[AVOGARDO] Moron boy's ignorant ravings

[AVOGARDO]

Given that "gravitons" are gravitation, you're quite wrong.

quote]

You are able to sense gravitation. But you aren't able to detect gravitons.

They're detecting the gravitons through some intermediary.

No exceptions. That could be possible. But then, they would detect it nevertheless.

The probability of actual graviton detection happening in a meaningful timeframe is some 1 in 228159.

Why?

[SirNitram]

Question for our failed little scientist:

Define how you can detect gravitation but not the carrier of it.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I doubt, that the ancient Egyptians was able to detect gravitations.

1: Hold a bowling ball directly above your foot.
2: Let go.
3: Don't even think about suing me for pain and suffering as a result; the court will LAUGH YOU OUT.

Or another example.

1: Go to the top of a tall building or the middle span of a bridge; the taller it is and the rockier the ground below, the better.
2: Jump.
3: See No. 3 above.

Read the prior sentence:
There is a difference how you could detect gravitation.
I doubt, that that the ancient Egyptians was able to detect gravitons.

Self-evident they were able to sense gravitation in the same way we do.

YOU said 'gravitations', not 'gravitons', you fuckass.

AVOGARDO, Enjoy your brand new ban poll.

You really are so fucking stupid that a lobotomy could only improve you.

Edi

I love you, Edi!

[Batman]

Not a single one of the quotes you provided shows Trek sensors determine a sensor target's mass by graviton detection, leave alone superluminal graviton detection.

How do you interpret these qoutes:

SNIPPY FOR LENGTH

I think, it shows, that they are able to produce graviton pulses and can detect these gravitons.
In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity.
Therefore I conclude, they are able to detect gravitation.

No shit Sherlock. As Surlethe pointed out, so could ancient Egypt. Now why don't you show me the part that says they determined the thing's mass that way.

And cause they detect not only gravitation how we observe it, but even the gravitons, I think, they have to have more informations in their sensor readings. Particularly if they could detect these gravitons with an active sensor system.

Which is not stated in the quote.

And if they are able to detect the gravitation of an object by the detection of the gravitons, they could be able to determine its mass.

Too bad nothing in the quote supports that. They can emit and detect gravitons. No mentioning of them determining them the Crystaline Entity's mass that way.

And voila, there are several quotes which shows, that they are able to determine the mass of an object, regardles if it is in subspace or not or if it is in relativistic vicinity or lightyears away.

Never contended. The part of the quotes that states that they do so by measuring the gravity of the object is...?

I know, that these are only conclusions and assumptions.
And I know, that I can't prove these. It would be impossibel to prove.

IOW you have no case.

But I think, these qoutes support my conclusions and assumptions.
If you think otherwise, please tell me your reasons.

The fact that they don't comes to mind. Those quotes show that they can determine the mass of an object, and that they can detect and controlledly emit gravitons. They don't say beans about the Feds determining the mass BY detecting gravitons, leave alone FTL.

[AVOGARDO]

A pulse can simply be a beam which is not continuous. Like a pulse phaser.

A beam can be a pulse.

A pulse can't be a beam.

You have claimed, that the graviton pulse have to be a beam.

But there is no evidence for this claim.

It could even be, that it isn't possible to create a graviton beam. On one side of an object you would have a huge gravitation but not on the other side?

Maybe you should prove that it is possible to create such a beam.

[AVOGARDO]

Question for our failed little scientist:

Define how you can detect gravitation but not the carrier of it.

Easy, you are able to sense gravitation. You have no doubt, that there are gravitation.

But you can't sense gravitons. You don't even know, if gravitons even exist.

Or I could say also, that you are able to see light. But you aren't able to see a photon.

[brianeyci]

A pulse can simply be a beam which is not continuous. Like a pulse phaser.

A beam can be a pulse.

A pulse can't be a beam.

You have claimed, that the graviton pulse have to be a beam.

But there is no evidence for this claim.

It could even be, that it isn't possible to create a graviton beam. On one side of an object you would have a huge gravitation but not on the other side?

Maybe you should prove that it is possible to create such a beam.

Unfortunately for you suspension of disbelief says they can emit gravitons in a pulse. And unfortunately for you I did not claim that a pulse is a beam. I said that a pulse was just a non-continuous beam, and would function the same, with a high concentration of graviton particles. For example a pulse phaser is just a non-continuous beam phaser, but both have a high concentration of nadions (technobabble Trek particle) and that doesn't mean they can detect nadions or phaser firefights from light years away. You're a real big dumbshit.

Now answer my question what does Worf detecting an object's mass have to do with Data.

[AVOGARDO]

YOU said 'gravitations', not 'gravitons', you fuckass.

Both words are very similar. Then it could happen, that you mean one word but write the other.

I think, it should be obviously, that I only could have meant gravitons.

You self have said, that gravitation is very simple to sense.

That is so self-evident, that you can't really believe, that I would doubt that.

[brianeyci]

A beam can be a pulse.

A pulse can't be a beam.

Oh no, looks like somebody decided to try and be a big boy and took this,

You fail at logic. No sourced claim => not taking it seriously. That doesn't mean sourced claim => taking it seriously.

And tried to imitate logic. Boo hoo. First of all, a beam cannot be a pulse. A beam is a beam, a pulse is a pulse. Secondly, a pulse is not a beam. A beam is just a continuous stream of particles, and a pulse refers to a discontinuous beam. For example pulse mode for the pulse gun in Unreal Tournament means the same shit coming out of the gun, but in little balls, and beam mode is a continuous stream of pulses. But I'm sure you'll keep semantic whoring the problem: that is, they detected a high concentration of gravitons coming towards them in a pulse, but that doesn't mean they can detect natural gravitation from light years away not concentrated in a pulse or beam aka artificially generated and highly concentrated. Moron.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

YOU said 'gravitations', not 'gravitons', you fuckass.

Both words are very similar. Then it could happen, that you mean one word but write the other.

I think, it should be obviously, that I only could have meant gravitons.

You self have said, that gravitation is very simple to sense.

That is so self-evident, that you can't really believe, that I would doubt that.

What the fuck are you saying? It's OBVIOUS you most likely meant 'Gravitation' simply by virtue of your saying it, NOT the other way around; fuckhole.



Yes I can believe you'd doubt that. You're Just. That. Stupid.

And I've seen worse!

[AVOGARDO]

Now why don't you show me the part that says they determined the thing's mass that way.

I have said, that this part is only a conclusion. Do you have a better explaination.

Which is not stated in the quote.

No, it is a conclusion. Is that so difficult to understand?

Too bad nothing in the quote supports that.

That is why it is a conclusion. I know, that that isn't said in the qoute itself.

Never contended. The part of the quotes that states that they do so by measuring the gravity of the object is...?

Do you understand the concept of an conclusion at all?

The fact that they don't comes to mind. Those quotes show that they can determine the mass of an object, and that they can detect and controlledly emit gravitons. They don't say beans about the Feds determining the mass BY detecting gravitons, leave alone FTL.

OK.
Explain why it would be impossible or give a better explanation.
If it wouldn't be impossible, it could be possible.

[Batman]

I think Avocado just hit a new low with the pulse/beam stupidity, and for him/her/it that's saying something.

[brianeyci]

I think Avocado just hit a new low with the pulse/beam stupidity, and for him/her/it that's saying something.

I know what a retard.

Maybe he's a visual learner.

Beam :

============================================


Pulse :

======= ========== ========== ========= =======

Wow, nothing to do with each other huh. Guess because they can detect pulse of artificially generated gravitons aimed towards the Enterprise-D, they can detect the mass of an object from light years away, through graviton detection no less, hurr hurr.

[SirNitram]

Question for our failed little scientist:

Define how you can detect gravitation but not the carrier of it.

Easy, you are able to sense gravitation. You have no doubt, that there are gravitation.

But you can't sense gravitons. You don't even know, if gravitons even exist.

Or I could say also, that you are able to see light. But you aren't able to see a photon.

Correct. We are, however, able to infer not only the existance of photons, but their properties, by how light behaves. But I suspect you do not know the wave-particle duality, or any of the other methods used to show how we know there's a carrier.

In short, you're claiming since we've never seen a quark, we can't talk about them.

[AVOGARDO]

[...] a pulse refers to a discontinuous beam [...]

Thats wrong.

A pulse has nothing to do with a beam. A beam could be a pulse.

But light could be a pulse too, even if it is no laser.

A not directet radio signal is no beam but could be pulse.

[AVOGARDO]

I think Avocado just hit a new low with the pulse/beam stupidity, and for him/her/it that's saying something.

A beam is a narrow, propagating stream of particles or energy.

A pulse has the following meanings:

A rapid, transient change in the amplitude of a signal from a baseline value to a higher or lower value, followed by a rapid return to the baseline value.

A rapid change in some characteristic of a signal, e.g., phase or frequency, from a baseline value to a higher or lower value, followed by a rapid return to the baseline value.



You should be able to recognize the difference for all you pretend to be so clever.

[Batman]

Now why don't you show me the part that says they determined the thing's mass that way.

I have said, that this part is only a conclusion. Do you have a better explaination.

I don't need one. Your conclusion lacks any and all supporting evidence.

Which is not stated in the quote.

No, it is a conclusion. Is that so difficult to understand?

A 'conclusion' that is based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. That's not a conclusion. It's a BASELESS ASSUMPTION.

Too bad nothing in the quote supports that.

That is why it is a conclusion. I know, that that isn't said in the qoute itself.

See above. A conclusion based on no evidence whatsoever isn't a conclusion.

Never contended. The part of the quotes that states that they do so by measuring the gravity of the object is...?

Do you understand the concept of an conclusion at all?

I do. Obviously you don't.

The fact that they don't comes to mind. Those quotes show that they can determine the mass of an object, and that they can detect and controlledly emit gravitons. They don't say beans about the Feds determining the mass BY detecting gravitons, leave alone FTL.

OK.
Explain why it would be impossible or give a better explanation.
If it wouldn't be impossible, it could be possible.

And I couldn't possibly care less. I don't have to show it's impossible. YOU CLAIM THAT IS THE WAY MASS IS DETERMINED BY FEDERATION SENSORS, FUCKING PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THAT OR CONCEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not that Mad hasn't already explained why it IS impossible or Mike hasn't already provided a better explanation quite a while back.

[The Yosemite Bear]

a pulse is simply a sudden surge. ok?

highly concentrated and most likely artificial as natural gravity doesn't have intermittent flares, where mass suddenly increases and then decreatses. Unless we're in comic books and vision is boffing kitty pryde.

[AVOGARDO]

But I suspect you do not know the wave-particle duality.

If you would have read my writtings, you would know, that I know the wave-particle duality.

Look please at page 2.

You have just evidenced, that you have not read my writtings.

Keep your trap shut till you have read it and are able to argue.

[brianeyci]

[...] a pulse refers to a discontinuous beam [...]

Thats wrong.

A pulse has nothing to do with a beam. A beam could be a pulse.

But light could be a pulse too, even if it is no laser.

A not directet radio signal is no beam but could be pulse.

Pulse:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Beam :

========================================

Maybe it's not high definition enough for you. Let's make it easy.

Pulse Phaser:



Beam Phaser:



Look at it moron. I'm sure the diagram bypasses the language barrier, so if you still don't get it you're just a fucking moron. The gravitons are highly concentrated, in fact they must be for the Enterprise-D to detect them. Meanwhile gravitons travel at light speed, so detecting mass from light years away through gravitons is ridiculous, unless you have some evidence to support your idea they can do so, such as someone saying they detect mass through gravitons. That's what people keep asking you for, evidence, and you provide none, moron.

[Batman]

I think Avocado just hit a new low with the pulse/beam stupidity, and for him/her/it that's saying something.

A beam is a narrow, propagating stream of particles or energy.
SNIPPY GARBAGE

Merriam Webster disagrees.

an electromagnetic wave or modulation thereof of brief duration

Guess what, that's a really short beam. Not that there's any doubt about it by now but you're full of it.

[AVOGARDO]

I have a question.

Why is the following accepted?

With regard to "Angel One", I can only speculate that the sensors can be tuned to actively scan for the emission spectra of a particular material. Presumably the ship aims a sensor beam at the surface that will reflect off platinum in a distinctive way. This was effective in "Angel One" because there was no native platinum (or, at least, no refined platinum on the surface), so the foreign platinum of the merchant's insignia stood out.

This particular sensing technique would not be useful for detecting ships. Presumably you could send an active pulse that would "light up" materials common in ship hulls, but if the beam has to be fairly focused, you would have little luck finding a ship in all of space. Furthermore, I got the impression in "Survivors" that Worf's failure to detect a ship floating in a Lagrange Point was a sign of incompetence: Picard, Riker, and Worf himself all seemed to think that he should have spotted a ship in such a location.

Furthermore, while the type of scan used to detect platinum in "Angel One" must have been able to detect a small object at a distance of thousands of kilometers, the same technique might not have been so effective at the greater ranges (hundreds of thousands of kilometers) that would likely be required when scanning space for ships.

Starship shielding or other field effects might also interefere with such a scan.

Basically, locating the platinum in "Angel One" was like using a metal detector to find a needle in a haystack. Similarly, a metal detector would not necessarily be as useful for finding a needle in a city park unless you already had a good idea where to look.

OR

I think we've established that the ship's computer will construct visual representations of objects detected on sensors. Once it has enough information to identify a sensor contact as a Klingon K'Vort-class Cruisers, for example, it will use stored data to place a corresponding visual representation on the viewscreen (if desired). I'm not sure of the usefulness of such a feature, except perhaps to give the crew a visual concept to associate with sensor data; they might associate the visual with appropriate action more quickly than they would a written or spoken description.

"Peak Performance" demonstrates that this is a feature, and shows how it can be exploited by someone able to hack the system.

OR

Federation sensors can identify "life signs", which presumably represent a combination of chemicals, electrochemical activity, and other phenomena that fall in a known range of parameters. "Life sign" detection is usually effective for locating "carbon-based life-forms" like humanoids and terrestrial animals and plants; it is far less effective at detecting exotic life forms such as the silicon-based organisms in "Home Soil".

OR

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.

OR

Hasn't it already been theorized that dense metals screw with subspace technologies? Could this explain it; you look for the mobile 'interference', and there's the platinum?

OR

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

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

I fail to see where is the difference between these conclusion and assumptions and my conclusion and assumptions.

For all these, there is no proof

[brianeyci]

You notice that they are all talking about things that happened in the Star Trek universe. That is they accept that it happened, and try and form a hypothesis.

Nobody accepts that starships detect mass through gravitons, because you have provided no proof of them doing so in Star Trek.

Oh and I'm still waiting for you to tell me what Worf detecting the mass of an object has to do with Data's gravitons. Nobody's disputing that starships can detect mass from light years away, only that gravitons are the mechanism of it. But of course you are a moron and continue to advance so, even though people have repeatedly said that gravitons travel at light speed.

Meanwhile you are either being dishonest, or stupid with the pulse versus beam distinction. Do you concede that detecting an artificially generated stream of gravitons is different than detecting natural gravitation from light years away? If you do your whole theory is garbage, your theory being that they detect mass by detecting gravitons which has been pointed out repeatedly as wrong, unless you can find evidence that they do so that we'd have to accept under suspension of disbelief (for example, FTL is wrong, but we accept it because it happens in Star Trek).

[Stark]

Yeah, and nobodies saying they're utterly true, dumbass. They've got evidence from which they draw conclusions, but they're open to discussion re new evidence, or different conclusions. I've read this thread and I can honestly say I don't have a fucking clue what you're even talking about or where you're trying to take the discussion. Your terrible english, your terrible post formatting, your constantly switching arguments and most of all your passive-aggressive bullshit obscure your actual claims and evidence enormously. I actually don't know how the hell Batman etc are following your at all: it just sounds like you're talking shit to me.

Can anyone summarise this guy's arguments? Not his ridiculous off-topic stuff, what claim he's making and trying to prove?

[Batman]

Because all of them actually have supporting evidence while your theory doesn't and has conclusively been demonstrated to NOT. FUCKING. WORK.