If we do not separate the three concepts? --Mark McWire 09:42, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
- "Why", I guess? Probably because, if the current article is correct, all three phrases have been used in the same context and are thus just synonyms of the same concept, not three different ones. The article might be incorrect, of course, in which case you could add a PNA message so that we can review it further. -- Cid Highwind 10:19, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
I've write the three associated German arcticles, after I've watched the episode sentence by sentence. All three terms are not exactly in the same context. So "pressure modulation" was mentioned as a measurable quantity. The other two terms fell only once, when the "Elway Theorem" was declared. Physical seen reflection and pressure modulation are two different beasts. --Mark McWire 10:37, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
btw: Why only one of the three inter-wiki links is shown in the bar? --Mark McWire 10:41, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
- According to the script sections below, I think that at least "transition rebound" and "reflection" should be considered synonyms of the same concept - otherwise, there would be not much sense in calling an occurrence of the latter one "another one". Also, there seems to be some overlap with dimensional shift according to the third section. -- Cid Highwind 10:56, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
MediawikiOasis can only support one interwiki link per article. -- sulfur 11:22, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
- That's not true - see . Yet another newskin weakness. Many times, n:m interwiki-relations between articles are a sign of some other problem (like we're just discussing here), but a 1:1 relation shouldn't be enforced this way. Reporting as a bug... -- Cid Highwind 11:38, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, my phrasing was poor. I meant "Oasis" can only support one. Edited my comment. -- sulfur 11:45, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Having reviewed a complete transcript from the episode, it seems as if my above interpretation is not quite correct:
- Nuclear vibration can be caused by subspace transition rebound during transport
- Nuclear vibration is mentioned in the Elway Theorem
- The Elway Theorem describes Folded-space transport
- Folded-space transport is synonymous to adaptive transport
- Both are either synonymous to or specific examples of inter-dimensional travel
- This is what the Rutian terrorists do indeed use, and which is described as dimensional shifting later.
- Subspace reflection indicates dimensional shifting
- A dimensional shift is synonymous to a dimensional jump
- A dimensional jump can create subspace pressure modulation
- Based on that, it seems as if both subspace pressure modulation and subspace reflection are related to dimensional shifting (7/8/9). They may be the same or different things - we don't know, but because we don't know anything about them, we might as well redirect both to dimensional shift and explain them in that context.
- The remaining subspace transition rebound may in fact be a different thing. It is only mentioned in an early hypothesis by Data (1), and the following discussions (2-6) makes it look as if the whole dimensional shifting thingamajig is something else. Still, it is because of this that we might not need a separate article for it, but might be better of by mentioning it in combination with nuclear vibration. -- Cid Highwind 14:26, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
The pressure modulation is self-explanatory. Sound, for example, a periodic spreading pressure modulation in a gas such as air. A reflection is something completely different. The rebound is a part of the space folding process can be both a reflection and a pressure modulation (sound waves) cause. The pressure modulation is now decide on the tracing, because they can be objectively measured. She is an external property. The reflection and the rebound, however, is something that can happen to the object to be transported during the dimension jump. Wesley's comment is aimed at ensuring that the reflection can somehow be measured. The rebound, however, is something that has been used only in a theoretical description. My simple physical education tells me that all these are three different processes. Does the word "subspace" away, this results in quite regular physical relationships. --Mark McWire 15:55, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
- I think it might be misleading to assume that one can actually remove the prefix "subspace" and interpret the remainder using "simple physics". What if subspace had some weird properties so that one and the same phenomenon could be described by analogy both to a "reflection" and a "pressure modulation"? Sounds strange, but similar things have happened in real-world physics: see Wave–particle duality for example. One point I make is that we don't know whether this might be the case or not - and another point is that we don't have to make a decision one way or another if we can just mention both on the same page (because either article would be a stub anyway). -- Cid Highwind 16:25, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of mindless throwing together of terms. That is why I cover in the German version, all scientific concepts alone. I want anyone here require me to do the same, but I want to point out here that is speculated that various physical concepts should be the same thing. The wave-particle duality is obsolete. Quants are now regarded as separate objects, just quantum objects. On the example we see that such speculations may be outdated. ;-) And in the case of subspace resonance signature or subspace carrier wave, the articles were indeed applied more generally, precisely the terms "resonant signature" and "carrier wave". --Mark McWire 16:39, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
I've separated the pressure modulation from reflection and rebound, because there are different physical concepts, even if based on subspace. Reflection and rebound, however, can certainly be regarded as synonyms for the same operation. --Mark McWire 01:07, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
The key points in the text Edit
I picked out the key points in the text and listed here. These are all the citations, there is nothing more in the text. Decide yourself --Mark McWire 10:50, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
subspace transition rebound Edit
DATA: A subspace field coil with an isolated power source. Curious. LAFORGE: Hey, guys. Come here. Look at this. The Rutian team picked up a faint nuclear vibration during the terrorist movements.
WESLEY: Nuclear vibration?
DATA: That could possibly indicate subspace transition rebound during transport.
WESLEY: Wait a minute, wait a minute. May I? Computer, call up the files on. What was his name? We spent two hours on him in astral physics last year. Folded-space transport.
subspace pressure modulation Edit
DATA: A dimensional jump can create subspace pressure modulation, Captain. By setting up a magnetosphere echogram that can monitor each of their movements, we may be able to collect enough data to trace their power source.
subspace reflection Edit
WORF: Intruder alert, deck twelve.
WESLEY: Another subspace reflection. Dimensional shift, sir.
PICARD: Go to Red alert. Sound general quarters.
I've moved the picture to subspace pressure modulation, because the caption is related with the other article. This is probably an artifact from time before separation. --184.108.40.206 19:14, November 20, 2011 (UTC)
I've deleted one of the German language links, because only one link is displayed. The German article "Subraumübergangseffekt" is now a redirect to German "Subraumreflexion". --220.127.116.11 19:22, November 20, 2011 (UTC)
- After the above two edits, I went forward with my earlier suggestion to arrange all the content in another way. This article is now located at subspace reflection (because that's what we're dealing with throughout the episode), while subspace transition rebound redirects to nuclear vibration (because we don't know whether it is a form of reflection or not - but we do know that it can be indicative of nuclear vibration). The other terms discussed above might need to be looked at as well. -- Cid Highwind 10:39, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
- During further discussion about this on MA/de, it occurred to me that the "rebound" part of "subspace transition rebound" perhaps isn't even part of the term at all. it could have been a verb, as in: "That could possibly indicate [a] subspace transition [that was] rebound during transport." Perhaps the pronounciation during the scene indicates this one way or another - the transcript doesn't. -- Cid Highwind 12:08, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
subspace reflection Edit
moved from User talk:Cid Highwind
I've read the transcript over and over. The reflection was detected ones in real. The sentence "... realized, ..." isnt proper, because it wasn't only theoretical. While Ansata enters the Enterprise, the internal Sensors detected the reflection in real way. The Article should descrip this correctly. The fact for finding the base, was the detection of subspace pressure modulation. The detection of subspace reflection was a side effect, in my eyes. Please read transcript and correct the sentence. Thanks. (McWire) --18.104.22.168 19:38, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
- I will check that later, and eventually change the article. Do you want to explain the bunch of other, unrelated edits, too, or is that no longer important? Also, I've asked you before: please make sure to be logged in before making changes to this group of articles. It may look as if you want to "hide" your edits by doing them anonymously. -- Cid Highwind 20:16, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for using IP, Login is tricky with OperaMini on SmartPhone, because internal links sometimes redirect to pages your coming from. I dont know why, but it isnt an exclusive Problem only in MA. And Sorry for Bad English, but this should be not a reason for stupid undoing my edits. My Changes based on English Transcripts, so they should be proper canonical.--Mark McWire 20:22, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
Any news here? --Mark McWire 18:14, November 30, 2011 (UTC) I've edit the page again. More facts doesn't exist. The reflection is only mentioned in one sentence during episode, while Ansata enters the ship. See my transcript-quotes earlier in discussion. --Mark McWire 18:20, November 30, 2011 (UTC)