Which one is the outcome?

Which one is the outcome?

Download Garrys mod and find out for yourself

I think portals can't be on moving objects. Maybe I'm wrong. To answer the question, portals use relative velocity so I guess the cube would shoot out at whatever velocity the portal moves at

Which one is the outcome?

5

a

because the object itself has no velocity

it would emerge form the portal at the speed of the moving portal only until it was completely though and then have no velocity

Many possible solutions due to small sample size, but my interpretation leads to number five as the solution. The first two squares in each column combine to form the final square. If two of the lines are in the same place they "cancel out".

B

from the perspective of the space where the blue portal is a cube appears at velocity x and is pushed by the platform at that speed until it is completely in that space

It's obviously B because the cube is quickly being put into the red portal causing the blue portal to quickly eject the first entered parts of the cube creating momentum.

brainlet

row 3 minus row 2 equals row 1

take a long poll

accelerate a portal over it

the object appears out of the other portal at the speed of the moving portal, but cannot cause the entire poll to take off as the poll had no velocity and moving the portal over the object does not impart a velocity.

the poll would appear out of the other portal at the speed of the moving portal but would not have any motion of it's own.

like wise the cube would appear at the speed of the moving portal and promptly fall to the ground with no movement.

but imagine a poll where half the poll went through and the other half didn't.

would moving a portal over one half cause the entire poll to accelerate in the direction of the portal? no.

Is pic related what you're describing?
I'm tired as hell so please bear with me

>poll
the pole would gain momentum
his atoms go at a velocity in the new space
mass at vel = momentum created

>Many possible solutions due to small sample size
>"brainlet"
can you read

yes, the moving portal does not impart a velocity otherwise a moving portal would cause a suction effect where every thing would accelerate through it.

If what I drew is right, moving the red portal would create acceleration.
This seems pretty conclusive.

I called you brainlet because there is only 1 possible solution...

By moving the portal you are making the part of the poll leaving the blue portal move. This causes momentum.
What suction effect are you talking about?

>ew is right, moving the red portal would create acceleration.

yes there is no difference if portal or object moves

same result

How is my solution any less valid than your interpretation

my interpretation gives only solution 5 when yours is undetermined in a problem that has to give 1 solution...

Maybe the question is just flawed then?

no, its a raven matrix test so its job is to fuck with you

I got it instantly determined to answer 5 so I get more score or gain time while you decide based on a false relation

You cannot put a portal on a moving object in game because true relative motion in a game is difficult and was unnecessary.
But should relative motion hold: B would answer it.

Makes no difference which party is moving.

What's neater is: One object between two portals that come together, both facing into eachother.
The object would be crushed by itself through force applied externally.

Wrong. The object ceases to exist because the game engine redraws the object as it exits and erases the object as it enters.

If you put two portals next to each other in game and drop an object through, you never see a half in half out situation. You see two of the same halfs.

The only reasonable conclusion is a.

Also hula hoops
Also, relativity

Trying to explain this with conservation of momentum won't work for the reason explained above

given the game's logic, it's impossible

but if we suppose it were possible, the evidence we have that doesn't involve retarded hacks indicates that there is no conservation of momentum (portals explicitly violate conservation of momentum for good reason) so it would be A

It may be something other than "A" as well, but there is zero game-evidence for B. If portal rushing at a cube from the cube's perspective is the same as a cube rushing at a portal from the portal's perspective, and if a rushing portal from a third position imparts momentum on a stationary cube, then a moving cube would necessarily impart momentum on a stationary portal, meaning that you couldn't actually travel through a portal on a giant fucking wall, instead it would be just like hitting the wall

"B" is 100% wrong and I fucking hate B-fags

Moving portals in portal 2.

It's been done and tested. According to the in game engine, anyway, A is correct.

Prove that there is only one valid pattern.

5 is the correct answer. You just add or take away lines left to right. The top and middle are examples. Brainlet.

There are moving portals in the second game you idiots, stop saying it's impossible

what level in Portal 2?

> CS majors can't into basic Gallilean relativity or affine spaces.

should be B. Difference in velocity does not care what moves. Within the portal the object has a directional speed away from the portal.

Physics is an empirical science. Without being able to experiment, you can argue for both outcomes. Trying to figure an answer is a pointless exercise in autism unless you're working at Valve coding the portals.

If no momentum was preserved, there is no way to exit the portal. Being as your entry speed affects the exit speed of a portal (running versus walking into a portal on a wall) there is no reason to assume the depicted scenario would have its own physics. B is correct.

You cant even place portals to two different inertial coordinate systems. That is portals cant move relative to each other. Play the game and you see.

so the other portal of the pair has to be on a similar plunger moving in the opposite direction? I assumed the other one was stationary for simplicity of the example.

B, the cube will also steal momentum from the moving platform in the frame of reference of the laboratory.

If you cut a hole in a piece of paper, you're making a portal to the other side of the paper. It doesn't matter how fast you push the paper's hole on top of an object, the object has not been acted upon by a force so it gains no momentum. It simply appears on the other side as fast as the paper is moving.

Cube has no momentum.
Portal, which instantly transport cube from point a to point b
Cube comes out dropping out.
It's actually two independent systems.
One portal with one object. Other portal with same object.
Only thing shared is the object, so only the properties of the object matter in this case, not the properties of the portals.
Why would you transfer properties from one system to another system that aren't shared whatsoever?

It's A 100%.
If the cube moved, it would be B 100%

it gains no momentum, but it certainly retains it. If not how could it ever exit fully?

The only reason it exits the portal is because the surface it appears on is a slope and gravity pulls it down.

the way i see it the surfaces of the portal pair are locked. the cube has 'motion' relative to the entry surface, and this motion is preserved when it exits.

why does it not simply fall back into the portal?

This means that the properties of the space somehow change. Why would it transfer the motion from object a to object b?
Ofcourse the cube has motion relative to one portal. It has no motion relative to the other portal because it's not even in the system with it yet untill it's in a relationship with it.
You can only start to talk about the second portal and the second object once the cube moves through it. It doesn't matter what the relationship between the portals are, it's instant transportation, that's it. Only the objects moving through it converse their properties.
It would seriously fuck with the properties of spacetime if you could suddenly transfer properties from one object to another without actually using force upon that object.

And this is actually what probably would happen, but for the elegance of the situation it's A (but it's actually neither because it would fall down, hit the edge of A and then fall back into the portal)

My assumption is that the moving portal impacts the surface the cube is resting on and stops, so the portal is basically turned into a flat surface.

You seem to have explained why teleportation is not possible in the real world.
If the transportation is instantaneous this implies that the 'distance' from the entry and exit points are zero. This means that at all times while in transit the object is both on the entry and exit side of the ports. The force pushing into the surface transports our of the surface, since the object is never actually broken, nor even temporarily stored or located inside the port.

A. The orange portal is moving, not the block. There's no reason for the block to gain movement.

Nothing that I or you have said contradict the concept of teleportation. Only that one of the prerequisites of actually teleporting is needing a force acting on the object (e.g. moving, pushing, ...)

This is by far my favourite troll physics question because a correct answer and true explanation seems so tangible for both A and B but not enough that the argument ever ends, despite there being no correct answer. Whoever first came up with this opened up the best can of worms troll physics has ever seen

the plunger pushing the entry portal onto the object is the same as the plunger pulling the exit portal away over the object. how is this not force, interestingly the portal should lift the object before all of its mass has teleported. once the momentum of the mass on the exit side is greater than the force exerted by gravity on the mass of the intake side.

>Yes, portal 1 pushing is the same as portal 2 pulling. It's force, but from two different systems and applied in two different instances. So a portal basically deals with two different events where only the causal relationship between them is the object moving through them.
Only the object with its properties is relevant to the situation.

I see it as an autism litmus test.

it's definitely A, otherwise conservation of energy is violated.
the cube at rest has no kinetic energy. If it were to gain energy from the moving portal that energy would be created from nowhere
i could prove this rigorously but it would not be a wise use of my time

>If it were to gain energy from the moving portal that energy would be created from nowhere

What? You just stated where it came from -- from the moving portal.

Since we do not actually know the theory that makes portals possible, all we know about them is through in-game observation, and the situation pictured never happens in-game. (If there is ever another game, they should include this as something you see happening while being carried past a window into a chamber, and you are carried out of sight before seeing what happens. Just to fuck with people.)

>I think portals can't be on moving objects.

In Portal 2 you briefly encounter portals on horizontally moving panels.

>because the object itself has no velocity
>it would emerge

I detect paradox. If it is emerging,it has velocity in its new frame of reference.

This

the portal doesn't lose energy; how can it impart energy to an object without creating it from nothing?

Defense of the concept that items exiting the blue portal must have velocity imparted to them:

Take the cube, or pole that somebody mentioned, out of it. The moving portal is pushing through air, molecules of various gases hit the portal and exit at the blue end. In order to allow this process, said molecules must move away from the blue portal in a steady breeze, pushed by the new molecules coming through behind them. This imparts velocity to the molecules, and would do the same for more solid objects.

If this doe snot happen, if molecules are not pushed away by new molecules coming through behind them, then moving portals cease to function as portals at all since nothing can go through them.

But since OP's image presents us with moving portals that DO work, B is the correct answer.

Play the other game and you will see you are wrong.

Also, OP's question is not part of the game, and clearly has a working, moving portal, whatever the game says.

Would you get a sheared cube then?

>why does it not simply fall back into the portal?

Can't, the platform the cube was initially resting on is in the way on the other end

MOMENTUM AND ENERGY AREN'T CONSERVED IN PORTAL BECAUSE TRANSLATIONAL AND TIME INVARIANCE ARE BROKEN

EVERY ANSWER THAT APPEALS TO EITHER CONSERVATION LAW IS WRONG

>the portal doesn't lose energy;

They've been known to.

>doe snot

Dammit!!!

The cube is moving relative to the world on the other side of the portal at say, 2 meters per second. Once the portal covers the cube and stops moving, the cube is moving at 0 meters per second relative to the portal and the world on the other side of it.

The answer is A. Sometimes game engines get this wrong and simulate B.