Making Stargate a Reality

[Jedispara]

Originally posted by PTeppic
Well, the ST:TNG crew do say that when Professor Stephen Hawking was on set to do his "appearing as a hologram of himself" episode, when they passed a corridor graphic of a warp engine he winked and muttered, sotto voce, (to the extent allowed) that he was working on it...

In fact, thinking one step further, do we not limit ourselves by creating so many highly technical, imaginative and soon-to-be-real inventions in fiction?

If we ever DO get some sort of super-luminal travel, it almost certainly WILL be known popularly as warp-drive, no matter what the originating scientists/engineers call it. Any high-power plasma or laser weapon is likely to be a phaser, and so on...

are you saying that us having all of these Sci-Fi shows, we are boud to have self-fulling prophesis about the names of things??

 

[mcarp]

if it were going to be made real...

...I suggest that we already have familiar coordinate systems by which to locate a point in space. The idea with the chevrons and all the cutesy little symbols makes it a greatly mysterious and really cool bit of drama when "dialing in" another stargate. But realisticly speaking, one simply needs 3 dimensional coordinates to locate any point in space. Although I realize the location of any X stargate might be unknown. Therefore perhaps a code of sorts should be required to keep locations of stargates secret and SG-1's chevron codes certainly qualify. But the concept of "dialing in" is quite rediculous if you DO know the point in space where a stargate is located. Then you simply need 3 space coordinates and a wormhole....not that I put much weight to the wormhole concept in general.

I truly AM impressed by lysdexia's dedication to these technical details, but I must point out how ludicrous the whole system is if you were going for something realistic and not for entertainment only. But golly, its still a cool show.

 

[PTeppic]

Despite my rather terse reply about the first paragraph, I agree (and have said so numerous times) entirely about the technical detail and quality of the remainder of thw work.

However, on the point of the glyph system, it IS a rather neat method. Effectively it is an alphabet of 39-ish letters.

To use current terminology for dialling, one would presumably use a 3D cartesian or polar co-ordinate system, based on a pre-determined axis. This needs there to be such an axis, with positions calculated for each place you want to go; fair enough this latter is also needed under the glyph method. But, you would need a string of digits for each co-ordinate in the address:

23457 light years, 123.79 degress "round" by 27.52 degrees "down". Even allowing for markers for "distance", "round" and "down", that is 16 separate digits, including the decimal point. The current system only needs 6.

In strict trigonometric terms, it only needs possibly three or probably four of the six points to make a vertex of the intersections. But, adding two more co-ordinates brings the number of possible positions in space up from 2313441 to 3518743761, and the more the merrier since there won't be a gate at all possible positions, during all possible points in time (i.e. due to universal expansion). [This is based on the address model that currently seems to be "agreed" on other threads.]

Basically, the glyphs are nonatridecagal, rather than decimal or perhaps hexadecimal, with the benefits for "shorter" numbers this brings.

 

[Jedispara]

so basically what the 38 letter language (PoO doesn't count as a placemarker) does is it takes those decimal points and converts them into image references... so that you are left with is 38 possible digits that have a variables that caculate the exat possition...

this system has to have a center... in the gate system one could assume that in the Milky way that would be the center of the Galaxy (which is presumed btw is a supermassive colletion of black holes) so from that point (0,0,0) you can derive the 3518743761 possible points on the spheroid plane (btw P'teppic i see you got your program working). now as you pointed out, not all of those will have a gate, and in the other thread you also pointed out that the gate system would have to have a system of compensation for intrasystem drift....


more to come just let me get some sleep....

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Jedispara
are you saying that us having all of these Sci-Fi shows, we are boud to have self-fullfilling prophesis about the names of things??

"Necessity is the Mother of Invention"

People don't generally wake up in the morning and invent something, they instead work long hard hours and trying to invent something that is demanded to solve a particular problem.

But shows such as 'Star Trek' have been around so long, and have become so familiar to us, and a part of modern-day culture, that whatever an inventor decides to call his newly invented 'FTL star drive', or 'energy weapon', the general population (and more importantly, the media) will still call them a "Warp Drive" and a "Phaser". If we ever invent a man-made wormhole transport system, I'm certain that the end portals will be called "Star-gates" too!

That doesn't mean that they will be invented, we still need to get "working on that" as Stephen Hawking said.

You've been talking about the 'Physics of Star Trek'. Stephen Hawking wrote something similar in the foreword to that book:

Today's science fiction is tomorrow's science fact. The physics that underlies Star Trek is surely worth investigating. To confine our attention to terrestial matters would be to limit the human spirit.

 

[PTeppic]

Originally posted by Dave
People don't generally wake up in the morning and invent something, they instead work long hard hours and trying to invent something that is demanded to solve a particular problem.

Though of course they often end up inventing something OTHER than they intended, or as a side-product: Teflon, Post-Its(TM), and loads more...

I would love to think what sort of experiments were being undertaken that could lead to an "accidental" discovery of warp-drive, or so on... proof of multiple-dimensions perhaps....

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by PTeppic
Though of course they often end up inventing something OTHER than they intended, or as a side-product: Teflon, Post-Its(TM), and loads more...

Teflon probably isn't a good example there, because I think NASA must have spent a fortune in man-hours and resources to reseach rocket heat-shielding, and whatever else was needed for the space-race. But, I take your point. Penicillin is probably a better example.

And the fact that the search for one invention does spin-off into others proves that the process is worthwhile, and not just money down the drain.

That is also the arguement why governments should not cut budgets for Pure Science research, and only give it to Applied Science, which supposedly will have a greater economic benefit. That is short-sightness.

Anyway, now I'm spinning off on another track. But, I hope that somewhere 'Men in Black' and 'egg-head scientists' really are working on these things.

 

[lysdexia]

PTeppic
This is, to my mind, some of the most arrogant, self-obsessed and pretentious clap-trap I have had the pleasure to read in this forum, though it is followed by some of the most technically complete consideration of the series' concepts and technologies.
yep

"it has little value", "don't find any value in" - the media presentations were for art, profit and entertainment. Whilst many of the sci-fi movies/series, such as the latter variants of Star Trek, did attempt to draw on current technology and theories, it would be extravagant to say they developed their shows to show how things WILL turn out. They perhaps hope they use semi-realistic methods and approaches, so that they don't look foolish and too dated in the future. Their value is as entertainment, not a technical methodology, and as entertainment the enduring popularity, even if you don't like them, is extreme.
I know what they were for. I also know what other similar, frivolous series were for. Again, you're missing the point of my statements and the name of this forum. Entertainment value, alone, is not overall value, especially when the work tries to fuse two unrelated genres. The extravagance is in the works themselves, which is more fantasy than fiction and which shouldn't be mixed with science. I was only saying that the appreciation and attention of certain works and not others represents the lacking mentality of the audience. When they pursue an interest in entertainment that takes on a mode or genre that deserves more consideration and development, that is where I have trouble. I don't have a problem with Friends, except for its reruns, but that's because the writers don't attempt the show to make proclamations about another subject. It exaggerates life, but it doesn't pretend to, say, introduce politics and try to parse it through the Friends theme.

"hardly mentioned outside a reference to a show itself" - why should they - its entertainment! Its not primarily intended to be philosophy, or a great work of humanitarianism. Its designed to make the studio money, by entertaining the folks. If some of the story-lines happen to make us think about certain things, all well and good, as a bonus.
Is any long-running, worthwhile series based on only one purpose?

"were much better and valuable and deserving of attention" - valuable to whom for what? To you, perhaps. To the massive world-wide audience of these shows/films, this is denigrating their taste and views with abandon.
so? De gustibus non est disputandum? How would there be gustibus if there were no disputandum?

People are expecting more from their shows, a greater degree of realism, high production values, context to todays problems, multi-episode story canon and so on. SG-1 is simply another step on this genre evolution. Its not a step towards answering your fixation on seeing technology develop in sci-fi.
That was all I was looking for too. That was only a semifixation.

Why? The genre is "sci-fi" - science and fiction. What is so terrible about liking the fiction, which happens to be science based. Same question applies to, for example, westerns. Can you like the stories, but not the cowboys?
You know the difference between fiction and fantasy, the believable and the ludicrous, and the multidimensional and the useless? When one is regarded as the other, the other half of the genre is detracted from. Personally, if I wanted to read about or see fiction leaning towards fantasy, I would choose a genre other than science, because they clash. This choice applies to works created from scratch. If the work is somehow based on, or continues from, or speculates within a pre-existing work that is not science fiction leaning towards fantasy, then perhaps I would enjoy it.

"That is, if everyone can understand it." - we don't NEED to understand the physics to enjoy the show. Kids love the show, as do juvenilles, adults and pensioners. Some can barely read and write, others have post-grad astro-physics qualifications.
Obviously, but that wasn't the point. It was about understanding and following the plot and theme so that newcomers will be attracted and stay. The purpose was stickiness and appreciation.

"frequent pointless invocations" - fans are human beings. Human beings are made unique by their eccentricities. So what - I am proud of (most of) mine. Don't insult or denigrate people for being, well, human.... "beam me up, Scotty".
Well, if they were less human, they wouldn't be insulted. Do you not agree that some ideas or habits are pointless?

You will have noticed that, having come late to this forum, that I have posted extensively. I hope that in all that I have remembered that other views are valid, but different, and very little in the discussion of a sci-fi show is right or wrong, but more or less probable. We can't possibly KNOW how a zat, staff weapon or stargate works - they simply don't exist.
There are obviously some views that are more valid than others. You can't disagree because you've already made it clear that my views that other views are less valid are in themselves less valid. Congratulations, I got you. However, when did I ever say that certain views were right or wrong, when I only used the terms "better" and "more consistent"? You don't know they don't exist. The military's been working on directed energy weapons. The US government, and likely the DoD, have had at least two accounting re-adjustments that totaled several trillion missing dollars.

mcarp
Therefore perhaps a code of sorts should be required to keep locations of stargates secret and SG-1's chevron codes certainly qualify. But the concept of "dialing in" is quite rediculous if you DO know the point in space where a stargate is located.
ridiculous
But the Stargates and optional computers don't know or keep track of the precise locations of any system in 3-space, especially with stellar drift and Hubble flow. Do you? They only use the system's projections and individual distances in the present to inscribe and intersect some region where some Stargate is likely to be found.

I truly AM impressed by lysdexia's dedication to these technical details, but I must point out how ludicrous the whole system is if you were going for something realistic and not for entertainment only. But golly, its still a cool show.
Did you recall my introduction? Stargate, of all the shows I'm aware of, has been the most realistic and explicative in its concepts. Unlike the Star Trek universe which, like Calvinball, can invoke any new concept and counterconcept to advance the episode along, Stargate sticks with what we know and can predict. Sam is a theoretical astrophysicist, which is a real, active, and current field!

 

[PTeppic]

Of course, this doesn;t mean they aren't/won't be prepared to screw their whole "accuracy" thing in the way of good entertainment! We have already seen some questionable "divergence" in the possibilities/functionality of SG-1/alien technology, as discussed in a couple of the the other threads here.

As so eloqently put (by somebody else!): why let facts get in the way of a good story?

Yes, they may be trying to be the most realistic/technical show around (or they may not!), but ST:TNG also tried to be realistic where possible - they are simply so much further in the future the "factional" content perhaps shows more.

Yet, at the end of the day, the script will only be live for a number of weeks from penning to wrap, and if anything gets over-looked in that time, it gets aired. I am sure there are technicalities which have gone out which the writers later thought "rats - if only we hand't said that in such a way" to either open up new possibilities or close down other ones.

 

[PTeppic]

Originally posted by lysdexia "frequent pointless invocations" - fans are human beings. Human beings are made unique by their eccentricities. So what - I am proud of (most of) mine. Don't insult or denigrate people for being, well, human.... "beam me up, Scotty".
Well, if they were less human, they wouldn't be insulted. Do you not agree that some ideas or habits are pointless?

Yes, but that doesn't make them any less valid than charity work or other "good and worthwhile" things.

You will have noticed that, having come late to this forum, that I have posted extensively. I hope that in all that I have remembered that other views are valid, but different, and very little in the discussion of a sci-fi show is right or wrong, but more or less probable. We can't possibly KNOW how a zat, staff weapon or stargate works - they simply don't exist.
There are obviously some views that are more valid than others. You can't disagree because you've already made it clear that my views that other views are less valid are in themselves less valid. Congratulations, I got you. However, when did I ever say that certain views were right or wrong, when I only used the terms "better" and "more consistent"? You don't know they don't exist. The military's been working on directed energy weapons. The US government, and likely the DoD, have had at least two accounting re-adjustments that totaled several trillion missing dollars.

In fact I was only intending to disagree with you, and respect your position as having, in some points, opposing views . I apologise if you thought I was ranking your views above or below those of myself or anyone else. As for zats etc., it is most likely there are research projects for this sort of thing. The US military (and perhaps others) have glue-guns, for example, as per the comics - why not particle weapons. However, I was stating that zatnikatels don't exist as the Goa'uld don't exist, i.e. the aliens and these specific weapons are fictional, and so any discussions can only have a limited purpose.

 

[lysdexia]

questionable "divergence" in the possibilities/functionality of SG-1/alien technology, as discussed in a couple of the the other threads
which?

Yes, but that doesn't make them any less valid than charity work or other "good and worthwhile" things.
Uh, validity is equivalent to point. These things are not pointless or invalid.

I apologise if you thought I was ranking your views above or below those of myself or anyone else.
A disagreement not involving a position or relation of validity is impossible. You can't voice a view without enforcing it. This is why agreeing to disagree is a paradox; both sides are only pretending.

I was stating that zatnikatels don't exist as the Goa'uld don't exist, i.e. the aliens and these specific weapons are fictional
But a weapon using the process I described may exist, both the real and fictional weapons working on the same principles.

 

[lysdexia]

mcarp, in one of the conference room scenes in "Window of Opportunity" behind Sam was a screen showing some "routeplot" animation of the galaxy and different regions of a cube which mapped to the chevrons which popped up on the left side.

 

[PTeppic]

Originally posted by lysdexia Yes, but that doesn't make them any less valid than charity work or other "good and worthwhile" things.
Uh, validity is equivalent to point. These things are not pointless or invalid.

Your previous post asked if I thought they were pointless. I agreed that to all intents and purposes, to me, some "habits" are entirely pointless - but they are valid to the participants.

I apologise if you thought I was ranking your views above or below those of myself or anyone else.
A disagreement not involving a position or relation of validity is impossible. You can't voice a view without enforcing it. This is why agreeing to disagree is a paradox; both sides are only pretending.

I believe both your points are invalid. One can certainly voice a view, with considerable fervour, passion and even venom, yet still accept that the opponent has a sufficiently firm belief in their view that they will not be persuaded by one's view and debate. When agreeing to disagree, your paradox is flawed: an agreement to disagree is about the continuation or conclusion of the debate, not the material argument of the debate. You are both prepared to say "I believe you are wrong and I am right, but we will end here, since neither of us can persuade the other". On neither side does the participant agee with the other materially, but they do agree no resolution will occur.

I was stating that zatnikatels don't exist as the Goa'uld don't exist, i.e. the aliens and these specific weapons are fictional
But a weapon using the process I described may exist, both the real and fictional weapons working on the same principles.

I concur - your original post was written so that it inferred you were talking about the zats as used in the show, not a real weapon, also called a zat, working on similar principles.

 

[lysdexia]

I agreed that to all intents and purposes, to me, some "habits" are entirely pointless - but they are valid to the participants.
I wasn't talking about opinions but facts.

I believe both your points are invalid. One can certainly voice a view, with considerable fervour, passion and even venom, yet still accept that the opponent has a sufficiently firm belief in their view that they will not be persuaded by one's view and debate. When agreeing to disagree, your paradox is flawed: an agreement to disagree is about the continuation or conclusion of the debate, not the material argument of the debate. You are both prepared to say "I believe you are wrong and I am right, but we will end here, since neither of us can persuade the other". On neither side does the participant agee with the other materially, but they do agree no resolution will occur.
Accepting whether or not the opponent will accept your view is irrelevant. It is accepting whether or not your own view is valid that is relevant. If you did not, you would not have the view. If you did not have the view, both sides would not be able to agree or disagree. Agreeing to disagree, also, was not about what could be done or thought in spite of each other's views, but about what opposing position each does have. Giving the view is enforcing the view, and invoking the above "agreement" only avoids the enforcement, though it remains. Besides, your explanation of what "agree to disagree" meant digressed from this part's premise.

your original post was written so that it inferred you were talking about the zats as used in the show, not a real weapon, also called a zat, working on similar principles.
more specifically, how they could be

 

[PTeppic]

The validity of anything is only held by the persons opinion of what "valid" means. For elemental concepts such as mathematics we have globally accepted values of true and false, and methods for demonstration. For the "validity" of a habit, then this will be entirely personal, since that persons time/interest/values/morals are different to many others. Therefore what to me is entirely pointless, is to others very relevant. Like this thread...

So what do you mean by "agreeing to disagree", if not taking a third way which encompasses neither stance?

 

[lysdexia]

The validity of anything is only held by the persons opinion of what "valid" means.
People only form opinions if they don't know enough to discover the facts. For any matter or problem there is a finite number of categories of solutions, of which there are an indefinite number which still have categories of their own. Some work better than others, some address more of the matter than others, and some have less objections than others. They can be refined until one arrives at the most valid solution which is a fact, not an opinion. It takes into account the current case. Experiential or eventual matters are only an aggregate of its simpler bodies, two of which you used in your example (mathematics and logic). They are not infinite so they can be resolved. (People sit in chairs. Chairs are better than the floor because... etc. Teal'c: "Colonel O'Neill, you...." O'Neill: "But what if I'm not O'Neill?" Teal'c: "Then I was not talking to you.")

So what do you mean by "agreeing to disagree", if not taking a third way which encompasses neither stance?
That's what already I said; the third way is disregarding the argument.

 

[lysdexia]

Update

included statements on lanthanide and actinide contractions, corrected explanation on Alaris, and increased size in conclusion to 59 k

 

[lysdexia]

Update 2

This will probably be my last revision and draft, unless someone can come up with those constellation distances or gate dimensions.

corrected self-destruct values; expanded solid naquada conclusion to explain neutrino capture, shifted both parts after running out of space

 

[lysdexia]

okay, a few things...

P3X-639 was corrected to P4X-639.

I just headed to the GateWorld forum and told them to come over here.

And I recently sent this out to three of my groups:

Subject: woohoo, look what Nature Contents just published
Sent: 22/8/2002 19.17
To: EWN, esotericworldnews@egroups.com
the_discipline_group@egroups.com
free_energy@egroups.com

We have our naquada! I love my ability to predict news before it happens just by writing about it in thoughtful detail.
-Aut


22 August 2002
Nature 418, 859 - 862 (2002); doi:10.1038/nature00980

Chemical investigation of hassium (element 108)

CH. E. DÜLLMANN*†, W. BRÜCHLE‡, R. DRESSLER†, K. EBERHARDT§, B. EICHLER†, R. EICHLER†, H. W. GÄGGELER*†, T. N. GINTER, F. GLAUS†, K. E. GREGORICH, D. C. HOFFMAN¶, E. JÄGER‡, D. T. JOST†, U. W. KIRBACH, D. M. LEE, H. NITSCHE¶, J. B. PATIN¶, V. PERSHINA‡, D. PIGUET†, Z. QIN#, M. SCHÄDEL‡, B. SCHAUSTEN‡, E. SCHIMPF‡, H.-J. SCHÖTT‡, S. SOVERNA*†, R. SUDOWE, P. THÖRLE§, S. N. TIMOKHIN, N. TRAUTMANN§, A. TÜRLER**, A. VAHLE††, G. WIRTH‡, A. B. YAKUSHEV & P. M. ZIELINSKI

* Departement für Chemie und Biochemie, Universität Bern, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
† Labor für Radio- und Umweltchemie, Paul Scherrer Institut, CH-5232 Villigen, Switzerland
‡ Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung mbH, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany
§ Institut für Kernchemie, Universität Mainz, D-55128 Mainz, Germany
 Nuclear Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
¶ Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-1460, USA
# Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, P.R. China
 Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, 141980 Dubna, Russia
** Institut für Radiochemie, Technische Universität München, D-85748 Garching, Germany
†† Research Center Rossendorf e.V., D-01314 Dresden, Germany


Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to H.W.G. (e-mail: gaeggeler@iac.unibe.ch).


The periodic table provides a classification of the chemical properties of the elements. But for the heaviest elements, the transactinides, this role of the periodic table reaches its limits because increasingly strong relativistic effects on the valence electron shells can induce deviations from known trends in chemical properties. In the case of the first two transactinides, elements 104 and 105, relativistic effects do indeed influence their chemical properties, whereas elements 106 and 107 both behave as expected from their position within the periodic table. Here we report the chemical separation and characterization of only seven detected atoms of element 108 (hassium, Hs), which were generated as isotopes 269Hs (refs 8, 9) and 270Hs (ref. 10) in the fusion reaction between 26Mg and 248Cm. The hassium atoms are immediately oxidized to a highly volatile oxide, presumably HsO4, for which we determine an enthalpy of adsorption on our detector surface that is comparable to the adsorption enthalpy determined under identical conditions for the osmium oxide OsO4. These results provide evidence that the chemical properties of hassium and its lighter homologue osmium are similar, thus confirming that hassium exhibits properties as expected from its position in group 8 of the periodic table.

more: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v418/n6900/full/nature00980_fs.html


Nature 418, 815 - 816 (2002); doi:10.1038/418815a

Heavy elements: A very brief encounter

Little is known about the heavy elements that lie at the outer limits of the periodic table. But how do you investigate atoms that decay within seconds? Kendall Powell finds out.

GSI
Christoph Düllmann gambled that hassium would behave in line with the rest of its group.

Christoph Düllmann cracked open a bottle of vodka when he detected his first hassium atom. Over the next few days, six more atoms registered on detectors at the GSI, a heavy-ion research centre in Darmstadt, Germany. Each one was a relief to Düllmann. He had spent two years developing the experimental game plan, and staked his doctoral thesis on the apparatus being able to study hassium.

Düllmann was not alone in feeling relieved. More than 30 researchers from 10 institutions had helped to plan how to probe the chemistry of hassium, a huge element that weighs in at number 108 in the periodic table and decays seconds after it is formed. They had gambled all on hassium conforming to the patterns of the periodic table — and the results, which appear on page 859 of this issue1, show that they were right.

But researchers are finding that other heavy elements defy normal behaviour. The properties of most elements in the periodic table can be predicted by which column — or group — they appear in. But some heavy elements in the lower regions of the table buck this trend, throwing chemists' predictions into chaos.

Probing the chemistry of the heavy elements would be difficult even if they did play by the rules. Elements heavier than uranium have to be created artificially, usually by firing a beam of ions into a stationary target. Few collisions result in the creation of the desired element, so the process is very time-consuming. And the heavy elements tend to be unstable — many of them decay into lighter elements in seconds. So although physicists have extended the periodic table by a few new elements every decade since 1940, mapping out the territory as far as element 112, only in the past two decades have advances in target design and beam intensity allowed researchers to study heavy-element chemistry.

The quirky behaviour displayed by heavy elements has its roots in their electronic structure. In all large atoms, electrons orbiting close to the nucleus act as a shield between the attractive forces of the nucleus and the electrons in the outer orbits. But in the heavy elements, the high positive charge on the nucleus causes the electrons in the inner orbits to move at speeds close to that of light which, according to the special theory of relativity, increases their mass. This sends the electrons into even shallower orbits, increasing the shielding effect for those in the outer orbits.

The heightened shielding can change the way in which the outer electrons interact with other atoms and molecules, potentially putting the element out of step with the other members of its chemical group. "One would expect a major break from periodic-table trends," says Pekka Pyykkö, a theoretical chemist at the University of Helsinki. "But no one knows when it will happen. In what column, if any, will you see major changes?"

more: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v418/n6900/full/418815a_fs.html


A handful of hassium
Determining the chemical properties of element 108
http://www.nature.com/plink/highlights/6900-2.html

 

[PTeppic]

Re: okay, a few things...

Originally posted by lysdexia
We have our naquada! I love my ability to predict news before it happens just by writing about it in thoughtful detail.
-Aut

Except that nothing in the quoted text actually supports your assertion.

The piece shows that scientists have been researching some heavy elements. But, these are not naquadah, by either name or any property explicitly stated.

The fictional Naquadah in the show is implicitly a heavy element, but it does not decay in a few seconds as for Hassium. It is not created in a lab, but mined in large quantities. It appears to have a number of allotropes, including a liquid form, but none of these are described in the article quoted.

In what way is hassium shown to be the fictional naquadah? The discovery of hassium is not even new - this piece is covering continued research, not first identification.