It is obvious that rather than trying to make a point, you are just trying to find some excuse to nitpick. Do you have a better firepower figure? Then provide it, and state your reasoning. Do you disagree with material-dependence? Then state your reasoning. Do you disagree with phasers being better against shields than armour? Then state your reasoning. Otherwise, all you're doing is nitpicking.
Well the entire page is, as you stated, "written a long time ago". Please update it, or take it down, since it is indeed out of date.
I will update it when I have time to update it. If you don't like that, too bad. Unless you plan to pay me, I see no reason why I should rearrange my schedule around your impatience.
How is it totally unlike anything we've never seen? The TM even states the different materials used for hull construction, and as I remember, Tritanium was used sparingly.
If it's orders of magnitude denser, it's unlike anything we've ever seen. Simply pointing out that there are "different materials" in there hardly justifies your claim of a solid material with characteristics unknown to science.
The ablative armor on the Defiant reacts extremely different to phaser and weapons fire in comparison to more traditional ships hulls, does this imply that ablative armor is an order of magnitude denser? I believe its even stated that Federation hulls have a ceramic layer which functions as a rudimentary ablative protection.
Please look up the word "ablative" before you continue to make yourself look foolish.
No, the one where you claim that phasers appear visually capable of vaporizing 5 cubic meters of starship armor a second. Just what "visuals" were you using?
The ones from TWOK. And there is no "calculation" in that figure; it is an estimate of an observation, so your nitpick that I don't provide the source and calculations is moronic. If you think it should be 10 instead of 5, or 30 instead of 10, go ahead and assume that. Doesn't change the fact that phasers are more effective against shields than armour. Do you know what the term "nitpick" means, and why it's considered a bad thing?
The power generation still doesn't add-up. It would have to be much more powerful than anything the Feds had, and the Phaser arrays on a GCS are atleast comparable with a Starbases's, which alone beats a platform in power generation. So how would a Starbases phasers be less powerful than a orbital platforms?
Because a starbase is NOT a dedicated weapon platform, and is in fact mostly hollow? Because a GCS is NOT as powerful as a starbase? Because we SAW in the show that the fleet could not damage the battlemoon but the weapon platforms could destroy it in seconds? If you don't like the writing, go complain to Paramount but not to me. It happened, so you've got to deal with it instead of making up bizarre excuses to dismiss it.
If you've got some episode indicating that a SHIP can blast through the saucer of another ship with a single shot, then you can go ahead and claim that those weapon platforms aren't more powerful than regular ships. But if you don't, then stop wasting time with your bullshit.
It took a comparable amount of debris in comparison to the relatively short blasts of phaser energy from the E-D in "Q Who?"
Of course, since its shields were probably up. A bunch of S8472 ships had just appeared, remember?
So? You're ignoring the fact that it had its shields up.
Now you're grasping at straws. The vessel did nothave its shields up. How else had it sustained heavy damage to its outer hull? Magic?
Shields are not perfect protectors; watch ST6. And before you accuse me of "grasping at straws", make sure you've got your facts right. You are emulating Darkstar's habit of prematurely declaring victory.
Once more, a small Borg Scoutship managed to crash into a moon relatively intact. Flimsy is hardly the word I'd choose.
It was destroyed by the impact and rendered totally nonfunctional, and most of its crew was killed. "Flimsy" is precisely the word I'd use. The E-D's saucer fared much better.
The self-destruct was activated as a failsafe, so that the vessel, and the crew would NOT fall into enemy hands. Its an automatic defense routine, I believe Shelby even said something to the effect herself.
And how does this justify your refusal to recognize the fact that a cube is not an inert target?
Even if we use mass figures for a ship half the size of a Borg Cube, it still comes-out as a dense construct.
No it doesn't. Do the math.
Furthermore, the Dictionary was considered official at the time, along with the TM's.
By who?
Or you can just accept that the page is hopelessly outdated, but I'm going to continue to debate the TM anyway. Things would be considerably easier if I could find mine.
I believe I have already stated that the page is hopelessly outdated. What is the problem here?
2) Lobbed numerous false accusations of using insults instead of rational arguments rather than using them in addition to rational arguments.
Is this any different from lobbing insults instead of rational arguments? I should think not Mr. Wong.
Actually, yes. One is an ad-hominem fallacy, the other is not. Please look it up.
Anything can be contributed to a "complex cause". basing destructive power on hits to a starship alone are questionable, but you appear to have no problem doing such in the page.
For an upper limit, it's OK. For a lower limit or a rough estimate, it's not. Do you understand why?
Incorrect, I'm pointing out that due to the plot of the Battle, the Cardassians would mysteriously have power generation technology far in excess of the Federation if your "they were more powerful" fallacy were correct.
As pointed out by others, it could have been the Dominion. And the fact remains that the fleet could not hurt the battlemoon, but the weapon platforms could. They are clearly more powerful than starship weapons, so you were wrong to state that they prove starship weapons are more powerful than I give them credit for. Deal with it.
5) Acted as though "2.4 TJ per cubic metre" and "30,000 TW" are insufficient information to figure out how I came up with the 12,500 m^3/s figure. Perhaps they don't teach the concept of mathematical division where you come from.
I am somewhat to blame for this, having to search through a rather messy series of "quote" tags. But I was not referring to those figures as I stated above.
You said "calculations". Your failure to distinguish between observations and calculations is your problem, not mine.
So far, you have not given any evidence whatsoever that you are a worthy opponent.
I could say the same thing, and frankly, what does that have to do with the debate at hand?
It means that you haven't made any points that a child could not refute, so I don't see what the point is in continuing. I could very well leave your "points" for others to attack, so I can spend time doing other things.
PS. You can continue to say to yourself that I'm not up to your rareified level of debate if you like. Self-delusion may be pleasant for you.
