So the cube is just smashed?
It’s a practical answer which is slightly upsetting because I wanted more discourse.
Comment on Which is it Lemmy?
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You can’t place a portal on a moving surface in either game, so neither.
ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
No, cubes cannot be destroyed by crushing. The portal disappears when the surface moves and then the cube stops the surface’s descent.
viertesauge@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
what about the portal on the moon?
luthis@lemmy.nz 2 weeks ago
Well, everything is moving or not moving, relatively
alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
It’s unstable and will dissipate on its own when the relative displacement between them will be too great.
gnufuu@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Skill issue
rethnor@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
You’d make a horrible scientist.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It said ragebait answers only ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If it is a question of real life physics, then B would be correct
rethnor@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Damnit, you are correct, my bad.
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Scientists know when to use existing knowledge.
lime@feddit.nu 2 weeks ago
you can in one specific spot in portal 2!
Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Two, if you count… the big one at the end
lime@feddit.nu 2 weeks ago
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…
Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
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
Mika@piefed.ca 2 weeks ago
So now we just need to build this test in there and we are set