I think what you read in a SF book is actually a real theory, that of
the nature of tachyons.
Eric Cotton
Commodore
"My hovercraft is full of eels!"
|-Spock! (Christopher J. Ambler, University of California, Riverside)|
| ...ucbvax!ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!spock |
| -"Captain, I see no reason to bother Starfleet..." |
BTW, can the Enterprise fire phasers while travelling at warp speeds?
Also, is it correct that phasers can't be fired while the deflector
shields are up. I seem to recall quite a few episodes where the
phasers can't be fired because the shields are up (I don't know why
they didn't use photon torpedoes instead). Are there any other major
limitations to phasers?
> Take a look at the explanation of 'warp' speed. The ship
>projects a shell of 'otherspace' around it so as to slip into an alternate
>space (known, again, as 'otherspace'). When one fires a torpedo, it, too,
>is in 'otherspace'. A common tactic for evading a torpedo (I know this
>because I am in the porting stage of an advanced starship simulator) is
>to drop out of otherspace when you see it coming. It then, goes 'right
>through you' (actually, this is a paradox, but it sounds good to describe
>it this way). In 'otherspace', C is a different value...
I don't recall this tactic ever being used by any ships in Star Trek.
Is this space that you call 'otherspace' also known as 'subspace' as
mentioned it the series? What are your references of the above?
Particularly the torpedo scenario and the "c is a different value" bits.
>|-Spock! (Christopher J. Ambler, University of California, Riverside)|
--
Andy Toy, Mapping Analysis and Design Group (MAD),
Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA N2L 3G1 (519) 885-1211 x6592
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| UUCP: ...!watmath!watdcsu!atoy BITNET: atoy at watdcsu |
# CSNET: atoy%wat...@waterloo.csnet CDN: at...@dcsu.waterloo.cdn #
| ARPA: atoy%watdcsu%waterlo...@csnet-relay.arpa |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
(Flame on)
I really find it hard to believe (and quite hilarious, frankly) that there are
folks out there who ACTUALLY THINK they can explain UNexplainables in Star
Trek or, for that matter, any other sci-fi adventure. Don't you people realize
that these all come from someone's IMAGINATION?? Let's take Star Trek as an
example. I LOVE the show and the movies. But I am not about to presume to
explain how photons, phasers, propulsion systems and the like function, what
they can/can't/should_be_able_to/should_NOT_be_able_to do, etc., especially
when nobody living now could POSSIBLY understand the technology that would have
evolved that far (23rd century) into the future (assuming that it grows at
the present rate of doubling every 2-3 years).
(Flame off)
I do think these discussions are interesting, but I hope that everybody out
there doesn't really BELIEVE all this stuff.
Greg Lacefield :->
...!tektronix!gregl
Someone in net.tv.drwho (Mark Modig?) once made the point that explaining
unexplainables in the context of a fictional universe in order to maintain
consistency is a characteristic of the true fan. It's a kind of puzzle: How
do I reconcile last week's story with this week's, in a fashion consistent
with the underlying premises of the series? If you can find a convincing
answer, it helps to maintain the suspension of disbelief that series sf
requires. Also, it lets you feel like you have some interaction with
the series, as opposed to being merely the passive observer. Further,
it is good mental exercise. Remember the sf author advisors in _Footfall_ ?
-Steve Miller ihnp4!bambi!steve