HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Twin paradox
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:35:32 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

drucker@csa1.lbl.gov (ROBERT B DRUCKER) writes:

> Suppose twin A is floating in space away (say 100k miles)
> from the Earth (so he feels almost no gravity at all) and 
> twin B is standing on the Earth subjected to 1g acceleration.
> Do A and B age at a different rate?  If so how much different?
> and does the aging rate change with time?

Yes.  A measures B's clock as running slow.  Stronger gravitational 
fields dilate time more.

----------
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   |
From: delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle)
Subject: Re: Warp 10+
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:36:01 GMT

	Why and how was the 'transwarp' system a failure?
The only thing I remember was that Scotty broke it in another
ship in STIV when he stole some control chips. Or was it
something other than a simple repair of Scotty's handiwork?



--
 +-(c)--------------------------+   Freedom is to the soul is what  
 | delisle@eskimo.celestial.com |   fresh air is to the lungs, and  
 +------------------------------+   knowledge is to the mind.
From: KELSEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (KELSEY, Michael H.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Borg Scout Ship
Date: 9 Sep 92 05:47:23 GMT
 <92Sep08.161509.30158@acs.ucalgary.ca>
 <1992Sep8.204729.16709@leland.Stanford.EDU>
 <1992Sep8.232554.14129@unislc.uucp>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Sep8.232554.14129@unislc.uucp>, zzekka@unislc.uucp (Zeke Zecca)
says:
>
>In the episode "I Borg", Data or some one at the helm said that the borg
>rescue ship that picked up Ehue/hugh/ U god dammit! was the same type of
                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hugh, just the normal English name.
>ship that had crashed on the planet. They also said it had a mass of 2.8
>million metric tons. Two questions:
>
>                 - is "metric tons" a unit of mass? I don't believe so.
Yes it is.  A "metric ton" is defined as 1,000 kiograms, or 1 megagram
(1 Mg).  The term is not SI, but is used because the value is approximately
the same as the mass of one ton (2205 pounds mass, instead of 2000).  The
kilogram is a unit of _mass_: "it is equal to the mass of the international
prototype of the kilogram. (1st CGPM (1889) and 3d CGPM (1901), Declara-
tions.)" as quoted in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.

>                 - how could that little borg ship be that massive?

Well, that "little" Borg ship looked to be approximately 5 meters high,
_guessed_ by comparing to the away team members standing near it.  If it
was cubic, that gives a volume of 125 cubic meters.  A cubic meter of water
is 1 metric ton (1 kg is about (10 cm)^3 of water).  Assuming the ship
is mostly "steel", and half its total volume is material -- a _very_
conservative estimate, 70%+ is more likely with the Borg -- then its mass
would be about 300 metric tons.

This is a factor of 10^4 _smaller_ than the estimate given in the episode.
Why?  Well, suppose my guess as to the ship's size is completely wrong,
and the ship were really 20 times as big linearly (100 m instead of 5 m).
That would give immediately a factor of 8000 in volume, and hence in mass.
Now, it strikes me that a ship 100 m on a side is a bit roomy for only
five Borg, but maybe there were many more inside, though we have no
evidence of that.

Another possibility is that we only saw a tiny piece of the crashed ship,
and the rest of it was scattered debris.  If so, then we can't guess how
big it was, although the argument about 5 crewmembers still applies.

Finally, it's possible that the resuce ship was similar composition, or
similar structural shape (non-cubic???), some such, even if the scales
were different.
                                                     -- 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..."
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 09:25:18 EDT
From: <HCM100@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp 10+
 <1992Sep10.033601.28623@eskimo.celestial.com>

In article <1992Sep10.033601.28623@eskimo.celestial.com>,
delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) says:
>
>        Why and how was the 'transwarp' system a failure?
>The only thing I remember was that Scotty broke it in another
>ship in STIV when he stole some control chips. Or was it
>something other than a simple repair of Scotty's handiwork?

Always looked to me like he yanked out the spark plugs.

"I know this ship like the back of my *OOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFF*"
       Montgomery Scott, putting his foot in his mouth.


Hans C. Masing | HCM100@PSUVM.psu.edu  | Penn State University MIS Dept |

"What's the matter, you dissentious rogues, that in scratching the poor
itch of your opinion make yourselves scabs?" - Will Shakespeare
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: Warp 10+
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 16:25:46 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <8ef1CM600VouAmIlF2@andrew.cmu.edu> Chad Adam <ca25+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>	Actually, the warp engines do create an envelope that for the most
>part, engulfs the vessel within it.  The ship then dissappears from the
>normal "space" (newtonian-space) as we know it and manifests itself in a
>parallel non-newtonian space.  This realm is devoid of matter and will
>allow faster travel without bouncing into a planet or a star.  

That was the description given of Transwarp given in Mr. Scott's
Guide to the Enterprise (non-canon), but according to TNG, it
just didn't work.

Traditional Warp drives just create a nested field of subspace
distortion through which the ship moves. Its still in our
universe, and can still interact (hence the navigational
deflector to move things outa the way), but enveloped in the warp
field which moves the ship at superluminal velocities.

>	The "transwarp" drive system, in theory, could cruise at warp 12 and
>attain warp 14 in an emergency, morever, the NCC-1701-A mounted
>transwarp engines.  

This was the theory of a few writers, and isn't canon.

>	Now I am really interested in the "ultra-warp" (I love these names!)
>system of NCC-1701-D.  Supposedly, each warp factor when raised to the
>fifth power, states the multiples of the speed of light.  Warp 1 is
>still the speed of light but when you hit warp 2, watch out....you are
>moving 32 times the speed of light.  Where c is the speed of light and w
>is the warp factor, it follows: 

This was from FASA's TNG Officer's Manual (which is out of
print.. anyone have one they wanna sell me?). Its non-canon. The
NCC1701-D uses traditional Warp drives, as stated in the TNG
Technical Manual, which can be considered as canonical as it gets
until contradicted by the show. :)

>	For standard warp: cw^3,
>	For ultra-warp: cw^5
>
>.....a little unbelieveable but NCC-1701-D can reach an emergency speed
>of (Ultra)warp 9, or 59049 times the speed of light.  

This is nixed. The recalibration of Warp fields is easily
explained - in the 23rd Century, they didn't know much about warp
speeds, and used the low-end warp velocities (which approximate
v=c x^3) and extrapolated up to Warp 30 or so. By the 24th
century, they understand that the integral Warp values starting
with the traditional Warp 1-4 are really steps in the energy
input/cochrane, of which there are only 9. At that point it goes
off the scale, so there's no advantage over Warp 9 of not using
fractional values - you have no choice. So in the 24th century,
you'll rarely see Warp 3.5, because Warp 4 uses less energy, but
Warp 9.2 or 9.5 can't be beat without more energy.

>	In the movies though, esp. STIV, they could get from Vulcan to Earth in
>hours...so maybe there is "truth" to all of this, at least from the Star
>Trek universe.

As always. :)
From: David_Woodsworth@mindlink.bc.ca (David Woodsworth)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Vger:TMP
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:36:20 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> ACS110@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> 
>     You have answered your own question. The cloud (or Warp Field in
> technical terms) was 84 au's-- larger than the solar system. As Vger
> entered the system the cloud disipated. Vger itself was only half the
> size of the moon.

"Only half the size of the moon."

ONLY?     :-)

David

--
The preceeding opinions are shareware and yours to try for 30 days.  If you
wish to continue using them after that time, please send $10.00 CDN to:

                  david_woodsworth@mindlink.bc.ca
From: tallman%ailanth.uucp@wang.com (Robert Oliver)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp 10+
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 23:31:26 EDT
Organization: Ailanthus Project

Chad Adam <ca25+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> 	Actually, the warp engines do create an envelope that for the most
> part, engulfs the vessel within it.  The ship then dissappears from the
> normal "space" (newtonian-space) as we know it and manifests itself in a
> parallel non-newtonian space.  This realm is devoid of matter and will
> allow faster travel without bouncing into a planet or a star.  The
> Enterprise from the movies STI-STIV could cruise at warp 8 but was
> capable of attaining warp 10.  By the time of the third movie, the
> Excelsior Battleship, appropriately called "The Great Expierement" was
> testing "transwarp" drive.  
> 	The "transwarp" drive system, in theory, could cruise at warp 12 and
> attain warp 14 in an emergency, morever, the NCC-1701-A mounted
> transwarp engines.  The "sub-space radio" that is used in the movies
> travels on a beam at warp 15.  It is only because of the non-newtonian
> space, where physical constants don't exist, that these vessels can
> cruise at these unbelieveable speeds.  The warp equation itself
> (courtesy of Tech manuals) suggests that the vessels can travel many
> times that of the speed of light.  Each warp factor, when cubed, shows
> the number of times beyond the speed of light.  Warp 1 would be 1 times
> c, Warp 2 would be 8 times c....etc.
> 	Now I am really interested in the "ultra-warp" (I love these names!)
> system of NCC-1701-D.  Supposedly, each warp factor when raised to the
> fifth power, states the multiples of the speed of light.  Warp 1 is
> still the speed of light but when you hit warp 2, watch out....you are
> moving 32 times the speed of light.  Where c is the speed of light and w
> is the warp factor, it follows: 
> 	For standard warp: cw^3,
> 	For ultra-warp: cw^5
> 
> .....a little unbelieveable but NCC-1701-D can reach an emergency speed
> of (Ultra)warp 9, or 59049 times the speed of light.  
> 	In the movies though, esp. STIV, they could get from Vulcan to Earth in
> hours...so maybe there is "truth" to all of this, at least from the Star
> Trek universe.
> 
> 	-Chad Adam
> 
> "Gene, thanks for streching the limits of our imagination!  The human
> race will be ever grateful."
> 	

The Transwarp Drive Project was a failure and was only implemented in the 
Excelisior (NX-2000). NCC-1701-A is not supposed to have Transwarp (even 
though some of the Okudagrams on the bridge have transwarp in them). 
Ultra Warp was created by FASA and is completely unofficial.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Tom Thatcher)
Subject: Re: time travel and warp 10
Reply-To: smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:43:41 GMT

In article <swindley.716448190@s1.elec.uq.oz.au>, swindley@elec.uq.oz.au (Robert Swindley) writes:
>  Just another thought I had.
>In an episode screened recently in Australia, called 'Time Squared' (TNG)
>(or it might have been 'time cubed'), the enterprise picked up a shuttle
>craft which was from an enterprise of the future (about 6 hours into the
>future). Picard deduced that an energy field of some enourmous magnitude
>would be required in order for the ship to travel back in time, and 
>Ricar (?) agreed.
>   It turned out that anti-matter was involved, as well as time travel,
>an enourmous source of energy and speeds of above warp 9.4.
>   If anyone knows the significance of all this and going above warp 10
>please let me know...
>
>The Chengter
>
>   mail me   chengm@sun.mech.uq.oz.au

In TNG, nothing can travel at or above warp 10.  Two aspects of warp field
theory prevent this.
1.  Increasing warp speed requires geometrically increasing power input.
2.  As warp speed incresases engine efficiency decreases.

Travel at warp 10 would be infinite speed, therefore all places at once.

The warp exponent is about 3.3 up to warp 9.7, but increases thereafter.
The warp exponent curve itself has an asymptote at warp 10.  Speeds at
warp 9.99999 are orders of magnitude higher than 9.99.  This allows Q and
various disembodied aliens to toss the ship across galaxies without exceeding
warp 10.

The warp 10 limit was imposed by Gene Raddenbery who felt that, for dramatic
streamlining, warp 10 should be the max.  After all, the new ship was faster
than the old, and the old got up to warp 14 once, so what were you going to
have, warp 27?



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
^  "What must I do to convince you?"            ^  Tom Thatcher            ^
^  "Die."                                       ^  University of Rochester ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: singley@helix.nih.gov (Erick Singley)
Subject: Re: The Federation and cloaking tech...
Organization: (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:16:22 GMT

Cloaking and the deflector screen must at least work together else they
wouldn't be able to fly warp and cloak.  Shields are an extension of the
defector (in part.. arn't they? Drek.. where's that Tech manual....) and
should work? Right?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Subject: Re: Twin Paradox
Organization: University of B.C. Computing Services
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:16:40 GMT

In article <qc7ZqB4w165w@west.darkside.com> max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:
>No, it's possible to maintain one gee acceleration _in your frame of 
>reference_ indefinitely.  You'll find that while he feels like he's still 
>accelerating at one gee, his actual acceleration has dropped.  This is 
>because as he gets faster and faster, when he tries to speed up 
>(accelerates), more and more of this acceleration is going into 
>increasing the mass of his ship instead of actually increasing the speed 
>of the vessel.  ...

 Which reminds me of a matter that's puzzled me: as my velocity
 relative to, say, the Galaxy's frame of reference approaches c, my
 mass as observed by a planetary observer becomes, ah, astronomical;
 but so does the mass of any object more or less stationary with
 respect to the Galaxy's FOR.  So every passing dust speck or even
 gas molecule becomes massive.  So surely there will eventually be
 a speed at which my ship and I are in danger of being torn apart
 by the tidal forces between me and every closely passing object,
 no matter how small.
From: hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp 10+
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:15:36 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

CXMP@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CXMP000) writes:
>How's this: before the Enterprise goes into warp, it's travelling at
>relativistic speeds and there is time dilation.  This time dialation
>continues to occur when they go into warp and Spock gives the ETA
>based on both their current warp speed and their speed when they go
>into warp.
>
>Meanwhile, in ">something< Tomorrow" (the one with the glowing spheres),
>Kirk asks how long the message he sends will take to reach Starfleet
>and Uhura gives the time in months.
>


If warp travel worked like this, you would be able to get causality
violations left and right. Two people can enter warped space where
one is traveling with velocity = 0 wrt the earth and the other is 
traveling with velocity = .9c wrt the Earth.  IF they then can jump
into warped space and travel faster then the speed of light, while at
the same time person 1 still measures time as if his vel were 0 wrt
Earth and person 2 still measures time as if his vel were .9c wrt Earth,
then you an set up a situation in which you get a causality violation 
because of the way each measures time.  

If asked, I will try to find the time to work this out and post the full
explanation.

Just remember, the key to not having causality violations is that everyone
in warped space measures space and time in the same way reguardless of how
fast the were going before they entered, and reguardless of how fast 
they are going while in warped space.

-Jay
From: z_clarkmj@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: The Federation and cloaking tech...
Date: 15 Sep 92 10:32:40 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Sep14.122243.16950@hellgate.utah.edu>, jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
> smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
> 
>>Cloaked ships can not be shielded, so a direct hit would cause serious
>>damage and probably render the cloaking system inactive (as in TUC).
> 
> Whoa, who said that cloaked ships cannot simultaneously be shielded?
> Just about the only plausible explanation for the destruction of
> Chang's vessel in ST6 was that it was shielded.  A Klingon Bird of
> Prey is only a few hundred feet long, and we know that photon torpedo
> detonations are on the order of several megatons.
> 
> Even a near miss by a photon torpedo would completely vaporize a small
> ship like a Bird of Prey if the target were unshielded.  Yet in ST6 it
> took five or so blasts to finish it off -- the first few just seemed
> to knock it around a bit.
> --------------------------------+---------------------------------------
> Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
> Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
> Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | I was a rutabaga in a former life.

thats hollywood for yu!
From: v128nkej@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Boggles the MIND)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Binars and the Borg  (was: Re: what is the significance of 11001001 in "11001001"
Date: 11 Sep 92 02:00:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <92Sep05.201137.32111@acs.ucalgary.ca>, jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes...
>I imagine there will be a 6th (or 7th?) season episode where a
>Cube ship warps towards Earth, varying speed (so noone can beam
>over), and as the Federation masses for another assault, the Borg
>open a channel to Starfleet Command with the following line:
> 
>"We wish to be assimilated."
> 
>Joshua

		Would Customs send them back?
		Would they make them pay duty on their electronics?
		
		What would the Borg be like after watching an 
		average of 20 hours of prime time a week?
			
		Would they need to buy Sega-visions or could they just
		plug in the cartridges????
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: The Federation and cloaking tech...
Date: 15 Sep 92 11:43:45 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

z_clarkmj@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>> Even a near miss by a photon torpedo would completely vaporize a small
>> ship like a Bird of Prey if the target were unshielded.  Yet in ST6 it
>> took five or so blasts to finish it off -- the first few just seemed
>> to knock it around a bit.
>> --------------------------------+---------------------------------------
>> Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
>> Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
>> Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | I was a rutabaga in a former life.
>
>thats hollywood for yu!

It has been a topic of discussion for some time why it takes five
photon torpedoes to destroy a Bird of Prey.  If the ship was shielded,
I can buy that.  Or I can chalk it up to dramatic license.

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

TNG photon torpedoes have a theoretical yield of 64 megatons.  Let's
be conservative and say that TOS torpedoes have half of that yield --
32 megatons.

That's theoretical yield.  Let's be conservative again and presume
that Kirk's torpedoes are horribly inefficient and have an actual
yield 25% that of the theoretical yield -- 8 megatons.  Now that's
FOUR TIMES the actual yield of the LARGEST thermonuclear device the US
has built.  I'm sorry, but even a near miss is going to ruin Chang's
day.

My conclusion, Chang was shielded.  My implication, you can shield AND
cloak a ship at the same time.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | I was a rutabaga in a former life.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech