PDA

View Full Version : The Plan to get them home



Nathan Reynolds
November 7th, 2009, 04:39 AM
They dialled Icarus(Planet) to the Destiny(Moving Ship) but is it possible to do moving ship to planet? How do they figured that out?

What did they used was a point of origin?

What is the supposed 9 Symbols Address?

The rest of the episode i really liked but this point was a bit unclear to me or did i miss something?

nhall
November 7th, 2009, 04:58 AM
Dude, I totally called it back when Light aired!

http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=70495

It didn't really work (Rush's fault?) -- but, at the same time, I totally called it from draining Destiny's reserves, forcing it into a sun to using Destiny as a conduit for the star's power.

I was very pleased with this episode. ;)

Count
November 7th, 2009, 05:26 AM
I'd like to call it when i said that using a star to dial Earth WOULDNT work :) Same thread IIRC

AtlantisRules!!!
November 7th, 2009, 05:31 AM
They dialled Icarus(Planet) to the Destiny(Moving Ship) but is it possible to do moving ship to planet? How do they figured that out?

What did they used was a point of origin?

What is the supposed 9 Symbols Address?

The rest of the episode i really liked but this point was a bit unclear to me or did i miss something?

1. They've been dialing planets from the Destiny since Air pt 2 :P

2. 9 symbol adress is Earth

3. I dont know about the point of origin

hope that helps :P

Nathan Reynolds
November 7th, 2009, 05:49 AM
Im talking only about the symbol sequence not the power needed. Being near the star is irrelevant.

Yes Destiny is been dialling to other planets since the pilot... my bad :cameron:

the 9th symbol was Earth in Icarus(because they where trying to GO to the Destiny but were on the wrong planet)... I was asking about all the nine symbols sequence. you know? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

And how can the 9th symbol be earth if you are going TO earth?
Its the combination code you may say but... if the combination code is the same how do you know if is a outgoing wormhole or a incoming?(and dont say because they dial it :jonas:) Wouldnt the system crash or something?

If its the same combination code for both why do all that? Just push a button.

Count
November 7th, 2009, 05:55 AM
You can't do moving ship to planet, each time the Destiny gate dials, the ship is not in FTL.

Even in the pilot, just before the wormhole established from Icarus, the Destiny fell out of FTL long enough for the wormhole to open, fart out people and close again before it went back

Guiguioh
November 7th, 2009, 05:57 AM
The Earth address from the Destiny is a 8 symbols one, Rilley found it in the dialing computer (Air part 2.)

thekillman
November 7th, 2009, 06:04 AM
the last symbol can be calculated

Nathan Reynolds
November 7th, 2009, 06:05 AM
You can't do moving ship to planet, each time the Destiny gate dials, the ship is not in FTL.

Even in the pilot, just before the wormhole established from Icarus, the Destiny fell out of FTL long enough for the wormhole to open, fart out people and close again before it went back

The ship doesnt stop moving just slows yay down... the wormhole is established while the ship is still moving... Destiny ever stops.


The Earth address from the Destiny is a 8 symbols one, Rilley found it in the dialing computer (Air part 2.)

Really? i missed that one. Just leaves the question what did they use for the Point of Origin?

But then again... in every database in SG1 or SGA when a address was displayed it was without the PoP so a 7symbol(same galaxy) address would have 6symbol in the database and a 8symbol adress(other galaxy) would have 7symbols in the database so:
8 symbols plus the point of origin makes 9 unless the address contains the point of origin but how can the destiny have a fixed point of origin if it keeps moving?


Sorry if this is confusing but english is not my first language so "lost in translation" :jonas:

jds1982
November 7th, 2009, 07:14 AM
The ship doesnt stop moving just slows yay down... the wormhole is established while the ship is still moving... Destiny ever stops.

A wormhole is always established from a moving point, planets don't sit still in space.

nhall
November 7th, 2009, 09:47 AM
I'd like to call it when i said that using a star to dial Earth WOULDNT work :) Same thread IIRC

Lol. So I got the method, you got the "it won't work" bit -- still exciting though.

Good call, Count! (Or should I call you Rush?) :D

wkw427
November 7th, 2009, 09:50 AM
Desteny stopped FTL when they dialed to it from the planet to get stuck on the ship

merrik86
November 7th, 2009, 10:25 AM
I do not believe that the plan to dial Earth from the Destiny would have worked because they planned to use the star to power the stargate. Think about it, it has been mentioned in SG-1's Red Sky, a wormhole will NOT form if it will be in the path of a star, there are safety protocols in the stargate that prevent that kind of connection from occuring.

Now I was arguing over this with my brother, and he said that if Col. Carter could override these protocols, and Dr. Rush might be able to do the same thing. But as it was mentioned in the episode, most of the ships commands were locked with a master code that could not be broken. That could also mean that the Stargate's safety protocols could also be locked with this "Master Code".

The point of this thread is to talk about the plan to dial Earth. Personally I don't think it would have worked due to Destiny being IN the star itself while dialing earth.

That's just how I feel about it, what do you think?

thekillman
November 7th, 2009, 10:28 AM
it wouldn't have worked because the destiny can not handle it.


there is a difference between a wormhole going THROUGH a star and going from the "atmosphere" of a star to a place far, far away

Lightning Ducj
November 7th, 2009, 10:31 AM
I'm going to argue side-ways and say that on a technical level there was not enough detail given about the plan to make an assessment, especially for such fictional elements as Stargates.

Given also that TPTB have shown a willingness to 'stretch' canon as needed, under the umbrella that the time frame between Destiny and the MW gate system allowing for changes in Ancient technology enough to allow technical-canon, if you will, to not be quite so limiting in story telling.

IOW, I don't think it's really going to be possible within the story to say "well, in this episode, this happened to that means they can/can't do that"

skeezix
November 7th, 2009, 10:36 AM
It''s been firmly established that solar flares do wonky things to wormholes in the SG universe. While I'm not a physicist (not yet anyway), purposely dialing while INSIDE a star doesn't seem like the greatest idea based on what we've seen in previous series. Even if the wormhole did connect to Earth, wouldn't they be thrown to a different time like in 1969, Continuum, etc. Simple explanation anyone?

Cory Holmes
November 7th, 2009, 10:40 AM
It''s been firmly established that solar flares do wonky things to wormholes in the SG universe. While I'm not a physicist (not yet anyway), purposely dialing while INSIDE a star doesn't seem like the greatest idea based on what we've seen in previous series. Even if the wormhole did connect to Earth, wouldn't they be thrown to a different time like in 1969, Continuum, etc. Simple explanation anyone?

Most of those "wonky wormhole things" were due to the SGC using Carter's phenominally less-than-equipped dialing computer instead of a proper DHD. The DHD would've been able to compensate and/or deal with the problems at hand, and since Destiny is equipped with a proper, designed by the Ancients DHD, the threat of that would be much less than before.

Urza
November 7th, 2009, 10:46 AM
The ship doesnt stop moving just slows yay down... the wormhole is established while the ship is still moving... Destiny ever stops.


Really? i missed that one. Just leaves the question what did they use for the Point of Origin?

But then again... in every database in SG1 or SGA when a address was displayed it was without the PoP so a 7symbol(same galaxy) address would have 6symbol in the database and a 8symbol adress(other galaxy) would have 7symbols in the database so:
8 symbols plus the point of origin makes 9 unless the address contains the point of origin but how can the destiny have a fixed point of origin if it keeps moving?


Sorry if this is confusing but english is not my first language so "lost in translation" :jonas:

An 8 chevron address for earth makes sense I think:
7 chevrons is intra-galactic travel
8 chevrons is inter-galactic travel
9 chevrons is travel TO destiny (regardless of where it is)

Like Atlantisrules!! mentioned :p they have been gating for a while so the ship must have its own PoO chevron.
Seeing as a 9 chevron address has the special one saying "dial Destiny", maybe Destiny's gate (since it was made to stay inside an ever moving ship) has also a special PoO chevron "dial <there> regardless of where we are"

since they're trying to travel from destiny to Earth I dont know if the 9th chevron is still necessary, yet it needs an astronomical amount of energy since destiny is far further away from anything else Earth encontered.
The Icarus-> Destiny gate must had broke the all-time Universal gate distance travel record, even counting the gate trips from the Ancients :P

skeezix
November 7th, 2009, 11:45 AM
Most of those "wonky wormhole things" were due to the SGC using Carter's phenominally less-than-equipped dialing computer instead of a proper DHD. The DHD would've been able to compensate and/or deal with the problems at hand, and since Destiny is equipped with a proper, designed by the Ancients DHD, the threat of that would be much less than before.

That's a pretty bad copout explanation imo. They were basically surrounded by the star. There should have at least been a Rush line to explain why it would have worked. The solar flare plot device is too big to go unaddressed, they based a whole movie off of it fer crying out loud! :jack:

Pat1487
November 7th, 2009, 11:52 AM
Dude, I totally called it back when Light aired!

http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=70495

It didn't really work (Rush's fault?) -- but, at the same time, I totally called it from draining Destiny's reserves, forcing it into a sun to using Destiny as a conduit for the star's power.

I was very pleased with this episode. ;)

You got the method
But Im the one that said in post #4 and 15 in that thread, that it couldnt handle dialing from inside a star and that it wouldnt be able to take all the power required for dialing all at once without failing

Although since Rush did technically sabotage it, we still dont know for sure if it wouldve worked or not
I still say it wouldnt have worked and that they all wouldve died if Rush hadnt done what he did

ttsec
November 7th, 2009, 11:58 AM
Here is the plan to get them home.

Use DNA material of each person on Destiny found back on Earth. Make a clone of each person using Asgard cloning tech. (which Earth now has), switch consciousness of Destiny people and their corresponding cloned bodies on earth. Set a timed devices to painlessly kill all the bodies on Destiny once the switch is made so the clone's relatively blank consciousness won't suffer too long on Destiny.

Since there are only a few com. stones, the switches/killings will have to be made a few at a time, or only a few people will get to actually come home permanently.

Pat1487
November 7th, 2009, 12:01 PM
Here is the plan to get them home.

Use DNA material of each person on Destiny found back on Earth. Make a clone of each person using Asgard cloning tech. (which Earth now has), switch consciousness of Destiny people and their corresponding cloned bodies on earth. Set a timed devices to painlessly kill all the bodies on Destiny once the switch is made so the clone's relatively blank consciousness won't suffer too long on Destiny.

If the original body dies the body that the consciousness is in dies too
It was shown when Vala died while swapped in SG-1
And implied here

escyos
November 7th, 2009, 01:01 PM
its funny how they used the same idea people came up with after light. I read on JM's blog someone asked why didnt they dial earth when they were in the sun, JM replied with "hey thats a good idea!" haha

i think they dialled the only 8 chevron address they had and added the point of origin

escyos
November 7th, 2009, 01:03 PM
Here is the plan to get them home.

Use DNA material of each person on Destiny found back on Earth. Make a clone of each person using Asgard cloning tech. (which Earth now has), switch consciousness of Destiny people and their corresponding cloned bodies on earth. Set a timed devices to painlessly kill all the bodies on Destiny once the switch is made so the clone's relatively blank consciousness won't suffer too long on Destiny.

Since there are only a few com. stones, the switches/killings will have to be made a few at a time, or only a few people will get to actually come home permanently.

if the connection is severed at all, they revert back to their original bodies, this includes killing their original bodies, they would be dead

Mevi
November 7th, 2009, 08:57 PM
Red Sky
EPISODE NUMBER - 505
DVD DISC - Season 5, Disc 2
ORIGINAL U.S. AIR DATE - 07.27.01
SYNDICATION AIR DATE - 10.07.02
WRITTEN BY - Ron Wilkerson
DIRECTED BY - Martin Wood
GUEST STARRING - Fred Applegate (Elrad), John Prosky (Malchus), Norman Armour (Dr. MacLaren), Brian Jensen (Freyr)
SG-1 discovers that their trip through the Stargate may have inadvertently doomed an entire civilization, and plead with the Asgard for assistance.

Safety protocols are built into the real DHDs. WHy would this wormhole be allowed to connect inside a star?

Lightning Ducj
November 7th, 2009, 09:05 PM
Safety protocols are built into the real DHDs. WHy would this wormhole be allowed to connect inside a star?

From my other post (http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?p=10807850#post10807850)




I'm going to argue side-ways and say that on a technical level there was not enough detail given about the plan to make an assessment, especially for such fictional elements as Stargates.

Given also that TPTB have shown a willingness to 'stretch' canon as needed, under the umbrella that the time frame between Destiny and the MW gate system allowing for changes in Ancient technology enough to allow technical-canon, if you will, to not be quite so limiting in story telling.

IOW, I don't think it's really going to be possible within the story to say "well, in this episode, this happened to that means they can/can't do that"

thekillman
November 8th, 2009, 02:29 AM
as i said.

the wormhole does not travel THROUGH the star. the destiny is in the upper layers, thus the wormhole wouldn't be affected.

Encoder
November 8th, 2009, 04:25 AM
Seriously there was no way they were gonna draw continuous power from the star anyhow!

The plan was gonna fail not because of it's technical flaws, but simply because we're seven episodes into the season :P

:sheppard:

ReFRidgerator
November 8th, 2009, 06:40 AM
It''s been firmly established that solar flares do wonky things to wormholes in the SG universe. While I'm not a physicist (not yet anyway), purposely dialing while INSIDE a star doesn't seem like the greatest idea based on what we've seen in previous series. Even if the wormhole did connect to Earth, wouldn't they be thrown to a different time like in 1969, Continuum, etc. Simple explanation anyone?

Yeah, the guys who came up with the plan didn't seem like the most foreward thinking cautios people. They probably didn't care about that risk. It would have been funny if it had worked, but the wormhole looped back to the Destiny in the past like in the Sg-1 episode 1969. Then they'd be truely alone, cut off from Earth as they know it.

ZoSo
November 8th, 2009, 07:23 AM
as i said.

the wormhole does not travel THROUGH the star. the destiny is in the upper layers, thus the wormhole wouldn't be affected.

Aren't the upper layers of the sun the hottest and most magnetically charged?

In 1969 the effect was caused by a solar flare, which is on the outer surface. In Red Sky, we can't be sure what part of the sun the wormhole traveled through. It wasn't stated.

thekillman
November 8th, 2009, 07:31 AM
eehhhm...

the core is 15 million degrees (a chill compared to ITER's 150 million degrees).

the outer layers are a few thousand degrees.


there are magnetic storms, yes. we do not know WHAT of a sun affects the wormhole. and i doubt that during normal moments, the magnetic fields change as much as when a solar flare takes place.


so yes, definately possible to dial

Cobra847
November 8th, 2009, 11:04 AM
The whole plan and the ensuing chaos was very poorly explained in this episode. It was downright confusing unfortunately.

Eternal Density
November 8th, 2009, 02:31 PM
Set a timed devices to painlessly kill all the bodies on Destiny once the switch is made so the clone's relatively blank consciousness won't suffer too long on Destiny.I initially misread "the clone's" as "Chloe's" but fortunately I realised my mistake before I got too outraged :P

Dragon_Heart
November 9th, 2009, 05:36 AM
as i said.

the wormhole does not travel THROUGH the star. the destiny is in the upper layers, thus the wormhole wouldn't be affected.

You cannot directly determine which direction the wormhole will travel, so you surely cannot say it will not go through the star.


it wouldn't have worked because the destiny can not handle it.


there is a difference between a wormhole going THROUGH a star and going from the "atmosphere" of a star to a place far, far away

read above.


A wormhole is always established from a moving point, planets don't sit still in space.

It's all relative, every single object, even space itself, is constantly moving outwards. All from one point. Hence the theory of the big bang.

miles27
November 9th, 2009, 12:48 PM
forget time problems, dhd safety, and magnetic interferance. even forget the whole point of what happens if the shield fails during connection is open. the power is simply not going to work. do not try this but think of putting a battary attached to a bulb onto the mains from a socket... yes you guessed it battary and bulb would blow even though the ship draws into it's own systems you would pull more through than the system could handle.

Dragon_Heart
November 9th, 2009, 05:20 PM
Unless of course the put protocol's in place to limit the power being fed into the gate.


Example, fire all the wepaons, activate anythign you can get your hands on. Obviously everyone here is goign on speculation, but it oculd be possible.

Quadhelix
November 9th, 2009, 07:11 PM
You cannot directly determine which direction the wormhole will travel, so you surely cannot say it will not go through the star.
That's all irrelevant anyway: the problem in "Red Sky" was due to material that the wormhole picked up in interstellar space. Since the Destiny was dialing from inside the star in question, the situation is pretty much completely different.




It's all relative, every single object, even space itself, is constantly moving outwards. All from one point. Hence the theory of the big bang.
That's not how the Big Bang works: there is no "center point." As you already stated: all motion is relative.

Nevertheless, jds1982 has a point: planets orbit their stars with speeds measured in tens of kilometers per second. Yes, all motion is relative, but these planets would be moving relative to one another.

escyos
November 9th, 2009, 10:28 PM
heres a way to get them homw - they find/create a power source and dial home! YAY!

Count
November 9th, 2009, 10:42 PM
That's not how the Big Bang works: there is no "center point." As you already stated: all motion is relative.

Where'd you get that load of crap from? The concept behind the big bang is that there was a point in space that exploding, believed to be a singularity, that spread out all the material in the universe.

This model of the big bang also explains why everything is still moving away from each other and increasing in speed (If it were a powerful enough singularity, nothing would have been able to escape from it's gravity long enough to form objects of appreciable mass)

You got some reading to do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Phenom
November 10th, 2009, 12:41 AM
Where'd you get that load of crap from? The concept behind the big bang is that there was a point in space that exploding, believed to be a singularity, that spread out all the material in the universe.

This model of the big bang also explains why everything is still moving away from each other and increasing in speed (If it were a powerful enough singularity, nothing would have been able to escape from it's gravity long enough to form objects of appreciable mass)

You got some reading to do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Thats what I have always thought too....but hey what do I know :D

Esquin
November 10th, 2009, 03:27 AM
I'd just like to say for the record the problem wasn't the plan.

Using a Star to create a continuous feed of power to the gate is kind of brilliant. The problem was that they couldn't be sure Destiny was in any condition to really handle the amounts of power. Rush wasn't saying the plan wouldn't work, he was saying that they needed more time to make it work safely. I have no doubt that they'll keep trying to make it work. But likely by the time they work it out there won't be as much preasure on them anymore to bail right away.

Quadhelix
November 10th, 2009, 05:09 AM
Where'd you get that load of crap from? The concept behind the big bang is that there was a point in space that exploding, believed to be a singularity, that spread out all the material in the universe.
Your understand of what you are discussing is fundamentally flawed.

The Local Group is not moving relative to the Cosmic Microwave Background (the light left over from the Big Bang). This would mean either A) the Earth is the center of the universe or B) there is no "central point" from which the universe is expanding. Obviously, A) is highly improbable.

For a clarification of point B, imagine the universe as a ball. Everything that actually exists is on the surface of the ball. Originally, the ball was a tiny fraction of an nanometer in diameter, but now it has expanded out to billions of light-years in diameter. Nevertheless, there is nowhere on the surface of the ball that can be called the "point" from which the ball expanded, and the inside of the ball is just a construct to aid understanding of a complicated subject.

Thus, saying that the universe was once compressed down to a point is completely different from saying that there exists a "central point" to the universe.

geddarkstorm
November 10th, 2009, 07:25 AM
Quadhelix is quite correct, from how it's currently understood (theory changes all the time though). Afterall, if there was a central point everything spread out from, you wouldn't have galactic collisions, like we are destined to have with Andromeda :P. Andromeda is coming from a completely different direction than we are, obviously not spread from a central point.

Then you have the issue of the "dark matter" scaffolding of the universe, which is like a web, and is not radiating. Since dark matter does not radiate from a central point, the big bang cannot be distilled down to one location.

On the other hand, if dark matter was always there, and only the 5% of the universe that is made out of our baryonic matter was formed in the big bang, then that would also explain what we saw, as our matter would run into the webbing of dark matter and flow along it like water dropped onto a grooved surface. That would abolish all sense of relative direction, whereas light, the cosmic microwave background, would not be so affected.

Then there's dark energy, which is causing the expansion of the universe to increase, and that is also not radiating from a central point, but instead driving everything faster along whatever vectors its already on.

The universe is a crazy place :P. And as for the Destiny... their only limit was apparently the power draw. We saw the shields failing. Now, you have to ask, "how fast can the Destiny take in energy from the star?" and "how fast is energy put into the stargate?". Since the energy going to the gate seems to jump in orders of magnitude for each chevron that is locked, and this jump seems instantaneous (like flipping a switch), it may well be that the Destiny simply cannot absorb enough energy from the star fast enough to satisfy the gate's increasing power load as more chevrons are added, and the addition of the last one would have browned out the ships power and dropped the shield -- vaporization.

ronin36
November 10th, 2009, 09:26 AM
All this talk of astro-physics is interesting. But can we just talk about the show for a while???

My first observation. They (crew of Destiny) must be starting to look through the goodies onboard. There is no reasonable way they brought along some of the things they're currently using. Especially when it comes to repairing the ship. (They already found the suits.) This is incouraging. I am hoping they continue to effect repairs, and "open up" more of the ship as the series moves along.

Second observation. At least I now know where the gate-room is. From previous episodes, there wasn't a clear indication of where on the ship (when looking at the outside) where the gateroom was. At least I don't recal any. Now, with the camera exiting through a sky-light (just before dialing) we see the gateroom in the long square area in front of (and below) the observation deck.

My one wish.. so far.. I hope they repair the dome room (starboard of observation room, the room Scott, James, and Riley found in the Air.) and turn it into a green-house.

Control_Chair
November 10th, 2009, 12:25 PM
I was surprised they didn’t connect the wormhole and attempt to travel through given the next episode is called Time. I was expecting them to connect the wormhole and then attempt to travel back to Earth only to have the wormhole bounce of a solar flare and for them to travel backwards or forwards in time for the next episode.

Count
November 10th, 2009, 08:35 PM
Your understand of what you are discussing is fundamentally flawed.

Thanks, but i sincerly doubt that my astrophysics lecturers would agree considering my grades in the subjects.



The Local Group is not moving relative to the Cosmic Microwave Background (the light left over from the Big Bang). This would mean either A) the Earth is the center of the universe or B) there is no "central point" from which the universe is expanding. Obviously, A) is highly improbable.

Quite correct, and i agree that A is incredibly unlikely. But you're forgetting everything else we know about gravity and unversal expansion from our study of it. Galaxies interact gravitationally for millions of light years, we know for a fact Andromeda has been in 3 collisions in the last 13 billion years, in fact there was a journal published a few years ago where it was suggested that the Virgo Supercluster had actually passed through another smaller supercluster some time ago. This doesnt mean we're actually flying off in random directions from Earth, it just means that all these objects have had gravitational interactions of some sort in their history.

A blackhole forms in just the right spot can move something even almost unmeasurably at first but effects are cumulative and over 13 billion years, it averages a supernova every 30 in our smallish galaxy alone, means that enough energy can be released from detonations of stars that galaxies themselves can be affected. arms collapse, orbits change, stars thrown free of their galaxies.

Of course, if you look at it, it does seem insanly ridiculous doesnt it? Something as small as a star in a giant galaxy can knock it off course? you have to remember it's cumulative, and it's not necessarily something that small, a small galaxy may have a larger black hole in it's core, gravitational waves of a smaller satellite galaxy can pull a larger galaxy off it's course or slow it down (look up a gravity tractor for example, or even hawking radiation for an atomic level gravity tractor)

Andromeda's rammed 3 galaxies in it's lifetime that we know of, and the magellanic clouds are in the process of eating some galaxies that werr orbiting the milky way. Gravity is too powerful a force to ignore when you make such claims that "the galaxy is moving slower then cosmic radiation". And it's also fair to add gravity affects the radiation in the same way, radiation is slowed by gravity, or sped up too.


For a clarification of point B, imagine the universe as a ball. Everything that actually exists is on the surface of the ball. Originally, the ball was a tiny fraction of an nanometer in diameter, but now it has expanded out to billions of light-years in diameter. Nevertheless, there is nowhere on the surface of the ball that can be called the "point" from which the ball expanded, and the inside of the ball is just a construct to aid understanding of a complicated subject.

You are literally splitting hairs. Something that small in size can easily pass for "the centre point of the universe", you would never get a "real" point unless it was on a pure 2dimensional plane and we know that the universe is 3d obviously. Any 3 dimensional object could never have a pure point as it's centre because it's mathematically impossible to do so as long as it has size in all 3 relative dimensions.


Thus, saying that the universe was once compressed down to a point is completely different from saying that there exists a "central point" to the universe.

That is again, purely splitting hairs. same reasons as above.

As for the other chap talking about dark matter. Dark matter is an intensly heavy gravitational force scientists are using to figure out why things dont make sense when it comes to planetary movement, stellar observations and galactic mergers. They think there's a dark matter source somewhere in our solar system that elongates all the planet's orbits. there's a simple example there of gravity again manipulating large objects.

The thing you need to remember really is that matter does not get evenly distributed in every direction in the big bang model. It's all randomly distributed, heavier elements attract lighter ones, they build mass and mass and mass until they form larger objects, the larger objects start pulling on smaller ones and in the end you end up with a completely random universe with no real proof on anyone's theories thanks to the miraculous 7 letter work that i'm getting tired of writing in this post :)

Saquist
November 11th, 2009, 08:56 AM
Dude, I totally called it back when Light aired!

http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=70495

It didn't really work (Rush's fault?) -- but, at the same time, I totally called it from draining Destiny's reserves, forcing it into a sun to using Destiny as a conduit for the star's power.

I was very pleased with this episode. ;)

I remember you said that. Nice, very nice.
Of course it wouldn't work.

Quadhelix
November 11th, 2009, 11:50 AM
Thanks, but i sincerly doubt that my astrophysics lecturers would agree considering my grades in the subjects.

Okay then: where would we look for this "center point" that you say exists (http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?p=10818397#post10818397)? Since, if saying that there is no center point is "a load of crap," that would imply that there is a center point.

So, again, where is it? In the Mliky Way? In the Virgo cluster?



Quite correct, and i agree that A is incredibly unlikely. But you're forgetting everything else we know about gravity and unversal expansion from our study of it. Galaxies interact gravitationally for millions of light years, we know for a fact Andromeda has been in 3 collisions in the last 13 billion years, in fact there was a journal published a few years ago where it was suggested that the Virgo Supercluster had actually passed through another smaller supercluster some time ago. This doesnt mean we're actually flying off in random directions from Earth, it just means that all these objects have had gravitational interactions of some sort in their history.

A blackhole forms in just the right spot can move something even almost unmeasurably at first but effects are cumulative and over 13 billion years, it averages a supernova every 30 in our smallish galaxy alone, means that enough energy can be released from detonations of stars that galaxies themselves can be affected. arms collapse, orbits change, stars thrown free of their galaxies.

Of course, if you look at it, it does seem insanly ridiculous doesnt it? Something as small as a star in a giant galaxy can knock it off course? you have to remember it's cumulative, and it's not necessarily something that small, a small galaxy may have a larger black hole in it's core, gravitational waves of a smaller satellite galaxy can pull a larger galaxy off it's course or slow it down (look up a gravity tractor for example, or even hawking radiation for an atomic level gravity tractor)

Andromeda's rammed 3 galaxies in it's lifetime that we know of, and the magellanic clouds are in the process of eating some galaxies that werr orbiting the milky way. Gravity is too powerful a force to ignore when you make such claims that "the galaxy is moving slower then cosmic radiation". And it's also fair to add gravity affects the radiation in the same way, radiation is slowed by gravity, or sped up too. This is very interesting, and I'm sure that addresses some point, but it does not appear to address mine. How exactly does any of this relate to the universe having or not having a center?





You are literally splitting hairs. Something that small in size can easily pass for "the centre point of the universe", you would never get a "real" point unless it was on a pure 2dimensional plane and we know that the universe is 3d obviously. Any 3 dimensional object could never have a pure point as it's centre because it's mathematically impossible to do so as long as it has size in all 3 relative dimensions. Okay, I'm just going to flat out say that I haven't the foggiest clue what you're saying here.

"Something that small in size"? What's small? The only thing that was small was the ball, which started out at several nanometers across, but inflated to several billion light-years across: the ball was an analogy to give the idea of expanding closed dimensions. The ball was, in effect, a model of the universe, nothing more.

The only thing that could be called the center of the ball (i.e., the center of the universe) is inside the ball, but the inside of the ball isn't real, it's just an allegory. By the way and for the record, the outside of the ball isn't real, either.


And just exactly how am I splitting hairs? If the universe has a center point, then it has a center point - I can get in a rocket and fly to it and say "wow, this is the center of the universe." If there is no center point, then there is no center point.

VJC
November 11th, 2009, 01:17 PM
So, again, where is it? In the Mliky Way? In the Virgo cluster?

IIRC technically everywhere is the "centre point" as everything is moving away from everything else and from it's own POV looks like the centre...

Count
November 11th, 2009, 01:28 PM
Okay then: where would we look for this "center point" that you say exists (http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?p=10818397#post10818397)? Since, if saying that there is no center point is "a load of crap," that would imply that there is a center point.


Find where that tiny little ball that expanding which you keep raging about and it's position is the centre of the universe.


So, again, where is it? In the Mliky Way? In the Virgo cluster?

Incredibly narrow response to the scope of the arguement. It could be anywhere in the universe, it's hard to tell when you can't measure the edges. Oh, and FYI, you could have just said "Virgo" cause the Milky Way is IN Virgo already.



This is very interesting, and I'm sure that addresses some point, but it does not appear to address mine. How exactly does any of this relate to the universe having or not having a center?

That addresses your claim that "Earth is moving slower then cosmic background radiation" and it's associated arguments you made about things moving at different speeds and galaxies not being on parallel courses with each other. In fact, if you'd bothered to check what i was quoting, you'd have figured it out.



Okay, I'm just going to flat out say that I haven't the foggiest clue what you're saying here.

I was thinking the exact same thing about you when you first posted.


"Something that small in size"? What's small? The only thing that was small was the ball, which started out at several nanometers across, but inflated to several billion light-years across: the ball was an analogy to give the idea of expanding closed dimensions. The ball was, in effect, a model of the universe, nothing more.

small??/sm?l/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [smawl] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, adverb, -er, -est, noun
–adjective
1. of limited size; of comparatively restricted dimensions; not big; little: a small box.
2. slender, thin, or narrow: a small waist.
3. not large as compared with others of the same kind: a small elephant.

I was using small as a very plain english descriptor for everyone's convenience, if you want to nitpick that, feel free. However, what you seem to be suggesting is that the universe is enclosed, nothing can exist beyond the point at which the material of the universe has expanded from. It's believed that the universe itself is larger then the matter spreading out from the big bang, or it would have hit a metaphorical wall by now.


The only thing that could be called the center of the ball (i.e., the center of the universe) is inside the ball, but the inside of the ball isn't real, it's just an allegory. By the way and for the record, the outside of the ball isn't real, either.

Which is exactly what i said just now. And yes, the ball is an allagory. Let me try a better one, think of the expansion of the universe as a giant wave. The wave expanded in all directions in the form of energy and matter, eventually coalescening into more solid forms. this wave was indeed spherical, so at the exact emination point of the wave, from where the initial expansion began from IS the centre of the universe. However, you can also consider another possibility, the centre of the universe, when viewed by an outside observer can be considered the point where all mass cancels each other out and is the "balance" point for all material in the universe.



"And just exactly how am I splitting hairs? If the universe has a center point, then it has a center point - I can get in a rocket and fly to it and say "wow, this is the center of the universe." If there is no center point, then there is no center point.

Just because you can't measure enough information to identify it, doesn't mean it exists. Again, the centre point of the universe is the point where expansion began. Until we can identify that point - or measure the entire universe from the outside, there is no way we could every find it.

Oh, and FYI, i'd love to take a fly in your rocket ship as long as it's not built by NASA.

Quadhelix
November 11th, 2009, 02:32 PM
Find where that tiny little ball that expanding which you keep raging about and it's position is the centre of the universe.Okay, I keep point this out, and you keep failing to grasp it: we've found the ball. The Earth is on the surface of the ball. So is the Milky Way. So is all of space. Everything that we can see with our telescopes is on the surface of the ball. The surface of the ball is our three-dimensional universe, and both the inside and outside of the ball are mere abstractions created by trying to create a 4-dimensional analogy and having to drop a dimension.




Incredibly narrow response to the scope of the arguement. It could be anywhere in the universe, it's hard to tell when you can't measure the edges. That's my point: it's not "in" the universe at all.



Oh, and FYI, you could have just said "Virgo" cause the Milky Way is IN Virgo already.
False: the Milky Way is in the Virgo Supercluster, also know as the Local Supercluster. The Virgo Cluster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgo_cluster) is located rougly 60 million light-years away




That addresses your claim that "Earth is moving slower then cosmic background radiation" and it's associated arguments you made about things moving at different speeds and galaxies not being on parallel courses with each other. In fact, if you'd bothered to check what i was quoting, you'd have figured it out.
The Cosmic Microwave Background is, roughly, the light emitted from the Big Bang. Firstly, the fact that we can see this light everywhere should tell you something important, right off the bat.

Secondly, by measuring the Doppler shift of the CMB, it should be possible to tell how the Earth, Milky Way, and Local Supercluster is moving relative to the "Big Bang." If, in fact, the universe were expanding from a point that was actually in the universe, we would expect to see large amounts of red shift in that direction and massive blue shift in the other.

However, no such Doppler shift has been detect: only that resulting from the Earths movement within the Virgo Supercluster.





I was using small as a very plain english descriptor for everyone's convenience, if you want to nitpick that, feel free. If the universe is small, what's big? I hardly call that a "nitpick."




However, what you seem to be suggesting is that the universe is enclosed, nothing can exist beyond the point at which the material of the universe has expanded from. It's believed that the universe itself is larger then the matter spreading out from the big bang, or it would have hit a metaphorical wall by now.The surface of the metaphorical ball is all space. Objects (like galaxies, etc.) can move across the surface of the ball, but they cannot move above or below it (the ball is, in fact, four dimensional and its surface three dimensional). The universe expands, not by the movement of the material on the ball, but by the expansion of the ball itself.

To describe it in less abstract terms, the universe isn't getting bigger because objects are moving away from one another. Rather, objects are getting farther away from one another because space itself is inflating.




Which is exactly what i said just now. And yes, the ball is an allagory. Let me try a better one, think of the expansion of the universe as a giant wave. The wave expanded in all directions in the form of energy and matter, eventually coalescening into more solid forms. this wave was indeed spherical, so at the exact emination point of the wave, from where the initial expansion began from IS the centre of the universe. However, you can also consider another possibility, the centre of the universe, when viewed by an outside observer can be considered the point where all mass cancels each other out and is the "balance" point for all material in the universe. The problem is that your analogy describes something completely different: you are describing a preexisting universe that has matter "explode" into it. This is not an accurate description.

Count
November 11th, 2009, 06:44 PM
Okay, I keep point this out, and you keep failing to grasp it: we've found the ball. The Earth is on the surface of the ball. So is the Milky Way. So is all of space. Everything that we can see with our telescopes is on the surface of the ball. The surface of the ball is our three-dimensional universe, and both the inside and outside of the ball are mere abstractions created by trying to create a 4-dimensional analogy and having to drop a dimension.

Ahhhh, so THAT's what's been making you seem like you're a jabbering mental patient. You're talking abot the dimensional geometry of the universe while the discussion was on the spatial development and physics of the big bang. Now that makes more sense.

But you're still wrong in that regard, if you were to consider the ball as a form of reality, time space and various dimensions, Earth would still be beneath the surface of that ball, not on the edge of it. We are actually existing inside dimensions that the universe exists inside as well. The problem we have in defining what we exist in is purely down to "we cant measure dimensions, so we have to theorize".

The actual arguement was on the physics and spatial location of the centre of the universe, which if you look at it from a pure physics and relativity standpoint, it would be the centre of the expanding wave of energy from the big bang, as opposed to a a geometric dimensional expansion. Of course assuming nothing in the universe can manipulate the growth of a dimensional plane, however we know that time can be manipulated by gravity and other effects too.



That's my point: it's not "in" the universe at all.

From a multi-dimensional point of view, you could still say we are in the universe, being affected by time as opposed to just being able to observe it suggests are are directly interacting with that dimension and therefore not actually "on top of it"




False: the Milky Way is in the Virgo Supercluster, also know as the Local Supercluster. The Virgo Cluster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgo_cluster) is located rougly 60 million light-years away

Because you brought up Virgo in a direct quote of my original statement of Virgo Supercluster, you implied you were still referring to Virgo supercluster rather then the virgo cluster. Please be more clear in the future to avoid those kinds of mistakes


The Cosmic Microwave Background is, roughly, the light emitted from the Big Bang. Firstly, the fact that we can see this light everywhere should tell you something important, right off the bat.

Secondly, by measuring the Doppler shift of the CMB, it should be possible to tell how the Earth, Milky Way, and Local Supercluster is moving relative to the "Big Bang." If, in fact, the universe were expanding from a point that was actually in the universe, we would expect to see large amounts of red shift in that direction and massive blue shift in the other.

However, no such Doppler shift has been detect: only that resulting from the Earths movement within the Virgo Supercluster.

This assumes that the CMB observed has not been influenced by the same gravitatonal forces that have affected the galaxies and other objects themselves, considering radiation is affected just as much by gravity as any other source. CMB can be "dragged" by larger more massive objects, say, galaxies, stars and the like.

Doppler shift also only measures the speed relative to the observer. This brings up that old question, "If you stand on a train travelling at the speed of light and you fire a gun, does the bullet travel faster then light?" The answer is relativity.

So we observe the doppler shift in CMB, but the CMB is moving almost as fast as we are, or as fast as the gravitational forces closest to it, resulting in very little spectrum shift. We could be moving very slowly in cosmic terms, but the CMB is slowed down by local forces too. Anything that is outside the effect of our local sources such as the galaxies and clusters would then be affected by other sources further away, and anything not affected would be too red shifted or blue shifted to be detectable


If the universe is small, what's big? I hardly call that a "nitpick."

again you're quoting out of context, small was in reference to the size of the spatial point of the universe's formation, the object that was a nanometer in size and almost infinite mass


The surface of the metaphorical ball is all space. Objects (like galaxies, etc.) can move across the surface of the ball, but they cannot move above or below it (the ball is, in fact, four dimensional and its surface three dimensional). The universe expands, not by the movement of the material on the ball, but by the expansion of the ball itself.

To describe it in less abstract terms, the universe isn't getting bigger because objects are moving away from one another. Rather, objects are getting farther away from one another because space itself is inflating.


Dimension physics again, spatially, if you were to imagine the universe as a giant sphere whose boundaries were the furthest position any stars or objects with mass were, teh centre would be the equidistand points from 6 edges perpendicular to each other. Dimensionally, it would not be possible to find the centre of the universe, but again, we're not talking dimensional geometry.


The problem is that your analogy describes something completely different: you are describing a preexisting universe that has matter "explode" into it. This is not an accurate description.

My analogy describes the spatial and quantifiable formation of the universe in a 3d plane. That's why we got hung up on what was what and who was right.

Shpinxinator
November 11th, 2009, 09:54 PM
Something caught in my mind when I first watched the episode like an odd itch I can't quite scratch.


when Wray was meeting with the hotdog eating IOA agent Storm...

WRAY: Why are you pushing so hard?

STROM: If this works, we think we might be able to use the data to re-engineer the process in one of our ships here in this galaxy.

WRAY: Dial a Gate to Destiny without an Icarus-type planet.

STROM: Yes - and get the team that was supposed to go in the first place back on board. Now that we know where the ninth chevron leads, this mission has taken on even more importance.



...does he mean developing shields that can dive into a sun? I'm kind of...at a loss with this

Control_Chair
November 12th, 2009, 01:07 AM
Something caught in my mind when I first watched the episode like an odd itch I can't quite scratch.


when Wray was meeting with the hotdog eating IOA agent Storm...

WRAY: Why are you pushing so hard?

STROM: If this works, we think we might be able to use the data to re-engineer the process in one of our ships here in this galaxy.

WRAY: Dial a Gate to Destiny without an Icarus-type planet.

STROM: Yes - and get the team that was supposed to go in the first place back on board. Now that we know where the ninth chevron leads, this mission has taken on even more importance.



...does he mean developing shields that can dive into a sun? I'm kind of...at a loss with this

I think he means channelling the energy from a sun into a stargate to dial the 9th chevron so that there can be regular contact between Earth and whoever is on the Destiny and vice versa.

I think the IOA's interest in the Destiny lies in what they can learn from its tech, epically shields that can survive in a star and having star powered ships, i.e. a limitless source of power compared to whatever power our own ships ( Naquadah reactors possibly?)

maddmike
November 12th, 2009, 01:50 AM
I'm pretty sure they mentioned tht the last chevron can be calulated.

frankr
November 12th, 2009, 03:22 AM
My one wish.. so far.. I hope they repair the dome room (starboard of observation room, the room Scott, James, and Riley found in the Air.) and turn it into a green-house.

Why bother? They spend most of their time in hyperspace; so it's not like it's going to be getting more sunlight/heat than any other room?

-frank

Saquist
November 12th, 2009, 03:31 AM
I think he means channelling the energy from a sun into a stargate to dial the 9th chevron so that there can be regular contact between Earth and whoever is on the Destiny and vice versa.

I think the IOA's interest in the Destiny lies in what they can learn from its tech, epically shields that can survive in a star and having star powered ships, i.e. a limitless source of power compared to whatever power our own ships ( Naquadah reactors possibly?)

That's the only thing it could mean because otherwise it didn't make sense.
There is noway we can get one of our ships to do what destiny did.

Quadhelix
November 12th, 2009, 05:03 AM
Ahhhh, so THAT's what's been making you seem like you're a jabbering mental patient. You're talking abot the dimensional geometry of the universe while the discussion was on the spatial development and physics of the big bang. Now that makes more sense. I said, quite clearly, that there is no center point to the universe. That is what started this discussion, so if you were talking about something else, that's your own problem.




But you're still wrong in that regard, if you were to consider the ball as a form of reality, time space and various dimensions, Earth would still be beneath the surface of that ball, not on the edge of it. We are actually existing inside dimensions that the universe exists inside as well. The problem we have in defining what we exist in is purely down to "we cant measure dimensions, so we have to theorize". Okay, it's obvious that your still not understanding the analogy (what did you say your grades were?): the surface of the ball is three dimensional space. Neither the inside nor the outside actually exist.


Let's try this again: take the entire 3-dimensional universe. Now, compress it down to two dimensions, so that everything is on a plane. However, as you examine things at larger and larger scales, it becomes obvious that this "plane" obeys Spherical, not Euclidean, geometry.

That is what I meant by the ball analogy. The inside and outside of the ball are just artifacts of the analogy, not things that actually exist. However, since the "center" of the universe would be inside the ball, it, too, does not exist.



The actual arguement was on the physics and spatial location of the centre of the universe, which if you look at it from a pure physics and relativity standpoint, it would be the centre of the expanding wave of energy from the big bang, as opposed to a a geometric dimensional expansion. Again, no such point exists.





From a multi-dimensional point of view, you could still say we are in the universe, being affected by time as opposed to just being able to observe it suggests are are directly interacting with that dimension and therefore not actually "on top of it" Except that the "fourth" dimension isn't time, it is a purely artificial construct. The dimension doesn't actually exist in the real world, but is rather a mental tool to help visualize expanding space.






Because you brought up Virgo in a direct quote of my original statement of Virgo Supercluster, you implied you were still referring to Virgo supercluster rather then the virgo cluster. Please be more clear in the future to avoid those kinds of mistakes I said "Virgo cluster." How much more clear do I have to be? Am I going to have to go through the rest of my life calling it the "Virgo cluster, not the supercluster, just the cluster"?




This assumes that the CMB observed has not been influenced by the same gravitatonal forces that have affected the galaxies and other objects themselves, considering radiation is affected just as much by gravity as any other source. CMB can be "dragged" by larger more massive objects, say, galaxies, stars and the like. Except that radiation travels at c. This means that you are going to get significant distortions only near deep gravity wells.



Doppler shift also only measures the speed relative to the observer. This brings up that old question, "If you stand on a train travelling at the speed of light and you fire a gun, does the bullet travel faster then light?" The answer is relativity. Measuring the Doppler shift of the CMB would, however, tell you how quickly you are moving relative the the "center of the universe," however, so relativity of motion is irrelevant in this case.




So we observe the doppler shift in CMB, but the CMB is moving almost as fast as we are, or as fast as the gravitational forces closest to it, resulting in very little spectrum shift. We could be moving very slowly in cosmic terms, but the CMB is slowed down by local forces too. Anything that is outside the effect of our local sources such as the galaxies and clusters would then be affected by other sources further away, and anything not affected would be too red shifted or blue shifted to be detectable Okay, here's a question for you: if the Big Bang happened "behind" us, and we're moving away from where it occurred through our own 3D space, then how can we see the CMB "ahead" of us at all?




again you're quoting out of context Pretty hard not to do, since you in no way established context. More below.




small was in reference to the size of the spatial point of the universe's formation, the object that was a nanometer in size and almost infinite mass You said, "Something that small in size can easily pass for 'the centre point of the universe.'" Since the spatial point of the universe's formation hasn't existed for 13.6 billion years, I'm pretty sure that you were talking about something else.




Dimension physics again, spatially, if you were to imagine the universe as a giant sphere whose boundaries were the furthest position any stars or objects with mass were Yes, except that no such boundary exists.

VJC
November 12th, 2009, 09:40 AM
The actual arguement was on the physics and spatial location of the centre of the universe, which if you look at it from a pure physics and relativity standpoint, it would be the centre of the expanding wave of energy from the big bang, as opposed to a a geometric dimensional expansion. Of course assuming nothing in the universe can manipulate the growth of a dimensional plane, however we know that time can be manipulated by gravity and other effects too.

Again, there is no centre to the Universe. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Observational_evidence) puts it well:


Hubble demonstrated that all galaxies and distant astronomical objects were moving away from us, as predicted by a universal expansion. Using the redshift of their electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space, he showed that all objects are moving away from us, and that their speed is proportional to their distance, a feature of metric expansion. Further studies have since shown the expansion to be extremely isotropic and homogeneous, that is, it does not seem to have a special point as a "center", but appears universal and independent of any fixed central point.
In other words (and as I said before) everywhere is the centre of the universe. from our point of view, everything is moving away from us, so we would appear to be at the Centre, but equally, if I was living with the Asgard in Ida, everything would appear to be moving away from me again making me think I'm at the centre of the Universe.

Picture it like this I'm making a currant bun, in the oven as the bun rises all the currants move away from all the other currants. any individual currant would appear to be at the centre if you were on one looking out at the others.

nx01a
November 12th, 2009, 07:28 PM
The whole 'use the sun to power the gate' went DING! in my head when I watched 'Light'. I mean, what else were the Ancients going to use? Sure, the ship's reserves might power the gate to Earth, but they'd probably be severely depleted by doing so, requiring another rather hasty jaunt into another sun. The sensible thing would be to go into the star, open the gate, do your business, recharge the batteries and continue exploring.

Rush is veeeery good. :D

AnnieS
November 12th, 2009, 07:42 PM
I sucked. The IOA decided to put everyone's lives in jeopardy. I applaud Rush for doing what he did!!

Saquist
November 13th, 2009, 11:12 AM
The rush to get them out made no sense.
The plan could have worked if properly executed. Repair the systems one by one instead of in haste and sloppiness.