Well you found me, congratulations. Was it worth it? Because despite your violent behavior, the only thing you've managed to break so far is my heart.
Does GLaDBO run on money?
Eckhart saw Hell too. He said: The only thing that burns in Hell is the part of you that won't let go of life, your memories, your attachments. They burn them all away. But they're not punishing you, he said. They're freeing your soul. So, if you're frightened of dying and... and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the earth.
>>119931As a matter of fact, yes. GLaDBO has a special kind of inhibitance core, though, that only keeps her from taking her suit off rather than flooding the place with a deadly neurotoxin cereal.Whoops! Just spoiled the game for everyone!
>>119931As a matter of fact, yes. GLaDBO has a special kind of inhibitance core, though, that only keeps her from taking her suit off rather than flooding the place with a deadly neurotoxin cereal.
Whoops! Just spoiled the game for everyone!
I hear GLaDBo offers delicious cake to its subjects.
>>119950
This thread is awesome.
>>119951I love you.
This thread has inspired me.
I'll make more tomorrow. I crave sleep.
>>119956Wow, the expressions match up perfectly.
Quick question: what in the hell are you guys talking about?
>>119959http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_%28game%29
>>119957Specifically, the ending.I'm seriously considering just looking it up on Youtube 'cuz damn near everything has been spoiled for me already.
>>119957Specifically, the ending.
I'm seriously considering just looking it up on Youtube 'cuz damn near everything has been spoiled for me already.
>>119952Momentum, a function of mass and velocity, is conserved between portals.In layman's terms, "speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out".
>>119952Momentum, a function of mass and velocity, is conserved between portals.
In layman's terms, "speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out".
>>119963Moreover, as speedy thing keeps going in and out, the speed of said thing increases as it gains momentum in mid-fall, making it progressively more difficult to keep falling in the exact same hole. Anyone who's tried this in the game should already know this, as a matter of fact.So unless Yotsu's got a portal gun she keeps firing over and over, that ain't gonna work.
>>119952This is true. >>119964Here we only see her go through the portal three times, though.
>>119952This is true.
>>119964Here we only see her go through the portal three times, though.
>>119967Even then it'd be unlikely for her momentum to stay the same so that she'd fall through the portal each time. I'd calculate the exact formulas for this sort of thing, but theoretical physics is already hard enough without throwing portals into the mix!
Remember when the platform was sliding into the fire pit and i said 'Goodbye' and you were like 'No way!' and then I was all 'We pretended we were going to murder you'? That was great
>>119964 My line of thinking was that since Yotsuba is so small, she has a fairly low terminal velocity, so by the time she flings the first time, she's already going as fast as she can.
"There was even going to be a party for you. A big party that all your friends were invited to. I invited your best friend, the companion cube. Of course, he couldn't come because you murdered him. All your other friends couldn't come either because you don't have any other friends, because of how unlikeable you are. It says so right here in your personnel file: 'Unlikeable. Liked by noone. A bitter, unlikeable loner whose passing shall not be mourned. 'Shall. Not. Be. Mourned.' That's exactly what it says. Very formal, very official. It also says you were adopted, so that's funny too."
>>119971Does Portal have terminal velocities? I remember reading that you can smash the window you're supposed to trick the RL into smashing by instead dropping a PC down a bottomless pit, and then have it come out the wall opposite the window.Personally, I tricked the RL, and then spent twenty minutes building a stack of PCs, because I couldn't work out how to get a cube.
>>119971Does Portal have terminal velocities? I remember reading that you can smash the window you're supposed to trick the RL into smashing by instead dropping a PC down a bottomless pit, and then have it come out the wall opposite the window.
Personally, I tricked the RL, and then spent twenty minutes building a stack of PCs, because I couldn't work out how to get a cube.
>>119972>It also says you were adopted, so that's funny too.
>>119972
>It also says you were adopted, so that's funny too.
>>119972Sounds like something Yotsuba would say to Yanda if she was well-spoken...and a giant sadist A.I
Sounds like something Yotsuba would say to Yanda if she was well-spoken...and a giant sadist A.I
A little more.
Another pause while I consider what to do next.
>>119978I chortl'd. Please don't stop yet.
>>119971Also, I'd say the exact opposite: She is small, ergo more aerodynamic than the average, full-grown adult, and would have to accellerate to insane speeds before air resistance causes her acceleration to slow down to terminal velocity. Remember: acceleration in mid-fall has nothing to do with how heavy the object is!
>>119981Maybe the bag is acting as a drag chute, preventing her from reaching terminal velocity.I don't know.Also, thank you for the compliment. >>119957 too.
>>119981
Maybe the bag is acting as a drag chute, preventing her from reaching terminal velocity.
I don't know.
Also, thank you for the compliment. >>119957 too.
>>119981Technically, the mass of a falling object does have an infinitesimal effect on its acceleration, because of the gravitational force the object exerts on whatever it's falling toward. But it's generally negligible.
>>119981You ignorance of basic physics brings shame to your family name.For constant density (for humans this is about the density of water) and shape, increasing all dimensions raises cross-sectional area by the dimension multiplier squared, but mass goes as the multiplier cubed. Since cross-sectional area determines (approximately) air resistance, and mass determines gravitational force, it follows that larger humans will have higher terminal speeds.
You ignorance of basic physics brings shame to your family name.
For constant density (for humans this is about the density of water) and shape, increasing all dimensions raises cross-sectional area by the dimension multiplier squared, but mass goes as the multiplier cubed. Since cross-sectional area determines (approximately) air resistance, and mass determines gravitational force, it follows that larger humans will have higher terminal speeds.
>>119986Vc: sheez. Okay, considering this to be correct I'd have to assume everything I've been taught in high school physics class is false, but we'll run with it. So would it then be safe to assume that because the Earth itself is so massive and therefore has huge attractive force, the mass of anything that it draws towards itself is nearly negligible?(By the by, what they DID teach me is that everything on Earth, at around sea level, falls at a flat acceleration rate of 9,81 metres per second squared until reaching terminal velocity)
>>119986Vc: sheez. Okay, considering this to be correct I'd have to assume everything I've been taught in high school physics class is false, but we'll run with it. So would it then be safe to assume that because the Earth itself is so massive and therefore has huge attractive force, the mass of anything that it draws towards itself is nearly negligible?
(By the by, what they DID teach me is that everything on Earth, at around sea level, falls at a flat acceleration rate of 9,81 metres per second squared until reaching terminal velocity)
>>119973That happened to me. I ended up stacking a chair on top of a computer to get in the vent.It was a good VC: bolution.
>>119987What you wrote is correct. The issue is the terminal velocity. Smaller objects generally have more drag in proportion to their mass, so they have a lower terminal velocity.
>>119987
What you wrote is correct. The issue is the terminal velocity. Smaller objects generally have more drag in proportion to their mass, so they have a lower terminal velocity.
>>119987>>Okay, considering this to be correct I'd have to assume everything I've been taught in high school physics class is false, but we'll run with it.If what you're thinking is false is the "everything falls at constant acceleration" thing, that is false only in the same sense that Newtonian mechanics are false in light of special relativity, which is to say that they are still true for sufficiently restricted circumstances. In situations involving negligible air resistance, as in a vacuum or with slow moving objects or with extremely aerodynamic objects moving relatively slowly, that approximation is true to within experimental error for all but the most precise experiments.>>So would it then be safe to assume that because the Earth itself is so massive and therefore has huge attractive force, the mass of anything that it draws towards itself is nearly negligible?In terms of such attraction moving the Earth, yes. The Earth is assumed to have infinite inertia in this situation and this is a very good approximation for this sort of thing. This has nothing to do with it's "huge attractive force," however. Gravitational force is only defined between two objects; a single object has no "gravitational force" in and of itself, and in any case, this infinite inertia approximation would still hold for small forces between the Earth and some small object.>>(By the by, what they DID teach me is that everything on Earth, at around sea level, falls at a flat acceleration rate of 9,81 metres per second squared until reaching terminal velocity)That would mean that something falling slightly slower than terminal velocity would not be experiencing any force whatsoever from all the air it's pushing out of it's way, but suddenly would when it started pushing air slightly more quickly. In reality, acceleration approaches zero asymptoticly such that velocity approaches the terminal velocity asymptoticly.
>>Okay, considering this to be correct I'd have to assume everything I've been taught in high school physics class is false, but we'll run with it.
If what you're thinking is false is the "everything falls at constant acceleration" thing, that is false only in the same sense that Newtonian mechanics are false in light of special relativity, which is to say that they are still true for sufficiently restricted circumstances. In situations involving negligible air resistance, as in a vacuum or with slow moving objects or with extremely aerodynamic objects moving relatively slowly, that approximation is true to within experimental error for all but the most precise experiments.
>>So would it then be safe to assume that because the Earth itself is so massive and therefore has huge attractive force, the mass of anything that it draws towards itself is nearly negligible?
In terms of such attraction moving the Earth, yes. The Earth is assumed to have infinite inertia in this situation and this is a very good approximation for this sort of thing. This has nothing to do with it's "huge attractive force," however. Gravitational force is only defined between two objects; a single object has no "gravitational force" in and of itself, and in any case, this infinite inertia approximation would still hold for small forces between the Earth and some small object.
>>(By the by, what they DID teach me is that everything on Earth, at around sea level, falls at a flat acceleration rate of 9,81 metres per second squared until reaching terminal velocity)
That would mean that something falling slightly slower than terminal velocity would not be experiencing any force whatsoever from all the air it's pushing out of it's way, but suddenly would when it started pushing air slightly more quickly. In reality, acceleration approaches zero asymptoticly such that velocity approaches the terminal velocity asymptoticly.
>>119994 To get really nitpicky and technical, the acceleration due to gravity remains constant throughout, it's just the net acceleration that changes due to the opposing force of wind resistance.>>119973 Portal does have terminal velocities. If you create a portal loop to accelerate a cube and then fling it from a wall, it will fly much less further than if you accelerate yourself and fling yourself from the same wall.Also if you put yourself in a portal loop you can visibly see that your velocity approaches a maximum level before leveling off.
>>119994 To get really nitpicky and technical, the acceleration due to gravity remains constant throughout, it's just the net acceleration that changes due to the opposing force of wind resistance.
>>119973 Portal does have terminal velocities. If you create a portal loop to accelerate a cube and then fling it from a wall, it will fly much less further than if you accelerate yourself and fling yourself from the same wall.
Also if you put yourself in a portal loop you can visibly see that your velocity approaches a maximum level before leveling off.
>>120004>>To get really nitpicky and technical, the acceleration due to gravity remains constant throughout, it's just the net acceleration that changes due to the opposing force of wind resistance.I have completed all of the classical mechanics covered by my degree program for a B.S. in Physics, and have never heard the term "net acceleration." It's always "net force." The "net" implies a sum, and an object can only experience one acceleration, though it can be subject to many forces. It is sometimes thought that force and acceleration can be made to correspond proportionately, but that is not universally true, as F = ma is itself a simplification of the full definition of classical mechanics, which is F = d(p)/dt, as mass is not always independent of time.But even if I read your post to mean, "...the force due to gravity remains constant throughout, it's just the net force that changes due to the opposing force of wind resistance," you're still wrong because if you want to get "really nitpicky and technical," gravity is a fictitious force and freefall is an inertia frame of reference as a consequence of general relativity. Thus, air resistance is the only force experienced by the object.
>>120004
>>To get really nitpicky and technical, the acceleration due to gravity remains constant throughout, it's just the net acceleration that changes due to the opposing force of wind resistance.
I have completed all of the classical mechanics covered by my degree program for a B.S. in Physics, and have never heard the term "net acceleration." It's always "net force." The "net" implies a sum, and an object can only experience one acceleration, though it can be subject to many forces. It is sometimes thought that force and acceleration can be made to correspond proportionately, but that is not universally true, as F = ma is itself a simplification of the full definition of classical mechanics, which is F = d(p)/dt, as mass is not always independent of time.
But even if I read your post to mean, "...the force due to gravity remains constant throughout, it's just the net force that changes due to the opposing force of wind resistance," you're still wrong because if you want to get "really nitpicky and technical," gravity is a fictitious force and freefall is an inertia frame of reference as a consequence of general relativity. Thus, air resistance is the only force experienced by the object.
>>120009Ok, I get it now. It's magic that allows >>119952 to happen.
>>120009
Ok, I get it now. It's magic that allows >>119952 to happen.
>>119930The konnyaku is a lie.
>>119990I just used a chair. In fact, I brought the chair with me to jam the fan, a la Half-Life 2. But it didn't work. So I looked up a walkthrough and tried the same thing with the cube, which the fan flung at me a few times before I actually figured I could just shoot a portal beneath the fan.
Gee willikers, I'm glad I have you guys to sort out my retardation in terms of theoretical physics so I don't make an ass of myself in my matriculation exams this month.
>>120017When I got that to that fan, I thought I had finished the game, because that shaft was open to the outside and the surface was just a few feet above. I waited for a bit to see if someone was going to pass by and rescue Chell, then I noticed you could shoot through the fan. It's weird that you have to go back down to get all the way out.