Search results for "d34ddeb0ea378d440a1ddb6d2c63a1b9" in md5 (7)

/adv/ - Thread 33526050
Anonymous No.33530772
>>33530755
/r9k/ - Thread 82223878
Anonymous No.82225891
>>82225872
Don't abort yourself my little specimen.
/pol/ - Thread 512610780
Anonymous Canada No.512643444
>>512643332
>It's just what the bible says, that is what I go on.
sorry for being rude but that's just retarded
/pol/ - COSMIC LEVEL HAPPENING
Anonymous United States No.511438358
>>511426923
I'm totally forgetting about Epstein
/pol/ - Thread 510625271
Anonymous United States No.510637785
>>510637554
Have you ever heard of panspermia? It's the idea/belief that life originated from gay niggers from outer space.
/x/ - /NG/ Nobody General - The Cosmic Joke Edition
Anonymous No.40655388
>>40654517
Blockchain + AI + Box Computer + Holding company
/pol/ - Thread 509269298
Anonymous United States No.509272239
There is a maximally strong argument for A, and not for B, because B is a source of infinite free energy just by using the rules of the portal.

Imagine the object is a super-heavy object, like a mountain. It's at rest relative to the most things. Relatively zero effort was spent to accellerate the zero-mass orange portal, wheras at the end, the mountain-sized object flying out of B could be harnessed to turn a crank, which lifts the portal back up for another whack at further accelleration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B19nlhbA7-E

Therefore, A can be the only answer that doesn't violate the conservation of energy, because B can be simply re-arranged into a source of infinite free energy, assuming both of the portal's apitures are 100% efficient and zero mass.