Durakken

Wow... that is an incredibly stupid statement.

I'm sorry, it is.

Can we perform an experiment... Can I bust the windshield of your car and see if the car still works? According to you, it shouldn't.

Noone said anything like that...

There are already politics in place...

I know what you said.

i said that in what you are saying that removing a windshield makes a car less complex.

I said nothing about your folding windshield. The folding windshield is a more complex windshield than a non-folding one, but as I said, to me that does not make a car more complex, and according to some arguments by other people, it shouldn't for them either.

on a sidenote, why would i look up irrelevant information? I will tell you one thing though, without looking any information up at all, galadiman and you are contradicting each other if you think one of those are more complex than the other...or your contradicting yourself if you agree with everything each other have said.

But in this instance that is not the case because the city components are separate as they would be so not part of the ship so the toilet example doesn't work... and there is not 100 engines for everyone, because there is no need in this situation. there is 1 engine for 1 engine.

I have no idea about your question Ironik, because I don't care about cares all that much so to me those numbers and names mean nothing as I don't know anything about them other than they are cars more or less.


So to you, if I change engines then the car is more complex and if I remove the radio it's less...ok. To me removing a windshield doesn't make the car less complex, but if to you it does, ok.

...

Do you not realize we're talking about in a reality where this takes place in space and they have stuff that makes it so that a battleship and a destroyer can literally work on the same engines and achieve the same speeds. The only difference they have in terms of systems and such is the size/advanceness of a single part?

True, but that is not the question at all.

See, here's a problem... to me changing a part does not make it more or less complex, because when I'm talking about the complexity of a car I'm talking about the overall structure of a car and not the individual pieces. If you could, which you can't, simply replace a car engine with another engine of some different design, to me, that car engine would make no difference in how complex i see that car.

I don't care that you do, in terms of arguing over it, because complexness is a vague concept apparently and is more about your own opinion than anything concrete that we can say this is and this isn't complex. But, what is important is that we understand that you view this differently and this allows us to not talk pass each other.


So now that we can say materially and designwise...

The city ship would be more complex than a single small ship...but less advanced than a flotilla of 50,000 ships...

Here's the question, is it possible that the drive of the city ship, in your opinion, could ever be more complex than the entirety of those 50,000 ships combined?

This is pretty much asking a ludicrous question of is the modern Cell phone possibly more complex than the entirety of a 1950s town...

I'm saying that

#1 If you were able to make a small ship and a big ships almost 100% the same save for say a huge empty space, which you can do in this case, then while the big ship is slightly more complex due to design that

#2 this big ship would always be less complex than 50,000 ships together that are all designed differently and not only would it be less complex it would be less of a draw on their resources and overall it would take up less material.

Are we still not getting the whole possible/impossible thing? I did not say it was possible to do that. I said if it were possible. Everything just being bigger, but fundamentally the same does not make something more complex.

We are not taking into account the gravity, nor the process which would be needed to make the same material be exactly the same at super sizes. I am saying that a structure that is 100 foot tall and a 10 foot tall building that you looked at the plans for and saw they were 100% the same just that one has everything bigger is one not more complex than the other.

Even if the materials weren't processed in some magical way I would still say they are the same in complexity the same as I would say a 5 foot human is of the same complexity as 6 foot human.



As far as the tv... because of what you said... Let's say you have a car and you have a 2 piston engine in it. You remove that engine and put in an 8 piston engine. In arguably the 8piston is more complex and more advanced. Does this make the Car more complex? I would say no. The car isn't magically more complex because one of it's parts is more complex now.

See by saying, "if it were possible," I clearly show that I know, at least on Earth, that it is not possible. This is called a thought experiment and this nonsense about how it's not possible misses the point of the post which is to try to figure out what you are even talking about by using the word complex.

English is apparently more complex than physics and engineering, since you both didn't understand that, but understand those topics.

Thank you clarifying that you intend to say nothing with a lot of words.

It is impossible, on Earth, to create a structure that is just super sized for all sorts of reasons, but those reasons do not exist in space because the force that cause all or most of them, gravity, does not act on them or has so little impact that it is more or less a waste of time to account for.

Let's be clear. i asked what the heck you are talking about when you say complex, and your answer was "I'm being vague" and "One of the building of the analogy has more volume than this other one." I mean, come on, I gave you solid things that I think would be considered more and less complex, and you came up with some ******** that has nothing to do with anything. By your answer we have to presume that the most Complex thing in the universe is the thing with the largest volume regardless, of design, shape, structural engineering, material, or any other component and if we go by that, why don't we cut the semantic and say "this is more volumous" in which case you're saying x is more volumous because it is more volumous and i have to say, thanks for the tautology.

Please, read and answer what I wrote and please be sensible like you usually are.

The universe in which I am talking there is a material that allows one to alter the mass of an object. The larger amount of this stuff, generally speaking, the more the mass can be altered, but it does have a max...however that max supposedly can be changed with more advanced drives.

Essentially this means that more can be moved with larger drives without any of the rest of the systems being needed to change in size... So you could for example, have a ship where the only difference is that there is a large middle section that is 100 times bigger than a ship which is designed to have exactly the same thing save for that middle section. The only difference would be size of the drive or how advanced the drive is. Every other component would be the same...


thinking back on all that has been said it's a pretty worthless conversation mainly because noone addressed something that is fairly important... What the heck they mean by complex. I don't believe I said it was less complex initially, but rather easier to maintain and such. And i think i switched to more complex because that is what someone kept using, but i don't remember and there is no way to check.

Anyways in the building analogy... I would say that if you made a 10 story building that is 10x10x10... and then you made a building of the exact same design but made it of 100x100x100, if it were possible, by just making all the pieces bigger, it would not be more complex. I would also say that if you made it out of standard material and just added more supports it is also not more complex either, but could see how one could say it is. i would also say ten 10x10x10 buildings of various designs is more complex than that one building.

but ME is a book >.> 3 books in fact... and 4 comics...

No, what I am saying is that, according to canon, Vulcan history is known to have been distorted and it is reasonable to presume that the Vulcan/Romulan split was not due to Surak's teachings since Surak's teaching were different than what it was believed they were up until the 2160s if I remember right, and given not only the long life but the stubborness of Vulcans it is likely that even presently "Surak's teachings" are not his teachings, but rather a bastardization of both what Surak taught and what it was though he taught for those thousand years.


Luminara, a bigger ship is easier to maintain because there are less moving parts. If you have to clean 100 tiny mechanism or 1 giant one it will take you usually several times as long to clean the 100 tiny ones than the 1 giant one. Also having 100 smaller one increases the chances of 1 of those will break down, while the bigger one while just as likely as any one of the smaller one to break down is less likely in terms of once it's up an running. And it also takes less material, so even if the big one break down its easier to replace.

Unfortunately that is for a different universe now because the Enterprise of the Star Trek XI is much bigger than that of TOS.

7 years, it's not known whether they can mate else times, but according to what I remember if they don't mate during the Pon farr they die so >.>

It's hard to argue that they aren't colonizers considering they have rival empires that come from Vulcan... There is Vulcan and Romulus, both should be considered Vulcan in terms of heritage, but beyond that there is also 1 or 2 other ancient groups that existed that were Vulcan that settled half-way between Romulus and Vulcan...

Also according to various guides Romulus is like 100-200 LY away from Vulcan. Now what could happen is that Vulcans grew expanded, warred on itself, and split into several empires and now they just call the ones directly from Vulcan... Vulcans, but thats still silly when you are talking about the writing because even if that was the case heritage-wise and such there are still all those other Vulcan empires they just don't care to call Vulcan.

nope... We saw all the ships that rushed there. They used the "we are the closest people to the distress signal" thing, which means any other ships other than the academy ships we would have seen would have come after the Enterprise arrived.