the Pegasus challenge

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-25 08:02pm

Alyeska wrote:We also have seen cracks in the event horrizon of a black hole.

Wrong. That phenomenon bore no resemblance to a black hole. How could they fly into it without noticing? Where is the event horizon radiation?

We have seen impossible things happen in Star Trek. We have the observed information.

No, we have seen strange things happen which were interpreted in a ridiculous way by onscreen characters. You are confusing observations with character interpretations.

You are throwing away all the onscreen evidence because what they are doing shouldn't be possible.

Wrong. I am discarding an obviously erroneous character description of the onscreen evidence. In fact, YOU are throwing away onscreen evidence by ignoring the appearance of the scene, the actions taken, the lack of observed manifestations of supposedly existent phenomenon, etc. all in favour of your assumption that if a character THINKS phenomenon A represents interpretation B, then interpretation B is just as objective as phenomenon A. It is not.

Some way or another this asteroid exists and we have to accept that. If you don't then all your doing is arbitrarily accepting parts of Star Trek, and thats not proper debate.

Bullshit. I accept that the asteroid exists and has all of its observed properties. Your problem is that you think its observed, objective properties are defined ONLY by Data's interpretation thereof, not by direct observation.

We have no reason to think Data is incorrect. No mater how unlikely this situation is, we know it exists and we have to face that fact.

Wrong. I have presented many scientific and logical reasons to think Data is incorrect. You simply ignore them in favour of the assumption that he is correct anyway.

No. Normal logic. It was stated onscreen and further supported twice in the episode. It might not make sense, but its the situation at hand.

Are you trying to build a fucking wall of ignorance now? What is your goddamned problem when you can't tell the difference between observation and third-party interpretation?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-25 08:03pm

Alyeska, I strongly suggest you learn something about the BASIC FUCKING SCIENTIFIC METHOD before continuing to make an ass out of yourself. So far, you have exhibited every known debating characteristic of the anti-scientific subjectivist.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-25 08:18pm

Noticeable gravitational fluctuations would imply that its mass and/or rest energy and/or density is constantly changing at noticeable rates. Do have any idea what kind of phenomena would generate? Here's a hint: The asteroid's shape would be constantly changing.

EDIT: Just for fun, let's entertain Alyseka's notion that gravitational fluctuations were indeed present in the asteroid. If that is the case, then they were extraordinarily small. Thus, Federation shuttles are utterly incapable of handling minuscule changes in g-forces, and the Enterprise is only barely capable of it.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-01-25 10:22pm

So, how does the "event horizon of a black hole" BS from Voyager fit into the canon, if that's impossible too?

Moonshadow · Post by **Moonshadow** » 2003-01-26 12:41am

You can't recover it; the portion of the ship that is embedded in rock is lost. Its structure has been mixed with the rock at the molecular level, so it's pretty much gone.

In that case it sounds to me like the best bet( if any) is to use the Phasecloak to get it out.Of course it would require a power supply that isn't on the Pegasus herself. And to keep the device from trying to phasecloak the entire asteroid they would have to make some 'technobabble' adjustments to it.

Another possibility is if the Voth used their Starship sized transporter to get it out. I think in TNG they've been able to filter out certain elements before( although we've only seen the Feds do this. We don't know if the Voth 'supertransporter' can do so as well)

also i believe since i said any possible means as long as the ship is intact i see no reaon why we can't use SW or other tech to do this.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-26 01:09am

Uraniun235 wrote:So, how does the "event horizon of a black hole" BS from Voyager fit into the canon, if that's impossible too?

Simple. The characters are incompetent. This is not something new. These are people who identify giant blue things in space as "gravitic distortions" and "singularities."

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-01-26 03:33am

Out of curiosity, what would be said if, in "Pegasus", they tried to send a shuttle in and it was "overpowered" by the gravity nonsense?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-26 04:04am

Uraniun235 wrote:Out of curiosity, what would be said if, in "Pegasus", they tried to send a shuttle in and it was "overpowered" by the gravity nonsense?

We would say that the shuttle is either flown by a blind man or it has the worst fucking guidance system ever devised. Even if it went out of control, this would hardly explain this super-gravity asteroid's ability to hold a deep fissure open within itself instead of slamming shut, nor would it explain its failure to change shape and mass continuously and randomly as per its imaginary "gravitational fluctuations".

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2003-01-26 04:33pm

Alyeska wrote:I have chosen to accept the information given because we have no indication of it being incorrect. Infact Data's information is supported by the fact that the Romulan ship was able to collapse the entrance and seal the Enterprise in. That could not be done with a standard 5km asteroid. The evidence indicates time and time again that Data was correct.

Like he was about the sex of his cat?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-26 04:37pm

Lord Poe wrote:
Alyeska wrote:I have chosen to accept the information given because we have no indication of it being incorrect. Infact Data's information is supported by the fact that the Romulan ship was able to collapse the entrance and seal the Enterprise in. That could not be done with a standard 5km asteroid. The evidence indicates time and time again that Data was correct.
Like he was about the sex of his cat?

The writers admited to this being a screw up, its not the same thing and you know it. Hell, they had Data calling Spot a he AFTER the episode in which Spot gave birth.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-26 04:44pm

Alyseka wrote:The writers admited to this being a screw up, its not the same thing and you know it. Hell, they had Data calling Spot a he AFTER the episode in which Spot gave birth.

Writer's intent is an invalid argument. Data got the sex of his cat wrong.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-01-26 04:47pm

Durandal wrote:
Alyseka wrote:The writers admited to this being a screw up, its not the same thing and you know it. Hell, they had Data calling Spot a he AFTER the episode in which Spot gave birth.
Writer's intent is an invalid argument. Data got the sex of his cat wrong.

No Data got his cat a sex change.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-26 04:50pm

Oh, more fun with this Super-Gravity-Fluctuation-Happy-Fun-Show. If the asteroid's gravity was, indeed, super, fluctuating and happy, then that would mean that its center of gravity would be continually shifting location, which would mean that the asteroid would be constantly changing speed and direction, not to mention it'd be rotating.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-26 04:53pm

TheDarkling wrote:
Durandal wrote:
Alyseka wrote:The writers admited to this being a screw up, its not the same thing and you know it. Hell, they had Data calling Spot a he AFTER the episode in which Spot gave birth.
Writer's intent is an invalid argument. Data got the sex of his cat wrong.
No Data got his cat a sex change.

Actually, there's a funny quote in the Star Trek Encyclopedia about Spot's constant sex and breed changing. In it, the writer suggests that Spot may be some sort of superbeing that is observing the Enterprise and constantly changes the kind of cat it is for some reason.

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2003-01-27 11:45am

I thought the sensors couldn't see the Pegasis anyway, they could only tell it was in there because of some residual warp core signature or something. If so, then how could Data's instruments tell him there were gravitic fluctuations at all? Heh, maybie the subspace signature from the Pegasis' core created a side effect that looked like gravitic fluctuations. It should have been obvious there were no dangerous fluctuations, but the crew has encountered strange things before, so maybie he felt it was possible and didn't question the sensors. I agree with Aleska, the crew should have at least some idea what they are seeing, but at the same time what they report is often stupid, impossible, contrary to what's observed, etc. However, it should be noted that the Feds are capable of "impossible" things, for example- Their transporters rely upon their Heisenberg Compensators, and Phasers appear to violate Conservation of Baryons, yet this is accepted technology in their world. Even things like "instantanious supernova" or subspace itself, or Warp drive or certainly the probability alterating device on DS9 are impossible. This is not an excuse to fall back upon, but impossible things do happen.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-27 12:19pm

The Silence and I wrote:I thought the sensors couldn't see the Pegasis anyway, they could only tell it was in there because of some residual warp core signature or something. If so, then how could Data's instruments tell him there were gravitic fluctuations at all? Heh, maybie the subspace signature from the Pegasis' core created a side effect that looked like gravitic fluctuations. It should have been obvious there were no dangerous fluctuations, but the crew has encountered strange things before, so maybie he felt it was possible and didn't question the sensors.

The ship's sensors were obviously wrong. Or perhaps Data is a moron, or perhaps both. He's not exactly known to be infallible; he was off by a whole order of magnitude on a surface area calculation for the Dyson sphere.

I agree with Aleska, the crew should have at least some idea what they are seeing, but at the same time what they report is often stupid, impossible, contrary to what's observed, etc. However, it should be noted that the Feds are capable of "impossible" things, for example- Their transporters rely upon their Heisenberg Compensators, and Phasers appear to violate Conservation of Baryons, yet this is accepted technology in their world. Even things like "instantanious supernova" or subspace itself, or Warp drive or certainly the probability alterating device on DS9 are impossible. This is not an excuse to fall back upon, but impossible things do happen.

Performing impossible feats and observing impossible phenomena are two totally different things. The latter can be rationalized with technology. The former is composed of things which simply cannot occur in nature. It's like finding a stable element with a greater atomic number of 300 or so (which they did in one episode). It's just impossible because the element would have too much potential energy and fission to produce two lighter nuclei.

Data's idiotic claim of gravitational fluctuations generates certain predictions that we can test. If the fluctuations are large enough to disrupt the guidance system of a shuttle, then the asteroid should be rotating around random axes and randomly changing shape, and the fissure the Enterprise entered through could not exist. If there were any gravitational fluctuations, they were utterly minuscule. So, we can conclude one of three things:

Data is a moron who can't read sensors, or
the sensors are simply wrong or
Federation shuttlecraft are incapable of dealing with extremely small changes in acceleration.

Take your pick.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-27 12:30pm

The Silence and I wrote:However, it should be noted that the Feds are capable of "impossible" things, for example- Their transporters rely upon their Heisenberg Compensators, and Phasers appear to violate Conservation of Baryons, yet this is accepted technology in their world.

Maybe they've simply figured out something we haven't. It still doesn't mean that the laws of physics and even mathematics can be completely thrown out the window. BTW, black holes also violate Conservation of Baryons. I don't see anyone using this as an excuse to claim that everything we know about physics just went out the window.

Even things like "instantanious supernova" or subspace itself, or Warp drive or certainly the probability alterating device on DS9 are impossible. This is not an excuse to fall back upon, but impossible things do happen.

Tell me, if an onscreen character says that 2+2=5, would you conclude that 2+2=5 in their universe? Or would you conclude that he's an idiot? Because 2+2=5 is no more absurd than altering the mathematical laws of probability.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-01-27 05:28pm

It's like finding a stable element with a greater atomic number of 300 or so (which they did in one episode).

Forget "finding" it, they were interested in trading it. ("The Price")

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2003-01-27 09:44pm

Uraniun235 wrote:

Forget "finding" it, they were interested in trading it. ("The Price")

I hope that was a VOY episode at least. (Pounds head on desk over unbelievable stupidity of ST writers)

Darth Wong wrote:

Tell me, if an onscreen character says that 2+2=5, would you conclude that 2+2=5 in their universe? Or would you conclude that he's an idiot? Because 2+2=5 is no more absurd than altering the mathematical laws of probability.

I would, of course, say he's an idiot. But in the probability altering thing, I was under the impression it was demonstrated, that it actually happened.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-27 10:35pm

The Silence and I wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Tell me, if an onscreen character says that 2+2=5, would you conclude that 2+2=5 in their universe? Or would you conclude that he's an idiot? Because 2+2=5 is no more absurd than altering the mathematical laws of probability.
I would, of course, say he's an idiot. But in the probability altering thing, I was under the impression it was demonstrated, that it actually happened.

No, you don't understand. The laws of probability are mathematical in nature. To alter them is no less absurd than altering the laws of addition or subtraction.

What they saw was Quark's gambling machines acting funny and some other things acting funny around the station. Any number of explanations are possible; perhaps some kind of subspace or gravitic distortion, for example. But noooooo, they leapt to the most inane explanation possible; that the laws of probability themselves were being altered.

Do not confuse an onscreen character's interpretation of an event with the event itself. Quark's machines giving funny results was canon. The laws of probability altering was not canon; that was just the crew's idiotic interpretation of events.

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2003-01-27 11:33pm

Very well. This really is the only way, isn't it. To ignore the dialog, and maybie even some of the episodes, so something like continuity can be maintained. I shall stop trying to make sense of the writer's broken logic and scientific ignorance.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-01-28 12:43am

Darth Wong wrote:Do not confuse an onscreen character's interpretation of an event with the event itself. Quark's machines giving funny results was canon. The laws of probability altering was not canon; that was just the crew's idiotic interpretation of events.

I dunno, there's a console in Main Engineering (of E-D) marked "Improbability Generation" or something like that