Size/Power/Influence of the Dominion?

[Gil Hamilton]

This discussion is getting a little odd. We know that the visuals can have errors in them so that means we have to evaluate them from time to time. This is where the 1.2km and 5km Dominion ship discussion comes in as well as the BoP issue. The Defiant is also there, but its error rate is a little more acceptable. Its only ever been between 120m and 170m.

It is getting odd. I drew a perspective drawing of the BoP passing under Golden Gate Bridge, and I found that with proper perspective, the Bird of Prey appears to be about a tenth the length of the main span (which is 1.28km and some change), meaning that the Bird of Prey is about 128 meters across. Kind of tiny. I admit doing it that way isn't exactly a precise science, but it does get us well within the ballpark.

[Alyeska]

This discussion is getting a little odd. We know that the visuals can have errors in them so that means we have to evaluate them from time to time. This is where the 1.2km and 5km Dominion ship discussion comes in as well as the BoP issue. The Defiant is also there, but its error rate is a little more acceptable. Its only ever been between 120m and 170m.

It is getting odd. I drew a perspective drawing of the BoP passing under Golden Gate Bridge, and I found that with proper perspective, the Bird of Prey appears to be about a tenth the length of the main span (which is 1.28km and some change), meaning that the Bird of Prey is about 128 meters across. Kind of tiny. I admit doing it that way isn't exactly a precise science, but it does get us well within the ballpark.

Ex Astrist would agree with you here. The scout BoP is supposed to be about 120m in size.

[seanrobertson]

I assume it was from a planet that translates from Klingon to "World of Tiny Members".

But what of the mighty Klingon penis? Worf seemed awfully proud of his...

...'til Dax knocked him down to size

But there should be a lensing effect. We should see a bubble around the Bird of Prey that is magnified too from our view of the Bird of Prey. Like we should see giant stars behind the Bird of Prey, because their light is being refracted too by the warp field when it passes through it.

You would think so, yes. The stars and such aren't in the field, but if seen through it they should probably be distorted themselves. The warp field doesn't hug the hull, after all...I'm pretty sure "Remember Me" and the Okudagrams of a "static warp bubble/shell" therein proves that.

Eh, it was worth a shot.

And how could they fit a 109 meter long ship in the middle of a park (or under the Golden Gate bridge for that matter, without someone bumping into it. They landed in the middle of a field, and you aren't going to find many fields that big in the middle of an urban park. Especially since it's the middle of summer and people are going to be going to said fields to sun bathe and throw frisbees and stuff.

You've already covered the GGB question. The park is another matter, but I'm not sure where we should take that. Would a 50m long BoP in the middle of a park be that much better, really?

I'd definitely think we should run with the [reliable] visuals and run with them here. We not only know the Bird landed in the park, but most shots point it being 109m long. Hypothetical consequences, however reasonable, cannot change those facts.

Besides, it's conceivable that someone did run into the ship while throwing their frisbee, but there wasn't a lot they could do about it. If they didn't flee the scene in terror and try to put the incident out of their mind, calling the police wouldn't get much done either. The caller would be dismissed as a quack, and that'd be that.

Anyway, it's largely my fault for diverting the discussion with talk of methodology. (I just wanted to be sure it was considered before anyone concluded what we see in "WYLB" was necessarily wrong.)

Mike's rationalization, which Illuminatus brought up (thanks, IP--I'd forgotten all about that), would seem about the best we can do in these funky situations. Initially, I had the same thought you did, Gil, and wondered if that was reconcilable with suspension of disbelief.

I think it works, but that's the subject of another thread

To wrap this up, your Bird scaling looks good to me. My figures indicate with the wings in flight position, the ship's width is about 1.4 times its length, or 153m/109m respectively. Your number's plenty close enough to support that range.

[Gil Hamilton]

But what of the mighty Klingon penis? Worf seemed awfully proud of his...

...'til Dax knocked him down to size

Do you think if Klingons actually had mighty Warrior's penises, they'd brag about it? I think they are insecure, myself.

You would think so, yes. The stars and such aren't in the field, but if seen through it they should probably be distorted themselves. The warp field doesn't hug the hull, after all...I'm pretty sure "Remember Me" and the Okudagrams of a "static warp bubble/shell" therein proves that.

Eh, it was worth a shot.

So we are agreed then that the Bird of Prey wasn't distorted by it's warp drive then?

You've already covered the GGB question. The park is another matter, but I'm not sure where we should take that. Would a 50m long BoP in the middle of a park be that much better, really?

I'd definitely think we should run with the [reliable] visuals and run with them here. We not only know the Bird landed in the park, but most shots point it being 109m long. Hypothetical consequences, however reasonable, cannot change those facts.

Besides, it's conceivable that someone did run into the ship while throwing their frisbee, but there wasn't a lot they could do about it. If they didn't flee the scene in terror and try to put the incident out of their mind, calling the police wouldn't get much done either. The caller would be dismissed as a quack, and that'd be that.

The first caller might be dismissed as a quack, but in a major urban public parks with vast grassy fields that big would literally get hundreds and hundreds of people through there an hour. Someones going to bang into it, tap the area in front of him, find metal. This isn't a scary thing, but it is a very weird thing. It's going to draw a crowd and phone calls will be made. News corps will be called and that place will be crawling with people. Not to mention the indention in the ground where the landing gear is. It really is inconceivable that something that something that big could land in a major metropolitian park and not be noticed.

Anyway, it's largely my fault for diverting the discussion with talk of methodology. (I just wanted to be sure it was considered before anyone concluded what we see in "WYLB" was necessarily wrong.)

Hey, I brought up the K'Penisenvy, so that's my deal.

Mike's rationalization, which Illuminatus brought up (thanks, IP--I'd forgotten all about that), would seem about the best we can do in these funky situations. Initially, I had the same thought you did, Gil, and wondered if that was reconcilable with suspension of disbelief.

I think it works, but that's the subject of another thread

I can't see how it makes sense. It's conceding that you can't suspend disbelief without having to admit it. As far as I can tell, there is no difference in saying that some made up film studio hit that scene with After Effects and saying Paramount did it, except that Paramount demonstratably exists. The Imaginary Film Studio seems to be a rather hamfisted way to avoid admitting that the system doesn't work all the time. I just don't see what the problem is. Where is the dishonor in admitting that suspending disbelief doesn't work all the time, particularly given the fact that the Visual Effects department doesn't give a rat's ass about whether the scale is consistant, as long as the shot looks nice?

To wrap this up, your Bird scaling looks good to me. My figures indicate with the wings in flight position, the ship's width is about 1.4 times its length, or 153m/109m respectively. Your number's plenty close enough to support that range.

My number is a guesstimation based on changing the Bird of Prey's perspective to match the rather extreme perspective of the Golden Gate Bridge in that shot. It's got a very wide tolerance for error. But what I'm certain of is the fact that it's inconceivable that something that large could possibly land in a major metropolitan park and no one noticed. It had to be much smaller and tucked away, otherwise it would be crawling with news crews and crowds before the day was out.

[seanrobertson]

Do you think if Klingons actually had mighty Warrior's penises, they'd brag about it? I think they are insecure, myself.

That might explain quite a bit All the clawing and rough foreplay they love could be an attempt to distract from the...ah-hem. Underwhelming gear involved.

It'd also put a new light on Picard's remark to Worf, "A big, strapping fellow like you? What could you be worried about [going naked]?"

So we are agreed then that the Bird of Prey wasn't distorted by it's warp drive then?

It really doesn't seem possible, so I gotta surrender that point. Some kind of minor distortion is one thing, but when:

--the Bird looks ~67,000 times larger than normal
--it's supposedly zipping along at high warp, but remains firmly in orbit of Sol
--surrounding space doesn't look funky

...there's only so far rationalizing can go in that case. That ain't far

Part of the reason I brought that up was to show, even in the most extreme cases, I give SoD a shot.

True, it illustrates that there's bound to be anomalous data (read: FX mistakes), bumps in the road; but I must emphasize the fact that the 10,000 km-wide BoP is by far one of THE most extreme examples imaginable. I definitely don't think what we're about to discuss is on the same level.

The first caller might be dismissed as a quack, but in a major urban public parks with vast grassy fields that big would literally get hundreds and hundreds of people through there an hour. *snip* It's going to draw a crowd and phone calls will be made. News corps will be called and that place will be crawling with people. Not to mention the indention in the ground where the landing gear is. It really is inconceivable that something that something that big could land in a major metropolitian park and not be noticed.

I have a number of problems with that:

--We never saw many people in the area. If, as you indicate, many hundreds of people should be around, where are they?

Granted, we only saw the area for a few minutes during daylight, but still, no park-goers.

That doesn't preclude the possibility that others came through, but isn't it conceivable they simply didn't wander over to where the Bird was--that they didn't see the imprint left by the landing gear?

--This risks an appeal to consequence; i.e., "If the Bird was that big, then bad things might happen as a direct result of that obtrusive size. Therefore, it's not that big."

Perhaps that's not what you're working toward, but by "it had to be smaller and tucked away" I think I'm pretty close.

--I hate to say it, but this also sounds like a slippery slope: "People will run into it, and they'll mostly react with intense curiosity. Before long, one of them will be taken seriously by others, and the news crews will roll in. That'll draw even more attention, and..."

Do you see what I mean? The idea seems likely enough, but it remains purely hypothetical (not to mention the potential fallacies involved in its execution). That means it's trumped by consistent visual evidence.

*snip* The Imaginary Film Studio seems to be a rather hamfisted way to avoid admitting that the system doesn't work all the time. I just don't see what the problem is. Where is the dishonor in admitting that suspending disbelief doesn't work all the time, particularly given the fact that the Visual Effects department doesn't give a rat's ass about whether the scale is consistant, as long as the shot looks nice?

Though it's a minor point, I disagree that the FX guys simply don't care. They make clumsy mistakes at times and do cut corners. However, they are reasonably consistent, and their intent is less important than results in the end.

The rest are tough questions for me to answer. I see exactly what you mean, and yes, on some level the distinction does seem a matter of semantics.

Before I start in with any kind of response, though, I have to wonder: which forum would be best to discuss SoD in general?

It relates specifically to Trek in this instance (duh, Sean), but I've heard similar issues raised about SW, B5, Transformers...you name it. I think this might deserve its own thread, ideally in a forum which underscores that the subject matter isn't solely applicable to ST. Vs. might be a start?

My number is a guesstimation based on changing the Bird of Prey's perspective to match the rather extreme perspective of the Golden Gate Bridge in that shot.

Okay. Since the Bird is closer to the camera, if we measured its width and compared it to something easily measurable on the bridge, we could derive an upper-limit for the former. There's still some margin for error, as you said, so we can look at other perspective shots. The Bird hovering over that whaling ship's good; anytime people are standing close to the ship, like going in and out of an exit ramp, is good too.

But what I'm certain of is the fact that it's inconceivable that something that large could possibly land in a major metropolitan park and no one noticed. It had to be much smaller and tucked away, otherwise it would be crawling with news crews and crowds before the day was out.

Tucking it away could be a major problem.

I might simply have a poor memory where Trek IV's plot is concerned, but did they even have the power to lift off before "re-energizing the dilithium crystals"?

Size can only take us so far as well. A very few shots indicate a length roughly half of what I've indicated, but any less is pushing it: Kirk and co. are clearly in a certain height range, and they weren't crouching over as they walked around in the ship's interior. If the ship was much smaller, though, they'd be doing just that.

Besides, 55m, 109m--what difference does that make here? I'd think something 55m long by 77m wide would still attract the attention you suggest it would.

The simplest explanation is that, for whatever reason, the park was not busy, and the chain of events you've suggested were simply never set into motion.

If you simply can't buy the notion that people didn't run around in the BoP's general vicinity, look for another explanation. Maybe it was in the process of undergoing a minor renovation, or was next to a shitty neighborhood...I dunno *shrugs*

I don't want to sound coarse, but it doesn't matter. The whole scenario seems a little dumb to me, too, but such things can't change the very "real" fact that the Bird was there and occupied a lot of space.