Bringing my previous rope-going-around-the-earth diagram up again, surely if you did that then the tension would be enough to keep it afloat? Gravity is pretty weak, you can break it by jumping. We only send shuttles up with such ridiculous force because you need sustained force, and it's a hella long way up. So, if the portals cut out the rest of the Earth, that tension would still be enough.
Is it a circle, or a line? (Portal question)
- Thread starter Unesh52
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's a line. If we stood in one portal and looked at the rope we'd see a perfectly straight line extending forever. We would need to see a curve for it be a circle. Now if the portal walls were not parallel then we would have a polygon with angles of 180 minus the angles between the walls.
Now you're think with portals!
Now you're think with portals!
Jack and Calumon said:
Mmmm sounds delicious......WAIT!!!
CALUMON NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Don't go!!!
You are full of win for quoting Mitch XDSimuLord said:"My belt holds my pants up, but my belt loops hold my belt up. Who's the real hero here?" - Mitch Hedbergseckspest said:well in this dimension its a line, through the dimensionS its a circle.
What IS holding it up?LieutenantShwa said:
If you consider that the portal is bending space then the rope is a circle. You just cant see it because you're looking at it from non bent space.
For those arguing that 'looking straight down the string, through the portals' renders a line:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_feedback
The reason it cannot be a line is that an observer would self-observe in the act of observation of the supposed line, which is itself a paradox (a logical 'loop').
However, it cannot be a circle either. Every circle must have 2 dimensions (or more in special cases), yet only one can be measured in this system - even if you forgive the observer paradox.
Additional dimensions are required to describe the object in observable space, and it is therefore neither a line nor a circle. Alternatively, we may assume non-Euclidean space, which can then describe the object as either a line or a circle, while simultaneously causing everyone's head to explode.
So... I'd say it's a single point in an unobservable dimension.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_feedback
The reason it cannot be a line is that an observer would self-observe in the act of observation of the supposed line, which is itself a paradox (a logical 'loop').
However, it cannot be a circle either. Every circle must have 2 dimensions (or more in special cases), yet only one can be measured in this system - even if you forgive the observer paradox.
Additional dimensions are required to describe the object in observable space, and it is therefore neither a line nor a circle. Alternatively, we may assume non-Euclidean space, which can then describe the object as either a line or a circle, while simultaneously causing everyone's head to explode.
So... I'd say it's a single point in an unobservable dimension.
The equation of a circle is essentially that of a line that comprises the perimeter of the circle for one period of that function.
Therefore, it's both a line and a circle, using the length of the line as one period of the function, and assuming it goes on forever.
Therefore, it's both a line and a circle, using the length of the line as one period of the function, and assuming it goes on forever.
You know, I walk in to this thread, I can see whats going on with the rope pretty clearly in my head, so I start to feel good. And then. . . .. there's this.GrinningManiac said:
Edit: And for the record, I think you'd end up squished as if the portals hadn't even been there.
There is no word for it.
Points are one dimensional (collinear). Lines, circles, and loops are all 2 dimensional (coplanar). In 3 dimensions they are planes, spheres, and ellipsoids (I don't know the word but something like cospacious). Portals, as I understand them, occupy a fourth dimension which we can not graph and as such have not named. As points are placed on a line, lines in a plane, and planes in a space, then spaces would be a figure in the forth dimension. As the planes this figure reside on are not cospacious, it can not be named in the first, second or third dimension. That said I would call it the forth dimension equivalent of a point, line, or plane.
Points are one dimensional (collinear). Lines, circles, and loops are all 2 dimensional (coplanar). In 3 dimensions they are planes, spheres, and ellipsoids (I don't know the word but something like cospacious). Portals, as I understand them, occupy a fourth dimension which we can not graph and as such have not named. As points are placed on a line, lines in a plane, and planes in a space, then spaces would be a figure in the forth dimension. As the planes this figure reside on are not cospacious, it can not be named in the first, second or third dimension. That said I would call it the forth dimension equivalent of a point, line, or plane.
