[AVOGARDO] Moron boy's ignorant ravings

[wilfulton]

(snip)

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

I postulate that you are trying to bullshit me.

[AVOGARDO]

They used graviton pulses to communicate

[...]

They stream artifically created graviton particles in a beam [...] It is like comparing the radiation from the sun with a laser

[...]

The entity is streaming a very high concentration of gravitons in a beam

[...]

That's utterly wrong.

They didn't know, where the Crystalline entity exactly was.

WORF
Sir, the Brechtian Cluster is now
five light years away.

RIKER
Are we still picking up the
Entity's pattern?

DATA
Yes, Commander. But sensors do
not yet have a lock on its exact
whereabouts.

DOCTOR MARR
Captain, we are reasonably certain
it's between here and the
Brechtian Cluster. If I start
emitting the graviton beam now,
it may act as a lure... a kind
of beacon.

[They use the term beam too, but it's wrong.]

A beam goes in one certain direction on a small path.

A beam is not omnidirectional.

They wanted to lure the Cristaline entity: they dind't even know the exact direction. Otherwise they could have fly to it and hadn't needed to lure it.

If they didn't know, where the Cristaline entity was exactly and didn't know its direction, they would have to send the graviton pulse in all directions, at least in a wide angle in a certain direction, that wouldn't be a beam per definition.

Otherwise the beam wouldn't hit the Cristaline entity.

Furthermore you have noticed, that the beam was used to communicate. Usually the signals of communication are omnidirectional. If you want to be able to communicate with several persons at the same time. Otherwise you would have to aim your signal to each single person with which you whish to cmmunicate. If the Cristaline entity communicate with its own kind in this way, why should it use a beam and not an omnidirectional signal?



Concerning the difference between a graviton pulse and a graviton beam:

A beam is focused energy or particels. It has a small pathway.

But we don't even know, if it is possible to focus gravitons at all.

For example light usually propagate consistently in all directions.

The ability to create light is not to equate with the ability to focus it or to create a laser. For light it is relativ simple to focus it, cause you can block and reflect light very easy.

Gravitaion, which effects are created by gravitons, propagate consistently in all directions too.

We know, that they are able co create a graviton pulse. That means, that they are at least able to create a fluctuation of short duration in the gravitation field. These fluctuation would be at least omnidirectional too.

If you want create a graviton beam, you have to have the ability, to to block or reflect gravitation (or rather its gravitons). But it isn't as easy to block or reflect gravitation (or rather its gravitons) as it is with light. As far as I know, till today, there is no scientifical theory, how you could be able to do it.

But even if you would be able to do it, this graviton beam would be some kind of tractor beam. In its path, you have a huge gravitation to its source, due to the high concentraion of gravitons. Beside it, you would have no effect at all.

Even if I assume, that they could create such a graviton beam, maybe cause they have a tractor beam and that could be the same, there would be still the question, why they would use a beam to communicate with the Cristaline entity, if a omnidirectional signal would do as well.



Such a graviton beam could be a pulse, if it would be from short duration.

It could have a pulse, if you would change its properties for a short duration, for example in- and then decrease its intenseness. This modulation is called a pulse. Then the beam would be an pulsed beam.

[brianeyci]

[They use the term beam too, but it's wrong.]

A beam goes in one certain direction on a small path.

A beam is not omnidirectional.

They wanted to lure the Cristaline entity: they dind't even know the exact direction. Otherwise they could have fly to it and hadn't needed to lure it.

If they didn't know, where the Cristaline entity was exactly and didn't know its direction, they would have to send the graviton pulse in all directions, at least in a wide angle in a certain direction, that wouldn't be a beam per definition.

You're a dumb fucking shit. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, Dr. Marr referred to a graviton beam because he fucking said so. Data referred to a pulses, which means the beam pulsated or varied in intensity. You assume it's impossible to lure someone with a beam, obviously false.

Otherwise the beam wouldn't hit the Cristaline entity.

Furthermore you have noticed, that the beam was used to communicate. Usually the signals of communication are omnidirectional. If you want to be able to communicate with several persons at the same time. Otherwise you would have to aim your signal to each single person with which you whish to cmmunicate. If the Cristaline entity communicate with its own kind in this way, why should it use a beam and not an omnidirectional signal?

Why? Who fucking cares. There is a difference between artificially generated gravitons from a pulse or a beam and naturally occurring gravitons, and that difference is probably concentration given how weak gravity is.

A beam is focused energy or particels. It has a small pathway.

But we don't even know, if it is possible to focus gravitons at all.

For example light usually propagate consistently in all directions.

The ability to create light is not to equate with the ability to focus it or to create a laser. For light it is relativ simple to focus it, cause you can block and reflect light very easy.

Gravitaion, which effects are created by gravitons, propagate consistently in all directions too.

But Data fired off a graviton beam. A continuous beam of gravitons. Suspension of disbelief means we believe they can do it dumbarse. Now if you had a quote about them detecting mass by detecting gravitons from light years away, suspension of disbelief would force us to accept it too, and people have been asking for that evidence but you do not provide it. Dumbarse.

We know, that they are able co create a graviton pulse. That means, that they are at least able to create a fluctuation of short duration in the gravitation field. These fluctuation would be at least omnidirectional too.

If you want create a graviton beam, you have to have the ability, to to block or reflect gravitation (or rather its gravitons). But it isn't as easy to block or reflect gravitation (or rather its gravitons) as it is with light. As far as I know, till today, there is no scientifical theory, how you could be able to do it.

But even if you would be able to do it, this graviton beam would be some kind of tractor beam. In its path, you have a huge gravitation to its source, due to the high concentraion of gravitons. Beside it, you would have no effect at all.

Even if I assume, that they could create such a graviton beam, maybe cause they have a tractor beam and that could be the same, there would be still the question, why they would use a beam to communicate with the Cristaline entity, if a omnidirectional signal would do as well.



Such a graviton beam could be a pulse, if it would be from short duration.

It could have a pulse, if you would change its properties for a short duration, for example in- and then decrease its intenseness. This modulation is called a pulse. Then the beam would be an pulsed beam.

All wrong, because Data did create a graviton beam, and therefore I have to accept it just like I accept faster than light travel. But I do not have to accept your stupid conclusion that because they can detect a concentration of gravitons from an artificial source, propagated by some medium in a beam or a pulse, they can detect naturally occurring gravitons from light years away you moron.

[AVOGARDO]

And unlike yours, his is actually supported by the available evidence.

Which evidences? Some episodes?
I have my conclusions based on episodes too.
It seems, you are not able to tell the difference because you repeat again and again the same:
They have evidences - I have not.
Their conlusion is reasonable - my conclusions are not.

That would be a lot more convincing if you hadn't continuously dared people to prove your theory WRONG

I haven't dared people to prove my theory WRONG. Have you read this thread at all? I have asked people to give a better explanation. I have never said, that my explanation is the only possible. But as long as I see no better explanation and there is no proof, that my explanation is impossible, I believe in it. That doesn't mean, that I think, that it couldn't be wrong.

That is only logical. You beliefe always in the possiblity with the highest probability. And if there are no other explanation, and my explanation is not impossible, thus there is a posibility that it could be correct, it is the explanation with the highest probability.

We understand how signal reflection/refraction/interaction works

You doesn't know, how it works with gravitons. As far as we know till today, you can't reflect or refract gravitons.

Furthermore, unlike yours, Mike's theory has NOT been proven to flat out NOT WORK.

Nobody of you have tried to argue against him at all. His theory has its flaws, as I have tried to demonstrate. It can't for example explain, how you can determine the mass of an object, which doesn't travel at warp-speed and from which you knows nothing at all cause many materials seems to be transparent to their postulated subspace signal, which would made the whole sensor system independable.

And till now, nobody has explained, why my theory can only be wrong.

1. A postulate is an assumption, dumbfuck.

The term postulate, or axiom, indicates a statement or assumption that is agreed by everyone to be so obvious or self-evident that no proof is necessary, and which can be used to prove other statements or theorems. Neither axioms nor postulates can be proven (within a system) using more basic statements.

As you can see, a postulate is more than only an assumption, dumbfuck.

And as I have shown, his explanation is not able to explain certain things. Therefore it would be wrong to agree, that it is obvious or self-evident.

If you would bother to think about his explanation, you would notice it. Furthermore, it was already said from different persons, not me allone, that their explanation could be wrong.

For this, it can't ...

...be a proper postulate and a postulate in the full sense of the word.

The conclusion of this paragraph is both that "[Fed ships] can emit a particular type of radiation (presumably "subspace" related) which very strongly interacts with certain phenomena in a manner differently than electromagnetic radiation does," and that this is a sensible thing to take for granted in a wider discussion... in other words, it's sensible to make this a postulate!

I never said, that this is wrong. I hink, that this can't be the only sensor system. It is to independable and wouldn't be able to determine the mass or an object, if many materials seems to be transparent to their postulated subspace signal.

I couldn't possibly care less. Mike already provided a viable theory.

No, he has not. He can't explain, how their postulated subspace signal can determine the mass of an object, which doesn't travel at warp-speed and from which you knows nothing at all cause many materials seems to be transparent to their postulated subspace signal.

He has not explained, why there would not be other sensor systems though their described sensor system is very independable.

Now show me where the available evidence supports them doing so by measuring gravity.

I have already show you my conclusions. You have failed to argue these at all. You have not said, why my explanation would be less probably than another explanation or why it would be impossible.

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

Its a conclusion, you dumfuck. Do you have a better explanation, how the gravitation of a real space object could affect sub space?

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

I have not said, that they could detect gravitation only by its pull.

I have said, that it could be possible, that they can detect graviton particels with an active sensor signal too. In fact, I have described several possibilities, how they could detect graviton particles.

And if they can detect graviton particles with an active sensor signal, they would have more informations than only a pull, which would be the sum of the different directions, in which the graviton particles are flying.

Has it occurred to you that since gravitons carry gravity, sensing gravity is tantamount to detecting gravitons?

Ah, I see. You are able to see light, And for this, you are able to see a photon.

You idiot don't understand, that the sensing of an phenomena is not equate with the sensing of its cause. Probably that is cause your grasp of science is lesser than that of a troglodyte.

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

They didn't know, where the Entity was. It could have been five lightyears away. I'm doubt, that the crew of the Enterprise was ready to wait at least five years.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, Dr. Marr referred to a graviton beam because he fucking said so

You're a dumb fucking shit.

I have given you the evidence: It couldn't working. Unless you can show, that it could have worked. You need only show me the mistakes in my conclusions.

And furthermore, suddenly you argue, a dialog has more value than science. That contradict the policy of this board.

YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.

Why? Who fucking cares. There is a difference between artificially generated gravitons from a pulse or a beam and naturally occurring gravitons, and that difference is probably concentration given how weak gravity is.

YOU HYPOCRITE.

You have argued, the graviton pulse have to be a beam.

Now, that is irrelevant. Now it is a question of concentration?

If you could not detect graviton particels at all, the concentration in a beam would be irrelevant, you dumpfuck. All you could detect would be a change in pull, the effect which these gravitons are generating.

But Data fired off a graviton beam. A continuous beam of gravitons.

No he does not:

Data:
Commencing graviton emission now...

He doesn't said, he has fired off a graviton beam. And as I have shown, that would be highly unlikely cause he would have wanted to hit the Entity. And they didn't know its position. That would be necessary to direct a beam on it.

[...] if you had a quote about them detecting mass by detecting gravitons from light years away, suspension of disbelief would force us to accept it too

Do someone have a qoute, that they have found the platinum on Angel One by a subspace radiation, which interact with platinum but can't detect many other materials cause they seems to be transparent to this radiation.

There is no such qoute. But you accept it. Why?

All wrong, because Data did create a graviton beam

Prove it. Show the qoute, which without a doubt shows, that Data had created a graviton beam.

But I do not have to accept [...] that because they can detect a concentration of gravitons from an artificial source, [...] they can detect naturally occurring gravitons

If you can detect gravitons at all, it is irrelevant if the graviton emanate from a natural or a artificial source. It would still be a graviton.

For example, there is no difference between a photon, which emanate from an electric bulb or from the sun or from a fire. In every case, it is still a photon.

propagated by some medium in a beam or a pulse

Such a beam consist of its particels.

It is not a medium. If you turning-on a flashlight, the photons are the light. If you focus the light in a small pathway, the photons are the beam.
There is no medium, in which the photons propagate although they emanate from an artificial source.



You pretend to be so clever, but than you say such a bullshit. It is pathetic.

[Edi]

Such a beam consist of its particels.

It is not a medium. If you turning-on a flashlight, the photons are the light. If you focus the light in a small pathway, the photons are the beam.
There is no medium, in which the photons propagate although they emanate from an artificial source.

You're so fucking wrong I almost don't know where to begin. When you turn on a flashlight and shine it at something, the light needs to travel to the object you're targeting. It must travel through the air, or water, or whatever it is that is in between, i.e. it propagates through that substance, which is the medium.

Even in space, where there is no material for the light to travel through, there is the absence of material, i.e. vacuum, which acts as the medium of propagation and does not hinder light in any way. In fact, light travels fractionally slower than c in mediums other than vacuum.

You're a shitlicking moron, plain and simple.

Edi

[AVOGARDO]

You're so fucking wrong I almost don't know where to begin. When you turn on a flashlight and shine it at something, the light needs to travel to the object you're targeting. It must travel through the air, or water, or whatever it is that is in between, i.e. it propagates through that substance, which is the medium.

Even in space, where there is no material for the light to travel through, there is the absence of material, i.e. vacuum, which acts as the medium of propagation and does not hinder light in any way. In fact, light travels fractionally slower than c in mediums other than vacuum.

You're a shitlicking moron, plain and simple.

Do you do that intentionally?
That have to hurt. Maybe you should go to a doctor.
But otherwise, foolishness isn't curable.

Light doesn't depends on a medium.

That's why it is in vacuum the fastest. It becomes slower if the medium, through which it propagates, becomes more dense, to dumb it down.

And vakuum is per definition no medium.

That is for example the difference between a mechanical wave, like sound, and waves of electromagnetic radiation. A mechanical wave needs a medium and can't propagate through vakuum.

You have just proved, that you have no clue about physics.

Thank you very much.

[Surlethe]

Ah, I see. You are able to see light, And for this, you are able to see a photon.

Now you're starting to get it. When you detect light, you are detecting photons. When you detect gravity, you are detecting gravitons. When you detect speciation, you are detecting evolution.

You idiot don't understand, that the sensing of an phenomena is not equate with the sensing of its cause. Probably that is cause your grasp of science is lesser than that of a troglodyte.

My grasp of science is certainly far superior to your grasp of the English language: by your idiot logic, observations of speciation do not equate to observations of genetic drift.

They didn't know, where the Entity was. It could have been five lightyears away. I'm doubt, that the crew of the Enterprise was ready to wait at least five years.

Where do you think that probability came from, my ass?

[Batman]

And unlike yours, his is actually supported by the available evidence.

Which evidences? Some episodes?

The entirety of Star Trek. They use subspace based sensors, subspace based technology, subspace phenomena are clearly influenced by gravity.

I have my conclusions based on episodes too.

Which completely fail to SUPPORT that conclusion which incidentally was torn to shreds by Mad, wether you want to admit it or not.

That would be a lot more convincing if you hadn't continuously dared people to prove your theory WRONG

I haven't dared people to prove my theory WRONG.

Oh really. Reversal of the burden of proof bullshit, anyone?

Have you read this thread at all? I have asked people to give a better explanation.

Which Mike DID quite early in the thread.

I have never said, that my explanation is the only possible. But as long as I see no better explanation and there is no proof, that my explanation is impossible,

Which has been presented quite eloquently by Mad while you have shown

NO.
EVIDENCE.
WHATSOEVER.
supporting your theory.

I believe in it. That doesn't mean, that I think, that it couldn't be wrong.

Yes you do. Your theory has been shown to be completely unworkable AND isn't supported by any of the quotes you provided but you simply ignore that.

That is only logical. You beliefe always in the possiblity with the highest probability. And if there are no other explanation, and my explanation is not impossible,

Except there IS another explanation ands yours IS impossible.

thus there is a posibility that it could be correct, it is the explanation with the highest probability.

Except it is FACTUALLY WRONG.

We understand how signal reflection/refraction/interaction works

You doesn't know, how it works with gravitons. As far as we know till today, you cant reflect or refract gravitons.

Which is totally irrelevant as Mike's theory doesn't USE gravitons.

Furthermore, unlike yours, Mike's theory has NOT been proven to flat out NOT WORK.

Nobody of you have tried to argue against him at all.

Maybe that's because there's nothing in his theory that CAN'T work. Unlike in yours.

His theory has its flaws, as I have tried to demonstrate. It can't for example explain, how you can determine the mass of an object, which doesn't travel at warp-speed and from which you knows nothing at all cause many materials seems to be transparent to their postulated subspace signal, which would made the whole sensor system independable.

An incomplete theory is preferrable to a factually wrong one.

And till now, nobody has explained, why my theory can only be wrong.

Yes we have. Mad did so at great length. That you are either willfully ignoring him or too fucking stupid to understand his points isn't our problem.

I couldn't possibly care less. Mike already provided a viable theory.

No, he has not. He can't explain, how their postulated subspace signal can determine the mass of an object, which doesn't travel at warp-speed and from which you knows nothing at all cause many materials seems to be transparent to their postulated subspace signal.

IOW his theory isn't perfect. Whoopdee-fucking doo. YOURS is FACTUALLY WRONG.

He has not explained, why there would not be other sensor systems though their described sensor system is very independable.

He EXPLICITLY SAID there WOULD be other sensor system you lying little shit.

Now show me where the available evidence supports them doing so by measuring gravity.

I have already show you my conclusions. You have failed to argue these at all. You have not said, why my explanation would be less probably than another explanation or why it would be impossible.

Yes I have. Repeatedly. And Mad went out of his way to show you why that would be the case. And all the quotes you provided completely fail to support your theory. That you're too fucking stupid to UNDERSTAND it is not our problem.

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

Its a conclusion, you dumfuck. Do you have a better explanation, how the gravitation of a real space object could affect sub space?

I.DO.NOT.NEED.ONE. Your theory is completely unsupported and thus can be safely ignored especially as it doesn't change beans about the impossibility of determining a starship's mass via detecting its gravity.

[brianeyci]

You're a dumb fucking shit.

I have given you the evidence: It couldn't working. Unless you can show, that it could have worked. You need only show me the mistakes in my conclusions.

And furthermore, suddenly you argue, a dialog has more value than science. That contradict the policy of this board.

YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.

You're a big fucking dumb shit. Your only objection to the impossibility of a graviton beam has been we don't know the mechanism by which such a graviton beam would work. Guess what stupid, we don't know how faster than light travel works either or tractor beams. If Data created a graviton beam, that doesn't mean he had to cancel out gravity in one or more directions. It could just be a beam of highly concentrated particles, which emit gravitons and they choose to call a graviton beam. That's what's been mentioned before in this thread, a medium, and you consistently ignore that. Meanwhile people have been asking you for proof consistently about your hypothesis that they detect mass from a distance by detecting their gravitons. You have provided none, and gravitons propagating at light speed or being detected light years away violates science. Here's a hint: just because we don't know how something works, that doesn't mean it violates science, such as faster than light travel. I assume there is science from that, because of suspension of disbelief, and take it from there. Meanwhile your position is ignore what gravitons are in real life. As for dialogue having more value than real science, an outright lie. You have not shown me why the science is bullshit, other than whining about lack of a mechanism, and I give you one, a particle beam. Particles which will have mass, which will emit gravitons. Yet you are too stupid to even know what beam means, or pulse, or realize that the Crystalline Entity knew where the Enterprise-D was and knew where to aim its pulse. Dumbass.

YOU HYPOCRITE.

You have argued, the graviton pulse have to be a beam.

Now, that is irrelevant. Now it is a question of concentration?

If you could not detect graviton particels at all, the concentration in a beam would be irrelevant, you dumpfuck. All you could detect would be a change in pull, the effect which these gravitons are generating.

You are one tool you know that. I have not argued that a graviton pulse has to be a beam. I have said that a pulse is simply a non-continuous beam. Do you know what non-continuous means? Do you know what you can do with a beam? That's right, aim it, and sweep it from side to side. Meanwhile, the Crystalline entity could have been hit by such a beam.

He doesn't said, he has fired off a graviton beam. And as I have shown, that would be highly unlikely cause he would have wanted to hit the Entity. And they didn't know its position. That would be necessary to direct a beam on it.

You are either being deliberately dishonest or just plain fucking stupid.

DOCTOR MARR
Captain, we are reasonably certain
it's between here and the
Brechtian Cluster. If I start
emitting the graviton beam now,
it may act as a lure... a kind
of beacon.

PICARD
Make it so.

Data fired a graviton beam, deal with it. Meanwhile, Worf detects the mass approaching, not Data. Worf has nothing to do with the graviton beam.

Do someone have a qoute, that they have found the platinum on Angel One by a subspace radiation, which interact with platinum but can't detect many other materials cause they seems to be transparent to this radiation.

There is no such qoute. But you accept it. Why?

If you had asked Mike for evidence, I'm sure he would've given it to you. But instead of defending your own position you choose to whine and groan about how a double-standard's being applied to you. Well tough shit dumbass, you can't defend your own theory so you resort to attacking other's theories? Like a weasel. Here's a hint: If everybody says you're wrong, just like in real life, it's likely you're wrong, especially if people more educated and more experienced than you say so. SD.net is not one big giant conspiracy with buddies defending each other. I don't have to defend Mike's words, and he doesn't have to defend mine. I have never met Mike, he is just some guy on the Internet who runs this board. But for some reason retards like to think when a lot of people are telling them they are wrong, that there is one giant conspiracy/double standard/slack being cut to seasoned members and not to them. Laughable given that slack has to be earned, if you're a newbie don't expect any. And even more laughable because here, the number of stars or post count beside your name doesn't mean one bit of shit. Defend your own crap asshole, if you want to attack someone else's ask that person not someone else dumbass.

Prove it. Show the qoute, which without a doubt shows, that Data had created a graviton beam.

Dr. Marr requested a graviton beam, and Picard said make it so. You fucking dumbass, you don't even read your own quotes.

If you can detect gravitons at all, it is irrelevant if the graviton emanate from a natural or a artificial source. It would still be a graviton.

For example, there is no difference between a photon, which emanate from an electric bulb or from the sun or from a fire. In every case, it is still a photon.

A little brain damaged maybe? I have brought up the issue of concentration over and over. Of course it wouldn't matter if it was artificial, but the fact that it comes in the form of a beam or a pulse matters, in other words concentration of particles. But you're too stupid to realize that.

Such a beam consist of its particels.

It is not a medium. If you turning-on a flashlight, the photons are the light. If you focus the light in a small pathway, the photons are the beam.
There is no medium, in which the photons propagate although they emanate from an artificial source.

You pretend to be so clever, but than you say such a bullshit. It is pathetic.

You pretend to be a know-it-all, cry foul when people ask for evidence, then disregard evidence of a graviton beam for no reason at all other than we don't know the exact mechanism. Well here's a mechanism for you--a particle beam. If they fire a particle beam, and sweep it from side to side, gravitons will be emitted by those particles. And you are dead wrong--there is always a medium. Vacuum is considered a medium.

[Wyrm]

And unlike yours, his is actually supported by the available evidence.

Which evidences? Some episodes?
I have my conclusions based on episodes too.
It seems, you are not able to tell the difference because you repeat again and again the same:
They have evidences - I have not.
Their conlusion is reasonable - my conclusions are not.

Your conclusions are not reasonable for reasons already described. Your quotes do not show that masses at FTL ranges were detected by detecting their gravitational fields. Indeed, everything we know about the gravition tells us that you cannot detect the gravitational fields of objects at FTL ranges. This is because a quantum field's force carrier propagates at exactly the same speed as changes in the field can propagate. Therefore, since the propagation of changes in the gravitational field is limited to the speed of light, the graviton can travel no faster than the speed of light. This forbids FTL detection, because FTL means faster-than-light.

That would be a lot more convincing if you hadn't continuously dared people to prove your theory WRONG

I haven't dared people to prove my theory WRONG. Have you read this thread at all? I have asked people to give a better explanation.

Or else you wouldn't give up your silly little claim. Six of one, half-dozen of the other, my dear demented guacamole ingredient.

I have never said, that my explanation is the only possible. But as long as I see no better explanation and there is no proof, that my explanation is impossible, I believe in it.

And until such time, you wouldn't shut up about it. Let's call a spade a spade; you wanted others to show your theory was wrong as a condition of you shutting up about it. That sounds exactly like what Batman was accusing you of.

That is only logical. You beliefe always in the possiblity with the highest probability. And if there are no other explanation, and my explanation is not impossible, thus there is a posibility that it could be correct, it is the explanation with the highest probability.

The problem is that you have the scientific understanding of a wet carrot, and you don't realize that the probability of your theory being correct is a big fat zero.

Your theory is impossible. For good physical reasons that are clear even with 21rst century science.

We understand how signal reflection/refraction/interaction works

You doesn't know, how it works with gravitons. As far as we know till today, you can't reflect or refract gravitons.

If it has wavelength, it can refract. If it has wavelength, it can reflect. All it needs is a suitable substance to reflect/refract.

Furthermore, unlike yours, Mike's theory has NOT been proven to flat out NOT WORK.

Nobody of you have tried to argue against him at all. His theory has its flaws, as I have tried to demonstrate.

There's a reason why you have not been able to demonstrate why his theory has flaws.

It can't for example explain, how you can determine the mass of an object, which doesn't travel at warp-speed and from which you knows nothing at all cause many materials seems to be transparent to their postulated subspace signal, which would made the whole sensor system independable.

Yes you can. The mass is inferred from what you can detect about the object. Even if you could detect gravitions directly, or the gravitational field of an object directly, the mass of the object is an inferred quantity. It's not inherent in the field.

And till now, nobody has explained, why my theory can only be wrong.

Yes we have. We've explained it at least a half-dozen times. You're just too stupid to understand it.

1. A postulate is an assumption, dumbfuck.

The term postulate, or axiom, indicates a statement or assumption that is agreed by everyone to be so obvious or self-evident that no proof is necessary, and which can be used to prove other statements or theorems. Neither axioms nor postulates can be proven (within a system) using more basic statements.

In other words, an assumption. An axiom or a postulate is a special kind of assumption, but it is still an assumption.

Also, though true you are unable to prove a postulate within the system, the proof of DW's postulate comes from outside the system. That's perfectly legit.

As you can see, a postulate is more than only an assumption, dumbfuck.

You have not shown that a postulate is not an assumption, and you have not shown me wrong in any way. An ambulance is a special kind of motor vehicle; it's a very special kind of motor vehicle, built for the specific purpose of caring for the sick and injured, but it's still a motor vehicle.

You are some special kind of stupid to not realize that being a specialized subclass of a larger class does not exclude it from being a member of that class.

And as I have shown, his explanation is not able to explain certain things. Therefore it would be wrong to agree, that it is obvious or self-evident.

Of course it isn't able to explain certain things. No postulate can tell you everything. Moron.

If you would bother to think about his explanation, you would notice it.

If you're so smart, Dr. Know-It-All, why don't you tell me!

The conclusion of this paragraph is both that "[Fed ships] can emit a particular type of radiation (presumably "subspace" related) which very strongly interacts with certain phenomena in a manner differently than electromagnetic radiation does," and that this is a sensible thing to take for granted in a wider discussion... in other words, it's sensible to make this a postulate!

I never said, that this is wrong. I hink, that this can't be the only sensor system. It is to independable and wouldn't be able to determine the mass or an object, if many materials seems to be transparent to their postulated subspace signal.

How does this invalidate the observation that subspace radiation interacts differently with matter from EM radiation, moron?

No, he has not. He can't explain, how their postulated subspace signal can determine the mass of an object, which doesn't travel at warp-speed and from which you knows nothing at all cause many materials seems to be transparent to their postulated subspace signal.

He has not explained, why there would not be other sensor systems though their described sensor system is very independable.

Yes, he has. The determination of the mass of an object is an inference. It is not a direct observation. It is never a direct observation.

Now show me where the available evidence supports them doing so by measuring gravity.

I have already show you my conclusions. You have failed to argue these at all.

To bad you haven't shown us any coherent reasoning or relevant evidence behind these conclusions! We need not accept any dumbshit conclusion of just any moron that wanders in making claims.

You have not said, why my explanation would be less probably than another explanation or why it would be impossible.

For the Nth fucking time, yes we have! That you don't understand our explanation is not our problem!

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

Its a conclusion, you dumfuck.

Conclusion without evidence == unfounded conclusion not worthy of consideration.

Do you have a better explanation, how the gravitation of a real space object could affect sub space?

Already done. That you don't understand is not our problem.

I have not said, that they could detect gravitation only by its pull.

I have said, that it could be possible, that they can detect graviton particels with an active sensor signal too. In fact, I have described several possibilities, how they could detect graviton particles.

And if they can detect graviton particles with an active sensor signal, they would have more informations than only a pull, which would be the sum of the different directions, in which the graviton particles are flying.

Lol, wut?

Has it occurred to you that since gravitons carry gravity, sensing gravity is tantamount to detecting gravitons?

Ah, I see. You are able to see light, And for this, you are able to see a photon.

Yes. Your eyes have specialized cells that directly detect photons. They are called rod and cone cells.

You idiot don't understand, that the sensing of an phenomena is not equate with the sensing of its cause. Probably that is cause your grasp of science is lesser than that of a troglodyte.

You realize that, by this logic, you never can sense the cause of a phenomenon, as a cause makes itself known by way of its phenomenon. All sensing is inference, based on the reception of energy in various forms and the measuring of induced fields. If detecting a phenomenon is not equivalent to sensing its cause, then there's no such thing as sensing a phenomenon's cause.

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

They didn't know, where the Entity was. It could have been five lightyears away. I'm doubt, that the crew of the Enterprise was ready to wait at least five years.

See, this is the difficulty with using dialogue as evidence. Here's the relevant passage:

STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION

"Silicon Avatar"


WORF
Sir, the Brechtian Cluster is now
five light years away.

RIKER
Are we still picking up the
Entity's pattern?

DATA
Yes, Commander. But sensors do
not yet have a lock on its exact
whereabouts.

DOCTOR MARR
Captain, we are reasonably certain
it's between here and the
Brechtian Cluster. If I start
emitting the graviton beam now,
it may act as a lure... a kind
of beacon.

Nowhere here do I see that the Entity is necessarily as far as the Brechtian Cluster, only that if the graviton beam covers the part of the sky where the Brechtian Cluster is, that the Entity will detect it.

The bare fact is that gravitons do not travel any faster than light speed. If the Entity detects the graviton beam and gets there within the hour, then logic and science dictate that the Entity must have been less than a light hour away. Thus, Data's statment could be his way of saying, "Naw, man! He's close!"

Or, if they were not sure that the Entity was reasonably close, then the crew of the Enterprise is stupid. But we're not discounting that possibility.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, Dr. Marr referred to a graviton beam because he fucking said so

You're a dumb fucking shit.

I have given you the evidence: It couldn't working. Unless you can show, that it could have worked. You need only show me the mistakes in my conclusions.

And furthermore, suddenly you argue, a dialog has more value than science. That contradict the policy of this board.

YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.

You misunderstand the role of dialogue on this board. Dialogue is poor evidence. It is inferior to our "physical evidence," which is visuals and such. But it's is still evidence; it still tells you something, even if the characters are being total dickheads.

Unless the visuals contradict us, we assume that Dr. Marr knows what she's talking about when we hear her say that she's emitting gravitons in a beam, as opposed to an omnidirectional emission of gravitons.

Why? Who fucking cares. There is a difference between artificially generated gravitons from a pulse or a beam and naturally occurring gravitons, and that difference is probably concentration given how weak gravity is.

YOU HYPOCRITE.

You have argued, the graviton pulse have to be a beam.

A pulse can be a beam. A beam is a emission restricted in solid angle. A pulse is variable with time. There is no contradiction.

Now, that is irrelevant.

So?

But Data fired off a graviton beam. A continuous beam of gravitons.

No he does not:

Data:
Commencing graviton emission now...

He doesn't said, he has fired off a graviton beam. And as I have shown, that would be highly unlikely cause he would have wanted to hit the Entity. And they didn't know its position. That would be necessary to direct a beam on it.

Actually, that they're directing a beam on it does show that they know something about where it was. "Directing" implies emitting in some directions and not in others. If they didn't know where the Entity was at all, they would've broadcast omnidirectinally.

[...] if you had a quote about them detecting mass by detecting gravitons from light years away, suspension of disbelief would force us to accept it too

Do someone have a qoute, that they have found the platinum on Angel One by a subspace radiation, which interact with platinum but can't detect many other materials cause they seems to be transparent to this radiation.

There is no such qoute. But you accept it. Why?

Huh? Where did you get the crazy idea that we can't detect any other materials with subspace radiation? Or that all substances (except platinum) are perfectly transparent to all bands of subspace radiation. Glass is transparent to visible light but opaque to infared, after all.

All wrong, because Data did create a graviton beam

Prove it. Show the qoute, which without a doubt shows, that Data had created a graviton beam.

Are you really this dumb, or just a liar?

STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION
"Silicon Avatar"

49 CONTINUED:

DOCTOR MARR
We'll start with a pulse width
of five nanoseconds, frequency
one pulse per second.

DATA
Commencing graviton emission
now...

There is a brief silence, as all on the bridge wait
tensely for results.

GEORDI
No change in the sensor readings.

DOCTOR MARR
Let's ramp the frequency.

DATA
Emissions now at ten pulses per
second.

YOUR QUOTE, MORON! Unless you're claiming that Data did not personally emit the gravitons, only controlled the device that does, but that's just semantics whoring.

But I do not have to accept [...] that because they can detect a concentration of gravitons from an artificial source, [...] they can detect naturally occurring gravitons

If you can detect gravitons at all, it is irrelevant if the graviton emanate from a natural or a artificial source. It would still be a graviton.

For example, there is no difference between a photon, which emanate from an electric bulb or from the sun or from a fire. In every case, it is still a photon.

You're an idiot. We're not talking about that difference, because all the photons involved here are real photons, carrying real energy, as a part of EM radiation, as opposed to virtual photons as a part of the vector boson EM field. There is a big difference.

When brian says an "artificial source of gravitons," we're talking about actual graviton radiation, rather than a gravitational field, as would be generated by masses. Radiation sources can be resolved from each other with a suitable detector. Fields cannot; in the case of gravity, the fields meld into a single value of the metric where your gravitational field detector is sitting. Separate sources within the field cannot be resolved.

propagated by some medium in a beam or a pulse

Such a beam consist of its particels.

It is not a medium. If you turning-on a flashlight, the photons are the light. If you focus the light in a small pathway, the photons are the beam.

Correction: beams cannot be confined to a small pathway, period. They can be confined to narrow solid angles with arbitrarily small dispersion, limited only by the size of the emitter (the larger the emitter the smaller you can make the solid angle), but a beam will always spread as it propagates.

Being made of particles does not solve this problem. It too will always spread.
As such, a beam with a wide spread, say 30° away from the centerline, is still considered a beam.

Do you do that intentionally?
That have to hurt. Maybe you should go to a doctor.
But otherwise, foolishness isn't curable.

Light doesn't depends on a medium.

Yes it does, moron. The real medium is space, but fields of charged particles scatter light which is why it's slower in massive media such as glass. However, it doesn't dismiss Edi's point, which is that light has to arrive at a detector before the detector can detect it.

[Edi]

You're so fucking wrong I almost don't know where to begin. When you turn on a flashlight and shine it at something, the light needs to travel to the object you're targeting. It must travel through the air, or water, or whatever it is that is in between, i.e. it propagates through that substance, which is the medium.

Even in space, where there is no material for the light to travel through, there is the absence of material, i.e. vacuum, which acts as the medium of propagation and does not hinder light in any way. In fact, light travels fractionally slower than c in mediums other than vacuum.

You're a shitlicking moron, plain and simple.

Do you do that intentionally?
That have to hurt. Maybe you should go to a doctor.
But otherwise, foolishness isn't curable.

Light doesn't depends on a medium.

That's why it is in vacuum the fastest. It becomes slower if the medium, through which it propagates, becomes more dense, to dumb it down.

And vakuum is per definition no medium.

That is for example the difference between a mechanical wave, like sound, and waves of electromagnetic radiation. A mechanical wave needs a medium and can't propagate through vakuum.

You have just proved, that you have no clue about physics.

Thank you very much.

Look, you inbred goat-rapist, I don't need an incestuous little fuckwit like you to try and explain to me concepts he doesn't even understand himself. The only thing you have said in this thread which is close to accurate is the distinction between mechanical wave and EM radiation.

However, the rest of your post again contradicts itself. First you say that light does not depend on medium in any way and then you turn around and say that it moves at different speed through different mediums. So which is it, fucknut? Because it sure as fuck can't be both at the same time. As for vacuum, if vacuum is the only intervening thing between two objects, then it is the medium through which any EM radiation going between those two objects must propagate.

It's quite clear my grasp of physics is far superior to yours, but then, the same is true of even my cats.

Edi

[AVOGARDO]

Ah, I see. You are able to see light, And for this, you are able to see a photon.

Now you're starting to get it. When you detect light, you are detecting photons. When you detect gravity, you are detecting gravitons.

OK. You can see a photon. Describe it me! How looks it like?
You can't, you moron. You can't see a photon. You can only sense its interaction with your retina.
But usually there is no interactions between photons. For this reason, even if you could see something, what is so small, there could never be a picture of a photon on your retina.
And you can't sense a graviton. You can only sense its interaction with you: the gravitational pull. You can't even detect a graviton with a sensor. If you could, a graviton were no hypotetical particel anymore.

The entirety of Star Trek. They use subspace based sensors, subspace based technology [...]

It was never ever outright said, that the sensors >> can emit a particular type of radiation (presumably "subspace" related) which very strongly interacts with certain phenomena in a manner differently than electromagnetic radiation does. << Why couldn't they emit a normal type of radiation, maybe different kinds of particel beams, and send this through supspace? Why would it be impossible or unlikely? Again you have ignored this question.

[...] subspace phenomena are clearly influenced by gravity

But how? Again you have ignored my questions: If the gravitation of an object in realspace affect subspace too, could it be possible, that the graviton particels, which produce the effects of gravitation are not only to find in realspace but in subspace too? And if they could be find in supspace, would these, which are in subspace propagate superluminal and these, wich are in realspace with light-speed, wouldn't they?

Which completely fail to SUPPORT that conclusion which incidentally was torn to shreds by Mad, wether you want to admit it or not.

Again you have ignored my objection: I have said, that it could be possible, that they can detect graviton particels with an active sensor signal too. In fact, I have described several possibilities, how they could detect graviton particles. And if they can detect graviton particles with an active sensor signal, they would have more informations than only a pull, which would be the sum of the different directions, in which the graviton particles are flying.

It could just be a beam of highly concentrated particles, which emit gravitons and they choose to call a graviton beam. That's what's been mentioned before in this thread, [...]

1.) Such bullshit was never mentioned before in this thread. I would have objected it at once.
2.) It is called a graviton beam or graviton pulse. It is highls unlikely that this beam would consist of other partikels. Than they would call it after the name of the other partikels.
3.) Partikels usually don't have a high mass. Thus they don't emit many gravitons by itself. And the gravitons, they emit, would be emited omnidirectional. You would have a particel beam, that would have its own natural omnitdirectional gravitation, which is nearly non existence.
4.) For this, the Crystalline Entity wouldn't be able to follow the gravitons. If it would do, it would only get to the beam itself. And than it has to determine, from which direction the beam is comming. For this it would be necessary, that it could detect the cours of the other particels too. But particels are usually extremely difficult to detect. It would be a far shot to assume, that a creature ist able to do this. But it would be able to sense the gravitational pull. For this, it don't have to be able to detect the gravitons itself. And the fact, that it can create its own gravitons by creating gravitation doesn't mean, it is able to detect the gravitons. For example a fish with luminescence is not able to see its own photons although he is creating them. [To the difference to see light and photons see above.]

[...] gravitons propagating at light speed or being detected light years away violates science.

You have ignored my questions too: If the gravitation of an object in realspace affect subspace too, could it be possible, that the graviton particels, which produce the effects of gravitation are not only to find in realspace but in subspace too? And if they could be find in supspace, would these, which are in subspace propagate superluminal and these, wich are in realspace with light-speed, wouldn't they?

I have not argued that a graviton pulse has to be a beam.

You are a liar and a fraud. You have not argued, that every graviton pulse has to be a beam, but that this graviton pulse has to be a beam:

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, Dr. Marr referred to a graviton beam because he fucking said so. Data referred to a pulses, which means the beam pulsated or varied in intensity.

But Data fired off a graviton beam. A continuous beam of gravitons.

All wrong, because Data did create a graviton beam,

Data fired a graviton beam, deal with it.

Your only argument is, that Dr. Marr has requested a graviton beam. That is only dialog. You have ignored my objection:

A beam goes in one certain direction on a small path. A beam is not omnidirectional. They wanted to lure the Cristaline entity: they dind't even know the exact direction. Otherwise they could have fly to it and hadn't needed to lure it. If they didn't know, where the Cristaline entity was exactly and didn't know its direction, they would have to send the graviton pulse in all directions, at least in a wide angle in a certain direction, that wouldn't be a beam per definition. Otherwise the beam wouldn't hit the Cristaline entity. Furthermore you have noticed, that the beam was used to communicate. Usually the signals of communication are omnidirectional. If you want to be able to communicate with several persons at the same time. Otherwise you would have to aim your signal to each single person with which you whish to cmmunicate. If the Cristaline entity communicate with its own kind in this way, why should it use a beam and not an omnidirectional signal?

[AVOGARDO]

Look, you inbred goat-rapist, I don't need an incestuous little fuckwit like you to try and explain to me concepts he doesn't even understand himself. The only thing you have said in this thread which is close to accurate is the distinction between mechanical wave and EM radiation.

However, the rest of your post again contradicts itself. First you say that light does not depend on medium in any way and then you turn around and say that it moves at different speed through different mediums. So which is it, fucknut? Because it sure as fuck can't be both at the same time. As for vacuum, if vacuum is the only intervening thing between two objects, then it is the medium through which any EM radiation going between those two objects must propagate.

It's quite clear my grasp of physics is far superior to yours, but then, the same is true of even my cats.

Edi

Maybe you should read about the history from the theories about Luminiferous aether. Today, the majority of physicists hold that there is no need to imagine that a medium for light propagation exists.

Then you would maybe understand, that vakuum is no medium and that a medium is no pre-condition for the existence and propagation of EM radiation.

[AVOGARDO]

A cluster is in astrophysics a groups of stars [or galaxys] which are gravitationally bound. Such a clusters generally contain less than a few hundred stars to hundreds of thousands stars.
The Brechtian Cluster would have a diameter of several lightyears. (Our own solarsystem has a diameter of 2 lightyears. Its outer border is the Oort cloud, a postulated spherical cloud of comets situated about 50,000 to 100,000 AU, or roughly one light year from the Sun.)
The Enterprise was "only" five lightyears away.

The Crystalline Entity could have been everywhere between the Enterprise and its huge destination, till to five lightyears
away. It could be on a parallel course to the Enterprise and thus not in the cone Enterprise - outer borders of the Brechtian Cluster.

And even if it would be in this cone, it would have such a wide angle at the Enterprise that there is the question, why bother to focus the gravitons at all? And then there is the question, with wich angle a beam is not considered a beam in its usually sense anymore?

And maybe you shoul try, to go in a dark room and hit a little object, which position you don't know, with a laser pointer per chance. And this laser pointer is not a continous beam. It has a duration of only five nanoseconds and there is only one pulse per second / ten pulses per
second. There is no chance to sweep such a beam.

And you have to consider, that the Crystalline Entity should be able to sense this beam. If you would sweep it, the time, in which it would hit the Crystalline Entity at all, would be so short, that there is no chance, that a creature would be able to detect it without artificial help.

[Darth Wong]

What a moron. He suddenly remembers the difficulty of acquiring data over distance when dealing with the faint reflection from a sensor sweep beam, but for some reason it doesn't occur to him that it would be much, much worse with passive detection of omnidirectional emissions, which is what he thinks are preferable.

[Edi]

Look, you inbred goat-rapist, I don't need an incestuous little fuckwit like you to try and explain to me concepts he doesn't even understand himself. The only thing you have said in this thread which is close to accurate is the distinction between mechanical wave and EM radiation.

However, the rest of your post again contradicts itself. First you say that light does not depend on medium in any way and then you turn around and say that it moves at different speed through different mediums. So which is it, fucknut? Because it sure as fuck can't be both at the same time. As for vacuum, if vacuum is the only intervening thing between two objects, then it is the medium through which any EM radiation going between those two objects must propagate.

It's quite clear my grasp of physics is far superior to yours, but then, the same is true of even my cats.

Edi

Maybe you should read about the history from the theories about Luminiferous aether. Today, the majority of physicists hold that there is no need to imagine that a medium for light propagation exists.

Then you would maybe understand, that vakuum is no medium and that a medium is no pre-condition for the existence and propagation of EM radiation.

Missed Wyrm's comment above as well, didn't you? The light must still travel through space, and you're deliberately trying to distort what I'm saying in order to try to look as if you're somehow competent. You're speaking about how light propagates through a medium and then you say that vacuum is no medium even though light does propagate through it. Or more accurately, through space that has no material in it, hence is in a state of vacuum, which is what I've said from the start.

If you're as fucking smarmy in real life as you are here, I'd be very surprised if you haven't had the snot beaten out of you several times for being such a slimy cuntrag.

Edi

[Wyrm]

Ah, I see. You are able to see light, And for this, you are able to see a photon.

Now you're starting to get it. When you detect light, you are detecting photons. When you detect gravity, you are detecting gravitons.

OK. You can see a photon. Describe it me! How looks it like?

The detection of a photon is interpreted by your brain as a barely-visible flash of light. Therefore, a photon looks like a teeny-tiny, barely-visible flash of light, because that's what it is. Of course, then it's gone because you absorbed the thing to detect it.

There. I've described it. Your witness.

<snip mindless raving>

And you can't sense a graviton. You can only sense its interaction with you: the gravitational pull. You can't even detect a graviton with a sensor. If you could, a graviton were no hypotetical particel anymore.

See above. You do sense gravitons by virtue of your graviton detector being designed to detect and measure them, the same way your eye sense photons by virtue of photoreceptor cells being able to detect and measure them. You seeing the hot babe when you detect her image is a mental trick; that's why photography works.

Or are you so isolated that you haven't seen Brittany Spears' bald coochie?

The entirety of Star Trek. They use subspace based sensors, subspace based technology [...]

It was never ever outright said, that the sensors >> can emit a particular type of radiation (presumably "subspace" related) which very strongly interacts with certain phenomena in a manner differently than electromagnetic radiation does. << Why couldn't they emit a normal type of radiation, maybe different kinds of particel beams, and send this through supspace? Why would it be impossible or unlikely? Again you have ignored this question.

Because the kinds of radiation we're familiar with do not behave like the radiation Fed ships use to probe other vessels. It's obvious that something else we don't know is at work. That we posit that this radiation is subspace radiation is a reasonable hypothesis based on the fact that subspace displays FTL properties (giving Fed ships the ability to detect things at FTL ranges), and the prevalence of subspace devices aboard Fed ships.

There. I've answered your question, and there my responsibility ends. Your task is to understand it. Get to it.

[...] subspace phenomena are clearly influenced by gravity

But how? Again you have ignored my questions: If the gravitation of an object in realspace affect subspace too, could it be possible, that the graviton particels, which produce the effects of gravitation are not only to find in realspace but in subspace too? And if they could be find in supspace, would these, which are in subspace propagate superluminal and these, wich are in realspace with light-speed, wouldn't they?

To answer briefly, no.

To answer somewhat less briefly, hell no!

Gravitions, as they are theorized to exist, are completely consistent with general relativity. Part of being consistent with general relativity is that there are no influences that exceed the speed of light. Period. This means that gravitational influences and radiation do not, on the large scale, either do not propagate through subspace at all, or propagating through subspace is no shortcut.

Proposing anything else causes the causal structure of the universe to break down. While we assume subspace radiation has mechanisms to prevent breakdown of causality, given that subspace interactions are unambiguously FTL, we do not propose the same for gravitation.

Which completely fail to SUPPORT that conclusion which incidentally was torn to shreds by Mad, wether you want to admit it or not.

Again you have ignored my objection: I have said, that it could be possible, that they can detect graviton particels with an active sensor signal too. In fact, I have described several possibilities, how they could detect graviton particles. And if they can detect graviton particles with an active sensor signal, they would have more informations than only a pull, which would be the sum of the different directions, in which the graviton particles are flying.

I smell a moving goalpost.

If I'm reading you right, you've gone from detecting the gravitions themselves at FTL ranges, which is impossible to detecting the effect of the mass's gravitational field on subspace radiation distorting as it goes through the field, but you're still detecting a return signal from your outgoing subspace radation emissions, and inferring the properties of the mass by that return signal.

To this, we add one of Mad's points, which is that the gravitational interaction is a very feeble force, somewhere south of 10^{-40} of the strength of the electromagnetic force... very difficult to detect for even large masses. Furthermore, even assuming you can detect gravitational forces, the influence of gravitation drops off by the distance-squared. That means that if I'm standing 1 m away from you, my gravitational influence on you is more than Mars. When you get to objects as small as ships at distances comparable to Mars, you're getting into VERY TINY influences indeed to get swamped by lovely instrument noise. Thus, DW's proverbial crewman fart.

Okay, lets assume, by magic, that you have accounted for the passing of gas by your crewmen, and all of the known bodies in range. Now, you have a number of ships exerting gravitational influences on you, and your task is to determine the masses of those ships. Now you've run into a new snag, which is that the problem I gave you, even when the number of ships are known, is unidentified. To answer the question of these ships' masses, you need a lot more information: you would need to know the positions of the ships, and the ratio of the ships' masses to each other. Only then does the problem become solvable. But if you've gotten that far...

[...] gravitons propagating at light speed or being detected light years away violates science.

You have ignored my questions too: If the gravitation of an object in realspace affect subspace too, could it be possible, that the graviton particels, which produce the effects of gravitation are not only to find in realspace but in subspace too? And if they could be find in supspace, would these, which are in subspace propagate superluminal and these, wich are in realspace with light-speed, wouldn't they?

Already answered.

You are a liar and a fraud. You have not argued, that every graviton pulse has to be a beam, but that this graviton pulse has to be a beam:

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, Dr. Marr referred to a graviton beam because he fucking said so. Data referred to a pulses, which means the beam pulsated or varied in intensity.

But Data fired off a graviton beam. A continuous beam of gravitons.

All wrong, because Data did create a graviton beam,

Data fired a graviton beam, deal with it.

You're a moron. None of brian's statements you cite here contradict this following statement:

I have not argued that a graviton pulse has to be a beam.

He only argues that the particular beam fired by the Enterprise (at Dr. Marr's bequest) is pulsed, by Data's statements. (We can assume brian's second statement, "A continuous beam of gravitons," to be an oversight.)

Your only argument is, that Dr. Marr has requested a graviton beam. That is only dialog.

So what if it's only dialogue? Dialogue is still evidence. It's low-quality evidence, but it's evidence. We don't on the outset assume Dr. Marr doesn't know what she's talking about when she requests a gravition beam.

You have ignored my objection:

<cutting out shit so we can get to the question>

If the Cristaline entity communicate with its own kind in this way, why should it use a beam and not an omnidirectional signal?

Who says the Crystiline Entity communicates with its own kind with gravition signals? Even if it did, what makes you think they use graviton emissions to find each other?

<snip shit we already know about clusters>
The Enterprise was "only" five lightyears away.

Mmmmyesss...?

The Crystalline Entity could have been everywhere between the Enterprise and its huge destination, till to five lightyears
away. It could be on a parallel course to the Enterprise and thus not in the cone Enterprise - outer borders of the Brechtian Cluster.

It was close enough for the Enterprise to detect in a general way, if not very precisely. If they can pin it within a few light hours from their position, then it's sensible to use graviton radiation to signal it. Otherwise, they're fucking dumb (but that's not new).

And even if it would be in this cone, it would have such a wide angle at the Enterprise that there is the question, why bother to focus the gravitons at all?

You're assuming "beam" implies "focusing". It does not.

And then there is the question, with wich angle a beam is not considered a beam in its usually sense anymore?

"Beam" has a fuzzy defintion. However, a five light year diameter cluster that's five light years away subtends 53° of arc. This is a wide beam, but still a beam that is only 5.41 steradians, or only about 43% of an omnidirectional signal.

And maybe you shoul try, to go in a dark room and hit a little object, which position you don't know, with a laser pointer per chance. And this laser pointer is not a continous beam. It has a duration of only five nanoseconds and there is only one pulse per second / ten pulses per
second. There is no chance to sweep such a beam.

Depends on how fast you sweep it. It's not humanly possible to cover a 5.41 steradian solid angle with a laser pointer, but then again, there's no guy down in the emitter suite steering this beam by hand, is there?

And you have to consider, that the Crystalline Entity should be able to sense this beam. If you would sweep it, the time, in which it would hit the Crystalline Entity at all, would be so short, that there is no chance, that a creature would be able to detect it without artificial help.

Again, depends on how fast you sweep the beam, and how sensitive the entity is to time. It may be able to see a beam pulsing up to 100 times a second as distinct pulses, but a beam rastering past it 10 billion times per second as a continuous beam, the same way the electron beam of a television sweeps the entire screen thirty times per second, but we perceive it as a continous picture.

All these problems disappear, of course, when the beam is set wide.

[AVOGARDO]

A cluster is in astrophysics a groups of stars [or galaxys] which are gravitationally bound. Such a clusters generally contain less than a few hundred stars to hundreds of thousands stars.
The Brechtian Cluster would have a diameter of several lightyears. (Our own solarsystem has a diameter of 2 lightyears. Its outer border is the Oort cloud, a postulated spherical cloud of comets situated about 50,000 to 100,000 AU, or roughly one light year from the Sun.)
The Enterprise was "only" five lightyears away.

The Crystalline Entity could have been everywhere between the Enterprise and its huge destination, till to five lightyears
away. It could be on a parallel course to the Enterprise and thus not in the cone Enterprise - outer borders of the Brechtian Cluster.

And even if it would be in this cone, it would have such a wide angle at the Enterprise that there is the question, why bother to focus the gravitons at all? And then there is the question, with wich angle a beam is not considered a beam in its usually sense anymore?

And maybe you shoul try, to go in a dark room and hit a little object, which position you don't know, with a laser pointer per chance. And this laser pointer is not a continous beam. It has a duration of only five nanoseconds and there is only one pulse per second / ten pulses per
second. There is no chance to sweep such a beam.

And you have to consider, that the Crystalline Entity should be able to sense this beam. If you would sweep it, the time, in which it would hit the Crystalline Entity at all, would be so short, that there is no chance, that a creature would be able to detect it without artificial help.

What a moron. He suddenly remembers the difficulty of acquiring data over distance when dealing with the faint reflection from a sensor sweep beam, [...]

You are a moron.

With a sensor beam, there would be no reflection, if the sensor beam doesn't hit the target.

All its intensity, which would increase the more the beam is focused, wouldn't help it.

An enlarged angle would decrease the intensity, but arise the chance to hit the target.

If it would be an omnidirectional sensor signal, it would be the weakest, but it would hit the target absolutely.

If you would sweep your sensor signal, the duration of its contact to the target would shorten the more away the target is, up to the point, that it would have contact to the target only such a short duration, that your own instruments wouldn't be able to register a reflection, which would be just as short. And you have to consider, that we doesn't speak of some thousands kilometers, but lightyears.

but for some reason it doesn't occur to him that it would be much, much worse with passive detection of omnidirectional emissions, which is what he thinks are preferable

And maybe you should read all and don't take something out of context. That could be considered as an attempt to cheat.

I already have said several times, that there could be several imaginable possibilities to detect gravitons, active as well as passive ways. If you would have read my writtings, you would know, that I have said that.

Either you haven't read my writtings and pretend only to have, or you have read it and deliberately choose to take something out of its context.

Either way, you would be a liar and a fraud.



And, what would me interest the most, is that the only thing, you have to say? That is your only objection?

Can I interpret this as a confession in all other points?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Confession <> concession AV. You have yet to win on a single point of this debate, so I wouldn't roll out a 'MISSION: ACCOMPLISHED' banner just yet.

[Darth Wong]

Can I interpret this as a confession in all other points?

You will interpret it that way no matter what I say, so what difference does it make? Don't think I haven't noticed that you NEVER really answer points; you just sidestep around them and then repeat yourself. Many points were made very early on in this thread which utterly demolished your argument, and you have NEVER answered them. Instead, you just keep appealing to ignorance and repeating your ideas.

You're obviously one of those idiots who thinks that when people get fed up with your dishonest bullshit, you win by default. Debating isn't an endurance contest, fool.

[brianeyci]

There is so much bullshit there that if I was to respond point to point, I would have to respond point to point to every sentence. As pointed out before, you contradict yourself paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, even word by word in some cases.

Why don't we make it easy. You claimed that my idea of a graviton beam was bullshit because there was no mechanism. What the fuck is your mechanism for detecting gravitons light years away? Mine is clear for the graviton beam generated by the Crystalline Entity and the Enterprise-D--the gravitons have to be assisted by a particle beam. The beam would travel faster than light and send out the gravitons. What the fuck is yours, for detecting naturally occurring gravitons which travel at c? And yes you probably have already mentioned it, but say it again so I can make fun of it.

[Wyrm]

I have to laugh. I really do. At the same time, I have to bash my head against the table to dispell the numbness in my mind.

Avocado is so mind-paralyzingly stupid, he thinks that omnidirectional emissions of radiation are always teh win in all situations, even when you know approximately where in the sky your target is. He thinks that gravitons, as we know them, could suddenly go into subspace and travel FTL, something no sane theoretical physicist would even think of proposing. He thinks that measuring the gravitational field would allow him to measure the masses of individual sources, even though the problem is unidentified even if you knew how many sources were out there, and even where they are. And most outragous of all, he thinks you can bolt a subspace field generator on a metal detector and have it sense a quarter on a small planet in orbit about Alpha Centauri.

Go mash yourself up into guacamole, Avocado! That's all you're good for.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Go mash yourself up into guacamole, Avocado! That's all you're good for.

Dude, -10 points for lameness. Seriously, there's WAY better flames that can be accomplished. Like "Go shove a taco up your ass, Avocado".

If you make the effort to flame well, that care shows through and the flame is like a little hug from Satan.

[Wyrm]

Dude, -10 points for lameness. Seriously, there's WAY better flames that can be accomplished. Like "Go shove a taco up your ass, Avocado".

If you make the effort to flame well, that care shows through and the flame is like a little hug from Satan.

I bow to your superior flame.

[KrauserKrauser]

Is the bad man gone yet? Is it safe for us to come out and play?

Bad man made my head hurt.