HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stevea@jab.tucson.az.us (Steve Albany)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Klingon Dictionary
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 17:19:59 PDT
Organization: Just Another Bbs. Tucson, AZ

        I know that BANTAM released a Klingon Dictionary for Star Trek III, 
which I own. I'd post the details on ISBN and all that, but I don't have it 
in front of me.. Call a bookstore..
 


   ==========================================================================
   |                            | "My son, ask for thyself another Kingdom, |
   |      Steven E. Albany      | for that which I leave is too small for   |
   |  Morris Computer Services  | thee"                                     |
   |   1955 W. Grant Rd #210    |       -- King Philip of Macedonia said to |
   |      Tucson, AZ 85745      | his son, Alexander the Great in 339 B.C.  |
   |   (602) 620-1222 [Voice]   |-------------------------------------------|
   |                            |      EMAIL: SteveA@Jab.Tucson.Az.Us       |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
From: tm@jyu.fi (Timo Mannikko)
Subject: Twin paradox
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 07:42:54 GMT

I asked about so called twin paradox, but so far I haven't got any
clear explanation. So once again:

Twin A stays home and feels one g acceleration (caused by the gravity).
Twin B makes a trip in a ship and feels one g acceleration (caused by
the movement). Now, I have always thought that there is no real
difference between these two kind of accelerations. So why it is B
who stays younger, not A?

Someone wrote that the acceleration is actually a vector with a specific
direction, and this direction happens to be different for A and B.
But from A's point of view, his vector is constant, and B's vector is
moving and changing direction. From B's point of view, it's just the
opposite.

It seems to me that there is a complete symmetry: you could switch A and B,
and nothing changes. There must be something wrong in this!

- Timo
From: qsnow@lonestar.utsa.edu (Quentin . Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: TNG Tech Manual
Date: 15 Aug 92 22:42:18 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <jverho80.713723955@ursa> jverho80@ursa.calvin.edu (Jeffrey Verhoef) writes:
>I'm new to this net, but I just wanted to measure opinion on the semi-new
>TNG Technical Manual.  The writers really got into it...almost too much for
>me, IMHO.  I guess I'm more into the human aspect of Trek.  I did enjoy reading
>it, however, though I muddled through the warp drive explanations and other
>tech stuff that was way over my head.
>
Where do you get the MANUAL at.?
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: guts in star trek
Keywords: Unified field theories
Date: 17 Aug 92 12:45:35 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.

"david gebhardt" <david.gebhardt@canrem.com> writes:
>
>Well, there's a big difference between having a good understanding of
>something and applying it to a problem. It is quite possible that they
>have developed the warp drive without developing a unified field
>theory.

Applying of ``simple'' general relativity would suffice.

>The unified field theory would probably be one of the greatest (if not
>the greatest) scientific breakthroughs of all time.

I agree. But....

>The difficulty lies in the fact that it is such a large problem and
>involves very complex mathematical formulas.

And we don't even have experimental data to point us into a direction.
Unified field theory would become ``measurable'' in the Planck energy
area, and even Grand unified field theories (which don't contain
gravitation) manifest themself at 10^{15}-10^{16} GeV, while the
largest accelerator to build (SSC in the US) reach approx 10^4 GeV. :-(
The low-energy effects of such a theory (such as proton decay) are
very difficult to measure.

>Plus, I think a lot of people feel that if Einstein couldn't solve it,
>who can? 

Einstein didn't like quantum field theory at al. I think he wouldn't
have constructed a QFT of gravitation.

>With computers, it may be possible to solve this problem eventually.

Computers are not of great use without any data or formulas.

>But it somehow wouldn't surprise me if they were still working on it
>500 or 1000 years from now.

I'm affraid this could be true.

>I can't remember everything about it, but I do know that the purpose of
>the theory is to come up with one set of equations that can be applied
>to electric, magnetic and gravitational fields (I'm sure there are some
>other things involved, and that's the part I can't recall offhand).

Since Maxwell, and certainly after special relativity, we know that
the electrical and magnetical field are one field. What is a purely
electrical field for one observer, is a mix of an electrical and
magnetical field for an observer which moves w.r.t. the first.

The other forces are the weak interaction (causes beta-decay for example),
and the color-interaction (causes the forces between nucleons).

>David Gebhardt

 ********************************************************************
 * J.C.A. Wevers                *         u\  _\       /e+        2 *
 * johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *     1 |   \ u \  X  /         |   *
 ******************************** P = - |    >   >---<     + ...|   *
 *     The only nature of       *     N |   /   /     \         |   *
 *     reality is physics       *         u/   /d     u\            *
 ********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: Time Travel
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 02:50:32 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

My 'vote' on the subject:

Time travel is simple (well, if you can drag cosmic strings about
and link black holes together... ;-), but you can't, for some
reason, enter your own light cone. Ie, its impossible to get to
another point in space and time where you can affect yourself.

Why the limitation? Well, if wormholes are the only possibility,
the physics of the gravity wells might make it impossible for the
'from' and 'to' ends to exist within each other's light cones.

Unfortunately, it makes for boring SF. :P

Joshua

_  _      "Thats a good idea!"  "I have those every once in a while."
 -(_)(_)-      "Why do you listen to me when I'm wrong?!?"
 \      /          - Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine
  |  . |      
  -____-      jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca 
 /  \/  \     Academic Computing Services, University of Calgary
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Speed
Date: 21 Aug 92 10:02:45 GMT
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.

daytonn@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Dayton Norrgard) writes:
>
>There seems to be inconsistencies between the STNG and the old ST.  I remember
>episodes where over warp 10 was achieved, but the Enterprise did not go back in
>time. (i.e. The Kelvins)  :)

It was posted by Leon Meyerson a few days ago that in TOS and TNG they use
other efinitions about warp speed. Read his article `Star Trek Technology'.

>	Velocity = (speed of light)^(Warp Factor) 

This can't be true. The dimensions in the left-hand side and the right-hand
side of this equation are different.

******************************************************************** 
* J.C.A. Wevers                *         u\  _\       /e+        2 * 
* johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *     1 |   \ u \  X  /         |   * 
******************************** P = - |    >   >---<     + ...|   * 
*     The only nature of       *     N |   /   /     \         |   * 
*     reality is physics       *         u/   /d     u\            *
********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: FTL travel/communication 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 18:08:41 +0000


In article <1992Aug13.205350.21242@enterprise.rdd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
           baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

> BTW, now physicists are starting to suggest "maybe gravity IS a
> little different!" Easiest to demonstrate: If you've got two balls
> to drop from slightly different locations in an accelerating frame
> of reference, their paths will be onparallel lines. If the two balls
> are dropped in a gravitational frameof reference, their paths converge
> near the center of the earth (or nearest body)

This isn't new!  Arthur C Clarke pointed that out in one of his books
many years ago - perhaps physicists have only just gotten round to
reading his books <g>.

There's another effect, as well - under gravity the acceleration is not
constant, it obeys the 'inverse square' law.

Yes, I know that these things can be masked by assuming an infinitely
large and flat mass, but IMO this does not mean that gravity and
acceleration are equivalent, any more than the fact that Newton's laws
are similar to Relativity at low speed means that they are equivalent.
The 'infinite flat mass' is a special case of gravity (and one that
can't occur in 'reality') in the same way that Newtonian physics is a
special case of relativity (and also can't occur, since the only time
they match exactly is with velocity = 0).

***********************************************************************
*  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: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: warp speed
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:38:31 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

jacob@plasma1.ssl.berkeley.edu (Jamey Jacob) writes:
>From my understanding, warp speed is equivalent to the warp
>factor cubed times the speed if light. That is warp one is
>1c, warp two is 8c, warp three is 27c, etc.  (I got this from
>a space sciences prof., so I don't know how accurate it is.)

This is accurate for TOS, but not entirely accurate for TNG.  The new
warp scale equates warp factor 10 with infinite velocity, but keeps
the smaller warp factors close to their TOS counterparts.  This makes
for a slightly logarithmic curve which becomes vertically asymptotic
between warp 9 and warp 10.

I have yet to see a good equation for the TNG warp/velocity curve.
Lot's of people (including myself) have been able to derive nice ones
with curve-fitting techniques, but Treknology would seem to dictate
that there would be a natural, physically-based equation.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "Okay, NOW I'm worried."  -- Batman
From: KELSEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (KELSEY, Michael H.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: communicators
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:57:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Aug12.011022.29156@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
stanford@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanford) says:
>
>I originally posted a query about communicators, but I guess I'd
>better clarify what I was asking about.
>
>It's pretty obvious how the communicators SHOULD work:
>1.  Character A presses communicator pin (bridge crew can ignore this
>step as the computer is always listening).  This is the equivalent of
>picking up a telephone and hearing the dial tone.
>2.  Ch. A says "Ch. A to Ch. B."  This is "dialing Ch. B's number."
>3.  This registers to the computer, and should send an electronic
>"chirp" to Character B (telephone rings).
>4.  Ch. B taps communicator pin (answers the phone) and conversation
>begins.
>
>But in TNG we get intermediate step 3.5 (at least on occasion):
>3.5.  Ch. B hears "Ch. A to Ch. B."
>
>THIS is the "2 second" delay I was referring to.
>Isn't step 3.5 redundant?  To continue with the telephone metaphor, it
>is as if Ch. B picks up the phone, and then hears Ch. A dialing.
>
>Comments?

I don't think so.  In the episodes, we actually _don't_ hear the receiver's
communicator chirp.  We hear the "Ch. A to Ch. B" statement _instead_.  In
my opinion, your 3.5 should REPLACE your step 3.  That is:

2.  Ch. A says "Ch. A to Ch. B."  this is "dialing Ch. B's number."

3.  This registers to the computer, and the computer transmits the message
"Ch. A to Ch. B" to Character B's communicator (telephone rings).

4.  Ch. B taps communicator pin, or if on the ship says "Ch. B here" (answers
the phone) and the conversation begins.

>
>Scott Stanford
>stanford@leland.stanford.edu
From: ajm@seqp4.sequoia.com (A.J.Madison)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: GUTs in Star Trek
Summary: technology != science
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:03:49 GMT
Organization: Sequoia Systems Inc., Marlboro, Mass.

In article <169b1vINNeli@agate.berkeley.edu>, ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202) writes:
> I always get confused when I watch "The Nth Degree" and see that scene
> of Barclay with Einstein discussing grand unification theories as if
> this is something not yet understood.  And then Geordi comes along
> and says it's "way out of his league."  Isn't Star Trek warp technology,
> etc. predicated on a fairly complete understanding of the nature of
> matter and force?
> 
> And even though the mathematics is at quite a higher level, having
> Barclay talking to Einstein seems almost the same as a physicist
> today wanting a similar talk with Isaac Newton.  Wouldn't it have
> made better sense in the Star Trek world for Barclay to be talking
> to, say, Zephram Cochrane?

Actually I think Einstein was the right choice.  I am about to repeat one of
the segments from James Burke's "The Day Universe Changed."  In one segment
he explains in simple language how technology can easily leap ahead of
science.  Just because we know how to use it does not necessarily mean we
know how it works.  One of the examples was the photo-electric effect.  The
photo-electric effect was long exploited before the science explained a 
theory about how it worked.  A Nobel Prize was awarded to the Scientist who
figured it out.  (For those who don't know, the gentleman in question is
Albert.  Also, he did not receive a Nobel for E=mc^2.)

So in keeping with that idea, Zephrame was the wrong choice, because Barclay
was into theoretical investigation.  All Zephrame did was merely :-) figure
out how to exploit the Warp Effect to create a relatively efficient FTL
drive.  Zephrame would have little to provide in terms of theory, just!
experimental data.  More smileys for the humour impaired :-).

Though slightly contrived, (for those interested in a more dramatic
confrontation with a virtual Einstein, read Pohl's _Heechee_Rendevzous_) I
rather liked the scene.  Personally, I would have preferred a shouting match
between Barclay and Einstein over Quantam Chromo-dynamics, but that would
have gone over the heads of way to many people, and alas also would have
been akin to "Tastes Great"/"Less Filling."  What the scene said most of all
to me, is that GUTs are still not complete even in the 25th century, even
though many more physics phenomena are either exploited or understood.
-- 
when everyone is out to get you, being paranoid is just good thinking.
         - Dr. Johnny Fever <in other words, standard disclaimer>
A.J. Madison                                           ajm@sequoia.com
Sequoia Systems Inc.
From: tm@jyu.fi (Timo Mannikko)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: FTL travel/communication
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:05:45 GMT
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla, Finland


>I wrote the following message to someone who asked me to explain why FTL
>travel/communication impies a causality problem, and I thought it might
>be of some interest to readers of r.a.s.tech:

   [Message deleted]

This was a very good explanation, thanks!

>Hope this was helpful... feel free to ask other questions
>
>-Jay

I will! Namely, I have always wondered one thing in this so called twin
paradox. You know, twin A stays home, twin B makes a trip with velocity
c minus epsilon, and returns home younger than A. Everything OK so far.
But: From B's point of view it is A who has moved, so shouldn't A be the
younger brother?

First I thought that it is the acceleration which makes the difference.
But then again: Let us suppose that B accelerates with constant one g,
which is the same acceleration as A is experiencing. So, where *is* the
difference?

- Timo
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: Re: communicators
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 23:00:59 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1992Aug17.151142.868@galaxy.gov.bc.ca> gbrach@galaxy.gov.bc.ca writes:
>
>Also, let us not forget that in STTNG, Worf, or whoever is at Tactical
>usually ends up performing the role played by Uhura in TOS.

As long as Worf doesn't sing, I'm happy.

Now an interesting twist would be alien nasties capture the
Enterprise and force Riker and Worf into the first(?) male-male
kiss (with passion) on syndicated TV. Is the 90's audience ready?

:)

Joshua
   _  _      "Thats a good idea!"  "I have those every once in a while."
 -(_)(_)-      "Why do you listen to me when I'm wrong?!?"
 \      /          - Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine
  |  . |      
  -____-      jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca 
 /  \/  \     Academic Computing Services, University of Calgary
From: fink2@alcor.concordia.ca (Gemini)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Wanted: Klingon & Vulcan dictionaries
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:09:19 GMT
Distribution: rec

hendrick@ctron.com (Jim Hendrick) writes:

   The title line says pretty much all save that I am looking for them
If you get them please send them this way!

N.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Stardate Formula
Date: 17 Aug 92 11:59:13 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

elee9sv@rosie.uh.edu (92H01722) writes:
>depending on where you are in the universe. So, star date 0.0 would be a
>place and not 0 AD

But Data mentioned that 2364 A.D. was the base year for stardates in
"The Neutral Zone."  While it is undoubtedly true that the observer's
location helps determine the current stardate there is a canonical
point of time/space reference -- the above year, and (presumably)
earth.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "Okay, NOW I'm worried."  -- Batman
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Who cleans up?
Date: 13 Aug 92 07:51:37 GMT
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.

mcconnap@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Andy McConnell) writes:

> Look in the ST:TNG Tech manual...

Where can I get one? (I live in The Netherlands, so please don't mention
some bookstores in the US....).

>hydrogen.  In the ST:TNG Tech manual there is a rather large tank full of  
>deuterium on the Big E that is used for just about everything on the ship.

I thought they used it for nuclear fission engines.

>Andy McConnell

 ********************************************************************
 * J.C.A. Wevers                *         u\  _\       /e+        2 *
 * johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *     1 |   \ u \  X  /         |   *
 ******************************** P = - |    >   >---<     + ...|   *
 *     The only nature of       *     N |   /   /     \         |   *
 *     reality is physics       *         u/   /d     u\            *
 ********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: trw@spl1.spl.loral.com (Tim R Witort)
Subject: Holodeck Tech
Organization: Loral Software Productivity Laboratory
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:04:40 GMT

I've seen two different explanations of how the holodeck
works. 

One says that all of the stuff in there gets replicated
just like the food replicators do their thing.

Another says that there is some other suspension created via
some transporter-type action that wasn't developed until the
24th century.

The former sounds more reasonable since it would allow physical
interaction with the holodeck stuff like riding horses and battling
alien aggressors, but how does the holodeck generate apparently
*living* things? Are those living things simply dead masses that
are somehow manipulated by the holodeck program using tractor beam
type controls? They seem to be alive as Moriarty appeared to have
some sort of sentience that went beyond the holodeck program - or
was that just another manipulation of the dead matter?

Does the TNG Tech Manual have any insight on these quandarys?

-- Tim
From: KELSEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (KELSEY, Michael H.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Twin Paradox
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:26:57 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <XskqPB15w165w@west.darkside.com>, max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max
Francis) says:
>
>tm@jyu.fi (Timo Mannikko) writes:
>
>> As I see it now, the difference between A and B is that B makes a turn.
>> If he just accelerates away from earth, both of them sees the other stay
>> younger (if they could see each others "instantaneously", which they
>> can't). But when B turns, he feels some "extra" acceleration and A doesn't.
>
>You have it, but you might say that "If he [B] just _moves_ away from
>earth . . ." instead of that he accelerates.  The confusion with the twin
>paradox is that it _cannot be explained_ by special relativity.  Special
>relativity is a simplification of the Universe where things only travel
>at constant (relative) velocities.  Since B is obviously accelerating
>(quite powerfully!) to turn around and arrive back at A within some human
>timeframe, we have acceleration and thus special relativity is invalid.
>You have to look at accelerating frames of reference -- that is, general
>relativity.

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.

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.

>
>Strangely enough, though, I haven't found a physics text that covers
>special relativity -- but not general relativity -- and _doesn't_ mention
>the twin paradox.  Seems rather cruel, as if you think about it in terms
>of special relativity, the paradox really does seem to be a big problem.

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.
                                                        -- 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..."