Portal Science Sup Forumsaggots

Portal Science Sup Forumsaggots.

its b faggot

a

a, obviously

Trick question, are you all forgetting portals cant be placed on or remain on a moving surface

b, relativity of velocities. Whoever says a has never took a lecture on basic physics.

Wrong
as long as the surface doesn't rotate, a portal will remain on a moving surface

It would be option A.
Reason:

An area moving quickly at an object would not cause the object to suddenly gain force. Imagine it as a hole that is falling around a cube, and on the other side of the hole is somewhere else.

You're also implying that it has to be stationary because it can't gain energy from nothing?

a

The portal moving towards the cube will not give the cube energy or momentum so its A.

Can you rephrase that train-wreck of a sentence?

Sorry, me bad at English.

You're also saying that the cube cannot gain energy from nothing?

Better?

In the lab frame, the block has no kinetic energy, but contains some arbitrary potential energy. Upon going through the portal, why should the block suddenly gain kinetic energy? Atleast, without a loss of other potential energy or Work being applied to the block. Option B seems to be wonky.

However, from the frame of the moving portal, it sees the block moving towards it with some speed and hence has kinetic energy. Then I think the block would still contain some constant arbitrary gravitational potential energy (since that would have to be taken relative to the gravitational field itself which lies in the lab frame). So upon going through the portal it seems that the block should keep moving and fly out the other end, as opposed to coming to rest and losing that kinetic energy without some outside force acting upon it. So in this case, it seems option A is wonky.

These two seem to contradict each other. So this is nonphysical..?

'A' because "“Forward momentum, a product of mass and velocity, is conserved between portals. In layman’s terms: speedy thing goes in; speedy thing comes out.”

The object (cube) doesn't have any velocity. When the cube is overcome by the threshold of the yellow portal... the cube just dribbles out of the blue portal.... because gravity.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Seriously... I'd like to know. I'm not a physicist, just a dude with a internet connection.

If the energy of the moving portal sends the cube flying, which is what presumably would happen due to them moving relative to each other, how would that effect the kinetic energy transfer to the podium the portal is slamming down on? It can't also receive equal energy, if it's transfered to the cube then it would seem if you were measuring the force of the impact, it would be zero?

b

a

orange portals momentum was transferred to the cube

A. All of the velocity in the press just transfers to the other side of the press.

Technically, you'd have to be clinically retarded to think any other way

Cube is not in motion. Cube doesn't suddenly gain momentum out of nowhere. Imagine you're holding an empty window frame, and slame it down on top of the cube. The cube isn't going to go shooting up in the air. It's just going to stay right where it's sitting except now it's on the opposite side of the window frame. The portal is the window frame.

Rebuttal: If I slammed a hoola-hoop over your body (assuming the hoop doesn't interfere with any part of you), would you move in the opposite direction of the force I apply to the hoop because the momentum of the hoop was transferred to your body?

Option c
We dont know
This is all using physics that don't actually exist (in our current understanding at least). But its fucking with you because these physics arent real yet we are trying to apply real world physics to this non-existent concept. If you really wanted to know what happens in the game physics why doesnt someone just make this setup in the game?

I'm wondering if, since the portal relies on momentum for an object to transit, and there is no momentum or any movement at all in the object, is all the mass deposited in the same place? Does the mass added push the rest out of the way, or does it combine it? Will the cube rise out of the blue portal, or will it be compacted into a super dense flat object? Will it explode if this happens, or will it implode, creating a black hole?

That's just wrong.

The cube IS in motion from B point of view

There's a moving platform in portal 2 where you can shoot one to destroy the neurotoxin

Nothing, the thing holding up the cube would still be there, it would stick out of the blue portal without falling.

it might wobble a little bit. but definitely A. cut a circle on a paper and slam it over an eraser, that is exactly what is happening in the OP image.

>cube experiences no kind of force

Never mind, I forgot about gravity. I think gravity, which in this case is basically turned nearly upside down by the blue portal, will pull the cube out. Then it just flops out.

Dis one, mane ^^^^

Agree but first poster assumes the energy is transfered to the cube. Relative to each other, the portal is moving towards the cube and vice versa. Watching from the stationary portal you'd see a cube flying at you at high speed. Motion is relative and this question has no answer because portals violate the laws of physics. It is relative to each portal, but portals grant faster than light travel so they are invalid in this universe and this question cannot be answered

>an object hitting and object wont cause it to move

/thread

OR IS IT!?

Not true. Only true from one perspective. Not all frames of motion are the same for every observer. Standing at the stationary portal, you see a cube flying towards you. Your perspective is as valid as the next

There is no answer because as I said, portals violate the laws of physics

That sentence was not a trainwreck you fucktard. It was missing one comma, yes, but that aside, it was grammatically correct from a standpoint of physics terminology being expressed in layman's terms.

If real world physics cant explain it, neither can the game

But a portal moving in the direction that OP is showing is in the first Portal, test chamber 10. A wall moves forward and you can't put a portal on it and it deletes an already placed portal.

Here's a simple visualization for all you option B retards

You're running at the orange portal at a speed of 5mph. Orange portal is attached to a moving block of concrete moving the opposite direction also at 5mph. When you go through the portal do you end up shooting out the other end at 10mph? No, you're still only going 5mph. Therefore it's option A. Same reason you don't splat against the back of an airplane when you jump in the air.

"Didn't we have some fun, though?"

NO

Sure it can. It just uses it's own set of rules to make it work. Doesn't mean it uses the same rules the real world would abide by. The answer you get would just be what the coding says it would be according to its own rules

lol dude, you can use the same arguement to fight your reasoning for A

How?

>whoever says a never took a lecture on basic physics
>basic physics
yeah because hypothesizing about fictional matters requires basic physics

"This was a triumph, I'm making an note here, HUGE SUCCESS. It's hard to overstate my satisfaction!"

>>Aperture Science: We do what we must because we can, for the good of all of use... except the ones who are dead...

Look at the cube through the portal on the output incline plane. (i.e. from the reference frame of the moving portal) You see:

Box coming at you at 10 mph
Box comes out at 0 mph (according to what A would do)

lul why 10 to 0. maekz nuh sens! omg!

Give us a lesson then wise one.

A, the object isn't accelerating

If somebody throws a hula hoop at you mega fast and you get through it somehow, are you going to come flying out the other end of the hula hoop the same speed it came at you?

A because physics you dumb bitch! The object is just going in with no velocity, therefore A

Yeah, you right ;D

Once again, no frame of reference is superior. From an observer on the outside, your answer seems valid.

But from an observer staring into the blue portal, you are approaching at 10mph, so why would you suddenly decrease your speed without hitting any force? This violates one of newton's laws

Both perspectives are equally valid, and both cannot both happen at the same time

Therefore in our universe portals are not possible. Which we already know because they would allow for faster than light travel.

This question has no answer, why do people keep arguing?

As for the imaginary game physics, that's up in the air, and would be whatever the developers chose. But in our real physical world, there is no answer

But perception is not reality. Just because the person running at you as they enter the orange portal APPEARS to be traveling at 10mph, does not mean they actually are. Once they are on the other side of the blue portal they would appear to be traveling at 5mph again.

Same thing when you pass a car on the freeway. If you're both traveling 60mph in opposite directions, the car you're passing looks like they're going 120. That doesn't mean the car is actually traveling at 120mph, it's just relative to your perception.

To that extent, it could possibly be option B. The piston slamming down onto the stationary platform could potentially generate enough force to "bounce" the cube, causing it to shoot out. However, to discern that we would need more information than is presented.

Exactly. But the freeway scenario pans out, that car is moving towards you at 120 mph from your perspective, and from the outside it's 2 cars moving at 60. Neither is more valid than the other. Motion is all relative and there is no privileged frame of reference. You only know about the freeway because you're on earth and it's easy to see. In space you could have that same scenario and have no way to tell if you're going 0 and the guy floating by is 120. Even the stationary observer can't tell because who's to say he's stationary, relative to what?

This actually seems to be the most likely-to-be correct answer at first, but IDK if it holds up to scrutiny.

The part that makes me think you are correct stems from calculating the offsetting vector forces of gravity being exerted in two directions: (1) the vector of the initial condition {the block prior to entering the portal} and (2) the vector of gravity pulling the block down the slanted block face, which is lessened by the coefficient of friction of the black face itself.

The chief unknowns here are (a) the coefficient of friction of the block face and (b) how the two portals act physically when they are pressed face-to-face. Do they form a single seamless surface, or is there a 'lip' of space between the two preventing the block from sliding smoothly.

I'm not sure if the calculation can be fully resolved, or otherwise reduced, without knowing set values for those two variables, but if we choose to ignore them, I suppose we can safely say the block will stay static on the slanted face since the value of the vector force of gravity acting straight downwards will always be higher than the value of gravity acting against an angled surface.

That would imply that portals wouldn't work at all cause atoms are always moving

If you are moving at the portal and its moving at you but the other portal is still. Wouldnt that cause your body to expand. One way of thinking about it is items on a conveyor belt leading to a faster conveyor belt. The items on the slower one reach that conveyor and speed up but create more distance between themselves. So technically depending on your frame of reference you are not speeding up but you will come out the other side with your atoms expanded in the direction of the portal.

You're thinking way too hard about this user. The cube has 0 velocity as it enters the portal, therefore it has 0 velocity as it exits. All other arguments about perception are fundamentally invalid.

On the atomic level, the cube would have fully exited the portal before the piston made contact with the platform. Therefore not possible.

You are right, user. The fucking robot even explains that the portal does not affect momentum. Speedy thing goes in. Speedy thing comes out. That's it.

yes, thank you user. this is exactly it. any inertial frame should be consistent with physics anywhere

Somebody needs to run this experiment in the game, also, obviously a

See what I said here
The object physically has no kinetic energy. Portals may violate the known laws of physics, but I'm pretty sure the perpetual motion of a given object wouldn't changed based upon the velocity of the surface around the portal.

Fuck me, portals don't make any sense

I believe it is a, what do you think?

>this

/thread

Wrong. Looking into the stationary portal I see the cube flying towards me. According to the laws of physics my frame of reference is valid - it is not perception, it's measurable. Therefore nothing acts on the cube and it should continue onwards.

From the point of view on the outside, the cube is stationary and remains so

There is no answer because portals violate the laws of physics

There's no thinking to it - those are the facts according to the way our universe operates

Quinta for a

>That doesn't mean the car is actually traveling at 120mph, it's just relative to your perception

You could also say "That doesn't mean the car is actually traveling at 60mph, it's just relative to the Earth".

There is no "actually" moving, that's the whole point of relativity. What you should have said is that the cube is not moving relative to the blue portal when it goes through the orange portal and therefore it's option A. The one thing about portals that violates physics is that they only conserve the scalar speed but not the vector velocity

the transfer is instant therefore speed is not relative. Instant is instant.

Quints for a

Recollection

nice try

You have the same frame of reference looking though a hula hoop.

You're basing this all on that you PERCEIVE the cube flying towards you. Based on the image in the OP we already know the cube is not flying toward you, the portal is moving toward a stationary cube. Just because you perceive the cube as moving does not make it so. We already know as a 3rd observer that the cube is not moving.

Yeah, at most it would slide to the portal's bottom edge and sit there. You're right though, we would need to know more about the boundary conditions of portals themselves. Is only the part of the block still on the orange side affected by orange's gravity? I would think no because if that weren't the case going through portals would probably impart weird rotational motion to everything that passed through it as each individual atom in it passed from one frame of reference to another.

Actually it does affect momentum because momentum is a vector and portals change the direction. It changes the velocity but not the speed

Think about it this way if you hit the car what would be the net energy in the system? It would be that mass of your car plus the mass of the other car times the total speed. It dosnt matter if you hold still and the car moves towards or you both move the same speed at each other or you move towards him the net outcome is the same because the energy is the same.

A

See the hula hoop explanation you flaming retard. Your precious bachelors in physics means jack shit when you haven't considered the fictional theoretical physics of portals

No you dont. If I throw a ball through a hoop, both the outside observer AND someone looking through the hoop sees the ball moving

In this case, one person sees a still cube, another sees it moving. There is so privileged frame, you can't say the outside observer sees it correctly because motion is relative

The observer looking into the stationary portal sees a cube flying at him. And then just suddenly stop without any force acting on it.

Not how our universe works

>gain force
Thanks for letting us know that you don't know physics.

this one really racked my brain, well done OP

You're thinking on way too large of a scale. You're saying "well I could be in outer space and even though from your frame of reference you're standing still but I see you moving because you're standing on a planet which is moving"

That is invalid, because we are observing this portal thing from a singular frame of reference, and that is the picture in the OP. Arguing a point from another frame of reference doesn't make you correct. The whole argument is about what you would see if you were standing from where the picture is taken.

If this is all taking place in the lab down the hall and I happen to see it happen as I'm riding by on my trendy hiphop hoverboard, I'll see that cube sitting on the table, but relative to me, I see it moving towards me with the speed of which I am moving. So I see it as moving even though it is not moving relative to the earth.

Momentum, mother fuckers! Remember how it works!

No such thing. Just because that drawing shows one reference Frame, it does not invalidate the other. It is NOT perception. Looking into the stationary portal you see the cube moving at a measurable speed.

This is how relativity works and why portals are not possible - no frame of reference is more valid than the next. It is NOT perception, the cube IS moving

There is no mass between the two portals so there is nothing to collide with. You have to imagine the portal as a connection between two planes with nothing in between.

>Not all frames of motion are the same for every observer.
where is this explained in the game? as I remember it, the physics work exactly as they do in the real world.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SINGULAR FRAME OF REFERENCE

Read a fucking book on physics

It's b, because the velocity is relative to portal orange, from portal orange's POV the cube is moving toward it at the speed orange is moving toward the cube, since blue and orange share a POV, the cube would fly

You're actually fucking retarded.

I agreed with your original statement I just thought you were arguing it poorly by saying stuff like "actually moving". You should have mentioned the relative position of where you're looking at the blue portal from to justify your reason. But yes you are correct

The real world lol

Portals themselves violate laws of physics bc they allow FTL communication

And I have no idea about the game but that is a fact, there is no single privileged frame of reference anywhere in the universe. See Einstein about it

We're talking about the specific frame of reference from which the picture was taken of the stationary blue portal you autist now hush

Good argument. Maybe read a little on relativity so you understand better before aimlessly insulting someone trying to help you understand

We're observing what happens in OP's picture from a singular frame of reference. Therefore to imagine many other frames of reference is not applicable. We're looking for the answer to what happens when you simply look from the OP's picture point of view.

Doesn't matter where the picture was taken. The facts are all the same

this is what relativity is for you numb nut. option a