HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Twin Paradox
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:25:20 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

tm@jyu.fi (Timo Mannikko) writes:

> As I see it now, the difference between A and B is that B makes a turn.
> If he just accelerates away from earth, both of them sees the other stay
> younger (if they could see each others "instantaneously", which they
> can't). But when B turns, he feels some "extra" acceleration and A doesn't.

You have it, but you might say that "If he [B] just _moves_ away from 
earth . . ." instead of that he accelerates.  The confusion with the twin 
paradox is that it _cannot be explained_ by special relativity.  Special 
relativity is a simplification of the Universe where things only travel 
at constant (relative) velocities.  Since B is obviously accelerating 
(quite powerfully!) to turn around and arrive back at A within some human 
timeframe, we have acceleration and thus special relativity is invalid.  
You have to look at accelerating frames of reference -- that is, general 
relativity.

Strangely enough, though, I haven't found a physics text that covers 
special relativity -- but not general relativity -- and _doesn't_ mention 
the twin paradox.  Seems rather cruel, as if you think about it in terms 
of special relativity, the paradox really does seem to be a big problem.

Does anyone have any historical information on the twin paradox?  In
other words, how long was the twin paradox a confusing issue to the 
scientific community (or just to Einstein, or both, or something else) 
before they had the answer via general relativity -- if it ever was at 
all?

The situation used to illustrate the twin paradox can also be used to 
explain some elements of general relativity.  For instance, according to 
general relativity, a clock ticks slower in a stronger gravitational 
field than in a weaker one.  This works out as follows:  B is present 
accelerating at turnover, to turn around and return to A.  From his point 
of view (in an accelerating frame of reference), B is moving at high 
velocity with respect to him, and thus A's clock must be running faster 
than B's.

But according to the principal postulate of special relativity, there is 
_fundamentally no way of discerning_ between acceleration due to thrust 
and acceleration due to gravity.  Thus the Universe treats B's enormous 
acceleration -- to turn around, applied by its engines -- as if it were 
very near to a large mass; that is, in a high gravitational field.  Since 
A is far away, A is in the weaker field.  Thus, clocks tick slower in 
high gravitational fields than in low ones.

There are similar arguments for other aspects of general relativity, such 
as the bending of light rays in a gravitational field.  I'd be glad to 
share them if anyone is interested.

----------
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   |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: haaser@quince.ssc.gov (Bobby Haaser)
Subject: Re: Beyond Infinity
Organization: SuperConducting Supercollider
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:55:16 GMT

 Hello, Most Excellent Treknofantalists,

In article <16AUG199222270206@rosie.uh.edu>, elee9sv@rosie.uh.edu (92H01722) writes:
|> But, in the traveller episode they go beyond warp 10. Theoreticly everything
|> beyond warp 10 is STILL warp 10. Infinity + 2 is STILL infinity!!!
|> 
|>                              Garrett 

 Correct,, 

 Also ,DOES ANYONE REMEMBER THE EPISODE THAT OUTLINED THE EXPERIMENTAL
   
  SOLITON WAVES ?!?!?!?!
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Supposedly, the theory on STTNG went like this:

A soliton wave works like a warp field that is skipping across the 
water>> across spacetime...

Any object that is on a skipping point will be pushed into Warp, thus
riding the wave like a Surfer Dude. As the Soliton wave pulls energy
(E=mc^2) from any matter that is riding it.

This energy that it takes forces the Soliton field to go further before
it skips each time thus getting faster and faster until all the energy
in the mass that is riding is converted to Soliton Wave.

I believe that in this episode, The enterprize at one time registered
a velocity of WARP 12 as they were riding the wave and it was getting 
              ^^^^^^^
a little out of control.

Anyone else who remembers the episode please comment.
Live Long and Prosper!

  -the Bobinater

*************************************************************************
									*
  "Heraldo,.. Madonna,.. and a diseased Yak"  J.Carson:episode-Simpsons *
									*
  "The spaceship came and hovered 					*
          over the ground like rocks don't."  HitchikrsGuideToTHEGALAXY *
									*
  "OK everybody..., Drinks On the House!!  "  MUPPET MOVIE:Fozzy Bear   *
			   						*
  "Next Saturday Night, 						*
    We're Sending You BACK TO THE FUTURE!!!"  BACK TO THE FUTURE        *
									*
*************************************************************************
also haaser@phys.udallas.edu
From: kaya@trystro.uucp (Kaya Bekiroglu)
Subject: Re: Who cleans up?
Organization: The Trystro System (617) 625-7155 v.32/v.42bis
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:47:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.195340.27469@sei.cmu.edu> jbm@sei.cmu.edu (Jason Mahoney) writes:
>In article <1992Aug3.205431.13366@ra.msstate.edu>, paul@pj.tmc.edu (Thorongil) writes:
>> I heard about the "lack of a bathroom" discussions posted earlier and
>> seeing the Top Ten list on them recently reminded me of a question
>> I had the other day.  After cleaning up the house Saturday, I watched
>> TNG and thought :
>> 
>> How do they keep everything so clean?  Is there no dust or pollen
>> on board ( even though they do have gardens on the ship ) ?  Is their
>> A/C that efficient?  How do they clean up messes they make - as in 
>> Bev. spilling her drink on a recent episode?
>> 
>> Thoughts anyone ?
>> 
>> 
>       I've got one!
>     
>              It would make sense to me that they use the energy to matter
>       function of the transporters to convert any garbage or waste into
>       energy and then that energy is recycled into other forms of matter!
>       After all isn't that how the food dispensers work as well as the 
>       Holodeck(sp?). Energy to matter!!!
>  
>
>              
>(Message inbox:1)
>Return-Path: mad@SEI.CMU.EDU
>Received: from SEI.CMU.EDU by ts4d.sei.cmu.edu (5.65/2.5)
>        id AA02030; Thu, 28 May 92 14:53:45 -0400

I've always wondered why people in the 23rd century simply don't beam 
their clothes on.  Or, for that matter, beam fecal matter out.  No 
bathroom problem.

Actually, though, beaming up trash would probably not be too efficient.
For one, intership beaming is something of a new technology (from the 
technical manuals) and was considered dangerous for a long while.  Micro-
scopic pollen grains probably won't get caught.  Also, why don't people
just beam up to the bridge?  Why are they always 'on their way?'  

Just Beam It.

kya

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Subject: Re: Re: communicators
Reply-To: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 16:47:58 GMT

In article <57@zog.UUCP>, WAYNE@zog.UUCP (Wayne Campbell) writes:
>
> There's another aspect that hasn't been covered here... I remember it more
>from the original series than from TNG, but I have heard it in various
>episodes of TNG as well.
>
> That is, of course, 'Char. A to ENTERPRISE'.
>
> In this case, how does the computer interpret the communicae?  In the
>original series, there was a communications officer, and I'm sure that all
>calls to the Enterprise were automatically routed to this officer's station. 
>But what about TNG?  I've never seen a communications officer (per se) aboard
>the Enterprise, so who gets the 'call' when someone uses 'Enterprise' as the
>party to contact???
>
Simple. The computer recognises "ENTERPRISE" as a call to the
duty officer, i.e. whoever is "in the command chair" on bridge.
After all, the Captain could be off duty and not fully briefed 
on the current situation.
From: mcclaine@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Casey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: FAQL: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS LIST for rec.arts.startrek.tech
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:36:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug18.193655.10316
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


	I have never read this compilation before.  My hat off to you for
	doing a nice piece of work.  I am going to keep a print of this for my
	own reference and compare it to my other sources.

	I don't know if anyone can help me with some reliable information
	on this, but is the Romulan Warbird much larger than the Enterprise-D
	as is indicated in the Starlog STNG Technical Journal, or is it 
	somewhat smaller as is indicated in the somewhat erroneous
	FASA STNG First Year Sourcebook?


						- Thanx


	_/_/_/_/   _/_/_/_/   _/_/_/   	Troi:  "Worf, what exactly is that band
	_/     _/  _/       _/     _/   that you wear on your uniform?"
	_/     _/  _/       _/              
	_/_/_/_/   _/_/_/   _/            
	_/   _/    _/       _/          Worf:  "It's a Klingon flea collar." 
	_/    _/   _/       _/     _/      
	_/     _/  _/_/_/_/   _/_/_/      
	Robert E. Casey  (mcclaine@milton.u.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: communicators
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 22:17:39 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1992Aug8.203421.5486@leland.Stanford.EDU> stanford@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanford) writes:
>TNG communicators:
>What's wrong with this picture:
>1) Character A taps his communicator pin
>2) Ch. A says "Ch. A to Ch B."
>3) Ch. B is the ONLY ONE ON BOARD to hear this initial message
>
>Notice that we NEVER hear communicator chatter.  I would think that
>upon tapping the communicator, that opens up the airwaves to everyone
>who has one and is on that frequency.  So how come we don't constantly
>(or at least occasionally) hear "Ch. C to Ch. D" when neither is on
>camera?

Well, from the TNG Technical Manual:

"To initiate a voice call, it is simply a matter of tapping the
front of the badge to confirm to the STA [subspace tranceiver
assembly] that the message is meant to go out. This may seem
redundant, as the intraship comm system is constantly monitoring
and routing voice transmissions, but it is a good practice to
learn."

Tapping the badge is only necessary when off-ship, and on ship
tapping your badge or touching the wall-pannel isn't even
necessary.

"During voice operations, the normal procedure involves a crew
member stating his or her name, plus the party or ship area being
called, in a form understood by the computer for proper routing.
Examples: "Dr. Selar, this is the captain," or "Ensign Nelson to
Engineering." The artificial intelligence (AI) routines in the
main computer listen for intraship calls, perfom analyses on the
message opening content, attempt to locate the message recipient,
and then activate the audio speakers at the recipient's location"

"During initial message routing, there may be a slight processing
delay until the computer has heard the entire name of the
recipient and located same. From that point on, all transmissions
are realtime."

That should clear it all up. :)

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 
Organization: Senior, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 02:29:28 -0400 
From: Robert Edward Timlin <rt16+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: FAQL: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS LIST for rec.arts.startrek.tech


     Ok, I'll throw my two cents in on the Holodeck debate.

     From info in the TNG Tech Manual (I won't quote anything because I'm too
lazy to walk across the room and get it :-) simple, inanimate objects or
substances are actually replicated (i.e. Wesley's water, the snowball, and the
sheet of paper from their respective episodes), but animated creations are
either mere projections given substance by forcefields, or some kind of puppet
controlled by mini-tractor beams. I forget which is the case (maybe both are
right), but the gist is simple stuff is physically created, people and the like
can only exist within the holodeck, where the machinery is to make them go.
     Frankly, "Elementary, Dear Data" really stretched matters, IMHO. The idea
that the ship's computer can create a sentient being on command is just too
much. And to further suggest that Moriarity could have just walked out of the
holodeck and be real, well that's even worse (again, IMHO). That gets into the
realm of "Aw, Tasha died. Computer, recreate Lt. Yar on Holodeck 3, and give
her consciousness. <pause> Picard to Yar, report for duty on the bridge. Tasha,
you died again. <from communicator> Really? Shucks. On my way."

     Or for that matter, just create your own people. Riker could finally
marry Minuet! Or, forget Starfleet Academy, just create fully trained crews on
holodecks!
     You see, it easily gets out of hand. I think the Tech Manual explains
Holodeck & transporter tech fairly well, imposing reasonable limits on them
(well, until some writer decides they can't deal with the guidelines and throws
them out to bring back a certain Scottish engineer).

                                                    -Robb Timlin
                                                     rt16@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Subject: Re: FTL travel/communication
Reply-To: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 20:53:50 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?
>

The acceleration of A and B are not the same. Acceleration is a 
vector (it has a distinct direction), and the directions of 
acceleration as a function of time for A & B would be quite 
different. Unfortunately, I never learned the equations
for general relativity and the effect of acceleration, so this 
is all heresay. 

BTW, now physicists are starting to suggest "maybe gravity IS a 
little different!" Easiest to demonstrate: If you've got two balls 
to drop from slightly different locations in an accelerating frame 
of reference, their paths will be onparallel lines. If the two balls 
are dropped in a gravitational frameof reference, their paths converge 
near the center of the earth (or nearest body)

RB
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Subject: Re: Re: communicators
Reply-To: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 19:02:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.161048.24627@hellgate.utah.edu>, jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>>
>>Simple. The computer recognises "ENTERPRISE" as a call to the
>>duty officer, i.e. whoever is "in the command chair" on bridge.
>>After all, the Captain could be off duty and not fully briefed 
>>on the current situation.
>
>Not quite so simple.  We've seen people call "Enterprise" and start
>talking immediately to a specific person.  For instance, Riker says
>"Riker to Enterprise.  Geordi, are the warp engines on line?" or
>"Riker to Enterprise.  Data, how much longer until the star explodes?"
>Each transmission of this type contains information which would help
>the computer route it to the correct destination, in this case the
>recipient's name.  But we also frequently hear "Riker to Enterprise.
>Three to beam up."  In this case the computer must interpret the
>message as a request for transport and route it to one of the
>transporter rooms.
>
Well, I guess there could be a mission monitoring channel that folk 
who are directly supporting the mission are continuously tuned in
to. You'd always want someone standing by in the transporter room,
lest the mission suddenly turn dangerous & you have to flee. You
wouldn't want to wait on system routing, or risk a glich. Depending
on the circumstances and starfleet policy, other officers (department
heads, critical systems technicians, etc) might be put "on call"
for any particular mission. The landing party would probably know who
is available. (I don't think the computer would cut the listening
circuit to the personnel not conversing -- he'd just stay quiet
out of courtesy.)
From: crick@htlv.med.umn.edu (Ed Crick (CD))
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Anti-Anti-ST:TNG Sentiment.
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:52:29 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota


Remember when William Shatner hosted Saturday Night Live, and in one of the
skits he was appearing at a Star Trek convention.  Well, like he said then,
"Get a life!"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: communicators
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 01:40:36 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1992Aug17.003350.3156@afit.af.mil> fkilpatr@afit.af.mil (Freeman A. Kilpatrick) writes:
>jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes:
>
>>"During initial message routing, there may be a slight processing
>>delay until the computer has heard the entire name of the
>>recipient and located same. From that point on, all transmissions
>>are realtime."
>
>(I know this is from the tech manual.  I'm arguing against it,
>not you :)
>
>Processing delay???!!!!  

Well, I interpreted this as meaning the computer AT LEAST has to
finish hearing you say 'Captain to Dr. Crusher' before it knows
to create a channel from your location to Crusher's location.

>As a matter of fact,
>the computer should bve able to easily notify the person *before*
>you have evn finished saying the recipients name.  Sheesh!

True.

'Crusher to Captain Picard.'
                    ^ - likely the computer will connect you here.

But if there's more than one, or the computer's being safe...

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 

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: budd@ccrs.emr.ca (Mark Budd)
Subject: Re: FTL travel/communication
Organization: Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Ottawa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:53:59 GMT

>>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?
>>
>
[sutff deleted]
>
>BTW, now physicists are starting to suggest "maybe gravity IS a 
>little different!" Easiest to demonstrate: If you've got two balls 
>to drop from slightly different locations in an accelerating frame 
>of reference, their paths will be onparallel lines. If the two balls 
>are dropped in a gravitational frameof reference, their paths converge 
>near the center of the earth (or nearest body)
>
>RB
But the initial conditions are different!  In the first case, their
acceleration vectors are parallel.  In the second they are not.  If the
two balls were lying on an infinitely wide "slab o' heavy stuff", then
the parallel acceleration <--> gravity  analogy would be stronger, as
would their motion.       

MB
From: hillel@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (hillel.e.markowitz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: FTL travel/communication
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:25:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbfsb.1992Aug14.192525.19201
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems

In article <5052@tuegate.tue.nl> johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers) writes:
>hillel@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (hillel.e.markowitz) writes:
>>
>>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.
>
>Sorry if I understand you wrong, but are you saying that the speed of
>light is not constant if an observer moves? This is in disagreement
>with special relativity because 1. absolute movement doesn't exists,
>and 2. the speed of light is constant for each observer.

That is why I put the word longer in quotes.  It is the fact that
the speed of light is a constant for each observer that makes the
appearance of the clock running slower in the other time frame no
matter which one you call the observer.  An analogy of sending the
information with memos or of defining time as the space between
peaks on a bouncing ball inside a moving train has also proven
helpful in understanding this.

>
>> This is one of the paradoxes of relativistic space travel.
>
>No, it just *seems* to be a paradox. It can be understand, even in
>the frame of special relativity. (Although general relativity fits
>better to this problem IMO).

That is what I meant in this case

Hillel Markowitz        H_Markowitz@att.com
-- 
_______________________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz        |    Im ain ani li mi li             |
| H_Markowitz@att.com     |    Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha      |
|_________________________|____________________________________|