[AVOGARDO] Moron boy's ignorant ravings

[Surlethe]

I have merely used the holes in the scientifical understanding of today.

And there are holes. [Especially regarding gravitation]

Care to specifically and with careful detail elucidate these holes for us?

[AVOGARDO]

Care to specifically and with careful detail elucidate these holes for us?

You do know, that there are many open questions concerning gravitation and graviton particles?

Do you ask me for an explaination, where our best scientists still don't have such an explanation?

Or do you deny, that there are many things about gravitation and graviton particles, which today isn't explainable.

If you claim, that I have ignored or overlooked a scientifical explanation, an explanation which is proved or evidenced and not only a speculation, you have to name it and have to explain, where my thoughts, as I have tried to explain these, infringe such an scientifical explanation.

A claim is no explanation and no argument.

[AVOGARDO]

I would even accept a speculation from someone, who is very well versed in these subjects.

That person would have to be a scientist and would have to research this subject and must be an accepted expert on this subject.

An engineer would not be such an expert.

But even this person would have to try to explain the reasons for its speculation.

[Gil Hamilton]

You do know, that there are many open questions concerning gravitation and graviton particles?

Do you ask me for an explaination, where our best scientists still don't have such an explanation?

Or do you deny, that there are many things about gravitation and graviton particles, which today isn't explainable.

If you claim, that I have ignored or overlooked a scientifical explanation, an explanation which is proved or evidenced and not only a speculation, you have to name it and have to explain, where my thoughts, as I have tried to explain these, infringe such an scientifical explanation.

A claim is no explanation and no argument.

The problem is you are making an appeal to ignorance. "We don't know what gravity is, so therefore it works however I want it to." is a bad argument. No, we don't know what exactly it is, but we know a hell of alot about what it does. Gravity may be a mysterious force, but it is a very predictable and highly measured one. Your argument is bunk because we know what it does, irregardless of what we don't know about it.

And incidently, it's Avogadro, jackass.

[Surlethe]

You do know, that there are many open questions concerning gravitation and graviton particles?

Don't adduce a question when you have failed to answer a standing one.

Do you ask me for an explaination, where our best scientists still don't have such an explanation?

Are you illiterate? Of course I asked you for an explanation of your argument. You make the claim; you substantiate it.

Or do you deny, that there are many things about gravitation and graviton particles, which today isn't explainable.

I don't know what those things might be. Do you possess the expertise to instruct me?

If you claim, that I have ignored or overlooked a scientifical explanation, an explanation which is proved or evidenced and not only a speculation, you have to name it and have to explain, where my thoughts, as I have tried to explain these, infringe such an scientifical explanation.

A claim is no explanation and no argument.

Where have I claimed anything? I merely asked you to support the claim you made.

[Mad]

I would even accept a speculation from someone, who is very well versed in these subjects.

That person would have to be a scientist and would have to research this subject and must be an accepted expert on this subject.

An engineer would not be such an expert.

But even this person would have to try to explain the reasons for its speculation.

I like how this moron who doesn't understand anything about gravity, science in general, logic, debate, or even how to perform simple calculations wants us to believe his speculation is possible, yet he will only accept any kind speculation from an astrophysicist who has done research specific to gravitons.

Hey, AVOGARDO, here's another English word for you to learn: hypocrite. The definition can be found by looking in a mirror.

[AVOGARDO]

"We don't know what gravity is, so therefore it works however I want it to."

I have never said that or something similiar.

I have said, that there are things, we don't know about gravitation.

And I have said, that, if you think, that somehting, what I have said, is not compatible with what we know about it, you schould tell me:

If you claim, that I have ignored or overlooked a scientifical explanation, an explanation which is proved or evidenced and not only a speculation, you have to name it and have to explain, where my thoughts, as I have tried to explain these, infringe such an scientifical explanation.

Look at all posts. Nobody seems to be able to tell, where I'm mistaken. All say only, that I'm mistaken. But nobody say, where the alleged mistake is and why it is a mistake.

Can you name and explain my mistake?

Or do you only want to attack me without to contribute to the goal to explain the mentioned incidents.

Then keep your trap shut!

Don't adduce a question when you have failed to answer a standing one.

That wasn't a real question. There was no answer needed.

You make the claim; you substantiate it.

[...]

I merely asked you to support the claim you made.

Show me a claim, which I have done and can't substantiate it.

Maybe you shoul read the whole thread again. I merely try to explain the mentioned incidents. I try to give one possible explanation.

I don't claim, it has to be the way, I say it.

I'm ready to accept another explanation when it is better.

But till now, nobody has even tried to made a better explanation.

All you [not you, Surlethe] have done is claim, that I'm wrong. Without any explanation, why you think so.

Do you possess the expertise to instruct me?

Surly not for all things. But I can tell you, that the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle. We don't even know, if it exist at all.

And surly I can't explain something, with which our bests scientists have their problems.

If you think, that there are no such problems, please enlighten me.

[Darth Servo]

Don't you get it?

Yes but apparently you don't.

Science can't be wrong. Science is a concept.

Wrong. Science is an attempt to DESCRIBE the physical universe. As such, those descriptions are NEVER 100% accurate but we try to make them as good as we can.

I have merely used the holes in the scientifical understanding of today.

And there are holes. [Especially regarding gravitation]

That doesn't mean you can fill in those holes with what ever bullshit you want.

[AVOGARDO]

I would even accept a speculation from someone, who is very well versed in these subjects.

That person would have to be a scientist and would have to research this subject and must be an accepted expert on this subject.

An engineer would not be such an expert.

But even this person would have to try to explain the reasons for its speculation.

I like how this moron who doesn't understand anything about gravity, science in general, logic, debate, or even how to perform simple calculations wants us to believe his speculation is possible, yet he will only accept any kind speculation from an astrophysicist who has done research specific to gravitons.

Hey, AVOGARDO, here's another English word for you to learn: hypocrite. The definition can be found by looking in a mirror.

You have failed again to show me, where are my alleged mistakes. That would be necessary to evidence that I don't >> understand anything about gravity, science in general, logic, debate [...] <<.

And I have said, that >> I would even accept a speculation from someone, who is very well versed in these subjects. <<

And you claim, that I have said, that I >> will only accept any kind speculation from an astrophysicist who has done research specific to gravitons. <<

Therewith it is official: You are a liar and a fraud.

[AVOGARDO]

That doesn't mean you can fill in those holes with what ever bullshit you want.

Show me, that it is bullshit.

In this instant, I don't want nothing else.

[Surlethe]

Don't adduce a question when you have failed to answer a standing one.

That wasn't a real question. There was no answer needed.

Actually, in case you failed your kindergarten English assignments, that was a real question, with a question mark and everything.

You make the claim; you substantiate it.

[...]

I merely asked you to support the claim you made.

Show me a claim, which I have done and can't substantiate it.

"I have merely used the holes in the scientifical understanding of today.

And there are holes. [Especially regarding gravitation]"

Maybe you shoul read the whole thread again. I merely try to explain the mentioned incidents. I try to give one possible explanation.

I don't claim, it has to be the way, I say it.

I'm ready to accept another explanation when it is better.

But till now, nobody has even tried to made a better explanation.

All you [not you, Surlethe] have done is claim, that I'm wrong. Without any explanation, why you think so.

You know, I must have missed where you made an explanation. Would you please concisely and carefully restate your explanation, in readable English?

Do you possess the expertise to instruct me?

Surly not for all things. But I can tell you, that the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle. We don't even know, if it exist at all.

And surly I can't explain something, with which our bests scientists have their problems.

If you think, that there are no such problems, please enlighten me.

I don't know what the problems are, which is why I asked you to explain them. Surely, if you made the claim, you know enough to support it?

[Darth Wong]

That doesn't mean you can fill in those holes with what ever bullshit you want.

Show me, that it is bullshit.

In this instant, I don't want nothing else.

The fact that it is not based on any kind of research is all we need in order to show that it is bullshit. You literally just made it up, and you're challenging people to prove that it's NOT true beyond a shadow of a doubt. By this idiot logic, you can say anything.

The fact is that the strength of gravitational attraction is established through centuries of observational data. Whether it is transmitted through hypothetical graviton particles or some other mechanism is utterly irrelevant to the point people are making, which is that it will resolve to background noise at great distance. You are simply so goddamned stupid that you don't understand that. You honestly think that the hypothetical nature of the graviton particle somehow nullifies hundreds of years of observational data showing how rapidly the force of gravity decreases with range and how weak it is relative to mass and other factors such as electromagnetism.

Moreover, demanding that someone possess a doctorate in astrophysics in order to contradict your claims when your own level of education appears to be high school at best is utterly absurd. When I was in university, I accepted corrections from teaching assistants who did not have doctorates; a reasonably intelligent person will recognize where he stands in the food chain. It is only your combination of ignorance and arrogance which keeps you from seeing that.

[Mad]

You have failed again to show me, where are my alleged mistakes. That would be necessary to evidence that I don't >> understand anything about gravity, science in general, logic, debate [...] <<.

I gave you two word problems that show exactly why a gravimeter cannot give the information you claim it can. Just because you're too stupid to understand it doesn't mean I didn't give the evidence.

I even told you this:

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.

And that's why a gravimeter cannot give you the information you are trying to say it can give. The very fact that you continue arguing in spite if this simply demonstrates that you know nothing about gravity.

And I have said, that >> I would even accept a speculation from someone, who is very well versed in these subjects. <<

And you claim, that I have said, that I >> will only accept any kind speculation from an astrophysicist who has done research specific to gravitons. <<

Therewith it is official: You are a liar and a fraud.

You said "That person would have to be a scientist and would have to research this subject and must be an accepted expert on this subject" and "An engineer would not be such an expert." That you specified who does not qualify shows that there are people you will not accept this stuff from (such as engineers).

[Darth Wong]

Can you imagine AVOCADO in high school?

AVOCADO: "Sir, I do not accept the 52% mark you gave me on my physics exam."

TEACHER: "Too bad. You got almost half the questions wrong."

AVOCADO: "Do you have a doctorate in astrophysics?"

TEACHER: "No, but I have a physics degree."

AVOCADO: "I do not accept correction from anyone without a doctorate."

TEACHER: "Too bad. I may not be Stephen Hawking but I'm far more qualified than you, and you get an F."

AVOCADO: "No I don't. I believe I deserve an A."

TEACHER: "Why?"

AVOCADO: "Because there could be a paradigm shift in science, and all of my answers could end up being right."

TEACHER: "Get out."

[AVOGARDO]

Actually, in case you failed your kindergarten English assignments, that was a real question, with a question mark and everything.

In case you failed your high school English assignments, there are things called rhetorical questions. That are questions, which don't demand an answer. The question >> You do know, that there are many open questions concerning gravitation and graviton particles? << doesn't demand an answer cause it is commonly known.

Show me a claim, which I have done and can't substantiate it.

"I have merely used the holes in the scientifical understanding of today.

And there are holes. [Especially regarding gravitation]"

Do you really demand a substantiation?
How could I substantiate something, from which we don't know anything.
How could I substantiate a hole.

The question would be, if I have ignored or overlooked a scientifical explanation, an explanation which is proved or evidenced and not only a speculation.

You know, I must have missed where you made an explanation. Would you please concisely and carefully restate your explanation, in readable English?

You know, I must have missed where you made an explanation. Would you please concisely and carefully restate your explanation, in readable English?

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...

[...]

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.

[...]

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.

[...]

it could happen similarly to the detection of light or the detection of neutrinos in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.

[...]

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.

[...]

If the gravitation of an object in realspace affect subspace too, could it be possible, that the graviton particels, which produce the effects of gravitation are not only to find in realspace but in subspace too?

And if they could be find in supspace, would these, which are in subspace propagate superluminal and these, wich are in realspace with light-speed, wouldn't they?

[...]

Sure, it could be possible, that it could be harder to transport such particles through subspace than it is to transport molecules.

But you have to ask you, if it would be likely.

I think, it is easier to transport something which has almost no mass or even has no mass on a carrier wave than something with a far greater mass.

[...]

If the particel get to the target through subspace, it seems to conclude, that at least some of the reflected particel returns through subspace. A object which is in realspace, is also in subspace. Otherwise a ship at warp couldn't collide with an object in realspace. But we know, that a ship in warp can sollide with objects in realspace. Therefor it seems to be assured, that interaction between objects in subspace and objects in realspace are possible.

[...]

as far a I know, it is commonly assumed, that an object, which is leaving a ship, which is travelling at warp, keep its warpfield for some time before it drops out of warp. Therfore a torpedo is useable to hit another ship at warpspeed. And there are known incidents, where even phasers would fired at ships, which travel with warp. It seems, that the nadions are able to keep its warpfield for some time too.
Than it seems logical to assume, that particels from sensor emissions are able to keep its warpfield to.

My suggestion is that subspace is affected by objects in realspace. Therefore, reading the changes in subspace by using subspace sensors can give information about the object that may not be possible using traditional methods.

Now I have a few quesions:

Is it an activ or passiv sensor with which you would detect these changes in subspace?

If your sensor is in point A and the source of the affection ís in Point B, and Point A and Point B are severel lightyears away, how would your sensor detect the change in subspace?

How do you explain the mentioned incidents, in which the mass of an object, which was not in subspace and was not known, could have been detected?

In which episode was said, that gravitation has an affect on subspace?

I know, that there are episodes, in which was said, that the gravitation affected the sensors. But I can't remember an episode in which was said, that gravitation has an affect on subspace?

Would that mean, that warp at a Lagrange point is impossible?

Could that be considered as an attempt to made an explanation?

Maybe you have noticed, that I have often used subjunctive.

It could...

It would...

It seems...

I think...

As far as I know...



I don't have said, that it must be that way.

I have conceded, that I could be wrong.



And I have written:

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.

or

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.

or

The purpose of this debate should be to explain the mentioned incidents.

But it seems, your goal is only, to attack me. And you don't do it with arguments but by ranting.

Could you try to contribute to the goal to explain the mentioned incidents.

If not, I don't have a reason to speak with you at all.

or

But than, you could tell me of these new findings and how these creat a new understanding of the world.

But you don't do this. You don't explain me my mistakes. You don't even show me, where are my mistakes.

All you do is ranting.

or

Look at all posts. Nobody seems to be able to tell, where I'm mistaken. All say only, that I'm mistaken. But nobody say, where the alleged mistake is and why it is a mistake.

Can you name and explain my mistake?

Or do you only want to attack me without to contribute to the goal to explain the mentioned incidents.

Then keep your trap shut!

I have the feeling, that almost nobody has an interest to contribute to this debate. All you do is, to attack me.

Nobody seems to be able to tell, where I'm mistaken. All say only, that I'm mistaken. But nobody say, where the alleged mistake is and why it is a mistake.

I don't see any sense to continue this debat unless someone begins to make a constructive suggestion and try to explain the mentioned incidents.

If I would concede now, what would be the explaination of this mentioned incidents.

Do you really rather attack me than to explain the mentioned incidents.

If it is so, why do you [Mike Wong] ask for the abilities of UFP sensors at all.

You wouldn't get a summary of the specifications.

You would have to made your conclusions based on the show and your scientifical knowledge.
.

[Surlethe]

In case you failed your high school English assignments, there are things called rhetorical questions. That are questions, which don't demand an answer. The question >> You do know, that there are many open questions concerning gravitation and graviton particles? << doesn't demand an answer cause it is commonly known.

As a rhetorical question, however, it does contain an implicit claim. I am merely asking you to substantiate that claim. It's not so unreasonable a request, is it?

Do you really demand a substantiation?
How could I substantiate something, from which we don't know anything.
How could I substantiate a hole.

Congratulations! You nailed it right on the head! Yes, I do require substantiation.

The question would be, if I have ignored or overlooked a scientifical explanation, an explanation which is proved or evidenced and not only a speculation.

No, the claim at hand is that there are holes in our understanding of fundamental physics, and (implicitly, again -- you're a slippery little one, aren't you?) therefore, because our understanding is imperfect, your explanation may be correct. I'm merely asking you to substantiate that which you claim as sufficient for your implied argument.

<snip>

Could that be considered as an attempt to made an explanation?

Why, it could. Thank you.

Maybe you have noticed, that I have often used subjunctive.

It could...

It would...

It seems...

I think...

As far as I know...



I don't have said, that it must be that way.

I have conceded, that I could be wrong.



And I have written:

...

I have the feeling, that almost nobody has an interest to contribute to this debate. All you do is, to attack me.

Showing that one explanation is untenable is, in fact, a contribution to the debate.

Nobody seems to be able to tell, where I'm mistaken. All say only, that I'm mistaken. But nobody say, where the alleged mistake is and why it is a mistake.

Don't you think your mistake might lie in your assumption that a minor source of gravitation can be detected against a very loud background?

I don't see any sense to continue this debat unless someone begins to make a constructive suggestion and try to explain the mentioned incidents.

If I would concede now, what would be the explaination of this mentioned incidents.

Perhaps we'd not know the explanation, but we'd know what the explanation is not, and that, in and of itself, is useful.

Do you really rather attack me than to explain the mentioned incidents..

Wah, wah. Put up with it, or leave. Everybody's been attacked, and learned. If you're not willing to take what's coming to you, then you've got no business posting here.

[AVOGARDO]

The fact that it is not based on any kind of research is all we need in order to show that it is bullshit.

Correct. But first you have to show, that it is not based on any kind of research. You have to show, that it is wrong.

Otherwise you could always claim, something is bullshit.

You literally just made it up, and you're challenging people to prove that it's NOT true beyond a shadow of a doubt. By this idiot logic, you can say anything.

Have you read, what I have written at all. I never have demanded that someone has to prove that it's NOT true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I have only asked for an explanation, which is able to explain the mentioned incidents.

Either you haven't read my writtings and pretend that you have it
or you have read my writtings and deliberately say that I have said something, which I have verifiable never said.

Either way, you are a liar and a fraud.

[brianeyci]

Correct. But first you have to show, that it is not based on any kind of research. You have to show, that it is wrong.

Otherwise you could always claim, something is bullshit.

The burden of proof for your claim is on you. Burden of proof on you. Do you understand that? How do you say burden of proof in German Batman?

I have only asked for an explanation, which is able to explain the mentioned incidents.

A debate is not a voyage of discovery where someone teaches you something new. Two people with two positions argue, and one person loses. I don't see why they should give you an explanation for anything. If you had no position, and instead expected people to teach you, well tough shit.

Either way, you are a liar and a fraud.

Fighting words haha. Hint: when you accuse someone of lying, quote what they said and quote what you said and draw a direct connection to the lie. And when you ask someone to prove something is bullshit, and you are the one making the initial claim, you are asking someone to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is wrong, when in reality the burden of proof is on you.

[AVOGARDO]

Why, it could. Thank you.

That was there all the time.

Have you really attacked me before you have readed what I have written at all?

And now, that you have my attempt for an explaination, maybe you could say something constructive.

Showing that one explanation is untenable is, in fact, a contribution to the debate.

Not when the goal of the debate is to find an explanation and there are no other suggestions.

If there is no reasonable explanation at the end of the debate, the debate has failed.

And you have to show, why my explanation would be untenable.

Don't you think your mistake might lie in your assumption that a minor source of gravitation can be detected against a very loud background?

If you have no better explanation or can evidence, that that would be impossible, even in the 24st century, where they are able to travel superluminal, beam objekts and scan over lightyears, I have to assume, that the technolgy of the 24st century is able to do exactly this.

What should I do else?

Perhaps we'd not know the explanation, but we'd know what the explanation is not, and that, in and of itself, is useful.

OK. But could you explain me, why my explanation is impossibel.

And then, that would leave the fact, that in the 24st century, the UFP sensors are able to detect gravitation. That is not an assumption from me. There are incidents in the show [see above], which evidence this.

If my explanation would be impossible, than they would do it in another way. But then, there is still the fact, that they are able to do it and my first statement would be correct.

[Edi]

I have the feeling, that almost nobody has an interest to contribute to this debate. All you do is, to attack me.

There is no debate here because you don't answer any points made, so the only productive thing left to do is attack you, insult you, humiliate you and generally make your life as miserable as possible because you're too much of a fucking moron to get the point otherwise. And the productive part about that is entertainment for the rest of us.

Nobody seems to be able to tell, where I'm mistaken. All say only, that I'm mistaken. But nobody say, where the alleged mistake is and why it is a mistake.

This is a flat out lie. It has been explained to you in detail, several times, why you are wrong but you have ignored all of those points.

I don't see any sense to continue this debat unless someone begins to make a constructive suggestion and try to explain the mentioned incidents.

The most constructive thing that can be done based on this thread is your banning so that we won't have to put up with your stupidity anymore.

If I would concede now, what would be the explaination of this mentioned incidents.

Do you really rather attack me than to explain the mentioned incidents.

You were given possible explanations earlier in the thread and more explanations as to why your pet theories were unworkable. This is getting tiresome and your repetition isn't making you any friends here, idiot.

If it is so, why do you [Mike Wong] ask for the abilities of UFP sensors at all.

You made claims about their abilities, so you were asked to explain how you got to the conclusions that they indeed could do that. That's where the question comes from.

You wouldn't get a summary of the specifications.

You haven't provided any and you probably don't even know what a specification is, much less understand the contents of one.

You would have to made your conclusions based on the show and your scientifical knowledge.

Assuming this butchered mess of a sentence is trying to say what I think it says, yes, he actually does form his conclusions based on the methodology of science and he has explained them to you in very simple terms. Your stupidity and inability to understand them is not anybody else's problem but yours.

Edi

[AVOGARDO]

The burden of proof for your claim is on you. Burden of proof on you. Do you understand that? How do you say burden of proof in German Batman?

burden of proof in German: Beweislast

Ever heard of reversal of the burden of proof.

In German that is a Beweislastumkehr.

Maybe you should ask you, why there is such an admitted thing.

It has a reason that there is such a thing and you fail to understand it.

[AVOGARDO]

[...]

Meanwhile, I don't bother to answere such bullshit.

Obviously you haven't read all posts.

[Batman]

Correct. But first you have to show, that it is not based on any kind of research. You have to show, that it is wrong.
Otherwise you could always claim, something is bullshit.

The burden of proof for your claim is on you. Burden of proof on you. Do you understand that? How do you say burden of proof in German Batman?proof is on you.

Die Beweislast liegt bei dir.
But as I said I very much doubt the language barrier is the problem.

[AVOGARDO]

[...]

Meanwhile, I don't bother to answere such bullshit.

Obviously you haven't read all posts.

[Batman]

The burden of proof for your claim is on you. Burden of proof on you. Do you understand that? How do you say burden of proof in German Batman?

burden of proof in German: Beweislast
Ever heard of reversal of the burden of proof.
In German that is a Beweislastumkehr.
Maybe you should ask you, why there is such an admitted thing.
It has a reason that there is such a thing and you fail to understand it.

This is not a court of law, asshat. This is a forum that tries to derive numbers from fictional universes using the scientific method. There IS no reversal.
YOU claim Trek mass detection sensors work the way you want them to, YOU PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE FUCKTARD!