Is there a Center to the Gate network

[tinerin]

Well the Oort Cloud defines the boundary of our Solar System and extends about 1.87 light years from the Sun.

[Aer'ki]

Well the Oort Cloud defines the boundary of our Solar System and extends about 1.87 light years from the Sun.

The boundaries of a star system are defined by the range in which objects orbit the central star (or stars). The more massive the star, the larger the star system.

The Alpha Centari system is about .24 LY from the Proxima system (closest system to the Solar System). Astronomers have mislabeled Proxima as being in the Alpha Centari system because Proxima is affected by Alpha Centari's gravity. That is stupid because every body affects every other body gravitationally(in theory).

If it takes 3 months for the light from the star to reach you, then you are definitely outside the star system. I don't know what the range should be for Sol, but making a wild guess I'd say about 100 Light Minutes.

On that thought, you'd have to figure what speed it takes to stay in orbit. A meter per second wouldn't cut it. A KM per second would, I think.

Now, a System with a black hole at the center might stretch over a light year...though technically it wouldn't be a 'star' system. Not sure what you would call it.

It seems astronomers are as bad as TPTB when thinking ahead.

[tinerin]

The boundaries of a star system are defined by the range in which objects orbit the central star (or stars). The more massive the star, the larger the star system.

The Oort Cloud orbits our Sun...hence they are the edge of our solar system...

[knowles2]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-boundary.html That explains the criteria of when the star system end and interstellar space begins.

[Aer'ki]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-boundary.html That explains the criteria of when the star system end and interstellar space begins.

Thanks for posting that link.

I don't agree with a moveable measurement such as this. If solar activity dies down the line will move in, if it increased it will move out. I agree this is a useful thing to know, but it doesn't really define the boundaries of a star system, especially when dealing with multi-star systems.

Because think of it this way...if you had a very inactive star then you could have a planet orbiting that star outside the star system by this definition.

I think the measurement has to be gravitational based...which is a constant.

Oh, and back on topic...yes, I think there is a gate center. That's why I wrote one into my fanfic.

[Control_Chair]

Well the Oort Cloud defines the boundary of our Solar System and extends about 1.87 light years from the Sun.

Thanks for posting that link.

I don't agree with a moveable measurement such as this. If solar activity dies down the line will move in, if it increased it will move out. I agree this is a useful thing to know, but it doesn't really define the boundaries of a star system, especially when dealing with multi-star systems.

Because think of it this way...if you had a very inactive star then you could have a planet orbiting that star outside the star system by this definition.

I think the measurement has to be gravitational based...which is a constant.

Oh, and back on topic...yes, I think there is a gate center. That's why I wrote one into my fanfic.

Good points I was thinking the edge of the solar system was the termination shock/heliopause, but that would change depending on activity during the suns 11 year solar cycle. I think the suns gravity extends for much further out into interstellar space.

[Aer'ki]

Good points I was thinking the edge of the solar system was the termination shock/heliopause, but that would change depending on activity during the suns 11 year solar cycle. I think the suns gravity extends for much further out into interstellar space.

In theory it extends to infinity, just getting weaker the further away it gets. So the boundary should be defined by gravity that can keep an object in an appreciable orbit. What appreciable is is up to opinion at this point.

[Quadhelix]

In theory it extends to infinity, just getting weaker the further away it gets. So the boundary should be defined by gravity that can keep an object in an appreciable orbit. What appreciable is is up to opinion at this point.

No it isn't. An object is in orbit if it lacks the kinetic energy to overcome the star's gravitational attraction. There are several mathematical tools for handling this situation, but suffice it to say that if an object's total energy (kinetic energy plus potential energy) is less than what its potential energy would be at an infinite distance from the star, then that object is orbiting that star.

This, of course, highlights the problem with your idea that the edge of the solar system should be defined by gravitation: whether or not an object will be trapped in an orbit depends as much upon the object as upon the star.

[knowles2]

I think there probably many reasons why they have chosen a other measurement other than gravity, the fact that gravity goes on pretty much for infinity is one.

Also why the shock boundary one can eventually be average out say over the a ten years period and we could just use the average to define the boundary of the solar system. This is also more easily measured than gravity would be.

[Aer'ki]

I think there probably many reasons why they have chosen a other measurement other than gravity, the fact that gravity goes on pretty much for infinity is one.

Also why the shock boundary one can eventually be average out say over the a ten years period and we could just use the average to define the boundary of the solar system. This is also more easily measured than gravity would be.

I have zero faith in the 'official' people who claim they are the ones who get to decide on all these names and measurements. These are the same morrons that claimed Pluto wasn't a planet just to cover their own asses because they've claimed to have measured the UNIVERSE and then somebody went and found another planet in our own backyard(Eris). They claimed pluto wasn't a planet so they could claim Eris wasn't one.

So I don't care what they 'say' the limit of a star system is. Actually, they wouldn't say 'star' system, they'd still stupidly say 'solar' system.

Just a note...if someone talks about all the 'solar' systems in the galaxy that's an easy way to identify someone who's just blowing smoke.

Solar System is the name of OUR star system. Our sun is named SOL...therefore we are in the SOLar system. Unfortunately the writers of stargate also fall into the aforementioned category, because they've used 'solar systems' on several episodes.

As for using a gravity measurement...I don't mean anything more than a calculation of what it would take for an object traveling at say, 1km per second to stay in orbit. That would give you a spherical region around a star, simply for reference, and you could label such things on a map. Beyond that point you're basically drifting more than orbiting...at least as far as a ship's thrusters could move you around without difficulty.

[knowles2]

Well I actually thought it made sense to remove Pluto from the planet category, because there going to be a long list of planets if we do not re classed pluto, and I am talking about at least a hundred, talk about a child nightmare about remember the names of all of them at primary . An keeping pluto on the list simply for historic reasons, as most astronomers who objected to removing it seem to want is just plain stupid imho.

and overall I agree with the astronomers approach to measuring the solar system it just seem to make more sense to me.

[Quadhelix]

I have zero faith in the 'official' people who claim they are the ones who get to decide on all these names and measurements.

Well, that is too bad, because they are still more qualified than you.

These are the same morrons that claimed Pluto wasn't a planet just to cover their own asses because they've claimed to have measured the UNIVERSE and then somebody went and found another planet in our own backyard(Eris).

I fail to see the contradiction.

Also, nobody has claimed to have measured the size of the universe, but they are able to determine how far away the most distant visible galaxies are. That allows them to determine the size of the visible universe.

Taking random samplings of the sky and determining how far away certain objects are is fundamentally different from searching the sky for a single specific object.

They claimed pluto wasn't a planet so they could claim Eris wasn't one.

Is that bad? The only reason that the solar system doesn't have in excess of 100 planets is because they decided that the asteroids in the asteroid belt didn't count as planets. After all, there was a time when Ceres was considered a planet.

And actually, it wasn't just Eris: there are also Haumea and Makemake to consider. If we can find the three, there are probably many more, so the decision is then between a star system with eight planets or eighty.

So I don't care what they 'say' the limit of a star system is. Actually, they wouldn't say 'star' system, they'd still stupidly say 'solar' system.

Just a note...if someone talks about all the 'solar' systems in the galaxy that's an easy way to identify someone who's just blowing smoke.

Merriam-Webster's disagrees: ": the sun together with the group of celestial bodies that are held by its attraction and revolve around it; also : a similar system centered on another star" (here)

After all, Sol is the official name for the Sun, but it is just Latin for "Sun." Since the term "sun" has since come to mean any star, there is no reason why "solar" could not be applied to other stars.

As for using a gravity measurement...I don't mean anything more than a calculation of what it would take for an object traveling at say, 1km per second to stay in orbit.

Why 1 km/s instead of 2 km/s or 0.5 km/s or pi km/s?

At least the other definition given is based on actual physical effects rather on an arbitrarily defined measurement.

That would give you a spherical region around a star, simply for reference, and you could label such things on a map.

It would also, however, be completely arbitrary.

[Professor D.H.D. Puddlejumper]

The Alpha Centari system is about .24 LY from the Proxima system (closest system to the Solar System). Astronomers have mislabeled Proxima as being in the Alpha Centari system because Proxima is affected by Alpha Centari's gravity. That is stupid because every body affects every other body gravitationally(in theory).

Proxima Centauri (aka Alpha Centauri C) is a part of the Alpha Centauri system, orbiting the binary A & B at a distance of about a tenth of a light year.

<snip>These are the same morrons that claimed Pluto wasn't a planet just to cover their own asses because they've claimed to have measured the UNIVERSE and then somebody went and found another planet in our own backyard(Eris). They claimed pluto wasn't a planet so they could claim Eris wasn't one.

Ooh sorry, I have to disagree with this one too, as Quadhelix and Knowles2 have already responded.

[striker7770]

I think the measurement has to be gravitational based...which is a constant.

gravity is not always constant, over millions of years a star ages, and either gets bigger or smaller depending on how large it is in the first place, so after 500 million years, the system could of been much larger or much smaller, also if a system has large Jupiter size planets closer in, they could make the star "wobble" and the gravity would shift.

and back to the OP, http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5330721/...Season_1_Ep_10

its really just a fan fic, but is really good and talks about the possiblity of a stargate hub

[Aer'ki]

How many planets the solar system has isn't up for 'fad' consideration. We have what we have...you don't reclassify planet to keep it a certain number.

So what if we did have 80? Then we have 80. We don't have to worry about kindergarteners memorizing them all. The idea that you change the parameters because the number is inconvenient is IDIOTIC.

What is and what is not a planet is not an arbitrary classification. By the way, the reason they claimed Pluto is not a planet is because of all the rocky debris nearby...not the size of Pluto. Which means if a bunch of asteroids float by Earth we're no longer on a planet.

Many scientist have said, and I agree, that if a body has enough gravity to pull it into a sphere is the qualifier for what is and is not a planet. Pluto is a sphere, therefore it is a planet.

One qualifier though...it has to orbit a star. So Luna and the other spheres in our system are MOONS, not planets.

By my count we have at least 13 planets in our star system. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Quaoar, Eris, Sedna. There are probably others, but these I've checked out myself in pictures...they are round.

By the way, Mars doesn't have any moons. They'd have to be round for that. What Mars has is two large asteroids in orbit.

Also, Proxima is .24 LYs away from the Alpha Centauri twins in the information I looked up for a summer school class I taught on space. That is far beyond the range of a star system, therefore they are two different systems. The astronomers who labeled Proxima in the Alpha Centauri System were simply wrong. That happens, you know.

And a star may change size...but it doesn't change mass, which is what the gravity is derived by. So what stage of its life it is in doesn't change its gravity unless it somehow gains or loses material. Simply expanding into a Red giant doesn't alter the potency of its gravity.

Logic people...try it.