ThatWeirdGuy1001 to Lemmy Shitpost · 1 day agoWhich is it Lemmy?imagemessage-square215linkfedilinkarrow-up1378arrow-down112file-text
arrow-up1366arrow-down1imageWhich is it Lemmy?ThatWeirdGuy1001 to Lemmy Shitpost · 1 day agomessage-square215linkfedilinkfile-text
minus-squareTotallynotJessicalinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up121arrow-down2·1 day agoYou can’t place a portal on a moving surface in either game, so neither.
minus-squareSonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up46·1 day agoTwo, if you count… the big one at the end
minus-squarelime!@feddit.nulinkfedilinkarrow-up16·1 day agoit doesn’t look like it’s moving though. and considering how many things in portal 2 move when they look stationary or vice versa…
minus-squareSonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10·1 day agoAs far as the game engine is concerned, “stationary” is relative to the… other comparatively big thing: the former big thing is moving very quickly around the latter, even if it looks stationary because it has a lower angular velocity
minus-squareMika@piefed.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 day agoSo now we just need to build this test in there and we are set
minus-squareThatWeirdGuy1001OPlinkfedilinkarrow-up25·1 day agoSo the cube is just smashed? It’s a practical answer which is slightly upsetting because I wanted more discourse.
minus-squarekkj@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·24 hours agoNo, cubes cannot be destroyed by crushing. The portal disappears when the surface starts moving and then the cube stops the surface’s descent.
minus-squareviertesauge@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13arrow-down1·1 day agowhat about the portal on the moon?
minus-square∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nzlinkfedilinkarrow-up10·1 day agoWell, everything is moving or not moving, relatively
minus-squarejoelfromaus@aussie.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·6 hours agoSomeone should write a thesis on it (or whatever it’s called). Could call it something like The Relativity Theory.
minus-squarealsimoneau@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up4·1 day agoIt’s unstable and will dissipate on its own when the relative displacement between them will be too great.
minus-squarerethnor@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·1 day agoYou’d make a horrible scientist.
minus-squareTotallynotJessicalinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·23 hours agoIt said ragebait answers only ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If it is a question of real life physics, then B would be correct
minus-squarekkj@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·24 hours agoScientists know when to use existing knowledge.
You can’t place a portal on a moving surface in either game, so neither.
you can in one specific spot in portal 2!
Two, if you count… the big one at the end
it doesn’t look like it’s moving though. and considering how many things in portal 2 move when they look stationary or vice versa…
As far as the game engine is concerned, “stationary” is relative to the… other comparatively big thing: the former big thing is moving very quickly around the latter, even if it looks stationary because it has a lower angular velocity
pretty obvious tbh
So now we just need to build this test in there and we are set
So the cube is just smashed?
It’s a practical answer which is slightly upsetting because I wanted more discourse.
No, cubes cannot be destroyed by crushing. The portal disappears when the surface starts moving and then the cube stops the surface’s descent.
what about the portal on the moon?
Well, everything is moving or not moving, relatively
Someone should write a thesis on it (or whatever it’s called). Could call it something like The Relativity Theory.
It’s unstable and will dissipate on its own when the relative displacement between them will be too great.
Skill issue
You’d make a horrible scientist.
It said ragebait answers only ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If it is a question of real life physics, then B would be correct
Scientists know when to use existing knowledge.