Scimitar vs. Sovereign

[m52nickerson]

There are only a couple morons who don't get that hey are using Occem's Razor wrong.

Well, if we use your bastardised and incorrect "Occem's Razor", then yeah, you're right.
If you want to stick to the logical and scientificaly correct "Occam's Razor", then there's only one person in this thread who's clueless as to it: you.

Occam's Razor is - one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. You guys would be right if your explanation if we were looking at the visuals and trying to determine the number of weapons.

That is not what someone us are doing, we are trying to explain both the script(looking at it as fact) and the visuals(also as fact). To do this it is necessary to go beyond "Script is wrong"

The theory that you have put forth does not account for the scan.

The scan was never seen, ergo it is useless. All we have to go on is Worf's quote, and that's been explained nigh on a hundred times at this point. If you have trouble grasping this concept then I'm afraid I can't help you.

Welcome to the world of fantasy. If there is no other possible way to account for something said and what is seen then one can be discounted. We do not have that case here. Multiply theories have been put out there and they are all possible. The razor only come into play in helping decide which of these theories are better, remember we are trying to tie all the elements together. Any solution that does not do that is not even answering the problem some of us are trying to answer.

The visuals we see only a small percentage of the all the shots shown coming from points on the Scimitar, the rest come from off screen. That is not enough to prove that the whole of the bridge crew made the same mistake. Nor does it suddenly indicate that there was something wrong with the sensors.

Ah, so all these extra weapons actualy opened fire when we weren't watching the battle, despite the fact that we can hear that the impacts of the Scimitar's shots are perfectly consistant with the number of weapons I pegged as being real? Prove it.

Slow rate of fire for each weapon easily explains this. Since this helps explains the large number of weapons and what is seen there is no good reason to disregard this.

Here are some facts.

Every website that lists the armaments for the Scimitar state 52 disruptor, including the Official Site. They made the movie they get to say what is what, not you. So the answer to the question of how many disruptors does the Scimitar have is 52, and will be until something else official is released.

Does the concept of canon mean anything to you? I could make a website stating that Picard used to be a punk rocker with purple hair. That doesn't mean it's right.

From StarTrek.com - Cannon is "As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts." On the site facts it states that the Scimitar has 52 disruptors, so that with Worf's statement make it Cannon.

The footage is not a documentary, it is a sci-fi movie. Treating it as a live footage from an actual footage from a battle is retarded at best. Part of sci-fi is imagination, grow one.

And in addition to bastardising Occam's Razor, you're ignoring Suspension of Disbelief. Want to try twisting any more debating methods? I'm sure there's one or two still left that you haven't mutilated too much.

If you wish to debate using those terms debate someone else. I'm not interested in coming to conclusions that make every major character look like a complete idiot.

I'm done with both of you, unless you add something to the discussion that helps bring the visuals, which I think you guys looked at while drunk, and the script you will be ignored just as children should be seen and not heard.

So..........take your inane six gun Scimitar and shove it!

Ooh, what a well thought out and truly devastating response. Truly you have opened my eyes; my entire world view has just changed.

Or, you know, not.

So we end this debate with you running away after a petulant and supposedly scathing post that completely ignored every point made and just added another brick to the Wall of Ignorance on display here. Nice. I'm sure Blackstar would be proud.

Oh, and concession accepted.

No not running away, and not conceding. All the points you continue to bring up have been responded to, but you continue to bring them up with nothing new to add.

You are trying to answer the question "How many weapons does the Scimitar have based on what we see." Well have fun with that, I'm trying to answer something else.

"How do we explain that it does not seem that the Scimitar has 52 disruptors and 32 torpedo tubes when we know it does." That is the question I will seek to answer in a different thread.

[m52nickerson]

There wouldn't have been any insult throwing at all if he'd debated rationaly and honestly. But his constant refusal to accept even the possibility that he might be wrong, combined with his outright dishonesty, means that I see no reason to be civil with him anymore.
If he wants us to be polite, then he should act civily towards us as well.

Besides, the thread's over now. He's run away.

Wrong again.

Did you miss the fact that I stated that I no longer thought my initial theory of all the disruptors being small and grouped and thought another one was better. The problem is I do not think your explanation is correct.

[Aaron]

Sorry I did not realize that a battery or capacitor can't charge slowly.

That wooshing noise is the point sailing over your head. If in fact the Scimitar had batteries or capacitors and the 52 disruptors you claim than she could have crippled the E-E in one go.

NO, when one has a simpler explanation that does not include all the evidence it is not preferred. Again saying that Worf, Data and any other members of the bridge crew that were looking the scans of the Scimitar made the exact same mistake in utterly ridiculous. So we are left with what, there must have been some thing that tricked the sensors, and made it seem like there were 52 disruptors, not so simple.

So can you or anyone else explain how that sensor trick was done, any small thing to back it up.

.......and not its not like hiding in a magnetic poll because that only hides a ship from the sensors, not makes them pick thing up that are not there.

Do you know why serious debators go with visuals over dialogue? It's because characters are not infallible and Trek (especially TNG) is notorious for errors in dialogue, Data regularly confuses units of measure, Worf claims to be a pinacle of honour etc.

[m52nickerson]

The purpose of this thread is to come up with ideas that will explain what we see in the battle between the Scimitar and the Enterprise E.

Two premises that must be followed.

The visuals are correct, as far as the detail will allow.

The scimitar is out loaded with 52 disruptors and 32 torpedoes.

A few theories have been state in another thread.

I think that if the disruptors were designed around the power available while the ship is cloaked they may have been designed to charge with a minimum amount of power, and thous have a slow recharge rate. So groups of these disruptors in different states of of charge and readiness could still give the ship a decent overall rate of fire while allowing enough power for the cloak and shield.

As for the torpedoes, I'm open to suggestions.

[Sionnach Glic]

Occam's Razor is - one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. You guys would be right if your explanation if we were looking at the visuals and trying to determine the number of weapons.

That is not what someone us are doing, we are trying to explain both the script(looking at it as fact) and the visuals(also as fact). To do this it is necessary to go beyond "Script is wrong"

The problem is that all your explainations require either for lots of stuff to have happened at one point, while not happen at points where such an occurance would be most likely to take place, or the mass stupidity of anywhere between two and several thousand people that makes no sense.

Our explaination requires only one person to be wrong, and it's more than possible to explain why that is so.

Welcome to the world of fantasy. If there is no other possible way to account for something said and what is seen then one can be discounted. We do not have that case here. Multiply theories have been put out there and they are all possible. The razor only come into play in helping decide which of these theories are better, remember we are trying to tie all the elements together. Any solution that does not do that is not even answering the problem some of us are trying to answer.

For about the five hundreth time:
Saying Worf was wrong =/= ignoring that quote.

Slow rate of fire for each weapon easily explains this. Since this helps explains the large number of weapons and what is seen there is no good reason to disregard this.

No, it doesn't work as we've never seen any weapon that requires over a dozen seconds to charge up (hell, the phaser lance could fire quicker than that) and the mass stupidity of both the crew and constructors of the Scimitar.

From StarTrek.com - Cannon is "As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts." On the site facts it states that the Scimitar has 52 disruptors, so that with Worf's statement make it Cannon

Statement on website =/= official fact.

If you wish to debate using those terms debate someone else.

If you refuse to debate honestly and respectfully, I'll use whatever terms I like.

I'm not interested in coming to conclusions that make every major character look like a complete idiot.

That's funny, considering that your explaination requires the mental retardation of thousands of people, while our explaination doesn't require anyone to be an idiot, it just requires one to be wrong, and not necessarily through his own fault.

No not running away, and not conceding.

Well when you said "'I'm done with both of you, unless you add something to the discussion that helps bring the visuals, which I think you guys looked at while drunk, and the script you will be ignored just as children should be seen and not heard. So..........take your inane six gun Scimitar and shove it!" I'd assumed you were giving up on the debate.

You know, such statements look even more ridiculous in light of the fact that you then came back into the thread to continue debating the exact same topic. Seriously, what the hell did you think we were going to do if you said you're leaving other than expect you to leave the debate?

You are trying to answer the question "How many weapons does the Scimitar have based on what we see." Well have fun with that, I'm trying to answer something else.

Incorrect, we're trying to answer the question "How many weapons does the Scimitar have based on canonical evidence". That the evidence is contradictory and requires rationalisation is nothing new to these debates.

"How do we explain that it does not seem that the Scimitar has 52 disruptors and 32 torpedo tubes when we know it does." That is the question I will seek to answer in a different thread.

That's the exact same question, phrased differently.

All the points you continue to bring up have been responded to, but you continue to bring them up with nothing new to add.

All of your rebuttals have been thoroughly deconstructed by three different people. You've responded to these rebuttals by simply repeating your original conclusion again and again. The only reason we keep bringing up the same points is that you're repeating yourself even when you've been shown to be wrong.

[m52nickerson]

Sorry I did not realize that a battery or capacitor can't charge slowly.

That wooshing noise is the point sailing over your head. If in fact the Scimitar had batteries or capacitors and the 52 disruptors you claim than she could have crippled the E-E in one go.

.....and all if the Enterprise would have survived that first barrage the Scimitar would have been SOL for a long time while those weapons recharged, and the E's shields did the same.

NO, when one has a simpler explanation that does not include all the evidence it is not preferred. Again saying that Worf, Data and any other members of the bridge crew that were looking the scans of the Scimitar made the exact same mistake in utterly ridiculous. So we are left with what, there must have been some thing that tricked the sensors, and made it seem like there were 52 disruptors, not so simple.

So can you or anyone else explain how that sensor trick was done, any small thing to back it up.

.......and not its not like hiding in a magnetic poll because that only hides a ship from the sensors, not makes them pick thing up that are not there.

Do you know why serious debators go with visuals over dialogue? It's because characters are not infallible and Trek (especially TNG) is notorious for errors in dialogue, Data regularly confuses units of measure, Worf claims to be a pinacle of honour etc.

Kilngons with ridges, or no ridges. Ships firing from places they should not, ships growing and shrinking depending on the shots. Yup, visuals should be held so much higher.

[Sionnach Glic]

Threads merged. That thread's only purpose would be to go over a subject that has already been adressed here, and thus has no worth.

[Sionnach Glic]

.....and all if the Enterprise would have survived that first barrage the Scimitar would have been SOL for a long time while those weapons recharged, and the E's shields did the same.

If the Scimitar had a dozen or so weapons capable of firing at once, with a recharge rate of 12 seconds, it could have crippled the E-E's shields and struck again before they could recharge while staying out of the E-E's weapons range.

Kilngons with ridges, or no ridges. Ships firing from places they should not, ships growing and shrinking depending on the shots. Yup, visuals should be held so much higher.

This has been adressed twice already.

[Aaron]

.....and all if the Enterprise would have survived that first barrage the Scimitar would have been SOL for a long time while those weapons recharged, and the E's shields did the same.

Would you kindly learn to quote properly.

All the Scimitar had to do was down her shields long enough to get Picard. That was the whole object of the enitire fragging movie, Shinzon wanted Picards tasty juices! Mind you he ignored at least two opportunities to do so.

Kilngons with ridges, or no ridges. Ships firing from places they should not, ships growing and shrinking depending on the shots. Yup, visuals should be held so much higher.

There is already a mechanism to explain obvious FX gaffes, we look at the show as a documentry. Do you watch a WWII recreation and conclude that a German Tiger is really an M48 with an Iron Cross on the side?

[Captain Seafort]

Kilngons with ridges, or no ridges. Ships firing from places they should not, ships growing and shrinking depending on the shots. Yup, visuals should be held so much higher.

There is already a mechanism to explain obvious FX gaffes, we look at the show as a documentry. Do you watch a WWII recreation and conclude that a German Tiger is really an M48 with an Iron Cross on the side?

For the first two we can even produce solutions without going down the documentary line - Enterprise explained the forehead issue (iffilly, but still cannon) and we saw ring phasers surrounding PT launchers on DS9. The varying sizes can be passed off as dodgy cameras.

Not that any of this is relevent, since they're all cases of visuals contradicting visuals, rather than visuals contradicting dialogue.

[m52nickerson]

Occam's Razor is - one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. You guys would be right if your explanation if we were looking at the visuals and trying to determine the number of weapons.

That is not what someone us are doing, we are trying to explain both the script(looking at it as fact) and the visuals(also as fact). To do this it is necessary to go beyond "Script is wrong"

The problem is that all your explainations require either for lots of stuff to have happened at one point, while not happen at points where such an occurance would be most likely to take place, or the mass stupidity of anywhere between two and several thousand people that makes no sense.

Our explaination requires only one person to be wrong, and it's more than possible to explain why that is so.

No, your explanation requires that multiple people, Wof, Data, and anyone else that looked at the scan, to have made the same exact mistake. Explain how that could happen and I will considered your explanation.

Welcome to the world of fantasy. If there is no other possible way to account for something said and what is seen then one can be discounted. We do not have that case here. Multiply theories have been put out there and they are all possible. The razor only come into play in helping decide which of these theories are better, remember we are trying to tie all the elements together. Any solution that does not do that is not even answering the problem some of us are trying to answer.

For about the five hundreth time:
Saying Worf was wrong =/= ignoring that quote.

Your right, it just removes the largest problem to you explanation.

Slow rate of fire for each weapon easily explains this. Since this helps explains the large number of weapons and what is seen there is no good reason to disregard this.

No, it doesn't work as we've never seen any weapon that requires over a dozen seconds to charge up (hell, the phaser lance could fire quicker than that) and the mass stupidity of both the crew and constructors of the Scimitar.

We have also never seen a huge ship that could fire while cloaked and maintain shields. Do you have any explanation on how that was done.

From StarTrek.com - Cannon is "As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts." On the site facts it states that the Scimitar has 52 disruptors, so that with Worf's statement make it Cannon

Statement on website =/= official fact.

Then please tell me what is cannon.

If you wish to debate using those terms debate someone else.

If you refuse to debate honestly and respectfully, I'll use whatever terms I like.

I have been honest in every thing I have said. It was not I that started with the un-pleasantries

I'm not interested in coming to conclusions that make every major character look like a complete idiot.

That's funny, considering that your explaination requires the mental retardation of thousands of people, while our explaination doesn't require anyone to be an idiot, it just requires one to be wrong, and not necessarily through his own fault.

Wait, creating disruptors that while have a slow recharge rate but allow a ship to remain cloaked and shielded is retarded? Damn those limitation.

No not running away, and not conceding.

Well when you said "'I'm done with both of you, unless you add something to the discussion that helps bring the visuals, which I think you guys looked at while drunk, and the script you will be ignored just as children should be seen and not heard. So..........take your inane six gun Scimitar and shove it!" I'd assumed you were giving up on the debate.

You know, such statements look even more ridiculous in light of the fact that you then came back into the thread to continue debating the exact same topic. Seriously, what the hell did you think we were going to do if you said you're leaving other than expect you to leave the debate?

I admit, that I probably should not have continued, because I doubt you will every give up your position.......it's like a itch that you just have to scratch.

You are trying to answer the question "How many weapons does the Scimitar have based on what we see." Well have fun with that, I'm trying to answer something else.

Incorrect, we're trying to answer the question "How many weapons does the Scimitar have based on canonical evidence". That the evidence is contradictory and requires rationalisation is nothing new to these debates.

OK

"How do we explain that it does not seem that the Scimitar has 52 disruptors and 32 torpedo tubes when we know it does." That is the question I will seek to answer in a different thread.

That's the exact same question, phrased differently.

No, not the same question, mine states that 52 disruptors are a known fact, and thus not open to debate.

All the points you continue to bring up have been responded to, but you continue to bring them up with nothing new to add.

All of your rebuttals have been thoroughly deconstructed by three different people. You've responded to these rebuttals by simply repeating your original conclusion again and again. The only reason we keep bringing up the same points is that you're repeating yourself even when you've been shown to be wrong.

Really, The disruptors could be in groups, that is a stupid design because a large number of them could be destroyed at the same time, true but a single weapon could be destroyed just the same, it is still stupid..........

[m52nickerson]

Threads merged. That thread's only purpose would be to go over a subject that has already been adressed here, and thus has no worth.

Really adult of you. I bet you will not discuss with the premises put forth.

[m52nickerson]

Kilngons with ridges, or no ridges. Ships firing from places they should not, ships growing and shrinking depending on the shots. Yup, visuals should be held so much higher.

There is already a mechanism to explain obvious FX gaffes, we look at the show as a documentry. Do you watch a WWII recreation and conclude that a German Tiger is really an M48 with an Iron Cross on the side?

For the first two we can even produce solutions without going down the documentary line - Enterprise explained the forehead issue (iffilly, but still cannon) and we saw ring phasers surrounding PT launchers on DS9. The varying sizes can be passed off as dodgy cameras.

Not that any of this is relevent, since they're all cases of visuals contradicting visuals, rather than visuals contradicting dialogue.

So if the FX make no sense against some knowns they can just be explained away, if they contradict dialogue they must be correct.

[Aaron]

Really adult of you. I bet you will not discuss with the premises put forth.

Is that an allegation of a mod abusing his power? Wow...got another Chakat here.

[Aaron]

So if the FX make no sense against some knowns they can just be explained away, if they contradict dialogue they must be correct.

You sir are either a troll or a fool, I'm not sure which. Visual gaffs like the phaser/torpedo launcher can be explained by looking at the rest of canon and noting that "hey these are here too". If you have a problem with the ENT explanation than I suggest you call up Paramount and harrass them about it, it's canon suck it up and deal with it.

Edit: As for dialogue, do you automatically assume that everyone you meet in real life is correct when they say something?