HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drew@bnr.co.uk (Scooby Doo)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: ACME Gravitational Company Inc.
Date: 21 Jan 93 13:35:23 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bnsgs203.bnr.co.uk

In article <93020.47724.L611175@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> L611175@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>Does anyone know why the artificial gravity never fails reguardles of how much
>damage one of the ships takes. What ever the Art Grav device is it can't be
>very big or need much power since it fits on the shuttle craft as well as the
>starships.

It failed on in ST:VI The undiscovered Country, whe the cloaked klingon bird
of prey 'Dakronh' fired on Chancillor Gorkons ship 'Kronos One'. Kronos one
lost artificial gravity for a few minutes whilst the assasination was carried
out.

Drew.

-- 

Pretty damn silly place to leave a signature...
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: frank@fnbc.com (Frank Mitchell)
Subject: Re: The Q-Girl 
Organization: First National Bank Of Chicago, Chicago IL, USA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 16:26:55 GMT

In article <728085200snz@keris.demon.co.uk> chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris  
Croughton) writes:
> In article <93Jan24.190918.23084@acs.ucalgary.ca> jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca  
writes:
> 
> >The SF version is, "What happens when a Stormtrooper fires at a
> >Red Shirt?"
> 
> They both die?

Too simple.  THe Stoormtrooper misses, but disturbs some unspeakably horrible  
space creature which kills them both.  (Or am I thinking of Lovecraft?)

--
Frank Mitchell,	Business Systems Analyst, First National Bank of Chicago
email:frank@fnbc.com (NeXTmail)

"I see the problem.  You have a refrigerator on your legs."
-- "Didi", _Death: THe High Cost of Living_
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: petitc@nuge111.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit)
Subject: Re: Let's invade a planet!
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:22:30 GMT

52kaiser@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Matthew Kaiser) writes:

>somehow i don't think that a Type X phasar array on a starship
>can be set to stun

  But there's canon proof that the phasers on a ship can stun---remember
Kirk when he went to the Iotians (who were using The Book and ran the planet
like the 20's gang wars)?  Kirk had the block stunned---and I feel it would be
just as easy for JLP, even though we haven't seen canon proof that the E-D's
phasers can stun.


-- 
"Protect endangered species!  Contribute to the Exxon Supporter's Fund!"
"Pay no attention to that little man behind the keyboard."
"If you want to look for fish, best not to look in desert."
"The greatest beauty in the world is beauty that is private."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: WORM HOLE PHYSICS?
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:02:13 GMT

WHAT IS THE BASIC PYSICS OF A WORMHOLE(I KNOW STARTREK IS A TV SHOW) BUT
SOMETHINGS ARE JUST TO UNEXPLAINED..

(SORRY FOR ALL CAPS, MACHINE MESSED UP, OLD IBMPC)

NSMCA@ACAD2.ALASKA.EDU
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 02:10:10 EST
From: <TMS139@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Picard maneuver
 <C1C1C9.HLC@news.cso.uiuc.edu>

Hmm ... Do all the Borg now know the Picard maneuver, Jean-Luc's young nephew,
the defense strategy for ... , etc., or is each Borg ship an individual
collective, with no contact with the others?  If each is separate, then how
do/did new collectives form?  Or was there only the one Borg?

My opinion:  each is separate, but can communicate with the others, which were
             each formed from an "assimilated" population.  This explains a)
             why all the Borg looked alike on the ship when there could very
             well have been quite a range of appearances, but an argument for
             one large collective could say that the Romulans survived a
             simultaneous Borg attack when all the cubes over *there* exploded
             too.  Would Data or the Enterprise have detected subspace links
             to "elsewhere?"  Or would they have had to look for them?

By the way, the Borg's doing the Picard Maneuver would be pretty stupid,
since their up-close image would completely blot out anything behind it
(unless they were fighting another huge ship.)

Tim.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: kkane@nyx.cs.du.edu (Kevin Kane)
Subject: Re: "Rascals"---You Call That Fighting?
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, 25 Jan 93 18:14:31 GMT

In article <C1E6F5.556@panix.com> kmorton@panix.com (Ken Morton) writes:
>	Picard has a fake heart?  How?  When?

The episode in which he and Wesley have to go to Starbase 515 (?) and are
in a shuttle for awhile is when he mentions it.
From: nerone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Michael Nerone)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Time travel - NOT! (my 0.2$)
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:54:04 GMT
	<chejasw-270193161450@je-college-node.net.yale.edu>
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu
In-reply-to: chejasw@yalevm's message of Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:39:50 GMT

In article <chejasw-270193161450@je-college-node.net.yale.edu> chejasw@yalevm (Jason Cherry) writes:
>  ...  Now, we all know that warp travel is superluminal, and
>  I think that it's been fairly well established that although ships in warp
>  go superluminal velocities, they actually are switching back and forth
>  between super- and sub-luminal speeds. They only stay in each state for 1
>  unit of Planck time, therefore they essentially never go the speed of light
>  (there's other subspace physics involved here, but I don't want to go into
>  it).

Well, I am new to this group, so if this has in fact been established here,
forgive me.  But, the space-switching you are referring to, as far as I know,
applies only to the original warp experiments by Zefram Cochrane, et al.
By the time warp propulsion was actually put into practical use, the process
has been perfected to the point that the ships di, in fact, remain enveloped
in the field, and did maintain FTL speeds.  However, this small detail does
not affect your use of the space-switching in your argument, and your point
is well-taken.

--
   /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
  /    Michael Nerone   \"I shall do so with my customary lack of tact; and\
 /   Internet Address:   \since you have asked for this, you will be obliged\
/nerone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu\to pardon it."-Sagredo, fictional char of Galileo.\
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: Which way is "up" in space?
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 16:25:50 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1993Jan17.083854.36757@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sg0d@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STEPHEN R. GILBERT) writes:

>My offering: The standard audience member likes looking at starships
>as if they were boats, that is, it is visually pleasing to always
>picture them as they are (and always have been) shown ...but I'm sure
>someone will come up with at least one techinical reason.

I've heard babble about Warp fields working most efficiently when
aligned with the axis of the galaxy... but thats not bourne out
by anything we've seen. Woulc explain the banked turns tho...

My explanation is that there is no real reason for a galactic up
or down except convention. Imagine the following...
_____

Worf: Captain, we are being hailed by the Ts'kai.

Picard and Riker turn and snicker at each other. Cut to an
exterior view. The Enterprise is approached by a Klingon Bird of
Prey flying upside down.

Riker: What d'you suppose those losers want?

Picard: Now, now, number one. Remember, IDIC. There's no reason
they have to fly (*snicker*) the same way up as everyone else in
the entire galaxy.

Riker resumes smirking.
_____

Okay, maybe not realistic dialogue, but if you think about it,
why wouldn't you approach another ship at the same orientation?
If you approach upside down to get a better shot at their
'exposed underbelly', you must remember that they have the same
advantage as well.

If you look at some of the "generic alien" ships, like those of
the Tellarians, there's no way to tell which side up they are.

All in all, I think its just a matter of convention.
    __                             __
   / /                             \ \
   \\         ___/~~O~~\___         //
     ====____/   \.. ../   \____====
         -----___=======___-----
                 \\-u-//
Joshua
|         A shimmering net undulating like an infinite borealis.             |
|                                                  - Chapterhouse: Dune      |
|                                                                            |
| jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca  Academic Computing Services, University of Calgary |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: chejasw@yalevm (Jason Cherry)
Subject: Re: WHICH WAY IS "UP" IN
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Department of Mech. Eng., Yale
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:08:57 GMT

In article <174.36.uupcb@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us>,
victor.volkman@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Victor Volkman) wrote:
> 
> 
> -> I hate to tell you this, but the Space Shuttle usually orbits with
> -> its top towards the Earth.
> 
> That is purely to avoid overheating in the presence of sunlight.
> Surely, technology has advanced to where this is not a problem in the
> 23rd century...
>    
> ----
> | HAL 9000 BBS +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959 | Four 14.4k v.32bis dial-ins |
> | Public Access QWK-to-Usenet gateway      | With PCBoard 14.5aM & uuPCB |
> +----------------------------+-------------+--------+--------------------+
> | Member of EFF, ASP, & ASAD | 1.5 Gigabytes Online | Service since 1988 |


		Actually, the reason that the shuttle orbits upside down is so that the
the transmission/reception antennnae (which are located on the dorsal side
of the shuttle) can do their respective jobs (if it orbited right-side up,
the signals to/from the antennae would be blocked by the shuttle itself).
Also, the astronauts would not be able to see the earth if the shuttle
orbited ventral side to earth.

--Jas


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*      LL    LL    LLLLLL  LLLLLL  LL  LL                                  
 *
*      LL  LL  LL  LL      LL  LL  LLL LL       "There is an old Vulcan    
 *
*      LL  LLLLLL  LLLLLL  LL  LL  LL LLL          proverb: Only Nixon     
 *
*  LL  LL  LL  LL      LL  LL  LL  LL  LL         could go to China."      
 *
*  LLLLLL  LL  LL  LLLLLL  LLLLLL  LL  LL                           --Spock
 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: hmoran@nswc-wo.? (Howard Moran)
Subject: Re: Re:"continuum drag"
Organization: NSWC White Oak
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:28:26 GMT

In article <C1HDp1.G2q@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> jroberts@morpheus.UWaterloo.ca (J. P. Robertson) writes:

   In article <C1DD7q.C5p@cs.mcgill.ca> guest@chopin.Physics.McGill.CA (Muhep  
   Guest account) writes:
   > PS: I should mention that in real world physics, it takes an infinite
   > amount of energy to *accelerate* to light speed.  Once you're at a
   > given speed, you'll stay there unless acted on by an external force.   
   --
   Well, I know that you need to accel. to increase velocity, but
   why would have have to have infinite energy?  Lightspeed is not
   infinite speed.  It takes the same energy to go from 0 to 10 m/s
   than from 10 to 20 m/s.  Or is there some relativistic effect
   I've never heard of?

   Besides, how does a photon reach lightspeed?  Does my flashlight
   have infinite energy?  (If so, why is it always going dead...)
   ---
   Jeff Robertson
   4B Systems Design Engineering
   University of Waterloo
   "A sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature."

Einstein's theories postulated that among other things as one approaches
true relativistic (i.e. light) speeds, the mass begins to increase: as
light speed is approached, infinite mass is approached and therefore the
energy needed to continue acceleration approaches infinity - you can't
get there from here!  Which leads to the S.F. need for warp, sub-space,
et al.

hmoran@nswc-wo.nswc.navy.mil
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: 52kaiser@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Matthew Kaiser)
Subject: Re: Let's invade a planet!
Organization: Western Michigan Univ. Comp. Sci. Dept.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 17:14:00 GMT

bp652@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gil W. Lau) writes:


>People were talking about carrying marines aboard Federation starships
>earlier.  With Star Trek technology, who needs a strike contingent
>aboard a capital ship?  The only reason I can think of carrying
>troops (besides security) is for boarding enemy ships/bases.
>For planetary invasions, a few thousand marines aren't going to be
>of much use.  Besides, you could stun the population using the
>ship's phasers from orbit.

>  -- Gil

somehow i don't think that a Type X phasar array on a starship
can be set to stun

my $0.02

matthew
From: sg0d@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STEPHEN R. GILBERT)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: DS9: Odo's molecules & his brain  (little spoiler)
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:22:10 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <26JAN199301344262@pavo.concordia.ca>, jt_rask@pavo.concordia.ca (RASKU, JASON T.) writes:
>
>I was under the impression that he somehow was capable of changing his 
>mass.  Changing density is not all that exsiting.  For instance in this 
>most recent episode he changed into some sort of cart which PROBABLY had 
>more mass than the bag he changed into in an earlier episode (firt 1h one I 
>think).  Also he seems to be able to change his topology how is this 
>possible?  He seems to be able to disobey the laws of physics as we know 
>them (and the laws of mathematics in the case of change of topology).  The 
>changing of his topology might not be all that significant but I think that 
>it is something important to note (I don't think the bag was topologicaly 
>diffrent from his human form but I'm not sure on that).  To change density 
>is not all that exsiting (though it would exsplain diffrent sized objects). 
>I think (from what little I've heard about him) that he can change his mass 
>(creating objects that are more realistic in their feel than if he had 
>simply changed densities).  Think of this.  We would exspect him in his 
>human form to weigh somewhere in the range of 120 lbs to 200 lbs (depending 
>on his celular strucure).  If this were so wouldn't you find it a little 
>difficult to believe that he can get away with being a 120 lb bag?  Doesn't 
>make sence to me.  Oh well...
>

Try this one on for size: Possibly Odo's "body" contains some special
mechanism/substance that allows him to convert part of his mass into
energy and store it internally- the ultimate battery if you like.
This same mechanism obviously also allows him to convert the stored
energy back into mass when needed.  We all know about the conservation
of mass and energy don't we?

And slightly related:

In "A man alone" Odo did not have an alabi for the murder because he
said that he was in a bucket (or a pail, I can't remember) at the time
of the murder.  The question is:  When Odo changes into various things
such as liquid in a bucket, a bag, a cart, etc. where do his "organs"
or whatever is inside of him go?  I suppose he doesn't have any, but
how then could he "think"?  In other words he must have a brain (or
something like it) 


-- 
Steve Gilbert   |  I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. 
sg0d@Lehigh.edu |  Get it? And he knows it. That's why he's gonna kill us. So
From: shabby@Athena.MIT.edu (Chris Shabsin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: ACME Gravitational Company Inc.
Date: 21 Jan 1993 09:05:41 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: podge.mit.edu
In-reply-to: sweet@ug.cs.dal.ca's message of Thu, 21 Jan 1993 01:07:09 GMT

In article <C16J3y.Io0@cs.dal.ca> sweet@ug.cs.dal.ca (garth r sweet) writes:

   L611175@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM wrote:
   > Does anyone know why the artificial gravity never fails reguardles of how much
   > damage one of the ships takes. What ever the Art Grav device is it can't be
   > very big or need much power since it fits on the shuttle craft as well as the
   > starships.

	   And, there have been episodes where the ship was flat out of power
   and interior temperature was falling rapidly, but gravity was working full
   bore, so those gravity generators take less then the heaters do, that's
   pretty efficient. And BTW as the STVI demonstrates, the gravity generators
   can be knocked out as a plot device as required, but only when money
   allows as zero-gravity shots tend to be pricy I assume. :-)

Supposedly they draw their power from big flywheel-type things...  or,
actually, their actual operation have to do with them somehow.
gravitons...  technobabble...  but it makes me wonder why the gravity
turned off in ST 6.
--
-Chris Shabsin
-shabby@athena.mit.edu
-member, SIPB, PWLCSBHNM, MITMB, VWA, MITCC, PWN, LSI, DBFC
- "What lane do you think you're in anyway?"    - a friend of mine
  "*MY LANE*"					- me
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: km2011@andy.bgsu.edu (K. Errick Mebane)
Subject: Re: DS9 premiere:  was that a Constitution class ship swooping in with the Nebula class ship?
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Bowling Green State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:43:14 GMT

In article <1jsbcnINN5q4@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
myke@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu (Michael Dautermann) wrote:
> 
>   
> 
> When the Saratoga was locked into the Borg's tractor beam, and just after 
> the Excelsior-class U.S.S. Melborne got nuked, two other Federation
> ships "swooped" in... one of them was definitely a Nebula class, the
> OTHER, though, looked like a Constitution (i.e. a movie-style Enterprise-A)
> class.  Anyone concur?  
> 
You're right about the first ship, it was a Nebula class.  The other was an
Ambassador class, (i.e. Enterprise-C).
Ren:  You're an astouding source of ignorance, Stimpy!
Stimpy: They don't call me stupid for nothing!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: etllnfr@eddie.ericsson.se (Lyndon Fletcher)
Subject: Re: Time Travel/Enterprise C
Organization: Ericsson Cellular Division
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:59:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.210144.9499@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ccartwri@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Catherine A Cartwright) writes:
>
>The concept of time travel/alternative time lines has been discussed
>recently, and it brings to mind a seeming inconsistancy I discovered
>years ago.  Being new to this net, it is quite possible that many
>others of you saw it as well.
>
>In the episode where the E encountered 1701-C, the basic concept
>was that they had been thrown into the *wrong* time line.  It wasn't
>supposed to be like that - history had been changed.
>But. .
>The D did not *cause* the C to come through the tear in space -
>C was brought through due to events in its own time.  Therefore,
>if the events of the alternative or *wrong* time line were caused
>by the C coming through, and the C went through of its own (time)
>volition, then that alternative time line was not the *wrong* one,
>but the true one.  The Enterprise D's actions changed history -
>they did not restore it.
>
>Catherine

This is of course a good point. I had cause to think about it last year
in the middle of writing a TNG short story. For a timeline to change,
you must set up a paradox. It is times attempt to rationalise the
paradox that sets up the timeline change.

For example.
 
In "Back to the Future" Marty interfears with his parents meeting
thus changing history. Only HE can do this because he is a product of the 
resulting timeline. If Biff had interfeared then the resulting timeline 
would be different but still the RIGHT timeline. It is the paradox that
Marty has altered his own future that allows the timeline change and
this is only noticable to Marty who had experience of the previous
timeline.

In short, from the point of view of a future observer, nothing you do
changes history because it has already been writen.  EVERY decision you
make is the one recorded in the history books because the book is writen
after you do the action. The only way this can change is if you already
know what you WOULD have done and choose to do something different 
because this creates a paradox.


In "Yesterdays Enterprise" it is the Romulan attack that projects
Enterprise C forwards. Therefore the resulting war is the correct timeline
as the Enterprise C's loss is the recorded "Correct" history for this
period. When the Enterprise D sends the C back in time with knowledge
of future events THEY change history the the present TNG timeline
because it is they who create the paradox.

Well thats my 2 pence.


Fletch

--
"All irregularities will be handled by the forces controlling each dimension.
 Trans-uranic heavy elements may not be used where there is Life. Medium atomic
 weights are available -- Gold, Lead, Copper, Jet, Diamond, Radium, Sapphire,
 Silver, and Steel. --- Sapphire and Steel have been assigned......."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: gunnarh@dhhalden.no (GUNNAR HORRIGMO)
Subject: Re: transporters, yet again
Organization: Ostfold College
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:25:20 GMT

>
>Well Joshua, I may not have made the strongest possible argument, and I
>apologize for that.  But I think you know enough Trek lore to pick up the
>ball from here.  Try martialing as much evidence as you can in favor of my
>hypothesis that Enterprise sensors aren't as powerful as transporters
>require them to be, and THEN let's see you defeat it.
>
>-- Dave Touretzky

Of course they are. If you want proof, just watch them beam somebody up. 
They DO it. So they sensors have to be powerful enough.

MAIL-mail: gunnarh@sofus.dhhalden.no    SNAIL-mail: Gunnar Horrigmo
           gunnarh@fenris.dhhalden.no               Oskleiva 17
                                                    N-1772 Norway
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The above posting may seem like insignificant rubbish at 
first glance, but if you read between the lines, you will be 
surprised to discover the annals of Burt Bacharach, world peace, 
Oxford Advanced Readers Dictionary, quantum physics made easy, and an 
easy-to-use step-by-step walkthrough on how to make a time travelling 
device that actually works.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: darkie@rieska.oulu.fi (Tapio Erola)
Subject: Re: Which episode is the Q girl in?
Organization: University of Oulu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:03:54 GMT

Brendan Rooney (is_b420@ceres.kingston.ac.uk) wrote:
: Excuse me all,
: 		what episode and season is this story about the Q girl in?
: 		Here in England we have just seen the release of Conundrum +
: the previous episode and the 2 following it on video but not on TV.  On TV we
: have only seen up to BOBW II.  The BBC haven't shown any good indication that
: they will be showing anymore.  Although as mentioned in several other posts,
: Sky One are have shown ST:TNG from episode 1 up to BOBW II and are now 
: repeating all the episodes that they have.
: 
: 	So...I'm curious what was the Q girl all about?
: 
: Brendan Rooney
: is_b420@king.ac.uk
: 
: 

The episode is True Q from some latter season (was it fifth season??)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Or not To Be!
	Chang
	St VII


Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech