[AVOGARDO] Moron boy's ignorant ravings

[Batman]

I think my brain just melted.

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.

Yes there would, because your own ship (which your sensors happen to be mounted on) IS a massive object. Did you actually bother to read what Mike wrote? The gravity generated by your own ship is going to drown out any readings you might get from a ship thats millions of kilometres away.

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

Indeed. You obviously didn't understand a single word. There WILL be interference because there is AUTOMATICALLY a massive object nearby. Your own Valendamned ship!!!

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.

Not that there are snowflakes on Mars but a melting snowflake would ABSORB energy not release it Einstein.

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

And I can conclude you have no clue what you're talking about.

[Mad]

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?

Perhaps because, typically, mass and energy that originates in realspace cannot stay in subspace without some kind of sustainer field.

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

Was that ever actually done?

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.

You have a funny definition of "huge calculations." The math involved is fairly simple (just some simple trig and arithmetic). The trick is accounting for everything except what you're looking for. This could easily be a huge number of calculations, but that's not a difficult task for a computer.

And, if there happens to be two starships, well, you're kind of screwed because you won't find either. You will, however, find your measurements pointing to a lot of nothing somewhere in between those two ships.

That should show why realspace gravity detection is not reliable except under special circumstances. A gravimeter cannot differentiate between different sources of gravity, but will lump it all together in a single vector.

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.

You don't know what you're talking about. Something being at a Lagrange Point will not make the calculations any more difficult for a gravimeter.

[AVOGARDO]

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.

If your only problem is to hearing me to back up that claim than you all but saying that I'm right.

It was a joke. How do you say it on english? A oxymoron?

I have used it to make it clear, that even a telescope of today is able to detect energy so miniscule at any kind of astronomical range.

But it is nevertheless possible. You have a reading from Mars with a constant energyoutput. Then the snowflake is melting. You can read the subside of energy.

[Ted C]

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.

If your only problem is to hearing me to back up that claim than you all but saying that I'm right.

No, I'm saying that you're lying, because I don't believe it is possible for you to back up such a ludicrous claim.

It was a joke. How do you say it on english? A oxymoron?

It's easy to claim it's a joke after at least two posters have already called your bluff.

I have used it to make it clear, that even a telescope of today is able to detect energy so miniscule at any kind of astronomical range.

You have done no such thing. You have made a bogus claim that a radio telescope on Earth can detect the non-existent heat energy released by a melting snowflake across millions of kilometers of space and through two atmospheres. Either support that claim or admit that you lied.

But it is nevertheless possible. You have a reading from Mars with a constant energyoutput. Then the snowflake is melting. You can read the subside of energy.

Prove it.

[Mad]

Yes there would, because your own ship (which your sensors happen to be mounted on) IS a massive object. Did you actually bother to read what Mike wrote? The gravity generated by your own ship is going to drown out any readings you might get from a ship thats millions of kilometres away.

Well, to be fair, subtracting the gravity generated by your own ship is fairly easy since that's something you should be able to keep track of. Making sense of the fact that your ship is experiencing a slight acceleration directly to port is... a bit more difficult.

It could be a star a lightyear away, or a starship a lightsecond away. Or two starships a lightsecond away port and a star a lightyear away starboard. Or two ships pretty far apart but the sum of the two vectors are pointing in between them.

That, of course, is assuming you already subtracted the gravity vectors from all known sources of gravity. Have fun accounting for the number of starships in and around that nearby planet, because that number isn't going to be constant (essentially, the gravity well of the planet is constantly changing as their mass comes and goes).

[AVOGARDO]

Yes there would, because your own ship (which your sensors happen to be mounted on) IS a massive object. Did you actually bother to read what Mike wrote? The gravity generated by your own ship is going to drown out any readings you might get from a ship thats millions of kilometres away.

That's bullshit. If you know your own mass, you have no problems to factore it into (or, out of) your sensor readings. For example a AWACS has its own huge EM signature and is able to receive and analyze other EM signals. The same would be possible if your are in a homogeneous gravtiation field.

Indeed. You obviously didn't understand a single word. There WILL be interference because there is AUTOMATICALLY a massive object nearby. Your own Valendamned ship!!!

see above

Not that there are snowflakes on Mars but a melting snowflake would ABSORB energy not release it Einstein.

OK, maybe that wasn't the cleverst rhetoric. I thought that someone with a brian would be able to understand it. I was wrong. Maybe I had better said, that the telescope is able to hear a cough from a flea on Mars.

Was that ever actually done?

At least, it was considered possible.

You have a funny definition of "huge calculations." The math involved is fairly simple (just some simple trig and arithmetic).

I don't think, that is correct.

First you don't get a clear sensor reading. It must be analyzed. And the calculations are more difficult if you have more objects to consider.

Second, I have no clue about the demeanor of positrons. If the interference through positrons from several other sources is to high, maybe they aren't coming in a straight line. As far as I know, gravitation is bending space.

I think, in most cirsumstances, these calculations are done without a problem. But in some cirsumstances there are problems, cause you don't get clear readings and have to consider to many parameters.

A gravimeter cannot differentiate between different sources of gravity, but will lump it all together in a single vector.

Thats possible. But if you have a ship, which is moving, you could track it cause the vector is changing too and you can calculate its position while considering the standing source of gravitation.

If you have two ships, the vector ist changing, when these ships change theire positions in relation to each other.

I have never claimed, that such a sensor could do wonders. But it would be able to detect gravitation. If you have a fleet from which you knows nothing, you can at least tell how much mass it has. And you can use other sensors too.

That, of course, is assuming you already subtracted the gravity vectors from all known sources of gravity. Have fun accounting for the number of starships in and around that nearby planet, because that number isn't going to be constant (essentially, the gravity well of the planet is constantly changing as their mass comes and goes).

That's one reason, why I thought, it would be a huge calculation.
But the most and biggest sources of gravity, these from a planet, moon or star, are usually constant.

But it is nevertheless possible. You have a reading from Mars with a constant energyoutput. Then the snowflake is melting. You can read the subside of energy.

Prove it.

The telephon number is +49 (0)2257 301 100.
Call it and ask yourself.

It is interessant, that it seems, that these point is your only problem with my argumentation.

It's easy to claim it's a joke after at least two posters have already called your bluff.

Hey, english isn't my native language. I need some time to think how to translate my thoughts to english. If you would have given me more time, I would have responded to your call before the two other posters.

By the way, I doupt that Batman has find this oxymoron on its own. He has answered on it half an hour after your post.

[Ted C]

The telephon number is +49 (0)2257 301 100.
Call it and ask yourself.

An international call is not an expense that I'm obliged to make for this; I don't have the burden of proof. Find a website, scan a brochure, or come up with some other reasonable evidence instead of trying to get me to do your work for you at my expense.

You have made an extraordinary claim: providing the extraordinary evidence is your responsibility.

[TheDarkling]

Bloodlines has the Enterprise being able to determine a persons age (to within ten years at least) and gender from orbit however it takes Data a couple of extra seconds to get the information for somebody 2 KM underground.

[AVOGARDO]

You have made an extraordinary claim: providing the extraordinary evidence is your responsibility.

That is not an extraordinary claim. There are things which could assumed as commonly known.

If you have no clue, than you should read a website from such a telescope.

For example:
http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/div/effelsberg/

There are many other telescopes and websites.

[AVOGARDO]

Bloodlines has the Enterprise being able to determine a persons age (to within ten years at least) and gender from orbit however it takes Data a couple of extra seconds to get the information for somebody 2 KM underground.

Hmm? That has nothing to do with our discussion, hasn't it?

It's no reproach.

I was only a bit baffled by your post.

[TheDarkling]

Hmm? That has nothing to do with our discussion, hasn't it?

It's no reproach.

I was only a bit baffled by your post.

It is to do with the purpose of the thread.

[Ted C]

That is not an extraordinary claim. There are things which could assumed as commonly known.

Allow me to repeat your claim...

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 is most definitely an extraordinary claim, so you'd better post a credible source to back it up. The link you provided does not make that claim, unless it's buried somewhere in the site, in which case you should provide a specific link.

If you have no clue, than you should read a website from such a telescope.

For example:
http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/div/effelsberg/

There are many other telescopes and websites.

I have no doubt there are many telescopes and websites, but you don't see them claiming to be able to detect a snowflake melting on Mars. You're still bullshitting.

[Ted C]

Bloodlines has the Enterprise being able to determine a persons age (to within ten years at least) and gender from orbit however it takes Data a couple of extra seconds to get the information for somebody 2 KM underground.

The question is, what's the mechanism? We've known for ages that they can detect life signs from known organisms. What parameters might be used to deduce age?

[Mad]

Was that ever actually done?

At least, it was considered possible.

So, no. And why do you insist on capitalizing my name? It's not an acronym. (It does reminds me of another Trek script spambot I know, though.)

I don't think, that is correct.

First you don't get a clear sensor reading. It must be analyzed. And the calculations are more difficult if you have more objects to consider.

Second, I have no clue about the demeanor of positrons. If the interference through positrons from several other sources is to high, maybe they aren't coming in a straight line. As far as I know, gravitation is bending space.

I think, in most cirsumstances, these calculations are done without a problem. But in some cirsumstances there are problems, cause you don't get clear readings and have to consider to many parameters.

What do positrons have to do with a gravimeter? You have no idea what you're talking about, period.

Thats possible. But if you have a ship, which is moving, you could track it cause the vector is changing too and you can calculate its position while considering the standing source of gravitation.

Nope, won't work unless you already know the other ship's velocity relative to your own.

If you have two ships, the vector ist changing, when these ships change theire positions in relation to each other.

I have never claimed, that such a sensor could do wonders. But it would be able to detect gravitation. If you have a fleet from which you knows nothing, you can at least tell how much mass its has.

Not even that. You'd have to already know its distance and velocity before you can determine its mass.

That's one reason, why I thought, it would be a huge calculation.
But the most and biggest sources of gravity, these from a planet, moon or star, are usually constant.

You're an idiot. If your gravimeter is sensitive enough to pick up a starship, then the presence of unaccounted for starships (or if they were expected to be there but aren't) in orbit or on a planet will have a huge effect on your results.

OK, maybe that wasn't the cleverst rhetoric. I thought that someone with a brian would be able to understand it. I was wrong. Maybe I had better said, that the telescope is able to hear a cough from a flea on Mars.

Hmm, let's try that...

In the Eiffel at Effelsberg is a moveable radio telescope, which is able to hear a cough from a flea on 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.

Hmm, trying to make a "joke" in a technical discussion then trying to use it as evidence to support your argument?

So, are you an idiot, or just retarded?

[AVOGARDO]

But it is nevertheless possible. You have a reading from Mars with a constant energyoutput. Then the snowflake is melting. You can read the subside of energy.

Prove it.

Allow me to repeat your claim...

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 is most definitely an extraordinary claim, so you'd better post a credible source to back it up. The link you provided does not make that claim, unless it's buried somewhere in the site, in which case you should provide a specific link.

Are you senile, that you can't follow this discussion.
You have demanded a proof for the claim with the melting snowflake.

I have explained, that this was only a oxymoron. I' not sure if there is such a thing in english like rhetoric. In my language, if someone says something that obviously can't be meant seriously, one assume that it was a rhetoric figure.

You wanted a proof for the ability, that a telescope is able to read the difference in energyoutput, made by a melting snowflake.

The abilities of such a telescope are commonly known. Nevertheless, I have given you a telephon number and a website. You can look for yourself. I don't think, that I must take your hands and lead you through this website like a small child in a kindergarten.

Besides, I have better things to do than read for you english websites about the abilities of telescopes. The website which I have given you has english sites too.

[Batman]

Yes there would, because your own ship (which your sensors happen to be mounted on) IS a massive object. Did you actually bother to read what Mike wrote? The gravity generated by your own ship is going to drown out any readings you might get from a ship thats millions of kilometres away.

That's bullshit. If you know your own mass, you have no problems to factore it into (or, out of) your sensor readings. For example a AWACS has its own huge EM signature and is able to receive and analyze other EM signals. The same would be possible if your are in a homogeneous gravtiation field.

Using a system that utilizes ACTIVE RADAR primarily as an example that a passive detection system will work. Brilliant move.
And unlike gravity, those EM signals have pulse repetition rates, frequencies and likely other criteria that enables one to tell them apart. Do tell me what criteria there are for telling one type of gravity source from another.
Not that AWACS ever has to deal with signal intensity differences even within hailing distance of the one passive gravity detection at the ranges encountered in space does.

Indeed. You obviously didn't understand a single word. There WILL be interference because there is AUTOMATICALLY a massive object nearby. Your own Valendamned ship!!!

see above

Likewise. Unlike you, Mad at least had a case.

Not that there are snowflakes on Mars but a melting snowflake would ABSORB energy not release it Einstein.

OK, maybe that wasn't the cleverst rhetoric. I thought that someone with a brian would be able to understand it. I was wrong. Maybe I had better said, that the telescope is able to hear a cough from a flea on Mars.

At least that cough would actually emit something detectable (until we leave Mars' atmosphere anyway). That wasn't just the not the cleverest, it was fucking stupid.

It's easy to claim it's a joke after at least two posters have already called your bluff.

Hey, english isn't my native language. I need some time to think how to translate my thoughts to english. If you would have given me more time, I would have responded to your call before the two other posters.
By the way, I doupt that Batman has find this oxymoron on its own. He has answered on it half an hour after your post.

Yes, because it is completely inconceivable that I might simply have taken my time composing that post on account of doing something else parallel at the time.
1. English isn't my first language either hotshot. The problem wasn't spelling or grammar. The idea was simply fucking stupid.
2. You have no clue what an oxymoron actually is, do you.
3. You claim modern day radiotelescopes are extremely sensitive to the point that they can detect the nonexisting energy released by a melting snowflakes on Mars (which incidentally would be at the wrong wavelength even if it existed-radiotelescopes as the name implies check the radio band, not infrared). Yes, that is an extraordinary claim. We don't have to seek evidence for it. You have to provide it.

[Sabastian Tombs]

You have made an extraordinary claim: providing the extraordinary evidence is your responsibility.

That is not an extraordinary claim. There are things which could assumed as commonly known.

If you have no clue, than you should read a website from such a telescope.

For example:
http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/div/effelsberg/

There are many other telescopes and websites.

Okay, I've been through the website. I see nothing in the english portions of the site that state the radio telescope can detect a single melting snowflake on Mars. And seriously, if a 25 year old radio telescope could detect any amount of melting ice on Mars, why would scientists be arguing the question of if there is liquid water on the planet?

[AVOGARDO]

So, no.

If someone, who knows the possibilities considered it as possible, I think, that I, who has no direct knowledge about these technology, have to belief this person.

And why do you insist on capitalizing my name? It's not an acronym. (It does reminds me of another Trek script spambot I know, though.)

Excuse me. That wasn't intentional. For me, MAD has anyway another meaning than you probably think, that it has for me:

M - Militärischer
A - Abschirm
D - Dienst

What do positrons have to do with a gravimeter? You have no idea what you're talking about, period.

Excuse me again. That was a kind of typo. I have to translate all my thoughts to english and here it is meanwhile 00:14. It schould be obviosly, that I didn't mean positrons but gravitons.

Nope, won't work unless you already know the other ship's velocity relative to your own.

Sure, if there are other ships, you have to consider these.
But I don't see the problem. You would have other sensors too. You would know about these ships.

A sensor with which you can detect gravitons wouldn't be the only sensor you have. It would be only one sensor system. And you have to unite the readings from all your sensors. And if there would be an anomaly in these readings you can find it.

Not even that. You'd have to already know its distance and velocity before you can determine its mass.

See above.
If the ship is travelling to you with a constant velocity, you can calculate this with the increasing gravitation, unless you think, it would loss its own mass while it is flying. Furthermore there could be a kind of Doppler effect in the gravitons.

You're an idiot. If your gravimeter is sensitive enough to pick up a starship, then the presence of unaccounted for starships (or if they were expected to be there but aren't) in orbit or on a planet will have a huge effect on your results.

I don't understand.
Have I said otherwise?
Usually you would keep track of each starship in your system and consider these data while analyzing the data from your sensors.
That that isn't simple, should be clear. But it shouldn't be impossible for a computer in 400 years in "normal" circumstances.

[AVOGARDO]

Using a system that utilizes ACTIVE RADAR primarily as an example that a passive detection system will work. Brilliant move.

Thats wrong. An AWACS use both systems. It is able to detect EM signals without its >> ACTIVE RADAR <<. It is its mission to monitor radio communication too. But it is able to detect other EM signals too.

And unlike gravity, those EM signals have pulse repetition rates, frequencies and likely other criteria that enables one to tell them apart. Do tell me what criteria there are for telling one type of gravity source from another.

That is an assumption from you. Gravitons are elementary particles. Why should they not have properties of other elementary particles. Ever heard from wave–particle duality?

[AVOGARDO]

I WILL NOT ANSWER OTHER QUESTIONS TO THIS MELTING SNOWFLAKE ANY MORE.

This doesn't deal with the original problem.

Even the question, which abilities has a radio telescope from today has nothing to do with the underlying problem.

And I have already said, that I hasn't meant it the way, some of you have unterstand it. If you don't believe me, that's your problem. Than, I think, that I can't do anything to convince you anyway.

But it would show, that you have no real interesst in a serious discussion. If you would have, you would concentrate on the real topic and not a minor problem which doesn't contribute to the main-problem.

And if you think, that I have made a mistake, pleaso do so. I'm not perfect and if you think so, I can life with it. But would be one mistake enough to denigrate all my other arguments?

[Batman]

Using a system that utilizes ACTIVE RADAR primarily as an example that a passive detection system will work. Brilliant move.

Thats wrong. An AWACS use both systems. It is able to detect EM signals without its >> ACTIVE RADAR <<. It is its mission to monitor radio communication too. But it is able to detect other EM signals too.

Why don't you reread. I said PRIMARILY, not EXCLUSIVELY. And the primary purpose of AWACS planes IS detecting targets by active radar.

And unlike gravity, those EM signals have pulse repetition rates, frequencies and likely other criteria that enables one to tell them apart. Do tell me what criteria there are for telling one type of gravity source from another.

That is an assumption from you. Gravitons are elementary particles. Why should they not have properties of other elementary particles. Ever heard from wave–particle duality?

The assumption here is yours. We know for a fact EM signals have those characteristics that help you distinguishing between them. Why don't you show gravity does, too. The burden of evidence is NOT on me.

[Sabastian Tombs]

And unlike gravity, those EM signals have pulse repetition rates, frequencies and likely other criteria that enables one to tell them apart. Do tell me what criteria there are for telling one type of gravity source from another.

That is an assumption from you. Gravitons are elementary particles. Why should they not have properties of other elementary particles. Ever heard from wave–particle duality?

Incredibly enough, the subject did come up during the year and a half of physics I took at college. Explain exactly how detecting an elementary particle automatically tells you the particle's point of origin? Using some sort of polarizing filter might give you a vector of travel, but it won't tell you how far the particle has travelled. So it might be from a starship one million kilometers away or a planet 300 light years away.

All of this assumes that (yet to be proven) gravitons have properties similar to (proven to exist) electrons. If, instead, they have the properties of (strong evidence to exist) gluons, then I don't see what wave-particle duality has to do with it.

[Batman]

Even the question, which abilities has a radio telescope from today has nothing to do with the underlying problem.

Yes it does, or more properly with your failure to UNDERSTAND the underlying problem. Gravitational effects by a starship a few lightsconds away are going to be practically nonexistant even in deep space.
NO you will NOT detect a ship that way even with 24th century sensors.
That and your obvious lack of understanding about how radiotelescopes (or physics in general apparently) work.

But it would show, that you have no real interesst in a serious discussion. If you would have, you would concentrate on the real topic and not a minor problem which doesn't contribute to the main-problem.

We are seriously discussing. Specifically, we are seriously discussing your apparent inability to see why passive graviton detection even at realtime lightspeed ranges doesn't work. The fact that this little detour might warrant a split by now doesn't change the fact that it is serious discussion.

[AVOGARDO]

And the primary purpose of AWACS planes IS detecting targets by active radar.

That is debatable. An AWACS is a command and control center, for ground forces too.

But that doesn't deal with the original problem again. We don't debate about the abilities of an AWACS. As fas as I know, the UFP doesn't use AWACS and AWACS aren't undoubtedly able to detect gravitation.

The assumption here is yours. We know for a fact EM signals have those characteristics that help you distinguishing between them. Why don't you show gravity does, too. The burden of evidence is NOT on me.

Thats not an assumption, that is science - at least for the demanour of elementary particles. The wave–particle duality or Doppler effect is a known phenomenon. I can't give you physic lessons.

Gravitons is given through STAR TREK itself.

[Batman]

And the primary purpose of AWACS planes IS detecting targets by active radar.

That is debatable. An AWACS is a command and control center, for ground forces too.

And by what does it gain the information it uses TO command and control said forces? That's right, primarily active radar. Oops.

and AWACS aren't undoubtedly able to detect gravitation.

They most definitely are.

The assumption here is yours. We know for a fact EM signals have those characteristics that help you distinguishing between them. Why don't you show gravity does, too. The burden of evidence is NOT on me.

Thats not an assumption, that is science - at least for the demanour of elementary particles.

All elementary particles always have a frequency, pulse repetition rates, signal duration, and all the other criteria AWACS uses to analyse EM signals? No? In that case you're a lying shit. But we knew that already.

The wave–particle duality or Doppler effect is a known phenomenon. I can't give you physic lessons.

Obviously not as you don't know what you're talking about.

Gravitons is given through STAR TREK itself.

Them existing is. Showing them to behave exactly like EM signals in the modern world is up to you.