Mad wrote:
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:
AVOGARDO wrote:
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.
Darth Wong wrote:
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?