h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

SD: what you're trying to suggest is the fabled "reactionless drive". But the reaction has to go somewhere. Look up "Dean Drive" on google.

H.

The Laws of Physics are not in question, A peristaltic wave produces a 'hole' into which the projectile falls, untill it exits the field, after which it continues with established momentum, the 'hole' absorbs the recoil, not the ship. There is a distinction to be made between a peristaltic wave which pushes an object and a peristaltic wave which opens up to allow an object to 'fall out' and closing behind it, this can be managed to bring the forces involved to effectively '0' as they impact on the ship. Ie through the use of the magnetic field you are applying an equal and opposite force to the ship.

The principle is not dissimilar to a recoiless rifle, except that the magnetic field absorbs the recoil rather than escaping air(which incidentaly is a mirror of the explosive charge, which could produce exactly the same effect in a vacum and provide another solution to the problem) It is the management of the wave which eliminates the recoil, rather than the presense of the wave itself.

The clever bit is that it can be used as a drive, but the management of the wave is different, creating a push rather than a fall, and it's old name was a 'mass driver'. The forces used are not however balanced, creating pressure on the ship and therefore movement.

Interestingly with energy weapons as powerful as Phasers are implied to be the same problem still arrises and would be probable more difficult to manage than a projectile and would almost certainly require a balancing force. (In space a torch is a light pressure drive)

This is all presented externaly to the potential impact of subspace and warp fields, a warp field would logically produce an environment in which the Laws of Physics would operate differently, and Romulan Vessels might have all sorts of different Physics to play with since they carry an artificial singularity arround with them.

Quite appart from all these shenannigans the Constitution class Starship as I recall drafts 100,000 tons, (Pre Metric) the average Photon torpedo is not much larger than a man and even with casing ect probably doesnt weigh more than a quarter of a ton, even exiting the ship at high velocity the recoil would seem to be managable, certainly by computer stabilisation (Even Inertial Damping which is another interesting idea which transgresses the laws of physics as we currently understand them) especially with computers that are supposed to be so complex they can dissassemble and reassemble the molecules of the human body into and out of energy. Management of recoil issues would seem to be child's play in that context.

A recoilless rifle is not truly recoil free. It uses a gas spring to cushion the impact spreading the recoil over a longer period of time but all the recoil is still there. If you don't believe me try firing one whilst sitting on a swing or a roundabout.

I have no doubt the builders of the Defiant could fire a half-ton shell without rippling Sisko's coffee but in the present state of physics the magnetic launch device you describe does not exist and cannot be built. Any launcher, magnetic or otherwise, will impart a recoil to the launch platform. If it doesn't it has to impart a recoil to something else instead. It would be possible to project a balancing mass, possibly in the form of particles, in the opposite direction to the shell of course; although this would be a nuisance to your comrades in battle formation behind you.



F

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/science/dean.html#deandrive

Ok, I am late to this debate, and diverting it slightly, but I found myself asking 'how come?'

Um. I am not now and never have been a Star Trek fan. Oh, I have seen some of the episodes, been to a couple of the movies, even read some of the about Star Trek books, but let me say here and now that I cannot argue episode-by-episode points.

However...

If the Trek universe is a primarily military one, how did it get to be that way?

I am not talking about the presumed back-story between the 1960s and the future that is Star Trek, I am talking about the history of the writers and directors and producers who made the episodes and the movies.

Gene Rodenberry's first concept was to make a 'Hornblower in Space' - to create a series about a ship out on the edges of what was known, and so isolated that the personnel had very limited recourse to their home base and therefore were thrown back onto their own resourses.

If we look at the real world at the time of Hornblower, we see a complex world involving sophisticated and effective civilian government and diplomacy. However, because of the isolated nature of a naval ship at that time, Hornblower and his real world equivalents had to be their own diplomats and their own judiciary.

Considering that Star Trek was made up as it went along and made up by hundreds of people, it is remarkable how coherent the entire oevre actually is. Consider that while Klingon was being devised there was at least one occasion when the words used had to (a) lipsych with the actors' speech which had been filmed in English *and* (b) be consistent with existing words and phrases with known meanings as used in previous episodes. How hard is *that*?

Okie dokie, we have an evolving franchise with the original premise of 'Hornblower in space', which must be backward compatible as it evolves, and be coherent, cheap to film, and interesting and exciting.

Is it any surprise that the world depicted continues to focus on the military? And if Kirk (for example) could try civilians in a military court is it any surprise that subsequent franchisees don't bother to complicate the back-story by creating a civilian judiciary?

What I am saying here is that there may have been no conscious intention of creating a Military or Marxist oligarchy, but that the nature of the way in which that particular universe evolved means that it was highly likely to do so given the original series and the constraints on creating tv and movies.

Now this is neither here nor there to the debate on whether or not the world of Star Treck depicts a Military or Marxist technotopia, though I find the reasons that Hoo gives for supporting this interpretation compelling, especially in the face of the lack of reasons for any other view.

B

This is still going? I was put off by the slagging match and the, shall we say, creative interpretation of posts.

Not really. I was ignoring the slagging match.

Any thoughts on what I actually posted, Bain?

B

Aside from some of your assumptions i agreed with a few points. But I won't go into detail as that would only invite slagging from BB, FB and hoo/member.

what the frig just happened with my name?! This is screwy

>> Aside from some of your assumptions i agreed with a few points. But I won't go into detail as that would only invite slagging from BB, FB and hoo/member.

Shame. To be honest I have found that most of them respond well to well articulated thoughts. I disagree with Hoo about a lot of things, but he has never actually slagged me off anywhere I have seen.

Which assumptions do you disagree with? I am always more interested in where I have got it wrong than in where I have got it right.

B

Nice to meet you, terry. Such a shame you'll have to go away, now that you've already revealed yourself as a sock puppet. I'm sure we'll be seeing you again, though.

"To be honest I have found that most of them respond well to well articulated thoughts." That's not my experience

You'd have to have presented a well-articulated thought in order to find out.

see what I mean?

Uh. Not really.

I have been interacting with these guys since 2000 or 2001 or so, on all sorts of subjects from athropomorphism to zoophilia and disagreeing with them a fair amount of the time as articulate people do. Disagreement in debate is ok. There is after all a difference between 'agree with' and 'respond well to'. I may disagree with them, but I am pretty sure they still respect me in the morning.

.....

I am genuinely more interested in the debate itself.

You disagree with some of my points? Cool! Which ones? Am I wrong, (in which case I'll stop thinking what I think - no point in not learning, eh). What do you agree with.

If you want to ignore the sniping, then ignore the sniping instead of saying "wah, wah, wah, these nasty snipers snipe at me". Guess what? If you say that, they will.

Ben
*more interested in the etiology of governance in StarTrek than in who said what to whom*

You can belive what you want. Reality is that ignoring them does not work. They WILL keep going and going.

Anyway you used the reference 'family from hell' on another thread and your friends belive I'm from that one.

I would love a real discussion but it isn't going to happen.

"If you want to ignore the sniping, then ignore the sniping instead of saying "wah, wah, wah, these nasty snipers snipe at me". Guess what? If you say that, they will." - I find this very patronising. Do belive anyone hasn't heard this advice many times by the time they're ten?

>> Anyway you used the reference 'family from hell' on another thread and your friends belive I'm from that one.

I have no idea whether these guys would consider me a friend. Either way, there are recorded differences of opinion between them and me, as I have already indicated, and fairly fundamental differences at that.


>> I would love a real discussion but it isn't going to happen.

That is a shame. I had a poster on my wall once which said "They are free who do not fear to go to the end of their thought". (I am still learning about that one: it can be a bleak sort of freedom, mind).


>> >> "If you want to ignore the sniping, then ignore the sniping instead of saying "wah, wah, wah, these nasty snipers snipe at me". Guess what? If you say that, they will."

>> I find this very patronising. Do belive anyone hasn't heard this advice many times by the time they're ten?

Maybe it was patronising. It wasn't meant that way.

What is far more interesting than the age at which people start being given advice is the age at which they stop needing it. I think the last person I said "quit your greeting" to, (which is a Scottish form of the same advice) was 45 years old, so it isn't as if I only hand out advice to those smaller than me.

B

"Maybe it was patronising. It wasn't meant that way."

Well being a reasonable person I'll take you at your word. If you want to try a real conversation branched from your post then I belive a new thread would be the way to go about it.

BTW I do not fear them but to have a thread filled by their raving between times when I'm logged on can make the attempt more trouble than it's worth.

Disclaimer: I seem to remember once having seen about half an episode of Star Trek.

Disclaimer: I forget how I wound up on this thread. I wasn't stalking anyone in particular.




The thing that caught my eye was this remark of Hoo's (now SoRB):

"Starfleet has a disturbing level of involvement in all levels of Federation society; a level of involvement which, if it were replicated in today's world, would invite parallels with Nazi Germany." (Repunctuated)

Let's get this straight. Star Trek is in some ways similar to an extreme right-wing system and is therefore obviously based on an extreme left-wing system. Eh, what? Or am I missing something? Yes, I do know that all extremes become intolerant and are in some ways the same, but there remain fundamental differences, surely?

TRiG.