Construction of ships in both verses

[Kane Starkiller]

Now, had your position been that eight Galaxy class cruisers is a lower limit you would have had a point. But since you claim it to be an upper limit the burden of proof there are no more than eight lies squarely on your shoulders.

Where did I claim it's an upper limit? My argument always was that there is no evidence for more than "5 or so" Galaxy class ships. It is up to you to prove there are more.

[Roondar]

Now, had your position been that eight Galaxy class cruisers is a lower limit you would have had a point. But since you claim it to be an upper limit the burden of proof there are no more than eight lies squarely on your shoulders.

Where did I claim it's an upper limit? My argument always was that there is no evidence for more than "5 or so" Galaxy class ships. It is up to you to prove there are more.

That'd be the part where you state there are no more than <x> of something. That is giving something an upper limit.

Besides, there is proof for more. You just don't accept it. You're still harping on about "5 or so" being the max even though we have screenshot evidence there where more.

Likewise, the argument can be turned around quite easily: you have no evidence at all that those Galaxy cruisers we see in Endgame are the same ones.

And despite your best efforts, your reasons for them being the same are extremely thin in light of the reasons we have given. So thin in fact that the opposite (i.e. there are more than seven) is infinitely more likely.

[Kane Starkiller]

That'd be the part where you state there are no more than <x> of something. That is giving something an upper limit.

No more that we have seen.

Besides, there is proof for more. You just don't accept it. You're still harping on about "5 or so" being the max even though we have screenshot evidence there where more.

Likewise, the argument can be turned around quite easily: you have no evidence at all that those Galaxy cruisers we see in Endgame are the same ones.

And despite your best efforts, your reasons for them being the same are extremely thin in light of the reasons we have given. So thin in fact that the opposite (i.e. there are more than seven) is infinitely more likely.

Evidence of how much more? "5 or so" includes 6 or 7 if you are not aware. What evidence have you provided? Why should I have to provide any evidence the ships from Endgame are the same? It's up to you to provide evidence that they are not since you are claiming they are proof of more Galaxies.

[Cocytus]

Do you happen to know where I can find a good screen-capture program Kane? I've just rewatched Sacrifice of Angels on DVD, and there are 8 Galaxies on screen during just one sequence of that battle. (The sequence where the two closest galaxies team up on an unfortunate Galor. You can pick out 5 of them in TrekCore's screenshots if you look closely) The Operation Return fleet was comprised of elements of the 2nd, 5th, and 9th fleets as per the dialogue in "Favor the Bold." Since that fleet also had large numbers of Mirandas, which tend to be readily destroyed by Dominion vessels, we can reliably assume the Federation was committing whatever was nearby to the battles, rather than simply extracting the most powerful ships from all the fleets in the Federation and redirecting them to fight the Dominion. That means that not all of Starfleet's galaxies were present on the front lines.

We have never seen more Star Destroyers than were on screen at Endor. Does that mean that's all the ships of that class there were? Why not. We need only remember that G Canon>C Canon, then that assume Mon Mothma and Palpatine meant the exact same thing when they said "fleet." "With the imperial FLEET spread throughout the galaxy in a vain effort to engage us," and later "send the FLEET to the far side of Endor." That fits perfectly with Han's ANH statement that the fleet had fewer than a thousand ships, and does wonders for Imperial FTL speeds if the whole fleet was recalled to Endor from all over the galaxy in such a short space of time. Does that theory strain credibility?

[Jedi Master Spock]

Where did you account for the perspective?

In considering the relative sizes of arm and core, and in considering the radial rays.

Secondly if the relative positions of stars are all wrong then the map is useless isn't it?

Not at all.

Which Federation build space station was said to have thrusters? In any case to observe the evidence criteria you yourself insisted upon concerning Death Star show me evidence that large spacedock type has those thrusters or someone mentioning them.

Like the only space station we've seen in detail... DS9. It may not be Federation built, but that's our standard.

Yes you "mentioned" they "ought to be". That is not evidence.

Complaints do not make arguments.

It isn't the highest since the DS2 was incomplete. I honestly don't see why you fail to understand that incomplete objects cannot be used to determine the upper limits or outer ballparks.

Fact: That rotational acceleration is an outlier (high).

It is also associated with a high margin of error (incomplete DS2).

Ergo, it is an upper limit of reasonable estimation. That's how you handle data like that.

I have the film. Nowhere do we see it from behind when it starts to orbit the planet.

From the side with Yavin behind it is more than good enough.

If you have evidence for your claims they are no longer opinions.

No, they remain opinions.

A "treacherous abyss"? And somehow from that you came to conclusion that it actually goes down to the core?

To the core? I never said that. Very deep? Yes.

Why? You have no idea what purpose the shaft serves therefore you have no evidence to justify your claim these shafts are spread throughout the Death Star as reasonable.

That there are deep shafts and chasms throughout the Death Star is reasonably demonstrated by our limited knowledge.

You didn't answer my question. How big is the large toroid area in Borg ships compared to Death Star shaft? Not to mention other large open spaces on Borg ships. As for the "hard" figures given for smaller ships I'll deal with that below.

How relevant is it, when we do have a ballpark on Borg density?

And where is your scaling for the "toroid area"?

First of all Rebel sensors were extremely accurate.

But the Rebel diagram was pieces of transparent plastic on a light table. Updated periodically. I do not consider it a precise visual measure of the Death Star'sn position.

The point remains unchanged: Death Star accelerated at at least 236g.

The points remains unchanged:

The Death Star was getting there as fast as it could.

Anything higher than 10g means the Death Star would've gotten there faster.

Therefore, the Death Star cannot accelerate faster than that.

Finally I would like to see some more details, quotes and page numbers for this Death Stars "antigravity drive" which is supposedly responsoble for all high g acceleration of Death Star. Seeing as how Death Star accelerated perpendicularly to the direction of the gravity field I don't see how repulsorlift could've been used.

... like the repulsor-using small craft we see everywhere, flying perpendicular to the gravity field?

The ANH novelization describes antigravity drive and hyperdrive as complementary - one picks up where the other leaves off. And antigravity requires no visible effect, unlike ion drives.

Yes it is seen:236g in orbit around Yavin. That you insist with no evidence this were actually antigravity drives is your problem.

No, it is not actually seen. 236g results from an approximation of a low-accuracy tactical diagram, contradicted by both the evidence of the Death Star's total time to target and maximum velocity profile, and by the Imperial diagram as well.

Why? If the atmosphere is thick enough Death Star could do it?

Somehow I don't believe that will help.

Why would it be reasonable to expect Death Star to outmaneuver ships trillion times smaller than it is?

Why would it be reasonable to call something that big and slow a ship?

That's not what I said.

It is the fact of what you said.

But floating missile silos are not.

Nuclear-armed submarines are designed to operate in combat against other submarines.

It's not Death Star's fault Rebels never had comparable vessels.

Complete red herring. Would you attempt to respond to the point?

I don't claim anything.

You claim many things.

I am saying that when I see Chinese astronaut planting Chinese flag on the surface of the Moon then I'll accept their capability to land a person on the Moon. Not sooner.

So I should accept that the Death Star is not 99.999% hollow with a reactor placed in the middle once you show G canon footage giving the remainder of the Death Star?

What does any of this prove? Even a miniscule fragment could still be cubical.

A miniscule fragment would be accompanied by much more... and it would be highly unlikely for it to be cubical.

Secondly we only ever get a closeup scene showing a part of the ship so there is no way to tell how far away the fragments are scattered. For all we know it could be dozens of kilometers.

Which they refer to as the wreckage of the ship. Not even considering the possibility that other survivors might be kilometers away.

Not plausible.

Meaning they can't go to high warp within a solar system. But that doesn't stop them from going to lower warp unless they are simply masochistic.

A highly dubious conclusion... and still at odds with the episode.

You can say that high impulse is FTL, or you can work with a dilated frame of reference; in either case, impulse accelerations are incredible.

I don't see why you ripped my paragraph into million pieces instead of simply answering with a paragraph of your own.

Because you made numerous independent errors.

It only makes it more difficult to follow so I will respond to your points regarding inertial compensation here.
You seem to be under impression that I didn't assume the inertial compensator applies a uniform force field to the entire ship and second that if you apply a uniform force field to everything in the ship the problems relating to stress go away. I did and they don't.

Wrong on both points, as explained prior.

First of all the ship will be "accelerated" by the field in the sense that the field will try to accelerate the ship at a certain rate. But since the inertial compensator is attached to the ship then it obviously won't work

Why?

and the end result will be that ship's construction is straining against the field similar to how buildings are straining against Earth's gravity field.

Which is why buildings are only a momentarily let-up in gravity away from bursting away from the surface?

The fact that field is uniform is of no consequence.

It is of great consequence.

Your feet are exerting pressure against the building floor regardless of the fact that both you and building are being "accelerated" by the Earth's gravity.

And when you are in the elevator, they do not - because the elevator and you are subject to the same acceleration due to gravity.

But again we are faced with an even greater problem: engines which push the ship.

To get back to Jango you are still claiming inertial compensator field will save him if it's applied "uniformly to him". How exactly? How exactly will this inertial compensator field nullify 500 billion N? Do you even understand that if Jango Fett does not press against the rear wall with the force of 500 billion N then the ship isn't accelerated thus even if it could somehow be possible to magically nullify the force it would be useless?

Jango is still pressing against the ship - and that force distributed to the entire ship to accelerate it uniformly.

Your end result is that you have everything except the jetpack's ejecta experiencing a uniform total force and thus uniform acceleration away from the ejecta.

As I pointed out earlier, your attempted model for inertial compensation is sillier. This one has the virtue of actually working for inertial compensation, rather than tearing the ship apart.

Here, the inertial compensator acts as a perfect medium between all parts of the ship - an invisible force effectively locking everything inside the ship into a uniform controlled acceleration.

That is 8 three of which are destroyed. What additional named Galaxies did you mention? Again you provided no evidence as to whether the Galaxies seen in Endgame are different ships or not and again you have no basis in claiming that 12 total ships "strains credibility".
P.S. Reading through the memory alpha I see that nowhere is it established that Magellan is in fact a Galaxy class starship.

8 and 10 are close enough by your standards.

I have provided such evidence. See article re: variations on the GCS and the fact that several of those ships were no longer in service.

[Mike DiCenso]

The Operation Return fleet was comprised of elements of the 2nd, 5th, and 9th fleets as per the dialogue in "Favor the Bold."

Actually, the fleet that actually was able to be sent on short notice to fight in had only elements of the 2nd and 5th fleets as the 9th fleet's elements were unable to make in time as per the following dialog:


ROSS
Are you sure this is reliable?

SISKO
I've known the courier for five
years. I trust him.

ROSS
Then we have a problem.
(re: the strip)
According to this, the minefield's
coming down in three days. The Ninth
Fleet won't be here for at least four.

SISKO
Then I suggest we go without them.

ROSS
What about the Klingons?

SISKO
Looks like we go without them, too.
We've run out of time, Admiral.

ROSS
(nodding)
If those Dominion reinforcements
come through the wormhole... we'll
have lost everything.

So if eight GCS were available from just those two fleet's elements, and note that they were elements of those fleets, not the whole fleets, then it follows that there were probably more GCS on the way with the 9th fleet's elements, and possibly more GCS left behind on the various frontlines in the remaining 2nd, 5th, and 9th fleet elements that were not taking part in Operation Return.
-Mike

[Mike DiCenso]

Because previously I'd underestimated the size. Use your pixel counting crap and look at the size ratio between the two docked ships. It's not 2.67 to 1. It's at least 3.6 to 1. The 600 meter number is clearly off given the size difference. Even rounding down the NX class size, that is still around 800 meters long.

225m*3.6 is 810m not 900m. Furthermore length is not volume. The ship has a larges empty area in the middle and you still haven't shown that it is larger than Galaxy class.

Kane, do you understand what someone means when they say "at least" as I do above? 810 meters from 3.6 times is a lower limit here. I also note that you do not dispute this either, so I'am also going to assume that you have verified the minimum estimate on your own. The D'kyr is longer by a good 157 meters at minimum, and likely much more than that, thus our estimate for the D'kyr type's volume will go up substantially. A D'kyr of 600 meters or so will not be bigger, but one of 800-900 meters may well be.

One does not have to create exactly the XB-70 design. The whole XB-70 program was nearly cancelled because of the increasing missle threat, which eventually necessitated that a whole new approach of low-level penetration rather than high-altitude super-sonic speeds. The B1-B is better suited to that role and it still maintains a modest mach speed. As for your analogy, it is flawed; the ability to have a warp driven starship is important since it is a key propulsion advancement, just as super-sonic or hypersonic speeds are. For it to work, it would have to be a case were the capability to fly at super-sonic speed or warp speed were totally lost as technologies for large vehicles. In either case they were not.

Would the U.S. bankrupt itself, if it chose to revive the XB-70? Not necessarily as the data collected by North American, the U.S. Air Force, and NASA are still available, as are the aircraft's blueprints and the surviving number one prototype which could be used to back-engineer the aircraft and it's components, though no doubt an effort would be made to incorporate new technologies where possible.

In fact, the XB-70 bomber program from the sources I've seen cost $1.5 billion USD. Adjusting for inflation and assuming the earliest possible date of 1959, it would cost 10.64 billion dollars to redo the program from scratch. That's hardly enough to bankrupt the U.S.A, even in the current flagging economy.

That is merely the cost of prototype not the cost of the entire fleet of such bombers. Again the issue is size and speed. Can they create a ship of a certain size that can go supersonic or at sufficient warp speeds.

Ironically you may have hit apon an important point here, even if you do not fully realize it; the reason the enourmous D'kyr and Sh'ran type ships were abandoned by the fledgling Federation is because their massive anular warp drives may just be too big and they are at the limit (warp 7) of what they can do and would reach a point of diminishing returns to try and push them beyond warp 7. Instead the duel warp nacelles being the more efficent way to go, which in turn lead to moderate sized vessels due to this efficency.

But getting back to the XB-70, your analogy is still flawed since in the era of high-accuracy AA missles and improved ICBMs, the B-70 mission is almost completely obsolete as a role. Point being, there is no need for the B-70, and that is why the large bomber program in the U.S. has been redirected towards low-observable tech and low-level penetration of enemy airspace with the B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit stealth bombers. Some of the cost estimates I've seen for a production B-70 would make it in adjusted dollars comparable to the price tag of a B-2 in adjusted dollars.

Interestingly enough, the B-1R as it is currently being proposed, would up the super-sonic capability of the B1 bomber to mach 2.2.

But my point being still stands; the U.S.A still has the capability, should it desire, to build a large super-sonic bomber.

JMS has already made many points against all of that. The EU is subordinate to the movie and novelization canon. If the Death Star only need use it's antigrav to slingshot around Yavin, rather than maneuver signifcantly, then it is a fuzzy area vehicle. Not quite a ship, but not a stationary structure, either.

Here's a thought for you to dwell on. If the Death Star had signifcant maneuver capability at sublight as a proper independantly mobile ship should, then why did it's commanders bother orbiting Yavin at all? Why not fly out and around to where the gas giant no longer blocked line of sight and just fired on the moon. Even if the power of the DS superlaser goes down by an order of magnitude, it should still be capable of dealing a death blow regardless, right? Would that not be quicker and easier?

EU is subbordinate to the movie not to JMS fantasies. As I have shown above Death Star moved much faster than what a simple orbit would allow not to mention that none of you explained how exactly the antigrav would work when Death Star moved perpendicularly to the direction of the gravitational force. As for your questions about the decisions taken by Death Star's navigators and commanders you are assuming that there were no other considerations to take into account when deciding the method of approach.

Fantasies? JMS is not making any such thing up here, he is using the preponderance of the evidence, namely the upper limit on how long it would take to orbit Yavin (30 minutes at maximum velocity), the more accurate Death Star monitor display, and the fact that the Rebel display has some very serious flaws in it among other things.

You on the other hand, are focusing solely on the Rebel diagram to almost the exclusion of all other sources of information in the movie.

But his own research is independant of mine, and it contains very signficant evidence that I did not present eariler that only makes the assumptions we both worked from even more vaild than before. Evidence is evidence in this case.

It doesn't matter how independent your research is when you take the same assumption as he does: that those are not the same Galaxies.

They aren't the same GCS, your handwaving tactics where the evidence is concerned not withstanding.

Again, we see enough of them at various points to know that they are not the Venture. We also see in later battles that the "dark neck" GCS are not in any of the fleet scenes, further indicating larger numbers of GCS.

The "dark neck" Galaxy is merely a shadow cast on the back of the neck. The shadow pattern is the same for both Galaxies on their right nacelle pylon.

Prove those are shadows, then. I've tried, and not gotten the neck to turn dark in such an oddly specific way like that. It certainly is odd that both ships in that scene have virtually identical shadowing given their relatively different orientations to the local main light source.

Obviously Galaxy wings are a formation of GCS as seen in SoA. If there are only 5 GCS total in the Operation Return battle, then we have to split the GCS seen between the two fleets whose elements made up the 624 ships present in the fight. Working off that as a minimum, we have 2 ships per each fleet, multiply that by seven known fleets, and you get 14 possible GCS at the time of the Dominion war. If three GCS per wing, then you get 21 GCS. All of which would, of course, not include the three GCS destroyed prior to the war, which would bring the counts up to 17 and 24 respectively. The average would be 17 GCS, excluding the lost three.

How do you know the Galaxies seen turning all belong to the same wing as opposed to being leaders of separate wings? What is your evidence that each and every fleet has a Galaxy class in it?

Observation of every battle we've seen in the war. The Galaxy wings are clearly at least two or more GCS operating together, not merely leading other starships around, though they could be doing that as well. The two GCS pouncing on the lone Galor is a great example of this.

That many... the entire Federation contingent of Galaxy starships all at the same time? It makes no sense. As for the "dark necks", they do exist as Cocytus has shown. None are visible at all among the 7-8 GCS
at the "Endgame" engagement. Neither do there appear to be any GCS with warp nacelle bumps, thus excluding at least one other GCS.

As I said shadow play. And why wouldn't it make sense? If they were all damaged and needed repairs then there would be no choice either way.

No mere "shadow play" explains that odd a pattern on the neck. That may be what the FX crew was trying to create, but that is mere speculation. Please prove that they are shadows. Also your explanation is very seriously flawed given that there are other options for repair and upgrade for the GCS elsewhere in the Federation that make better sense from a deployment standpoint. Furthermore, each of the GCS shown appeared undamaged and were apparently fully operational and able to engage the Borg sphere.

It's the total volume of all those structures, regarless of how they are connected. The minimum stated linear dimensions of the Unicomplex are on a scale that clearly dwarfs the only completed Death Star by a fairly significant amount, even if we choose to go with the 160 km ICS number.

The real question then becomes what size sphere would you get if you were to take those "thousands of structures" and roll them up? Obviously the Unicomplex is not a single-file chain 600 km long, or it would not be composed of thousands of interconnected stuctures, and probably would not be able to house trillions of drones.

I'm not saying it's a single file chain but you can see yourself how loosely connected they are for example in the second screenshots on the lower left. It's just a "thin" beam with larges modules every now and then. And it's completely isolated. Obviously even of that beam extends for 100km it won't add up to a Death Star comparable mass.

I'am not talking about the connecting structures, though those would play a part in the final tally, I'am talking about the big (read larger than Borg cube) structures that are what Tuvok and the others are refering to in the dialog. There are at least "thousands" of those structures. Roughly a 120 km Death Star is worth some 33,000 3 km Borg cubes, if I did my math correctly. The structures seen in "Dark Frontier dwarfed the cube ships flying around near them. Some are cylinderical, others are more cube-shaped. If they are cubical, and are only half a km wider than a borg cube, then we would need some 21,000 of them to equal the DS1's volume.

To be conservative, let us say that by "thousands" that there are about 5 thousand of these large structures (the rough average between 2,000 and 9,999 possible structures). That's nearly one-fifth the DS1's volume right there.

Then the next thing to figure out is how many of at least tens of thousands of the connecting conduit structures there are, what their volumes are, and add that in to the equation.

Because they are different points of comparison, that is why. I find it odd that you cannot except that. Also, the Soviets did build a full-deck carrier class that was comparable in size, and was jump of up to four times anything they'd previously built. For our purposes, they are in the same approximate size catagory.

So by your logic, we would have to ignore it if the Federation built a ship 90% the linear dimensions and 75% the mass of a D'Deridex warbird.

The fact that we have an additional roughly equivalent powers in ST with which to compare and extrapolate what the Federation could do is important as is comparing what a single member (Vulcan) was capable of building in the 22nd century. All of this adds together.

On the other hand, there is no other movie or novelization canon level power in the SW universe with which to make a similar comparison. It is that simple, and I don't understand why you cannot grasp that.

Analogy does not have to be perfectly identical to be accurate. The Soviet Union navy example was introduced to show how even roughly equal sides will not necessarily have the capability to construct equal fleet size or achieve the same maximum ship size. The fact that the size difference between D'Deridex and Galaxy is larger does not invalidate the analogy nor does it prove Federation can match Romulan shipbuilding.

The Federation does not have to match the physical size, since we know from episodes like "The Enemy" and "Tin Man", that a GCS is a rough match in firepower and can overmatch it in speed again validates the concept that the Federation concetrates it's efforts on quality for their ships, not making them bigger, though they certainly have the potential for making longer, wider starships. But my analogy shows that the Soviet navy did produce a full-deck carrier that in terms of size and mass is still very comparable to the largest of U.S. navy carriers. It would again be as though the Federation had built a 1,200 meter x 900 x 250 meter starship!

The screecap I linked to shows otherwise however for the lighting of the Archer/Daniels side of the dome's base structure (the dome itself appears to be illuminated from within ala the very similar TOS and ENT style domes).

Yes glow which could've been easily reflected from surfaces on the left and back of the dome.

Except that based on the glow, it is being shined on the dome structures from below, not the sides as you are implying.
-Mike

[Cocytus]

The "dark neck" Galaxy is merely a shadow cast on the back of the neck. The shadow pattern is the same for both Galaxies on their right nacelle pylon.

No it isn't. Your own citation of the nacelle pylon shadow disproves your assertion. Look closely. The shadow cast by the nacelle pylon is not precisely the same on each ship. On the ship further from the camera, the shadow falls closer to the aft torpedo launcher, whereas the dark patch conforms to precisely the same area on each ship, an impossibility given the slight difference in the orientation of each ship to the light source and the fact that there is no object in the image which could possibly account for one of those shadows, let alone both. Not to mention that the dark area also conforms precisely to the contour of the engineering section's "cobra head" on the underside of the saucer, further strengthening my earlier explanation that these ships were designed with more protection for their engineering hulls. Part of that protection simply extends onto the saucer. These areas are not shadows. Period.

Oh, and good catch on the dialogue in Favor the Bold, Mike.

[Mike DiCenso]

Oh, and good catch on the dialogue in Favor the Bold, Mike.

Thanks. I looked over the Trekcore SOA screencaps, and you are right; there are at least 6 seperate Galaxy class starships in those screencaps. You say there are up to eight. If you get high-res screencaps of your own posted, I'd like to see you point them all out. If you are correct, that would make an average of up to 4 GCS per each Galaxy wing, or up to 28 GCS in all seven of the known fleets. Thirty one total GCS would have been built over all, if we were to include the 3 lost GCS from prior to the Dominion war.
-Mike

[Kane Starkiller]

Cocytus: I simply use Media Player snapshot option for screencapture. 8 galaxies if there was that many I haven't checked is still around "5 or so ballpark". The fact that G canon is higher on scale doesn't mean it contradicts lower sources just because it doesn't explicitly mention such numbers.

In considering the relative sizes of arm and core, and in considering the radial rays.

What arms can even be made out on the map? Radial rays are assumed to be degrees by you.

Secondly if the relative positions of stars are all wrong then the map is useless isn't it?

Not at all.

Excuse me if I don't accept your claims as fact. Justify this statement.

Like the only space station we've seen in detail... DS9. It may not be Federation built, but that's our standard.

I repeat my demand: provide me evidence of Federation built space station with positioning thrusters.

Yes you "mentioned" they "ought to be". That is not evidence.

Complaints do not make arguments.

I wasn't complaining but stating a fact. As a matter of fact you provided no evidence as to how many sources should mention Death Star engines other than your opinion. In fact this is nothing but your desperation, that somehow a piece of equipment must be mentioned a certain number of times before being accepted.

Fact: That rotational acceleration is an outlier (high).

It is also associated with a high margin of error (incomplete DS2).

Ergo, it is an upper limit of reasonable estimation. That's how you handle data like that.

An outlier compared to what other rotational data? Why do you put emphasis on DS2 being incomplete while disregarding the unknown completion of it's engines?

From the side with Yavin behind it is more than good enough.

Which is before they start orbiting the planet. In fact it is even before they report to Tarkin on the exact location of the rebel base thus they don't even know where to accelerate at that point.

If you have evidence for your claims they are no longer opinions.

No, they remain opinions.

No they are not. That Earth is round is not an opinion is it since we have evidence? Honestly are you so stubborn you are incapable of conceding even the smallest point? Besides since you don't, in fact, have evidence your opinions are irrelevant.

To the core? I never said that. Very deep? Yes.

Then you have no idea how large they are.

That there are deep shafts and chasms throughout the Death Star is reasonably demonstrated by our limited knowledge.

It is not demonstrated. It is assumed by you.

How relevant is it, when we do have a ballpark on Borg density?

And where is your scaling for the "toroid area"?

Scaling is from First Contact as camera zooms out from Picard.

But the Rebel diagram was pieces of transparent plastic on a light table. Updated periodically. I do not consider it a precise visual measure of the Death Star'sn position.

Where is it stated that diagram is just pieces of plastic. Are you saying that Death Star, Yavin etc were pieces of plastic? And again you are passing off your opinions as evidence with no backing and ignoring the accuracy of sensors which were obviously feeding data to the command center and the diagram.

The points remains unchanged:

The Death Star was getting there as fast as it could.

Anything higher than 10g means the Death Star would've gotten there faster.

Therefore, the Death Star cannot accelerate faster than that.

Wrong. Death Star was stated to be orbiting at maximum velocity not acceleration. They later decided to speed up. Probably after detecting an attack they decided to accelerate and get it over with. Anything higher than 10g would get them faster but they didn't accelerate that fast before.

... like the repulsor-using small craft we see everywhere, flying perpendicular to the gravity field?

The ANH novelization describes antigravity drive and hyperdrive as complementary - one picks up where the other leaves off. And antigravity requires no visible effect, unlike ion drives.

They use repulsorlift to maintain altitude. For horizontal motion they use various jet or ion engines. (Like pod racer)

No, it is not actually seen. 236g results from an approximation of a low-accuracy tactical diagram, contradicted by both the evidence of the Death Star's total time to target and maximum velocity profile, and by the Imperial diagram as well.

Diagram is extremely high accuracy as I have already demonstrated your unfounded "pieces of plastic" comment notwithstanding. Death Star's total time comes from "orbiting at maximum velocity" thus they weren't accelerating at the time which proves my point. And it does not contradict the Imperial diagram since they call out the times consistently with the Rebels and we only see one component of the velocity: that which is perpendicular to the planet Yavin 4.

Why? If the atmosphere is thick enough Death Star could do it?

Somehow I don't believe that will help.

Why not?

Why would it be reasonable to call something that big and slow a ship?

"Big" and "slow" are relative terms. The point is that for it's size Death Star has excellent acceleration.

That's not what I said.

It is the fact of what you said.

Come now. Are we going to have a serious discussion or play games? You have snipped out my entire response just to respond your earlier claim with no reasoning whatsoever. You asked whether Death Star can dock with a space station. I answered yes if the station is big enough. This is true for any ship and any station. Why you insist on playing these evasive games every time you loose an argument is beyond me.

Complete red herring. Would you attempt to respond to the point?

What point? Death Star has turbolaser emplacements to fight off capital ships as well as proton torpedo launchers, rail guns etc. It also carries TIE fighters to fight off smaller starfighters. Thus it is a combat ship by any standards.

I don't claim anything.

You claim many things.

Is this really the kind of discussion you want to have? To snip out my answer from context and answer it as such?

So I should accept that the Death Star is not 99.999% hollow with a reactor placed in the middle once you show G canon footage giving the remainder of the Death Star?

The fact that you preemptively insist on G canon source proves you already know other sources do indeed prove that Death Star is 99.999% hollow not the least of which is ICS:trilogy cut away diagram.

A miniscule fragment would be accompanied by much more... and it would be highly unlikely for it to be cubical.

By "much more"? Much more what? Fragments? Again the fragments could easily be scattered across many kilometers especially if the craft started breaking up at higher altitude. Also "highly unlikely" doesn't really tell us anything except your opinion and I think we've heard enough of your opinions already.

Which they refer to as the wreckage of the ship. Not even considering the possibility that other survivors might be kilometers away.

Not plausible.

So they should "consider" it out loud or something? They scanned the area found a survivor and brought it to the ship. Secondly what is your point with the cubical part being identified as "wreckage of the ship"? Of course it is wreckage of the ship. That doesn't mean that's all of it.

A highly dubious conclusion... and still at odds with the episode.

You can say that high impulse is FTL, or you can work with a dilated frame of reference; in either case, impulse accelerations are incredible.

So incredible that in "Fair Haven" Voyager's impulse engines were unable to outrace the "particle density anomaly" which was 15 hours away and closing at 200,000km/s. That is an acceleration of no more than 377g. Particularly striking when compared to 260g Death Star acceleration and of course proving that your assumption they used impulse engines from Saturn is false.

I don't see why you ripped my paragraph into million pieces instead of simply answering with a paragraph of your own.

Because you made numerous independent errors.

And how does this prevent you to answer those errors in one paragraph? I see you are more interested in playing games.

First of all the ship will be "accelerated" by the field in the sense that the field will try to accelerate the ship at a certain rate. But since the inertial compensator is attached to the ship then it obviously won't work

Why?

I just explained it to you. The ship is rigid. How exactly do you propose the inertial compensator will accelerate the ship? The only way to do it is to break it apart so that all parts close in to the compensator. This is pretty simple stuff here.

Which is why buildings are only a momentarily let-up in gravity away from bursting away from the surface?

Only if they are elastically deformed. Do you really don't understand buildings are straining under gravity or are you just playing games? Maybe another example. If you put on a backpack filled with led you will feel enormous strain on your shoulders. It doesn't matter than both you and the backpack are in the same uniform gravity field.

The fact that field is uniform is of no consequence.

It is of great consequence.

Which you can't be bothered to explain right now right?

And when you are in the elevator, they do not - because the elevator and you are subject to the same acceleration due to gravity.

Yes you are. Try stepping on an egg while you are riding either up or down in an elevator. You'll find your feet are still providing pressure and that egg will most definitely be exposed to stress.

Jango is still pressing against the ship - and that force distributed to the entire ship to accelerate it uniformly.

Your end result is that you have everything except the jetpack's ejecta experiencing a uniform total force and thus uniform acceleration away from the ejecta.

As I pointed out earlier, your attempted model for inertial compensation is sillier. This one has the virtue of actually working for inertial compensation, rather than tearing the ship apart.

Here, the inertial compensator acts as a perfect medium between all parts of the ship - an invisible force effectively locking everything inside the ship into a uniform controlled acceleration.

How will his force be distributed to the entire ship? Again simple uniform area effect force will not do this.

Kane, do you understand what someone means when they say "at least" as I do above? 810 meters from 3.6 times is a lower limit here. I also note that you do not dispute this either, so I'am also going to assume that you have verified the minimum estimate on your own. The D'kyr is longer by a good 157 meters at minimum, and likely much more than that, thus our estimate for the D'kyr type's volume will go up substantially. A D'kyr of 600 meters or so will not be bigger, but one of 800-900 meters may well be.

In other words you have no evidence that either ship is bigger than Galaxy. So we are back to square one: Galaxy is the biggest ship the Federation can build.

Ironically you may have hit apon an important point here, even if you do not fully realize it; the reason the enourmous D'kyr and Sh'ran type ships were abandoned by the fledgling Federation is because their massive anular warp drives may just be too big and they are at the limit (warp 7) of what they can do and would reach a point of diminishing returns to try and push them beyond warp 7. Instead the duel warp nacelles being the more efficent way to go, which in turn lead to moderate sized vessels due to this efficency.

But getting back to the XB-70, your analogy is still flawed since in the era of high-accuracy AA missles and improved ICBMs, the B-70 mission is almost completely obsolete as a role. Point being, there is no need for the B-70, and that is why the large bomber program in the U.S. has been redirected towards low-observable tech and low-level penetration of enemy airspace with the B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit stealth bombers. Some of the cost estimates I've seen for a production B-70 would make it in adjusted dollars comparable to the price tag of a B-2 in adjusted dollars.

Interestingly enough, the B-1R as it is currently being proposed, would up the super-sonic capability of the B1 bomber to mach 2.2.

But my point being still stands; the U.S.A still has the capability, should it desire, to build a large super-sonic bomber.

I don't know whether the first paragraph is canon information or your theorising but either way it does not prove Federation can build anything bigger than Galaxy. Secondly accuracy of SAMs was greatly overestimated in the early days while the accuracy of ABMs was underestimated. When both USSR and USA leadership realized this they knew what blunder they made to switch from bombers to ICBMs hence the anti ABM treaty: a gentleman's agreement to keep ICBM viable. USA is now moving to correct that mistake and it's ABM will soon render ICBM obsolete hence Russia's screaming. Now USA now does not have the capability to build supersonic bombers. It doesn't have the tooling to make wings or hulls. Therefore it would first need to create the tooling and only then proceed to building.

Fantasies? JMS is not making any such thing up here, he is using the preponderance of the evidence, namely the upper limit on how long it would take to orbit Yavin (30 minutes at maximum velocity), the more accurate Death Star monitor display, and the fact that the Rebel display has some very serious flaws in it among other things.

You on the other hand, are focusing solely on the Rebel diagram to almost the exclusion of all other sources of information in the movie.

This supposed Imperial-Rebel monitor discrepancy is fiction of yours. Imperial monitor shows the view head on, Rebel one shows the view top down.

They aren't the same GCS, your handwaving tactics where the evidence is concerned not withstanding.

What handwaving? You assume that Galaxy classes shown in various scenes are not the same. To say that is your assumption and not evidence is not handwaving it is simply stating a fact.

Prove those are shadows, then. I've tried, and not gotten the neck to turn dark in such an oddly specific way like that. It certainly is odd that both ships in that scene have virtually identical shadowing given their relatively different orientations to the local main light source.

You don't get to declare a subclass just because the necks of two ships appear darker and then expect me to prove that they are in fact shadows. The fact that other shadows are similar casts additional doubt.

Observation of every battle we've seen in the war. The Galaxy wings are clearly at least two or more GCS operating together, not merely leading other starships around, though they could be doing that as well. The two GCS pouncing on the lone Galor is a great example of this.

What do you mean "leading other ships around"? When I say Galaxy class is the lead ship I don't mean other ships are following it around as puppies. Not to mention that in those scenes are too short to make any kind of determination about other ships following it or not.

No mere "shadow play" explains that odd a pattern on the neck. That may be what the FX crew was trying to create, but that is mere speculation. Please prove that they are shadows. Also your explanation is very seriously flawed given that there are other options for repair and upgrade for the GCS elsewhere in the Federation that make better sense from a deployment standpoint. Furthermore, each of the GCS shown appeared undamaged and were apparently fully operational and able to engage the Borg sphere.

Really? You know for a fact that shadow cannot explain the darker neck? The "odd pattern" could easily be shadow cast on the saucer from the shuttle hangars. And yes Galaxies appeared to be undamaged and fully operational.

I'am not talking about the connecting structures, though those would play a part in the final tally, I'am talking about the big (read larger than Borg cube) structures that are what Tuvok and the others are refering to in the dialog. There are at least "thousands" of those structures. Roughly a 120 km Death Star is worth some 33,000 3 km Borg cubes, if I did my math correctly. The structures seen in "Dark Frontier dwarfed the cube ships flying around near them. Some are cylinderical, others are more cube-shaped. If they are cubical, and are only half a km wider than a borg cube, then we would need some 21,000 of them to equal the DS1's volume.

To be conservative, let us say that by "thousands" that there are about 5 thousand of these large structures (the rough average between 2,000 and 9,999 possible structures). That's nearly one-fifth the DS1's volume right there.

Then the next thing to figure out is how many of at least tens of thousands of the connecting conduit structures there are, what their volumes are, and add that in to the equation.

Why do you assume that the cubes seen flying around are of the 3km type rather than 500m type?

The Federation does not have to match the physical size, since we know from episodes like "The Enemy" and "Tin Man", that a GCS is a rough match in firepower and can overmatch it in speed again validates the concept that the Federation concetrates it's efforts on quality for their ships, not making them bigger, though they certainly have the potential for making longer, wider starships. But my analogy shows that the Soviet navy did produce a full-deck carrier that in terms of size and mass is still very comparable to the largest of U.S. navy carriers. It would again be as though the Federation had built a 1,200 meter x 900 x 250 meter starship!

D'Deridex dimensions are misleading since it is mostly hollow. And again "very comparable" is not exactly the same is it? Can a Galaxy class drop Warbird's shield by 70% with a few shots? I don't think I ever saw anything like that.

Except that based on the glow, it is being shined on the dome structures from below, not the sides as you are implying.

How exactly can you know this?

No it isn't. Your own citation of the nacelle pylon shadow disproves your assertion. Look closely. The shadow cast by the nacelle pylon is not precisely the same on each ship. On the ship further from the camera, the shadow falls closer to the aft torpedo launcher, whereas the dark patch conforms to precisely the same area on each ship, an impossibility given the slight difference in the orientation of each ship to the light source and the fact that there is no object in the image which could possibly account for one of those shadows, let alone both. Not to mention that the dark area also conforms precisely to the contour of the engineering section's "cobra head" on the underside of the saucer, further strengthening my earlier explanation that these ships were designed with more protection for their engineering hulls. Part of that protection simply extends onto the saucer. These areas are not shadows. Period.

The ships alignement is not the same so the shadows will not be the same. Secondly there are various light sources in that scene. One is coming to the right shining on the Galaxies starboard secondary hull. The other is coming from the front and above creating the shadow on Miranda's saucer. It is perfectly possible that the latter light source produces more similar shadows than the former. A single scene showing two ships whose certain part appears darker than usual is perhaps the weakest evidence for a subclass I have ever seen.

Thanks. I looked over the Trekcore SOA screencaps, and you are right; there are at least 6 seperate Galaxy class starships in those screencaps. You say there are up to eight. If you get high-res screencaps of your own posted, I'd like to see you point them all out. If you are correct, that would make an average of up to 4 GCS per each Galaxy wing, or up to 28 GCS in all seven of the known fleets. Thirty one total GCS would have been built over all, if we were to include the 3 lost GCS from prior to the Dominion war.

Again you are piling one assumption after another: that "Galaxy wing" consists only of Galaxy class ships instead of simply being the lead ship and that each and every fleet has Galaxy class ships.

[Cocytus]

The ships alignement is not the same so the shadows will not be the same. Secondly there are various light sources in that scene. One is coming to the right shining on the Galaxies starboard secondary hull. The other is coming from the front and above creating the shadow on Miranda's saucer. It is perfectly possible that the latter light source produces more similar shadows than the former. A single scene showing two ships whose certain part appears darker than usual is perhaps the weakest evidence for a subclass I have ever seen.

You're right. The ship's alignment relative to the light source is not the same, and the shadows cast on them by the light source is not the same. But the dark patches ARE the same. They remain the same even as the ships move. And it's not just the necks. Look closely at the platform on which the bridge sits. To either side of it there are additional crescent-shaped patches, the right one of which faces the light source. Obviously that can't be a shadow. Those patches are also darker than the shadows cast by the star, which could only mean that the secondary ight source you proposed would have to be closer to the ships than the star, yet there is no concordant pattern of illumination which we would expect to be produced by that other light source. All of the illumination patterns in the image can be explained by a single light source, off to the upper right, even the patterns on the Mirandas' saucers. Remember the Miranda class has a raised, flat "shelf" consisting of several decks which takes up the back of the saucer. The right edge of those Miranda shadows conforms precisely to the outline of this feature. There is one light source in the image, and it cannot possibly cast shadows of that shape on those Galaxies. The conclusion, therefore, by all logic and sense, is that they are not shadows.

Think the evidence in favor of a subclass is flimsy? The evidence against it is even worse. Our assumption of more Galaxies is much more defendable than your assertion of another light source, moreover a light source in motion (since the patches don't change as the ships move) exotic objects (of a shape which conforms to no known Federation starship) to cast those shadows, and so on. In fact, the only thing I could possibly think of which could cast a shadow of that shape on those Galaxies is the detached Engineering hull of, you guessed it, another Galaxy.

Need further proof? Look at this screencap from Trekcore. http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/ ... ld_725.jpg
See the Galaxy? The Engineering hull and part of the underside of the saucer are noticeably darker than the rest of the saucer, the nacelle pylons, and the part of the neck we can see. Given another lone light source to the upper right, there is no way in hell the saucer would cast a shadow on the Engineering hull and not on the pylons or the neck.

When it comes to vs. debating, there is no such thing as absolute certainty. Can we prove with 100% certainty that those are not shadows? I suppose not. But the degree of certainty to which we can prove they are not is far greater than the degree of certainty to which you can prove they are, hence, our answer is the better one. We need only assume a subclass. As I said before, the number of tacit assumptions on which your position rests is much higher.

[Roondar]

Cocytus: I simply use Media Player snapshot option for screencapture. 8 galaxies if there was that many I haven't checked is still around "5 or so ballpark".

If there are 8 (and that is established by now as the minimum) your five or so figure is already of by ~40% Kane. You're claiming five or so because it sounds low.

If I'm going to take your 40%-error is okay attitude I could also claim there are "13 or so" and be equally correct. And when you then counter you've not seen 13 I'll say "8 is in the ballpark of 13 or so".

[Jedi Master Spock]

What arms can even be made out on the map? Radial rays are assumed to be degrees by you.

The one we're in. You can clearly make out the arm structure.

Excuse me if I don't accept your claims as fact. Justify this statement.

Diagrams can very easily contain small details that we are not expected to make out correctly in a few seconds.

However, for gross scale depictions, it should be generally accurate - and so it is, and in agreement with ST:FC, the Voyager map, and all other sources on the general scale of the Federation and "known space."

I repeat my demand: provide me evidence of Federation built space station with positioning thrusters.

Evidence has been provided that we may assume all Star Trek stations have positioning thrusters.

I wasn't complaining but stating a fact. As a matter of fact you provided no evidence as to how many sources should mention Death Star engines

Most of the ones with any level of detail.

An outlier compared to what other rotational data?

Observed rotation of the completed DS1. It is an "outlier" because it is (a) subject to enormous circumstantial error and (b) dramatically different from the other observed Death Star rotations.

Why do you put emphasis on DS2 being incomplete while disregarding the unknown completion of it's engines?

I don't. I consider both, and come to the logical conclusion.

Why do you consistently neglect the whole body of evidence here in favor of trying to give credence to a figure far above any actual observed Death Star rotation?

Which is before they start orbiting the planet. In fact it is even before they report to Tarkin on the exact location of the rebel base thus they don't even know where to accelerate at that point.

No they are not. That Earth is round is not an opinion is it since we have evidence?

It is an opinion. It happens also to be a correct opinion.

Then you have no idea how large they are.

They could be much bigger, yes. Which doesn't help you any.

It is not demonstrated. It is assumed by you.

No, it's demonstrated. Right there in the movie.

Scaling is from First Contact as camera zooms out from Picard.

So from one zoom, which you refuse to provide any actual figures for, you assume all Borg cubes have giant hollow spaces.

One zoom, from Picard's dream, correct?

Where is it stated that diagram is just pieces of plastic.

Nah, that's the effect used, IIRC. The bits were repositioned to created a new image (as seen onscreen - huge jump in position)... in periodically updated positions. In other words, creating huge rounding errors.

From these huge rounding errors, you're creating a point-by-point acceleration that's ridiculous.

Wrong. Death Star was stated to be orbiting at maximum velocity not acceleration. They later decided to speed up. Probably after detecting an attack they decided to accelerate and get it over with. Anything higher than 10g would get them faster but they didn't accelerate that fast before.

Maximum velocity implies maximum acceleration, and the inability to speed things up.

They use repulsorlift to maintain altitude. For horizontal motion they use various jet or ion engines. (Like pod racer)

Which is probe droids, whose primary method of locomotion is repulsorlifts, can only move up and down?

No, antigravity drive is not necessarily restricted to canceling out gravity, in spite of its name - it can also create a net acceleration.

Diagram is extremely high accuracy

Low, see above.

And it does not contradict the Imperial diagram since they call out the times consistently with the Rebels and we only see one component of the velocity: that which is perpendicular to the planet Yavin 4.

Which would look different if we had your acceleration timeline.

Why not?

Why didn't they just fly through Yavin's atmosphere?

"Big" and "slow" are relative terms. The point is that for it's size Death Star has excellent acceleration.

Actually, it doesn't.

Come now. Are we going to have a serious discussion or play games? You have snipped out my entire response just to respond your earlier claim with no reasoning whatsoever. You asked whether Death Star can dock with a space station. I answered yes if the station is big enough. This is true for any ship and any station. Why you insist on playing these evasive games every time you loose an argument is beyond me.

What docking capabilities has the Death Star? Only deeply recessed hangars within a trench for dealing with smaller craft.

What point? Death Star has turbolaser emplacements to fight off capital ships as well as proton torpedo launchers, rail guns etc. It also carries TIE fighters to fight off smaller starfighters. Thus it is a combat ship by any standards.

No more than a base with armed guards and turrets is a combat ship.

The fact that you preemptively insist on G canon source proves you already know other sources do indeed prove that Death Star is 99.999% hollow not the least of which is ICS:trilogy cut away diagram.

C level sources do not agree with one another on the interior structure of the Death Star. Not remotely.

Of course, as you pointed out, the ICS only shows a two dimensional "slice." By your earlier insistence that the engines could have simply been skipped, it could similarly be skipping the enormous empty spaces that make up everything more than a km or so on each side of that slice.

Please, consider consistency.

By "much more"? Much more what? Fragments? Again the fragments could easily be scattered across many kilometers especially if the craft started breaking up at higher altitude. Also "highly unlikely" doesn't really tell us anything except your opinion and I think we've heard enough of your opinions already.

Actually, it's pretty certain it broke up on impact, rather than in atmosphere. I don't believe we've seen a single Federation-level or higher vessel break up in atmosphere in all our crashes, which is quite something.

So they should "consider" it out loud or something? They scanned the area found a survivor and brought it to the ship. Secondly what is your point with the cubical part being identified as "wreckage of the ship"? Of course it is wreckage of the ship. That doesn't mean that's all of it.

"Oh, look, here's 0.01% of the wreckage of a craft that crashed here. Let's not look for any more survivors kilometers down the road, where we see the rest of the wreckage on our scanners..."

No, that's not plausible. What we see is the main part of the Borg scout ship.

So incredible that in "Fair Haven" Voyager's impulse engines were unable to outrace the "particle density anomaly" which was 15 hours away and closing at 200,000km/s. That is an acceleration of no more than 377g.

Reasonably calculated, although a bit off if we're going to account for relativistic effects. (That is two thirds of light speed.) Of course, we could also say that impulse is limited in its net velocity shift due to limitations on the warp field increase, which would help explain the incident in isolation (while, of course, still conflicting with BoBW.)

"Fair Haven," however, is on the low end of estimates. Other estimates place impulse as giving much higher acceleration.

And how does this prevent you to answer those errors in one paragraph?

I had doubts that you would answer anywhere near all of my objections placed in paragraph form. You do not seem to understand them well enough.

I just explained it to you. The ship is rigid. How exactly do you propose the inertial compensator will accelerate the ship? The only way to do it is to break it apart so that all parts close in to the compensator. This is pretty simple stuff here.

No, that's not the only way.

Only if they are elastically deformed. Do you really don't understand buildings are straining under gravity or are you just playing games? Maybe another example. If you put on a backpack filled with led you will feel enormous strain on your shoulders. It doesn't matter than both you and the backpack are in the same uniform gravity field.

But if I'm free-falling - i.e., I and the backpack are accelerating uniformly due to the same field - I don't.

Which you can't be bothered to explain right now right?

Which I have tried to explain to you at length.

Yes you are. Try stepping on an egg while you are riding either up or down in an elevator. You'll find your feet are still providing pressure and that egg will most definitely be exposed to stress.

I believe our elevator example under question was the classic "falling elevator" problem. In which case you and the egg will both remain perfectly in position relative to each other without placing pressure on each other (neglecting air resistance outside the elevator.)

How will his force be distributed to the entire ship? Again simple uniform area effect force will not do this.

Again, the problem is generating as close to uniform acceleration using the field in question as possible, not a necessarily globally uniform force field (simply locally uniform).

In a perfect momentum-violating "gravity drive" system, that means no strain whatsoever. In a normal thrust-based system, that means "strain" is transmitted uniformly to the entire ship. If you can generate an arbitrary enclosed g field distribution, this is quite doable.

[Kane Starkiller]

The one we're in. You can clearly make out the arm structure.

Actually no I can't. We see an arm which appears to stop somewhere around Remus. Whether it the denser starfield inside the map is continuation of the arm or something much closer to the camera can't be determined.

Diagrams can very easily contain small details that we are not expected to make out correctly in a few seconds.

However, for gross scale depictions, it should be generally accurate - and so it is, and in agreement with ST:FC, the Voyager map, and all other sources on the general scale of the Federation and "known space."

You stated that position of ALL real stars are wrong which is not a minor detail . But you completely miss the point. If the positions of the stars are all unreliable then how can we know what this map represents? If Tau Ceti is not where it is shown, if Deneb is not where it is shown etc. then how do we know Earth is where it is shown or Cardassia or Vulcan? The map is useless.

Evidence has been provided that we may assume all Star Trek stations have positioning thrusters.

No it hasn't. You provided evidence that one station has maneuvering thrusters. Just because one white male is president of USA doesn't mean that all white males are presidents of USA.

Most of the ones with any level of detail.

ICS shows them curiously. But again justify your opinion that most of the ones should.

Observed rotation of the completed DS1. It is an "outlier" because it is (a) subject to enormous circumstantial error and (b) dramatically different from the other observed Death Star rotations.

What other Death Star rotations? Name them and explain why they should've been rotating as fast as possible then.

I don't. I consider both, and come to the logical conclusion.

Why do you consistently neglect the whole body of evidence here in favor of trying to give credence to a figure far above any actual observed Death Star rotation?

What body of evidence? Your insistence to treat the rotation of an incomplete station as an upper limit?

It is an opinion. It happens also to be a correct opinion.

No, that Earth is round is a fact.

They could be much bigger, yes. Which doesn't help you any.

Bigger than what? You have absolutely no information so why did you bring them up in the first place?

No, it's demonstrated. Right there in the movie.

Right where? We saw a grand total of two shafts in that movie. Anything else is your assumption.

So from one zoom, which you refuse to provide any actual figures for, you assume all Borg cubes have giant hollow spaces.

One zoom, from Picard's dream, correct?

See the scene for yourself it ends up with the width of more than a kilometer. It is from the initial flashback scene, Picard's dream is the one on board Enterprise-E with Borg implant piercing his cheek.

Nah, that's the effect used, IIRC. The bits were repositioned to created a new image (as seen onscreen - huge jump in position)... in periodically updated positions. In other words, creating huge rounding errors.

From these huge rounding errors, you're creating a point-by-point acceleration that's ridiculous.

I'm not interested in out of universe discussions. Star Destroyers, TIEs and Death Stars are also pieces of plastic.

Maximum velocity implies maximum acceleration, and the inability to speed things up.

No it doesn't. Velocity is not the same as acceleration. They were orbiting the planet at maximum velocity, the velocity at which Death Star won't fly away from Yavin.

Which is probe droids, whose primary method of locomotion is repulsorlifts, can only move up and down?

No, antigravity drive is not necessarily restricted to canceling out gravity, in spite of its name - it can also create a net acceleration.

And you, of course, have evidence Probe droids didn't have jet or ion engines?

Diagram is extremely high accuracy

Low, see above.

I've seen your appeals to out of universe fact that it's all just plastic. It is completely irrelevant.

Which would look different if we had your acceleration timeline.

So you claim.

Why didn't they just fly through Yavin's atmosphere?

It would slow them down, probably blind their sensors.

"Big" and "slow" are relative terms. The point is that for it's size Death Star has excellent acceleration.

Actually, it doesn't.

It's comparable to Voyager's.

What docking capabilities has the Death Star? Only deeply recessed hangars within a trench for dealing with smaller craft.

What "capabilities" do you need? You pull up next to the station and have an air duct extend to the Death Star and you're done.

No more than a base with armed guards and turrets is a combat ship.

You are going in circles. You say Death Star is immobile, I prove it isn't. You claim that it cannot engage smaller ships, I prove that it can.
You revert back to your original claim that it's just a immobile base.

C level sources do not agree with one another on the interior structure of the Death Star. Not remotely.

Of course, as you pointed out, the ICS only shows a two dimensional "slice." By your earlier insistence that the engines could have simply been skipped, it could similarly be skipping the enormous empty spaces that make up everything more than a km or so on each side of that slice.

Please, consider consistency.

The only one being inconsistent is you. Namely by equating the omission of engines which constitute perhaps 0.001% of the volume with omission of the huge empty spaces which constitute 99.9999% of the volume. Not to mention that the same assumption can then be applied to every ship in every sci fi universe.

Actually, it's pretty certain it broke up on impact, rather than in atmosphere. I don't believe we've seen a single Federation-level or higher vessel break up in atmosphere in all our crashes, which is quite something.

But we never saw this particular craft nor do we know what brought it down.

"Oh, look, here's 0.01% of the wreckage of a craft that crashed here. Let's not look for any more survivors kilometers down the road, where we see the rest of the wreckage on our scanners..."

No, that's not plausible. What we see is the main part of the Borg scout ship.

Your invented dilogue proves nothing. They scanned the surface and detected one survivor. What was the status of other pieces of Borg ship? For all we know that piece was the single largest fragment.

Reasonably calculated, although a bit off if we're going to account for relativistic effects. (That is two thirds of light speed.) Of course, we could also say that impulse is limited in its net velocity shift due to limitations on the warp field increase, which would help explain the incident in isolation (while, of course, still conflicting with BoBW.)

"Fair Haven," however, is on the low end of estimates. Other estimates place impulse as giving much higher acceleration.

At 2/3 c time dilation will not exceed factor 1.34 so things will not change dramatically. What other cases are there that demonstratably don't involve warp engines?

Again, the problem is generating as close to uniform acceleration using the field in question as possible, not a necessarily globally uniform force field (simply locally uniform).

In a perfect momentum-violating "gravity drive" system, that means no strain whatsoever. In a normal thrust-based system, that means "strain" is transmitted uniformly to the entire ship. If you can generate an arbitrary enclosed g field distribution, this is quite doable.

Show it then. Show me the model under which you can generate a local uniform field around Jango which will somehow have it transmit the necessary 500 billion N from backpack through his body and to the ship yet somehow nullifying the stress that backpack exerts on Jango's body and that Jango's body exerts on the ship's wall.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Actually no I can't.

And I can. It has a defined width, with a defined low-brightness area in front and behind.
[qquote]You stated that position of ALL real stars are wrong which is not a minor detail . But you completely miss the point. If the positions of the stars are all unreliable then how can we know what this map represents? If Tau Ceti is not where it is shown, if Deneb is not where it is shown etc. then how do we know Earth is where it is shown or Cardassia or Vulcan? The map is useless.[/quote]
Not at all. The map is accurate as a gross scale representation of the Federation. Just like a poorly labeled map of the US that has "VIRGINIA" scrawled across the West Coast and "CALIFORNIA" painted into Oklahoma.

No it hasn't. You provided evidence that one station has maneuvering thrusters. Just because one white male is president of USA doesn't mean that all white males are presidents of USA.

Because one randomly selected white male happens to have a hat, however, leads us to expect that other white males are reasonably likely to have hats.

We have next to no evidence, of course - but it is on my side here.

ICS shows them curiously. But again justify your opinion that most of the ones should.

Because it's an important feature if they are of any size.

What other Death Star rotations? Name them and explain why they should've been rotating as fast as possible then.

Alderaan and Yavin approaches. (Minimal observed rotation in the latter case, of course.)

Time is always of the essence. There is no reason to rotate haphazardly if you are going to bother to.

What body of evidence?

The much slower DS1 rotation.

No, that Earth is round is a fact.

And an opinion. Opinions can be factual, counterfactual, or indeterminate, Kane, and remain in all cases opinions. The notion that the two sets are mutually exclusive is an example of the second category - a counterfactual opinion.

Bigger than what? You have absolutely no information so why did you bring them up in the first place?

Than the minimum figures I mentioned. As with everything, our information is limited... but again, what little we have is strongly in my corner. Death Star full of giant open spaces? Sure, just look inside.

Right where? We saw a grand total of two shafts in that movie. Anything else is your assumption.

Two? I count at least three large vacant spaces.

In ROTJ, we see a similar sample of the incomplete DS2's interior, and not all of the wide open spaces seem to be a product of its incompleteness.

See the scene for yourself it ends up with the width of more than a kilometer. It is from the initial flashback scene, Picard's dream is the one on board Enterprise-E with Borg implant piercing his cheek.

Is this is with the cube that nobody can agree on the scaling of?

And a dream sequence, to boot. You would not accept this as evidence. However, I would like to see what you're scaling this against. Especially because my rough scan gives about a kilometer tall, meaning the whole space is... 4 km or so... wider than you'd like to scale the BOBW cube.

I'm not interested in out of universe discussions. Star Destroyers, TIEs and Death Stars are also pieces of plastic.

Perhaps the "updated periodically" and "massive rounding error" bit should draw your attention? Look, check the sequence where we first see the diagram... and see it blip forward a significant angle in an instant. This is not a real-time continuous-motion display.

No it doesn't. Velocity is not the same as acceleration. They were orbiting the planet at maximum velocity, the velocity at which Death Star won't fly away from Yavin.

Yes, it does. See, if you're heading at maximum possible velocity to the target, you're using maximum possible acceleration, whether your maximal velocity curve is constant speed (and circular) or not.

And you, of course, have evidence Probe droids didn't have jet or ion engines?

Again, such are not seen. The probe droid hovers on its repulsorlifts, the only drive it is described as having.

Then we have Watto. Watto's belt is a repulsorbelt, but again, capable of lateral motion (the tiny wings are clearly not enough to push him around at his weight.)

Then we have all other craft and droids described as driven by repulsors.

In short, a great heaping pile of evidence indicates repulsors are useful for more than "maintaining altitude." They are sources of real positive thrust.

So you claim.

Factually. You're relying on a very dramatic shift in apparent acceleration based on a ridiculous level of rounding error in a slow-updating Rebel position chart.

Look. If we count the position chart as being absolutely accurate in time, then we have to deal with the Death Star teleporting when we see it update.

It would slow them down, probably blind their sensors.

Conceal them from the Rebels, and dramatically drop the distance traveled.

It's comparable to Voyager's.

Even at its slowest, Voyager is a hundred times as nimble.

What "capabilities" do you need? You pull up next to the station and have an air duct extend to the Death Star and you're done.

What air duct?

The Death Star is something you dock ships to.

You are going in circles. You say Death Star is immobile, I prove it isn't.

You claim it isn't, and engage in fallacy.

You claim that it cannot engage smaller ships, I prove that it can.

It cannot effectively engage them. It can only be engaged by them... again, just as a space station.

The only one being inconsistent is you.

Nope. Your appeal to "Well, it must just coincidentally have missed notice, even though it's one of the handful of features that actually affect its performance" is just as silly as insisting that truly enormous hollow spaces are just missing notice.

But we never saw this particular craft nor do we know what brought it down.

But we do know that it crashlanded. We also know that Borg vessels are tough by Federation standards, in which we would see... one piece of wreckage for a downed shuttle.

Your invented dilogue proves nothing.

It shows absurdity. You're inventing reams of things offscreen which should by all rights be seen in order to justify trying to ignore the simple reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

Which, in brief, suggests that Borg ships have a bulk density that tends towards the high end.

At 2/3 c time dilation will not exceed factor 1.34 so things will not change dramatically.

You did report three digits.

What other cases are there that demonstratably don't involve warp engines?

BOBW. TPM. "The Naked Now." "The First Duty." "Relics." "Doctor's Orders." Even DS9 itself is rated for up to 500+ g in the pilot episode. "The 37s." "Demon." "Elogium," probably, if I quantify it carefully.

And then there's "Parallax." Which we should probably ignore.

Show it then. Show me the model under which you can generate a local uniform field around Jango which will somehow have it transmit the necessary 500 billion N from backpack through his body and to the ship yet somehow nullifying the stress that backpack exerts on Jango's body and that Jango's body exerts on the ship's wall.

Simple. Jango has a total force of -500 GN applied directly and evenly to the appropriate parts of his jetpack (this excepts the propellant, of course) and then something like +5 KN applied evenly to every atom in his body, accelerating him alongside the ship, which receives the remaining +499.995 GN, distributed evenly through its structure. Net accelerative force contributed by the compensator: 0.

Net thrust: 500 GN.

Stress: 0, give or take some change.

Of course, if you have a minor error in distribution, Jango gets to push against the wall a little, but under no circumstances is this even the full original 500 GN force, let alone the 1000 GN you seem to think it should be. Even if your gradient is limited, you can use this to substantially reduce stress problems - as you see, what we effectively do is take away the force in one spot and apply it to the rest.