[Leonardo Fibonacci] So when do they get a clue?

[Isolder74]

And STOP LINKING EVERY OTHER WORD IN YOUR FUCKING POST YOU SHITSTAINED MOTHERFUCKER ARRGH DO YOU HAVE ANY FUCKING IDEA HOW ANNOYING IT IS TO QUOTE YOUR POSTS.

Not only that he insults everyone else here in the process

1: That we don't know what a Soliton Wave is and what episode it is from and we don't have the brains to look it up ourselves.

2: That we don't know what the title of Star Trek 6 is.

3: That we can't know what he is talking about unless he links to something every time he mentions it in his post.

4: Grasp that this is a website dedicated to Star Trek and Star Wars and various other Science Fiction as well as real life topics set up by an Engineer. I hope he never enters a discussion on Star Wars and feels the need to link in a post every time he mentions Turbolasers, Darth Vader, or Han Solo, etc as if we don't know if his words have value unless they link a fan wiki Star Trek database.

In short stop insulting our intelligence and start giving us the benefit of the doubt! It will save you and us alot of trouble. Linking does NOTHING to validate your statements!

[Leonardo Fibonacci]

As for the wave in STVI, it looked and behaved quite differently from the Soliton one in TNG. The Praxis wave acted, at least visually, like you would expect any sort of wave to act in atmosphere - ie, it travelled outward from its point of origin in all directions, not neatly single-file like the soliton wave. Moreover, it can't be like the soliton wave since that would make it self-contradictory; you say it originated in a planet (or at least moon-) wrecking event, gained power, and then did nothing more than throw the Excelsior about a bit without doing any sort of non-superficial damage?

The STVI wave was a direct result of the Praxis blast, travelled at plothole speed, threw one ship around and then dissipated. The only characteristic it shares with the TNG one is being called a "wave".

I have never claimed that both are identical. But both are able to travel faster than light. And in Star Trek that's only possible via subspace. And that could mean that both waves are affected by the same subspace phenomenon.

For example it does not matter if I throw a stick or a board into a river: Both will be affected by the current. The one maybe more than the other. And the one will maybe swim longer than the other before it is goes down. (That's not an example to nitpick. It's only to illustrate that different things can be affected by the same phenomenon. I don't want to say with that example that subspace is like a river. But if a wave gains energy from it, it could be irrelevant what kind of wave it is. And the wave could maybe entirely vanish into subspace sooner or later thus explaining why not other damages were reported.)

I'm going to put my two cents in, but only to point out something I noticed.

I point you to the second screenshot on this page, and the first shot of the movie past the credits. The blast travels in two dimensions and forms a full circle, so the surviving chunk of Parxis shielded nothing - if anything it was "above" or "below" the shockwave, take the shockwave itself as an imagined horizon.

Another plausible explanation.
Although I have always regarded the wave as a three-dimensional wave with only a part visible from a certain angle. But that's irrelevant for this debate. If it is only a two-dimensional wave, it would explain why there were no other reported effects.

The soliton wave from the TNG episode New ground is not the same phenomenon as the subspace shock wave from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The soliton wave has not even come near Qo'noS.
And I don't know what would have happened with the soliton wave if it wouldn't have hadn't been stopped by the Enterprise crew. Maybe it would have gained more and more energy until it would have been too fast to further interact with something.

It's obvious from context that I'm referring to the ST6 shock wave.

That was not what you have said and you would not be the first to participate in a thread without knowing what is debated. Please excuse me if have misunderstood you.

Maybe, if we assume for a moment that the subspace shock wave from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country has also gained energy while travelling in subspace, that has happened to it: It has become too fast to still interact with something.
Or maybe it somehow gains somehow energy from subspace but there is a drawback that limits its range and results in its dissolving.

So, either this shockwave interacts with the effects of Treknology to specially damage starships, or it both mysteriously gains exactly enough energy in exactly the right way to throw around Excelsior-class starships several light years away while damaging Kronos's atmosphere and doing nothing more significant? Which one of these explanations has fewer undefined terms?

Considering the fact that such waves do also interact with normal matter which has nothing to do with subspace technology (the one has destroyed the ozone of Qo'Nos and the other was reported to be able to destroy the planet Lemmar II) and that there is no evidence for your premise that such a wave does specially damage with subspace technology equipped starships, I'd say the second. For whatever reason, the wave was stronger at the Excelsior than at Qo'Nos. There were already several different plausible explanations provided why that could have been and why no other damage was reported.

I don't pretend to understand subspace physics. I merely observe what has happened in Star Trek. Not seldom that does violates physical laws as we know them. But if I can choose if I believe in magic, voodoo, mojo or god on the one side or in fictional physical laws I don't understand but which are there nevertheless on the other side, I'll always choose the later. Yes, that does mean that I have to live with the fact that not all I'm seeing in Star Trek is explainable with modern science. But if you believe in unquantifiable phenomenons phenomena, you can't explain anything either.

And yet you treat fictional physical laws the same way people treat gods and magic, by thoughtlessly ascribing to them whatever characteristics are necessary to produce the desired result, instead of working from precedent and past knowledge.

No. Contrary to you I'm not ready to ignore the happenings around the soliton wave. And I don't invent new phenomena. I'm only referring to a phenomenon that was already shown in Star Trek.

Scientifical is a word you can find in many dictionaries.

Yeah, well, it's a fucking stupid word.

That's your opinion. Because English is a foreign language to me - as you have maybe noticed - I can't really judge such things.

And STOP LINKING EVERY OTHER WORD IN YOUR FUCKING POST YOU SHITSTAINED MOTHERFUCKER ARRGH DO YOU HAVE ANY FUCKING IDEA HOW ANNOYING IT IS TO QUOTE YOUR POSTS.

Why should it be annoying to quote my posts? Either you drag and drop the text and then you have no links any more or you simply use the quote button and the links are still in your quotation. Otherwise there is no sound reason why they should disturb you.

And thank you for correcting my mistakes. That way I will maybe learn.

But I have to say for the record that I have never claimed that my explanation are making more sense than Darth Wong's explanation. I have merely said that his explanation is not the only reasonable explanation. Surly the explanation that does make the most sense is not the only reasonable explanation. Other explanation, maybe less likely, could still be reasonable, couldn't they.

Please go and look up Occam's Razor (here). If there are multiple possible explanations, the one that does not violate basic laws of physics is always the best candidate.

Thank you very much, but I know Occam's Razor already. And if you would know it you would know that the reference to it is inappropriate. It only shows that you don't understand it. In science fiction where things are possible that would be impossible according to our modern scientific understanding, you can't say that an explanation that does violate physical laws is considered, according to Occam's Razor, as the less likely explanation.

Besides I have not said that subspace technology is "subspace magic-tech".

And STOP LINKING EVERY OTHER WORD IN YOUR FUCKING POST YOU SHITSTAINED MOTHERFUCKER ARRGH DO YOU HAVE ANY FUCKING IDEA HOW ANNOYING IT IS TO QUOTE YOUR POSTS.

Not only that he insults everyone else here in the process

1: That we don't know what a Soliton Wave is and what episode it is from and we don't have the brains to look it up ourselves.

2: That we don't know what the title of Star Trek 6 is.

3: That we can't know what he is talking about unless he links to something every time he mentions it in his post.

4: Grasp that this is a website dedicated to Star Trek and Star Wars and various other Science Fiction as well as real life topics set up by an Engineer. I hope he never enters a discussion on Star Wars and feels the need to link in a post every time he mentions Turbolasers, Darth Vader, or Han Solo, etc as if we don't know if his words have value unless they link a fan wiki Star Trek database.

In short stop insulting our intelligence and start giving us the benefit of the doubt! It will save you and us alot of trouble. Linking does NOTHING to validate your statements!

According to the board rules it is OK to insult someone as long as the post still contains an argument. And maybe I think that you are all stupid. Or maybe I haven't thought it but your exaggerated reaction to such a little thing that has no bearing shows that you can't really be very intelligent. Otherwise you would simply ignore it.

And considering that some participants of that thread are using terms they obviously don't understand (although they even link to it), I think it is not wrong to give a link to an explaining site.

[Baffalo]

But I have to say for the record that I have never claimed that my explanation are making more sense than Darth Wong's explanation. I have merely said that his explanation is not the only reasonable explanation. Surly the explanation that does make the most sense is not the only reasonable explanation. Other explanation, maybe less likely, could still be reasonable, couldn't they.

Please go and look up Occam's Razor (here). If there are multiple possible explanations, the one that does not violate basic laws of physics is always the best candidate.

Thank you very much, but I know Occam's Razor already. And if you would know it you would know that the reference to it is inappropriate. It only shows that you don't understand it. In science fiction where things are possible that would be impossible according to our modern scientific understanding, you can't say that an explanation that does violate physical laws is considered, according to Occam's Razor, as the less likely explanation.

Besides I have not said that subspace technology is "subspace magic-tech".

You're saying that because something occurs in science fiction, it must therefor be some sort of advanced machine or device capable of making the desired actions occur. That's tantamount to calling on the powers of the deux ex machina to save the day. Yes, some events, such as faster than light travel, transporters, and other equipment is far beyond our current understanding, but even then we still understand some of the basics of how the device in question might function.

Wong himself, along with numerous scientists, have said that for the transporter to work, it would need to create a copy of a person at the location, using locally available elements, to create a copy of the intended subject. To create a copy, you need to know each and every atom's location and vector. You can have one, and only one, because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Now I know that there is a device in Star Trek called the Heisenberg Compensator, but they only make a vague hint to it.

My point is that you can't just say something happens. You can't turn gravity off just with the snap of your fingers, because that would be magic (or Q, but the terms are interchangeable). Oh, and since you love links so much, here's one for you.

[Ghost Rider]

And dumping this one as well. [...] The other seems to want to antagonize and yet wants to eat cake as well.

That'd be an ad hominem. You don't address my arguments but my intention. But according to the spirit of your board rules, which are allowing the flaming of other people as long as there is still argumentative content in a post, it should be irrelevant if I'd merely want to antagonize anyone as long as I'm doing it with more or less sound arguments. Do not use my by you assumed rudeness (I'd say that the intention to antagonize someone - if that would be indeed my intention - could be considered rude) as an excuse to ignore my points.

I'll be honest, little fish. That was because you are in voiolation of rules and I decided to take action as is my duty as what I am authorized to do. Dress it up how you like, but if you want, there's a final forum for you as well.

And given your current attitude as well as lack of actually providing anything but your supposition? You'll be visiting it shortly.

[Isolder74]

And STOP LINKING EVERY OTHER WORD IN YOUR FUCKING POST YOU SHITSTAINED MOTHERFUCKER ARRGH DO YOU HAVE ANY FUCKING IDEA HOW ANNOYING IT IS TO QUOTE YOUR POSTS.

In short stop insulting our intelligence and start giving us the benefit of the doubt! It will save you and us alot of trouble. Linking does NOTHING to validate your statements!

According to the board rules it is OK to insult someone as long as the post still contains an argument. And maybe I think that you are all stupid. Or maybe I haven't thought it but your exaggerated reaction to such a little thing that has no bearing shows that you can't really be very intelligent. Otherwise you would simply ignore it.

And considering that some participants of that thread are using terms they obviously don't understand (although they even link to it), I think it is not wrong to give a link to an explaining site.

It is wrong to link to something every time you mention it. Whenever you post a link it connects to that site regardless of whether or not some one clicks on it. Thus it slows how fast the thread loads and eats up board memory. Using the concept that it is ok to insult is no excuse for blatantly eating up board memory. If we want to quote you and not further add to the problem we have to modify your post. If you want to link something only do it once, and only once. Do not link to it again in following posts either.

Also every link you add adds to the traffic of the site linked to slowing it down and eating up it's memory. So be respectful and stop wasting this board and other boards/site's resources.

You with your linking is playing into an appeal to authority fallacy so are violating board rules by constantly doing it.

Comprende?

BTW I have taken up to 2nd level calculus and I am an IT Professional.

Once again linking to the information multiple times does not add any validity to what you are saying, and it is wasteful. It may make your post look neat but that is at the most all it does.

[Bounty]

Whenever you post a link it connects to that site regardless of whether or not some one clicks on it.

Eh? What sort of bizarre caching system tries to do that?

[Isolder74]

Whenever you post a link it connects to that site regardless of whether or not some one clicks on it.

Eh? What sort of bizarre caching system tries to do that?

It is part of HTML encoding. The Java script has to check to make sure the link is valid before displaying it. Even if it turns out to be to an invalid site it still checks the link before creating it on the screen. That run a info request to the site and often as you see in a dressed link as you input it, the text and the memory needed to store the link are two different items and the text has to be stored separately. It might not be alot of memory for one or two links but it does add up.

In short posting a link on a website counts as a hit to the that server by our server. It might not list it to the user end but it still does the ping. We've had our mail server go down several times for this very reason when a professor sent an e-mail with 20 - 30 links attached to all of their students at once. We then get calls from the sites asking why our server is pinging their server 2,000 times(or whatever it is.)

[Baffalo]

Whenever you post a link it connects to that site regardless of whether or not some one clicks on it.

Eh? What sort of bizarre caching system tries to do that?

It is part of HTML encoding. The Java script has to check to make sure the link is valid before displaying it. Even if it turns out to be to an invalid site it still checks the link before creating it on the screen. That run a info request to the site and often as you see in a dressed link as you input it, the text and the memory needed to store the link are two different items and the text has to be stored separately. It might not be alot of memory for one or two links but it does add up.

In short posting a link on a website counts as a hit to the that server by our server. It might not list it to the user end but it still does the ping. We've had our mail server go down several times for this very reason when a professor sent an e-mail with 20 - 30 links attached to all of their students at once. We then get calls from the sites asking why our server is pinging their server 2,000 times(or whatever it is.)

Oh my. I'm going to go and make sure none of my posts have links in them (unless they're intended). Thanks for the heads up Isolder.

[Leonardo Fibonacci]

And dumping this one as well. [...] The other seems to want to antagonize and yet wants to eat cake as well.

That'd be an ad hominem. You don't address my arguments but my intention. But according to the spirit of your board rules, which are allowing the flaming of other people as long as there is still argumentative content in a post, it should be irrelevant if I'd merely want to antagonize anyone as long as I'm doing it with more or less sound arguments. Do not use my by you assumed rudeness (I'd say that the intention to antagonize someone - if that would be indeed my intention - could be considered rude) as an excuse to ignore my points.

I'll be honest, little fish. That was because you are in voiolation of rules and I decided to take action as is my duty as what I am authorized to do. Dress it up how you like, but if you want, there's a final forum for you as well.

And given your current attitude as well as lack of actually providing anything but your supposition? You'll be visiting it shortly.

Then please show me the rules I have violated and explain, how I have violated them. I couldn't find any.
Your explanation for your action was that it seems that I "want to antagonize and yet want to eat cake as well."
The first task would be to be sure that I indeed "want to antagonize and yet want to eat cake as well." You have only said that it seems as if I "want to antagonize and yet want to eat cake as well." Is the semblance of something already enough for you to intervene?
And if you can show that I really only "want to antagonize and yet want to eat cake as well" you should still show the rule which forbids that?

Furthermore show me, where I do not provide anything but my supposition. That would also require that you show that more than a supposition can be provided.

It is wrong to link to something every time you mention it. Whenever you post a link it connects to that site regardless of whether or not some one clicks on it. Thus it slows how fast the thread loads and eats up board memory. Using the concept that it is ok to insult is no excuse for blatantly eating up board memory. If we want to quote you and not further add to the problem we have to modify your post. If you want to link something only do it once, and only once. Do not link to it again in following posts either.

Also every link you add adds to the traffic of the site linked to slowing it down and eating up it's memory. So be respectful and stop wasting this board and other boards/site's resources.

You with your linking is playing into an appeal to authority fallacy so are violating board rules by constantly doing it.

Comprende?

BTW I have taken up to 2nd level calculus and I am an IT Professional.

Once again linking to the information multiple times does not add any validity to what you are saying, and it is wasteful. It may make your post look neat but that is at the most all it does.

I haven't known this. I will have to check if this is true or if you are making up shit. Because to me that explanation seems hard to believe. Why would the Java script have to check to make sure the link is valid before displaying it? It displays even invalid links. But until I have verified it I'll consider your explanation as true.

And even if it is true, how much board memory is eaten up by that? Is it even significant with all the links that are already on a site? Or are you simply using that reason to attack my style and not my points. Or is that an attempt to be a "back-seat moderator"?

Thank you very much, but I know Occam's Razor already. And if you would know it you would know that the reference to it is inappropriate. It only shows that you don't understand it. In science fiction where things are possible that would be impossible according to our modern scientific understanding, you can't say that an explanation that does violate physical laws is considered, according to Occam's Razor, as the less likely explanation.

Besides I have not said that subspace technology is "subspace magic-tech".

You're saying that because something occurs in science fiction, it must therefor be some sort of advanced machine or device capable of making the desired actions occur. That's tantamount to calling on the powers of the deux ex machina to save the day. Yes, some events, such as faster than light travel, transporters, and other equipment is far beyond our current understanding, but even then we still understand some of the basics of how the device in question might function.

Wong himself, along with numerous scientists, have said that for the transporter to work, it would need to create a copy of a person at the location, using locally available elements, to create a copy of the intended subject. To create a copy, you need to know each and every atom's location and vector. You can have one, and only one, because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Now I know that there is a device in Star Trek called the Heisenberg Compensator, but they only make a vague hint to it.

My point is that you can't just say something happens. You can't turn gravity off just with the snap of your fingers, because that would be magic (or Q, but the terms are interchangeable). Oh, and since you love links so much, here's one for you.

I'm saying that I apply our physical laws up to the point where it is not possible any more. Then I have to choose if I believe that what happens is magic or if I have to assume that there are other other physical laws in Star Trek (another universe). I prefer to choose the later. I'm satisfied to know that only because I'm not able to explain something does not mean that it is not explainable. For example, I don't really understand the fictional subspace physic. But that does not mean that I have to assume that there are no (fictional) physical laws that are describing the working of subspace. I may not know them (and that bad authors are constantly making up new ones does not makes it easier). But sometimes you see some subspace phenomena and if you assume that the phenomena are liable to certain (unknown) laws you can conclude that in a similar situation the same phenomena happens. (If not you have to assume that the situation was not similar enough whereas the known circumstances may not be deciding but some unknown or not reported circumstances.)

That's all I'm doing. I'm only saying that it is possible that the same phenomenon that has resulted in the soliton wave gaining energy from subspace could have resulted in the subspace shock wave gaining energy from subspace.

And that's only one possible explanation. There were several other reasonable explanations provided.

Wong himself, along with numerous scientists, have said that for the transporter to work, it would need to create a copy of a person at the location, using locally available elements, to create a copy of the intended subject. To create a copy, you need to know each and every atom's location and vector. You can have one, and only one, because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Now I know that there is a device in Star Trek called the Heisenberg Compensator, but they only make a vague hint to it.

Exactly: What they are describing is impossible because there is a fundamental physical law, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. And they have invented a machine that can somehow compensate that problem. Do you now assume that the Heisenberg Compensator works via magic or do you assume that it works according to certain physical laws that may not apply in our universe but in the Star Trek universe?

My point is that you can't just say something happens. You can't turn gravity off just with the snap of your fingers, because that would be magic (or Q, but the terms are interchangeable). Oh, and since you love links so much, here's one for you.

I don't just say that something happens. I refer only to a phenomenon that was already observed.

[Terralthra]

It is wrong to link to something every time you mention it. Whenever you post a link it connects to that site regardless of whether or not some one clicks on it. Thus it slows how fast the thread loads and eats up board memory. Using the concept that it is ok to insult is no excuse for blatantly eating up board memory. If we want to quote you and not further add to the problem we have to modify your post. If you want to link something only do it once, and only once. Do not link to it again in following posts either.

I just tested this by checking my colo's apache logs, and it is simply untrue. When I post a link here, no hit registers on my server from the stardestroyer.net server.

[Darth Hoth]

Thank you very much, but I know Occam's Razor already. And if you would know it you would know that the reference to it is inappropriate. It only shows that you don't understand it.

Occam's Razor is eminently applicable here. Which explanation introduces unnecessary new factors - that the phenomenon is consistent with conservation of energy or that it is not and requires an entirely new subset of technobabble "physics"?

In science fiction where things are possible that would be impossible according to our modern scientific understanding, you can't say that an explanation that does violate physical laws is considered, according to Occam's Razor, as the less likely explanation.

So let us get this straight, and please do tell me if I take this wrong, but to me this looks like if you are saying that just because it is sci-fi, all the laws of physics go completely down the drain and we can no longer use science to analyse or evaluate it? This is, put lightly, not a favoured position on this board. If one phenomenon appears to be beyond physics as we understand it, we are free to completely ignore things such as conservation of energy in all other cases as well? If so, what is the point in making any attempt at understanding anything? In order to analyse a sci-fi universe we need a frame of reference. Thus we assume that unless there is clear evidence otherwise, the laws of physics do apply to any given incident (and burden of proof is on the person claiming that a phenomenon violates said laws). The smaller the departure from the basic frame, the better.

Besides I have not said that subspace technology is "subspace magic-tech".

And you say this here because it contributes to your argument how?

[Formless]

I'm going to suggest you read this before you slip any farther down the slope. It may be advice intended for writers, but it is arguably even more important for analysis like this. It is the difference between consistency and madness.

I'm saying that I apply our physical laws up to the point where it is not possible any more. Then I have to choose if I believe that what happens is magic or if I have to assume that there are other other physical laws in Star Trek (another universe). I prefer to choose the later. I'm satisfied to know that only because I'm not able to explain something does not mean that it is not explainable. For example, I don't really understand the fictional subspace physic. But that does not mean that I have to assume that there are no (fictional) physical laws that are describing the working of subspace. I may not know them (and that bad authors are constantly making up new ones does not makes it easier). But sometimes you see some subspace phenomena and if you assume that the phenomena are liable to certain (unknown) laws you can conclude that in a similar situation the same phenomena happens. (If not you have to assume that the situation was not similar enough whereas the known circumstances may not be deciding but some unknown or not reported circumstances.)

That's all I'm doing. I'm only saying that it is possible that the same phenomenon that has resulted in the soliton wave gaining energy from subspace could have resulted in the subspace shock wave gaining energy from subspace.

And that's only one possible explanation. There were several other reasonable explanations provided.

The soliton wave you keep referencing has known characteristics, does it not? Your theory rests on the premise that the two phenomenon are comparable. Please show that this is the case, or please shut up.

[Leonardo Fibonacci]

Thank you very much, but I know Occam's Razor already. And if you would know it you would know that the reference to it is inappropriate. It only shows that you don't understand it.

Occam's Razor is eminently applicable here. Which explanation introduces unnecessary new factors - that the phenomenon is consistent with conservation of energy or that it is not and requires an entirely new subset of technobabble "physics"?

One explanations refers to magic. The other explanation refers to a phenomenon that was established already in Star Trek.
The first is not even an explanation and introduces an unquantifiable factor. The second introduces nothing and assumes only that an already shown phenomenon adheres to us unknown physical laws.
Which explanation introduces unnecessary new factors?

In science fiction where things are possible that would be impossible according to our modern scientific understanding, you can't say that an explanation that does violate physical laws is considered, according to Occam's Razor, as the less likely explanation.

So let us get this straight, and please do tell me if I take this wrong, but to me this looks like if you are saying that just because it is sci-fi, all the laws of physics go completely down the drain and we can no longer use science to analyse or evaluate it?

Yes, you take it wrong. That's the total opposite of what I have said.

This is, put lightly, not a favoured position on this board. If one phenomenon appears to be beyond physics as we understand it, we are free to completely ignore things such as conservation of energy in all other cases as well? If so, what is the point in making any attempt at understanding anything?

I have never said that you are free to ignore physical laws. But if there is a phenomenon that does violates our understanding of physic, you are also not free to claim it's magic. The logical conclusion would be to assume that that phenomenon adheres to physical laws that are different to the us known physical laws and that it would happen according to that physical laws. That means that in the same or similar situations the same phenomenon will happen.

In order to analyse a sci-fi universe we need a frame of reference. Thus we assume that unless there is clear evidence otherwise, the laws of physics do apply to any given incident (and burden of proof is on the person claiming that a phenomenon violates said laws). The smaller the departure from the basic frame, the better.

That's absolutely correct. But there is clear evidence that in the fictional subspace physic some modern physical laws don't always apply. If you have observed that in one situation, you have to assume that it happens in a same or similar situation again. Otherwise you would claim that a observed phenomenon has no cause and happens arbitrarily.

Besides I have not said that subspace technology is "subspace magic-tech".

And you say this here because it contributes to your argument how?

Because that is Darth Wong's argument and he claims that his explanation is the only reasonable explanation. My argument is that is explanation is not the only reasonable explanation (and going further that an explanation that refers to magic is no reasonable explanation at all.)

Have you read that thread at all? Maybe you should start reading it here.

I'm going to suggest you read this before you slip any farther down the slope. It may be advice intended for writers, but it is arguably even more important for analysis like this. It is the difference between consistency and madness.

I'm not throwing out all physical laws. Please show me where I have said such a thing.
Quite the contrary. I'm saying that a certain phenomenon adheres to physical laws and accordingly happens in same or similar situations.
It would be worse if one would say that an observed phenomenon happens arbitrarily and no physical laws are applying at all.

I'm saying that I apply our physical laws up to the point where it is not possible any more. Then I have to choose if I believe that what happens is magic or if I have to assume that there are other other physical laws in Star Trek (another universe). I prefer to choose the later. I'm satisfied to know that only because I'm not able to explain something does not mean that it is not explainable. For example, I don't really understand the fictional subspace physic. But that does not mean that I have to assume that there are no (fictional) physical laws that are describing the working of subspace. I may not know them (and that bad authors are constantly making up new ones does not makes it easier). But sometimes you see some subspace phenomena and if you assume that the phenomena are liable to certain (unknown) laws you can conclude that in a similar situation the same phenomena happens. (If not you have to assume that the situation was not similar enough whereas the known circumstances may not be deciding but some unknown or not reported circumstances.)

That's all I'm doing. I'm only saying that it is possible that the same phenomenon that has resulted in the soliton wave gaining energy from subspace could have resulted in the subspace shock wave gaining energy from subspace.

And that's only one possible explanation. There were several other reasonable explanations provided.

The soliton wave you keep referencing has known characteristics, does it not? Your theory rests on the premise that the two phenomenon are comparable. Please show that this is the case, or please shut up.

Not really. There weren't reported much characteristics of the soliton wave or the subspace shock wave. Insofar we have not much to compare both. What we know is that both are called waves, seem to behaves more or less similar to waves, are travelling faster than light what no natural occurring phenomenon could and affect matter in realspace (the ozone of Qo'noS, the Excelsior and Lemma II).

And as I have shown with my example, it is not necessary for them to be identical to be affected by the same subspace related phenomenon.

[Formless]

I'm not throwing out all physical laws. Please show me where I have said such a thing.

Never said you threw them all out. But you don't have to to make the mistake discribed in the link. But very well, here's at least one:

Your explanation has to consider the "scientifical" framework of Star Trek. You are describing Star Trek subspace science as magic-tech. Then you have to consider it as such. You have to take into account what is established. And with the soliton wave you have a phenomenon, where a subspace wave is gaining energy while travelling in subspace. Yes, from the perspective of modern science, that's stupid because energy does not come from nowhere but is only changed from one form into another. But subspace, as described in Star Trek, does not work that way. Is gives energy from nowhere (or out of subspace whatever that is). And the soliton wave is not the only example, where the law of conservation of energy is violated or at least seems to be violated via subspace magic-tech.

So does it violate CoE, or does it not violate CoE? You can't have it both ways. And as Morilore pointed out, if it does violate CoE, how come it doesn't wipe out the known universe everywhere but at ground zero?

And of course there is the inverse square law (as Wong pointed out one page back), but I'm willing to bet you violated that one out of ignorance, if your posts are anything to go by.

The more theories you disregard, the more Occams Razor applies.

Not really. There weren't reported much characteristics of the soliton wave or the subspace shock wave. Insofar we have not much to compare both. What we know is that both are called waves, seem to behaves more or less similar to waves, are travelling faster than light what no natural occurring phenomenon could and affect matter in realspace (the ozone of Qo'noS, the Excelsior and Lemma II).

"Reported"? You make me laugh. Both of these phenomenon were given visuals (although I haven't seen the Next gen episode where the soliton thing comes from, I checked Memory alpha, and sure enough there was a screenshot). What do the visuals tell you?

And as I have shown with my example, it is not necessary for them to be identical to be affected by the same subspace related phenomenon.

Who said that they had to be identical? I only suggest that the similarities may only be skin deep. What evidence tells us that the Praxis shockwave was gathering energy the same way the soliton wave was (assuming that it was, BTW)?

[Leonardo Fibonacci]

I'm not throwing out all physical laws. Please show me where I have said such a thing.

Never said you threw them all out. But you don't have to to make the mistake discribed in the link. But very well, here's at least one:

Your explanation has to consider the "scientifical" framework of Star Trek. You are describing Star Trek subspace science as magic-tech. Then you have to consider it as such. You have to take into account what is established. And with the soliton wave you have a phenomenon, where a subspace wave is gaining energy while travelling in subspace. Yes, from the perspective of modern science, that's stupid because energy does not come from nowhere but is only changed from one form into another. But subspace, as described in Star Trek, does not work that way. Is gives energy from nowhere (or out of subspace whatever that is). And the soliton wave is not the only example, where the law of conservation of energy is violated or at least seems to be violated via subspace magic-tech.

So does it violate CoE, or does it not violate CoE?

The same question was already asked and answered. Read that thread. I'm not answering it again.

You can't have it both ways. And as Morilore pointed out, if it does violate CoE, how come it doesn't wipe out the known universe everywhere but at ground zero?

As you have said yourself that question was already asked and it was already answered. I'm not answering it again.

And of course there is the inverse square law (as Wong pointed out one page back), but I'm willing to bet you violated that one out of ignorance, if your posts are anything to go by.

That point was also already addressed.

The more theories you disregard, the more Occams Razor applies.

Show me which theory I'm disregarding.
I argue only in the framework of Star Trek and disregard only these theories which are disregarded by Star Trek and only in a same or similar situation as was shown in Star Trek.

Not really. There weren't reported much characteristics of the soliton wave or the subspace shock wave. Insofar we have not much to compare both. What we know is that both are called waves, seem to behaves more or less similar to waves, are travelling faster than light what no natural occurring phenomenon could and affect matter in realspace (the ozone of Qo'noS, the Excelsior and Lemma II).

"Reported"? You make me laugh. Both of these phenomenon were given visuals (although I haven't seen the Next gen episode where the soliton thing comes from, I checked Memory alpha, and sure enough there was a screenshot). What do the visuals tell you?

Oh, I haven't known that you can conclude from the visuals to their physical properties - especially if you should see nothing from a wave that is travelling faster than light? You have to teach me that ability.
And the visuals do not contradict what I have said: Both are called waves, seem to behaves more or less similar to waves, are travelling faster than light what no natural occurring phenomenon could and affect matter in realspace (the ozone of Qo'noS, the Excelsior and Lemma II). What's your point?
That there can be still many differences. Agreed. I have never said that they are identical.

And as I have shown with my example, it is not necessary for them to be identical to be affected by the same subspace related phenomenon.

Who said that they had to be identical? I only suggest that the similarities may only be skin deep. What evidence tells us that the Praxis shockwave was gathering energy the same way the soliton wave was (assuming that it was, BTW)?

If you have observed that at one occasion a wave without its own warp drive can reach faster than light speeds, what should be impossible according to modern understanding of physic, and the wave is gaining energy from subspace, it is not implausible that this is a subspace related phenomenon (a phenomenon that is not explainable with our physical laws) and would also happen to each or most other waves that are travelling with faster than light speeds (unless there is no transient power imbalance or similar circumstances).

To come back to my already provided example: Regardless what you are throwing in a river it will be affected by the current. The one more than the other and the one will swim longer than the other before it goes down. But the fact remains that each is affected and that you don't need to test it before you know that something you have never thrown in before will also be affected.

I could ask why you are expecting that it does not gains energy while travelling in subspace if we already have observed that this is a phenomenon that can indeed happen.

[Darth Hoth]

One explanations refers to magic. The other explanation refers to a phenomenon that was established already in Star Trek.
The first is not even an explanation and introduces an unquantifiable factor. The second introduces nothing and assumes only that an already shown phenomenon adheres to us unknown physical laws.
Which explanation introduces unnecessary new factors?

Do not strawman Wong's position, please; the question here is whether the whatever-wave violates basic physics by not adhering to conservation of energy or not, not what one calls subspace tech. Wong pointed out the inherent ridiculosity of the idea that it would somehow gain energy rather than lose it as it expanded; I note that you have failed to address his entire argument, instead latching on to his use of the word "magic".

Thus, I repeat the basic question: Which one introduces unnecessary factors, that the wave violates conservation of energy or that the ship would be more vulnerable to it than a planetoid, due to using subspace for its technology?

I have never said that you are free to ignore physical laws. But if there is a phenomenon that does violates our understanding of physic, you are also not free to claim it's magic. The logical conclusion would be to assume that that phenomenon adheres to physical laws that are different to the us known physical laws and that it would happen according to that physical laws. That means that in the same or similar situations the same phenomenon will happen.

This paragraph makes sense, but not your use of it.

First, Darth Wong never claimed that it was "magic" as in "no rules, no limits", he used the word "magic-tech" to denote something that would not work in real life - while addressing the actual problem.

Second, we should still assume that a phenomenon does not violate the laws of physics if there are alternative explanations to its apparently strange behaviour. Basic Occam's Rzor speaking again. This goes even where there is an obvious breach in physics as we know them: then we use the explanation that is the least at odds with physics. You also have to examine the logical conclusions of your arguments, as others have pointed out here.

Third, if you assume that those instances are comparable, you need to present your evidence that they are; saying "Both are subspace!" and carrying on will not suffice.

That's absolutely correct. But there is clear evidence that in the fictional subspace physic some modern physical laws don't always apply. If you have observed that in one situation, you have to assume that it happens in a same or similar situation again. Otherwise you would claim that a observed phenomenon has no cause and happens arbitrarily.

A theory should preferably explain all occurences of a given phenomenon, and the consistency or lack thereof in their behaviour; this is true. However, here we are dealing with two discrete phenomena that are not necessarily related.

Because that is Darth Wong's argument and he claims that his explanation is the only reasonable explanation. My argument is that is explanation is not the only reasonable explanation (and going further that an explanation that refers to magic is no reasonable explanation at all.)

Have you read that thread at all? Maybe you should start reading it here.

Go and read what Wong actually said, because you are gravely misrepresenting his position here.

[Wyrm]

That's all I'm doing. I'm only saying that it is possible that the same phenomenon that has resulted in the soliton wave gaining energy from subspace could have resulted in the subspace shock wave gaining energy from subspace.

And that's only one possible explanation. There were several other reasonable explanations provided.

So why isn't the universe awash in universe-busting subspace shock waves, then? No matter what you propose, you have to explain that fact. It's the Fermi paradox taken to an absurdly destructive level.

Apparently, "reasonable explanation" has a quite different meaning than that actually used in science. If an explanation produces predictions that are absolutely not in line with the observations —like predicting universe-busting waves everywhere that are not seen— it is not a reasonable explanation. Period.

To create a copy, you need to know each and every atom's location and vector. You can have one, and only one, because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Now I know that there is a device in Star Trek called the Heisenberg Compensator, but they only make a vague hint to it.

Exactly: What they are describing is impossible because there is a fundamental physical law, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. And they have invented a machine that can somehow compensate that problem. Do you now assume that the Heisenberg Compensator works via magic or do you assume that it works according to certain physical laws that may not apply in our universe but in the Star Trek universe?

Why do you assume the "Heisenberg Compensator" violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, instead of simply cleverly sidestepping it, such as using entanglement?

I could ask why you are expecting that it does not gains energy while travelling in subspace if we already have observed that this is a phenomenon that can indeed happen.

You have done no such thing. While the Ja'dar does refer to the destructive potential of the soliton wave as an "energy level", with no source of energy apparent, we do note one thing: the universe is not awash in universe-busting soliton waves either.

You are claming that, over the course of an episode —a few days at most— the soliton wave gained about 200 times its initial energy. It takes about 70 years to cross a galaxy at warp, so it takes 1000 years to get to another one at warp. That's over 36000 200-fold increases in energy level. Raising 200 to the 36000th power yields... one ridonkulously huge bignum, on the order of about 1e82837. Even if the soliton wave was originally one joule, this is universe-busting. One escaped soliton wave by a careless civilization, and it's bye-bye baby!

Now, your claim that the soliton wave gained energy is based only on the visual observation that the wave increased in size and intensity.

Think about that. The soliton wave was visible. Subspace fields are normally invisible. You don't see any funky distortion about the Enterprise, even when it's catching up to the soliton. That means what we see is probably not the whole picture.

I imagine that the soliton wave is actually extends over several hundred thousand cubic kilometers, of an intensity weak enough that it doesn't interfere with warp drives, except in the very center where it gains appreciable strength. This jives with Ja'dar's schematic, where the actual waves denoted were on the order of the planet itself. When the test ship went kablooie, the soliton wave tightened up, concentrating the energy from spread out and relatively harmless to concentrated and very dangerous.

Again, explain the very conspicuous lack of universe-destroying subspace shock waves and soliton waves bathing the Star Trek universe in mayhem and destruction. Otherwise, you have no case.

[Formless]

The same question was already asked and answered. Read that thread. I'm not answering it again.

You answered:

That was also done already. The soliton wave violates the law of conservation of energy if it is gaining energy while travelling through subspace. That's why we have to assume that our modern science does not apply but a form of fictional subspace physic.

Emphasis added. Don't tell me that you aren't disregarding theories unnecessarily, dimwit. I have read the thread, I'm not interested in getting bullshitted at.

As you have said yourself that question was already asked and it was already answered. I'm not answering it again.

Your reply?

The soliton wave from the TNG episode New ground is not the same phenomenon as the subspace shock wave from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The soliton wave has not even come near Qo'noS.
And I don't know what would have happened with the soliton wave if it wouldn't have been stopped by the Enterprise crew. Maybe it would have gained more and more energy until it would have been too fast to further interact with something.
Maybe, if we assume for a moment that the subspace shock wave from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country has also gained energy while travelling in subspace, that has happened to it: It has become too fast to still interact with something.
Or maybe it gains somehow energy from subspace but there is a drawback that limits its range and results in its dissolving.

Blah blah blah. What a pitiful excuse for an explanation. Even if you assume it had a limit on its destructive range, stuff inside that range is still going to experience more damage the farther away it is from the initial blast. Yet the film makes it clear that the worst of it was at ground zero.

Besides, there are other consequences to assuming that subspace is some kind of perpetual motion machine. For example, why hasn't anyone exploited it yet? Why does everyone still rely on antimatter when they could gather infinite energy from subspace? Why has no one yet decided to turn the phenomenon into a superweapon? The sheer number of assumptions you have to make to make this theory work is staggering.

That point was also already addressed.

You answered:

If you think that I don't understand the inverse square law, why don't you explain it to me? Explain to me why it is wrong if I think that it is in both alternative explanations not applicable because the subspace shock wave would have been weaker at Qo'noS than at the Excelsior. In the first possible explanation because the subspace shock wave would have gained its energy while travelling to the Excelsior and would have been still relative weak at Qo'noS and in the second possible explanation it could have been already weak because Qo'noS was further away from Praxis than the Excelsior.

Emphasis added

Which means-- that's right!-- you threw it out the window. Don't you get it yet? I gave you that link for a reason, jacknut. Two theories, both dismissed to make your theory work. You can't just rape thermodynamics at will and then claim your theory is the more parsimonious one, even with this bullshit about subspace physics.

Show me which theory I'm disregarding.
I argue only in the framework of Star Trek and disregard only these theories which are disregarded by Star Trek and only in a same or similar situation as was shown in Star Trek.

Done, and done. Now, tell us what this framework is. And remember, just because you think Star Trek disregards these theories, doesn't mean it actually does in practice. It has already been shown what kind of mayhem we aren't seeing that we should see if they were.

Oh, I haven't known that you can conclude from the visuals to their physical properties - especially if you should see nothing from a wave that is travelling faster than light? You have to teach me that ability.

Except that we do see the wave, idiot. That alone tells us that it is interacting with the known universe in some way. It tells us that even if your theory that it will eventually gain enough speed to pass through matter without interacting with it is bullshit because it is still radiating light into normal space, and should increase in intensity and luminosity thus doing damage to shit in the known universe. See? This kind of reasoning isn't as hard as you make it out to be.

And the visuals do not contradict what I have said: Both are called waves, seem to behaves more or less similar to waves, are travelling faster than light what no natural occurring phenomenon could and affect matter in realspace (the ozone of Qo'noS, the Excelsior and Lemma II). What's your point?
That there can be still many differences. Agreed. I have never said that they are identical.

Guess what? The name still means jack shit. In real life we have tons of wave phenomena, and they all have different characteristics based on the medium they travel in. Waves in water and waves of light behave differently in the way they interact with matter, and both still qualify as waves with all that implies. Similarly, the Praxis wave could be made up of bullshit subspace particle number one, and the soliton wave could be made of bullshit subspace particle number two (lord knows Star Trek has enough of them to go around). My point is that nothing indicates that they are the same phenomenon, and there is evidence that they logically aren't.

If you have observed that at one occasion a wave without its own warp drive can reach faster than light speeds, what should be impossible according to modern understanding of physic, and the wave is gaining energy from subspace, it is not implausible that this is a subspace related phenomenon (a phenomenon that is not explainable with our physical laws) and would also happen to each or most other waves that are travelling with faster than light speeds (unless there is no transient power imbalance or similar circumstances).

To come back to my already provided example: Regardless what you are throwing in a river it will be affected by the current. The one more than the other and the one will swim longer than the other before it goes down. But the fact remains that each is affected and that you don't need to test it before you know that something you have never thrown in before will also be affected.

The Praxis wave doesn't have to be picking up speed to be traveling FTL, idiot. You're own logic (that they are both subspace related phenominon) tells us that much, but nothing indicates that the Praxis wave was either picking up speed or energy, and basic logic tells us that shouldn't be possible.

I could ask why you are expecting that it does not gains energy while travelling in subspace if we already have observed that this is a phenomenon that can indeed happen.

Lack of evidence. The aforementioned problems with raping CoE. A skeptic person you are not.

[Leonardo Fibonacci]

That's all I'm doing. I'm only saying that it is possible that the same phenomenon that has resulted in the soliton wave gaining energy from subspace could have resulted in the subspace shock wave gaining energy from subspace.

And that's only one possible explanation. There were several other reasonable explanations provided.

So why isn't the universe awash in universe-busting subspace shock waves, then? No matter what you propose, you have to explain that fact. It's the Fermi paradox taken to an absurdly destructive level.

Apparently, "reasonable explanation" has a quite different meaning than that actually used in science. If an explanation produces predictions that are absolutely not in line with the observations —like predicting universe-busting waves everywhere that are not seen— it is not a reasonable explanation. Period.

Possible explanations were already provided:

• • • For example it does not matter if I throw a stick or a board into a river: Both will be affected by the current. The one maybe more than the other. And the one will maybe swim longer than the other before it is goes down. (That's not an example to nitpick. It's only to illustrate that different things can be affected by the same phenomenon. I don't want to say with that example that subspace is like a river. But if a wave gains energy from it, it could be irrelevant what kind of wave it is. And the wave could maybe entirely vanish into subspace sooner or later thus explaining why not other damages were reported.)

      If it is only a two-dimensional wave, it would explain why there were no other reported effects.

There is no need for "universe-busting waves everywhere".

To create a copy, you need to know each and every atom's location and vector. You can have one, and only one, because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Now I know that there is a device in Star Trek called the Heisenberg Compensator, but they only make a vague hint to it.

Exactly: What they are describing is impossible because there is a fundamental physical law, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. And they have invented a machine that can somehow compensate that problem. Do you now assume that the Heisenberg Compensator works via magic or do you assume that it works according to certain physical laws that may not apply in our universe but in the Star Trek universe?

Why do you assume the "Heisenberg Compensator" violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, instead of simply cleverly sidestepping it, such as using entanglement?

Considering that it is never really explained how the transporter or the Heisenberg Compensator works many things are possible. If quantum entanglement would work - what you would have to prove - it would be indeed a better explanation. But as far as I know the idea behind the Heisenberg Compensator is that there is no explanation how it works. It was created because there was no known way to "simply cleverly sidestepping" the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But if I'm not mistaken quantum entanglement is accepted as possible since 1964 and that means that there would have been no need to invent the Heisenberg Compensator. But that's only out-of-universe considerations.

I could ask why you are expecting that it does not gains energy while travelling in subspace if we already have observed that this is a phenomenon that can indeed happen.

You have done no such thing. While the Ja'dar does refer to the destructive potential of the soliton wave as an "energy level", with no source of energy apparent, we do note one thing: the universe is not awash in universe-busting soliton waves either.

What have I not done? Observed that this is a phenomenon that can indeed happen? Because it was shown in the TNG episode "New Ground".
And there is no need to conclude that if the observed phenomenon has really happened that the universe should be "awash in universe-busting soliton waves".[/quote]

You are claming that, over the course of an episode —a few days at most— the soliton wave gained about 200 times its initial energy.

No. I'm not claiming it. I'm only referring to the episode.

It takes about 70 years to cross a galaxy at warp [...]

NO. The Voyager needed 70 years to cross the milky way with their warp drive. And they have almost never gone to their maximum warp factor of 9.975. Most of the time the Voyager was at warp speed far below warp 9.

, so it takes 1000 years to get to another one at warp.

NO. Why do you assume that Voyagers maximum warp capability is the maximum possible warp speed at all? The soliton wave has accelerated all the time. [...]

That's over 36000 200-fold increases in energy level. Raising 200 to the 36000th power yields... one ridonkulously huge bignum, on the order of about 1e82837.

Your premise is wrong.

Even if the soliton wave was originally one joule, this is universe-busting. One escaped soliton wave by a careless civilization, and it's bye-bye baby!

I have already provided possible explanations why there is no need to assume that.

Now, your claim that the soliton wave gained energy is based only on the visual observation that the wave increased in size and intensity.

NO. My "claim" is not based on the visual observations at all.

Think about that. The soliton wave was visible. Subspace fields are normally invisible. You don't see any funky distortion about the Enterprise, even when it's catching up to the soliton. That means what we see is probably not the whole picture.

That's what I have already said to Formless.

I imagine that the soliton wave is actually extends over several hundred thousand cubic kilometers, of an intensity weak enough that it doesn't interfere with warp drives, except in the very center where it gains appreciable strength. This jives with Ja'dar's schematic, where the actual waves denoted were on the order of the planet itself. When the test ship went kablooie, the soliton wave tightened up, concentrating the energy from spread out and relatively harmless to concentrated and very dangerous.

That's not supported by the episode.
It was planned to use soliton waves as a possible transportation method in the future. Imagine millions of planets using continuously soliton waves to send ships between them and each time such wave would only be partly dissipated at its center.

Again, explain the very conspicuous lack of universe-destroying subspace shock waves and soliton waves bathing the Star Trek universe in mayhem and destruction. Otherwise, you have no case.

Explain why there should be universe-destroying subspace shock waves and soliton waves bathing the Star Trek universe in mayhem and destruction. That are not natural occurring phenomena. And there are possible explanations why they could vanish. Furthermore it is extremely unlikely that a two dimensional wave like the subspace shock wave or a not in size increasing soliton wave would hit anything at all. Space is a big place and both phenomena could travel through it without coming near to anything. Even if they do not vanish in subspace or gains velocities where an interaction with anything in realspace is impossible at all, they would simply vanish in depths of space.

[Leonardo Fibonacci]

The same question was already asked and answered. Read that thread. I'm not answering it again.

You answered:

That was also done already. The soliton wave violates the law of conservation of energy if it is gaining energy while travelling through subspace. That's why we have to assume that our modern science does not apply but a form of fictional subspace physic.

Emphasis added. Don't tell me that you aren't disregarding theories unnecessarily, dimwit. I have read the thread, I'm not interested in getting bullshitted at.

It seems you have not read the thread because that is not the answer I have given to the same question you have asked. That question was "So does it violate CoE, or does it not violate CoE?"

As you have said yourself that question was already asked and it was already answered. I'm not answering it again.

Your reply?

Read the thread. Your question was: "[...] if it does violate CoE, how come it doesn't wipe out the known universe everywhere but at ground zero?"

The soliton wave from the TNG episode New ground is not the same phenomenon as the subspace shock wave from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The soliton wave has not even come near Qo'noS.
And I don't know what would have happened with the soliton wave if it wouldn't have been stopped by the Enterprise crew. Maybe it would have gained more and more energy until it would have been too fast to further interact with something.
Maybe, if we assume for a moment that the subspace shock wave from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country has also gained energy while travelling in subspace, that has happened to it: It has become too fast to still interact with something.
Or maybe it gains somehow energy from subspace but there is a drawback that limits its range and results in its dissolving.

Blah blah blah. What a pitiful excuse for an explanation. Even if you assume it had a limit on its destructive range, stuff inside that range is still going to experience more damage the farther away it is from the initial blast. Yet the film makes it clear that the worst of it was at ground zero.

Read the thread.

Besides, there are other consequences to assuming that subspace is some kind of perpetual motion machine. For example, why hasn't anyone exploited it yet? Why does everyone still rely on antimatter when they could gather infinite energy from subspace?

Maybe because it is difficult to control.

Why has no one yet decided to turn the phenomenon into a superweapon? The sheer number of assumptions you have to make to make this theory work is staggering.

Subspace weapons were banned under the second Khitomer Accords due to their unpredictable nature.

That point was also already addressed.

You answered:

If you think that I don't understand the inverse square law, why don't you explain it to me? Explain to me why it is wrong if I think that it is in both alternative explanations not applicable because the subspace shock wave would have been weaker at Qo'noS than at the Excelsior. In the first possible explanation because the subspace shock wave would have gained its energy while travelling to the Excelsior and would have been still relative weak at Qo'noS and in the second possible explanation it could have been already weak because Qo'noS was further away from Praxis than the Excelsior.

Emphasis added

Which means-- that's right!-- you threw it out the window. Don't you get it yet? I gave you that link for a reason, jacknut. Two theories, both dismissed to make your theory work. You can't just rape thermodynamics at will and then claim your theory is the more parsimonious one, even with this bullshit about subspace physics.

Read that thread. What are my both alternative explanations?

Show me which theory I'm disregarding.
I argue only in the framework of Star Trek and disregard only these theories which are disregarded by Star Trek and only in a same or similar situation as was shown in Star Trek.

Done, and done. Now, tell us what this framework is. And remember, just because you think Star Trek disregards these theories, doesn't mean it actually does in practice. It has already been shown what kind of mayhem we aren't seeing that we should see if they were.

You have done nothing. Read the thread. There is no reason to expect mayhem .

Oh, I haven't known that you can conclude from the visuals to their physical properties - especially if you should see nothing from a wave that is travelling faster than light? You have to teach me that ability.

Except that we do see the wave, idiot.

Yes that was not challenged.

That alone tells us that it is interacting with the known universe in some way.

That was also not challenged. How else could it destroy Lemma II?

It tells us that even if your theory that it will eventually gain enough speed to pass through matter without interacting with it is bullshit because it is still radiating light into normal space, and should increase in intensity and luminosity thus doing damage to shit in the known universe.

No. It tells us only that is is still not fast enough. It is still accelerating as was said by me. It should be obviously that the wave could only "vanish" one way or another after it would have arrived at Lemma II.

See? This kind of reasoning isn't as hard as you make it out to be.

Yes, it is simple if you simply ignore what was already said, to attack what you do not understand and to not give an own valid explanation.

And the visuals do not contradict what I have said: Both are called waves, seem to behaves more or less similar to waves, are travelling faster than light what no natural occurring phenomenon could and affect matter in realspace (the ozone of Qo'noS, the Excelsior and Lemma II). What's your point?
That there can be still many differences. Agreed. I have never said that they are identical.

Guess what? The name still means jack shit. In real life we have tons of wave phenomena, and they all have different characteristics based on the medium they travel in. Waves in water and waves of light behave differently in the way they interact with matter, and both still qualify as waves with all that implies. Similarly, the Praxis wave could be made up of bullshit subspace particle number one, and the soliton wave could be made of bullshit subspace particle number two (lord knows Star Trek has enough of them to go around). My point is that nothing indicates that they are the same phenomenon, and there is evidence that they logically aren't.

Agreed - although your example with water waves and light waves is stupid.
But the fact remains that both waves are travelling in the same medium: subspace. That's the unifying and deciding factor. Because nothing without a warp drive or other faster than light speed drive could reach faster than light speeds. These waves can because they are interacting with subspace. That's what I have tried to explain with my example. It does not matter what you are throwing in a river. The current will affect it.

If you have observed that at one occasion a wave without its own warp drive can reach faster than light speeds, what should be impossible according to modern understanding of physic, and the wave is gaining energy from subspace, it is not implausible that this is a subspace related phenomenon (a phenomenon that is not explainable with our physical laws) and would also happen to each or most other waves that are travelling with faster than light speeds (unless there is no transient power imbalance or similar circumstances).

To come back to my already provided example: Regardless what you are throwing in a river it will be affected by the current. The one more than the other and the one will swim longer than the other before it goes down. But the fact remains that each is affected and that you don't need to test it before you know that something you have never thrown in before will also be affected.

The Praxis wave doesn't have to be picking up speed to be traveling FTL, idiot. You're own logic (that they are both subspace related phenominon) tells us that much, but nothing indicates that the Praxis wave was either picking up speed or energy, and basic logic tells us that shouldn't be possible.

Wrong. Back to the start: If we assume that the Excelsior was further away from Praxis than Qo'noS - an assumption made by Darth Wong that finds not one single evidence in Star Trek canon - and that the wave has affected the Excelsior more than Qo'noS - again an assumption made by Darth Wong that finds not one single evidence in Star Trek canon - there are (at least) two possible explanations:

1. The Excelsior is more prone to be affected by the subspace shock wave than Qo'noS - that's Darth Wongs explanation for which he has nothing to support it - or
2. that the subspace shock wave was affected by the same subspace phenomenon that was already observed and were stronger at the Excelsior than at Qo'noS.

I could ask why you are expecting that it does not gains energy while travelling in subspace if we already have observed that this is a phenomenon that can indeed happen.

Lack of evidence. The aforementioned problems with raping CoE. A skeptic person you are not.

The aforementioned problems with raping CoE are to be accepted due to the suspension of disbelief formula because it has happened in the TNG episode "New Ground".

[Havok]

Wrong. Back to the start: If we assume that the Excelsior was further away from Praxis than Qo'noS - an assumption made by Darth Wong that finds not one single evidence in Star Trek canon -

Wait wait wait. Are you insinuating that Excelsior was closer to Praxis than Qo'nos was?!

Holy fuck, you are stupid.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Klingon_system

The Klingon system was the primary star system of the Klingon Empire and the location of the planet Qo'noS and the moon Praxis. (TNG: "Sins of the Father"; Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/USS_Excelsior

In 2293, as the Excelsior was returning to Federation space following the successful conclusion of its mission, it was struck by a powerful subspace shock wave caused by the destruction of the Klingon moon, Praxis. Upon discovering the cause of the disaster, Sulu immediately contacted the Klingon High Command to offer his ship's assistance. The Klingons, however, turned the offer down, requesting that Sulu obey treaty stipulations and remain outside the Neutral Zone. Thereafter, Sulu reported the incident to Starfleet Command. (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)

Bolded, italicized and resized for emphasis.

Maybe you should actually watch the movies you want to argue about. Retard.

[Formless]

It seems you have not read the thread because that is not the answer I have given to the same question you have asked. That question was "So does it violate CoE, or does it not violate CoE?"

And that quote clearly indicates your answer, you dishonest waste of flesh! Now you are trying my patience. Do you deny what you wrote? DO YOU? You are over the top in every sense of the word. You said it violates CoE. That is MORONIC.

Read the thread. Your question was: "[...] if it does violate CoE, how come it doesn't wipe out the known universe everywhere but at ground zero?"

I DID READ THE THREAD, I WAS QUOTING WHAT YOUR ANSWER WAS, DUMBFUCK. Can't you read?

Read the thread.

Good fucking grief. You just completely missed the point. I DID read the thread, and that was what you had to say, you illiterate thumbsucker!

Maybe because it is difficult to control.

Possibly, but you would think we would have heard of someone trying it and failing.

Subspace weapons were banned under the second Khitomer Accords due to their unpredictable nature.

And as of ST: Insurrection, we know the bad guys don't exactly give a shit. We're talking about a weapon of astronomical destruction here, the kind that renders planets uninhabitable from light years away. You don't think someone somewhere has ever thought about using this to take over the Star Trek universe? Really?

Read that thread. What are my both alternative explanations?

1) A stupid idea based on a stupid interpretation of a stupid episode of TNG that completely disregards CoE.

2) An idea that only works if either the moon Praxis was farther away from Qo'noS than the Excelsior, or else violates the inverse square law. And the former is obviously non-canon (thank you Hav.).

You have done nothing. Read the thread. There is no reason to expect mayhem .

According to your theory we should. Again, I have read the thread, pretty parrot. I think I have proven that enough by now.

Yes that was not challenged.

That was also not challenged. How else could it destroy Lemma II?

Good, you're learning already.

No. It tells us only that is is still not fast enough. It is still accelerating as was said by me. It should be obviously that the wave could only "vanish" one way or another after it would have arrived at Lemma II.

... aaaaannnnnnnd you just lost your streak. It doesn't matter if it accelerates, as long as it is pumping energy into the known universe as light, its going to continue to fuck shit up no matter what speed its going at! How much simpler do I have to make this for you? What, do you think its going to just stop radiating once it reaches a magic speed? How many undefined variables were you planning to include into this theory?

Yes, it is simple if you simply ignore what was already said, to attack what you do not understand and to not give an own valid explanation.

Maybe I'm not providing my own explanations because the burden of proof is on you, not me? You parrot this "you have not read the thread" bullshit when your own words are right there in front of you. You have not deviated from them since post number one. My theory is Wong's theory, the one most favored by parsimony.

Agreed - although your example with water waves and light waves is stupid.
But the fact remains that both waves are travelling in the same medium: subspace. That's the unifying and deciding factor. Because nothing without a warp drive or other faster than light speed drive could reach faster than light speeds. These waves can because they are interacting with subspace. That's what I have tried to explain with my example. It does not matter what you are throwing in a river. The current will affect it.

So subspace is its own particle now? I guess this means the waves are traveling through subspace, are made of subspace, and pick up energy from subspace as they travel? Are you high one of Star Treks writers or something? Because that was the most surreal thing I have ever heard.

By medium, I don't mean what you think I mean. And I admit, I may have the wrong word (someone help me here if I do). But the idea I am trying to get across is that waves are made of particles whose cumulative motion is wave like. They interact with matter differently depending on what type of particle they are. A wave of protons will not have the same effect on matter that it comes across than a wave of electrons. In a similar fashion, subspace particle A may not interact with subspace the same way subspace particle B does, and may not have this bizarre CoE raping effect you seem to think subspace particle B has. Does that make sense yet?

Wrong. Back to the start: If we assume that the Excelsior was further away from Praxis than Qo'noS - an assumption made by Darth Wong that finds not one single evidence in Star Trek canon - and that the wave has affected the Excelsior more than Qo'noS - again an assumption made by Darth Wong that finds not one single evidence in Star Trek canon - there are (at least) two possible explanations:

1. The Excelsior is more prone to be affected by the subspace shock wave than Qo'noS - that's Darth Wongs explanation for which he has nothing to support it - or
2. that the subspace shock wave was affected by the same subspace phenomenon that was already observed and were stronger at the Excelsior than at Qo'noS.

See, this is the importance of watching the film you are analyzing. Qo'noS and Praxis are in the same system. That invalidates your entire argument right there.

The aforementioned problems with raping CoE are to be accepted due to the suspension of disbelief formula because it has happened in the TNG episode "New Ground".

Which was a stupid episode, and your interpretation of it is clearly wrong as well. Read the thread recently yourself? Solitons don't work the way you think they do. That was pointed out by DW in the post right after your first, and all you did was repeat your inane assertion that it does. Way to not prove your point, imbecile.

[Lord Revan]

well we know that certain starfleet technologies affect subspace (warpdrive for example) so it's not unreasonble to assume that those technologies might in turn be affected by subspace.

now be honest and say which one seems more reasonble a "self-fueling" reaction (based on a interreption of A SINGLE EPISODE! (that has other possible explenations as people have pointed out to you)) and violates both the conservation of energy and inverse square law or that federation ships are affected by subspace due their reliance on subspace based technology.

since you seem ignorant conservation of energy states that no energy can be created or destroyed and inverse square law states that intensity of an explotion is portional to to the inverse square of the origin point (aka "ground zero") (inverse square means 1/d^2 where d=distance).

lesson ends here now be smart.

[Edi]

Okay, LF, here's the deal:

1) You can address the fucking points presented against you directly without moving goalposts and in an honest manner. If you find a way to make your preferred solutions actually work plausibly for the purposes of the argument while addressing the points, good for you. If you can't, then that means you should concede the argument.

2) You can keep on doing this same song and dance that you have been keeping up for pages, refusing to address points, moving goalposts, obfuscating and generally being a fuckwit. In which case I will simply ban you for a week or two for numerous rules violations and you can then appeal the decision by sending an email to the registrations address.

But if it does come to option number two, I have an inkling that the admins will take one look at this thread and tell me to make it permanent.

It's all up to you how you want to proceed.

[Ghost Rider]

Fuck that Edi. He can

1. Address the points. Plain and simple. Instead of making accusations that the other party is making fallacious remarks, he can prove that he isn't talking out of his ass.He can literally start with his bits on Mike and his supposed illogical stance on Trek.

2. Get banned today. He's had his time, and all he's done is go repeat on this subject. He started with a post that was pure trolling.

Temporary banning is reserved for posters who look to need a slap on the wrist but when the admins acknowledge titling will do nothing. This one has demonstrated he has no care or want to debate but wants to make noise to show how the big bad people are treating him.