PDA

View Full Version : Destinys position in the universe



Colonel Chris
April 13th, 2010, 03:41 AM
We know that the destiny has been searching the universe for a long long long long long time. So if the destiny has been travelling out into the universe, where the hell is it in relation to earth, for all we know it might be travelling back to earth, the ancients knew about time travel and could have forseen the exacuation onto destiny and they could have programmed the ship to take them back to earth.
Any thoughts?

escyos
April 13th, 2010, 03:58 AM
We know that the destiny has been searching the universe for a long long long long long time. So if the destiny has been travelling out into the universe, where the hell is it in relation to earth, for all we know it might be travelling back to earth, the ancients knew about time travel and could have forseen the exacuation onto destiny and they could have programmed the ship to take them back to earth.
Any thoughts?

during the time destiny was launched they never used time travel and the time travel that was perfected was millions of years later. the destiny is on a path going out from earth several million light years. its not coming back anytime soon

Dan93
April 13th, 2010, 08:39 AM
Rush said in the pilot that they were 'several billion light years from home', if it were seven million light years then Earth would have sent a ship cos it would only take around 42 days.

tessa
April 13th, 2010, 12:22 PM
Just a thought. “A several billions” years is the age of the Sun actually.
The way home must be complicated like hell, even if they get an access to the navigation systems. I mean, on their sky Sun might simply not exist yet.

Demoniser
April 13th, 2010, 05:37 PM
Copied and pasted from another thread i answered. After i did a little digging on astronomical facts and figures.

While it wont give you an exact position it gives you a vague impression of just where the Destiny might be.

All we know is that Destiny has traveled 'several billion light years'. Putting that into perspective

Nearest Star to Earth - estimated 4 lightyears away
The Diameter of the milkway is just about 100,000 lightyears or so
Milky Way to Pegasus is 3 million lightyears (in the show, we don't know what galaxy pegasus is actually referring to, although its most certainly the Pegasus Dwarf Irregular Galaxy.

The Local group (containing the Milky Way, Pegasus and over 30 galaxies in total is 10 million light years in diameter)

The Virgo Supercluster or the Local Supercluster contains the Local Group along with about 100 other galaxy groups and clusters, it has a diameter of 110 million light years or 33 megaparsecs.

Now 1000 million maxes 1 billion.


Galactic Filaments which are debated to be the largest structures in the universe and contain superclusters.

Lets take the largest known one in the universe and the largest known structure in the univere, the Great Sloan Wall.

50-80 megaparsecs (80 parsecs is about 260 million light years)

The Great Sloan Wall is 1.37 billion light years in length, and is located aproximately 1 billion light years from earth.

So after a bit of background research, how far has the Destiny Travelled if we assume its gone in a relatively straight path? (i.e. not zig zagging back and forth, the graphic shown in air showed it going forward all the time but deviating in its direction relatively slightly.) This is all assumption ofc as we didn't see the 'whole' flight path but i can't see it doubling back on itself, the mission was to go out into the universe ofc, but based on as much reasonable evidence as we have.

Not to forget Rush's statement of 'Were several billion lightyears from earth)

So whats the resonable conlusion?

Its left the Milkway
Its Left the Local Cluster
Its Left the Local Supercluster
Its probably gone beyond the Great Sloan Wall
its really frakkin far out into the universe.

Mind boggling numbers when you think about it. I really hope tptb actually looked at these figures when they came up with the idea for the show as Destiny is either insanely overpowered in its speed or theres a rational explanation to it.

Quadhelix
April 13th, 2010, 05:43 PM
Mind boggling numbers when you think about it. I really hope tptb actually looked at these figures when they came up with the idea for the show as Destiny is either insanely overpowered in its speed or theres a rational explanation to it.Actually, from the calculations that I made here (http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?p=11405045#post11405045), the absolute upper bound on the Destiny's speed is only about 10-12 times that of Goa'uld Ha'Tak. In other words, the Destiny is not fast, it is just incredibly old.

escyos
April 13th, 2010, 11:11 PM
Actually, from the calculations that I made here (http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?p=11405045#post11405045), the absolute upper bound on the Destiny's speed is only about 10-12 times that of Goa'uld Ha'Tak. In other words, the Destiny is not fast, it is just incredibly old.

calculations based on?.....

Quadhelix
April 14th, 2010, 08:58 AM
calculations based on?.....
Roughly how far away the Destiny is and roughly how long ago it was launched.

The_Austin
April 14th, 2010, 10:51 AM
Again i think your calculations are off. I believe it's much faster than your 10 to 20 times as fast as Ha'Tak figure.

escyos
April 14th, 2010, 10:45 PM
Roughly how far away the Destiny is and roughly how long ago it was launched.

once again...based on?


we have several ESTIMATIONS of destinys age and how far it has gone.
you can estimate that destiny is over 3 million light years away and at least 6 months old, thats all we know,

Quadhelix
April 15th, 2010, 03:44 AM
Again i think your calculations are off. I believe it's much faster than your 10 to 20 times as fast as Ha'Tak figure.
Your belief is irrelevant: unless you have evidence to support it, there is no more reason to trust your "belief" than a hallucination.



once again...based on?


we have several ESTIMATIONS of destinys age and how far it has gone.
you can estimate that destiny is over 3 million light years away and at least 6 months old, thats all we know,
Actually, we know that the Destiny is "several billion" light-years away: "several" implies more than 2 but less than "many."

As for the age, we have two pieces of evidence for that: we know that it is older than Atlantis (~5 million years old):

(From Joseph Mallozzi's weblog (http://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/october-11-2009-shows-i-dont-watch-but-would-probably-enjoy-if-i-did/))
Michael writes: “If Atlantis left for Pegasus “Several Million Years Ago” according to “Rising”, was Rush mistaken in his estimate that Destiny left Earth “Hundreds of Thousands” of years ago?”

Answer: He misspoke or was speaking sort of off-hand, assuming he wasn’t going to be called on it by a knowledgeable fan.

However, another piece of information implies an even older age for the Destiny:

(From the pre-airing Moviehole interview (http://www.moviehole.net/200920239-stargate-universe-cast))

Robert Cooper: And this stargate in my opinion the coolest one.

Wright: Yes, it's not a new stargate it is in fact a very old stargate, it's the prototype.

Cooper: And a rotary dial version (laughs).

Wright: It has a limited range, a far more limited range than the Milky Way or Pegasus Galaxy stargates. For example, if the Destiny is travelling through a galaxy it can't go anywhere in that galaxy, it can only go within a limited range, that's why they put it on a ship, so as it moves through the galaxy it can move across it and explore stargates that have been seeded by other ships prior to the launch of the Destiny who knows how many hundreds of years before.

It is "the prototype," and has "a far more limited range than the Milky Way or Pegasus stargates." However, the Milky Way 'gates are as old as 50 million years, implying an even greater age for the Destiny.

Note, however, that I used the younger age (which implies a higher speed) when determining the absolute maximum of Destiny's top speed.



Just because you would rather lie to yourself does not make my information wrong.

escyos
April 15th, 2010, 04:18 AM
Your belief is irrelevant: unless you have evidence to support it, there is no more reason to trust your "belief" than a hallucination.



Actually, we know that the Destiny is "several billion" light-years away: "several" implies more than 2 but less than "many."

As for the age, we have two pieces of evidence for that: we know that it is older than Atlantis (~5 million years old):


However, another piece of information implies an even older age for the Destiny:


It is "the prototype," and has "a far more limited range than the Milky Way or Pegasus stargates." However, the Milky Way 'gates are as old as 50 million years, implying an even greater age for the Destiny.

Note, however, that I used the younger age (which implies a higher speed) when determining the absolute maximum of Destiny's top speed.



Just because you would rather lie to yourself does not make my information wrong.

yes but u dont know how far it is away from earth...without that information you can onlu have a large range of speeds...too large

Quadhelix
April 15th, 2010, 04:41 AM
yes but u dont know how far it is away from earth... I know that it is "several billion" light-years from Earth. "Several" always connotes "a small number."



without that information you can onlu have a large range of speeds...too large It doesn't matter how large the range is: the upper end of the range is ~20-30 times the speed of a Ha'Tak

In fact, I was able to construct an equation for A (the fraction of its time that Destiny spends exploring galaxies rather than traveling between them) and from that was able to estimate a range of speeds from 23,000 c (slower than Ha'Tak) if it were 5 billion light-years away and 50 million years old to 83,000 c (~2-3 times as fast as a Ha'TaK) if it were 20 billion light-years away and 5 million years old.

escyos
April 15th, 2010, 05:14 AM
I know that it is "several billion" light-years from Earth. "Several" always connotes "a small number."

yes, but id say several when refering to anywhere between 5 and 20....like i said no one person can say several is an actual number



It doesn't matter how large the range is: the upper end of the range is ~20-30 times the speed of a Ha'Tak

and the Ha'taks speed was mentioned? are you refering to the events in Enemies? that was a long time ago, i assume that because of Anubis and Ba'al and the upgrades in tech, hyperdrives are faster then they were.


In fact, I was able to construct an equation for A (the fraction of its time that Destiny spends exploring galaxies rather than traveling between them) and from that was able to estimate a range of speeds from 23,000 c (slower than Ha'Tak) if it were 5 billion light-years away and 50 million years old to 83,000 c (~2-3 times as fast as a Ha'TaK) if it were 20 billion light-years away and 5 million years old.

i constructed an equation for how much booze i could consume based on how many beers i drank last night and how much i peed that day.

i dont like it when people assume this and that about Stargate....the writers will change it to suit the story and they people get all upset about it.

Quadhelix
April 15th, 2010, 06:48 AM
yes, but id say several when refering to anywhere between 5 and 20....like i said no one person can say several is an actual number Which is why I was not attempting to find the Destiny's exact speed, only an upper limit.





and the Ha'taks speed was mentioned? are you refering to the events in Enemies? that was a long time ago, i assume that because of Anubis and Ba'al and the upgrades in tech, hyperdrives are faster then they were. So, in other words, the Destiny is now almost certainly slower than a Ha'Tak.




i constructed an equation for how much booze i could consume based on how many beers i drank last night and how much i peed that day.
Congratulations. I don't see how the amount of booze that you could consume is relevant, but congratulations nonetheless. ;)



i dont like it when people assume this and that about Stargate....the writers will change it to suit the story and they people get all upset about it. Yes, and when that happens, I will have to revise my conclusions to match the new evidence.

Until then, the best evidence seems to indicate that the Destiny's maximum speed is roughly on par with a Gou'uld Ha'Tak, within about a power of ten.

Puddle-Jumper
April 15th, 2010, 09:18 AM
Actually, from the calculations that I made here (http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?p=11405045#post11405045), the absolute upper bound on the Destiny's speed is only about 10-12 times that of Goa'uld Ha'Tak. In other words, the Destiny is not fast, it is just incredibly old.

I looked over them and they seem to make sense (More or less the same figures I came up with before when I tried to work it out), but then again the figures are just general ones so it could easily be off by a good bit.. plus its possible that when the destiny is crossing the void between galaxies it enters some sort of super-ftl as it won't be stopping in order to cut time off its trip and ensure it won't run out of power in between galaxies. So althought 40,000c might be the average speed of the destiny over that period of time it could be capable of reaching speeds of hundreds of times that, but it may be considerable slower when exploring a galaxy... Also given the fact that the gates have a limit to their range the Destiny may circle a galaxy or take the longest possible route through it in order to have access to the gates it needs based on the supplies its running low on.. that would all effect the calculations, plus your calculations aren't taking into account all the time it spends stopped which over 50 million years could be as much as 1 or 2 million years stopped in space overall

Quadhelix
April 15th, 2010, 12:03 PM
plus its possible that when the destiny is crossing the void between galaxies it enters some sort of super-ftl as it won't be stopping in order to cut time off its trip and ensure it won't run out of power in between galaxies. So althought 40,000c might be the average speed of the destiny over that period of time it could be capable of reaching speeds of hundreds of times that, but it may be considerable slower when exploring a galaxy... Given some of the spoilers for "Sabotage," you are probably right.

Still, a part of me hopes that it uses something like a Mass Relay for intergalactic FTL travel (id est, a large, stationary launch platform), rather than a "Super FTL" drive. This is likely a pointless hope, but hope does burn eternal.



Also given the fact that the gates have a limit to their range the Destiny may circle a galaxy or take the longest possible route through it in order to have access to the gates it needs based on the supplies its running low on.. that would all effect the calculations Actually, that was the main purpose of the variable "A": the Destiny is going to spend some amount of time traveling around the galaxy before it travels to the next.



plus your calculations aren't taking into account all the time it spends stopped which over 50 million years could be as much as 1 or 2 million years stopped in space overall The way that my calculations are set up, the amount of time that the Destiny spends stopped is important only for its effect on the variable "A."

Puddle-Jumper
April 15th, 2010, 01:20 PM
Given some of the spoilers for "Sabotage," you are probably right.

Still, a part of me hopes that it uses something like a Mass Relay for intergalactic FTL travel (id est, a large, stationary launch platform), rather than a "Super FTL" drive. This is likely a pointless hope, but hope does burn eternal.

That'd be really cool... but unlikely as the seeder ships would have to construct them.. and then use them, while at the same time gathering materials to build stargates, and scanning planets and dropping off stargates.. etc etc... I don't think they'd have enough time.. Id like to see it too but its doubtful



Actually, that was the main purpose of the variable "A": the Destiny is going to spend some amount of time traveling around the galaxy before it travels to the next.

The way that my calculations are set up, the amount of time that the Destiny spends stopped is important only for its effect on the variable "A."

Ya I only briefly scanned your calculations first time over, but I reread them and I know what you were getting it... but there really are too many factors to work out A or anything.. its entirely possible that the ship changes its speed in ftl based on power consumption, supplies aboard, the amount of stargates in a certain region, how much time the ship estimates is needed on each planet...

Your calculations are solid and very well done, but all they are giving us is possible averages based on asumptions and guesses... Literally there are hundreds of variables to be taken into account that I doubt we will ever get an answer to (unless the show puts smallville in its place again and takes back the Stargate crown)

garhkal
April 15th, 2010, 02:45 PM
What if it slingshots INTO ftl using the last star it goes in to fuel up as the item it slingshots from.. Wouldn't that speed it up?

Demoniser
April 15th, 2010, 04:39 PM
What if it slingshots INTO ftl using the last star it goes in to fuel up as the item it slingshots from.. Wouldn't that speed it up?

that idea just reminded me of the jupiter 2 from lost in space.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9-CTryNALU

escyos
April 15th, 2010, 06:41 PM
you cant know destinys speed regardless of what we have seen. end of discussion

Quadhelix
April 16th, 2010, 04:06 AM
you cant know destinys speed regardless of what we have seen. end of discussion We cannot know its exact speed, but we can set an upper limit, based on the evidence currently available to us. This upper limit might be changed or even abolished by later evidence, but that is irrelevant: if we used that as an excuse not to do things, one could always argue: "I shouldn't go to work today, because new evidence could change my belief that I will get fired if I don't go."

escyos
April 16th, 2010, 04:37 AM
We cannot know its exact speed, but we can set an upper limit, based on the evidence currently available to us. This upper limit might be changed or even abolished by later evidence, but that is irrelevant: if we used that as an excuse not to do things, one could always argue: "I shouldn't go to work today, because new evidence could change my belief that I will get fired if I don't go."

but we dont have any exact numbers, just generalisations - hundreds of thousands is just to general to calculate

Quadhelix
April 16th, 2010, 04:40 AM
but we dont have any exact numbers, just generalisations - hundreds of thousands is just to general to calculate
Again, we know that the Destiny is at the very, very least 5 million years old:

Michael writes: “If Atlantis left for Pegasus “Several Million Years Ago” according to “Rising”, was Rush mistaken in his estimate that Destiny left Earth “Hundreds of Thousands” of years ago?”

Answer: He misspoke or was speaking sort of off-hand, assuming he wasn’t going to be called on it by a knowledgeable fan.


How many times am I going to have to tell you this before you figure it out?




Also, it doesn't matter how broad the generalizations are, we can still exclude ages, distances, etc. that fall outside the range given. This isn't about finding an exact speed, only a range.

escyos
April 16th, 2010, 05:22 AM
Again, we know that the Destiny is at the very, very least 5 million years old

How many times am I going to have to tell you this before you figure it out?

Also, it doesn't matter how broad the generalizations are, we can still exclude ages, distances, etc. that fall outside the range given. This isn't about finding an exact speed, only a range.

if they had said 'Destiny is 5,333,245 years and 6 months old and has travelled at 7,348,349,882 light years' then yes but saying "several million years old and several billion light years from home" is what has been said

i am aware of rush's mistake in regards to destinys age.

and you were giving a top speed so u just contradicted yourself.

AND you are not taking into account - Destiny stopping to recharge, Destiny stopping to be attacked, Any other reason to stop, Destiny's path, the affect of celestial bodies, sub-light speed whilst stopped, If the FTL ever stops to cool down or to repair itself if it is damaged, Whether the Destiny changes its FTL speed while in use and a heap of others

you can give it a large range but too large for anyone rational to care.

Quadhelix
April 16th, 2010, 06:40 AM
if they had said 'Destiny is 5,333,245 years and 6 months old and has travelled at 7,348,349,882 light years' then yes but saying "several million years old and several billion light years from home" is what has been said Yes, that is all that we have. However, it is still enough to make a rough calculation of the Destiny's speed.



and you were giving a top speed so u just contradicted yourself. The top speed is the upper limit of the range. :mckay:




AND you are not taking into account - Destiny stopping to recharge, Destiny stopping to be attacked, Any other reason to stop, Destiny's path, the affect of celestial bodies, sub-light speed whilst stopped, If the FTL ever stops to cool down or to repair itself if it is damaged, Whether the Destiny changes its FTL speed while in use and a heap of others
All of this is contained within the variable "A" in my original calculation.



you can give it a large range but too large for anyone rational to care.Incorrect. The range may be very, very broad, but it is narrow enough for us to rule out certain possibilities (e.g., that the Destiny is as fast as Atlantis (http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?p=11398605#post11398605)).

Puddle-Jumper
April 16th, 2010, 01:57 PM
Yes, that is all that we have. However, it is still enough to make a rough calculation of the Destiny's speed.

The top speed is the upper limit of the range. :mckay:

All of this is contained within the variable "A" in my original calculation.

Incorrect. The range may be very, very broad, but it is narrow enough for us to rule out certain possibilities (e.g., that the Destiny is as fast as Atlantis (http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?p=11398605#post11398605)).

Once again I have to reiterate my point that your calculations are based on off hand figures given by Rush and our own estimates of its age which may or may not be true.. and you can't work out a top speed... your giving us an averages based on assumptions, you can't even rule out that its faster then atlantis, because your numbers are averages, destiny may be capable of travelling 4,000,000,000c but it just does so on such a rare occasion and spends the majority of time travelling at 100c so that your equation doesn't show it.. your numbers are averages... very well worked out... but just averages, you can't make any assumptions from them cos as we saw from when Dr. Rush said "Hundreds of thousands of years" thats since being said its wrong by tptb, whats key to your equation is that several billion is between 5 and 20... but it could be 99 billion which would dramatically change your results... your variable A for example, maybe the destiny only began to stop often when the crew came aboard so it would be a tiny number relative to the 50 million years, if its even 50 million years we don't know that for sure either, thats another off hand figure it could be considerable more or less, we don't know

Your equation can give us an average, but that can't tell us what top speed the ship is capable of or what speed it normally travels at.. it just can't

Quadhelix
April 16th, 2010, 03:57 PM
Once again I have to reiterate my point that your calculations are based on off hand figures given by Rush and our own estimates of its age which may or may not be true.. I will concede the point on the Destiny's distance. However, you are simply lying about the age. You have acknowledged that Mallozzi pointed out that Rush was speaking out of hand about that Destiny's age, and that it is older than Atlantis's "several million years" ("Rising, Part 1"). Therefore, Destiny must be at least "several million years" old itself. This is canon.




and you can't work out a top speed... your giving us an averages based on assumptions, you can't even rule out that its faster then atlantis, because your numbers are averages, destiny may be capable of travelling 4,000,000,000c but it just does so on such a rare occasion and spends the majority of time travelling at 100c so that your equation doesn't show it.. your numbers are averages... This is a valid point.

Nevertheless, if the Destiny is capable of speeds ~10^9 c (roughly on par with Atlantis), then why does it spend so much time traveling so slowly that the average comes out to ~10^5? Without evidence to indicate otherwise (which I'm sure that we will be getting soon, but that is irrelevant), we are required by Occam's Razor to assume that the average speed is on the same order of magnitude as the maximum speed.




whats key to your equation is that several billion is between 5 and 20... but it could be 99 billion which would dramatically change your results... Not as much as you might think. When I actually worked out an equation for A, I found that V was roughly proportional to the cube root of the distance: if Destiny is 1,000 times as far away as I estimated (i.e., 20 trillion instead of 20 billion), then its average speed should be about 10 times as fast as I calculated.




your variable A for example, maybe the destiny only began to stop often when the crew came aboard so it would be a tiny number relative to the 50 million years, if its even 50 million years we don't know that for sure either, thats another off hand figure it could be considerable more or less, we don't knowIf the Destiny didn't begin stopping until the crew 'gated aboard, that would make it slower, on average, than I estimated.

Puddle-Jumper
April 16th, 2010, 06:32 PM
I will concede the point on the Destiny's distance. However, you are simply lying about the age. You have acknowledged that Mallozzi pointed out that Rush was speaking out of hand about that Destiny's age, and that it is older than Atlantis's "several million years" ("Rising, Part 1"). Therefore, Destiny must be at least "several million years" old itself. This is canon.

Sorry how am I lying? Destiny is millions of years old, we just don't know how many..? Ive had plenty of rants about this subject in these forums before, Id agree with you thats between 30 and 50 million but thats not a fact, its our opinion... we don't know for sure




This is a valid point.

Nevertheless, if the Destiny is capable of speeds ~10^9 c (roughly on par with Atlantis), then why does it spend so much time traveling so slowly that the average comes out to ~10^5? Without evidence to indicate otherwise (which I'm sure that we will be getting soon, but that is irrelevant), we are required by Occam's Razor to assume that the average speed is on the same order of magnitude as the maximum speed.

Not as much as you might think. When I actually worked out an equation for A, I found that V was roughly proportional to the cube root of the distance: if Destiny is 1,000 times as far away as I estimated (i.e., 20 trillion instead of 20 billion), then its average speed should be about 10 times as fast as I calculated.

If the Destiny didn't begin stopping until the crew 'gated aboard, that would make it slower, on average, than I estimated.

The simplest answers is usually the correct one sure... but it may spend time travelling slowly for any number of reasons, we just don't know.. it could be to do with power, or scanning the local area, or not wearing out the engines... I could literally throw hundreds of explanations at you, dude defend your calculations all you want but right now, you can't back them up.. thats all Im saying don't say the destinys speed is x.. cos you don't know

ALL OF YOUR CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS AND AVERAGES... That is a fact, plain and simple.. many your numbers may be proven to be correct or maybe not.. Dude seriously im doing science in university and I can tell you right now that no scientist in the world can solve an equation that has several of this and some of that which is what you've attempted to do. I could just as easily work it out again,make up some numbers, make up an equation. That is a fact, not a lie and its something you can't argue against, even though you've worked out upper values and all that.. every single value you've used are based upon assumptions, which are put into an equation and multiplied/divided by other assumptions. Which give out an average. The writers no doubt gave rough numbers in the show to avoid exactly this situation, so that when they do reveal destinys speed on a certain occasion they can make it anything they want (and then just say working it out gives an average), which they still can, like I said.. theres probably more then 1 gear in FTL... Your arguing that numbers you've pulled out of the air are facts.. they just aren't

Several Billion = Any number above 2 billion... it could 100 billion, or it could be 4 billion (You guessed) and that number was just put there to indicate FAR AWAY, EARTH SHIPS CAN'T REACH

50 million years old = That number was given by Sam in the same off hand manner as Rush said hundreds of thousands, its not supported by any other data, there are millions of years of ancient development between the MW and pegasus gates so its possible the same between the MW and destiny, or it could be 2 weeks.. no one knows (You guessed) This number was there to indicated OLD OLD OLD ANCIENTS (which was in an episode like 5 or 6 years before SGU was concieved, it helps give us an indication of just how old the destiny is, but its just an indication.)


You put two guesses together and claim that your answer is fact.... Thats just so many words that I want to say but Im not going to say cos Ill get another infraction. Id probably have come up with much the same guesses, but that doesn't mean their right.. You just can't apply facts, equations, figures like this to science fiction, its written so that things can be what they need to be to suit the story.

Quadhelix
April 17th, 2010, 04:42 AM
Sorry how am I lying? Destiny is millions of years old, we just don't know how many..? Ive had plenty of rants about this subject in these forums before, Id agree with you thats between 30 and 50 million but thats not a fact, its our opinion... we don't know for sure That is why, to determine the upper end of the range, I used the youngest possible age for the Destiny: ~5 million years. Younger age=faster speed.


I used the age of 50 million years only to determine the lower end of the range of speeds, which is pretty much irrelevant.





The simplest answers is usually the correct one sure... but it may spend time travelling slowly for any number of reasons, we just don't know.. it could be to do with power, or scanning the local area, or not wearing out the engines... None of which matters, because these sorts of alterations would not change the estimations of its speed by more than an order of magnitude.




thats all Im saying don't say the destinys speed is x.. cos you don't know And I'm not saying that Destiny's speed is x. All that I'm saying is that based on the evidence we have now, it is highly probable that the Destiny's top speed is less than x, within about an order of magnitude.

Your claim that I am attempting to establish an exact speed for the Destiny is nothing more than a poorly disguised strawman.




ALL OF YOUR CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS AND AVERAGES... That is a fact, plain and simple.. many your numbers may be proven to be correct or maybe not.. Which is, again, why I am using a broad range instead of trying to find specific numbers.




Dude seriously im doing science in university and I can tell you right now that no scientist in the world can solve an equation that has several of this and some of that which is what you've attempted to do. What courses have you taken?




I could just as easily work it out again,make up some numbers, make up an equation. That is a fact, not a lie and its something you can't argue against, even though you've worked out upper values and all that.. every single value you've used are based upon assumptions, which are put into an equation and multiplied/divided by other assumptions. Which give out an average. Which is why I went out of my way to get the highest possible value for the upper end of the range.



theres probably more then 1 gear in FTL... Your arguing that numbers you've pulled out of the air are facts.. Why would the Destiny be equipped with a drive that can go ~200 light-years/day in one mode and ~100,000 light-years/day in another. Or rather, why would it ever use the first mode? It's not like energy consumption would be an issue when it's traveling around a galaxy.

The sad part is, I know that you are probably right about this, but it still feels like a major @$$pull on the part of the writers.




Several Billion = Any number above 2 billion... it could 100 billion, or it could be 4 billion (You guessed) A. For the upper limit of the speed, I used a distance of 20 billion light-years.

Second, even if the Destiny were 20 trillion light-years away, that would make the Destiny only about 10-20 times as fast: once I managed to make a reasonable equation for A, I found that V increase roughly with the cube root of the distance back to Earth.



50 million years old I did not use the 50 million year age for determining the upper limit on the Destiny's speed. I used the age of 5 million years - which is, based on Mallozzi's statement, the absolute youngest possible age for the Destiny (Atlantis left Earth 5-10 million years ago; the Destiny is older).

Puddle-Jumper
April 17th, 2010, 12:05 PM
That is why, to determine the upper end of the range, I used the youngest possible age for the Destiny: ~5 million years. Younger age=faster speed.

I used the age of 50 million years only to determine the lower end of the range of speeds, which is pretty much irrelevant.


None of which matters, because these sorts of alterations would not change the estimations of its speed by more than an order of magnitude.


And I'm not saying that Destiny's speed is x. All that I'm saying is that based on the evidence we have now, it is highly probable that the Destiny's top speed is less than x, within about an order of magnitude.

Your claim that I am attempting to establish an exact speed for the Destiny is nothing more than a poorly disguised strawman.

Which is, again, why I am using a broad range instead of trying to find specific numbers.

What courses have you taken?

Which is why I went out of my way to get the highest possible value for the upper end of the range.

Why would the Destiny be equipped with a drive that can go ~200 light-years/day in one mode and ~100,000 light-years/day in another. Or rather, why would it ever use the first mode? It's not like energy consumption would be an issue when it's traveling around a galaxy.

The sad part is, I know that you are probably right about this, but it still feels like a major @$$pull on the part of the writers.



A. For the upper limit of the speed, I used a distance of 20 billion light-years.

Second, even if the Destiny were 20 trillion light-years away, that would make the Destiny only about 10-20 times as fast: once I managed to make a reasonable equation for A, I found that V increase roughly with the cube root of the distance back to Earth.


I did not use the 50 million year age for determining the upper limit on the Destiny's speed. I used the age of 5 million years - which is, based on Mallozzi's statement, the absolute youngest possible age for the Destiny (Atlantis left Earth 5-10 million years ago; the Destiny is older).

We saw in Faith that gravity from stars has an effect on the destinys system, possible a reason for why the ship changes speeds within a galaxy (also a reason for why ftl drives arent in atlantis etc)

There are just too many variables, full stop, Im not trying to start an arguement but seriously you can't work this out, even your broad figures mean nothing cos we know nothing of the ship before the crew went aboard... quite literally... NOTHING.. all we know is that it was in FTL and its now billions of light years away from Earth and it left millions of years ago.. Thats all the information we know for sure.

The show has been written in such a way that the destinys speed will be what it needs to be when they need it to. You can't work it out based on info we have right now, you cant work out upper ranges or lower ranges, you can't say its faster or slower then anything you just can't, we don't have enough information..
My university degree is a 4 year course, first 2 years was general science with classes in all 4 areas (maths, physics, chem, bio) and this year I went into specialise in the area of microbiology. Before this I studied chem, physics, maths and bio for 5 years at school

Quadhelix
April 17th, 2010, 12:55 PM
We saw in Faith that gravity from stars has an effect on the destinys system, possible a reason for why the ship changes speeds within a galaxy (also a reason for why ftl drives arent in atlantis etc) That is an interesting point.

I was thinking that, if there was any reasonable explanation, it would be something along the lines of the different densities of the interstellar gas to intergalactic gas.



There are just too many variables, full stop
Yes, but the real question is how many of those variables are relevant.




even your broad figures mean nothing cos we know nothing of the ship before the crew went aboard... quite literally... NOTHING.. all we know is that it was in FTL and its now billions of light years away from Earth and it left millions of years ago.. Thats all the information we know for sure. Which is why I tried to add as many "delays" into my calculations as I possibly could, in order to come up with the fastest possible speed.

Besides, it's just a Fermi calculation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_calculation).



The show has been written in such a way that the destinys speed will be what it needs to be when they need it to. You can't work it out based on info we have right now, you cant work out upper ranges or lower ranges, you can't say its faster or slower then anything you just can't, we don't have enough information.. I can say, however, that the individual jumps are not between galaxies, which is how this all started.




My university degree is a 4 year course, first 2 years was general science with classes in all 4 areas (maths, physics, chem, bio) and this year I went into specialise in the area of microbiology. Before this I studied chem, physics, maths and bio for 5 years at schoolClassical Mechanics
Electricity&Magnetism
Classical Mechanics II
Special Relativity & Waves
Modern Physics
Electromagnetic Theory
Introduction to Quantum Mechanics
Quantum Mechanics II (in progress)
General Relativity (in progress)

Puddle-Jumper
April 17th, 2010, 06:38 PM
Classical Mechanics
Electricity&Magnetism
Classical Mechanics II
Special Relativity & Waves
Modern Physics
Electromagnetic Theory
Introduction to Quantum Mechanics
Quantum Mechanics II (in progress)
General Relativity (in progress)
[/SPOILERS]

Dude Im not even going to argue with you anymore, and if your trying to imply your smarter then me by listing those subjects out (Which FYI ive done too.. 7 years of physics remember)... your the one thats trying to give people solid figures (broad range sure.. but still figures) based almost entirely on the word several, which again the writers put there so that when they give the speed in any given episode they won't be contradicting themselves... Im guessing your lecturers probably would agree with me that any equation with several (instead all numbers) with infinite variables can't be worked out, which is what you've tried to do... later homes

Quadhelix
April 17th, 2010, 06:55 PM
Dude Im not even going to argue with you anymore You're right: we shouldn't be arguing.



and if your trying to imply your smarter then me by listing those subjects out (Which FYI ive done too.. 7 years of physics remember)... I will just mention that I brought this up in response to one of your statements:

Dude seriously im doing science in university and I can tell you right now that no scientist in the world can solve an equation that has several of this and some of that which is what you've attempted to do.
...as though I weren't, which isn't the case (though you apparently have been doing it longer).

In hindsight, the counterexample of Fermi calculations would have been much more appropriate.



your the one thats trying to give people solid figures (broad range sure.. but still figures) based almost entirely on the word several I keep telling you this, and you keep ignoring because it doesn't suit your argument: even if the Destiny is only 5 million years old and is 20 trillion light-years away, it is still slower than ~800,000 c, on average.

20 trillion is a lot more than "several billion."




Im guessing your lecturers probably would agree with me that any equation with several (instead all numbers) with infinite variables can't be worked out, which is what you've tried to do... Explain to me, then, what a Fermi calculation is?

Puddle-Jumper
April 18th, 2010, 08:46 AM
I keep telling you this, and you keep ignoring because it doesn't suit your argument: even if the Destiny is only 5 million years old and is 20 trillion light-years away, it is still slower than ~800,000 c, on average.

20 trillion is a lot more than "several billion."

Im not ignoring that but it is an average, I can't think any vehicle on the planet that isn't capable of changing speed, your argument is based on logic, so from what we've seen its logical to assume to the destiny is capable of going at different speeds in ftl, logically speaking the ancients would have ensured that the destiny would have some failsafe so that it wouldn't be caught without power in the void between galaxies and since they wouldn't always be able to count to on wormholes being present or other methods to cross the vast star-less distances (Well they'd have some stars but the area is so huge they wouldn't be able to count on them always being on its path) and since the distance between galaxies is typically estimated to be between 20 and 40 times the size of a galaxy and given how many times destiny seems to stop in just one galaxy (40% capacity I know but still...), it wouldn't have enough power to keep going in that distance, long story short, if its speed in ftl is constant it would be left powerless floating between the void of some galaxies,

Thats enough evidence for me to indicate that what you've worked out is the average speed of the ships ftl.


Explain to me, then, what a Fermi calculation is?

And ya I had my own fermi calculation going that you would bring that up :D.... but Fermi was a noble prize winner... and I don't know you but your probably not...

And again I have to reiterate the point that the writers gave vauge numbers and amounts for a reason, so that they can make the speed whatever it needs to be when it needs to be it, for the time being at least..

EternalAlteran
April 18th, 2010, 09:31 AM
Rush said that Destiny was launched several hundred thousand years and that it is several billion lightyears from home (Earth as seen on the map of Destiny's journey) So that would mean that destiny travels about a million time the speed of light (if several in years is several in lightyears). That would make it really slow, given that a Prometheus could travel about 1,300,000 times the speed of light before it was upgraded.

This would also mean that the 304s could reach Destiny in about 50 years and Atlantis with three ZPM's probably in less than 3 years through hyperspace. Even faster with wormhole drive.

The asgard could travel 4 million lightyears in an hour, taking prometheus with them. So if we got that tech we could reach them in less then a week. So it is not really that far.

Of course we would need the power generation of the Asgard

Quadhelix
April 18th, 2010, 12:20 PM
Im not ignoring that but it is an average, I can't think any vehicle on the planet that isn't capable of changing speed Yes, but you are talking about a speed change on the order of a factor of somewhere between a factor of 10 to a factor of 100. The first seems a little large. The latter seems absurd.




logically speaking the ancients would have ensured that the destiny would have some failsafe so that it wouldn't be caught without power in the void between galaxies The problem here is, if the Destiny can travel millions of times the speed of light for months on end, why doesn't it use that ability for intragalactic travel?



it wouldn't have enough power to keep going in that distance, long story short, if its speed in ftl is constant it would be left powerless floating between the void of some galaxies Except that, if the faster FTL can travel the same distance using less energy, why isn't it used all the time, instead of just for intergalactic trips?



Thats enough evidence for me to indicate that what you've worked out is the average speed of the ships ftl. Which is fine. Still, the average speed is fairly slow.




but Fermi was a noble prize winner... and I don't know you but your probably not... A. If you had to be a Nobel Prize winner to be able to use a Fermi calculation, then they wouldn't be of much use, would they.

B. I am perfectly aware that I am not as good at these as Fermi was. That is why I was trying to get an upper bound, rather than an approximate value.





And again I have to reiterate the point that the writers gave vauge numbers and amounts for a reason, so that they can make the speed whatever it needs to be when it needs to be it, for the time being at least..That's their problem. :D

PurpleNurple
April 18th, 2010, 01:09 PM
Actually, from the calculations that I made here (http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?p=11405045#post11405045), the absolute upper bound on the Destiny's speed is only about 10-12 times that of Goa'uld Ha'Tak. In other words, the Destiny is not fast, it is just incredibly old.

Interesting stuff mate, made a few calculations myself based off your equation :p
I think with all the current info we have its reasonable to assume that destiny's speed falls somewhere within this range.

Nicely done!

Puddle-Jumper
April 18th, 2010, 04:32 PM
Yes, but you are talking about a speed change on the order of a factor of somewhere between a factor of 10 to a factor of 100. The first seems a little large. The latter seems absurd.

The problem here is, if the Destiny can travel millions of times the speed of light for months on end, why doesn't it use that ability for intragalactic travel?

Except that, if the faster FTL can travel the same distance using less energy, why isn't it used all the time, instead of just for intergalactic trips?

Why doesn't any vehicle travel at its fastest possible speed all the time?
Again infinite variables here, we know for a fact that the engines are affected by the gravity of nearby stars, im going to go with that,


Which is fine. Still, the average speed is fairly slow.

A. If you had to be a Nobel Prize winner to be able to use a Fermi calculation, then they wouldn't be of much use, would they.

B. I am perfectly aware that I am not as good at these as Fermi was. That is why I was trying to get an upper bound, rather than an approximate value.

That's their problem. :D
Again that average could be on the slower end of the scale, you can't say for sure, neither can I, but Im just arguing that we don't know enough to work out the speed, im not saying its faster or slower then anything, I really don't think Fermi calculations are appliable to an on going science fiction show where the laws of physics, science and nature can be changed by a single line of dialogue..

Man don't take everything at literally face value.. by saying your not a nobel prize winner im just saying your obviously not much older then me and you clearly don't have much more academic experience then me in the area, you can't say your upper ranges are right or even close to right, you just don't know, at all.. Thats all Im trying to point out, you don't know.. I don't know, the writers might know, they might not have decided yet.. give it till the end of the season at least and come back to it again.

desertrat1979
April 24th, 2010, 12:18 AM
There is too many variables and unknowns here. Previous information from SG-1 and SGA gave us enough info to determine distance petween Peg and MW, and the relative speed of ships with intergalactic hyperdrives. With that we can come close. However, in the case of Destiny, we have no proof, no record, and little facts to base anything off of. For example, we KNOW destiny is a great distance based on the flight path we saw. "Several" is not a determined number, also, how many times has Destiny had to stop and recharge? Has the ship been disabled and need repar? In Faith you see how an unknown like an uncharted star and planet can screw with a flightplan. The Ancients may have forgotten about Destiny, but do we know if the kept their eye on it for a time? Maybe on more than one occasion they gated to Destiny to do maintenance or exploration. There are too many areas that dont qualify in black, white or grey.

At this point you would be just as accurate pulling numbers out of a hat. The only facts we have is the ship is old, far away, and uses propulsion diffrent than hyperspace to achieve speeds exceeding the speed of light. Its damaged, not running 100%, and for all we know the smurfs weren't the first ones to have an interest in it. God knows how many alien hackers tried to screw with the ship over the years. I guess the more we watch the more we will learn.

Quadhelix
April 24th, 2010, 03:06 AM
Man don't take everything at literally face value.. by saying your not a nobel prize winner im just saying your obviously not much older then me and you clearly don't have much more academic experience then me in the area, you can't say your upper ranges are right or even close to right, you just don't know, at all.. Well, yeah. I mean, just about every calculation ever done has had the implicit qualifier: "This is correct to the best of our knowledge right now."

In any case, it is the average speed, which is the main reason that I was even posting it in this thread: Demoniser was saying that, because the Destiny was so far away, it has to be fast. My response was that, no, the average speed isn't all that high, so it doesn't have be fast.

As for the original calculation, yeah, I may not have considered how far the Destiny might deviate from its average speed. Nevertheless, the calculation is useful because it lets us set an upper limit on the Destiny's average speed.




There is too many variables and unknowns here. Previous information from SG-1 and SGA gave us enough info to determine distance petween Peg and MW, and the relative speed of ships with intergalactic hyperdrives. With that we can come close. However, in the case of Destiny, we have no proof, no record, and little facts to base anything off of. We have Mallozzi's statement that Rush misspoke about Destiny's age. This tells us that the Destiny is, at the very least, 5 million years old.

As for the distance, "several" generally carries the connotation of "not that many," but I reran my calculations with a distance of 20 trillion light-years (over 1,000 times the size of the visible universe, by the way) just to be absolutely, 100% positive that my calculations were giving the upper bound on the Destiny's average speed.




For example, we KNOW destiny is a great distance based on the flight path we saw. "Several" is not a determined number, also, how many times has Destiny had to stop and recharge? Has the ship been disabled and need repar? In Faith you see how an unknown like an uncharted star and planet can screw with a flightplan. The Ancients may have forgotten about Destiny, but do we know if the kept their eye on it for a time? Maybe on more than one occasion they gated to Destiny to do maintenance or exploration. There are too many areas that dont qualify in black, white or grey. What you and a lot of other people don't seem to understand is that these variables are effectively irrelevant because they would change the Destiny's average speed by an order of magnitude at most. As long as I am just trying to find an upper limit, I can easily take these variables into account by throwing an extra zero onto the end.

Ed
April 27th, 2010, 03:27 AM
can people not see his range is only accurate to a few orders of magnitude for all the reasons stated above even if stopping and starting affected it by a factor of 100 which is blatantly absurd it would still be useful as Atlantis is many orders faster

elitewolverine
April 27th, 2010, 08:59 AM
quadhelix, what do you mean by it doesnt have to be fast?

what is a appropiate time to wait? 100yrs? 1,000yrs? 1mil years?

i highly doubt the ancients thought, hey lets build a ship and in 50million years we can gate to it....

The other thing is, what other galaxies has it explored? because even if it explores 2 galaxies that dramatically changes things. because the flight path is now even a bigger factor that greatly affects things.

as well there is several things in your equation that you make such broad generalizations, it stands to reason you were wanting that equation to work and nothing more, albiet a nice equation.

we have no idea how many stars the destiny stopped at, we have no idea how long it stopped before we got to it, etc etc...so to take a quote from your equation "Therefore, the higher the Destiny's speed, the farther apart its stops, and therefore the few stops that it makes in each galaxy" How many stops are you going to claim it makes in each galaxy for this paticular equation set to be true?

for all we know it can be as fast as a ancient vessel and stops at EVERY star in a galaxy, that would be in the order of a billion stops, per galaxy. Going off the idea that it roughly takes a 1-2 days to gather data about the new system it would be millions of years spent just stopping per galaxy. Though i highly doubt its going to stop at every star in a galaxy, but its a factor you dont know and one that i could claim as a upper limit just like you did. Although if its following a seeder ship path its highly unlikely but we know that destiny is to explore planets with and without gates as well as stop at unknown systems as well as stop at systems with no stargates and stop at systems for refueling...

as for the last question/idea, if the destiny was at its upper limit of 320,000c traveling it would take it, 12,500 years to travel to a location 4billion c. In a straight line no stops no repairs no refueling no defenses no exploring nothing nada straight line, which we know all is untrue of the destiny's mission.

why does that seem silly? because in 6,250yrs (half of destiny's trip with no stop) the technology gap if doubling in a 6k+ year time span which we can assume it 'could', would mean that when the destiny is half way there, the newer ship could outrun it. Seems highly impractical...

escyos
April 27th, 2010, 11:22 PM
destiny is 4 light years away

Quadhelix
April 28th, 2010, 03:46 AM
quadhelix, what do you mean by it doesnt have to be fast?

what is a appropiate time to wait? 100yrs? 1,000yrs? 1mil years?

i highly doubt the ancients thought, hey lets build a ship and in 50million years we can gate to it.... Well, of course they weren't intending to wait 50 million years. Nevertheless, if the Destiny were fast enough to reach its "destination" quickly, they would have had a crew on board to begin with, not sent it would unmanned.




The other thing is, what other galaxies has it explored? because even if it explores 2 galaxies that dramatically changes things. because the flight path is now even a bigger factor that greatly affects things. As we saw in "Air, Part 1," the Destiny has been traveling from galaxy to galaxy roughly along a straight line.




as well there is several things in your equation that you make such broad generalizations, it stands to reason you were wanting that equation to work and nothing more, albiet a nice equation. If the equation is not accurate, it doesn't work. Since I wanted an equation that would work, I would make sure that the equation I used is accurate.





we have no idea how many stars the destiny stopped at, we have no idea how long it stopped before we got to it, etc etc...so to take a quote from your equation "Therefore, the higher the Destiny's speed, the farther apart its stops, and therefore the few stops that it makes in each galaxy" How many stops are you going to claim it makes in each galaxy for this paticular equation set to be true? The reason that I make that statement is because we know, roughly, how often the Destiny stops (5-10 times a month). Since we know the time between stops, the distance between them is just speed multiplied by that time.

The further apart each stop, the greater portion of the galaxy that each stop must cover.




for all we know it can be as fast as a ancient vessel and stops at EVERY star in a galaxy, that would be in the order of a billion stops, per galaxy. Going off the idea that it roughly takes a 1-2 days to gather data about the new system it would be millions of years spent just stopping per galaxy. Though i highly doubt its going to stop at every star in a galaxy, but its a factor you dont know and one that i could claim as a upper limit just like you did.
This contradicts just about everything that we have seen of the Destiny's behavior.




Although if its following a seeder ship path its highly unlikely but we know that destiny is to explore planets with and without gates as well as stop at unknown systems as well as stop at systems with no stargates and stop at systems for refueling...
Actually, since it does all of its exploring via Stargate, it cannot explore planets without Stargates.




as for the last question/idea, if the destiny was at its upper limit of 320,000c traveling it would take it, 12,500 years to travel to a location 4billion c. In a straight line no stops no repairs no refueling no defenses no exploring nothing nada straight line, which we know all is untrue of the destiny's mission.

why does that seem silly? because in 6,250yrs (half of destiny's trip with no stop) the technology gap if doubling in a 6k+ year time span which we can assume it 'could', would mean that when the destiny is half way there, the newer ship could outrun it. Seems highly impractical...
Firstly, that makes a rather large assumption about Ancient engine technology. And make no mistake: your objection is valid only if the Ancients were undergoing an exponential growth in engine speed, or at the very least making significant advancements at the time the Destiny was launched - pure speculation on your part. My analysis is not based on that, it is based on how the Destiny is actually observed to behave.

Secondly, whether or not that s the case, there has to come a point where you decide, "Okay, I could probably do this better in the future, but if I keep waiting for the technology to improve, it will never get done," and thus do it anyway.

Mike.
April 28th, 2010, 07:08 AM
destiny is 4 light years away

Drunk again ? (http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php/73981-how-far-has-destiny-gone?p=11389970&viewfull=1#post11389970) :P

elitewolverine
April 28th, 2010, 07:47 AM
Well, of course they weren't intending to wait 50 million years. Nevertheless, if the Destiny were fast enough to reach its "destination" quickly, they would have had a crew on board to begin with, not sent it would unmanned.

depends on the definition of quickly and what their intentions for the ship were. Just look at the asgards, they have ships that can be here in less than a day, yet they still consistently use communication devices. Sometimes convienence of a ship being unmanned and automated is far simpler than having to man and maintain supplys of a ship that is manned.




As we saw in "Air, Part 1," the Destiny has been traveling from galaxy to galaxy roughly along a straight line. going from galaxy to galaxy in a straight line is of course the shortest distance. We have no idea how LONG it stayed in each galaxy.




If the equation is not accurate, it doesn't work. Since I wanted an equation that would work, I would make sure that the equation I used is accurate.

there is a difference between accurate and making it fit for what you want. yours right now is making it fit.


The reason that I make that statement is because we know, roughly, how often the Destiny stops (5-10 times a month). Since we know the time between stops, the distance between them is just speed multiplied by that time.

we only know its current pattern, we have no idea how long its been in this galaxy how many times its traversed the system over and over, and we know in 'faith' episode it stopped for a WHOLE month. And your equation lacks the knowledge of how many stargates are in each system by the seeder ships. And lacks the knowledge of finding the nearest system for refueling that IS NOT occupied by a stargate. lacks the knowledge of the times it was attacked, or lacks the knowledge of the time visited to it by the ancients and if not used for their own purposes.

hell for all we know, a group of ancients gated to the destiny, said hey we really like it out here, used destiny for a millenia, then 'abandoned' it and set it back on its original plan. etc etc etc


The further apart each stop, the greater portion of the galaxy that each stop must cover.

according to who? assuming the ship is at full speed the entire time, or is not at full speed because it wants to conserve energy is damaged and tons of other things. Your assuming that its speed is linear, which if this ship is truely designed to explore and make 'efficient' use, it wouldnt be at full power the entire time.


This contradicts just about everything that we have seen of the Destiny's behavior.

behaivor with humans on board, not behavior of exploration while no one is there. again your assuming just as much as the next person yet your equation relys on it as fact



Actually, since it does all of its exploring via Stargate, it cannot explore planets without Stargates.

so the destiny lacks the ability to scan planets without a stargate? or scan a system without a stargate? Then it begs the question, what are the seeder ships using? if the seeder ships are just as fast as the destiny, then the seeder ships would have to stop at every system to investigate it, or at least systems with planets. and if we said just one galaxy has 1% of planets in it vs stars. that is 10MILLION stars to investigate and build/resource mine etc. And thats assuming the seeder ships know for a fact where the planets are before going billions of light years in more than a few galaxies...

and if the seeder ships are having to explore as well as build and investigate, how far ahead does it have to be in front of the destiny so that the destiny isnt sitting there 'waiting' for the next stargate to be placed for it it explore...

p.s. even if you use 1% of 1% for planets you will still have to investigate 100,000 star systems. and stopping a maximum 10 times a month in just a single galaxy means you will be in a galaxy for >800yrs and thats not counting the time to stop mine resources refuel etc etc, that is just a straight shot nothing more nothing less


Firstly, that makes a rather large assumption about Ancient engine technology. And make no mistake: your objection is valid only if the Ancients were undergoing an exponential growth in engine speed, or at the very least making significant advancements at the time the Destiny was launched - pure speculation on your part. My analysis is not based on that, it is based on how the Destiny is actually observed to behave.

Secondly, whether or not that s the case, there has to come a point where you decide, "Okay, I could probably do this better in the future, but if I keep waiting for the technology to improve, it will never get done," and thus do it anyway.

uhhh no we dont. and what large assumption that i made about engine technology? you mean just about as large as yours with your equation?

you see assumptions are fun, and i proved that with my 'crazy' assumptions.

and that was me using the absolute 'max' according to you...

now in a previous post in another thread you said 32000c is more than enough time right...well heck lets use that number instead. actually lets do this way...what is the speed of the upgraded odyssey? the one where the ori was keeping pace...

Quadhelix
April 29th, 2010, 03:58 AM
depends on the definition of quickly and what their intentions for the ship were. Just look at the asgards, they have ships that can be here in less than a day, yet they still consistently use communication devices. Sometimes convienence of a ship being unmanned and automated is far simpler than having to man and maintain supplys of a ship that is manned. That is a good point.

It does not, however, change the fact that the Ancients would not have been in a rush for the Destiny to reach its "destination," because they could reach it at any time.




going from galaxy to galaxy in a straight line is of course the shortest distance.
Oops: it seems that I wasn't quite clear about what I was saying. I was not saying that that the path that the Destiny took between each pair of galaxies on its journey.

What I was trying to say was that, from what we could see in "Air, Part 1," the Destiny's path as a whole appears to be roughly a straight line.



We have no idea how LONG it stayed in each galaxy. That was, in fact, the point of the revised equation, which I would be happy to rederive if anyone ever bothered to ask.






there is a difference between accurate and making it fit for what you want. Not in this case, because my main goal in writing the equation was to figure something out (i.e., the upper limit for the Destiny's average speed). It is a rather limited purpose, but we have limited information

If the equation does not fulfill its purpose of being accurate, then it is useless to me.



yours right now is making it fit. Do you have an actual basis for saying this, or do you just like to throw (rather serious) insults at everyone you meet on the internet?




we only know its current pattern, we have no idea how long its been in this galaxy how many times its traversed the system over and over We know roughly how old it is. We know roughly how far away it is.

Moreover, we know from "Air, part 1," the rough path that it took as it traveled further out into the cosmos.




nd we know in 'faith' episode it stopped for a WHOLE month. Yes, one time, for an event that is effectively unrepeatable. Also, again, my aim was only to set an upper-bound on the order of magnitude, so even if unexpected stops slow the Destiny by 90%, it would still fall within my equation.




And your equation lacks the knowledge of how many stargates are in each system by the seeder ships.
Actually, it does not. The number of stops in each galaxy is roughly N=U/(l'^3), where U is the total volume of the galaxy and l' is the distance between each stop. Since we do not know l', we can replace it with v*t, were v is the ship's speed (which we will later solve for) and t is the time between each stop, which we know to be roughly a week. If l' is large enough (roughly the thickness of the galaxy), the number of stops changes to N=A/(l'^2).

Note, that this is not circular reasoning: I am not taking some value of v and introducing it into this equation. Rather, I am introducing v as a variably to be solved in terms of U or A, among other things.

And lacks the knowledge of finding the nearest system for refueling that IS NOT occupied by a stargate. As we saw in "Earth," refueling is a rather quick process.



lacks the knowledge of the times it was attacked, or lacks the knowledge of the time visited to it by the ancients and if not used for their own purposes.

hell for all we know, a group of ancients gated to the destiny, said hey we really like it out here, used destiny for a millenia, then 'abandoned' it and set it back on its original plan. etc etc etc All of which would be too insignificant to actually affect my calculations.

It's like saying that I cannot predict how an apple will fall because there are different gravitational effects on different atoms in the apple, and I cannot account for each variation. The reasoning is true: the "bottom" of the apple is closer to the ground than the top, and thus experiences a slightly stronger gravitational attraction, and I would never be able to fully account for each variation. Nevertheless, those variations are so enormously small that they have next to no effect on the final answer.




according to who? assuming the ship is at full speed the entire time, or is not at full speed because it wants to conserve energy is damaged and tons of other things. Your assuming that its speed is linear, which if this ship is truely designed to explore and make 'efficient' use, it wouldnt be at full power the entire time. Except that the ship can stop and refuel at any time: it has no real reason to conserve energy because it as so much excess.




behaivor with humans on board, not behavior of exploration while no one is there. It makes no sense whatsoever for the Destiny to go over the galaxy with a fine tooth comb without people on board, and then start skipping over huge swaths of space once they come aboard.

I also failed to take into account the effects of space grimlins on the Destiny's speed, the effect of ascended pixies, and that of subspace unicorns.




so the destiny lacks the ability to scan planets without a stargate? or scan a system without a stargate? Does it lack the ability? No. Does it lack a reason to do so? Yes.



Then it begs the question, what are the seeder ships using? if the seeder ships are just as fast as the destiny, then the seeder ships would have to stop at every system to investigate it, or at least systems with planets. and if we said just one galaxy has 1% of planets in it vs stars. that is 10MILLION stars to investigate and build/resource mine etc. And thats assuming the seeder ships know for a fact where the planets are before going billions of light years in more than a few galaxies...

and if the seeder ships are having to explore as well as build and investigate, how far ahead does it have to be in front of the destiny so that the destiny isnt sitting there 'waiting' for the next stargate to be placed for it it explore... That is why the Destiny is following seeder ships, and not a single seeder ship.




p.s. even if you use 1% of 1% for planets you will still have to investigate 100,000 star systems.
I remember a quote from Joseph Mallozzi's blog (which I will find by the next time I post here) that the Atlantis expedition had explored something like ~10% of the Stargates in Pegasus. Since even a dwarf galaxy contains several billion stars, I think that it is fair to say that less than 1% of 1% of stars have Stargates.



and stopping a maximum 10 times a month in just a single galaxy means you will be in a galaxy for >800yrs and thats not counting the time to stop mine resources refuel etc etc, that is just a straight shot nothing more nothing less So?




hhh no we dont. and what large assumption that i made about engine technology? you mean just about as large as yours with your equation? You made the assumption that Ancient engine technology was undergoing exponential growth, rather than linear growth, or just plain no growth. However, we have effectively no knowledge about the development of Ancient engine technology, so that assumption is just that: an assumption.


However, what we have information from the show and supplemental materials regarding the Destiny's distance from Earth, age, general exploration behavior, time between stops, etc. Using that information is not an assumption.




you see assumptions are fun, and i proved that with my 'crazy' assumptions. Actually, my assumptions are based on evidence gathered from the show. It seems that made yours up on the spot, unless there is something that I'm missing.

Count
April 29th, 2010, 04:43 AM
http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php/71481-I-think-i-found-the-Destiny

elitewolverine
April 29th, 2010, 03:22 PM
~snip the whole darn thing

Actually, my assumptions are based on evidence gathered from the show. It seems that made yours up on the spot, unless there is something that I'm missing.

meh instead of quoting the whole thing, and you assuming that im saying personal insults at you is dubious at best, you mean like in the other thread asking if i even watch the show...etc. Nor will i quote the whole thing because most of it is rehashing and seems like you just wanted to quote just to quote. no worries though i do that sometimes too

your making educated assumptions nothing more nothing less. And yes i find that your assumptions are given to fit your line of thinking that it can only be this fast. The same educated assumption i will be making below...

if al that is a insult and personal attack to you then so be it, take it as such as that is not its intent, but your equation is still wrong imo of course...but ill just repeat my math from the other thread.

ancients leave home galaxy and find MW after 'thousands of years' Upper limit 10k lower limit 3k...

Current Asgard tech inferior or we are so led to believe to ancient tech. Ori tech is ancient knowledge from ascended beings so if nothing else they are on par with Asgard.

Asgard can traverse 4mil c in mere hours, but well say 12hrs again to make math simpler since we actually dont know, but it stands to reason that its still less hence even faster than the calculations below

Ori kept up with the asgards drive, so we know its equally as fast. We will call this speed 'Z'

Z = (4,000,000)*2*365

first part will give us c/day and the last part c/yr. Which is ~2.9billion c the asgard can traverse in a year...

How far do you, want to say the ori galaxy is away?

1 days trip? would be rather useless to rely on supergates wouldnt it. 1 week trip? still a whole lot to build a supergate for a meres week trip. 1 month? maybe but still hardly slow to build a super gate. But lets say its 1month and the ori are just impatient turds.

Z/12 = 243million c away

now that we have a very rough estimate of the original 'distance', and i believe is even the very very low end

so we can now take 243million and divide by 10k years for the ancients to flee

gives us a minimum speed of ~ 24,000 c. This includes no stops no nothing...

now if we take the 3k years to get here thats ~81,000 c speed, again no stops no nothing.

We know the destiny is NEWER than the ship they fleed in...

So now all we have left to assume is, did they build destiny right when they got here? probably not, how many years? who knows but each guess will only increase destiny's speed.

Now the other assumption im going to ask. How many years will it take for the speed of FTL drives to double? You tell me the years you think they will double at, i dont care if its thousands or millions of years.

Quadhelix
April 29th, 2010, 06:38 PM
your making educated assumptions nothing more nothing less. Educated assumptions are better than baseless assumptions. Also, I will note that my assumptions were specifically chosen in order to produce as high a speed as I reasonably could.




And yes i find that your assumptions are given to fit your line of thinking that it can only be this fast. You say this, but I don't think that you have actually given a reason for your conclusion, beyond the simple fact that I couldn't account for every possible variable.

You also seem to ignore the fact that I do account for things such as unexpected stops by effectively tacking an extra zero to the end of the speed that I find.




if al that is a insult and personal attack to you then so be it, take it as such as that is not its intent, but your equation is still wrong imo of course... You're accusing me of doctoring an equation to get the result that I desired. This would be a grievous insult even if I had just plugged in my educated estimates.

However, I went out of my way to make use values that could disprove my assertions - such as taking "several billion light-years" to mean twenty trillion light-years (producing a much higher estimated speed).





ancients leave home galaxy and find MW after 'thousands of years' Upper limit 10k lower limit 3k... I will note that there is no reason to assume an upper limit of 10,000 years. You did say that you would give this argument the same treatment I gave mine, and I took "Several billion light-years" to mean 20 trillion light-years, simply so that I could absolutely sure that the speed that I got was faster than the Destiny's actually speed.




Current Asgard tech inferior or we are so led to believe to ancient tech. Ori tech is ancient knowledge from ascended beings so if nothing else they are on par with Asgard.

Asgard can traverse 4mil c in mere hours, but well say 12hrs again to make math simpler since we actually dont know, but it stands to reason that its still less hence even faster than the calculations below If you are referring to the Odyssey in "Unending," then your assumptions are way, way off from what we know from the show. We know from "The Siege" that a ZPM-powered BC-304 takes four days to travel 3 billion light-years.

Therefore, you estimation of the Odyssey's (and thus the Ori's) speed is off by a factor of about 10.

Also, "c" means the speed of light, and is thus a measurement of speed, not of distance. I'm guessing that you meant "light-years."





We know the destiny is NEWER than the ship they fleed in...

So now all we have left to assume is, did they build destiny right when they got here? probably not, how many years? who knows but each guess will only increase destiny's speed.

Now the other assumption im going to ask. How many years will it take for the speed of FTL drives to double? You tell me the years you think they will double at, i dont care if its thousands or millions of years. This is the baseless assumption in your argument that I criticized: we have no idea how the Ancient's drive technology developed. I'm not talking about the rate at which speeds doubled: we have no idea whether such a question even makes sense.

Maybe drive speed did undergo exponential growth. On the other hand, maybe it went through little to no growth whatsoever, save at certain points when a technical revolution "changed the game" (examples in real flight include the transition from propellers to jets, the breaking of the sound barrier, the invention of scramjets, etc.). Maybe there was steady development, but as a linear increase in speed (i.e., drive speeds increase by ~2c every decade, or something like that), rather than the exponential growth that you describe.


And here is where we find the difference between my assumptions and your assumptions. My assumptions about the Destiny's behavior is based on its observed behavior; you can argue that its behavior might have changed due to the presence of a "crew" on board, but that is a matter to be analyzed through debate.

Your assumptions, on the other hand, don't really seem to be based on anything at all.

elitewolverine
April 29th, 2010, 07:48 PM
Educated assumptions are better than baseless assumptions. Also, I will note that my assumptions were specifically chosen in order to produce as high a speed as I reasonably could.

baseless? sure i guess



You also seem to ignore the fact that I do account for things such as unexpected stops by effectively tacking an extra zero to the end of the speed that I find.

and i do nothing of this sort, although my 'exact' episodes and 'quotes' may be off but doesnt change it much since we know it happens


You're accusing me of doctoring an equation to get the result that I desired. This would be a grievous insult even if I had just plugged in my educated estimates.

However, I went out of my way to make use values that could disprove my assertions - such as taking "several billion light-years" to mean twenty trillion light-years (producing a much higher estimated speed).

uhh ok and i did nothing of that sort, still dont know what your getting at. if you truly want me to delv into your equation more i suppose i could, but i guess the difference is mine is 'at least' yours is 'at max'...


I will note that there is no reason to assume an upper limit of 10,000 years. You did say that you would give this argument the same treatment I gave mine, and I took "Several billion light-years" to mean 20 trillion light-years, simply so that I could absolutely sure that the speed that I got was faster than the Destiny's actually speed.

hey im just taking what the guy said, if we want to go on as far as 100k years to get to milky way, i would plug in and say if its anything like destinys speed then its going to be stopping a whole lot longer and for a much longer time to gather resources etc etc. After all it was a older ship than destiny twas it not?

and if thats the case shall i use instead of 50million years for the oldest stargate to 30million who knows how far the estimation was off -+....


If you are referring to the Odyssey in "Unending," then your assumptions are way, way off from what we know from the show. We know from "The Siege" that a ZPM-powered BC-304 takes four days to travel 3 billion light-years.

Therefore, you estimation of the Odyssey's (and thus the Ori's) speed is off by a factor of about 10.

Also, "c" means the speed of light, and is thus a measurement of speed, not of distance. I'm guessing that you meant "light-years."

meh i said c mainly because i didnt want to type lyrs all the darn time. but i guess it could be 'confusing' at times since im speeking in context when i should be trying to explain it more...


This is the baseless assumption in your argument that I criticized: we have no idea how the Ancient's drive technology developed. I'm not talking about the rate at which speeds doubled: we have no idea whether such a question even makes sense.

Maybe drive speed did undergo exponential growth. On the other hand, maybe it went through little to no growth whatsoever, save at certain points when a technical revolution "changed the game" (examples in real flight include the transition from propellers to jets, the breaking of the sound barrier, the invention of scramjets, etc.). Maybe there was steady development, but as a linear increase in speed (i.e., drive speeds increase by ~2c every decade, or something like that), rather than the exponential growth that you describe.

whether its baseless or not or even trivial, it stands to reason that one would not send a ship that would take hundreds of thousands of years if they knew about a exponential growth curve or linear growth curve to their own technology. Because there will become a time in point when the ship isnt even half way to its destination when a faster better ship will have been developed. Heck your assuming you know how many stargates are in each galaxy and using a number. That assumption while a 'educated' assumption, is no more of a question than mine of how fast it progressed tech wise... heck even a 2c increase per decade


And here is where we find the difference between my assumptions and your assumptions. My assumptions about the Destiny's behavior is based on its observed behavior; you can argue that its behavior might have changed due to the presence of a "crew" on board, but that is a matter to be analyzed through debate.

Your assumptions, on the other hand, don't really seem to be based on anything at all.

nothing at all?

ok then how about what we know for a "FACT". just the part of my assumptions...

a asgard vessel, with the prometheus in tow was able to make the trip to ida in under a day, exact time wasnt given.

so which is it? is asgard technology superior to ancients and oris hyperdrive? of course this is excluding the wormhole drive, it was my understanding that the zpm powered city ship was even faster

Quadhelix
April 30th, 2010, 04:01 AM
and i do nothing of this sort, although my 'exact' episodes and 'quotes' may be off but doesnt change it much since we know it happens I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. It seems, however, that you are saying that you do not put a safety buffer between your calculations and the "correct" value.




uhh ok and i did nothing of that sort, still dont know what your getting at. if you truly want me to delv into your equation more i suppose i could, but i guess the difference is mine is 'at least' yours is 'at max'... Here I'll show you how I derived mine.

The Destiny travels a certain distance between stops we will, for the moment, call this distance l' (the ' is because it's a dummy variable that I'm going to solve out of the equation). At each stop, the Destiny "covers" a region of roughly l'^3 (if l' < galactic thickness) or l'^2 (if l' > galactic thickness. The number of stops that the Destiny must make in each galaxy is roughly U/(l'^3) or A/(l'^2), again depending on whether l' is less than or greater than the galactic thickness.

In any case, l' can be rewritten as v*t, where v is the Destiny's speed, and t is the time between stops. Therefore, the number of stops in a single galaxy is either U/(v*t)^3 or A/(v*t)^2. This can then be plugged into the rest of the equation, allowing us to solve for v algebraically.





hey im just taking what the guy said, if we want to go on as far as 100k years to get to milky way, i would plug in and say if its anything like destinys speed then its going to be stopping a whole lot longer and for a much longer time to gather resources etc etc. After all it was a older ship than destiny twas it not? However, the issue isn't how many times it stops, but the portion of its time that it spends stopped, which would be independent of speed.





and if thats the case shall i use instead of 50million years for the oldest stargate to 30million who knows how far the estimation was off -+.... How does this affect your argument?




whether its baseless or not or even trivial, it stands to reason that one would not send a ship that would take hundreds of thousands of years if they knew about a exponential growth curve or linear growth curve to their own technology. Except that, again, we know nothing of the development of the Ancients' drive technology. You cannot say whether it was undergoing exponential growth, linear growth, or unpredictable revolutions

Also, linear growth has diminishing returns as time goes on. For example, let us imagine that some group increases their drive speed at a rate of 2 c per decade. This would represent relatively rapid growth when drive speeds are on the order of 10 c: it would take only fifty years to double drive speed. Quite a while later, when drive speeds are on the order of 10,000 c, you would have to wait a millennium just to get a noticeable improvement (i.e., an increase of ~500c), and it would take 5,000 years for drive speed to double.




Because there will become a time in point when the ship isnt even half way to its destination when a faster better ship will have been developed.Which is:

A) not relevant: if they kept waiting for better drive technology, they would never get anything done.

B) not true: even assuming exponential growth, if speeds were to double every, say, million years when the Ancients were expecting Destiny to reach its "destination" in ten thousand years, then there would have been no significant improvement in drive technology by the time they boarded.




Heck your assuming you know how many stargates are in each galaxy and using a number. Not at all. In my equations, the number of Stargates is a big, fat "I don't care." The question is the number of stops, which I use only to introduce more reliable variables





a asgard vessel, with the prometheus in tow was able to make the trip to ida in under a day, exact time wasnt given. We have no idea how far away Ida is, so this travel time is useless.

In "Unending," a ZPM-powered BC-304 (which would take 4 days to travel to Atlantis) makes it from Ida to the Milky Way in a handful of hours, implying a similar speed.

elitewolverine
April 30th, 2010, 11:44 AM
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. It seems, however, that you are saying that you do not put a safety buffer between your calculations and the "correct" value.

what im implying is that im using what i consider more 'real' numbers, where you implied that you used trillion, which the universe is far from trillions wide to our knowledge...

i had in fact had a much larger response etc et but thought meh

although we can use a simple half life formula to find out the rate of increase of drive speed...

2S = S(e^rt)

as for the ida figure...lets think about this for a second, that you assuming speed to ida would be the same speed used to reach the pegasus, in terms of hyperdrive speed...

the local group comprises the MW galaxy and the Pegasus galaxy.

The local group also is ~10mil lyrs in Diameter. Meaning its radius is around 5mil

If it took us 4 days to get to pegasus, means the asgard drive is only capable of traveling 375,000lyrs in a 12hr span...and if its a hand full lets assume 5hrs, or just over 162,000lyrs away...

by assuming that your putting the asgard home galaxy extremely close to ours

in fact would only encompass ~3 galaxies at 5hr span, or ~12 in a 12hr span. Is that what you are willing to assume?

Puddle-Jumper
April 30th, 2010, 12:32 PM
Gentlemen....

Quadhelix... your calculations mean nothing in a fictional universe where everything can be changed by a line of dialogue, and even those lines of dialogue can also be wrong (Rush saying hundreds of thousands for example). Bottom line is real life equations have no place in a fictional universe, certainly not fermi calculations or anything of the likes, and as elitewolverine is pointing out the writers haven't been working with a constant set of fictional laws of physics, distances and speeds since the beginning of SG1, and as Ive pointed out in my other posts such fictional universes have an infinite number of varibles (wormhole drive for example... wtf).

So yes if Destiny actually existed your calculations may have some validity, but as Ive also pointed out your calculations don't take into account how much destinys top speed may vary from a possible average speed you have worked out, and any other number of varibles. You can defend them at all, you've done very well to work out a speed based on what very little we know, but you can't say these are right, or anywhere close to right, saying they are right based upon what we know is fine, but what we know is retrospectively changed every week... just leave it man and come back to it when the season is finished

garhkal
April 30th, 2010, 09:55 PM
Well.. we now know as of tonight's ep, that it is nearly out of the galaxy it was in

desertrat1979
May 7th, 2010, 10:01 PM
I understand that you attempted to come up with an equation that would work, and I understand that you are aiming for the upper limits. That kind of goes against the whole process of solving a problem. If you are trying to throw a rope to a drownding victim 20 feet away, you are not going to aim for the land mass 1 mile away behind the victim. You are creating a formula that has gaps in it. The information we have at this time is vague, the time from launch till now is to grand to ingnore every dilema and delay that has occured. While you may have projected where the Destiny "might" be, you have more than likely figured out where it isn't.

desertrat1979
May 7th, 2010, 10:29 PM
......Also, I read up on your formula for calculating speed. Your one flaw there is "A". You state A= "the fraction of its time that the Destiny spends exploring galaxies as opposed to traveling between them"
You can make up any number to make this formula work or fail. Every stop, delay, and unforseeable incident cannot be considered irrelevent if you want to have a working formula. That is just an irrational response. I am not trying to pee in your corn flakes, but do we know what direction Destiny left in. Was it perpendicular, linear,or at an angle to our own galaxy? Distance may be known, but in a 360* "bubble" spanning 50 million lightyears ( I plucked 50 million out of the air, seems to be the thing to do) using Earth as the center point, have we been given a reference to that? Up till SGU travel was kept MAINLY between Peg and MW, for all we know Destiny went 180* the other way. So, I stand by my statement, but with a minor correction. We cannot, based on our information, determine the location of Destiny in the known universe. We can make a determination of how far it is. Speed is still not known. Nor is its actual flightpath in relation to Earth. Its like throwing darts at a map until we get more info.

Quadhelix
May 8th, 2010, 03:16 AM
what im implying is that im using what i consider more 'real' numbers, where you implied that you used trillion, which the universe is far from trillions wide to our knowledge... Which is why I used that number: so that I could be absolutely sure that the speed that I got was larger than the Destiny's actual speed. That is because I was trying to find an upper limit, not the exact speed.





although we can use a simple half life formula to find out the rate of increase of drive speed...

2S = S(e^rt)
Except that, again, you have no basis for thinking that their drives underwent exponential growth, so this equation effectively came from nowhere.




by assuming that your putting the asgard home galaxy extremely close to ours

in fact would only encompass ~3 galaxies at 5hr span, or ~12 in a 12hr span. Is that what you are willing to assume? In this case, I'm not assuming anything: Ida is very close to the Milky Way. All of the evidence seen support this.



saying they are right based upon what we know is fine ...which is what I have been doing.

In any case, "Lost" complicated things immensely: my formula for A depended on the Destiny completely exploring each galaxy. Since it doesn't, I cannot calculate A.



If you are trying to throw a rope to a drownding victim 20 feet away, you are not going to aim for the land mass 1 mile away behind the victim.Why not? If the rope reaches the landmass, then it goes past the drowning person, so they can just grab on anyway.




While you may have projected where the Destiny "might" be, you have more than likely figured out where it isn't. Apparently, you haven't been paying attention, because I was trying to find out where the Destiny wasn't.




Your one flaw there is "A"
...
You can make up any number to make this formula work or fail. Actually, no I cannot. I believe that I have mentioned several times that I had modified the formula to remove or solve for A. This modification, ultimately, didn't work, but the "point" that you are raising as already been considered and taken into account.



Every stop, delay, and unforseeable incident cannot be considered irrelevent if you want to have a working formula. Since I was merely seeking an upper bound, I can easily take those events into account by increasing the distance (from "several billion light-years" to 20 trillion light-years), which has the same effect as using a shorter travel time.




I am not trying to pee in your corn flakes, but do we know what direction Destiny left in. I'm not sure how this is relevant, but: yes, we do. It's first stop was Pegasus, and it has been roughly following a straight line since then.

Ukko
May 9th, 2010, 03:55 AM
My gods people. THE ARGUING!! I'll tell you where the bloody ship is.

Spoilered for those who dont like complicated science talk.
Its there. *Points*

End of discussion/argument.

Puddle-Jumper
May 9th, 2010, 09:30 AM
Quadhelix, Im just trying to point out that you can't argue your points are aggresively as you are, you can't apply real world science to a sci-fi show like this, you can say this is a very rough estimate based on what we know so far sure, but you can't defend that if anyone argues it because you don't know for sure, and next week a single line from Rush could very easily throw all of your calculations out the window. Just leave it go guys

Quadhelix
May 9th, 2010, 02:19 PM
Quadhelix, Im just trying to point out that you can't argue your points are aggresively as you are Actually, I've already conceded the point in light of what we learned in "Lost."




you can't apply real world science to a sci-fi show like this "SGU Science and Tech"? ;)




you can say this is a very rough estimate based on what we know so far sure, but you can't defend that if anyone argues it because you don't know for sure That is what I have been saying. I get frustrated that people cannot seem to understand that I was not trying to find the exact speed or even a rough estimate, but rather an upper limit.



and next week a single line from Rush could very easily throw all of your calculations out the window. And by "next week," you actually mean "Lost."

Puddle-Jumper
May 9th, 2010, 03:15 PM
That is what I have been saying. I get frustrated that people cannot seem to understand that I was not trying to find the exact speed or even a rough estimate, but rather an upper limit.

And by "next week," you actually mean "Lost."

By next week I just mean the next episode, Pain I think it is next week Im not too sure,

and since you've already conceeded that your calculations are off all is good in the hood then

desertrat1979
May 10th, 2010, 12:00 AM
Not saying your fomula doesnt work. Only problem is its incomplete. I see what you mean about an upper limit, but to most people who ask a question, such as Destiny's distance, most likely want an accurate answer. This is what has led to the arguing.

elitewolverine
May 10th, 2010, 01:27 AM
meh the last two episodes lost and sabatoge just go to show that one episode can change everything, and that destiny looks to be really fast if they are about to jump destiny to another galaxy in a 'reasonable' amount of time


but to answer the upper limit idea, you are telling everyone and defending it, that this is AS FAST as it can go....

normally when math deals with unknowns and extrapolations, they use MINIMUMS, meaning that if it goes any faster, you will always be right because it was a minimum.

if i was to say destiny is at minimum 10k c fast, and it turns out it was 50k c then i would still be right because to get to 50k they have to pass 10k...

but saying at most 10k and then later its shown to be 200k, then all this defending of math and equations is utterly useless because it would be nothing but absolutely wrong...

thats the differnce and that is why people are having issues with your idea of upper limit, especially when your using trillions in your equation to establish that upper limit.

with minimums any new variables you introduce, the ship only gets faster and faster....with upper limits when you introduce unknowns or other variables the ship only gets 'slower'...