So you've got no evidence that says they do do it, and the other side has the fact that mass lowering fields are treated as novel thinking outside the box thinkingMr. Oragahn wrote:Obviously, since DS9 wasn't built as a space ship. As for the E-D, they had to fiddle with their warp tech because they had to cast a field on an object other than the spaceship.Praeothmin wrote:And again, the fact remains that every time they wanted to lower someting's mass, they had to create an artificial Warp field of some kind, usually through shields, deflector dish, or something else, never using the Impulse engine's own "mass reducing field"...
So this, to me, shows us no "mass reducing fields" from Impulse engines...
Everything fits in the right holes. It doesn't really matter if the MLT is not part of the sublight drive, but activated along it.
Darkstar's warp ramming page - an idea
-
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 2239
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Darkstar's warp ramming page - an idea
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Darkstar's warp ramming page - an idea
But question is wether use of MLF itself is novel thinking, or just fact that it is used
a) outside of shield boundaries on starship
b) on normally unmovable space station
a) outside of shield boundaries on starship
b) on normally unmovable space station
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
Re: Darkstar's warp ramming page - an idea
ML was novel when applied to DS9, which is not surprising since it was built to be a sitting duck, with modest maneuvering capability - no need to waste hardware space on that part of the design when it's going to be used every once in a decade. Not so much when it came to the E-D. They were merely applying a warp field and pushing it to its maximum.Lucky wrote:So you've got no evidence that says they do do it, and the other side has the fact that mass lowering fields are treated as novel thinking outside the box thinkingMr. Oragahn wrote:Obviously, since DS9 wasn't built as a space ship. As for the E-D, they had to fiddle with their warp tech because they had to cast a field on an object other than the spaceship.Praeothmin wrote:And again, the fact remains that every time they wanted to lower someting's mass, they had to create an artificial Warp field of some kind, usually through shields, deflector dish, or something else, never using the Impulse engine's own "mass reducing field"...
So this, to me, shows us no "mass reducing fields" from Impulse engines...
Everything fits in the right holes. It doesn't really matter if the MLT is not part of the sublight drive, but activated along it.
-
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 2239
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Darkstar's warp ramming page - an idea
And? That is proof they don't normally lower the mass of things. The idea to lower the mass of something they want to move is not something characters think of when they want to move large object which would be the case if you were right.Mr. Oragahn wrote:Praeothmin wrote:And again, the fact remains that every time they wanted to lower someting's mass, they had to create an artificial Warp field of some kind, usually through shields, deflector dish, or something else, never using the Impulse engine's own "mass reducing field"...
So this, to me, shows us no "mass reducing fields" from Impulse engines...Lucky wrote:Obviously, since DS9 wasn't built as a space ship. As for the E-D, they had to fiddle with their warp tech because they had to cast a field on an object other than the spaceship.
Everything fits in the right holes. It doesn't really matter if the MLT is not part of the sublight drive, but activated along it.ML was novel when applied to DS9, which is not surprising since it was built to be a sitting duck, with modest maneuvering capability - no need to waste hardware space on that part of the design when it's going to be used every once in a decade. Not so much when it came to the E-D. They were merely applying a warp field and pushing it to its maximum.Mr. Oragahn wrote: So you've got no evidence that says they do do it, and the other side has the fact that mass lowering fields are treated as novel thinking outside the box thinking
They needed Q to suggest it implying that the UFP doesn't normal use warp fields that way. If lowering the mass of an object/changing the gravitational constant was commonly done then the E-D's crew would have been trying it from the start.
If mass lower tech was commonly used the whole moving DS-9 would have been different. People would have been bemoaning the lack of massing lowering tech. It took a former E-D crew member to come up with the idea to lower DS-9's mass.
The examples of massing lowering are proof it is not commonly done for reasons that are not explained.
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
Re: Darkstar's warp ramming page - an idea
And perhaps that's because they're dumb?Lucky wrote:And? That is proof they don't normally lower the mass of things. The idea to lower the mass of something they want to move is not something characters think of when they want to move large object which would be the case if you were right.Mr. Oragahn wrote:Praeothmin wrote:And again, the fact remains that every time they wanted to lower someting's mass, they had to create an artificial Warp field of some kind, usually through shields, deflector dish, or something else, never using the Impulse engine's own "mass reducing field"...
So this, to me, shows us no "mass reducing fields" from Impulse engines...Lucky wrote:Obviously, since DS9 wasn't built as a space ship. As for the E-D, they had to fiddle with their warp tech because they had to cast a field on an object other than the spaceship.
Everything fits in the right holes. It doesn't really matter if the MLT is not part of the sublight drive, but activated along it.ML was novel when applied to DS9, which is not surprising since it was built to be a sitting duck, with modest maneuvering capability - no need to waste hardware space on that part of the design when it's going to be used every once in a decade. Not so much when it came to the E-D. They were merely applying a warp field and pushing it to its maximum.Mr. Oragahn wrote: So you've got no evidence that says they do do it, and the other side has the fact that mass lowering fields are treated as novel thinking outside the box thinking
They did it in Déjà Q. Why the hell would they suddenly forget about that clever trick when having to move a massive debris made of glowing whateverium?
Plot fiat hello!
O'brien didn't need Q. Or perhaps he's a Q in hiding?They needed Q to suggest it implying that the UFP doesn't normal use warp fields that way.
Not if they didn't think it could be safely done to an object other than the ship for which the system would have been built.If lowering the mass of an object/changing the gravitational constant was commonly done then the E-D's crew would have been trying it from the start.
Let's see the other end of the rainbow here. Geordi didn't have to think much to see that lowering the mass could be down with a "low level warp field". You know, almost nonchalantly. And this doesn't in any way dispute the fact that they can do it on their own ship. The very fact that Geordi didn't have to go through, like, the entire knowledge of the UFP on astrophysics to find the one true trick to lower the mass of an object, but on the contrary thought about it within ten seconds after Q's vague suggestion is another proof that there's no reason why the UFP wouldn't use it.
Look, O'brien easily thinks about it, and doesn't really struggle to apply that trick to a station not built as an instellar starship. Geordi doesn't even think hard about it, he just says oh let's apply a warp field and voila, mass lightened.
Frankly, this denial of yours is flabbergasting and tiring, and just to defend your opinion, you're ready to argue that the entire Federal community of scientists is as dumb as potato bags.
This is not serious.
No! Because DS9 is not a space ship.If mass lower tech was commonly used the whole moving DS-9 would have been different.
Unless it's so usual to starships that they don't really think about it now, and unless it's so known that it's entirely related to warp that it's not even worth arguing about it when it comes to a station that doesn't have any warp capability.People would have been bemoaning the lack of massing lowering tech.
Plus I don't really care about the extrapolations of what characters should have said (which could have happened off screen) when what happened proves my point.
Cause he's an engineer and then only him would have throught of something like that. How many times Scotty, Geordi and O'brien found solutions to their captain's problems, when all the captains asked was "can you get us out of there?" essentially?It took a former E-D crew member to come up with the idea to lower DS-9's mass.
Aside the fact that you didn't put the right quote headers when quoting people, your conclusion is absurdly wrong. Not to say that we've seen ships flying at warp at STL, accelerating to speeds well beyond anything that could be achieved on fusion thrusters alone.The examples of massing lowering are proof it is not commonly done for reasons that are not explained.
-
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 2239
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Darkstar's warp ramming page - an idea
Limitation on the technology/ship that we the viewer don't need to know makes more sense. The E-D wasn't exactly designed to tow moons and white dwarfs to begin with.Mr. Oragahn wrote: And perhaps that's because they're dumb?
They did it in Déjà Q. Why the hell would they suddenly forget about that clever trick when having to move a massive debris made of glowing whateverium?
Plot fiat hello!
You're just being silly now.Mr. Oragahn wrote: O'brien didn't need Q. Or perhaps he's a Q in hiding?
O'brien was a member of the E-D's crew at the time they did the mass lowering trick, had access to the people involved, and as an engineer/tech had reason to ask.
Anyone or thing could actually be a Q in disguise in Star Trek..
The issue of safety never came up in either episode, but then failure was not an option.Mr. Oragahn wrote: Not if they didn't think it could be safely done to an object other than the ship for which the system would have been built.
Geordi had to modify systems in unknown ways. He likely had to use systems in ways that they weren't designed to work like O'brien did.Mr. Oragahn wrote: Let's see the other end of the rainbow here. Geordi didn't have to think much to see that lowering the mass could be down with a "low level warp field". You know, almost nonchalantly. And this doesn't in any way dispute the fact that they can do it on their own ship. The very fact that Geordi didn't have to go through, like, the entire knowledge of the UFP on astrophysics to find the one true trick to lower the mass of an object, but on the contrary thought about it within ten seconds after Q's vague suggestion is another proof that there's no reason why the UFP wouldn't use it.
Look, O'brien easily thinks about it, and doesn't really struggle to apply that trick to a station not built as an instellar starship. Geordi doesn't even think hard about it, he just says oh let's apply a warp field and voila, mass lightened.
It's not like you can't modify electronics to do things they were not designed to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDyo_OQFdAc&feature=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYgoD6nkrZA&feature=
I'm not the one who is arguing that because a screwdriver can be used as a hammer it must be a normal use of the tool, and that it was designed to be used that way. You seem to be very much out of touch with reality in this case. It's stupidly easy to use things in ways not intended, and the real world has plenty of examples of stuff being designed for one purpose, but later being used for others.Mr. Oragahn wrote: Frankly, this denial of yours is flabbergasting and tiring, and just to defend your opinion, you're ready to argue that the entire Federal community of scientists is as dumb as potato bags.
This is not serious.
The fact remains that someone who you are claiming knowingly uses mass low tech and knew that he could apply said tech to the situation did not think to use said tech, and no one thought it odd. You don't see the problem with that logic?
By this reasoning there are no ships in Babylon 5. The fact of the matter is DS-9 was designed to tool around the Bajoran system.Mr. Oragahn wrote: No! Because DS9 is not a space ship.
We are talking about engineers who are intimately familiar with the workings of the StarShip drives like Miles, and not some random pilot.Mr. Oragahn wrote: Unless it's so usual to starships that they don't really think about it now, and unless it's so known that it's entirely related to warp that it's not even worth arguing about it when it comes to a station that doesn't have any warp capability.
Plus I don't really care about the extrapolations of what characters should have said (which could have happened off screen) when what happened proves my point.
Do you realize you are claiming claiming there was only one engineer there, and that science officers wouldn't know how to do the same things in theory at least? YOu are claiming that only one person knew how to do their job.Mr. Oragahn wrote: Cause he's an engineer and then only him would have throught of something like that. How many times Scotty, Geordi and O'brien found solutions to their captain's problems, when all the captains asked was "can you get us out of there?" essentially?
Warp =/= impulseMr. Oragahn wrote: Aside the fact that you didn't put the right quote headers when quoting people, your conclusion is absurdly wrong. Not to say that we've seen ships flying at warp at STL, accelerating to speeds well beyond anything that could be achieved on fusion thrusters alone.
Every case of sub-light speed warp I recall it was stated.
What makes you thing impulse drives are fusion thrusters?
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
Re: Darkstar's warp ramming page - an idea
It does not matter. They did it once, the scenario was very similar.Lucky wrote:Limitation on the technology/ship that we the viewer don't need to know makes more sense. The E-D wasn't exactly designed to tow moons and white dwarfs to begin with.Mr. Oragahn wrote: And perhaps that's because they're dumb?
They did it in Déjà Q. Why the hell would they suddenly forget about that clever trick when having to move a massive debris made of glowing whateverium?
Plot fiat hello!
Nice to see how suddenly he could do such a trick because he was part of the crew that lowered the mass of a moon, yet how funny that that same crew couldn't think about doing the same on that glowing fragment.You're just being silly now.Mr. Oragahn wrote: O'brien didn't need Q. Or perhaps he's a Q in hiding?
O'brien was a member of the E-D's crew at the time they did the mass lowering trick, had access to the people involved, and as an engineer/tech had reason to ask.
So we can't know that discoveries or hero luck aren't just Q tricks. Gut.Anyone or thing could actually be a Q in disguise in Star Trek...
Many issues didn't come up. Then again we have a contradiction you're obtusely denying, so I'm allowing enough of a margin to get things cleaned.The issue of safety never came up in either episode, but then failure was not an option.Mr. Oragahn wrote: Not if they didn't think it could be safely done to an object other than the ship for which the system would have been built.
Geordi had to modify systems in unknown ways. He likely had to use systems in ways that they weren't designed to work like O'brien did.Mr. Oragahn wrote: Let's see the other end of the rainbow here. Geordi didn't have to think much to see that lowering the mass could be down with a "low level warp field". You know, almost nonchalantly. And this doesn't in any way dispute the fact that they can do it on their own ship. The very fact that Geordi didn't have to go through, like, the entire knowledge of the UFP on astrophysics to find the one true trick to lower the mass of an object, but on the contrary thought about it within ten seconds after Q's vague suggestion is another proof that there's no reason why the UFP wouldn't use it.
Look, O'brien easily thinks about it, and doesn't really struggle to apply that trick to a station not built as an instellar starship. Geordi doesn't even think hard about it, he just says oh let's apply a warp field and voila, mass lightened.
And? Where is the problem here? He had to modify systems not only to cast a warp field on something else than the very ship he's working on, but to move an object of impossible mass which was probably a first for the E-D.
So it is not surprising that they had to apply modifications. As per Trek, it's quite a luck that they could actually achieve modifications.
Now, how does that negate all I said?
It does not. Once you'll admit that it was a relatively easy thing to pull, especially in such an unnatural way, you'll simply come to the conclusion that there is zero reason for this ML warp field capacity not to be a by default property on all starships.
Perhaps you should consider how long it takes to actually theorize a new branch of advanced physics, verify it, try to find an application and then design a system and finally built it after numerous tests. Then you'll concede that they have to have that capacity by default with all warp drives. You just can't invent such a thing out of the blue and apply it in some unnatural way.
It does not matter. Geordi didn't even make any particular effort to come with the idea. He didn't work for days, months or years to come with a mass lightening tech and then a trick to apply it to very complex and advanced systems.It's not like you can't modify electronics to do things they were not designed to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDyo_OQFdAc&feature=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYgoD6nkrZA&feature=
No.
He already knew that ML was a property of warp fields, and so all he had to do was to cast such a field in an unusual way. That is all. And the very fact that it was pulled out in the timespan of a fraction of an episode means that the UFP would be total retards for having engineers uncapable of building warp drives with such properties.
Bravo!I'm not the one who is arguing that because a screwdriver can be used as a hammer it must be a normal use of the tool, and that it was designed to be used that way.Mr. Oragahn wrote: Frankly, this denial of yours is flabbergasting and tiring, and just to defend your opinion, you're ready to argue that the entire Federal community of scientists is as dumb as potato bags.
This is not serious.
You seem to be very much out of touch with reality in this case. It's stupidly easy to use things in ways not intended, and the real world has plenty of examples of stuff being designed for one purpose, but later being used for others.
You just admitted that both technologies exist.
If we know that we can use a screwdriver as a hammer, it would be quite surprising that we would have not invented a hammer yet.
Think about it.
You know that doing such with a screwdriver is going to work because the principle is known and proven. You know about the effects of force applied in certain ways. You know you need mass and acceleration.
As we see, Geordi already knew about the mass lightening property of a warp field. How could he know that?
More, how could he or any UFP engineer know that and yet not have made that part of any warp drive, since it's a property of a warp field!?
See, your position doesn't make sense.
You're essentially arguing that Geordi invented a complete new branch of physics out of the blue and McGuyvered a MLT from the equivalent of spare parts.
It's like Mc Guyver trying to build hand grenades from pinecones, yet no scientist would have understood the principles of explosives and built a grenade before him.
That's so ludicrous. It really is.
Did Geordi get his memory wiped out. So perhaps O'brien is a Q and Geordi a droid?The fact remains that someone who you are claiming knowingly uses mass low tech and knew that he could apply said tech to the situation did not think to use said tech, and no one thought it odd. You don't see the problem with that logic?
No, that's what we call plot crap, inconsistencies.
Proof?By this reasoning there are no ships in Babylon 5. The fact of the matter is DS-9 was designed to tool around the Bajoran system.Mr. Oragahn wrote: No! Because DS9 is not a space ship.
And proof that it was as to be as much efficient as a starship?
Different goals make for different systems. A Ferrari will be built to move faster than a SCUD launcher, yet both are deemed to need some mobility.
A space station still remains a station that may need *some* mobility from time to time.
Contrary to a starship where mobility is at the core of the design.
Heck, DS9 was built with a fusion core, so that alone would also prove problematic in the prospect of creating warp fields.
Doesn't matter. Real logic trumps that.We are talking about engineers who are intimately familiar with the workings of the StarShip drives like Miles, and not some random pilot.Mr. Oragahn wrote: Unless it's so usual to starships that they don't really think about it now, and unless it's so known that it's entirely related to warp that it's not even worth arguing about it when it comes to a station that doesn't have any warp capability.
Plus I don't really care about the extrapolations of what characters should have said (which could have happened off screen) when what happened proves my point.
There's generally one single genius that comes with the super duper ideas in Trek, so cut that.Do you realize you are claiming claiming there was only one engineer there, and that science officers wouldn't know how to do the same things in theory at least? YOu are claiming that only one person knew how to do their job.Mr. Oragahn wrote: Cause he's an engineer and then only him would have throught of something like that. How many times Scotty, Geordi and O'brien found solutions to their captain's problems, when all the captains asked was "can you get us out of there?" essentially?
"Do you realize you are claiming claiming there was only one engineer there, and that science officers wouldn't know how to do the same things in theory at least?"
Huh, and what about UFP's entire scientific community? A sac of dumb pots who can't imagine a single second building warp drives with MLT inside, while one dude has no problem to think about it within ten seconds, and another doesn't really take much longer to think about applying a subspace field to do the same (when warp fields are subspace fields)?
Huh, because they are powered by fusion and can't really count on anything better?Warp =/= impulseMr. Oragahn wrote: Aside the fact that you didn't put the right quote headers when quoting people, your conclusion is absurdly wrong. Not to say that we've seen ships flying at warp at STL, accelerating to speeds well beyond anything that could be achieved on fusion thrusters alone.
Every case of sub-light speed warp I recall it was stated.
What makes you thing impulse drives are fusion thrusters?
And in the movies, we did see ships achieve STL warp speeds, with the sublight engines glowing as well, proving that both can work together. In fact, you still need regular trust to move into the warped reality, otherwise you just sitting in a warped space but not getting anywhere.
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Darkstar's warp ramming page - an idea
Actually, Mr. O, you got it wrong.
Ship in warp is stationary. What is moving, however, is "bubble" of time-space continuum surrounding the ship.
Visualization looks like this:
http://picard578.hostoi.com/startrek-vs ... _Field.png
And this is another:
http://tobias-lib.uni-tuebingen.de/voll ... 09warp.mpg
Ship in warp is stationary. What is moving, however, is "bubble" of time-space continuum surrounding the ship.
Visualization looks like this:
http://picard578.hostoi.com/startrek-vs ... _Field.png
And this is another:
http://tobias-lib.uni-tuebingen.de/voll ... 09warp.mpg
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
Re: Darkstar's warp ramming page - an idea
As far as I can tell, the first picture shows that warping space may make it look smaller, and you'll only bring one point closer to another with even more warping, but the moment you deactivate the warping, ALL points will return to their normal position.Picard wrote:Actually, Mr. O, you got it wrong.
Ship in warp is stationary. What is moving, however, is "bubble" of time-space continuum surrounding the ship.
Visualization looks like this:
http://picard578.hostoi.com/startrek-vs ... _Field.png
And this is another:
http://tobias-lib.uni-tuebingen.de/voll ... 09warp.mpg
There's actually no gain of relative distance in that system.
There can only be a gain if the ship disconnects itself from the reality it warps, and then gets displaced, to "anchor" itself to a new point of reality, so that when the warping is cut, the ship won't be pulled back to where it was when the warp field was applied, but stay where it actually is now.
It can simply gain nothing if it doesn't "move" as well relative to this warped reality, while at the same time excluding itself of this reality.
I can give you that it may not do it in conjunction with thrusters, but then there has to be some kind of hooking system in place that allows the ship to release the point of space it belonged to and grab a point of space close to its destination. However, that hooking system would still represent a motion of some sort.
As for the video, I have no idea what it tries to show. All it puts into evidence, as far as I can tell, is a symptomatic distortion that offers no practical gain for what seems to be the ship.
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Darkstar's warp ramming page - an idea
Plain and simple - no.
Ship creates its own "bubble" of normal timespace (original theory had it ripping off parts of already existing timespace, but there are some major problems with that) which is then transported to another place, along with ship contained within. Then, it is disbanded.
Original idea is somehow simpler, but it has some inherent flaws - like creating black holes at place ship has started from - so I have diceded to reformulate it a bit.
Video tries to show how would ship at warp appear to 3rd party.
Ship creates its own "bubble" of normal timespace (original theory had it ripping off parts of already existing timespace, but there are some major problems with that) which is then transported to another place, along with ship contained within. Then, it is disbanded.
Original idea is somehow simpler, but it has some inherent flaws - like creating black holes at place ship has started from - so I have diceded to reformulate it a bit.
Video tries to show how would ship at warp appear to 3rd party.
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
Re: Darkstar's warp ramming page - an idea
This "ripped apart" thing is what I alluded to with the snatch and grab part, since this is essential to allow the ship to move, and this is not quantified, but would theoretically represent a movement of its own, just as much as the "transport" part you speak of.Picard wrote:Plain and simple - no.
Ship creates its own "bubble" of normal timespace (original theory had it ripping off parts of already existing timespace, but there are some major problems with that) which is then transported to another place, along with ship contained within. Then, it is disbanded.
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Darkstar's warp ramming page - an idea
What I was saying is that, while ship at warp is moving relative to objects outside of bubble, it is still stationary relative to bubble itself and timespace inside bubble - which is reason why there is no time dilation involved.
-
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 2239
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Re: Darkstar's warp ramming page - an idea
And very different. You're making assumptions, and not meeting your burden of proof. This is like reading a post byMr. Oragahn wrote: It does not matter. They did it once, the scenario was very similar.
You need to prove the idea of trying to lower the stellar core's mass was not considered.Mr. Oragahn wrote: Nice to see how suddenly he could do such a trick because he was part of the crew that lowered the mass of a moon, yet how funny that that same crew couldn't think about doing the same on that glowing fragment.
You are assuming there are no limitation to the mass lowering fields they can make.
You are assuming they normally use mass lowering fields to do things. As things stand you have yet to meet your burden of proof. You are acting like StarWarsStarTrek at his/her worst right now.
For all we know the captain's chair is a Q. Anything could be a Q in disguise.Mr. Oragahn wrote: So we can't know that discoveries or hero luck aren't just Q tricks. Gut.
You are the one claiming Mass lowering fields are commonly used by the UFP, and have yet to prove your case, and now you are trying to change the topic.Mr. Oragahn wrote: Many issues didn't come up. Then again we have a contradiction you're obtusely denying, so I'm allowing enough of a margin to get things cleaned.
You are assuming the Warp field normally lowers the ships mass, but have provided no evidence that it does. You have not met your burden of proof.Mr. Oragahn wrote:
And? Where is the problem here? He had to modify systems not only to cast a warp field on something else than the very ship he's working on, but to move an object of impossible mass which was probably a first for the E-D.
So it is not surprising that they had to apply modifications. As per Trek, it's quite a luck that they could actually achieve modifications.
Now, how does that negate all I said?
It does not. Once you'll admit that it was a relatively easy thing to pull, especially in such an unnatural way, you'll simply come to the conclusion that there is zero reason for this ML warp field capacity not to be a by default property on all starships.
Perhaps you should consider how long it takes to actually theorize a new branch of advanced physics, verify it, try to find an application and then design a system and finally built it after numerous tests. Then you'll concede that they have to have that capacity by default with all warp drives. You just can't invent such a thing out of the blue and apply it in some unnatural way.
All you have shown is that the modifications are easy to make.Mr. Oragahn wrote: It does not matter. Geordi didn't even make any particular effort to come with the idea. He didn't work for days, months or years to come with a mass lightening tech and then a trick to apply it to very complex and advanced systems.
No.
He already knew that ML was a property of warp fields, and so all he had to do was to cast such a field in an unusual way. That is all. And the very fact that it was pulled out in the timespan of a fraction of an episode means that the UFP would be total retards for having engineers uncapable of building warp drives with such properties.
You have yet to prove warp fields are normally used to lower mass. Mr.O says so is not proof.
Straw man?Mr. Oragahn wrote: Bravo!
You just admitted that both technologies exist.
If we know that we can use a screwdriver as a hammer, it would be quite surprising that we would have not invented a hammer yet.
Think about it.
You know that doing such with a screwdriver is going to work because the principle is known and proven. You know about the effects of force applied in certain ways. You know you need mass and acceleration.
As we see, Geordi already knew about the mass lightening property of a warp field. How could he know that?
More, how could he or any UFP engineer know that and yet not have made that part of any warp drive, since it's a property of a warp field!?
See, your position doesn't make sense.
You're essentially arguing that Geordi invented a complete new branch of physics out of the blue and McGuyvered a MLT from the equivalent of spare parts.
It's like Mc Guyver trying to build hand grenades from pinecones, yet no scientist would have understood the principles of explosives and built a grenade before him.
That's so ludicrous. It really is.
You have yet to prove warp fields are normally used to lower mass. I can use tools designed for one thing to do another, but that does not mean the tool I am using was designed to do what I'm using it for. You claim mass lowering fields are commonly used by the UFP, prove your claim.
Considering the E-D could move the iron moon without mass lowering fields being used why would they use a power hungry system they don't need to use?Mr. Oragahn wrote: Did Geordi get his memory wiped out. So perhaps O'brien is a Q and Geordi a droid?
No, that's what we call plot crap, inconsistencies.
In the first or second episode of DS-9 a barely working DS-9 hall ass to the worm hole with only something like 6 working engines. The fact of the matter is that those engines are stupidly over powered just to keep a stable orbit.Mr. Oragahn wrote:Proof?
And proof that it was as to be as much efficient as a starship?
Different goals make for different systems. A Ferrari will be built to move faster than a SCUD launcher, yet both are deemed to need some mobility.
A space station still remains a station that may need *some* mobility from time to time.
Contrary to a starship where mobility is at the core of the design.
Heck, DS9 was built with a fusion core, so that alone would also prove problematic in the prospect of creating warp fields.
Romulans had FTL capable ships that seemingly had only fusion reactors.
Since you're argument lacks logic and evidence....Mr. Oragahn wrote: Doesn't matter. Real logic trumps that.
I realize how stupid, and unsuported your arguments are in this case. Mr.O says isn't proof that :Mr. Oragahn wrote: There's generally one single genius that comes with the super duper ideas in Trek, so cut that.
"Do you realize you are claiming claiming there was only one engineer there, and that science officers wouldn't know how to do the same things in theory at least?"
Huh, and what about UFP's entire scientific community? A sac of dumb pots who can't imagine a single second building warp drives with MLT inside, while one dude has no problem to think about it within ten seconds, and another doesn't really take much longer to think about applying a subspace field to do the same (when warp fields are subspace fields)?
1) Mass lowering tech is commonly used to move things.
2) You have yet to show mass lowering tech would be cheaper or provides some major advantage then moving something without mass lowering tech.
They use fusion reactors as power sources tells us nothing about how they move the ship. Mr.O says so is not evidence.Mr. Oragahn wrote: Huh, because they are powered by fusion and can't really count on anything better?
Considering the impulse engines never stop glowing as far as i can tell, the impulse engines glowing means nothing. There are tons of things on Star Trek ships that seem to constantly glow for no reason.Mr. Oragahn wrote: And in the movies, we did see ships achieve STL warp speeds, with the sublight engines glowing as well, proving that both can work together. In fact, you still need regular trust to move into the warped reality, otherwise you just sitting in a warped space but not getting anywhere.
Sub-FTL use of warp does not have anything to do with the Impulse engines. MR.O says so is not proof.
- Mith
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am
Re: Darkstar's warp ramming page - an idea
Well, considering that Voyager doesn't scorch the area beneath it when it takes off from those one or two planets, I would think that some sort of mass reduction is going on. Insisting that these ships move at high point C is rather stupid on their own. A combination of mass reduction and anti-gravity technology would explain the issues.
It's not like most sci-fi doesn't have some sort of variant upon these technologies. If your ship can lift off without scorching the ground under it, chances are you're using MLT or anti-gravity. Probably both.
It's not like most sci-fi doesn't have some sort of variant upon these technologies. If your ship can lift off without scorching the ground under it, chances are you're using MLT or anti-gravity. Probably both.
- Praeothmin
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 3920
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
- Location: Quebec City
Re: Darkstar's warp ramming page - an idea
Although we hear many times these ships move at "high point c", when do we actually see this happen?
When we see ships moving at "Full Impulse", we can actually see them move onscreen, and it's usually a couple hundred meters per second...
And since we know ST does have anti-grav, is it so hard to believe they are indeed using it for planetary landings and lift-offs?
When we see ships moving at "Full Impulse", we can actually see them move onscreen, and it's usually a couple hundred meters per second...
And since we know ST does have anti-grav, is it so hard to believe they are indeed using it for planetary landings and lift-offs?