tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post2761352075218315458..comments2023-09-02T21:41:54.953-05:00Comments on ST-v-SW.Net: The Blog: Détente, Of SortsGuardianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01284444370958467313noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-10272044626365795892010-08-02T07:40:55.777-05:002010-08-02T07:40:55.777-05:00"But it does cause a helluva lot of argument ..."But it does cause a helluva lot of argument from the deniers."<br /><br />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).Picard578https://www.blogger.com/profile/11421288305324827562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-17035680470576473062008-03-21T03:33:00.000-05:002008-03-21T03:33:00.000-05:00Heh, just read yet another comment by George four ...Heh, just read yet another comment by George four days ago about Star Wars being non-canon.<BR/><BR/>Funny stuff:<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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.Mith_the_Godlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08715365934185102630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-56225275392176226082007-05-22T23:58:00.000-05:002007-05-22T23:58:00.000-05:00You know, fellas, this would be much easier to fol...You know, fellas, this would be much easier to follow if it were a forum thread. (Hint, hint.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-5347755018076669772007-05-16T07:27:00.000-05:002007-05-16T07:27:00.000-05:00A shuttle, as a physical object, is logically cons...A shuttle, as a physical object, is logically constrained by physical rules. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>(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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>But that's not how we gauge the "reality" of Trek or Wars. We take them as they're shown and told to us.)<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>But it does cause a helluva lot of argument from the deniers.Authorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04784914528396175700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-46265569330342770262007-05-15T11:23:00.000-05:002007-05-15T11:23:00.000-05:00No, we're pointing out that torpedo glow can have ...No, we're pointing out that torpedo glow can have up to 10m in diameter (and even more, judging from Ent-D torpedoes).<BR/><BR/>And, since you can't really squeeze 10m sphere inside the photon torpedo launcher, its glow has to grow from nothing to given size.<BR/><BR/>That's all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-81920727894053454352007-05-15T09:50:00.000-05:002007-05-15T09:50:00.000-05:00Well this is pointless. You two are continually pr...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-13298441747497892022007-05-15T08:32:00.000-05:002007-05-15T08:32:00.000-05:00Ouch. How dare you dash all arguments of Kane in s...Ouch. How dare you dash all arguments of <B>Kane</B> in such brutal way! You meanie! :D<BR/><BR/><B>Since torpedo already looks like a spherical flare what is your point?</B><BR/>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, <B>after</B> torpedo has passed.<BR/><BR/><B>Arguing about what? I have shot down each and every of your claims.</B><BR/>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".<BR/><BR/><B>And now we are running in circles (...)</B><BR/>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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-61592106579012153822007-05-15T07:49:00.000-05:002007-05-15T07:49:00.000-05:00Dictionary.com is your friend. Use it.And the poin...<B><I>Dictionary.com is your friend. Use it.</I><BR/>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?</B><BR/><BR/>(Sigh)<BR/><BR/>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". <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Now you're coming out of nowhere again with whatever the hell you're talking about above. <BR/><BR/><B>And now you force me to deconstruct your page example by example:</B><BR/><BR/>About bloody time you tried it, instead of claiming they simply didn't happen.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, let's keep the following in mind when pondering what you're about to say:<BR/><BR/>"You are lying. Nowhere have you proven torpedo growth. Each and every one of your "growth" examples involves torpedoes coming towards the camera."<BR/><BR/><B>1."The Expanse"[ENT2]<BR/>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".</B><BR/><BR/>I don't see how friction would increase apparent glow size.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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 . . . <BR/><BR/><B>2."Arena"[TOS1]<BR/>Torpedo is closer to the camera than the saucer. How much closer? You don't know thus making this example invalid.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>3."Journey to Babel"[TOS2] et al.<BR/>Same thing as above. Torpedo is closer and you have no way of knowing the true diameter.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>4."Elaan of Troyius"[TOS3]<BR/>Again you have no knowledge as to what is the exact direction of the torpedo and how much closer is it to the camera.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>5."In a Mirror, Darkly, Pt. II"[ENT4]<BR/>This is an actual example that show greater than 2 meter glow although still not 10 meters.</B><BR/><BR/>Concession accepted.<BR/><BR/><B>Of course the appearance of a torpedo is completely dissimilar to the yellow type photon torpedo of Voyager/DS9 era.</B><BR/><BR/>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 . . . <BR/><BR/><B>Another invalid example.</B><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><B>6."In a Mirror, Darkly, Pt. II"[ENT4] <BR/>Same as above although this time torpedo appears much smaller. </B><BR/><BR/>A second concession.<BR/><BR/><B>Which one should be used as a lower limit?</B><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><B>7.Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan<BR/>Again as with the Expanse they are in a dense nebula</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>and torpedo shield and particle will interact to produce a bigger glow.</B><BR/><BR/>Evidence?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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 . . . <BR/><BR/><B>8.Star Trek V: The Final Frontier<BR/>This one actually is a big torpedo</B><BR/><BR/>Concession accepted. Didn't you say I was lying when I stated that growth was proven? That's:<BR/><BR/>TOS - 2 examples<BR/>TOS Films - 2 examples, one "big"<BR/><BR/><B>but of a completely dissimilar type.</B><BR/><BR/>Irrelevant. You have conceded another example of glow growth, a concept which you reject.<BR/><BR/>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 . . . <BR/><BR/><B>Again the example is invalid.</B><BR/><BR/>Oh no sir, you don't get to be arbitrary. <BR/><BR/><B>9.Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country<BR/>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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 . . . <BR/><BR/><B>10."Best of Both Worlds, Pt. II"[TNG4]<BR/>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?</B><BR/><BR/>Because it's a continuous scene with no evidence of additional, unseen time.<BR/><BR/><B>Provide evidence otherwise this is one more invalid example.</B><BR/><BR/>The episode scene is my evidence. Provide even a shred of evidence that there is a gap and then we'll talk.<BR/><BR/><B>11."Half a Life"[TNG4]<BR/>Again you make no attempt to determine how much the size of the torpedo will be exaggerated by it's distance to camera.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>12."In Theory"[TNG4]<BR/>Again a nebula. Again the example is invalid.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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 . . . <BR/><BR/><B>13."Defiant"[DSN3]<BR/>Defiant is notoriously flexible in size herself</B><BR/><BR/>What, you think the ship shrank after releasing her weapons?<BR/><BR/><B>not to mention these are quantum torpedoes.</B><BR/><BR/>No shit! I said so myself.<BR/><BR/>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 . . . <BR/><BR/><B>14."Alliances"[VOY2]<BR/>Again atmospheric interaction. The torpedo is clearly distorted but nevertheless it is no more than 3 meters in diameter.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>:P<BR/><BR/>Or, I can avoid calling bullshit, and simply note that you've acknowledged yet another example of glow growth, this time FROM VOYAGER ITSELF.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>15."A Call to Arms"[DSN5]<BR/>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>The station is 500px wide in this image:<BR/><BR/>http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/terok-nor.jpg<BR/><BR/>The circular thingies are around 4px tall. <BR/><BR/>Thus, the circles are 0.008 the total width of the station.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>If the station were 1000m wide, they would be 8 meters wide from the first pic, or 10.74 meters wide per the second.<BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>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:<BR/><BR/>http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=166<BR/><BR/>Thus, 7.5 meters is probably a profound underestimation for the circular thingies, and hence the torps themselves.<BR/><BR/>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 . . . <BR/><BR/><B>And the central glow is NOWHERE NEAR the size of the circular detail but perhaps half the size.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>15."Hope and Fear"[VOY4]<BR/>Again you claim that torpedoes obviously heading for the camera are growing.</B><BR/><BR/>Yep.<BR/><BR/><B>Provide calculations and evidence that growth is there even when accounting for perspective.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>Also as I have shown when we see torpedoes hitting Dauntless they are nowhere near 7-10 meters in diameter.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>16.Star Trek: Insurrection<BR/>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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 . . . <BR/><BR/><B>Let me reiterate: NOWHERE HAVE YOU DEMONSTRATED ANY TORPEDO GROWTH.</B><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>You are ridiculous.<BR/><BR/>More reply later . . .Authorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04784914528396175700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-23796741701311307292007-05-15T07:39:00.000-05:002007-05-15T07:39:00.000-05:00Which, curiously, looks exactly like standard torp...<B>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.</B><BR/>Since torpedo already looks like a spherical flare what is your point? <BR/><BR/><B>No, your hyphothesis has no value.</B><BR/>So you claim but have provided no evidence.<BR/><BR/><B>Wha...? I don't pretend that torpedoes glow grows. I see that it can grow to certain size.</B><BR/>Yes it can grow due to outside influence like friction. How does this prove some kind of innate torpedo growth?<BR/><BR/><B>Yes I have. You've even stopped arguing about that, so, it seems to me that you've conceded the point.</B><BR/>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.<BR/>I'm not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-60112565453451338202007-05-15T01:48:00.000-05:002007-05-15T01:48:00.000-05:00It means change of apparent size. Creating a fireb...<B>It means change of apparent size. Creating a fireball around the object.</B><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>No, your hyphothesis has no value.<BR/><BR/><B>Why all other incidents point to 2-3 meters?</B><BR/>They don't.<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/>Wha...? I don't pretend that torpedoes glow grows. I <B>see</B> that it can grow to certain size.<BR/><BR/><B>It is not a known mechanism since you haven't demonstrated it.</B><BR/>Yes I have. You've even stopped arguing about that, so, it seems to me that you've conceded the point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-86170571604100129512007-05-14T16:43:00.000-05:002007-05-14T16:43:00.000-05:00"Obviously"? "flare up" is not the same thing as "...<B>"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...</B><BR/>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?<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/>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.<BR/>As it stands you haven't provided any evidence thus growth IS NOT a known mechanism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-37244626243576337922007-05-14T16:32:00.000-05:002007-05-14T16:32:00.000-05:00Each pixel error you make there will cause signifi...<B>Each pixel error you make there will cause significant change of "distance" in your scene.</B><BR/>"Significant"? Hardly. It's not going to shift position by more that 5-10%.<BR/><BR/><B>Circular reasoning. The torpedo grows because it grows.</B><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>I could just as easily say "the torpedo changes course because it changes course". Your "circular reasoning" is meaningless.<BR/><BR/><B>Obviously since even inert objects like ships and satellites will flare up when passing through atmosphere let alone an active shield.</B><BR/>"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...<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-75747061603476007542007-05-14T16:11:00.000-05:002007-05-14T16:11:00.000-05:00To reiterate: changing course, even acceleration a...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.<BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-11629280301676531652007-05-14T16:04:00.000-05:002007-05-14T16:04:00.000-05:00I did. And I even included your errata in your quo...<B>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.</B><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>No, it does grow. Which is a known mechanism.</B><BR/>Circular reasoning. The torpedo grows because it grows.<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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 :) )</B><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-15185472670576245132007-05-14T14:37:00.000-05:002007-05-14T14:37:00.000-05:00A typo which I corrected. See my last post.I did. ...<B>A typo which I corrected. See my last post.</B><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>So according to your scenario the torpedo doesn't grow?</B><BR/>No, it does grow. Which is a known mechanism.<BR/><BR/><B>But your scaling against the Voyager background certainly is not the result of precise mathematical calculations is it?</B><BR/>None of the scaling work we (trekkies and warsies alike) use is "precise mathematical calculation".<BR/><BR/><B>You seem to be confusing growth and different apparent diameters.</B><BR/>Hardly.<BR/><BR/><B>True some torpedo types under some circumstances like being inside nebula appear larger.</B><BR/>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 :) )<BR/><BR/>So, there you have it: photon torpedoes do have the capability to change their size. What does it has to do with <I>Voyager</I>? Well, <I>Voyager</I> is armed with photon torpedoes. Duh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-14721824896308484912007-05-14T14:01:00.000-05:002007-05-14T14:01:00.000-05:00Yes I could, but it would require me to change the...<B>Yes I could, but it would require me to change their size, which is contrary to your claim.</B><BR/>A typo which I corrected. See my last post.<BR/><BR/><B>My scenario: asteroid is more or less in front of Voyager. Torpedo is fired, tracks the asteroid, moves slightly downwards, accelerating in linear fashion.<BR/>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.</B><BR/>So according to your scenario the torpedo doesn't grow? Because if it does it introduces a new mechanism to Star Trek universe.<BR/><BR/><B>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?</B><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>Well it seems to me that no one here is going to convince the other side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-64720537276708317812007-05-14T12:56:00.000-05:002007-05-14T12:56:00.000-05:00First of all the spheres are not perfectly aligned...<B>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.</B><BR/>Yes I could, but it would require me to change their size, which is contrary to your claim.<BR/><BR/><B>Secondly do you figure that torpedo accelerating and decelerating is more complex solution under Occam's Razor?</B><BR/>Absolutely.<BR/><BR/>My scenario: asteroid is more or less in front of <I>Voyager</I>. Torpedo is fired, tracks the asteroid, moves slightly downwards, accelerating in linear fashion.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Which is simpler?<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><B>I am adding no new mechanism to Trek universe, you are.</B><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-74639580721787008632007-05-14T12:18:00.000-05:002007-05-14T12:18:00.000-05:00"You could scale the spheres up or down (especiall..."You could scale the spheres up or down (especially the most distant one) which could easily level out the distances."<BR/>That should be:<BR/>"You could <B>move</B> the spheres back and front (especially the most distant one) which could easily level out the distances."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-14780094886458209962007-05-14T12:14:00.000-05:002007-05-14T12:14:00.000-05:00I already DID. Look at my scene:http://kazeite.rep...<B>I already DID. Look at my scene:<BR/>http://kazeite.republika.pl/Rise/torpedoes.gif<BR/>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.<BR/>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?<BR/>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.<BR/>It means that your non growing torpedo started accelerating, then rapidly decelerated.</B><BR/>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.<BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-76352060456359319242007-05-14T08:24:00.000-05:002007-05-14T08:24:00.000-05:00PROVE the torpedo will neccesarily have to acceler...<B>PROVE the torpedo will neccesarily have to accelerate deccelerate and then accelerate again.</B><BR/>I already DID. Look at my scene:<BR/><BR/>http://kazeite.republika.pl/Rise/torpedoes.gif<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>It means that your non growing torpedo started accelerating, then rapidly decelerated.<BR/><BR/><B>And no a single screenshot of several spheres in the scene doesn't cut it.</B><BR/>It's still infinitely more than you can provide. Remember, you admited you have no evidence whatsoever for off-axis flight path.<BR/><BR/>Simply declaring "my playing in 3DMax" invalid without giving any reason doesn't make it invalid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-35216800069650657802007-05-14T07:50:00.000-05:002007-05-14T07:50:00.000-05:001. Please do not smoke crack before posting blog ...1. Please do not smoke crack before posting blog comments.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>Reply forthcoming . . .Authorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04784914528396175700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-81995746348925012172007-05-14T07:37:00.000-05:002007-05-14T07:37:00.000-05:00con·tem·po·rar·y [kuhn-tem-puh-rer-ee]–adjective1....<B>con·tem·po·rar·y [kuhn-tem-puh-rer-ee]<BR/>–adjective<BR/>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.<BR/>3. of the present time; modern: alecture on the contemporary novel.<BR/>Dictionary.com is your friend. Use it.</B><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><B><I>You NEVER demonstrated any torpedo growth.</I><BR/>You've been warned. Don't do that again.</B><BR/>And now you force me to deconstruct your page example by example:<BR/>1."The Expanse"[ENT2]<BR/>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".<BR/>2."Arena"[TOS1]<BR/>Torpedo is closer to the camera than the saucer. How much closer? You don't know thus making this example invalid.<BR/>3."Journey to Babel"[TOS2] et al.<BR/>Same thing as above. Torpedo is closer and you have no way of knowing the true diameter.<BR/>4."Elaan of Troyius"[TOS3]<BR/>Again you have no knowledge as to what is the exact direction of the torpedo and how much closer is it to the camera.<BR/>5."In a Mirror, Darkly, Pt. II"[ENT4]<BR/>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.<BR/>6."In a Mirror, Darkly, Pt. II"[ENT4] <BR/>Same as above although this time torpedo appears much smaller. Which one should be used as a lower limit?<BR/>7.Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan<BR/>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.<BR/>8.Star Trek V: The Final Frontier<BR/>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.<BR/>9.Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country<BR/>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.<BR/>10."Best of Both Worlds, Pt. II"[TNG4]<BR/>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.<BR/>11."Half a Life"[TNG4]<BR/>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.<BR/>12."In Theory"[TNG4]<BR/>Again a nebula. Again the example is invalid.<BR/>13."Defiant"[DSN3]<BR/>Defiant is notoriously flexible in size herself not to mention these are quantum torpedoes.<BR/>14."Alliances"[VOY2]<BR/>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.<BR/>15."A Call to Arms"[DSN5]<BR/>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.<BR/>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.<BR/>15."Hope and Fear"[VOY4]<BR/>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.<BR/>16.Star Trek: Insurrection<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Let me reiterate: NOWHERE HAVE YOU DEMONSTRATED ANY TORPEDO GROWTH.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>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.<BR/>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.<BR/>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.<BR/>And in both views of the event, you ignore simple deflector systems.</B><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><B>Yes, I can. Dialog is a perfectly valid source of information, and realistically ought to be considered the superior form.</B><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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).</B><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><B>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 [...]"<BR/>Pay attention.</B><BR/>Typo I meant to say "torpedo".<BR/><BR/><B>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Trek/Series/VOY/risetorpcent.jpg<BR/>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?<BR/>You're being ridiculous. The example is perfectly valid, and unlike you I account for actual perspective distortion.</B><BR/>"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.<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/>Wildly? How much is wildly? More the one in ST6? Again provide evidence and calculations.<BR/><BR/><B>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:<BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday10sm.jpg<BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday11sm.jpg<BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday12sm.jpg<BR/>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:<BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday08sm.jpg<BR/>The point here is that there is hard light on the buildings in the first three pics.<BR/>Now compare that to:<BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/SWsenatesm.jpg<BR/>There is no such lightening of any building.</B><BR/>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?<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>Now look here, 'cause I just noticed something:<BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscdaysenwin2.jpg<BR/>Outside the windows behind Windu are the very same buildings visible in this shot:<BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday11sm.jpg<BR/>And not only is the sky darker, but the buildings do not show the hard pinkish light.<BR/>Do you get it now, or are you going to lie?</B><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>It says antigravs are used then, so you can't determine ion drive performance near a planet or other gravitational body.</B><BR/>No it doesn't. It states the operational limits of hyperdrive and antigrav. That is all.<BR/><BR/><B>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.<BR/>(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.)<BR/>http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=222</B><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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.<BR/>So you're injecting your own peculiar assumptions into the quotes, then using that to try to override the quoted statements themselves.</B><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/>I eagerly await evidence that shields were down in those cases.<BR/><BR/><B>Then it wouldn't be unique, even to seasoned veterans, would it?</B><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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).<BR/>Stop arguing that point, 'cause it's just a stupid hissy-fit on your part.</B><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>Certainly:<BR/>http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=67&pos=0<BR/>http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=68&pos=382<BR/>http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/amok/Ep34_arena.jpg</B><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/>Then why have you brought it up? The height at the nacelle is no more than 30 meters.<BR/><BR/><B>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.<BR/>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.<BR/>Here:<BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/VisAid/kane.jpg</B><BR/>Ah I see now what your objection was. Well it's invalid since that is NOT what I did with Dauntless.<BR/>http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/dauntless_torp2.jpg<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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.<BR/>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.</B><BR/>Show it then. How can you possibly determine whether torpedo veered off to the camera.<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-25189519535828510702007-05-13T19:08:00.000-05:002007-05-13T19:08:00.000-05:00That's a nice false dilemma you've got there.What?...<B>That's a nice false dilemma you've got there.</B><BR/>What? I simply used non-expanding sphere (in other word, its size remains constant).<BR/><BR/>You argued that torpedo growth is <B>only</B> because of the perspective. I obliged.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Now, if I move sphere away from the camera, its apparent size will decrease, forcing me to increase its real size.<BR/><BR/>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, <B>much</B> closer to the forward trajectory than "towards the camera" trajectory.<BR/><BR/>Which would deflate <B>G2k</B> results somewhat, yes, if not for his assumed wide margin of tolerance.<BR/><BR/><B>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.<BR/>Very cute.</B><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. :)<BR/><BR/><B>Very nice work . . . I'd love to include screenshots of your material like that on my page.</B><BR/><BR/>I took a screenshot of my scene: <BR/><BR/>http://kazeite.republika.pl/Rise/torpedoes.gif<BR/><BR/>There's top, front and left view, plus composite (made in Photopaint :) ) from the camera POV, showing screengrabs of the moving torpedo.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Let me know if you need any more renders.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-21454744692514419662007-05-13T13:51:00.000-05:002007-05-13T13:51:00.000-05:00Or, in other words, if the torpedo acceleration is...<B>Or, in other words, if the torpedo acceleration is constant, then it couldn't possibly be fired towards the camera.<BR/><BR/>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</B><BR/><BR/>Very nice work . . . I'd love to include screenshots of your material like that on my page. <BR/><BR/>However, asking Kane about it is quite useless. I just had to draw this out for him:<BR/><BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/VisAid/kane.jpg<BR/><BR/> . . . meaning that what you've just described is far too complicated for him to imagine.Authorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04784914528396175700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-10388194341453619892007-05-13T13:45:00.000-05:002007-05-13T13:45:00.000-05:00I'm not asking you to scale it off torpedo casing....<B>I'm not asking you to scale it off torpedo casing. Scale it against observed diameters of 2-3 meters</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>Using a 10 meter torpedo NOT a lower limit let alone "bent over backward".</B><BR/><BR/>And you continue to mix up my statements. <BR/><BR/><B><I>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.</I><BR/>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?</B><BR/><BR/>con·tem·po·rar·y [kuhn-tem-puh-rer-ee] <BR/>–adjective <BR/>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. <BR/>3. of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel.<BR/><BR/>Dictionary.com is your friend. Use it.<BR/><BR/><B>You NEVER demonstrated any torpedo growth.</B><BR/><BR/>You've been warned. Don't do that again.<BR/><BR/><B><I>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.<BR/>Neither of those is true. </I><BR/>By all means provide evidence it isn't true.</B><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>And in both views of the event, you ignore simple deflector systems.<BR/><BR/><B><I>Er, yeah I can.</I><BR/>Um no you can't.</B><BR/><BR/>Yes, I can. Dialog is a perfectly valid source of information, and realistically ought to be considered the superior form.<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/><B><I>What blur? The firing flash? That's already over.</I><BR/>Are you going to lie to my face now? The asteroid is clearly blurred, it is not remotely circular in shape.</B><BR/><BR/>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 [...]"<BR/><BR/>Pay attention.<BR/><BR/><B> you haven't even scaled the weapon array. How big is it? </B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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"?</B><BR/><BR/>Because that's the Rise torp. The CtA torps are not.<BR/><BR/><B><I>Dude, it's 7-8 meters wide by the second frame.<BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWtorpglow.html#Rise<BR/>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.<BR/>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.</I><BR/>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.</B><BR/><BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Trek/Series/VOY/risetorpcent.jpg<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>You're being ridiculous. The example is perfectly valid, and unlike you I account for actual perspective distortion.<BR/><BR/><B><I>One is the "Rise" torp. The others are not.</I><BR/>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?</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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?</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B><I>No, you are blind.<BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWaotcparsec.html<BR/>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").<BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWaotcparsec.html#update<BR/>There is no such light on the Senate building or any other visible buildings, and the sky beyond Mace is much darker.<BR/>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.</I><BR/>What "hard light"? The skyscrapers were no more illuminated by an external source than the senate building. </B><BR/><BR/>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:<BR/><BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday10sm.jpg<BR/><BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday11sm.jpg<BR/><BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday12sm.jpg<BR/><BR/>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:<BR/><BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday08sm.jpg<BR/><BR/>The point here is that there is hard light on the buildings in the first three pics. <BR/><BR/>Now compare that to:<BR/><BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/SWsenatesm.jpg<BR/><BR/>There is no such lightening of any building.<BR/><BR/>Now look here, 'cause I just noticed something:<BR/><BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscdaysenwin2.jpg<BR/><BR/>Outside the windows behind Windu are the very same buildings visible in this shot:<BR/><BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/Coruscday/Coruscday11sm.jpg<BR/><BR/>And not only is the sky darker, but the buildings do not show the hard pinkish light.<BR/><BR/>Do you get it now, or are you going to lie?<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>Actually, they do face the same direction, as you just helped me find out. Thanks.<BR/><BR/><B><I>Yes, I know. Similarly, when folks go into hyperspace, the stars turn to lines and then we see the ships zoom away.</I><BR/>Why are you continuing to evade?</B><BR/><BR/>Why do you continue to lie?<BR/><BR/><B>Let me explain it once again:<BR/>1.we see the stars turn from lines to dots, and then we see Endor rapidly approaching<BR/>2.we cut to the outside view watching the fleet come out of hyperspace</B><BR/><BR/>And this is what we previously referred to. Now you're changing it up: <BR/><BR/><B>3.we cut back to the cockpits of Falcon and Home One and Endor is still rapidly approaching requiring km/s2 deceleration abilities</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>I don't see anything about ships not using their ion drives here do you?</B><BR/><BR/>It says antigravs are used then, so you can't determine ion drive performance near a planet or other gravitational body.<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>(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.)<BR/><BR/>http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=222<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>So you're injecting your own peculiar assumptions into the quotes, then using that to try to override the quoted statements themselves.<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B><I>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.</I><BR/>Show the screenshots of the ones that demolish your argument you mean.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Your claim of dishonesty on my part is false and is to be retracted.<BR/><BR/><B><I>"Example Group II:<BR/>(Events involving questionable or negative shield status)"<BR/>Duh. Read the page.</I><BR/>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>Explain it to me then. Please. How is a faster impactor with less crossectional area easier to stop?<BR/><B>Why would it be easier?</I><BR/>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.</B><BR/><BR/>Illogical . . . no concession exists on my part, since my conjecture was based on utility, not ease.<BR/><BR/><B><I>Why would Coruscant look strange if other Republic worlds looked the same way? </I><BR/>Because out of a million worlds you might not get the chance to see a world like Coruscant?</B><BR/><BR/>Then it wouldn't be unique, even to seasoned veterans, would it?<BR/><BR/><B>3. Exactly therefore your usage of Earth as benchmark is invalid.</B><BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>Stop arguing that point, 'cause it's just a stupid hissy-fit on your part.<BR/><BR/><B>4.By all means show me something on Vulcan that rivals Mos Eisley or Theeds.</B><BR/><BR/>Certainly:<BR/><BR/>http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=67&pos=0<BR/><BR/>http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=68&pos=382<BR/><BR/>http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/amok/Ep34_arena.jpg<BR/><BR/><B><I>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.</I><BR/>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B><I>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.</I><BR/>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.</B><BR/><BR/>And you're wrong to do so, because you're calling that 1.48 meters when it most certainly is not. <BR/><BR/><B>I scaled the height of the Dauntless the same way.</B><BR/><BR/>In other words, you're doing exactly what I've said you're doing, and you don't even recognize that it's wrong.<BR/><BR/><B>It is quick and dirty but IT WILL result in underestimation of the actual on screen length thus resulting in an upper limit.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/VisAid/kane.jpg<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>You need to know because the smaller the ratio the greater distortions and exaggerations of closer object.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>1. Torpedo glow growth is a demonstrated fact. Individual scalings may be debated, but the principle itself may not. <BR/>Interesting logic. You admit that factual data itself might be faulty yet the "principle" cannot be touched?</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>I for one choose to follow in the footsteps of Galileo.</B><BR/><BR/>Galileo didn't believe in consensus as arbiter of truth.<BR/><BR/><B><I>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.</I><BR/>So I'm not allowed to disagree with you?</B><BR/><BR/>Of course you are. You're simply not allowed to drag this on and on with utterly stupid lies and denials of fact.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>That's just wrong, and I'm not going to allow you to spread that kind of crap on my blog.<BR/><BR/><B>Isn't that the same thing you accuse Michael Wong of doing?</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>That's your failing, however, and not mine.<BR/><BR/><B>Like I said I have a backup copy and can easily repost this entire exchange anywhere I want.</B><BR/><BR/>I can't imagine why you would want to embarrass yourself like that, but whatever.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, you've received your second warning, so I'd advise you to adhere to my directions.Authorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04784914528396175700noreply@blogger.com