Cocytus wrote: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.
Who said that the alternative light source is cast upon all ships as opposed to only the two Galaxies?
Cocytus wrote: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.
Exactly since you are claiming that based on once single scene we should assume a completely new subclass because part of the ship is darker. If there are alternative explanations, which there are, then there is no reason to assume a completely new subclass.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Examples of the Federation adding new members left and right. And who leaves the Federation?
We have not an example of a single species departing the Federation as a group.
9 planets over 100 years is not "left and right". I am asking for hundreds of starsystems in order to prove that number of planets in the Federation could not fall from 1000 to 150 as stated by Picard and Sisko.
Jedi Master Spock wrote: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.
First of all both Picard and Sisko talk about
planets which means that while there were only 4 member species in the beginning the total number of planets could still be bigger. As for starbase number who says that just because we hear larger starbase numbers there are more than before rather than older being decommissioned? Secondly even though it has less planets the population could still be larger as well as industrial capacity which would still allow a greater fleet even with less planets.
How many planets do Xindi and Klingons have? Not to mention that this is not the first time someone mention Klingons joining the Federation and it turned out false.
Jedi Master Spock wrote: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.
Show evidence that Klingon Empire is smaller than Federation by the late 24th century. What does having influence in the Delta Quadrant mean and where does it come from?
What trend are you speaking off? A nation can loose and gain and then again loose it's territory. Just because at certain point in time it gains planets does not in any way mean that it couldn't loose them at another point.
Jedi Master Spock wrote: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.
Again you fail to provide any evidence that charting means actually visiting as used by Kosinski. Where is your evidence Federation has influence over a quarter or fifth of galaxy? Federation itself is stated to have it's two farthest members be 8000ly apart nothing more. Stanley and Aberdeen are 13,000km apart. That really doesn't tell us anything about UK's size.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:They need to create positive thrust.
Yes to bounce of the planet in small corrective movements over decades.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Its equipment... including, perhaps, the structural integrity fields?
No one stated anything being wrong with it and it would come up when O'Brien was giving reasons not to do it.
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.
Death Star acceleration figures are proven by the Rebel diagram whether you wish to accept it or not. DS9's upper limit of acceleration is two times that Death Star's demonstrated acceleration. In reality DS9's acceleration is likely two orders of magnitude lower and still nearly caused the destruction of the station. Accelerating inside the gravity field is more not less difficult.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Yes, I do.
No you don't.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:All other data is lower. Hence, it is an upper range estimate.
Wrong. If you see F-22 standing still on the ground five times and see it move at 800km/h the sixth time that would not mean 800km/h is an upper range estimate. It would be a lower limit: we know that F-22 can move at least at 800km/h. How much faster we don't know.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Which is the final braking phase mentioned. Quite important if we're to wind up at a relative velocity of zero.
The breaking is already finished by that time.
Jedi Master Spock wrote: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.
Exactly therefore you would not be moving straight towards the target but maneuvering around.
Jedi Master Spock wrote: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.
I didn't say there is. I was refuting your claim that the movie scene refutes accelerations given in the EU. It doesn't since theoretically the time elapsed could be as low as few seconds.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Which is a reasonable null hypothesis, as they seem to serve no particular purpose.
No particular purpose that you can make out. But just because you can't discern it's function based on a few minute observation in the films does not in any way mean that "null" hypothesis is that it actually serves no purpose at all.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:This has been addressed more fully by others.
I saw nothing which has shown this too was a dream. Not to mention you ignored other scenes like the large open space Janeway was beamed on in "Scorpion" or large open space seen in "Q Who" both of which dwarf the shaft over which Luke swung.
Jedi Master Spock wrote: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.
We have regular features on the inside column, which must be irregular in order for your claims of optical illusion to hold.
Which features must be irregular. Intuition is not evidence.
Jedi Master Spock wrote: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.
Interesting how you claim the ship in "I, Borg" is 10m wide or so yet somehow can be assumed to have similar features to 500m-3km Borg cubes and 500m wide spheres. In any case since you provided no evidence for the size of the ship you have no basis in claiming any kind of density.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:I have, actually. At best, you should claim no better than a +/-2.5 minute MOE on t.
No you haven't. The time update coincides with location update thus there are no errors. Perhaps a second or so while the announcer reads out the full update. Certainly not two and a half minutes.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Rough experience in comparing perspective scaling shots done with more mathematical care than yours.
Your vague claims about your mathematical care are useless. Provide the calculations.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Your pixel counts are on the order of tens, correct?
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.
Imperial diagram shows only one component of Death Star's speed as I pointed out but which you studiously ignore. Pixel counts are closer to 100. 78px for the initial 15-5min change of position and 210px for the 5-0min. Not enough to change the results significantly.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:All of the ones that describe the motion of repulsorcraft.
And those would be....?
Jedi Master Spock wrote: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.
Fat sucker is not an SI unit of measurement last I checked. So either you provide some concrete numbers or concede the issue.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:It may, actually, break up if sent through atmosphere. It may also be unable to break away, that deep within a gravity well.
Yet it withstood the explosion of Alderaan and the DS novel explicitly states that thousands of fragments from size of pebbles to mountains impacted it's shields. Besides you still haven't quantified how fast through the atmosphere it would go. Speed matters you realize?
Jedi Master Spock wrote: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.
It also makes their engines even more feeble.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:No evidence to indicate such on the interplanetary scale I pointed out.
Yes there is. It accelerated at 262g therefore it can move between planets.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:SWDB. SWRPG. EGVV. Etc. All describe craft propelled by repulsor fields which engage in lateral motion.
They mention craft which possess repulsorflits but can also move laterally. In no way does this mean they use repulsorlits to do so. Why would then Luke's "car" have three jet-engine like objects on the back. Why is the car completely silent when parked even though it still floats but proudecs a familiar jet engine like whine when moving. The same for Anakin's bike.
Jedi Master Spock wrote: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.
But you cannot use it to prove anything. You cannot say "DS9 accelerated at 500g or 60 times faster than Death Star" since you have no idea whether that is true.
Jedi Master Spock wrote: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.
I have both sources with me. I don't see any discrepancies. If you disagree by all means prove it.
Jedi Master Spock wrote: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.
But it was not slowed down noticeably was it? Therefore the terrain (and the ship) exchanged momentum was on the order of ten meters per second times it's mass regardless of how powerful you think the impact looked.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:They can... but are unlikely to by many orders of magnitude away from the whole range of other crashes seen.
Why? You do realize that a crash is not a controlled event right?
Jedi Master Spock wrote: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.")
Really? And you know this how? Reading the crew's mind?
Jedi Master Spock wrote: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.
They were
supposed to be flying at 80,000kph in a formation relative to an unknown point of reference. But they weren't doing what they were supposed to, the were
lying.
Am I getting through to you? Nowhere is it stated or implied that Kolvoord maneuver involved relative speeds of 80,000kph.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Excepting the others that I mentioned, correct? Such as "First Duty," in which (IIRC) the craft aren't even warp capable.
Except you are taking numbers from a flight plan the cadets were
not following to come up with accelerations for a maneuver which they were not supposed to be doing and which had nothing to do with the original plan.
Jedi Master Spock wrote: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.
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.
Yes I confused work with energy but this still doesn't change the fact that you need to brace the object exerting force. You keep evading this issue and vaguely point to "zero net" force without explaining how. Again if two people pull on a rope and neither is brace then they will simply pull each other in. Explain how the inertial dampers are supposed to do their jobs without being braced. And I mean with calculations and quantifications not vague declarations.
Jedi Master Spock wrote: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.
And you completely evaded my question so I will ask it again:
If two guys are pulling on a rope the net force is zero for which you state objects need not be braced. But if one is put on ice then suddenly he will be dragged easily. Will you now finally carefully explain how inertial dampers can do their work without being properly braced or will you continue to evade?
Jedi Master Spock wrote: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.
Yes yes yes you stated this many times. What I am asking you to explain
how and which you are constantly evading.
Provide the quantification of forces for the example I have given. Do you know what quantification means? It means you provide the direction and the value of the forces applied to the ship and Jango.
I already explained that Jango will be accelerated at a rate of 500 million g by the 500 GN engines and that in order for Jango not to press against the ship it needs to be accelerated at the same rate. If there is an uniform field that accelerates Jango and the ship at the same rate that doesn't help since the Jetpack
is still pressing against Jango which is then pressing against the ship.
Do you understand this? If there is a uniform area effect force that accelerates Jango and the ship at 1g that still leaves "500 million minus 1"g
worth of thrust pressing against Jango.
Will you now answer these points in deatail and
with calculations or can I expect more evasive tactics?
Roondar wrote:Actually Kane, everything we've ever seen about the pre-FC borg was uniformly grey. It's quite interesting to see that the Borg scenes in BBOW which hinted at Picard being assimilated where also in that grey-cube.
Note that Picards dream has the entire cube green. Also note that the bit you call a flasback is also green and filmed in an 'interesting' camera effect. Lending more credence to it being a dream.
And just in case you forgot, it's up to you to prove they are the same cube. I'm arguing Picard had a nightmare. Hence the cube we saw is merely a figment of his imagination, though based no doubt on his experience. I have provided evidence why they do not have to be the same cube, you have provided no evidence other than "it suits my argument" that they are.
So why don't you get of your high horse and provide evidence that the BBOW cube and the one in the dream are the same. You've provided nothing yet.
"Uniformly gray" based on what? Again we don't see the entire ship. Everything seen was spot on and I see no reason to doubt the appearance of the toroidal space the existence of which was later confirmed in Voyager episodes. All of this points along with independent other internal shots of Borg ships that they have large open spaces which was the point in the first place.
Roondar wrote:I'll stop playing semantic games the day you do and not a second sooner.
Besides, you don't give evidence for some of your claims either. "Reasoning" that Starfleet uses starships or a never-seen-or-heard-of tender fleet to keep their starbases in orbit is not evidence. Nor required, we've seen stationkeeping thrusters used for station maintenance on similar constructions before, it is therefore just as reasonable to assume they just use stationkeeping thrusters.
There is no reason at all to prefer your reasoning over mine. Quite the contrary in fact, we have no evidence at all they have a tender fleet or that they use starships for stationkeeping. None at all.
We do have rival power using stationkeeping thrusters for a station though and a Starfleet crew who saw nothing odd about that idea. A Starfleet crew which make an effort to note every other difference between a 'proper' starfleet installation and DS9.
As I pointed out to JMS they don't need "tender fleets". Any starship with a tractor beam will do. We actually saw ships and tractor beams unlike the station keeping thrusters so yes I have more evidence than you. Finally I am simply adhering to the same level of evidence JMS asked when discussing Death Star's thrusters.
Roondar wrote:None of which changes that Starships which could push aside a Starbase in other ways would have to be able to bear the stresses involved on their hull instead. Now, I don't mind the idea of Starfleet having 'uber' ships but I don't really believe their hulls to be that strong.
None of which changes that I was not actually talking about accelaration capacity at all.
Next time you talk to me about basic physics perhaps you should remind yourself that pushing or pulling something that big using something whose contact area will be so small in comparison will give you rather big problems like the one where all the force is basically applied to only one point, which you should really have known about.
It's merely basic physics after all.
This is getting ridiculous. I showed you mathematically that even assuming moderate acceleration and energy levels for starships they could still move a starbase and you again continue with your unquantified, unsupported statements. I did my homework and provided the calculations. Now you do yours and provide your calculations otherwise there is no point in discussing this with you.
Roondar wrote:From Wikipedia:
A solar flare is a violent explosion in the Sun's atmosphere releasing up to a total energy of 6 × 10^25 Joules.
Or roughly 1,43 * 10^10 megatons.
A really small one (like say 1/10.000th of that) would still be 1,43*10^6th megatons of energy.
Your point?
Except these amount of energies are released from largest flares which are 100,000km wide. You'll notice that the one that hit the Borg ship was some 5km wide which would make it some 35Mt even assuming it was as energetic as those which it wasn't. It was moving at no more than a few km/s.
Mike DiCenso wrote:Interestingly enough, what we may be seeing in the "Descent" Borg ship's case and in "Relics", among other examples, are "focused" solar flares, that are millions of degrees hotter than normal. This might particularly be the case when we see in Trek where the solar flares are generated intentionally for the purpose of destroying another ship or space station.
Focused here was meant in how the energy is divided. Normally flare divides the energy in heating the solar atmosphere and accelerating particles. This one just heats the atmosphere.
