Does the mass lightening page need a rewrite?

Discussion of the Open Database, its mission, how to recruit editors and contributors, any on-going problems, and any other matters relating to Starfleet Jedi's resident wiki.
Post Reply
Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Does the mass lightening page need a rewrite?

Post by Lucky » Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:57 am

I find the mass lightning page rather poorly writen, and think it needs at least a parsial rewrite when it comes to Star Trek. One of the examples of mass lightning isn't even mass lightning.
http://starfleetjedi.net/wiki/index.php?title=Mass_lightening wrote: At least two examples of encompassing large objects in subspace fields to reduce their mass.

▪ In TNG "Deja Q", the Enterprise-D used its warp nacelles to generate a subspace field that reduced the mass of a moon from an estimated 10E16 kg to just 2.5E9 kg, reducing its mass by a factor of about 4 million.

▪ In DS9 "Emissary", the station generated a subspace field from its deflector shield emitters that reduced its mass enough that it could complete a 160 million km trip that would normally take approximately two months on the few working thrusters available in less than a day.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what is written, but this part of the mass lightening page seems to need a rewrite to me.
TNG: Deja Q wrote:
DATA: Geordi is trying to say that changing the gravitational constant of the universe is beyond our capabilities. 

Q: Oh. In that case, never mind. 

(Crusher enters) 

Q: Ah, Doctor Crusher. I see Starfleet has shipped you back into exile. 

DATA: Q says he has hurt his back. 

CRUSHER: Ah ha. Well, if I didn't see it with my own eyes, I wouldn't believe it. According to this, he has classic back trauma. Muscle spasms. 

Q: I've been under a lot of pressure lately. Family problems. 

CRUSHER: Well. don't expect too much sympathy from me. You've been a pain in our backside often enough. 

Q: Your bedside manner is admirable, Doctor. I'm sure your patients recover quickly just to get away from you. 

LAFORGE: You know, this might work. We can't change the gravitational constant of the universe, but if we wrap a low level warp field around that moon, we could reduce its gravitational constant. Make it lighter so we can push it.
Q: Glad I could help. Ow. I think.
This quote appears to be saying that the Enterprise-D's crew plans to alter the strength gravitational attraction between objects in a small area while leaving the mass of the objects unchanged.

DS9: Emissary wrote: DAX: Couldn't you modify the subspace field output of the deflector generators just enough to create a low-level field around the station? 

O'BRIEN: So we could lower the inertial mass? 

DAX: If you can make the station lighter, those six thrusters will be all the power we'd need. 

O'BRIEN: This whole station could break apart like an egg if it doesn't work. 

DAX: Even if it does work, we're still going to need help from Starfleet once we get there. 

O'BRIEN: The Enterprise is still the nearest starship. They could reach us in two days.
This sounds like Deep Space 9 was not designed with mass lowering fields in mind.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3918
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Does the mass lightening page need a rewrite?

Post by Praeothmin » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:49 pm

Lucky, in both your very examples, they specifically mention mass-lightening:
LAFORGE: You know, this might work. We can't change the gravitational constant of the universe, but if we wrap a low level warp field around that moon, we could reduce its gravitational constant. Make it lighter so we can push it.
The only way I know of reducing an object's gravitational constant is by reducing its mass, thus, lightening it...
Just as Geordi states...
DAX: Couldn't you modify the subspace field output of the deflector generators just enough to create a low-level field around the station? 

O'BRIEN: So we could lower the inertial mass?
Again, lowering mass, i.e., lightening of the mass...

I really don't think it can be clearer...

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5827
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Does the mass lightening page need a rewrite?

Post by Mike DiCenso » Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:57 am

I don't see any need to rewrite the page unless you can explain better as to why it is "poorly written".
-Mike

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Does the mass lightening page need a rewrite?

Post by Lucky » Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:27 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:I don't see any need to rewrite the page unless you can explain better as to why it is "poorly written".
-Mike
▪ In DS9 "Emissary", the station generated a subspace field from its deflector shield emitters that reduced its mass enough that it could complete a 160 million km trip that would normally take approximately two months on the few working thrusters available in less than a day.
This fails to illastrate how dangerous this was. It makes it seem as if mass lightening is easy.
O'BRIEN: This whole station could break apart like an egg if it doesn't work.
The characters weren't even sure it would work.
▪ In TNG "Deja Q", the Enterprise-D used its warp nacelles to generate a subspace field that reduced the mass of a moon from an estimated 10E16 kg to just 2.5E9 kg, reducing its mass by a factor of about 4 million.
In Deja Q they do nothing with mass, but mess with gravity.
LAFORGE: You know, this might work. We can't change the gravitational constant of the universe, but if we wrap a low level warp field around that moon, we could reduce its gravitational constant. Make it lighter so we can push it.
If they planned to do anything to the moon's mass then they would have said so.

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Does the mass lightening page need a rewrite?

Post by Lucky » Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:45 am

Praeothmin wrote:Lucky, in both your very examples, they specifically mention mass-lightening:
LAFORGE: You know, this might work. We can't change the gravitational constant of the universe, but if we wrap a low level warp field around that moon, we could reduce its gravitational constant. Make it lighter so we can push it.
The only way I know of reducing an object's gravitational constant is by reducing its mass, thus, lightening it...
Just as Geordi states...
Geordi says nothing about lowering mass. You are horribly incorrect.

What you know or don't know is irrelevant. They say nothing of altering the moon's mass in Deja Q, and therefor you can not assume they alter the moon's mass. They have antigravity thrusters, and fire graviton beams. They know a bit more about gravity then we do, and that means you are in no position to contradict them.
Praeothmin wrote:
DAX: Couldn't you modify the subspace field output of the deflector generators just enough to create a low-level field around the station? 

O'BRIEN: So we could lower the inertial mass?
Again, lowering mass, i.e., lightening of the mass...

I really don't think it can be clearer...
Perhaps you should read my post instead of trying to connect unrelated topics.

I was saying that it should be noted that DS9 was not designed to use a mass lowering field, nothing in star trek is stated to make use of the mass lowering technology, and said mass lowering technology is stated to be dangerous to use when they plan to use to lower DS9's mass.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3918
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Does the mass lightening page need a rewrite?

Post by Praeothmin » Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:54 pm

Lucky wrote:Geordi says nothing about lowering mass. You are horribly incorrect.

What you know or don't know is irrelevant. They say nothing of altering the moon's mass in Deja Q, and therefor you can not assume they alter the moon's mass. They have antigravity thrusters, and fire graviton beams. They know a bit more about gravity then we do, and that means you are in no position to contradict them.
Hhm, yeah, Goerdi mentions modifying the asteroid's gravitational constant...

Which means he infers to gravity...

Thus, he mentions mass...
If he alters the gravitational constant of the asteroid, mentioning "making it lighter", as in, "less massive", then he does mean mass lightening...
Whether you understood this or not is irrelevant, he does specifically says two things referring to mass lightening... :)
Perhaps you should read my post instead of trying to connect unrelated topics.

I was saying that it should be noted that DS9 was not designed to use a mass lowering field, nothing in star trek is stated to make use of the mass lowering technology, and said mass lowering technology is stated to be dangerous to use when they plan to use to lower DS9's mass.
Perhaps you should read your own examples before criticizing other's responses...
O'Brian states that DS9, a Space Station without Warp engines, wasn't designed to lower an object's mass...

Notice how in both your examples, the mass lightening was achieved using Subspace Fields, normally created through the use of a Warp Engine, something neither the asteroid nor DS9 possessed, which is why these fields had to be provided A- by the E-D, and B- by modifying the station's equipment so it could emit those...

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Does the mass lightening page need a rewrite?

Post by Lucky » Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:59 am

Praeothmin wrote:
Hhm, yeah, Goerdi mentions modifying the asteroid's gravitational constant...

Which means he infers to gravity...

Thus, he mentions mass...
If he alters the gravitational constant of the asteroid, mentioning "making it lighter", as in, "less massive", then he does mean mass lightening...
Whether you understood this or not is irrelevant, he does specifically says two things referring to mass lightening... :)
You are behaving like an ICS apologist, and jumping through an absurd number of hoops to make it seem Goerdi and Q meant something other then what they said while being rather rude..

You don't seem to understand what aUniversal Constant is. Changing an objects mass does not effect the gravitational constant. You are confusing g and G here. If the universal constants were different, the universe as we know it would not exist.

G(the gravitational constant) is something that is the same everywhere. What Q and Goerdi are talking about doing is akin to saying they are going to raise or lower the speed of light in a vacuum.

Using a warp field to alter an Universal Constant makes perfect sense do to what we see in "Remember Me".
Praeothmin wrote: Perhaps you should read your own examples before criticizing other's responses...
O'Brian states that DS9, a Space Station without Warp engines, wasn't designed to lower an object's mass...
You're awful touchy about this. Perhaps you should walk away given how rude your posts are quickly becoming.

Warp engines are irrelevant. Warp drives would have no reason to lower the mass of an object normally anyway as they are designed to warp space/time. If Star Trek powers even use mass lightening they would use it in conjunction with their stl drives.

Praeothmin wrote: Notice how in both your examples, the mass lightening was achieved using Subspace Fields, normally created through the use of a Warp Engine, something neither the asteroid nor DS9 possessed, which is why these fields had to be provided A- by the E-D, and B- by modifying the station's equipment so it could emit those...
You honestly aren't reading my posts in this thread are you? You just made claims that the quotes in the O.P. disprove. If you aren't going to stick to canon you should just stop.

The mass lightening used in "Emissary" did not require a warp field.

The altering of G in Deja Q was done with a warp field. Warp Fields are something very specific. They are like universes in their own right

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3918
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Does the mass lightening page need a rewrite?

Post by Praeothmin » Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:31 pm

Yeah, ok, I suspected this would go down this route...

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: Does the mass lightening page need a rewrite?

Post by mojo » Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:02 am

you have both been so persuasive on this topic that i have literally changed my mind with each post. my hat is off to you both.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3918
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Does the mass lightening page need a rewrite?

Post by Praeothmin » Tue Oct 16, 2012 2:42 pm

Oh, just wanted to add this:
Subspace Fields and a Warp Fields are the same thing...

This is what a Subspace Field, or Warp Field, does:
This has the physical effect of reducing the inertial mass of any object encompassed by the field
Just wanted to throw that in here...

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Does the mass lightening page need a rewrite?

Post by Lucky » Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:21 am

[
Praeothmin wrote:Oh, just wanted to add this:
Subspace Fields and a Warp Fields are the same thing...

This is what a Subspace Field, or Warp Field, does:
wrote: This has the physical effect of reducing the inertial mass of any object encompassed by the field
Just wanted to throw that in here...
Provide the relevant quotes from the episodes, and intelligent replies. I don't care about what M.A. says, and it seems everything is a sub-space something in Star Trek. I've seen too many flaws in M.A. articles to except them blindly, and your purposely unfinished replies are immature and trollish in a bad way.

So basically you are saying the writers of Star Trek are often inconsistent with how they use terms?

If you want to use M.A. as a source you should read this page: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Parallel_universe
Schisms wrote:LAFORGE: Good question. The emissions are coming from a tertiary subspace domain, but subspace has an infinite number of domains. It's like a huge honeycomb with an endless number of cells. We need to isolate the exact cell that these emissions are coming from.
Cold Fire wrote:TANIS: Because Suspiria is your future. She's part of us, and we're a part of her. All the Ocampa here are connected in a way that can't be put into words. And if you develop your abilities far enough, Suspiria will invite you to go with her to Exotia. 


KES: Exotia? 


TANIS: A place the humanoids on this ship call a subspace layer. A place of pure thought, pure energy. A place of the mind. Think about it, Kes. When you're ready, Suspiria will embrace you. Goodnight.
Sub-Space is a place which would put it in contradiction to your claim, but let's be honest, and just except that they use the term Sub-Space as a catchall in Star Trek to the point it is meaningless.


Schisms wrote:NOG: Sir, I can't get through to anybody. Communications are down. 


O'BRIEN: They're jamming our signals by generating a rotating EM pulse. 


SISKO: Can you clear it? 


O'BRIEN: I'm trying.
Here we have an example of Sub-Space communications being jammed. Are we to believe that Electromagnetic radiation is a form of sub-space radiation?

_____
Now back on topic
_____
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xdbPhnfFEI
Deja Q wrote: Q: This is obviously the result of a large celestial object passing through at near right angles to the plane of the star system. Probably a black hole. 


DATA: Can you recommend a way to counter the effect? 


Q: Simple. Change the gravitational constant of the universe. 


LAFORGE: What? 


Q: Change the gravitational constant of the universe, thereby altering the mass of the asteroid. 


LAFORGE: Redefine gravity? How am I supposed to do that?
They out right state they are messing with G in order to mess with the mass of the moon.
Remember Me wrote: TRAVELLER: Your species have very narrow perceptions of time and space and thought. When Beverly Crusher was caught in the static warp bubble, she created her own reality. Her thoughts at the precise moment she was trapped determined its shape and form.
Warp Fields can be used to create miniature universes. That means they can be used to tune the strength of the Universal Constants directly.
Chrysalis wrote:(A big display screen with the title The End Is Near!) 


JACK: The fact is that the universe is going to stop expanding and it is going to collapse in on itself. We've got to do something before it's too late. 


PATRICK: How much time do we have left? 


JACK: Sixty trillion years, seventy at the most. 


PATRICK: Oh, no. 


(Lauren has Nog's biography on a PADD.) 


LAUREN: Isn't Nog handsome? 


JACK: What are you doing? We are running out of time! 


(Sarina enters.) 


JACK: Sarina, thank God! Nobody else around here ever listens to me. 


SARINA: What is it, Jack? What's wrong?


JACK: There's too much matter. The universe is too heavy for its own good. 


LAUREN: You need to lighten the load. 


JACK: Yes, yes, yes, exactly. We have to find some way to decrease the mass. 


SARINA: Of the entire universe? 


JACK: That's the whole point. 


SARINA: Is that possible? 


PATRICK: That's what we're trying to figure out, Sarina. 


LAUREN: What if we found a way to manipulate subspace? 


JACK: Change the cosmological constant. 


PATRICK: That would do the trick. 


SARINA: You can't change the cosmological constant. 


JACK: You know something, Sarina? We are trying to save existence as we know it, and all you can do is criticise! 


SARINA: I'm sorry. 


JACK: Thank you. Now, where were we? 


PATRICK: Manipulating subspace. 


JACK: Right. Right.
This is what they are talking about altering at the end of the scene: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

Here we see Sub-Space and Warp fields can be used to alter universal Constants. That means that if they say they are going to alter a universal constant they mean they are going to alter a universal constant i would think.

_-_-_-_
On a related note:
Logically they would actually be increasing a ship's mass normally in Star Trek given how the FTL system is suppose to work, and how easily they create things like black holes and similar things.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Does the mass lightening page need a rewrite?

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:21 pm

Lucky wrote: The mass lightening used in "Emissary" did not require a warp field.
The altering of G in Deja Q was done with a warp field. Warp Fields are something very specific. They are like universes in their own right
Emissary: Not directly, but warp field are absolutely subspace based.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Warp_field
So someone fiddles with subspace fields and manages to lower the mass of an object.

I don't see the problem with that page.

Only that it may need to extend to other universes, perhaps?
Or is it exclusively ST vs SW?

Post Reply