| Subject: Re: Imperial fleet Vs Federation fleet |
Author:
capn hayes
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 15:44:34 10/01/02 Tue
Author Host/IP: NoHost/207.14.48.2
In reply to:
Warspite
's message, "Re: Imperial fleet Vs Federation fleet" on 09:18:54 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.
No you missed the point its possible for those ships to be going at warp nine and be 3 million km apart still fire torpedoes and the torpedoes take 2 seconds to hit. they don't have to be over 400 million klicks away. What is so hard about that to understand.
>
>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. Then why do use it defend nav deflectors and other examples to prove your point. If you discount some of it you should ignore it all, but you instead only use it when helps your arguement. when you don't agree with it you use some onscreen example and say the TM is overruled. It's all or nothing, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
>
>>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? THE DIFFERENCE IS THIS YOU FAILED TO SHOW AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE ITS POSSIBLE TO WARP STRAFFE A SUB-LIGHT TARGET! 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? The problem is you think warp strafing is plausable, and its not. OTHERWISE we would see more examples of it.
>
>>
>>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? THEN YOU'D BE WRONG AGAIN AND I'D TELL YOU WHY YOU WRER WRONG USING EXAMPLES FROM THE MOVIES AND BOOKS. 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'.
Yeah because that makes about as much sense as you saying IT DID HAPPEN refering to TOS and then being unable to give a single example of it being used in any other series or movie!
>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.
I also enjoy debating with you and enjoy listening someone elses opinion and view of both Star Wars and Star Trek. But if I don't agree with you, its okay. but you can't force me to agree with you because you like Star Trek better. Just as I can't force my opinion on you or anyone else.
>
>>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!
> I'm not saying its up to me. Its what they haven't shown that brings up the question of whether it is possible to use warp strafing. In nine movies and over 630 television episodes, only a hand full from TOS 79 seem to confirm what your saying. While I haven't seen those episodes in a while I do know that that back in those days they made mistakes like in [TOS] "Balance of Terror" They only gave the Romulan "Bird of Prey" Impulse power! Now how the hell were going to get home to Romulus without taking a decade to get there! They also quote ranges like 300,000 km before darting off at warp 8 to engage the enemy.
>>
>>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.
I guess you refer to my "un-subtantiated beliefs" I'm not the one tring to prove warpstrafing is plausable you are!
>
>>Which you have aparently chosen to do. It is not
>>possible to target weapons that quickly.
>
>Sez you, using incorrect figures. Sez the TM and the Offical STAR TREK MAGAZINE offically licensed by paramount. Oops you don't count them I forgot, only websites that use the same information from the TM. and the shows which also use the TM for reference.
>
>>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.
Then what is the point of mentioning little details like weapons range in the first place then. Sensor are really only used as plot devices on the show. Or in Voyager's case plot point's and sometimes the plot itself!
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 