ZOMG the E-D can drill a 3000km hole in 19 seconds!!!!!!!!!!

[Serafina]

HUH?, i was agreeing with you, "No roids cannot usually do so"...was in regards to them being capable of speed up on their own.

Ah, yes, i misread that. My bad.

If i said that you would scream about some sort of relative distance and velocity calculation.......

No. I would look at the scene, and would recognize that you are right.

We do not see it speeding up or slowing down. We do see that the asteroids do not actually move that much relative to each other. Thus, they are either not moving at all, very slowly or at about the same speed.

I would say the material is inconclusive and that claiming the falcon was not slowing down or speeding up as part of its evasive manouvers is hardly going to be accepted.

(corrected that quoting error for you).

Why should it slow down? Did it have to evade any asteroids in front of it?
Either way - all that matters is the distance the Falcon had to the two colliding asteroids.
Provide your own backed up estaminate of that distance.

They were no where near and not even close enough to fire on him.

Ah - so naturally, he did not worry about them at all anymore

Dude Han is one of the best pilots in ANY franchise he would not limit his evasive manouvers to lateral and vertical combos, you have to accept that he would speed up and slow down as well to avoid roids, we see plenty pass by in front of the ship from above or other angles.

Khan limited his and look what happened....lol.

Why not? We see the Falcon maneuvering without breaking trough DSII at high speeds by a pilot who is unlikely to be as good as Han.
Why should the asteroids necessitate significant breaking

Sure.

If i was going to show that the falcan was hardly moving and the distance i would point out that the momemt the roids hit and the surviving one appears ouit of the flash and explosion that it closes the distance to the falcon and passes below...or the falcon approaches it.

"Hardly moving"? Where did you get THAT idea?
Besides, that asteroid just vanishes from our field of view by traversing downwards. It is not moving straight towards the Falcon.

Either way the surviving fragments size barely changes from the point it exits the explosion to the point is passes below the falcon.

If the falcon had been approaching from a 1000m distance or even been stationary and the roid had been approaching from 1000m distance then it would have looked visably larger as it passed below them compared to when it first apreared after the collision/flash explosion ect....

So - where is your actual estaminate?
If you had actually done the work, you could give us one. It doesn't have to be precise - but not even an estaminate that is accurate to +-100 meters?

The defiant is a warship, so are a few other of the new classes?, happy?....the others like the E-D are ships of exploration by canon.

But they are still as heavily armed as their neighbors warships. Not to mention that exploration is still damn bloody dangerous.

I assume you will understand why i did not respond to all the above questions regarding the prime directive considering my final camment regarding "Star fleet captains should be allowed to judge each situation on its individual merits."

Yes, i do actually understand that. You don't have to quote every of my lines (not that you do so anyway) - however, you do have to address their content. Doing so in a summary is absolutely no problem

But here, you did not actually address my point:
A law that has to be broken constantly to be moral is a bad law.
Simply including a line that allows them to intervene in the case of natural disaster would be a great improvement.

What is your excuse for us seeing ST ships being capable of the same thing?.

Do i need an excuse for that?
They are obviously capable of leaving a planetary gravity well as well. That gives us an minimum amount of generator capacity. It might even be similar to what SW-ships need (depending on the actual speed ST does it).
Go ahead, calculate it. It could be interesting.

I doubt he expected to be in the floor of the falcon fixing for days while they were getting shot at and chased by at least 3 ISD's and multiple TIE fighters (before he noticed they hit summat rather than getting shot).

The time for the Star Destroyers in the field is not based on any of the Falcons activities.
Instead, it is depending on how long they search.

If i lead you into a forest and you believe that i am still in that forest - you can search for days while i am back home.

Not a lie as wee see the VAST AREA around the SSD and ISD's and it is sparse.

At the very least is was an incredibly ignorant argument.

He flew through dense pockets to lose the ties.

Yes, but we also see the overall density of the field.

We do not see them blow up lots, in fact quite the oposite.

A dense belt would have a densly covered background that cannot be denied.

The belt was sparse apart from the occasional pocket of density likely cause by the occasional collision of larger roids and the falcon flew through them to lose the ties.

What makes you think you would see the small asteroids at all?

Irellavant as the KE from it could have been many millions of times more than was required to knock off the bridge tower.

The bridge was NOT immediately destroyed (if at all).
We see the captain of that ship during the holo conference. The asteroid hit's the bridge, and we still see him at the holo conference (tough his image has worsened in quality). We see how he recoils from what appears to be a secondary explosion, and his image is cut off.
That does not indicate that he is dead, just that the transmitter is broken,

If that asteroid had so much more energy than required, then it would have vaporized the bridge while plowing straight trough it.
Instead, the asteroid vaporized and the bridge remained at least somewhat intact - or the captain would have vanished immediately.

You say that the Empire can create some kind of fusion within heavy metals within their reactors.

Nope your site says that.

It is not mine.

Not just from that but essentially correct.

So where is your evidence that they can DO it.
Alderaan doesn't count, since that would be circular reasoning.

Also, if that would be the case they would not need a Death Star. If you claim that they have an exothermic chain reaction, they could just shoot part of the planet, and it would still explode. Sure, it would take longer - perhaps a couple of minutes - but that hardly matters, because you still blew up the planet.
We never see this. Whenever they blow up a planet, they do so with incredibly large ships.

The Empire actually HAS planet-destoying chain reactions. They look like this (Galaxy gun projectile:

Having reached its target, powered by the missile's power core, the particle disintegrator warhead exploded, triggering immense nuclear cloud reactions that encircled the targeted world's surface within minutes. At the projectile's full power setting, the nuclear reactions were sustained until all matter had been converted into energy, effectively wiping the planet and its inhabitants off the face of the galaxy. However, there were low power settings allowing them to destroy selected cities and military bases while leaving the rest of the planet untouched.

It takes minutes, not seconds. It is a warhead, not a beam. It is very different from what we see the Death Star do.

You now know what picard was thinking?, and who says the federation has thousands of them?.

So, how many do they have?
Even a thousand won't be enough to defeat the Empire.

First, you have to DELIVER them.
If we take the standard wormhole szenario (the most favorable for Trek, since SW can travel between galaxies while Trek can not), you will pop out at some random point in the SW-galaxy.
You will take months or years to reach your target, and the important worlds are widely dispersed. Furthermore, they are heavily defended.
During that time, the Federation will already be conquered - and if you use WMDs, the empire can do that with ease as well. The Federation only has a couple of important planets, and they are all clustered into a very small (for SW) region.
The Death Star could simply start to jump in and start annihilating worlds with impunity.

And the Federation never lost one of it's main worlds. They lost a couple of colonies, they lost soldiers during wars - but they never saw how someone blew Earth or Vulcan apart, killing billions within seconds.
Do you REALLY think that the Federation would be suicidal enough to go trough something like that?

You have no proof that he was a member.

In fact if i was from the future and i had a WMD like that hiding it on a planet that was part of a federation that could make them would mean if it was discovered it would be a big deal but not like if a race without the tech found it.

A bit like hiding a nuke in a country like the USA, the USA find it and its YAY a free nuke....after a WTF IS A NUKE DOING UNDER ME DRIVE!!!!....obviously.

But instead, Picard destroyed it.
Why do that, if they already have many similar weapons?
As you said "yay, a free nuke" - but instead, Picard destroyed it. Why?

Well if nelix carried a flask that could contain it id hardly call it rare, and readily available to the federation is hardly the same as ir grows on trees..

Neelix carried it in the DQ - how did they aquire it?

Maybe maybe not we do not get a description of what it contains, however other WMD's did.

Hey, it would actually be GOOD if it contained no protomatter.

Well they were trying to increase helium fusion by artificialy heating the stars core that in turn would cause more heat and more helium fusion.

Now if i understand it helium fusion increases at around 100 million K and they heated the star to over 250 (last comment before they ran off and it was climbing fast). So what is to stop them heating a normal star to 100 million K and inducing helium fusion and allowing the process to increase. You cannot say that main sequance stars do not have helium in them to allow the process now can you?.

No. They somehow influenced helium fusion, and that increased the temperature.
Or do you know claim that a normal torpedo (modified or not) can contain EXATONS of energy?
The core of a sun has a denisty of 1.5×10^5 kg/m3 and is many times as large as the earth.
We do not see a single photon torpedo vaporizing planets, do we?
In a normal star, they can not influence HE-HE fusion (it doesn't exist). The star would not heat up. Nothing would happen.

[Serafina]

Theres a shocker you yet again refuse to accept canon and facts...

No.
I simply do not concede because you are utterly incapable to make an actual argument.

You ignore canon and plot material to serve your needs, your theory fails.

Hmm...i could have sworn that this applies to you?

That is your tactic not mine, my argiuments follow canon and plot, yours leap over both to snipe a inaccurate result.

I give, when necessary, long, detail explanations.
You, however, are utterly incapable of doing so.

You ignore evidence for personal bias and opinion and have done from the start.


You get no prizes because you are the typical SDN sterio type who ignores canon and logic for science, ignores logic and science for canon, and canon and science for logic or disregards all 3 to make up his own story he feels over rides canon.............depending on what suits his bias best.

My points are the same as they have always been and your every challenge has been met by them you have done nothing but try and snipe around them with the above tactics, you failed.

Hehe...sweet, sweet delusions. Perhaps you need some alcohol - that also might help to improve your spelling, perhaps your hands will be less shaky.

I take something that happens inside a reactor under unknown conditions and assume that it can be used as a weapon".

This above has to be my personal favorite comment.....and typical of a SDN member.

You did not realize that i was paraphrasing you?
Evidently, your reading comprehension is abyssal.

Essentially:

The ability on the page is totally unexplained hence the "unknown conditions.........(it is not the only ability on that page and others that has " unknown conditions" .....BELIEVE ME LOL).

Yes, you can not actually take something you do not know much about, and extrapolate it however you like.
It's shocking, but real scientists don't do that! If they do not know something, they don't make outlandish predictions until they know more (and the predictions are hence no longer outlandish).

However for DARING to have one of my own with " unknown conditions" WEEEELLL that just has be be proven in total and absolute detail, every aspect of it has to be laid out and be shown step by step EXACTLY HOW IT WORKS within the bounds of what they consider to be science....

Well sod off my theory conforms to canon material including movie and novelisations, it has less requirements than the DET theory and as such hammers you in the Parsimony stakes.

Ladies and gents welcome to the hipocracy that is SDN....

So, let me get this straight:

You think that you can take something that happens inside a reactor, and extrapolate it to working on everything everywhere - based on no evidence at all.

My dear nerds of all ages and genders: I give you a TrekTard. Making assumptions so outlandish, even ST-writers themself would spin in their (mostly imaginary) graves.

[Wyrm]

I would say the material is inconclusive

Hardly. The scene which this flaming roid incident occured, during the brief clip of the view outside, the background asteroids were moving in straight lines and smoothly dialating/contracting or not changing size at all. That is completely consistent with the hypothesis that the Falcon was briefly inertial (or not changing velocity) during that brief clip.

and that claiming the falcon was not slowing down or speeding up as part of its evasive manouvers is hardly going to be accepted.

Christ. The flaming roid clip only takes two seconds, and with a human at the helm there are going to be brief periods of about that time where he doesn't do any maneuvering at all. They don't last, but it's hardly the case that they never happen.

[Darth Holbytlan]

I'm going to update my calculations slightly, mostly for pedantry's sake.

The model is a simple inelastic collision. The heat energy generated is just the kinetic energies of the colliding asteroids (assuming that the kinetic energy of the detritus are negligible):

That last assumption can be loosened slightly. Instead, the following equation needs to have the final KE subtracted from the result:

Q = ½m1(v12 - v2) + ½m2(v22 - v2).

Note that v (the final velocity of the detritus) can be derived using conservation of momentum: mv = m1v1 + m2v2.

As an aside, "vk2" was shorthand for "||vk||2", because I was fudging the difference between the vector v and the speed.

The heat energy produces a temperature rise in the detritus, based on its specific heat, c:

Q = c(m1 + m2)ΔT.

I should mention that I'm assuming that the heat is distributed instantaneously. For the collisions analyzed here, this is a reasonable approximation. But it wouldn't apply for the flash produced by a tiny asteroid hitting one large enough to shrug off the impact, as only a small part of the large asteroid would be heated quickly enough. The calculated ΔT would be much lower than the actual ΔT.

Combining, we get:

ΔT = [(m1/m)v12 + (m2/m)v22]/(2c),

where m = m1 + m2.

This now comes out to (after some math I won't bore you with):

ΔT = m1m2||v1 - v2||2∕(2c(m1 + m2)2).

Note that ||v1 - v2|| is the speed that the asteroids are approaching each other.

Simplifying the model with m1 = m2, and v1 = v2 = v,

I should say v1 = -v2 = v, since these are vectors. If the velocities were the same, they wouldn't hit each other at all.

In any case, plugging these assumptions into the new equation produces ΔT = ||v||2∕(2c), as before.

[Serafina]

Reply to "Who is like God arbour".

To try it again: When something was said, the fact that it was said is canon. It is canon as visuals are canon. And it is coequal with the visuals.

Actually, no. Visuals are superior to dialogue, just like they are in real life.

The "documentary" i am referring to is assumed to be accurate and contain no tricks. You could also call it "treat it like a direct observation".

The question is, if what was said is true. And of course not all what is said has to be true. People can lie or err.

If what was said is true or if the speaker has lied or erred has to be find out under consideration of the context and only in-universe.

Now look at the dialogue and tell me, where there is a reason for them to lie or how it can be possible that they have erred:

JULIANA:
Captain, our situation has worsened since my husband and I first contacted you. The molten core of our planet is not just cooling -- it's begun to solidify.

PRAN:
Our gravitational field has been affected -- seismic activity has increased by a factor of three.

JULIANA:
If the cooling continues at this rate -- Atrea will become uninhabitable within thirteen months.

GEORDI:
We could minimize seismic activity by creating isobaric fissures and releasing some of the tectonic stress -- but that would just be a temporary fix.

DATA:
The only permanent solution would be to re-liquefy the core.

GEORDI:
These pockets in the magma layer -- how close are they to the molten region of the core?

JULIANA:
A few kilometers, why?

GEORDI:
You think that's close enough to try ferro-plasmic infusion?

DATA:
The procedure would involve using our ship's phasers to drill down through the planet's surface and into the pockets -- where we would set up a series of plasma infusion units.

GEORDI:
We'd trigger the units by firing a modulated energy burst down through the shafts.

JULIANA:
I see... injecting sufficient plasma directly into the core should trigger a chain reaction... and that will reliquify the magma...

DATA:
It should be possible to stabilize the core temperature at ninety-three percent of normal.

PRAN:
If it works, the core would remain molten for centuries.

PICARD:
If you give your permission, we'll begin immediately.

PRAN:
Very well. But before we proceed, I'd like to update our geological surveys.


[…]


JULIANA:
I'm going to monitor the density of the rock layers and adjust the strength of the particle beam as we go. That should minimize the seismic stress we generate while we're drilling.


[…]


WORF:
Phasers are locked on target.

RIKER:
Fire when ready.


[…]


DATA:
The beam has penetrated eight kilometers beneath the surface...

JULIANA:
Once it's through the crust, we'll boost phaser intensity by twelve percent.

WORF:
Standing by.


[…]


JULIANA:
Now...


[…]


JULIANA:
The mantle is less resistant than I thought it would be -

DATA:
We are within two kilometers of the magma pocket.

JULIANA:
Another five seconds should do it.


[…]


JULIANA:
We've broken through -

WORF:
Terminating beam.

JULIANA:
The pocket seems stable...

DATA:
I detect no increase in stress levels in the surrounding magma.

RIKER:
Good work. I don't think we could have gotten in any cleaner.

DATA:
The drilling process has raised the temperature inside the magma pocket by almost three hundred degrees C. It will be several hours before it cools enough for us to enter.

And I think there is no room to interpret that another way. They have drilled through the crust into the mantle. The phaser was stated to have penetrated already eight kilometers of the crust and once they were through the crust, they have even increased phaser intensity. Then they noted that the mantle was less resistant than they thought it would be. All they while, Julianna has adjusted the strength of the particle beam.

So, how do YOU explain the inconsistencies?
How can there be a cave under all that pressure? Why do we never observe equal phaser capabilities? How to they manage to cool the cave by about ~2000°C (likely more, if it is close to a molten core) remotely?
How do they keep the tunnel from collapsing?
Most importantly:
How do you address that they drilled with only 400m/s for the last five seconds? If they reduced their speed due to stress, their previous drilling speed would have to be OOMs higher - but that would enormous amounts of stress, likely resulting in planet-wide earthquakes.

You do not address any of these problems - instead, you handwave them away:

Now we have the little problem, that if they would have indeed only drilled into the mantle, the shaft would not be stable and that nobody could survive in the pocket.

But instead of dismissing the whole dialogue, to me, it makes more sense to assume, that they have done some things off-screen to stabilize the shaft and pocket (eg. force fields or SIF fields) and cool down the pocket.

Your solely on the visuals based interpretation demands
that the whole dialogue has to be interpreted another way
– what is not possible considering that the dialogue is insofar non-ambiguous,
that they have erred
– what is not plausible considering that their plan seems to have worked - or
that they have lied
– what is also not plausible because there was no reason for them to lie.

What does make more sense?

No scientist would conclude something like that when seeing that episode happening in real life.
We never observe any of the capabilities necessary for that to happen:
-they never project a forcefield like the one needed to stabilize a 2000km deep tunnel.
-they never demonstrate any capabilities to move heat remotely - they certainly have heat pumps, ventilation etc. - but not quasi-magic fields moving that much heat remotely.
-the cave would not even exist in the first place. Since no technology would be existing in a natural cave, and no natural material can possibly hope to withstand that pressure, you have no explanation at all. Furthermore - phasers are heavily material dependent. If the cave consisted of a super-dense material, i doubt phasers could punch trough it (remember the Neutronium hull that Kirk encountered).


So, let's make a comparison from a scientific, rather than gut-feeling point of view:

Your theory:
-Dialogue is accurate.
-The drilling speed is reduced by orders of magnitude for the last 2 kilometers. They somehow manage to prevent any seismic waves that would occur from the earlier stress to affect both cave and surface of the planet (Unobserved capability).
-They somehow mangage to cool the cave by ~2000°C. They either have machinery that can survive and work under these conditions, or they can do so remotely. Cooling has to continue the whole time. (Unobserved capability in either case).
-They somehow keep the tunnel from collapsing, despite the enormous pressure. The phaser either reinforces the walls of the tunnel extremely, they can project forcefields over thousands of kilometers with extreme precision, or they moved thousands of small field generators into the tunnel. (Unobserved capability with all three).
A forcefield would also block light, or we would see the tunnel glowing red (due to surrounding material) (Unobserved capability).
-The natural cave is made from an extremely dense material. Somehow, that material naturally formed a cave. (Unobserved capability/property)
-They somehow manage to drill trough the extremely dense material surrounding the cave, despite previous established limitations of Phasers. (Unobserved capability).

My theory:
-The cave is slightly beneath the surface. This is supported by this:

DATA:
The beam has penetrated eight kilometers beneath the surface...

JULIANA:
Once it's through the crust, we'll boost phaser intensity by twelve percent.

WORF:
Standing by.

If they would drill as fast as suggested, that depth would be reached within a second or two (at most).
The increased phaser intensity can easily be explained by a need to drill trough more dense material, the cave could be down as deep as 16 kilometers, depending on the crusts thickness.

-This piece of dialogue does not refer to the actual core of the planet, but rather to the first place where molten material occurs - the mantle:

GEORDI:
These pockets in the magma layer -- how close are they to the molten region of the core?

JULIANA:
A few kilometers, why?

GEORDI:
You think that's close enough to try ferro-plasmic infusion?

DATA:
The procedure would involve using our ship's phasers to drill down through the planet's surface and into the pockets -- where we would set up a series of plasma infusion units.

Hence, the targeted area is slightly above the mantle. This only requires the word "core" to be used wrongly - hardly unprecedented in Star Trek, they often confuse scientific terminology (such as Data mistaking fish as amphibians, and many more).

-The same goes here:

JULIANA:
I see... injecting sufficient plasma directly into the core should trigger a chain reaction... and that will reliquify the magma...

DATA:
It should be possible to stabilize the core temperature at ninety-three percent of normal.

PRAN:
If it works, the core would remain molten for centuries.

Again, core simply refers to "molten mantle".

-This piece of dialogue gives us a lower limit for their drilling speed:

JULIANA:
The mantle is less resistant than I thought it would be -

DATA:
We are within two kilometers of the magma pocket.

JULIANA:
Another five seconds should do it.

That's 400 m/s. It is generally not justified to assume that their upper limit is orders of magnitudes higher unless observed otherwise.

-All the problems that result from physics do not have to be addressed by my theory, since it only predicts a depth of less than 50 km. The pressure is smaller, as is the temperature.


My theory only requires that they are using one word (core) differently than we do.
Your theory requires at least five completely unobserved (in this episode and all others) capabilities.
I think it is pretty clear that my theory is the scientifically preferable (and IMHO easier) explanation.

Please do not conclude from my approach to an interpretation and analyse of a fictional work on my critical thinking in real life.

I know that not all what is said in real life has to be true. And you can believe me that I do not believe all what is said.

On the other side I also know that sometimes people are not saying all they know and have done. If someone tells me something he or she has done, it is possible that some things were left out. But that alone is no reason for me to assume that I was lied to.

It is the same with a documentary e.g. about the building of a skyscraper or a bridge. In such a documentary they do not show each little problem and how it was solved. But that does not mean that the problem was not solved and the building not built. It only means that they have found a solution to their problem but didn't think it important enough to include it into the documentary.

It is the same here: Yes, there were a few problems. But they had a solution to them. Otherweise they wouldn't have attempted to drill at all. How the have solved these problems was not shown. But considering that their attempt was succesful, it is to be assumed that they have solved these little problems off-screen.

You clearly do not think scientifically. You do not even understand that you do not do so.
That's hardly the end of the world - but you should be aware of it.

[Wyrm]

To try it again: When something was said, the fact that it was said is canon. It is canon as visuals are canon. And it is coequal with the visuals.

Actually, no. Visuals are superior to dialogue, just like they are in real life.

AVOCADO is actually right here. The fact that character X said Y is canon as the fact we see Z happen (if indeed we can see and hear that character X said Y and that we see Z happening). The snag is that the accuracy of Y is what is in dispute. We know that ST characters can be wrong! Entire films are based on it, like Wrath of Khan.

CHECKHOV: Reliant on orbital approach to Ceti Alpha VI.

...

CHECKHOV: You lie! On Ceti Alpha V, there was life! A fair—

KHAN: THIS is Ceti Alpha V!

...

KHAN: You didn't expect to find me. You thought this was Ceti Alpha VI!

The fact that Checkhov says that they were entering orbit around Ceti Alpha VI is canon. What's also canon is that Chekhov was wrong — it was Ceti Alpha V, where Khan Noonian Sighn was eking out a living, and kicking the entire Genisis arc forward. Just because a character says something doesn't make it true, just like real life, so it's hardly a new piece of evidence and must be taken into consideration in case visuals conflict with it. This is why we prefer visuals to dialogue. Visuals don't lie and can't be mistaken. They just are.

[Serafina]

So, you are either not capable or willing to put up a coherent summary of your arguments, nor to provide any calculations proving your points.

How can all the roids at all the various distances they are at be all travelling past the window at the same relative speed?.

Why should it be impossible? They could easily be the result of another collision - some of the resulting fragments could easily travel at the same speed and direction.

We see roids coming from above and the sides when we see out the front of the falcon, to say he would not slow down or speed up to avoid a collision is not gonna fly.

Guess what - the best way to avoid objects traveling vertical towards you is to speed up - NOT so sit there and try fancy maneuvers.

Worry about them maybe.....fly through a roid belt at break neck speeds when they are not in weapons range ect...VERY unlikely.

That's not neck breaking speed - the falcon is easily capable of speeds a thousand times faster. Indeed, it's a crawl for the Falcon.
Besides, Leia states (at ~ 0:47 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rnyWNoF ... re=related) that "they are getting closer" before entering the field. How should that be possible, if not because the Star Destroyer has a higher sublight speed than the Falcon? In ANH, Han also states that he can outrun them IF he makes the jump past lightspeed - implying that he can NOT do so at sublight speeds.

Therefore, slowing down even further would get him into real trouble - he has a very good reason to use that opportunity to put as much room between him and them as possible.

He was getting shot at by TIES.

It still proves that the Falcon can be maneuvered trough difficult terrain at high speeds. WHY he did it does nothing to disprove that he can DO it.

To prevent being hit by those coming in from above, below ect ect at angles.

Already addressed, you clearly do not understand how to avoid getting hit.
Guess what - if soldiers want to avoid enemy firee (being shot from the side, vertically) - they will RUN in a straight line.
Not slow down and try fancy maneuvers.

Nice illustration of that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdaQHTWT_ZI

It is moving in the falcons direction at a slight downward angle,.....or the falcon is moviing towards it at a slight upwards angle (unless the falcon is stationary).

Either way we see is pass below the falcon at close range and its size is hardly bigger than directly after the impact that deflected it.

It is without doubt the BEST material to use to judge distance because it is the same scene as the roids entering the scene, colliding and deflecting and passing closely below the falcon.

Go ahead then - actually calculate the speed.
Can't do that? I'm afraid you are a full of shit then.

That is why they are heavily armed...hey look if you wanna solve the problem using canon material just be a Klingon in your next reply.....they refer to fed star shps as battle cruisers and warships ect....

So - everyone but the Federation calls them warships. They themselves call them warships when their memory is partially erased (after investigating the armament of the ship).
So - if the US Navy stars to call their Aircraft carriers and frigates and whatnot explorers - would you stop calling it a warship?
My point remains: Their missions are extremely dangerous, putting civilians on board is just reckless.
This is a fine example of your nitpicking:
You are attacking the same point over and over again, with identical arguments, to maintain the illusion that there is any actual discussion. That's why i challenged you to post your summarized points - and probably why you don't do it.

The star destroyers do not even enter the belt until the falcon is in the cave doing repairs (the dude whining to vader that the captains ect do not wwanna go in AFTER the falcon enters the cave) and as soon as the falcon appears they star chasing it..

Couple that with the fact that solo left the helm to fix the hyperdrive while being chased and shot at by multiple star destroyers and TIE fighters (unlikely if he thought the repairs were gonna take days or even hours) you have maybe minutes in the belt, not hors or days for the star destroyers.

A lie. The ships are clearly INSIDE the asteroid field when he says "asteroids do not concern me". Which means that he followed them INSIDE before that.

Either way, hours are a minimum, unless you have proof that they can repair the hyperdrive within minutes.

Why did picard destroy it?, naughty aliens from the future trying to steal it.

Doesn't explain why he is so shocked by it.

Transported it out from inside a part of a nebula if i recall correctly....kind off annoying actually i means here is a guy from a place that you can get blown for a glass of water and he has a flask capable of containing protomatter....still it was voyager so......

So it appears to be mined from certain locations.
Suppose we see a scumbag like Neelix stumbling across a gold vein in real life.
We see that this rag-tag scumbag has gold (or protomatter) - would you conclude that gold is therefore not rare or valuable?

No. They somehow influenced helium fusion, and that increased the temperature.
Or do you know claim that a normal torpedo (modified or not) can contain EXATONS of energy?
The core of a sun has a denisty of 1.5×10^5 kg/m3 and is many times as large as the earth.
We do not see a single photon torpedo vaporizing planets, do we?
In a normal star, they can not influence HE-HE fusion (it doesn't exist). The star would not heat up. Nothing would happen.

One of the easrly bench mark temperatures is 60 million K, now from material i can find helium fusion happens in stars at 100 million K.

Doesn't adress my point.
You still have to heat something with about the mass of Jupiter by several million kelvins. The amount of energy to do that directly is clearly beyond Treks capabilities.
They trigger a chain reaction based on the HELIUM-fusion. There is neither proof nor reason to assume that it would work on HYDROGEN-fusion.

You did read that page you linked right?.

If "based on no evidence at all" was a requirement for winning a award that page and virtually all of the material on it would be worthy of Olympic gold..

But as with the interpretations made on that page and others i took canon material and extrapolated a meterial and mechanism that could achieve them.

Bullshit.
Most of the site is backed up by hard evidence. Again, you subscribe to a "silver bullet" mentality, just like Creationists - find one weakness in your enemies argument, and it all topples down.
It does not work that way. If separate pieces of evidence are presented, they have to be disproved separately.

@Wyrm:

Hardly. The scene which this flaming roid incident occured, during the brief clip of the view outside,

It is in the exact same scene we are using to judge the speed of the falcon and determin the size of the roids ect....there is no better scene to use, in fact it is almost essential that we use it for the mosst accuracy possable.

Again, you try to use your poor quoting abilities (which are clearly dishonest) as an argument.

We judged the RELATIVE speed of the Falcon by using the asteroids seen from it's side window.
We establish the absolute speed of the Falcon by using an incident where he passed a large, scalable asteroid in a measurable timeframe.
We use the former to show that the latter did not change.
QED.

But go ahead - show us your own speed calculations, along with distance calculations.

Personal interpretations of visuals cannot over ride direct canon plot material supported by visuals and clear dialog

You know what? You are a moron.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to use any piece of either visual or verbal evidence without interpretation. We do it automatically, and not interpreting it would leave us with an useless picture/line.
Your argument is therefore null and void, unless you want to stop discussion at all.

It is merely important to show that you interpretate it correctly - so go ahead, explain why your interpretation (impossible depth) is better than mine (using one word slightly differently).

Canon material comes from somewhere and there is always a first time....so if you wish to say that all those things you list the E-D can do and the materials ect in question do exist on that planet that is up to you.

But you cannot ignore such clear canon plot material just because you chhose to not suspend your disbelief in regards of a few explainable phenomenon.

A later time would also be reinforcing evidence.
But they NEVER use it, they NEVER demonstrate that capability. Neither before nor after that episode, in none of the shows.

And again, suspending disbelief means analyzing it as if it was real. You still fail to grasp that.

@Wyrm:

The fact that Checkhov says that they were entering orbit around Ceti Alpha VI is canon. What's also canon is that Chekhov was wrong — it was Ceti Alpha V, where Khan Noonian Sighn was eking out a living, and kicking the entire Genisis arc forward. Just because a character says something doesn't make it true, just like real life, so it's hardly a new piece of evidence and must be taken into consideration in case visuals conflict with it. This is why we prefer visuals to dialogue. Visuals don't lie and can't be mistaken. They just are.

That is a terrible comparison and not only that but he was corrected instantly and oh yea it was essential plot material. It was used just like hans comment regarding the empires inability to pop a planet even though we had already seen them do so.

A deliberate and canon error is instantly or eventually corrected or we are made fully aware of the fact it is a error prior to it being made (solo comment).

Why is that a terrible comparison?
It clearly shows that dialogue is NOT reliable.

Also, explain what your "plot material" is. It appears to be neither dialogue nor visuals - so what is it then? Magic?

@Who is like God arbour:

It is the same with a documentary e.g. about the building of a skyscraper or a bridge. In such a documentary they do not show each little problem and how it was solved. But that does not mean that the problem was not solved and the building not built. It only means that they have found a solution to their problem but didn't think it important enough to include it into the documentary.

It is the same here: Yes, there were a few problems. But they had a solution to them. Otherweise they wouldn't have attempted to drill at all. How the have solved these problems was not shown. But considering that their attempt was succesful, it is to be assumed that they have solved these little problems off-screen.

A superb example dude and they do it themselves in regards to the DS having no fuels tanks so its not like they are unfamiliar with the process of acceping some of the issues being solved by the unknown to support a theory (even a debunked one like the DET).

Not a good example at all.
We know that they do not describe everything in a documentary or other explanation.
But we also KNOW that they can do the things that are necessary - not only from extrapolating it from the existance of the skyscraper, but also from observing these capabilities elsewhere.
We do NOT observe the necessary capabilities elsewhere in this instance of ST.

His example fails to address this basic difference, either because he did not think about it or dishonestly discarded it.

Furthermore - weren't YOU the one who claimed that if we see something which doesn't have to be 100% accurate or inclusive (such as a diagram), we have to conclude that everything that is not shown is not there?
Way to kick your own ass.

[Wyrm]

@Wyrm:

Hardly. The scene which this flaming roid incident occured, during the brief clip of the view outside,

It is in the exact same scene we are using to judge the speed of the falcon and determin the size of the roids ect....there is no better scene to use, in fact it is almost essential that we use it for the mosst accuracy possable.

And that's the exact scene I was talking about. The asteroids were traveling in straight lines, and if they changed size at all, they changed size uniformly — it is the hallmark of an inertial (unaccelerated) frame of reference. "The view outside" I was referring to was us inside looking out, whereas you took it to mean some view from outside the ship. The important point was the inertial motion of the Falcon, but instead of looking to see if there was inertial motion in that frame or not and arguing against that, you nitpicked about how "in fact it is almost essential that we use it for the mosst accuracy possable." Yeah, no shit. And that's exactly the scene I analyzed. Now answer the point.

@Wyrm:

The fact that Checkhov says that they were entering orbit around Ceti Alpha VI is canon. What's also canon is that Chekhov was wrong — it was Ceti Alpha V, where Khan Noonian Sighn was eking out a living, and kicking the entire Genisis arc forward. Just because a character says something doesn't make it true, just like real life, so it's hardly a new piece of evidence and must be taken into consideration in case visuals conflict with it. This is why we prefer visuals to dialogue. Visuals don't lie and can't be mistaken. They just are.

That is a terrible comparison and not only that but he was corrected instantly and oh yea it was essential plot material. It was used just like hans comment regarding the empires inability to pop a planet even though we had already seen them do so.

A deliberate and canon error is instantly or eventually corrected or we are made fully aware of the fact it is a error prior to it being made (solo comment).

The fact remains that, like in real life, things people say can be wrong. Why does this surprise you? Why do you insist that every time someone opens his mouth in one of these movies or TV shows, they MUST somehow spout gospel truth unless the plot requires it?

[Batman]

When was Data ever corrected about fish NOT being amphibians? When was he told that despite maintaining he can't that 'Yes, dude, you DO routinely use contractions'?
Intermix balance. It took WESLEY of all people to point out that the ONLY workable M/AM ratio is 1:1.
I must have missed the part where the crew was yelling 'Event horizons don't HAVE cracks stupid!' in VOY.
Starfleet personell ROUTINELY say things that are factually wrong even in-universe.
When dialogue says one thing, and the visuals say another, and dialogue is already established to be unreliable, you-umm-go with the visuals?

[Serafina]

@ Who is like God arbour, aka AVOCADO:

Ok, let me give you a short, quick summary:
It is completely viable to inject the plasma trough the plastic mantle - it is NOT solid.
Furthermore, there exist "magma shafts" that are essentially liquid throughout the mantle - pretty much everywhere where you have or had volcanic activity.
Therefore, your semantic nitpicking fails.

Second, the whole damn bloody thing makes no scientific sense anyway. If the cores rotation stopped for some reason, it would take tens of thousand of years (billions of tons of liquid metal don't grind to a halt over night).
Your claim that you have any scientific validity in that regard is useless. Neither do i, there is no logical way to explain WHAT they do.
It is, however, unimportant - we are discussing and observing HOW they do it.


My explanation is essentially this:
They drill to a region where they can affect their target. This region is somewhat close to a molten region (however, only to a singular one, therefore reducing heat problems massively), from where they can inject the plasma.
The best way to do this is using a hot spot - a region where rising, liquid magma penetrated the mantle and crust.
Hawaii is an example for such a a hot spot, it looks somewhat like this (not to scale):

They propably drill to an old magma reservoir (now empty) that is close to an still existing hot spot shaft which still contains liquid magma. This also explains why they only have two or so spots on the whole planet where they can do so.
It also explained how the cave formed in the first place.

I am no geologist (and therefore won't give an exact depth), but their reservoir appears t be in the upper layers of the mantle. This is consistent with them describing how they penetrate the crust - and the higher phaser intensity would simply be necessary in order to drill trough more dense material.

They now inject their plasma trough the liquid magma shaft. This plasma must obviously be capable of quickly moving trough molten, high pressure metal (otherwise it would not affect the core), hence it can probably sink quickly trough less-pressurized molten stone. Simple gravity would take care of it sinking to it's target region.

You simply constructed a strawman out of my argument, and tried to cover it with lot's of basic geology (i learned that back in school for fucks sake). This is not only dishonest, but also fallacious. Furthermore, you offered no actual alternate explanation for your supposed contradiction - neither your nor my theory can explain what exactly they achieved in the core.

Furthermore: The plausibility of an explanation is not only measured on the counts of assumptions but on the plausibility of these assumptions. An explanation that has several very plausible assumptions is better than an explanation with only one but totally implausible assumption.

Yes it is.
However, someone using a word differently is NOT an implausible assumption. Star Trek uses a lot of words (scientific terms) differently than we do, and they apparently made up new, unncessary ones (such as isotons).
The most prominent example is the word "energy": They use it quite often to refer to "energy beings" - however, those are mostly made out of (exotic) matter, since they do not move at light speed. This could be explained by the being containing lot's of energy (say, it's similar to an einstein-bose condensate). However, since they also use the term "pure energy" to describe them, this is impossible.
Hence, the word "energy" has simply been redefined. That, or they use it incorrectly nearly all the time.

They also have neutrinos that behave nothing like actual neutrions - either they know no science at all, or the term has been redefined.
They also use measurements of electricity/energy (you know, watt, volt etc) wrongly quite often - perhaps they switched definitions for some reason. Such as Data referring to Gigawatts per second.
Overall, they make a lot of terminology slipups. We can assume that they either misspoke in the heat of the moment (if everyone knows what you are talking about that hardly affects the conversation) or that the meaning of the word changed.

Again, it is simply more plausible to assume that they switched the meaning of a word (or that he simply misspoke), than to assume that they have half a dozen capabilities that are never observed before or afterwards.

You constructed ANOTHER strawman in this attack, quite visible here:

If you assume that Starfleet personal are stupid and know next to nothing of the physics of their own universe, you have to explain how it is possible that they are able to build and operate a ship that can fly faster than light and can deceive complex plans and execute them successfully again and again. Both is not compatible. While it may be the easiest assumption in some instances, it is an implausible assumption because its consequences are not possible.

I never assumed that they knew no science at all.
I only assumed that they either universally switched the meaning of a word (everyone does it) - that's not incompetence.
Or that they simply misspoke in the heat of a moment - that is an error, but it not mean that they are incompetent. Everyone can misspeak, it happens.

You claimed that i made the assumption that they are incompetent, and then tried to disprove that. That's a classic strawman - attacking something your opponent never said.



Quite frankly, i can see why you were banned from SD.Net, AVOCADO.
You have apparently improved your conduct and restrain yourself from making truly ignorant claims - but you are still incapable of honest debate. You try to attack your opponents methodology (replacing it with vagueness) instead of his arguments or evidence, and you still do not present actual alternate theories.

If you want to have an actual debate, do not build your whole argument on strawmens, and do not post useless information (useless as in: does not adress the point and "everyone should know it").
Your last post did nothing but that - and would fail at every academic discussion. Things like that might fly in court (and maybe not) - but this is no trial, this is a discussion.
I say unto you what i said to many others:
Try to put up actual theories on your own. Showing that yours is superior is obviously only possible if you have one. Attacking an theory without one on your own is neither viable nor successful.
Doing it regardless brings you down to people who use pseudoscience - you will be on the same level as creationists, miracle healers and other frauds.

[Serafina]

More NITPICKING.

But oh well - here we go:

Not that I really want to argue that point. But there are people who are saying that Data has made a mistake in the TNG episode »The Outrageous Okona« regarding the taxonomy of fishes and amphibians.

But that is not the only conclusion one could draw out of the dialogue.

Let us look at the dialogue:

DATA:
Mister Comic, I wish to know what is funny.

COMIC:
Funny? I don't know. It's a matter of opinion, I guess. Tip O'Neill in a dress? Some people say words that end with a K are funny. A briefcase that looks like a fish. Personally I find that hysterical.

DATA:
Tip O'Neill. Accessing. Twentieth century male, politician, overweight, wearing female clothing, carrying a valise that looks like a fish. So, the juxtaposition of gender and an amphibian briefcase is funny.

He says that something that looks like a fish is "amphibian".
Have you ever seen a fish or amphibian? They look nothing alike, and are completely different taxonomic groups.

I can think of two interpretations in which Data hasn't made a mistake.

Data has not referred to the mentioned briefcase but its underlying concept and has tried to develop it further - maybe assuming that the form of e.g. a frog is more funny than a fish [O].
That is an usual method of learning: the further development from something known to see if it still works. If it works, it is probable that you have understood the underlying concept and are now able to apply it.

Ad-hoc argument. There is absolutely no hint that he referred to another briefcase.

Another possibility is that in the 24th century they have changed the taxonomy and what we would classify as a fish is now considered an amphibian. The discovery of new planets and on them new lifeforms can not happen without adjustments to the biological taxonomy. Maybe they have found on the majority of other planets fishs that are more like the Coelacanth on Earth.

Yeah - that's one of the things that would make them idiots.

Why do people like you think that in the future, fundamental things of science can change? They have so much evidence behind them, how can it be possible to discover sufficiently new evidence to overthrow them?
Answer: It isn't.

We KNOW when fish and amphibians diverged. Amphibians more or less developed FROM fish - you could describe an amphibian as a fish (tough that would still be taxonomically wrong), just like you can call a human an ape, mammal or tetrapod. But you can' do it vice versa - just like you can say that all ducks are birds, you can't call all birds ducks.
Fish are NOT amphibians.

But even if you revert to Linnean taxonomy (which is outdated, and worked by pure appearance), amphibians are STILL not fish.
A fish can be roughly described as a scaly, aquatic animal that lays eggs, has a gasbladder, gills, a spine and at least to fins. (errors are possible, I'm no biologist)
An amphibian is a tetrapodial vertebrate (four limbs, spine) that is ectothermic and undergoes metamorphosis from a water-living organism to an organism capable of breathing air.
Everything that doesn't have that is NOT a fish, regardless of it's habitat. If just ONE of these criteria is missing, it can't be a fish. Amphibians lack several of these criteria, and vice versa.
That's even by non-evolutionary taxonomy.
If they indeed use fish and amphibians interchangeably, they have massively oversimplified taxonomy. I could understand using linnean criteria to classify extraterrestrial species (since constructing an evolutionary history for them would be a lot of work), but discarding the difference between such fundamental groups as fish and amphibians would just be idiotic.

Yes, that is only a speculation. But in the end, the assumption that Data has made a mistake is also only a speculation because the deciding informations are missing.

Only because you slept during your biology classes when you should have learned basic taxonomy (or you are old enough that they did not teach it, or you never went to a higher school).
We DO have plenty of information.

The question is, which consequences of which assumption are more compatible with the rest of the Star Trek universe.

Your assumption is that they completely changed taxonomy to an inferior model - mine is that Data just made a mistake.
The consequences of the former would be a serious garbling of the biological sciences, while the later is simply - well, human.

But I do not want and will not argue that point further. It was only an attempt to show, how a change in an interpretation or the introduction of an assumption can result in a more compatible explanation.

Ah, so you are already planning on running away in case someone points out your bullshit.

You are trying to create a huge amount of information just to explain a simple mistake away. Data is not a trained biologist, why do you think that mistake is that terrible? It IS, but everyone can make mistakes.

And that is one very important qualification for an explanation: Not to have as least assumptions as possible but to have it fit into the available data.

No scientist would propose an explanation that is not compatible with the available data.

ALL of your data (relating to this post) is MADE UP.
That's hardly "trying to fit avbailable data" - that's make-believe.

Again, you show that, if put unders scrutiny, you have no scientifc knowledge whatsoever.

[Serafina]

But I do not want and will not argue that point further. It was only an attempt to show, that fast conclusions are not always the best conclusions. It is a thing no scientist or intelligent person would do.

Yet you did it.
You used several ad-hoc arguments, such as the "they must have changed the meaning" to argue AGAINST the fact that they must have changed the meaning of words.
Every intelligent person would have spotted that contradiction and addressed that, most likely by conceding that his original assessment was in error.

You can, of course, argue that you were only interested in that particular point - but why should you care whether they have changed taxonomy (which you do not understand anyway) somehow, or whether Data made a simple error?
Simple - you weren't, you just tried to attack my arguments weakest spot.

You can spout scientific principles, but you can not apply them. That's a hallmark of a scientific layperson who never had to operate in an environment where his conclusions came under direct scrutiny. Not just opposing viewpoints, but actual scrutiny by peers where you have to defend your thesis, or suffer consequences (such as redoing your work from scratch).
Hence, you gathered some scientific catchphrases to throw them at your likewise uneducated opponents, but you never learned to apply them. In that regard, you are exactly like a Creationist.

[Norade]

I don't know how you do it Serafina. The Halo vs. GE thread is making me want to strangle Invader Taz and you're having fun with this, though I guess I do at least partially enjoy that thread as well.

[Serafina]

I don't know how you do it Serafina. The Halo vs. GE thread is making me want to strangle Invader Taz and you're having fun with this, though I guess I do at least partially enjoy that thread as well.

Well, to be honest, it got somewhat annoying from time to time.

I suppose i enjoy it because it IS ridiculously easy, and i love to formulate arguments under these conditions (where i know that every word will be scrutinized, even if it is done by idiots).
Also, i enjoy that this argument has at least a little bit of fresh arguments in it - the "explosive asteroids" were (to my knowledge) quite new, and the phaser drilling as well.
Besides, i LOVE idiots, especially when i can mock them. This discussion has produced highly explosive asteroids, a total fail in taxonomy, numerous self-contradictions, hilarious comparisons between Red Giants and old people, claims that the existence of one weapon equals the existence of a whole stockpile, an astonishing ignorance of real life politics and so much more.

Essentially, i try to get as much comedy gold out of this as possible. So far, there has been some gold in all that shit, and it was worth it.
I'm glad to know others enjoy it as well

[Norade]

I don't know how you do it Serafina. The Halo vs. GE thread is making me want to strangle Invader Taz and you're having fun with this, though I guess I do at least partially enjoy that thread as well.

Well, to be honest, it got somewhat annoying from time to time.

I suppose i enjoy it because it IS ridiculously easy, and i love to formulate arguments under these conditions (where i know that every word will be scrutinized, even if it is done by idiots).
Also, i enjoy that this argument has at least a little bit of fresh arguments in it - the "explosive asteroids" were (to my knowledge) quite new, and the phaser drilling as well.
Besides, i LOVE idiots, especially when i can mock them. This discussion has produced highly explosive asteroids, a total fail in taxonomy, numerous self-contradictions, hilarious comparisons between Red Giants and old people, claims that the existence of one weapon equals the existence of a whole stockpile, an astonishing ignorance of real life politics and so much more.

Essentially, i try to get as much comedy gold out of this as possible. So far, there has been some gold in all that shit, and it was worth it.
I'm glad to know others enjoy it as well

There has been gold here indeed, you should see some of the gems here. We have a mini ball of plasma exploding that is called a super nova, magic slip space fields that apparently lower the energy required to kill a ship, and claims that we should throw out highest level cannon evidence because it doesn't match the books. Invader Taz and Jake sound like they should go to another board where they fit in better.

[Serafina]

Sorry Norade, i have no time left to play - my ass-kicking duty calls

I did that at least as well as the arguments on this site are done if not better.

Do you know what a summary is?
I have done it several times. I challenged you to do so as well.

It is not hard, even you should be capable of doing it.
So why don't you do it?
The most likely explanation is that you know that your arguments can not support their own weight. They can barely stand up when supported by nitpicks, they would fail utterly on their own.

To actually do so, see my challenge below.

I am discussing the events that the calculations are based on....stop trying to put the cart before the horse.

You are supposed to do your OWN calculations.
Even if you would somehow disprove mine, you would still have to put up support for your own theory (well, it isn't technically a theory, but meh).
You are exactly like a creationist - you think that you can support your own argument by destoying your opponents.
Not only is that a false dilemma fallacy (there are more than just two options), but it is also utterly dishonest.

Its all relative, they were going "fast" or "slow" considering the circumstances.

So you can call it whatever you like - we are obviously talking about absolute speeds here, dumbass.

They were being chased by several SSD's that came from differing angles (some nearly crashed lol, and id expect the Ties are likely to be faster than the falcon at SL and that was what she was refering too, the TIES keep up easily after all.

They had only ONE SSD in the region - several SDs, but only one Executor.
Besides, they were not chased by TIEs in ANH and they still had to go to hyperspeed to escape. My point stands.

I used to box in my youth and you move forwards and back at least as much as you do lr/ and u/d.

Leaning back as a punch is thrown (essentially slowing down or even reversing to let a incoming moving object pass...in this case a fist) is a undeniable tactic.

In boxing (evidently, you took to many hits anyway). Which is dictated by your bodies ability to move/bend, which is significantly different from running or a starship.
We are talking about something quite different here, your comparison fails.

Actually you attack my asnswers over and over again with the same questions that have been answered to give the illusion that they have not.

I destroy your so-called answers. You are supposed to provide solid ones.

Nice vid lol, i love how they instantly STOP moving forwards as soon as they hear shot and move sideways to take cover and then BACK....

Actual military tactic. Stop watching ST and taking it for real.

A interesting perspective...

Personally i never saw the families and civillians on board any starfleet ship dragged abourd in shackles but if you have proof of this il alter my opinion. If not il go with the father obvious "they chose to be there and accept the risk" option as it is also supported by canon material....unlike your opinion YET AGAIN..

Then you are obviously blind. Picard even complained about it in one of the (or the) first episodes.
A decent military would not ALLOW them on board, much less build a large number of huge quarters for them in advance.

A lie. The ships are clearly INSIDE the asteroid field when he says "asteroids do not concern me". Which means that he followed them INSIDE before that.

A fact.

Ah, your usual "i claim it to be true because i say so"-tactic.
How about some evidence?

Your quoted dialogue does nothing, since it conveniently ignores that at the same time, they are already hit by asteroids! They obviously complained because their shields began to be overwhelmed after spending hours in the field.

Well han left the helm while getting shot at by multiple star destroyers AND ties to fix it...so i doubt he thought it woould take hours.

Yeah, there is a difference between trying to find a quick fix and actually being capable of doing so.
If your car breaks down, you can take a quick look at the engine. You might even have a chance of fixing it.
Can we therefore conclude that if you look at the engine, you will automatically be able to repair it in a short timespan?

We see that this rag-tag scumbag has gold (or protomatter) - would you conclude that gold is therefore not rare or valuable?

Of course not gold is rare and valuable.

So with your analogy in mind we can say that that nelix and a rag-tag scumbag would not be able to construct sun popping torps at all or at least in any quantity....

But a federation of planets has much many more ppl, ships ect ect to use so can.

Ah, completely ignoring my point.
If something occurs naturally, it is totally possible for someone to stumble over it due to sheer luck. That has nothing to do with the rarity of the metal. You have no proof that Protomatter is common, you even act like it is not on your own.

Truth, my theory/s are based in on the same material in the same way with LESS leaps and using more canon material.

All your theories require a large amount of unseen or even contradicted capabilities. I would hardly call that "less leaps".
Since you do not HAVE evidence for your claims, i actually use more evidence (or canon, as you call it, nearly the same thing).

If you are going to judge the falcons relative speed during that impact use the roids that we see during the impact....

The reason you want the speed is to judge the distance speed and size of the roids in question, so instead of using outside material use what you are trying to judge lol...but then it is likely you already have and dislike the results so are looking for a excuse not to use it...

OF COURSE i am interested in the speed to determine the distance. What's that supposed to be, an accusation of bias?
Tell me - why are you interested to argue for a low speed - if not for disproving the distance?

Wut?.

The pockets are near the molten core, they need to drill to the pockets, we hear them discuss drilling through the mantle towards the pockets.

I do not need to do any real twister style interpreting or re-interpreting, noe do i need to ignore any of it base my conclusion on.

Yes it is.
You automatically interpret everything you hear, and especially what you see. It's impossible not to do it (well - unless you are brain dead).

You need to invent a ton of capabilities we see nowhere else if you actually try to explain what we see.
Of course, you think that trying to explain something somehow violates your invisible, magical "canon material" (which is something except visuals and dialogue ). If you don't try to explain it, your "explanation" is indeed simpler - let's see if you can spot the contradiction here.

In Q-who we see them blast 700m wide and god knows how deep craters with single shots into a ship designed to assimilate entire species and cultures. Now the ship they did that to has to take on the military of the species it is going to assimilate so it is hardly going to be paper thin and made from crappy materials.

Measurements of that hole?
Again, start putting up some evidence.

In regards to the SW canon policy it is essential (blame the greed), film G canon (and now T), trump books.

Trek does not have such a policy and apart from that the dialog and visuals are both in the episode so plot wins.

Ah, so you now accuse the producers of Star Wars of bias
It doesn't matter anyway, since the policy stands. Don't try to pull a DorkStar here.

Wrong all the two comment do is show that the DS was new and solo was unaware of it and that chekov was also unaware of the planet issue.

You canot apply those to a dialog and plot event that is described in detail including drilling through mantle ect ect.

Which shows...that dialogue is unreliable.
Besides, do you seriously want to claim that it is impossible for Starfleet personnel to misspeak in the heat of the moment?
Plus, you ignore tons of other examples. Destroying one doesn't affect the rest, and you barely did that.

Look the resaon why we want the falcons speed is so we can tell the size ect of the two roids that collide destroy one and the other catches fire...so the best material to show the falcons speed at that instant/few seconds ARE THE VERY ROIDS THEMSELVES.

Using others is not only pointless but is always going to be less accurate, so why insist on doing so?..................

Ugh, that's barely readable. Getting angry, little Trektard? Do you feel the raaage? Like Picard against that little bord invasion of his precious ship?

Your argument obviously fails. You try to derive the amount of an unknown variable from...the variable itself.
Even a kid can tell why that doesn't work.




Challenge for Kor_Dahak_Master:
Post your own arguments.
That post is supposed to be consistent, and contain a valid theory for everyone of your claims. It is not supposed to address my theory, but rather explain your own.
For every assumption, you are supposed to provide a piece of evidence. If necessary, you have to do you own calculations.
You are not supposed to nitpick my theory or to attack it otherwise, you are supposed to establish your own.
You have to to this for the following things: Death Star chain reaction, Alderaan Planetary shield, Asteroid collision&effects, Federation supernova torpedoes and Federation Phaser Drilling.

If you can not do that for one point, concede it.

This is hardly an unreasonable demand, given that i did it several times already.
You don't have to do it in one post, do it one at the time.
However, you HAVE to say whether you will do so in your next post, and give us a reasonable timeframe (i.e. this afternoon, tomorrow, in the next three days). This is simply to prevent from claiming that you are on it or to postpone it indefinitely, as well as simply ignoring it.

[Norade]

I think I got dumber reading his 'responses'.

[Serafina]

I think I got dumber reading his 'responses'.

It really helps when you can actually trash them.

Oh, and i bet he won't take the challenge. He will instead do one of the following things
-ignore it
-complain that it is unfair
-trying to shift the burden of proof
-claim that he has done it.

Of course, the first is basically the same as a concession and i won't let it rest, constantly pointing it out.
The second is simply not true, as every discussion requires you to formulate your own theory. Without one, you are just nitpicking and have no argument on your own.
The third is not true for the same reasons - if he has his own theory, he is supposed to prove his own theory. Errors in my theory do not constitute proof for his theory (again, that is a creationist tactic).
The last is apparently his favorite tactic. Of course, everyone can check if he actually made such a coherent post, without reading trough his crap - the formatting alone would mark it clearly.

So yeah - he will propably try to weasel out of it. But if he actually DOES it, i would be quite surprised - but i would be even more surprised if he will actually do it right. Who knows, perhaps he can even win this....
Well, we'll see.

[Norade]

I think I got dumber reading his 'responses'.

It really helps when you can actually trash them.

Oh, and i bet he won't take the challenge. He will instead do one of the following things
-ignore it
-complain that it is unfair
-trying to shift the burden of proof
-claim that he has done it.

Of course, the first is basically the same as a concession and i won't let it rest, constantly pointing it out.
The second is simply not true, as every discussion requires you to formulate your own theory. Without one, you are just nitpicking and have no argument on your own.
The third is not true for the same reasons - if he has his own theory, he is supposed to prove his own theory. Errors in my theory do not constitute proof for his theory (again, that is a creationist tactic).
The last is apparently his favorite tactic. Of course, everyone can check if he actually made such a coherent post, without reading trough his crap - the formatting alone would mark it clearly.

So yeah - he will propably try to weasel out of it. But if he actually DOES it, i would be quite surprised - but i would be even more surprised if he will actually do it right. Who knows, perhaps he can even win this....
Well, we'll see.

You missed the repeat himself again with more caps option. xD

[Serafina]

You are exactly like a creationist - you think that you can support your own argument by destoying your opponents.

No i am not and i think no such thing, proving you wrong does not prove me right.

I am just taking things step by step.

I guess you never debated one, or listened to a debate with one.

They use the EXACT same techniques as you - first, try to disprove your opponent by putting up an "alternate theory".
Then, when he responds to this with the right theory, attack his responses - using fallacies is always an option.
Never actually put up a coherent, actual theory that explains anything - just claim that your "theory" explains it all.
If your opponent gives up - declare victory.

However, it doesn't work that way. You are supposed to put up your own theories first, then explain how it explains things better than all the others and then defend it.

YOU are the one putting the cart in front of the horse, since you are absolutely NOT following that model - you never put up an actual, coherent theory that explained anything.

You claim the ISD's and SSD was in the nelt before the falcon entered the cave and the beastie. The dude contacts Vader IN PERSON and says the falcon has entered a asteroid belt and they cannot risk folowing (at least he gets fol out).....then vader interupts him.

3.28 onwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGkpCAXV ... re=related

Your point is debunked again.

Oh, that scene.
Too bad you were referring to another one earlier. Another lie, you little dipshit.
You referred to the time where the ISDs bridge tower gets hit - at that point, they are obviously already inside the asteroid field for quite a while, as you yourself just showed.

No soldier, shooting yourself in the foot is no ticket home! Now get back to duty and dig out some evidence!

Rubbsish, even in your viseo as soon as the shot was fired they STOPPED, took cover the retreated.

LOL.

Yeah, but to reduce the chance of getting hit by shots, you move out of the way of it. The best way to do so is by moving FAST. The fastest way to do so is moving FORWARD.
Gee - do you honestly not get that?

You have destroyed nothing but your own credability.

Yep, because honest responses sure destroy more credIbility than being a liar.

Stopping and then retreating?...but you said it proved the falcon kept going forwards at the same speed?..

It was me who said the falcon would slow or stop ect..

Consession accepted, grats on kicking your own ass.

In infantry combat, yes.
You clearly did not get the point i was making, which had nothing to do with what you are addressing now (getting to cover first ASAP).
You know, TrekTard, actually addressing your opponents points is normally the best way to win a debate.

So you are saying that doing so does support the fact they are not warships but ships of exploration?..

WOW 2 self inflicted ass kickings in a row.

And no decent state would allow that on exploration ships on dangerous missions either.
Hence, the Federation IS reckless.

Gee, another nitpick

NO PROBLEM.

WE SEE THEY ARE NOT IN THE BELT.

3 MINS 28 SECONDS.....ONWARDS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGkpCAXV ... re=related

Do you see any roids?....

We see the ships in clear spece then it cuts to vader is putting his hat on, the dude enters, he says the dialog about the falcon entering the belt and says they cannot risk following but gets cut off by "asteroids do not concern me blah blah".

Ah, so suddenly, you are no longer talking about the point where they get hit by asteroids, but another arbitrary point?
Hmm....why so inconsistent?
Oh, right - to score cheap dishonest points.

Look here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxB1uK3flZA) from 1:05 forward. That is the scene i am referring to.

Of course, the whole "misunderstanding" would not have happened if you would source your claims.

The fact that your rag-tag man had a container specifically designed to contain it when he nearly crapped a loaf over a tub of water would say it is hardly rare just difficult to control and use effectivly as we see on WOK ect.

Why do you assume that it was specifically contained?
Furthermore - if you want to mine something, you will obviously bring the equipment to carry it. Who said that equipment is hard to get by?

All your theories require a large amount of unseen or even contradicted capabilities.

Actually that describes youe mr "my opinion > canon.

Again with that strawman/ad hominem crossbreed?

How about actually addressing my point, instead of just declaring that it is that way?
Naah, you won't do that - dipshit.

Given the size of the cube some were roughly 700m in diameter and the only depth we can see if from a hit where a lot of the phaser energy passed through. The holes that were from central hits were too deep to see the bottom so we cannot judge the depth.

Yes, that was a mistake - but everyone with half a brain would have know that i was asking for PICTURES.

Ah, so you now accuse the producers of Star Wars of bias.

Oh shut up i did no such thing, they had to devide canon, if not a lot of it would have been considered totally unofficial and likely not sold as well.

Yup, you totally did not try to do that

Which shows...that dialogue is unreliable.

No limit fallacy.

Hey, hatfucker - a "no limit fallacy" applies to NUMBERS and QUANTITIES!
Since when is "unreliable" a measurable, numerically expressible quantity?

Your argument obviously fails. You try to derive the amount of an unknown variable from...the variable itself.

LOL..

YOU: "Hey lets find out how fast and big those roids are and how fast the relative speed is regarding them and the falcon".

ME: "What shall we use to do that".

ME: "How about using the visuals of the roids themselves as that would mean our figures are very accurate"..

YOU: "That is a stupid idea".

ME: "WUT????"..

Yes, because you can plot pretty much every number you want into that, since there is no frame of reference.
You can make them nearly arbitrarily fast and big, or vice versa.

But go ahead - post some actual calculations instead of empty claims, moron.

Challenge for Kor_Dahak_Master:

Already done multiple times.....well apart from the math as i am establishing what it is going to be based on.

It is not like i have not mentioned that before but you continue to ignore it and try to force me to do things i never agreed to do in this discussion.

Ah, so you choose option number four: Claiming that you have already done it.

Do you not know what i am talking about? Well, i suppose you do and are just afrad/dishonest, but i explain it anyway:

Do an actual post like i did, where i explained my theories for the several things in detail.
This would be a very simple format, here is an example:

Phaser drilling theory:

According to the episode "Inheritance", we see that the Federations phasers can drill trough XYZ cubic meters of rock per second.
This dialogue shows what they want to achieve:

piece of dialogue

We also see the cave they are drilling to:

Images, video link

Now, at such depth we would have several problems. Namely, heat and pressure.
However, we see in "EpisodeName" that they can project a forcefield over thousand of kilometers in an arbitrary shape.
We also see that the cave is made out of "Technobabble Material", and episode "AnotherName" shows that they can drill trough very dense materials.
Furthermore, episodes "ABC" and "DEQ" show that they can move large quantities of heat remotely.

Therefore, it is clearly possible that they drilled to such depths. Since dialgoue

dialogue snippet 1

and

dialogue snippet 2

support this, it is likely true.
However,

dialogue refering to drilling speed

gives us a much lower drilling speed. This can easily be explained by the ultradense, neutronium-like naturally occurring material i have proven earlier.

There, that's it. That's what i want to see.
This is ludicrously easy if you actually have evidence. You most likely know that your's doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so you won't even try.

Again: Present your OWN THEORY, rather than trying to attack mine. That is standard procedure in debates. Do it, you have not done it so far.

In other words:
Like his Klingon gods, Kor talks a lot about honor. However, he will rather use dishonorable and stupid tactics (such as bath'leths or cloaking devices, undeclared war etc.) - just like them.
He even refuses to fight under equal, fair and sportive conditions, rather preferring to aim low. When actually hit, he accuses his opponent of dishonesty, despite disregarding the rules himself.

When challenged to stand up and fight fair, he runs away, claiming that he already won.

Come out, Kor - come out and debate, you coward!

[Serafina]

The fact is that at best it is a crappy example, even if data had a glitch or in fact some how managed to have a file in the wrong place and had "fish" filed under |"amphibian" it does not matter a crap.

Mostly because it would mean that both the scientists and all the other ppl on the planet were wrong, the ships sensors were wrong, geordie and all the others were wrong, they were wrong WHILE hey were drilling, and WHILE they were fixing the infuser ect ect.......but never mentioned it?.

A individual making a single comment ect can sometimes make a error.

But for all those errors to be ignored, not corrected or mentioned over and over by all those ppl?, only somebody who did NOT want to believe because of personal bias would make that assumption or try to support it.

You clearly did not listen to my explanation. I guess that happens when you stuff your ears with the crap between them.

Here it is:
They drill to a old magma chamber located above a hot spot. Since a hot spot with molten magma is close, this fits the criteria "molten core" if we assume that they misspoke or use the word "core" differently.
Then, they inject the plasma into that hot spot - the plasma must obviously be capable of moving fast trough dense liquids, or it would be useless when injected into the core as well. It will travel to the core due to gravity.

My theory only requires that they use the word core differently.
It fits with the stated drilling speed, the existence of the cave itself, the heat problem, the pressure problem and observed phaser capabilities.
It doesn't require any technology we never see, nor impossibly dense cave walls.

There you have it - my explanation in a nutshell.

Now, present your own theory that explains:
-the stated drilling speed
-the existence of the cave
-how they could drill trough material capable of such density with density-sensitive phasers.
-How they managed to get the 2500 K or so out of the cave and where else we see that powerful capability.
-How they managed to stabilize a 2000-3000 km long tunnel, and where else we see that powerful capability.
-How they managed to avoid earthquakes all over the planet.

Oh, and i will add this to every post until you do it:
Come out, Kor - come out and debate, you coward!

[Serafina]

I guess you never debated one, or listened to a debate with one.

Why bother?

So you didn't. Then how can you claim that you do not debate like a creationist?
Which is also the answer - by listening to/debating with such people, you can learn about fallacies and by extension about logic - simply by looking at what you do NOT do.

You evidently never did that.

first, try to disprove your opponent by putting up an "alternate theory".

That is wrong as i disproved you using canon material.

Guess what - that has nothing to do with my point.
My point IS that you do not explain your own theory (if yours can even be called such). But having a theory on your own is a requirement to engage in a debate.
Like creationists, you think all you have to do is disproving your opponent, and you automatically win. It doesn't work that way.

Then, when he responds to this with the right theory, attack his responses - using fallacies is always an option.

You have yet to respond with a correct theory so i cannot have done that.

A flat-out lie.
I formulated or referred to full theories for all my arguments. I even laid them out several times in detail.
Besides, even if i did NOT do it (which is, again, not true) - you would still have to do it yourself.

Never actually put up a coherent, actual theory that explains anything - just claim that your "theory" explains it all.

I am discussing the material my theory is constructed from, until we find consensus why move forwards?.

Because presenting your theory is a REQUIREMENT for a debate. It's a simple as that.
You have not even met the entry criteria for a (formal) debate.

I quoted dialog from the scene i was refering too, if you lack the ability to recognise where that dialog was in the movie i suggest you try checking before starting screaming im wrong.

As i said, actually linking a video would have helped. Note that i always try to do that.

Yeah, but to reduce the chance of getting hit by shots, you move out of the way of it. The best way to do so is by moving FAST. The fastest way to do so is moving FORWARD.

Even if that is true and it is not.

In your clip, they first stopped moving forwards, then moved side ways and took cover and then moved backwards/retreated....

Provide evidence that it is not true.
Oh, wait, you are just wanking again. Sorry, my bad.

No i did not and never will and i say clearly right now i do not think they are and never have........just in case you "decide" that i did and make a "look what he thinks" list, to try and take focus away from kicking your ass.

So you ADMIT that you are not going to post evidence?
You truly have no interest in actual debate, have you?

You mean like your claim that the entire QUANTITY of verbal canon material is SW is "unreliable"......

A category is not a quantity. You fail at basic english - again.

Really?.

As the distance between them and the flamingroid closes is does not get marledly larger...thus it could not have been very far away when it first appears.

The only way its size could have remained so visually constant is if it was travelling at the perfect angle and speed to remain so and the sheer odds of that are beyond the bounds of reason.

Yes, you can. We lack any other frame of reference in that picture.
The asteroids could be very large and move at high speeds, as well as the falcon. Or it could be the other way round, if we just judge it by that scene alone.
That's why we use other references.
Do you really not understand that?

Oh, and i note a distinct lack of calculations and numbers. Another failure for you, disphit.

Ah, so you choose option number four: Claiming that you have already done it.

I always choose the truth if i know it.

You don't.
Everyone can see that you did not construct a post outlining your theory, as i demanded and is customary in any debate.

I have done that on more than one occasion, in fact some of what you ask for is in the title of the thread lol.

Flat-out lie. Otherwise, prove yourself right by linking to the post where you did do so.

My theory is in development as i have said over and over and well over.

So you ADMIT that you do not have a theory yet?
So, if you do not have a theory, how can it be a superior explanation to mine? What are you doing in this debate without one?
Concession accepted.

So if we ignore several canon referances before after and during drilling?...

No, we choose to interpret them, so that they make sense towards each other. We use a little bit of real life science - but since they actually contradict themselves, we have to do it.

But if as you say the plasma is moving through the "dense" liquid magma why would it go to the core when less dense stuff tends to sit on top of dense stuff?....

Not only that but the magma is there because of pressure pushing it up...

Perhaps the plasma has very high density?
Either way - if it had no mechanism to go down in the first place, then it would move OUT of the core even if injected directly. It must therefore have a high density (or another technobabble mechanism).

And mantle, and crust and ALL of them on several occasions that are also all canon including a visual represeantation in front of several ppl.

Even if that were true (for which you present again no evidence whatsoever), that would simply mean that they use them in different ways than we do.

I do not require a "theory" as i am follwing plot and canon and not trying to ignore them and misrepresent the rest.

YES YOU DO.
When engaged in a debate, you try to defend your own theory. That is the DEFINITION of a debate.
Without a theory to defend, you have NO ARGUMENT whatsoever.
Don't you understand this? Are you truly that uneducated?

My discussion on this was about working out the power required to do so with a DET weapon (as that can be quantified) so we could make a comparison for the feds NDF weapon in regards to how much material was disintigrated.

Phasers are not DET weapons.
Besides, you NEVER gave us (even now, you only present numbers) a calculation for the energy requirement - which is trivial:
Calculate the volume of the tunnel, split it into several layers depending on the material it crosses. Determine volume and composition. You now have the amount of energy that is required for each area. Add together, and you've got it.

If you really wanted to do that, you could have done it in about an hour, maximum. If you wanted to do a lower limit (assuming uniform low density), you could do it in five minutes.

Oh and the material contained in a 50m wide hole 3000km deep (not including very high densities) would require 10-19 gigatons per second of DET energy (ignoring the out gassing issues with a DET weapon obviously) to vaporise it all.

Oh, look - an unfounded assumption (50m wide hole) and again, no calculation. For all i know, you just made that up, since i can not check your calculations.

But hey - at least you made a start. Of course the hole is at most 5 meters wide, so we have more like 1-2 gigatons even if we assume the rest of your calculation is correct. By the way, why should they have to drill such a wide hole - it is only drilled to clear a path for their transporters.

Due to the NDF being kinda funky we can however only say they can easily achieve the equivalant "effect" of 10-19 gigatons per second would have (if the tunnel was 50m wide).

1-2 gigatons, at most. Assuming your calculation is correct. Post them.



Still, you did NOT present your actual theories. Therefore:
Come out, Kor - come out and debate, you coward!

[Serafina]

Ghetto-edit:
I messed up the correction of his numbers. However, since he does not actually provide a calculation i won't bother correcting it, mostly due to being too lazy to bother with probably made-up numbers that are irrelevant anyway (due to phasers not being DET).

[Wyrm]

Here's a hypothesis that preserves Data's Oh-So-Perfectness: Data's taxonomy database got corrupted in The Outrageous Okona — undestandable, since I feel like something's corroding me every time I watch it. Okona's lame jokes caused Data's database to glitch, producing various failures. Data is still the perfect computer, and it explains all of his malfunctions! It's perfect!

Oh wait. Data is still wrong to call a fish an amphibian, no matter the excuse. Further, once you open the door to Data being less-than perfect, the whole TrekWank house of cards falls down.

And yes, we expect fish to be a different taxonomic group from amphibians four centuries from now. The data on the matter is that good.

[Oskuro]

What's this about Data having perfect knowledge anyway? It's not like databases can't have errors, either by data corruption or because someone fucked up during data insertion (example). I'm also not sure how Data adquires knowledge, but since his positronic brain is supposedly so unique, data upload might not be trivial, or he might need to actually learn stuff instead of simply uploading it, wich introduces a greater chance for mistakes.

Another relevant point about canon dialogue is that, with the exception of Q (who can't be trusted), all characters are supposed to be falible human (or nearly human) beings. Not only can they be wrong, they don't have perfect knowledge of all academical fields. A ship captain who is not a science expert might make a rough guess at something, or even a science officer who specialises in a certain area might not be an expert on other areas.

An example I like to think about is the whole premise of House M.D., where a bunch of doctors with different specialities throw ideas around to try and find a solution, yet they are often wrong because, quite simply, you can't know everything.

Oh, and a nitpick for a lot of people: It is "canon", not "cannon". The later is what you use to fire upon the idiots who misuse the former.