[AVOGARDO] Moron boy's ignorant ravings

[AVOGARDO]

Merriam Webster disagrees.

it does not - at leat Merriam Webster online:

Beam:

a ray or shaft of light
collection of nearly parallel rays (as X rays) or a stream of particles (as electrons)

Pulse:

rhythmical beating, vibrating, or sounding
a transient variation of a quantity (as electric current or voltage) whose value is normally constant
an electromagnetic wave or modulation thereof of brief duration
a brief disturbance of pressure in a medium; especially : a sound wave or short train of sound waves

A pulse doesn't need to be a beam.
A brief electromagnetic wave would be a pulse.
But a continued electromagnetic wave, even if it would not be a beam, could have a pulse, if there are modulations of brief duration in it.

You don't even understand Merriam Webster.

[brianeyci]

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

He is saying that Star Trek ships can detect mass from light years away by detecting gravitation.

That is wrong, because gravitons travel at light speed, and he's provided no evidence to the contrary. Only that they can detect mass, and they can detect graviton pulses and graviton beams. Worf detects a mass arriving at warp towards them. At the same time, Data is sending a graviton beam and detecting graviton pulses. Therefore, Worf must have detected the gravitons from the approaching ship.

Follow that? I sure didn't, I went what the fuck the first time I read it, and then he tries and semantic whore and say a pulse isn't a beam, see picture for the mentally retarded.

[Batman]

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

1) Trek sensors determine a sensor target's mass by measuring its gravity.
2) They can do so at ranges requiring FTL signal transmission despite gravitons moving at c because, somehow, involving subspace will make c speed sensors FTL.

[brianeyci]

A pulse doesn't need to be a beam.
A brief electromagnetic wave would be a pulse.
But a continued electromagnetic wave, even if it would not be a beam, could have a pulse, if there are modulations of brief duration in it.

You don't even understand Merriam Webster.

Who said a pulse needs to be a beam? A pulse is a non-continuous beam. Do you even grasp the meaning of the word non-continuous? Pulse phasers and beam phasers both fire high concentrations of particles towards their target moron. Just because you can detect pulses of gravitons, that doesn't mean you can detect naturally occurring gravitons. Pulse implies artificially generated, see Yosemite Bear's post. But that point continually sails over your head.

[AVOGARDO]

You notice that they are all talking about things that happened in the Star Trek universe.

And sure you can me say, when it has happened, that they have emited >> a particular type of radiation (presumably "subspace" related) which very strongly interacts with certain phenomena in a manner differently than electromagnetic radiation does. <<

That's a conclusion, dumbass. That has never happend in Star Trek.

It is a try to explain, how this sensors could work. But there is no evidence for their explaination too.

Yeah, and nobodies saying they're utterly true, dumbass.

If you would have read the whole thread, you would know, that I never have said, that I am true. Quite the contrary.

[...] but they're open to discussion re new evidence, or different conclusions.

That's the same I want. But till now, nobody has presented a different conclusion.

[...] your constantly switching arguments [...]

Tell me one incident, where I have switched arguments .

I suppose, you can't at once. You would first have to read the whole thread. But your claim, that I'm not open for another conclusion evidence, that you haven't it till now.

[Batman]

A pulse doesn't need to be a beam.

And nobody ever said so. But it damn sure CAN be, and to anybody with a double-figure and above IQ it would be clear what kind of pulse we're talking when discussing tech on a SciFi board.

A brief electromagnetic wave would be a pulse.

No kidding.

But a continued electromagnetic wave, even if it would not be a beam, could have a pulse, if there are modulations of brief duration in it.
You don't even understand Merriam Webster.

As a matter of fact I do, unlike you. Why don't you show me the part of your quote that says a pulse CAN'T
CAN'T
CAN'T
be a beam.

[AVOGARDO]

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

Where is the supporting evidence for the postulat, 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?

I don't see it.

[Stark]

So, at worst, the claims you attack are as baseless as yours? Hilarious.

Again, you seem to be missing the part where hypotheses are developed to attempt to explain events. Of course they might be wrong, but until there's evidence that they are they're good enough. But then, you have an utterly broken attitude towards logic, so there's no point talking about that.

Guys, I though the gravitation thing stopped AGES ago. He's *way* off topic now.

[AVOGARDO]

Why don't you show me the part of your quote that says a pulse CAN'T
CAN'T
CAN'T
be a beam.

You can hace a pulsed beam and you can have a continuous beam.

And you can have a pulsed signal, which is no beam.

A pulse can't be a beam. It is a temporal factor while a beam is an areal factor.

[brianeyci]

You notice that they are all talking about things that happened in the Star Trek universe.

And sure you can me say, when it has happened, that they have emited >> a particular type of radiation (presumably "subspace" related) which very strongly interacts with certain phenomena in a manner differently than electromagnetic radiation does. <<

That's a conclusion, dumbass. That has never happend in Star Trek.

It is a try to explain, how this sensors could work. But there is no evidence for their explaination too.

Of course there's no evidence for that explanation moron, it's just a hypothesis that happens to fit the facts. And I like how you snipped the rest of my post. They are talking about things that happened, for example detecting metal on a planet's surface, and forming hypothesis. Hypothesis which do not happen to break the known laws of physics or make an extraordinary claim such as being able to detect gravitons from light years away.

I see Kuroneko is online. I hope the kung-fu master decides to come in and burn your ass, with the faster than light traveling gravitons which would be required for your theory, or the detection of gravitons from light years away through some mechanism continually debunked by others.

[Stark]

You can hace a pulsed beam and you can have a continuous beam.

And you can have a pulsed signal, which is no beam.

A pulse can't be a beam. It is a temporal factor while a beam is an areal factor.

So after saying you can have a pulsed beam, you say a 'pulse' can't be a beam? Dear me.

[Wyrm]

You notice that they are all talking about things that happened in the Star Trek universe.

And sure you can me say, when it has happened, that they have emited >> a particular type of radiation (presumably "subspace" related) which very strongly interacts with certain phenomena in a manner differently than electromagnetic radiation does. <<

That's a conclusion, dumbass. That has never happend in Star Trek.

It's a sensible conclusion, from a person with much command of the evidence at hand speaking to people with comparable command of the evidence at hand. Indeed, to people familiar with the material, it's actually a rather obvious conclusion, as they recall piles of incidents when the difference between how matter reacts to subspace radiation and how it reacts to EM radiation mattered. It's like saying, "People die when they are decapitated," to anyone with a lick of sense.

[AVOGARDO]

So, at worst, the claims you attack are as baseless as yours? Hilarious.

I wonders why you attack me in this way, but not theire claims.

Of course they might be wrong, but until there's evidence that they are they're good enough.

If you would have readed the whole thread, you would know, that I have conceded this. Of course, I could be wrong. I only wanted a better explanation, not even an evidence , that I am wrong.

Guys, I though the gravitation thing stopped AGES ago. He's *way* off topic now.

Yes, I try to see, if it would made any sense at all to continue this debat.

For example I can't understand, why you are able to accept their conclusion without any evidence but not my conclusions.

I try to see your mode of debate.

I have sound reasons to believe, that I'm able to debate. That's my job. And I'm good in my job.

But I can't understand your way to debate.

I try to see, if you are hypocrites.

I try to see, if it es irrelevant, what I say, cause you would attack me anyway.

I try to decide to abandon this debate.

[Batman]

You notice that they are all talking about things that happened in the Star Trek universe.

And sure you can me say, when it has happened, that they have emited >> a particular type of radiation (presumably "subspace" related) which very strongly interacts with certain phenomena in a manner differently than electromagnetic radiation does. <<
That's a conclusion, dumbass.

No it ISN'T, FUCKHEAD!!! It is an ASSUMPTION and is indeed clearly labelled as such.
And assumption that happens to fit a) our understanding of physics to the extent it applies to the Trekverse and b) the observed behaviour of Trek sensors in-universe. Unlike YOUR theory, which has been conclusively been shown to a) have NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER and b) be flat out WRONG.

That has never happend in Star Trek.

And you know that because...? It has never been outright stated or shown. However, unlike YOUR theory, it fits the available evidence AND jives with the way modern-day sensors work.

It is a try to explain, how this sensors could work. But there is no evidence for their explaination too.

Wrong. And more importantly, it has not been shown to DEFINITELY NOT WORK. Unlike your theory.

Yeah, and nobodies saying they're utterly true, dumbass.

If you would have read the whole thread, you would know, that I never have said, that I am true. Quite the contrary.

Like hell you haven't.

[...] but they're open to discussion re new evidence, or different conclusions.

That's the same I want. But till now, nobody has presented a different conclusion.

Yes. Mike did quite early in the thread. Furthermore, yours has been proven to be completely unworkable. That you don't LIKE Mike's conclusion doesn't mean it is vastly superior to yours, which, again, has been proven to NOT WORK.

[...] your constantly switching arguments [...]

Tell me one incident, where I have switched arguments.

Let's see-you going from claiming they determine mass by gravity to claiming they can do so at FTL ranges by SOMEHOW making realspace sensors work through subspace to daring us to DISPROVE your completely unsupported allegations to whining english isn't your native language and you don't understand what people are saying to claiming a reversal of the burden of proof to AGAIN claiming we have to disprove your completely unsupported allegations to claiming german law is relevant in a SciFi debate on a forum where the rules explicitly state that the burden of proof is one the one making a positive claim to others didn't support their claims so why am I singled out for it...
Did I miss anything?

[AVOGARDO]

Of course there's no evidence for that explanation moron, it's just a hypothesis that happens to fit the facts.

And what is my attempt at an explanation. It happens to fit the facts.

Hypothesis which do not happen to break the known laws of physics

There are no known laws of physics for subspace sensors.

[Stark]

I wonders why you attack me in this way, but not theire claims.

Remember how I hate your passive-aggressive bullshit?

Anyway, their claims are reasonable, supported, provide predictions that match expectations, and are useful when looking at other examples. Your claims are baseless, unreasonable, and appear worthless. If you don't see the difference between them - just because they're both 'claims' doesn't mean they're both equally valid - then you're just a fucking moron.

[AVOGARDO]

So after saying you can have a pulsed beam, you say a 'pulse' can't be a beam? Dear me.

The pulse would be one property of the beam, a temporal factor. But a beam can't consist only of one temporal property. A beam has other properties too.

[Stark]

No shit, genius. How about you restrict your claims to just that. Don't make me quote all the times you've said 'a pulse can't be a beam' - a statement that is utterly false. Everyone here KNOWS you can have omnidirectional pulses, so stop fucking saying a pulse can't be a beam when it, in fact, can.

[Batman]

Of course there's no evidence for that explanation moron, it's just a hypothesis that happens to fit the facts.

And what is my attempt at an explanation. It happens to fit the facts.

No it doesn't. The facts are that
a) you can't determine the mass of a starship by gravimeters and
b) gravitons travel at c yet
c) Trek ships can determine, or at least extrapolate the mass of sensor targets at FTL ranges.

Hypothesis which do not happen to break the known laws of physics

There are no known laws of physics for subspace sensors.

There are, however, for gravity.

[AVOGARDO]

No it ISN'T, FUCKHEAD!!! It is an ASSUMPTION and is indeed clearly labelled as such.

It is not labeled as an ASSUMPTION. It is labeld as an POSTULAT:

I think we must postulate ...

And my conclusions and assumptions was labeled as such too.
I have used the subjunctive for a reason.

It could...

It would...

It seems...

I think...

As far as I know...

And assumption that happens to fit a) our understanding of physics

We have no understanding of subspace.

to the extent it applies to the Trekverse and b) the observed behaviour of Trek sensors in-universe.

And what is with the behaviour of Trek sensors, which are able to determine a mass of an object?

Unlike YOUR theory, which has been conclusively been shown to
a) have NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER and
b) be flat out WRONG.

a) it has the same SUPPORTING EVIDENCE: several episodes, in which it was possible to determine the mass of an object.

b) You have failed to explain WHY

[AVOGARDO]

No it doesn't. The facts are that
a) you can't determine the mass of a starship by gravimeters and
b) gravitons travel at c yet
c) Trek ships can determine, or at least extrapolate the mass of sensor targets at FTL ranges.

c) HOW?

a) If you can't answer C), I have to assume, that it is possible with UFP sensors.

b) If the gravitation of an object in realspace affect subspace too, it could be possible, that the graviton particels, which produce the effects of gravitation are not only to find in realspace but in subspace too. And if they could be find in supspace, these, which are in subspace would propagate superluminal and these, wich are in realspace with light-speed.

There are, however, for gravity.

Show me, where I have broken a known law of gravity!

[Batman]

No it ISN'T, FUCKHEAD!!! It is an ASSUMPTION and is indeed clearly labelled as such.

It is not labeled as an ASSUMPTION. It is labeld as an POSTULAT:

I think we must postulate ...

I observe you decline to notice the two little words 'I think' in front of it clearly indicating that that's Mike's OPINION on how sensors apparently work. And unlike yours, his is actually supported by the available evidence.

And my conclusions and assumptions was labeled as such too.
I have used the subjunctive for a reason.
It could...
It would...
It seems...
I think...
As far as I know...

That would be a lot more convincing if you hadn't continuously dared people to prove your theory WRONG which rather strongly indicates you think it's RIGHT. If it WAS just idle speculation why did you get so upset about the whole burden of proof affair?

And assumption that happens to fit a) our understanding of physics

We have no understanding of subspace.

We don't need to. We understand how signal reflection/refraction/interaction works and unless you have evidence to the contrary this applies to subspace.

to the extent it applies to the Trekverse and b) the observed behaviour of Trek sensors in-universe.

And what is with the behaviour of Trek sensors, which are able to determine a mass of an object?

Are you deliberately being dense? Yes I know you are but this is pushing it.
Did all those comments of Mike and others about INFERRED information derived from sensor returns go right past you?

Unlike YOUR theory, which has been conclusively been shown to
a) have NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER and
b) be flat out WRONG.

a) it has the same SUPPORTING EVIDENCE: several episodes, in which it was possible to determine the mass of an object.

BY COMPLETELY UNDEFINED MEANS. Mike's theory is supported by the way real world sensors work.
Furthermore, unlike yours, Mike's theory has NOT been proven to flat out NOT WORK.

[Wyrm]

It is not labeled as an ASSUMPTION. It is labeld as an POSTULAT:

I think we must postulate ...

1. A postulate is an assumption, dumbfuck.

2. A postulate in one context may be a conclusion in another. Here's the paragraph in question:

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.

In a context of a wider discussion about sensors and what is sensible by Fed sensors, DW's postulate would indeed be a proper postulate, and a postulate in the full sense of the word. However, what makes it a postulate is the reasoning behind it. This follows the actual postulate, which is the observation that subspace radiation behaves quite differently from EM radiation incident on the same materials. The conclusion of this paragraph is both that "[Fed ships] 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," and that this is a sensible thing to take for granted in a wider discussion... in other words, it's sensible to make this a postulate!

[Batman]

No it doesn't. The facts are that
a) you can't determine the mass of a starship by gravimeters and
b) gravitons travel at c yet
c) Trek ships can determine, or at least extrapolate the mass of sensor targets at FTL ranges.

c) HOW?

I couldn't possibly care less. Mike already provided a viable theory. As you have as of yet to provide any evidence for YOURS, and plenty of evidence has been provided for it NOT WORKING, even 'we haven't the foggiest' is superior to your theory.

a) If you can't answer C), I have to assume, that it is possible with UFP sensors.

Again, no shit Sherlock. Now show me where the available evidence supports them doing so by measuring gravity.

b) If the gravitation of an object in realspace affect subspace too, it could be possible, that the graviton particels, which produce the effects of gravitation are not only to find in realspace but in subspace too. And if they could be find in supspace, these, which are in subspace would propagate superluminal and these, wich are in realspace with light-speed.

And the evidence for that actually being the case is...?

There are, however, for gravity.

Show me, where I have broken a known law of gravity!

The assumption that you could tell the mass and position of a starship via detecting its gravitational pull when Mad has conclusively shown that to be impossible, for starters.

[Surlethe]

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

Has it occurred to you that since gravitons carry gravity, sensing gravity is tantamount to detecting gravitons? Probably not, since your intellect and grasp of science is lesser than that of a troglodyte.

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

Of course -- and it entirely sinks the idea that they're directly detecting gravitons, moron.

Why?

Because that's the probability that the Entity is within a light-hour of the Enterprise, ensuring that its graviton pulse has arrived within an hour of its emission.