Making Stargate a Reality

[lysdexia]

Except that nothing in the quoted text actually supports your assertion.
My whole essay supported my assertion. If you haven't paid attention to its explanations, stop replying now and wasting my and everyone else's time. Why you still don't know the difference between naquada in the show and naquada in real life is your problem. The show never mentioned any allotropes of naquada. READ THE ESSAY. Besides, the conflicting effects of nuclear charge and nuclear shielding from relativity have made some transactinides to be inconsistent with their lighter homologues, whereas hassium was not.

 

[Wingless Flyer]

Just thought I'd step in and say something as this seems to be getting a bit heated.

Let's face it, we have a sci-fi show here that isn't really based in reality at all. (If anything then it is more along the Historical side of things) However interesting this argument is I am afraid a working stargate isn't going to happen anytime soon if ever.

I am no scientist (more of an historian) but I can still see this arguing over making the stargate a reality a bit fruitless, yeah?

There's no point getting all upset over it, or annoyed, just chill and enjoy Stargate for what it is, a good Sci Fi show

 

[PTeppic]

I agree with the theory put forward by Lysdexia about the possible existence of a naquadah-like element.

The confusion seems to be in the terminology of which is the real naquadah-like element and which is fictional, and how similar the properties are. Of course, this is not helped by also calling a real element by the name naquadah.

Hassium, or other heavy elements, may fit the theoretical model of a potential naquadah-like element, but it has notably different properties from the element on show it's being named after...

 

[lysdexia]

Wingless Flyer
Let's face it, we have a sci-fi show here that isn't really based in reality at all. (If anything then it is more along the Historical side of things)
Then you should review the beginning of the thread about the show itself.

However interesting this argument is I am afraid a working stargate isn't going to happen anytime soon if ever.
That wasn't the subject of the thread.

PTeppic
Of course, this is not helped by also calling a real element by the name naquadah.
You call it naquadah. I call it naquada. It's a transition, superheavy, superconducting, superstrong, superdense, nuclearly-modified metal mineral whose inner orbitals are relativistic and simulate electron captures in the augmented neutrino collision cross-section and which is compatible with oxygen receptors in the humanoid bloodstream. The iron-osmium-hassium similarities are important.

Hassium, or other heavy elements, may fit the theoretical model of a potential naquadah-like element, but it has notably different properties from the element on show it's being named after...
like what? I said hassium', not hassium.

 

[lysdexia]

yet another update

corrected lactic acid part, added stuff including explanation of how to get shot twice and live

Another one is coming up some time... I think I know what trinium is or is like.

 

[PTeppic]

Re: yet another update

Originally posted by lysdexia
I think I know what trinium is or is like.

...fictional?

 

[lysdexia]

There's a reason that Stargate is more conservative with its technobabble than Star Trek. It uses objects which are seen as the limits of known and understood technology, much in the same style as the ancient wise people posited with their adamant, philosopher's stone, elixir of life, etc. Using the properties given, an example could be moulded into that mythical thing.

How do you like my profile?

 

[PTeppic]

There's very little that has been on ST particularly TNG/DS9/V which has not appeared on SG-1.

Point-to-point molecular transport (Asgard method, rings or Stargate), beam weapons (staff weapons, zats, zatarc laser, Malicai's gun), above-light engines (Goa'uld and Asgard vessels explicitly), force-shields (various).

We also have pretty much the same range of one-off technologies: replicators, Machello's inventions, Gamekeeper's pod, various nano-bots, Tok'ra memory helper etc.,

plus the various one-off non-human races:
"Watergate", "Fifth Man", Nem, "Spirits", etc.

Whilst set in the "present", it is still providing very typical technologies and species.

 

[lysdexia]

I'm talking about all the names for the ship functions, systems, and anomalies.

Did you catch the question?

 

[PTeppic]

Although a great deal has been said or implied in SG-1 about some of the common technology (Stargate & DHD), much of it is still left to technobabble / the edge of science, just as per ST.

I see the difference as being two-fold:

1) in SG-1 they they do seem to make the effort of explaining things, and have a set of handy expert/novice pairings Sam/Daniel/Janet, to Jack/Teal'c/Hammond etc. to do this. As I think you have complimented, this tends to make it a more accessible and realistic series.

2) whilst ST tends to simply use the technobabble and let the audience keep up, since their universe is 300+ years ahead of ours, their "common knowledge" and everyday terminology amongst themselves is futuristic/advanced. By comparison, anything SG-1 comes across, even the advanced alien stuff, has to be explained to each other in terms of current technical/science concepts, and hence, rather handily, to us.

 

[lysdexia]

much of it is still left to technobabble / the edge of science, just as per ST.
No, SG is the edge of science whereas ST is the edge and overhang. The technobabble in SG is understandable. Really, what was your point? I'm trying to accomplish something here.

 

[shazstar]

Before I start my post I will say, I have not completely read the essay as yet, and nor have I reviewed this entire thread, so for any previously debated topics I mention, or any mistakes I make, please keep this in mind.

Lysdexia and Pteppic, I am sorry if I am unceremoniously interuppted your debate. I apologise.

First of all, Lysdexia, your essay is a remarkable peice of work, and the research and effort you put into it is admirable. Not many people would have had the patience or dedication to analyse the basis of a TV show so extensively, myself included.
I understand that you have reviewed all the threads/posts in this forum. First of all you may have noticed that almost every thread becomes a topic of debate where to back our arguement we must use evidence we concieve to be relevant from various episodes of the show. Often these debates call on outside knowledge, and this is where (as I have observed) the debate tends to do one of two things: it either wanes, resolving itself or becomes mutually attributed to 'poetic license', or it can heighten, usually between a small group of people with differing theories. In the 9-10 months I have been posting on this forum, I have been a part of 3 or 4 of these threads where members actively take a role in some form of technology debate. Often the best part of this kind of experience is the learning you have access to by considering different theories and their factual, proven evidence and the hypothesis made by the show.

From this, my first question to you is, (and if you would rather not reply on this thread you are welcome to private message me at any time or email) when you read all the different posts, and you obviously did so in great detail to be able to structure your essay in such a mannor and relevance to these threads, what was your first impression of those who post? Did you perhaps percieve us as members of some level of field acedamia, who use this thread as a vent for personal frustration with the binding laws of physics, and see stargate as a conduit for our imaginative minds to wreak havoc? Or did you assume we were generally a population of stargate addicts with a penchant for technology and a desire to discuss the feasibility of some stargate technologies in relevance to our advancing society? Also, if you were to be classed into one of these catagories, which would you be? Although essentially off the topic, I feel that to understand your viewpoint on this entire issue I need some clarification of where you stand in your approach to that particular issue.

Once again, my apologies if I have raised an issue already spoken of, or offended anybody in any way, and in conclusion a remarkable post that demonstrates your obvious dedication to the show and to the possibilities it poses.

 

[lysdexia]

shazstar, welcome back!

From looking at the Gateworld forum, I saw that two fan-fac books have already been written by the same author and cover the show thus far in great detail. One is 300 pages long and one is an operations manual. Not sure if they're the same. Then again there was one on the Books forum here, an older book and by a female author, that is the Stargate companion. It's much easier to read a series of posts at once, and to formulate a consistent argument about the topic that is definitive, than to be in those posts and to do the same which requires extricating oneself from that exchange. I noticed that you were talking about the universe's expansion often influencing the gate addresses. But I didn't get to say that, because most addresses are within the same galaxy, the Hubble flow doesn't affect them and what only do are stellar drift and intense radiation along the way.

The thread recently turned into a debate about how the shows used and didn't use technology rather than what that technology was, when it was supposed to be about how we can understand and what we can do in order to bring our level up to that of the show since we all think that Stargate is cool. And differences between the sci-fi universes were brought up because it was a so much easier task to write an exposition on Stargate than Star Trek, which is confirmed by the lack of substance or interest in the book The Physics of Star Trek.

It was more of the latter impression, but I didn't get any impression from the posters overall. There were threads of both types. I don't strictly hold onto either category, because I was both working within the context of the show and what they were trying to explain with respect to what is known in the real world. Also, I recognise that the writers intend this application to the real world. SG-1 is a team of regular people that we can identify with, which is one of the reasons we like them. Recently I've taken this analogy to describe how these newer shows acquire success: Smallville:Superman::Enterprise:Star Trek::Stargate:Independence Day. People like to interact. How about you?

No, you haven't done that. Your posts are refreshing.

 

[shazstar]

Well written. It is easier for me to read this thread now with some idea of where you are coming from in your arguement.

I see you noticed my early determination to use the theory of universal expansion to explain everything! I soon learnt through gentle and constructive critism by ascifi tech 'senior members', such as Pteppic and Jedispara, that often you need to open your mind to many other fields in order to understand, and thus explain through hypothesis, technical aspects of stargate. More recently, I found that when I was participating in a debate (if I can use such a, err, formal description) if I could integrate aspects of other people's theories into my arguement, it tended to become stronger and more open to discussion.

I very much agree with your analogy of why we take such affinity with shows like Stargate and Smallville! I too enjoy watching and processing the interactions of people on the screen.

To answer my own question, in terms of my classification. I am a high school student (but only for another four days...then I am a GRADUATED high school student!) with a high school science education. I study physics, and at Uni next year I plan on studying a combined Science and Arts degree, majoring in astronomy/astrophysics in conjunction with arts majors. However my love of stargate, and overwhelming curiosity and fascination with Space has lead me to spend much of my spare time researching theoretical physics and astrophysics on the internet. So, in brief I am a stargate addict who while having a limited knowledge in theoretical physics, has an avid interest in the conjecture of theories to explain stargate physics! This is the profile upon which I stand in my participation in the forum.

The thread recently turned into a debate about how the shows used and didn't use technology rather than what that technology was, when it was supposed to be about how we can understand and what we can do in order to bring our level up to that of the show since we all think that Stargate is cool. And differences between the sci-fi universes were brought up because it was a so much easier task to write an exposition on Stargate than Star Trek, which is confirmed by the lack of substance or interest in the book The Physics of Star Trek.

This confirms the amount of research you have done into this! I appreciate your position of the thread being designed to discuss the current technological advancement of society and what we can do to acheive a level of understanding and practical application of some of the Stargate technology. It is a very valid and layered point of discussion. Perhaps what needs to be done is to take this thread back to some original points of arguement in your essay, rather than debating the 'validity' or 'correctness' of the whole essay in itself. Maybe by doing this the theories in your work can be appreciated, and really discussed at length and revised. And, If we take the time to really analyse each and every point, from technical theory to media conjecture and possible values of this fictional science to society, a deeper conclusion of each aspect can be reached!

I only wish I could participate too, but unfortunately my HSC takes precedence I guess.


Shazstar

 

[Svarog]

Hi Lysdexia! I just migrated here from Gateworld, i think it was due to one of your posts, in the Stargate technical questions thread.

Firstly i would like to ask why these people are here complaining about how it's a tv show not real life. If you disagree with him about trying to get reality from fiction then why did you even come to this sub-forum (don't know exact term). It, quite obviously is about the kind of stuff Lysdexia has been talking about, just not in the length, detail and eye-numbing complexity he wrote in.

On another note, i didn't really understand what you were saying about going the wrong way through wormholes. If you jabbed a staff weapon in the back would it disintergrate? Or would it reappear on the other side of the gate blocking someone's way? Also when you say the back is semi-transparent, i don't think it is. When the gate in the SGC is active you can see the blue light shining off the back wall, it wouldn't be from the front of the wormhole since it would have to do a 180 turn and hit the wall. To do this it would have to bounce off the wall in front of it, then bounce back. So therefore the back of the stargate emits a blue light, which incidentaly i don't think the front does.

Also you seem to think of Naquadah as a combination of existing elements. (yes i heard you say it is a group, like the term "salt"). Why couldn't it be a completely unique element that has 5 different isotopes (inc Naquadria). You also seem to have forgotten crystal Naquadah which is used to fuel the various ships. There is evidence of liquid naquadah powering staff's. In the Fifth Race Jack takes liquid naquadah out of Teal'c staff and creates the extra power device for the gate. Lastly what is heavy liquid naquadah, when did they ever mention it?

Well to conclude i am shocked to learn that someone is even crazier than i am and would devote the giant amount of time to write 59k of "Sam talk".

 

[PTeppic]

Originally posted by Svarog
Firstly i would like to ask why these people are here complaining about how it's a tv show not real life. If you disagree with him about trying to get reality from fiction then why did you even come to this sub-forum (don't know exact term). It, quite obviously is about the kind of stuff Lysdexia has been talking about, just not in the length, detail and eye-numbing complexity he wrote in.

Perhaps the main difference between this thread and the others in Technical is that this one aims specifically to extend the elements of the fictional propositions in Stargate SG-1 into reality of known phsyics. :eek7:
[In passing it achieves this aim admirably, in incredible depth and detail. The main query I had earlier was a confusion over the use of the "fictional" name naquadah as applied to a potentially real element or compound with similar or extrapolated properties - terminology only, not scientific detail.]

By comparison, I believe the majority of the other threads tend to consider the SG-1 universe as being fictional within a realistic universe, but with certain assumptions about the other elements of SG-1 technologies, such that they are accepted as existing without necessarily considering "how".

There is nothing either right or wrong, better or worse in either approach. The latter style has of course been in use for years by dozens of participants before lysdexia joined the forum, and promoted the former style by bringing a pretty-much unseen level of scientific depth and insight to the discussions.

I suspect a certain frustration by lysdexia, particularly in this thread, since I (possbily amongst others) have tried to take part in this thread but am clearly not sufficiently advanced as she is in this science, or as eloquent in the use of the English language. :blush: Normally this doesn't tend to be an issue, but perhaps the higher technical content of this style of thread demands a higher level of participant. :blush:

 

[lysdexia]

shazstar
More recently, I found that when I was participating in a debate (if I can use such a, err, formal description) if I could integrate aspects of other people's theories into my arguement, it tended to become stronger and more open to discussion.
argument, criticism
Hmm, I tend to integrate aspects of other theories in my argument without consulting other people, so that the model becomes stronger, to save time.

I very much agree with your analogy of why we take such affinity with shows like Stargate and Smallville! I too enjoy watching and processing the interactions of people on the screen.
Do you think there's another correlation between MacGyver and this new John Doe?

I study physics, and at Uni next year I plan on studying a combined Science and Arts degree, majoring in astronomy/astrophysics in conjunction with arts majors. However my love of stargate, and overwhelming curiosity and fascination with Space has lead me to spend much of my spare time researching theoretical physics and astrophysics on the internet.
Do you have any newsgroups or other boards? I just wrote another essay, about 28k this time, but it was less serious and about refuting thermodynamics. I plan to unload it on some cynics and scientific pretenders on one group, and crosspost it to a few other large groups. It includes advanced physical concepts and how they can supercede the conventional.

Perhaps what needs to be done is to take this thread back to some original points of arguement in your essay, rather than debating the 'validity' or 'correctness' of the whole essay in itself. Maybe by doing this the theories in your work can be appreciated, and really discussed at length and revised.
Okay, who shall treat the essay first? I'd appreciate the readers to take the URL of the thread and spread it around to your lists and friends.

Svarog
Hi Lysdexia! I just migrated here from Gateworld, i think it was due to one of your posts, in the Stargate technical questions thread.
The first thing you might notice is the absence of gigantic signature pictures! Have you looked around?

If you disagree with him about trying to get reality from fiction then why did you even come to this sub-forum (don't know exact term).
her, forum

On another note, i didn't really understand what you were saying about going the wrong way through wormholes. If you jabbed a staff weapon in the back would it disintergrate? Or would it reappear on the other side of the gate blocking someone's way?
Neither, I didn't say anything about those. Can you quote the part you don't understand?
Also when you say the back is semi-transparent, i don't think it is. When the gate in the SGC is active you can see the blue light shining off the back wall, it wouldn't be from the front of the wormhole since it would have to do a 180 turn and hit the wall. To do this it would have to bounce off the wall in front of it, then bounce back. So therefore the back of the stargate emits a blue light, which incidentaly i don't think the front does.
Blue light shining from the back has nothing to do with it not being transparent. Both faces of the wormhole emit light.

Also you seem to think of Naquadah as a combination of existing elements. (yes i heard you say it is a group, like the term "salt"). Why couldn't it be a completely unique element that has 5 different isotopes (inc Naquadria). You also seem to have forgotten crystal Naquadah which is used to fuel the various ships. There is evidence of liquid naquadah powering staff's. In the Fifth Race Jack takes liquid naquadah out of Teal'c staff and creates the extra power device for the gate. Lastly what is heavy liquid naquadah, when did they ever mention it?
Hmm, isotopes of a single element have slightly different properties such as density and melting point, but I do not see those differences as being exaggerated enough to produce the distinction between the different naquadæ. The number of neutrons in a material influences chemical properties very little compared with the number of electrons. However, neutrons may determine the viability of a naquada to be used in a fission bomb, having a deficiency in neutrons like uranium in order to fission repeatedly. This explanation, though, directly conflicts with the "heavy" prefix comparing docile and dangerous forms of naquada, because it would be the "light naquada" that works in a nuclear bomb. So the heavy more likely applies to the number of protons.

I did not forget crystal naquada. It's not another substance. "Absolute Power" mentions HLN, but if it's real or not is suspect because of the medium where it was mentioned.

PTeppic, are you on GW?

 

[Svarog]

I'm not generally used to quoting so i hope i did this right

From the other side it's clear, which not only means the event horizon is semitransparent, but that the tear as a void maps both ends of space across its body. So if someone tried to pass through on the other side, there are two scenarios. The void would either act as a barrier, preventing someone else on the other side to stick a body part or object through the opening and for you to pass through and materialise around that object (ow), or you would still be able to pass through as long as there wasn't an object on the other side, which would itself act as a barrier. In the second scenario, of course if you rammed something hard or energetic enough through the barrier just might break and you'd have a severed object or body part going through the wormhole without you.

hmm there's a nice button that does it for me, i nearly used html tags rather than the [tags].

After re-reading it seems that you were talking about the stargate on the other side. What do you mean when you say "it's clear?" It isn't clear, you can't see through the wormhole, i think that's what lead to me thinking you were talking about the back of the stargate. Can i also ask another question? What would happen if you stuck a stick through the back of a stargate, would you block the path of something entering the gate by distorting the wormhole around the object as it sticks through, or would it be destroyed. I thought of another scenario which isn't really feasible in this reality, where if you rammed a stick through, no matter how much energy you put in it wouldn't go through or anything. The reason i think this unfeasable because then there would be an infinite amount of energy preventing the stick from going through.

Why couldn't naquadah be special? I mean we know it is a heavy element, which has to have a higher atomic number than a known element, yet it forms naturally. Therefore it must be different to other elements. It can also react with neutrinos, also making it unique. I see naquadah as a faery element-it displays magical properties-it can make warheads make big bangs, it can make wormholes, easy spaceflight, energy based defense shields, very durable metal for spacecraft (Asgard) and so on and so forth. I'm not being very clear, but my point is that it could work on a whole different level to normal atoms and it could be that all these are different properties, rather than different isotopes or elements.

I just looked up heavy liquid naqudah on a transcript and it only mentions it once
This is all in reference to a blueprint of a defense satelite.

"CARTER: Where does it get its power from?

DANIEL: Liquid naquada fuel cell here. (He points.)

CARTER: Liquid naquada?

DANIEL: Well actually it's heavy liquid naquada but don't ask me what makes it heavy, at least not yet."

It could be an isotope of Naquadah, or it could be a compound of naquadah. Naquadria is obviously an isotope of naquadah. liquid naquadah i don't know much about.

Now inert/weapons grade naqudah. I think inert naquadah may be a compound, whilst wgn is highly purified naquadah. ever heard of weapons grade uranium? i'm not really sure what it is, but i think it could be purified uranium.

<spoilers redemption s6>


Now we know the gate can survive a giant naquadah enhanced boom that turns an entire naquadah enriched planet into a giant fireball. But it also blows up quite easily when energy builds up in it's capacitators. Now i don't know as much as you about this physics so... i'm gonna try to put forward a theory as to why this is true

Heat cannot break up the strong chemical bonds between the naquadah and the other element/s in the compound (inert naquadah), but pure energy can for some reason-can't think of one. So therefore energy as the gate puts out can cause the gate to go boom. So theoretically in the warheads the USAF have, they must somehow put that kind of energy into the bomb, creating a giant boom. Now it doesn't have to be much, the gate didn't require that much when Anubis blew it up. It only kept 1% each time so it can't have been all that much considering how big the pulses the Ancient's device sent through were.

 

[PTeppic]

Originally posted by Svarog
It could be an isotope of Naquadah, or it could be a compound of naquadah. Naquadria is obviously an isotope of naquadah. liquid naquadah i don't know much about.

Now inert/weapons grade naqudah. I think inert naquadah may be a compound

Could one or both of these be allotropes, rather than isotopes of "normal" naquadah?

 

[lysdexia]

Svarog
What do you mean when you say "it's clear?" It isn't clear, you can't see through the wormhole, i think that's what lead to me thinking you were talking about the back of the stargate.
Yes I was. I said that the EH is semitransparent meaning that light from objects in the room pass through the EH to the other face without going through the wormhole. This is how we can see people walking into the wormhole from the other side.
What would happen if you stuck a stick through the back of a stargate, would you block the path of something entering the gate by distorting the wormhole around the object as it sticks through, or would it be destroyed.
Why would that happen?
I thought of another scenario which isn't really feasible in this reality, where if you rammed a stick through, no matter how much energy you put in it wouldn't go through or anything. The reason i think this unfeasable because then there would be an infinite amount of energy preventing the stick from going through.
Well, find the normative force of the wormhole from that required to form it. If you rammed the stick with enough energy to penetrate it, then the stick would turn into a black hole.

Why couldn't naquadah be special? I'm not being very clear, but my point is that it could work on a whole different level to normal atoms and it could be that all these are different properties, rather than different isotopes or elements.
The more properties (read: abilities) it has, the less likely it's the same thing. Besides, because heavy elements are abundant on these worlds, you'd expect that there's talk about more than just one element.

It could be an isotope of Naquadah, or it could be a compound of naquadah. Naquadria is obviously an isotope of naquadah. liquid naquadah i don't know much about.
What did I just tell you about the isotopes? Naquada hydride is a useful compound, but only if naquada is an alkali and not transition. Besides, as an alkali it'd already be a liquid. You could try to dissolve transition naquada or a compound in a liquid to make it acidic. Due to the huge oxidation states, it'd be a damned powerful acid which, I guess, could be used in a storage battery. I've never heard of it treated as an acid though.

If naquadria is an isotope of naquada, it'd have to be lighter than naquada. Why don't you just reference my essay?

Now inert/weapons grade naqudah. I think inert naquadah may be a compound, whilst wgn is highly purified naquadah. ever heard of weapons grade uranium? i'm not really sure what it is, but i think it could be purified uranium.
They already said it was a compound, of quartzite. It has to be an intermetallic in order to avoid compromising the density and hardness. Weapons grade uranium is the lighter isotope of the common element.

But it also blows up quite easily when energy builds up in it's capacitators.
its capacitors

Heat cannot break up the strong chemical bonds between the naquadah and the other element/s in the compound (inert naquadah), but pure energy can for some reason-can't think of one. So therefore energy as the gate puts out can cause the gate to go boom.
The highest melting points are at the bottom transitions because of their tiny orbital radii. Yes, the energy makes the naquada go radioactive and explode.

PTeppic
Could one or both of these be allotropes, rather than isotopes of "normal" naquadah?
Allotropes of metals, that's new to me. The toughest naquada then has to be sp3, or diamond-like naquada. Because Group 8 has a valence of 4, like carbon, but without any negative valences it can't bond that way. A naquada carbide or nitride may do it. Can you think of a reason why those elements would naturally associate, and is there room for the quartzite? Carbides are artificial, at least here. There wasn't enough pure carbon to mix with molten metals because it had readily oxidised. But, hmm, a nitrogen plasma atmosphere surrounding a lot of molten naquada under pressure would help. I guess the supernova shot a bunch of hot naquada through an ammonia cloud? These explanations get odder though. I've never heard of an allotrope that was a liquid. The sp2 material would just be a powdery lubricant. You need larger orbitals.