View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:59 am



Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Saxton's Hypermatter and Brian Young's Accelerations 
Author Message
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1839
Reply with quote
I'm prejudiced against the notion of FTL impulse (or "impulse supercruise" as I like to call it).

As for the radial geodesic . . . I still have issues with the notion that this is somehow related to the ship's innards. I mean, sure, it may have been that she was working out all the myriad details of the ship before tackling the problem of the timing of the security net drop, but they only had like 90 seconds before the bomb detonated and if she was trying to figure out the ship and doing the calculation out loud . . . it just doesn't work for me.

In other words, it should've been a relatively simple thing to know the maximum acceleration of the ship, work out its distance and velocity at such-and-such times, and reverse-calculate a number where you're going as fast as possible while far enough away. I would have issues doing it in 90 seconds by hand, but I am not a Federation science officer . . . that is to say, it can be done.

The only reason to start talking about spatial contraction whatzits would be in reference to a subspace distortion. And the only reason to start talking about a subspace distortion would be if the local environment required that discussion.

That is to say, it doesn't matter if the ship is propelled by an antimatter rocket, subspace field coils, beer farts, or fairy wishes. If it has a maximum acceleration then it is what it is, and this situation would seem to call for it so you would just plug in that number. At worst you might need to stop and account for the extra mass of ketracel white that was beamed aboard or the reduction in reactants that would occur over the next 90 seconds, but I wouldn't think that the white would be related to spatial contraction and I wouldn't think 90 seconds of go-go-juice would directly relate to the quote either.

Overcomplicating the math would not seem the prudent move given the time constraints, so the logical presumption is that she was only making it as complicated as it needed to be. And it probably only needed to be complicated in the context of subspace spatial contraction due to either the impending detonation of the facility's reactor or due to the security net itself.

Meanwhile, those who like magic bullets now have one . . . got a low range visual and big range dialog in Trek? Tag it as a spatial contraction due to subspace field distortion and move on.

Of course, I kid . . . magic bullets of that nature are not commonly used by those who favor Trek.


Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:08 am
Profile WWW
Jedi Master

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 2239
Reply with quote
2046 wrote:
I'm prejudiced against the notion of FTL impulse (or "impulse supercruise" as I like to call it).
Why?

2046 wrote:

Meanwhile, those who like magic bullets now have one . . . got a low range visual and big range dialog in Trek? Tag it as a spatial contraction due to subspace field distortion and move on.

Of course, I kid . . . magic bullets of that nature are not commonly used by those who favor Trek.
It's specifically stated in Voyager: Coda that Federation shuttles use anti-gravity thrusters. It is an easy explanation for mild size, and ships appearing to be closer then they should at times, but some mistakes are just too drastic like Way of the Warrior. Sometimes you really have to wonder if the visual effects teams bothered to read the dialog.


Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:17 am
Profile
Jedi Master

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 2239
Reply with quote
359 wrote:
I don't think so, it was an enriched ultritium device, nothing fancy. Nothing space contracting.
Doesn't that stuff exceed E=MC^2?


359 wrote:
Shields do have a subspace component, but that shouldn't matter for calculating engine accelerations. Further they do have a subspace contraction as seen here with metaphysic shields, but it seems unlikely that such a contraction would have an effect on things inside or outside the shield perimeter. And even if shields contract the space inside them, the engines would still have to be partially subspace in order for that to matter, assuming that the spacial contraction would otherwise affect the ship and the explosion the same.

In the quote they are clearly doing calculations about engine acceleration and are factoring in a subspace distortion, which I posit was being generated from the impulse engines. This is consistent with their ability to exceed the speed of light. Which was stated later in that episode with them being able to make it back to a Federation starbase from deep inside Dominion territory within 17 years on impulse power only, which presumably given the context of the episode is more than 17 light-years away. Or a multitude of other instances throughout Star Trek which reference FTL impulse drive.

Additionally here we have a reference from TNG: "Descent" we have a readout showing a shuttlecraft which possesses impulse engines rated in milicochrines, a measurement of subspace field distortion. Between all of this it is quite evident that impulse drive makes use of a subspace field for enhanced propulsion.
A Cochrane is a unit used to measure gravity. Using g as the standard wouldn't make sense after all.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Cochrane_(unit)
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albu ... en0613.jpg


In the quote they are clearly doing calculations about engine acceleration and are factoring in a subspace distortion, which I posit was being generated from the impulse engines. This is consistent with their ability to exceed the speed of light. Which was stated later in that episode with them being able to make it back to a Federation starbase from deep inside Dominion territory within 17 years on impulse power only, which presumably given the context of the episode is more than 17 light-years away. Or a multitude of other instances throughout Star Trek which reference FTL impulse drive.

Additionally here we have a reference from TNG: "Descent" we have a readout showing a shuttlecraft which possesses impulse engines rated in milicochrines, a measurement of subspace field distortion. Between all of this it is quite evident that impulse drive makes use of a subspace field for enhanced propulsion.[/quote]


Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:22 am
Profile
Jedi Knight

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 434
Reply with quote
Lucky wrote:
Doesn't that stuff exceed E=MC^2?
Possibly, but that doesn't make it subspace, its just weird.

Lucky wrote:
A Cochrane is a unit used to measure gravity. Using g as the standard wouldn't make sense after all.
No, a Cochrane is a measurement of subspace distortion. The relation between gravitons and subspace is that complex graviton geometries can cause subspace effects, not that subspace == gravity.


2048 wrote:
I'm prejudiced against the notion of FTL impulse (or "impulse supercruise" as I like to call it).
I can understand why one wouldn't like the idea, but it is demonstrated a multitude of times throughout the show.

2048 wrote:
As for the radial geodesic . . . I still have issues with the notion that this is somehow related to the ship's innards. I mean, sure, it may have been that she was working out all the myriad details of the ship before tackling the problem of the timing of the security net drop, but they only had like 90 seconds before the bomb detonated and if she was trying to figure out the ship and doing the calculation out loud . . . it just doesn't work for me.

In other words, it should've been a relatively simple thing to know the maximum acceleration of the ship, work out its distance and velocity at such-and-such times, and reverse-calculate a number where you're going as fast as possible while far enough away. I would have issues doing it in 90 seconds by hand, but I am not a Federation science officer . . . that is to say, it can be done.

The only reason to start talking about spatial contraction whatzits would be in reference to a subspace distortion. And the only reason to start talking about a subspace distortion would be if the local environment required that discussion.

That is to say, it doesn't matter if the ship is propelled by an antimatter rocket, subspace field coils, beer farts, or fairy wishes. If it has a maximum acceleration then it is what it is, and this situation would seem to call for it so you would just plug in that number. At worst you might need to stop and account for the extra mass of ketracel white that was beamed aboard or the reduction in reactants that would occur over the next 90 seconds, but I wouldn't think that the white would be related to spatial contraction and I wouldn't think 90 seconds of go-go-juice would directly relate to the quote either.

Overcomplicating the math would not seem the prudent move given the time constraints, so the logical presumption is that she was only making it as complicated as it needed to be. And it probably only needed to be complicated in the context of subspace spatial contraction due to either the impending detonation of the facility's reactor or due to the security net itself.
Presumably the field would be generated by the ship's engines and therefore be quite relevant to the ship's acceleration. But I don't really have an explanation beyond possibly them not knowing the ships acceleration off hand (seemingly unlikely), or how changes in some variables would affect it. But the context does strongly suggest that this is entirely a matter of the propulsion system. In any case it is still suggested that is the case by the evidence.

Not to mention the readout on a shuttle craft's engines in TNG: "Descent" rating the impulse drive in Cochranes (again, a unit of subspace distortion). The concept of semi-subspace-aided-impulse is consistent with every piece of evidence.


Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:19 am
Profile
Jedi Master

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 2239
Reply with quote
359 wrote:
Possibly, but that doesn't make it subspace, its just weird.
IF it exceeds E=MC^2 it has rather exotic and unquantifable properties.


359 wrote:
No, a Cochrane is a measurement of subspace distortion. The relation between gravitons and subspace is that complex graviton geometries can cause subspace effects, not that subspace == gravity.
I've provided examples of a Cochrane being used as the same way we use g, and you can't get around it. The simplest rationalization I can think of is that g is what subspace fields are measured in do to be gravity related. It fits what we see in "The Nth Degree".

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?




359 wrote:
I can understand why one wouldn't like the idea, but it is demonstrated a multitude of times throughout the show.
It is also required for certain TOS episodes to be possible.


Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:39 am
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6860
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
359 wrote:
Not to mention the readout on a shuttle craft's engines in TNG: "Descent" rating the impulse drive in Cochranes (again, a unit of subspace distortion). The concept of semi-subspace-aided-impulse is consistent with every piece of evidence.


Most interesting. I once was engaged in a debate here where I argued that high impulse speeds would very well be supported by warp fields (subspace fields).
The speeds simply were too absurd for normal reaction drives.


Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:11 am
Profile
Jedi Knight

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 434
Reply with quote
Lucky wrote:
359 wrote:
Possibly, but that doesn't make it subspace, its just weird.
IF it exceeds E=MC^2 it has rather exotic and unquantifable properties.
Yeah, its weird just like I said.

Additionally we don't know the total mass of explosives, so we don't know if it violated mass/energy ratios.

Furthermore, on a more speculative note, lest assume they had a lot of ultritium in that bomb. They called it "enriched ultritium" so let's assume that by that they meant ultritium doped with anti-matter. With enough of it one could easily explain the extensive explosion.

But that's just one instance, there are more times that they violate E=mc^2, such as TOS: "Obsession". But I, rather than try and explain all these in some strange and exotic fashion, I simply say: Okay, that happened. Because we really have no idea how that universe truly works and not to mention I feel no need to explain every little inconsistency, and I'm willing just to say: yeah, Star Trek's inconsistent a lot of the time. It is for this reason that we look at so many different examples, to find where commonality lies it the tangled mess.

So yes, this is a weird event (what isn't?). But to say that everything weird is subspace is to say essentially everything in Star Trek is pure subspace. And that, too me, is far overanalyzing the universe because writers didn't know/care about a few physical impossibilities in a science fiction show.


Lucky wrote:
I've provided examples of a Cochrane being used as the same way we use g, and you can't get around it. The simplest rationalization I can think of is that g is what subspace fields are measured in do to be gravity related. It fits what we see in "The Nth Degree".
No, you never provided examples showing subspace is in no uncertain terms one and the same with gravity. Your own quote from TNG: "Nth Degree" shows quite the opposite in fact. You have shown a strong correlation between specific gravity manipulations and changes in subspace.

This indicates that gravity and subspace are separate but interact. Plus, how can a field/force be a physical dimension or set of dimensions as subspace is? DS9: "The Visitor" refers to subspace as a place. TNG: "Remember Me" treats subspace as a place. TNG: "Schisms" describes subspace as: "subspace has an infinite number of domains. It's like a huge honeycomb with an endless number of cells." So explain to me how that is equal to the curvature of space-time?

A g isn't even a measurement of gravity, but of acceleration (which gravity can be one cause of, hence the g=9.8 m/s/s is based on gravitational acceleration on earth and near the surface) much like mach numbering for sonic scale velocities. Or how a dozen is twelve.


Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:51 pm
Profile
Jedi Master

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 2239
Reply with quote
359 wrote:
Yeah, its weird just like I said.

Additionally we don't know the total mass of explosives, so we don't know if it violated mass/energy ratios.

Furthermore, on a more speculative note, lest assume they had a lot of ultritium in that bomb. They called it "enriched ultritium" so let's assume that by that they meant ultritium doped with anti-matter. With enough of it one could easily explain the extensive explosion.

But that's just one instance, there are more times that they violate E=mc^2, such as TOS: "Obsession". But I, rather than try and explain all these in some strange and exotic fashion, I simply say: Okay, that happened. Because we really have no idea how that universe truly works and not to mention I feel no need to explain every little inconsistency, and I'm willing just to say: yeah, Star Trek's inconsistent a lot of the time. It is for this reason that we look at so many different examples, to find where commonality lies it the tangled mess.

So yes, this is a weird event (what isn't?). But to say that everything weird is subspace is to say essentially everything in Star Trek is pure subspace. And that, too me, is far overanalyzing the universe because writers didn't know/care about a few physical impossibilities in a science fiction show.
Obsession involved a bomb of unknown design and an ounce of antimatter.


359 wrote:
No, you never provided examples showing subspace is in no uncertain terms one and the same with gravity. Your own quote from TNG: "Nth Degree" shows quite the opposite in fact. You have shown a strong correlation between specific gravity manipulations and changes in subspace.

This indicates that gravity and subspace are separate but interact. Plus, how can a field/force be a physical dimension or set of dimensions as subspace is? DS9: "The Visitor" refers to subspace as a place. TNG: "Remember Me" treats subspace as a place. TNG: "Schisms" describes subspace as: "subspace has an infinite number of domains. It's like a huge honeycomb with an endless number of cells." So explain to me how that is equal to the curvature of space-time?
Subspace is space/time in the same way the atmospheres have different layers. It's no different then the Exosphere, Thermosphere, Mesosphere, Stratosphere, and Troposphere being part of a larger whole, and solves all the contradictions that I'm aware of..

359 wrote:
A g isn't even a measurement of gravity, but of acceleration (which gravity can be one cause of, hence the g=9.8 m/s/s is based on gravitational acceleration on earth and near the surface) much like mach numbering for sonic scale velocities. Or how a dozen is twelve.
1) g is a measurement of an objects gravitational pull. 1 g is normally the strength of the pull of Earth's gravity(roughly speaking). Gravity makes thing literally fall towards each other.

2) Shuttles in Star Trek use gravity based propulsion systems(VOY: Coda) similarly to the White Star from Babylon 5 on top of their impulse egines. Heck, we don't really know what impulse engines are.


Sun Aug 10, 2014 1:26 am
Profile
Jedi Knight

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 434
Reply with quote
Lucky wrote:
Obsession involved a bomb of unknown design and an ounce of antimatter.
The bomb was an ounce of antimatter in magnetic containment.

KIRK: Antimatter seems our only possibility.
SPOCK: An ounce should be sufficient. We can drain it from the ship's engines and transport it to the planet surface in a magnetic vacuum field.


Lucky wrote:
Subspace is space/time in the same way the atmospheres have different layers. It's no different then the Exosphere, Thermosphere, Mesosphere, Stratosphere, and Troposphere being part of a larger whole, and solves all the contradictions that I'm aware of..
That's just supposition, we don't know what subspace is or how it works. There aren't really "contradictions" that can be solved by an explanation any more than just letting it be subspace, something unknown and beyond our level of knowledge. We know the start and end effects in some situations, but we do not know how or why it works. To say we do can only introduce issues with contradiction.

Lucky wrote:
1) g is a measurement of an objects gravitational pull. 1 g is normally the strength of the pull of Earth's gravity(roughly speaking). Gravity makes thing literally fall towards each other.
No, a g is a measurement of acceleration, that's all. Cars acceleration is sometimes measured in g's, particularly crash or turn accelerations. Fighterjet acceleration, both linear and turning, is often measured in g's. The g of a gravitational field is only usefull for determining field strength when coupled with a distance as the pull is stronger at lower distances. A g's unit is meters*second^-2 that is acceleration, it just so happens to be defined as the amount of acceleration experianced on earth due to gravity at sea level. One could measure magnetcly induced acceleration in g's, and that has absolutely nothing to do with gravity.

Lucky wrote:
2) Shuttles in Star Trek use gravity based propulsion systems(VOY: Coda) similarly to the White Star from Babylon 5 on top of their impulse egines. Heck, we don't really know what impulse engines are.
Yes, they have anti-grav engines used to fly without wings.


Sun Aug 10, 2014 5:24 pm
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6860
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
359 wrote:
Lucky wrote:
359 wrote:
Possibly, but that doesn't make it subspace, its just weird.
IF it exceeds E=MC^2 it has rather exotic and unquantifable properties.
Yeah, its weird just like I said.

Additionally we don't know the total mass of explosives, so we don't know if it violated mass/energy ratios.

Furthermore, on a more speculative note, lest assume they had a lot of ultritium in that bomb. They called it "enriched ultritium" so let's assume that by that they meant ultritium doped with anti-matter. With enough of it one could easily explain the extensive explosion.

But that's just one instance, there are more times that they violate E=mc^2, such as TOS: "Obsession". But I, rather than try and explain all these in some strange and exotic fashion, I simply say: Okay, that happened. Because we really have no idea how that universe truly works and not to mention I feel no need to explain every little inconsistency, and I'm willing just to say: yeah, Star Trek's inconsistent a lot of the time. It is for this reason that we look at so many different examples, to find where commonality lies it the tangled mess.

So yes, this is a weird event (what isn't?). But to say that everything weird is subspace is to say essentially everything in Star Trek is pure subspace. And that, too me, is far overanalyzing the universe because writers didn't know/care about a few physical impossibilities in a science fiction show.


Lucky wrote:
I've provided examples of a Cochrane being used as the same way we use g, and you can't get around it. The simplest rationalization I can think of is that g is what subspace fields are measured in do to be gravity related. It fits what we see in "The Nth Degree".
No, you never provided examples showing subspace is in no uncertain terms one and the same with gravity. Your own quote from TNG: "Nth Degree" shows quite the opposite in fact. You have shown a strong correlation between specific gravity manipulations and changes in subspace.

This indicates that gravity and subspace are separate but interact. Plus, how can a field/force be a physical dimension or set of dimensions as subspace is? DS9: "The Visitor" refers to subspace as a place. TNG: "Remember Me" treats subspace as a place. TNG: "Schisms" describes subspace as: "subspace has an infinite number of domains. It's like a huge honeycomb with an endless number of cells." So explain to me how that is equal to the curvature of space-time?

A g isn't even a measurement of gravity, but of acceleration (which gravity can be one cause of, hence the g=9.8 m/s/s is based on gravitational acceleration on earth and near the surface) much like mach numbering for sonic scale velocities. Or how a dozen is twelve.


Perhaps they wrap subspace around the ship?
So you've got both a field and a dimension around your ship.
Or something...




...
Rite?


Tue Aug 12, 2014 8:32 pm
Profile
Jedi Master

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 2239
Reply with quote
359 wrote:
The bomb was an ounce of antimatter in magnetic containment.

KIRK: Antimatter seems our only possibility.
SPOCK: An ounce should be sufficient. We can drain it from the ship's engines and transport it to the planet surface in a magnetic vacuum field.
I'm well aware of that quote.
1) Why is the source of the antimatter relevant?

2) What is the antimatter reacting with?

359 wrote:
That's just supposition, we don't know what subspace is or how it works. There aren't really "contradictions" that can be solved by an explanation any more than just letting it be subspace, something unknown and beyond our level of knowledge. We know the start and end effects in some situations, but we do not know how or why it works. To say we do can only introduce issues with contradiction.
Subspace itself despite fanon is very well defined in Star Trek. Subspace is a set of physical locations within the greater space/time continuum(TNG: Schisms, Voy: Cold Fire, Voy: Real Life), and are not pat of a separate space/time continuum(TNG: Parallels). These locations are often described as layers(Voy: Real Life), and can be likened to pocket dimensions where the laws of physics may not be exactly the same as normal space.


What a Subspace field is, is far less defined as the writers seemed to use it as a catch all for weird stuff. They are usually created through gravitational phenomenon or electromagnetic phenomenon.

359 wrote:
No, a g is a measurement of acceleration, that's all. Cars acceleration is sometimes measured in g's, particularly crash or turn accelerations. Fighterjet acceleration, both linear and turning, is often measured in g's. The g of a gravitational field is only usefull for determining field strength when coupled with a distance as the pull is stronger at lower distances. A g's unit is meters*second^-2 that is acceleration, it just so happens to be defined as the amount of acceleration experianced on earth due to gravity at sea level. One could measure magnetcly induced acceleration in g's, and that has absolutely nothing to do with gravity.
acceleration stress, physiological changes that occur in the human body in motion as a result of rapid increase of speed. Rapid acceleration and surges in acceleration are felt more critically than are gradual shifts. Pilots are especially subject to the effects of acceleration because of the high speeds at which they travel. Acceleration forces are measured in units of gravitational acceleration, or g. A force of 3 g, for example, is equivalent to an acceleration three times that of a body falling near Earth.
At Earth’s surface the acceleration of gravity is about 9.8 metres (32 feet) per second per second. Thus, for every second an object is in free fall, its speed increases by about 9.8 metres per second. At the surface of the Moon the acceleration of a freely falling body is about 1.6 metres per second per second.
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.


359 wrote:
Yes, they have anti-grav engines used to fly without wings.
And they use gravity engines to do that as well, or are you forgetting those rather large nacelles they put on their ships(TNG: Nth Degree)? Gravity in general is the Federation's toy.


Fri Aug 15, 2014 7:59 pm
Profile
Jedi Knight

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 434
Reply with quote
Lucky wrote:
I'm well aware of that quote.
1) Why is the source of the antimatter relevant?
Its not, I just included it for completeness sake. The point is its not some unknown design powered by anti-matter, the bomb is the anti-matter.

Lucky wrote:
2) What is the antimatter reacting with?
Well, if I had to guess...
Matter.
Like, the atmosphere and stuff. :)

Lucky wrote:
Subspace itself despite fanon is very well defined in Star Trek. Subspace is a set of physical locations within the greater space/time continuum(TNG: Schisms, Voy: Cold Fire, Voy: Real Life), and are not pat of a separate space/time continuum(TNG: Parallels). These locations are often described as layers(Voy: Real Life), and can be likened to pocket dimensions where the laws of physics may not be exactly the same as normal space.
Which is mostly what I have always said. Save for the bit regarding the separation of space-time and subspace, but that's simply minutia I don't really want do delve further into. I don't think space-time and subspace exist within the same set, let alone laws of physics, I would describe it to be more akin to another universe than a separate dimension. But again for these purposes the distinction inconsequential. Simply put: a field of gravity is not a subspace phenomena, manifestation, bubble, field, or kitchen sink. Thus a Cochrane unit is not a measurement of gravity but of subspace distortion (to reiterate: subspace not space-time). Cochranes are used to measure subspace field distortion, specific gravity patterns may be used to cause distortion, but the distortion itself is not a gravitational field, but a subspace field forming because of gravitational interactions.

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.
A g is 9.8 m/s/s.
That's it.

Now, the reason why a g is that value is because, on earth at the surface, that's the acceleration caused by gravity. The strength of that pull, and thus the force we experience, is our weight. What it is not is a measure of field strength. The acceleration due to gravity is the only way in which a g is related to gravity, and thats only on Earth, at the surface.

Lucky wrote:
And they use gravity engines to do that as well, or are you forgetting those rather large nacelles they put on their ships(TNG: Nth Degree)? Gravity in general is the Federation's toy.
Nothing at all was forgotten, VOY: "Coda" was simply referencing emergency anti-grav systems. The warp engines had nothing to do with it.


Sat Aug 16, 2014 12:10 am
Profile
Jedi Master

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 2239
Reply with quote
359 wrote:
No, you never provided examples showing subspace is in no uncertain terms one and the same with gravity. Your own quote from TNG: "Nth Degree" shows quite the opposite in fact. You have shown a strong correlation between specific gravity manipulations and changes in subspace.

This indicates that gravity and subspace are separate but interact. Plus, how can a field/force be a physical dimension or set of dimensions as subspace is? DS9: "The Visitor" refers to subspace as a place. TNG: "Remember Me" treats subspace as a place. TNG: "Schisms" describes subspace as: "subspace has an infinite number of domains. It's like a huge honeycomb with an endless number of cells." So explain to me how that is equal to the curvature of space-time?

A g isn't even a measurement of gravity, but of acceleration (which gravity can be one cause of, hence the g=9.8 m/s/s is based on gravitational acceleration on earth and near the surface) much like mach numbering for sonic scale velocities. Or how a dozen is twelve.
I've never claimed subspace is gravity. I've stated that subspace fields are related to gravity, and seem to be or are closely related to the gravity wells

GRAVITY and g
Everything is in constent free fall towards everything else do to gravity. 1g is normally the measurement of the gravitational pull the Earth exerts on other objects.

Gravity is measured as an acceleration do to the fact gravity's effect is to cause things to fall towards each other, and because of this Gravity is often visualized as an indentation on a flexible and stretchy surface caused by a heavy object. It is a simplification because space/time seems to be more then 1 dimensional plain.

SPACE and SUBSPACE
The connection between subspace and space appears to be physical in nature as you have shown. What warps or damage one and you seemingly warps or damage the other.

COCHRANE and GRAVITY
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albu ... en0613.jpg
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Cochrane_(unit)
A Cochrane is a unit of measurement used to describe/measure gravity. There is no disputing this.

SUBSPACE, SUBSPACE FIELDS and GRAVITY
Ent: Cold Front the warpore is called a "Gravimetric Displacement Manifold"
TNG: Nth Degree the nacelles are shown to be meant for generating and manipulating gravitons. The nacelles are what create warp fields
DS9: Once More Into The Breach an "Inverse Graviton Bursts" disrupt warp fields
TNG: Force of Nature, Voy: The Omega Directive shows damage to subspace makes use of warp impossible
TNG: Deja Q the warp field causes subspace compression
ENT: Cold Front the warp coils which are in the nacelles generate subspace displacement fields

It would appear that gravity somehow creates subspace fields. One might even argue that the gravity well the warping of space/time is a subspace field.

Happy now?


Thu Aug 21, 2014 2:52 am
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1839
Reply with quote
Just an observation, but his thread has involved the two stretches of traditional subspace theory that bug me most… the "honeycomb" thing that always bugged the crap out of me, and the "gravimetric field displacement manifold" for a warp core, same notation. Enterprise also featured the warp coil IIRC as a separate thing in the theft episode, which was strange and seems like a bad retread of Voyager's Borg transwarp coil heist.

It was like they were trying to make sure it didn't make sense when they wrote those bits that contravened years of other stuff.

In any case, just to add to one or both of your lists, there is specific reference to impulse driver coils in "For the Uniform" when they are trying to make the Defiant go.


Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:40 am
Profile WWW
Jedi Knight

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 434
Reply with quote
Lucky wrote:
Everything is in constent free fall towards everything else do to gravity. 1g is normally the measurement of the gravitational pull the Earth exerts on other objects.
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.

Lucky wrote:
Gravity is measured as an acceleration do to the fact gravity's effect is to cause things to fall towards each other, and because of this Gravity is often visualized as an indentation on a flexible and stretchy surface caused by a heavy object. It is a simplification because space/time seems to be more then 1 dimensional plain.
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.


Lucky wrote:
A Cochrane is a unit of measurement used to describe/measure gravity. There is no disputing this.
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.

Lucky wrote:
Ent: Cold Front the warpore is called a "Gravimetric Displacement Manifold"
TNG: Nth Degree the nacelles are shown to be meant for generating and manipulating gravitons. The nacelles are what create warp fields
DS9: Once More Into The Breach an "Inverse Graviton Bursts" disrupt warp fields
TNG: Force of Nature, Voy: The Omega Directive shows damage to subspace makes use of warp impossible
TNG: Deja Q the warp field causes subspace compression
ENT: Cold Front the warp coils which are in the nacelles generate subspace displacement fields

It would appear that gravity somehow creates subspace fields. One might even argue that the gravity well the warping of space/time is a subspace field.
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.



So... to drag this back to the disagreement's original purpose relating to impulse drives, subspace, and shield subspace effects... well nothing has really changed. Never mind.


Sat Aug 23, 2014 6:08 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.