View Single Post
Old July 16 2009, 03:30 PM   #74
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

Saquist wrote: View Post
Airplanes can reverse engines too. Application of forcefields over the engine nozzle would suffice for the same effect.
Then there would be no need for the driver coils.
The driver coils only produce a subspace field to reduce the ship's inertial mass. This would be similar to the driver coils in, say, a magnetoplasmadynamic thruster, only producing subspace instead of electromagnetic fields.
If that were true we see an obvious retro-positioned exhaust port.

The high energy IONs from a Fusion Reaction would be brilliant.

Except it's an inertial dampener, not an inertial canceler. In TMP it's referred to as an inertial stabilizer, which IMO more accurately describes what the device does: it makes sure that when the ship moves, EVERY PART of the ship moves to an equal degree.
I didn't say it canceled out motion completely. I am saying according to the First Law of Motion: A body at rest remains at rest and a body in linear motion remains in motion with constant velocity until and unless an external force is applied on it. So a energy field would have the same effect. If the IDF actually is dampening anything then it's equated to a force acting on a body. Even the most minute force against a body's motion would cause an eventual zero velocity.

Now as for stablizer:
I imagine that means we're dealing with unified field theory. What happens to that which emits the field happens to all that's in the field. So the crew wouldn't feel such a sudden change in motion. Frankly I've not a clue how this could be accomplished. I know of no effect that would have those kinds of consequences. If we're talking about a local effect it could be equated to a pendulum effect that is added to modern day buildings to counter act seismic shock but this would be something that acts much quicker

I don't see why that's a problem. You can do the same trick with a relatively small device, hell even deflector shields can generate a subspace field that can lower an object's mass. If impulse engines are designed to do this as a matter of their normal operation, then they can probably do this even without the warp engines involved.

More likely, though, the warp nacelles ARE used to generate a static subspace field--
And just how would a "static" field be defined?

Simply this: a field drive has the effect of producing motion only when it is on. A THRUSTER can produce inertial motion that will continue even after it is shut down (an object in motion remains in motion). Impulse engines being a field drive is inconsistent with boobytrap, where we see the Enterprise gaining a velocity of several hundred meters per second after the impulse burn.
Really? Even warp drive has a velocity threshold.
In TNG: Forces of Nature the Enterprise coast into the rift to rendevouz with the Fleming stranded in the rift and was planning to coast all the way out the otherside.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Mass has nothing to do with motion. You reduce the mass of an object you only reduce its overall potential energy; the EFFECT of this is that the speed of light inside that subspace field is higher than it is outside the field. This means that while your ship is accelerating at, say, 5m/s^2 inside the field, it could be accelerating at 500m/s^2 to an observer outside the field.
According to Einstien: E=mc^2 Mass is directly associated with velocity exponentially. As you approach the speed of light the greater your mass and therefore the more energy is need to achieve further acceleration. Mass has every thing to do with motion. It is what my teachers and collegues have always understood. A Car in motion litteraly has a greater mass than the same car at rest because of relationship between mass and energy is inverse. This is because of the relationship of mass and energy being equal. The concept is recognized in string theory which postulate the very foundation of matter are packets of energy vibrating at different quantum speeds, defined by there differences in motion. Even matter and antimatter are defined by there movement and energy. So we're back to motion....everything goes by some sort of....motion.

Once Einstien put forth the premise that C is constant (relatively speaking) the only thing that changes in this equation is mass and energy. Since the equation relates multplying light into mass....obviously the mass has changed (increased) and the relationship between energy and motion is objectified.

Yeah... um, warp fields move ships because they're distorted or "slanted" in a particular direction. A ship with a non-critical sub-warp field will still move pretty damn fast, as we saw in "First Contact" where the Phoenix accelerates to 20,000km/s (about 8% of the speed of light) on the way to warp. So a "warp field" will move a ship whether it's at the threshhold or not, where subspace fields will not and require some other impulse in order to become propulsive.
I don't know what is meant by "sub critical" or "sub-warp"
I assume sub warp means sub light. I'll just note that a ship moving at .95 is still at warp as per the motion picture.

The Phoenix was a smaller ship, lesser mass, a velocity threshold at the equivalent power output for warp one of a bigger ship would quickly move a smaller ship pass c.

It means the speed of light inside the subspace field is higher than the speed of light outside the field.
Where I realte the mass reducing effect as changing the rate of universal expansion or...spatial expansion you use the reference of light speed. I'm not sure if there is a definable difference since light speed is not constant and neither is universal expansion.

Neither name was ever mentioned on screen. The term "subspace driver coil" comes from the TNG manual, where it is indeed described as a subspace field coil.
Driver coils is mentioned on screen on multiple occasions as a component of the impulse engines. Defiant, Delta Flyer and Voyager are references.

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
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.
I find that accurate

Sorry, you're totally off-base.

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

2. 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.
I've been apart of many discussions concerning Star Wars ships that "project mass shadows" to imitate the presence of a Planet or Solar Mass.
Currently my attempt s google the term immediately bring results from the Wookpedia follwed by 25 similar results and a smattering of results related to cancer. There was one result related to shadow mass.

My experiences with talking with physicst tells me the term you are looking for is "Gravity Well."

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.

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."

It's not...entirely accurate.
You're making some assumptions based off the canon that I can't say are wrong but I'm inclined to disagree with.

We can't be for sure if another universe within another would be invisible or would truely consitute seperate. The universe already has areas that expand faster or slower than other parts of the universe or as you say the speed of light to an external observer would appear to slow down. This happens at the event horizons of blackholes and massive stars where light litterally bends and even appears to slow down (relatively speaking) but it's still visible and still apart of the same universe.

We really can't call it a different universe in warp field but it might be different enough to call an altered realty.

This is all pure speculation, and lots of analogy, but I hope this has made the concept clearer.
I do think I understand your position much better than before, Yes.

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.[/B
I can't flaunt my experience here enough.
I have never heard that term in scientific circles of astro physics or quantum mechanics out of the "mass" of books I've read on the subject.

]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.
I'm sure I have not made any claim to attribute my theory of universal gravity to as Einstien's discoveries. It was the use of an understood foundation to further establish a trend of associated forces that we already know of.

Time /Space

Gravity/Acceleration & Deceleration is yet another.

I'm sorry, I have to just say it this way, since you're evidently in "lecture mode."
Not at all.
I remain quite open to correction when ever and where ever appropriately applied. How else would I know that I am in error.

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

Gravitation CREATES an acceleration.
Gratation is attraction the results of which could be accerlation or deceleration. The ultimate result of which is a relative veolocity of zero.

You're confusing "cause" and "effect." Acceleration is the effect. Gravitation is the cause.
Our perspectives are different you relate gravity in terms of a supposedly neutral veolocty observing viewing two object which have an "apparent attraction to one another.

I however view Gravitation from the perspective of universal expansion. I thus see there is no real attraction between any two objects only a difference in resistance to universal expansion.

All Mass resist universal expansion. aka. (Inertia)
The effect is a change in universal expansion in the localized area of a planet or solar mass. The space in the gravity well is expanding slower than the space out side the gravity well.
The closer you get to such mass the slower space expands.
That is also where the "attraction" would seem to come in aswell.
The difference speeds of space would produce postive "preasure" on an object covering a significant area in a gravity field.

The difference in that gravity well could one day explain Gravity on the Quantum level as it has never has been before allowing it to take it's mathematical place amoung the other Four Forces...Or...(as I believe) being completely discarded as a force at all.

You'll often hear the term "the acceleration due to gravity" used in physics. There's a reason for that.
You also hear the term "deceleration due to gravity" a lot too.
This is the point of relativity.

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.
I would have to exposed to this information that you are refering to in order for a true correction to be made. At current I've alreayd been confirmed as...correct by two individuals in the scientific community and that I'm making some jumps in assumption by others.

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.
The entire effect is relative.
It's not what it seems to be.
That's why our math models work fine on the Newtonian scale but not on the quantum scale. Obviously we're not seeing the big picture.
The true attraction is happening on the quantum level not between the two objects themselves.

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.
I'm always eagar to test my guesses, So far there have only been disagreement in my approach not the understanding. This is encouraging so far. I'm never concerned with the absurdity or how it "looks", we clearly have to think outside the box because progress hasn't afforded us with the answers we are looking for.

Einstien at the risk of looking absurd set rule that at the time he couldn't prove, namely the speed of light as the ultimate speed limit. He changed concepts that were otherwise deamed sacrosant. Remeber that the only thing that has been proven with Gravity is that happening, what that is we don't know. In other words Gravity is a Law by the sake of phenomenon, any state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning.

That is why I relate the concept of gravity will have an overhaul just as powerful as when science transfered to a heliocentric models from geocentric

Who's calling it a "subspace driver coil?" I'm certainly not.
I didn't accuse you using the term.
I asked you, "why not use this propper designator? "sub-space field coil."

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."

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post

As far as mass shadows go, there's a line of thinking in modern physics (if I'm remembering correctly) that postulates that gravity is such a comparatively weak force because it effects higher dimensions, essentially "leaking" across the different branes that make up space. I have no idea if this is true or not, but it does show that it's just as possible with Star Wars as it is with Star Trek to wring out of real physics equaly thin justifications for their respecive pseudosciences.
Indeed I have read and listened to similar relations of Gravity.
The postrulated that it would be possible to comunicate with other dimensions (not universes) through gravitons. It's the assumption that particle such as nuetrino's have a mass undectable in this universe and might manifest there gravitational existance else where...say in some other dimension like "sub-space".

I no longer have cause to believe this is true.


Hmm. What's said is this:

Odo: "A blockade? How many ships are we talking about?"
Kira: "Twelve impulse ships. That's all the Council of Ministers could spare right now."
Odo: "And how effective do you think those twelve ships are going to be against even one Romulan warbird?"
And later on:

Cretak: "Colonel, do you seriously believe that your antiquated collection of impulse ships stands a chance against our warbirds?"

We saw the blockade fleet; it featured interstellar transport vessels (which cannot be FTL-incapable unless they are damaged) of known Bajoran/Cardassian types, and some of Karemman design, plus a sprinkling of the winged interceptors.
Just because a ship is driven by impulse doesn't mean that it limited to interplanetary travel. One such case is the TOS Bird of Prey. Another such exampel is the Refit Enterprise in Star Trek the Motion Picture.

It would be rather odd to collectively call all of these "impulse ships", if some are warp-capable transports, or even damaged transports temporarily limited to impulse.
Do we have cause to believe this is the case?

Also, how does the Council of Ministers control this strange assortment of ships? We might thus indeed decide that only the most significant combat vessels in the mix were the "twelve impulse ships" under government control, and the remaining fifty or whatever were assorted other ships of no military worth. In which case the winged interceptors would indeed be the "impulse ships".
Yet here to I have to have cause to accept that ships displayed are something other than what the council says they're capabilities are.


Last edited by Saquist; July 16 2009 at 05:35 PM.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote