Xeroc

I am quite sure there is no "official" naming system for numbers above a googleplex (in fact, the semi-official system doesn't even go that far)

Also, since infinity is really just a concept and not a true number, I don't that that counts. (and since it is a concept infinty^infinity is just infinity)

However, using that semi-offical naming convention you can call a googol "10 duotrigintillion" and using an even less official convention you could name a number "millinillitrillion" which is equivalent to (American) 10^3000012, or (British) 10^6000018. If we were to name a googleplex with this system it would take up a huge amount of room.

Yuck...

Chances are the phone won't even still work!

Xeroc... I checked out your first link "Subspace Theory". 

 

Trekzone... I checked out your first link "Subspace Theory". I didn't...

 

Notice in the 2 quotes above of what I said start are different. One starts off with "Xeroc" and the other starts off with "Trekzone". They should both say "Trekzone".

I assumed that "Trekzone" was a typo because I provided the links!

For further reading and insight visit: (I did a search for subspace)

 

• Subpsace Theory

• Subspace Phenomena

Yes, it is sad that such an advanced plane is taken out of buisness.

And you were right, just because the author went off on a ideas that don't exist in Star Trek, that doesn't mean we should critisize his/her creativity or imagination. I applaud imagination. My point was that we should not consider such information when seeking the answer for was subspace is, because we are concerned with what it is in regards to Star Trek, are we not?

Yes, you're right, for this dicussion those tangents really do not even apply. They aren't even about what subspace is, just some new properties/technologies.

That is some deep s**t. So it would be actually possible for some one to enter sub-space, with a ship.

Yes, they actually have done this before.

• DS9 "One Little Ship" - They went into a subspace rift (where the normal space layer in that area is destroyed and subspace seeps up into our layer) - they were shrunk because subspace is more dense as stated earlier.

• TNG "Force of Nature" - They went into the subspace rift and experience distortion waves as stated earlier.

• TNG "Schisms" - They were being abducted by aliens who lived in subspace - showing subspace is in fact a habitable space layer like ours.

all i know is that in sub space the speed of light is much faster then in our space. for us its a 1,000,000,000 kph (22,000,000,000 mph) for sub space its...i don't know.

That is because subspace is more dense than our space. Traveling 1 light year in subspace is like ten in normal space (not really the exact ratio - just an example)

Xeroc... I checked out your first link "Subspace Theory".  I didn't find it to be a very credible source.  For starters, for their "theory" they violate the definition of space.  It said that "Space is made of quantized (meaning it is not uniform) particles."  This would mean that space is matter since matter consists of particles (more accurately particle-waves).  But space is NOT made up of particles or matter.  It is the absence of matter, also known as a vacuum.

Wait a minute. We don't really know what space is. In fact, quantum mechanics states that space must be quantized to comply with quantum mechanics. That doesn't mean it is matter. Actually, a vacuum itself is not really a vacuum and is filled with a huge array of virtual particles (quatum fluctuations).

See:

• Virual Particles

• What are Virtual Particles?

Furthermore, the site talks about "Space Tunneling" and "Spatial Resonance" it goes on to say that these ideas are things that are not talking about in the current time period of Star Trek (Nemesis for example). See Spoiler for quotes referring to this.  Since the author made these concepts up and changed the idea of what space is, I belive we should not subscribe to their theory of sub-space. 

 

Click for Spoiler:

Space Tunneling is not something talked about in any previous Star Trek scenarios and has to do with some advanced subspace properties not known during current Star Trek time frames. (TNG etc.)

 

Spatial Resonance is not something talked about in any previous Star Trek scenarios and has to do with some advanced subspace properties not known during current Star Trek time frames. (TNG etc.)

Yes, that site did go off on some unrelated tangents, but the concepts could be valid, and don't violate any ST laws. I don't think we should discount the whole theory because of imagination.

The second site entitled "Subspace Phenomena" does not attempt to explain what subspace is.  It merely states that “Subspace is a mysterious and complex region”.   It then goes on to talk about different subspace phenomenon.  The first is Subspace compression.  The “phenomenon is caused when an object is partially encased in a subspace field.”  Here is says that subspace is a field.  If subspace is a layer of space as the first site “claimed” it to be, then according to this phenomenon, normal space itself could have a field, which is cannot.

Wait, no, it doesn't state that subspace is a field. It just says a "subspace field". Just like an electromagnet creates an electromagnetic field. Does this mean the elcromagnet itself is just a field? No. The electromgnet itself is an object I can hold in my hand - it just generates the field. And who says normal space couldn't have some sort of field. Maybe we just can't see it unless we are in subspace? Maybe the quantum field is the normal space field? We really don't know!

Therefore, assuming that subspace can generate a field, I draw the conclusion that subspace is a phenomenon with completely different characteristics from normal space.  I think this is a fair assumption in the trek universe because subspace fields are necessary for the use of warp drive, as we all know.  Reading more of the second site brought me to the conclusion that the site remains within the known facts of subspace as given by Star Trek; and that the other site does not. 

 

The statement that “Subspace is a mysterious and complex region” is very correct.  Some of the subspace phenomena seen in Star Trek are likely made up which would not allow the writers to come up with a concrete definition of subspace as it would likely contradict much of what subspace has done over the years in Star Trek.

Well, It seems to me that both sites seem to fit together with ST and each other (mostly). I just did a search, and from what I know, picked what looked like the most relevant and accurate sites. That doesn't mean I got them all and that those are 100% correct.

This could easily take the better part of a week to explain fully.

The simple explanation is to think of the universe like a cake with normal space as the middle layer and other layers are above and below. There are many layers and each layer is made up of many smaller subunits of "phase" Remember, our phase in normal space is 3-D you have to move in the 4-D (not time) to reach subspace.

... (more layers)

---------

-

-Superspace

-

---------

-

-Normal Space

- (<-this mark is a different phase below us in normal space)

---------

-

-subspace

-

---------

... (more layers)

[Fig 1]

Subspace is in reality very much like our space with some important differences:

• Subspace is more dense - meaning 1 meter in normal space is actually equivalent to two meters in subspace (this does not mean it is 2:1, the ratio actually varies - just an example)

• Subspace is filled with a much higher amount of ambient energy and has many distortion waves (such as those that can be seen in all subspace rifts)

Hopefully this will provide you with a short understanding of subspace.

For further reading and insight visit: (I did a search for subspace)

• Subpsace Theory

• Subspace Phenomena

IMO, Downloading free music and movies is stealing. TV episodes are a bit of a gray area, but already TV is so close to free, it isn't a big problem.

Did you know that there are already legal websites that allow you to download music dirt cheap? No one uses them because free is as cheap as it gets.

I say yes, it might seem cruel, but in the end it saved more lives than it ended.

I think we should expand (create?) the space tourism buisness to get people (and funding) involved in space.

Also, I believe we can change the world for the better without another world war. I hope it doesn't have to come to that.

Cool! That's something I'll definitely check out with my telescope.

Apparently, all normal members have lost the ability to edit or delete their own posts. I do not not know why this has happened. I personaly would like to see that control returned, but if you need to edit a post or have one deleted (major things only, please, no misspelled words or such) contact a moderator, and they should be able to do that for you. Perhaps there was a mistake during the upgrade?

Awesome!!! Way to go everyone!!!

Personally, I like Flash or Paint shop pro for my resizing or images. Paint does it too, but not as well.

If I do not appear, then I have proved 100% without a shadow of a doubt, that I will NEVER have access to time travel. Think about it. I have just scientifically proven something about the future that has NOT happened yet.

Unfortunately, his logic is woefully INCORRECT.

What if...

Time travel actually works in a different way than the "Bill and Ted" method? (please see Timeline Topic for a more detailed answer)

What if it works in a way where the future hasn't happened yet, and so you can't start changing the past until it is invented?

What if in the future, he accidentally removes his tattoo or gives up on the experiment?

There are just too many "what if's" to say that there is ANYTHING proven if he doesn't come back. (and I'll bet anyone - that he doesn't - because once time travel is invented there will likely be restrictions on damaging the time line)

Well, we are already doing things to improve ourselves. Some examples are:

Prosthetic limbs, Pacemakers, Vaccines, Liposuction, Plastic Surgery, Pretty much any Drug, any kind of Surgery, and of course, any type of genetic engneering. In fact, even most technology, while not hardwired into us is improving our lives and ourselves. For example:

Cars allow us to move faster, Cell Phones to communicate rapidly, Computers for all sorts of things. Even something as innocous as a cheese grater or a shoe is improving us in some way.

And, just because you can make yourself better with technology doesn't mean you need to be like the Borg.

Horizontially Flipped

Vertically Flipped

Color Inverted

Wave

Blur

How to:

[fliph]Horizontially Flipped[/fliph]

[flipv]Vertically Flipped[/flipv]

[invert]Color Inverted[/invert]

[wave]Wave[/wave]

[blur]Blur[/blur]

Awesome!!!

Oh, man!!!! The title says WWW.STARTREKANS.NET There's no F in fans shown!!!

So, how exactly do you vote?

I think a mind-technology interface IF DONE CORRECTLY could be unbelivably beneficial. I think any kind of neural interface would have to be an enhancement of our own brains - NOT a seperate entity we stick in our heads.

We could use this to combine the powers of humanity:

Emotion, creativity, the power to create, etc.

With the powers of machines:

Lightning-fast calculations, unbelivable physical power, super-durabillity

We could combine these traits together we could vastly improve ourselves.

Of course, this technology has serious potential for wrongdoing, and so must be kept in check.

Honestly, the technology we have today pales in comparison with human capabilities - our brains can out match in power even the best supercomputers. (A computer beting someone at chess only proves we cannot fully use 100% of our power in one area) So, for now, there is nothing available, or even in development that would be worth using.

First of all, a truly catastrophic asteriod crash like the one described actually is a ridiculously low chance of happening. There has been at least almost 70 million years since the last one.

However, the chance of a a smaller asteriod wiping out a large city or more is of reasonable propability - it is possible that an event like the one in Siberia (Tunguska) could happen every 100 years!

The best idea, I believe, would be to deflect it. To Blow it up would require much more energy and the fragments still might hit.

To deflect it - a rocket is a good idea, but not without the major problem of the power required. The asteroid of the size that would cause the catistrophic damage we are talking about would require an enourmous amount of energy to completely divert it from the path of collision with the earth. Perhaps the best idea is to use a explosive nuclear rocket. This idea also has the benefit of getting rid of nuclear weapons and waste! It basically works by detonating a lot of nuclear h-bombs in a directional fashion to push the asteroid out of the way. This would probably work, but we need to be able to detect the asteroid early on.

Good Luck!

First, the Holodeck works on a combination of forcefields and replicators. So the food would probably be replicated.

Second, the Holodeck runs on a different type of power so it couldn't be used for the replicators.

Since there is an obvious contradiction here, the most logical solution is the the holodeck just replicates imitation food.

Very Good Poem.

Cool!!! What an improvement!!!

28.99408% - Total Geek

Not bad, but I was sure the "created an artificial language" was going to get me major points but after I looked at the code it turns out each check is worth the same!