[AVOGARDO] Moron boy's ignorant ravings

[Mad]

That is not a sound argument.

That is nothing but bullshit.

That it hasn't done before with metagenic material doesn't mean, that sensors do not use theta-band carrier waves. And it doesn't mean that ist would be impossible as a basic principle.

There are a big difference between metagenic material and sensor emissions. That one is a huge molucule and the other is energy or consists of elementar particles.

I think, it is to assume, that fot this reason the latter is easier to transort through supspace than the first.

Prove it. For all you know, it could be harder to transport such particles through subspace than it is to transport molecules. Assumptions are not evidence.

Furthermore, how would the particles return to the sensor for detection? What makes you think they can flow against the carrier wave? You haven't thought this through.

Moreover, there is the incident from STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION
"New Ground", where a whole test ship was accelerated on warp on a subspace wave.

As I recall, that test failed to deliver the ship safely. Also, the ship has to ride the wave. There's no return wave for a sensor ping to return to.

No, I had difficulties to unterstand you. Maybe, if you quote something, you should do it in a way that you are understandable.

It was perfectly understandable. You're just an idiot.

But before you someone charge to be a liar, you should think about the meaning of this word, particularly in differentiation to the meaning of the word mistaken. Lying is the deliberate saying of something from which is known to be wrong for the teller.

Well, seeing as any reasonable, intelligent person should recognize their own quote being thrown at them for purposes of irony, I figured you must be lying. The only way it could be a mistake is if you're a complete moron. I suppose that's also possible...

But, yeah, I called you a liar. And I happen to know what the word means. And I used it deliberately in lieu of other words. What of it?

Well, for one, gravitons aren't affected by gravity... otherwise black holes would be impossible.

That seems to me to be a circular argument.

You must be a moron then. If gravitons are affected by gravity, then they would not be able to escape the event horizon of a black hole. Therefore, a black hole would not be able to exert any gravitational influence beyond its event horizon.

Please, can you try not to use cheap symantics. It is clear, that he thinks, it is possible. And he has more knowledge about possibilities at a basic principle than you or every other person.
I ask you again: I have no reasons to believe that he is mistaken in his belief, that it is possible. Do you have any indication for a mistake on his part?

It doesn't matter if it's possible, it matters if they already do it in sensors. We are talking about sensors in use by the UFP. Theoretical sensors don't matter in this discussion, because, by definition, theoretical sensors are not in use by the UFP.

The rest of your ranting is bullshit.

Ah, so you can't solve those scenarios I gave you, I see. Don't worry, I didn't expect you to. But you claimed that a starship would be able to calculate information from the same kind of information given.

Clearly, you need more information than that which a gravimeter can give you.

Somehow, I still think the point will fly over your head. In any case, concession accepted, moron.

[AVOGARDO]

Prove it.

Don't you get it. There are things, you can't prove. You can't prove assumptions. And you can't prove conlusions.

That is the character of both. You have proven facts and conclude to something new, which you can't prove. Otherwise you don't have to made a conclusion or assumption at first. You would be able to use the proof directly.

You can only evaluate the conclusiveness of a conclusion.

Don't you know the basic rules for a debate?

For all you know, it could be harder to transport such particles through subspace than it is to transport molecules.

That is finally a productive question.

Sure, it could be possible, that it could be harder to transport such particles through subspace than it is to transport molecules.

But you have to ask you, if it would be likely.

I think, it is easier to transport something which has almost no mass or even has no mass on a carrier wave than something with a far greater mass.

Assumptions are not evidence.

See above.
It's only a thought. Don't ask for a prove. You know, that this isn't confirmable.
If you have a sound reason to think otherwise, please give it to me.

Furthermore, how would the particles return to the sensor for detection? What makes you think they can flow against the carrier wave? You haven't thought this through.

And another productive question. That could get still a decent discussion.

If the particel get to the target through subspace, it seems to conclude, that at least some of the reflected particel returns through subspace. A object which is in realspace, is also in subspace. Otherwise a ship at warp couldn't collide with an object in realspace. But we know, that a ship in warp can sollide with objects in realspace. Therefor it seems to be assured, that interaction between objects in subspace and objects in realspace are possible.

It's only a thought. Don't ask for a prove. You know, that this isn't confirmable. There is no such thing like subspace.
But if you have a sound reason to think otherwise, please give it to me.

As I recall, that test failed to deliver the ship safely.

Pity, it was too early to hope for a decent discussion.

That the test has failed is irrelevant. It has proved, that it is possible to send an object through subspace. And there is a different between a ship and a particle. A ship is able to burst, a particel usually not.

Also, the ship has to ride the wave. There's no return wave for a sensor ping to return to.

You are right. But as far a I know, it is commonly assumed, that an object, which is leaving a ship, which is travelling at warp, keep its warpfield for some time before it drops out of warp. Therfore a torpedo is useable to hit another ship at warpspeed. And there are known incidents, where even phasers would fired at ships, which travel with warp. It seems, that the nadions are able to keep its warpfield for some time too.
Than it seems logical to assume, that particels from sensor emissions are able to keep its warpfield to.

You must be a moron then. If gravitons are affected by gravity, then they would not be able to escape the event horizon of a black hole. Therefore, a black hole would not be able to exert any gravitational influence beyond its event horizon.

I have understand you. But that only means, that a graviton has no own mass. But that isn't unusual. Why should that mean, that graviton doesn't have properties like another similiar elementary particle.

That a graviton isn't effected through itself (gravitation is caused by gravitons) is only logical. For this, your argument seemed to be a circular argument.

We are talking about sensors in use by the UFP. Theoretical sensors don't matter in this discussion, because, by definition, theoretical sensors are not in use by the UFP.

That is correct. But you don't understand, that we theorize about the functional principle of this sensors. And that are only theories. Because we don't know, how this sensors are working. We have some leads, that it is possible to send energy and matter through subspace. If we want a superluminal sensor, the sensor signal have to be sended through subspace. The question is only, what kind of sensor signal we have.

If you postulate that there is only some kind of subspace radiation or subspace field, you have a problem to explain some phenomenona.
I have already tried to describe these (see above).

If you have a better explaination, please tell it me. Till now you have only attacked my explanation but you have not made a constructive suggestion.

Ah, so you can't solve those scenarios I gave you

That is bullshit and you know it. I'm sure, you know, that it is possible, to calculate the distance from Earth to another starsystem or even to another galaxy. You wouldn't doubt, that this is possible.

But I doubt, that you would be able to calculate it.

I'm honest enough to admit, that I am not able to calculate it.

But that changes not the fact, that the calculation is possible and done.

Therfore, your argument is asinine. And you know it. But it seems to me, that you aren't interessted in a honest debate. Whatever I say, you would object me. Even if you try to grasp at straws.

But you claimed that a starship would be able to calculate information from the same kind of information given.

No, I don't claim it.

I assume, that a starship in the 24st century would have a better computer than we have today. Maybe you know Moore's law. Such a computer should be able to calculate such things with the information from its sensors. It should be able to include thousands of variables and more.

Clearly, you need more information than that which a gravimeter can give you.

I have already argued this point:

I never said, that you could get a distance with this method. Hell. it's a sensor to detect gravitation an not for distance. But If you have the distance through other sensor systems, you can calculate the mass via its gravitation. And you always need at least two variables to calculate a third.

You can't get a velocity without time and distance.
Without a movement, a change of position from point one to point two, you have no time.
Without time, you have no movement, a change of position from point one to point two.
And so on, and so on...

Why do you insist, that because it is not possible to determine the mass of an objekt without at least two other variables, that my explanation is impossible. That made no sense. That is the normal case

And I repeat my last question: Why do you insist, that because it is not possible to determine the mass of an objekt without at least two other variables, that my explanation is impossible?

[Mad]

Don't you get it. There are things, you can't prove. You can't prove assumptions. And you can't prove conlusions.

Err, yes you can. That's what the scientific method is all about.

Sure, it could be possible, that it could be harder to transport such particles through subspace than it is to transport molecules.

But you have to ask you, if it would be likely.

I think, it is easier to transport something which has almost no mass or even has no mass on a carrier wave than something with a far greater mass.

It's only a thought. Don't ask for a prove. You know, that this isn't confirmable. If you have a reason to think otherwise, please give it to me.

I suggest you check out the board rules. Debating Rule 6: "If you are asked for evidence to support a claim you've made, you should either produce this evidence or concede the point until such time as you can produce this evidence. People who consistently ignore requests for evidence to support their claims (particularly contentious claims) are not looked upon kindly here."

An assumption is a claim. If you cannot back up the assertion, then stand down.

If the particel get to the target through subspace, it seems to conclude, that at least some of the reflected particel returns through subspace. A object which is in realspace, is also in subspace. Otherwise a ship at warp couldn't collide with an object in realspace. But we know, that a ship in warp can sollide with objects in realspace. Therefor it seems to be assured, that interaction between objects in subspace is possible.

It's only a thought. Don't ask for a prove. You know, that this isn't confirmable. If you have a reason to think otherwise, please give it to me.

I'm not doubting the interaction would be possible. See below.

That the test has failed is irrelevant. It has proved, that it is possible to send an object through subspace. And there is a different between a ship and a particle. A ship is able to burst, a particel usually not.

What kind of forces can cause a starship to explode? Now think of those same forces acting on a much smaller particle. It's not going to stay on course, is it?

You are right. But as far a I know, it is commonly assumed, that an object, which is leaving a ship, which is travelling at warp, keep its warpfield for some time before it drops out of warp. Therfore a torpedo is useable to hit another ship at warpspeed. And there are known incidents, where even phasers would fired at ships, which travel with warp. It seems, that the nadions are able to keep its warpfield for some time too.
Than it seems logical to assume, that particels from a sensor emissions are able to keep its warpfield to.

Why do ships that lose warp power drop out of warp?

The explanation for torpedoes is that they have a device to sustain the warp field.

How do we know that the phasers fired ever leave the warp field? What are the properties of nadions? Why should we assume they behave like other particles when in warp fields when there is strong evidence that they have unusual subspace properties not found in other particles? (The fact that some objects hit by phasers seem to disappear into subspace, for instance.)

I have understand you. But that only means, that a graviton has no own mass. But that isn't unusual. Why should that mean, that graviton doesn't have properties like another similiar elementary particle.

Photons don't have mass, either, yet they are affected by gravity. That's why black holes are, y'know, black.

That is correct. But you don't understand, that we theorize about the functional principle of this sensors. And that are only theories. Because we don't know, how this sensors are working. We have some leads, that it is possible to send energy and matter through subspace. If we want a superluminal sensor, the sensor signal have to be sended through subspace. The question is only, what kind of sensor signal we have.

You're the one postulating that normal sensors can be used in subspace, not me. I said long ago that the subspace sensors are likely to be dedicated subspace sensors.

If you have a better explaination, please tell it me. Till now you have only attacked my explanation but you have not made a constructive suggestion.

My suggestion is that subspace is affected by objects in realspace. Therefore, reading the changes in subspace by using subspace sensors can give information about the object that may not be possible using traditional methods.

However, because of the ways in which subspace is affected by realspace objects, subspace sensors also have limitations not found in normal sensors. The disturbances in subspace caused by gravity, for instance, cause too much distortion to give any meaningful information in Lagrange points. EM radiation also causes subspace disturbances that can interfere with subspace scans.

That is bullshit and you know it. I'm sure, you know, that it is possible, to calculate the distance from Earth to another starsystem or even to another galaxy. You wouldn't doubt, that this is possible.

But I doubt, that you would be able to calculate it.

You might be surprised...

I'm honest enough to admit, that I am not able to calculate it.

But that changes not the fact, that the calculation is possible and done.

Let me make it clear: the two word problems I gave you are impossible to solve. They simply don't give you enough information to do anything except get a continuous range of possible answers. If you looked up the equation for calculating acceleration due to gravity and had any understanding of basic algebra, then you would realize exactly why I say that.

Therfore, your argument is asinine. And you know it. But it seems to me, that you aren't interessted in a honest debate. Whatever I say, you would object me. Even if you try to grasp at straws.

Just because you are ignorant doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. I see your understanding of basic logic is as tenuous as your understanding of most everything else.

No, I don't claim it.

I assume, that a starship in the 24st century would have a better computer than we have today. Maybe you know Moore's law. Such a computer should be able to calculate such things with the information from its sensors. It should be able to include thousands of variables and more.

An assumption is a claim as far as debates go. You don't understand the basics of debate, either.

I never said, that you could get a distance with this method. Hell. it's a sensor to detect gravitation an not for distance. But If you have the distance through other sensor systems, you can calculate the mass via its gravitation.

Then calculate the mass of the two starships, where one is 100 kilometers to starboard and the other is 100 kilometers to port. They are stationary relative to you. Your gravimeters are reading .002 m/s^2 to starboard.

You said it's possible to calculate their mass base on gravitation. I gave you the scenario with gravitation readings. Now prove that it's possible.

(Hint: it's not possible in this scenario, because there are two ships of unknown mass. If I gave you the mass of one, then you could calculate the mass of the other.)

[Stark]

Don't you get it. There are things, you can't prove. You can't prove assumptions. And you can't prove conlusions.

You can't prove assumptions. And you can't prove conlusions.

you can't prove conlusions.

Sounds fishy to me.

[Darth Wong]

Has anyone else noticed that, when faced with a point he has no answer for, he just mumbles about how he thinks his idea works and how he doesn't like your idea, without ever really addressing the point?

[Ghost Rider]

Don't you get it. There are things, you can't prove. You can't prove assumptions. And you can't prove conlusions.

You can't prove assumptions. And you can't prove conlusions.

you can't prove conlusions.

Sounds fishy to me.

Cannot prove conclusions?

Wow, tack one grade A moron, given what conclusions are the result of. Now whether they are well thought out or logical, and follow a delination of proof that isn't skewed...is something else.

But to say you can't prove them?

Just shoving in the Hall of Shame, because he so easily fits the thought of it.

[AVOGARDO]

Err, yes you can. That's what the scientific method is all about.

That's the reason that there are many scientifical theories and postulations and that there is till today no prove for the existence of gravitons.

If you would have a prove, it wouldn't be an assumption, a conclusion or a theorie. It would be a fact.

As scientist, you have known facts. But your knowledge has its limitation. And you ask, what could happen and try to explain it at first in theorie. Thereafter you try to prove your theorie with experiments.
But you can't alwas tests your theories. For example, there is a theorie about the existence of gravitons. But there is no prove for its exitence. But nevertheless it is a scientifical theorie.

Would you charge the scientists to not work scientifical?

And in a debate about the technology from a sience fiction serie, there are plenty things, you can't prove cause you can't made tests.

You have to accept this fact or you should not participate in such debate.

I suggest you check out the board rules.

I suggest you use your brian. A board rule can't change the rules of logic or the base rules for debates. It can't demand, what is impossible.
If it does it nevertheless, it is a faulty rule. And someone, who insist an this rule is an idiot.

What kind of forces can cause a starship to explode? Now think of those same forces acting on a much smaller particle.

To send a whole starship through supspace, you would need a lot more energy than to send a particel through suspace. And, as you have said, the test ist failed. It was not possible to create a stabil subspace wave from such dimensions.

But this energy could cause a starship to explode. You wouldn't think to give a wave, which should only carrier particels, as much energy.

And furthermore there is a difference between an object, which consist of many atoms and an object, which isn't even an atom and doesn't consist of several parts.

It's not going to stay on course, is it?

Why not? The accelerating forces which can cause a ship to burst can't cause a particel to burst.

Why do ships that lose warp power drop out of warp?

They drop out of warp. But not instantly.

The explanation for torpedoes is that they have a device to sustain the warp field.

I have never heard from such a device. Now I have to ask you for a prove. In which episode was such device mentioned?

And what do you think would happen with a an object, which is leaving a ship, which is travelling at warp, if it hasn't such device? Or with a ship, that have lost its warp power? From Warp 9 to fullstop in one instant?

How do we know that the phasers fired ever leave the warp field?

We don't know it for sure. But in shown shematas of the warpfield, it ist usually tight around the ship and doesn't reach far away. If a phaser is fired on a target five thousand kilometers away, I would assume, that the phaser has left the warpfield from the ship.

What are the properties of nadions?

This question is bullshit and you know it. You know that there are no real nadions. You can only conclude to its properties from seen effects in the series.

Why should we assume they behave like other particles when in warp fields when there is strong evidence that they have unusual subspace properties not found in other particles? (The fact that some objects hit by phasers seem to disappear into subspace, for instance.)

I have to ask you for an incident in Star Trek in which an object hit by phasers disapear into subspace. I never heard such an explanations in it. I would assume, that it is only a conclusion from you. But there could be other explanations too.

Particularly cause the described effect is called vaporization. And that has nothing to do with subspace. Why would they have said, that they have vaporized something oder someone, if the effect has nothing to do with vaporization? There are other words which would be better if it isn't a vaporization. Disintegration or dissolving for example. These words wouldn't have such a determined physical meanig.

Photons don't have mass, either, yet they are affected by gravity. That's why black holes are, y'know, black.

Whippersnapper.
Why have you not argued the next entence:

That a graviton isn't effected through itself (gravitation is caused by gravitons) is only logical.

It could be an explainaition why gravitons aren't affected by gravity.

My suggestion is that subspace is affected by objects in realspace. Therefore, reading the changes in subspace by using subspace sensors can give information about the object that may not be possible using traditional methods.

That is maybe your first contructal suggestion in this debate.

Now I have a few quesions:

Is it an activ or passiv sensor with which you would detect these changes in subspace?

If your sensor is in point A and the source of the affection ís in Point B, and Point A and Point B are severel lightyears away, how would your sensor detect the change in subspace?

How do you explain the mentioned incidents, in which the mass of an object, which was not in subspace and was not known, could have been detected?

In which episode was said, that gravitation has an affect on subspace?

I know, that there are episodes, in which was said, that the gravitation affected the sensors. But I can't remember an episode in which was said, that gravitation has an affect on subspace?

Would that mean, that warp at a Lagrange point is impossible?

You might be surprised...

Correct, I would be very surprised.

But if you would tell me, that you are able to made such calculation, maybe I would believe you. But I would ask for your degree. I doubt, that you would have leaned this at school.

But that would change nothing. I'm not able to made such calculation.
But that doesn't mean, that these calculations are impossible.

Let me make it clear: the two word problems I gave you are impossible to solve. They simply don't give you enough information to do anything except get a continuous range of possible answers. If you looked up the equation for calculating acceleration due to gravity and had any understanding of basic algebra, then you would realize exactly why I say that.

Let me make it clear: Your argument was obviously utterly absurd. For this, I haven't bothered to even look at your givings and or think about it.

You could have given me, what you have wanted. Even if your givings would made it able, to calculate something, I wouldn't have bothered to think about it. Mainly cause I wouldn't be able to calculate somehing.

An assumption is a claim as far as debates go. You don't understand the basics of debate, either.

No. If I make an assumption, I know that this is no knowledge. I know that this is a fact, which I can't prove. And I articulate it as such.

If I make a claim, I at least pretend to know that this is fact. Maybe I am even sure that this is a fact and could be mistaken.

There is a difference. You should be able to recognize it.

Then calculate the mass of the two starships, where one is 100 kilometers to starboard and the other is 100 kilometers to port. They are stationary relative to you. Your gravimeters are reading .002 m/s^2 to starboard.

You said it's possible to calculate their mass base on gravitation. I gave you the scenario with gravitation readings. Now prove that it's possible.

(Hint: it's not possible in this scenario, because there are two ships of unknown mass. If I gave you the mass of one, then you could calculate the mass of the other.)

That's another bullshit-argument.

It is possible to calculate the mass of both ships together.

And if you would have a third source of gravitation and would monitoring the change of the position of both ships to this third source, you should be able to determine the mass of both ships.

I have said it several times: You need at least two different variables to made a calculation.

Has anyone else noticed that, when faced with a point he has no answer for, he just mumbles about how he thinks his idea works and how he doesn't like your idea, without ever really addressing the point?

Can you give me an example for such behaviour.

As fas as I know, I have asked you some questions. And you have not answered these.

I have adressed your points, but I have not get a response from you.

And you don't argue at all. That is not an argument. That are tergiversations. Don't you have any arguments?

[AVOGARDO]

Err, yes you can. That's what the scientific method is all about.

That's the reason that there are many scientifical theories and postulations and that there is till today no prove for the existence of gravitons.

If you would have a prove, it wouldn't be an assumption, a conclusion or a theorie. It would be a fact.

As scientist, you have known facts. But your knowledge has its limitation. And you ask, what could happen and try to explain it at first in theorie. Thereafter you try to prove your theorie with experiments.
But you can't alwas tests your theories. For example, there is a theorie about the existence of gravitons. But there is no prove for its exitence. But nevertheless it is a scientifical theorie.

Would you charge the scientists for not working scientifical?

And in a debate about the technology from a sience fiction serie, there are plenty things, you can't prove cause you can't made tests.

You have to accept this fact or you should not participate in such debate.

I suggest you check out the board rules.

I suggest you use your brian. A board rule can't change the rules of logic or the base rules for debates. It can't demand, what is impossible.
If it does it nevertheless, it is a faulty rule. And someone, who insist an this rule is an idiot.

What kind of forces can cause a starship to explode? Now think of those same forces acting on a much smaller particle.

To send a whole starship through supspace, you would need a lot more energy than to send a particel through suspace. And, as you have said, the test ist failed. It was not possible to create a stabil subspace wave from such dimensions.

But this energy could cause a starship to explode. You wouldn't think to give a wave, which should only carrier particels, as much energy.

And furthermore there is a difference between an object, which consist of many atoms and an object, which isn't even an atom and doesn't consist of several parts.

It's not going to stay on course, is it?

Why not? The accelerating forces which can cause a ship to burst can't cause a particel to burst.

Why do ships that lose warp power drop out of warp?

They drop out of warp. But not instantly.

The explanation for torpedoes is that they have a device to sustain the warp field.

I have never heard from such a device. Now I have to ask you for a prove. In which episode was such device mentioned?

And what do you think would happen with a an object, which is leaving a ship, which is travelling at warp, if it hasn't such device? Or with a ship, that have lost its warp power? From Warp 9 to fullstop in one instant?

How do we know that the phasers fired ever leave the warp field?

We don't know it for sure. But in shown shematas of the warpfield, it ist usually tight around the ship and doesn't reach far away. If a phaser is fired on a target five thousand kilometers away, I would assume, that the phaser has left the warpfield from the ship.

What are the properties of nadions?

This question is bullshit and you know it. You know that there are no real nadions. You can only conclude to its properties from seen effects in the series.

Why should we assume they behave like other particles when in warp fields when there is strong evidence that they have unusual subspace properties not found in other particles? (The fact that some objects hit by phasers seem to disappear into subspace, for instance.)

I have to ask you for an incident in Star Trek in which an object hit by phasers disapear into subspace. I never heard such an explanations in it. I would assume, that it is only a conclusion from you. But there could be other explanations too.

Particularly cause the described effect is called vaporization. And that has nothing to do with subspace. Why would they have said, that they have vaporized something oder someone, if the effect has nothing to do with vaporization? There are other words which would be better if it isn't a vaporization. Disintegration or dissolving for example. These words wouldn't have such a determined physical meanig.

Photons don't have mass, either, yet they are affected by gravity. That's why black holes are, y'know, black.

Whippersnapper.
Why have you not argued the next entence:

That a graviton isn't effected through itself (gravitation is caused by gravitons) is only logical.

It could be an explainaition why gravitons aren't affected by gravity.

My suggestion is that subspace is affected by objects in realspace. Therefore, reading the changes in subspace by using subspace sensors can give information about the object that may not be possible using traditional methods.

That is maybe your first contructal suggestion in this debate.

Now I have a few quesions:

Is it an activ or passiv sensor with which you would detect these changes in subspace?

If your sensor is in point A and the source of the affection ís in Point B, and Point A and Point B are severel lightyears away, how would your sensor detect the change in subspace?

How do you explain the mentioned incidents, in which the mass of an object, which was not in subspace and was not known, could have been detected?

In which episode was said, that gravitation has an affect on subspace?

I know, that there are episodes, in which was said, that the gravitation affected the sensors. But I can't remember an episode in which was said, that gravitation has an affect on subspace?

Would that mean, that warp at a Lagrange point is impossible?

You might be surprised...

Correct, I would be very surprised.

But if you would tell me, that you are able to made such calculation, maybe I would believe you. But I would ask for your degree. I doubt, that you would have leaned this at school.

But that would change nothing. I'm not able to made such calculation.
But that doesn't mean, that these calculations are impossible.

Let me make it clear: the two word problems I gave you are impossible to solve. They simply don't give you enough information to do anything except get a continuous range of possible answers. If you looked up the equation for calculating acceleration due to gravity and had any understanding of basic algebra, then you would realize exactly why I say that.

Let me make it clear: Your argument was obviously utterly absurd. For this, I haven't bothered to even look at your givings and or think about it.

You could have given me, what you have wanted. Even if your givings would made it able, to calculate something, I wouldn't have bothered to think about it. Mainly cause I wouldn't be able to calculate somehing.

An assumption is a claim as far as debates go. You don't understand the basics of debate, either.

No. If I make an assumption, I know that this is no knowledge. I know that this is a fact, which I can't prove. And I articulate it as such.

If I make a claim, I at least pretend to know that this is fact. Maybe I am even sure that this is a fact and could be mistaken.

There is a difference. You should be able to recognize it.

Then calculate the mass of the two starships, where one is 100 kilometers to starboard and the other is 100 kilometers to port. They are stationary relative to you. Your gravimeters are reading .002 m/s^2 to starboard.

You said it's possible to calculate their mass base on gravitation. I gave you the scenario with gravitation readings. Now prove that it's possible.

(Hint: it's not possible in this scenario, because there are two ships of unknown mass. If I gave you the mass of one, then you could calculate the mass of the other.)

That's another bullshit-argument.

It is possible to calculate the mass of both ships together.

And if you would have a third source of gravitation and would monitoring the change of the position of both ships to this third source, you should be able to determine the mass of both ships.

I have said it several times: You need at least two different variables to made a calculation.

Has anyone else noticed that, when faced with a point he has no answer for, he just mumbles about how he thinks his idea works and how he doesn't like your idea, without ever really addressing the point?

Can you give me an example for such behaviour.

As fas as I know, I have asked you some questions. And you have not answered these.

I have adressed your points, but I have not get a response from you.

And you don't argue at all. That is not an argument. That are tergiversations. Don't you have any arguments?

[AVOGARDO]

Err, yes you can. That's what the scientific method is all about.

That's the reason that there are many scientifical theories and postulations and that there is till today no prove for the existence of gravitons.

If you would have a prove, it wouldn't be an assumption, a conclusion or a theorie. It would be a fact.

As scientist, you have known facts. But your knowledge has its limitation. And you ask, what could happen and try to explain it at first in theorie. Thereafter you try to prove your theorie with experiments.
But you can't alwas tests your theories. For example, there is a theorie about the existence of gravitons. But there is no prove for its exitence. But nevertheless it is a scientifical theorie.

Would you charge the scientists to not work scientifical?

And in a debate about the technology from a sience fiction serie, there are plenty things, you can't prove cause you can't made tests.

You have to accept this fact or you should not participate in such debate.

I suggest you check out the board rules.

I suggest you use your brian. A board rule can't change the rules of logic or the base rules for debates. It can't demand, what is impossible.
If it does it nevertheless, it is a faulty rule. And someone, who insist on such a rule is an idiot.

What kind of forces can cause a starship to explode? Now think of those same forces acting on a much smaller particle.

To send a whole starship through supspace, you would need a lot more energy than to send a particel through suspace. And, as you have said, the test ist failed. It was not possible to create a stabil subspace wave from such dimensions.

But this energy could cause a starship to explode. You wouldn't think to give a wave, which should only carrier particels, as much energy.

And furthermore there is a difference between an object, which consist of many atoms and an object, which isn't even an atom and doesn't consist of several parts.

It's not going to stay on course, is it?

Why not? The accelerating forces which can cause a ship to burst can't cause a particel to burst.

Why do ships that lose warp power drop out of warp?

They drop out of warp. But not instantly.

The explanation for torpedoes is that they have a device to sustain the warp field.

I have never heard from such a device. Now I have to ask you for a prove. In which episode was such device mentioned?

And what do you think would happen with a an object, which is leaving a ship, which is travelling at warp, if it hasn't such device? Or with a ship, that have lost its warp power? From Warp 9 to fullstop in one instant?

How do we know that the phasers fired ever leave the warp field?

We don't know it for sure. But in shown shematas of the warpfield, it ist usually tight around the ship and doesn't reach far away. If a phaser is fired on a target five thousand kilometers away, I would assume, that the phaser has left the warpfield from the ship.

What are the properties of nadions?

This question is bullshit and you know it. You know that there are no real nadions. You can only conclude to its properties from seen effects in the series.

Why should we assume they behave like other particles when in warp fields when there is strong evidence that they have unusual subspace properties not found in other particles? (The fact that some objects hit by phasers seem to disappear into subspace, for instance.)

I have to ask you for an incident in Star Trek in which an object hit by phasers disapear into subspace. I never heard such an explanations in it. I would assume, that it is only a conclusion from you. But there could be other explanations too.

Particularly cause the described effect is called vaporization. And that has nothing to do with subspace. Why would they have said, that they have vaporized something oder someone, if the effect has nothing to do with vaporization? There are other words which would be better if it isn't a vaporization. Disintegration or dissolving for example. These words wouldn't have such a determined physical meanig.

Photons don't have mass, either, yet they are affected by gravity. That's why black holes are, y'know, black.

Whippersnapper.
Why have you not argued the next entence:

That a graviton isn't effected through itself (gravitation is caused by gravitons) is only logical.

It could be an explainaition why gravitons aren't affected by gravity.

My suggestion is that subspace is affected by objects in realspace. Therefore, reading the changes in subspace by using subspace sensors can give information about the object that may not be possible using traditional methods.

That is maybe your first contructal suggestion in this debate.

Now I have a few quesions:

Is it an activ or passiv sensor with which you would detect these changes in subspace?

If your sensor is in point A and the source of the affection ís in Point B, and Point A and Point B are severel lightyears away, how would your sensor detect the change in subspace?

How do you explain the mentioned incidents, in which the mass of an object, which was not in subspace and was not known, could have been detected?

In which episode was said, that gravitation has an affect on subspace?

I know, that there are episodes, in which was said, that the gravitation affected the sensors. But I can't remember an episode in which was said, that gravitation has an affect on subspace?

Would that mean, that warp at a Lagrange point is impossible?

You might be surprised...

Correct, I would be very surprised.

But if you would tell me, that you are able to made such calculation, maybe I would believe you. But I would ask for your degree. I doubt, that you would have leaned this at school.

But that would change nothing. I'm not able to made such calculation.
But that doesn't mean, that these calculations are impossible.

Let me make it clear: the two word problems I gave you are impossible to solve. They simply don't give you enough information to do anything except get a continuous range of possible answers. If you looked up the equation for calculating acceleration due to gravity and had any understanding of basic algebra, then you would realize exactly why I say that.

Let me make it clear: Your argument was obviously utterly absurd. For this, I haven't bothered to even look at your givings and or think about it.

You could have given me, what you have wanted. Even if your givings would made it able, to calculate something, I wouldn't have bothered to think about it. Mainly cause I wouldn't be able to calculate somehing.

An assumption is a claim as far as debates go. You don't understand the basics of debate, either.

No. If I make an assumption, I know that this is no knowledge. I know that this is a fact, which I can't prove. And I articulate it as such.

If I make a claim, I at least pretend to know that this is fact. Maybe I am even sure that this is a fact and could be mistaken.

There is a difference. You should be able to recognize it.

Then calculate the mass of the two starships, where one is 100 kilometers to starboard and the other is 100 kilometers to port. They are stationary relative to you. Your gravimeters are reading .002 m/s^2 to starboard.

You said it's possible to calculate their mass base on gravitation. I gave you the scenario with gravitation readings. Now prove that it's possible.

(Hint: it's not possible in this scenario, because there are two ships of unknown mass. If I gave you the mass of one, then you could calculate the mass of the other.)

That's another bullshit-argument.

It is possible to calculate the mass of both ships together.

And if you would have a third source of gravitation and would monitoring the change of the position of both ships to this third source, you should be able to determine the mass of both ships.

I have said it several times: You need at least two different variables to made a calculation.

Has anyone else noticed that, when faced with a point he has no answer for, he just mumbles about how he thinks his idea works and how he doesn't like your idea, without ever really addressing the point?

Can you give me an example for such behaviour.

As fas as I know, I have asked you some questions. And you have not answered these.

I have adressed your points, but I have not get a response from you.

And you don't argue at all. That is not an argument. That are tergiversations. Don't you have any arguments?

[SirNitram]

That's the reason that there are many scientifical theories and postulations and that there is till today no prove for the existence of gravitons.

If you would have a prove, it wouldn't be an assumption, a conclusion or a theorie. It would be a fact.

Thank you for proving you haven't passed a serious High School science class. Please show yourself out until you've added a few more years worth of learning onto your existing gaping void.

[AVOGARDO]

Thank you for proving you haven't passed a serious High School science class. Please show yourself out until you've added a few more years worth of learning onto your existing gaping void.

Maybe you could explain your thought a little bit more in detail.

I don't see my mistake.

Have you an argument or are you trying to ranting?

[AVOGARDO]

ERROR

[SirNitram]

Thank you for proving you haven't passed a serious High School science class. Please show yourself out until you've added a few more years worth of learning onto your existing gaping void.

Maybe you could explain your thought a little bit more in detail.

Do you actually grasp what it means, when you said you can't prove conclusions? It's rather unmistakable when you read that sentence.. Assuming you know what you're talking about.

I don't see my mistake.

This is why I said you need more science education. If you've honestly not realized what's wrong with 'You can't prove conclusions', you're so fucked in the head we can't help you.

Have you an argument or are you trying to ranting?

'Trying to ranting' is an affront to grammar. Then again, seeing your pathetic grasp of science, it's not surprising you screw up this too.

[CaptainChewbacca]

English isn't his first (or second) language, Nit. He seems to be TRYING to be coherent, at least as far as grammar.

AV- You seem to not know the difference between a conclusion and an assumption. Try this notion:

Assumption = Good guess.
Conclusion = Guess verified by proof. If you can't prove it, its still an assumption.

[AVOGARDO]

Do you actually grasp what it means, when you said you can't prove conclusions? It's rather unmistakable when you read that sentence.. Assuming you know what you're talking about.

Maybe you schould look at the real meanings of these words.

If you can prove a conclusion, it isn't a conclusion any more. It has besomes a fact.

This is why I said you need more science education.

That's stupid too.

The meanings of the words fact, conclusion, assumption, postulat or theorie have nothing to do with natural sciences. That cames from arts like philosophy.

'Trying to ranting' is an affront to grammar. Then again, seeing your pathetic grasp of science, it's not surprising you screw up this too.

That could be. English isn't my native language.
But what have my translation-mistakes to do with my grasp of science?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

This is why I said you need more science education.

That's stupid too.

The meanings of the words fact, conclusion, assumption, postulate or theory have nothing to do with natural sciences. That cames from arts like philosophy.

Hey, fucktard! LOGIC is a science too, asshole. It's where our Scientific Method comes from, and it's what gives those words their meanings.

'Arts and Philosophy' Buuuuuuullshit!

[General Zod]

That's stupid too.

The meanings of the words fact, conclusion, assumption, postulat or theorie have nothing to do with natural sciences. That cames from arts like philosophy.

I'd recommend working on your English definitions for science and scientific terminology and get back to us.

Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

Main Entry: natural science
Function: noun
: any of the sciences (as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena

Main Entry: con·clu·sion
Pronunciation: k&n-'klü-zh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin conclusion-, conclusio, from concludere
1 a : a reasoned judgment : INFERENCE b : the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises; especially : the inferred proposition of a syllogism
2 : the last part of something: as a : RESULT, OUTCOME b plural : trial of strength or skill -- used in the phrase try conclusions c : a final summation d : the final decision in a law case e : the final part of a pleading in law
3 : an act or instance of concluding

[AVOGARDO]

AV- You seem to not know the difference between a conclusion and an assumption. Try this notion:

Assumption = Good guess.
Conclusion = Guess verified by proof. If you can't prove it, its still an assumption.

I'm ready to concede, that I only know the meanings of these words in my native language for sure.

But in this a conclusion is a guess based on facts or based on other conclusions which are based on fasts in the end. You can try to verify it. But you have never a positive prove. If you would have such, it would be a fact.

Maybe the meanings differ in englisch an my native language a little bit.

But what would be the difference between a fact and a conclusion if you can prove both?

I think, you start with a conclusion and try to prove it. But as long as you haven't succeded, it would stay a conclusion. If you have succes, it would become a fact.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

AV- You seem to not know the difference between a conclusion and an assumption. Try this notion:

Assumption = Good guess.
Conclusion = Guess verified by proof. If you can't prove it, its still an assumption.

I'm ready to concede, that I only know the meanings of these words in my native language for sure.

But in this a conclusion is a guess based on facts or based on other conclusions which are based on fasts in the end. You can try to verify it. But you have never a positive prove. If you would have such, it would be a fact.

Maybe the meanings differ in englisch an my native language a little bit.

But what would be the difference between a fact and a conclusion if you can prove both?

I think, you start with a conclusion and try to prove it. But as long as you haven't succeeded, it would stay a conclusion. If you have success, it would become a fact.

What's to say a fact isn't a subset of conclusions, douche?

[AVOGARDO]

Hey, fucktard! LOGIC is a science too, asshole. It's where our Scientific Method comes from, and it's what gives those words their meanings.

'Arts and Philosophy' Buuuuuuullshit!

I have never stated otherwise.

But there is natural sience and arts. Arts, like philosophy, theology or jurisprudence are science too, but no natural sience. They are arts.

And LOCIC is more an element of philosophy than natural sience.

Before there was such thing as natural science, there was philosophie.

I'd recommend working on your English definitions for science and scientific terminology and get back to us.

I don't see, that your definitions contradict my understanding of these words.

And your definitions of conclusions support me even. There is no prove demanded as far as I can see.

[AVOGARDO]

Hey, fucktard! LOGIC is a science too, asshole. It's where our Scientific Method comes from, and it's what gives those words their meanings.

'Arts and Philosophy' Buuuuuuullshit!

I have never stated otherwise.

But there is natural sience and arts. Arts, like philosophy, theology or jurisprudence are science too, but no natural sience. They are arts.

And LOCIC is more an element of philosophy than natural sience.

Before there was such thing as natural science, there was philosophie and theology.

I'd recommend working on your English definitions for science and scientific terminology and get back to us.

I don't see, that your definitions contradict my understanding of these words.

And your definitions of conclusions support me even. There is no prove demanded as far as I can see.

[AVOGARDO]

What's to say a fact isn't a subset of conclusions, douche?

I'm sorry, but I dont understand you.

Can you please explain, what you mean.

If that is a english expression, I don't know it.

[General Zod]

And LOCIC is more an element of philosophy than natural sience.

Before there was such thing as natural science, there was philosophie.

Are you so completely ignorant that you don't think scientists use logic to derive their conclusions from?

I don't see, that your definitions contradict my understanding of these words.

And your definitions of conclusions support me even. There is no prove demanded as far as I can see.

First, it's spelled proof. Second, the definition for proof is as follows:

Main Entry: 1proof
Pronunciation: 'prüf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English prof, prove, alteration of preve, from Anglo-French preove, from Late Latin proba, from Latin probare to prove -- more at PROVE
1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

1 a : a reasoned judgment :

Now do you see where I'm getting at, or do I need to use smaller syllables? Pay careful attention to the bolded words.

[The Yosemite Bear]

also note: Weber's Honor-verse has the ability to detect ships FTL, since the new generation of sensors can read gravity echo's in hyper-space. Prior to that since gravity propagates at the speed of light, they were unable to get FTL tactical information.

what has been repeatably stated:

1. it is impossible for sensors to read gravity fields in real space at FTL distances.

2. almost all trek verse ships use some form of "Mass Lightening" as part of their FTL system. The FTL system interacts with subspace. Theirfore the detection system is most likely reading the subspace echo, of the changes in subspace energy where FTL is posible.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I'm ready to concede, that I only know the meanings of these words in my native language for sure.

But in this a conclusion is a guess based on facts or based on other conclusions which are based on fasts in the end. You can try to verify it. But you have never a positive prove. If you would have such, it would be a fact.

What IS your native language? I might speak it, and then this would go faster.

Maybe the meanings differ in englisch an my native language a little bit.

But what would be the difference between a fact and a conclusion if you can prove both?

Others have done this, but I'll say that a conclusion is a verifiable result supported by facts. For example:
Assumption: You own an item.
Fact 1: You paid for an item.
Fact 2: The item was given to you.
Fact 3: You have not given the item to someone else.
Conclusion: You own the item.

I think, you start with a conclusion and try to prove it. But as long as you haven't succeded, it would stay a conclusion. If you have succes, it would become a fact.

No, you've got the wrong words. A conclusion is BY DEFINITION verifiable. Again, I believe you are confusing assumption and conclusion, and while there may be similar words of an interchangable nature in your language (god knows this crap happens), in ENGLISH and ON THIS BOARD in particular a conclusion that is not verified by facts is not a conclusion.

You have given ASSUMPTIONS and ASSERTIONS, but have not backed them up with FACTS, so they are NOT CONCLUSIONS. Here's a tip: Stop accusing people of ANYTHING at this point, and they'll likely stop slamming you. The burden is on YOU to make US understand YOU, since we can live a long and happy life remembering "the weird guy who said he was right but nobody understood." If we aren't understanding you, try and explain it again, or clarify what people don't understand. Don't accuse someone of being an idiot for not understanding something you mistranslated from your own language.