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.
And this contradict what I've said in what way?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.
We've been over this before.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.
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.
They explain shield frequency on screen in Best of Both Worlds on screen.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
Here you go: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.
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://news.discovery.com/space/galaxie ... 140527.htmhttp://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://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.