HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: FTL travel/communication
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:13:41 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

In article <1992Aug13.181330.6422@tfs.com> paigen@tfs.com (David Paigen) writes:
<hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) writes:
<
<>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:
<
<Ok.
<
<>senario:
<>Person A is on earth, and person B speeds away from earth at a velocity v.
<>To make things easy, lets say that v is such that for an observer on
<>earth, person B's clock runs slow by a factor of 2. 
<
<Right, person B has a slow clock.
<
<[deleted]
<
<>NOW we must switch to B's point of view.  From his point of view, A has
<>been speeding away from him at a velocity v.  So, to B, it is A's clock
<>that has been running slow.
<
<*BZZT* wrong, but that you for playing :-)
<
<If A thinks B has a slow clock, then B thinks A has a fast clock.  From
<this point onwards your scenario is meaningless.  I have seen arguments
<about this causality violation before, but I can't remember how it works.
<Please try again, only with a bit more care.
<
<I have been unable to construct a scenario that violates causality using
<telephone (instantaneous) communication and horseback (c) travel.  Is it
<required that one party be traveling near the speed of light in order to
<violate causality?

You obviously know very little about relativity.!!
Motion is relative.  IF A sees B speeding away form him at a velocity v,
then B also sees A speeding away him at a velocity v.  The time
transformations for one MUST be the same for the other. Each will see
the other's clock moving slow.
 
This is a VERY WELL KNOWN fact of special relativity!!
 
PLEASE read a little bit about relativity before you post about it in
the future.  That way you can avoid making a fool of yourself.
 
-Jay
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: mcconnap@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Andy McConnell)
Subject: Re: Who cleans up?
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:01:33 GMT


In article <1992Aug12.195340.27469@sei.cmu.edu> jbm@sei.cmu.edu (Jason Mahoney)  
writes:
 ->        I've got one!
 ->      
 ->               It would make sense to me that they use the energy to matter
 ->        function of the transporters to convert any garbage or waste into
 ->        energy and then that energy is recycled into other forms of matter!
 ->        After all isn't that how the food dispensers work as well as the 
 ->        Holodeck(sp?). Energy to matter!!!
 ->   

	The transporters do not convert energy to matter - and neither do the  
holodecks.  Look in the ST:TNG Tech manual...

	Better solution - Supposedly in the ST world the technology exists to  
break down MATTER into a very simple substance - deuterium, an isotope of  
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.
	This is probably what you meant... :-]

_______________________________________________________________________________ 
_
Andy McConnell                   mcconnap@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
   (812) - 877 - 8809            Fluid Science Learning Center Developer
                                 Rose-Hulman Institute Of Technology
   
Class of 1993 - CS BS - RA - AFROTC - AAS - WMHD-FM 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Who cleans up?
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:42:42 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

jbm@sei.cmu.edu (Jason Mahoney) writes:
>              It would make sense to me that they use the energy to matter
>       function of the transporters to convert any garbage or waste into
>       energy and then that energy is recycled into other forms of matter!
>       After all isn't that how the food dispensers work as well as the 
>       Holodeck(sp?). Energy to matter!!!

These devices don't convert between matter and energy, but they do
manipulate matter at the subatomic level.  They can be and are used in
recycling efforts on board Starfleet vessels.  Wastes are conveyed to
central recycling stations which in some cases employ transporter
technology.

However, the process requires bulky equipment and lots and lots of
energy.  If something can be recycled chemically or physically with
smaller, simpler equipment and utilizing a fraction of the energy a
matter-twiddling recycler would need, then it's a better system, and
these are used on starships when practical.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "Okay, NOW I'm worried."  -- Batman
From: gooseman@news.uwyo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Stardate formula
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:33:07 MST
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Wyoming - Laramie, WY

Hi,

     I agree with the response to this letter that I mentioned in the subject
line.....there are numerous instances where stardates are used as time
notations. There are none to sunstantiate a location notation. As far as I can
tell, the stardates have moved forward starting with 410???.? and moving upward
from there....if they were locations, they would zig zag....plus the very
word ......stardate...... implies a time notation.

					Thanks for listening to my jabber,

					John Brengman
					gooseman@corral.uwyo.edu
From: ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: GUTs in Star Trek
Date: 18 Aug 1992 17:40:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu
Keywords: Unified field theories

In article <5097@tuegate.tue.nl> johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
writes:
>Now, the nucleons in a nucleus consist of quarks with color interaction.
>But, although they are color-neutral (usually called ``white''), the
>nucleons also have color-interaction because the color charges are
>separated in space. This is comparable with EM dipoles.
>
>Summarizing, one could say that the relation of the strong nuclear force 
>compared to the color force is the same as the Van der Waals interaction
>between molecules related to the electromagnetical force.

But the Van der Waals interaction *is* an electromagnetical force.  One end
of a weak electric dipole of a molecule is electrically attracted to the
oppositely charged end of another molecule.  So then, are you saying the
color force binding quarks in a nucleon is the *same* force binding nucleons
in a nucleus?  If that's true, then is it theoretically possible to break a
nucleon into individual quarks as you can a nucleus into nucleons, instead
of quark pairs, that I heard were indivisible?

>This is new for me. EM fields do have an influence on the gravitation
>however (the EM energy appears in the Einstein equations who describe
>the space-time geometrie in GR), so I wouldn't exclude this option.
>
>No, the relation between EM and gravity consists because the EM-energy
>also curves space (see above).

I thought only matter/gravity can curve space and that the relationship of
GR to classical EM was more the similiarity in form of the Einstein equations
to the Maxwell equations.  As I know them, the Einstein equations are:

      R[zero zero] = [del-squared  Phi] = 1/2[d rho] + c
      G[mu nu] = R[mu nu] - 1/2g[mu nu]R = 8piGT[mu nu]

What do I have wrong or which is the EM energy term?  Please explain
how the presence of an EM field results in spacial curvature for an
uncharged mass?

I guess I was sloppy when talking of the wireloop-magnet result showing
EM unity and saying something similar is happening to show EM-gravity
unity via warp technology.  The effect is to imply a *classical* unity
between EM and GR, which may be what Einstein was working on.  What I
meant was that warp technology is perhaps a manifestation of unity
between quantum electrodynamics and a quantum GR.
From: rt16+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert Edward Timlin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: video response
Date: 15 Aug 92 03:17:40 GMT
Organization: Senior, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


     Well, "The Defector" aired just recently, and in it there was an explicit
reference to delay time since transmission from a starbase (on the order of two
hours I think). The Enterprise was out at the Neutral Zone. I need to check the
tapes to see if this agrees with the delay time in "Balance of Terror".

     Basically, if the writers want to dump the whole thing on Picard and have
him make the call, there'll be a transmission delay to put the higher-ups at
least marginally out of it (this is the impression I got with "The Defector").
But if it doesn't matter, communication is instantaneous. Dramatic license,
YATI, call it what you will. Me, I wish they *would* be a bit more careful.
Yeah, like that'll happen (see the post on r.a.s.current about the article on
their plans to bring back Scotty - and my response, which actually sorta fits
in this group :-)

                                                  -Robb Timlin
                                                   rt16@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: budd@ccrs.emr.ca (Mark Budd)
Subject: Re: Twin paradox
Organization: Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Ottawa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:48:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.074254.14818@jyu.fi> tm@jyu.fi (Timo Mannikko) writes:
>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

The symmetry breaks down in that they are not in inertial frames of reference.
If you are in one car and your friend is in another, and he is accelerating
away from you, it will *appear* to each of you that the other is acclerating
away.  But obviously your friend will *feel* the acceleration whereas you
wouldn't.  
Another example.  You stand at the middle of a merry-go-round while your
friend is on the outside.  To each one of you, it appears that the other is
circling you.  But of course only your friend feels the centripetal 
acceleration.

Mark


Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: elee9sv@rosie.uh.edu (92H01722)
Subject: Stardate Formula
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:34:00 GMT

depending on where you are in the universe. So, star date 0.0 would be a
place and not 0 AD
From: gbrach@galaxy.gov.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: guts in star trek
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:40:05 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: BC Systems Corporation

In article <1992Aug14.3211.3776@dosgate>, "david gebhardt" <david.gebhardt@canrem.com> writes:
> On 08-12-92 at 6:03pm, ;;;;7202 wrote to All:
> 
> ;2>I always get confused when I watch "The Nth Degree" and see that scene
> ;2>of Barclay with Einstein discussing grand unification theories as if
> ;2>this is something not yet understood.  And then Geordi comes along

Let's also not forget that this conversation took place on the holodeck, in 
a program written by an already 'enhanced' Barclay.  Although the physical
image may have been of Einstein, there is nothing that says the knowledge that 
this holo-image has of the unified theory or physics in general is limited to
that discovered by Einstein.

Barclay's instructions to the holodeck computer may have been:  I would like to
argue 24th century unifgication theory with Dr. Albert Einstein...B-{)

JMHO,
Gabor.


       t     Gabor Brach.	"Like the rat said:  'Keep the cheese,
    gttttt   Victoria, B. C.	 I just want out of the trap'"
gggg b t     (God's waiting			Chief Engineer Geordi LaForge
g  g b t      room)				"Where Silence has Lease"
gggg b  tt
   g bbbb
 ggg b  b	"...with a boulder on my shoulder, feelin kinda older,
 g g b  b        I tripped the merry-go-round..."
 ggg bbbb                                       B. Springsteen
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: deboer@neptune.mcs.anl.gov (Ms. Jennifer L. DeBoer)
Subject: Re: Twin paradox
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:55:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.074254.14818@jyu.fi> tm@jyu.fi (Timo Mannikko) writes:
>
>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?
>
It isn't B who stays younger, and it isn't A; that's why its a paradox.


******************
Jennifer DeBoer
deboer@mcs.anl.gov
******************
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Starships
Date: 18 Aug 92 08:20:57 GMT
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.

I have made a LaTeX document from the list of starships, so one can have
it print on a laser printer. If anyone is interested, please say so. (If
enough people are interested, I can put him on this group.

 ********************************************************************
 * 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\            *
 ********************************************************************
From: tkogoma@triton.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk)
Subject: Re: Anti-Anti-ST:TNG Sentiment.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 22:59:48 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Aug12.225229.16900@news2.cis.umn.edu> crick@htlv.med.umn.edu (Ed Crick (CD)) writes:
>Remember when William Shatner hosted Saturday Night Live, and in one of the
>skits he was appearing at a Star Trek convention.  Well, like he said then,
>"Get a life!"

Don't you have anything better to do than to figuratively piss in
other people's lemonade?

-- 
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk  (Known to some as Taki Kogoma)  tkogoma@triton.unm.edu
  I'll get a life when someone demonstrates that it would be superior to
                           what I have now...
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Stardate Formula
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:23:13 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

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

Stardate, as far as I know, is a measure of time.  Based on the original 
series, one could argue that the Star Trek universe is non-relativistic, 
so time is measured as the same to all people.  The Next Generation, in 
trying to keep up with the times, doesn't necessarily assume this, but I 
recall hearing that there is a general Starfleet order that all ships 
must remain below a certain speed so that relativity does not become 
important -- in other words, so everyone measures time roughly the same.

But it's not starlocation, or starevent.  It's stardate.

----------
Erik Max Francis   Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  Coming soon:  UNIVERSE _ | _
USmail:  1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose CA 95117  ICBM:  37 20 N  121 53 W _>|<_
UUCP:  ..!apple!uuwest!max   Usenet:  max@west.darkside.com   464E4F5244   |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: ira2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Iain Robert Asplin)
Subject: Re: FAQL: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS LIST for rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:24:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.140859.25811@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:

I spotted an error in the FAQL.

It was about the holodecks.  The FAQL says material created within
them cannot be taken out, even if replicated, which is incorrect.
Anything actually physically replicatedin the holodeck can be removed
from the holodeck and it will stay solid indefinitely.
The reason that Geordi and Data were surprised by that sheet of paper
was not that they had the sheet of paper but rather what Moriarty had
drawn on it, a picture of the Enterprise.

There are other examples of matter remaining solid outside too,
such as Wesley dripping water on the floor in Encounter at Farpoint
and the snowball that comes flying out and hitting Picard in
Angel One.
From: "david gebhardt" <david.gebhardt@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: stardate formula solv
Date: 14 Aug 92 10:53:58 EST
Reply-To: "david gebhardt" <david.gebhardt@canrem.com>
Distribution: rec
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

On 08-12-92 at 6:03pm, Ms. Jennifer L. Deboer wrote to All:

MJ>"help Captain Kirk remember today's stardate":


Yes, but how do you help Picard remember it? <g>

David Gebhardt
ComputerPlus
(416) 727-2167
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #8170  Milton's wife died - he wrote "Paradise Regained."
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: WAYNE@zog.UUCP (Wayne Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Re: communicators
Summary: what about...
Keywords: communicators
Date: 14 Aug 92 03:34:40 GMT
Organization: Zog's Cavern BBS and the OS9 Underground - StG Net International


In a previous message, "stanford@leland.Stanford.EDU" writes:
> 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?
> 
> Scott Stanford
> stanford@leland.stanford.edu

 There's another aspect that hasn't been covered here... I remember it more
from the original series than from TNG, but I have heard it in various
episodes of TNG as well.

 That is, of course, 'Char. A to ENTERPRISE'.

 In this case, how does the computer interpret the communicae?  In the
original series, there was a communications officer, and I'm sure that all
calls to the Enterprise were automatically routed to this officer's station. 
But what about TNG?  I've never seen a communications officer (per se) aboard
the Enterprise, so who gets the 'call' when someone uses 'Enterprise' as the
party to contact???

 Wayne Campbell
From: richard@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Richard Harry)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: William Shatner on Saturday Night Live ( was Anti-Anti-ST:TNG Sentiment. )
Date: 13 Aug 92 09:33:34 GMT
Organization: University of Sussex

From article <1992Aug12.225229.16900@news2.cis.umn.edu>, by crick@htlv.med.umn.edu (Ed Crick (CD)):
> 
> Remember when William Shatner hosted Saturday Night Live, and in one of the
> skits he was appearing at a Star Trek convention.  Well, like he said then,
> "Get a life!"

Does anyone have this sketch written down ? If so, can you please,
please email me a copy ?

Thanks in advance, Richard.

--

richard@syma.susx.ac.uk
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Twin paradox
Date: 17 Aug 92 12:30:16 GMT
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.

tm@jyu.fi (Timo Mannikko) writes:
>
>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!

No, it's not the same: B can feel that his acceleration is changing,
and A doesn't feel that. So the turning point *is* an asymmetry.

>- Timo

 ********************************************************************
 * 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\            *
 ********************************************************************
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: FTL travel/communication
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:09:40 GMT
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.

hillel@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (hillel.e.markowitz) writes:
>
>Actually B will see A aging slower because the light bringing him
>the information takes "longer" to catch up with him relative to his
>own motion.

Sorry if I understand you wrong, but are you saying that the speed of
light is not constant if an observer moves? This is in disagreement
with special relativity because 1. absolute movement doesn't exists,
and 2. the speed of light is constant for each observer.

> This is one of the paradoxes of relativistic space travel.

No, it just *seems* to be a paradox. It can be understand, even in
the frame of special relativity. (Although general relativity fits
better to this problem IMO).

>Hillel Markowitz        H_Markowitz@att.com

 ********************************************************************
 * 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: jnlong@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey N Long)
Subject: Re: Starships
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:21:56 GMT

In article <6128@ucru2.ucr.edu> judson@watnxt2.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:
>Does anyone have a full list of Star Trek starchips, from TOS and TNG?
>If so, could you E-mail me the list?
>Thanks.
>
     ???? StarChips...you mean like motorcycle cops?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech