"Fan math"

For all your discussion of canon policies, evidentiary standards, and other meta-debate issues.

Discussion is to remain cordial at all times.
StarWarsStarTrek
Starship Captain
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

"Fan math"

Post by StarWarsStarTrek » Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:13 am

Do you think that "fan math" should be allowed in a debate? That is, using scientific principles like kinetic energy combined with math to calculate something in the vs debate?

If not, how far does this "fan math" go? If a book mentions a star destroyer arriving, and then two hours later another arrives, are we allowed to calculate that one + one equals two, or is that considered to be "fan math"? Or if there was one starship and it got blown up, can we assume that one minus one equals zero? Or is that fan math?

Also, if not, does that mean that Mike Wong, Anderson, Jedi Master Spock, Saxton, etc. are all irrelevant because they used fan math?

I apologize for the rather ridiculousness that this thread implies, but it's a question. And there are no stupid questions, right?

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1777
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Admiral Breetai » Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:07 am

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Do you think that "fan math" should be allowed in a debate? That is, using scientific principles like kinetic energy combined with math to calculate something in the vs debate?
and once again my young friend we miss the point I was trying to make entirely

[
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:If not, how far does this "fan math" go? If a book mentions a star destroyer arriving, and then two hours later another arrives, are we allowed to calculate that one + one equals two, or is that considered to be "fan math"? Or if there was one starship and it got blown up, can we assume that one minus one equals zero? Or is that fan math?
no genius that would be quoting the book
StarWarsStarTrek wrote: Also, if not, does that mean that Mike Wong, Anderson, Jedi Master Spock, Saxton, etc. are all irrelevant because they used fan math?
err Saxton is an official canon source for that alternate continuity known as the EU so what are you saying here?

as to Wong and the others they choose to quantify feats by using science and math as opposed to just debating based on whats in front of they're faces they have the right to do this..and you as a poster have the right to trust in they're analysis or not they are not official sources of classification and thus can be ignored with out refutation due to they're status as merely fans attempting to apply scientific standards to a fantastical situation to give a clearer understanding of the matter for the purposes of a vs debate..they are not to be blindly obeyed they are not the primary canon merely a means to interpret what's happening in the feat itself. there are other ways of doing this that involve far less fan based conjecture how ever accurate or other wise..to reach the same conclusions

you on the other hand are tossing me they're analysis as though it was scripture and fact as opposed to a fan based interpretation of whats going on in the primary canon and demanded I either accept it or math it differently to prove something you are making use of the work of others or your own work to prove an agenda..not to determine objectively the capabilities of a universe you have conversely shown repeated ignorance of the opposing media to an astounding degree making any mathematical and scientific classification you attempt to apply there invalid

this isn't interpreting canon this is cramming your non canon numbers down my throat as if it was an official medium you are demanding they be accepted or challenged equally when you have no basis nor right to do so..
StarWarsStarTrek wrote: I apologize for the rather ridiculousness that this thread implies, but it's a question. And there are no stupid questions, right?
it is ridiculous especially when your either to angry or other wise unable to grasp my basis...and the reason why I applied such a harsh standard to you..and notice I only applied it to you and Wong ..and said exactly why I have

that you don't get it and have to make such an asinine thread is amusing

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1901
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: "Fan math"

Post by 2046 » Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:40 am

Mathematics proves nothing when based upon false assumptions. And that's the flaw in what you're calling "fan math".

We're dealing with technology which, if it were real, would be far beyond our comprehension in any meaningful sense. Our situation is similar to Thomas Jefferson attempting to make calculations about the modern world based only on written fantasy stories with numerous engravings as printed on Thomas Paine's printing device. Yeah, he's smart, and maybe he could make sense of the basics, but in the final analysis he has little to no clue what's going on.

For example, we all understand aircraft wings. But he wouldn't. So his calculations for an airplane's energy expenditure might go horribly awry. To him, the concept of lift might sound like some sort of cheat of Newton, but of course we know differently.

And in the context of the characters of both franchises and their engineers and officers who deal with the technology every day, so do they.

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1777
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Admiral Breetai » Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:52 am

there is also what DS has just explained apart from the whole credibility thing which I hesitated on stating myself because I figured I'd enrage the staff over it but it's true..none the less...try quantifying fiction scientifically when you have everything from futuristic starships slipping into another dimension to bypass the laws of psychics or a man in red underwear propelling himself thousands of times the speed of light and punching apart moons

I mean how much of Star wars tech is by our understanding grounded in reality any ways?

StarWarsStarTrek
Starship Captain
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by StarWarsStarTrek » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:50 pm

2046 wrote:Mathematics proves nothing when based upon false assumptions. And that's the flaw in what you're calling "fan math".

We're dealing with technology which, if it were real, would be far beyond our comprehension in any meaningful sense. Our situation is similar to Thomas Jefferson attempting to make calculations about the modern world based only on written fantasy stories with numerous engravings as printed on Thomas Paine's printing device. Yeah, he's smart, and maybe he could make sense of the basics, but in the final analysis he has little to no clue what's going on.

For example, we all understand aircraft wings. But he wouldn't. So his calculations for an airplane's energy expenditure might go horribly awry. To him, the concept of lift might sound like some sort of cheat of Newton, but of course we know differently.

And in the context of the characters of both franchises and their engineers and officers who deal with the technology every day, so do they.
When based on false assumptions, yes. But do you agree that the other side actually has to prove this, instead of saying that they don't have to prove anything because it's non canon fan math?

The answer is obviously yes. Let's see if you're willing to admit it. Because you use fan math, as does Mike Wong, as does Saxton, and as does anybody that's seriously involved in the SW vs ST debate.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Picard » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:30 pm

But sources can be relevant or irrelevant... and given that we know EU is not canon for both ST and SW...

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3888
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Praeothmin » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:39 pm

SWST, I agree the other side has to prove the math is based on false assumptions, but do you agree the side being proven wrong has to be honest enough to accept this?

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:56 pm

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Do you think that "fan math" should be allowed in a debate? That is, using scientific principles like kinetic energy combined with math to calculate something in the vs debate?
The problem with fan math is that those who use it are trying to serve their bias and while they think they understand the issues with calculating for instance in your or wongs calcs for the power required to move a Death star they tend to forget issues like the DS ripping itself apart without inertail dampening ect.

And NO as i also said before a 99% reduction is not enough to prevent it from doing so, to give you a idea the Andromeda ascendants GFG (Gravitic Field Generator) reduces the Andromeda's mass from 96,408,876kg to just under 1kg.
Last edited by Kor_Dahar_Master on Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1777
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Admiral Breetai » Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:35 am

from what I've seen a good deal of your calcs are also based entirely on your own assertions..which are universally pro star wars which in and of itself makes it dangerous to take seriously the fact that you base virtually everything you calc up off wong and how he would do things..makes it very incredible

User1486
Redshirt
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by User1486 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:01 am

I would also like to add that another big problem with "Fan Math" is that the laws of physics in respective universes are mutually contradictory in the first place, and uses loads of what I would term "Sillytech" or "Handwavium" in order to make them work. The best one can do is just look at the on screen evidence (or read the descriptions in the books), and then just make an educated guess at what kind of capabilities, technologies, economies of scale, or the laws of physics (whether real or fictional) that are necessary to pull off whatever technical feat they are performing.

Usually in debates between Star Wars vs Star Trek, it is assumed that the laws of physics that are present in both universes are compatible with each other, and thus allowing such a confrontation to take place and make comparisons.

In this respect, Fan Math must always be taken with a grain of salt, and that furthermore it is really nothing more than an attempt to rationalize a fantasy. There is no such thing as an "expert" when it comes to Star Wars physics, and the same is true for a bunch of other franchises that aren't particularly known for strict observance to the actual laws of physics.
2046 wrote: For example, we all understand aircraft wings. But he wouldn't. So his calculations for an airplane's energy expenditure might go horribly awry. To him, the concept of lift might sound like some sort of cheat of Newton, but of course we know differently.
That's actually not true. The principle of flight was already well understood by the time of Jefferson, i.e. Bernoulli's Principle was already formulated by his time. The only real issue was whether or not it was possible to engineer a heavier than air vehicle that could transport a human; it was mostly an engineering problem, not a physical one. Up until the Wright brothers, people were divided on this issue. It was the same with space flight, or supersonic flight. And today, it remains an open question as to how powerful computers can get; we've hit physical limits for the size of the transistors, but yet through other engineering techniques (e.g. multi-cores) we can still make them faster, more efficient, and more powerful. And we can continue the process once we fully figure out how to create quantum computers, or fully functional DNA computers, instead using of transistors.


As such, we can reliably deduce that much of what is on either Star Wars or Star Trek is physically impossible, even accounting for the fact that there is probably still lots of undiscovered physics yet to find/discover. For the most part, we are running around in the dark when it comes to finding out the physical workings of these franchises. It also doesn't help that the laws are mutually contradictory, both in universe and between the universes.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1901
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: "Fan math"

Post by 2046 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:27 am

Don't screw up my analogy with facts, JCP. ;-)

In any case, yes, bad example, but the point remains that if you take Smart Historical Figure X and present him with Contemporary (To Him) Storytelling Form Y that talks of modern technology as if it were sci-fi (which to them it would be), you'll get the same sort of errors that "fan mathematicians" make.
When based on false assumptions, yes. But do you agree that the other side actually has to prove this, instead of saying that they don't have to prove anything because it's non canon fan math?

The answer is obviously yes. Let's see if you're willing to admit it.
Aren't you a saucy little fellow?

And no, it is up to the one making the claim to prove that the "fan math" applies. For instance, I could make a calculation of transporters based on orbit, energy, and so on . . . beaming up, after all, has the effect of instantaneously hurtling someone into orbit and shooting them up to orbital velocity, to boot. I could thus run the numbers and declare that a transporter must take 1.2 jiggawatts of power to beam up a single individual.

However, all you would have to do is say that we don't know how the transporter works, maybe point to a few examples where it is definitely not suggested that it would have to work via direct yanking of the person's particles into orbit and at speed, and so on, and you've just nullified my ever-so-lovely calculation.

It's like having a caveman calculate the energy of Dirty Harry's trigger finger . . . it's just gonna come out weird.

StarWarsStarTrek
Starship Captain
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by StarWarsStarTrek » Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:05 am

But if we do know how it works; for example, a kinetic kill weapon, can we use fan math? Or calculating shield strength based on solar radiation from a knwon star, such as the one in our system?

If, for example, I use video footage of a stated nickel iron asteroid of X strength hitting a ship and not doing any damage, can I calculate that?

Sure, it might be biased, but if I make calculations and post them, the burden of proof shifts to the other side to post a rebuttal.

Basically, fan math is admissible evidence. Obviously it is not all going to be correct, but that's the entire point of debating.

The answer is obvious. You use fan math, darkstar. Would you like it if I dismissed all of your calculations as non canon? I might think some of it to be invalid, but then I would have to prove that. I can't just dismiss it on the grounds of it possibly being bias.

In fact, anybody that uses calculations from Mike Wong, darkstar, etc would be using fan math. Yet those same people still post in this thread disagreeing with me, saying oh the problem with fan math is that it could be subjective! No shit Sherlock. Debates are by definition subjective. You guys just can't admit that a warsie can be right, can you?

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Lucky » Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:10 am

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:But if we do know how it works; for example, a kinetic kill weapon, can we use fan math? Or calculating shield strength based on solar radiation from a knwon star, such as the one in our system?
What Sci-Fi do you have in mind when you bring up Sol?
StarWarsStarTrek wrote: If, for example, I use video footage of a stated nickel iron asteroid of X strength hitting a ship and not doing any damage, can I calculate that?

Sure, it might be biased, but if I make calculations and post them, the burden of proof shifts to the other side to post a rebuttal.
The burden of proof would be on the person posting the calculations to prove the scaling, and math is reasonably accurate. This is usually done by person making the claim showing their work.

Sometimes the math and scalings can be spot on, but still be wrong because the VFX team messed up.
StarWarsStarTrek wrote: Basically, fan math is admissible evidence. Obviously it is not all going to be correct, but that's the entire point of debating.

The answer is obvious. You use fan math, darkstar. Would you like it if I dismissed all of your calculations as non canon? I might think some of it to be invalid, but then I would have to prove that. I can't just dismiss it on the grounds of it possibly being bias.

In fact, anybody that uses calculations from Mike Wong, darkstar, etc would be using fan math. Yet those same people still post in this thread disagreeing with me, saying oh the problem with fan math is that it could be subjective! No shit Sherlock. Debates are by definition subjective. You guys just can't admit that a warsie can be right, can you?
^_^

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Mike DiCenso » Mon Jan 24, 2011 2:51 pm

StarWarsStarTrek wrote: In fact, anybody that uses calculations from Mike Wong, darkstar, etc would be using fan math. Yet those same people still post in this thread disagreeing with me, saying oh the problem with fan math is that it could be subjective! No shit Sherlock. Debates are by definition subjective. You guys just can't admit that a warsie can be right, can you?
Once again you've missed the point. I don't know if you're doing so deliberately, but the fact remains that except for Admiral Breetai, no one here has any real problem with 'fan math', provided that the show their work and that the assumptions behind that work are reasonable and can stand up to scrutiny.

See, that's where you are going wrong. It's not that a Warsie can be right, it's that most of the Warsies we deal with, and unfortunately this seems to include you, operate almost exclusively on a narrow set of assumptions that always cherrypick or assume the highest
SW showing while failing to acknowledge or even give Star Trek technology the slightest advantage, no matter how small or obvious it may be.

That's a critical failing of many of Wong's works; mostly because originally he wrote his SDN site as if it were Imperial Propaganda, but when Wong saw that he could get adoration and a good ego-stroking from a group of followers, he started really treating that propaganda as if it were true, no matter how ludicrous it was.

The reason no one is giving ground to you is because you are operating in a similar manner. For example, with Nowhereman bringing up the quantum torpedo detonation example from "For the Uniform", you just brushed that off and never really answered to him, nor acknowledged it as a showing of higher end Trek firepower.

So why should we give in to you, if you won't? Why should we be respectful to someone who routinely uses circular logic to try and validate the outlier ICS books authored by Curtis Saxton? I mean, let's face it, you're not giving us much to work with here. So now almost everyone here is starting to think you're just here to troll.
-Mike

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Fan math"

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:56 pm

In fact, anybody that uses calculations from Mike Wong, darkstar, etc would be using fan math.
This is actually a good example of the problem, in "skin of evil" we see a photon torp hit on a planet.

Warsie:

The fireball in skin of evil lasts 1-2 seconds and as such the wong calculator says kilotons at best.


And while in this case the warsie argument is rather obviously wrong as a explosion expanding 300km in the time they point out (1-2 seconds so 150-300km/s) not only has a vast amount of energy, but also the same calculator points out that a 300km fireball requires from 600-700gigation we still see many preaching it like it is some how proven.

And while the flip side is the 600-700gt yield is obviously the other side f the coin it shows that just like his DS power figures you can base perfect math on a position that is inherently flawed.

Post Reply