Vertical Intermix Chamber and TMP Enterprise

[Crazy Eddie]

Nothing HAS to be included in VFX. Structural integrity fields are invisible, so are IDF fields, so are navigational deflector fields and force beams, the exhaust plumes from RCS thrusters, hell even transporter beams are completely invisible except directly at the beaming site. Why would impulse exhaust be any different?

What I expect is that if I'am going to give your claim any reasonable consideration that it follow the format that has been laid out by canon. That pattern has been that forcefields are visible when disrupted.

I've just given you several examples of when this is not the case, including the extremely major examples from TOS and TUC. Your explanation for this is... what?

I'll again remind you that "canon" does not have a format, nor does it lay one out. Canon is exactly as consistent as the whims of VFX artists, no more, no less.

The the greatest majority of information vastly outweighs everything else. Since your theory isn't canon nor does it follow canon it is a lesser speculation by validity of supporting or corroborating information.

There is no information corroborating your theory that forcefield interactions are "always visible." I've just shown you that most common forcefields are NOT visible at all. If you're going to claim that "canon" supports your theory (whatever that means) you need to address this point.

The manual is not canon.

It's not contradicted by anything on this point, therefore it stands.

My argument is by default

False assumption. No argument is "by default" unless it is corroborated by the evidence. Simply churning out a list of reasons why you assume an alternate explanation may be flawed doesn't provide any support for your own theory, and at this point it occurs to me that I'm not entirely sure what your theory IS. If you're claiming that impulse drive is a type of low-gear warp field, that theory DOES contradict canon and the tech manual.

You'll need to elaborate your position before we can continue.

DS9's weapons are the strongest weapons shown on screen to date

Another assumption on your part. DS9's weapons appear to be nothing more special than ordinary phasers and photon torpedoes. The VFX in the entirety of "Sacrifice of Angels" do not show any shield reactions from any ships, either Klingon or Starfleet. Just another example of the rule you are hanging on not really existing.

DS9, as I have said is not Federation technology and Cardassian shield tech from since the first vessel in TNG did not show a shield interaction.

Ah, but it DID show interactions in "Emissary" and several earlier episodes where DS9 is shown to be enclosed in a large shield bubble. As did the Cardassian cruiser in "The Wounded" when fired on by the Enterprise-D.

I have learned a great deal from you but I have not in any way implied that everything in Trek is required to be visible when active.

You have implied that for forcefields. I have demonstrated to you very clearly that you are incorrect. Your only possible fallback position is to argue that, in fact, everything SHOULD be visible and then to resort to an endless list of rationalizations whenever this turns out not to be the case.

The simpler explanation is that forcefields aren't usually visible when they interact with things. That is much easier to explain in light of the visual evidence, where the converse case would require us to make up ever more exotic theories about why certain forcefields are used in once case but not in others.

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterburner

Jet engine thrust is governed by the general principle of mass flow rate. Simply put, thrust depends on two things: first, the velocity of the exhaust gases; second, the mass of those gases. A jet engine can produce more thrust by either accelerating the gas to a higher velocity or by having a greater mass (quantity) of gas. In the case of a basic turbojet, focusing on the second principle produces the turbofan, which creates slower gas but more of it.

I need explicity not implicity.

You don't "need" anything, it's the definition of "history" which does not include fiction. You could say "fictional history," but the same problem applies: it is subject to the whims of its creators.

Irrelevancy. No definable difference.

Um... yes. The difference is in real history there is an objectively verifiable truth that can be discerned from the evidence. Fictional history has no such truth, since it is entirely made up and one made-up event is just as true as another made-up event, even if they both directly contradict each other.

The reason is precedent. Precedent is defined as, The state of preceding in importance or priority. TOS-R is the last canon series created. It has no precedent.

And yet, since it is still canon, precedent is irrelevant.

Negative:
The implication here is that there is control by using the word want.
There was no control, no guidelines or any specific desire.

Correct. Because the creators either didn't subject themselves to such controls, or didn't remain under them. Which is just another way of saying "the producers didn't feel like being controlled." Canon is therefore inconsistent simply because the VFX artists didn't make an effort to be consistent.

Unfortunantly the varying multitude of producers have no station in canon

Except that they're the ones who defined what canon is by putting things on screen. So, yeah, they are pretty admissible.

Your speculations are merely musings, possibilities that unfortuantly contradict the canon.

No, see, to be a contradiction YOU have to come up with a line of dialog that says "there are no force fields here." Do you have an example of this or not? Otherwise it's just my deductive analysis against your "I don't see it, so it must not be there" assumptions.

Your Speculation says it must be a forcfield because of producers and a tech manual that was created not for design intent but actually after the fact.

Half right. The tech manual was created after the fact--by the producers--as a reflection of design intent. It is essentially a work that fleshes out the details of what THEY had in mind when they came up with the idea, in some cases in more detail than they had originally included in their own notes.

The Producers obviously have not given considerable consideration to physics or design.

As you have admitted that you have not actually read the tech manual, your opinion on this matter is thoroughly irrelevant.

Are you implying that this two is fallacy?

It's a massive oversimplification based on sloppy use of a set of terms that were meant to be an analogy only.

"Most certainly NOT operational", has not be established by canon. It's an assumption.

It's an inference from the situation. The antimatter reactor is a power system for the ship's main engines and (arguably) for its sublight engines. Both of these engines were completely inactive along with the rest of the ship. Unless you're prepared to give a logical reason why the reactor would be active, we can safely assume it was not.

The script clues aren't canon either but even if they were (entertaining the notion) your tech manual and canon states there are different intermix ratios for different velocities.

Which contradicts "Coming of Age" where Wesley Crusher and Mordoc both agree--with confirmation from the test computer--that "where antimatter is concerned" the only intermix ratio is "1:1". Interesting that Wesley describes this as a "trick question," since this implies that OTHER intermix ratios are possible in different circumstances; it is extremely likely those "different circumstances" involve a use of an intermix chamber for something OTHER than a receptacle of drive plasma from the antimatter reactor.

After mediating the reaction obviously the reaction must be then directed or channeled and perhaps even compressed.

The intermix chamber does not mediate a matter/antimatter reaction. The "reactor" or "warp core" does that.

So the impulse engines aren't using the antimatter they're using the reaction plasma from the warp core

TMP Enterprise didn't have a warp core. And again, some of the diagrams you yourself posted clearly showed not one but two different fusion reactors hooked up to the intermix shaft to operate as a backup incase the antimatter plant failed. The intermix chamber doesn't seem very particular about where it gets that plasma from.

6. TOS is the Ultimate Precedent of how the Enterprise works externally.
There has never been any indication that the TNG producers were aiming to undermine that standard already set.

You proceed from an extremely false assumption. The PRODUCERS didn't consider TOS to be the ultimate precedent of anything, in fact they had already undermined most of it by the time TMP was in pre-production.

On the other hand it's curious that you consider TOS to be the ultimate precedent for canon and then at the same time assume that a blast-deflector forcefield would be visible. The MAJORITY of force fields in TOS were not visible, whether they interacted with anything at all. Even Enterprise's deflector shields were never visible even when the ship was under attack (see "The Deadly Years" and "Erand of Mercy" for examples).

 

[Captain Robert April]

Didn't the "impulse engine is a low-yield warp drive" originate with Sternbach and Okuda?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ No, it was a somewhat odd interpretation pedaled by... well, SOMEONE, I have no idea who, who read the TNG manual and assumed the "Subspace driver coils" in the impulse engines were what did all the work.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I do PERSONALLY, prefer the Field propulsion over" "Combustion Rocket."
The reasons which few actually address:

1. It removes the effects of relativistic speeds which are obviously not a factor in Star Trek at sublight.

Demonstrate, then, with any form of REAL science, that a "field effect drive" would not subject you to relativistic concerns.

2. It matches all the useable components of the impulse drive system mentioned in canon without adding any other system part or device.

Really? What parts are you referring to? Give us a complete list of all parts required for your "field drive," please. And show us that no other components would be required for such a drive.

3. Canon supports that the producers concept of the drive violates physics because the ships move about without reverseing orientation to reverse engines.

Canon does no such thing. Why do you keep throwing out the word "canon" in ways that demonstrate, so clearly, that you don't fully understand its meaning?

"Canon" also does not show any toilets (of ANY kind) on the Enterprise. Therefore, by your argument, there is no need for those in the future. True, or false?

4.There is no canon to suggest that the producer's or artists view of how the impulse engine works has ever made it into canon, intent or no intent.

PLEASE stop misusing the word "canon" in this fashion. You're reminding me of a sketch "The Kids in the Hall" used to do...

They're perspective becomes mute if there is no indication the VFX departments were ever directed to illistrate Rocket Thrust of any kind or a retro positioned reverse thrust barrier. It becomes not just conjecture but completely unsupported conjecture regardless of the source.

I hate to break this to you, but THIS SHOW IS FICTION.

Therefore, EVERYTHING about it is either (1) taken from reality, or (2) made up.

(Also... spell check is your friend. Use it... trust me.)

Because the show is fiction, and because the Enterprise doesn't REALLY exist, the intention of the people who thought her up, and directed how she was portrayed on screen is INFINITELY more significant than that of a single fan who happens to disagree with them.

You can come up with your own, personal "alternative" version of the Enterprise, sure... but the original art remains the product of those who made it.

5. Ultimately if one wishes to consider the ultimate source of Design Intent: Gene Roddenberry specficly directed Matt Jefferies to Remove any concept of Rockets from the design of the Enterprise among other things. (This is documented) It would be a Starship. As a result the VFX of the ship didn't included the typical (as newtype alpha has pointed out) incadencent bulbs or Battlestar Galactica style vapor trails.

(sigh)...

It's stunning to me that you think that you're the only person here who's read "The Making of Star Trek."

You might want to go back and watch TOS, and notice that, most notably in "The Cage" that they actually USE THE WORD ROCKETS!

Is that "canon" in your opinion?

And I won't bother to explain, once again, that attempts to redefine the word "impulse" to mean something else is sort of like redefining the words "up" or "down." Just because YOUR education never taught you this particular word doesn't infer that the word can be made to mean anything you want it to.

Gene Roddenberry should be the last word on the issue.
That is more than substantial proof against Rocket development in Star Trek.

Gene Roddenberry had nearly total control over the production of "The Cage." That show, which was filmed and broadcast and thus meets every requirement to be considered "canon," uses the word "rocket."

So, if you really want to say that Roddenberry is "the last word" on the topic... I guess you have to accept that he used the word "rocket" in that show, and his word is the last word.

Don't you?

6. TOS is the Ultimate Precedent of how the Enterprise works externally. There has never been any indication that the TNG producers were aiming to undermine that standard already set.

While I agree, entirely, that TOS is the "source material" upon which everything else was built, I disagree with your interpretation of TOS. It seems that you're not as familiar with it as you think you are (see my last point). Rather, it seems that you have your personal preference, and are trying to "retcon" TOS to mean what you WANT it to mean, without any real evidence supporting your position.

There is, as you say, no evidence that the Enterprise has "thrust reversers," or "retro thrusters," or that it performs an inversion maneuver.

There is also no evidence whatsoever that the Enterprise has a "field drive" for sublight propulsion. None. Zip. Nada.

As far as TOS is concerned... we didn't need detailed technical explanations, we were just given a believable "set dressing" to support the storytelling. I prefer that, honestly, and like the idea that we can all come to our own conclusions about how it works.

You can believe that it's a "field drive," and that's fine. But if you want other people to AGREE with you, you're failing to provide a compelling argument to support that goal.

Your incredulity does not hamper the explicit facts detailed nor my argument. Only a thin...membrane of technicalities prevent you from accepting this information.

No. You have, in fact, presented no actual information, nor any facts. Most of what you've presented as "fact" is either flawed, or based upon unsupported assumptions.

Granted, my own preferred explanation... (the use of a static subspace field to reduce apparent mass and increase apparent speed-of-light, allowing the ship to accelerate much, much faster with less inertial effects for a much lower energy cost, while still using a classical Newtonian impulse-based system - and "impulse" is a central term in Newtonian physics, remember) also involves some speculation. But it's far more easily supported.

Doesn't mean I'm "right" and you're "wrong." Because it's all... 100% of it... fictional.

My perspective is, however, more easily supported, because it does not contradict any on-screen evidence whatsoever, provides explanations for a number of other issues which otherwise cause problems in "canon," and while it does require ONE additional element not mentioned explicitly in TOS, that element IS explicitly mentioned in TNG times by those who made the show.

By contrast, there is nothing, either in script, in creator intent, in on-screen evidence, or in REAL SCIENCE that explicitly supports your preferred approach, and a number of fairly significant arguments which can be made against it.

Those technicalities have no relation to the facts presented but rather are related to the absence of proof, an absence/vaccuum that is being filled by a Rocket theory that has absolutely no credible support except by producers that have made no explicit direction in script or VFX to support their claim and thus utterly fails any effective demonstration.

Let me tell you what you just said, as I see it, in translation: "What the creators intended isn't important. I want it to be this way and dammit, that's how it's going to be. Prove me wrong by showing me a single line in a single script that, by itself, disproves every element of my argument, or I win!"

If that's not the argument you're trying to make, you might want to think about why you're coming across that way.

My purpose here was to find valid arguments against Field Propulsion or a Valid alternative. Now, forgive me for being blunt, but a valid argument is never going to start with the statement, "It hasn't been ruled out". That's an excuse for a lack of corraborative evidence. Ultimately it has been ruled out.

Huh?

"Ruled out" by who? YOU?

I've given you that valid alternative. One which is far more in accordance with REAL SCIENCE (requiring only one small bit of "magic" to work... and "magic" which is in accordance with a number of real, scientific views on "curved space-time" which, while as yet unsupported by evidence, are well-considered in the scientific community and supported by a fair amount of "pure math") as opposed to your solution which is made, whole-cloth, from "magic")

I have yet to see ONE bit of math, one bit of theory, one bit of ANYTHING that supports the idea of a "field drive" in this sense. And, so far, I have not seen you present any such evidence.

About Star Trek - It's all fiction. And "field drives" are entirely fictional. So there's no compelling reason not to use "field drives" in the Trek universe. However, there is a large body of real, compelling evidence (both "by production intent" and "by real science") to conclude that the sublight propulsion system used by Federation starships are Newtonian devices.

That you choose to reject that... is your right. But that does not constitute anything but your personal rejection.

Seeing as I have made no such statements Cary Brown...I will consider this a Strawman strategy and move on.

Excuse me? You have stated, EXPLICITLY, that you reject "Production intent" on this matter. It's hardly a "straw man"
to point that out.

Firstly, magic is define as any art that invokes non human, supernatural powers. Speculation is defined as a guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence.

You should make a better effort to get correct definitions of words. Especially if you're going to use the word "defined" in your explanation.

Both definitions are incorrect, by the way, and since we are talking about FICTION, neither is truly applicable here anyway, in the sense you seem to want to use them.

"Magic"

• the use of means believed to have supernatural power over natural forces
  [*]an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source
  [*]something that seems to cast a spell
  [*]the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand

In this case, the "sleight of hand" is "made up technobabble with no relationship to anything which is part of real science." And the "illusion" is that a make-believe ship is flying around in space.

If we were the "Galaxy Quest" aliens, convinced that Star Trek was real, then your argument would mean something else entirely. But I'd like to think that we all know that this is a TV show we're discussing.

I accept this as your opinion only but inadmisable as an acceptable argument relying on predetermined standards of anyone elses vocabulary but a few or your own.

Huh?

"Inadmissible?" Okayyyy.... I wasn't aware that we were involved in a court of law for this discussion.

Other than that part, the grammar of the last sentence is flawed enough that I'm not able to derive any further meaning from what you seem to be trying to convey.

What you seem to be saying is that I'm welcome to have an opinion, but that you think my opinion is "inadmissible"... then you become incomprehensible, I'm afraid.

I do not accept posession of the "problem" as I have well grasped the concepts that have been explained by the proffesionals on this forum. Rest assured you need not seek a bearer of the "problem" you perceive.

Again... a friendly reminder... spell check is a good thing.

Who do you think are the "professionals" in this forum, by the way? It would seem that you consider me not to be one of those, so I'm intrigued.

Yes, of course we're discussing fiction. None of this is a PROBLEM, except that you're making claims which, so far, you have failed to support, and have ignored contrary claims which are far better supported, with no apparent justification for your position except that you like it better.

Let's be clear... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FIELD DRIVE. Not as far as anyone, in any scientific endeavor, has ever demonstrated. It is a fictional construct, nothing more and nothing less. It is "magic"... a sleight of hand (in verbal form) used to justify something which cannot otherwise be justified, in a storytelling venue.

Mr. Cary Brown...I will assume you didn't see the link or the other picture that was used in the post of mine that you refer to, did you? You're basing this comment off the one picture you identified? If so I understand your condescension even if it is misplaced. Rest assured newtype alpha answered the question quite competently.

No, I'm basing this upon having worked in that field, designing and studying such systems, as well as related systems, for a number of years. From, a quarter of a century ago, having spent a great deal of classroom time studying these systems and learning the equations and processes involved in these systems. From having designed, developed, and/or tested flight hardware on both military and civilian aircraft, in the years after that. From currently being the most senior mechanical engineer at my company (NOT an aerospace company, this time, though), with responsibility over activities on three continents.

And, I'll grant, from being a big Trek geek from the day I was born, the same year that Star Trek was born, and growing up with it as part of my life from my earliest memories. Fast-approaching a half-century worth of time pouring over the fictional side of this, while working on the "real" side of it for a living.

Referring to the operation of a jet engine, and explaining why your comments are incorrect, based upon this level of experience and knowledge isn't "condescension." Nor, bluntly, am I the only person on this BBS, or even in this conversation, with a grasp of the concepts. Unfortunately, you seem to not be grasping them, and I've been trying to help alleviate your apparent confusion. If you prefer not to learn, however, that is your prerogative.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Didn't the "impulse engine is a low-yield warp drive" originate with Sternbach and Okuda?

In the TNG technical manual, they refer to the incorporation of "driver coils" to do pretty much what I've been describing (reduce the energy cost for newtonian thrust to be used to accelerate the ship to a given velocity).

They actually state, in the TNG Tech Man, that this was first incorporated into the Ambassador class, and later the Galaxy as well, since these ships were too massive for the "pure newtonian" drives to be able to move them effectively.

However, the Tech Manual (written by Sternbach and Okuda, of course) does not redefine "impulse" as you say. In fact, it's very explicit about impulse being a thrust-based system.

(The Tech Manual also limits impulse to .75c in order to avoid relativistic effects.)

 

[Saquist]

Demonstrate, then, with any form of REAL science, that a "field effect drive" would not subject you to relativistic concerns.

That's irrelevant.
The convention at fault is the concept that unaltered newtonian physics can over come relativistic speeds and we know they can't. No demostrative realities is required in physics when in the same discussion as sci fi as it can not be proven for or against. This was faulty thinking on your part or diversionary.

Really? What parts are you referring to? Give us a complete list of all parts required for your "field drive," please.

Fusion Reactor
Driver Coils
Impulse Manifold

And show us that no other components would be required for such a drive.Canon does no such thing.

Again you falter. I am noticing a lack of precision in listening, Mr. Cary Brown. I never said no other components would be required for such a drive.

Why do you keep throwing out the word "canon" in ways that demonstrate, so clearly, that you don't fully understand its meaning?

It is your understanding that is at fault, Mr. Brown.
Canon means "official" or genuine. I have no need to add to the offical onscreen list of components. I've not been able to find one quote from canon which isolates the impulse drive system using any type of subspace field at all, even though Memory Alpha states it as part of the system a source is not referenced in anyway. Nor does my memory serve to support the claim.

"Canon" also does not show any toilets (of ANY kind) on the Enterprise. Therefore, by your argument, there is no need for those in the future. True, or false?PLEASE stop misusing the word "canon" in this fashion. You're reminding me of a sketch "The Kids in the Hall" used to do...I hate to break this to you, but THIS SHOW IS FICTION.

An egregious miss use of logic, Mr. Cary Brown. Juxtaposing the necessaties of non fictional human biological functions with fictional technical specifications culminating in an accusation of an erring syllogism by means of canon.

(Also... spell check is your friend. Use it... trust me.)

I applaud your powers of preception of the obvious however I lack the time and motivation you take for granted to indulge in this precision when you have so often failed to read for precise comprehension and not for colloquial, diversionary or egocentric interpretations of words which have a clear meaning.

Secondly, your questions haven't been for the sake of vocabulary and comprehension and thus I can conclude that you are to no detectable disadvantage.

Because the show is fiction, and because the Enterprise doesn't REALLY exist, the intention of the people who thought her up, and directed how she was portrayed on screen is INFINITELY more significant than that of a single fan who happens to disagree with them.

Of course canon side steps any intent when there is contradiction.

You might want to go back and watch TOS, and notice that, most notably in "The Cage" that they actually USE THE WORD ROCKETS!

Is that "canon" in your opinion?

Oh Mr. Brown....That is a good question.
You should know my knowledge of the TOS is quite incomplete but from my understanding the Cage was never shown as part of the original seasons of Star Trek. It's Canonicity is questionable depending on what scenes we're speaking of as the footage of this pilot was certainly reused in later episodes. So your statement does not help with resolution of canon.

I myself have come to no determination. I would first like to find out if it exist in the canon Star Trek episodes. That would clearly be canon and thus admissable. In my opinion although it would be a contradiction it wouldn't be a strong contradiction but certainly the strongest of all your rebutals. I would have to logicaly back down as it thus becomes an issue of interpretation.

And I won't bother to explain, once again, that attempts to redefine the word "impulse" to mean something else is sort of like redefining the words "up" or "down." Just because YOUR education never taught you this particular word doesn't infer that the word can be made to mean anything you want it to.

I only see arrogant presumption, Mr. Brown.
I have read your statements on the word impulse. You revealed nothing astounding as I had long ago looked up the word impulse specificly with the intention of defining the impulse drive system and then looked it up again upon reading your post.

So, if you really want to say that Roddenberry is "the last word" on the topic... I guess you have to accept that he used the word "rocket" in that show, and his word is the last word.

That's illogical.
The nature of the canon has not been determined yet althought the pilot was credited to Roddenberry as the writer. However many things changed from the pilot to actual first episode. In less complicated wording...revised.

While I agree, entirely, that TOS is the "source material" upon which everything else was built, I disagree with your interpretation of TOS.

If I had any interpretations I wouldn't mind as an interpretation means some amount of deciphering but I'm merely taking the facts as they are.

It seems that you're not as familiar with it as you think you are

Rather, it seems that you have your personal preference, and are trying to "retcon" TOS to mean what you WANT it to mean, without any real evidence supporting your position.

That would assume that you have an insight into how I view TOS and you do not. Like interpretations assumptions are quite plentiful. However assumptions are not required to be truthful.

There is, as you say, no evidence that the Enterprise has "thrust reversers," or "retro thrusters," or that it performs an inversion maneuver.

There is also no evidence whatsoever that the Enterprise has a "field drive" for sublight propulsion. None. Zip. Nada.

I'm glad there is at least some agreement.
The only evidence which implies a field device of any kind for sublight propulsion is the driver coil. The driver coil has not been connected to any type of field yet in star trek , it's failure or destruction has specificly stop ships in canon. If it was a mere subspace field device then the warp field could have been a redundant backup. I have reason to believe this driver coild is thus intregal to the system.

As far as TOS is concerned... we didn't need detailed technical explanations, we were just given a believable "set dressing" to support the storytelling. I prefer that, honestly, and like the idea that we can all come to our own conclusions about how it works.

I concur.

You can believe that it's a "field drive," and that's fine. But if you want other people to AGREE with you, you're failing to provide a compelling argument to support that goal.

To your satisfaction...I'm sure that is certainly true.

No. You have, in fact, presented no actual information, nor any facts. Most of what you've presented as "fact" is either flawed, or based upon unsupported assumptions.

1.If you wish to contradiction that Star Trek does not show relativistic sublight progress then you would be under burden of proof to exemplify an occasion which impulse speeds have been known to be fractions of the speed of light as resulting in a significant passage of time.

You have not.
The Fact stands.

2. If you wish to contradict that my theory does not add any other device to canon you must of course comb over my previous post and find such a statement that includes a device that is not in canon.

You have not done so.
The Fact stands.

3. If you wish to contradict that the producers concept of impulse drive does not violate physics then you must find a quote from the producers that explains how the ships reverse trust and not merely accept Newtype Alpha's speculation of what the producers had in mind.

You have not done so.
The Fact stands.

4. If you wish to contradict that the VFX artist never applied the producer's concept of impulse engines to canon then not only must you find such a quote but also identify the Visual FX itself.

You have not done so.
Neither does any such VFX exist.
The statement remains standing.

5. At best you have identified a contradiction in design intent to script dialogue in a vaguely canon pilot. That's a "maybe" out of five. At what point do you wish to be just handed the award for Dramatic Implicity?

Granted, my own preferred explanation... (the use of a static subspace field to reduce apparent mass and increase apparent speed-of-light, allowing the ship to accelerate much, much faster with less inertial effects for a much lower energy cost, while still using a classical Newtonian impulse-based system - and "impulse" is a central term in Newtonian physics, remember) also involves some speculation.

Mr. Cary Brown, you have already illuminated the single massive flaw in your prefered theory. If the ships behaved as though they were comforming to newtonian physics, and was consider "design intent" then the results would have been plainly evident in the plot and dialogue due to a large schism of time between the ship and destinations and departure points.

But it's far more easily supported.

Only by noncanon sources.

Doesn't mean I'm "right" and you're "wrong." Because it's all... 100% of it... fictional.

Ultimately yes, you're correct.
It was never my objective to prove you or anyone else wrong.
My station is always defense. I merely defended the merrits of the field theory based on the facts.

"Ruled out" by who?

There is no personage.
The facts rule out your theory.

I've given you that valid alternative. One which is far more in accordance with REAL SCIENCE (requiring only one small bit of "magic" to work... and "magic" which is in accordance with a number of real, scientific views on "curved space-time" which, while as yet unsupported by evidence, are well-considered in the scientific community and supported by a fair amount of "pure math") as opposed to your solution which is made, whole-cloth, from "magic")

Your theory that you call less based on magic, violates newtonian physics with newtonian physics. That's not a solution but a contradiction.

About Star Trek - It's all fiction. And "field drives" are entirely fictional. So there's no compelling reason not to use "field drives" in the Trek universe. However, there is a large body of real, compelling evidence (both "by production intent" and "by real science") to conclude that the sublight propulsion system used by Federation starships are Newtonian devices.

1. The production intent to Jefferies confirms the Design intent was not Rockets, thus you are in error.

2. "The real" Science does not offer anyway to over come Newtonian Physics outside of theory.

Excuse me? You have stated, EXPLICITLY, that you reject "Production intent" on this matter. It's hardly a "straw man"

You are further in error.
I accepted Gene Roddenberry's design intent. (documented)
I never said that ,"the artist doesn't know his (or her) own work as well as you do."

Since I never made such an argument it is purely a Strawman.

to point that out.You should make a better effort to get correct definitions of words. Especially if you're going to use the word "defined" in your explanation.

You may contradict the online sources if you like.

Magic:any art that invokes supernatural powers
Since supernatural describes that which doesn't exist in nature and humans certainly are natural then the concept would be non human. This definition is vindicated.


speculation

http://www.google.com/url?&q=http:/...=&cd=1&usg=AFQjCNF91efTSd0z2Q-2rRFxvpxkwaMi6A

Both definitions are incorrect,

A confidence statement proven non factual.

"Magic"
In this case, the "sleight of hand" is "made up technobabble with no relationship to anything which is part of real science." And the "illusion" is that a make-believe ship is flying around in space.

False:
"Sleight of hand" Sleight of hand, also known as prestidigitation ("quick fingers") or léger de main (from the French for "lightness of hand"), is the set of techniques used by a magician (or card sharp) to manipulate objects such as cards and coins secretly.

This is an attempt to deceive.
Often story-telling is not an intent to deceive but to entertain.

"Inadmissible?" Okayyyy.... I wasn't aware that we were involved in a court of law for this discussion.

The issue is that of which is canon.

Other than that part, the grammar of the last sentence is flawed enough that I'm not able to derive any further meaning from what you seem to be trying to convey.

My apologies, I should not have attempted to make that one sentence but you got the point.

Who do you think are the "professionals" in this forum, by the way? It would seem that you consider me not to be one of those, so I'm intrigued.

That would not be the case, Mr. Brown.
I am gratified to offer that particular correction. I do consider your statements in context of your skills to be of a professional. (thank you for the correction)

Yes, of course we're discussing fiction. None of this is a PROBLEM, except that you're making claims which, so far, you have failed to support, and have ignored contrary claims which are far better supported, with no apparent justification for your position except that you like it better.

Let's be clear... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FIELD DRIVE. Not as far as anyone, in any scientific endeavor, has ever demonstrated. It is a fictional construct, nothing more and nothing less. It is "magic"... a sleight of hand (in verbal form) used to justify something which cannot otherwise be justified, in a storytelling venue.

Let the record show:

I have never claimed a "field drive" existed.
I have never claimed that a "field drive is anything else but a Star Trek creation.

I have stated in detail magic is an improper term as is the phrase "sleight of hand" to sci-fi. I do not agree with their use in anyway fashion or form and it will remain a schism between logic and your use of metaphors.

No, I'm basing this upon having worked in that field

No...you didn't see the other picture and assumed I was making some sort of argument rather than a question?Otherwise I don't understand why you said "no" before stating your impressive qualifications.

Mr. Brown. You have felt comfortable enough in this informal relationship to adminster unsolicited advice. May I not overstep my bounds by respectfullly offering similar assistance...

1. Attempt to relate on a more precise standard of Fact
2. Use precise contradictions when attempting to refute claims statements or facts.
3. Do not rely on metaphors to convey an argument.
4. Ask revelant questions rather than assuming understanding or before regurgitating a thought as a possible falsehood.
5. Give sources and links if possible if it will assist with comprehension.

I believe this will greatlly improve comprehension in the dicussion.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The only evidence which implies a field device of any kind for sublight propulsion is the driver coil.

I hope you are aware that the existence of the "driver coil" is described in the tech manual only and is, by your definition NOT CANON. The same tech manual that describes the driver coil also describes the impulse engine as a newtonian thrust-producing engine. If you're to be consistent, you either accept the driver coil does what it is said to do in the manual, or you ignore the manual--and the driver coil--completely.

1.If you wish to contradiction that Star Trek does not show relativistic sublight progress then you would be under burden of proof to exemplify an occasion which impulse speeds have been known to be fractions of the speed of light as resulting in a significant passage of time.

You have not.
The Fact stands.

Relativistic time dilation is not canon. And as for the balance of these, they are not facts, they are indeed assumptions. You need to justify them with positive evidence, not a lack of contravening evidence.

"The real" Science does not offer anyway to over come Newtonian Physics outside of theory.

The theory has been offered. You just don't LIKE that theory because you keep insisting "Thrust reversersers should be visible! Teh Canon says so!!!!11"

A confidence statement proven non factual.

1. Attempt to relate on a more precise standard of Fact
2. Use precise contradictions when attempting to refute claims statements or facts.
3. Do not rely on metaphors to convey an argument.
4. Ask revelant questions rather than assuming understanding or before regurgitating a thought as a possible falsehood.
5. Give sources and links if possible if it will assist with comprehension.

I believe this will greatlly improve comprehension in the dicussion.

Take your own advice, dude. "Facts" are things that are established by positive evidence; you have presented NONE of those. You are also conspicuously un-familiar with the main sources being used in this discussion, namely the TNG and DS9 tech manuals.

 

[Saquist]

I hope you are aware that the existence of the "driver coil" is described in the tech manual only

False:

Sources:
(DS9Crossover)
(VOY The Cloud)
(VOY Basics, Part I)
(DS9 For the Uniform)
(VOY Drive)

The "driver coil's" existence is (described is improper) stated in numerous star trek episodes. You have failed to offer contradiction.

Relativistic time dilation is not canon. And as for the balance of these, they are not facts, they are indeed assumptions. You need to justify them with positive evidence, not a lack of contravening evidence.

Lets see:
Relativisitc: relating or subject to the special or the general theory of relativity; "relativistic quantum mechanics"; "relativistic increase in mass ...

The author of this theory "Albert Einstien" has indeed be represented in the episode of TNG Minds Eye and Nth Degree and Descent If you are posulating that relativity is not canon then you also question the use and requirement of warp drive which was to break a relativistic of light speed. Your statement is a nonsense, newtype alpha.
Perhaps you can elaborate on this thought.

"The real" Science does not offer anyway to over come Newtonian Physics outside of theory.

The theory has been offered. You just don't LIKE that theory because you keep insisting "Thrust reversersers should be visible! Teh Canon says so!!!!11"

This maybe more about reading comprehension on your part.
One more time: "The real" Science does not offer anyway to overcome Newtonian Physics...." Newtonian Physics is not considered a theory nor is reverse thrusters. What you are offering isn't scientific theory it's canon speculation. This thus has nothing to do with my likes or dislikes but rather a preponderance of evidence.

Take your own advice, dude. "Facts" are things that are established by positive evidence; you have presented NONE of those. You are also conspicuously un-familiar with the main sources being used in this discussion, namely the TNG and DS9 tech manuals.

This advice should be well received by you aswell newtype alpha. This current post of yours exhibted a few confidence statements I could not verify. Please reread those guidelines. If you have anything valid to say then agree it should be an actual direct contradiction not a confidence contradiction such as to say "You presented none of those" (refering to fact) when you offer no actual opposing information. Your post wasn't of nearly enough content to prove that statement true. I certainly believe you think it's true but this post beheld no evident demostration of reality. You've done better than this.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I hope you are aware that the existence of the "driver coil" is described in the tech manual only

False:

Sources:
(DS9Crossover)
(VOY The Cloud)
(VOY Basics, Part I)
(DS9 For the Uniform)
(VOY Drive)

Without the relevant quotations, this is meaningless. The DS9 reference uses "impulse driver coil" IIRC.

The "driver coil's" existence is (described is improper) stated in numerous star trek episodes. You have failed to offer contradiction.

I haven't BEEN offering contradiction since I was the one who brought it up in the first place.

Lets see:
Relativisitc: relating or subject to the special or the general theory of relativity; "relativistic quantum mechanics"; "relativistic increase in mass ...

"relativistic quantum mechanics" is gibberish.
"Reltivisitic increase in mass" doesn't actually happen.
And "relativistic time dilation" is never referred to on screen or occurring in trek-reality and is therefore non-canon. Warp drive, also, doesn't make use Einstein field equations, nor does Zephram cochrane make any references to it in either of his trek appearances.

And the existence of Einstein doesn't validate his theory anymore than the existence of Khaless proves there is a God.

One more time: "The real" Science does not offer anyway to overcome Newtonian Physics...." Newtonian Physics is not considered a theory nor is reverse thrusters. What you are offering isn't scientific theory it's canon speculation. This thus has nothing to do with my likes or dislikes but rather a preponderance of evidence.

We're going in circles now because you keep forgetting what this discussion was about.

Do you not recall it was your objection that impulse engines could not provide "reverse power" if they operated by producing thrust? I explained to you that a simple forcefield over the engine exhaust would easily account for that reverse thrust; to date, your one and only objection was YOUR speculation that such a forcefield should be visible, followed by me explaining to you that most forcefields are NOT visible.

So we have your objection, my speculation, your counter-speculation. So far the only FACT in this train of logic is that the TNG manual describes the impulse engines as producing motion through the application of thrust. A plausible theory for REVERSE thrust has been offered; that you do not like this theory is not evidence for an alternate theory.

you offer no actual opposing information.

The information I have offered speaks for itself, including the reference manual, which you still have not addressed and choose to selectively ignore.

Also, "opposing information" is irrelevant here, because contradicting a alternate theory is not positive evidence of an alternate theory. When I say you have not offered facts, I state this as a matter of fact, because you have offered no positive evidence to support your theory, only counter-assumptions for the theory I provided pages ago based on the TNG manual.

So stop complaining about methodology and post your information. If you don't have information, then speculate. If you can't even speculate, then what are you even doing here?

 

[Captain Robert April]

Anybody else have their eyes glaze over just now?

 

[Saquist]

Without the relevant quotations, this is meaningless. The DS9 reference uses "impulse driver coil" IIRC.

The Cloud:
TORRES: We've lost the rear driver coil assembly.

Basics Part I
KIM: The driver coil assembly has been destroyed. Impulse engines are off-line.

DS9 Crossover:
SISKO
(laughs)
And you're not afraid to show it,
are you... ? I guess that's why I
like you so much. My impulse driver
coil isn't operational. Take care
of it.

DS9 For the Uniform
O'BRIEN
Stand by impulse power.
(then to one crewman)
Stand by to increase deuterium
injection rate.
(then to another)
Configure driver coils for impulse
speed.

It doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.
It does prove the fact you were wrong.

I haven't BEEN offering contradiction

You're not kidding. There was no contradiction of the facts at all.

"relativistic quantum mechanics" is gibberish.

I will not debate the merrits of scientific theory on the level of ridicule.
Diversionary: Dismissed.

And "relativistic time dilation" is never referred to on screen or occurring in trek-reality and is therefore non-canon. Warp drive, also, doesn't make use Einstein field equations, nor does Zephram cochrane make any references to it in either of his trek appearances.

Hypocritical...
Your own theory requires the confirmation of canon of classical field theory and it does not.
It's assumed as part of Sci Fi. Designation.

As long as a reference to a light speed barrier is made in Star Trek it automaticly refers to Einstien's relating Light Speed as the ultimate speed limit. Any use of Einstien becomes the foundation of Star Trek science. Because Star Trek is listed as Science Fiction and Star Trek has used Einstien himself numerous times as one of the great minds of Earth and haven't amended any of his theories ever it is indeed canon.

And the existence of Einstein doesn't validate his theory anymore than the existence of Khaless proves there is a God.

Validation is not required.
It's canon in Star Trek.

We're going in circles now because you keep forgetting what this discussion was about.

Do you not recall it was your objection that impulse engines could not provide "reverse power" if they operated by producing thrust? I explained to you that a simple forcefield over the engine exhaust would easily account for that reverse thrust; to date, your one and only objection was YOUR speculation that such a forcefield should be visible, followed by me explaining to you that most forcefields are NOT visible.

My objection was that the canon shows no use of forcefields for reverse thrust and without it, it's impossible to for the ship to move rear first without it.

Thus my objection is that there is no evidence of a forefield.
The forcefield is not canon and thus speculation but also based on nothing in canon. Most forcefields are most visible when disturbed.

So far the only FACT in this train of logic is that the TNG manual describes the impulse engines as producing motion through the application of thrust.

It is a fact but not canon and it's not the only fact.
Fact: Most forcefields are visible when disturbed. (your examples were decidedly on the few side)
Fact:No visible evidence of the forcefield you speculate on is visible.

A plausible theory for REVERSE thrust has been offered; that you do not like this theory is not evidence for an alternate theory.

Good Grief, strawman...
I have never expressed any like or dislike for the theory.
I have never offered preference as proof of anything.
This is badgering belligerence.
Moving on.

The information I have offered speaks for itself, including the reference manual, which you still have not addressed and choose to selectively ignore.

It speaks for Design Intent AFTER the the series was conclude.
This isn't ignored. It's set in it's proper place to canon...which is speculation. This is not choice this is merely how it is.

Also, "opposing information" is irrelevant here,

It's completely relevent. Your argument requires you to oppose these facts and you have not. The theory of field propulsion is not important. You were opposing the facts thinking you would oppose the theory as a result but you didn't oppose the facts so you haven't gotten anywhere close to the theory.

So stop complaining about methodology and post your information. If you don't have information, then speculate. If you can't even speculate, then what are you even doing here?

Request denied.
Method is everything. We are attempt to determine the best supported theory. Your standards of facts are poor, new type alpha. Untill we agree on those standards the schism will persist.
Pay attention. I have stated my purpose and it is not to speculate.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

As long as a reference to a light speed barrier is made in Star Trek it automaticly refers to Einstien's relating Light Speed as the ultimate speed limit.

Stay on the subject for a minute, will you? There is no canon evidence that, in the trekiverse, relativistic time dilation occurs at sub-light speeds. Quite the opposite, in fact, we have seen starships moving around at high sublight speeds all the time without experiencing any noticeable time dilation or simultaneity anomalies. Therefore, relativistic time dilation is not canon in Star Trek.

If you disagree, then find an example of time dilation in Star Trek specifically related to high-impulse or near-lightspeed travel.

Any use of Einstien's theories becomes the foundation of Star Trek science. Because Star Trek is listed as Science Fiction and Star Trek has used Einstien himself numerous times as one of the great minds of Earth and haven't amended any of his theories ever it is indeed canon.

You have it backwards again. You need POSITIVE evidence that time dilation occurs in Star Trek (i.e. an example of it happening) before you can claim it is canon. What you have done instead is assert that there's no evidence that it doesn't occur, which I'm sure you know is flawed logic.

My objection was that the canon shows no use of forcefields for reverse thrust

And your objection is a form of special pleading. MANY things on the Enterprise show no use of forcefields for anything, even though we know the forcefields are there. A forcefield thrust-reverser is a perfectly plausible explanation, and it has the virtue of being more consistent with the TNG tech manual as well as Scotty's line from "Relics" than reducing impulse engines to some other type of exotic field propulsion system.

Thus my objection is that there is no evidence of a forefield.

And to shift the goalposts right back to their original position... so what? The existence of it would provide EXACTLY the effect we see from impulse engines. The theory remains plausible.

Most forcefields are most visible when disturbed.

Do I again have to go down the list of all the cases where this is untrue? Or would it be more efficient to go down the extremely short list of forcefields that ARE visible when disturbed?

Fact: Most forcefields are visible when disturbed. (your examples were decidedly on the few side)

You did not even provide me of a list of examples of forcefields that WERE visible. How could you possibly believe this is an established fact?

It speaks for Design Intent AFTER the the series was conclude.

TNG was far from "conclude" when the tech manual was written. It was published in 1991 based on the Writer's guide; the series did not conclude until 1994.

This isn't ignored. It's set in it's proper place to canon...which is speculation.

Riiiiigt... Mike Okuda and Rick Sternback were merely speculating on how the Enterprise--which they themselves designed--supposedly worked.

I'm afraid you're going to have to justify that one.

It's completely relevent. Your argument requires you to oppose these facts...

No argument can ever be validated by opposing information, as an attempt to prove a negative is fundamentally illogical. The positive datapoints I have presented lend credence to this theory and is more consistent with them than any other possibilities. And of course, the single most relevant datapoint is design intent.

Request denied.

Then go away.

 

[CTM]

Anybody else have their eyes glaze over just now?

slowly raises hand.... about three pages ago. I know I started this thread, but I lost my grasp on what the discussion was a while ago.

 

[Captain Robert April]

From where I sit, debating this is like debating the functionality of Iron Man's boot jets or Spider-Man's web shooters. Fun up to a point, but very quickly gets too stereotypical for words.

 

[CTM]

From where I sit, debating this is like debating the functionality of Iron Man's boot jets or Spider-Man's web shooters. Fun up to a point, but very quickly gets too stereotypical for words.

Even my original question was getting close to that line... but yeah, this discussion has reached new levels of "angels dancing on the head of a pin"

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

I was actually thinking "Organians dancing on the head of an intermix chamber".

 

[Cary L. Brown]

From where I sit, debating this is like debating the functionality of Iron Man's boot jets or Spider-Man's web shooters. Fun up to a point, but very quickly gets too stereotypical for words.

HEY! SPIDERMAN DOESN'T HAVE WEB SHOOTER GUNS, HE'S A GENETIC MUTANT!


Oh, sorry, what was your point again?

 

[Captain Robert April]

I'm still not a fan of the organic web shooters. Takes away too much of Peter's backstory, namely that the kid's a scientific whiz. Also makes it a lot harder to pull the old gag of running out of web fluid in a critical time.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

So, I was refilling the power steering fluid in my car this morning, and I was wondering if the Enterprise had any fluids that needed refilling or replacing.

I wonder if they have to top off the navigational deflector fluid every 10,000 LY or so...

 

[Timo]

What did you think the GNDN tubes were for? The ship must have relied on fluid flows just as heavily as any ship of today does... Although probably not for lubrication of moving parts. Did Kirk's ship ever demonstrate moving parts? Apart from the shuttlebay doors, that is.

Timo Saloniemi