HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Tom Thatcher)
Subject: Re: The Next Phase: Question
Reply-To: smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:55:44 GMT

In article <BuKtMG.BAD@cup.hp.com>, runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
>
>mhampsch@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Mark Hampsch) writes:
>>If Geordie(sp!) an Ro can walk through walls and equipment,  What keeps them
>>from falling through the floor?  
>
>There are differences in the floor vs walls and equipment.  For one thing,
>people stick to the floor.  Perhaps the gravity distribution system 
>was not transparent to their cloaked form, so they were able to walk, 
>get traction, etc.  This explains why they were able to board the
>shuttle craft, too (instead of falling through it like equipment).
>

The floors all contain gravity generators.  To maintain a level gravity
system and not have spots with more or less gravity, the generators
are small and widely disperesed on all floors.  Probably the graviton waves
from the generators act on all matter, regardless of the phases of various
bits of it.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
^  "What must I do to convince you?"            ^  Tom Thatcher            ^
^  "Die."                                       ^  University of Rochester ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: haaser@quince.ssc.gov (Bobby Haaser)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Cloaking device and the Fed.
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:55:58 GMT
Organization: SuperConducting Supercollider

In article <1992Sep11.121101.19458@aston.ac.uk>, evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
|> t0e0078@tamsun.tamu.edu (Terje Eggestad) writes:
|> : 
|> : In the discussion of the feasability of a cloaking device, hear this:
|> : 
|> : You can not:
|> : -:  Use any for of an long range active sensor, remember that these radiate
|> : (Big E uses these)
|> : -:  use a navigational deflector, it radiate.
|> : 
|> : 
|> : -: and worse a cloak works by allowing all radiation pass thru indisturbed
|> : and, since all passive sensors work by absorbing radiation, you will be 
|> : seriously blinded. An antenna don't absorb much energy but it will 
|> : disturb the radiation patter severly, and would be easily detectable.
|> 
|> Also add to this fire any weapon!!!!
|> -- 
|> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
|> +(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
|> +(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |


I still remember McCoy's immortal words:

" I wish we could cloak the stench ..."

Maybe that is why the Klingons got cloaking devices.
The Federation being a PROPER institution found no need
and resorted to the ungodly cleanliness of the NCC-1701-D.
:) :0 :) :0 :)


Live Long and Prosper!

  -the Bobinater

*************************************************************************
									*
"Your superior intellect 						*
     is no match for our puny weapons!!!!!!!!!!"    Aliens:Simpsons     *
									*
"If there's not something wrong with ME, then				*
    there's something wrong with the UNIVERSE. "    Dr Crusher:STTNG	*
									*
"Where there's a WAVE, There's a Coke. T#sah $%"    Max Hedroom		*
									*
"You know... Mistletoe is deadly if you eat it."    Batman: Batman II   *
									*
*************************************************************************
also haaser@phys.udallas.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Cloaking device and the Fed.
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:25:50 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <j=7yzn+@rpi.edu> petitc@rpi.edu writes:
>  Why would it render it invisible to radar and NOT to optics?

It wouldn't necessarily be invisible to anything.  It depends on how
the shields handle energy, and the Tech Manual is not clear on this.
It implies that matter and energy are handled differently.

If the shields absorb energy and reradiate it over time like space
shuttle tiles (as I proposed last month), then visible EM energy
should be absorbed and reradiated.  So depending on how much it
radiated it might appear as a dull glowing ellipsoid (I think the
shields are ellipsoidal, not spherical).

But if the shields reflect EM energy, then the visible component of
that would be a mirrored ellipsoid.

If the former is true, then the ship would be minimally visible to EM
sensors like radar.  If the latter is true, the ship would not only be
visible, it would stand out like a sore thumb.

Assuming for a moment that the shields absorb all the energy and never
radiate it (or radiate it extremely slowly -- the first case), you can
still detect it.  This is because the ship blocks out background
radiation.  If the sensor can be used to detect not the PRESENCE of
radiated or reflected EM energy but its ABSENCE, then the ship can be
detected.  Defense research is already being done in this area as a
possible method of detecting objects which use stealth technology.

Here's a real-world example.  Imagine a blimp made of a completely
black, non-reflective material.  If you fly it during the day, you'd
just see a big black blob in the sky.  That's because it blocks out
the blue sky -- the background radiation you'd normally see.  Even if
you flew it at night it would still block out stars.  You would have
to have an environment completely void of background radiation, or
control your own emissions so that you resemble the pattern of
background radiation.

This is what the cloaking device does.  It somehow causes the ship to
emit radiation in a pattern which would normally be seen by an outside
observer if the ship were not in the way.  So to cloak your blimp
during the day would mean emitting blue light to camouflage it against
the blue sky -- not just painting it blue, actually emitting blue
light of the correct intensity and frequency.  Now add in the
occasional cloud that you'd have to duplicate from all points of view,
or the stars at night, and you have a formidable problem.

--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
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.
From: chan@nucleus.cuc.ab.ca (Mike Chan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Seatbelts
Date: 7 Sep 92 11:42:51 MST
Organization: The Nucleus 16 Lines 403-531-9353 -CNet Amiga-

In article <1992Aug31.175955.20525@udel.edu>, ram@pecan.cns.udel.edu
(Stormbringer) 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?????????
>
>
>I have asked many times as well!
>
>>However, the original question is valid -- if it is known that the IDF
>>can't compensate immediately and completely for potentially injurious
>>jolts, why isn't there a secondary restraint?  This has been addressed
>>in the Star Trek motion pictures, but not very well in TNG.  I do,
>>however, remember one episode where seat belts were featured on a TNG
>>shuttlecraft (Riker was flying, Troi and Data were passengers).  This
>>is especially a problem since most bridge injuries seem to result from
>>people being thrown out of their seats or off their feet as a result
>>of some impact.
>
>I wholeheartley agree!  Somebody ask this Question at a convention
>or something.  (request to all people who attend conventions :)
>
>
>
>-- 
>|~~~\ |    | /~~~\ |    | "We go out in the world and take our chances,   
>|___/ |    | \     |____|  Fate is the just the weight of circumstances,
>|  \  |    |   \   |    |  That's the way lady luck dances,                   
>|   \  \__/ \___/  |    |  Roll the Bones....."           

    Well its supposeively the gravity inertia fields would componsate for such
an impact and it it could prove very hazardous when the ship is under heavy
attack if the ship where to abandon ship or shrapnel to explode. Also Starfleet
officer are trained under this kind of situation to expect these kind of blows.

Data Chan
From: KELSEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (KELSEY, Michael H.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Subspace Theory 101
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:09:19 GMT
 <92Sep08.161509.30158@acs.ucalgary.ca>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <92Sep08.161509.30158@acs.ucalgary.ca>, jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca
(Joshua Bell) says:
>
[ Some stuff deleted, about how to create causality violation ]                n
>
>Question: Why is causality violation a bad thing? Its screws
>bigtime with our observations of the universe (relativity tends
>to do that for most people anyway ;-) but does it cause any
>spacetime shattering problems?
>
Yes it does.  Causality violation can make the known laws of physics
internally inconsistent, in that you can set up a physical situation
(like the Grandfather Paradox, but _without_ any intelligent observers)
in which a particular action must both happen and not happen at the
same event-point (location in space-time).  For example, you can make a
billiard table in which a ball follows a trajectory including a timelike
portion, in which the ball follows a straight line on the "first cycle",
follows the timelike part only to "reappear" in its own way, and deflect
itself onto a different trajectory, and so on.  You now have at the SAME
point in space-time the ball being both deflected and undeflected.  This
is really quite unpleasant :-/

Because of this, Hawking
has proposed a "Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis," wherein the Universe
as we know it _forbids_ the establishment of closed timelike paths
(i.e. trajectories which are causality violating).  Thorne and others
have rejected this hypothesis, but to date all attempts at constructing
closed timelike curves within the context of general relativity have
failed, mostly due to energy density considerations.  On the other hand,
no one has succeeded in proving Cosmic Censorship either.  BTW, Cosmic
Censorship also forbids the creation of a naked singularity (e.g. a
black hole without an event horizon).  It may be that the two situations
are intimately related -- a naked singularity always has closed timelike
paths around it, or some such -- but the theoretical situation today is
quite murky.  Look at the past few years of Physical Review D for some
very interesting articles on the subject.

>In SF I prefer just to ignore it and hope it goes away. But that
>doesn't mean we can't try to explain it.
>
>Joshua
                                       -- 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: uhs@jab.tucson.az.us (Rob Macomber)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp 10+
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:31:16 GMT
Organization: Just Another Bbs. Tucson, AZ

Chad Adam <ca25+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> 	Now I am really interested in the "ultra-warp" (I love these names!)
> system of NCC-1701-D.  Supposedly, each warp factor when raised to the
> fifth power, states the multiples of the speed of light.  Warp 1 is
> still the speed of light but when you hit warp 2, watch out....you are
> moving 32 times the speed of light.  Where c is the speed of light and w
> is the warp factor, it follows: 
> 	For standard warp: cw^3,
> 	For ultra-warp: cw^5
> 

Actually, according to the [non-canon] TNG tech manual, the TNG warps 
actually follow something like (as closely as I can figure out) 
c(w**(10/3)+(log(w)/(10-w))). That follows then TNGTM numbers almost 
precisely (even better with a higher log base) and goes asymptotic as it 
approaches warp 10.
From: Anthony_Battles_-T@cso.3mail.3com.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Vger:TMP
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:26:00 GMT


Hi everyone,

I was watching ST:TMP Last night and when the space station was 
encountering Vger. One of the commanders stated that Vgers Cloud radius 
is 84 au's.
Now from what I learned in astronomy, 1 Au (astronomical unit) is the 
distance from the earth to the sun.
Correct me if I am wrong ( and I am sure you will) If Vger's cloud is 84 
au's then it is larger than our solar system.
In other words Vger's diameter is 7,812,000,000 miles in diameter.

My question is: How is something that size supposed to come home to 
                earth?


Anthony
========================================================================
"Captain I must Protest, I am not a merry man!"  - Qpid
========================================================================


Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Tom Thatcher)
Subject: Cloaking Top Ten
Reply-To: smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:23:46 GMT

Top Ten reasons why the Federation doesn't use cloaking devices:

10.  TNG Romulan/Klingon cloaking devices use different technology than
     TOS/SFS/VH, so Kirk's stolen technology is not transferrable.

 9.  Every time the Federation invents a cloaking device, they lose it when
     they turn it on.

 8.  Cloaking device interferes with sensors and collection of scientic data.

 7.  R&D costs too high for a scientific/exploration agency.  (Waste of
     resources to develop technology you can/will almost never use)

 6.  Use of cloaking device burns out Engineering cigarette lighter.

 5.  Treaty with Klingons prevent Federation from developing its own cloaking
     device.

 4.  Cloaking device interferes with reception of Playboy Channel
     (see under Riker.Space_Seed)

 3.  Unacceptable energy penalty during use.

 2.  Unacceptable vulnerability during use.

And the number one reason why the Federation has no cloaking device:


 1.  Hey, they're the good guys!!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
^  "What must I do to convince you?"            ^  Tom Thatcher            ^
^  "Die."                                       ^  University of Rochester ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: M.Willis@ee.surrey.ac.uk (Mike Willis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: relative speed
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:18:54 GMT
Organization: University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK. GU2 5XH

In article <1992Sep5.144741.3556@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, rpascazi@engws9.ic.sunysb.edu (Robert R Pascazio) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep4.234356.7906@marlin.jcu.edu.au> eektl@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Kenneth T Leong) writes:
|> >If two starships were back to back and then both raced off at warp 10,
|> >would the speed of one starship relative to the other be double? If so,
|> >could this relative speed be acheived as an actual speed by a single
|> >starship?
|> >
|> >
|> >eektl@marlin.jcu.edu.au 
|> 
|> This just goes back to the theory of relativity. The accelerated speeds
|> do not effect the physical phenomena. This is because (I think) warp is
|> actually light speed (warp 9 being 90 percent the speed of light). What
|> warp technology is, is the creation of an anti-mass and anti-inertial
|> field. This allows accelerations close to the speed of light with 
|> neglegible (not logrithmic at least) increase in power consumption. 
|> 
|> If the observer from starship A took measurments of starship B every
|> once in a while, it would appear the starship is moving away faster
|> than warp 10. This is because the light(probably need subspace detection
|> equipment here) would take longer to reach B as A moves off. In actual
|> distance though, if information could move instantaneousely the other
|> ship would suffer from relativistic effects and appear to slow an never
|> exceed warp 10. 
|> 
|> 					-Rob-
|> 
|> -- 

The old problem of moving at the speed of light and shining a torch forward is
similar. The light leaves you at the speed of light, an observer in fromt of you
receives the light you send at the speed of light (closely followed by you and a
large headache)

How can this be? 

The light will be blue shifted by the Doppler effect. Its velocity is constant
through space and can not change, the distance is also constant and can not change,
so the only thing left that can change is time. This is what happenes. To the
observer you are appoaching you are living quickly. To the loved ones you have left
so quickly you would appear to be living slowly. You yourself can not tell any
difference in time.

One way to move at the speed of light is to turn all your mass into energy. If you
have no mass any force would cause you to accelerate infinately quickly to the
speed of light.
From: jim@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jim Jagielski)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Cloaking device and the Fed.
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:07:11 GMT
Reply-To: jim@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jim Jagielski)
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:

>john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>: In article <1537@seqp4.sequoia.com> ajm@seqp4.sequoia.com (A.J.Madison) writes:
>: > In article <1992Sep3.152056.14571@news.unomaha.edu>, tomcat@cwis.unomaha.edu (Jeffrey S. Jo) writes:
>: > > 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.
>: 
>: Actually, there seems to be no end to the usefullness of a cloaked ship.
>: If for no other reason, for observing new races/cultures without them knowing
>: that you are watching.  It is pretty hard to disquise a ship in orbit any
>: other way.

>The standard shields on a UFP ship can render the ship radar and optically 
>invisible.

To radar yes.
To optics no.
-- 
    Jim Jagielski               | "This is supposed to be a happy occasion.
    jim@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov   |  Let's not bicker and argue about who
    NASA/GSFC, Code 734.4       |  killed who."
    Greenbelt, MD 20771         |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: dave@admiral.uucp (Dave Litchman)
Subject: Binars and the Borg  (was: Re: what is the significance of 11001001 in "11001001"
Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 02:37:16 GMT

Well, since everyone seems to want to talk about the Binars just recently,
here's a thought which has been plaguing my mind for a while.

Has anyone noticed the similarities between the Binars and the Borg? Both live
in a symbiotic relationship with a computer network, and both are dependent upon
said network (but then again, that's what symbiotic means).

Why did the Borg 'go bad,' as it were, while the Binars were able to control
their system? Maybe the Federation should send a shipload of Binars after the
Borg, after all, they can relate to them! Who knows better how to annoy a
computer-dependent lifeform than another computer-dependent lifeform?


-- 
"Dammit Jim, I'm a free man, not a number!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ray, when somebody asks you if you're a god, you say YES!" -- Winston Zeddmore
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Twin paradox
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:29:16 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

KELSEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (KELSEY, Michael H.) writes:

> 5)  Another effect of velocity is the Doppler shift.  The spectral lines
> of the stars will shift drastically as the ship's speed approaches c
> (as gamma gets large).  For stars ahead of the ship, radiation which is
> normally in the infrared, microwave, or even radio ranges will be shifted
> into the visible, and visible light will be shifted up into ultraviolet
> or even X-rays!  The forward Universe will look very peculiar as bright
> radio stars and nebulae become visible, and radio-dim stars disappear.
> Behind the ship, EM radiation will be drastically red-shifted, with
> visible light disappearing into the infrared or radio spectra, and X-rays
> shifting into the visible.  Behind the ship, pulsars, quasars, and black
> holes (with strong X-ray emissions), will become visible, and ordinary
> stars will not be seen.  There is also a transverse Doppler shift (if
> the velocity is perpendicular to the line of sight, there is still a
> shift in wavelength), so in a band encircling the ship the passengers
> will see the "Relativistic Rainbow" where stellar spectra have been
> shifted by slightly different amounts depending on the exact angle of
> view.  For ordinary stars, where the spectral peak makes them look white,
> you will instead have a rainbow effect, where stars slightly forward will
> appear bright white or violet, and stars slightly behind appear red.

I just recently reread _A World Out of Time_ by Larry Niven, and he 
describes this effect very well.  In addition, he points out that, as the 
main character is travelling very, very close to the speed of light, he 
notices a faint, sickly glow ahead of his ship.  He concludes that this 
is the cosmic microwave background, shifted up from microwave frequencies 
to visible light!

----------
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   |
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Satalite uplink dates
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:21:40 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <1992Sep12.171604.19001@pool.info.sunyit.edu> ueh@pool.info.sunyit.edu (Eric Hausgaard) writes:
<
< Does anyone know when Fox broadcasting uplinks ST:TNG (Sundays, I think)
<And do you know what satalite and channel.
<I want to see if I can catch it for a class....

Gee, how many times do we have to say this....listen up everyone...

STAR TREK: The Next Generation is syndicated.  It is not a Fox program.

So, the answer is never and the word is satellite, not satalite.
-- 
      harvard\                          spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
Vidiot  ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
      rutgers/            INTERNET:vidiot!brown%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.edu
                                   brown@wi.extrel.com
From: trw@spl1.spl.loral.com (Tim R Witort)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Borg Scout Ship
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:08:24 GMT
Organization: Loral Software Productivity Laboratory


  The "ultra-massive" Borg ship may have been made out of a
very dense material. This would permit it to be relatively
small but have a very high mass.

-- Tim