cube's momentum is not conserved.

It's B. Relative to the orange portal, the cube IS moving. Let's say that the orange portal is falling towards the cube at a constant 50 mph: the cube would enter the orange portal at 50mph (relative to the orange portal). It would come out of the blue portal at the same speed it entered the orange portal, there's no way it would stop, retards.

portal developer literally said he would program it to be B.

The developers said they would prefer it to be B.

sauce?

The cube doesn't have a speed you idiot.

It's neither A or b. Gravity is constantly pushing down on the so it would stay on the platform regardless of the velocity of the portal.

See

Why are people still talking about this?
if the platform the cube is standing on is still.

Then it's A.

wrong.

try it with hula hoop

same shit with portal. it's just a hole

You should have seen the Monty Hall threads.

It's obviously A. If you drop a doorframe on a cube, it sure as hell won't launch into the skies. The doorframe simply slams to the floor and depletes its potential energy, it does not get magically transferred to the cube and reverse vector.

...

Portals require an infinite amount of energy to be created, we know this as there are various ways to create a perpetual motion machine with them which can only be possible if they already take an infinite amount of energy to make.
Since we know Energy = Infinity, let's do a couple of equations.
E = mc^2
As we know c = the speed of light or 299 792 458 m / s, and 299 792 458^2 is 8.9875518e+16, and that Energy is Infinity, the equation becomes
Infinity = m8.9875518e+16
The only way for the equation to match up with one another is if Mass is also Infinity.
Therefore, a portal has infinite mass.
F = ma
We already know m = Infinity so the equation becomes
F = Infinity x a
Any form of acceleration would require an infinite amount of force.
The portal cannot have 0 mass, as energy for massless objects can have the equation of
E = hf
Or Energy equals Planks Constant x Frequency, as Planks Constant is a finite number, frequency must be infinite.
The equation for energy can also be
E = hc / wavelength, as Planks Constant and Speed of Light are finite, wavelength must be 0.
But Light is equal to wavelength x frequency, but 0 x Infinity = 0, making light move at 0 speed if portals were massless.
Ergo, the answer is Ѭ, the piston is unable to move as it would take an infinite amount of force to move the portal situated upon it.

Monty hall is mathematically proven, what debate even was there?

>he thinks there won't be retards who still argue it's 50/50 chance
There are retards who think that for the gold ball and silver ball problem, you have an equal chance of your next ball being gold or silver.

...

Jesus christ

Its one thing when its completely theoretical like the portals but those problems have mathematic demonstrations. They are not up for debate. Then again, this is Sup Forums...

...

A

The first one is completely wrong because the pad is not exerting any force onto the cube

If it goes in the portal it'll be affected by the gravity on the other side so it'll slide down so the affects of A would still occur. We're also assuming the portal comes all the way down onto the cube.

OP picture showed orange coming down so A you fucking casual

For the last fucking time, there's not enough information to determine which one because it's not totally clear how moving portals work.

>Try it with a hula hoop
>Get catapulted 30 feet into the air
>Land and break my neck
No thanks.

>muh hula hoops

every fucking time, A-fags
no one has ever shown me a hula hoop where one side is moving and the other is stationary

You can't put portals in moving objects so .... there you go

Former A supporter here, B makes more sense when you look into it. Yes, the platform does not move, as we can even see through the blue portal. From the blue portal perspective, some force has to drive the box through, and sinde the platform doesn't move, some force in the portals pull the box through

The box isn't pulled through. Gravity just pulls it down because it's on a slope.

You mean there are people who unironically think A?

Wow, I didn't realize the userbase had degraded so much.

The answer is B. Here's why.

Imagine this: place a blue portal on a regular wall next to a railway. Place the orange portal on the very front of a moving train that's going 100 mph, place it just below the train driver's window. Up ahead, in front of the train, right in the middle of the railway, there's a cube sitting at the same height of the moving train's orange portal, let's say that the cube it's sitting on an empty barrel or something. The cube has no momentum, it's just sitting still on a barrel in the middle of a railway. The train then runs over the cube at a high speed, but the cube enters the orange portal (because they were placed at the same height). Yes, the cube would be shot out of the blue portal, even though it was completely still just seconds ago.

Don't believe me? Imagine the same scene as if you were looking through the stationary blue portal.
You'd see a cube coming right at your face really fast, not to mention a lot of air, because the train is moving.
Apply this example to this pic, the answer is B.
The cube would "plop" out ONLY if the orange portal is moving at less than human walking speed.

Can someone illustrate this on mspaint?

Just put the cube on an arbitrarily long pole that gets inserted into the portal after the cube.

explain this faggot
If you are truly a bfag explain how the cube gets sucked into the portal without the cube ever moving.

Fast object goes in, fast object comes out.
Stationary object goes in, stationary object comes out.

These threads will be pointless until the scientifically illiterate retards of Sup Forums can understand and agree on the following facts:

• Motion is relative. In other words, the motion of a body can only be described or measured relative to something.
• Every inertial frame of reference is valid. There is no absolute frame of reference. Saying that X moves with respect to Y is always equivalent to saying that Y moves with respect to X.
• The velocity of an object, therefore, depends on the frame of reference from which it is measured. To say that an object has some velocity is meaningless unless a particular frame of reference is specified, implied, or understood.
• Momentum is a function of velocity, and velocity is relative, as noted above. Therefore, momentum is relative. The momentum of an object depends on the frame of reference.
• Kinetic energy, for the same reason, is also relative. The kinetic energy of an object depends on the frame of reference.
• Velocity is a vector. It has a magnitude and a direction. To change the direction in which an object moves is to change its velocity.
• Momentum, being the product of mass and velocity, is also a vector. To change the direction in which an object moves is to change its momentum. Direction must be taken into account when determining whether momentum has been conserved.
• Portals in the game can change the direction of a moving object, thereby changing its momentum, while the momenta of all other objects remain the same. This is a change to the total momentum of the system. Therefore, despite what GlaDOS says, portals do not actually conserve momentum.
• Portals do not conserve energy, either. An object which passes through portals can gain any amount of potential energy with no change in kinetic energy. You could use portals to generate infinite energy.

These are just some of the things which people in these threads regularly deny, either out of ignorance or because it helps their stupid argument.

>implying
Infinite Energy Portal, kiddo :^)

How does an object come out of a stationary portal while remaining stationary? The blue portal never moves with respect to the ground, so the cube must be moving with respect to the ground as it comes out.

If you want to say the cube stops moving as soon as it has fully emerged from the blue portal, then go ahead, but don't state the obviously impossible.

C: box gets sliced in half by the infinitely thin edge of the portal when gravity starts pulling it slightly

Portals conserve energy because they are fictional and don't apply to real world physics. Either way, it could be both or neither. A works and B works. Honestly I'm leaning towards B because the creator of a FICTIONAL item said that's how he would make it. I'm not a, fan of applying real world physics to game physics.

>which people in this thread regularly deny
only A fags regularly do this.

I think that this example is really confusing, but it is what would happen if the orange portal suddenly stopped from 100 kmh to 0 just halfway through the cube.

To make it easier to understand, don't imagine a cube, imagine two beer cans on top of each other. Let's say that the orange portal stops its high speed travel right in the middle of the two cans. The can at the top would come out of the blue portal at the same speed of the orange portal (let's give it 100 mph again). So, it would be shot out of the blue portal at the same speed it impacted the orange portal, 100 mph. The can at the bottom would be unaffected, staying where it was because it entered no portal and touched nothing.

Now, attach a short string between the two cans and do the same. The top can would pull out the bottom can with the string, with a final speed of 50 mph (half, assuming both cans had equal mass).
And then, repeat the experiment by glueing the two cans. Same result, you'd get two glued cans flying out of the blue portal at 50 mph.
Now, if you are not a retard, you can see how the two cans glued together behave like one single object. Replace them with the cube and repeat the experiment.

The answer is B.

Imagine the cube is floating still in a vacuum and the orange portal is allowed to continue on its path after passing the cube. If A is true, then from the orange portal's perspective, the cube is floating still until the point where it's completely passed the portal, at which point it will be dragged along by the portal, and from the blue portal's perspective it will be approaching quickly and suddenly stop. Meanwhile, if B is true, then from the orange portal's perspective, it will be as if the cube is floating still and remains floating still as the portal passes it, and from the blue portal's perspective, it will be as if the cube approaches at a constant speed and keeps moving at that speed. B is consistent, A is not.

So why does B happen in the OP scenario, when the portal stops? Simple, because the cube has already crossed the threshold and everything that happens to the portal afterwards has no influence on the cube any more.

A faggots are terminally dumb. They mention momentum but can't see the momentum of the object exiting.

>It just goes to show that maths are useless because you can mathematically prove something that's not actually true!

...

It's both. A makes more sense game world wise. B makes more sense in the real world.

It's not paradoxical. Yes, both frames of reference are valid, but one is a little more valid than the other, depending on which side of the portal you're on. If the portal stops before the cube actually enters it, the cube is just going to remain in place. FOR1 takes precedence. If the cube passes through the portal, however, FOR2 takes precedence. So the answer is B.

This.

I can't decide which are worse, A-fags or the mongrels who say both or none are correct "becuz its a paradox XD"

Momentum.

>Bfags still trying to argue that 1 + 1 = 3
infinite energy portal kiddo :^)

>Bfags still trying to argue that 1 + 1 = 3
Care to address my actual argument? It didn't involve addition at all.

>Portals conserve energy because they are fictional and don't apply to real world physics.

I think what you mean to say is that IT'S OKAY that they DON'T conserve energy, because they are fictional and don't apply to real world physics.

Whether they conserve energy is not even a question. They don't. The ability to arbitrarily increase an object's potential energy can be explained only by saying that portals contain infinite energy which can be transferred to the objects passing through them, but the idea that portals are a well of infinite energy flies in the face of energy conservation anyway.

Filthy A-fag here, explain it to me like I'm a baby which one is correct. If portal isn't physical then what is the force that propels the cube in A or B

Since a portal moving towards a cube is paradoxical, and it has already been proving that a portal cannot move as it has an infinite amount of mass, the answer is neither.

>Infinite Energy Portal, kiddo :^)
>infinite energy portal kiddo :^)

I don't understand this reply and I don't understand why it's being spammed.

If you want anyone to give a shit about your posts, please explain what you're trying to say.

The worst are the ones who sidestep the problem by saying moving portals specifically are physically impossible because they require infinite energy but have no problem accepting portals existing to begin with.

Easiest way to simulate this scenario in 'real life' in your head is this.

You are the block, and you are standing against a wall.

There is a door rushing towards you (Somehow, fuck off doesn't matter) at high speed.

Door catches up to you and crashes in to the wall you are standing against.

You are through the door technically but you do not move at all because its the fucking door that moved and you are just still standing there but at the other side of the door.

Portals have infinite energy to fulfill the law of conservation of energy, and thus an infinite amount of mass.
>what is 1 + 1? A. 1 or B. 3?
>neither it's 2
>how dare you sidestep the question asshole you have to answer either A or B even if they're both wrong

Portals certainly don't conserve energy, meaning they must use energy to do their thing.

But you could argue that a portal conserves momentum by exerting an equal and opposite force to the object they are mounted on. It is unknown if a portal exerts force on the surface it is attached to.

Plenty of good arguments are posted in every thread. You'll probably understand them if you actually read an entire post, instead of just reading the first 10 words and replying "m-muh hula hoop!"

This image brings up some of the ideas that are commonly discussed:

degenerate frogposters, for sure

>Since a portal moving towards a cube is paradoxical
So what? That is no problem for B.
>and it has already been proving that a portal cannot move as it has an infinite amount of mass
Then how can it exist in the first place? Portals are imaginary. If you're going to participate in a thought experiment, you have to accept the premises.

Image that you have two portals and one portal moves through a pool of water, a water squirts out like a hose at the other end.

The end.

>What is 1 + 1? A. 1 or B. 3? You must answer this using the definitions of numerical units
>neither it's 2
>uh how dare you it's a thought experiment that means it must be either A or B

>Portals have infinite energy to fulfill the law of conservation of energy

Yes, you. You're the most annoying one in this thread. Because 1+1 = B in this case and you're just saying "WELL YOU CAN'T ANSWER IT BECAUSE MATH IS AXIOMATIC AND I REFUSE TO ACCEPT IT"

Alright, faggots, solve this

To conserve momentum, the total momentum of the system must remain constant. When an object changes direction by passing through portals, some other object must experience an equal and opposite change in momentum. Maybe that's happening and we don't see it. Maybe it's like when you jump and your change in momentum is balanced by an imperceptible change in the momentum of the Earth. So it could be one of those situations. The thing is, we just don't know.

Anyway, it's all magic, so lol whatevs

...

Now do the experiment again involving all of reality.

it has a relative speed retard take a basic physics course jesus christ

It's fucking B

Portals can act as a perpetual motion machine, meaning it can generate an infinite amount of energy, the only way that's possible is if it already takes an infinite amount of energy to make.
>NO NO MY ANSWER IS RIGHT HOW DARE YOU 1 + 1 = 3 SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH YOUR ARGUMENTS AND LOGIC AND FACTS AND SCIENTIFIC LAWS THEY DON'T COUNT IM RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG LALAHLALHALHA
wew lad

Describes B fags really well desu

remember kids you're not allowed to answer anything that deviates from A or B at all because it's a thought experiment

"But what caused it to move in the first place? It's hard to say"
That's my question though

>Portals can act as a perpetual motion machine, meaning it can generate an infinite amount of energy, the only way that's possible is if it already takes an infinite amount of energy to make.

OK, and what bearing does that have on the discussion? How does this disprove A or B

Generally true.

woah......................

FAGGOTS,

I doubt it would be move at 50km/h but it would be for sure less than 100km/h.

Since it has an infinite amount of energy, it must also have an infinite amount of mass as E = mc^2, and since it has an infinite amount of mass, said portal cannot move, and thus the problem cannot occur in the first place, ergo it is neither.

Are these "imagine X" posts, memes? They don't explain shit.

So you're saying portals can only exist in the form of black holes.

It's A.

The Cube isn't carrying momentum. It's the equivelant of a hula hoop dropping over you and arguing "would you fly into the air."

I'm the one with all the logic and facts and scientific laws, you're the pissant selectively applying his rudimentary knowledge of physics and getting up on his high horse about it.

Answer me this: if portals require an infinite amount of energy to make, then why should requiring an infinite amount of energy be an impediment to moving them?

What causes the cube to change its speed in "B" is likely the same thing that causes any moving object to change direction in any normal portal scenario within the game. Both are changes in momentum and imply that some force might be present.

Then again, in both cases, the cube would probably claim never to have accelerated.

When you watch an object go through portals, you see it change direction. But if you go through portals yourself, you don't feel like you changed direction at all. You see the world moving past you, and then suddenly you see the world moving past you in a different direction.

If you were to watch scenario "B" occur, you would see a change in the cube's speed. But if you were that cube, you probably wouldn't feel like your speed had changed at all. The world would be stationary, and then suddenly the world would be moving past you at a high speed.

Here's how I see it: If portals facing different directions can change the direction of a moving object, then portals moving at different speeds might be able to change the speed of an object just as naturally.

>I'm the one with all the logic and facts and scientific laws, you're the pissant selectively applying his rudimentary knowledge of physics and getting up on his high horse about it.
Oh man, how hilarious. "no u", nigger, my argument's the one that doesn't conveniently ignore the law of conservation of energy and momentum and claim they don't count yet use them except when they do to make my argument right. Good fucking god you're retarded.

And to answer your question, because infinite energy requires infinite mass due to a very well known equation of E = mc^2.

The law of conservation of energy states that energy can't be destroyed, which A implies. The orange portal's momentum would be transferred to the cube, so B si correct.

1) Objects don't carry momentum. An object's momentum depends on the frame of reference from which it is measured.
2) The hula hoop scenario is not equivalent because the entrance and exit are not moving with respect to one another.

>hey guys the conservation of energy and momentum don't apply for portals
>also it's B because of the conservation of momentum which is what we literally just claim didn't apply for portals
wew lad

I lean towards B but I don't think this is a good argument. The orange portal stops because it hits the platform and its energy could be transferred to that platform just as the energy of any falling object is transferred to the ground when it lands. The fact that the orange portal moves and then stops does not imply that the cube has to start moving.

Besides, portals don't conserve energy anyway.

Arguments in favor of B don't necessarily rely on the conservation of momentum.

Here's the simple one which uses conservation of mass.

strawpoll.com/xaykd2hz

Multiple options allowed

Most people seem set on B though

Ok all you faggots who answered B, consider the following.

Imagine you had a tennis-racket-shaped device with a portal on each side of it. So essentially just a stick with a hole on the end, right? But not really if you answered B, since if you swung the tennis racket at an object it would accelerate out the back of the racket as it passed through.