[AVOGARDO] Moron boy's ignorant ravings

[Sabastian Tombs]

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.

WTF does wave-particle duality have to do with the Doppler effect?

I understand that AVOGARDO is apparently unable to explain physics to a simple man like me. Hopefully, someone else will take the time to break the concepts down so that I may understand them.

BTW, that last paragraph is something we call sarcasm in English. Just a FYI for those of you who don't speak it as a native language.

[AVOGARDO]

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.

I have already said, that I'm no astrophysicist. I haven't heard from gluons till now.

But I know, that the doppler-effect is applicable to gravity.

I have read in Wikipedia just now, that a gluon is a vector boson like the photon. I don't know if this is correct. As far as I know, a photon has a wave-particle duality. But I concede that I don't understand what is written in this article. Thats far above my education.

But as far as I know, today gravitons are only hypothetical elementary particle. The existence of such particle isn't proved.

And cause gravitons are given through STAR TREK itself we have to assume, that they exist and can only speculate regarding its properties.

[AVOGARDO]

WTF does wave-particle duality have to do with the Doppler effect?

Nothing.

At least I have never said, it has to do something with each other. It is only another phenomenon you can detect and which allows you to make conlusions obout the origin of a particle. These data - and data from other sensors - must be unified and analyzed. And it will help you to understand your surrounding.

[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.

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.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT

You know exactly what I mean but you hang-up on such trivia. You don't bring this discussion forward. You are like a small children, what doesn't understand all what is said and takes the only part it can understand to play with it.

[rhoenix]

You know exactly what I mean but you hang-up on such trivia. You don't bring this discussion forward. You are like a small children, what doesn't understand all what is said and takes the only part it can understand to play with it.

What you refer to as "trivia" we refer to as "making unfounded assumptions." In order to properly quantify how Star Trek - universe sensors work, conclusions are reached based on canon evidence coupled with a strong understanding of physics and other sciences. This mindset is what enables many denizens here to quantify various Sci-Fi and Fantasy universi.

One of the primary rules here is that if you opine something based on a specific type of evidence, you should present that evidence when requested. You jumped to a conclusion that you were unable to present evidence for, and you got called on it. If you have evidence for the points raised, please present it - if not, please concede the point, and move on.

EDIT: clarified first paragraph.

[Batman]

YOU ARE AN IDIOT
You know exactly what I mean but you hang-up on such trivia. You don't bring this discussion forward. You are like a small children, what doesn't understand all what is said and takes the only part it can understand to play with it.

I note a complete and utter lack of any rebuttal.

[Sabastian Tombs]

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.

The second sentence in this quote is structured in such a way that the terms "wave-particle duality" and "Doppler effect" are refered to as being the same thing.

WTF does wave-particle duality have to do with the Doppler effect?

Nothing.

At least I have never said, it has to do something with each other. It is only another phenomenon you can detect and which allows you to make conlusions obout the origin of a particle. These data - and data from other sensors - must be unified and analyzed. And it will help you to understand your surrounding.

I have a question for the board in general. Does my head hurt from being unable to understand his brilliant arguments, or from pounding against an invincible wall of ignorance? Or am I just chasing goal posts?

[AVOGARDO]

What you refer to as "trivia" we refer to as "making unfounded assumptions." In order to properly quantify how Star Trek - universe sensors work, conclusions are reached based on canon evidence coupled with a strong understanding of physics and other sciences. This mindset is what enables many denizens here to quantify various Sci-Fi and Fantasy universi.

What was my unfounded assumptions?

You jumped to a conclusion ...

Was it a conclusion?

You know, that you can't present evidence for a conclusion. That is the character of a conclusion. You have proven facts and conclude to something new, which you can't prove. Otherwise you don't have to made a conclusion at first. You can use the proof directly. You can only evaluate the conclusiveness of a conclusion.

If you have evidence for the points raised, please present it - if not, please concede the point, and move on.

If that is necessary I'm ready to this.

I see no advantage for me or for this discussion, to argue about the abilities of an AWACS. I have never denied that it has an active radar.

And as far as I know gravitation is not an EM signal. I've never asserted this. But nevertheless it has certain properties which you can refer in a physic book. I'm not able to explain all these properties, particularly for hypothetical elementary particle. I'm not an astrophysicist. But that doesn't change that I know, that it has such properties. How could I prove this?

And sure, it is possible that I made a mistake. I'm and my commemoration are not perfect. And maybe I have learned something wrong or understand somesthing wrong. Or maybe there are new consolidated findings in science meanwile which out-dated my knowledge.
If someone notice such a mistake, please tell me. But don't say only that it is wrong. Say how it is correct. And don't ask me for a proof. If, for example, the latter is the case, than I could give you only my data from my out-dated source anyway.
If you wish to prove that I'm wrong you would have to give newer sources. But than you can give these instantly. I would only be able to learn something new.

It is not my goal to be right. I try to attend a discussion and bring my own knowledge in the hope, that we can finally agree. But If I concede every point in which you don't agree with me at once, there is no need to attend a discussion.

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.

The second sentence in this quote is structured in such a way that the terms "wave-particle duality" and "Doppler effect" are refered to as being the same thing.

Excuse me, I see there only an OR between both words. Which word would be better? I can't understand, why you would conlude from the structure of this sentence to such an understanding.

I never made a hint, that both phenomena are the same thing. Quite contrary, I already have used both phenomena in different sentences apart from each other.

[Batman]

I have a question for the board in general. Does my head hurt from being unable to understand his brilliant arguments, or from pounding against an invincible wall of ignorance? Or am I just chasing goal posts?

WoI though I'm not sure that's intentional. Avocado seems to be genuinely incapable of seeing what's wrong with his/her/its argument.

[AVOGARDO]

WoI though I'm not sure that's intentional. Avocado seems to be genuinely incapable of seeing what's wrong with his/her/its argument.

Maybe the reason for this is, that you don't argue but behave like a small child.

[Batman]

If you have evidence for the points raised, please present it - if not, please concede the point, and move on.

If that is necessary I'm ready to this.
I see no advantage for me or for this discussion, to argue about the abilities of an AWACS. I have never denied that it has an active radar.

No. You merely used a sensor system that relies PRIMARILY on returns from active radar for its mission to argue a completely PASSIVE system would be able to achieve the same feats when you can't even show EM and gravity share the same characteristics.

And as far as I know gravitation is not an EM signal. I've never asserted this. But nevertheless it has certain properties which you can refer in a physic book. I'm not able to explain all these properties, particularly for hypothetical elementary particle. I'm not an astrophysicist. But that doesn't change that I know, that it has such properties. How could I prove this?

Here's a hint, dipshit. If you can't, DON'T CLAIM THEY HAVE THEM. YOU argue gravitons will behave identical to radar/radio wavelength photons used by modern day detection/communication electronics, YOU PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. You can't? Then don't claim they will.

And sure, it is possible that I made a mistake. I'm and my commemoration are not perfect. And maybe I have learned something wrong or understand somesthing wrong. Or maybe there are new consolidated findings in science meanwile which out-dated my knowledge.
If someone notice such a mistake, please tell me. But don't say only that it is wrong.

We don't have to show you're wrong until YOU have shown evidence you're RIGHT first.

Say how it is correct. And don't ask me for a proof.

YOU make the claim, YOU show proof.

If, for example, the latter is the case, than I could give you only my data from my out-dated source anyway.

What sources? You never provided any.

If you wish to prove that I'm wrong you would have to give newer sources. But than you can give these instantly. I would only be able to learn something new.

Not when you never provided sources that prove you're right in the first place.

It is not my goal to be right. I try to attend a discussion and bring my own knowledge in the hope, that we can finally agree. But If I concede every point in which you don't agree with me at once, there is need to attend a discussion.

All you have to do is concede the points for which you have no supporting evidence. Which so far is all of them.

[AVOGARDO]

[...]
All you have to do is concede the points for which you have no supporting evidence. Which so far is all of them.

I would suggest, you start at page 3 of this thread. Many your arguments are already discussed. There are many incidents where the Enterprise crew was able to detect gravitons and determine the mass of an objekt. I think you could could call these incidents proove. At least these demand for an explanation. I have tried to give such an explanation. But maybe you have a better explanation for these. But then you must give an explanation, why yours schould be a better one. Till now you have only attacked my explanation but you have not made anything constructive.



Sometimes you can't proove something but you could proove the opposite. And sometimes it is easier to proove the opposite. Then you must reverse the burden of proof .

You small dipshit always ask for a proove where you exactly know I can't present such one. And that with an utterly unrealistic conception of burden of proof .

Your demands are absurd. In this discussion you have many aspects which aren't confirmable in a scientifical way. You must use your right mind to determine the conclusiveness of a conclusion.

[Batman]

[...]
All you have to do is concede the points for which you have no supporting evidence. Which so far is all of them.

I would suggest, you start at page 3 of this thread. Many your arguments are already discussed. There are many incidents where the Enterprise crew was able to detect gravitons and determine the mass of an objekt.

And that proves they did so by measuring the amount of gravitons emanating from it how, exactly? Especially as a lot of those were at ranges requiring superluminal information transfer?

But I think that these would have no change in your attitude.
Sometimes you can't proove something but you could proove the opposite. And sometimes it is easier to proove the opposite. Then you must reversel the burden of proof .

Like hell I must. YOU claim they do it YOU show us how they did. Did you bother to read the Board FAQ before posting? The burden of evidence is ALWAYS on the party claiming something can be done.

You small dipshit always ask for a proove where you exactly know I can't present such one.

Then maybe you shouldn't be arguing a point you can't support.

But that is absurd. In this discussion you have many aspects which aren't confirmable in a scientifical way. You must use your right mind to determine the conclusiveness of a conclusion.

I do. Unlike you. And the conclusiveness of a conclusion? English not being your first language or not that makes absolutely no sense.

[AVOGARDO]

The burden of evidence is ALWAYS on the party claiming something can be done.

Than, in certain circumstances, the burden of evidence would demand something impossible. For this reason, there is the reversal of the burden of proof. That is basical logic and necessary for each dispute in which proofs are demanded.

And I don't claim, that the sensors can do something.

I only try to interpret the mentioned incidents and try to give a plausible explanation. Maybe you have a better explanation for these? But then you must also give an explanation, why yours schould be a better one. Till now you have only attacked my explanation but you have not made anything constructive.

With your attitude there would be never an acceptable explanation cause you could not prove your explanaition either.

But how would you explain these incidents than?

[Batman]

The burden of evidence is ALWAYS on the party claiming something can be done.

Than, in certain circumstances, the burden of evidence would demand something impossible. For this reason, there is the reversal of the burden of proof.

Bzzt. If you're claiming something can be done that is impossible to prove, the default assumption is guess what-it can't be done. No there is NOT a reversal of the burden of proof. You HAVEN'T read the FAQ.
For the umpteenth time, YOU claim it happens, YOU provide the evidence.

And I don't claim, that the sensors can do something.

Yes you do. You claim that Trek ships can detect objects by their gravity alone at ranges where this is preposterous.

I only try to interpret the mentioned incidents and try to give a plausible explanation. Maybe you have a better explanation for these?

No I don't. But Mike Wong has.

But then you must also give an explanation, why yours schould be a better one.

Again, Mike Wong already did that.

Till now you have only attacked my explanation but you have not made anything constructive.

I. DO. NOT. HAVE. TO. until you show your explanation actually works. Which, unsurprisingly, it doesn't. 'We haven't the foggiest' is preferable to an explanation that definitely doesn't work. You know, like your graviton detection theory.

With your attitude there would be never an acceptable explanation cause you could not proofe your explanaition either.
But how would you explain these incidents than?

Technobabble. I'm not the one proposing a defineable mechanism for it, you are. It's not my fault that your mechanism has no evidence whatsoever for its existance.

[Mad]

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.

"May be possible" is different from "is possible." Further, do you even know what the exact method of transport would be? If not, then how can you claim that it would work for sensors when?

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.

So then you're saying you have "no clue about the demeanor of gravitons"? In that case, why are you trying to debate regarding them? You are clearly in over your head here.

Do you remember saying "I think, that I, who has no direct knowledge about these technology, have to belief this person"? You have no knowledge about gravitons or gravity, and I and others here do. It would do you good to believe us instead of spouting nonsense.

Or you can continue to be a hypocrite.

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.

How are you going to know the mass of every ship and factor it out in the calculations? You can't tell by looking at them, they could be carrying dense cargo. Gravimeters can't single out a particular target, so those won't work. You'd have to have some other method.

And since you'd have to have that other method... then what good are the gravimeters for measuring mass?

Nevermind that they would only work as close-range sensors for anything realtime.

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.

No, even those ideal circumstances wouldn't help. If you don't know what its velocity is (and what are the chances that it'd be constant?), then you don't know if it's a big object moving slowly or a small object moving quickly.

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.

Again, how do you know what the masses of all those starships are? You can't use gravimeters to measure them.

[AVOGARDO]

No I don't. But Mike Wong has.

[...]

Again, Mike Wong already did that.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but Mike Wong hasn't given a better explanation. He hasn't given an explanation at all. From him are only three posts on these theme.

And I have adressed each of his exceptions.

And then there was no further post from him. That is not a reproach. I'm sure he has better things to do. But to refer in this situation to him is audacious.

I would like to know what he would say to my answers to his exceptions.

[Batman]

No I don't. But Mike Wong has.
[...]
Again, Mike Wong already did that.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but Mike Wong hasn't given a better explanation.

Yes he has. That you don't like his explanations is frankly not my problem.

He hasn't given an explanation at all.

Yes he has. Again, your unwillingness to accept that is not my problem.

And I have adressed each of his exceptions.

No you haven't. You merely spouted some more baseless speculation about how Trek sensors should work if you had any say in it. Why don't you quote us the episodes that support it.

And then there was no further post from him. That is not a reproach. I'm sure he has better things to do. But to refer in this situation to him is audacious.

Actually it would be an Appeal to Authority fallacy but I'm willing to live with that because guess what, Mike actually explained his theory in this thread and anybody able to read english can verify if it makes sense or not.

I would like to know what he would say to my answers to his exceptions.

So would I, believe you me. I'm actually looking forward to it.

[AVOGARDO]

"May be possible" is different from "is possible."

That is obviously.


STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION
"Chain of Command"


27 CONTINUED: (3)

PICARD
Starfleet Intelligence believes
that the Cardassians are
developing a new delivery system --
one which would protect them from
any accidental exposure to the
toxin.
(beat)
They believe the Cardassians are
testing a way of launching dormant
metagenic material on a subspace
carrier wave.

[...]


PICARD
When I was on the Stargazer, we
conducted extensive tests using
theta-band carrier waves. One of
the reasons I was selected for
this mission is my familiarity
with the methods used to generate
them. [...]

I think you can consider Cpt. Picard as an expert on these field. If he thinks, that it is possible to launching dormant metagenic material on a subspace carrier wave, I have no reasons to believe that he is mistaken. Do you have any indication for a mistake on his part?

And if you can send metagenic material through subspace, which consists of large molecules, why should it not be able to send subatomic particles through subspace.

One sound reason is enough and I concede this point.

If not, then how can you claim that it would work for sensors when?

I don't claim it. I would never allow me to claim it, cause it's all theortical and there is no real subspace knowledge with which you could confirm such a claim.

I try to explain this incident. Do you have another explanation which is better than mine?

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.

So then you're saying you have "no clue about the demeanor of gravitons"? In that case, why are you trying to debate regarding them? You are clearly in over your head here.

Häh...? What has your conclusion to do with my typo. Only because I have unintentional made a mistake doesn't mean, that I have "no clue about the demeanor of gravitons"

Again, the existence of gravitons, which are elementary particles, aren't proofed. Their properties aren't proofed. Almost everybody would be over his or her head here. Possibile exception: someone with a degree of doctor in theoretical quantum- and elementar physic. And even such person have to rely on speculations and theories. He couldn't present evidenve too.

I assume merely that a graviton would have properties like another elementary particle. Do you think, that this is wrong? If you think so, please explain your thoughts to me.

Do you remember saying "I think, that I, who has no direct knowledge about these technology, have to belief this person"? You have no knowledge about gravitons or gravity, and I and others here do. It would do you good to believe us instead of spouting nonsense.

see above:
In Star Trek you must consider Cpt. Picard as an expert on these field. Do you claim, you know someone, who has direct knowledge about subspace technology and know it better than Cpt. Picard? I would concede ouright if such a person would say, that I'm mistaken. Otherwise I have to deal with the knowledge I have of these subspace technology from Star Trek itself.

I merely try to accommodate my own knowledge of physics with the parameters which are given by Star Trek. And I say it again, if you have a better solution for some discrepancies, say it.

But don't argue STAR TREK is wrong. I know this (at least in not a few incidents). But you have no background for a discussion if you argue in this way at all. You have to accommodate your own knowledge of physics with the parameters which are given by Star Trek. And sometimes you have to accept, that it isn't possible.

But as far as I know, till now, I haven't had such a problem.

How are you going to know the mass of every ship and factor it out in the calculations?

Through constantly monitoring the changes in the gravitation when these ships are moving in relation to each other source of gravitation. Such a moving result imperatively in a small change in the gravitation.

Nevermind that they would only work as close-range sensors for anything realtime.

Please read page 4 from this thread:

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.

[...]

I think, it could happen similarly to the detection of light or the detection of neurinos in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.

[...]

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

[...]

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.

Please note, that my thoughts are theoretical. That would be only possibilities. But if you have any exceptions, please tell me these.

But we know that it is possible to detect positrons superluminal and out of relativistic vicinity. It was done with the Crystalline Entity.

No, even those ideal circumstances wouldn't help. If you don't know what its velocity is (and what are the chances that it'd be constant?), then you don't know if it's a big object moving slowly or a small object moving quickly.

No, if you assume that velocity and mass are constant, than you could calculate with the increasing gravitation the velocity. That both are constant is likely to be usual. Why should someone change its velocity or mass during travel between two points, for example two planets? Every change in the velocity needs energy. It could happen, sure, there could always be a reason, but that would not be a normal case.

Even if the ship are evenly accelerating, this calculation should be possible.

But you can calculate the approaching-speed of an approaching object with the doppler effect for gravitation too.

I never said, that you could get a distance with this method. Hell. it's a sensor to detect gravitation an not for distance. But If you have the distance through other sensor systems, you can calculate the mass via its gravitation. And you always need at least two variables to calculate a third.

You can't get a velocity without time and distance.
Without a movement, a change of position from point one to point two, you have no time.
Without time, you have no movement, a change of position from point one to point two.
And so on, and so on...

Why do you insist, that because it is not possible to determine the mass of an objekt without at least two other variables, that my explanation is impossible. That made no sense. That is the normal case.

[Mad]

That is obviously.


STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION
"Chain of Command"


27 CONTINUED: (3)

PICARD
Starfleet Intelligence believes
that the Cardassians are
developing a new delivery system --
one which would protect them from
any accidental exposure to the
toxin.
(beat)
They believe the Cardassians are
testing a way of launching dormant
metagenic material on a subspace
carrier wave.

[...]


PICARD
When I was on the Stargazer, we
conducted extensive tests using
theta-band carrier waves. One of
the reasons I was selected for
this mission is my familiarity
with the methods used to generate
them. [...]

I think you can consider Cpt. Picard as an expert on these field. If he thinks, that it is possible to launching dormant metagenic material on a subspace carrier wave, I have no reasons to believe that he is mistaken. Do you have any indication for a mistake on his part?

And if you can send metagenic material through subspace, which consists of large molecules, why should it not be able to send subatomic particles through subspace.

One sound reason is enough and I concede this point.

The quotes you provide are your own undoing. Picard called it "a new delivery system." Meaning it hasn't been done before. Meaning that sensors do not use theta-band carrier waves, because if they did, then those carrier waves wouldn't be a "new delivery system."

Concession accepted.

Häh...? What has your conclusion to do with my typo. Only because I have unintentional made a mistake doesn't mean, that I have "no clue about the demeanor of gravitons"

You really are a moron.

YOU: "Second, I have no clue about the demeanor of positrons."

ME: "What do positrons have to do with a gravimeter?"

YOU: "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."

ME: "So then you're saying you have 'no clue about the demeanor of gravitons'?"

YOU: "Only because I have unintentional made a mistake doesn't mean, that I have 'no clue about the demeanor of gravitons'"

You can't even keep your own story straight. Are you some kind of compulsive liar?

I assume merely that a graviton would have properties like another elementary particle. Do you think, that this is wrong? If you think so, please explain your thoughts to me.

Well, for one, gravitons aren't affected by gravity... otherwise black holes would be impossible.

In Star Trek you must consider Cpt. Picard as an expert on these field. Do you claim, you know someone, who has direct knowledge about subspace technology and know it better than Cpt. Picard? I would concede ouright if such a person would say, that I'm mistaken. Otherwise I have to deal with the knowledge I have of these subspace technology from Star Trek itself.

Captain Picard said that using theta-band carrier waves would be "a new delivery system." As in, one that hasn't been used before. Maybe you should pay attention to what he says.

I merely try to accommodate my own knowledge of physics with the parameters which are given by Star Trek.

Your own knowledge of physics is quite lacking.

But don't argue STAR TREK is wrong. I know this (at least in not a few incidents). But you have no background for a discussion if you argue in this way at all. You have to accommodate your own knowledge of physics with the parameters which are given by Star Trek. And sometimes you have to accept, that it isn't possible.

And where, exactly, would I be claiming this? (The absurdity of your argument here notwithstanding.) Picard can be wrong without breaking Trek continuity.

And just because a character thinks something is possible doesn't mean it's actually possible. The fact that so few people have experience with theta-band carrier waves is evidence enough that they are not commonly used in Federation sensors.

Through constantly monitoring the changes in the gravitation when these ships are moving in relation to each other source of gravitation. Such a moving result imperatively in a small change in the gravitation.

I already told you, you can't use gravimeters to target a specific ship. In order to get the gravitational field of ship x, you must subtract the gravitational field of ship y. In order to get the gravitational field of ship y, you must subtract the gravitational field of ship x. Since both are unknown, the calculation is impossible using gravimeters. I've said this before, and you ignored me.

No, if you assume that velocity and mass are constant, than you could calculate with the increasing gravitation the velocity. That both are constant is likely to be usual. Why should someone change its velocity or mass during travel between two points, for example two planets? Every change in the velocity needs energy. It could happen, sure, there could always be a reason, but that would not be a normal case.

Mass will not be constant, because starships must burn fuel.

But, okay, prove it. You detect on your sensors a gravity well. It starts at .00205 m/s^2 and is increasing by .00008 m/s^2 every second. It is not moving relative to your position.

How fast is it going? How much does it mass? How far is it away?

For any answer you can come up with, I can give you 3 other equally valid answers.

I can do this because, unlike you, I can actually understand basic algebra.

Even if the ship are evenly accelerating, this calculation should be possible.

It's not. Basic algebra tells you this.

But you can calculate the approaching-speed of an approaching object with the doppler effect too.

Only if it's near lightspeed. It's helpful if you know what the original color was before it blueshifted, too.

Oh, yeah, I understand basic astronomy and physics, too.

I never said, that you could get a distance with this method. But If you have the distance through other sensor systems, you can calculate the mass via its gravitation.

One starship of unknown configuration is sitting 100 kilometers away from you directly to port. Another starship of unknown configuration is sitting 100 kilometers away from you directly to starboard. You gravimeters are reading .002 m/s^2 to starboard. Both ships are stationary relative to you.

What are the masses of the two ships?


EDIT: Looks like you edited since I started replying:

Nevermind that they would only work as close-range sensors for anything realtime.

Please read page 4 from this thread:

Um, I already dismantled that. Moron.

I think, it could happen similarly to the detection of light or the detection of neurinos in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.

Except that gravitons don't interact with matter in the same way, thus making those methods impossible.

You do know that we can measure gravity with gravimeters today, yes?

I never said, that you could get a distance with this method. Hell. it's a sensor to detect gravitation an not for distance. But If you have the distance through other sensor systems, you can calculate the mass via its gravitation. And you always need at least two variables to calculate a third.

Please see the problem I gave you where I gave you distance and the gravitational reading.

[AVOGARDO]

"May be possible" is different from "is possible."

That is obviously.


STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION
"Chain of Command"


27 CONTINUED: (3)

PICARD
Starfleet Intelligence believes
that the Cardassians are
developing a new delivery system --
one which would protect them from
any accidental exposure to the
toxin.
(beat)
They believe the Cardassians are
testing a way of launching dormant
metagenic material on a subspace
carrier wave.

[...]


PICARD
When I was on the Stargazer, we
conducted extensive tests using
theta-band carrier waves. One of
the reasons I was selected for
this mission is my familiarity
with the methods used to generate
them. [...]

I think you can consider Cpt. Picard as an expert on these field. If he thinks, that it is possible to launching dormant metagenic material on a subspace carrier wave, I have no reasons to believe that he is mistaken. Do you have any indication for a mistake on his part?

And if you can send metagenic material through subspace, which consists of large molecules, why should it not be able to send subatomic particles through subspace.

One sound reason is enough and I concede this point.

If not, then how can you claim that it would work for sensors when?

I don't claim it. I would never allow me to claim it, cause it's all theortical and there is no real subspace knowledge with which you could confirm such a claim.

I try to explain this incident. Do you have another explanation which is better than mine?

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.

So then you're saying you have "no clue about the demeanor of gravitons"? In that case, why are you trying to debate regarding them? You are clearly in over your head here.

Häh...? What has your conclusion to do with my typo. Only because I have unintentional made a mistake doesn't mean, that I have "no clue about the demeanor of gravitons"

Again, the existence of gravitons, which are elementary particles, aren't proofed. Their properties aren't proofed. Almost everybody would be over his or her head here. Possibile exception: someone with a degree of doctor in theoretical quantum- and elementar physic. And even such person have to rely on speculations and theories. He couldn't present evidenve too.

I assume merely that a graviton would have properties like another elementary particle. Do you think, that this is wrong? If you think so, please explain your thoughts to me.

Do you remember saying "I think, that I, who has no direct knowledge about these technology, have to belief this person"? You have no knowledge about gravitons or gravity, and I and others here do. It would do you good to believe us instead of spouting nonsense.

see above:
In Star Trek you must consider Cpt. Picard as an expert on these field. Do you claim, you know someone, who has direct knowledge about subspace technology and know it better than Cpt. Picard? I would concede ouright if such a person would say, that I'm mistaken. Otherwise I have to deal with the knowledge I have of these subspace technology from Star Trek itself.

I merely try to accommodate my own knowledge of physics with the parameters which are given by Star Trek. And I say it again, if you have a better solution for some discrepancies, say it.

But don't argue STAR TREK is wrong. I know this (at least in not a few incidents). But you have no background for a discussion if you argue in this way at all. You have to accommodate your own knowledge of physics with the parameters which are given by Star Trek. And sometimes you have to accept, that it isn't possible.

But as far as I know, till now, I haven't had such a problem.

How are you going to know the mass of every ship and factor it out in the calculations?

Through constantly monitoring the changes in the gravitation when these ships are moving in relation to each other source of gravitation. Such a moving result imperatively in a small change in the gravitation.

Nevermind that they would only work as close-range sensors for anything realtime.

Please read page 4 from this thread:

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.

[...]

I think, it could happen similarly to the detection of light or the detection of neurinos in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.

[...]

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

[...]

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.

Please note, that my thoughts are theoretical. That would be only possibilities. But if you have any exceptions, please tell me these.

But we know that it is possible to detect positrons superluminal and out of relativistic vicinity. It was done with the Crystalline Entity.

No, even those ideal circumstances wouldn't help. If you don't know what its velocity is (and what are the chances that it'd be constant?), then you don't know if it's a big object moving slowly or a small object moving quickly.

No, if you assume that velocity and mass are constant, than you could calculate with the increasing gravitation the velocity. That both are constant is likely to be usual. Why should someone change its velocity or mass during travel between two points, for example two planets? Every change in the velocity needs energy. It could happen, sure, there could always be a reason, but that would not be a normal case.

Even if the ship are evenly accelerating, this calculation should be possible.

But you can calculate the approaching-speed of an approaching object with the doppler effect for gravitation too.

I never said, that you could get a distance with this method alone. Hell. it's a sensor to detect gravitation an not for distance. But If you have the distance through other sensor systems, you can calculate the mass via its gravitation.

Or you could try to get a position through a triangulation, if you can detect at least the direction in which a source of gravitation is, which interfere with the known locally gravitation-muster.

And you always need at least two variables to calculate a third.

You can't get a velocity without time and distance.
Without a movement, a change of position from point one to point two, you have no time.
Without time, you have no movement, a change of position from point one to point two.
And so on, and so on...

Why do you insist, that because it is not possible to determine the mass of an objekt without at least two other variables, that my explanation is impossible. That made no sense. That is the normal case.

[Darth Wong]

In other words, your entire argument boils down to this:

1) You believe you can send objects through "subspace", therefore you can use any kind of realspace sensor through "subspace". By this idiot logic, a standard motion sensor can be used to detect submarines because we can move objects through water.

2) You believe that since scientific theories are not "proven", you can just make up whatever bullshit you want.

3) You dismiss my explanations without explaining what is actually wrong with them other than your personal preference for your own non-explanations. Most of my points you have basically ignored.

Frankly, you're an idiot and your ignorant ravings have no place in this thread.

[Darth Wong]

Split from here.

[AVOGARDO]

The quotes you provide are your own undoing. Picard called it "a new delivery system." Meaning it hasn't been done before. Meaning that sensors do not use theta-band carrier waves, because if they did, then those carrier waves wouldn't be a "new delivery system."

Concession accepted.

That is not a sound argument.

That is nothing but bullshit.

That it hasn't done before with metagenic material doesn't mean, that sensors do not use theta-band carrier waves. And it doesn't mean that ist would be impossible as a basic principle.

There are a big difference between metagenic material and sensor emissions. That one is a huge molucule and the other is energy or consists of elementar particles.

I think, it is to assume, that fot this reason the latter is easier to transort through supspace than the first.

Moreover, there is the incident from STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION
"New Ground", where a whole test ship was accelerated on warp on a subspace wave.

You have given me not a single argument but only misplaced symantic.

You can't even keep your own story straight. Are you some kind of compulsive liar?

No, I had difficulties to unterstand you. Maybe, if you quote something, you should do it in a way that you are understandable.

But OK, maybe I am only too tired to understand you.

But before you someone charge to be a liar, you should think about the meaning of this word, particularly in differentiation to the meaning of the word mistaken. Lying is the deliberate saying of something from which is known to be wrong for the teller.

If you have seen, that I have misunderstood you, you should know, that that is no situation in which it would made sense to charge me to lie at all. That is mutually exclusive. - But a good diversion if you don't want to deal with my arguments.

Well, for one, gravitons aren't affected by gravity... otherwise black holes would be impossible.

That seems to me to be a circular argument.

And just because a character thinks something is possible doesn't mean it's actually possible. The fact that so few people have experience with theta-band carrier waves is evidence enough that they are not commonly used in Federation sensors.

Please, can you try not to use cheap symantics. It is clear, that he thinks, it is possible. And he has more knowledge about possibilities at a basic principle than you or every other person.
I ask you again: I have no reasons to believe that he is mistaken in his belief, that it is possible. Do you have any indication for a mistake on his part?

The rest of your ranting is bullshit.

[AVOGARDO]

In other words, your entire argument boils down to this:

1) You believe you can send objects through "subspace", therefore you can use any kind of realspace sensor through "subspace" [...]

Yes.

I do think, that you can send objects and energy through subspace. There are several episodes which indicate strongly that this is possible (For example: New Ground and Chain of Command).

It is correct, that my explanaition for a possible mode of operation depends on these assumption. At least so far as it concerns superluminal detection. Please say me, why you think, it is wrong. But please consider the mentioned episodes.

[...] By this idiot logic, a standard motion sensor can be used to detect submarines because we can move objects through water.

But this analogy is utterly wrong:

There are at least two kinds of motion sensors. One is a passive IR sensor, the other is an active RADAR sensor. I have no idea, what you think, is a standard motion sensor. But a passive motion sensor isn't even applicable to such an analogy.

For the active RADAR sensor, I would not send the motion sensor through the water - to suggest this is ridiculous - but its signals. These should be able to detect the submarine as a basic principle.

The question is only, how far such a signal could get in water. In subraum you could have the same problem: A limitation in range. But that is not new.

2) You believe that since scientific theories are not "proven", you can just make up whatever bullshit you want.

No.
If you think, I made up bullshit, please enlighten me.
What from what I have said, is definitely wrong?
What is not compatible with an accepted scientific theorie?
And if you are able to do it, please tell me, why it is wrong or not compatible with an accepted scientific theorie. Don't say only, that it is wrong. That wouldn't help to reach a mutual consent.

3) You dismiss my explanations without explaining what is actually wrong with them other than your personal preference for your own non-explanations. Most of my points you have basically ignored.

I have tried to explain my thoughts:

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.

I see not, why my explainaition couldn't explain both phenomena too.

But even your explanation says, that Sensors of the UFP are able to detect fluctuations in gravitation - only in another way.

But than, you think, ...

... they would 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.

But I don't see, how they would be 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 they just encountered and thus know nothing about.

I haven't understand your answer to this question:

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

That was your last comment. But that doesn't answer my questions.

I never have said that a UFP starship would only have one sensor. Quite the contrary: I have said, that a sensor phalanx 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 you are the one, who insist, that the only possible way could be a sensor, which projects some sort of supspace radiation or -field and that they would detect the interactions between this field or radiation and the objects they wish to scan.

The mechanism of elemental detection merits further examination. They must project some sort of radiation or field toward objects they wish to scan, and then detect its interactions with this field or radiation.

If we presume that this is probably "subspace radiation", to resort to treknobabble, it may have counterintuitive characteristics. For example, the fact that it may reflect from one element does not necessarily mean it will reflect well from others. This may explain why their sensors appear to be capable of penetrating deep through rock in some situations while reflecting from small platinum trinkets in others.

[...]

I think we must postulate that they can emit a particular type of radiation (presumably "subspace" related) which very strongly interacts with certain phenomena in a manner differently than electromagnetic radiation does. Many materials seems to be transparent to this radiation which would not be transparent to EM radiation, yet there are certain phenomena which have little effect on EM radiation (such as passage through a weak gravitational field) that can have a profound effect on this kind of radiation.

[...]

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. So the implication is that when a subspace sensor picks something up, it's just picking up certain constituents of that object, rather than "seeing" it the way visible light would.

If I understand you correct, that would be only one kind of sensor system. Sure, you could manipulate the field or radiation in certain limitations, but it would be only one kind of sensor system. My explanation at least allows several sensor systems.

And 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, when...

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

I think, your claim, that I didn't have given you an explaination and have ignored your points, is baseless.


Besides, you have only postulated that sitting in a Lagrange point can mask you from subspace sensors.

But thats a postulat, not an explaination.

Why should the combined gravitational pull of two large masses, which provides precisely the centripetal force required for a small mass to rotate with them affect subspace signals?


And quity contrary to your claim, I have adressed each of your points.

Therfore the question is coming up, why you claim something, which is objectively wrong. Maybe you aren't really interested in the abilities of Star Trek sensors. when there is the danger that they are better than Star Wars Sensors. After all, you have said that you want updating your sci-fi website. And it seems, that on your site the thema "Star Wars vs. Star Trek" has a big deal.