Are there any statements in the show about how good they are? I remember it being stated that they could catalog a world at the atomic level from orbit without a problem but I don't remember if that was canon or fannon.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
How good are Asgard sensors?
Collapse
X
-
well even if the sensor could i don't think their computers have that much memory to record the position of every single atom of a entire planetsigpic
Stargate Mods List
I am webxro , google me .SG,ST,SW,B5 Fan since forever.
StarTrek Excalibur enthusiast and Pardus player .
GW member infractions : 1
-
Originally posted by Emperor Tippy View PostAre there any statements in the show about how good they are? I remember it being stated that they could catalog a world at the atomic level from orbit without a problem but I don't remember if that was canon or fannon.If you wish to see more of my rants, diatribes, and general comments, check out my Twitter account SirRyanR!
Check out Pharaoh Hamenthotep's wicked 3D renders here!
If you can prove me wrong, go for it. I enjoy being proven wrong.
sigpic
Worship the Zefron. Always the Zefron.
Comment
-
Well, they can beam things across the planet and anywhere on it. The beaming technology basically works (at least it seems so) by de-materializing and re-materializing matter. In order to beam like that, you have to know exactly what the thing you beaming is made of. If you can beam from anywhere withing range to anywhere within range, then you should, theoretically, be able to detect and store the information of the whole planet...
That's pretty bad-ass!sigpic
Comment
-
Originally posted by Edi View PostWell, they can beam things across the planet and anywhere on it. The beaming technology basically works (at least it seems so) by de-materializing and re-materializing matter. In order to beam like that, you have to know exactly what the thing you beaming is made of. If you can beam from anywhere withing range to anywhere within range, then you should, theoretically, be able to detect and store the information of the whole planet...
That's pretty bad-ass!
It only has to be able to scan and store the object its beaming, the area it beams too doesn't need to be scanned in detail at all as long as there isn't a wall there there's no problem. Where you got the idea it can detect and store the entire planet I don't know, it only has to scan 2 points the point/object its beaming at the point its beaming to.Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Buba uognarf View PostFaulty logic.
It only has to be able to scan and store the object its beaming, the area it beams too doesn't need to be scanned in detail at all as long as there isn't a wall there there's no problem. Where you got the idea it can detect and store the entire planet I don't know, it only has to scan 2 points the point/object its beaming at the point its beaming to.
The question is more along the lines of "How wide of an area can the Asgard scan like that at a time, how deep into a planet can they scan?", than "Can they scan at a molecular scale from orbit".
Comment
-
If thy can scan a small area, then they can scan all the planet, if not by widening he range, then by putting small pieces together (Google Earth).
Buba, my logic applies if the tech works by de-materializing the matter and re-materializing, because it would require to know what exactly they are beaming in order to construct it... no?
Really, it depends... We don't know how the tech works...sigpic
Comment
-
Originally posted by Edi View PostIf thy can scan a small area, then they can scan all the planet, if not by widening he range, then by putting small pieces together (Google Earth).
Buba, my logic applies if the tech works by de-materializing the matter and re-materializing, because it would require to know what exactly they are beaming in order to construct it... no?
Really, it depends... We don't know how the tech works...
Comment
-
Originally posted by thekillman View Postin order to minimize data use i believe it would rather use massive building blocks. like, entire molecules. not atom by atom.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mirdin1992 View PostIf it did that people would lose their last thought and I always thought they were breaked down to the quantum level beside the point it should be theoretical impossible to do both things. Hey the tollans had physics knowledge that they thought quantum theory was basic learning for primary school children and Nyam(is that his name) said is has proved false/outdated/etc.If you wish to see more of my rants, diatribes, and general comments, check out my Twitter account SirRyanR!
Check out Pharaoh Hamenthotep's wicked 3D renders here!
If you can prove me wrong, go for it. I enjoy being proven wrong.
sigpic
Worship the Zefron. Always the Zefron.
Comment
Comment