View Single Post
Old July 16 2009, 01:13 AM   #70
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

Saquist wrote: View Post
Okay..I don't know what you mean by the "local value of Light." Explain:
What I'm saying is that the laws of physics, inside this bubble of subspace... what is, in essense, a "pocket universe" with its own, slightly different, physical rules... isn't the same (or rather, doesn't compare to it on a 1:1 basis) as the rule set seen in "real" space/time.

This is quite consistent with contemporary thinking on how this sort of thing works... though, of course, "subspace" is entirely made-believe at this point. It's a "Deus Ex Machina." Yet, there's nothing about it which is fundamentally implausible. It COULD exist (or, perhaps, something very like it might exist).
A "Mass Shadow" is a Star Wars term which is completely unscientific. Mass doesn't project anything.
Sorry, you're totally off-base.

It "doesn't project anything?" I'm guessing you're not particularly familiar with contemporary thinking regarding how gravity works.

Granted... we don't KNOW how gravity works. We have theories, with so little REAL supporting evidence that they don't really rise above the level of hypotheses and really ought not be called "theories" at all.

But most thinking on the topic, today, refers to "mass" in this sort of fashion.

Essentially, you have a certain amount of mass... which has "shadow" in real-space which is directly related to gravitation. Sometimes you'll see this drawn on a 2D grid, with gravity represented as "depressions" in the grid... that's just another way of envisioning the same concept. Except that the "grid" approach is purely 2D in nature, while the "shadow" concept lends itself more to 3D envisioning.

In terms of what I'm saying... I'm saying that, when you're in this little "pocket universe" of subspace, you're not REALLY in the "real" universe at all. But it's not a completely separate universe... it's not "separate space," it's "sub-space." And some portion of you still is visible in the "real" universe (and you can see the "real" universe as well, at least partially).

So, your entire mass isn't seen in "real space/time," but some portion is. You "project a thinner shadow" than if you were really "all there."

This is all pure speculation, and lots of analogy, but I hope this has made the concept clearer.

And by the way, this isn't my invention... and you need to be smacked for suggesting that it's a "Star Wars" invention, either! It's a real scientific concept. Not a "fact" but a reasonable way, based upon what we know, to view gravitation.
Einstien discovered that many things in the universe are results of differing relative motions or velocities. Mass and the Universe share a similar relationship. One has a tendency not to change motion, Mass, and the other is in a constant rate of change, The universe.
Be careful not to attribute things to Einstein that he, himself, didn't envision.

He was a very smart guy, but people frequently attribute things to him which weren't his work at all, but are instead things people have tried to prove using his equations. His equations are about energy, primarily. And within the range of energy we've worked with, they fit the reality of the universe very well.

But he never said half the things that people try to attribute to him... and DID say things that lots of people try to pretend he never said.
Gravity and acceleration/deceleration have the exact same effects.
I'm sorry, I have to just say it this way, since you're evidently in "lecture mode."


(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

Gravitation CREATES an acceleration. The acceleration is the "output" of the equation, in other words. Gravitation is the input of the equation.

You're confusing "cause" and "effect." Acceleration is the effect. Gravitation is the cause.

That's a MASSIVE logical flaw. I could't let it go.

You'll often hear the term "the acceleration due to gravity" used in physics. There's a reason for that.

(sorry... "SMUG MODE: OFF")
There is no force other than movement in effect in Gravity. No Mass Shadow or Graviton enacting between two objects. Planets and Stars are merely doing what all matter does...inertia...resisting a change in motion. The effect of you on a planet is just like two falling objects running into each other in mide flight. The flight or fall or motion is the expansion of the universe and inorder for Gravity to continue to exist in the universe the universe MUST continue to expand.
That, my friend, is utter nonsense.

Basic physics... even lacking any concept of why gravity does what it does, only knowing what it does... proves that series of statement false.

Massive amounts of experimental evidence proves what you just said completely untrue.

Here's a true statement, proven by significant amounts of experimental evidence: Two objects, both stationary, with no outside forces acting on them, tend to draw together. The only effect observable, or to which this attraction is attributable, is gravitation.

You need to be more careful about making "authoritative" statements which are so clearly untrue. It makes you look bad. You're trying... but you're overreaching. And in this case, your statement is utterly, provably absurd.
Then why not just call it a "subspace field coil" instead of a driver coil?
If the coil is doing what you're saying it does then it's not driving anything.
Who's calling it a "subspace driver coil?" I'm certainly not.

The TNG Tech manual, the ONLY "official" place this is described, calls it a "sustainer coil," I believe. I don't even use the term "coil" (since I know what "coils" can and can't do... nothing "magical" about them... and this sort of thing seems outside of what any "coil" might do). I simply call them "subspace field generators."

That said... it's OK to call it anything you like, since it's all "magic" anyway. But don't ask me why "I" call it something that I don't call it.
I would like you to go into detail on that.
I have, multiple times on this BBS. If you want to know more, you might want to read my thread in the Trek Art forum... one of a number of places I've described this theory in excruciating detail. I'm starting to get tired of repeating it... my fingers aren't as young as they used to be!
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote