How come games don't use physics as a gameplay mechanic anymore? It used to be all the rage about 15 years ago

>DONT TELL ME WHY JUST TELL ME WHY
are you stupid?
all three laws of thermodynamics completely destroy that thing.

Friction
The balls of air wouldnt have enough energy to move them selfs, let alone the gears

So if the energy companies are using this to make infinite energy, why are we still paying them???

Attached: 1513916492568.jpg (1028x705, 298K)

>That's always been the one key downside to it.

Not really. Just put it back in the ground where we got it from in the first place. Humans did not invent radioactive material, we just dig it up. What's wrong with burying it after we are done with it?

maintenance and staff pay?

Without any friction it still wouldn't generate any more energy than what was put in at the start.
Imagine just spinning the generator wheel itself.

Are you a fucking autist? I understand that, fucking turbovirgin. But there also catagorically must be a more specific reason the diagram is wrong.

Because it's left a bit hotter when we're done with it.

But honestly as long as it's contained, there's no issues.

>How do I cook this meal?
>You just cook it, duh
>but how?
>ARE YOU STUPID?

Easy: capitalism. Economic flow is essential to modern society

are you fucking stupid?
do you not understand basic english?
or do you simply not know what the thermodynamics laws are?
lmgtfy.com/?q=three laws of thermodynamics
holy fucking shit you are fucking retarded

Y u no use physics in games anymore??

Here's your infinite energy bro.
youtube.com/watch?v=pP44EPBMb8A

Give me 1(one) reason why this one won't work

Well, generally the issue I would see is the rads and the finite nature of available storage locations. Otherwise the whole planet could go fully nuclear instead of using these other half baked power sources.

>unironically watching numalegesagt

You might be the most retarded person on Yea Forums I've ever interacted with over my ten-year stretch

Neck yourself

Attached: 1512321056744.png (403x448, 93K)

Why doesn't the magnet helmet work?

t. pajeet with no understanding of the english language

Because it's not a generator. It's a motor. It won't do shit unless you power it.

Dude he's asking WHY the machine won't work, not IF it will work. Usually the answer is friction in these cases. You haven't actually given an answer.

Isn't there a plan to build this very large underground complex to bury all of that waste instead of keeping it inside some isolated buildings? Also uranium and other elements used for fission are also limited resources.

The only reason this wouldn't work is because if water can't pass through the seal then the weight of all the water in the tub holds the ball entering the bottom down. Ignore retards saying stuff like friction and thermodynamics.

just build an electromagnet rail launcher thingy and launch waste into the sun

what if they were big balls of air

>not enough energy created
>needs a force to push the generator, another actual strong magnet
>magnet will eventually run out of power

its time for them to finally make decent solar pannels affordable

Give five reasons why they are bad without resorting to buzzwords.

there's no reason the balls have to enter and exit the water in the first place, you can create the whole device underwater. If I am bored later I could go try it with ping-pong balls.

they'd cause big balls amount of friction instead

never gunna happen

Political realities are going to make nuclear power untenable in the near future, since the reprocessing technology needed to close the fuel cycle is identical to the tech needed to make weapons-grade material.
So there is a scientific solution to the problem of nuclear waste (i.e. just reuse the stuff), but it's very expensive and has an ever increasing risk of proliferation.

Sure is /sci/

more like /x/
making horror stories up and spreading false information everywheres the guberment is out to get you and stop your perpetual motion machines

the problem here is the step where you put the ball into the container with the water. This is where the ball-chain-generator system "receives" the most energy, because now the ball is at the bottom of the tank and has a lot of potential energy because of its buoyancy.
It turns out pushing the balls through a seal as pictured in the diagram requires energy, you basically have to "lift away" the water above it to make room in the tank and let the ball enter from the bottom. That is where energy has to be added.
There is no way to get the ball into the bottom of the tank without investing energy or lowering the center of mass of the entire container of water (thereby extracting potential energy from it). For instance, if you build an air lock to get the ball in from the side of the bottom, the air lock fills with the water and you have to pump that water back into the tank, or pour it out. In some way, energy is lost.

t. physics major

Right, and how about the energy loss given by the presence of a generator itself, too? Isn't the system losing energy that way too?

if it had some to lose yes

It used to be all the rage because everyone wanted to copy Half-Life 2 but realized that you actually have to put effort into that shit so they stopped

Apex and Titanfall are also source engine, and they have all the weird quirks that made HL's physics good.
People are dissecting how to turn the grappling robot guy into Spiderman by doing small spins while jumping, for instance.

>why can't I go faster than the speed of light?
>because the rules of physics say lights is fastest lol...
>ok but why
>OMFHG YOU FUCKING RETARD ARE YOU NOT OF SPEAKING ENGLISH? I JUST SAID WHY

I really wAant a game based 100% on troll physics

why do the rule of physics say that light is the fastest

Because it has no mass; massive objects require infinite energy to travel at the speed of light.

what if it's some very viscous liquid?

Contrary to popular belief, magnets aren't magical rocks that pull or push indefinitely.

A generator extracting energy from the system is always implied, it's how you gain a benefit from the machine. These perpetuum mobiles are "designed" in such a way that makes it seem as if it would keep going (or speeding up) indefinitely even though the generator is pulling energy out of it.
For instance, no one thinks a free spinning frictionless wheel will produce infinite energy if you just slap a dynamo on it. Most people understand the wheel will slow down as the generator removes kinetic energy from it and eventually stop. But then people start adding weights or magnets to it and say "but you see, it can't stop. the MAGNETS make it keep going!"

I've been thinking about this too recently while playing Half-Life 2, BOTW was the only game that I can think of that used physics as a major gameplay mechanic since Portal 2
It's sad that Source is going to die out eventually and every AAA game will be made with static "cinematic" shit

because otherwise mr shekelberg wouldnt make money.
ever noticed how they always build the shittiest ones that even a brainlet would explain with friction but leave out the actual interesting ones that could work?
so much for experimental science, nowadays some shitty books hold more value than experience

Viscosity is just a term for friction in a liquid, plus sheer forces.
It doesn't affect that user's basic point about Archimedes principle.

I know there is more of these and I know you have them.

the laws of thermodynamics is a jewish plot

so make it even harder to go down

That wouldn't change anything. When you push the ball through the bottom, you have to exert force to get it in, you are actively fighting the pressure at the bottom of the container that is pushing against the ball from inside the seal. Viscosity wouldn't affect this in any way.

DONT NEED NO MAGICAL FLOATING TANK MR SCIENCE MAN
CHECK THIS SHIT OUT
seriously though why wouldnt this work

Attached: 8107570155[1].png (705x383, 78K)

It takes energy to push the balls on the left under the water

you need a driving force to push the balls in the water to the right
without it the chain will not move because the water only pushes the balls upwards

the part on the left where you push the balls underwater against the buoyant force. You get exactly the same amount of energy from them rising back up as you have to exert to get them underwater in the first place. (in an ideal system. before that you lose even more energy to friction)
If you ever tried to push a beach ball underwater while at the beach you will know it takes a lot of force to push it even a few centimeters below the water.

this one has no magic to it at all. Go ahead and try it user. Buoyant force only acts along the gravitational axis, and the component of that force that's tangent to the rope at every ball cancels out.

There are more balls of air on the non-operating side than on the place where the buoyency effect is actually happening.
The whole mechanism would just sway back and forth until it eventually stops from friction.

I solved the tilting maze puzzle by flipping my switch upside down and holding it above my head and rolling the ball along the flat surface of the bottom of the maze.
anyone else?

You're an even bigger retard than someone who believes the original might work.

the easiest argument that proves this doesn't work is symmetry. If you move this chain by one ball increment, it's in an indistinguishable state to how it was before. So how could there be any change in energy?

>because BOTW has a proprietary physics engine that they wanted to show it off
BOTW actually just uses Havok like many games do.

youtube.com/watch?v=jsxroTt9IhY

1. they're incredibly simplistic explanations that leave out a host of other facts without even mentioning what's been left out

For example, the video about the rise of peace. They say that wars are decreasing (true) and that of the wars that we have more are being ended by peace treaties (true).

What they don't say is that wars ended by peace treaties rather than victories are incredibly likely to start back up again in a few years, leading to perpetual instability.

Imagine if Israel had just genocided all the Palestinians in the 1950s. It would have been brutal and deadly, but it would also mean that the Middle East today would be a far more peaceful and stable place.

Or, to give another example, the video about aging. They say that treatments are being trialled in mice. What they don't say is that less than ~0.5% (or it might be 5%, IIRC) of things that work in mice EVER work in humans.

And this is just the shit that I noticed off the top of my head without doing any research. If you know anything about the subjects they talk about you can see all the misleading things that they say. I imagine all of their videos are as bad.

They're not wrong, they're just not right.

>"but you can't give a complex overview of a subject in 5 minutes"
It's not complex. They're pruning facts (or just unaware of facts) that go against the overly and unwarrantedly optimistic tone of their videos.

I can't think of another 4 reasons but this one should be enough.

thermodynamics + maxwells equations

you can't extract energy from a magnetic field, since it cannot be destroyed

>troll science shit is like 10 years old at this point.
Man I feel old.
Why am I still posting on this fucking site?

Attached: 1391028900873.png (1000x1000, 52K)

>massive objects require infinite energy to travel at the speed of light.
y

youtube.com/watch?v=u8zTDWSuwTw

IF you're like me it's because you've genuinely been unable to find a better site to replace it. And even if you did you'd still fucking be here

I solved almost every "roll ball using physics platform" puzzle by flipping the right joycon around like mad until I could punt the ball into where it was meant to go.
It was great.

Attached: U2s2k.jpg (1024x768, 95K)

Attached: worldofgoo.jpg (1600x800, 109K)

How do magnets work again?

Because relativistic kinematics is an empirically verified observation.

>why loop
youtu.be/36GT2zI8lVA

>Because relativistic kinematics is an empirically verified observation.
that only says that it exists, not y it exists

ridiculous

Miracles.

Ahh the classic undergraduate physics degree holder at work.

>I have no clue why this won't work, but I memorized a basic law that says it won't work
>I can't explain it, and literally don't understand it. However, I still get to sound smart, and that's what's important.

Kill yourself, right after you go learn the essence of what you are talking about.

The magnets will have the strongest attraction to the closest magnet of opposite sign, ie. it'll want to stay still because it is receiving weaker attractive forces from further away magnets. Also
>magnetic friction

I can explain electromagnets, no problem. Permanent magnets are an entirely different subject.

This could be a legit science troll 30 years before the helicopter was first created lmao

Fine. Give me a set of axioms that you find acceptable and I'll work out the proof.
If you include special relativity's 2 axioms then it's trivial. Otherwise it's depends on you, which makes your "y" a very disingenuous question, in my opinion.

now i realize how you can make everything seem ridiculous in this format

>Give me a set of axioms that you find acceptable and I'll work out the proof.
Human perception accurately reflects the world.

>Otherwise it's depends on you, which makes your "y" a very disingenuous question, in my opinion.
No it doesn't you fucking retard. I'm not trying to pull a gotcha on you. I don't understand this shit and I want you to explain it to me.

Stop sucking that smug arrogant shitbird Feynman's cock and actually write something of substance.

God I hate 130 IQ brainlets.

>they're incredibly simplistic explanations
thats the whole point and the whole appeal to the channel. no one really gives a shit about the more complex things about the subject, if they do they will continue to look into it after they watch the video.

You should have picked up on the hint, he indicated that why is a shitty question to answer. You'd likely get a better answer from asking HOW.

>thats the whole point and the whole appeal to the channel
I agree. I should have clarified - they are OVERLY simplistic explanations that ignore important facts. Including those facts would not sacrifice the simplicity of the videos.

They prune (or are unaware of) facts that contradict their overly optimistic tone.

>he indicated that why is a shitty question to answer
Yeah, and he's wrong. I watched Feynman's video and he's just a smug shit who spends the entire time saying "lel you're too dumb to understand lmao" when someone in the fucking YouTube comments managed to explain how magnets work - something that, in the end, he actually failed to do.

I have very little tolerance for """academics""" because of behaviour like this. It's why I bailed on university.

>or are unaware of
I doubt it. They want to keep it simple so they can appeal to everyone with a quick video for the ad revenue

>They want to keep it simple
Sure, but they could keep it just as simple without pruning the truth.

It just means they'd have to end up with conclusions that aren't a 100% endorsement of the nu-science positivist agenda.

Try asking how instead. Do it faggot; I know you won't.

How and why are equivalent questions in this context.

From some website:
"The main difference between the two is that, how is used to know the manner in which something has happened, whereas why is asked to find out the reason behind it."

In this case, the manner in which something has happened and the reason behind something happening are the same question.

STEMlets need to fuck off back to their pussy-proof underground labs.

Why don't you buy a $50 Michelson-Morley setup and prove it to yourself then, dumbass?
Once you realize (I don't give a shit HOW you come to this conclusion) that light travels at the same speed in all inertial reference frames, then the rest follows from that.

Even without that, the mathematical notion of inertial reference frames can be proven with group theory to only be relatable in 3 ways (Unity, Galilean relativity, or Lorentzian relativity), and the third has a finite maximum speed fall out automatically.

>Why don't you buy a $50 Michelson-Morley setup and prove it to yourself then, dumbass?
I never said I don't believe it, I said I don't understand it.

Fuck.

STEMlets are truly subhuman.

Because it turned out it's fucking boring, puzzle are harder to design and play testing becomes a chore.
There actually are games like Rocket League or BOTW that mainly use physics as their mechanics

Opposites attact
Likes repel

The entire weight of water would pushing down on the seal. The plastic balls floating upwards due to buoyancy wouldn't be enough force to actually pull a ball through a seal that's tight enough to not let water escape.

Attached: 1541129919655.png (1200x1345, 73K)

This one kinda missed the joke of troll physics

Attached: 1550538957576.jpg (900x900, 109K)

suure user it's the image that missed the joke. definitely the image.

Someone who never heard of Newton's cannonball probably thought they were some sort of genius when they came up with this.

Well, any questions you have are immediate corollaries to the 2 postulates that you've accepted, so all that's left to do is teach the mathematics of special relatively to you.
You already have in-hand all the "deep" knowledge shit, the rest is literally equations from any intro physics textbook.

I misread it but at the same time the picture is basically accurate

Wow, I didn't know there were so many fucking NERDS on Yea Forums. I bet you people think you're hot shit because you took physics in high school while the rest of us took biology.

RIP

>452047932

Attached: good post.jpg (223x225, 6K)

>whereas why is asked to find out the reason behind it
The problem with keeping with asking why in this case, is that eventually your answer might end up being "it just is," as this shit doesn't really decide anything.
>anyway
Since the other user seems to have fucked off, I'm gonna take a crack at it.
>mass creates gravity by dimpling spacetime
>shit doesn't like to move, so you've gotta put energy into things to make them move (ie. apply force/put energy in to accelerate something)
>the faster you want something to go, the amount of energy required to accelerate it further increases exponentially
Now, to guess why it probably takes an infinite amount of energy, I'll bring up special relativity
>As you approach the speed of light, distances get shorter, objects get longer
>At light speed, all distances are technically 0, so from the light's perspective, it's creation and destruction are at the same instant
>It exists at the beginning, destination, and everywhere along the path at once
>If something with mass were to move at the speed of light, it would need to be able to exist in an infinite length and (as a result) have a gravitational influence in an infinite region (probably)

You're not very bright are you user ?

Magnetic monopoles do not exist, therefore all magnets cancel themselves out

I had to take both. Then I had to take fucking Organic Chem and Physics II in college for a fucking BS in Information Systems. Generic education tracks need to fuck off, let me finish in two years taking classes that are relevant instead of four years with a ton of filler bullshit that's completely unrelated.

>implying I've never asked why my hand is repelled by the chair
I don't know, maybe I'm just more thoughtful than other people, but I have asked that question. I have thought about it.

guess you got me

Attached: 1463093113317.jpg (297x274, 34K)

Make a thread about mitosis or whatever then.
>keep backup cells
>dupe DNA
>cytokinesis
>replace dead ones
>INFINITE LIFESPAN
this shit writes itself

>I bet you people think you're hot shit because you took physics in high school while the rest of us took biology.

Is this actually a thing in the US?

JFC, seeing these posts back to back... what year is it?

cell niggas be like

O

fuck this shit mitosis time

O

8

o o

epic

you are actually retarded

>tfw knows the most on Yea Forums without any education

Attached: 1521086227268.png (2048x1714, 2.71M)

If the seal was magically perfect, in that it could let a ball through without any force impacted by the seal on the water or the ball, then as the ball entered, it would lift that amount of water up as it entered, cancelling all the energy gained from it floating to the top.

It would be no different than pushing the ball all the way to the bottom, from the top.

The reason this doesn't work is simple. It doesn't matter that it uses a chain of balls filled with air, it's just a ring of air. So imagine instead a hose filled with air.

It wouldn't work because the hose will just equalize all the buoyancy at the top of the water tank. If the hose has any slack it'll just all build up on that side.

The thing you forget when looking at this diagram is that you need an upward force on one side and a downward force on the other. So one side has buoyancy and the other side has gravity. But the gravity would not have enough pull to bring the balls down, so again, the chain/hose will just all build up on the other side and stop the machine.

Attached: 1541781040841.jpg (635x665, 130K)

you are one seething brainlet

kek

.massive objects require infinite energy to *accelerate* to the speed of light.
FTFY. Some particles exist that travel at or beyond that speed. They just can't accelerate or decelerate

>crack
>pfffffftttt
>siiiiiiiiippppppp
ah, physic based games. now those were the days

Attached: maxresdefault (15).jpg (640x889, 88K)

Not the guy you're arguing with but here's my uneducated understanding.

Mass warps the dimensions of reality, specifically the X, Y, and Z spatial dimensions and the time dimension, collectively known as the fabric of space-time.

This warping is expressed as a fundamental force we call gravity. All mass in the universe exerts gravity and because of this, all masses in the universe are attracted to each other by gravity. The strength of this attraction is based on two variables: Mass of the objects in question, and the proximity in space of the objects.

Einstein figured out that all events in the universe are described from a point of reference. A car goes 60 mph relative to us, but it goes 60 mph + the speed of earth's travel through space to an observer at a fixed point in space.

Now, when we consider these ideas in tandem, the infinite increase in energy needed to reach lights peed comes into focus. Objects moving through space-time are changing their gravitational attractions with everything else in the universe by changing their proximity. Remember, all motion is relative to the reference. While these values are minuscule (distances are so vast gravity has the most minimal possible effects between objects in neighboring solar systems, let alone specks of dust on opposite sides of the ever expanding universe), but the values are non-zero. This makes gravity a sort of "frictional" force for all objects. No matter what your vector is, you are fighting against the gravitational pull of all the mass you aren't moving towards, which is greater than the slight increase in gravitational pull towards mass in your vector. Like any other Newtonian reaction, the more energy you put in to move forward, the more the frictional force resists. As you approach light speed, it takes increasingly tremendous energy to overcome the "friction" of moving space-time out of your way and bending the gravitational fields of all mass in the universe in relation to you.

Nuclear waste isn't just spent plutonium. It's the safety equipment, water, old parts and anything else that comes in contact with radiation.

A+ for effort, user, but even if gravity didn't exist the speed of light would still be a universal limit.
In fact, introducing gravity (i.e. going from special to general relativity) really mucks up the Lorentz invariance argument at the heart of this, since it needs inertial reference frames to be valid.