It's 2022, why do you still believe in B?
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
It's 2022, why do you still believe in B?
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
I really hope B's are just an elaborate shitposting company, instead of sub-80 iq faux phycists.
a-ahhhhn~
MOOOOOODS
tags: femdom
Faster
you need to stop, sir.
Why is it still moving at 10m/s after it goes through the portal?
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.
Because it losing that momentum would be a violation of Newton's First Law
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Portals break every law of physics, meaning they are no longer applicable to the problem.
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.
What reason would it have to stop?
massive levels of cope
All these words just to be wrong.
ain't read all that shit, just say one of the 2 letters
This is beautiful, thank you.
>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.
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.
>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 wiener Bgays can suck, is there?
No Agay has ever refuted this. Without fail you get absolutely moronic yet smug attempts at cope which essentially boil down to "tl;dr", which isn't all that surprising given Agays are morons I guess. They're too busy pulling the lever, not switching doors, and claiming a 50% chance of a second gold ball.
>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.
>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.
>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
.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
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
Yeah I kinda exaggerated there but the point is you could make epic kinetic projectile doomsday weapons with portals.
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.
So my doomsday machine could be able to form a black hole with high enough relativistic speeds? Wonderful.
You're a perfect example of b-tards and
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.
...that greentext wasn't even talking about the A or B problem. Are you okay anon?
Both of them are examples of B-tards since they understand physics and regocnize that portals violate the laws of reality.
Recognize*
i am
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.
don't even need to wait a full year
This will result in G-man coming to arrest you for fricking about with infinite energy.
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.
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.
>portals alter velocities of objects
They don't.
yes they do
They can't because they don't affect the object but space.
if they just warp space, then the cube wand scenario is possible
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 moron.
>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! Fricking gotcha a-tards"
Imagine being this moronic
>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.
>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 moronation. 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.
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
Lights momentum is not relative
Light is kind of an outcast on everything due to being massless
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.
WHY IS THERE A PORTAL ON A FLESHLITE???
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."
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.
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.
BECAUSE THEY DON'T MOVE IN THE FIRST GAME
Glados also said there would be cake. Glados is insane.
Speed is not velocity.
Velocity is defined with a direction. So even basic portal flings entails altering velocity.
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?
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.
We see them change the magnitude in the moon scene.
See the gif in
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.
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.
>The given scenarios of A and B hold the portals stationary
What do you mean? The orange portal is clearly depicted as moving.
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
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.
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
.
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.
>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.
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.
Again:
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.
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.
The cube isn't moving.
>it's not moving
God I hate physics
https://poal.me/olri6p
Lets see how smart Ganker is
9-5 A-B
not a good look
Ganker confirmed moron
I choose to believe most of those people are merely pretending to be moronic to get their kicks.
As if there was ever any doubt
We're still smarter than resetera.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/can-you-solve-this-portal-riddle.247273/
Holy shit this activates my almonds
oh wow, the confidence of those answers
jesus christ this fricking guy
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.
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.
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.
>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 fricking exit portal got carried WITH the cube as it launched.
>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.
>same speed
what speed, you moron?
the speed at which he passes through the window
aka the speed at which the window passes over him
The speed at which he enters and exits the doorframe. Which is inherently a relative concept. This is basic physics anon.
>windows are portals
Resetera confirmed moronic, jesus fricking christ.
It's 2022, where the frick is this modded in the game to be tested
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
>A gays 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?
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.
Speedy THING not speedy PORTAL, moron
It's all relative. Like your parents.
funny, if not for the disagreement about what speedy means
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
>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-gays
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.
If you think that then you don't understand why it is B.
There are zero design documents explaining the technology. To assume it obeys know physics is just as moronic as to assume it does not.
Just stop.
>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.
>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.
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
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.
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.
Aww, ha ha ha! He doesn't know about the law of inertia! That's so cute!
I don't see how that impacts what is said. Even laws of inertia abide by relative movement.
I wish this had more focus. The portal does jack shit, it's the universe on the other side that is moving.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
meanwhile, zero account for the rotation of the earth, orbit around the sun, etc.
None needed. Covered by that wikipedia link.
Hey moron, 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 Black person (A). Conjecture and speculation are enjoyable in and of themselves.
Sounds like you're upset that your belief in A got shaken.
What I am upset about is people arguing about things that literally do not matter. Even metaprostitute number crunching is a better use of time AND more vidya related than this.
>people arguing about things that literally do not matter.
see any religious wars.
How are you upset at this?
It generates replies which is what micro dick attention prostitutes lie OP crave along with giving evey other moron an incentive to start arguing.
It will never stop being posted.
A
Anyone else notice it's already agays that get sick of these threads being posted?
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
>has to change the argument to not look moronic
yup that's a b gay alright
>has to change the argument to not look moronic
??? 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 moronic position? Because that's a self-own if I've seen one.
How do you not forget to breathe.
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".
You made no argument against the fact that the argument seen in
is the same.
a classic. thanks m8
>ctrl+f "relative to what"
>0 results
Are you guys even trying?
>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.
ASPECT RAIDOU
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.
You're assuming that it is a matter transporter when the ideal of a portal is a hole in the world.
This doesn't account for quantum entanglement
People don't actually think it is B right? They have to be trolling.
Could any Agay answer me what happens to the cubes here? Not trying to catch you out, actually curious what you think
>the cubes are pushed out to the way but they stop when the portal stops
is the usual reply, if any.
Some A-non please answer me
This is one of this images that Agays are always very reluctant to answer.
Sort of like pic related. Though nowadays you get A gays who insist the cube exits at 150 mph and fail to understand why that is impossible even after it is explained to them.
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.
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.
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.
But that's just it. Two portals facing opposite directions never alter travel directions in the games.
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
Say frick it and meet in the middle, 100 mph
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.
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.
>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
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.
...they teleport and then fall one right after the other?
So the cubes all exit at the same spot in fast succession and somehow don't push into each other?
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.
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.
As an aside, I thought I was responding to a post responding to
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.
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
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.
>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
If portals don't apply force then how does it rotate the cube 45 degrees?
Ending cutscene proves B?
Nope.
Look at the top left corner of the webm.
And? Explain your theory. I know what you're going to say, but you need to show your work.
Not that anon, but post right above you.
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.
Alright this has made me realize all you Black folk should have a nice day, this is truly an example of it’s not that fricking deep.
that's just the vacuum of space sucking out all the air?
How does the air reach 2200mph with only 12 psi difference?
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
Chell's velocity changed so that she is moving with the moon. Based on the difference of the two portal velocities. That is B.
>cutscene
>proving anything about how the MECHANICS of the game function
Come on.
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 Agays 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?
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.
Exactly. The wind wasn't blowing 2200 mph.
it's the pressure difference you moron
found some calculator that said a pressure difference of 1 standard atmosphere at sea level density should result in 960mph winds
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 Bgays to B so stupid?
>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.
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.
>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.
"Movement of the Earth relative to the moon" was referring to Chell herself.
>it would be because she didn't gain any speed.
No, it would be because she DID gain speed.
>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.
So, the moon just stops orbiting the earth? It seems like you're just ignoring the speed difference.
>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.
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 fricking morons in these threads actually play Portal? They're some of the most accessible games ever made
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.
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.
>lead
legs*
>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 FRICKING VIDEO GAME
Damned Black personhomosexual fricknut b***h balls mouthbreather moron neanderthal
Play the fricking game you're gonna shitpost about
>then you have the answer to your problem don't you?
Black person 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.
No I wasn't, you're thinking of a different anon. I was
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.
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
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.
>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 fricking happen in the game?
If she isn't moving 2200mph on the moon, then she would slam into the moon which moving 2200mph and die.
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.
>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.
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.
>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
Because your gif literally shows the crate coming to a sudden stop for no reason, defying all intuition.
how flimsy is that column if it's being torn apart by those forces?
Ok I have a question to Bgays. 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?
If the cube reaches the portal, why wouldn't it pass through it?
Consider pic
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
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?
What the frick are you on about? If the portal never makes contact with the cube of course nothing will happen.
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.
>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.
So it is now? I thought that comparing frames of reference was the main thing. Just all bgays 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
>it's a Agay doesn't get B's logic episode
entering velocity relative to entrance portal = exiting velocity relative to exit portal
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)
Speedy is realtive.
I don't think you understand, the lift moves fast enough to throw the cube into the portal when it stops moving
pic related
If B was right shouldn't the cube fly off the platform.
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.
But the logic is sound. In the B scenario the cube literally gains energy from nowhere.
It gains energy from the moving piston.
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.
In B the energy comes from whatever is moving the portal
The anon you're replying to
is literally explaining why that can't happen
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.
You can assign a position and a velocity to a portal, so it has a frame of reference.
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.
>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
>"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.
Its so cute when people discover reference frames for the first time.
Irrelevant. From the perspective of the box the entire universe is moving around it.
What Bgays also forget to mention is that if we go by their moronic 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.
You could solve it by making it take energy from the surfaces holding the portal, and make it still "B" but slower.
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.
>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.
Even the smoke rings? They just spazz up and down indefinitely as the float into the distance then?
They get pushed around by the air from the spazzy portal
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
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
See &
>how to completely misunderstand B
I love this image.
I genuinely want to see an A gay try.
who would be stupid enough to take that bait?
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.
This image was too smart for the thread
B gays were btfo from here on
Bet they don't even understand your point
See
That image is just
restated, which is answered by
. The situations are trivially nonequivalent.
Why don't you just mod this scenario into the game and test it that way?
is this a joke about how people will just lie about the scenario to make it work
Out-fricking-played holy shit
It is accurate since irl the ground is accelerating upward.
you have to be joking
Are you genuinely moronic?
They're trying to get you to grasp how reference frames work.
No A gay can come up with a counterargument to this without making themselves look moronic.
A gays 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 fricking moronic.
yeah, but why is the tower so tall
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?
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.
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.
consider it all
I don't think it should be possible for portals to move
No material is perfectly rigid. Your walls move, you floor moves, buildings form cracks and decay.
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.
We had this thread yesterday and here we go again.
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 fricks up any consistency we have with our real-life physics.
except it's all perfectly consistent with the B answer
Except you're not makking any argument and are just saying this. Might as well stoop down to the level of
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.
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.
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.
YWNBAJ
>actually talk about videogames
which this thread is? god newbies are moronic
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 homosexualry has anything to do with videogames.
This thread is more game relevant than the endless coomer threads which never discuss mechanics
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.
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.
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 fricking vidya.
>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.
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.
But it's game mechanics, checkmate gay
>It's not in the game
>It's game mechanics
You can only choose one, anon.
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?
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/
I didn't ask that. I asked if you thought they weren't vidya related.
They are secondary topics, I guess. I personally would not want them polluting the board.
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.
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.
That sounds like a fricking fantastic thread anon. Why aren't you making it?
See
>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.
moron
>You can make plenty of thought experiments for either case and debunk A
Fixed that for you. Agays don't debunk B without showing a colossal misunderstanding of how B works.
>Agays 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.
>There have been arguments that show that [B is impossible]
haven't seen any
That's a problem for the ignorant (You).
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.
>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.
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.
Basically I mean that there can't be an objectively correct answer to this debate.
>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.
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.
Splatoon is going to settle this once and for all.
You can't put a portal on a moving surface. End of discussion.
Portal 2 has you put portals on moving surfaces. Continue the discussion.
except for the moon and also that one panel in the neurotoxin bit
all surfaces are moving surfaces
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
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.
I used to be an Agay but yeah, Ganker has changed my mind. I'm a bgay now.
ok where is all the air going?
i.e. this one
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.
Here's a webm about this shit from 2014. 8 years ago.
How fricking long are you motherfrickers planning to keep arguing about this?
Read
or
>engine limitations
or do you think every game simulates quantum mechanics because it runs on matter?
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.
both A tards and B gays are wrong, the question doesn't make sense so it can't be answered. you can't move portals separately.
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.
>"How the person feels" is not a scientific argument.
>t. has never heard the term "frame of reference"
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.
here you go
That hasn't disproven what I've said. In fact it doesn't talk about what people "feel" at all.
Wasn't trying to. Why so defensive?
Because I'm browsing one of these threads.
what's the source on that?
thanks
That's because we don't feel speed, but acceleration
I feel speed.
The need. For speed.
This is proof for B.
The entering velocity is the same as exiting velocity.
>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.
>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.
Exactly because a portal isn't something you enter or exit at all in any case.
>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 moronic "both sides" logic is this? That's entirely consistent with B and yet whoever made this uses it as proof of A somehow.
Anyone got the other Keaton gif with the portal fling?
so do B's believe that if you punch through a portal really fast that your hand would fly off?
Is the portal de-/accelerating fast enough to tear sinew and flesh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging#Long_drop
Even Agays would think that because they would acknowledge the hand as going really fast.
But that assumes you can even punch that hard.
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.
>both a good argument and cute bun bun
This remains one of my favourite.
terrible argument.
B is true. Relivite velocity is what's important.
SCIENCE IS INVENTED YOU moronS, IF SCHRODINGER DISCOVERED QUANTUM MECHANICS DIFFERENTLY THEY WOULD WORK DIFFERENTLY
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.
I'm a reformed b gay ama
GLADOS IS SO FRICKING HOT I WANT HER TO OPERATE WITH HER DISK ON MY GENETIC LIFEFORM
A gays recognize that energy isn't being imparted to an object by the portal itself because it's effectively still a form of teleportation
B gays are too hung up on technicalities and exploits which deludes them into think that's how it'll ALWAYS work no matter what
Bchads remember that even changing the direction of travel of an object, something even Agays acknowledge portals are capable of doing, would require energy.
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
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.
and the object didn't feel any acceleration either! What magic is this!?
From the perspective of the object it never changed its direction.
Then from the perspective of the object it never gained speed, the universe around it just started moving.
THEN HOW DID IT PUSH OUT THE AIR ON THE OTHER SIDE?
>blow in someone's face
>woah dude, how did you push all that air I sent at you out the way without moving
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?
Riddle me this A gays; what the FRICK is stopping the cube from its inertia?
Gravity.
anyone who thinks the cube will go flying from nothing is a fricking moron
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.
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.
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
If we go by the game, it should be A. As for real life, I don’t know.
B gays think this is impossible and that a plane on a treadmill could never take off
What makes you think B gays think that? It's usually the other way
>The portal/treadmill is imparting energy!
gottem
A simulation is literally useless in this debate, since it will behave however you code it to behave.
mmm, I'm losing my religion A bros, I think B is actually making more sense now...
Has anyone tried asking this from Valve or anyone who worked on Portal?
Someone emailed Gaben once about it. He said that A is correct.
If Gaben says it's A then it's A.
End of discussion.
No he didn't, he passed the email to someone who actually worked on portal. (Of course Agays 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.
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.
>walk through a door
>get blasted at 5000 mph
>walk through a door
>somehow appear at the otherside without force being involved
t. aristotle
t. Thomas Edison
That's exactly what happens in the ending cutscene.
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.
Because if my mind could be changed so easily I couldn't sincerely call it belief.
here come the b gay mental gymnastics. tell us more what rules you cherry pick because it suits you
>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
>agays can't comprehend that you don't need a fricking 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.
>because they fundamentally cannot understand frames of reference
portals break frames of reference you moron. 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,
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
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)
Portals are not real, frick off with your pointless nagging.
>yet another thread filled with Btards circlejerking each other while embarrassing themselves
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.
Actually ingame if you try this without mods the piston with the orange portal gets stuck against the cube.
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'
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.
>the most Agays can do in this thread is troll while Bchads have intellectual conversation
FRICK ALL THE A Black folk
A LITERAL PHYSICS PHD SAYS ITS B
SUCK MY DICK Black folk
THE CUBE EXITS THE PORTAL AT THE SAME SPEED IT ENTERS THE PORTAL, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS YOU moronS
?t=2654
>THE CUBE EXITS THE PORTAL AT THE SAME SPEED IT ENTERS THE PORTAL
So 0 m/s, got it.
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.
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.
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?"
jesus fricking 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
>Experts can't be wrong and have never been wrong in the past
lol
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
>red portal
colorblind?
got confused since some people mix up the entrance/exit portal colors in their images
PhDs also said the jab was safe and effective.
Just call it appeal to authority and leave it at that. Let's not go that way pls
>Bgays are jab junkies
It all makes sense now.
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
Let be get this straight A gays. 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?
A is correct
The best way to understand it is to imagine the whole thing in slow motion.
so in this slow motion visualization what removes the cibe's momentum?
>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.
>relative velocity isn't real
Chell should tongue my anus.
You have to be moronic to think it's B
Reminder that portals cannot be created on moving surfaces
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.
>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
Why do morons 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/
Portals break some of the laws of physics already, why not more? Someone had to have created that energy
>hurr it always existed
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?
and who made the portal gun?
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?
Why do you think it is that we only see Portals in video games, movies etc but never in real life?
Because the CIA glowBlack folk hides Isaac Newtons and Nikolai Tesla's greatest inventions because that would give us normies too much power. I bet Tesla invented portals.
You know terminal velocity doesn't exist in a vacuum
Isn't it creating energy? It increases the potential energy of the block when for example the exit portal is bigger in height.
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.
>Why do morons 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?
The water would splash out. You'd have to continually replace it.
we are talking about a fricking 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
>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.
>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?
Entropy would still frick you over. Maxwell's demon
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.
>put a glass tank round the water
>this blows the anon's mind
Any of you guys read Stephen King's short story "The Jaunt"? That was a really good horror story about portals.
Frick that dude that sent his wife to endless jaunt hell.
I wonder what an actual physicist would have to say about this
Thanks
Been answered by multiple theoretical physicists. All agree its B.
>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 moronic anon bended over backwards to explain how the box is moving without using the word momentum so idk bros both make pretty good arguments
riddle me this b-gays:
if the moving platform the portal is in abruptly stops after passing only 9/10ths of the cube through the portal, what happens then?
The cube shoots out at 9/10 of the speed of the piston, assuming it has homogenous density.
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 agay, 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.
The box is ejected with slightly less momentum.
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
IQ, ascending:
>It's A because XYZ
>It's B because XYZ
>Neither, it's a paradox
>IQ, ascending:
In which direction?
>Both, it's a paradox
Im mensa certified 140+ (unmeasurable due to being too high) IQ and I say it's B
The portals are magic and either or neither of the answers are possible or impossible
Lol, no matter what you think the answer is saying "It's a paradox! you can't answer" is just a moron cop out because you don't like thinking. Nobody is stupider than centrists.
depends on the cube material
It's a kilogram of feathers
Nothing happens since the portal is glued to the piston
Here's the answer: portals can't move relative to each other
Play the game, moron.
.
>Bgay 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 moronic 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.
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
>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.
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.
>the direction is relative to whatever perspective you view it from
>but the speed isn't
Uh huh.
>you view it from
not how it works. Reread what a frame of reference is
Anon was literally quoting what the anon said.
That's not me
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.
Those are your words
I am
I'm just here to stir up some shit
Doesn't this just prove A?
The cube was never moving only the portals where, which was the original question
No because in the original question only one entrance of the portal is moving and the other is stationary
not sure why you bothered with that
A gays 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
in your case he both enters and exits the doorframe at 10km/h which is consistent with B logic
its you A gays 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
Let go.
Once more for the A homosexualsd in the back
ACTUAL GENUINE PHYSICS PHD SAYS B IS THE, QUOTE "CORRECT" ANSWER
Literally nothing A gays 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
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
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
Remember when a random housewife solved the monty hall problem and btfo mathgays with phds forever?
Keep listening to the morons who need to consult their textbooks for answers while logicAl ChAds work it out
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
>Marilyn vos Savant
>random housewife
>random housewife
>the person with the highest ever recorded IQ in the history
jesus frick the A gays cope is getting better by the minute
What would happen if you go in reverse. Put the box through the stationary side and let it fall out of the piston side.
see
That's another great thought experiment for agays to hang themselves on, but sadly most aren't even mentally capable of making a knot much less a noose.
These a or b threads always make my head hurt.
A gay poisoning the well spotted
>Btards are low IQ
>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 frick stuff like this up?
>Why do they frick stuff like this up?
Because engineers are not necessarily good game designers.
*ahem*
Just build it and try it out irl.
How make portal.
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?
Someone post another thread, this is getting good.
This is the same thread with the same arguments we've been posting for years
just like every thread
I love it every time