HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: THe Painkiller
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Why the "starbow"/"rubber-band" effect? Speculation
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:54:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <Y2j+kj+@engin.umich.edu> (Brad Books) writes:
>the "rubber-band" warp effect, here's what I think it might be:  Imagine your-
>self in a little shuttle or something floating right behind the Enterprise.
>Now, the Enterprise goes to warp speed.  The ship is now going faster then 
>light, so the image takes some time to get to your eyes (longer than it
>normally would).  Meanwhile, the jump to warp speed occurs in such little time
>(less than Planck time, acccording to the TNG Tech Manual) that the image of
>the ship where it was before hasn't faded from your brain yet.  Therefore, at
>the same moment, you see the back of the ship right in front of you and the 
>front of the ship speeding away, having the visual effect of stretching it
>out, and this lingers until the original image fades away, making the ship
>look normal again  (I don't know if length contraction occurs or not, since
>this is warp space we're talking about.)  Anyway, this always made sense to
>me.
>
>-Brad

	As a passing thought, isn't the above the so-called Picard manouvre ?
I recall some episode ( the Ferengi with the mind-controlling thingee ) in 
which Picard describes this strategy.
	Just my contribution to the pile.
						The Painkiller

****************************************************************************
	Planets devastated,		  |	THE PAINKILLER
	Mankind on its knees,		  |  
	A saviour comes from outer skies  | " May the farce be with you "
	In answer to their pleas..        | " Engage"
	HE IS THE PAINKILLER.             | " About face, Wesley"
****************************************************************************
From: v116r8ac@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Chris Nasipak)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Time Travel
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:03:00 GMT
Organization: United Nations Intelligence Taskforce
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

[Speculation based on a number of sources, esp. "Tomorrow is Yesterday"]

As I recall, time travel was first produced by the interaction of a warp field
with the gravity field of a black hole.  The high gravity affected the warped
space within the drive field, causing it to lose its connection to "normal"
space-time, and travel along the temporal "axis", operating in 4-dimensional
space.  This was later duplicated by using a stronger warp field [ie, higher
speed] and a weaker gravity field [earth's sun].  In each case, however, they
had to come very close to the gravity field to get the highest deformations 
possible, diving practically into the corona.

Also, speculation from non-canon sources, several novels have put forward the
notion that the warp field causes similar perturbations in the gravity field,
possibly causing a supernova.  [Such as Kern's tactic in "Redemption ]["].
Thus, an attempt at time travel is very risky if the trajectory is off, lending
even more weight to McCoy's statement in STIV: "And if it's off, we {all} fry."
(Quote from memory, corrections - but not flames - welcomed.)


So - interactions of powerful spacewarp and gravity fields give two possible 
outcomes.

1) If the trajectory is just right - as calculated by Mr. Spock - time travel
   can be accomplished.
2) If it's wrong, **BOOM**.

Intelligent comments welcomed.  Flames to /dev/null.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you really feel like    |         Not Croaker           |Somewhere else, the
arguing with a can of      |                               |tea is getting cold.
deoderant that registers   | v116r8ac@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu |Come on - we've got
nine on the Richter Scale? |   nasipak@acsu.buffalo.edu    | work to do.
        --- Ace            |                               |  --- Doctor Who
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I wasn't expecting the ReichsInspektor General."  -- General Strasser
"No One expects the Reichsinspektor General." -- Doctor Who, TimeWyrm:Exodus
From: kfree@arghouse.UUCP (Kenneth Freeman)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Subspace vs. Antispace
Date: 15 Apr 92 08:10:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Listening Post

hillel@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (hillel.e.markowitz) writes:

> In article <1992Apr9.213121.25076@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> mbrockma@gn.ecn.purdue.e
> >In article <#l4tqpn@rpi.edu> petitc@rpi.edu writes:
> >>  I was plugging some funny (imaginary) numbers into some quantum physical
> >>equations and came up with a NEGATIVE probability curve.  When I consider t
> >>and the fact that, if you put in a velocity v, greater than c, you get an
> >>imaginary number (NEVER complex, but imaginary).  To me, this signifies a s
> >>that you enter to go faster than c. 
> >>
> >>  In this anti-space, ONLY a v>c is permitted, with velocities approaching 
> >>slowing down) take more energy.  What relation is this antispace to subspac
> >>if there is none, then what IS subspace?  I mean, I've read the TNG Tech Ma
> >>but it never specifies what subspace is.
> >
> >If this were the case then it would take zero energy to go infinitly fast!
> >
> >BTW, I thought that Complex numbers were imaginary numbers?
> 
> A complex number is of the form a + bi with a real and imaginary
> part.  In this case a pure  imaginary number is one wher "a = 0".
> 
> Based on the way it seems to work the tachyon (which is what is
> described would see itself as speeding up to light speed in its own
> universe.
> 
> Hillel Markowitz        H_Markowitz@att.com

 
Check out Gregory Benford's interview with Stephen Hawking in
the April issue of Fantasy & Science Fiction; Hawking has been
having fun with imaginary time.

---
If people did not sometimes do silly things,
nothing intelligent would ever get done. -Wittgenstein
kfree@arghouse.UUCP or ...!crash!nusdecs!arghouse!kfree
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Field Collisions
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:52:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: hellgate.1992Apr7.225206.16854
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

v128nkej@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Boggles the MIND) writes:
>
>	Perhaps a phenom. much like NASA pukes use to accelerate Galileo and
>other space faring vehicles using the Gravitational fields of a planet and the
>vehicle's.  I believe it's called something like a 'non-impact collision'.
>	I kniow that you need to use the gravity field of a very very very
>large object-such as a planet-

Actually the object doesn't have to be big.  It's not the size of the
object, it's the motion of the object relative to some point, and
relative to the vehicle you want to accelerate (or decelerate).  This
same orbital mechanics principle to some extent governs the behavior
of shepherd moons, which are usually similar in size.

--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
From: genius@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Michael Cooper)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: USS Asimov?
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 22:54:44 PDT
Organization: TradeNET Corp., Castlegar, BC CAN

sarff@gsrc.enet.dec.com (Kent Sarff) writes:

> 
> >>Is there a USS Asimov?
> >>
> >>If not...There should be!
> 
> >Damn straight! And it should be more of those unnamed Galaxy Class ships...
> 
> Just name a ship??  Come on, how about a Azimov Class?  He will always be in
> a class of individuals that have shaped the present and future of science fac
> 
>             Kent Sarff
>       sarff@gsrc.enet.dec.com
> Digital is blameless for my rambling

That is exactly what I was thinking.  A ship could be looked over easily, or 
lost in the piles of names already existing.  A class would give him the 
credit that he really deserves.
From: v116r8ac@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Chris Nasipak)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Why the "starbow"/"rubber-band" effect? Speculation
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:31:00 GMT
Organization: United Nations Intelligence Taskforce
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

A number of people once asked for an explanation of the "rubber-band"
effect when the E-D went to warp speed.  This bothered me for a while, too,
but I believe I have an explanation for it.

Under Relativity laws, as an object approaches c, time slows down, mass 
increases, and length increases.  Therefore, the obvious reason the ship
looks stretched from the point of view of the camera, is that it is 
accelerating to c preparatory to entering warp space (the flash of light.).

Comments?  Questions?  
[Math flames may be directed to /dev/null.  Intelligent Comments about
any miscalculations and misrememberances will be accepted.]

Thank You.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you really feel like    |         Not Croaker           |Somewhere else, the
arguing with a can of      |                               |tea is getting cold.
deoderant that registers   | v116r8ac@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu |Come on - we've got
nine on the Richter Scale? |   nasipak@acsu.buffalo.edu    | work to do.
        --- Ace            |                               |  --- Doctor Who
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I wasn't expecting the ReichsInspektor General."  -- General Strasser
"No One expects the Reichsinspektor General." -- Doctor Who, TimeWyrm:Exodus
From: rbr4@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Roland Roberts)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Star Fleet Battles
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:43:58 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <167C3CE49.HSUSA00@ricevm1.rice.edu>
HSUSA00@ricevm1.rice.edu (Susarla, H. Krishna) writes: 
>
>In Star Fleet Battles, if every hex is 10,000 kilometers, and one hex
>per turn is warp one (the speed of light), then I calculate that each
>turn is is less than a tenth of a second...Someone tell me if I'm
>wrong. I guess this means that SF battles is definitely outside the
>realm of possibility.... 

I'm at work and don't have the manuals with me, but the new edition of
the manuals ("Doomsday") has some vague comment about a combination of
time dilation effects and simply making the game playable. 

roland
--
Roland Blaine Roberts                       roberts@uornsrl.bitnet
Nuclear Structure Research Laboratory       roberts@nsrl31.nsrl.rocester.edu
271 East River Road                         rbr4@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Rochester, NY 14627                         (716) 275-8962
--
Fight `Look and Feel' copyrights and Software Patents.
Join the League for Programming Freedom, info from league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: shimkevi@buchmf.bu.edu (Sergey Shimkevich)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Yamato Vs. Enterprise (was  Re: Prime Directive vs. The FORCE?!?!?)
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:29:59 GMT
Organization: Boston University Chemistry Department


>Robotech Series (Macross and New Generation)

Aargh! That Carl Macek abomination.

>Face it, The weapons used in Robotech are superior to those used in ST:TNG.

Well, for one thing "Robotech" is made of three completely unrelated shows,
hacked together by C.M. As such, the weapons are different.

>		Destroys absolutely EVERYTHING in its path of fire.

"Everything" is relative. "Everything" in the Macross universe. Not necessarily
everything in the ST:TNG universe.

Now some of my own suggestions:

Enterprise vs. Gunbuster - Enterprise. No contest. (Any other mecha, for that
matter).

Enterprise vs. Exelion - Enterprise.

Enterprise vs. a Santovasku cruiser (Outlanders) -  Without a null-space
shield, the cruiser is toast (remember what phasers do to living tissue). With
a first-class officer on board to generate the shield, the cruiser will win.

Enterprise vs. the Lovely Angel - Both undamaged, all nearby worlds get
destroyed. 

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Ryan: What is it to you, demon?       //// Sergei Shimkevich             //
// Lune: It is Sir, Demon to you, worm!  //// shimkevi@buchmf.bu.edu        //
// -Phantasy Star III                    ////                               // 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie)
Subject: Re: Warp Field Collisions
Originator: mackenzi@Aragorn.McRCIM.McGill.EDU
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 15:24:52 GMT


Regarding the recent thoughts about two warp-using ships colliding:

Since warp does not behave according to Einsteins's universe, we can 
guess that warp involves some higher dimension (assuming of course that
Einstein is correct).  Now, two ships at the same 3 dimensional point at
the same time may not be at the same 'warp dimensional' location, thus they
may not necessarily collide.  It's like the fact that two non-parallel lines
must intersect on a sheet of paper, but non-parallel lines in 3D space may
not, just extended an extra dimension.

Of course, this assumes that warp IS using some hyper-space type thing.  I'm
not sure; I haven't read the technobabble manual.

--Paul
From: oberoc@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu (Tino Dai)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Yamato Vs. Enterprise (was  Re: Prime Directive vs. The FORCE?!?!?)
Date: 9 Apr 92 03:38:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr9.033853.9093
Organization: Signal and Image Processing Laboratory (SIMPL)
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-7287]: rampart.ee.tulane.edu

In article <83384@bu.edu>, shimkevi@buchmf.bu.edu (Sergey Shimkevich) writes:
|> 
|> >Robotech Series (Macross and New Generation)
|> 
|> Aargh! That Carl Macek abomination.

|> >Face it, The weapons used in Robotech are superior to those used
in ST:TNG
|> 
|> Well, for one thing "Robotech" is made of three completely unrelated shows,
|> hacked together by C.M. As such, the weapons are different.
|> 
|> >		Destroys absolutely EVERYTHING in its path of fire.
|>
> "Everything" is relative. "Everything" in the Macross universe. Not necessarily
First of all, there was nothing on Robotech called the Yamato. Ther
was the SDFI and veritech fighters. For the enemy, they has
battlecrusier and they were called Zen tri dd(spell to the best of my knowledge)
|> everything in the ST:TNG universe.
|> 
|> Now some of my own suggestions:
|> 
|> Enterprise vs. Gunbuster - Enterprise. No contest. (Any other mecha, for that
|> matter).
|> 
|> Enterprise vs. Exelion - Enterprise.
|> 
|> Enterprise vs. a Santovasku cruiser (Outlanders) -  Without a null-space
|> shield, the cruiser is toast (remember what phasers do to living tissue). With
|> a first-class officer on board to generate the shield, the cruiser will win.
|> 
|> Enterprise vs. the Lovely Angel - Both undamaged, all nearby worlds get
|> destroyed. 
|> 
|> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|> // Ryan: What is it to you, demon?       //// Sergei Shimkevich             //
|> // Lune: It is Sir, Demon to you, worm!  //// shimkevi@buchmf.bu.edu        //
|> // -Phantasy Star III                    ////                               // 
|> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

-- 
*******************************************************************************
mail to:                            *    Jellybaby?
oberoc@ee.tulane.edu                *        -Tom Baker, Doctor Who
                                    *       
***************************************************************************
    
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jjm3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Jeffrey Joseph Martino)
Subject: How good are EM spectrum sensors? RE: First Duty
Reply-To: jjm3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Jeffrey Joseph Martino)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: USA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:55:40 GMT

SPOLIERS




Is there any indication of how good StarFleet vessels' EM sensors are?

After seeing The First Duty, I wondered if:

Given:
 A. There are warp capable ships within the solar system in transit or
     on standby.
 B. At least some of these ships have excellent EM spectrum sensors.

What's wrong with this:

 A. News of the Nova Squadron incident reaches StarFleet quickly
 B. Within a couple of minutes StarFleet dispatches a ship or ships to
     warp to a distance a few light-minutes from the position of
     the accident and record the event, in the electromagnetic spectrum.

Would this seem to you a good standard procedure for such incidents, too?

--Jeff
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: daily@a.cs.okstate.edu (DAILY STEPHEN RICH)
Subject: Re: Is Starfleet Battles really Trek-worthy?
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 10:02:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.042239.26160@zeus.franklin.edu> iacovone@zeus.franklin.edu (Daniel R. Iacovone) writes:
>In article <LD7giB4w164w@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca> genius@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Michael Cooper) writes:
>>hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) writes:
>>
>>> In article <3P2eiB2w164w@jab.tucson.az.us> stevea@jab.tucson.az.us (Steve Alb
>>> >
[stuff deleted]
>Okay, before I voice mypinion, I need to ask a few questions.
>
>Is the Star Fleet battles game that you people are talking about the
>Board Game -- or is a computer game I was never fortunate to come
>accross.
>I have the board game and on the box that the game comes in is a
>StarShip getting the GINZU by a phaser.  This also has the descriptions
>of all the FED_ROM_KLI ships.
>
>If this is the game -- I would say yes I like it very much and It would
>be nice to see others talk about it. I do not have a problem with it.
>I remember staying up all night playing the board game -- but now I do
>not do it anymore -- unless someone lives in Columbus and wants to give
>it a try.
>
>Now if it is not the board -- DO NOT FLAME ME. I went thru this before
>on another question I did not know the answer too. 
>

Yep, this is the game we are talking about.
From: v128nkej@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Boggles the MIND)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Speed and Relativity?
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:33:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <92097.192416U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>, U53644@uicvm.uic.edu writes...
>Gents, I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but...............
>     Special relativity doesn't care which method you use for circumventing the
>light speed limit. As long as you go from point a to point b in less time than
>it would take traveling at velocity c, you get into paradoxes.

==Explaination of why it won't work=======

> 
>Sorry, but the smart money says that you can't even make it to "warp 1".
> 
>                                             Joseph B. Dunphy
>                                             Graduate Student
>                                             Mathematics and Electrical Eng.


	I believe that what you say may be true- but I hope you're wrong.
Once we begin to say what we cannot do- it is unlikely we will ever do it.

	Remember: You can't prove a negative.
People once thought that crossing the ocean was impossible- can't do it.
People once thought that machines would never be better than man at any job-
can't be done.
People once thought breaking the sound barrier was impossible and that 
we'd never land a man on the moon- can't be done.

	All of these things were impossible because the way to do them
had not yet been figured out.  That didn't stop them from doing it.
Like I said-
I believe what you say is true-that all your methods are correct-
	so then we will just have to find new methods.
From: stoen@cs.widener.edu (Terrence Stoen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: CONVENTION ALERT
Date: 7 Apr 1992 11:46:19 -0400
Organization: Widener University Department of Computer Science, Chester PA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: betty.cs.widener.edu

This is for anyone within a reasonable distance from Valley Forge, PA
Convention center:

May 23,24- Jonathan Frakes & Denise Crosby
and for you out there who REALLY plan ahead-
Oct 31, Nov 1- Patrick Stewart (same place)

Anyone who has the most recent copy of Starlog know this already.

However I would like to add that I was there not too long ago when
Brent Spiner made his appearance and I'll describe the place and how
it was run:
The dealer room is one big room in the square inside a square form.
The video portion of it was run by a complete jerkoff.(very unpolite)
I'm talking about the narrative slide show that is usually shown.
If you talked he said, "Hey, you wanna do this or let me?"
On another note I must add that if you don't want to wait an hour on
line to get in, BUY TICKETS IN ADVANCE!  I had front row seats which
were your ordinary fold away seats but they served their purpose
regardless how uncomfortable.  The tickets select your seating in the
video/guest appearance time. It also lets you forego the waiting line.

-- 
You will die, slowly- DURASSSSSSS-
-Gowron from Reunion.
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Field Collisions
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:53:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: hellgate.1992Apr7.225351.16926
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

v128nkej@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Boggles the MIND) writes:
>
>	Perhaps a phenom. much like NASA pukes use to accelerate Galileo and
>other space faring vehicles using the Gravitational fields of a planet and the
>vehicle's.  I believe it's called something like a 'non-impact collision'.
>	I kniow that you need to use the gravity field of a very very very
>large object-such as a planet-

Actually the object doesn't have to be big.  It's not the size of the
object, it's the motion of the object relative to some point, and
relative to the vehicle you want to accelerate (or decelerate).  This
same orbital mechanics principle to some extent governs the behavior
of cyclical moons (two moons which alternate ascending and descending
nodes of a binodal orbit, or something like that), which are usually
similar in size.

--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
Organization: Senior, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA