 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
1) Consider this: Both Black Mesa and Aperture were developing
teleportation technology. On one side, Black Mesa's teleportation
was in its early infancy. The teleportation test device was an
enormous several-stories-high thing that required enormous amounts
of energy, special materials, and barely worked. In one of the tests
it failed spectacularly, causing the resonance cascade. No actual
applications of this prototype teleportation device have ever been
shown.
On the other side Aperture's version of the teleportation was
centuries ahead technologically. A small, light-weight portable
teleportation device which is safe to use and has never been seen
to fail, and which can create teleports over enormous distances
(even as far as the Moon). The applications are humongous.
Yet it's established in the Portal universe that the government
chose Black Mesa over Aperture for developing their teleportation
technology for military purposes. This seems inconceivable.
My theory: The Half-Life games and the Portal games are happening
in different universes. In the Half-Life universe there is a company
named Aperture, but it's not the same as the one in the Portal universe,
and vice-versa. In the Portal universe Black Mesa is at least as advanced,
if not even more, than Aperture. In the Half-Life universe Aperture is
less advanced than Black Mesa.
(Of course Episode 3, if it ever comes, will probably contradict this
theory, but until then...)
2) Consider Chell in Portal 1:
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090504190860/half-life/en/images/0/0a/Chell-crouch.jpg
And in Portal 2:
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110509203944/half-life/en/images/8/80/Portal_2_chell.jpg
My theory: Wheatley commissioned some extensive plastic surgery on her
while she was in stasis.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/02/2012 18:05, Warp wrote:
> 1) Consider this: Both Black Mesa and Aperture were developing
> teleportation technology. On one side, Black Mesa's teleportation
> was in its early infancy. The teleportation test device was an
> enormous several-stories-high thing that required enormous amounts
> of energy, special materials, and barely worked. In one of the tests
> it failed spectacularly, causing the resonance cascade. No actual
> applications of this prototype teleportation device have ever been
> shown.
>
> On the other side Aperture's version of the teleportation was
> centuries ahead technologically. A small, light-weight portable
> teleportation device which is safe to use and has never been seen
> to fail, and which can create teleports over enormous distances
> (even as far as the Moon). The applications are humongous.
To be fair, Black Mesa managed to teleport over distances slightly
larger than just to the moon. (We have no idea where Xen actually is -
particularly, whether it exists in the same space as us. The notion of
"distance" may not be well-defined.)
> Yet it's established in the Portal universe that the government
> chose Black Mesa over Aperture for developing their teleportation
> technology for military purposes. This seems inconceivable.
You haven't worked with large government bodies before, what you? ;-)
Then of course there's the self-evident fact that the people at Aperture
are stark, raving mad. Would /you/ want to do business with them?!
And finally, the Aura Borealis. You say Aperture teleportation has never
malfunctioned, but EP2 claims that this ship and part of the dry dock
vanished inexplicably. That's a pretty frigging big malfunction...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> And finally, the Aura Borealis.
No Aura.
> You say Aperture teleportation has never
> malfunctioned, but EP2 claims that this ship and part of the dry dock
> vanished inexplicably. That's a pretty frigging big malfunction...
The Borealis incident probably happened in the 1970's (at least deducing
from Borealis' dock being the 70's section of the old Aperture complex),
while the Black Mesa incident happened in 2003 or so.
What I meant is that the portal gun seems to function flawlessly,
while Black Mesa has never been seen with any kind of reliable
teleportation technology.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/16/2012 11:05, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> And finally, the Aura Borealis. You say Aperture teleportation has never
> malfunctioned, but EP2 claims that this ship and part of the dry dock
> vanished inexplicably. That's a pretty frigging big malfunction...
That ship started out (or at least had docked) at Aperture, ya know. (I
don't know enough about EP2 to know what they say about it there.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/16/2012 11:47, Warp wrote:
> What I meant is that the portal gun seems to function flawlessly,
> while Black Mesa has never been seen with any kind of reliable
> teleportation technology.
I would argue that g-man has reliable teleportation technology. It's just
that nobody else in the complex does. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16/02/2012 19:05, Warp a écrit :
> My theory: Wheatley commissioned some extensive plastic surgery on her
> while she was in stasis.
Remember in portal 1 they used tramps to perform the tests. For a
sandwich...
The pictures are the difference between an hungry tramp and a well-feed
citizen.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wrote:
> Remember in portal 1 they used tramps to perform the tests. For a
> sandwich...
You are confusing it with the Aperture of the 70's/80's, as hinted in
the second game.
> The pictures are the difference between an hungry tramp and a well-feed
> citizen.
It's established (especially in the second game) that Cell is the
daughter of one of the scientists.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How about this theory:
Make one portal on the ground and the other on the ceiling right above it.
Then take a metallic rod that's exactly the same length as the height of
the room, pass it vertically through the portal, and then weld its ends
(iow. the rod gets welded to itself).
Now the rod can be moved horizontally and vertically, but it cannot be
turned around a horizontal axis (because it stops itself from being turned).
It's effectively an infinite rod. Now let the rod go.
The rod will start falling. There's nothing stopping it or slowing it
down (even air resistance is virtually inexistent because the rod is
perfectly vertical and falling straight down). At some point it will
reach relativistic speeds, so we get a paradox similar to the so-called
Ehrenfest paradox.
Putting that paradox aside, when the rod has gained enormous speed
(and consequently a humongous momentum, being a heavy metallic rod and
all), move the portal on the ceiling to another location, eg. a wall.
What happens?
The only possibility is that we get a so-called portal cut (iow. moving
one end of the portal to another direction causes the rod to be cut),
and the rod will be flung from the new portal at a humongous speed and
with such a tremendous momentum that when it hits something the amount of
energy released can probably be measured in kilotons of TNT (ie. the same
as a nuclear bomb).
Where is all this energy coming from? Clearly the portal technology itself
must supply this energy in order to transfer matter from one portal to
another, and it was supplying all these kilotons to the rod when it was
falling down. But where does the portal gun get all this energy from?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 25.02.2012 12:46, schrieb Warp:
> How about this theory:
>
> Make one portal on the ground and the other on the ceiling right above it.
> Then take a metallic rod that's exactly the same length as the height of
> the room, pass it vertically through the portal, and then weld its ends
> (iow. the rod gets welded to itself).
>
> Now the rod can be moved horizontally and vertically, but it cannot be
> turned around a horizontal axis (because it stops itself from being turned).
> It's effectively an infinite rod. Now let the rod go.
>
> The rod will start falling.
Why should it? Downward motion won't put the endless rod into a state of
lower potential energy, so it will not happen.
To the contrary, every coaxial acceleration of the rod would impose an
ever so slight length contraction due to relativistic effects, leading
to buildup of internal stress (and hence internal energy - not sure how
the expert would call this type), while deceleration would reduce the
internal stress, so deceleration is likely to happen spontaneously while
acceleration would require external energy input (and I mean energy
input, not just some force). So even if the rod was falling in the first
place, given sufficient time its motion will actually /stop/.
(You /could/ force it into motion by heating it up though: As the
material would try to expand in all directions, again internal stress
would be induced, and as any increase in speed - whether up- or
downwards - would reduce this stress due to length contraction, a tiny
push /would/ eventually get it up to relativistic speed - provided the
rod doesn't melt long before due to air friction. Or at least that's how
the thought experiment goes - maybe there's a flaw in it as well.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Why should it?
Because gravity points down at all points in the rod. There is no force
in the opposite direction counteracting gravity.
If the rod were not welded to itself, it would definitely fall (until
it collides with the borders of the portal or whatever), no? Welding it
to itself doesn't change this. (Basically the only thing the welding
achieves is that it stops the rod from tilting.)
> Downward motion won't put the endless rod into a state of
> lower potential energy, so it will not happen.
The rod is not literally endless. It's just that the parts that go
thrown the portal on the floor are transported to the portal on the ceiling.
(From a physics point of view this would mean that the energy required to
transport matter adds to the potential energy of said matter if the endpoint
is higher than the startpoint.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I wonder how the fact that teleportation is revealed to be limited by the
speed of light affects this, tho.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.02.2012 17:35, schrieb Warp:
> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Why should it?
>
> Because gravity points down at all points in the rod. There is no force
> in the opposite direction counteracting gravity.
>
> If the rod were not welded to itself, it would definitely fall (until
> it collides with the borders of the portal or whatever), no? Welding it
> to itself doesn't change this. (Basically the only thing the welding
> achieves is that it stops the rod from tilting.)
That's /one/ way to interpret the observable effects of gravity, but the
force of gravity is not necessarily the /cause/ of the movement, but may
instead be just the result of trying to /counter/ that movement.
Remember how inertia is not caused by some force of inertia, but instead
a force of inertia is caused by trying to counter the inertial movement.
The movement due to gravity may instead be a result of quantum
fluctuations in the position of the object, which favor positions with
lower potential energy.
>> Downward motion won't put the endless rod into a state of
>> lower potential energy, so it will not happen.
>
> The rod is not literally endless. It's just that the parts that go
> thrown the portal on the floor are transported to the portal on the ceiling.
> (From a physics point of view this would mean that the energy required to
> transport matter adds to the potential energy of said matter if the endpoint
> is higher than the startpoint.)
Actually that's the one weak point of all the portal stuff: Rather than
allowing objects to fall through without a change in speed, a real
working portal technology would have to result in a repelling force at
the lower portal itself, proportional to the difference in potential energy.
So no automatic "speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.02.2012 18:56, schrieb Darren New:
> I wonder how the fact that teleportation is revealed to be limited by
> the speed of light affects this, tho.
... or is it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/26/2012 15:21, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.02.2012 18:56, schrieb Darren New:
>> I wonder how the fact that teleportation is revealed to be limited by
>> the speed of light affects this, tho.
>
> ... or is it?
Have you played Portal 2?
Answer: Yes, the developers say so in the commentary. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/26/2012 15:20, clipka wrote:
> The movement due to gravity may instead be a result of quantum fluctuations
> in the position of the object, which favor positions with lower potential
> energy.
That's kind of a non-answer, tho, given that the potential energy is indeed
mass.
> Actually that's the one weak point of all the portal stuff: Rather than
> allowing objects to fall through without a change in speed, a real working
> portal technology would have to result in a repelling force at the lower
> portal itself, proportional to the difference in potential energy.
Unless you're assuming the power is not coming from the gun itself. I would
think anything powered by a black hole could probably generate as much power
as it needs to via hawking radiation. Certainly as much power as we've seen
it use.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 27/02/2012 01:23, Darren New a écrit :
> Unless you're assuming the power is not coming from the gun itself.
Or, if you opened the gun, you would find a set of miniportals with
their infinite rods falling all over again and again.
That will answer "where does the infinite energy come from, for the new
portal." (now, it's a chicken & egg... how was the first portal done...
maybe with some failed experiment in time travel or space travel)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> That's /one/ way to interpret the observable effects of gravity, but the
> force of gravity is not necessarily the /cause/ of the movement, but may
> instead be just the result of trying to /counter/ that movement.
> Remember how inertia is not caused by some force of inertia, but instead
> a force of inertia is caused by trying to counter the inertial movement.
I don't understand.
At every single point in the rod you have an acceleration downwards of
about 9.8 m/s^2 due to gravity.
What exactly is the force in the opposite direction counteracting this?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Unless you're assuming the power is not coming from the gun itself. I would
> think anything powered by a black hole could probably generate as much power
> as it needs to via hawking radiation.
You can't use a black hole to generate energy because you have no way
of controlling the amount of energy it produces.
Rather ironically, the smaller the black hole, the more energy it produces
(assuming the Hawking radiation hypothesis is true) and the faster it
evaporates, and very small black holes produce enormous amounts of energy
and evaporate extremely fast.
For example, a black hole with a mass of 200 thousand kilograms would
evaporate in just 1 second and release an amount of energy equivalent
to 5 million megatons of TNT. (The largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated
was "only" 50 megatons.)
I haven't done the math but I assume that if you had a manageable mass
as a black hole, such as 1 kilogram, it would evaporate in microseconds
or faster (and still release a rather big amount of energy).
In order to keep the black hole at a constant mass and producing energy
you would need to feed it matter continuously. At the rate of evaporation
of a 1-kilogram black hole I wouldn't be surprised if you had to feed it
matter faster than c in order to keep it from evaporating.
A much larger black hole takes more time to evaporate and releases less
energy. The problem now becomes how to handle that black hole and stop it
from plummeting towards the center of the Earth. A black hole (probably)
can have an electromagnetic charge, which means you could keep it hovering
inside a magnetic field. But we are talking about millions and millions of
tons here. The magnetic field required to keep a mass of that size hovering
is probably so strong that it would melt everything around it (including
the hardware used to create the magnetic field in the first place).
Of course with such massive black hole you also get the problem of its
gravity becoming a significant hazard factor close to it. It would have to
be kept hovering quite far away from all other objects, and in a vacuum
(else it would constantly suck atmosphere).
Then we have the problem of what to do with the excess energy. Not only
do you have to feed the black hole a constant stream of matter to stop it
from evaporating in a multi-million-megaton explosion, but you also have
to do something with the energy that it's producing. It has to go somewhere.
And there's a lot of it. (Basically you are converting matter into pure
energy, and matter has incredible amounts of it.)
The hazards of having such a source of energy are quite great. You only
need a small disruption in the inflow of matter and you could end up with
a runaway evaporation that you cannot stop, and which would make the Tsar
Bomba look like a firecracker.
Also if the black hole is not kept constantly charged it could escape
the magnetic field and fall to the ground, and again it would explode
(although this time probably somewhere inside the Earth).
And this assuming you can produce such a black hole in the frist place...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/25/2012 3:46 AM, Warp wrote:
> even air resistance is virtually inexistent because the rod is
> perfectly vertical and falling straight down
At high speeds this won't necessarily hold due to the viscosity of the
air. A common, and generally accurate, assumption in fluid dynamics is
that fluid velocity along a surface is equal to the velocity of the
surface, and thus the viscosity of the air would lead to potentially
significant drag and the rod would almost certainly have a terminal
velocity well below relativistic speeds.
> Where is all this energy coming from? Clearly the portal technology itself
> must supply this energy in order to transfer matter from one portal to
> another, and it was supplying all these kilotons to the rod when it was
> falling down. But where does the portal gun get all this energy from?
>
I've always wanted the answer to be that the power is supplied by the
walls, which is why you can't put a portal on all of the walls.
Unfortunately this seems to be inconsistent with some bits in the game,
so I can't think of an answer better than technobabble magic.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/26/2012 7:07 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 25.02.2012 12:46, schrieb Warp:
>>
>> The rod will start falling.
>
> Why should it? Downward motion won't put the endless rod into a state of
> lower potential energy, so it will not happen.
What you say is of course true, but there are so many issues raised with
portals and potential energy (or, in general, the interaction of portals
with fields) that I'm inclined to throw up my hands and just assume that
things somehow work like you'd expect in the "Newtonian physics" sense
and just go from there.
> To the contrary, every coaxial acceleration of the rod would impose an
> ever so slight length contraction due to relativistic effects, leading
> to buildup of internal stress (and hence internal energy - not sure how
> the expert would call this type), while deceleration would reduce the
> internal stress, so deceleration is likely to happen spontaneously while
> acceleration would require external energy input (and I mean energy
> input, not just some force). So even if the rod was falling in the first
> place, given sufficient time its motion will actually /stop/.
>
> (You /could/ force it into motion by heating it up though: As the
> material would try to expand in all directions, again internal stress
> would be induced, and as any increase in speed - whether up- or
> downwards - would reduce this stress due to length contraction, a tiny
> push /would/ eventually get it up to relativistic speed - provided the
> rod doesn't melt long before due to air friction. Or at least that's how
> the thought experiment goes - maybe there's a flaw in it as well.)
There's one bit of your reasoning that I don't follow. If you put
yourself in the rod's reference frame, then the velocity of the rod does
nothing to change the internal stresses, so whence the acceleration? It
seems like you're calculating the elastic energy of the rod in purely in
rest coordinates without modeling how elastic energy behaves in
relativistic settings. I think this is probably most clearly shown by
that fact that your argument doesn't obey conservation of momentum.
Note, however, that I'm pretty weak on relativistic physics and I
haven't calculated any stress-energy tensors or anything for this, so I
might be wrong.
In addition, the argument you've stated would seem to apply equally well
to inducing a rotation in a ring. It's possible there's some subtle
reason why a ring is different than a linear rod here, but I suspect
it's an indication that the original analysis doesn't really work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/27/2012 9:49 AM, Warp wrote:
> I haven't done the math but I assume that if you had a manageable mass
> as a black hole, such as 1 kilogram, it would evaporate in microseconds
> or faster (and still release a rather big amount of energy).
Much faster actually, I believe it'd evaporate in a fraction of a
femtosecond. As you say, there's pretty much nothing which could
possibly be done to make that anything other than an extremely powerful
bomb.
>
> Also if the black hole is not kept constantly charged it could escape
> the magnetic field and fall to the ground, and again it would explode
> (although this time probably somewhere inside the Earth).
I read a science fiction book once with a somewhat similar premise (only
the black hole was larger and non-manmade -- still charged though). It
was an interesting read partially because the author took some obvious
pains to get the science at least largely correct. If you listen to
audiobooks, you can listen to it for free:
http://www.podiobooks.com/title/singularity I found it pretty enjoyable,
even if not particularly exceptional.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
> I've always wanted the answer to be that the power is supplied by the
> walls, which is why you can't put a portal on all of the walls.
> Unfortunately this seems to be inconsistent with some bits in the game,
> so I can't think of an answer better than technobabble magic.
I think there has never been an explanation attempt at why you can make
portals only on some surfaces but not others. Seems like the rule is "if
the surface is white and smooth, then it's portal-friendly, else it isn't".
No explanation why. (Smoothness could perhaps be handwaved, but not the
whiteness. There certainly are many surfaces in both games that are smooth
but non-white, and you can't put portals on them.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/27/2012 9:28 AM, Warp wrote:
> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> That's /one/ way to interpret the observable effects of gravity, but the
>> force of gravity is not necessarily the /cause/ of the movement, but may
>> instead be just the result of trying to /counter/ that movement.
>> Remember how inertia is not caused by some force of inertia, but instead
>> a force of inertia is caused by trying to counter the inertial movement.
>
> I don't understand.
>
> At every single point in the rod you have an acceleration downwards of
> about 9.8 m/s^2 due to gravity.
>
> What exactly is the force in the opposite direction counteracting this?
I don't think it's any more odd to have a mysterious "force" holding the
rod up than it is to have a mysterious energy input allowing it to fall.
You're really just giving slightly different answers to the same
paradox. Which answer is the most "natural" depends on how you treat
gravity, and formulations of gravity which are mathematically isomorphic
under normal circumstances seem to differ here. For instance:
1) An object of mass m in a gravitational field of acceleration g feels
a force of strength m*g, and by Newton's law moves according to m*g =
m*dx^2/d^2x
2) An object of mass m in a gravitational field which gives potential
m*g*x to an object at position x moves along a spacetime path which
minimizes 0.5*m*(dx/dt)^2 - m*g*h
Under view (1) it seems that the rod should move, but under view (2) it
seems the rod should stay still. Of course, based on how portals work
in the game I think it's clear that things operate more like (1), but
this is just a fact about the game design and isn't the sort of thing
you're going to be able to reason about like there's a correct answer
for in any sort of "real" sense (unless you want to treat the portals as
wormholes and solve the GR equations on the resulting topology, which I
sure don't want to do, and which I suspect would turn out like (2) anyway).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:38:27 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
>> I've always wanted the answer to be that the power is supplied by the
>> walls, which is why you can't put a portal on all of the walls.
>> Unfortunately this seems to be inconsistent with some bits in the game,
>> so I can't think of an answer better than technobabble magic.
>
> I think there has never been an explanation attempt at why you can
> make
> portals only on some surfaces but not others. Seems like the rule is "if
> the surface is white and smooth, then it's portal-friendly, else it
> isn't".
> No explanation why. (Smoothness could perhaps be handwaved, but not the
> whiteness. There certainly are many surfaces in both games that are
> smooth but non-white, and you can't put portals on them.)
I think the whiteness is nothing more than a visual cue for the player.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/27/2012 4:08 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 27/02/2012 01:23, Darren New a écrit :
>> Unless you're assuming the power is not coming from the gun itself.
>
>
> Or, if you opened the gun, you would find a set of miniportals with
> their infinite rods falling all over again and again.
I actually really like this theory that the portal gun is powered by
internal portals. The paradoxical chicken and egg aspect seems like it
would fit well within the humor style of the game.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
> I actually really like this theory that the portal gun is powered by
> internal portals. The paradoxical chicken and egg aspect seems like it
> would fit well within the humor style of the game.
Actually a phenomenon feeding itself isn't all that paradoxical.
For example stars work via fusion, and the fusion keeps the star doing
the fusion. It's an endless loop (which only stops when there's too much
iron, which does not fuse, in the core of the star).
Or more precisely: What stops a star from collapsing due to gravity?
The continuous fusion that happens in its core. But what causes the fusion?
Gravity (and temperature, which the fusion itself produces). So the fusion
itself allows the fusion to continue.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/27/2012 4:08, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Or, if you opened the gun, you would find a set of miniportals with
> their infinite rods falling all over again and again.
I think that's the most meta concept I've heard in a year.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/28/2012 7:38, Warp wrote:
> I think there has never been an explanation attempt at why you can make
> portals only on some surfaces but not others. Seems like the rule is "if
In the first game, the walls you could portal were tiles and the walls you
couldn't were clearly metallic. I.e., it was evident it was due to the
material of which the walls were made.
In the second game, you have the same sort of thing, except with moon rocks
too, which strengthens that argument a bit.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
