Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech?

[Connor MacLeod]

I'll also note that they don't have to rely on a single kill mechanism to destroy the world. They might be using several kinds (one brute force, one designed specifically to attack the matter of the planet, one designed to attack subsurface installations, radiation weapons, etc.) to ensure maximum devastation. Hell if there WERe brute force attacks, they might not come until later (or vice versa.)

[Connor MacLeod]

Oh yeah a third thing occured to me as far as detonations go. The nuclear weapons calculator on the site assumes a nuclear (fission or fusion) detonation. Whilst it may have some applicability to other forms of attack I might still take it with a grain of salt, because other reactions will generate different byproducts, and they may interact with the atmosphere differently. For exampel the antiproton one Mike mentioned for photon torpedoes had most of it as charged pions and gamma rays. The latter I know are very penetrative in the atmosphere (moreso than the soft x-rays that make up some 80% of a nuclear detonation IIRC). And the pions are noted to decay rapidly after travelling short distances. I don't know how penetrative they are in an atmosphere (depends on charge and mass, I think) but that could skew things a bit too.

The Key point I think is that noone (at least noone I'm arguing with) is arguing for the really high yields where the things I mentioned stop mattering or other effects (like ejecta, large scale atmospheric firestorms, etc) start becoming noticable if not significant. There's more wiggle room at lower yields to explain certain absences (especially if it isnt atmospheric detonations, like I suggested.)

[Metahive]

Huh? Between my last reply and Norade's next post Lord Helmet's reply seems to have gone missing. It's also not in HoS, so where did it go?

[Lord Helmet]

This thread here dealt with at least the episode 'Inheritance' and the supposed drilling there. Serafina ripped it to shreds.

I find it interesting that you define "ripped to shreds" as ignoring direct canon material regarding the depth by nitpicking a few inconsequential details who's issues could easily have been dealt with with standard trek tech they use pretty much every day. But then Serafina seems pretty high on the rabid warsie scale especially after reading his comments trying to justify exploding and burning asteroids in deep space (by using a laboratory experiment with pure oxygen ect) then claiming that rust on the roids would create the same environment...

We never see Phasers or Disruptors do anything like that ever again so calling bullshit is easy.

You mean never apart from masks,

Nobody has yet rebutted the claim that you couldn't see a nuke through clouds yet.

Because it is not worth addressing pal, you are the one cherry picking certain aspects of the effects (duration of fireball in this case) and ignoring others aspects while at the same time acting like we should treat them like nukes for your cherry picked effect when nothing about them is consistent with a nuke. There is also the fact that you seem to insist that we accept they must have been surface or air-bursts when they were more likely (given the reports from the Romulan on the warbird) underground detonations.

Simply put you are living in your own little delusion.

What is expected and what happened seem to line up like a square peg in a round hole most of the time.

We see shit go wrong all the time in ways that could be modeled. So don't tell me they model everything.

Because you say so?.

We are supposed to see shit happen as that is what the focus is upon, given the time frame in a normal episode of hours to a few days and the the time from the start of ENT: Broken bow to VOY: Endgame it is fair to say a considerable amount of mundane crap went on.

[Lord Helmet]

Another hand phaser vs wall of stone: "Rapture" DS9, Sisko uses a wide beam do disappear < 10 m^3 by eyeball in under five seconds.

In masks they disintegrated the large comet surrounding that database structure and i think they mentioned the phasers were actually set low so they did not destroy the structure itself.


Some one has tried to calc the size but i have no idea how accurate they are:

[Lord Helmet]

Oh and here is the episode in question and the phasers were set to 10% of maximum with a wide dispersal and set to cut off when the core was reached according to the comment at 8:30.

[Azron_Stoma]

Seriously? going after that masks thing again? wow, don't we have like cliff notes or a database somewhere that has all these old hat claims debunked in one convenient package?

[Lord Helmet]

Seriously? going after that masks thing again? wow, don't we have like cliff notes or a database somewhere that has all these old hat claims debunked in one convenient package?

After seeing what "debunking" entails on here i would not bother if i were you as the there are already enough inaccuracies and flawed material on the main pages.

[Norade]

This thread here dealt with at least the episode 'Inheritance' and the supposed drilling there. Serafina ripped it to shreds.

That's not saying they didn't drill. That was about the rate that they drilled it.

In Legacy, Geordi lists how deep they got in real time. I don't have that episode, so I'm depending on my script and my flawless photographic memory from watching the episode many years ago, the latter being perfect so I cannot possibly be wrong.

The speed there was ~100 m/s making a tunnel that they could beam through. Who knows what percentage of capability this represents.

If we take the simplifying assumption of 1m x 1m we get a rate of disappearance of ~100 m^3/s.


Serafina was talking against a guy claiming many cubic kilometers with shakier evidence. I'd have to watch the episode in question again to see for myself.


Naturally, this is well below what it'd take to fuck up a planet quickly.

So you're unwilling to do your own research and didn't even read the entire thread I linked to. Fuck off and come back when you have the evidence and not a script and some memories.

[Darth Tedious]

BTW: appealing to this site's authority should warrant an instant demerit. Anyone who thinks threads here are sources of good information is an idiot.

Appeals to authority of any kind are bad.
However, there has been a lot of stuff being brought up lately that has already been debated (whether it was disproven or not) long ago. Given that site policy requires people to present their own arguments and not appeal to authority, there is little left to debate on such points. It's impossible to present your own argument when you are merely +1ing an argument from a thread 8 or 9 years ago. Even if it was a valid, salient point, it's already been done. The Darkstar page on the Rise asteroid is a classic example. It has been torn to pieces multiple times over the years. I think this is why many ST vs SW questions simply get referred to the search function.

[Lord Helmet]

BTW: appealing to this site's authority should warrant an instant demerit. Anyone who thinks threads here are sources of good information is an idiot.

Appeals to authority of any kind are bad.
However, there has been a lot of stuff being brought up lately that has already been debated (whether it was disproven or not) long ago. Given that site policy requires people to present their own arguments and not appeal to authority, there is little left to debate on such points. It's impossible to present your own argument when you are merely +1ing an argument from a thread 8 or 9 years ago. Even if it was a valid, salient point, it's already been done. The Darkstar page on the Rise asteroid is a classic example. It has been torn to pieces multiple times over the years. I think this is why many ST vs SW questions simply get referred to the search function.

I think what you illustrate above is where a lot of forums on both sides of the fence including this one fall down, rather than allowing potential newbies to bump heads in these threads and enjoy the arguments afresh older members tend to charge in and with a one line comment that says it has been done and almost always includes a insult that ends the enjoyment of the discussion for others.

I wonder if these are the sort that took delight and a false sense of importance and power telling small children the truth about Santa when they were younger.

[Norade]

BTW: appealing to this site's authority should warrant an instant demerit. Anyone who thinks threads here are sources of good information is an idiot.

Appeals to authority of any kind are bad.
However, there has been a lot of stuff being brought up lately that has already been debated (whether it was disproven or not) long ago. Given that site policy requires people to present their own arguments and not appeal to authority, there is little left to debate on such points. It's impossible to present your own argument when you are merely +1ing an argument from a thread 8 or 9 years ago. Even if it was a valid, salient point, it's already been done. The Darkstar page on the Rise asteroid is a classic example. It has been torn to pieces multiple times over the years. I think this is why many ST vs SW questions simply get referred to the search function.

I think what you illustrate above is where a lot of forums on both sides of the fence including this one fall down, rather than allowing potential newbies to bump heads in these threads and enjoy the arguments afresh older members tend to charge in and with a one line comment that says it has been done and almost always includes a insult that ends the enjoyment of the discussion for others.

I wonder if these are the sort that took delight and a false sense of importance and power telling small children the truth about Santa when they were younger.

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people.

Oh, and spoiling the sex talk is much better than killing Santa.

I kinda think of referring to the search and huge ass long threads is a kind of filibustering, and arguably, thread necromancy.

Actually, let's briefly discuss thread necromancy. We all know PR11: "Let Dead Threads Lie. Do not post in old, inactive threads (eg- no activity for more than a month). If you want to resurrect an old subject, it is preferable to make a new thread with a URL reference to the old one."[/qoute]

I asked you to read, not post moron, thus no necromancy. You asked for evidence and where something had been debunked, I showed you the way.

1) It makes out-of-date stuff appear new; the causal reader might miss the date on the earlier posts, assuming they are fresh since it's at the top of the list. This is bad because it leads to confusion. The new thread suggestion avoids that confusion.

Nice strawman moron, nobody asked anybody to post in that thread and if somebody's too stupid to read dates then we mock them. See motto above.

2) Since it's old, the context is out of people's minds; without drawing attention to the date, the posts might not make any sense. A separate link draws attention to the fact that it's not necessarily current.

The thread I link contains all the context it needs, again, nice strawman.

3) It's likely long... meaning people will have to read through a huge pile of out of date crap to be caught up. I don't know if Mike had this in mind when he wrote the rule, but long threads have a higher barrier to entry than new ones, like Lord Helmet said. By requiring someone to read an old thread as entry into the new thread, isn't that reviving the old thread in all but name? (Reviving the old discussion is a different story though, since that has a low barrier to entry. You can always summarize the old discussion in the new thread.)

You asked for proof, I don't have to break it all down for you if I don't want to.

A new thread linking to an old has that stuff available, but it isn't required to be read; the context important to the new thread should be in the new thread. This is suggested in the context of news threads in PR15: "Reference News Sources. If you create a thread about a news article, always provide a link or a text reference to the source. Also, provide enough text excerpts from the source to permit meaningful discussion even if readers don't visit the URL."

I think that same idea makes sense with any link. I'm always annoyed with youtubes becuase I generally won't watch videos. They are long, very distracting from my other life activities, hard to scan, and don't work in my (normal) browser anyway. If someone says "here's what happened and why it's relevant to this discussion", good, then they just provide the source so the rest of us have the option of checking their interpretation.

It ought not to be required though - part of making your argument is actually discussing your sources! Demanding someone else read through a long, rambling, irrelevant diatribe before we can continue is pretty much the definition of filibustering, which isn't a very polite tactic, at least.

I provided the link to my source, I don't give a shit if helmet reads it or not when you haven't.

Oh, so your browser sucks and you're still lazy. A youtube video is just as valid as a text breakdown of the contents of said video. If you can't be assed to watch then get out of the debate. You don't get to ignore evidence that you don't like.

Oh, so you're just being lazy again. You always like to make the don't have time for this claim when you're losing.

[Lord Helmet]

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people.

The thing that a lot of us find amusing is this part "and mockery of stupid people" although you it seems along with most of the people on here seem to miss its true implication and application, not smart enough maybe ? .

I provided the link to my source, I don't give a shit if helmet reads it or not when you haven't.

When did the ravings of the boards more rabid members become a proper source?, oops sorry i forgot where i was for a second as the board is founded on such.

[Norade]

When did the ravings of the boards more rabid members become a proper source?, oops sorry i forgot where i was for a second as the board is founded on such.

If you think it's bunk then challenge her to a debate on it.

[Batman]

But that would require him to show she was actually wrong. Blithely disregarding it and hoping nobody notices (not that I see why he'd think that would fly here, mind you) is so much easier.

As for the newbies not being allowed to rehash arguments that have been dead for over a decade, why should we? And yes, I'm including myself in this because let's face it, Trek vs Wars was dead before this forum was created. There's nothing in the Board Rules that says we're guaranteed the right to rehash topics that were solved for keeps 10 years ago (leave alone on this forum).
And while there's threads that get locked down due to 'been there, done that', there's plenty of others that aren't (like this one).

[Norade]

Given the level of proof he's managed thus far I doubt he'd last long anyway. Even DXIII is reaching straws at this stage.

[Connor MacLeod]

It puzzles me how I can seemingly have a normal discussion with most of the people in this thread (although I still have no fucking clue what issue Mercenario had with me) yet everyone else seems to be at each other's throats. Particularily since the main issues I was discussing noone seems to have a problem with.

I feel like the only truly neutral party involved in the Battle of Waterloo or something.

[Norade]

In "Legacy", the phasers drilled through about a mile of rock. Do you dispute this fact?

Geordi called out the numbers for the last part in real time, according to the script. Do you dispute this fact?

My flawless photographic memory and stunning intuition tell me that the numbers in the script were probably read about once every second or two; a typical Trek countdown. Do you dispute this recollection?

Mathematically, distance divided by time equals speed. Do you dispute this fact?

Therefore, we have an approximate drilling speed they did in this situation. Do you dispute this logic?

Are you going to show me the actual episode or not?

The thread I link contains all the context it needs, again, nice strawman.

<snip>

The thread also contains more information than an episode of Trek, and I doubt it takes more than a half hour to read for an average person.

[Darth Tedious]

It puzzles me how I can seemingly have a normal discussion with most of the people in this thread (although I still have no fucking clue what issue Mercenario had with me) yet everyone else seems to be at each other's throats. Particularily since the main issues I was discussing noone seems to have a problem with.

I feel like the only truly neutral party involved in the Battle of Waterloo or something.

It may be because you are tending to provide very level analysis of the facts (or really, fiction) at hand. I would guess that Merc had a problem with you for that reason, it got in the way of his more bizarre claims...

As for the newbies not being allowed to rehash arguments that have been dead for over a decade, why should we?

As someone who is relatively new here, I completely agree.
You wouldn't go to SLAM and debate whether the Earth or the sun are the center of the Solar system, because it's been done. The answer is known, and theories to the contrary have been torn to shreds before.
There are enough new debates to be had without retracing old ground...

Another fun fact there: apparently beaming through more than 400m of hard rock isn't recommended.

A very fun fact, it gives us a guideline limit for transporter ability through (presumably) non-exotic minerals.

[Norade]

Wow. You expect me to read through 200 posts of irrelevant shit, but you can't be bothered to actually look up an episode. Actually, it proves what I said in the last post!

But, I am a generous god.


GEORDI (O.S.)
(continuing)
And that's about two kilometers
of solid granite above them.

47 RESUME

RIKER
So much for the transporter.

GEORDI
Not necessarily. We could use
the ship's phasers to cut a shaft
through the bedrock to this
storage tunnel here.

47A INSERT SCHEMATIC MAP (OPTICAL)

Geordi's hand indicates a line starting from just
outside the surface settlement and heading straight
down through the ground to a chamber near the one he
previously indicated.

GEORDI (O.S.)
With a clear path through the
rock, we'd be able to transport
down to the tunnel. That would
put us close enough to get to the
crewmen.

Geordi's finger traces out the steps on the map.

47B RESUME

GEORDI
(continuing)
It would take me a few hours to
adjust the phasers for drilling.


[...]


58 INT. BRIDGE

Picard is watching the planet on the viewscreen.
Geordi is at his station, leaned over his instruments.

PICARD
Status, Mister La Forge.

GEORDI
Phasers in alignment and ready
to fire.

PICARD
How far must we penetrate to
safely allow transporter function?

GEORDI
One point six kilometers.

A beat.

PICARD
Fire phasers.

STAR TREK: "Legacy" - REV. 9/5/90 - ACT FOUR 45.

58 CONTINUED:

GEORDI
Aye, Sir.

Geordi touches the panel.

59
thru OMITTED
60

61 EXT. SPACE - THE ENTERPRISE (OPTICAL)

The phasers fire in a single beam down towards the
planet.

62 EXT. TURKANA FOUR COLONY (OPTICAL)

Same MATTE SHOT as previously, with a phaser beam
continuously striking perpendicular to the ground just
outside the city proper.

63 INT. BRIDGE

Picard watching Geordi as Geordi watches his
instruments.

GEORDI
One point three kilometers. One
point four. One point five. One
point six.
(to Picard)
Deep enough for transport, Sir.

PICARD
Cease fire.

PICARD
(to com)
Picard to O'Brien, Energize.




Another fun fact there: apparently beaming through more than 400m of hard rock isn't recommended.

The script is not the episode in question and seeing as there are often changes between script and screen that simply won't do.

[Norade]

So you don't accept ICS numbers because while they fit with other derived numbers I didn't come up with them personally?

[Darth Tedious]

I find I must agree with you there about geocentrism vs. heliocentrism. The analogy I used was probably not the best one for the point I was trying to make. I quite love some of the detail put into the old geocentric models. Getting the calcs just right for the retrograde motions must have been a bitch!
And I see your point in general.

So you don't accept ICS numbers because while they fit with other derived numbers I didn't come up with them personally?

No, he's saying it would be more fun (especially for you) if you were to do the calcs yourself.

[Norade]

Except that I don't care to do calculations for something that has already been done. Hell, even when I do the numbers DXIII makes up some bullshit and tries to pass it off as being a great theory even though it has holes you can drive a truck through. So instead he gets this, show a single weapon, deployable against starships, and in common federarion use that can hit with anywhere near 200GT per shot. Then go find one that puts out even more because that's far less than an ISD can dish.

[Stofsk]

The script is not the episode in question and seeing as there are often changes between script and screen that simply won't do.

Are you claiming the televised episode differs from the script in some way? Are you going to attempt to prove that?

[Norade]

The script is not the episode in question and seeing as there are often changes between script and screen that simply won't do.

Are you claiming the televised episode differs from the script in some way? Are you going to attempt to prove that?

I'm saying that I have no way of knowing if it does or not without him posting a link to the episode. I don't really care for Trek and thus don't have episodes laying around at home.

The analogy I used was probably not the best one for the point I was trying to make.

Yea, though even with old stuff that holds no interest to you, you can always just not click the thread; there's no benefit to jump in there and flame folks for doing what they want to do.

It's just I think you're missing out on opportunities if you do that. I often enjoy some good hard sci fi talk. For a while, I was like "zomfg we've done this all before!!!11! space fighters r teh st00pid n00b stfu!!11!11!one!"

But, now, I've actually come around to a different perspective, in part because little new ideas in "old" discussions kept popping up, and they eventually combined into a compelling alternate view.

The only trick now is to not get too dug in with the alternate view and start hating the old stand-by!

Space fighters generally do make little sense and the old ideas are talked about because they make sense. Not out of some desire to stifle discussion.