Or, since the Crystalline Entity could travel faster-than-light, it must have some kind of connection to subspace. The method of detection may not be the gravitons themselves, but instead the subspace disturbances created by them. (Think of smoke signals: you're releasing smoke in a timed pattern. The smoke doesn't actually reach the recipient, yet communication takes place.)
If I understand you correct, the subspace sensor system, that you imagine, actively send a subspace signal - and the signals which are created through the interaction with all kind of matter and energy is interpreted.
But that is not likely how a sensor phalanx would work. It would have many different sensor systems to detect many different things. It would have passive and active sensor moduls. Therfore it would be called an array or a phalanx.
And each single sensor module could work without supspace technology. And there could be sensor mudules, which are especially there to detect subspace data - passive and active.
The subspace technology would only be necessary for these and to send active sensor signals from otherwise not-subspace sensor modules through the supspace or to receive signals which are send through subspace.
There are two possibilities to detect gravitons in principle: activ and passiv.
An active signal interact with these gravitons and a kind of new signal is created by these interaction which is detectabel.
The first signal doesn't have to be a subspace signal. It could be send through subspace and than, the second signal could be transmitted in supspace too.
But then there is also the possibility to detect gravitons in a passiv way without sending a signal to the gravitons. In relativistic vicinity the graviton would come to the sensor module just as well as light to a camera.
If the first variant is possible, than the second variant is also possible insofar as the sensor signal, with which the graviton is detectabel, is not send through the whole space but is created only in the sensor module itself and detect only the gravitons which get to it.
But furthermore there is the possibility that gravitons are detactable without a signal with which they have to interact as well as light.
No, it couldn't explain that. Gravitons don't disappear in a Lagrange Point, therefore directly detecting gravitons from a ship in a Lagrange Point should not be a problem.
Any problems that come from detecting a gravitational source sitting in a Lagrange Point would therefore have to be due to some other kind of interference with whatever is being used to detect the gravity well.
I'm not an astrophysicist. I don't know, in which way the combined gravitational pull of two large masses, which provides precisely the centripetal force required for a small mass to rotate with them affect the gravitons of said small mass.
Maybe you are right?
But maybe the gravitational interference from two large masses in this point is to high to be able to detect a small mass? That must not be the case in every Lagrange Point. Maybe only if certain cirsumstances are given.
Darth Wong wrote:
It appears you still need it, since you go on to spout idiotic bullshit about "directly" detecting gravitons for recent events from light-years away despite lightspeed propagation, thus indicating that you don't get this point at all.
I have already said, that >> To determine the mass of a ship, that is in relativistic vicinity
, subspace technology wouldn't be necessary. << and that >> when superluminal detection is needed, a sensor system could be connected to a subspace system. <<
Darth Wong wrote:
They most likely detect something about the warp field and then infer starship mass from that, based on relations that they have found to work for ships using technology they are aware of.
I don't see, how that can bee the likeliest possibility if they are able to detect the mass from objects, which don't travel at warp speed and don't have subspace technology at all, like debris and asteroids, and are able to determine the mass of a ship the just encountered and thus know nothing about.
Darth Wong wrote:
"Detect gravitation directly" ... with what mechanism? What are the characteristics of this mechanism? What are its limitations?
I don't know. But as I said, I'm not an astrophysicist. And sure, I can't explain all the technology from the 24st century. I think, it could happen similarly to the detection of light or the detection of neutrinos in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.
Darth Wong wrote:
That's just plain ridiculous. It's like saying that you can "connect" a local metal-detector to a radar system if you need to detect metal from far away. Once more, your arguments sounds like those of someone who knows absolutely nothing about how we detect things in reality.
No, that is not what I'm saying. The >> metal-detector << would be on a par with the >> radar <<.
It is possible to send matter and energy through the subspace. Insofar subspace is not an similiar to EM signals. It is the space through which theses signals are sended. A ship in subspace or a torpedo is not energy or subspace. It keeps its own consitence.
I'm saying that I woul send the EM signals from your >> metal-detector << and your >> radar << through the subspace for superluminal detection.