The "Outrageous Okona" Falsehood

[TheRedFear]

Why wouldn't the navigational shields go down? It's not like they're a critical combat system. When it's time to start taking power from non-critical systems to reinforce the primary shield or hull integrity or the phaser banks, I don't think the lowly navigational shield is gonna be high on the list of "must have" systems.

And we've seen plenty of times on the Enterprise D AND E, the NX, the Defiant, and Voyager how multiple systems can be damaged intenrally, while there was little or no visible hull damage

Borg weapons and tactics in particular seem to excel at knocking out multiple systems, while doing little Hull damage, as their very first encounter with the Enterprise D Demonstrated.

[Praeothmin]

Except all of what you're saying are assumptions with no hard facts.

So I'll just keep believing that the navigational deflectors cannot make a ship immune to all lasers, no matter the type or power level... :)

[Who is like God arbour]

As I have shown, the Borg weapon was no laser.

Well, you haven't shown it, because it was stated as Socar has said.
"Some sort of laser" is still laser enough, and in this case you seem to be playing a semantics game in order to pull off the "E-D is immune to all lazors!!!".

I have explained it already:

• • Heck, it didn't deflect the Borg's lasers (they were stated as lasers, and lasers using a visible spectrum of light are still lasers)...

    Lasers using visible spectrum of light are still invisible. Your can see only, if light is getting in your eye. But all photons of a laser are flying together only straight in one direction. No photon of a laser beam will make a 90 degree turn and will fly in your eye.
    
    When you are seeing a laser in air, you aren't really seeing the laser. What you see is a molecule that was hit by photons of the laser and by that excited what results in a molecule that is emitting omnidirectional light. The part of that light, that is flying in your eye, is allowing you to see that molecule. But you don't see the laser, even if it is using a visible spectrum of light - unless the laser is directed in your eye.
    
    And in vacuum, there are no by a laser beam excited molecules that are emitting omnidirectional light that could partly get in your eye so that you could see them. If you see somthing like a beam in vacuum, it is never ever a laser beam.
    
    The Borg weapons can not be a laser. It may have similar properties of a laser at contact with its target and that's maybe why they have called it a laser for lack of a better term. But it is no laser.

That's not a question of semantic. That's a fact. What we have seen was no laser - because we have seen it. That's why Worf can't really have meant a laser but only some kind of weapon that's similar to a laser.

I still can't believe that, because of the simple fact that although you require a great deal of proof from me, you haven't provided one shred of proof on your own that specifically proves that all lasers, no matter their power, cannot damage the E-D.

I don't demand proof from you. I only say what I think is more pausible than what you think has happened. The lines are proof for the fact, if the navigation shield is able to withstand each laser. The question is, how the lines are to be interpreted and how supporting the different interpretations are for the assumed fact.

As I have said, Worf hasn't had the opportunity to report of any possible threats to the Enterprise because Picard has cut him of.

It never stopped him, or anyone else before, of telling the captain what they thought, specifically when the ship was in danger.
So you're objection in this case, considering I saw him tell the Captain that sort of thing regularly in the last weeks while viewing the first two seasons, even when interrupted, doesn't hold water I'm afraid.

Praeothmin, as I see it, your problem is, that you are not able to really imagine the different situations and how Worf and Picard would have acted in the different situations.

There are three alternatives.

1. Worf has known that the lasers were powerfull enough to penetrate even the main shields. In that case, Worf would surly have reacted another way while reporting that lasers are locked at the Enterprise.
2. Worf has known that the laser were powerfull enough to penetrate the navigation shield, but not powerfull enough to penetrate the main shield. In that case, because the main shields were activated, the lasers were no threat to the Enterprise. Why would have Worf, who couldn't have known beforehand, that his Captain would violate Starfleet-regulations and order to drop the main shields, violate military protocol and cut off his captain to inform him that the lasers would be a threat to the navigation shield only - although the main shield was still activated - while the captain is conversing with the first officer? That would be an acceptable behaviour if there would have been a thread. But the shields were activated. There was no threat untill the captain has given that order.
3. Worf has known, that the laser were too weak to penetrate even the navigation shield. In that situation, he also wouldn't have said anything.

Because Worf has said nothing, we can exclude the first alternative. But the second and third alternative are still valid.

And yes, if the second alternative would have been true, Worf would have objected after Picard has given his order. But that leaves the question, why Picard would have given that order at all. He doesn't give orders and expect that his officers are saying him, if the execution of that order would result in a dangerous situation. He expect from his officers that they are giving their opinions and knowledge before he gives his orders. And if he has given his order, he expect that it is executed without discussions.

If he would have thought that the deactivation of the main shield could be dangerous for the Enterprise, he would have asked his officers beforehand. He would have asked Worf, how strong the lasers could get. But he has neither asked Worf nor has he given him the opportunity to say his opinion. Ergo, he was convinced that the laser of that ship - although he couldn't really have known how powerfull it could get - was no threat to the Enterprise.

[Praeothmin]

That's not a question of semantic. That's a fact. What we have seen was no laser - because we have seen it. That's why Worf can't really have meant a laser but only some kind of weapon that's similar to a laser.

You are right, it may have been similar to a laser, but is most definitely was not.
How similar can only be guessed, so this argument has no value.
Point conceded!

I don't demand proof from you.

Bad wording, sorry.

Praeothmin, as I see it, your problem is, that you are not able to really imagine the different situations and how Worf and Picard would have acted in the different situations.

Well, I certainly cannot concede on all points... :)
W.I.L.G.A, I can imagine very well different situations, don't orry about that.
But while you say I cannot seem to imagine different situations, you fail to accept the most plausible born of observation of the TNG series and the characters behaviors.

The way I see it, you seem to want the navigational deflectors to be immune to all lasers, no matter how powerful, and you try to find every possible way to make the facts fit your interpretation.

When no actual facts are stated precisely, Occam's razor demands that the simplest, most logical explanation fitting observed behavior is the correct one.

Fact: is it said that the ship in "The Oturageous Okona" could fire its lasers as long as they want, they wouldn't hurt the E-D.

Fact: the power of the lasers isn't mentioned, neither is there mention that any lasers would fail to damage the E-D.

Observed fact: weak Phasers cannot penetrate the shields of the bigger Trek ships.

Observed fact: more powerful Phasers do penetrate the shields of the bigger Trek ships.

Observed Fact: most of the time (let's say 95%), the tactical officer will warn the commanding officer if he believes the orders can be hramful to the ship.

Observed Fact: Worf did not tell Picard that dropping the shields was dangerous to the ship.

Occam's razor explanation: although weak lasers cannot penetrate the navigational shields of the E-D, more powerful lasers would most likely be able to do so and damage the Ship.

When no quantifiable values exist, one must use the most often seen events as basis for observation.

[Who is like God arbour]

Praeothmin, as I see it, your problem is, that you are not able to really imagine the different situations and how Worf and Picard would have acted in the different situations.

Well, I certainly cannot concede on all points... :)
W.I.L.G.A, I can imagine very well different situations, don't orry about that.
But while you say I cannot seem to imagine different situations, you fail to accept the most plausible born of observation of the TNG series and the characters behaviors.

The way I see it, you seem to want the navigational deflectors to be immune to all lasers, no matter how powerful, and you try to find every possible way to make the facts fit your interpretation.

No, it's not that I wanted the navigation shield to be immune to all lasers at first. But when I have heard that lines, my conclusion was exactly that. Before I have heard that line, I wouldn't have dreamed that the navigation shield could be immune to all lasers. And after I have heard that line - that in my opinion is most plausible interpreted - both, in semantic as well as in context - that Picard has meant what he has said: "laser can't even penetrate [the] navigation shield.", I have contemplated if that is possible at all. And as I have shown, it is possible, if the navigation shield creates a space-time curvature. There are no events and no other statements, that would prove Picards statement wrong.

When no actual facts are stated precisely, Occam's razor demands that the simplest, most logical explanation fitting observed behavior is the correct one.

Fact: is it said that the ship in "The Oturageous Okona" could fire its lasers as long as they want, they wouldn't hurt the E-D.

correct - we have not seen how the lasers were fired. But after what Picard has said, we can surly assume that they weren't able to hurt the Enterprise.

Fact: the power of the lasers isn't mentioned, neither is there mention that any lasers would fail to damage the E-D.

wrong - Picard has said only "lasers can't even penetrate [the] navigation shield" He has not said "their lasers" or "weak lasers". His semantic means each laser - and the context of his statement - he has not known the possible power of that lasers - also support the interpretation, that he means each laser.

Observed fact: weak Phasers cannot penetrate the shields of the bigger Trek ships.

correct - but phasers are not lasers.

Observed fact: more powerful Phasers do penetrate the shields of the bigger Trek ships.

correct - but phasers have nothing to do with lasers. We have never seen, how more powerfull lasers were shoot at the Enterprise. And as I have shown, if the navigation shield would be able to create a space-time curvature, the laser would be rerouted (deflected). A phaser, that is even working while at warp, therefore has to penetrate even the heavy space-time distortions, the warp drive is creating, is not (as easily) affected by curved space-time.

Observed Fact: most of the time (let's say 95%), the tactical officer will warn the commanding officer if he believes the orders can be hramful to the ship.

wrong - after an order is given, the tactical officer only warns the commanding oficer, if he thinks, that he is not aware of the danger the execution of an order would cause. But usually the captain hears his officers before deciding and only decide if he has heard all other opinions. But if he has decided, there is no debate anymore.
In that case, Picard has not heard, what Worf would had have to say nor has he announced that he is planning to give the order. If Worf would have known, that Picard is planning to order to drop the main shields, he would (maybe) have objected, if that would have been dangerous for the Enterprise. But that order was totally surprising. It seems, that even Picard hasn't known that he will order to drop the shield until shortly before he has given that order. He has said: "Hmm, a very old regulation. Well, make it so Number One. And, reduce speed... drop main shields, as well." as if the last part was a spontaneous idea of him.

Observed Fact: Worf did not tell Picard that dropping the shields was dangerous to the ship.

correct - because he couldn't have known, that Picard is planning to give such an order. Even if he would have known that the lasers are a threat to a not with main shields protected Enterprise, he couldn't have assumed that Picard would order to drop them. His silence up to the point, when Picard has given the order, is therefore meaningless for the conclusions, Picard could have drawn from that silence. It still could have been possible that the laser could get powerfull enough to penetrate the navigation shield.

Occam's razor explanation: although weak lasers cannot penetrate the navigational shields of the E-D, more powerful lasers would most likely be able to do so and damage the Ship.

wrong - there is no event in which a more powerfull laser has damaged the ship. Such an event would be necessary to proof that Picards statement "lasers can't even penetrate [the] navigation shield" as wrong. As long as that statement is the only available information, we have about navigations shields and lasers, we have to take it at face value - especially because we know that it is possible.

When no quantifiable values exist, one must use the most often seen events as basis for observation.

As long as the conclusion is plausible and there are observed events at all. But we have never seen, how lasers were fired at the Enterprise. Therefore, we haven't any informations, how navigation shields are able to withstand lasers - but the information, Picard has given us.

[Kane Starkiller]

All you have done is to say that it is still DIRECTLY VIOLATING FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICAL LAWS. Maybe you are right.

But then, explain it to me, that I can understand it. How would you explain it? From your universal phrases I can't understand it. How would you explain it a school kid in physic lessons?

Conservation of momentum is simply a fundamental law of nature and everything we know about physics is build upon that. If you want to learn more I suggest you take up some physics books. I'm not paid to be a high shcool teacher nor do I have the time.

If I understand you correct, a laser beam, that is passing another mass, is pushing that mass away:
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s4/W ... /bild1.jpg
From it's own perspective, that laser is flying straight away. But if one would look from outside in that space, that someone would notice that the space is curved and the the geodesics of that space following laser is curved too:
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s4/W ... /bild2.jpg
If you say that the laser is pushing the mass away, it would do it also in the first picture, where the space seems to be uncurved - but only because the inside perspective.

The result would be, if I understand you correct, that photons are always pushing other masses away, even that masses, they aren't hitting but only passing.

Are you kidding me? Take a look at your own pictures! In the first one the direction of light isn't changed hence it's momentum isn't changed hence it won't transfer it's momentum to the object. In the second one the path is clearly CURVED therefore it WILL transfer it's momentum.
Yes the space us curved and to laser it will seem like it's going in a straight line but to any OUTSIDE OBSERVERS it is evident that laser did in fact change trajectory.

Secondly the angle of deflection is given by formula GM/rc^2. Which means that if Enterprise manages to create a distortion 1mm from the laser beam it will still have to simulate the mass of 1.3*10^24kg, or one quarter of Earth's mass, just to deflect it by ONE DEGREE.

Finally you STILL haven't adressed my points as to how is it possible for a ship to be immune to lasers and yet not to kinetic attacks since gravity works better on objects with mass.

[Who is like God arbour]

All you have done is to say that it is still DIRECTLY VIOLATING FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICAL LAWS. Maybe you are right.

But then, explain it to me, that I can understand it. How would you explain it? From your universal phrases I can't understand it. How would you explain it a school kid in physic lessons?

Conservation of momentum is simply a fundamental law of nature and everything we know about physics is build upon that. If you want to learn more I suggest you take up some physics books. I'm not paid to be a high shcool teacher nor do I have the time.

If you want to debate, you should take the time.
Let us assume that you know something, I don't know.
You can't really expect that I believe alone your word. You are not neutral or objective. I have to assume, that you would say anything to convince me, that you are right. If you want to convince me, try to explain it to me. If I see, that you are really tring to explain it and that I don't understand from what you are speaking, I would maybe be ready to concede that I'm not intelligent enough to understand what you are trying to explain. But if you are only quoting some fundamental laws without showing why they apply in the situation at hand and how they would work, don't expect me that I believe you.
I have shown, why I doubt your explaination. Now show me where my error in reasoning is. Why should two masses, that should attract each other via gravity, push another away?

If I understand you correct, a laser beam, that is passing another mass, is pushing that mass away:

• • 

From it's own perspective, that laser is flying straight away. But if one would look from outside in that space, that someone would notice that the space is curved and the the geodesics of that space following laser is curved too:

• • 

If you say that the laser is pushing the mass away, it would do it also in the first picture, where the space seems to be uncurved - but only because the inside perspective.

The result would be, if I understand you correct, that photons are always pushing other masses away, even that masses, they aren't hitting but only passing.

Are you kidding me? Take a look at your own pictures! In the first one the direction of light isn't changed hence it's momentum isn't changed hence it won't transfer it's momentum to the object. In the second one the path is clearly CURVED therefore it WILL transfer it's momentum.
Yes the space us curved and to laser it will seem like it's going in a straight line but to any OUTSIDE OBSERVERS it is evident that laser did in fact change trajectory.

If you would have read what I have written to the images, you would have noticed that that are images from the same space and time. The first image is from inside that space area, where the space-time curvature is not noticeable and the second image is from outside of that space area, from where it is noticable.
The same space, the same time, the same happenings - only from other perspectives.
And because in the whole Galaxy is no space, that isn't curved by gravity to some extent, do I have to assume, that light is always loosing momentum and is always pushing against all masses, even if it is not hitting these masses? Because it is always flying through curved space-time and is therefore always deflected slightly?

Secondly the angle of deflection is given by formula GM/rc^2. Which means that if Enterprise manages to create a distortion 1mm from the laser beam it will still have to simulate the mass of 1.3*10^24kg, or one quarter of Earth's mass, just to deflect it by ONE DEGREE.

Obviously not. Starfleet ships are able to create artificial earth-like gravity. But that doesn't mean that the ship has the same mass as an earth-like planet would have. The people on a planet, at which a Starfleet ship is in orbit some hundred kilometers above the surface of the planet, would surly notice it, if there would be a gravity creating mass as big as if it would be another planet.

Finally you STILL haven't adressed my points as to how is it possible for a ship to be immune to lasers and yet not to kinetic attacks since gravity works better on objects with mass.

I wasn't aware that you have made a point regarding kinetic attacks. Maybe you could repeat what you have allegedly already said.

[Kane Starkiller]

If you want to debate, you should take the time.
Let us assume that you know something, I don't know.
You can't really expect that I believe alone your word. You are not neutral or objective. I have to assume, that you would say anything to convince me, that you are right. If you want to convince me, try to explain it to me. If I see, that you are really tring to explain it and that I don't understand from what you are speaking, I would maybe be ready to concede that I'm not intelligent enough to understand what you are trying to explain. But if you are only quoting some fundamental laws without showing why they apply in the situation at hand and how they would work, don't expect me that I believe you.
I have shown, why I doubt your explaination. Now show me where my error in reasoning is. Why should two masses, that should attract each other via gravity, push another away?

Here you go again demonstrating your ignorance. Conservation of momentum is not something I just made up. It is taught in high schools and I am not going to explain it to you anymore than I'm going to explain how to add and substract numbers. Look it up or continue making fool out of yourself.
But just for fun here is a link from NASA stating that "The conservation of momentum is a fundamental concept of physics along with the conservation of energy and the conservation of mass." Then a link from wolfram research that states : "Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law of physics which states that the momentum of a system is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system". In other words if there is an external force acting upon it (like GRAVITY for example) the momentum will change.
Get an education so we can converse like adults rather than you asking me to guide you through high school physics. I want to debate but there is a certain knowledge level one is supposed to have before talking about gravitational lenses and lasers. You don't have that knowledge therefore you have no qualification to discuss these matters.

If you would have read what I have written to the images, you would have noticed that that are images from the same space and time. The first image is from inside that space area, where the space-time curvature is not noticeable and the second image is from outside of that space area, from where it is noticable.
The same space, the same time, the same happenings - only from other perspectives.
And because in the whole Galaxy is no space, that isn't curved by gravity to some extent, do I have to assume, that light is always loosing momentum and is always pushing against all masses, even if it is not hitting these masses? Because it is always flying through curved space-time and is therefore always deflected slightly?

Yes. Just like Earth probes slightly slow down Jupiter when it is used for a gravitational slingshot. Normally this pushing is negligible since starlight is not very powerful. But if you start firing very powerful lasers you will eventually be pushing planets and black holes aside.

Obviously not. Starfleet ships are able to create artificial earth-like gravity. But that doesn't mean that the ship has the same mass as an earth-like planet would have. The people on a planet, at which a Starfleet ship is in orbit some hundred kilometers above the surface of the planet, would surly notice it, if there would be a gravity creating mass as big as if it would be another planet.

Yes artificial gravity. Not REAL one. We can create artificial gravity today by rotating space stations. That doesn't mean those stations will bend light like planets. So provide evidence that Starfleet ships can simulate planetary masses. You will see there is none.

I wasn't aware that you have made a point regarding kinetic attacks. Maybe you could repeat what you have allegedly already said.

Here is a quote from one of my previous posts:
"Answer why doesn't the gravitational lens protect them from ALL attacks since light is the least affected by gravity and if they can deflect light with their gravity field they should be able to deflect anything."

Now will you finally answer the question? What about photon torpedoes? They are antimatter/matter explosion creating gamma rays (light) and pions.

And to think that all of this relies on your insistence to interpret Picard's line that ALL LASERS no matter the power will be deflected rather than Picard simply estimating the upper power limit based on ship's size and technology.

[Who is like God arbour]

If you want to debate, you should take the time.
Let us assume that you know something, I don't know.
You can't really expect that I believe alone your word. You are not neutral or objective. I have to assume, that you would say anything to convince me, that you are right. If you want to convince me, try to explain it to me. If I see, that you are really tring to explain it and that I don't understand from what you are speaking, I would maybe be ready to concede that I'm not intelligent enough to understand what you are trying to explain. But if you are only quoting some fundamental laws without showing why they apply in the situation at hand and how they would work, don't expect me that I believe you.
I have shown, why I doubt your explaination. Now show me where my error in reasoning is. Why should two masses, that should attract each other via gravity, push another away?

Here you go again demonstrating your ignorance. Conservation of momentum is not something I just made up. It is taught in high schools and I am not going to explain it to you anymore than I'm going to explain how to add and substract numbers. Look it up or continue making fool out of yourself.
But just for fun here is a link from NASA stating that "The conservation of momentum is a fundamental concept of physics along with the conservation of energy and the conservation of mass." Then a link from wolfram research that states : "Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law of physics which states that the momentum of a system is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system". In other words if there is an external force acting upon it (like GRAVITY for example) the momentum will change.
Get an education so we can converse like adults rather than you asking me to guide you through high school physics. I want to debate but there is a certain knowledge level one is supposed to have before talking about gravitational lenses and lasers. You don't have that knowledge therefore you have no qualification to discuss these matters.

I don't doubt that conservation of momentum is a fundamental concept of physic. I have had it in what you would call high shool too.
I doubt that it applies in curved space-time. As you will notice, both sides, you have given links to, don't even mention gravitation, let alone curved space time.
On the other hand, Wikipedia - although usually I wouldn't trust such entries in it - says that "in curved space-time which is not asymptotically Minkowski, momentum isn't defined at all."

Maybe I'm not educated enough. I know, that there are many things I don't know. And I have had physic only untill my 13. class. In my studies, I haven't had physics at all.

If you are more educated than I am - as you assume and what could really be possible - it should be no problem to you, to explain your reasoning in simple terms. But if you are not able to explain your thoughts, you are only parroting what - at least it seems so - you aren't really understanding.

I have learned that masses are attracting another. You are saying that, because that would result in a change of course and speed, they would push each other away. That exactly the reverse of what we can observe what they are doing. I'm sorry, but I don't see, how it could be possible, what you are saying.

Explain it to me, if you are able to do it. If you really understand, what you are saying, you shouldn't have any problems with it and you wouldn't need much time. If you would have explained it at your first post, you could have saved much more time meanwhile.

And it can't really be so difficult, if you really understand it. I have explained, why I think that masses aren't pushing another away. I have given concret examples. Where exactly is my mistake?

If you would have read what I have written to the images, you would have noticed that that are images from the same space and time. The first image is from inside that space area, where the space-time curvature is not noticeable and the second image is from outside of that space area, from where it is noticable.
The same space, the same time, the same happenings - only from other perspectives.
And because in the whole Galaxy is no space, that isn't curved by gravity to some extent, do I have to assume, that light is always loosing momentum and is always pushing against all masses, even if it is not hitting these masses? Because it is always flying through curved space-time and is therefore always deflected slightly?

Yes. Just like Earth probes slightly slow down Jupiter when it is used for a gravitational slingshot. Normally this pushing is negligible since starlight is not very powerful. But if you start firing very powerful lasers you will eventually be pushing planets and black holes aside.

That's not an answer to my questions. Do I have to assume that photons are pushing all masses around away - although I have learned that the mass equated energy also curves space-time, so that it would slightlyattract other masses and energies. (I have read somewhere, don't ask me where, I don't know it anymore and it is only in German, so that it wouldn't help you, that two lasers that are fired parallel with a only minimal distance to each other, would slightly attract each other until they unify because of the own gravity each laser beam is creating. They are not pushing another away.)

And I don't doubt that the mass of the probe would slightly influence Jupiter. But I have difficulties to imagine, that the probe, while it is attracted by Jupiter and following that attraction, get accelerated, would push Jupiter away. It has an own mass and should slightly attract Jupiter - but not pushing it away.

That contradicts my understanding of gravity.

Obviously not. Starfleet ships are able to create artificial earth-like gravity. But that doesn't mean that the ship has the same mass as an earth-like planet would have. The people on a planet, at which a Starfleet ship is in orbit some hundred kilometers above the surface of the planet, would surly notice it, if there would be a gravity creating mass as big as if it would be another planet.

Yes artificial gravity. Not REAL one. We can create artificial gravity today by rotating space stations. That doesn't mean those stations will bend light like planets. So provide evidence that Starfleet ships can simulate planetary masses. You will see there is none.

Centrifugal forces are no gravity. And we know, that they don't create artificial gravity by rotating the ship. Starfleet ships are creating artificial gravity, that has the same attraction as if there would be an earth-like planet. But they don't have the mass of such a planet nor are they simulating or projecting such a mass. That would have effects on each planet, in which orbit they are.
We don't know, how they are doing it. But they do it. Obviously they are able to create strong space-time curvatures with very limited range.

I wasn't aware that you have made a point regarding kinetic attacks. Maybe you could repeat what you have allegedly already said.

Here is a quote from one of my previous posts:
"Answer why doesn't the gravitational lens protect them from ALL attacks since light is the least affected by gravity and if they can deflect light with their gravity field they should be able to deflect anything."

Now will you finally answer the question? What about photon torpedoes? They are antimatter/matter explosion creating gamma rays (light) and pions.

That question doesn't even mention kinetic attacks.
And it was already answered twice:

• • A further question could be, why phaser and other Star Trek weapons are able to hit a ship and are not deflected the same way. We know from these weapons that they have some weird characteristics. For example can we observe that they have different speeds. Sometimes they are clearly slower than light, other times we see how they are faster than light and are fired even at warp speed. Alone that ability indicates that such weapons don't operate like normal electromagnetic radiation, which always is propagating with light speed. It could be that they aren't affected by gravity so much as electromagnetic radiation or don't follow the geodesics in space-time like electromagnetic radiation. After all, the heavy space-time distortions of the warp drive don't effect the path of these weapons.

A photon torpedo - as well as the other used weapons - can even be fired while the ship is at warp. It is obviously able to penetrate even the heavy space-time distortions of the warp drive. It is able to fly faster than light. With that ability, we have to assume that a space-time curvature would not affect such a weapon system as it would affect photons.

[Praeothmin]

he has not known the possible power of that lasers

Exactly!
He was talking about one particular ship, the one pointing lasers at them.
So why would he be talking about any other lasers, except the ones in this particular incident?

We have never seen, how more powerfull lasers were shoot at the Enterprise. And as I have shown, if the navigation shield would be able to create a space-time curvature, the laser would be rerouted (deflected).

How powerful are the deflector shields?
What can they deflect, what power of space-time curvature are they creating?
By space-time curvature, you mean the same kind created by black holes right?
I thought black holes had different sizes, thus different masses, thus different levels of curvature and attraction (or gravitation)?

If they have varying levels of power, then it is logical to assume that the same object at the same distance to the two different black holes, wanting to fight that attraction would have to apply different levels of force to leave the gravitational fields of both black holes.

In simpler terms, you assume that there is no limit to the amount of force the deflectors can deflect, by creating a counter-force.
The more powerful the laser, the greater the force needing to be deflected.
The more energy needed to create that force, or to push against it.
In order to deflect any power level of lasers would mean exerting any amount of counter force...

wrong - after an order is given, the tactical officer only warns the commanding oficer, if he thinks, that he is not aware of the danger the execution of an order would cause.

Nope, I've seen Mr. Worf tell Picard how dangerous a decision was, only to have Picard tell him he was well aware of the risks.
The Tactical Officer's job is to protect the ship and its crew, first and foremost, and telling one's Captain when an order can have potentially harmful results is part of that job, and has been seen many times.

correct - because he couldn't have known, that Picard is planning to give such an order.

It never kept him from saying what he thought after the order had come in the past, but before he executed the order.

But we have never seen, how lasers were fired at the Enterprise. Therefore, we haven't any informations, how navigation shields are able to withstand lasers - but the information, Picard has given us.

Which is extremelly vague and which, having seen how the E-D doesn't have limitless power generation capabilities, very doubtfully applies to all lasers.

I'm still not convinced, and I really don't have anything new to add, except to point out again and again how when comparing this incident to what we've seen in TNG, we cannot logically conclude that Picard meant all lasers.
:)

[Kane Starkiller]

I don't doubt that conservation of momentum is a fundamental concept of physic. I have had it in what you would call high shool too.
I doubt that it applies in curved space-time. As you will notice, both sides, you have given links to, don't even mention gravitation, let alone curved space time.
On the other hand, Wikipedia - although usually I wouldn't trust such entries in it - says that "in curved space-time which is not asymptotically Minkowski, momentum isn't defined at all."

Maybe I'm not educated enough. I know, that there are many things I don't know. And I have had physic only untill my 13. class. In my studies, I haven't had physics at all.

If you are more educated than I am - as you assume and what could really be possible - it should be no problem to you, to explain your reasoning in simple terms. But if you are not able to explaiplain your thoughts, you are only parroting what - at least it seems so - you aren't really understanding.

I have learned that masses are attracting another. You are saying that, because that would result in a change of course and speed, they would push each other away. That exactly the reverse of what we can observe what they are doing. I'm sorry, but I don't see, how it could be possible, what you are saying.

Explain it to me, if you are able to do it. If you really understand, what you are saying, you shouldn't have any problems with it and you wouldn't need much time. If you would have explained it at your first post, you could have saved much more time meanwhile.

And it can't really be so difficult, if you really understand it. I have explained, why I think that masses aren't pushing another away. I have given concret examples. Where exactly is my mistake?

Where exactly is your mistake? Are you kidding with me? You admit that conservation of momentum is a fundamental physical law and then ask me what is wrong with your assumption that Enterprise can handle infinite laser power in other words INFINITE MOMENTUM. And NO I don't have to defend fundamental physical laws here. It is you who needs to prove that somehow Enterprise can violate them.
And so what if momentum isn't defined in curved space? That only means that in that mathematical model the formulas aren't defined not that it doesn't apply.

That's not an answer to my questions. Do I have to assume that photons are pushing all masses around away - although I have learned that the mass equated energy also curves space-time, so that it would slightlyattract other masses and energies. (I have read somewhere, don't ask me where, I don't know it anymore and it is only in German, so that it wouldn't help you, that two lasers that are fired parallel with a only minimal distance to each other, would slightly attract each other until they unify because of the own gravity each laser beam is creating. They are not pushing another away.)

And I don't doubt that the mass of the probe would slightly influence Jupiter. But I have difficulties to imagine, that the probe, while it is attracted by Jupiter and following that attraction, get accelerated, would push Jupiter away. It has an own mass and should slightly attract Jupiter - but not pushing it away.

That contradicts my understanding of gravity.

Oh for the love of God. I don't now how can I explain how little you know. There are many forces and interactions in the universe. If you punch someone in the face your fist transfers momentum to his head but at the same time the mass in your arm and mass in his head are creating extremely small gravity field that attracts your fist and his head. But since the punch is vastly more powerful than the gravity field created by your bod parts the end result will be that his head will fly away. The same is probe and Jupiter. The gravity field between probe and Jupiter is attracting them, but the exchange of momentum is also at work. The resultant of all these different forces will determine the final outcome and speed. Now for the laser beam. Laser beam also probably creates it's minisucule gravity field but it also transfers momentum to the object. Since it's momentum is vastly greater than the gravity field the end result will be that it PUSHES the object away.

Now let me be clear: MASS CURVES SPACE. WE LIVE IN A CURVED SPACE. CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM APPLIES HERE. THEREFORE CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM APPLIES IN CURVED SPACE.

Centrifugal forces are no gravity. And we know, that they don't create artificial gravity by rotating the ship. Starfleet ships are creating artificial gravity, that has the same attraction as if there would be an earth-like planet. But they don't have the mass of such a planet nor are they simulating or projecting such a mass. That would have effects on each planet, in which orbit they are.
We don't know, how they are doing it. But they do it. Obviously they are able to create strong space-time curvatures with very limited range.

And how exactly can you tell centrifugal force from real gravity when you are looking at the effects? How exactly can you tell that Starfleet ships create "real" gravity as opposed to another trick like centrifugal forces?
Tank you for conceding that they can't simulate the mass therefore they can't bend light and even if they could it still couldn't protect them from infinite power laser.

That question doesn't even mention kinetic attacks.
And it was already answered twice:

A further question could be, why phaser and other Star Trek weapons are able to hit a ship and are not deflected the same way. We know from these weapons that they have some weird characteristics. For example can we observe that they have different speeds. Sometimes they are clearly slower than light, other times we see how they are faster than light and are fired even at warp speed. Alone that ability indicates that such weapons don't operate like normal electromagnetic radiation, which always is propagating with light speed. It could be that they aren't affected by gravity so much as electromagnetic radiation or don't follow the geodesics in space-time like electromagnetic radiation. After all, the heavy space-time distortions of the warp drive don't effect the path of these weapons.

And I already refuted it. You can't explain away an incident by claiming a weapon is "weird". We never saw phasers moving faster than light. Wehn they were fired at warp the relative velocity of phasers and ship was vastly lower then light speed. They were simply inside the warp bubble along with the ship. They are particle weapons hence have mass. Therefore they should've been deflected more easily than lasers. And the "heavy space-time distortions of warp drive" don't bend light either remember. We can clearly see the ship when it is moving at warp. So phasers ability to withstand them is nothing special is it? You are just making stuff up without bothering to check the facts.

A photon torpedo - as well as the other used weapons - can even be fired while the ship is at warp. It is obviously able to penetrate even the heavy space-time distortions of the warp drive. It is able to fly faster than light. With that ability, we have to assume that a space-time curvature would not affect such a weapon system as it would affect photons.

And light can also easily penetrate the "heavy space time distortions" so what's so special about photon torpedoes doing it? In any case how does photon torpedoes's CASING ability to be fired at warp change the facts that result of it's explosion is LIGHT and PIONS which DO HURT FEDERATION SHIPS. Stop evading already and answer the point.


Hmmm look at that: Federation ship traveling at warp and yet light effortlessly passes through the "heavy space time distortions" of the warp drive. Geee phasers and photon torpedoes must really be special and weird!

[Who is like God arbour]

Kane Starkiller,

to mee, it seems that you still don't understand the concept of curved space-time and not curved space-time.

As I have said, that momentum isn't defined in curved space-time -

• although - as I have said also already several time - what is curved space-time and what is not curved space-time is only a question of perspective because there is no space area in that universe that isn't to a at least infinitesimal extent curved but the extent of an curvature is only observeable from outside of the curved space area by comparing the curvature with the seemingly straight space in which the observer is

- it should have been clear, that changes in velocity of masses or energies that are only caused by the curved space-time don't have a change in momentum.

That's the different to your really very stupid example with the fist and the face. The changes that are happening in that example aren't changes that happen only because of curved space-time. Other forces are working in that example too.

And only as a side note: I know, that light, if it is colliding with an object is tranferring momentum to that object. But you are claiming that it transfers momentum to that object even if it is not colliding with it only because the object causes with its mass and energy a space-time curvature that is affecting even light that wouldn't collide with the object (even after the change in its course) what would result in an anti-gravity like effect.

You still haven't answered the question, what would happen with light, that travels through space, that is always to at least an infinitesimal extent curved? The path of the light is always slightly changed. Would that mean, that light is always loosing momentum to the cause of the space-time curvature? But we know, that light in vakuum travels always with the same speed. The only thing, gravitation is causing is a change in the course of the light and a shift in the wavelength (but the latter happens only because the wavelength of the light is not really changed but the space-time has another curvature so that the same wavelength will cover more or less space than in space that has another curvature due to less or more gravitation). But as far as I know, that has no effect on speed or energy of light. If the light is loosing momentum, shouldn't it get slower or weaker?

But - as far as I know - that doesn't happen with light in curved space.
Besides the change in its course, light has the same properties when it leaves an area with a stronger space-time curvature than the area it was coming from and again enters in an area with the same space-time curvature as from the area it was coming from originally. Only the course is changed and that only because the light has followed the geodesics of the curved space-time. By following the geodesics of that space-time, it has come nearer to the mass that has created the curvature. The mass itself was even slightly (negligible) attracted to the light due to the negligible gravity the light is creating itself.

If I understand you correct, you think, that light, when it gets changed in its course by gravitation, is tranfering momentum to the cause of that space-time curvature, what would result in an anti-gravity like effect. It seems that you think, that usually that anti-gravity like effect is not strong enough to push the cause of the stronger gravitation more away than the gravity (of the light [?]) is attracting it. But if there would be a really powerfull laser beam, that would have more to mass equated energy than the other gravitation causing object and therfore more momentum, that could be enough to push the other gravitation causing object away. But even that is contradicted by observations. If the light would create a stronger gravitation than another object, it would attract the other object more than it would be attracted by it. But that wouldn't change, that it is still attracted by the other object. No repulsive forces can be observed. So explain, what conditions have to be, that light can transfer so much momentum to a gravitation causing object, that it is overpowering the attraction between both objects?




P.S.
I refuse to answer the other questions regarding Star Trek weapons, Star Trek artificial gravity and Star Trek warp drive for now. That has nothing to do with the core problem and would only sidetrack. We know even less about the working of that science fiction technics than we know about real physics. It is likely that these technics are physical impossible - but have to be accepted as possible because they were shown in the series and movies.
The problem now is a real physic problem. What happens when light is only following the geodesic of space-time to objects that are curving that space time?

[Who is like God arbour]

Praeothmin,

if he - as you conceede - couldn't know the possible power of the laser of that ship, how could he be sure, that it was not powerful enough to penetrate the navigation shield, if a only powerfull enough laser would be able to do it?

Now, you will again claim, that he could see the size of the ship and could therefore know that it is not able to provide enough energy for a laser that could be powerful enough. And I will say again, that the size of the ship can't be enough to really know that because it could have stored energy in accumulators.

Then you will say, that Worf has scanned the ship and would know, if there are stored enough energy and it the laser could get powerful enough to penetrate the navigation shield - assuming that it could be penetrated be an only powerfull enough laser.

Then I will say, that Picard couldn't know, what Worf has known, because Worf has only said, that they are locking lasers on the Enterprise, but not how powerful that lasers could get.

Then you will say, that Picard could have concluded - because Worf hasn't said that the lasers are a threat to the Enterprise - that they could not get powerfull enough to penetrate the navigation shield of the Enterprise - assuming that an only powerfull enough laser could penetrate the navigation shield.

I will say, that Worf hasn't had the opportunity to make such an report because Picard has cut him off with his question and has then conversed with his first officer. At that time, the main shields were still activated so that it was not necessary to warn Picard, that the laser could get powerfull enough to penetrate the navigation shield - assuming that an only powerfull enough laser could penetrate the navigation shield.

Then you will say, that he would have objected after Picard has given that order.

And I will say, that that is correct, if the laser could have get powerfull enough to penetrate the navigation shield - assuming that an only powerfull enough laser could penetrate the navigation shield. But at that moment, Picard has given already its order. That means he has already made up his mind with only the information he has had up to that moment.
And that information weren not enough to conclude with certainty that the ship could create a powerfull enough laser to penetrate the navigation shield - assuming that an only powerfull enough laser could penetrate the navigation shield.

And then we will start again.

We are goning only in rounds and - to be honest - I see no sense to continue that debate. You interpret that line as you want and I interpret that line as I want.

The advantage I have, is that I know that line even in another translation (German) and know, that the translator has interpreted the line the same as I have. But that is only an argument ad autoritate and as such not a really good argument.

Let us leave it at that.





P.S.
Only to your question regarding the black hole: Each energy can be equated with mass and each mass is causing gravity or a space-time curvature. The extent of that space-time curvature usually is depending on the mass that is causing it. A black hole would be an overkill. It would not only curves space-time, it would disrupt it. Light that passes the event horizon will not be able to escape the black hole. But that's not necessary to only deflect it, that means to reroute it. Each celestial body causes a space-time curvature to such an extent, that the light, that will follows the geodesic of that curved space-time will have a slightly altered course when it is leaving the gravitational field. Even our own sun bends light and it would be possible to use our own sun as a gravitational lense. But because the curvature of space-time is not that strong, the bending of the light is also not that strong. But that phenomena was already observed 1919 by Arthur Eddington. The focal point of the light, that is bended by the gravitation of our sun lies in a distance of 550 AE from the sun.
But more than a slight change in the course of a laser would not necessary to protect a ship even against the most powerfull lasers. A laser can be as powerfull as possible. As long as it is not hitting the ship because the navigation shield is creating a space-time curvature, which will deflect the laser to a path on which it will not hit the ship, the energy of the laser can't do harm to the ship.
And as I have shown (only objected by Kane Starkiller with an argument that - as I understand it - is not comprehensible because, it it would be true, masses wouldn't attract each other but repulse each other), the energy a laser has, is not relevant. A laser will always following the geodesic of a space-time curvature - regardless of its power. Insofar, the navigation shield is not creating a counter force. It simply curves space-time and with that it deflects light away from the ship. It only needs the energy that is needed to curve the space-time - regardless if there is a laser or not. And as we can see, Starfleet has the ability to create artificial gravity. It is able to curve space-time even without simulating a mass of an earth-like planet that would usually be necessary to create an earth-like gravity. And the gravity, Starfleet is creating on its ship, is very limited in range. The gravity of a real mass would reach far farther than the gravity that is created on Starfleet ships. These gravity covers only on deck. The gravity on each deck, even in each room, can be changed. If they would create the gravity by simulating an earth-like mass, that wouldn't be possible because the gravity of an earth-like planet is not that terminably. That means, that they have another possibility to curve space-time that doesn't need masses or energy that can be equated to the necessary masses. And to do that, they don't need much energy. The artificial gravity is still there, even if a ship has lost all its energy.
Why should Starfleet - with a technology that is based on the same principles - but only with slightly more energy - not be able to create a space-time curvature to an extent, that would usually need the mass of - for example - a neutron star and project it in the vicinity of the laser path so that the laser will be travelling through space-time that is strongly curved what would result in the deflection of the laser to another course on wich it will not hit the ship?

[Kane Starkiller]

Kane Starkiller,

to mee, it seems that you still don't understand the concept of curved space-time and not curved space-time.

As I have said, that momentum isn't defined in curved space-time -

although - as I have said also already several time - what is curved space-time and what is not curved space-time is only a question of perspective because there is no space area in that universe that isn't to a at least infinitesimal extent curved but the extent of an curvature is only observeable from outside of the curved space area by comparing the curvature with the seemingly straight space in which the observer is
- it should have been clear, that changes in velocity of masses or energies that are only caused by the curved space-time don't have a change in momentum.

No it is you who doesn't understand the concepts. The momentum isn't MATHEMATICALLY defined in the MATHEMATHICAL MODEL of curved space. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A long time ago gravity and friction were also undefined. Does that mean they don't exist?

That's the different to your really very stupid example with the fist and the face. The changes that are happening in that example aren't changes that happen only because of curved space-time. Other forces are working in that example too.

That was merely an example to show you that at any moment many forces are at work.

And only as a side note: I know, that light, if it is colliding with an object is tranferring momentum to that object. But you are claiming that it transfers momentum to that object even if it is not colliding with it only because the object causes with its mass and energy a space-time curvature that is affecting even light that wouldn't collide with the object (even after the change in its course) what would result in an anti-gravity like effect.

But it is colliding with it's GRAVITY FIELD. Do I need to quote Newton's third law:
To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Do yo get it? You push the beam of light and it pushes back. It doesn't matter how you pushed it.
Who is causing the space-time curvature? The planet. The space time curvature is anchored to the planet if you will. As the planet (or a black hole) moves it moves with it. It is projected from the mass, connected to the mass A PART OF THE MASS. Can you wrap your brain around that?

You still haven't answered the question, what would happen with light, that travels through space, that is always to at least an infinitesimal extent curved? The path of the light is always slightly changed. Would that mean, that light is always loosing momentum to the cause of the space-time curvature?

Don't lie. I already answered the question and it's YES. YES. YES. Did you get it now?

But we know, that light in vakuum travels always with the same speed. The only thing, gravitation is causing is a change in the course of the light and a shift in the wavelength (but the latter happens only because the wavelength of the light is not really changed but the space-time has another curvature so that the same wavelength will cover more or less space than in space that has another curvature due to less or more gravitation). But as far as I know, that has no effect on speed or energy of light. If the light is loosing momentum, shouldn't it get slower or weaker?

There truly are no limits to your ignorance. The HEADING of the beam is changed. It's VECTOR is changed in mathematical terms so therefore yes the momentum is changed. You do realize that momentum is not a simple scalar but a vector right? You learned that in school right?

But - as far as I know - that doesn't happen with light in curved space.
Besides the change in its course, light has the same properties when it leaves an area with a stronger space-time curvature than the area it was coming from and again enters in an area with the same space-time curvature as from the area it was coming from originally. Only the course is changed and that only because the light has followed the geodesics of the curved space-time. By following the geodesics of that space-time, it has come nearer to the mass that has created the curvature. The mass itself was even slightly (negligible) attracted to the light due to the negligible gravity the light is creating itself.

Yes the course and therefore the MOMENTUM is changed. Who cares wether the change in momentum is caused by space distortion or by a reflective surface for example? You keep repeating "space time geodesic" over and over again as if the word alone somehow helps explain what happened to momentum. All we need to know is that the heading and therefore the momentum of light was changed. It is COMPLETELY irrelevant what exactly caused that change. WHATEVER it was it inevitably absorbed light's momentum.
Not to mention that I have SHOWN YOU LINKS describing Earth probes slowing down Jupiter even though they don't collide with it. The momentum transfer occurs THROUGH THE GRAVITY FIELD. The same will happen with light.

If I understand you correct, you think, that light, when it gets changed in its course by gravitation, is tranfering momentum to the cause of that space-time curvature, what would result in an anti-gravity like effect. It seems that you think, that usually that anti-gravity like effect is not strong enough to push the cause of the stronger gravitation more away than the gravity (of the light [?]) is attracting it. But if there would be a really powerfull laser beam, that would have more to mass equated energy than the other gravitation causing object and therfore more momentum, that could be enough to push the other gravitation causing object away. But even that is contradicted by observations. If the light would create a stronger gravitation than another object, it would attract the other object more than it would be attracted by it. But that wouldn't change, that it is still attracted by the other object. No repulsive forces can be observed. So explain, what conditions have to be, that light can transfer so much momentum to a gravitation causing object, that it is overpowering the attraction between both objects?

What anti gravity effect? Of man that with light creating gravity was just an example. I'm not saying that light creates any kind of anti gravity field merely that it's momentum will push objects away if it is large enough.
Momentum of light is given by formula E/c where E is energy of light and c it's momentum. If light has an energy of 10^25W for example it's momentum will be 3.33*10^16kgm. That is like Voyager ramming another ship at the speed of 47,000km/s. Do you think that Enterprise can hold off Voyager ramming it at 47,000km/s? THINK FOR A MINUTE.

P.S.
I refuse to answer the other questions regarding Star Trek weapons, Star Trek artificial gravity and Star Trek warp drive for now. That has nothing to do with the core problem and would only sidetrack. We know even less about the working of that science fiction technics than we know about real physics. It is likely that these technics are physical impossible - but have to be accepted as possible because they were shown in the series and movies.
The problem now is a real physic problem. What happens when light is only following the geodesic of space-time to objects that are curving that space time?

Wrong. It has everything to do with the core problem since it DISPROVES your nonsensical theory that Federation ships can withstand INFINITE lasers. We KNOW that they can't since they get hurt by photon torpedoes and phasers which would be easier to stop.
Answer those points or finally admit that you haven't thought your theory through.

[Who is like God arbour]

Kane Starkiller,

as I see it, you are not able to explain it because you don't really understand it.

You have learned - as I have learned - that in a closed system momentum is constant. If something is changing the mass or the velocity (velocity = speed + direction) of an object, momentum is transfered to that something that is changing the mass or the velocity.

But when light is flying through curved space - as it is always doing - it doesn't really experience a change in its momentum. Neither the speed nor the direction is really changed. The light has in the space in which it is the same direction with the same speed. In that curved space-time there happens nothing to the light.

I have found an explanation in English on another side. Maybe that will help you more:

• • • • It has been observed that the gravitational fields of very massive objects (star sized) “bends” light rays which pass by it. The phenomenon, known as gravitational lensing has been recorded and verified. But what is going on here? Does this mean the light has mass to be attracted to gravity?
        
        According to general relativity gravity is manifest as disturbances or warping of the topology (or geometry) of space-time. Bodies which can gravitate warp the space-time in their vicinity which changes the path of nearby objects through space-time.
        
        Definitions: the path of an object through space-time is called a worldline, the worldline of a photon is called a geodesic. Ok, now here’s the crunch: light rays don’t actually bend in response to gravitation! The geodesic looks bent in three dimensions, but is actually a straight path through 4D. An analogy may help illustrate: imagine a plane flying overhead in three dimensions. Now suppose its image is directed onto a two dimensional irregular surface – lets say the plane’s shadow falls on some hilly ground. Now the plane may fly a straight path above in 3D while its 2D image appears to deviate all over the place! If you were constrained to the 2D surface you would perceive the plane’s path to curve. Everything follows naturally determined paths through space-time in this way, light does as well.

It's wonderfull how that description is exactly saying what I have said (or at least have tried to say) the whole time. The light does not really experience a change in its momentum. The path of the light only seems to be changed. But at the point, where the changing appears to happen - in the curved space-time, nothing really happens to the light.

Another side, on which it is explained good is Curved Spacetime:

• • • • Light travels along the shortest path between two points in spacetime (a geodesic). If the geodesic is curved, then the path of light is curved. Einstein proposed in his General Relativity theory that what is called gravity is really the result of curved spacetime.
        • • 
        The Earth does not orbit the Sun because the Sun is pulling on it. The Earth is simply following the shortest path in four-dimensional spacetime.
        
        If you have ever taken a long flight, you probably already know that the shortest distance between two cities is not a straight line. Non-stop flights from the United States to Europe fly over parts of Greenland. On a flat map the plane's flight path looks curved, but on a globe, that path is the shortest one! Light travels along a geodesic path between two points in spacetime. Far from any gravity source, the shortest distance is a straight line in three-dimensional space. Near a massive object, the shortest distance is curved in three-dimensional space. Stephen Hawking gives the nice analogy that what we see is like the curved motion of a shadow on the ground from a plane flying in a straight line over hilly terrain.

It is as I have said the whole time.