HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arzheim@goofy.zdv.uni-mainz.de (Kai Arzheimer )
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: List of all episodes on the net ?
Date: 18 Aug 92 09:40:44 GMT
Organization: Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

I'm sorry if this is the wrong group for my question but I'm quite
interested in a complete list of all classical episodes. I'm sure that
such a list is on the net but I don't know where to find it.

Kai
-- 
* Kai Arzheimer                                           *
* arzheimer@mzdmza.zdv.uni-mainz.de                       *
* arzheim@goofy.zdv.uni-mainz.de                          *
* "It's life Jim - but not as we know it." -Dr. L. McCoy  *
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jbm@sei.cmu.edu (Jason Mahoney)
Subject: Sorry!...but
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:04:09 GMT


   Sorry but I've had a recent encounter with the Romulans and they somehow
      transported something wierd onto my signature line!!!

                           See What I Mean!!!
                                 
                                  !
                                  !
                                  !
                               \  !  /
                                \ ! /
                                 \!/
(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
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: bx304@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeff Epler)
Subject: Re: time travel paradox
Reply-To: bx304@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeff Epler)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 16:13:33 GMT


In a previous article, aj14@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew John) says:

>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).

People keep assuming only a single universe.  In my model, at time
zero (The beginning of the universe, if there was such.), there was just
one.  However, from here many decisions could be made, so uncountably
many universes -- Each slightly different from the others -- arise each
second.  I envision this like a tree, having many branches.  Suppose you
go back in time (Towards the trunk).  Once you get to where you're
going, you start back up the tree.  However, you may not go up the same
branchlet you came from.  For instance, if you kill your grandfather
you're definately not going to go up the same history you came from.
However, you don't wink out of existance, because you came from a
universe where you did exist, you just ended up in one where you could
not exist.

Suppose you travel ahead in time, hoping to determine the future.  You
may end up in one of many branches ahead of you, so when you return to
your time of origin, any onformation of the future you have would be
useless.

(Additionally, coming from the future to tell yourself what horse to bet
on might not work:  You are probably going into a different future, so
you might be completely incorrect about what horse won.)

Of course, this takes the fun and usefulness out of time travel..

>
>		Time travel's wierd,
>
>           Andy
>
Yep,
Jeff
-- 
|Jeff Epler               Additions Welcome           c(-8 ;-) >{8-) |
| :) (=( =-] (-= Celebrating the variety of faces =-> :^) {-= |-) (: |
|                                                   Lincoln, Nebraska|
From: jacob@plasma1.ssl.berkeley.edu (Jamey Jacob)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: warp speed
Date: 13 Aug 1992 19:59:00 GMT
Organization: UCB Space Sciences Lab
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: plasma1.ssl.berkeley.edu

From my understanding, warp speed is equivalent to the warp
factor cubed times the speed if light. That is warp one is
1c, warp two is 8c, warp three is 27c, etc.  (I got this from
a space sciences prof., so I don't know how accurate it is.)


____________________________________________________________________
"common human laws and interests     "I wouldn't exactly call it a
 and emotions have no validity        a happy dogma, but it makes me
 or signifigance in the vast          feel better about not 
 cosmos-at-large..."                  getting laid..."
		-HP Lovecraft                 -R. Carter
____________________________________________________________________
From: comet@west.darkside.com (The Real Comet)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Stardate formula
Date: 21 Aug 92 10:15:47 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

Yes, in the old series, there were some episodes which were broadcast out 
of stardate sequence.  This was discussed at a convention, and it is now 
common knowledge that depending on location and acceleration (warp speed) 
from last position, that this is not an unusual occurance.

--------
!apple!uuwest!comet <comet@darkside.com>
    or via U.S. Mail to
Comet
437 Wessex Way
Belmont, CA  94002-2757
    or via telephone at
(415)593-5101
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: hillel@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (hillel.e.markowitz)
Subject: Re: FTL travel/communication
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:39:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.140545.28418@jyu.fi> tm@jyu.fi (Timo Mannikko) writes:
>
>>I wrote the following message to someone who asked me to explain why FTL
>>travel/communication impies a causality problem, and I thought it might
>>be of some interest to readers of r.a.s.tech:
>
>   [Message deleted]
>
>This was a very good explanation, thanks!
>
>>Hope this was helpful... feel free to ask other questions
>>
>>-Jay
>
>I will! Namely, I have always wondered one thing in this so called twin
>paradox. You know, twin A stays home, twin B makes a trip with velocity
>c minus epsilon, and returns home younger than A. Everything OK so far.
>But: From B's point of view it is A who has moved, so shouldn't A be the
>younger brother?
>
>First I thought that it is the acceleration which makes the difference.
>But then again: Let us suppose that B accelerates with constant one g,
>which is the same acceleration as A is experiencing. So, where *is* the
>difference?
>
>- Timo


The way it was explained to me that since twin B accelerates out of
a's fram of reference and then accelerates (decellerates) to move
back into A's frame of reference, the aging factor affects him
rather than A.  This is due to the fact that we can't have a
magical overview to see which one ages slower.

Actually B will see A aging slower because the light bringing him
the information takes "longer" to catch up with him relative to his
own motion.  Thus it would appear to B that A ages at a slower rate
just as it would appear to A that B ages at a slower rate.  This is
one of the paradoxes of relativistic space travel.

Hillel Markowitz        H_Markowitz@att.com
From: hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: warp speed
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:52:38 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

In article <1992Aug10.103328.1@bronco.fnal.gov> colombo@bronco.fnal.gov writes:
<In article <8032@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>, hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) writes:
<> In article <15utpcINNdq@agate.berkeley.edu> chee@jonas.berkeley.edu (Carolyn Chee) writes:
<> As for their numbers for warp speed, at least one I know of (warp 3) was 
<> confirmed to be correct in the episode "The Most Toys," when Wesley told
<> us that the ship they were looking for had a top speed of warp 3, and that
<> meant it could have gotten x distance in y hours.
<
<I saw a rerun recently (sorry, I didn't catch the title), but it's
<the one where Picard is replaced by a clone while some aliens hold
<him and three other aliens captive in a single room.
<
<Anyway, the clone Picard tells Wes to set a course for a distant pulsar.
<Wes says that at warp 7, it will take 32 minutes to get there.  So
<Picard says to make it warp 2 and Wes says, but that will take 34 hours.
<From this we can generate a chart of warp speed vs time as follows:
<
<
<WF	 2  3  4  5  6  7
<--------------------------
<Time	32 16  8  4  2  .5
<         ^               ^
<         |               |
<       approx.         wrong?
<
<
<I have approximated the 34 hours into 32 and I beleive that .5 hours
<should really be one hour, but this should prove that warp factors closely
<resemble powers of two.  So waddayathink, does this look reasonable???
<

At warp 7 (according to the tech manual) you could go 7^(10/3)*32 or
20996 light-minutes in 32 minutes.  At warp 2 it would take:
20996/[2^(10/3)] = 2084 minutes = 34.7 hours.... not far off from what
Wes said.

-Jay
From: judson@watnxt2.ucr.edu (Michael Judson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: time travel paradox
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:59:01 GMT

In article <16044@pitt.UUCP> aj14@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew John) writes:
> Hello all...

>    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).

This is exactly the situation that I described in another post regarding
a Bill and Ted type example.  In the movie, the future Ted told the past
Ted (or was it Bill) to not to forget to wind his watch.  Of course the
past Ted forgot and when he became the future Ted, he told the past Ted
not to forget to wind his watch.  And of course the past Ted forgot.  So
he told.... and so on.  And in other scenes, such as with the tape 
recorder in the police station, they reminded each other not to forget to
time travel back and put a tape recorder in the police station with a
taped message.  The past Bill and Ted of course heard the taped message
simply because they said to remind each other to do it.  If this is at
all confusing or unknown, then see the movie.  Anyway, all of this
implies that life is on a set destined course and nothing that we can do
will change it.  The Bill and Ted type time travel is the only type of
time travel that seems logical.  Unlike a Back to the Future type time
travel (which Star Trek uses) in which there are alternate time paths.
It would seem that if you really did want to travel in time, to the past,
then in the past you would have to have existed in some point in time.
But then if you could time travel, and if time traveling were a Bill and
Ted type example, then life would be destined and there would be nothing
that you could do to change.  This I find incredibly hard to believe and
thus I do not believe in time travel, if it occurs how it is described
in Bill and Ted.
The idea of time travel, if it does result in a paradox, could not be
possible.  If time travel did exist, then the universe as we know it
would cease to exist.  If all of this makes sense, then the following
statement will make sense too: time travel is much like the concept of:
what would happen if an immovable object were to be struck by an
unstoppable force?  Surely you could imagine what would happen, but if
the event were possible, then the universe as we know it would cease to
exist.
All of this probably does not make too much sense, but if you are on the
same wavelength as I am, then it might.

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

judson@watserv.ucr.edu
From: gbrach@galaxy.gov.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Starships
Date: 19 Aug 92 11:03:28 -0700
Organization: BC Systems Corporation

In article <1992Aug18.172156.26468@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jnlong@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey N Long) writes:
> In article <6128@ucru2.ucr.edu> judson@watnxt2.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:
>>Does anyone have a full list of Star Trek starchips, from TOS and TNG?
>>If so, could you E-mail me the list?
>>Thanks.
>>
>      ???? StarChips...you mean like motorcycle cops?
      Yea - riding the new Harley-Davidson Warpcycles...ever wonder what a
      _chopped_ warp engine would look like?  Or ride like???  B-{) B-{)

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
From: hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: time travel paradox
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:05:32 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

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

I have a couple of ideas about how you can have time travel (without causing
a lot of paradoxes) that I want to throw in:

The first one is something like what another poster said, that is that 
when you travel back in time, you enter (or perhaps create) another
time line, so while you effect that time line, you do not effect the
past of your own time line.

The second involves a sort of "speed" of time.  Imagine you are looking at
a reel of film that represents present events. Say you look at each frame
one second after the last one.  This represents the speed of time. Now,
as you look through the frames, someone else in effect goes back in time
by finding a frame you have already seen and changes that frame.  Since
this film represents the passing of time, all the other frames ahead of
that one would have to change also. (Like going back and killing someone,
in the furure, that person doesn't exist anymore.)  
However, perhaps all of the frames don't change simultaneously. Each frame
changes one second after the frame before it. That way, the change never
catches up to the present. The frame you are looking at doesn't get changed
before you go on the the next frame.

One problem with the last one- relativity says that the "speed of time"
is different for different observers, and that could through a wrench
into things.

-Jay
From: KELSEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (KELSEY, Michael H.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: QCD (was Re: GUTs in Star Trek)
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:47:39 GMT
 <5097@tuegate.tue.nl> <16rcn1INN5tt@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <16rcn1INN5tt@agate.berkeley.edu>, ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu
(;;;;7202) says:
>
>In article <5097@tuegate.tue.nl> johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
>writes:
>>Now, the nucleons in a nucleus consist of quarks with color interaction.
>>But, although they are color-neutral (usually called ``white''), the
>>nucleons also have color-interaction because the color charges are
>>separated in space. This is comparable with EM dipoles.
>>
>>Summarizing, one could say that the relation of the strong nuclear force
>>compared to the color force is the same as the Van der Waals interaction
>>between molecules related to the electromagnetical force.
>
>But the Van der Waals interaction *is* an electromagnetical force.  One end
>of a weak electric dipole of a molecule is electrically attracted to the
>oppositely charged end of another molecule.  So then, are you saying the
>color force binding quarks in a nucleon is the *same* force binding nucleons
>in a nucleus?

That is _exactly_ what the poster is saying.  The nucleon-nucleon binding
force is a "residual" color multipole interaction, rather than the direct
"1/r^2"-like color-color interaction between the quarks.  Similarly, the
Van der Waals interaction is a residual EM multipole interaction, rather
than a direct 1/r^2 charge-charge interaction.

If that's true, then is it theoretically possible to break a
>nucleon into individual quarks as you can a nucleus into nucleons, instead
>of quark pairs, that I heard were indivisible?
>
No, because the color potential is NOT 1/r, like the electromagnetic force.
It can be approximated by a short-distance 1/r potential, which is coupled
to a LINEAR potential at long distance.  The result is that as the distance
between quarks increases, the force between them gets STRONGER (like when
you stretch a spring).  Eventually, the potential energy between the two
quarks (or between a quark and antiquark, it doesn't matter), exceeds the
rest-mass of a quark-antiquark pair.  At that point, you get a q-qbar which
appears out of the vacuum, eating up some of the potential energy in the
color field, and you now have TWO bound quark systems, where before you
had only one.

Thus:  if you try to pull a quark out of a nucleon (or meson, or any other
hadron [bound quark system]), you don't get a free quark, you just get new
hadrons.

[ Deleted all the gravity stuff.  I'm not a cosmologist :-) ]

                                            -- 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..."
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: communicators
Date: 18 Aug 92 08:12:40 GMT
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.

chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton) writes:
>
>Riker:      "Riker to Lieutenant Anderson-Smith"
>Computer:   "Engineering or Medical?"

To prevent this to happen, there are some possibilities:

1. The computer has a certain `path' to follow: try first A-S. in 
   engeneering, then medical,..... . This path could be different
   for everyone. If you want someone `deeper' in the path, you should
   specify the person. (Compare this with the PATH-variable in computers).

2. Both A-S.'s get the message, and they should figure out who's the
   one to answer. 


>On top of that, there's the probability that the caller stumbles over
>the name (perhaps coughs in the middle), or mispronounces it (with the
>number of different accents around this is a good possibility - imagine
>Scotty or Chekov?),

With today's neural networks this problem can be (roughly) solved. With
24th century technology, I see no problem.

>if the computer takes a second or so to be sure that it's got the right
>person, *I* wouldn't complain...

Unless there were some Romulan phaser beams comming and you said
``beam me up at once!!''. (Oh no, you wouldn't complain after that
happened).

 ********************************************************************
 * J.C.A. Wevers                *         u\  _\       /e+        2 *
 * johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *     1 |   \ u \  X  /         |   *
 ******************************** P = - |    >   >---<     + ...|   *
 *     The only nature of       *     N |   /   /     \         |   *
 *     reality is physics       *         u/   /d     u\            *
 ********************************************************************
From: murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Twin Paradox
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:43:53 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department


Another difference, is that B had to get off the earth somehow, thus already
experiencing an acceleration of more than 1 g.  Now maybe they both start
in orbit experiencing << 1 g.  The point is that there will be distinguishable 
differences between the twins experiences.

Bill Murphy               | Old Home Cottage Cheese:  The only cottage 
			  | cheese that's not made from formaldehyde, 
murphy@physics.purdue.edu | arsenic, or rodent parts.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: Stardate formula
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 22:31:39 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1992Aug18.143307.156@news.uwyo.edu> gooseman@news.uwyo.edu writes:
>Hi,
>
>     I agree with the response to this letter that I mentioned in the subject
>line.....there are numerous instances where stardates are used as time
>notations. There are none to sunstantiate a location notation. As far as I can
>tell, the stardates have moved forward starting with 410???.? and moving upward
>from there....if they were locations, they would zig zag....plus the very
>word ......stardate...... implies a time notation.


Urm... I thought TNG Stardates were:

eg: 42653.8
    ^^\___/
    ||  |_______,- Chosen by the master of stardates (who's name
    ||               I can't remember...) with a range per episode.
    ||__________,- Season (of the series, ie 2nd)
    |___________,- Century (24th)

Isn't this in the Tech Manual (which I'd love in electronic
form...), somewhere, with names? And isn't there an episode of
TOS where Kirk's logs go backwards in time? ;)

Joshua
   _  _      "Thats a good idea!"  "I have those every once in a while."
 -(_)(_)-      "Why do you listen to me when I'm wrong?!?"
 \      /          - Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine
  |  . |      
  -____-      jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca 
 /  \/  \     Academic Computing Services, University of Calgary