Stupid things Trek/Wars debaters say.

For polite and reasoned discussion of Star Wars and/or Star Trek.
sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Stupid things Trek/Wars debaters say.

Post by sonofccn » Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:37 am

Lucky wrote:Not getting worse, and not in need of repairs are to different things
And there is nothing to suggest power was damaged, assuming that it has taken damage and is holding from this lowered state would be just that an additional assumption.
Worf's statement suggests that repairs were coming along as scheduled, and that beyond the sudden environmental controls acting wonky in a minor way. They do not show repairs to have been finished.
Sigh. My case is that there is a relatively diverse body of evidence that if not 100% clear cut collectively build a case of no one acting like the Enterprise has suffered serious damage. That to assume they all are failing to mention it, that they are speaking around it is an uneeded assumption. I believe I have sufficently brought evidence to that effect I see little else that can be accomplished. Now if you have additional evidence that the ship was still suffering damage that would be differnt but as it is now we are just going in a circle.
Your argument that the Enterprise-E was not beyond repair or getting worse is silly because the ship would have been abandoned if it was,
Your argument. You require the ship to be in such rotten shape basic systems such as shields, which would help not pollute the time stream further, were off line or could be easily surmized to be by La Forge or Riker.
Shields aren't up at all the time. That means that they could be down for most of the movie, and still be fixed.
So now you are arguing the ship simply had its shields down, risking detection by whatever means 21th century Earth posses, and Rike and La Forge assume this is the case without ever commenting on it?
Picard's statement only means that the shields of the Enterprise-E had been down when the Borg boarded the her.
He could have said our shields are down/disabled. By saying "were" he anchors it into a past action ie traveling backwards in time. While not conclusive it is suggestive and you have not provided anything concrete to prove your assumptions.

KSW
Bridge Officer
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Stupid things Trek/Wars debaters say.

Post by KSW » Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:15 am

Lucky wrote:
MauriceWindows wrote: It's still highly unlikely that Sandpeople's desert-rifles were as accurate as stormtroopers' weapons.
I was always under the impression that Sand people are better shots then clone/storm troopers, and old Ben was just making a sarcastic about how bad they are.
That impression is false; Ben was observing that it couldn't have been Sandpeople. Obviously Stormtroopers had better weapons and training.

KSW
Bridge Officer
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Stupid things Trek/Wars debaters say.

Post by KSW » Sun Dec 25, 2011 2:16 pm

Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:
Picard wrote:I am saying that drop in shield percentage was probably completely unrelated to that peace of metal. As for black hole shields, yes and no - Federation shields are gravitational distortion, as are black holes, but that is where similarities end.
Voyager did sit inside the event horizon of a singularity for quite some time. :D
The event-horizon is simply the area of a black-hole in escape-velocity is faster than lightspeed.
Therefore if a ship can move faster than light, then it should have no problem sitting inside the event-horizon for as long as it can keep up that speed-- which for Voyager would be indefinitely.

KSW
Bridge Officer
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Stupid things Trek/Wars debaters say.

Post by KSW » Sun Dec 25, 2011 2:27 pm

Lucky wrote:
wrote: Well, since they don't bend all types of electromagnetic radiations, since we see them (light isn't bent), then I'd say the scene is fine as we see it, and that only the black-hole interpretation of ST shields has flaws...
The old visuals are always right even though you admitted that isn't true. What next, you'll claim plasma torpedos don't crust things?

That's great now prove it with something other then visuals which may have been solely done that way for the benefit of the viewer.

TOS: Tomorrow Is Yesterday, TNG: First Contact, Voyager: Future's End all depend on the ship being invisible, and even the ability to control how light bends so finely that they could make a shuttle look like a fighter jet.
Invisible, or simply undetected? Detection-systems like radar depend on bounceback of a single-frequency EM-beam, which can be prevented by deflectors. However this wouldn't necessarily prevent it being visible. In "Balance of Terror," Spock says that bending light to make a ship invisible would involve extreme energy-levels, and in any event it would count as a cloaking-device. And we know that not all deflectors are cloaks, though a cloaking-device does hook into a ship's deflector-shield control ("The Enterprise Incident").

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Stupid things Trek/Wars debaters say.

Post by Lucky » Mon Dec 26, 2011 10:59 am

MauriceWindows wrote: It's still highly unlikely that Sandpeople's desert-rifles were as accurate as stormtroopers' weapons.
Lucky wrote: I was always under the impression that Sand people are better shots then clone/storm troopers, and old Ben was just making a sarcastic about how bad they are.
MauriceWindows wrote: That impression is false; Ben was observing that it couldn't have been Sandpeople. Obviously Stormtroopers had better weapons and training.
It's completely in character for a snarky sarcastic person like Obi-Won.

The precise marksmanship was blaster marks seemingly randomly placed all over the sand crawler.

Sand people use slug throwers from what little we see.

Storm Troopers have horrible aim.

10:07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKFW7Lbo ... =endscreen

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Stupid things Trek/Wars debaters say.

Post by Lucky » Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:35 am

wrote: Well, since they don't bend all types of electromagnetic radiations, since we see them (light isn't bent), then I'd say the scene is fine as we see it, and that only the black-hole interpretation of ST shields has flaws...
Lucky wrote:The old visuals are always right even though you admitted that isn't true. What next, you'll claim plasma torpedos don't crust things?

That's great now prove it with something other then visuals which may have been solely done that way for the benefit of the viewer.

TOS: Tomorrow Is Yesterday, TNG: First Contact, Voyager: Future's End all depend on the ship being invisible, and even the ability to control how light bends so finely that they could make a shuttle look like a fighter jet.
MauriceWindows wrote: Invisible, or simply undetected? Detection-systems like radar depend on bounceback of a single-frequency EM-beam, which can be prevented by deflectors. However this wouldn't necessarily prevent it being visible. In "Balance of Terror," Spock says that bending light to make a ship invisible would involve extreme energy-levels, and in any event it would count as a cloaking-device. And we know that not all deflectors are cloaks, though a cloaking-device does hook into a ship's deflector-shield control ("The Enterprise Incident").
That's nice, but my examples require the ships to be undetectable by the mark one eye ball as well as infrared, radar, ultraviolet, and many others, and bending light to make a shuttle look like a 20th/21st century fighter is on a similar level.

We don't know how a cloaking device is defined in Star Trek, and we know a cloak from TOS can be seen through in TNG.

You mean this quote from "The Balance of Terror"?
KIRK: When they opened fire. Perhaps necessary when they use their weapon. SPOCK: I have a blip on the motion sensor. Could be the intruder.
KIRK: Go to full magnification.
SULU: Screen is on full mag, sir.
KIRK: I don't see anything. I can't understand it.
SPOCK: Invisibility is theoretically possible, Captain, with selective bending of light. But the power cost is enormous.
They may have solved that problem.

Spock if talking in the context of fooling ship sensors.

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Stupid things Trek/Wars debaters say.

Post by Lucky » Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:38 am

Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:
Picard wrote:I am saying that drop in shield percentage was probably completely unrelated to that peace of metal. As for black hole shields, yes and no - Federation shields are gravitational distortion, as are black holes, but that is where similarities end.
Voyager did sit inside the event horizon of a singularity for quite some time. :D
MauriceWindows wrote: The event-horizon is simply the area of a black-hole in escape-velocity is faster than lightspeed.
Therefore if a ship can move faster than light, then it should have no problem sitting inside the event-horizon for as long as it can keep up that speed-- which for Voyager would be indefinitely.
And by that point Voyager should have had problems with spaghettification.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Stupid things Trek/Wars debaters say.

Post by Praeothmin » Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:26 am

Lucky wrote:SPOCK: Invisibility is theoretically possible, Captain, with selective bending of light. But the power cost is enormous.
They may have solved that problem.
Spock if talking in the context of fooling ship sensors.
Spock did clearly mention "bending of light", so he wasn't just talking about fooling sensors, but even "simple" light bending, the kind you's need to turn ships invisible to the naked eye...

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: Stupid things Trek/Wars debaters say.

Post by mojo » Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:50 am

Lucky wrote:
Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:
Picard wrote:I am saying that drop in shield percentage was probably completely unrelated to that peace of metal. As for black hole shields, yes and no - Federation shields are gravitational distortion, as are black holes, but that is where similarities end.
Voyager did sit inside the event horizon of a singularity for quite some time. :D
MauriceWindows wrote: The event-horizon is simply the area of a black-hole in escape-velocity is faster than lightspeed.
Therefore if a ship can move faster than light, then it should have no problem sitting inside the event-horizon for as long as it can keep up that speed-- which for Voyager would be indefinitely.
And by that point Voyager should have had problems with spaghettification.
HAHAHA
spaghettification wtf

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Stupid things Trek/Wars debaters say.

Post by Lucky » Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:34 am

Lucky wrote: And by that point Voyager should have had problems with spaghettification.
mojo wrote:HAHAHA
spaghettification wtf
Spaghettification is in fact a scientific term for what happens to something that enters a black-hole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Stupid things Trek/Wars debaters say.

Post by Lucky » Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:49 am

Lucky wrote:SPOCK: Invisibility is theoretically possible, Captain, with selective bending of light. But the power cost is enormous.
They may have solved that problem.
Spock if talking in the context of fooling ship sensors.
Praeothmin wrote: Spock did clearly mention "bending of light", so he wasn't just talking about fooling sensors, but even "simple" light bending, the kind you's need to turn ships invisible to the naked eye...
Aside from the fact the warp drive does what you are claiming it can't as a side effect. The warp drive warps space/time, and the shields are already warped space/time to a degree that attacks by FTL particle beams are deflected before they hit the ship.
KIRK: When they opened fire. Perhaps necessary when they use their weapon. SPOCK: I have a blip on the motion sensor. Could be the intruder.
KIRK: Go to full magnification.
SULU: Screen is on full mag, sir.
KIRK: I don't see anything. I can't understand it.
SPOCK: Invisibility is theoretically possible, Captain, with selective bending of light. But the power cost is enormous. They may have solved that problem.
They are talking about not being able to find a ship with the ships sensors.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Stupid things Trek/Wars debaters say.

Post by Praeothmin » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Lucky?
Can you re-read your very own post?
KIRK: When they opened fire. Perhaps necessary when they use their weapon.
SPOCK: I have a blip on the motion sensor. Could be the intruder.
KIRK: Go to full magnification.
SULU: Screen is on full mag, sir.
KIRK: I don't see anything. I can't understand it.
SPOCK: Invisibility is theoretically possible, Captain, with selective bending of light. But the power cost is enormous. They may have solved that problem.
Spock is clearly talking about invisibility to the naked eye, not just sensors...

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: Stupid things Trek/Wars debaters say.

Post by mojo » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:45 am

Lucky wrote:
Lucky wrote: And by that point Voyager should have had problems with spaghettification.
mojo wrote:HAHAHA
spaghettification wtf
Spaghettification is in fact a scientific term for what happens to something that enters a black-hole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification
HAHAHA
spaghettification wtf

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Stupid things Trek/Wars debaters say.

Post by Lucky » Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:04 am

Praeothmin wrote:Lucky?
Can you re-read your very own post?
KIRK: When they opened fire. Perhaps necessary when they use their weapon.
SPOCK: I have a blip on the motion sensor. Could be the intruder.
KIRK: Go to full magnification.
SULU: Screen is on full mag, sir.
KIRK: I don't see anything. I can't understand it.
SPOCK: Invisibility is theoretically possible, Captain, with selective bending of light. But the power cost is enormous. They may have solved that problem.
Spock is clearly talking about invisibility to the naked eye, not just sensors...
SCOTT: No question. Their power is simple impulse.

The Romulan ship was not warp capable, and did not have anywhere near the power output of the Enterprise.

Having a warp drive and Federation style gravity shields means you can do what Spock describes, and I have already post the examples of it being done.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Stupid things Trek/Wars debaters say.

Post by Praeothmin » Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:36 pm

It seems we don't read things the same way, as Spock never specifies "Under their power generation capabilities", and the turning of the phrase doesn't even imply it...
You took two distinct events and quotes, and lumped them into one...

Post Reply