Well the Oort Cloud defines the boundary of our Solar System and extends about 1.87 light years from the Sun.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Is there a Center to the Gate network
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by tinerin View PostWell the Oort Cloud defines the boundary of our Solar System and extends about 1.87 light years from the Sun.
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.
Comment
-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-boundary.html That explains the criteria of when the star system end and interstellar space begins.
Comment
-
Originally posted by knowles2 View Posthttp://www.newscientist.com/article/...-boundary.html That explains the criteria of when the star system end and interstellar space begins.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tinerin View PostWell the Oort Cloud defines the boundary of our Solar System and extends about 1.87 light years from the Sun.Originally posted by Aer'ki View PostThanks 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."So, what's your impression of Alar?"
"That he is concealing something."
"Like what?"
"I am unsure. He is concealing it."
"Well, according to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, there’s nothing in the laws of physics to prevent it. Extremely difficult to achieve, mind you – you need the technology to manipulate black holes to create wormholes not only through points in space but time."
"Not to mention a really nice DeLorean."
"Don’t even get me started on that movie!"
"I liked that movie!"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Control_Chair View PostGood 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aer'ki View PostIn 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.
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."From East Middle School. Suzumiya Haruhi. I have no interest in ordinary humans. If there are any aliens, time travelers, sliders, or espers here, come join me."
- The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya; Best Character Introduction Ever.
"And can we lose the ten thousand year old dead plants?!"
- Stargate: Atlantis (1x03) "Hide and Seek"
"Hammerheads do not load/unload units immediately – they must descend to ground level first. Initial experiments involving jump-jetting infantry into the Hammerhead’s cargo compartment met with unfortunate results."
- Command&Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath Hammerhead Unit Spotlight
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by knowles2 View PostI 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.
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.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aer'ki View PostI have zero faith in the 'official' people who claim they are the ones who get to decide on all these names and measurements.
Originally posted by Aer'ki View PostThese 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).
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.
Originally posted by Aer'ki View PostThey claimed pluto wasn't a planet so they could claim Eris wasn't one.
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.
Originally posted by Aer'ki View PostSo 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.
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.
Originally posted by Aer'ki View PostAs 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.
At least the other definition given is based on actual physical effects rather on an arbitrarily defined measurement.
Originally posted by Aer'ki View PostThat would give you a spherical region around a star, simply for reference, and you could label such things on a map."From East Middle School. Suzumiya Haruhi. I have no interest in ordinary humans. If there are any aliens, time travelers, sliders, or espers here, come join me."
- The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya; Best Character Introduction Ever.
"And can we lose the ten thousand year old dead plants?!"
- Stargate: Atlantis (1x03) "Hide and Seek"
"Hammerheads do not load/unload units immediately – they must descend to ground level first. Initial experiments involving jump-jetting infantry into the Hammerhead’s cargo compartment met with unfortunate results."
- Command&Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath Hammerhead Unit Spotlight
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aer'ki View PostThe 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).
Originally posted by Aer'ki View Post<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.
My timeline of the Ancients here.
Comment
-
I think the measurement has to be gravitational based...which is a constant.
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
Comment
-
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.
Comment
Comment