Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,289
# 11
12-30-2012, 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Not exactly. While anti-grav units did exist, and were in use by the federation (mostly on smaller cargo or personnel transport units) there is no "mass effect" per se in the star trek verse. The closest thing you get is the warp field, which is (to put it simply) a bubble of subspace that allows for super-liminal travel by changing the properties of space-time in the area around a ship, not by negating the mass of an object.
In Emissary, Dax created a low-level field around the station so they could move it to the mouth of the wormhole on three station-keeping thrusters
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 12
12-30-2012, 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusdkane View Post
In Emissary, Dax created a low-level field around the station so they could move it to the mouth of the wormhole on three station-keeping thrusters
Which didn't negate the stations mass, only changed a localized pocket of space around the station to allow it to move with minimal input (and incidentally to keep it from tearing itself apart from inertial forces while making the trip). It may sound like splitting hairs, but it's two different effects to achieve nearly identical results (breaking the newtonian laws of motion to allow for interstellar travel at crazy fast speeds).
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,289
# 13
12-30-2012, 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Which didn't negate the stations mass, only changed a localized pocket of space around the station to allow it to move with minimal input (and incidentally to keep it from tearing itself apart from inertial forces while making the trip). It may sound like splitting hairs, but it's two different effects to achieve nearly identical results (breaking the newtonian laws of motion to allow for interstellar travel at crazy fast speeds).
I can't find a clip on YouTube, and don't have the episode available to check, but this is pasted from the shooting script...

Quote:
DAX
(calm, to O'Brien)
Couldn't you modify the subspace
field output of the deflector
generators... just enough to create
a low-level field around the
station...

A beat. O'Brien begins to get her logic...

O'BRIEN
So we could lower the inertial mass...

DAX
(nods)
If you can make the station lighter,
those six thrusters would be all the
power we'd need.

O'BRIEN
(a beat, it might
just work)
This whole station could break apart
like an egg if it doesn't work...
They had more thrusters than I remembered
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 14
12-30-2012, 04:51 PM
Without getting insanely complicated, inertial mass deals with how easily you get something moving. It's also another instance where Trek fudges it's own physics for the sake of a plot device.

I'll freely admit there's some overlap between the two concepts (and in the strictest sense one could consider what they pulled in Emissary as a variant of a mass effect), but warp and the warp field are "space" based phenomena, versus "object" based.

To Wit: They change the laws of physics within a given area, instead of changing the properties of a given object so that the laws of physics apply differently.

Last edited by stirling191; 12-30-2012 at 04:58 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,289
# 15
12-30-2012, 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Without getting insanely complicated, inertial mass deals with how easily you get something moving. It's also another instance where Trek fudges it's own physics for the sake of a plot device.

I'll freely admit there's some overlap between the two concepts (and in the strictest sense one could consider what they pulled in Emissary as a variant of a mass effect), but warp and the warp field are "space" based phenomena, versus "object" based.
Does it really fudge physics for the sake of plot? A decade ago, the 'warp effect' was considured purely fictional. The calculations for the Alcubierre Drive not only prove that to be an incorrect assumption, but also conforms precisely to how the Cochrane Drive 'warps space'... Who is to say that it would be impossible to create a field which had the effect of reducing the mass of the station? By our science, maybe, but see above example... Scientists used to KNOW that the Earth was flat, and that the sun and the stars orbited it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
To Wit: They change the laws of physics within a given area, instead of changing the properties of a given object so that the laws of physics apply differently.

The intent, and observable effect of which, was that the stations inertial mass was reduced...
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 16
12-30-2012, 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusdkane View Post
Does it really fudge physics for the sake of plot?
Yes, it does. Trek's warp drive functions on the basis of changing the properties of space-time so that hyper-liminal travel is possible (creating a localized bubble of subspace within which the "speed limit" is orders of magnitude greater than in what we consider "normal" space), not by altering the mass equation.

See the Deja Q episode of TNG for what a low level warp field does. (Hint, mass doesn't change).



Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusdkane View Post
The intent, and observable effect of which, was that the stations inertial mass was reduced...
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
It may sound like splitting hairs, but it's two different effects to achieve nearly identical results (breaking the newtonian laws of motion to allow for interstellar travel at crazy fast speeds).
Asked and answered
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,022
# 17
12-30-2012, 06:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by archofwinter View Post
I imagine you want to land your ship so it can be part of ground maps.
One logistical issue ingame is that if you just scale up the regular ship model, it will look terrible.
Currently the ship models are no longer than the height of a regular NPC.

While it would be nice to have large ship model as part of the ground map, landed or crash. It would be difficult on the developer's part.
However, if they ever do large and detailed ship model, it would be nice to add some EVA mission, PvP, or PvE where you fight outside of a ship like how they did with the Borg in First Contact.
I know it would take a lot of effort... BUT HOW AWESOME WOULD ALL OF THESE THINGS BE!?!?!
http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o633/centersolace/189cux9khvl6ojpg_zpsca7ccff0.jpg

So inhumane superweapons, mass murder, and canon nonsense is okay, but speedos are too much for some people.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,289
# 18
12-31-2012, 02:28 AM
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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...

Quote:
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.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:37 PM.