HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: singley@helix.nih.gov (Erick D. Singley)
Subject: Re: Enterprises's Shields (TNG) are Worthless
Organization: (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:53:41 GMT

Likewise, one might say- why do Rom. ships still have cloaking. After 80 years
(and an ST orig gen. episode where they steal part of a cloaking device)
wouldn't they be able to break through by now?
Sure, but technologies change and leap-frog one another.

A mirrored egg looking shield might be a little extreme, they do need SOME sort
of radiation to get through (well... a partially mirrored egg then..)
else all that wonderful scientific stuff has nothing to look at) :)

Else, agreed. It's much more fun to see a ship zooming about. A hook for the
public.
Erick
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tomcat@cwis.unomaha.edu (Jeffrey S. Jo)
Subject: Cloaking device and the Fed.
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:20:56 GMT

	I remember someone had asked this before a while back.  The reponse
went something like this:
	The Federation has the ability to use the cloaking device, but
that would give reason to other races not to trust the Federation.  The
UFP do not need a cloaking device because they do not violate nor wish
to give any reason to violate any of its current or future treaties, peace
talks, etc.  Also, the UFP is not a military organization, so there would
not be a logical need for a cloaking device if they are strictly an 
exploratory organization.
	Another reason, which kind of makes sense, is that the ships of
the Federation are much too large to cloak, the power needed to cloak
a Galaxy class ship would be tremendous.  That's why most of the
Klingon and Romulan ships are small.  I don't know about any specific 
layouts for the Romulan Warbird (which is about the size of a Galaxy class
ship), but I can imagine the size of their engine room.  Now we know that
the Galaxy class ship is faster than a Warbird, probably because of the
energy the cloaking shield consumes.

	Now, all of this is from memory, so I could be wrong, could be
pure speculation.  If I am wrong, sorry.  
					Jeff
-- 
|Jeffrey S. Jo                  |	          F-14D Tomcat                | 
|Computer Operations		|              VF-142 Ghostriders             | 
|University of Nebraska at Omaha|        United States Navy F-14 Tomcat       | 
|tomcat@cwis.unomaha.edu        |               Fighter Squadron              |
From: worth@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jason Worthington)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Beyond Infinity
Date: 1 Sep 1992 16:09:13 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

Wasn't there an episode of TOS where the Enterprise exceeded Warp 10?  I can't
remember the name.  I can't remember the plot, but I do remember something about
a safety device becoming fused, causing the Enterprise engines to run wild.

Jason Worthington
Kansas State University, Manhattan KS
worth@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
From: hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Beyond Infinity
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:44:03 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

KELSEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (KELSEY, Michael H.) writes:
<hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) says:
<>
<[ Some stuff deleted, since what follows is self-contained... ]
<>
<>From the tech manual, page 56- "Even if it were possible to expend the
<>theoretically infinite amount of energy required, an object at Warp 10
<>would be traveling infinitely fast, occupying all points in the universe
<>simultaneously."
<>
<>I say it should be occupying all points IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL at the
<>same time. But anyway, according to the tech manual, warp 10 is infinite.
<>
<>-Jay
<
<If the Universe is open -- unbounded -- then you are correct, but if the
<Universe is a closed hypersurface (the analogy is to the surface of a
<balloon), and the ship's trajectory is not along a "great hypercircle" (or
<if the closed hypersurface is not spherical) then you could imagine the ship
<circumnavigiating the Universe repeatedly, without retracing the same path.
<Under those conditions, after sufficiently many such circuits (all taking
<ZERO TIME!), the ship would have traversed every point in the Universe
<simultaneously.  Pretty messy, eh?
<                                               -- Mike Kelsey
<

For such a closed universe, I stand corrected.

-Jay
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: warren@nscf.org (L3 Warren)
Subject: Re: Enterprises's Shields (TNG) are Worthless
Organization: National Science Center Foundation
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:15:27 GMT

murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) writes:

>carve up the Enterprise in the visible frequencies.  So what would explain
>the glow?  maybe that empty vacuum of space is being super heated by the phaser
>beams to produce particle-antiparticle pairs which are not necessarily
>annihilating but emitting visible photons?  Just a thought.

Uh, I hate to nit, but when particle-antiparticle pairs annihilate, they
produce photons. That what annihilation is. Granted, its not visible, but
its photons all the same.
From: murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Beyond Infinity
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:45:11 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

stuff about warp 10 being the maximum....

I have been reading the book Probe which gives the events immediatley following
"The Voyage Home".  In it, the Probe takes the Enterprise and the Romulan ship
Galtizh on a trip to its home world at warp 30.  So what is it?  is the author
nuts?  Are the warp tables wrong?  How did Q transport them to the Borg sector
nearly instantaneously? Didn't the Borg move faster than warp 10?
Bill Murphy               | Old Home Cottage Cheese:  The only cottage 
			  | cheese that's not made from formaldehyde, 
murphy@physics.purdue.edu | arsenic, or rodent parts.
From: ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Beyond Infinity
Date: 2 Sep 1992 05:26:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu

In article <18166aINNl20@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> worth@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
(Jason Worthington) writes:
>The name of this one is The Changling.  I was referring to another episode
>where the Enterprise exceeds Warp 10(TOS scale).

Hmmm.  Could've been "Wink of an Eye" where these super fast aliens take
over the Enterprise, or maybe "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" where
a couple of half black half white fellows fight each other on the E.
How 'bout "Day of the Dove" where this time an energy being controls the
E and has the crew endlessly fight the Klingons.  There are probably
others.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,comp.sys.prime
From: haro@carina.unm.edu (    KANEDA)
Subject: Re: what is the significance of 11001001 in "11001001"
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 01:27:41 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

NAH!
They just like the RUSH song that goes 1001001, SOS! :]

RICK
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Cloaking device and the Fed.
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:05:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: hellgate.1992Sep3.110537.26079
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

tomcat@cwis.unomaha.edu (Jeffrey S. Jo) writes:

>	Another reason, which kind of makes sense, is that the ships of
>the Federation are much too large to cloak, the power needed to cloak
>a Galaxy class ship would be tremendous.  That's why most of the
>Klingon and Romulan ships are small.  I don't know about any specific 
>layouts for the Romulan Warbird (which is about the size of a Galaxy class
>ship),

According to my information, the Romulan warbird is about twice the
size of a GALAXY class starship.

--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
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
From: phew@mullet.gu.uwa.edu.au (Phew)
Subject: Re: Seatbelts
Organization: University Computer Club --- Perth, Western Australia
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 10:00:33 GMT

"Michael B. Miller" <mmcg+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>I have just a tiny question, one which a friend of mine keeps
>complaining about...why is it that nobody in the bridge, even when they
>know they are going to get blasted, ever wears a seatbelt?????????

>Thank you ever so much for your help!!!   :)

In Start Trek - The Motion Picture, when the Enterprise enters the wormhole,
Kirk actives his chair and the sides fold down to secure his thighs.
I think this would count.

Also, in Star Trek 3 - The Search for Spock, when the Excelsior gives chase
to Kirk et al on the Enterprise, the crew on board Excelsior don't exactly
put on seat belts, but the arms of the chairs do fold around them.

The only thing is, by Star Trek 6 - The Undiscovered Country, they are gone...
I guess the opening scene wouldn't have been as impressive :-)

Any suggestions?

Patrick Hew
1st Year Science/ Engineering
University of Western Australia
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Beyond Infinity
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:44:59 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

worth@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jason Worthington) writes:
>Wasn't there an episode of TOS where the Enterprise exceeded Warp 10?

Kirk's ship has gone as fast as warp 14, and maybe faster.  But since
the warp scale was recalibrated for TNG, the numbers aren't directly
comparable.  Warp 14 on the TOS scale is probably somewhere between
warp 9 and warp 10 on the TNG scale.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
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
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Moving during Transport
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 02:26:59 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

Hmmmm. On TOS, the crew seemed to freeze on beam-out (due to the
SFX process), but on TFS and TNG they happily dance about during
beam in and out.

Question: Can you come up with an explanation for these
observations?

Mine is, that in TNG anyway, the annular confinement beam changes
the topology of the thing in transport, so even when half of it
isn't there, the individual parts of the object (and/or being)
are topologically proximal. This would allow the object to
continue to move. A more primitive transport system might impose
a statis field of some sort to freeze the object on a quantum
level on both ends of transport.

Any suggestions?

Also, what might transport look like from 'inside'?

Joshua
+      "Each woman is a promise that she can't keep that appeals to           +
|  a hope you can't control." - joe theseus, Deadface: Earth Water Air Fire   |
|                                                                             |
+ jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca   Academic Computing Services, University of Calgary +
From: 00bwanderson@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: SPOILER!!!  holding someone in transport
Date: 3 Sep 92 06:41:48 GMT

OK....this is a potential spoiler, so hit n now if y'all wanna avoid it...















































Still with me?  OK....

There's a lot of scuttlebutt flying around the net on r.a.s and r.a.s.c about
Scotty coming aboard the Enterprise D.  The current explaination of HOW he gets
there is that he's been trapped in transport for ~75 years.  What is the
likelyhood of this happening?  I guess I should say, wouldn't there be some
problems, such as signal degredation, or computer memory failure or a power
failure (I mean, how long can a ship's batteries maintain minimal life-support
*AND* hold a person in transit?), so *SOME*thing.

I guess they're hoping we won't care and will just accept it as another bit of
Trek Teck we never knew about before...;)

Spock
-- 
.sig?  We don' need no steenkin' .sig!

Bruce Anderson: A tradition of Chaos and Disorder since 1967
spock@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (unix)	00bwanderson@bsu-ucs.uucp (VAX)
Don't look at me in that tone of voice!  BSU disclaims me, and I disclaim them.
From: WAYNE@zog.UUCP (Wayne Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Enterprises's Shields (TNG) are Worthless
Keywords: energy shields laser
Date: 31 Aug 92 00:38:33
Distribution: world
Summary: Shields are NOT worthless
Organization: Zog's Cavern BBS and the OS9 Underground - StG Net International


In a previous message, "petitc@vccsouth29.its.rpi.edu" writes:

>  They really are.  Think about this little scenario:
> 
>  A ship approaches the E., and fires lasers (visible ones).  Since we CAN see
> the ship, wouldn't it make sense that a visible laser would just ignore the
> shield and cut the E. into little chunks of metal?
 
 Lasers may contain visible light, but that doesn't make them impervious to
shields composed of energy.  This is because the laser 'beam' is ALSO
composed of energy, and I would suppose that the shields are controlled in
such a manner as to be able to detect the frequency of the energy impacting
with it, and can dissapate(?) that energy by producing the appropriate
counter-frequency.

 Now, I am not versed in physics, nor in quantum mechanics, but I think the
above makes sense.  Therefore, the shields wouldn't be useless.

--
 Wayne@ZOG SysOp@HALL Wayne@DUNE
From: fink2@alcor.concordia.ca (Gemini)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Twin paradox
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:59:33 GMT
Distribution: usa


>If twin A is on a ship accelerating at 1g and twin B is on the Earth so also
>feels an acceleration of 1g: why do they age at different rates?
They age at different rates ecause B's velocity is changing with
respect to A.  A is feeling gravity, but is not accelerating in any direction
(except perhaps for the small accelerations of revolving around the axis of
the Earth, revolving around the sun, etc.)

>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.
Acceleration is not the term to use if B is 'standing' on the earth.
Rather, he is subjected to the static force of gravity that would cause him
to accelerate at 1g if he were not standing on something.
>Do A and B age at a different rate?  If so how much different?
>and does the aging rate change with time?
I assume A is not being subjected to any large accelerations in space 
(like a nearby planet, star or black hole).  Then they would age at
approximately the same rate (give or take any differences due to minute
gravitational forces of distant bodies).

-- 
******************************************************************************
"Three quarks for Muster Mark."

                      -JJ
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tomcat@cwis.unomaha.edu (Jeffrey S. Jo)
Subject: Re: guts in star trek
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:52:50 GMT

rhudson@novell.com  writes:
> 
> 
> oops deleted too much
> >.........  Which is also why I found it inappropriate for Barclay to want
> >to talk to him about it........
> 
> Was Einstine actually identified in that scene, I think Barkclay called
> him "proffessor"... :)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ron Hudson,        | Views expressed are my own, not anyone else's
> Novell Sunnyvale   | I hear, I forget; I see, I remember; I do, I understand
> Rhudson@Novell.com |
-- 
|Jeffrey S. Jo                  |	       U.S.S. Enterprise              |
|Computer Operations		| Galaxy Class - Starfleet Registry NCC-1701-D|
|University of Nebraska at Omaha|        Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards, Mars    |
|tomcat@cwis.unomaha.edu        |             Launched Stardate 40759.5       |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: haaser@quince.ssc.gov (Bobby Haaser)
Subject: Re: Twin paradox 
Organization: SuperConducting Supercollider
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:42:38 GMT

In article <RANNOU.92Aug25044212@zuse.info.polymtl.ca>, Rannou@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> Here's a tough one for all you relativistic geniuses:
|> 
|> 
|> Suppose we have two twins A and B each in a spacechip, and they both start
|> from the Earth, like this:
|> 
|> 
|> t = 0                        AEB
|> t = 1                      A  E  B
|> t = 2                 A       E       B
|> ...
|> t = X-1     A   ...           E            ...     B
|> t = X     A   ...             E          ...         B
|> t = X+1     A   ...           E             ...    B
|> ...
|> t = 2X-2              A       E       B
|> t = 2X-1                   A  E  B
|> t = 2X                       AEB
|> 
|> So, they both accelerate and feel and acceleration, of course.
|> 
|> The question is: Will they have aged the same way?
|> 
|> 
|> Me, I'd think yes since their movement is perfectly simmetrical.
|> 
|> 
|> Pak.
|> --

Absolutely right!

Since both are accelerating (changing their frame) they are
causing the same frame<>time dialation, and therefore if they 
return, They will have aged as much as each other but not as 
much as the person on the earth.  

Live Long and Prosper!

  -the Bobinater

*************************************************************************
									*
  "Logic is like a wreath of roses theat smell BAD.!" Spock:Mudd'sR:STOS*
									*
  "Ford, You're turning into a Penguin..Stop IT!    " HitchikGideTTGLXY *
									*
  "You'll Laugh.. You'll Cry.. 						*
             You'll kiss three bucks goodbye...     " Hardware Wars:NARR*
			   						*
  "1 point 21 GIGAWATTS !?!?!!!!???!!!???!!??       " BACK TO THE FUTURE*
									*
*************************************************************************
also haaser@phys.udallas.edu

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: lchsu@lambert.uwaterloo.ca (Leon Hsu)
Subject: Re: Beyond Infinity
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:23:27 GMT

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!!!

Well, I don't know much about physics, but have you ever heard of ordinal
numbers? It is a concept that comes from analytic set theory. There is
also the concept of different "sizes" of inifinity. That is a very poor
explanation, but look in any good book on set theory and you'll be astounded
by the sorts of things mathematicians like to define.

-leon.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: rossing@cs.hope.edu (Eric Rossing)
Subject: Re: Warp eleven mystery
Keywords: Impossible
Reply-To: rossing@cs.hope.edu
Organization: Hope College Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:23:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.210217.23940@mits.mdata.fi>, count@mits.mdata.fi (Bror Heinola) writes:
>Hello net.world.
>
>This is propably an old one but it doesn't hurt to ask, right?
>
>Yesterday I read TNG book #6, "Power Hungry" by Howard Weinstein.
>I quote from page 11 of that book;
>
>	Data scanned his console. "Retreating at ... warp eleven." 
>	His eyebrows rose in surprise at the speed - faster than
>	the Enterprise could manage.
>
>I've always thought that Warp 10 was *the* limit for speed for all ships
>in the StarTrek universe, not just Federation ships. Those warp eleven
>ships were Nuaran, so I guess they have very impressive warp technology, eh?

From the Tech manual.  Warp 10 is infinite speed.(The speed the
Traveller threw the ship in "Where No One Has Gone Before" is
estimated by the book's authors to be something like Warp 9.9999996)
My guess is that Howard Weinstein is non-canonical in this instance...

>
>-- 
>Bror 'Count' Heinola	# Count in IRC		# 
>Mannerheimintie 47 B 25	# count@mits.mdata.fi	# "I've got a bad feeling
>00250  HELSINKI		# count@fline.pp.fi	# about this."
>Tel: +358-0-477-2662	# Colombo in MUDs	# 

-- 
Eric Rossing        | "What are you afraid of, a fate worse than death?"
rossing@cs.hope.edu | "No, just death!  Isn't that enough?!?"
Hope College        |            Col. Mustard and Mrs. Peacock,
Holland, MI   49423 |            Clue
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Enterprises's Shields (TNG) are Worthless
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:03:30 GMT
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.

In article <_kpyh-a@rpi.edu> petitc@rpi.edu writes:
>
> A ship approaches the E., and fires lasers (visible ones).  Since we CAN see
>the ship, wouldn't it make sense that a visible laser would just ignore the
>shield and cut the E. into little chunks of metal?

They would certainly hit the Enterprise. But I think that the damage would
be small: since the ship has a very light color, it may reflect most of the
laser ray.

Compare this with one of the problems with SDI: if the rocket would reflect
to much light, the damage would be small. A conventional rocket caries a
lot of easy-burning fuel with it, the Entrprise doesn't.

******************************************************************** 
* 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\            *
********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: stanaway@ssd.comm.mot.com (Chris Stanaway)
Subject: Re: Cloaking device and the Fed.
Reply-To: stanaway@ssd.comm.mot.com
Organization: Motorola LMPS
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:53:22 GMT

In article 31780@acs.ucalgary.ca, jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes:
>One could speculate that the 1701-D has Klingon Empire-tech
>cloaking devices, which are inferior to Romulan cloaks, and the
>first thing you do when you develop a cloaking device is come up
>with a way to detect it (then develop a cloak that eludes that,
>etc etc etc)... so it never bothers to use them during combat (As
>the Romulans/Borg can detect them), and we just haven't seen it
>in action yet. Not likely, but we're grasping at straws here. :)

Maybe I missed this somewhere, but how do we know that the Romulans
and Borg can detect ships while cloaked?  And Klingon cloaking
devices are inferior to Romulan cloaking devices?  What about when
the Klingon ship is orbiting Romulus cloaked?  If the Romulans could
detect cloaks, why wasn't the Klingon ship blown away?

Chris 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: ST: TNG holodeck blooper?
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:57:48 GMT

Did anyone else see a possible blooper on the episode with Picard using the 
holodeck to live through a Dixon Hill detective story?  This is the episode
where the enterprise is going to the Horata home world on a diplomatic 
mission (Picard does the difficult Horatan greeting at the end).

Right at the start in Dixon's office a woman requests Dixon's help in an
investigation and she kisses him right before leaving the office.  
After C. Picard leaves the holodeck he still has the lipstick on his face
and in fact it stays on until Beverly wipes it off in the conference room.
Isn't something like lipstick just an optical effect that would disappear 
after he left the holodeck?

mark