Which would happen, Veeky Forums?

*no momentum produced from the bottom mechanism

What about during the time where the box is part way through the portal?

I'll try my best, what I think would happen is that once the center of mass of the cube passes through the portal, the cube then begins to fall while bringing the rest of the cube down.

So what happens to the velocity normal to the exit portal?

Can't be answered like this. It can be either one based on whether the portal translates speed in relation to itself or the actual speed of the object.

The velocity slows as it is changing position

It translates speed in relation to itself.

I would say the first idea since it is the orange portal moving in a downwards motion towards the cube NOT the cube moving upwards towards the portal.

Then it's obviously B. But again, we don't have enough information to tell either way.

Which one is a shitpost? Because that's all that's happening here.

Why is it B though? If the orange portal is moving towards the cube and not the cube moving towards toward the portal, then why should the cube speed up?

I'll pose to you the opposite "Why should it slow down?" It's clearly moving relative to the output reference frame.

Shitpost? This is an actually interesting thread for once.

This

The cube should slow down for it isn't receiving momentum it is only passing through the portal

It kind of is a shitpost though, since there is no right answer to the image. See

It doesn't matter what the cube does in the first frame. What matters is how that portal functions and how it translates speed. If it measures the speed of the object entering it in relation to itself, it will give that speed to the object exiting it.

The only reason you think there is no answer is because you haven't played the game or don't know how portals(fictional) work.

Yeah we already know that objects thrown/dropped through portals conserve momentum.

This means by definition that the portals share a reference frame.

So the image pictures the portal clearly travelling towards the cube which means the cube has no energy because the cube is motionless, so since it translates the speed of the cube which is motionless it will plop towards the ground instead of shooting upwards.

Are you dense? I'm saying the answer is dependent on how that portal works, which is entirely arbitrary.

It isn't.

Ok two rocks collide in space which one was moving and which one was still?

It can be presumed that they're Valve portals, due to their color scheme and the props.

Well how isn't it then? Portals are fictional, therefore there are no rules we can work with.

Have you played portal?

How do I determine which one was moving and which one was not, shall I say both were moving since it is in space so no forces were on the rocks until they collided?

>I say both were moving

So what makes you think that the box is stationary when the rocks in space aren't?

Earth is a rock in space.

The more I think about it the more contradictory answers I get, so ignoring all that shit I've found a simple way to prove that it is B.

As the cube moves through the orange portal to the blue portal more and more of it is on the other side, or from the blue portals perspective, more and move of it comes out. The faster it comes out, the faster the speed of the cube relative to the blue portal. Since the orange portal is slamming into it, it's going to go through the blue portal very quickly, resulting in it shooting out.

Oh so we're actually only talking about the game mechanics then? I thought they used the portal color scheme to make it an easy to understand meme.

I think the box is stationary for the image in question does not define if the box is moving or not. Earth is not motionless, Einstein's relativity principle says that any self-contained experiment that you can conceptually put in a box, gently accelerate to some new velocity and run again will give the same result no matter what velocity you run it at

>no matter what velocity you run it at
So what if you ran it at exactly the velocity of the orange portal plate in the opposite direction?

The colors are just conventions that don't affect the portals, I'm just saying that the colors in OP's pic make them recognizable as Valve portals, meaning it's safe to assume that those are the set of arbitrary rules they're governed by.

The answer is A you stupid fucking brainlet wiggers

In the opposite direction I would presume B. but since it seems the cube is motionless it is A.

In order for B to happen there needs to be a large amount of inertia, speed times mass. The portal event horizon is (I presume) a massless spatial distortion, so it would give the cube a lot of speed but almost no inertia. So A would happen, in my opinion.

Well I get that now. I didn't see the hypothetical portals being restricted that way.
It also doesn't help at all that I'm tripping balls on acid and this is my first time on Veeky Forums

Define motionless.

the answer is that portals can't be on moving surfaces. That would break the laws of physics.

if A is right, that means that the object has momentum while it's traveling through the portal, and then goes to zero for no reason.

if B is right, that means the object simultaneously has zero and non-zero momentum.

so the answer is that this question is impossible even if portals were real

the state of an object to be not moving, not in motion, and to not have velocity, as well as not having kinetic energy.

Portals are fictional, why would it break the laws of physics?

Man I was gonna drop acid today but I'm just getting over a stomach bug. Happy new year user

there's a reason that portals don't move in-game (other than that laser thing which doesn't count, since speed of light)

it breaks the most basic laws of mechanics: conservation of momentum. Unmoving portals preserve all the laws of mechanics.

I should add that the real rule is that momentum of the portal coupling is zero.

the portals can acually move as long as they move in opposite directions at the same rate.

Which does the thread agree upon? A or B?

The game tells you that momentum is conserved. Even if the second portal is moving, only the cube's momentum matters to the game.
>portals can't move
They're moving all the time, the earth is moving and they're on the earth. You can also put a portal on the moon, the moon is moving, portals don't "obey" physics; they're fictional. But they do have a consistent set of game rules they follow, but that's not physics (disregarding that our own reality is a simulation, of course).

Thanks man, very appreciated!

And happy new year to you too of course. Ah fuck it, while we're at it: happy new year all my fellow 4chaners. Doesn't matter what boards you prefer, we're all one big family of weirdos that found their little place of peace and informational anarchy in this site.

Are you nuts? Scientifically, there is no such thing as a new year. This is just arbitrary convention, and nothing special not worthy of gratulation.

>They're moving all the time, the earth is moving and they're on the earth.
>what are reference frames

>portals don't obey physics b/c they're fictional anyway
which violates nature more? A unicorn, or a unicorn that produces free energy? you're fucking dense.

kek

What happens here?

Does this get posted every month?

I came in this thread to basically say this.

The blue portal being stationary (as opposed to moving backwards in the image) violates basic laws of Newtonian physics.

As for portal motion with respect to the rotation of the Earth, it could be that portal physics violates some basic law like Lorentz invariance, therefore invalidating the argument that we must have conservation of the total momentum of the object-portal system before and after the object has passed through the portal.

Perhaps though this violation is only relevant at energy levels not observed in the portal games, and only becomes an issue in strong gravitational fields or environments of high energy density. In environments such as Earth, which is non-inertial but only observed so with respect to large distance/time scales, the Lorentz-invariance breaking of portal physics can be ignored as a perturbation, and portals are allowed to remain stationary, but only for certain periods of time.

I've never played the game. Do portals disappear or close after a time delay?

Imagine the orange portal being a hole - because that's basically what it is. Put a hole in a piece of paper and a dice on a table. Quickly move that piece of paper to the dice. Does that dice, after passing through that piece of paper, have any extra momentum? NO.
It's A.

Only one person on here even posted a remotely plausible scenario.

The changing position of the yellow portal has to create something along the lines of either tension twisting the tunnel, or transferring energy to particles going through it as a kind of cooling effect.

Take a simple portal from the top of a flight of stairs to the ground level. An object making this journey would be losing potential energy and the portal is taking it. This one isn't even the biggest problem. The bigger problem is account for shift in various magnetic and charged surfaces when the portals open. The effect is staggering if the portal opens at its maximum rate. The initial pulse links the two spaces together but the portal opens at a slow rate with an "elongated" path that eventually shortens.

The object is going to travel like path B. If it didn't, then the object would be entering the portal at a different rate than it was leaving. This implies shearing of the object. The initial theories were of an arbitration plane between the two portals to eliminate this problem, but it would merely be kicking the can down the road. The separation would simply be occurring at this new plane instead of the other portal.

Portals are not movable period.

B

Relativity my nigga, don't let those speed-lines confuse you. The top platform with the portal shooting downward is same as the bottom platform shooting up torwards the top platform.

Implying the platforms will rapidly accelerate negatively and not pass through the portal then B is the case.

Otherwise the platform would be traveling through the portal too with the cube still on top.

If velocity of the platform is constant and really slow then A could happen as the force of gravity would win out, but those are a lot of fucking lines so I'm going to assume the platform is moving really fucking fast.

...

Right back at ya, user

A-lets can't be this retarded. it's literally B every fucking time please tell me this is bait.

Upvote!!

Entering portal with 5km/h will naturally make you come out at 5km/h. Thus we could say that object velocity = velocity relative to entry portal + exit portal velocity. This opens up great many possibilities.

>two portals are placed in earth orbit
>Entry "A" is retrograde orbit of 8km/s
>Exit "B" is prograde orbit of 8km/s
>rocket in prograde orbit moving at 8km/s directly impacts portal "A" at 16km/s total and leaving "B" at 16km/s
>the rocket that was previously orbiting in puny 8km/s is now moving at whooping fast 24km/s

Per game, the only way to 'move' a portal is to move everything except it.
Therefore b, as it'll have some energy

developer answerd B. A is only valid if you consider video game physics which could be programed to act either way.

Yes.

So by that logic, if the orange portal doesn't stop and continues moving, the cube should shoot out of the blue portal just fine. And if the orange portal starts moving in the opposite direction, the cube will be sucked back into the blue portal. Makes perfect sense.

Both A and B are incorrect. An object cannot be teleported from a yellow portal to a blue one. They must be of the same color for making the teleport happens

B. violates conservxation of momentum.

nigger regular portals violate conservation of momentum so you need a better argument.

You canonically can. When will you fucking retards learn.

youtube.com/watch?v=mCQiwhik8nc

Sigh.

It's A.

The only thing that could turn it into B is if the rushing air from the portal launches you forward. Example, if the portal engulfed the pedestal as well, the pedestal would keep "pushing" you through the second portal.

>define motionless
>not moving, not in motion
Yeah, I'm gonna ignore this and go ahead and use the rest of your post as your definition of motionless.
Motionless: To not have velocity nor kinetic energy.
So, let's say we're both running at the same speed in the same direction and you measure my kinetic energy with respect to you and viceversa. Both measures will obviously be zero. Would you say we're motionless?

>what of X was possible
>that question is stupid because X is not possible
You are boring.

do you not see that whatever would allow air to rush through is exactly the same thing that would make it B in the first place

the cube crushes itself to nothingness

this is how hyperdrive works
2 portals, no physical distance between them
object trapped in hyperspace

don't respond to brainlets

That portal is moving tangent to it's surface not normal to it's surface.

are you mentally handicapped by any chance?

Why is this discussion still going on?

Portals as they are in game break the laws of physics, let's get that out of the way already.
The particles which makes up the object would be subjected to infinitely high acceleration and the entire object would disintegrate, depending on the material energy might be released and everyone around might die.

If you consider Portal 2 canon, the ending should be enough proof that B is true. Otherwise everything that came out of the portal on the Moon would have been thrown out of it at relativistic speeds (rough estimate: 2π/24h*300000 km. The objects would have been pretty much still in the Earth's co-rotating frame of reference but not in the Moon's)

lmao am actually from Mali

we have another pardox people. super-positions are interesting arent they?

youtube.com/watch?v=0TZd95BCKMY

B

>so the answer is that this question is impossible even if portals were real
No, if Portals are real then B is just a logical consequence.

>move
In what reference frame? They are stationary with respect to earth and the earth is moving in respect to everything else. Who's to say that it's not the cube moving, rather than the portal?

The cube would fly away because portals conserve the magnitude of momentum in the portal's reference frame.

>moving surfaces
Define "moving"

>Repeat until lightspeed

Are you? It's a valid comparison.