HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: communicators
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:48:37 GMT
Reply-To: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Distribution: na
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California

In article <92225.095718KELSEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, KELSEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (KELSEY, Michael H.) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.011022.29156@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
>stanford@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanford) says:
>>
>>I originally posted a query about communicators, but I guess I'd
>>better clarify what I was asking about.
>>
>>It's pretty obvious how the communicators SHOULD work:
>>1.  Character A presses communicator pin (bridge crew can ignore this
>>step as the computer is always listening).  This is the equivalent of
>>picking up a telephone and hearing the dial tone.
>>2.  Ch. A says "Ch. A to Ch. B."  This is "dialing Ch. B's number."
>>3.  This registers to the computer, and should send an electronic
>>"chirp" to Character B (telephone rings).
>>4.  Ch. B taps communicator pin (answers the phone) and conversation
>>begins.
[remainder deleted]
I'll bypass the technical discussion & tell how I think these
things *really* should work:

Character A presses the pin & says, "Ch. B, this is Ch. A."
Character B hears, after a slight initial delay, "Ch. B, this is Ch. A."
He presumably answers, and then the conversation is realtime.

This is a superior means of running the system, from both a 
technical and user-friendliness point of view. As soon as the 
communication program hears "Ch. B," it can activate the recipient's
communicator, for a much shorter delay. Further, the first thing
Ch. B. hears is his own name, which is guaranteed to get his attention.
(You mean these superior federation folk NEVER get lost in thought?)
Granted the "attention chirp" might be sufficient, and then the 
conversation would immediately be realtime, but Ch B. would 
miss some early information, such as the tone of Ch A's voice, and
the exact form of address he used. (Whether, for example, the call
was for Geordi LaForge, or Lieutenant LaForge).
From: aj14@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew John)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: time travel paradox
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:32:40 GMT
Organization: NMRI Pittsburgh
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b2

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
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 13:55:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.181330.6422@tfs.com> paigen@tfs.com (David Paigen) writes:
>hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) writes:
>
>>senario:
>>Person A is on earth, and person B speeds away from earth at a velocity v.
>>To make things easy, lets say that v is such that for an observer on
>>earth, person B's clock runs slow by a factor of 2. 
>
>Right, person B has a slow clock.
>
>[deleted]
>
>>NOW we must switch to B's point of view.  From his point of view, A has
>>been speeding away from him at a velocity v.  So, to B, it is A's clock
>>that has been running slow.
>
>*BZZT* wrong, but that you for playing :-)
>
>If A thinks B has a slow clock, then B thinks A has a fast clock.  From
>this point onwards your scenario is meaningless.  I have seen arguments
>about this causality violation before, but I can't remember how it works.
>Please try again, only with a bit more care.
>
Actually, I think you've missed the whole point of special relativity.  
What Jason is describing is a classic example of how there is no
absolute frame of reference.  What person A sees of B, person B will see 
in A.  This is assuming they are moving at a CONSTANT relative velocity.

Of course, I didn't see the original posting so I can't comment on the
paradox.  But the special relativity bit still holds.

Since I came into this kind of late, I apologize if I'm on a completely
different topic.  I just hate to see physics mis-explained :-).

Mark


Organization: Senior, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:12:41 -0400 
From: Robert Edward Timlin <rt16+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Warp speed

baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

>Simplicity itself. Time travel formulae are classified and there is a
>Federation law (similar to the one about not contacting Talos IV) against
>using them. Kirk & Co knew how because they'd done it. Remember, their
>1st experiences, _The Naked Time_ and _Tomorrow is Yesterday_, were
>entirely accidental.

     That's very plausible, but there's just one thing: they were on an
assigned *mission* in "Assignment: Earth". Kirk didn't just up and decide to
have a look at 1960's Earth, Starfleet told them to. Of course, the ban could
have fallen later, and what you said about STIV:TVH could hold true (hey, *I*
wouldn't prosecute them for illegal time travel either if they'd just saved my
butt! :-)

                                                 -Robb Timlin
                                                  rt16@andrew.cmu.edu
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: FTL travel/communication
Date: 14 Aug 92 08:57:15 GMT
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.

In article <1992Aug13.140545.28418@jyu.fi> tm@jyu.fi (Timo Mannikko) writes:
>
>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?

Calculate the time dilation for someone who is being accelerated with
1g: this is not much in the beginning.It will take a long time before
his speed is really high. But, despite the acceleration, the other
assymetry between the two brothers is that the traveling one *reverses
his speed*. As long as he is traveling away from Earth, he sees his
brother getting less old than he, and the one who stayed on Earth sees
the traveling person less old. But as the traveling brother returns, he
sees the difference.

For more information: see for example B.F. Schutz, `A first course in
general relativity'.

>- Timo

 ********************************************************************
 * 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: crick@tsp.med.umn.edu (Ed Crick (CD))
Subject: Re: Anti-Anti-ST:TNG Sentiment.
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:00:36 GMT

In article <j84mkag@lynx.unm.edu> tkogoma@triton.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.225229.16900@news2.cis.umn.edu> crick@htlv.med.umn.edu (Ed Crick (CD)) writes:
>>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!"
>
>Don't you have anything better to do than to figuratively piss in
>other people's lemonade?
>
How does it taste?
>-- 
>Capt. Gym Z. Quirk  (Known to some as Taki Kogoma)  tkogoma@triton.unm.edu
>  I'll get a life when someone demonstrates that it would be superior to
>                           what I have now...


Ed
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: gprall@nyx.cs.du.edu (Gene Prall)
Subject: Re: communicators
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 04:28:35 GMT

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?
>
>My only theory is that hitting the communicator pin opens a frequency
>to a computer which then processes the phrase "Ch. A to Ch. B." and
>then forwards that message along, followed by connecting the two
>characters' communicators directly.  But then we'd have 2 second
>intervals at the beginning of every conversation.
>
>Any ideas?
>
>Scott Stanford
>stanford@leland.stanford.edu

 Thats about the size of it. My theory is since the communicators are crystal
clear it is a data encoded scheme anyways. Even today there are sub-carrier
frequencies available on amatuer radios that allow only the person YOU want
to recieve you able to do so. No doubt that supercomputer of the ship
also handles traffic routing and message storage.

Gene

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Subject: Re: Warp speed
Reply-To: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 20:41:39 GMT

In article <weWTpNO00VAt5=hdxI@andrew.cmu.edu>, 
Robert Edward Timlin <rt16+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>
>>Simplicity itself. Time travel formulae are classified and there is a
>>Federation law (similar to the one about not contacting Talos IV) against
>>using them. Kirk & Co knew how because they'd done it. Remember, their
>>1st experiences, _The Naked Time_ and _Tomorrow is Yesterday_, were
>>entirely accidental.
>
>     That's very plausible, but there's just one thing: they were on an
>assigned *mission* in "Assignment: Earth". Kirk didn't just up and decide to
>have a look at 1960's Earth, Starfleet told them to. Of course, the ban could
>have fallen later, and what you said about STIV:TVH could hold true (hey, *I*
>wouldn't prosecute them for illegal time travel either if they'd just saved my
>butt! :-)

Oops! Do you think their superiors knew about time travel BEFORE the 
Enterprise did it? Someone in HQ may have ordered the earth assignment 
to check out the applications of this new capability. It sounds like an
early test mission. I forget some of the chonology, but the Enterprise
changed nothing in these three episodes. At the time of Assignment:
Earth, the authorities may have thought it impossible to affect the 
past. Later(?), however, when McCoy destroyed the whole federation
by going through the "Guardian of Forever" would be a logical time
for a ban on time travel to have been implemented. (If Assignment:Earth
was later, I can always claim a very slow bureaucracy).
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tomcat@cwis.unomaha.edu (Jeffrey S. Jo)
Subject: Re: Stardate Formula
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:27:32 GMT

max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:

>elee9sv@rosie.uh.edu (92H01722) writes:

>> depending on where you are in the universe. So, star date 0.0 would be a
>> place and not 0 AD

>Stardate, as far as I know, is a measure of time.  Based on the original 
>series, one could argue that the Star Trek universe is non-relativistic, 
>so time is measured as the same to all people.  The Next Generation, in 
>trying to keep up with the times, doesn't necessarily assume this, but I 
>recall hearing that there is a general Starfleet order that all ships 
>must remain below a certain speed so that relativity does not become 
>important -- in other words, so everyone measures time roughly the same.

>But it's not starlocation, or starevent.  It's stardate.

>----------
>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   |

Gene Roddenberry was once asked this, many years ago, and he answered it
in the book "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen Whitfield and Gene 
Roddenberry.  It's a REALLY old book.  Those of you who have it may want
to turn to page 198, those who don't, here's a breakdown.
	And I quote:
	"This time system adjusts for shifts in relative time which occur
	due to the vessel's speed and space warp capability.  It has
	little relationship to Earth's time as we know it.  One hour aboard
	the U.S.S. Enterprise at different times may equal as little as
	three Earth hours.  The stardate specified in the log entry must be 
	computed against the speed of the vessel, the space warp, and its
	position within our galaxy, in order to give a meaningful reading."

	And it goes on where Mr. Roddenberry says that he "wasn't sure
	what I meant by that explanation, but a lot of people indicated that
	it makes sense."

	Now, this was way back in '68, so it's possible that Roddenberry,
	Berman, Okuda, or someone involved in TNG could have made up
	some formula, but this is what Roddenberry was thinking when
	he first created the Star Trek universe.
					"Engage."
					Jeffrey Jo
--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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     |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Subject: Re: Twin Paradox
Reply-To: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 19:08:29 GMT

In the referenced article, comet@west.darkside.com (The Real Comet) writes:
>Anyhow, you can see that if one twin stayed on Earth, and the other one 
>left and came back, that the travelling twin experienced three 
>accelerations as a consequence of his motion.  This will be observed from 
>all inertial reference frames; there is no confusion as to which twin 
>will age less.  The only paradox is that one twin will be older than the 
>other, even though both were born on the same date...

I suppose this could be taken as a proof that the universe is not
closed in a way that would allow one to circumnavigate all of space
and arrive back at the same spot.

Does this have anything to do with the fact that it is inherently
impossible for a 1g acceleration to continue indefinitely because
velocity can never increase beyond c? Or am I forgetting something
having to do with how the acceleration is perceived by the person
accelerating?
-- 
"When you're down, it's a long way up
 When you're up, it's a long way down
 It's all the same thing
 And it's no new tale to tell"                      ../ray\..
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 18:49:31 GMT

In article <Bsy6ur.D8n@ecf.toronto.edu> hora@ecf.toronto.edu (HO ROBERT ANDREW) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.140545.28418@jyu.fi> tm@jyu.fi (Timo Mannikko) writes:
>>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
>
>True, in B's frame of reference, it appears that A is accelerating away from
>him at acceleration g, and from A's frame of reference, B is accelerating
>away from him with acceleration g.  So how do we know who is doing the actual
>acceleration?  We know that it is B accelerating and not A because B will
>experience so-called "imaginary" forces from his acceleration; A will not.
>Also, A will only appear to accelerate in B's frame of reference and no other
>(well, A will also appear to accelerate from other accelerated frames of
>references).  From all inertial frames of reference (including A's) B will 
>appear to accelerate and A will not.
>-- 
>=============================================================
>Robert Ho               | "Have you got a plan m'lord?"
>Univ. of Toronto        | "Yes, and it`s so cunning you could
>hora@bullet.ecf.toronto.|     brush your teeth with it."

But Einstein's Principle of Equivalence says that the effects of "force" 
acceleration and gravitational acceleration are identical.  The difference
is that B's acceleration is not constant, in that he must turn around at the
other end. 

Mark Budd

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Subject: Re: Warp speed
Reply-To: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 19:43:44 GMT

In article <weUf5jq00Vok4VKrUF@andrew.cmu.edu>, rt16+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert Edward Timlin) writes:
>mcline@terapin.com (Matthew Cline) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>
>     That brings up another point: what the heck happened to time travel in
>ST anyway? There were all sorts of ways to time travel in TOS, but except for
>"Time Squared", not one has even been mentioned, let alone used (even though it
>would be really convenient to do so, say in "Time's Arrow"). Heck, they were
>using the slingshot effect for historical research *in* TOS, so what happened?
>The Federation Council ban time travel or something by the time of TNG?
>
>     Of course the real reason for TOS time travel (and for all those Earth
>parallel worlds) was so they could use everyday sets to save money, but still
>TNG shouldn't forget about an apparently well-developed capability (ok, they
>had trouble time warping in STIV:TVH, but they were in a puny little Klingon
>scout that had taken two photon torpedo hits in the previous movie - they
>apparently had no trouble warping the Big E back in the episode "Assignment:
>Earth").
>
>     So any opinions on TNG's lack of controlled time travel? I really thought
>they should've done the slingshot thing in "Time's Arrow" to go back, instead
>of just sending all senior officers (except Worf) through some alien time
>doorway. I know *I'd* feel a lot safer in 1893 (is that right?) if I knew I had
>heavy duty backup AND a guaranteed way back to my own time up in orbit.
>
>                                                     -Robb Timlin
>                                                      rt16@andrew.cmu.edu

Simplicity itself. Time travel formulae are classified and there is a
Federation law (similar to the one about not contacting Talos IV) against 
using them. Kirk & Co knew how because they'd done it. Remember, their 
1st experiences, _The Naked Time_ and _Tomorrow is Yesterday_, were 
entirely accidental.

(I am assuming that the message in STIV was sent on a secure channel
and that since there were plenty other charges that Kirk could be tried 
on, the "DA"  dropped the one he didn't dare prosecute publicly.)
From: jss6@jaguar.uofs.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Starships
Date: 16 Aug 92 22:48:08 GMT
Organization: University of Scranton

\ 
X-NEWS: uofs rec.arts.startrek.tech: 3627
kari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!network.ucsd.edu!ucru2!watnxt2.ucr.edu
From: judson@watnxt2.ucr.edu (Michael Judson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Starships
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:46:17 GMT
 
> Does anyone have a full list of Star Trek starchips, from TOS and TNG?
> If so, could you E-mail me the list?
> Thanks.
> 
> --
> I was contemplating Socrates' iommortal words: "I drank what?"
>  
> judson@watserv.ucr.edu
 
 
Yo Michael,

 
        I came across this list earlier this year, I think this is what you're

looking for.                         
                                                       Psycotically Yours,
                                                      
                                                         --the Shadowlord
 

P.S. Love your signiture file... :)



 
 
 
X-NEWS: uofs rec.arts.startrek.tech: 2499
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech

In rec.arts.startrek.tech, stanford@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanford) writes:

> But in TNG we get intermediate step 3.5 (at least on occasion):
> 3.5.  Ch. B hears "Ch. A to Ch. B."
> 
> THIS is the "2 second" delay I was referring to.
> Isn't step 3.5 redundant?  To continue with the telephone metaphor, it
> is as if Ch. B picks up the phone, and then hears Ch. A dialing.

No, I don't think it's redundant for Ch. B.  My version of continuing
the telephone metaphor would equate this to caller ID:  it's a service
to Ch. B so that he knows who is calling before he needs to begin the
conversation (e.g., how soon he should break off a passionate kiss).

Ch. A "should" always experience a 2 second delay before hearing Ch. B's
response, but this is not shown for dramatic reasons.  IMHO.

-- Richard
From: sauron@sbe.csuhayward.edu (Sauron)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Galactic Calendar
Date: 7 Aug 92 01:14:53 GMT
Organization: School of Business, California State University, Hayward

I was wondering if anyone has put any thought into what would make a good
'galactic calendar'... a sort of metric system for the galaxy.

I am currently working on a sci-fi based mud, and we will have several
different worlds, and I don't think that Earth's time system will be the only
one.

Can anyone thing of a system that different worlds could agree on, and 
something that makes a bit more sense than the one we use now?

While I'm at it... Can anyone think of a system of measurement that might
be used? So far I've only been able to come up with a system based on the
division of the galaxy such as 1/100th, 1/1000th... etc.


Matt Nordling

sauron@csuhayward.edu
sauron@sbe.csuhayward.edu
From: ICSCH@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Stardate Formula SOLVED!!!
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:26:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: ASUACAD.92225.102647ICSCH
 <1992Aug3.150410.8326@hellgate.utah.edu>
 <1992Aug7.221753.16120@newshost.lanl.gov> <7135689022974@neptune.mcs.anl.gov>
Organization: Arizona State University

Now, if we REALLY want to screw things up, here's the formula for "Time Warp:"

1) "Jump to your left."
2) "Bring your knees in tight."
3) "It's the pelvic thrust..."

Watch Geordi try to figure this out!  (Apologies to THE ROCKY HORROR
                                                    PICTURE SHOW.)
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Thursday, 13 Aug 1992 08:53:38 MST
From: <ICSCH@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Stardate Formula SOLVED!!!
 <1992Aug3.150410.8326@hellgate.utah.edu>
 <1992Aug7.221753.16120@newshost.lanl.gov> <7135689022974@neptune.mcs.anl.gov>
 <92225.102647ICSCH@ASUACAD.BITNET>

ACTUALLY, we DO know about the Stardates for the Planet Earth:

YEAR-MONTH-DAY-HOUR

19920813.855