Editing Talk:Blind jump/Archive 1

I presume that relative gravitational field strength positively contributes to the likelihood of finding oneself in a given location, accounting for the fear of ending up in a massive body (most likely a star). 

Alternatively, it might be that flawed destination co-ordinates may affect the process of jumping itself, rather than the destination: which is to say, being disgregated into a molecular gas or perhaps torn apart by the singularities that are presumably used to open the wormholes. [[User:Qubex|Qubex]] 09:58, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

:Sounds like you have a grasp of the science behind the fiction, Qubex. Since we've never seen a blind jump and only heard of an account (but not its aftereffects), since there's no other sourcing other than Adama's comments, your analysis (along with what we know about normal jumps) seems to fit our wiki policy on [[BW:CJ#Derived Content|logical deduction]] for articles. Personally, I think your first idea (gravity wells) fit what we are told more than the second. Feel free to write a non-jargon explanation of what you noted in the article if it's needed. -- [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:22, 27 April 2007 (CDT) <sup>([[User_Talk:Spencerian|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Spencerian|Contrib Skillz]] - [[Special:Editcount/Spencerian|Edit Skillz]])</sup>
:Yeah, the first point is good. But Adama saying "Could've ended up anywhere" implies that the risk is more in getting where you want to, rather than making the jump in the first place. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:28, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

In my opinion, jumps are a bit like skipping stones.  In the Miniseries, they make a fairly large point out of jumping into the orbit of the Anchorage, rather then just the vicinity to the location.  When you skip stones, you have to toss the pebbles just right to continue to skip across the water.  So passing close to a body, but not falling into it, is the trick.
Also, from normal physics, as your speed increases, the affect of gravity increases as well, which would probably tide over to the FTL drives.  When the Galactica Jumps, it doesn't jump in a straight line, it jumps so that the ship curves in and out near the various masses in space.  Like the Voyager probes, these wells might even "slingshot" the Galactica back in another direction, making it extremely difficult to compute the "direction" to jump in.  Taking a snapshot of the sky, then computing the relative movement based on the time since the light left the various masses, then working out a Billiards style shot to weave you in and out of the stars to where you want to go.  No wonder there have been so many mishaps relating to jumping in this show.  Just my two cents.  [[User:WZ Lawrence|WZ Lawrence]] 01:28, 4 November 2007 (CDT)
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 In my opinion, jumps are a bit like skipping stones.  In the Miniseries, they make a fairly large point out of jumping into the orbit of the Anchorage, rather then just the vicinity to the location.  When you skip stones, you have to toss the pebbles just right to continue to skip across the water.  So passing close to a body, but not falling into it, is the trick.
 Also, from normal physics, as your speed increases, the affect of gravity increases as well, which would probably tide over to the FTL drives.  When the Galactica Jumps, it doesn't jump in a straight line, it jumps so that the ship curves in and out near the various masses in space.  Like the Voyager probes, these wells might even "slingshot" the Galactica back in another direction, making it extremely difficult to compute the "direction" to jump in.  Taking a snapshot of the sky, then computing the relative movement based on the time since the light left the various masses, then working out a Billiards style shot to weave you in and out of the stars to where you want to go.  No wonder there have been so many mishaps relating to jumping in this show.  Just my two cents.  [[User:WZ Lawrence|WZ Lawrence]] 01:28, 4 November 2007 (CDT)
-: Interesting theory. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki &mdash; ''New'']</sup> 15:10, 4 November 2007 (CST)
-::Hi WZ!  Welcome to the wiki!  I think you're right on the money with this point, and you seem to have a good understanding as to how (theoretically) space folding is supposed to work.  Space folding works on the principle that it is possible to curve space so much, that two distinct points in space overlap.  I am actually currently doing some research on this right now, but it's not a topic than can be understood with a simple Google search.  When I have more I'll post something on the FTL talk page.  I will tell you what I do know though:
-::I think what your saying by "skipping stones" is just all the different times Galactica would have to inversely compensate for the curves in spacetime generated by massive objects in space (curves in spacetime is another way of saying 'the affect of gravity').  Indeed, by the time FTL calculations are all said and done, Galactica would have to pull two distinct points of space through a wobbly looking line, depending on how far it intends to jump (there are limits on that as well).  Because the displacement of the inverse curves in Galactica's path grow exponentially in the event of error, a blind jump is an extremely dangerous thing, and would most likely put you in a star.
-::Galactica chooses a series of short jumps, rather than one big jump, for a few reasons.  The first, as you pointed out, is that predicting the movements of stellar objects with telescopes becomes more and more troublesome as they are farther out, due to the speed of light.  The second is that I would imagine that creating larger and larger folds in space requires exponentially more energy, perhaps more than the ship's FTL can generate.  The third is that the farther you go, the more chances you have for error, and there has to be a point where error creates too large of a risk (see [[Red Line]] for more info on that).
-::What I don't understand, and what I'm still working on, is exactly how time affects this process (or rather, how this process affects time), given relativity.  The best explanation I can find is that ultimately, time would pass instantaneously for Galactica, but much slower for everything else (essentially turning Galactica into a time machine).  I could use some help with that and would appreciate anything you or anyone else could dig up for me.  --[[User:OrionFour|OrionFour]] 16:58, 5 November 2007 (CST)