I think we can all agree which of these is correct

I think we can all agree which of these is correct.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/mCQiwhik8nc
developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Portals_on_Moving_Surfaces
jacksbaitandtackle.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

inb4 deleted
its b

...

Neither. Portals can't be placed on a moving surface.

...

...

...

DELET

>mario can use A presses
It's already over senpai

If you pull the lever then the death isn't really your fault, since the trolley crew is busy dicking around instead of trying to stop the trolley. But to answer the question, no, since the trolley you diverted has been replaced by a new one.

They didn't test with the cube. Worthless webm.

B is correct if the bottom platform moved and the portal platform stayed in place.

I think we can all agree which of these is correct.

...

This

D. obviously.

C and D

B and C

post more pantyhose feet pls

>B

It's scenario A, there is no momentum from the cube.

Speed is relative, there is no difference t between the cube slamming into the portal or the portal being slammed into the cube. The cube goes through the portal at the same speed in both cases (not counting gravity).

D. Anything else is wrong.

Fairly sure that if I took a speedometer and measured the cube's speed as it exited the orange portal it would be greater than zero. Are you arguing that the cube has a velocity but no momentum?

here is the superior choice

Fight me, you homo

...

"you will pull the lever" is not a valid proposition, it has no truth value

I think people who do not understand the Monty Hall problem should not be considered culpable if they don't switch.

Portal only changes or link together the space, it doesn't 'move' objects.

Well, blue portal clearly stops immediately after passing the cube, so whats your fucking problem?

...

The developers already stated that they have to do all sorts of shortcuts and approximation to make the portal system work. There's a reason why portal weren't allowed to be on moving surfaces.

Finnish memes are more valuable than any single human could ever be.

so did Sup Forums finally stopped caring about this portal bullshit?

Yes, Afags won after /sci/ unanimously agreed that it's a correct choice.

good

Pretty sure that never happened.

Let's say machine abruptly stops when cube is halfway through.
>if A is correct, it just stays there
>if B is correct, it suddenly raises from the original ground to preserve "momentum", or even better, is split in half
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........................................................

The cube is already outside the portal at that point, so why should the portal keep affecting it.

Bare feet! I think bare feet are best!

>choosing anything but bare feet

How does a cube move through the portal if it can't have a velocity? An object has to be moving for it to move through a portal. If a mass has a velocity, then it has momentum.

>Bfags will argue with this

Ever pulled a plug out of a port? Dut the plug just split because you where transferring energy on just one side? Its energy affecting one side of an object, so the movement after that will be momentum of the box will be the original speed * the percentage of the box that's already after the portal.

There wouldn't be a trolley on it's way to kill that guy if you hadn't pulled the lever, though.

thats how you kill a meme ladies and gentlemen.

I think we can all agree that portals can't exist according to the laws of physics, and this problem highlights one of the basic problems with them.

The fact that people spend so much time legitimately arguing for either side of a paradox is pretty sad.

Yes, suddenly accelerating half of an object would cause it to pop into the air or, if violent enough, destroy the object. This is literally what happens when you pull on anything in real life -- you are directly accelerating only a portion of the atoms. What are you trying to say?

>Portals can't exist, therefore all theoretical scenarios involving portals are equally likely.

...

If you think that's what I was saying you're fucking retarded. All theoretical scenarios involving portals are equally impossible. Attempting to apply real life physics to them is idiotic, because they inherently violate the laws of physics.

The only argument that has any bearing is one supported by evidence from the game. They can ONLY exist in a fictional scenario, so look to the game they exist in for your answer.

>I hate thought experiments because I never learned how to think.

I'm not a foot guy but I think F is pretty nice
I also have no idea what the difference is between half of them

what that guy said, also the dude on the track is clearly sleeping, so he won't die in horrible pain

DELETE THIS RIGHT FUCKING NOW

It works in GMod

I don't think you have a firm grasp of relativity or of what a theoretical portal is.

Not canon.

This "thought experiment" isn't worth a shit. No reasonable conclusion can be drawn from it because the basic principles that it requires you to apply to it are invalidated by the properties of the system.

(You)

You should never touch the lever. The course it is initially on in no way concerns you, and is not your fault but if you touch the lever you are fully responsible for the death of whoever is on the track.

Neither are moving portals.

Explain why a portal on the moon, an object moving relative to the Earth, was in the game.

Okay? I guess you've reached the limit of your ability to argue. Don't know why you're participating in a "thought experiment" with that level of cognitive ability.

>not the extended version

Realistically, everything is moving.

>thought experiments are supposed to be conclusive.

Get a load of this chump.

Because Valve doesn't give a shit.

Valve has said it's realistically B though. They just didn't programme portals to act that way.

No, Valve said it's A.

Nah.

Someone's gotta post it...
youtu.be/mCQiwhik8nc

No.

all of them pls

Not canon.

Do people not form a conclusion by applying their knowledge to the scenario? Or is it just endless thought with no actual opinions formed? Forming a conclusion, and the experiment itself being conclusive are different things.

In reality there is no such thing as a conclusion, only a point where you get stuck.

Great, so you're saying it's perfectly valid to discuss this scenario and come to your own conclusion, contrary to what you've been shitposting over for a while now.

People aren't even arguing about portals any more, they're just arguing about arguing about portals.

>Happens in the game
>not cannon
Whether or not some (not all) fans denounce it does not mean that it isn't cannon. It has never been said in any audio log (correct me if I'm wrong) or in any writing that portals cannot move, and in fact the engine is programmed to allow it. So, despite the fact that portals are not typically allowed to move for gameplay reasons does not mean that they cannot move in universe.

As much as I enjoy the descriptions on some of the newer additions, it dilutes the point of the original and makes it less funny.

A saltybet style tier system being used to create a bill of matches ala Wrestlemania would be fucking great though.

>engine is programmed to allow it.

Proof?

Did you miss the video I just posted? It's from an official level in Portal 2.
Also, here is the command to allow it normally, from the Valve developer wiki: developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Portals_on_Moving_Surfaces

Video is probably from some fan mod and nobody gives a shit about what a fan wiki says..

...

jacksbaitandtackle.com/

Not at all. I was stating that I never implied a thought experiment had to be conclusive.

As far as this one goes, any conclusion is just as invalid and baseless as the other since the system in question invalidates the principles you apply to it to form that conclusion.

Fuck off shill.

That's a whole lot of buzzwords that end up saying nothing of substance.

It is a.
It has always been a.
Anyone who says b is either trolling, or legitimately unsure about physics.
Also, a is only correct if we are assuming that portals can be attached to moving surfaces.
If we are not assuming that, then neither a nor b would be correct.

Physics is just another part of nature that is always changing. It can be either A or B at times.

C, without hesitation, provided they have seams running up the back.

The system (the portals and cube) invalidates the principles you apply to it (the fundamental laws of physics) to form a conclusion. Therefore, your conclusion is baseless and no more valid than another. Was that easier to understand for you?

Your shaky understanding of physics can't compete with the pure logic that dictates it must be B.

it's theoretical physics, so theoretically couldn't it be argued that both could be plausible depending on how inertia is translated through portal technology?

Portals don't invalidate the laws of physics. Remember, speedy thing goes in, speedy thing goes out.

Well the portal technology we have available today shows A as being the more logical conclusion.

The only way it can be b is if the floor (where the cube is resting) is rising quickly, and the piston containing the portal doesn't move.

>unsure about physics
>portals can't exist according to physics
Why can't people just post the webm of someone doing it in-game and be done with it?

These threads are retarded. Post more trolley problems.