Moderator: Vympel
No of course not, that's not what I mean though. If the "light passes through the ship's shields therefore you can see it" idea means that a laser beam tuned to the right frequency could pass through the shields, then the navigational array wouldn't be able to stop a laser regardless of its energy output.Lord Pounder wrote:Wrong, we know that the Enterprise D's navigational array can stop weak assed Parkled(sp?) lasers...
He claims that in the episode, "Treachery, Faith, and the Great River", Weyoun-7 and Damar wanted the Jem Hadar to chase Odo and Weyoun-6 off, not destroy them...despite the fact that:Aside from the dialogue, the Weyoun with Damar knows the other Weyoun is with Odo. Given his reverence for all founders, he would have given them the order not to destroy the runabout because Odo was onboard and what did they do? The Jem'Hadar forced Odo and the Weyoun to flee by firing near them. Not exactly evidence they "couldn't" scan through the ice chunk.
Not even on this point but seems all their points in all threads are kicked into desperation mode that have no bearing on any point which would help Trek. I like his use of the novel when the movie contradicts, yet when there is no contradiction the movie doesn't count.Vympel wrote:The latest in the Darsktar hall of fame: the differing results of E-11 firepower against Bespin walls shouldnt be explained by blaster power settings- they should instead be explained by one wall being much stronger than the other, despite looking exactly the same.
Energy can't exist 'outside a transport medium' unless its in the form of EMR. Photons are as close as you can get to 'pure energy', and since EMR always goes at c, if you could shape it into a shell you might as well use your incredibly powerful light bending forcefield to deflect stuff anyway.brianeyci wrote:I am still confused though. Since waves are energy transport mediums, and transport kinetic energy between particles, how do you reconcile energy shields with waves? Can energy exist outside a transport medium and be shaped into say, a shell around something like a shield, or is there always a transport medium necessary? I guess my question is what the hell is "pure energy" and is "pure energy" the response to someone who says that shields have to have an operating frequency?
For all we know the shield 'stops' weapons fire based on its intensity as well as its frequency. Drachefly mentioned in another thread a field called 'nonlinear optics' where the refractive index of a material can change depending on the intensity of the light.brianeyci wrote:I'm not the same guy, but this is what I was thinking about too. Since light can pass through the shield, and it has a frequency, should not a really powerful laser be able to pass through shields (not specific to Wars, both Trek and Wars, especially Trek since Trek has frequency as canon)? We know that isn't the case though because lasers are stopped by the Enterprise's navigational deflector array. But how can the navigational array of the Enterprise stop lasers if we can see the Enterprise and therefore see light?Connor MacLeod wrote:so under this guy's logic, it should be easy to defeat the Borg by using a laser tuned to visual frequencies...
Brian
I don't mean to be harsh, but does that mean that everybody has to have a science degree to debate sci-fi? Learning about science to debate sci-fi seems as good a reason as any. I've also been reading your "creationism versus science" pages for awhile now, so although I dove into this with the intent of debating sci-fi, it has expanded.Darth Wong wrote:I don't mean to be harsh, but let's face it: sci-fi debates are filled with people who learn just enough about science to bullshit about sci-fi...
Sorry DW, but that's horrible, I have to comment on this. Do you know that I only needed a Grade 10 Science Credit to graduate? (At least here in Toronto). I didn't stop science, and I stuck with science every year in H.S. Granted, I didn't do too well in my upper years. But the majority stopped science in Grade 10. "Not letting people who had science education go on internet" would stop the vast majority of people from going on the internet. Ever consider that its not a matter of stupid or lazy, but of different priorities? Or having a bad experience in science early on? Or maybe needing to go out and get a part-time job to support your family so you have to take easier courses? Or health? Many reasons.Darth Wong wrote:There are times when I wish that people who lacked a science education were not allowed onto the Internet. I honestly don't see why I should have to try and explain basic science principles to people who were too goddamned stupid or lazy to learn them in school.
He means you should only debate something when you know what you're talking about. Seems reasonable enough to me.brianeyci wrote:I don't mean to be harsh, but does that mean that everybody has to have a science degree to debate sci-fi? Learning about science to debate sci-fi seems as good a reason as any. I've also been reading your "creationism versus science" pages for awhile now, so although I dove into this with the intent of debating sci-fi, it has expanded.Darth Wong wrote:I don't mean to be harsh, but let's face it: sci-fi debates are filled with people who learn just enough about science to bullshit about sci-fi...
.Fine, I understand that.Ghost Rider wrote:Morons who think that because they barely have a grasp of science somehow grants them the knowledge to debate sci-fi properly...
Fine, I understand this too. But what DW said was about letting people go on the Internet without a basic science education, and I had to respond to that....why people immeidately see that someone complains about numbskulls who have no science knowledge DEBATING science shouldn't be able to.
Then it would been beneficial if you took his ENTIRE QUOTE in context instead of fucking playing cut n paste.brianeyci wrote: Fine, I understand this too. But what DW said was about letting people go on the Internet without a basic science education, and I had to respond to that.
Brian
made no sense it had no back up, no supporting evidence just later that as it wasTheir firepower is unknown, but it is safe to say that they wouldn’t be very effective against Federation hulls or shields because they are obviously weaker than TLs.
Just made me throw my hands up in dispair... No attempt to support what he was saying appears to be made, can anyone point me to such things because I really can't stomach hunting any longer...would probably not affect Federation shields too much, again based on the fact that they are fighter mounted weapons.
It does if they're going to base their debates on pseudoscience.brianeyci wrote:I don't mean to be harsh, but does that mean that everybody has to have a science degree to debate sci-fi?
Wrong. A far better reason is a genuine curiosity about the way the universe works.Learning about science to debate sci-fi seems as good a reason as any.
That much is quite obvious from the content of your arguments, particularly your shield-related ramblings. It's as if you honestly have no idea that there is a such thing as a field effect, which I suspect to be the case.Sorry DW, but that's horrible, I have to comment on this. Do you know that I only needed a Grade 10 Science Credit to graduate? (At least here in Toronto). I didn't stop science, and I stuck with science every year in H.S. Granted, I didn't do too well in my upper years.
Yes, the majority of people are ignorant. What part of this do you not get? Why do you think people are so susceptible to creationist bullshit?But the majority stopped science in Grade 10.
What makes you think I haven't thought of that, you idiot? There's a reason why I explicitly stated it as an idle thought, not a serious proposal."Not letting people who had science education go on internet" would stop the vast majority of people from going on the internet.
Agreed. However, some people don't have that kind of curiosity to begin with though, and sci-fi might lead them to start looking into real science and cultivate that curiosity.Darth Wong wrote:Wrong. A far better reason is a genuine curiosity about the way the universe works.
Well sure, I've done the customary unit on electromagnetism and even done experiments sprinkling iron filings on a magnet and drawing out the lines in pencil. I didn't think that a "field effect" could apply to shields. That is why I searched for a thread about "pure energy", and then started another thread asking about how sci-fi shields would work without particles zooming around, and none of those answered my questions. Then I posted the question here, hoping I would get an answer. My shield "ramblings" were my own attempt to understand how a shield works. If you don't have patience for my idiocy, then fine I understand that.Darth Wong wrote:It's as if you honestly have no idea that there is a such thing as a field effect, which I suspect to be the case.
His confusion between sandstone and dirt needs to be archived somewhere.Vympel wrote:The latest in the Darsktar hall of fame: the differing results of E-11 firepower against Bespin walls shouldnt be explained by blaster power settings- they should instead be explained by one wall being much stronger than the other, despite looking exactly the same.
They don't have anything other than Darkstar's Canon Policy to sustain them. That and an alarming lack of bain cells.LordShaithis wrote:Is it me, or is this new Trektard site rapidly nearing the point of being more or less beaten into submission? Pretty much all of the site's content has been well and truly debunked on its own forums.
