View Single Post
Old March 31 2009, 01:06 AM   #21
Whorfin
Lieutenant Commander
 
Whorfin's Avatar
 
Re: Long-Winded Treknology: The Original Series

People who don't understand that I'm sharing the research and thought processes behind all this when reaching conclusions about it have made me consider not sharing this stuff until it is finished.
Which will just exacerbate the current problem. My advice is that if you are going to make demands that your own work not be critically discussed that you stop doing so to other people's work.

Your conclusions based on a sketch of concepts I shared with the community a year ago based on the fact that it was in all possibility not where I was going and ignoring that fact gives me great paws. Are you the only person that doesn't understand that distinction? I don't know.
Your conclusions are very interesting. It doesn't change the fact that between your sketches and AS we are not talking about minor adjustment issues but meters. If you aren't aware of that fact, I'm doing you a favor. I assume you are aware of the fact but believe AS (and anyone else that disagrees is wrong). In terms of your criticism of AS's vertical window placement (ship-wide) you can point me to the appropriate posts, but I have a very good grip on the graphics you currently have available and other than noting a horizontal discrepancy between AS and CC I don't really see anything that has a bearing. AFAIK, you're doing the 11' study, you've stopped releasing information for some time, and your analysis of your 11' study findings and the differences with AS haven't been released. I have ignored your 33" studies because its not the same model. I have done my best to figure things out but if the basis of properly interpreting your work requires that every post you have ever written anywhere on the internet must be read, in case something somewhere was overlooked, you might want to create an FAQ.

But you are looking at what I've been sharing in the same way that you've been looking at the 11 foot model and Jefferies work, so I'm willing to assume that this is unique to how you see this stuff (sort of like trying to watch a movie by overlaying every frame on top of each other and looking at them all at once... and missing the plot because of it). It is an interesting form of analysis where the idea is to hide the important information in a massive flood of details of things that change over time.
I believe the proper legal term for this is "argumentative", i.e., spurious. If by a "massive flood of details" you mean showing clear-cut diagrams and explaining what was found and how the conclusions were arrived at, then guilty as charged. But the plot is there, spoilers and all.

I would be interested in your points of view of life in general. I imagine that the fact that people move from childhood to adolescence to adulthood to middle-age and finally old age runs counter to how you view people. Is the child the same person as the senior citizen all those years later? Most of us understand that the progression of things has profound effects, but that they can still be the same thing over it's lifetime. If you can't see the stages in my work, in Jefferies' work or in the 11 foot model, is this also true of how you see life in general?

Just an interesting question.
I think the proper terms is imaginative. If you're going to charge me a psychiatrist fee at the least you could provide a comfortable couch. The changes you are discussing are irrelevant to the studies, unless you mean that those changes included adding windows at ceiling and floor height. The conceit of the show is that its a real ship. The model has no deck plans, the fictional ship that the characters inhabit does, its as simple as that. I'll be glad to look at the possibility that the source material is wrong, which is the point of specifying the source material and stating that the study is confined to that playing field. On the other hand, if what you mean is that your method of analysis is the only acceptable one, then you are just incorrect.

I think that if Whorfin is going to do comparative analysis between plans, a strict definition of scale should be set out. For example, overall length is the single worst measurement to work from because the major elements being misaligned will radically throw everything else out of sorts.
The analysis is meant, ultimately, to be interpretable as scaleless for most of the studies. However, most readers are not going to be satisfied with that, and for the 24-deck study it was impossible, so the traditional figure of 947 feet was used, as it was dictated by MJ. If one wants to assume that the ship is 1080 feet long, or 200, the scale can be adjusted easily by a simple conversion. I'm answering expected questions by providing provisional answers.

Initially I expected that a simple resizing based on overall length was not going to work. But repeatedly I found that the primary hull was correctly sized compared to overall length. Bow issues showed up with MJ 1967 because the bow is actually curved not simply angled, so I chose to match the portion that best fit the reconstruction of the model. Overall length of the primary hull is not necessarily the best measure because the structure of the disk is covered by the impulse engine housing and not everyone is going to interpret it the same. So yes, overall length, radius from the Bridge center to the bow, bow to hanger fantail, etc. are all checked. This is stated in many of the reconstructions, and if it is not its generally because "fitting" was so trouble free describing it slipped my mind. Assuming there were errors, each pixel of horizontal error would result in a 0.041% (1/2420) error vertically, spread out over all the decks (i.e., much less than one vertical pixel error).

Of course, one could simply use a MKI eyeball on the diagrams to check for problems before bringing forward the complaint, but that wouldn't be as much fun.

The major elements seem to be pointing towards a ship who's length is between 930 to 935 feet (averaging about 932 feet). That is not 947 feet, which in turn is why the overall length is the worst number to work from when studying the 11 foot model.
As mentioned, the comparisons are for the most part scaleless, and deck heights are estimates, primarily intended to give a general idea of head room. In this case, if you are correct that the ship is meant to be 932 feet long instead of 947 feet long this makes a -1.584% difference in deck height. So if I am using the worst techniques, I am only off by about 1.5%.

In general, the argument that my procedures are error-prone and responsible for spurious results are themselves spurious. First, they ignore my actual detailed procedures, as stated. Second, there appears to have been no attempt to confirm that errors actually occurred. Third, even if errors did occur no attempt at estimating the significance or magnitude of said errors appears to have been attempted. Whether this was accidental or a case of foul rhetoric is unknown, though I assume the former.

Well, I find it interesting that anyone would feel they could reach any conclusion about anything when all I've been sharing are Cocktail Napkin Sketches of my concepts and ideas so far. Sure, my rough sketches may look like final products... but they certainly are NOT.
They are conclusion on a preliminary design, as clearly stated on the image, and in the file name of the image, and I sincerely apologize for unintentionally ommitting it from the title of the study (I hadn't intended to publish it at the time, and so it wasn't as polished as normal). If I could correct it I could, but I can't edit it. Feel free to PM a mod and I'll agree to a correction. Or I will make the attempt at your request.

My work has already been getting vetted by some of the most knowledgeable people on the subject, and he starts his analysis with a year old sketch and applies it to plans he isn't truly familiar with... well, that seems sorta off base a little to me.
Well, considering not so long ago you and everyone else were using AS and CC do demonstrate how "wrong" FJ's design was, it seems a bit ironic that you now object to your own work, the most recently available full version that is, getting a similar treatment.

I'm in the middle of my study... nothing is set in stone yet. I have been sharing my research and in the course of the last year have started with one set of assumptions only to find that they didn't hold up and changed course.
Then there's no need to get overly defensive about it. Its preliminary, its labeled as such in more than one place, I'm not pretending otherwise. You're welcome to move your decks wherever you want before the final release.

But it is a classic strawman tactic to attempt to lock a person down to the points they want to define you with. Whorfin tried this by defining my plans as being based on Jefferies construction plans, when one of the first course alterations I made was to move to the 11 foot model as a foundation. Why did he do it? He said his explanation was lost, but I'm guessing that he wanted me to fit his preconceptions because he could make his case easier that way.
No, but it might have something to do with you being offended by another poster, terminating your updates, and only recently relenting. Its hard to know what you aren't told. Or it might be that I missed the post where you explained that your internal diagrams were no longer based on MJ 1967 or Phase II and now were solely based on the 11' model, or maybe I just misunderstood what you said at some point. But my understanding now is the same as when I made the statement (which I believe you in turn misunderstood) and the things you've said in response have largely vindicated it (you carted out the pressure diagram and Phase II ASAP). But it doesn't have to turn into a conspiracy theory.

If he viewed my work the way it was intended (for people to pick and choose what they like and make their own work from it), then he wouldn't have attempted to lock down his vision of my positions (from the past no less) and then hold it up against his idea of the Canon 11' TOS 1701 studio model.
Dave, I'm not locking you down. You, in turn are clearly locking AS and CC out as inaccurate references that should no longer be used. And its not my ideas, its from TMoST, which as the author clearly states is based on the Writer's Guide and interviews with the production staff. I didn't jump in a time machine and change the book.

And that doesn't even address the fact that he is almost phobic about change in anyone's work over time.
??? I have no clue here.

I think it is important to know if you know your sources are reliable before relying on them.
Given that the Hull Pressure diagram, MJ 1967, and Phase II all contradict each other that's a pretty bold statement. Heck, the pressure diagram even manages to contradict itself, by showing two different conditions of the ship at the same time!

Do you know Sinclair's plans well enough to use them as a reference? I know them very well, which means I know both their strengths and weaknesses. Do you know their weaknesses?
They are a reference. CC will be another reference. Your plans when released will be another. Your assumption that your work is better, and seemingly without flaws, is a more interesting claim in my book. I didn't get the memo that everyone else's work was made obsolete by yours and is not to be used. Did anyone else?

If you need someone else to clearly demonstrate what would be obvious to someone who has studied those plans, then I have to conclude that you haven't really taken the time to study them yourself. You should be able to list the errors of Sinclair's plans for us before relying on them. I know his plans well enough to be able to pick out a CGI model based on them because some of the errors are pretty big.
I'm not relying on anything. You don't seem to understand the process by which new information should be processed and vindicated. Comparison with existing data is a first step. Your insistence that your own (unreleased) work is the only reference by which you should be judged is an interesting concept. My own training is scientific. In general, anyone that argues that their new hypothesis (invalidating the previously held ones) is correct because their own research says it is so, and that external comparisons with the competing theories isn't a valid test... well, lets just say it doesn't go over very well.

"Forensic Treknology" is a similar process. Observers make difficult observations under less than ideal conditions without the proper equipment. They analyze the data and form a hypothesis (in the form of plans, etc.). The next step is to compare their work with what has come before and any other competitors. Generally, I think that 'the young pup' doesn't get to start out as 'top dog'. In this case before it is born. You may be the new standard of comparison, but vigorous proclamations to that effect doesn't get you there. At least it shouldn't. This is not to say that your work is not the best, or that it won't be vindicated in the end.

Study the plans. Don't assume they are the best (which they are not) or that they are the most accurate (which they also are not), assume that they are a very good attempt and go back and figure out where he missed the mark.
I'm not, on the other hand you might want to stop putting words in other people's mouths.

You need to learn to do this on your own... after all, we wouldn't want you assuming my 11 foot plans are definitive just because I sidestepped the errors of Sinclair and Casimiro.
You keep talking about my assumptions but you don't seem to be as talkative about your own. There are more than a few, and if any of them are incorrect it would be more than an inconvenience for vetting your work. I would strongly suggest you desist from your normal "blitz" attack response to issues, concerns, even questions about your work and start treating the people on this forum as equals, as colleagues, and perhaps even friends. That's what I'm trying to be, and I apologize that somehow I'm not doing an adequate job.

It is time for you to go fishing for errors where you seem to believe there are none to be found. I've pointed out some errors in Sinclair's plans, lets have you point out a few I haven't listed (so no searching my past posts on this subject... that would be cheating!).
I'm aware there are errors in AS and CC. Perhaps I am not aware of all of them. Considering that at least one of these researchers has declined to accept your own criticism and make changes to their plans it would seem fair to say there is not universal agreement by the experts with you on all points. On the other hand, the discrepancy between the way you handle their work and your own leads me to wonder if you have sufficient objectivity to be the sole reference we are allowed.

Now, that I've answered all your accusations, can we try to get back to being on civil terms?

Regards,

Whorfin
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote