Talk:Infinite Corridor

Untitled

How bizarre that the actual length of the Infinite Corridor is not stated. Doesn't anyone know? Or is there an intention to defend a religious principle that the corridor is truly "infinite?" Dpbsmith (talk) 12:26, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) I've added a very rough value, but surely someone has measured this with exquisite precision. In smoots, to microsmoot accuracy, I would hope. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually according to http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Physics/8-01TFall-2004/E3DC7DDB-E3A3-494E-8A6A-10E5E7287600/0/ps01.pdf MIT has published then length of the infinite corridor somewhere, in any case it is known to people in the class of '08 ;). --193.154.194.167 12:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"longest continuous straight corridor in the world."

I am very skeptical about this

It is often cited as the longest continuous straight corridor in the world.

and plan to remove it if a citation is not provided. After all, if it is "often cited" then it should be possible to find one of those "citations." But frankly I don't believe it. What about the Pentagon, for example? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Red Rocks Community College in Colorado has a quarter-mile building with an almost perfect hallway: http://www.rrcc.edu/catalogs/20072008.pdf, Page 5. The hallway gets a *little* funky at the very end where the stairs are. It's hard to imagine that there are no airports, etc., with longer ones. "The quarter-mile-long building houses everything from state-of-the-art multimedia graphics computer labs to construction technology worksites, to traditional classrooms and labs, and health-careers practice areas." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.253.100 (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"as it would with any straight corridor?"

On two days each year, the sun sets in alignment with the Infinite Corridor (as it would with any straight corridor)

I realize the purpose of this is to make it clear that there is nothing magical about the corridor's alignment, but surely this needs further qualification in order to be true? Unless I'm disoriented (and my wife will tell you I have no sense of direction), the sun would never set in alignment with a long straight north-south corridor.

Surely this is only true of a corridor that is aligned within a few degrees of east-west (where I haven't a clue as to the proper value of "few". In order to sound as if I know something I could mumble something about "analemmas" and "the equation of time" but it would be posing). Dpbsmith (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Smoots as measurement

Seems reasonable in an article about what is basically a piece of MIT trivia anyway.

The manual of style says

use SI units as the main units in science articles, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to do so.... For other articles, either Imperial or metric units may be used as the main units of measurement.

I don't see anything in the manual of style prohibiting the use of "nonstandard" units. It says only the the appropriate standard unit should be present, and it is. I see cubits used in the article on Bethphage, versts in the article on Antonievo-Siysky Monastery, and hogsheads in the article on James River Bateau.

Where does it say that nonstandard units of measurement are never to be used at all? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

the thrust of the manual of style is that units should be selected in a way that clarifies the size of the thing for a general audience. who is helped by the use of smoots? such an audience is very small, and are likely to know more about the corridor than is here. in fact, I would say it's pretty unlikely that using smoots adds anything to the sentence; anyone who knows smoots will know the SI or imperial units. all this really does is make the sentence confusing. a trivia section later on saying "the corridor is blah blah smoots in length" would make sense. the fraction of a mile is quite clearly pointless.

if the original plans for the building actually had the measurements in smoots, then we'd have a case for using them as the primary unit here. but they don't, do they? we wouldn't describe an AU in inches, nor an elephant in milligrams. we should select units in a way that describes the size to a general audience. that's meters (feet). —ptk✰fgs 19:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

More MIThenge predictions

I added some text about new, possibly better MIThenge predictions, including moon alignment predictions. I've been working on these for a few years with several people in the Boston area, including Keith Winstein (who made the original MIT webpages on the subject) and Ken Olum (who made the original calculations, and several subsequent observations.) We have reason to believe that the azimuth measurements used to make the original predictions are not quite right, but it doesn't seem that the MIT pages are updated any more. I've made links to more updated information hosted at my site. I know it could be considered bad form to put my own name into the article as a link to my pages, but I didn't want the same "MIThenge site" or "MIThenge page" text for the link as the official MIT link. Please feel free to class up the link however you'd like. --Eliasen 23:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

photos

I noticed the "requested photographs" note on here and added a photo of MIThenge - what sorts of photographs, exactly, are we looking for here? I live on campus so I can take some photos of the Corridor, but I'm not exactly sure of what... the hallway IS long and it IS hard to show the entire thing in a photograph. int3gr4te 02:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that there are now two photos included; a typical daytime heavily-occupied scene, and one without the throngs of people, taken during an MIThenge solar alignment. Perhaps we could get one more daytime shot without the sun glaring in the far end, but also with no people in view (there's a challenge for you!) 96.247.62.85 (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Map, Continuation in the Sixes

There really should be an MIT map highlighting the Infinite. Also, how about a mention of the continuation of the Infinite in the "sixes" (16, 56, 66)? JKeck (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Connections to other Buildings

I graduated from MIT years ago, and I'm trying to remember exactly how the infinite corridor connected to the rest of the campus. I remember it connecting via stairs to Buildings 9, 13, and 16, each of which connected to other parts of the campus.

I remember that the 1st floor, at the Building 8 end, had stairs going down to the 1st floor of Building 16 and up to the 2nd floor of Building 16. I think the 2nd floor of Building 8 had stairs going up that connected to the 3rd floor of Building 16. I seem to remember the 3rd floor of Building 8 connecting at grade level (no stairs) to the 4th floor of Building 16, and the 4th floor of Building 8 connecting at grade level (no stairs) to the 5th floor of Building 16. Is that all correct? What about the basement? I'm thinking that the basement of Building 8 had stairs going down to the basement of Building 16. Also, if I remember right, every floor of Building 16 connected directly to Building 26, and every floor of Building 26 connecting directly to Building 36. Is that all correct? I know for sure that Building 56 was an extension of 16, and that most floors connected to Building 66, but the connection at the top level (5th floor?) of Building 66 was locked (and had an outdoor breezeway).

What I don't remember is exactly how the infinite corridor connected to Building 9 and the rest of the buildings to the north. I vaguely remember stairs on the 1st floor of Building 7 going up to the 2nd floor of Building 9. But then how did Building 9 connect to Building 33, which is actually even older than Building 7? I'm guessing Building 9 had another set of stairs leading up to the 2nd floor of Building 33, but I really don't remember? What about the other floors of Buildings 7, 9, and 33? All I remember for sure was that the 3rd floor of Building 9 had a set of stairs that was blocked at the bottom, and there was a mural of Wile E. Coyotte at the bottom. And I think the 3rd floor of Building 7 connected at grade to the 4th floor of Building 9, and the 4th floor of Building 7 connected at grade to the 5th floor of Building 9. But no idea how any floor of Building 9 connected to Building 33. I'm guessing that Buildings 33, 35, 37, 39, 38, 34, and 36 all connect at grade (no stairs) at every floor. No idea about 32, that didn't exist when I was at MIT.

I remember the 1st floor of Building 10 having stairs down to the 1st floor of Building 13. I don't remember the other connections between 10 and 13. I think the 2nd floor of Building 10 had stairs up to the 3rd floor of Building 10. And the 3rd floor of Building 10 connected at grade to the 4th floor of Building 13, and the 4th floor of Building 10 connected at grade to the 5th floor of Building 13. Is there any connection between 13 and 9?

68.193.18.102 (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)