HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Who cleans up?
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:23:44 GMT
Reply-To: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California

In article <1992Aug3.205431.13366@ra.msstate.edu>, paul@pj.tmc.edu (Thorongil) writes:
>I heard about the "lack of a bathroom" discussions posted earlier and
>seeing the Top Ten list on them recently reminded me of a question
>I had the other day.  After cleaning up the house Saturday, I watched
>TNG and thought :
>
>How do they keep everything so clean?  Is there no dust or pollen
>on board ( even though they do have gardens on the ship ) ?  Is their
>A/C that efficient?  How do they clean up messes they make - as in 
>Bev. spilling her drink on a recent episode?
>
>Thoughts anyone ?
>
>       ___   ____
>       /__)   /          ^  __| ^ |\ /|  ______________________________
>      / .  \_/ .        / \(__|/ \| V | (__   paul@erc.msstate.edu
>    _______________________________________)
>      Engineering Research Center For Computational Field Simulation
>
How about a MARK II "Hired Girl" robot? (R.Heinlein's _Door into Summer_)
or a couple "Artificial Stupid" cleaning machines (Vonda McIntire's 
_Star Farers_ series.) Anything like those would work, though nothing
has ever been seen. I expect the ship air to be very clean. (What if the
Thuxian Ambassador, on the ship for some special purpose, is massively
allergic, or gets high on some terran plant pollen? Disaster City, that's
what!!!)

(Ok, so I mix universes. Some things are pretty close to universal, anyhow)

RB
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jverho80@ursa.calvin.edu (Jeffrey Verhoef)
Subject: TNG Tech Manual
Keywords: Too Much?
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:39:15 GMT

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.

Final verdict?  IMO, very good effort, very well done...other opinions??
--
    ////\\\\     Jeff Verhoef                 -----"KHAN!!!"  (echo echo echo)
   ////  \\\\    Calvin College                    "KHAN!!!"  (echo echo echo)
  ////    \\\\   Grand Rapids, MI  49546  USA                --Kirk, STII
From: hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: FTL travel/communication
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:24:44 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

In article <8066@dirac.physics.purdue.edu> hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.181330.6422@tfs.com> paigen@tfs.com (David Paigen) writes:
><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'd like to offer an apology to the way I responded to this post.  Although
he was incorrect and my original explanation was right, I should't have come
down so hard.

-Jay
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: haaser@quince.ssc.gov (Bobby Haaser)
Subject: Re: FTL travel/communication
Organization: SuperConducting Supercollider
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:37:07 GMT

Hello, 

I just thought that I would step in here and explain in a few words
why the TWIN PARADOX will occur....

 Motion is relative to any INERTIAL frame of reference.

 It is also a fact that 
*** ACCELLERATION IS NOT RELATIVE LIKE VELOCITY IS *** 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So... If you have Person A on the Earth and Person B accellerates to
a high velocity from A's frame to a frame that is moving .99999c from A's 
perspective.  B is moving out of A's frame.... You can put an accellerometer
on B and it will register acceleration.  If you put that same accellerometer
into A's hand, it will register NOTHING.  Because Accelleration here is absolute,
B is the one who will be absolutely affected by the time slowing..

When B comes back and decelerates back into A's frame, The slowness of B's
clock according to A's freference frame would manifest itself in A's frame 
thus B's clock will have showed less time than A's thoughout the experiment.

** Of course, I have negated the Spacetime compression that gravity of the earth
causes around A which would reduce slightly the time differential between A and B's
watches because as B left the Earth, He would be moving out of the Gravitational 
Space-time compression and therefore A's frame would seem to be closer to his as
he accellerated away.

Still the effects would be close to the same....
Hope it was informative. 

Live Long and Prosper!

  -the Bobinater

*************************************************************************
									*
  "Heraldo,.. Madonna,.. and a diseased Yak"  J.Carson:episode-Simpsons *
									*
  "The spaceship came and hovered 					*
          over the ground like rocks don't."  HitchikrsGuideToTHEGALAXY *
									*
  "OK everybody..., Drinks On the House!!  "  MUPPET MOVIE:Fozzy Bear   *
			   						*
  "Next Saturday Night, 						*
    We're Sending You BACK TO THE FUTURE!!!"  BACK TO THE FUTURE        *
									*
*************************************************************************
also haaser@phys.udallas.edu
From: KELSEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (KELSEY, Michael H.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: FTL travel/communication
Date: 14 Aug 92 08:56:38 GMT
 <1992Aug13.205350.21242@enterprise.rdd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Aug13.205350.21242@enterprise.rdd.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com says:
>
[ Deleted...on the twin paradox, between observers A and B ]
>
>The acceleration of A and B are not the same. Acceleration is a
>vector (it has a distinct direction), and the directions of
>acceleration as a function of time for A & B would be quite
>different. Unfortunately, I never learned the equations
>for general relativity and the effect of acceleration, so this
>is all heresay.
>
(hearsay).  Actually, you can do the analysis purely in Special
Relativity, by approximating the turn around of B (on the ship) as
occuring instantaneously, and assuming that B travels a constant
velocity all the rest of the time.  Now you have a situation where
A is in a constant _velocity_ frame (A feels no apparent gravity),
while B is not (he feels an apparent gravity from the acceleration
of his ship turning around).  In fact, B occupies two different
inertial reference frames, and it is that which allows a resolution
of the twin paradox:  B will return younger than A.

>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)
>
That is only because we live on a spherical mass, for which gravity
is a radial force.  If we lived on a giant pizza pan (infinite plane
mass), then gravity would be normal to the surface, and there would
be NO difference between gravity and the accelerating frame.  The
Principle of Equivalence still holds, I think.

>RB
                                        -- 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..."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jbm@sei.cmu.edu (Jason Mahoney)
Subject: Re: Who cleans up?
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:53:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug3.205431.13366@ra.msstate.edu>, paul@pj.tmc.edu (Thorongil) writes:
> I heard about the "lack of a bathroom" discussions posted earlier and
> seeing the Top Ten list on them recently reminded me of a question
> I had the other day.  After cleaning up the house Saturday, I watched
> TNG and thought :
> 
> How do they keep everything so clean?  Is there no dust or pollen
> on board ( even though they do have gardens on the ship ) ?  Is their
> A/C that efficient?  How do they clean up messes they make - as in 
> Bev. spilling her drink on a recent episode?
> 
> Thoughts anyone ?
> 
> 
       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!!!
  

              
(Message inbox:1)
Return-Path: mad@SEI.CMU.EDU
Received: from SEI.CMU.EDU by ts4d.sei.cmu.edu (5.65/2.5)
        id AA02030; Thu, 28 May 92 14:53:45 -0400
From: hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: FTL travel/communication
Summary: FTL communication = causality problem
Date: 10 Aug 92 15:19:35 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

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:


Well, It is easiest to explain this if we say that you could send a message
a LOT faster than light (say instantaniously).

The trouble comes when you have two observers in normal space time moving
with respect to one another, and then you add FTL travel/communication to
this situation.

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. 

NOW, person A waits one hour after person B has passed earth.  At that time
A sends a message to person B which says "I just found a bomb under my chair 
that will take 10 minutes to defuse, but goes off in 10 seconds ... HELP"
He sends it instantaniously from his point of view... well, from his point
of view, B's clock has only moved half an hour. So B receives the message
half an hour after passing earth in his frame of reference.

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.  Therefore, when he gets the message half an
hour after passing earth, then in his frame of reference, A's clock has
only moved 1/4 an hour.  SO, B sends a message to A that says:
"There's a bomb under your chair." It gets to A instantaniously, but this
time it is sent from B's frame of reference, so instantaniously means that
A gets the message only 1/4 of an hour after B passed Earth.

Obviously, there is a causality problem, no mater HOW you get the message
there.

OK, what about speeds grater than c but NOT instantanious?  Whether or not
you can use the above argument to find a causality problem will depend on
how fast you have B traveling. If you have a communication travel faster
than c, then you can always find a velocity for B (v < c) such that a
causality problem will occure.  However, if you send the communication at  
a speed that is less than c, then you cannot cause a causality problem
for any velocity of B (as long as B's velocity is also less that c).

If you can read some info on spacetime diagrams, you might find it helpful.
Using spacetime diagrams allows you to see the above arguement pretty
clearly.

Finally, if there were a perferred frame of reference (say spacetime had
one) THEN, FTL travel might be possible.  In the senario above,
instantaniously would not be defined by the senders frame of reference, 
but by the "special" frame of spacetime.  I am looking into this on another
newsgroup (alt.sci.physics.new-theories).

Hope this was helpful... feel free to ask other questions

-Jay
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: marcb@skatter.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Beyond Infinity
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:36:43 GMT

From article <1992Aug18.152323.4576@zoo.bt.co.uk>, by crt@zoo.bt.co.uk (Clive R Thompson):
> 
> 	In the traveller episode thay did not go beyond warp 10. The full reasoning 
> can be found in the SNG tech manual. They infact were travaling at about warp 
> 9.99999997 (give or take a few 9's). The simple reason for this is that the actual 
> difference in velocity/and energy requirements between warp 9.9 and 10 are so great
> that the matter/anti-matter reaction aboard the Enterprise does not provide the power 
> needed for these speeds, using current sub-space distortion techniques. 
> 
> Clive R Thompson
> British Telecom Labs (England)

Quite right. The power requirements for warp 10 are just past infinity. A power
level not likely to be reached for a little while.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: gprall@nyx.cs.du.edu (Gene Prall)
Subject: Re: time travel paradox
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: Sun, 16 Aug 92 05:24:10 GMT

In article <16044@pitt.UUCP> aj14@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew John) writes:
>Hello all...
>
>   All this talk about ftl communications made me start thinking about
>time travel (into the past... into the future is 'easy'). There has been
>alot of mention of the problem of causality etc... but there seems to be
>a simpler 'proof' that it's impossible.
>
>   Imagine you spend some time alone in a bank vault. Later, you wish you
>could go back in time and tell yourself something. It is impossible to go
>back. If you did manage to jump back to the vault, and gawk at yourself,
>you wouldn't have gone back to the past you wanted to, because you were
>alone, and now you arn't. You did go back in time, but not to your
>past... to a different past.
>   In other words, you are not allowed to go back into your past unless
>you have already done so.  (i.e. when you were in the vault the first
>time, a second you popped into existance. Then you could go back (would
>have to go back).
>
>		Time travel's wierd,
>
>           Andy

 Time travel in any form is *most likely* impossible. Ok using the example
above.. Lets say you wanted to go back and say Hi to yourself.. Now
in the FIRST causality loop you were in the safe alone.. then got out and went
back to say HI.. Now you that you are back in time you are standing next to yourself.. now you are no longer alone.. that makes the first paradox. Which means that you were never alone in the first place.. this means that the future
(your going back in time) happened in the past {how many have I lost now?}
which is a second paradox.. The third paradox is you actually exsisting
in two places physically at the same time.

The only way you can 'go back' is as a casual observer never really *IN* the
reality...

I am still working on ST IV and the time travel implications there:
Since NONE of the crew members exsisted then. Pardox 3 is solved.

Paradox 2 is still in effect because JIM sells his spectacles..
which already DO exsist on the planet at that time..(or else how would
Bones have ended up with them...)

Paradox one is no conflict because once again no-one infringes on
its effects...

Gene
From: gbrach@galaxy.gov.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Re: communicators
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:11:42 -0700
Organization: BC Systems Corporation

In article <1992Aug17.164758.7286@enterprise.rdd.lmsc.lockheed.com>, baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
> In article <57@zog.UUCP>, WAYNE@zog.UUCP (Wayne Campbell) writes:
>>
>> 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???
>>
> Simple. The computer recognises "ENTERPRISE" as a call to the
> duty officer, i.e. whoever is "in the command chair" on bridge.
> After all, the Captain could be off duty and not fully briefed 
> on the current situation.

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.

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: gc3@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (George Cifrancis)
Subject: Re: TNG Tech Manual
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:06:56 GMT

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 readi
ng
: it, however, though I muddled through the warp drive explanations and other
: tech stuff that was way over my head.
:

I thought the TNG Tech manual was excellent!  Very fun to read with lots of
hidden jokes and stuff. very interesting!  I got mine signed by both
authors (Okuda and Sternbach) as well as Gene Roddennberry literaly days
before he past away.  I sent the book to Paramount and got it back the
day I heard that Gene died.  I was really shocked when I saw his autograph!

George Cifrancis
gc3@jcnpc.cmhnet.org
From: judson@watnxt2.ucr.edu (Michael Judson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Starships
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:46:17 GMT

Does anyone have a full list of Star Trek starchips, from TOS and TNG?
If so, could you E-mail me the list?
Thanks.

--
I was contemplating Socrates' iommortal words: "I drank what?"

judson@watserv.ucr.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Saturday, 22 Aug 1992 06:26:20 CDT
From: <U16028@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: FAQL: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS LIST for rec.arts.startrek.tech
 <1992Aug21.172648.19263@enterprise.rdd.lmsc.lockheed.com>

In article <1992Aug21.172648.19263@enterprise.rdd.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com says:
>
>In article <9208202238.AA12745@tyrell.CFSMO.Honeywell.COM>,
>ottoh3@CFSMO.Honeywell.COM (Otto Heuer #3) writes:
>>
>>While I won't argue on either side of the "holodeck replicating matter"
>>debate, someone (Richard Arnold or Okuda or someone?) said at a con
>>shortly after that ep was aired that there were a scene that ended
>>up on the cutting room floor (due to time constraints) that made it more
>>clear that Geordi was showing the paper to Data to show him that it
>>could leave the holodeck and therefore Moriarty could also leave the
>>holodeck (if he had only known) and not just showing him the picture
>>of the Enterprise (which was upside down as well, I believe).
>>
>I'd heard a slightly expanded version of this story from Stewart (Picard)
>at a Creation Con. It wasn't just for time that they cut out the
>implication that Moriarty could leave. Remember that Picard did not
>defeat Moriarty, but persuaded him that he had no possible independent
>existance [outside the holodeck]. Then Moriarty consented to let
>Picard store his program until he could really live at some future date.
>According to Stewart, a cut scene showed that Picard knew Moriarty could
>leave, because of that paper. However, Picard didn't trust the sweetness,
>light, tea & crumpettes that he was showing.Picard deliberately lied,
>because he would not free one of the worst villains in
>English-language fiction.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Moriarty somehow change his own substance after he became aware?

Or is this YATI?  We have epsiodes in which matter can be removed
( the one where Wesley, while fooling around, hits Picard with a
holodeck snowball, leaving Picard dripping in the hall) and episodes
in which matter dissolves when removed from the the holodeck
( "The Big Goodbye", the one where Picard, as Dixon Hill, is held
hostage, along with Bev and someone else.  The gangsters try to leave the
deck and slowly fade away.)

And, while I'm writting, I might as well voice my $0.02 worth.

I thought I had read, in the group, that inanimate matter could be
removed from the deck.  After all, it is similar to replicated food and
materials.  Only objects that required active control intervention by the
computer were restrained, this because the movement was actually caused
by the destruction/recreation of the object, simulating movement,
much like television pictures, only in 3-D.

Was this the case?

Terry
U16028@uicvm.uic.edu
Organization: Senior, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 23:35:06 -0400 
From: Robert Edward Timlin <rt16+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: FTL travel/communication


     Ah, wonderful to see this thread crop up again. (No sarcasm, I really do
enjoy these discussions.) Especially since this is my ballpark (first year
physics grad and all). Nothing to really add at this point (I'm kinda rusty and
not up on my general relativity at the moment, so I'm keeping my trap shut),
but I do have an interesting question:

     Has anyone ever *seriously* investigated the possibilites of FTL travel (I
mean beyond tachyons, and beyond the "whoops, can't do it because it violates
causality" stage). I would be very interested in any books or articles on the
subject. Basically I'm looking for stuff from the point of view of "How could
it work?" rather than "These laws say it can't happen." Not SF, but cold hard
physics. Hmm, maybe I should try sci.physics...

     Anyway, I was just wondering if anyone participating in the discussion
knew of any such material. Thanks,

                                                -Robb Timlin
                                                 rt16@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech