Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 1,025 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 41
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 9:42am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S4: The Drumhead

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged."

--- Judge Aaron Satie, 2331
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Dec 20, 2020, 5:58am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

@Sen-Sors

Your own post might have been more persuasive if:
1. It didn't open it with a personal attack.
2. You haven't been caught lying and spreading misinformation many times before.
3. You didn't see bigots everywhere.
4. You haven't made that comparison between an ordinary person and KKK supporters.

As it is, you sound just like any other PC extremist who has gone over the deep end. You act like them, too.

So no offense, but I don't see any point in either listening to you are having a conversation with you.

Oh... and if you want to me to stop saying things like "your credibility is dropping by the second" and "how do you expect to have a reasonable conversation with people?", then I suggest you work on becoming more credible and more reasonable.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Dec 20, 2020, 5:22am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

@Slacker Inc
"As I say, I draw the line at altering a healthy body."

When it comes to my own body, I would agree with you.

But other people may feel differently. And as I said before, many people who undergo a sex change operation end up vastly happier then they were before.

Can you really say that they've made the wrong choice? Or that it is our business to forbid them from doing so?

I think not.

Indeed, I firmly believe that a person should be free to pursue happiness in whatever way they please, unless they are hurting others.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 2:19pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S2: A Piece of the Action

Yup.

While the Orville takes it's visual cues from TNG, it is actually closer to TOS in spirit.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 2:12pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

@SlackerInc
"If you were born with a fully functioning penis and testicles but what really turns you on is muscular guys who have those organs as well, just be a gay dude. Simple. No reason you have to become a "transwoman", although if you like to wear dresses and high heels for some reason, be my guest."

It's not that simple.

Being gay and being trans are two completely different things. The fact that the two are lumped together is - indeed - part of the problem (by people on both sides of the argument).

True transgender means that a person feels that THEIR OWN BODY is wrong for them. It has nothing to do with who you are attracted to or what you like to wear.

So for a true (adult!) transgender, undergoing a sex-change operation may be the right thing to do. From the research I've done, there are many instances where it actually makes a person happier. So if it makes a person more comfortable in their own skin, why not?

The problem, these days, is differentiating between people who would actually benefit from the change, and those who got the idea into their heads for the wrong reasons.

Another problem is the widely-held belief that these things are absolute and unchanging, and that they are somehow determined by medical tests. They are not. They are determined by the subjective experience of the person in question, and this can change over time.

In short:

It is a complicated and delicate topic and people have many misconceptions about it.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 1:32pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

@Booming
"I often react to these debates because I think that maybe the few trans people who come here feel a little better because they see that science is on their side and that somebody stands up for them. And that a few of the "Trans scare" people maybe reconsider their views."

If those are your goals, then react intelligently.

Most of the people here that you label "transphobic" (including myself):

1. Have absolutely nothing against nonbinary people and are fully accepting of nonbinary people.
2. Disagree with you (and the PC crowd in general) on certain points.
3. Are willing to change their minds about #2 if you provide a compelling argument.

The trouble is that your arguments, so far, are terrible. Or worse: Ad hominems that aren't arguments at all.

Saying things like "you understand nothing, believe what you must" is not going to convince anyone to change their views in your favor. Lumping intelligent accepting people with religious nuts and ultraconservatives isn't helping your cause.

In fact, it is doing exactly the opposite. It makes your stance look dogmatic and cultish. Do you realize that?

"I have no interest in discussing this any further. For quite some time now actually."

Then stop.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 11:05pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: Die Trying

@Peremensoe

"I don't want Star Trek to look like America. That's too small. America is not Earth, and Earth is not Starfleet, or the galaxy."

Hear hear.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 11:00pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

Let me ask you two questions, Booming:

1. Say you are witnessing a discussion where everybody is making good points, and then suddenly one person would flippantly tell another "This is just something you don't understand. Believe what you must." without any explanation or reasoning.

What would you think about the situation?

2. Same as #1, but this time it is you - personally - who is the target of that flippant statement.

What would you think about the person who made that remark? Will you find it convincing? Impressive? Or just the opposite?

Food for thought.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 5:18pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

@Booming
"It really didn't, though. It told you something about that specific person. You are just generalizing a singular personal experience. The numbers Trent gave you were correct."

The numbers that Trent gave may have been correct for the era in which that survey was taken. So?

That was an era when "transitioning" wasn't a fad pumped by the media, teenagers weren't encouraged to "ignore their doubts" whenever the subject arises, and prepubescent children weren't regarded as valid candidates for hormonal treatments.

Do you seriously believe that these massive social changes won't affect the regret rate? That these changes won't result in countless youngsters flocking into the clinics for all the wrong reasons, and later realizing that they've made the mistake of their life?

You're a social scientist. You, of all people, should realize the magnitude of this disaster.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 1:58pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

@Booming
"I thought you didn't watch the show."

I don't.

But I watched these two specific scenes we've been talking about here, in order to be able to talk intelligently about them.

"You could literally pick any scene and say that it is bold face and all caps because that is what Discovery is, the opposite of subtle."

I get that when Discovery wants to do drama, it looks like this (or even worse).

But there's another seperate issue, which is the fact that the writers felt the need
to play this specific scene for drama at all.

Why? In-universe it makes absolutely no sense for the exchange to be dramatic, and that's why I call it virtue signaling. It's shoehorning a contemporary issue into a situation were it doesn't belong. And as often is the case with such misfires, it sends out a message that's the exact opposite of what was intended: That nonbinary people are so doomed to being stigmatized, that they still have these issues over a thousand years in the future.

I don't know about you, but I personally find this implication to be depressing.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 10:49am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

@Booming
"The scene in the next? episode where Stamets and Culber talk while Adira sleeps feels preachy but I thought her coming out in this scene was pretty low key."

Kinda surreal that I'm the person asking you this, but... are you actually watching the show?

Both scenes are from this episode.

And the problem with the scene between Adira and Stamets is not in their words, but in the over-the-top way it was filmed.

You write this:

"Adira says what pronouns they prefer and Stamets says ok and that is it. It's not super sophisticated but alright, I thought. "

Which would have been perfectly fine. But that's a simple 10-second scene, and this isn't what we got.

What we've got is a scene that's padded to 3 times the length, with overdramatic awkward pauses and overemotional music. You might want to watch the scene again. It was anything but "low key".
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 9:57pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

@Dave in MN
"Imagine this scene on DS9: It would have been a passing mention in a dialogue-filled scene and it wouldn't have French Horns echoing in the background."

DS9 would probably manage to do both: Keep the conversation natural yet still manage to make a poignant point.

Perhaps something like this (I'm no writer, so treat it as a very rough draft for a better scene that what we've actually got):

Stamets: She is fast.
...
Adira: "They" are fast.
Stamets: Hmm? [the other shoe drops] Ah. I'm sorry. I forgot some joined trills...
Adira: [casually] Not in my case. It's just that I've never felt like a "she" or "her", so...
Stamets: [awkwardly] Got it. Sorry.

Needless to say, this version of the scene would have no melodrama, no french horns, no grinding-the-entire-cosmos-to-halt-just-because-we-are-about-to-make-a-point.

In-universe, it's just a simple misunderstanding. Yet to a present-day viewer, that simple exchange would mean much more (you can also have fun trying to figure out what worldbuilding choices I've made that let to the above dialogue).

By the way:

I've actually watched the original scene before posting this. Man, I hate doing my homework, sometimes... ;-)
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 2:32pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S5: The Inner Light

There are plenty of working fusion reactors. They are just so lousy in generating power (at present time) that they require more energy than they produce.

As for breeding tritium: perhaps.

If we ever find an efficient way to breed tritium, though, then we've automatically found a cheap way to manufacture He-3. There would be no longer a need to go to the moon to fetch it. Just take a flask of tritium and wait for a few years. It naturally decays to He-3 :-)
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 2:11pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

@CaptainMercer
" I was just saying that the show has set itself up with so much baggage.. so many eggshells someone has to walk .. so many word games people have to play.. to make sure no one is offended before they can just state how they might feel. "

While I agree that the show sets these eggshells up, I don't agree that we have to walk on them.

The situation is simple, really:

The show is using virtue signaling to manipulate you into feeling guilty for criticizing it's characters. It also using the same technique to manipulate others into getting offended when you criticize those characters.

So why walk into this obvious trap?

By the way, most people here don't get offended that easily. Booming is right about that.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 12:51am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S5: The Inner Light

It depends on what you compare it to.

When people talk about "traditional" fusion reactions, they can mean one of two things:

1. Fusion of pure deuterium (D/D)
2. Fusion of deuterium with tritium (D/T).

When you hear of fusion as a clean cheap energy source, that's the first option. Deuterium is dirt cheap, and it can be extracted from ordinary water.

Current fusion prototypes, though, mostly use the second option. It "ignites" at a far lower temperature than either D/D or He-3/D fusion, which explains the fact you've quoted from that wiki article. It's neither clean or cheap, though, because tritium is manufactured in fission nuclear reactors and it costs about a million bucks per ounce.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 2:09pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S5: The Inner Light

@Jason R.
"What? What form of fusion power generation uses helium?"

Deuterium-Helium (D/He-3) fusion. In many ways this is the ideal fusion reaction: It requires lower temperatures than ordinary fusion, generates 4-5 times as much energy, and produces no neutrons (meaning a cleaner reaction and a more efficient use of the energy).

The only reason nobody uses it today, is that Helium-3 is practically nonexistent on earth.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Dec 13, 2020, 11:19pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

@Trent

Thank you for providing yet another example of everything that's wrong with your PC-cult.

Special thanks for your character assassination of J.K.Rowling. Her case is a classic example of a PC-based witch hunt. A mob attack against a person who - while not perfect - is definitely not the kind of monster you're trying to paint her as.

Let's go over the actual facts here, shall we?

"Rowling, who coincidentally writes under the pseudoname of the guy who pioneered gay conversion therapy"

Sounds bad, doesn't it?

Until you realize that:
1. There are at least 4 historical figures that share the name in question.
2. The gay conversion dude was apparently such a minor figure in gay conversion history, that he isn't mentioned in the "Gay Conversion" wiki article at all. This is despite the fact that this article has a very extensive "history" section which mentions dozens of names.
3. If you have enough names to choose from, you could find a match for anything.
4. The guy's name isn't even an exact match. They had to use his middle name instead of his last name for it to work.
5. Gays and trans are two different things. While Rowling's relation to transpeople may be complicated, she showed nothing but full support for gays. The very idea that she deliberately chose the name of a (very obscure) gay conversion therapist is absurd.

In short, there's absolutely nothing to see here.

Moving on:

"who willfully lies about a court case (Maya Forstater)"

6. Try as I might, I could not find any evidence of Rowling lying about that court case (or about anything else).

I did find forum posts that say "Rowling continues to spread her lies", which referred to her opinions on the issue at hand. Is that what you call "willful lies"? Because if it is, then that's... well... a willful lie on your part.

7. Googling Maya Forstater's case, I see that she's been fired from her job because hse stating that "sexes are absolute and unchanging". Not for campaigning for this claim, mind you. Just for stating it on twitter, and discussing it with a few co-workers.

Funny, didn't you say that this kind of thing never happens? That the idea of people being fired for such things is nothing more than paranoid delusions?

Man, your credibility is falling lower and lower by the minute.

8. Rowling expressed her horror that such a thing can happen. I agree with her 100%. Forstater's statement may have been unfortunate, but in a democracy people shouldn't be fired just because they made an unfortunate statement.

Shame on you, Trent, for striking this against Jo.

9. Sifting through Rowling's comments about the topic, it is a bit difficult for me to gather her exact stance on it. But if Rowling is in fact guilty of anything, it is nothing more than ignorance.

That's no reason to demonize her the way you and your lot do. Especially when... well, I'll get to that a bit later.

"Who's buddies with Magadalen Burns (a woman who describes trans people as 'black face actors' faking it for 'dirty f**king perversions')"

10. I'm not even going to bother fact-checking this one, because it's irrelevant.

Now you're demonizing Rowling just because she (allegedly) has a transphobic *friend*? Boy, are you desperate to find trash on this woman.

"who lies about science"

11. What a marvelously vague statement that sounds ominous yet means absolutely nothing (and therefore impossible to defend against).

"who promotes the 'rapid-onset gender dysphoria' conspiracy"

11. Sounds really terrible, doesn't it.

But what does it really mean? What did Rowling really say?

I actually bothered to check.

What she said is that teenagers are sometimes affected by their peers when it comes to trans decisions. That society plays some role in these choices. And that if these topics are being endlessly pumped out on social media and elsewhere, there will be bound to be kids who get crazy ideas into their heads and later suffer for it.

And to be blunt: That's obviously true. Claiming that such a thing *never* happens is absurd. Even if I accept the idea that "real transgenderism" is 100% genetic (I personally have no idea whether that's the case) there would still be tons of false positives. Teens are susceptible to peer pressure. They sometimes do the most foolish things for the stupidest of reasons.

We could argue about how common this phenomenon is, but... wait, strike that. We *can't* argue about it, can we? Anybody who does that is automatically labelled as a transphobic monster.

I really wonder: how you guys expect anybody to learn anything useful under such conditions? Is it really fair to blame people for being ignorant, when you guys refuse to have an honest conversation? You constantly defend lies, deny obvious truths, and generally confuse the heck out of people.

How on earth do you expect to make any kind of progress in this manner?

At any rate, this is getting tiresome. I've already spent a few straight hours on this (including online research) and so far everything you've written on Rowling was either completely misleading or a gross exaggeration.

Is there really any point in going on? Somehow, I doubt the rest of your accusations will fair any better than those I've already checked.

So let's stop here. Thanks again, Trent, for giving us such a vivid demonstration of what the sane (and mostly quiet) majority has to fear.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Dec 13, 2020, 1:15pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S3: Who Watches the Watchers

@SlackerInc
"Is it then your belief that anyone’s view on any topic is just as legitimate as anyone else’s? Flat Earthers have just as legitimate viewpoints as those who believe the Earth is roughly spherical? People who believe the vaccines developed for coronavirus are a mind control plot by Bill Gates have just as legitimate a view as people who believe they were created by hard-working scientists to save lives?"

Do you seriously need to ask me these questions? Come on, SlackerInc, you know me better than this. So how about you refrain from stooping to that level? It really doesn't befit you.

If you have a serious point you want discuss here, I'll be happy to oblige. If not, that's okay too. But let's not turn this into another silly theist/atheist snark battle, alright? We are both better than this.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Dec 13, 2020, 12:31pm (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S3: Damage

I think there's a difference between feeling sympathetic towards Archer as a person who was forced into this tough situation, and sympathizing with his act of piracy.

When the aliens asked "why are you doing this?" and Archer replies "Because I have no choice" in a broken voice, we *are* supposed to sympathize with him. But that's a very different thing than asking us to approve his actions.

As for what I'd expect a moral person to do in such a situation:

At the very least, he should have given these guys their gizmo back once the crisis was over. Even if we assume the theft itself was a necessary evil (and I'm not 100% sure I buy that), there is absolutely no moral excuse for Archer to leave them hanging like this.

The minute Earth was out of danger, Enterprise should have returned to the same spot (these guys ain't going anywhere without warp drive). Give these guys a huge apology, a brand new warp coil (plus a very generous compensation) and an offer to take them home at warp 5.

I will also add that piracy isn't the worst of Archer's crimes here. His biggest sin is that he likely condemned these poor aliens to death. The episode explicitly states that their ship isn't equipped for long journeys, and now they are stranded FOR THREE YEARS. Unless they're spotted by another ship and that ship happens to be friendly, they are as good as dead.

Speaking of which: Was there any reason why Enterprise couldn't just take these guys home either before or after their rendezvous with Degra? They had 3 days till the meeting.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 8:09pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

@Dave in MN

"It just creates resistance and a lack of inertia towards social acceptance."

You have no idea...

I'm quite an accepting person. As a person who frequently encountered prejudice in their own life, I have always been careful to never deal the same bitter pill to others. I'm also a big fan of Star Trek's dream of a world where people just accept one another for who they are.

And yet, these PC warrior types drive me completely crazy. Whenever I encounter them, I suddenly feel the need to repeat the mantra "not all LGBT people are like these aggressive kooks" 27 times just to keep my sanity in check.

So yes, I'll say that these guys have a serious problem.

@SlackerInc (in regard to Trent's claim that Rowling is 'fear-mongering')
"Pffft."

Man, that's just the perfect response to anybody who dares accuse J.K. Rowling (of all people!) of fear-mongering or intolerance in general. Pffft indeed.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:25pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

@Booming
"Not to drag this out much longer but I would argue that Western society, in fact all societies have always been obsessed with defining gender. At least I cannot recall a single time in history were men and women were treated equal or that people could just be who they wanted to be."

No argument there.

My point is that this obsession is a problem. We should strive to eliminate it, rather than of creating more instances of it.

"And there are a few significant physiological differences between male and female brains."

Yes...statistically.

But human beings are not bits of statistics. They are individuals.

If (say) 90% of the males exhibit similar brain patterns while 10% don't, this doesn't mean that those 10% suddenly require an entire new gender to explain their behavior. It simply means that they are different from the majority.

Of-course, Western Society is just as obsessed with "conforming to the majority" as it is with gender. But I think we both agree that this - too - is a problem.

@Mike C.
"On the one hand we as a society could blame these people for wanting to be free of conventional pronouns. The other side of the coin is that English-speaking society has some responsibility in the shortcomings of its language."

There are already alternatives like "xe/xir". If these aren't in the dictionary already, they will be shortly.

And I'm not really sure why this has to be so complicated. I don't see any difference between a guy preferring "xe/xir" over "he/him" and a guy named Robert who intensely dislikes it when people call him "Bob".

Both are personal preferences. If a friend asked me not to use a certain nickname his dislikes, or prefers "Cal" to "Calvin" then I would respect his wishes. If another friend told me xe prefer "xe" over "he", I would respect xir wishes. Heck, I just did, and that guy... gal... person (what's the gender neutral word for guy/gal?) isn't even real!

On the other hand, demanding complete strangers to match their language with our personal preferences is quite childish. Asking is fine. If it sticks - wonderful. But demanding it and then pouting that the other person is a transphobic bigot when they say no - that's not okay at all. If people are unwilling to change their basic usage of English to accommodate your sensibilities, that is certainly their right.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 12:47pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

@Trent

I find your complaints of "fear-mongering" to be downright hilarious, when 70% of your last post was nothing except fear-mongering.

Here is a tip for you:

Accusing pretty much everybody of being a conspiracy alt-right racist homophobe nut is not doing your views any favors. If you want people to take you seriously, you might want to stop doing that.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 12:23pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

@Booming
" I just want to point out that trans is not a 'new box' "

I'm fully aware that trans as a whole is an ancient idea.

I was talking about western society and the current situation, which is obsessed with defining people by their gender.

You said this yourself:
"Being trans when it comes to behavior has two main stages. First liberating yourself from behavior patterns that are typical for gender a that is seen not as the right one, but after that comes an even more complicated step, choosing what is the a fitting behavior/identity"

The starting point of this entire process is the notion of "typical" male/female behavior. So I ask again: What's so wrong with just being ourselves? Why this obsession with definitions?

By the way, there's something wonderfully ironic in the fact that the extremists on both side of this debate actually agree on the same wacky premise:

Both sides believe that male brains and female brains are fundamentally different, and that each type is somehow hardwired to behave in the "appropriate manner" for their sex.

Both sides are also eager to ignore reality when it slaps them in the face. There are millions of people who don't fit the mold. One side says "they're mentally ill/criminals/sinners/abominations" and the other side says "they are not really male/female but something else". Both sides are f***-ing insane.

Here is a radical idea:

How about we leave the archaic idea of "male brain/female brain" to armchair chauvinists like Archie Bunker, and instead acknowledge the vast diversity of the human race?
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 9:03am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: The Sanctuary

@Jason R.

"The simple explanation is that "non-binary" is what a person who calls themself non-binary is.

It's an entirely unfalsifiable, untestable proposition."

By your own definition (which is 100% correct) it's easily testable: if a person calls themselves nonbinary, then that's what they are.

It's nothing more and nothing less than a question of personal identification. Science has nothing to do with it. Insisting on "scientific proof" that a person is nonbinary makes about as much sense as insisting on a scientific proof that they are Christians or Trekkies or Green Bay Packer fans.

Of-course this goes both ways. The fact that gender identification is a matter of personal experience is precisely why 99% of the discourse on the topic misses the mark. The only reason it's an issue, is that we live in a society which obsesses about fitting people into tidy little boxes with a certain role printed on them. It's a matter of people that society squeezed into the "male" box, who realize that this box isn't a good match for them.

Which raises the question: why force ourselves into boxes in the first place? What is so wrong with just being "me"?

Society, of-course, tries to tell us otherwise. If you don't fit into one of the neat little boxes, you'll get shunned and persecuted. That's the current sad reality, and this situation should be fought against in any way we can. But you know something? Adding more boxes with labels such as "trans" or "nonbinary" doesn't do sh*t to solve this underlying problem. Having *new* boxes to stick people in (whether we do it to ourselves or to others) is hardly cause to celebrate.

What we really need is to get rid of the boxes completely. Why can't people just accept every person as a unique individual? Why can't we just respect the myriad quirks and oddities that make humanity such a diverse species?
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 2:47am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S7: Field of Fire

You have a physicist right here :-)

And you are right. Beaming to a planet would be impossible without the transporter actively compensating for the relative motion and change of gravity. I would assume this to be an automatic part of the transport process, just like the biofilter.

At any rate, my previous point was that there's no reason to expect such a thing to happen by default. If I just mounted a microtransporting device on a gun and fired a bullet, I would be very surprised to see it re-materialize with a different momentum.
Next ►Page 1 of 41
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2021 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. Terms of use.