Sorry for off topic but.....
\o/ woo hoo! After 5 months in the rim, finally got back to my starting system!
\o/ woo hoo! After 5 months in the rim, finally got back to my starting system!
The Quest To Find Raxxla
- Thread starter Macros Black
- Start date
This may not be a safe assumption. Firstly older hyperdrives could route plot without jumping to stars. Also they had only a factor of 5 or 6 times less jump range - so they could cross the galaxy in a few months instead of a week.
Finally the codex date of 2296 may be misleading. Its possible Raxxla was known to exist (as a myth or otherwise) without anyone actually having set eyes on it. It could have been known from a third party source such as from found artefacts or communicated directly by aliens etc.
Oh yeah! >_< Forgot about that bit.
So... Raxxla could be anywhere, perhaps even between the stars, as I've heard before. Lovely.
I still think the station might be close to home however, if the station even exists in the first place. And if it does, wouldn't we find some clues there?
Too much information making my head spin @_@
I just need to read the books and watch some lore videos from reputable sources.
So... Raxxla could be anywhere, perhaps even between the stars, as I've heard before. Lovely.
I still think the station might be close to home however, if the station even exists in the first place. And if it does, wouldn't we find some clues there?
Too much information making my head spin @_@
I just need to read the books and watch some lore videos from reputable sources.
You have to be in CZ for some time, he will thank you then.
It may also be that the station or the previous station owners used some of that "fundamentally different" hyperdrive tech the Guardians used. Or it could even be the Thargoid tech, or something completely different.
It would make sense if it's related to the way that Thargoids are hinted to have arrived in the Milky Way from wherever their extragalactic (extradimensional/extra-brane-al?
) home is. Maybe it's what lets them get an FSD lock from Andromeda or wherever.
Gravity builds galaxiesSo it is the Mother. Also dynasty logs have sentence: "Gravity." Seems like "name" too.
In SG-1 it was some wording like "only 1 thing is certain - Universe is infinite" (don't recall exact). Point is ..if we're flying between stars, why should we recall ancient Earth myths ? That civilization should use some more generic knowledge, like infinite Universe.
To the jewel that burns on the brow of the mother of galaxies!
Gravity is the mother of galaxies....???
Using Wiki as the mother of all knowledge that burns on my brow.... ;-)
Ancient world
The ancient Greek philosopher Archimedes discovered the center of gravity of a triangle. He also postulated that if two equal weights did not have the same center of gravity, the center of gravity of the two weights together would be in the middle of the line that joins their centers of gravity.
The Roman architect and engineer Vitruvius in De Architectura postulated that gravity of an object did not depend on weight but its "nature".
In ancient India, Aryabhata first identified the force to explain why objects are not thrown outward as the earth rotates. Brahmagupta described gravity as an attractive force and used the term "gurutvaakarshan" for gravity.
So are any of these Elite Dangerous systems...?
Archimedes - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Architectura (or Vitruvius)- There is no reference I can find in the Gal Map...
Aryabhata - Yup it's a system in the Gal Map...
Scientific revolution
Modern work on gravitational theory began with the work of Galileo Galilei in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. In his famous (though possibly apocryphal) experiment dropping balls from the Tower of Pisa, and later with careful measurements of balls rolling down inclines, Galileo showed that gravitational acceleration is the same for all objects. This was a major departure from Aristotle's belief that heavier objects have a higher gravitational acceleration. Galileo postulated air resistance as the reason that objects with less mass fall more slowly in an atmosphere. Galileo's work set the stage for the formulation of Newton's theory of gravity.
So does he have an Elite Dangerous systems...?
Galileo - Yup it's a system in the Gal Map...
Newton's theory of gravitation
In 1687, English mathematician Sir Isaac Newton published Principia, which hypothesizes the inverse-square law of universal gravitation. In his own words, "I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must [be] reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve: and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her Orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly.
So does he have an Elite Dangerous systems...?
Newton - Yup it's a system in the Gal Map...
Equivalence principle
The equivalence principle, explored by a succession of researchers including Galileo, Loránd Eötvös, and Einstein, expresses the idea that all objects fall in the same way, and that the effects of gravity are indistinguishable from certain aspects of acceleration and deceleration. The simplest way to test the weak equivalence principle is to drop two objects of different masses or compositions in a vacuum and see whether they hit the ground at the same time. Such experiments demonstrate that all objects fall at the same rate when other forces (such as air resistance and electromagnetic effects) are negligible.
So are any of these Elite Dangerous systems...?
Galileo - Yes, see above....
Eötvös - There is no reference I can find in the Gal Map...
Einstein - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
General relativity
In general relativity, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature instead of a force. The starting point for general relativity is the equivalence principle, which equates free fall with inertial motion and describes free-falling inertial objects as being accelerated relative to non-inertial observers on the ground. In Newtonian physics, however, no such acceleration can occur unless at least one of the objects is being operated on by a force.
Einstein proposed that spacetime is curved by matter, and that free-falling objects are moving along locally straight paths in curved spacetime. These straight paths are called geodesics. Like Newton's first law of motion, Einstein's theory states that if a force is applied on an object, it would deviate from a geodesic. For instance, we are no longer following geodesics while standing because the mechanical resistance of the Earth exerts an upward force on us, and we are non-inertial on the ground as a result. This explains why moving along the geodesics in spacetime is considered inertial.
Einstein discovered the field equations of general relativity, which relate the presence of matter and the curvature of spacetime and are named after him. The Einstein field equations are a set of 10 simultaneous, non-linear, differential equations. The solutions of the field equations are the components of the metric tensor of spacetime. A metric tensor describes a geometry of spacetime. The geodesic paths for a spacetime are calculated from the metric tensor.
Notable solutions of the Einstein field equations include:
The Schwarzschild solution, which describes spacetime surrounding a spherically symmetric non-rotating uncharged massive object. For compact enough objects, this solution generated a black hole with a central singularity. For radial distances from the center which are much greater than the Schwarzschild radius, the accelerations predicted by the Schwarzschild solution are practically identical to those predicted by Newton's theory of gravity.
The Reissner-Nordström solution, in which the central object has an electrical charge. For charges with a geometrized length which are less than the geometrized length of the mass of the object, this solution produces black holes with double event horizons.
The Kerr solution for rotating massive objects. This solution also produces black holes with multiple event horizons.
The Kerr-Newman solution for charged, rotating massive objects. This solution also produces black holes with multiple event horizons.
The cosmological Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker solution, which predicts the expansion of the Universe.
So are any of these Elite Dangerous systems...?
Einstein - See above.... to save you scrolling - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Schwarzschild - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Reissner-Nordström ("Reissner" or "Nordstrom") - There is no reference I can find in the Gal Map...
Kerr - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Newman - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Gravity and quantum mechanics
An open question is whether it is possible to describe the small-scale interactions of gravity with the same framework as quantum mechanics. General relativity describes large-scale bulk properties whereas quantum mechanics is the framework to describe the smallest scale interactions of matter. Without modifications these frameworks are incompatible.
One path is to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory, which has been successful to accurately describe the other fundamental interactions. The electromagnetic force arises from an exchange of virtual photons, where the QFT description of gravity is that there is an exchange of virtual gravitons. This description reproduces general relativity in the classical limit. However, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Planck length, where a more complete theory of quantum gravity (or a new approach to quantum mechanics) is required.
So now it get's a bit more complicated, with many more names mentioned around the history of this field of science...Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Broglie, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac, Pauili, Jordan, Oppenheimer, Wheeler and the list goes on.....
So are any of these Elite Dangerous systems...?
Faraday - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Maxwell - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Planck - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Einstein (again) - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Bohr - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Broglie - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Heisenberg - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Schrödinger ("Schrodinger") - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Dirac - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Pauili - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Jordan - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Oppenheimer - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Wheeler - There is a "Wheeler's Star" but also many references within other systems!
So where are the guys with systems names listed above (excluding the ones with various references)...?
Aryabhata....
Galileo....
Newton....
You can throw in "Hawking's Reach" (RIP) and a load of cosmanauts and NASA pilots too....
Just a thought...
To the jewel that burns on the brow of the mother of galaxies!
Gravity is the mother of galaxies....???
Using Wiki as the mother of all knowledge that burns on my brow.... ;-)
Ancient world
The ancient Greek philosopher Archimedes discovered the center of gravity of a triangle. He also postulated that if two equal weights did not have the same center of gravity, the center of gravity of the two weights together would be in the middle of the line that joins their centers of gravity.
The Roman architect and engineer Vitruvius in De Architectura postulated that gravity of an object did not depend on weight but its "nature".
In ancient India, Aryabhata first identified the force to explain why objects are not thrown outward as the earth rotates. Brahmagupta described gravity as an attractive force and used the term "gurutvaakarshan" for gravity.
So are any of these Elite Dangerous systems...?
Archimedes - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Architectura (or Vitruvius)- There is no reference I can find in the Gal Map...
Aryabhata - Yup it's a system in the Gal Map...
Scientific revolution
Modern work on gravitational theory began with the work of Galileo Galilei in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. In his famous (though possibly apocryphal) experiment dropping balls from the Tower of Pisa, and later with careful measurements of balls rolling down inclines, Galileo showed that gravitational acceleration is the same for all objects. This was a major departure from Aristotle's belief that heavier objects have a higher gravitational acceleration. Galileo postulated air resistance as the reason that objects with less mass fall more slowly in an atmosphere. Galileo's work set the stage for the formulation of Newton's theory of gravity.
So does he have an Elite Dangerous systems...?
Galileo - Yup it's a system in the Gal Map...
Newton's theory of gravitation
In 1687, English mathematician Sir Isaac Newton published Principia, which hypothesizes the inverse-square law of universal gravitation. In his own words, "I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must [be] reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve: and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her Orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly.
So does he have an Elite Dangerous systems...?
Newton - Yup it's a system in the Gal Map...
Equivalence principle
The equivalence principle, explored by a succession of researchers including Galileo, Loránd Eötvös, and Einstein, expresses the idea that all objects fall in the same way, and that the effects of gravity are indistinguishable from certain aspects of acceleration and deceleration. The simplest way to test the weak equivalence principle is to drop two objects of different masses or compositions in a vacuum and see whether they hit the ground at the same time. Such experiments demonstrate that all objects fall at the same rate when other forces (such as air resistance and electromagnetic effects) are negligible.
So are any of these Elite Dangerous systems...?
Galileo - Yes, see above....
Eötvös - There is no reference I can find in the Gal Map...
Einstein - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
General relativity
In general relativity, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature instead of a force. The starting point for general relativity is the equivalence principle, which equates free fall with inertial motion and describes free-falling inertial objects as being accelerated relative to non-inertial observers on the ground. In Newtonian physics, however, no such acceleration can occur unless at least one of the objects is being operated on by a force.
Einstein proposed that spacetime is curved by matter, and that free-falling objects are moving along locally straight paths in curved spacetime. These straight paths are called geodesics. Like Newton's first law of motion, Einstein's theory states that if a force is applied on an object, it would deviate from a geodesic. For instance, we are no longer following geodesics while standing because the mechanical resistance of the Earth exerts an upward force on us, and we are non-inertial on the ground as a result. This explains why moving along the geodesics in spacetime is considered inertial.
Einstein discovered the field equations of general relativity, which relate the presence of matter and the curvature of spacetime and are named after him. The Einstein field equations are a set of 10 simultaneous, non-linear, differential equations. The solutions of the field equations are the components of the metric tensor of spacetime. A metric tensor describes a geometry of spacetime. The geodesic paths for a spacetime are calculated from the metric tensor.
Notable solutions of the Einstein field equations include:
The Schwarzschild solution, which describes spacetime surrounding a spherically symmetric non-rotating uncharged massive object. For compact enough objects, this solution generated a black hole with a central singularity. For radial distances from the center which are much greater than the Schwarzschild radius, the accelerations predicted by the Schwarzschild solution are practically identical to those predicted by Newton's theory of gravity.
The Reissner-Nordström solution, in which the central object has an electrical charge. For charges with a geometrized length which are less than the geometrized length of the mass of the object, this solution produces black holes with double event horizons.
The Kerr solution for rotating massive objects. This solution also produces black holes with multiple event horizons.
The Kerr-Newman solution for charged, rotating massive objects. This solution also produces black holes with multiple event horizons.
The cosmological Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker solution, which predicts the expansion of the Universe.
So are any of these Elite Dangerous systems...?
Einstein - See above.... to save you scrolling - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Schwarzschild - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Reissner-Nordström ("Reissner" or "Nordstrom") - There is no reference I can find in the Gal Map...
Kerr - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Newman - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Gravity and quantum mechanics
An open question is whether it is possible to describe the small-scale interactions of gravity with the same framework as quantum mechanics. General relativity describes large-scale bulk properties whereas quantum mechanics is the framework to describe the smallest scale interactions of matter. Without modifications these frameworks are incompatible.
One path is to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory, which has been successful to accurately describe the other fundamental interactions. The electromagnetic force arises from an exchange of virtual photons, where the QFT description of gravity is that there is an exchange of virtual gravitons. This description reproduces general relativity in the classical limit. However, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Planck length, where a more complete theory of quantum gravity (or a new approach to quantum mechanics) is required.
So now it get's a bit more complicated, with many more names mentioned around the history of this field of science...Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Broglie, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac, Pauili, Jordan, Oppenheimer, Wheeler and the list goes on.....
So are any of these Elite Dangerous systems...?
Faraday - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Maxwell - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Planck - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Einstein (again) - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Bohr - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Broglie - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Heisenberg - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Schrödinger ("Schrodinger") - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Dirac - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Pauili - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Jordan - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Oppenheimer - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Wheeler - There is a "Wheeler's Star" but also many references within other systems!
So where are the guys with systems names listed above (excluding the ones with various references)...?
Aryabhata....
Galileo....
Newton....
You can throw in "Hawking's Reach" (RIP) and a load of cosmanauts and NASA pilots too....
Source: https://youtu.be/zuEHpv-Nnyw
Just a thought...
From my understanding for you're reference Gravity being the mother which is interesting direction to look into.
But if we concluding a literal translation of mother should we look into the meaning of Universe, considering that is ever expanding and the creation of galaxies. Even the Ancient Greek and Indian philosophers understood the fact that universe existed in there time. And there were actual different synonyms that the wiki has examples of.
Synonyms
A term for "universe" among the ancient Greek philosophers from Pythagoras onwards was τὸ πᾶν, tò pân ("the all"), defined as all matter and all space, and τὸ ὅλον, tò hólon ("all things"), which did not necessarily include the void.[35][36] Another synonym was ὁ κόσμος, ho kósmos (meaning the world, the cosmos).[37] Synonyms are also found in Latin authors (totum, mundus, natura)[38] and survive in modern languages, e.g., the German words Das All, Weltall, and Natur for universe. The same synonyms are found in English, such as everything (as in the theory of everything), the cosmos (as in cosmology), the world (as in the many-worlds interpretation), and nature (as in natural laws or natural philosophy).[39]
Jewel in brow could be some BH/NS radiating ... and those are "best made" by gravity = jewel.
I like Idea of spiraling BHs as somebody said. However ... need re-read by native english people. It can be double meaning there, like "stars which spiral each other" and "stars which look like spirals" (researching from 2000 shows that WR star with companion star can produce spiraling visible gas).
"stars which spiral each other" -> that can be whole galaxy, after all they're spiraling
I like Idea of spiraling BHs as somebody said. However ... need re-read by native english people. It can be double meaning there, like "stars which spiral each other" and "stars which look like spirals" (researching from 2000 shows that WR star with companion star can produce spiraling visible gas).
"stars which spiral each other" -> that can be whole galaxy, after all they're spiraling
To the jewel that burns on the brow of the mother of galaxies!
Gravity is the mother of galaxies....???
Using Wiki as the mother of all knowledge that burns on my brow.... ;-)
Ancient world
The ancient Greek philosopher Archimedes discovered the center of gravity of a triangle. He also postulated that if two equal weights did not have the same center of gravity, the center of gravity of the two weights together would be in the middle of the line that joins their centers of gravity.
The Roman architect and engineer Vitruvius in De Architectura postulated that gravity of an object did not depend on weight but its "nature".
In ancient India, Aryabhata first identified the force to explain why objects are not thrown outward as the earth rotates. Brahmagupta described gravity as an attractive force and used the term "gurutvaakarshan" for gravity.
So are any of these Elite Dangerous systems...?
Archimedes - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Architectura (or Vitruvius)- There is no reference I can find in the Gal Map...
Aryabhata - Yup it's a system in the Gal Map...
Scientific revolution
Modern work on gravitational theory began with the work of Galileo Galilei in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. In his famous (though possibly apocryphal) experiment dropping balls from the Tower of Pisa, and later with careful measurements of balls rolling down inclines, Galileo showed that gravitational acceleration is the same for all objects. This was a major departure from Aristotle's belief that heavier objects have a higher gravitational acceleration. Galileo postulated air resistance as the reason that objects with less mass fall more slowly in an atmosphere. Galileo's work set the stage for the formulation of Newton's theory of gravity.
So does he have an Elite Dangerous systems...?
Galileo - Yup it's a system in the Gal Map...
Newton's theory of gravitation
In 1687, English mathematician Sir Isaac Newton published Principia, which hypothesizes the inverse-square law of universal gravitation. In his own words, "I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must [be] reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve: and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her Orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly.
So does he have an Elite Dangerous systems...?
Newton - Yup it's a system in the Gal Map...
Equivalence principle
The equivalence principle, explored by a succession of researchers including Galileo, Loránd Eötvös, and Einstein, expresses the idea that all objects fall in the same way, and that the effects of gravity are indistinguishable from certain aspects of acceleration and deceleration. The simplest way to test the weak equivalence principle is to drop two objects of different masses or compositions in a vacuum and see whether they hit the ground at the same time. Such experiments demonstrate that all objects fall at the same rate when other forces (such as air resistance and electromagnetic effects) are negligible.
So are any of these Elite Dangerous systems...?
Galileo - Yes, see above....
Eötvös - There is no reference I can find in the Gal Map...
Einstein - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
General relativity
In general relativity, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature instead of a force. The starting point for general relativity is the equivalence principle, which equates free fall with inertial motion and describes free-falling inertial objects as being accelerated relative to non-inertial observers on the ground. In Newtonian physics, however, no such acceleration can occur unless at least one of the objects is being operated on by a force.
Einstein proposed that spacetime is curved by matter, and that free-falling objects are moving along locally straight paths in curved spacetime. These straight paths are called geodesics. Like Newton's first law of motion, Einstein's theory states that if a force is applied on an object, it would deviate from a geodesic. For instance, we are no longer following geodesics while standing because the mechanical resistance of the Earth exerts an upward force on us, and we are non-inertial on the ground as a result. This explains why moving along the geodesics in spacetime is considered inertial.
Einstein discovered the field equations of general relativity, which relate the presence of matter and the curvature of spacetime and are named after him. The Einstein field equations are a set of 10 simultaneous, non-linear, differential equations. The solutions of the field equations are the components of the metric tensor of spacetime. A metric tensor describes a geometry of spacetime. The geodesic paths for a spacetime are calculated from the metric tensor.
Notable solutions of the Einstein field equations include:
The Schwarzschild solution, which describes spacetime surrounding a spherically symmetric non-rotating uncharged massive object. For compact enough objects, this solution generated a black hole with a central singularity. For radial distances from the center which are much greater than the Schwarzschild radius, the accelerations predicted by the Schwarzschild solution are practically identical to those predicted by Newton's theory of gravity.
The Reissner-Nordström solution, in which the central object has an electrical charge. For charges with a geometrized length which are less than the geometrized length of the mass of the object, this solution produces black holes with double event horizons.
The Kerr solution for rotating massive objects. This solution also produces black holes with multiple event horizons.
The Kerr-Newman solution for charged, rotating massive objects. This solution also produces black holes with multiple event horizons.
The cosmological Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker solution, which predicts the expansion of the Universe.
So are any of these Elite Dangerous systems...?
Einstein - See above.... to save you scrolling - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Schwarzschild - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Reissner-Nordström ("Reissner" or "Nordstrom") - There is no reference I can find in the Gal Map...
Kerr - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Newman - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Gravity and quantum mechanics
An open question is whether it is possible to describe the small-scale interactions of gravity with the same framework as quantum mechanics. General relativity describes large-scale bulk properties whereas quantum mechanics is the framework to describe the smallest scale interactions of matter. Without modifications these frameworks are incompatible.
One path is to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory, which has been successful to accurately describe the other fundamental interactions. The electromagnetic force arises from an exchange of virtual photons, where the QFT description of gravity is that there is an exchange of virtual gravitons. This description reproduces general relativity in the classical limit. However, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Planck length, where a more complete theory of quantum gravity (or a new approach to quantum mechanics) is required.
So now it get's a bit more complicated, with many more names mentioned around the history of this field of science...Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Broglie, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac, Pauili, Jordan, Oppenheimer, Wheeler and the list goes on.....
So are any of these Elite Dangerous systems...?
Faraday - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Maxwell - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Planck - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Einstein (again) - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Bohr - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Broglie - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Heisenberg - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Schrödinger ("Schrodinger") - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Dirac - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Pauili - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Jordan - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Oppenheimer - not that I am aware of but many references within systems!
Wheeler - There is a "Wheeler's Star" but also many references within other systems!
So where are the guys with systems names listed above (excluding the ones with various references)...?
Aryabhata....
Galileo....
Newton....
You can throw in "Hawking's Reach" (RIP) and a load of cosmanauts and NASA pilots too....
Source: https://youtu.be/zuEHpv-Nnyw
Just a thought...
I would also like to contribute to your gravity idea but based on gravitational-waves idea and just ran into this just now and I would like to know if anyone got knowledge of this.
It's basically called Gravitational-waves Standard Siren measurement. I don't fully understand and hopefully someone here can make any sense of this.
"Standard Siren" is wide term, basically everything shiny in Universe they call so. I saw works about 1A super novas, named "standard siren" as well.
Jewel in brow could be some BH/NS radiating ... and those are "best made" by gravity = jewel.
I like Idea of spiraling BHs as somebody said. However ... need re-read by native english people. It can be double meaning there, like "stars which spiral each other" and "stars which look like spirals" (researching from 2000 shows that WR star with companion star can produce spiraling visible gas).
"stars which spiral each other" -> that can be whole galaxy, after all they're spiraling
I've been stuck on the jewel bit too. Also there's something that Drew claims FDev said, that it's a journey each Commander must make on their own... Or something if that matter.
If this be the case, than surely it has to have some sort of connection to allegory, right? But diving too deep into myths and legends might just be too deep, it has to be simpler... But those two things, the Dark Wheel alleged toast, plus what FDev may have said, just keeps playing over and over in my mind.
I might need to do some digging at this... Ancient civilizations have referred to specific stars as jewels, I'm certain... Just gotta remember who and when, and what...
Anyway, it's long past my bed time and I'm practically fading into sleep as is, time for bed.
![[PS4] Filthymick420](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/201/201444.jpg?1555738739){kind=avatar}
let's not forget this is supposed to be 'a tiny bit obvious' i feel like that should apply to the average ED player and not specifically to the mensa crowd. To me it just feels like needing the equivalence of several PHDs in things like physics, theology, mathematics and philosophy kind of goes against that claim
Last edited:
Let’s not credit Drew for everything! Macros keeps links to relevant sources on the first page of this thread.
DB video “ED has a story that "embraces all the players"
Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gDh9G1gDgMU
. At 7:35 he said: “now we’ve got the beta, we’ve got the house & now we’re adding the story, the furniture that makes it a really rich game. At 8:20: it does have a story, but it’s not a single-player threaded “rescue the princess” style story, it’s a story of your progression through the game, we will have things that happen to you at certain stages through the game, you’ll get invited to join things, if you get invited to join a secret organisation that’s a thing that can happen to lots of players, if you don’t get that invitation you’ll think to yourself why? I did kill that policeman the other day maybe I need to get my reputation higher”.
MB: DJTruthsayer [TIQ] Michael Brookes Lore interview
https://player.twitch.tv/?volume=0.8&video=v66487974&time=1h40m30s
01:40:45 DJT: We put the first question in as a joke, I’m astounded you’re going to answer. MB: Well, you're assuming you’ll get a sensible answer...DJT: Where is Raxxla? MB: Where is Raxxla? ”Well, It's in the Milky Way, but I can't tell you where at this stage, it's a journey that everyone has to travel for themselves". DJT: You have always said there will be no clues. MB: "that is true, but I think you have to make some of it a tiny little bit obvious just so that people know what they are doing, there is nothing to be revealed at this stage"
Some people continue to say there are no clues based on MB’s statement, but clearly FD then gave us the codex which does have clues. The trouble is the clues are so ambiguous that they haven’t actually helped. They have generated a lot of gameplay though, which is perhaps what FD wanted. But I agree, it should all be fairly obvious when the truth is finally revealed; degrees in physics/literature/astronomy/mythology should not be required. I strongly suspect it is much simpler than that. Spiralling stars is clearly a significant clue, I recently postulated two orbiting black holes, Alexzk has postulated Wolf Rayet stars, the Milky Way galaxy itself spiralling around Sag A* is also a possible solution. There may be others but those are the obvious ones. I’ve dived a lot of BH, including experiments at several binaries without success to the point that I got bored. Wolf Rayet stars is an interesting hypothesis since they can exhibit spiral structure, especially if close to another star.
I dont believe FD would put Raxxla in-game and then effectively bar players from finding it for several years until Guardians/Thargoids & their artefacts appeared, so Omphalos Rift is the Raxxla gateway (or it’s already in situ and should not need an artefact to trigger it. Maybe disguised as a station? Nor do I believe it’s in a permit locked system with no way to get that permit-it would make much more meta sense for the gameplay here to involve a series of permits, & possibly each would be difficult to attain - a typical Quest!
The Gateway/Raxxla is likely to be a single object (from the deleted Elite mission clue “certain celestial body”), however this contradicts both the spiralling binary BH and WR+companion star hypotheses since they require two bodies; perhaps that contradiction is why those missions were deleted?
The WR hypothesis is interesting because Wolf-Rayets are the most massive and brightest stars known. Closest WR in-game example near to bubble is LAWD 26 B; permit-locked Gamma Velorum (Regor) is another, only one that can be seen IRL with the naked eye (& that is possibly the Guardians’ homeworld). BUT as EDSM says Regor is IRL by far the closest and brightest Wolf-Rayet star to Sol, so given DB’s statement “Scientific accuracy is really important to me” accuracy of LAWD 26 B is highly suspicious since a WR should not be so close to Sol!! But Stone’s Legacy station there is an Ocellus not a hexagonal/dodecahedron to match the codex Raxxla logo.
WR examples in-game-these should not exist either if Regor is IRL the closest to Sol?
LAWD 26 22ly
HIP 89535 281 ly
HIP 91911 420 ly
HIP 99982 561 ly
HIP 74634 644 ly
HIP 69445 673 ly
Phi Persei 718 ly
Taking a look at possible potential influences on DB’s thinking I found the following papers on WR around the game design period:
2012 "IC 4663: the first unambiguous [WN] Wolf–Rayet central star of a planetary nebula"
2012 "A Near-Infrared Survey of the Inner Galactic Plane for Wolf–Rayet Stars. Ii. Going Fainter: 71 More New W-R Stars"
2012 "The Wolf–Rayet Content of M31"
2012 "A Study of the Wolf–Rayet Population of M101 using the Hubble Space Telescope".
2013 “Astronomers Capture A Rare Wolf-Rayet Star Just Hours After It Dramatically Explodes” Researchers were able to capture a dramatic Wolf-Rayet supernova called SN 2013cu just a few hours after the explosion began thanks to the intermediate Palomar Transient Factory (iPTF) collaboration
2014 “The Wolf-Rayet stars in M 31”
2014 “M1-67 is the youngest wind-nebula around a Wolf-Rayet star, called WR124”
I haven't investigated any of those destinations, as I’m stuck on Lawd26 since that is a glaring contradiction and is well within the range possible for Raxxla (I’m not persuaded by the argument that it could be within several thousand ly based on fsd capability. That speculation may be true, but how likely is it? Humanity would have explored in an expanding sphere, possibly with some directed effort spikes to astronomically interesting specific destinations, so a “morning star” shape (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_star_(weapon)) vice a smooth sphere, but still not far outside that sphere.)
Edit: I haven’t checked those WR examples to see if they are WR IRL. Also I did check the front of Stone’s Legacy (who was Stone? Is this a clue??) and the pattern of lights around the entrance doesn’t match the 33 dots in the Raxxla logo, but it is suggestive- I am now hypothesising that the Raxxla logo actually represents TDW’s station entrance, and that the implication is that we need to find TDW to find Raxxla (though logo seems to depict a dodecahedron which doesn’t tally with the orbis “wheel” structure required for The Dark Wheel, so not fully convinced on this).
DB video “ED has a story that "embraces all the players"
. At 7:35 he said: “now we’ve got the beta, we’ve got the house & now we’re adding the story, the furniture that makes it a really rich game. At 8:20: it does have a story, but it’s not a single-player threaded “rescue the princess” style story, it’s a story of your progression through the game, we will have things that happen to you at certain stages through the game, you’ll get invited to join things, if you get invited to join a secret organisation that’s a thing that can happen to lots of players, if you don’t get that invitation you’ll think to yourself why? I did kill that policeman the other day maybe I need to get my reputation higher”.
MB: DJTruthsayer [TIQ] Michael Brookes Lore interview
https://player.twitch.tv/?volume=0.8&video=v66487974&time=1h40m30s
01:40:45 DJT: We put the first question in as a joke, I’m astounded you’re going to answer. MB: Well, you're assuming you’ll get a sensible answer...DJT: Where is Raxxla? MB: Where is Raxxla? ”Well, It's in the Milky Way, but I can't tell you where at this stage, it's a journey that everyone has to travel for themselves". DJT: You have always said there will be no clues. MB: "that is true, but I think you have to make some of it a tiny little bit obvious just so that people know what they are doing, there is nothing to be revealed at this stage"
Some people continue to say there are no clues based on MB’s statement, but clearly FD then gave us the codex which does have clues. The trouble is the clues are so ambiguous that they haven’t actually helped. They have generated a lot of gameplay though, which is perhaps what FD wanted. But I agree, it should all be fairly obvious when the truth is finally revealed; degrees in physics/literature/astronomy/mythology should not be required. I strongly suspect it is much simpler than that. Spiralling stars is clearly a significant clue, I recently postulated two orbiting black holes, Alexzk has postulated Wolf Rayet stars, the Milky Way galaxy itself spiralling around Sag A* is also a possible solution. There may be others but those are the obvious ones. I’ve dived a lot of BH, including experiments at several binaries without success to the point that I got bored. Wolf Rayet stars is an interesting hypothesis since they can exhibit spiral structure, especially if close to another star.
I dont believe FD would put Raxxla in-game and then effectively bar players from finding it for several years until Guardians/Thargoids & their artefacts appeared, so Omphalos Rift is the Raxxla gateway (or it’s already in situ and should not need an artefact to trigger it. Maybe disguised as a station? Nor do I believe it’s in a permit locked system with no way to get that permit-it would make much more meta sense for the gameplay here to involve a series of permits, & possibly each would be difficult to attain - a typical Quest!
The Gateway/Raxxla is likely to be a single object (from the deleted Elite mission clue “certain celestial body”), however this contradicts both the spiralling binary BH and WR+companion star hypotheses since they require two bodies; perhaps that contradiction is why those missions were deleted?
The WR hypothesis is interesting because Wolf-Rayets are the most massive and brightest stars known. Closest WR in-game example near to bubble is LAWD 26 B; permit-locked Gamma Velorum (Regor) is another, only one that can be seen IRL with the naked eye (& that is possibly the Guardians’ homeworld). BUT as EDSM says Regor is IRL by far the closest and brightest Wolf-Rayet star to Sol, so given DB’s statement “Scientific accuracy is really important to me” accuracy of LAWD 26 B is highly suspicious since a WR should not be so close to Sol!! But Stone’s Legacy station there is an Ocellus not a hexagonal/dodecahedron to match the codex Raxxla logo.
WR examples in-game-these should not exist either if Regor is IRL the closest to Sol?
LAWD 26 22ly
HIP 89535 281 ly
HIP 91911 420 ly
HIP 99982 561 ly
HIP 74634 644 ly
HIP 69445 673 ly
Phi Persei 718 ly
Taking a look at possible potential influences on DB’s thinking I found the following papers on WR around the game design period:
2012 "IC 4663: the first unambiguous [WN] Wolf–Rayet central star of a planetary nebula"
2012 "A Near-Infrared Survey of the Inner Galactic Plane for Wolf–Rayet Stars. Ii. Going Fainter: 71 More New W-R Stars"
2012 "The Wolf–Rayet Content of M31"
2012 "A Study of the Wolf–Rayet Population of M101 using the Hubble Space Telescope".
2013 “Astronomers Capture A Rare Wolf-Rayet Star Just Hours After It Dramatically Explodes” Researchers were able to capture a dramatic Wolf-Rayet supernova called SN 2013cu just a few hours after the explosion began thanks to the intermediate Palomar Transient Factory (iPTF) collaboration
2014 “The Wolf-Rayet stars in M 31”
2014 “M1-67 is the youngest wind-nebula around a Wolf-Rayet star, called WR124”
I haven't investigated any of those destinations, as I’m stuck on Lawd26 since that is a glaring contradiction and is well within the range possible for Raxxla (I’m not persuaded by the argument that it could be within several thousand ly based on fsd capability. That speculation may be true, but how likely is it? Humanity would have explored in an expanding sphere, possibly with some directed effort spikes to astronomically interesting specific destinations, so a “morning star” shape (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_star_(weapon)) vice a smooth sphere, but still not far outside that sphere.)
Edit: I haven’t checked those WR examples to see if they are WR IRL. Also I did check the front of Stone’s Legacy (who was Stone? Is this a clue??) and the pattern of lights around the entrance doesn’t match the 33 dots in the Raxxla logo, but it is suggestive- I am now hypothesising that the Raxxla logo actually represents TDW’s station entrance, and that the implication is that we need to find TDW to find Raxxla (though logo seems to depict a dodecahedron which doesn’t tally with the orbis “wheel” structure required for The Dark Wheel, so not fully convinced on this).
Last edited:
Just on the MB quote; I would always say the video should be watched.
It’s clear when watching the video that there’s interpretations that aren’t obvious when just reading the quote.
Also worth bearing in mind that the first part of the quote was a pre-submitted question and pre-written answer, whereas the second part happens on the spot.
Indeed, I am still suspicious why he wore the Ygdrasil
tee-shirt, and that tattoo!!!! Why is the intended book still not published??? 
Always worth checking through vids and other references oneself, we might have missed something, or misheard, or there may be other interpretations that we missed. Mmmmm, I ought to post my list of found sources.....
Last edited:
Macros, not specifically for Raxxla or TDW, but relevant sources I’ve noted:
ED-relevant quotes/videos
Edit: moved to its own thread as a repository for FD source references!
forums.frontier.co.uk
ED-relevant quotes/videos
Edit: moved to its own thread as a repository for FD source references!
FDev ED-relevant quotes/videos
Since much discussion is generated on the topic of DB said this, or MB said that, etc I posted my compilation of FDev source references on the Quest for Raxxla thread for others to use. It was suggested that it should be in its own thread for everyone to access & I’m happy to oblige. Please feel...
Last edited:
Very possibly the ‘tiny bit obvious’ thing has been misinterpreted. It could simply have been MB speculating out on how they’ll have to approach it, not him saying how they have approached it.
Also, I think what needs to be borne in mind around the obviousness is that if it’s designed around the average, that means it will be difficult for some and easy for others.
Given how things operate in terms of people publishing solutions, then generally speaking, if it’s easy for anyone then it’s solved for everyone.
This is a real ‘be careful what you wish for’ situation, because getting what’s being wished for would almost certainly have meant that the whole things was solved years ago, and we would never have had this long running quest, and this thread in which for people to express such wishes.
Think I’m wrong? Consider, when thinking about what might constitute a ‘tiny bit obvious’, how many times it has to be pointed out to people that ‘bounty’ and ‘fine’ are not in fact the same word. Or one of the other current recurrent topics - people not realising that they might get carried somewhere if they park up in a carrier. (I’m not being derogatory towards anyone here, it’s just illustrative of the range that needs to be taken into account when considering what is and isn’t obvious.)
Nice!
A quick appeal to anyone else searching through old vids - please keep an eye out for DB saying something about being surprised that players hadn’t yet found one of the biggest things in game.
(It’s somewhere, but I’ve not been able to find it in in the official FD vids from around the time I think it was said!)
I’m fairly sure that supposed reference was actually DW talking about the FRift mystery. Can’t remember DB ever saying anything like that. The two seem to to have been confused multiple times.
Why DW thought that a ship 10kylies out, with no breadcrumb trail, would be easy to find still escapes me (the giraffe etc only provide a general direction), which is my concern over Raxxla and TDW. I suspect that Raxxla is pretty obvious and a standard astronomical body (such as a BH or pair thereof) with a secondary purpose that just hasn’t been tested yet. And I think it’s close!
Mmmmm- Has anyone tried jumping at/into the WD in Lawd26??? Might try it sometime with a low rebuy ship. There’s also the WD in the permitted system (Van Maanen?).
Nah, I’m sure the quote was DB, not DW. There was a lot of debate on what it pertained to at the time. If it was DW we would have pretty much known it pertained to the FR mystery, and it would have been a FR mystery thread thing, but as I recall it, the discussion was on one of the Canonn megathreads. I’m also fairly sure it was reasonably close to the trailer that featured what we now think was a Thargoid Structure.
That would fit as it could actually have been the Thargoid Stuctures that we’re being referred to as they were apparently in game prior to the update where the listening points and installations which lead to their discovery got added to the Pleiades.
(If the forum search didn’t miss out large periods of time, I’d track it back that way!
)