You fags will argue over anything

You fags will argue over anything.

No we won't.

yes we will

Yeah we will

Prove we will.
Protip: You can't.

A

As a long time supporter of B, it's sadly A.

you proved Portals violate the conservation of energy and are therefore impossible. good job OP

Prove we won't
>pro tip : you probably can

B.
because why not
If Impossible things *could* happen, impossible things *would* happen.

but that's just it man
we will

I giggled like a schoolgirl

I wish everyone would just stop arguing.

B makes sense at first, but it's probably A.

The worst kind of faggot that ever inhabited Sup Forums are the those four-legged cunts who answer 'your mom will die' threads.

Its A you fucking retards the box has no momentum

i got a chili cheese dog the other day and it was literally all chili cheese and no dog. still ate it tho.

Portals cant move...unless it's an especific level
Basipally A

B because relativity or some shit

Why do you say that?

B looks right to me but something else is going on? People are saying A but I think conservation of momentum would cause the cube to be launched from the blue portal.

a portal on a fast moving surface would be destabilized and collapse in on itself. you would simply crush the box with this test

/thread.

...

Oh fuck you right.

I'm dumb

100% agree
The part that enters the portal has to move fast on the other side because it enters it fast. This Part will not lose this impulse just because it went all through

you worthless fucking nigger

/thread

look at this nerd

\thread

OP is a faggot
>inb4 no argument

...

It's b because b is random, and the universe is chaos

look at this incorrect nerd.4/10 got me to reply.

>went all through
>all through
>through

you fucking retards need to go to bed.

OP thinks they can place portals on moveable objects.

wrong

A. The box has no momentum. Though if the portals where somehow able to colide, it would create a volitile implosion, that would in turn create enough force to move the box more than likely creating a black hole. Though since the portals in said diagram will be parallel to one enother, the box will simply pass through the portal and onto the other side

but there was no momentum in the cube to be conserved fool

it depends on how portals actually work, if they are "holes" in spacetime that make two sets of coordinates coexist as one the A is the answer as moving the portal would impart no momentum in the conection itself.
if they work like teleporters then they should keep some information about the rate at wich the particles crossed the horizon, therefore a moving portal and a moving object would be read as the same event by the teleporter, in this case the answer would be B

Why doesnt someone build a fucking map and lets find out

its 8 am here in germany, sorry for not speaking english good enough :.(

think about a portal as a window people
if you crash an open window down onto a crate it will go through the other side with no force
if you throw a crate through an open window than it will fly through the window

i forgive you.

...

The word 'relative', when speaking of 'relative momentum'was chosen carefully. The momentum with which the cube appeared through the other end of the portal is relative to the portal which is moving.

fuck you you dirty inhuman piece of worthless meat

The graphic doesn't provide enough information to make an accurate assessment, but its most likely A. B could be engineered to work, but there would be literally no fucking reason to achieve that with a square, when a sphere would achieve B's result much more easily.

The box is not the only thing moving through the portals though, air is as well. In a space undergoing minimal velocity, the air around the box will suffer the brunt of the sudden shift. The box however is going to not gain momentum, because the box has no momentum. It will exit the portal at an intense speed, but this is not a speed that will carry through.

Perfect analogy. We're done here

What happens is A. The cube isn't moving, therefore the cube will remain unmoving as it goes through the portal. Say the piston is moving at 100km/h and it passes over the cube. The cube is going through the portal at the speed of 100km/h, but since the cube was never moving in the first place, it doesn't move, just falls out. Now, if the pedestal was the piston and it was being pushed upward, there would be no question.

depends, how much does the box weight?

My pussy is:

Shaved

Clean

STD free

Tight

Not fishy

...

The momentum is lost from one moment to the other????
I KNOW YOU ARE TROLLING

sauce on the guy on the left

An object in motion will stay in motion.
An object at rest will stay at rest.
If you drop a doughnut onto something that fits through the hole, it doesn't suddenly gain momentum of the doughnut. The force of the doughnut goes into the platform.

Do you idiots really think it's either A or B? Have you all just completely forgotten what GLaDOS told you? Y-y-you can't just have a portal on a moving surface! Moving a wormhole even an inch causes it to destabilize and collapse!

Jeeze user, this is basic physics. Shouldn't you have learned this by now?

The part that entered the portal has an momentum. You cant deny that. And momentum not stops to exist from one moment to other

momentum is lost as time goes on. have you ever thrown something? or rolled a ball. It doesn't go on forver

Well the first diagram here implies that, upon impact, the portal-bearing surface decelerates, whereas the second implies that the box-bearing surface does. Were the portals substituted for a simple space in which the box could fit, this would lead to the wrong conclusion, that the box is launched after impact. However, consider that from the perspective of the blue portal, the box-bearing surface does decelerate, so from that perspective the box would launch. The discrepancy here reveals the bigger problem that one portal moving relative to another would violate conservation of energy should anything pass through.

as time goes on. not from one planck time to the next

OP was right.
We'll argue about anything.

Fucking retard

except that in ops scenario, other side of the window is moving and the other is not.

>Y-y-you
>basic physics
>talking about something made up
kys

What about the nerve gas chamber where you cut the tubes with lasers going through moving portals?

...

...

so how does the window moving affect the crate?
if that is the case than the window's force would be completely invalidated if the other wasn't moving at all. the fast window goes through the crate. how does that make the crate move?

I know the developers of the game have stated somewhere they had to like go into the code of the game and make that work for that part of the game specifically, I think that part is just a plot hole tbqh fam

He can not be on the left because he has no momentum and his portals are negative, you dumb scum!

Newton's first law of physics: An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force. An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

The cube (body) is at rest. The moving portal is not an unbalancing force, there is no force at all, regardless of the portal's movement, as it is simply a gateway. Since the cube has no motion there is no velocity to be maintained. The cube will plop.

Thew part on the other side is no longer in rest in his part of the world

...

>violating conservation of energy
The game itself displays blatant violations of conservation of energy sans moving portals. This is why momentum was the focus of my argument, and not energy.

That, and the fact that GlaDOS can be quoted about momentum...

Really not complicated, surprised you can't understand.

>quoting Newton.
> implying a black man from Africa would know anything about science
> fuck you, nigger lover

but all movement is relative as there is no prefered frame of reference, from the protal perspective, the cube is moving

This violates conservation of momentum as well, given that the original diagram implies that the box-bearing platform is not de/accelerated upon impact.

And that quote was specifically when dropping the cube through the portal. The cube therefore had velocity to be maintained.

>so how does the window moving affect the crate?
same way you came from your mother's filthy cunt, ofc

This fucked me up, yo.

low IQ on Sup Forums today

What Im saying is that on one side the portal is moving and on the other side the crate is moving. So you can´t think of it as a window.

Momentum is relative. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that.

The original problem, as I understood it, was that the box would completely pass through the portal, and the platform on which the box was placed would slam against the portal-bearing surface at velocity v, immediatly reducing to 0 upon impact. The fact that in the original problem, we don't see the platform on the other side of the portal with the box is indicative of this.

wat

It's obviously A. It has no momentum. The portal is just a gateway.

Stand on the ground next to a high building. If a friend on top of the building drops a hula hoop that perfectly encircles you, will you shoot up into the air when it hits the ground? Of course not.

the part that went through the portal is moving relative to its new surrounding.. to make room for the part that follows.->kinetic energy->conservation of energy->B

Consider the following

because the hula hoop does not change your reference frame. A portal does!. you are no longer in the same position in space

It's B.

Okay, imagine the velocity of the cube coming out the other side. It would come out with the same velocity that the portal is coming down with. The product of velocity and mass is momentum, and so it would launch out of the portal with some speed.

Fine, if you need it in energy, we can do that too. E=(mv/2)^2, the box has mass 'm', and travels through the portal, in either scenario, with velocity 'v'. Meaning it exists the portal with the same kinetic energy in either case.

Headshot.

>the platform on which the box was placed would slam against the portal-bearing surface at velocity v, immediatly reducing to 0 upon impact.
Not if it doesn't decelerate, but rather the portal platform does, which is my point. Velocity is indeed relative, but you need to use inertial frames here.

>The fact that in the original problem, we don't see the platform on the other side of the portal with the box is indicative of this.
I have no idea what this means. Elaborate?
What is indicative to me is that the portal bearing platform is mounted on a piston, while the box bearing platform is on a solid pillar.

consider the following
obvious kinetic energy to its New reference frame. If you deny that your IQ is below the room temperature.
This movement stops because It finished entering the portal?!?!?!??!?!? COME ON USE YOUR BRAIN

...

but are portals gateways?
they may be sending information from one portal to the other in this case the first portal would record the cube entering at a certain speed then send this information to the other portal wich would recreate the cube as coming out with the recorded speed

>velocity is relative
>inertial frames
Are you not aware that granting velocity as being relative is to frame the problem using said inertial frames?

Do meteors hit satellites, or do satellites hit meteors? By this, I mean to say that it does not matter which surface decelerates to a relative velocity of 0 with regard to the other surface.

someone with at least half a brain in this thread

Nigger ur pushing a doorway past an object