CGT sensors and Star Trek cloaking devices

[teleguy]

A good example would be the Voyger episode "Human Error". The target missile was supposed to be thousands of kilometers away yet when Voyger opened fire it was right behind Voyger !

You can't accurately display thousands of kilometers on screen without making the ships nanometers in size. That wouldn't be very watchable ,would it ? So the only way to convey such distances is dialogue.

Too bad visuals have always trumped dialogue since Visuals are objective versus dialogue which is subjected to hyperbole.

Chekov:Phasers locked on target.
Range ... closing.
75,000 kilometers.
KirK: Fire!
Chekov:Got him ! ( " Journey to Babel")

"Thousands of kilometers" could be hyperbole but not a precise figure like 75,000 km.

Data:The warship is three hundred thousand kilometers from the Phoenix. It is opening fire. The Phoenix has taken a direct hit. ("The Wounded")

Data using hyperbole?

[Ghost Rider]

Do you have visual proof of this?

Because with that thought I can give the Empire a boost that would make any current calculation look puny and small.

[Lord Revan]

Chekov:Phasers locked on target.
Range ... closing.
75,000 kilometers.
KirK: Fire!
Chekov:Got him ! ( " Journey to Babel")


"Thousands of kilometers" could be hyperbole but not a precise figure like 75,000 km.

Data:The warship is three hundred thousand kilometers from the Phoenix. It is opening fire. The Phoenix has taken a direct hit. ("The Wounded")

Data using hyperbole?

The wounded example is irrelevant as it's ship vs. ship combat rather then fleet vs. fleet combat and Journey to Babel example seem to also ship vs. ship combat. In fleet vs. fleet combat ranges are only few km.

[Ghost Rider]

The Lakota vs the Defiant is ship versus ship and it was easily with few Kilometers.

I want to see visual proof of thousands of Km given that all the current proof is from that particular train of thought and dialogue has always been taken with a grain of salt given the amount of mistakes that can be attributed by said people.

[teleguy]

Would be nice then to show that you can aptly demonstrated in why in the Battle for Cardassia they had to go point blank.

That they did doesn't prove that they had to.

So you deny the fact that attack at these thousands of KM range wouldn't have been benficial and made their formation useless?.

Why should it have been beneficial when the Dominion and the Cardassians have a similar weapons range?

[Ghost Rider]

That they did doesn't prove that they had to.

So you deny the fact that attack at these thousands of KM range wouldn't have been benficial and made their formation useless?.

Why should it have been beneficial when the Dominion and the Cardassians have a similar weapons range?

Do you have visual proof.

In the end of the day...giving bits of dialogue fails when VISUAL trumps in many more regards...thus it's either hyperbole or an extreme high end that is once again never used.

[teleguy]

The Lakota vs the Defiant is ship versus ship and it was easily with few Kilometers.

I want to see visual proof of thousands of Km given that all the current proof is from that particular train of thought and dialogue has always been taken with a grain of salt given the amount of mistakes that can be attributed by said people.

So you want ships that are to small to be visible on screen?

[Ghost Rider]

The Lakota vs the Defiant is ship versus ship and it was easily with few Kilometers.

I want to see visual proof of thousands of Km given that all the current proof is from that particular train of thought and dialogue has always been taken with a grain of salt given the amount of mistakes that can be attributed by said people.

So you want ships that are to small to be visible on screen?

Too bad...visual proof still trumps dialogue...so unless you have such the very canon that you tout is showing that such events are extremely rare and considered the absolute high end gien most visual proof points towards a fwew KM range....

What I feel is entertainment is irrelevant to what is considered research.

[Lord Revan]

The Lakota vs the Defiant is ship versus ship and it was easily with few Kilometers.

I want to see visual proof of thousands of Km given that all the current proof is from that particular train of thought and dialogue has always been taken with a grain of salt given the amount of mistakes that can be attributed by said people.

In "the Wounded" visuals don't conterdict the dialoge and Defiant vs. anything is only few km since the pulse phasers don't hit anything in longer ranges.

[Alan Bolte]

Unless you intend to argue that the battle was intentionally viewed at high magnification rather than at normal human sight, which, while possible is something I have yet to see anyone do successfully, or even with any detail, you are either an idiot or a troll for not reading or not obeying the rules requiring visual evidence, specifically the method of 'suspension of disbelief' used here.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing at least some of all of that dialogue not have to be thrown out, but what do you do when the visuals don't work for ya?

[Lord Revan]

Unless you intend to argue that the battle was intentionally viewed at high magnification rather than at normal human sight, which, while possible is something I have yet to see anyone do successfully, or even with any detail, you are either an idiot or a troll for not reading or not obeying the rules requiring visual evidence, specifically the method of 'suspension of disbelief' used here.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing at least some of all of that dialogue not have to be thrown out, but what do you do when the visuals don't work for ya?

are you talking about me or teleguy?

[Ghost Rider]

Unless you intend to argue that the battle was intentionally viewed at high magnification rather than at normal human sight, which, while possible is something I have yet to see anyone do successfully, or even with any detail, you are either an idiot or a troll for not reading or not obeying the rules requiring visual evidence, specifically the method of 'suspension of disbelief' used here.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing at least some of all of that dialogue not have to be thrown out, but what do you do when the visuals don't work for ya?

are you talking about me or teleguy?

He had have to be one damn fast typist if he's refering to you and also you ahven't been wondering of Dialogue vs Visual, I doubt he's directing the post towards you.

[Lord Revan]

He had have to be one damn fast typist if he's refering to you and also you ahven't been wondering of Dialogue vs Visual, I doubt he's directing the post towards you.

Thank you.

[teleguy]

Unless you intend to argue that the battle was intentionally viewed at high magnification rather than at normal human sight, which, while possible is something I have yet to see anyone do successfully, or even with any detail, you are either an idiot or a troll for not reading or not obeying the rules requiring visual evidence, specifically the method of 'suspension of disbelief' used here.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing at least some of all of that dialogue not have to be thrown out, but what do you do when the visuals don't work for ya?

Why should the visuals don't work out when in my examples THERE ARE NO VISUALS TO CONTRADICT DIALOGUE . I'm not saying that the Dominion War battles took place at these ranges. And I don't have to because shorter distances don't contradict longer ranges in other instances, see my Deathstar example .

[Ghost Rider]

Unless you intend to argue that the battle was intentionally viewed at high magnification rather than at normal human sight, which, while possible is something I have yet to see anyone do successfully, or even with any detail, you are either an idiot or a troll for not reading or not obeying the rules requiring visual evidence, specifically the method of 'suspension of disbelief' used here.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing at least some of all of that dialogue not have to be thrown out, but what do you do when the visuals don't work for ya?

Why should the visuals don't work out when in my examples THERE ARE NO VISUALS TO CONTRADICT DIALOGUE . I'm not saying that the Dominion War battles took place at these ranges. And I don't have to because shorter distances don't contradict longer ranges in other instances, see my Deathstar example .

Actually there are since you claim thousand of KM range yet every visual battle has been shown at tens of KM.

Plus your DS analogy is faulty given unless you can show that DS proved that the Superlaser is capable of that power and the RoTJ novel backs this up in description it's your onus to prove the DS2 was incapable of such an action.

[teleguy]

Plus your DS analogy is faulty given unless you can show that DS proved that the Superlaser is capable of that power and the RoTJ novel backs this up in description it's your onus to prove the DS2 was incapable of such an action.

I never said the DS2 couldn't destroy a planet. In fact that was my whole point. Do you really not understand me or are you doing this intentionally?

But ok let's follow that thought . What visual evidence is there that the DS2 can destroy a planet?

[Mr Bean]

But ok let's follow that thought . What visual evidence is there that the DS2 can destroy a planet?

Bigger more powerful but not yet complete
Oh and it never had a chance to fire on any worlds as the one right behind it happen to be holding one of its primary defenses online

And it of coures ignores the fact there happens to be an ass-ton of other canon that backs up the planet killing ability of the DSII(When completed anyway)

[Darth Wong]

But ok let's follow that thought . What visual evidence is there that the DS2 can destroy a planet?

I see you have decided to be a moron. DS1 could do it with a millionfold overkill. This puts the burden of proof on you to explain why you think DS2 would be less than a millionth as powerful as DS1.

[teleguy]

But ok let's follow that thought . What visual evidence is there that the DS2 can destroy a planet?

Bigger more powerful but not yet complete
Oh and it never had a chance to fire on any worlds as the one right behind it happen to be holding one of its primary defenses online

And it of coures ignores the fact there happens to be an ass-ton of other canon that backs up the planet killing ability of the DSII(When completed anyway)

But no visual evidence. And visual evidence always trumps dialogue, remember?

But ok let's follow that thought . What visual evidence is there that the DS2 can destroy a planet?

I see you have decided to be a moron. DS1 could do it with a millionfold overkill. This puts the burden of proof on you to explain why you think DS2 would be less than a millionth as powerful as DS1.

You obviously missed the sarcasm tag:

To say look the Deathstar can destroy a planet does nothing considering most of the time it only destroys ships.[/sarcasm off]

I never thought the DS2 couldn't destroy a planet . In case you haven't noticed I was applying Ghost Riders arguments and reasoning here. If you think they are stupid, that's ok with me because that's what I wanted to show you . But it looks like nobody here can distinguish humor from earnest.

[Connor MacLeod]

The relevant quote (from The Last Command) :

[Crystal gravfield traps were] designed to zoom in on the mass of sensor-stealthed ships from thousands of kilometers away

IIRC, there is a quote from another source which indicates that CGT could pick up things from the opposite side of a planet, which implies that the range is actually more in the lines of tens of thousands of kilometers.

Star Wars sourcebook. It also indicates that Starships carry them (and it implied a range of hundreds of thousands of kilometers, not thousands.)

The difference in range is going to depend on the efficiency of the stealth/cloaking and the strength of the CGT array.

[Connor MacLeod]

DATA: Fracture points indicate that the energy burst came from a range of less than three thousand meters.
PICARD: That's a strategy consistent with a cloaked vessel. Romulan. Or Klingon... But we're quite a distance from either of their territories.
DATA: The Breen have outposts in this sector. The attack on the Vico is consistent with their battle tactics -- and their level of technology.

Gee, I guess standard strategy for a cloaked ship is to get within kilometers of the target before attacking. (Sortta like what the Scimitar tried to do in Nemesis, in fact, IIRC. For that matter, didn't the Romulans decloak around the Enterprise at such close ranges in one episode... only to have the Klingons decloak around THEM at similar ranges?)

[Mr Bean]

But no visual evidence. And visual evidence always trumps dialogue, remember?

Yes but in this case there IS NO VISUAL EVIDENCE of inability to kill planets and lots of OTHER EVIDANCE of ability

Visual Evidence trumps diaolge only when the two disagree, rather than one exists and the other does not

[Connor MacLeod]

the whole "visual evidence trumps dialogue" is when there is an obvious conflict between visuals and dialogue under Suspension of Disbelief. The premise of the idea is that dialogue is inherently more flexible and prone to error than visuals are (people can make errors in speaking, and dialogue can be highly open to interpretation.) Thus, when there is an obvious contradiction, visuals are assumed to take higher precedence over dialogue.

[Alyeska]

FYI, the Federation had gravitic sensors along parts of the neutral zone to detect cloaked ships. I would assume that the more sensitive the sensors the better resolution and greater chance of detecting a cloaked ship would be. I assume this is why gravitic sensor networks can detect cloaked ships that normal ship mounted sensors couldn't.

Anyway given what we know about the CGT array, it strongly supports that it can indeed detect cloaked Trek ships.

[tjhairball]

the whole "visual evidence trumps dialogue" is when there is an obvious conflict between visuals and dialogue under Suspension of Disbelief. The premise of the idea is that dialogue is inherently more flexible and prone to error than visuals are (people can make errors in speaking, and dialogue can be highly open to interpretation.) Thus, when there is an obvious contradiction, visuals are assumed to take higher precedence over dialogue.

The dialogue is generally written by the author or creator of the episode in question. The visual effects team is in turn trying to depict what's on the script and make it look good - the dialogue, meanwhile, is usually taken directly from the script and comes directly from the creator (or author) to the screen. FX crews are rarely staffed by trained physicists, I suspect. FX can also be deceptive - for example, the bridge viewscreen in ST can usually be expected to display with substantial magnification whatever's being talked about. Rarely the same magnification, but whatever looks appropriate. And boy, seeing two big ships right there on the screen next to each other looks neat, doesn't it? FX crews sure think so.

I would say that special effects should rarely be considered to trump dialogue in quantitative aspects of discussion, only qualitative. Any good analysis will not casually brush aside either dialogue or visual effects, and have a reasonable explanation for the contradiction.

"Every trained professional is really a cretin and they're reading the numbers wrong" is not what I'd call a reasonable explanation.