Is any of the technology in stargate possible?

[trinium8701]

Okay, rockets are out....there not going to do a thing for us exept maneuver at sublight speed. Now you would need an element that acts on gravity, and hell of alot of power. the hell of allot of power we can do. As for generating gravity, spinning something is the limit of our technology as far as we know. HOWEVER

About 10 years ago there was a paper put out on some superconducting element that been made at one of the govt labs (the one in new mexico) that attracted ALL objects...plastic, metal, concrete.......AKA Gravity. Of course a few days later all traces of that got dropped away and doesnt show up in search engines.. But if you could put enough power in generating a gravity field (maybe 3 targeting one point in space) you may just have yourself and FTL.

[thekillman]

Okay, rockets are out....there not going to do a thing for us exept maneuver at sublight speed.

You just made the engineer in me cry. Try getting hit at 90%C by a coke can and see how much "sublight" is "not gonna do a thing".

About 10 years ago there was a paper put out on some superconducting element that been made at one of the govt labs (the one in new mexico) that attracted ALL objects...plastic, metal, concrete.......AKA Gravity. Of course a few days later all traces of that got dropped away and doesnt show up in search engines..

Because it was an experimental error. You see, we're talking about tiny effects here. There are a LOT of tiny signals that can mess up an experiment.

It was called Electrogravity by the way. There were also thoughts of dark matter when a probe moved weirdly. Turned out the heat radiatiors caused that effect. Yes, actual heat radiating. Tiny effects are plentiful.

But if you could put enough power in generating a gravity field (maybe 3 targeting one point in space) you may just have yourself and FTL.

Oh it's possible to create gravity via energy. E=m*c^2 so if you pump enough energy into a device it'll create gravity. You just need earth-masses of energy for earth-levels of gravity. Also, gravity =/= FTL.

[trinium8701]

No you got me wrong.....Sublights would be absolutely necessary for maneuvering a huge chunk of metal like a 304.......Thruster. alone are not going to cut it. you would still use them but to a much less degree. without sublight your just floating in space.....So a liquid/gas (or gas in liquid for most likely) or hey, maybe even Helium 3.....Engines would be on the checklist. But yeah, we need some kind of way to generate gravity that could be powered by a fusion engines (or something along that) or theres the whole create a negative energy "donut" around the ship, which with some tweaking they have gotten the power requirements down to a "maybe in 50 years" possibility. But for non FTL flight youve got to get around somehow.....(especially given the inertial impact of a soda can going 90k....or hell has anyone looked at a map of just the space junk we can track? (china recently helped FUBAR that with destroying a satellite at a relatively high orbit) OF course we felt the need to match them, but we did have the sense to do it with something already skimming the atmosphere.

[nekogater]

Hi! I'm nebwie here!

Interesting thread!

I have read a lot about the future technologies will appear in year 2050, and there are some similitudes with Stargate technologies, and other films of science fiction, if you are interested I suggest to watch the next links, on Youtube there are so many videos about future technologies and you can compare which of them are similar to Stargate technologies...:

Astrobiology Magazine - http://www.astrobio.net/

Future Timeline - http://www.futuretimeline.net/


Youtube - History Channel - Human Colonies in Space

Youtube - A Day Made Of Glass 1 & 2

Youtube - A Day Made of Glass 2 3

[The Shrike]

Not truly Universal stuff

Early replicators?

[thekillman]

Early replicators?

more like early versions of the predecessor of a replicator prototype.

It's insanely impressive, definitely. True replicator? not by a long shot.

[TheAtlantia]

Well... wormhole could be made in theory, but that would require far more energy that we are capable of producing

[jestermon]

Yes, if you knew how to design, manufacture, and implement the devices and technology, nothing would be impossible.

[thekillman]

Yes, if you knew how to design, manufacture, and implement the devices and technology, nothing would be impossible.

Nope. Not even close to true. "new" physics still needs to obey "old" physics. There's also no such thing as a "soul" so bodyswitching technology doesn't work, neither does inhabiting a computer (well, it won't work like that). Some things in Stargate can be approximated. However, there's no such thing as subspace or hyperspace, so any derivative technology (hyperdrives, Subspace comms) can not possibly exist.

Some things can be approximated (e.g. plasma shields) but not replicated (no device could work exactly like an energy shield in Stargate). Some things will never exist (inertial dampeners).

[jfarrell327]

Nope. Not even close to true. "new" physics still needs to obey "old" physics. There's also no such thing as a "soul" so bodyswitching technology doesn't work, neither does inhabiting a computer (well, it won't work like that). Some things in Stargate can be approximated. However, there's no such thing as subspace or hyperspace, so any derivative technology (hyperdrives, Subspace comms) can not possibly exist.

Some things can be approximated (e.g. plasma shields) but not replicated (no device could work exactly like an energy shield in Stargate). Some things will never exist (inertial dampeners).

How do you know there is no such thing as a soul or consciousness? We don't know that, I don't think it could ever be proved or disproved unless we have a mind uploading device that enables you to upload your "consciousness" to it then into a new body like the Asgard... It could be possible, but I mean it will be a few centuries or so before we'd know for sure whether or not its possible. Check this out: http://www.livescience.com/37499-imm...onference.html OR maybe it will be in our lifetimes... Technology is progressing now faster than ever. There is no such thing as impossible when you're talking about the future... In the future anything is possible, the sky is the limit. You may not be able to break any laws of physics, but there could always be a way around it, just like the warp drive, it's always possible.

[ZRFTS]

Let's see... Much of the technology in Star Trek wasn't possible yet it was made possible; so yeah, anything is possible. Sci-fi just provides the ideas for us to make it happen.

[thekillman]

In the future anything is possible, the sky is the limit.

Subspace does not exist, and so, a hyperdrive can not exist. Same for naquahdah and stargates and shields. As to "creating something like it", that depends on how far you're willing to stretch your definition of "something like it". It's simply not true that all technology in stargate is possible. And if you're going with "it may be possible far in the future" then that's both a blatant lie and a meaningless answer. If you don't understand or agree, try explaining to the alchemists that a universal solvent doesn't exist, or that you can't turn lead to gold (in the way that they envisioned). Because just as often (if not more often), science proves things are impossible that were thought possible before. I just read an article once more explaining just how difficult it is to send people to mars *properly*. Remember when AI was something we could easily program if we could just write enough lines? we still don't have AI, unless you consider the glorified statistics machine an "AI" (it is often called just that).

I won't be surprised if not too far from now the hopes stable traversible wormholes and the alcubiere warpdrive will be thoroughly squashed. I won't like it, but i won't be surprised.

To end lightheartedly, i think i remember a joke from Atomic Rocket saying "two hundred years ago humans invented FTL. One hundred years ago scientists discovered it was impossible, so we can't travel FTL anymore".

[jfarrell327]

Subspace does not exist, and so, a hyperdrive can not exist. Same for naquahdah and stargates and shields. As to "creating something like it", that depends on how far you're willing to stretch your definition of "something like it". It's simply not true that all technology in stargate is possible. And if you're going with "it may be possible far in the future" then that's both a blatant lie and a meaningless answer. If you don't understand or agree, try explaining to the alchemists that a universal solvent doesn't exist, or that you can't turn lead to gold (in the way that they envisioned). Because just as often (if not more often), science proves things are impossible that were thought possible before. I just read an article once more explaining just how difficult it is to send people to mars *properly*. Remember when AI was something we could easily program if we could just write enough lines? we still don't have AI, unless you consider the glorified statistics machine an "AI" (it is often called just that).

I won't be surprised if not too far from now the hopes stable traversible wormholes and the alcubiere warpdrive will be thoroughly squashed. I won't like it, but i won't be surprised.

To end lightheartedly, i think i remember a joke from Atomic Rocket saying "two hundred years ago humans invented FTL. One hundred years ago scientists discovered it was impossible, so we can't travel FTL anymore".

Well how do you know none of it is real? Do you have scientific proof that without a doubt that there is no such thing as subspace? Because you know before people thought that the world was flat and that Earth was the center of the Universe... In let's say 500 years from now people are going to laugh at what we thought nowadays, we think we know it all, haha but we don't not even close. So before you want to say it is without a doubt impossible or not real, you have to prove that it isn't real.

[thekillman]

Well how do you know none of it is real? Do you have scientific proof that without a doubt that there is no such thing as subspace? Because you know before people thought that the world was flat and that Earth was the center of the Universe... In let's say 500 years from now people are going to laugh at what we thought nowadays, we think we know it all, haha but we don't not even close. So before you want to say it is without a doubt impossible or not real, you have to prove that it isn't real.

This is a stupid argument and you know it.

I can prove it doesn't exist. There's no evidence it exists, and no phenomenon needs it to exist. For all intents and purposes, scientifically it does not exist. handwaving about far futures is meaningless.


Remember, alchemists believed there was a universal solvent, and they were wrong. For a time scientists looked for the Aether and discovered it didn't exist. Just as often as new possibilities are discovered, previous routes turn out to be dead ends. It's just as likely that 500 years from now, they're laughing because we thought wormholes were a thing in stead of laughing because they are. Thus it's meaningless to say "maybe it's possible in the future" because just as likely "it'll remain impossible in the future".

The only meaningful discussion is using the information we have now, and that information says that wormholes are no certain thing and that subspace is sci fi.

[jfarrell327]

This is a stupid argument and you know it.

I can prove it doesn't exist. There's no evidence it exists, and no phenomenon needs it to exist. For all intents and purposes, scientifically it does not exist. handwaving about far futures is meaningless.


Remember, alchemists believed there was a universal solvent, and they were wrong. For a time scientists looked for the Aether and discovered it didn't exist. Just as often as new possibilities are discovered, previous routes turn out to be dead ends. It's just as likely that 500 years from now, they're laughing because we thought wormholes were a thing in stead of laughing because they are. Thus it's meaningless to say "maybe it's possible in the future" because just as likely "it'll remain impossible in the future".

The only meaningful discussion is using the information we have now, and that information says that wormholes are no certain thing and that subspace is sci fi.

Is that your argument? I don't see any evidence there....