Talk:Stargate (device)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Why should this be a separate article when it is entirely of the Stargate universe and indeed is where the Stargate universe and premise stems from? Unlike anything else, the Stargate and the Stargate universe are inextricably linked. And don't talk about linking, because its easy to link like Stargate#Stargate deviceIt doesn't look like you have incorporated any of the edits I made, which indicates that this is just a blind reversion without much consideration? - Centrx 05:50, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it was just a blind reversion. I'll reincorporate changes now, sorry about that. As for why I think it's important to keep them separate, even though these two things are closely linked they are still two different things. One is a fictional universe, the other is a fictional device. Bryan 06:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia, "different things" do not get different articles just because they are different. Each article must stand large on its own, which is not possible for fictional objects and phenomena that are entirely depend and entirely within the context of a particular universe, the peculiarities of which must be explained in the articles in order to present an encyclopedic article. So, with different articles for these "different things", the case necessarily is that there is a tremendous redundancy or that the article is not encyclopedic. and when the articles on one of those "different things" must make extensive reference to other "different thing", they should be merged, creating a cohesive whole without redundancy. A fictional device in a fictional universe, the properties of which are not even consistent across the literature of that universe, deserves a separate article least of all. With real objects, you do not have the problem of there being manifest inconsistency that invalidates the aggregation of information on the fictional object into a single article. In order to be accurate, this article cannot do anything but qualify its statements with the context ("the film", "Stargate SG-1", "Stargate Atlantis"), in which case the information belongs in the respectives articles of those works. It is also not appropriate to ignore the properties present in less popular works like the books, which from my reading of these articles it seems considerably vary from each other and from the film and series. - Centrx 21:32, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not following. In what way are the articles Stargate and Stargate (device) redundant as they currently stand? What information is repeated in one that also belongs in the other? Should the warp coil and photon torpedo articles be merged into the article Star Trek, since those devices have been used far more inconsitantly than the Stargate has? You seem to be suggesting that all articles about fictional things that cross series boundaries should be merged into those series' articles, which _would_ be redundant (in addition to being hopelessly unweidly). Bryan 01:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the article is not currently substantially redundant because it is incomplete. It is not currently appropriate for inclusion in a formal encyclopedia. As for warp coil and photon torpedo, in the Star Trek universe their properties really don't have bearing on the story. This is the reason they are referenced far more inconsistently in the stories. It simply doesn't matter what their specific properties are. In the context of the story they are nothing more than "engine" and "missile" or "torpedo". In the photon torpedo article, it refers to quantum torpedoes used on DS9 and plasma torpedoes used by the Romulans; these "different" torpedoes are rather identical in the context of the story. Having different articles for each of these "different" torpedoes would be pointless. The Stargate is different in this respect, its peculiarities often have a substantial--and rather consistent--effect on the story. Wikipedia is not the place for everything. If you like, go to www.everything2.com and see where that has gotten them, you may like it. This is an encyclopedia, which should (not, see below comment) include a delineation of the plots and peculiarities of every fiction, which is what you have with articles that must reference the specific series or episode for every statement in the article. - Centrx 01:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see several such attributions in the current article. If you think there need to be more, then by all means go ahead and attribute more. I can't see how you can call quantum torpedos and plasma torpedos "rather identical" while thinking the differences in Stargate behavior between series is so drastic you want to treat them as entirely separate entities, though. Compared to photon torpedos Stargates are marvels of consistency (and I note, BTW, that there is indeed a separate article for plasma torpedoes - which do not behave similarly to photon torpedos at all). Bryan 02:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, typo, I meant it should not include a delineation of the plots and peculiarites of every fiction. I meant the following: when it is necessary to reference specific series or episodes for statements in the article because the statements would not be true of the whole fictional universe and are specific to that series or episode, or conflict with events in other episodes or series, then you have a situation where you are associating different things as the same thing. Indeed, you are doing the opposite of what you assert above: you are closely linking two different things (note that this does not invalidate my above argument about putting "different things" in the same article, because in this case we are talking about different, conflicting, things. The respective properties cannot both be true of the same object, which is different from a case where you merely have unique things that do not purport to be the same thing, and are consistent with each other. We are not going to create the ridiculous situation of creating different articles like "photon torpedo in TNG ep. 5" and "photon torpedo Voyager ep. 9". A separate article on the Stargate that describes the common qualities of all Stargates in the Stargate fictional universe would only be a stub with a couple lines which would clearly belong in the general article about the universe. Indeed, most of what can be said about the common Stargate already is in the general article Stargate. As I haven't read the books, it might even be reducible to a single line or just a statement of it being a "wormhole". As it stands, most of what is said in the current article cannot be said about the film or--I don't know--the books or the cartoon series, and the story of it may change again or further in the upcoming Stargate Atlantis. In fact, based on the story of the new series, it will probably change significantly, expanding the scope and invalidating what has been stated in the SG-1 series.

As for quantum and plasma torpedoes, they are rather identical in terms of the story. These are not real things; they only have an "existence", and a justification for being here, in the context of the story. Their minor technical properties do not have an effect on the story. In some cases where minor technical properties are referenced, they are not consistent with references in other episodes or series. In other words, as far as technical properties goes, the episodes are referencing different things. As far as that goes, the only apparent difference with the plasma torpedo mentioned in the article is that their guidance systems don't work well, and that difference only means it is "dumb missiles" and "guided missiles". Anyway, I don't recall the photon torpedoes following their targets anyway. Many different races in Star Trek have different weapons, but it is not appropriate to have a dozen different articles for them all. In the context of the fictional universe, they are merely "torpedoes" with the same qualities. Using minor technical details that are referenced often makes weapons of the same race and name as different as weapons of different races.

These things belong in the articles about the series or film. In the real world, their properties were written by different people with different ideas who were loose with continuity. As for the Stargate film, it is simply false to assert that the Stargate of that film has properties which were never mentioned in the film. In the story, they do not exist. - Centrx 21:02, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A heck of a lot of verbiage is being exchanged about this without it being very productive, IMO. I'll summarize my position on the matter:

• Wikipedia has tons of articles about fictional things that exist only within fictional universes, most of which are perfectly capable of being written in an encyclopedic manner. Check out Archive of fictional things for thousands of examples. You're swimming against a lot of Wikipedia cultural inertia in this case and I think you're wrong to be doing so.
• Plasma torpedos are so different than photon torpedos in story terms. I suspect you don't remember the TOS episode Balance of Terror very well. Rather than go into detail here, though, I'm going to go expand those articles a bit by putting the details there.
• Could you explicitly list what characteristics of the Stargate you think changed from the movie to the SG-1 series? The only ones I'm aware of are the ones listed already at Stargate, and they're all trivial. I'm not familiar with any of the books or Stargate Infinity, but those sources are all non-canon anyway.

Bryan 06:47, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I rather agree that this isn't so productive. However, I do think it is counter-productive to do things wrongly so I consider preventing that productive. More significantly, this discussion has tremendous scope that makes it more productive than it seems you think. As you say, Wikipedia has tons of articles on fictional things, so this discussion has a great pertinence, and I do think it is a problem that there are so many fictional articles that aren't truly fit encyclopedic propriety.

As for the plasma torpedoes, yes, they do have an effect on the story in that episode. But that shows my point. It has that effect in that episode, but the properties of plasma torpedoes are not consistent across episodes and series. While it may have that property in that episode, it does not elsewhere. This is especially true because it seems that that was a relative property. There's nothing to say that, for instance, the Federation torpedoes improved considerably and inconsistently in other episodes or series, or that the type of torpedo the Enterprise had is simply not the same type as is used elsewhere. So, you cannot write a consistent article about the single self-consistent thing "plasma torpedo". The information is appropriately in the article about the episode where it had an effect on the story.

As for Stargate, I'm not saying so much that SG-1 is substantially inconsistent with the film, but that SG-1 introduces new things that simply were not in the film, and it cannot be said that those new things are a property of the fictional universe in the film or are a feature of the story envisioned by the film's creators. The non-canonism of the cartoon series and the books sort of proves the point. They have a different universe, yet they do take place in something you could accurately call "Stargate fictional universe". Are we to have different articles for these different universes, and if so, why would it not be more appropriate to put the information in the articles about the series and the films and the books, where I think it belongs? Indeed, I would bet that many of the books are consistent with other books, and you would have a "Stargate universe" that is consistent across multiple pieces of literature, yet inconsistent with the supposedly canonical Stargate universe. - Centrx 20:14, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you'd like to change the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia as a whole, this article is probably not the best place to do it; I'd suggest browsing around Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and related articles looking for an appropriate talk page, or possibly starting a section about it on Wikipedia:Village pump. As for plasma torpedo inconsistency, as far as I'm aware Balance of Terror is the only episode that they've ever appeared in so I don't see how it's even possible. Where else have they been used? And finally, I do not consider revealing previously-unknown information about the Stargate to be a change from the film to the series; it's only a change if it actually contradicts something that was previously known to be otherwise. If there's significant information about the Stargate from a non-canon source such as Infinity I'd suggest including it in the Stargate's article either making sure the source of the information is well-referenced (if it's just a few tidbits) or as a separate section titled something like "The Stargate in Stargate Infinity" (if there are huge amounts of detail). An example of an existing article presenting both canon and non-canon information about a fictional object in a multi-series setting is Coruscant. Bryan 00:19, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't expect much to change in either of our arguments at this point, so if you still feel strongly that this article should be merged into the universe articles I'm going to have to ask that we get some other editors involved to establish a consensus on the issue - possibly at one of the policy pages, since you are proposing a widescale change to Wikipedia policy beyond this one particular article. Bryan 00:19, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

as far as I'm aware Balance of Terror is the only episode that they've ever appeared in so I don't see how it's even possible

I am certain it has been in several other episodes and series, although properties of it may not have been explicitly stated. This is my point though. If it has only ever appeared in that one episode, than it cannot properly be called an object of the Star Trek universe and so only belongs on the article about that episode, not a separate one. If it has appeared in other episodes where its only distinction was as the "green torpedo from the Romulan ship", then at the very most it belongs in an article about "Romulans" in general, not in a separate article to itself.

An object that appears in only one episode isn't part of the universe as a whole? I find that a strange approach. In any event, please provide actual episode titles where plasma torps were used subsequent to Balance of Terror if you want to point out specific inconsistencies. There's no point in discussing this further without some actual facts to base the discussion on. Bryan 23:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

TNG: The Defector and TNG: The Pegasus both have plasma torpedoes. I'm sure there are several others, and if there are not in the 5 series, 10 movies, and myriad books, then the object doesn't warrant an article about it anyway. They are also used in the many Star Trek games, which have examples where other races (The Gorn in Starfleet Command, for instance) have plasma torpedoes. Note here, for instance, that in these games they have certain properties, like damage effects and speeds, and that those properties are inconsistent across the games. Are you thinking that these properties should be listed in an article on plasma torpedoes, because they have no relevance to any of the series or movies--those properties are not in the universe of them. I will have to view some episodes and observe closely in order to have a precise example of plasma torpedo inconsistency, but I find it highly unlikely there there would be any consistency across 600 episodes and 10 movies, in Star Trek of all places, which has some of the most inconsistency of any "fictional universe".

For instance, at the beginning of the TNG series, the Ferengi were an absolute, almost swine-like evil that trapped the crew and used energy whips and had none of the qualities of the traders and the clever plotters that they were later in the series and in DS9. I also know for a fact that the games are not consistent with each other regarding plasma torpedoes and other weapons. Another is how the computer of Voyager, which was during some of the same years as the Enterprise (stardate), has 75 trillion times (VOY: Drone, 47 billion teraquads) the capacity of the Enterprise-D, which is the largest mobile computer known to exist by the Federation, (TNG: 11001001). Voyager is also ridiculously capable at evading and destroying Borg ships. It is a single, smaller vessel far from home and yet it easily handles the Borg. At the beginning of Voyager it's established that they have a limited supply of photon torpedoes and shuttles and must conserve them, yet they considerably exceed this limit and used many times the number of shuttles in the ship's complement. I could go on forever about the inconsistencies in Voyager, there is even one I know of within the same episode. Others: In TOS: Metamorphosis, the universal translator translates by detecting brain waves, yet in TNG and in the canonic TNG Technical Manual, it translates by analyzing spoken communication, so it has somehow become less sophisticated? Nevertheless, it's not the same device. There are numerous times, in TOS, TNG, and DS9 where it is explicitly stated that there is high risk in going to warp in a solar system, yet there are numerous times, at least in TNG, where the Enterprise goes to warp from right above a planet, as in TNG: 11001001. The Trill in TNG are all-dominating (which makes it absurd why a humanoid would consent to the combining) yet in DS9 it is a mutual, symbiotic combination. There are others that are more related to production, like the Klingon forehead change after TOS, and the fact that all the ships meet head on at the same orientation. There are others that are more related to the timeline of history. The history of the Federation and Earth is significantly different in TOS than in the later series', aside from the fact that, for instance, there were no Eugenics Wars in 1996. I will not go into Enterprise because it is absurdly inconsistent with the rest of Star Trek, for instance the Romulans have warp drive a century before they do elsewhere (like in Balance of Terror where they don't). However, the common explanation for this, that there is a lot of time travel in the series which messes up timelines is a disproving of the idea that these objects should have their own articles: the very universe is different and there cannot be said to be a single "Star Trek universe" here. This is also a reason why other explanations, like the Q Continuum messing around with things, are insufficient.

As for the "plasma torpedo", in looking these things up, it looks like there was no reference to a plasma torpedo in Balance of Terror, but rather a "plasma weapon", and this plasma weapon does not even look anything like the plasma torpedoes that the Romulans use in later series' and movies. If these weapons look different and have different names, and indeed over the course of technology being improved and considerably modified, how can this data be agglomerated in the same article and under the same title. In Reality, we don't usually have the latter problem, for instance, because when things become significantly different they have new names, and general terms, like "pistol" are well-defined. In this comparison, all the torpedoes of Star Trek are more like "pistols", and upgrades over the course of centuries are more like different models, which have different names in Reality, but which do not get new names in the Star Trek universe, even though it is over the course of 3-4 centuries. We don't call our rifles "muskets", because they're different things just like the objects of fiction. - Centrx 03:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: Stargate the film:

It may not strictly be a "change", but nevertheless it is simply not a true statement that "X is a facet of the fictional universe of the film Stargate" if it was not at all a part of the film or its creation. So, information in a general "Stargate universe" article that was not in the film must be prefaced with something indicating that it is from the SG-1 series or whatever. Doing so is a must, because the series and the films are the only concrete things where there is a true source. Compiling a universe from the facts of each episode and disregarding certain ones in the interest of congruity is original research and does not belong on the Wikipedia. Distinguishing between what is and is not canon is subjective, and in the case of the Stargate, exclusive. All of the information in the article currently is from Stargate SG-1. That is the fictional universe this article is about, and it cannot be accurately said that the information in it is true of the film, the other series', or the books. - Centrx 21:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is hardly "original research," the creators of Stargate themselves have declared SG-1 to be canon and Infinity to be non-canon. Furthermore, which facts are being "disregarded" in the interest of congruity? If there are inconsistent facts then they should all be presented, with notes indicating their origin and how they're inconsistent. See the list of retcons between movie and SG-1 on the main Stargate page for example. Anyway, until you present some actual examples of these inconsistencies or disregarded facts that you're complaining about (and note that I do not count facts that are consistent with previously-established ones but which were merely not mentioned or known before to be "inconsistencies") I think I'm done with this branch of the conversation too. Bryan 23:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First of all, what do you mean by the "creators of Stargate themselves". The writers and producers of the film, who according to IMDB have never been directed or written for Stargate SG-1 and who aren't even credited as creators in the series' credits? Or do you mean the creators of the TV series, which doesn't really mean much. It's easy for someone to say that the series they made themselves is what's canon. No matter, though, this is an objective encyclopedia and just because they created it doesn't mean they are the ultimate arbiters of the facts of things in the world. It also doesn't change the fact that statements of things in the so-called "Stargate universe" are false statements when regarding the film. It has it's own story, and it should be accurately represented. It also doesn't mean that the collection of factoids in various episodes is not original research. It means we can accurately say that the creators of ... have said this (which would be a stupid thing to add if it's just the Stargate SG-1 creators saying it), but the statements in the article are still rather ad hoc. It is original research to say that "X is true of the film" when it was only stated in the series and there was nothing about it in the film. Disregarding the main point I have been making, why should this not at least be included in the article on Stargate SG-1 when this is the canon the article is about and the other things are not--they would be different and not of the canonical Stargate SG-1 universe (note it is not the "Stargate universe"). At least, why not change this article to say that it is in the context of "the fictional universe of the television series Stargate SG-1" and some other things? If something is not mentioned in the film, it cannot be said that it occurred in the film or is a feature of the universe of the film. It is, if not original research, false, as it is information invented by the creators or writers of Stargate SG-1, and no more valid than an invention by the creators of the cartoon series, or even by myself: for instance, there are numerous fanmade Star Trek episodes all over the place. - Centrx 03:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're still not listing any specific instances of these inconsistencies that you're complaining are being glossed over, as I requested above. I'm done with this conversation, IMO it's a waste of time at this point. We obviously have very different philosophies about this subject and if you want to dramatically reorganize these articles I'll want to see some sort of widespread consensus developed before going along with it. Bryan 05:36, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are three inconsistencies right in the article Stargate, and you have not addressed the fact that it is false or original research to make statements about the "Stargate fictional universe", of which the film is supposedly an instance (if it is not, then saying "Stargate SG-1 fictional universe" is better instead), which are not demonstrably true in the film. Also, I would like to know why the universe of Stargate SG-1 is so definitively canon yet Stargate Infinity, the books, and especially the film, are not. Also, if Stargate SG-1 is the canon from which these articles should work and the statements of the articles are not true and accurate statements about the other Stargate products, then why shouldn't these articles refer to the "universe of Stargate SG-1" rather than the "universe of Stargate", which is only pertinent to the film (Stargate) if anything. I will soon begin edit the articles to ensure that they indicate an accurate context and do not make false statements. - Centrx 05:59, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've already addressed the ones listed on the Stargate page. I consider them trivial, but if you think they're significant I'll add mention of them to this page. As for the canonicity of the various series, I'd suggest taking that to Talk:Stargate. It's an issue of much greater scope than this article addresses. Bryan 06:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

To answer the original question, Stargate (device) deserves its own page because there is enough to say about the device, and the Stargate page has other things to talk about, introducing the universe as a whole. I'm not crazy about the word 'universe' in this context, but it's a common usage and I don't have a better idea.

Since there are almost 200 hours of TV and only 2 hours of film, the information about the Stargate universe necessarily comes mostly from the TV. The film is canon, though of a lesser degree than SG-1. Canonicity is ultimately a legal matter: the owners of the film and TV get to say what writers must accept as established fact for the show. They authorized the people who made SG-1 to reuse the setting and characters -- and to make various changes. As I understand it, Emmerich and Devlin weren't happy about this but MGM made the decision and they haven't tried to fight it.

All this stuff was at Foo(Stargate-SG-1), but with a new TV series about to start, Bryan and others realized that it needed to be reorganized. Given the names, the choice of 'Stargate' for the overall name was obvious. The differences between the film and the TV deserve to be noted. There's a section on the base page -- if you've got more inconsistencies, add them. And Talk:Stargate is the place to discuss this further.
--wwoods 09:41, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Halla

The reference to Halla is wrong. In fifth Race Jack travelled not to Halla but the planet Othala in the galaxy of Ida.

Fixed. Bryan 15:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

capitalization

Is it proper for the word "Stargate" to be capitalized in every instance? If so, the reason for such should be explained in the article, as it doesn't seem like anything but an ordinary noun. If not, all instances should be changed to lowercase. -- Seth Ilys 02:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it should be. It's not a proper noun except when you're referring to the show, or Stargate Command. --Barry 13:31, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Number of possible local addresses

From the article:

Six establish the coordinates of the destination and the seventh is always set to a symbol representing the Stargate's current location. This gives 3518743761 possible 'local' destinations.

This is simply 39⁶, which I believe may be oversimplified. Is the "origin" symbol ever used in Stargate destination coordinates? If not, then it's only 38⁶. Also, are symbols ever repeated in valid destination coordinates? Daniel's description of how the coordinate system works in the movie suggests to me that repeating a symbol might result in an invalid destination, but since Daniel's description also strikes me as likely to be incorrect (at least to some degree) I wouldn't rely on it. Does anyone know of a site listing known valid coordinates from the show? In any event, I think it's best to add a note here that there are probably more constraints on coordinates than this would otherwise imply. Bryan 01:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

http://www.rdanderson.com/stargate/glyphs/glyphs.htm

No repeats within an address that I see, so we should probably say (38 choose 6) [=2,760,681?] potentially valid ordinary addresses. Each gate has to have its own home glyph, so they're customized to at least that extent. I also recall some mention there are other sets of address glyphs on other gates, but I don't remember the source. Three million gates isn't really that many, for a galaxy with 300 billion stars.

--wwoods 01:37, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know I've never seen the origin symbol being dialed from Earth as part of an address, and I don't see how you could double-dial a symbol. DHDs have that whole light up thing as you enter addresses, and I don't think I've ever seen them hit a lit button. Oh, and get 1,987,690,320 possibly gate addresses with 38 symbols in permutations of six. 38! / (38-6)! I'm imagining that the same symbols in different order is a different address. (Combination vs Permutation) --Barry 13:31, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Just got canon confirmation. In the 7th season episode "Avenger 2.0", several scientists are discussion the possibility of random-dialling a gate until they get a lock on something and one of them said "seven symbols chosen from a pool of 38 non-repeating candidates, that's about 63 billion possible combinations." In this case the seventh symbol also needs to be guessed randomly because a computer virus has randomly shuffled the "meaning" of the various symbols, including the origin symbol. In any event we now have a solid number to work from. :) Bryan 07:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alrighty, here's the math. 38 addressing symbols, 1 origin, dialing 6 symbols: 1,987,690,320. So almost 2 billion combinations in our galaxy alone. Add a 7th (like figuring out origin, or dialing out-of-galaxy) and there are 63,606,090,240 combinations. There's the answer according to canon. Excellent find Bryan. --GaidinBDJ 16:37, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Damn, I should have thought about this earlier. It would be impossible to produce valid coordinates with repeated addresses. Think about it. If you enter the same coordinate, two of the "lines" would share an origin point, which would me they'd have to diverge unless they shared a same endpoint. They'd never meet. --GaidinBDJ 16:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I figured as much too, but I've always been kind of hoping Jackson's theory about how Stargate addresses worked would turn out to be bogus. It seems so hopelessly inelegant. :) Bryan 15:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another question relating to origin symbols. How do they know the origin symbol when they're dialing home, or do they even dial it. I've never seen them stop to compare. Maybe the DHD automatically adds it?--Barry 13:31, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

IIRC in the episode "Solitude", when Sam and Jack are stranded in the Antarctic after having come back through the backup stargate, Sam examines the DHD and says something along the lines of "we've never seen this symbol before so it must be the origin." This suggests to me that the origin symbol is unique to each planet, whereas the other symbols are more common. Bryan 17:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, unique to each gate. --GaidinBDJ 16:37, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Erm, well, back on the original topic, the way I see it, it's like this:

There are two billion possible combinations of symbols possible (for the Milky Way) (permutations, namely 38!/32!, I think). BUT only two million of them (38 choose 6) are correct adresses which can be dialed by a gate. There are (correct me if I'm wrong) 6! or 720 arrangements for each group of six symbols, but the gate will accept only one. And even fewer are actually planets, as Daniel implied in front of the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee ("there are hundreds, if not thousands of unexplored gate adresses"). Please note the absense of "millions". LD 23 September, 2005

Sightseeing in transit

Bryan: "I don't recall any evidence to suggest the characters don't see" themselves "hurtling down a twisty green tube of mist." Well, except that they're supposed to be dematerialized, which you'd think would put them in poor condition to see much of anything. :-) But there was that episode of ST:TNG when Ensign Barkley was conscious while beaming, so who knows. —wwoods 18:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as I recall nobody has ever made any reference to seeing anything while in transit. Might just be a transition, like a fade or wipe. --GaidinBDJ 19:32, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand characters have made reference to it being "quite a ride" and first-time wormhole travellers have sometimes shown disorientation and vertigo on arrival (pure speculation: perhaps the Stargates generate that imagery for the traveller while he's dematerializing/rematerializing as a way of displaying information to him about how the trip went). While this certainly isn't proof that what we see on the screen is the same as what they see in transit, the categorical statement "but that is a visual effect for the audience which the travelers do not see" is IMO completely unwarranted. Bryan 01:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

dialing

i have a question about the DHDs dialing...i am always curious on how does the SGC teams know what to dial for earth?? since the symbols (i presume that its the constellations of that place) are different....thx! 70.70.209.80 17:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The gate locates constallations by actual location, not perceived location from the planet. So the address of Earth will always been the same (as well as the address of any other gate). The only glyph they ever need to change is the point of origin, which will be the only different glyph on the DHD and gate. If you need further clarification, feel free to contact me. --GaidinBDJ 03:42, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

But constellations have no location, since they're just projections of groups of stars on the celestial sphere. Planets far from Earth will have entirely different constellations, which scotchs the idea that the glyphs are stylized constellations--but I don't think SG-1 ever tried to justify that notion anyway. On several occasions they used the telephone analogy instead.

—wwoods 08:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

(Wikipedia contains spoilers) There's the strong possibility that the Ancients originally came from Earth, in which case they could have come up with some sort of universal coordinate system using reference points that they labelled based on constellations in Earth's sky and then went ahead and used those same glyphs to represent those reference points everywhere else even though they no longer fell in constellations that looked that way from those locations. There's also the strong possibility that when this scheme was come up with for the original Stargate movie the script writers just didn't think it through very carefully. :) Bryan 00:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

That is just so wrong... (about the Ancients, I mean). Anyway the constellations change over long periods of time too. Whether by luck or knowledge, the movie script writers did get the right number of coordinates: three of space + three of velocity + one of time, or some equivalent combination.

—wwoods 03:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure, but i may be possible that just a hand full of the sysmols are earth viewable constalations. some of the symbols might represent the brightest or bigest star in the consatation.

There is not velocity, there is no time. The glyphs are a 1:1 correlation with specific constellations (and yes, most likely the brightest star). Of course, the correlation with constellations from Earth could be coincidental. But anyways, all six are actual locations. Think about it this way. Lets say I created a symbol for all the restaraunts in your town. I could locate points by drawing lines between two pairs of restaraunts. And if you made each restaraunt represented by a symbol, you could encode with those symbols. The reason the stargate has 6 is because it needs three lines, not just two, to locate in 3D. The 7th is not actually part of the address.--GaidinBDJ 18:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

But constellations aren't locations--they're large chunks of solid angle with the vertex at the Solar System.

And two lines are enough to define a point in three or more dimensions--if they intersect at all, which is highly unlikely.

—wwoods 22:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Like it or not, this is exactly how the coordinate system has been described to work in the show itself - it was a key discovery that Daniel made in the movie, for example, he drew a version of Image:StargateCoordinates.png on a chalkboard. Perhaps the gates have a mechanism for fudging when the lines don't quite overlap. Where does the "three space, three velocity, one time" system you describe above come from? I don't recall hearing anything like it mentioned on any of the shows. Bryan 23:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I know, I know. And it makes a good scene, when Daniel makes the connection between the gate symbols and the astrology column in the airman's newspaper. But while Daniel is a brilliant archeologist, maybe his expertise in interstellar navigation doesn't extend as far as he thinks it does.

That's not from the show. Seven is the minimum number of independent bits of information you need to describe the motion of a body--either laid out in nice orthogonal coordinates like that or some equivalent combination thereof, e.g. the seven orbital elements. As I said, by luck or knowledge, they picked the right number.

—wwoods 05:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Right. It's not from the show. And yes there are 7 Keplerian orbital element. However there are two problems. First, in order to describe the motion you actually need two more elements. The masses of the two bodies, so that can't possibly have anything to do with Stargate motion. Second, that only works to describe bodies in orbit. Wormholes can be established to gates on spaceships, and even gates that have been moved.

As far as the constellations go, they are locations. Look up, look at Orion. Those stars are in a specific place. Yes, the apparent position would change, but those stars are in a particular place. The reason the correlate to constallations as they appear from Earth is that the Ancients are from Earth. Each glyph on the gate correlates with (probably) the primary, or largest, or brighest, star in each constellation. I did mistype earlier. You don't need three lines to note a particular location, but with 3 lines (and if you added more) you could target more and more locations.

(Bryan, I figure there's a 'sphere of influence' that each dominant gate in a particular area 'extudes'. As long as the coordinates are within that sphere, the gate can pick it up. That's why over a few million years of drift, it was all borked, but it doesn't get thrown off by orbiting around the star or being taken a short distance on a ship.) --GaidinBDJ 18:42, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

This has always bugged me. In the movie, Daniel had to establish the address for Earth. In the SG-1 pilot, Daniel had to establish the address for Earth. But ever since then, it's been ignored. Lord Bodak 14:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You only have to compute the address once. It's an absolute location (well, aside from drift). The reason the glyphs correspond to Earth constellations is because the Ancients originated on Earth. A lot of the stuff from the first movie wasretconned especially when it came to gate mechanics. --GaidinBDJ 14:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it's an obvious retcon. I just think it was poorly handled. They should've left it at "we figured out the address for Earth when we were on Abydos, now we don't have to do it again." Lord Bodak 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, now that we know that the Ancients aren't from Earth, now what? Of course, we could just say that they set up Earth as their new homeworld. And has anyone thought of this:

The symbols represent object or points outside the galaxy that appears to be in that constellation in Earth's night sky. After all, brightness of stars is entirely contingent on one's distance to them, but this might make more sense. It would explain why (essentially) every galaxy with Stargates requires a unique set of symbols. LD 11 September 2005.

matter buffering

one thing that realy bothers me is that in an episode, of altantis there got stuck in a stargate and could not travel through untill the whole puddle jumper went in. BUT in a prior episode of stargate SG1 t'lc fired a grappling hook thing into the event horrizon and i stuck to the ground on the other side before he travled through. i'd rather think the the gates dont wait for whole object. if so why would if decide that the puddle jumper is an object and the people (and other stuff) isn't. i don't think atlantis thought it through.

Or maybe it was SG-1 that didn't think it through. Since Stargate wormholes are strictly one-way for physical objects, how could Teal'c apply tension to a rope that's already emerged from the other side? We've also had plenty of instances where people have stuck extremities into an outgoing wormhole and then pulled them back without going all the way through, which wouldn't be possible if the extremity was already transmitted and sticking out through the other event horizon. Finally, it's been established that Stargates buffer incoming matter (when Teal'c got trapped "in transit" and they needed a DHD to get him out), and that establishing an outgoing wormhole will clear that buffer. That suggests to me that they buffer the outgoing matter too. Bryan 01:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

If I was riding in a puddlejumper, possibly to a gate in orbit, I'd just as soon the gate didn't decide to send me on ahead, and send the craft later, after it was all the way into the gate!

As for Teal'c climbing through the wormhole, I forgave it because that was a good episode, unlike say, "Red Sky". What Teal'c needed was something like a giant umbrella frame, spring-loaded so as soon as it came through the gate, it would expand and brace itself on the rock or the gate, so that Teal'c would have something to hang on to above the gate. (Actually, what they should have done was get a cannon and fire bunch of shells through the gate!)

—wwoods 03:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

safety features

Stargates have some built-in safety functions as well. ... also on several occasions a wormhole has been opened between a Stargate on Earth's surface and a Stargate under the surface of an alien world's ocean and the water was prevented from flowing freely through it.

Isn't this more of a side-effect of the one-way nature of stargates than a safety feature?

Playstationman 09:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the one-way nature of stargates is a safety feature.

—wwoods 17:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I remember an episode where they went to a Stargate under an ocean. They were able to open up a wormhole from either side. But the water didn't come through, except for the samples that they'd brought back with them. The Stargate apparently keeps liquids from going through, unless they are enclosed in a solid. Perhaps the side-effect is the cold that they experience(d), at least in the movie. Val42 18:45, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Funnel Effect?

Someone has created an article Funnel Effect to describe the phenomenon described in this article as a "kawhoosh". If that terminology is canon, then it should probably be linked from this article (or better, merged in here). If it's not, then the article should be nominated for deletion. I'll leave the matter to the experts on this page. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

O'Neill says "kawhoosh", Carter and Daniel both called a "vortex.". Never heard "Funnel Effect" before. --GaidinBDJ 13:10, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)