Problem solved

It's fairly obvious when you account for relativity, actually.

Both of these are wrong, the box should fall back inside.

Back inside what
Why would it do such a thing

this.

Attached: portal.png (1000x1000, 275K)

Back inside the red portal. The box has no momentum to flop down or shoot out. If the blue portal came down on it, it would come out the red portal, be affected by the new center of gravity, and tip back inside from that angle at the blue portal device lifts back up.

If the blue portal device doesn't lift back up, it would slide or tumble down. There is no force making it pop out.

Dude, the orange portal now feeds into the blue portal which then feeds into a flat surface with literally no area for the block to go anywhere, even according to your own flawed logic it should slide off instead of doing that.

The butterfly lunged into the jar you dumb poo look at how it's gone through it past the hole

ay dipshittle
Portals are not moving doorways.
They are like doors where one side is moving and the other is not

the very moment the jar stopped moving to the left, the butterfly stopped moving too

so the moment red portal drops on the cube, and stops its movement the cubes movement also stop, so it just falls on the groun affected by the new direction of gravity.

B

B is the other one you absolute dip.
If your logic was correct, then anything that's in the air while either portal moves will swing around with it, which makes literally 0 sense at all.

...

The rate at which the box enters the portal needs to be equal to the rate it exits the portal. B is correct.

>If your logic was correct, then anything that's in the air while either portal moves will swing around with it, which makes literally 0 sense at all.

>will swing around with it
wtf does that mean?

>Swing around
>with it

if you mean that they lose their speed, then no
because when you throw butterfly in to the jar, it continues its travel just as you would expect, the fact that it passed jars neck changes nothing

this is consistent with how we perceive portals to operate. Nothing would swing around.

Attached: x.gif (478x718, 2.07M)

Your statement affirms that B is the logically sound one.

That's correct, but we are making the assumption that portals themselves work.
If we don't make that assumption then we can predict anything with equal validity.

>The box has no momentum to flop down or shoot out.
See

it does not as explained herebut since you realize you were wrong you decided to stop arguing the point and just state your prefered option is the correct one
that is wrong
the cube will not fly out of the portal with speed same as the butterfly does not suddenly accelerates and smashes itself against the bottom of the jar.

That doesn't explain anything. A portal is not a jar. See my response here:
and here, namely the train analogy:
Portals, from the frame of reference of observers, effectively move the entire frame of reference behind them to those observing through them. By "observing" I don't mean "It looks like it", I mean that is physically what would have to be happening for portals to exist or move at all.

the answer is A.
the portal would be a straight tunnel with the exits being in a curve, like a wormhole.
the force of the piston doesn't apply if the entire strike area is a hole, therefore when the portal is applied, it goes directly through with no force applied.
because the orange [exit] portal is on an incline, the cube would tumble down slightly because of the position of the orange portal.

Imagine the portal in op is stationary, and the platform moves upwards very fast; do you expect the box to just plop out or keep moving at that speed till it loses energy?

Would you kindly show me then?
If there is no conservation of energy then there is no conservation of momentum, Newton 2nd law is just a empirical law.
If we just assume that the portal just work, then how does it work? Does it just equivalent to just teleport the object to the other side? There is simply just not enough information to answer the question yet it is amazed to see idiots will continue to flock to this with their armchair physics.

Sure

>Portals, from the frame of reference of observers, effectively move the entire frame of reference behind them to those observing through them. By "observing" I don't mean "It looks like it", I mean that is physically what would have to be happening for portals to exist or move at all.

yes,and whole entirety of jar and its content molecules is moved at great speed towards the butterfly. That is the whole world in that example.

That does not change that once that movement stops it stops.
Portals are magic and move the whole universe towards the cube but when they stop, they stop.
Theres absolutely no reason to think that cube or butterfly would suddenly accelerate out at speed.

>Imagine the portal in op is stationary
ok, Imagining red portal to be stationary

>and the platform moves upwards very fast
yeah, so we just accelerate item and throw it in to portal like in game done million times?
it keeps its speed, as glados told
speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out

Attached: portal2.png (1000x1000, 262K)

A somewhat more educated explanation but still wrong. Conservation law need to defined closed system of objects, so that total energy and momentum do not change before and after regardless of frames of reference.

All the physics in this thread are depend on and momentum being conservated, which to the best of knowledge impossible without the conservation of energy.

the cube had no momentum in the first place

>and the platform moves upwards very fast
>the cube had no momentum in the first place

Attached: 1408921799731.gif (446x240, 856K)

The biggest flaw is that what is we need to have a closed system in order to conservation of momentum to work. So which is the system in this case? What is the momentum of the portal? And how the portal momentum change upon impact?

modifications are not valid

Dude, explaining how they work is irrelevant. There are rules that this fictional apparatus abides by and one of those rules is conservation of momentum.

The problem is reference point in your example.
The butterfly is stationary in both frames, the jar is moving and then stops in both frames.
With the portals the box is stationary in the frame the portal is descending, but moving in the frame where the portal is stationary.

Frankly, you can't argue for A, because if you remove the exiting momentum then you should also say that the box has never lost contact with the platform it is on, thus the combined gravity from both reference frames and friction would lead to it not moving.
Now that could also be argued, what surface it is on and the level of friction.

This animation is so poorly done, the perspective you see from the cube below isn't correct at all, like, a kid did this

that would only happen if the incoming platform kept moving, which it did not
how did it stop moving so quickly? and who was phone?

In my mind it's more like b. the energy of moving portal should not be translated to object by any chance if object would fall down to portal it will be more like a. and object will fly trough the room.

It has been solved years ago
youtu.be/3MhNrOFjl-U

It actually does. The jar and the butterfly both exist within the same frame of reference. The thing is, it's not the portal's continued movement that makes the cube continue to move; it's the velocity that the cube inherits from changing frames of reference.
Let's compare the train and jar analogies to see what would happen; they're both equally valid, but each displays the information differently so it's easier to explain somethings with one over the other. let's think about how the butterfly stops moving as the jar stops. For the butterfly to stop moving from the frame of reference of the jar, the jar needs to stop moving. For the person to stop moving from the frame of reference of the train, the train would need to stop moving. Let's say that, as your claim happens, this would happen instantaneously. What happens when a train stops? The passengers experience acceleration (relative to the train) forward, due to the fact that conservation of momentum applies. If the train instantly stopped, all passangers would hit the seat in front of them with the full force of the train. Similarly, if the cube instantly stopped moving, that would require the ENTIRE UNIVERSE to experience a sudden and instantaneous acceleration in the direction opposite the cube's entry, at the same speed.

i mean reverse a and then b.

It's pretty clearly a 3d rendering, meaning that you're wrong

the platform didn't move, the piston did.
the piston essentially has a hole in the target region, so the cube wouldn't move at all until it falls out of the orange portal, which is on an incline. the cube would then fall out due to gravity and land on the floor.

>With the portals the box is stationary in the frame the portal is descending, but moving in the frame where the portal is stationary.

inside of the jar is the frame of reference of the next universe, the molekules of air in it if you will. They are there and they moved against the butterfly when the portal was descending. When it stopped, its stopped.

dunno why people have trouble with this

>Frankly, you can't argue for A, because if you remove the exiting momentum then you should also say that the box has never lost contact with the platform it is on, thus the combined gravity from both reference frames and friction would lead to it not moving.

since majority of the cubes mass is in the blue portals universe those gravitational forces prevail and gently pull it from angled platform.

Gravity is a weak force and is in no way going to counteract the absolutely massive acceleration it's experiencing from the piston.

>the platform didn't move, the piston did.
user literally wrote
>and the platform moves upwards very fast

pay attention

Momentum is a vector, so the block has momentum in the "down" direction, which must be conserved. Maybe the workings of the portal can explain how this momentum shifts from pointing down to pointing up and to the right. Assuming no interference on the part of the portal, the block would maintain its momentum (and thus its velocity) in the down direction.

The animation of that 3d rendering is wrong, bottom pilar isn't perspective correct, like, its coming horizontally instead of at angle, someone can't even rotate 45° a little cube piece.

but the thing is, the platform doesn't move at all.

Dude, do you have any idea how much more difficult it would be to make an incorrect 3d rendering versus a correct one?
You are flatly incorrect.

I know,
tard user made up example where it did...

> the absolutely massive acceleration
and the absolutely massive deceleration

Deceleration does not exist, open a book.
Acceleration is completely relative.

maybe you should open dictionary

the portal stopped moving it stopped moving
sorry if you imagine that the butterfly will suddenly accelerate because jar had acceleration, massive at the beginning
but it stopped its movement, it stopped, it required some force for it, but that force was applied and it stopped.
cube had zero forces applied to it until just gravitation pulled on it down when the new universe appeared

Epic troll kiddo, gotta post contrarian shit just for the sake of it.
Do you feel like you fit in yet?

Attached: epic_trole.jpg (445x361, 51K)

Dude the block is angled on one side and not angled on the other side, are you serious?

This is perfectly accounted for by lens distortion.

Attached: file.png (390x310, 44K)

Rather, the slightly odd shape is perfectly accounted for with lens distortion**
But it's clearly a block with a slope added to the edge of it.

You just proved my point user, thank you.
You might want to have your eyes (and brain) checked.

What got proven, user?
That it's not a cube at all, and that it's a cube with a slope on one edge?
If it was a perfect cube, then the moving cube would shoot out totally flat. I'm assuming that whoever made this wanted to imitate the A vs B image, which clearly shows a sloped trajectory.

Well, I definitely didn't expect to see this crop up nearly a year after I made it, seeing as it was essentially a joke ad at first that I only sent to a discord group.

If anyone cares, I can quickly upload another demo that shows why B likely makes more sense.

Eh, fuck it, I did it regardless since it took all of two seconds
phygon.itch.io/a-vs-b-view-2

>since majority of the cubes mass is in the blue portals universe those gravitational forces prevail and gently pull it from angled platform.
Gravity will extend through the portal. Why wouldn't it? It's not acting on a tiny portion of the cube, it's acting on the whole cube.

>Maybe the workings of the portal can explain how this momentum shifts from pointing down to pointing up and to the right.
In the game if you put two portals on the floor and jump into one you fly up out of the other.
So the vector is preserved opposite to the portal, in one portal is out the other.

Easily demonstrable to not be applicable to the universe as a portal on a wall and a portal on the floor do not make gravity begin going at an angle.

This.
And since velocity is relative.... this points to B pretty firmly for the game's versions of portals.

This is not how it would work.

Attached: how_portals_work.png (721x682, 13K)

Fantastic argument, care to back it up with something

Sure, the cube is stationary, it has no momentum, only it's location in space changes, hence it just falls down as gravity pulls it down after exiting the portal.
Nothing more to it.

Well, since I'm here now I might as well address this;
you're right, but that's also exactly how it does, in fact, work.

Attached: file.png (317x245, 134K)

Momentum is completely relative. It doesn't "gain momentum", it just inherently has momentum in the other frame of reference.
Momentum is not absolute. At all.

Engine limitations.
Just like moving portals are. Technically this problem is irrelevant because in the game portals cannot stay open on a moving surface (relative to the other portal, I guess).

This has nothing to do with it. The cubes momentum relative to the Earth stays the same. You're way too overthinking it.

It's not an "engine limitation", that's just not part of how the portals in Portal work.
According to the rules in the game itself, B would be accurate.
It's not exactly difficult to change the direction of gravity in a game.

Relative to earth, yes.
Relative to the other portal? No. It would be B for the same reason that falling into one portal shoots you out of the other one at the same angle that the other one is at. The portals act as an instantaneous change in frame of reference.

>I'm here now
You have been here since the beggining, fix your shitty animation or gtfo

Nope, I entered here
Also, it's not an animation
What exactly do you think is wrong with it?

Attached: portal.gif (350x350, 28K)

Niger. From the perspective of the orange portal the cube is moving quickly towards it.