'Justice' (110) General Discussion

[blackluster]

I agree with you. What I found interesting by the interaction was that TJ, who has known Young the longest and probably best, didn't really think it was beyond his abilities to kill someone in seemingly cold blood. What does that mean exactly, I dunno, but I just remembered it!

Well unless there is some footage I haven't seen, I don't think TJ has known Young the longest has she? Scott and even Greer seem far more familiar with him. In terms of not defending him, I think that just shows her being clear minded and acknowledging their extreme situation. Like in the instance with Rush recovering from withdrawal, she seems like a very tolerant person but purely in a practical sense. If she had leaped to defend Young like the other military personnel were doing in spite of the circumstances, I might have written her off as yet another subordinate who was overcome by blind loyalty or in her unique case, infatuation with Young. That she didn't do it speaks more to a stronger more independent and open minded character on her part. Something we saw evidence of in Water as well.

[Deevil]

TJ had an affair with the man, I think she may know him better then the others. The fact that she didn't appear to come to Young defense is interesting. It does mean something, what is the question... but nevertheless it's an interesting development.

[Saquist]

I don't put any stock in O'Neil leveling the accusation because I don't really consider him any more qualified to understand the decision than Young is. Perhaps if it were Mckay or Carter crapping Rush out I'd consider it more significant/conclusive.

That's fine but I do.
O'neill has the authority to question Rush's actions and it's logical to do so considering the safety of the civilians is his responsibility. That is why he is qualified and Rush is not to make the decision that he did.

No, but I think Spencer's kino log in a previous episode made it highly probable. He says something to the effect of how the crew doesn't realize that they're in a big coffin and some other disparaging things. He seemed to have a fatalistic tone like they were all doomed. His medical dependency also seemed like a clear sign to me that psychologically he was not dealing with the situation and he was looking for an 'out'.

Matching his behavioral profile with known behavioral types only made it evident that he was a threat to others as his behavior was antagonizing and violent. That is all I can justify until more information is brought to light.

The explosion was the problem it that it proceeded a dangerous energy buildup. The planet had not exploded yet but the core was becoming increasingly unstable. Since the gate was tied into the planets core for power, that effectively means their 'generator' is going amok in a manner where they can no longer regulate it's output. The build to the explosion is a rapidly rising curve of energy they had no control over.

I can't confirm or deny that but I can say that no matter what the gradient was it could never match the cataclysmic release in energy in the explosion. It's like saying the build up to a supernova during the core compression into Iron is nearly as powerful as the violent release of the nova itself. It's not and neither can I say the same thing here.

[QUOTE]. What would happen if, instead of powering the gate with the energy needed to establish the wormhole, you force many times the required energy into the gate, not in a transient fashion, but over an extended period? I believe we see what happens in the episode with the blackhole.

Interesting but the by physics the energy had to come from the black holes event horizon which we know the gate wasn't in actual contact with other wise the gate would have begun to be comprised by the gravitational force. Rather, I believe that the gates event horizon had been drawn to intercept the blackholes event horizon by the tremedous "downward slope" in space time. Like a whirlpool in a the vortex of a tornado. It wasn't about power really...not ambient power, it was a bout the actual vortex's intersecting. (In speculation_

This was the scenario they created for themselves on Icarus. Not only was their powersource way more than zpm energy levels, but they had effectively lost control of its output when the planet's core began to go critical. They had not only rigged the power transfer from core to gate in an unconventional manner but they had also tinkered with that gate (modifying it to only setup outgoing wormholes). I believe forcing an exponentially larger than required energy source into the departure gate created a unique situation which could very viably have created an overload in the destination gate which in the very least would have wiped out the SGC, since I can't think of an instance where the power output from an exploding stargate was anything short of catastrophic.

That is some bold speculation.
It sounds like you're saying the energy requirements of the Icarus gate to connect with Destiny were large enough to actual stay the execution of the planets destruction in some kind of controlled overload. Is that right?

Nevertheless I think I can see your reasoning point.
It may be tenuous but I can see but I think that's the whole point of conjecture.

Could you provide the dialogue for what I have bolded, please?

I'm sorry Ellie Vee, I do not know the locations of scripts for the episodes of SGU. I have searched without success.

I understood what you said.

And yet the straw man is on record as misrepresenting a very clear post.

Unfortunately your answer just proves that you have little understanding or simply forgot of a very important writing practice; subtext.

I can not concur.
My post may support your interpretation but it's not proof there of.

This is something that is entirely interpretive and is used to create character and their interactions. The only way we cannot interpret a character to a great extent (which is your contention) is if we get a lot of exposition. First, that is bad writing. Second, you cannot even pretend that that is the case with Rush.

Well since SGU's season has been almost entirely exposition then by your statement's you view as bad writing?

The excessive discussions on his motivations and character is proof of this.

In the end we don't know why Rush dialed the 9th Chevron. We don't know, even by basic knowledge of Stargate mechanics (which change as the need arises) that he lied about it being dangerous to dial a gate in the Milky Way. Equally, we do not know that he was telling the truth there. That's what makes him a fascinating character - it's what makes him interesting to watch and the topic of much discussion.

Rush told us why he dialed Destiny.
"we may never get another chance"
Questioning the truth of his statement or any other characters statements can be done but the question is why question the veracity of his motivations? Have they given you reason? Have they appeared contradictory to you?

[blackluster]

That's fine but I do.
O'neill has the authority to question Rush's actions and it's logical to do so considering the safety of the civilians is his responsibility. That is why he is qualified and Rush is not to make the decision that he did.

All that I'll say further on that is that having the authority and being assigned responsibility to make a decision, doesn't automatically qualify you to make it. If there were any validity in my theory regarding the danger in dialing Earth during that crisis, O'Neill is by no means qualified or even learned enough to reach the correct conclusion.

I can't confirm or deny that but I can say that no matter what the gradient was it could never match the cataclysmic release in energy in the explosion. It's like saying the build up to a supernova during the core compression into Iron is nearly as powerful as the violent release of the nova itself. It's not and neither can I say the same thing here.

They don't have to be close for the the two part danger as I've explained it to exist. Besides which, I think you'll agree that the power output from the planet core even under nominal conditions greatly exceeds the energy that can be provided by zpms (the significance of the Icarus planet). Considering that by the time the planet is being attacked, the unstable core (which can already output over zpm level power) is now outputting even more power in an uncontrolled manner, the role that plays in making the resultant explosion a serious danger to the destination gate cannot I believe be dismissed flatly.

Interesting but the by physics the energy had to come from the black holes event horizon which we know the gate wasn't in actual contact with other wise the gate would have begun to be comprised by the gravitational force. Rather, I believe that the gates event horizon had been drawn to intercept the blackholes event horizon by the tremendous "downward slope" in space time. Like a whirlpool in a the vortex of a tornado. It wasn't about power really...not ambient power, it was a bout the actual vortex's intersecting. (In speculation_

I doubt that for two reasons. The first being that the event horizon of the blackhole was still millions of km away (i think from the image it is just shown as a large gas vortex in the distance) and secondly, the malp footage shows the SG team virtually in front of the gate between it and the black hole. The vortex being drawn out would surely destroy them and the malp before it even got to transmitting images back. Note, I only brought up the blackhole incident since it the only case to my recollection where a wormhole was being powered by a source far exceeding what was required to sustain it in a manner that could not be controlled.

That is some bold speculation.
It sounds like you're saying the energy requirements of the Icarus gate to connect with Destiny were large enough to actual stay the execution of the planets destruction in some kind of controlled overload. Is that right?

Nevertheless I think I can see your reasoning point.
It may be tenuous but I can see but I think that's the whole point of conjecture.

Not really. That planet would have blown up when it did anyway I think. My theory is that with the massive power requirement of the 9 chevron address, the energy dumped into the wormhole connection to make that link was large enough to make establishing the wormhole safe enough that the destination gate would not overload or jam in some fashion that the planet's eventual explosion could cause it to overload.

Putting it another way. A milky way gate wormhole connection power requirement would have been surpassed rather quickly leaving excess energy to continuously flow into the gate with potentially dangerous results. The 9 chevron wormhole connection power requirement is so large however, that the chances of that being surpassed are much less, leaving less chance that excess energy could flow into the gate from the core, since all that power would be used to keep the gate open.

An analogy that springs to mind might be that say you had a certain volume of water (Icarus planet core power) that you had to pour into something from a container with no tap or flow control. You could use a small balloon (milky way gate power requirement) but that small balloon is quickly filled and is likely to explode before your volume of water is expended. One would need a bigger balloon (the 9 chevron power requirement) which would be able to handle your volume of water (being poured in an unregulated manner) without exploding.

[Deevil]

And yet the straw man is on record as misrepresenting a very clear post.

When I rule the world I'm gonna put a stop to the excessive claims of 'strawman'...

Well since SGU's season has been almost entirely exposition then by your statement's you view as bad writing?

Ehh, no it hasn't. I often feel we have been watching 2 very different shows.

Rush told us why he dialed Destiny.
"we may never get another chance"

He also told us he dialed because it was too dangerous to dial a gate in the Milky Way. Both answers can, concievably, be true.

[Saquist]

All that I'll say further on that is that having the authority and being assigned responsibility to make a decision, doesn't automatically qualify you to make it. If there were any validity in my theory regarding the danger in dialing Earth during that crisis, O'Neill is by no means qualified or even learned enough to reach the correct conclusion.

You're correct that was an inadvertent red-herring.

Besides which, I think you'll agree that the power output from the planet core even under nominal conditions greatly exceeds the energy that can be provided by zpms

It's implied wince they do have ZPMS and didn't use them.

Considering that by the time the planet is being attacked, the unstable core (which can already output over zpm level power) is now outputting even more power in an uncontrolled manner, the role that plays in making the resultant explosion a serious danger to the destination gate cannot I believe be dismissed flatly.

The problem is the source is untrustworthy.
The second problem is that there is no precedent for him to make such a conclusion.
The third problem is that none of the known SG scientist neither confirm nor deny his statements. (which seems purposeful contrivance of the writers.)

I doubt that for two reasons. The first being that the event horizon of the blackhole was still millions of km away (i think from the image it is just shown as a large gas vortex in the distance) and secondly, the malp footage shows the SG team virtually in front of the gate between it and the black hole. The vortex being drawn out would surely destroy them and the malp before it even got to transmitting images back. Note, I only brought up the blackhole incident since it the only case to my recollection where a wormhole was being powered by a source far exceeding what was required to sustain it in a manner that could not be controlled.

It doesn't matter how far away the event horizon's black hole is. The planet was breaking up there for the gravitation forces were sufficient at that distance to compromise the planets integrity which means the planet itself was already on a spiral course to become part of the accretion disk.

2ndly, At some point the event horizon becomes wormhole, even if the event horizon's at this time don't intersect they eventually did as evidence by the vortex in the gate itself which means at that point the planet was destroyed. (That is a significant amount of gravitational force.

Remember that the wormhole discontented...automatically at the beginning and they reestablished the connection and then couldn't disconnect. THIS may have been the point where the wormhole intersected the black holes event horizon...(The surge of power disconnecting the connection) Then when they reestablished the connection to send the MALP after the SG-Team's in coming wormhole was disconnected they were now connected to a unlimited power source with no surge.

NOTE:
There is a possibility that some time after the connect was reestablished that the Planet may have been in the event Horizon of the Black hole. This implies a supermassive black hole was created because the MALP transmission was redshifted and time dialated which is the first two signs that you've crossed the event horizon the third and final is fragmentation...so they may have been close.

Not really. That planet would have blown up when it did anyway I think. My theory is that with the massive power requirement of the 9 chevron address, the energy dumped into the wormhole connection to make that link was large enough to make establishing the wormhole safe enough that the destination gate would not overload or jam in some fashion that the planet's eventual explosion could cause it to overload.

Safe in terms of what?
The planet still exploded.
You're saying not to transfer the explosion at all?

I have to say again. We've seen energy weapons and gravitational forces translate though a wormhole but we've never ever seen a explosion translate through a wormhole. Even when Sheppard made his run on the orbital gate in the first episode of Atlantis and destroyed the wraith fighters flanking the gate the explosions did not translate.

Putting it another way. A milky way gate wormhole connection power requirement would have been surpassed rather quickly leaving excess energy to continuously flow into the gate with potentially dangerous results. The 9 chevron wormhole connection power requirement is so large however, that the chances of that being surpassed are much less, leaving less chance that excess energy could flow into the gate from the core, since all that power would be used to keep the gate open.

This is what I thought you were saying.
I just fail to see how the requirement of energy impact the actually explosion.
You see, no explosion feeds the wormhole (according to record) so how does this explanation negate the explosion translating though the even horizon?

That's the problem I have with the theory.
Explosions destroy gates or jump wormholes, I don't see how that explosion at the beginning of SGU could have done anything other that destroy the gate or jump the wormhole. We haven't seen an explosion power a gate.

So whatever dangerous results there were from the rising energy weren't mentioned in the episode.
He said, the explosion could translate...I feel this is a disconnect between the danger related and the danger theorized.

[Saquist]

Rush: If what you say is accurate -
Young: IT IS.
Rush: Then we have serious problem
Young: We wouldn't if you had done what I asked you to do in the first place.
Rush: Please can we stick to one problem at a time.
Young: Running out of water wouldn't matter if you had just dialed Earth-
Rush: I've already explained that-
Young: The ship's recharged, the power reserves are full-
Rush: That's the point They're NOT.

I have to say I missed this the first time I watched the episode.
This choppy dialogue is horrendous..difficult to follow.

It seems the writers are being almost...cursory with their explanations.
They don't want to expound or be explicit at all with the problems of the ship. They execute the dialogue in several sequences...very very very quickly almost as an after thought. Almost as though they don't have enough time...or as though they'd rather draw out exposition than the plot of the story as though they are the plot of the story but...

I find it interesting that none of the characters have become the plot of the story. No one stands out. Nothing significant has happened to them to draw focus worthy of a plot description.


Young and Rush are behaving like a married couple.
Instead of fully confronting Rush, Young only makes nagging complaints to Rush complete with comments like "Don't you think I know when you're pulling a number out your ***."

Yet this is a Military Commander, that is responsible for the lives of his men and the civilian.
Maybe this is an extreme difference in actors.

CLEARLY RICHARD DEAN ANDERSON is delivering the same questions and accusations at Rush in extended pilot. Jack isn't just shouting he's demanding an explanation, holding Rush responsible of the civilians and people he's stranded there. NO one has seen the logic in Rush's decision except for Rush.

Young just make glib remarks.
"If you hadn't stranded us"
It's almost comical. You could put a laugh track hear and parade it as a comedy.

[blackluster]

The problem is the source is untrustworthy.
The second problem is that there is no precedent for him to make such a conclusion.
The third problem is that none of the known SG scientist neither confirm nor deny his statements. (which seems purposeful contrivance of the writers.)

On the first point, yes, since that is the nature of the Rush character that there are two sides to him. I'm not trying to force some absolute here, just to make a broader discussion where some other possibilities are more seriously entertained. On the second point, I wouldn't expect their to be a precedent since virtually all aspects of Icarus base and it's execution breaks from everything we've seen before right down the the address which has no point of origin, something unheard of in the Stargate canon till now. I don't think there be no precedent closes the discussion or allows us to dismiss the possibility that Rush was right. On the 3rd, that might be a matter of time, though I don't think it is really critical to being able to enjoy the show or to suspend disbelief on certain topics.

NOTE:
There is a possibility that some time after the connect was reestablished that the Planet may have been in the event Horizon of the Black hole. This implies a supermassive black hole was created because the MALP transmission was redshifted and time dialated which is the first two signs that you've crossed the event horizon the third and final is fragmentation...so they may have been close.

I admit that my reading on black holes is quite rusty, but I was under the impression that time dilation would experienced even before contact with the event horizon. Redshifting would simply happen in the presence of any gravity well of sufficient size. My understanding of the black hole event horizon is the beginning of the region where light can no longer escape and the spaghettifying of matter starts. Redshifts, time dilations and lethal gravitational forces would be experienced well before that region.

Safe in terms of what?
The planet still exploded.
You're saying not to transfer the explosion at all?

I have to say again. We've seen energy weapons and gravitational forces translate though a wormhole but we've never ever seen a explosion translate through a wormhole. Even when Sheppard made his run on the orbital gate in the first episode of Atlantis and destroyed the wraith fighters flanking the gate the explosions did not translate.

Safe in terms of establishing a wormhole that people could traverse in time without presenting risk to the destination gate which would void the escape anyway.

This is what I thought you were saying.
I just fail to see how the requirement of energy impact the actually explosion.
You see, no explosion feeds the wormhole (according to record) so how does this explanation negate the explosion translating though the even horizon?

That's the problem I have with the theory.
Explosions destroy gates or jump wormholes, I don't see how that explosion at the beginning of SGU could have done anything other that destroy the gate or jump the wormhole. We haven't seen an explosion power a gate.

So whatever dangerous results there were from the rising energy weren't mentioned in the episode.
He said, the explosion could translate...I feel this is a disconnect between the danger related and the danger theorized.

I had laid out the theory as I did purposefully in order to illustrate that no other case before this is a valid precedent. Though the blackhole case is the closest I can think of, it certainly doesn't match several factors which are unique and extremely significant to this particular case. As far as I can recall, there has been not a single case where the actual powersource of a stargate (not external transients being fed into the gate momentarily but its actual powersource) builds in output in an uncontrolled manner to the point that it explodes. That's the crux of my contention that while conventionally an explosion would not be a problem, the unique situation created by the energy output of the core and the way it was tied into the gate effectively made the explosion a problem and I see nothing from canon that can contradict that since the circumstances are truly unprecedented.

[Saquist]

I'm not trying to force some absolute here, just to make a broader discussion where some other possibilities are more seriously entertained.

Understood.

On the second point, I wouldn't expect their to be a precedent since virtually all aspects of Icarus base and it's execution breaks from everything we've seen before right down the the address which has no point of origin, something unheard of in the Stargate canon till now.

The basics are the same. Gate, wormhole, event horizon, power surge.
I don't see how the address could play a part.

On the 3rd, that might be a matter of time, though I don't think it is really critical to being able to enjoy the show or to suspend disbelief on certain topics.

Well that's perspective of course.
As a critic I need most of the plot concerns (at least the most urgent) to be addressed.

I admit that my reading on black holes is quite rusty, but I was under the impression that time dilation would experienced even before contact with the event horizon.

Correct:
However according to THEORY, from an observer outside the event horizon and object in the event horizon would appear to be stationery...forever... That's the sign that something has entered an event horizon.

Stargate showed the team stopped the entire time (relativity) and the MALP was on the objects side of the phenomenon, not on the observers point of view from out side the gravitational field. At the point were time appears to stop...you should be in gravitational free fall of a massive singularity or traveling at speed of light.

If the people were considerably out side the event horizon..they would have been moving at least a little bit but the show implies that space time has lengthen to a point were even from the "objects" point of view time has stopped.

Remember when The Joint Atlantis SG-1 mission with the wraith Hive and the Ori ship.
The Daedalus preformed a slingshot manuever around the singularity. Time on Daedalus slowed down but not to a stand still.

This represents an inconsistency in Stargate as too how massive the Singularity actual is in one episode to the next.

an Redshifting would simply happen in the presence of any gravity well of sufficient size.

From my understanding it would not be discernible to the naked-eye unless the speed or gravitational influence is particularly excessive. Remember the screen was red.

My understanding of the black hole event horizon is the beginning of the region where light can no longer escape and the spaghettifying of matter starts. Redshifts, time dilations and lethal gravitational forces would be experienced well before that region.

Correct: It is the point where light can not escape but like Sam said we are in the unique position of seeing what no one has ever seen before. What exactly happens with light on the inside with an observer is questionable, some have described an explosion of light.

Stargate wasn't trying to be this advanced in speculation.
The point is...where time stand still, you are definitely approaching or have crossed the event horizon.

As far as I can recall, there has been not a single case where the actual powersource of a stargate (not external transients being fed into the gate momentarily but its actual powersource) builds in output in an uncontrolled manner to the point that it explodes. That's the crux of my contention that while conventionally an explosion would not be a problem, the unique situation created by the energy output of the core and the way it was tied into the gate effectively made the explosion a problem and I see nothing from canon that can contradict that since the circumstances are truly unprecedented.

I understand your position.

[EllieVee]

NO one has seen the logic in Rush's decision except for Rush.

And finally, you get the point.

[Saquist]

And finally, you get the point.

There is no point.
Rush's reasoning are completely and utterly unexplored.

In fact as I've claimed most or all of the characters are unexplored. He's one of those characters that has been given the most cursory of explanations and background. Among the poorly developed characters are Young: who we don't know the reasons of the major disconnect with him and his wife, or its relevance in the 10 stories so far. ; Chloe, whose father dies but has seemingly gotten over it enough to feel the need to club with friends on Earth instead of doing something truely meaningful; Eli, who is an MIT student and whose mom has HIV, Johansen, who's not supposed to be there, and Greer who seems deep but doesn't have much to say.

In the slathering boredom of 7 out of 10 we only truly get the work up on Scott.
I foolishly thought they would start working through all the characters in some similar but varied and creative way.
With Scott hey actually tell a story...a true exposition on perhaps why he is the way he is or what he's gone through. Then we never go back to it. It's as though the writers are attempting not to blow some monumental secret with the rest of the characters.

Over all from Air to Justice the stories have meandered across the characters, addressing the most irrelevant individuals and ignoring the main characters who don't seem to want to interact with one another. It's like the camera on SGU doesn't have an attention span. Why was Scott's pants on the ground back ground important? We never go back to it. It never becomes plot relevant in 10 episodes. Where the dialogue should be lengthened it's short. Could we not have focused on the man who committed suicide instead of just using as a tool for the plot? Can we not spend some time with a character in the midst of plot relevant situation and get to know them?

There are dozens of workable tricks for doing this, flash backs, narrative, third person relating, misdirecting stories, incomplete retelling (Naruto does this a bunch) and premonitions. There are so many artful ways to accomplish this, yet I get from Justice that there is no true direction yet. There is no person they wish to tell a story about in 10 episodes for this character based drama.

[Captain Obvious]

With Scott hey actually tell a story...a true exposition on perhaps why he is the way he is or what he's gone through. Then we never go back to it. It's as though the writers are attempting not to blow some monumental secret with the rest of the characters

OK, either you get to claim the Entire show is exposition or you get to claim there is only one instance of exposition. Choose one.

You cannot have your cake and eat it to.

[aretood2]

I honestly don't see the point in talking about the Rush/Young situation anymore.

[Saquist]

OK, either you get to claim the Entire show is exposition or you get to claim there is only one instance of exposition. Choose one.

You cannot have your cake and eat it to.

Then what's the point in having the cake if you can't eat it?

[jelgate]

Then what's the point in having the cake if you can't eat it?

Its a metaphor saying in that you can't flip flop around from two different decisions/stances/etc

You have to chose something.