2007-05-03

Détente, Of Sorts

A continuation of the last post . . . Wayne's posted something interesting on SD.Net:

"After yesterday's fun and games, I was all set to update the Darkstar Database, complete with a whole new chapter. I made space on my desktop, moving the G2K bridge damage textures for "The Last Bastion" part 5, the voice overs, and other things off to the side, so I could amass all the info I needed for the update. But then I began thinking. (Shut it, Dalton.) Darkstar is unruffled by these updates [ ... snip bluster ... ]
So last night, I didn't update the Darkstar Database. Today, after thinking about it for quite a while, I erased it. I did a quick purge of any mention of Darkstar on my website. [...] I'll let "The Last Bastion" [parody video] stand as my ultimate criticism against this idiot."


I've often said that their incessant aggressive bluster is used to cover up other things (weakness in arguments and so on). And so I generally just read past the bluster.

In this case, that leads me to a notion for which I have no direct evidence, but would like to believe. It's possible that after seeing my umpteenth railing against their poisoning the well of discourse . . . the umpteenth description of how I have little interest in and don't want to be involved in their ad hominem battles but will clearly go to the mat when needed . . . he saw through the fog of the other side's spin and realized that maybe what I was saying was true.

In other words, he's declared victory but still taken a step I outlined in my last post for détente.

I can live with the former to get the latter. Thus I shall also begin removing references to Poe from ST-v-SW.Net. And incidentally, the same old offer naturally remains open for Wong as well.

90 comments:

  1. Now, you're the one that's nuts. I highly doubt he isn't gonna just delete it. He'll keep an unaltered copy that'll be updated, as he updates the 'current' pages.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I just looked at the last page in the thread and, while Poe does say he wants to call a moratorium in the senate at SDN, I don't see it passing. It might come close, but it won't happen.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As expected, Wong's pushing a hardliner approach, suggesting that "he will just claim people are afraid of him" if they officially pretend I don't exist.

    Au contraire . . .

    1. Wong should stop projecting his tactics of bravado onto me. His inability to understand someone who is not like him is a large part of the problem.

    2. Wayne's already declared victory in the personal combat in advance of the deletions, to which I said basically 'cool, whatever'. You guys can save as much face as you like.

    3. Wayne ought not allow Wong's extremism to dictate his own actions. If Wayne wants to remove the BS about me and have me remove mentions of him, he is at liberty to do so. If there is pressure not to do that, perhaps Wayne ought to ponder the origin and nature of that pressure. He might not like what conclusions would be drawn.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And, true to form, Poe says he's gonna leave the database up, so he can point it out when he wants to. I don't put much stock in the fact that he will still leave out what he's already cut from the page.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree. It'll stay on his computer, updated but not posted until such a time that a new wave of attacks is decided to be called against this site.

    Given that this site will respond in defense, Poe will then post it since Mr. Anderson "attacked them so wrongly" and the cycle will continue. Do not be blind-sided by this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, at least we get a break between the spin cycles... } ; = 8 )

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, I've made a "first pass" of clean-up. It actually improved things nicely over on CanonWars. I've still got to figure out what to do with a few things like old blog posts and, most especially, the archived versions of old pages that I saved so that the "Battle of Britain" stuff would have a basis of comparison.

    Given that it's archival in that context I feel it inappropriate to delete references to him, though I suppose I could do a word replacement thing, like "Unnamed Detractor" (to coin a phrase).

    I can say that four of my pages are down right now. The CanonWars page on Wayne's rendition of the so-called "Production Evasion" clearly needs some sort of reworking since it's based on one of his arguments . . . I figure I'll leave it up but simply remove any unprofessional references.

    There are also some specific pages (Falcon acceleration and SW weapons range objections) where his objections featured prominently, so I'm going to edit those offline and repost sanitized editions.

    The old "Support Group" page is also down for a bit, 'till I decide on how to modify it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I must say directly to Wayne... I'm... happily surprised...

    Good show, good ammount of tact too all things considered.

    Could this be a new step in the vs debates!? Join us next time for "As the Debate Turns." ^_-

    ReplyDelete
  9. The debate is long over. You are just like those Japanese soldiers left on a pacific island thinking that war is still on 45 years later :)
    But don't give up. Who knows maybe some day you'll have triple digit members :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. CanonWars page on Wayne's rendition of the so-called "Production Evasion" clearly needs some sort of reworking since it's based on one of his arguments

    Dude, I've got a headache and thought 'reworking' said 'ewoking'. Seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It sounds to me like Poe and Wong are both running scared, flying into damage control after the double whammy they recently recieved...

    1: George Lucas confirming (yet again) irrefutatbley that 'his' Star Wars and the EU Star Wars are two completely different things...

    2: You offically declaring Star Trek's victory in the tactical side of the Vs. debate.

    Personally, I love the first one. You wouldn't believe how many people out there still believe the EU is canon...

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1: George Lucas confirming (yet again) irrefutatbley that 'his' Star Wars and the EU Star Wars are two completely different things...

    Which of the recent staements were you thinking of? Was it one in 2006?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh I know for a fact Wong and Poe are scared shitlless. I mean sure no one in the debate world (except for a handful of people here) gave a shit about Darkstar's declaration that Lucas' latest creatively interpreted quote means no EU and no one but 10-20 diehard Trekkies gives a shit about St-v-Sw or it's declaration of victory but hey why should that make you give up or rethink your position.
    You should now focus on declaring the STRATEGIC victory of the Federation vs galactic spanning civilization and make sure you put it on the front page. That is sure to make a clear message as to what kind of logic this site offers.

    Keep on Trekkin' man!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Heh, I find it funny when people resort to sarcasm and puffed up BS when they don't have a leg to stand on, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  15. You sure got me there. Here I am trying to pretend that vast majority of the people involved in the debate doesn't see you as couple of idiots when in fact you have thousands of members.
    I mean next thing you know I'll start pretending that even people on spacebattles which despise ICS think Darkstar is a moron.

    Damn you can see right through me.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kinda hard to take you seriously when you post as anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Which of the recent staements were you thinking of? Was it one in 2006?

    I was refering to the post on Canon Wars entitled 'Calculate the Yield of This Quote'.

    no one but 10-20 diehard Trekkies gives a shit about St-v-Sw or it's declaration of victory

    That strikes me as being odd when two well known figures in the Vs. debate, Wong and Poe, seem to be obsessed with taking G2K down.

    If no one gives a damn about mr. Anderson, why would Wong and Poe bother with their constant slandering and harrassment?

    I honestly have no idea what this anonymosu is on about...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Kinda hard to take you seriously when you post as anonymous.
    As opposed to "savage"?

    That strikes me as being odd when two well known figures in the Vs. debate, Wong and Poe, seem to be obsessed with taking G2K down.
    If no one gives a damn about mr. Anderson, why would Wong and Poe bother with their constant slandering and harrassment?

    When Darkstar does something monumentally stupid, for example claiming that there are two Birar patches based on his assumptions and refusing to back down even when Mike Sussman a guy who wrote the episode says he is wrong, then they update the page since it concerns the St-v-SW debate. But at this point this is merely making fun of him rather than taking him as some kind of serious competition.

    I honestly have no idea what this anonymosu is on about...
    Denial ain't just a river in Egypt eh folks.
    Let me explain it for you: how many people in the debate has this page convinced of anything? 10? 20? 20 of you diehards now flock around this page and starfleetjedi thinking you are winning because st-v-sw claims this or that. Well st-v-sw can claim whatever it wants to, how many people are convinced by it that is a measure of success. And guess what: no one gives a shit.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Still, for some unknown reason, you post here... oh wait; I know the reply, "I'm trying to teach you all that no one cares!" or some such. Let me put it to you this way, if you think he is so wrong, tell us why, cite your evidence. I've seen HUNDREDS of 'anons' come around and spout that Darkstar is wrong, while not taking down a single argument of his.

    Also, while I’m on the topic of the debate, not all of us agree completely with Darkstar (hell I've downright been against a few of his statements), but most of us recognized a well constructed and well supported work when we saw it, something that SD.net is not (which spouts a lot, but doesn’t cite very well).

    So, I guess the ball is in YOUR corner now. I'm sure a reply will be along the lines of, "you're delusional" or, "If you can't see why SW wins I can't explain it." Who knows though, maybe you will be the first to debunk his site. Last I checked he still took on personal debates.

    So in the end all that is left is to get a name, post in the open and realize that we all aren't enemies. Frankly, the cloak and dagger routine has been done a thousand times and no one, not me, not Darkstar, not Wayne, not Mike, likes it, that much is something both sides agree on.

    ReplyDelete
  20. As opposed to "savage"?

    Right, my nick name. But it leaves a marker as opposed to "anon". It shows I'm willing to stand by what I post, not hide behind a blank title.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Still, for some unknown reason, you post here... oh wait; I know the reply, "I'm trying to teach you all that no one cares!" or some such. Let me put it to you this way, if you think he is so wrong, tell us why, cite your evidence. I've seen HUNDREDS of 'anons' come around and spout that Darkstar is wrong, while not taking down a single argument of his.
    Actually I'm not trying to teach you anything, there is no hope of that. There is no need to "shoot down Darkstar's" arguments since no one but handful of people takes him seriously. Not to mention there are pages which already dealt with his bullshit. So why bother? You amuse me that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Actually I'm not trying to teach you anything, there is no hope of that. There is no need to "shoot down Darkstar's" arguments since no one but handful of people takes him seriously. Not to mention there are pages which already dealt with his bullshit. So why bother? You amuse me that's all.

    Well, mister 'big shot tough guy who doesn't have to prove anything', prove it. Instead of copping out with pathetic excuses for why you don't have to back up your bet, why don't you actually grow the balls and do it. If he's already been dealt with, it should be a simple matter of proving him wrong, shouldn't it? I mean, if he is so obviously wrong, it should be simple to present the obvious truth, shouldn't it? Yet you don't. Why is that? It's certainly not because it's not worth the effort or because you don't have the time, because you're wasting the effort and spending the time just posting here. So, Mister Anon, either put up, or shut up.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Just goes to show, the easiest thing in the world is vacuous heckling. The feigned ennui is a nice bonus touch.

    http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ennui.htm

    All you have to do to heckle anon's way is claim that nobody/only-a-few agrees with X . . . the old argumentum ad populam.

    If pressed, you can just throw some BS spin about a past event such as the Sussman thing. The real story is here:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/weblog/2006/08/briar-patches.html

    (Incidentally, I find that sort of thing amusing, inasmuch as my opponents try to claim that I abuse everyone in any official setting whether there was disagreement or not, yet cast themselves as pure angels as they harass Star Wars VIPs all across the net. It's really quite absurd.)

    Shake well and voila . . . one ridiculous anon.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Oh I can easily point out the "obvious" truth for example:

    1. From his Death Star page:
    "In this brightened key to the second image, it is the one circled in deep blue. The more distant (circled) bays within the submerged dock area the Falcon flies into appear to be of equal height to the Falcon's intended bay, which allows us to scale the height of the entire submerged dock area (note the farthest wall). The farthest section of the nearest left-side bay entrance measures 7 pixels. The nearest section of the farthest left-side bay measures 6 pixels. Assuming that 23 meters equals 6.5 pixels, then the height of the column between the two bays, measuring 170 pixels, is 247.7 meters. Since the submerged dock area is apparently rectangular, this means that the outermost section of the submerged area is about 250 meters tall."
    Wrong Darkstar. If the column is 170px and hangar is 6.5px that means the column is 26.15 times bigger and since hangar is 23 meters that means column is 601.5 meters and NOT 250 meters as you claim. That means the final value for Death Star's diameter will be 2.4 times larger.


    2. Darkstar lies about the diameter of torpedoes to increase the yield. If you look at the episode "Call to arms" several torpedoes strike the Galor class cruiser and the warp nacelle of a Dominion battleship. Torpedoes are no more than 2m wide. He of course tries to make it look as if he's done a very thorough analysis by posting different torpedoes from different eras which of course have different apparent diameters. What does that have to do with small yellow torpedoes from DS9 and Voyager and how does it prove that torpedoes grow is beyond any reasonable person.

    3.After choosing 10m radius for torpedo and assuming 60% vaporization (as if the asteroid can't be pulverized by much less than 60% vaporization) he has the gall to call that "I bent over backwards lower limit". Plug in a 2m torpedo and fragmentation and you'll get something approaching lower limit.

    4.In his hyperdrive speed AOTC section he first assumes it is night when emergency session of the Senate is convened but then he gives an update in which he elaborates that it is actually pre-dawn. But then he silently assumes that it is pre-dawn the NEXT day. There is absolutely no evidence for this since Obi-Wan also reports sometimes in pre-dawn and it could very well be the same day. In fact it is obviously the same day unless you feel that emergency session will be called not until 21 hours later and that Mace Windu will wait for the same 21 hours before thinking that he might send some help to Obi-Wan.

    5.The ROTJ hyperdrive:
    S3 - noonish. A few hours after S1, the Rebels and the two Ewoks arrive at the back entrance/secret entrance/bunker, and note the four scout troopers guarding it, with their speeder bikes nearby.
    Paploo rushes off and steals one of the bikes, leading three of the troops on a long merry chase, and he then abandons the bike by vine and escapes into the woods. Han's comment before he saw the outcome was "there goes our surprise attack". But, all's well, and a couple of hours later . . .

    You gave no evidence that "S3" occurs around noon as opposed to being in the morning.

    S4 - early afternoon. Han draws the remaining trooper into a trap, and the Rebels enter the bunker.
    As the novelization puts it, "Soon the entire team was huddled inside the otherwise empty steel corridor, leaving one lookout outside, dressed in the unconscious scout's uniform."
    Night falls. The Rebels meander stealthily through the "labyrinthine" corridors of the underground facility.

    Again you give no evidence as to time of the day. And your insistence that they actually spent 15 hours or so wandering the corridors of the bunker is truly ridiculous. The very next scene showing Death Star in orbit shows the DS2 rapidly crossing the terminator of the planet within few moments. Obviously this was not due to the rotation of the planet but movement of DS2 which was likely relocating to a more favorable position for pending engagement.
    Look behind the Emperor as he is talking to Luke, the stars are clearly moving behind him thus further implying movement or at least rotation by DS2. Your entire nigh-day cycle is based on assumption that DS2 remains stationary which is incorrect.

    6. When talking about SW ship acceleration you neglect to mention the Endor approach when the planet grows visibly as the fleet approaches requiring deceleration abilities on the order of several km/s2 at least. You also ignore the fact that Dooku's ship cleared the Geonosis planetary rings (10,000km) in the time it took Yoda to pick up his cane after his fight with Dooku and Amidala to run to Anakin from entrance of the cave, some 10-20 meters. Again several km/s2 at least.

    7. In "Vaporizing a small town" article Darkstar assumes some American small town since the author is from that part. This is of course ridiculous. We are operating under suspension of disbelief and author's birthplace is utterly irrelevant. In fact putting the quote into context the battle was observed through the eyes of Coruscant's population thus obviously their idea of a "small town" should be considered.

    8.Ramming, Shields, and the Nemesis Fallacy article.
    Darkstar claims that every shield impact incident involves glow effect which is nothing but a lie. We have seen Jem'Hadar fighters ramming many BoPs and Vor'Cha class ships and never was this glow observed. The same is with weapon impact: some shield configurations involve glow others don't.
    In fact Scimitar's shields themselves produced no glow upon being hit with weapons or when Picard punched through them with the stolen fighter. The only effect was temporary decloaking of the part that was hit.

    8. Borg personal shield article.
    Again Darkstar makes no attempt to explain what is the fundamental difference between fists, knifes, back of a rifle and speeding bullets. We are talking about physical objects moving at a certain speed.
    He also tries to pass internal ship forcefields as some kind of evidence that Borg drones have them too.

    9.From "Overview":
    In any case, Coruscant is the most developed world by far, as per the novel, and undoubtedly has what we 21st Century folk would consider a staggering population.
    Nowhere is it stated that Coruscant is most developed planet "by far". This is nothing more than one of your fabrications.

    Assuming a population of 5 billion per member world (Earth's current population), the Federation would have a population of 750 billion, not including associates, protectorates, or colonies.
    Out of all your bullshit the double standard is the most amusing. So you feel that Coruscant is super unique and shouldn't be used as a benchmark in any way but you do so freely with Earth. To lend credibility to your dishonesty you pepper the claim with a statement from a guy locked up in a mental institution. I think that sums up your level of argument quite nicely.

    10.Check out this page for a detailed deconstruction of other Darkstar's lies:
    http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/MoO/index.html


    Of course this is just the tip of the iceberg and I certainly don't expect you or your band of fanatics to actually admit to any of this but I just wanted to show you how easy it is to point out your lies.

    All you have to do to heckle anon's way is claim that nobody/only-a-few agrees with X . . . the old argumentum ad populam.
    Yeah sure whatever makes you feel better Darkstar. But maybe one day you'll have the strength to admit to yourself that no one but your band of buddies buys into your shit.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 1.) Oh no! Anon Rabid Warsie actually found a math error in RSA's work! What nice little strawman...attack a mistake without dealing with the body of the work.

    At any rate, the column can simply be reduced _below_ 600 meters by reducing the Falcon's width (and thereby the height of the hanger bay) to a more reasonable 21 meters, or about 546 meters in vertical height. And before you whine and bitch Anon Warsie, just remember that the offical EU width for the Falcon is far smaller than even that, and some have scaled the Falcon down to a mere 18 or so meters wide.

    So before you assail him for lying about the math, just remember to give him some credit for over-estimating the Falcon first.


    2.) The Dominon battlecruiser being a few frames from being hit here in this Trekcore image:

    http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=138&pos=338

    That is NOT a 2 meter wide torpedo core glow, never mind the the flares. The average width of the nacelle in-line with the torpedo's trajectory is about 4.1 times larger than the torp's core glow. Given the inaccurately small DS9 TM's 640 meter length that would leave us with an average nacelle width of about 64 meters, and a torpedo core glow of about 15.7 meters. That's half again larger than RSA's 10 meter average obtained for "Rise"!


    Mind you, I've just shown a bit of an exercise in some detail about scaling the torpedo to the Dominion battlecruiser (if this were the _battleship_, btw, that number would go up by _at least_ a factor of two for the core glow size), but you on the other hand, just simply made a statement without showing any proof. Now who's the liar, I should wonder.?

    3.) Anon Rabid Warsie tries to claim, again without proof, that the Death Star 2 suddenly repositioned itself to better engage the coming Rebel fleet. Yet nowhere in the movie, nor in the second-level canon of the novelization is there any indication of the Death Star doing so. Certainly someone in the Rebel fleet when it came out of hyperspace did not notice any unusual positional change. The only thing Lando noticed wrong was the lack of a reading on whether or not the protective Endor shield was down.

    Also interesting is that neither Luke, Han, Leia or any of the Rebels on Endor observed the Death Star's movement, which would have been significant to say the least.

    No, RSA's timeline may indeed have flaws, but there is evidence that a significant amount of time did indeed go by, allowing for Endor to rotate and the Death Star to end up at the day-night terminator as shown in the movie. On top of that, the EU's NJO book "Vector Prime" has a quote stating that an X-wing pilot, if willing to push things, could indeed take a week to make a journey. So spending several days in-route is not out of the question.


    4.) On RSA's supposed unwillingness to acknowledge fast acceleration/deceleration of SW ships, there is this thread at SFJ:

    http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=222

    Please note that he is the author and is acknowledging a situation that shows very favorable ISD deceleration capabilities.

    5.) Could Anon Rabid Warsie please show how the strange glow effects of various torpedo and phaser hits on the Scimitar are _only_ cloak disruptions, and not also shield glow? Does Anon Rabid Warsie have a statement that the Scimitar's shields are up or down when Picard and Data do they're little "break out" maneuver with the Scorpion fighter? A quote? Anything?

    6.) Borg forcefields in their own ships? Why that was established as far back as "Best of Both Worlds, Part I" with forcefields that kept Commander Shelby's rescue team from getting to Picard/Locutus.


    7.) The 900 billion casulty figure given by Jack and his genetically enhanced associates was in no way contradicted by anyone, most in particularly Dr. Bashir, who, with his stable genetically engineered super-intellect would know that Jack's numbers were nonsense. Jack and the others may have had social problems and an inability to fit into society, but they were very intelligent, and capable of analysis and problem-solving as was demonstrated when Jack and the others who were enhanced were able to determine the entire story of Damar's rise to power by just watching a recording of a speech, and without ever having heard anything beforehand. They also correctly figured out from other recordings of peach talks that the Dominion was merely stalling for time due to their shortage of ketracel-white, and that the Federation would certainly lose the war in the long run, if it entered into the treaty.

    Ah, but to expect important matters of context and completeness from the Rabid Warsies...

    9.) Speaking of which, Anon Rabid Warsie points us to one of Wong's hate mail pages, which is filled with tons of even more such shit.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 1.) Oh no! Anon Rabid Warsie actually found a math error in RSA's work! What nice little strawman...attack a mistake without dealing with the body of the work.

    At any rate, the column can simply be reduced _below_ 600 meters by reducing the Falcon's width (and thereby the height of the hanger bay) to a more reasonable 21 meters, or about 546 meters in vertical height. And before you whine and bitch Anon Warsie, just remember that the offical EU width for the Falcon is far smaller than even that, and some have scaled the Falcon down to a mere 18 or so meters wide.

    Since the cockpit area must be at least 3m tall to accommodate a Wookie with significant headroom and floorpadding and since the Falcon itself is 8 times as wide as cockpit it cannot be less than 24 meters wide. That means Darkstar's figure would still be 1.82 times off meaning that DS diameter is 220km.

    So before you assail him for lying about the math, just remember to give him some credit for over-estimating the Falcon first.
    Really he didn't mention any size overestimation for Falcon when he crowed about Romulan scout having cloak even though it's smaller.


    2.) The Dominon battlecruiser being a few frames from being hit here in this Trekcore image:
    http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=138&pos=338
    That is NOT a 2 meter wide torpedo core glow, never mind the the flares. The average width of the nacelle in-line with the torpedo's trajectory is about 4.1 times larger than the torp's core glow. Given the inaccurately small DS9 TM's 640 meter length that would leave us with an average nacelle width of about 64 meters, and a torpedo core glow of about 15.7 meters. That's half again larger than RSA's 10 meter average obtained for "Rise"!
    Mind you, I've just shown a bit of an exercise in some detail about scaling the torpedo to the Dominion battlecruiser (if this were the _battleship_, btw, that number would go up by _at least_ a factor of two for the core glow size), but you on the other hand, just simply made a statement without showing any proof. Now who's the liar, I should wonder.?

    No need to wonder. YOU are the liar since you damn well know that torpedo is still way closer to the camera than battlecruiser.
    Allow me to demonstrate:
    http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/torpedo1.jpg
    http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/torpedo2.jpg
    Is that 10 meters? Just how big is Galor class? How big are it's windows?

    http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/torpedo3.jpg
    Again how big is that torpedo? How big is the nacelle?


    3.) Anon Rabid Warsie tries to claim, again without proof, that the Death Star 2 suddenly repositioned itself to better engage the coming Rebel fleet. Yet nowhere in the movie, nor in the second-level canon of the novelization is there any indication of the Death Star doing so. Certainly someone in the Rebel fleet when it came out of hyperspace did not notice any unusual positional change. The only thing Lando noticed wrong was the lack of a reading on whether or not the protective Endor shield was down.
    Also interesting is that neither Luke, Han, Leia or any of the Rebels on Endor observed the Death Star's movement, which would have been significant to say the least.
    No, RSA's timeline may indeed have flaws, but there is evidence that a significant amount of time did indeed go by, allowing for Endor to rotate and the Death Star to end up at the day-night terminator as shown in the movie. On top of that, the EU's NJO book "Vector Prime" has a quote stating that an X-wing pilot, if willing to push things, could indeed take a week to make a journey. So spending several days in-route is not out of the question.

    Just like I predicted. I pointed out that in the scene Darkstar uses we SEE the Death Star rapidly crossing the terminator thus PROVING that there is more here than simple rotation of the planet and you just pretend you didn't hear me.

    4.) On RSA's supposed unwillingness to acknowledge fast acceleration/deceleration of SW ships, there is this thread at SFJ:
    http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=222
    Please note that he is the author and is acknowledging a situation that shows very favorable ISD deceleration capabilities.

    Fine, let's see if he actually updates the SW acceleration page.

    5.) Could Anon Rabid Warsie please show how the strange glow effects of various torpedo and phaser hits on the Scimitar are _only_ cloak disruptions, and not also shield glow? Does Anon Rabid Warsie have a statement that the Scimitar's shields are up or down when Picard and Data do they're little "break out" maneuver with the Scorpion fighter? A quote? Anything?
    He he he. So you claim that shields were down when Picard made the escape with the fighter? And yet the effect was COMPLETELY THE SAME when weapons impacted the ship. This means that there is NO glow of the shield itself and all we see is cloaking device effects.
    And there is a statement that the shields are at 70% just before Enterprise rams it but Darkstar tries to weasel out of it. He fails however to provide any evidence that shields are down since we have seen shield configurations that give out no glow. A point which I raised above but you predictably ignored.


    6.) Borg forcefields in their own ships? Why that was established as far back as "Best of Both Worlds, Part I" with forcefields that kept Commander Shelby's rescue team from getting to Picard/Locutus.
    I see your reading comprehension is as lacking as your honesty. I simply pointed out Darkstar's dishonesty at claiming that internal ship KE forcefields can be used as proof for Drone KE forcefields.

    7.) The 900 billion casulty figure given by Jack and his genetically enhanced associates was in no way contradicted by anyone, most in particularly Dr. Bashir, who, with his stable genetically engineered super-intellect would know that Jack's numbers were nonsense. Jack and the others may have had social problems and an inability to fit into society, but they were very intelligent, and capable of analysis and problem-solving as was demonstrated when Jack and the others who were enhanced were able to determine the entire story of Damar's rise to power by just watching a recording of a speech, and without ever having heard anything beforehand. They also correctly figured out from other recordings of peach talks that the Dominion was merely stalling for time due to their shortage of ketracel-white, and that the Federation would certainly lose the war in the long run, if it entered into the treaty.
    Ah, but to expect important matters of context and completeness from the Rabid Warsies...

    How do you know that he "correctly" predicted that Federation will lose the war? It never did so you can't know can you? Not to mention that no one commented on his idiotic claim that 150 years from surrender Federation will lead a rebellion. How the fuck can he know what will happen in 150 years? How the fuck can he know that Weyoun won't exterminate Earth's population which is EXACTLY what he intended to do.
    There is a reason this guy is in a loony bin.

    9.) Speaking of which, Anon Rabid Warsie points us to one of Wong's hate mail pages, which is filled with tons of even more such shit.
    Seeing as how it managed to convince all debaters (except for a few here) I'd say it's up to you to prove that.

    ReplyDelete
  27. No need to wonder. YOU are the liar since you damn well know that torpedo is still way closer to the camera than battlecruiser.
    Allow me to demonstrate:
    http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/torpedo1.jpg
    http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/torpedo2.jpg
    Is that 10 meters? Just how big is Galor class? How big are it's windows?

    http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/torpedo3.jpg
    Again how big is that torpedo? How big is the nacelle?


    I just measured the torpedo width myself, using the pic you posted, SW Anon, assuming a Dominion nacelle width of 64 meters. On my screen, the Dominion nacelle came to about 20 millimeters wide, or 3.2 meters per millimeter on my screen (15" LCD set to 1024 x 768), and the photon torpedo has a 4 millimeter diameter core glow. That comes out to a 12.8 meter wide torpedo core glow, which is about the same size as the smaller torpedo in ST Anon's TrekCore pic (I believe you were looking at the wrong torpedo).

    For the Galor example, I'd eyeball the torpedo's core glow to be roughly two meters. But that doesn't prove that the torpedo core glows are all only about 2 meters across. G2K's own torpedo glow page shows a range of sizes for torpedoes, even for torps fired from the same ship in different episodes. G2K's page shows torp sizes ranging from a couple meters to almost 16 meters, with most figures hovering around the 5-10 meter mark. We've seen Mr. Wong, Mr. Poe, etc. choose higher-end figures from comparable ranges on other things, so I hardly think it's fair for you to criticize Mr. Anderson for taking an above-average figure in this case.


    He he he. So you claim that shields were down when Picard made the escape with the fighter? And yet the effect was COMPLETELY THE SAME when weapons impacted the ship. This means that there is NO glow of the shield itself and all we see is cloaking device effects.
    And there is a statement that the shields are at 70% just before Enterprise rams it but Darkstar tries to weasel out of it. He fails however to provide any evidence that shields are down since we have seen shield configurations that give out no glow. A point which I raised above but you predictably ignored.


    The only solid example that you have of a shield impact with no shield glow is when the Enterprise rams the Scimitar. The Dominion War examples are not conclusive, because it is entirely possible that fire had been exchanged and shields brought down when we "weren't looking", since it's been shown conclusively that ST ranges are significantly greater than just the couple of kilometers or less the ships are invariably at when we cut to an external view of them.

    And before you go on to say that there were no shield flares for the Scimitar's shields, only cloak flashes, that is not correct. I've analyzed that battle over a dozen times, dozens of collective hours for a few debates I've been in, and I can assure you, the Scimitar's shields do glow, just like normal shields. Don't believe me? Then let's go to the screencaps, shall we? (***Warning: 56kers beware, I have a tendency to go screen-cap happy***)

    First, Picard and Data breaking out of the Scimitar, presumably with the Scimitar's shields down (since they didn't go smush against anything, after all). Note the gray shimmer.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap085.jpg

    Next, the Scimitar just after a double impact from two of the Romulans' disruptors. Note the distinctive green glow, which was distinctly absent when Data and Picard broke through the big window thing.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap086.jpg

    Here's some residual afterglow from the cloak, which happens both when the Scimitar is hit, and when the Scimitar fires. Note the gray/green shimmer distinctive of the cloak.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap087.jpg

    And here's the Scimitar firing a torpedo, which causes the cloak to shimmer. Note that there is only the gray/green shimmer.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap088.jpg

    Here, we have a pair of phaser strikes from the Enterprise, note the distinct, bright white flash, that we don't get when just the cloak is disturbed.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap089.jpg

    And another phaser hit, again note the distinctive bright white flash that we get with the phaser impacts, and also note the gray/green shimmer of the disturbed cloak even further out.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap090.jpg

    And here we have a torpedo strike on the Scimitar, note the large gray/green halo of the disturbed cloak around the green glow in the center, where the torpedo hit.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap091.jpg

    Here's a series of screencaps, following the progress of one of the Romulan disruptors, just before the disruptor hits. It's hard to see, hence the series of pics (I should have cropped and highlighted it, but I'm feeling kinda lazy tonight). The pulse in question is the little dot just down and to the right of the photon torpedoes that are about to hit the Scimitar. It almost looks like a star, but it's too a little too bright. Note in the last one the distinctive white flash on impact. (the existing disturbance of the cloak and rapid close-proximity impacts make it difficult to see the shield flashes of the other pulses/torpedoes, but this one pulse is far enough away from most of the other impacts to see it clearly).
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap092.jpg
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap093.jpg
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap094.jpg
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap095.jpg

    Now, here we have the Scimitar's viewscreen showing the aft view, note the decloaked port nacelle.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap096.jpg

    And here we have the shield flare on that uncloaked nacelle.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap097.jpg

    Quantum torpedo impact, note the central white flare, with the gray/green disturbance halo some distance out around it.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap098.jpg

    Another Quantum impact, once again note the distinctive 'bulls-eye' effect of the white shield flash and the disturbance halo (heh, it's the port nacelle taking a hit again).
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap099.jpg

    Phaser impact on an exposed nacelle (man, nobody likes that port nacelle). Note the distinct shield glow.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap100.jpg

    Another phaser impact, the Scimitar's cloak has failed completely at this point. Once again, a shield glow!
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap101.jpg

    Residual shield glow from that last phaser strike.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap102.jpg

    A photon torpedo hit, with a shield glow (Heh, even when that darn starboard nacelle gets hit, something else takes most of it. Poor Port Nacelle...)
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap103.jpg

    And finally, the residual shield glow from that last torpedo.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap104.jpg


    So, as you can see, the Scimitar's shields definitely DO glow throughout the entire battle. The only times we do not see a shield glow are when the Enterprise rams the Scimitar and when Data and Picard break through the observation window. Since the Scimitar didn't have her shields up in the latter (as evidenced by the lack of the Scorpion going splat), the most logical conclusion is that, for whatever reason, the Scimitar did not have her shields up when the Enterprise rammed her. That conclusion is further evidenced by the fact that the Enterprise clearly only impacted the Scimitar's hull, and no other barrier (invisible or otherwise) prior to impact.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 1.) Using the Falcon as seen in the Death Star docking bay entry image, the cockpit to beam width ratio is about 7.426. Thus we have 22.279 meters as the Falcon width. Let's call it 22 meters even. Now the trick is that the height of the bay is dependent on the width of the Falcon. So give or take the bay is approximately 74% of the Falcon's beam in height, or about 16.28 meters tall. Multiply that by the 26 to 1 ratio from earlier and we get about 423 meters for the column's height. So that translates to a 1,184 meter tall large column and overall trench height. Which means the "waistband" feature is 16,173 meters tall. So this means "only" a 1.69 x greater width for the Death Star, or 185.9 km.

    Although we get a value a little bit bigger than the 160 km number, we get a number bit significantly smaller than 220 km.

    By the way, an 18 meter wide Falcon nets you a 969 meter tall trench and a 13.2 km tall waistband, or a difference of 1.38, or a 152 km Death Star.

    Of course, that all depends on how you want to fiddle with the Falcon's width, the size of the cockpit and everything else. But suffice to say, we don't wind up with a Death Star 1.85 times bigger than RSA's estimate.


    2.) Taking the 3rd screencap, it still doesn't change much. The Trekcore image is larger in size (about 20% bigger). The difference changes at _worst_ to 15.6, or about 4.1 meters for the core glow. More than twice still over your previous 2 meter diameter estimate (still haven't mentioned how exactly you got that, btw with regards to the Dominion Cruiser). However, the core glow is closer to around 4.6 meters diameter. As for the Galor torpedo, it's kind of hard to gauge the diameter of the torpedo core versus the raised retangular features you call windows on the Cardassian ship. But 3 meters is more about the right width for the core glow there given a comparison to the curved "bridge" superstructure feature (approx. 35/1 ratio), which is about 100 meters wide based on the overall 200-225 meter "wingspan" of the Galor. So at worst here we have what? A couple of torps with core glow of 3-5 meters. That's still substantially larger compared to your blanket statement 2 meter size.

    Of course it's an academic point since the torpedoes being compared with the asteroid in "Rise" are the ones that come from Voyager herself, they in turn are being scaled to that ship, and 10 meters as the final core growth is a reasonable scaling, as is the fact that the asteroid was stated to be made of two artifical _alloys_ in addition to the naturally occuring oviline, not the expected nickel-iron, which in turn substantially changed the outcome from one of the expected vaporization to one of signifcant fragmentation.

    3.)Is the Death Star really crossing the terminator so rapidly? Compare the "Good Morning" shot at RSA's page:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWendorday.html

    with the earlier one of the Death Star sitting at a nearly (but not quite the same) identical position during the middle of the Rebel attack. The pre-dawn view as seen from the Falcon cockpit just after the fleet drops from hyperspace is actually seems to be an oddity compared to those two; either the Death Star 2 likes to wobble about alot, or it is just plain inconsistant with the other two shots showiing the DS2 sitting right about on the terminator. Either way, there's nothing to indicate that the Death Star suddenly decided to do a super-maneuver to catch the Rebels.

    4.)When RSA updates his page, that's his responsibility and when he obviously has the time to do so (this is a hobby, you know), just as it would nice if Mike Wong would someday update his pages to eliminate or correct "mistakes" he has made concerning Star Trek technologies. So of which would result in a fairly big advantage for the Federation against the Empire, or at least a move to parity.

    5.)The only actual statements I can find concerning shields is that the hanger bay _forcefields_ are up. Why go through the unnecessary trouble of putting up full shields when forcefields should suffice? It's not like everyone expects prisoners to go flying through corridors in a fighter and crash out a window. Try to keep things within the bounds of realistic expectation here. At most they might have raised shields to block Picard and Data from beaming back to the Enterprise. But then again, why would they since they discovered that the pair was attempting escape in a fighter, and simply putting up forcefields would suffice?

    6.)Wrong. It shows that the Borg are capable of KE-blocking forcefields regardless of your own dishonest spin.

    7.)It was the math of the situation Jack and the other genetically enhanched people calculated out. Would the Federation really lose the war or not as Jack and the others predicted? Maybe. Maybe not. But that does not by default render the population casulty figures invalid either. No one disputed that such an thing was impossible. No one disputed that the Federation could ever have 900 billion people to be killed. That's an unalterable fact, and it effected Dr. Bashir profoundly enough that he sided with Jack for a short time, and tried to persude Sisko to have the Federation surrender.

    8.) Sorry, but the fanatical and foaming followers of Wong are not the end-all and be-all of debators. The fact that those people managed to trick a portion of the debators into giving up the Versus debate with a twisted understanding of the canon SW is why people are starting to slowly trickle in here at ST-V-SW.Net to see another, alternate viewpoint, flaws or no flaws.

    ReplyDelete
  29. So anon goes from vacuous pooh-poohing to flinging vacuous poo. How delightful . . .

    1. The DS1 potential size thing was noted on STrek way back when, so that's nothing new. If you peek at the section above the DS section, you'd note that the DS size is stated to be in a state of official review.

    I'm working on a massive SW re-scaling project, as repeatedly noted on the site, so if you missed it that's too bad. I'm not trashing the existing page till the project is complete, nor is there any point in amending the page until I have something worthwhile with which to amend it.

    Feel free to bemoan my delay in getting that mega-project done, and watch me not listen . . . it's my time, not yours. Hell, I haven't updated much based on the DVD editions yet, either. If you want me to update faster, find me a patron/sponsor so I can make this my full-time job. Till then, bite me.

    Besides, judging by my competition which you so adore, I don't ever have to correct my pages if I don't feel like it. :P

    2 & 3. Why do you guys go crazy over the torpedo thing and "Rise"? You guys are so excitable on that topic it's like you make water in your pantaloons any time it's mentioned. The resulting dehydration may explain the goofball arguments you try to use.

    A. The Rise asteroid was thought to be nickel-iron, and was to be vaporized, not pulverized. There were going to be escapees, yes, but none of any significant size. The asteroid was not vaporized, but that's because the projection was based on a falsified asteroid composition.

    Analogy: If we send our navy against Liberia for a massive bombardment, predicting we can flatten every single building in a few months, but the Liberians surprise us by destroying the fleet with a nuke, does that mean the initial estimate was invalid? No.

    B. Yes, torps are occasionally smaller . . . the one you're using is the rear-fire shot from Chakotay's Maquis raider in "Caretaker". Those may or may not be Starfleet-standard torpedoes, but whether they are or not is of no consequence. The overwhelming number of examples point to larger-than-2m glow.

    4. How the devil do you try to claim that a just-barely-predawn shot and a way-predawn shot that follows it must involve the same day? Did Coruscant turn around in its rotation?

    5. I give all the evidence needed. Look at the frickin' pictures. It's why they're there.

    6.

    A. Of course I don't mention the hyperspace exit. I don't mention hyperspace entrance either. Both cases could suggest zoom-zoom acceleration, but we do not know the forces involved.

    B. As established, I'm not interested in antigrav acceleration, so even if you were correct it wouldn't be of importance. Hence my discovery of the ISD slowdown example that someone else referred you to. There's a page in the pipe featuring it, though again it requires the scaling project as a prerequisite.

    7. There's an American small town and a SW town on the page. Both choices are well-explained.

    8. You claim I'm lying because I provide a complete survey of ramming incidents and proceed accordingly. How dare I make complete use of all available evidence!

    Your Other 8. I give nine numbered points of reference for my conjecture. Also, you claim I try to pass off something which I specifically identify ("may have been Borg ship-tech and not drone-tech") as not being passed off.

    9. I didn't put "by far" in quotes because that precise phrasing isn't in the novel. What is in the novel is this:

    "Even before an off-world traveler was close enough to understand why, he could tell that Coruscant was different from other planets. Seasoned veterans were always amazed at how strange the planet looked from space, casting not the softer blue and white shades of planets still verdant and unspoiled, but an odd silvery glow that suggested the reflection of sunlight off metal."

    That means no other planet looks at all like Coruscant, even to seasoned veterans. Ergo, it is the most developed world by far.

    10. You posted a link to MoO and Wong's crap? That was smashed years ago: http://www.st-v-sw.net/BB/BBindex.html

    Congrats, though . . . you've "proven" I'm an evil liar based solely on the astounding evidence of your say-so.

    That would almost work if only you weren't so full of crap.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I just measured the torpedo width myself, using the pic you posted, SW Anon, assuming a Dominion nacelle width of 64 meters. On my screen, the Dominion nacelle came to about 20 millimeters wide, or 3.2 meters per millimeter on my screen (15" LCD set to 1024 x 768), and the photon torpedo has a 4 millimeter diameter core glow. That comes out to a 12.8 meter wide torpedo core glow, which is about the same size as the smaller torpedo in ST Anon's TrekCore pic (I believe you were looking at the wrong torpedo).
    Why are you expressing the values in milimeters? Are you using a ruler or something? The basic element of a digital image is pixel so use that. The central torpedo glow is no more than 4px in that image while the nacelle is 80px wide. If we assume a 64m nacelle the torpedo is AT MOST 3.2 meters wide. You are saying that the central torpedo glow is only five times smaller than the width of the nacelle.

    For the Galor example, I'd eyeball the torpedo's core glow to be roughly two meters. But that doesn't prove that the torpedo core glows are all only about 2 meters across. G2K's own torpedo glow page shows a range of sizes for torpedoes, even for torps fired from the same ship in different episodes. G2K's page shows torp sizes ranging from a couple meters to almost 16 meters, with most figures hovering around the 5-10 meter mark. We've seen Mr. Wong, Mr. Poe, etc. choose higher-end figures from comparable ranges on other things, so I hardly think it's fair for you to criticize Mr. Anderson for taking an above-average figure in this case.
    As I said those sizes come from different torpedo types which have NOTHING TO DO with small yellow type from DS9 and Voyager.


    First, Picard and Data breaking out of the Scimitar, presumably with the Scimitar's shields down (since they didn't go smush against anything, after all). Note the gray shimmer.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap085.jpg

    Are you listening to yourself? You say that presumably the shields are not on and then point to the grey shimmer. So basically you are saying that gray shimmer is nothing but a cloaking device effect.

    So, as you can see, the Scimitar's shields definitely DO glow throughout the entire battle. The only times we do not see a shield glow are when the Enterprise rams the Scimitar and when Data and Picard break through the observation window. Since the Scimitar didn't have her shields up in the latter (as evidenced by the lack of the Scorpion going splat), the most logical conclusion is that, for whatever reason, the Scimitar did not have her shields up when the Enterprise rammed her. That conclusion is further evidenced by the fact that the Enterprise clearly only impacted the Scimitar's hull, and no other barrier (invisible or otherwise) prior to impact.
    None of your low resolution images prove that the glow was emanating from the shield as opposed to cloak being disrupted. They reported the shields at 70%, there is no conceivable reason why Shinzon would lower the shields or at least order them back up when Enterprise tried to ram them. And of course there is the appeal to ignorance when you claim that maybe all the Dominion War examples are invalid since the shields were already down. Of course examples such as battle of chin'toka disprove that since Jem'Hadar fighters immediately started ramming Klingon ships and there was no glow. Odyssey was attacking three Jem'Hadar fighters and there was no glow.

    2.) Taking the 3rd screencap, it still doesn't change much. The Trekcore image is larger in size (about 20% bigger). The difference changes at _worst_ to 15.6, or about 4.1 meters for the core glow. More than twice still over your previous 2 meter diameter estimate (still haven't mentioned how exactly you got that, btw with regards to the Dominion Cruiser). However, the core glow is closer to around 4.6 meters diameter. As for the Galor torpedo, it's kind of hard to gauge the diameter of the torpedo core versus the raised retangular features you call windows on the Cardassian ship. But 3 meters is more about the right width for the core glow there given a comparison to the curved "bridge" superstructure feature (approx. 35/1 ratio), which is about 100 meters wide based on the overall 200-225 meter "wingspan" of the Galor. So at worst here we have what? A couple of torps with core glow of 3-5 meters. That's still substantially larger compared to your blanket statement 2 meter size.
    Trekcore torpedo is bigger since it shows the torpedo closer to the camera. The core glow is NOT 4.6 meters in diameter since it is 4px wide and the nacelle is about 80px wide. If it is 64m wide that means the torpedo is no more than 3.2 meters wide. You do realize this is still an UPPER LIMIT since the torpedo is closer to the camera than the nacelle right?
    How did you measure the torpedo off the wingspan of the Galor class? It is not even visible. You could only measure it against it front bridge structure.
    If we look at this ex-astris image:
    http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/factfiles/galor-top.jpg
    we see that Galor is 4.1 times as long as the bridge structure. So that makes the bridge structure about 93 meters wide. In the image I provided the bridge structure is over 400px wide (we can't see the outer right side) while the torpedo is no more than 10px wide. With a 93m wide structure the torpedo comes out as 2.3 meters. Another UPPER LIMIT for the torpedo since it is closer to camera than the ship.

    3.)Is the Death Star really crossing the terminator so rapidly? Compare the "Good Morning" shot at RSA's page:
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWendorday.html
    with the earlier one of the Death Star sitting at a nearly (but not quite the same) identical position during the middle of the Rebel attack. The pre-dawn view as seen from the Falcon cockpit just after the fleet drops from hyperspace is actually seems to be an oddity compared to those two; either the Death Star 2 likes to wobble about alot, or it is just plain inconsistant with the other two shots showiing the DS2 sitting right about on the terminator. Either way, there's nothing to indicate that the Death Star suddenly decided to do a super-maneuver to catch the Rebels.

    I'm not going to quibble over this with you. Anyone who watches the film has clearly see it.

    5.)The only actual statements I can find concerning shields is that the hanger bay _forcefields_ are up. Why go through the unnecessary trouble of putting up full shields when forcefields should suffice? It's not like everyone expects prisoners to go flying through corridors in a fighter and crash out a window. Try to keep things within the bounds of realistic expectation here. At most they might have raised shields to block Picard and Data from beaming back to the Enterprise. But then again, why would they since they discovered that the pair was attempting escape in a fighter, and simply putting up forcefields would suffice?
    Wrong. When Scimitar cripples the Enterprise it's shields are reported to be at 70% strength. There is no reason or evidence that it dropped it's shields.

    6.)Wrong. It shows that the Borg are capable of KE-blocking forcefields regardless of your own dishonest spin.
    Yes ON THEIR SHIPS NOT ON THEIR DRONES. There is a difference. Federation also has internal forcefields. The only one lying here is you.

    7.)It was the math of the situation Jack and the other genetically enhanched people calculated out. Would the Federation really lose the war or not as Jack and the others predicted? Maybe. Maybe not. But that does not by default render the population casulty figures invalid either. No one disputed that such an thing was impossible. No one disputed that the Federation could ever have 900 billion people to be killed. That's an unalterable fact, and it effected Dr. Bashir profoundly enough that he sided with Jack for a short time, and tried to persude Sisko to have the Federation surrender.
    You are a funny guy.
    Claims of a person locked up in a mental institute are "unalterable fact"? Do you even know what fact means? No one questioned his 900 billion figure just as no one questioned his claims to know precisely that Federation will mount a rebellion in 150 years. Bashir was fearful of the war and wanted to convince Sisko and Sisko didn't even seriously consider the surrender.

    8.) Sorry, but the fanatical and foaming followers of Wong are not the end-all and be-all of debators. The fact that those people managed to trick a portion of the debators into giving up the Versus debate with a twisted understanding of the canon SW is why people are starting to slowly trickle in here at ST-V-SW.Net to see another, alternate viewpoint, flaws or no flaws.
    A portion? How many debaters on Sd.net and spacebattles.com and how many are here? Yep that denial must be going strong around here.


    Besides, judging by my competition which you so adore, I don't ever have to correct my pages if I don't feel like it. :P
    Well that's true. Since no one takes you seriously anyway I guess you can put up pretty much anything up there.

    A. The Rise asteroid was thought to be nickel-iron, and was to be vaporized, not pulverized. There were going to be escapees, yes, but none of any significant size. The asteroid was not vaporized, but that's because the projection was based on a falsified asteroid composition.
    According to Kim. We have no confirmation. And the fact that there were to be escapees means that no one expected to be completely vaporized doesn't it? And certainly there is no evidence for your arbitrary 60% figure.

    Analogy: If we send our navy against Liberia for a massive bombardment, predicting we can flatten every single building in a few months, but the Liberians surprise us by destroying the fleet with a nuke, does that mean the initial estimate was invalid? No.
    How do you know? The fleet never demonstrated so how do you know whether the assessment was invalid?


    B. Yes, torps are occasionally smaller . . . the one you're using is the rear-fire shot from Chakotay's Maquis raider in "Caretaker". Those may or may not be Starfleet-standard torpedoes, but whether they are or not is of no consequence. The overwhelming number of examples point to larger-than-2m glow.
    No the ones I'm using come from episode "Call to arms" and it is fired by DS9. The "overwhelming" number of examples involve other torpedo types from different eras.
    And while many are indeed larger than yellow Voyager/DS9 type NONE exhibit any "growth" and none have anything to do with issue at hand: the size of current torpedo type.

    4. How the devil do you try to claim that a just-barely-predawn shot and a way-predawn shot that follows it must involve the same day? Did Coruscant turn around in its rotation?
    More lies. You have no evidence that Senate establishing shot was earlier in the morning than Obi-Wan's report. You do realize that early in the morning east will look start to brighten and gain reddish color while the west will still look dark don't you?

    A. Of course I don't mention the hyperspace exit. I don't mention hyperspace entrance either. Both cases could suggest zoom-zoom acceleration, but we do not know the forces involved.
    Wrong. I'm not talking about the initial hyperspace exit scene. AFTER the fleet is shown exiting hyperspace there is another TWO scenes showing Endor from Home One's and Falcon's viewscreens. There is no "hyperspace effect" here.

    B. As established, I'm not interested in antigrav acceleration, so even if you were correct it wouldn't be of importance. Hence my discovery of the ISD slowdown example that someone else referred you to. There's a page in the pipe featuring it, though again it requires the scaling project as a prerequisite.
    I am right and eagerly expect evidence that such acceleration only works in planetary gravity well.

    7. There's an American small town and a SW town on the page. Both choices are well-explained.
    I already pointed out that your American town goes outside the scope of SOD and your SW town is not what Coruscant's population would have in mind.

    8. You claim I'm lying because I provide a complete survey of ramming incidents and proceed accordingly. How dare I make complete use of all available evidence!
    Liar. Explain the Bop And Vor'Cha rammings liar. Explain the lack of glow when Odyssey fired upon Jem'Hadar fighters liar. Explain the lack of glow on ANY SHIP in Battle of Chin'toka liar.

    Your Other 8. I give nine numbered points of reference for my conjecture. Also, you claim I try to pass off something which I specifically identify ("may have been Borg ship-tech and not drone-tech") as not being passed off.
    Explain what is the fundamental difference between knives, fists and bullets liar. How can the shields fail to stop a fist yet can stop a bullet? How does having forcefields on a ship translates into having forcefield on a Drone. Ships have photon torpedoes and warp cores. Maybe Drones have them too right?

    9. I didn't put "by far" in quotes because that precise phrasing isn't in the novel. What is in the novel is this:
    "Even before an off-world traveler was close enough to understand why, he could tell that Coruscant was different from other planets. Seasoned veterans were always amazed at how strange the planet looked from space, casting not the softer blue and white shades of planets still verdant and unspoiled, but an odd silvery glow that suggested the reflection of sunlight off metal."
    That means no other planet looks at all like Coruscant, even to seasoned veterans. Ergo, it is the most developed world by far.

    Again you claim "by far" liar. Where does it say by far? It doesn't say that there is no planet being 10 times or 50 times less developed by Coruscant does it? And yet you use 5 billion as benchmark.

    10. You posted a link to MoO and Wong's crap? That was smashed years ago: http://www.st-v-sw.net/BB/BBindex.html
    Congrats, though . . . you've "proven" I'm an evil liar based solely on the astounding evidence of your say-so.
    That would almost work if only you weren't so full of crap.

    Maybe in your mind.
    I see I won't be able to tear down the impenetrable wall of your self deception. Yes that's it Darkie you and your band of 10 fanatics are right and the rest of us are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Why are you expressing the values in milimeters? Are you using a ruler or something? The basic element of a digital image is pixel so use that. The central torpedo glow is no more than 4px in that image while the nacelle is 80px wide. If we assume a 64m nacelle the torpedo is AT MOST 3.2 meters wide. You are saying that the central torpedo glow is only five times smaller than the width of the nacelle.

    It was a quick-and-dirty measurement. I usually go into a much more in-depth process, but as I said in that post, I was feeling a bit lazy, and I was working on a couple other projects at the time. If you require a more in-depth study, though, I'll get you one sometime tomorrow (I'd do it today, but I'm going to be out of the house most of it).

    Are you listening to yourself? You say that presumably the shields are not on and then point to the grey shimmer. So basically you are saying that gray shimmer is nothing but a cloaking device effect.



    None of your low resolution images prove that the glow was emanating from the shield as opposed to cloak being disrupted. They reported the shields at 70%, there is no conceivable reason why Shinzon would lower the shields or at least order them back up when Enterprise tried to ram them. And of course there is the appeal to ignorance when you claim that maybe all the Dominion War examples are invalid since the shields were already down. Of course examples such as battle of chin'toka disprove that since Jem'Hadar fighters immediately started ramming Klingon ships and there was no glow. Odyssey was attacking three Jem'Hadar fighters and there was no glow.


    Yes, the gray shimmer is the disturbed cloak affect, since the Scimitar obviously didn't have her shields up at the time (otherwise Picard and Data would have smacked into it). But that is not the only affect that we see. Now, granted, several of those screens were made a little hard to see by photobucket's size restrictions, and I should have cropped and highlighted them, but there are a few that clearly display both a cloak disturbance shimmer and a shield glow, and the pics that show weapons impacts and shield glow when the cloak is down clearly demonstrate that the Scimitar's shields DO, in fact, glow.

    Quantum torpedo impact, clearly showing an inner blue-white shield flash with the grayish shimmer halo of the cloak disturbance. There is a clear gap between the inner flash and the outer halo, clearly visible even in that picture.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap098.jpg

    And again, another Quantum torpedo impact, clearly showing the inner blue-white shield flash with the outer grayish cloak disturbance halo, even with this 'low resolution image'.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap099.jpg

    And then how about these pics? The ones where there's a flash when the cloak is down.

    Scimitar's port nacelle, which is not cloaked. Oh look! It flashes!
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap097.jpg

    See this gold flashy thing around the phaser impact, where there is no cloak distortion? I can see it in the damned thumbnail, so you should be able to see it in the full-sized image.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap100.jpg

    And then there's this obvious flash/glow after the cloak is down. But, maybe it's just a grainy distortion, hmm?
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap100.jpg

    And then what about this flash, again after the cloak is down? Is that another grainy distortion, or am I just imagining this one?
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/cap103.jpg


    Deny those, Mr. Anon, show me how those don't clearly show that the Scimitar's shields do, in fact, glow.


    Also, with your Dominion War examples, I'm guessing that you're the same SW Anon who was just so recently arguing that the TNG "Cause and Effect" weapons ranges were invalid because we had no way of knowing if the Phoenix moved any great distance towards or away from the 2-dimensional plane of view on the viewscreen. That's amusing, because you seem to be insisting here that no weapons fire could have been exchanged without us seeing it, yet we have no way of knowing for sure that no weapons fire was exchanged before the ships closed to that range. For all we know, they had been exchanging fire well before they had closed to that range. In most cases from the Dominion War, you can't prove that they didn't. Since we know that Trek weapons ranges are greater than just a couple of kilometers (whether you agree to the hundreds of thousands of km or not), it is entirely possible that they had already been exchanging fire, and that some ships had lost shields.

    ReplyDelete
  32. So they glow green when hit by disruptors, sometimes red and white blue when hit by quantums. So what evidence do you have they will glow at all when being rammed.
    And you completely ignored that Jem'Hadar fighters haven't fired upon the Klingon ships before ramming them. Secondly why would Jem'Hadar fighters be ramming the ships which already lost shields? Why not dispatch them with weapons fire? Why didn't Jem'Hadar fighters display any shield glow when fired upon by Odyssey? Did they loose the shields as well? If so how come main phasers couldn't harm an unshielded vessel? What about battle for Chin'toka? We see the platforms activating and starting to fire and in the next scene we see ships getting hit and no shield glow is present. Did they all loose the shields already? Did every single ship we've seen hit lost the shields? What about Way of the Warrior or Call to arms. Did all of the dozens of ships we've seen hit lost their shields? What about Changing face of evil? We see the fleets closing and no shots are fired and then Sisko orders quantum torpedoes and in the next scene we see Defiant firing on a Breen vessel. No shield glow. No shield glow on any of the ships.
    Out of all those examples we just happened to see the ships which have lost the shields right?
    And you compare that to "Wounded" where we can't see the third dimension and which directly contradicts the observed examples.
    Whatever; believe what you will.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Or what about Centaur vs Jem'Hadar fighter. Did Centaur already lost it's shields by the time the scene cuts? If so how come polaron beams didn't cause any visible damage?
    I could go on forever.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I get distracted when my old EF clan comes back from the dead and look what happens.

    Aww well...

    At the end of my 45 year stay on that island, I guess a few shots were still fired pass the bunker though.

    Missed me I guess, must have been stormtroopers. ^____^

    Oh and Ilithi, thanks very much for linking to those pictures *copy/paste*

    ReplyDelete
  35. 1.) I didn't estimate the torpedo based on the main "wingspan" directly (you are correct that there is no way to do that in the image provided), I used the half-circular shaped bridge structure, which is nearly fully visible in the image. In the image here:

    http://www.startreksite.com/diagrams/cardassian_galor_top.jpg

    you can see the "bridge" superstructure section, which is nearly exactly half the main overall width of the ship. If you use David Stipe's 450 meter number for the ship, you wind up with a bridge superstructure 112 meters wide. Also, even if I were to except your dubious estimate of 2.3 meter as an "upper limit", which you claim is still somehow significantly close enough to the camera, it still shows a larger-than-2 meter wide torpedo glow. One which is still a statistical outliner compared to other examples, including the ones in "Rise" itself, which is what we are really concerned with here.

    3.) We are talking about the same escape scene in Nemesis, right? You point to the battle at the end, yet I am speaking of when Picard and Data are escaping in the Scorpion fighter. Where did anyone mention the ship's full shields being up? My point still stands. At that time, when the Scorpion fighter smashes out the window, the distortion we see is likely cloak only. Later, we see distortions that are likely cloak and shields, since as you point out, it is clearly stated the shields are up, even after a massive bombardment from three different ships.

    There's another thing here; the Nemesis example, even if we take it as you want us to, is simply another statistical outliner compared to what... two-dozen examples to the contrary?

    4.)You keep again trying to dance around that Jack and the other genetically enhanced people's estimates carried enough weight to have an effect on Dr. Bashir. On top of that, Jack and the others were correct in observations on other issues. If that is not enough, consider that their estimate and the events of "Statistical Probability" is well before "In the Pale Moonlight" and the Romulans joining in against the Dominion. Before that, the best the Federation-Klingon alliance was managing on it's own against the Dominion was a draw.

    But since you need a reminder...


    Jack emerges from his room to get a closer look, as if
    drawn by the sound of Damar's voice. Even Sarina is
    listening.

    LAUREN DAMAR
    Who's he? (in background)
    The war with the
    BASHIR Federation accomplished
    Damar -- the new head of our goals. Cardassia is
    the Cardassian government. strong again, an empire
    to be feared. We are
    JACK safe behind secure
    "Uneasy lies the head borders, and no one will
    that wears the crown." ever dare attack us again.

    Bashir has never seen the group focus on anything
    before, and it intrigues him.

    PATRICK DAMAR
    (with sympathy) From this position of
    He's sad. strength, we are poised
    to take another bold step
    LAUREN that will insure our
    Ashamed is more like it. future.
    (dramatic pause)

    While O'Brien listens to the speech, Bashir looks
    around at the group. He's not quite sure what to make
    of their comments.

    DAMAR
    Peace.
    BASHIR (a long beat)
    (to Lauren)
    Why do you say that?

    O'BRIEN DAMAR
    (to Bashir) It is time to bring an
    Shhh. end to this war with the
    Federation. It is time
    LAUREN for us to rebuild on the
    He looks like a man who foundation of strength
    doesn't sleep. we have laid.
    (beat)
    JACK The sons of Cardassia
    "Methought I heard a shed their blood to
    voice cry, 'Sleep no defend their home. Their
    more! Damar does murder sacrifice must not be in
    sleep!'" vain.

    DEEP SPACE NINE: "Statistical... " - REV. 10/1/97 - ACT TWO 23*.

    18 CONTINUED: (2)

    PATRICK DAMAR
    (realizing) The peace we seek will
    He killed someone. honor their memory, and
    preserve the gains for
    LAUREN which they gave their
    (agreeing) lives.
    Someone close to him. (beat)

    Bashir and O'Brien exchange a look. They can't
    understand how Jack and the others are seeing all these
    things.

    O'BRIEN DAMAR
    (to Bashir) Today I challenge the
    How could they know that? Federation to answer my
    call for peace. I'm
    JACK ready at any time to meet
    (pointing at Damar) with its representatives
    Pretender! You don't to discuss how we can
    belong on that throne and bring an end to
    you know it. hostilities. As your
    leader, I pledge that I
    PATRICK will do everything in my
    Someone's making him say power to protect
    all this. He doesn't Cardassia and allow us
    want to. to move forward into a
    new era.
    (beat)
    This I vow with my life's
    blood.

    And with that, the transmission ENDS and the screen
    returns to the Cardassian emblem. Bashir looks at the
    group trying to understand what's happened.

    BASHIR
    Did any of you know who Damar was
    before today?

    DEEP SPACE NINE: "Statistical... " - REV. 10/23/97 - ACT TWO 24.

    18 CONTINUED: (3)

    JACK
    No, but it's obvious who he is.
    The Pretender who killed the king
    and seized the throne.

    LAUREN
    Not the king, he's still alive.

    PATRICK
    The queen maybe?
    (even better)
    Or a princess.

    BASHIR
    Yes. Gul Dukat's daughter. Her
    name was Ziyal.

    JACK
    And now the Pretender finds
    himself in league with a... a Dark
    Knight he can't control.

    O'BRIEN
    (to Bashir)
    Weyoun?

    How can these people be so wrong about a 900 billion casulty figure, and yet be right about the above?

    Again the Jack Pack proven right a second time...

    SISKO
    What is it?

    BASHIR
    It shows how you can break down
    tri-nucleic fungus to make yridium
    bicantizine -- one of the active
    ingredients in Ketracel White.
    That's why the Dominion wants the
    Kabrel System -- so they can
    manufacture the drug here in the
    Alpha Quadrant.

    Sisko reacts -- it's clear he's impressed by this
    analysis.

    BASHIR
    According to our calculations,
    they'd be able to make enough
    White to supply the Jem'Hadar
    indefinitely.

    DEEP SPACE NINE: "Statistical... " - REV. 10/23/97 - ACT THREE 33.

    27 CONTINUED:

    SISKO
    (grim)
    I was going to recommend that the
    Federation accept the proposed
    border. It could've cost us the
    Alpha Quadrant.

    BASHIR
    Actually, sir -- we should let
    them have Kabrel.



    So again, "insane" or not, how come they are wrong with one, and not with the other two?


    5.) In denial over what? That slowly people are starting to find out there's something else out there other than Wong's bullshit? And Space Battles does have a few active pro-Wars mods who do not tolerate anyone actively denying the ICS' validity, so that's another poor example. Despite that there's been and are plenty of people who question ICS and Wars' supposed superiority over most over SF franchises.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 1.) I didn't estimate the torpedo based on the main "wingspan" directly (you are correct that there is no way to do that in the image provided), I used the half-circular shaped bridge structure, which is nearly fully visible in the image. In the image here:
    http://www.startreksite.com/diagrams/cardassian_galor_top.jpg
    you can see the "bridge" superstructure section, which is nearly exactly half the main overall width of the ship. If you use David Stipe's 450 meter number for the ship, you wind up with a bridge superstructure 112 meters wide. Also, even if I were to except your dubious estimate of 2.3 meter as an "upper limit", which you claim is still somehow significantly close enough to the camera, it still shows a larger-than-2 meter wide torpedo glow. One which is still a statistical outliner compared to other examples, including the ones in "Rise" itself, which is what we are really concerned with here.

    Dubious? Do you have a JPEG editor? Can you count? Please show me how the superstructure is less than 400px wide and photon torpedo more than 10px wide in the image I provided. Because that is the only way the torpedo can be more than 2 meters or so. Secondly Galor class is consistently shown to be 380 meters unless shown next to the Defiant which is known for it's size flexibility. So really give some evidence that it is larger. And finally you don't know whether it shows larger than 2 meters torpedo since this is an upper limit. You do realize why this is an upper limit.
    Finally what possible reason would I have to think that torpedo from Rise is bigger? Darkstar bullshit scaling where he scales the torpedo at the last possible moment just as it is about the left the camera view?
    Let's take a look at this image:
    http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/dauntless_torp.jpg
    A torpedo is about to strike the Dauntless which we know from a master systems display has 7 decks and is about 20-30 meters tall depending on the size of the decks.
    So how big is that torpedo? It is no more than 13px wide while the Dauntless is 217px in height where the torpedo is about to strike. That makes the torpedo no more than 2 meters wide.
    Even better look at the windows. What are the windows 10 meters tall? The ship was a trap but Arturis went out of his way to lay a very elaborate trap.
    Of course looking here:
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWtorpglow.html#Hope
    we see that Darkstar claims that torpedoes grow to 7-10 meters based once again on his bullshit assumption that torpedoes coming towards the camera makes no difference.
    Using his 7-10 meters numbers we would get over 800-1200 meters for the Dauntless.
    Good one Darkstar.


    4.)You keep again trying to dance around that Jack and the other genetically enhanced people's estimates carried enough weight to have an effect on Dr. Bashir. On top of that, Jack and the others were correct in observations on other issues. If that is not enough, consider that their estimate and the events of "Statistical Probability" is well before "In the Pale Moonlight" and the Romulans joining in against the Dominion. Before that, the best the Federation-Klingon alliance was managing on it's own against the Dominion was a draw.
    Bashir was a moron for letting himself be convinced. It' simple as that. Honestly what intelligent person would buy Jack's claims that in 150 years Federation will lead some kind of rebellion when no one can say for certain what policies and military strength Dominion will have positioned in Federation space in as little as 10 years.
    I reiterate: your insistence in using arguments from people LOCKED UP IN A MENTAL INSTITUTION shows quite nicely how fanatical you are.


    5.) In denial over what? That slowly people are starting to find out there's something else out there other than Wong's bullshit? And Space Battles does have a few active pro-Wars mods who do not tolerate anyone actively denying the ICS' validity, so that's another poor example. Despite that there's been and are plenty of people who question ICS and Wars' supposed superiority over most over SF franchises.
    Yeah sure. Where are all those people? All i see is the same old fanatics.

    ReplyDelete
  37. 1.)Er, please prove that the Galor (or Keldon varient class) is consistantly 380 meters long as shown next to everything else but the Defiant. That in and of itself would take quite a doing.

    We also have here in this image what appears to be a torp from "Emissary" of considerably larger size than the one you keep trying to shove on us from "A Call to Arms":

    http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=332

    Before you bitch about distance, note the glow on the Galor's hull here much as the glow on the Dauntless' hull.

    Speaking of glow reflection on the Dauntless' hull:

    http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=176&pos=590

    The torp appears larger here as it passes over the Dauntless' warp nacelle. The torp cannot be much closer to the camera, except for the fact that it's flying over a portion of the Dauntless that is also nearer to the camera. The difference between the height and the glow is about 8.58 to 1. The MSD I believe you refer here:

    http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=176&pos=139

    shows that area, including nacelles to be about 6 decks deep, or about 20 meters deep (that's making for an average deck height of 3.25 meters), or about 2.33 meters wide for the core glow. Another way to look at this is the warp nacelle itself, which is roughly two full decks deep according the MSD. Since the nacelle is closer to our camera than the main hull, it's actually a bit better to use. About 1.94 to 1 is a fair ratio given the nacelle side is 68 pixels tall and th torp is 35 pixels tall. in the height to torpedo, and this favors the nacelle height over the torp since the torp is actually slightly inboard as it travels along the top middle of the nacelle itself. This gives us actually a slightly larger torp at 3.35 meters wide. But remember that the torp is inboard of the nacelle's side, thus slightly reducing it's apparent height. So the torp width is inconsistant as it travels along the side of the ship!


    3.) The only fanatic here is you, as you cannot and have not provided any counter evidence to the Jack group's 900 billion casulty figure except to scream over and over "MENTAL INSTITUTION!" as if that's all that's needed. Come on, they proved they could be of significant use in identifying important strategic information. You keep wallowing in this self-denial. But I'll spell it out for you again:

    a.) The Jack Pack correctly figured out from Damar's speech how he rose to power (learning important details like Ziyal's death at Damar's hands)all without any prior knowledge.

    b.) They listened to the peace talks and determined that the Dominion was stalling for time, and that the Federation would be wise not to sign it.

    But keep whistling past the graveyard, fantatic...

    ReplyDelete
  38. I know! Let me list some times that other things were wrong... We'll know if jack is more reliable then them at least... or in this case, it.


    "I have you now!" Darth Vadar

    "This is the end for you, my master." Darth Vadar



    "If I don't get my new powers, you will die!" Anakin Skywalker

    "This will be a day long remembered. It has seen the end of Kenobi, and will soon see the end of the Rebellion." Darth Vadar

    "The oppression of the Sith will never return! You have lost!" Mace

    "You underestimate my power!" Darth Vadar

    "It is of no concern. Soon the Rebellion will be crushed and young Skywalker will be one of us." Palpatine

    "I'm looking forward to completing your training. In time, you will call me 'Master.'" Palpatine

    "From here you will witness the final destruction of the Alliance — and the end of your insignificant rebellion." Palpatine

    "And now, young Skywalker … you will die." Palpatine

    Just pointing out that not everything is right all the time...

    I especially like the first and last one...

    ReplyDelete
  39. 1.)Er, please prove that the Galor (or Keldon varient class) is consistantly 380 meters long as shown next to everything else but the Defiant. That in and of itself would take quite a doing.
    I'm not going to split hairs with you. Fine let's use 450 meters. That still gives us 2.73 meters as UPPER LIMIT for photon torpedo glow. 3.66 times less than Darkstars 10 meters "lower limit" which results in 49 times less massive asteroid or 49 times less than Darkstars "I-bent-over-backwards-lower-limit" yield figure.

    We also have here in this image what appears to be a torp from "Emissary" of considerably larger size than the one you keep trying to shove on us from "A Call to Arms":
    http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=332
    Before you bitch about distance, note the glow on the Galor's hull here much as the glow on the Dauntless' hull.
    Speaking of glow reflection on the Dauntless' hull:
    http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=176&pos=590
    The torp appears larger here as it passes over the Dauntless' warp nacelle. The torp cannot be much closer to the camera, except for the fact that it's flying over a portion of the Dauntless that is also nearer to the camera. The difference between the height and the glow is about 8.58 to 1. The MSD I believe you refer here:
    http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=176&pos=139
    shows that area, including nacelles to be about 6 decks deep, or about 20 meters deep (that's making for an average deck height of 3.25 meters), or about 2.33 meters wide for the core glow. Another way to look at this is the warp nacelle itself, which is roughly two full decks deep according the MSD. Since the nacelle is closer to our camera than the main hull, it's actually a bit better to use. About 1.94 to 1 is a fair ratio given the nacelle side is 68 pixels tall and th torp is 35 pixels tall. in the height to torpedo, and this favors the nacelle height over the torp since the torp is actually slightly inboard as it travels along the top middle of the nacelle itself. This gives us actually a slightly larger torp at 3.35 meters wide. But remember that the torp is inboard of the nacelle's side, thus slightly reducing it's apparent height. So the torp width is inconsistant as it travels along the side of the ship!

    Are you familiar with the concept of upper limit? If the object we are trying to measure is between the camera and the yardstick object then we are dealing with an upper limit. An upper limit is a number over which the value CANNOT GO HIGHER but IT CAN GO LOWER.
    Therefore all available upper limits merely serve to bracket the size and we obviously use the smallest upper limit as dictated by it's very definition.
    Your vague reference to the glow on the hull is meaningless since you produce no numbers and it is irrelevant since it doesn't change the fact that it is an upper limit.
    We have several scenes all pointing to 2-4 meters UPPER LIMIT and Darkstar picks 10 meters and calls that "I bent over backwards lover limit". What a lying shit.

    a.) The Jack Pack correctly figured out from Damar's speech how he rose to power (learning important details like Ziyal's death at Damar's hands)all without any prior knowledge.
    Don't make me laugh. Damar never showed any guilt about killing Zyal. The lunatics were just flinging shit against the wall and seeing what sticks. And they claim they didn't now who Damar is but how the hell can we know? They are mentally ill and we know they will lie like pretending they are starfleet officers.
    And about him not liking the "Dark Kinght" well no shit. It was an alliance out of Cardassian despair and any idiot could guess that Cardassian leadership won't personally like the Dominion.

    b.) They listened to the peace talks and determined that the Dominion was stalling for time, and that the Federation would be wise not to sign it.
    Holy shit really?? They invaded them and now all of a sudden they want peace? And they figured out the Dominion is stalling for time? And that Federation would be wise to press on while Dominion is weakened? What fucking geniuses these guys must be!!! I mean I would've never figured out without their divine intellect.

    He he and you call me a fanatic. A group of mentally unstable liars comes in and you buy everything they say and point out to their reasoning powers as if they are godlike when any moron could've find out by watching the news and then lying about not knowing.

    I know! Let me list some times that other things were wrong... We'll know if jack is more reliable then them at least... or in this case, it.
    snip
    Just pointing out that not everything is right all the time...
    I especially like the first and last one...

    Oh fuck you got me! SW characters make mistakes too! Whatever will I do now? Oh wait I never made any claims that hinge upon complete inerrance of SW characters did I?
    And don't think no one notices your idiotic notion that making mistakes is equal to being a certified lunatic and habitual liar. (dressing up as starfleet Admiral)

    ReplyDelete
  40. 1.) Again, the torp is larger than your two meter hand-waving size. Also I remind you it is again NOT THE TORPEDO THAT VOYAGER FIRED. It is simply yet again another statisical outliner from you, even accepting your numbers. You have trotted out at best a handful of 2-4 meter torp examples, yet ignored many more.




    2.) How can it be an "upper limit" when the nacelle's side is actually CLOSER TO THE CAMERA THAN THE TORPEDO ITSELF!? Can't go any larger? By adjusting for the distance from the nacelle sidewall to the torp, we can, indeed, if we go through the trigonometry bump it up in size a tad bit more.

    RSA isnt' lying either, you distortionist fucktard, he's shown his work, as well as others, like Kazite on the old Strek-v-SWars.Net forum did the photometrics to back it up, showing definite core glow growth of about 8 meters wide for that particular torpedo.
    As shown here:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWtorpglow.html

    RSA could have easily choosen a higher end torp number than the 8-10 meter "Rise" torpedo, if he had so desired, like the "In Theory" 15 meter torp, or the 12-15 meter Reliant ST2 example. Average all the examples out and you get what? 6-10 meters? What a suprise.


    3.) I love by the way you scream and snarl at the Jack references that you cannot really deal with the fact that in each of those cases the group was able to figure things out. They were clearly not "throwing shit out and seeing what sticks", or Bashir would have caught them at it. They were discussing and correlating the information among themselves what was going on for the most part with little or no imput from O'Brien or Bashir.

    The second issue is even more laughable seeing you howl and try to divert attention from the fact that the Jack and the others were able to correctly determine from the inflections in the speech patterns what it really was that the Dominion wanted. They also correctly ascertained the Dominion's need for the one planet that would give them an important resource for making more ketracel-white.

    Insane or not, they are brillant, and figured it nearly all of it without the need for anyone to lead them to the conclusion. Which gets us back to the 900 billion number. If they have accurate information on the Federation's population, then how can they be necessarily off on projecting a possible casulty figure based on that information, right or wrong on the final conclusion?

    What really throws the fly in the oinment for you here is that a stable and sane genetically enhanced person, Dr Bashir, was there going over the estimates. Not once did he dispute that the Federation did not have a population that could account for such a massive casulty figure.

    So again, keep whistling there, fanatic.


    4.)Oh yes, before I forget; examples of people questioning your holy and inviolable AoTC ICS:


    http://forums.spacebattles.com/archive/index.php/t-92826.html

    http://forums.spacebattles.com/archive/index.php/t-83645.html

    As I said, some people are starting to see through the bullshit, dispite the best efforts of the Rabid Warsie Patrol, such as His Divine Shadow's attempts to scream and shit their damage control spin efforts.

    ReplyDelete
  41. 1.) Again, the torp is larger than your two meter hand-waving size. Also I remind you it is again NOT THE TORPEDO THAT VOYAGER FIRED. It is simply yet again another statisical outliner from you, even accepting your numbers. You have trotted out at best a handful of 2-4 meter torp examples, yet ignored many more.
    How do you know it is larger you dishonest shit? If the torpedo is closer to the camera than the ship we are scaling it from all you can derive is MAXIMUM POSSIBLE SIZE.

    2.) How can it be an "upper limit" when the nacelle's side is actually CLOSER TO THE CAMERA THAN THE TORPEDO ITSELF!? Can't go any larger? By adjusting for the distance from the nacelle sidewall to the torp, we can, indeed, if we go through the trigonometry bump it up in size a tad bit more.
    Are you blind or just pathologically dishonest? The torpedo is clearly closer to the camera then the ship. And we are scaling the torpedo off the height of the ship at that point. If you wish to claim that nacelle is closer to the camera then PROVE IT.

    RSA isnt' lying either, you distortionist fucktard, he's shown his work, as well as others, like Kazite on the old Strek-v-SWars.Net forum did the photometrics to back it up, showing definite core glow growth of about 8 meters wide for that particular torpedo.
    As shown here:
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWtorpglow.html
    RSA could have easily choosen a higher end torp number than the 8-10 meter "Rise" torpedo, if he had so desired, like the "In Theory" 15 meter torp, or the 12-15 meter Reliant ST2 example. Average all the examples out and you get what? 6-10 meters? What a suprise.

    You truly are a dishonest piece of shit aren't you? The torpedo in "Rise" clearly flies towards the camera and you pretend that means it grows?
    And torpedoes from "In theory" and "Star Trek 2" are not of the same type are they you lying cunt.
    Not to mention that even IF there were 10 meter examples it would still be supremely dishonest to disregard 2-3 meter examples in favor of the former and call that "I bent over backward lower limit". Not that dishonest fuck like you cares much about that.

    3.) I love by the way you scream and snarl at the Jack references that you cannot really deal with the fact that in each of those cases the group was able to figure things out. They were clearly not "throwing shit out and seeing what sticks", or Bashir would have caught them at it. They were discussing and correlating the information among themselves what was going on for the most part with little or no imput from O'Brien or Bashir.
    SO THEY SAY you idiot. How the fuck do you know they didn't already know about Damar and only playing smart? They did show that they are willing to lie didn't they?

    The second issue is even more laughable seeing you howl and try to divert attention from the fact that the Jack and the others were able to correctly determine from the inflections in the speech patterns what it really was that the Dominion wanted. They also correctly ascertained the Dominion's need for the one planet that would give them an important resource for making more ketracel-white.
    Hahahahahaha!
    Listen to yourself you stupid moron. There was nothing to figure out dipshit. It was readily obvious to anyone that Dominion is buying time and then a bunch of lunatic liars come along and say they figured it out from "inflection". How the fuck do you figure out that there is no ketracel-white from "inflection" imbecile?

    Insane or not, they are brillant, and figured it nearly all of it without the need for anyone to lead them to the conclusion. Which gets us back to the 900 billion number. If they have accurate information on the Federation's population, then how can they be necessarily off on projecting a possible casulty figure based on that information, right or wrong on the final conclusion?
    No they are not brilliant and have said nothing any reasonable person with information available to DS9 wouldn't know.

    What really throws the fly in the oinment for you here is that a stable and sane genetically enhanced person, Dr Bashir, was there going over the estimates. Not once did he dispute that the Federation did not have a population that could account for such a massive casulty figure.
    He didn't dispute their idiotic prediction that in 150 years Federation will lead some kind of rebellion did he? In fact Bashir was arguing for surrender because he believed completely that Jack can accurately predict what will happen in 150 years. Too bad none of them knew that Weyoun intended to wipe out the population of Earth once Federation is conquered. Fucking idiots.

    So again, keep whistling there, fanatic.
    That's rich coming from someone who insists on using lunatics as reliable source of information.
    "Yes they are brilliant!!! They can predict what can happen in 150 years!!!! Never mind that they are certified lunatics!!!"
    If only you could see how idiotic you sound.

    4.)Oh yes, before I forget; examples of people questioning your holy and inviolable AoTC ICS:
    http://forums.spacebattles.com/archive/index.php/t-92826.html
    http://forums.spacebattles.com/archive/index.php/t-83645.html
    As I said, some people are starting to see through the bullshit, dispite the best efforts of the Rabid Warsie Patrol, such as His Divine Shadow's attempts to scream and shit their damage control spin efforts.

    A couple of 2 year old threads? Is that the best you can do? How utterly pathetic. Not to mention that even the people questioning the ICS still accept the EU as a viable source of information and would never accept the dishonest 10 meter "lower limit" for photon torpedoes and other bullshit from Darkstar.

    ReplyDelete
  42. 1.) The "Rise" torpedo is still under the damn ship's saucer section you fucking liar, and can be easily scaled to it at any point while it still is there.


    2.) Speaking of pathological lying... the freaking torpedo is right over the nacelle. Are you also so fucking stupid that you can't see the glow OVER THE TOP OF THE NACELLE as it travels along the side of the ship!? Are you blind as well as delusional?


    3.) I knew that instead of actually dealing with the dialog of the episode, or the fact that in the first two cases Jack and the others were correct, you try and red-herring everything away with your pathetic bullshitting. It's not going to work. Deal with the fact that in those two instances they were right about the situations, you fucking piece of dishonest shit.

    Bashir went over the 900 billion calculations. Whatever the true outcome was or wasn't going to be, he knows that the possibility of that was possible. No amount of dishonest hand-waving and distortions will change that. That the Federation would rise again is still possible, even if the Earth's population was wiped out. Will Weyoun be able to hunt down and kill all humans everywhere in the galaxy to ensure this from happening? How can YOU be so certain? But that is yet another red-herring on your part to distract from the fact that the Federation has a population large enough to where 900 billion dead in a protracted war was possible. You can't deal with that fact, can you miserable little shit, so stop with the distortionist crap already.

    But I guess getting Rabid Warsie fanatic nut jobs like yourself to deal head-on with facts is like getting a creationist to acknowledge fossil evidence of evolution....

    4.) Yeah, those threads might be two years old, but they're still relevant enough to show that people started to question your holy book.... Why? BECAUSE THE MOVIE SHOWED FIREPOWER AND SHIP TOUGHNESS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE WANKED OUT WARSIE AOTC ICS BULLSHIT!

    More recently?

    Last year:

    http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=80472&page=1

    Ralson's comments on ICS as well as Alyeska's behavior as a mod is quite telling...

    ReplyDelete
  43. Can't ya just feel the love? (I'm selling flak jackets and combat helmets if anyone's interested, btw).

    Seriously, though, can you guys actually try and carry on a debate without flaming and insulting each other? An actual, civilized debate, where you focus on the topic of the debate, and the evidence presented, not on who can throw out the best flames and/or slander, etc. You're not going to prove anything by calling someone a lying piece of slimy shit, but if you demonstrate clearly and unquestionably how, exactly, they are lying (or at least incorrect, since people do make mistakes, after all), you'll have a much more solid foundation.

    ReplyDelete
  44. AnonguyForce failuresFri May 11, 12:46:00 AM 2007

    Ouch, hiss... my entire point of my 'other times people were wrong' post was missed! :(

    Sadly, it wasn't making them out to be crazy.

    The point that was being made is that Jack is shown to be no less reliable than the force users seen in starwars with his predictions.

    So at the end of the day, since no one contested his 900 billion figure, and some people supported it, I think it is safe to say since he had all possible data on the war accessible to him, that he knew at least that much of what he was talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Besides, judging by my competition which you so adore, I don't ever have to correct my pages if I don't feel like it. :P
    Well that's true. Since no one takes you seriously anyway I guess you can put up pretty much anything up there.


    I'll have to remember your complete lack of a sense of humor.

    A. The Rise asteroid was thought to be nickel-iron, and was to be vaporized, not pulverized. There were going to be escapees, yes, but none of any significant size. The asteroid was not vaporized, but that's because the projection was based on a falsified asteroid composition.
    According to Kim. We have no confirmation.


    We don't require confirmation. The statement was made, you have no counterevidence, and therefore the statement stands.

    And the fact that there were to be escapees means that no one expected to be completely vaporized doesn't it? And certainly there is no evidence for your arbitrary 60% figure.

    Once again your side assumes that a photon torpedo is a space Cuisinart. No fragments were to be more than a centimeter in size.

    I quote myself from 2003 . . . 2003! . . . debunking the silly notion you still claim:

    "Chakotay: "That asteroid should have been vaporized. What happened?"
    Kim: "I'm not sure. Sensors showed a simple nickel-iron composition. We shouldn't be seeing fragments more than a centimeter in diameter."

    Harry could not possibly have expected the asteroid "to fracture and break apart". Just how in the hell do you get a 390 meter long asteroid to evenly break into tiny little one-centimeter-or-less bits by way of an explosion? The answer is, you don't. Remember, it was a photon torpedo they were using, not a giant Space Blender 4000.

    The reality is that they expected almost total vaporization, though there would be some tiny escapees.
    "

    Analogy: If we send our navy against Liberia for a massive bombardment, predicting we can flatten every single building in a few months, but the Liberians surprise us by destroying the fleet with a nuke, does that mean the initial estimate was invalid? No.
    How do you know? The fleet never demonstrated so how do you know whether the assessment was invalid?


    Your fallacy is argumentum ad ignorantium, once again. Logically, the assessment could still be invalid for a myriad of reasons, but you cannot claim it is invalid merely because we did not see the predicted event occur.

    B. Yes, torps are occasionally smaller . . . the one you're using is the rear-fire shot from Chakotay's Maquis raider in "Caretaker". Those may or may not be Starfleet-standard torpedoes, but whether they are or not is of no consequence. The overwhelming number of examples point to larger-than-2m glow.
    No the ones I'm using come from episode "Call to arms" and it is fired by DS9.


    If so, then it must be reused stock footage. But it remains of no consequence for two reasons:

    1. Still there are an overwhelming number of other examples.
    2. I have an image of DS9 firing a torp from that episode, and it is much larger. http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWtorpglow.html#Arms

    Thus you could presume that they fired a tightly-shielded torp for some particular reason, but you cannot logically claim that the scene disproves that the overwhelming examples for larger torps exist, and furthermore you cannot use that to disprove "Rise". After all, I got the torp size for "Rise" from comparison with the ship, whereas the smaller torp that went at the Cardies per your statement is not observed against the station.

    The "overwhelming" number of examples involve other torpedo types from different eras.

    Dead wrong. Did you even read my page?

    And while many are indeed larger than yellow Voyager/DS9 type NONE exhibit any "growth" and none have anything to do with issue at hand: the size of current torpedo type.

    Growth of the glow is exhibited quite well, your blindness notwithstanding, and to suggest otherwise is a lie.

    Again, I refer you to http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWtorpglow.html

    4. How the devil do you try to claim that a just-barely-predawn shot and a way-predawn shot that follows it must involve the same day? Did Coruscant turn around in its rotation?
    More lies.


    Why is it that whenever I say something that the other side doesn't like because it pisses in their Cheerios, whatever I said automatically becomes a lie on that basis?

    You have no evidence that Senate establishing shot was earlier in the morning than Obi-Wan's report.

    Sun's rising/just risen in the latter, but there's not one in the former. Do the math.

    A. Of course I don't mention the hyperspace exit. I don't mention hyperspace entrance either. Both cases could suggest zoom-zoom acceleration, but we do not know the forces involved.
    Wrong. I'm not talking about the initial hyperspace exit scene. AFTER the fleet is shown exiting hyperspace there is another TWO scenes showing Endor from Home One's and Falcon's viewscreens.


    Yeah, and the same thing occurs in hyperspace entries . . . the stars stretch out and *then* the ship is seen to zoom away.

    This is also why I don't use warp zoom-aways and outwarping slowdowns for Trek.

    I'm sorry if my consistency with evidence unnerves you, but I'm not going to end it for the likes of you.

    Re: Geonosis claim:

    I am right and eagerly expect evidence that such acceleration only works in planetary gravity well.

    We know it would be antigrav-based because the ANH novelization clearly states that repulsorlifts are the primary drive used within six planetary diameters.

    7. There's an American small town and a SW town on the page. Both choices are well-explained.
    I already pointed out that your American town goes outside the scope of SOD


    . . . yet is larger than the SW town, for which I get no thanks from you, confirming the old "give an inch, they'll want a mile" thing . . .

    and your SW town is not what Coruscant's population would have in mind.

    How would you know? It's not like there's an actual unique town anywhere on Coruscant. What I've done is to make use of a canonically-identified town, one larger than other canonically-identified towns. If you want to bitch about that, complain to LFL, not me.

    8. You claim I'm lying because I provide a complete survey of ramming incidents and proceed accordingly. How dare I make complete use of all available evidence!
    Liar.


    There you go again.

    Explain the Bop And Vor'Cha rammings liar.

    Ooh, twice in as many sentences. You're really going ape, aren't ya?

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWstnemram.html

    Read it and weep.

    Explain the lack of glow when Odyssey fired upon Jem'Hadar fighters liar. Explain the lack of glow on ANY SHIP in Battle of Chin'toka liar.

    Wait, wait, I'm lying because I don't address phaser fire in an argument about ship ramming?

    LOL!

    Your Other 8. I give nine numbered points of reference for my conjecture. Also, you claim I try to pass off something which I specifically identify ("may have been Borg ship-tech and not drone-tech") as not being passed off.
    Explain what is the fundamental difference between knives, fists and bullets liar. How can the shields fail to stop a fist yet can stop a bullet?


    As I noted on the page . . . and why is that such a recurring theme with you? It's like you didn't read the site at all . . . my well-supported conjecture of selective KE shielding would involve the shielding being, well, selective. I know, it's a shock.

    If you don't understand why one would consider a small high-velocity projectile differently than one would consider a fist, then you have bigger problems than a lack of reading comprehension.

    How does having forcefields on a ship translates into having forcefield on a Drone.

    The Locutus field is seen on the Borg ship, but it is not known if it originated from there. Hence my use of it along with known drone examples, with the attached disclaimer.

    9. I didn't put "by far" in quotes because that precise phrasing isn't in the novel. What is in the novel is this:
    "Even before an off-world traveler was close enough to understand why, he could tell that Coruscant was different from other planets. Seasoned veterans were always amazed at how strange the planet looked from space, casting not the softer blue and white shades of planets still verdant and unspoiled, but an odd silvery glow that suggested the reflection of sunlight off metal."
    That means no other planet looks at all like Coruscant, even to seasoned veterans. Ergo, it is the most developed world by far.

    Again you claim "by far" liar.


    Yeah, so? It's quite proper to do so.

    Where does it say by far? It doesn't say that there is no planet being 10 times or 50 times less developed by Coruscant does it?

    I wasn't aware that "by far" had a numerical reference, but in any case it's clear from the text that other SW worlds are natural and Earth-like in appearance. Ergo, they are not covered in cityscape, ergo they are "by far" not as built-up as Coruscant. This leaves potential room for mega-cities on these other worlds that would put our largest metropolitan areas to shame, but the text forces us to reject the notion that any other SW world significantly resembles Coruscant.

    And yet you use 5 billion as benchmark.

    Unlike you, I chose not to pick "facts" out of mid-air. Hence I used Earth's current population (at the time . . . now it's more like 6) for both the Federation and the Empire's planets. How is it unfair and wrong and evil to treat both similarly in the absence of more specific data?

    I see I won't be able to tear down the impenetrable wall of your self deception.

    If I have decieved myself, I have done so quite well. If you want to penetrate that wall, you'll have to do so with greater logic and treatment of the evidence than I have used. So far, you're using much less of both, "by far".

    Yes that's it Darkie you and your band of 10 fanatics are right and the rest of us are wrong.

    Argumentum ad populam . . . even if there were 100 of you, which there aren't, truth is not determined by the number of adherents.

    See, like I said, you're going to have to employ logic. That's one thing you seem to have great trouble with, which is why I have little confidence in your success.

    Good day.

    ReplyDelete
  46. None of your low resolution images prove that the glow was emanating from the shield as opposed to cloak being disrupted.

    I saw the above as part of the anon vs. ilithi part of this comment-battle, and laughed.

    The screenshots used were 451 pixels tall, meaning they were within 30 pixels of full NTSC DVD resolution.

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWbasics-tv.html

    So your complaint was just a smokescreen, and while ilithi's apology was quite charitable, it was also quite unnecessary.

    Quit trying to run from the evidence, anon.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anon appears to be active member "Kane Starkiller" from SDN, by the way, meaning that his feigned ennui and pretense to not care about the debate . . . already known to be bogus by his behavior here . . . is now doubly confirmed to be bull.

    Let's take a look at this image:
    http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/dauntless_torp.jpg
    A torpedo is about to strike the Dauntless which we know from a master systems display has 7 decks and is about 20-30 meters tall depending on the size of the decks.


    Wrong. The MSD does show seven decks in the main section, but the bridge alone is almost four meters tall, suggesting a ship height (scaled via the MSD) of forty meters or so.

    http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=176&page=5

    Note Tuvok.

    So how big is that torpedo? It is no more than 13px wide while the Dauntless is 217px in height where the torpedo is about to strike.

    I hardly trust your scaling ability, given your whole inability to understand perspective.

    (Re-checks your work) . . . ah, yes, how right of me to not trust you. You scaled the torpedo core glow fairly well, but for the Dauntless height you simply measured from the uppermost visible part of the ship to the lowermost part of the nacelle in the 2-D image of a ship viewed at an angle.

    Again, you have no comprehension of perspective.

    This would be like taking a 3/4s view car picture . . .

    http://idiotsyncrasies.com/uploaded_images/GeneralLee-747259.jpg

    . . . that one, for instance, and measuring from the roof just in front of the sunroof down to the bottom of the front right tire, and calling that the car's height of 1.48 meters.

    It doesn't work that way . . . you're measuring a line at an angle, and that line will be longer than the 1.48m you give it. (You had similar problems back on the STrek-v-SWars board and were corrected there, but you still haven't changed your wrong-headed methods.)

    That makes the torpedo no more than 2 meters wide.

    It's actually around 2.5, but that's okay since the torp there isn't one of the ones I scaled, contrary to your falsehood below:

    Of course looking here:
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWtorpglow.html#Hope
    we see that Darkstar claims that torpedoes grow to 7-10 meters


    Four torpedoes are fired. I scaled the first two based on the notion that they fired dead ahead, which was fine. The next two we also see fired, but I didn't scale them because we didn't see them (especially the last one) as much.

    That last one is fired from the port tube but hits the Dauntless on the starboard, implying that given our starboard-side, just-underneath view of the torp firing, shown here . . .

    http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=176&pos=589

    . . . that torp is not going due forward as the others did (recall that the first port torp passed to the Dauntless portside).

    Another good reason not to use that one, though I didn't ponder that at the time.

    It's also worth noting that the torp you're complaining about doesn't even light up the forward hull like the first two did, which is what enabled me to scale them. More evidence of a divergent path and/or lesser glow growth.

    based once again on his bullshit assumption that torpedoes coming towards the camera makes no difference.

    Where you do you morons get that? Just because you don't understand perspective doesn't mean that everyone else understands it even less.

    ReplyDelete
  48. EDIT: "I scaled the first two based on the notion that they fired dead ahead, which was fine."

    Dead ahead in a port-starboard context, demonstrated by the hull glow locations. As I note in the pic with green and blue circles on the page below, the torps do appear to aim downward a bit.

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWtorpglow.html#Hope

    ReplyDelete
  49. you lying cunt

    Stow that, Kane-anonymous, or you'll find your messages missing. I don't much care what you think about anything at all, especially me, but you're not going to behave that way toward those I consider welcome guests on my blog.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Rabid Warsie fanatic nut jobs like yourself

    See, Kane-anon? This is precisely why I don't want you poisoning the well of discourse, since it comes right back at you, and with greater accuracy to boot.

    (I'm actually helping you here, though I'm sure you won't see that.)

    ReplyDelete
  51. 1.) The "Rise" torpedo is still under the damn ship's saucer section you fucking liar, and can be easily scaled to it at any point while it still is there.
    Are you retarded? The cameras viewpoint is also under the ship's saucer imbecile which means that torpedo will inevitably grow due to perspective.
    And the asteroid wasn't 390 meters in diameter.


    If so, then it must be reused stock footage. But it remains of no consequence for two reasons:
    1. Still there are an overwhelming number of other examples.

    None of which involves current torpedo type and in no way do they justify you taking a 10 meter diameter and claiming it is an absolute lower limit.

    2.) Speaking of pathological lying... the freaking torpedo is right over the nacelle. Are you also so fucking stupid that you can't see the glow OVER THE TOP OF THE NACELLE as it travels along the side of the ship!? Are you blind as well as delusional?
    You truly are a magnificently stupid little shit aren't you? I ask you to prove evidence that torpedo is CLOSER to the camera than the nacelle and your response is that it is above? So fucking what? Look at the position of the camera moron and try to think in three dimensions.


    3.) I knew that instead of actually dealing with the dialog of the episode, or the fact that in the first two cases Jack and the others were correct, you try and red-herring everything away with your pathetic bullshitting. It's not going to work. Deal with the fact that in those two instances they were right about the situations, you fucking piece of dishonest shit.
    Bashir went over the 900 billion calculations. Whatever the true outcome was or wasn't going to be, he knows that the possibility of that was possible. No amount of dishonest hand-waving and distortions will change that. That the Federation would rise again is still possible, even if the Earth's population was wiped out. Will Weyoun be able to hunt down and kill all humans everywhere in the galaxy to ensure this from happening? How can YOU be so certain? But that is yet another red-herring on your part to distract from the fact that the Federation has a population large enough to where 900 billion dead in a protracted war was possible. You can't deal with that fact, can you miserable little shit, so stop with the distortionist crap already.
    But I guess getting Rabid Warsie fanatic nut jobs like yourself to deal head-on with facts is like getting a creationist to acknowledge fossil evidence of evolution....

    So me refusing to accept the word of a fucking lunatic is the same as refusing to accept actual fossil evidence? What. An. Idiot.
    NONE of us can be certain what can happen that is the point. And yet you trust a mental patient does. And point out Bashir believed him as if that doesn't tell us more about Bashir's gullibility than Jak's genius.

    4.) Yeah, those threads might be two years old, but they're still relevant enough to show that people started to question your holy book.... Why? BECAUSE THE MOVIE SHOWED FIREPOWER AND SHIP TOUGHNESS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE WANKED OUT WARSIE AOTC ICS BULLSHIT!
    Death Star blast: 10^38J
    Alderaan debris kinetic energy hitting the Death Star at 77,000km: 10^31J, the Death Star survives
    You LOSE you ignorant dipshit.

    More recently?
    Last year:
    http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=80472&page=1
    Ralson's comments on ICS as well as Alyeska's behavior as a mod is quite telling...

    What the fuck? This thread is from "Stroy debates" two years ago and it's about "Diety Roleplay". No mention of ICS.

    We don't require confirmation. The statement was made, you have no counterevidence, and therefore the statement stands.
    Yes statement. You can't build "absolute i bent over backwards lower limit" on statements now can you? And Kim expected fragmentation, Chakotay which isn't a science officer made statement about vaporization.

    Once again your side assumes that a photon torpedo is a space Cuisinart. No fragments were to be more than a centimeter in size.
    I quote myself from 2003 . . . 2003! . . . debunking the silly notion you still claim:
    "Chakotay: "That asteroid should have been vaporized. What happened?"
    Kim: "I'm not sure. Sensors showed a simple nickel-iron composition. We shouldn't be seeing fragments more than a centimeter in diameter."
    Harry could not possibly have expected the asteroid "to fracture and break apart". Just how in the hell do you get a 390 meter long asteroid to evenly break into tiny little one-centimeter-or-less bits by way of an explosion? The answer is, you don't. Remember, it was a photon torpedo they were using, not a giant Space Blender 4000.
    The reality is that they expected almost total vaporization, though there would be some tiny escapees."

    You might be able to sway your ignorant buddies with that ignorant "Cuisinart" comment but anyone with any scientific knowledge knows that it indeed is possible to pulverize an asteroid to small pieces without vaporizing it. Hitting an asteroid with a photon torpedo and letting it punch through several meters before detonation will cause and area of superheated plasma which will expand rapidly in all directions thus shattering the asteroid.

    2. I have an image of DS9 firing a torp from that episode, and it is much larger. http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWtorpglow.html#Arms
    Nice try. The first image shows photorp just as it is being fired and we know that there is a large blur and in second one the torpedo is already much closer to the camera. Just who do you think you are fooling here?

    Thus you could presume that they fired a tightly-shielded torp for some particular reason,
    Like for example to punch deeper into the asteroid and maximize the damage.

    but you cannot logically claim that the scene disproves that the overwhelming examples for larger torps exist, and furthermore you cannot use that to disprove "Rise". After all, I got the torp size for "Rise" from comparison with the ship, whereas the smaller torp that went at the Cardies per your statement is not observed against the station.
    Yes I know all about your bullshit scaling. The torpedo is clearly much closer to the camera than the saucer but you figure that means that torpedo grows. Yeah sure. And what difference does it make where do I scale my examples from?

    Growth of the glow is exhibited quite well, your blindness notwithstanding, and to suggest otherwise is a lie.
    Again, I refer you to http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWtorpglow.html

    You are lying. Nowhere have you proven torpedo growth. Each and every one of your "growth" examples involves torpedoes coming towards the camera.

    Sun's rising/just risen in the latter, but there's not one in the former. Do the math.
    More lies. All we see is purple tinge behind Mace Windu and Palpatine. You have absolutely no evidence it is the next day and everything points to it in fact being the same day.

    Yeah, and the same thing occurs in hyperspace entries . . . the stars stretch out and *then* the ship is seen to zoom away.
    This is also why I don't use warp zoom-aways and outwarping slowdowns for Trek.
    I'm sorry if my consistency with evidence unnerves you, but I'm not going to end it for the likes of you.

    What a pathetic evasion. WE SEE THE STARS TURN FROM LINES INTO DOTS, THEN WE SEE AN OUTSIDE SHOT OF FLEET COMING OUT OF HYPERSPACE AND THEN WE CUT BACK INTO COCKPITS OF FALCON AND HOME ONE.
    These are the scenes I am referring to.

    We know it would be antigrav-based because the ANH novelization clearly states that repulsorlifts are the primary drive used within six planetary diameters.
    By all means post the quote where it states that ships use antigrav instead of thrusters for sublight acceleration when closer to 6 diameters from a planet and that antigrav is orders of magnitude faster than ion engines.

    How would you know? It's not like there's an actual unique town anywhere on Coruscant. What I've done is to make use of a canonically-identified town, one larger than other canonically-identified towns. If you want to bitch about that, complain to LFL, not me.
    How would I know what Corusant's population thinks of as a town? How the fuck do you know? You don't and you pretend you do and it's conveniently a shithole from Tatooine. Yeah that's the first thing anyone from Coruscant thinks of.

    Ooh, twice in as many sentences. You're really going ape, aren't ya?
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWstnemram.html
    Read it and weep.

    Ehehehehe. You are quite a weasel aren't you? I don't see and mention of Vor'cha here.
    There is certainly no shield glow on that BoP you have shown either. So what the fuck is your point?

    Wait, wait, I'm lying because I don't address phaser fire in an argument about ship ramming?
    LOL!

    GO WEASEL!!!!
    And yet in your Borg Drone KE shield you claim phasers are particle weapon. And now all of a sudden they don't count?
    Whatta guy! Whatta guy!

    If you don't understand why one would consider a small high-velocity projectile differently than one would consider a fist, then you have bigger problems than a lack of reading comprehension.
    Explain it to me then. Please. How is a faster impactor with less crossectional area easier to stop?

    I wasn't aware that "by far" had a numerical reference, but in any case it's clear from the text that other SW worlds are natural and Earth-like in appearance. Ergo, they are not covered in cityscape, ergo they are "by far" not as built-up as Coruscant. This leaves potential room for mega-cities on these other worlds that would put our largest metropolitan areas to shame, but the text forces us to reject the notion that any other SW world significantly resembles Coruscant.
    No it doesn't. It merely notes that Coruscan't gives off a different hue than OTHER WORLDS STILL UNDEVELOPED not ALL OTHER WORLDS. You are twisting quotes to serve your own purposes.
    By the way both Naboo and Tatooine showed greater urbanization than Vulcan so really what is your justification for using Earth as benchmark?

    Argumentum ad populam . . . even if there were 100 of you, which there aren't, truth is not determined by the number of adherents.
    It's called consensust Darkstar. Look it up.

    Wrong. The MSD does show seven decks in the main section, but the bridge alone is almost four meters tall, suggesting a ship height (scaled via the MSD) of forty meters or so.
    http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=176&page=5
    Note Tuvok.

    Seven times four is 28 Darkstar in case you didn't learn that at school. That yields a 1.8 meter glow. An UPPER LIMIT I might add.

    I hardly trust your scaling ability, given your whole inability to understand perspective.
    (Re-checks your work) . . . ah, yes, how right of me to not trust you. You scaled the torpedo core glow fairly well, but for the Dauntless height you simply measured from the uppermost visible part of the ship to the lowermost part of the nacelle in the 2-D image of a ship viewed at an angle.
    Again, you have no comprehension of perspective.
    This would be like taking a 3/4s view car picture . . .
    http://idiotsyncrasies.com/uploaded_images/GeneralLee-747259.jpg
    . . . that one, for instance, and measuring from the roof just in front of the sunroof down to the bottom of the front right tire, and calling that the car's height of 1.48 meters.
    It doesn't work that way . . . you're measuring a line at an angle, and that line will be longer than the 1.48m you give it. (You had similar problems back on the STrek-v-SWars board and were corrected there, but you still haven't changed your wrong-headed methods.)

    How will a line be longer if viewed from an angle? If you view it from an angle it will appear SHORTER. Look at the car you have shown, the ratio between his length and height is only 1.91. This is because its length is distorted by the angle much more severely than height. The same is with Dauntless. Spherical torpedo glow won't be distorted no matter which way it faces while Dauntless will and thus will appear shorter. This the ship height to torpedo diameter ratio will be smaller just like with the car. This means that torpedo will actually appear BIGGER than it really is.
    This only underscores the obtained number as being the UPPER LIMIT.

    It's actually around 2.5, but that's okay since the torp there isn't one of the ones I scaled, contrary to your falsehood below:
    Hmmm 30/16.5 is 2.5? I don't think so.

    Four torpedoes are fired. I scaled the first two based on the notion that they fired dead ahead, which was fine. The next two we also see fired, but I didn't scale them because we didn't see them (especially the last one) as much.
    That last one is fired from the port tube but hits the Dauntless on the starboard, implying that given our starboard-side, just-underneath view of the torp firing, shown here . . .
    http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=176&pos=589
    . . . that torp is not going due forward as the others did (recall that the first port torp passed to the Dauntless portside).
    Another good reason not to use that one, though I didn't ponder that at the time.
    It's also worth noting that the torp you're complaining about doesn't even light up the forward hull like the first two did, which is what enabled me to scale them. More evidence of a divergent path and/or lesser glow growth.

    It's very simple Darkstar. Torpedoes are closer to the camera than the saucer. Any measurement will therefore result in an upper limit. You remark something about the glow upon Voyager's hull as if you can derive some hard number from the fact the hull is lit.
    Furthermore the most important fact is the ratio between camera-to-torpedo and torpedo-to-hull distance. You can't possibly determine that and hence all you can tell that this apparent diameter represents some UPPER LIMIT. Upper limit which is overriden by other lower upper limits. But you don't. You go on to call that "absolute lower limit".

    Rabid Warsie fanatic nut jobs like yourself
    See, Kane-anon? This is precisely why I don't want you poisoning the well of discourse, since it comes right back at you, and with greater accuracy to boot.
    (I'm actually helping you here, though I'm sure you won't see that.)

    He he he. So you pretend you don't like insults and give this as an example but can't help but to state his insult is actually accurate thus basicaly throwing insult yourself. What a dishonest little weasel you are.
    And don't worry I made a backup of all the things posted here so you won't cover up your fuckups by deleting my comments that easily.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Oooh! "Rise" glow calculation again! :)

    Look, Kane, I'm sorry to say that, but the torpedo glow doesn't grow only because of the perspective.

    Actually, in earlier episode, "Alliances", Voyager fired torpedo which we know was 2 meters in diameter, because it impacted Kazon shuttle (if I remember correctly). This example is relevant because it used the same stock footage. And guess what? Torpedo glow from "Rise" is bigger than torpedo glow from "Alliances". Which means that torpedo from "Rise" has diameter bigger than 2 meters.

    So, as mentioned by Anon2, I've determined that torpedo glow, even taking perspective into consideration, is 8 meter wide. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  53. AnonKaneWarsie, look here:

    http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=176&pos=569

    This is a very similar angle, from the nearly the same camera "distance" before the Voyager torps are fired at the Dauntless. Note especially the complete darkness on the top of the nacelle due to the shadowing.

    Now compare again to that one image:

    http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=176&pos=590


    note the torp glow illuminating only the area of the nacelle's topside as well as the side of the main hull it's flying beside on the way to the target point further forward. The only likely way that kind of shadowing can occur is if the torp passing over the warp nacelle, not somewhere well to the side and above it. Again, another torp coming along just from off to the left of the field of view:

    http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=176&pos=591

    Note again the downward glow onto the Dauntless' nacelle, and comforming to the leaside superstructure. The torpedoes are not coming from the camera toward the ship so much as travelling nearly parallel to it.

    ReplyDelete
  54. So, as mentioned by Anon2, I've determined that torpedo glow, even taking perspective into consideration, is 8 meter wide. Sorry.
    Yes IIRC you made some scene in Lightwave using a sphere for torpedo and assuming that it is fired straight forward. Naturally your conclusion then was that it must've been growing. Of course if torpedo changed course down and to the port it would look completely the same for the camera. So this "growth" theory relies on torpedo not changing course, something for which you have no evidence.


    AnonKaneWarsie, look here:
    http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=176&pos=569
    This is a very similar angle, from the nearly the same camera "distance" before the Voyager torps are fired at the Dauntless. Note especially the complete darkness on the top of the nacelle due to the shadowing.
    Now compare again to that one image:
    http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=176&pos=590
    note the torp glow illuminating only the area of the nacelle's topside as well as the side of the main hull it's flying beside on the way to the target point further forward. The only likely way that kind of shadowing can occur is if the torp passing over the warp nacelle, not somewhere well to the side and above it. Again, another torp coming along just from off to the left of the field of view:
    http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=176&pos=591
    Note again the downward glow onto the Dauntless' nacelle, and comforming to the leaside superstructure. The torpedoes are not coming from the camera toward the ship so much as travelling nearly parallel to it.

    You still don't understand. Let me draw you a picture showing the scene in question from the rear of the ship:
    http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/perspective.jpg
    Pardon my lack of drawing skills but I think you can make out the ship (black) and it's rectangular nacelle and the red sphere that represents the torpedo. Camera is up and to the right (blue).
    Now as you can clearly see even though the torpedo is above the nacelle it it STILL closer to the camera.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Yes IIRC you made some scene in Lightwave using a sphere for torpedo and assuming that it is fired straight forward.
    Why would Voyager be pointed at an angle to the asteroid?

    It certainly looked to me that torpedo was fired straight forward - my sphere moved forward ended up exactly where bigger torpedo glow was. There's no indication whatsoever that it was fired exactly towards the camera in such way that it would occupy the same place on the screen as bigger torpedo fired straight forward.

    In other words, it is you, Kane, who has no evidence that torpedo changed course.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Why would Voyager be pointed at an angle to the asteroid?
    Well it's certainly easier to point Voyager in the general direction of the asteroid and then simply let photon torpedo's guidance systems do their job than to precisely point a 700,000 ton starship towards it.

    It certainly looked to me that torpedo was fired straight forward - my sphere moved forward ended up exactly where bigger torpedo glow was. There's no indication whatsoever that it was fired exactly towards the camera in such way that it would occupy the same place on the screen as bigger torpedo fired straight forward.
    In other words, it is you, Kane, who has no evidence that torpedo changed course.

    First of all I never claimed that it was fired DIRECTLY towards the camera merely that it might've veered towards it thus making it seem that it is growing larger.
    I have no evidence that it wasn't fired forward but then again you have no evidence that it was. And since you claim that the scene DEFINITELY points to some strange "growth" of the torpedo the burden of proof is on you.
    My explanation uses the homing capability of the torpedo, a known technology for the Federation and objects seemingly growing larger as they move towards the camera also a known effect within Star Trek (and any other logical) universe.
    Yet you insist on the introduction of a completely new mechanism, photon torpedo growth, when other more simple solution is readily available and doesn't contradict other examples I have provided.
    What would be the point of Voyager enlarging the shields of it's torpedoes anyway? It would be much more effective if the shields are tightly wrapped around the torpedo to better punch into the asteroid wouldn't it?
    Honestly I see no reason why anyone would insist on "torpedo growth" explanation other than to exaggerate the size of the asteroid and the yield of the torpedo.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Well it's certainly easier to point Voyager in the general direction of the asteroid and then simply let photon torpedo's guidance systems do their job than to precisely point a 700,000 ton starship towards it.
    You make it sound like Voyager is sail-powered :D There's no indication that pointing Voyager in the general direction of the asteroid, minimizing any torpedo maneuvers, is a hard task.

    I have no evidence that it wasn't fired forward
    Why, thank you for conceding the point. Yes, that is a concession, because I've already outlined reasons why I believe it was fired straight forward, without any turns, didn't I? :)

    Yet you insist on the introduction of a completely new mechanism,
    "Completely new mechanism"? Photon torpedo glow growth is a well known and estabilished phenomena.

    when other more simple solution is readily available
    "We always fire torpedoes towards the camera"? :D

    What would be the point of Voyager enlarging the shields of it's torpedoes anyway?
    My guess would be that torpedoes with bigger glow have been set to have bigger yeld.

    ReplyDelete
  58. You make it sound like Voyager is sail-powered :D There's no indication that pointing Voyager in the general direction of the asteroid, minimizing any torpedo maneuvers, is a hard task.
    This is not just about power but precision. Using a 700,000 ton starship as a sniper against a moving target is certainly more difficult than letting guidance systems of a torpedo do their job.

    Why, thank you for conceding the point. Yes, that is a concession, because I've already outlined reasons why I believe it was fired straight forward, without any turns, didn't I? :)
    "Belief" is not evidence. Provide evidence that torpedo was moving directly forward or you have no basis in claiming it grows.

    "Completely new mechanism"? Photon torpedo glow growth is a well known and estabilished phenomena.
    No it isn't. You are using this example as evidence aren't you? You can't say this example proves the torpedo grows because we know torpedo grows. That is nothing more than circular reasoning.

    "We always fire torpedoes towards the camera"? :D
    Why are you twisting my words? I said the torpedo could've veered towards the camera on its way to the torpedo thus creating the illusion of growth. I never claimed it was heading directly towards the camera.

    My guess would be that torpedoes with bigger glow have been set to have bigger yeld.
    Well that doesn't make any sense. The warhead is placed inside the casing. What does that have to do with torpedo glow?

    ReplyDelete
  59. That should be "I said the torpedo could've veered towards the camera on its way to the asteroid thus creating the illusion of growth."

    ReplyDelete
  60. Speaking of the "Rise" page, incidentally, it's been on my site largely unchanged (save for the objections section) since circa mid-2002. So you can add that to the list of pages I need to update. Which, of course, is like, well, all of 'em.


    1. Still there are an overwhelming number of other examples.

    None of which involves current torpedo type and in no way do they justify you taking a 10 meter diameter and claiming it is an absolute lower limit.


    Y'know, I just caught on to your argument form . . . and it is very generous of me to call it that.

    1. You take the lower-limit calc for vaporizing an asteroid of a certain size, and apply the lower-limit term I used to my scaling of the torp. I'm not saying I disagree, per se, but I never called it a lower limit. The only real lower limit for scaling, I suppose, would be to scale off of a torpedo casing. However, that wouldn't be valid, which is why I did call it conservative.

    Given your bitching over my use of the phrase "by far", I consider your fast and loose treatment of my words to be entirely hypocritical on your part.

    2. You invent the concept of a "current torpedo type", as if this unknown torp variety apparently carried by Voyager alone would somehow be different from other contemporary torpedoes before and after the "Rise" torp.

    For this you offer no evidence, of course, since you're simply trying to inject false information that would invalidate the use of other torpedoes as an example.

    3. You also bite off more than you can chew by trying to go up against the concept of torpedo glow growth altogether, apparently acknowledging if even quietly the weakness of your "current type" thing, even to the point where you lie without shame when you claim that all my examples of torp glow growth are from scenes where the torp travels toward the camera (which to your mind magically makes them invalid, since you don't understand perspective and wish to believe that others can't either).

    The funny part is that you claim the other examples don't justify the 10-meter "Rise" size, which of course they don't. Nor is that even relevant, since I got the size from "Rise" itself.

    But that's the part you're trying like hell to ignore with all the smokescreens you're throwing up.

    Death Star blast: 10^38J
    Alderaan debris kinetic energy hitting the Death Star at 77,000km: 10^31J, the Death Star survives


    I've always found that calculation amusing. It assumes by necessity that the 1E38J Alderaan explosion is to be treated like either simple radiant energy, or else that all of Alderaan's remnant bits were accelerated from the planet with perfect uniformity.

    Neither of those is true.

    We don't require confirmation. The statement was made, you have no counterevidence, and therefore the statement stands.
    Yes statement. You can't build "absolute i bent over backwards lower limit" on statements now can you?


    Er, yeah I can.

    And Kim expected fragmentation

    Ooh, there was potential for fragments approaching a full centimeter in size! Oh for shame!

    You might be able to sway your ignorant buddies with that ignorant "Cuisinart" comment but anyone with any scientific knowledge knows that it indeed is possible to pulverize an asteroid to small pieces without vaporizing it. Hitting an asteroid with a photon torpedo and letting it punch through several meters before detonation will cause and area of superheated plasma which will expand rapidly in all directions thus shattering the asteroid.

    Wow. And you really think that, don't you? You don't even realize that even a centrally-buried device would have to have enough energy to largely vaporize the asteroid in order to shatter it to a degree where there would only be smaller-than-1cm fragments.

    In short, you pooh-pooh the Space Blender yet believe in it whole-heartedly.

    Of course, the torpedo was not centrally buried, and furthermore asteroid destruction simply doesn't work like a space blender. Even a centrally-buried ten-megaton device on a real asteroid doesn't chop it up into neat little bits:

    http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=334

    Even a stony-iron asteroid, which would have around twice the density of Golevka, isn't going to be Cuisinarted like you need. Further, even if you aim for a solid metal asteroid of the Wongian variety, you're not going to get the kind of perfect, less-than-1cm fragmentation you need without having vaporized the vast majority of the thing to start with.

    "Ignorant" Space Blender 4000, indeed.

    2. I have an image of DS9 firing a torp from that episode, and it is much larger. http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWtorpglow.html#Arms
    Nice try. The first image shows photorp just as it is being fired and we know that there is a large blur


    What blur? The firing flash? That's already over.

    and in second one the torpedo is already much closer to the camera. Just who do you think you are fooling here?

    Unlike some people, I'm not trying to fool anybody. Nor am I attempting to make up torpedo directions or attempting to falsify perspective issues, like you do above.

    Just comparing by eyeball to the round thingy on the side of the weapons sails makes it clear that the torp's gotten a helluva lot bigger.

    Speaking of which, when I popped in the video I noticed two other excellent examples from the same episode. So, go visit the "Call to Arms" link again.

    but you cannot logically claim that the scene disproves that the overwhelming examples for larger torps exist, and furthermore you cannot use that to disprove "Rise". After all, I got the torp size for "Rise" from comparison with the ship, whereas the smaller torp that went at the Cardies per your statement is not observed against the station.
    Yes I know all about your bullshit scaling. The torpedo is clearly much closer to the camera than the saucer but you figure that means that torpedo grows.


    Dude, it's 7-8 meters wide by the second frame.

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWtorpglow.html#Rise

    I realize you really want Trek weapons to be weak, and I applaud your veracity. However, your veracity is causing you to lie to try to bolster your weak case.

    Even if you don't want to change your mind, which of course you don't, the most prudent thing for you to do to save face at this point would be to withdraw. Your lies are becoming too transparent.

    And what difference does it make where do I scale my examples from?

    One is the "Rise" torp. The others are not.

    Sun's rising/just risen in the latter, but there's not one in the former. Do the math.
    More lies. All we see is purple tinge behind Mace Windu and Palpatine.


    No, you are blind.

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWaotcparsec.html

    The sky is fairly bright behind Mace and Palp, and the buildings have hard light against them on the left with a color indicative of a barely-risen or near-risen sun, though if it's risen it's *very* low in the sky (hence "barely").

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWaotcparsec.html#update

    There is no such light on the Senate building or any other visible buildings, and the sky beyond Mace is much darker.

    I trust you will now retract your claim that I am lying about it being the next day. To do otherwise is to continue to lie yourself.

    Yeah, and the same thing occurs in hyperspace entries . . . the stars stretch out and *then* the ship is seen to zoom away.
    This is also why I don't use warp zoom-aways and outwarping slowdowns for Trek.
    I'm sorry if my consistency with evidence unnerves you, but I'm not going to end it for the likes of you.

    What a pathetic evasion. WE SEE THE STARS TURN FROM LINES INTO DOTS, THEN WE SEE AN OUTSIDE SHOT OF FLEET COMING OUT OF HYPERSPACE AND THEN WE CUT BACK INTO COCKPITS OF FALCON AND HOME ONE.
    These are the scenes I am referring to.


    Yes, I know. Similarly, when folks go into hyperspace, the stars turn to lines and then we see the ships zoom away.

    We know it would be antigrav-based because the ANH novelization clearly states that repulsorlifts are the primary drive used within six planetary diameters.
    By all means post the quote where it states that ships use antigrav instead of thrusters for sublight acceleration when closer to 6 diameters from a planet


    I realize you're ignorant of Trek canon, but you've gotta admit that it's pretty sad that you're ignorant of your own, too.

    "Docking bay ninety-four, Luke noted, was no different in appearance
    from a host of other grandiosely named docking bays scattered throughout Mos
    Eisley. It consisted mostly of an entrance rampway and an enormous pit
    gouged from the rocky soil. This served as clearance radii for the effects
    of the simple antigrav drive which boosted all spacecraft clear of the
    gravitational field of the planet.
    The mathematics of spacedrive were simple enough even to Luke. Antigrav
    could operate only when there was a sufficient gravity well to push
    against-like that of a planet-whereas supralight travel could only take
    place when a ship was clear of that same gravity."

    That's Chapter VII. The note about six planetary diameters being antigrav range appears as the Death Star approaches Alderaan.

    and that antigrav is orders of magnitude faster than ion engines.

    Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. You're the one making that claim.

    How would you know? It's not like there's an actual unique town anywhere on Coruscant. What I've done is to make use of a canonically-identified town, one larger than other canonically-identified towns. If you want to bitch about that, complain to LFL, not me.
    How would I know what Corusant's population thinks of as a town?


    Well if you don't know then let's use the one place canonically identified as such that we've actually seen, hmm?

    I'm amused how you don't know what a Coruscanti image of a town would be, yet you also claim that I must use that image when calculating township. Make up your damned mind.

    (Of course, the whole issue of Coruscanti perspective on township is just a red herring. We know what a SW town size is, and it's not even a "small town" like we needed.)

    Ooh, twice in as many sentences. You're really going ape, aren't ya?
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWstnemram.html
    Read it and weep.

    Ehehehehe. You are quite a weasel aren't you?


    Even if I were, I'd still be superior to a lying distortionist like yourself.

    I don't see and mention of Vor'cha here.

    That's because you're ignorant. I clearly point out the episodes in which the footage appears and the number of rammings involved. I didn't feel it necessary to show screenshots of each.

    There is certainly no shield glow on that BoP you have shown either. So what the fuck is your point?

    "Example Group II:

    (Events involving questionable or negative shield status)"

    Duh. Read the page.

    Wait, wait, I'm lying because I don't address phaser fire in an argument about ship ramming?
    LOL!
    GO WEASEL!!!!


    Great, I've reduced you to mere projectionist name-calling, since you have no point. It's a page about ship ramming and shields. What the hell does phaser fire have to do with ship ramming?

    And yet in your Borg Drone KE shield you claim phasers are particle weapon.

    Yeah, so? It's still not a ship.

    If you don't understand why one would consider a small high-velocity projectile differently than one would consider a fist, then you have bigger problems than a lack of reading comprehension.
    Explain it to me then. Please. How is a faster impactor with less crossectional area easier to stop?


    Why would it be easier?

    I wasn't aware that "by far" had a numerical reference, but in any case it's clear from the text that other SW worlds are natural and Earth-like in appearance. Ergo, they are not covered in cityscape, ergo they are "by far" not as built-up as Coruscant. This leaves potential room for mega-cities on these other worlds that would put our largest metropolitan areas to shame, but the text forces us to reject the notion that any other SW world significantly resembles Coruscant.
    No it doesn't. It merely notes that Coruscan't gives off a different hue than OTHER WORLDS STILL UNDEVELOPED not ALL OTHER WORLDS.


    Why would Coruscant look strange if other Republic worlds looked the same way?

    You are twisting quotes to serve your own purposes.

    Hah, nice projection.

    By the way both Naboo and Tatooine showed greater urbanization than Vulcan so really what is your justification for using Earth as benchmark?

    1. We're on it.
    2. We know the most about it.
    3. We don't know the population for the other three you mention.
    4. You're obviously joking anyway about Naboo and Tatooine.

    Argumentum ad populam . . . even if there were 100 of you, which there aren't, truth is not determined by the number of adherents.
    It's called consensust Darkstar. Look it up.


    1. No it isn't called that.
    2. You just proved your own ignorance and dishonesty.

    Truth is not determined by the number of adherents. That includes the collective opinion of a consensus. If everyone on Earth believed that 1+1=3, there would be consensus. However, they would be wrong.

    Consensus is what is sought when there is ignorance. In jurisprudence, we could not know the facts with certainty, so consensus of peers was employed. Creating the appearance of consensus is also useful for swinging uninformed public opinion, which is why spin doctors like yourself try to claim that everyone believes such-and-such.

    (This does help explain the corrupt philosophy of SD.Net, though, and why they ban and shun all opposing voices, hiding the debates in the private forums. After all, it helps give the appearance of consensus.)

    Wrong. The MSD does show seven decks in the main section, but the bridge alone is almost four meters tall, suggesting a ship height (scaled via the MSD) of forty meters or so.
    http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=176&page=5
    Note Tuvok.

    Seven times four is 28 Darkstar in case you didn't learn that at school. That yields a 1.8 meter glow. An UPPER LIMIT I might add.


    I didn't multiply. I scaled. I was very clear on this point . . . I'm confused as to how you missed it. Oh, wait, that's right, I've already had several opportunities to note your poor reading comprehension.

    How will a line be longer if viewed from an angle? If you view it from an angle it will appear SHORTER.

    Again with the poor reading comprehension. Your line will be longer because you are making a line across a longer distance in 3-D.

    Look at the car you have shown, the ratio between his length and height is only 1.91. This is because its length is distorted by the angle much more severely than height.

    Irrelevant . . . my point was that by drawing a line from the roof to the bottom of the front right tire and calling that 1.48 meters distorts the actual distance between those two points, which will be greater.

    This only underscores the obtained number as being the UPPER LIMIT.

    You truly don't understand perspective, do you? It's really scary how bad you are with it. I would be amazed that you can even walk without crashing into things, but of course your brain understands perspective like I do, even if your conscious mind can't seem to grasp it.

    Torpedoes are closer to the camera than the saucer. Any measurement will therefore result in an upper limit.

    If you're operating solely in 2-D with no 3-D comprehension of what you see, then yes that's true. Fortunately I am not as limited in that arena as you are.

    You remark something about the glow upon Voyager's hull as if you can derive some hard number from the fact the hull is lit.

    Yes, because it gives us a point of reference in 3-D as to the torpedo's location.

    Furthermore the most important fact is the ratio between camera-to-torpedo and torpedo-to-hull distance. You can't possibly determine that and hence all you can tell that this apparent diameter represents some UPPER LIMIT.

    Why would I need to know that ratio? We can get anything like that we might need simply by viewing the perspective distortion of the ship, but even then we don't need to know the exact ratio of the camera distance.

    Rabid Warsie fanatic nut jobs like yourself
    See, Kane-anon? This is precisely why I don't want you poisoning the well of discourse, since it comes right back at you, and with greater accuracy to boot.
    (I'm actually helping you here, though I'm sure you won't see that.)

    He he he. So you pretend you don't like insults and give this as an example but can't help but to state his insult is actually accurate thus basicaly throwing insult yourself.


    I could've helped it, but chose not to, because his insult was entirely accurate, generated only because you'd started slinging them.

    You're an ignorant, dishonest, self-deceptive scumbag, Kane, and while I don't like the whole poisoning-of-the-well thing you and other SDN'ers like to do, I'm also certainly not going to refrain from calling a spade a spade when the spade starts up with the name-calling.

    You want to insult me, go ahead, but don't insult those I consider to be welcome guests.

    And don't worry I made a backup of all the things posted here

    Good. That way if you fail to heed my warning and post insults towards others, you can repost any comments you make to this very blog after having edited out the insults. That's great, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Growth of the glow is exhibited quite well, your blindness notwithstanding, and to suggest otherwise is a lie.
    Again, I refer you to http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWtorpglow.html

    You are lying. Nowhere have you proven torpedo growth. Each and every one of your "growth" examples involves torpedoes coming towards the camera.


    You make your lies far too transparent, Kane.

    On that page I had nine or so different example torpedoes being fired away from the camera, and one being fired across the image. I now have 11 or so, thanks to the two I added from "Call to Arms".

    Eventually there comes a point when one just can't help but acknowledge that one's opponent is completely full of shit, instead of just riddled with it, and you've reached that point.

    So let's consider the arguments upon which you concede and which are closed to you:

    1. Torpedo glow growth is a demonstrated fact. Individual scalings may be debated, but the principle itself may not.
    2. Consensus of opinion and the actual truth are not necessarily the same thing, your illogical belief otherwise notwithstanding. This I'm simply throwing in because I don't want to hear any more of your anti-logic, anti-reason crap.

    I'll leave it there for now, though you're skirting the border on some other topics.

    Any post containing contrary statements will be deleted. Your posts exist at my whim and leisure . . . do not antagonize your host too far by trying to run contrary to what I've just said.

    ReplyDelete
  62. 1. You take the lower-limit calc for vaporizing an asteroid of a certain size, and apply the lower-limit term I used to my scaling of the torp. I'm not saying I disagree, per se, but I never called it a lower limit. The only real lower limit for scaling, I suppose, would be to scale off of a torpedo casing. However, that wouldn't be valid, which is why I did call it conservative.
    I'm not asking you to scale it off torpedo casing. Scale it against observed diameters of 2-3 meters which will result in 50-125 times lesser yields than your "I-bent-over-backward lower limit". Using a 10 meter torpedo NOT a lower limit let alone "bent over backward".

    2. You invent the concept of a "current torpedo type", as if this unknown torp variety apparently carried by Voyager alone would somehow be different from other contemporary torpedoes before and after the "Rise" torp.
    Excuse me? So you figure that torpedoes from TOS series and films are of the same type? Red cylindrical shapes, bright blue circles? You feel you can use them as evidence for the size of small yellow type in use during DS9 and Voyager? Even though they obviously look nothing alike?

    3. You also bite off more than you can chew by trying to go up against the concept of torpedo glow growth altogether, apparently acknowledging if even quietly the weakness of your "current type" thing, even to the point where you lie without shame when you claim that all my examples of torp glow growth are from scenes where the torp travels toward the camera (which to your mind magically makes them invalid, since you don't understand perspective and wish to believe that others can't either).
    Ehehe. Nice try Darkstar. I acknowledge different FIXED SIZES of different torpedo types. You NEVER demonstrated any torpedo growth.

    I've always found that calculation amusing. It assumes by necessity that the 1E38J Alderaan explosion is to be treated like either simple radiant energy, or else that all of Alderaan's remnant bits were accelerated from the planet with perfect uniformity.
    Neither of those is true.

    By all means provide evidence it isn't true. Until that simple geometry dictates that Death Star will receive a portion of the blast.

    Er, yeah I can.
    Um no you can't.

    Ooh, there was potential for fragments approaching a full centimeter in size! Oh for shame!
    For shame indeed Darkstar. Do you know what percentage of the asteroid's mass will go on those fragments and what percentage will be vaporized. If you don't and you are trying to derive an "I bent over backward lower limit" what percentages should you assume? Think carefully, we are testing your honesty now.

    Wow. And you really think that, don't you? You don't even realize that even a centrally-buried device would have to have enough energy to largely vaporize the asteroid in order to shatter it to a degree where there would only be smaller-than-1cm fragments.
    In short, you pooh-pooh the Space Blender yet believe in it whole-heartedly.
    Of course, the torpedo was not centrally buried, and furthermore asteroid destruction simply doesn't work like a space blender. Even a centrally-buried ten-megaton device on a real asteroid doesn't chop it up into neat little bits:
    http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=334
    Even a stony-iron asteroid, which would have around twice the density of Golevka, isn't going to be Cuisinarted like you need. Further, even if you aim for a solid metal asteroid of the Wongian variety, you're not going to get the kind of perfect, less-than-1cm fragmentation you need without having vaporized the vast majority of the thing to start with.
    "Ignorant" Space Blender 4000, indeed.

    Except that asteroid is 8 times larger even accepting your scaling. Using 2m for the photon torpedo the asteroid from Rise is 1000 times smaller than Golevka resulting in 10 kilotons.

    What blur? The firing flash? That's already over.
    Are you going to lie to my face now? The asteroid is clearly blurred, it is not remotely circular in shape.

    Unlike some people, I'm not trying to fool anybody. Nor am I attempting to make up torpedo directions or attempting to falsify perspective issues, like you do above.
    Just comparing by eyeball to the round thingy on the side of the weapons sails makes it clear that the torp's gotten a helluva lot bigger.

    The torpedo is blurred, it is closer to the camera and you haven't even scaled the weapon array. How big is it?

    Speaking of which, when I popped in the video I noticed two other excellent examples from the same episode. So, go visit the "Call to Arms" link again.
    A torpedo with fraction of the weapon array's width. How wide is the weapon array? Even of the torpedo is bigger than 2-3 meters how does that justify you using 10 meters as an absolute "bend over backward lower limit"?

    Dude, it's 7-8 meters wide by the second frame.
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWtorpglow.html#Rise
    I realize you really want Trek weapons to be weak, and I applaud your veracity. However, your veracity is causing you to lie to try to bolster your weak case.
    Even if you don't want to change your mind, which of course you don't, the most prudent thing for you to do to save face at this point would be to withdraw. Your lies are becoming too transparent.

    Again that is an upper limit. The torpedo is between the Voyager and camera. How much closer is it? How exaggerated is it's apparent size? You don't know and the example is useless.

    One is the "Rise" torp. The others are not.
    I see. So you feel you can use various vastly different looking torpedoes from entire history of Trek while I can't use the very same type of torpedo? And you still haven't answered how do you know that torpedo isn't veering towards the camera. You ARE required to show that if you wish to use the scene as evidence. You realize that right?

    No, you are blind.
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWaotcparsec.html
    The sky is fairly bright behind Mace and Palp, and the buildings have hard light against them on the left with a color indicative of a barely-risen or near-risen sun, though if it's risen it's *very* low in the sky (hence "barely").
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWaotcparsec.html#update
    There is no such light on the Senate building or any other visible buildings, and the sky beyond Mace is much darker.
    I trust you will now retract your claim that I am lying about it being the next day. To do otherwise is to continue to lie yourself.

    What "hard light"? The skyscrapers were no more illuminated by an external source than the senate building.
    Not to mention you are silently assuming that camera faces in the same direction both times so you can use the lack of purple tinge as evidence. Of course camera could've been pointing at east the first time and say south the second so the dawn would be outside of cameras view.

    Yes, I know. Similarly, when folks go into hyperspace, the stars turn to lines and then we see the ships zoom away.
    Why are you continuing to evade?
    Let me explain it once again:
    1.we see the stars turn from lines to dots, and then we see Endor rapidly approaching
    2.we cut to the outside view watching the fleet come out of hyperspace
    3.we cut back to the cockpits of Falcon and Home One and Endor is still rapidly approaching requiring km/s2 deceleration abilities

    Do not pretend this is "hyperspace effect" or something. This is a completely new scene shown AFTER the fleet was observed to jump from hyperspace.

    I realize you're ignorant of Trek canon, but you've gotta admit that it's pretty sad that you're ignorant of your own, too.
    "Docking bay ninety-four, Luke noted, was no different in appearance
    from a host of other grandiosely named docking bays scattered throughout Mos
    Eisley. It consisted mostly of an entrance rampway and an enormous pit
    gouged from the rocky soil. This served as clearance radii for the effects
    of the simple antigrav drive which boosted all spacecraft clear of the
    gravitational field of the planet.
    The mathematics of spacedrive were simple enough even to Luke. Antigrav
    could operate only when there was a sufficient gravity well to push
    against-like that of a planet-whereas supralight travel could only take
    place when a ship was clear of that same gravity."
    That's Chapter VII. The note about six planetary diameters being antigrav range appears as the Death Star approaches Alderaan.

    I don't see anything about ships not using their ion drives here do you? It only states the operational limits of antigrav and hyperdrive.

    Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. You're the one making that claim.
    My only claim is that SW ships DEMONSTRATED km/s2 acceleration abilities. If you wish to claim they can only do it close to a planet it's up to you to prove that.

    Well if you don't know then let's use the one place canonically identified as such that we've actually seen, hmm?
    I'm amused how you don't know what a Coruscanti image of a town would be, yet you also claim that I must use that image when calculating township. Make up your damned mind.
    (Of course, the whole issue of Coruscanti perspective on township is just a red herring. We know what a SW town size is, and it's not even a "small town" like we needed.)

    What is a "SW town"? "SW" is not a country or a political entity. Coruscant is part of the Republic, Tatooine isn't. Yes I don't know what exactly an inhabitant of Coruscant might consider a town hence I am not making any claims based on that quote. You, on the other hand, even though you are just as ignorant on the subject as I go on to construct an entire argument based nothing but your own assumptions on what they consider to be a town.

    That's because you're ignorant. I clearly point out the episodes in which the footage appears and the number of rammings involved. I didn't feel it necessary to show screenshots of each.
    Show the screenshots of the ones that demolish your argument you mean.

    "Example Group II:
    (Events involving questionable or negative shield status)"
    Duh. Read the page.

    Concession accepted. Ramming incident that showed no shield glow. Therefor your claim that every ramming involves shield glow and that, since it was absent from Nemesis ramming, it proves Scimitar's shields were down is invalid.

    Great, I've reduced you to mere projectionist name-calling, since you have no point. It's a page about ship ramming and shields. What the hell does phaser fire have to do with ship ramming?
    Because they are physical objects striking the shields perhaps? They have mass just like ships? They have a certain speed and momentum just like ships perhaps?

    Explain it to me then. Please. How is a faster impactor with less crossectional area easier to stop?
    Why would it be easier?

    Concession accepted. Since a faster impactor with lesser crossectional area (a bullet) is indeed harder to stop than slower and bigger one (a fist, a knife) then you have absolutely no basis on claiming that Borg could've stopped bullets when it failed to do so with fists or knives.

    Why would Coruscant look strange if other Republic worlds looked the same way?
    Because out of a million worlds you might not get the chance to see a world like Coruscant?

    1. We're on it.
    2. We know the most about it.
    3. We don't know the population for the other three you mention.
    4. You're obviously joking anyway about Naboo and Tatooine.

    1. So what?
    2. So what? We are talking about the population of the entire Federation.
    3. Exactly therefore your usage of Earth as benchmark is invalid.
    4.By all means show me something on Vulcan that rivals Mos Eisley or Theeds.


    1. No it isn't called that.
    2. You just proved your own ignorance and dishonesty.
    Truth is not determined by the number of adherents. That includes the collective opinion of a consensus. If everyone on Earth believed that 1+1=3, there would be consensus. However, they would be wrong.
    Consensus is what is sought when there is ignorance. In jurisprudence, we could not know the facts with certainty, so consensus of peers was employed. Creating the appearance of consensus is also useful for swinging uninformed public opinion, which is why spin doctors like yourself try to claim that everyone believes such-and-such.
    (This does help explain the corrupt philosophy of SD.Net, though, and why they ban and shun all opposing voices, hiding the debates in the private forums. After all, it helps give the appearance of consensus.)

    No "belief" is involved here Darkstar. The matter was discussed and most people have reached a certain conclusion. You can pretend it isn't so all you want it doesn't make a difference.

    I didn't multiply. I scaled. I was very clear on this point . . . I'm confused as to how you missed it. Oh, wait, that's right, I've already had several opportunities to note your poor reading comprehension.
    Really! By all means Darkstar show me the scaling that allowed you to reach a 40m height for the Daintless at the front of the nacelles using a 4 meter deck.

    Irrelevant . . . my point was that by drawing a line from the roof to the bottom of the front right tire and calling that 1.48 meters distorts the actual distance between those two points, which will be greater.
    No that is not how I measured. I simply used the "Y" or height pixel value of the roof and "Y" value of the tire and subtracted. I scaled the height of the Dauntless the same way.It is quick and dirty but IT WILL result in underestimation of the actual on screen length thus resulting in an upper limit.

    If you're operating solely in 2-D with no 3-D comprehension of what you see, then yes that's true. Fortunately I am not as limited in that arena as you are.
    Yes, because it[torpedo glow on the hull] gives us a point of reference in 3-D as to the torpedo's location.

    Enough with these pathetic evasions. The torpedo is closer to the camera. Show how you can know how far is it from Voyager by looking at the hull glow and how does it influence the torpedo diameter. Otherwise simply admit that you have no clue how big is the torpedo other than it's upper limit shown in the scene.

    Why would I need to know that ratio? We can get anything like that we might need simply by viewing the perspective distortion of the ship, but even then we don't need to know the exact ratio of the camera distance.
    You need to know because the smaller the ratio the greater distortions and exaggerations of closer object. Extend your hand and try to scale a tree in the distance against your thumb. Now move your thumb as close to the eye as possible. See how the thumb "grows"? That's because the ratio is getting smaller. Do you know the ratio in this case? No. Therefore you have no case.

    1. Torpedo glow growth is a demonstrated fact. Individual scalings may be debated, but the principle itself may not.
    Interesting logic. You admit that factual data itself might be faulty yet the "principle" cannot be touched? You must be the follower of Aristotle. I for one choose to follow in the footsteps of Galileo.

    2. Consensus of opinion and the actual truth are not necessarily the same thing, your illogical belief otherwise notwithstanding. This I'm simply throwing in because I don't want to hear any more of your anti-logic, anti-reason crap.
    Not opinion Darkstar. Conclusions based on many years of debate. You lost.

    Any post containing contrary statements will be deleted. Your posts exist at my whim and leisure . . . do not antagonize your host too far by trying to run contrary to what I've just said.
    So I'm not allowed to disagree with you? Isn't that the same thing you accuse Michael Wong of doing? You really are projecting aren't you.
    Like I said I have a backup copy and can easily repost this entire exchange anywhere I want.

    ReplyDelete
  63. But of course if you don't want me to post here anymore I won't just don't think you can scare me into agreeing with you.

    ReplyDelete
  64. To All Whom It May Concern: :)

    I've reopened my old torpedo scene to see whether Kane is right or not; that is, is there a possibility that torpedo glow size remains constant and its apparent size grow is merely because it was fired towards the camera.

    As it turns out, if we assume that torpedo was fired straight forward, we get nice, straight line which points slightly downwards. Also, it's evident that torpedo is accelerating - distance between torpedo position in subsequent frames is increasing.

    On the other hand, if we assume that torpedo size remains constant and it was fired in the direction of the camera, the torpedo downwards direction becomes more pronounced: it's not 3 degress down, but 15 degrees down and 20 to the left.

    But there's one thing that dooms "fired towards the camera" theory: the torpedo's acceleration. Simply put, in this scenario torpedo wildly accelerates only to slow down in the last frame - otherwise it would overshoot the camera and fly past the frame.

    Or, in other words, if the torpedo acceleration is constant, then it couldn't possibly be fired towards the camera.

    Now, I can't wait to see how you're gonna deal with that, Kane :) Maybe you'd like to claim that torpedo was fired too fast and had to slow down? :D

    ReplyDelete

  65. To All Whom It May Concern: :)
    I've reopened my old torpedo scene to see whether Kane is right or not; that is, is there a possibility that torpedo glow size remains constant and its apparent size grow is merely because it was fired towards the camera.
    As it turns out, if we assume that torpedo was fired straight forward, we get nice, straight line which points slightly downwards. Also, it's evident that torpedo is accelerating - distance between torpedo position in subsequent frames is increasing.
    On the other hand, if we assume that torpedo size remains constant and it was fired in the direction of the camera, the torpedo downwards direction becomes more pronounced: it's not 3 degress down, but 15 degrees down and 20 to the left.
    But there's one thing that dooms "fired towards the camera" theory: the torpedo's acceleration. Simply put, in this scenario torpedo wildly accelerates only to slow down in the last frame - otherwise it would overshoot the camera and fly past the frame.
    Or, in other words, if the torpedo acceleration is constant, then it couldn't possibly be fired towards the camera.
    Now, I can't wait to see how you're gonna deal with that, Kane :) Maybe you'd like to claim that torpedo was fired too fast and had to slow down? :D

    That's a nice false dilemma you've got there. However, as I already pointed out, torpedo flying straight forward and torpedo flying directly towards the camera are not the only options. In fact there are infinite number of options BETWEEN the two extremes that will result in torpedo growth.
    By the way I like how you think that your playing with Lightwave and talking about it somehow constitutes hard proof I won't possibly able to deal with.
    Very cute.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I'm not asking you to scale it off torpedo casing. Scale it against observed diameters of 2-3 meters

    In other words, you don't want me to use the "Rise" torp to scale the "Rise" torp. Instead, you want to use smaller torps you can find from other examples.

    Using a 10 meter torpedo NOT a lower limit let alone "bent over backward".

    And you continue to mix up my statements.

    2. You invent the concept of a "current torpedo type", as if this unknown torp variety apparently carried by Voyager alone would somehow be different from other contemporary torpedoes before and after the "Rise" torp.
    Excuse me? So you figure that torpedoes from TOS series and films are of the same type? Red cylindrical shapes, bright blue circles? You feel you can use them as evidence for the size of small yellow type in use during DS9 and Voyager? Even though they obviously look nothing alike?


    con·tem·po·rar·y [kuhn-tem-puh-rer-ee]
    –adjective
    1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time: Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz. 2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand.
    3. of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel.

    Dictionary.com is your friend. Use it.

    You NEVER demonstrated any torpedo growth.

    You've been warned. Don't do that again.

    I've always found that calculation amusing. It assumes by necessity that the 1E38J Alderaan explosion is to be treated like either simple radiant energy, or else that all of Alderaan's remnant bits were accelerated from the planet with perfect uniformity.
    Neither of those is true.

    By all means provide evidence it isn't true.


    Watch the movie. The planet was not uniformly vaporized, nor was it converted to energy in its entirety. There were chunks of debris, and all things considered the explosion wasn't even all that bright.

    Thus instead of uniform energy/debris radiance as required by your calculation, we have some comparatively-minor energy radiance and discrete 'quanta' of debris carrying the energy of the blast.

    Tiny bits of debris may have headed toward the Death Star, though of course in your DET view this would be unlikely since the Death Star had just cut itself a path, basically, by vaping anything that would've been inbound.

    And in both views of the event, you ignore simple deflector systems.

    Er, yeah I can.
    Um no you can't.


    Yes, I can. Dialog is a perfectly valid source of information, and realistically ought to be considered the superior form.

    Do you know what percentage of the asteroid's mass will go on those fragments and what percentage will be vaporized. If you don't and you are trying to derive an "I bent over backward lower limit" what percentages should you assume? Think carefully, we are testing your honesty now.

    For someone like you, my honesty is above reproach. That said, I consider 60/40 as I used on the page to be an entirely proper I-bent-over-backward lower limit, because that still requires a helluva lot of debris to go into a Space Blender 4000 (the same concept you failed to reply to in your reply).

    What blur? The firing flash? That's already over.
    Are you going to lie to my face now? The asteroid is clearly blurred, it is not remotely circular in shape.


    What asteroid? You were talking about the first torp image from "Call to Arms" on my glow growth page. "The first image shows photorp just as it is being fired and we know that there is a large blur [...]"

    Pay attention.

    you haven't even scaled the weapon array. How big is it?

    What part of it? I openly guesstimated the small just-fired torp size since scaling anything off of DS9 is quite a headache given the variability of presented station size. Hence my pointing out that the other torps from CtA are about five times larger.

    A quick eyeball estimate judging by the second CtA torp pic and the nearby windows (1 to 1.5 m tall and 1.5 to 2m wide) easily puts 1.5 meters for the first torp in the range of conservative possibility. The first torp could easily be larger, which would drive up the sizes of the other three.

    Even of the torpedo is bigger than 2-3 meters how does that justify you using 10 meters as an absolute "bend over backward lower limit"?

    Because that's the Rise torp. The CtA torps are not.

    Dude, it's 7-8 meters wide by the second frame.
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWtorpglow.html#Rise
    I realize you really want Trek weapons to be weak, and I applaud your veracity. However, your veracity is causing you to lie to try to bolster your weak case.
    Even if you don't want to change your mind, which of course you don't, the most prudent thing for you to do to save face at this point would be to withdraw. Your lies are becoming too transparent.

    Again that is an upper limit. The torpedo is between the Voyager and camera. How much closer is it? How exaggerated is it's apparent size? You don't know and the example is useless.


    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Trek/Series/VOY/risetorpcent.jpg

    So the torpedo, freshly newborn out of the tube and on an apparent linear flightpath, is somehow inexplicably super-close to the camera and ultra-exaggerated compared to the tube it just emerged from?

    You're being ridiculous. The example is perfectly valid, and unlike you I account for actual perspective distortion.

    One is the "Rise" torp. The others are not.
    I see. So you feel you can use various vastly different looking torpedoes from entire history of Trek while I can't use the very same type of torpedo?


    Don't be foolish. The use of other torps is part of the glow growth demonstration. The scaling of the Rise torp does not depend on the other torps, nor is it logical to do what you keep trying to do, which is to ignore the Rise torp scaling and judge its size based on the smallest available torps from elsewhere.

    And you still haven't answered how do you know that torpedo isn't veering towards the camera. You ARE required to show that if you wish to use the scene as evidence. You realize that right?

    No, I'm not required to show that. For one, you're demanding that I prove a negative. I've already pleasantly assumed that the torp is fired a bit toward the camera, but again I've given that inch so you demand the whole mile of having us all assume, contrary to Occam, that the thing banks hard in an effort to hit the camera, apparently just missing it and deciding to hit the asteroid instead.

    Finally, you're assuming a wildly veering torpedo fresh out of the tube, something I don't know that we've ever seen in the canon. As far as I can recall right this second, torpedoes have usually left the tube and immediately been on their desired off-axis course.

    Note the Reliant's aft shot in ST2, the CtA torp shot, the Enterprise-D firing downward on Ligon II, the aft shot from Insurrection, et cetera. The only one I can think of that comes close to what you need is the ST6 tracking torp shot, though IIRC by the time it's started curving it is well away from the ship anyway.

    No, you are blind.
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWaotcparsec.html
    The sky is fairly bright behind Mace and Palp, and the buildings have hard light against them on the left with a color indicative of a barely-risen or near-risen sun, though if it's risen it's *very* low in the sky (hence "barely").
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWaotcparsec.html#update
    There is no such light on the Senate building or any other visible buildings, and the sky beyond Mace is much darker.
    I trust you will now retract your claim that I am lying about it being the next day. To do otherwise is to continue to lie yourself.

    What "hard light"? The skyscrapers were no more illuminated by an external source than the senate building.


    Okay, you're just lyi . . . ah, dammit, I'll be nice and give you one more chance to see the light, literally and figuratively, and thus retract your false claim of my dishonesty:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday10sm.jpg

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday11sm.jpg

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday12sm.jpg

    Now, note the sharp pinkish lightening of the buildings on their left side. It's similar to how you can see daylight brightening the left side of buildings in this example image:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday08sm.jpg

    The point here is that there is hard light on the buildings in the first three pics.

    Now compare that to:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/SWsenatesm.jpg

    There is no such lightening of any building.

    Now look here, 'cause I just noticed something:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscdaysenwin2.jpg

    Outside the windows behind Windu are the very same buildings visible in this shot:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday11sm.jpg

    And not only is the sky darker, but the buildings do not show the hard pinkish light.

    Do you get it now, or are you going to lie?

    Not to mention you are silently assuming that camera faces in the same direction both times so you can use the lack of purple tinge as evidence.

    Actually, they do face the same direction, as you just helped me find out. Thanks.

    Yes, I know. Similarly, when folks go into hyperspace, the stars turn to lines and then we see the ships zoom away.
    Why are you continuing to evade?


    Why do you continue to lie?

    Let me explain it once again:
    1.we see the stars turn from lines to dots, and then we see Endor rapidly approaching
    2.we cut to the outside view watching the fleet come out of hyperspace


    And this is what we previously referred to. Now you're changing it up:

    3.we cut back to the cockpits of Falcon and Home One and Endor is still rapidly approaching requiring km/s2 deceleration abilities

    I can approximate that scene using Celestia, requiring around 1500km/s velocity at a range of around 100,000km. That would represent something like 12km/s^2. However, it also means that they're just about in antigrav range for the deceleration into LEO, and hence this is not an example of sublight engine performance.

    I don't see anything about ships not using their ion drives here do you?

    It says antigravs are used then, so you can't determine ion drive performance near a planet or other gravitational body.

    My only claim is that SW ships DEMONSTRATED km/s2 acceleration abilities. If you wish to claim they can only do it close to a planet it's up to you to prove that.

    No, it's up to you to prove that they can do it elsewhere, 'cause there's no evidence for it. You're the one making the claim.

    (Freebie . . . as noted at StarfleetJedi's forums, the one possible example limits ISD deceleration to 6km/s^2 at maximum, with 1.5km/s^2 more likely.)

    http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=222

    Yes I don't know what exactly an inhabitant of Coruscant might consider a town hence I am not making any claims based on that quote.

    Yes you are. You're assuming that the narrator of RoTS is Coruscanti, and that Coruscantis have an image of a town that is different than that of the narrator of ANH, who is not Coruscanti.

    So you're injecting your own peculiar assumptions into the quotes, then using that to try to override the quoted statements themselves.

    You, on the other hand, [...] go on to construct an entire argument based nothing but your own assumptions on what they consider to be a town.

    I construct the argument based on what we are told is a town, one larger than another town, and hence not described as a small town, which is what I needed anyway.

    That's because you're ignorant. I clearly point out the episodes in which the footage appears and the number of rammings involved. I didn't feel it necessary to show screenshots of each.
    Show the screenshots of the ones that demolish your argument you mean.


    Don't lie. Every fact is accounted for in that page, and there's a screenshot of one of the examples from that very ep that, to your mind, "demolish"es my argument. Just as I didn't reshow the screenshots for the re-used footage in WYLB, I didn't show the same thing over again even though I explained its existence clearly.

    Your claim of dishonesty on my part is false and is to be retracted.

    "Example Group II:
    (Events involving questionable or negative shield status)"
    Duh. Read the page.

    Concession accepted. Ramming incident that showed no shield glow. Therefor your claim that every ramming involves shield glow and that, since it was absent from Nemesis ramming, it proves Scimitar's shields were down is invalid.


    Good grief, you're ridiculous. I told you to read the page. Had you done so, you would know that the pattern is that every ramming featuring shields involves glow, and every one not featuring shields does not. I was quite thorough in my writing of that page . . . you could at least trouble yourself to be thorough in reading it before making false claims.

    Explain it to me then. Please. How is a faster impactor with less crossectional area easier to stop?
    Why would it be easier?

    Concession accepted. Since a faster impactor with lesser crossectional area (a bullet) is indeed harder to stop than slower and bigger one (a fist, a knife) then you have absolutely no basis on claiming that Borg could've stopped bullets when it failed to do so with fists or knives.


    Illogical . . . no concession exists on my part, since my conjecture was based on utility, not ease.

    Why would Coruscant look strange if other Republic worlds looked the same way?
    Because out of a million worlds you might not get the chance to see a world like Coruscant?


    Then it wouldn't be unique, even to seasoned veterans, would it?

    3. Exactly therefore your usage of Earth as benchmark is invalid.

    No it isn't. I used the same benchmark when exploring possibilities for both, which is entirely fair. There is no logic in your demand that we operate in complete ignorance, or that one get a way-higher benchmark than another simply because one explicitly unique planet has more than said benchmark (a fact which I included anyway).

    Stop arguing that point, 'cause it's just a stupid hissy-fit on your part.

    4.By all means show me something on Vulcan that rivals Mos Eisley or Theeds.

    Certainly:

    http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=67&pos=0

    http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=68&pos=382

    http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/amok/Ep34_arena.jpg

    I didn't multiply. I scaled. I was very clear on this point . . . I'm confused as to how you missed it. Oh, wait, that's right, I've already had several opportunities to note your poor reading comprehension.
    Really! By all means Darkstar show me the scaling that allowed you to reach a 40m height for the Daintless at the front of the nacelles using a 4 meter deck.


    Don't lie about what I said. What I did say was that the total ship height was 40 meters, which you demonstrated ignorance of with your multiplication table approach. The distance from the top of the ship to the bottom of the nacelles is not 40m, nor did I suggest such, and you would know that if you were familiar with the MSD.

    Irrelevant . . . my point was that by drawing a line from the roof to the bottom of the front right tire and calling that 1.48 meters distorts the actual distance between those two points, which will be greater.
    No that is not how I measured. I simply used the "Y" or height pixel value of the roof and "Y" value of the tire and subtracted.


    And you're wrong to do so, because you're calling that 1.48 meters when it most certainly is not.

    I scaled the height of the Dauntless the same way.

    In other words, you're doing exactly what I've said you're doing, and you don't even recognize that it's wrong.

    It is quick and dirty but IT WILL result in underestimation of the actual on screen length thus resulting in an upper limit.

    No, that's not an upper limit, because you're taking a much longer distance, ascribing a smaller distance to it, and then scaling other things based on that.

    What you should do (to use the car example) is to draw a line between the two visible tires, then draw a line off the roof straight down on the side of the vehicle. A car is largely rectangular so that ought to be fairly easy.

    Here:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/VisAid/kane.jpg

    Show how you can know how far is it from Voyager by looking at the hull glow and how does it influence the torpedo diameter.

    The same way I can gauge the approximate distance from the roof to the green rectangle in the visual aid I gave you, but better . . . it gives us a line straight down from a point on the saucer to the torp.

    You need to know because the smaller the ratio the greater distortions and exaggerations of closer object.

    But I'm scaling off the ship, accounting for perspective distortion. Thus if I know the perspective distortion being suffered by the ship itself I can account for it in regards to objects whose location relative to the ship is known.

    1. Torpedo glow growth is a demonstrated fact. Individual scalings may be debated, but the principle itself may not.
    Interesting logic. You admit that factual data itself might be faulty yet the "principle" cannot be touched?


    No, Kane, I'm obviously not saying that. I'm telling you that you can debate an individual instance (i.e. the exact size of such-and-such torp from such-and-such ep), but that I've demonstrated quite clearly that glow growth occurs.

    I for one choose to follow in the footsteps of Galileo.

    Galileo didn't believe in consensus as arbiter of truth.

    Any post containing contrary statements will be deleted. Your posts exist at my whim and leisure . . . do not antagonize your host too far by trying to run contrary to what I've just said.
    So I'm not allowed to disagree with you?


    Of course you are. You're simply not allowed to drag this on and on with utterly stupid lies and denials of fact.

    I like for there to be disagreement to some extent, becaue (as in your case with the AoTC trip Coruscant scenes) it's caused me to take a closer look at the evidence and find those same buildings I might not've found, which only strengthens my case. In other areas, your arguments have provided fodder for additional idiot-proofing of my pages.

    However, what I don't like is how people like you, even when their proverbial ass has been handed to them on some topic, attempt to dig in their heels, lying and obfuscating to try to hold on to their beliefs even in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

    That's just wrong, and I'm not going to allow you to spread that kind of crap on my blog.

    Isn't that the same thing you accuse Michael Wong of doing?

    Not at all. Wong bans people and hides their posts when they disagree and have a point in doing so. I'm enforcing the exact opposite.

    Let's face it, you and I are never going to agree, because I go with the evidence and you don't. But unlike some anons, you're at least talking about the evidence.

    I could let you bitch and moan and lie about glow growth and so on, or I can debate you on the topic, kick your ass, and then banish you on that topic.

    Now, if I were really Wongian, what I'd do is tell you stop talking about subjects that are actually theoretically debatable, i.e. where in effect my preconceived notions have weaknesses that could be exploited.

    I'm not doing that. I'm letting you challenge everything you want to, but when your challenge is destroyed I'm telling you to shut up about it.

    Of course I'll never please you with that, because you'll have so distorted things in your mind (such as the whole "all your examples are of torps headed toward the camera" thing) that you'll never accept defeat. You've got your ego so attached to your arguments that you would find it devastating to admit that you were wrong. You'll thus go on and on and on and on and on and on and . . . well, sorry, but it isn't my job to allow that.

    That's your failing, however, and not mine.

    Like I said I have a backup copy and can easily repost this entire exchange anywhere I want.

    I can't imagine why you would want to embarrass yourself like that, but whatever.

    Anyway, you've received your second warning, so I'd advise you to adhere to my directions.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Or, in other words, if the torpedo acceleration is constant, then it couldn't possibly be fired towards the camera.

    Now, I can't wait to see how you're gonna deal with that, Kane :) Maybe you'd like to claim that torpedo was fired too fast and had to slow down? :D


    Very nice work . . . I'd love to include screenshots of your material like that on my page.

    However, asking Kane about it is quite useless. I just had to draw this out for him:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/VisAid/kane.jpg

    . . . meaning that what you've just described is far too complicated for him to imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  68. That's a nice false dilemma you've got there.
    What? I simply used non-expanding sphere (in other word, its size remains constant).

    You argued that torpedo growth is only because of the perspective. I obliged.

    When I moved spheres representing torpedo glows in apprioprate directions, without changing their sizes, that was the result - sphere (representing the torpedo) moving towards the camera (not straight at the camera), decelerating rapidly after a period of rapid acceleration.

    Now, if I move sphere away from the camera, its apparent size will decrease, forcing me to increase its real size.

    Tell me, is there any reason for torpedo to accelerate, decelerate, and then accelerate again? If not, then the resulting compromise (with torpedo having constant speed) will be much, much, much closer to the forward trajectory than "towards the camera" trajectory.

    Which would deflate G2k results somewhat, yes, if not for his assumed wide margin of tolerance.

    By the way I like how you think that your playing with Lightwave and talking about it somehow constitutes hard proof I won't possibly able to deal with.
    Very cute.

    Why, thank you. It's not very different from drawing lines on the pictures, so, yeah, it constitutes hard proof you are already incapable of dealing with.

    Which is not really surprising, considering you seem to be quite unable to understand why Jedi cannot possibly hope to deflect mid-swing blaster bolts which posess both invisible lightspeed component and visible STL tracer component. :)

    Very nice work . . . I'd love to include screenshots of your material like that on my page.

    I took a screenshot of my scene:

    http://kazeite.republika.pl/Rise/torpedoes.gif

    There's top, front and left view, plus composite (made in Photopaint :) ) from the camera POV, showing screengrabs of the moving torpedo.

    Red spheres are torpedo with growing glow, moving forward and slightly downwards. The first, farthest sphere has a diameter of 1,8m - the biggest one has a diameter of 9m.

    Those two green spheres are spheres with constant diameter of 1,8 meters. As you can see, in the camera view they intersect quite nicely with their red brethren.

    Let me know if you need any more renders.

    ReplyDelete
  69. con·tem·po·rar·y [kuhn-tem-puh-rer-ee]
    –adjective
    1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time: Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz. 2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand.
    3. of the present time; modern: alecture on the contemporary novel.
    Dictionary.com is your friend. Use it.

    And the point of all of this is? You use torpedoes from different periods to bolster your point but I can't use the ones from the same period?

    You NEVER demonstrated any torpedo growth.
    You've been warned. Don't do that again.

    And now you force me to deconstruct your page example by example:
    1."The Expanse"[ENT2]
    Didn't you notice they were in a dense nebula? You do realize that torpedoes glow could become larger due to friction? Either way how does this point to "growth".
    2."Arena"[TOS1]
    Torpedo is closer to the camera than the saucer. How much closer? You don't know thus making this example invalid.
    3."Journey to Babel"[TOS2] et al.
    Same thing as above. Torpedo is closer and you have no way of knowing the true diameter.
    4."Elaan of Troyius"[TOS3]
    Again you have no knowledge as to what is the exact direction of the torpedo and how much closer is it to the camera.
    5."In a Mirror, Darkly, Pt. II"[ENT4]
    This is an actual example that show greater than 2 meter glow although still not 10 meters. Of course the appearance of a torpedo is completely dissimilar to the yellow type photon torpedo of Voyager/DS9 era. Another invalid example.
    6."In a Mirror, Darkly, Pt. II"[ENT4]
    Same as above although this time torpedo appears much smaller. Which one should be used as a lower limit?
    7.Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
    Again as with the Expanse they are in a dense nebula and torpedo shield and particle will interact to produce a bigger glow. The example is invalid for determining the glow in vacuum of space.
    8.Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
    This one actually is a big torpedo but of a completely dissimilar type. Again the example is invalid. We might as well use V'Gers torpedoes.
    9.Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
    Again the appearance is completely different. There appears to be a red haze around a cylindrical/rectangular brighter core. Not comparable to Voyager's torpedoes.
    10."Best of Both Worlds, Pt. II"[TNG4]
    What evidence do you have the torpedoes we see striking the cube left of the phasers are the same we saw in the scene before? What evidence do you have it is the same phaser beam? Provide evidence otherwise this is one more invalid example.
    11."Half a Life"[TNG4]
    Again you make no attempt to determine how much the size of the torpedo will be exaggerated by it's distance to camera. How distant is the camera? Show calculations or all you have is an upper limit.
    12."In Theory"[TNG4]
    Again a nebula. Again the example is invalid.
    13."Defiant"[DSN3]
    Defiant is notoriously flexible in size herself not to mention these are quantum torpedoes.
    14."Alliances"[VOY2]
    Again atmospheric interaction. The torpedo is clearly distorted but nevertheless it is no more than 3 meters in diameter. Again much smaller than your 10 meter number.
    15."A Call to Arms"[DSN5]
    You claim that second image shows at least 7.5 meter glow. Again the torpedo is closer to the camera. Again you provided no calculations as to how much this will offset the diameter. All we know that it is an upper limit.
    As for the third and fourth image I would sure like some evidence that the popout weapon array is anywhere near 7.5 meters in diameter. And the central glow is NOWHERE NEAR the size of the circular detail but perhaps half the size.
    15."Hope and Fear"[VOY4]
    Again you claim that torpedoes obviously heading for the camera are growing. Provide calculations and evidence that growth is there even when accounting for perspective. Also as I have shown when we see torpedoes hitting Dauntless they are nowhere near 7-10 meters in diameter. So are you suggesting that Voyager first fired a volley that grew then second one that didn't or that torpedoes grew first half of the way and then started to shrink? It doesn't make much sense and you have no evidence either way.
    16.Star Trek: Insurrection
    Again they are in a dense nebula but regardless how can those torpedoes be 5-7 meters in diameter? The first one is no wider than windows.

    Let me reiterate: NOWHERE HAVE YOU DEMONSTRATED ANY TORPEDO GROWTH.


    Watch the movie. The planet was not uniformly vaporized, nor was it converted to energy in its entirety. There were chunks of debris, and all things considered the explosion wasn't even all that bright.
    Thus instead of uniform energy/debris radiance as required by your calculation, we have some comparatively-minor energy radiance and discrete 'quanta' of debris carrying the energy of the blast.
    Tiny bits of debris may have headed toward the Death Star, though of course in your DET view this would be unlikely since the Death Star had just cut itself a path, basically, by vaping anything that would've been inbound.
    And in both views of the event, you ignore simple deflector systems.

    First of all momentum carried by the superlaser is insignificant next to the energy imparted by it. Therefore there is no way the suparlaser will be able to "clear a path" for the Death Star. Secondly are you suggesting that Death Star got lucky and fragments missed it? Is that what the engineers had in mind when they designed it? They'll approach the planet, blow it up and then pray nothing hits it. And Tarkin and Vader went along for the ride right?

    Yes, I can. Dialog is a perfectly valid source of information, and realistically ought to be considered the superior form.
    How can character statement be superior than observation? I guess you don't think that DNA analysis should be used to release to people convicted based on eyewitness statements.

    For someone like you, my honesty is above reproach. That said, I consider 60/40 as I used on the page to be an entirely proper I-bent-over-backward lower limit, because that still requires a helluva lot of debris to go into a Space Blender 4000 (the same concept you failed to reply to in your reply).
    You "consider" appropriate? So basically you pick and choose what you'll call lower limits without bothering to perform any calculations. Do you know for a fact that vaporizing, say, 19.5% of asteroid won't result in the expected level of fragmentation? If you don't then why do you call the 60% number a lower limit?

    What asteroid? You were talking about the first torp image from "Call to Arms" on my glow growth page. "The first image shows photorp just as it is being fired and we know that there is a large blur [...]"
    Pay attention.

    Typo I meant to say "torpedo".

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Trek/Series/VOY/risetorpcent.jpg
    So the torpedo, freshly newborn out of the tube and on an apparent linear flightpath, is somehow inexplicably super-close to the camera and ultra-exaggerated compared to the tube it just emerged from?
    You're being ridiculous. The example is perfectly valid, and unlike you I account for actual perspective distortion.

    "Apparent" linear flightpath? That's just it Darkstar. You use your assumptions as evidence. How do you know it's linear? You'll need more than your gut feelings to prove that torpedoes grow.

    No, I'm not required to show that. For one, you're demanding that I prove a negative. I've already pleasantly assumed that the torp is fired a bit toward the camera, but again I've given that inch so you demand the whole mile of having us all assume, contrary to Occam, that the thing banks hard in an effort to hit the camera, apparently just missing it and deciding to hit the asteroid instead.
    Prove a negative? So you think you can just assume it goes straight forward and everyone else must disprove you? Wrong Darkstar. The torpedo could've follow ANY NUMBER of trajectories when fired. It is up to you to prove it followed a specific one.

    Finally, you're assuming a wildly veering torpedo fresh out of the tube, something I don't know that we've ever seen in the canon. As far as I can recall right this second, torpedoes have usually left the tube and immediately been on their desired off-axis course.
    Wildly? How much is wildly? More the one in ST6? Again provide evidence and calculations.

    Okay, you're just lyi . . . ah, dammit, I'll be nice and give you one more chance to see the light, literally and figuratively, and thus retract your false claim of my dishonesty:
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday10sm.jpg
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday11sm.jpg
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday12sm.jpg
    Now, note the sharp pinkish lightening of the buildings on their left side. It's similar to how you can see daylight brightening the left side of buildings in this example image:
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday08sm.jpg
    The point here is that there is hard light on the buildings in the first three pics.
    Now compare that to:
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/SWsenatesm.jpg
    There is no such lightening of any building.

    Interesting I see a pink searchlight just left of Mace Windu. In fact there are also similarly colored searchlights behind Palpatine as well. What is causing the pink hue?
    Of course I never denied the senate scene is darker. Why is it darker? Different orientation, is it in shadow of a nearby skyscraper, is overcast much thicker on the east obscuring the sun, the combination of the previous? Or is it pre dawn of the next day? What evidence do you have for choosing the last option especially since it doesn't make any sense to wait an entire day to call an emergency session of the senate or for Mace Windu to even suggest of sending help to Obi-Wan.

    Now look here, 'cause I just noticed something:
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscdaysenwin2.jpg
    Outside the windows behind Windu are the very same buildings visible in this shot:
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday11sm.jpg
    And not only is the sky darker, but the buildings do not show the hard pinkish light.
    Do you get it now, or are you going to lie?

    Good one Darkstar. A distant silouette of several generic looking skyscrapers. By all means prove that they are the same buildings on a planet covered with millions of them.

    It says antigravs are used then, so you can't determine ion drive performance near a planet or other gravitational body.
    No it doesn't. It states the operational limits of hyperdrive and antigrav. That is all.

    No, it's up to you to prove that they can do it elsewhere, 'cause there's no evidence for it. You're the one making the claim.
    (Freebie . . . as noted at StarfleetJedi's forums, the one possible example limits ISD deceleration to 6km/s^2 at maximum, with 1.5km/s^2 more likely.)
    http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=222

    We have observed they can do it even when being pulled by planetary gravity of some 9.81m/s2. In deep space there won't be any counterforce therefore it is a mathematical certainty they'll be able to do it. By all means if you have evidence as to why would it be more difficult to accelerate a ship in deep space than in a planetary well show it.

    Yes you are. You're assuming that the narrator of RoTS is Coruscanti, and that Coruscantis have an image of a town that is different than that of the narrator of ANH, who is not Coruscanti.
    So you're injecting your own peculiar assumptions into the quotes, then using that to try to override the quoted statements themselves.

    And you are assuming that narrator is what an American from 21st century? What is an American doinf in orbit of Coruscant millions of ly away from Earth? Or citizen of Tatooine? Again I am not using this example to make any claims regarding firepower of SW ships therefore I'm not required to provide any evidence. You are. Therefore you need to show evidence. Hard evidence not your gut feelings.

    Good grief, you're ridiculous. I told you to read the page. Had you done so, you would know that the pattern is that every ramming featuring shields involves glow, and every one not featuring shields does not. I was quite thorough in my writing of that page . . . you could at least trouble yourself to be thorough in reading it before making false claims.
    I eagerly await evidence that shields were down in those cases.

    Then it wouldn't be unique, even to seasoned veterans, would it?
    If there are million planets than even 10,000 Coruscant like planets would be a drop in the bucked wouldn't it? And even seasoned veterans might miss them visiting hundreds of thousands of smaller planets.

    No it isn't. I used the same benchmark when exploring possibilities for both, which is entirely fair. There is no logic in your demand that we operate in complete ignorance, or that one get a way-higher benchmark than another simply because one explicitly unique planet has more than said benchmark (a fact which I included anyway).
    Stop arguing that point, 'cause it's just a stupid hissy-fit on your part.

    But you didn't "explore" the possibilty of all the planets being like Coruscant like you did with all planets being Earth did you? Or at least all planets being hundred times less populous than Coruscant.

    Certainly:
    http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=67&pos=0
    http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=68&pos=382
    http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/amok/Ep34_arena.jpg

    I stand corrected. This actually looks as big as Mos Eisley from special edition although with taller buildings. However this still means Vulcan is about as developed as Tatooine from what we've seen. And it is arguably the second most important planet. So again I ask if you use much more developed Earth as benchmark why not planets 100 times smaller than Coruscant?

    Don't lie about what I said. What I did say was that the total ship height was 40 meters, which you demonstrated ignorance of with your multiplication table approach. The distance from the top of the ship to the bottom of the nacelles is not 40m, nor did I suggest such, and you would know that if you were familiar with the MSD.
    Then why have you brought it up? The height at the nacelle is no more than 30 meters.

    No, that's not an upper limit, because you're taking a much longer distance, ascribing a smaller distance to it, and then scaling other things based on that.
    What you should do (to use the car example) is to draw a line between the two visible tires, then draw a line off the roof straight down on the side of the vehicle. A car is largely rectangular so that ought to be fairly easy.
    Here:
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/VisAid/kane.jpg

    Ah I see now what your objection was. Well it's invalid since that is NOT what I did with Dauntless.
    http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/dauntless_torp2.jpg
    That is the line I used and it IS 217px long just as I said at the start. The torpedo IS no more than 2 meters wide no matter which way you slice it.

    The same way I can gauge the approximate distance from the roof to the green rectangle in the visual aid I gave you, but better . . . it gives us a line straight down from a point on the saucer to the torp.
    ut I'm scaling off the ship, accounting for perspective distortion. Thus if I know the perspective distortion being suffered by the ship itself I can account for it in regards to objects whose location relative to the ship is known.

    Show it then. How can you possibly determine whether torpedo veered off to the camera.

    Tell me, is there any reason for torpedo to accelerate, decelerate, and then accelerate again? If not, then the resulting compromise (with torpedo having constant speed) will be much, much, much closer to the forward trajectory than "towards the camera" trajectory.
    PROVE the torpedo will neccesarily have to accelerate deccelerate and then accelerate again. And no a single screenshot of several spheres in the scene doesn't cut it. Neither does your playing in Lightwave by the way. Show me mathematically why this can't be done.

    ReplyDelete
  70. 1. Please do not smoke crack before posting blog comments.

    2. Just so you know, I came reeeeeal close to hitting the button on that post wherein you violate my rule. But, I'm gonna let you slide this time because, even though your "deconstruction" made my stomach hurt from laughter, there is at least an 'ergo' on your way to your BS claim of no glow growth.

    Reply forthcoming . . .

    ReplyDelete
  71. PROVE the torpedo will neccesarily have to accelerate deccelerate and then accelerate again.
    I already DID. Look at my scene:

    http://kazeite.republika.pl/Rise/torpedoes.gif

    You see those three red growing spheres? See the distance between them? It's growing. That means that if torpedo is flying more or less straight, then torpedo is steadily accelerating.

    In the other corner, we have those two green spheres (three, actually, but the first one shares exact same position and size with the green torpedo and thus is all but invisible). What is the distance between smallest red sphere and green sphere? What is the distance between green spheres?

    I'll tell you what are the distances: between first and second frame non-growing torpedo would have to travel 90 meters, and then between second and third frame it would have to travel only 25 meters in order to still be in frame.

    It means that your non growing torpedo started accelerating, then rapidly decelerated.

    And no a single screenshot of several spheres in the scene doesn't cut it.
    It's still infinitely more than you can provide. Remember, you admited you have no evidence whatsoever for off-axis flight path.

    Simply declaring "my playing in 3DMax" invalid without giving any reason doesn't make it invalid.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I already DID. Look at my scene:
    http://kazeite.republika.pl/Rise/torpedoes.gif
    You see those three red growing spheres? See the distance between them? It's growing. That means that if torpedo is flying more or less straight, then torpedo is steadily accelerating.
    In the other corner, we have those two green spheres (three, actually, but the first one shares exact same position and size with the green torpedo and thus is all but invisible). What is the distance between smallest red sphere and green sphere? What is the distance between green spheres?
    I'll tell you what are the distances: between first and second frame non-growing torpedo would have to travel 90 meters, and then between second and third frame it would have to travel only 25 meters in order to still be in frame.
    It means that your non growing torpedo started accelerating, then rapidly decelerated.

    First of all the spheres are not perfectly aligned with the glow. You could scale the spheres up or down (especially the most distant one) which could easily level out the distances. Secondly do you figure that torpedo accelerating and decelerating is more complex solution under Occam's Razor? We know that torpedoes can accelerate, decelerate and change course.
    I am adding no new mechanism to Trek universe, you are. Therefore even accepting that torpedo decelerates (which you by no means proved) my theory is still better than yours: for some reason torpedo starts to grow.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "You could scale the spheres up or down (especially the most distant one) which could easily level out the distances."
    That should be:
    "You could move the spheres back and front (especially the most distant one) which could easily level out the distances."

    ReplyDelete
  74. First of all the spheres are not perfectly aligned with the glow. You could move the spheres up or down (especially the most distant one) which could easily level out the distances.
    Yes I could, but it would require me to change their size, which is contrary to your claim.

    Secondly do you figure that torpedo accelerating and decelerating is more complex solution under Occam's Razor?
    Absolutely.

    My scenario: asteroid is more or less in front of Voyager. Torpedo is fired, tracks the asteroid, moves slightly downwards, accelerating in linear fashion.

    Your scenario: asteroid is somewhere off the port bow. Torpedo is fired, turns in the direction of the asteroid while simultaneously accelerating, and then suddenly decelerates.

    Which is simpler?

    By the way, my 3DMax scene is the ultimate mathematical proof. It's not merely a pretty picture - it's the result of complicated mathematical calculations performed by program itself. If I had to do it by hand, I'd have to measure the size of the glow anyway, wouldn't I?

    I am adding no new mechanism to Trek universe, you are.
    As much as you'd like to deny it, photon torpedo glow increase is known and observable phenomena (especially against nebulas, as you had to concede :) ). Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Yes I could, but it would require me to change their size, which is contrary to your claim.
    A typo which I corrected. See my last post.

    My scenario: asteroid is more or less in front of Voyager. Torpedo is fired, tracks the asteroid, moves slightly downwards, accelerating in linear fashion.
    Your scenario: asteroid is somewhere off the port bow. Torpedo is fired, turns in the direction of the asteroid while simultaneously accelerating, and then suddenly decelerates.

    So according to your scenario the torpedo doesn't grow? Because if it does it introduces a new mechanism to Star Trek universe.

    By the way, my 3DMax scene is the ultimate mathematical proof. It's not merely a pretty picture - it's the result of complicated mathematical calculations performed by program itself. If I had to do it by hand, I'd have to measure the size of the glow anyway, wouldn't I?
    The scene itself perhaps. But your scaling against the Voyager background certainly is not the result of precise mathematical calculations is it? It is not precise and it can be fudged with especially with the rightmost torpedo which is blurry and very small.

    As much as you'd like to deny it, photon torpedo glow increase is known and observable phenomena (especially against nebulas, as you had to concede :) ). Sorry.
    You seem to be confusing growth and different apparent diameters. True some torpedo types under some circumstances like being inside nebula appear larger. How does that mean that thy continually grow? What do different torpedo types have to do with Voyager? What does a torpedo inside nebula whose shields are interacting with nebular gas have to do with the ones in vacuum?

    Well it seems to me that no one here is going to convince the other side.

    ReplyDelete
  76. A typo which I corrected. See my last post.
    I did. And I even included your errata in your quote. I repeat, changing position of the spheres would require me to change their size as well, in order to make them fit again.

    So according to your scenario the torpedo doesn't grow?
    No, it does grow. Which is a known mechanism.

    But your scaling against the Voyager background certainly is not the result of precise mathematical calculations is it?
    None of the scaling work we (trekkies and warsies alike) use is "precise mathematical calculation".

    You seem to be confusing growth and different apparent diameters.
    Hardly.

    True some torpedo types under some circumstances like being inside nebula appear larger.
    And thus you concede that torpedo glow can change its size. (Kinda funny that you have no problem with nebulas causing the growth of the glow, but you have problem with higher power causing the growth :) )

    So, there you have it: photon torpedoes do have the capability to change their size. What does it has to do with Voyager? Well, Voyager is armed with photon torpedoes. Duh.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I did. And I even included your errata in your quote. I repeat, changing position of the spheres would require me to change their size as well, in order to make them fit again.
    No it wouldn't since your spheres do not correspond perfectly with torpedo glow. This is especially true for the first frame where the central glow is very difficult to make out. Each pixel error you make there will cause significant change of "distance" in your scene.

    No, it does grow. Which is a known mechanism.
    Circular reasoning. The torpedo grows because it grows.
    Do you even realize what you are doing wrong? You cannot use torpedo growth as premise if that is what you are trying to prove.

    And thus you concede that torpedo glow can change its size. (Kinda funny that you have no problem with nebulas causing the growth of the glow, but you have problem with higher power causing the growth :) )
    Obviously since even inert objects like ships and satellites will flare up when passing through atmosphere let alone an active shield. You still, on the other hand, haven't explained why would a larger warhead inside the casing cause greater glow let alone why would it cause glow to grow.

    ReplyDelete
  78. To reiterate: changing course, even acceleration and deceleration are all known mechanisms in Star Trek. I am adding no new terms. Deceleration could even be explained as torpedo reacquiring the target or a better impact site or adjusting it's speed for optimal detonation.
    You, on the other hand, are not only violating Occam's Razor by introducing new term (torpedo growth which you claim exists because it exists, a circular reasoning) but have no explanation as to why the torpedo would grow in such a manner.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Each pixel error you make there will cause significant change of "distance" in your scene.
    "Significant"? Hardly. It's not going to shift position by more that 5-10%.

    Circular reasoning. The torpedo grows because it grows.
    Nope. We have no idea whatsoever why the torpedo grows (we may have some hypothesis, but nothing solid). We simply observe that yes, it can grow.

    I could just as easily say "the torpedo changes course because it changes course". Your "circular reasoning" is meaningless.

    Obviously since even inert objects like ships and satellites will flare up when passing through atmosphere let alone an active shield.
    "Obviously"? "flare up" is not the same thing as "change of size". Is this your explanation? "Torpedo glow grows because it passes through gas"? I would expect it to shrink, not to grow...

    To reiterate: the ability of torpedo to change its glow size, as you concede, is a known mechanism in Star Trek, thus, it is just as "new mechanism" as its acceleration and deceleration capibilities.

    And, yes, again, I have no explanation why the torpedo would grow in such a manner. Also, I have no explanation why contemporary warp engines flash before they go to warp. I have no explanation what is the mechanism that produces that sparkling during beaming. Does it mean that warp engines don't flash and there are to sparklies during beaming? Of course not.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "Obviously"? "flare up" is not the same thing as "change of size". Is this your explanation? "Torpedo glow grows because it passes through gas"? I would expect it to shrink, not to grow...
    It means change of apparent size. Creating a fireball around the object. Do you understand it now? Why all other incidents point to 2-3 meters? Dauntless, Call to arms etc. Yet examples within a nebula point to 10 meters? How does that fact that 100 years ago inside a nebula a different type of torpedo was 10 meters in diameter means this will be so in Rise?
    Why do you continue to pretend that torpedoes "grow" just because they are shown at a certain size? They are NOT shown to be GROWING in ST2 merely BEING a certain size.


    To reiterate: the ability of torpedo to change its glow size, as you concede, is a known mechanism in Star Trek, thus, it is just as "new mechanism" as its acceleration and deceleration capibilities.
    It is not a known mechanism since you haven't demonstrated it. Demonstrate torpedo growth, actual growth of the same type as Voyager on an example different from Rise. Then you will have a basis for claiming that growth is a known mechanism when applied to Rise.
    As it stands you haven't provided any evidence thus growth IS NOT a known mechanism.

    ReplyDelete
  81. It means change of apparent size. Creating a fireball around the object.
    Which, curiously, looks exactly like standard torpedo glow, only bigger. Also, I'd expect that any object surrounded by fireball would leave some sort of trail, as per usual depiction of objects flying through the dense gas.

    No, your hyphothesis has no value.

    Why all other incidents point to 2-3 meters?
    They don't.

    Why do you continue to pretend that torpedoes "grow" just because they are shown at a certain size? They are NOT shown to be GROWING in ST2 merely BEING a certain size.
    Wha...? I don't pretend that torpedoes glow grows. I see that it can grow to certain size.

    It is not a known mechanism since you haven't demonstrated it.
    Yes I have. You've even stopped arguing about that, so, it seems to me that you've conceded the point.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Which, curiously, looks exactly like standard torpedo glow, only bigger. Also, I'd expect that any object surrounded by fireball would leave some sort of trail, as per usual depiction of objects flying through the dense gas.
    Since torpedo already looks like a spherical flare what is your point?

    No, your hyphothesis has no value.
    So you claim but have provided no evidence.

    Wha...? I don't pretend that torpedoes glow grows. I see that it can grow to certain size.
    Yes it can grow due to outside influence like friction. How does this prove some kind of innate torpedo growth?

    Yes I have. You've even stopped arguing about that, so, it seems to me that you've conceded the point.
    Arguing about what? I have shot down each and every of your claims. And now we are running in circles so I really don't think there is any point in continuing.
    I'm not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Dictionary.com is your friend. Use it.
    And the point of all of this is? You use torpedoes from different periods to bolster your point but I can't use the ones from the same period?


    (Sigh)

    I stated that contemporary torpedoes before and after demonstrate the same growth effects, contrary to your suggestion that Voyager torpedoes were a unique "current torpedo type".

    When you came out of nowhere in response by rejecting the idea that TOS torpedoes would be useful as justification, I explained to you what "contemporary" meant.

    Now you're coming out of nowhere again with whatever the hell you're talking about above.

    And now you force me to deconstruct your page example by example:

    About bloody time you tried it, instead of claiming they simply didn't happen.

    Indeed, let's keep the following in mind when pondering what you're about to say:

    "You are lying. Nowhere have you proven torpedo growth. Each and every one of your "growth" examples involves torpedoes coming towards the camera."

    1."The Expanse"[ENT2]
    Didn't you notice they were in a dense nebula? You do realize that torpedoes glow could become larger due to friction? Either way how does this point to "growth".


    I don't see how friction would increase apparent glow size.

    As for the thermobaric clouds of the example, I'll grant that there's potential for that kind of argument to work. However, it does not exist to the extent you want in this example. The torpedo doesn't look like a big smudge as we would expect a bright light to appear in fog . . . it looks like the torpedo as fired in the first pic. We would also expect other lit objects to appear with similar foggy glow, but we don't get that. The closest we get is the glow from the port nacelle entirely obscured in the second shot image, and a small bit of bluish haze around the starboard nacelle.

    In any case, the two torps are fired away from the camera, which you do not contest in the above. I thought you said they were all fired *toward* the camera . . .

    2."Arena"[TOS1]
    Torpedo is closer to the camera than the saucer. How much closer? You don't know thus making this example invalid.


    The path of the torpedo is obvious given its location on the screen and its velocity. Hence its proximity to the ship is established as very close, and thus it can be approximately scaled.

    The only reason to assume it has a curved course is if you wish to assume your chosen disbelief is a conclusion, and attempt to twist the facts to fit it.

    Offer some evidence that the torpedo's course is curved. Otherwise you're raping parsimony by assuming a more complex state of affairs than the logical and clearly observable one.

    3."Journey to Babel"[TOS2] et al.
    Same thing as above. Torpedo is closer and you have no way of knowing the true diameter.


    The path of the torpedo is obvious given its location on the screen and its velocity. Hence its proximity to the ship is established as very close, and thus it can be approximately scaled.

    The only reason to assume it has a curved course is if you wish to assume your chosen disbelief is a conclusion, and attempt to twist the facts to fit it.

    Offer some evidence that the torpedo's course is curved. Otherwise you're raping parsimony by assuming a more complex state of affairs than the logical and clearly observable one.

    4."Elaan of Troyius"[TOS3]
    Again you have no knowledge as to what is the exact direction of the torpedo and how much closer is it to the camera.

    The path of the torpedo is obvious given its location on the screen and its velocity. Hence its proximity to the ship is established as very close, and thus it can be approximately scaled.

    The only reason to assume it has a curved course is if you wish to assume your chosen disbelief is a conclusion, and attempt to twist the facts to fit it.

    Offer some evidence that the torpedo's course is curved. Otherwise you're raping parsimony by assuming a more complex state of affairs than the logical and clearly observable one.

    5."In a Mirror, Darkly, Pt. II"[ENT4]
    This is an actual example that show greater than 2 meter glow although still not 10 meters.


    Concession accepted.

    Of course the appearance of a torpedo is completely dissimilar to the yellow type photon torpedo of Voyager/DS9 era.

    Irrelevant. You have conceded one example of glow growth. Even better, it's a torp fired away from the camera, which you do not contest in the above. I thought you said they were all fired *toward* the camera . . .

    Another invalid example.

    Illogical, because you conceded that it was larger. Attempting to dismiss it as inapplicable to the whole question of photon torpedo post-launch glow growth which you have contested, even claiming that I have lied about it, is thus dishonest.

    6."In a Mirror, Darkly, Pt. II"[ENT4]
    Same as above although this time torpedo appears much smaller.


    A second concession.

    Which one should be used as a lower limit?

    If there were some other TOS torp we were trying to scale an object against, and if we had not seen the TOS torp fired in such a way that we could derive a scaling against the Enterprise-prime, then we could use this one as a lower limit.

    7.Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
    Again as with the Expanse they are in a dense nebula


    This is far less dense than the thermobaric clouds. Indeed, there is no fogginess apparent when looking at the Reliant. So, you have no argument there.

    and torpedo shield and particle will interact to produce a bigger glow.

    Evidence?

    Assuming you have none, which I don't think you do, then we have two acknowledged examples from TOS and a tacitly-acknowledged example from ST2, by the Kane scorecard.

    Even better, this torp is fired away from the camera, which you do not contest in the above. I thought you said they were all fired *toward* the camera . . .

    8.Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
    This one actually is a big torpedo


    Concession accepted. Didn't you say I was lying when I stated that growth was proven? That's:

    TOS - 2 examples
    TOS Films - 2 examples, one "big"

    but of a completely dissimilar type.

    Irrelevant. You have conceded another example of glow growth, a concept which you reject.

    Even better, the torp is fired away from the camera, which you do not contest in the above. I thought you said they were all fired *toward* the camera . . .

    Again the example is invalid.

    Oh no sir, you don't get to be arbitrary.

    9.Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
    Again the appearance is completely different. There appears to be a red haze around a cylindrical/rectangular brighter core. Not comparable to Voyager's torpedoes.


    Irrelevant . . . you have conceded another example of glow growth, a concept which you reject and claim is a lie on my part. Even better, the torp is fired away from the camera, which you do not contest in the above. I thought you said they were all fired *toward* the camera . . .

    10."Best of Both Worlds, Pt. II"[TNG4]
    What evidence do you have the torpedoes we see striking the cube left of the phasers are the same we saw in the scene before?


    Because it's a continuous scene with no evidence of additional, unseen time.

    Provide evidence otherwise this is one more invalid example.

    The episode scene is my evidence. Provide even a shred of evidence that there is a gap and then we'll talk.

    11."Half a Life"[TNG4]
    Again you make no attempt to determine how much the size of the torpedo will be exaggerated by it's distance to camera.


    Irrelevant . . . we can see the torpedo's reddish glow against the hull, enabling us to know its location. As the Enterprise-D is not skewed to hell and gone as it might be if we were viewing it from standing on the hull, then we know the camera is a sufficient distance away to enable us to scale with reasonable accuracy.

    12."In Theory"[TNG4]
    Again a nebula. Again the example is invalid.


    Wrong. The Enterprise had yet to enter the nebula . . . Picard's log said they were preparing to enter it, prior to torp launch. As you can also see, the Enterprise is wholly unobscured. Even afterward in Ten-Forward stars are visible out the window.

    We see the entry happen several minutes into the episode, at which point the ship is obscured. After that event, scenes in Ten-Forward feature a purple/blue fog out of the window.

    Indeed, when the torpedo is fired into the nebula, we see it departing normally, followed by it suddenly jumping into a dull, large glow as it enters the nebula, many frames after the ones I used.

    Even better, the torp is fired away from the camera, which you do not contest in the above. I thought you said they were all fired *toward* the camera . . .

    13."Defiant"[DSN3]
    Defiant is notoriously flexible in size herself


    What, you think the ship shrank after releasing her weapons?

    not to mention these are quantum torpedoes.

    No shit! I said so myself.

    Evidently, you concede that growth occurred. Even better, the torp is fired across the field of view of the camera, which you do not contest in the above. I thought you said they were all fired *toward* the camera . . .

    14."Alliances"[VOY2]
    Again atmospheric interaction. The torpedo is clearly distorted but nevertheless it is no more than 3 meters in diameter.


    Oh ho ho, I call 'bullshit'. You claim that interaction with gases produces all sorts of wonky effects that make scalings utterly invalid, yet at the same time you think you can make a scaling claim here. And oh yeah, do you know the distance ratio? If you don't have exact calculations, by your own claims, then you can make no claim.

    :P

    Or, I can avoid calling bullshit, and simply note that you've acknowledged yet another example of glow growth, this time FROM VOYAGER ITSELF.

    You've thus invalidated your claim that I was lying about having proved it again. Further, your bullshit about "current torpedo type" is nullified by your own hand.

    15."A Call to Arms"[DSN5]
    You claim that second image shows at least 7.5 meter glow. Again the torpedo is closer to the camera. Again you provided no calculations as to how much this will offset the diameter.


    The path of the torpedo is obvious given its location on the screen and its velocity. Hence its proximity to the station is established as very close, and thus it can be approximately scaled.

    The only reason to assume it has a curved course is if you wish to assume your chosen disbelief is a conclusion, and attempt to twist the facts to fit it.

    Offer some evidence that the torpedo's course is curved. Otherwise you're raping parsimony by assuming a more complex state of affairs than the logical and clearly observable one.

    As for the third and fourth image I would sure like some evidence that the popout weapon array is anywhere near 7.5 meters in diameter.

    The station is 500px wide in this image:

    http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/terok-nor.jpg

    The circular thingies are around 4px tall.

    Thus, the circles are 0.008 the total width of the station.

    Alternately, in the image below, the station is 1117px wide, and the circles are 12px tall. That gives them 0.01074 of the station's size.

    If the station were 1000m wide, they would be 8 meters wide from the first pic, or 10.74 meters wide per the second.

    But we don't know the exact scale of DS9. Quoting Bernd, "The originally intended size of the station must have been less than 1km, as indicated by the Ops and promenade deck sets, but was usually scaled up indefinitely in VFX shots to 2.5km or more -- especially next to Galaxy- and Nebula-class vessels. This huge size is hard to maintain even if we favor a big Defiant. This may have been one reason for the DS9TM to settle on a diameter of 1450m which seems like a compromise to let the deck plans of Deep Space Nine look half-way reasonable."

    Whatever the backstage notions of size were when the sets were being built, the station has always been shown to be around a kilometer in size at minimum. Note Emissary's E-D shot:

    http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=166

    Thus, 7.5 meters is probably a profound underestimation for the circular thingies, and hence the torps themselves.

    Even better, the third and fourth torps are fired away from the camera, which you do not contest in the above. I thought you said they were all fired *toward* the camera . . .

    And the central glow is NOWHERE NEAR the size of the circular detail but perhaps half the size.

    It's a smidgen larger than my mouse pointer, and so is the circular thingy. Not a precise method, but it's sufficient, your bunk notwithstanding.

    15."Hope and Fear"[VOY4]
    Again you claim that torpedoes obviously heading for the camera are growing.


    Yep.

    Provide calculations and evidence that growth is there even when accounting for perspective.

    I've drawn it out for you, and explained the perspective with regards to Voyager in a manner similar to (but less advanced than) Kazeite's example regarding "Rise". The evidence is clear.

    Also as I have shown when we see torpedoes hitting Dauntless they are nowhere near 7-10 meters in diameter.

    You've argued that the fourth torpedo is smaller . . . I did not scale the fourth torpedo against Voyager. The second torpedo moves behind Dauntless and is around one-fifth the height of the ship behind the low trailing 'wings' (scaled correctly, albeit quickly, and not via your flawed scaling methodology), which gives it at least six meters, not accounting for its additional distance. It was the second torpedo that I spent time scaling on the page. Ironically, it actually appears larger than the first torpedo, which is closer to the camera than Dauntless.

    So are you suggesting that Voyager first fired a volley that grew then second one that didn't or that torpedoes grew first half of the way and then started to shrink? It doesn't make much sense and you have no evidence either way.

    It's possible shrinkage occurred . . . they were in a slipstream, after all, which required all sorts of technobabble to maintain, and which had evidently already caused three torpedoes to miss. But in any case, we can clearly see that the second torp is within the size parameters specified.

    16.Star Trek: Insurrection
    Again they are in a dense nebula but regardless how can those torpedoes be 5-7 meters in diameter? The first one is no wider than windows.


    It's not that dense, and we can see how far the torpedo is thanks to its glow against the trails left behind the warp manifolds. Thus scaling the first against the windows while it is clearly very distant from the aft nacelles is foolish, and (to modify your line) represents a ridiculous lower limit. The second torp is much closer, and much larger in appearance.

    Even better, the torp is fired away from the camera, which you do not contest in the above. I thought you said they were all fired *toward* the camera . . .

    Let me reiterate: NOWHERE HAVE YOU DEMONSTRATED ANY TORPEDO GROWTH.

    You've conceded to multiple examples from TOS, the TOS films, DS9, et cetera. And yet you wish to reject that there's any pattern to those events, you wish to claim I'm lying when I note one, and you wish to lie completely about the evidence I provide, claiming that all are shots toward the camera.

    You are ridiculous.

    More reply later . . .

    ReplyDelete
  84. Ouch. How dare you dash all arguments of Kane in such brutal way! You meanie! :D

    Since torpedo already looks like a spherical flare what is your point?
    My point is, it doesn't look like thing in a forcefield surrounded by gas. If its forcefield really interacts with the gas, we should've been able to see the results of such interaction, after torpedo has passed.

    Arguing about what? I have shot down each and every of your claims.
    You've tried to argue that scaling is too imprecise. It failed. You promptly dropped the subject. It hardly counts as "shooting down my claim".

    And now we are running in circles (...)
    Yes, since you simultaneously admit there is a torpedo glow growth and deny it. What kind of reasoning can make both cases true at the same time?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Well this is pointless. You two are continually pretending that different torpedo types appearing at different sizes somehow means that torpedoes actually grow. I guess since Type 9 shuttlecraft is bigger than Type 15 that means individual shuttle types GROW.

    ReplyDelete
  86. No, we're pointing out that torpedo glow can have up to 10m in diameter (and even more, judging from Ent-D torpedoes).

    And, since you can't really squeeze 10m sphere inside the photon torpedo launcher, its glow has to grow from nothing to given size.

    That's all.

    ReplyDelete
  87. A shuttle, as a physical object, is logically constrained by physical rules.

    There have been events where a shuttle appears objectively larger than it ought to. One such example is Worf's shuttle from "Parallels"[TNG7], which left a ginormous shadow on the E-D saucer section. Or there's the old example from the original version of "The Doomsday Machine", where they made the shuttle larger so it could be seen entering the Planet-Killer's maw.

    (Could it be that photon torpedoes have been treated the same way? After all, in "Parallels" there are also some bigass torps (shown fired from behind), probably because the screen is so busy with ships and all the ships are small in size.

    The answer, of course, is yes. Assuming that later-TNG and early-DS9 torpedoes were done like phasers were on DS9 (per the behind-the-scenes book), an artist simply drew a 2-D line on the scene that the torpedo was to follow, and then set the size increase, manually adding glow on the hull as needed or as time allowed.

    In other words, they were ballparking it, and were more than happy to make it bigger (a la DS9 VFX supervisor Stipes) for dramatic intent or just to make the situation clearer.

    But that's not how we gauge the "reality" of Trek or Wars. We take them as they're shown and told to us.)

    Since a torpedo shield is not a physical object made of matter, it is not subject to all the constraints of matter. It can thus change shape or size without that fact causing undue confusion.

    But it does cause a helluva lot of argument from the deniers.

    ReplyDelete
  88. You know, fellas, this would be much easier to follow if it were a forum thread. (Hint, hint.)

    ReplyDelete
  89. Heh, just read yet another comment by George four days ago about Star Wars being non-canon.

    Funny stuff:

    Do you think you'd have other people continue the Star Wars saga past Episode VI or turn some of the other material into films?

    But there's no story past Episode VI, there's just no story. It's a certain story about Anakin Skywalker and once Anakin Skywalker dies, that's kind of the end of the story. There is no story about Luke Skywalker, I mean apart from the books. But there's three worlds: There's my world that I made up, there's the licensing world that's the books, the comics, all that kind of stuff, the games, which is their world, and then there's the fans' world, which is also very rich in imagination, but they don't always mesh. All I'm in charge of is my world. I can't be in charge of those other people's world, because I can't keep up with it.

    ReplyDelete
  90. "But it does cause a helluva lot of argument from the deniers."

    I just don't know what they can deny. How is torpedo able to exit launcher's aperture if it's shields are always same size? Exit aperture is smaller in height than one deck (I think there is good shot of Enterprise-D on Memory Alpha showing its forward launcher). Torpedoes (actually their shields) occasionally appear to be several meters (up to 10 or 15 meters, I think) in diameter. That is simply too big and increase in diameter of shields is only possible explanation. What is interesting is that on later models glow increases only slightly, and that in first second or so after launch (as seen with Defiant's Quantum torpedoes or any Ent-E's torpedoes (ST:DS9, First Contact, Insurrection, Nemesis).

    ReplyDelete