[AVOGARDO] Moron boy's ignorant ravings

[AVOGARDO]

Sensors of the UFP are able to detect smallest fluctuations in gravitation and thus allow quantifying the mass of an object very far away.

Unless someone knows another method to determine the mass of a ship (or a Crystalline Entity) which is not in visual range and is flying with high warp speed.

Implication: UFP sensors are able to detect starships with a decloaking device which is not able to mask the mass of its own ship.

[The graviton is an elementary particle that transmits the force of gravity.]



STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION
"I, Borg"

32 INT. BRIDGE

Picard ENTERS from his ready room. Data is at ops,
Riker is standing, looking over his shoulder.

PICARD
What is it, Number One?

RIKER
We've picked up a vessel on long
range scanners, headed this way.

Picard knows very well who it might be.

PICARD
Analysis.

DATA
The vessel is traveling at warp
seven-point-six. Mass:
two-point-five million metric
tons, configuration: ...cubical.

RIKER
The Borg...

[...]


PICARD
How long do we have?

DATA
At present speed they will arrive
in thirty-one hours, seven
minutes.


STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION
"Silicon Avatar"

49 CONTINUED:

DOCTOR MARR
We'll start with a pulse width
of five nanoseconds, frequency
one pulse per second.

DATA
Commencing graviton emission
now...

There is a brief silence, as all on the bridge wait
tensely for results.

GEORDI
No change in the sensor readings.

DOCTOR MARR
Let's ramp the frequency.

DATA
Emissions now at ten pulses per
second.

Again, the charged silence. Then, Worf reacts to
something on his controls.

WORF
Sir...

DOCTOR MARR
What is it? Do you have
something?

WORF
A large mass... approaching at
warp speed...

[…]

52 CONTINUED:

DATA
Emissions at thirty pulses per
second...

GEORDI
Captain, I'm reading a
transmission from the Entity...
a series of graviton pulses...

DOCTOR MARR
It's working... that's a response
to our signal...

[Ted C]

Sensors of the UFP are able to detect smallest fluctuations in gravitation and thus allow quantifying the mass of an object very far away.

Unless someone knows another method to determine the mass of a ship (or a Crystalline Entity) which is not in visual range and is flying with high warp speed.

Implication: UFP sensors are able to detect starships with a decloaking device which is not able to mask the mass of its own ship.

[The graviton is an elementary particle that transmits the force of gravity.]

In theory, to the best of my knowledge, gravity propagates at lightspeed. This means that superluminal sensors will have to detect mass using some other means.

We know that the "mass lightening" effect of a subspace field somehow diverts much of the ship's mass to subspace; presumably this field effect is detectable and usable to determine properties like mass and shape of something in the field.

On a more mundane note, anything that interacts with waves travelling through subspace to create echoes will probably do so in predictable ways, allowing sensors to estimate mass and shape, much as modern radars can identify aircraft by the patterns of their radar reflections.

[AVOGARDO]

It's correct, that gravitation propagates at lightspeed.

Anyway, they are able to determine the mass of a ship, that is at warp 7.6 thirty-one hours away. I don't know, how fast warp 7.9 is, but I think, that ship is very far away.

And I don't know which method the UFP are using. Maybe they determine the mass of a ship from the warpfield or rather the subspace field.

But then they should be able to detect the mass from a cloacked ship too, unless it is able to mask its own mass or further more even its own warpfield or rather subspace field.

And Worfs pause between "A large mass" and "approaching at
warp speed" indicates, that both data are not relatet to another. Otherwise he would mention the warp speed first and then determine the mass with the received subspace data.



And they are able to read graviton pulses with at least five nanoseconds duration, one pulse per second.

It's to assume that the graviton pulse with which the Crystalline Entity does communicate is relatively weak in comparison to natural phenomenon.

While they try to communicate with the Crystalline Entity, they are not at warp speed.

[AVOGARDO]

Other scenes from STAR TREK in which UFP sensors are able to detect the mass of a object regardless wether the object travels at warp speed or not or is in visual range or not..

I don't know a method to determine the mass of an object which I can't see and can't touch other than to measure its gravitation.




STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION

"Lower Decks"


56A INT. BRIDGE

Picard is pacing anxiously.

DATA
(off console)
Sir... I am detecting signs of
debris two hundred thousand
kilometers inside Cardassian
space...

Lavelle turns to Data, his face full of dread.

DATA
(continuing, off
console)
Its mass and composition indicate
that it could be the remains of a
Federation escape pod...




STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION

"Unification Part I"


30 CONTINUED:

WORF
The ship is coming out of warp
now...

RIKER
On screen.

The screen shows the approaching ship. It is dark,
huge, sinister-looking, bristling with armament, and
carries absolutely no marking of any kind.

GEORDI
Sensors indicate a combat
vessel... origin undetermined...
heavily armed... mass and density
suggest it's fully loaded with
cargo. From the look of these
internal scans, I'd guess a good
part of that cargo is weaponry.

WORF
The ship is moving into section
twelve delta four...

DOKACHIN
(from his own monitor)
It's taking the position assigned
to the Tripoli. The coordinates
are identical.




STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION

"Booby Trap"


74 INT. MAIN BRIDGE

RIKER
Coming to heading three-four-zero
mark one-zero.

Picard, intent on the viewscreen, kills the thruster.

RIKER
Captain, that large mass to port
may contain an assimilator.




Deep Space Nine
"Destiny"

16 CONTINUED:

Dax sees something on her console.

DAX
Wait a minute...

SISKO
What is it... ?

DAX
(off console)
I'm reading a large mass of ice and
ionized gas entering sensor range
bearing two one five mark three.
(beat)
It looks like a rogue comet.

SISKO
Let's have a look... put it on
screen...




STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION

"Disaster"


30 CONTINUED:

O'BRIEN
They can be hundreds of meters
long, but they have almost no
mass... which is why they're so
difficult to detect.




STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION

"Force of Nature"

20 CONTINUED:

DATA
Unknown, sir. It does not appear
on any Federation charts of the
Corridor.

PICARD
Could it be what's left of the
Fleming?

DATA
It is a possibility. The debris
consists primarily of duranium and
poly-composite fragments which
suggests it could be from a ship.
Furthermore, the field contains
sufficient mass to account for the
Fleming.

A grim beat.






STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION

"The Survivors"


28 CONTINUED:

PICARD
Where did that come from?

RIKER
Apparently it was riding a
Lagrange point behind Rana
Four's furthest moon.

DATA
Our vehicle classification index
can put no identity to it. Its
design is completely foreign.

RIKER
But it's our boy -- roughly five
times our mass and carrying enough
armament to pulverize a planet.

[AVOGARDO]

On a more mundane note, anything that interacts with waves travelling through subspace to create echoes will probably do so in predictable ways, allowing sensors to estimate mass and shape, much as modern radars can identify aircraft by the patterns of their radar reflections.

I didn't know that it is possible to determine the mass of an airplane via radar.

As far as I know, with normal radar it is possible to determine only direction and distance.

Only if you would determine many points on the surface of an airplane, you could get a shape.

But that tells nothing about the materials with which the airplane is build. The only knowledge you can achieve is that the surface consists of a material which reflect electromagnetic radiation and only that would allow further conclusions.

Only if the amplitude of the echo is measured, it is possible to determine the intensity and concistency of reflective objects. That happens usually with weather radar. But this observed wide area aerially phenomena like clouds in which the radar beam can intrude.

The same isn't possible for a small airplane. And even if it would be, it would only be possible to get this data from the surface of the airplane if these would reflect all of the radar beam.

You wouldn't know, what lie beneath the surface and you must know all the material and its amount whith which the airplane is build to calculate its mass.

[Isolder74]

You could estimate it from the ship's speed and apperent size you pick up how big it might be or how dense, but a plane like the B2 would be impossible to tell by the radar signiture.

[Ted C]

I didn't know that it is possible to determine the mass of an airplane via radar.

As far as I know, modern radar won't measure mass, but it will show the size of reflecting surfaces.

As far as I know, with normal radar it is possible to determine only direction and distance.

With civilian radar, yes, but I believe military radars are designed to analyze the returns to determine the shape and size of reflecting surfaces, then compare that to a database to identify the contact.

Only if you would determine many points on the surface of an airplane, you could get a shape.

The usual identifiers are the engine intakes, if I remember correctly. Someone with real radar experience could probably give better information.

But that tells nothing about the materials with which the airplane is build. The only knowledge you can achieve is that the surface consists of a material which reflect electromagnetic radiation and only that would allow further conclusions.

Exactly. I'm not saying subspace sensors are a direct analog to radar; it just has some similarities in principle. Many kinds of matter seem to have at least some interaction with subspace sensor emissions, so a larger mass should inherently be more visible. Certain materials actually seem to have "subspace stealth" properties, as well.

[AVOGARDO]

I'm not saying subspace sensors are a direct analog to radar; it just has some similarities in principle. Many kinds of matter seem to have at least some interaction with subspace sensor emissions, so a larger mass should inherently be more visible.

Is this not a contradiction in terms?

Radar relies on reflection on the surface and usually can't intrude in ferromagnetic materials.

But you say, subspace sensors interact with the material. Maybe I don't understand you correct, but I think, you mean a kind of resonance within the material. And then, you could analyze the data from the resonance signal to conclude to the material itself.

But then you get the mass of the measured objekt too.

For this, the measured object must not fly with warp speed. You get this data from a standing object too.

But this doesn't explain the communication with the Crystalline Entity via graviton pulses.

If the Enterprise is able to create such a graviton pulse and read such an graviton pulse, even if the Crystalline Entity is still lightyears away, is it not logical to reason that the ability to determine the mass of a ship is related to the ability to detect gravitation?

[AVOGARDO]

Certain materials actually seem to have "subspace stealth" properties, as well.

Otherwise you couldn't trust the results of the calculation of the mass, which is based on the amount of certain materials which interact with subspace sensor emissions.

But if a ship has a large amount of material, which has >> "subspace stealth" properties << you would get total wrong results.

Such a method would not be trustworthy. Nobody compos mentis would rely on such a method.

Therefore I have to conclude that the used method is dependable. And to determine the mass of a object via its own gravitation seems to me very dependable.

[General Zod]

Certain materials actually seem to have "subspace stealth" properties, as well.

Otherwise you couldn't trust the results of the calculation of the mass, which is based on the amount of certain materials which interact with subspace sensor emissions.

But if a ship has a large amount of material, which has >> "subspace stealth" properties << you would get total wrong results.

Such a method would not be trustworthy. Nobody compos mentis would rely on such a method.

Therefore I have to conclude that the used method is dependable. And to determine the mass of a object via its own gravitation seems to me very dependable.

Unless the materials are simply not practical to build a ship out of. Nobody's going to fill their ship up with the stuff or risk making an unsafe ship just for the hope that they might fool some sensors.

[AVOGARDO]

Unless the materials are simply not practical to build a ship out of. Nobody's going to fill their ship up with the stuff or risk making an unsafe ship just for the hope that they might fool some sensors.

[...] Many materials seems to be transparent to this radiation which would not be transparent to EM radiation [...]

Hasn't it already been theorized that dense metals screw with subspace technologies? [...]

That's what I was thinking. If particular kinds of materials strongly retransmit this "subspace radiation", then you could detect those materials even through solid barriers of reasonable thickness. It may not necessarily be a simple matter of density either, although that's an early candidate.

Having said that, we know that subspace radiation is normally expected to pass through most materials. [...]

What materials would you use to build a starship?

[Ted C]

Radar relies on reflection on the surface and usually can't intrude in ferromagnetic materials.

But you say, subspace sensors interact with the material. Maybe I don't understand you correct, but I think, you mean a kind of resonance within the material. And then, you could analyze the data from the resonance signal to conclude to the material itself.

Reflection is a type of interaction. If subspace waves reflect off a material, they can't be just passing through it. The reflection may not be complete, though. A denser, more massive object might easily reflect more subspace energy than a small, light object. If you know how much energy you can expect to reflect from a given mass of a particular material, you can estimate mass from a sensor return.

But this doesn't explain the communication with the Crystalline Entity via graviton pulses.

Assuming the distance would require superluminal communication, no, it doesn't.

If the Enterprise is able to create such a graviton pulse and read such an graviton pulse, even if the Crystalline Entity is still lightyears away, is it not logical to reason that the ability to determine the mass of a ship is related to the ability to detect gravitation?

I suppose so, but it wouldn't be the only explanation. We also know that cloaked ships are still capable of orbiting a planet, meaning that they must be interacting with gravitons, yet Federation starships don't use this method to locate them.

[Darth Wong]

Is this not a contradiction in terms?

Radar relies on reflection on the surface and usually can't intrude in ferromagnetic materials.

But you say, subspace sensors interact with the material. Maybe I don't understand you correct, but I think, you mean a kind of resonance within the material. And then, you could analyze the data from the resonance signal to conclude to the material itself.

It's not a matter of "intrusion"; if a form of radiation tends to reflect better on certain frequencies than others, then you can use that to help identify the object.

But then you get the mass of the measured objekt too.

I don't think you understand how real-life sensors work. Much of what we derive from a sensor system is inferred, not magically delivered to us by the sensor medium. In other words, a sensor system generally does not directly "tell" us what we want to know; it tells us something else, from which we infer other characteristics through a lot of science and certain assumptions (yes, assumptions).

For this, the measured object must not fly with warp speed. You get this data from a standing object too.

Actually, the ability to detect warp-driven objects from far away would logically be due to some kind of sensor interaction with the warp field itself, which must necessarily extend far ahead of the spacecraft. That would explain why ships not traveling at warp speed are actually much harder to detect from distance.

But this doesn't explain the communication with the Crystalline Entity via graviton pulses.

If the Enterprise is able to create such a graviton pulse and read such an graviton pulse, even if the Crystalline Entity is still lightyears away, is it not logical to reason that the ability to determine the mass of a ship is related to the ability to detect gravitation?

The most likely explanation is that subspace radiation is very strongly affected by gravitational fields, which would simultaneously explain both the ability to detect gravitational disturbances at long range as well as the fact that sitting in a Lagrange point can mask you from subspace sensors. Interaction with a phenomenon like gravity is a double-edged sword.

[AVOGARDO]

Reflection is a type of interaction.

Sure, reflection is a type of interaction. But a reflection happens on the surface. And a reflection on the surface doesn't tell, how thick a Material, for example an armour, is. It usually also doesn't tell from which material said armour is made of. Therefore I suggestet a resonance within the material. Such a resonance signal, created from the whole material and not only from the surface, could have more information about the material itself.

Assuming the distance would require superluminal communication, no, it doesn't.

The Crystalline Entity was estimated to be up to five lightyears away when the Enterprise crew started to try to communicate with it via graviton pulses.

STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION

"Silicon Avatar"


WORF
Sir, the Brechtian Cluster is now
five light years away.

RIKER
Are we still picking up the
Entity's pattern?

DATA
Yes, Commander. But sensors do
not yet have a lock on its exact
whereabouts.

DOCTOR MARR
Captain, we are reasonably certain
it's between here and the
Brechtian Cluster. If I start
emitting the graviton beam now,
it may act as a lure... a kind
of beacon.

PICARD
Make it so.



I don't think, the Enterprise crew was ready to wait up to five years.

Therefore it must be concluded that they have the technical abilitiy to acclereate gravitons far above lightspeed.

And they must have the ability to detect gravitons, which aren't acclereated above lightspeed, superluminal, because they hoped to detect the response from the Crystalline Entity while it was up to five lightyears away.

I suppose so, but it wouldn't be the only explanation. We also know that cloaked ships are still capable of orbiting a planet, meaning that they must be interacting with gravitons, yet Federation starships don't use this method to locate them.

No, it would not be the only explanation. But it would be a good explanation and if you or anybody else don't have a better, it would be the best explanation.

It could explain for example, why a ship riding a Lagrange Point, a gravitational anomaly, is difficult to detect. Why schould subspace sensor emissions are affected by a simple gravitational anomaly?

We also know that cloaked ships are still capable of orbiting a planet, meaning that they must be interacting with gravitons, yet Federation starships don't use this method to locate them.

Do we know that? I can't remember one episode in which a cloaked ship had trouble with the gravitation of a planet. I think, it may be possible, that a cloacked ship isn't affected by gravitation.
And that it goes in an Orbit around a planet could be habit. It must parking somewhere.

[AVOGARDO]

I don't think you understand how real-life sensors work. Much of what we derive from a sensor system is inferred, not magically delivered to us by the sensor medium. In other words, a sensor system generally does not directly "tell" us what we want to know; it tells us something else, from which we infer other characteristics through a lot of science and certain assumptions (yes, assumptions).

Thank you for this enlightenment.

That is exactly the rason why I don't believe, that you can get the mass of a ship this way.

There are instances, where the Enterprise Crew had an exact mass from a ship or from its debris.

What is more likely?

That it could detect the mass via gravitation directly
or
that it get some of the materials and its amount with which a ship is build, and then calculate the mass from the ship although they know that these data are highly undependable cause only certain materials interact with their sensor emission and these subspace sensor emission may be affected by gravitational fields?

The most likely explanation is that subspace radiation is very strongly affected by gravitational fields, which would simultaneously explain both the ability to detect gravitational disturbances at long range as well as the fact that sitting in a Lagrange point can mask you from subspace sensors. Interaction with a phenomenon like gravity is a double-edged sword.

The most likely explanation could be, that the ability to detect gravitation doesn't depend on subspace sensor systems. That would be the case, if it would detect gravitation directly.

If subspace sensor systems are in such a way independable as you describe, it would be to reason, that there are other sensor systems too, which don't need subspace technology.

Maybe these sensore systems can be connect to a subspace system when superluminal detection is needed.

[Ted C]

The most likely explanation could be, that the ability to detect gravitation doesn't depend on subspace sensor systems. That would be the case, if it would detect gravitation directly.

If subspace sensor systems are in such a way independable as you describe, it would be to reason, that there are other sensor systems too, which don't need subspace technology.

Maybe these sensore systems can be connect to a subspace system when superluminal detection is needed.

The problem you run into with gravity-detection systems that don't use subspace is that -- in Star Trek -- subspace is the only known medium through which energy or information can move at superluminal speeds. We can therefore conclude that any sensor information received from light-years away that is close to real-time must be travelling through subspace.

[AVOGARDO]

The problem you run into with gravity-detection systems that don't use subspace is that -- in Star Trek -- subspace is the only known medium through which energy or information can move at superluminal speeds. We can therefore conclude that any sensor information received from light-years away that is close to real-time must be travelling through subspace.

Yes, when superluminal detection is needed, a sensor system could be connected to a subspace system.

But it is known, that the UFP sensors can detect graviton-particles, therefore gravitation. These sensor systems don't have to rely on subspace technology if superluminal detection isn't needed. There is no indication, that would suggest this.

To determine the mass of a ship, that is in relativistic vicinity, subspace technology wouldn't be necessary.

[Mad]

The Crystalline Entity was estimated to be up to five lightyears away when the Enterprise crew started to try to communicate with it via graviton pulses.

[...]

I don't think, the Enterprise crew was ready to wait up to five years.

Therefore it must be concluded that they have the technical abilitiy to acclereate gravitons far above lightspeed.

And they must have the ability to detect gravitons, which aren't acclereated above lightspeed, superluminal, because they hoped to detect the response from the Crystalline Entity while it was up to five lightyears away.

Or, since the Crystalline Entity could travel faster-than-light, it must have some kind of connection to subspace. The method of detection may not be the gravitons themselves, but instead the subspace disturbances created by them. (Think of smoke signals: you're releasing smoke in a timed pattern. The smoke doesn't actually reach the recipient, yet communication takes place.)

It could explain for example, why a ship riding a Lagrange Point, a gravitational anomaly, is difficult to detect. Why schould subspace sensor emissions are affected by a simple gravitational anomaly?

No, it couldn't explain that. Gravitons don't disappear in a Lagrange Point, therefore directly detecting gravitons from a ship in a Lagrange Point should not be a problem.

Any problems that come from detecting a gravitational source sitting in a Lagrange Point would therefore have to be due to some other kind of interference with whatever is being used to detect the gravity well.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think you understand how real-life sensors work. Much of what we derive from a sensor system is inferred, not magically delivered to us by the sensor medium. In other words, a sensor system generally does not directly "tell" us what we want to know; it tells us something else, from which we infer other characteristics through a lot of science and certain assumptions (yes, assumptions).

Thank you for this enlightenment.

It appears you still need it, since you go on to spout idiotic bullshit about "directly" detecting gravitons for recent events from light-years away despite lightspeed propagation, thus indicating that you don't get this point at all.

That is exactly the rason why I don't believe, that you can get the mass of a ship this way.

There are instances, where the Enterprise Crew had an exact mass from a ship or from its debris.

See above point. They most likely detect something about the warp field and then infer starship mass from that, based on relations that they have found to work for ships using technology they are aware of. You still seem to have no idea of how many assumptions and inferences are required for typical sensor operation.

What is more likely?

That it could detect the mass via gravitation directly
or
that it get some of the materials and its amount with which a ship is build, and then calculate the mass from the ship although they know that these data are highly undependable cause only certain materials interact with their sensor emission and these subspace sensor emission may be affected by gravitational fields?

At a range of light hours, light-days, or light-years? The first one is quite simply impossible. Not only that, but you are engaging in an obvious false dilemma fallacy by assuming that your second caricatured option is the only alternative to quasi-magical "direct" detection of lightspeed phenomena from light-years away.

The most likely explanation is that subspace radiation is very strongly affected by gravitational fields, which would simultaneously explain both the ability to detect gravitational disturbances at long range as well as the fact that sitting in a Lagrange point can mask you from subspace sensors. Interaction with a phenomenon like gravity is a double-edged sword.

The most likely explanation could be, that the ability to detect gravitation doesn't depend on subspace sensor systems. That would be the case, if it would detect gravitation directly.

"Detect gravitation directly" ... with what mechanism? What are the characteristics of this mechanism? What are its limitations? How the fuck do they collect the gravitons for objects far away at warp speed when the gravitons move at lightspeed? What about the fact that warp fields are known to alter the gravitational mass of the object inside, thus making "direct detection" useless, in addition to being impossible at those ranges? You're sounding suspiciously like people whose idea of an explanation is magic handwavium.

If subspace sensor systems are in such a way independable as you describe, it would be to reason, that there are other sensor systems too, which don't need subspace technology.

Correct, but they wouldn't be useful at very long ranges, especially not for detecting anything about oncoming ships traveling at warp speed.

Maybe these sensore systems can be connect to a subspace system when superluminal detection is needed.

That's just plain ridiculous. It's like saying that you can "connect" a local metal-detector to a radar system if you need to detect metal from far away. Once more, your arguments sounds like those of someone who knows absolutely nothing about how we detect things in reality.

[AVOGARDO]

Or, since the Crystalline Entity could travel faster-than-light, it must have some kind of connection to subspace. The method of detection may not be the gravitons themselves, but instead the subspace disturbances created by them. (Think of smoke signals: you're releasing smoke in a timed pattern. The smoke doesn't actually reach the recipient, yet communication takes place.)

If I understand you correct, the subspace sensor system, that you imagine, actively send a subspace signal - and the signals which are created through the interaction with all kind of matter and energy is interpreted.

But that is not likely how a sensor phalanx would work. It would have many different sensor systems to detect many different things. It would have passive and active sensor moduls. Therfore it would be called an array or a phalanx.

And each single sensor module could work without supspace technology. And there could be sensor mudules, which are especially there to detect subspace data - passive and active.

The subspace technology would only be necessary for these and to send active sensor signals from otherwise not-subspace sensor modules through the supspace or to receive signals which are send through subspace.

There are two possibilities to detect gravitons in principle: activ and passiv.

An active signal interact with these gravitons and a kind of new signal is created by these interaction which is detectabel.

The first signal doesn't have to be a subspace signal. It could be send through subspace and than, the second signal could be transmitted in supspace too.

But then there is also the possibility to detect gravitons in a passiv way without sending a signal to the gravitons. In relativistic vicinity the graviton would come to the sensor module just as well as light to a camera.

If the first variant is possible, than the second variant is also possible insofar as the sensor signal, with which the graviton is detectabel, is not send through the whole space but is created only in the sensor module itself and detect only the gravitons which get to it.

But furthermore there is the possibility that gravitons are detactable without a signal with which they have to interact as well as light.

No, it couldn't explain that. Gravitons don't disappear in a Lagrange Point, therefore directly detecting gravitons from a ship in a Lagrange Point should not be a problem.

Any problems that come from detecting a gravitational source sitting in a Lagrange Point would therefore have to be due to some other kind of interference with whatever is being used to detect the gravity well.

I'm not an astrophysicist. I don't know, in which way the combined gravitational pull of two large masses, which provides precisely the centripetal force required for a small mass to rotate with them affect the gravitons of said small mass.

Maybe you are right?

But maybe the gravitational interference from two large masses in this point is to high to be able to detect a small mass? That must not be the case in every Lagrange Point. Maybe only if certain cirsumstances are given.

It appears you still need it, since you go on to spout idiotic bullshit about "directly" detecting gravitons for recent events from light-years away despite lightspeed propagation, thus indicating that you don't get this point at all.

I have already said, that >> To determine the mass of a ship, that is in relativistic vicinity, subspace technology wouldn't be necessary. << and that >> when superluminal detection is needed, a sensor system could be connected to a subspace system. <<

They most likely detect something about the warp field and then infer starship mass from that, based on relations that they have found to work for ships using technology they are aware of.

I don't see, how that can bee the likeliest possibility if they are able to detect the mass from objects, which don't travel at warp speed and don't have subspace technology at all, like debris and asteroids, and are able to determine the mass of a ship the just encountered and thus know nothing about.

"Detect gravitation directly" ... with what mechanism? What are the characteristics of this mechanism? What are its limitations?

I don't know. But as I said, I'm not an astrophysicist. And sure, I can't explain all the technology from the 24st century. I think, it could happen similarly to the detection of light or the detection of neutrinos in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.

That's just plain ridiculous. It's like saying that you can "connect" a local metal-detector to a radar system if you need to detect metal from far away. Once more, your arguments sounds like those of someone who knows absolutely nothing about how we detect things in reality.

No, that is not what I'm saying. The >> metal-detector << would be on a par with the >> radar <<.

It is possible to send matter and energy through the subspace. Insofar subspace is not an similiar to EM signals. It is the space through which theses signals are sended. A ship in subspace or a torpedo is not energy or subspace. It keeps its own consitence.

I'm saying that I woul send the EM signals from your >> metal-detector << and your >> radar << through the subspace for superluminal detection.

[Darth Wong]

But maybe the gravitational interference from two large masses in this point is to high to be able to detect a small mass?

And yet you think that the gravitational pull from an object which is millions or billions of kilometres away would be detectable relative to the gravity produced by much closer objects, such as your own ship?

I have already said, that >> To determine the mass of a ship, that is in relativistic vicinity, subspace technology wouldn't be necessary. << and that >> when superluminal detection is needed, a sensor system could be connected to a subspace system. <<

Which, once again, makes no sense. If they are directly detecting gravitational forces, the forces involved are so miniscule at any kind of astronomical range that some crewman farting on deck 27 would have more of an effect.

They most likely detect something about the warp field and then infer starship mass from that, based on relations that they have found to work for ships using technology they are aware of.

I don't see, how that can bee the likeliest possibility if they are able to detect the mass from objects, which don't travel at warp speed and don't have subspace technology at all, like debris and asteroids.

Yeah, right. Naturally, Star Trek only has one kind of sensor; it's totally inconceivable that they might have different kinds of sensors for different situations, the way people do in real life

I don't know. But as i said, I'm not an astrophysicist. And sure, I can't explain all the technology from the 24st century. I think, it could happen similarly to the detection of light or the detection of neurinos in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.

Are you seriously this dense? Appealing to ignorance or vague uncertainties is not an explanation. The direct gravitational pull of a distant object of sub-stellar size is insignificant. Theoretical virtual particles like gravitons exchange this force; they will not be more numerous than the strength of the force would indicate. The idea of basing mass detection upon direct gravity for objects such as starships at ranges of millions of kilometres is quite simply nonsense. The only explanation which does make sense is inference from some other kind of data, such as their exotic subspace radar which is known to interact oddly with gravitational fields.

That's just plain ridiculous. It's like saying that you can "connect" a local metal-detector to a radar system if you need to detect metal from far away. Once more, your arguments sounds like those of someone who knows absolutely nothing about how we detect things in reality.

No, that is not what I'm saying. The >> metal-detector << would be on a par with the >> radar <<.

It is what you're saying; you just don't realize it.

It is possible to send matter and energy through the subspace. Insofar subspace is not an similiar to EM signals. It is the space through which theses signals are sended. A ship in subspace or a torpedo is not energy or subspace. It keeps its own consitence.

Irrelevant since it does not interact with normal matter the way it would in normal space. The idea of simply sticking a sensor designed to work with normal space into "subspace" and expecting it to function normally is, as usual for your posts, sheer nonsense.

I'm saying that I woul send the EM signals from your >> metal-detector << and your >> radar << through the subspace for superluminal detection.

Thanks for making it obvious that you don't even know how a metal detector works.

[Mad]

If I understand you correct, the subspace sensor system, that you imagine, actively send a subspace signal - and the signals which are created through the interaction with all kind of matter and energy is interpreted.

I don't think we have enough information to know if it would be active or passive, at least as far as the effects a gravity well has on subspace are concerned.

But that is not likely how a sensor phalanx would work. It would have many different sensor systems to detect many different things. It would have passive and active sensor moduls. Therfore it would be an array or a phalanx.

And each single sensor module could work without supspace technology. And there could be sensor mudules, which are especially there to detect subspace data - passive and active.

It's more likely that the sensors that detect subspace activity can only be used for subspace. The fact that subspace sensors have a completely different set of problems and capabilities from realspace sensors is pretty compelling.

There are two possibilities to detect gravitons in principle: activ and passiv.

An active signal interact with these gravitons and a kind of new signal is created by these interaction which is detectabel.

The first signal doesn't have to be a subspace signal. It could be send through subspace and than, the second signal could be transmitted in supspace too.

But then there is also the possibility to detect gravitons in a passiv way without sending a signal to the gravitons. In relativistic vicinity the graviton would come to the sensor module just as well as light to a camera.

That doesn't even make any sense. Were it coherent, I still doubt it would make sense. There is no evidence that I am aware of that realspace and subspace sensors are interchangeable.

I'm not an astrophysicist. I don't know, in which way the combined gravitational pull of two large masses, which provides precisely the centripetal force required for a small mass to rotate with them affect the gravitons of said small mass.

They cancel out. If you were in the Lagrange Point between the Earth and moon and tried to measure the gravity you were feeling, you both the Earth and moon would appear invisible as far as those measurements were concerned.

Maybe you are right?

Most likely.

But maybe the gravitational interference from two large masses in this point is to high to be able to detect a small mass?

You'd have to deal with that same problem even if the target is not in a Lagrange Point. The gravity wells of the local star and planets are going to need to be factored into (or, out of) your sensor readings anyway.

[AVOGARDO]

And yet you think that the gravitational pull from an object which is millions or billions of kilometres away would be detectable relative to the gravity produced by much closer objects, such as your own ship?

Yes, when the ship is flying in deep space, there would be no gravitational interference. That would only be a problem when the ship is approaching a planet or other massiv object.

Which, once again, makes no sense. If they are directly detecting gravitational forces, the forces involved are so miniscule at any kind of astronomical range that some crewman farting on deck 27 would have more of an effect.

see above

In the Eiffel at Effelsberg is a moveable radio telescope, which is able to detect the energy which is released by a melting snowflake on the surface of Mars. That would be an energy so miniscule at any kind of astronomical range too.

It was build 1972. I think, I can conlude, that a sensor system in 400 years is far more advanced.

Yeah, right. Naturally, Star Trek only has one kind of sensor; it's totally inconceivable that they might have different kinds of sensors for different situations, the way people do in real life

Maybe you should read, what I have written.

I have already said, that they >> would have many different sensor systems to detect many different things. It would have passive and active sensor moduls. <<

Are you seriously this dense? Appealing to ignorance or vague uncertainties is not an explanation. The direct gravitational pull of a distant object of sub-stellar size is insignificant. Theoretical virtual particles like gravitons exchange this force; they will not be more numerous than the strength of the force would indicate. The idea of basing mass detection upon direct gravity for objects such as starships at ranges of millions of kilometres is quite simply nonsense. The only explanation which does make sense is inference from some other kind of data, such as their exotic subspace radar which is known to interact oddly with gravitational fields.

I don't denial, that a starship at warp would be detected through its warpfield. And I don't denial that these warpfield allows to conlude on its mass.

You have just accused me to assume, that a UFP starship would only have one sensor. I never have said this. Quite the contrary

But now, you do pretend exactly this.

I think, it is possible, that a starship at warp is detected whith other sensors than a starship at relativistic apeed in relativistic vicinity.

It is what you're saying; you just don't realize it.

A good argument, so very well founded.

Irrelevant since it does not interact with normal matter the way it would in normal space. The idea of simply sticking a sensor designed to work with normal space into "subspace" and expecting it to function normally is, as usual for your posts, sheer nonsense.

I've never argued, that energy and matter, send through subspace, would interact with normal matter the way it would in normal space. But your own words say, that nevertheless, you think, that they interact with normal matter in normal space.
I see no reason, why these interaction can't be analyzed. Sure, the differences in the interactions have to be considered but I don't see, why this should be a problem.

Thanks for making it obvious that you don't even know how a metal detector works.

As far as I know, a metal detector sends an electric pulse ('pulse mode') or a continous wave ('CW mode'). I thought, that qualify as EM signal.

If I'm wrong, I would be happy, if you correct me. I don't pretend to be a smartass who knows all that is to know. I know, that there are many things, I don't know and I know, that I even don't know, what I don't know at all. But I'm always ready to learn.

[AVOGARDO]

It's more likely that the sensors that detect subspace activity can only be used for subspace.

Why is it more likely?

As I said already, matter and energy can be send through subspace. Why shouldn't it possible to send a non-superluminal sensor signal through subspace?

And yes, I think, it is possible, that there are sensors, which are addicted only for subspace surveillance. But there have to be other sensors systems too.

There is no evidence that I am aware of that realspace and subspace sensors are interchangeable.

Irrelevant since it does not interact with normal matter the way it would in normal space. The idea of simply sticking a sensor designed to work with normal space into "subspace" and expecting it to function normally is, as usual for your posts, sheer nonsense.

And how could a metagenic weapon be transported through subspace (Chain of Command)?

Seemingly there is a possibility to send matter and energy through subspace and it will affect matter in normal space.

I see no reason, why it schould be impossible to send a non-superluminal sensor signal through subspace. And if the sensor signal came from subspace, the signal, created through the interaction with the first signal, which came from subspace, could be tranmitted in subspace too - at least partially.

The gravity wells of the local star and planets are going to need to be factored into (or, out of) your sensor readings anyway.

Correct. But that would be huge calculations. And it would have its limits. At such a point you have to consider the combined gravitational pull of two large masses.

Maybe sometimes, under certain cirsumstances, it isn't any longer possible to compute it. And I could imagine, that its the case, when a ship is ridding the Lagrange Point.

[Ted C]

In the Eiffel at Effelsberg is a moveable radio telescope, which is able to detect the energy which is released by a melting snowflake on the surface of Mars. That would be an energy so miniscule at any kind of astronomical range too.

Oh, I so want to hear you back up that claim, especially since a melting snowflake would not release any heat; melting is an endothermic process.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you're trying to bullshit your way through this argument.