The Plan to get them home

[Count]

Your understand of what you are discussing is fundamentally flawed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Saquist]

Dude, I totally called it back when Light aired!

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

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

I was very pleased with this episode.

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

[Quadhelix]

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

Okay then: where would we look for this "center point" that you say exists? Since, if saying that there is no center point is "a load of crap," that would imply that there is a center point.

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

Spoiler:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[VJC]

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

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

[Count]

Okay then: where would we look for this "center point" that you say exists? Since, if saying that there is no center point is "a load of crap," that would imply that there is a center point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Quadhelix]

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

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

Incredibly narrow response to the scope of the arguement. It could be anywhere in the universe, it's hard to tell when you can't measure the edges.

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

Oh, and FYI, you could have just said "Virgo" cause the Milky Way is IN Virgo already.

False: the Milky Way is in the Virgo Supercluster, also know as the Local Supercluster. The Virgo Cluster is located rougly 60 million light-years away

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

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

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

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

I was using small as a very plain english descriptor for everyone's convenience, if you want to nitpick that, feel free.

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

However, what you seem to be suggesting is that the universe is enclosed, nothing can exist beyond the point at which the material of the universe has expanded from. It's believed that the universe itself is larger then the matter spreading out from the big bang, or it would have hit a metaphorical wall by now.

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

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

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

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

[Count]

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

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

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

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

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

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

False: the Milky Way is in the Virgo Supercluster, also know as the Local Supercluster. The Virgo Cluster is located rougly 60 million light-years away

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Shpinxinator]

Something caught in my mind when I first watched the episode like an odd itch I can't quite scratch.


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

WRAY: Why are you pushing so hard?

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

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

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



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

[Control_Chair]

Something caught in my mind when I first watched the episode like an odd itch I can't quite scratch.


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

WRAY: Why are you pushing so hard?

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

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

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



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

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

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

[maddmike]

I'm pretty sure they mentioned tht the last chevron can be calulated.

[frankr]

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

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

-frank

[Saquist]

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

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

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

[Quadhelix]

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

I said, quite clearly, that there is no center point to the universe. That is what started this discussion, so if you were talking about something else, that's your own problem.

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

Okay, it's obvious that your still not understanding the analogy (what did you say your grades were?): the surface of the ball is three dimensional space. Neither the inside nor the outside actually exist.


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

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

The actual arguement was on the physics and spatial location of the centre of the universe, which if you look at it from a pure physics and relativity standpoint, it would be the centre of the expanding wave of energy from the big bang, as opposed to a a geometric dimensional expansion.

Again, no such point exists.

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

Except that the "fourth" dimension isn't time, it is a purely artificial construct. The dimension doesn't actually exist in the real world, but is rather a mental tool to help visualize expanding space.

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

I said "Virgo cluster." How much more clear do I have to be? Am I going to have to go through the rest of my life calling it the "Virgo cluster, not the supercluster, just the cluster"?

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

Except that radiation travels at c. This means that you are going to get significant distortions only near deep gravity wells.

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

Measuring the Doppler shift of the CMB would, however, tell you how quickly you are moving relative the the "center of the universe," however, so relativity of motion is irrelevant in this case.

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

Okay, here's a question for you: if the Big Bang happened "behind" us, and we're moving away from where it occurred through our own 3D space, then how can we see the CMB "ahead" of us at all?

again you're quoting out of context

Pretty hard not to do, since you in no way established context. More below.

small was in reference to the size of the spatial point of the universe's formation, the object that was a nanometer in size and almost infinite mass

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

Dimension physics again, spatially, if you were to imagine the universe as a giant sphere whose boundaries were the furthest position any stars or objects with mass were

Yes, except that no such boundary exists.

[VJC]

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

Again, there is no centre to the Universe. Wikipedia puts it well:

Hubble demonstrated that all galaxies and distant astronomical objects were moving away from us, as predicted by a universal expansion. Using the redshift of their electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space, he showed that all objects are moving away from us, and that their speed is proportional to their distance, a feature of metric expansion. Further studies have since shown the expansion to be extremely isotropic and homogeneous, that is, it does not seem to have a special point as a "center", but appears universal and independent of any fixed central point.

In other words (and as I said before) everywhere is the centre of the universe. from our point of view, everything is moving away from us, so we would appear to be at the Centre, but equally, if I was living with the Asgard in Ida, everything would appear to be moving away from me again making me think I'm at the centre of the Universe.

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

[nx01a]

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

Rush is veeeery good.