Sunanta

Now now, guys, let's keep this civil- arguing over semantics just serves to inflame tempers. Let us also refrain from judging other's arguments (not opposing and attempting to refute, just judging), especially if you weren't initially neutral... Anyway, my position is that both sides are exaggerating. We obviously have a problem with pollution. Denial is simply that- denial. The EPA (run by a conservative administration, just to remind you) has an entire site dedicated to global warming, which cites studies done by itself and others. Of course, tree-huggers predicting the end of the world in six months have probably gone off the deep end. Truth is generally between the extremes. While there is no consensus on the cause, global warming is indeed a problem. It is not merely carbon dioxide, but numerous types of artificial (and powerful) fluorocarbons generated in industrial processes, then there is methane (traps over 20 times as much heat as C02), nitrous oxide (over 250 times as much heat as C02), and another dozen agents responsible for global warming. Ignoring the problem is a fatal mistake, though causing undue panic is not necessary. As for nuclear power: Though nuclear plants are far safer now than previously, there is a problem with the waste (shooting tons of waste into the sun is fine- if you wish to pay for it- this would also easily negate the savings in pollution and cost brought about by nuclear power. Putting one part per million into concrete, then dumping it into the ocean is also impractical). Drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve would not affect oil prices by more than a few cents. This is because it is independent corporations who will drill it, and not the government. These corporations will sell the oil on the world market, causing the price of oil worlwide to drop by a few pennies. Even if the oil were reserved for our exclusive use, it would only allow us to be completely self-sufficient for a few months. Accusing scientists who have conducted studies that affirm the hypothesis of global warming to be 'fuzzy' and 'funded by greenies' doesn't get us anywhere, since such an allegation could be thrown at even 'seperate and independent' studies who dare to confirm this theory- it works both ways and its premises (global warming does not exist and all studies that find it does are funded by radical, corrupt, far-left-wing environmental groups) are unproven and therefore cannot be of use in an argument.

...And I thought this was a conservative community... hehe, ur, ahem (do not try to infer my political affiliation from this comment- you'd probably be way off). Jaguar, the founders hardly believed in a purely capitalist society. That's darwinism (Star Trek makes a halfway decent example of this in the Ferengi). Purely capitalist societies A: probably wouldn't be democracies, B: would probably not have too many rights for the individual, and C: would probably degenerate into an autocracy, then anarchy. Look at Rome. Not that I'm a die-hard socialist or anything, but pure anything is bad (USSR style socialism didn't work and you never really hear of US communes any more, but a hint of it doesn't hurt- look at welfare, medicaid, medicare, and the baker's dozen other government programs). On to drugs: The reason alcohol and cigerattes aren't illegal is because they are distributed by highly established and politically well-connected corporations. Now, if we were to legalize illicit drugs, then tax them, we would be endorsing their use by saying "It's OK if you do cocaine and amphetamines and glue so long as we profit from you." Using Darwinism as an excuse to weed out drug users by letting them kill themselves (even if they kill or wound others in the process- hey can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs, right?) is literally barbaric. We are a (relatively) civilized, sentient species- we don't have to wait for evolution to make our decisions- we have the ability to take matters into our own hands- therefore it would be unthinkable (not to mention a moral atrocity) to revert to primitive 'survival of the fittest' principles. It's my own body: It's my own body, right? So let me stuff my bloodstream full of highly toxic and dangerously psychotropic compounds! So what if I become irrational, walk out of my house and over to the local elementary school and break a few kids necks, paralyzing them for the rest of their lives. So what if I, while intoxicated and incredibly high, get into a car and slam into an emergency room at 90 miles an hour? So what if I wander in a psychotic fever over to the beach and rip that helpless 80 year old couple limb from bloody limb despite the fact that they manage to dump a few canisters of pepper spray into my face that they responsibly carried, but to no avail since I was on crystal methamphetamine. So what? Get the picture? You become irrational when you take illegal drugs. You are no longer in control of your actions- even if it is 'your body,' think of the kids at the school and the seniors at the beach- you don't own their bodies, do you? Were it not for these drugs, crime would plummet. Punish only the crime and you would see little or no effect. Again, when you are high, you are irrational. You do not think of the law or of anything else. You no longer control your actions, but are, in the end, still responsible for them since the rational you decided to take these drugs, regardless of the highly publicized consequences. The only place an intoxicated person is from others is inside a sealed bank vault with six straightjackets securely locked in place. Even then, they would be endangering themselves and the hearts and minds of those that care and love them, which may further increase drug use due to depression. As you see, drugs are a never-ending cycle of addiction, despair, and death. [ 05-08-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

OK, one thing. I remember reading somewhere that if one kilogram of matter was converted to energy, you'd get an explosion that would equal 22 megatons of TNT- like a medium yield fusion bomb. So, if you stick half a kilogram of matter with half a kilogram of antimatter, you'd probably get an explosion approaching 22 megatons (M/AM reactions are, for all practical purposes, 100% efficient- they convert each other's mass directly into energy). Imagine what a much larger warhead or a warp core breach could do. Just thought that'd be useful. Now for warp torpedoes. In Star Trek, I think that conventional photon and quantum torpedoes can only travel at warp when launched at warp. They cannot accelerate to warp velocities because they lack a warp drive. When launched at sublight speeds they remain STL. When launched at warp, they are FTL. I refer you to ST:I, where the enterprise destroys an asteroid (or other object in its way- I don't remember at the moment) with photon torpedoes while travelling at warp. For the ol' "it's a laser" argument- Star Wars energy weapons (turbolasers, blasters, etc.) are probably not lasers. Lasers travel at the speed of light and are invisible. You don't see bright bolts or beams, no matter how powerful the weapon is. Perhaps throughout the rather lengthy time spacefaring technology existed in the SW universe, "Laser" simply came to mean "energy weapon." It is quite possible that SW "lasers" are, in fact, plasma weapons (which would work very well against ST shields- ST shields have a history of succumbing to ionized gas in nebulae). Such weapons would be, though, no match for the sheer power of antimatter warheads. By the way, the constant 'c' is, in science, the speed of light- just to back Epsilon up. Those top speeds for those SW ships probably only had to do with their sublight engines (otherwise the time it takes to go between stars would exceed your lifetime- even when factoring in relatavistic effects [which are rather insignificant at those speeds]). [ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Regarding the inertial dampening Guardian field: First, note that we will be severely restricting our discussion about the nature of hyperdrives by accepting it unconditionally regarding the hyperdrive. OK. This device would be very useful for sublight travel, for it would enable your crew to survive sudden accelerations and deccelerations without becoming stains on your ship's walls. This device would also, unfortunately, remove certain hyperspace theories from consideration, such as the warping of spacetime (this would be achieved by expanding the space behind you while squeezing the space ahead of you- while not taking place in hyperspace, this might be considered a hyperspace effect), or the artificial wormhole concept. A field might be necessary to alleviate stress caused by the singularity that would normally stretch your ship and crew into a noodle (and then some). This isn't related to inertia, though, so I don't see how an inertial damper would help with that. It would also call into question the ideas of both fully and partially entering hyperspace. If there is no time in hyperspace, then any adverse affects would not affect your crew if you fully enter it, for inertial effects require time. This field might work with the "part in, part out" idea, though, since inertial effects might occur, since you would still be partially 'submerged' in normal spacetime.

OK, sorry- had some computer trouble... Cmdr Nova, you are mostly right in your description of hyperspace. The only thing is that hyperspace is not the 'plane' above and below the normal space 'plane' (if you want to look at it that way). It is the 3D volume or space surrounding the 2D plane of normal space, or without the 2D plane analogy, the 4D hyperspace surrounding normal 3D spacetime. DeSylva- Whew! OK, now at least someone agrees with me regarding the 'no time passes in hyperspace' theory. My idea about the time taken to transverse hyperspace is that you aren't completely in hyperspace, therefore the temporal effects of hyperspace wouldn't completely apply- therefore you would still experience some form of time. Again, my analogy for how this might be possible, at least on a 2D plane is a square twisting along it's horizontal axis. Borrowing my little diagram from the Engineering 101 thread: -----/----- By the way, guys, antimatter doesn't produce antigravity (i.e. antineutrons wouldn't produce antigravitons). Both matter and antimatter have positive mass, therefore they both produce gravity. Negative matter, the polar opposite of both matter and antimatter (presumably there is negatvie matter and antimatter as well), is what produces antigravity. This is because it has negative mass. On the neutron ring issue, neutrons would have such an incredibly massive gravitational field due to their density that one spoonfull would be about a billion tons. Since matter and energy are essentially two different forms of the same thing, some sort of negative energy might counteract the gravity of the neutrons, though you'd need an impossible amount of such energy. And, as Desylva said, if such a field failed, you'd be in serious trouble... You would also have to move around the singularity that the neutrons have become, then turn it back into neutrons, which is needs an explanation I don't look forward to contemplating. Dang, I missed the interesting, if short lived cloning discussion. Such issues can be resolved, though not without going into some serious philosophy (which can be rather dry, by the way). Oh, and thanks Joel. That link should be working now.

It's... Gone! No!!! [takes a stimulant] flkaoiuZSzxuzxkasdipuqew Uh, hehe, um... Well, it was good while it lasted. I hope it isn't gone permanently, though... Oh, and thanks, Joel! If anyone deserves the stars, it's you for taking the initiative to start the thread and continue contributing in the first place. For what it's worth, you (as well as everyone else I remember) have my 5-starred vote. UPDATE: Strangely, page two of Engineering 101 still exists at http://www.3000ad.com/cgibin/ultimatebb.cg...=6&t=000151&p=2 though I don't know how long it will remain. I've saved a copy just in case it's set for permanent removal. Page one seems to have already been removed, though. NOTE: The URL above isn't working right- If the page is still up, click on the above link and remove the comma that seems to be appearing at the end of it when it opens. Have to go now, have just seen DeSylva's post- he must have created it while I was writing! I'll see if I can respond a little later. ANOTHER NOTE: That link is know working. [ 04-22-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Joel, why don't you move that entire last post of yours over to the Engineering 101 thread- there's some great stuff there I'd like to discuss. In fact, why don't we move the technical aspects of this entire discussion down there- it would probably be more approrpriate in a thread dedicated to this stuff. Tyrn: You're right, though I could've sworn... ROFL Jaguar: Theoretical physicist??? LOL! I'm flattered! Actually, I'm just someone who's gotten a bit too interested in (read: become insanely obsessed with) the nature of space and other related phenomena. I've got a buch of books down here, admittedly, plus a heckuva lot of time to waste. Heh, just noticed- this is my 50th post! I'm a commander!!! Boy, all that time down in the engineering 101 forum... [ 04-16-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Epsilon, you have a point. Ordinary matter cannot exceed the speed of light in normal space. Move into hyperspace and normal matter should be able to break this barrier, however. For a more detailed explaination, I refer you to my latest post in the Engineering 101 thread. Oh, and tachyons do not travel through hyperspace. They travel faster than light in normal space- something normal matter (tardons) cannot do. I covered this more in depth in the same post in the Engineering 101 forum. Oh, and hyperspace is not another dimension. It is simply a fourth direction. When you go into hyperspace, you are moving in hyperspace directions- 'above' and 'below' normal space- again, see my latest post in the engineering 101 thread (perhaps I should just copy the whole dang post here). I completely agree with Ben for #13. Drives would have to be gravity based. Besides, manipulation of spacetime to induce hyperspace travel would be closely related to gravity. For cloning, I beg to differ, Gallion. When you lose an officer, any AI points they gained during their time onboard are lost, as though they are restored from some sort of initial mental template. If this has since been changed in BCM, well, then I stand corrected. But if memory serves, the AI attributes are reset upon death. Besides, DNA doesn't contain memory. That memory is probably recorded by some huge, expensive device that won't fit on your average (and even not-so-average) military starship. Therefore, such recording might only occur right before the officers first board your ship. You have the old recording, but not the ability to make new ones (If this has since changed, well, then I guess 10 years has certainly had its effect on the size of components). Don't assume that a reactor employs nuclear fission or fusion just because it is called "nuclear." Not only does the manual say (more or less) that the reactor operates on the principle of matter/antimatter annihalation, "nuclear" could simply mean that the reactor reacts nucleons (protons and neutrons) with antinucleons (antiprotons and antineutrons). [ 04-15-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

For more information about your type, check out http://keirsey.com.

For those that don't know, the MBTI is a personality test. It was invented by the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung. It is highly accurate and quite fascinating. To find information about your type, type its code (such as ESTJ, or INSP, or ENSJ etc.) into any search engine ( http://www.msn.com seems to work well). If you don't know your type, find out here: http://haleonline.com/psych/ My type is INFP. What's yours? [This message has been edited by Sunanta (edited 04-05-2001).]

If it is Star Trek vs Star Wars, then Star trek combats Star Wars. In other words, all of Star Trek vs all of Star Wars. So, Q would come into play along side the Federation, Borg, Klingons etc. Of course, the rebellion would join forces with the Empire too, along with all the jedi. Saying Q wouldn't fight in this battle is like saying the empire wouldn't fight. The reason why we aren't discussing Star Trek vs Star Wars but rather Federation (and related) technology vs Imperial (and related) technology assuming the two powers ever come into conflict is because a broad Star Trek vs Star Wars discussion would bring up all sorts of impracticalities (such as Yoda and Darth Vadar fighting along side, and Q snapping his fingers and turing the imperials into interstellar dust). If you wish to discuss Star Wars vs Star Trek on a broad scale, fine. Just explain to me how the whole of the Q continuum couldn't rearrange the molecular structure of all the mighty imperial fleets into a huge dumpster.

Lets not bring the force into this- If SW gets the force, ST gets Q.

Ben, in ST6, when the E-A crew is wondering if they fired at Cronus 1, they look at two computer screens, one on the bridge and one in the torpedo room. There are thousands of horizontal lines in these displays. The reason that I am sure that these are torpedoes is because on the bridge, two of the lines are red, corresponding to the two torpedoes the E-A allegedly fired, while all the lines were white in the torpedo room. On the bridge, they think they fired, while in the torpedo room, Scotty says they didn't. The TNGTM has been known to contain errors, and the usual philosophy about this is to check actual canon. It is highly unlikely that phase-cloaking technology was erased from federation databanks. Such information is probably not carried on ships, but could be transmitted should the need for such devices arise. The federation undoubtably has some operations of questionable legality, and other that are in outright violation of treaty, like the US today. It would be insane not to at least keep information about advanced technology that could potentially be of great value around. In an extreme situation, I doubt the federation would hesitate for too long before breaching treaties. As for the photon torpedoes, the borg did indeed take some damage when they first encountered them, but what I was trying to say was that if the borg could adapt to photon torpedoes, they could adapt to plasma weapons, because according to Epsilon, plasma weapons affect their target in a way similar to conventional explosives. Oh, and outlaw, if the federation or borg was able to beam troops over to a ship with jedi knights in it, they could, as a last resort, beam the jedi themselves into space, or even better, destroy them during transport. Eventually, though, jedi could conceivably overwhelm a federation or borg starship, but if you wish to invoke the force, let me invoke Q. Since the day SW fans allow Q into such discussions is the day star wars challenges star trek in a movie, let us try and keep discussion to technologies. [This message has been edited by Sunanta (edited 03-26-2001).]

Personally, I believe that extremes are bad. The further away we get from the extremes, the better off we are. In other words, the far right is misguided. Equally so is the far left. The moderate right and moderate left are better, but we can certainly do better than that. The farthest from both extremes is, of course, the center. According to Aristotle (I've had some spare time lately), virtue is moderation, whereas vice is extremism (for example, cowardice and foolhardiness are opposite extremes, yet they are both equally as bad. Smack in the middle is courage, which is good, of course. A more applicable example is Communism and Fascism. One is the extreme left, whereas the other is the extreme right. They are equally as bad). Therefore, the conservatives and liberals are equally as bad or good, depending on how you look at it. They deserve each other. Since we aren't going to all suddenly become moderates any time soon, we need both parties to maintain equal clout so as to counterbalance each other, which would maintain a moderate equilibrium. I could cite others to further drive home my point, but I think you get the picture. [This message has been edited by Sunanta (edited 03-24-2001).]

I don't remember what TNG episode I'm referring to, but in one, someone in the federation was developing some sort of "phase cloak." Why not just put these on missles, which might decloak and immediately detonate inside an enemy's reactor room? I believe that this was technically in violation of the Second Khitomer Accords (not sure), so that is why the technology wasn't implemented. If facing a threat from a SW ship, I don't see why the federation couldn't just fish this out of their databanks and stick it onto a guided torpedo. As for the old light-speed debate, I personally believe that the only way to explain away Mr. Lucas's mistake (not that Star Trek hasn't made its fair share of blunders too) is to say that this mysterious "force" that permeates the SW galaxy accelerates the speed of light (science has currently proved that light can indeed exceed its own speed limit). I've heard a lot trying to explain this away (.5 past light speed isn't 1.5c, is really 5,000 times speed of light, etcetera. Then how fast do ISDs fly? .499999999999999999999999 past light speed? I find this expaination rather amusing), but I'm not sure how SW ships might fair far outside their own galaxy. BTW, Epsilon, the Enterprise A carried several thousand photon torpedoes, according to ST VI (the sixth ST movie). Therefore, the Enterprise E probably carries at least as many quantum torpedoes. The borg would be able to adapt to plasma weapons. Perhaps not in the same way they adapt to phasers, but they will adapt. Epsilon, look at photon torpedoes, for example. These didn't scratch the borg cube, yet they themselves are "plain explosives," in your words (well, any futuristic weapon is far from plain, but I'll just leave it at that). Dreada, phasers appear quite similar to PTA blasts, and are of similar duration. [This message has been edited by Sunanta (edited 03-20-2001).]