tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post3554047861150159502..comments2023-09-02T21:41:54.953-05:00Comments on ST-v-SW.Net: The Blog: Tactical Tipping Point: Now It's a Strategic WarGuardianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01284444370958467313noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-79576884283775588622007-07-02T14:42:00.000-05:002007-07-02T14:42:00.000-05:00If the Empire tries to attack/destroy any Federati...If the Empire tries to attack/destroy any Federation planet they would probably try to attack Earth because of its importance to starfleet. Like the borg they would probably be detected halfway there and met by a fleet of battle ready starships. Starfleet command would more than likely be evacuated. With superior sensors they would probably scan the Death Star pointing out its weaknesses. If the Empire attacks first with a win-quick strategy, They will show their strengths and weaknessesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-29507051583797938052007-07-02T14:08:00.000-05:002007-07-02T14:08:00.000-05:00I think the klingons and Romulans are going to hel...I think the klingons and Romulans are going to help the federation even if the Empire strikes first because they know they will be defeated just as quick. United I think they can crush the Empire.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-28674761649161283762007-04-30T09:33:00.000-05:002007-04-30T09:33:00.000-05:00How then can you ascertain distance? Explain. And ...<B><BR/>How then can you ascertain distance? Explain. And I don't understand that last part about "linear measurement". Every distance is measured linearly, line being used to represent distance.</B><BR/><BR/>lines involve the measuring of two points that create a 2D representation.<BR/><BR/><B>How is your speculation that Phoenix was standing still relatively to the 2-d plane superior than mine that it wasn't? We don't have evidence either way.</B><BR/><BR/>Because I don't speculate either way I accept the last statement anything else is uncanon and unverifiable.<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>So what? It was shown and observation is even better than statement.</B><BR/><BR/>No it's not. Statement verifies the onscreen. example: Voyager: Captain Janeway waits to give the order to fire after 10,000 kilometers in Basics Part I...The observered distant is considerably less encompasing the Kazon mother ship and Voyager. Sequence of event imply the image is much after the point of statement.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B><BR/>We are operating under suspension of disbelief. As such out-of-universe like plot device are unacceptable.</B><BR/>tangent...I don't contest it. The explanation is still sound.<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>What assumptions have I made regarding these incidents?</B><BR/><BR/>Everything thus far has been an assumption. Rather than reling on canon you're over complicating the simple statements and the visual persectives.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B><BR/>Again how do you know that the ISD is in geostationary orbit? I ALREADY explained that at those distances perspective will make it look like ISD is standing still above the surface even though it might be moving. Do you understand what I'm talking about? Check my trees and mountains analogy.</B><BR/>I already explained that it doesn't really matter the distance from which we view the ISD. It's forward momentum is irrelevant to a geosyncrhonous orbit. It's all perspective anyway...the only thing we no for sure is that the planet wasn't rotating and the ISD had no perceivable rotation it's self. When one object isn't rotating an it's a planet it's a match of surface velocities.<BR/><BR/>You have shown no evidence that ISD was in geostationary orbit and your "belief" is ultimately irrelevant is it no?<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>I find that incorrect. Antigravity devices don't restrict motion it defies gravity.</B><BR/><BR/>That would be wrong. Gravity has little to do with inertia.<BR/> <BR/><B><BR/><BR/>You have completely misunderstood the function of inertial dampers. These mechanisms you described merely slow down and dampen the movement of the entire building but every movement the building makes are felt by the people inside.</B><BR/><BR/>That's exactly what an IDF system does...dampen movement. Nothing to do with gravity in the provisional sense.<BR/><BR/><B> Inertial damper on the other hand must operate inside the ship which rapidly accelerating and somehow make the crew feel nothing.</B><BR/><BR/>And if it was an antigravity field the people would be floating...which is why you're wrong and in definace of physics.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><B>You are not making much sense I'm afraid. What is T in your equation? Time? If so time times velocity is simply traveled distance and not "the rate of speed".</B><BR/><BR/>I may have fouled that up...D*T=rate of speed. Using traditional symbols.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Actually ICS books are made as supplement to the movies and thus much more reliable than EU books which sometimes contradict themselves and the movies. What the you mean the book is "intentional in some of it's contradictions"? And more to the point where does it contradicts the films?</B><BR/><BR/>Yeah I know what there purpose is. That doesn't outline why it's failed in that purpose.<BR/><BR/>Star Wars' ships and weapons have consistently failed the test of comparision to the firepowers stated in the book. Star War's rarely if ever displace megaton firepower...Trek is pretty consistent in it...but it's still not frequent.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05497699593377180118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-44763370133174686462007-04-29T08:19:00.000-05:002007-04-29T08:19:00.000-05:00I don't need to show any evidence that they ISDs s...<B>I don't need to show any evidence that they ISDs specifically have rear sensors specifically.</B><BR/><BR/>Of course you do. You made the assertion they are specifically on the rear by saying 'how do you know they aren't back there'.<BR/><BR/><B>Maybe I should ask you to provide evidence that Akira, Steamrunner, Saber, Excelsior, D'Deridex etc. etc. have rear sensors.</B><BR/><BR/>Given that we've seen on just Fed ships that they can detect things approaching from the rear of them:<BR/><BR/>1. like when Ro, as a double agent with the Maquis, tried to get through the rear of the E-D's shields;<BR/>2. when Q, traveling as a ball of energy, was chasing the E-D and they showed it up on the screen and fired torps at it;<BR/>3. when the borg first chasesd after the E-D and they threw an image of it up on the screen;<BR/>4. etc.<BR/><BR/>Fed ships have sensors on the rear of their ships.<BR/><BR/><B>I said that crew didn't have any reason to check behind when they jumped into hyperspace. You continue to omit the "jumped into hyperspace" part to make it sound as if I'm claiming that they didn't have any reason to scan for Falcon when it flew past the bridge.</B><BR/><BR/>Except I have always spoken of the best time to use any rear sensors that would have been back there would have been right after the Falcon flew overhead and before they went to regroup with Vader and the other ISDs. I have not been dishonest about that.<BR/><BR/><B>And how does the fact that AWACS's are not battleships and not in space invalidate the analogy?</B><BR/><BR/>The analogy only works to the point before you bring in the nimbleness difference between planes and Wars space vehicles.<BR/><BR/><B>Falcon couldn't approach the ship undetected and the only reason Han succeeded is because no one on the ship thought of the possibility that it simply flew into their blind spot.</B><BR/><BR/>And the blindspot wouldn't exist, if there were external sensors on the rear of the neck.<BR/><BR/><B>Exactly. Falcon has excellent maneuverability. Much greater than Defiant and certainly than Miranda, Excelsior, Akira etc. which are all much bigger.</B><BR/><BR/>But, in the DS9 pilot, we see the Wolf 359 battle and 2 Fed capital ship went really fast at sublight before making a sharp 90 degree turn.<BR/><BR/><B>They are limited in detecting objects very close to the hull. Combat with Federation ships will occur at a range of kilometers so that is irrelevant.</B><BR/><BR/>Kilometers to hundreds of thousands of kilometers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-61447174492556784202007-04-29T05:50:00.000-05:002007-04-29T05:50:00.000-05:00I think I'll make a few brief points;1. I do belie...I think I'll make a few brief points;<BR/><BR/>1. I do believe that ISD's have rear sensors, it'd be pretty stupid for them not to. But what was said right after the Falcon passed the bridge? The captain called out "track them" which suggests to me they have the ability to track vessels that shoot past them, after the sensor guy tells him the ship no longer appeared on any of their scopes the captain makes the famous statement that that was impossible as no ship that small has a cloaking device and then lord Vader called wanting a status report. The fleet gathers togeather while this guy traveled to see Vader and die for it and after an unknown amount of time, the fleet breaks up and leaves. What the incident shows is that they dont have very good sensors and their personel are no better as they never thought to search their supposed blind spots(by the way, Han Solo in his early career was apparently an imperial officer, he may have known of the blind spot on an ISD before hand).<BR/><BR/>2. I would have to agree that all visual shots of range are all close-hand affairs even when some other character calls out a longer range. That of course is how they decided to film the scenes, I havent seen the episode with the Phoenix in a long time and I cant quite understand this claim to use a 3-D component, if the on-sreen circles represents the weapons range in a 2-d form, I dont see how viewing them in a big bubble in 3-d would change anything. The only visual long range weapons hit that I can think of at this moment is from the Voyager episode with Sulu and the Excelcior, there is a scene of the ship at warp and a couple of torpedos come from out of nowhere behind them (outside of visual range) and hit the ship. Trek may not have 100% accuracy (dont know anyone arguing that they do)but their accuracy does seem to be much higher than wars. There is nothing in wars that shows ships engadging in combat at longer ranges than those seen in star trek after all either, all battles have taken place at brick throwing range with non-maneuvering targets, pointing to a very large weapon (planetary ion cannon)which was designed to shoot at orbiting ships tells us nothing about the weapons on said ship. Also the earlier claim that the cannon had to quickly fire without aiming is unlikely, the ISD's couldnt penetrate the shield that was up allowing the alliance plenty of time to target and blast the orbiting ships as they launched their own ships. <BR/><BR/>3. The incident with the Romulan ships attacking the Enterprise involved ten ships spread out to a few hundred km, they were firing their plasma weapon at the Enterprise at a fairly regular rate and the Enterprise was hit with exactly 12 shots. It takes a while to fire those weapons for those ships (although maybe they have ramped up rate of fire who knows), it seems likely that each ship got off at least one shot before two got repeat shots, regardless there were still 12 shots.<BR/><BR/>4. Lastly the AWACS do not use sensors with nearly the power or range of what we've seen Federation ships doing, I think it looks bad comparing the ISD sensors to a modern warplane.<BR/><BR/>These are my two cents, lets all have some fun.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-2472516563045617272007-04-28T17:39:00.000-05:002007-04-28T17:39:00.000-05:00It's a tactical display of relative locations. We ...<B>It's a tactical display of relative locations. We don't need a complete 3D enviroment to acertain distance. A linear measurement is all that's required.</B><BR/>How then can you ascertain distance? Explain. And I don't understand that last part about "linear measurement". Every distance is measured linearly, line being used to represent distance.<BR/><BR/><B>AH...you mean...speculation. You may have your speculation. I will stick with the canon. Discussions degrade rapidly after pursuing hypotheticals.</B><BR/>How is your speculation that Phoenix was standing still relatively to the 2-d plane superior than mine that it wasn't? We don't have evidence either way.<BR/><BR/><B>Uncanon...Unstated.</B><BR/>So what? It was shown and observation is even better than statement.<BR/><BR/><B>But if only you had excluded your estimation from this conclusion then it would meet the requirements for canon.</B><BR/>What estimation?<BR/><BR/><B>Often by disruptures and torpedos. Yess misses even with phasers do occur. (add your plot device anywhere you wish the writers certainly do.)</B><BR/>We are operating under suspension of disbelief. As such out-of-universe like plot device are unacceptable.<BR/><BR/><B>Direct observation would mean that you used "zero" assumptions in your process you did not. As a result you finding become erronous to canon.</B><BR/>What assumptions have I made regarding these incidents?<BR/><BR/><B>You misunderstood. Perhaps that is my fault for not being clear. However, at no point in the discussion did I say "from the ISD's perspective" that the planet was not rotating. At least I don't believe so.<BR/>If neither object is in rotation from their respective position then the obvious conclusion is that the Planet is indeed rotating and the orbiting object is situated in a relative position over the planets surface...what is called a stationary orbit or a geosynchronous orbit.<BR/>Your relation of the moon and the Earth was flawed because both objects are indeed rotating and it can be observed from the moon that the Earth is infact rotating as the Earth does not present the same side to the moon at all times.</B><BR/>Again how do you know that the ISD is in geostationary orbit? I ALREADY explained that at those distances perspective will make it look like ISD is standing still above the surface even though it might be moving. Do you understand what I'm talking about? Check my trees and mountains analogy.<BR/><BR/><B>I didn't say the ISD was moving..."moving" is a relative term when dealing with cestial bodies.<BR/>No orbit is perfect. All orbits decay. There is more than enough information to conclude that the ISD was situated in a stationary orbit above Hoth.<BR/>When it lost power, completely it well out of that orbit. The movent of which was captured on film.<BR/>The ultimate end of that Star Destroyer was not visited on screen. I believe that it burned upin the atmosphere or crash landed.</B><BR/>You have shown no evidence that ISD was in geostationary orbit and your "belief" is ultimately irrelevant is it no?<BR/><BR/><B>I find that incorrect. Antigravity devices don't restrict motion it defies gravity. </B><BR/>Yes it defies gravity and inertial forces by creating antigrav effect. Thus inertial forces and antigrav forces cancel out and the crew feels nothing.<BR/><BR/><B>Interial Dampners dull reactions. Every cause has an effect in motions. There are some more terristrial ways to counter inertia. In some Japanese building and one in San Fransico large pendulums atop the build with a significant weighted mass relative to the size of the building wory to dampen the gust of wind by offering a counter force. The slab of concrete used at the top of the building it situation on water or other medium so as to have a delayed response and hense a counter response to the swaying motion of the building. In other words a 20 century Inertia Dampener that eventually and quite quicly stabelizes the rocking motion.</B><BR/>You have completely misunderstood the function of inertial dampers. These mechanisms you described merely slow down and dampen the movement of the entire building but every movement the building makes are felt by the people inside. Inertial damper on the other hand must operate inside the ship which rapidly accelerating and somehow make the crew feel nothing. There is no way to do it but creating an area effect force within the ship. I strongly suggest reading up on inertia and gravity.<BR/><BR/><B>I've had several ideas...but all have led me to the conclusion that IDF is technology that is throughly outside my insights<BR/>What I've gathered about space tells me that even when we're not moving we are moving in answer to the reciprocal equation of T times velocity= the rate of speed. Opposite thus is true.</B><BR/>You are not making much sense I'm afraid. What is T in your equation? Time? If so time times velocity is simply traveled distance and not "the rate of speed".<BR/>I'm not going into the rest of your IDF until we clear this up.<BR/><BR/><B>I have found the ICS books highly flawed in comparison to all books and films and animations...It's an black sheep.<BR/>According to canon statements throwing out contradiction is more than acceptable. I ...accept almost everything of the novels because they were produced in perspective of the films. The ICS seem to have something to prove. Very intentional some of it's contradictions.</B><BR/>Actually ICS books are made as supplement to the movies and thus much more reliable than EU books which sometimes contradict themselves and the movies. What the you mean the book is "intentional in some of it's contradictions"? And more to the point where does it contradict the films?<BR/><BR/><B>1. You can't have a part of an individual sensor and call it a sensor. It's only a part of a sensor. The same goes for a hat. The analogy would be more appropriate if it was how many hats Han had, not if he had half a hat or not.</B><BR/>Not having rear sensor coverage is a major flaw (just as having half of hat). Since we know that ISD has sensors you'll have to provide some evidence that Imperial Navy constructed ships with such a flaw.<BR/><BR/><B>2. Trade Fed ships are not ISDs.</B><BR/>So? They show that there is no technical limitation and that it can be done even for converted freighters. Thus there is no reason dedicated warships won't have them. Thus it is up to you to prove they don't.<BR/><BR/><B>3. You still need to show that either an ISD or even a Venator has sensors on the rear of the tower.</B><BR/>All I'm interested in is whether ISDs can scan ships behind themselves at ranges of 100m or more. I have shown that even earlier converted freighters can.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>At most, you'd have some sensors for the engines, for the doors that let out the garbage and maybe some kind for detecting hull breaches, but you have shown no evidence there are external sensors, which would fall under the category of 'scopes', which was referenced in the film, on the rear of the ship.<BR/>All you've said is 'eh, maybe' and 'they had no need to check behind them', both of which are irrational.</B><BR/>I don't need to show any evidence that they ISDs specifically have rear sensors specifically. Maybe I should ask you to provide evidence that Akira, Steamrunner, Saber, Excelsior, D'Deridex etc. etc. have rear sensors.<BR/>I said that crew didn't have any reason to check behind when they jumped into hyperspace. You continue to omit the "jumped into hyperspace" part to make it sound as if I'm claiming that they didn't have any reason to scan for Falcon when it flew past the bridge.<BR/><BR/><B>AWACs are not battleships, nor are they ships in space. An ISD is. You have simultaneously said in your arguments that there could be sensors, but they just don't have a reason to use them (which is patently false) and suggested that they are incapbale of detecting things behind the bridge tower, as an argument against it being a good idea that a Fed ship could come up behind it to fire upon it.</B><BR/>And how does the fact that AWACS's are not battleships and not in space invalidate the analogy? <BR/>Again you try to make it sound as if I said that crew had no reason to scan behind AT ALL instead had no reason to scan behind as the ship was preparing to jump into hyperspace. Why are you being so dishonest? I fully admit that there is a blind spot near the hull of the bridge and Falcon vanished from the scopes when it attached to the hull. How can the Federation ship approach to that blind spot without being detected?<BR/><BR/><B>Grossly limited sensor capabilities, if they can't detect something behind the damn bridge. That is a ship security hazard.</B><BR/>Falcon couldn't approach the ship undetected and the only reason Han succeeded is because no one on the ship thought of the possibility that it simply flew into their blind spot. <BR/><BR/><B>It's got nothing to do with orders. It would be grossly incompetent if the sensor control person didn't use the sensors on the rear of the ship to search for the Falcon because it could have turned over and fired a missle into one of huge engines on the back, as it flew down.</B><BR/>They were just about to enter hyperspace. Besides don't you remember that Falcon powered down it's systems and then detached as ISD released the garbage. The Falcon could've easily blend in with it. Solo specifically waited for garbage to try and give them the slip. Obviously he knew that otherwise rear sensor might detect them.<BR/><BR/><B>In relation to an AWAC, it's very hard for planes to fly that close around the hull of an AWAC or any other plane without crashing. The Falcon could have easily done it, as was seen in ep 6 when it came around the bridge tower, turning left at the battle of endor.</B><BR/>Exactly. Falcon has excellent maneuverability. Much greater than Defiant and certainly than Miranda, Excelsior, Akira etc. which are all much bigger.<BR/><BR/><B>Dude, I'm not talking about when they were all huddled together. I'm talking about when the Stardestroyer Avenger was chasing after the Falcon after it left the asteroid field. During the time the Falcon went over the top of the bridge tower. If there were any external sensors there, that moment when it past over the bridge would have been the time to use them.<BR/><BR/>I'm not talking about when the ISDs grouped back together and the Avenger's captain went to apologize to Vader for loosing the Falcon.</B><BR/>The Falcon passed a few meters from the bridge window thus was already very close to the bridge. Then it likely made a sharp turn behind the bridge and vanished from the sensors. That doesn't mean ISD has no rear sensors.<BR/><BR/><B>It means their sensors capabilities are groosly limited. There could have been sensors at the base of the neck, right above the door that lets out the garbage to scan the area on the back of the neck and the tower.</B><BR/>They are limited in detecting objects very close to the hull. Combat with Federation ships will occur at a range of kilometers so that is irrelevant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-36042705357665491252007-04-28T15:46:00.000-05:002007-04-28T15:46:00.000-05:00I didn't claim that ISD has sensors on the bridge ...<B>I didn't claim that ISD has sensors on the bridge tower specifically merely that they have rear sensor coverage. That has nothing to do with having blind spots when a ship attaches to your hull or approaches to a few meters.</B><BR/><BR/>I have been specifically saying no sensors on the rear of the tower, but you kept coming back with 'How do you know? There could be.'<BR/><BR/><B>And this way you'll have part of sensors which can't scan to the rear. You have to prove that. Furthermore we know that even converted Trade Federation battleships can both target and fire on targets on the rear. Are you saying that dedicated warships of later era don't have this capability anymore?</B><BR/><BR/>1. You can't have a part of an individual sensor and call it a sensor. It's only a part of a sensor. The same goes for a hat. The analogy would be more appropriate if it was how many hats Han had, not if he had half a hat or not.<BR/>2. Trade Fed ships are not ISDs.<BR/>3. You still need to show that either an ISD or even a Venator has sensors on the rear of the tower.<BR/><BR/>At most, you'd have some sensors for the engines, for the doors that let out the garbage and maybe some kind for detecting hull breaches, but you have shown no evidence there are external sensors, which would fall under the category of 'scopes', which was referenced in the film, on the rear of the ship.<BR/><BR/>All you've said is 'eh, maybe' and 'they had no need to check behind them', both of which are irrational.<BR/><BR/><B>When I mentioned AWACS I was talking about REAL WORLD AWACS planes not Federation ships. AWACS plane couldn't detect objects attached on it's tail. Does that mean it has no rear sensors?</B><BR/><BR/>AWACs are not battleships, nor are they ships in space. An ISD is. You have simultaneously said in your arguments that there could be sensors, but they just don't have a reason to use them (which is patently false) and suggested that they are incapbale of detecting things behind the bridge tower, as an argument against it being a good idea that a Fed ship could come up behind it to fire upon it.<BR/><BR/><B>Evidence that ISD can't detect 30m ship attached to it's hull. I never contested that. How does this translate into inability to detect Federation starships as they approach from distance?</B><BR/><BR/>Grossly limited sensor capabilities, if they can't detect something behind the damn bridge. That is a ship security hazard.<BR/><BR/><B>Because they were not under any such orders.</B><BR/><BR/>It's got nothing to do with orders. It would be grossly incompetent if the sensor control person didn't use the sensors on the rear of the ship to search for the Falcon because it could have turned over and fired a missle into one of huge engines on the back, as it flew down.<BR/><BR/>In relation to an AWAC, it's very hard for planes to fly that close around the hull of an AWAC or any other plane without crashing. The Falcon could have easily done it, as was seen in ep 6 when it came around the bridge tower, turning left at the battle of endor.<BR/><BR/><B>Vader ordered the fleet to jump to hyperspace not to conduct any scans in the vicinity of the ship.</B><BR/><BR/>Dude, I'm not talking about when they were all huddled together. I'm talking about when the Stardestroyer Avenger was chasing after the Falcon after it left the asteroid field. During the time the Falcon went over the top of the bridge tower. If there were any external sensors there, that moment when it past over the bridge would have been the time to use them.<BR/><BR/>I'm not talking about when the ISDs grouped back together and the Avenger's captain went to apologize to Vader for loosing the Falcon.<BR/><BR/><B>How does this mean ISD doesn't have rear sensors?</B><BR/><BR/>It means their sensors capabilities are groosly limited. There could have been sensors at the base of the neck, right above the door that lets out the garbage to scan the area on the back of the neck and the tower.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-12466374741009415952007-04-28T13:25:00.000-05:002007-04-28T13:25:00.000-05:00Anonymous said... Yes I know. How does this change...<B>Anonymous said... <BR/>Yes I know. How does this change the fact that we can't see the third dimension?</B><BR/><BR/>It's a tactical display of relative locations. We don't need a complete 3D enviroment to acertain distance. A linear measurement is all that's required.<BR/><BR/> <B>Do you even realize the problem? In the time Data stated "they are now at 300,000km" Phoenix cloud have approached rapidly "towards" the plane without us noticing.</B><BR/><BR/>AH...you mean...speculation. You may have your speculation. I will stick with the canon. Discussions degrade rapidly after pursuing hypotheticals.<BR/><BR/> <B> However "Call to Arms" where we outright see how distant the fleet is from DS9 (about 10km)</B><BR/>Uncanon...Unstated.<BR/><BR/><B> and Damar states that they won't be in range for another minute is also canon. "Equinox" is canon.</B><BR/><BR/>But if only you had excluded your estimation from this conclusion then it would meet the requirements for canon.<BR/><BR/><B> Multiple short range misses > are canon.</B> Often by disruptures and torpedos. Yess misses even with phasers do occur. (add your plot device anywhere you wish the writers certainly do.)<BR/><BR/><B> Do you realize that when you have evidence derived from DIRECT OBSERVATION you cannot counter them with evidence based on a character statement and assumptions?</B><BR/><BR/>Direct observation would mean that you used "zero" assumptions in your process you did not. As a result you finding become erronous to canon.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>I'm not even sure what you are claiming here. I thought you claimed that ISD is in a stationary orbit and showed you that because the planet appears not to be rotating from ISDs perspective that doesn't mean the orbit is stationary.</B> You misunderstood. Perhaps that is my fault for not being clear. However, at no point in the discussion did I say "from the ISD's perspective" that the planet was not rotating. At least I don't believe so.<BR/><BR/>If neither object is in rotation from their respective position then the obvious conclusion is that the Planet is indeed rotating and the orbiting object is situated in a relative position over the planets surface...what is called a stationary orbit or a geosynchronous orbit.<BR/><BR/>Your relation of the moon and the Earth was flawed because both objects are indeed rotating and it can be observed from the moon that the Earth is infact rotating as the Earth does not present the same side to the moon at all times.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Secondly why do you think that it is impossible for an ISD to move towards and to a side whan approaching a planet?</B> <BR/><BR/>I can't say I understand your question? Or it's relation.<BR/><BR/><B>There are no limits to movement in space.</B> <BR/><BR/>This would be a foregone conclusion.<BR/><BR/><B>I'm afraid I really don't understand what are you talking about.</B><BR/><BR/>Then I would suggest disengaging on the topic to study the orbiting patterns on a NASA website or source material such as a book or an authority on such orbits.<BR/><BR/><B> I explained that due to distances involved even if the ISD was moving at several km/s in relation to the planet IN ANY DIRECTION we cannot see it. You have absolutely no evidence as to where ISD is moving.</B><BR/><BR/>I didn't say the ISD was moving..."moving" is a relative term when dealing with cestial bodies.<BR/><BR/>No orbit is perfect. All orbits decay. There is more than enough information to conclude that the ISD was situated in a stationary orbit above Hoth.<BR/><BR/>When it lost power, completely it well out of that orbit. The movent of which was captured on film. <BR/><BR/>The ultimate end of that Star Destroyer was not visited on screen. I believe that it burned upin the atmosphere or crash landed.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><B>What do you mean "gravity is not inplay"? Inertial dampers are obviously some kind of antigravity devices which create area effect force throughout the ship on order to cancel out the inertial forces.</B><BR/><BR/>I find that incorrect. Antigravity devices don't restrict motion it defies gravity. <BR/><BR/>Interial Dampners dull reactions. Every cause has an effect in motions. There are some more terristrial ways to counter inertia. In some Japanese building and one in San Fransico large pendulums atop the build with a significant weighted mass relative to the size of the building wory to dampen the gust of wind by offering a counter force. The slab of concrete used at the top of the building it situation on water or other medium so as to have a delayed response and hense a counter response to the swaying motion of the building. In other words a 20 century Inertia Dampener that eventually and quite quicly stabelizes the rocking motion.<BR/><BR/><B> What else could it be? You still haven't explained your "friction" theory. What causes the friction?</B><BR/><BR/>I've had several ideas...but all have led me to the conclusion that IDF is technology that is throughly outside my insights<BR/><BR/>What I've gathered about space tells me that even when we're not moving we are moving in answer to the reciprocal equation of T times velocity= the rate of speed. Opposite thus is true.<BR/><BR/>If that is the case...Then an IDF would have to opperate with one of the known variabels that retard or distort the fabric of space. That would be mass and acceleration or gravity and acceleration<BR/><BR/>IDF's litterally lenghten the distance of space there by slowing down the progress from one point to another....Litteraly dampening motion.<BR/><BR/>Or the other Idea which I formulated on theoretical massive particale or energy...(take your pick) But this would make ships heavier not lighter and massless which is what is need to travel at faster than light velocites. This not withstanding the obvious parameters of the spatial "universe" or bubble that a starship places around it's self. How much of a variable such an IDF system would make on this bubble is unknown...or at least I haven't extropolated a idea that makes sense.<BR/><BR/>Not to mention as well that if these systems create additonal dense mass to throw into counter balance to the ships mass it would stop sudden motion. IDF is as close to an instant action as we can get...it retards forward momentum like friction with no object directly in contact. Therefore the "object" used for this resistance must be the space/time continuum.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><B>ICS also mentions 200 gigaton turbolasers and 10 light minute ranges for Venator class ships which is 180 million kilometers.<BR/>So if you are using EU I guess the debate is pretty much over.</B><BR/>I have found the ICS books highly flawed in comparison to all books and films and animations...It's an black sheep.<BR/><BR/>According to canon statements throwing out contradiction is more than acceptable. I ...accept almost everything of the novels because they were produced in perspective of the films. The ICS seem to have something to prove. Very intentional some of it's contradictions.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05497699593377180118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-53692196773827356292007-04-28T12:38:00.000-05:002007-04-28T12:38:00.000-05:00So because ISD has a blind spot at a few meters be...<B>So because ISD has a blind spot at a few meters behind the bridge that means it doesn't have rear sensors or weapons? I don't see how that follows. I also note you continue to ignore my AWACS analogy.</B><BR/><BR/>Actually, no, I didn't. An AWACS wouldn't be able to detect something attached to its hull, but it would be able to detect an object in the air, directly behind it. When the Falcon passed over the ISD's bridge tower, she was traveling at some 145 m/s. There was a time gap of a second or two, at least, before the Falcon attached to the hull, when she disappeared from the scanners. The Falcon must have entered the blindspot very near that speed (otherwise the Imperials would have seen that she was rapidly decelerating, not accelerating into hyperspace). Now, that is not a definite indication of the blindspot's size in and of itself, but it must have been a large enough blindspot for the Imperials to believe the Falcon had enough time to accelerate from 145 m/s to past lightspeed before leaving the blindspot. That suggests a sizeable gap in the sensor pattern in that area. Do I think that means that ISDs don't have rear sensors? No. It's just a blindspot behind the bridge tower, which can be exploited, as Han did.<BR/><BR/><B>Obviously if you approached an ISD to a few meters it can't hit you with it's weapons. The same goes for Federation ships of course.</B><BR/><BR/>Actually, that depends on which point of the ship you were approaching, both with and ISD and a Trek ship. There is an apparent blindspot in both sensor and weapons coverage behind the ISD's bridge tower, because she simply doesn't have many weapons placed to cover that area, and the weapons that can can't do it very well.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now, as for the pic I promised. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/ISD_smallguns1.jpg<BR/><BR/>I marked all the apparent small turrets in red (though I didn't bother marking the visible 'turrets' on the mirror side in most cases, since the ship and its weapons emplacements are mostly symmetrical), and the apparent aft turrets I was referring to along the aft edge. They are not well positioned to cover the area behind the ISD's bridge tower, and are actually blocked by the main superstructure. Note also the top of the central superstructure, and the lack of aft turrets of any kind marked in blue. I also marked the apparent missile launcher in green, of which there appears to be only one (which is supposedly mirrored on the far side).Ilithi Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10300247936272572280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-86220266525412195122007-04-28T11:12:00.000-05:002007-04-28T11:12:00.000-05:00If there were sensors on the rear of the tower, th...<B>If there were sensors on the rear of the tower, they would have been used because it would be utterly stupid to think that they wouldn't use all their external sensors.</B><BR/>I didn't claim that ISD has sensors on the bridge tower specifically merely that they have rear sensor coverage. That has nothing to do with having blind spots when a ship attaches to your hull or approaches to a few meters.<BR/><BR/><B>Because you don't need sensors on the back of the tower for the ship to have sensors. You need to have a hat from both the front and back view of Han's head or you won't have a hat. You'll have part of a hat.</B><BR/>And this way you'll have part of sensors which can't scan to the rear. You have to prove that. Furthermore we know that even converted Trade Federation battleships can both target and fire on targets on the rear. Are you saying that dedicated warships of later era don't have this capability anymore?<BR/><BR/><B>Some Fed ships have detachable pods, but often don't use sensors on them unless it's specifically for sensors. There are sensors already to scan the entire exterior of the ship that are a part of the ship already.</B><BR/>When I mentioned AWACS I was talking about REAL WORLD AWACS planes not Federation ships. AWACS plane couldn't detect objects attached on it's tail. Does that mean it has no rear sensors?<BR/><BR/><B>The Falcon hid there. That's evidence.</B><BR/>Evidence that ISD can't detect 30m ship attached to it's hull. I never contested that. How does this translate into inability to detect Federation starships as they approach from distance?<BR/><BR/><B>I'm not misrepresenting anything. Why wouldn't they scan the back of the ship and beyond, if there were sensors there? If there were sensors there, they'd have picked up on the Falcon appearing at the rear of the ship from flying over the top of the bridge tower. If there were any sensors there, why wouldn't they scan up, down and at the varying degrees of forward when situated at the rear of the bridge tower?<BR/>If there were sensors there, they'd have kept scanning before they heard anything from Vader. The reason why they stopped was because it had vanished from their sensor. But, if there were sensors capable of picking up anything from the Falcon they would have been brought in because they were currently trying to track them to see if they were coming around for another pass.<BR/></B><BR/>Because they were not under any such orders. Vader ordered the fleet to jump to hyperspace not to conduct any scans in the vicinity of the ship.<BR/>Secondly Falcon specifically waited for garbage to be dumped so it can blend in with the debris with it's power systems disengaged.<BR/><BR/><B>Are we to think that the scopes of an ISD can't work with distances tens of meters away from the hull?</B><BR/>You find this strange? ISDs hull is very irregular and thus it is easy for it to have blind spots when you approach to a few meters to some tens of meters. How does this mean ISD doesn't have rear sensors? And what does it have to do with combat targeting when combat occurs at 1km or greater ranges.<BR/><BR/><B>Anon, you hereby concede regarding "The Wounded".<BR/>Your counterargument is based entirely on contradicting the episode via a violation of Occam's Razor mixed with an argumentum ad ignorantum. There is also the added problem of your inability to recognize that you need to prove your BS fantasies, not ask us to disprove them.<BR/>Specifically, I refer to you claiming that in the 2-D tactical plot, all the relative motion actually happens in a third dimension that we are not privy to, despite the fact that this would utterly negate the utility of the display.</B><BR/>So you admit we are "not privy" to motion in the third dimension and yet insist that it wasn't great? Secondly how do you know 2-d screen would be useless in that case? There could've been additional information that we didn't see on the consoles and such. This is not argumentum ad ignorantium since 300,000km weapons range obtained using certain ASSUMPTIONS is directly contradicted by "Call to Arms", "Equinox" etc. etc. Thus your assumptions are called into question. If this was the only example you'd have a point however as it is we require more proof before we accept the conclusions which outright contradict numerous other OBSERVED incidents.<BR/><BR/><B>Further, you argue that since your claim cannot be disproved, then therefore we cannot know anything specific from this example.</B><BR/>Exactly. There is no evidence either way. You are making it sound as if I'm asking for some kind of absolute proof when that is not a case. I am merely asking for some evidence for the third dimension component. This is hardly unreasonable.<BR/><BR/><B>Making matters even worse, you mix that with the additional Razor violation of assuming a vast change in velocity right in the middle of Data's sentence (and moments after Picard orders a range overlay) which again violates the utility of the tactical plot.</B><BR/>I am not assuming anything. I am stating that we have no evidence either way. Incidents which rely on assumptions, such as that Phoenix wasn't approaching the plane, always take a back seat to the incidents which are backed up by direct observation.<BR/><BR/><B>You employ the same lack of reasoning with other long-range examples, such as the aforementioned Equinox case.</B><BR/>Again you have no evidence as to when exactly Voyager starts shooting but you insist we should assume it starts immediately. Why?<BR/><BR/><B>In short, Anon, here's the lay of the land. I am not required to disprove your fanciful claims regarding velocity changes or all the action happening in additional unseen dimensions.</B><BR/>So in other words you believe you are entitled to make assumptions and draw conclusions from those assumptions but if I wish to point out that you have no evidence for those assumptions I need to actually disprove them? Do you realize that claiming that there is no evidence either way is not the same as claiming that my theory is right? All I am saying that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE EITHER WAY.<BR/><BR/><B>I recognize that all your absurdities are based on trying to defend your assumption that the "Wounded" plot's weapon range overlays can only represent a few kilometers, and some would applaud you for your veracity. However, veracity is meaningless and wrong when it is used in defense of a bad idea that requires dishonesty and illogic to support.</B><BR/>You have not provided any evidence that my statements regarding Wounded are absurd. Where have I been dishonest? Please point it out. Where have I been illogical?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-60474348752619038832007-04-28T10:20:00.000-05:002007-04-28T10:20:00.000-05:00Well said G2K. We shouldn't have to disprove silli...Well said G2K. We shouldn't have to disprove silliness... <BR/><BR/>By the way, what did you think of my theorectical battle between an ISD and a Fed ship I posted earlier?<BR/><BR/><B>1: True to Starfleet form, the Federation ship (which, at this stage, considers the ISD to be a stranger) opens hailing frequencies and closes in to, say, 250 kilometers. Within the ISD's range.<BR/><BR/>2: The ISD responds, simply stating that their (the Federation ship's) presence is undesirable and they will now be destroyed.<BR/><BR/>3: The ISD arms it's turbo lasers and raises shields. The Fed ship goes to red alert, arms weapons and raises shields shortly after, still trying to reason with the ISD.<BR/><BR/>4: The ISD opens fire. The shots are fairly inaccurate. Those that hit rock the Fed ship but don't damage it severely.<BR/><BR/>5: The Fed ship's captain and his bridge officers naturally speculate that, if the ISD's shots are inaccurate at this range, they should be even worse further out. The captain gives the order to back off, to about, say, 15 to 25 thousand kilometers.<BR/><BR/>6: The ISD is no longer able to fire on the Fed ship. The ISD's TIE fighters, bombers and whatever else they have are ordered to give chase, which they do... Slowly...<BR/><BR/>7: The captain of the Fed ship could, at this point, chose to lower his shields and beam the pilots out of the unshielded TIEs and into his brig. Alternatively he could just shoot them down ala the Enterprise-D against those Lysian(?) fighters.<BR/><BR/>8: With the TIEs out of the way, one way or another, assuming the ISD hasn't already backed down at this point, the Fed ship opens fire. The power of the ship's phasers and photon torpedoes knocks the bridge crew of the ISD for a loop, completely stunning them.<BR/><BR/>9: At this point the ISD is likely to try and retreat. The Fed captain could let the ship go or grab it in a tractor beam. I mean, the Enterprise D was able to move a neutron star core with it's tractor beam with the proper modifications, so an ISD, even though it's significantly larger than the Fed ship, probably wouldn't be a problem. Even if it was, the Fed ship would almost certainly at least be able to hold the ISD in place until other Fed ships arrived to help with towing it.</B><BR/><BR/>Oh and is that true about the ISD having hull conformal shields? I didn't know that...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-7563272541006444132007-04-28T09:28:00.000-05:002007-04-28T09:28:00.000-05:00Anon, you hereby concede regarding "The Wounded".Y...Anon, you hereby concede regarding "The Wounded".<BR/><BR/>Your counterargument is based entirely on contradicting the episode via a violation of Occam's Razor mixed with an argumentum ad ignorantum. There is also the added problem of your inability to recognize that you need to prove your BS fantasies, not ask us to disprove them.<BR/><BR/>Specifically, I refer to you claiming that in the 2-D tactical plot, all the relative motion actually happens in a third dimension that we are not privy to, despite the fact that this would utterly negate the utility of the display. <BR/><BR/>Further, you argue that since your claim cannot be disproved, then therefore we cannot know anything specific from this example.<BR/><BR/>Making matters even worse, you mix that with the additional Razor violation of assuming a vast change in velocity right in the middle of Data's sentence (and moments after Picard orders a range overlay) which again violates the utility of the tactical plot.<BR/><BR/>You employ the same lack of reasoning with other long-range examples, such as the aforementioned Equinox case.<BR/><BR/>In short, Anon, here's the lay of the land. I am not required to disprove your fanciful claims regarding velocity changes or all the action happening in additional unseen dimensions. <BR/><BR/>I recognize that all your absurdities are based on trying to defend your assumption that the "Wounded" plot's weapon range overlays can only represent a few kilometers, and some would applaud you for your veracity. However, veracity is meaningless and wrong when it is used in defense of a bad idea that requires dishonesty and illogic to support.<BR/><BR/>You may continue to debate other matters, but on the topic of "The Wounded" the matter is closed.Authorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04784914528396175700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-84906305880088305882007-04-28T09:13:00.000-05:002007-04-28T09:13:00.000-05:00Did I ever argue that they could detect Falcon as ...<B>Did I ever argue that they could detect Falcon as it was attached to the hull? How does the fact that they can't detect objects on it's hull mean that they don't have rear sensors?</B><BR/><BR/>If there were sensors on the rear of the tower, they would have been used because it would be utterly stupid to think that they wouldn't use all their external sensors.<BR/><BR/><B>How is the analogy off? You say that even though we have seen that ISD has sensors/Han Solo wears pink hat that I must prove ISD has rear sensors too/Han Solo's hat extends to the back of his had.</B><BR/><BR/>Because you don't need sensors on the back of the tower for the ship to have sensors. You need to have a hat from both the front and back view of Han's head or you won't have a hat. You'll have part of a hat.<BR/><BR/><B>Yes:ATTACHED TO THE TOWER. How does this mean it has no rear sensors?</B><BR/><BR/>It means there are no sensors on the rear of the tower, which is what I've been saying.<BR/><BR/><B>Must I again point out the AWACS analogy? AWACS wouldn't detect things attached to it's hull.</B><BR/><BR/>Some Fed ships have detachable pods, but often don't use sensors on them unless it's specifically for sensors. There are sensors already to scan the entire exterior of the ship that are a part of the ship already.<BR/><BR/><B>Does that means a plane can easily sneak up upon it?</B><BR/><BR/>I don't know.<BR/><BR/><B>Something for which you showed no evidence. You still haven't provided any evidence that it can't detect ships from the rear.</B><BR/><BR/>The Falcon hid there. That's evidence.<BR/><BR/><B>you feel that that points to a weakness when targeting Federation ships? I don't see how that follows.</B><BR/><BR/>It was a point of limitations of Imperial sensors.<BR/><BR/><B>Are you intentionally misinterpreting my points? I am getting a feeling that you are. I clearly state that there was no reason to scan the rear of the ship AFTER VADER ORDERS THE FLEET TO JUMP AFTER FALCON. The crew received no orders to continue scanning the area behind the ship or the garbage.</B><BR/><BR/>I'm not misrepresenting anything. Why wouldn't they scan the back of the ship and beyond, if there were sensors there? If there were sensors there, they'd have picked up on the Falcon appearing at the rear of the ship from flying over the top of the bridge tower. If there were any sensors there, why wouldn't they scan up, down and at the varying degrees of forward when situated at the rear of the bridge tower?<BR/><BR/>If there were sensors there, they'd have kept scanning before they heard anything from Vader. The reason why they stopped was because it had vanished from their sensor. But, if there were sensors capable of picking up anything from the Falcon they would have been brought in because they were currently trying to track them to see if they were coming around for another pass.<BR/><BR/>Are we to think that the scopes of an ISD can't work with distances tens of meters away from the hull?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1484798612592052492007-04-28T08:13:00.000-05:002007-04-28T08:13:00.000-05:00It's useless trying to get this guy to change his ...<B>It's useless trying to get this guy to change his position. He'll continue to try and wank the Phoenix into having an extremely short weapons range despite the fact that the 1701 Enterprise destroyed a 3 meter long object from 90,000 km, and that a Romulan ship was firing on the same Enterprise at 100,000 km...</B><BR/>Are you reading my posts? I already explained that Lazarus' ship was completely immobile and Enterprise had all the time in the world to target it carefully. You still haven't addressed how do we know how distant were the warbirds that fired and scored hits: fifty or fifty thousand km.<BR/><BR/><B>The problem with the Falcon hiding behind the ISD's bridge tower is not the part where the Falcon is attached to the hull, it's the part before she attaches to the ISD's hull. I can't remember off hand the rough timeframe G2K had pegged for that (it's in the MF acceleration page), but it was a second or two, at least. In that time, the ISD lost tracking on the Falcon, and had a big enough blindspot that they assumed she jumped to hyperspace because she wasn't showing up on their scopes. The most logical conclusion is that there is a sensor blindspot behind the ISD's bridge tower, big enough for a ship the size of the Falcon to get lost in. That there would be such a blindspot directly behind an ISD's bridge tower would strongly suggest that there are no weapons emplacements in that area. I've got a couple high-quality pics of the ISD model, and can pick out what appear to be smaller laser turrets dotted across the hull (I'll mark them and post a link tomorrow after I get some sleep). I don't have any shots of the stern, but there are a couple emplacements on the far aft that could cover the aft firing arc, to an extent (somewhat better coverage than the aft two heavy turbolaser batteries).</B><BR/>So because ISD has a blind spot at a few meters behind the bridge that means it doesn't have rear sensors or weapons? I don't see how that follows. I also note you continue to ignore my AWACS analogy.<BR/><BR/><B>As for "The Wounded", Data's usually a pretty astute fellow when it comes to displaying technical information, and would have presented the best display to relate that information. If the third dimension played a noteworthy factor in the display, Data certainly would have known that, and is the kind of character to have displayed it if it was. Because he didn't choose such a display suggests that the ships' positions along the Z-axis was not different enough to make a noteable difference on the scale involved. And then there's also the fact that most observable Trek battles take place along roughly the same plane. Since, according to Mister Anonymous, observable trumps everything else, that means that since most Trek battles have been visually observed to take place along roughly the same plane, a typical ship engagement in Trek takes place along roughly the same plane.</B><BR/>This contains nothing but your assumptions on what Data would do. I am asking for evidence. I showed OBSERVED evidence from "Call to Arms", "Equinox", "Paradise Lost", "Way of the warrior" and expect nothing less from the opposing side.<BR/>Again: show me the evidence for the initial relative speed between Phoenix and the display plane.<BR/><BR/><B>Geh, I'm lacking a little coherence because I should be in bed. On the aft turbolaser coverage, I forgot to note that the apparent turbolaser emplacements are along the mid to outer edges of the ISD's hull, right along the aft edge, and they would have a blindspot around the area behind the ISD's bridge tower, and would not be well suited to firing on targets in that area, even within the edge of their firing arcs.</B><BR/>Obviously if you approached an ISD to a few meters it can't hit you with it's weapons. The same goes for Federation ships of course.<BR/><BR/><B>Cool. Theoretically, then, one of those fighters (or a Runabout) from Deep Space Nine could sneak into that blind spot and do some knife work with its phasers.</B><BR/>Runabout has nowhere near the firepower required to punch through the ISDs shields. Secondly how would such situation ever come about? ISD will float aimlessly through space and wait for runabouts to try and close to within few meters of it's hull?<BR/><BR/><B>Also, interestingly, the Falcon thing might also suggest that the shields of the ISD were incapable of stopping the Falcon from flying straight through them. That could be problematic if the Defiant desides to fly in behind and give the ISD a pulse phaser enema...</B><BR/>ISD has hull hugging shields so Falcon didn't need to fly through the shields to attach to the hull with magnetic grappler or something similar to a tractor beam.<BR/><BR/><B>Indeed, it could even be problematic in terms of stopping photon torpedoes, which are a solid object with an explosive inside rather than a contained energy burst like a phaser or turbo laser...</B><BR/>We have seen two 10m-20m asteroids strike an ISD in ESB. Both asteroids were vaporized upon hitting the shields. Photon torpedo will not be able to penetrate the shields.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-27907676351437211502007-04-28T07:36:00.000-05:002007-04-28T07:36:00.000-05:00Cool. Theoretically, then, one of those fighters (...Cool. Theoretically, then, one of those fighters (or a Runabout) from Deep Space Nine could sneak into that blind spot and do some knife work with its phasers.<BR/><BR/>Also, interestingly, the Falcon thing might also suggest that the shields of the ISD were incapable of stopping the Falcon from flying straight through them. That could be problematic if the Defiant desides to fly in behind and give the ISD a pulse phaser enema... <BR/><BR/>Indeed, it could even be problematic in terms of stopping photon torpedoes, which are a solid object with an explosive inside rather than a contained energy burst like a phaser or turbo laser...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-57297210094585719252007-04-28T03:43:00.000-05:002007-04-28T03:43:00.000-05:00Geh, I'm lacking a little coherence because I shou...Geh, I'm lacking a little coherence because I should be in bed. On the aft turbolaser coverage, I forgot to note that the apparent turbolaser emplacements are along the mid to outer edges of the ISD's hull, right along the aft edge, and they would have a blindspot around the area behind the ISD's bridge tower, and would not be well suited to firing on targets in that area, even within the edge of their firing arcs.Ilithi Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10300247936272572280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-24689656448873417312007-04-28T03:39:00.000-05:002007-04-28T03:39:00.000-05:00The problem with the Falcon hiding behind the ISD'...The problem with the Falcon hiding behind the ISD's bridge tower is not the part where the Falcon is attached to the hull, it's the part <I>before</I> she attaches to the ISD's hull. I can't remember off hand the rough timeframe G2K had pegged for that (it's in the MF acceleration page), but it was a second or two, at least. In that time, the ISD lost tracking on the Falcon, and had a big enough blindspot that they assumed she jumped to hyperspace because she wasn't showing up on their scopes. The most logical conclusion is that there is a sensor blindspot behind the ISD's bridge tower, big enough for a ship the size of the Falcon to get lost in. That there would be such a blindspot directly behind an ISD's bridge tower would strongly suggest that there are no weapons emplacements in that area. I've got a couple high-quality pics of the ISD model, and can pick out what appear to be smaller laser turrets dotted across the hull (I'll mark them and post a link tomorrow after I get some sleep). I don't have any shots of the stern, but there are a couple emplacements on the far aft that could cover the aft firing arc, to an extent (somewhat better coverage than the aft two heavy turbolaser batteries).<BR/><BR/>As for "The Wounded", Data's usually a pretty astute fellow when it comes to displaying technical information, and would have presented the best display to relate that information. If the third dimension played a noteworthy factor in the display, Data certainly would have known that, and is the kind of character to have displayed it if it was. Because he didn't choose such a display suggests that the ships' positions along the Z-axis was not different enough to make a noteable difference on the scale involved. And then there's also the fact that most observable Trek battles take place along roughly the same plane. Since, according to Mister Anonymous, observable trumps everything else, that means that since most Trek battles have been visually observed to take place along roughly the same plane, a typical ship engagement in Trek takes place along roughly the same plane.Ilithi Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10300247936272572280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-36345624623194932782007-04-27T21:54:00.000-05:002007-04-27T21:54:00.000-05:00It's useless trying to get this guy to change his ...It's useless trying to get this guy to change his position. He'll continue to try and wank the Phoenix into having an extremely short weapons range despite the fact that the 1701 Enterprise destroyed a 3 meter long object from 90,000 km, and that a Romulan ship was firing on the same Enterprise at 100,000 km...<BR/><BR/>As for the Falcon thing, I'd like to think that ISD has rear sensors (because not having them would be silly seemingly even by Imperial standards), but they're just so poor that they couldn't distinguish The Falcon from the ship's hull. As far as the sensors were concerned, the Falcon became 'part' of the the ship...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-24083131596422703582007-04-27T17:04:00.000-05:002007-04-27T17:04:00.000-05:00Oh, please. It goes past the bridge tower and it d...<B>Oh, please. It goes past the bridge tower and it disappears from the scopes. We know they didn't really vanish into thin air, we know they didn't go into another dimension or go to hyperspace. It just moved down and used the landing claw to attach to the back of the tower. They didn't phase or anything, so there are limits to where they have sensors on their ship and they are obviously being blocked by the tower itself because they know the Falcon was on the scopes when it was in front of the ship.</B><BR/>Did I ever argue that they could detect Falcon as it was attached to the hull? How does the fact that they can't detect objects on it's hull mean that they don't have rear sensors?<BR/><BR/><B>The analogy is off.</B><BR/>How is the analogy off? You say that even though we have seen that ISD has sensors/Han Solo wears pink hat that I must prove ISD has rear sensors too/Han Solo's hat extends to the back of his had.<BR/><BR/><B>There is no evidence there are any on the rear. There is evidence that says there are none on the rear - The Falcon holding onto the rear of the bridge tower.</B><BR/>Yes:ATTACHED TO THE TOWER. How does this mean it has no rear sensors? Must I again point out the AWACS analogy? AWACS wouldn't detect things attached to it's hull. Does that means a plane can easily sneak up upon it?<BR/><BR/><B>The important part is if there are sensors on the rear of the bridge tower.</B><BR/>Something for which you showed no evidence.<BR/><BR/><B>Done. The Falcon held onto the back of the bridge tower, making it disappear from the scopes of the ISD.</B><BR/>That is evidence that ISD can't detect objects of certain size attached to it's hull, just like AWACS. You still haven't provided any evidence that it can't detect ships from the rear.<BR/><BR/><B>And couldn't detect 2 metallic objects inside, the droids.</B><BR/>So because sensors couldn't differentiate between various electronic equipment and metallic machinery that was the escape pod and various electronic and metallic machinery that were the droids you feel that that points to a weakness when targeting Federation ships? I don't see how that follows.<BR/><BR/><I><B>There was no reason for the crew to scan the immediate rear of the ship.</B></I><BR/><B>The reason would be because the Falcon flew over the bridge tower, heading for the rear of the ship. That's why.</B><BR/>Are you intentionally misinterpreting my points? I am getting a feeling that you are. I clearly state that there was no reason to scan the rear of the ship <B>AFTER VADER ORDERS THE FLEET TO JUMP AFTER FALCON</B>. The crew received no orders to continue scanning the area behind the ship or the garbage.<BR/>Let's recap: Falcon flies towards the ISD, flies behind the bridge and attaches itself on the hull, it vanishes from ISD scopes and Piett makes a report to Vader. Both Piett and Vader assume that Falcon has jumped away and Vader orders them to calculate Falcon's possible escape routes and jump out. Piett passes the orders to the crew. At that point the crew no longer has orders to scan around, especially it's garbage and they jump away.<BR/><BR/><B>This isn't heading in your favor.</B><BR/>I don't see how since you never shown why the inability to detect objects clamped to it's hull means that ISD has no rear sensor coverage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-72837869496819137732007-04-27T16:27:00.000-05:002007-04-27T16:27:00.000-05:00You are continuing to misinterpret what happened i...<B>You are continuing to misinterpret what happened in the films. Falcon flew past the bridge and then attached itself to the hull. This is when it disappared from the scopes.</B><BR/><BR/>Oh, please. It goes past the bridge tower and it disappears from the scopes. We know they didn't really vanish into thin air, we know they didn't go into another dimension or go to hyperspace. It just moved down and used the landing claw to attach to the back of the tower. They didn't phase or anything, so there are limits to where they have sensors on their ship and they are obviously being blocked by the tower itself because they know the Falcon was on the scopes when it was in front of the ship.<BR/><BR/><B>What are your evidences that a biological organism or a cloaked mine are harder to detect than Millenium Falcon?</B><BR/><BR/>You know perfectly well I've never said they were harder to detect. That hasn't been the issue.<BR/><BR/><B>Not exactly. Let me give you a proper analogy: If we saw Han Solo from the front and he wore a pink cowboy hat and you claimed that he only has a front half of the cowboy hat with back of his head being exposed then yes you would have to prove that.</B><BR/><BR/>The analogy is off.<BR/><BR/><B>So you accept there are sensors but don't accept there are any on the rear?</B><BR/><BR/>There is no evidence there are any on the rear. There is evidence that says there are none on the rear - The Falcon holding onto the rear of the bridge tower.<BR/><BR/><B>Will I have to specifically prove that each side of an ISD has sensors?</B><BR/><BR/>The important part is if there are sensors on the rear of the bridge tower.<BR/><BR/><B>In any case it is up to you to provide evidence that for some reason there are no sensors on the rear, see the previous analogy.</B><BR/><BR/>Done. The Falcon held onto the back of the bridge tower, making it disappear from the scopes of the ISD.<BR/><BR/><B>So what if 8472 is organic? How does that make it more difficult to detect?</B><BR/><BR/>Difficulty of organic detection is not the issue. The issue is inorganic/metallic detection.<BR/><BR/><B>The gunner on the ISD simply stated there are no life forms on board the ISD.</B><BR/><BR/>And couldn't detect 2 metallic objects inside, the droids.<BR/><BR/><B>There was no reason for the crew to scan the immediate rear of the ship.</B><BR/><BR/>The reason would be because the Falcon flew over the bridge tower, heading for the rear of the ship. That's why.<BR/><BR/>This isn't heading in your favor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-45926947852584740792007-04-27T15:31:00.000-05:002007-04-27T15:31:00.000-05:00You do realize that the point of the peripheral di...<B>You do realize that the point of the peripheral display was to highlight the ships respective effective weapon ranges? Which means this argument is academic. A distance has been stated. Statements are canon.</B><BR/>Yes I know. How does this change the fact that we can't see the third dimension? Do you even realize the problem? In the time Data stated "they are now at 300,000km" Phoenix cloud have approached rapidly "towards" the plane without us noticing. Thus we might conclude that it only slightly changed position and that ranges are comparable to the 300,000km when they are not.<BR/>As for incident being canon I never argued that. However "Call to Arms" where we outright see how distant the fleet is from DS9 (about 10km) and Damar states that they won't be in range for another minute is also canon. "Equinox" is canon. Multiple short range misses are canon. Do you realize that when you have evidence derived from DIRECT OBSERVATION you cannot counter them with evidence based on a character statement and assumptions?<BR/><BR/><B>STOP changing your position. You are either going to argue forward momentum or you will argue rotation...eitherway you're are in error. The planet was not rotating in the screen the ISD was moving forward. Thus the camera was moving away from the ISD and the planet...this is simple physics...</B><BR/>I'm not even sure what you are claiming here. I thought you claimed that ISD is in a stationary orbit and showed you that because the planet appears not to be rotating from ISDs perspective that doesn't mean the orbit is stationary. See my mountains analogy from previous post.<BR/>Secondly why do you think that it is impossible for an ISD to move towards and to a side whan approaching a planet? There are no limits to movement in space.<BR/><BR/><B>A stationary orbit is marked by a object remaining directly over head as a result the object will observe no rotation from it's persepective...and there wasn't...not while on the bridge not while outside the ship...Infact they were in a blockade formation over Echo base. What are you arguing? This is very dogmatic.</B><BR/>I'm afraid I really don't understand what are you talking about. I explained that due to distances involved even if the ISD was moving at several km/s in relation to the planet IN ANY DIRECTION we cannot see it. You have absolutely no evidence as to where ISD is moving.<BR/><BR/><B>What exactly do you think the countering of inertia is exactly. Only friction or gravity and EM field counter inertial. Gravity is not inplay and EM has no effect on certain types of matter. so..what do you think inertia is and what counters inertia?</B><BR/>What do you mean "gravity is not inplay"? Inertial dampers are obviously some kind of antigravity devices which create area effect force throughout the ship on order to cancel out the inertial forces. What else could it be? You still haven't explained your "friction" theory. What causes the friction?<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Inertia dampeners have been mentioned many times by Han Solo, Jaina Solo and mostly a large collection of fighter pilots. Read the X wing saga or the Yuuzahn Vong Saga... the New Jedi Order.</B><BR/>ICS also mentions 200 gigaton turbolasers and 10 light minute ranges for Venator class ships which is 180 million kilometers.<BR/>So if you are using EU I guess the debate is pretty much over.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-60690725535285684392007-04-27T12:35:00.000-05:002007-04-27T12:35:00.000-05:00By the Nameless One.How can you possibly know that...<B> By the Nameless One.<BR/>How can you possibly know that the ship is "almost there"? Do you realize that the ship could easily be 300,000km above the plane and we could not see it.</B><BR/><BR/>You do realize that the point of the peripheral display was to highlight the ships respective effective weapon ranges? Which means this argument is academic. A distance has been stated. Statements are canon.<BR/><BR/><B>So you are arguing that since ISD didn't appear to move relative to the planet it is therefore standing still? Do you realize that at such distances (10,000km) the ISD could be moving at several kilometers per second relative to the surface and it would still appear as it is standing still in few seconds the scene lasts. For example when you are driving on a highway the trees next to the road are swooshing fast but the mountain in the distance seems to be standing still. Simple perspective.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>STOP changing your position. You are either going to argue forward momentum or you will argue rotation...eitherway you're are in error. The planet was not rotating in the screen the ISD was moving forward. Thus the camera was moving away from the ISD and the planet...this is simple physics...<BR/><BR/>A stationary orbit is marked by a object remaining directly over head as a result the object will observe no rotation from it's persepective...and there wasn't...not while on the bridge not while outside the ship...Infact they were in a blockade formation over Echo base. What are you arguing? This is very dogmatic.<BR/><BR/><B>I certainly never heard that inertial dampers work in that manner. All we know is that they somehow negate the accelerative forces within the ship. Please elaborate and provide evidence for your statement that they "cause friction". Friction with what? The surrounding space?</B><BR/><BR/>What exactly do you think the countering of inertia is exactly. Only friction or gravity and EM field counter inertial. Gravity is not inplay and EM has no effect on certain types of matter. so..what do you think inertia is and what counters inertia?<BR/><BR/><B>So you feel that "friction generators" which I never heard mentioned in any literature concerning Star Wars is better explanation than engines misfiring? </B><BR/><BR/>Inertia dampeners have been mentioned many times by Han Solo, Jaina Solo and mostly a large collection of fighter pilots. Read the X wing saga or the Yuuzahn Vong Saga... the New Jedi Order.<BR/><BR/>Once those IDF generators where off line do to the EMP the ships last course would have caused the ship orbit to continue to decay shallowly since the bow was not pointed in the opposite direction of the planets rotation which we assume is not retrograde.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05497699593377180118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-74594158325719329852007-04-27T11:28:00.000-05:002007-04-27T11:28:00.000-05:00If there were weapons there, but were under hull p...<B>If there were weapons there, but were under hull pieces that moved aside to expose them, they'd have opened up. At no point in any of the 6 movies did we ever see an emission from a weapons port or see hull plating move aside to expose a weapon installment on the back of an ISD tower.<BR/><BR/>If there were just sensors there, they should have showed up. They knew full well the ship was important and yet, they aren't gonna think to use all sensors around the ship? The guy said the ship no longer appeared on their scopes. The only thing logically that makes sense is that the main emitter for the sensors is somewhere on the front of the ship. Which means the tower blocked them. If there were sensors on the rear of the ship to scan for vessels, the Falcon would have been detected.</B><BR/>You are continuing to misinterpret what happened in the films. Falcon flew past the bridge and then attached itself to the hull. This is when it disappared from the scopes. <BR/><BR/><B>In regards to Species 8472, they are a biological entity from another fucking universe. Even the Enterprise from ENT picked up the cloaked mine of the romulans touching the hull. This mine, like the Falcon, are metallic objects.</B><BR/>Enterprise's crew never suspected there were any mines until one blew a chunk of the ship. What are your evidences that a biological organism or a cloaked mine are harder to detect than Millenium Falcon?<BR/><BR/><B>Wrong. I could easily say that Han owned a pink cowboy hat and just because we never saw it means he's probably got one, so you need to prove he doesn't own one.<BR/>Your logic is flawed.</B><BR/>Not exactly. Let me give you a proper analogy: If we saw Han Solo from the front and he wore a pink cowboy hat and you claimed that he only has a front half of the cowboy hat with back of his head being exposed then yes you would have to prove that.<BR/><BR/><B>Like hell I do. I accept they have sensors, but I'm not the one asserting that there must be ones on the rear of the tower. Because you are, you need to show evidence they are there, which you have yet to do other than 'eh, maybe'. That won't cut it.</B><BR/>So you accept there are sensors but don't accept there are any on the rear? Will I have to specifically prove that each side of an ISD has sensors? In any case it is up to you to provide evidence that for some reason there are no sensors on the rear, see the previous analogy.<BR/><BR/><B>Dominion or Imperial sensors has not been the issue in regards to Species 8472. Species 8472 is organic, the Falcon isn't. The imperials couldn't even detect 3PO and R2 were in the escape pod and it was moving right in front of it.</B><BR/>So what if 8472 is organic? How does that make it more difficult to detect? The gunner on the ISD simply stated there are no life forms on board the ISD. <BR/><BR/><B>Impervious is what sense? Energy dampening? Energy asborption? Archer's Enterprise still detected a visually cloaked mine attached to its hull. That ISD couldn't detect the Falcon attached to the back of its tower. Whether Voyager could detect biological agents means nothing because organic things are not an issue. Inorganic ones are.</B><BR/>As I said Archer only detected the mines after one detonated and caused them to investigate more closely. Vader and Piett were convinced that Falcon jumped away and ordered their crews to jump after them. There was no reason for the crew to scan the immediate rear of the ship.<BR/>Again you showed no proof as to why detection of organic objects should be more difficult.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-70974448828256606342007-04-27T10:48:00.000-05:002007-04-27T10:48:00.000-05:00They didn't detect the ship while it was attached ...<B>They didn't detect the ship while it was attached to it's hull. How does that mean there are no sensors on the rear?</B><BR/><BR/>If there were weapons there, but were under hull pieces that moved aside to expose them, they'd have opened up. At no point in any of the 6 movies did we ever see an emission from a weapons port or see hull plating move aside to expose a weapon installment on the back of an ISD tower.<BR/><BR/>If there were just sensors there, they should have showed up. They knew full well the ship was important and yet, they aren't gonna think to use all sensors around the ship? The guy said the ship no longer appeared on their scopes. The only thing logically that makes sense is that the main emitter for the sensors is somewhere on the front of the ship. Which means the tower blocked them. If there were sensors on the rear of the ship to scan for vessels, the Falcon would have been detected.<BR/><BR/><B>This is commentary about a page that compares Federation and Imperial weapons ranges and accuracy right?</B><BR/><BR/>But, we've been speaking of sensors being on the back of the tower or not.<BR/><BR/><B>As such I think that it is important to point out that Federation ships also experienced problems with detecting objects on it's hull so that is not am advantage for Federation ships.</B><BR/><BR/>In regards to Species 8472, they are a biological entity from another fucking universe. Even the Enterprise from ENT picked up the cloaked mine of the romulans touching the hull. This mine, like the Falcon, are metallic objects.<BR/><BR/><B>Exactly. Absence of evidence that there are rear sensors does not equal evidence of absence of rear sensors.</B><BR/><BR/>Wrong. I could easily say that Han owned a pink cowboy hat and just because we never saw it means he's probably got one, so you need to prove he doesn't own one.<BR/><BR/>Your logic is flawed.<BR/><BR/><B>We know they do have sensors and therefore it is up to you to prove that they specifically don't have rear sensors.</B><BR/><BR/>Like hell I do. I accept they have sensors, but I'm not the one asserting that there must be ones on the rear of the tower. Because you are, you need to show evidence they are there, which you have yet to do other than 'eh, maybe'. That won't cut it.<BR/><BR/><B>They are impervious to Federation sensors, there is no evidence that they are impervious to Dominion or Imperial sensors.</B><BR/><BR/>Dominion or Imperial sensors has not been the issue in regards to Species 8472. Species 8472 is organic, the Falcon isn't. The imperials couldn't even detect 3PO and R2 were in the escape pod and it was moving right in front of it.<BR/><BR/><B>Which is the point. Voyager can fail to detect objects on it's hull just like an ISD.</B><BR/><BR/>Impervious is what sense? Energy dampening? Energy asborption? Archer's Enterprise still detected a visually cloaked mine attached to its hull. That ISD couldn't detect the Falcon attached to the back of its tower. Whether Voyager could detect biological agents means nothing because organic things are not an issue. Inorganic ones are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-58283228413479507872007-04-27T09:40:00.000-05:002007-04-27T09:40:00.000-05:00almost there but it doesn't throw out the ranges w...<B>almost there but it doesn't throw out the ranges we observed, it make them variable...and what's this about being at warp?</B><BR/>How can you possibly know that the ship is "almost there"? Do you realize that the ship could easily be 300,000km above the plane and we could not see it.<BR/><BR/><B>That is a bad analogy. Both the Earth and the Moon are rotating. When both are in view one is clearly rotating. Not to mention you've inaccurately placed your POV on the Earth in stead of in orbit or freefall. You just have think about this bit.<BR/><BR/>Both the Planet and the ISD were placed in the same scene. One is rotating the other is not...If an object in orbit does not percieve a rotation the it is in stationary orbit over a particlar location on the planets surface. I don not see the arguing point here or why you asert differently on the basis that he moon doesn't appear to rotate from an Earthly perspective...this is purely incredulous. While I was begining to agree with you before you have lost credibility no.</B><BR/>So you are arguing that since ISD didn't <I>appear</I> to move relative to the planet it is therefore standing still? Do you realize that at such distances (10,000km) the ISD could be moving at several kilometers per second relative to the surface and it would still appear as it is standing still in few seconds the scene lasts. For example when you are driving on a highway the trees next to the road are swooshing fast but the mountain in the distance seems to be standing still. Simple perspective.<BR/><BR/><B>Of course it does. We know that ISD's have interial dampners. These devices terminate or lessen a ships tendancy to remain in motion. Like somesort of friction generator for lack of better descriptions. As a result the engine must remain engage while in Orbit to conteract the Interial Dampners.</B><BR/>I certainly never heard that inertial dampers work in that manner. All we know is that they somehow negate the accelerative forces within the ship. Please elaborate and provide evidence for your statement that they "cause friction". Friction with what? The surrounding space?<BR/><BR/><B>Star Wars books show that the IDF like Trek constantly remain activated an reduce G force and speed of ships and fighters.</B><BR/>Is the EU allowed here?<BR/><BR/><B>Therefore the ISD fell out of orbit. Your...miss firing theory not withstanding doesn't follow the physics of the situation.</B><BR/>So you feel that "friction generators" which I never heard mentioned in any literature concerning Star Wars is better explanation than engines misfiring?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com