Xeroc

I'll try to spin for a "T"

I'll SPIN for "S"

Hello Xeroc!

How are you doing?

 

The Wheel Landed On . . . .

 

0.5

 

_ / _ _ / _ / _ _ _ t _ _, / _ _ t / _ / _ _ _ _ _ _

 

 

Xeroc = 1 point in this round

 

 

You Can Spin Again!

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

Hi, master_q, I've been gone from the trivia section for a long time because I've been really busy.

Alright, I'll try to SPIN for an "N"

I'll try a SPIN for a "T"

I have decided to merge this topic with the older ones so people can see the entire topic for discussion.

so then you will at least agree with me that they are not and could not be built out of glass

Yes, glass would be far too weak to use in such situations as described above. It would have to be meters thick, and would be easy to puncture with weak weapons.

Unfortuanately, even the ST Technical Manual doesn't say what the windows are made of.

I remeber them mentioning transparent aluminum in TOS (for example when scotty was on earth and gave away the formula to gain the supplies to save the whales in ST: IV The Voyage Home) and I think transparent aluminum would probably shatter in the extreme cold of interstellar space.

However, it is likely that the windows are made of some other futuristic transparent material, due to the incredible beating they would need to take to maintain structural integrity. (even with the help of the Structural Integrity Field)

Unfortunately Artificial Gravity Plating is one of those things we aren't really ever told how it works in ST. Probably because we don't really know how it would work. (or else we'd be making them!) It is possible they are graviton (a theoretical particle which could carry the gravitational force) generators.

No, likely the hydrogen would become part of the QGP.

Fusion is a completey different process where two protons collide and produce a proton-neutron nucleus, neutrino, and a positron (anti-electron). This couldn't happen effectively in QGP (Quark-Gluon Plasma) because the protons and neutrons are actually all mixed up and torn apart (because they are made of each 3 quarks and gluons).

How does self destruct destroy the ship??? Automatic loss of antimatter containment? Overloading of the Plasma conduits? Overload of the Warp core? Injection of Antimatter into the warp plasma? Antimatter pulse going through ship???? What could it be?

According to the Star Trek Technical Manual

In the preferred configuration, the starship undergoes rapid vaporization from rapid vaporization from thermal and mechanical shock caused by a deliberate release of warp engine reactants.  Remote computer system decryption algorithms generate one final set of cascade falieure commands, and all engine saftey interlocks are comprimised.  Matter from the primary deuterium tankage and the total supply of antimatter from the storage pods on Deck 42 are expelled simultaniously, producing an energy release on the order of 10^15 megajoules, roughly equivalent to 1,000 photon torpedoes.

 

If the command links to the engine systems are severed, the secondary destruct system is automatically selected.  Ordanance packages are located at key locations around the vehicle, including the antimatter storage pods.  These are detonated in concert with intentional overloads of all fusion reaction chambers

.  The release of the secondary system is calculated to be 10^9 megajoules, roughly equivalent to 500 photon torpedoes.  The secondary destruct system becomes the primary system for the Saucer Module in Separeted Flight Mode.

Essentially, everything in the ship that can blow up, is instructed to do so.

I've read a lot on this subject but the nanoprobes they have now are nowhere even close to the borg's.

I see more promise in genetic engineering - after all the body's own mechanism is a lot smaller that any nanoprobes we have so far!

Eventually we then should be able to make custom-made proteins which could then assemble our own nanoprobes to do whatever we want!

It is quite possible that faster than light travel is possible but it is fundamentally different from slower that light travel.

A sonic boom is where the plane outruns its own sound waves, causing them to pile up and compress together into a large shock wave.

FTL (faster than light) travel is different. With conventional methods (like a rocket) when you get closer and closer to the speed of light, it takes more and more energy to go slightly faster and faster because your mass is increasing and time relative to the outside is slowing down.

To travel faster than light you kind of have to "cheat", you can:

• Use a wormhole shortcut

• Fold spce close together (called a geodesic fold)

• Warp space laterally so you can move over a large distance as if it were small (like warp drive) or

• Change the properties of space so the speed of light increases and so you also can go faster (like what some think cosmic strings might do)

(remember there are many other theories)

So you really wouldn't ever see a "boom" of any kind.

Actually, a logical language is easier to learn by anyone and even by infants.

 

Infants don't acquire language the same way that adults learn a second language. The exact mechanism in a child's language acquisition is still a bit of a mystery but they tend to follow the same patterns worldwide regardless of the language. The key is they have to hear it spoken.

 

Acquiring a language is also not the same as learning all of the grammatical rules for spelling, cases and tenses etc.

 

The fact that even young children pick up on the "rules" in language can be explified by my little nieces recent exclamation that "she was being haved".

Sorry, let me clarify.

I understand and agree with what you are saying, I am trying to say it is easier to learn if the lenguage is logical and regular where those rules always apply. The langage I sampled is one where the verb forms are perfectly regular and there are no signifigant exceptions to any of the rules.

Your "haved" is a perfect example. In english that verb doesn't follow the rules the children are picking up on. In this language it would. And so in other languages similar to it like the examples I provided. In that way, children would learn it faster because they don't have to memorize the exceptions.

Actually many have grasped with this before and actually I know some who is making a new language which is like improved english or english 2.0. Id give you the website but he does not have it up yet.

Actually, a logical language is easier to learn by anyone and even by infants.

Logical language attempts have been made before (not so far based on english) such as:

Esperanto

http://www.webcom.com/~donh/efaq.html

Ido

http://members.aol.com/idolinguo/

You can search easily for many others.

These languages were mainly attempts at a world language but none (except esperanto a little) really caught on.

Once the page is up I'll try to post it.

Here's a little sample of this language (remember this is still under constuction (there isn't even an official name) and might not be the final version by any means)

English:

I am posting on this message board. Another person was here. This is a great message board.

I post here.

He posts here.

New English:

te ie iz postin on this mesag te bord. uthur te pursn ized te heer. te this iz great mesag te board.

te ie poston te heer.

te ee poston te heer.

(remeber this is still just a draft)

Well 1/0 is infinity by definition in terms of calculus. (And is undefined by lower mathematics and is used a restriction)

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

Yes, but I think the person that I linked to is trying to talk about different levels of infinity.

Well, terraforming mars is a little harder that most people think. It just about never gets above freezing and has just about no water in anywhere but (maybe) the poles (which, of course, are even colder) The only way to effectivey terraform it would be to:

• Move its orbit into the fully habitable zone

• Genetically Engineer an organism to survive on the fridgid, barren surface

• Thicken or heat up the atmosphere with something

Prospects are not to promising for the near future.

But, you never know...

A number that surpasses infinity quite easily, defying all laws of mathematics, that it must come from a completely different level of "reality", or it's very own unique class.

What youre talking about almost seems like some complex number theory I've heard about.

Check this page out which offers an interesting view on what 1/0 might be:

Zero Infinity Theory

I vote NO.

My reasons:

People have estimted that sending men to mars could cost at least $500 billion.

And that's on the low end.

The two (as in both) the mars rovers entire mission is about $600 million.

That means we could send about 1,700 rovers for the same cost as one mars mission.

I say skip the mars and moon programs and go for cheap unmanned missions. We will learn volumes more and we could send out probes with super-high resolution 3D cameras to see the sights of the solar sytem. Then you go to your nearest 3D movie theater and do a closeup flyby of Saturn's Rings for 8 bucks plus the cost of popcorn.

Sounds like a superior deal to me!

Apparently if you spin round a large object anti-clockwise REALLY fast, that takes you back in time, by nano seconds.

I don't mean to be rude but that is incorrect.

Spinning does not send you backward it time. Traveling faster than someone else (like Viper said) will create time dialation but will never allow you to travel backwards in time.

I would really reccomend reading the previous topic:

http://www.startrekfans.net/index.php?showtopic=758&st=0

I'm sure you could do that kind of stuff on the Holodeck.

6. To make text glow:

Use the glow tag like [ glow=color ]

[glow=red]Glowing text[/glow]

Glowing text

Hope that helps!!!

I'm working on my Star Trek site right now.  I have a trivia section which will need to use radio button forms for submitting the answers from a visitor. 

 

If I set my form up to store the data into a database Frontpage says that some components of the page cannot work in the current format and that I have to change the format from htm. to asp.  The webpage appears as html when viewed by a browser in this format.  So why does it want it to be in asp. format?

Asp means Active Server Page format and for the front-page extensions to work (use the database on the server) it needs to be able to run code on the server and html has no server-side code necessary. ASP does. Other server-side codes are like Java Server Pages (JSP) and Hypertext Preprocessor (PHP) - the one this site is made out of and my favorite.

Secondly, if I set up my form to send the data to me by e mail EXACTLY as Frontpage help or help sites instruct me to, nothing happens.  When I click on submit it gives me this message:

 

FrontPage Run-Time Component Page

You have submitted a form or followed a link to a page that requires a web server and the FrontPage Server Extensions to function properly.

 

This form or other FrontPage component will work correctly if you publish this web to a web server that has the FrontPage Server Extensions installed.

 

Funny thing is that I'm quite sure that the server does have the extensions and even funnier is the fact that I get this message even if I just "preview in my browser" locally. Even help says to do this, but it does work.

 

Does anyone have any ideas? I'd be SOOO greatfull for ANY help whatsoever [/glow]

The reason this does not work on your browser on your computer locally is that your home computer is not a server and does not have server-side front page extensions.

The reason is does not work on the server is likely that the front-page extensions are not turned on. Most web servers leave them off unless you manually turn them on (contact you web hosting service to do this - probably in your web page control panel - some hosting services charge extra for frontpage extensions)

Hopefully this will be of at least some help. I do some web page design but I mostly make my own code and don't bother with frontpage extensions.

Dang, right place, wrong weather. It is raining like no tomorrow over here and I can't see anything!

Yes I did watch that show. Very interesting, but a lot of graphics and sound efffects and not too much information. Problem is, you put too much info in a show and people's heads start hurting.

About String Theory itself, it is quite interesting but still has quite a many kinks and the theorists who work on it "know it is right" and "it is the truth" - that kind of attitude of sureness before a single experiment just bugs me.

Speaking of Ad-Aware, there is also another (free) anti-spyware program called

Spybot Search & Destroy

It does an excellent job of removing spyware and also has an immunization area which prevents some spyware from ever being installed. You should get more than one anti-spyware program like Ad-aware and Spybot because when working together, they catch the most spyware. Both programs have been higly rated by consumers and tech magazines like PC World.

In addition, there is another great (free) program called

SpywareBlaster

It prevents thousands of spyware programs from ever being installed!

As soon as you get any anti-spyware programs, be sure to check for updates often!