Would a Star gate work in ksp?

[Scorpians]

We all know them from eve-online, SG-1 supergate. and other games/tv shows. but would a space star gate using a wormhole work ? having to construct it in space at each end to form a wormhole or somthing.

[lincourtl]

KSP is a game, so of course it'd "work." See Hyperedit. Here's the question I've always had with Einstein-Rosen bridges (which was the canonical explanation for the stargates in SG-1)... What is your relative velocity when you exit the stargate? For instance, if you put a stargate on the surface of Kerbin, and a stargate on the surface of Duna, and then you travel from Kebin to Duna, where does your excess rotational velocity go? Or would you exit the stargate at roughly 144 m/s?

[Deadpangod3]

KSP is a game, so of course it'd "work." See Hyperedit. Here's the question I've always had with Einstein-Rosen bridges (which was the canonical explanation for the stargates in SG-1)... What is your relative velocity when you exit the stargate? For instance, if you put a stargate on the surface of Kerbin, and a stargate on the surface of Duna, and then you travel from Kebin to Duna, where does your excess rotational velocity go? Or would you exit the stargate at roughly 144 m/s?

it could go into storage of sorts so when something else goes through the opposite way it can gain velocity on kerbin so it doesnt go flying off.

[lincourtl]

it could go into storage of sorts so when something else goes through the opposite way it can gain velocity on kerbin so it doesnt go flying off.

I'm not sure how that'd work. You'd have to subtract a large amount of energy from whatever's traversing the gate to do that. And since there's mathematically zero distance between endpoints, it'd be the equivalent of an instantaneous deceleration meaning very bad things for our intrepid travelers.

[Albert VDS]

What I understand from the show(SG-1) is that you are dematerialized and stored within the system as energy, so it would be "easy" to remove or add to your starting velocity.

I would guess that the amount of energy to start up a wormhole and the "low" cost of keeping it open is far larger than adding or removing energy from traveler or object.

[lincourtl]

Yeah, SG-1 was fairly clever at getting around the science. Their stargates were a sort of hybrid between wormholes and Star Trek transporters. The trouble with SG-1's explanation is that it brings up all the old philosophical problems with transporters and consciousness. http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/identity1.php

[frizzank]

Except that the stargate was not creating a copy at the other end, it was transporting the converted energy back into matter at the other end. Also the same for Star Trek as well. Users were conscious during transport and could describe the event. Circumventing the hole morality thing, conveniently...

Edited November 24, 2014 by frizzank

[lincourtl]

Except that the stargate was not creating a copy at the other end, it was transporting the converted energy back into matter at the other end. Also the same for Star Trek as well. Users were conscious during transport and could describe the event. Circumventing the hole morality thing, conveniently...

Ah, but if you do that then you're positing some form of non-materialism. To convert the matter constituting a human into energy presupposes the physical destruction of the individual. So for consciousness to persist there must a some non-material component to consciousness; i.e. a soul. I don't want to turn this into a religious discussion. I'm just saying that for consciousness to persist while in a nonmaterial form, then consciousness can't be simply a byproduct of the brain and human body. Personally I'm a psychological reductionist so I have no issues with my body being destructed then reconstructed.

BTW: The idea that transporter subjects remain conscious was actually a Next Generation retcon for Star Trek.

[Albert VDS]

In the episode "Entity" Sam's consciousness is move to the SGC's mainframe, so my guess is that in the SG universe a consciousness is like data on a hard drive.

They ignore the whole "is it really you on the other side" dilemma and just suggest that every consciousness is the real consciousness.

[kerbiloid]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/91582-24-2-ESLD-Jump-Beacons-Dev-0-3b-2014-09-21

[passinglurker]

Ah, but if you do that then you're positing some form of non-materialism. To convert the matter constituting a human into energy presupposes the physical destruction of the individual. So for consciousness to persist there must a some non-material component to consciousness; i.e. a soul. I don't want to turn this into a religious discussion. I'm just saying that for consciousness to persist while in a nonmaterial form, then consciousness can't be simply a byproduct of the brain and human body. Personally I'm a psychological reductionist so I have no issues with my body being destructed then reconstructed.

BTW: The idea that transporter subjects remain conscious was actually a Next Generation retcon for Star Trek.

it would seem with plot points like ascension that at least in the stargate universe people have "souls" perhaps the experience of traveling through stargates is what tipped off the ancients to the idea in the first place

[lincourtl]

it would seem with plot points like ascension that at least in the stargate universe people have "souls" perhaps the experience of traveling through stargates is what tipped off the ancients to the idea in the first place

It's really rare to find science fiction literature or media which doesn't traffic in some sort of non-materialism. That might seem ironic until you stop and think about modern sf's origins in romanticism and transcendentalism.