General idiocy concerning SW vs. ST

[Darth Servo]

Ok, this brings up a question which has been bugging me for a long time. Phasers look (at least to me) pretty similar to those little laser pointers that you can buy for about 10 bucks. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that it's pretty easy to highlight whatever you're pointing at with a laser pointer (which clearly doesn't have sights). So what makes phasers so different?

Who knows, but we do NOT see people in Star Trek sweeping across an area with a continuous beam, the way we do with a laser pointer. Perhaps its because sweeping uses too much energy?

[NomAnor15]

Ok, this brings up a question which has been bugging me for a long time. Phasers look (at least to me) pretty similar to those little laser pointers that you can buy for about 10 bucks. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that it's pretty easy to highlight whatever you're pointing at with a laser pointer (which clearly doesn't have sights). So what makes phasers so different?

Who knows, but we do NOT see people in Star Trek sweeping across an area with a continuous beam, the way we do with a laser pointer. Perhaps its because sweeping uses too much energy?

Right, I know that. I just meant that if you have a laser pointer, and think "I want to hit that spot", isn't that pretty easy? Maybe I'm just remembering incorrectly...I guess I'll have to acquire a laser and test this.

[Peptuck]

I still prefer the shorter explanation of "without sights, a weapon is pretty close to impossible to aim."

Ok, this brings up a question which has been bugging me for a long time. Phasers look (at least to me) pretty similar to those little laser pointers that you can buy for about 10 bucks. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that it's pretty easy to highlight whatever you're pointing at with a laser pointer (which clearly doesn't have sights). So what makes phasers so different?

There's a difference between pointing a laser pointer at the general area of something a few meters away and accurately pointing it at a target several dozen or more meters away and hitting it, while its shooting back at you.

Notice how most people, when using laser pointers, are generally only pointing in the general direction of whatever it is they're aiming at, and if they miss, they shift to correct it.

Try an experiment. Take a laser pointer and aim it at something about man-sized and a decent distance, from ten to twenty meters away. Try hitting that target with a single click of the laser-pointer's activation button. Keep "firing" your laser pointer until it hits the target. Don't correct in mid-aim; just click it on and off very quickly, and see if you hit the target. You're going to miss unless you're very, very good at aiming your laser pointer.

Now, imagine that man-sized target is shooting back at you, and is behind cover, and is moving. Imagine it has buddies, who are also shooting back at you. Now imagine the full-fledged chaos of a battle all around you.

Now, do the same experiment, only this time use a device that has something similar to iron sights. Heck, you could use something as simple as a cell phone gripped like a handgun, with one of the narrow edges pointing upward like the body of a pistol. Even without iron sights, such a device is vastly easier to aim, because you have an accurate reference to aim with.

[NomAnor15]

I still prefer the shorter explanation of "without sights, a weapon is pretty close to impossible to aim."

Ok, this brings up a question which has been bugging me for a long time. Phasers look (at least to me) pretty similar to those little laser pointers that you can buy for about 10 bucks. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that it's pretty easy to highlight whatever you're pointing at with a laser pointer (which clearly doesn't have sights). So what makes phasers so different?

There's a difference between pointing a laser pointer at the general area of something a few meters away and accurately pointing it at a target several dozen or more meters away and hitting it, while its shooting back at you.

Notice how most people, when using laser pointers, are generally only pointing in the general direction of whatever it is they're aiming at, and if they miss, they shift to correct it.

Try an experiment. Take a laser pointer and aim it at something about man-sized and a decent distance, from ten to twenty meters away. Try hitting that target with a single click of the laser-pointer's activation button. Keep "firing" your laser pointer until it hits the target. Don't correct in mid-aim; just click it on and off very quickly, and see if you hit the target. You're going to miss unless you're very, very good at aiming your laser pointer.

Now, imagine that man-sized target is shooting back at you, and is behind cover, and is moving. Imagine it has buddies, who are also shooting back at you. Now imagine the full-fledged chaos of a battle all around you.

Now, do the same experiment, only this time use a device that has something similar to iron sights. Heck, you could use something as simple as a cell phone gripped like a handgun, with one of the narrow edges pointing upward like the body of a pistol. Even without iron sights, such a device is vastly easier to aim, because you have an accurate reference to aim with.

Ok, I'm actually going to try that, because now I'm really curious. It's been a long time since I've actually used a laser pointer. Not tonight though. Sleep outweighs curiosity, unfortunately.

[Swindle1984]

I've tried the laser pointer thing. At a distance of about twenty feet, more often than not, I miss by a good two or three feet in any given direction. It's simply impossible to predict where the beam will hit, even if I do have the general area targeted.

Conversely, I once made a headshot with a .357 Magnum revolver without using the sights, at the same distance, on a stationary feral pig. Far easier to hit what you want when the weapon has actual ergonomics, even if you decline to use the sights.

[Swindle1984]

Ghetto edit:

I still prefer the shorter explanation of "without sights, a weapon is pretty close to impossible to aim."

Which, alas, doesn't do zilch to explain how phasers manage to fire off-axis as opposed to the user pointing it the wrong way thanks to the thing being unergonomic like nobody's business. The problem isn't the beam not hitting the presumably intended target. The problem is the beam not going in the direction the phaser happens to be pointed.
Oh, and Swindle, there's a goodly number of explanations for phasers firing off axis in universe.Chances are most of them have been gone over here before. One is simply shoddy manufacturing.

Yes, but we've seen feddies hold a phaser stationary while deliberately moving the beam off-axis to cut through doors and such. In these cases, the phaser beam moved in a controlled pattern to cut through the target, but the phaser itself was held still. This heavily implies that there is a way to control the beams movement without moving the phaser's point of aim. If users accidentally move the beam off axis by activating this feature (like the scrollwheel feature on an iPod or similar device), then it could help explain the frequency of both off-axis shots and misses. It's just the sort of over-complicated stupidity that the Federation loves.

What explanation do we have for Star Wars weapons firing off-axis? To my knowledge, it hasn't happened with hand-held blasters, just turbolasers and such.

[Darth Wong]

I've tried the laser pointer thing. At a distance of about twenty feet, more often than not, I miss by a good two or three feet in any given direction. It's simply impossible to predict where the beam will hit, even if I do have the general area targeted.

Conversely, I once made a headshot with a .357 Magnum revolver without using the sights, at the same distance, on a stationary feral pig. Far easier to hit what you want when the weapon has actual ergonomics, even if you decline to use the sights.

Mind you, you learned how to shoot with a pistol by using the sights. After a while, "muscle memory" kicks in and you can aim more accurately even without using them.

In-universe, this is a handy explanation for the huge difference in accuracy between main Star Trek characters and anonymous ones: the weapon is very difficult to use, so only main characters have spent enough time practicing to be good with them despite their poor ergonomics. Crewmen with basic training can't hit the side of a barn because accuracy is entirely a function of practice, practice, practice over a period of years (the same kind of practice that allows circus sharpshooters to shoot without really appearing to aim). The weapon's design doesn't help you out at all.

[Venator]

In addition to Peptuck's points, a laser pointers are arguably easier to aim than phasers, simply by virtue of being straight. With a pointer you can at least estimate where it's pointing by how it sits in your hand, or "sight" down the side with some semblance of accuracy.

With a phaser, the wide section of the emitter makes it impossible to aim down, even if one didn't have to compensate for the angle of the beam to the handgrip.

Yes, but we've seen feddies hold a phaser stationary while deliberately moving the beam off-axis to cut through doors and such. In these cases, the phaser beam moved in a controlled pattern to cut through the target, but the phaser itself was held still.

Any chance you could tell me what episodes/movies those instances were from? I wouldn't mind taking a look at the footage.

[Ender]

Ah, SB

Conservation of Energy does not apply to space engines, high numbers instantly invalidate the results no matter how sound the methodology and evidence, a change in velocity does not mean you accelerated, and conservation of energy is violated by SW because other universes violate it.

You know, I could understand being confused about the subject if I was discussing something hard, like start-up rates or subcritical multiplication. I could even understand if it was something easy, but rarely thought about like reflection vs refraction. But this is the kinetic energy equation, acceleration, and velocity. These are some of the easiest and most basic concepts out there. And multiple people there don't understand them. This isn't the first thread I've run into this either. People there really just do not understand the most basic bits of physics.

[Darth Servo]

Oh, Ender, why do you torture us so by exposing us to such stupidity?

but the white starlines don't actually correspond to stars- that's just how hyperspace looks.

Even though the lines originate from the stars seen in the screen.

ANYTHING to avoid admitting the abilities of SW ships.

[Ender]

"That would mean you got 5.5*10^17 watts. Would you still accept such an absurd number?"

Absolutely, seeing as how that is the power the starfighters are said to produce and required for them to fly around like they do.

[Peptuck]

I love how he discounts a number simply because it is big.

Apparently, he simply can't wrap his head around the numbers needed for what is observed on-screen.

[Darth Servo]

I love how he discounts a number simply because it is big.

He discounts it because its big AND on the SW side. Its "Mr Oraghan" one of the idiots on Starfleetjedi forums--horde of professional mindless scooter cockgoblins.

[Darth Wong]

Ah, SB

Conservation of Energy does not apply to space engines, high numbers instantly invalidate the results no matter how sound the methodology and evidence, a change in velocity does not mean you accelerated, and conservation of energy is violated by SW because other universes violate it.

You know, I could understand being confused about the subject if I was discussing something hard, like start-up rates or subcritical multiplication. I could even understand if it was something easy, but rarely thought about like reflection vs refraction. But this is the kinetic energy equation, acceleration, and velocity. These are some of the easiest and most basic concepts out there. And multiple people there don't understand them. This isn't the first thread I've run into this either. People there really just do not understand the most basic bits of physics.

Is it really asking too much to expect people to know high school physics?

Actually, given the fact that 45% of the public is so goddamned stupid that it thinks young-Earth creationism is an excellent scientific theory, I guess it is.

[Davey]

Yes, but we've seen feddies hold a phaser stationary while deliberately moving the beam off-axis to cut through doors and such.

The Federation didn't allow projectile weapons such as the TR-116, because they didn't like the idea of having something that was quote-unquote "only designed to kill." They allowed phasers because they could be used as tools, and I figure that since phasers were also designed to be used as tools, they may not have been designed for firing accurately over long distances, whereas the TR-116, which was a true weapon, had what appeared to be a sight monocle that fitted over the user's eye to help with aiming.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Careful guys, Woodlouse might come in a complain about your making fun of his Spacebabies, since it's totally unfair to expect that when they engage in a debate they understand critical thinking, because SB isn't a debate board.

Hurling invectives is also completely uncalled for, even if it is insulting that they debate dishonestly, and you explain exactly what logical fallacy they're committing every time in plain English... and they do it again in their next reply.

[Batman]

Yes, but we've seen feddies hold a phaser stationary while deliberately moving the beam off-axis to cut through doors and such. In these cases, the phaser beam moved in a controlled pattern to cut through the target, but the phaser itself was held still.

Any chance you could tell me what episodes/movies those instances were from? I wouldn't mind taking a look at the footage.

That makes two of us because every instance I can recall (offhand, mind you) where they used the phaser as an impromptu welder/cutting torch, they DID move the phaser.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Yes, but we've seen feddies hold a phaser stationary while deliberately moving the beam off-axis to cut through doors and such.

The Federation didn't allow projectile weapons such as the TR-116, because they didn't like the idea of having something that was quote-unquote "only designed to kill." They allowed phasers because they could be used as tools, and I figure that since phasers were also designed to be used as tools, they may not have been designed for firing accurately over long distances, whereas the TR-116, which was a true weapon, had what appeared to be a sight monocle that fitted over the user's eye to help with aiming.

I can imagine the slogan that goes with the phaser: "by tools, for tools"

[Swindle1984]

Yes, but we've seen feddies hold a phaser stationary while deliberately moving the beam off-axis to cut through doors and such. In these cases, the phaser beam moved in a controlled pattern to cut through the target, but the phaser itself was held still.

Any chance you could tell me what episodes/movies those instances were from? I wouldn't mind taking a look at the footage.

That makes two of us because every instance I can recall (offhand, mind you) where they used the phaser as an impromptu welder/cutting torch, they DID move the phaser.

I don't recall the episode. I could swear it was an episode of DS9, but it might have been Voyager.

The Federation didn't allow projectile weapons such as the TR-116, because they didn't like the idea of having something that was quote-unquote "only designed to kill." They allowed phasers because they could be used as tools, and I figure that since phasers were also designed to be used as tools, they may not have been designed for firing accurately over long distances, whereas the TR-116, which was a true weapon, had what appeared to be a sight monocle that fitted over the user's eye to help with aiming.

Then why did the Federation adopt phaser rifles with actual sights and trigger guards in Voyager and post-First Contact movies? From what we've observed, the movie ones were useful ONLY as weapons, firing in pulses rather than continuous beams.

[Batman]

Because they eventually realized that maybe having weapons you can actually AIM might be a good idea afterall?
Not that I see what pulse vs beam has got anything to do with them being weapons as opposed to tools.

[Darth Wong]

Then why did the Federation adopt phaser rifles with actual sights and trigger guards in Voyager and post-First Contact movies?

Because Gene Roddenberry was dead, and they decided that they needed to make everything look more militaristic in order to improve their sagging ratings.

[NecronLord]

Who knows, but we do NOT see people in Star Trek sweeping across an area with a continuous beam, the way we do with a laser pointer. Perhaps its because sweeping uses too much energy?

IIRC, there's a brief clip of beam-sweeping when Kirk and McCoy are beamed up from Rura Penthe in ST6. Though that's with disruptors. And they've already got fairly decent ergonomics.

[Darth Wong]

Who knows, but we do NOT see people in Star Trek sweeping across an area with a continuous beam, the way we do with a laser pointer. Perhaps its because sweeping uses too much energy?

IIRC, there's a brief clip of beam-sweeping when Kirk and McCoy are beamed up from Rura Penthe in ST6. Though that's with disruptors. And they've already got fairly decent ergonomics.

Beam sweeping isn't a bad idea with a sidearm which is used for more of a police or guard function rather than soldiering. The fact that it uses up its energy cell so quickly would be less of a drawback in that case.

[NecronLord]

Beam sweeping isn't a bad idea with a sidearm which is used for more of a police or guard function rather than soldiering. The fact that it uses up its energy cell so quickly would be less of a drawback in that case.

I find it ironic that they've only shown this behaviour for one of the few guns where there actually are proper sights.

[Zablorg]

Someone should go over there and make a huge unsourced statement supporting ST like

"Doesn't anyone remember that episode where the Enterprise blew up that huge planet to stop it releasing spores?"

then watch them rabidly agree with it and flaunt it in our faces. For the lulz.