Talk:Stargate (device)/Archive 2

Below is an archive of discussions from Jun 2005 till March 2006.

Astriaporta

The article says that the Ancient name for the stargate was astriaporta (or astria porta, if you prefer). But the dialog in "Avalon, Part 2" indicates that this is plural:

DANIEL
It says that the Altairans named their new home "Avalon," and that they built many astriaporta.

MITCHELL
Stargates?

DANIEL
Yes.

The singular of astriaporta in Latin would be *astriaportum (asterisked because it's not been directly attested). Should this be put in the article? WayneC 23:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Technically it should be "astria porta", not "astriaporta", as in latin "astria" means stars and "porta" means gates... literally, "star gates"; thus, it is Star gates, as Colonel Mitchell suggests. Keep in mind, however, that Latin and Ancient/Alteran are still different languages; Latin is (supposedly) based on Alteran, thus there will be differences in what a singular "astria porta" would be... until it is stated in the show, we cannot say otherwise; the singular for "astria porta" has not yet been defined. David P. a. Hunter 01:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC).

Inconsistencies

In the SG-1 pilot, wormholes seem to be ingoing and outgoing. The fact that Apophis is able to take soldiers from SGC and get back to his own planet without using a DHD is testament to this fact. Should this, perhapes, be mentioned in the parent article?

Ehem who keeps removing the fact that in the Torment of Tanatlus the planet's gate cannot be successfully redialled after it's DHD has been destroyed and the team makes it back to Earth but there is no proof the gate it's self is destroyed? I am sure that is the episode with the libary of knowledge that Daniel doesn't want to leave because it has all sorts of valuable information but the team has to go before the entire area collaspses. This is clearly valuable information about the durability of the Stargates and how they can be disabled.

The simplest explanation is that the gate is was buried under a pile of rubble, in the ocean, so there's enough stuff inside the ring to prevent a wormhole from forming. (But it's odd that they never went back, after they got their hands on a ship...)

—wwoods 09:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

By then they'd already met three of the Four Great Races personally, and one of them was contributing technology for said ship. There may not have been any significant information to be gleaned from the wreckage of the meeting hall that they didn't already know by then, so perhaps it was an untelevised excursion that one of the non-SG-1 teams nobody cares about went on. :) Bryan 17:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

They've had that remarkably capable "cargo ship" since Season 4. Or was it Selmak's ship, till Season 5 ("Fail Safe")?

—wwoods 22:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, in the SG-1 episode "Avenger 2.0", a virus is created that scrambles the DHD symbol lookup table. Earths Stargate is unaffected by Baal's modification due to the fact that it doesn't have a DHD. Another Stargate that doesn't have a DHD is the one from the episode "Prisoners", where SG-1 is able to to dial home manually without a DHD. The fact that this can be done suggests that all the Stargates that ceased to work in "Avenger 2.0" would have worked had they been dialled manually.

However, the whole manual dialing thing seems to contradict the fact that the SGCs computers have to account for stellar drift. Why does stellar drift have to be accounted for by a DHD or by SGCs computers when it doesn't have to be accounted for manually? TerraFrost 04:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about your other points, but I can answer the question in your final paragraph. Any information on gate addresses that they may have gained from the Egyptian site where the Earth stargate was found would be off by a few thousand years. The stars (and their associated gates) would have drifted significantly (enough for the stargates) in that amount of time. Before the events of the movie, they hadn't successfully dialed another stargate. (But we found out in the series that they actually had.) The stargate in the movie apparently hadn't drifted enough to not be dialable once its address was known.

Early on in the series, it was revealed that they had actually successfully dialed another stargate about 40 years earlier. A man had been sent through, but had never returned. The project had then been "shelved" until the movie. Since in the movie, they were able to figure out how to get back to Earth from a remote stargate, they decided to try this earlier address. There was a three-dimensional map at this location that they were able to take pictures of and were thereby able to figure out the need for stellar drift calculations. But this stargate had already lost its DHD and power supply because it was on a cliff that was severely undercut by ocean waves. They had to use lightning to power up the stargate and dial it manually. They got back, with the man who had originally gone through the stargate just before it fell in to the ocean.

As long as the stargates have been around, the DHDs have to take in to account the stellar drift. To use ancient gate addresses, the SGC computer has to account for stellar drift too. But if you have a dialing sequence that has already been corrected for stellar drift, you can dial it manually, assuming that the gate is powered.

The SGC has lists of known good gate addresses (been there), known bad addresses (don't go there again), known unresponsive addresses and ancient addresses yet to dial. They also dial random addresses that are not on any lists and previously unresponsive addresses to see if any respond. Val42 04:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

TerraFrost's inconsistancy explained: Apophis arrives, gate connection shuts down. Gun battle in the gate room. Apophis dials out manually (you don't see that part, but it happens).

You're assuming that the DHD itself is what keeps track of the drift. If the DHD just got the information and "reprogramed" the gate with the drift values, a recently disconnected gate would still function just fine. Remember, the Giza stargate had been disconnected from the network for a long time (buried in Giza since Apophis(?) left). Also, you need to remember that addresses aren't "codes" for a location, they are coordinates. Presumably, the DHD updates "masks" the actual address with a consistant one (like the difference between an IP address and a doman name). I type www.google.com and I get to google, no matter if their IP address changes ever month. --GaidinBDJ 23:19, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Prior use of Stargate concept

Now that Stargate actually has a group of people called Priors, the headline "Prior use of Stargate concept" could also be interpreted as "Ori-minion use of Stargate concept". Not sure if anything can or should be done about it, but it is kinda amusing. TerraFrost 03:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we can get the Stargate people to rename the Priors, since we were using the term here first. We've got dibs. :) Bryan 07:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Earlier & Other use of Stargate

I slightly rearranged these sections so that they are in chronological order. Suggest that anything before the movie be placed in the "earlier use" section and everything after the movie be placed in the "other use" section. --Evmore 07:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Operation of Stargates

This is the first time I've edited a talk page, so bear with me. In the Operation of Stargates section it says that an address is at least 7 symbols - that is wrong, an address is 6 symbols (except for cross-galaxy travel it seems, although I'm just commenting on gating to Atlantis, I havn't seen season 9 of sg-1) and the 7th symbol is the point of origin which is the same no matter where you're going to (obviously its different if your gating from a different gate) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.166.163 (talk • contribs)

Good catch, I've edited the section to correct this oversight. Thanks! If you see other glitches in the future, feel free to be bold and edit the article itself to fix them. You don't have to get things pre-approvied on talk:, it's only really needed when something's uncertain or controversial. :) Bryan 05:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Color line drawing

There was a color variant of the 'Gate at Image:Stargate-color.png but it has since disappeared. Does anyone know the new link to it? I need it for one I'm sandboxing. Chris 02:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And thus it appears. Weird. Thanks, all! :)

9th chevron

I read somewhere that the 9th chevron could be used to select which gate to activate on a multi-gate planet... but now i can't find the source... anyone else heard of this? Fosnez 08:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You hear all sorts of exotic things that the 9th chevron can do. for instance:

1. Dial even more distant galaxies.
2. Select which of multigates to go to.
3. Reach parallel universes.
4. Go to the Ascended plane.

Personally I think the 4th one there is the best idea. When DJ ascended he went through the stargate with all its chevrons active. but then ALL OF THIS IS SPECULATION. there is no official information on what the 9th chevron does, and its as simple as that. -- Alfakim --  talk  14:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

My personal theory is that it holds a spare light bulb to be used for repairs in the event that one of the other chevrons burn out. :) Bryan 16:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on the use of the use of the 8th chevron as an area code for other galaxies it seems unlikely that another area code slot would be needed.Symmetric Chaos 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the 9th Chevron would be used for different universes, who says theres just 1? If you take a 6 sysmbol gate address, with the 7th being point of origin, this means that there would be 6 sysmbols (1,2,3,4,5,6) plus point of origin(O) so if you would get (1,2,3,4,5,6,O)the numbers reprisent quardinations for which to find the planet,in a 4th dimentional Square(theoreticaly),so If you have a graph with X,Y,Z,A,B,C on it 1 would be one side of the square and the same for the rest, as there is only 39 symbols on the star gate, so the area the planet is in would be situated somewhere with in a gride, and the address being the grid refference. 8 Chevron address add a symbol to the end, being the galaxy(G) it is in ie (1,2,3,4,5,6,G,O), the 9th would have to be the universe it it is in therotically. so the first 6 numbers ( point in space the gate is located ), the 7th being the galaxy, and the 8th being the universe(U) so given that the address should look sommet like this (1,2,3,4,5,6,G,U,O). (Sunstorm99 19:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

No. Intra-universe travel is, unfortunately, the most often-seen and also worst suggestion for the 9th chevron's use. Just think about how the plots would work, not to mention the physics. The point is, the show would never go there, and is much sooner likely to go in the direction of never revealing its use because they cant think up anything good. But at least they arent as uncreative as to just suggest "maybe it goes EVEN EVEN further!!??!?!"-- Alfakim --  talk  23:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

featured article version

there's been dsicussion to try to make this article a featured one. the italian version is already a featured article, so i figured it might be an idea to look at it. here is a loosly translated version - i looked at it breifly and see plenty of stuff we could incorporate into this article.

italian stargate (device) article

if the link doesnt work, just use the link at the top of this page to go to the italian version, copy the url, and then paste it into an online free website translator (find one at google search "free website translation")

-- Alfakim --  talk  02:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hyperspatial buffer

Under 'Complexities of Stargate function' it says that matter is dematerialised the instant it enters a Stargate and is temporarily stored in the 'hyperspatial buffer'. Doesn't that mean that if someone only stuck their head in the active gate, their head would dematerialise and the brain would no longer send or recieve any electric signals so the body would just die? Also, if you put your hand in the gate blood would not be able to flow from your hand back into the body because the arteries and veins have been dematerialised so there is no pumping force coming from the heart. This means you could bleed to death by inserting both hands in the gate because the blood will pump into the gate and be dematerialised and it would be impossible to retrive it. The blood would probably be transmitted to the recieving gate alone. I think the only way to get around these problems is if dematerialisation occurs after the object has fully entered the gate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihils (talk • contribs) The movie showed Daniel Jackson still intact for a few seconds after entering the gate before he was dematerialised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihils (talk • contribs)

dont be silly. "dematerialisation occurs after the object has fully entered the gate" - there isn't actually anything to enter into other than a hyperspatial buffer. anyway, the answer to this question is: STARGATE HAS LOADS OF PLOTHOLES! there's a whole load about the way stargates work that just doesnt make sense. your points are valid, but they dont change the way the gate IS portrayed by the show and film.

One reconciliation could be that the stargate is so amazing it handles the continued functioning of partially dematerialised objects.

Ultimately, the idea that it only transfers complete objects is impossible, as, what actually is an object? how does the stargate know when a whole object has passed through? does blood count as an object? etc. just accept that stargates dont really work.-- Alfakim --  talk  22:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I can think of two plausible explanations:

1. The gate maintains a simulated environment in which the physical interactions of dematerialized portions of objects are modeled, and reconstructs any matter or energy which would pass back through the event horizon.
2. Matter is not truly dematerialized at the event horizon, but instead passes through it into some extradimensional space; only when the entire object has entered this space is it dematerialized. —Andux 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why have my edits been reverted?

Thank you very much for that, now we've lost some of the earlier stuff, AND some perfectly valid information has been removed. I mean, come on: a wormhole is still established after you put an iris on it, and I think that my rewording is more effective. I'll hold off on the unreverting the rewording, but I will repair the damage to the factual thing, for the sake of clarity. Yes, I'm 69.14.46.163, I'm too lazy to log in, so what? Lockesdonkey 04:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you deleted a large chunk of the "Earlier uses of the Stargate concept" section without giving any reason. A large unexplained deletion, especially by an anonymous user, tends to trigger anti-vandalism reflexes. Here's the diff of 69.14.46.163's edits showing the deletion: [1] Bryan 06:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to be anal or anything, (I've cooled off), but it wasn't a deletion; I edited the complexities section, then saved that, and then was in the middle of editing the earlier uses when Tawker reverted my earlier edit. So when I attempted to save my edit, it got screwed up. Lockesdonkey 03:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That diff covers only pre-Tawker versions. Regardless, though, the effect was the same. I'm just explaining what seems likely to be the reason for the reversion, I would probably have done the same under the circumstances. Bryan 06:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sybols Represent Ancient Sylabols

As pointed out in Lost City, the symbols on the gate represent sylabols, used to give a name to each planet, shouldn't this be mentioned in the symbol table? Granted we only have the sylabols for 7 of them, but more will likely be revieled later.

Merge

I think that the complexities of Stargate Function shoould be merged back into stargate deivce. We are trying to have stargate device become featured. If this article remains seprate, this will never happen. Most of the key details about the stargate are in the side article. Almost nothing links to the side article and it's in no templates. Also, in stargate device, the sections look messy in the table of contents. Merging them would solve this problem. Tobyk777 02:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The peer review turned out quite well. We should merge that article back and use the new template for citing episodes and then I will nominate the article for a FA. I think it's time. --Tone 21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Making some final tune-ups, and merging now. -- Alfakim --  talk  01:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Feature Article Submission

I'm going to submit this article to be Featured now. I think it's very complete and informative and we've got a good chance! -- Alfakim --  talk  02:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful! - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 03:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Though the nomination is not successful at the moment the comments for improvement are good. I am sure it will go through in the next selection. --Tone 15:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

making of

I added this section but it's a bit thin. Could you guys help fill it out, and, apparantly, cite? -- Alfakim --  talk  04:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus Glyphs

I am working with the creator of some really good glyph images to get him to let us use them so hopefully we wont have anymore of my nasty looking ones ;). American Patriot 1776 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• That will be good. One of the main reasons for this article's falied FAC was Gliphs for Milky way but not for the Peagasus.

The main reason I never created a Pegasus glyph table is because there's no way to associate the constellations with any names - they're in a completely different galaxy. The constellation columns in the new chart are going to remain permanently empty, which IMO is pretty unaesthetic. I'll try removing them and see what happens. Bryan 17:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they don't have any names. Their kind of just...there. Still waiting for a response from that person I was talking about. American Patriot 1776 17:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Restucturing the layout

I think that since some of this article is about the fictional univese, and some is about productions and comparisons, the section headers should make that clear. I think it should look like this.

• In the stargate fictional universe
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...
• Real life makeing off
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...
• Other uses
  • ...

Who agrees? Tobyk777 05:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nah. David P. A. Hunter 01:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Lol David. Anyway, I also disagree. Basically the only "real life" stuff we have already comes under "making of". No need to add a further subsectioning. -- Alfakim --  talk  13:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)