Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Post by Lucky » Mon Sep 01, 2014 2:29 am

359 wrote: Only at Earth's surface, at 2,000 km up the gravitational acceleration is between 5 and 6 m*s^-2 rather than 9.8 m*s^-2 at the surface.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

The amount of acceleration one experiences within a gravitational field is entirely dependent on the mass of the attractor and the distance between the attractor and ones self. However the force is also dependent on ones mass, hence m*s^-2 is equivalent to N*kg^-1.

So g is not a measurement of gravity as was argued, but is a quantity of acceleration associated with Earth gravity at sea level, as I have said for the past few posts. And in any case, it has nothing to do directly with Cochranes as was originally disputed, whether or not Cochranes measure gravity.
359 wrote: More directly it is measured in force or weight (same thing) as is the result of calculation gravitational pull. Of course calculating acceleration takes no more information on top of that, its just not the standard.
And this contradict what I've said in what way?

359 wrote: There is disputing that:

From the first image you show a readout detailing several aspects of the Enterprise-D's main shields. There are two pieces of information: the graviton field output measured in what are presumably megacochranes and the shield modulation measured in megahertz. Now you assert that the first number is a direct measurement of amount of gravity being poured out by the Enterprise's shields. However we know that gravity can be used to induce subspace distortions, and I would assert that these are very specific and fine-tuned gravity emissions. As such it would not be a stretch to argue, with the frequency of change in said emissions being shown, that the measurement is describing the resulting subspace field (which they actually care about) and not the gravitational emissions themselves. Of course by extension such specific emissions would be associated with that numerical value as well, but indirectly.

So the numbers displayed would be measuring the subspace field being generated by fine-tuned gravity emissions at a specific frequency. A real life example is how we often measure power plant generation in megawatts and totally do not care to know the exact RPM of our electric generator turbines. We simply say that the generator turbine output is so-and-so watts.
We've been over this before.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/219573/frequency wrote: frequency,  in physics, number of waves that pass a fixed point in unit time; also the number of cycles or vibrations undergone during one unit of time by a body in periodic motion. A body in periodic motion is said to have undergone one cycle or one vibration after passing through a series of events or positions and returning to its original state. See also angular velocity; simple harmonic motion.
If the period, or time interval, required to complete one cycle or vibration is 1/2 second, the frequency is 2 per second; if the period is 1/100 of an hour, the frequency is 100 per hour. In general, the frequency is the reciprocal of the period, or time interval—i.e., frequency = 1/period = 1/(time interval). The frequency with which the Moon revolves about the Earth is slightly more than 12 cycles per year; the frequency of the A string of a violin is 440 vibrations or cycles per second.
The symbols most often used for frequency are f and the Greek letters nu (ν) and omega (ω). Nu is used more often when specifying electromagnetic waves, such as light, X rays, and gamma rays; omega is mostly used by electrical engineers in referring to alternating current. Usually frequency is expressed in the hertz unit, named in honour of the 19th-century German physicist Heinrich Rudolf Hertz, one hertz being equal to one cycle per second, abbreviated Hz; one kilohertz (kHz) is 1,000 Hz, and one megahertz (MHz) is 1,000,000 Hz.
In spectroscopy another unit of frequency, the wave number, is sometimes used.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/263882/hertz wrote: hertz, unit of frequency. The number of hertz (abbreviated Hz) equals the number of cycles per second. The frequency of any phenomenon with regular periodic variations can be expressed in hertz, but the term is used most frequently in connection with alternating electric currents, electromagnetic waves (light, radar, etc.), and sound. It is part of the International System of Units (SI), which is based on the metric system. The term hertz was proposed in the early 1920s by German scientists to honour the 19th-century German physicist Heinrich Hertz. The unit was adopted in October 1933 by a committee of the International Electrotechnical Commission and is in widespread use today, although it has not entirely replaced the expression “cycles per second.”
Franchise: Star Trek Series: The Next Generation Season: 3 Episode: 26 Title: Best of Both Worlds Part 1 wrote: SHELBY: Mister La Forge has a plan to modulate shield nutation. Hopefully, that'll hold them off for awhile. 


LAFORGE: At the same time, we'll be retuning phasers to higher EM base emitting frequencies to try to disrupt their subspace field.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nutation wrote: Definition of NUTATION
1 archaic :  the act of nodding the head

2:  oscillatory movement of the axis of a rotating body (as the earth) :  wobble

3:  a spontaneous usually spiral movement of a growing plant part
They explain shield frequency on screen in Best of Both Worlds on screen.

359 wrote: Okay, you have convinced me of interaction, but not of them being at all similar as has been argued. I also expect that it takes specific gravitational effects to affect subspace, hence the need for frequencies and such. Although I'm not sure how the last three examples make any difference, sure with a few assumptions the last one means something, but duh damage to subspace makes warp not possible, warp is a subspace drive system.
Here you go:
Franchise: Star Trek Series: The Next Generation Season: 4 Episode: 19 Title: The Nth Degree wrote: WORF: Captain, I am picking up subspace distortion. 


PICARD: Mister Data? 


DATA: This disturbance is the result of a highly charged graviton field emanating from our warp nacelles. It is creating a severe bias in the subspace continuum. 


PICARD: Mister Barclay, are you responsible for this graviton field disturbance? 


BARCLAY [OC]: Yes, sir, I'm altering subspace in a way that's never been conceived of before. I'm fairly certain it will allow us to travel half-way across the galaxy in a matter of only 


PICARD: Mister Barclay, I want you to stop this experiment for now. 


BARCLAY [OC]: Captain, if you'd only allow me to show 


PICARD: Mister Barclay, this is a direct order. Discontinue whatever it is you're doing. 


BARCLAY [OC]: I really would rather not, sir. I'm positive that you'll be pleased with the result once I've finished showing 


WORF: Audio is disconnected. We may speak freely. 


RIKER: How soon before the ODN process is in place? 


DATA: I have been monitoring Geordi's progress. It will be operational in seventeen minutes. 


TROI: Captain, let me go to the holodeck and try and talk to him. 


WORF: Sir, the subspace distortion continues to increase.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/649117/wormhole wrote: wormhole, solution of the field equations in German-born physicist Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity that resembles a tunnel between two black holes or other points in space-time. Such a tunnel would provide a shortcut between its end points. In analogy, consider an ant walking across a flat sheet of paper from point A to point B. If the paper is curved through the third dimension so that A and B overlap, the ant can step directly from one point to the other, thus avoiding a long trek.
The possibility of short-circuiting the enormous distances between stars makes wormholes attractive for space travel. Because the tunnel links moments in time as well as locations in space, it also has been argued that a wormhole would allow travel into the past. However, wormholes are intrinsically unstable. While exotic stabilization schemes have been proposed, there is as yet no evidence that these can work or indeed that wormholes exist.
http://news.discovery.com/space/galaxie ... 140527.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_well
The subspace distortion in this case is a wormhole, and wormholes are basically blackholes, and blackholes are basically gravity wells taken to the extreme.

359
Jedi Knight
Posts: 490
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Post by 359 » Tue Sep 02, 2014 3:03 pm

Lucky wrote:
359 wrote:Only at Earth's surface, at 2,000 km up the gravitational acceleration is between 5 and 6 m*s^-2 rather than 9.8 m*s^-2 at the surface.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

The amount of acceleration one experiences within a gravitational field is entirely dependent on the mass of the attractor and the distance between the attractor and ones self. However the force is also dependent on ones mass, hence m*s^-2 is equivalent to N*kg^-1.

So g is not a measurement of gravity as was argued, but is a quantity of acceleration associated with Earth gravity at sea level, as I have said for the past few posts. And in any case, it has nothing to do directly with Cochranes as was originally disputed, whether or not Cochranes measure gravity.
359 wrote:More directly it is measured in force or weight (same thing) as is the result of calculation gravitational pull. Of course calculating acceleration takes no more information on top of that, its just not the standard.
And this contradict what I've said in what way?
Here's what it contradicts:
Lucky wrote:Looks like g is a measurement of the gravitational pull that is also used to measure events that put similar stresses on things to me.
Because g is a constant. It's just like a "dozen" of something, just in this case the something is always m/s/s and there are always 9.8-ish of them. It can not be used to measure the gravitational field itself, only its effects at a specific altitude.
Lucky wrote:
359 wrote:There is disputing that:

From the first image you show a readout detailing several aspects of the Enterprise-D's main shields. There are two pieces of information: the graviton field output measured in what are presumably megacochranes and the shield modulation measured in megahertz. Now you assert that the first number is a direct measurement of amount of gravity being poured out by the Enterprise's shields. However we know that gravity can be used to induce subspace distortions, and I would assert that these are very specific and fine-tuned gravity emissions. As such it would not be a stretch to argue, with the frequency of change in said emissions being shown, that the measurement is describing the resulting subspace field (which they actually care about) and not the gravitational emissions themselves. Of course by extension such specific emissions would be associated with that numerical value as well, but indirectly.

So the numbers displayed would be measuring the subspace field being generated by fine-tuned gravity emissions at a specific frequency. A real life example is how we often measure power plant generation in megawatts and totally do not care to know the exact RPM of our electric generator turbines. We simply say that the generator turbine output is so-and-so watts.
We've been over this before.
Yes, we have. And as for the frequency question, I am well aware of what frequency measures and what the unit hertz means (s^-1). And frequency fits just fine with what I argue. Just as it works to measure the rate spacing of bits of data in any serial communications protocol. The oscillation in this case refers to the even and consistent timing of changes in graviton field geometry (used to generate the subspace field) which takes place in 3.89 nanosecond intervals (257.4 MHz).
Lucky wrote:They explain shield frequency on screen in Best of Both Worlds on screen.
What they do is "modulate shield nutation" which presumably occurs at a consistent frequency. But it is described quite clearly as not being normal shield behavior and thus would have nothing to do with the engineering display which shows standard operating parameters several years later.
Lucky wrote:
359 wrote:Okay, you have convinced me of interaction, but not of them being at all similar as has been argued. I also expect that it takes specific gravitational effects to affect subspace, hence the need for frequencies and such. Although I'm not sure how the last three examples make any difference, sure with a few assumptions the last one means something, but duh damage to subspace makes warp not possible, warp is a subspace drive system.
Here you go:
"highly charged graviton field" Hmm... Descriptive...
"graviton field disturbance" Also not too descriptive.

Yep, we have confirmation that a "graviton field disturbance" can in fact be used to affect subspace. But it doesn't say how or why, so this still fits quite well with my previously given explanation:
359 wrote:gravity can be used to induce subspace distortions, and I would assert that these are very specific and fine-tuned gravity emissions.
Lucky wrote:The subspace distortion in this case is a wormhole, and wormholes are basically blackholes, and blackholes are basically gravity wells taken to the extreme.
You assume that the generated effect is related to a true theoretical wormhole despite its description as "altering subspace in a way that's never been conceived of before" emphasis on the "never conceived before" bit.


As much as I may enjoy bantering on about physical unit definitions and subspace's relation to gravity, this has wandered far off topic from impulse drives, shields, and subspace fields.

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

Re: Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations

Post by Lucky » Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:54 am

359 wrote: Here's what it contradicts:
Lucky wrote: Looks like g is a measurement of the gravitational pull that is also used to measure events that put similar stresses on things to me.
Because g is a constant. It's just like a "dozen" of something, just in this case the something is always m/s/s and there are always 9.8-ish of them. It can not be used to measure the gravitational field itself, only its effects at a specific altitude.
G is the gravitational Constant though gravity may not be constant.

g is the measurement of the local gravity well, and varies drastically from location to location. 1 g on the Moon is very different from 1 g on Earth. It is not a constant. Humans generally only care about Earth g do to being from there.

359 wrote: Yes, we have. And as for the frequency question, I am well aware of what frequency measures and what the unit hertz means (s^-1). And frequency fits just fine with what I argue. Just as it works to measure the rate spacing of bits of data in any serial communications protocol. The oscillation in this case refers to the even and consistent timing of changes in graviton field geometry (used to generate the subspace field) which takes place in 3.89 nanosecond intervals (257.4 MHz).
I seem to be missing your point here.

Frequency in Hertz just means something happens X number of times a second in a predictable pattern, and nothing more. It tells us nothing, and can be arbitrarily changed on a whim in universe without consequence.
359 wrote: What they do is "modulate shield nutation" which presumably occurs at a consistent frequency. But it is described quite clearly as not being normal shield behavior and thus would have nothing to do with the engineering display which shows standard operating parameters several years later.
??? We can't be watching or reading the same thing, nor can we be reading remotely the same definitions. The nutation is always there. It is a "wobble" in the shield that is the frequency.
359 wrote: "highly charged graviton field" Hmm... Descriptive...
"graviton field disturbance" Also not too descriptive.

Yep, we have confirmation that a "graviton field disturbance" can in fact be used to affect subspace. But it doesn't say how or why, so this still fits quite well with my previously given explanation:
359 wrote: gravity can be used to induce subspace distortions, and I would assert that these are very specific and fine-tuned gravity emissions.
Ignoring evidence is against the rules last I checked. You ignore what a wormhole is.

You really should not keep claiming space and subspace are any different then soil and subsoil without showing evidence.

You claim that shields are made of subspace something, and yet they suck at stopping things in subspace.

A specific weakness in Federation shields is that you can use subspace transporters in TNG: Bloodlines is used to bypass the shields and the same thing basically happens in TNG: Night terrors, and in TOS: The Doomsday Machine the shields do nothing to stop a subspace attack implying that the shields only exist in real space. If deflector shields are subspace fields then they should always interact with subspace phenomena.
359 wrote: You assume that the generated effect is related to a true theoretical wormhole despite its description as "altering subspace in a way that's never been conceived of before" emphasis on the "never conceived before" bit.

1) You're taking the lines out of context as Barclay had kind of gone crazy and become rather arrogant by that time. It can't be trusted to be meant literally, and there is no reason to believe Barclay had time to go over every paper ever written.

You're also assuming that Barclay even with his increased intelligence is aware of every theoretical paper written on the topic.

2) No one before or after uses wormhole drives even though it is proven possible in The Nth Degree. The closest you get is Voy: Scorpion when Voyager enters Fluidic Space.

359 wrote: As much as I may enjoy bantering on about physical unit definitions and subspace's relation to gravity, this has wandered far off topic from impulse drives, shields, and subspace fields.
Then agree to disagree rather then making posts that appear to ignore what I post in response.

Post Reply