Will there ever be a Portal 3? People are still talking about it after all these years...

Are you retarded? Youd be falling in the same speed and direction as the speed and direction you originally fell in. Unless the edges of the portal hit and pushed you, exerting force on you to move in the same direction as the end portal, there's nothing else to exert force.
In short, your stick figure would continue falling STRAIGHT down, just not in the same spot if the orange portal is moving. I feel like I need to draw you a series of comics so that you can understand but I lack both the time and the patience to do so.

Think of it like this.

If an open doorway was traveling toward you at high speeds and you were standing still, would you all of a sudden shoot through at high velocity when it passes over you?

Attached: 1536814231460.gif (600x600, 899K)

>In short, your stick figure would continue falling STRAIGHT down
>Falling
>Away from the fucking moon.
And if we ignore that
>Your stick figure would continue falling straight down while the moon continued along at over 2000 miles per hour, bisecting the figure as they move through the portal.

Anyone who makes the hurr conservation of momentum argument is a retard. answer A still breaks the laws of physics by moving the cube to a state of less potential energy without the lost energy going anywhere.

I might if it's a door where one end can somehow move independently of the other. Portals do not exist; they resemble but aren't actually doors. Do unicorns eat grass because horses do?

Okay, Einstein, then explain why you are not immediately left suspended in space while the moon moves away from you at a blazing speed at the end of Portal 2.
Yes, you fall straight down from the frame of reference of the moon, but you also move together with the moon from Earth's point of view.

As we have never been informed on HOW portals do what the do and we also have never been informed on WHAT the expected behavior of moving portals is supposed to be, any and all answers to this question remain purely speculative.

>Le hoop argument
Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

But we can still laugh at A-fags for trying to argue with hula-hoops and conservation of energy, while recognizing that B is clearly the best, aesthetically pleasing choice.

Just going purely off the scenario given in the OP. If both portals were moving your post would be valid, but since one portal is moving and the other is stagnant the equivalent situation would be a doorway or hole hurtling towards you at high speed and the exit remaining still.

Prove me wrong. Oh wait, you can't.

Oh I've never actually played Portal 2, I didn't realize this was the earth and the moon. Gravitational pulls definitely have a large impact on trajectory, my bad.

>he thinks down exists

Hes right though. if you look at the exit portal, you will see the cube moving through the portal with the velocity of the moving entrance portal, but that velocity comes from the moving entrance portal. as soon as that portal stops moving and the cube is fully through the portal, the cube loses its velocity too and will simply slide down the exit portal.

wrong. even if conservation of momentum and energy are the wrong ways to go about it, A is the most sensible choice. see

>but since one portal is moving and the other is stagnant the equivalent situation would be [another thing that is clearly different from a fucking door thus I'd be retarded if I tried to argue using that as a metaphor].

Relative to the door yes. My speed relative to the door wouldn't just magically vanish, it would have to drag me along for that to happen

>I've never actually played Portal 2
Someone post that picture of the Portal "gamer" girl.

if the door stops moving you don't keep your "relative speed" retard.

this

Didn't someone create this in-game and it PROVED A.?

Attached: 92103019238.jpg (403x389, 19K)

The door/hoop argument doesn't work because in those cases, the entrance and exit are static relative to each other, which is not the case in this though experiment.

A is still right though.

>Portals are in different spots, object changes location.
>Portals are in different directions, object changes direction.
>Portals are traveling at different velocities, object is unaffected.
>Actually, it is affected as it somehow makes it through but then loses all of that velocity because it was fake velocity I guess?

Attached: 2DBA33D7-F5D8-449C-8ACC-1D895F14546E.png (661x953, 119K)

If the portal works by warping space-time, then the portals should be able to excert force on objects, as that is the same way gravity generates force.

Developers aren't trying to simulate accurate moving portal physics or solve internet debates; if no one is going to use a moving portal in game they're going to code it in whichever way is simpler. If you want to talk code, at least one developer says it should be B.

the impact of the upper platform and the lower platform could create enough force to move the cube, but going on instinct I'd wager A

see so you think you'll magically feel a force pulling on your dick?

>>le hoop argument
its correct though. thats how portals work. its like putting a hoop around the object. half is on one side, half is on the other.

It’s A. The box itself is has no momentum. B would only happen if it were the lower platform slamming into the upper one.

Yes, that is what would happen if B is correct. How is
>If B is true, then how about [perfectly logical result of that]?
an argument?

And "magical forces pulling on objects" is literally what stationary portals are doing when they change an objects momentum.

Attached: Untitled.png (591x545, 54K)

Attached: Checkmate A-theists.png (903x451, 59K)

i don't understand what you are saying. are you saying B is correct? its wrong.

>And "magical forces pulling on objects" is literally what stationary portals are doing when they change an objects momentum.
confirmed brainlet. nevermind, i dont care to hear anything else you have to say

Attached: 1494909856665.webm (1280x720, 718K)

reminds me of the "The Billiard Ball" by Asimov

the way the game treated portals i'd be a fool not to wager A

The portal should be moving faster to make the point clearer.

>confirmed brainlet. nevermind, i dont care to hear anything else you have to say
>You can change an object's momentum without force or a magical portal doing a very good imitation of force.

>i don't understand what you are saying
Understandable from someone who doesn't know what momentum is.

so what about the weight of the remaining, stationary cube on the other side of the portal?

this is why portal's can't move, it breaks physics.

>that time numberphile did a video on this exact problem and got an actual physicist to talk about it.

>they agreed that A is correct

It remains stationary until it's all through the portal. The cube receives absolutely zero external force as long as the portal stays in constant motion.

Earth calling user, our planet is already moving all the time.

Is there any part of the cube that's left on the other side of the portal once the portal stops?

Even if scenario A were to happen, the cube would be moving through space outside the exit portal at an extremely high velocity then sudden come to a complete stop. It would just plop down. In would crumple.

Considering Valve's newest game in like a decade is a fucking tcg im thinking no. Theyre completely out of touch and should just stick to distribution.

portal's aren't real

That isn't true (even though he's retarded for thinking weight has anything to do with that image). Gravity would begin acting on the cube's atoms the moment they passed through the portal. Just assume the example is in vacuum.

It's A. The portal is in a static state regardless of how the top plate moves. Because of this, the cube is never a part of the top plate's kinematic system.
Only possibility of B would be due to rebound, depending on how fast the top plate is going and how fast the cube starts slipping to rolling after the blue portal.
t. INTP in Engineering

Attached: 1551926958915.gif (500x248, 2.93M)

link

youtu.be/ASUUN0W4_JY

momentum is not conserved with portals

therefore A is correct

Not while valve can make csgo money.
The answer is B because the cube exits the blue portal at the rate it enters orange

>momentum is not conserved with portals
>therefore A is correct even though both A and B can and have been argued to not conserve momentum depending on perspective and smart people agree conservation of momentum and energy is irrelevant to the problem.

How the fuck would B make any goddamn sense? It'd have to leave the orange portal SLOWER than it enters the blue one. You can even see this in the animation: compare the frame the rocket completely leaves the orange portal in A vs. B.

Explain this one, valve. How do portals rotate your body as you pass through them?

Attached: Untitled.png (817x891, 18K)

You're trying to discuss rational relativistic physics under an impossible premise, where both answers are true AND neither are wrong. You've produced time dilation that both de-syncs observers and aligns with them. You've created infinite energy; not in changing forms from unlimited potential energy, but literally generating energy from nothing whatsoever.

It's like hollywood television writers having "fun" arguing quantum physics.
youtube.com/watch?v=JsGcroUX5Tw

Attached: ...and Hobbes 21.jpg (1506x475, 324K)

Your inexplicable leg springy things automatically orient your body with gravity at all times.

That is not numberphile and it shows. The comments all agree he's wrong.

>It'd have to leave the orange portal SLOWER than it enters the blue one.
That's the point? Scenario A is saying moving portals lead to duplication of mass (parts of the ship are in two places at once), Scenario B is saying moving portals avoid this by preserving velocity relative to the portal. It's down to whatever you think is more ridiculous.

Ah, good ol hoop troll.

For the sake of the argument, assume zero G.
It gets overly complicated when we have to consider that gravity may work through portals too.

If anything, this proves B, for A-pologists tend to argue for their case with the notion that momentum is conserved.
Also:
youtube.com/watch?v=CV8rNiBECCA

Attached: Untitled.png (800x800, 30K)

You have that backwards because the animation was poorly created. In scenario A, the rocket should at all times exist only in one place - the instant part of it enters the blue portal it immediately leaves the orange one. In scenario B, the rocket leaves the orange portal slower than it enters the blue one, so there would be portions of time where parts of the rocket simply do not exist, or got put into the It's This Fucking Thread Again dimension.

A is the only one that makes any sense with Portal's mechanics.

>this proves B, for A-pologists tend to argue for their case with the notion that momentum is conserved.
thats not how debate works you complete moron. thats the definition of strawmanning. there are completely valid arguments for A. you can't pick the bad one and then say well its wrong so it proves B.

should have added a comment: all objects are completely still in the 3 situations illustrated.

now here is a doozy

Attached: SECON ROUND.jpg (1500x636, 74K)

Key words are "if anything", but thanks for demonstrating strawmanning.

Gotta admit it's good retardbait.

Portals require an infinite amount of energy to be created, we know this as there are various ways to create a perpetual motion machine with them which can only be possible if they already take an infinite amount of energy to make.
Since we know Energy = Infinity, let's do a couple of equations.
E = mc^2
As we know c = the speed of light or 299 792 458 m / s, and 299 792 458^2 is 8.9875518e+16, and that Energy is Infinity, the equation becomes
Infinity = m8.9875518e+16
The only way for the equation to match up with one another is if Mass is also Infinity.
Therefore, a portal has infinite mass.
F = ma
We already know m = Infinity so the equation becomes
F = Infinity x a
Any form of acceleration would require an infinite amount of force.
The portal cannot have 0 mass, as energy for massless objects can have the equation of
E = hf
Or Energy equals Planks Constant x Frequency, as Planks Constant is a finite number, frequency must be infinite.
The equation for energy can also be
E = hc / wavelength, as Planks Constant and Speed of Light are finite, wavelength must be 0.
But Light is equal to wavelength x frequency, but 0 x Infinity = 0, making light move at 0 speed if portals were massless.
Ergo, the answer is C, the piston is unable to move as it would take an infinite amount of force to move the portal situated upon it.

Attached: 1494815352259.png (936x555, 14K)

well duh, the exit portal has the same velocity as the entrance portal, thus cancelling out the block's velocity. you only proved your own brainletism by thinking this answers the OP

the portal gun can move portals, so your conclusion is 100% wrong.

B's answer doesn't allow for the frame of reference of the SHIP ITSELF to remain consistent with physics. It's only allowing a 3rd, outside observer that's watching the entire phenomenon but not participating in it.

This example is not analogous because the blue portal is in motion.

A or the orange platform gets warped or the black shit gets destroyed.

unless the beam is made of spaghetti it would just be B

That doesn't matter. Since this is all just conjecture anyways, whatever appears in the game should end this stupid debate.

oh boy

this kills the Afags

Attached: 1328141083953.png (800x371, 163K)

>Does the exact same thing
>just cries stupid instead of making showing any proof or a proper counter argument
Good job being a retard.

Attached: end of thread.webm (356x200, 182K)

Weird as it seems, it has to be B. The implications of having an infinitely powerful force that can bend anything are too paradoxical.

>a) the orange portal is all the way down the shaft of the column
>b) the orange portal is only half way down

The fuck, wouldn't both scenarios be correct or both be wrong depending on how you look at it then?

Attached: 1532415310983.gif (256x256, 352K)

To put some numbers to the animation, say the portal is moving left at 3 mph and the rocket is moving at 4 mph.

In Scenario A, matter is duplicated because when it says "same speed" it is saying that matter leaves the orange portal at the speed of the rocket, not the speed of the rocket relative to the blue portal. Matter is entering the blue portal at a rate of 1 mph (4 minus 3), but leaving the orange portal at a rate of 4 mph.

In scenario B, matter is entering the blue portal at 1 mph and leaving the orange portal at 1 mph, to preserve velocity relative to the portals. There is no point where an atom doesn't exist, they are all accounted for.

That's the exact same thing as OPs B. I hope you saved this as a troll image and didnt make it.

i don't think you understand what E=mc^2 means. it means energy can be converted to mass. so the portal can have infinite energy, and any finite amount of that energy, if any, can be mass.

In B, the portal would just float. So A.

Attached: 1439743597125.webm (853x480, 2.88M)

>attempting to pit INTPs and INTJs against each other

I'm on to you op, and I won't fall for your tricks. We autists need to team up and gas the extraverts.

>Making a counter-argument against a non-argument
That's not how it works, silly.
Besides, they are responding to an illustration. The burden to debunk it is on them.

This thread will reach 500 replies all posted by people who think they're presenting novel arguments when in fact every single post will be a rehash of something which was already posted in 500 other Portal threads. Everyone who seriously tries to have a debate ITT is wasting time because it has all been said before. Also, we've had enough of these threads to confirm that people on Yea Forums are retards with no reading comprehension and no understanding of physics. Before this thread is over, someone will unironically claim that motion is not relative, and someone else will unironically claim that momentum is not a vector, etc. It happens every time. Frankly, I don't have the patience to read another of these threads. The stupidity is too much for me to handle.

So I'll just dump relevant images.

Attached: portal_reply.png (1714x788, 203K)

wrong. the cube also stops moving when the portal stops moving.

Attached: portals_moving.png (1320x2970, 267K)

The implication here is the that orange portal is unable to go down any further in answer B

It's pretty obvious that is the intended interpretation

...why?

>B
guys a retard. A makes the most logical sense. he said it himself. hes not a physicist.

same reason the post stops moving

Attached: retardproof.png (636x424, 57K)

Attached: portal_facts.png (561x859, 30K)

In game portals cant exist on moving surfaces as dumb as that sounds, so the problem can't happen anyway.

>Put a cat in a box, add a can of poison gas (activated by the radioactive decay of an atom), then close the box.
>Sounds like a cruel man.
>Oh no, no! It was just a theory! He never really did it. He said that, if he DID do it, at any one instant, the cat would be both dead and alive at the same time.
>Ahh. Coolibrian Physics.
>...?
>An atom's state is indeterminate until measured by an outside observer.
>We call it Quantum Physics! You know the theory?
>Yeah, I've studied it. In among other misconceptions of elementary science.
>..f-wh, misconceptions? You telling me you guys have licked Quantum Physics?
Hollywood, Valve, it's almost like they're simple producing a product for experimental fun/profit, not actually applying super-human levels of understanding of unexplored science.

Attached: facepalm.jpg (777x437, 68K)

Alternate problem. A or B? Objectively correct answer will be posted soon. Brainlets will get mad about it.

Attached: portal_box_problem.png (1072x372, 6K)

honestly, the only thing that could keep A in the game would be to argue that space-time bending only gives the illusion of movement and that there is no actual force involved.

I'm a ME Professional Engineer who also went back and got a BS in Physics, and played both portals years ago. I've never understood how anyone could defend B. It's like throwing a cylinder around a box and the box moving.

This angers the brainlet who doesn't know what a frame of reference is.

Attached: portal_box_answer.png (1072x2327, 123K)

A of course.

B

I would get a refund if I were you

Both answers are defensible if you spend more than 2 seconds thinking about it. Reacting with "muh conservation of momentum" or "muh hula hoop" indicates that you didn't think hard enough. Don't get me wrong; there are valid arguments in favor of "A". But neither of those are valid. See for an example of how the problem can be examined using more than one brain cell.

Another unrelated but amusing portal problem involving water.

Attached: portal-water.png (644x605, 8K)

B is the brainlet answer. although neither answer can be proven because both require breaking the laws of physics, the only way to get to B is with brainlet level physics.

> It's like throwing a cylinder around a box and the box moving.
I have a degree in zoology and I never understood how anyone can believe dragons hoard gold. Lizards don't hoard gold. Conclusions drawn from a real life subject always apply to something that doesn't exist but is similar on a surface level.

B

I would like to see a justification for A though

A obviously

the answer is neither

what would actually happen initially would be example B, the TIP of the rocket would have reduced velocity equality to the velocity of the blue portal, but the rest of the rocket would still be moving at normal speed. the back-half of the rocket would have to expend additional force to push the slowed down post-portal matter, speeding it up while slowing itself down.

in this way, passing through a moving portal would slow down the rocket based on the mass of the rocket + the velocity of the portal. if the rocket didn't have enough force to circumvent the opposing force of the moving portal, it would grind to a stop half-way through and fall to the ground. an even heavier object would just bounce off of the portal like it hit a wall.

A doesn't create a perpetual motion machine

I remember when I was a Bfag, an unironic one. I'm 32 now and I'm losing touch with what's a troll or not nowadays so I argued the fight, then it all clicked as to why A would be correct. One day maybe you all will reach enlightenment.
>or already have, and have to keep the arguement alive

Sure.
B violates the law of energy conservation.
Well, it's more of an argument against portals existing at all, which isn't any fun.

B
Exits at same rate and inherits blue's motion vector

Another problem, similar to one of the problems posted earlier. What's the final velocity of the little box?

Attached: portal_wall_problem.png (333x294, 3K)

>B violates the law of energy conservation.
You realize we're talking about portals, right. The things that totally disregard conservation of energy when they teleport you all over the place while keeping only your kinetic energy in tact.

static portals already allows you to do that though so not really an argument

Attached: 4sg6.gif (500x281, 499K)

Did you even read my post?

This riddle has no answer because they havn't confirmed whether portals are holes in space time or Teleportation. If it's a hole, the answer is A. If it's teleportation, it's B and even that's iffy depending on your definition of teleportation

Attached: 1ae.png (410x429, 31K)

>but that velocity comes from
exactly

>the cube loses its velocity
why

>it's more of an argument against portals existing at all
Well you're certainly right about that. Portals, in general, violate the law of conservation of energy in ways that can be observed in the game — no thought experiments required. That makes conservation of energy a very unsatisfying argument against B though. You're not really saying the answer is A so much as saying the problem makes no sense.

It's A, doesn't matter what faggy shit you post. The box isn't moving (vacuum?), and unless the portal acts as a giant fleshlight and imparts friction or moves it, it'll stay static. There may be forces from when it hits the edge of the blue portal.

A does, but that doesn't matter, you create perpetual energy several times.

> the back-half of the rocket would have to expend additional force to push the slowed down post-portal matter, speeding it up while slowing itself down.
I don't see how that's the case when the rate of matter entering the portal is equal to the rate of matter leaving it.

I didn't read the last bit, I apologize. You're even more retarded for saying A, which contains portals, is justified by explaining how portals can't exist.

7 m/s >

Attached: actual puzzle.png (832x909, 570K)

How hard is it to understand this is not a fucking hula hoop?
Portals are non-euclidean. One side can move while the other remains completely stationary, the motion has to translate to any object forced through

Answer: 13 m/s to the right.

Attached: portal_wall_answer.png (828x1540, 61K)

>block gains momentum from nothing

Attached: 1514817725813.jpg (720x736, 32K)

C, neither

this one of the many times I wish there was a way to tell those who actually believe what they're arguing and those who just want to keep the argument going.

Attached: 1290976021327.jpg (896x1646, 209K)

The answer is already posted. What about it did you not understand? I'm sure someone would be willing to explain it to you, or point you to physics education resources if you're just not understanding how inertial frames of reference work.

it's neither

Attached: it's C idiots.png (1000x605, 15K)

Conversely, Scenario A demands portals to be moving exactly, precisely, consistently relative to each other at all times. It remains consistent of time and space by bending time and space to allow for distance to be, from an outside perspective (of the portal's influence), irrelevant AND relevant.

Scenario B eliminates that consistency of the portals moving relative to each other in fixed points, which causes enormous flaws in space and time, but motion consistency for basic levels of energy conservation. It remains consistent of energy and force by removing location from the equation's relevancy, which allows the portal's enacted object to stay true, but from an outside observer (of the portal's influence) be irrational.

Scenario A allows for a portal to be a fixed point and a single phenomenon enacting on the UNIVERSE by manipulating it.
Scenario B allows for a portal to be TWO fixed points and a single phenomenon enacting on the SHIP by manipulating it.

Both are plausible. Both are implausible. A portal is an impossible physics theory, and a MOVING portal (one "side" moving independently of the other "side") is even further ludicrous with how many more fallacies it creates. To anyone seeking an answer, create whatever you want; it's essentially magic.

Attached: tib.jpg (480x360, 19K)

Thats not the argument against B you brainlet. the only way to get to B is by mixing up different frames of reference, hence why B is the brainlet answer.

My head says A because there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine but another retarded part of me says B so ill go whit B

portals already change momentum from nothing dumbass

This guy gets it

Portals conserve momentum, that's the whole point of the puzzles.

see

shitty bait. you obviously changed the amount of water.
samefag

I really don't know any of the terms I should use for my answer but here goes:
A, considering that the structure that the poll is hitting is strong enough that the poll will not knock it out of the way.

Attached: 1547082453573.png (497x485, 193K)

common mistake.
momentum is a vector not a scalar, to change the direction of the momentum IS to change it.

Damn, didn't think about adding the plane's velocity to the equation twice, so I just assumed 10 m/s. Pretty clever.

The real retarded part is you thinking there's no such thing as perpetual motion with portals.

Momentum includes direction. They also fail to preserve energy, by keeping the kinetic energy but gaining or losing gravitational potential.

>both of them not being ENTP

Who knew I was smarter than Einstein and Newton combined.

I hate these threads. Fuck you.

>E anything
Trash.

A, what force would be pushing the cube at all?

Einstein's theory would prove that the answer is a paradox.

yes, portals never conserved momentum in the first place.

they conserve relative speed.

You are aware that portals aren't real right?

Attached: 1479362393547.png (500x387, 114K)

Alright, people advocating for B, I got a question. How would it work in reverse? If something is flung through a portal moving away from it, does it go slower out the other end? Like, imagine someone throws a baseball through a portal moving away from it. What happens then?

it would be destroyed (teared) upon entering because it would be moving at different speeds on an atomic level

>mixing up different frames of reference
lmao

Tell me more about how there's one absolute frame of reference in this universe. Did you ever take a classical mechanics course?

If you had claimed that known principles of physics become invalid as soon as portals are introduced, I would have at least given you partial credit for the cop-out bullshit explanation which rules out any possibility of finding a definitive answer, but if you're actually claiming that a physics problem cannot be viewed equivalently in multiple frames of reference then you're the one true brainlet of this thread.

A

The cube itself has no inertia nor does portal B

Anyway portals cannot move

if you look into a portal, its obviously not changing momentum at all. you will see the object move in a straight line from inside the portal to outside the portal.

This is technically right in this case, but just a few more ounces of water, and the outcome would have changed.

E is better for conversing and getting your way in things

I only had 51% e and 49% i but that still makes me an E

Cope.

Attached: main-qimg-eb1cd0ce0c7b7d737b04f4bf52fe4201.png (485x250, 70K)

To further clarify, if something stationary starts moving due to the process described, could something moving therefore become stationary by doing the reverse?

I was just going to dump images but I got distracted by stupidity and found myself replying to stupid posts. I guess that makes me stupid too.

Here's an animated GIF that another user posted in a previous thread.

Attached: portals_animated.gif (504x282, 17K)

anyone with the slightest physics background can immediately dismiss B because the only way to justify it is through frames of reference that don't actually fit with real world physics. thats why A is the non-brainlet answer. it takes longer to realize why its incorrect, so anyone with a modicum of intelligence will be an A fag before ascending to a neither chad.

To allow that hypothetical more room, how about instead of measuring the depth of the image in inches below sea level, you measure it in thousands of kilometers?

Assuming gravitational forces, the amount of pressure the lower water level would feel would be immense compared to the pressure of the higher water level would feel. You've now generated motion for the high pressure water to "escape" through the lower portal (even upwards) into the lower pressure water of the upper portal.

Entrance and exist become irrelevant, as from all observations the water must travel from high to low pressure. Eventually, assuming gravitational forces, it will spill over back into the lower domain. The process will then repeat. Congratulations: you've created an energy paradox that breaks science because you've introduced portals (which are a paradox that breaks science).

Attached: born to be boss.gif (245x300, 744K)

What is there to cope about? That is a Ratio, which means an average. Trusting Charts over yourself is the fastest way to become average.

No. All the writers for Portal, Portal 2 and Half Life have all quit Valve at this point. If it were released it would be a noncanon fan game.

E fags btfo. intelligence has long been known to require independently coming to an understanding of things within your own brain. this is why you are encouraged to do things like math homework on your own first. if you have to rely on someone else to tell you what to do, then you don't have a complete understanding in your own brain, and without that understanding you can't move further. Hindus have this figured out. its why they stress meditation so much.

Jesus christ did you even play the game? I swear to god all of you normie shitheads only hear about and repeat the memes and nothing else. Portal 2 was fucking great. An amazing sequel to a game that didnt really need one. It delivered in ways nobody expected and had ton and tons of great dialog. But all you and the rest of your normie faggot friends remember is cave johnson and lemons. Because thats this game's 'cake is a lie' you cant appreciate quality level design or atmosphere. Only memes and faggotry.

Attached: Midna_Feet.jpg (1000x1414, 230K)

If they have a long and short version, it's usually a safe bet they're serious
If the cube exits the portal at the same rate it enters then there is only one answer.
Btw the easy answer for your picture is to put a straightedge by each side, of which there are 4 (a defining feature of squares)

I can tell from your post that you have zero physics background.

Here's a concise explanation of why GLaDOS, who implies that portals conserve momentum, is a brainlet.

Attached: portals don't conserve momentum.png (752x572, 19K)

That's exactly what would happen. It's velocity would be your throw minus the portal's speed.

cop out ad hominem response. proving that A breaks the laws of physics requires pointing to the loss of potential energy without that energy going anywhere. thats why A is for chads and you are a brainlet.

I think I'm out of images so here's a bad attempt at memeing.

Attached: portal_brain.png (445x629, 345K)

It doesn't matter if it's moving or not. Portals break physics by default because they create energy.

You create energy by falling into the same portal over and over again.

Attached: portals break physics.png (800x600, 11K)

the moon has gravity you retard mongoloid

>real world physics

Unless you're some kind of omniscient god, you don't have permission to refer to anything in our universe as "real world physics".

>istj that fucking low
Guess I'm just a lucky one eh?
>inb4 implying
I'm a Goddamn engineer from a prestigious uni

you are worse than a brainlet.

you are perfectly aware that we're currently operating under the hypothesis that they are real for the purpose of this thought experiment.
don't try to save face

t. parents bribed people to get you that spot
or alternatively your a far far left poorfag minority who got affirmative actioned into uni

>failed physics
YIKES

>that don't actually fit with real world physics
so...
just like portals do?

I believe Glados also said "speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out" which is technically correct. But it does conflict with momentum conservation if you aren't an idiot about frames of reference

>The moon's feeble gravity is enough to pull you at 1000 km/s within a short amount of time

Attached: X7fQkrX.jpg (1200x1000, 166K)

It's hard to discuss physics with someone who doesn't seem to have any grasp on the language of physics.

Also, I gave you a bullshit response because there was nothing of substance in your post. You made a vague reference to ways of justifying B, but didn't get into any specific details, so I don't even know which actual claims you're trying to refute, or whether they were posted by actual people as opposed to straw men who live in your imagination.

outed yourself as a brainlet by pretending the people arguing against using frames of reference and relative velocity to argue for B are wrong. There are two possible frames of reference the block. thats why using frames of reference is an awful way to justify B.

Then you, too, must accept that irrational regulations or, unknowable regulations are suddenly being applied that are entirely subjective in favor of the person creating those rules.

Both answers become plausible given different rules. This includes what we understand of natural science, relativistic physics and quantum theory. And fiction.

Attached: 1548948899681.jpg (413x413, 20K)

im done here. you are a retard who thinks B is right but doesn't even understand the reasoning for it.
the point of the exercise is to try to justify it in some way retard. neither answer is correct. i was just saying that A is the thinking man's answer.

>"speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out"
This part is true. I think she also said something about momentum not being affected by portals, but I can't be bothered to find the exact quote.

AHEM
FUCK HOOPFAGS

what happens?

Attached: Untitled.jpg (636x424, 26K)

ISTJ's are like 30% of all mbti results, dumbass. Of course there will be more stupid ones. But obviously only smart hard working ones end up on Yea Forums RIGHT?

Highest tier: Joining the threads just to BTFO HoopNiggers

The pole breaks explosively or is compressed like it's the hydraulic press channel

>neither answer is correct. i was just saying that A is the thinking man's answer.

Attached: Stupid Idea.png (231x231, 23K)

This
Honestly I can tolerate every other faction but JUST misunderstanding the problem is for degenerates

now the real question.
What force is compressing/exploding the pole?

Attached: 9.png (483x202, 2K)

>There are two possible frames of reference
lmao

>im done here. you are a retard who thinks B is right but doesn't even understand the reasoning for it.
I don't know what to tell you, dude. I didn't even claim that B is correct in my replies to you. I simply pointed out, correctly, that all frames of reference are equally valid. And then you made some vague noises about B being wrong, but didn't raise any specific points to which I could respond, so I gave you equally non-specific replies. You think we're having some huge debate here, but we're not. I couldn't give less of a fuck. Maybe you think I'm the same guy as someone else who replied to you.

>A
The cube has to exit at the same rate it enters.
>thinking man's answer
Try again. I've clearly thought about it more.

Which is fine, because the ship itself moves doscontinually through space because of the portal, so of course its spatial frame of reference will also be discontinuous.

Attached: cjZtADi.jpg (298x269, 23K)

god faggots like you who jump into a conversation without reading the thread are the worst. I already explained this. anyone with a modicum of intelligence will immediately see why B can't be reasoned about. figuring out why A is wrong takes longer.

We need another study for intelligence level when people cite the dunning-Kruger effort. (Spoiler: results will looks exactly the same)

confirmed brainlet then. you can look at the cube relative to the portal or to the ground, and both frames of reference contradict eachother.

"Speedy thing goes in" is by admission the brainlet term for what occurs. Speedy things don't actually exist because speed is a construct born from the measurement of time regarding the difference between -- that's right -- two frames of reference.

Attached: 20130326.gif (612x684, 27K)

So, if I'm standing in front of a blue portal, and the orange portal is going 50 mph or something would I feel a breeze?

The Infinite Energy Parodox, known as a portal, now must either "stop" in its relative motion or must create infinite space and energy to account for its unlimited action on the universe.

Both are completely wrong because that scenario should never be happening in the first place; it's impossible to account for different answers to all be true, despite all being provable. The simplest or least destructive answer would simply result in time essentially stopping while infinite amounts of space in the universe is created so infinite amounts of mass is passing through it with consistent motion...which, again, isn't possible, because motion inherently requires time.

Conversely, the question to the opposite answer is what force keeps the portal plane suspended in midair.
But seeing as it doesn't require that much energy, this answer still makes more sense.

>What force is compressing/exploding the pole?
The force of the base it's standing on pushing against the impact target. Think of the portal shortening the distance between the two stationary supports.

It's non euclidean so it's hard to explain, but assuming the pole's platform doesnt break than it's like the top and bottom platforms are exerting a force that is capable of compressing the pole at the rate at which the portal falls.
I think. Maybe this is the secret to floating platform tech.

>Self-referential paradox
Move along, folks.

isn't this solvable though? you calculate how empty the graph would be at width w that is close to 0, and then get rid of the emptyness that would result from graphing a line, and then graphing a line at that point? the you repeat this procedure for increasing w's?

>you can look at the cube relative to the portal or to the ground,
Technically, you could look at any physics problem from any inertial frame of reference.
>and both frames of reference contradict eachother.
If considering a problem in two particular frames of reference leads to a contradiction, then what you have is a paradox. I don't see how this proves that I'm a brainlet though. If you're going to keep posting non-sequitur shit like this, then I'm going to bed.

If Valve made the ambiguity of this bait meme the central theme of Portal 3's narrative it would be incredible

The object leaves the exit portal at the same velocity relative to it as it entered with relative to the entrance portal. That’s how changing direction works when the portals have different directions, and it’s how changing speed would work if the portals could have different speeds.

They tested this on mythbusters.
the plane moves independent of the ground. Anybody could have figured this out with a few seconds of thought but people aren't smart

that's the trick.
either answer requires the portal to exert force on an object, and since there is no other obvious answer, it must mean portals can exert force to objects passing through them.

>If considering a problem in two particular frames of reference leads to a contradiction, then what you have is a paradox.
exactly my point retard. thats why anyone with the smallest, tiniest peanut of a brain will find B paradoxical first.

A few seconds of thought isn't enough for everyone. You'll meet people on Yea Forums who look at this problem for hours and still conclude that airplane wheels work like car wheels.

It all depends on if the plane is moving faster than the treadmill. Eventually, it will achieve lift.
And when it does, it'll get it's wings clipped by the struts in front of it.

what is this supposed to be?

But the portal has to exit at the same rate it enters, shouldn't A become paradoxical first?

>retard
lmao

I'll just point out again that I never claimed that B was the correct answer in my replies to you. It's like you're mentally replacing me with a straw man so that you can feel like a winner.

>But the portal has to exit at the same rate it enters
thats using the relativity argument again. you can't immediately point to that because moving portals don't exist in the game, so you don't know if the object has to exit at its speed relative to the moving portal.

Brainlet here, can someone explain how they know that portals don't work like hoops?

From what we can see in the game, that could very well be how they work.

same problem as the portal. Given enough unstated assumptions you can make it take off or not.

If they do address this in Portal 3, then we know what the answer will be. B would allow for better gameplay mechanics than A.

The problem is, that "discontinuity" you remark as being tolerable...isn't tolerable. The ship cannot exist in its perspective location at the same time another observer perceive's its location because they are two different locations.

The only thing "fine" about this, is that both can't work, but do work. It's not a possible scientific thought experiment, or rather, a SOLUTION is not possible. In order for a solution to arrive, you must inject new rules on this vague and irrational problem. At which point, it's no longer arguing fiction using real-world science, it's arguing real-world science using fiction. It's magic.

You can be right, but it just means something has been added to allow ONLY that answer to be right and absolutely nothing else. We don't have enough understanding or reasoning to do that. It's just make-believe.

Attached: Microsoft Pinball.jpg (1121x663, 158K)

>anyone with the smallest, tiniest peanut of a brain will find B paradoxical

Well, you’re not wrong there at least.

>it will achieve lift
With an air speed of zero? Tell me more.

see

Wheelspin isn't what causes lift for aircraft aerodynamics.

Portal 3, Half Life 3, and Team Fortress 3 are already 99% finished and will be released in an Orange Box 3 (there will not be an Orange Box 2) once Valve has "perfected" VR controls. The remaining 1% is about the VR interface and will be finished once the hardware is perfected. Half Life 1 was its own game, Half Life 2 (after it was leaked prematurely) became a way to get people to make a Steam account so that Valve could sell them other games on the Steam store. Half Life 3 will be a way to get people to buy a Vive and the new VR controls.

>moving portals don't exist in the game
Other than the moon portal.

Why is the airspeed zero?

Easy way to fix this.
Affix a knife to something so it points outward.
Slam your hand into it as hard and fast as you can.
Watch as the knife doesn't shoot forward with sudden and impossible momentum due to no magical force being exerted on it, just like the cube.
Enjoy your new wound.

I KNOW DUDE, LIKE FUCK
"Airplane wheels don't work like car wheels" is exactly how I explained that to my family. The answer to the question is so appallingly simple but nobody knows where to look! I guess this qualifies as a trick question?

Wouldn't the jets suck in enough air to create lift? Idk

>thats using the relativity argument again.
Not that there's anything wrong with the fact that motion is relative — but, actually, he didn't use "the relativity argument" at all. His argument relates more to conservation of mass. If the orange portal eats the cube at a certain rate, the blue portal has to shit the cube out at a certain rate, in order to maintain exactly 1 cube in the universe at each moment. And the rate at which the cube gets shat out of the blue portal is its speed, relative to the blue portal, while exiting the blue portal.

I fail to grasp what this is demonstrating. Why is the right platform changing size?

there will never be a half life 3
there will never be a team fortress 3
there will never be a portal 3
there will never be a left 4 dead 3

do you guys get it yet?

...so you're arguing in favor of B right?

>You'll meet people on Yea Forums who look at this problem for hours and still conclude that airplane wheels work like car wheels.
WHOOP HERE HE IS

>b fags can't even understand a simple verbal illustration
only proving that A is the thinking man's answer

strawpoll.me/17599410

>Why is the airspeed zero?
Because the aircraft isn't moving forward. The turbines of the jets suck air in and push it out the back of the jet. It doesn't flow over the wing to any degree. No air over the wing and you have no air speed. No air speed and no lift.

The airspeed is zero because that image does not imply this stationary-aircraft-on-a-stationary-treadmill is inside a wind tunnel.

The object's speed is irrelevant for a "wing." Only the speed of the air that's traveling above and below it.

/thread
Non brainlet answer accounting for conservation of mass finally posted.

i don't get why hes wrong? unless the treadmill were really long such that the plane had enough room to take off and assuming the plane had engines that powerful, the plane won't take off.

>Wouldn't the jets suck in enough air to create lift? Idk
Lift by pushing the air back not down? No. You don't get lift by pushing back you get forward movement.

>Because the aircraft isn't moving forward.
why not?

This kills the physics-illiterate brainlet.

But that's your relativity. You're only considering the blue portal, and arguing its the only perspective that's relevant. But, it can't be the only relevant perspective. It's simply one of MANY relevant perspectives.

Which is a paradox. It's why this little thought experiment of a moving portal is instantly impossible to explain with only one solution.

it still gets shat out at the right rate in A though.

I've never met anyone in all my years on the internet with a worthwhile opinion who had the words thinker, skeptic, or logic in their username. I'm going to guess the same holds true for anybody who uses the phrase "thinking man's ___" obsessively.

Imagine if the cube is moving downwards 5m/s while the orange is moving downwards 10m/s. What do Afags thing happens when the orange portal overtakes the cube?

Because the wings are rammed against the supports of the treadmill. It would move forward to the limit of the supports then just sit. It would take some power from the jets to overcome the gravitational pull of the slope of the tread mill assuming the wheels can freely spin at whatever speed the moving surface runs at. If the wheels apply some friction to the rest of the craft that small amount of force is required to hold station.

However without anywhere to go the wings never get any lift due to passing air over them.

No, it’s perfectly possible to discuss hypothetical entities and what the most reasonable consequences of those entities existing would be. That’s not magical, it’s just hypothetical. With this problem, you can look at how different consequences of “portals exist” would bend physics, and identify the ones that do it the least, or in the most consistent ways. In this case, there are two things people look at: conservation of energy and relativity. Well, even though it’s always used against B, it’s trivial to show that portals intrinsically always violate conservation of energy even when they’re static, so that adds nothing. With relativity, you can have either have it breaking every frame of reference within its light cone BUT its own, or only the frame of references that passes through the hypothetical-impossible-physics entity that specifically creates spatial discontinuities. Sure, you could have either, because they’re both impossible through our understanding of physics, but we can also see which fits best with the fewest and most consistent “rules patches” needed, and so is likely the best explanation per Occam’s Razor.

>unless the treadmill were really long such that the plane had enough room to take off and assuming the plane had engines that powerful, the plane won't take off.
I thought that was assumed? The picture represents a concept not a physical situation. Otherwise the wings would be clipped by the bars.
My suggestion would be to watch the mythbusters episode where they tested it.

>nobody's btfo A-tards mentioning the fist
If you have the piston fall on a fist and suspend a ball in front of the blue portal the fist will send the ball flying. Why would the ball being pushed by a fist suddenly stop moving as soon as the fist stops? This is what the bottom half of the box is doing to the top half while it is halfway out the portal.

Attached: 240_F_2247158_j1PQ5F2QDNgCr1WBzVJSdvRblmRjGC.jpg (160x240, 16K)

Then it should logically maintain exit speed after being shat out.

What do you think the back of each portal looks like? Like, the bit facing the wall.

>But that's your relativity.
This sentence is meaningless.
>You're only considering the blue portal, and arguing its the only perspective that's relevant.
No I'm not. I described the speed of the cube with respect to the blue portal and said nothing of other reference frames. Am I not allowed simply to use the reference frame in which the blue portal is stationary? Because that's the frame of reference which is shown in the original image.
>But, it can't be the only relevant perspective. It's simply one of MANY relevant perspectives.
>Which is a paradox.
That's not what a paradox is.
>It's why this little thought experiment of a moving portal is instantly impossible to explain with only one solution.
You're not making any sense at all.

That would imply that it was moving and then stopped. If that's the argument you're going with, that's fine, as long as you understand that the rate at which the cube exits the blue portal is the cube's speed with respect to the blue portal in that moment. It must be moving in order to exit the portal. Why it stops moving is for you to explain.

They'll claim it was only being acted on by the exiting object and that the situation is entirely different.

typically this kind of problem is presented such that the plane cannot move faster than the treadmill, so that the plane is stationary, and the goal is to see if the person you are administering the problem too understands the difference between frames of reference. if you set up the problem so that the plane can move fast enough and has room enough to take off, then someone who misunderstands reference frames will still get it right.

So what you have is a runway that moves in the reverse direction that the aircraft is trying to take off in? Then it takes off a very short extra distance than it normally would. The extra distance is from whatever slight force is transferred by the free wheeling landing gear into the craft. If those wheels were not very good at rolling they would more or less explode the barrings on landings.

but that creates kinetic energy out of nowhere. so the cube must stop moving.

Here's the implications:

1. It's a treadmill. A treadmill now inherently implies that while the MACHINE is STATIONARY, the surface of tread as it rotates around, like a mill, can have motion.
2. An aircraft achieve lifts due to the shape of its wings. Aerodynamics, as it applies to wings, makes airspeed the SINGLE relevant motion applied to this scenario.

And here are the extrapolations:

3. The treadmill is not moving air. It's moving surface area connected to the aircraft's wheels.
4. The spinning wheels of an aircraft is meaningless to the airspeed of the gas flowing around its wings.

An aircraft's speed is meaningless, it's the WIND's speed that generates lift in aerodynamics. You are simply perceiving the speed of the aircraft as what's causing the wind to travel over the wing as the reason why lift is achieved, not simply perceiving the speed of the wind traveling over the wing as the reason why.

And a plane on a treadmill that can be set to the same speed as the jet engines = zero speed, anyway.

What are you talking about? It clearly doesn't look right in scenario A, where the fire trail is still protruding out of the entrance despite it appearing to have gone through entirely.

That's not a problem, because portals DON'T conserve energy.

If you'd like a demonstration, put one portal on the floor and one portal on the ceiling, and jump in. You'll have more kinetic energy each time you return to your original height.

A better question for the portals is if forces are transferred through the portal. Does magnetism go through the portal? How about gravity?

Attached: port1.jpg (670x648, 29K)

You're simply choosing to ignore plausibilities that don't align with the only perspective you're considering.

Which is understandable; you don't seem to be able to accept why a portal is not a physically possible scientific principle or phenomenon. This entire scenario, no matter what solution you want to decide is correct, is impossible given "real-world" science.

You have successfully argued why your solution is "right." But you're now ignoring what it's also wrong, and why other solutions are also right. This all is perfectly understandable because portals aren't rational, but you're demanding that they have to be. It's too difficult to accept both/all/no answers.

Light travels through portals, and light is an electromagnetic wave. So, maybe.

when you move through a portal, kinetic energy is conserved. magnitude of momentum is also conserved. these are facts we know from the game. you might be able to create a perpetual motion machine, but when talking about going through a single portal and the moments immediately before and immediately after going through the portal, we know the object has to follow these constraints.

wave-particle duality. so light can travel through. gravity and magnetism are completely different. for instance, gravity and magnetism don't reflect off surfaces or undergo refraction or diffraction

Light is both a particle and a wave so that might be different than for example electromagnetic force which doesn't have a carrier particle?

>durr there's no right answer
That's fine but I don't know why you're replying to my post with that shit. It applies to everyone in this thread.

The fuck is valve doing? Make a game with moving portals, rotating portals, the pole crush/suspended midair shit, welding a bar to itself and dropping it, welding a bar to itself and changing the location of one of the portals, portals bisecting portals... That would be some exciting shit.

You're entirely correct. We can discuss this as a hypothesis as much as we like, but any answer we arrive at will always just be whatever fits our understanding best. It will never actually be true, since we either cannot justify only one answer or (as humans) fathom multiple answers on basic principles of physics.

You are welcome to answer that "B makes the most sense for violating the least of what I believe" but I can still point out what it does violate and how, in my subjective opinion, "A makes more sense because it violates things I understand less roughly or extremely as B." Or vice versa.

For a personal opinion, I choose to justify portals around the properties of time more than energy. I feel portals are hinged on the principle of impossible energy in the first place, to arguing such impossibilities is less fruitful than arguing function to achieve result.

Attached: CNCTS_Nod_Combat_Armour.jpg (466x497, 180K)

>Then it takes off a very short extra distance than it normally would. The extra distance is from whatever slight force is transferred by the free wheeling landing gear into the craft.
Correct. Mythbusters tested it.

Non euclidean kinematics is a bitch, ain't it?
Not like we can test it, but my understanding of kinematics tells me that if it exits at a speed it keeps that speed.
Really, just forget the orange portal. If you see the cube exit at the blue portal it doesn't make sense to suddenly stop.

The conclusions you've drawn from your observations of the game — that portals, bizarrely, conserve only kinetic energy but not total energy, and that portals conserve only the magnitude of momentum for some reason — are based on incomplete information, i.e., your observations are of stationary portals only. I disagree with how you're extrapolating these observations to moving portals. I simply see that portals don't conserve energy and don't conserve momentum; I don't try to invent new laws of physics like "conservation of kinetic energy" and "conservation of magnitude of momentum" because I have no reason to assume that such laws exist. It could be that such laws do exist in the Portal universe but it's a weird leap of logic. You certainly can't claim to know it's the truth.

What does non-Euclidean mean anyway? Just anything that isn't "real"?

>Just anything that isn't "real"?
Only a very specific brand.
Here's a video that will demonstrate it wonderfully in a game engine that doesn't break from weird spatial scenarios.
youtu.be/kEB11PQ9Eo8

>It applies to everyone in this thread.
Precisely. Don't expect your answer to be more or less correct than anyone else's, though you seem to be arguing that it is.

Under your parameters, you're correct.
Under other's parameters, they're correct.
Under certain parameters, both are correct. Or incorrect.

Even under the parameters of the software code for the video game "Portal 2," it's inherent that a portal is not allowed to be mobile. Given a scripted scene occurs during the events of the game, it's already become hypocritical. By altering the code to allow a mobile portal, you've already introduced new parameters. And even still, the game's code reacts most of the time by stopping mobility of the mobile platform: it doesn't know how to mathematically process an appropriate result for the objects...so it disallows any outcome. Only through glitching do we get a result which is, unsurprisingly, merely a glitch.

it just means not in a square coordinate system, right?

Okay.

He's basically created the engine to allow movement in Star Trek holodeck.

Nice vid. Thanks.

Attached: I'm old.png (1130x990, 441K)

Basically. I would say it means not linear in a spacial sense.
Space and distance are not one to one, not conserved.

People STILL argue over this?
Btw it's obviously B.

the game isn't designed for moving portals so i don't think it's relevant what happens in the game, even as an A believer

Portals moving relative to each-other allows you to be moving relative to YOURSELF.
Moving relative to yourself breaks so many different laws of physics that you might as well replace every physics textbook in the world with a roblox oof remix.

Attached: this.png (318x304, 2K)

what am i looking at? was this drawn by a stroke victim?

Myers Briggs is pseudoscience garbage. Use the 5 factor personality model if you really MUST subscribe to a fucking horoscope like a fuckhead

portals are cancelled if the surface they're attached to moves

the cube is stationary while the rocket is not
the rocket has a different variable than the cube in OP's pic

what's aesthetically pleasing about it?

>Moving relative to yourself breaks so many different laws of physics that you might as well replace every physics textbook in the world with a roblox oof remix
KEK

Attached: 1548979648681.png (523x523, 502K)

who said the portal stops moving?

no it isn't.

Huh, now that's a tricky one.
Either the beam is able to exert a force on the falling orange portal somehow, or the falling orange portal is able to produce enough force to bend any object.
I don't know.
But when a portal speeds quickly past an object, it should work the same as a fast object going through the portal.
So if a speeding portal can be stopped by the physical resistance of an iron beam
then a stationary portal should be PUSHED by a speedy metal beam going through it.
That doesn't happen
No matter how many times you drop a cube through a portal, you don't move the world downwards.
It has to be A.

Vehemently disagree.

B, unlike the cube, the bullet is already travelling

>But when a portal speeds quickly past an object, it should work the same as a fast object going through the portal.
This is where the split for all this "thought experiment" nonsense occurs. While already ignoring the impossibility of a portal to exist in "real-life" you could at least justify its function by demanding that a portal
>must always move consistently and relative to itself
in that, to put it simply, one side of the portal can never "move."

But now, by now adding further violations where you allow one side of the portal to "move" independently of the other side, further irrational science anomalies begin occurring that can't be explained with any single correct answer, mostly because such a situation is never possible to begin with.

So, telling anyone "X answer is right, because this is how it should work" is entirely fictional. You're only adding rules to achieve a fictional result. And anyone can add whatever fiction they want for any fictional result they like best, all while right and never being proven wrong.

Attached: Review for Sims H&M.jpg (600x800, 121K)

It's screwed either way, isn't it.

>"portals conserve momentum" is one of the very first properties of portals the game teaches the player

why did you lie and say this was numberphile?

Yup.
Anons can post all day long, exploring the "fun" of justifying one and debunking the other, but it's all nonsense to expect an actual "real-life" solution. To achieve a solution, you have to create a functional problem...and this problem isn't functional (yet). You'll need to add information, add rules, add codes, add something in order for it to work. Which, in the end, is "screwed either way" because all anyone ends up doing is explaining why Harry Potter's wand can shoot magic based on real-life physics. A portal is just as fictional as magic is.

Attached: 1549302115817.jpg (800x1102, 661K)

they don't. you automatically reorient yourself with air control.

wht is fun in quotes? they're clearly having fun

that's not true, it saps the shit out of your portal gun
shit's worse than the dualshock 4

since portals seem to be a spacetime aberration, isn't it possible that portals moving relative to each other stretch or compress space?

what would happen to an object moving through a set of portals where one portal is rotating on one or more axes relative to the other?

Sometimes, viewers see that fun as truth. Much like anons will project their fun as truth in threads that discuss scientific theory. What's fun anymore, and who's having it? What used to be fun tends to get really condescending or insulting if the environment changes.

Well, the word's inertia, but yes.

motion is relative, so this is no different than when chell falls into a portal and the space on the other side can't accomodate her: she stands half-in the portal, her feet on the ground on the other side. B.

We'd need to start addressing when that "stretched" space is taking effect and just how planar the event horizons of this single-yet-dual spacetime phenomenon is operating.

After all, for spacetime to stretch or compress, we'd have to enter into non-euclidean dynamics while retaining euclidean properties. And a single plane of perceivable element would suddenly start taking immeasurable effect on graphical points that it shouldn't have any interaction with.

You'd have to stop depicting a portal as two screens. In which case, rotating or other spatial movement already becomes a fallacy.

This is only true when you inject the demand that
>Orange portal must end its motion when collision is detected
Which, again, when justified is easily disproven for a large number of scientific reasons. You're simply demanding those refutable points can't apply because you've injected your rule that allows your answer to work. So, you'd be right. Because it's your rule and works the way you want it to.

But there absolutely no way to say "that's how it should work."

If you don't inject that command, multiple answers become equally plausible, which isn't rational and can't work under scientific principle.

it's almost like a phenomenon that violates the known laws of physics is difficult to make meaningful predictions about

>THIS WHOLE FUCKING THREAD

Attached: 1478511934413.png (564x423, 178K)

no one's trying to find the answer you sperg, it's just a fun discussion. learn to read the room ffs

when one portal is moving relative to its complement, the entire universe is moving relative to whichever portal you choose as your stationary reference. portals can appear to magically create force out of nowhere to an observer, and they can't be reconciled with physics, intuitively or otherwise

what's the purpose of the inset?

if the interior of that cylinder was a space where the laws of physics are unknowable, sure

If you can't post a schematic for a real working portal gun, you have no greater knowledge than anyone else in the thread.

exactly, the problem makes no sense.

that's right, portals violate physics. because they're not real.

everyone thinks they're the left guy, especially you

One must be a giant brainlet to think B is the correct answer.

If the exiting object doesn't have kinetic energy, then it can't act on anything.

Stop adding this meme-TBI freshman psychology pseudo science garbage to this already pointless question. Anyone who has actually played the portal games knows it's A. The block is not moving and has zero forward momentum, so it will drop out of the other side. If the bottom platform was the one moving, it would be B. Fuck off back to high school and never post this shit here ever again.

> The block is not moving and has zero forward momentum

Depends on your frame of reference.

Seen through the portal, it's the only one that allows "the SHIP ITSELF to remain consistent with physics".
>The velocity of an object is the rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference
The problem with portals(not really a problem, your being stupid makes it one) is that it adds another(meaningfully different) frame of reference. Thus it adds another velocity. You have one velocity compared to the room/world on your side of the portal, and another compared to the other end of the portal.

So, how does this work in game? If you place two portals facing opposite directions and jump through, your velocity is inverted. It is not held consistent with your frame of reference in the original room. Your velocity is altered. It is kept consistent with your frame of reference on the other end of the portal.
If, instead, your velocity were to be constant with regards to the original room, you would have to be ejected in the same direction as you entered the portal from. You would collide with yourself, and more or less implode. Needless to say, this is not how the game works, it is not a very useful portal, and it also breaks conservation of momentum with regards to your frame of reference on the other end of the portal.

Both options in this scenario break conservation of momentum, obviously, since you have two frames of reference giving you two different velocities and both cannot be upheld. The same situation is seen with stationary portals placed at different angles. In addition to A being fucking stupid, useless, and impossible to actually traverse if the portals aren't stationary with regards to each other and facing the same direction, it should naturally be consistent with the game.
Which states, and demonstrates: Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out. Your velocity is maintained with respect to the portal, not the room you are presently in. It is not going in speedily, it does not come out speedy. QED motherfucker.

when only one portal is moving, and there's an atmosphere, is there a breeze coming out of the stationary portal?

magical portal force

nothing happens because portals aren't real. if they were, more than likely the object would experience a physical redshifting, and come out the other side expanded in space in the direction of travel; either its particles are further apart or the particles themselves have changed shape, probably resulting in an energetic event destroying the object and all observers

there isn't a definitive answer until someone builds a real portal gun

The way I always see it is... it doesn't matter if the portal itself has velocity, it's just an entrance/exit. The only thing that matters is how fast the object passing through it goes. I just feel like that makes perfect sense. I really can't comprehend how B could happen, but maybe I'm a brainlet. I just really don't understand how the cube would be lifted up off the ground when absolutely nothing touches it.

imagine that you are the cube, looking into the oncoming portal. you're looking at an approaching universe that has a speed relative to you, and your current universe. when you enter the new universe, you are moving relative to it.

you'll have to design a new system of physics where the conservation laws don't apply and physical quantities can experience discontinuities to find the answer

as expected of coping E trash

it doesn't have to be released by valve

If we're gonna have a valve thread.
WHY THE FUCK IS HAMMER SO HARD TO FUCKING USE
Like holy fuck I just want to make a fun map, but its so ungodly hard to use and isnt intuitive at all. I've made maps in shit like Unreal Engine 3 - 4, Unity, Gamebryo, ect. and all of them are user friendly, and are clear and concise what they want to do. Maybe it's a Valve problem, maybe for some ungodly reason they decided, "Lets over complicate this for no reason!".

So here you have basic shit right? But OH WAIT, it's not set up correctly because your camera won't show you textured area's only a line mesh, so you gotta change that, then despite wanting to ONLY make a TF2 map, you have textures from every other valve game ever made, why? Fuck if I know. Then instead of the models being clear and concise, like searching, "train" gives you anything related to train, you have to literally dig for the thing you want! Oh you want train tracks? Here have a small payload track, oh, you want actual train tracks? Here you go, whats that? Where are the ties you say? Well you see, we didnt model those! Theres a texture for it though!

Fuck you valve, fuck you and your awful mapping tool, it fucking angers me how shit this thing is, and how it hasn't gotten updated since like 2007. No fucking wonder Valve takes forever to make maps and games, their tools are dogshit and overly complicated for no reason.

This one has been debunked a thousand times, yet you keep posting it.

good to know i have permission.

yikes, condolences

magical portal force

This would have been an alternate ending

Attached: portal 3.png (800x600, 21K)

The portals in both 1 and 2 behave exactly like described.

youtube.com/watch?v=ASUUN0W4_JY H From an actual phycisist.

>sometimes A happens and sometimes B, even in the same puzzle
>even in the same setup, without moving any portals

they alter the universe around the object so that it appears to experience a force

because Valve probably trains people how to effectively use their tools. That or, what we get isn't what actual employees get. I doubt Valve has a the same broken fucking version of Source Film Maker as we do, but people just make do and make it look as official as possible. Give people garbage and they will make it look like gold.

How would that work? It was stated that the material that made surfaces play nice with portals was made from moonrocks.

It has nothing to do with the portals.

It is either Chell herself, or the long fall boots adjusting her to an upright position.

(Also game play and all that you know)

the moon is stationary in the game, as is the portal on it

jesus

In B the portal can't actually push or squeeze the object. In A it can.

B

Furthermore, velocity just being a measure of(change in) position over time, even two portals stationary with regards to one another, facing the exact same direction, also contradict the original room's frame of reference, while keeping consistent with the other end of the portal. Space is discontinuous, that is the basis of the portal. With regards to the other end of the portal, there is no discontinuity. You move 1m through the portal, you appear 1m further into the room. With regards to the space you are in, breaching the portal is effectively the same as teleportation. You enter in one place, you exit somewhere else. It's a sudden shift in position, a discontinuity. You move 1m and enter, only to appear maybe 100 further ahead. The original space's frame of reference is not respected, not upheld(obviously, as you would have to stay in place).
The only time that you can enter a portal without violating the frame of reference of the original space, is if they are also placed with 0 distance from each other, in which case both frames of reference can be upheld, both options are valid, because you don't even have a fucking portal anymore.

TLDR: A violates the very concept or portals in the first place, and anyone who advocates it is a double nigger.

We don't need portal 3 the same way we didn't need portal 2 (co-op was lit though)

the orange portal would force the grey beam through the blue portal. Depending on the strength of the materials, either the beam would crumple against the black or the black would break from the pressure of the beam pressing against the black.

is a brainlet post
this is a thinking man's reply

B, the portal would stop and the force on the beam would be the portal's surface weight.

The solution, to be consistent with Newton's second law, is that moving a portal requires as much force as moving everything that goes through the portal as it moves, and the momentum is transferred to the things going through. Therefore you'd see result B.
Of course I know everyone here already knows this, and all the A supporters are just trolling.

they don't have backs

I always assume people who say the puzzles are all the same just quit early. Portal 2 has way more variety in puzzles than 1 does but it takes a lot longer than you'd expect to start seeing that.

A more closely represents what we know about how the portals act in game. IE not subtracting or adding momentum.

B is argued to be correct when looking at complicated and specific laws of physics. Which we already know the portals break in multiple ways.

So A is at least slightly supported by what we can watch the portals do.
While B relies on laws the portals are already known to break.

Attached: 1543506456504.gif (284x223, 960K)

There really needs to be another spike in confidence before more experience. People tend to have high confidence, then learn a little, then hit a wall and feel they've learned it all, then if they don't stagnate in arrogance they'll eventually break through and realize they know nothing and will never know everything. There's two distinct confidence peaks though.

Nah this bullshit. The old aperture area is literally just "find the only bit of wall you can portal" then upgraded to "do that but also slime". I can see it being fun if you're retarded though

it means any surface where Euclid's parallel postulate is altered or discarded, such as the surface of the Earth.

Momentum can be negative, that's why answer is B.

>portals works like the picture on the right because i say so

Attached: Bfags.png (211x239, 6K)

The portal already has a near-infinite power in the fact that it's essentially moving an entire universe

both the cube and the rocket are moving relative to the portals

so is the cube

>7 years later people are still arguing about this

Attached: 1552117505763.gif (500x279, 1.29M)

>The portals work in this one specific way because I say so, and I am going to build the rest of my argument off that assumption.

Attached: 1531278578063.gif (1200x675, 3.18M)

nah, they're having fun

Yea Forums was ranked as a double digit IQ board for a reason.

Attached: 1395948414807.jpg (810x780, 70K)

nah B's right, thanks for playing

>Flys into space

lamoing @ B-tards

Attached: portals.gif (480x270, 2.54M)

which portal does it have zero momentum relative to?

It's obviously C.
The box will gain a bit of momentum due to gravity pulling it.
A is false, because momentum exists.
B is also false because there's too little momentum for the cube to move that much.

They're obviously both.

when a portal moves towards you, it's the same as the universe moving towards you, which is the same as you moving towards the universe. you have a speed relative to that universe even if you don't feel it.

do you think "i'm a physicist" is a relevant statement to a thought experiment involving non-sensical magic?

only when one isn't moving with respect to the other.

moving a portal is the same as moving the universe

lol brainlet

nope, the image is clarifying which scenario is being discussed.

...

if there was a portal on the wall, he would have.

Except the earth is moving, so the portal is already moving relative to the universe

>tfw playing Portal 1 and this starts playing
youtu.be/t9nocjg2OLI

Wait a second.....

Attached: 1537578243648.png (504x340, 181K)

To make this example consistent with a portal analogy, you would need to have the man stand on a floating platform and remove the ground that the wall smacks on. The wall would then continue falling past the man, and from the frame of reference of the wall, the man is flying away.

youtu.be/DD-pPWOzWWo

inertial frame of reference. from the point of orange portal, the whole world is accelerating toward it, along with the cube. thus the answer, hovewer counterintuitive, is B

/thread

To explain this further, if the window was a portal, the bottom side of the window would experience smacking the ground, but the top side would not.

if one half of a portal complement is moving with respect to an object A that is stationary with respect to the other half, then the universe is moving with respect to A and the universe is stationary with respect to A. by the principle of explosion, we may draw any conclusion.

Why not just ask someone with a doctorate in physic??

correct, that's why portals don't exist

Portal 2 wasn't as good as one. Feature bloat led to some really fucking easy puzzles. Or it was designed to be that way, anyway 1 was better.

Attached: 1551324068063.jpg (1125x640, 185K)

Each end of the portal is effectively a different room. As long as you don't cross the portal, your velocity(direction and speed) and position is consistent with the frame of reference of that end. As soon as you cross the portal, the other frame of reference is the valid one, and the former is violated. With respect to the first "room", your position suddenly changes, your direction changes if the portals' are at different angles, and your speed changes if they aren't stationary with regards to one another. All of those properties, however, are consistent with what you see through the portal. Which makes sense, since you're traversing a spatial discontinuity. And again, this is a basic, and necessary property of portals. If they respected the first room's frame of reference upon traversal, it wouldn't be able to change your speed(this problem), your angle(basic gameplay mechanic) or your position(what makes a portal in the first place).

Hopping into a moving portal is effectively no different from jumping onto a moving train. The train is moving relative to the ground, your speed when you land on the train is not the speed you had on the ground. Only with portals, your speed is different when your frame of reference is the universe, and the same fucking universe(through a portal).

Was this a very stealth MBTI thread?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor
Therefore A is correct.

The objects atoms would be moving faster than light to another location in both A and B, so isn't it neither?

No.

But then how can you talk about momentum in A and B? You can't bring it up without the speed of light being preserved.

In A it's implying momentum is instantly changed to the orientation of the platform, which is a violation to. the entrances frame of reference. The vice versa applies to B. You can't have symmetry or reference violations in general relativity.

It is a reference violation, but no, it only moves FTL(instantaneously, even) with some frames of reference. The frame of reference that doesn't have it surpass the speed of light upon entry also just so happens to be the same frame of reference used in the games. Now, feel free to take a guess at what would happen. No copouts, no shit portals aren't real. It's a thought experiment.

Gravity doesn't, at least in the games. You can set portals in such a way that the Earth would very visually gravity pull through them and it just doesn't.

These Portal questions are dumb beacuse often both answer are correct and false at the same time.
In case of this picture A makes sense beacuse if you look at it from a perpective of the cube not having any energy and therefore not moving, it's logical it can't just get energy out of fucking nowhere.
But then B is also true beacuse from a perspective of anyone looking through the blue portal, everything moves towards him with the speed of orange portal, including the cube.
Why would a cube that was passing through a portal at a speed of multiple km/h suddenly just stop moving and drop the very fucking second it fully goes through the portal?

These questions are fucking idiotic beacuse portals don't make any fucking sense in the first place and are just pure fiction designed to be a fun mechanic in a video game.
Therefore any questions about portals can only be explained by whoever decides the canon of Portal games.

Attached: 1547835964185.png (680x848, 518K)

But then how can the objects momentum be calculated? Its a question of what it's velocity vector is pointing, but it instantly switches out of the portal, which means it's acceleration, the delta v, is undefined, which you need to even discuss how it's gonna exit the portal, the a and B scenarios. This isn't even semantics it's literally tied to the definition of motion in space. If you want to redefine that sure, but such a framework has to be present for the thought expeeriment to work otherwise you're delegating too much work on one task.

hahahaha, there are some stupid people in this thread but i love it that this retard goes all physics 101 with "Ergo"s and "therefore"s all over the place, hahahaha

No. They aren't. Because you have two conflicting frames of reference, you have two of them. They are both defined(one with a discontinuity at the portal, though, the other not). IF you pass through the portal, your position, speed, and direction are all consistent with the other end of the portal. You always have a valid and consistent frame of reference, and outside of the very instant you cross the portal, you have two. Though they don't agree with one another.
It only switches with one of them. You have two, numbnuts.

Again, the frame of reference that doesn't have it surpass the speed of light upon entry also just so happens to be the same frame of reference used in the games.
I'm not replying to you again until you answer the fucking question. I'm not going to repeat myself anymore.

not him but kill yourself for being that condescending to someone while talking about a meme image on a video games board and while using broken english and grammer
what the fuck is wrong with you psueds

the correct answer is A btw since you need to think of portals as windows.

If I can somehow move an entire house back and forth while holding, let's say an apple, right at the window, the apple is not actually the moving it's only moving with respect to the window. It's the same shit with portals, if the object is not moving before it enters the portal, only gravity is acting on it as soon as it exits the portal and it just falls down.

You can argue with what happens in the game when you enter portals at one orientation and exit with another orientation but it's obvious that orientation change is for gameplay purposes so that you wouldn't have to change frantically every time you were going through the portals.

It's kind of stupid that people are seriously arguing B desu. inb4 "I was only pretending to be retarded, hurr durr"

>In case of this picture A makes sense beacuse if you look at it from a perpective of the cube not having any energy and therefore not moving, it's logical it can't just get energy out of fucking nowhere.
We don't know how the portals do it, but we know that portals do not conserve energy. We also know that portals do not conserve momentum relative to the room.
However portals do it, the box exits blue at the same rate that it is being swallowed by orange. It exits blue by moving out of it and there's nothing to stop it afterwards.

not the guy youre replying but if hes not american, or english whatever, than why would his grammer or english matter
i dont even care about grammer or punctuation when posting desu, as long as youre making your point clear then who cares

Then that makes the question completely inconsequential. We can just A or B on what we feel like if we are making the rules.

Hell, has anyone actually done this in Garry's mod yet to see what the engine does with it given that that engine is what we are talking about now?

>the apple is not actually moving, it's moving with respect to the window
nothing in the universe is "actually" moving.

Attached: ThisConfusesTheAFag.png (591x545, 50K)

The fuck, do you want me to paste the same goddamn post 15 times as the retarded fuck doesn't address a single thing in it and keeps jousting for the last word?
If you don't contribute anything to the discussion there's no reason to reply, you stupid motherfucker, do you think this is mortal fucking kombat? And my "grammer" is just fine, thank you.

That ones obviously B

>but we know that portals do not conserve energy. We also know that portals do not conserve momentum relative to the room.
you are talking out of your ass

If momentum is to be conserved, the bullet should countinue going horizontal.

no

>In case of this picture A makes sense beacuse if you look at it from a perpective of the cube not having any energy and therefore not moving, it's logical it can't just get energy out of fucking nowhere.
>But then B is also true beacuse from a perspective of anyone looking through the blue portal, everything moves towards him with the speed of orange portal, including the cube.
And how does Portal work? Is your velocity(and position) consistent compared to the room, or compared to the inside of the portal?
It's very simple, and it has a very definite answer.
Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out.

it's really not.

he's right

Why would momentum be conserved?

Portals do not conserve energy. They can be used to transport an object to a higher position, therefore gaining energy.
Portals do not conserve momentum relative to the room. They can alter the trajectory of an object if they are placed at an angle, even reverse it if both portals are placed on the same wall. They don't conserve momentum relative to "the universe" either, considering that they can be placed on a moving Earth and this does not affect their behavior.

My C2 from fucking highschool says it's a problem on your end. I cannot imagine anything more pathetic than being too goddamn stupid to understand your own native tongue. Neck yourselves, both of you. Do something nice for your parents, for once.

Because A fags think momentum must be conserved.
B fags know that portals do not conserve momentum.

damn, his grammar actually gets worse as he gets madder, impressive

>Why would a cube that was passing through a portal at a speed of multiple km/h suddenly just stop moving and drop the very fucking second it fully goes through the portal?
because it was only the orange portal what was moving and it stopped because the pedestal is bigger than it?