Printable View
Clone wars is not cannon in the slightest... the ONLY thing it has to do with Wars is the name...
Warp drive is complimented by such things as Trans-Warp Drive, Quantum Slipstream, and Trans-Warp Conduits. Lets not forget natural (and artificial) wormholes...
Skywalker, please... stop beating the dead horse. It's starting to come undone, and those innards smell bad.
Clone Wars is Lucasfilm so it is compeletly canon. Warp drive is very very primitive compared to the Hyperdrive, the big ,bulky, awkward size of the Warp Drive make it ineffcient to carry aborde Starfighters. Another is that the Warp Drive is very dangerous, the Hyperdrive is not at all dangerous ( I mean when it is damaged ). Warp Drive is slow as snail, compared to Hyperdrive. I am not "beating a dead horse", thouse Star Trek fans storm me with arguements, I do it right back.
[QUOTE=Hotspur;1801157]Actually, Uxbridge describes himself as a being of "disguise and [B]false surroundings[/B]."
Once again, you've completely missed the point.
Uxbridge was virtually omnipotent. If he had wanted, he could've sent Rosie O'Donnell and Barbara Walters after the Enterprise, and destroyed it with a heated interview.
The Husnock ship, the 400 gigawatts, the jacketed streams of antimatter, and everything else are completely irrelevant because they occured at Uxbridge's volition. They were his constructs, and he was telling the ship's sensors what to report...just as he did with Beverly's tricorder.
In fact, he could've completely disabled the Enterprise with an energy reading that measured no greater than a stick of dynamite because he and he alone was dictating sensor readings.
Only because Uxbridge wanted it to. Uxbridge could've sent a Commodore 64 against the Enterprise.
[/quote]Finally EVERYONE expected 400 gigawatts to tear down the shield, though Worf expected to raise it again quickly.
all in all this gives a great low end sheidling number for the Galaxy CLass Star Ship.[/QUOTE]
Only if we dismiss common sense and the the entirety of Trek history.[/QUOTE]
An excellent break down. Despite that Scott will not be listening to logic this late in the game. He's commited to the smoke and mirrors he's played onto this point.
By his logic a holographic bullet that kills a man is real even though it cannot existe outside the holodeck. You can't reason with Scott once he's wrong. And when he's cornred he lies and writhes to get out it. It requires focues to see through his chaff of post. Butt once he's thrown up enough flares to distract you can actually make out his mental contradictions.
[QUOTE=SkywalkerJedi;1801928]Republic ships can pown. Watch Clone Wars. Turbolasers can destory huge astroids, the astroid look small to the ISD's is because of the 1.6 KM size of the ISD ( source: Star Wars Insider October, 2007 issue ).[/QUOTE]
I have it one video. They have no shields.
Everyone has a theory on how big the asteroid is...none of it is canon. Wong, the leader of the warsie is on file for 40 meters when the roid actually looks like 4 meters.
[QUOTE]The Hoth astroid field is huge, they stayed in there for days and no casuties, and they are all 1.6KM ISDs. ISDs have 60 turbolaser batteries, and Turbolaser is better then primitive phasers.[/QUOTE]
According to canon the Enterprise took out far more material than the ISD.
[QUOTE] Keep in mind that ISDs are weaker then Ventors. [/QUOTE]
That's uncanon.
[QUOTE]Their best Warp Drive is very sad compared to a back-up hyperdrive. Lets see Federation personnel fight a groud battle with ARCs and LATT/i. Star Wars don't[B] waste[/B] resources, their Death Star is used as a base and a Superweapon, it is a nessercary weapon. Star Wars's people don't spend money on useless stuff. [/QUOTE]
Logically this is obvious that Hyperdrive is superior.
But just as logically the Death Star Project is a failure.
[QUOTE]The UFP need to update their ships. They can attack the exploritory ships, it would take a long time for reinforcements to arrive, so they don't have to worry about the whole Starfleet arrive and outnumber the Open Circle 5th fleet. The UFP don't even have an infantry, so they can go and overwhelme the sercuity with ARCs and RC ( Republic Commandoes ), and Galactic Marines.[/QUOTE]
It would take months for Star Fleet to recall some of the longer range explores to a battle situation.
[QUOTE=SkywalkerJedi;1801891]Are you on crack? The Ventors are the Star Destoryers seen in Revenge of the Sith, and Clone Wars.[/QUOTE]
I am drug free.
Yet you state the obvious as though it's a contradiction to my statement and it is not. You're merelly discovering something which was not said.
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;1801970]Clone wars is not cannon in the slightest... the ONLY thing it has to do with Wars is the name...[/QUOTE]
If I'm to believe that this video was sanctioned by George but not written or produced then perhaps you're right but it being on public channels and broadcasted makes up the difference. It doesn't comform to the EU so I must recognize it as G Canon.
I know you are drug free, it is a figure of speech, if you are on drugs your arguements would of been messed. Death Star project is a failiur abut not the Cloning Project. You expect to know all of Clone Wars from 1 video? If ISDs are stronger why dose it cost less then Ventors? I never listens to Wong, i got my sorces from either Star Wars Insider, HoloNet News ( a website ), Star Wars wiki or Starwars.com. The amout of material doesn't matter the volum dose. Next time i say you are on crack or something like that it is sarcamum.
I see.
I have video both videos from Clone Wars and and more will come relatively soon.
I do not know of any cost analysis from Star Wars stated at any point.
What is evident is that 20 years later this designed was scrapped in favor of the ISD.
The amount of material...or quanta would be measure in volume as far as my knowledge permits. Mass is a statement of a quantity of material.
[QUOTE=Saquist;1802211]
If I'm to believe that this video was sanctioned by George but not written or produced then perhaps you're right but it being on public channels and broadcasted makes up the difference. It doesn't comform to the EU so I must recognize it as G Canon.[/QUOTE]
Actually ONLY the movies, novelizations, and radio broadcasts are G Canon. Everything else is EU canon or Fanon depending on licensing.
[QUOTE=Hotspur;1801102]For instance, you erroneously asserted that trees soften the impact of a crash landing. However, the reality is that trees actually [B]increase [/B]the likelihood of sustaining damage and injury during a crash. Consequently, your entire argument about the Invisible Hand performing better than the E-D during their respective plummets from high-orbit is not only debunked; it's exactly the oppositive of what you think it is.[/quote]
Actually white pine trees are a soft wood, and from the video that is what we see. Considering the Tritanium hull is supposedly 20 times hard a s diamond, the trees would have acted as a cushion becuase they would have crumpled under the weight and hardness of the ship. I know it is rocket science, but at least think a little.
[QUOTE]You also confused a trilithium device with tri-cobalt device.[/QUOTE]
Tri-Colbalt device is a sort of demolition charge using chemical explosion to created warp tears. Two were used to demolish the unshielded Caretaker's array. Later in the series it was noted that against a shielded target the torpedoes would be all but useless.
Tri-lithium devices built by Dr. Soren impede nuclear fussion in a star and somehow must trigger some rapid Gamma Ray burst. As Sol size stars do not go supernova normally.
[QUOTE]Furthermore, do you know what would happen if the scientific community suddenly discovered that the Doppler effect worked in matter exactly opposite to currently held notions? Everything we know about the cosmos would be completely overturned.[/QUOTE]
I made a small error in color. Excuse me but I am dealing with a father on his death bed. I am bound to make simple mistakes and this was the only one of the three you mentioned.
[QUOTE]My father-in-law is an electrician--a darn good one who owns his own business. However, he has no advanced understand of physics, chemistry, or engineering, certainly not the kind of physical and scientific principles we're discussing here.
I congratulate you on being an electrician. However, it has no more bearing on this conversation than my Master's degree in Technical Communication or my 12 collegiate hours of Astronomy. [/QUOTE]
Well when you hold a bachelors in Electronic Engineering it kinda does. And I bet your father in law understands more than you thing. Most of Electrical engineering is physics, chemistry and material engineering.
[quote]Where, pray tell, is this figure quoted or evident in any of the movies? This figure means nothing to me without onscreen evidence.[/QUOTE]
Simple. The Seismic charges. That right there is evidence of Star Wars technical Superiority.
[QUOTE=SkywalkerJedi;1802221]I know you are drug free, it is a figure of speech, if you are on drugs your arguements would of been messed. Death Star project is a failiur abut not the Cloning Project. You expect to know all of Clone Wars from 1 video? If ISDs are stronger why dose it cost less then Ventors? I never listens to Wong, i got my sorces from either Star Wars Insider, HoloNet News ( a website ), Star Wars wiki or Starwars.com. The amout of material doesn't matter the volum dose. Next time i say you are on crack or something like that it is sarcamum.[/QUOTE]
Antaran has done great work on isolating the size of the asteroid vs the beam. That is a canon representation of the size of the rocks being vaporize.
From the images we can see the vector of the beam ans we can also tell the the asteroids in the seem are in motion compared to the ISD. We also know the size of the ISD The Asteroids are not larger than a hundred meters. Because of the vector of the beam striking them we can tell the asteroids are much closer to the camera than the ISD by the way the beam attenuates. From what I can tell Beam attenuating only happens for Turbo lasers when the beam is in extreme POV to the viewer...
I'd have to go with Antaran on this...the beam makes it clear that the asteroid was a mere 7-10 meters wide which means....
That the phaser has an overage over firepower on vaporizing a volume of material 24 TIMES that of the ESB asteroid. That puts the Tritainum factor wall into 240 TIMES vs the Iron Nickel vaporized in the 7-10m asteroid.
If this is the case...
Then Star Wars weapons would litteral have no considerable effect on Federation ships. That is a blow out. Complete and utter domination based off the canon.
[QUOTE=Saquist;1802417]Antaran has done great work on isolating the size of the asteroid vs the beam. That is a canon representation of the size of the rocks being vaporize.
From the images we can see the vector of the beam ans we can also tell the the asteroids in the seem are in motion compared to the ISD. We also know the size of the ISD The Asteroids are not larger than a hundred meters. Because of the vector of the beam striking them we can tell the asteroids are much closer to the camera than the ISD by the way the beam attenuates. From what I can tell Beam attenuating only happens for Turbo lasers when the beam is in extreme POV to the viewer...
I'd have to go with Antaran on this...the beam makes it clear that the asteroid was a mere 7-10 meters wide which means....
That the phaser has an overage over firepower on vaporizing a volume of material 24 TIMES that of the ESB asteroid. That puts the Tritainum factor wall into 240 TIMES vs the Iron Nickel vaporized in the 7-10m asteroid.
If this is the case...
Then Star Wars weapons would litteral have no considerable effect on Federation ships. That is a blow out. Complete and utter domination based off the canon.[/QUOTE]
Small problem, Antaran's measurements before have been proven to be shakey. The man does not accurately add in perspective .
Also since Star Wars G Canon does include novelizations the novels state asteroids larger than 200 meters. Since in the movie we do not see them fail to destroy any asteroid they fire upon, the novelization stands.
Interestingly though, if we use Wongs asteroid destruction calculator, for a 200 meter asteroid, the yield needed to vaporize it is "only" 59.9MT, though i believe this assumes a buried charge, so the actual figure may be higher?
[url]http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Asteroids.html[/url]
to do the same for the Pegasus asteroid, 8Km (right?) requires this large number 3.830E+3gigatons
figure is for nickel iron in both cases.
[QUOTE=Flectarn;1802451]Interestingly though, if we use Wongs asteroid destruction calculator, for a 200 meter asteroid, the yield needed to vaporize it is "only" 59.9MT, though i believe this assumes a buried charge, so the actual figure may be higher?
[url]http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Asteroids.html[/url]
to do the same for the Pegasus asteroid, 8Km (right?) requires this large number 3.830E+3gigatons
figure is for nickel iron in both cases.[/QUOTE]
I would like the note that it is MINIMUM ENERGY and does not factor in convection/conduction losses.
As for the Pegasus asteroid, that calculator would not be appropiate. The Pegasus asteroid was HOLLOW. Even then the Fragmentation energy for a 5000 meter radius asteroid would only be 125 megatons for a solid one. Factor in the hollowness making it easier to fracture and the same conditoon not amplifying the explosive and the you are looking at 250 megatons to fracture. As Riker said the entire compliment or torpedoes would be needed this does not look good for Star Trek.
[QUOTE=SkywalkerJedi;1802188]Clone Wars is Lucasfilm so it is compeletly canon. Warp drive is very very primitive compared to the Hyperdrive, the big ,bulky, awkward size of the Warp Drive make it ineffcient to carry aborde Starfighters. Another is that the Warp Drive is very dangerous, the Hyperdrive is not at all dangerous ( I mean when it is damaged ). Warp Drive is slow as snail, compared to Hyperdrive. I am not "beating a dead horse", thouse Star Trek fans storm me with arguements, I do it right back.[/QUOTE]
Uhm... right.
1) Warp drive is ALSO the main power source... so yeah. Hyperdrive is only a form of propulsion.
2) Warp drive works almost anywhere... including gravity wells... you're vaunted "hyperdrive" would be worthless in the grip of a simple Federation tractor beam
3) Quantum Slipstream, Time Travel, and Transwarp... nuff said
christ, scott, you are a real loon you know that?
I can shatter a crystal glass with just my voice... does that mean my voice puts out x energy more than the glass can absorb?
No. I can scream at the glass all day with no effect.
What it DOES mean is that I am able to control my voice to hit the right note at just the right amplitude, frequency, and without any unwanted modulation in such a way as to caused a resonance within the crystal.
For all we know, the DS SuperLaser is as powerful at a 75watt light bulb.
Oh, and just for the records - my grandmother on my fathers side died this morning due to long term illness at the age of 88 years.
[QUOTE=TW Scott;1802416]Actually white pine trees are a soft wood, and from the video that is what we see. Considering the Tritanium hull is supposedly 20 times hard a s diamond, the trees would have acted as a cushion becuase they would have crumpled under the weight and hardness of the ship. I know it is rocket science, but at least think a little.[/quote]
Speaking of "thinking a little," I should mention that I've explained the physics of a high altitude crash landing in several different ways throughout our discussion. I've even provided you with an article on the subject. Yet, for some inexplicable reason, you still aren't getting it.
However, because I'm such a patient and charitable guy, I'll give it one more go:
When crashing from a high altitude, the hardness of the landing surface is far less important than its smoothness. In fact, the hardness of the landing surface becomes progressively less of as factor as we move higher into the atmosphere.
For instance, consider a person who jumps off a fifty-foot cliff. If he jumpes into a deep body of water, he isn't likely to sustain any serious injury; however, if he jumps onto concrete, the chance of serious injury greatly increases.
Now, if the same person jumps from 3,000 feet (without a parachute), he's probably going to die regardless of his landing surface.
According to the article I posted, during a crash landing, a pilot will always choose a smooth landing surface (such as an open field or a roadway) over an uneven surface (such as a forest or mountainside) even if the uneven surface is softer.
The E-D crashed onto one of the worst possible terrains--a region that was both mountainous and heavily forested. The crumpling effect that you're describing would only worsen matters because it creates additional friction and, therefore, additional heat, which would become quite substantial given the velocity the Enterprise was traveling.
The Invisible Hand crashed onto one of the best possible terrains--a smooth surface with very few obstacle to increase friction and heat. The Invisible Hand even had the benefit of ships dousing it with coolant as it descended.
All in all, the Enterprise displayed far more resiliance and durability than the Invisible Hand.
This fact is fairly obvious, and I seriously doubt you missed it. You're probably just being antognistic as I've expected all along.
[quote]Tri-Colbalt device is a sort of demolition charge using chemical explosion to created warp tears. Two were used to demolish the unshielded Caretaker's array. Later in the series it was noted that against a shielded target the torpedoes would be all but useless.
Tri-lithium devices built by Dr. Soren impede nuclear fussion in a star and somehow must trigger some rapid Gamma Ray burst. As Sol size stars do not go supernova normally. [/quote]
Excellent.
Now that you've realized your mistakes, perhaps you should rethink your flawed conclusion.
[quote] I am bound to make simple mistakes and this was the only one of the three you mentioned.[/quote]
Incorrect.
You've made at least three mistakes: reversing the Doppler effect, erroneously assuming that trees can "soften" a high altitude crash landing, and confusing tri-cobalt devices with trilithium devices.
You also claimed I was wrong when I stated that 1 watt was equivalent to 1 joule per second. However, because this occured several months ago, I won't count it. You can't say I never did anything for you.;)
[quote]Well when you hold a bachelors in Electronic Engineering it kinda does. And I bet your father in law understands more than you thing. Most of Electrical engineering is physics, chemistry and material engineering.[/quote]
You claim to have a bachelors degree in Electronic Engineering, yet you didn't know that gigawatts are also used to measure heat and mechanical work.
At which university did you do your undergraduate studies?
[quote]Simple. The Seismic charges. That right there is evidence of Star Wars technical Superiority.[/QUOTE]
A seismic change? In outer space?
Once again, I ask you where the figure in question is quoted or evidenced in any of the movies.
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;1802483]christ, scott, you are a real loon you know that?
I can shatter a crystal glass with just my voice... does that mean my voice puts out x energy more than the glass can absorb?
[/QUOTE]
can YOU really? if so I'm highly impressed
Oh, and condolences about your grandmother
same you Scott concerning your dad
*nods* When I was in the youth choral, our director brought in a dozen or so cheaper crystal glasses for just this purpose. I was the only bass able to do it thanks to my slightly higher range (I'm a natural baritone, but I sing bass because I'm loud :P) It took me around a 20 second sustained C flat to build up the resonance.
By comparison, our director hit a double high C sharp (nearly an octave and a half above where my voice tops out in falsetto) and shattered it clean in like, a half second. Was quite crazy... he's an AMAZING singer - does everything from high bass to low soprano!
We had two tenors and an alto able to do it - most of the sopranos simply couldn't keep their notes pure enough. I must say, it's quite an experience... it's like projecting a laser beam from your mouth!
Could I do it today... maybe *shrugs* I haven't done any real singing (except with the radio) for almost 3 years now because, sadly, my university doesn't offer any real choir program.
i load 500 posts per page and this thread still has 20 pages
may the force be with you all
/kowtow
pardon but are there other universes that have come about as worthy contenders?
the poll could be modded to include em
"Yet in the scene the lights in the core are moving as quickly as they do when the ship is in higher end warp, but not peddle to the metal. Remeber they are running all the advanced sensors, countless comptuer simulations, replicators, transporters, and countless other things in order to get the ship ready for when they do act. All these systems drain power badly. Most of these systems would be shut down with a Red Alert."
ahem, YOU can actualy determine the energy production by looking at the twinkles???? they are so random mate. i've sean E-D in full battle stations with the core twinkling as slow as a slug.
"It is not that much faster and it certainlyu is not nearly as well Armed. There is a reason that the Voyager season did not have a Galaxy Class starship as it's vessel: Most of the Quadrant would not have been a Threat to a GCS. "
the Voyager's phasers ARE type 10. the same as a GCS's. this surprised me as well.
"okay, first of all like explained above you cannot beat thermodynamics. Otherwise the Federation would have no need for antimatter. At best a phaser can do exactly the same ammount of damage as the power you put into it. Nothing more. Second we have never seen a phaser do anything as impressive as we have seen Turbolasers do."
and how did you come up with this conclusion??? as we have witnissed from episode to episode and from movie to movie, phasers have some efects which contradicts thermodinamics. you can not presume an X watt value to turn an object to vapor, if that object does not behave like vapor after that??! even TLs (as seen in ESB) don't exibit properties that would explain them as TW capable weapons.
"Well you do realize that an Antimatter-matter reaction is a type of Fusion reaction yes?"
huh???!!! where did you get your education mate!!??? fusion- lighter atoms merge to form heavier. the resulting mass defect is demonstrated through a release of energy in several forms (gamma photons, beta particles...)
Matter-antimatter annihilation - the complete conversion of matter into energy.....
a type of fusion you say? i don't think so.
"Finally building a larger ship is a mark of technological superiority. It denotes superior engineering skills, superior materials, superior power generation and so on."
now this is a kind of thinking used in WW1&2, but mostly 1. :D
"Actually white pine trees are a soft wood, and from the video that is what we see. Considering the Tritanium hull is supposedly 20 times hard a s diamond, the trees would have acted as a cushion becuase they would have crumpled under the weight and hardness of the ship. I know it is rocket science, but at least think a little."
ask ANY pilot worth his pants, which would he chose to land on, a mountain side or a well maintained strip.
"Small problem, Antaran's measurements before have been proven to be shakey. The man does not accurately add in perspective ."
look who's talking, the man that mixes dopler effect and thinks antimatter anihilation is a form of fusion. besides it's not like you menaged to deny any of the onscreen evidence i provided. concerning the TM wormhole example, i did remind you that it's imposible to determine the exact size of the asteroid. and you presumed it was 30m!!!????? since we see them in the same frame, that would mean the asteroid was sitting next to the E. and the torpedo was doing what the next few seconds??? running circles around it?
and mate, i lost my father the last summer. so i have some idea how that feels. i did not touch the PC for some time. don't use him to back your blunders. it does not serve him justice :(
So, scott, larger ship = better mhm?
Pit, say, an Aegis class cruiser vs a german WW2 battleship... better still - pit a MAN WITH A SET OF FUCKING SHOULDER MOUNTED ROCKETS vs that same battleship. Who do you think will win?
A weapon can only do as much damage as the energy put into it? Really? Then riddle me this - why is it the total thermal and mechanical energy of a 30-06 rifle fired at my head (which is more than enough to kill me) firing a standard round is about 4k joules... yet I can take 4000 watts to the head without injury provided the amperage behind it is low enough and my bodies resistance is high enough?
The MEANS of DELIVERY is the ultimate factor of success... hence why the .22 derenger is more powerful than the old recurve bows...