ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

ST vs SW

> id="QUOTE">I'd say the possibility of an outcome that makes all the dialogue correct is favorable to one that makes the dialogue incorrect.

Vorta_the_point

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 624

Report this Mar. 16 2010, 10:40 am

> id="QUOTE">but is there much difference in the energy between vaporizing the whole asteroid and vaporizing 99.999% of the asteroid and leaving behind a handful of fragments that are 1cm in diameter?
border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (marshall8472 @ Mar. 16 2010, 10:54 am)


I would expect there to be stages in between vapourised and fragmented (I presume melting would occur, though perhaps it works differently in a vacuum) but I don't have the requisite scientific knowledge to be able to say with any certainty.


border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (marshall8472 @ Mar. 16 2010, 10:54 am)


No; the dialogue is not being made 'incorrect', it is simply not being taken literally. I believe that Occam's Razor favours the assumption that "vapourise" is being used colloquially over the assumption that "vapourise" is being used literally for the reasons I mentioned in my last post; the latter suggestion has more terms.


border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (marshall8472 @ Mar. 16 2010, 10:54 am)> id="QUOTE">Why say vaporize if all it does is turn the asteroid into dust?

Because he is using a colloquialism.


border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (marshall8472 @ Mar. 16 2010, 10:54 am)> id="QUOTE">We can at least assume they were expecting an asteroid that was mostly vaporized.

That would make Chakotay's statement that it should have been completely vapourised incorrect if it were to be taken literally, though, which is why I would suggest it should not be taken as such.


border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (marshall8472 @ Mar. 16 2010, 10:54 am)> id="QUOTE">http://www.st-wiki.com/wiki/Intrepid_Class

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (marshall8472 @ Mar. 16 2010, 10:54 am)> id="QUOTE">The term vaporize was never used as a figure of speech before on star trek as far as I know. ?(you might try to argue phasers are an example but they still make objects vanish into nothing except maybe a few bits of dust and smoke). ?There's no reason for me to assume they're using a figure of speech. ?Sure it's theoretically possible but almost anything is theoretically possible.

Actually, the reverse is true - they have used the term colloquially to refer to phaser disintegration dozens of times, since it is not literal vapourisation in any way, shape or form; as you say, the target simply vanishes into nothing except dust and a little smoke, while literal vapourisation through simply applying raw energy to a humanoid would create a cloud of scalding steam 8 metres wide, injuring anyone nearby.

This obviously doesn't happen, hence they are using the term colloquially - in the same way that I myself often refer to this effect as 'disintegration', despite the fact that literally the scientific definition of disintegration would create a blast wave of super-heated plasma.


border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (marshall8472 @ Mar. 16 2010, 10:54 am)> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">I thought so, but I just wanted to make sure. Regarding this, what method of scaling have you used for calculating the asteroid's size in Rise to make the comparison?

http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWrise.html

he looks at the visual and compares the size of the torpedo with the side of the asteroid.

As Chr pointed out, the problem is he scales the asteroid by assuming that a photon torpedo's glow grows to 10 metres by scaling the torpedo in relation to Voyager when it is furthest away from the ship rather than when it's at its closest (which would scale the torpedo at 2 metres) creating a far greater margin of error and an inability to accurately take into account the perspective differences of it travelling towards the camera. I believe that there are also some other issues with his calculations that the article Chr linked to mentions.

The scaling error alone means that the dimensions of the asteroid are five times smaller than he calculates, which in turn reduces it's volume and mass by an even greater margin and with it the energy the torpedo imparts.

Vorta_the_point

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 624

Report this Apr. 11 2010, 3:14 pm

An interesting idea, but it would seem that the warp pulse is a technobabble method of warping space without constantly using the warp engines, rather than 'real space' momentum; aside from the fact that - as you point out - the way warp drive works should not logically be able to impart momentum in this way, there is the problem that if it did, the Enterprise should simply be able to switch on its impulse engines to increase their velocity beyond whatever velocity the warp pulse had imparted - they won't lose 'momentum' in space once the engines are off and gradually get slower, like they would if they were in atmosphere. Since this doesn't happen, it's almost certainly some sort of technobabble effect going on; this is presumably also why they never use this method to destroy Borg cubes, who would be prime targets for this tactic.

Besides, even if it did actually work as you suggested, wouldn't it be rather costly on ships?

Guardian47

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 70

Report this Apr. 11 2010, 5:03 pm

Missed these before . . . no matter:

Quote (Vorta_the_point @ Mar. 16 2010, 12:40 pm)
No; the dialogue is not being made 'incorrect', it is simply not being taken literally. I believe that Occam's Razor favours the assumption that "vapourise" is being used colloquially

{...}

That would make Chakotay's statement that it should have been completely vapourised incorrect if it were to be taken literally, though, which is why I would suggest it should not be taken as such.

{...}

Actually, the reverse is true - they have used the term colloquially to refer to phaser disintegration dozens of times, since it is not literal vapourisation {...}


I'm sure all that makes perfect sense in your head. ¿However, none of it really works. ¿Occam, whether as formulated by the named chap or understood merely as going with the simplest solution, has limits. ¿

Put simply, your claim of falsehood on Chakotay's part is equivalent to the so-called simplicity of the "Goddidit" answer to any question . . . sure, it's simple, and requires only one unknown entity, but it's also too simple for its own good.

1. You hinge your claim on the notion that a surface detonation cannot produce fragments when vaporizing the main body. ¿That is absurd.

As always, the concept of a false vaporization requires that somehow the photon torpedo act in the role of Space Cuisinart, carefully chopping up a huge asteroid into discrete and even bits of less than a centimeter in size. ¿That concept is absurd on its very face, and the larger the asteroid is the worse the problem is.

Even in the case of bullets versus small objects, we don't get such evenness, and the same would certainly be true of a non-centrally-buried-explosive device dealing with parts of the object opposite the explosion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjUTZH_Vdxs&NR=1

2. You also point to phasers and say no vaporization occurs. ¿We don't actually know what all happens with phasers, though we do know that hot vapor is not left behind. ¿

That doesn't mean that vaporization is used colloquially . . . it could simply mean that it is used partially, with other incidents going on to dispense with the resulting vapor. ¿

But that hardly matters, because there is no phaser in use here. ¿This is an antimatter warhead.

3. ¿As a result of the above, your attempt to force an internal contradiction where none is necessary is flawed and illogical. ¿Occam does not support error.

Quote
to 10 metres by scaling the torpedo in relation to Voyager when it is furthest away from the ship


The above, however, is an assumption. In the shot of the torpedo being fired, both the ship and the torpedo are in motion. Treating it as a straight-line shot makes understanding and tracking easy . . . assuming a torpedo fired toward the camera requires all manner of squiggly-line course corrections.

I've actually done a 3-D reconstruction of the scene as part of an update of that page, and while it is in a pre-release state i can tell you that a straight shot is the only decent way to understand the thing. ¿Otherwise, you get into a situation where the torpedo literally has to fly an S-curve.

So in both vaporization logic and scaling, my page represents the simplest solutions available.

SLARAN

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 87

Report this Apr. 12 2010, 1:41 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzCRk2SDa5M&feature=PlayList&p=FA0B777631150791&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=1

Start at 4:40 to 7:55

Enterprise-D saucer separates wile at warp and saucer section is still traveling at FTL after it detaches from star drive section.

Guardian47

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 70

Report this Apr. 12 2010, 10:54 pm

Warp velocity can be maintained for a short time without warp engines . . . the saucer section, for instance, will drop from warp within two minutes if ditched at high warp:

From Chakoteya.Net:

Quote
PICARD: Mister La Forge, prepare for saucer separation.
WESLEY: Sir, we're at Warp nine three.
PICARD: I am aware of the risks, Ensign. When the umbilical splits, we should regain primary control, do you agree?
LAFORGE: Yes, sir.
PICARD: The saucer module should fall out of warp in two minutes. Be prepared to sweep back. Pull it in with a tractor beam.
WORF: Aye, sir.
PICARD: Initiate auto sequence.


That's "Brothers"[TNG4].

As for warp ramming, I do have a whole page on the topic. Suffice it to say I don't think it would make nearly as big a bang as one might hope:

http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWwarpram.html

Vorta_the_point

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 624

Report this Apr. 17 2010, 9:01 pm

> id="QUOTE">I'm sure all that makes perfect sense in your head. ?However, none of it really works. ?Occam, whether as formulated by the named chap or understood merely as going with the simplest solution, has limits. ?

Put simply, your claim of falsehood on Chakotay's part is equivalent to the so-called simplicity of the "Goddidit" answer to any question . . . sure, it's simple, and requires only one unknown entity, but it's also too simple for its own good.
border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (Guardian47 @ April 11 2010, 10:03 pm)


I wasn't claiming that Chakotay's statement was false; as I said to Marshall, I suggested it was not supposed to be a literal scientific definition. This is not an unprovable, unknown "Goddidit" explanation, it is a quite common use of language that frequently occurs in everyday life (for example, I might say that a phaser 'disintegrates' a target, despite the fact that literally, the precise textbook definition of disintegration would I believe create a blast wave of super-heated plasma).


border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (Guardian47 @ April 11 2010, 10:03 pm)> id="QUOTE">1. You hinge your claim on the notion that a surface detonation cannot produce fragments when vaporizing the main body. ?That is absurd.

I don't think that was what I argued; certainly Marshall was originally arguing that Chakotay was referring to complete vapourisation of the asteroid, and indeed as you can see above I said myself that there would be many stages between complete vapourisation and fragmentation when he later suggested only partial vapourisation of the asteroid.


border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (Guardian47 @ April 11 2010, 10:03 pm)> id="QUOTE">2. You also point to phasers and say no vaporization occurs. ?We don't actually know what all happens with phasers, though we do know that hot vapor is not left behind. ?

That doesn't mean that vaporization is used colloquially . . . it could simply mean that it is used partially, with other incidents going on to dispense with the resulting vapor. ?

But that hardly matters, because there is no phaser in use here. ?This is an antimatter warhead.

That would be an unusual use of the term though, to say a process 'vapourises' someone when in actual fact only a small part of the target is actually vapourised; it would be like killing a Klingon with a phaser on one of the lower power (non-vapourising) kill settings and saying that you had 'incinerated' him - despite the fact that actually only a small part of his body (the area where the beam actually hit) had actually been incinerated.

Again, I would suggest that the term 'vapourising' in this context is simply a colloquial way of saying 'reduced to practically nothing' rather than a precise definition, in the same way I mentioned previously that I might refer to the process as disintegration.


border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (Guardian47 @ April 11 2010, 10:03 pm)> id="QUOTE">3. ?As a result of the above, your attempt to force an internal contradiction where none is necessary is flawed and illogical. ?Occam does not support error.

In addition to what I mentioned above, you appear to be implying (and please correct me if this is not the case) that there is no contradiction between Chakotay saying the asteroid should be vapourised and Kim's statement of fragments, as he may be referring to only part of the asteroid being vapourised. However, I would disagree that this is what he is referring to by the use of 'vapourised' as part of the asteroid actually does appear to be vapourised; it would make little sense him expressing surprise at the torpedo's results, saying that it should have been (partially) vapourised, when in actual fact it really was partially vapourised.


border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (Guardian47 @ April 11 2010, 10:03 pm)> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (Guardian47 @ April 11 2010, 10:03 pm)> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (marshall8472 @ April 12 2010, 6:37 am)> id="QUOTE">if this is how warp drive works I imagine they just reverse their warp engines to come out of warp and to a full stop. ?We've seen them use their warp engines to go in reverse before such as in episode "Time Squared".

In addition to what is mentioned in the article that Guardian posted on the subject, note that when the Enterprise attempted Saucer separation at warp, it was considered dangerous as the Saucer section, lacking warp engines itself, would rapidly slow down and drop out of warp once detached.

If warp engines simply imparted faster than light momentum like a normal engine would as you're suggesting, then there is no reason that the Saucer section would rapidly slow down and drop out of warp when detached; it would still retain its original momentum and continue at warp speed until it applied a braking force, it would not lose momentum and slow down as if it were in an atmosphere.

DarthServo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4786

Report this May. 16 2010, 3:09 am

Proof the crew of Voyager are morons and their statements, particularly off-hand comments, should not be taken literally.

Janeway frequently selects the least effective option to solving a problem.

Janeway's idiocy is what got them stranded in the Delta Quad in the first place. She also trusts Neelix even though he's been lying to them from day one, but then again, she also thinks Q isn't a liar either.

Astounding ignorance about the nature of a black hole's event horizon.

The Prime Directive becomes an excuse for genocide.

Janeway sets murders free without any kind of punishment

Don't know much about the nature of worm holes either.

Naturally occuring, stable trans-uranic elements. tee-hee.

Repeated failures in efforts to get home faster.

Stupidity in selecting landing party members and facing situations with probable hostiles in the area.

More stupidity in facing dangerous situations.

Janeway gives vital ship information to crew members she has reasons to believe she cannot trust anymore.

Stupidly mixing terminology of molecular level and sub atomic particles. To show how idiotic that is, some have described it as trying to play billiards with a standard-size pool table and using Mars as the cue-ball. Note to all the Trek wankers who like to think planetary destruction is the norm in Trek, yet the crew of Voyager is impressed by the mere destruction of 300k people. We can do worse than that today.

To all the Trektards who laugh at the Death Star being destroyed by an X-wing, you seem to not realize that Trek ships can be destroyed by a computer virus (Contagion) or a hand gun (Nemesis) or even A LUMP OF CHEESE!!!

Voyager's chief engineer is a person who LITERALLY does not know shit when she sees it.

More idiotic tactics.

Tuvok doesn't understand the geometry of a ring.

Paturition: more of the same stupid.

Tuvok's deplorable security tactics.

Tuvok's deplorable medical practices. Maybe that's why someone with only a couple semesters of biochemistry was selected as the field medic instead of him.

Absurd artificial problems with the warp core.

More nonsense treknobabble and genocide in the name of the Prime Directive.

Yet MORE nonsense treknobabble, proof the characters pull the numbers for the chances of something happening out of thin air and that they don't know squat about evolution.

More idiot tactics when dealing with hostiles boarding Voyager.

Janeway executes a member of the crew just because. At least when Vader does it, its for screwing up.

When stranded in the wilderness, its the alleged survival expert who gets people killed.

By the way, no Star Wars crew ever got tricked by the Galaxy's short-bus.

DarthServo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4786

Report this May. 16 2010, 3:51 am

Quote (marshall8472 @ May 17 2010, 1:35 am)
I've watched that guy's videos before. ¿I hate him ¿:laugh:

Heaven forbid ANYONE ever say anything bad about Star Trek. :eyesroll: Are his reviews INACCURATE???

Quote
Obi-wan survives by luck because Darth Maul staled and wanted to stare at him for some reason.

Gloating. Obi-wan was disarmed and hanging by his fingertips. Not really a threat at first glance. Maul underestimated him. Unfortunate, but not necessarily stupid.

DarthServo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4786

Report this May. 16 2010, 1:33 pm

Quote (marshall8472 @ May 17 2010, 2:31 am)
:eyesroll: Are his reviews INACCURATE???


my first instinct is to go watch all those videos you posted but that would involve me listening to his voice. Maybe just pick one out of the bunch and i'll give it a shot.
Sure, its not as if YOU have the intelligence to be able to just pick one at random. OK, how about the second part of Caretaker, where Janeway's stupidity strands them in the Delta Quad, Neelix being a liar who gambles with the lives of Voyager's crew for his own ends is established right from the start yet Janeway still trusts his stupid @$$ as a guide and the Kazon are so retarded that even with starships, they treat the second most common molecule in the universe as a precious commodity.

Quote
yeah he underestimated him because he's stupid heh.
No. What part of "Obi-wan was disarmed and hanging by his fingers" are you too stupid to understand? Was "super genius" Khan a moron for gloating over Kirk after the initial crippling of the Enterprise in TWOK? Hell, we could declare nearly EVERY villain in Trek idiotic on that point.

Quote
are you saying that you don't think gravity is dependent on mass? ?or just making fun of someone that thinks that?
The latter. That the quote is ascribed to "TrekkieForAsimov" should have been a clue. Like most ignorant kiddies who jump into this debate, he though reading a coffee-table magazine article on dark matter overturned everything we know about gravity. Which reminds me of another fine example of idiocy from Voyager.

Kdbtrekkin

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3648

Report this May. 16 2010, 7:34 pm

Quote (marshall8472 @ Feb. 01 2010, 7:34 am)
Quote (chr3335 @ Jan. 31 2010, 7:17 pm)
Quote (LtCmdrHanson @ Jan. 30 2010, 7:59 pm)
Quote (chr3335 @ Jan. 31 2010, 5:47 pm)
No the TNG tech manual isn't canon either but I like using it for photon torpedo yields because it is the strongest one we see.

Then the TNG phaser yields should be used, if you're going to use part of it, why not all?

Well I am not familar with the TNG tech manual phaser yields but since we really haven't seen a good on screen example to calculate photon torpedo yields but have seen on screen examples of phasers is my reason.


Here's a ship from star trek that can destroy the entire galactic empire in a single shot: The Krenim temporal weapon





its temporal core makes them immune to weapons and protects them from space-time so the crew onboard don't even age. Anyway, one shot at the death star should erase all traces of it. The Death Star's shields shouldn't be able to protect them and the death star can fire at this ship all it wants and there would be 0 damage.

The death star's destruction is likely to destroy the entire empire especially if the emperor or darth vader are aboard it.

Use this weapon and borg transwarp conduits and you are all over the galaxy very quickly, you don't need to research the SW galaxy, you just wipe out the Death Star and any SW ship you find as your transwarping everywhere. Nobody said this Krenim ship can't use Borg technology. It's one Universe against another.

Heck we could throw in Q and be done, quicker than you can blink.(but that's kinda not technology{as far as we know}, more of a species power, so we can't really use, to be fair).

Or we could use the iconion gateways with thousands of various military arms of the Star Trek universe, so that would be billions of soldiers instantly put on various worlds at the same time(yeah might take a little time to get them threw, but as an extreme surprise that would be, it would be hard to defend against, but not necessarily{guess the last troops threw could easily get killed, but that still leaves the tons all ready threw} and these troops would have personal transporters, yeah eventually they could all get destroyed but not before they are used several times to devastating effect, as there are more than one gateway.

Or there is the species that controlled the Omega molecules almost, well just use that temporary technology that held it for a small amount of time and use the iconion gateways to get the containers there with like a 5 second timer, those gateways show many worlds, they could be programmed with all the worlds of the SW galaxy and every few seconds you throw some Omega grenade threw, each grenade will kill the planet and the outlying solar system it occupies.

Or back to the Krenim ship, just in case the temporal shields aren't enough, you add Borg shielding with Voyager's technology they picked up from there own future, that Janeway had brought back in time  from the last episode. And use those same weapons she used to destroy Borg cubes out right, plus some tri-cobalt torpedoes(at there highest setting), plus we could re build the technology the Xindi invented to fight to. So we got Borg exploding torpedoes, Alien Space station vaporizing torpedoes and planet destroying weapons, plus the toughest shields seen in the Star Trek universe and a time weapon, and galaxy traveling means(now you could say we can't use those as it's a system not an actual drive, well we could just build those slingshots or use the drive the Voth have which is transwarp or the Quantum slipstream drive invented by Species 116, you really can't beat that. Star Wars loses, sorry guys :honorable:

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum