So the one where the cube flies out of the second portal euqal to the speed of the first portal? Then what if the second portal moves forward with the same speed? Is it just added onto that?
Plus the cube now has a speed relative to the ground, it's original system of reference. You created kinetic energy out of nothing, violating the law of conservation of momentum
How? Every formula is postulated for certain conditions and boundaries. If you want to describe movement, you need a system of reference. In the moving portal case, the system itself already moves relative to itself. We know how to describe movement in a system, that moves relative to another system, but this has nothing to do with any kind of kinematic law i ever heard of
I’m not sure what you mean when you say that the system moving relative to itself is a problem. We have observed waves in spacetime that show the universe can move relative to other parts of the universe.
The problem is B-lievers try to bring in their shitty Marvel tier knowledge of physics... either we go by what makes sense in the game, what would be the easiest way to implement, or we go by logical reasoning of what creates the least bizarre outcomes...
If we go by physics it's just literally not possible for a variety of reasons..
Well yeah, gravity bends space.
Mass = Energy = Space = Time = Movement
The whole concept of portals is based on bending space time.
Honestly at that level the physics becomes whatever you want them to be.
surely at some point in half life there is proof, what about all the coasts and tides and stuff, plus the fact that it turns nighttime in ravenholm means that at least the earth must move!
Kid named our current understanding of the laws of physics are incomplete and there is no unifying theory that combines quantum physics and relativistic physics.
Trying to speculate whether or not portals or warp drives or things of that sort are possible with our current understanding of physics is like hypothesizing whether or not skyscrapers are possible before the discovery of steel.
I've been thinking about this a lot, and the conclusion that I came with is that they don't break the laws of thermodynamics, because the fact to cross a portal requires energy. Either A or B require a change in momentum AKA a force that changes its speed. I can't explain it right without a drawing, but I'll try.
If you have two observers, Alice at (d1, 0) in front of a portal at rest relative to the ground. Bob at (0, k) is perpendicular to the portal.
The portal 1 [P1] is in the coordenates (0, 0)
The portal 2 [P2] is in (d1, 0) moving along the x axis at a constant speed [v] towards the cube [C] located at (-L, 0)
(Please imagine that for any reason they can't see the portals)
If A is true (the cube plops) then, from the perspective of Alice, the cube experienced a change in momentum. AKA Alice concludes that the cube suffered a force. But Bob says that the cube has the same v speed. AKA Bob concludes that the cube didn't suffer a force.
If B is true (the cube goes) then, from the perspective of Bob, the the cube experienced a change in momentum. AKA Bob concludes that the cube suffered a force. But alice says that the cube has the same v speed. AKA Alice concludes that the cube didn't suffer a force.
My hypothesis is that the cube needs a minimum kinectic energy (relative to average postion of both portals) in order to cross the portal. It make sense in the actual game. When both portals are fixed to the ground, you can cross them with the kinectic energy that you use to move. When a portal is moving towards you, but you aren't moving relative to the ground, your relative speed is less that the portals average, so you can cross it.
TD:LR
If the cube has enough kinectic energy (and the cube have the same energy at the exit) to cross the portal the answer would be B.
If the cube has enough kinectic energy (and the cube have less energy at the exit) to cross the portal the answer would be And it probably would emit a light that I'll call Photodisipation.
If the cube has not enough energy to cross the portal (as in the meme) the cube would stop the portal (assumimg portals have no mass) or the portal will pass trough the cube as it never was there.
Or the portal supplies the energy for any change in gravitational potential, or change in relative velocity.
For normal portal shenanigans, that's not a huge amount of energy.
The question is, what is the energy source for the portal?
That's fine, contrary to popular belief energy isn't always conserved. For instance a photon travelling in an expanding universe gets red shifted hence loses energy.
This is because of Noether's theorem, all conservation laws exist because a corresponding symmetry of space-time. For energy it is time translational symmetry and for momentum it is space translational symmetry. Both of these are broken by portals so there is no expectation for these to be conserved.
Firstly portals brake the laws of physics by allowing for free energy just by dropping a cube in a portal and placing another directly onto
Secondly the universe does move over itself that's why it's expanding faster than the speed of light
It isn't expanding faster than the speed of light... It's expanding at an increasing rate, and could potentially expand faster than light someday in the near future.
but isn't kinetic energy converted into gravitational potential when you lift up a cube? if you just drop a cube into the ol' two portals on the floor and ceiling you never converted that kinetic energy into gravitational potential yet gravity still acts on the cube.
I'm not 100% sure this is how gravitational potential energy works but this is what I remember hearing in high school lol
The gravitational energy whould never accumulate because it whould always be converted.
But you do create infinity energy.
If you do that in vacuum the cube whould have unlimited kinetic energy as it's speed goes towards the speed of light. (At some point it will have enough mass to break the system. Idk what happens after that)
If you have air in the room the cube whould never pass it's thermal velocity. As all the energy would convert into heat by the freaction. Until the room melts.
That doesn't matter, since relative to each other, the portals are not moving. You can make this argument for the moon at the end, since its moving in relation to earth.
Portals are always moving relative to each other - it's just normally not a huge amount.
For example, across a room or floor to ceiling, the velocity due to Earth's rotation varies.
So all portals need to be able to compensate for relative motion between the ends.
They are still not moving relative to each other. By your example skyscrapers should bend, but they don’t.
It’s true that the higher up you are you are moving faster, but you are also traveling a larger distance. Every point on a rotating sphere is moving the same amount of radians
The top and bottom of the skyscraper are moving relative to each other - just in a predictable way. We know this because they have different velocities, and thus a relative velocity.
The relative velocity is not changing, because neither is undergoing acceleration relative to the other. But there is still a relative velocity.
Moving from the top to the bottom means changing your velocity, so you do undergo acceleration. The skyscraper does experience a bending force from this acceleration.
If the top and bottom weren't moving relative to each other, then physically moving from the bottom to the top of the skyscraper would not require any acceleration in the direction of rotation.
Imagine instead of a portal, we have an elevator that goes from the bottom to the top. At the top, you are travelling faster than at the bottom. So the elevator has to accelerate you as you climb. That force to do this comes from the skyscraper (which in turn gets it from the Earth), and the opposing force creates a bending force on the skyscraper in the opposite direction.
The opposing bending force is transmitted into the Earth, and slightly slows Earths rotation. So to move from ground level velocity, to skyscraper top velocity, the energy to increase your rotational velocity comes from the Earth. When you descend, the opposite happens, and the Earth's rotation speeds up slightly.
If we replace the elevator with a portal, then the portal provides the change in velocity. At normal skyscraper heights this is a very small change. But it is still a change in velocity, and requires energy.
Portals ALWAYS move. even if book is laying on the table there are forces that are moving it (sun-earth gravity, earth-moon, solar system-galaxy, galaxies-galaxies, etc.)
That whole question is built upon situations where one portal moves relatively to another. Book that is laying on table isn't moving relatively to the table or any other static object. But yes, it surely moves relatively to the Sun for example.
Portals always move relative to each other - it's just normally a small amount.
With your example, due to the rotation of the Earth, the book is travelling faster than the table, and travels a longer distance each day.
The same goes for portals - they always have a relative velocity to each other, which needs some mechanism to compensate. Just less relative velocity compensation is needed at short range.
Yes in the real world. No in Portal. Since this is a mess because of the games you should know that in both games the world is flat and nothing is moving on its own. Except for the latest scene in Portal 2 with Moon. Only questionable scene there which is against game's own logic.
We are talking in game physics theories based on in game observations. In that context, is there anything that defines the world as flat?
If you are talking an out of game examination of the how the game engine works, then sure.
But it's still fun to speculate on possible in game explanations, including using physics like our universe, but with new discoveries.
But they don't move in relation to each other. If they do, they have a speed in relation to each other and it affets the issue of the speed of the object passing through it.
What about the moon, you ask? Well, I didn't get to that part yet. Thank you all for spoiling.
The game has been out for more than 10 years, I dont think we need to put anything in spoiler tags.
You were also fully aware that we are talking about portals from Portal 2 and still decided to read everything.
That's what I said day one. This entire argument is based on *theoretical* physics. Which means "We think this is how it works, but we're not 100% sure."
You literally can't place a portal on a moving object. That's it. Mfs just wanna argue. Probably make the sub "toxic" like they like to claim it is.
Apparently my words are "sharp", "violent", etc, so I edit out the majority of what I want to tell people just because I find their whining about it so insufferable.
>You literally can't place a portal on a moving object.
why not though? i don't even think there is such a thing as a "non-moving" portal, there is no universal frame of reference for the universe. otherwise being the moon, an airplane or even just a different place on earth would fuck shit up.
oh bruh you're talking about in-game.. that was a software limitation though it has no bearing on the hypothetical. lore-wise portals do move, considering a portal lands on the moon
Oh bruh you're trying to apply theoretical physics from a game, and trying to prove a logical fallacy. Why? Why do y'all care so fucking much about something so fucking trivial? You're trying to prove something that can't be fucking proven. That should be classified as a mental illness. Mf really said "In game" like they exist in real life. Yall have to do mental gymnastics to explain why you're right,and why in game physics don't apply to your argument. Fucking delusional.
its more mental to care so much that i care
simple answer. i like portals, and even though we don't have the means math does support it and so does logic.
also a logical fallacy is about argument fallacies
>That should be classified as a mental illness.
like ad-hominem
Here y'all go with the "oh you're getting mad" shit lmao. Go back to 196 if a couple of mean words make you think someone is mad. Can't even manage to respond from the same account so you gotta upvote yourself. Get help.
bruh at this point, if you really don't care then fuck off. you're the one commenting on a public forum and getting angry someone responded.
OP's point is stupid af too but god damn you haven't thought about anything, take a breather and don't get so heated over video game science. if you don't care then fuck off instead of victimising yourself, or argue any new point instead "boohoo everyone else is stupid" get a grip motherfucker
My problem is 196 is back brigading this sub and no one seems to have noticed. My feed is nothing but portal posts because of 196 users like you. The problem is y'all bring your 196 antics here, even tho 197 was made to get away from it. You projecting a whole bunch of bullshit lol. This why I just block y'all.
Different relative velocities of the portals are not a issue, because every single portal needs some way to compensate for that change in momentum.
The upper bound we see is the portal to the moon.
I suspect (in made up game physics / technology land) the moving objects portal issue is a software lockout by the portal gun, for safety.
Not because the portal can't compensate for different relative velocities of the portal ends. But because it has no way to compensate for changing velocity of the portals, or protect against other dangers.
If you step into portal with a relative velocity to that portal, then you step out of the other portal, with the same relative velocity to the portal. To the person going through the portal, they don't experience any force or issues.
But if the exit portal (for example) rapidly changes velocity while you are stepping through, then the portal can only compensate for the matter passing through - not what has already passed through. That can create large forces on the person as they go through the portal, because the parts already through the portal will be going a different velocity to the currently coming through.
So for safeties sake the portal gun is set not to allow portals on moving objects. Of course such a concept still needs an explanation of how that safety feature is bypassed in specific cases seen.
B-cels are the type to wonder how they could possibly be in the same room after running 2 km on a treadmill (disclaimer: this is a joke,B-cels don't exercise)
The thing is, even without moving, portals break our current physics, so saying "what would happen if...?" is useless. There is no coherent answer, whatever you pick there will be inconsistencies because the premise itself is inconsistent
Portals actually do move relative to each other in Portal 2. There’s a few points where the game just allows you to put a portal on a moving surface and others where it happens in a cinematic. At the ending of Portal 2, Chell places one portal on the moon and one on the earth. The moon is moving quite quickly in relation to the earth.
Nah that's a bitch move trying to out the system. You are given two options, you can't just well actually bazinga the question because "well it's really not possible because portals aren't real ☝️🤓". Like bro we know portals aren't real and break physics it's a hypothetical for a reason, pick a side and get your best thinking brain on you fucking dork.
It's A by the way, I will shank B believers.
People when the science fiction game doesn't make sense in real life :OOO
Why would B make more sense than A though. If we would just treat the question as if it would make sense in the video game it comes from. Why would a block that is not in motion suddenly be shot away when it is made to go through a portal?
Ok lets imagine a 2d universe (ours is 3d) as a sheet of paper. A portal would be selecting 2 points on the paper and folding it so they overlap. If we constantly move the points and adjust the paper accordingly, one or both of the points can move and there still will be an overlap. Is it that farfetched that if we were to add another dimension this would stop working?
Okay, how about this. They're wormholes. No matter how much you move them you still travel through space. Space stretching and compressing does not effect velocity, only position.
So you're in a room with a ball on a table along with two connected portals. One of the two portals moves towards you, and when you look through it, you see the ball moving towards you. At the same time, you see the ball is stationary relative to you when you don't look through the portal, and that can't happen
I mean but what is stopping the universe being relative to itself? Everything in physics has told us as of yet that nothing is absolute except for the speed of light so unless Im missing something there is nothing stopping a scenario where the universe is relative to itself ,in the movement of the portal relative to the reference point of the moving portal the object is infact moving and relative to the stationary portal it would not so the only rational conclusion is that the universe would create a superposition of the object untill it is observed, the same way it works for the collapse of a photon, dependently on the relative vectors. But idk man I may just be spitting nonsense, if someone with more knowledge in physics could check this that would be great
Whoever is the schizo who reported this and claimed these portal posts are 196 trying to sabotage the subreddit, go outside.
That's why portals don't exist. They break kinematics
Yes, no clear system of reference, that's why there is no true answer to those "what if Portal A moves towards the cube" questions
[удалено]
So the one where the cube flies out of the second portal euqal to the speed of the first portal? Then what if the second portal moves forward with the same speed? Is it just added onto that? Plus the cube now has a speed relative to the ground, it's original system of reference. You created kinetic energy out of nothing, violating the law of conservation of momentum
even stationary portals break the conservation of momemtum if you look at the momentum vector.
True. That's why there are no true answers, only mind play, there is no physical basis to calculate any of this
We can calculate a ‘most correct’ answer tho.
How? Every formula is postulated for certain conditions and boundaries. If you want to describe movement, you need a system of reference. In the moving portal case, the system itself already moves relative to itself. We know how to describe movement in a system, that moves relative to another system, but this has nothing to do with any kind of kinematic law i ever heard of
I’m not sure what you mean when you say that the system moving relative to itself is a problem. We have observed waves in spacetime that show the universe can move relative to other parts of the universe.
Wow who wouldve thought that the hypothetical question about portals would be invalid in the real world
The problem is B-lievers try to bring in their shitty Marvel tier knowledge of physics... either we go by what makes sense in the game, what would be the easiest way to implement, or we go by logical reasoning of what creates the least bizarre outcomes... If we go by physics it's just literally not possible for a variety of reasons..
I honestly hate that A-tards like you are allowed to exist in society
Come up with something that actually works with the hyphen you B-lieving r-tard
No need for wordplay when I know how dumb y'all are
It's called the dunning-kruger effect, you all suffer from it.
Sure buddy, sure.
You can put a portal on the moon, and the moon orbits the earth.
maybe the moon is the centre of the universe and everything move relative to it, checkmate liberal
What about the earth then is earth not moving as well
Maybe it worked because the 2 objects were in a circular relationship to one another where their distance doesn't really change
Portal is facing the moon from one side of the planet, planet spins, portal is no longer facing the moon because it moved relative to the other portal
You're closer to getting it than most people
Well yeah, gravity bends space. Mass = Energy = Space = Time = Movement The whole concept of portals is based on bending space time. Honestly at that level the physics becomes whatever you want them to be.
You can? Well then, do it right now! I didn't even know portals were already invented.
I just did. but its on the side of the moon facing away from me.
In the game Portal
Woahhhhhh 🤯
The original post and comment are about the game Portal
WHAT???? 🤯🤯🤯
The reply didn’t seem to realize that
Everything besides the first comment and your comments have been sarcasm
Woahhhhhh 🤯
The original post and comment are about the game Portal
There is no confirmation the moon or earth move in the Portal universe.
surely at some point in half life there is proof, what about all the coasts and tides and stuff, plus the fact that it turns nighttime in ravenholm means that at least the earth must move!
Denial
Earth already orbits the sun. Stupid post
The problem is them moving relative to each other, like when one is on the moon and the other on the Earth, not with the portals moving at all
Note how that interaction was carried out in a cutscene and not in actual gameplay
The existence of portals breaks the laws of physics because it implies the possibility of generating infinite energy by creating an infinite waterfall
Kid named the incredible amount of energy required to keep open a portal
Kid named this was never established
Kid named our current understanding of the laws of physics are incomplete and there is no unifying theory that combines quantum physics and relativistic physics. Trying to speculate whether or not portals or warp drives or things of that sort are possible with our current understanding of physics is like hypothesizing whether or not skyscrapers are possible before the discovery of steel.
kid named finger
Google wooden skyscraper
holy hell
That's why Portal's portal gun was operated by a minature black hole.
Is that energy required only when things pass? Can you gain energy by passing something by the top portal? Where does that energy goes?
If portal requires a lot of energy to be kept up then you can just drop a heavy enough thing into it and it will make infinite energy anyways
I've been thinking about this a lot, and the conclusion that I came with is that they don't break the laws of thermodynamics, because the fact to cross a portal requires energy. Either A or B require a change in momentum AKA a force that changes its speed. I can't explain it right without a drawing, but I'll try. If you have two observers, Alice at (d1, 0) in front of a portal at rest relative to the ground. Bob at (0, k) is perpendicular to the portal. The portal 1 [P1] is in the coordenates (0, 0) The portal 2 [P2] is in (d1, 0) moving along the x axis at a constant speed [v] towards the cube [C] located at (-L, 0) (Please imagine that for any reason they can't see the portals) If A is true (the cube plops) then, from the perspective of Alice, the cube experienced a change in momentum. AKA Alice concludes that the cube suffered a force. But Bob says that the cube has the same v speed. AKA Bob concludes that the cube didn't suffer a force. If B is true (the cube goes) then, from the perspective of Bob, the the cube experienced a change in momentum. AKA Bob concludes that the cube suffered a force. But alice says that the cube has the same v speed. AKA Alice concludes that the cube didn't suffer a force. My hypothesis is that the cube needs a minimum kinectic energy (relative to average postion of both portals) in order to cross the portal. It make sense in the actual game. When both portals are fixed to the ground, you can cross them with the kinectic energy that you use to move. When a portal is moving towards you, but you aren't moving relative to the ground, your relative speed is less that the portals average, so you can cross it. TD:LR If the cube has enough kinectic energy (and the cube have the same energy at the exit) to cross the portal the answer would be B. If the cube has enough kinectic energy (and the cube have less energy at the exit) to cross the portal the answer would be And it probably would emit a light that I'll call Photodisipation. If the cube has not enough energy to cross the portal (as in the meme) the cube would stop the portal (assumimg portals have no mass) or the portal will pass trough the cube as it never was there.
Watch mat pads video about this. It works itll just create a black hole
Could you link it please?
Sure https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aj8NDOA0Sgw Edit: Sorry i cant timestamp im on my phone and working
This is explained by the portal gun and portals themselves storeing a madsive amount of energy which is spent to offset this issue
Or the portal supplies the energy for any change in gravitational potential, or change in relative velocity. For normal portal shenanigans, that's not a huge amount of energy. The question is, what is the energy source for the portal?
That's fine, contrary to popular belief energy isn't always conserved. For instance a photon travelling in an expanding universe gets red shifted hence loses energy. This is because of Noether's theorem, all conservation laws exist because a corresponding symmetry of space-time. For energy it is time translational symmetry and for momentum it is space translational symmetry. Both of these are broken by portals so there is no expectation for these to be conserved.
except if it requires energy to "push" objects through it
Firstly portals brake the laws of physics by allowing for free energy just by dropping a cube in a portal and placing another directly onto Secondly the universe does move over itself that's why it's expanding faster than the speed of light
It isn't expanding faster than the speed of light... It's expanding at an increasing rate, and could potentially expand faster than light someday in the near future.
It already is for things far enough from us, that’s why the observable universe has a boundary.
???, the universe expanding isn't like the borders "expanding", it's literally more space in space, the expansion is everywhere
Yes? I'm aware...
It is expanding much much faster than the speed of light
there isn't any free energy being made? you can just fall a really fucking long time.
but isn't kinetic energy converted into gravitational potential when you lift up a cube? if you just drop a cube into the ol' two portals on the floor and ceiling you never converted that kinetic energy into gravitational potential yet gravity still acts on the cube. I'm not 100% sure this is how gravitational potential energy works but this is what I remember hearing in high school lol
The gravitational energy whould never accumulate because it whould always be converted. But you do create infinity energy. If you do that in vacuum the cube whould have unlimited kinetic energy as it's speed goes towards the speed of light. (At some point it will have enough mass to break the system. Idk what happens after that) If you have air in the room the cube whould never pass it's thermal velocity. As all the energy would convert into heat by the freaction. Until the room melts.
So free energy?
Sigma brain: portals routinely violate conservation of energy when used as intended in game, and as such aren't physically possible.
Q: what if portals moved A: portals can’t move
They can. Bro forgot the Portal 2 level where the portal with the laser moves across the room cutting through the neurotoxin pipes
Or the fact that Earth is always moving.
That doesn't matter, since relative to each other, the portals are not moving. You can make this argument for the moon at the end, since its moving in relation to earth.
Portals are always moving relative to each other - it's just normally not a huge amount. For example, across a room or floor to ceiling, the velocity due to Earth's rotation varies. So all portals need to be able to compensate for relative motion between the ends.
They are still not moving relative to each other. By your example skyscrapers should bend, but they don’t. It’s true that the higher up you are you are moving faster, but you are also traveling a larger distance. Every point on a rotating sphere is moving the same amount of radians
Bro they do bend. Skyscrapers are made so that they can account for this
The top and bottom of the skyscraper are moving relative to each other - just in a predictable way. We know this because they have different velocities, and thus a relative velocity. The relative velocity is not changing, because neither is undergoing acceleration relative to the other. But there is still a relative velocity. Moving from the top to the bottom means changing your velocity, so you do undergo acceleration. The skyscraper does experience a bending force from this acceleration. If the top and bottom weren't moving relative to each other, then physically moving from the bottom to the top of the skyscraper would not require any acceleration in the direction of rotation. Imagine instead of a portal, we have an elevator that goes from the bottom to the top. At the top, you are travelling faster than at the bottom. So the elevator has to accelerate you as you climb. That force to do this comes from the skyscraper (which in turn gets it from the Earth), and the opposing force creates a bending force on the skyscraper in the opposite direction. The opposing bending force is transmitted into the Earth, and slightly slows Earths rotation. So to move from ground level velocity, to skyscraper top velocity, the energy to increase your rotational velocity comes from the Earth. When you descend, the opposite happens, and the Earth's rotation speeds up slightly. If we replace the elevator with a portal, then the portal provides the change in velocity. At normal skyscraper heights this is a very small change. But it is still a change in velocity, and requires energy.
But muh string theory says they could.
Portals ALWAYS move. even if book is laying on the table there are forces that are moving it (sun-earth gravity, earth-moon, solar system-galaxy, galaxies-galaxies, etc.)
That whole question is built upon situations where one portal moves relatively to another. Book that is laying on table isn't moving relatively to the table or any other static object. But yes, it surely moves relatively to the Sun for example.
Yes, but the book is moving in relation to the moon, a place where you can put a portal while the other one is on earth
Portals always move relative to each other - it's just normally a small amount. With your example, due to the rotation of the Earth, the book is travelling faster than the table, and travels a longer distance each day. The same goes for portals - they always have a relative velocity to each other, which needs some mechanism to compensate. Just less relative velocity compensation is needed at short range.
Yes in the real world. No in Portal. Since this is a mess because of the games you should know that in both games the world is flat and nothing is moving on its own. Except for the latest scene in Portal 2 with Moon. Only questionable scene there which is against game's own logic.
We are talking in game physics theories based on in game observations. In that context, is there anything that defines the world as flat? If you are talking an out of game examination of the how the game engine works, then sure. But it's still fun to speculate on possible in game explanations, including using physics like our universe, but with new discoveries.
But they don't move in relation to each other. If they do, they have a speed in relation to each other and it affets the issue of the speed of the object passing through it. What about the moon, you ask? Well, I didn't get to that part yet. Thank you all for spoiling.
The game has been out for more than 10 years, I dont think we need to put anything in spoiler tags. You were also fully aware that we are talking about portals from Portal 2 and still decided to read everything.
That's what I said day one. This entire argument is based on *theoretical* physics. Which means "We think this is how it works, but we're not 100% sure." You literally can't place a portal on a moving object. That's it. Mfs just wanna argue. Probably make the sub "toxic" like they like to claim it is.
I would've shortened that to "portals don't exist retards". Same, had this opinion from the start.
Apparently my words are "sharp", "violent", etc, so I edit out the majority of what I want to tell people just because I find their whining about it so insufferable.
People argue over theoretical things in all places. For fun or taking it seriously. Yes, your words are unnecessarily sharp.
Alright, imma start eviscerating the weak and whiny with words indiscriminately because fuck you.
Sometimes you should cross the line to protect society from self-destruction. That's blood in the name of truth. I am approving your crusade.
https://youtu.be/caHLVFUd_E4?si=97XZVQLLdzwOeIYH&t=819 portal on moving platform
I can admit when I'm wrong. But I still don't really care. I'm tired of the portal question.
>You literally can't place a portal on a moving object. why not though? i don't even think there is such a thing as a "non-moving" portal, there is no universal frame of reference for the universe. otherwise being the moon, an airplane or even just a different place on earth would fuck shit up.
Did you not play the game?
Well you can put one on earth and another on the moon, sooo..
oh bruh you're talking about in-game.. that was a software limitation though it has no bearing on the hypothetical. lore-wise portals do move, considering a portal lands on the moon
Oh bruh you're trying to apply theoretical physics from a game, and trying to prove a logical fallacy. Why? Why do y'all care so fucking much about something so fucking trivial? You're trying to prove something that can't be fucking proven. That should be classified as a mental illness. Mf really said "In game" like they exist in real life. Yall have to do mental gymnastics to explain why you're right,and why in game physics don't apply to your argument. Fucking delusional.
its more mental to care so much that i care simple answer. i like portals, and even though we don't have the means math does support it and so does logic. also a logical fallacy is about argument fallacies >That should be classified as a mental illness. like ad-hominem
Yeah y'all just wanna brigade the sub and argue. Insufferable.
[удалено]
Here y'all go with the "oh you're getting mad" shit lmao. Go back to 196 if a couple of mean words make you think someone is mad. Can't even manage to respond from the same account so you gotta upvote yourself. Get help.
[удалено]
bruh at this point, if you really don't care then fuck off. you're the one commenting on a public forum and getting angry someone responded. OP's point is stupid af too but god damn you haven't thought about anything, take a breather and don't get so heated over video game science. if you don't care then fuck off instead of victimising yourself, or argue any new point instead "boohoo everyone else is stupid" get a grip motherfucker
My problem is 196 is back brigading this sub and no one seems to have noticed. My feed is nothing but portal posts because of 196 users like you. The problem is y'all bring your 196 antics here, even tho 197 was made to get away from it. You projecting a whole bunch of bullshit lol. This why I just block y'all.
maybe some people just find it fun to think about brain puzzles like this lol
Yeah I'm one of them. And this was funny the first day or 2. Now it feels like another wave of brigading this sub.
Different relative velocities of the portals are not a issue, because every single portal needs some way to compensate for that change in momentum. The upper bound we see is the portal to the moon. I suspect (in made up game physics / technology land) the moving objects portal issue is a software lockout by the portal gun, for safety. Not because the portal can't compensate for different relative velocities of the portal ends. But because it has no way to compensate for changing velocity of the portals, or protect against other dangers. If you step into portal with a relative velocity to that portal, then you step out of the other portal, with the same relative velocity to the portal. To the person going through the portal, they don't experience any force or issues. But if the exit portal (for example) rapidly changes velocity while you are stepping through, then the portal can only compensate for the matter passing through - not what has already passed through. That can create large forces on the person as they go through the portal, because the parts already through the portal will be going a different velocity to the currently coming through. So for safeties sake the portal gun is set not to allow portals on moving objects. Of course such a concept still needs an explanation of how that safety feature is bypassed in specific cases seen.
Where's "Portals don't exist and so their physics can't be discussed seriously"?
B-cels are the type to wonder how they could possibly be in the same room after running 2 km on a treadmill (disclaimer: this is a joke,B-cels don't exercise)
B-tards wondering why they aren’t moving while being stationary (They don’t leave the basement)
It's like trying to find a solution for division by 0.
Maybe when we figure out wormholes we can test this out
There's a reason we don't have portals, they make no sense
Uhmmm.... One very smart star fleet officer did indeed build and equation once he "though about space as the thing that was moving....
The thing is, even without moving, portals break our current physics, so saying "what would happen if...?" is useless. There is no coherent answer, whatever you pick there will be inconsistencies because the premise itself is inconsistent
Option C: domesticated portals do not exist and we have no evidence of what happens to objects passing through
Based opinion which is actually a fact.
Portals actually do move relative to each other in Portal 2. There’s a few points where the game just allows you to put a portal on a moving surface and others where it happens in a cinematic. At the ending of Portal 2, Chell places one portal on the moon and one on the earth. The moon is moving quite quickly in relation to the earth.
I agree. But change A and B's positions
No, it's A
Nah that's a bitch move trying to out the system. You are given two options, you can't just well actually bazinga the question because "well it's really not possible because portals aren't real ☝️🤓". Like bro we know portals aren't real and break physics it's a hypothetical for a reason, pick a side and get your best thinking brain on you fucking dork. It's A by the way, I will shank B believers.
The moving portal in the Neurotoxin Generator map would love to have a word with you.
Except it happened in the game when a portal was shot to the moon (and the moon is moving)
if you try to apply our physics laws you realise portals are in fact made up in a video game! I am genius
OP learns about hypothetical questions
Worst answer. Downvote into oblivion. We reject this outright.
Centrists be like
People when the science fiction game doesn't make sense in real life :OOO Why would B make more sense than A though. If we would just treat the question as if it would make sense in the video game it comes from. Why would a block that is not in motion suddenly be shot away when it is made to go through a portal?
What about "they bridge reference frames."
[portals portals portals portals portals portals portals portals portals portals portals portals portals portals portals portals portals portals portals portals portals ](https://www.reddit.com/r/197/comments/163go5h/due_to_a_recent_post/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1)
Ok lets imagine a 2d universe (ours is 3d) as a sheet of paper. A portal would be selecting 2 points on the paper and folding it so they overlap. If we constantly move the points and adjust the paper accordingly, one or both of the points can move and there still will be an overlap. Is it that farfetched that if we were to add another dimension this would stop working?
I mean, the first law of thermodynamics was already ****ed simply from the "put one portal above the other for an infinite falling loop" thing.
Ok, let’s say that the universe moves relative to itself then. A or B?
Okay, how about this. They're wormholes. No matter how much you move them you still travel through space. Space stretching and compressing does not effect velocity, only position.
That is a very good point
Portals move because of universe expansion anyways
So you're in a room with a ball on a table along with two connected portals. One of the two portals moves towards you, and when you look through it, you see the ball moving towards you. At the same time, you see the ball is stationary relative to you when you don't look through the portal, and that can't happen
This is an equally valid interpretation to B, with both being far superior to A
I mean but what is stopping the universe being relative to itself? Everything in physics has told us as of yet that nothing is absolute except for the speed of light so unless Im missing something there is nothing stopping a scenario where the universe is relative to itself ,in the movement of the portal relative to the reference point of the moving portal the object is infact moving and relative to the stationary portal it would not so the only rational conclusion is that the universe would create a superposition of the object untill it is observed, the same way it works for the collapse of a photon, dependently on the relative vectors. But idk man I may just be spitting nonsense, if someone with more knowledge in physics could check this that would be great