Speculation with portals
Quote from Lorithad on November 28, 2007, 5:25 pmI got this image shortly after portal was released. I think it sums up the eating yourself idea pretty well:
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/8612/portalllxf0.pngAs far as the portal under the ocean concept, I'm actually hoping for dynamic fluid portalability being in the next incarnation of portal. Whenvever that is.
As for how high the chute of water would be, if the portal A was above sea level, and portal B was at the bottom of the ocean... Well, that would depend on how far down the bottom of the ocean is where the portal B is.
If it's 500 meters down, i'd think the gyser of water coming out portal A, would be equal or a little less than to the depth of portal A.
Of course, then we have to make the assumption that if you place a portal underwater, that the water would go through the portal at all.
I only say this, because i'm a geek, and watch a lot of stargate.
Not that it's nessesarily a way of proving or disproving anything, Stargate SG-1, Season 4, episode 7 (Watergate) shows them going to a world where the gate is underwater. They explain that when a constant pressure is being exerted at the event horrizon, that it would ignore that. That way, it prevents an atmosphere from leaking into space, or a world being flooded.I would think the Apature scientists would also come to this conclusion. However, as I mentioned this isn't stargate. The rules may or may not be the same.
I got this image shortly after portal was released. I think it sums up the eating yourself idea pretty well:
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/8612/portalllxf0.png
As far as the portal under the ocean concept, I'm actually hoping for dynamic fluid portalability being in the next incarnation of portal. Whenvever that is.
As for how high the chute of water would be, if the portal A was above sea level, and portal B was at the bottom of the ocean... Well, that would depend on how far down the bottom of the ocean is where the portal B is.
If it's 500 meters down, i'd think the gyser of water coming out portal A, would be equal or a little less than to the depth of portal A.
Of course, then we have to make the assumption that if you place a portal underwater, that the water would go through the portal at all.
I only say this, because i'm a geek, and watch a lot of stargate.
Not that it's nessesarily a way of proving or disproving anything, Stargate SG-1, Season 4, episode 7 (Watergate) shows them going to a world where the gate is underwater. They explain that when a constant pressure is being exerted at the event horrizon, that it would ignore that. That way, it prevents an atmosphere from leaking into space, or a world being flooded.
I would think the Apature scientists would also come to this conclusion. However, as I mentioned this isn't stargate. The rules may or may not be the same.
Quote from Ryanocerous on November 28, 2007, 5:27 pmThe Answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxBucbp53qM
The Answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxBucbp53qM
Quote from youme on November 28, 2007, 5:31 pmRyanocerous wrote:The Answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxBucbp53qM@ the character model
@ the character model
Quote from youme on November 28, 2007, 5:36 pmLorithad wrote:As for how high the chute of water would be, if the portal A was above sea level, and portal B was at the bottom of the ocean... Well, that would depend on how far down the bottom of the ocean is where the portal B is.If it's 500 meters down, i'd think the gyser of water coming out portal A, would be equal or a little less than to the depth of portal A.
its not quite that simple. if the portal was 10 miles across then the fountain would only be small (height wise) but if the portal was reduced to only the size of a coin then the fountain would be HUGE
On the stargate note - I can think we can rule out portals working like that due to the fact they don't have a membrain across them, they are just 'gaps'
If it's 500 meters down, i'd think the gyser of water coming out portal A, would be equal or a little less than to the depth of portal A.
its not quite that simple. if the portal was 10 miles across then the fountain would only be small (height wise) but if the portal was reduced to only the size of a coin then the fountain would be HUGE
On the stargate note - I can think we can rule out portals working like that due to the fact they don't have a membrain across them, they are just 'gaps'
Quote from espen180 on November 28, 2007, 5:40 pmthadiusdean wrote:However, whether or not portals can be moved relative to each other is the question.They can, actually. Just think small, to molecular level. Unless the temperature is absolute zero, all molecules will vibrate and move slightly. Thereby moving the portal.
They can, actually. Just think small, to molecular level. Unless the temperature is absolute zero, all molecules will vibrate and move slightly. Thereby moving the portal.
Quote from Shmitz on November 28, 2007, 5:59 pmI was actually going to write a novella for NaNoWriMo a couple of years back involving portals as a fixed pair of objects (not something shot from a gun). In that world, it was illegal to smuggle foreign portals into cities/countries because of the potential to throw the other end into the ocean.
Sadly, I never finished it.
I was actually going to write a novella for NaNoWriMo a couple of years back involving portals as a fixed pair of objects (not something shot from a gun). In that world, it was illegal to smuggle foreign portals into cities/countries because of the potential to throw the other end into the ocean.
Sadly, I never finished it.
Quote from thadiusdean on November 28, 2007, 7:51 pmespen180 wrote:They can, actually. Just think small, to molecular level. Unless the temperature is absolute zero, all molecules will vibrate and move slightly. Thereby moving the portal.That's a very good point. I think we need to distinguish whether or not we're talking about the portals in the game (as Lorithad seems to be interpreting it) or whether we're hypothesizing about the properties of portals were they to occur in the real world (as you are.)
That's a very good point. I think we need to distinguish whether or not we're talking about the portals in the game (as Lorithad seems to be interpreting it) or whether we're hypothesizing about the properties of portals were they to occur in the real world (as you are.)
Quote from Hober on November 29, 2007, 2:02 amAnyone seriously interested in this might also want to dig up a copy of "The Theory and Practice of Teleportation" by Larry Niven. It's an essay collected in All the Myriad Ways which attacks teleportation in many different aspects, the most rigorous being with a system with an "entrance" and an "exit" that mirrors the circumstances of Portal very closely.
He comes to some very interesting conclusions. For example, if you dropped anything into an infinite portal series (ex a portal on the roof and floor that line up), what you end up with is something that rapidly reaches terminal velocity. Remove the air and it continues to accelerate until it reaches a considerable fraction of the speed of light and begins to gain mass that eventually becomes gravitationally significant and throws the Earth out of rotation.
Of course, the only place this could be carried out would be the North or South Pole, because otherwise whatever was passing between portals would drift due to the Coriolis Effect and there would be no way to keep it going into the transmitter.
(Due to relativtity, nothing can travel at the speed of light. As an object accelerates closer to the speed of light, it gains more mass. As a result, a constant force could never accelerate an object to light speed. Basically, momentum is velocity times mass. So to have a force (e.x. gravity) acting on an object, therefore increasing its momentum, and if velocity can't reach the speed of light, then mass has to be the thing that increase.)
Anyone seriously interested in this might also want to dig up a copy of "The Theory and Practice of Teleportation" by Larry Niven. It's an essay collected in All the Myriad Ways which attacks teleportation in many different aspects, the most rigorous being with a system with an "entrance" and an "exit" that mirrors the circumstances of Portal very closely.
He comes to some very interesting conclusions. For example, if you dropped anything into an infinite portal series (ex a portal on the roof and floor that line up), what you end up with is something that rapidly reaches terminal velocity. Remove the air and it continues to accelerate until it reaches a considerable fraction of the speed of light and begins to gain mass that eventually becomes gravitationally significant and throws the Earth out of rotation.
Of course, the only place this could be carried out would be the North or South Pole, because otherwise whatever was passing between portals would drift due to the Coriolis Effect and there would be no way to keep it going into the transmitter.
(Due to relativtity, nothing can travel at the speed of light. As an object accelerates closer to the speed of light, it gains more mass. As a result, a constant force could never accelerate an object to light speed. Basically, momentum is velocity times mass. So to have a force (e.x. gravity) acting on an object, therefore increasing its momentum, and if velocity can't reach the speed of light, then mass has to be the thing that increase.)
Quote from msleeper on November 29, 2007, 5:05 amHober wrote:(Due to relativtity, nothing can travel at the speed of light. As an object accelerates closer to the speed of light, it gains more mass. )Going to stop you there, you're close. Relativity says that nothing can accelerate faster than the speed of light.
Going to stop you there, you're close. Relativity says that nothing can accelerate faster than the speed of light.
Please do not Private Message me for assistance. Post a thread if you have questions or concerns.
If you need to contact the staff privately, contact the Global Moderators via Discord.
Quote from MrTwoVideoCards on November 29, 2007, 8:01 amLorithad wrote:I got this image shortly after portal was released. I think it sums up the eating yourself idea pretty well:
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/8612/portalllxf0.pngAs far as the portal under the ocean concept, I'm actually hoping for dynamic fluid portalability being in the next incarnation of portal. Whenvever that is.
As for how high the chute of water would be, if the portal A was above sea level, and portal B was at the bottom of the ocean... Well, that would depend on how far down the bottom of the ocean is where the portal B is.
If it's 500 meters down, i'd think the gyser of water coming out portal A, would be equal or a little less than to the depth of portal A.
Of course, then we have to make the assumption that if you place a portal underwater, that the water would go through the portal at all.
I only say this, because i'm a geek, and watch a lot of stargate.
Not that it's nessesarily a way of proving or disproving anything, Stargate SG-1, Season 4, episode 7 (Watergate) shows them going to a world where the gate is underwater. They explain that when a constant pressure is being exerted at the event horrizon, that it would ignore that. That way, it prevents an atmosphere from leaking into space, or a world being flooded.I would think the Apature scientists would also come to this conclusion. However, as I mentioned this isn't stargate. The rules may or may not be the same.
Exactly, and the image does a good job to show that off, poor little guy.
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/8612/portalllxf0.png
As far as the portal under the ocean concept, I'm actually hoping for dynamic fluid portalability being in the next incarnation of portal. Whenvever that is.
As for how high the chute of water would be, if the portal A was above sea level, and portal B was at the bottom of the ocean... Well, that would depend on how far down the bottom of the ocean is where the portal B is.
If it's 500 meters down, i'd think the gyser of water coming out portal A, would be equal or a little less than to the depth of portal A.
Of course, then we have to make the assumption that if you place a portal underwater, that the water would go through the portal at all.
I only say this, because i'm a geek, and watch a lot of stargate.
Not that it's nessesarily a way of proving or disproving anything, Stargate SG-1, Season 4, episode 7 (Watergate) shows them going to a world where the gate is underwater. They explain that when a constant pressure is being exerted at the event horrizon, that it would ignore that. That way, it prevents an atmosphere from leaking into space, or a world being flooded.
I would think the Apature scientists would also come to this conclusion. However, as I mentioned this isn't stargate. The rules may or may not be the same.
Exactly, and the image does a good job to show that off, poor little guy.