KirkSkywalker wrote:Mr. Oragahn wrote:To Kirky:
I've never seen someone abuse the E=mc² equation so much to support his arguments, even when both were unrelated and when the equation certainly did not explain the other.
I'm putting an end to this silly game.
You will prove that the equation has anything to do with subspace.
You will prove that warp partially pulls stuff into subspace.
If you cannot do both, concede.
Translation: “Teach me basic, advanced and hyperdimensional physics, as well as how they apply in Star Trek, then convince me that you’re right; and until I understand everything and
agree that you’re right, then you’re wrong.
You really seem to have a problem with providing
simple evidence. I'm not asking you for a course about fictional physics you would know nothing about.
So, cutting through that endless torrent of useless "demonstration", I'm going to highlight what's just wrong with your methodology:
Sorry missy, it doesn’t work that way; that’s argumentum ad ignorantium; I don’t “lose” an argument with a a brick wall because it doesn’t agree, and likewise that doesn’t mean I have to argue with it all day. I only have to present facts and relate them logically to my conclusions; and if you disagree, then you have to counter it by showing how either the facts or logic are faulty.
As an indulgence, I’ll say that E=MC^2 represents the an object’s energy, which can never increase beyond that amount; and so the faster an object moves, the faster it accelerates in time, such that its mass appears to increase, while distances shorten along the axis of motion. Therefore, no phenomenon existing in N-space can ever exceed lightspeed, and no object in N-space can reach it. The only way to avoid this, is to change its relationship to normal space by “warping” it so that relative distances change i.e. along the Z-axis; and the ship does this by creating an artificial bubble around the ship that extends further into subspace than normal mass-gravity constants allow, and which moves with it, thus reversing this effect and allowing it to travel faster than lightspeed via traveling more in subspace than normal objects.
If you don’t understand that, do your own homework; I’m not going to do it for you, however it’s essential to understanding these arguments.
There.
Provide evidence of that with statements from the canon.
As for warp straffing, all the examples you pull are from TOS. Not a single example is provided on RSA's page for battle warp stragging outside of TOS. Which brings me to wonder if "warp" back then really meant FTL, and I'll obviously point to the movies, where we see ships engaging at warp, yet certainly not moving anywhere that fast.
I'll certainly not take evidence from an outdated show which even Roddenberry himself took distances from, and that TOS fans be damned. I don't care.
You will, and you’ll LIKE it, since it’s canon; nothing is “outdated” in citing technology that’s
better than what you cite.
I claim it's outdated when it has obviously been dropped after TOS.
TOS generally is the part of the show I really dislike to deal with. It has a lot of odd claims and the design back then are so pulp and fruity that it's just another whole show.
The very fact that you will absoltely struggle to present evidence from ENT, TNG, DS9, VOY and even the movies is plain enough.
Yes, “plain” that you cite them out of
context.
Sorry? Please clarify your point.
What context?
First, because most space station, planets and asteroids don't go to warp yet they're engaged at STL speeds.
Sorry to bring SIMPLE FACTS into the mix, but maybe it’s just not very smart to exceed lightspeed when attacking a single target using multiple ships that have a weapons-range of 1 light-
second.
Sorry to remind you that for some reason, the creator of the show, and then all further makers, seemingly decided to do without that part of it.
You can scream as much as you want, this won't get any further. Call me a brick wall all you want, because this argument will clearly stop at my feet, and any reference to it will be simply sniped, purely and simply.
I'm not going to wait for another post to get the solid evidence I've been asking you to provide.
In “The Ultimate Computer,” however ,notice, the M-5 Enterprise attacks multiple ships by warp-strafing them; but they can’t do the same in response for this reason.
Ow, more TOS.
TOSsed, yes.
Secondly, because the ship which has the greater warp will always be able to circle the slower warp capable ship to relative speeds which are so ludicrously different that it doesn't even need to be explained.
Ever hear that all motion is
relative?
This is precisely my point. A ship with faster warp will always be relatively faster than the slower warp capable ship, effectively straffing it at will.
Therefore unless one ship is changing speed and direction so unusually fast that the phasers can’t lock onto it, then going to warp simply wastes power in a 1-1 ship-battle, leaving you out-shielded and out-gunned.
Essentially, you're claiming that despite the fact I took a case of two ships having sensibly different max warp speeds, you turn this into both being even, so much that one can't turn unusually fast and surprise the other rather easily.
<------------------- my point
I notice that you also reject modern canon evidence about the shield weakness to high magnitude ion based phenomena. This is your concession.
Again, this is like comparing a blaster to a supernova since they both involve superheated plasma. A storm obviously covers a much bigger area than a canon-shot, and has a lot more total power along a ship’s path of flight.
In terms of intensity over a certain surface, I'd actually be tempted to consider an ion bolt as seen in SW to be higher than whatever a ship flying through an ion storm would be exposed to, unless of course said storm managed to apply to one square meter the same intensity as a w-150 ion shot.
Eventually we could say that the Trek ship would have issues on the long term, but this doesn't say anything good about this long term exposure, spread over an entire shield surface, now condensed to a fraction second over a concentrated area.
In the end, saying it's a vast ion storm certainly does not help at all. Your argument that ships were immune to such things obviously kaput and well behind us. You're almost nitpicking on technicalities now.
As for the canon, Lucas decided something for his own little universe, but since the other policy, the one that manages are large "empire" of merchandising is equally supported, I don't feel bound to suddenly limit myself to one particular canon just to allow you to score cheap points in any debate.
Well then you’re out of luck because that’s the rules of this debate, i.e. no EU canon.Lucas’s little universe is the only one that matters with regard to SW debate—the books are just fanfic with a fancier label. So’s TCW.
First, check out the content of the many threads on this website, you may be surprised.
Secondly, please show such rules.
Err... actually, forget that. I'm going to ignore those claims for future posts here. It will just be simpler this way as well, since I don't see this moving any direction.
Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:I always saw warp strafing in the later series like TNG ect as dangerous in most cases and likely unnecessary in the rest.
We know that in a fight that ships regularly transfer warp power to shields and weapons to vastly increase the effectivness so that would be lost for the ship fighting at warp while the ship stationary or at low impulse would have it available.
We also know that the tracking and targeting abilities of ships weapons in the TNG and onwards era is far better than in the TOS era so even stationary or slow moving ships can easily hit ships at warp.
So while warp strafing is a fantastic ability and essentially a invulnerability against ships with weapons that cannot hit you at those speeds it is a vulnerability against those that can.
This is likely why we do not see it in the later episodes as most fights are against ships of relativly equal abilities and those that would be vulnerable to warp stafing are also weak in other aspects so warp strafing is not needed as a defence against incoming fire anyway.
This cannot happen.
Let's bring that down to simpler speeds. Say the ship at warp is actually traveling at 100 mph.
The ship at STL is now standing still. It gets a record on its sensors that a ship moving at warp is coming (say that its FTL sensors can catch particles that somehow do travel faster than the enemy ship, just like photons travel faster than your car).
They decide to shoot on the path, timing their shot for precise interception.
Right, they begin to shoot. But relatively speaking, their beam, which they think is very fast at STL, is now so slow in such a referential that the head of the beam has barely left the cannon.
Meanwhile, the other ship is approaching fast and has already fired a torpedo. It then alters it course by a few degrees off. The beam of the other ship has barely finished coming out of the cannon that the warp strafing ship is already on a different course and the torpedo, however, had a field day striking its beached whale target.
