View Single Post
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,306
# 18
12-31-2012, 02:28 AM
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Trek's warp drive functions
Firstly, stop condescending to me as if I do not understand how the warp drive functions or have any understanding of physics. It is not only rude, it is extremely annoying.

Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
See the Deja Q episode of TNG for what a low level warp field does. (Hint, mass doesn't change).
Secondly, this is now discussing two different issues. Dax did not say "low level warp field", she said "Low-level field."... Had it been intended by the writers to have been a low level warp field, that is what Terry Farrell would have said...

Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Asked and answered
Thirdly, I was not asking a question, I was stating something. You claimed that there was no 'mass effect' within the Trekverse which operated by "negating the mass of an object." I showed very clearly, that there was such an example, and rather than standing corrected with good grace, you undertook to split hairs and condescend to explain how one thing was not the other. You explained that a low level warp field would alter the physics of the area around an object not literally reduce the weight of the object itself. I would not take such exception to that, if it were not for the fact that while that that is indeed not literally reducing the weight of the object (in this case the station), it does specifically work by "negating the mass of the object". You are arguing a semantic point to try and make a distinction between two subspace phenomenon to not be corrected, and in the process, inadvertantly disproving your original statement (about the negation of mass) which I originally corrected (and eventually found the script to illustrate) It is rather rude, so please stop being a Sheldon... Good day

[Edit to add]
My comment about fudging the physics for plot point, was rhetorical, as I was trying to illustrate that not only does science continue to grow in scope and awareness, what was once considered an impossibility and fictional, has now been proven to be possible (if the necessary power requirements could be met) What might be considered 'fudging the physics', could be described as 'utilizing concepts which conventional science currently does not explain...'

Last edited by marcusdkane; 12-31-2012 at 02:36 AM.