What sort of new mechanics would you expect for Portal 3, if it ever comes out?

Thanks.
/Thread

A

Attached: GaDmLMJ.gif (300x225, 865K)

Can't you create Portal 2 custom maps? Why hasn't a single person ever tried using that instead?

It's always been A, but you're fucking retarded if you think (B)rainlets will listen.

Why are Afags so fucking retarded?

Typical Bfag, has absolutely nothing worthy to say

Gravity manipulation.
Game would take place on the moon.

WHAT THE FUCK WAS FSTOP?
SOMEBODY BREAK INTO VALVE RIGHT NOW, TORTURE THE DEVELOPERS AND GET THEM TO TELL US!

Puzzles based on light and the time of day or some shit like that.

This is your brain on Afaggotry.

Attached: 1559842870349.webm (520x414, 254K)

how many fucking threads do we need, this is the 4th one today

imagine being an Afag after seeing this

your webm even proves A because the cube never moves itself.

kys

it's showing why A is wrong lmao retard

no it isn't retard lmao

Yes, that's what would happen. Well, barring maybe some air resistance fuckery.

Think of it as two planes. One is the 'blue side' plane (where you go if you go into the orange portal) which is in motion, the other is the 'orange side' plane (where you go if you go into the blue portal) that's static. When you move the orange portal, you're moving the ENTIRE blue side plane into whatever object is going into the portal. The blue side plane's velocity doesn't impart any motion onto the objects going through it.

It's literally proving A.

>Disproves A
>IT'S LITERALLY PROVING A
yep
Afags are retarded

How does it disprove A? I've told you why it proves it so it's your turn. Show up or shut up, faggot.

>How does it disprove A?
Are you blind? Just look at it again and actually think.

PORTAL ENDED WITH 2
STOP TRYING TO MAKE THINGS GO ON JUST BECAUSE YOU LIKE THINGS
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

Loot boxes

I have. I even had the graciousness to put it into words, bitch. Now you can either put up your interpretation of what the webm is showing, or you can run and hide behind "Its so obvious I don't need to explain it!"

It gives me the last word on it, at least, so I'd thank you for surrendering at least.

If this is B then wouldn't the box fly off the pedestal

Can't put portals on moving surfaces, you're all retarded

@465041105
not even gonna give the retard a (You)
lol try harder next time

>Think of it as two planes

No, I will not. Why not ask me to think Earth is fucking flat. The box is independent mass not bound by any connection to the pillar, it has defined XYZ coordinates, and it's set in motion by changing those XYZ coordinates in a 3D space. To the box, portals aren't even part of the equation from 0:10 onwards.

Attached: 1556562506206.png (233x191, 89K)

It doesn't disprove anything, and it would look even more retarded in the case of B's theory.

That webm illustrates A's worldview.

>It doesn't disprove anything
this is your brain on A
you're literally retarded

But why isn't it flying off the pillar if it's B?

>No, I will not. Why not ask me to think Earth is fucking flat.

Man he's gonna have a bad time when we tell him about the portals that let you instantly change your position in 3D space by moving them over yourself without any experienced motion on your end.

Yeah. It's B. Think about it from the perspective of someone looking through blue portal. You see an object flying towards you, then instantly losing its inertia when it cross the threshold. It makes no sense. It's B.

Portals bend space. It's like folding a napkin. Two spaces become one. It's no different from moving from one room to another in any regular scenario. The second room would have just been replaced with another room.

>Try to disapprove A
>Actually prove it
hahahaahahaha
Just like the flat world faggots, pottery

It should. That's why the answer is B.

The box doesn't even fucking move an inch.

But it shouldn't. There's no reason for it to do so.

Or are you saying that moving the portal down should have uprooted the entire pillar and sent it flying.

I think the goal is that the webm is showing A, which is supposed to look so ridiculous that it would 'prove' B.

Now I know how Galileo felt. What a poor guy. The box should fly off the piston. It doesn't, because A is wrong.

A third portal for the portal gun
Half life combat with portals
Vehicle sections involving larger portals

Hahahahahaha

It clearly should continue flying upwards with the piston stops, because it has momentum. It doesn't.

>You see an object flying towards you, then instantly losing its inertia when it cross the threshold. It makes no sense. It's B.
But the object isn't flying towards you. It'd be you who is flying towards it. Even with relativity it'd had practically no impact on the cube whatsoever any more than relativity already has on objects without portals.

Rather than the cube closing in on you, it'd be more like your entire continent or something closing in on the cube.

>Disproves A
>I-IT ACTUALLY PROVES A
Are Afags autistic?

What if the floor and the orange portal are the ones moving , and the blue "pipe" is the one standing still?

Attached: 1558289527136.png (246x467, 192K)

>box that doesn't ever move should spontaneously move on its own accord

At this point I can't believe that this isn't just shitposting
fucking 60 IQ

You fucking retards watch this

>Pretending to be retarded
this isn't funny

>Disproves B
>I-IT ACTUALLY PROVES B
Are Bfags autistic?

>But it shouldn't. There's no reason for it to do so.
It should according to the fundamental laws of classical mechanics which say that an object in motion has a tendency to stay in motion, and that a force is required to accelerate an object. What force is present changing the velocity of the box when the piston abruptly stops moving?

>box moves
>it's not actually moving

>because it has momentum
But it doesn't.

Attached: 15120603182228192.gif (301x308, 946K)

Yeah, I agree. Only retarded A fags can warp something that disproves A as something else entirely.

Can't someone just use the custom portal 2 map thingie to put this shit to rest?

Everything else is moving not the box.

LOL

The scenario depends on if there is air in the room. With no air, Scenario A would happen. If there is air, the air getting sucked into the piston portal has to displace the air coming out of the exit portal causing a suction that would launch the cube which would cause Scenario B to happen.

if the floor moved up then the cube would be launched through the orange portal

Anything that has mass has momentum.

>the majority of Yea Forums is clinically retarded.
Not surprised.

If this is assuming that the floor can move up and isn't connected to the walls, it would be like the second part of Except that the floor and orange portal ramp would move upwards with the rest of the platform the box is resting on. It would not get double the velocity, though. It would be exactly the same as the second half of that gif, just with the point of exit being in a different position.

>source physics = IRL physics

Attached: 1556594159626.jpg (349x376, 27K)

Someone already did it but autists can't accept they're retarded.

The box is constantly changing position after coming out of the blue portal.

must be bait

They are identical actions to some observers. The blue portal they are identical.

no

but it's moving all the fuck over the place on the right side of the webm.

This changes depending on frame of reference. They are both moving relative to each other.

Yea Forums would be a lot better if A niggers just left the board.

Only when they're moving.
>but everything moves all the time!
>the planet is literally spinning through space as we speak!
Objects only have momentum when they move relative to their surrounding, but this is still different from their surroundings moving relative to them. It's actually not the same.

/thread
/kys

Attached: 1559540754855.jpg (700x4989, 649K)

tl;dr neither scenario really makes sense and you can craft examples to invalidate either one because they're all just made up magic and ultimately it works however the person who programmed the game wanted it to, see

I don't think classical physics accounts for non-euclidean spaces at all. In fact, that's what makes them 'classical'. Classical mechanics don't take into account relativistic mechanics, which is what portals are all about.

The box is not moving through the blue portal, the space through the blue portal is moving onto the box. Relativity.

they aren't though, because if the floor moves up then the cubes in motion

>but everything moves all the time!
You are getting there A-tard. Think about how the cube is moving relative to the blue portal.

All movement is relative, from the portals perspective the other portal always stays in the same position

the earth is constantly moving so portals have to be able to move

Imagine you are looking through the blue portal. How can what's moving where?

Do these retards think the webm is an actual video of real life and that's why it proves that A is correct?

>draw comical picture of a flat Earth
>"ha, look, this picture is PROOF that the Earth is flat, because look how not-round it is in this picture!"

We're discussing Portal logic you fucking retard, why shouldn't we use the game logic?

Hahahahaha imagine being this retarded

Nice try
youtu.be/S85nudR6D-Y

So made up fucking portals break the laws of physics. Who would have guest it.

Look at explains the problem.

These

Attached: 1553545711013.png (1638x700, 30K)

that's a good point actually, but you could test this version in the game since the portal isn't moving. unless the orange portal is moving as well?

>balance box on top of piston
>shake piston violently
>box doesn't fall off
>"this if fine"

Imagine being you

Yes, we all know that it's impossible physically to have portals that don't move at exactly the same speed in reference to each-other because it would require moving the universe on the other side of the portal, which is the one on the other side of the other portal as well. It was achieved in the game using 'fake' portals.

Of course maybe you could argue some localized space stress fuckery to explain it but it's a moot point because we don't have any real life frame of reference to make that worth investigating seriously.

You are only watching the blue portal outcome, by your logic the piston should be cut off and fly every time a pixel of it passes through the portal.
The pole is stand still.

my conclusion is that portals can only move parallel to the surface it's on. the two instances of portals moving in the game (destroying neurotoxin tank, and shooting a portal on the moon) both support this theory.
since the surface of the moon does a perfect rotation as it orbits earth, the portal always stays parallel to the direction the moon is travelling in

This is honestly the best explanation of what the B idiots have been talking about.

Bfags seething

>B idiots
more like B geniuses

>Think about it from the perspective of someone looking through blue portal.

You cannot use either portal as a reference frame, it will by design be inaccurate. You have to be external to both.

>valve
>making games
lmao

this is a completely different scenario because of the left portal being able to swallow the ground that the cube sits on. that isn't a factor in OP's scenario. A is still true but in this scenario B would happen because you're moving whats UNDER the box

>by your logic the piston should be cut off and fly every time a pixel of it passes through the portal

It is my assumption that for the purposes of that webm, the piston is soundly attached to the ground and made of a material that can withstand a varying amount of stress applied to its molecular bonds.

If you're external to both the problem is inconsistent for EVERY frame. The problem is only consistent from the frame of one portal or the other. Which always leads to B.

So given that the portals work in the game, can we not effectively conclude that it must be A otherwise what they made wasnt portals but a demoleculizer that also teleports mass?

You can conclude whatever you want, but B would make for a better gameplay mechanic.

yeah but what would that do to a human?

Childhood is thinking A is correct. Adulthood is realizing B makes more sense.

One portal was on the god damn moon while the other one was on earth, get bent

It depends on the speed of the orange portal, and the amount of gravity that the human is subject to.

If you're just asking "will the B option in happen?" the answer is yes.

>Not even understanding how portals work
Don't they explain this in the first fucking game? An object going through a portal retains its momentum, and can build up momentum going through if it's already moving. But if it has zero movement or momentum to it, it's going to continue having zero momentum.
You niggers really this dumb?

The fact that B-style moving portals might kill a person doesn't prove that the game's portals are A-style, because the game's portals don't move with respect to each other at all. You don't know whether the portals in the game are the type that would kill you if one of them moved with respect to the other, because that never happens to portals while you're using them -- well, except for that one moon scene, but in that case the motion isn't jerky as in or .

So the fact that portals work in the game doesn't prove anything about A or B.

The first game doesn't have moving portals. The momentum is transfered from the moving portal to the object, so to speak. GlaDOS was just taking the most common scenario into consideration.

There are moving surfaces in game you can put portals on

Portals don't conserve momentum. Momentum is a vector and by changing the direction of a moving object you've changed its momentum. Portals do that. Welcome to the 10 billionth portal thread, which is apparently your first.

Attached: afags.png (390x392, 33K)

Bfags, I have one simple question: is the Earth a spherical planet like conventional science describes or is it flat? Or something else?

Of course its flat, havent you been outside?

Bfag here, Earth is a Geoid.

It's a geoid

neither, dumbass

Attached: uwehexndk8q01.jpg (590x495, 15K)

Now thats an earth

My post is a statement about direct observations from the game you retard. Are you disputing that portals can be used to change the direction of a moving object? That's half the fucking game, dipshit. And from that observation follows the fact that portals as depicted in the game do not conserve momentum, as explained in my post.

Brainlet.

If thats true then pumping your arm through one portal should result in you losing an arm even if neither is moving. And in the one reference we know of, the game, that isnt the case. We cant use real physics, showed that. We only have a single reference point, the game, and logic based on what we see there.

>If thats true then pumping your arm through one portal should result in you losing an arm even if neither is moving.

If you're pumping an arm at 10000 mph then yes it should fucking come off unless your whole body is made of adamantium, regardless of any portals existing.

Thats not the point, If you move something with speed into the portal but only half way, 5 feet of a 10 foot pole, will it sever or will it remain intact? We know portals answer.

It remains intact you double nigger. Where do you get this retarded notion that anybody is claiming shit would sever? you're the only one claiming that.

>If you move something with speed into the portal

Then no part of it remains static and is been carried whole, therefore it has not reason to weaken its molecular bonds.

Is said it stops halfway

I'm entering the thread late, but why am I seeing discussion about the severence of objects in relation to answer B? I really don't understand where that assumption is coming from at all. The object being overlapped in B exits at the same rate it is being engulfed, just like in the game. This "looks" like it is flying through the orange portal, but since the portals are simply changing the point of reference for the object, it is more easier to visualize it by saying everything on the other end of the orange portal is flying past the cube. The only reason I can think why severance of an object would even be considered, is the false assumption that the object accelerates in example B.

the earth moves

The portal is a gateway. You're moving the whole 10 foot pole, by stopping the 10 foot pole halfway, you're doing nothing different that doing the same motion with no portals involved.

So do you happen to have a problem with this?

Im argueing with Bfags here man, I think we are agreeing.

What happens when you stop halfway up the cube?

nice bait

Attached: Loogie.png (242x472, 112K)

It just stops. The logic of B is simple, an object engulfed on one end of the portal, exists the other end at the same rate.

It must be A, based on the fact that the cube has no kinetic energy supplied to it, with which to fling itself out the other side.
I'll try to illustrate, but it's hard because we're not used to thinking with portals.

Imagine yourself sitting on a platform in a room. To move you to the other side of the room, we would have to give you kinetic energy to move you through space, to the other side. If you did this, and suddenly stopped the platform, because you retain your kinetic energy you would go flying off the platform.

Now let's imagine the room itself moving instead. If the room moved around you, you would arrive at the other end of the room, despite having no kinetic energy, or 'moving' at all. To one moving with the room, the illusion would be that you are moving, but in reality you aren't. If the room were to stop moving suddenly, you would not fly off the platform, as you have no kinetic energy with which to do so.

Applying this to portals: because the cube changes location, but has no energy applied to it, I think it's appropriate to say that the universe itself is moving around the cube. This gives the illusion that B is correct, because we as observers are moving with the universe. This is not an obvious viewpoint to take, which is why looks so unnatural.
To an observer it looks as though the rod and cube are moving through space and out of the portal, but actually it is space which is moving around the cube, so the cube wouldn't have any energy with which to be launched from the platform.

Remember we are moving a hole in spacetime through spacetime. Oddly enough, it's like a piece of paper with a hole in it, and we are moving that paper back and forth so that an object is sliding through the hole.

Attached: woof.jpg (1024x791, 212K)

No I mean what happens to the cube? Assume its made of some highly breakable solid that can take vertually no force to break into pieces.

Yes, the cube should fly off the podium when moving like that.
Tell me something, do you believe that if a thin piece of material, such as paper, were taped over the blue portal, does there exist some upward force the cube exerts such that it would break the paper and pass through? Or would it be stopped?

assuming it's made of some highly breakable material, it would break regardless of any portals user.

You inserting a pole you're personally carrying into a portal ≠ a moving portal engulfing a pillar that is firmly attached to the ground and suddently finds only its top portion in motion which is then stopped. If that part of the pillar is in motion and that motion is not carried on -- unless the pillar can withstand all that stress -- then it should snap.

>no kinetic energy supplied to it
speculation based on the (false) assumption that portals must conserve energy (which, in fact, they do not, as demonstrated by the fact that portals can give you an infinite amount of gravitational potential energy at no cost, even if you're just using portal scenarios found in the game)

Are you saying that the act of traveling through the portal gives the cube kinetic energy?
It certainly didn't have any before entering the portal. I don't know where that energy would be coming from.

Why is the cube traveling through the portal?

This question assumes kinetic energy is in place.

>I don't know where that energy would be coming from.
I'm sure you also don't know where the free energy comes from when I put a portal on the floor and another on the ceiling and gain infinite velocity by falling forever

It's more accurate to say the portal is moving through the cube. The question assumes energy on the portal's part, not the cube's.

That comes from the gravity towards earth. When you're free falling like that, you are moving through the stationary portal, so you have kinetic energy and are switching positions. That energy is because of gravitational potential, it doesn't come from nowhere.

That's not the portal doing that, it is gravity.

The cube starts with plenty of kinetic energy as measured in the frame of reference in which the orange portal is stationary.

>That energy is because of gravitational potential, it doesn't come from nowhere.
But the gravitational potential energy, which gets converted to kinetic energy as I fall, DOES come from nowhere.

Without portals, it would cost energy (e.g. kinetic energy) to go back up to the ceiling from the floor. That's why something slows down when you throw it up in the air. It slows down until all of its kinetic energy is converted to potential energy, until it stops, and then the process is reversed and its potential energy becomes kinetic energy again as it picks up speed during its descent.

With portals, I can just gain as much potential energy as I want at no cost, which, when converted to kinetic energy, results in a perpetual motion machine which is physically impossible. Portals do not conserve energy.

But the cube can't have kinetic energy, because it's stationary. That gif is illustrating the same illusion I talked about in my large post. We have moving with the universe, which is moving around the cube, so from our perspective it looks like the cube is moving, but it isn't and cannot be because it lacks any supplied energy.

And it would be gravity which takes away my kinetic energy in exchange for potential energy when I return to the ceiling... if not for the portals giving me that potential energy for free. Portals do not conserve energy.

>But the cube can't have kinetic energy, because it's stationary.
I'll be honest, dude. I stopped reading your post here, because it proves 100% completely that you did not understand my post: Kinetic energy is measured in a particular frame of reference. You say the cube has zero kinetic energy (i.e. is stationary) because you measured that from the frame of reference in which the cube is stationary -- which is the obvious choice because that's the frame of reference from which the picture depicts the situation. But that doesn't mean that frame of reference is more correct than the others.

It's B. If portal stops half-way through other half gets yanked back.

That's a good point.
But I don't think it's valid because it assumes that when you return to the ceiling that you travel through space to reach that place. When you move through a portal your matter isn't moved through the distance it would normally need to to reach the other portal, it takes a shortcut through the portal.
I think because you aren't needing to spend any energy to move that distance, you could keep falling forever without violating any thermodynamics.

Perpetual motion machines violate the laws of thermodynamics pretty explicitly, my dude.

Maybe you should just admit that portals -- you know, those fictional things which obviously violate the laws of physics -- do not conserve energy.

That has never ever happened in the game in any way, shape of form
Portals are already moving through space, if this was the case even normal portaling would be impossible.

So you're saying that:
if we have our reference as the orange portal being stationary the cube would be moving, and so have energy.
And if we set our reference to be the cube as stationary, we wouldn't see it moving, so have no energy?
Can energy be relative, or maybe conditional, like that?

>Get proven wrong
>I-It's bait!

>Can energy be relative
It's a function of velocity which is relative so, basically, yes.

Otherwise, you'd have to account for the speed of Earth, the Sun, and our Galaxy within the universe every time you compute the kinetic energy of something.

Yes. It's kind of necessary that it is, since we're hurtling through space constantly and there's no obvious "absolute rest frame" to refer to.

So both answers are equally correct?
That's pretty neat.
I guess my answer would still be A, because it's more natural for the perspective to be from the portal being stationary rather than the cube.

>So both answers are equally correct?
And yet both answers to the original problem can't both be correct because the thing about frames of reference is that you're supposed to get the same outcome no matter which one you choose for your computations.

I guess that's why it's a paradox or whatever.

No, the frame you operate in doesn't change the actual behavior of anything. It's always B. I suppose you could have a frame moving at the same rate as the flying cube but then everything else would be moving instead

I'm not the other guy, but B is more logically consistent with the game. A has no mechanism that would explain why the cube would arbitrarily stop once it has passed the threshold of the portal. It also presents the issue of how the portal knows when a complete object has passed this threshold, unless it has some sort of data tracking and recording of data, and then replicate the same conditions on the other end. This basically would make it more of a teleporter than a portal like in the games.

Everyone says if all niggers were executed, the average IQ would go up 20 points.
Fuck that, if all B fags were rounded up and exterminated, the average would go up at least 30.

But that's not true. It happens twice in Portal 2. Chell places a portal on a moving surface to cut some tubes with lasers, and also shoots a portal onto the moon later on.

The game handles players' and objects' physics differently. It's not just coincidence that they didn't use a cube for the second part.

This shit is a paradox and it's fucking great.

If it's true that a point of reference is vital for any calculation of velocity, then both answers have to be equally correct. There can't be one right answer, because that would mean you either have a set reference point, or none at all, the latter of which sounds impossible, because our math couldn't work without one.

Attached: omg.gif (235x180, 1.94M)

Both answers are equally incorrect. A primarily violates the laws of motion, B primarily violates the laws of thermodynamics

it would be a because the normal force pushing up at the cube doesn't increase when it goes through a portal

B is retarded because if you stop halfway, one half would be propelled and pull the other making it jump.

Can't someone just mod this into a level and record it?

Yes, is that a problem?

Read this little chain here and see what you think.
Someone already did. Engine works on A-fag logic.

You guys are misinterpreting B. The cube is not accelerating, it is just moving out of the other end at the same speed it is being covered.

If you think the speed of the portal relative to the object matters when it enters, then the answer is obviously B.
>object enters portal at x speed
>therefore it must exit the other portal at x speed

If you think the object has no inertia when it exits the portal, the answer is still B.
>object enters portal at x speed
>at some point, while the object is partially through the portal, it stops because it can't carry inertia
>because neither the cube nor the pedastool can be crushed, the normal force of the pedastool increases to compensate, pushing against the object, forcing it to continue at x speed
>when the object is 99.99% through, the constant pushing of the normal force of the pedastool has ensured the object on the other side is traveling at 70mph
>the inertia of the remaining 0.01% traveling at 0mph barely slows down the 99.99% traveling at 70mph
>cube goes flying out at around 69.99mph

((B))rainlets on suicide watch

Attached: 7E5DE202-9DCC-4419-86A5-9E35AA523CDD.jpg (640x640, 156K)

There's no paradox, the whole point of physics is you can work in any inertial frame and the results are consistent. You will get B no matter what frame you're looking from.

So? It makes sense since half the cube has momentum. Naturally it will "launch" with half the speed.

Are portals folds in reality that join two point in space into one, or transporters that move things from one point to another?

>noooo, the conservations are violated, noooooo
>(first thing you learn to do is infinite kinetic energy)

so i haven't really participated in this argument before but from what i can tell the two sides basically come down to whether the object retains its original kinetic energy after moving through a portal or not, right?

A says that because the box wasn't moving before entering the portal, it won't be moving when it exits
B says that because the "world" that exists on the other side of the portal is moving towards the cube with the portal, when the cube emerges on the other side, it will be perceived as moving relative to the environment

honestly i don't see an argument here that doesn't totally break physics as we know it.

We need to make actual wormholes already so this faggot question on an old tibetan clay pot giftshop can finally be answered.
It probably can work but we don't understand physics enough to explain it. Wormholes could break Isaac's laws for all we know, we've just never managed to get our grubby paws on one.

I love these threads.

Attached: 1404668066458.gif (500x516, 152K)

Like 2D beings trying to explain their page being folded over.

It actually doesn't matter, because if it does retain its original kinetic energy, then the normal force of the pedastool will add kinetic energy to the cube the entire time it's going through the portal. By the time the cube is entirely through, the normal force has added kinetic energy to where the speed matches the speed that it first entered.

Wrong, slamming the pipes together would cause the box to jump from simple momentum transfer. Slam a table really hard with something on it and the stuff will bounce. The portals don't even matter

attend to your configuration

I agree for the most part, but the reason why I dislike A more than B is because of something you said
>it won't be moving when it exits
How can something not moving, go past a threshold or exit? From the outset A fails for me at least.

The energy is coming from the portal itself but not in the way you are thinking about it, as the portal MUST be teleporting matter as to avoid breaking the laws of conservation of energy. If it isn't doing that, that's specifically because Portal is just some fucking game and reality doesn't work that way anyways

One of the first things you do with a portal in game is create infinite energy.

Fucking portals, how do they work?

Attached: A6FB05B8-DE52-4DFC-8582-4F930898F227.jpg (800x450, 44K)

These threads are just a testament that proves that we are doomed to being stuck to this planet. People can't wrap their heads around the idea that space itself is an object in of itself that can be bent, and you theoretically can bend space in a manner around oneself for instantaneous travel. The wormhole is pushed to the cube but the cube just moves from point A to point B as space is moved around it.

Attached: 1423629484123.jpg (497x372, 47K)

i still have no idea how these threads keep happening even after one of the portal 2 physics devs came out and responded to the question

Did he say the portal stops dead until somethign bumps the cube through the portal?

Attached: 1499474851756.png (1712x1752, 286K)

If a fast moving portal can accelerate a motionless object, wouldn't a motionless portal decelerate a fast moving object?

No, deceleration is the opposite of acceleration, but motionless isn't the opposite of motion. Motion in the opposite direction is the opposite.

I don't think it accelerates or decelerates, but it definitely converts potential energy to energy, and vice versa due to change in relative position.

i relation to what??
retard

What I don't get is that if literally everyone can recognize a portal can give an object more POTENTIAL energy by changing its position on the Z-axis without the cube itself ever being acted upon to gain energy, why do the same people find it so hard to believe a portal can give an object kinetic energy without the cube itself ever being acted upon to gain energy.

Attached: 1559687434406.png (720x540, 523K)

>3/4 of Yea Forums posters are retarded
That explains everything about this board

>((B))rainlets

Attached: 1555997306951.jpg (327x316, 26K)

The energy from the momentum has to go somewhere. Afags will never understand this.

based and B-pilled

Knowing that 3/4 of this board is retarded kind of explains why it has always been so shit

Not Possible>Bfags>Afags>Hoolatards

I feel bad for the hulahoop/door fags because they're either too retarded to understand a basic fundamental concept of the argument or they're trolls stuck using 10 year old material.

This is the thread for smart people, right? Can one of you niggers help me figure something out?

Let's suppose I have a chance to earn money for 15 days. Each day I can earn 1 paycheck and the paycheck ranges from $5 to $450. The chances for each tier of paycheck are as follows:
$5: 52.7%
$15: 26.0%
$50: 13.0%
$150: 6.0%
$450: 2.3%
After 15 days of paychecks, what's the most likely amount of cash I am left with?

The only thing that proved was that relativity is a hack.

>most Yea Forums fags are retarded
>retards would have chosen the wrong answer
>a is the most popular

Hence b is correct, thread closed

Attached: 1546564150720.jpg (1024x554, 61K)

But the momentum is zero

It's neither.
A is if 100% if the plate's kinetic energy is emitted as sound and heat.
B is if 100% if the plate's kinetic energy is transformed via vibration to the kinetic energy of the cube.
So around 60% A and 40% B.

Yet it moves when it exits the portal

The fucking Webm doesn't show him doing it with the box. This is fucking incorrect propaganda.

Portals do not conserve energy.
Portals do not conserve momentum relative to an exterior reference.

What would happen if the blue portal was underneath the object it’s on? Would the cube fall off the stand? If that’s the case why couldn’t the cube fly off the pedestal in this instance?

Ftfy

Attached: momentdumb.gif (300x225, 876K)

Actually, but it does't really change anything for the purpose of the discussion, it happens twice at least in the game. The Moon and Earth move relative to each other.

>portals
>irl physics
see the whole fun of these threads is portals dont work with irl physics and so the arguing will never stop as both are equally wrong
in classic irl physics your frame of reference doesnt matter, you can set the origin of the coordinates wherever and the calculation is the same, with portals that gets all fucked up

Attached: 1559897510475.png (1160x802, 117K)

The entry and exit "portals" in this kinda example are both moving in the same direction at the same speed in relation to each other
This is not the case in the OPs example, as the exit portal is not moving
Thats the gist of the problem and why it breaks physics

>adding scholastic logo to make you appear smarter

Attached: DIloKd5XgAA9EGu.jpg (900x900, 80K)

Wait, I thought they were folds in space, not transporters?
Why are they called portals if they are transporters?

He's right, he definitely not a physicist.

there's a reason he's a game dev and not a physicist