It's 2022, why do you still believe in B?

It's 2022, why do you still believe in B?

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I really hope B's are just an elaborate shitposting company, instead of sub-80 iq faux phycists.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    a-ahhhhn~

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      MOOOOOODS

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      tags: femdom

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Faster

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      you need to stop, sir.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why is it still moving at 10m/s after it goes through the portal?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          it says it in the picture, the very second it is completely out of the portal it is 10m/s.
          It then arcs up where it will slow down a little bit.
          But when it comes back down and gets to the same horizontal point where it started it will be exactly 10m/s again before speeding up farther due to gravity.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Because it losing that momentum would be a violation of Newton's First Law

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            And why would you assume Newton's First Law applies?
            >Well duh, it's a law of physics
            Portals break every law of physics, meaning they are no longer applicable to the problem.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So? Newton's Laws are derived from classical mechanis. Portals are the domain of General Relativity. There is no conservation of energy and momentum in General Relativity.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          What reason would it have to stop?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        massive levels of cope

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        All these words just to be wrong.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      ain't read all that shit, just say one of the 2 letters

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is beautiful, thank you.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >all those words and pseudo studies just to ""validate"" the wrong answer
      This is the same level as those reddit and twitter pseudo intellectuals posting threads about how X thing is good or bad for you, bro the only way B could be the correct answer is if the plataform the cube is standing was the one moving and the one above it was static.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah bro when you push a cube out a portal it just moves without any force it just appears there and phases through any other objects that it would touch.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Haha, I presuposed a bunch of nonsense about B being correct because it just is! :*~~)
      >please repost my garbage in every thread plz
      There's really no limit to the sheer amount of cock Bfags can suck, is there?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No Afag has ever refuted this. Without fail you get absolutely retarded yet smug attempts at cope which essentially boil down to "tl;dr", which isn't all that surprising given Afags are retards I guess. They're too busy pulling the lever, not switching doors, and claiming a 50% chance of a second gold ball.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >They're too busy pulling the lever, not switching doors, and claiming a 50% chance of a second gold ball.
        I do all of these things and I am right in each instance.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Put a set of portals on the ground floor of your hotel
    >each portal leads to a different floor of the building
    >save money by not needing an elevator
    >also break the laws of physics
    Can also be used to make water turbines that create infinite energy.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >get yourself a vertical vacuum tube
    >place portals at the end of tube
    >drop a giant anvil into the tube
    >with no air resistance the alvil accelerates at 1g indefinitely
    >wait a couple of years
    >alvil now falling at nearly 99% speed of light
    >remove portal at the bottom
    >anvil smashes into the ground with enough force to destroy the planet

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      .99c is not that fast all things considered. It would be a couple orders of magnitude stronger than nukes, but many orders two low for obliteration of the planet. I think earth went through far worse in the impact that made the moon

      An object in motion stays in motion

      Congrats, you found the crux of the argument and the reason it will never be settled, because nobody will ever reach an agreement on whether or not the cube itself is moving, since we are talking about physics that aren't real. We can all go home now.

      Motion is relative, not absolute. In literal terms, relativity doesn't care if it's the cube moving or the portal moving, because both mean the same thing.
      Now, do portals abide by relativity? Who knows, it's dumb

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah I kinda exaggerated there but the point is you could make epic kinetic projectile doomsday weapons with portals.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      assuming a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s, it would actually take almost exactly a year, or 354 days to achieve lightspeed. Now, you require more energy to accelerate the object as it achieves relativistic speeds, but the nifty thing is that since you are accelerating via gravity, through a impossible perpetual motion machine, and gravity imparts energy relative to the mass, no matter how fast and relativistically massive the object gets it will still accelerate at the same rate of 9.8 m/s2. Now, there are two dangers with this (as if a cannonball moving at .99 c isn't dangerous enough). The first, theoretical, is that this would mean that the cannonball would eventually gain tremendous amounts of mass, and this mass would generate its own gravitational field, and the structure would wobble off-track, collapse, or turn into a black hole. The second problem, which will happen first, is that you can't make a perfect vacuum, so the cannonball will rub against the micro-atmosphere in the tube. Even if you pumped out ALL the air through superscience means, the walls would probably offgas enough to provide noticable resistance, and the heat generated would melt the structure.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        So my doomsday machine could be able to form a black hole with high enough relativistic speeds? Wonderful.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're a perfect example of b-tards and

      assuming a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s, it would actually take almost exactly a year, or 354 days to achieve lightspeed. Now, you require more energy to accelerate the object as it achieves relativistic speeds, but the nifty thing is that since you are accelerating via gravity, through a impossible perpetual motion machine, and gravity imparts energy relative to the mass, no matter how fast and relativistically massive the object gets it will still accelerate at the same rate of 9.8 m/s2. Now, there are two dangers with this (as if a cannonball moving at .99 c isn't dangerous enough). The first, theoretical, is that this would mean that the cannonball would eventually gain tremendous amounts of mass, and this mass would generate its own gravitational field, and the structure would wobble off-track, collapse, or turn into a black hole. The second problem, which will happen first, is that you can't make a perfect vacuum, so the cannonball will rub against the micro-atmosphere in the tube. Even if you pumped out ALL the air through superscience means, the walls would probably offgas enough to provide noticable resistance, and the heat generated would melt the structure.

      is a perfect example of an a-tard.
      B-tards try to argue some theoretical thought experiment bs. They disregard all kinds of factors and only mention whatever factor it is that works in their arguments favor in a pitiful attempt to "disprove" others.

      Meanwhile, a-tards will think about how things would actually work were the problem translated into real-life. They take into account more than one factor and think about the problem more openly.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        ...that greentext wasn't even talking about the A or B problem. Are you okay anon?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Both of them are examples of B-tards since they understand physics and regocnize that portals violate the laws of reality.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Recognize*

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        i am

        assuming a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s, it would actually take almost exactly a year, or 354 days to achieve lightspeed. Now, you require more energy to accelerate the object as it achieves relativistic speeds, but the nifty thing is that since you are accelerating via gravity, through a impossible perpetual motion machine, and gravity imparts energy relative to the mass, no matter how fast and relativistically massive the object gets it will still accelerate at the same rate of 9.8 m/s2. Now, there are two dangers with this (as if a cannonball moving at .99 c isn't dangerous enough). The first, theoretical, is that this would mean that the cannonball would eventually gain tremendous amounts of mass, and this mass would generate its own gravitational field, and the structure would wobble off-track, collapse, or turn into a black hole. The second problem, which will happen first, is that you can't make a perfect vacuum, so the cannonball will rub against the micro-atmosphere in the tube. Even if you pumped out ALL the air through superscience means, the walls would probably offgas enough to provide noticable resistance, and the heat generated would melt the structure.

        and the answer is clearly B.

        The answer hinges on one assumption, but I think it's pretty basic, and that's that objects outside of portals act like they do in real life. And with that assumption, the answer is clearly B, because if a cube, a collection of atoms, leaves a portal at a certain rate, then once it steps out of the portal magic physics zone, it maintains that rate. There's nothing that would make the cube stop midair. If you paused the piston halfway over the cube, then the molecular bonds in the interface zone would experience a sudden snag, which would either rip the cube in half, or make the top yank the bottom up the portal (or fail to do so, depending on the speed of the piston).

        An object at motion will stay at motion, and the cube is at motion relative to the new environment.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      don't even need to wait a full year

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This will result in G-man coming to arrest you for fucking about with infinite energy.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    An object in motion stays in motion

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Congrats, you found the crux of the argument and the reason it will never be settled, because nobody will ever reach an agreement on whether or not the cube itself is moving, since we are talking about physics that aren't real. We can all go home now.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The cube has to move in order to exit a stationary exit, which just requires understanding that portals alter velocities of objects, which they are established to do via even basic portal flings.

        The only reason an agreement can't be reached is one side is just insanely stubborn on this.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >portals alter velocities of objects
          They don't.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes they do

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              They can't because they don't affect the object but space.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                if they just warp space, then the cube wand scenario is possible

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The portals themselves do. Dumbasses like you just don't understand that regular physical phenomenon like gravity still exists on either side of the portal. The wand is impossible, since as soon you let go of the cube on the other side the cube would be affected by gravity. This doesn't disprove anything but rather just makes you look like a moron. Whoever came up with the wand thing is a grade-a retard.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Pushing the cube through, creating some amount of kinetic energy effectively changing the problem to a completely different scenario.
                >Doesn't even apply physics correctly in their own parody.
                >"Ha! Fucking gotcha a-tards"

                Imagine being this retarded

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >effectively changing the problem to a completely different scenario
                This is the crutch of every A argument. In science you should be able to change things and observe logical results. But if you ever change ANYTHING about the Portal problem they'll raise their hands and swear off it. "This is completely different, nothing alike!" Almost as if their little argument exists in complete isolation and can't be proven or reproduced in any other context. Completely unfalsifiable.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >In science you should be able to change things and observe logical results.
                Totally agree with this statement.
                The problem with b-tards is that their notion is that you should be able to change things about the experiment and observe the same results which is absolutely high levels of retardation. Moving the object through the portal and moving the portal into the object is a completely different circumstance, of which you can't simply expect to see the same result.
                You can make logical conclusion for either but expecting both to yield the same result is the furthest thing from science one can do.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                should be something like
                >if the cube is exiting, that means it's moving out
                >I don't get it, it's not moving anywhere
                >But if it's coming OUT of somewhere that means it's moving right?
                >But it has no momentum
                >It has, because it's moving
                >but nothing is pushing the cube

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Lights momentum is not relative

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Light is kind of an outcast on everything due to being massless

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Light. The logic is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of the Torah most of the special relativity will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Gods nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Canaanite literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just true- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Light truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Gods name "YHWH," which itself is a cryptic reference to Zoroastrianisms Arhiman. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Ezikiels genius wit unfolds itself on their phone screens. What fools.. how I pity them.

                And yes, by the way, i DO have a Star of David tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                WHY IS THERE A PORTAL ON A FLESHLITE???

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Glados literally explains to you that they don't in the game itself. She tells you that portals PRESERVE velocity and momentum, but do not themselves alter either of those factors.

              "Speedy thing in, speedy thing out."

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Explain how leave the first chamber of Portal without changing momentum. Remember that momentum is a vector and has a direction. Remember that you don't move the same direction to enter and exit the first portal you go through.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The PORTAL isn't changing anything, NATURAL FORCES are exerting themselves on the objects that pass through the portals, but again, THE PORTALS THEMSELVES aren't altering those forces. They're folding space, nothing more.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                BECAUSE THEY DON'T MOVE IN THE FIRST GAME

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Glados also said there would be cake. Glados is insane.
                Speed is not velocity.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Velocity is defined with a direction. So even basic portal flings entails altering velocity.

            They can't because they don't affect the object but space.

            So by your argument a portal fling does NOT entail changing the direction an object travels even though it's the entire point of doing them?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              There's such a thing as "absolute veloctity" which is the magnitude of the velocity vector. You're a total midwit, yes portals change the direction of the vector, there is absolutely nothing to suggest they change the magnitude and they never have.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                We see them change the magnitude in the moon scene.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                See the gif in

                >There are zero design documents explaining the technology.
                You don't need that. You literally just observe how they are shown to work as depicted in the games.

                It's established they alter velocities (changing direction of travel is changing velocity). Because there's no reason to think the earth is special you can conclude they abide by galilean invariance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance. Which means that the reference frame which defines both portals as stationary is the only one where the object's speed is consistent and ONLY direction changes.

                Which means that if you're using a reference frame where a portal is moving, it automatically means they can alter speed. See gif.

                The only question left is what happens specifically in scenarios where the portals differ in velocity (so when one is moving but the other isn't). But we already seen in portal canon that follows B logic as the moon scene depicts B happening due to chell's speed altering based on the velocity difference of the earth portal and moon one.

                Claiming portals can only alter direction is 100% reliant on using a reference frame that defines both portals as stationary. In any reference frame where a portal moves the capacity to alter speed as well exists.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                What's the point in this? The given scenarios of A and B hold the portals stationary, that's what we're discussing, not something else.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The given scenarios of A and B hold the portals stationary
                What do you mean? The orange portal is clearly depicted as moving.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                There's nothing to suggest they don't change the magnitude other than a half assed explaination of portal flinging designed for the average valve playtester

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Portals don't alter velocities of objects.
          Let's look at this problem as if we were the cube and were looking directly into the orange portal to make this clear.
          The piston slams down on us and we appear on the other side of the portal. The whole time we were looking directly ahead of us. A straight line. Our velocity didn't change.
          The only thing that changed was the gravitational vector in relation to us. The velocity of the cube or "us" in that thought experiment never changes.

          To an outside viewer it appears that we changed our viewing direction, as before we entered the orange portal we were looking straight up, but after emerging from the other side we are looking diagonally up at an angle. That's an illusion created by the other portal being placed in a different orientation in relation to the orange portal. Were the blue portal placed on a flat surface parallel to the ground like the orange portal then even to the outside viewer our viewing direction doesn't change eventhough for us going through the portal, we see the same thing no matter how the portals are placed.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            By your logic when chell jumps down a portal to do a portal fling she doesn't consider her direction of travel (and therefore her velocity) to have changed when going through the portal.

            If it's your insistence even then to purely think of it as a universe around her that has changed then you use

            And if the portal is moving that means the universe seen inside is moving to you by the same logic. Therefore being sent into this moving universe, even when motionless, is identical to being the one who is actually moving.

            .

            It's basically semantics. It's either B because portals are already established to alter velocities or it's B because you've argued the cube has ended up in a universe that is moving around it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Portals don't alter velocities of objects.
            That's said like that because portals can't be casted on moving surfaces. In truth, the actual rule is that the portal does not alter any object's velocity as the velocity the object has when it's entering the portal in relation to itself. In other words, it doesn't change the velocity at which the objects enter the portal. Regardless of what you think is moving, the portal or the object, the point is that the object comes out at the exact same speed it enters the other portal. A is the one supporting the claim that the velocity of the cube is altered, because it comes out fast but stops suddenly for no reason, when the rule suggests the cube would just continue exiting at the same velocity it entered because there is nothing in the portlal mechanism altering it.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              B keeps thinking about portals as if they are something to enter and exit when in actuality you don't "enter" or "exit" a portal at all. The portals connect to points in space through means we have no explanation with real life physics for. Objects that go "through" are basically just being displaced in a room while maintaining their energy state. They don't "travel" from one end of the portal to the other.
              >A is the one supporting the claim that the velocity of the cube is altered
              No it's not. The velocity of the cube is never altered. Doesn't matter how fast the portal moves into it. The cube never "enters" a portal. It is just being displaced.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Again:

                And if the portal is moving that means the universe seen inside is moving to you by the same logic. Therefore being sent into this moving universe, even when motionless, is identical to being the one who is actually moving.

                You either acknowledge portals altering velocities. Or you're arguing they bend the universe around the object, in which case the object is ending up in a universe that is moving around it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Both don't make sense. Portals don't change the velocity of an object because they never interact with the object directly and the direction of the portal is relative to whatever you want to center the viewpoint on. It's irrelevant for the object going through.
                Having the universe move towards you when you see the portal move towards you doesn't make sense either, since you're still in the same universe before going through the portal or after. You yourself would move with the universe towards yourself as soon as the portal starts moving. Wrap your head around that for a bit.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The cube isn't moving.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >it's not moving

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    God I hate physics

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://poal.me/olri6p
    Lets see how smart Ganker is

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      9-5 A-B
      not a good look

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ganker confirmed retard

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I choose to believe most of those people are merely pretending to be retarded to get their kicks.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        As if there was ever any doubt

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        We're still smarter than resetera.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          https://www.resetera.com/threads/can-you-solve-this-portal-riddle.247273/

          Holy shit this activates my almonds

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            oh wow, the confidence of those answers

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            jesus christ this fucking guy

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              The buster keaton example is exactly why the right answer is B.

              He's exiting the window at the same speed as he is entering it.

              If the answer would be A and you'd watch in slowmotion the cube would be compressed somehow.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're missing the part where Keaton "suddenly loses all of that speed".

                The reason he does is that his speed compared to the ground (and everything else) on the other side of the doorway is the same as before because both sides of the doorway moved in unison.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not that anon but strictly speaking the relative speed is lost due to the doorway hitting the ground.

                However, the exit in the original problem makes no change in velocity. It remains stationary at all times. So there is no point where the speed is lost. Therefore it is kept.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You're missing the part where Keaton "suddenly loses all of that speed".
                He continues moving the same speed.
                It's the exit that stops.
                In the portal it's the ENTRANCE that stops, not the exit. If you want an apt comparison, imagine the fucking exit portal got carried WITH the cube as it launched.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You're missing the part where Keaton "suddenly loses all of that speed".

                If you imagine the backside of the window he doesn't lose speed; he exits at the same rate.

                Now if the house were to crash down at him at 1000mph, he would exit the window at 1000 mph.

                So if a port orange portal was attached to the front and a blue portal somewhere else he'd exit the blue portal at the same speed as he'd entered the orange portal.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >same speed
                what speed, you retard?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                the speed at which he passes through the window
                aka the speed at which the window passes over him

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The speed at which he enters and exits the doorframe. Which is inherently a relative concept. This is basic physics anon.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >windows are portals
              Resetera confirmed retarded, jesus fucking christ.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's 2022, where the fuck is this modded in the game to be tested

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      the base game answer is C, a portal can't pass over a stationary object https://youtu.be/B19nlhbA7-E?t=209

      In order to mod it, you need to choose an answer first and then program the engine to behave in line with your answer

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >A fags think a cube will be pushed through a hole at great speeds will just suddenly lose it and fall to the ground
    The game says speedy thing go in, speedy thing go out. The cube is speedy relative to the portal spitting it out, so the cube stays speedy.
    Why would it stop being speedy?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because the cube is never speedy to begin with.
      Even relatively the conclusion that in relation to the orange portal, the cube is moving into it doesn't work, since no matter from what relative perspective you view it, the cube is unmoving. In numbers that would mean that in relation to the orange portal, the cube has negative speed and "accelerates" to 0 mp/h after "travelling" through the portal.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Speedy THING not speedy PORTAL, retard

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's all relative. Like your parents.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Speedy THING not speedy PORTAL, retard

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        funny, if not for the disagreement about what speedy means

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Portals aren't doors, windows, hula hoops, or holes in floors
    Portals can cause objects to move relative to themselves and impart infinite energy into a system

    It is not A it will never be A

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >portals arent the literal things they are, they operate entirely differently from the parameters dictated to us
      >b-because i said so!
      the absolute state of b-fags

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT FORCES ARE AT PLAY IN THE OPERATION OF A PORTAL, THEREFORE ANY ARGUMENT, WHETHER IT IS FOR A OR B IS BASED ON PURE CONJECTURE AND THUS THERE IS NO CONCRETE ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM.

    FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP THIS INCESSANT BICKERING.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you think that then you don't understand why it is B.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        There are zero design documents explaining the technology. To assume it obeys know physics is just as retarded as to assume it does not.

        Just stop.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >There are zero design documents explaining the technology.
          You don't need that. You literally just observe how they are shown to work as depicted in the games.

          It's established they alter velocities (changing direction of travel is changing velocity). Because there's no reason to think the earth is special you can conclude they abide by galilean invariance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance. Which means that the reference frame which defines both portals as stationary is the only one where the object's speed is consistent and ONLY direction changes.

          Which means that if you're using a reference frame where a portal is moving, it automatically means they can alter speed. See gif.

          The only question left is what happens specifically in scenarios where the portals differ in velocity (so when one is moving but the other isn't). But we already seen in portal canon that follows B logic as the moon scene depicts B happening due to chell's speed altering based on the velocity difference of the earth portal and moon one.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >changing direction of travel is changing velocity

            But they're not changing the direction of travel. The box in your .gif moves in a single, straight, unbroken line.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              left is a different direction to right
              unless you're implying space folding in which case, fair enough but that's beyond most people here

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not "implying" anything. That's literally how portals work. The man looking into the orange portal just sees the man looking into the blue portal. Throwing the cube through the portal to him is literally the same as throwing a baseball to a man standing on the other side of the room.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And if the portal is moving that means the universe seen inside is moving to you by the same logic. Therefore being sent into this moving universe, even when motionless, is identical to being the one who is actually moving.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Aww, ha ha ha! He doesn't know about the law of inertia! That's so cute!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't see how that impacts what is said. Even laws of inertia abide by relative movement.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I wish this had more focus. The portal does jack shit, it's the universe on the other side that is moving.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Doesn't matter how you think about it. Do you acknowledge what is shown in the final shot of the gif? Then to all intents and purposes you have acknowledged the capacity of portals to create the result depicted in B.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              From no one's reference frame except a box centered reference frame does the box travel in a straight line. Everyone else see a change in velocity direction.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Couldn't it be argued that Chell gets sucked through the portal due to the other side of the portal being in the vacuum of space, rather than it being due to a velocity difference?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              that's obviously the case since she doesn't immediately fly sideways at 200mph once she's through
              that cutscene depicts something consistent with B

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              It's both anon. Vacuum of space is why she's pulled in. But then her speed explicitly changes when she's actually going through the portal.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            meanwhile, zero account for the rotation of the earth, orbit around the sun, etc.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              None needed. Covered by that wikipedia link.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Hey retard, the whole point is conjecture and it's an end to itself
      We can ask ourselves what we think is the answer that the devs would have programmed (B). We can ask ourselves what is the answer that is most congruent with IRL physics if we presuppose the existence of portals (B). We can even ask ourselves what would make sense to a 75IQ moron (A). Conjecture and speculation are enjoyable in and of themselves.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sounds like you're upset that your belief in A got shaken.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What I am upset about is people arguing about things that literally do not matter. Even metawhore number crunching is a better use of time AND more vidya related than this.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >people arguing about things that literally do not matter.
          see any religious wars.
          How are you upset at this?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It generates replies which is what micro dick attention whores lie OP crave along with giving evey other retard an incentive to start arguing.
      It will never stop being posted.
      A

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Anyone else notice it's already afags that get sick of these threads being posted?

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    anyone got the pic where the guy is bending over in front of the exit portal while the entrance portal is moving towards a dick?
    >it's okay because the dick isn't moving

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >has to change the argument to not look retarded

        yup that's a b fag alright

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >has to change the argument to not look retarded
          ??? there's still a moving portal moving towards a stationary object

          Are you acknowledging putting your ass over the exit and expecting not to be penetrated is the retarded position? Because that's a self-own if I've seen one.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            How do you not forget to breathe.

            left is a different direction to right
            unless you're implying space folding in which case, fair enough but that's beyond most people here

            Direction is relative to the viewer. If I look one way then left is "left of me". If I turn around 180° what was left before is now "right of me".

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              You made no argument against the fact that the argument seen in

              is the same.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        a classic. thanks m8

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >ctrl+f "relative to what"
    >0 results
    Are you guys even trying?

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >One row of atoms is through the portal
    >Gravity starts to drag it down
    >Second row of atoms goes through the portal
    >Gravity has now pulled the first row down 1x whatever time units
    >Third row of atoms
    >Row one has been pulled 2x, row two 1x
    >etc.
    >By the time the last atoms are affected by the angled gravity, the first ones will have been pulled down for trillions of time units
    It will not emerge as a cube at the other end.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      ASPECT RAIDOU

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why would one row of atoms move independently from all the other atoms they are connected to within their structure? Unless the cube is made of some material that is very soft, while mainting a change in shape, that wouldn't be what happens. For example if this was a solid steel cube, the structural integrity would make it impossible for one row of atoms to shift without pulling on the adjacent atoms.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're assuming that it is a matter transporter when the ideal of a portal is a hole in the world.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This doesn't account for quantum entanglement

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    People don't actually think it is B right? They have to be trolling.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Could any Afag answer me what happens to the cubes here? Not trying to catch you out, actually curious what you think

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the cubes are pushed out to the way but they stop when the portal stops
      is the usual reply, if any.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Some A-non please answer me

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        This is one of this images that Afags are always very reluctant to answer.

        Sort of like pic related. Though nowadays you get A fags who insist the cube exits at 150 mph and fail to understand why that is impossible even after it is explained to them.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The third diagram doesn't makes sense since portals are two dimensional - you can't exit a portal backwards. It should be 50 mph in whichever direction the portal is facing, presumably down.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's the second diagram which is depicting the cube exiting backwards. The portal is on top of a grey block. That A doesn't make any sense is the point of the image.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Fair enough, but I think everyone at least acknowledges that portals change the direction of movement since that's how you play the game.
              Making the diagram more wrong than needed seems to be a bad idea considering how many people misuse heuristics here.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                But that's just it. Two portals facing opposite directions never alter travel directions in the games.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          if you actually read what he writes he says that a force would be needed to stop A from flying upwards (because he conflates speed with acceleration) but then he also says he isn't sure how the velocity needed for B to happen (in other words, the acceleration) is coming from and it's up to guesswork.
          So it's not a proof in favour of B. He's simply explaining how he would have programmed it

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Say fuck it and meet in the middle, 100 mph

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Pretending this is happening in a vacuum and there is no gravity:

      The orange portal passes through the blocks and they are shot out of the blue portal, but they only keep their momentum if the orange portal also keeps moving. When the orange portal stops the blocks will instantly lose the momentum they got from the portal and also stop.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks for actually answering.
        What force or phenomena causes the top-most block to stop moving when the orange portal finishes enveloping the bottom block and comes to a stop. The top block is already long through the portal and shouldn't care about what's going on behind it.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >When the orange portal stops the blocks will instantly lose the momentum they got from the portal and also stop.
          and this portal "force force-field" is how you end up at the magic flashlight

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Tbh I was not serious when writing that, even though it is basically this:

          That image made me realize that A is just as weird as the idea that the objects gain energy (momentum) out of nowhere from B.

          From this video: https://youtu.be/wrwgIjBUYVc [Open], I am trying to understand is the movement of space from the orange portal would create momentum when relative to the still space from the blue portal. But I'm not sure.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      ...they teleport and then fall one right after the other?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        So the cubes all exit at the same spot in fast succession and somehow don't push into each other?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Their atoms are being displaced at the speed the portal is moving. Whether it's enough to cause an acceleration is the debate at hand. I don't think it is.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sounds like it would depend on the speed of the portal. If you acknowledge it's enough to launch the cube provided the orange portal is fast enough. Then you've confirmed B.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              As an aside, I thought I was responding to a post responding to

              >observing in slow motion how every part of the cube, supposedly motionless on the other end, has every next part moving into it, pushing it
              Just makes it more obvious that it's B.

              But the answer still fits.

              Basically the point is to apply what you would acknowledge would happen to multiple cubes to multiple parts of a single cube.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              The speed of the portal would mainly affect how quickly gravity would offset the thrust. But the cubes would never shoot directly upwards as if they were standing on a launch platform. Because the only "push" (if we can call it that) are the atoms being displaced. What's causing that? The force that binds atoms together? Who knows. It's basically unanswerable. See

              Yes, portals are paradoxical in nature, and the existence of this very debate is one of the many proofs of that. Something like a wormhole would make more sense, as two points in space are connected but they aren't applied to a surface and there's still the "tunnel" itself you need to ride, it's not a seamless transition like for portals in the game. (which can only work in a game specifically because games have an actual universal frame of reference)

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If that was true, pushing a cube through a portal would crush it or stretch it, so that can't be the case. There is no reason any molecular structure (or even particle structure/super position) would be consistent across portals, a portal would just be some kind of subatomic annihilation device.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >pushing a cube through a portal would crush it or stretch it, so that can't be the case
                Why not? For all we know it could be like that.
                Even if that wasn't the case, B doesn't make much sense. Imagine if you were standing still, and a huge, tall concrete block started materialising right beneath you, each layer of atom appearing after the other at a constant rate, let's say equivalent to walking speed if this block was being pushed from somewhere. At the end of the materialisation, you'd simply find yourself on top of the block.
                Let's now say that it materialised at 100 mph. What happens? Would you be shot upwards at the same speed? Would you still find yourself on top as if it had moves slowly? Would you be squished against the surface of the block? Would you just jump slightly and then fall back down?
                The first case is in my opinion it's the least reasonable one. Yet, when you think about it, it's the exact same as B in the original problem.
                Still, it can't be definitvely answered. Matter displacement isn't the same as moving and may not follow the same rules we use to understand concepts such as velocity, force and acceleration

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If portals don't apply force then how does it rotate the cube 45 degrees?

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ending cutscene proves B?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nope.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Look at the top left corner of the webm.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          And? Explain your theory. I know what you're going to say, but you need to show your work.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not that anon, but post right above you.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you were monitoring Chell's speed from Earth, before she entered the Orange portal she would be moving at less than 15mph. When she exited the blue portal, she would be moving at over 2000mph. She would be moving at over 2000mph the entire time while on the other side, until she went back through the blue portal. Then she would be moving at near 0mph. This just like with B, where an observer see the cube at 0 mph, then when it goes through the portal it all of a sudden its moving at a high rate of speed.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Alright this has made me realize all you morons should have a nice day, this is truly an example of it’s not that fucking deep.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          that's just the vacuum of space sucking out all the air?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            How does the air reach 2200mph with only 12 psi difference?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Do you think Chell could hold on in 2200 mph wind? Lol. Lmao even. It's just a video game and for dramatic effect the air moves fast

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Chell's velocity changed so that she is moving with the moon. Based on the difference of the two portal velocities. That is B.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >cutscene
      >proving anything about how the MECHANICS of the game function
      Come on.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Got a question for you. Because the reason you would use that argument is because you were smart enough to figure out that depicts B.

        Does it not bother you when there are other Afags who aren't even able to grasp that the scene is depicting B? Does it not come across as a red flag to you when you're giving the same answer as people too stupid to grasp that the moon scene is B happening?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cutscenes are more accurate than gameplay. For example, doesn't matter if you could kill an enemy boss in a game. If they survive in the cutscene they survived.

        The fact that this is the ending means its the most important one in the game, with the most scrutiny during its production.

        Do you think Chell could hold on in 2200 mph wind? Lol. Lmao even. It's just a video game and for dramatic effect the air moves fast

        Exactly. The wind wasn't blowing 2200 mph.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      it's the pressure difference you retard

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        found some calculator that said a pressure difference of 1 standard atmosphere at sea level density should result in 960mph winds

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      But that cutscene definitively proves A. If it was B, and Chell was propelled through the portal at 2,288MPH instead of simply the pull of the depressurization, she would never have been able to hold on and would have been flung into space.

      How is it possible for Bfags to B so stupid?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >posting ace attorney when you're this low iq
        If she's at the moon on the other end then that means her speed has changed to be moving with the moon. This isn't hard to understand.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, once through the portal she is operating within the frame of reference of the moon. But if B was correct and Chell's movement through the portal reflected the movement of the Earth relative to the moon, IE the two surfaces the portals were on, that cutscene would be impossible and she would have been sent hurtling into space at 2,288MPH.

          It definitively proves B wrong.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >n. But if B was correct and Chell's movement through the portal reflected the movement of the Earth relative to the moon,
            That's not what B says.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              "Movement of the Earth relative to the moon" was referring to Chell herself.

              If she went hurtling into space at 2288mph it would be because she didn't gain any speed. The moon would be moving away from her.
              Velocity is relative to the portal so she follows the moon's orbit when she is on the moon side.

              >it would be because she didn't gain any speed.
              No, it would be because she DID gain speed.

              >she would have been sent hurtling into space at 2,288MPH.
              She was anon. That's the speed the moon moves at. So she was sent hurtling along the moon in orbit. The fact she is at moon on the other end confirms that her speed had been changed that way. Because even being on the moon requires a change of speed that is precisely that of the relative difference of the earth and moon portals.

              By the way you're precisely the kind of person I was talking to [...] about.

              >She was anon.
              No, she wasn't. It's impossible for her to have grabbed on while accelerating at 2,288MPH, and the cord connecting both sides of the portal would have been destroyed. She enters the portal only with the speed of the depressurization, the relative speeds of the frames of reference either side of the portal is irrelevant. If she had changed speed in the way you describe she would have died, the only reason she lived is that this is not what happened.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So, the moon just stops orbiting the earth? It seems like you're just ignoring the speed difference.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >impossible for her to have grabbed on while accelerating at 2,288MPH
                Her velocity changed anon. That's is non-negotiable, it's literally shown to have happened as she is now on the moon and therefore moving with the moon. To argue she didn't change speed is to argue against what is shown to have happened in the scene.

                As for why no damage is incurred due to her velocity changing at that magnitude that is because portals are established to alter velocities like this seamlessly. Otherwise Chell would be seriously hurt every time she goes through a portal at terminal falling velocity as she would incur an instantaneous velocity change as fast as terminal velocity or greater.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The reason she's established to be able to take those falls is because of her shoes, anon. Chell can fall perfectly fine from very high non-portal edges. Hell, there's even a scene in Portal Two where Chell falls for like a minute straight and has a "conversation" with Glad0s.
                Did any fucking retards in these threads actually play Portal? They're some of the most accessible games ever made

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think you missed the point. I'm sure they'll tell you soon enough so don't bother replying to me but at least try to give it some thought before then.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The shoes are very clearly something that will only protect her lead. They aren't going to protect a velocity change that would clearly impact her entire body at once.

                But if you really think the shoes are what magically protects chell from all instantaneously changes to her velocity, then you have the answer to your problem don't you?

                I 100% predicted you were going to say this by the way.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >lead
                legs*

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you really think the shoes are what magically protects Chell from all instantaneous changes to her velocity

                Yes because that's what they do in the ACTUAL FUCKING VIDEO GAME
                Damned morongay fucknut bitch balls mouthbreather retard neanderthal
                Play the fucking game you're gonna shitpost about

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >then you have the answer to your problem don't you?
                moron finish reading the post.

                You were complaining why chell doesn't incur damage from her velocity changing to match the moons. You have the answer to your problem.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No I wasn't, you're thinking of a different anon. I was

                The reason she's established to be able to take those falls is because of her shoes, anon. Chell can fall perfectly fine from very high non-portal edges. Hell, there's even a scene in Portal Two where Chell falls for like a minute straight and has a "conversation" with Glad0s.
                Did any fucking retards in these threads actually play Portal? They're some of the most accessible games ever made

                Well yeah, the energy of the portal comes from the portal gun and a portal will deactivate if the gun fires at something else or chell turns it off between training rooms. You DID play the game, didn't you?

                Why do retards in these threads think portals are able to create infinite energy? The object is only falling because of the energy earth's gravitational pull has on it. Plus they're still bound by the rules of terminal velocity.
                A chad by the way/

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Fair enough but at that point why argue since you're disconnected from the actual argument this sprang from

                As the other anon says. I'm not actually talking about falling damage here.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Still missing the point and getting mad about it now.
                I'll give you a hint this time, he's not talking about fall damage.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >As for why no damage is incurred due to her velocity changing at that magnitude that is because portals are established to alter velocities like this seamlessly. Otherwise Chell would be seriously hurt every time she goes through a portal at terminal falling velocity as she would incur an instantaneous velocity change as fast as terminal velocity or greater.
                Why are you even arguing about this if you never played the game. That's not how it works, there is no such "velocity alteration" inherent to the portal, and if her velocity changed according to the difference between the two reference points she would have had her arms ripped off.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Look at the moon scene. The moon has a relative velocity of 2200mph compared to earth. When Chell goes through the portal to the moon, her velocity must have changed by that much. If it didn't, she the moon would be traveling 2200mph with respect to her and would smashed into her and killed her.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >When Chell goes through the portal to the moon, her velocity must have changed by that much.
                If her velocity changed in that way she wouldn't have been able to grab Wheatley and the tether would have snapped.
                >the moon would be traveling 2200mph with respect to her and would smashed into her and killed her.
                Why do you assume the moon would be traveling *into* her? That is to say towards the position of the portal.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The direction of moon doesn't really matter. 2200mph is as fast as a bullet. Whether its moving towards her, away from her, or laterally to her at 2200mph you'd notice.

                The strength of Wheatly and the cable is simply a material issue. We don't know what they are made of.

                When Chell travels through the Portal to the moon, the moon is not moving relative to her at 2200mph, obviously. So she must have gained velocity going through the portal.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Why are you even arguing about this if you never played the game.
                I liberally described one of the ending scenes to you.
                >there is no such "velocity alteration" inherent to the portal,
                Portals change direction of travel as a fundamental part of how they work, velocity is defined with a direction, therefore velocity changes.
                >and if her velocity changed according to the difference between the two reference points she would have had her arms ripped off.
                I could talk about the change being seamless again, but why are you still trying to argue against something happening that is literally shown to fucking happen in the game?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If she isn't moving 2200mph on the moon, then she would slam into the moon which moving 2200mph and die.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If she went hurtling into space at 2288mph it would be because she didn't gain any speed. The moon would be moving away from her.
            Velocity is relative to the portal so she follows the moon's orbit when she is on the moon side.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >she would have been sent hurtling into space at 2,288MPH.
            She was anon. That's the speed the moon moves at. So she was sent hurtling along the moon in orbit. The fact she is at moon on the other end confirms that her speed had been changed that way. Because even being on the moon requires a change of speed that is precisely that of the relative difference of the earth and moon portals.

            By the way you're precisely the kind of person I was talking to

            Got a question for you. Because the reason you would use that argument is because you were smart enough to figure out that depicts B.

            Does it not bother you when there are other Afags who aren't even able to grasp that the scene is depicting B? Does it not come across as a red flag to you when you're giving the same answer as people too stupid to grasp that the moon scene is B happening?

            about.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    movement is the change of location in time
    the cube, as it exits, changes location in time
    that means it's moving
    if it moves, that means it has momentum
    if it has momentum, that means it has mass
    if it has mass, that means it has energy
    if it has energy and direction that means it has acceleration and velocity
    if it has acceleration and velocity, that means it's changing location in time

    This is physics. This is how it works. I don't care about portals, or whatever. No one should waste time arguing with anyone that isn't able to accept any of these statements as an absolute truth. Which, by definition, also agrees with every other statement. You either accept all of these, or reject all of these. A just can't be possible. B might be. If portals worked the only feasible way would be B.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >ask a dev
    >pic related
    B
    >ask a physicist

    ?t=2687
    B
    >ask a science education channel

    B, but in a wonky interpretation you could make something like A

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because your gif literally shows the crate coming to a sudden stop for no reason, defying all intuition.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      how flimsy is that column if it's being torn apart by those forces?

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ok I have a question to Bfags. Imagine the scenario: A vertical lift containing a cube moves upward at incredibly high speed and suddenly stops before reaching the portal, throwing the cube at the direction of the portal.
    Now switch places of the portal and the cube. What happens next? Would the cube still pass through the portal?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If the cube reaches the portal, why wouldn't it pass through it?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If the cube reaches the portal, why wouldn't it pass through it?

      Consider pic

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        there would actually be a wind force caused by the rushing of air through the portal, but unlikely enough to lift the cube and carry it through
        if this is in a vacuum, it's A in this scenario

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >how to completely misunderstand B

          This would work only if the cube was light enough to be affected by the vacuum created by the air displaced by the portal. As in, it'd need to be almost weightless like a balloon or something. Gravity is still pulling it down, remember.

          But if the cube was moving upwards and the portal was stationary it should definetly be B though? If the momentum is relative for portals then how come the results vary between a scenario of equivalence?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What the fuck are you on about? If the portal never makes contact with the cube of course nothing will happen.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              No, he makes a good point. If B is predicated on the whole relative velocity/momentum thing, then from the perspective of the exit portal the cube was moving really fast and then suddenly stopped, which is exactly what A says will happen. This is a setup for the inverse of A, and that anon wants us to explain how it comes to a "sudden stop" from that point of reference.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If B is predicated on the whole relative velocity/momentum thing
                B's entire argument is that the portal alters the object's velocity as it passes through the portal. It doesn't argue that velocity is altered at any other time. Relative velocity/momentum is significant on the grounds that it determines exactly how the portal alters velocity.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So it is now? I thought that comparing frames of reference was the main thing. Just all bfags argument so far boiled down were that from exit portal it looks like cube is moving so he must be moving and now it all cancels out because "very speedy thing" suddenly stops (from your perspective) but doesn't touch the portal

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >it's a Afag doesn't get B's logic episode

                entering velocity relative to entrance portal = exiting velocity relative to exit portal

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you telling me that speedy thing doesn't matter anymore? Cube neither enters nor exits, it stops, after moving fast, from your perspective, why it wouldn't get the momentum this time if all the differences is couple centimeters (there is zero between portals)

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Speedy is realtive.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I don't think you understand, the lift moves fast enough to throw the cube into the portal when it stops moving

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think you understand, the lift moves fast enough to throw the cube into the portal when it stops moving

            pic related

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous
              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If B was right shouldn't the cube fly off the platform.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The point is showing you how absurd A's logic is. If you thought what you were shown there made sense we have bigger problems.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                But the logic is sound. In the B scenario the cube literally gains energy from nowhere.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It gains energy from the moving piston.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                In terms of the platform, it only appears to be moving due to the frame of reference of portal B. Of course you can say "well that's all motion is, things relative to each other", but that ignores the frame of reference of the platform which has no motion from it's own reference point. In the B scenario the platform and cube simply invents energy from nothing, because in reality the piston that portal A is affixed to enacts no forces whatsoever on the platform or the cube.

                The entire B scenario is in essence an optical illusion being rationalized by an understanding of the laws of physics which insists that the existence of the portal is in itself an impossibility. The scenario invalidates the very set of rules you're trying to use to understand it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                In B the energy comes from whatever is moving the portal

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The anon you're replying to

                In terms of the platform, it only appears to be moving due to the frame of reference of portal B. Of course you can say "well that's all motion is, things relative to each other", but that ignores the frame of reference of the platform which has no motion from it's own reference point. In the B scenario the platform and cube simply invents energy from nothing, because in reality the piston that portal A is affixed to enacts no forces whatsoever on the platform or the cube.

                The entire B scenario is in essence an optical illusion being rationalized by an understanding of the laws of physics which insists that the existence of the portal is in itself an impossibility. The scenario invalidates the very set of rules you're trying to use to understand it.

                is literally explaining why that can't happen

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                a portal isn't an object and has no frame of refference. Portals have no mass, energy, substance, particles. That's like saying the concept of spin has a mass.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You can assign a position and a velocity to a portal, so it has a frame of reference.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Consider it like this: In B, the essence of the assumption can only conclude that the energy of the piston moving the portal is sufficient to move the ENTIRE UNIVERSE in reference to the B portal.

                You're focusing on the piston when you should consider that from an observer looking through the B portal it's not just the platform moving, but the entire universe on the other side of the portal.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >observer looking through the B portal it's not just the platform moving, but the entire universe on the other side of the portal.
                "observing" doesn't mean "literally everything in line of sight", in Einsteinian sense it means anything that has some kind of mathematical relationship, which differ based on the use of Special Relativity or General Relativity
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >"observing" doesn't mean "literally everything in line of sight",
                Right, because you also need to consider that from the observation point on the side of the B portal, there are literally infinite things that the observer cannot see "in motion" on the side of the A portal. From the reference point of B, a star trillions of miles away on the A side of the portal is literally in motion BECAUSE of the movement of the piston.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Its so cute when people discover reference frames for the first time.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Irrelevant. From the perspective of the box the entire universe is moving around it.

                What Bfags also forget to mention is that if we go by their retarded non-logic, if we put two portals 100 meters apart from each other and facing each other and we apply their stupid observational shit then the box would have moved faster than the speed of light which breaks the rules of physics which they adamantly claim to be preserving.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You could solve it by making it take energy from the surfaces holding the portal, and make it still "B" but slower.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're really fine with the cube staying perfectly fine on the platform as it spazzes up and down like that?

                As I said to another anon in a previous thread, if I was to stand on that platform myself as it spazzes up and down. Making smoke rings with a cigar. As you saying that me and the smoke rings would go spazzing up and down with it. And if you claim the smoke would be left behind because it is no longer connected to the platform. How do you account that the cube also is not connected to the platform.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >As I said to another anon in a previous thread, if I was to stand on that platform myself as it spazzes up and down. Making smoke rings with a cigar. As you saying that me and the smoke rings would go spazzing up and down with it.
                From your own perspective you're not spazzing up and down, instead you're stationary and the entire universe is spazzing out around you.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Even the smoke rings? They just spazz up and down indefinitely as the float into the distance then?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                They get pushed around by the air from the spazzy portal

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              it would be an equivalent scenario if you threw the portal at the cube too
              stopping it early is equivalent to your picture but with the cube bolted to the piston so it doesn't jump

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I see it now. I always had doubts about this specific scenario due to me failing to consider the portal and the piston as two separate objects. Thanks for clarifying

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                See &

                I see it now. I always had doubts about this specific scenario due to me failing to consider the portal and the piston as two separate objects. Thanks for clarifying

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >how to completely misunderstand B

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I love this image.
          I genuinely want to see an A fag try.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            who would be stupid enough to take that bait?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        This would work only if the cube was light enough to be affected by the vacuum created by the air displaced by the portal. As in, it'd need to be almost weightless like a balloon or something. Gravity is still pulling it down, remember.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        This image was too smart for the thread
        B fags were btfo from here on
        Bet they don't even understand your point

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          See

          >If B is predicated on the whole relative velocity/momentum thing
          B's entire argument is that the portal alters the object's velocity as it passes through the portal. It doesn't argue that velocity is altered at any other time. Relative velocity/momentum is significant on the grounds that it determines exactly how the portal alters velocity.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          That image is just

          both A tards and B fags are wrong, the question doesn't make sense so it can't be answered. you can't move portals separately.

          restated, which is answered by

          . The situations are trivially nonequivalent.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why don't you just mod this scenario into the game and test it that way?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        is this a joke about how people will just lie about the scenario to make it work

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous
          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Out-fucking-played holy shit

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It is accurate since irl the ground is accelerating upward.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you have to be joking

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous
            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Are you genuinely retarded?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          They're trying to get you to grasp how reference frames work.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No A fag can come up with a counterargument to this without making themselves look retarded.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          A fags just believe that the earth's surface is the universal frame of reference
          So to them, all these variations are just you trying to "trick" the room. In their head, it's up in the air until the cube emerges from the other side and confirms what was moving.
          Which is of course fucking retarded.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        yeah, but why is the tower so tall

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        If all of the cube's upwards momentum was shifted into it flying horizontally, why is it still rising upwards with the lift as it exits the portal?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          because the blue portal has upward momentum.

          Same as if you're in a moving train and you'd throw a ball in the air.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because it entirely depends on how the developer chooses to program their physics engine and is no indication of reality. Take for instance the fact that no game with gravity actually has objects aacelerating at 9.81 m/s^2. They just fall at a constant rate because video games are not physics simulators.

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    consider it all

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think it should be possible for portals to move

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No material is perfectly rigid. Your walls move, you floor moves, buildings form cracks and decay.

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Looking at the OP, A is correct. If the exit portal were level instead of tilted at a 45 degree angle, the cube would simply rest upon the table upon exiting.

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    We had this thread yesterday and here we go again.

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Fact of the matter is, that it's completely irrelevant because a moving surface with a portal doesn't make sense for either scenario. You can make plenty of thought experiments for either case and debunk either, because a moving portal fucks up any consistency we have with our real-life physics.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      except it's all perfectly consistent with the B answer

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Except you're not makking any argument and are just saying this. Might as well stoop down to the level of

        retard

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I have made my arguments long ago, I'm done trying to convert the ignorant. Now I'm here for entertainment and to grow my collection.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Fact of the matter is, that it's completely irrelevant because a moving surface with a portal doesn't make sense for either scenario. You can make plenty of thought experiments for either case and debunk either, because a moving portal fucks up any consistency we have with our real-life physics.

          The intellectual enjoyment from this topic "supposing portals did exist in reality and didn't totally invalidate the rest of physics, what would happen in this scenario?".
          Asking what would happen in the game is boring - we can try it and see that the engine can't handle it well because the devs didn't program for that scenario.
          And saying "it can't happen in real life because portals don't/can't exist" is extremely boring. Have some imagination and argue the hypothetical.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Or you could just not argue about stupid shit and actually talk about videogames on the videogames board.

            >B-But this is videogames!
            Portal is a videogame, the hypothetical physics of portals in Portal are tertiary at best.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              YWNBAJ

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >actually talk about videogames
              which this thread is? god newfags are retarded

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If I made a thread to talk about the follicles in Lara Croft's pubic hair, it would be as videogame related as this discussion. Don't pretend this tertiary gayry has anything to do with videogames.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                This thread is more game relevant than the endless coomer threads which never discuss mechanics

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                This thread is not discussing mechanics either. People are explicitly ignoring the in-game mechanics because they do not even allow for this dumbass "dilemma" to be tested.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                We're literally citing how portals are shown to work in the game as part of the argument. It's on you if you can't figure out how a portal's capacity to alter travel direction indicates a capacity to alter speed.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, you are creating a hypothetical dilemma that the game does not allow you to recreate, as evidenced by several webms posted in these threads. You are discussing a what-if scenario with extrapolated variables that the game itself does not even support. Your discussion exists outside of the scope of the game.

                And what does that mean? Not fucking vidya.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You are discussing a what-if scenario with extrapolated variables that the game itself does not even support.
                Again, it's on you if you can't figure out how a portal's capacity to alter travel direction indicates a capacity to alter speed.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It does not matter what a portal can hypothetically do. It's not in the game, discussing it is not videogame discussion.

                This is a physics debate and belongs on Ganker.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                But it's game mechanics, checkmate fag

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It's not in the game
                >It's game mechanics

                You can only choose one, anon.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So by your argument, any thread discussing ideas for vidya or things they wish a game dev would do but haven't aren't vidya related?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                There's no value in such discussions. Nothing is going to happen other than stroking of egos and shitposting. When discussing an actual, existing videogame, there can be meaningful exchange of information, such as tips, build guides etc.

                Now, if you have an idea for a game and actually plan on creating said game and are looking for feedback, that would still be vidya discussion. And even that could be redirected to /agdg/

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't ask that. I asked if you thought they weren't vidya related.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                They are secondary topics, I guess. I personally would not want them polluting the board.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You do realize that Portals portal logic is not inherent to just coding portals in general right? Portal has a lot of exceptions and special behaviours to create the mechanics the game has. You can listen to the audio devlogs in Portal 1 for more info. There is no reason you couldnt hypothetically code either A or B in a game if you wanted.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Moving portal mechanics were not deliberately decided for Portal, we are helping the devs figure it out on how to code it. Implying otherwise would be like thinking Dwarf Fortress' derived simulation of ALL physics is "correct" because it does somethings correctly.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That sounds like a fucking fantastic thread anon. Why aren't you making it?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            See

            >Afags don't debunk B without showing a colossal misunderstanding of how B works
            Another statement that is just being made without really anything to back it up.
            I've been watching these threads for a while and kept an open mind for either scenario. There have been arguments for both sides that make sense and there have been arguments for both sides that don't make sense. There have been arguments that show that A is impossible and the same has been for B.
            The only conclusion one can make from this is that depending on perspective and how the portals actually function by itself either can be right or wrong. So this whole debate doesn't matter one bit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The intellectual enjoyment from this topic "supposing portals did exist in reality and didn't totally invalidate the rest of physics, what would happen in this scenario?"
            Matter can't pass through a wormhole. The cube would be annihilated and only information would pass through. Boy, that was intellectually enjoyable.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      retard

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You can make plenty of thought experiments for either case and debunk A
      Fixed that for you. Afags don't debunk B without showing a colossal misunderstanding of how B works.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Afags don't debunk B without showing a colossal misunderstanding of how B works
        Another statement that is just being made without really anything to back it up.
        I've been watching these threads for a while and kept an open mind for either scenario. There have been arguments for both sides that make sense and there have been arguments for both sides that don't make sense. There have been arguments that show that A is impossible and the same has been for B.
        The only conclusion one can make from this is that depending on perspective and how the portals actually function by itself either can be right or wrong. So this whole debate doesn't matter one bit.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >There have been arguments that show that [B is impossible]
          haven't seen any

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's a problem for the ignorant (You).

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Post above you anon.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Another statement that is just being made without really anything to back it up.
            Because it's proving a negative idiot. It's on you to point to a situation where B is disproven.

            Post above you anon.

            With your original claim, since it wasn't mine, it's also on you to prove that every a-tard is misunderstanding how b-tards side of arguments work.

            I was saying that that there arguments for either side being impossible and those have been made and will continue to be made in every thread like this. If you haven't seen any of those arguments that's not my fault, just as well if you have and just don't think that they actually disprove one scenario even though they actually do.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >to prove that every a-tard is misunderstanding how b-tards side of arguments work
              That's proving an absolute, which is also impossible.

              If it was true that there existed an argument demonstrating that B is impossible it would be well within your capability to simply point to it. Your inability to only suggests that it doesn't exist. Claiming it is only out of ignorance that I think such arguments don't exist is flawed as I have already provided the alternate likelihood that such arguments that you think do exist are actually only instances of B being misunderstood.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                As an aside, I also never made the claim "every a-tard is misunderstanding how b-tards side of arguments work", unless you are confusing me with some other anon.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >You can make plenty of thought experiments for either case and debunk A
          Fixed that for you. Afags don't debunk B without showing a colossal misunderstanding of how B works.

          [...]
          The intellectual enjoyment from this topic "supposing portals did exist in reality and didn't totally invalidate the rest of physics, what would happen in this scenario?".
          Asking what would happen in the game is boring - we can try it and see that the engine can't handle it well because the devs didn't program for that scenario.
          And saying "it can't happen in real life because portals don't/can't exist" is extremely boring. Have some imagination and argue the hypothetical.

          Basically I mean that there can't be an objectively correct answer to this debate.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Another statement that is just being made without really anything to back it up.
          Because it's proving a negative idiot. It's on you to point to a situation where B is disproven.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Correct. Moving portals create a paradox because of inconsistent frames of reference. Some anon posted an infographic explaining this with a visual experiment but I didn't save it.

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Splatoon is going to settle this once and for all.

  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can't put a portal on a moving surface. End of discussion.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Portal 2 has you put portals on moving surfaces. Continue the discussion.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      except for the moon and also that one panel in the neurotoxin bit

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      all surfaces are moving surfaces

  38. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    try thinking about it as 2 universes
    looking through the exit portal, you see the whole other universe rushing towards you, and it yeets a cube towards your face

  39. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    But the portal isn't transferring any momentum to the cube, it's just a hole. It is however causing Everything on the other side to be moving with it, as evident by simply looking through a moving portal.

    I liked the moving train analogy; you're stationary on the train, holding a box out of an open door.

  40. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I used to be an Afag but yeah, Ganker has changed my mind. I'm a bfag now.

  41. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    ok where is all the air going?

  42. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    i.e. this one

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I like this gif, but it always bugged me the motions of the two blue portals aren't synced up, in fact they're moving perfectly opposite each other. I think it would make a better visual example if the hoop was perfectly mirroring the motion of the blue portal on the right, although that's just a minor nitpick. I have no clue how to edit a gif so i can't fix it myself.

  43. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Here's a webm about this shit from 2014. 8 years ago.
    How fucking long are you motherfuckers planning to keep arguing about this?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Read

      Because it entirely depends on how the developer chooses to program their physics engine and is no indication of reality. Take for instance the fact that no game with gravity actually has objects aacelerating at 9.81 m/s^2. They just fall at a constant rate because video games are not physics simulators.

      or

      [...]
      The intellectual enjoyment from this topic "supposing portals did exist in reality and didn't totally invalidate the rest of physics, what would happen in this scenario?".
      Asking what would happen in the game is boring - we can try it and see that the engine can't handle it well because the devs didn't program for that scenario.
      And saying "it can't happen in real life because portals don't/can't exist" is extremely boring. Have some imagination and argue the hypothetical.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >engine limitations
      or do you think every game simulates quantum mechanics because it runs on matter?

  44. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It has to make sense if you run time in reverse. If the piston were down, the cube was resting motionless against the other portal, and the piston pulled up, the cube wouldn't be sucked through onto the platform. It'd only work if the cube was being thrown towards the platform.

  45. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    both A tards and B fags are wrong, the question doesn't make sense so it can't be answered. you can't move portals separately.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Portals alter velocities of things passing through them using the formula:
      >entering velocity relative to entrance = exiting velocity relative to exit
      Any alleged contradiction can be solve with this.

      "How the person feels" is not a scientific argument.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >"How the person feels" is not a scientific argument.
        >t. has never heard the term "frame of reference"

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Frame of reference literally acknowledges feelings as arbitrary.

          You feel motionless right now despite being on a planet hurtling around the sun at insane speeds due to how frames of reference works.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            here you go

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              That hasn't disproven what I've said. In fact it doesn't talk about what people "feel" at all.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Wasn't trying to. Why so defensive?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because I'm browsing one of these threads.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              what's the source on that?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                thanks

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's because we don't feel speed, but acceleration

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I feel speed.

              The need. For speed.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is proof for B.

      The entering velocity is the same as exiting velocity.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The entering velocity is the same as exiting velocity
        This argument applies to both A and B.
        What differentiates them is that A says the object has no velocity meaning it "enters" at 0 mp/h and therefore "exits" at 0 mp/h.
        B says the object "enters" at the velocity of the portal moving into it and therefore "exiting" with that velocity.
        That's where the disagreement lies.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >hat differentiates them is that A says the object has no velocity meaning it "enters" at 0 mp/h and therefore "exits" at 0 mp/h.
          Which inherently means it didn't enter or exit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Exactly because a portal isn't something you enter or exit at all in any case.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Green also does not experience any acceleration. From his perspective Purple falls on top of him and thus A must be true
      what kind of retarded "both sides" logic is this? That's entirely consistent with B and yet whoever made this uses it as proof of A somehow.

  46. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone got the other Keaton gif with the portal fling?

  47. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    so do B's believe that if you punch through a portal really fast that your hand would fly off?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is the portal de-/accelerating fast enough to tear sinew and flesh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging#Long_drop

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Even Afags would think that because they would acknowledge the hand as going really fast.

      But that assumes you can even punch that hard.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You don't even need a portal for that. If you punch fast enough (no idea how fast it would be) your hand would go flying off when you stop.

  48. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >both a good argument and cute bun bun
      This remains one of my favourite.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        terrible argument.

        B is true. Relivite velocity is what's important.

  49. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    SCIENCE IS INVENTED YOU RETARDS, IF SCHRODINGER DISCOVERED QUANTUM MECHANICS DIFFERENTLY THEY WOULD WORK DIFFERENTLY

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      but it's actually the cat that discovers how QM works. So really it's the cat that's inventing them. People find out about it afterwards when they open the box.

  50. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a reformed b fag ama

  51. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    GLADOS IS SO FUCKING HOT I WANT HER TO OPERATE WITH HER DISK ON MY GENETIC LIFEFORM

  52. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    A fags recognize that energy isn't being imparted to an object by the portal itself because it's effectively still a form of teleportation
    B Fags are too hung up on technicalities and exploits which deludes them into think that's how it'll ALWAYS work no matter what

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Bchads remember that even changing the direction of travel of an object, something even Afags acknowledge portals are capable of doing, would require energy.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, which is provided by gravity which is traveling through the portal at the same relative speed as the portal's movement
        Otherwise no energy is imparted

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          If no energy is imparted then how did the object end up traveling in the opposite direction? That requires even more energy than merely bringing the object from not-moving to moving.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            and the object didn't feel any acceleration either! What magic is this!?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            From the perspective of the object it never changed its direction.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Then from the perspective of the object it never gained speed, the universe around it just started moving.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                THEN HOW DID IT PUSH OUT THE AIR ON THE OTHER SIDE?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >blow in someone's face
                >woah dude, how did you push all that air I sent at you out the way without moving

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                When you blow air, the blown air pushes its surroundings. What would cause an object moving through portals to move at all if it had no force? Or are we adding a special relativity style exception for gravity?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Riddle me this A fags; what the FUCK is stopping the cube from its inertia?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Gravity.

  53. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    anyone who thinks the cube will go flying from nothing is a fucking retard

  54. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The reason this question is unanswerable is because when space bends it's still consistent. Portal space is not consistent. If you had non euclidian space IRL it would still be a continuous form.

  55. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Its B because as the moving portal moves, its pushing air into the other direction. If there was no force at all, it would not be able to move at OR it would defy the laws of physics entirely as the object moves into the portal, basically "turning off" physics temporarily as something goes across the portal. You cant move an object through a portal without pushing the air out on the other side.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If there was no force on portals when they were exiting, an infinite amount of force would be applied as they exited which would break the object (and physics) apart. Therefore, its Ayy

  56. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If we go by the game, it should be A. As for real life, I don’t know.

  57. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    B fags think this is impossible and that a plane on a treadmill could never take off

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      What makes you think B fags think that? It's usually the other way

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The portal/treadmill is imparting energy!

  58. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    gottem

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      A simulation is literally useless in this debate, since it will behave however you code it to behave.

  59. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    mmm, I'm losing my religion A bros, I think B is actually making more sense now...

  60. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Has anyone tried asking this from Valve or anyone who worked on Portal?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Someone emailed Gaben once about it. He said that A is correct.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        If Gaben says it's A then it's A.
        End of discussion.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No he didn't, he passed the email to someone who actually worked on portal. (Of course Afags think gabe worked on the game).

        We've had two answers from two devs. One giving a really simple answer indicating a lack of thought into the problem who says A. The other is more elaborate and shows more thought put in and said B.

        The guy who said B is also the person cited for basically coming up with the portal mechanic and is the reason the games even exist.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >ask a dev
      >pic related
      B
      >ask a physicist

      ?t=2687
      B
      >ask a science education channel

      B, but in a wonky interpretation you could make something like A

  61. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's neither. SOME of the momentum from the moving portal would be transferred to the cube, but not all of it like b-tards think. It would do like a tiny hop out of the portal when the pillars collide.

  62. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >walk through a door
    >get blasted at 5000 mph

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >walk through a door
      >somehow appear at the otherside without force being involved

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        t. aristotle

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          t. Thomas Edison

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's exactly what happens in the ending cutscene.

  63. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The only right answer is what the game engine produces. The answer can be either A or B depending on how the developer implemented portal physics.

  64. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because if my mind could be changed so easily I couldn't sincerely call it belief.

  65. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    here come the b fag mental gymnastics. tell us more what rules you cherry pick because it suits you

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the side arguing that objects can move without moving and even exit at the same spot without pushing into each other (literally just now) talking about mental gymnastics

  66. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >afags can't comprehend that you don't need a fucking hand shoving an object to impart momentum on it because they fundamentally cannot understand frames of reference
    A is position for trolls and sub-90 iq.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >because they fundamentally cannot understand frames of reference
      portals break frames of reference you retard. That's why B makes no sense. Because it assumes that a cube flying towards the portal and the portal moving towards the cube are the same. But it's shallow and fails to understand the bigger picture, that being it's a paradox where frames of reference as we know them don't apply. Same as momentum,

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        in that case nothing could move through a portal because the infinitely thin "portal" itself would be a force nulling field and nothing could move through it and also no light could pass through it, making it not a portal in the first place

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, portals are paradoxical in nature, and the existence of this very debate is one of the many proofs of that. Something like a wormhole would make more sense, as two points in space are connected but they aren't applied to a surface and there's still the "tunnel" itself you need to ride, it's not a seamless transition like for portals in the game. (which can only work in a game specifically because games have an actual universal frame of reference)

  67. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Portals are not real, fuck off with your pointless nagging.

  68. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >yet another thread filled with Btards circlejerking each other while embarrassing themselves

  69. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If we're talking game engine it's gonna be A. If we treat the cube as the pile of matter that it is, then the cube would actually lift itself into the portal as the mass on the otherside of the portal pulls the rest in, assuming the portal to the left moves down fast enough for that 'pulling' force on from the right portal overcomes gravity.

    t. Physics grad student.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Actually ingame if you try this without mods the piston with the orange portal gets stuck against the cube.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I meant more in a general sense, not the actual game. That was my assumption since game engines will treat the cube as a single 'thing'

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's also a possibility. If the cube is unmoving then it's not really possible for it to go beyond the surface of the orange portal.

  70. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >the most Afags can do in this thread is troll while Bchads have intellectual conversation

  71. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    FUCK ALL THE A moronS
    A LITERAL PHYSICS PHD SAYS ITS B
    SUCK MY DICK moronS
    THE CUBE EXITS THE PORTAL AT THE SAME SPEED IT ENTERS THE PORTAL, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS YOU RETARDS

    ?t=2654

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >THE CUBE EXITS THE PORTAL AT THE SAME SPEED IT ENTERS THE PORTAL
      So 0 m/s, got it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's literally impossible for the cube to enter the portal at 0 m/s. That literally means it doesn't enter.

        Entrance velocity is relative.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The cube doesn't enter the portal at all. Nothing ever enters a portal. Even if the cube was thrown into the portal it wouldn't enter it. You never "travel through" a portal.
          A portal simply connects two points in space. The portal merely moves over the cube, effectively displacing its space instantly without the cube itself doing any movement.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Now we're back to "what if something is in the way of the object on the other end? How do you determine the result collision when you're arguing neither object has the difference in momentum to collide?"

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        jesus fucking christ anon
        If you just stand in place and magical house is sliding towards you at 100m/s in a way that the door is lined up with you then you will enter that magical house at 100m/s
        it doesn't matter whenever you move towards it or it moves towards you, its the exact same thing
        You are entering at X speed and exiting at X speed
        the only difference is that with hoops or doors both exit and entrance move in the same direction at the same time, meaning that relative to the enviorment around you you do not need to move at all to enter and exit the doorframe
        BUT with portals where entrance and exit are not moving in the same direction with the same speed you DO have to move in order to exit the blue portal

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Experts can't be wrong and have never been wrong in the past
      lol

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They can
        but according to literally everything we know about physics its B
        If you look at the red portal, the cube will be moving towards you
        if you put your hand in front of the red portal the cube will push it out
        if its going to do that then there is 0 reason for it to magically stop once its fully on the other side of the portal

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >red portal
          colorblind?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            got confused since some people mix up the entrance/exit portal colors in their images

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      PhDs also said the jab was safe and effective.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Just call it appeal to authority and leave it at that. Let's not go that way pls

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Bfags are jab junkies
          It all makes sense now.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Where exactly did I imply that? I just wanted to remind you that's off topic. But I guess I can't stop you if you really like discussing that

  72. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Let be get this straight A fags. The direction of velocity when passing through a portal is relative to the portal but the magnitude of velocity is not?
    Is that your argument?

  73. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    A is correct
    The best way to understand it is to imagine the whole thing in slow motion.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      so in this slow motion visualization what removes the cibe's momentum?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >observing in slow motion how every part of the cube, supposedly motionless on the other end, has every next part moving into it, pushing it
      Just makes it more obvious that it's B.

  74. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >relative velocity isn't real

  75. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Chell should tongue my anus.

  76. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You have to be retarded to think it's B

  77. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that portals cannot be created on moving surfaces

  78. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This shit is so lame, it's a always will be always has been.
    It's like a sheet with a hole in it falling over the cube, except gravity starts pulling on it on the other side. Nothing acts upon the cube. The cube doesn't start magically pulling itself off the ground at high speed if the portal stopped halfway.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >door frame falls on top of me
      >stops the immediate moment I would end up going through it and causes a runtime error in the universe

  79. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why do retards in these threads think portals are able to create infinite energy? The object is only falling because of the energy earth's gravitational pull has on it. Plus they're still bound by the rules of terminal velocity.
    A chad by the way/

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Portals break some of the laws of physics already, why not more? Someone had to have created that energy
      >hurr it always existed

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Well yeah, the energy of the portal comes from the portal gun and a portal will deactivate if the gun fires at something else or chell turns it off between training rooms. You DID play the game, didn't you?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          and who made the portal gun?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Aperature Science labs, who have figured out absolutely insane stuff such as transferring human personalities into robots and somehow making Chell live for hundreds of years. Your point?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Why do you think it is that we only see Portals in video games, movies etc but never in real life?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because the CIA glowmorons hides Isaac Newtons and Nikolai Tesla's greatest inventions because that would give us normies too much power. I bet Tesla invented portals.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You know terminal velocity doesn't exist in a vacuum

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't it creating energy? It increases the potential energy of the block when for example the exit portal is bigger in height.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Terminal Velocity is because of air friction. Put the portals in a vaccum chamber and the box would accelerate infinitely. Plus, something falling eternally at terminal velocity still violates conservation of energy. Because the falling boxing heats up the air around it, you could uses a falling box to heat up air indefinitely.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Why do retards in these threads think portals are able to create infinite energy
      because they can? has nobody drawn a water wheel powered by water falling from one portal into another?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The water would splash out. You'd have to continually replace it.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          we are talking about a fucking perpetum mobile here anon
          problems like "water would splash" do not apply here, we are assuming a water tight system that the water can never escape

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Assuming this impossible, then the portal would make infinite energy
            Sure. Write fanfic all you want. But in the game they don't work like that.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >the game doesn't work like that
              anon you can put 2 portals on floor/ceiling and if you jump in you will be falling indefinitely
              have you even played the game?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Entropy would still fuck you over. Maxwell's demon

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              The 2nd law of thermodynamics only holds if energy is conserved. Entropy does not always need to increase in a system with no energy conservation.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >put a glass tank round the water
          >this blows the anon's mind

  80. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Any of you guys read Stephen King's short story "The Jaunt"? That was a really good horror story about portals.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Fuck that dude that sent his wife to endless jaunt hell.

  81. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I wonder what an actual physicist would have to say about this

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      FUCK ALL THE A moronS
      A LITERAL PHYSICS PHD SAYS ITS B
      SUCK MY DICK moronS
      THE CUBE EXITS THE PORTAL AT THE SAME SPEED IT ENTERS THE PORTAL, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS YOU RETARDS

      ?t=2654

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Been answered by multiple theoretical physicists. All agree its B.

  82. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Imagine that just to the other side of the portal someone is standing there, from their point of view they are stationary with respect to the portal, and they see the little box rushing towards them when they look trough the portal. So when the box crosses the threshold form one side to the other it doesn't just stop rushing toward them it continues to rush towards them
    This is a quote from a PHD physicist take on it

    But Im sure that some retarded anon bended over backwards to explain how the box is moving without using the word momentum so idk bros both make pretty good arguments

  83. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    riddle me this b-fags:
    if the moving platform the portal is in abruptly stops after passing only 9/10ths of the cube through the portal, what happens then?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The cube shoots out at 9/10 of the speed of the piston, assuming it has homogenous density.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The same thing as what happens if a cube moving towards a portal suddenly has the portal trying to move away from it as it is 9/10ths through. (which as an afag, you acknowledge the part of the cube having exited as moving), the part of the cube having exited is moving, however the part still to enter is unable to on its own. Resulting on one part pulling on the other.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The box is ejected with slightly less momentum.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      imagine pic related except change proportions around
      imagine 9/10ths of the cube are cut out of the rest of the cube and they are connected with an unbreakable thread the length of 1m
      if you fling that 9/10ths of the portal at whatever speed the red portal moves, does it have enough strength to pull that other 1/10th of the portal with it?

      This is essentially what happens, except that "thread" doesn't exist and the cube is just connected, if whatever the "strength" the 9/10ths of the cube goes out of the blue portal would be enough to pull the rest of the cube it will

  84. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    IQ, ascending:
    >It's A because XYZ
    >It's B because XYZ
    >Neither, it's a paradox

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >IQ, ascending:
      In which direction?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Both, it's a paradox

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Im mensa certified 140+ (unmeasurable due to being too high) IQ and I say it's B

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The portals are magic and either or neither of the answers are possible or impossible

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Lol, no matter what you think the answer is saying "It's a paradox! you can't answer" is just a retard cop out because you don't like thinking. Nobody is stupider than centrists.

  85. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      depends on the cube material

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's a kilogram of feathers

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nothing happens since the portal is glued to the piston

  86. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Here's the answer: portals can't move relative to each other

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Play the game, retard.

  87. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    .

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Bfag tries to apply real world physics to a phenomena that can't exist in the real world
        This is why A is the only logical answer. It's how it's explained in-game to work and how we see it working.

        This is as retarded as trying to apply real world time logic to time travel plots. It's always gonna cause paradoxes so the only way to resolve it is by using the canon explanations or by making up stupid ass pseudoscientific concepts like parallel dimensions.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Based A chad.
          Also my favorite time travel method is the "It already happened because time is a static instant we merely experience in linear fashion" scenarios, such as Bill and Ted's excellent adventure

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >it's how it's explained in-game
          The game doesn't understand basic physics mechanics and neither do you.
          Portals can change an object's velocity. End of story.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The direction is relative to whatever perspetive you view it from. If you look through a portal and whether the portal moves towards you or you walk through it, from your own perspective you'll always move in a straight line "forwards" before and after going through the portal. There is no change in velocity at all.
            An outside observer might say he is moving to the right of you and another that is turned around 180° will say he is moving towards the left of him.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >the direction is relative to whatever perspective you view it from
              >but the speed isn't
              Uh huh.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you view it from
                not how it works. Reread what a frame of reference is

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Anon was literally quoting what the anon said.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Those are your words

                That's not me

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then why aren't you addressing the anon who originally said it? You're basically criticising an anon for criticising an argument you don't even agree with.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Those are your words

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Anon was literally quoting what the anon said.

                Those are your words

                [...]
                That's not me

                I am

                The direction is relative to whatever perspetive you view it from. If you look through a portal and whether the portal moves towards you or you walk through it, from your own perspective you'll always move in a straight line "forwards" before and after going through the portal. There is no change in velocity at all.
                An outside observer might say he is moving to the right of you and another that is turned around 180° will say he is moving towards the left of him.

                I'm just here to stir up some shit

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Doesn't this just prove A?
        The cube was never moving only the portals where, which was the original question

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          No because in the original question only one entrance of the portal is moving and the other is stationary

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            not sure why you bothered with that
            A fags literally don't understand relativity and they think that blue portal moving towards the cube at 10m/s and cube moving towards the portal at 10m/s are not the same thing when looking out of the red portal

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      in your case he both enters and exits the doorframe at 10km/h which is consistent with B logic
      its you A fags that are trying to argue that despite the cube entering the portal at X speed it suddenly doesn't exist the portal at X speed or some nonsense about the cube "appearing to be moving" without actually moving

  88. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Let go.

  89. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Once more for the A gaysd in the back

    ACTUAL GENUINE PHYSICS PHD SAYS B IS THE, QUOTE "CORRECT" ANSWER
    Literally nothing A fags say matters, no matter what argument you try to present you will never have a higher authority than a literal physics PHD on that matter

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Actual PHD doctors also say if a man cuts off his dick in an operation room he becomes a woman and Pluto isn't a planet, as if

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Oppenheimer said "now I am become death, destroyer of worlds" but as we know humanity isn't dying out because of Nuclear war and will instead die of plastic poisoning

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Remember when a random housewife solved the monty hall problem and btfo mathfags with phds forever?
      Keep listening to the retards who need to consult their textbooks for answers while logicAl ChAds work it out

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I refuse to believe anyone had difficulty with monty hall problem
        literally just increase the number of doors to 10 and the problem solves itself

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Marilyn vos Savant
        >random housewife

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >random housewife
        >the person with the highest ever recorded IQ in the history
        jesus fuck the A fags cope is getting better by the minute

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous
  90. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What would happen if you go in reverse. Put the box through the stationary side and let it fall out of the piston side.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      see

      This is one of this images that Afags are always very reluctant to answer.

      Sort of like pic related. Though nowadays you get A fags who insist the cube exits at 150 mph and fail to understand why that is impossible even after it is explained to them.

      That's another great thought experiment for afags to hang themselves on, but sadly most aren't even mentally capable of making a knot much less a noose.

  91. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    These a or b threads always make my head hurt.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      A fag poisoning the well spotted

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Btards are low IQ

  92. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >original: Portal halo has a gradient effect from top to bottom, serving as a visual indcator of the orientation of the portal.
    >remaster: gradient is inside to outside, serving no gameplay purpose.

    Why do they fuck stuff like this up?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Why do they fuck stuff like this up?
      Because engineers are not necessarily good game designers.

  93. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    *ahem*

  94. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just build it and try it out irl.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      How make portal.

  95. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    When the thread 404s will it
    A. go into the top position of the archive
    B. go to the bottom of the archive because it had a lot of posts as it was being archived?

  96. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Someone post another thread, this is getting good.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is the same thread with the same arguments we've been posting for years

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        just like every thread

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I love it every time

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *