Response to Q&A 15 Part III: Miscellaneous issues

[Mike DiCenso]

Warp speed verus B5 hyperspace Issues

To make it clear, I'm advocating for all canon evidence and cross comparing high-ends, medium-ends, and low-ends from both sides. Equally. Whichever one has the highest average TOS or B5, wins. Its simple really, and its fair and accounts for both sides' big inconsistencies. Since the TNG:TM is unreliable, as shown in Part II, we may as well use the in-unverse "real life" evidence. To do so otherwise is akin to a Creationist when answering evidence of Evolution in our real life with "But the answers are in Genesis and the Bible!"

I can add another high-speed warp example to the list:

"Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home:"

SULU: Estimating Planet Earth, one point six hours present speed.

"Home" [ST:ENT, Season 4]

TUCKER: You're sorry. You brought me sixteen light years just to watch you get married to someone you barely know.

"Daedalus" [ST:ENT, Season 4]

EMORY: Sub-quantum teleportation. You step on to a transporter on Earth, a few seconds later, you're on Vulcan.

TUCKER: That's over 16 light-years.

EMORY: That's just for starters. Theoretically, there's no limit to the distance. One of the things we're here to test. You tell me, with that kind of technology who'd have any use for a starship?

So Vulcan is established to be 16 light years or more from Earth. So 16 light years x 365 light days = 5,840 lighy days x 24 hours = 140,160 light hours divided by 1.6 hours travel time = 87.600c. No warp speed is stated, but given that the later time-warp sling shot got scary around warp 9 for the Klingon Bird of Prey, it is quite reasonable to assume that they were going somewhere between warp 6-8.

So why another example of high-speed warp? Just to show you that this was common in TOS (it's even common in the TNG-era shows, but that's another issue for later). But what about the contradictions, you might ask?

Well, Star Trek: Voyager provided an explanation.

In not one, but three separate episodes, it is made clear that good navigational data can reduce the time to get back home by a substantial amount:

" Year of Hell, Part 1" [VOY, Season 4]

SEVEN: Astrometric sensors measure the radiative flux of up to three billion stars simultaneously. The computer then calculates our position relative to the centre of the galaxy.

KIM: This mapping technology is ten times more accurate than what we've been using. Seven, will you do the honours? We've plotted a new course home.

SEVEN: By my estimates this trajectory will eliminate five years from your journey.

5 years was subtracted from Voyager's trip home with better maps

"Hope and Fear" [VOY, Season 4]

ADMIRAL HAYES [on monitor]: Apologies from everyone at Starfleet Command. We've had our best people working around the clock, trying to find a wormhole, a new means of propulsion, anything to get you home. But despite our best efforts. I know it's not what you were hoping, but we've sent you all the data we've collected on the Delta Quadrant. With any luck, you'll find at least some part of it useful. Maybe enough to shave a few years off your journey. Safe journey. We hope to see you soon.

Possibly few years was removed from Voyager's trip home simply by getting better data on the Delta quadrant from Starfleet.

"Q2" [VOY, Season 7]

Q: Oh, before I leave. (gives her a PADD) I did a little homework for you. Consider it a thank you for everything you did for Junior.

JANEWAY: Not that I don't appreciate it, but this will only take a few years off our journey. Why not send us all the way?

Q: What sort of an example would I be setting for my son if I did all the work for you?

2 or more years was subtracted with Q's data.

So that's upwards of at least 9 years subtracted from the 70 years it would take, and recall that in "Caretaker", Janeway states it would take 75 years, but just a few episodes later in "Eye of the Needle", Ensign Kim states it would take 70 years. That latter estimate is the basis for all subsequent estimates given in Voyager. So how'd they lose that 5 years between "Caretaker" and "Eye of the Needle"? Simple, Neelix was acting as their guide at that time, so he might have given the Voyager crew some shortcuts to take, or helped them trade for local starcharts that let them speed things up. So added with the other examples, up to 20 years could shaved off this way. Well, in the well-charted space of the Alpha and Beta quadrants, it would make sense we see the very high speeds, and especially so in Federation space which should be the best charted of all. That is after all what we see in TNG's "The Chase" where Professor Galen outlines a path across 40,000 light years through charted space and is expected to take mere weeks on a starship and months on a shuttle or regular shipping.

But there's the way to help reconcile speed inconsistencies and you don't have to fall back on the TNG TM to do it.

Firepower and Hull Strength Issues

Thanks to the archives at Ex Astris Scientia, We have a several great views of the Reliant model:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/miranda1.htm

The photographic views of the canonical filming model in the top row of images helps us to understand the dimensions of the Reliant and all similar ships of the class seen since then. Most in particular, compare this to the Part II screen caps of the Enterprise's final assault on the ship and the damage done and just how devastating it was despite the relatively low power available to the ship after the mains (which were only on partial anyway as per the dialog evidence I provided) were shut off completely by Scotty due to damage.

Oh on scaling, this and other similar images help us gauge the size of the Enterprise and Reliant anyway. The number of decks, for example, the airlock doors (shown clearly in size in both Star Trek: The Motion Picture as well as Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan in their respective dry dock scenes) bracket these vessels in the 250-300 meter range. So no, we don't have to rely on any of the technical manuals, nor even backstage info. So what we have here is a ship that by the deck heights (3.5 meters based on interior views, MSD displays, and the docking travel pods) is around 60 meters tall based on the main hull observed deck height of 12-13 decks and add in the nacelles, which look to add another 20 in height and we get 65 meters. That fits in well with a conservatively 250 meter long ship and the nacelles being around 150 meters long. So the Pylon length (front to back where it connects to the nacelle) is about 43 meters, and in the Part II movie screencaps I provided is about maybe 10 meters thick. Since the torpedo completely vaporized an approximately 10 x 43 x 10 meter section to sever the remaining nacelle off, that means we can assume the following for volume:

For this I will use a rectangle for volume. Not pretty, but it gives a rough ballpark. So length x height x width gives us 4,300 cubic meters. Although it looks as though in the movie there is a lot of structure and other systems in there, I will be conservative and assume that only about 10 percent of that is structure and systems. So 10 percent of 4,300 = 430 cubic meters. Now to be extra conservative, I'll assume for a minimum estimate that the whole thing is elemental iron, not duranium and tritanium, which we know can withstand a lot of physical and therrmal stress, and I will assume the section is inert with no SIF to toughen it further. So iron masses out at 7,300 kg per meter^3 . Thus 430 x 7,300 = 3,139,000 kg. It takes about 7.6 megajoules to vaporize one kg of iron, which means if the ship is totally inert and is at the same temp as space, or 200 K and it takes 447 joules to raise the temperature of 1 kg of iron 1 degree k to 1,853 k It should take 23,856,400 MJ or 23.8 terajoules. So that's a 5.7 kiloton explosion there.

And that's being fairly conservative. We can raise this by up to a couple orders of magnitude when the known properties of Star Trek materials are taken into account along with the strengthening effect of SIF, and that there was probably a lot more material inside there to be destroyed. That puts the torpedo into the half megaton range a 570 kt, and that's getting well into what you need to canonically kill a Sharlin (two megatons detonated from several hundred meters as per "In the Begining", but you know it was far less than that since the Drala Fi only intercepted a modest fraction of that energy.).. It certainly is more than 4 orders of magnitude above what the 200 MW guns on Babylon 5's canonical firepower, and those 200 MW guns could threaten the Sharlin-class Trigati with destruction once her stealth field was down.

Oh, but why don't I cherrry pick from your beloved TNG TM.... I think I'll pick... the 2.39 gigaton yield for a photon torpedo for the win. That's not only enough to kill a Sharlin dead by many orders of magnitude, but with that firepower, you can fire a single torpedo right into the midst of a large fleet of them and kill or cripple every ship. I don't care if the Minbari stealth fields somehow can work on subspace sensors (which I'd find really tough to believe given how alien a technology that is to anything in B5), 2.39 GT is more than enough to kill Minbari ships with proximity blast detonations from even many kilometers away from the blast point.

On the Equivalence Fallacy, yes I still hold you to that, unless you can come up with clear evidence of any other ships in B5 having similiar technologies to the SIF fields, to the 12,000 degree plus temperature resistance of Federation starship hulls. If you can't, then there's another big win for Trek TOS.

On Lazurus' timeship. You, Brian, brought up the old canard of "no one said it was resilent". Well, while that's technically true, none of the characters said that directly, they did bring up all those details about the bizarre effects said ship was having on the Enterprise and the rest of reality. It's an inference by way of the evidence that the ship might be unusually tough or cause the phaser beams to be less effective in some manner. But if you insist on that, then I'll insist that the phasers were also never stated to be fired on full.

That's also quite canon, Brian:


KIRK: Activate phaser banks.

LESLEY: Phaser banks activated.

KIRK: Stand by to fire.

(The bright dot appears on the planet surface.)

LESLEY: Phasers standing by, sir.

KIRK: Fire phasers.

Compare this again to dialog from "Whom Gods Destroy" where the phasers are ordered at full power:

SCOTT:Ship's phasers to narrow beam.

SULU:Ship's phasers ready, sir.

SCOTT:Let's punch a hole in it. Full power. Another blast,full power.

SULU: Force field still holding, sir.

Scotty orders specifically the phasers not only to full power, but also to narrow beam. It's also not the only time anyone mentions full phasers, either:

DECKER:That thing must be destroyed.

SPOCK: You tried to destroy it once before, Commodore. The result was a wrecked ship and a dead crew.

DECKER: I made a mistake then. We were too far away. This time I'm going to hit it with full phasers at point-blank range.

SPOCK: Sensors show the object's hull is solid neutronium. A single ship cannot combat it.

So given all those variables, we can't use "The Alternative Factor" as anything other than a minimum firepower example.

In addition, I would like to address the nuclear weapons issue. Specifically "Tomorrow is Yesterday" where the Enterprise
was crippled after a close encounter with a black hole and in using warp power was thrown back in time and into Earth's atmosphere. Not only did the Enterprise survive those immense forces (I would not want to even try to calculate what kind of kinetic damage the ship withstood when hitting Earth's atmosphere at what must've been millions of c) but was intact, despite being heavily damaged.

SPOCK: Positive identification, Captain. Aircraft is an interceptor, equipped with missiles, possibly armed with nuclear warheads. If he hits us with one, he might damage us severely, perhaps beyond our capacity to repair under current circumstances.

KIRK: Scotty, activate tractor beam. Lock onto that aircraft and hold it out there.

SPOCK: Captain, this type of aircraft might be too fragile to take our tractor beam.

Possibly armed. Spock isn't sure, but more than that, he never says that the ship will be definitively damaged, just that there is a possibility that it could be under the current circumstances. There's no way to quantify anything here.

What's more is that if the nukes are equivalent in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and "In the Beginning", then it means that the Enterprise can survive a direct hit from something that would kill a mile-long Sharlin from hundreds of meters away!

There is also an important hull-strength example to be found here as well. Capt. Christopher's F-104 Starfighter plane being crushed in the tractor beam says a lot for Federation ship hull strength from mere shuttlecraft on up to starships that they can easily survive forces that would completely crush into debris the strong fuselage of modern aircraft like that.

In "Balance of Terror", you Brian, also assumed that the nuke in that episode is equivalent to the one in "In the Beginning", but negected to note the some time prior the Enterprise had been hit by and survived the powerful Romulan plasma weapon which is canonically stated to be able to crush 2 mile wide asteroids made of almost solid iron into dust and debris:

SPOCK: Sweeping the area of Outpost two. Sensor reading indefinite. Double-checking Outpost three. I read dust and debris. Both Earth outposts gone, and the asteroids they were constructed on, pulverised.

KIRK: Kirk here. We're minutes away, Hansen. What's your status?

HANSEN [OC]: Outposts two, three, and eight are gone. Unknown weapon. Completely destroyed, even though we were alerted. Had our deflector shield on maximum. Hit by enormous power. First attack blew our deflector shield. If they hit us again with our deflector shield gone. Do you read me, Enterprise?

KIRK: Confirm what hit you, Hansen. What vessel? Identity?

HANSEN [OC]: Space vessel, only glimpse of.

KIRK: Can you locate the intruder for us?

HANSEN [OC]: Negative. It seems to have disappeared somehow. I have you on my screen now. Switching to visual.

KIRK:Tie us in.

UHURA: Tied in, sir.

(The viewscreen shows a man in a wrecked room, surrounded by fires)

HANSEN [on viewscreen]: Enterprise, can you see it? My command post here. We're a mile deep on an asteroid. Almost solid iron. And even through our deflectors, it did this. Can you see?

So, no, they are not equivalent at all. The Enteprrise in order to be hurt like that would have to take a similar or greater force. And in order to mechanically crush such asteroids into dust and the outposts inside them into brittle debris the size of dinner plates, you need hundreds of gigatons worth of energy.

There's just no getting around it, even if the plasma weapon was losing energy to catch the Enterprise at high warp.

Being Unprofessional

Brian, you're no saint here. Your old Hate mail section from the now defunct BabTech site will come back to haunt you. And yes, I have some of them thanks to the fact that old websites are often archived (Brian in green):

Adarx!!!
You may have testicles after all! But then again, I had to do some pretty serious posting before you became embarrassed enough to face me like a man.

I see you never got around to finding my e-mail address after somebody posted it on SD.net.

Did someone post it? I didn't see that. I don't live my life for these forums, after all. I saw where someone said you had set up a Yahoo account or something, but I never saw an address.
But it is immaterial anyway, because you are the one without balls enough to face me like a man. Until now, anyway.
I considered my points made.

Oh well, all of that is irrelevant anyhow.

Agreed. Now, to the important stuff.

I like your hate mail page, a load of shit it is.

Well, it is quotes of your statements, after all. What did you expect, intelligence?

If you had even the slightest shred of integrity you would have posted a link to the thread in question so visitors could see first hand what you and I were doing.

Spacebattles forums are not a static things, nor do they last forever. I might post a link to that forum, and in a couple of months, it is a broken link. My hate mail page will last as long as I want it to.
Two reasons I wanted to debate this way are that others can't jump in and mess up the one-on-one debate, and that your ignorance will be preserved for a very long time, for all to see.
I stopped reading that thread with my last post.
Do you deny that
*these are direct quotes from statements you made in chronological order
*I challenged you directly to a debate via e-mail (what I was doing)
*you felt my holding you to a statement that you made meant that I was "setting a trap" for you
*you refused to debate me in the realm I challenged you to?
I don't see what the problem is, unless you are afraid for what you said to be preserved indefinitely.


Not only that, you then ignore later posts where I point out that I could use a friends account if all I wanted to do was to mail three images to a few people who don't trust me.


Then why couldn't you use it to contact me directly?
Still a coward. Until now, that is. Peer pressure can be very powerful.


Thats a bit different from using their computer every day for a month in a debate back and forth. Complete dishonesty.

A month? What do you think I am, an endless ranter like you?

Anyway, you challenged me to a debate on the Vorlon fighter and I accept.

Great. There may be hope for you after all.
The guy finally came out of the saloon to face the gunslinger! It only took a week or so. :)


Please note, we are going to have these posts sent to spacebattles to be posted in a closed thread by the mods.

Good idea.

Since the initial debate I have accumulated new evidence which supports my theory.


I can't wait to see it.

So, we agree on the topic? The topic is whether or not you have evidence that the Vorlon fighter in question took previous damage before it was destroyed by an Earthforce fighter? That is what we were discussing, IIRC.

Okay, I submit these ideas:
*Debate will consist of a maximum of 5 posts per person.
*Posts cannot contain more than 20k of text.
*Posts can contain relevant images, video, audio, etc., as long as it is formatted/compressed appropriately for internet use (ie, no bitmap images, uncompressed AVIs, etc.)
*Maximum of 48 hours for response time to a post. After 48 hours, if there is no reply, the debate ends with the last post.
*Debaters use real names.
*Quotes will be direct quotes. No paraphrasing.
*Because this is regarding your problems with my website, the burden of proof is on you.
*You make the first actual debate post, I make the last.
*None of that stupid "concession accepted" crap, unless a concession is made by the other party.
*Stay on-topic.
*No profanity. My website is rated G.

Any other ideas?
We have to agree on the terms before the debate can start.


Lots of insults flying there, Brian. Nice to know you practiced what you preach. Not.

I am also bringing up the issue of you claiming at the end of my post to NerdCulture that I throw in a bunch insults at the end. I did no such thing. That is a lie on your part and here is the actual tail end of the post:

Oh, as for the SFJN wiki. Not once has Tyralak ever asked for a change, even though he can at any point. It's an open source wiki you know. You could even do it. So no boohooing on that, either.

I'll just add one more thing on the wiki. Given the caustic nature of SDN's Imperiwiki site, why does do you not say anything about that as well?You can't possibly not know what's on it or the nasty lies and insults it spews at SDN's enemies. So why are you not saying anything about that, yet you get upset at an article that is years out of date.

See? No insults.

As for calling out on Wayne Poe and Mike Wong's behavior. It has nothing to do with projecting my hatered of them or anything onto you. It has to do with you in being rather thin-skinned and banning me from commenting on your videos on YouTube over a perceived insult, but never once in all the years you associated with those two, you did not call them out for their much more extreme behavior. In other words, you are a hypocrite, Brian. You looked the other way for them, and still do for Mike Wong as one of your more recent videos attested where you openly said "Mike Wong may be mean, but listen to what he says". That's giving him a free pass, and yet you don't do the same for me. That's what is called a double-standard. You get all huffed up over a 2 year old and obviously out of date Database entry, which is clearly very even-handed towards you, but then dodge around it when it is compared in whole to your buddy Mike Wong's rather horribly vicious Imperiwiki entry on Robert Anderson. I will again show both enteries in their entirety, and unlike you, I won't cherry pick a single line:

Database:


Brian Young

Brian Young is a semi-active researcher of science fiction technology, and though once a long time versus debater, he is no longer openly active. He is the author of the BabTech on the Net and Turbolaser Commentaries websites, but no longer maintains or updates either site, the latter is maintained as part of the StarDestroyer.Net website run by Michael Wong. The Turblaser Commentaries site was often cited by many pro-Wars versus debators since Young's conclusions often favored fairly high-end turbolaser and starfighter blaster firepower estimates.

Behind the scenes, Brian Young was among several versus debaters who were consulted by Dr.Curtis Saxton for the AOTC and ROTS ICS books. In particular, Young and Saxton, along a number of well-known versus debators participated in a controversal email group hosted on Wayne Poe's now defunct USVSD website.

Despite having allowed the Babtech and Turbolaser Commentaries to languish and ceased debating in newsgroups or online forums, Young in April 2012 started a new website called SciFights.net, which uses webcamera recorded video commentaries on various aspects of science fiction technology and "what if" crossover Versus debate scenarios.

Due to the intense controversy some of his video comments created, he has since gone to Tyralak's ASVS forum to try and answer to some of them.
Notes and references

Regarding the E2:ICS (Robert Scott Anderson's commentaries on Brian Young's involvement in the ICS)

Turbolaser Commentaries

BabTech on the Net (defunct)

SciFights.net

Categories
Category:

People

Other than that one line, what is wrong with the rest of the entry? Methinks you dost complain a bit too much, and I still find it curious that you picked only that one line out of the whole there. Very curious. Perhaps a bit of cherry picking to make yourself look the part of the victim?

Now here's Imperiwiki, which for some reason, you refuse to condemn:


Robert Scott Anderson

Robert Scott Anderson -- otherwise known as RSA, DarkStar, Guardian2K, Guardian2000, DSG2k, "DorkStar," and "Scooter" -- is considered one of SDN's most obsessed ex-members. One of the most stubborn Trek debaters in the ST VS SW debate, he's considered a classic example of broken record debating and sheer dishonesty, as exemplified by the bands of brightness debate or the "SW humans have metal spines" claim. He has been dubbed by many to be a Timothy Jones clone and is mocked by both sides of the debate.

He also runs a blog that spends a portion of its time attacking Stardestroyer.net and some of its more notable members such as Wayne Poe and Mike Wong. What's unfortunate is that his website is the one of the first results for a Google search of "Star Trek vs. Star Wars", making newcomers to the debate vulnerable to his arguments.

Anderson seemingly dropped off the internet (or at least off anything Star Wars or Star Trek) in mid-2010, suggesting that he had finally gotten bored of the debate. As of the start of 2013 his website and blog have become active again, though currently are only used for Star Trek-related ruminations, likely due to the imminent release of Star Trek Into Darkness.
Quotes

"He's really good at appearing reasonable while making the most ridiculous claims. I caught myself about to fall for one earlier. Won't happen again, but it's unnerving."

-- Rogue 9 (forum user)

"Dear God, this man is clearly insane."

-- SomethingAwful.Com on DarkStar

"But as the saying goes, 'if the facts are against you, argue the law ... if the law is against you, argue the facts ... if the facts and the law are against you, yell like hell.' Highwind, et al., that's your cue. I've made my point."

-- DarkStar accusing Star Trek writer Mike Sussman of dishonesty for disagreeing with him about the ENT episode "The Augments", an episode that Mike Sussman wrote. DarkStar would subsequently demand that his words be deleted from memory-alpha.org.

"If I had to use two words to describe this site, I would choose 'nuts' and 'fucking,' although not in that order. In addition, I would repeat the word 'fucking' approximately 15,000 times for emphasis, as this is simply the most ridiculous and ungodly site I have ever gazed my eyes upon."

-- SomethingAwful.Com on DarkStar's website

Debates

A copy of the debate he held with Mike Wong is available on Mike's Hate Mail page while debates with him are also available on the SDN forums.

A Treatment of most of his more common arguments by "Master of Ossus".

DarkStar's Entry in the FUQ http://www.daltonator.net/fuq/trolls/g2k.html

The Robert Scott Anderson Archive contains a mostly complete history of his debates on alt.startrek.vs.starwars.

Categories: Trolls | SDN Trolls

Now that is what truly insulting, misleading, and a pack of lies looks like, Brian. And when it was brought to your attention, why didn't you say anything about it? It says a lot about you that you won't, and you keep sidestepping it, including huffing and puffing about me defending the Database article on you. And yet here you are, silent on the Imperiwiki article.

But, then again, as shown, you already know about that sort of thing, don't you, Brian. Perhaps I should remind you of that pack of lies you spewed in your "Tinfoil" video and in the Q&A 13 that completely distorted what poor 359 said. Sure you deleted them and apologized, but you put them up quite happily in the first place, and you did not take them down until Nowhereman called you out on them.

By the way, did you ban Nowhereman? Is that why you did, if you did? Because maybe he was bringing up inconvenient facts? Interesting.

So I have to ask, why didn't you take a moment to condemn that Imperiwiki article? You say you haven't heard from Mike or Wayne in some years, so what would it hurt for you to make a video condeming their behavior? If you hold me accountable, you must also be fair and hold them accountable.

As for the ICS books. No, you didn't write the entirety of the book, Curtis did that for the most part, but you did however have a rather substantial influence on what was written along with Wayne, Mike Wong, and a number of other known and identified pro-Wars debaters. All of whom, including yourself, had and still ahve a vested interest in winning the Star Trek versus Star Wars debate by codifying that into "canon" by getting your beliefs published in an "official" book, with which you could then use to slam over peoples' heads in any debate.... which is what you guys did with AOTC:ICS. And to make the point clear, here is a list of the names of the people involved in that as given in the acknowledgements:

Michael Wong = himself, Darth Wong, Admiral Kanos on SDN

Andrew Tse = Maybe an old Babtech contributer.

Dorian Kratsas = Vympel on SDN, and Leo1 on SBC.

John Edward Vermazen = Lord_Darth_Bob on TFN, "Illuminatus Primus" on SDN

Wayne Poe = Cock Knocker on here on SFJN, Lord Poe on SDN

Brian Young = himself on ASVS, SDN

Kazuaki Shimazaki = himself on SDN?

Michael Blackburn = Master of Ossus on SDN and SBC.

Adam Gehrls = Connor MacLeod on SDN and SBC

Dennis Aspo = His Divine Shadow on SDN and SBC

Julius Sykes = Publius on SDN

Ethan Platten = Given credit on your old Turbolaser Commentaries site.

Michael Horne = ?

Martyn Griffiths =

So this seems a fairly conclusive bit of evidence that you, Brian, were involved with a lot of other people to make the ICS books as high-powered as they could be so Star Wars would win. And it's interesting that you constantly fall back on this book and the ROTS:ICS, in which you are also credited along with the same individuals.

That's what's called in professional circles "a conflict of interest", and that you keep using those two ICS books as a fall back makes you look, well, unprofessional.

If that were not enough, you keep trying to justify the huge numbers in those books with the same questionable examples, and bad methodology. You keep claiming that we should take literally what we see on screen as the actual time it took ships to accelerate into orbit in SW, but those often involve obvious jump cuts. That is the full flight sequence is not being shown because the audiance is likely not going to want to sit there through a full couple of minutes or more of the ship flying up through Tatooine, Geonosis, or Mustafar's atmospheres. They want to get to the action. Robert Anderson's example of the Millennium Falcon turning around to fly at the ISD Avenger is a high quality bit of evidence because it removes the variables present in the other examples, and shows us the Falcon killing her forward momentum and then doing a full-burn with her main engines to go back the other way. It's all a big contiguous scene with only those cuts necessary to show us what was going on first inside the ship's cockpit and then the turn and burn, the ship streaking over the Avenger's hull, and then a cut to Avenger's bridge with Captain Needa and his aide ducking as the Falcon zooms by.

And if you insist on using the other examples from Star Wars with all those jump cuts. Then why not do the same for Trek or other franchises? So why not use the Enterprise-E in Star Trek: First Contact, for example, coming into the battle over Earth just a scant 2 minutes after we last saw her when she makes the warp jump from the Romulan Neutral Zone? Given we know from the Star Trek:Enterprise episode "Dead Stop", that the Romulans are at least 130 light years from Earth, we can then calculate a warp speed of 34,164,000c .And it's consistent with the higher end speeds of TOS and TNG, and it fits well with the idea that the E-E is one of the fastest and most advanced ships in Starfleet.

See how that works?

So to sum up, there's plenty of evidence that you pulled examples from out of their proper context and missed, either accidentally or on purpose, evidence that runs counter to your thesis. Nor are you the victim you present yourself to be, Brian. And you often use bad methodologies, and have a conflict of interest in your chosen fall-back sources.
-Mike

[2046]

I happen to know, from my prior post to 359, which posts are Brian's, but if you can I would suggest color-coding or quote-tagging that section of archived Brian quotes for clarity.

[Mike DiCenso]

Done and done, along with other minor fixes for clarity.
-Mike