FTL Visibility

[songar87]

Does anyone else find it strange that we can see everything around the ship (i.e. the galaxy behind it) while it is in FTL? Granted, they did state that it is different than the hyperdrive used in the rest of the franchise, but it still seems weird...

[magictrick]

Not weird, its sci-fi

Since it does operate differently, there's no real surprise there.

[Stranded]

Well, if you're travelling 10 kmph (or miles per hour for you US folks) away from a town, and 110 kmph away from the town... you can still see it if you look in the rear-vision mirror, right? I suppose it's something like that.

These links are worth reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
http://physics.suite101.com/article....speed_of_light
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum...d.php?id=34145

Though of course this is a Sci-Fi show so while they make it seem slightly believable, it's going to break a few scientific "laws" when it needs to, if it makes the show better. I'd rather see the galaxies, as it's something I as a viewer am interested in seeing.

[songar87]

Speaking of believable, given the shorter range mentioned for the 'more primitave' gates, doesn't it seem like the Destiny was already out of range of the gate network, and should have been unable to connect for Eli, Chloe and Scott? (based on how far away the ship looked in the shots with the blue galaxy in the background)

[Avenger]

Not necessarily, no. Destiny has tended to stop between solar systems with multiple gates in range, so the distance they can cover isn't insignificant. Plus, the FTL drive wasn't working as efficiently as it could be due to age and a lack of power reserves. Eli said that it the second day that the address showed up on the remote, so the ship wasn't in FTL all that long.

[Puddle-Jumper]

When Destiny is in FTL it looks really pretty

[escyos]

Well, if you're travelling 10 kmph (or miles per hour for you US folks) away from a town, and 110 kmph away from the town... you can still see it if you look in the rear-vision mirror, right? I suppose it's something like that.

These links are worth reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
http://physics.suite101.com/article....speed_of_light
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum...d.php?id=34145

Though of course this is a Sci-Fi show so while they make it seem slightly believable, it's going to break a few scientific "laws" when it needs to, if it makes the show better. I'd rather see the galaxies, as it's something I as a viewer am interested in seeing.

grrrrr could people PLEASE stop referenciong wikipedia!!!

anyway, FTL is NOT is subspace, its in normal space so it stands to reason we can still see things

[Mike.]

grrrrr could people PLEASE stop referenciong wikipedia!!!

No one is going to explain complex topics that require at least 2000 or more words in a forum post, they'll just link to a wiki or some other online resource. Deal with it. I really don't see the reason for this vendetta you have against wikipedia.

[escyos]

No one is going to explain complex topics that require at least 2000 or more words in a forum post, they'll just link to a wiki or some other online resource. Deal with it. I really don't see the reason for this vendetta you have against wikipedia.

I believe Dr Cox summed it up appropriately "The person who wrote that article also authored the Battlestar Galactica fanpage"

I would prefer to read something from a credbile site then the pages written by a 12 year old boy.

[Mike.]

I believe Dr Cox summed it up appropriately "The person who wrote that article also authored the Battlestar Galactica fanpage"

I would prefer to read something from a credbile site then the pages written by a 12 year old boy.

I can't believe this, you're saying that people with experience in scientific fields can't be sci-fi fans. Completely illogical.

Read the references at the bottom of the article if you don't trust the summary aka the article. There's absolutely no original content on wikipedia, everything is taken from scientific publications, news sources, etc. depending on the topic. "12 year old boy" <- [citation needed].

If you're going to say that wikipedia is wrong you'll first have to prove that the sources the articles are based on are wrong.

[Demoniser]

I can't believe this, you're saying that people with experience in scientific fields can't be sci-fi fans. Completely illogical.

Read the references at the bottom of the article if you don't trust the summary aka the article. There's absolutely no original content on wikipedia, everything is taken from scientific publications, news sources, etc. depending on the topic. "12 year old boy" <- [citation needed].

If you're going to say that wikipedia is wrong you'll first have to prove that the sources the articles are based on are wrong.

The fact that wikipedia can be edited by anyone makes it an unreliable source, the theories and subject matter might be taken from creditable sources but the articles themselves are still produced by god knows who which is where the credibility of any article on there falls into an endless pit of fail.

No sane person would reference wikipedia for any meaningful paper or study, they'd be laughed out of the room.

That being said, this is a sci fi fan forum so yeah wikipedia will do fine for the most part for skimming the facts so wikipedia vendettas are a bit silly here also.

[Mike.]

Every other statement has a small link [1234...] that sends you to the original source. There's not a lot of room for errors to seep through.

That being said, this is a sci fi fan forum so yeah wikipedia will do fine for the most part for skimming the facts so wikipedia vendettas are a bit silly here also.

Indeed.

[escyos]

it is my personal opinion that wikipedia is not something that any person who wants a valid argument should use. its unrealiable due to the simple fact that anyone can edit it.

chances are there is no way that the person who wrote those articles is an expert on those topics and as you said they have references to other articles but many people DONT check those references. if i went onto wikipedia and edited a page, it does not make me an expert even if i read about said topic from another site.

sure people can copy and paste from other sources but if you take things out of context they can lose their meaning.

all i ask is that people search for more CREDIBLE sources instead of wikipedia. referncing wikipedia is LAZY.

back on topic.....FTL see stuff

[GoodSmeagol]

Yes but this is Sci-Fi not scientific.
Wiki is ALWAYS a good starting point.
However, ALWAYS look for a secondary source if it REALLY matters to be 100% accurate.
When discussing sci-fi, somewhat accurate is just fine by me.

When the ship is INSIDE a glalaxy, I do not recall seeing lots of stars and such.
But imagine in the void, the stars are sooo far away still that even at FTL speeds you can see.
Also, if you have ever heard of "red shifting" a way to calculate the speed stars are expanding away from us.
Blue shift is the other end of the spectrum, and objects moving closer to us will appear slightly more blue.
*some one said the blue galaxy, I have no clue if TPTB had the blue shift in mind, I thought it was itneresting.
Of course blue shift is a hypothetical theory as obviously no star is coming towards us at light speed.

[P-90_177]

regardless of wikipedia or not i've seen no evidence so far to suggest that Destiny's FTL is used within normal space. All that's been said is that it isn't hyperdrive, which could mean anything.