ST-v-SW.net: Rise calcs

[Kane Starkiller]

You've already seen pictures from Darkstar's site, so you already know the examples. I simply honestly can't think of any scene which would show torpedoes fired at an angle. Therefore, there's no reason whatsoever to challenge the assumption that "Rise" torpedoes were not fired straight ahead.

And I honestly can't think of any scene that shows Harry Kim shitting on a toilet. But he probably has that capability wouldn't you say?
Again provide evidence that Starfleet always fires it's torpedoes straight ahead.

[Kazeite]

And I honestly can't think of any scene that shows Harry Kim shitting on a toilet. But he probably has that capability wouldn't you say?

Yeah. Nice strawman, by the way. But can it shoot at an angle? :D

Again provide evidence that Starfleet always fires it's torpedoes straight ahead.

Again, you've already seen pictures from Darkstar's site, so you already know the examples.

[Kane Starkiller]

Yeah. Nice strawman, by the way. But can it shoot at an angle? :D

Too bad you have no clue what strawman is. Look it up.

Again provide evidence that Starfleet always fires it's torpedoes straight ahead.

Again, you've already seen pictures from Darkstar's site, so you already know the examples.

Who asked you for examples?
PROVE that Starfleet ALWAYS fires it's torpedoes straight ahead or concede.

[Kazeite]

Too bad you have no clue what strawman is. Look it up.

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."
Yup, that's exactly what you did :)

Who asked you for examples?

You asked for evidence. I told you that you've already seen pictures which show examples of Starfleet ships firing straight forward, which is the evidence that Starfleet always fires its torpedoes straight forward. Now, provide the evidence that they sometime fire at an angle or concede. Well actually, you already did, so, I think this concludes this debate :)

[Kane Starkiller]

You asked for evidence. I told you that you've already seen pictures which show examples of Starfleet ships firing straight forward, which is the evidence that Starfleet always fires its torpedoes straight forward.

I like how you always start using smilies heavily when you get your argument shredded. :D
How are examples that Starfleet SOMETIMES fires photon torpedoes forward evidence that they ALWAYS fire their photon torpedoes forward?
You do realize you can't just replace an existential quantifier with a universal one don't you? You learned that in school right?

Now, provide the evidence that they sometime fire at an angle or concede. Well actually, you already did, so, I think this concludes this debate :)

Do you have an Alzheimer?
Let me repeat my argument:

"Your theory states:
1)That torpedo has speed vectors [Vkaz1,Vkaz2,....Vkazn] at time intervals [dt1,dt2,....dtn]
2)That torpedoes glow radius physically grows over time

My theory states:
1)That torpedo has speed vectors [Vkane1,Vkane2,....Vkanen] at time intervals [dt1,dt2,.....dtn]


Neither YOU OR ME can prove our assumed list of speed vectors or the duration of time intervals but since your theory adds an additional UNNECESSARY term to the premise then it is obviously a weaker theory under Occam's Razor."

Did you catch that? I never claimed I have evidence merely that my theory is better under Occam's Razor.
Maybe you should print out my argument so you don't forget it next time. :D

[Mr. Oragahn]

Once again, a simple clip of the firing sequence in Rise will easily prove if the torp were brushing against the hull or not, since we should expect the hull to lit up.

As far as can determine from my caps, that torpedo does seem to light the hull up.

That is far from convincing.
We need all the frames in between, not just when exiting the tube, and nearing the screen.
Cause if you'd remark along me, there's no way to tell, on this picture, if the hull is lit or not.

Really, is there anyone who can have a clip of the firing sequence, or is someone holding back info?
I'm a little surprised that there's not more data on that sequence, considering how crucial it is for Trek regarding the firepower question.

[Kazeite]

I like how you always start using smilies heavily when you get your argument shredded. :D

Yeah, yeah, whatever you need to repair your "shredded" ego.

How are examples that Starfleet SOMETIMES fires photon torpedoes forward evidence that they ALWAYS fire their photon torpedoes forward?

Is there evidence that Starfleet fires their torpedoes at an angle? Why, there is none! How shocking! :)

(And, if Technical Manuals are correct, any torpedo fired by Starfleet vessel has no choice but to initially fly straight ahead)

Let me repeat my argument:

I submit that Starfleet always fires their photon (quantum too, actually) torpedoes straight forward. To prove that, I've reminded you where you can find examples of such behaviour.

You, on the other hand, argue that Starfleet doesn't always fire their torpedoes straight forward. You hovewer have provided no evidence whatsoever to prove this claim. It's just you wavin' hands and sayin' "But, but, maybe they fire their torpedoes at an angle?"

You want exception? Prove it. Stipulating that maybe, just maybe they do have such capability and use it offscreen is not gonna cut it.

Do you have an Alzheimer?

Hm. Am I supposed to pass that Alzheimer accusation on someone else, after WILGA and you? :)

You said it yourself - you have no evidence. At least I have examples that do support my argument.

Did you catch that?

Yeah, I got that: you have no evidence, and somehow you expect me, the one that actually does have evidence, to bow before you mighty hypothesis. Riiight :)

Maybe you should print out my argument so you don't forget it next time. :D

Praytell, is that a smiley? Why, yes it is! Oh, the irony! It hurts and stings! :D

That is far from convincing.
We need all the frames in between, not just when exiting the tube, and nearing the screen.

Here's the first, second, third and fourth frame. There are no other frames beetween them.

[Kane Starkiller]

(And, if Technical Manuals are correct, any torpedo fired by Starfleet vessel has no choice but to initially fly straight ahead)

Let me repeat my argument:

I submit that Starfleet always fires their photon (quantum too, actually) torpedoes straight forward. To prove that, I've reminded you where you can find examples of such behaviour.

You can't substitute an existential quantifier with a universal one didn't you read what I wrote?
You have provided a handful of examples. How does that prove that through the course of 200 years of Starfleet they ALWAYS fire their torpedoes forward?

You, on the other hand, argue that Starfleet doesn't always fire their torpedoes straight forward. You hovewer have provided no evidence whatsoever to prove this claim. It's just you wavin' hands and sayin' "But, but, maybe they fire their torpedoes at an angle?"

You want exception? Prove it. Stipulating that maybe, just maybe they do have such capability and use it offscreen is not gonna cut it.

I need to prove that Starfleet DOESN'T always fire their torpedoes straight forward? You wouldn't be asking me to prove a negative now would you?
We know that their torpedoes have maneuvering capability: go watch Star Trek 6. Therefore they CAN do it. You are saying that they ALWAYS choose to shoot it forward. Prove it.

Hm. Am I supposed to pass that Alzheimer accusation on someone else, after WILGA and you? :)

Except my post was entered on September 24, 9:52 pm while WILGA entered his post on September 25, 5:08 am.
Aww didn't the nice lady at the kindergarten teach you how to read what time it is yet?

Yeah, I got that: you have no evidence, and somehow you expect me, the one that actually does have evidence, to bow before you mighty hypothesis. Riiight :)

You're so cute trying to evade my point. Let me quote myself again:

"Your theory states:
1)That torpedo has speed vectors [Vkaz1,Vkaz2,....Vkazn] at time intervals [dt1,dt2,....dtn]
2)That torpedoes glow radius physically grows over time

My theory states:
1)That torpedo has speed vectors [Vkane1,Vkane2,....Vkanen] at time intervals [dt1,dt2,.....dtn]

Neither YOU OR ME can prove our assumed list of speed vectors or the duration of time intervals but since your theory adds an additional UNNECESSARY term to the premise then it is obviously a weaker theory under Occam's Razor."

Now will you stop evading my point about Occam's Razor or what?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Here's the first, second, third and fourth frame. There are no other frames beetween them.

The last two frames are the same, though they're named Rise604 and Rise605.

[Kazeite]

You can't substitute an existential quantifier with a universal one didn't you read what I wrote?

Since there's no example of Starfleet vessels firing torpedoes at an angle, in this particular case yes I can. I could probably find hundreds of other examples, too, if I wanted to. Like I said, I don't recall them ever firing torpedoes at an angle (and unless Harry Kim has a torpedo launcher built in his posterior, your argument about toilets is irrelevant (not to mention innaplicable)).

You see, it works like that: I say: "Starfleet fires their torpedoes straight ahead. See this, this, this, this (...) this and this episode for examples." And then you are supposed to say: "No no no, they shot at an angle in episode X and Y". There, you see? :)

Here, here's the list of episodes that feature torpedoes fired straight forward (when they do feature torpedoes at all :) )

So, provide examples that they can fire at an angle or concede.

I need to prove that Starfleet DOESN'T always fire their torpedoes straight forward? You wouldn't be asking me to prove a negative now would you?

Nope. I simply want you to provide evidence for hypothesis that says they have the capability to fire torpedoes at an angle.

We know that their torpedoes have maneuvering capability: go watch Star Trek 6. Therefore they CAN do it.

And what exactly maneuvering capability has to do with torpedoes initially flying straight ahead? Have I said that they don't have manuvering capability? No I haven't. So, it means it's Strawman Time for Kane! :D

Aww didn't the nice lady at the kindergarten teach you how to read what time it is yet?

Actually, um, no, she didn't. Not that I can recall. It was, after all, over 25 years ago.

(And besides, I did read the time correctly. My apologies for messing the date, tho')

You're so cute trying to evade my point.

I don't have to evade something that doesn't exist, Kane :) But yeah, I know I'm cute. Thanks :D

(...)your theory adds an additional UNNECESSARY term to the premise(...)

And your hypothesis adds two additional <dramatic capitalisation mode>UNNECESSARY</dramatic capitalisation mode> terms to the premise, so, my hypothesis still wins.

Would you care to actually prove your hypothesis now or what? :)

The last two frames are the same, though they're named Rise604 and Rise605.

Not if you reload the pictures :)

[Kane Starkiller]

So, provide examples that they can fire at an angle or concede.
Since there's no example of Starfleet vessels firing torpedoes at an angle, in this particular case yes I can.
And what exactly maneuvering capability has to do with torpedoes initially flying straight ahead? Have I said that they don't have manuvering capability? No I haven't. So, it means it's Strawman Time for Kane! :D

What a nice bunch of strawmans. I never said the torpedo veers to the camera the nanosecond it exists the tube nor is that neccesary for my theory. I said that after exiting the tube torpedo uses it's own power to veer towards the camera. And I provided an example from ST6.

I could probably find hundreds of other examples, too, if I wanted to. Like I said, I don't recall them ever firing torpedoes at an angle (and unless Harry Kim has a torpedo launcher built in his posterior, your argument about toilets is irrelevant (not to mention innaplicable)).

You see, it works like that: I say: "Starfleet fires their torpedoes straight ahead. See this, this, this, this (...) this and this episode for examples." And then you are supposed to say: "No no no, they shot at an angle in episode X and Y". There, you see? :)

Here, here's the list of episodes that feature torpedoes fired straight forward (when they do feature torpedoes at all :) )

Ehehe no it actually doesn't work that way. If you claim that Starfleet ALWAYS fires torpedoes forward it is up to you to provide evidence for ALL instances they fired the torpedoes.
When you provide SOME examples you prove that SOMETIMES they fire it forward.
By the way define what it means to fire "straight forward".
Does it mean the torpedo doesn't change course all the way to the target? If not then at what point does your theory allow torpedo to change course and provide evidence for your reasoning.

And your hypothesis adds two additional <dramatic capitalisation mode>UNNECESSARY</dramatic capitalisation mode> terms to the premise, so, my hypothesis still wins.

Then mathematically define those supposed terms that my theory adds IN ADDINTION to yours and prove that they are unncessary.

Would you care to actually prove your hypothesis now or what? :)

No need. Since my theory has less terms than yours it wins under Occam's Razor. :)

"Your theory states:
1)That torpedo has speed vectors [Vkaz1,Vkaz2,....Vkazn] at time intervals [dt1,dt2,....dtn]
2)That torpedoes glow radius physically grows over time

My theory states:
1)That torpedo has speed vectors [Vkane1,Vkane2,....Vkanen] at time intervals [dt1,dt2,.....dtn]

Neither YOU OR ME can prove our assumed list of speed vectors or the duration of time intervals but since your theory adds an additional UNNECESSARY term to the premise then it is obviously a weaker theory under Occam's Razor."

My theory has 1 premise. Your theory has 2. You can ignore it all you like. It's there for all to see and I can easily repost it just in case you forget.

[Kazeite]

I never said the torpedo veers to the camera the nanosecond it exists the tube nor is that neccesary for my theory.

Actually, it does appear to veer to the camera as soon as it exits the launch tube, so, your claim now has even less basis on reality.

If you claim that Starfleet ALWAYS fires torpedoes forward it is up to you to provide evidence for ALL instances they fired the torpedoes.

OK. http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWeplist.html :)

When you provide SOME examples you prove that SOMETIMES they fire it forward.

Then by all means, provide some examples that sometimes they don't fire it forward.

We're not just debating about one hypothesis, Kane, dearest of all my debaters. We're actually dealing with two of them. As in, more than one. You get it? Here's one hypothesis (mine) and there's the other one (yours). You need to prove yours. You can't. Doesn't necessarily mean I win, but it means you lose. I'm actually trying to do you a favour here, Kane.

By the way define what it means to fire "straight forward".

It means it is launched straight forward, and after certain time (say, one second) starts to change course if necessary.

It's funny however to see that you are starting to change your position, Kane :) What? Why yes, arguing about definition of "straight forward" does count as change of position. Do you hope that by redefining that term you can also claim that your torpedo was fired "straight forward", Kane? No such luck, hun :)

My theory has 1 premise.

Then your theory is wrongly phrased. Maybe you don't realize that, but your torpedo glow radius also grows over time. My grow is simply slower :)

It's there for all to see and I can easily repost it just in case you try to ignore it :)

[Kane Starkiller]

Actually, it does appear to veer to the camera as soon as it exits the launch tube, so, your claim now has even less basis on reality.

Define the time interval of "as soon as it exits" since we are dealing with 24 frames per second video here so the smallest discernible time interval is 0.04 seconds.

If you claim that Starfleet ALWAYS fires torpedoes forward it is up to you to provide evidence for ALL instances they fired the torpedoes.

OK. http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWeplist.html :)

And the screenshots of photon torpedo launches are where exactly? Oh you thought that merely listing the name of an episode somehow proves that photon torpedoes are fired forward. Awww that's so cute.

It means it is launched straight forward, and after certain time (say, one second) starts to change course if necessary.

Say one second? Says who? Provide evidence for your assumption that one second needs to pass before torpedo can change course with is own engines. Why can't it be tenth of a second hmmm?

It's funny however to see that you are starting to change your position, Kane :) What? Why yes, arguing about definition of "straight forward" does count as change of position. Do you hope that by redefining that term you can also claim that your torpedo was fired "straight forward", Kane? No such luck, hun :)

:) Ever since my first post I stated that torpedo uses it's own guidance system to veer to the camera. You insisted that it is instead "fired forward". When asked what "fired forward" means you mumble something about "torpedo going straight for one second" without providing a shred of evidence.

Then your theory is wrongly phrased. Maybe you don't realize that, but your torpedo glow radius also grows over time. My grow is simply slower :)

Hi hi hi. This is so much fun.
That the apparent radius grows on screen is not mine or your theory. It is an OBSERVED FACT. My theory explains it only with an assumption of a certain list of speed vectors (that it moves to camera). Your theory requires assumption about speed vectors (that it moves perpendicular to camera) AND assumption that glow does PHYSICALLY GROW.

We're not just debating about one hypothesis, Kane, dearest of all my debaters. We're actually dealing with two of them. As in, more than one. You get it? Here's one hypothesis (mine) and there's the other one (yours). You need to prove yours. You can't. Doesn't necessarily mean I win, but it means you lose. I'm actually trying to do you a favour here, Kane.

He he he. You remind me that there are two hypothesis here when you are the one evading my posts that clearly list both of our theories and show how mine beats yours with respect to Occam's Razor.

Here it is again:

"Your theory states:
1)That torpedo has speed vectors [Vkaz1,Vkaz2,....Vkazn] at time intervals [dt1,dt2,....dtn]
2)That torpedoes glow radius physically grows over time

My theory states:
1)That torpedo has speed vectors [Vkane1,Vkane2,....Vkanen] at time intervals [dt1,dt2,.....dtn]

Neither YOU OR ME can prove our assumed list of speed vectors or the duration of time intervals but since your theory adds an additional UNNECESSARY term to the premise then it is obviously a weaker theory under Occam's Razor."

Both theories explain the apparent glow growth.
My theory=1 premise.
Your theory=2 premises.
My theory wins.
:)

[Mr. Oragahn]

Kane, can you find one example where the glow does not grow, as "keeps the same glow size the moment it came out of the tube"?

Kazeite, thanks for the caps. As I can observe them, I see no hull illumination, safe in the first frame.

So basically, the acceptable glow size will be between H&F and Alliances.

[Kane Starkiller]

Kane, can you find one example where the glow does not grow, as "keeps the same glow size the moment it came out of the tube"?

I already have with strikes upon Jem'Hadar cruiser, Galor and Dauntless. Unless you assume the torpedoes grow and then shrink back to original size for some reason.