ST-v-SW.net: Rise calcs

[Kane Starkiller]

Simpler then your theory that the torpedo suddenly slows down and veers off it's original trajectory in such a way that it still looks like it's going straight forward to the viewers.

Yes, it is a simpler explanation.

By all means explain how is it simpler. I introduce no new mechanism to the behavior of torpedoes while you want to claim that they increase in size.

And if there really is previously established evidence that the glow increases after time, then what exactly is the problem with assuming this is the case here as well?

There is evidence that various torpedo types through Trek history appear at different sizes. No evidence is presented that Voyager/DS9 type somehow starts to grow after it exits the torpedo tube.

That's assuming the shield expands with the glow. Do you have proof of this?

So the glow is something other than a shield? What exactly is causing the glow then?

Your arrogance is amusing, as always.

Trying to dismiss his models by simply saying "it's not canon" is nothing short of ludicrous. None of the calculations or scalings any one of us makes is canon, they are only tools that allow us to measure what canon tells us. Surely this is a concept simple enough for you to grasp?

Either you respond to the argument or you concede, those are the two options you are given. Handwaving it away is not an option.

Handwaving? I already provided screenshots that DISPROVE Darkstar's claim of Hope and fear torpedo growth and provided additional PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE showing DS9/Voyager type torpedoes are nowhere near 10 meters in diameter and that's handwaving?
Meanwhile here you are desperately trying to defend this ridiculous "torpedo growth" theory and are willing to use his home made lightwave attempts as some kind of evidence that overrides canon screenshots.
Man you crack me up.

[l33telboi]

By all means explain how is it simpler. I introduce no new mechanism to the behavior of torpedoes while you want to claim that they increase in size.

Kazeite's theory introduces nothing new either, if I’ve been reading this thread correctly.

Your theory however operates on one major assumption, namely that the torpedo slows down, veers off and turns directly after launch. And not only that, but the chances of the torp veering off so that it looks like it's going exactly straight forward is also very very minimal.

In short, your theory operates on an assumption that has a very low probability of being correct, and further more it can't be substantiated in any way.

So the glow is something other than a shield? What exactly is causing the glow then?

Strawman, Kane. I know you can easily get away with them on other sites and against people who haven't been around long enough to recognize them when they see them. But I doubt this is the case here or with me.

The glow is probably related to the shields, what I asked for is proof that the glow is related to the shields size around the photorp. You gave me no answer and instead tried to sidestep with a strawman, so I can only assume that you are unable to produce the evidence requested.

Do you want another try or should I just accept this as a concession?

Handwaving? I already provided screenshots that DISPROVE Darkstar's claim of Hope and fear torpedo growth and provided additional PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE showing DS9/Voyager type torpedoes are nowhere near 10 meters in diameter and that's handwaving?

No, my sidestepping little friend. What you are supposed, and what I asked you to address is the 3D model which Kazite made which you just dismissed by handwaving. It's a tiny part of the whole argument to decide whether you or "darkstar" is correct, but you must address it non-the-less.

Again, I expect you to either answer without any logical fallacies next time or I will consider this a concession.

Man you crack me up.

I can see how I would. I once knew a retarded kid, just like you, that started laughing randomly for no real reason.

I feel for your disability, Kane. I really do.

[Kazeite]

A little pointer for you. Evidence would be a picture of the required event not you just posting a link to a 43,000 word exchange.

What, you don't remember that exchange? You don't remember it has links to pictures? :)

So you are saying they don't aim the ship? Therefore they use the guidance system of the torpedo. Thank you for conceding. :)

Um, you're welcome?

You act like I've claimed that they do aim the ship. This, of course is simply another strawman of yours.

Because every material has a yield stress which is defined as stress at which material begins to deform.(...)

Hmph... I had hoped I misunderstood you, but no - you clearly seem to believe, against the evidence, that torpedo glow size should be as small as possible. This, obviously, is not the case, so, what's the point in arguing that they should be as small as possible? It's like saying "Picard shouldn't be bald!" Well he obviously is, so arguing against it is a moot point.

Trek ships can fire from whatever distance they choose. Will they hit the target is the question.

Well, they have demonstrated the ability to hit targets from such distances, so it's not a problem.

He he he you are a funny guy.

Why, thank you. I do try to make my post entertaining :)

You do realize that being too far away to precisely acquire the target is not the same as having a lot of time to get a lock at maximum speed? You will have enormous difficulty to acquire a target with a hand gun at 100m range. Does that mean the bullet will travel for a long time?

You do realize that torpedo is a self-guiding missile? :)

Oh so you are NOT claiming that Starfleet chooses to increase the size of it's torpedoes?

Hm? No, I am the one claiming that since Starfleet doesn't use torpedoes whose glows are as small as possible, then their glow apparently doesn't need to be as small as possible.

Except you have no idea how close the torpedo is to the camera do you?

Taking its apparent paths into consideration, it seems to me it was fired straight ahead. For which you have no counter-argument. Saying "it might've been fired towards the camera" is not an argument, btw.

By all means explain how is it simpler. I introduce no new mechanism to the behavior of torpedoes while you want to claim that they increase in size.

Which is not a new mechanism, thank you very much :) Wasn't then, isn't now.

No evidence is presented that Voyager/DS9 type somehow starts to grow after it exits the torpedo tube.

Oh Kane, you were there, you participated in that exchange, you gave you best shot, and you've failed. It's about time you stop pretending it never happened.

So the glow is something other than a shield? What exactly is causing the glow then?

We don't know, and we don't have to know, frankly. Remember what I said?
"Also, I have no explanation why contemporary warp engines flash before they go to warp. I have no explanation what is the mechanism that produces that sparkling during beaming. Does it mean that warp engines don't flash and there are no sparklies during beaming? Of course not."

Handwaving? I already provided screenshots that DISPROVE Darkstar's claim of Hope and fear torpedo growth and provided additional PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE showing DS9/Voyager type torpedoes are nowhere near 10 meters in diameter and that's handwaving?

Remember what I said?
"Really, Kane, it's quite simple: No examples outside of "Rise" can overrule torpedo scaling from that episode. We do know that torpedoes have variable glow sizes; therefore, smaller torpedoes from episodes cannot possibly make bigger torpedoes from "Rise" invalid."

[Kane Starkiller]

Kazeite's theory introduces nothing new either, if I’ve been reading this thread correctly.

You weren't. Kazeite's or Dakstar's theory requires that the photon torpedo gradually gains width as it flies away from the ship. No one ever posted a single piece of evidence confirming this. Darkstar only posted various torpedo types that appear at different FIXED glow sizes.

Your theory however operates on one major assumption, namely that the torpedo slows down, veers off and turns directly after launch. And not only that, but the chances of the torp veering off so that it looks like it's going exactly straight forward is also very very minimal.

Tell me if that was a shuttle instead of a photon torpedo would you assume the shuttle is getting bigger? Would you assume that there is "shuttle growth"? The only reason you want a growing torpedo is to exaggarate the firepower of Federation ships. Again explain why are the chances of my theory "minimal"? Camera is not placed randomly but with intention to give us certain views of the action.

In short, your theory operates on an assumption that has a very low probability of being correct, and further more it can't be substantiated in any way.

That the objects appear bigger as they fly closer due to perspective correction is simply geometry. That photon torpedoes have guidance system is also known from various Star Trek installments. Therefore my theory is perfectly substantiated and it would be the FIRST explanation anyone would think of if it weren't for your overwhelming desire to exaggerate Star Trek weapon yields.

Strawman, Kane. I know you can easily get away with them on other sites and against people who haven't been around long enough to recognize them when they see them. But I doubt this is the case here or with me.

The glow is probably related to the shields, what I asked for is proof that the glow is related to the shields size around the photorp. You gave me no answer and instead tried to sidestep with a strawman, so I can only assume that you are unable to produce the evidence requested.

Do you want another try or should I just accept this as a concession?

Again what else could it be? Please provide a single alternative explanation as to what a 10 meter wide yellow blob would be. Magic fairies?
It is always amusing when you start loosing the argument suddenly demand absolute proof on every point. Of course you fail to realize that the entire penetration ability was just a side issue that isn't critical for my explanation.

No, my sidestepping little friend. What you are supposed, and what I asked you to address is the 3D model which Kazite made which you just dismissed by handwaving. It's a tiny part of the whole argument to decide whether you or "darkstar" is correct, but you must address it non-the-less.

Again, I expect you to either answer without any logical fallacies next time or I will consider this a concession.

I already addressed it no matter how much you pretend I didn't: his argument lives and dies on the assumption that torpedo had constant speed. Why don't you ask him to PROVE that it had constant speed like you asked me to PROVE that the blob is the shield? The fact that he also drew a picture doesn't change the fact that his argument lives or dies on that assumption. I have, on the other hand, provided photographic evidence that disproves that theory in the case of Hope and Fear and also provided additional evidence that shows torpedoes are nowhere near 10 meters.

I can see how I would. I once knew a retarded kid, just like you, that started laughing randomly for no real reason.

I feel for your disability, Kane. I really do.

Does this retarded kid copy every move you make and lives behind your bathroom's mirror?

What, you don't remember that exchange? You don't remember it has links to pictures? :)

I posted all pictures directly on the forum didn't I? I expect you to do the same as I don't have the time to go through that huge exchange. But we all know you are just evading aren't you?

Hmph... I had hoped I misunderstood you, but no - you clearly seem to believe, against the evidence, that torpedo glow size should be as small as possible. This, obviously, is not the case, so, what's the point in arguing that they should be as small as possible? It's like saying "Picard shouldn't be bald!" Well he obviously is, so arguing against it is a moot point.

Ehehe. Except torpedoes can obviously be small as shown by the pictures I have posted. So unlike Picard which has no choice Starfleet DOES have a choice.

Well, they have demonstrated the ability to hit targets from such distances, so it's not a problem.

Since they miss even at ranges of 100m-1km then they obviously can't reliably hit or target objects at 1000km range.

You do realize that torpedo is a self-guiding missile? :)

No shit! That's only my entire point. How does that change the validity of my argument that the slowing down would give the torpedo more time to acquire the target?

Hm? No, I am the one claiming that since Starfleet doesn't use torpedoes whose glows are as small as possible, then their glow apparently doesn't need to be as small as possible.

Except I have shown mathematically that using torpedo shields as small as possible IS useful and neccesary. And you only assume that torpedoes grow.

Taking its apparent paths into consideration, it seems to me it was fired straight ahead. For which you have no counter-argument. Saying "it might've been fired towards the camera" is not an argument, btw.

It "seems" to you? :)
Sorry I've got to break it to you but "seems to me" is not evidence. You have no evidence that it was fired straight forward so why should I accept your theory over any other? That it was fired towards the camera is supported by canon information about the torpedoes and simple geometry. Your claim is supported by "seems to me" and an assumption that speed is constant.

Which is not a new mechanism, thank you very much :) Wasn't then, isn't now.

Yes it is. Unless you can grab me a few screenshots proving that Voyager/DS9 torpedoes can get that big.

Oh Kane, you were there, you participated in that exchange, you gave you best shot, and you've failed. It's about time you stop pretending it never happened.

Just because I stopped posting there doesn't mean your argument is correct. What are you first grade? Who ever gets the last word is correct?

We don't know, and we don't have to know, frankly. Remember what I said?
"Also, I have no explanation why contemporary warp engines flash before they go to warp. I have no explanation what is the mechanism that produces that sparkling during beaming. Does it mean that warp engines don't flash and there are no sparklies during beaming? Of course not."

It is the most likely explanation. See there is a difference between a hypothesis and evidence. For example a picture of Dauntless getting hit by photon torpedo is evidence that proves there was no torpedo growth then. This is a hypothesis that states that most likely cause for glow are the shields and that thus Starfleet will likely not increase the size of it's torpedoes. It only goes to further bolster my argument but it isn't critical to it because you have provided no evidence that Voyager/DS9 torpedoes grow while I have provided evidence that they are no more than 2m wide.

Remember what I said?
"Really, Kane, it's quite simple: No examples outside of "Rise" can overrule torpedo scaling from that episode. We do know that torpedoes have variable glow sizes; therefore, smaller torpedoes from episodes cannot possibly make bigger torpedoes from "Rise" invalid."

Remember what I said:
"But you don't know how close the torpedo is to the camera...unless we include your home made lightwave pictures as canon evidence."
Evidence that torpedo was traveling at a constant speed please.

[Kazeite]

You weren't. Kazeite's or Dakstar's theory requires that the photon torpedo gradually gains width as it flies away from the ship. No one ever posted a single piece of evidence confirming this.

That is rather dishonest of you, Kane. We are talking about three frames, after all, aren't we? This torpedo went from <2m to ~9m in three frames. What's so gradual about it?

Tell me if that was a shuttle instead of a photon torpedo would you assume the shuttle is getting bigger?

Strawman.

Please provide a single alternative explanation as to what a 10 meter wide yellow blob would be.

You do realize this demand is silly, do you? :)

I already addressed it no matter how much you pretend I didn't: his argument lives and dies on the assumption that torpedo had constant speed.

Um, Kane... my pretty picture you liked so much actually shows that torpedo fired forward is, in fact, accelerating.

I posted all pictures directly on the forum didn't I?

You participated in this debate didn't you? So you are already seen every picture.

I don't have the time to go through that huge exchange.

But apparently you have time to participate in this and other debates :) But we all know you are just evading aren't you? :D

Ehehe. Except torpedoes can obviously be small as shown by the pictures I have posted.

But they aren't so small all the time. That is the point.

Since they miss even at ranges of 100m-1km

...while hitting targets of >1000km range, then they obviously can reliably hit or target objects at 1000km range.

No shit! That's only my entire point.

So what's the deal with that bullet strawman?

How does that change the validity of my argument that the slowing down would give the torpedo more time to acquire the target?

But that would be introducing new element to the equation :) No other episode of movie shows us torpedo slowing down (while flying in the same direction) to "reacquire target".

Except I have shown mathematically that using torpedo shields as small as possible IS useful and neccesary.

Even assuming that torpedoes mantain shields even while impacting the intended targets, your argument only works when you equate shield size with glow size.

Sorry I've got to break it to you but "seems to me" is not evidence.

Well duh. But you've already conceded you have no evidence that it wasn't fired forward.

Your claim is supported by "seems to me" and an assumption that speed is constant.

As mentioned above, no it's not. And thus you have proven you actually have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes it is. Unless you can grab me a few screenshots proving that Voyager/DS9 torpedoes can get that big.

We already did, you've already seen them. Stop pretending you haven't.

Just because I stopped posting there doesn't mean your argument is correct.

No, your argument is not correct merely because you've decided that "this is pointless" - it was actually shown to be incorrect.

It is the most likely explanation.

Which is contradicted by onscreen evidence. Therefore, this hypothesis is false.

For example a picture of Dauntless getting hit by photon torpedo is evidence that proves there was no torpedo growth then.

No. It's the evidence that torpedo grew to different size.

This is a hypothesis that states that most likely cause for glow are the shields and that thus Starfleet will likely not increase the size of it's torpedoes.

And since we've seen Starfleet increasing the size of the glow, therefore, this hypothesis is false.

Remember what I said:

No matter how you slice it, torpedo fired more or less forward is the simplest explanation.

Evidence that torpedo was traveling at a constant speed please.

To make sure you'll remember it this time: Assuming that torpedo was fired straigth forward, it seems to be accelerating. Which is to be expected, isn't it?

[l33telboi]

You weren't. Kazeite's or Dakstar's theory requires that the photon torpedo gradually gains width as it flies away from the ship.

No, they require that the glow becomes more intense, not that the torpedo or its shield increase volume.

Really, if you this far into the thread have been unable to realize this, is there any chance of you ever getting it?

Tell me if that was a shuttle instead of a photon torpedo would you assume the shuttle is getting bigger? Would you assume that there is "shuttle growth"?

Surely you aren't so dense that you can't see the difference between increasing light intensity and a suddenly growing physical object?

That the objects appear bigger as they fly closer due to perspective correction is simply geometry.

Simple geometry that would have us believe the torpedo suddenly slowed down and veered of from its previous vector to fly past the camera so that it would appear exactly as if it was going in one straight line. And then when the camera shifts it would go in a straight line at a constant speed again.

That is one pretty far-fetched assumption, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. The biggest problem with it though, is that you've been unable to provide any evidence for it except for: "It is possible for them to do it if they wanted."

That isn't even an argument - it's wishful thinking.

Kazite's illustration simply shows that such an assumption is completely needless to explain the apparent "problem".

Now, I’ve come to see that another one of your quaint little antics in this whole argument is trying to say that I’m trotting this out simply because I’m biased and want to get a bigger yield for the photorp. A neat little twist on the whole "attack the person, not the argument" routine. But come on, we both know that I for the most part ignore the whole Trek vs. Wars scene and instead focus on the more general vs. scene, so who is really likely to have more of an agenda here? You, the guy who does nothing but debate wars vs. trek, the guy who makes flawed calculations and are to proud to take them down even after the fact is revealed, the guy who for all intents and purposes seem obsessed with the whole thing?

I think we both know the answer to that one.

Again what else could it be?

Shifting burden of proof now, are we? Dear lord, is there any fallacy you haven't been through in this thread already?

You see, it goes a little something like this. If you say it's the actual torp or shield getting bigger, then you have to be able to prove it. If you can't prove it, then you can't pass it off as fact.

As for what else it could be? Quite simply: anything.

It could be that photorps glow simply becomes more intense with time due to some unknown process. It could be that shield strength is increased over time which also increases glow intensity.

It could be... anything.

It is always amusing when you start loosing the argument suddenly demand absolute proof on every point.

Yeah, how crass of me, daring to actually demand you to post proof or evidence of what you say. Such heretical nonsense. Surely the scientific community, or even just people with common sense, would scoff at such things.

I already addressed it no matter how much you pretend I didn't: his argument lives and dies on the assumption that torpedo had constant speed. Why don't you ask him to PROVE that it had constant speed like you asked me to PROVE that the blob is the shield?

Oh, so you want him to prove a negative? Well, I guess that is logical.

Oh wait, not really, no.

If the torp is fired and nothing else is suggested, then it's quite natural to assume that it flied at a constant speed.

The fact that he also drew a picture doesn't change the fact that his argument lives or dies on that assumption. I have, on the other hand, provided photographic evidence that disproves that theory in the case of Hope and Fear and also provided additional evidence that shows torpedoes are nowhere near 10 meters.

In some cases they might be less then 10 meters wide. But that's the thing with vs. debating, you can't pick and choose what evidence you follow. You have to look at all the cases, and if indeed there are cases where torps and their glow appear larger and more intense, then you'll just have to accept that.

Does this retarded kid copy every move you make and lives behind your bathroom's mirror?

Nah, that guy is friggin' brilliant. Still though, best of luck in your future endeavors. You'll always have a special place in my heart.

[Mr. Oragahn]

1. If the glow becomes more intense, instead of the torp's shield increasing in size, I suppose this means the shield becomes stronger, right?
2. If the glow becomes more intense, wouldn't it pose problems over longer distances, with flare effects increasing the size of halos and so?
3. 
   
   Weird, your shot is darker than the video Robert provides on his site.
   Of importance, the glow cores on his video appear roughly 3 times wider than the windows you mentionned.
   
   But even more bizarre, the torps clearly seem to slow down three frames after being fired. This even particularily visible with the last two torps. This can be observed, thanks to the hull illumination.
   It's even more telling that this can be observed while the camera gets closer to the Voyager.
   
   Besides, I can understand Kane's claim about torps slowing down to reacquire a target or else, because the aim seen in H&F is truly horrible - but there may be an explanation to that?
4. I'm not sure the Trek side argued that the torp glow kept getting wider or more intense. It's more like once out of the tube, it grows to a certain size within a few frames, and then is locked at that specific size.
5. 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.

[Kane Starkiller]

That is rather dishonest of you, Kane. We are talking about three frames, after all, aren't we? This torpedo went from <2m to ~9m in three frames. What's so gradual about it?

It's not instantaneous therefore it is gradual isn't it? And you claim that it was 9 meters based on your unproven assumption it was fired forward as opposed towards the camera. Prove that assumption.

Strawman.

No it isn't. In both cases we are talking about physical objects getting bigger. The first and most logical explanation is perspective correction.

Please provide a single alternative explanation as to what a 10 meter wide yellow blob would be.

You do realize this demand is silly, do you? :)

Why? We are discussing which theory fits the facts best. I have provided my explanation. What is yours? Whoops you don't have one do you.

Um, Kane... my pretty picture you liked so much actually shows that torpedo fired forward is, in fact, accelerating.

Whatever your claim is you need to prove it. You are saying that torpedo is fired forward. PROVE IT. If you can't prove the basic premises on which you build your theory, namely that asteroid was 300m wide then your conclusion is void.

You participated in this debate didn't you? So you are already seen every picture.

I honestly don't remember any picture that proved the 10m size for Voyager/DS9 torpedo. Now please, with sugar on top, could you post such evidence.

But apparently you have time to participate in this and other debates :) But we all know you are just evading aren't you? :D

As I said I don't remember. What is so difficult about posting a link to the picture? I honestly don't understand.

But they aren't so small all the time. That is the point.

I am eagerly waiting for evidence that Voyager/DS9 torpedoes ever appeared larger.

...while hitting targets of >1000km range, then they obviously can reliably hit or target objects at 1000km range.

Just because they occasionally score hits at greater ranges doesn't mean that their reliability at a certain shorter range is automatically 100%.

So what's the deal with that bullet strawman?

Do you know what a strawman is? Starwman is misrepresenting someone's point in order to attack it more easily. My mention of bullet was simply an analogy to show that "too far away to target precisely" and "too far away for weapon to travel to it in a short time" are two different things.

But that would be introducing new element to the equation :) No other episode of movie shows us torpedo slowing down (while flying in the same direction) to "reacquire target".

Why would the exact maneuver have to be repeated in order for us to know that photon torpedoes have the ability to decelerate? We know they can decelerate and that they need to acquire a target lock just like any guided weapon. That is enough. We don't have to precisely replicate the situation.

Even assuming that torpedoes mantain shields even while impacting the intended targets, your argument only works when you equate shield size with glow size.

And what else could it be? Again I am not using my hypothesis that glow are shields as evidence. You are the one who needs to come up with evidence that photon torpedo is fired forward.

Well duh. But you've already conceded you have no evidence that it wasn't fired forward.

Exactly. Neither of us has any evidence as to where it was fired. We can only try to discern what explains the apparent glow better: that torpedoes grow or because of perspective correction. I say it's perspective correction since it doesn't add any new capablities to the torpedo. You claim that it is growth while refusing to provide any evidence unless you consider ":D" evidence. Either way since it is you who is claiming that you can derive the size of the asteroid it is up to you to provide evidence for each and every one of your premises and that includes providing evidence as to what direction the torpedo was fired in and what was it's speed and acceleration.

We already did, you've already seen them. Stop pretending you haven't.

I don't remember any such thing. Really post them here. Why is that so difficult.

Which is contradicted by onscreen evidence. Therefore, this hypothesis is false.

Really. By all means provide then the on screen evidence that photon torpedo glow are not it's shields.

No. It's the evidence that torpedo grew to different size.

No it is evidence that torpedo didn't grow AT ALL since the ship is 20-30 meters tall and torpedo is over ten times smaller.

And since we've seen Starfleet increasing the size of the glow, therefore, this hypothesis is false.

You have yet to prove that.

No matter how you slice it, torpedo fired more or less forward is the simplest explanation.

How is it the simplest explanation. Since the torpedo has it's own engines and guidance systems every forward facing trajectory is equally possible. You are the one basing asteroid sizes and yields based on those trajectories so prove them.

To make sure you'll remember it this time: Assuming that torpedo was fired straigth forward, it seems to be accelerating. Which is to be expected, isn't it?

Yes I didn't remember that correctly but what does it matter? It still doesn't change you burden of proof one bit does it? You are making a claim about asteroid size and yields therefore it is up to you to back up your premises with evidence. You have not done so. Instead when I come up with alternate explanations you accuse me of not having any evidence even though you brought none in the first place.

No, they require that the glow becomes more intense, not that the torpedo or its shield increase volume.

Really, if you this far into the thread have been unable to realize this, is there any chance of you ever getting it?

But it isn't more intense is it. It's has the same brightness only it becomes larger. You claim it's because the torpedo grew without providing a shred of evidence to back it up only assumptions as to where it was fired.

Surely you aren't so dense that you can't see the difference between increasing light intensity and a suddenly growing physical object?

Don't try to weasel your way out of this. You claimed the torpedo gets bigger not that it's light intensity becomes stronger. And it doesn't. It's brightness is the same. And the analogy is valid: if an object starts to grow the first and most natural theory is that it is getting closer not that it starts to "grow".

Simple geometry that would have us believe the torpedo suddenly slowed down and veered of from its previous vector to fly past the camera so that it would appear exactly as if it was going in one straight line. And then when the camera shifts it would go in a straight line at a constant speed again.

That is one pretty far-fetched assumption, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. The biggest problem with it though, is that you've been unable to provide any evidence for it except for: "It is possible for them to do it if they wanted."

That isn't even an argument - it's wishful thinking.

You haven't even attempted to try and explain why this is far fetched since we know, and I repeat this for who knows which time, that torpedoes can move under their own power. Do you remember ST6 and the way that torpedo circled around trying to acquire general Chang?

Kazite's illustration simply shows that such an assumption is completely needless to explain the apparent "problem".

Yes his "explanation" is that it grows. We never saw torpedoes grow but we DID saw them performing complex maneuvers while locking on target.

Now, I’ve come to see that another one of your quaint little antics in this whole argument is trying to say that I’m trotting this out simply because I’m biased and want to get a bigger yield for the photorp. A neat little twist on the whole "attack the person, not the argument" routine. But come on, we both know that I for the most part ignore the whole Trek vs. Wars scene and instead focus on the more general vs. scene, so who is really likely to have more of an agenda here? You, the guy who does nothing but debate wars vs. trek, the guy who makes flawed calculations and are to proud to take them down even after the fact is revealed, the guy who for all intents and purposes seem obsessed with the whole thing?

I think we both know the answer to that one.

I don't discuss anything but Trek/Wars on this particular forum. So what? How does that change the fact that every time I see you in one of these threads you always defend even the most moronic theory if it means bigger yields of your preferred sci-fi universe?

Shifting burden of proof now, are we? Dear lord, is there any fallacy you haven't been through in this thread already?

You see, it goes a little something like this. If you say it's the actual torp or shield getting bigger, then you have to be able to prove it. If you can't prove it, then you can't pass it off as fact.

As for what else it could be? Quite simply: anything.

It could be that photorps glow simply becomes more intense with time due to some unknown process. It could be that shield strength is increased over time which also increases glow intensity.

It could be... anything.

As I said already I was making a hypothesis. I am not using this as evidence nor do I pretend it is. My evidence against the torpedo growth are the IMAGES I have shown.
I am asking you to provide a better theory and your answer is "anything".

Oh, so you want him to prove a negative? Well, I guess that is logical.

Oh wait, not really, no.

If the torp is fired and nothing else is suggested, then it's quite natural to assume that it flied at a constant speed.

Actually as Kazeite reminded me he didn't actually said constant speed but acceleration. Either way how am I asking him to prove a negative? I am asking him to provide evidence that torpedo traveled at accelerations and trajectory he claims. There is no negative here.

In some cases they might be less then 10 meters wide. But that's the thing with vs. debating, you can't pick and choose what evidence you follow. You have to look at all the cases, and if indeed there are cases where torps and their glow appear larger and more intense, then you'll just have to accept that.

Then show me images. I have shown you images in which torpedoes are no more than 2m wide. Secondly even if there are bigger torpedoes out there how honest is it to use them and then claim the result is a lower limit? If you want a lower limit than 2m torpedoes should be used shouldn't they?

Nah, that guy is friggin' brilliant. Still though, best of luck in your future endeavors. You'll always have a special place in my heart.

That guy doesn't comprehend burden of proof, concept of lower limit or Occam's Razor. Maybe he should go back to school.

[Kazeite]

It's not instantaneous therefore it is gradual isn't it?

In this timespan, it could very well be treated as instantenous.

And you claim that it was 9 meters based on your unproven assumption it was fired forward as opposed towards the camera. Prove that assumption.

Like I said, based on the evidence (namely various torpedoes launches) from this and other episodes, it's the simplest explanation.

No it isn't. In both cases we are talking about physical objects getting bigger.

Yes it is, because shuttles haven't been observed to produce glows with variable sizes.

You do realize this demand is silly, do you? :)

Why?

Because we don't have enough knowledge to provide an explanation.

Whatever your claim is you need to prove it.

Torpedo fired forward is the simplest explanation and fits the MO of Starfleet. What more you could ask for? If you have no contrarguments, then my theory still stands.

I honestly don't remember any picture that proved the 10m size for Voyager/DS9 torpedo. Now please, with sugar on top, could you post such evidence.

Here it is. If you "honestly don't remember" any of those, let me remind you you've conceded that examples from "Defiant", "Call to Arms" and "Insurrection" do show torpedoes glow that is bigger than 2m. And while its not 10m exactly, it's reasonably close to 9m I say glow from "Rise" has.

Just because they occasionally score hits at greater ranges doesn't mean that their reliability at a certain shorter range is automatically 100%.

Kane, stop using strawmen, ok? I never said that their relability is 100%.

Do you know what a strawman is?

Oh yes. Thanks for providing examples :)

So, again, what aiming pistol shooting non-guided bullet has to do with self-guiding weapon?

Why would the exact maneuver have to be repeated in order for us to know that photon torpedoes have the ability to decelerate?

No, no, no. Stop with those strawmen, ok? I never said anything about torpedoes being unable to decelerate.

My point was, there's no evidence that torpedo needs to decelerate to reacquire its target.

And what else could it be?

By all means, provide then the onscreen evidence that photon torpedo glow are it's shields.

My evidence for those not being shields is that Starfleet shields don't glow, no matter the size and power.

Neither of us has any evidence as to where it was fired.

Therefore, we can see which hypothesis is better and simpler.

I say it's perspective correction since it doesn't add any new capablities to the torpedo.

And I say it's growth since it also doesn't add any new capabilities to the torpedo. And since my explanation is simpler...

Either way since it is you who is claiming that you can derive the size of the asteroid it is up to you to provide evidence for each and every one of your premises and that includes providing evidence as to what direction the torpedo was fired in and what was it's speed and acceleration.

I have provided those, to the best of my abilities. Other episodes do show that glow can have different sizes. Therefore, it is variable. Therefore, change of its size is not something unexpected and unexplainable. You've failed to demonstrate otherwise. Therefore...

Really. By all means provide then the on screen evidence that photon torpedo glow are not it's shields.

And there you go again, asking me to prove the negative...

I'd think it's pretty simple to understand - are Starfleet shields glowing? No they aren't.

No it is evidence that torpedo didn't grow AT ALL since the ship is 20-30 meters tall and torpedo is over ten times smaller.

Which, no matter how you slice it, doesn't affect measurements taken from other episodes. At all.

You have yet to prove that.

I already did.

How is it the simplest explanation.

It doesn't include unecessary maneuvers, unecessary deceleration/acceleration and unecessary course change designed to fool everyone into thinking that torpedo's apparent path makes us think it was fired straight ahead.

Yes I didn't remember that correctly but what does it matter?

It demonstrated you don't actually know what I'm talking about.

It still doesn't change you burden of proof one bit does it? You are making a claim about asteroid size and yields therefore it is up to you to back up your premises with evidence.

I've done so to the best of my abilities. Other episodes do show that glow can have different sizes. Therefore, it is variable. Therefore, change of its size is not something unexpected and unexplainable. You've failed to demonstrate otherwise. Therefore...

Instead when I come up with alternate explanations you accuse me of not having any evidence even though you brought none in the first place.

I merely accuse you of having more complicated explanation, Kane.

we DID saw torpedoes performing complex maneuvers while locking on target.

But we've never saw them slowing down in order to execute course corrections. Worse yet (for you, anyway), we never saw them changing course, decelerating (to reacquire target, as you claim) and then accelerating again.

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.

[Kane Starkiller]

Since the posts have grown to include one and the same point many times I will only answer each point once time to save space.

In this timespan, it could very well be treated as instantenous.

No it couldn't. It takes three frames or 0.125 seconds. It is obviously not instantaneous.

Here it is. If you "honestly don't remember" any of those, let me remind you you've conceded that examples from "Defiant", "Call to Arms" and "Insurrection" do show torpedoes glow that is bigger than 2m. And while its not 10m exactly, it's reasonably close to 9m I say glow from "Rise" has.

I don't remember conceding but I'll take your word. If I did concede I was wrong since there are no evidence there. "Defiant" shows the Defiant firing quantum torpedoes which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I already posted screenshots from "Call to Arms" where torpedoes are hitting Galor and Jem'Hadar cruiser and obviously torpedoes are no more than 2m in width. That Darkstar chooses to grab screenshots at the exact moment torpedo is launched and appears blurred is his problem and doesn't prove anything. He also claims that in one picture the torpedo is the same size as the circular weapons blob even though the glow is nowhere near that size unless we include the streamers.
As for insurrection not only is the ship inside a dense nebula which will cause interaction with the gas but the torpedo only appears slightly bigger than windows on Sovereign. It could be bigger since it is farther away but we can't tell for sure. Therefore it is useless as evidence.

No, no, no. Stop with those strawmen, ok? I never said anything about torpedoes being unable to decelerate.

My point was, there's no evidence that torpedo needs to decelerate to reacquire its target.

I don't need to provide evidence. That was just a hypothesis to try and give an explanation as to WHY the torpedo decelerated.

It doesn't include unecessary maneuvers, unecessary deceleration/acceleration and unecessary course change designed to fool everyone into thinking that torpedo's apparent path makes us think it was fired straight ahead.

There are several parts of your post in which you claim that your theory is simpler than mine but, as I said, I will only quote one of them since they all repeat the same and choose this one since this one illustrates your inability to grasp the concept of what terms mean in a mathematical model.

First you claim that my theory adds "unnecessary" terms. That is only an assumption on your part. You have absolutely no idea whether they were necessary or not so you cannot state your assumptions as fact.

Secondly you list the same term over and over again to make it appear I am adding many terms to the equation. You list "maneuvers" and "course changes" even though mathematically they are the same thing: speed vector. I assume a certain speed vector, namely that it veers towards the camera and you assume a different speed vector: that it moves perpendicular to the camera.
Acceleration and deceleration, also, have one and the same mathematical definition: derivation of speed with respect to time or second derivation of position with respect to time. Deceleration is only a word we use to describe negative acceleration but it is not separately defined as a mathematical term.

For you to claim that my assumption of negative value for acceleration is a separate term would be like me saying that torpedo width growth adds the terms of length growth, thickness growth, volume growth, surface area growth, crossectional area growth, volume to surface area growth, etc. etc.


So to summarize our respective theories for explanation of the torpedo glow growth:

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.

[Kazeite]

No it couldn't. It takes three frames or 0.125 seconds. It is obviously not instantaneous.

Therefore, it grows to full size before even leaving the vicinity of the ship.

Like I said, in this timespan, it could very well be treated as instantenous.

I already posted screenshots from "Call to Arms" where torpedoes are hitting Galor and Jem'Hadar cruiser and obviously torpedoes are no more than 2m in width.

Once again: Existence of torpedoes with smaller glow doesn't prove that torpedoes with bigger glow are "figments of our imaginations".

As for insurrection not only is the ship inside a dense nebula which will cause interaction with the gas

That argument was already tried and already dismissed: that nebula wasn't that dense.

I don't need to provide evidence. That was just a hypothesis to try and give an explanation as to WHY the torpedo decelerated.

Since there's no evidence that trek torpedoes need to slow down to reacquire targets, your hyphothesis remains just that: hypothesis.

First you claim that my theory adds "unnecessary" terms. That is only an assumption on your part.

It's not an assumption: We know that Starfleet fires their torpedoes straight forward and they don't need to slow down to reacquire targets. You need torpedo fired at an angle and slowing down. See? Two unecessary elements.

To reiterate: since Trek canon tells us that Starfleet fires their torpedoes straight ahead and they don't need to decelerate to reacquire targets, it is up to you to prove that torpedo was fired at an angle and suddenly slowed down.

Since your theory adds two additional unnecessary terms to the premise, and goes against canon evidence, "then it is obviously a weaker theory under Occam's Razor."

And, lesse... you've dropped parts dealing with glow bein' shields, which must mean you have no real evidence for them bein' actually shields, which means that torpedo glow can be as big as it wants to.

[Kane Starkiller]

You didn't answer my point. I made it very simple for you.
Do you have any evidence for your list of speed vectors?

It's not an assumption: We know that Starfleet fires their torpedoes straight forward and they don't need to slow down to reacquire targets. You need torpedo fired at an angle and slowing down. See? Two unecessary elements.

You don't get it. The only term I am adding is assumption about speed vectors just like you are making an assumption about your speed vector.
The lock theory is just that. A theory that can explain why they would slow down.
Again do you have any evidence for your list of speed vectors? If you don't my theory wins since my ONLY assumption is the list of speed vectors. You assume your own speed vectors PLUS the fact that torpedoes grow.

[Kazeite]

You didn't answer my point.

That's because your point is moot.

Do you have any evidence for your list of speed vectors?

Like I said, Starfleet shoots their torpedoes straight ahead. That is my evidence. Since Voyager is a Starfleet vessel, it stands to reason that she's going to shoot her torpedoes straight ahead as well. And guess what? She does.

So, exactly, what is the reason she fired those particular torpedoes at an angle?

You don't get it.

I get it just fine, thank you. Your explanation goes against MO of Starfleet vessels.

I'm saying that those torpedoes flew straight ahead, while quickly growing to certain size. Neither of those elements goes against standard MO of Starfleet we've witnessed in other episodes.

You're saying that those torpedoes were fired at an angle and decelerated. This introduces two new elements, which go against standard MO of Starfleet.

Again do you have any evidence for your list of speed vectors?

Again, Starfleet doesn't fire their torpedoes at an angle. That is my evidence.

my ONLY assumption is the list of speed vectors.

Going against estabilished initial trajectories of Starfleet torpedoes.

You assume your own speed vectors PLUS the fact that torpedoes grow.

Considering that, once again, Starfleet shoots their torpedoes straight ahead and they have variable sizes, I feel justified in assuming that. Your assumptions however are directly contradicted by canon.

[Kane Starkiller]

Like I said, Starfleet shoots their torpedoes straight ahead. That is my evidence. Since Voyager is a Starfleet vessel, it stands to reason that she's going to shoot her torpedoes straight ahead as well. And guess what? She does.

So, exactly, what is the reason she fired those particular torpedoes at an angle?

Prove that Starfleet always fires it's weapons straight ahead. Prove it fired it's weapons straight ahead in Rise. Provide me a quote from Starfleet rule book stating that firing torpedoes straight ahead is their standard modus operandi.

[Kazeite]

Prove that Starfleet always fires it's weapons straight ahead.

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.