HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Colin J. Wynne)
Subject: Re: Transporting vs. duplicating
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:37:46 GMT
Organization: Washington & Lee University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

David Mears (mears@cup.hp.com) wrote:
:
: [explanation of Dirac jumps deleted]
: 
: One proposed Trek-theory behind ST's transporters is that they are able
: to cause Dirac jumps to happen, and to control how and where they happen.

How about this: instead of forcing every single particle in the body to
jump all at once, a transporter could apply an energy field to the target
which would cause it to behave as a 'virtual particle', meaning that the
entire target behaves as though a single particle.  Then one need only
force a single Dirac jump, instead of countless numbers.

'Pattern degradation', then, would be the virtualiser field collapsing, to
the point that it began to exclude certain parts of the target from the
virtualised particle, so you have the problems of controlling multiple
jumps again.  You see, to control a Dirac jump, one can only control the
probability that such a jump occurs.  So, for one particle, either it will
jump, or it won't.  With multiple particles, heavy statictics take over
and you start jumping parts of the body without the rest.

CJW

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  =====  Colin J. Wynne                     Washington & Lee University  =====
  =====  cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu              Lexington, Virginia      =====
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jarnis@mits.mdata.fi (Jarno Kokko)
Subject: Re: Scale 1/1 1701A-impossible dream?: -)
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:57:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.185206.15931@leland.Stanford.EDU> stanford@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanford) writes:
>In article <1..2..3..6> genius@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Michael Cooper) writes:
>>Sounds like a great idea now.  I like the idea of building the thing 
>>underground.  It makes it a lot more structurally sound.
>
>[stuff omitted]
>
>>and there is no real need to see the outside (hence the underground 
>>construction).  Yeah, what else could you have?
>>
>>                                                        Michael Cooper
>
>Actually, I think it would be cooler to have it outdoors to get an
>idea of the size of the thing, but underground makes more sense both
>structurally, and also in that you shouldn't be able to look outside
>your cabin and see daylight and trees.
>
>How about having a lightweight full scale model above ground, a
>"transport station" on ground level which brings you "on board" which
>is in reality below the ground?
>
>My $0.02,
>Scott
>-- 

NAAAH. If you really want it as close as possible to the real thing,
you need to build it up to the orbit, then design a shuttlecraft
that looks like TNG one, and works. And you would need some gravity
generators too... and few other technical problems :-)

And then we just need a working warp drive, and off we go..

:-)

- Jarnis
From: 00pwgrice@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: GRAV, ANTI GRAV, MASS HYSTERIA
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:08:58 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

I GOT A LOAD OF LETTERS CONSERNING MY LAST POST, SO I NEED TO CORRECT A
STATEMENT THAT I INADVERTENTLY MADE.--THE ORIGINAL STAR FLEET TECH MANUAL
THAT I HAVE IS NOT THE ORIGINAL ISSUE, I HAVE THE 25TH ANN. REPRINT. THE TECH
MANUAL IS ORIGINAL IN THAT IT IS BASED ON TOS RATHER THAN TMP OR TNG.

ALSO I HAVE NEVER SEEN THE FAQ ON THIS BAND, IS THERE A DIFFERENT BAND THAT
NEEDS TO BE GONE TO FIRST?

AUCH-CONSIDERING THAT THE GRAVITY ON THE ENTERPRISE IS ARTIFICAL, IT WOULD
BE ASSUMED THAT THE EMISSION OF GRAVITONS IN A CONTROLLED STATE HAS BEEN 
HARNESSED. GIVEN THAT THE GRAVITY ( OR SIMULATION THEREOF ) ON THE ENT. IS
AN ARTIFICIAL SORT, IT WOULD STAND TO REASON THAT YOU COULD DESIGN/FORGE 
A WAVE TRANSPARENT MATERIAL/CIRCUIT TO AVOID THE EFFECTS OF THE ARTIFICIAL 
GRAVITY. [ARTIFICIAL IN THAT IT IS NOT A BY-PRODUCT OF A MASS BODY]

I'M NOT SURE ABOUT WHAT I JUST PUT DOWN, I'M STILL WORKING IT OVER IN MY HEAD
SO IF YOU WANT TO FLAME, KEEP THE CRITICISM CONSTRUCTIVE

							PHIL GRICE
							TOLKIEN KLINGON
From: denny@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Trueman Denny)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:21:32 GMT
Subject: Re: whimpy photon torps
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech

I agree.  The photons are represented poorly in the special effects.  A more

intense explosion would be nice.  I guess they dont want to go to the expense!
From: hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Einstein and Warp Speed
Date: 19 Dec 92 03:42:43 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

In article <1992Dec16.154625.10752@dvs.com> malecki@dvs.com (Dave Malecki) writes:
<Chris Croughton (chris@keris.demon.co.uk) wrote:
<
<: William, you're not the only one!  People have been trying to convince
<: me of this for *months*, and I still don't get it.
<: 
<: One poster on this thread, though, did say that "in some frame of
<: reference, it will appear that you're going backwards in time".  Now
<: *that* is what you've said, and I can agree with it.
<
<Count me in too!  The fact that the fastest messenger in the universe can't
<go faster than c doesn't imply that things actually are the way they look.
<
<I just used the star A and star B model to explain this to a friend a few
<days ago.  Imagine that!  He agrees with me too.  The key to my point of
<view is that what you see isn't what is happening now, but rather what
<happened d/c seconds ago, where d is the distance from you to the viewed
<object in metres, and c is the speed of light in metres/sec.  In
<a sense, we are always looking into the past, albeit ever so slightly.
<


You do NOT understand the principle of Relativity.  I URGE you to read my
post, "Relativity and FTL Travel." It may be lengthy, but it gives you
a compete view.

If you have any specific questions, I would be glad to answer them; 
however, I will be gone until the first or second week of January, so
wait a while to post/mail them.


-Jay
From: jcharpak@acs.bu.edu (Joseph Charpak)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Who would win?
Keywords: Q, Tremaine
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:27:18 GMT
Followup-To: Who would win?
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

The original author mentioned Q vs Tremaine.  Has it ever occured 
to anyone that q *is* Tremaine after 80 years where he has
developed from a whiney 2 year old ("but I was winning...) to
an annoying 6 year old (temper, temper me Capiton (sp.)) I know that
for an immortal being to go from 2 to 6 in 80 years is unrealistic
but maybe he encountered something which made him grow up faster
(i.e. Guinan).  Just thinking....
Joe.

Darnit Jim, I'm a doctor not a clown...What?....Oh, I'm that too.
jcharpak@acs.bu.edu
Joseph Charpak
From: Robert.Gergely@f300.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Robert Gergely)
Sender: Jpunix@urchin.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Shield transport
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 13:41:00 -0500

*** Quoting S114510 to All dated 01-00-80 ***
> >>Also, when the Genolan blocked the doors with the shields, how did 
> the
> Enterprise beam Scotty and Jordie through them?
> 
> ---
>  * Origin: Fahrenheit 454 -- FidoNet <--> UseNet gateway
(1:106/1024.0)

You know I was wondering about that myself.. It shouldn't be possible to
beam 
with the shields up.. I bet the reason they did that is the writers
couldn't 
think of another way to get Geordie and Scotty out, so they bent the
rules a 
bit...

                                            -- T I M E L O R D --


Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: Re: Einstein and Warp Speed 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:44:58 +0000

In article <8918@dirac.physics.purdue.edu> hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu writes:

>An event (event A) occurs right here next to you.  Event B occurs many
>light years away from here at the same time in your frame of reference
>as event A. (Note here that the light from such an event won't get to
>you for many years; however, the event does occure at the same time
>in your frame of reference.)  Using Lorentz _Transformations_, one will
>find that a frame of reference can exist right next to yours such that
>in that frame, event B occured years ago.

Call that FOR frame C.

Here's where I get lost.  How long in C's past can it have occurred?
The same (at most) as the time it would take light to travel from the
event to C?  And won't it seem to C that it occured in A's past as well?

Is it actually sensible to talk about observers in different FORs having
anything in their past, present or future with respect to each other
anyway?

>Normally, this is OK, because in either frame of reference, light cannot
>have gotten to this point yet.  So even though it is in one frame's past
>and one frame's present, neither of the two observers can know about or
>effect the event.

So normally you can't talk about it being in C's past until the light
gets there.

>Now let's say that you allow for instantaneous travel.  Then in my frame
>of reference, it is possible to send a signal to event B.  But in the other
>frame of reference, since event B is in his past, I WILL be sending a
>signal into his past.  If the other observer could get to me a couple of
>seconds before event A occured, he could tell me that event B is going to
>occure, and I could send a signal to effect an event that has already
>occured in his frame of reference.  That is a violation of causality.

Hold on - how did A know about the event anyway?  If it's at lightspead,
then it will arrive at C at essentially the same time, so that *defines*
their common 'present'.  If the communication A to B is instantaneous
(which it has to be, otherwise B wouldn't send the signal to C).  In
which case, when C receives the signal from B, he *can't* know about A,
so it can't be in his past (he may *reason* that it should have happened
a long time ago, if he doesn't know about FTL travel, but that's his
problem).

Or am I misunderstanding the phrase "in his past"?  From my point of
view, if something is in C's past that means he already knows about it.
But how can he know about something happening a long time ago when it
has only just happened?

Chris

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: vanya@leland.Stanford.EDU (john tillinghast)
Subject: Re: More thoughts on the 'Alternate Explanation' theory of time travel
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 05:23:22 GMT

In article <92Dec05.023441.23426@acs.ucalgary.ca> jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes:
>In article <57053@dime.cs.umass.edu> robinson@elux3.cs.umass.edu (RICHARD ROBINSON) writes:
>[snip]
>>We will call whatever it is the Future Perfect. Now we do a similar
>>thing to the past. The first level is all possible set of observations we
>>could have made one instant ago that would have our instant in their one-step
>>Future Perfects. Then, we repeat this again for all those instants.
>>Etc. This produces another tree/cone, the Past Perfect.
>[snip]
>
>On a mildly related note, I wonder if the universe has any
>'Garden of Eden' states. In the cellular automata simulation
>'Life', a Garden of Eden state is an state which could not
>possibly have resulted from any previous state. (I seem to recall
>one was found in the early 80s, but its been a while). If the
>Present Perfect of this theory could be shown to be a possible
>Garden of Eden state, it could only have been formed by either
>instantaneous creation, or interference in the Past [im]Perfect.
>
>Joshua (wha? me? sleep last night?)
>|         A shimmering net undulating like an infinite borealis.             |
>|                                                  - Chapterhouse: Dune      |
>|                                                                            |
>| jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca  Academic Computing Services, University of Calgary |
From: hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Einstein and Warp Speed
Date: 16 Dec 92 08:27:56 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

petitc@vccnw04.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit) writes:
<cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Colin J. Wynne) writes:
<
<>Basically, as Einsteinian mechanics have overtaken and subsumed Newtonian
<>mechanics, one must simply accept the assumption that Zephram Cochrane
<>discoveried a set of Subspace theories such that relativity holds for
<>sublight velocities, yet allow for FTL travel forward in time.  As a
<>mathematical example, I would suggest considering the Quaternary group of
<>complex operators, which relate to the complex numbers roughly as the
<>complex numbers do to the real numbers.  Thus, it would be conceivable for
<>FTL values to be solved as imaginary numbers in one sense, but real values
<>in another, where Einstein would be a Complex projection of the valid
<>Quaternary operators.  (I know, I know... all technobabble.  But I still
<>think it's possible to just find a supertheory that == Relativity for
<>sublight values).
<
<  That'll work.  One way to think about it is to consider Subspace 'energy
<levels' actually alternate dimensions--all of which are empty.  Also, each
<'higher' dimension has its own velocity 'c' and therefore, has its own
<time dilation effects, as you approach its 'c' (That's where fractional
<warp figures come in).  So, going from Warp 6 to Warp 7 means entering the
<next highest subspace energy level, where 'c' is still higher.  But,
<there is contact with 'real' space at the bubble boundary---light 'climbs up'
<the bubble to reach the ship.  The quantum drag effect results from the
<bubble still touching real space---sort of the reason that cars don't go as
<fast as planes (if they use the same amount of power).
<
<  More technobabble, but I'm working on equations to back this up.  Geez,
<now all I need is an FTL drive.  I'll let you know---in Stockholm, when I
<make it work.  :&)


I know people are going to get tired of hearing this, but PLEASE take it
to heart:  Without having a special frame of reference, you CANNOT seperate
FTL travel from causality violation. THATS it, it can't be done. All one
has to assume is that at one point in time I am in one place, and at
a later point in time I am at another place, and that light could not have
gotten there before me; then this is enough to have a causality violation.

Please understand that no great discovery can change this fact.  Start with
two normal, average, everyday observers that we can have today, and add
to that the possibility of FTL travel/communication, and causality can be
violated.  We know this because of what we know about the average, 
everyday observers, and those facts are not going to just change in the 
future.

-Jay

(PS.  again, I explain this and the one way around it in an upcoming post.
I have but one more section to write, and then it will be posted.)


Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: petitc@jec322.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit)
Subject: Re: Gaining momentum from shuttlebay
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:59:05 GMT

qtm2w@Virginia.EDU ("Quinn T. McCord") writes:


>	I was watching Cause and Effect the other day, and I
>grew skeptical when I learned that the Enterprise gained enough
>momentum from opening its shuttlebay.  I mean, those air
>molecules would probably have to be going at relativistic
>speeds to impart a meaningful amount of momentum to the
>Enterprise.  I could do a calculation, if someone would provide
>me with the mass of the Enterprise and the volume of its
>shuttlebay(s).  Anyone got a tech manual handy?

  Well, this may account for some of the discrepancy---

  Isn't the E. always in a weak warp field (because of the Impulse Engines---
they generate a non-propulsive one to reduce the mass of the ship.  So, maybe
the reduced mass can be pushed easier---but yes, it does seem really silly
that a burst of air can move the E. that quickly.

-- 
Now on sale, in Aisle 5 of the Divine Supermarket---Lives, and Clues.  Buy
yours now and avoid the rush!  They make great Christmas gifts!
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it."  - Voltaire.
From: det@phlan.sw.stratus.com (David Toland)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: kiloquad????
Date: 11 Dec 92 12:25:09 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: phlan.sw.stratus.com

In article <92346.025603PAACC@CUNYVM.BITNET> PAACC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>...
> And in Prime Directive, Scotty threatens a computer and it pauses while
>checking to see if Scotty can do what he says. Doesn't this imply some notion
>of self-preservation and sentience?

Well, it implies self preservation, but it does *not* necessarily imply
sentience.  Self-preservation is a pretty specific goal, and it *can*
be programmed in.  It's not a bad idea to do so either, to instruct it
to avoid destruction of itself or the vessel it "controls", from all
recognized threats.

Sentience, however, is a stickier matter.  Sentience is an awareness of
self as existing within a framework of reality in which the computer
would recognize that its every action has an effect on that framework
and vice versa.  It implies the ability to recognize a possible threat
from a source not before encountered, through extrapolation of current
actions and prediction of possible outcomes.  This requires a *much*
more sophisticated view of the universe and one's place in it than is
implied by the above example.  Scotty's threat was explicit and required
no awareness of a framework of reality.  It simply invoked a high-level
directive that raised Scotty's request in the priority queue.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
det@phlan.sw.stratus.com   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."
From: starman@crash.amigans.gen.nz (Robin Halligan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Scale 1/1 1701A-impossible dream?: -)
Date: 19 Dec 92 11:44:47 PST
Reply-To: starman@crash.amigans.gen.nz
Organization: No organisation at all
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Scott Stanford (stanford@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: In article <1..2..3..6> genius@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Michael Cooper) writes:
: >Sounds like a great idea now.  I like the idea of building the thing 
: >underground.  It makes it a lot more structurally sound.
: 
: [stuff omitted]
: 
: >and there is no real need to see the outside (hence the underground 
: >construction).  Yeah, what else could you have?
: >
: >                                                        Michael Cooper
: 
: Actually, I think it would be cooler to have it outdoors to get an
: idea of the size of the thing, but underground makes more sense both
: structurally, and also in that you shouldn't be able to look outside
: your cabin and see daylight and trees.
: 
: How about having a lightweight full scale model above ground, a
: "transport station" on ground level which brings you "on board" which
: is in reality below the ground?
: 

Or you could have everyone enter through a lift/elevator set up like a
shuttle with a view screen showing an close run over the 1701-A and docking
this would give a feeling of size.

--
JUST FOR A CHANGE I WILL TRY THIS.
starman@crash.amigans.gen.nz  (Robin Halligan)
Amigans Public Access UUCP Node Wanganui New Zealand

I'm a K 1 W 1 from the land of the long white cloud
    from the day i begun till the day i'm done
                     I'm a K1W1
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jhk1@cec1.wustl.edu (Jonathan Howard Krivitzky)
Subject: Re: GRAV, ANTI GRAV, MASS HYSTERIA
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:49:41 GMT

In article <6#j2pkg@rpi.edu> petitc@vccnw02.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit) writes:
>mcclaine@hardy.u.washington.edu (Robert Casey) writes:
>
>>	Well, I don't think anyone needs to speculate on that one.  If you 
>>	watch Star Trek IV, The Voyage Home, when Spock is undergoing his
>>	rapid-fire testing on Vulcan, the computer asks him to modify a 
>>	magnetic sine wave so that antineutrinos can penetrate but 
>>	antigravitons cannot.
>
>  Where in ST:IV is this part located?  I never saw such a part.
>-- 
	You Blinked!!
	(Right in the beginning - our second view of Spock was the reffered
scene)
	
	-- Jon K.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: cmeadows@nyx.cs.du.edu (Chris Meadows)
Subject: Re: Transporting on Earth
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 01:49:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.111508.61785@cc.usu.edu> sl6wv@cc.usu.edu writes:
>In article <bak.723521745@sfu.ca>, bak@fraser.sfu.ca (Jason Bak) writes:
>> 	I always wondered how people got around on Earth during the
>> time of Star Trek.  Can people simply transport from say, San Francisc

>> to Paris?  Will the beam penetrate the Earth or must it be bounced
>> around by satellites?
>> 
>
>	I'm sure that others will post some more technical answers, but I seem
>to remember Lt. Barkley being afraid of the transporter, despite his eve
 being
>an engineer that worked on them.  It is my guess that if the average 24t

>Century world citizen had routine access to transporters, they would be 
 LOT
>more comfortable with them.
>
>	BTW, a good source of transporter stories is Larry Niven, who writes
>about their application among common folks, including a couple of good s
ories
>about thieves that use transporters to commit crime and why the use of a
 alabi
>in societies with teleportation capability is useless and irrelevant.
>
>		Rob "Woodchip" Horning


Don't forget Asimov's short story, "The Door," about a kid who
decides he'd rather walk to school than be transported.    

--
Chris Meadows // CHM173S@SMSVMA // CMEADOWS@NYX.CS.DU.EDU
   "If blood be the price of admiralty, then I've just bought me 
    a naval commission."  -- Corwin, SIGN OF THE UNICORN, Roger Zelazny

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: agiblett@cck.coventry.ac.uk (CENOBITE)
Subject: MERRY XMAS TREKKIES
Organization: CPSFS
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 12:26:52 GMT


Well my Trekkie friends I have enjoyed goading you and I thought I would
send you my results.
For those that don`t remember I sent several messages calling you sad people.
This is a leage table of replies. least to most popular

death threats:-1
random insults:-2
structured insults:-2
well thought out reasoned arguments:-8

My conclusion is that the majority of you trekkies are basicly logical people.
I believe this is Mr spoks infulence (please don`t correct my spelling of 
spok as I don`t care how it`s spelt)

WELL MERRY XMAS ALL YOU HAPPY PEOPLE

LIVE LONG AND PROSPER
-- 
******************************************************************************
** In all things there must be moderation, If not the result will be  chaos **
* Order shall eventualy defeat chaos As pain shall eventualy defeat pleasure *
******************************************************************************