But half life three is coming out

What is they prank us and cancel it on the day that it’s supposed to be released on

STOP! you almost triggered the energy black hole that operates at the higgs field

They count to Alyx instead

Maybe it will not be half life 3 but half of 3 life, so that is half life 1.5.

Unrated comment

Speedy portal sucks something in shoots like cannon

But the cube isn't moving relative to the exit so it shouldn't be moving relatively when it comes out

@@crazynachos4230 but thats the thing the portal gives the energy to the cube shooting it out of the outside like a cannon

@@warpedmine9682 that's not how physics works tho, there is no force being applied to the cube, which means it cannot acquire velocity by Newton's first law. The Portal doesn't apply force, it's just a hole in space. The result would be the same as if the portal was just a wall with a hole in it.

how can it be anything but A if no forces are applied to the cube other than the gravitational force of the planet that changes when cube comes out of the other end resulting in it just ploping out?

@@Fr33mxyess!! Im thinking the same thing. If nothing but gravity is moving the box why would it fling up like that

@@zRuSh_XraYbecause as layer of the cube come out of the blue portal they will push the layer before them out as fast as new layers are forming which is the same as the orange portal’s speed. The orange portal makes the most scenes as the reference frame (thing the speed is measured based on) because the environment does not even need to be there for the experiment.

@@bigshot103 with that logic… if a door flies past me standing still… i get launched at supersonic speeds fo no reason…? Cus thats the pov of the box. Nothing makes the box move since nothing is aplying any force to it. (Exept gravity ofc, hence the flop)

@@zRuSh_XraY You’re missing the part where the rest of the world behind the door is also moving towards you in the case of portals. Your analogy doesn’t work because you’re only accounting for the door. If a portal is approaching you, the REST OF THE UNIVERSE behind the portal is also “approaching you.” A normal door does not “take” everything else with it, portals do.

except in one level of portal 2. where you can place in a moving surface when ||you and wheatley are cutting the neurotoxin supply|| although there is no way for the player to enter the portal

you can enable movable portals in console

@@marengo6990 how?

@@marengo6990 necc

@@ajgumpper necc

You would need to *perfectly* line it up though.

At this point it depends if the cup is half full or half empty

@@colingreen1006 that too it should have uniform distribution of mass

Umm you tried to out think the channel that is about physics so for that a sitting cat cannot sit

That is actually a very good thought experiment. Kudos.

Daniel Kröber I was looking for this comment xD it's been a very long while since I played the game, but I remember you are told it's not possible to place portals on moving surfaces, and if the surface with a portal starts moving the portal just fades

He referenced this in 0:55 . He is under the assumption "what if we can put it on a moving platform"

Except for that part near the end of Portal 2 where you put a portal in a moving surface?

@@GoudaBug right, the section where you had to cut the neurotoxin tubes with the lasers. Sadly, there's no way to actually go through the portals without console commands, but I'd assume it would be the same result as the portal moving down: no physical objects allowed.

What if the portal was a machine and was just pushed?

Do you have any published games that I can play? I want to see what kind of games you’ve made 😊

There's already a game similar to what you're describing, about wrapping around the screen edges. Look up "Four Sided Famtasy". I got 100% completion on it. Enjoy ...

You could always try to dampen any speed above the maximum natural speed that your character can attain by themselves without portals and call it simulated wind resistance.

I'd think of it like slamming down a ring around a wooden cube. Except the ring is now in two seperate places. Box go plop

@@SkyeBerryJam in the ring plopping down scenario The exit portal is moving opposite of the object exiting it canceling out the momentum. Imagine you have your exit portal on a wall and you're standing right next to it. Looking into it. The entrance portal is coming down at the box very fast so what you see is the box coming at you very fast. The box goes through the portal slams into you and sends you flying. Speedy thing go in. Speedy thing come out. It doesn't matter that everything else on the other side of the portal was stationary in reference to the box or the none of it went through the portal. The box was speedy going in so it must be speedy coming out. When a portal is moving literally everything is speedy relative to the portal.

@@ahrengroesch8774 I mean if we want to get really technical I think none of these things happen and we need to know how objects interact with the edge of portals/how gravity works for something with its two halves on opposite ends of a portal

@@SkyeBerryJam I am dying for someone to get technical with me on the topic of portal thought experiments. On interactions with the edges of portals, I lean towards it working effectively like it's just a plain hole in a flat surface. I see a portal less as teleporting something that goes through it, and more like creating a normal man sized hole in a wall/ceiling/floor that has another universe on the other side of it that is also the same universe from a different direction. I think you could grab the inside edge of a portal just like you could stick your hand through and hold onto a hole in anything. On gravity, it being described as the bending of space time, and a portal seeming to be connected tears in space time, I lean towards gravity from either side stopping at the portal. Thus if you were half way through it you would be pulled or pushed in both directions. So if both portals were on the floor you could float there feeling pressure in the middle of yourself. Or if both were on a ceiling it would feel like you were being pulled in two. I believe this is a plausible explanation explain of the behavior observed in the game. If you think none of the video's or my explanations thus far is how it would work I'm dying to know your ideas.

Okay but what you see and what is happening are not the same thing.

So what happens when a stationary thing goes in? A stationary thing can't come out

@@trash9378 yes it can. Replace the term portal with hole. The hole is in motion, not the box. the hole is being pushed down around the box. Only external forces on the other side cause it to fall over.

Option A is the correct one by any means, I don't know why would anyone even question that, portals are just a continuation of certain space in one place on another place, they only transfer the existing mass and energy as a continuation of space, they are not some energy generating force.

@@trash9378 The answer is "Momentum, a function of mass and velocity, is conserved between portals. In layman's terms:stationary thing doesn't go in because it's stationary! Stationary things can't go."

@@cyraknoss Technically the velocity being measured is the velocity at which the object enters the portal. Although the object may seem stationary to you, to the portal it is moving toward it at a rate of distance over time. Think of it as you riding a train. You are stationary, however, you also maintain the velocity of that train.

the entire universe is running on source engine.

No no, it’s option *3* .

@@hiu2ying *critical error*

You call d the teir zoo route or else

Option E: Portal crashes to desktop and a pop-up with the secret download link for portal 3 is shown

Very true

Exactly.

Yeah but that's kinda the game's fault at this point

True, but the entry point is stationary, and only the exit point moves. It doesn't create the same paradox, since entry and exit are different when thjnking about the paradox

@@TheSpyroplayer Now that I think about it, you are right. The entry portal is still, and the exit portal is moving, but the thing moving through the portals is light; a laser. Light always travels at C.

I want that person as my teacher

Fucking legend

Good teachers are the ones who've realized the indelible impact of well made KZfaq videos. Thankfully my teachers understood that back in my days and showed us episodes of Reading Rainbow and Bill Nye the Science Guy in class.

Great teacher.

Which part or game

no they are not. if drop a tube on the ball it would not be launce up into the tube. if you however slam the ball into the tube it would. its not essentailly the same at all.

@@erikcarl2384 what I need context here, what tube, and what ball?

@@SleepyFunkin any tube and any ball that fits into a tube. you dont need any context.

@@erikcarl2384 No, it is. You're assuming there's a surface the ball is sitting on. Physically speaking, if you move a tube over a ball floating in space, such that the ball goes through the tube, it's the same thing as moving the ball through a stationary floating tube. This is the main principle behind the theory of special relativity. The common example provided for this, is an elevator floating in space with you inside of it. You feel yourself being pulled to the bottom of the elevator at an acceleration of 10m/s^2. You cannot see outside the elevator. You are tasked with discerning which of the following is true: a) You are inside an elevator that is accelerating upwards; or b) You are inside a stationary elevator that is near a massive body, and are thus experiencing a gravitational pull Which is it? You actually can't tell. If the elevator were to accelerate upwards at a constant rate-let's say 10m/s^2-you would feel the elevator pushing up against you with a force proportional to that acceleration (due to F=ma). If there were a gravitational field, perhaps that of a planet nearby (but invisible to you since you are inside the elevator), pulling you down at a rate of 10m/s^2, and if the elevator were stationary in this case, you'd likewise feel the elevator pushing up on you with the same force. Einstein's theory basically says that, no, there is no way of differentiating these two scenarios: "The laws of physics are invariant (identical) in all inertial frames of reference."

The thing is that reactionary forces only applies to objects that COLLIDE with eachother. If there was no portal, then yes the cube getting hit by the wall and the wall getting hit by the cube would be the same, but since the cube doesn't collide with anything, it simply goes through the portal unaffected, and thus does not react to anything.

Except in your analogy, both portals would essentially be moving, not just one of them. If you throw a door frame (entry and exit), you're throwing both portals (entry and exit). But in this conundrum, only one of the portals is moving. So how are you gonna throw only one side of a door frame? The correct answer is B.

@@Athinira I can see where you are coming from but that's not quite how I see it. I just have a hard time seeing how the portals are impeding a force on the object. I see a port as infinitely thin if some goes in one side it comes out the other maintaining its own momentum. So If you go through a portal that's coming at you rapidly it would act just as if you walked through the portal and came out the other side. I'd love to make a video on it to better explain my point of view.

​@@edbproductions Let me put up a scenario for you then. Imagine that you have the Orange portal on a moveable ceiling (that is, the portal is facing downwards). Imagine you have the blue portal on the floor (facing up). Now, imagine that you are halfway through the portal. Your lower body (waist down) is on the orange portal side, standing on the floor below the orange portal on that ceiling. Your upper body is sticking out of the blue portal on the floor. Suddenly the moveable ceiling with the orange portal slams down to the floor fast, bringing your whole body through the orange portal so you're now fully on the side of the blue portal. What is going to happen? Well, initially, your upper body has no momentum. It's just stationarily sticking out of the floor. But once the orange portal comes down, your upper body needs to move up to make room for your legs coming through the portal (assuming that the force the ceiling smahes with isn't enough to just crush your legs). However, moving requires momentum. To move anything, momentum has to be build. Therefore, once the orange portal touches your floor, this entire time, the lower part of your body on the orange portal side has been pushing the parts of your body that has already passed through the portal. Pushing builds momentum, just like if i pushed you in real life. So once the orange portal touches the floor and stops, your body will continue and do a small jump. The thing people get wrong here is the transfer of power. Usually people would assume that there is no transfer of power, therefore there can be no momentum. There is however a transfer of power. The power in this case just doesn't come from the floor you're standing on, but rather from the moveable ceiling with the portal. Since the ceiling is moving, it has momentum. And it's that momentum (rather than the momentum from a stationary floor or platform) that is transferred to your body.

@@Athinira ok I've been absolutely spiraling for like an hour thinking about different references planes, portal orientation, 1 portal moving 1 not, both portal moving, moving in the same direction moving in opposite directions..... Etc. Honestly at the end of it all I feel like both of our arguments have equal standings. Because here's one counter argument for gaining from a portal like in your example. If you are standing in front of a stationary portal and the portal is going 100+mph on the other side could you physically move through your stationary portal on your side without moving at least 100+mph. Because In my head you could poke your out and it would be moving 100+mph and your feet would still be stationary.

@@edbproductions Yes, that's exactly what would happen. Your two body parts would be moving at different speeds. Imagine this scenario: You're standing stationary in front of a statinary orange portal. You poke your hand through. The other side of the portal (blue) is moving sideways at 100 kph (sorry, I'm european - no mph 😉 ) in a completely wind-still environment. Would you feel the air brush against your hand even though there's no wind? Of course, because since the portal is moving 100 kmh, so is your hand. That makes it a 100 kmh difference between the wind speed and your hand, even if the rest of your body is standing still. For the air to brush against your hand, there HAS to be a difference of speed between air and hand - even if it _appears_ from the side you're standing at that it's the wind blowing. So imagine something else: You're standing in front of a stationary portal. On the other side is a portal moving at 100 kph towards a floor. You poke just the front of your head through the portal and see the floor zooming towards your head. Would the floor smash your head once the portal reaches it, even though the floor is technically stationary? What if you didn't put your head through the portal, but the floor had a spear sticking out that would eventually enter the portal and hit you on the other side. Would it impale you through the portal, even though it's stationary? The answer is obviously: Yes.

Everything is speedy relative to something else. If the object exits at the same velocity relative to the ground, it would not exit at all. If the object exits slower than the velocity that the portal moves towards it, the object would compress. If the object passes through the speedy portal and its spacial dimensions do not change, than the object must be speedy.

@@CmdrShepard1001 i’m speedy relative to your mom

@@deffinatalee7699 lmao legend

Somewhere in the middle becuase the inertias would start to build on one side of the cube while the other is still moving relatively slow

slow. imagine istead of a portal it's just a hole. portals are like holes that defy euclidean space.

That just opens up another problem: What do they mean by "not moving"? How is a reference frame chosen and with what justification? Also, aren't there two exceptions? The one where you shoot it onto the moving platform and the one where you shoot it on the moon which I'm pretty sure is not stationary with respect to earth.

just go into the console and enable that

Well this and it also the programming headaches.

No that's not right. At the end you open a portal on the moon and it works. And the moon is moving damn fast.

@@SuperDeinVadda Don't forget the moving panels in the neurotoxin generator scene. The player was prohibited from ever placing moving portals in any situation where they could be interacted with directly. That doesn't mean they can't canonically be moving.

You just described the option, where the speed is measured relative to the portal. You described what would happen if the speed is measured from the cube in relation to the portal, not in relation to the environment...

If the cube is now has velo of 2 but blue portal still has velo of 1, then the gross momentum of the system is now 3 units where it was 2 units before entering the portal.

@@venomo2868 yes, and that breaks the universe and your cube may become dark matter

Portals do not affect inertia, the cube would not gain speed nor would it move in either scenario.

@@Izzmonster until more than half of it is out of the exit portal, then gravity would pull it over onto the ground.

Yeah, this was my thought. That companion cube is now a companion parallelogram.

Just remember at a gaming event Gabe said "yove killed more than 2 people but less than 4" Like come on just say 3

Portals *can* move so long as the surface they're on is moving within the same plane, and not changing orientation. As in, not on a surface that lifts, pivots, or flips.

connor harker Oh my god, did he actually said that? Give me the damn link!

@@stardustcorpse It can, because the velocity is relative to the portal. If the portal flips then the object flips too. In space we measure by relativity so instead of measuring its velocity relatively to earth we measure its velocity relatively to the portal. That way it is as if the object is standing still but just surrounded by a moving gravity.

Six comments, divide by portal 2... Portal 3 confirmed!

Gaben is pleased

Steam sales pushing educational technology since...

I bought it yesterday :)

@@skeletonrowdie1768 Playstation VR Convenience Store Simulator Demonstration?

What about one portal moving into the the other end??

My man

Then wtf is teleportation

That's why I imagine it as A. If blue portal was on a wall, and orange portal was above you moving down wards, you would be half in one portal and half in the other. Legs would be glued to the floor due to gravity until enough of your weight was through the blue portal and then you'd fall to the floor there. From the perspective of blue portal, it would look like the floor you are on is the part moving, moving up and putting you through. It wouldn't behave any different than a doorway moving past you when you're standing still, you just have to factor how you'll be impacted by different gravity on different parts of your body.

Teleportation is Half-Lifes thing. It is used to move to point a between dimensions to move to point b. It is brought back in 2 where they manages to just sling past Xen and just telelport, but it takes some time and I am sure it Deatamizes you in one space and Reatamizes you in another. Portals'... portal's are just tears in space time or a small form a time travel as in Portal 2 Cave Johnson mentions that the you in a Portal is you from another time, so don't stare at it. Also portals are like folding a piece of paper and poking a hole through it to walk through between those points. You stay as you just moving through a hole instantly. So you are you just walking through what is essential a door.

So you could imagine that the portal accelerating to you would be like a door accelerating to you. Option A is the answer.

exactly. imagine i drop a hula hoop around someone, they pass right through it. the fact that one side of the hoop is on the other side of the room is completely irrelevant.

Not on console sadly

@@kiven_gamez4474 ...why not? Ive played portal 1 on 360 and portal two on both console and PC. They seemed great except you can't play the costume maps on console (that's how it was 7+ years ago, things may have changed)

*at least once . ?

Kiven_Gamez I play 1 and 2 on Xbox 1 bruh 🤣 what world you live in?

I've played portal 2 at least 30 times

*_"When an object with rapid downward motion falls through one portal, that is translated to the same momentum but aimed forward when launching out of a cortical portal"_* That change in direction is a change in momentum. Direction is a part of momentum so changing direction is changing momentum. In other words a major part of A's argument, that portals do not change an object's momentum isn't actually true. You may say that it still means the momentum only changes in direction, but that's the other thing. The claim that momentum only changed in direction is only ever going to be true in a single reference frame. A change in momentum in only direction means a change in magnitude in every other reference frame. Meaning when you make the claim that portals only change momentum in direction you are reliant on using a single reference frame and there has to be a reason for which reference frame that is. And normally that reason is that it's the reference frame where both ends of the portal are stationary. However that's the problem, because by saying that portals only alter momentum by direction, specifically in the reference frame decided by the state of motion of the portals you are saying the motion of the portals are actually significant to how they alter the momentum of objects passing through them. Which is the very thing you are trying to argue isn't the case.

the object has momentum relative to the moving portal

The simple correct answer from physics point of view is... such a portal can't exist at all, since according to theory of relativety information can't be transferred faster than speed of light... and all people here basically are just trying to find a way to cheat Einstein's law, which is impossible provided that we understand physics laws correctly. And if we don't... well, we have nothing else to work with anyway, so we either stuck with theory of relativety or have to wait for new information before we can discuss the subject further.

Exactly, and in order for something to enter a portal, it must have some relative movement toward said portal. Whether it's the portal or the object that are in motion shouldn't matter in that respect. I'd imagine if portals like these actually did exist, they'd lead to quite a few changes in our current understanding of physics.

Aaron Yeetosaurous yep why did they make this video it’s obviously a

Aaron Yeetosaurous the thing is not speedy, the thing it’s going through is though. If stood on a platform and a ring was lowered down to your feet really fast would you get yote out? No.

@@robertjones6891 if you drop a slab of wood with a hole over a rubiks cube. Does the same apply?

@@kevinvu5432 both ends of the hole have opposite velocities relative to the cube so it cancels out

I go with the B option even tho I work as a programmer

Jesus christ. You're a next level masochist. I'm having a difficult enough time just with CS

This your time, to discover your real you; my advice; follow you heart

You wanna get more confused? Imagine the portal wouldnt move at all and the moving pillar would be pushed through the entrance portal from the backside. With enough pressure anything bigger than the portal would just be cut off. But when its true that the portal doesnt move at all, it wouldnt move with the earth spinning and flying through the universe thus cutting a giant hole in the earth while the earth is moving through the portal. Although i guess the portal cant not move since relativity or smth

Portals are just holes that happen to connect, if you cut a hole in a piece of cardboard and set a leggo in a table then slammed the cardboard with the hole onto the lego so that the lego went thru the hole would it shoot out the other end?

*_"Since Portals are merely connections to different points in space (spatial coordinates), the speed of the object is relative to points in space connected by the portal, not the portals themselves."_* Which still means that the cube in the problem before even entering the portal is determined to be moving relative to that point in space over time. *_"Portals are not objects. It is better to think of them as locations, albeit connected when they otherwise would not be."_* This is splitting hairs, if you have a definable location that changes over time then you have a means with which to measure something's relative velocity. Even if the portal itself is to be argued to not be an object (or not moving) the surface the portal is consistently affixed to certainly can be. *_"Portals don't move; they are reference frames for location and thus have no motion of their own. Any perceived movement is an optical illusion caused by the portal connecting a sequence of locations in rapid succession."_* This is also splitting hairs, whether the portals constant change in location is to be considered movement or not it's still a measurement of significance since it's the reference frame where the two ends of the portal don't change in location where the portal will maintain an object's speed. Since by changing an object's direction of travel the portals will alter an object's speed in all other reference frames. *_"Gravity, as illustrated in your picture."_* The picture actually depicts a blue portal that is pointing entirely sideways. In order for gravity to be the reason the cube exits in that direction, gravity would have to have been taking it sideways. *_"Not exactly. It's a matter of spatial geometry, but plenty of people confuse it with relativity and Newtonian physics because of the optical illusion of motion."_* The portal's manipulation of object motion is never shown to be an illusion. Whenever they change an object's velocity by changing its direction of travel (which also means it changes the object's speed in most frames of reference) the change is always shown to be a very real change to the object's state of motion: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d7mFiLFhvJrDeo0.html *_"Portals don't move, so the Cube would exit the portal according to its vector, shooting straight up."_* Amusing observation to make about the animation in the video for that answer. It basically gets the animation wrong as the cube would have to be moving sideways going out the blue portal in order for it to line up with how it appears at the corresponding end going in. The animation basically tries to cover up that there would need to be a point where the cube's apparent motion going through the portal needs to change in order for it to shoot upwards like that, which contradicts the base intuition with portal behaviour that travelling through them should look seamless. Hell, if the portal's manipulation of motion work as it does in the games (per-particle, as it's possible for two parts of an object to be moving in completely different directions as it's passing through the portal) then the cube shooting straight upwards would require the structure of the cube to get distorted.

@@J4hk3 "Which still means that the cube in the problem before even entering the portal is determined to be moving relative to that point in space over time." In a real-world application, yes. The rotation of the Earth by itself would be a major factor in the motion and vector of the Cube. However, the thought experiment concerns itself only for exploring the implications of the relative motion of portals to the Cube, so I played along. The Cube is not moving relative to any coordinate in the scenario. "This is splitting hairs, if you have a definable location that changes over time then you have a means with which to measure something's relative velocity." Neither the portal or the coordinates connected to the portal are in motion. They have zero velocity. "Even if the portal itself is to be argued to not be an object (or not moving) the surface the portal is consistently affixed to certainly can be" That has no effect on the outcome. "the two ends of the portal don't change in location where the portal will maintain an object's speed." Space has no speed. If the cube possesses no speed relative to the space it occupies (its spatial coordinates), and those spatial coordinates has no speed relative to the coordinates on the other side of the portal, this will be maintained as the cube passes through the portal. Its speed relative to the space it occupies will remain zero, no matter what the speed that the surface of the portal is consistently affixed to is traveling at. "The picture actually depicts a blue portal that is pointing entirely sideways. In order for gravity to be the reason the cube exits in that direction, gravity would have to have been taking it sideways." When the cube exits the blue portal, it does so by dropping downwards with a 'plop'. Those two visual cues indicate gravity has been acting upon the cube, just as I'd described. "Whenever they change an object's velocity by changing its direction of travel" Neither the cube's velocity or vector are changed. "Hell, if the portal's manipulation of motion work as it does in the games" I never played the games, so I'll take your word for it.

@@TheInfiniteSheldon *_"The Cube is not moving relative to any coordinate in the scenario."_* It's moving relative to the piston the orange portal is on. Which is ultimately the cube's entrance velocity into the portal. *_"That has no effect on the outcome."_* You were supposedly trying to argue that measuring the cube's velocity relative to the portal (calculating the entrance velocity of the cube) can't be done because the portal isn't a physical object, but the cube's motion relative to the matter the portal is affixed to produces the same intended measurement. *_"Space has no speed. If the cube possesses no speed relative to the space it occupies (its spatial coordinates), and those spatial coordinates has no speed relative to the coordinates on the other side of the portal, this will be maintained as the cube passes through the portal. Its speed relative to the space it occupies will remain zero, no matter what the speed that the surface of the portal is consistently affixed to is traveling at."_* Spatial coordinates are still a relative measurement, coordinate systems ultimately use something as its point of reference. And if we're going to go by a co-ordinate system that judges the cube as motionless then that's just the cube's movement relative to the earth, or whatever planet the given problem is taking place on. What the video is trying to explain is that there is no reason for the behaviour of the portal to treat the earth's frame of reference as special. In the end, if you're claiming that the cube is motionless on exit because it was motionless on entrance, then really you're claiming that the cube's state of motion (both its speed and the direction its travelling) can never be changed by a portal. But going by established portal behaviour from the games, that isn't true. *_"When the cube exits the blue portal, it does so by dropping downwards with a 'plop'. Those two visual cues indicate gravity has been acting upon the cube, just as I'd described."_* Again the exit portal at 2:39 is pointing entirely sideways. The cube very clearly isn't exiting by "dropping downwards" as exiting would require a sideways motion. You were asked how the cube exits the portal, not how the cube falls on the ground. Yes there is gravity, it's clearly not the reason why the cube exits. *_"Neither the cube's velocity or vector are changed."_* I linked to you an actual physics professor pointing out that portals do change object velocity vectors. The portal interaction in the games show that an object's defined velocity is shown to be different before and after leaving the portal, within the same frame of reference or coordinate system. This demonstrates that going by the games that the portals can change an object's velocity and momentum. *_"I never played the games, so I'll take your word for it."_* Will you take my word for it that going by the games it's B then? I get the impression that you're trying to move away from the game's depiction of portals and explain how you think that portals would actually work. This question is very much rooted in the games' depiction of how portals work (after all I doubt the notion of being able to attach portals to physical surfaces is all that realistic either) with the physics of the question being then applying that established behaviour to good physics knowledge. You could make an argument on how you think portals would really behave while acknowledging that it contradicts the game's depiction of them. Thing is, it is still kind of necessary for portals to be able to alter the velocity/momentum of objects in order to serve as seamless passages (this video suggests this can be treated as a conservation of momentum in "a curved spacetime"). Otherwise it really does seem like you'd get the "cube flatten" result that the video talks about. In other words if the motion of matter really was unchanged on travelling through the portal (each particle on leaving the portal maintains its current state of motion, meaning they all end up at the same point). I said that the portals appear to operate per-particle in the games but that's obviously how it would work in real physics as well. Or the particles end up pushing into each other, which is just an alternate explanation for B.

@@J4hk3 “It's moving relative to the piston the orange portal is on.” Which may have been relevant, had the narrator not introduced the additional observational frames of reference on both sides of the portal. When you account for all observational frames of reference, the piston is confirmed to be the only thing in motion. “You were supposedly trying to argue that measuring the cube's velocity relative to the portal (calculating the entrance velocity of the cube) can't be done “ To the contrary, it can be done. I even measured the cube’s velocity relative to the portal. It’s zero. “And if we're going to go by a co-ordinate system that judges the cube as motionless then that's just the cube's movement relative to the earth, or whatever planet the given problem is taking place on.” In my previous comment, not only did I draw attention to the implications of the angular rotation of the Earth, I pointed out that the narrator is disinterested in accounting for these motions entirely and clarified that I am doing the same in the spirit of resolving the narrator’s so-called ‘paradox’. “But going by established portal behaviour from the games, that isn't true.” I am indifferent to the games. “exiting would require a sideways motion.” No, it would not. A portal is a distortion in spatial geometry which affects the space that the Cube occupies. The Cube is not in motion, the coordinates that it occupies merely change. “You were asked how the cube exits the portal” And I answered, addressing both the scenario that the narrator presented as well as the illustrations made for the video. The first question specifically was “How could a stationary object exit a stationary portal while remaining stationary?” (2:39) My answer in my OP included ‘without gravity affecting anything, it would simply appear to be exiting when in reality the space it is occupying has become a different coordinate.’ The second question specifically was “The object would have to move, right?” (2:44) And I answered in my OP clearly stated ‘Only if acted upon by an outside force such as gravity. Your illustration involves such a force.’ Take it up with the illustrator. The illustrator depicted motion that is only possible in the presence of gravity and I accounted for that. “I linked to you an actual physics professor” I don’t care what physics professors have to say about video games. “Will you take my word for it that going by the games it's B then?” Yes. I will accept that you are a subject matter expert on the games’ coding. “I get the impression that you're trying to move away from the game's depiction of portals and explain how you think that portals would actually work.” I am explaining how portals actually work. The way they would work in a game is dependent entirely on how the game is coded for its engine, and that is uninteresting to me. Explaining how they actually work resolves the so-called paradox, but the if the narrator was concerned with how the games would handle it, the narrator should confine the answer to the games’ coding. “ it is still kind of necessary for portals to be able to alter the velocity/momentum of objects in order to serve as seamless passages “ This clearly isn’t necessary. Portals are just space and space itself exerts no forces. “ if the motion of matter really was unchanged on travelling through the portal (each particle on leaving the portal maintains its current state of motion, meaning they all end up at the same point).” There is no compressive force acting upon the Cube to flatten it, so its relative dimensions would be conserved. “Or the particles end up pushing into each other” There is no forces being applied that would result in a push. This is entirely a matter of spatial geometry. The reason you are reaching an incorrect conclusion is because you are introducing forces that do not exist in the actual scenario while overlooking observational frames of reference that were introduced by the narrator.

@@TheInfiniteSheldon *_"I don’t care what physics professors have to say about video games."_* He's talking about the consequences of an aspect of portals you already agreed to. When you gave your answer to 4:04 you said the cube shoots straight upwards, despite having initially been dropped downwards, regardless your view on the portal moving you still recognise that portals can change the direction the cube was moving in. The professor in the video is telling you that is literally a change in velocity and momentum. The portal changes velocity and momentum when it changes the direction something is moving within the same reference frame, this also means a change in speed when looking at the other reference frames, which is important for determining how portals will behave when they don't remain in a fixed position. *_"Which may have been relevant, had the narrator not introduced the additional observational frames of reference on both sides of the portal. When you account for all observational frames of reference, the piston is confirmed to be the only thing in motion."_* That's not how reference frames work. By their very nature reference frames give differing measurements for the motion of objects, if you're accounting for every frame of reference there is not going to be a definitive measurement. They are all equally true under the fact that they are all interpreting the same thing measured from different perspectives. This means if an argument is built on the idea of finding an absolute reference frame in order to specifically disregard any other then it is not scientifically sound, especially if this absolute reference frame is one that is really just the reference frame of whatever planet the experiment is conducted on. *_"My answer in my OP included ‘without gravity affecting anything, it would simply appear to be exiting when in reality the space it is occupying has become a different coordinate."_* Yeah I did wonder why you were trying to argue that gravity was the reason the cube leaves the portal given that you already acknowledged that it would leave it even without gravity. The cube clearly isn't exiting a sideways facing portal by "dropping downwards". I've grasped that you're arguing that the cube hasn't actually left the portal until you think it actually moves but that's a really bizarre way of looking at it given the cube is to all intents and purposes on the other side of the portal, it's even implied to be effected by the gravity on the other side. *_"This clearly isn’t necessary. Portals are just space and space itself exerts no forces."_* If you think this is clear then I don't think you've grasped the problem. Imagine you have two cubes ten metres away form each other floating in space, a portal travels (or whatever wording you are happy with) towards them and engulfs both of them, one after another. The exiting end of the portal is also in space, completely stationary much like the exit in the problem. Do you believe that the first cube on exiting will remain in place due to its lack of velocity, so that the next cube will end up exiting into it? I could see you arguing that the space the cube occupies keep getting moved, but that's not how you described how a "moving" portal works, which is that they are _"connecting a sequence of locations in rapid succession",_ not that they are actively shifting the "spatial coordinates" potentially massive distances beyond the exit portal. Now, if you say the former, that the two cubes end up together due to them both exiting at the exit portal at the place and remaining there. Well apply that concept to the individual particles of a single cube. You'll basically end up with the very thing you insisted required a compressive force. It's not that the portals themselves are necessarily creating forces, it's that even if it isn't, forces are going to naturally happen as a result of the space occupying the matter getting shifted, you already agreed to something similar happening when you acknowledge the object experiencing shifts in their relative direction of gravity on entering portals.

Yes, The first law of portal physics.

In layman’s terms:

But the thing isn't speedy. The things "speed" relative the environment is 0. That's the entire point of this video.

@@Arkouchie yes but relative to the Portal there is speed

Is it bad I read that in glados's voice

RiꜱᴇnHᴇᴇd 1$=0.81€

I think it is. Cause we have Summer Sale. And Valve gives good offs of their products.

It's Steam Summer Sale. Valve always makes their games dirt cheap during this time.

TBH Valve has frequently given Portal (1) away for free several times. But I'm guessing by "not a coincidence" you mean to imply that the sale is what brought it to the top of Minute Physics' mind.

Great games for cheap prices...

This. On the first side of the portal the cube has no momentum, but once it moves to the other side, it does have momentum. The movement doesn't just go away, so it would have to be retained, causing it to shoot out.

XD

I remember she said something like this when trying to beat wheatley with paradoxes.

Yes I answer yes Wheatly 2011

True, I’ll go true

"Don't think about it. Don't think about it. Don't think about it. Don't think about it." Glados 2011

so A, right?

@@Lance3015 it'd still be B. From the perspective of the side of the ring the cube is leaving, it's still coming out of that side at a certain velocity relative to it, therefore that velocity would be maintained.

@@hushwonder2070 Not true, it makes no interaction with the cube itself therefore it would not carry over the velocity. There is effectively no space; open air in-between the portal boundaries and they've never interfered with the objects passing through them like you say

@@Wert-eo7sz Maybe the portal is not moving but disappearing and reappearing at a different point in space quickly that case the object would go through you. and the laws of physics still would work.

@@Wert-eo7sz Our current understanding of the universe isn't very great...

Space moving around an object is identical to that object moving within the space, motion is relative. *_"obviously it would retain its speed relative to the environment"_* What's "the environment"? There's no reason for the portals to treat earth's reference frame as special, as we see in the games portals don't even have to be placed on earth. So when you say that speed is retained relative to an environment, the only rule that would be consistent is to use the reference frame where both ends of the portal are stationary. But there isn't one in the problem. If you go by the entrance portal's reference frame, that's the one where the cube is actually moving, which then explains how the cube can exit on the other end. Essentially the cube exits at the velocity it enters with, which sounds obvious, but the key thing is that entrance and exit velocities in inherently relative terms to the entrance and exit, including both relative speed, and relative direction. This just requires accepting that there isn't already a reference frame where the speed gets conserved. Going by the moon scene in portal 2 though that is already the case, we outright see that Chell's speed changes when she ends up at the moon, as being at the moon means moving with the moon, which actually moves incredibly fast in orbit.

Yeah... I think Valve notice that it would be even more tricky to move the portals around, so they made every puzzle with static portals XD

There is one puzzle in Portal 2 that has you putting a portal on a platform that is moving vertically, so lasers can cut down a pipe. I think the dev commentary says that is the only instance in the whole game such thing happens, every other moving object (a hatch door, for example) instantly disintegrates the portal it has on.

@@geraq0 portals can only be placed on conductive surfaces. The doors aren't conductive,and aren't coated in conductive material either. That's why you can make portals on white surfaces, because that has ground up moon rocks. The white gel is made with moon dust,which is why it makes surfaces conductive. And the ending of Portal 2 shows this as well.

@@c0ldshock927 Yes, I know that. That wasn't my point at all. I was talking about hatches activated by switches, for example, that change angles hence deleting any portal created over them.

Earth is moving.

I'm not sure what you mean by "crushed". A cube travels through a portal or through a hole. Please elaborate.

Yep

@cak01vej this would obviously not be the case for wormholes, as I think you already know!

@cak01vej don't forget that portals are essentialy just doors that open elsewhere so using a portal like this would act the same way as hitting a static object on a table with a tennis racket without strings the only loophole is the laws of gravity not momentum

@cak01vej That would hurt a bit

B seems the most intuitive and so also applies to the final puzzle: object would exist at an angle.

We definitely need to think about accelerating portals.

Its just /v/ shilling

@@luck3949 but first, let's talk about parallel universes

327likes in 1hours? I cant even get 10likes in year

You're so original

@@MikeMichelson-vv4zb it'd be like if I had a cup and slammed it down around a wooden block. The block doesn't jump up and hit the bottom of the cup, it stays still, if the entrance to the cup, is just a portal this time, I'd expect the same result. It's fun to speculate either way and I DO realise that this video is just for fun speculation

Exactly what I thought, it wouldn't flatten, gravity would pull the heavier side of the block, the one leaving portal B, completely out of the portal.

It should fall off the second portal, right?

Kurokami Reaper It should, yes

@@Certrix, it would flatten. Since the tiny bit first teleported stays in the frame of the teleporter, it experiences gravity from the sites of both the entry and exit portals.

@@Sivah_Akash That doesn't make sense. The normal force of the ground pushing on your feet equals the force gravity is pulling you down with. You don't flatten

moon rotation yes

i mean.. they must be able to move since we are all moving.

That moment is near the middle.

your logic can apply to earth too, making the portal gun useless

@@moonl1314 earth moving too)

conversely, if a speedy thing comes out, a speedy thing went in

Counterpoint momentum is not conserved because the direction of the object changes therefore glados is a lying pos

When neither portal is moving 👍 When one of the portals is moving with constant speed as in 0 acceleration the object passing trough orange portal experience 0 acceleration and comes out of blue portal with same speed as Orange Portal had. What happens when you stop the portal mid point of the box? in that moment when you stop the portal instantly in place trough the object is felt two foces that pull each other one tries to stay still and other is moving 50km/h and if your human neck can with stand that kind of instant pull 😏 15 hours later while super drunk someone said "it is like hula hula rim!" and we came in to conclusion the moment you slam it to someones head and start pulling the head should be flying off in the most brutal way possible 😂

yeah but it's not "speedy portal rams into, speedy thing comes out"

@@valentinorubio703 I spend 17h drunk arguing about this topic and to sum it up: Orange Portal's speed is given to the object without acceleration. Everything else ended up with "Well that that can't be right" and we also never agreed who of us won the argument :D perhaps we all lost.

But that's for stationary portals. Moving portals would be different because their rules aren't defined in the game.

Therefore, 'Stationary thing comes in, Stationary thing comes out" #thinkinglikeaprogrammer

yes they are, portal 2 has a moving portal in the section where you cut neurotoxin pipes, and the laser exiting the portal has the same wavelength/colour as the one entering.

@@ChrisPepper1989 I read that as pro gamer

TornadoATP but the portals obey the laws of nature it exists in. And the cube has no momentum while the portal has one. This cannot be translated without adding energy to the cube. So either the portal translates energy from the portal itself to an object. Option B. Or its the objects momentum that matters. Option A.

They do obey conservation of momentum like he said yet he is still drawing the conclusion b that "if fast go in fast go out" If the cube was on a pillar, the pillar wouldnt be send flying just because a hole slammed into it. And the cube would rest on top of the pillar until the gravity on the blue side would pull harder than the gravity on the orange side

Actually, gravity would also be transported by the portal, so if you put one end on earth and one end in space, you would be pulled towards the portal as if it were the earth's surface.

fghsgh To be really technical in that situation, (to the point of being a dick) wouldn’t the jet of air coming through the portal into the vacuum outweigh that of the earths gravity? (A bit like the end of portal 2, the jet of air was greater than that of earth’s gravity and moon’s gravity combined. Enough to launch Wheatley & Space core into space)

fghsgh Another question would be how the portal would project the gravity of the earth?

@@coolguysbro101 The air may push you through the portal, but you'd still feel the gravity as only your skin gets pushed up but everything gets pulled down. So you can still feel the gravity, but you may be vacuumed through. If, however, you keep the portal open for long enough and the pressure evens out, gravity will have its influence back.

@@fghsgh Following the premise that portals do exist, they could not allow to gravity to pass through them because if they did their own existence would not be possible, since the implications of the bent of space time caused by gravity would affect the meter around the other portal leading to a massive tidal affects in the earth what would most likely tear apart the planet.

The part of the cube that's gained movement ends up pulling on the part that hasn't, it's not that absurd. The same thing can also happen under A's logic as well. Just have the cube being pushed up by the platform it's on, so that even A agrees the cube is moving on exit, but then as the cube is half way through the entrance portal, have it suddenly move up really quickly so the cube being pushed up can't catch up with it on its own. The part of the cube that's already through the portal and moving will end up pulling the part still to go in the portal resulting in a similar effect of the cube getting pulled into the portal. B has happened even in Portal canon.

Except in the one part of portal two when they changed it for the sake of a fun mini-puzzle. And also the moon

Well. Only time the portals ever move relative to their surroundings is portal 2, the neurotoxin generator.

@@link_team3855 And how do the portals work? A or B?

@@luken2o223 can't be a you would be smushed like a pancake force on an object causes another to move except in videogames, like Minecraft the speed you go when you tp, you would be dead.

Luke N2O it was moving sideways, not vertically, so some argue “you can’t move them forwards and backwards in the direction they face, so it doesn’t count!” You could still do the test at the end of the video, however.

I don't think so. In Portal 2, when you're destroying the neurotoxin tubing, you do utilize portals that move relative to each other.

except if they are moving continously at the same speed

How about the moon portal?

In Portal 2 there is 1 moving portal

No there's moving platforms in Portal.

What force is acting upon the cube in the games to cause it to change momentum whenever it changes direction of travel?

@Cris Angelo D.C I think that that was actually a storage unit not a generator but wheatley was kinda dumb so he thought it made it

That's what I was thinking about

So weird how it's just that one spot where it works and nowhere else

Ascaban I’m p sure u can do it in Portal 2 custom editor

@@makinbacon21 you cant. as far as i know, there is a console command that, if 'true' causes a portal to disappear if the ground they're on moves. that command always stays active, apart from that one level.

Ok but, doors and doorways aren't the same thing.

@@Doglover745 yes and a doorway is literally a portal

@@Theepic750 yes but, this is about the hypothetical kind. Which is clearly not what you're talking about.

@@Theepic750 I didn't think it was complicated, like the orange one comes down to the cube on the platform, then on the blue one you'd just have the the cube on top of the platform, with just the the cube fully thru, and then it changes to the relative gravity once thru, your literally just tossing a hoolahoop on the cube, and what sposed to go thru pops out of the other hoolahoop

Or what about if the platform the box was on is moving relative the portal speed, but the portal isn’t moving this time. It would shoot out, right?

Portals in the games show that they don't merely teleport or lead something somewhere else. They outright change the motion of whatever passes through them when judging things within the same co-ordinate system: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d7mFiLFhvJrDeo0.html Following the idea that the object exiting velocity relative to the exit is the same as its entering velocity relative to the entrance (basically necessary for the structure of the object's matter to remain consistent) means that the portal would change the motion of the object in such a manner that it would result in B. Incidentally arguing that it would apply a force and go through while following newton's laws would mean B also happens. You've argued a force gets the cube through the portal meaning it has gained motion, newton's first law says it would keep moving in said motion as there was nothing to stop it from moving at this speed afterwards.

this is what makes me think that it'd be more like option A, it's simply a window onto another point in space, think "hole in the wall" the american game show. And regarding the issue where only part of the object goes through, then what happens to it would depend on the center of mass of the object. if the center of mass has gone through the portal, then the object is under influence of gravity at the other side of the portal, wherever that is in space.

He did a video on this and it would shoot out with half the speed or break depending on the durability of the action

Oooo I like your thinking! Although if the speed is measured relative to the moving portal then while the part of the portal that prints is moving the object is also moving just the same, lining it back up again.

2+1D printers. 3s dont exist according to valve.

If the portals were like 3d printers, you wouldnt be able to see through them like in the game

Altho there is no portal 3(beside bridge construction portal)

Portals have basically never abided by conservation of energy laws. Most obvious example is something falling indefinitely through two portals, not only is the GPE of the object constantly increasing, but you've fulfilled the definition of a perpetual motion device which inherently breaks conservation of energy. Also portals being able to change the direction something moves means its speed and kinetic energy has changed in most reference frames. It in fact only stays the same in the reference frame where both the portals are motionless, which isn't the case in the reference frame the problem is presented in.

i'm glados you did oof

@@jessejordan5658 this comment is just so funny to me and i hate you for it

@@slyceth *They're

*Existence

* Capitalize “I”s

What the1necromancer just said in laments terms means that the speed is relative to the portals. So if portal is speedy and moving towards speedy companion cube, lets say, the same speed towards eachother, then the cube would come out at 2x the speed.

You are exactly right, I can’t believe they don’t say this in the video. The box has no kinetic energy so it cannot have kinetic energy going out of the portal

@@adamguenther190 he never said it because there was never a need to say it. Things like speed and measurement are not definite, they are relative. Meaning it is measured relatively to another object. So the cubes speed is measured relatively to the portal, meaning that if the cube and a portal were moving towards eachother at the same speed, then the cube would leave the exit portal at twice the speed.

This The portal is basically a door If you are not moving and a door with a door moves towards you, you will still not be moving by the time you arrive to the other side of the door

@@yaddar how many times do i have to say that speed is measured RELATIVELY. Imagine you are walking in the same direction a train is moving, lets say you and the train were moving 3 MPH. If your speed was measured relative to the ground, you would be moving 6 MPH. If your speed was measured relatively to the train, it would be 3 MPH. Its basically the same thing for the portal, except this time, the portal would be moving at you. Its literally what the1necromancer said. If you are moving towards a portal which is moving towards you at the same speed, your body would go theough twice as fast as opposed to having the portal stay in the same place.

In reality it would stretch with the analog passing of time, but in the game, it might appear to be sliced or cut up due to the fidelity of the frame rate of the animation.

@ozmaniac33 10 minutes ago Imagine you could watch the event in slow motion and it took 30 frames/sec and one full second for the entry portal to consume the cube, starting just before it reaches the cube. One frame later, 1/30th of the cube has exited the exit portal and has motion moving away from the stationary 29/30ths of the rest of the cube. in the next frame, the second 1/30th of the cube now has motion, but is already lagging behind the first 1/30th of the cube, but also now moving away from the remaining stationary 28/30ths of the cube. This repeats for the next 30 frames, leaving 30 slices of cube flying out of the exit portal.

*cough cough* neurotoxin generator *cough cough*

@@yukkahiro ahem ahem

then portals can’t exist on earth because it’s moving via gravity might not even exist anywhere in the universe because dark energy is funny topic

YuriNone well the neurotoxin emitter part was merely the only possible way to do said part. So you know. How else were you going to shut down the neurotoxin emitters for good

@@ethandavies7608 idk wheatley was screaming at me so i didn't really get to think also i think i inhaled neurotoxin

Besides that one time you could I’m portal 2 (but we don’t talk about that)

You can't place portals because they don't exist...

@@CREEPZOMBEY shut up

Portal 2. When you destroy the Neurotoxin generator. The laser cutting the pipes was moved a portal.

Which is called "Bending and Rupture of an Unstable Harmony". BRUH, for short.

yeah same

Let's put our differences aside... for science... you monster.

Valve: makes portals move in one level anyway

@@jfb- Valve: **disables special code to do so**

@@thanosattorneyatlaw4062 Its not really special code, its the sv_allow_mobile_portals flag (accessible in console).

@@coolguy284_2 I was making it more dramatic........ It's a joke ..

Maps have a flag for enabling moving portals. In portal 2, you can enable this using the developer console. However, the Valve Developer Community site, this option causes moving portals to be non-traversable for anything but lasers.

Thank you for this comment. I finally decided to watch this video because I had never heard of the “portal paradox”. Then I was like, where is the paradox?

They don't even solve the conundrum , just giving wrong answers.

Paradox gets more clicks tbf

@@scalpingsnake That would be a sad commentary on a channel that purports to set people's thinking straight about complex topics....

@@martinconrad9260 I prefer to blame KZfaq. KZfaq make it necessary for clickbait in order to get the views you 'deserve'. Of course there are also the videos that don't deserve them and clickbait purely to trick people into watching and maximise views I am referring to the fact that respectable channels also do this because otherwise they simply won't get the views they probably should get.

Haaris Qureshi ....isn‘t this another paradox?

Not really only if you want to have realistic physics which you don’t always necessarily do

Ehhhhh not exactly. Unless you're programming Algodoo, which is arguably a quite accurate 2D physics simulator out there (and used by academics somewhere), you're not putting real life physics equations as is in video games. Even with advanced engines like Bullet, Unreal Engine (and PhysX), or GTA V's RAGE, the physics in 3D game engine can defy real life physics, even if the code got the concept right and believable enough to percieve by our logic outside speedrunning or uncommon situations. Besides, putting real life physics equations as it is in a game physics engine can ruin a game's fun and charm or even the gameplay itself. And performance wise, it's not good either to do those equation in 16 ms or less.

@@Xezian not really. Even if you don't use real time physics, the game itself runs on a set of rules you as a programmer input and it has to stay consistent and you have to chart your own "imaginary" physics from scratch

Bhanu Vardhan yes but programming a new set of rules is a lot easier than programming an existence that isn’t even possible yet. Physicist don’t even have the proof of concept that a portal can exist except for theories and equations, this is infinitely harder than programming a game to say when X enters A send X to B with equal momentum.

Well, if we assume that portals actively consume energy, we can satisfy conservation of energy by concluding that any energy gained by raising the cube is less than or equal to the energy lost through keeping the portals active.

been a while might as well

I feel like I should play it for the first time!

@@PydraxAlpta me too

@@PydraxAlpta It's 90% off in the summer Steam sale right now.

YES

true , all these terms are relative and we can only determine in one frame possible , thats how our physical world works and portals are (as of now LOL) not possible . It doesn't satisfy space-time laws we have .

If you take a piece of cardboard and put a hole through it and drop it onto a ball, the ball doesn't go flying out the other end. I think portals are like a hole in that cardboard, but the cardboard has no width and the ends can be anywhere. That would make A be the correct answer.

@@noskillpureandy Yeah, but relative to the cardboard hole, the ball *is* flying out the other end, so option A would no longer work.

@@Guinea.Pig-Gaming so if for some unexplainable reason, if a hula hoop drops around me at lets say 20 mph and I jump through it while its still falling, then I should gain enough energy to jump much higher and much faster then normal.

LazyKirby57 Not relative to you, but relative to the hula hoop.

Exaaaaaaactly what I've been thinking through the whole video.

That’s what I was thinking. It baffles me when he started talking about it squishing up inside the portal - no, that portion of the cube would just hang out of the other end of the portal, eventually having a greater mass on the blue side than the orange, causing gravity to pull it downwards, “tipping” it out of the portal. No acceleration is required, the cube is just suddenly at a different point in space and is affected differently by gravity on one side of the portal than the other.

Take a look at some of the visuals. Yes they connect two points in space however by what manner do they do the objects exit in relation to the entrance/exit is the question. If you were looking at real life put a box on the ground and take two hula-hoops. Say one hula-hoop is the entrance and the other is the exit. Now set one against a door or wall and drop the other over the box. Will the hula-hoop you dropped over the box be stuck on top of the box, have the box come out with a velocity from the other hoop, come out with no velocity, or come out as a flat object? (You answer is then 3:06, Option B, Option C, or Option A respectively) Does this make sense as an explanation?

And yet, in the example of a hula hoop, the box would have a velocity relative to the hoop. If the hoop passes over the cube at 5 m/s, then the cube will "enter" one side and "exit" the other at that 5 m/s. The moving side of the hoop would pass over the stationary cube at 5 m/s and the cube would exit the stationary side at 5 m/s relative to the hoop.

Exactly. I was going crazy when he started talking about boxes "squishing", or portals becoming walls(???) if his own perception of motion became invalid for the object. Imagine you had a stationary box sitting on a windowsill, and you were able to move the window frame itself laterally from one side of the box to the other. There's no extra movement imparted on the box from this action, the only factor in its movement is friction and center of mass. The fact that it's no longer oriented the same way is irrelevant until the center of mass reaches the other side of the portal and it tips out if there's space for it to do so. That's all portals are in this case. Two sides of the same "wall" for a window. The difference in movement between the two "halves" of the portal is irrelevant and lost in whatever subspace realm of fantasy they were created in, the connection is not rigid.

Ehhh, true. I'll go true.

It's a paradox you moron, there is no answer!!

* confused frankenturret noises *

Yes!

OMG YESSSSS

I think this is great intuition

Surprisingly, no - you wouldn’t experience any acceleration at all, since from your perspective the rest of the world would accelerate around you instead. The portals don’t apply any force to the person moving through them - otherwise when falling into/shooting up out of a portal, you’d experience twice the force of hitting the ground

@@evanvollbrecht541 So that would mean experiencing an immediate change in velocity without acceleration, as if the world had accelerated around you. That makes sense from the explanation in the video, but is incredibly odd to think about.

@@cfehunter It’s really weird in the abstract, but it makes more sense if you imagine looking through the portals - you’d see everything on the other side already moving towards you at the speed the orange portal was descending. For example, looking through the blue portal, you’d see the box coming towards you even before it flew out. Likewise, from the box’s perspective, you’d see the ceiling/room coming towards you the whole time.

@@evanvollbrecht541 right because there are effectively two "primary" reference frames present at the same time. Relative to the blue portal everything on the other side of the orange portal has the velocity of the orange portal (plus its own local velocity) even if the objects themselves aren't moving relative to the world.

This guy gets it

@Gooey Prickles Sounds like you're overanalyzing it a bit. The way the portals function in the game is essentially like a hole and you can even put objects mid way in them. Applying real life laws to game logic is not wrong though and I'm sure you'd be right if it were real life circumstances because I won't deny that physics and motion aren't my forté, but game logic wise... It's just a hole and option A was the more reasonable explanation for the way the way portals function here. Though, real life circumstances are probably option B, if not something similar.

I get both sides but listen to this. Say that a door that transports you to another one is dropped on you and you go through, but gravity forces you to go back through. since the portal is there you go back through but you ganed no energy so it doesn't push you out. You will get stuck between them

@Gooey Prickles that is why I compare it to a magic door and you would get stuck

@@RemedieX I get what you are trying to say but it is wrong. Option b would have to have force applied to the cube in order to whoosh. But since the only force is the smasher which isn't affecting the cube it would just go through because the "portal" has no mass and doesn't realy have anything to push

Makes sense.

The issue then is that since portals can only be placed on a surface, the exit portal would have to move in towards the wall and the object would appear fused inside the wall.

@@GIRGHGH Or the original moving portal will just spew out a huge tube of ground/wall/whatever

Then the issue is that the wall can't move either.

That's just the case where both are moving - but not relative to each other.

minutephysics made another video about exactly this

I don't see any reason why that would imply that speeds are measured relative to the environment, rather than relative to the portal.

Non sequitur. "Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out" does not mean it's measured to the environment.

So that would explain that in the HL/Portal universe that there are quantum tunnels but the portal gun shoots teleportation data

@@leonardusl5141 speedy THING goes in though. This implies for the item to go out at a velocity, IT must move.a stationary item would therefore plop out with example A.

@@digitalunity A is impossible. By the time the portal fully covers the box the box is not fully out of portal number 2. then it is in two places at once. The velocity of the box is depending on how fast it went through the portal. The box went through the portal at the speed the portal was moving therefore emerges at the speed of the portal.