HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: debell@ERE.UMontreal.CA (De Bellefeuille Andre)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Subspace Theory 101
Summary: Causality Problem
Keywords: Causality
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:20:49 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Universite de Montreal

In article <1992Sep8.204729.16709@leland.Stanford.EDU> fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV) writes:
>
>Answer:  Causality violation is such a bad thing because it upsets our
>ordinary expectations about what the universe is like,  Fr'instance,
>we expect that someone HAS to pull a trigger of a gun before someone
>else doubles over, shot, for instance.  We don't LIKE the idea that
>someone doubling over, shot, causes someone to pull a trigger - 
>but there's nothing in physics I've yet encountered that says
>time flow must have a definite direction.  As to the
>irreversible process theories of statistical mechanics and 
>thermodynamics . . . well, stat mech theories ARE approximations
>made to simplify some pretty messy math, and thermo grew out
>of a body of empirical observations, which happened not to include
>any non-causal processes.
>
>In short, the only thing which says causality is correct is
>our own body of observational evidence, which though large
>is by no means definitive or conclusive.  Causality violation
>is only "bad" because it would make the universe a harder place
>to live in / figure out / more interesting place to live in.
>
>- JWL IV

I doubt it's only a question of our own senses. Imagine being
born before your parents.  There seems to be physical "realities"
that we cannot push under the carpet.

We could elaborate more on statistical mechanic and one of the
definition of time flow (the growth of entropy) but i don't
want to waiste bandwith.

Just my humble opinion.

Andre De Bellefeuille
debell@ere.umontreal.ca

(BTW s'cuse my english, It's not the language
I'm used writing with.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tjm@ecr.mu.oz.au (Trefor_John MORGAN)
Subject: Prime Directive 
Organization: Dept. Engineering Computer Resources, Melbourne Uni.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:59:25 GMT

	Can someone mail me the exact wording of the Prime Directive, (if
there is one). And send me some examples of what happens when it is violated
or situations where it is maintained.

	Thanks in advance,
		Trefor John Morgan (Australia)

[We get TNG once a week (second series I believe) and they are all out of order]
[it sucks]
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: 'The Next Phase' Question
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:47:54 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <jc3y3xr@rpi.edu> petitc@rpi.edu writes:
<In article <e3PqqB1w164w@waffle.sns.com>, hank@waffle.sns.com (hankdtank) writes:
<|> I am new to this news group, so this question probably has been answered 
<|> thousands of times... heck, I don't even care for an answer, but...
<|>  
<|> In TNG episode 'The Next Phase,' how come Geordi and Ro are able to pass 
<|> through everything, yet they can't go through floors?  You would think that 
<|> when Ro was running, the stomping of her feet would cause something to 
<|> happen.
<
<  Well, the reason could be that the graviton polarity generators which
<produce the artificial gravity for the ship also produce intense E-M fields,
<if you are extremely close to them.  Since they are right under the floors,
<the fields keep Geordi and Ro from falling through.  But, since they aren't in
<the walls, they can pass through them.

At the end, they dove behind a couch of some sort, right before the phaser
exploded.  Why bother, since it wouldn't protect them.  But, the funniest
thing about that scene was that the ballons moved from the moving air caused
by their bodies.  As far as the story was concerned, the ballons should not
have moved.
-- 
      harvard\                          spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
Vidiot  ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
      rutgers/            INTERNET:vidiot!brown%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.edu
                                   brown@wi.extrel.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jcbarthe@rodan.acs.syr.edu (John C. Barthelmes)
Subject: Re: Moving during Transport
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 18:26:54 EDT

In article <92Sep03.022659.19005@acs.ucalgary.ca> jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes:
>Hmmmm. On TOS, the crew seemed to freeze on beam-out (due to the
>SFX process), but on TFS and TNG they happily dance about during
>beam in and out.
>
>
I've noticed this myself, even in the Star Trek novels...
 It mentioned something about being 'frozen' by the transport
 beam...
>...something about what it would look like from the 'inside'...
>
I would imagine that this would look just like it does from the outside...
Like, you see the transporter room and the transporter swirls cover
your view and the transporter room slowly fades out to be replaced
by one of those paper caves (if in TOS) or a jungle scene (if in TNG).
					John C. Barthelmes
--
|* John C. Barthelmes                | The meaning of life is       *|
|* jcbarthe@rodan.acs.syr.edu        |  to be happy...              *|
|* jcbarthe@syredu.bitnet            |  try not to hurt people...   *|
|* barthelm@jane.cs.fredonia.edu     |  and hope you fall in love!  *|
From: t0e0078@tamsun.tamu.edu (Terje Eggestad)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp eleven mystery
Keywords: Fnord Impossible
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:34:40 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

Parallell this discussion to the discussion on lightspeed, Einstein only
proved that it is impossible to achive c 1, or it is impossible to an object
with rest mass to move at (NOTE AT) light speed, he later pointed out 
him self that no one have said anything about traveling faster that light.

The warp 10 barrier is created from the fact that each nested warpfield
is created faster and faster and you are bumping into the plack time constant,
the smallest time quantum. All you need to do is to figure another way to
propell a ship non-relativistic. 

Remember, as long you can't find a law that says it can't be done, there is 
a way to do it, it becomes a question of, imagination, time, and money.

Terje


    _________    _________    _________
   /         \  /         \  /         \
   |         |  |         |  |         |   Terje Eggestad
   | FORTRAN |  |   VMS   |  |  MSDOS  |   t0e0078@tamsun.tamu.edu
   |         |  |         |  |         |
   |   RIP   |  |   RIP   |  |   RIP   |    "A dollar saved is a dollar 
   |         |  |         |  |         |     wasted"
-- 

    _________    _________    _________
   /         \  /         \  /         \
   |         |  |         |  |         |   Terje Eggestad
From: rau@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Drau)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: warp drive & related
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:03:06 GMT
Organization: Fredonian Computer Network

In article <1992Sep15.043228.26623@unlv.edu> dalton@buddy.cs.unlv.edu (Beiad Dalton) writes:
>
>I am searching for __any__ pieces of information concerning warp drive technology, efects, physics, transwarp.  Also interested in other forms of space \ time \ reality travel.  Also, there is a STN about a spider who develops a new form of travel using singularity.  I believe they called it transwarp but it's not the same as the Excellsior (sp?) I think.
>
	The book, I think, is The Wounded Sky, Diane Duane (?), written quite
a few years ago.  The best source for canon TNG warp info is, of course, the
ST:TNG Tech Manual.

- Drau

>-Don't sell your soul to Microsoft.  I know a 75th level demonic salesman with
> better rates.  Also don't sell your soul to the Geeks.  Campuses are infested
> with them.  Re-elect Zaphod Beeblebrox.

All opinions, identified, implied, or suggested, are my own.
Cthulhu wins over Zaphod, sorry.
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Cloaking device and the Fed.
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:11:01 GMT
Organization: Aston University

t0e0078@tamsun.tamu.edu (Terje Eggestad) writes:
: 
: In the discussion of the feasability of a cloaking device, hear this:
: 
: You can not:
: -:  Use any for of an long range active sensor, remember that these radiate
: (Big E uses these)
: -:  use a navigational deflector, it radiate.
: 
: 
: -: and worse a cloak works by allowing all radiation pass thru indisturbed
: and, since all passive sensors work by absorbing radiation, you will be 
: seriously blinded. An antenna don't absorb much energy but it will 
: disturb the radiation patter severly, and would be easily detectable.

Also add to this fire any weapon!!!!
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: bbohac@nyx.cs.du.edu (bbohac)
Subject: Re: relative speed
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: Mon, 7 Sep 92 01:45:29 GMT



Real physicists have stated that if you were to start off in a particular
direction, and if you were to continue moving in exactly that direction
for a long enough period of time, the bending of the universe would
cause you to return to the precise point at which you began.
For the sake of argument let us assume that a sufficient fraction
of warp 10 (e.g. 9.9999999) can be obtained to be considered
"infinite" (or any finite speed too great to measure).
Given these two postulates, the two ships, travelling back to back
(on precisely opposing vectors) would be "instantly" (or as
close to instant as you please) destroyed as they collide
with each other, head to head.

Please don't make me participate in such an experiment!
[sheesh]

btb (call me cipher)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: bbohac@nyx.cs.du.edu (bbohac)
Subject: Re: The Next Phase: Question
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: Mon, 7 Sep 92 01:49:06 GMT



The writers were assuming that the "phased" state was a metastable condition,
requiring no additional energy to maintain once initiated.
(Is this what you were asking?)
(hmmm, maybe not)(shrug)

btb (call me cipher)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jeff@adx.adelphi.edu (Jeffery Storch)
Subject: Re: Cloaking device and the Fed.
Organization: Adelphi University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:18:31 GMT

nash@visus.com (Richard V. Nash) writes:


>What about the episode where the natives think that Picard is a god. The survey  
>team observeing the natives live in a 'cloaked' observatory on the side of the  
>cliff.

They use a hologram projector... like the holodecks

	Jeff Storch
	jeff@adx.adelphi.edu


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
| jeff@adx.adelphi.edu | Exterminate! EXTERMinate!! EXTERMINATE! |
------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: sphillip01@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Re: Relative to ?
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 07:18:43 GMT

In article <8217@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>, hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) writes:
> sphillip01@cc.curtin.edu.au writes:
> <Speed of light, ships back to back ... Would someone care to explain what LIGHT
> <travels relative to ? The centre of the universe ? Earth :) ? Students of a 
> <rival University ?
> <
> <
> <Trevor Phillips
> <sphillip01@cc.curtin.edu.au
> 
> Light travels at the same speed for ANY observer. (i.e. light doesn't travel
> relative to any one thing, rather it travels at the same speed relative to
> ALL observers.)  The way to explain this is through length contractions and
> time dilations via special relativity.
> 
> -Jay

Hmmmmm ... sounds like physics to me ... So if light is travelling relative to
me the observer, and I'm moving at half the speed of light etc ... then relative
to light I still wouldn't be moving, so I can go faster ... etc ... Which seems
to make the speed of light defunct as I'll always be moving 0 relative to it.
Not ? :)
From: jim@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jim Jagielski)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Cloaking device and the Fed.
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:35:23 GMT
Reply-To: jim@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jim Jagielski)
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

petitc@nuge105.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit) writes:

>In article <1089@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jim@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jim Jagielski) writes:
>|> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:

>|> >The standard shields on a UFP ship can render the ship radar and optically 
>|> >invisible.
>|> 
>|> To radar yes.
>|> To optics no.

>  Why would it render it invisible to radar and NOT to optics?  They're both
>E-M radiation, just at different freqencies.  And we KNOW the shields keep out
>X-Rays, so unles there is a deliberate "window" in the visible range (Not
>Bloody Likely), the ship _has_ to be invisible (or at least a black sphere, or
>whatever shape the shields are in).

This brick wall does a dandy job of blocking visible light. It ain't so
hot at blocking out Xrays or gamma rays. Therefore you can't use the
logic that if keeps out one type, it's gotta keep out _all_ types.

There have been a few time when the Enterprises shield's have been up and
people have seen it from "windows" in other spacecraft. Of course, it's
never been 100% mentioned that the shields _don't_ keep visible light
out, but it's sure been alluded that the great thing about cloaking is that
it makes things _invisible_.
-- 
    Jim Jagielski               | "This is supposed to be a happy occasion.
    jim@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov   |  Let's not bicker and argue about who
    NASA/GSFC, Code 734.4       |  killed who."
    Greenbelt, MD 20771         |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: dalton@buddy.cs.unlv.edu (Beiad Dalton)
Subject: warp drive & related
Reply-To: dalton@buddy.cs.unlv.edu (Beiad Dalton)
Organization: UNLV Computer Science and Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 04:32:28 GMT


I am searching for __any__ pieces of information concerning warp drive technology, efects, physics, transwarp.  Also interested in other forms of space \ time \ reality travel.  Also, there is a STN about a spider who develops a new form of travel using singularity.  I believe they called it transwarp but it's not the same as the Excellsior (sp?) I think.

Specifically, I look for the book with spider, and anything about making one ship look like another, but anything is good.  Also, novels about romulans & time travel.  <Thanx>


-Don't sell your soul to Microsoft.  I know a 75th level demonic salesman with
 better rates.  Also don't sell your soul to the Geeks.  Campuses are infested
 with them.  Re-elect Zaphod Beeblebrox.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: rpascazi@csws14.ic.sunysb.edu (Robert R Pascazio)
Subject: Re: Cloaking Top Ten
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:46:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.192346.13719@ultb.isc.rit.edu> smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>Top Ten reasons why the Federation doesn't use cloaking devices:
>
>10.  TNG Romulan/Klingon cloaking devices use different technology than
>     TOS/SFS/VH, so Kirk's stolen technology is not transferrable.

This sounds to me like a very reasonable explanation. Star Trek anti-matter
power systems (ones used from everybody from the Federation to the Borg) all
have noticable characteristics in the areas of power modulation and energy
wave characteristics. So KLINGON technology used with Federation power
systems would probably not work too well or be very power hungry..
(Large Power Converters) or just very detectable.

                                        -Rob-

Krusty the Klown for President!
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
_|____|____|____|____|     RPASCAZI@SBCCVM.BITNET  __|____|____|____|____|___
____|____|____|__     RPASCAZI@LIBFS1.IC.SUNYSB.EDU   ___|____|____|____|____
_|____|____|____|_        N.Y. State University at     ___|____|____|____|___
____|____|____|____|           Stony Brook            _|____|____|____|____|_
_|____|____|____|____|_ (516)632-3710  (914)754-7222 |____|____|____|____|___
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV)
Subject: Re: Borg Scout Ship
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 00:44:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.190824.21222@wdl.loral.com> trw@spl1.spl.loral.com (Tim R Witort) writes:
>  The "ultra-massive" Borg ship may have been made out of a
>very dense material. This would permit it to be relatively
>small but have a very high mass.
>
>-- Tim

Brought to mind another notion.  The Galaxy-class use deuterium for their
matter/antimatter reaction.  One could achieve a much higher energy
density for storage by using, say, neutronium and anti-neutronium.

I wouldn't put it past the Borg to have the technology to handle the
stuff, and if you happen to plate the walls of your ship with it,
your fuel supply doubles as superb inert shielding.  That could
easily drive the mass of even a "tiny" ship 'way up.

- JWL IV

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: schmasey@leland.Stanford.EDU (Casey Carlton O'Hara)
Subject: Re: The Federation and cloaking tech...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 22:46:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.114345.18877@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:

>But the point is that several people have claimed that it is not
>possible to simultaneously shield and cloak a ship, and I want to know
>who told them that.  I'm not saying it's an implausible condition, I
>just want to know what canonical source told them that.  Because the
>best explanation for Chang taking so long to die is that his ship was
>shielded, and I have seen no information anywhere which leads me to
>believe that Chang's ship was not shielded.

I believe it's been stated that a cloaked ship can not fire its
weapons... Since Chang's ship clearly fired some type of weapon at the
Klingon ship, it seems plausible that it was fitted with cloakable
shields at the same time it received weapons that could fire while
cloaked. 
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   __________/  bonz R godz!  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Casey O'Hara                      (_|____|___\__________
schmasey@leland.stanford.edu             _|_|___________)
Disclaimer:  All opinions expressed here are yours.   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: dv@cc-mac.nbn.com (David Vezie)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Cloaking device and the Fed.
Date: 13 Sep 92 06:40:05 GMT
Organization: Computer Concepts

In article <j=7yzn+@rpi.edu> petitc@rpi.edu writes:
>In article <1089@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jim@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jim Jagielski) writes:
>|> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>
>|> >The standard shields on a UFP ship can render the ship radar and optically 
>|> >invisible.
>|> 
>|> To radar yes.
>|> To optics no.
>
>  Why would it render it invisible to radar and NOT to optics? ...

Nothing strange there -- consider the stealth bomber.  It's invisible
to radar because when radar strikes it, the radar is deflected off elsewhere,
rather than being bounced back to the observer.  The E's shields would
do the same thing.

And with optics, it's a matter of the object (the ship) not sending
any light out, and also causing light from elsewhere to pass through
unchallenged.  This, the standard shields do not do.

It's not a matter of what EM frequencies are used, it's how radar and
optics are used differently.
-- 
David Vezie dv@sonoma.edu,dv@xnet.ssl.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jasonp@cunix4.Prime.COM (Jason R. Pascucci)
Subject: Re: Warp eleven mystery
Keywords: Fnord Impossible Fnord 
Organization: Prime Computer, Inc.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 05:46:59 GMT

Sigh...well, since we are all posting our crack theories, let
me interject some of my crack sanity into this...

Let's take the concept...'warp'. Think of it different...
like the Guild Highlighters from Dune which 'Fold Space'.
To acheive FTL travel, you have to 'fold' or 'warp' space. 

Warp 10 is equivelant to the infinate improbability drive in the heart 
of gold from Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Trilogy, you are
every place in the universe at once (the universe is folded such
that all points are touching, and you are there). This
takes an obvious amount of energy (large). This also
gets you instantantanious transfer anywhere in the universe,
i.e. infinite speed. Warp 11 is simply wrong. You couldn't
tell if something is going warp 10, really. 

A few other points of note: 

Phaser's only (interesting) damage at equivalent integral warp values, 
and they don't do a good job at crossing warp fields either.
(Which is why most combat is done at impulse power). Photons
only have enough energy to keep their current warp field for a while,
and add some sub-light speed to get away from the ship. 
(A perfectly acceptable thing to do instead of having your ship
blow up is run away, but this wouldn't make for good visuals.)

Another interesting concept might be firing a phaser from
relative rest to a ship heading toward you at, say, warp 2. 
At warp 2, perhaps, (maybe it's only warp 1) they are 'missing' every 
other photon of energy, so the effect is halved. This would go up
to warp 10, where, since the ship is (for these purposes)
everywhere, but not anywhere, they wouldn't get any effect. 

Also, warp 5.999 gives you all the relativistic effects of .999c, 
which is why, for example, after the enterprise gets transported by Q, 
or the Traveller, or someone, past warp 9.99, they have to reset their
clocks. This leads one to believe that in warp factor 5,
they can't go warp 6 without going to warp factor 6, even though
they can go 5.9 (or something). Again, it would take
(near) infinite energy to propel them at warp 5.99999999999,
but only slightly more energy to travel at warp 6 than (if
memory serves from the table in the TNG guide) warp 5.6. 

Time travel I think is accomplished by moving outside of the
warp field, which is why it seems that you need to have a huge
amount of energy to travel backwards in time (like
pulling away from the Sun at warp whatever). However, I believe
that the warp factor doesn't matter much in time travel, I think you 
just need to be able to snap the link between space-time for
an instant, and that the warp bubble protects whatever
is inside. 

See? It makes perfect sense...:)

Fleet Admiral Steele

-- 
Jason R. Pascucci
jasonp@primerd.prime.com

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech