A or B?

>>379672986
A you fucking retard

The portal doesn't move

File: 130984713343.jpg (8KB, 248x247px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 248x247px

Are these threads able to be reported for spam yet or not?

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

>>379673245
>Calls OP a retard
>Doesn't understand special relativity or inertial frame of reference

>>379674145
2/3
Ѭ
Switch

H U L A H O O P S

>>379674145
Boxes/Coins: 2/3 or 1/2, depending on which stage of Bertrand's """"""""Paradox"""""""" the question is talking about

Portals: A

Doors: You open another door. There's a 50% chance you get the prize if you do, while there's a 100% chance of failure if you don't (Unless you're into goats, anyway)

Plane: No question is asked. This is also a shitty drawing.

File: monty_hall_problem_win_table1.png (6KB, 544x416px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 544x416px

>>379674646
>afag doesnt know how probability work
Really makes you think

File: test1.jpg (651KB, 1140x1128px) Image search: [Google]

651KB, 1140x1128px

>>379674667
Not so fast

>>379674721
The question isn't asking for probability, though. Nowhere in it does it ask for the probability. It's asking if you open the other door or not, which you obviously should since your options are to take a chance or live with the failure.

>>379674930
>100% of failure if you don't switch
That's not how it works anon

>>379675008
The choice you've chosen is a failure, there's no probable chance of un-failing by doing nothing when your choice is guaranteed failure.

>>379675114
>The choice you've chosen is a failure
That's fucking wrong you retard.
There's a 1/3 chance the door you picked has a car, not a 0 chance.

>>379675114
idiot

B if you consider portals as literal (fictional) teleportation, as in the cube exists from X to Y rather than moves from X to Y. Like space as a piece of paper folded over itself, and a portal is a hole that gets punched through. You now exist in two places at the same time.

A if you consider a portal as a force that can transfer energy.
I prefer B because then you can have swiftly moving portals that don't create a violent vacuum that flays you alive as your skin goes from 0 to 100 mph.

The real money is on a portal gun that can do both.

>>379672986
The answer is B.
Because if it was A, that would mean that every bit of the box would halt immediately upon crossing through the portal.
Which would mean that every bit has to be accelerated back up to speed in order for the rest of the box to go through.
It would flatten itself.

Imagine the box is instead a battering ram, and that the exit portal is facing a door.
Would you be able to batter the door?
If you would, then it's B, because the ram has to have momentum to bust through the door.

If you couldn't, then what would happen? Would the Orange portal stop?

In fact now that I think about it, in scenario B, energy is coming from nowhere.
Which I guess is fine because portals do break the laws of physics anyway, you could create an infinite turbine waterfall with portals.

B. Here's a scenario where all of the distractions are removed and you can focus on what is really happening:

>there are two portals and a cube in space
>portal A is stationary
>portal B is moving in a straight line
>the cube is in the path of portal B
>portal B reaches the cube and it starts to emerge from portal A
>portal B passes the area where the cube was initially located
>the cube fully emerges and is no longer in contact with the portals

Does it stop immediately for some reason, or does it continue moving away from portal A?

>>379676401
>cont
That block is made up of molecules, each having their own weight and momentum (i think)
By the time the Orange portal reaches the bottom, most of the molecules are already through, and are moving away from the blue portal.
Why would they suddenly stop?

Ѭ > B > A > C

From one frame of reference the cube would have to be moving and not moving at the same time.

Why would a box be accelerated by going through a hole?

The box would enter the portal as fast as the portal moves towards it, that means that if you were to stare at the portal, the box would be moving towards you.
However, if you were to also stare at the box, the box would be completely stationary to you.
That means the box from a single frame of reference is both in a state of movement and non-movement at the same time, this should clue you in that a moving portal is impossible.

File: problem.jpg (38KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1024x768px

consider this
if the situation was reversed, then the exact opposite would have to happen, right

pictured, a cannon shooting a thing into blue portal.

>>379672986
Fuck off with this thread

File: portal_answer.png (208KB, 1712x1684px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1712x1684px

Hey look, it's that thread where people claim to know about physics while also claiming that motion is not relative and that portals actually conserve momentum.

>>379678217
Except the portal is quite literally incapable of moving as result of being infinite mass, and having it move would result in a paradox happening.

>>379676401
You are autistic, the box isn't moving.

>>379678356
Motion is relative. The problem is that the entire cube is moving and not moving from a single frame of reference simultaneously.
Also yes, portals should conserve momentum as that is a basic law of physics, and the way we're trying to prove it is through real world physics, where basic laws of physics apply.

File: portal_facts.png (30KB, 561x859px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 561x859px

>>379678384

It has to move with respect to the ground at some point. Otherwise, how the fuck does it come out of the blue portal which isn't moving with respect to the ground?

You can't walk through a doorway without moving with respect to it.

>>379678763
>>379678173

File: conservationofmomentum.png (32KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 450x600px

>>379678658
>Motion is relative. The problem is that the entire cube is moving and not moving from a single frame of reference simultaneously.

That's the fun part.

>Also yes, portals should conserve momentum

But they don't, in general.

When I say portals don't conserve momentum, I mean that they can change the direction of an object passing through them. If you shoot an object north into a portal and it comes out another portal going west, the total momentum of the system has not been conserved.

Conserving only the magnitude of momentum doesn't count for anything, in real physics. Momentum is a vector for a reason.

>>379678763
If the door is moving it'd be pretty easy to get through it without moving and I sure as hell would not be accelerated by it.

File: mh.png (30KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1600x1200px

>>379674646
>>379674930
>>379675114

Holy shit, anon. It's a well known problem with a well known solution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

>>379679014
Except both A and B rely on Conservation of Momentum to be proven right.
If we consider portals to have infinite mass, going through a portal would be like hitting a wall, and thus an object that goes in would go out at the same speed.

>>379679157

If you paid attention to my post, you would know that the "door" in question is the blue portal, not the orange one.

The blue portal isn't moving (with respect to the ground). Therefore, something which comes out of it must move (with respect to the ground) in order to complete that transition through the portal.

>>379679157
It would be more like the door frame expanding over you. You would have to walk to get to the exit.

>>379679287
>Except both A and B rely on Conservation of Momentum to be proven right.

Well, yeah, this is pretty much true. I think "A" relies on it more heavily, though.

Arguments in favor of A are usually just "hurr durr the cube was stationary so it must remain stationary" (despite the fact that it cannot be stationary while emerging from the stationary blue portal).

Common arguments in favor of B rely on conservation of momentum to claim that the cube, after emerging from the blue portal at some speed, will maintain that speed after it has fully emerged.

>>379679746
The problem is that the cube IS both stationary yet moving at the same time relative to a single frame of reference.
The problem is a paradox, as both answers rely on Conservation of Momentum in some form, yet the cube is in a state of momentum and no momentum relative to a frame of reference.

File: box.png (2KB, 370x217px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 370x217px

>>379679581
Would the box slam into the ground if the blue portal were to quickly move up?

>>379679932

Exactly. When the cube is half-way through the portals, each half is moving with respect to the other, which does throw a wrench into any attempt to apply normal physics. So all we can do is ask which answer requires us to bend fewer rules or make fewer dubious assumptions.

Here's another way to think about the problem which is a little bit less paradoxical: Let's say the cube which enters the orange portal is destroyed, and a new cube is created by the blue portal. That's how teleporters work in some science fiction, right? I'm not sure why you'd want to use one of those teleporters, because you'd fucking die while a clone of you steals your identity, but whatever.

If the orange portal destroys an object while the blue portal creates a new one at the same rate, then the two halves of the cube are not the same object during that half-way-through-the-portal moment, and we don't have to worry about one object having two different momenta.

>>379678384
Everything is moving.
Nothing is moving.
It's all relative.

If a portal on earth connects to mars, the people who go through match mars' bearing and velocity.

File: one quintillion hours in ms paint.jpg (46KB, 1020x663px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1020x663px

The answer is B

>>379680348
See the problem with that is that you the player move through portals several times throughout the game. If it were to destroy and then recreate you, you'd be dead as soon as you entered a portal.
Not only that, you can see what would be in front of the orange portal in the blue portal and vice versa.
A more effective reason would be that portals are unable to move, as they possess an infinite amount of mass due to reasons such as Conservation of Energy and the portal could technically be considered to carry the weight of the entire universe (beyond what is visible), and as such is unable to move, and having it be able to move would result in paradoxes like the cube being in both momentum and non-momentum at the same time to the viewer.

>>379672986
Imagine someone put a doorframe on a long treadmill and you stand on a floating platform just above the treadmill. The doorframe moves towards you and you go through it. You aren't moving though. There you go

>>379672986
B, because a moving portal would create a vacuum effect from the way its displacing air

>>379680753
The portal entrance is moving, the exit is not.
That's why door frame and hula hoop analogies don't work here.

>>379680753
Doorways also don't either violate conservation of energy or possess an infinite amount of mass, you fucking retard.

>>379672986
A
Conservation of energy.
The only force acting on the block is gravity, no force comes into contact with block.

>>379672986
A is most logical, given a classic portal acts as a window.

If, however, the portal dematerialises then rematerialises, such that it outputs that which is exactly equivalent to what is input, then B.

>>379681164
>>379680853
>>379680860

>>379680860
Well obviously I can't give a real world example since we don't live in the fucking future, but it's about as reasonable an explanation as I can come up with. The real answer is that this should not be possible outside of the quantum realm, and as such regular physics can't really explain this phenomena

File: conservationofenergy.png (21KB, 450x500px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 450x500px

>>379680935

Portals don't conserve energy.

>>379681351
If portals did have infinite mass, they'd conserve energy.
>>379681226
An effective solution is that the portal can't move in the first place.

>>379681408
Agreed, which is why they don't move ingame.

File: acceleration.png (26KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 450x600px

>>379677974

1) Portals aren't just holes. That's literally the whole point of them.
2) Portals are known to accelerate things.

Both answers are paradoxes.
If your other side didn't keep moving (A), it would crush you.
If it DID keep moving (B), then if the portal stopped halfway through, you'd (I think) get cut in half.
Actually that means B still works, just that the portal is now pretty dangerous

>>379681515
Portals aren't known for shit.

>>379681408
>If portals did have infinite mass, they'd conserve energy.

Could you elaborate? I don't see how a portal having infinite mass accounts for the ability to disregard the law of conservation of energy.

I can't tell if you're talking about actual theoretical physics, or just spouting buzzwords.

>hole, hula hoop, door frame, and window analogies

stop it NOW

>>379681636
>>379673386
Also, not only that, portals are visibly shown to have the entire room within them, and this logic could extend to the entire universe within them as if you removed the walls, portals would somehow magically gain area on what is within them unless they already had the entire universe within them in the first place.

>>379681601

This thread is about the portals featured in a particular video game series, and the behavior of portal in that video game series is well known.

Portals can accelerate objects. See >>379681515

neither because portals close when the surface they're on starts moving, with 1 known exception across 2 games

basic stuff op

File: afags.png (33KB, 390x392px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 390x392px

>>379680753

>>379680536
that's because the people would walk through the portal. a force has to be exerted on the box for it to move which doesn't happen because the portal is moving not the box

>>379681794

Thanks, I missed that earlier post.

>>379681664
It's fucking ridiculous considering the evidence that shows that using said analogies is incredibly retarded.
>>379682739
No problem.

>>379681664
>Shitting on the window analogy

Fuck you, faggot.

>>379681164
This, now imagine you're inside a house looking out of the window, and the house is moving at about 10 meters a second towards a cube. floating in direct path of the window.

That cube would hit your face with a velocity of about ten meters a second as it "flies" through that fucking window of your moving house despite the fact it's technically stationary.

>>379682784
And the same would occur if the cube was moving 10 meters a second towards you.
The difference between that analogy and the portal problem is that the portal problem has the cube stationary yet moving simultaneously from a single frame of reference.

>>379673386
>E = mc^2

For now.

>>379682947
I was just being facetious, it's a paradox.
Technically both A and B are correct, depending on your frame of reference.

>>379683235
>Technically both A and B are correct, depending on your frame of reference.
>>379678173
The problem is when from a single frame of reference, the object is in a state of motion yet not in a state of motion at the same time from a single frame of reference.

>>379683064
Not even now, it's a horrible reduction of the real equation which is:

E 2=(mc 2) 2+(pc) 2

>>379683345
>The problem is when from a single frame of reference, the object is in a state of motion yet not in a state of motion at the same time from a single frame of reference.

Not if the portal spans dimensions.

>>379683235
bothfags and neitherfags are worse than Afags and Bfags combined
weak no-fun-allowed faggots that can't pick a side

>>379683378
The portal would then either have to have
1. Infinite Mass
2. Infinite Momentum
3. Both Infinite Mass and Momentum

>>379676456
>does it stop immediately
Yes. Momentum is conserved between portals.

>>379683570

Infinite mass implies infinite momentum unless velocity is zero. I don't remember enough math to tell you what the fuck happens when you multiply zero by infinity. It's probably undefined.

>>379683610
>Momentum is conserved between portals.

It's not, though. See >>379679014

It always turns into
>B fags use mathematic terms they dont know the meaning behind and shitpost
>A fags using basic physics against something physics determines cant be possible
C is the correct answer
Ban the baiting fags who samefags the reference meme

>>379683378
>E 2=(mc 2) 2+(pc) 2

For now.

Everything we know about could ultimately be wrong, since we will never know what is actually real or not. If I see a rock on the ground, it's real, but when I'm not looking at it anymore, it could have ceased to exist, unless if I looked at it again, unless if I didn't want to, since it's not mandatory to do anything, at all.

For all we know, we are all suffering from schizophrenia to some minuscule percentage, which is actually a dream, which is actually another universe, which could be the real universe we are actually in, which could be a virtual simulation, which is actually a hologram, which is actually just an atomic particle in some dude's eyeball.

Before you ask, no I don't use hallucinogenic drugs or chemicals, since I don't have to, I really don't.

>>379683809
What you linked is wrong though.

From the perspective of looking through Portal A, the vector is unchanged.

Which is the whole point, there's an entire sideways universe through the portal.

>>379683647
>It's probably undefined.
It is.
Well fuck this got infinitely more complicated.

>>379672986
a portal can't move with a platform.

so there is no answer.

>>379683975
>there's an entire sideways universe through the portal.

Okay. And if one portal is moving, there's an entire moving universe through the portal.

I claim that, if portals facing different directions are allowed to change the direction of a moving object without violating the law of conservation of momentum, then portals moving at different speeds are allowed to change the speed of n object without violating the law of conservation of momentum. Fight me.

>>379683647
I'm not sure how undefined momentum would result in.

>>379684383
*what undefined momentum would result in
I really should sleep.

>>379684182
>there's an entire moving universe through the portal.
Yes.

>allowed to change the speed
That violates the law of conservation of momentum, from the reference point of looking through the portal. The direction change does not, as the vector is maintained.

Therein lies the paradox: Either the law of conservation of momentum is broken from the directional change, or it is broken by the speed change, depending on which reference point you hold. This is true for both A and B.

Uh A guys. The portal envelops the cube and then gravity takes over and it plops down.

>>379684827
>That violates the law of conservation of momentum, from the reference point of looking through the portal.

I don't think so. If you were the cube in OP's picture, you probably wouldn't feel any acceleration. The orange portal would come down on you, and suddenly you'd be in a universe that's moving in the same direction the orange portal was moving. And you'd say, "hey, I didn't accelerate, so why is this universe moving past me at a high speed?" (And the universe in which you suddenly find yourself would say, "hey, why is there a cube shooting through me?")

Velocity (and thus momentum) is a vector consisting of magnitude and direction. You can't just choose to conserve one of them.

Has anyone here considered that if portal technology existed it would likely need completely new math to explain it?

I find math proof of this kind of dubious since it makes huge assumptions in the underlying theory of how the portal is even working.

>>379678763
>what is gravity?

>>379685118

B is not meant to imply that there's no gravity.

It implies that the cube, which must have gained some speed in order to emerge from the stationary blue portal at exactly the same rate at which the orange portal devoured it, keeps moving at that speed according to Newton's First Law.

>>379685323

Explain which part of the post to which you replied is ignoring gravity. Be specific or fuck off, because right now, you're making no sense.

>>379685337
So... am I choosing which one would happen if the portal moved down on the cube? Or are we trying to find out how each could occur?

>>379680634
The answer would be somewhere in between, the act of the portal coming down has no effect but the instant rotation and change in gravity would.

>>379685182
>The orange portal would come down on you, and suddenly you'd be in a universe that's moving in the same direction the orange portal was moving.
And you're sure of this... why? If the vector is maintained between portals (which is the case if the portal contains a universe within), then you'd stop. If the vector isn't maintained between portals (because of the directional change from a third reference point), you'd keep on moving.

>You can't just choose to conserve one of them.
Exactly my point. Neither A or B are right because of this. From the reference of moving through a portal your direction would be conserved, but from the reference of watching someone move through the portal their direction wouldn't be conserved. Nobody has any idea what would happen in this case because it's impossible.

>tfw you've thought you've figured it out and ironed out any potential errors but then momentum has to exist and be mass multiplied by velocity and infinity multiplied by zero isn't zero
t-thanks

>>379685554

I don't think I was very clear about what I was trying to say, but at this point, it's 4:11 AM and I don't care much anymore.

>>379680634
>>379685496

Looks like B to me.

Imagine you're watching the blue portal while this happens. You see one cart come out. And then you see a second cart come out, pushing the first. The second cart necessarily comes to a stop because of the glue, but it was pushing the first cart, which is unattached. The first cart should keep moving, even after it's no longer being pushed. Newton's first law, etc.

>>379685817
Except imagine you're watching both the exit portal and the object.
From your point of view the object is stationary, yet since the entrance portal is moving towards the object, the object is moving towards you at the speed of the entrance portal.
That means that from a single frame of reference, the object is simultaneously not moving and moving at the same time, indicating that a moving portal is impossible.

>>379685817
You're ignoring the reference point of the train itself, which merely got a directional gravity change after a door fell on them. However, since this is impossible to reconcile with the reference point of an outside viewer looking at the train move out the other end of the portal rapidly, this is a paradox and neither A or B.

>>379685951
>>379685987

Why are good arguments in favor of B always followed by "but it's neither"? Nobody ever plays the "no right answer" card when people say the answer is A because "muh hula hoop" and other retarded fallacies.

>>379686182
Because hula-hoopfags are very special people.
Also just because B arguments are followed by "It's neither" doesn't make the "It's neither" argument suddenly invalidated.
Also I've been arguing for "It's neither" for a majority of the thread.

File: alien.png (28KB, 1078x740px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1078x740px

>>379686182
>good argument
>completely fails to understand relativity or multiple reference points

>retarded fallacies
>while trying to use positive confirmation bias to prove their answer correct

>>379674145
1/2

A

Switch

It wont take off as you need air speed to generate lift

>>379686481
>1/2
It's 2/3 because you are twice as likely to take a gold ball from the box with two gold balls than a gold from the box with one gold ball and one silver ball.
>A
It's neither.

>>379672986
It's neither. It doesn't emerge from the portal at all.
It gets stuck in-between both of the portals.

>>379686397
>completely fails to understand relativity

Nothing in my post implied that motion isn't relative.

>multiple reference points

In "real life" physics, you should be able to pick a single frame of reference -- it doesn't matter which -- and mathematically get the right answer. In other words, if it weren't a paradox, I could solve the problem by looking only at the blue portal's reference frame.

The fact that the object in this hypothetical scenario occupies two different frames of reference at the same time is obviously what makes it a paradox, but saying "there's no right answer" just isn't any fun.

File: file.png (44KB, 1078x740px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1078x740px

>>379686397
they aren't green

>>379686564
youve already picked out a gold ball so you have already picked either the left or the middle box, you are asked what the probability of picking another gold ball is given the previous event has happened. Since there are two boxes with gold balls in them, you have a one in two chance of picking out another gold ball from the same box you originally picked

File: alien2.png (25KB, 1078x740px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 1078x740px

>>379686867
>but saying "there's no right answer" just isn't any fun.
It isn't fun, but you just admitted it is indeed the case. You can't argue for B any more than you can argue for A

>>379686959
he obviously was wearing a green mask, you can see the bare grey chest underneath it
besides, you don't have to get rid of the shirt

>>379687180
>implying they wear shirts

very VERY rarely do people report them wearing clothing. the greys are worker beings, synthetic lifeforms created for slave labor so to speak.

>>379686663

This thread has far less shitposting and mental retardation than most Portal threads. Usually, by the time we hit 100 replies, at least half of them are based on outright denial of established facts. I disagree with more than half the posts in this thread, but at least I can tell you guys aren't brain-damaged.

Unfortunately, this thread will probably still be around in a few hours when all the retards wake up, and will fill up with stupid shit and get deleted after some "portals are literally hula hoops" idiot gets the last word.

>>379687069
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%27s_box_paradox
Except that previous event has now influenced the current or next event.
Remember, the keyword here and in the problem is "next".

File: alien3.png (25KB, 1078x740px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 1078x740px

>>379687276
okay i made it lore friendly just for you

>>379686959
>>379687180
>>379687687
>not having every type of alien on the ufo
step up

>>379687687
>nipples and pubes

STOP

THEY DONT HAVE GENITALS OR NIPPLES. DO YOU NOT KNOW WHAT "SYNTHETIC" MEANS?

File: alien4.png (26KB, 1078x740px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1078x740px

>>379687957
>synthetic means you can't have a factory made weewong and nipnips
your being kinda picky here but whatever here you go

>>379688504
>not having a reptilian in the ufo as well

>>379687687
You know his eyes sorta look like part of the surrounding space and his nostrils like eyes.

>>379672986

NEITHER

HULA HOOP FAGS FUCK OFF

FAGS WHO CLAIM TO KNOW QUANTUM PHYSICS ON FUCKING /v/ FUCK OFF

IT'S NEITHER YOU FAGGOTS

File: alien5.png (27KB, 1078x740px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1078x740px

>>379687785
>>379688898
jesus fine, you're really stretching my shitty mspaint skills here kid

>>379689234
the space part was intentional, being so black they blend into space
the nostrils not so much

>>379689836
>not having them all be named allen
>not having the reptilian be green
8/10 I still love it

>>379689836
can you give me a quick rundown?

File: alien6.png (26KB, 1078x740px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1078x740px

>>379690037
for you amigo

>>379690272
>Bogdanoffs bow to Alein
>In contact with Orz
>Possess psychic-like abilities
>Control earth with an iron but fair fist
>Own military bases & banks globally
>Direct descendants of the ancient royal blood line
>Will bankroll the first cities on Mars (Aleingrad will be be the first city)
>Own 99% of DNA editing research facilities in space
>First designer babies will in all likelihood be Alein babies
>said to have 215+ IQ, such intelligence on Earth has only existed deep in Tibetan monasteries & Area 51
>Ancient Indian scriptures tell of angels who will descend upon Earth and will bring an era of enlightenment and unprecedented technological progress with them
>They own Nanobot R&D labs around the world
>You likely have Aleinbots inside you right now
>The Alein are in regular communication with the presidents kim jong-un and trump, forwarding the word of space to the nations.
>They learned fluent human in under a week
>Nation states entrust their cryptocurrencies with Alein. There’s no bitcoins in Ft. Knox, only Ft. Alein
>They are about 700 decades old, from the space-time reference point of the base human currently accepted by our society
>In reality, they are timeless beings existing in all points of time and space from the big bang to the end of the universe. We don’t know their ultimate plans yet. We hope they’re benevolent.

>>379690721
I love it
Make it thread related by putting portals on the UFO please

>beimg a hulahoopfag

>>379691601
i like having opinions despite someone on reddit saying that i should not have opinions

File: Portal.webm (3MB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 853x480px

I'm so sorry, B-fags.

>>379673612
Doesn't matter, retard

File: alienp.png (29KB, 1078x740px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1078x740px

>>379690979
hope you enjoyed these shitty aleins, i'm headed to sleep

>>379691806
10/10
Thank you for your aleins, sleep well anon.

>>379691718
>"launching" yourself instead of the cube
because otherwise the piston would just stop at the cube like no portal waas on it. portals don't make things go trough them, thing only go trough portals if they are moving

>>379691680
>hulahoop fag damage control
How many hula hoops did you go through for those mental gymnastics?

>>379691896
cant a workaround be found?

like launch the cube up 10 mph but have the piston go down 70 mph so they're both moving when they hit, and adjust the goalposts to compensate for a slightly farther A landing or B landing

would that work with portal's physics?

>implications that portals can even move continue to occur

File: downs.jpg (7KB, 236x214px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 236x214px

>>379682784
Only if the house kept moving, you actual spastic.

>>379674825
this

>>379693089
You're moving around the sun RIGHT NOW