HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Twin Paradox
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:16:03 GMT
Reply-To: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA

In an article, KELSEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (KELSEY, Michael H.) writes:
>What you see is that F/m != a in relativity, _if_ you define a = dv/d(tau).

Thanks, that's basically the point I was trying to make in my own
disorganized fashion.

>expression I derived above, then I _think_ that I will feel a force F
>proportional to the time derivative of the expression, and I can tune
>that to make F constant at 1g.  I will NOT have a constant acceleration,
>but I _will_ feel a constant apparent force of 1g.

One nit: 1g isn't a force, it's an acceleration defined as the
acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface. If it were a
force, objects of different mass would accelerate at different rates.

And the $64,000 question is: in general relativity, is it actual
acceleration, or time change in momentum that is indistinguishable
from a gravitational field? I've always heard it phrased as
"acceleration" but I get this funny gut feeling that that is a
popularization because otherwise it doesn't seem consistent. But then,
it doesn't seem consistent to my limited knowledge anyway, so...who
knows? 

Tying back into science fiction, does this and the Twin Paradox serve
as a proof that the SF writers who postulate a circumnavigable
universe are full of beans? (i.e. both twins could follow a similar
world line, but...errrr)

>physics, where I'm interested whether I can approximate a particle's
>travel time by that of light.  It's easier to relate time to distance
>if I can always use 1 foot = 1 ns :-)

Ah yes. On a completely different subject, that brings up again my
personal wish that the framers of the Metric system had chosen 1m ==
1e-9 light-seconds in a vacuum, and arbitrarly defined (for
convenience mostly) 1 s == 1e-5 mean solar days. It would make the
units so much more practical for common everyday usage (and easier on
physicists as well). Sigh...
-- 
"When you're down, it's a long way up
 When you're up, it's a long way down
 It's all the same thing
 And it's no new tale to tell"                      ../ray\..
From: hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Beyond Infinity
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:50:00 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

In article <8160@dirac.physics.purdue.edu> murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) writes:
>stuff about warp 10 being the maximum....
>
>I have been reading the book Probe which gives the events immediatley following
>"The Voyage Home".  In it, the Probe takes the Enterprise and the Romulan ship
>Galtizh on a trip to its home world at warp 30.  So what is it?  is the author
>nuts?  Are the warp tables wrong?  How did Q transport them to the Borg sector
>nearly instantaneously? Didn't the Borg move faster than warp 10?
>Bill Murphy               | Old Home Cottage Cheese:  The only cottage 
>			  | cheese that's not made from formaldehyde, 
>murphy@physics.purdue.edu | arsenic, or rodent parts.

Perhaps this should be a QuickFAQ list put up every week:

The Warp factors used in the old series are not the same as those used on 
TNG.  In the old series, speed = W^3 * c.
In TNG, the exponent starts at 10/3 = 3.3333...  for Warp = 0, but
then increases slowly at first until you pass warp 9. At that point it 
increases sharply until at warp 10 it is infinate.

So, Warp 10 in TNG is an infinite speed. One way to put this is to say
that you touch every point in the universe in your direction of travel. 
Another way of putting it is to say that if you are going from point A
to point B, then you get to point B at the same time you leave point A.

BEYOND warp 10 would imply time travel.  You would have to get there 
even FASTER -- meaing you get to point B BEFORE you leave point A.

How's that?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Enterprises's Shields (TNG) are Worthless
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:57:15 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

trw@spl1.spl.loral.com (Tim R Witort) writes:
>
>  It seems I read somewhere that the shields do some kind of modulation
>which disables weapons from penetrating but allows sensor readings.

Sort of.  As I understand it, the shield frequencies are altered to
random values at random intervals, which sounds like some sort of
modulation.  However, the sensors do not penetrate the shields.  They
simply do their work during the little "windows" in coverage when the
shield frequencies are being changed.  Presumably this coverage window
does not admit weapon energy.

The reason the transporters do not work through shields is that they
require too much bandwidth (nominally) to project their full signal in
the shield "windows."  Obviously O'Brien showed his prowess with the
equipment when he managed to penetrate the shields with a transporter
signal in "The Wounded."

Since the sensors are limited to operating in the shield windows,
the bandwidth use must be strictly prioritized to make sure the
critical sensing tasks can be performed.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | <insert snappy quote here>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Enterprises's Shields (TNG) are Worthless
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:54:15 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <_kpyh-a@rpi.edu> petitc@rpi.edu writes:
> They really are.  Think about this little scenario:

Technically this makes sense.  But consider that what is explained
technically may not be visually appealing for the viewer.  Phrased
another way, if the shields were impervious to visible EM frequencies,
then when the ship's shields went up you'd just see the shields
(probably something resembling a mirrored egg) and not the ship
inside.  That's not very exciting to look at.  It might be neat for a
gimmick, but not for everyday viewing.

That's also (ostensibly) the reason why the ENTERPRISE doesn't have a
cloaking device.  What would the viewer be looking at while the
ENTERPRISE is cloaked?  Not much.

If the visual aspect of Star Trek accurately reflected the technical
aspect, it just wouldn't be a fun show to watch.  Space battles are
much more exciting when we can see the ships slugging it out at close
quarters, although technically they would be better represented as
thousands of kilometers apart.  The problem of permeable shields is
similar.

Visual drama employs these kinds of omnipotentencies all the time.  We
violate real world constraints all the time, we're just used to most
of them.  So while the shields are obviously impermeable to lasers (I
think this is canon) of whatever wavelength, we, the omnipotent
viewer, can see through them.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | <insert snappy quote here>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: ira2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Iain Robert Asplin)
Subject: Re: Seatbelts
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:27:02 GMT

In article <cebFszy00WBK84e19z@andrew.cmu.edu> "Michael B. Miller" <mmcg+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>I have just a tiny question, one which a friend of mine keeps
>complaining about...why is it that nobody in the bridge, even when they
>know they are going to get blasted, ever wears a seatbelt?????????
>
>
>Thank you ever so much for your help!!!   :)
>
>

Supposedly, the inertial damping system is supposed to keep everyone stable.
Obviously, it doesn't always work, but they still don't want to necessarily
have seat-belts in case anyone has to in an emergency man/woman/one another
post quickly.

And it's tradition from the original series!

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: ira2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Iain Robert Asplin)
Subject: Re: Warp Detection
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:15:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.181954.737@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> edreas@nyx.cs.du.edu (Eric Dreas) writes:
>If you are stationary.  v = 0 in all directions.
>And a ship is approaching you at Warp speed.
>Can you:
>
>    1.  Detect the approaching vessel with sensors.
>    2.  Determine the velocity of the vessel.
>    3.  View the approaching vessel.  (Say on the Viewscreen)
>
>Eric
>

First, from some reference frame you are never stationary.

As for the approaching ship, the sensors work via subspace signals which
can easily outrun any warp-driven ship as long as it isn't from some
super-race like Q.  Using the subspace signals as radar, the Enterprise
can detect the oncoming ship and quite easily determine its velocity.
As for viewing, well, the ship is outrunning its natural light, so
you wouldn't be able to see it with natural light.  No doubt your 
computers can tell what it would look like, however, and generate an
image based on the sensor data.  I would think this one reason why
a viewscreen is used on the bridge as opposed to a windoe.
From: K.Haigh-Hutchinson@bradford.ac.uk (K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: what is the significance of 11001001 in "11001001"
Keywords: Simple? 201?
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:09:39 GMT
Distribution: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: s1497@bravo

They may have had to shuffle the order around a bit but that is at most
24 combinations. I am sure the characters were named in binary.
From: murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Enterprises's Shields (TNG) are Worthless
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:38:42 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

In article <_kpyh-a@rpi.edu> petitc@rpi.edu writes:
>
> They really are.  Think about this little scenario:
>
> A ship approaches the E., and fires lasers (visible ones).  Since we CAN see
>the ship, wouldn't it make sense that a visible laser would just ignore the
>shield and cut the E. into little chunks of metal?

Maybe, but maybe it's impractical to make a laser with sufficient energy to 
carve up the Enterprise in the visible frequencies.  So what would explain
the glow?  maybe that empty vacuum of space is being super heated by the phaser
beams to produce particle-antiparticle pairs which are not necessarily
annihilating but emitting visible photons?  Just a thought.

Bill Murphy               | Old Home Cottage Cheese:  The only cottage 
			  | cheese that's not made from formaldehyde, 
murphy@physics.purdue.edu | arsenic, or rodent parts.
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Twin Paradox
Date: 22 Aug 92 16:12:17 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

KELSEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (KELSEY, Michael H.) writes:

> Well, that's not entirely true.  Special relativity can certainly handle
> accelerating objects.  There are Lorentz transformation for the acceleration
> vector just as there are for the velocity vector.  What SR _can't_ handle
> (and what GR is for) is curved space-time, that is a metric g_{\mu\nu}
> which has coordinate dependent terms.

Special relativity _only_ deals with inertial, or non-accelerating, 
reference frames.  If one of the frames accelerates relative to another, 
then special relativity no longer applies -- you have to use general 
relativity.  The primary postulate behind general relativity is that 
thrust (acceleration) and gravity are indistingiushable, 
_fundamentally._  If you feel a force on you, you can't tell whether it's 
thrust or gravity -- period.  Any effect you experience due to thrust is 
also experienced due to gravity, and vice versa.  That's why general 
relativity predicts things such as light-bending, gravitational time
dilation, and so on.

> If you don't like acceleration, you can analyze the twin paradox in a
> constant speed system by making the simplifications:  B travels away from
> home at constant speed.  When he reaches the "midpoint" of his trip, he
> instantaneously reverses direction, and returns home at the same speed.  The
> world lines of A and B then form a triangle in a space-time diagram, and you
> can analyze durations that way.

You've just complicated things, because B has just executed an _infinite_ 
acceleration to reverse his velocity like that.  Besides, that doesn't 
resolve the paradox.  When he comes back, he is still travelling faster 
than A.  Thus A should have aged less.  But from A's point of view, B 
has been travelling the whole time.  Thus B should have aged less.  
_That's_ the paradox.  In special relativity, if you pretend no 
acceleration happened, they should both see the other as having aged 
less.  But when they do meet, B aged less, not A.  This is because B 
accelerated, and broke the "symmetry."  B felt something that A did not., 
and that was the acceleration required to bring him home.

> When I was a first-year grad student, I took a survey course in SR (okay,
> so I was bored) in which the twin paradox was analyzed and resolved using
> only special relativity.  So, it _can_ be done.

I'd like to see it, but I suspect that your teacher (or teachers) were 
rather, shall we say, unthorough.  Special relativity applies only to 
inertial reference frames.  If one of them accelerates, then BLAM.  
Special relativity can't apply anymore.  (That's why special relativity 
is "special" -- restricted -- and general relativity is not.)

----------
Erik Max Francis   Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  Coming soon:  UNIVERSE _ | _
USmail:  1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose CA 95117  ICBM:  37 20 N  121 53 W _>|<_
UUCP:  ..!apple!uuwest!max   Usenet:  max@west.darkside.com   464E4F5244   |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: trw@spl1.spl.loral.com (Tim R Witort)
Subject: Re: Enterprises's Shields (TNG) are Worthless
Organization: Loral Software Productivity Laboratory
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:42:46 GMT

In article <_kpyh-a@rpi.edu>, petitc@vccsouth29.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit) writes:
|>  They really are.  Think about this little scenario:
|> 
|>  A ship approaches the E., and fires lasers (visible ones).  Since we CAN see
|> the ship, wouldn't it make sense that a visible laser would just ignore the
|> shield and cut the E. into little chunks of metal?

  It seems I read somewhere that the shields do some kind of modulation
which disables weapons from penetrating but allows sensor readings. The
images on the screen aren't necessarily generated by visible light
anyway. The sensors may penetrate the shields while weapons don't.
This is mostly speculation... anyone with more official info - feel free
to correct me.

-- Tim
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: GLETTY@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu ("Bruce E. Gletty")
Subject: Re: Beyond Infinity
Organization: C.C.S.O.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:22:44 GMT

In article <8191@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>
hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) writes:
 
>melvin@alien.enet.dec.com writes:
>>
><hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) writes...
><>
><>BEYOND warp 10 would imply time travel.  You would have to get there
><>even FASTER -- meaing you get to point B BEFORE you leave point A.
><>
><
><What about the travel through the worm hole, by Geordi and Data?  What was the
><speed there (distance/time)?
><
><What about Q when he took the Enterprise to its first meeting with the Borg
><ship?
><
><What about Barclay taking the Enterprise 30,000 light years in a small amount
><of time?
><
><What about The Traveler taking the Enterprise where "NO one has gone before"?
><
><
><The numbers you gave would fit WARP technology, but given other techniques,
><those numbers might not be applicable.
><
><-Joe
>
>In each of those cases you can discribe thier speed as some warp factor
>between warp 9 and warp 10 (if we knew what the actual warp equation was).
>So what's your point?
>
Actually, warp 10 is not infinite speed. The federation warp engines become
less and less efficient at higher warp, and warp 10 would take infinite
power. Maybe Q and the traveller had a more efficient warp mechanism.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jstevens@aaron.carleton.ca (Jonathan Stevenson)
Subject: Wanted:  Star Ship List (esp. Kobyoshi Maru)
Summary: Need Call Number/Registry for Kobyoshi Maru
Keywords: Kobyashi Maru
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:02:20 GMT


Sorry about the spelling (whish may or may not be correct? 8-) )!

Several months back, someone posted a rather long article that listed
the names and registry numbers (and appearance details, i.e.
TOS/Movies/TNG) for all spaceships that have been meantioned in Star
Trek.  I (unfortunately) seem to have erased my copy of this file, and
(surprise, surprise!) now I need it!

I'm painting a small figure of the Kobyoshi Maru (Sp.?) and I need to
know her call numbers/registry (if any).  I tried looking at my copy
of the Wrath of Kahn which was recorded off the TV.  When Mr.Saavik
calls up the data on the Maru, the data screen is cut off at either edge
since the TV recording is not wide-screen.   I believe the Maru was
one of the ships listed in the Space Ship list (details garnered from
a Book?).   

Does anyone out there know the registry number (if there is one) for
the Maru?  I don't have any actual pictures of the Maru either, and
I'm painting the figure mostly using my own common sense and using
the colour schemes of other freighters featured in the movies or TNG
as a guide.  Any additional details concerning the appearance of the
Kobyoshi Maru would be welcome.

Thanx in Advance!

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        
    JJ DDDD   SSSS     Jonathan D Stevenson                     
    JJ D  DD SS  SS    Dept. of Aero & Mech. Engineering     
    JJ D  DD  SS       Carleton University (Ottawa, Canada) 
    JJ D  DD    SS 
JJ  JJ D  DD SS  SS    E-Mail: jstevens@ccs.carleton.ca        
 JJJJ  DDDD   SSSS          

"My hovercraft is full of eels"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jtbell@acsu.buffalo.edu (Jonny B.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Cloaking device and the Fed.
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:29:21 GMT
Organization: EC Productions

In article <1992Sep3.152056.14571@news.unomaha.edu> tomcat@cwis.unomaha.edu (Jeffrey S. Jo) writes:
>
>	Another reason, which kind of makes sense, is that the ships of
>the Federation are much too large to cloak, the power needed to cloak
>a Galaxy class ship would be tremendous.  That's why most of the
>Klingon and Romulan ships are small.  I don't know about any specific 
>layouts for the Romulan Warbird (which is about the size of a Galaxy class
>ship), but I can imagine the size of their engine room.  Now we know that
>the Galaxy class ship is faster than a Warbird, probably because of the
>energy the cloaking shield consumes.

	If this is true, then why is it that whenever they show USS Enterprise
and a Romulan Warbird head-to-head, the Warbird looks about 5 times the size of
the Enterprise?

			-Jonny B.
-- 
How do you tell which computer on the network has a virus?
  ....It's the one with a stuffed up node.
				-From Rec.humour.funny
From: KELSEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (KELSEY, Michael H.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: what is the significance of 11001001 in "11001001"
Date: 2 Sep 92 03:41:22 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <schlegel.715396160@cwis>, schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
says:
>
>I was wondering what the significance was of the binary number 11001001 on
>the episode "11001001".  Any CS major will tell you that this number equals
>201 in ordinary decimal.
>
>In the story, Picard and William are frantically trying to guess the
>filename to restore the binar's main computer and Picard points at the
>unconscious Binars and says "Would they have kept it *that* simple?"
>Well I was expecting him to guess "four" as in the number of binars
>laying on the floor (00000100 in an eight digit binary or byte) but then
>they come up with 201? what the hell?
>Any ideas, is it really simple?
>
>Mark

Each binar had a "name" which was a two-digit binary number.  The string
"11001001" was simply the names of the four binars, in the order in which
they were lying on the deck.
                                               -- Mike Kelsey

[  My opinions are not endorsed by SLAC, Caltech, or the US government  ]
What is your _name_?    "kelsey@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu"
What is your _quest_?   "To get a Ph.D. in high-energy physics"
When will you _finish_? "I don't know.   Waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh..."
From: KELSEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (KELSEY, Michael H.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Beyond Infinity
Date: 2 Sep 92 03:35:58 GMT
 <8191@dirac.physics.purdue.edu> <16855D849.GLETTY@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>
 <8195@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <8195@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>, hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu
(Jason W. Hinson) says:
>
[ Some stuff deleted, since what follows is self-contained... ]
>
>From the tech manual, page 56- "Even if it were possible to expend the
>theoretically infinite amount of energy required, an object at Warp 10
>would be traveling infinitely fast, occupying all points in the universe
>simultaneously."
>
>I say it should be occupying all points IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL at the
>same time. But anyway, according to the tech manual, warp 10 is infinite.
>
>-Jay

If the Universe is open -- unbounded -- then you are correct, but if the
Universe is a closed hypersurface (the analogy is to the surface of a
balloon), and the ship's trajectory is not along a "great hypercircle" (or
if the closed hypersurface is not spherical) then you could imagine the ship
circumnavigiating the Universe repeatedly, without retracing the same path.
Under those conditions, after sufficiently many such circuits (all taking
ZERO TIME!), the ship would have traversed every point in the Universe
simultaneously.  Pretty messy, eh?
                                               -- Mike Kelsey

[  My opinions are not endorsed by SLAC, Caltech, or the US government  ]
What is your _name_?    "kelsey@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu"
What is your _quest_?   "To get a Ph.D. in high-energy physics"
When will you _finish_? "I don't know.   Waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh..."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech