Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
  

The time now is Thu Nov 14, 2024 3:38 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)		 View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: Perplex City » PXC: General/Updates
[UPDATE] The Scarlett Kite (April 4th)
View previous topicView next topic
Page 3 of 3 [40 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3
Author Message
Rolerbe
Unfettered


Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Posts: 330
Location: North America

 		Re: 1.3km high?
Centipede wrote:
Rolerbe wrote:
Rolerbe wrote:
Maybe their gravity is less than ours -- allowing for higher buildings, and making the mass of Acendency Point even more significant to them.

Assume their technology is no more advanced than ours (materials, construction techniques, etc.). Then to build a building on their world of 1.3km versus our max of .5km would imply their gravity is about 1/7th that of earth. Their world would be slightly smaller than our moon.


And would therfore have no atmosphere at all.


And so we can conclusively say their technology is more advanced than ours. /SPEC
_________________
Failure isn't the worst thing in the world. Repeatedly trying really, really hard, then failing, now that's something.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:26 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Centipede
Unfettered


Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 439
Location: Bronx, NY

 		At least as far as civil engineering goes.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 6:09 pm
 View user's profile AIM Address
 Back to top 
Zzedar
Veteran


Joined: 10 Apr 2004
Posts: 107

 		Not necessarily; they could just be a lot more motivated to build a huge structure. We could theoretically build a 1.3 km building, but it would be ridiculously expensive. That said, I don't know whether we could build a 1.3 km building that narrow.
_________________
A lot of good arguments are spoiled by some fool who knows what he is talking about.
--Miguel de Unamuno

PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:56 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
LordKinbote
Decorated

Joined: 25 Sep 2002
Posts: 261
Zzedar wrote:
Not necessarily; they could just be a lot more motivated to build a huge structure. We could theoretically build a 1.3 km building, but it would be ridiculously expensive. That said, I don't know whether we could build a 1.3 km building that narrow.


Who says it's narrow? Maybe it's built upon a huge base?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:28 am
 View user's profile AIM Address
 Back to top 
spugmeistress
Unfettered


Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 460
Location: manchester, uk
Zzedar wrote:
Not necessarily; they could just be a lot more motivated to build a huge structure. We could theoretically build a 1.3 km building, but it would be ridiculously expensive. That said, I don't know whether we could build a 1.3 km building that narrow.


i saw a program a while ago about the engineering n stuff behind building huge tall buildings, and i think they concluded that you probably *could* build a building taller than what we had at the moment, but there'd be little financial motivation to do so, because in order to have all the floors of the building in use you'd have to have more lifts than was possible to fit in the space just to ferry people up to the top.

on the other hand, i think todays sentinel article (high velocity travel etc) shows they do have significantly more advanced technology than we do, and would be able to figure out a solution to vertical transportation (lifts in buildings) too?

rach =)

PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:52 am
 View user's profile MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Zzedar
Veteran


Joined: 10 Apr 2004
Posts: 107
LordKinbote wrote:
Who says it's narrow? Maybe it's built upon a huge base?
From the silhouette on the bottom of thescarlettkite.com; assuming that image is accurate, the ratio of height to width at base is 49:13.
_________________
A lot of good arguments are spoiled by some fool who knows what he is talking about.
--Miguel de Unamuno

PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:01 am
Last edited by Zzedar on Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
leakingpen
Decorated

Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 187

 		is that taking the base of the cone, or the base of the large building the cone is stuck out of? (dont have a ruler on me. i worked out that the base of the cone would be 336 meters, roughly, a few days ago)
_________________
My jug is not half empty, it is half full, thank you.

luaeanenun
(leakingpen E3)

PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 2:33 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Zzedar
Veteran


Joined: 10 Apr 2004
Posts: 107
leakingpen wrote:
is that taking the base of the cone, or the base of the large building the cone is stuck out of?
I was assuming that the cone (or pyramid or whatever) was shaped like that all the way to the ground, and that the lower regions were just hidden behind some rectangular buildings.

By my calculations, the width at the base is 345 meters across, which means that if it's a perfect cone it has a volume of 62,192,347 cubic meters. If it has uniform density, its center of mass is 325 meters above ground level.
_________________
A lot of good arguments are spoiled by some fool who knows what he is talking about.
--Miguel de Unamuno

PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:17 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
joolsweb
Boot


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 39
Location: Wiltshire, UK

 		Sentinel Building
Apologies if this has been posted before and I'm sure this must be OOG of game but has anyone seen that there is a sentinel building at 105 waterloo st, Glasgow which has changing light patterns. Looks somewhat similar to the lighted building on the postcard...could there be a link here? http://www.sentinelglasgow.co.uk

PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2005 4:43 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Rob_Riv
Unfettered

Joined: 17 Feb 2005
Posts: 350

 		Re: Sentinel Building
joolsweb wrote:
Apologies if this has been posted before and I'm sure this must be OOG of game but has anyone seen that there is a sentinel building at 105 waterloo st, Glasgow which has changing light patterns. Looks somewhat similar to the lighted building on the postcard...could there be a link here? http://www.sentinelglasgow.co.uk


Simple answer no there isn't..

The lighted building is in Perplex City.. Scarlett mentioned this a wihle back also 'Sentinel' is a real word, so many companies will have used it. So I'm sure that this is OOG..
_________________
"I suggest something involving a corkscrew, a 9 volt battery, and a colony of fire ants. I'm not sure what one could do with those things, but whatever it is it'll be excruciatingly painful." - Ankit Jain (Spankit) on Ryandrew's punishment.

PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2005 6:37 am
 View user's profile MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 3 of 3 [40 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: Perplex City » PXC: General/Updates
Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group