"Message in a Bottle"

[Thorin]

Seriously, I'm not trying to be rude or something, but that is still your opinion, Thorin.

Fact is only sometimes an absolute.

How is it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but a ship that physically can't go to three separate incidents at the same time, is not as suited to the situation as a ship which can go to three separate incidents at the same time. While I shouldn't, in that post, have said it was 'good' as that's subjective; if you look what I wrote in my first post (which I'm assuming you haven't), I, again, weighed up the factual benefits and cons of the potential benefit of going to three separate incidents - in that they may not be able to deal with it aswell - but the point stands that they can physically get there, whereas one could not.

I have not gave any subjective or opinionated conclusion on the matter - please don't put words into my mouth.

[Thorin]

The issue with shield strength is dependent on whether or not we have any evidence, or even indication, that the total power available to each of the separated section is in fact exactly 1/3 that of the combined ship. Has there been any indication on the show one way or the other?

No, so Occam's Razor would say the simplest solution is that it is 1/3 of the full ship.

[Mikey]

Easy. Occam's Razor applies toward selecting an appropriate hypothesis out of a number of them. I was just asking if there were any indication in the show.

[Thorin]

Though that's only total power I was talking about - as in literal wattage. Things like shield power (due to greater surface area) would decrease further than 1/3 - which again still is in line with Occam's Razor. With regards to MVAM and weapons, though, I don't think the Razor would specify whether hidden weapons (the Prommy being a warship and all) is the 'simpler' solution, so you couldn't go either way, though I think it's easier just to say they have 1/3 of the total firepower of the full Prommy.

[Mikey]

I would imagine that the folks who could engineer something like the Prometheus in the first place would have a way to amplify total ouput for each section to make it more than a flat third of the total. Then again, this is Starfleet.

[Thorin]

I don't possibly see how - not when everything is 'thirded'. How could you channel more power through a single generator when separated than not? Why not just channel more when they're not separated, then?

[Tsukiyumi]

Seriously, I'm not trying to be rude or something, but that is still your opinion, Thorin.

Fact is only sometimes an absolute.

How is it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but a ship that physically can't go to three separate incidents at the same time, is not as suited to the situation as a ship which can go to three separate incidents at the same time. While I shouldn't, in that post, have said it was 'good' as that's subjective; if you look what I wrote in my first post (which I'm assuming you haven't), I, again, weighed up the factual benefits and cons of the potential benefit of going to three separate incidents - in that they may not be able to deal with it aswell - but the point stands that they can physically get there, whereas one could not.

I have not gave any subjective or opinionated conclusion on the matter - please don't put words into my mouth.

I think you're still missing what I'm saying: that everything anyone says is always a matter of perspective/opinion (what you currently believe to be true), and that facts are determined by a standard of evaluation. In the 13th century, people were absolutely certain that the world was flat; from their perspective, it was a "fact". Earlier than that, it was a "fact" that a pantheon of gods rained judgement on people from a mountain in Greece, based on their "standard of evaluation". Today, some people consider it a "fact" that god created man, and others believe currently known science to be absolute "fact", even though the number of unknowns in physics and mathematics still outweigh the knowns. A number of given "facts" in physics have been disputed or revised in the last thirty years, and more will likely be changed in the near future.

What I'm saying is: until humans are entirely omnicient, we can't really say anything is an absolute.

I've actually just been disputing your interpretation and usage of the term "opinion" for the last few posts. That's all. Again, sorry for the confusion!

[Mikey]

I don't possibly see how - not when everything is 'thirded'. How could you channel more power through a single generator when separated than not? Why not just channel more when they're not separated, then?

No, I'm saying that when the components are separated, perhaps it would expose some tween-deck extension to the separated core, or something. The shield generators themselves would have the same capacity as when they were part of the combined ship, so we're not talking about overloading them.

[Thorin]

I think you're still missing what I'm saying: that everything anyone says is always a matter of perspective/opinion (what you currently believe to be true), and that facts are determined by a standard of evaluation. In the 13th century, people were absolutely certain that the world was flat; from their perspective, it was a "fact". Earlier than that, it was a "fact" that a pantheon of gods rained judgement on people from a mountain in Greece, based on their "standard of evaluation". Today, some people consider it a "fact" that god created man, and others believe currently known science to be absolute "fact", even though the number of unknowns in physics and mathematics still outweigh the knowns. A number of given "facts" in physics have been disputed or revised in the last thirty years, and more will likely be changed in the near future.

What I'm saying is: until humans are entirely omnicient, we can't really say anything is an absolute.

I've actually just been disputing your interpretation and usage of the term "opinion" for the last few posts. That's all. Again, sorry for the confusion!

I know precisely what you mean; nothing is a certain - as the saying goes 'I think therefore I am' - and nothing else is certain. But if you must, it seemed to me you were talking about empirical facts - which is certainly what I was - rather than absolute or mathematical facts whereby we would have to debate philosophy.

[Thorin]

I don't possibly see how - not when everything is 'thirded'. How could you channel more power through a single generator when separated than not? Why not just channel more when they're not separated, then?

No, I'm saying that when the components are separated, perhaps it would expose some tween-deck extension to the separated core, or something. The shield generators themselves would have the same capacity as when they were part of the combined ship, so we're not talking about overloading them.

It could, but Occam's Razor...

[Tsukiyumi]

I think you're still missing what I'm saying: that everything anyone says is always a matter of perspective/opinion (what you currently believe to be true), and that facts are determined by a standard of evaluation. In the 13th century, people were absolutely certain that the world was flat; from their perspective, it was a "fact". Earlier than that, it was a "fact" that a pantheon of gods rained judgement on people from a mountain in Greece, based on their "standard of evaluation". Today, some people consider it a "fact" that god created man, and others believe currently known science to be absolute "fact", even though the number of unknowns in physics and mathematics still outweigh the knowns. A number of given "facts" in physics have been disputed or revised in the last thirty years, and more will likely be changed in the near future.

What I'm saying is: until humans are entirely omnicient, we can't really say anything is an absolute.

I've actually just been disputing your interpretation and usage of the term "opinion" for the last few posts. That's all. Again, sorry for the confusion!

I know precisely what you mean; nothing is a certain - as the saying goes 'I think therefore I am' - and nothing else is certain. But if you must, it seemed to me you were talking about empirical facts - which is certainly what I was - rather than absolute or mathematical facts whereby we would have to debate philosophy.

Maybe at first I was talking tech, but like I said, certain uses of terms like absolute, or opinion started getting the better of my philisophical nature, and I changed my angle of attack a few posts back.

[Mikey]

I don't possibly see how - not when everything is 'thirded'. How could you channel more power through a single generator when separated than not? Why not just channel more when they're not separated, then?

No, I'm saying that when the components are separated, perhaps it would expose some tween-deck extension to the separated core, or something. The shield generators themselves would have the same capacity as when they were part of the combined ship, so we're not talking about overloading them.

It could, but Occam's Razor...

*headdesk* That's why I was asking...

Oh, you get it.

[Teaos]

Yeah well my quantum beats your razor any day.

[Mikey]

What if I had a quantum razor?

[Sionnach Glic]

Then Teaos would be completely quantum-sodomized.