Construction of ships in both verses
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
Indonesia is a more apt analogy.Kane Starkiller wrote:Who says the Federation was, on the whole, expanding? We see it visit a colony here and there and founded some but then again we've seen it loose planets like Tasha Jar's colony. Why should we assume the number of planets must always go up?
Why exactly does existence of borders and territory imply there are no separate chunks? Last I checked Indonesia had borders and territory as did Japan or UK or US or France. All we know that certain two planets in the Federation are 8000ly apart.
The expansion of the Federation is a given from both interior and exterior sources. The Federation adds new members over time (including some very large civilizations, such as the Xindi) and, for all that many colonies fail upon starting up, seems to keep or expand many of its colonies (e.g., Cestus III). The Klingon Empire and Federation were mainly in conflict over their mutual expansion efforts within the same area (see TOS through STVI); in spite of the Klingon Empire's continual military expansion, its growth has been outstripped by the Federation's ("Yesterday's Enterprise").
Because of the resolution expected of these charts is of the order of a rogue Earth-sized planetary body (see "Squire of Gothos").Actually the full name of the Deneb is Deneb Adige but it is often contracted since it is best known. In the future if other Deneb was colonized it could likely be contracted itself since it would become more known. Secondly who says that when Kosinski or Wesely talked about percentage of the galaxy that is charted only took into account most detailed sensor sweeps?
I won't excuse you for ignoring the list of reasons explained.You'll excuse me if I deem your self proclaimed expertise as irrelevant.
Nothing... if the Federation used antigravity drive. There's no indication that the Federation has developed this technology to the degree seen in Star Wars.And what prevents Starbases to use the same antigravity engines to slightly shift their position over decades?
We are talking about starbases - and by your loose standards of definition, it is a Federation starship.Our single example is not a Federation starship.
I repeat... what evidence do we have of tender fleets?Any ship passing by and equipped with a tractor beam could be used to change the position of the starbase when orbital decay is detected.
As I said, you're claiming far too much precision from the diagram. It does not show what you claim it to show (high acceleration) because of this lack of precision.You are outright lying. It is one thing to say that diagram is wrong but to outright deny what it shows is nothing less than a lie.
Assuming that its turning rate represents a possible turning rate for a completed similar battle station is reasonable.Assuming an incomplete ship can provide a an estimation of top turning rate is not reasonable.
For fighters? In their 7-13 minute approach to the Death Star's firing position. If you want to talk about outer limits, the outer limits are roughly 19-360g, with the upper end of that range being the more plausible in and of themselves... i.e., the small fighters that outpace and outmaneuver every other craft in Star Wars would not have been able to outrun the shockwave that Voyager couldn't, even if they had enough propellant on board to run the engines at maximum for that long. Which I would doubt.Specify. Where exactly are upper limits on starship acceleration observed in the films?
Given that canyons are irrelevant to the function of anything we've seen, it's a reasonable assumption.So what? They were still aiming for specific parts of the Death Star. You are making a completely unreasonable assumptions that equipment inside Death Star is uniformly dispersed throughout the ship. That is like expecting fuel tanks will be dispersed throughout a car or an airplane.
It's been demonstrated to be in Picard's head. You can call it a dream or a replayed memory if you like... but it's been pretty well demonstrated to be part of a dream.What you will trust is your business it doesn't change the fact you haven't proven any unreliability nor that it is in fact a dream sequence.
I have. It appears circular, therefore it probably is circular.You have not shown why that is realistic.
I'd like to see the evidence for this. Evidence indicates Borg constructions are either completely symmetric objects, or completely asymmetric conglomerations.It is also a remarkable coincidence a camera will be positioned inside a 8 billion ly wide universe to give as a view of various space battles. Secondly some Borg constructs are symmetric others are not. Some objects are symmetric on certain sides, on others they are not.
Which you have scaled as smaller than that, correct?It is obviously from the cube seen in BOBW.
We do not know that the update gives the precise position of the Death Star at 5 minutes, 15 minutes, etc. Acceleration figures derived therefrom (even ignoring the pixel counting, perspective, and diagram resolution errors) are practically worthless.The accuracy between intervals is irrelevant since we see the updates. Update in position is simultaneous with the time update. Thus we know exactly where Death Star is 15 minutes, 5 minutes and 1 minute before firing. The fact that position was not updated for 14,13,12 or 7 minute is irrelevant.
Aside from the probe droid (no thrusters there) Watto (wings not sufficient in size or speed) we can add repulsor tanks, Jabba's sail barge, TIE tanks, repulsorpacks, gravsleds, Jabba's throne, etc.You'll also notice that R2D2's engines are referred to as "anti-grav" boosters even though they obviously also involved a reaction drive. You still haven't provided any evidence repulsorlift alone can provide lateral motion.
They obviously had no intention of getting anywhere near the gas giant's atmosphere. Hence, not built for dealing with atmosphere.Why? It didn't even come close to the surface in the films. They obviously had no intention of cutting the trip as short as possible.
It's not a power supply issue (although Voyager was running low on power, as usual) but a raw propellant issue. Which, we will note, it is possible Voyager was short on that, too, or was unable to generate a full-strength field for greater impulse shift.Indeed Federation starship is unlikely to have a power supply sufficient for the required change in energy state however that doesn't change anything since your near C acceleration in a few minutes or hours are just as contradicted by the incident.
Has it occurred to you that size is one of the characteristics used to sort objects?These games of yours prove nothing. What docks into what is determined by their size not by their "starshipness" or "stationisness".
Similar products using repulsorlifts are described in the EU, actually...It is you who has to prove antigrav has certain capabilities in the first place. As databank states repulsorlift pushes against the gravity field. Why does R2D2 or Jango use rocket packs to move around then?
... and one of the characteristics of hovering repulsorcraft as described in the SWRPG is that they don't change altitude much.
They needed it within a day, and it took quite some time to make the modifications, did it not? If we did not have any ETA, or any references placing the completion of the modifications before anything, we wouldn't really have much of an upper limit on the acceleration.It is not a range just because at one point O'Brien states the remaining time. Using that logic if we didn't hear O'Brien give any ETA the lower limit would be 0 and acceleration infinite. All we know they needed it within a day.
None? I seriously doubt that.Two are ICS and Death Star companion and there are no disagreements.
And was moving how many times its length per second?The relative speed can be easily observed by watching the Generations. Saucer is less than it's width above the ground and it still takes 10 seconds to impact the ground.
The ship was embedded, indicating a high velocity impact.Jem'Hadar crash was never seen and again the ship was completely parallel to the ground indicating another low angle impact.
And that's another thing. Trek ships don't break up in atmosphere.You explained nothing especially not why a ship that could easily be moving at several km/s and breaking up above ground could not be dispersed over many kilometers.
Ah, they were flying in a circle at that point in the maneuver. Hence, 80,000 kph in a tight circle.I've examined the episode and there is no mention of them flying at 80,000kph during the maneuver merely they were flying at 80,000kph relative to a certain point during the flight. They were all in formation so it wasn't relative to each other.
You can justify it that way if you like.Really and away team always works and tracks time within the relativistic frame of a starship as opposed the other way around? In any case this is up to you to prove.
Voyager's impulse engines, under certain circumstances.Except we know impulse can't reach 200,000km/s in 15 hours. Yet suddenly it can somehow accelerate beyond light speed? How exactly? Do relativistic calculations apply to impulse acceleration as you keep implying above? If so then do you realize it can never accelerate beyond light speed?
As I have pointed out, consistency is not the strong suit of Voyager, or of the treatment of impulse engines on the whole. We are obliged to go with the bulk of material, rather than the exceptional low-lying outlier.
Ultimately, they don't. Because the projectors aren't doing any net work, or providing any net momentum change, and so have no net recoil requiring them to brace against anything.It doesn't. A single source is introduced for simplicity. If you want model with more sources go right ahead. Ultimately projectors need to be braced somewhere. Explain where they will be located.
Not quite. That's a bit of a misquote. If Jango's thrust is 5 kN, applying a net force of 5 kN, distributed to each individual atom of the jetpack (that's a very small fraction of a newton per atom) pretty well locks the jetpack in position.You mean that ridiculous post where you said 5 kN per atom will solve the problem?
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am
No, what you discovered there is in actuality a shadow. The light source is in the proper position to cast it per the illumination, and the shape of the shadow is what we might expect from the underside of the saucer. None of which is true of the supposed Galaxy shadows, meaning they can't really be shadows. If the evidence does not support a conclusion, it might just be time to formulate a conclusion which the evidence does fit. We've done that, you haven't. If you can think of something else that might account for those dark patches I'd love to hear it. Shadows just don't work, however.Kane Starkiller wrote:Well if you say so then it must be true. Curiously I seem to have discovered an unknown subclass of Federation starship:2046 wrote:Dear Kane Starkiller,
1. If you want people to believe your arguments about esoteric, abstract details of Star Trek and Star Wars, it would be best not to deny simpler, obvious, plainly-visible things like the dark-neck Galaxy. You can reject what others claim it means, but to reject the obvious fact itself is rather directly Black-Knight-esque.
Look at those three Mirandas above Defiant.
It must be the new dark-portside-undersaucer subclass.
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
We have no idea whether Indonesia or France or Marshall Islands are more apt in describing Federation as a whole.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Indonesia is a more apt analogy.
The expansion of the Federation is a given from both interior and exterior sources. The Federation adds new members over time (including some very large civilizations, such as the Xindi) and, for all that many colonies fail upon starting up, seems to keep or expand many of its colonies (e.g., Cestus III). The Klingon Empire and Federation were mainly in conflict over their mutual expansion efforts within the same area (see TOS through STVI); in spite of the Klingon Empire's continual military expansion, its growth has been outstripped by the Federation's ("Yesterday's Enterprise").
As for expansion again you provide no evidence that Federation as a whole expanded over the years between TOS and TNG. Russia also expanded during past centuries that doesn't mean it's todays borders are larger than those of Russian Empire 100 years ago. Russian Empire was also often in conflict with the British Empire (Great Game). This also doesn't mean that British Empire's successor the UK is as big.
I don't get the reference to Yesterday's Enterprise. It showed only that Klingons were kicking Federation ass.
So what? We are charting the galaxy today and no one assumes that it involves mapping every last asteroid.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Because of the resolution expected of these charts is of the order of a rogue Earth-sized planetary body (see "Squire of Gothos").
The list of reasons which consist of your self proclaimed expertise.Jedi Master Spock wrote:I won't excuse you for ignoring the list of reasons explained.
Especially strong engines are not necessary. Merely something that will correct the orbit from time to time as decay is detected.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Nothing... if the Federation used antigravity drive. There's no indication that the Federation has developed this technology to the degree seen in Star Wars.
No it isn't since we haven't seen a single Federation starbase move. DS9 did it but it nearly broke apart and it is still two times smaller than an ISD.Jedi Master Spock wrote:We are talking about starbases - and by your loose standards of definition, it is a Federation starship.
You evade you mean. I repeat: specialized tender "fleets" are not neccesary. Any nearby Miranda, Oberth, Galaxy, Excelsior etc. can be called up by an Admiral and commanded to shift the position of a starbase when decay is noted.Jedi Master Spock wrote:I repeat... what evidence do we have of tender fleets?
You have absolutely no evidence it is imprecise. Infrequent update does mean the Death Star's position when updated is incorrect.Jedi Master Spock wrote:As I said, you're claiming far too much precision from the diagram. It does not show what you claim it to show (high acceleration) because of this lack of precision.
Well there you go. A possible turning rate not an upper limit or an upper range.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Assuming that its turning rate represents a possible turning rate for a completed similar battle station is reasonable.
Actually no. The scene immediately after the X-Wings take off shows Rebel command room and we hear the 15 minute time estimate. X-Wing engage the Death Star before the 7 minute ETA is announced. Thus the lower limit cannot be determined other than a few seconds.Jedi Master Spock wrote:For fighters? In their 7-13 minute approach to the Death Star's firing position. If you want to talk about outer limits, the outer limits are roughly 19-360g, with the upper end of that range being the more plausible in and of themselves... i.e., the small fighters that outpace and outmaneuver every other craft in Star Wars would not have been able to outrun the shockwave that Voyager couldn't, even if they had enough propellant on board to run the engines at maximum for that long. Which I would doubt.
Again you miss the point. Shafts serve some function. There is absolutely no reason to assume they are spread equidistantly on the Death Star any more a ship propeller can be assumed to spread across the ship.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Given that canyons are irrelevant to the function of anything we've seen, it's a reasonable assumption.
How exactly has it been demonstrated? Because scene that follows it is a dream? What if a dream occurs in the middle of a movie? Is everything preceding it a dream too?Jedi Master Spock wrote:It's been demonstrated to be in Picard's head. You can call it a dream or a replayed memory if you like... but it's been pretty well demonstrated to be part of a dream.
There is absolutely no way you can make that determination from our perspective.Jedi Master Spock wrote:I have. It appears circular, therefore it probably is circular.
It is you who needs to provide evidence it is circular since you are using that assumption to claim Borg cube needs to be of a certain size. All I'm saying is that it doesn't have to.Jedi Master Spock wrote:I'd like to see the evidence for this. Evidence indicates Borg constructions are either completely symmetric objects, or completely asymmetric conglomerations.
No I have shown the scaling is unreliable. Some scenes point to size over 3km other less than 1km.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Which you have scaled as smaller than that, correct?
No they are not. There is absolutely no reason to assume the position seen at declared times are incorrect. You are welcome to prove otherwise. Until then we have positions and times. We can't determine whether the acceleration between the updates has been constant but we can calculate the average acceleration. I already accounted for diagram perspective by measuring Yavin's heigth to width ratio. Pixel error counting won't be enough to drastically alter the acceleration.Jedi Master Spock wrote:We do not know that the update gives the precise position of the Death Star at 5 minutes, 15 minutes, etc. Acceleration figures derived therefrom (even ignoring the pixel counting, perspective, and diagram resolution errors) are practically worthless.
Prove all those objects didn't have additional jet, propeller or ion engines. Prove that Watto's wings are not enough to move him laterally once repulsorlift has him airborne.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Aside from the probe droid (no thrusters there) Watto (wings not sufficient in size or speed) we can add repulsor tanks, Jabba's sail barge, TIE tanks, repulsorpacks, gravsleds, Jabba's throne, etc.
You missed the point. They could come closer than they did and not encounter any significant atmosphere. They obviously weren't interested.Jedi Master Spock wrote:They obviously had no intention of getting anywhere near the gas giant's atmosphere. Hence, not built for dealing with atmosphere.
You have no evidence whether or not it was a power supply issue and I don't remember anyone commenting Voyager was particularly low on energy at that time.Jedi Master Spock wrote:It's not a power supply issue (although Voyager was running low on power, as usual) but a raw propellant issue. Which, we will note, it is possible Voyager was short on that, too, or was unable to generate a full-strength field for greater impulse shift.
Yes but since this object can move then it is a starship. Your ridiculous "whoops there are no larger spacestations that we've seen therefore it can't dock inside them therefore it is not a starship" game notwithstanding.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Has it occurred to you that size is one of the characteristics used to sort objects?
Yes and? Repulsorlift lifts the craft and the engine pushes it.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Similar products using repulsorlifts are described in the EU, actually...
... and one of the characteristics of hovering repulsorcraft as described in the SWRPG is that they don't change altitude much.
Yes they took some time and the station was still at a risk of breaking down. Thus there was absolutely no reason to cut the trip down to 3 hours if a day was enough.Jedi Master Spock wrote:They needed it within a day, and it took quite some time to make the modifications, did it not? If we did not have any ETA, or any references placing the completion of the modifications before anything, we wouldn't really have much of an upper limit on the acceleration.
What discrepancy can there be? There is a cross section of Death Star in ICS with a line pointing to ion engines and ion engine reactors and corresponding labels.Jedi Master Spock wrote:None? I seriously doubt that.
This was the speed component parallel to the ground which will not dictated collision exchange of energy and momentum. This is why ski jumpers don't break their legs. They are moving very fast but nearly parallel to the ground.Jedi Master Spock wrote:And was moving how many times its length per second?
The ship was actually covered in some kind of sand. It could've easily slided near to a cliff, hit it and have the loose dirt bury it.Jedi Master Spock wrote:The ship was embedded, indicating a high velocity impact.
This has to be the most unscientific statement from you yet. "Trek ships" don't break up in atmosphere? You do realize that there are many kind of ships that can hit the atmosphere at different speeds and angle which will change the impact energy by many orders of magnitude? Also these ships can have different amount of damage prior to reaching atmosphere.Jedi Master Spock wrote:And that's another thing. Trek ships don't break up in atmosphere.
No. 80,000kph figure is mentioned only once as the cadets were giving false testimony. Later we find out that they were not doing what they were supposed to. Nowhere is it mentioned or implied that the actual Kolvoord Starburst involves such relative speeds.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Ah, they were flying in a circle at that point in the maneuver. Hence, 80,000 kph in a tight circle.
I don't. The away team didn't even know what speed will the Enterprise reach.Jedi Master Spock wrote:You can justify it that way if you like.
In other words when it suits your purposes you'll use the relativistic equations to produce high accelerations but on other occasions you'll assume that impulse engines actually are not constrained by relativistic equations. This is not an outlier unless we accept your various assumptions and selective theories.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Voyager's impulse engines, under certain circumstances.
As I have pointed out, consistency is not the strong suit of Voyager, or of the treatment of impulse engines on the whole. We are obliged to go with the bulk of material, rather than the exceptional low-lying outlier.
How do they not do any work when they keep the people from splattering across the wall? Yo do realize that just because you are not providing any momentum change you still need to be braced if you are acting on that object with force? Try to push a wall while standing on ice and you'll see what I mean. Force projectors push various objects and are at the same time pushing themselves against them thanks to Newton's third law.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Ultimately, they don't. Because the projectors aren't doing any net work, or providing any net momentum change, and so have no net recoil requiring them to brace against anything.
You still haven't provided things I asked. In what direction is the force being applied by the inertial compensator heading? Do you realize that 500 GN force will push the 5.5*10^10kg ship at a rate of 1g but it will tend to push Jango, a 100kg human, at 5 billion g? Do you realize that therefore, in order to save Jango from jetpack splattering it across the rear wall, you need to accelerate the ship at 5 billion g? Do you realize what further problems this causes?Jedi Master Spock wrote:Not quite. That's a bit of a misquote. If Jango's thrust is 5 kN, applying a net force of 5 kN, distributed to each individual atom of the jetpack (that's a very small fraction of a newton per atom) pretty well locks the jetpack in position.
You simply state your claims as if they are fact. Why cannot Galaxy have such a shape of shadow? Let me remind you that the only shape determined by a light source is that on the saucer behind the shuttlebay. The "shape" on the neck is determined by the neck itself, namely entire back of the neck is in shadow.Cocytus wrote:No, what you discovered there is in actuality a shadow. The light source is in the proper position to cast it per the illumination, and the shape of the shadow is what we might expect from the underside of the saucer. None of which is true of the supposed Galaxy shadows, meaning they can't really be shadows. If the evidence does not support a conclusion, it might just be time to formulate a conclusion which the evidence does fit. We've done that, you haven't. If you can think of something else that might account for those dark patches I'd love to hear it. Shadows just don't work, however.
Notice the Miranda down and to the left of the screencap you linked to. It also has a shadow cast on it in the same direction as the two Galaxies.
There is simply no way you can use a single scene showing two ships with slightly darker part of the hull to claim they represent a different subclass.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
I do, actually.Kane Starkiller wrote:As for expansion again you provide no evidence that Federation as a whole expanded over the years between TOS and TNG.
Right. A quarter century before, the Klingon Empire was closer in size to the UFP, which has been adding members left and right without members more than threatening to withdraw.Russia also expanded during past centuries that doesn't mean it's todays borders are larger than those of Russian Empire 100 years ago. Russian Empire was also often in conflict with the British Empire (Great Game). This also doesn't mean that British Empire's successor the UK is as big.
I don't get the reference to Yesterday's Enterprise. It showed only that Klingons were kicking Federation ass.
What kind of charts are we talking about? Navigational charts for warp-capable ships. These charts need rogue-planet level resolution, which is why Kirk expects that kind of resolution from them.So what? We are charting the galaxy today and no one assumes that it involves mapping every last asteroid.
Reread the list, please.The list of reasons which consist of your self proclaimed expertise.
Engines that provide thrust do. There's no indication that Federation antigravity systems are capable of vectoring thrust, unlike Star Wars systems.Especially strong engines are not necessary. Merely something that will correct the orbit from time to time as decay is detected.
DS9 was also in terrible shape at the time.No it isn't since we haven't seen a single Federation starbase move. DS9 did it but it nearly broke apart and it is still two times smaller than an ISD.
On a regular basis? And what happens when things go haywire? Wait for the nearest busy starship to drop everything and tweak a starbase's orbit? That doesn't make any sense compared to putting small cm/s^2 range thrusters on the station, as seen on DS9... which, through the application of a warp field, can provide more acceleration than the Death Star could possibly have.You evade you mean. I repeat: specialized tender "fleets" are not neccesary. Any nearby Miranda, Oberth, Galaxy, Excelsior etc. can be called up by an Admiral and commanded to shift the position of a starbase when decay is noted.
I do.You have absolutely no evidence it is imprecise.
Upper limit, no. Upper range, yes.Well there you go. A possible turning rate not an upper limit or an upper range.
The 7 minute ETA can be clocked as being very close to the time at which the fighters actually started skimming the surface of the Death Star. It's before any of them got into the target trench, and for reasons of distance, a very short time from that.Actually no. The scene immediately after the X-Wings take off shows Rebel command room and we hear the 15 minute time estimate. X-Wing engage the Death Star before the 7 minute ETA is announced. Thus the lower limit cannot be determined other than a few seconds.
It's also announced a little over two minutes before the Rebels announce the Death Star will be in position in five minutes, and the Y-Wings begin their attack run. Want to calculate the average speed of a Y-Wing while flying around the Death Star? Two minutes at a kilometer per second will bring them to the trench pretty easily - and the more acceleration they're capable of, the more quickly they should reach the trench entrance.
So review. The fighters launch between T-20 and T-15; they arrive just before 7 (T-8 is entirely possible). That's 7-13 minutes, as advertised, to make the trip. I.e., completely neutrally, 10 +/- 3 minutes.
What function? Perhaps there's simply no reason to put structure there. The exhaust shaft was the only one with a purpose we saw.Again you miss the point. Shafts serve some function.
So let me get this clear. Picard wakes up, finds he is still dreaming, and then wakes up again, and what passes before, you want to say is not a dream.How exactly has it been demonstrated? Because scene that follows it is a dream? What if a dream occurs in the middle of a movie? Is everything preceding it a dream too?
With complete certainty? No. With reasonable certainty? Yes.There is absolutely no way you can make that determination from our perspective.
Well, add this to the former pile, then. More evidence that the Borg build big.No I have shown the scaling is unreliable. Some scenes point to size over 3km other less than 1km.
I have.No they are not. There is absolutely no reason to assume the position seen at declared times are incorrect. You are welcome to prove otherwise.
An approximation liable to error. +/- 10%.Until then we have positions and times. We can't determine whether the acceleration between the updates has been constant but we can calculate the average acceleration. I already accounted for diagram perspective by measuring Yavin's heigth to width ratio.
+/- 10% on position.Pixel error counting won't be enough to drastically alter the acceleration.
So, +/-14% on position per measurement, or so. Making two measurements for a difference, call it +/-20% for delta-x.
Delta-v is the non-independent measurement of two differences, so +/- 40% for a.
Which, although not as bad as the time scale error, is still pretty imprecise. We're starting to float into the range of error where the usual techniques for aggregating error through addition of percentages breaks down, and we should start looking at multiplying them as ranges of factors.
Prove? I don't need to. They show no signs of them anywhere, and cite repulsors as their motivating force.Prove all those objects didn't have additional jet, propeller or ion engines.
At the rate he flaps? As fat as he is?Prove that Watto's wings are not enough to move him laterally once repulsorlift has him airborne.
I'll give you a demonstration. Stand on smooth ice and flap two T-shirts - better yet, two kites on steel frames - to try and move. You won't go as fast (or easily) as Watto, even though with the kites, you have about ten times the actual wing surface for ... oh... between one and three times the mass, most likely, even if you're in much better shape than Watto looks to be.
More obviously, the Death Star isn't designed to operate in an atmosphere, as I pointed out originally.You missed the point. They could come closer than they did and not encounter any significant atmosphere. They obviously weren't interested.
That only happens... what, every other episode? If warp is off-line, they're almost certainly having power problems.You have no evidence whether or not it was a power supply issue and I don't remember anyone commenting Voyager was particularly low on energy at that time.
It's not a great explanation, but it does address the numerous complicating issues that allow Voyager to have higher acceleration than you calculated, and yet still be unable to outrun the wave at impulse.
Can move... through hyperspace.Yes but since this object can move then it is a starship. Your ridiculous "whoops there are no larger spacestations that we've seen therefore it can't dock inside them therefore it is not a starship" game notwithstanding.
Repulsorlift lifts and pushes the craft, actually.Yes and? Repulsorlift lifts the craft and the engine pushes it.
There was a pretty stiff time pressure through the whole episode. They needed to get there ASAP.Yes they took some time and the station was still at a risk of breaking down. Thus there was absolutely no reason to cut the trip down to 3 hours if a day was enough.
And if you just spent 25 hours refitting the station, you'd push it until it was close to falling apart.
Which speaks of one source, when I was asking about the comparison.What discrepancy can there be? There is a cross section of Death Star in ICS with a line pointing to ion engines and ion engine reactors and corresponding labels.
Actually, skiiers do break their legs all the time. All the kinetic energy the GCS saucer had? Went into the collision. The only thing the angle of approach helps with was spreading it out over time.This was the speed component parallel to the ground which will not dictated collision exchange of energy and momentum. This is why ski jumpers don't break their legs. They are moving very fast but nearly parallel to the ground.
You're stretching pretty far there. We've seen plenty of crashes in Trek, all by civilizations whose ships can't take as much punishment as the Borg. All of which have involved pretty intact wreckage at a minimum.The ship was actually covered in some kind of sand. It could've easily slided near to a cliff, hit it and have the loose dirt bury it.
There's no signs the Borg ship was attacked and blown to bits first, and then crashed. Parts were even operational for Hugh to survive.This has to be the most unscientific statement from you yet. "Trek ships" don't break up in atmosphere? You do realize that there are many kind of ships that can hit the atmosphere at different speeds and angle which will change the impact energy by many orders of magnitude? Also these ships can have different amount of damage prior to reaching atmosphere.
Sure it is. They're flying these maneuvers at full speeds (note that the 80,000 kph is not identified as false). They are making turns at those sort of rates.No. 80,000kph figure is mentioned only once as the cadets were giving false testimony. Later we find out that they were not doing what they were supposed to. Nowhere is it mentioned or implied that the actual Kolvoord Starburst involves such relative speeds.
It is a singular datapoint. Name another source which places acceleration where you place it.I don't. The away team didn't even know what speed will the Enterprise reach. In other words when it suits your purposes you'll use the relativistic equations to produce high accelerations but on other occasions you'll assume that impulse engines actually are not constrained by relativistic equations. This is not an outlier unless we accept your various assumptions and selective theories.
Net applied force? Zero.How do they not do any work when they keep the people from splattering across the wall? Yo do realize that just because you are not providing any momentum change you still need to be braced if you are acting on that object with force? Try to push a wall while standing on ice and you'll see what I mean. Force projectors push various objects and are at the same time pushing themselves against them thanks to Newton's third law.
Net work done? Zero.
"Bracing?" That's precisely what the system is doing, in one sense. Bracing everything against everything else.
Except Jango is not accelerating relative to the ship at all. His thrust is (a) effectively negated (here's the backwards force component) and (b) evenly distributed through the entire ship, including him (forwards component, identical - net force, zero) meaning they all accelerate at exactly the same rate.You still haven't provided things I asked. In what direction is the force being applied by the inertial compensator heading? Do you realize that 500 GN force will push the 5.5*10^10kg ship at a rate of 1g but it will tend to push Jango, a 100kg human, at 5 billion g? Do you realize that therefore, in order to save Jango from jetpack splattering it across the rear wall, you need to accelerate the ship at 5 billion g? Do you realize what further problems this causes?
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am
No, that's what you're doing. Repeating the same claim as fact and stubbornly refusing to ackowledge the evidence that does not support your position. Those shapes cannot be shadows because the light source is in the wrong position to cast them. If those were shadows of the shuttlebay platform, they should fall on the left half of the saucer. THEY DON'T. In order to cast a shadow of the shuttlebay platform directly behind the ship, the light source would have to be directly in front of it. IT ISN'T. The ships are in motion, meaning that the shadows should change as the ships move (just as the actual shadows on the nacelle pylons do) THEY DON'T.Kane Starkiller wrote:You simply state your claims as if they are fact. Why cannot Galaxy have such a shape of shadow? Let me remind you that the only shape determined by a light source is that on the saucer behind the shuttlebay. The "shape" on the neck is determined by the neck itself, namely entire back of the neck is in shadow.Cocytus wrote:No, what you discovered there is in actuality a shadow. The light source is in the proper position to cast it per the illumination, and the shape of the shadow is what we might expect from the underside of the saucer. None of which is true of the supposed Galaxy shadows, meaning they can't really be shadows. If the evidence does not support a conclusion, it might just be time to formulate a conclusion which the evidence does fit. We've done that, you haven't. If you can think of something else that might account for those dark patches I'd love to hear it. Shadows just don't work, however.
Notice the Miranda down and to the left of the screencap you linked to. It also has a shadow cast on it in the same direction as the two Galaxies.
There is simply no way you can use a single scene showing two ships with slightly darker part of the hull to claim they represent a different subclass.
The Miranda shadows don't support your position either. The rear portion of the Miranda saucer is taken up by a raised shelf consisting of several decks.

See it? The right edge of those Miranda shadows conforms precisely to this feature. That's why they look off. There is one light source. It cannot account for the patterns on the Galaxy. It can't acccount for the neck pattern, and certainly not for the saucer pattern. Therefore, those patterns are not shadows. The assumption that they are is not supported by the visual evidence.
Here's the Favor the Bold screencap again.

See the bridge platform? See the crescent shaped patches on either side? The left one could be a shadow. What about the right one? Is there now to be a third light source in the image?
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:03 pm
I'm actually quite amused here..
Kane is actually arguing that
a) Picards dream is not in fact a dream. Never mind that it starts with the camera all wonky-vision or that things happen to poor Mr. Picard that didn't happen to be true in reality after he woke up in his bed.
Not too mention the cube he was actually assimilated in was seen on screen and it's internal structure looked nothing like the one we see in the film. Just for starters, it was not green but grey. Another funny aspect is that Picard sees himself being assimilated (partly anyway) in the film, wearing his new uniform (not seen before this film), not the one he was actually wearing in the series.
In short: there is no evidence whatsoever that the 'Picard dream sequence' was anything but a nightmare. All evidence that is available points to it being a dream.
But hey, if dreams/nightmares are now valid evidence in debates we at least now know that Rikers statement that a level 16 handphaser blast would destroy a building outright is factually correct.
b) Starfleet starbases don't have stationkeeping abilities, no.. They let any old starship tow them back into place using tractorbeams. This one is particularly funny because starbases are frikking large things, some of them thousands to millions of times bigger (looking at internal volume etc) than the biggest Federation starship.
Mind you, this is the same individual who will object to the Federation having photon torpedoes more capable than say a few megatons worth, who seems to believe that Impulse drive is, for all intents an purposes, weak-as-hell and who believes that Federation power supplies are quite frankly not up to the task of much more than producing said megatons.
I can't wait to see how he'll justify a few starships towing starbases like say the one where the E-D was docked in STTNG back into place.
Kane is actually arguing that
a) Picards dream is not in fact a dream. Never mind that it starts with the camera all wonky-vision or that things happen to poor Mr. Picard that didn't happen to be true in reality after he woke up in his bed.
Not too mention the cube he was actually assimilated in was seen on screen and it's internal structure looked nothing like the one we see in the film. Just for starters, it was not green but grey. Another funny aspect is that Picard sees himself being assimilated (partly anyway) in the film, wearing his new uniform (not seen before this film), not the one he was actually wearing in the series.
In short: there is no evidence whatsoever that the 'Picard dream sequence' was anything but a nightmare. All evidence that is available points to it being a dream.
But hey, if dreams/nightmares are now valid evidence in debates we at least now know that Rikers statement that a level 16 handphaser blast would destroy a building outright is factually correct.
b) Starfleet starbases don't have stationkeeping abilities, no.. They let any old starship tow them back into place using tractorbeams. This one is particularly funny because starbases are frikking large things, some of them thousands to millions of times bigger (looking at internal volume etc) than the biggest Federation starship.
Mind you, this is the same individual who will object to the Federation having photon torpedoes more capable than say a few megatons worth, who seems to believe that Impulse drive is, for all intents an purposes, weak-as-hell and who believes that Federation power supplies are quite frankly not up to the task of much more than producing said megatons.
I can't wait to see how he'll justify a few starships towing starbases like say the one where the E-D was docked in STTNG back into place.
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
No you don't. You pointed to examples of Federation founding new colonies which I never disputed. Just like British Empire founded many colonies as did Russian Empire in Alaska for example. But these examples in no way prove that aforementioned civilizations were on the whole constantly expanding.Jedi Master Spock wrote:I do, actually.
What evidence do you have about changes in relative sizes of Klingon Empire and Federation during the last 25 years? Name those members Federation was admitting "left and right" and explain how do they prove the Federation didn't loose other members.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Right. A quarter century before, the Klingon Empire was closer in size to the UFP, which has been adding members left and right without members more than threatening to withdraw.
Why are you asking me what kind of charts Kozinski was talking about? You said they pointed to a large Federation so then provide evidence.Jedi Master Spock wrote:What kind of charts are we talking about? Navigational charts for warp-capable ships. These charts need rogue-planet level resolution, which is why Kirk expects that kind of resolution from them.
Nothing on that list requires thrusters as opposed to a ship towing it in place when decay is noted.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Reread the list, please.
How exactly do antigravity engines "vector thrust"? What thrust? Secondly they don't need to vector thrust but merely push the station off the planet to regain orbit once it's decay is noted. We are talking about meters here.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Engines that provide thrust do. There's no indication that Federation antigravity systems are capable of vectoring thrust, unlike Star Wars systems.
It's equipment was in bad shape. Nothing suggested it's structural integrity was compromised.Jedi Master Spock wrote:DS9 was also in terrible shape at the time.
What do you consider regular basis? How often do you think a starbase orbiting a planet at several thousand km would need it's orbit adjusted? Do you think that Federation sensors are unable to detect orbital decay and then predict when they will become noticeable and schedule a ship to come and give them a shove?Jedi Master Spock wrote:On a regular basis? And what happens when things go haywire? Wait for the nearest busy starship to drop everything and tweak a starbase's orbit? That doesn't make any sense compared to putting small cm/s^2 range thrusters on the station, as seen on DS9... which, through the application of a warp field, can provide more acceleration than the Death Star could possibly have.
DS9 cannot produce more thrust than Death Star since Death Star accelerated at 262g at least while DS9 nearly broke apart while doing 10g.
No you don't.Jedi Master Spock wrote:I do.
Then present evidence it's an upper range.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Upper limit, no. Upper range, yes.
7 minute ETA is announced two minutes after we first see X-Wings approaching Death Star their relative speed already well below 100km/s.Jedi Master Spock wrote:The 7 minute ETA can be clocked as being very close to the time at which the fighters actually started skimming the surface of the Death Star. It's before any of them got into the target trench, and for reasons of distance, a very short time from that.
It's also announced a little over two minutes before the Rebels announce the Death Star will be in position in five minutes, and the Y-Wings begin their attack run. Want to calculate the average speed of a Y-Wing while flying around the Death Star? Two minutes at a kilometer per second will bring them to the trench pretty easily - and the more acceleration they're capable of, the more quickly they should reach the trench entrance.
So review. The fighters launch between T-20 and T-15; they arrive just before 7 (T-8 is entirely possible). That's 7-13 minutes, as advertised, to make the trip. I.e., completely neutrally, 10 +/- 3 minutes.
Secondly Y-Wings as the rest of the fighters were dodging heavy fire from the Death Star. What evidence do you have they could be using their full acceleration then?
Again T-15 scene follows immediately after we see fighters lifting above Yavin 4's jungle and they engage the Death Star before the T minus 7 minutes. Therefore you have no lower limit other than a few seconds.
Why are you asking me what function? You are the one who claims they are positioned uniformly around Death Star so go ahead and prove it. If there is no reason to build a shaft then it wouldn't be build would it? It would be filled with other equipment and as a result Death Star's diameter would be a little smaller. If you don't need space you don't build a ship around it you simply decrease the overall volume.Jedi Master Spock wrote:What function? Perhaps there's simply no reason to put structure there. The exhaust shaft was the only one with a purpose we saw.
No the camera shows the Borg ship and then shows Picard dreaming he is on Enterprise sitting in a chair with closed eyes. Then the Borg implant juts from his cheek.Jedi Master Spock wrote:So let me get this clear. Picard wakes up, finds he is still dreaming, and then wakes up again, and what passes before, you want to say is not a dream.
With zero certainty. We see a 2-d projection of 3-d space and there is absolutely no information about the shape.Jedi Master Spock wrote:With complete certainty? No. With reasonable certainty? Yes.
Both 1km and 3km can be considered big. What this proves is that they have huge empty spaces inside them which means that their mass will be much smaller than their volume suggests.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Well, add this to the former pile, then. More evidence that the Borg build big.
No you haven't. You claimed that their rare updates mean they are not accurate but nowhere have you even tried to explain why the update positions should be considered inaccurate.Jedi Master Spock wrote:I have.
Calculations behind that error please.Jedi Master Spock wrote:An approximation liable to error. +/- 10%.
Show me the calculations behind those numbers.Jedi Master Spock wrote:+/- 10% on position.
So, +/-14% on position per measurement, or so. Making two measurements for a difference, call it +/-20% for delta-x.
Delta-v is the non-independent measurement of two differences, so +/- 40% for a.
Which, although not as bad as the time scale error, is still pretty imprecise. We're starting to float into the range of error where the usual techniques for aggregating error through addition of percentages breaks down, and we should start looking at multiplying them as ranges of factors.
Yes you do since you claim you can use repulsorlift to move Death Star perpendicularly to the planet. Which sources mention that repulsorlift move the craft laterally?Jedi Master Spock wrote:Prove? I don't need to. They show no signs of them anywhere, and cite repulsors as their motivating force.
Calculations please. How much does Watto weigh? He clearly is a descendant from some avian species. Does he have hollow bones? Many questions for which you provide no answers.Jedi Master Spock wrote:At the rate he flaps? As fat as he is?
I'll give you a demonstration. Stand on smooth ice and flap two T-shirts - better yet, two kites on steel frames - to try and move. You won't go as fast (or easily) as Watto, even though with the kites, you have about ten times the actual wing surface for ... oh... between one and three times the mass, most likely, even if you're in much better shape than Watto looks to be.
You evaded my point. They didn't come anywhere close to the atmosphere nor did they intend to. Thus it had nothing to do with Death Star's inability to operate inside an atmosphere. Then of course you simply make a blanket statement about "operating in atmosphere" without specifying how fast exactly should Death Star move. Do you suggest that merely by being inside an atmosphere Death Star will fall apart or something?Jedi Master Spock wrote:More obviously, the Death Star isn't designed to operate in an atmosphere, as I pointed out originally.
Stable warp field couldn't be erected no power supply problems were mentioned. Not to mention that nowhere have you proven Federation ships are capable of greater acceleration without using warp.Jedi Master Spock wrote:That only happens... what, every other episode? If warp is off-line, they're almost certainly having power problems.
It's not a great explanation, but it does address the numerous complicating issues that allow Voyager to have higher acceleration than you calculated, and yet still be unable to outrun the wave at impulse.
And through normal space. You can deny it all you want. I'll just keep bringing it up.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Can move... through hyperspace.
Name the source for your claim then.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Repulsorlift lifts and pushes the craft, actually.
Which is speculation on your part as is the time they spent upgrading it. In short there is no evidence for the 3 hour transit time.Jedi Master Spock wrote:There was a pretty stiff time pressure through the whole episode. They needed to get there ASAP.
And if you just spent 25 hours refitting the station, you'd push it until it was close to falling apart.
Are you blind? I already written that there is no discrepancy. Feel free to prove otherwise I'm done doing your homework.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Which speaks of one source, when I was asking about the comparison.
Skiiers break their legs when they land badly. All the kinetic energy GCS had did not go into collision. Watch the film and you'll see that saucer keeps moving after it impacts the ground at near same speed it moved before impact. Most of the kinetic energy was slowly transferred to the ground in the form of friction.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Actually, skiiers do break their legs all the time. All the kinetic energy the GCS saucer had? Went into the collision. The only thing the angle of approach helps with was spreading it out over time.
We have seen plenty of crashed ships you mean not the actual crash. You still refuse to address the fact that impact energies can differ by many orders of magnitude.Jedi Master Spock wrote:You're stretching pretty far there. We've seen plenty of crashes in Trek, all by civilizations whose ships can't take as much punishment as the Borg. All of which have involved pretty intact wreckage at a minimum.
Who said it needed to be attacked? We have seen Borg ships disabled by natural phenomenons before. Obviously something went wrong since it crashed. Some kind of explosion which damaged the overall structural integrity, high impact speed and you can easily have fragments scattered over a large area. It is baffling you keep denying this.Jedi Master Spock wrote:There's no signs the Borg ship was attacked and blown to bits first, and then crashed. Parts were even operational for Hugh to survive.
You are making things up. 80,000kph comes from false testimony about the speed they were flying in a formation relative to some other point of reference. There is no connection between that and the Kolvoord Starburst which was what they were really doing.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Sure it is. They're flying these maneuvers at full speeds (note that the 80,000 kph is not identified as false). They are making turns at those sort of rates.
It is only in which unavailability of warp engines is explicitly stated and which doesn't require FTL speeds or relativistic effects which you arbitrarily switch off and on when it suits you.Jedi Master Spock wrote:It is a singular datapoint. Name another source which places acceleration where you place it.
Net work done is zero? Tell me do you have even high school level of physics education? If two guys pull on a rope and the rope doesn't move does that mean that no work is being done? That both of those guys aren't spending calories?Jedi Master Spock wrote:Net applied force? Zero.
Net work done? Zero.
"Bracing?" That's precisely what the system is doing, in one sense. Bracing everything against everything else.
Secondly just because net force applied to the object is zero doesn't mean objects need not be braced. Again if two guys are pulling rope and it is standing in place the net force is zero. If the one is put on ice and other on concrete the net force will no longer be zero because the other is not braced properly. Stop evading these points and answer them.
How is his thrust negated? How is his acceleration evenly distributed to the ship? Will you finally stop evading and explain the concept instead of just repeating the end result of your undefined mechanism?Jedi Master Spock wrote:Except Jango is not accelerating relative to the ship at all. His thrust is (a) effectively negated (here's the backwards force component) and (b) evenly distributed through the entire ship, including him (forwards component, identical - net force, zero) meaning they all accelerate at exactly the same rate.
How do you know there are no light sources in the right position to cast them? Something beyond cameras field of view above the Galaxy.Cocytus wrote:No, that's what you're doing. Repeating the same claim as fact and stubbornly refusing to ackowledge the evidence that does not support your position. Those shapes cannot be shadows because the light source is in the wrong position to cast them. If those were shadows of the shuttlebay platform, they should fall on the left half of the saucer. THEY DON'T. In order to cast a shadow of the shuttlebay platform directly behind the ship, the light source would have to be directly in front of it. IT ISN'T. The ships are in motion, meaning that the shadows should change as the ships move (just as the actual shadows on the nacelle pylons do) THEY DON'T.
By all means prove there is only one light source. We see one source illuminating the starboard side of Galaxies secondary hull then there is another casting shadow on Miranda. There could be others.Cocytus wrote:See it? The right edge of those Miranda shadows conforms precisely to this feature. That's why they look off. There is one light source. It cannot account for the patterns on the Galaxy. It can't acccount for the neck pattern, and certainly not for the saucer pattern. Therefore, those patterns are not shadows. The assumption that they are is not supported by the visual evidence.
There is no "neck pattern". The entire neck is in shadow. Saucer behind the shuttlebay is also in shadow.
Ah so because the part of the cube we see in BOBW is grey that means that entire cube is the same right. There is no possible way other parts could have different color scheme.Roondar wrote:I'm actually quite amused here..
Kane is actually arguing that
a) Picards dream is not in fact a dream. Never mind that it starts with the camera all wonky-vision or that things happen to poor Mr. Picard that didn't happen to be true in reality after he woke up in his bed.
Not too mention the cube he was actually assimilated in was seen on screen and it's internal structure looked nothing like the one we see in the film. Just for starters, it was not green but grey. Another funny aspect is that Picard sees himself being assimilated (partly anyway) in the film, wearing his new uniform (not seen before this film), not the one he was actually wearing in the series.
In short: there is no evidence whatsoever that the 'Picard dream sequence' was anything but a nightmare. All evidence that is available points to it being a dream.
But hey, if dreams/nightmares are now valid evidence in debates we at least now know that Rikers statement that a level 16 handphaser blast would destroy a building outright is factually correct.
As for the uniform the initial scene shows Picard in his uniform he wore for the series. The dream later shows him in the new uniform.
So do you actually have any evidence and reasoning for your claims or are you just going to keep your appeals to incredulity.Roondar wrote:b) Starfleet starbases don't have stationkeeping abilities, no.. They let any old starship tow them back into place using tractorbeams. This one is particularly funny because starbases are frikking large things, some of them thousands to millions of times bigger (looking at internal volume etc) than the biggest Federation starship.
Mind you, this is the same individual who will object to the Federation having photon torpedoes more capable than say a few megatons worth, who seems to believe that Impulse drive is, for all intents an purposes, weak-as-hell and who believes that Federation power supplies are quite frankly not up to the task of much more than producing said megatons.
I can't wait to see how he'll justify a few starships towing starbases like say the one where the E-D was docked in STTNG back into place.
But just because I'm such a nice guy I'm going to throw you a bone. Spacedock 74 is let's say even 100,000 times bigger than Excelsior class ship and presumably that much more massive. If Excelsior can achieve acceleration of, say, 100g and can achieve delta v of 10,000km/s then it should be able to change the velocity of Spacedock 74 by 31km/s at an acceleration rate of 0.98cm/s2. This is more than enough for any orbital station keeping. It would really be useful if you grasped these elementary physical principles before you come in and accuse me of ignorance.
And seeing how Borg ship from Descent was blown apart by a simple solar flare I don't see where do you get off claiming more than megaton level photon torpedoes.
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am
I just did. I've explained the Miranda shadows. The saucer shelf is casting a shadow which is overlapping the shadow of the saucer's raised bridge module. Furthermore and to reiterate, There are NO concordant patterns of illumination we should expect from additional light sources. That's how I know they aren't there. If there were a light source above and in front of the Galaxies, then the Excelsior class ships should have their dorsal saucer surfaces fully illuminated. THEY AREN'T. Look at the Mirandas again, particularly the left one. Can you see the shadow of the rollbar which supports the torpedo launcher. It's being cast in the same direction as the shadows on the Galaxies' nacelle pylons, by the image's only light source. Now examine the Mirandas in relation to the Excelsior beside them. The leading edge of the Miranda saucer is illuminated, while the leading edge of the Excelsior saucer is not. Proof of a second light source? I think not, because the Miranda's dorsal saucer surface from the bridge to the edge is concave and the Excelsior's is convex. Every shadow in the image can be accounted for by one light source, off to the upper right. There is no second light source which is casting a shadow on the Miranda's saucer. It is instead the combined overlapping shadows of the bridge module and raised rear portion being cast by the same light source. If there were another light source, it would also be casting a shadow of the rollbar perpendicular to the ship's main axis, which it clearly isn't. How do we know? Because there is no such shadow. Furthermore, a light source behind the Mirandas (relative to the camera, not the ships) would also have to be behind the Starbase, so that point is invalid regardless. There is no "other" light source casting a shadow on the Mirandas. Those shadows are being cast by the same light which is casting the Galaxies' nacelle pylon shadows. You know, you complain about us making informed assumptions about a subclass, then turn right around and make a completely uninformed assumption (since there is NO visual evidence for it) about other light sources. There, I've defended my point again, now defend yours. And "there could be" is not a defense. Provide a reasonable explanation for why a light source casting shadows on the ships would not also be illuminating the parts of the ships it is not shadowing. Or why the Miranda's rollbar is transparent to your supposed "other" light source.Kane Starkiller wrote:How do you know there are no light sources in the right position to cast them? Something beyond cameras field of view above the Galaxy.Cocytus wrote:No, that's what you're doing. Repeating the same claim as fact and stubbornly refusing to ackowledge the evidence that does not support your position. Those shapes cannot be shadows because the light source is in the wrong position to cast them. If those were shadows of the shuttlebay platform, they should fall on the left half of the saucer. THEY DON'T. In order to cast a shadow of the shuttlebay platform directly behind the ship, the light source would have to be directly in front of it. IT ISN'T. The ships are in motion, meaning that the shadows should change as the ships move (just as the actual shadows on the nacelle pylons do) THEY DON'T.
By all means prove there is only one light source. We see one source illuminating the starboard side of Galaxies secondary hull then there is another casting shadow on Miranda. There could be others.Cocytus wrote:See it? The right edge of those Miranda shadows conforms precisely to this feature. That's why they look off. There is one light source. It cannot account for the patterns on the Galaxy. It can't acccount for the neck pattern, and certainly not for the saucer pattern. Therefore, those patterns are not shadows. The assumption that they are is not supported by the visual evidence.
There is no "neck pattern". The entire neck is in shadow. Saucer behind the shuttlebay is also in shadow.
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
Kane Starkiller wrote:What evidence do you have about changes in relative sizes of Klingon Empire and Federation during the last 25 years? Name those members Federation was admitting "left and right" and explain how do they prove the Federation didn't loose other members.
Examples of the Federation adding new members left and right. And who leaves the Federation?These following were in the process of gaining Federation member status as of the year indicated.
Angosia III (2366)
Homeworld of the Angosians. (TNG: "The Hunted")
Antede III (2365)
Homeworld of the Antedeans. (TNG: "Manhunt")
Antica (2364)
Homeworld of the Anticans. (TNG: "Lonely Among Us")
Bajor (2377)
Homeworld of the Bajorans. (DS9: "Emissary")
Cairn Homeworld (2370)
Homeworld of the Cairn. (TNG: "Dark Page")
Catulla (2269)
Homeworld of the Catullans. (TOS: "The Way to Eden")
Gideon (2268)
Homeworld of the Gideon natives and the Gideon Council. (TOS: "The Mark of Gideon")
Kesprytt III (2370)
Homeworld of the Kesprytt and the Kes and Prytt governments. (TNG: "Attached")
Selay (2364)
Homeworld of the Selay. (TNG: "Lonely Among Us")
We have not an example of a single species departing the Federation as a group.
Other evidence, such as the size and number of ships and starbases, also suggest a Federation growing larger and grander. This is a Federation that started with four members, you may recall, and in the future timelines grows to absorb the Xindi and Klingons (not exactly small); all evidence is of continued growth of the Federation, in worlds, in members, and in population.
In the 22nd century, the Federation is a small alliance, whose members have perhaps a handful of self-sustaining colonies and are all within a few hundred light years of each other, dwarfed by the voracious nearby Klingon Empire. In the 23rd century, the Federation is engaged in a cold war with its main rival, the Klingons, and sprawled across a couple thousand light years. There's a small military outpost on Cestus III. In the 24th century, the Federation has expanded to become noticably larger than the Klingon Empire; Cestus III, although still far-flung, is now a real colony. In the 25th century, the Federation's influence extends into the Delta Quadrant. By the 26th century, the Xindi and the Klingons have both been absorbed into the Federation.
The trend is perfectly clear.
I said it provides a very coherent picture. The Federation explores, has contact with, has influence within, etc, about one fifth to one quarter of the galaxy as of the latest ST materials. The Federation itself is only spread over 8,000 light years, which is a much smaller fraction.Why are you asking me what kind of charts Kozinski was talking about? You said they pointed to a large Federation so then provide evidence.
They need to create positive thrust.How exactly do antigravity engines "vector thrust"? What thrust? Secondly they don't need to vector thrust but merely push the station off the planet to regain orbit once it's decay is noted. We are talking about meters here.
Its equipment... including, perhaps, the structural integrity fields?It's equipment was in bad shape. Nothing suggested it's structural integrity was compromised.
You still cling to your incorrect acceleration figures. The simple fact of the matter is that DS9 accelerated at least as quickly as the Death Star - and covered a much greater distance. DS9 relocated to the opposite side of a system; the Death Star simply swung around a gas giant. DS9 has displayed the ability to move outside a planetary gravity well in normal space - which the Death Star has not.What do you consider regular basis? How often do you think a starbase orbiting a planet at several thousand km would need it's orbit adjusted? Do you think that Federation sensors are unable to detect orbital decay and then predict when they will become noticeable and schedule a ship to come and give them a shove?
DS9 cannot produce more thrust than Death Star since Death Star accelerated at 262g at least while DS9 nearly broke apart while doing 10g.
Yes, I do.No you don't.
All other data is lower. Hence, it is an upper range estimate.Then present evidence it's an upper range.
Which is the final braking phase mentioned. Quite important if we're to wind up at a relative velocity of zero.7 minute ETA is announced two minutes after we first see X-Wings approaching Death Star their relative speed already well below 100km/s.
Actually, if you're dodging heavy fire, you probably would be leaning heavily on the throttle to be a hard target to hit. The emplacements have limited effective range, and highly limited traverse speed.Secondly Y-Wings as the rest of the fighters were dodging heavy fire from the Death Star. What evidence do you have they could be using their full acceleration then?
And they launch shortly after the T-20 announcement. There's nothing to place the fighter launch any more precisely than somewhere between T-20 and T-15.Again T-15 scene follows immediately after we see fighters lifting above Yavin 4's jungle and they engage the Death Star before the T minus 7 minutes. Therefore you have no lower limit other than a few seconds.
Which is a reasonable null hypothesis, as they seem to serve no particular purpose.Why are you asking me what function? You are the one who claims they are positioned uniformly around Death Star
This has been addressed more fully by others.No the camera shows the Borg ship and then shows Picard dreaming he is on Enterprise sitting in a chair with closed eyes. Then the Borg implant juts from his cheek.
We see a series of 2-D images, from which a 3-D spatial arrangement can be inferred intuitively. Or, with any small pan, directly.With zero certainty. We see a 2-d projection of 3-d space and there is absolutely no information about the shape.
We have regular features on the inside column, which must be irregular in order for your claims of optical illusion to hold.
Except that, as you've pointed out, even spheres have these (sometimes). Ergo, normal Borg ship density, which per "I, Borg" is almost certainly high, includes this empty space.Both 1km and 3km can be considered big. What this proves is that they have huge empty spaces inside them which means that their mass will be much smaller than their volume suggests.
I have, actually. At best, you should claim no better than a +/-2.5 minute MOE on t.No you haven't. You claimed that their rare updates mean they are not accurate but nowhere have you even tried to explain why the update positions should be considered inaccurate.
Rough experience in comparing perspective scaling shots done with more mathematical care than yours.Calculations behind that error please.
Your pixel counts are on the order of tens, correct?Show me the calculations behind those numbers.
The error is large enough to make the figure wholly worthless as a claimed lower limit, as I've mentioned... the fact that your results using this isolated and error-prone technique strongly disagree with higher-accuracy methods (such as the Imperial diagram and bracketing the actual situation from first principles) is icing on the cake. You're using one possible piece of evidence out of four, and you disagree with the other three, including the two that are much stronger.
All of the ones that describe the motion of repulsorcraft.Yes you do since you claim you can use repulsorlift to move Death Star perpendicularly to the planet. Which sources mention that repulsorlift move the craft laterally?
Hollow bones or not, he's still a fat sucker. His wings are much too small to lift him, and too small to even propell him at anything resembling a reasonable rate.Calculations please. How much does Watto weigh? He clearly is a descendant from some avian species. Does he have hollow bones? Many questions for which you provide no answers.
It may, actually, break up if sent through atmosphere. It may also be unable to break away, that deep within a gravity well.You evaded my point. They didn't come anywhere close to the atmosphere nor did they intend to. Thus it had nothing to do with Death Star's inability to operate inside an atmosphere. Then of course you simply make a blanket statement about "operating in atmosphere" without specifying how fast exactly should Death Star move. Do you suggest that merely by being inside an atmosphere Death Star will fall apart or something?
As we understand it, warp fields, which effectively lighten mass, are part of how impulse engines normally work. So that perfectly explains why this might be a little bit slow.Stable warp field couldn't be erected
No evidence to indicate such on the interplanetary scale I pointed out.And through normal space.
SWDB. SWRPG. EGVV. Etc. All describe craft propelled by repulsor fields which engage in lateral motion.Name the source for your claim then.
By that standard, there is no evidence for the day-long transit time, either. We have no reason to consider one end of the scale more strongly than the other, and thus should consider the entire broad range.Which is speculation on your part as is the time they spent upgrading it. In short there is no evidence for the 3 hour transit time.
And I challenged this, and you in turn tried to address my challenge by talking simply about a single source rather than the comparison between two.Are you blind? I already written that there is no discrepancy.
Slowly? It plowed, fast and furious, wreaking havoc on the terrain. Those hills were never the same. That's the sort of physical pounding (that tore up the terrain) that the saucer also received.Skiiers break their legs when they land badly. All the kinetic energy GCS had did not go into collision. Watch the film and you'll see that saucer keeps moving after it impacts the ground at near same speed it moved before impact. Most of the kinetic energy was slowly transferred to the ground in the form of friction.
They can... but are unlikely to by many orders of magnitude away from the whole range of other crashes seen.We have seen plenty of crashed ships you mean not the actual crash. You still refuse to address the fact that impact energies can differ by many orders of magnitude.
Again, there's no evidence the Borg ship blew up before crashing. (In fact, in that case, they wouldn't refer to the ship as having crashed after a full investigation... they would refer to "some debris landing on the planet as the result of an explosion.")Who said it needed to be attacked? We have seen Borg ships disabled by natural phenomenons before. Obviously something went wrong since it crashed. Some kind of explosion which damaged the overall structural integrity, high impact speed and you can easily have fragments scattered over a large area. It is baffling you keep denying this.
There is. If you're doing an air show at 80,000 kph, and doing maneuvers (whether or not you actually do the Kelvoord Starburst, or more approved methods) you are accelerating per the above figures.You are making things up. 80,000kph comes from false testimony about the speed they were flying in a formation relative to some other point of reference. There is no connection between that and the Kolvoord Starburst which was what they were really doing.
Excepting the others that I mentioned, correct? Such as "First Duty," in which (IIRC) the craft aren't even warp capable.It is only in which unavailability of warp engines is explicitly stated and which doesn't require FTL speeds or relativistic effects which you arbitrarily switch off and on when it suits you.
Yes. The compensation field does not cause any net force (the forces it generates are balanced) and hence causes no change in total energy.Net work done is zero?
They do no actual work in a static situation, yes. The system of two men and a rope is only doing work on the rope to the degree that the rope's elasticity is absorbing energy. While the ship accelerates, the total force exerted by the inertial compensator is zero, meaning it does no net work in this model. In other models, where inertial compensation becomes an inertial drive, this is not the case; however, when acceleration is provided through thrust, it does not.Tell me do you have even high school level of physics education? If two guys pull on a rope and the rope doesn't move does that mean that no work is being done?
Work is force over distance. Static forces cancelling each other out do not do work. If you do not understand this, you may wish to read up on work.
The tension is a product of the distance between the points at which the opposing forces are applied to the object. This is one of the issues that can be alleviated via a field.Secondly just because net force applied to the object is zero doesn't mean objects need not be braced. Again if two guys are pulling rope and it is standing in place the net force is zero. If the one is put on ice and other on concrete the net force will no longer be zero because the other is not braced properly. Stop evading these points and answer them.
Via the application of a controlled, gravity-like field of controlled strength. This is called an "inertial compensation" field, and is of a piece with artificial gravity.How is his thrust negated? How is his acceleration evenly distributed to the ship?
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
- l33telboi
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 910
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
- Location: Finland
Funny coincidence. Squish worked the numbers on exactly that incident just five minutes ago in another thread on SB, and got a minimum acceleration around 500g, with a top speed of 0.05c.Jedi Master Spock wrote:You still cling to your incorrect acceleration figures. The simple fact of the matter is that DS9 accelerated at least as quickly as the Death Star - and covered a much greater distance. DS9 relocated to the opposite side of a system; the Death Star simply swung around a gas giant. DS9 has displayed the ability to move outside a planetary gravity well in normal space - which the Death Star has not.
-
- Security Officer
- Posts: 5839
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
-
- Security Officer
- Posts: 5839
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
It is SB 375 as seen in "Favor the Bold".Jedi Master Spock wrote:It's probably Starbase 375, which featured prominently in DS9, season 6. I'm thinking it's a shot of the Operation Return fleet that gathered there.Mr. Oragahn wrote:I don't know. Maybe you could ask to people on this board.Mr. Oragahn wrote:What's that station?
Good luck. ;)
-Mike