settle a bet!

Ro: maaan!

They say how long it will take for the ship to explode from the breach in the ep. Can't remember how long it is, but shouldn't be too hard to find out. Though I know it was something pretty small like 7 hours. Not slowed down all that much really.

Woden

any one with an estimate on how long a normal warp core explosion takes, so we can get a slow down rate?

bizmark

anytime you see a core going bang it only takes a fracton of a second to destroy the ship

Ro: maaan!

Yeah, pretty much I suppose. They always have time to get everyone out of Engineering first though. Presumably the explosion bit with all the gas doesn't start until after that. Anyone know if there are other people in Engineering at the time in that ep?

bizmark

Originally posted by Ro: maaan!
Yeah, pretty much I suppose. They always have time to get everyone out of Engineering first though. Presumably the explosion bit with all the gas doesn't start until after that. Anyone know if there are other people in Engineering at the time in that ep?

Thats not the core going bang though the computer always and i mean ALWAYS gives you the time to big bang to the nearest second so you can get the **** off the ship

there was a load of people in engineering but there where stuck in the super slow down mode

Ro: maaan!

Yea... So that means they still had a fair bit of time, say 1 - 2 minutes before it exploded. So if it was 7 hours (not that I can remember) it wouldn't have slowed down as much as if it was gonna explode in a few seconds...

bizmark

No seeming time speeded up again to normal speed and the ship exploded with in 10-20 seconds or something

Ro: maaan!

Yes. I forgot that. Really have to watch the episode again.

I just don't know. Maybe he did draw it...

Woden

well then assuming the normal time that pased in slow down time was negligble, and that the ship was then thus exploded in 20s.

20s in the normal frame equates to 7 hours in the slow frame so thats 25200 seconds.

so 1 second equates to 1260 seconds

or 1 second of normal time is 7.94 X 10 ^-4.

so saying it took 5 seconds to draw the smiley face then picard had his hand in the steam/smoke/coolant for 0.004s or 4 milliseconds.

i reckon that would be enough to cause pain if that was very hot stuff, but who says the steam/smoke/coolant stuff was hot

Woden

anywho there is a hell of a lot of assumptions about things we know nothing about here so lets just leave it at that

vibe666

maybe it was smoke from a dry ice machine, and they were just having a really slow disco.

if that was the case then it wopuldn't have been hot at all.

Sefrian

its not an assumption if you prove that his hand would have combusted if he drew....
so user i agree with ya picard did not draw it

Ro: maaan!

Ok. Thought I'd drag this back up 'cause I just watched the episode in question. And after they get Picard back to normal after the incident they're explaining to him what happened. Data says he "experienced temperal narcosis in the same way as deep sea divers experience Nitrogen Narcosis". I took the time to look up Nitrogen Narcosis, and one of the symptoms is hallucinations. Now I'm not saying this proves Picard imagined it, but it's certainly a possibility, and enough to give those of us who thought he did imagine it the benifit of the doubt. Also Data and Troy look hella confused when Picard starts laughingm, as if they can't see the face...

Here comes the science!

Anyway, make up your own minds. I'm on User's side, more than ever!

Boston

Originally posted by Dataisgod
anywho there is a hell of a lot of assumptions about things we know nothing about here so lets just leave it at that

isn't how hot something is directly related to how fast it molecules vibrate (amoung other things) therefore velocity equals distance over time, if time slows down then so does heat. In fact shouldn't they have all frozen to death?

Btw Data definitely drew it as a piss take.

bizmark

Picard drew it ffs

Woden

Originally posted by Boston
isn't how hot something is directly related to how fast it molecules vibrate (amoung other things) therefore velocity equals distance over time, if time slows down then so does heat. In fact shouldn't they have all frozen to death?

Btw Data definitely drew it as a piss take.

yes temperature and velocity are inserpable classically anway E = 1/2*m*v^2 = 3/2*k*T

where k is the boltzmann constant = 1.38 * 10^-23 J/K iirc

for a give temp then rearrange for v

however if time slows down i.e less time because velocity is inversely proportional to time velocity and therefore temperature should increase.

Boston

Originally posted by Dataisgod

however if time slows down i.e less time because velocity is inversely proportional to time velocity and therefore temperature should increase.

That's not how time works, time is explained through quantum mechanics as a discrete quantity. Its not something that is continuious but rather something that goes in very short intervals of delta T, as delta T tends towards 0, time tends to be continuious, however in slowed down time delta T tends towards some number other then Zero (maybe infinite, and Delta T is larger (change in time hop) Now as you know the velocity formula is bases on T1 - T2 or Delta T. Delta is getting larger, therefor Veocity (and conversely temperature) is getting smaller. This result leads me to the conclusion data did it, as he was the only one not freazing his balls off.


Q.E.D

Woden

i've disagree with this for a number of reasons that my brain has yet to come to terms with at this hour of the morning. for a start the boundaries between the application of quantum mechanics and those of classical mechanics is blurry, so we shouldn't be using classical mechanics in one instance and talking about quantum mechanics the next.

the main thing that quantum mechanics does to any system i.e the major difference between classical and q mech is that by its very nature q mech is probabilistic, also q mech then deals with discrete quantities rather then continous henced the quantized

now if you're looking at the time evolution of the the system through various delta T's the smaller you make the delta T's which you say will approach continutity, the larger the uncertainty in the energy that will arise due to the heisenberg uncertainty princple.

imo one cannot look at slowed down time so simply as it means you have switched reference frames i.e slowed down compared to what is the first question you ask? the people or molecules that are in the same frame as the slowed down time will not considered it to have slowed down if they are part of the frame. rather they will see the other frame moving very quickly but that doesn't mean that the other frame is absurdbly hot either

Boston

alas Time is a discrete quantity so you have to look at it that way. Of course this is a gross over simplification of the case, once which would make my physics teacher cry. I'll admitt I know sweet FA about termodynamics which isn't purely physics in nature, so I can't really comment with certainty on the issue. But this is my positions, based up with half assed theories and proof. you can neither prove or dis prove this opinion, in the same way i can't disprove yours

Woden

Originally posted by Boston
you can neither prove or dis prove this opinion, in the same way i can't disprove yours

of course by definition you can't prove or disprove any opinion.

what is not opinion though is that if you are looking at very small time intervals then the uncertainty in somethings energy becomes massive to fit in with the heisenberg uncertainty principle.

large flucuations in energies will mean large fluctuations in temperatures, imo i don't think time is a good way to look at this issue and ro: maaann's method is better

Boston

Originally posted by Dataisgod
of course by definition you can't prove or disprove any opinion.

what is not opinion though is that if you are looking at very small time intervals then the uncertainty in somethings energy becomes massive to fit in with the heisenberg uncertainty principle.

large flucuations in energies will mean large fluctuations in temperatures, imo i don't think time is a good way to look at this issue and ro: maaann's method is better

I didn't start it, i merely stuck my ore in. I gave a theory more then an opinion though, and backed it up. I think you have taken me up wrong here anyway, I'm saying that as you slow down time, time becomes more discrete (Iless continuous) and the time interval delta T becomes large, the discrete quantities become large, and the converse of what you have said;

very small time intervals then the uncertainty in somethings energy becomes massive to fit in with the heisenberg uncertainty principle.

is that if you're looking at very large time intervals then the uncertainty in somethings energy becomes relatively (important word) smaller to fit in with the heisenberg uncertainty principle. small flucuations in energies will mean small fluctuations in temperatures, and at heat is merely a difference in temperature which is now fluctuating over a smaller range then it does at normal time speed. Therefore everythign is colder, probably alot colder.

Q.E.D

That said I really don't think the writers took any of this stuf into account

Woden

Originally posted by Boston
I didn't start it, i merely stuck my ore in. I gave a theory more then an opinion though, and backed it up. I think you have taken me up wrong here anyway, I'm saying that as you slow down time, time becomes more discrete (Iless continuous) and the time interval delta T becomes large, the discrete quantities become large, and the converse of what you have said;



is that if you're looking at very large time intervals then the uncertainty in somethings energy becomes relatively (important word) smaller to fit in with the heisenberg uncertainty principle. small flucuations in energies will mean small fluctuations in temperatures, and at heat is merely a difference in temperature which is now fluctuating over a smaller range then it does at normal time speed. Therefore everythign is colder, probably alot colder.

Q.E.D

That said I really don't think the writers took any of this stuf into account

there is no start or ore sticking in here or anything like that your points are just as valid as anyone elses.

the whole thing i take issue with is the time slowing down cause you start getting into frames and relativity and all that jazz which is very confusing,

as we measure smaller and smaller periods of time periods of time accurately the uncertainty in the time becomes small, to fit in with the uncertainty principle there is a large uncertainty in energy and we get a spread of energy.

this manifests itself in atomic transitions, line spectrum from a short lived atomic state you will see a spread of energies a band with a full width at half max and all that jazz i would expect. while if you look at a relatively long lived meta stable state the uncertainty in the time is large, the uncertainty in the energy is considered small and you effectively just get a single line for the transition

so yes large time small uncertainty in energy, which effectively means a smaller range of energies or just one energy and one temperature more or less.

but within the frame of the gas molecules everything is moving at normal speed nothing has slowed down if the molecules where so cold they'd be a solid.

and no i seriously doubt the writers took this into account and i also have issues with the application of our dodgy physics to such a dodgy sci-fi situation to try to rationalize a smiley face

going on ro:maaann's article which although i haven't looked at or nor have i seen the episode in years, if troi and data had puzzled looks and such they may be looks due to just actually seeing picard laughing hysterically and is hallucinating or that he actually drew the smiley face in the first place

Boston

Well I think the point you look at is either if you're doing all classical physics with some Atomic physics then you're talking about time periods getting smaller, error getting large. However if you take the quantium mechanics approach to it discrete quantities getting large while error gets smaller. its all about prepective.

bizmark

Jesus nerd overload

Tazzle

[TROLL]
How can there be warp noises and phaser fire sounds if space is a vacuum.
[/TROLL]

gaui3d0pnbz86o

Jesus nerd overload

na, ya cant beat a good arguement over a simple question that i asked!

i should ask more!

How can there be warp noises and phaser fire sounds if space is a vacuum.

do you really want an answer to that one?

Tazzle

:rolleyes:

Steven999

Picard drew it in the smoke from the worp core breach,if he imagined it how did Data and Troi see it?

Atreides

Originally posted by Tazzle
[TROLL]
How can there be warp noises and phaser fire sounds if space is a vacuum.
[/TROLL]

Well your really talking baout the duelaity of light here, is it a wave or is it a particle, both phasors and wrap engines have bright flashes associated with them, which give off strong electromagnetic radiation which may be somehow precived as a sound by our ears.

User45701

Originally posted by Steven999
Picard drew it in the smoke from the worp core breach,if he imagined it how did Data and Troi see it?

But there was no evidence that they saw it.