ewan@uw-june (Ewan Tempero) (10/10/85)
Time for something new to talk about. I was watching an episode I have
*never* seen before the other day ( I come from a ST deprived nation )
along with a friend who also hadn't seen it ( he's american so has no
excuse ) and at some stage the Enterprize was dead as usual ( this was
Elaan of Troyius by the way ) and a comment along the lines of
"Klingon vessel approaching at better than warp 6" ( this isn't an
exact quote ). About a minute later the Klingon actually arrived and
proceed to pound poor old number 4 shield again. My friend commented
that is must be pretty fancy sensors that can detect a ship, moving
at that speed at that *distance*. Think about it. Warp 6 is
somethink like 3^6 lightyears/second or some such....anyway *real*
fast and if it took a minute to arrive, how far away was it when it
was first detected?! Add to that some of the other neat things the
ST-universe sensors can do...detect lifeforms, numbers and species
of, detect minerals ( not find Kirk just about every episode :-)
What could these things be doing? The only thing we have available
these days is radar....
--
Ewan
------------
Ewan Tempero "Oh no, not again"
UUCP: ...!uw-beaver!uw-june!ewan ARPA: ewan@washington.ARPA
Please check all nuclear arms at the door.rjnoe@riccb.UUCP (Roger J. Noe) (10/10/85)
> ... at some stage the Enterprize was dead as usual ( this was > Elaan of Troyius by the way ) and a comment along the lines of > "Klingon vessel approaching at better than warp 6" ( this isn't an > exact quote ). About a minute later the Klingon actually arrived and > proceed to pound poor old number 4 shield again. My friend commented > that is must be pretty fancy sensors that can detect a ship, moving > at that speed at that *distance*. Let's see, if we were to reduce it to our familiar terms of "ordinary" space, that would be 6^3*c or 216c, about 64.8 Gm/s. Since it was "better" than warp factor 6, let's just call it 65 Gm/s. Say it really took about 30 seconds (TV is always going to distort time intervals - a countdown from 10 to 0 will sometimes take a minute) and the "distance" comes to 1950 Gm, or almost 2 Terameters. Since 1 AU is 150 Gm, that's about 13 AU's. No piddling distance, but well within the ballpark of a star system. > ... Add to that some of the other neat things the > ST-universe sensors can do...detect lifeforms, numbers and species > of, detect minerals > > What could these things be doing? The only thing we have available > these days is radar.... > Ewan That's not entirely true. For things traveling a substantial fraction of the speed of light (>0.01?), we could measure speed from the Doppler shift of reflected light. Assuming you know what the thing looks like at some definite speed. As far as detecting lifeforms goes, we can do some things like that now. But that's for a very limited range of lifeforms and relies mainly on infrared detection. We're pretty good at detecting minerals when we look for them, using the whole electromagnetic spectrum to pick up signatures of different things. It's easy to tell whether a farmer is growing wheat or rye on a 1-acre patch of land, given the use of the right satellite. The sensors of the Star Trek era are mostly just extensions of current technology, with some deus ex machina thrown in. -- "It's only by NOT taking the human race seriously that I retain what fragments of my once considerable mental powers I still possess!" Roger Noe ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe
samson@h-sc1.UUCP (gregory samson) (10/12/85)
In article <353@uw-june> ewan@uw-june (Ewan Tempero) writes: > > at some stage the Enterprize was dead as usual ( this was >Elaan of Troyius by the way ) and a comment along the lines of >"Klingon vessel approaching at better than warp 6" ( this isn't an >exact quote ). About a minute later the Klingon actually arrived and >proceed to pound poor old number 4 shield again. My friend commented >that is must be pretty fancy sensors that can detect a ship, moving >at that speed at that *distance*. Think about it. Warp 6 is >somethink like 3^6 lightyears/second or some such....anyway *real* >fast and if it took a minute to arrive, how far away was it when it >was first detected?! Add to that some of the other neat things the >ST-universe sensors can do...detect lifeforms, numbers and species >of, detect minerals ( not find Kirk just about every episode :-) > >What could these things be doing? The only thing we have available >these days is radar.... >-- Actually, Warp 6 is only 4x10^7 miles per second :-). (That comes out to about 1.69 days to the light-year, which is NOT fast for the Enterprise, at ALL.) One possibility about how the sensors can see so far off could be that they see through subspace. I've heard the theory that subspace is "closer together" than normal space, but still corresponds point-wise with it. So the sensors just look through the shorter distance through subspace (substitute any distance that you're comfortable with for that distance) and "see" into normal space. I'm not sure that this subspace is the same as "warp space", as mentioned by Diane Duane, but I wouldn't be surprised. ----- G. T. Samson The Evil MicroWizard gts@wjh12.ARPA (NOT, repeat NOT, samson%h-sc1@harvard.ARPA!!!)
johnw@astroatc.UUCP (10/16/85)
In article <353@uw-june> ewan@uw-june (Ewan Tempero) writes: > >that is must be pretty fancy sensors that can detect a ship, moving >at that speed at that *distance*. Think about it. Warp 6 is >somethink like 3^6 lightyears/second or some such....anyway *real* >fast and if it took a minute to arrive, how far away was it when it >was first detected?! I assume that the sensors are based on the reflections of sub-space "waves." Since they use there *VERY*ftl radio alot, why not have a *VERY*ftl radar!?! --second option: If breaking the sound barrior causes a disturbance, imagine what breaking the light barrior would do! (Yes, but thunder would then PRECEED the lighning :-) >Add to that some of the other neat things the >ST-universe sensors can do...detect lifeforms, numbers and species >of, detect minerals ( not find Kirk just about every episode :-) > Does anyonw remeber the series "Search" with the ring/neckless ir/zoom/super-camera, and *VERY* micro radio transevers? They\ monitered the heros vital signs, position, etc. Did anyonw read "Flight of the Dragonfly" ?? Each crew member in it had a personal "imp," a 2 inch computer link that could talk, and moniter position, vital signs, etc. I hate to admit it, but does anyone else admit to seeing Knight Rider? (Yes, KIT can do this to Micheal, now too!) My impression it that all 3 of these are indended to be 2010-2050 range of technology. Dragonfly was lanched in 2026!! By the 23rd centry this form of monitoring should be common place! (Bummer, Kirk, have to lay off the women, or everyone will really know!) To err is Human, to really screw up world news requires "the net" John W {the world}uwvax!astroatc!johnw
john@hp-pcd.UUCP (john) (10/18/85)
<<<< < < That's not entirely true. For things traveling a substantial fraction of < the speed of light (>0.01?), we could measure speed from the Doppler shift < of reflected light. Assuming you know what the thing looks like at some < definite speed. < You can also listen for the sound of a supersonic jet and fire when you hear it but I don't think you would last very long in battle. There is a very simple way to detect and track ships moving at warp speeds. If you can build a device that can "Warp" space then you can also build something that can measure the amount of warp at some point in space. The amount of warp will be greatest at the ship and will fall off in some 1/R^2 function to near zero. The area in which a ships field will warp space to a detectable amount is huge so that a incoming ship can be detected several minutes away. Another thing to consider is that a incoming ship at warp 6 will spend most of its time deccelerating to a slow enough speed to use its weapons. John Eaton !hplabs!hp-pcd!john
jamesp@orstcs.UUCP (jamesp) (10/24/85)
/***** orstcs:net.startrek / astroatc!johnw / 1:00 am Oct 16, 1985*/ ... --second option: If breaking the sound barrior causes a disturbance, imagine what breaking the light barrior would do! (Yes, but thunder would then PRECEED the lighning :-) ... This is called "Cherenkov Radiation," and happens all the time. Often a subatomic particle is moving faster than the speed of light in a medium (for example, the speed of light in water is much less than the speed of light in a vacuum -- ever seen a picture of a nuclear reactor with that beautiful sky-blue "radioactive" glow? That's caused by lots of alpha and beta particles ripping through the water faster than the speed of light.) Sorry, but a person who likes physics has a tendecy to blah, blah, blah too often... <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> "All that is gold does not glitter; jamesp Not all those who wander are lost." (In real life: James Perkins)
ewan@uw-june (Ewan Tempero) (10/25/85)
>John Eaton >function to near zero. The area in which a ships field will warp space to >a detectable amount is huge so that a incoming ship can be detected several >minutes away. ^^^^^^^ This is something else that has worried me a bit. If the thing's travelling at warp 6 ( which we all can agree is faster than the speed of light even if we're not sure by how much ) then how can you possibly detect it? Unless you have some sort of "beam" ( read radiation of some kind ) that goes whereever a ship goes when it warps space. >Another thing to consider is that a incoming ship at warp 6 will spend most >of its time deccelerating to a slow enough speed to use its weapons. It seems to me that if anything is going to go faster than light then it can't have inertia ( that comes from mass ) so doesn't that mean acceleration is "instantaneos"? -- Ewan ------------ Ewan Tempero "Oh no, not again" UUCP: ...!uw-beaver!uw-june!ewan ARPA: ewan@washington.ARPA Please check all nuclear arms at the door.
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (10/27/85)
>>function to near zero. The area in which a ships field will warp space to >>a detectable amount is huge so that a incoming ship can be detected several >>minutes away. > ^^^^^^^ > This is something else that has worried me a bit. If the thing's travelling > at warp 6 ( which we all can agree is faster than the speed of light even > if we're not sure by how much ) then how can you possibly detect it? Unless > you have some sort of "beam" ( read radiation of some kind ) that goes > whereever a ship goes when it warps space. > If you have no problem accepting that the ship goes faster than light, what's wrong with a method of detection that operates faster still? Maybe a ship using warp drive gives off a characteristic radiation that propagates much faster than the ship's speed. Maybe some kind of faster than light radiation is used as radar. Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "Analysis, Spock?" "Very bad poetry, sir."
scco@ur-tut.UUCP (Sean Colbath) (10/30/85)
In article <8500013@orstcs.UUCP> jamesp@orstcs.UUCP (jamesp) writes: >This is called "Cherenkov Radiation," and happens all the time. Often a >subatomic particle is moving faster than the speed of light in a medium (for >example, the speed of light in water is much less than the speed of light in a >vacuum -- ever seen a picture of a nuclear reactor with that beautiful >sky-blue "radioactive" glow? That's caused by lots of alpha and beta >particles ripping through the water faster than the speed of light.) WHAT??? The speed of light in water is much less than the speed of light in a vacuum???? AAAUUUGHH!! Einstein just rolled over! I always thought: 'The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what his frame of reference'... If what you say is true, then all kinds of phenomena would open up simply by exceeding this 'slower' speed in water... Eek! >Sorry, but a person who likes physics has a tendecy to blah, blah, blah too >often... Hmmm.... >"All that is gold does not glitter; jamesp > Not all those who wander are lost." (In real life: James Perkins) -Sean Colbath "Dave, why don't you take a stress pill and lie down for a while?" UUCP: {allegra,decvax,ihnp4}!seismo!rochester!ur-tut!scco BITNET: SCCO@UORVM
trudel@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Jonathan D.) (10/31/85)
> >This is called "Cherenkov Radiation," and happens all the time. Often a > >subatomic particle is moving faster than the speed of light in a medium (for > >example, the speed of light in water is much less than the speed of light > >vacuum -- ever seen a picture of a nuclear reactor with that beautiful > >sky-blue "radioactive" glow? That's caused by lots of alpha and beta > >particles ripping through the water faster than the speed of light.) > > WHAT??? The speed of light in water is much less than the speed of light > in a vacuum???? AAAUUUGHH!! Einstein just rolled over! I always thought: > 'The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what his > frame of reference'... If what you say is true, then all kinds of phenomena > would open up simply by exceeding this 'slower' speed in water... Eek! > Ah, but you see, what you thought and what is reality are quite different. The original poster is exactly correct, and you can check your nearest physics references for its' validity. Did you ever notice that when you put a pencil in a glass of water that is seems to bend? This is due to the effect described. Don't jump to conclusions as to what Einstein says because it applies to the speed of light through the SAME medium, or "the speed of light in a vacuum =the speed of light in a vacuum = the speed of light in a vacuum =the speed of light in a vacuum = the speed of light in a vacuum = ... and so on for all observers of that vacuum. " -- Jonathan D. Trudel arpa: trudel@blue.rutgers.edu uucp:{seismo,allegra,ihnp4}!topaz!trudel Bill: He's hip, he's hot, and he's hairy. -Rolling Stone
herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong) (10/31/85)
In article <198@ur-tut.UUCP> scco@ur-tut.UUCP (Sean Colbath) writes: >WHAT??? The speed of light in water is much less than the speed of light >in a vacuum???? AAAUUUGHH!! Einstein just rolled over! I always thought: >'The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what his >frame of reference'... If what you say is true, then all kinds of phenomena >would open up simply by exceeding this 'slower' speed in water... Eek! i'm afraid he's right. the law reads "the speed of light in a vacuum is constant in all inertial frames of reference". the speed of light in anything other than a vacuum is slower. read your physics text. any introductory relativity book will have it. from this one law, all the rest of special relativity is derived. Herb Chong... I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... New net address -- VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH UUCP: {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie CSNET: herbie.yktvmh@ibm-sj.csnet ARPA: herbie.yktvmh.ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
john@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred) (10/31/85)
[munch, munch]
If I remember my physics right, the speed of light *is* dependent on the media
involved: the formula I remember is 1 over the square root of epsilon times
mu.
--
John Allred
General Computer Company
uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john
^^^^
note new path-------------||ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (11/01/85)
In article <198@ur-tut.UUCP> scco@ur-tut.UUCP (Sean Colbath) writes: >In article <8500013@orstcs.UUCP> jamesp@orstcs.UUCP (jamesp) writes: >>This is called "Cherenkov Radiation," and happens all the time. Often a >>subatomic particle is moving faster than the speed of light in a medium (for >>example, the speed of light in water is much less than the speed of light in a >>vacuum -- ever seen a picture of a nuclear reactor with that beautiful >>sky-blue "radioactive" glow? That's caused by lots of alpha and beta >>particles ripping through the water faster than the speed of light.) > >WHAT??? The speed of light in water is much less than the speed of light >in a vacuum???? AAAUUUGHH!! Einstein just rolled over! I always thought: >'The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what his >frame of reference'... If what you say is true, then all kinds of phenomena >would open up simply by exceeding this 'slower' speed in water... Eek! Equations in physics that refer to "the speed of light" really mean "the speed of light in a vacuum". This includes the statement about frames of reference. Two observers in different frames of reference will see light travel at the same speed IN A VACUUM. The "in a vacuum" is understood. No "all kinds of phenomena" would open up by exceeding the speed of light in water, because the equations describing behavior of objects near the speed of light also really mean "in a vacuum". Unusual (i.e. impossible) phenomena would only happen if you exceeded this higher speed. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa
ix469@sdcc6.UUCP (david smith{|ix}) (11/02/85)
In article <198@ur-tut.UUCP> scco@ur-tut.UUCP (Sean Colbath) writes: >In article <8500013@orstcs.UUCP> jamesp@orstcs.UUCP (jamesp) writes: >>This is called "Cherenkov Radiation," and happens all the time. Often a >>subatomic particle is moving faster than the speed of light in a medium (for >>example, the speed of light in water is much less than the speed of light in a >>vacuum -- ever seen a picture of a nuclear reactor with that beautiful >>sky-blue "radioactive" glow? That's caused by lots of alpha and beta >>particles ripping through the water faster than the speed of light.) > >WHAT??? The speed of light in water is much less than the speed of light >in a vacuum???? AAAUUUGHH!! Einstein just rolled over! I always thought: >'The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what his >frame of reference'... If what you say is true, then all kinds of phenomena >would open up simply by exceeding this 'slower' speed in water... Eek! > Sorry to tell you this, but it is slower in water. Frame of reference refers to *inertial* frame of reference, i.e. no matter what speed you are moving at in a medium, the speed will always be the same. The speed is different in different mediums. As a matter of fact, it does give rise to some interesting phenomena such as refraction and reflection. ================== David L. Smith UC Sandy Eggo {ucbvax, ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!ix469 Albert, you can turn back over now.
andrew@cadomin.UUCP (Andrew Folkins) (11/04/85)
In article <198@ur-tut.UUCP> scco@ur-tut.UUCP (Sean Colbath) writes: > >WHAT??? The speed of light in water is much less than the speed of light >in a vacuum???? AAAUUUGHH!! Einstein just rolled over! I always thought: >'The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what his >frame of reference'... If what you say is true, then all kinds of phenomena >would open up simply by exceeding this 'slower' speed in water... Eek! > That's "The speed of light IN A VACUUM is the same for all observers . . ." If you did the stereotypical 'two spaceships approaching each other at 0.8c' experiment underwater, the basic premises of relativity would still hold. (Hmm, 0.8c in a submarine, just think of the effects *that* would have!)
ugzannin@sunybcs.UUCP (Adrian Zannin) (11/13/85)
> In article <8500013@orstcs.UUCP> jamesp@orstcs.UUCP (jamesp) writes: > >This is called "Cherenkov Radiation," and happens all the time. Often a > >subatomic particle is moving faster than the speed of light in a medium (for > >example, the speed of light in water is much less than the speed of light in a > >vacuum -- ever seen a picture of a nuclear reactor with that beautiful > >sky-blue "radioactive" glow? That's caused by lots of alpha and beta > >particles ripping through the water faster than the speed of light.) > > WHAT??? The speed of light in water is much less than the speed of light > in a vacuum???? AAAUUUGHH!! Einstein just rolled over! I always thought: > 'The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what his > frame of reference'... If what you say is true, then all kinds of phenomena > would open up simply by exceeding this 'slower' speed in water... Eek! Well, that is true. The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what his frame of reference *provided that the light is travelling through the same medium for both observers*. The speed of light *does* change when it passes through different mediums. This is why the different wavelengths of light are split apart from each other as the light passes through a prism. (You are familiar with this concept, yes?) The last line of the first posting should have specified the speed of light with respect to which medium... -- Adrian Zannin ..{allegra,bbncca,decvax,dual,rocksvax,watmath,sbcs}!sunybcs!ugzannin CSNET: ugzannin@Buffalo.CSNET ARPANET: ugzannin%Buffalo@csnet-relay.ARPA BITNET: ugzannin@sunybcs.BITNET