[AVOGARDO] Moron boy's ignorant ravings

[Surlethe]

Not when the goal of the debate is to find an explanation and there are no other suggestions.

If there is no reasonable explanation at the end of the debate, the debate has failed.

And you have to show, why my explanation would be untenable.

You don't even know what a debate is! What are you doing on a debating board trying to debate, then? The purpose of a debate is simply to find the truth of a particular claim: no more, no less.

If you have no better explanation or can evidence, that that would be impossible, even in the 24st century, where they are able to travel superluminal, beam objekts and scan over lightyears, I have to assume, that the technolgy of the 24st century is able to do exactly this.

What should I do else?

You should justify your assumption: why should the ability to travel FTL, beam objects, and scan over light-years somehow nullify Newton's law of gravitation?

OK. But could you explain me, why my explanation is impossibel.

Sure. Suppose you have a body of mass M, another body of mass M', and that you (for some reason) know enough to filter out the affects of the surrounding bodies. Let your ship be located at the origin; let M be located at j = <1,2,3> and M' be located at k = <-8,-2,15>. Given an acceleration vector a = <0,0,1>, calculate the values of M and M' using Newton's law of gravitation, and determine if there is some other mass M'' which may also be out there affecting your calculations.

This is why "graviton" sensors are useless in a primary role, and have to be relegated to an auxiliary role.

And then, that would leave the fact, that in the 24st century, the UFP sensors are able to detect gravitation. That is not an assumption from me. There are incidents in the show [see above], which evidence this.

It's not difficult to detect gravitation -- ancient Egyptian sensors could do it. Most of your examples, however, involve them detecting mass, which (I know this is a subtle point) is not the same as detecting gravitation.

If my explanation would be impossible, than they would do it in another way. But then, there is still the fact, that they are able to do it and my first statement would be correct.

Of course they can do it; your explanation is wrong, and that has helped us along toward the resolution of the issue of how the Federation detects things. We know they don't primarily use gravitic sensors.

[AVOGARDO]

[...]

Meanwhile, I don't bother to answere such bullshit.

Obviously you haven't read all posts.

[Velthuijsen]

burden of proof in German: Beweislast
Ever heard of reversal of the burden of proof.
In German that is a Beweislastumkehr.
Maybe you should ask you, why there is such an admitted thing.
It has a reason that there is such a thing and you fail to understand it.

You do realize you are quoting a specific exception in the German law as to the normal way of producing evidence (the usual is basically the same as debating rule 6 of this board). Specifically you are quoting an exception in consumer law for items where a buyer might be hard pressed to prove that hidden defects that existed at the time of the purchase while it is easier to prove that the buyer misused what was bought.

Link to specific part of the law: § 476 Beweislastumkehr
Rough translation:

• If within 6 months of purchase a defect shows in an item then it is assumed that the item was already defect at the time of production. Unless this assumption is not tenable due to the item in question or the type of defect.

[Darth Wong]

The fact that it is not based on any kind of research is all we need in order to show that it is bullshit.

Correct. But first you have to show, that it is not based on any kind of research. You have to show, that it is wrong.

Wrong, asshole. All I have to do is show that you admitted earlier you don't know the science. You're literally just making things up as you go along, and then challenging others to disprove them.

Otherwise you could always claim, something is bullshit.

Correct. All unsourced claims are bullshit until I see a reason to take them seriously. People are innocent until proven guilty, but scientific claims are not.

[AVOGARDO]

Don't you think your mistake might lie in your assumption that a minor source of gravitation can be detected against a very loud background?

If you have no better explanation or can evidence, that that would be impossible, even in the 24st century, where they are able to travel superluminal, beam objekts and scan over lightyears, I have to assume, that the technolgy of the 24st century is able to do exactly this.

What should I do else?

You should justify your assumption: why should the ability to travel FTL, beam objects, and scan over light-years somehow nullify Newton's law of gravitation?

You have spoken of >> a very loud background <<. What has Newton's law of gravitation do to with the possible ability of a sensor from 24st century to detect a minor source of gravitation against a very loud background?

Most of your examples, however, involve them detecting mass, which (I know this is a subtle point) is not the same as detecting gravitation.

My first reservations was:

[...] Unless someone knows another method to determine the mass of a ship [...]

and

I don't know a method to determine the mass of an object [...] other than to measure its gravitation.

I have never claimed, that there couldn't be another method.

Maybe you can explain it to me.

We know they don't primarily use gravitic sensors.

I have never said this.

I have alway said, that that would be only one sensor and that there would be many other sensors in a sensor phalanx or a sensor arry.

And I have said, that you would have to use all sensor informations.

[Surlethe]

You have spoken of >> a very loud background <<. What has Newton's law of gravitation do to with the possible ability of a sensor from 24st century to detect a minor source of gravitation against a very loud background?

Everything: did you completely ignore my challenge?

I have never claimed, that there couldn't be another method.

Maybe you can explain it to me.

Oh, I don't know it, either. I do, however, know that gravitational measures are not going to be useful, as I've demonstrated.

I have never said this.

I have alway said, that that would be only one sensor and that there would be many other sensors in a sensor phalanx or a sensor arry.

And I have said, that you would have to use all sensor informations.

You've ignored, however, the fact that gravitational sensors would be useless.

[AVOGARDO]

[...] you admitted earlier you don't know the science [...]

As far as I know, I have never said that. I have merely said, that I can't know all what is to know. But that doesn't mean, I know nothing.

All unsourced claims are bullshit until I see a reason to take them seriously.

Would that mean, that you would take every sourced claim seriously.

What is, if the source itself is wrong?

And what for reasons have there to be, that you would take unsourced claims seriously?

And can you tell me, why you don't see a reason to take my attempt of an explanation seriously other that it is unsourced.

Even if I would have no scienctifical knowledge, I could be correct, couldn't I. It could be a coincidence or common sense.

[AVOGARDO]

Everything: did you completely ignore my challenge?

No. My justification for my assumtion would be, that I don't see another explanation.

You can attack my justification by giving another sound explanation.

You've ignored, however, the fact that gravitational sensors would be useless.

contradicts

This is why "graviton" sensors are useless in a primary role, and have to be relegated to an auxiliary role.

And to this I have already said...

[...] I have alway said, that that would be only one sensor and that there would be many other sensors in a sensor phalanx or a sensor arry.

And I have said, that you would have to use all sensor informations.

[Surlethe]

No. My justification for my assumtion would be, that I don't see another explanation.

You can attack my justification by giving another sound explanation.

Apparently, you failed Logic 101; of course, I should have expected such a simpering halfwit to confuse an implication and its converse, but I was too lenient in my initial assessment. I should also point out this is precisely the same logic idiot creationists and intelligent design advocates use: appeal to personal incredulity.

contradicts

Are you aware of what "semantics whoring" is, you pissant imbecile?

[Batman]

[...]

Meanwhile, I don't bother to answere such bullshit.

Ah yes. You quote the specifics of german consumer law as if they actually mattered to this debate but my claims are bullshit.

Obviously you haven't read all posts.

As a matter of fact yes I have. Not a single one of the quotes you provided shows Trek sensors determine a sensor target's mass by graviton detection, leave alone superluminal graviton detection.

[brianeyci]

I know of reverse onus laws. In Canada the Conservative Party made it a reverse onus on offenders charged with gun crimes. Now a person charged with a gun crime has to prove he's not dangerous rather than the prosecution prove the man's dangerous for bail.

None of that applies to debate. There's a reason for consumer protection laws and laws to protect the public from gun offenders, and there's no reason to just accept a claim debating science fiction without proof. You make a claim, you have to back it up, otherwise you can claim Darth Vader is orbiting around Pluto with a cloaking device and nobody can disprove it.

I've never heard of someone who tried to weasel his way out of backing up shit by citing teh lawh. What a joke.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I'm not even going to try anymore. You're being willfully ignorant and not answering questions.

Avocado, tell you what; If someone asks you a question you think you've already answered, instead of claiming you did just ANSWER IT AGAIN! Seriously, try answering all direct questions posed to you with direct answers.

That's my last try, folks.

[brianeyci]

Would that mean, that you would take every sourced claim seriously.

You fail at logic. No sourced claim => not taking it seriously. That doesn't mean sourced claim => taking it seriously.

What is, if the source itself is wrong?

What if? So what? Unsourced claims are bullshit.

And what for reasons have there to be, that you would take unsourced claims seriously?

All claims have a source. If you're just regurgitating some else's stuff, lay the cards in the open and let people see it. Don't just make shit up.

And can you tell me, why you don't see a reason to take my attempt of an explanation seriously other that it is unsourced.

Even if I would have no scienctifical knowledge, I could be correct, couldn't I. It could be a coincidence or common sense.

You could be correct, but there's no reason for people to accept you're correct without evidence. Where is the German intelligence, the German efficiency, the German superiority? Batman is this man representative of your country, goddamn you guys have gone downhill .

[AVOGARDO]

Not a single one of the quotes you provided shows Trek sensors determine a sensor target's mass by graviton detection, leave alone superluminal graviton detection.

How do you interpret these qoutes:

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.

PICARD
Make it so.

[...]

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.

Again, the charged silence. Then, Worf reacts to
something on his controls.

WORF
Sir...

DOCTOR MARR
What is it? Do you have
something?

WORF
A large mass... approaching at
warp speed...

[…]

52 CONTINUED:

DATA
Emissions at thirty pulses per
second...

GEORDI
Captain, I'm reading a
transmission from the Entity...
a series of graviton pulses...

DOCTOR MARR
It's working... that's a response
to our signal...


I think, it shows, that they are able to produce graviton pulses and can detect these gravitons.

In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity.

Therefore I conclude, they are able to detect gravitation.

And cause they detect not only gravitation how we observe it, but even the gravitons, I think, they have to have more informations in their sensor readings. Particularly if they could detect these gravitons with an active sensor system.

And if they are able to detect the gravitation of an object by the detection of the gravitons, they could be able to determine its mass.

And voila, there are several quotes which shows, that they are able to determine the mass of an object, regardles if it is in subspace or not or if it is in relativistic vicinity or lightyears away.



I know, that these are only conclusions and assumptions.

And I know, that I can't prove these. It would be impossibel to prove.

But I think, these qoutes support my conclusions and assumptions.

If you think otherwise, please tell me your reasons.

[Surlethe]

The reasons have been given, you little dipshit. Besides, they most certainly could not have been using graviton detection in the quote you gave, because that would have told them nothing!

Therefore I conclude, they are able to detect gravitation.

You must have missed it when I said earlier that even the ancient Egyptians could detect gravitation.

[brianeyci]

And cause they detect not only gravitation how we observe it, but even the gravitons, I think, they have to have more informations in their sensor readings. Particularly if they could detect these gravitons with an active sensor system.

What? I'm reading that over and over and I can't believe the conclusions you reach. They used graviton pulses to communicate and ultimately shatter the crystalline entity. That doesn't mean they're able to detect mass with graviton pulses. In fact, Data was the one working on the graviton pulse, and Worf was at the sensor station, so how the hell can you conclude anything about them detecting the crystalline entity's mass through gravitons. The graviton pulse was clearly used to communicate with the entity, not to detect its mass. They stream artifically created graviton particles in a beam and that has nothing to do with the detection of gravitation. It is like comparing the radiation from the sun with a laser... do the words "focused concentration" mean anything to you.

Brian

[AVOGARDO]

Therefore I conclude, they are able to detect gravitation.

You must have missed it when I said earlier that even the ancient Egyptians could detect gravitation.

Read the next sentence.

There is a difference how you could detect gravitation.

I doubt, that the ancient Egyptians was able to detect gravitations.

Besides, they most certainly could not have been using graviton detection in the quote you gave, because that would have told them nothing!

What have they done then?

GEORDI
Captain, I'm reading a
transmission from the Entity...
a series of graviton pulses...

What is your interpretation of this qoute?

[brianeyci]

GEORDI
Captain, I'm reading a
transmission from the Entity...
a series of graviton pulses...

What is your interpretation of this qoute?

The entity is streaming a very high concentration of gravitons in a beam and therefore the Enterprise-D can detect the gravitons. That has nothing to do with being able to detect gravitons from light years away passively, and nothing to do with determining the mass of objects through the gravitons they emit. What is your interpretation of that quote? Data and Worf are even using different stations and Worf has nothing to do with the graviton beam.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I doubt, that the ancient Egyptians was able to detect gravitations.

Here's how you detect gravity.

1: Hold a bowling ball directly above your foot.
2: Let go.
3: Don't even think about suing me for pain and suffering as a result; the court will LAUGH YOU OUT.

Or another example.

1: Go to the top of a tall building or the middle span of a bridge; the taller it is and the rockier the ground below, the better.
2: Jump.
3: See No. 3 above.

[Surlethe]

Read the next sentence.

There is a difference how you could detect gravitation.

I doubt, that the ancient Egyptians was able to detect gravitations.

Given that "gravitons" are gravitation, you're quite wrong.

What have they done then?

GEORDI
Captain, I'm reading a
transmission from the Entity...
a series of graviton pulses...

What is your interpretation of this qoute?

They're detecting the gravitons through some intermediary. The probability of actual graviton detection happening in a meaningful timeframe is some 1 in 228159.

[AVOGARDO]

[...] how the hell can you conclude anything about them detecting the crystalline entity's mass through gravitons [...]

Read all?

There are other quotes, too (page 1).

I have never said, that this quote means, that they have detect the mass of the Crystalline entity. It only tells, that they are able to detect gravitons.

But in the other quotes it is said, that they are able to detect the mass of an object, regardles if it is in subspace or not or if it is in relativistic vicinity or lightyears away.

Therefore my conclusion and assumptions.

They stream artifically created graviton particles in a beam and that has nothing to do with the detection of gravitation.

The term pulse has the following meanings:

A rapid, transient change in the amplitude of a signal from a baseline value to a higher or lower value, followed by a rapid return to the baseline value.

A rapid change in some characteristic of a signal, e.g., phase or frequency, from a baseline value to a higher or lower value, followed by a rapid return to the baseline value.

A pulse has nothing to do with a stream or a beam. That's bullshit.

[AVOGARDO]

The entity is streaming a very high concentration of gravitons in a beam and therefore the Enterprise-D can detect the gravitons. That has nothing to do with being able to detect gravitons from light years away passively, and nothing to do with determining the mass of objects through the gravitons they emit. What is your interpretation of that quote? Data and Worf are even using different stations and Worf has nothing to do with the graviton beam.

Again you show that you have no idea what a puls is.

[brianeyci]

[...] how the hell can you conclude anything about them detecting the crystalline entity's mass through gravitons [...]

Read all?

There are other quotes, too (page 1).

I have never said, that this quote means, that they have detect the mass of the Crystalline entity. It only tells, that they are able to detect gravitons.

But in the other quotes it is said, that they are able to detect the mass of an object, regardles if it is in subspace or not or if it is in relativistic vicinity or lightyears away.

Therefore my conclusion and assumptions.

I'm a scientific ignoramus and I know that gravity is the weakest of the forces. Your hypothesis is that "Through graviton detection, they can determine the mass of the object." That is such an extraordinary claim that you literally have to have someone say, "I detected the mass through gravitons" rather than your assumption. Do you know that an assumption is a claim and you have to provide proof? If you have no proof you are wrong.

The term pulse has the following meanings:

A rapid, transient change in the amplitude of a signal from a baseline value to a higher or lower value, followed by a rapid return to the baseline value.

A rapid change in some characteristic of a signal, e.g., phase or frequency, from a baseline value to a higher or lower value, followed by a rapid return to the baseline value.

A pulse has nothing to do with a stream or a beam. That's bullshit.

A pulse can simply be a beam which is not continuous. Like a pulse phaser. Tell me were you born stupid or is there really a language barrier, because I refuse to believe somebody could be this stupid. WOW WORF DETECTS AN OBJECT APPROACHING AT THE SAME TIME DATA'S RUNNING A GRAVITON BEAM THEREFORE WORF MUST HAVE DETECTED THE APPROACHING OBJECT'S GRAVITATION what a stupid conclusion.

[AVOGARDO]

1: Hold a bowling ball directly above your foot.
2: Let go.
3: Don't even think about suing me for pain and suffering as a result; the court will LAUGH YOU OUT.

Or another example.

1: Go to the top of a tall building or the middle span of a bridge; the taller it is and the rockier the ground below, the better.
2: Jump.
3: See No. 3 above.

Read the prior sentence:
There is a difference how you could detect gravitation.
I doubt, that that the ancient Egyptians was able to detect gravitons.

Self-evident they were able to sense gravitation in the same way we do.

[Edi]

AVOGARDO, Enjoy your brand new ban poll.

You really are so fucking stupid that a lobotomy could only improve you.

Edi