BEAR IN MIND. (For Techies)
o b 1
That Star Wars took place "a long time ago in a galaxy far away". The Star
Trek universe is supposedly earth's future. If the two universe's met...
in Star War's time? or in Star Trek time?
StarWars time: "a long time ago" can mean anywhere in our past, from
millions of years ago to 'last week' (a long time for my recollection). For
Trek's benefit-of doubt, let's say it was last week. Well, if the Death
Star showed up in Earth's orbit with last week's Earth technology, well,
bye, bye trekies.... and if it meant millions of years ago, well sticks and
stones may hurt my bones, but a lightsaber fuckin' burns, dude!
Star Trek's time: taking place in one of several centuries in Earth's
future. Well, Star Wars technology would have AAALLL that development time,
now wouldn't they ? We are talking several hundred years at the least, and
millions and millions by any reasonable account. I personally forsee in the
Star Wars future a weapon that can destroy WHOLE GALAXIES, in their near
future, and WHOLE UNIVERSES in their not-too-distant future. Ever hear of a
Universe Expander/Collapser Model 113A? I pre-ordered my replica from the
Lucasfilm fanclub last week...
O.K. next: Mirina Siritis has bigger boobies, but Carrie Fisher is much,
much cuter!
Elim Garak
o b 1 wrote:
>
> That Star Wars took place "a long time ago in a galaxy far away". The Star
> Trek universe is supposedly earth's future. If the two universe's met...
> in Star War's time? or in Star Trek time?
>
> StarWars time: "a long time ago" can mean anywhere in our past, from
> millions of years ago to 'last week' (a long time for my recollection). For
> Trek's benefit-of doubt, let's say it was last week. Well, if the Death
> Star showed up in Earth's orbit with last week's Earth technology, well,
> bye, bye trekies.... and if it meant millions of years ago, well sticks and
> stones may hurt my bones, but a lightsaber fuckin' burns, dude!
>
> Star Trek's time: taking place in one of several centuries in Earth's
> future. Well, Star Wars technology would have AAALLL that development time,
> now wouldn't they ? We are talking several hundred years at the least, and
> millions and millions by any reasonable account.
OK, look at it this way. How is one of them going to get to the other?
Through a wormhole. And wormholes often produce time displacement. So
ST can get into SW's past as as easily as SW can get into ST's past.
Or how about the time patroll? If the people in 30th century get wind
of this invasion, they will be there yesturday (:P). And their weapons
are a lot more powerful then anything SW has - a byproduct of their time
drive blew up a whole star system!
And finally, don't forget that SW virtually stood still for several
thousands of years. They still don't have transporters or time travel,
or a lot of other stuff.
> I personally forsee in the
> Star Wars future a weapon that can destroy WHOLE GALAXIES, in their near
> future, and WHOLE UNIVERSES in their not-too-distant future. Ever hear of a
> Universe Expander/Collapser Model 113A? I pre-ordered my replica from the
> Lucasfilm fanclub last week...
What's that? And don't forget about the Omega molecule - it would also
work great. Just a few kg of it would nuke the whole galaxy. BTW, what
idiot would create a universe destroying weapon when all of SW is still
stuck on one galaxy. It is like us creating a galaxy destroying weapon
while still stuck on planet Earth.
> O.K. next: Mirina Siritis has bigger boobies, but Carrie Fisher is much,
> much cuter!
But 7 of 9 is better then both of them put together. :)
Rob
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >OK, look at it this way. How is one of them going to get to the other?
> >Through a wormhole. And wormholes often produce time displacement.
>
Actually, they do, both in ST and in present day theoretical models. In
fact, it is almost infinitely more likely that some time displacement
would occur than that none would. Theoretically, the Gamma Quadrant that
they travel to in DS 9 could have existed 1000s of years ago and the
Dominion could have been obliterated 1000s of years before the
Federation/Dominion war.
But that isn't the point of the debate. The point is this: if some super
powerful being (like Q) put one of their galaxies next to the other at
the same point in time and each galaxy fought to utterly obliterate the
inhabitants of the other, who would win?
(It may need more refining, but that's all I could come up with on such
short notice)
Rush Limbaugh
>OK, look at it this way. How is one of them going to get to the other?
>Through a wormhole. And wormholes often produce time displacement.
Not really.
So
>ST can get into SW's past as as easily as SW can get into ST's past.
No they can not.
>
>Or how about the time patroll? If the people in 30th century get wind
>of this invasion, they will be there yesturday (:P).
But they would not have exsisted so that is a stupid argument.
And their weapons
>are a lot more powerful then anything SW has - a byproduct of their time
>drive blew up a whole star system!
OHHHHHH yay that sucks.
>
>And finally, don't forget that SW virtually stood still for several
>thousands of years.
No they did not.
They still don't have transporters or time travel,
So both technologies are crap anyway, the only result is self consistent in
time travel.
>or a lot of other stuff.
>
>> I personally forsee in the
>> Star Wars future a weapon that can destroy WHOLE GALAXIES, in their near
>> future, and WHOLE UNIVERSES in their not-too-distant future. Ever hear
of a
>> Universe Expander/Collapser Model 113A? I pre-ordered my replica from
the
>> Lucasfilm fanclub last week...
>
>What's that? And don't forget about the Omega molecule - it would also
>work great.
How?
Just a few kg of it would nuke the whole galaxy.
Yeah whatever.
Elim Garak
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >OK, look at it this way. How is one of them going to get to the other?
> >Through a wormhole. And wormholes often produce time displacement.
>
> Not really.
Watch more ST. They do it all the time.
> >So
> >ST can get into SW's past as as easily as SW can get into ST's past.
>
> No they can not.
Yes they can.
> >Or how about the time patroll? If the people in 30th century get wind
> >of this invasion, they will be there yesturday (:P).
>
> But they would not have exsisted so that is a stupid argument.
Nope. They do exist, therefore they will have existed. We can't argue
about paradoxes, they are too paradoxical.
> >And their weapons
> >are a lot more powerful then anything SW has - a byproduct of their time
> >drive blew up a whole star system!
>
> OHHHHHH yay that sucks.
Does SW have anything better? This was done by accident - think of what
they could do if they put their mind to it.
> >And finally, don't forget that SW virtually stood still for several
> >thousands of years.
>
> No they did not.
Oh? What did they create that is so far ahead of Federation, besides
the hyperdrive?
> >They still don't have transporters or time travel,
>
> So both technologies are crap anyway,
Indeed? Why?
> the only result is self consistent in
> time travel.
What are you trying to say? What result?
> >> I personally forsee in the
> >> Star Wars future a weapon that can destroy WHOLE GALAXIES, in their near
> >> future, and WHOLE UNIVERSES in their not-too-distant future. Ever hear
> >> of a
> >> Universe Expander/Collapser Model 113A? I pre-ordered my replica from
> >> the
> >> Lucasfilm fanclub last week...
> >
> >What's that? And don't forget about the Omega molecule - it would also
> >work great.
>
> How?
By nuking a whole quadrant.
> >Just a few kg of it would nuke the whole galaxy.
>
> Yeah whatever.
In other words you can't beat this, but think you have to say something
anyway, just not to admit defeat.
Elim Garak
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >> >OK, look at it this way. How is one of them going to get to the other?
> >> >Through a wormhole. And wormholes often produce time displacement.
> >>
> >> Not really.
> >
> >Watch more ST. They do it all the time.
>
What is your point? Are you just shouting out random facts in hopes
that people will not notice that you don't have a leg to stand on?
> >> >So
> >> >ST can get into SW's past as as easily as SW can get into ST's past.
> >>
> >> No they can not.
> >
> >Yes they can.
>
> and so what? self consistent outcomes are the only ones possible.
What are you saying? According to logic ST should win, since it is
still around in the 30th century.
> >> >Or how about the time patroll? If the people in 30th century get wind
> >> >of this invasion, they will be there yesturday (:P).
> >>
> >> But they would not have exsisted so that is a stupid argument.
> >
> >Nope. They do exist, therefore they will have existed. We can't argue
> >about paradoxes, they are too paradoxical.
>
> Exactly I am glad you agree with me. Time travel can alter nothing.
Which means ST will win.
> >> >And their weapons
> >> >are a lot more powerful then anything SW has - a byproduct of their time
> >> >drive blew up a whole star system!
> >>
> >> OHHHHHH yay that sucks.
> >
> >Does SW have anything better?
>
> Yes. The force for one.
Where did they nuke a quarter of a galaxy? Or even a star system?
> >This was done by accident - think of what
> >they could do if they put their mind to it.
>
> Far less.
You make less and less sence as you attempt to proove your idiocy.
> >> >And finally, don't forget that SW virtually stood still for several
> >> >thousands of years.
> >>
> >> No they did not.
> >
> >Oh? What did they create that is so far ahead of Federation, besides
> >the hyperdrive?
>
> The Death Star,
It is just big - there is no high tech involved there.
> the sun crusher,
ST can do that with a hand-held device like the one shown in DS9.
> planetary shields,
Again, just size.
> the Death star
> invulnerable shields,
Nothing is invulnerable.
> sentient droids etc etc.
Forgot Data? And the Doctors?
> >> >They still don't have transporters or time travel,
> >>
> >> So both technologies are crap anyway,
> >
> >Indeed?
>
> Yes
>
> > Why?
>
> well transporters are so inefficient
Transporters are either very efficient, or ST power reserves are very
large. Remember those little flying droids? They constantly replicated
tools and flew all over the place, which shows us that they had plenty
of power inside.
> and time travel dos not allow you to
> alter anything at all (self consistency occurs always)
Yes, but so what? SW has nothing like it. What about turretless
weapons like phasers? I am not talking about power right now, I am
talking about method of firing. What about warp torpedoes? What about
nanites? What about hand weapons as powerful as phasers? There's more.
> >> the only result is self consistent in
> >> time travel.
> >
> >What are you trying to say?
>
> That you can change nothing
So what? SW doesn't have that technology. ST already knows 3 ways to
travel through time, while SW doesn't know any.
> >> >What's that? And don't forget about the Omega molecule - it would also
> >> >work great.
> >>
> >> How?
> >
> >By nuking a whole quadrant.
>
> No that would not happen
Yep. But its nice to know that ST has that capability, and SW doesn't.
> >> >Just a few kg of it would nuke the whole galaxy.
> >>
> >> Yeah whatever.
> >
> >In other words you can't beat this, but think you have to say something
> >anyway, just not to admit defeat.
>
> No that is you Elim. The fact is such a weapon is not only impratical but
> would also not be used by the Federation under any circumstances (that is
> why they do not use nukes)
You are right, the Federation wouldn't use it - it is just one more
example of how far ST tech is ahead of SW.
Rush Limbaugh
Rob wrote in message <357DFC...@SPAMBLOCKER.geocities.com>...
>Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>>
>> >OK, look at it this way. How is one of them going to get to the other?
>> >Through a wormhole. And wormholes often produce time displacement.
>>
>> Not really.
>
>Actually, they do, both in ST and in present day theoretical models.
Actually only in SOME models not all.
In
>fact, it is almost infinitely more likely that some time displacement
>would occur than that none would.
and the displacement that occurs would be marginal.
Theoretically, the Gamma Quadrant that
>they travel to in DS 9 could have existed 1000s of years ago and the
>Dominion could have been obliterated 1000s of years before the
>Federation/Dominion war.
No as theorectiacly the time dialation for stationary wormholes is zero or
tending to zero
>But that isn't the point of the debate. The point is this: if some super
>powerful being (like Q) put one of their galaxies next to the other at
>the same point in time and each galaxy fought to utterly obliterate the
>inhabitants of the other, who would win?
>
Star Wars.
Rush Limbaugh
Elim Garak wrote in message <357E35...@usa.net>...
>Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>>
>> >OK, look at it this way. How is one of them going to get to the other?
>> >Through a wormhole. And wormholes often produce time displacement.
>>
>> Not really.
>
>Watch more ST. They do it all the time.
>
So in St they can also alter history which is IMPOSSIBLE.
>> >So
>> >ST can get into SW's past as as easily as SW can get into ST's past.
>>
>> No they can not.
>
>Yes they can.
>
and so what? self consistent outcomes are the only ones possible.
>> >Or how about the time patroll? If the people in 30th century get wind
>> >of this invasion, they will be there yesturday (:P).
>>
>> But they would not have exsisted so that is a stupid argument.
>
>Nope. They do exist, therefore they will have existed. We can't argue
>about paradoxes, they are too paradoxical.
>
Exactly I am glad you agree with me. Time travel can alter nothing.
>> >And their weapons
>> >are a lot more powerful then anything SW has - a byproduct of their time
>> >drive blew up a whole star system!
>>
>> OHHHHHH yay that sucks.
>
>Does SW have anything better?
Yes. The force for one.
This was done by accident - think of what
>they could do if they put their mind to it.
>
Far less.
>> >And finally, don't forget that SW virtually stood still for several
>> >thousands of years.
>>
>> No they did not.
>
>Oh? What did they create that is so far ahead of Federation, besides
>the hyperdrive?
>
The Death Star, the sun crusher, planetary shields, the Death star
invulnerable shields, sentient droids etc etc.
>> >They still don't have transporters or time travel,
>>
>> So both technologies are crap anyway,
>
>Indeed?
Yes
Why?
>
well transporters are so inefficient and time travel dos not allow you to
alter anything at all (self consistency occurs always)
>> the only result is self consistent in
>> time travel.
>
>What are you trying to say?
That you can change nothing
What result?
>
Anything you do.
>> >> Universe Expander/Collapser Model 113A? I pre-ordered my replica
from
>> >> the
>> >> Lucasfilm fanclub last week...
>> >
>> >What's that? And don't forget about the Omega molecule - it would also
>> >work great.
>>
>> How?
>
>By nuking a whole quadrant.
>
No that would not happen
>> >Just a few kg of it would nuke the whole galaxy.
Elim Garak
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >> >Watch more ST. They do it all the time.
> >>
> >> So in St they can also alter history which is IMPOSSIBLE.
> >
> >that people will not notice that you don't have a leg to stand on?
>
> can make time machines, we know how.
Not really - we know some scientific principles that would allow
movement back in time, but not how to make time machines.
> But the thing is time machines suck,
> you can not change history. Please get some knowledge before making a fool
> out of yourself such as the above.
Please get a brain before posting here. With multiple timelines you can
easily make changes. Of course you would not change the course of
history, but you create another timeline with different history and live
there. Duh!
> >> and so what? self consistent outcomes are the only ones possible.
> >
> >What are you saying? According to logic ST should win, since it is
> >still around in the 30th century.
>
> Maybe. But seeing as in that 'timeline' the two did not fight we can't use
> that for anything.
How do you know they did not fight? Did anybody from the 30th century
come out and say "Starfleet never fought the Empire from another
galaxy!"?
> >> Exactly I am glad you agree with me. Time travel can alter nothing.
> >
> >Which means ST will win.
>
> No for one the 'time police' have a temporal prime directive to not
> interfere and are from a 'timeline' (alternate reality) where the Empire did
> not fight them.
How do you know that in that timeline Empire did not fight them?
> >> Yes. The force for one.
> >
> >Where did they nuke a quarter of a galaxy? Or even a star system?
>
> You could if it wanted to allow you.
Since it doesn't allow you, it sucks. I want a weapon that does not
contradict me when I try to kill something/body with it.
> >> Far less.
> >
> >You make less and less sence as you attempt to proove your idiocy.
>
> Ohh i can prove it. You see by accident St can cause total destruction of
> planets,
Not planets, quadrants of the galaxy.
> but when it wants to it cant do it at all.
Where is that.
> Alos why would they make that weapon? for fun?
No, this is an example that ST tech is better than SW tech.
> >> The Death Star,
> >
> >It is just big - there is no high tech involved there.
>
> The superlaser
Get a really big laser and it will do the same thing. Can it destroy
star systems? No? It sucks.
> and the indestructable shield
Why do you say that it is indestructable? How do you know? Nothing is
indestructable.
> >> the sun crusher,
> >
> >ST can do that with a hand-held device like the one shown in DS9.
>
> No it can not.
Watch DS9, "By Inferno's Light". Besides, you never saw "Generations"?
Since it is on screen, it is cannon.
> >> planetary shields,
> >
> >Again, just size.
>
> No as St does not use them ever.
Yep - it does not build them this big.
> >> the Death star
> >> invulnerable shields,
> >
> >Nothing is invulnerable.
>
> Yes things are.
Name one. If you pump enough energy into anything, it will
explode/die/be destroyed. Fact of nature/fact of life. Get used to it.
> >> sentient droids etc etc.
> >
> >Forgot Data? And the Doctors?
>
> The Doctor is not sentient he has been stated as simulating sentience and
> possibly acchieving it at some point but concurrently not possessing it.
Where was it stated? And how do you know? What separates sentience
from simulated sentience? Ever heard of the Turing test? It is based
on the same premise.
> Data is a one off droid that sucks in comparison to SW ones.
OK, tell me why he sucks. And give me concrete examples where other
droids are better - give examples of more brain power or strength.
Simple adjectives or beliefs won't do.
> >> > Why?
> >>
> >> well transporters are so inefficient
> >
> >Transporters are either very efficient, or ST power reserves are very
> >large.
>
> No St just does not care, like all communist states it could care less what
> it costs just so long as it is flashy.
That is a belief, and as such is irrelevant. Give facts, examples, not
suppositions.
> St power reserves suck, they never
> have enough power
Perhaps that is because their needs are greater than in SW. If not,
proove it.
> and they use so much incomparison to the benefit they
> give.
Or they found ways of using the power much more efficiently.
> >Remember those little flying droids? They constantly replicated
> >tools and flew all over the place, which shows us that they had plenty
> >of power inside.
>
> Whatb little flying droids?
The droids in the TNG episode "Quality of Life". The droids are smaller
than a breadbox, yet can fly all over the place, and replicate tools
without the need to recharge. So now you have a choise - either ST
transporters are more efficient than you think, or ST can put the power
of a relatively large nuke inside a really small device which was
designed for some other use.
> >> and time travel dos not allow you to
> >> alter anything at all (self consistency occurs always)
> >
> >Yes, but so what?
>
> Well why have it
It is an example of superior technology.
> >SW has nothing like it.
>
> How do you know? They may very well have deemed it useless for that exact
> reason.
We never saw it, never heard of it, therefore it does not exist.
> >What about turretless
> >weapons like phasers?
>
> And they are efficient how?
> They take up enough space to fit several turrets and fire with the power of
> one so in effect if they were replaced with turrets their firepower would
> increase several times over.
No, they take up less space, yet they can fire in any direction. Power
is irrelevant here - it is not connected to the mode of emittion.
> >I am not talking about power right now, I am
> >talking about method of firing. What about warp torpedoes?
>
> So they have to be in warp to do that.
Still better than anything SW has. A photon torpedo could have went
down that shaft with ease, and it could have been launched from behind a
planet.
> >What about
> >nanites?
>
> So. The feds don;t have them and who is to say SW does not.
They do have them - watch some TNG. We saw them first in the TNG
episode "Evolution", and after that heard about them a few more times.
> >What about hand weapons as powerful as phasers?
>
> They are puny when compared to hand held blasters, hell according to you
> they are so powerful that a zero mass projectile causes the recoil they
> show.
That is irrelevant. They do almost no damage. They can not
desintegrate a body or walls at will as shown in "Return of the
Archons", they can not be set on wide field, etc.
> >There's more.
>
> Yeah but try to actually get something that shows anything at all.
Try to know stuff about which you are arguing.
> >> That you can change nothing
> >
> >So what?
>
> So it make time travel pointless.
Not if there are multiple timelines.
> >SW doesn't have that technology.
>
> How do you know? Ever seen them say that? Perhaps they realise it sucks and
> don't care.
It doesn't suck with multiple timelines. And since we never seen or
heard anything about it anywhere, it doesn't exist.
> >ST already knows 3 ways to
> >travel through time, while SW doesn't know any.
>
> There is only one way to travel in time. The ones St uses are wrong and defy
> the laws of physics making all of St totaly invalid, I am perpared to
> ovelook this fact but if you wish to continue with this time travel is so
> great thing then I will have to bring in reality.
In ST there are three, and it is canon, because it was seen on the
screen. The fact that we know only one way to do it is irrelevant,
because ST uses higher science. In the 19th century some people
believed that flight in a heavyer than air craft is impossible. In fact
there was one guy who continued to say this 2 years after the flight of
the Wright brothers - you must be related to him.
> >> No that would not happen
> >
> >Yep. But its nice to know that ST has that capability, and SW doesn't.
>
> So how do youm know they don't? They could, just as St does think that doing
> so is one of the lamest and stupidest things ever.
I know that they don't because the people said that the DS is the
"ultimate power in the universe" or some such thing. The omega molecule
can be contained in a device no bigger than a VW bug, and the Death Star
monstrosity is completly unnecessary.
> >> No that is you Elim. The fact is such a weapon is not only impratical but
> >> would also not be used by the Federation under any circumstances (that is
> >> why they do not use nukes)
> >
> >You are right, the Federation wouldn't use it - it is just one more
> >example of how far ST tech is ahead of SW.
>
> Why? the Omega particle was a freak occurance, how do you know the SW guys
> have not met it also, but decided it was impracticle as a weapon? extremely
> possible and plausable seeing as they do not have warp etc.
The Omega molecule was not a freac occurance, it could be made out of
some materials, which the Empire should have been able to find if it
wanted to. And it is more practicle than the engeneering horror they
call the Death Star.
Rush Limbaugh
>> >Watch more ST. They do it all the time.
>>
>> So in St they can also alter history which is IMPOSSIBLE.
>
>What is your point? Are you just shouting out random facts in hopes
>that people will not notice that you don't have a leg to stand on?
>
No it is a scientific FACT. The only result is self consistent. you see we
you can not change history. Please get some knowledge before making a fool
out of yourself such as the above.
>> >Yes they can.
>>
>> and so what? self consistent outcomes are the only ones possible.
>
>What are you saying? According to logic ST should win, since it is
>still around in the 30th century.
>
Maybe. But seeing as in that 'timeline' the two did not fight we can't use
that for anything.
>> >> But they would not have exsisted so that is a stupid argument.
>> >
>> >Nope. They do exist, therefore they will have existed. We can't argue
>> >about paradoxes, they are too paradoxical.
>>
>> Exactly I am glad you agree with me. Time travel can alter nothing.
>
>Which means ST will win.
>
No for one the 'time police' have a temporal prime directive to not
interfere and are from a 'timeline' (alternate reality) where the Empire did
not fight them.
>> >> OHHHHHH yay that sucks.
>> >
>> >Does SW have anything better?
>>
>> Yes. The force for one.
>
>Where did they nuke a quarter of a galaxy? Or even a star system?
>
You could if it wanted to allow you.
>> >This was done by accident - think of what
>> >they could do if they put their mind to it.
>>
>> Far less.
>
>You make less and less sence as you attempt to proove your idiocy.
>
Ohh i can prove it. You see by accident St can cause total destruction of
planets, but when it wants to it cant do it at all.
Alos why would they make that weapon? for fun?
>> >> >And finally, don't forget that SW virtually stood still for several
>> >> >thousands of years.
>> >>
>> >> No they did not.
>> >
>> >Oh? What did they create that is so far ahead of Federation, besides
>> >the hyperdrive?
>>
>> The Death Star,
>
>It is just big - there is no high tech involved there.
>
The superlaser and the indestructable shield
>> the sun crusher,
>
>ST can do that with a hand-held device like the one shown in DS9.
>
No it can not.
>> planetary shields,
>
>Again, just size.
>
No as St does not use them ever.
>> the Death star
>> invulnerable shields,
>
>Nothing is invulnerable.
>
Yes things are.
>> sentient droids etc etc.
>
>Forgot Data? And the Doctors?
>
The Doctor is not sentient he has been stated as simulating sentience and
possibly acchieving it at some point but concurrently not possessing it.
Data is a one off droid that sucks in comparison to SW ones.
>> Yes
>>
>> > Why?
>>
>> well transporters are so inefficient
>
>Transporters are either very efficient, or ST power reserves are very
>large.
No St just does not care, like all communist states it could care less what
it costs just so long as it is flashy. St power reserves suck, they never
have enough power and they use so much incomparison to the benefit they
give.
Remember those little flying droids? They constantly replicated
>tools and flew all over the place, which shows us that they had plenty
>of power inside.
>
Whatb little flying droids?
>> and time travel dos not allow you to
>> alter anything at all (self consistency occurs always)
>
>Yes, but so what?
Well why have it
SW has nothing like it.
How do you know? They may very well have deemed it useless for that exact
reason.
What about turretless
>weapons like phasers?
And they are efficient how?
They take up enough space to fit several turrets and fire with the power of
one so in effect if they were replaced with turrets their firepower would
increase several times over.
I am not talking about power right now, I am
>talking about method of firing. What about warp torpedoes?
So they have to be in warp to do that.
What about
>nanites?
So. The feds don;t have them and who is to say SW does not.
What about hand weapons as powerful as phasers?
They are puny when compared to hand held blasters, hell according to you
they are so powerful that a zero mass projectile causes the recoil they
show.
There's more.
>
Yeah but try to actually get something that shows anything at all.
>> >What are you trying to say?
>>
>> That you can change nothing
>
>So what?
So it make time travel pointless.
SW doesn't have that technology.
How do you know? Ever seen them say that? Perhaps they realise it sucks and
don't care.
ST already knows 3 ways to
>travel through time, while SW doesn't know any.
>
There is only one way to travel in time. The ones St uses are wrong and defy
the laws of physics making all of St totaly invalid, I am perpared to
ovelook this fact but if you wish to continue with this time travel is so
great thing then I will have to bring in reality.
>> >By nuking a whole quadrant.
>>
>> No that would not happen
>
>Yep. But its nice to know that ST has that capability, and SW doesn't.
>
So how do youm know they don't? They could, just as St does think that doing
so is one of the lamest and stupidest things ever.
>> >In other words you can't beat this, but think you have to say something
>> >anyway, just not to admit defeat.
>>
brendo/poges
Elim your reasoning is full of contradictions.
Eg.
>
>
> > >> and so what? self consistent outcomes are the only ones possible.
> > >
> > >What are you saying? According to logic ST should win, since it is
> > >still around in the 30th century.
> >
> > Maybe. But seeing as in that 'timeline' the two did not fight we can't use
> > that for anything.
>
> How do you know they did not fight? Did anybody from the 30th century
> come out and say "Starfleet never fought the Empire from another
> galaxy!"?
>
Here you reason that if something is not mentioned then it is quite possible.
BUT...
> > >SW has nothing like it.
> >
> > How do you know? They may very well have deemed it useless for that exact
> > reason.
>
> We never saw it, never heard of it, therefore it does not exist.
Here you reason if you havent seen it or heard of it, then it doesn't exist!This
is a complete contradiction in your reasoning!
AND
> > >SW doesn't have that technology.
> >
> > How do you know? Ever seen them say that? Perhaps they realise it sucks and
> > don't care.
>
> It doesn't suck with multiple timelines. And since we never seen or
> heard anything about it anywhere, it doesn't exist.
Here you make the same contradiction in your reasoning. It is ok if you make
mistakes with facts,etc., but if your reasoning is contradictory like the above
example, then no matter what you say, it can contain no solid substance. Don't
change your reasoning just to suit your view on a subject.
warthog
Eric Johnson
I have a question for the ST people about the Omega particle, why are you
bringing it up? The federation does not use it, nor know how it make and
store it. In fact they have a directive that supercedes all others to
destroy it on site. I thought its use was not as a weapon, but as a very
powerful energy source. Also the major side effect is not the blast, but the
permanent damage to large area of subspace, forever after preventing warp
flight in the area.
It would seem that use of this by the ST side would be utter suicide. Yes
you might do some damage, but you lose your warp capability. And SW ships
using hyperspace just bypass this little problem of yours, or jump in to hit
your now sitting ducks. Heck, for all we know that might have been the power
source for the death star. The empire could care less about the destruction
of subspace, they don't use so it, so it is expandable. Now wouldn't that be
ironic ST ships getting humbled by the passage of a SW power source in that
general area at some point in the past.
Elim Garak
brendo/poges wrote:
>
> Elim your reasoning is full of contradictions.
>
> Eg.
>
> > > that for anything.
> >
> > How do you know they did not fight? Did anybody from the 30th century
> > come out and say "Starfleet never fought the Empire from another
> > galaxy!"?
>
>
> BUT...
>
> > > reason.
> >
> > We never saw it, never heard of it, therefore it does not exist.
>
> is a complete contradiction in your reasoning!
>
> AND
>
> > > don't care.
> >
> > It doesn't suck with multiple timelines. And since we never seen or
> > heard anything about it anywhere, it doesn't exist.
>
> mistakes with facts,etc., but if your reasoning is contradictory like the above
> example, then no matter what you say, it can contain no solid substance. Don't
> change your reasoning just to suit your view on a subject.
You got me. :) However it seems to me that it is one thing to suggest
that something will happen in the future, and it is completly another
thing to suggest that something already exist, though we never saw it.
One reason why this is so hard to argue about is because ST:Voy made
such a mess of the timelines. There is one point in my favor, though -
we know that 30th century ST exists, and it is doubtful that they would
have went to another timeline to get Voyager out. Since they do exist,
apparently ST defeated SW - if they ever met.
David J Berube
>Watch DS9, "By Inferno's Light". Besides, you never saw "Generations"?
>Since it is on screen, it is cannon.
Hahaha. So... what good... did the Tox Uthat do?
>Where was it stated? And how do you know? What separates sentience
>from simulated sentience? Ever heard of the Turing test? It is based
>on the same premise.
Huh. Read a little more on the Turing test.
What is PROVED is this: We need a better way to TELL simulated sentience
from sentience. Read up on the Eliza Effect.
>OK, tell me why he sucks. And give me concrete examples where other
>droids are better - give examples of more brain power or strength.
>Simple adjectives or beliefs won't do.
See my post on Assasin droids. C-3PO speaks 30 millon languages.
>The droids in the TNG episode "Quality of Life". The droids are smaller
>than a breadbox, yet can fly all over the place, and replicate tools
>without the need to recharge. So now you have a choise - either ST
>transporters are more efficient than you think, or ST can put the power
>of a relatively large nuke inside a really small device which was
>designed for some other use.
Or replication is different from transporters.
>We never saw it, never heard of it, therefore it does not exist.
We never saw ST bathrooms, never heard of them, therefore they do not exist.
>No, they take up less space, yet they can fire in any direction. Power
>is irrelevant here - it is not connected to the mode of emittion.
So can turbolasers turrets...
>Still better than anything SW has. A photon torpedo could have went
>down that shaft with ease, and it could have been launched from behind a
>planet.
Dunno what you are talking about. However, ST torps can't seek.
>The Omega molecule was not a freac occurance, it could be made out of
>some materials, which the Empire should have been able to find if it
>wanted to. And it is more practicle than the engeneering horror they
>call the Death Star.
RIGHT. It was a FREAK.
Dave
Guest
Actually, bathrooms do exist in star trek. The display of the
Enterprise-D in engineering shows that right in the middle of the saucer
section there is one bathroom! this can be confirmed by the Star Trek
TNG Saga (the show that aired right before the series finale)
Wayne Poe
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, David J Berube wrote:
> >OK, tell me why he sucks. And give me concrete examples where other
> >droids are better - give examples of more brain power or strength.
> >Simple adjectives or beliefs won't do.
> See my post on Assasin droids. C-3PO speaks 30 millon languages.
Proof of IG88's brain power over Data: He sucessfully downloaded his
conscience into the Death Star 2's computer core, and took over the entire
moon-sized station beefore it blew up. They tried to link Data's brain to
the E-D's computer, and everything on the ship started screwing up: the
food replicators would only produce cat food, and the holodecks were
trying to kill people, etc.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Visit the LM-480 Galaxy! *Ultimate Starwars vs.Startrek FAQ
http://h4h.com/louis *Stunt Island movies
lo...@h4h.com *Beavis and Buttlead cartoon
*Star Wars Collectibles
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Timeout
In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.98061...@h4h.com>,
lo...@h4h.com says...
>
> On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, David J Berube wrote:
>
> > >droids are better - give examples of more brain power or strength.
> > >Simple adjectives or beliefs won't do.
>
>
> Proof of IG88's brain power over Data: He sucessfully downloaded his
> conscience into the Death Star 2's computer core, and took over the entire
> moon-sized station beefore it blew up. They tried to link Data's brain to
> the E-D's computer, and everything on the ship started screwing up: the
> food replicators would only produce cat food, and the holodecks were
> trying to kill people, etc.
Now that could go both ways. It could mean that the DSII's computer was
primitive compared to the E-D computer. An example, the computers on the
shuttle craft can modify its parameters with voice commands, where in SW
they need droids to make physical modifications. So the ST computers
could be much more advanced than the SW computers.
With that thought aside, I do think that the IG88 is a sentient lifeform
that is very capable of combat and knows its limitations. While Data is
also sentient, knows his limitations, and is capable at combat, he wasn't
designed that way.
So I would have to go with the IG88 as victory in a one-on-one battle.
Although if neither had weapons, it would be pretty interesting. I think
both would sustain considerable damage in the battle. But I have seen
Data injured too many times to think he would be victorious. Although
the direct hits with the assault rifle in FC was impressive, I think the
IG88 can withstand equal punishment.
Any ideas on Data vs. Robocop?
I think Data's quick thinking and superior agility would bring him the
victory.
--
The 'real' Enterprise exists in the imaginations of the audience.
Timeout
Wayne Poe
On Sun, 14 Jun 1998, Timeout wrote:
> > Proof of IG88's brain power over Data: He sucessfully downloaded his
> > conscience into the Death Star 2's computer core, and took over the entire
> > moon-sized station beefore it blew up. They tried to link Data's brain to
> > the E-D's computer, and everything on the ship started screwing up: the
> > food replicators would only produce cat food, and the holodecks were
> > trying to kill people, etc.
> Now that could go both ways. It could mean that the DSII's computer was
> primitive compared to the E-D computer.
I really can't see this as a serious statement. Really.
> An example, the computers on the shuttle craft can modify its parameters
> with voice commands, where in SW they need droids to make physical
> modifications. So the ST computers could be much more advanced than the
> SW computers.
Completely untrue. Trek computers need to PHYSICALLY have their isolinear
chips handled, and any other components realigned by its human operators.
> With that thought aside, I do think that the IG88 is a sentient lifeform
> that is very capable of combat and knows its limitations. While Data is
> also sentient, knows his limitations, and is capable at combat, he wasn't
> designed that way.
> So I would have to go with the IG88 as victory in a one-on-one battle.
> Although if neither had weapons, it would be pretty interesting.
Even without weapons, IG88 has been written as a destructive machine.
> I think both would sustain considerable damage in the battle.
There is said to be a certain place on IG88 that can disable him with a
blaster shot. But the only ones who knew where they were were his
designers, and IG88 killed them all. However, Boba Fett trashed *3* IG88s!
> But I have seen Data injured too many times to think he would be
> victorious. Although the direct hits with the assault rifle in FC was
> impressive, I think the IG88 can withstand equal punishment.
Yes, he's demonstrated this in that "Tales/Bounty Hunters" story.
> Any ideas on Data vs. Robocop? I think Data's quick thinking and
> superior agility would bring him the victory.
Possibly. But I know a T-800 Terminator would kill him easily. The T-800
in T2 survived having a metal rod shoved thru him. Data didn't.
Guest
On Discovery Channel last night they were talking about future space
travel and how that if we wanted to be an interstellar race we would
need to get some type of new pysics to account for some of he variables
that can not be solved. So, if they say "new physics", why can't ST have
different physics than this world?
Rush Limbaugh
>> >What is your point? Are you just shouting out random facts in hopes
>> >that people will not notice that you don't have a leg to stand on?
>>
>> No it is a scientific FACT. The only result is self consistent. you see
we
>> can make time machines, we know how.
>
>Not really - we know some scientific principles that would allow
>movement back in time, but not how to make time machines.
>
why Stephen Hawking has made the chronal protection conjecture that states
in his opinion time travel would not work at all and EVERY physicist
involved with time travel believes that it is impossible.
>> But the thing is time machines suck,
>> you can not change history. Please get some knowledge before making a
fool
>> out of yourself such as the above.
>
>Please get a brain before posting here. With multiple timelines you can
>easily make changes.
Get a brain you can not. YOU CAN NOT CHANGE YOUR TIME LINE. IT IS A FACT OF
PHYSICS SO FUCK OFF. THE UNIVERSE WORKS HOW IT ACTUALLYB DOES NOT HOW YOU
WANT IT TO.
Elim you are the stupidest person alive and everything you say only shows
your ignorance.
Of course you would not change the course of
>history, but you create another timeline with different history and live
>there. Duh!
>
No you could not. You exsist in only one 'universe' (what you stupid hicks
call a time line) and YOU CANT NOT ENTER ANOTHER!!!!!
>> >> and so what? self consistent outcomes are the only ones possible.
>> >
>> >What are you saying? According to logic ST should win, since it is
>> >still around in the 30th century.
>>
>> Maybe. But seeing as in that 'timeline' the two did not fight we can't
use
>> that for anything.
>
>How do you know they did not fight? Did anybody from the 30th century
>come out and say "Starfleet never fought the Empire from another
>galaxy!"?
>
Well they still exsist so we know they did not, plus in the ST universe Sw
DOES NOT EXSIST.
>> No for one the 'time police' have a temporal prime directive to not
>> interfere and are from a 'timeline' (alternate reality) where the Empire
did
>> not fight them.
>
>How do you know that in that timeline Empire did not fight them?
>
Because in their universe it does not exsist.
>> >> Yes. The force for one.
>> >
>> >Where did they nuke a quarter of a galaxy? Or even a star system?
>>
>> You could if it wanted to allow you.
>
>Since it doesn't allow you, it sucks.
That is the most idiotic argument i have ever heard.
I want a weapon that does not
>contradict me when I try to kill something/body with it.
>
The Force doent either. The thing is it has to allow you to use it for that
in the first place and once it has done so you can use it for that whenever
you want.
>> >> Far less.
>> >
>> >You make less and less sence as you attempt to proove your idiocy.
>>
>> Ohh i can prove it. You see by accident St can cause total destruction of
>> planets,
>
>Not planets, quadrants of the galaxy.
>
Yeah accident
>> but when it wants to it cant do it at all.
>
>Where is that.
>
when the Cardassiand and roms attacked the Founders. IF they had wanted to
kill them why not just destroy the sun with a "modified torpedo" (probably
because the modified torp does not exsist)
>> Alos why would they make that weapon? for fun?
>
>No, this is an example that ST tech is better than SW tech.
>
No it isnt. Its a pointless argument that proves nothing.
>> >> The Death Star,
>> >
>> >It is just big - there is no high tech involved there.
>>
>> The superlaser
>
>Get a really big laser and it will do the same thing. Can it destroy
>star systems? No? It sucks.
>
Ok why do you want to destroy a star system? so you can kill your friends?
so you can endanger your own stuff?
Elim get a life and stop being so damn stupid all the time.
>> and the indestructable shield
>
>Why do you say that it is indestructable?
BEcause it is
How do you know?
Because they said it was.
Nothing is
>indestructable.
>
The shadow planet killer
>> >> the sun crusher,
>> >
>> >ST can do that with a hand-held device like the one shown in DS9.
>>
>> No it can not.
>
>Watch DS9, "By Inferno's Light". Besides, you never saw "Generations"?
>Since it is on screen, it is cannon.
>
That is not a hand held weapon and the suncrusher is a small fighter can can
fire heaps of these missiles
>> >> planetary shields,
>> >
>> >Again, just size.
>>
>> No as St does not use them ever.
>
>Yep - it does not build them this big.
>
because it cant make one that can do it.
>> >> the Death star
>> >> invulnerable shields,
>> >
>> >Nothing is invulnerable.
>>
>> Yes things are.
>
>Name one. If you pump enough energy into anything, it will
>explode/die/be destroyed. Fact of nature/fact of life. Get used to it.
The Shadow planet killer and energy.
>
>> >> sentient droids etc etc.
>> >
>> >Forgot Data? And the Doctors?
>>
>> The Doctor is not sentient he has been stated as simulating sentience and
>> possibly acchieving it at some point but concurrently not possessing it.
>
>Where was it stated?
When he was first activated
And how do you know? What separates sentience
>from simulated sentience? Ever heard of the Turing test? It is based
>on the same premise.
>
The test made to detect if AI is sentient. well in that no computer has
scored over enough to be anything more than a lump of silicon.
>> Data is a one off droid that sucks in comparison to SW ones.
>
>OK, tell me why he sucks.
He is horribly inefficient (As per specialization analysis)
He is inferior to Sw droids at accomplishing similar tasks
He is badly programmed
He has inferior design
And give me concrete examples where other
>droids are better - give examples of more brain power or strength.
Ig88 is stronger faster and better designed and smarter
Guri is superior in all aspects
C3P0 is superior in his field
R2D2 is superior in his field
any SW droid is superior in the field they were designed to be in.
>Simple adjectives or beliefs won't do.
>
Why thats all you use.
>> >Transporters are either very efficient, or ST power reserves are very
>> >large.
>>
>> No St just does not care, like all communist states it could care less
what
>> it costs just so long as it is flashy.
>
>That is a belief, and as such is irrelevant.
No it is a fact
Communist Russia had to be the first to have the entire country with power,
the inefficiency this single minded flash goal caused was gigantic. Getting
trains to run on time cost far too much for the benefit it gave etc etc all
this leads to the conclusion that communism likes to have flashy results and
bugger the cost and ST is communist in its ways and ideal
Picard "The economics of the future are differnt. There is no money, people
work for the betterment of mankind........" A blatantly Communist speach
from Star Trek First Contact.
Give facts, examples, not
>suppositions.
>
Example above
>> St power reserves suck, they never
>> have enough power
>
>Perhaps that is because their needs are greater than in SW. If not,
>proove it.
>
IF so then why have transporters? You see you trap yourself with lies Elim.
>> and they use so much incomparison to the benefit they
>> give.
>
>Or they found ways of using the power much more efficiently.
>
How? I am assuming perfect use of power. If there was even the slightest
inefficiency then they would be much worse than what I am using.
>> >Remember those little flying droids? They constantly replicated
>> >tools and flew all over the place, which shows us that they had plenty
>> >of power inside.
>>
>> Whatb little flying droids?
>
>The droids in the TNG episode "Quality of Life". The droids are smaller
>than a breadbox, yet can fly all over the place, and replicate tools
>without the need to recharge.
Yes they did need to recharge they had power given to them constantly.
So now you have a choise - either ST
>transporters are more efficient than you think, or ST can put the power
>of a relatively large nuke inside a really small device which was
>designed for some other use.
>
No they can not. Yopu see it had to use main ships power and also we must
not forget the episode where Quark, Nog and the other one accidentialy went
back in time and it was stated they needed a GIGANTIC power source, which in
the end was provided by a very small nuclear bomb (numbering in the 10s of
kilatons) to return home.
>> >> and time travel dos not allow you to
>> >> alter anything at all (self consistency occurs always)
>> >
>> >Yes, but so what?
>>
>> Well why have it
>
>It is an example of superior technology.
>
No it is an example of communist waste, we can go back in time but we can't
do anything. For all you know the Empire can go back in time aswell but they
realise that doing so is a big waste of time.
>> >SW has nothing like it.
>>
>> How do you know? They may very well have deemed it useless for that exact
>> reason.
>
>We never saw it, never heard of it, therefore it does not exist.
>
Why? I never saw or heard of TIE Advanced, Defenders, gunboats,
missileboats, A-Wings, B-Wings, Z-Wings, Interdictors, Bulkcruisers,
Bullwark cruisers etc etc the list goes on and on in Sw but we know they are
there as Lucas tells us they are.
We have never seen more than 10 St ships therefore that must be all they
have by your logic.
>> >What about turretless
>> >weapons like phasers?
>>
>> And they are efficient how?
>> They take up enough space to fit several turrets and fire with the power
of
>> one so in effect if they were replaced with turrets their firepower would
>> increase several times over.
>
>No, they take up less space,
LESS SPACE!!!! hell those banks on the enterprise went right around the
hull.
yet they can fire in any direction.
so can heaps of turrets.
Power
>is irrelevant here - it is not connected to the mode of emittion.
>
Yes it is
>> >I am not talking about power right now, I am
>> >talking about method of firing. What about warp torpedoes?
>>
>> So they have to be in warp to do that.
>
>Still better than anything SW has.
No it is not.
A photon torpedo could have went
>down that shaft with ease, and it could have been launched from behind a
>planet.
>
No it could not.
One it is too big
Two it isnt powerful enough
Three is couldnt turn into the trench and go down the shaft.
>> >What about
>> >nanites?
>>
>> So. The feds don;t have them and who is to say SW does not.
>
>They do have them - watch some TNG. We saw them first in the TNG
>episode "Evolution", and after that heard about them a few more times.
>
They do not have them. Just like you to always make things up hell I even
remember when you said Voyager could survive in the corona of a sun but
negelected to mention that the female Q had to tell them how to make their
shields powerful enough.
>> >What about hand weapons as powerful as phasers?
>>
>> They are puny when compared to hand held blasters, hell according to you
>> they are so powerful that a zero mass projectile causes the recoil they
>> show.
>
>That is irrelevant.
No it is not it is the entire point of this argument.
They do almost no damage.
Yes they do they kill.
They can not
>desintegrate a body or walls at will as shown in "Return of the
>Archons", they can not be set on wide field, etc.
>
So they can kill and that is what they are made for. They can kill
Stormtroopers despite their armor and as anyone with half a brain will tell
you the object of a blaster is to kill one target and as such they have a
concentrated method of fire, meaning their efficiency is high.
>> >There's more.
>>
>> Yeah but try to actually get something that shows anything at all.
>
>Try to know stuff about which you are arguing.
>
I do whereas you do not. Please tell me why do zero mass projectile weapons
have recoil?
>> >> That you can change nothing
>> >
>> >So what?
>>
>> So it make time travel pointless.
>
>Not if there are multiple timelines.
>
No as it includes that and you are obvioulsy soo ignorant of what I am
talking about you bring this up in the hopes you can pretend you know what I
am talking about. The fact is Multiple timelines makes no difference.
>> >SW doesn't have that technology.
>>
>> How do you know? Ever seen them say that? Perhaps they realise it sucks
and
>> don't care.
>
>It doesn't suck with multiple timelines.
Yes it does as the Universe has multiple 'timelines' and that is what
physics accounts for. Elim you only make yourself look stupider.
And since we never seen or
>heard anything about it anywhere, it doesn't exist.
>
Physics doesn't exsist because some no brain hick like you has never heard
of it? Please fuck off Elim, your death will do the world a service, after
you die the sum of the universes I.Q. will increase three fold.
>> >ST already knows 3 ways to
>> >travel through time, while SW doesn't know any.
>>
>> There is only one way to travel in time. The ones St uses are wrong and
defy
>> the laws of physics making all of St totaly invalid, I am perpared to
>> ovelook this fact but if you wish to continue with this time travel is so
>> great thing then I will have to bring in reality.
>
>In ST there are three, and it is canon,
Wrong Physics is canon if St defies physics it is deemed wrong.
because it was seen on the
>screen.
So physics says its wrong and Physics overrides everything
The fact that we know only one way to do it is irrelevant,
The fact is we know the only way to do it.
Just out of interest Elim do you know how to do it?
>because ST uses higher science.
Sorry your wrong there, they defie the laws of physics all the time and no
matter the mode of transport they still can not change the past.
Also please apply your above argument to our previous descussion on faster
than light objects where you said it was impossible for an object in real
space to go faster than light.
ST CAN NOT break the laws of physics.
In the 19th century some people
>believed that flight in a heavyer than air craft is impossible. In fact
>there was one guy who continued to say this 2 years after the flight of
>the Wright brothers - you must be related to him.
>
No the fact is you deny physics when it disagrees with St and use it to
disagree with other shows. Therefore you must chose which it is physics is
correct or physics is wrong you can not pick and chose at your discression.
Which is it Elim? where your time travel works or where the shadows can sit
millionsof Km out of St range and instantly cut them to pieces?
>> >> No that would not happen
>> >
>> >Yep. But its nice to know that ST has that capability, and SW doesn't.
>>
>> So how do youm know they don't? They could, just as St does think that
doing
>> so is one of the lamest and stupidest things ever.
>
>I know that they don't because the people said that the DS is the
>"ultimate power in the universe" or some such thing.
Not so
"The power to destroy a planet is insignificat compared to the power of the
force" Dath Vader
The omega molecule
>can be contained in a device no bigger than a VW bug, and the Death Star
>monstrosity is completly unnecessary.
>
yeah the suncrusher shows that.
>> >You are right, the Federation wouldn't use it - it is just one more
>> >example of how far ST tech is ahead of SW.
>>
>> Why? the Omega particle was a freak occurance, how do you know the SW
guys
>> have not met it also, but decided it was impracticle as a weapon?
extremely
>> possible and plausable seeing as they do not have warp etc.
>
>The Omega molecule was not a freac occurance, it could be made out of
>some materials, which the Empire should have been able to find if it
>wanted to.
And how do you know they have not?
And it is more practicle than the engeneering horror they
>call the Death Star.
No it is not as they have to destroy too much, far more than they need to.
Rush Limbaugh
Because they wanted to explain what has not been explained not to reexplain
things if you understand.
Everything that physics has explained is fact, everything we have not
explained is unknown, Time travel has been explained therefore it is
unchangeable. The laws of physics are immuteable and they state changing the
past is impossible.
No matter how much you Pro STers want to deny it, Phyisics is the overriding
Canon scource there is.
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
This reminds me of a Sci-Fi War Simulator a couple of my friends created
(BTW, David Carswell, if you read this get in contact with me.) One of
the ships was so long that it took 2 days to get from one end to the
other, and the bridge and the only bathroom where on opposite ends.
Obviously this was not a very serious game.
C.S.Strowbridge
Elim Garak
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> On Discovery Channel last night they were talking about future space
> travel and how that if we wanted to be an interstellar race we would
> need to get some type of new pysics to account for some of he variables
> that can not be solved. So, if they say "new physics", why can't ST have
> different physics than this world?
Because it is supposed to be in our universe. Because if ST doesn't use
our laws of physics, we might as well throw out all laws of physics, and
say that they can breathe in vacuum, are immune to most forms of energy,
and can create planets at will.
> Because they wanted to explain what has not been explained not to reexplain
> things if you understand.
> Everything that physics has explained is fact, everything we have not
> explained is unknown, Time travel has been explained therefore it is
> unchangeable. The laws of physics are immuteable and they state changing the
> past is impossible.
> No matter how much you Pro STers want to deny it, Phyisics is the overriding
> Canon scource there is.
You are wrong for one very simple reason - we don't actually know what
the laws of physics are. We have some mathematics that explains most of
physics, but that's about it. Newton, for instance, thought that
0.5mv^2 is the absolute formula for kinetic energy. Einstein prooved
him wrong. Before Copernicus, for instance, people thought that Earth
should stay still - that it is the law of nature. Everything in their
model worked - like in our model - but it was very complex (the
trajectories were full of circles - thousands of them). It is possible
that something like that exists in our science.
Elim Garak
Eric Johnson wrote:
>
> I have a question for the ST people about the Omega particle, why are you
> bringing it up? The federation does not use it, nor know how it make and
> store it.
Because it is an example of how ST tech is better than SW tech.
> In fact they have a directive that supercedes all others to
> destroy it on site. I thought its use was not as a weapon, but as a very
> powerful energy source. Also the major side effect is not the blast, but the
> permanent damage to large area of subspace, forever after preventing warp
> flight in the area.
Yes, but it also emitts huge amouts of energy, and so can be used as a
weapon.
> It would seem that use of this by the ST side would be utter suicide. Yes
> you might do some damage, but you lose your warp capability. And SW ships
> using hyperspace just bypass this little problem of yours, or jump in to hit
> your now sitting ducks. Heck, for all we know that might have been the power
> source for the death star. The empire could care less about the destruction
> of subspace, they don't use so it, so it is expandable. Now wouldn't that be
> ironic ST ships getting humbled by the passage of a SW power source in that
> general area at some point in the past.
It would be ironic, but SW uses reactors as a power source - very big
reactors in fact. Since the DS does not have a reactor the size of a VW
bug, they do not use the Omega molecule.
Elim Garak
David J Berube wrote:
>
> >Watch DS9, "By Inferno's Light". Besides, you never saw "Generations"?
> >Since it is on screen, it is cannon.
>
I think it just stopped the reactions inside a star - it did not make it
go nova. And from what I understood it could be used again and again,
and did not have to be thrown into the star. And it is from the 27th
century, and apparently even they don't know how to make another one -
criminals have to go back in time to try to find it.
> >Where was it stated? And how do you know? What separates sentience
> >from simulated sentience? Ever heard of the Turing test? It is based
> >on the same premise.
>
> Huh. Read a little more on the Turing test.
>
> What is PROVED is this: We need a better way to TELL simulated sentience
> from sentience. Read up on the Eliza Effect.
I did read up on it, and I think it is not a very good example. Eliza
effect can be detected by simply asking the machine deep questions.
Frankly, I thought about this for a some time, and while I am not an
expert in this, I don't see why sentience is so complicated. To create
sentience all you need to do is attach a self-motivation block to a
problem solving block. A system like that should be sentient - if the
self-motivation block is complex enough.
> >OK, tell me why he sucks. And give me concrete examples where other
> >droids are better - give examples of more brain power or strength.
> >Simple adjectives or beliefs won't do.
>
> See my post on Assasin droids. C-3PO speaks 30 millon languages.
You are basically saying that he has a very large HD. Why is that so
important? Data can probably also speak very many languages (probably
does) - if he devoted his entire mind to their storage. And I think I
read the Assasin droid post, but it only described the construction of
the android. It did not look very impressive. ST is quite capable of
creating such a droid with no problems.
> >The droids in the TNG episode "Quality of Life". The droids are smaller
> >than a breadbox, yet can fly all over the place, and replicate tools
> >without the need to recharge. So now you have a choise - either ST
> >transporters are more efficient than you think, or ST can put the power
> >of a relatively large nuke inside a really small device which was
> >designed for some other use.
>
> Or replication is different from transporters.
Nope. The ST encyclopedia says so. But replicators are a bit different
from transporters in that they do not actually recreate matter, they
recombine organic (and inorganic) molecules (or atoms?) in storage into
different combinations.
> >We never saw it, never heard of it, therefore it does not exist.
>
> We never saw ST bathrooms, never heard of them, therefore they do not exist.
True (although there is one in the middle of the plan of the Enterprise
:), but you have to admit that a bathroom is very different from other
things (what were we talking about :?).
> >No, they take up less space, yet they can fire in any direction. Power
> >is irrelevant here - it is not connected to the mode of emittion.
>
> So can turbolasers turrets...
Turbolaser turrets have to spend time on rotation - they couldn't keep
up with the fighters, for instance.
> >Still better than anything SW has. A photon torpedo could have went
> >down that shaft with ease, and it could have been launched from behind a
> >planet.
>
> Dunno what you are talking about. However, ST torps can't seek.
Not normal ones, but quantum torpedoes can (I think). I am sure they
can hit a stationary object (the DS can be considered stationary) with
pinpoint accuracy.
> >The Omega molecule was not a freac occurance, it could be made out of
> >some materials, which the Empire should have been able to find if it
> >wanted to. And it is more practicle than the engeneering horror they
> >call the Death Star.
>
> RIGHT. It was a FREAK.
What was a freak?
Elim Garak
Timeout wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.98061...@h4h.com>,
> lo...@h4h.com says...
> >
> > On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, David J Berube wrote:
> >
> > > >droids are better - give examples of more brain power or strength.
> > > >Simple adjectives or beliefs won't do.
> >
> >
> > conscience into the Death Star 2's computer core, and took over the entire
> > moon-sized station beefore it blew up. They tried to link Data's brain to
> > the E-D's computer, and everything on the ship started screwing up: the
> > food replicators would only produce cat food, and the holodecks were
> > trying to kill people, etc.
>
> Now that could go both ways. It could mean that the DSII's computer was
> shuttle craft can modify its parameters with voice commands, where in SW
> they need droids to make physical modifications. So the ST computers
> could be much more advanced than the SW computers.
> that is very capable of combat and knows its limitations. While Data is
> also sentient, knows his limitations, and is capable at combat, he wasn't
> designed that way.
> So I would have to go with the IG88 as victory in a one-on-one battle.
> both would sustain considerable damage in the battle. But I have seen
> Data injured too many times to think he would be victorious. Although
> the direct hits with the assault rifle in FC was impressive, I think the
> IG88 can withstand equal punishment.
>
> I think Data's quick thinking and superior agility would bring him the
> victory.
Yep. Data would quickly realise that Robocup has a glass jaw. :)
Elim Garak
Wayne Poe wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, David J Berube wrote:
>
> > >droids are better - give examples of more brain power or strength.
> > >Simple adjectives or beliefs won't do.
>
>
> Proof of IG88's brain power over Data: He sucessfully downloaded his
> conscience into the Death Star 2's computer core, and took over the entire
> moon-sized station beefore it blew up. They tried to link Data's brain to
> the E-D's computer, and everything on the ship started screwing up: the
> food replicators would only produce cat food, and the holodecks were
> trying to kill people, etc.
That is not proof of brain power - that is proof of compatibility. And
they did not try to download Data into the computer, they just tried to
give him direct controll of all systems. It did work once, BTW - while
only his head was around.
brendo/poges
Physics on a normal macroscopic scale are pretty much the final say, but it is
well known that as the scale gets smaller (ie atomic), the laws of physics do
NOT apply. The way space/time interacts on a universal level may likewise not
operate according to the normal macroscopic physics. This is important to
understand in ST and SW as much of the technology revolves around the atomic and
space/time level.
warthog
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
> On Discovery Channel last night they were talking about future space
> travel and how that if we wanted to be an interstellar race we would
> need to get some type of new pysics to account for some of he variables
> that can not be solved. So, if they say "new physics", why can't ST have
> different physics than this world?
Rush Limbaugh
brendo/poges wrote in message <3586860D...@one.net.au>...
>Physics on a normal macroscopic scale are pretty much the final say, but it
is
>well known that as the scale gets smaller (ie atomic), the laws of physics
do
>NOT apply.
Quantum mechanics applies.
The way space/time interacts on a universal level may likewise not
>operate according to the normal macroscopic physics.
Not so.
This is important to
>understand in ST and SW as much of the technology revolves around the
atomic and
>space/time level.
>
Nope your wrong.
Rush Limbaugh
>> On Discovery Channel last night they were talking about future space
>> travel and how that if we wanted to be an interstellar race we would
>> need to get some type of new pysics to account for some of he variables
>> that can not be solved. So, if they say "new physics", why can't ST have
>> different physics than this world?
>
>our laws of physics, we might as well throw out all laws of physics, and
>say that they can breathe in vacuum, are immune to most forms of energy,
>and can create planets at will.
>
>> Because they wanted to explain what has not been explained not to
reexplain
>> things if you understand.
>> Everything that physics has explained is fact, everything we have not
>> explained is unknown, Time travel has been explained therefore it is
>> unchangeable. The laws of physics are immuteable and they state changing
the
>> past is impossible.
>> No matter how much you Pro STers want to deny it, Phyisics is the
overriding
>> Canon scource there is.
>
>You are wrong for one very simple reason - we don't actually know what
>the laws of physics are.
Yes we do.
We have some mathematics that explains most of
>physics, but that's about it. Newton, for instance, thought that
>0.5mv^2 is the absolute formula for kinetic energy. Einstein prooved
>him wrong.
Newton had measuring devices that were so inaccurate he could not tell.
Before Copernicus, for instance, people thought that Earth
>should stay still - that it is the law of nature.
Not true. thousands of years before that the Babylonian king something or
other thought the Earth went around the sun and spun on its axis aswell.
Everything in their
>model worked - like in our model - but it was very complex (the
>trajectories were full of circles - thousands of them). It is possible
>that something like that exists in our science.
No. Nothing that obvious or big, any inconsistencies will be miniscule and
irrelevant.
PuPPeTeer
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >> >Watch more ST. They do it all the time.
> >>
> >> So in St they can also alter history which is IMPOSSIBLE.
> >
> >What is your point? Are you just shouting out random facts in hopes
> >that people will not notice that you don't have a leg to stand on?
> >
> No it is a scientific FACT. The only result is self consistent. you see we
> can make time machines, we know how.
Yeah? How.
Nicholas Buenk
Rush Limbaugh <Rush_Lim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
89803100...@newsch.es.co.nz...
>>> On Discovery Channel last night they were talking about future space
>>> travel and how that if we wanted to be an interstellar race we would
>>> need to get some type of new pysics to account for some of he variables
>>> that can not be solved. So, if they say "new physics", why can't ST have
>>> different physics than this world?
>>
>>Because it is supposed to be in our universe. Because if ST doesn't use
>>our laws of physics, we might as well throw out all laws of physics, and
>>say that they can breathe in vacuum, are immune to most forms of energy,
>>and can create planets at will.
>>
>But they don't use our laws of physics.
They do ues our physics, but in 400 years i think they would have found a lot
more laws to add to the physics law book
Rush Limbaugh
>>>Because it is supposed to be in our universe. Because if ST doesn't use
>>>our laws of physics, we might as well throw out all laws of physics, and
>>>say that they can breathe in vacuum, are immune to most forms of energy,
>>>and can create planets at will.
>>>
>>But they don't use our laws of physics.
>
>They do ues our physics, but in 400 years i think they would have found a
lot
>more laws to add to the physics law book
>
Well no, they always talk about physics things that we have known about for
a long time ie the Dyson sphere etc.
St has no 'advanced physics' they can not deny those laws we already know to
be correct and as such it makes itself invalid
Rush Limbaugh
>> >> >Watch more ST. They do it all the time.
>> >>
>> >> So in St they can also alter history which is IMPOSSIBLE.
>> >
>> >What is your point? Are you just shouting out random facts in hopes
>> >that people will not notice that you don't have a leg to stand on?
>> >
>> No it is a scientific FACT. The only result is self consistent. you see
we
>> can make time machines, we know how.
>
I was hoping someone would ask that.
You see we get two worm hole mouths (the corresponding mouths for eachother)
and move one off at the speed of light (well actually at a speed very close
to the speed of light) and we see that its time coordinate is fixed (or
'distorted' by the relative time distortions created by high velocity
travel) and then as it return to its position it becomes a gate in time to
the point you sent it off from (the relative time of the holes position).
Nicholas Buenk
Rush Limbaugh <Rush_Lim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
89806939...@newsch.es.co.nz...
>
>>>>Because it is supposed to be in our universe. Because if ST doesn't use
>>>>our laws of physics, we might as well throw out all laws of physics, and
>>>>say that they can breathe in vacuum, are immune to most forms of energy,
>>>>and can create planets at will.
>>>>
>>>But they don't use our laws of physics.
>>
>>They do ues our physics, but in 400 years i think they would have found a
>lot
>>more laws to add to the physics law book
>>
>Well no, they always talk about physics things that we have known about for
>a long time ie the Dyson sphere etc.
>St has no 'advanced physics' they can not deny those laws we already know to
>be correct and as such it makes itself invalid
I said add laws, not rewrite the book
Matthew Savill
This is a THEORY. It is NOT FACT because it has not been done yet.
Therefore we do not 'know' how to build a time machine, we can assume
that this is how one might be built though.
Matthew Savill
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >> >> No it is a scientific FACT. The only result is self consistent. you
> see
> >> we
> >> >> can make time machines, we know how.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah? How.
> >>
> >> I was hoping someone would ask that.
> >> You see we get two worm hole mouths (the corresponding mouths for
> eachother)
> >> and move one off at the speed of light (well actually at a speed very
> close
> >> to the speed of light) and we see that its time coordinate is fixed (or
> >> 'distorted' by the relative time distortions created by high velocity
> >> travel) and then as it return to its position it becomes a gate in time
> to
> >> the point you sent it off from (the relative time of the holes position).
> >
> >This is a THEORY. It is NOT FACT because it has not been done yet.
> >Therefore we do not 'know' how to build a time machine, we can assume
> >that this is how one might be built though.
>
No we DON'T. We haven't done it yet, so we don't 'know' it would work.
It is THEORY. It has not been done yet...unless you happen to have built
a time machine and not told anyone?
Elim Garak
Eric Johnson wrote:
>
> I still do not see how it shows that ST tech is better than SW tech. All it
> is saying is that the federation knows how to make a very unstable particle
> that may be unique to their universe. Heck, not even the borg do not know
> how to confine it. For all we do know is that if it exists in the SW
> universe they may have encountered it and decided that it was too unstable
> to be of any use to them and suspended all future research on it (just as
> the federation did when it destroyed warp flight in the system it was being
> researched in).
SW suspended research on AM drives, yet they are a lot more efficient
than fusion reactors. I am sure that the Federation is still doing
theoretical research on the omega molecule.
> One further thing is that the federation's use of a device using this
> particle would signal essentially their defeat. It means that they are show
> overpowered that they can not hope to win at all and are willing to destroy
> subspace and their ability to go to warp to survive.
>
> Also the dominion war presented perfect opportunities to use this device and
> since they didn't we can assume that they never will.
I am not saying that they will use this device, I am saying that they
can.
Elim Garak
brendo/poges wrote:
>
> > > >The Omega molecule was not a freac occurance, it could be made out of
> > > >some materials, which the Empire should have been able to find if it
> > > >wanted to. And it is more practicle than the engeneering horror they
> > > >call the Death Star.
> > >
> > > RIGHT. It was a FREAK.
> >
> > What was a freak?
>
> weaknesses in the Death Star. The Rebellion found out by using spies working
> within the Empire.
>
> The federation would have to infiltrate the Deathstar and somehow find the highly
> guarded plans.
Or turn on their sensors. Or send a cloaked ship close to the station
and scan it and/or transport somebody over to download everything from
the computers.
Elim Garak
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >> On Discovery Channel last night they were talking about future space
> >> travel and how that if we wanted to be an interstellar race we would
> >> need to get some type of new pysics to account for some of he variables
> >> that can not be solved. So, if they say "new physics", why can't ST have
> >> different physics than this world?
> >
> >our laws of physics, we might as well throw out all laws of physics, and
> >say that they can breathe in vacuum, are immune to most forms of energy,
> >and can create planets at will.
>
> But they don't use our laws of physics.
They use physics beyond us, not separate from us.
> >You are wrong for one very simple reason - we don't actually know what
> >the laws of physics are.
>
> Yes we do.
We do? Did you gaze iside the workings of the universe and find out?
> >We have some mathematics that explains most of
> >physics, but that's about it. Newton, for instance, thought that
> >0.5mv^2 is the absolute formula for kinetic energy. Einstein prooved
> >him wrong.
>
> Newton had measuring devices that were so inaccurate he could not tell.
The same can be true for us. We have no explanation for gravity in QM,
for instance.
> >Before Copernicus, for instance, people thought that Earth
> >should stay still - that it is the law of nature.
>
> Not true. thousands of years before that the Babylonian king something or
> other thought the Earth went around the sun and spun on its axis aswell.
Well, that's his problem. The fact remains that most people believed
that sun went around the Earth.
> >Everything in their
> >model worked - like in our model - but it was very complex (the
> >trajectories were full of circles - thousands of them). It is possible
> >that something like that exists in our science.
>
> No. Nothing that obvious or big, any inconsistencies will be miniscule and
> irrelevant.
But they grow. Newton's equations, for instance, described the orbits
of the planets perfectly - except for Mercury. There was a tiny
inconsistency - otherwise they worked very well. By the time of
Einstein however, the inconsistencys grew.
Rush Limbaugh
>>>They do ues our physics, but in 400 years i think they would have found a
>>lot
>>>more laws to add to the physics law book
>>>
>>Well no, they always talk about physics things that we have known about
for
>>a long time ie the Dyson sphere etc.
>>St has no 'advanced physics' they can not deny those laws we already know
to
>>be correct and as such it makes itself invalid
>
>I said add laws, not rewrite the book
Well we have laws that ST constantly breaks
Rush Limbaugh
Nicholas Buenk
How many times has a old law been rewritten cause they found it was incorrect or
not all true?
Rush Limbaugh <Rush_Lim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
89812327...@newsch.es.co.nz...
Rush Limbaugh
>> >Because it is supposed to be in our universe. Because if ST doesn't use
>> >our laws of physics, we might as well throw out all laws of physics, and
>> >say that they can breathe in vacuum, are immune to most forms of energy,
>> >and can create planets at will.
>>
>> But they don't use our laws of physics.
>
>They use physics beyond us, not separate from us.
>
sphere
>> >You are wrong for one very simple reason - we don't actually know what
>> >the laws of physics are.
>>
>> Yes we do.
>
>We do? Did you gaze iside the workings of the universe and find out?
>
Yes i did physics
>> >We have some mathematics that explains most of
>> >physics, but that's about it. Newton, for instance, thought that
>> >0.5mv^2 is the absolute formula for kinetic energy. Einstein prooved
>> >him wrong.
>>
>> Newton had measuring devices that were so inaccurate he could not tell.
>
>The same can be true for us.
No it isnt
We have no explanation for gravity in QM,
>for instance.
>
Well actually we do.
In Quantum Gravity we have explainations for everything.
>> >Before Copernicus, for instance, people thought that Earth
>> >should stay still - that it is the law of nature.
>>
>> Not true. thousands of years before that the Babylonian king something or
>> other thought the Earth went around the sun and spun on its axis aswell.
>
>Well, that's his problem. The fact remains that most people believed
>that sun went around the Earth.
>
And had no proof for it either.
>> >Everything in their
>> >model worked - like in our model - but it was very complex (the
>> >trajectories were full of circles - thousands of them). It is possible
>> >that something like that exists in our science.
>>
>> No. Nothing that obvious or big, any inconsistencies will be miniscule
and
>> irrelevant.
>
>But they grow. Newton's equations, for instance, described the orbits
>of the planets perfectly - except for Mercury. There was a tiny
>inconsistency - otherwise they worked very well. By the time of
>Einstein however, the inconsistencys grew.
They grew from him having crap devices to measure things
Due to the increases in enropy in the universe whatever.
Rush Limbaugh
>> The federation would have to infiltrate the Deathstar and somehow find
the highly
>> guarded plans.
>
>Or turn on their sensors. Or send a cloaked ship close to the station
>and scan it and/or transport somebody over to download everything from
>the computers.
One they could not beam aboard and two they would get killed.
Rush Limbaugh
>No we DON'T. We haven't done it yet, so we don't 'know' it would work.
Yes we do know it would work
>It is THEORY. It has not been done yet...unless you happen to have built
>a time machine and not told anyone?
No but we do know that it does work.
Rush Limbaugh
>SW suspended research on AM drives, yet they are a lot more efficient
>than fusion reactors.
Well actually that depends
I am sure that the Federation is still doing
>theoretical research on the omega molecule.
>
Well no they abandoned it.
>> One further thing is that the federation's use of a device using this
>> particle would signal essentially their defeat. It means that they are
show
>> overpowered that they can not hope to win at all and are willing to
destroy
>> subspace and their ability to go to warp to survive.
>>
>> Also the dominion war presented perfect opportunities to use this device
and
>> since they didn't we can assume that they never will.
>
>I am not saying that they will use this device, I am saying that they
>can.
Which amounts to nothing
Nicholas Buenk
Yes, and same things can happen in modern science
Rush Limbaugh <Rush_Lim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
89815269...@newsch.es.co.nz...
Nicholas Buenk
Rush Limbaugh <Rush_Lim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
89815277...@newsch.es.co.nz...
Maybe the theories wrong
Matthew Savill
Elim Garak wrote:
>
> Eric Johnson wrote:
> >
> > I still do not see how it shows that ST tech is better than SW tech. All it
> > is saying is that the federation knows how to make a very unstable particle
> > that may be unique to their universe. Heck, not even the borg do not know
> > how to confine it. For all we do know is that if it exists in the SW
> > universe they may have encountered it and decided that it was too unstable
> > to be of any use to them and suspended all future research on it (just as
> > the federation did when it destroyed warp flight in the system it was being
> > researched in).
>
> theoretical research on the omega molecule.
I seriously doubt that! They are prepared to doom another civilisation
to stop research on the Omega Molecule, so they are highly unlikely to
study it themselves.
Matthew Savill
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >No we DON'T. We haven't done it yet, so we don't 'know' it would work.
>
> Yes we do know it would work
>
> >It is THEORY. It has not been done yet...unless you happen to have built
> >a time machine and not told anyone?
>
> No but we do know that it does work.
NO WE DON'T.
It is a theory....a mathematical suggestion! Given a certain set of
parameters, the mathematics shows that in a certain situation it would
work. But given that we don't know that that would be the situation in
time travel, we cannot be absolutely certain that it would work. Hence
it is theory until it has actually been done.
Timeout
In article <3588F800...@york.ac.uk>, mts...@york.ac.uk says...
remote....more possible if they need it in a future episode.
--
The 'real' Enterprise exists in the imaginations of the audience.
Timeout
Matthew Savill
I think the way they ended the episode: 7 of 9 seeing her 'God' was the
writers way of eliminating the Omega Molecule from future episodes. If
they hadn't done that then 7 might have continued, but as it is, they
presented her as having fulfilled her scientific desire.
Timeout
In article <89812327...@newsch.es.co.nz>,
Rush_Lim...@hotmail.com says...
> >>>They do ues our physics, but in 400 years i think they would have found a
> >>lot
> >>>more laws to add to the physics law book
> >>>
> >>Well no, they always talk about physics things that we have known about
> for
> >>a long time ie the Dyson sphere etc.
> >>St has no 'advanced physics' they can not deny those laws we already know
> to
> >>be correct and as such it makes itself invalid
> >
> >I said add laws, not rewrite the book
>
> Well we have laws that ST constantly breaks
>
They are all invalid by your standards, all of them are fiction and don't
have to comply to real physics....that is one of the good parts of all
the sci-fi shows.
Rush Limbaugh
>> >I said add laws, not rewrite the book
>>
>> Well we have laws that ST constantly breaks
>>
>SW and B5 also constantly break the laws of physics,
Sorry? B5 Never breaks the laws of physics. i would like examples of that
statement.
whats the big deal.
Well B5 NEVER breaks the laws of physics.
>They are all invalid by your standards, all of them are fiction and don't
>have to comply to real physics....that is one of the good parts of all
>the sci-fi shows.
>
Well No B5 has never broken the laws of physics.
Rush Limbaugh
>Yes, and same things can happen in modern science
>
Rush Limbaugh
>>>It is THEORY. It has not been done yet...unless you happen to have built
>>>a time machine and not told anyone?
>>
>>No but we do know that it does work.
>
>
No it isn't
Rush Limbaugh
>> >It is THEORY. It has not been done yet...unless you happen to have built
>> >a time machine and not told anyone?
>>
>> No but we do know that it does work.
>
>
>It is a theory....a mathematical suggestion! Given a certain set of
>parameters, the mathematics shows that in a certain situation it would
>work. But given that we don't know that that would be the situation in
>time travel, we cannot be absolutely certain that it would work. Hence
>it is theory until it has actually been done.
No it is correct until you can prove otherwise.
Rush Limbaugh
>It is possible that 7 of 9 will...without Janeways knowledge. Though
>remote....more possible if they need it in a future episode.
Nice shit talking timeout
Matthew Savill
WHAT???!!
How about FTL travel?
Virtually ALL SF breaks some laws of physics. It is a basic necessity of
the story telling in most places!
Matthew Savill
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >>>It is THEORY. It has not been done yet...unless you happen to have built
> >>>a time machine and not told anyone?
> >>
> >>No but we do know that it does work.
> >
> >
> No it isn't
How do you know? Aside from the maths, it hasn't actually been tested in
reality yet.
Matthew Savill
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >> >It is THEORY. It has not been done yet...unless you happen to have built
> >> >a time machine and not told anyone?
> >>
> >> No but we do know that it does work.
> >
> >
> >It is a theory....a mathematical suggestion! Given a certain set of
> >parameters, the mathematics shows that in a certain situation it would
> >work. But given that we don't know that that would be the situation in
> >time travel, we cannot be absolutely certain that it would work. Hence
> >it is theory until it has actually been done.
>
> No it is correct until you can prove otherwise.
Ok..listen hard. YES it is correct in that it is self consistent with
it's internal conclusions, maths and parameters.
HOWEVER, we do not know if, were it to be tried in reality, those
perameters would still hold true. Thus, whilst the theory is self
consistent, it is not yet fact, as it hasn't happened in reality.
Matthew Savill
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >> Sorry? B5 Never breaks the laws of physics. i would like examples of that
> >> statement.
> >>
> >> whats the big deal.
> >>
> >> Well B5 NEVER breaks the laws of physics.
> >>
> >> >They are all invalid by your standards, all of them are fiction and
> don't
> >> >have to comply to real physics....that is one of the good parts of all
> >> >the sci-fi shows.
> >> >
> >> Well No B5 has never broken the laws of physics.
> >
> >WHAT???!!
> >
> >How about FTL travel?
> >
Sorry...but physics says, very bluntly, that FTL travel is impossible.
>
> >Virtually ALL SF breaks some laws of physics.
>
> B5 breaks none.
>
> It is a basic necessity of
> >the story telling in most places!
>
> No, B5 has never broken the laws of physics and is touted as th only sci-fi
> show to ever completely comply to the laws of physics.
Rubbish. Even JMS has admitted they make mistakes!
Matthew Savill
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >> >Maybe the theories wrong
> >> >
> >> No it isn't
> >
> >How do you know? Aside from the maths, it hasn't actually been tested in
> >reality yet.
>
> holes, but now they have and guess what the mathematical 'guesses' they made
> were 100% accurate.
Correct. In that instance they were right. However, it does not
necessarily follow that they are right EVERY time. Thus, it is theory,
not yet fact.
Matthew Savill
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >> >It is a theory....a mathematical suggestion! Given a certain set of
> >> >parameters, the mathematics shows that in a certain situation it would
> >> >work. But given that we don't know that that would be the situation in
> >> >time travel, we cannot be absolutely certain that it would work. Hence
> >> >it is theory until it has actually been done.
> >>
> >> No it is correct until you can prove otherwise.
> >
> >Ok..listen hard. YES it is correct in that it is self consistent with
> >it's internal conclusions, maths and parameters.
> >
>
> >HOWEVER, we do not know if, were it to be tried in reality, those
> >perameters would still hold true.
>
How do you know? This is precisely my point..the maths would indicate
that such events would occur...but until we SEE it then we do not KNOW
that it is true.
>
> Thus, whilst the theory is self
> >consistent, it is not yet fact, as it hasn't happened in reality.
>
> Well unless you are arguing that unusual impossible things can happen (ie
> killing your farther before you were born) then you are wrong.
Er...that's not what I'm arguing at all.
I am simply saying, that until we actually test time travel theory, it
remains a theory.
Rush Limbaugh
>> Sorry? B5 Never breaks the laws of physics. i would like examples of that
>> statement.
>>
>> whats the big deal.
>>
>> Well B5 NEVER breaks the laws of physics.
>>
>> >They are all invalid by your standards, all of them are fiction and
don't
>> >have to comply to real physics....that is one of the good parts of all
>> >the sci-fi shows.
>> >
>> Well No B5 has never broken the laws of physics.
>
>WHAT???!!
>
>How about FTL travel?
>
hyperspace is included in physics as are tachyons etc.
>Virtually ALL SF breaks some laws of physics.
Rush Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh
>> >It is a theory....a mathematical suggestion! Given a certain set of
>> >parameters, the mathematics shows that in a certain situation it would
>> >work. But given that we don't know that that would be the situation in
>> >time travel, we cannot be absolutely certain that it would work. Hence
>> >it is theory until it has actually been done.
>>
>> No it is correct until you can prove otherwise.
>
>Ok..listen hard. YES it is correct in that it is self consistent with
>it's internal conclusions, maths and parameters.
>
And with logic.
>HOWEVER, we do not know if, were it to be tried in reality, those
>perameters would still hold true.
Well yes they would.
Thus, whilst the theory is self
Elim Garak
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >SW suspended research on AM drives, yet they are a lot more efficient
> >than fusion reactors.
>
On what?
> >I am sure that the Federation is still doing
> >theoretical research on the omega molecule.
>
> Well no they abandoned it.
They abandoned practical research, but I doubt that they would stop
theoretical research because of that.
> >> Also the dominion war presented perfect opportunities to use this device
> >> and
> >> since they didn't we can assume that they never will.
> >
> >I am not saying that they will use this device, I am saying that they
> >can.
>
> Which amounts to nothing
Except for the fact that ST tech is better than SW tech.
Elim Garak
Matthew Savill wrote:
>
> > > I still do not see how it shows that ST tech is better than SW tech. All it
> > > is saying is that the federation knows how to make a very unstable particle
> > > that may be unique to their universe. Heck, not even the borg do not know
> > > how to confine it. For all we do know is that if it exists in the SW
> > > universe they may have encountered it and decided that it was too unstable
> > > to be of any use to them and suspended all future research on it (just as
> > > the federation did when it destroyed warp flight in the system it was being
> > > researched in).
> >
> > theoretical research on the omega molecule.
>
> to stop research on the Omega Molecule, so they are highly unlikely to
> study it themselves.
Stop practical experimentation, equations on a page can't hurt you.
Elim Garak
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >> But they don't use our laws of physics.
> >
> >They use physics beyond us, not separate from us.
>
> No they don't they use physics that make referances to our ie the Dyson
> sphere
What does the Dyson sphere have to do with physics?
> >> Yes we do.
> >
> >We do? Did you gaze iside the workings of the universe and find out?
>
> Yes i did physics
Take some philosophy, dude. Most of it is crap, but some of it actually
makes sence.
> >> Newton had measuring devices that were so inaccurate he could not tell.
> >
> >The same can be true for us.
>
> No it isnt
Are you saying that we are at the pinnacle of technological measuring
devices?
> >We have no explanation for gravity in QM,
> >for instance.
>
> Well actually we do.
> In Quantum Gravity we have explainations for everything.
What is the explanation of gravity in QM?
> >> Not true. thousands of years before that the Babylonian king something or
> >> other thought the Earth went around the sun and spun on its axis aswell.
> >
> >Well, that's his problem. The fact remains that most people believed
> >that sun went around the Earth.
>
> And had no proof for it either.
Sure they did - at least all the proof that they considered necessary.
The sun went across the sky. That is all that they needed.
> >> No. Nothing that obvious or big, any inconsistencies will be miniscule
> >> and
> >> irrelevant.
> >
> >But they grow. Newton's equations, for instance, described the orbits
> >of the planets perfectly - except for Mercury. There was a tiny
> >inconsistency - otherwise they worked very well. By the time of
> >Einstein however, the inconsistencys grew.
>
> They grew from him having crap devices to measure things
> Due to the increases in enropy in the universe whatever.
No, the imperfection was known for several hundred years.
Elim Garak
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >> The federation would have to infiltrate the Deathstar and somehow find
> >> the highly
> >> guarded plans.
> >
> >Or turn on their sensors. Or send a cloaked ship close to the station
> >and scan it and/or transport somebody over to download everything from
> >the computers.
>
> One they could not beam aboard and two they would get killed.
Why not? They could - eventually. Anyway, are the DS shields all ALL
the time? And what about sensors?
Matthew Savill
Indeed. But it will never go beyond that.
phong_...@my-dejanews.com
In article <358AEADB...@york.ac.uk>,
Matthew Savill <mts...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Rush Limbaugh wrote:
> >
> > >> Sorry? B5 Never breaks the laws of physics. i would like examples of that
> > >> statement.
> > >>
> > >> whats the big deal.
> > >>
> > >> Well B5 NEVER breaks the laws of physics.
> > >>
> > >> >They are all invalid by your standards, all of them are fiction and
> > don't
> > >> >have to comply to real physics....that is one of the good parts of all
> > >> >the sci-fi shows.
> > >> >
> > >> Well No B5 has never broken the laws of physics.
> > >
> > >WHAT???!!
> > >
> > >How about FTL travel?
> > >
> > hyperspace is included in physics as are tachyons etc.
>
>
Actually, I read that B5 ships never really break the lightspeed barrier.
They go into an alternate dimension where distances are shortened, and
travel at sublight to their destination, where they exit.
> >
> > >Virtually ALL SF breaks some laws of physics.
> >
> > B5 breaks none.
> >
> > It is a basic necessity of
> > >the story telling in most places!
> >
> > No, B5 has never broken the laws of physics and is touted as th only sci-fi
> > show to ever completely comply to the laws of physics.
>
> Rubbish. Even JMS has admitted they make mistakes!
>
Yup, B5 has its share of physics mistakes
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Elim Garak
Matthew Savill wrote:
>
> > > > SW suspended research on AM drives, yet they are a lot more efficient
> > > > than fusion reactors. I am sure that the Federation is still doing
> > > > theoretical research on the omega molecule.
> > >
> > > I seriously doubt that! They are prepared to doom another civilisation
> > > to stop research on the Omega Molecule, so they are highly unlikely to
> > > study it themselves.
> >
> > Stop practical experimentation, equations on a page can't hurt you.
>
> Indeed. But it will never go beyond that.
It will, eventually. If they perfect the containment units. Almost
nothing would change because we already don't know where ST AM comes
from.
Matthew Savill
7 of 9 thought that she had perfected the containment field, but Janeway
still ordered her to eject it. It is explicitly said that the Federation
has ceased ALL experimentation with Omega. There is NONE, there will
probably never be any. They are committed to destroying it.
Matthew Savill
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >> >How about FTL travel?
> >> >
> >> hyperspace is included in physics as are tachyons etc.
> >
> >Sorry...but physics says, very bluntly, that FTL travel is impossible.
> >
>
> >> It is a basic necessity of
> >> >the story telling in most places!
> >>
> >> No, B5 has never broken the laws of physics and is touted as th only
> sci-fi
> >> show to ever completely comply to the laws of physics.
> >
> >Rubbish. Even JMS has admitted they make mistakes!
>
I'm sorry, but JMS himself has said it. One example is the baseball
sequence in "Knives" which doesn't adhere to the physics of being in a
large rotating cylinder.
Eric Johnson
Rush is correct in that they never intentionally break the laws of physics.
There are some cases where they screw up, but it is only slightly. And in
most of the cases where a problem appears to be, they are correct. The only
major error is that the stated mass of the station is too low and the seen
with Marcus and Franklin in free fall in a cargo ship firing its engines.
But, they attempt to get their science correct, one reason is that they do
not try to explain their technology with technobable.
Rush Limbaugh wrote in message <89846762...@newsch.es.co.nz>...
Timeout
In article <358AEADB...@york.ac.uk>, mts...@york.ac.uk says...
> Rush Limbaugh wrote:
> >
> > >> Sorry? B5 Never breaks the laws of physics. i would like examples of that
> > >> statement.
> > >>
> > >> whats the big deal.
> > >>
> > >> Well B5 NEVER breaks the laws of physics.
> > >>
> > >> >They are all invalid by your standards, all of them are fiction and
> > don't
> > >> >have to comply to real physics....that is one of the good parts of all
> > >> >the sci-fi shows.
> > >> >
> > >
> > >WHAT???!!
> > >
> > >How about FTL travel?
> > >
> > hyperspace is included in physics as are tachyons etc.
>
> Sorry...but physics says, very bluntly, that FTL travel is impossible.
>
> >
> >
> > B5 breaks none.
> >
> > >the story telling in most places!
> >
> > No, B5 has never broken the laws of physics and is touted as th only sci-fi
> > show to ever completely comply to the laws of physics.
>
>
course of events (B4), telepaths, just to mention a few.
So B5 is just as full of it as all the other Sci-fi shows.
I still like to watch it.
Rush Limbaugh
>> >How about FTL travel?
>> >
>> hyperspace is included in physics as are tachyons etc.
>
>Sorry...but physics says, very bluntly, that FTL travel is impossible.
>
>> It is a basic necessity of
>> >the story telling in most places!
>>
>> No, B5 has never broken the laws of physics and is touted as th only
sci-fi
>> show to ever completely comply to the laws of physics.
>
>Rubbish. Even JMS has admitted they make mistakes!
They never break the laws of physics.
Rush Limbaugh
>> No they don't they use physics that make referances to our ie the Dyson
>> sphere
>
>What does the Dyson sphere have to do with physics?
>
>> >> Yes we do.
>> >
>> >We do? Did you gaze iside the workings of the universe and find out?
>>
>> Yes i did physics
>
>Take some philosophy, dude. Most of it is crap, but some of it actually
>makes sence.
>
Philosophy is crap compared to physics.
>> >The same can be true for us.
>>
>> No it isnt
>
>Are you saying that we are at the pinnacle of technological measuring
>devices?
>
No but they are accurate enough to get reliable readings
>> >We have no explanation for gravity in QM,
>> >for instance.
>>
>> Well actually we do.
>> In Quantum Gravity we have explainations for everything.
>
>What is the explanation of gravity in QM?
>
Too long and complicated to explaind and also the fact is Quantum Gravity
has the explaination not Quantum Mechanics.
>> >Well, that's his problem. The fact remains that most people believed
>> >that sun went around the Earth.
>>
>> And had no proof for it either.
>
>Sure they did - at least all the proof that they considered necessary.
>The sun went across the sky. That is all that they needed.
>
And we don't do anything like that.
>> >But they grow. Newton's equations, for instance, described the orbits
>> >of the planets perfectly - except for Mercury. There was a tiny
>> >inconsistency - otherwise they worked very well. By the time of
>> >Einstein however, the inconsistencys grew.
>>
>> They grew from him having crap devices to measure things
>> Due to the increases in enropy in the universe whatever.
>
>No, the imperfection was known for several hundred years.
Arhh do you understand anything I post?
Rush Limbaugh
>> >Or turn on their sensors. Or send a cloaked ship close to the station
>> >and scan it and/or transport somebody over to download everything from
>> >the computers.
>>
>> One they could not beam aboard and two they would get killed.
>
>Why not?
shields
They could - eventually. Anyway, are the DS shields all ALL
>the time?
up all the time.
Yes
And what about sensors?
what about them?
Rush Limbaugh
>> >SW suspended research on AM drives, yet they are a lot more efficient
>> >than fusion reactors.
>>
>
>On what?
>
>> >I am sure that the Federation is still doing
>> >theoretical research on the omega molecule.
>>
>> Well no they abandoned it.
>
>They abandoned practical research, but I doubt that they would stop
>theoretical research because of that.
>
It may.
>> >> Also the dominion war presented perfect opportunities to use this
device
>> >> and
>> >> since they didn't we can assume that they never will.
>> >
>> >I am not saying that they will use this device, I am saying that they
>> >can.
>>
>> Which amounts to nothing
>
>Except for the fact that ST tech is better than SW tech.
no. How do you know Sw has not already done the same?
Matthew Savill
Eric Johnson wrote:
>
> Rush is correct in that they never intentionally break the laws of physics.
> There are some cases where they screw up, but it is only slightly. And in
> most of the cases where a problem appears to be, they are correct. The only
> major error is that the stated mass of the station is too low and the seen
> with Marcus and Franklin in free fall in a cargo ship firing its engines.
> But, they attempt to get their science correct, one reason is that they do
> not try to explain their technology with technobable.
>
> Rush Limbaugh wrote in message <89846762...@newsch.es.co.nz>...
> >They never break the laws of physics.
Indeed, but Rush is claiming that B5 has NEVER made a mistake ever,
intentional or otherwise. Again, he is talkiing utter rubbish.
Darth_...@my-dejanews.com
In article <358E3D54...@york.ac.uk>,
The only one talking rubbish is you! In B5 I have never seen any mistakes.
If I am wrong give me an example, don't just say things that don't prove
anything!
Matthew Savill
Darth_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <358E3D54...@york.ac.uk>,
> Matthew Savill <mts...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Eric Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > Rush is correct in that they never intentionally break the laws of physics.
> > > There are some cases where they screw up, but it is only slightly. And in
> > > most of the cases where a problem appears to be, they are correct. The only
> > > major error is that the stated mass of the station is too low and the seen
> > > with Marcus and Franklin in free fall in a cargo ship firing its engines.
> > > But, they attempt to get their science correct, one reason is that they do
> > > not try to explain their technology with technobable.
> > >
> > > Rush Limbaugh wrote in message <89846762...@newsch.es.co.nz>...
> > > >>Rubbish. Even JMS has admitted they make mistakes!
> > > >They never break the laws of physics.
> >
> > Indeed, but Rush is claiming that B5 has NEVER made a mistake ever,
> > intentional or otherwise. Again, he is talkiing utter rubbish.
> >
> Matt,
> The only one talking rubbish is you! In B5 I have never seen any mistakes.
> If I am wrong give me an example, don't just say things that don't prove
> anything!
WHAT?! I gave an example: the baseball sequence in "Knives". Then there
is the example GIVEN ABOVE in the very thread on which you are replying!
There is the station's mass, the sequence with the assassin's Starfury
in "No Compromises"...etc..
David J Berube
>Don't forget artificial gravity, time travel....where they can change the
>course of events (B4), telepaths, just to mention a few.
>So B5 is just as full of it as all the other Sci-fi shows.
well, from a strictly "possible" sense, yes.
However, as far as production/contiunity/etc errors go, B5 is very good.
Positively immaculate for a TV series.
Star Trek(any incarnation), for example, there is not one known episode
without at least 3-6 bugs in it.
(Read the Nitpicker's Guide to startrek.)
Dave
PuPPeTeer
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >> >It is THEORY. It has not been done yet...unless you happen to have built
> >> >a time machine and not told anyone?
> >>
> >> No but we do know that it does work.
> >
> >NO WE DON'T.
> >
> >It is a theory....a mathematical suggestion! Given a certain set of
> >parameters, the mathematics shows that in a certain situation it would
> >work. But given that we don't know that that would be the situation in
> >time travel, we cannot be absolutely certain that it would work. Hence
> >it is theory until it has actually been done.
>
> No it is correct until you can prove otherwise.
Read this nice and slow like mate: in science, a theory is not accepted
until you
produce evidence to support that theory. When you can recreate the
experiment which
supports your theory infront of fellow scientists, document it and
include maths to
support the evidence, only then is the theory accepted.
Mate, you are one stubborn motherfucker, you are thinking about
"innocent until
proven guilty" well this is a science discussion you fuckhead.
Darth_...@my-dejanews.com
Guest
How do we know that it works? Or do we just have to take your word
(which isn't much) on it.
Elim Garak
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >> >Or turn on their sensors. Or send a cloaked ship close to the station
> >> >and scan it and/or transport somebody over to download everything from
> >> >the computers.
> >>
> >> One they could not beam aboard and two they would get killed.
> >
> >Why not?
>
> shields
Borg can beam through them. And I don't think there are any shields
inside the DS.
> >They could - eventually. Anyway, are the DS shields all ALL
> >the time?
>
> up all the time.
So how do ships come and go?
> > And what about sensors?
>
> what about them?
Sensors would be enough to detect the shute.
Elim Garak
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >> No they don't they use physics that make referances to our ie the Dyson
> >> sphere
> >
> >What does the Dyson sphere have to do with physics?
>
> Do you know what the dyson sphere is?
Yep. A sphere around a star. So, what's the problem? The tidal forces
and stability? That is simple - just stabilize it with antigrav or
tractor beams. They have plenty of energy.
> >> Yes i did physics
> >
> >Take some philosophy, dude. Most of it is crap, but some of it actually
> >makes sence.
>
> Philosophy is crap compared to physics.
It is like saying that medicine is crap compared to math.
> >> >The same can be true for us.
> >>
> >> No it isnt
> >
> >Are you saying that we are at the pinnacle of technological measuring
> >devices?
>
> No but they are accurate enough to get reliable readings
Reliable to what degree?
> >> Well actually we do.
> >> In Quantum Gravity we have explainations for everything.
> >
> >What is the explanation of gravity in QM?
>
> Too long and complicated to explaind and also the fact is Quantum Gravity
> has the explaination not Quantum Mechanics.
OK, give me the name of the theory, and where you read about it.
> >> And had no proof for it either.
> >
> >Sure they did - at least all the proof that they considered necessary.
> >The sun went across the sky. That is all that they needed.
>
> And we don't do anything like that.
How do you know? Perhaps what we consider sufficient proof now, will be
insufficient in 100 years or so.
> >> They grew from him having crap devices to measure things
> >> Due to the increases in enropy in the universe whatever.
> >
> >No, the imperfection was known for several hundred years.
>
> Arhh do you understand anything I post?
Most of it, but not all. This is why I said you can't write.
Elim Garak
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >> >SW suspended research on AM drives, yet they are a lot more efficient
> >> >than fusion reactors.
> >>
> >> Well actually that depends
> >
> >On what?
>
> on how efficient they both are.
AMs are the most efficient possible, because they need a lot less fuel,
and have no exhaust.
> >> Well no they abandoned it.
> >
> >They abandoned practical research, but I doubt that they would stop
> >theoretical research because of that.
>
> It may.
Naah.
> >> >I am not saying that they will use this device, I am saying that they
> >> >can.
> >>
> >> Which amounts to nothing
> >
> >Except for the fact that ST tech is better than SW tech.
>
> no. How do you know Sw has not already done the same?
Because they never used any.
Elim Garak
Matthew Savill wrote:
>
> > > > Stop practical experimentation, equations on a page can't hurt you.
> > >
> > > Indeed. But it will never go beyond that.
> >
> > It will, eventually. If they perfect the containment units. Almost
> > nothing would change because we already don't know where ST AM comes
> > from.
>
> 7 of 9 thought that she had perfected the containment field, but Janeway
> still ordered her to eject it. It is explicitly said that the Federation
> has ceased ALL experimentation with Omega. There is NONE, there will
> probably never be any. They are committed to destroying it.
Janeway is dumb as a door nail, she is a horrible example. Once the
Federation scientists looked at the calcs, they would have tried it.
David J Berube
>AMs are the most efficient possible, because they need a lot less fuel,
>and have no exhaust.
Right. This is SCIENCE FICTION. If lucas invents a type of engine that is
nine millon times as efficent as AM, then more power to him. HE can do that.
Dave
Matthew Savill
Tough. She is following the precise orders of the Starfleet High
Command. She wouldn't show any such figures to any scientists because
it's prohibited.
Eric Johnson
Unfortunately they would never get the chance. Since to do that would
require that the Omega directive be repealed. But, part of it requires all
data and calcs on the Omega particle be destroyed. Hence we run into a
problem of getting it repealed, since all evidence is destroyed.
Lets assume that they stabilized the Omega particle. There are still going
to be instances in which it destabilizes and destroys subspace. End result
is that to do anything else would mean the death of the federation (no FTL,
no federation) unless they discovered some superior FTL tech that did not
require subspace (such as hyperspace travel).
Elim Garak wrote in message <3590D7...@usa.net>...
Eric Johnson
To beam into the DS you need to overcome its massive jamming. And we know
how fickle transporters are to interference.
Matthew Savill
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
>
> >Read this nice and slow like mate: in science, a theory is not accepted
> >until you
> >produce evidence to support that theory.
>
> evidance.
>
> When you can recreate the
> >experiment which
> >supports your theory infront of fellow scientists, document it and
> >include maths to
> >support the evidence, only then is the theory accepted.
>
> already accepted in mainstream physics, your ignorance and stupidity will
> not change that.
>
> >Mate, you are one stubborn motherfucker, you are thinking about
> >"innocent until
> >proven guilty" well this is a science discussion you fuckhead.
>
> Hawking and the rest of the scientific world are correct and you are wrong.
> The facts are that theses theories are accepted by physicists, myself
> included, and as such the opinion of a non brained redneck hick like
> yourself shall not change that.
Hahahahaha! You pillock! We aren't saying they aren't accepted! We are
just saying that they are still theories, and as you yourself have just
called them 'theories', you at last agree with me!