Voyager's "Prey" ROCKED! -- good job voyager!
Plain and Simple Cronan
Norman Doering wrote
>Voyager's "Prey" rocked!
Well of course you'd think that.
>I don't think they're going to blow it with Seven of Nine.
I do. They have set up a situation that cannot be resolved lest one of the
two characters dies. This will not happen. They are under contract
>I'll save the re-write notes for later, they're pretty minor,
>The Teaser could have been pumped up a bit as there were some neat
>hunting tricks that might have forced that Hirogen prey into the
>asteriod belt, and Act 3 was slow with a lot of walking through
>corridors (but it had suspense going for it), but everything else
>was great. Even a clever and (I suspect) cheap use of FX when the
>gravity went out. I learned something from that one.
You're rather pathetic, do you know that? This is the first episode I have
ever scene where a review is simply inadequete to contain my disgust. I
shall have to MiSTify it.
>The best part -- the conflict between Janeway and Seven, and
>Seven's last words which ended the episode... but I won't spoil
>it.
I will: "Please bitch slap me. I love that."
>Good job Voyager!
>This one was better than the script I wrote.
So was Power Rangers in Space. You're point?
>Okay -- I guess I'vw got to say it -- nanoprobes shot out by
>a phaser? Why not as a dust or a projectile weapon? Do these people
>know anything about the technologies they're dealing with?
No but neither do we so it doesn't really matter.
Best moments for those of us with taste:
1. Janeway saying she wanted peace with the Hirogen after destorying not one
but 4 of their ships last week.
2. Janeway insisting that she had seen frontline combat
3. Janeway sending Tuvok and ***HARRY KIM*** to investigate an intruder
4. The funny walking done by the guys in the suits. I guess they were trying
to give us the impression they had a clue what what walkign without gravity
should look like. They failed.
P&SC
Coming this saturday VOYAGER GETS THE CRONAN TREATMENT MST3k style.
Corwin of Amber
Gee have you heard of Predator. Lame ass Voyager basically stole the
Predator concept and created this pathetic looking (yeah the Hirogen
dont look no where near as cool as the Predators) blue-suited baboon
race. Species 8742 is a ripp-off of the Alien series. Open your eyes
dummy.
Norman Doering wrote:
> Voyager's "Prey" rocked!
>
> I don't think they're going to blow it with Seven of Nine.
>
> I'll save the re-write notes for later, they're pretty minor,
> The Teaser could have been pumped up a bit as there were some neat
> hunting tricks that might have forced that Hirogen prey into the
> asteriod belt, and Act 3 was slow with a lot of walking through
> corridors (but it had suspense going for it), but everything else
> was great. Even a clever and (I suspect) cheap use of FX when the
> gravity went out. I learned something from that one.
>
> The best part -- the conflict between Janeway and Seven, and
> Seven's last words which ended the episode... but I won't spoil
> it.
>
> Good job Voyager!
> This one was better than the script I wrote.
>
>
David
Corwin of Amber wrote:
>
> Gee have you heard of Predator. Lame ass Voyager basically stole the
> Predator concept and created this pathetic looking (yeah the Hirogen
> dont look no where near as cool as the Predators) blue-suited baboon
> race. Species 8742 is a ripp-off of the Alien series. Open your eyes
> dummy.
As if the Predators were an original idea.
David
Plain and Simple Cronan wrote:
>
> David wrote
>
> >As if the Predators were an original idea.
>
> thief to prop up lunacy.
My point is that the poster was complaning of a rip-off. He made it
sound as if the Predators were an original idea. Since they aren't who
cares if Voyager ripped off the Predators.
Norman Doering
Thomas j. Evans
>Best moments for those of us with taste:
>
>1. Janeway saying she wanted peace with the Hirogen after destorying not one
>but 4 of their ships last week.
Not to mention their huge, expensive looking, communications array.
>2. Janeway insisting that she had seen frontline combat
>
>3. Janeway sending Tuvok and ***HARRY KIM*** to investigate an intruder
Heh
And then sending Seven "to the cargo bay" (sounds like "go to your
room!") and moments later asking for more of her nano-probes. "Seven,
honey, I'm sorry I sent you to your cargo bay. We need more of your
borg technology on deck 11, please."
>4. The funny walking done by the guys in the suits. I guess they were trying
>to give us the impression they had a clue what what walkign without gravity
>should look like. They failed.
How about when they initilized the magnetics on thier boots. It
looked more like they were squashing ants then putting their feet
down.
Dave Roy
I was walking through the park one day when "Plain and Simple
Cronan" <cro...@DeathsDoor.com> wrote:
I know i'm going to regret this.
>Best moments for those of us with taste:
>
>2. Janeway insisting that she had seen frontline combat
It's part of her established history....even if you do find it
unbelievable.
>4. The funny walking done by the guys in the suits. I guess they were trying
>to give us the impression they had a clue what what walkign without gravity
>should look like. They failed.
It wasn't walking without gravity. It was walking with magnetic
boots. Whether or not you want to criticize it, you should at least
get what you're criticizing right.
Dave Roy
Plain and Simple Cronan
THX-1138
Dave Roy wrote:
> It wasn't walking without gravity. It was walking with magnetic
> boots.
Does that mean the ship is made of steel? How archaic.
John
Cronan cried:
>Best moments for those of us with taste:
>
>1. Janeway saying she wanted peace with the Hirogen after destorying not
one
>but 4 of their ships last week.
>
>2. Janeway insisting that she had seen frontline combat
>
>3. Janeway sending Tuvok and ***HARRY KIM*** to investigate an intruder
>
>4. The funny walking done by the guys in the suits. I guess they were
trying
>to give us the impression they had a clue what what walkign without gravity
>should look like. They failed.
Also:
5. That Hirogen hunter claiming he was able to swim though neutronium -
THAT was funny.
Die Well Friend, (Old Klingon Saying)
John
Franklin Hummel
>Norman Doering wrote
>>Voyager's "Prey" rocked!
The technobabble was especially bad in this one. A phaser (an
engery weapon) shooting nanoprobes (physcial objects)? It's like having
a flashlight shooting darts.
And Seven of Nine operating the transporter from circuitry running
through the hallway was extremely bad.
>>I don't think they're going to blow it with Seven of Nine.
>>The best part -- the conflict between Janeway and Seven, and
>>Seven's last words which ended the episode... but I won't spoil
>>it.
It is not helping the character of Janeway as captain when she
makes a decision which endanger everyone and then have Seven of Nine have
to save the ship and crew.
-- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
--
====================================================================
* NecronomiCon, 4th Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention *
August 1999, Providence, RI * Guests: Fred Chappell & T.E.D. Klein
Visit our web site at: http://www.necropress.com/necronomicon
Arthur Levesque
Norman Doering (dave...@prairienet.org) wrote:
ND>Voyager's "Prey" rocked!
I prefered the original "Alien vs. Predator", myself.
ND>I don't think they're going to blow it with Seven of Nine.
Cronan Thompson (cro...@DeathsDoor.com) replied:
CT>I do. They have set up a situation that cannot be resolved lest one
CT>of the two characters dies. This will not happen. They are under
CT>contract
Either that, or a future scene where 7/9 acknowledges that Janeway
was right all along, that she should have listened to Janeway, Janeway is
God... How many of those have we seen already, where the writers (via
other characters) have to constantly remind us how brilliant Janeway is,
lest we be misled by her less-than-stellar decisions?
ND>...everything else was great. Even a clever and (I suspect) cheap use
ND>of FX when the gravity went out. I learned something from that one.
FX? It looked to me like all Tuvok did was move slowly, throwing up
his arms and leaning backwards. That's not FX, that's mime.
ND>Good job Voyager! This one was better than the script I wrote.
That one's too easy -- I'll leave it for Cronan.
ND>Okay -- I guess I'vw got to say it -- nanoprobes shot out by
ND>a phaser? Why not as a dust or a projectile weapon? Do these people
ND>know anything about the technologies they're dealing with?
Worst part of that was that the nanoprobe phasers, designed to bring
down 8472, also worked on the Hirogen hunter.
CT>The funny walking done by the guys in the suits. I guess they were
CT>trying to give us the impression they had a clue what what walkign
CT>without gravity should look like. They failed.
Since they already recycled the Borg costumes and make-up from First
Contact, it was inevitable that they'd also want to get more use out of
those spacesuits they designed for FC. At the very least, Voyager has
done was TOS did more than once but TNG waited until after 7 years and two
movies to do -- put characters somewhere where they required an
environment suit to survive.
Dave Roy (hi...@earthlink.net) defended:
DR>It wasn't walking without gravity. It was walking with magnetic
DR>boots. Whether or not you want to criticize it, you should at least
DR>get what you're criticizing right.
THX-1138 (Porc...@ix.netcom.com) gaped:
THX>Does that mean the ship is made of steel? How archaic.
Would velcro carpets have made more sense?
John (john1...@hotmail.com) had to mention:
J>That Hirogen hunter claiming he was able to swim though neutronium -
J>THAT was funny.
TPTB spend so much time making up technobabble and phony particles
and substances that do anything they want, that they forget (when they
throw in REAL terms, to sound like they actually know something about
science besides how to spell the word (maybe)) that substances in the real
world have real, defined properties (which is why the real substance
"lithium" got changed to the fictional "dilithium" rather quickly when TOS
started) and can't just be thrown into any "[tech]" "Mad-Lib" line in the
script.
Franklin Hummel (hum...@world.std.com) said:
FH>And Seven of Nine operating the transporter from circuitry running
FH>through the hallway was extremely bad.
Not to mention Janeway "punishing" 7/9 by saying she'll remove 7/9's
access to primary systems -- what the hell does that mean when 7/9 has
*consistently* (what an odd word to use for Voyager) show that she can
access anything she damn well pleases anyhow and anytime.
--
/\ Arthur M. Levesque 2A4W <*> b...@boogING.orgASM <- Remove the CAPS
\B\ack King of the Potato People =/\= "I hate rainbows!" [fnord] (oO)
\S\lash Member of a vast right-wing conspiracy (-O-) Urban Spaceman /||\
\/ I'm not just the Boogman, I'm also a client! http://www.boog.org
Dave Roy
I was walking through the park one day when hum...@world.std.com
(Franklin Hummel) wrote:
>
>>Norman Doering wrote
>>>Voyager's "Prey" rocked!
>
>
> The technobabble was especially bad in this one. A phaser (an
>engery weapon) shooting nanoprobes (physcial objects)? It's like having
>a flashlight shooting darts.
You watched this one? Are you listening to those "friends" again?
Haven't we warned you about that?
Dave Roy
AFK424242
>
>It was without gravity. No gravity on the deck remember? As someone else
>point out: did youy see what happened when they turned on those boots?
>Looked like they were trying to step on something. As they walked that neat
>magnetic sound was hilarious. Sounded like the power rangers forming their
>ships(or whatever they do).
>
>No, I was doubled over with pain.
>
>When will they learn that pretending to know what they're talking about
>isn't a good idea?
Ya know.. I wasn't gonna respond to this criticism because it didn't seem worth
it. But could you please enlighten me as to what walking on a deck without
gravity while wearing magnetic boots is supposed to look like. You speak as
though you have experience doing it or at least watching it.
If V'ger's rendition was so gut-spittingly funny, I would like to know what it
SHOULD have looked like. Thanks
A
Shawn Hill
Norman Doering (dave...@prairienet.org) wrote:
: Okay -- I guess I'vw got to say it -- nanoprobes shot out by
: a phaser? Why not as a dust or a projectile weapon? Do these people
: know anything about the technologies they're dealing with?
They should since they made them up, but......?
Chakotay should have been agreeing with Seven, not supporting the Captain in her
idiotic bid to save the life of 8472, who had hardly asked for their help.
Shawn
Steven McGovern
Arthur Levesque wrote in message <6chchv$nnp$2...@winter.news.erols.com>...
>Norman Doering (dave...@prairienet.org) wrote:
> Not to mention Janeway "punishing" 7/9 by saying she'll remove 7/9's
>access to primary systems -- what the hell does that mean when 7/9 has
>*consistently* (what an odd word to use for Voyager) show that she can
>access anything she damn well pleases anyhow and anytime.
And can lock them out of their own system with 7's Borg encryption when she
feels like
it
Steve
stgo...@blclinks.nospam.net
<Remove nospam for email>
BotBait: rwo...@prtel.com jmi...@inreach.com ope...@hotmail.com
kne...@mediaone.net
`cat/dev/zero/tmp/...`@localhost `umount/tmp`@localhost `halt`@localhost
u...@ftc.gov,
postmaster@localhost abuse@localhost postm...@fbi.gov ro...@mailloop.com
rhu...@fcc.gov jqu...@fcc.gov sn...@fcc.gov rch...@fcc.gov
cust...@email.usps.gov
James Grady Ward
THX-1138 wrote:
>
> Dave Roy wrote:
>
> > It wasn't walking without gravity. It was walking with magnetic
>
> Does that mean the ship is made of steel? How archaic.
All it means is that a magnet will stick to the ship.
There are several things that it could be. It could even
be a side effect of power lines in the hull making a
weak magnetic field in the hull.
--
buckysan
annapuma and unapumma in 98
44% of people think there is intelligent life besides earth
44% of people think there is intelligent life in washington DC
Chris Stadler
while i find the flaws all of you pointed out pretty valid and amusing i
just wanted to support the original poster's sentiment...i dug this ep,
gravity boots, predator clones and all. someone finally saying "no" to
the picard-esque "let's sacrifice everything to save our enemy"
philosophy was very entertaining, if not thought-provoking.
as for this thread: cronan- do you always personally attack those who have
different tastes than you?
William December Starr
In article <34EBD915...@ix.netcom.com>,
THX-1138 <Porc...@ix.netcom.com> said:
>> It wasn't walking without gravity. It was walking with magnetic
>> boots.
>
> Does that mean the ship is made of steel? How archaic.
If you're concerned that at some time -- possibly in combat -- you're
going to lose your artificial gravity and you want your people (at
least the ones in spacesuits) to be able to walk rather than float if
necessary, it makes a lot of sense to go with a nice, nearly
fail-proof low-tech solution like magnetized boots and just enough
"archaic" steel in your floor plates to make it work.
Besides, they've got _mice_ loose on their starship and you're
concerned about their use of steel? :-)
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
William December Starr
In article <6cg5je$lu5$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
dave...@prairienet.org (Norman Doering) said:
> Okay -- I guess I've got to say it -- nanoprobes shot out by a
> phaser? Why not as a dust or a projectile weapon? Do these people
> know anything about the technologies they're dealing with?
Is that a rhetorical question, or just a stupid one? :-)
William December Starr
In article <6cg9b9$6...@camel12.mindspring.com>,
"Plain and Simple Cronan" <cro...@DeathsDoor.com> said:
> 3. Janeway sending Tuvok and ***HARRY KIM*** to investigate an
> intruder
Well, she had to, didn't she? I mean, there wasn't anyone else on
board, right?
William December Starr
In article <6cgq9u$332s$1...@newssvr08-int.news.prodigy.com>,
"John" <john1...@hotmail.com> said:
> 5. That Hirogen hunter claiming he was able to swim though
> neutronium - THAT was funny.
Oh, yeah. My first reaction to this, after I stopped gasping, was
"Go back to that ship that you rescued this guy from and salvage
everything you can, 'cause clearly these guys have got technology
that's at least a thousand years ahead of yours. And then run like
hell."
Bi0Menace
>Ya know.. I wasn't gonna respond to this criticism because it didn't seem
>worth
>it. But could you please enlighten me as to what walking on a deck without
>gravity while wearing magnetic boots is supposed to look like. You speak as
>though you have experience doing it or at least watching it.
Well, I've watched nasa people walking on skylab. Your body wobbles around
more, your arms move around(you dont need to worry about balance), and all that
effects your movement is your legs. You dont need to tightly hold your rifle
the way seven and the others were(was it seven?), you would just loosely hold
it, possibly in one hand. Your hair inside your helmet would NOT flow down from
your head, rather it would wave around inside your helmet getting in your
way(so it would not be wise to send seven or janeway or any of the other
women(except maybe kes) on spacesuit 0g missions). Your space suit would not
rest on your shoulders, and your helmet would not rest on your head. Rather,
they would bounce around a bit.
That scene just looked way to fake to be good. Nice idea, but the execution
sucked.
The Biodegradable One
"Hello there. Nice to meet you." - Maybe Heisenburg.
Norman Doering
responding to:
news:6cg5je$lu5$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu
in
news:6chlbg$bjt$2...@news.fas.harvard.edu
sh...@fas.harvard.edu (Shawn Hill) wrote:
> Norman Doering (dave...@prairienet.org) wrote:
> : Okay -- I guess I'vw got to say it -- nanoprobes shot out by
> : a phaser? Why not as a dust or a projectile weapon? Do these
> : people know anything about the technologies they're dealing
> : with?
>
I suggest you do a web search on the word: "nanotechnology."
You'll find hundreds of sites talking about the real potentials
and limits of this technology.
There is even a newsgroup dedicated to it.
news:sci.nanotech
> Chakotay should have been agreeing with Seven, not supporting
> the Captain in her idiotic bid to save the life of 8472, who had
And who telepathically broadcasted "the weak shall perish" in
Scorpion. However, I find Janeway's policy consistent with
Federation values and Starfleet protocol. I don't find it
consistent with survival however.
Tracy Freeling
William December Starr wrote:
>
> In article <6cg9b9$6...@camel12.mindspring.com>,
> "Plain and Simple Cronan" <cro...@DeathsDoor.com> said:
>
> > 3. Janeway sending Tuvok and ***HARRY KIM*** to investigate an
> > intruder
>
> Well, she had to, didn't she? I mean, there wasn't anyone else on
> board, right?
Now, Now...
We can at least be thankful that the boy came away uninfected,
unmutilated, etc. That's a first!
Tracy Freeling
Jamahl Epsicokhan
On 19 Feb 1998 02:32:14 GMT, dave...@prairienet.org (Norman Doering)
wrote:
>Voyager's "Prey" rocked!
Count me in on the "'Prey' rocked!" boat. Personally, I would easily
rank this somewhere in Voyager's top ten. But more on this later...
--Jamahl
AFK424242
Whoa... boy did you miss the point of this thread. The idea was that the
phaser is made up and the fact that a weapon based on light and energy is
shooting out physical nanoprobes along with a phaser blast is the problem...
Wouldn't the phaser blast destroy the nano's? Or was there a toggle switch.
blast, probes, blast, probes....
Reepicheep
Bi0Menace <bi0m...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980219190...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> Well, I've watched nasa people walking on skylab. Your body wobbles
around
> more, your arms move around(you dont need to worry about balance), and
all that
> effects your movement is your legs. You dont need to tightly hold your
rifle
> the way seven and the others were(was it seven?), you would just loosely
hold
> it, possibly in one hand. Your hair inside your helmet would NOT flow
down from
> your head, rather it would wave around inside your helmet getting in your
> way(so it would not be wise to send seven or janeway or any of the other
> women(except maybe kes) on spacesuit 0g missions). Your space suit would
not
> rest on your shoulders, and your helmet would not rest on your head.
Rather,
> they would bounce around a bit.
> That scene just looked way to fake to be good. Nice idea, but the
execution
> sucked.
You're probably right on all counts. But filming a true zero-gravity shot
is rather difficult and expensive, just ask the producers of the movie
Apollo 13.
--
><> Reepicheep <><
><> Darkness to Light <>><
><> http://www.usaor.net/dtl/ <><
Bi0Menace
>You're probably right on all counts. But filming a true zero-gravity shot
>is rather difficult and expensive, just ask the producers of the movie
>Apollo 13.
If they cant do it in a better than stupid way, then they shouldnt do it at
all.
Shawn Hill
Norman Doering (dave...@prairienet.org) wrote:
:
: NO THEY DID NOT MAKE UP NANOTECHNOLOGY!
Okay, knock knock? Yeah, it's the doctor calling with your sedative hypo-spray.
I'm quite aware of what nanotechnology is. But the writers did create both
"phaser-rifles" and "BORG nanotechnology" which is what I was referring to in the
post. Is it time for the "get a life" refrain again?
: > Chakotay should have been agreeing with Seven, not supporting
: > the Captain in her idiotic bid to save the life of 8472, who had
: > hardly asked for their help. -- Shawn
:
: And who telepathically broadcasted "the weak shall perish" in
: Scorpion. However, I find Janeway's policy consistent with
: Federation values and Starfleet protocol. I don't find it
: consistent with survival however.
Even Picard would have just sent the thing on it's way, and not tried to protect
it when they were outgunned from a third party.
If it had been a Federation citizen, maybe. But Janeway's naive belief that she
can impose Federation values on every race she meets is maddening.
Shawn
*********************shawn hill********************************
Sidney: "She has this thing on her wrist."
Michael: "You mean a monitor?"
Sidney: "I don't know. I think she uses it to beam up to
the mother ship."
***************************sh...@fas.harvard.edu***************
Shawn Hill
Plain and Simple Cronan (cro...@DeathsDoor.com) wrote:
: I do. They have set up a situation that cannot be resolved lest one of the
: two characters dies. This will not happen. They are under contract
there are actually many ways to resolve it. The Janeway Mutiny. Janeway goes
into hiding (with a shuttle? if there are any left), while 7 actually leads the
crew home. Seven leaves the ship, preferring her own company to those idiots on
board. Circumstances reunite the crew. Seven could go forward in time, to a time
that they're home and she is fully human. Alternate7 could show up, who was never
kidnapped by the Borg. Etc., etc., etc.
Or a transporter accident. Sevenway. Jane of Nine. Cathikke. Take your pick.
Shawn
Plain and Simple Cronan
Shawn Hill wrote
>: NO THEY DID NOT MAKE UP NANOTECHNOLOGY!
>
>Okay, knock knock? Yeah, it's the doctor calling with your sedative
hypo-spray.
>
>I'm quite aware of what nanotechnology is. But the writers did create both
>"phaser-rifles" and "BORG nanotechnology" which is what I was referring to
in the
>post. Is it time for the "get a life" refrain again?
No, it's time for you to meet Norman. See he actually believe that most of
Star Trek's science is justifiable. A strnage affiliction born of ignorance
and obession.
Johnny Voyager
Who would win? I stay awake many a night pondering this question. Wadya
think?
I luv V. and sincerely hope that it would win.
Johnny
Plain and Simple Cronan
Arthur Levesque wrote
>Norman Doering (dave...@prairienet.org) wrote:
>ND>Voyager's "Prey" rocked!
>
> I prefered the original "Alien vs. Predator", myself.
I've been meaning to get ahold of that comic for a while. Is it any good?
>ND>I don't think they're going to blow it with Seven of Nine.
>
>Cronan Thompson (cro...@DeathsDoor.com) replied:
>CT>I do. They have set up a situation that cannot be resolved lest one
>CT>of the two characters dies. This will not happen. They are under
>CT>contract
>
> Either that, or a future scene where 7/9 acknowledges that Janeway
>was right all along, that she should have listened to Janeway, Janeway is
>God... How many of those have we seen already, where the writers (via
>other characters) have to constantly remind us how brilliant Janeway is,
>lest we be misled by her less-than-stellar decisions?
I don't see that as possible Arthur. See not even Voyager's producers could
do something that stupid. I refuse to believe it. Nope. It can't happen.
Back me up on this someone. Please, please, please, please help me delude
myself Arthur. I count on the usenet for such things.
>ND>...everything else was great. Even a clever and (I suspect) cheap use
>ND>of FX when the gravity went out. I learned something from that one.
>
> FX? It looked to me like all Tuvok did was move slowly, throwing up
>his arms and leaning backwards. That's not FX, that's mime.
You know what really got me? Was that the gravity didn't seem to effect
their arms. They moved down without effort. This was especially true when
they began strugglng with the Hirogen.
>ND>Good job Voyager! This one was better than the script I wrote.
>
> That one's too easy -- I'll leave it for Cronan.
Wht exactly are you implying good sir?
P&SC
Plain and Simple Cronan
Jamahl Epsicokhan wrote
>>Voyager's "Prey" rocked!
>
>Count me in on the "'Prey' rocked!" boat. Personally, I would easily
>rank this somewhere in Voyager's top ten. But more on this later...
Unfortunately it is a rather small boat with many holes built from timbers
leftover from Chernobal.
Worry not though. After the vomitting and diarrhea stop I'm sure death will
come quickly.
P&SC
Your reviews are good. They're wrong but well thought out
Kate Mulgrew
Hello V. Nerds!
This is Captn Janeway (call me Kate), I want to take this opportunity to
apologize to you all for my terrible acting, hideous hair-do, Alvin the
Chipmunk voice, and spinsterish image on Voyager
It is time to replace me with...anyone! Absolutely anyone would do a
better job than me as Cpt. J.
Indeed, I nominate Barney the Dinosaur to replace me.
Yours
Kate
Johhny Trek
Kate,
Thank you for daring to speak the awful truth! It takes courage to admit
that you're the worst thing on tv considering how bad most programing
really is. Bless you for speaking up.
Barney the Dinosaur would indeed make a better actor than you and would
be an improvement as Capt Janeway.
Johnny
stealth
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Kate Mulgrew wrote in message <34ECCE...@webtv.com>...
>Hello V. Nerds!
>
>This is Captn Janeway (call me Kate), I want to take this opportunity
to
>apologize to you all for my terrible acting, hideous hair-do, Alvin
the
>Chipmunk voice, and spinsterish image on Voyager
>
>It is time to replace me with...anyone! Absolutely anyone would do a
>better job than me as Cpt. J.
>
>Indeed, I nominate Barney the Dinosaur to replace me.
>
>Yours
>
>Kate
Thank you, Ms. Mulgrew for admitting that your character SUCKS!!!
We will nominate Seven of Nine to be the new Captain.
Please go away, now. Thank you.
- --
ste...@value.net
http://value.net/~stealth
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 5.5.5
iQA/AwUBNOzV+j5SiyYPiaHVEQJuaQCeLo3bo9NG4MOPwLn2evVWG+BmPxUAn2tC
kC9oNFdabnxZyliRtt/WShe7
=T0nV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rev. Booger
stealth wrote:
> Kate Mulgrew wrote in message <34ECCE...@webtv.com>...
> >Hello V. Nerds!
> >
> >This is Captn Janeway (call me Kate), I want to take this opportunity
> to
> >apologize to you all for my terrible acting, hideous hair-do, Alvin
> the
> >Chipmunk voice, and spinsterish image on Voyager
> >
> >It is time to replace me with...anyone! Absolutely anyone would do a
> >better job than me as Cpt. J.
> >
> >Indeed, I nominate Barney the Dinosaur to replace me.
> >
> >Yours
> >
> >Kate
>
> Thank you, Ms. Mulgrew for admitting that your character SUCKS!!!
>
> We will nominate Seven of Nine to be the new Captain.
>
> Please go away, now. Thank you.
>
history of TV. Even hard core trekkies hate V asa result.
Reverend Booger
Jenny Harold
Johnny,
I agree that captn Kate would win. She is the neatest lady!!!!!!
8^)
Bill Reed
Franklin Hummel wrote:
>
> >Norman Doering wrote
> >>Voyager's "Prey" rocked!
>
> The technobabble was especially bad in this one. A phaser (an
> engery weapon) shooting nanoprobes (physcial objects)? It's like having
> a flashlight shooting darts.
>
> And Seven of Nine operating the transporter from circuitry running
> through the hallway was extremely bad.
>
> >>I don't think they're going to blow it with Seven of Nine.
> >>Seven's last words which ended the episode... but I won't spoil
> >>it.
>
> It is not helping the character of Janeway as captain when she
> makes a decision which endanger everyone and then have Seven of Nine have
> to save the ship and crew.
>
>
> -- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
> --
> ====================================================================
> * NecronomiCon, 4th Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention *
> August 1999, Providence, RI * Guests: Fred Chappell & T.E.D. Klein
> Visit our web site at: http://www.necropress.com/necronomicon
Janeway is a loose cannon! She is acting like more of a swaggering
dictator of a captain than Kirk ever was!!! Even Picard told Data that
if he ever seemed to be out of line to let him know! Janeway is so smug
she thinks that she could kick the aliens' butts all by herself! She
told seven to go to her room...we'll(I'll) do this without you.
Riiigghhtt!
Janeway needs to get a little humility. I guess she's p*ssed since the
last episode when she found out her fiance got tired of waiting for her
and married someone else!
Dave Powell
Heh... they also ripped off John Carpernter's "They Live" in the one where
only Seven could see the Baddies. At least they have good taste in where
they go for ideas.
Dave
David wrote in message <6cgk2l$r...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>Corwin of Amber wrote:
>>
>> Gee have you heard of Predator. Lame ass Voyager basically stole the
>> Predator concept and created this pathetic looking (yeah the Hirogen
>> dont look no where near as cool as the Predators) blue-suited baboon
>> race. Species 8742 is a ripp-off of the Alien series. Open your eyes
>> dummy.
>
>As if the Predators were an original idea.
stealth
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bill Reed wrote in message <34ED11...@usit.net>...
>Janeway needs to get a little humility. I guess she's p*ssed since
the
>last episode when she found out her fiance got tired of waiting for
her
>and married someone else!
Heh heh heh...
Yeah, Janeway got DUMPED!! That guy on Earth is probably screwing
Seven of Nine's twin sister!
- --
ste...@value.net
http://value.net/~stealth
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 5.5.5
iQA/AwUBNO0HdD5SiyYPiaHVEQIxgwCg2FSL8MTXENFQABTZ84EfnoGoMBQAoLNQ
oQNKsbTS7sfAAshoUTBOCM5f
=TMXL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ms. Jenny
My response to you is the same as Capn Kirk's to the Klingon in episode
239!
themad...@sprintmail.com
Franklin Hummel wrote:
> >Norman Doering wrote
> >>Voyager's "Prey" rocked!
>
> The technobabble was especially bad in this one. A phaser (an
> engery weapon) shooting nanoprobes (physcial objects)? It's like having
> a flashlight shooting darts.
>
> -- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
> --
um, have you heard of the particle nature of light?
e=mc^2 ?
energy and matter are interchangable - it is certainly theoretically possible
for a device that discharges focused energy beams to be configured to
discharge other types of matter.
kevin
Gharlane of Eddore
Norman Doering wrote:
>
> Okay -- I guess I'vw got to say it -- nanoprobes shot out by
> a phaser? Why not as a dust or a projectile weapon? Do these people
> know anything about the technologies they're dealing with?
>
"You look, but you do not see." -- S. Holmes
The opening credits clearly stated that the script had been "written"
(if we may employ such inappropriate terminology!) by Brannon Braga.
Thus, your question is superfluous and merely rhetorical.
Todd
On 19 Feb 1998 17:21:05 GMT, csta...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Chris
Stadler) wrote:
>while i find the flaws all of you pointed out pretty valid and amusing i
>just wanted to support the original poster's sentiment...i dug this ep,
>gravity boots, predator clones and all. someone finally saying "no" to
>the picard-esque "let's sacrifice everything to save our enemy"
>philosophy was very entertaining, if not thought-provoking.
>
>as for this thread: cronan- do you always personally attack those who have
>different tastes than you?
Uh yeah, he pretty much does. And I'm really beginning to wonder why.
Is it possible that he and certain others actually have an agenda? Is
it possible that this is some kind of B5 payback for misbehavior of
Trekkers a while back? I'm seriously beginning to wonder. There are
people who frequently post here for no other purpose than to
discourage and disrupt the enjoyment of Trek. I am becoming suspicious
about this. It simply doesn't make sense that people would spend so
much energy on trying to harm a television series. That's just too
strange - too twisted. Why would they waste their time on this? I'm
not asking this rhetorically. I am really wondering what's up with
these guys.
Is it possible? Is it too strange? I wonder...
Todd
May all the harvesters rot in prison.
To reply, delete ".alpha" from the address above.
csj
On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 16:42:33 -0800, Johhny Trek <tr...@aol.com> wrote:
>Kate Mulgrew wrote:
>>
>> Hello V. Nerds!
>>
>> This is Captn Janeway (call me Kate), I want to take this opportunity to
>> apologize to you all for my terrible acting, hideous hair-do, Alvin the
>> Chipmunk voice, and spinsterish image on Voyager
>>
>> It is time to replace me with...anyone! Absolutely anyone would do a
>> better job than me as Cpt. J.
>>
>> Indeed, I nominate Barney the Dinosaur to replace me.
>>
>> Yours
>>
>> Kate
>
>Kate,
>
>Thank you for daring to speak the awful truth! It takes courage to admit
>that you're the worst thing on tv considering how bad most programing
>really is. Bless you for speaking up.
>
>Barney the Dinosaur would indeed make a better actor than you and would
>be an improvement as Capt Janeway.
>
>Johnny
I would respectfully point out that Barney the Dinosaur is a wimp and
any 6 year old could kick his ass - hardly prime material for a Star
Fleet captain!
However, in keeping with the theme here I'd like to nominate:
Bobo the Bear from "Muppets Tonight"
He has humor, he has pathos, he's big and furry (should fit in great
with numerous races in the Delta quadrant)
....AND....
He's been working as a security guard for "Muppets Tonight" for the
last 2 years so he has experience with weapons and can give orders.
Lastly, he doesn't break incoherently into really stupid songs at a
moments notice like Barney....very distracting when the Borg are
knocking at your shuttle bay door don't 'cha know!.....
'nuf said......
csj
Plain and Simple Cronan
Chris Stadler wrote
>
>as for this thread: cronan- do you always personally attack those who have
>different tastes than you?
No. I don't attack X-files fans. Nor do I attack Buffy the Vampire Slayer
fans.
But stupid people are fair game whether they agree with me or not.
You aren't stupid, are you?
Uncle Fester
William December Starr wrote:
>
> In article <34EBD915...@ix.netcom.com>,
> THX-1138 <Porc...@ix.netcom.com> said:
>
> >> It wasn't walking without gravity. It was walking with magnetic
> >> boots.
> >
> > Does that mean the ship is made of steel? How archaic.
>
> If you're concerned that at some time -- possibly in combat -- you're
> going to lose your artificial gravity and you want your people (at
> least the ones in spacesuits) to be able to walk rather than float if
> necessary, it makes a lot of sense to go with a nice, nearly
> fail-proof low-tech solution like magnetized boots and just enough
> "archaic" steel in your floor plates to make it work.
>
> Besides, they've got _mice_ loose on their starship and you're
> concerned about their use of steel? :-)
How do we know that the "magnetic" boots as seen in Star Trek work on
the same principle that we of today understand to be "magnetic?" Why
worry about whether something is made of steel or gold-pressed latinum
when they have tractor beams that don't work by any principle we
understand today or that are based upon any theory that is even
half-baked? Might as well relegate it to the same principal that
"Cavorite" was based upon, namely fiction.
Uncle Fester
themad...@sprintmail.com
Norman Doering wrote:
> Okay -- I guess I'vw got to say it -- nanoprobes shot out by
> a phaser? Why not as a dust or a projectile weapon? Do these people
> know anything about the technologies they're dealing with?
as i said elsewhere.....matter and energy are interchangable. that
was not an inconsistent use of the phaser.
kevin
Uncle Fester
Shawn Hill wrote:
> Even Picard would have just sent the thing on it's way, and not tried to protect
> it when they were outgunned from a third party.
Why wouldn't he treat the sentient creature in the same manner he
treated "Third of Five" (Hugh)?
His final reconciliation with that Borg was much the same (at least
rooted in ethical implications) as Janeway's approach to the 8472.
> If it had been a Federation citizen, maybe. But Janeway's naive belief that she
> can impose Federation values on every race she meets is maddening.
Then ALL of the Captains in Star Trek are naive. Cpt. Kirk imposed
Federation values on other races in nearly every episode. Picard did
the same. Sisko doesn't get the opportunities as often, but he does it
also.
Uncle Fester
Plain and Simple Cronan
themad...@sprintmail.com wrote
> as i said elsewhere.....matter and energy are interchangable. that
>was not an inconsistent use of the phaser.
Are you really this stupid or are you pretending for our entertainment?
P&SC
Plain and Simple Cronan
Uncle Fester wrote
>How do we know that the "magnetic" boots as seen in Star Trek work on
>the same principle that we of today understand to be "magnetic?" Why
>worry about whether something is made of steel or gold-pressed latinum
>when they have tractor beams that don't work by any principle we
>understand today or that are based upon any theory that is even
>half-baked? Might as well relegate it to the same principal that
>"Cavorite" was based upon, namely fiction.
That is wrong.
The directed gravitons make up a tractor beam. The concept is rather soundly
rooted in physical theory. The problem involves the use of the tractor which
is, to put it lightly, incredibly inconsistant. One week it is moving stars
and the next it can't move a shuttlecraft.
P&SC
Uncle Fester
Well SURE gravitons make up the tractor beam -- just like they use
tachyons whenever they need to have some sort of time displacement.
First though, it's important to note that gravitons and gravity waves
have YET to even be discovered or proven to exist - and that's the very
SAME category that tachyons exist in as we speak.
Since Cavorite (as described) amounted to no more than a polarized
"gravity shield," then it makes as much sense as Star Trek's use of any
particle we know of, real or imagined. When all else fails, "make up a
new one" is their motto. :-)
Uncle Fester
Plain and Simple Cronan
Uncle Fester wrote
>> The directed gravitons make up a tractor beam. The concept is rather
soundly
>> rooted in physical theory. The problem involves the use of the tractor
which
>> is, to put it lightly, incredibly inconsistant. One week it is moving
stars
>> and the next it can't move a shuttlecraft.
>>
>> P&SC
>
>Well SURE gravitons make up the tractor beam -- just like they use
>tachyons whenever they need to have some sort of time displacement.
Tachyons have nothing to do with time displacement.
>First though, it's important to note that gravitons and gravity waves
>have YET to even be discovered or proven to exist - and that's the very
>SAME category that tachyons exist in as we speak.
You're a troll aren't you? A marevelously complex troll who enjoys faking
ignorance of any and all things, yes? Gravity waves do exist. This much is
extrmely well known. The one you are probably most familiar with is that
produced by our moon.. Another, more powerful, example would be those
produced during the rapid implosion of a collapsing star.
>Since Cavorite (as described) amounted to no more than a polarized
>"gravity shield," then it makes as much sense as Star Trek's use of any
>particle we know of, real or imagined. When all else fails, "make up a
>new one" is their motto. :-)
Yes.
P&SC
Norman Doering
in
news:6cjd7j$q9p$3...@newsfep3.sprintmail.com>> Okay -- I guess I've got to say it -- nanoprobes shot out by
>> a phaser? Why not as a dust or a projectile weapon? Do these
>> people know anything about the technologies they're dealing
>> with?
>
conversions. If a phaser rifle could do it it could blow up
cities. (Maybe phaser rifles can blow up small cities?) They
already ought to be able to do that with the transporter in
addition to making themselves immortal.
> that was not an inconsistent use of the phaser.
for a phaser to shoot nanoprobes since we have no idea how a
phaser really works, perhaps they're some form of transporter?
However, it's not very logical or efficient and is out of tune
with what one would expect from something called "nanoprobes." If
they had just dusted the area, used the transporter or dumped the
nanoprobes through an air vent, they could have gotten the
nanoprobes where they wanted them without adjusting phaser rifles
to do something absurd.
When they first introduced the idea of Borg nanoprobes, the probes
made sense - that writer had a fair idea of what he/she was doing
with nanotechnology (except where it was blowing up Species 8472
ships instead of eating them like a fast spreading fungus). After
that the whole underlying knowledge of what a nanoprobe should and
should not be able to do has gradually leaked away -- it's now
nothing but Seven's technomagic and there is no logic or science
behind it anymore. The scientific illiteracy of these writers is
astonishing... but then so is yours.
RUNE SCHIERMER NIELSEN
I don´t believe that you are really Janeway.
Rune
Uncle Fester
Plain and Simple Cronan wrote:
>
>
> >> The directed gravitons make up a tractor beam. The concept is rather
> >> soundly rooted in physical theory. The problem involves the use of the tractor
> >> which is, to put it lightly, incredibly inconsistant. One week it is moving
> >> stars and the next it can't move a shuttlecraft.
> >
> >tachyons whenever they need to have some sort of time displacement.
>
> Tachyons have nothing to do with time displacement.
Not in the REAL world, they don't.
You do know what tachyons are, right? Tachyons are hypothetical
particles that never go at or >below< the speed of light. They've been
used _repeatedly_ in Star Trek when dealing with matters that require
detection of time displacement (time travel). How long've you watched
Trek?
> >First though, it's important to note that gravitons and gravity waves
> >have YET to even be discovered or proven to exist - and that's the very
> >SAME category that tachyons exist in as we speak.
>
> You're a troll aren't you? A marevelously complex troll who enjoys faking
> ignorance of any and all things, yes? Gravity waves do exist. This much is
> extrmely well known.
Demonstrate by reference where gravity waves were first detected. I defy
you to do it.
What method and what country and where? You'll come up empty.
Gravity waves exist in theory ONLY at this point.
> The one you are probably most familiar with is that
> produced by our moon..
You're referring to tides, not gravity waves.
> Another, more powerful, example would be those
> produced during the rapid implosion of a collapsing star.
Do you know HOW to detect a gravity wave?
The Nobel Prize in Physics awaits you, oh Mighty Cronan.
I'm not saying that gravity waves don't exist - only that they haven't
been detected.
> >Since Cavorite (as described) amounted to no more than a polarized
> >"gravity shield," then it makes as much sense as Star Trek's use of any
> >particle we know of, real or imagined. When all else fails, "make up a
> >new one" is their motto. :-)
>
> Yes.
>
> P&SC
Hrmm.
Uncle Fester
Franklin Hummel
In article <6cjd7j$q9p$3...@newsfep3.sprintmail.com>,
<themad...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>Norman Doering wrote:
>
>> Okay -- I guess I'vw got to say it -- nanoprobes shot out by
>> a phaser? Why not as a dust or a projectile weapon? Do these people
>> know anything about the technologies they're dealing with?
>
> as i said elsewhere.....matter and energy are interchangable. that
>was not an inconsistent use of the phaser.
Have you ever used a flashlight to fire bullets?
The Scientific IQ of some Trekkies is -scary-.
-- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
--
Plain and Simple Cronan
Franklin Hummel wrote in message ...
>> as i said elsewhere.....matter and energy are interchangable. that
>>was not an inconsistent use of the phaser.
>
>
> Have you ever used a flashlight to fire bullets?
>
> The Scientific IQ of some Trekkies is -scary-.
Read Norman's reply?
That's sheer terror.
Plain and Simple Cronan
Uncle Fester wrote
>> Tachyons have nothing to do with time displacement.
>
>Not in the REAL world, they don't.
Please be clear in your mixing of the real and the unreal. I am sure to
seperate my posts(the real) from yours(the unreal). Do me the same curtesy.
>You do know what tachyons are, right?
Probably better than you do. Physics is a strong suit of mine. I wouldn't
reccomend you challenge me her.
<<snipped>>
>> You're a troll aren't you? A marevelously complex troll who enjoys faking
>> ignorance of any and all things, yes? Gravity waves do exist. This much
is
>> extrmely well known.
>
>Demonstrate by reference where gravity waves were first detected. I defy
>you to do it.
Certainly. From the source "Black Hole and Time Warps: Einstien's Outrageous
Legacy" by Kip Thorne I offer you Thibault Damour in Paris, Leonid Grishchuk
in Moscow, Takashi Nakamura in Kyoto, Bernard Schutz in Wales, Stuart
Shapiro in Ithaca, New York, Clifforfd Will in St. Louis and Kip Thorne.
>What method and what country and where?
The countries and names are above. And the method is called SCIENCE. Which
involves lotsa observation.
>You'll come up empty.
Is that you call it.
>Gravity waves exist in theory ONLY at this point.
Sure.
>> The one you are probably most familiar with is that
>> produced by our moon..
>
>You're referring to tides, not gravity waves.
Tidal gravity. What exactly do you think gravity waves are?
>> Another, more powerful, example would be those
>> produced during the rapid implosion of a collapsing star.
>
>Do you know HOW to detect a gravity wave?
>The Nobel Prize in Physics awaits you, oh Mighty Cronan.
Sorry but that should probably go to the folks who built the 40 meter
caltech interferometric prototype.
>I'm not saying that gravity waves don't exist - only that they haven't
>been detected.
Yeah well tell that to those wacky physicists..
What the hell do they know? They only
P&SC
Bi0Menace
>um, have you heard of the particle nature of light?
>e=mc^2 ?
>
>energy and matter are interchangable - it is certainly theoretically possible
>for a device that discharges focused energy beams to be configured to
>discharge other types of matter.
You may be trying to come off as intelligent, but your really showing yourself
to be a complete moron. There is a huge difference between shooting
photons(massless subatomic particles) and nanoprobes.
The Biodegradable One
"Hello there. Nice to meet you." - Maybe Heisenburg.
Bi0Menace
> as i said elsewhere.....matter and energy are interchangable. that
>was not an inconsistent use of the phaser.
As I said earlier, your a moron.
Blake Richardson
>It simply doesn't make sense that people would spend so
>much energy on trying to harm a television series. That's just too
>strange - too twisted. Why would they waste their time on this?
What amazes me is that people continue to respond to these guys. Don't
you all see that that's precisely what fuels their fire?
When Cronan or anyone of his ilk jumps into a discussion and spews forth
a bunch of negative personal attacks, just IGNORE it. Pretend his posts
don't even exist and continue on with your discussion. This may be a
difficult thing to do if he attacks you personally, but try it. No
matter how much you may want to, just don't even acknowledge his
existence on this NG. If everyone did this, it wouldn't be long before
he would get bored and go away.
Tom
On 20 Feb 1998 14:01:46 GMT, bi0m...@aol.com (Bi0Menace) wrote:
Uh....anyone heard of a replicator. Let's see...it changes energy into
matter. Or how about a holo-projector. It also converts energy into
matter inorder to make "solid" projections.
And to top it all off, basic physics states that matter is a form of
energy. We convert matter into energy all the time today. Just because
we can not convert the other way today does not mean it can not be
done in 500 years.
Shawn Hill
Dave Powell (david_po...@msn.com) wrote:
: Heh... they also ripped off John Carpernter's "They Live" in the one where
: only Seven could see the Baddies. At least they have good taste in where
: they go for ideas.
Hey, I forgot that one. "Scientific Method," right? Another one where Seven
saves the day!!!
Shawn
David DeRubeis
RUNE SCHIERMER NIELSEN wrote:
>
> I don´t believe that you are really Janeway.
>
But I'll bet you do believe the poster really is Kate Mulgrew.
David
James C. Ellis
Todd wrote:
>
> There are people who frequently post here for no other purpose than to
> discourage and disrupt the enjoyment of Trek. I am becoming suspicious
> much energy on trying to harm a television series.
If you don't like the posts you see, there is a "plain and simple"
solution... ;)
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
James C. Ellis
themad...@sprintmail.com wrote:
>
> Norman Doering wrote:
>
> > Okay -- I guess I'vw got to say it -- nanoprobes shot out by
> > a phaser? Why not as a dust or a projectile weapon? Do these people
> > know anything about the technologies they're dealing with?
>
> was not an inconsistent use of the phaser.
Oh _really_.
<Rolls eyes so vigorously that one pops out and falls onto the table.
By the time it has been recovered and put back into its socket, it is
unfortunately covered with toast crumbs. Mmmm, hot buttery toast.
Don't _you_ want some toast?>
Shawn Hill
themad...@sprintmail.com wrote:
: Norman Doering wrote:
: > Okay -- I guess I'vw got to say it -- nanoprobes shot out by
: > a phaser? Why not as a dust or a projectile weapon? Do these people
: > know anything about the technologies they're dealing with?
: as i said elsewhere.....matter and energy are interchangable. that
: was not an inconsistent use of the phaser.
Matter can be transformed into energy and vice versa; that's not quite the same
thing as interchangeable. Usually it takes the application of some sort of
force/process/effort to make the change. What you're basically saying is that
phaser-rifles now have tiny replicators in them, as well as a launching mechanism
for emitting solid (if microscopic) objects. Seems like a stretch.
Shawn
Marshall Janzen
I was hoping that after Janeway chewed Seven out at the end of the ep, she
would say, "And by the way, nicely done!" If she would have said that
disobeying orders was bad, but this time it worked out for the good like
Picard did to Data, she could have saved face at least a bit. As it is, she
just looks small and envious.
---
Marshall Janzen
Bill Reed wrote in message <34ED11...@usit.net>...
>Franklin Hummel wrote:
>>
>> >Norman Doering wrote
>> >>Voyager's "Prey" rocked!
>>
>> The technobabble was especially bad in this one. A phaser (an
>> engery weapon) shooting nanoprobes (physcial objects)? It's like having
>> a flashlight shooting darts.
>>
>> And Seven of Nine operating the transporter from circuitry
running
>> through the hallway was extremely bad.
>>
>> >>I don't think they're going to blow it with Seven of Nine.
>> >>The best part -- the conflict between Janeway and Seven, and
>> >>Seven's last words which ended the episode... but I won't spoil
>> >>it.
>>
>> It is not helping the character of Janeway as captain when she
>> makes a decision which endanger everyone and then have Seven of Nine have
>> to save the ship and crew.
>>
>>
>> -- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
>> --
>> ====================================================================
>> * NecronomiCon, 4th Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention *
>> August 1999, Providence, RI * Guests: Fred Chappell & T.E.D. Klein
>> Visit our web site at: http://www.necropress.com/necronomicon
>
>Janeway is a loose cannon! She is acting like more of a swaggering
>dictator of a captain than Kirk ever was!!! Even Picard told Data that
>if he ever seemed to be out of line to let him know! Janeway is so smug
>she thinks that she could kick the aliens' butts all by herself! She
>told seven to go to her room...we'll(I'll) do this without you.
>Riiigghhtt!
>
>Janeway needs to get a little humility. I guess she's p*ssed since the
>last episode when she found out her fiance got tired of waiting for her
>and married someone else!
>
Bi0Menace
>Uh....anyone heard of a replicator. Let's see...it changes energy into
>matter. Or how about a holo-projector. It also converts energy into
>And to top it all off, basic physics states that matter is a form of
>energy. We convert matter into energy all the time today. Just because
>we can not convert the other way today does not mean it can not be
>done in 500 years.
Uh, regardless of that, a phaser couldnt shoot nanoprobes. A phaser is
basically a souped up laser, which is basically a souped up flashlight(sort of,
for the purposes of this it is). And you dont see flashlights shooting bullets.
Go take a "physics for special people" course and figure it out. And if the
teacher uses any big words, its okay to ask them to explain them.
Podkayne Fries
>I don´t believe that you are really Janeway.
>
But she *is* Janeway and has been posting here for quite some time.
We're all simply thrilled that she can take the time out of her busy
schedule to post something for our edification and amusement.
Regards, Podkayne Fries
--
Necrophilia means never having to say you're sorry.
Benjamin Chan
Bi0Menace (bi0m...@aol.com) wrote:
: >um, have you heard of the particle nature of light?
: >e=mc^2 ?
: >
: >energy and matter are interchangable - it is certainly theoretically possible
: >for a device that discharges focused energy beams to be configured to
: >discharge other types of matter.
:
: You may be trying to come off as intelligent, but your really showing yourself
: to be a complete moron. There is a huge difference between shooting
: photons(massless subatomic particles) and nanoprobes.
I think I read in the Rube Goldberg Guide to the Technology of All Things
Trek that Borg nano-machines are equipped with "solar sails." Thus, they
can be "guided" to a target with a phaser rifle on low power
(flashlight-mode they call it). Phasers set on higher power incinerate
the nano-machines. It is also suggested that the phaser be fired in a
vacuum and in a completely dark room (if fired indoors). It's also
suggested that the target be stationary since the nano-machines take
awhile to get there.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
Plain and Simple Cronan wrote:
> This is the first episode I have ever scene where a review is simply
> inadequete to contain my disgust. I shall have to MiSTify it.
I look forward to it.
What irritates me about so much science fiction, and television in general,
is how stupid so many characters are. Inconsistent behaviour is bad
enough, but to make the characters be all-out idiotic suggests to me that
the writers badly need brain transplants. This episode was worse than
most, even for Voyager, and that's pretty bad. Let's see here:
1) Janeway finds out that the Hirogen have a society organised around
hunting. Does she adapt her language to speak in ways they will
understand? Nope. (A little Biblical literacy, in particular
1 Corinthians 9:18-23, could have gone a long way here.) She *could*
have told the incoming Hirogen:
Six months ago we wiped out all of these creatures who came into
our space, and this one escaped. We wiped out your other ship
for interfering in our hunt. This is *our* prey: we chased it
first, and -- unlike your pathetic efforts, failing even to kill
one -- we've killed thousands of these creatures.
If you wish to JOIN our hunt, we will consider allowing it. But if
you try to *interfere* in our hunt, you will suffer the same fate
as the four ships last week, the transmission station, and these
two dead fools.
(NOTE: only one of the two Hirogen who caught the 8472 was dead. The
other one, despite explicit instructions that he be shot if he got out
of line, was still alive after getting out of line. My idea here only
works if people actually follow orders on Voyager, which is something of
a problem on that ship.)
It's not exactly true, but it's *partly* true, and it works toward
concepts which will resonate with the Hirogen.
2) On approach of a damaged ship, 7of9, supposedly a Borg, doesn't want to
board it. Hmm: they've got alien weapons, powerful shields, and Heaven
only knows what information in their computer system. As a Borg, it
seems to me that she'd be *eager* to get as much information and
technology as possible from *every* available source.
For that matter, why didn't they go back to the 8472 ship and steal
its technology and information too? (Similar objections apply to past
dealings with the Vidiians, the Kazon, and so forth.)
3) 7of9's decision to send the 8472 back to the Hirogen was all-fired
stupid. Hmm: there's a bunch of powerful ships on the way here. We
could just slip off into the alternate dimensional system, and thus
not be here when they arrive. No, much better to stay here and get
blasted.
Hmm two: it's possible that the 8472 will be as unhappy with the
Hirogen as they are with the Borg, and thus a war will break out. Which
side would you want to be on?
Hmm three: the 8472 may have all kinds of spiffy tech. You've got one
on board your ship right now, and it needs a favor. Maybe you could
negotiate deals. "We can get you back to your people, but the Hirogen
are going to kill us if we do. Can you tell us anything you've learned
about them which will enable us to fight them better? Could your people
give us an escort through Hirogen space on our way home, or loan us some
weapons or something?"
(NOTE: this might be a bad plan if the 8472 people are still unhappy
about Voyager killing lots of them. But since continuity is usually a
bit lacking on Star Trek programs, that's not really an issue.)
4) 7of9 keeps going on about how superior the Borg way is, and everybody
seems willing to indulge this moronic fantasy she has. The Borg were
getting *creamed* by 8472, and Voyager defeated them. Two attemps to
capture Earth have failed.
Since the Borg assimilate cultures, they have no First Contact
protocols. Since assimilating 8472 and Hirogen are not options, the
use of intelligent First Contact is needed. 7of9 is utterly unequipped:
not only does SHE not know that, nobody else seems to either.
Since the Borg have lots of power, they don't really have any clue what
to do when faced with a more powerful opponent. This weakness should be
obvious after the original battle with 8472, but 7of9 seems blissfully
ignorant. In any case, this week they have to deal with hostile
Hirogens, a more powerful enemy, and 7of9 botches it completely.
5) Everybody is assuming that 8472 isn't going to end up wasting all those
Hirogen, feel as if Voyager betrayed it by promising to take it home and
then handing it over, and come back *really mad*. Only this time, it
may come back with a WORKING Hirogen ship.
6) Why didn't Tuvok get the creature's name, and the name of its species?
Spock did in "The Devil in the Dark". At the very least, it would make
these netnews discussions a little less numeric. 8-)
7) 7of9 wanted revenge on the 8472 for all the damage the Borg suffered:
but, to borrow a phrase, "revenge is irrelevant". Also, a few episodes
back when that guy tried to attack her for all the damage Borg did to
his people, she seemed to feel that she had a right to Janeway's
protection. Odd how nobody pointed this out. Also odd how nobody
pointed out that the Borg started that war, and 8472 was merely
defending itself.
8) On a big ship, nobody who works with details can know everything that
happens. That's why you have someone in charge, who knows big points.
The captain doesn't tell you *why* some job is what you need to do. The
captain has (we hope) a plan: you do your part, the others do their
parts, and the job gets done. But if you don't do your part, the whole
thing may collapse.
When Janeway sent a two-man away team to the Hirogen transmission
station, 7of9 spoke to Tuvok as if it concerned her whether Janeway
trusted her. This week, she throws all such trust away: and she also
shows that the real problem is her failure to trust the captain. (Mind
you, with some of the other bonehead stuff Voyager's writers have made
Janeway do, not trusting her makes some sense.)
In this case, Janeway clearly wanted to do the correct thing: leave for
fluidic space. She may not have had any clearly formed ideas about why
that was the best course of action, but at least she was on track.
And not only was all this going on, half of the idiotic things done during
this episode wouldn't have been done if anybody had bothered to mention
even ONE of these considerations. People this stupid *deserve* to get
stuck in the delta quadrant.
I feel sorry for the cast & crew, that they're at the hands of such bad
plotting. I understand that, for dramatic purposes, you need to have
weaknesses in all the characters. I even understand that, having
mistakenly made their technology too powerful, the writers may feel that
the only way to introduce weaknesses is in the form of bonehead errors on
the part of the characters.
This isn't just an anti-Voyager rant: similar problems showed up in "Star
Wars". (1)At a gigantic investment of time and economic capital, the
Empire has constructed a space station powerful enough to destroy a planet.
Then they take this irreplacable item with thousands of solidiers and
officers, and send it out with no escort fleet. (2)When attacked, they
launch a few fighters, instead of, say, 5000. (3)Having analysed the
Rebel's attack, the crew of the Death Star discovers a danger: but they
don't shut off the exhaust port, or the reactor, or do *anything* to lessen
the danger. (4)The captain of the little ship Princess Leia was riding on
gets into a battle with a ship over 1,000 times bigger, and when caught
Leia claims it was a diplomatic mission. If they had nothing to hide, why
didn't the captain surrender and prepare to be boarded when first
approached? ("Hey, officer, sorry about leading you on a 20-mile high
speed chase, and shooting at your police cruiser and wounding your partner,
but I was just going to get milk. I have nothing to hide.") (5)How did
Vader know to go after that ship? Because top-secret data was transmitted
to it. Why didn't the spy who got the data arrange for it to be broadcast
to 50,000 ships at once, thus making it far more difficult to figure out
who's a spy? No telling. If they'd really been clever, they would have
(1)transmitted to 50,000 ships, including Imperial StarDestroyers and other
such craft, and (2)sent a SECOND message to one of those StarDestroyers
saying "Decoys sent as instructed." If they'd picked a ship with people on
board whose family had come to harm as a result of Imperial actions, that
would have been plausible enough to give a few day's delay. Vader could
have torn that other ship to bits trying to find who instructed the decoys
be sent.
But as bad as those goofs were, Voyager's situation is a lot worse: they
have to do something every week. Because Star Wars technology is less
omnipotent, they can put their weaknesses there, instead of by making the
characters be stupid all the time. (In the later movies, some of them even
get a little smarter.) Also, with movies, they have fewer hours to fill.
How long can Voyager continue making the characters dumber every week?
Won't they eventually arrange it so all the characters exhibit an IQ of
zero? Then what?
*
Since I try to say something nice in any post like this, here's my vote for
the Best Voyager Line Ever. I think it was from "Message in a Bottle", but
don't really remember. 7of9 has been working really hard on something, and
hasn't been to see the Doctor. He goes to her to nag. Then he looks at
her chest and says that he wants to examine her "implants". Too funny.
Darren F Provine ! kil...@copland.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Any sufficiently advanced hobby is indistinguishable from research and
development." -- Marc de Groot
Franklin Hummel
In article <34ED51...@ix.netcom.com>,
Blake Richardson <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>It simply doesn't make sense that people would spend so
>>much energy on trying to harm a television series. That's just too
>>strange - too twisted. Why would they waste their time on this?
>
>What amazes me is that people continue to respond to these guys. Don't
>you all see that that's precisely what fuels their fire?
What amaze me is how much time and money is being wasted to
produce such a badly-done TV series when it could be used to produce
something actually good and truly entertaining -- and that there are
folks out there who think that somehow suggesting such a possibility is
"too twisted".
You do have to wonder about some of these people.
Caspar Mistlburger
Podkayne Fries wrote:
>
> >I don´t believe that you are really Janeway.
> >
>
> But she *is* Janeway and has been posting here for quite some time.
> We're all simply thrilled that she can take the time out of her busy
> schedule to post something for our edification and amusement.
>
> Regards, Podkayne Fries
> --
I have also heard this rumour before and am coming around to believing
it! Thank God for the internet! Where else could we rub elbows with our
heroes and role models?
Caspar
Franklin Hummel
>Todd wrote:
>>
>> There are people who frequently post here for no other purpose than to
>> discourage and disrupt the enjoyment of Trek. I am becoming suspicious
>> about this. It simply doesn't make sense that people would spend so
>> much energy on trying to harm a television series.
It makes sense if you understand those people are trying to
IMPROVE that television series.
Tracy Freeling
Todd wrote:
>
[snip]
> Uh yeah, he pretty much does. And I'm really beginning to wonder why.
> Is it possible that he and certain others actually have an agenda? Is
> it possible that this is some kind of B5 payback for misbehavior of
> Trekkers a while back? I'm seriously beginning to wonder.
Todd, you're becoming even sillier. The simple fact is that people have
posted extremely critical comments about trek for years on Usenet.
Back when TNG first started, it was fairly routine to see volumes and
volumes of posts about how the show was an insult to Star Trek, yada,
yada, yada. That was well before there were *any* B5ers.
What's more, regardless of any one's claims, the Voyager group is not
being targeted by anyone (except the Accessone troll). It is not being
singled out for special treatment. There are lots of negative posts
about B5 in the B5 newsgroups. Just as there are negative posts about
SAaB, Earth2, the X-Files, and many other shows in rec.arts.sf.tv and
rec.arts.tv.
Don't fall into the trap of assuming that everyone who says anything
negative about trek is a B5 fan.
Also, it's pretty dangerous for you to develop a conspiracy theory about
events that you yourself have NO personal knowledge i.e. the start of
the B5-DS9 jihad.
Tracy Freeling
Tracy Freeling
themad...@sprintmail.com wrote:
>
> Norman Doering wrote:
>
> > Okay -- I guess I'vw got to say it -- nanoprobes shot out by
> > a phaser? Why not as a dust or a projectile weapon? Do these people
> > know anything about the technologies they're dealing with?
>
> as i said elsewhere.....matter and energy are interchangable. that
> was not an inconsistent use of the phaser.
You know...I have a masters degree in engineering. This post is a prime
example of why *I* do not bother to argue science in Usenet!
Jacques Legare
In article <34ED6F...@sprintmail.com>,>> Uncle Fester wrote
>>
>> >First though, it's important to note that gravitons and gravity waves
>> >have YET to even be discovered or proven to exist - and that's the very
>> >SAME category that tachyons exist in as we speak.
>>
>> ignorance of any and all things, yes? Gravity waves do exist. This much is
>> extrmely well known.
>
>Demonstrate by reference where gravity waves were first detected.
Actually, I'd appreciate receiving those references too: I'm just finishing
up my Ph.D. dissertation on a theoretical study of gravitational waves,
and I can assert that they have not been observed.
>> The one you are probably most familiar with is that
>> produced by our moon..
>
>You're referring to tides, not gravity waves.
Not only that, but due to its small size, the gravitational field of
the moon is essentially Newtonian, and Newton's theory of gravity
does NOT support gravitational waves. This is known as ``Birkhoff's
Theorem'' or ``Gauss' Law'', depending on who you ask. I can assure
you that the post-Newtonian corrections to the gravitational field of
the moon are laughably small.
>Do you know HOW to detect a gravity wave?
In fact, the methods for detecting gravitational waves are fairly
well established ... in theory. What is lacking is a sufficiently
precise apparatus. Even today, the best apparatus is considered to
be just barely ``precise enough''. See the standard references in
the field (for instance, MTW 1973, or Deruelle and Piran 1982).
Regards,
Jacques
Todd
>> There are people who frequently post here for no other purpose than to
>> discourage and disrupt the enjoyment of Trek. I am becoming suspicious
>> about this. It simply doesn't make sense that people would spend so
>> much energy on trying to harm a television series.
>
> If you don't like the posts you see, there is a "plain and simple"
>solution... ;)
Yeah, I am actually considering that. But it sort of begs the question
- are we dealing with some kind of B5 payback or deliberate
disruption? ...a *planned* disruption?
I honestly wonder. As I said, it just doesn't make sense for people to
devote so much time to trying to ruin a TV series for others. It's too
odd... too twisted. I have to start wondering what the goal is...
Todd
May all the harvesters rot in prison.
To reply, delete ".alpha" from the address above.
Plain and Simple Cronan
Jacques Legare wrote in message ...
>In fact, the methods for detecting gravitational waves are fairly
>well established ... in theory. What is lacking is a sufficiently
>precise apparatus. Even today, the best apparatus is considered to
>be just barely ``precise enough''. See the standard references in
>the field (for instance, MTW 1973, or Deruelle and Piran 1982).
Thank you for the correction.
Apologies Fester.
Timeout
In article <6ckcl9$cr3$3...@news.fas.harvard.edu>, sh...@fas.harvard.edu
says...
first to play havoc on the ship...then the other alien.
Question...did they have the shields up at the time?
--
The 'real' Enterprise exists in the imaginations of the audience.
Timeout
Daniel Silevitch
In article <6cjv32$s...@camel15.mindspring.com>,
Plain and Simple Cronan <cro...@DeathsDoor.com> wrote:
>
>Uncle Fester wrote
>Probably better than you do. Physics is a strong suit of mine. I wouldn't
>reccomend you challenge me her.
You certainly don't evidence much knowledge about physics beyond what is
obtainably in pop science books. And before you ask, I am a PhD candidate
in physics; what are _your_ qualifications?
>>Demonstrate by reference where gravity waves were first detected. I defy
>>you to do it.
>
>Certainly. From the source "Black Hole and Time Warps: Einstien's Outrageous
>Legacy" by Kip Thorne I offer you Thibault Damour in Paris, Leonid Grishchuk
>in Moscow, Takashi Nakamura in Kyoto, Bernard Schutz in Wales, Stuart
>Shapiro in Ithaca, New York, Clifforfd Will in St. Louis and Kip Thorne.
I just did a literature search on gravity waves. I found a large number
of references, including some by the people that you mention. The one
unifying theme of all of these papers is that they are _theoretical_.
Nobody has ever seen direct evidence of a gravity wave; there is plenty
of indirect evidence that they _could_ exist, and their existence would
make a lot of theorists very happy, but that doesn't mean that they _do_
exist.
>>What method and what country and where?
>
>The countries and names are above. And the method is called SCIENCE. Which
>involves lotsa observation.
As far as I know, the first experiment to try to observe gravity waves is
the LIGOS project (I forget what the acronym means) which isn't due to
come online for another couple of years.
It is possible to do science without observation; theories can be constructed
and their implications explored in the hopes that at some later date,
technology will allow experimental verification of the predictions. The
all-time champion in this regard is string theory, which has _no_ evidence
to back it up (at least not directly). These theories remain cute mathematical
curiosities until their predictions have been confirmed by observation, but
the existence of a theory does not automatically imply experiment data.
>>Gravity waves exist in theory ONLY at this point.
>Sure.
See above. I invite you to submit a detailed reference to an experimental
observation of a gravity wave. I want the author(s), title of the paper,
and the journal reference.
>>> The one you are probably most familiar with is that
>>> produced by our moon..
>>You're referring to tides, not gravity waves.
>Tidal gravity. What exactly do you think gravity waves are?
Congratulations. You've just failed freshman physics. The tides can
be explained without any difficulty with plain ordinary Newtonian
gravity; this was first done (IIRC) in the mid 18th century, 150 years
before Einstein.
>>> Another, more powerful, example would be those
>>> produced during the rapid implosion of a collapsing star.
>>Do you know HOW to detect a gravity wave?
>>The Nobel Prize in Physics awaits you, oh Mighty Cronan.
>Sorry but that should probably go to the folks who built the 40 meter
>caltech interferometric prototype.
Note the word prototype. They haven't actually seen anything yet.
>>I'm not saying that gravity waves don't exist - only that they haven't
>>been detected.
>Yeah well tell that to those wacky physicists..
>What the hell do they know? They only
"They" know a hell of a lot; I would recommend that you read up on exactly
what they know before spouting nonsense on Usenet. I recommend going to
the nearest collegiate library. Look through back issues of Physical Review
for the last few years, and then get back to us.
Daniel Silevitch
dms...@pha.jhu.edu
Aries
If you don't like it don't watch it. Simple as that.
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 21:38:24 -0800, Corwin of Amber
<nsx...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Gee have you heard of Predator. Lame ass Voyager basically stole the
>Predator concept and created this pathetic looking (yeah the Hirogen
>dont look no where near as cool as the Predators) blue-suited baboon
>race. Species 8742 is a ripp-off of the Alien series. Open your eyes
>dummy.
>
>Norman Doering wrote:
>
>> Voyager's "Prey" rocked!
>>
>> I don't think they're going to blow it with Seven of Nine.
>>
>> I'll save the re-write notes for later, they're pretty minor,
>> The Teaser could have been pumped up a bit as there were some neat
>> hunting tricks that might have forced that Hirogen prey into the
>> asteriod belt, and Act 3 was slow with a lot of walking through
>> corridors (but it had suspense going for it), but everything else
>> was great. Even a clever and (I suspect) cheap use of FX when the
>> gravity went out. I learned something from that one.
>>
>> The best part -- the conflict between Janeway and Seven, and
>> Seven's last words which ended the episode... but I won't spoil
>> it.
>>
>> Good job Voyager!
>> This one was better than the script I wrote.
Aries
Simply because they created a species who HUNT other species Does not
make them like the Predators.
They don't look the same and they certainly don't act the same.
Just because they are similiar in one way does not make them the same
TL
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:03:24 -0800, David <both...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Plain and Simple Cronan wrote:
>>
>> David wrote
>>
>> >As if the Predators were an original idea.
>>
>> Gosh David, did anyone say they were? No. The point is Voyager stole from a
>> thief to prop up lunacy.
>
>My point is that the poster was complaning of a rip-off. He made it
>sound as if the Predators were an original idea. Since they aren't who
>cares if Voyager ripped off the Predators.
Aries
I tend to disagree. nanoprobs are extremely small. It is possible
that they used the photons as a propellent.
Similar in nature to a Solar sale or a Ion Drive.
On 20 Feb 1998 13:58:20 GMT, bi0m...@aol.com (Bi0Menace) wrote:
>>um, have you heard of the particle nature of light?
>>e=mc^2 ?
>>
>>energy and matter are interchangable - it is certainly theoretically possible
>>for a device that discharges focused energy beams to be configured to
>>discharge other types of matter.
>
>You may be trying to come off as intelligent, but your really showing yourself
>to be a complete moron. There is a huge difference between shooting
>photons(massless subatomic particles) and nanoprobes.
>
>
>
Aries
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 03:15:22 -0500, "Plain and Simple Cronan"
<cro...@DeathsDoor.com> wrote:
>
>themad...@sprintmail.com wrote
>> as i said elsewhere.....matter and energy are interchangable. that
>>was not an inconsistent use of the phaser.
>
>
>Are you really this stupid or are you pretending for our entertainment?
>
>P&SC
>
Talk about stupid.
Remember this from School
Energy cannot be created or destoryed it can only be changed.
In some respects matter and energy are interchangable. How would you
explain what happens inside black holes. Or the center of stars.
Norman Doering
in
news:Eop4q...@info.physics.utoronto.ca
>>>
>>> > First though, it's important to note that gravitons and gravity
>>> > waves have YET to even be discovered or proven to exist - and
>>> > that's the very SAME category that tachyons exist in as we speak.
>>>
>>> You're a troll aren't you?
wedding dress black.
/snip/
> Actually, I'd appreciate receiving those references too:
you're not going to like it. (Then again you may have a hell of a
lot of fun with it.) Here's a reference to what I think is
influencing Uncle Fester's thinking:
http://www.outcrybookreview.com/gwillim.htm
Henry H. Gwillim says, "Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were
wrong," he is the author of "SECRETS Of Gravity And Motion."
He has his own theories as to the cause of gravity, centrifugal
force, inertia, magnetic action, etc... He believes that Gravity
Radiation is generated in the atom's nucleus and is radiating
from (for example), a neutron, outward through the rotating
electron paths. it receives an inline spin from the rotating
electrons and then is radiated in a straight line to infinity. The
invisible *GRAVITY RAYS* (my emphasis) are being generated within
each atom and radiated outward, hitting other atoms...
I have no idea if this guy is bullshit or not -- it just sounds
like bullshit. Check it out and tell me what you think. Uncle
Fester used the term "gravitron," which seems similar to "gravity
ray" ideas. I don't know if the term "gravitron" is a pure Trek
invention or borrowed from physics. Do you know?
> I'm just finishing up my Ph.D. dissertation on a theoretical
> study of gravitational waves, and I can assert that they have
> not been observed.
to Ph.D level.
What do you mean by gravity wave exactly?
Are you talking about some observed fluctuation in the gravity
field or are we talking about what gravity is?
My understanding is like this: The theories of Newton and Einstein
provide a framework for predicting the effects of gravitational
attraction, but do not give any insight into why there is such a
force at all. (Though Einstein did try a "Unified Field Theory
attempt.) It has even been said by Hawking and others who've
studied gravity that the ultimate aim of physics is to be a grand
unifying theory that would describe gravity in the same terms as
the other forces.
Einstein changed the axiomatic foundations of our gravity models
and, if my memory serves me, part of his attempt at a unified
field theory considered gravity, like radio and light, to be a
wave in the electromagentic spectrum. This would mean it's not
exactly one of the fundamental forces (electromagnetism, the
strong and weak nuclear forces) but part of electromagnetism. As
such gravity would have similar properties to light, being both
wave (gravity wave - gravity ray) and particle (gravitron).
However, I've never heard the term gravitron except on Trek.
>> The one you are probably most familiar with is that
>> waves.
>
> Not only that, but due to its small size, the gravitational
> field of the moon is essentially Newtonian, and Newton's theory
> of gravity does NOT support gravitational waves.
are talking about what gravity is -- not mere phenomena
measurement. That means that "gravity waves/gravitrons" don't just
have to be measured but could be "established" by theory and math.
> This is known as ``Birkhoff's Theorem'' or ``Gauss' Law'',
> depending on who you ask. I can assure you that the post-
> Newtonian corrections to the gravitational field of the moon are
No. But it sounds like you'd put something of know weight on a
very sensitive scale and watch for rythmic fluctuations in its
weight and try to cancel out all other factors that would cause
fluctuation, like temperature, air currents, motion of the earth
etc....
Is that about right? Or would you be looking for some violation of
the inverse square law?
> In fact, the methods for detecting gravitational waves are
> fairly well established ... in theory. What is lacking is a
> sufficiently precise apparatus. Even today, the best apparatus
> is considered to be just barely ``precise enough''. See the
> standard references in the field (for instance, MTW 1973, or
> Deruelle and Piran 1982).
>
> Jacques
Bi0Menace
>I tend to disagree. nanoprobs are extremely small. It is possible
>that they used the photons as a propellent.
Fine. Shoot dust from a flashlight with photons, then.
>Similar in nature to a Solar sale or a Ion Drive.
These are not light spaceships with huge surface area's being propelled by
solar wind(not just light) or a spaceship being propelled by atoms being shot
out the back using electrical repulsion(thats right, ion drive is not a pure
energy drive). The only way this would work would be if phasers were
established to have a microreplicator and some sort of sand/dust shooter.
Bi0Menace
>Talk about stupid.
>
>Remember this from School
>
>Energy cannot be created or destoryed it can only be changed.
Yup. Energy can be turned to matter and vise versa, but they are not
interchangable. And if they are, then fine. Shoot bullets from your flashlight,
and then eat some photons for lunch.
>In some respects matter and energy are interchangable. How would you
>explain what happens inside black holes. Or the center of stars.
Um, I would explain that as matter changing to energy, and a large amount of
matter warping space. Look, before you make a bigger fool of yourself then you
already have, go ask your mommy or daddy about this.
Todd
On 20 Feb 98 20:05:13 GMT, kil...@elvis.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
wrote:
> Six months ago we wiped out all of these creatures who came into
> our space, and this one escaped. We wiped out your other ship
> for interfering in our hunt. This is *our* prey: we chased it
> first, and -- unlike your pathetic efforts, failing even to kill
> one -- we've killed thousands of these creatures.
>
> If you wish to JOIN our hunt, we will consider allowing it. But if
> you try to *interfere* in our hunt, you will suffer the same fate
> as the four ships last week, the transmission station, and these
> two dead fools.
You're absolutely right about this. Kirk would have done just as you
suggest. He always looked for the tactical advantage to exploit. I
wish the writers would understand this.
Todd
>Todd, you're becoming even sillier. The simple fact is that people have
>posted extremely critical comments about trek for years on Usenet.
I was here many years ago. I've been away for a while, but I can tell
you - things have changed for the worse. Star Trek posters were always
a fiesty bunch, but I don't recall the constant flaming, deliberate
attempts to drive away newbies, or any sort of group of posters trying
to get a series cancelled and drive people away from it.
>Back when TNG first started, it was fairly routine to see volumes and
>volumes of posts about how the show was an insult to Star Trek, yada,
>yada, yada. That was well before there were *any* B5ers.
Yeah, I remember that. Quite different than what we see here now, in
my opinion.
>Don't fall into the trap of assuming that everyone who says anything
>negative about trek is a B5 fan.
I haven't. If that's what you think, you've misread my feelings about
it. I just think this bunch has demonstrated some really strange
behavior.
>Also, it's pretty dangerous for you to develop a conspiracy theory about
>events that you yourself have NO personal knowledge i.e. the start of
>the B5-DS9 jihad.
I am the first to admit I wasn't around during that time. You should
understand however that I have no working theory of any sort. If you
had really read my post with an open mind, you would know that. I
posed a question, not a position. I have not developed a position. I
have developed a *suspicion* and I wondered aloud about it in the
hopes that others may have something useful to say.
Your opinion would seem to be that it is a really stupid thought and
that I'm really stupid (oh, I mean "silly") for thinking it. Your
opinion is noted. Thank you.
RUNE SCHIERMER NIELSEN
I doubt it.
I might think that "she" is Barney The LittleOrNoMind-osaur...
Rune
Plain and Simple Cronan
Daniel Silevitch wrote
>You certainly don't evidence much knowledge about physics beyond what is
>obtainably in pop science books. And before you ask, I am a PhD candidate
>in physics; what are _your_ qualifications?
A nobel prize. I am dead serious. Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse of
Princeton University won the 1993 nobel prize by proving the existence of
gravitational waves via astronominal observations. Taylor and Hulse, using a
radio telescope, found two neutron stars, one of them a pulsar, which orbit
each other once each 8 hours; and by exquisitely accurate radio
measurements, they verified that the stars are spiraling together ar
precisely the rate(2.7 parts in a billion per year) that Einstien's laws
predict they should, due to being kicked continually by gravitional waves
that they emit into the Universe. Nothing else, only tiny gravitational-wave
kicks, can explain the stars' spiral.
So I was wrong about being wrong.
>>Certainly. From the source "Black Hole and Time Warps: Einstien's
Outrageous
>>Legacy" by Kip Thorne I offer you Thibault Damour in Paris, Leonid
Grishchuk
>>in Moscow, Takashi Nakamura in Kyoto, Bernard Schutz in Wales, Stuart
>>Shapiro in Ithaca, New York, Clifforfd Will in St. Louis and Kip Thorne.
>
>I just did a literature search on gravity waves. I found a large number
>of references, including some by the people that you mention. The one
>unifying theme of all of these papers is that they are _theoretical_.
Sorry for not bringing the right sources to bear early on.
>Nobody has ever seen direct evidence of a gravity wave;
You are a Ph.D? Now I see why they won the Nobel Prize and you did not.
there is plenty
>of indirect evidence that they _could_ exist, and their existence would
>make a lot of theorists very happy, but that doesn't mean that they _do_
>exist.
Indirect?
>>The countries and names are above. And the method is called SCIENCE. Which
>>involves lotsa observation.
>
>As far as I know, the first experiment to try to observe gravity waves is
>the LIGOS project (I forget what the acronym means) which isn't due to
>come online for another couple of years.
Certainlly LIGO is important but it's purpose is not what you imply. It is
to be used in gravitational-wave astronomy.
<<snipped>>
>>>Gravity waves exist in theory ONLY at this point.
>>Sure.
>
>See above. I invite you to submit a detailed reference to an experimental
>observation of a gravity wave. I want the author(s), title of the paper,
>and the journal reference.
Will the Nobel Prize not be enough?
>>Tidal gravity. What exactly do you think gravity waves are?
>
>Congratulations. You've just failed freshman physics. The tides can
>be explained without any difficulty with plain ordinary Newtonian
>gravity; this was first done (IIRC) in the mid 18th century, 150 years
>before Einstein.
I was confused for just a moment. Something I am sure you can understand.
>
>>>> Another, more powerful, example would be those
>>>> produced during the rapid implosion of a collapsing star.
>>>Do you know HOW to detect a gravity wave?
>>>The Nobel Prize in Physics awaits you, oh Mighty Cronan.
>>Sorry but that should probably go to the folks who built the 40 meter
>>caltech interferometric prototype.
>
>Note the word prototype. They haven't actually seen anything yet.
Someone did.
>>>I'm not saying that gravity waves don't exist - only that they haven't
>>>been detected.
>>Yeah well tell that to those wacky physicists..
>>What the hell do they know? They only
>
>"They" know a hell of a lot; I would recommend that you read up on exactly
>what they know before spouting nonsense on Usenet. I recommend going to
>the nearest collegiate library. Look through back issues of Physical Review
>for the last few years, and then get back to us.
Your Ph.D claim is looking might shaky.
Perhaps I can teach you a lesson some time.
P&SC
recook77
Todd wrote in message <34f50910...@206.250.193.245>...
>On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:48:31 -0700, "James C. Ellis"
><ell...@cadvision.com> wrote:
>
>>> There are people who frequently post here for no other purpose than to
>>> discourage and disrupt the enjoyment of Trek. I am becoming suspicious
>>> about this. It simply doesn't make sense that people would spend so
>>> much energy on trying to harm a television series.
>>
>> If you don't like the posts you see, there is a "plain and simple"
>>solution... ;)
>
>Yeah, I am actually considering that. But it sort of begs the question
>- are we dealing with some kind of B5 payback or deliberate
>disruption? ...a *planned* disruption?
>
>I honestly wonder. As I said, it just doesn't make sense for people to
>devote so much time to trying to ruin a TV series for others. It's too
>odd... too twisted. I have to start wondering what the goal is...
I don't see a conspiracy theory here at all; I just see several intelligent,
reasonable, and critical people trying to offer their opinions. They have
legit reasons for their opinions and deserve to be respected for these
opinions.
Sadly, there are also a handful of embittered folks who seem to offer only
knee-jerk negative reactions to all things Trek without giving any valuable
insight.
Thankfully, the latter group is very small (albiet very vocal).
Jacques Legare
In article <6cldmi$q3n$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Norman Doering <dave...@prairienet.org> wrote:
> Uncle
>Fester used the term "gravitron," which seems similar to "gravity
>ray" ideas. I don't know if the term "gravitron" is a pure Trek
>invention or borrowed from physics. Do you know?
Actually, Uncle Fester used the term ``graviton''. A graviton is a
quantum of the (yet to be quantized) gravitational field. As it
stands, the only self-consistent quantum theory of gravitation that
exists is a linearized version of Einstein's General Relativity,
which is therefore only valid in for weak fields. However, Ashtekar
and his group have made much progress recently.
To answer your question, the term ``graviton'' is a well-established
term in current-day physics.
>What do you mean by gravity wave exactly?
A gravity wave is a propagating disturbance in the gravitational
field. The ``propagating'' part is important: that's why Newton's
gravity doesn't support gravitational waves: Newton's equation
for gravity (i.e., Poisson's equation) is elliptic, and therefore
cannot propagate anything.
>Are you talking about some observed fluctuation in the gravity
>field or are we talking about what gravity is?
I don't think we're talking about the nature of gravity: Cronan's
original point was that gravitational waves had been observed.
Uncle Fester and I replied that they had not been observed.
I have not read the book by Henry Gwillim, but it sounds like he's
pointing to some known phenomena claiming that they're gravitational
waves (I'm inserting ``waves'' where you said ``rays'' ... again,
I haven't read the book so I can't say what the author actually
meant.). If that's the case, then I simply can't argue with him:
he's changed definitions on me. Although I'm not one to simply
blindly accept dogma, the theoretical foundation that I accept for
gravitation is (i) Newtonian gravity whenever it works (i.e., most
astrophysical phenomena), and (ii) Einstein's GR when Newtonian
gravity breaks down (orbit of Mercury, gravitational lensing, and
so on). In the latter, gravitational waves have a very specific
effect on the space they travel through, and this effect has not
been observed to date, although many have tried and are still
trying.
>My understanding is like this: The theories of Newton and Einstein
>provide a framework for predicting the effects of gravitational
>attraction, but do not give any insight into why there is such a
>force at all. (Though Einstein did try a "Unified Field Theory
>attempt.)
Einstein's Unified Field Theory was not an attempt at gaining
insight into the nature of gravity: Einstein honestly felt he
had already done so with GR. Rather, Unified Field Theory (UFT)
was an attempt at unifying the two fundamental forces known at
the time: gravity and electromagnetism. Technically, the symmetric
second-rank metric tensor of GR was replaced with a nonsymmetric
second-rank ``fundamental tensor''. The new piece to this tensor
was to eventually lead to the Maxwell tensor of electromagnetism.
However, it can be shown that the spin properties of such a tensor
are wrong, and therefore fundamentally, the theory cannot describe
electromagnetism. More recently, Moffat had picked up the theory
and re-interpreted it as a new theory of gravitational which, in
the weak-field regime, would reduce to GR. This theory is called
the Nonsymmetric Gravitational Theory, and still exists as an
alternative to GR.
> This would mean it's not
>exactly one of the fundamental forces (electromagnetism, the
>strong and weak nuclear forces) but part of electromagnetism. ...
This was not Einstein's goal. If anything, his goal was the
reverse: he attempted to make electromagnetism be nothing more
than a geometrical phenomenon, and thus part of the gravitational
field. The one thing that Einstein always disliked about GR was
the necessity of including contributions from other forces into
a so-called ``matter tensor'' on the right-hand side of his equations.
He always considered such a phenomenological addition to an otherwise
geometrical theory to be ugly.
>>> The one you are probably most familiar with is that
>>> produced by our moon..You're referring to tides, not gravity
>>> waves.
>>
>> Not only that, but due to its small size, the gravitational
>> field of the moon is essentially Newtonian, and Newton's theory
>> of gravity does NOT support gravitational waves.
>
>This implies that Einstein's does and that implies you and Fester
>are talking about what gravity is -- not mere phenomena
>measurement. That means that "gravity waves/gravitrons" don't just
>have to be measured but could be "established" by theory and math.
I'm afraid I don't see any such implication. Firstly, Einstein's
gravitational theory does support gravitational waves. (As a side
note, so does Unified Field Theory.) Secondly, my point was that
since the moon's gravitational field is perfectly described by
Newtonian gravity, and Newtonian gravity cannot support gravitational
waves (as I defined them earlier), therefore gravitational waves
certainly have not been measured as coming from the moon.
As for your last point: I'm a physicist, not a mathematician. I
attempt to establish the behaviour of nature through experiments,
and then describe that behaviour through theory. If by some freak
chance I succeed in describing nature BEFORE I perform the
experiments (that is, I predict its behaviour) then so much the
better. But the fact remains that my work is not done until
the experiments have been performed: I haven't established that I
truly understand nature.
(By the way, that's a figurative ``I'' ... I'm actually a
theoretical physicists, and therefore don't perform any
experiments at all.)
>> This is known as ``Birkhoff's Theorem'' or ``Gauss' Law'',
>> depending on who you ask. I can assure you that the post-
>> Newtonian corrections to the gravitational field of the moon are
>> laughably small. Do you know HOW to detect a gravity wave?
(Please be careful how you attribute your postings ... you make
it seem like I asked that question, and I did not: Uncle Fester
did.)
>No. But it sounds like you'd put something of know weight on a
>very sensitive scale and watch for rythmic fluctuations in its
>weight and try to cancel out all other factors that would cause
>fluctuation, like temperature, air currents, motion of the earth
>etc....
There is an excellent book by Bernard Schutz entitled ``An
Introduction to General Relativity'' which discusses the
experimental and theoretical foundations of gravitational wave
measurement. I highly recommend it: it's extremely well written and
very enjoyable.
>Is that about right? Or would you be looking for some violation of
>the inverse square law?
Actually, a violation of the inverse square law would not be
evidence of a gravitational wave: the orbit of Mercury is already
evidence of a violation of the inverse square law, despite the
fact that the calculations that lead to its description assume
a static gravitational field.
Salut,
Jacques
Plain and Simple Cronan
Jacques Legare wrote
>I don't think we're talking about the nature of gravity: Cronan's
>original point was that gravitational waves had been observed.
>Uncle Fester and I replied that they had not been observed.
Which was incorrect.