Ah, the zombie thread returns! And CM is still a zombie.
Crossover_Maniac wrote:So, it's okay to discount the visuals such as the slow speed the proton torpedo turned as a distortion, but it isn't if it's in Trek's favor?
No one's "discounting" them (strawman #1). I'm simply pointing out that there is an alternate method of interpreting them which is still consistent with real-life methods, and which does not lead to ludicrous contradictions with its launch speed or the fact that protorps hit the shaft before the launching fighter reaches it.
At a distance of 40,000 km, phasers will only take 0.13 seconds to transverse that distance. That's not much time to do any of the above while the beam is still propagating.
Assuming they travel at c, even though hand phasers move so slowly that a 50 year old man can dodge them.
I suppose you can show two ships at 40,000 km in the proper scale. Sorry, but the pixel size will be larger than the two ships if you showed a scene with two ships 40,000 km between each other.
That's not what he's talking about (strawman #2), idiot. You can do it the way they did it in "Balance of Terror". Besides, it's irrelevant; the people who make the show decided to make it look that way; there is no source showing longer ranges, so your claim of "distorting" this imaginary subjective source in your head is pure bullshit. And after repeatedly listing numerous incidents where the dialogue ALSO supports short ranges, I have noticed with considerable disgust that you simply ignore them in favour of your ridiculous mantra that it's dialogue vs visuals (a very old, longstanding strawman argument put forth by your SB.com butt-buddies, I might add).
And yet you have no evidence for the 72,000 g turn made by Luke's torpedo. No, no double standard here.
Bullshit (and strawman #3). The evidence has already been laid out. Unless you can explain why the X-wings do not overtake their own torpedoes, you must accept that the footage is slow-mo. Slow-mo footage exists in real life; it is a perfectly viable explanation when none other exists. No one is "discounting" visuals or applying an unequal standard, no matter how much you would like to support your SB.com butt-buddies' claims that this is what we do.
You seem to miss the entire point I was making. You want to use differing time frames when I suits your purpose.
No, not when it "suits our purpose" (strawman #4). We only use differing time-frames when it is impossible to rationalize the footage any other way. And since you have not even ATTEMPTED to explain how it is possible, this is yet another Wall of Ignorance(TM) tactic on your part.
When it doesn't you get uptight with me. Sorry, but unless you don't want to be accused of changing the standards in debate, I suggest stop flip-flopping about what standard you use in the debates.
There is no "flip-flopping". You claim that the consistent application of real-world methods is "flip-flopping" now? Pathetic.
Master of Ossus wrote:And you claim to be an engineer?
I wasn't aware that extensive knowledge of Star Wars was needed to be considered an engineer.
No, but knowledge of real-life methods is certainly required to be an engineer, and you have not demonstrated any. Your inability to conceptualize simple speed/distance relationships in the ANH torpedo-turn incident is a good example of that problem.
The writers thought that a chemical explosive was more powerful than weapons with weapons with nuclear weapon-level yields. I mean, it was utter crap.
Yes, it was. It was also canon. You can't arbitrarily rewrite canon because you think the writers are idiots, even if they are. If an idiot writer who describes a pathetically weak ship, you must accept that he's an idiot for describing a pathetically weak ship. You don't arbitrarily decide that because he's an idiot, the ship was actually very strong.
The metryon gas Riker used against the So'na creating a chemical explosive.
Again, the writers caused serious problems for people who want to claim Trek has immensely powerful weapons. Not my problem, I'm afraid.
Then I saw the same brain bug in Farscape dealing with the chakan oil. I mean, PK's use this as the power source of their weapons? What the hell?!? I figured that, if it's agreed that nuclear weapon-level yields weapons> chemical incendiary weapons, according to the Wong commentaries, it would interesting to see if I post a NX-01 vs. CC fight.
I don't watch Farscape, so I don't particularly care. What I
do care about is your consistent use of annoying bullshit strawman distortions of my claims regarding SW. I don't give a fuck what you say about Farscape because I don't watch it and I don't have an opinion on it, but you decided to introduce an off-topic tangent in your argument, and then you decided to be a smart-ass about it, as you often do, and promote all of these idiotic strawman distortions of our methods, attacks on our integrity, etc.
What happen was I realized how wrong I was. I'm sorry SirNitram for using the canon material you didn't like and not the canon material you wanted me to use. I'm sorry IG-88e for thinking that what Wong said about chemical weapons vs. multi-megaton weapons was valid for sci-fi ships besides ST ( I mean, what was I expecting from you? Proving metryon gas insn't hypermatter). Good bye. I'm sorry I troubled you trying to use a consistant standard for judging ships in vs. debates.
That's exactly the kind of smart-ass put-down I'm talking about. Whenever we try to pin you down to a discussion on a particular incident, you cover it up with a generous spackle layer of generalizations and claim victory.
