Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
Volumetric Additions - NX and DS9
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: [QB] [QUOTE][b]Originally posted by Guardian 2000:[/b] That having been said, why don't you declare every value we hear as being "out of whack"? No, seriously, I want an answer. I already explained the concept to you before, but you persist. So, I want your version.[/QUOTE]You'd make a lousy philosopher, Guardian. You might want to invest in a few logic classes. :p The point in analyzing canon is that everything in episodes might be "canon", but it's not necessarily [i]factual[/i]. A premise (aka a point of data) must not create a contradiction with the weighted majority of other premises in the canon. If a premise creates a contradiction with other premises, then one of them has to be ignored. Contradictions can't be tolerated. Now, of course this all depends on how you want to interpret what is factual in the entirety of the [i]Star Trek[/i] universe. However, the point is to choose what is true such that as many points as possible may be retained. But sometimes, simply throwing out data becomes necessary. [QUOTE]Don't you see that you're taking the writer's guide over the canon?[/QUOTE]So? Don't tell me you believe that they really traveled at infinite speed in "Threshold"... I'd call that a perfect example of taking the writer's guide over the actual episodes. My point is that in certain circumstances where contradictions or scientific fallacies are clearly and unarguably shown, it's acceptable to ignore that specific data. And when that data is thrown out, you usually need something to replace it -- so you go with the next best thing, which is the Encyclopedia and the writer's guides. [QUOTE]The funny part of the whole thing is that the Voyager mass figure, reduced commensurate to Connie volume, puts you within that ballpark.[/QUOTE]And now you're arguing from the other side of the coin, and just proved my point for you. Take a measurement that's obviously pulled out of the ass with a scientifically ludicrous unit of measure, and you compare that to a carefully calculated number determined by the designer of the starship (Voyager). It's obvious what's more acceptable. Now, I'm not saying you should just toss out the "gross tons" comment -- but I [b]am[/b] saying that you need to include the other data from the writer's guide. It's better when you're providing analysis to include all the available data. If you're going to ignore some of it, then include it, explain why you don't use it, and [i]then[/i] toss it out. [QUOTE]Woodside, Minutiae, Masao . . . I think that cinches it. Would you agree?[/QUOTE]You might think so, but no. That's because I would much rather consider the [b]original intention of those who designed the starship[/b] -- specifically Matt Jefferies et al. Or do you also believe that the [i]Enterprise[/i]-A was really 78 decks tall, because William Shatner pulled the sign out of his ass and ignored the original intentions of the designers? As I see it, if the data coincides with your existing calculations, I don't see why you [i]wouldn't[/i] want to include it, simply to back up your initial work... [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3