Yeah, I think we're done here.

Explain how the weak person hurt their hand anon. The knife analogy would have a similar issue if it attempt to stab something tough as well.

It wouldn't be accurate to say the wall ran into you, because walls don't have legs, silly.

It would be accurate to say the wall moved to you. All motion is relative. And since we've establish taking damage as a determining factor (or else the whole analogy about being beaten up is pointless) then the fact you were hurt by the wall is in fact demonstration of the argument that the wall can be thought of as moving to you.

>all motion is relative
>No, it isn’t.
And the Earth is flat.

>is contained entirely on Earth
One could even say it is relative to Earth, huh.

>YOUR FACE ISNT MOVING TO MY FIST WHEN I PUNCH YOU
Yes it actually is.
Please go back to school.

>run into a wall?? NO NO NO!!! the wall ran into me!!!!!! the entire world shifted to hit me!
Do Bkeks realize how insane they sound?

See

>run into a wall?? NO NO NO!!! the wall ran into me!!!!!! the entire world shifted to hit me!
Do Bkeks realize how insane they sound?

>But that is not how reality works.
It is, the earth's reference frame is in no way special in reality.
>When you fall off of a cliff the ground is not rising up into the sky

>Perception is not reality.
So why is your entire argument built on your perception from the earth's reference frame being reality?

>reality changes based off of what I am looking at
So again, why is your entire argument based on doing that?

>You keep hyper fixating on the damage part like an autist.
Says the anon talking about breaking someone's jaw.
>The point since the beginning is that YOUR FACE ISNT MOVING TO MY FIST WHEN I PUNCH YOU
It isn't when using a reference frame that defines it as such. But there is no absolute reference frame, all motion is relative. Basic physics anon.
>You are standing still, when someone throws a baseball at your face you aren’t moving toward the ball.
It isn't when using a reference frame that defines it as such. But there is no absolute reference frame, all motion is relative. Basic physics anon.

because he's a weak b***h trying to attack a chAd?

>how the weak person hurt their hand.

Haha nailed it. He isn’t even aware that he changed it. He added in the “weak” part out of nowhere and was shocked to get a different result. Exquisite display of exactly the kind of mental disfunction that plagues Bgays.

You're the one assuming amounts of energy. And then your conclussions don't make sense. You're spouting impossibilities for the sake of proving we're wrong, by just showing how faulty your logic is, and then expecting us to commit to the same level of nonsense.
When you make an hypothesis you must allow something to be true. In this case, it's the assumption that portals work somehow.

>You don't need a near infinite force, whatever that is
Yes, you do, according to

The cube changes location
So it moves
So it has momentum

This is just objectively true and can"t be discussed unless you just take a shit on physics as a whole.

>the cube is moving because it changes location

If what anon says is true - the distance between two portals is not zero, but the time between travelling that distance is infinitely close to zero, then the velocity of the cube (distance=1 divided by time=0*) is infinity*. Momentum is a function of velocity, so momentum of the cube is infinity*. In order to move from rest to a momentum of infinity*, a force of infinity* is required to cause the cube to reach that state

The alternative is you take this statement
>You just need... to connect two distant points in space
Connect two points so that the distance between them is zero, which is how a wormhole 'works'. In this case the cube moving between portals is moving a distance of zero - aka not moving, no momentum, and no exit velocity.

For portals to even work, it has to be A

why is the idea of the momentum being absorbed into the platform not an option?
that's like saying if you slam a cylinder onto a ball sitting on a cement block, what must happen is that the ball must come shooting out of the cylinder because the momentum must go SOMEWHERE besides the cement block

>The cube can't have a positive momentum, because it's velocity is zero.
False. Frames of reference come into play here.

why is the idea of the momentum being absorbed into the platform not an option?
that's like saying if you slam a cylinder onto a ball sitting on a cement block, what must happen is that the ball must come shooting out of the cylinder because the momentum must go SOMEWHERE besides the cement block

Because energy goes back and forth and it would be like talking about why no one mentions the energy absorbed by a soccer player when kicking a penalty.

>Now imagine you've actually played the games and tried looking at what's between two portals only to find out that there isn't anything because portals are just two holes connected together.
The portals are moving relative to each other. The pencil is moving relative to itself.

>No object is knocking the cube up into the air, so it will not be launched into the air
The big error in this discussion is the assumption that nothing is actually acting upon the cube.

The fact of the matter is, the moving platform with the portal must actually act upon the cube and transfer its own kinetic energy into the cube in order to make the cube move through the portal. In your mind, remove the cube from the problem entirely, and only imagine what remains in its place, air. There's also air on the other side of the portal. As the moving platform moves, the air that is present in its path will get swept up by the portal, but there is also air on the other side of the portal just sitting there. You cannot add new air to already existing air without them interacting with each other. The molecules of the air on one side of the portal will collide with the molecules of air coming from the other, imparting kinetic energy from one to another. The extra kinetic energy in the system cannot be added from nothing, it must come from somewhere. So it stands to reason that the moving platform with a portal must sacrifice its own kinetic energy to move materials through the portal, giving air or other objects momentum where they had none before, at the very least so that materials on the other side can be pushed out of the way to make room for the moving materials.

So, confirmation of momentum, laws of thermodynamics, etc, depend on B being the more accurate depiction, though you will notice the platform being slowed down as objects pass through.

Gravity's doing the work there.

It's not being pushed up, do you not even understand how portals work?

There isn't even any need for water going through the portal to push other water out of the way in this example, because the water is being pulled down by gravity it's moving itself out of the way.

the water would lose all energy eventually

That would be interesting, if gravitational attraction itself passed through portals, but it simply doesn't happen in game so I guess not. Objects pass through portals but gravitational fields just don't (or gravitons or w/e).

So what force displaces the air on the other side of the portal? Magic?

Can't fall without gravity.

The kinetic energy is not generated from nothing. The two portals are moving relative to each other, see

>Now imagine you've actually played the games and tried looking at what's between two portals only to find out that there isn't anything because portals are just two holes connected together.
The portals are moving relative to each other. The pencil is moving relative to itself.

The pencil is moving relative to itself meaning it already has kinetic energy relative to its own frame of reference.

i think they pull energy out of xen

No, it's a distortion of space, causing one location in space to be adjacent to another location in space it wouldn't normally be adjacent to. And in the examples we're talking about, it's even a moving distortion of space because it's attached to an object which is moving.

>must actually act
It's a portal it's not real. It doesn't have to do shit.

>It's a portal it's not real. It doesn't have to do shit.
Then your position is that it could behave like A, or behave like B, or behave like any other letter of the alphabet because it's fiction and doesn't actually have to follow any real-world rules. That's not incorrect, but it adds nothing to the discussion.

It's producing kinetic energy from no potential energy, though. The entire concept of portals violates all manner of physical laws and concepts, which is why it's moronic to claim that they couldn't possibly generate kinetic energy from nothing when
>they do that in the game
>what you're suggesting they do still generates kinetic energy from nothing

>It's producing kinetic energy from no potential energy, though.
That's not true. Gravitational potential energy is a type of potential energy.

It's not massless because it's attached to a physical object that does have mass and momentum. The movement of the hole is bound to the movement of the object, if something passing through the hole hits a solid and unyielding surface present on the other side, it can no longer move through the hole, and the hole can no longer move around it, and the object the hole is tied to can no longer move.

>otherwise ALL movement through the hole would be moronic to some degree
Running through, or launch an object through, or falling through, a portal that is stationary on both sides (like in the game) would not be moronic by anything more than the same air resistance running, or launching an object, or falling, would suffer from without going through any portals. What's different about the scenario all this discussion is about is that one side of the portal is attached to something that is moving relative to the other side of the portal. That something is doing work on everything that touches the portal the same way it would be doing work on anything that touches the something if it didn't have the portal on it, and it gives up its own energy to do that.

And again, a portal is not a hole. Moving X distance and passing through a hole along the way results in you being X distance from your starting position, but moving X distance and moving through a portal along the way results in you being a different distance from your starting position than X.

>must actually act
It's a portal it's not real. It doesn't have to do shit.

If the velocity of the cube on exit was 0 it wouldn't exit the portal at all. All of its atoms would just combine inside each other in an infinitely thin wedge when they teleport from one portal to the other.

if that were true the game would crash and your computer would explode
since it's not true a player can only fall as fast as the game is set to allow

it assumes that there's a single frame of reference, which is not the case in physics. I guess if you're talking about video game world then you're right.

If you've watched all of the webms and still could not understand a thing then there's no point in arguing with you, but here I'll try one last time. Try to view it in the portal's POV, you should see the block moving towards you and is not stationary
>but it's not moving
It is, imagine you're in space during all of this to make it easier to imagine, no backgrounds, no machines or w/e. Just the cube and the portal.

Anyway if you still couldn't comprehend what's happening then I'd recommend watching some simple videos trying to explain frames of references. Here's a kid friendly video where hopefully you'll understand a bit of relativity.

In their point of view YOU came to a sudden stop. You don't understand relativity, there are no single frames of references.

Did you applied force to come to a stop? if yes then you will fall since you are changing your velocity
Did they apply force to stop? then they should fall
No force was applied to stop? then nothing will fall.
Thinking With Portals, do it.

The cube was indeed at "'rest"" relative to its POV. here in case you missed it

Depends on how you view it.

Nothing is at rest. the earth moves around the sun, the sun moves around the milky way and it keeps on going.

newton's law of Conservation of energy. The object is moving in space and will continue to do so until force is applied against it.

It did not accelerate, in fact it kept its inertia. You can see it here where it """GAINED""""
speed where no additional force was applied.

It did not accelerate, in fact it kept its inertia. You can see it here where it """GAINED""""
speed where no additional force was applied. [...]

>You can see it here where it """GAINED"""" speed where no additional force was applied.

You mean the guy pushing the cube through the portal? Unless you're trying to tell me that if you drop an object in a vehicle, it will fly to the back of it on it's own?

Yuh huh, and from this frame of reference, what is the force acting upon the cube in order to bring it from a state of rest (from this perspective) to a state of accelleration (from this perspective)?

If I'm in a car driving 60 MPH and I see somebody standing beside the road, they do not suddenly rocket 60 MPH in the direction I was traveling from if I slam on the brakes, even though they look like they're moving towards me.

And from the perspective of somebody on the solar system the Earth is moving super fast, so that means the cube should shoot through the portal at 6 million miles per hour. You can pick and choose whatever frame of reference you want to justify how the cube might or might not move.

>if I slam on the brakes
Then it's you who avoided the pedestrian. He would have crashed into your car if you didn't.

Because in both your and their frame of reference the force is applied to you

>There is no force
>A wormhole (a link between two coordinates) is placed over the cube and it's coordinates are displaced
The same way, the wormhole links two different speeds if the ends are moving or angled relative to each other.

>objects passing through portals maintain 100% of their own momentum
They literally don't, relative to the environment, as momentum is a vector quantity. Changing the direction changes the momentum. They only mantain their momentum relative to the entrance and exit of the portals respectively. There's no such thing as "own momentum".

It wasn't about a potential collision, just the idea that my movement or perspective does not impact the pedestrian's movement from his frame of reference. Just because I see the cube moving if I'm looking through the portal, it doesn't mean the cube is moving in its frame of reference, nor that it would move when it goes through the portal. We could find a hundred different reference points for relative movement that would suggest one or the other.

From the cube's frame of reference, it's not moving. Nothing touches it. Nothing gives it force. Why, from it's frame of reference, would it suddenly move super fast when going through the portal? Put yourself into the shoes of the cube.

[...]
Why? It's pretty arbitrary that only the portal's speed matters for this when the portal and the platform its on don't do anything to impart force to the portal. The entire argument is arbitrary in either direction. The portal violates relativity, so you can use it to justify it for either case.

>From the cube's frame of reference, it's not moving. Nothing touches it. Nothing gives it force. Why, from it's frame of reference, would it suddenly move super fast when going through the portal? Put yourself into the shoes of the cube.
The cube is undisturbed. It just finds itself in a new environment where there is relative movement.

>My entire point is that you can think of about a thousand different frames of reference to explain it one way or the other.
Not really. The one rule that is consistently observed is that the object leaves the exit at the same relative speed to the exit as it had relative to the entrance when it entered through the entrance. Other theories require to misunderstand momentum and they fail simply as soon as you look and them from a different point of view.

The A theory seems to be trivial at the start of this gif

but then you look at the same event from a different point and momentum is "created from nothing".

Portal happens on Earth, which is presumably moving in the Portal universe. When you walk in one direction and then turn around to walk in another, you are _not_ moving at the same "absolute", or "own", or "scalar" speed.

The A explanation is logically inconsistent. It doesn't make sense even conceptually, because it relies on the existence of an absolute frame of reference and results in the cube behaving completely differently depending on where you're looking at it from. It's also literally disproven in-game during the moon portal sequence.
The B explanation has magic portals that violate conservation of momentum. The A explanation doesn't work even if you accept that portals are magic.

What is the force acting upon the cube to move it from its initial point on the platform to the final point on the slope?

Imagine the earth as a tube in space, you are standing on a platform and you see the earth pass around you at great speed. In their POV you are the one going through the earth while they are stationary.

>So why shouldn't I lurch and fall over? I was coming right at them!
The reason things "lurch and fall over" due to an abrupt stop is not due to the act of the stopping itself but the rapid changes in the forces enacted on and by them putting them out of balance.

In other words, you don't need "a portal" to do the dumb thought experiment from

>Try to view it in the portal's POV, you should see the block moving towards you and is not stationary
POVs are not important. If they were, you could look through a moving portal that comes to a sudden stop, and all the objects on the other side (buildings, trees, people) would have to suddenly lurch forward and fall over because from your perspective it LOOKS like they should.

In other words, see [...]

.
You can just move your head around and observe the world accelerating and decelerating around you. And the reason the world doesn't abruptly collapse due to the rapid change in observed movement is not due to some mysterious and ridiculously unscientific "inherent movement" - it's just that the acceleration and deceleration produced by such movement is universal and perfectly even, creating absolutely no way for inertion to present itself observably.
And our dumb planet is a great example of relativity at work, as everything on it is constantly spinning at ridiculous speeds while zooming through Space at speeds even more ridiculous. And yet, you feel nothing because everything surrounding you moves evenly.

With portals, you don't need a force to change an object's position.
With portals, you don't need a force to change an object's speed.

Portals in moon scene preserve relative velocity like in B. There are no example where a portal works like A in game.

>A-freinds
Think how portals work in game doesn't actually count and we should ignore the games.

>muh moon
Air is molecule, you low IQ moron.
Functionally it makes no difference than putting a portal between a full water tank and an empty one.

>A-gays:
people who don't understand physics, talking about physics

>doooood uhhhh—- *shits pants and dies*
You didn’t get the moon scene.

>seething about Christians unprompted
ROFL LOLOLOLOLOLOL

>muh moon
Air is molecule, you low IQ moron.
Functionally it makes no difference than putting a portal between a full water tank and an empty one.

>just like me pulling on your arm
If you pull on my arm such that it accelerates infinitely fast it will fly off because my shoulder can’t generate infinite force

No, according to the B model there are two simultaneous forces
>The force halting the object's momentum on the entrance side
>The magical, greater portal force pushing the object out on the portal side
The object should, by B logic, be pulled apart, torn in half even if the body cannot withstand the opposing forces being exerted on the body.
Or, and hear me out here, it's just a magic hole

You understand the ones in support of A are trolling right?

The ruleset posited by the game that portals perfectly conserve the object's speed relative to the viewer (player) and ignoring direction would support A. The cube is not moving so it doesn't start moving because portals never makes things start moving faster in any direction. This ignores the laws of physics as much as literally any other explanation, and it's as stupid as any other explanation. If you go purely by game logic, A is correct.

The entire reason the argument is so volatile is because it's easy to justify either, and also easy to poke holes in any argument, because they're all based on literally nothing but personal feelings and what you think makes most sense based off of something completely subjective. It's arbitrary.

No, the only way this happens is if you consider portals to be doors. Like how the game considers them. A portal does not impart any force or motion onto an object passing through it in game, even if logically by physics it does because of a multitude of reasons. IN GAME, that's not the case. As far as the cube is concerned, it passes through a weirdly shaped door. We don't know if that changes if the portal is moving (because that doesn't happen in game) but based on the game's rules it shouldn't. That ruleset is arbitrary and violates the laws of physics as much as everything else to do with the portals, though. Either way, the cube should not be moving at all because no force acts on it, and by the game's rule set objects do not gain speed in any direction when they pass through portals unless gravity is involved.

When a cube changes direction it has accelerated massively in that direction. A cube that goes in left at 10m/s and comes out moving right at 10 m/s, has changed its velocity by 20m/s. Speed and velocity is changed all of the time in-game.

the change is instant

any change in direction is literally change in momentum no matter if you want to dismiss it

velocity consists of two components, speed and direction, so it's a vector

there's no absolute speed because every speed is measured in relation to something

soooo truuuuuu sister

>but it’s accepted as just part of how portals work
No it's not.

The basis of portal operations is that they change the momentum of objects in order to work as passages, this is literally what they are doing when they change the direction something is travelling. This change is also instant and literally what the portals do in the games.

Seemingly it's instant, clearly part of whatever magic teleportation the portals are doing, it takes however long that process takes. While the cube is half way through the portal, to the observer stood nearby half of it is moving +10m/s and half is moving -10m/s.

At what point does this potentially infinitely sized bubble of pre-portal universe rules pop, allowing the cube to behave according to the rules of the post-portal universe instead.

portals are massless, they cannot apply a force
try again

see

B
>at least able to get to the level of basic newtonian physics
A
>sun revolves around the earth tier

>basic newtonian physics
Black person not a single Bgay has ever once been a able to point out the force acting on the cube to launch it airborne

>Agays dont understand basic Newtonian physics!
>UH UH UH ACTUALLY I MEANT ADVANCED EINSTEINIAN PHYSICS
yeah ok so what "things" are acting on the cube to impart a velocity on it?

>"The effect"
you're going to have to be more specific man
is it gravity? is it force? is it electromagnetism? or are you're just going to invent an entirely new universal fundamental force that specifically only applies to portals in order to justify B?

>you're going to have to be more specific man
No I'm not, not unless you intend to be a hypocrite. Because you yourself have not cared to figure out the exact nature of how a portal alters an object's momentum when it changes an object's direction. You have simply accepted it, because it's what they show to do in the games. Your problem is you haven't grasped that a portal changing an object's momentum by direction and it changing an object's momentum by speed is the same thing, [...] the capability to do one of those things means the capability to do the other.

>its the effect
>its a new force
>its sci fi magic
>i cant (wont) describe it
So we can all agree that Bgays can't come up with a solution that satisfies "basic newtonian physics", right?

>the portal itself will change the object's momentum the same as it does its position
So the portal, a massless object, is the one applying a force to an object with mass? Is that the answer you're going with?

>Are you happy with your answer?
Well no, because the portal is a massless object and cannot transfer force or momentum to an object with mass
>but they can change the vector of a velocity!
It breaks a lot less rules of physics to say that portals can both relocate objects and redirect their the scalar speed than it does to say that they conjure Newtons out of the ether to physically change the momentum of an object (without resulting in whiplash, somehow)

the portals aren't doing anything important in that gif that a normal wall doesn't do.
Have you never bounced a ball? Never seen an AC circuit? Shit reverses course all the time.
Sure the thing happens instantly with a portal, but ok, so what? That's just an idealization of real life behavior, which is required in literally any physics problem ever.

Portals are attached to objects that do have mass.

>The piston is not interacting with the cube
How do you know? How do you know that portals don't used the mass they are attached to as part of their opration?
>If the surface of the wall did ever interact with the object passing through it, then you'd be faceplanting into a wall every time you went through a portal
No, the resulting force would instead be how your motion is changed by the portal, which is something that portals literally do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASUUN0W4_JY

And velocity.

It changes the cube's movement direction without acceleration, displacing the cube has nothing to do with it.

You can put two portals on the ground and drop a cube into one of them. It goes from going down to up instantly, which would require infinite acceleration.
We see it happen, so you either accept that portals can alter velocity without acceleration, or that infinite acceleration is possible.

Acceleration is a function of force. Infinite acceleration would mean infinite force.
Yes it is a paradox but you do see the change in velocity occurring without a force being exerted on the object. Where you put the line is semantics, whether it's acceleration without force or redirecting velocity without acceleration.

Do you think Chell experiences near-infinite forces going through portals?

Her velocity changes very quickly, so I don't need to think that, I know that. Luckily it changes in a very unusual way, basically taking effect on all of her as she is simultaneously teleporting, so from her perspective she wouldn't actually feel anything at all, it would appear that the entire universe has just experienced a near-instantaneous acceleration relative to her.

These threads are just
>Portals have to break these rules to function (A)
Vs
>nooo portals have to follow those rules but they break other rules in the process (B)

Oh no anon, you're going to get someone talking about air pressure because you haven't explained what you mean by the moon scene being B.

A is completely nonsensical and ignores basic principles, B is consistent with everything you throw at it once you accept that portals break conservation of energy.

Incidentally, this sort of acceleration is impossible to feel or notice in real life. A common explanation for this is to imagine yourself in a room. The room might be in space a million light years away from any other matter, or it might be in free-fall heading to the earth. Is there any way to tell which is the case from inside the room?
There isn't.

>directionality
That's not a word.

Please learn what velocity is, what accelaration is, and then what forces are and then get back to me.

And there was already a post that explained that Bgays change the scenario and are shocked to get different results.

A
>Oldgays
>Uses simple to understand and real life examples (Car, Hula Hoop, Falling House) to explain their position
>It’s common sense
B
>newbie
>Uses complex wall of text examples with more made up physics and completely different scenarios (trains, piston buildings, dildo cars, floating cube shit) to make people jump through hoops (ironic)
>”Ummm aktually the YouTuber said it’s B!”

but I already know you're gonna too much of a moron to understand that as well.

Nothing you posted has anything relevant to what I posted. I ought to refuse to reply to such low-effort garbage, but I'll do so anyway because I'm bored.

You are never moving relative to yourself IRL, that's the point. To have kinetic energy in your own frame of reference is not just physically but semantically impossible. None of the physicsy words used ITT have any meaning in a world where this axiom is violated.
Gravitational acceleration isn't much "freer" with portals than it would be with electric circuits. It's just refreshing your potential energy, like the gravity version of a battery.
Obviously the mechanism isn't explained and must be fantastical to some degree but again this has zero to do with my previous post, total goalpost-move on your part.

keyword *seemingly* Just because you don't see the part where the roller coaster is dragged up the first hill doesn't make it a perpetual motion machine.

The post you replied to

Nothing you posted has anything relevant to what I posted. I ought to refuse to reply to such low-effort garbage, but I'll do so anyway because I'm bored.

You are never moving relative to yourself IRL, that's the point. To have kinetic energy in your own frame of reference is not just physically but semantically impossible. None of the physicsy words used ITT have any meaning in a world where this axiom is violated.
Gravitational acceleration isn't much "freer" with portals than it would be with electric circuits. It's just refreshing your potential energy, like the gravity version of a battery.
Obviously the mechanism isn't explained and must be fantastical to some degree but again this has zero to do with my previous post, total goalpost-move on your part.

has nothing to do with A or B.

Alright, let me put it another way. The key assumption of the B solution is that the end result of what happens to objects that pass through the portals, is based entirely on their velocities relative to the portals. No matter what your perspective is, the end result relative to the portals is exactly the same. It's fully consistent regardless of the reference of the observer. The problem with A is that it considers the reference of the observer important. The cube behaves differently (either flying out or not) based on whether it is "moving" or "not moving", apparently regardless of its relative motion to the portals itself.
So who or what defines "moving" or "not moving"? A has no consistent answer, and thus can't consistently predict the outcome of anything. Agays seem to think that motion is some fundamental property of objects or the universe, and not something that is a relative property between two specific things.

>There is none
so there is no force launching the cube up into the air
ergo, the cube doesn't get launched up into the air

it's not moving, because the distance between two ends of a portal is zero
essentially, it is gradually teleporting

Your problem is that you don't have a fundamental grasp of what motion or movement is. If you want to come to the correct answer, that's what you need to solve. I'm going to use the word you all hate, sorry, but it's relative. I genuinely recommend you go use online resources and just work your way through a basic education of physics. You don't need to get to like university level, or even college level. Although I used the word relative, I'm not talking about Einstein's theory of relativity, it's not that complicated. But you'll never understand until you have a basic understanding of velocity, momentum, motion etc.

If two different things suddenly stop moving relative to one another, an acceleration has occured on one or the other or both. The force that stops pedestrians when you're in a car and you hit the breaks happens to be applying to the car. The cube suddenly stopping as it moves out of the portal relatively to everything else also needs a force, whether on the cube or on everything else.