HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: layes@ug.cs.dal.ca (Jonathan Layes)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Speed and Relativity?
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:09:50 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <92097.192416U53644@uicvm.uic.edu> <U53644@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>Gents, I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but...............
>     Special relativity doesn't care which method you use for circumventing the
>light speed limit. As long as you go from point a to point b in less time than
>it would take traveling at velocity c, you get into paradoxes.
>
>Why ? Look up the Lorentz transformation from any textbook on Special relativit
>y. Notice that if point a and point b in space-time lie outside of each other's
>light cones (i.e. you can't reach one from the other traveling at velocities
>no greater than c through space-time) then there are inertial frames of
>reference in which point (i.e. event) a precedes event b, and vice versa.

Not again!  Must be stuck in a causality loop.  :)  I'll stick my nose into
this thread once more.  Physics as we know it, by today's "laws", dictates
that c is the limit.  But, you're missing the point.  A warp bubble distorts
space-time, such that the ship enclosed isn't actually in space-time
as we see it (well, thats a vague description anyhow, and of course
exists only in sci-fi now).  As a mathematics grad student, I assume
you've talked all about n-dimensional space and vectors and the like.
Our laws of physics only apply to the dimensions encompassed by space-time.
Who said there aren't other dimensions we may be able to exploit?  A hundred
years ago, Newtonian mechanics could solve everything.  Now we know better.
Not that Newtonian mechanics is *wrong*, but it is only useful in the limiting
case where v<<c.  Maybe our concepts of space-time will prove to be some
limiting case also.

The pebble on a parabola analogy is quite useful in understanding this,
if not altogether correct.  Oh, my apologies to whoever wrote A Wrinkle in
Time - I haven't read this book, but I've been told in the past in this 
group that the book uses almost the exact analogy I came up with for describing
how I believe FTL travel to work.

/--------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Jonathan Layes                   _      _     "In case of fire.... |
| Physics/Computing Science       / \    / \       shout FIRE!"      |
| Dalhousie University           |  *|  |  *|                        |
| Halifax, Nova Scotia            \_/  \ \_/    "If it doesn't work, |
| Canada                               _)          hit it with a big |
| Internet: LAYES@UG.CS.Dal.CA	       	             stick."         |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: doc@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Jeffrey Smith)
Subject: Re: STII screens vs shields
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:52:58 GMT

ttullio@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:

>Having just acquired the laserdisc of STII and re-watched the movie 
>several times, I noticed something I never noticed before:

>The Enterprise has both "defensive screens" and "shields"?!
>What's the story on this?  In the first attack by Kahn, the big E has
>energized defensive screens (accompanied by a graphic of the ship being
>"colored in" section by section), but hasn't raised shields (graphic of
>dots encircling the ship)...

The screens that were energized were the defense fields that surround
the bridge.  That's why they didnt protect the ship.

>Energizing the screens sure didn't do them a damn bit of good!  Have
>we seen these before/since?
>                                        __
>                                       / /\  
>Tom Tullio                            / / / 2                   The face of a
>Wesleyan University                  / /  \           child can speak volumes.
>----------------------------*       / / /\ \      *---------------------------
>TTULLIO@WILLET.WESLEYAN.EDU         \_\/\ \ \       Especially the mouth part

L8er, 
Jeff 

Romana: "I thought you said we were coming here for May week?"
Doctor: "I did, May week's in June."
	                **Shada and The Five Doctors**
        Jeffrey Smith   --KD4AYH--  doc@catt.ncsu.edu
From: max@west.darkside.com (Max Pandaemonium)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Speed and Relativity?
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:45:43 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

0juan_e@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:

>      To answer your question about relativity, inwhich it only affects things
> only at sublight speeds -yes and no.  According to Eistein, as an object begi
> to approach the speed of light (.4c - c=Speed of Light), aging for the object
> begins to slow to a crawl; by the time the object is at c, the effect of Time
> upon it doesn't exist.  This is all based on Newtonian physics taking into 
> account the variables of gravity; speed, acceleration, and mass of object;
> and the distance travelled by object.

It's based on Einsteinian physics, you mean.  Recall that Newtonian 
physics means non-relativistic physics.

A body can never reach the speed of light, though it can get arbitrarily 
close.  You can never surmount that last decimal point to reach exactly 
c.  But 0.999 999 999 999 999c is just fine . . .

> What warp physics does, is explain the creating of artificial fields (possibl
> gravitonic pulses) that distorts a certain area of space around an object -
> placing the object in a sort of "null" space, inwhich the mass of the object
> is either reduced to the mass of subatomic particles or cancelled; this type
> of physics would cancel Newtonian physics of an object -since the mass has
> been reduced to a point below the minimum for the Newtonian Gravitaic constan
> to apply.  Though the mass of an object is reduced, this doesn't affect the
> size of the object -size is relative.

This is an interesting idea, but unfortunately, it doesn't work.  
Relativistic effects occur at the subatomic level, too.  (In fact, there 
much more visible there -- it's much easier to accelerate a subatomic 
particle to relativistic speeds than it is to accelerate a macroscopic 
particle.)

> Einstein, himself, said that for an object to go beyond the limit of c, it 
> would have to cease its existance in our physical plane; this brought about t

That is implied by his special theory, but I doubt he ever said those 
words.  (Well, made a statement that could be realistically _translated_ 
to those words.)


I think the answer that everyone's looking for just plain isn't there.  
It's just a science-fiction show, and it's not very hard science-fiction. 
There is no scientifically valid reason why the warp drive works.  It 
just does.  You take that as a given, and work from there.

----------
Max Pandaemonium   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: iacovone@zeus.franklin.edu (Daniel R. Iacovone)
Subject: Re: Deck consruction (Minor spoilers)
Organization: Franklin University (Columbus, OH)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 08:04:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.145352.18423@walter.bellcore.com> ricks@berkeley.edu writes:
>|> 	Think back to ST and you will remember a few indor phasor shots
>|> that just leave burns on the metal.
>
>I was reading my trusty Tech Manual last night :-) and the one thing
>the I went over was the section on phasers.  My understanding 
>according to the manual is that the internal datacomm link
>to the ships computer that is in the phaser prevents a discharge
>that is greater than a setting3 (heavy stun).  This much I remember
>offhand, however I am not sure what a prolonged setting3 will do
>to an inanimate object.  I would assume that the purpose is of course
>to prevent damage to the ship.  Wouldn't want someone going bonkers
>with a phaser on setting 5-10 inside of 10 forward, now would you! :->


Of course, By this time they must not have seen it fit to include
the alarm that infroms security that a phaser set to a high setting
had been fired.  You know, like the one in STVI:TUC.

Writers, Can live with them!
         Can live with them................
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: davej@techbook.com (Dave J. Johnsen)
Subject: Re: Warp Speed?
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:29:46 GMT

Finally, the definitive warp spped explanation and calculation.

Step one -
     Determine where you want to start.  
	eg.   Starbase 23 or some such.

Step two -
     Determine where you want to go.
	eg.   The edge of the neutral zone (or should that be Neutral Zone)

Step three -
     (The trickiest part)
     Determine how long you want it to take you, in real time and in TV/Movie
     time.

Step four -
     Write it into the script.
     (Optional:  Have JLP say "Engage.")


There you have it.  The final theory of Star Trek FTL travel.
(Remember, tongue firmly planted in cheek.)
I find all the possible theories fascinating, and I really enjoy reading all of
them, including the my ship can kick your ship's butt, etc.  But when it starts
getting acrimonious, I get a little sad.  Lighten up guys, this stuff is 
supposed to be *FUN*.

Dave Johnsen

-- 
davej@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks  
TECHbooks is kind enough to provide me with access, I wouldn't presume  
to have their opinions.  I am not even sure I have my own!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: USS Asimov?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 01:11:31 GMT

In article <92106.182402KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>
>Well, since he didn't do Star Trek in the other universe, don't you think
>he would have taken all this extra time and done something else noteworthy?
>
He might have... but we'll never know.  He was in the business of writing
TV shows; no other TV show is nearly as "important" as ST.
But if anyone could do it, Roddenberry would have the best chance...

>...I mean, maybe in the alternate universe, he wrote all the Dixon Hill
>novels, which were set in the 21st century and presented an optimistic look
>at the future... also, w/o Star Trek, there wouldn't have been as much of an
>interest in the other universe, so Asimov wouldn't have been such a big deal.
>
Asimov was writing good SF long before Trek went on the air.  It's insulting
to give another the credit for his success.

>But this is, of course, all unfounded speculation.  As if that were a
>bad thing.  :)

Who knows, maybe the'll say something like this on the air and make it "canon."
:)


-- 
"What? Over? Did you say it's over? Nothing's over, till we decide it is! 
 Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!" --John Belushi
hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu                        Gene Roddenberry 1921-1991
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: Warp Speed and Relativity?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:57:33 GMT

In article <VNJwiB11w165w@west.darkside.com> max@west.darkside.com (Max Pandaemonium) writes:
>v128nkej@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Boggles the MIND) writes:
>
>> People once thought that crossing the ocean was impossible- can't do it.
>> People once thought that machines would never be better than man at any job-
>> can't be done.
>> People once thought breaking the sound barrier was impossible and that 
>> we'd never land a man on the moon- can't be done.
>
>These kinds of statements kind of irk me a little . . . there's a 
>difference between a common public myth and a well-defined scientific 
>theory.  Sure, people thought you couldn't break the sound barrier.  But 
>they didn't have any reason to think this other than, "Oh, my, our planes 
>start to rattle a lot as they get toward Mach 1."  That's different than 
>having reams of paper showing that as a particle approaches the speed of 
>light, its mass increases without bound.

I agree completely; the examples of supersonic and transoceanic flight
are completely inappropriate, as those were simply limitations of 
engineering.  Lightspeed, however, is a fundamental constant of the 
universe.  Relativity proves that FTL travel is impossible, and, from 
all measurements made so far (in particle accelerators and the like),
relativity appears to be correct.

Comparing supersonic and FTL travel, using the "They said it couldn't 
be done and it was!" is nearly as ridiculous as "People once thought
tomatoes were poisonous, but we know they're healthy now... so don't
say that radioactive waste will kill you!"


-- 
        Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche.
                      hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
                      Gene Roddenberry 1921-1991
From: columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Why the "starbow"/"rubber-band" effect? Speculation
Date: 7 Apr 92 09:32:51
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
	<7183@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: strident.think.com
In-reply-to: hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu's message of 6 Apr 92 21:32:46 GMT


In article <1992Apr6.153129.24015@acsu.buffalo.edu>
v116r8ac@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Chris Nasipak) writes:

   >A number of people once asked for an explanation of the "rubber-band"
   >but I believe I have an explanation for it.
   >
   >Under Relativity laws, as an object approaches c, time slows down, mass
   >increases, and length increases.  Therefore, the obvious reason the ship
   >looks stretched from the point of view of the camera, is that it is
   >accelerating to c preparatory to entering warp space (the flash of light.).
   >
   >Comments?  Questions?

In article <7183@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>
hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) writes: 

   OOOPS!  you have made a slight error.  When you observer a person traveling
   relative to yourself, you see his time slow down, his mass increase, and
   his length in the direction of motion DECREASE.  (time dialation and
   length contraction go hand in hand- by the way).

   Jay

I haven't done the calculations for an accelerating object, but the
"rubber-band" effect seems unlikely to me.  

If object X is travelling uniformly at a speed close to c, with respect to
some object Y, and Y takes a snapshot of X, then X will NOT look
foreshortened in the photo.  Instead, X will appear ROTATED.  This does not
contradict relativistic contraction-- we're talking about the appearance in
a photo, which is not the same thing as length measurements.  This was
discussed extensively recently in sci.physics (or sci.math, I forget which).

I suspect the rubber-band effect is done simply done because it looks
convincing.  A similar example: the stars appear to fly away from the
center of the Enterprise's viewscreen when it approaches Warp 1.  In fact
(because of the aberration of light) they would really crowd in towards the
center.
From: roy@ug.cs.dal.ca (David Roy)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Photonic boom..hmmmmm.
Date: 11 Apr 92 08:56:03 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada


If this were true, then from a view behind the enterprise, the ship would
be stretched and faded farther away from the observer.  But if the observer
were in front (relative to the movement) of the ship then the ship would appear
as a very bright front, blinding.... and stretched.... hmmmm sound good to me.

Not bad for just a passing thought....

	**************************************************
	* efil nikcuf ecin - ANTHRAX  |  David Roy       *
	* No Thanks, I just had a     |  DAROY@AC.DAL.CA *
	*  banana - Kelly Wheaton     |  roy@ug.cs.dal.ca*
	**************************************************
From: hendrick@ctron.com (Jim Hendrick)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Q: Quad / KiloQuad, what is it ?
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:44:32 GMT
	<1992Apr15.015300.14990@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
	<1992Apr14.225421.24506@hellgate.utah.edu>
Organization: Cabletron Systems Inc.
In-reply-to: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu's message of 15 Apr 92 04:54:20 GMT

>We don't even know for sure if ENTERPRISE computers use a binary

I believe the episode 1001101 or whatever it was called sort
of addressed that point.

--
###########################################################################
### Jim Hendrick (hendrick@ctron.com)	###				###
### Cabletron Systems Inc.		###   " My opinions, etc are    ###
### P. O. Box 5005			### exclusively the property	###
### Rochester, NH 03867-5005		### of nobody in particular."	###
### (603) 332-9400 x1457		### 				###
###########################################################################
From: yury@bknight.jpr.com (Yury German)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re:  FED. SECURITY PERSONNEL vs STORM TROOPERS.
Distribution: world
Date: 4 Apr 92 15:55:20 GMT
Organization: Blue-Knight Productions

In article <56300@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>On the other hand, the Empire has (assuming the meeting is placed before
>RotJ) Darth Vader and the Emperor.  It is not clear just how powerful
>the Emperor is, but if he got on the Enterprise, he could probably do
>very nasty things.
	Well lets see if he got onto the Enterprise it would be something
like this!!! I still do not have an idea how he would get onboard but lets
say he did!!!

-------
DATA: Sir we have an intruder onboard. 
RIKER: (com) Security to deck 3 (assuming that where he is).
(time passes)
SECURITY: (COM) Sir he is just to powerful ... CHOKE ... GAK... 
Picard: Data lock on to the intruder and beam him into space!!!
Data: Locked on!!!
Picard & Ricer: Energise!!!
------
	Considering that if its a state of war and thenormal weapons are
not doing anything... and as long as DATA is not damaged (since Neither of
the 2 mentioned) can do a think to droids or DATA. They will get beamed
into space... and I do not remember anyone surviving space!! (vacume.)

--

    _____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                     |
   | Yury German                  yury@bknight or yury@bknight.jpr.com   |
   | Blue-Knight Productions      GENIE EMAIL: Blue-Knight               |
   | (212)218-1348                (Graphic Design and Video Productions) |
   | (718)321-0998		  P.O. Box 985, Queens, New York, 11354  |
   |_____________________________________________________________________|
From: rbr4@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Roland Roberts)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Q: Quad / KiloQuad, what is it ?
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:53:00 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1992Apr14.164321.1@vax1.tcd.ie> kellyfj@vax1.tcd.ie writes:
    Question:

    Whilst reading the ST:TNG tech manual by Sternbach and Okuda, I
    came across the mention of a measure of computer storage called
    a "Quad".  Can anyone tell me what it means and how it
    translates into modern kilobytes or megabytes (if possible).

Its a big book---where is this referenced (page)?

roland
--
Roland Blaine Roberts
University of Rochester                     roberts@uornsrl.bitnet
Nuclear Structure Research Laboratory       roberts@nsrl31.nsrl.rocester.edu
271 East River Road                         rbr4@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Rochester, NY 14627                         (716) 275-8962
--
Fight `Look and Feel' copyrights and Software Patents.
Join the League for Programming Freedom, info from league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: s5223927@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Daniel Lescohier)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: STII screens vs shields
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:10:38 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Apr14.165759.6753@meaddata.com> gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards) writes:
>
>From reading the TNG Tech Manual, there appears to be 2 distinct systems:
>
>1.  The Structural Integrity Field (SIF) which deals with vehicle stress
>(e.g. warp stress, planetary gravitation, etc.).  The SIF, as best as I
>can tell, operates within the hull of the ship.  That is, the SIF conduits
>are encapsulated within the hull.
[...]
>The SIF is used to protect the ship from structural stress and the 
>shields are used to protect the ship from being struck by matter/energy
>(be it in the form of meteors or disruptor beams).

	Don't forget that the SIF protects the starship from the 
acceleration of the impulse engines.  The impulse engines can accelerate
the starship at a 1000g's, so if there was nothing protecting the rigidity
of the frame, the saucer would be squashed like foam as soon as the
Captain orders "quarter-impulse."


-- 
 Daniel Lescohier        | InterNet: s5223927@titan.ucs.umass.edu (until May)
 Univ. of Massachusetts  |---------------------------------------------------
 Amherst, MA (until May) | FidoNet:  1:101/138 (permament address; after May)
  [quote deleted]        |        (Daniel.Lescohier@f138.n101.z1.fidonet.org)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: USS Asimov?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:30:50 GMT

In article <92106.143257KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>What about a Roddenberry class?  Why does Asimov get preferential treatment?
>I don't believe he ever even wrote an episode of Star Trek, did he?  (Would've
>been neat if he had, though.)

Since Star Trek, the TV show, did not exist in that other universe, Gene
was not as important as Asimov or Heinlein there.
-- 
"...no identification of self or mission; no interference with social develop-
 ment of said planet; no references to space, to other worlds or more advanced
 civilizations."   The PRIME DIRECTIVE, by Gene Roddenberry and Gene L. Coon.
hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu                               Gene Roddenberry 1921-1991
From: mbrockma@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Matt Brockman)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Subspace vs. Antispace
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:31:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: gn.1992Apr9.213121.25076
Organization: Twin Peaks Sheriff Department

In article <#l4tqpn@rpi.edu> petitc@rpi.edu writes:
>  I was plugging some funny (imaginary) numbers into some quantum physical
>equations and came up with a NEGATIVE probability curve.  When I consider this,
>and the fact that, if you put in a velocity v, greater than c, you get an
>imaginary number (NEVER complex, but imaginary).  To me, this signifies a space
>that you enter to go faster than c. 
>
>  In this anti-space, ONLY a v>c is permitted, with velocities approaching c (e.g.
>slowing down) take more energy.  What relation is this antispace to subspace?  And
>if there is none, then what IS subspace?  I mean, I've read the TNG Tech Manual,
>but it never specifies what subspace is.

If this were the case then it would take zero energy to go infinitly fast!

BTW, I thought that Complex numbers were imaginary numbers?


===============================================================================
Matt Brockman                                           mbrockma@ecn.purdue.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "While a llama may produce some of the world's finest of wools, prized around
 the world, their breath, on the other hand, could only be prized somewhere in
 the far reaches of llama hell."		  -Agent D. Cooper, TWIN PEAKS
===============================================================================