| Subject: Re: Imperial fleet Vs Federation fleet |
Author:
Warspite
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09:18:54 10/01/02 Tue
Author Host/IP: ipd54b191d.free.wxs.nl/213.75.25.29
In reply to:
capn hayes
's message, "Re: Imperial fleet Vs Federation fleet" on 02:53:27 10/01/02 Tue
>Of cousr the TMs are wrong the dis agree with you.
>About the [VGR] "Flashback" episode. What makes you
>think you would be able to see 300 meter ships firing
>from 3 million km in the first place. the fact that
>you don't see the ships actully makes sense. All the
>ships in that example were at warp and could have been
>within weapons range and have been in visual range of
>each other.
>
>Strike one!!!
No, you're missing a very basic point. We know the speed of the ship, and we see the torpedo appear from behind the ship, overhauling it until impact. It is easy to work out the minimal flight time of the torpedo (ie time time we can actually see it flying). Once we have the minimal flight time, we can simply multiply it by the speed we know it must be doing, to give us the distance it must have covered. It is a very simple piece of math. In the example given (Voy:Dreadnought), we see the USS Voyager fire mark VI photons at the Dreadnought missile (it is clearly stated that the torps are mark VI). The stated speed of Dreadnought (they state it twice so there is NO argument
on this one either) is warp nine (ie 1516c). The flight time of the torpedoes is about 1.5 seconds, so even if we are generous and say that the torp was only traveling as fast as Dreadnought (logically it would have to be faster), AND we round it down to just 1500c, the distance traveled by the torp will still be 675,000,000km. Even if we were even more generous and say that there was just 1 second of flight time (minimum needed for arming), the distance would
still be 450,000,000km.
The TM is wrong, pure and simple! If you don't like that, direct your complaints to Paramount, not me. I don't make the show.
>Luckily all the examples you have shown were at warp
>speeds and consider that if they were at the same warp
>speeds and got within range of the other ships then
>they could fire their torpedoes and of course they
>would be going faster than both the firing ship and
>the targeted ship this would increase the overall
>speed of the torpedo. The [VGR] "Dreadnought" example
>also doesn't show "warp strafing".
>
Correct, but what difference does it make? We know that is the distance it can cover when fired from warp. In warp strafing, it would also be fired from warp. We know that the sensors work at high resolution up to 5ly. We are only talking about a range of something like 30 light MINUTES! What is the problem?
>
>Your examples confirm nothing about range or warp
>strafing but I comend your efforts.
>
>There is NO END OF STORY either just because you say
>so, besides I didn't say that it didn't happen I said
>it was a mistake on the part of the writers, a mistake
>they later realized, and one you have yet to realize
>it seems.THE ONLY FACT is warp strafing while may
>exsist in TOS is implausable.
>
Okay, fine, you think its a mistake. What if I say it was a mistake about the Death Star having the power to destroy planets? We no longer have any common ground to debate on. You will always refuse to accept anything you don't like, simply by saying 'it must be a writer mistake'.
Are we happy now? Does this allow us any further debate? I think not. That's a shame, I quite enjoyed debating with you. We cannot debate as long as you refuse to accept on screen evidence that you don't like.
>It maybe apples and oranges but they were still
>changes made. If they can change one thing then thay
>could change others.
Yes they could, but they haven't stated they have. It is NOT up to you to decide which was right and which was wrong. That is the job of the writers, they get paid for it. Unless they say otherwise, it is correct!
>
>It maybe seem easy to deflect the arguements away by
>saying they are flawed, but based on the examples you
>gave and the ranges that are given unless you ignore
>that.
Yes, it's terrible the way I use facts from the show to prove my arguments, rather than relying just on un-substantiated beliefs.
>Which you have aparently chosen to do. It is not
>possible to target weapons that quickly.
Sez you, using incorrect figures.
>There is a
>difference in targeting scanners and sensors. Yes its
>possible to detect and even track ships with sensors,
>but that doesn't mean they can terget them with those
>sensors, only detect them.
The sensors are the same thing. They have targeting computers to do the calculations required.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 