| Subject: Re: Imperial fleet Vs Federation fleet |
Author:
Warspite
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09:39:27 10/02/02 Wed
Author Host/IP: ipd54b1d20.free.wxs.nl/213.75.29.32
In reply to:
capn hayes
's message, "Re: Imperial fleet Vs Federation fleet" on 15:44:34 10/01/02 Tue
>>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.
Okay, I will try one last time. It doesn't matter what distance the ships were apart when the firing took place. Look, let's consider a real world example. You are 10 meters away from another person. That person is walking directly away from you at a speed of 1 meter a second. You start walking to catch them up. You walk at a speed of 2 meters a second. How far do you have to walk before you catch them? after five seconds you would have covered the inital 10 meter distance, but they are not there anymore. They are now five meters away from you, because they are moving at 5 meters a second. You would have to walk for another five seconds before you caught them. Your total distance covered would therefore be 20 meters, even though you started off just 10 meters apart. You can calculate this easily. It the same for these trek examples. The target ship was moving away. Once we know the speed of the ship, and the flight time of the torpedo, we can would out the distance the torpedo must have covered. In the Dreadnought example, the flight time was around 1.5 seconds, and the speed 1516 times lightspeed. If we assume light speed to be 300,000km, the distance the torpedo covered (regardless of initial firing distance) would therefore be ((1516*300,000) + 1.5) well over 600,000,000km.
>>
>>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.
>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.
No, that is not what I do. I will explain it again (though I have already done so many times). What happens on screen is canon, and considered (for these debates) to be true. The TM is not canon. However, it is written by the shows creators, so it does contain useful information. However, in any conflict between the two, the screen ALWAYS wins.
Therefore, since we have seen torpedoes cover great distances, the figure in the TM must be wrong. We have not seen the deflector description contradicted, therefore we provisionally accept it. Why provisionally? Because if it is contradicted in a later show, it too will be abandoned.
I stick to these rules. I don't pick info from the TM that has been contradicted on screen.
>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.
I don't. I defy you to find a single example where I have placed the TM above the on screen evidence.
>>
>>>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!
The Ultimate computer!
>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!
>
Okay, give me an example from TNG, where the Enterprise is limited to impulse, and is attacked by a warp speed ship. If you can't, and that scenario has not happened in TNG, then warp strafing would not have been used. It would only work on a ship without warp. And it doesn't matter anyway. TOS is part of Trek continuity. It doesn't have to happen anywhere else to still be true.
>>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.
Exactly. But the rules of this group are that you accept the commonly accepted defintion of 'proof' and canon. That can be found on the Clash of the Titans website at:-
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/blueyard/canon.html
If you don't accept those rules, you cannot debate here.
>>
>>>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.
Who knows? That isn't the point. The point is that it did happen on screen. It may not make sense to use, but that is the way it is. Paramount considers the original series canon, and therefore it did happen.
>>>
>>>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.
No, sez you, because you have the wrong range for torpedoes, because you are using the figure from the TM which has been shown on screen to be wrong! I do accept the magazine (and the TMs), BUT not above the on screen evidence. That is the key point. I don't pick and choose. That is the rules, and I stick to them.
>>
>>>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!
Quite possibly a good description of Voyager. However, the afct remains that the main sensors are the things used for targeting. It even says so in the TM (which I can use because it is not contradicted by on-screen evidence)...
"...targeting data is gathered from the ships various sensor systems and processed at faster than light speeds in the main computers"
(TNG:TM p130)
"The majority of instruments in the long range array are active scan subspace devices which permit information gathering at speeds greatly exceeding that of light"
(TNG:TM p111)
"The torpedo is controlled by the on-board computer and sensor array. The main processor for the computer is a bio-neural gel cylinder surrounded by a low level warp field for faster than light computations and a low level thoron web to block threat force countermeasure radiation."
(DS9:TM p88).
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 