Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships
LT.Hit-Man
a hundred cubes to deal with the SSD's after losing a few cubes.
Just as the hundred cubes and sixty SSD's are about to lock horns two
hundred Sovren class ships drop out of warp, they got pulled into borg space
by a wrom hole(damm them worm holes are so handy)
So what happens?
LT.Hit-Man
Kynes
The SSDs pummel the Cubes with no losses. The Sovereigns notice that they are
seriously outclassed and go back into the wormhole.
--
LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]
"But I've never seen *anything* that's going to even have the clearly designed
and hoped-for effect of running me out of these groups or debates."
-- TOWNMNBS, Six Days Before The Final Solution
Kazuaki Shimazaki
Let's see, 60 Executors, 100 Cubes and 200 Sovereigns.
Tactically speaking, 60 Executors got more than enough firepower to
handle one hundred cubes and two hundred Federation starships.
Realistically speaking, the Imps and Feds would probably cooperate to
deal with the Borg cubes, since the Borg would probably change course to
deal with the Sovereigns as well.
Transcend
<Doo...@microsith.com> wrote:
I'm not sure, but this battle may actually be over in *less* than a
second...
And the Federation would probably end up liking the Empire for helping
them beat the Borg.
--
When man took to his bed the Computer, there was great rejoicing,
and great fear too, for their children were almost like gods. The
mainbrains bestrode the galaxy at will, and changed its very face.
The Silicon God, The Solid State Entity, Al Squared, Enth Generation -
their names are many. And there were the Carked and Symbionts,
whose daughters were the Neurosingers, Warrior-Poets, the
Neurologicians and the Pilots of the Order of Mystic Mathematicians.
--Horthy Hosthoh
92knight
series, as well as all of the movies, but I do not know much about Star
Wars.
I was just wondering, what is an SSD? And what are the specs on it? What
kind, and how many weapons does it have? I require this information to
accurately compare the SSD to the Sovereign class StarShip.
Thanks
"LT.Hit-Man" <Doo...@microsith.com> wrote in message
news:9ie9vg$inlg4$2...@ID-36661.news.dfncis.de...
LT.Hit-Man
92knight <92kn...@home.com> wrote in message ...
>Hello, I am a BIG Star Trek fan, having seen every episode from every
>series, as well as all of the movies, but I do not know much about Star
>Wars.
>I was just wondering, what is an SSD? And what are the specs on it? What
>kind, and how many weapons does it have? I require this information to
>accurately compare the SSD to the Sovereign class StarShip.
>
>Thanks
Np but I don't have the specs for the SSD at hand right now, have you seen
the Empire strikes back and return of the jedi? if so you know that big ass
ship that Darth Vader travles around in? that's an SSD from what I remember
about the SSD's tech specs it is about 10 to 12 kms long have a few hundread
heavy turbo lasers(let me save you some pain don't make that quite about
last not being able to harm a Fed ship's sheilds trust me you don't want to
go there) and I'm sure some here will give you the info you seek.
Welcome to ASVS the last stronghold of the insane and what ever you do don't
anoy me, read my fan fic reviews and you'll understand why otherwise I hope
you will enjoy your stay here.
LT.Hit-Man
Kazuaki Shimazaki
>
> Hello, I am a BIG Star Trek fan, having seen every episode from every
> series, as well as all of the movies, but I do not know much about Star
> Wars.
> I was just wondering, what is an SSD? And what are the specs on it? What
> kind, and how many weapons does it have? I require this information to
> accurately compare the SSD to the Sovereign class StarShip.
>
> Thanks
In short, there is *no* comparison, in favor of the SSD.
The SSD is the short hand for an Executor class command ship (often
colloquially called the "Super Star Destroyer"). You may not know much
about Star Wars, but I'm sure you wouldn't come in here without seeing
"The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi". Vader's flagship is
the Executor.
Ahh, the hell with it, I'll give you a web page, and you can look it up:
Cyborg Stan of CyKoLaJx, Inc.
<Doo...@microsith.com> got killed and eaten while screaming:
>Np but I don't have the specs for the SSD at hand right now, have you seen
>the Empire strikes back and return of the jedi? if so you know that big ass
>ship that Darth Vader travles around in? that's an SSD from what I remember
>about the SSD's tech specs it is about 10 to 12 kms long
Around 17.6 km long actually.
Cyborg Stan, Aimless Wanderer and Part-Time Galatic Hero
Outlyer Base : http://www.ipass.net/~bdiller/
email : bdi...@ipass.net ICQ : 32779556
"I wanna be a rotten corpse when I grow up!"
The Dancing Borg
--
Me - "I'm sorry, it's a bad habit, due to my laziness and general contempt
for humanity."
Chas - "Oh well, that's alright then.
magica...@ntlworld.com.despam
remove ".despam" to reply.
"Cyborg Stan of CyKoLaJx, Inc." <bdiller@.BLARGNESS!.ipass.net> wrote in
message news:3b4ac9c7...@news.ipass.net...
Transcend
<magica...@ntlworld.com.despam> wrote:
> not necessarily. amny conflicting descriptions
From official, in canon we know the exact length however. Official may
disagree, but canon overrides official every time.
Kazuaki Shimazaki
>
> In article <9ieu90$uc$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, "The Dancing Borg"
> <magica...@ntlworld.com.despam> wrote:
>
> > not necessarily. amny conflicting descriptions
>
> From official, in canon we know the exact length however. Official may
> disagree, but canon overrides official every time.
We don't know the *exact* length, but we do know it is about 11 miles
long (17 or so kilometers). 17.6km is commonly accepted but anywhere
between 17 and 18, IIRC, is acceptable. Still, your fundamental point
that the canon clearly crushes the official here is correct.
DMZ
"Kazuaki Shimazaki" <kras...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:3B4AC7...@netvigator.com...
<snip>
> http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html
...including the laughable DS "horizon method" calc, laughable because they used
flat scenery for that shot...
DMZ
---
Kazuaki Shimazaki
1)In our form of analysis, scenery is not relevant. We take it as if it
were all real. And real does not allow for scenery.
2)Saxton seems perfectly aware of this flaw in the method, so he said:
"Even if it were not for this unreliability, the measurement is under
fundamental doubt. The section of the battle station's surface seen near
the point of collision was in fact produced from miniature model tiles
laid on a flat horizontal surface. It is quite possible that the
apparent curvature of the horizon is wholly illusory."
3)Even if this method is totally unreliable, he used a bunch of other
methods. Managing to punch out this method hardly puts a serious dent in
his analysis.
Crayz9000
"92knight" <92kn...@home.com> found "Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and
200 Sovren class ships" while drowning in alt.startrek.vs.starwars:
>Hello, I am a BIG Star Trek fan, having seen every episode from every
>series, as well as all of the movies, but I do not know much about Star
>Wars.
>I was just wondering, what is an SSD? And what are the specs on it? What
>kind, and how many weapons does it have? I require this information to
>accurately compare the SSD to the Sovereign class StarShip.
17.6 KM in length, carries over 200 (each) of heavy turbolasers and missile
batteries, and some 400 of both medium and light turbolasers, plus so many
ant-starfighter cannon that I don't think anybody's bothered to count.
The Executor was Darth Vader's command ship in The Empire Strikes Back.
==
Crayz9000 - - - - - - - - mhm28x12
http://asvsaa.8m.net
(ASVS Auxiliary Archive)
http://crayz9000.htmlplanet.com
(Crayz9000's Hideout)
Don't forget to validate my address.
"What version of the Bible would that be? The Gospel according to
St. Gorblat? Paul's first letter to the Daleks?" --Chuck, commenting
on a fan's review of Battlefield Earth
DMZ
> DMZ wrote:
> >
> > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" <kras...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B4AC7...@netvigator.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html
> >
> > ...including the laughable DS "horizon method" calc, laughable because they
used
> > flat scenery for that shot...
>
> 1)In our form of analysis, scenery is not relevant. We take it as if it
> were all real. And real does not allow for scenery.
But I can still laugh, since I *know* that it is an attempt to measure the
curvature of a flat surface. =)
> 2)Saxton seems perfectly aware of this flaw in the method, so he said:
> "Even if it were not for this unreliability, the measurement is under
> fundamental doubt. The section of the battle station's surface seen near
> the point of collision was in fact produced from miniature model tiles
> laid on a flat horizontal surface. It is quite possible that the
> apparent curvature of the horizon is wholly illusory."
"Quite possible" - why not just say "there is no curvature" and be done with it?
> 3)Even if this method is totally unreliable, he used a bunch of other
> methods. Managing to punch out this method hardly puts a serious dent in
> his analysis.
That method *is* unreliable. Obviously this does not bear on the other methods,
and hence is not an attack on the conclusion.
To summarise: Bwahahahahaha =)
DMZ
---
Jedi Knight Toren Depor
have found, put the SSD at 17.6km long. the ASVS auxillery archive
concurs with this.
LT.Hit-Man wrote:
--
Jedi Knight Toren Depor (aka Filmmaker Matt Pfingsten)
E-Mail: jedi...@home.com
Phone: 360.281.7618
ICQ: JediToren, 69348681
AIM: JediToren
The Matt Pfingsten Home Page: http://www.pfing.cjb.net
Toren Depor's Jedi Temple: http://www.jeditoren.cjb.net
--Links--
24FPS.Com, filmmaking resources: http://www.24fps.com
TheForce.Net, your daily dose of Star Wars: http://www.theforce.net
Animation:Master, high-end 3D app: http://www.hash.com
Kynes
>> http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html
>
>...including the laughable DS "horizon method" calc, laughable because they used
>flat scenery for that shot...
You know better than this; arguments from "oh, they used weird stuff in that
shot" are banned.
--
LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]
"There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be
captured in the original."
- William Gibson
SirNitram
The SSD's captain's laugh at the absurdity of it all, and unleash a
full forward barrage with their heavy turbo's. Since Cube's have the
maneuverability of a small, sleeping rock, and about as much tactical
sense, they will be gone fast. Then the Sovereign's proceed to worship
the SSD's because they just torched an attack force 60 times larger
than the attacks on Earth in seconds. :D
DMZ
"Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
news:VDhLO1k4Il=7rQBXJAA...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:59:01 +0100, "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:
>
> >> http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html
> >
> >...including the laughable DS "horizon method" calc, laughable because they
used
> >flat scenery for that shot...
>
> You know better than this; arguments from "oh, they used weird stuff in that
> shot" are banned.
So what you're saying is - and correct me if I'm wrong (like I need to ask) that
even though we *know* that the scenery is flat, that a calculation based on a
supposed measured curvature in said scenery is valid? And I quote:
"Bwahahahahaha"
DMZ
---
Kynes
>> >> http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html
>> >
>> >...including the laughable DS "horizon method" calc, laughable because they
>used
>> >flat scenery for that shot...
>>
>> You know better than this; arguments from "oh, they used weird stuff in that
>> shot" are banned.
>
>So what you're saying is - and correct me if I'm wrong (like I need to ask) that
>even though we *know* that the scenery is flat, that a calculation based on a
>supposed measured curvature in said scenery is valid? And I quote:
Yes, just like even though we *know* that there is no such thing as an X-Wing,
we can still measure its acceleration. It's called suspension of disbelief.
DMZ
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:17:50 +0100, "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html
> >> >
> >> >...including the laughable DS "horizon method" calc, laughable because they
> >used
> >> >flat scenery for that shot...
> >>
> >> You know better than this; arguments from "oh, they used weird stuff in that
> >> shot" are banned.
> >
> >So what you're saying is - and correct me if I'm wrong (like I need to ask)
that
> >even though we *know* that the scenery is flat, that a calculation based on a
> >supposed measured curvature in said scenery is valid? And I quote:
>
> Yes, just like even though we *know* that there is no such thing as an X-Wing,
> we can still measure its acceleration. It's called suspension of disbelief.
Please excuse me while my belief fails to be suspended in this instance. It's like
claiming an X-Wing is pear shaped when you set out to prove all rebel spacecraft
look like fruits. Not very believable, and completely contrary to the evidence.
Sure, I can suspend believe - but don't ask me to take it seriously. =)
DMZ
---
Kynes
>> Yes, just like even though we *know* that there is no such thing as an X-Wing,
>> we can still measure its acceleration. It's called suspension of disbelief.
>
>Please excuse me while my belief fails to be suspended in this instance. It's like
>claiming an X-Wing is pear shaped when you set out to prove all rebel spacecraft
>look like fruits. Not very believable, and completely contrary to the evidence.
>Sure, I can suspend believe - but don't ask me to take it seriously. =)
It isn't contrary to any canon evidence. The DS would look very nearly flat from
that vantage point. X-Wings don't look like pears. I don't see why this is any
worse than measuring the energy required to destroy Alderaan when we "know" that
it was really just a little model, not an actual planet, that got destroyed.
DMZ
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:30:24 +0100, "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yes, just like even though we *know* that there is no such thing as an
X-Wing,
> >> we can still measure its acceleration. It's called suspension of disbelief.
> >
> >Please excuse me while my belief fails to be suspended in this instance. It's
like
> >claiming an X-Wing is pear shaped when you set out to prove all rebel
spacecraft
> >look like fruits. Not very believable, and completely contrary to the evidence.
> >Sure, I can suspend believe - but don't ask me to take it seriously. =)
>
> It isn't contrary to any canon evidence. The DS would look very nearly flat from
> that vantage point. X-Wings don't look like pears. I don't see why this is any
> worse than measuring the energy required to destroy Alderaan when we "know" that
> it was really just a little model, not an actual planet, that got destroyed.
Indeed - and if the surface were a scale replica of the DS, then there wouldn't be
any argument. But to take a surface we *know* is flat, and claim to see a
curvature, then base calculations on that curvature is just dishonest. Anyone who
doesn't see a problem with this is deserving to be laughed at.
DMZ
---
DMZ
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:58:46 +0100, "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:
>
> >> It isn't contrary to any canon evidence. The DS would look very nearly flat
from
> >> that vantage point. X-Wings don't look like pears. I don't see why this is
any
> >> worse than measuring the energy required to destroy Alderaan when we "know"
that
> >> it was really just a little model, not an actual planet, that got destroyed.
> >
> >Indeed - and if the surface were a scale replica of the DS, then there wouldn't
be
> >any argument. But to take a surface we *know* is flat, and claim to see a
> >curvature, then base calculations on that curvature is just dishonest. Anyone
who
> >doesn't see a problem with this is deserving to be laughed at.
>
> calculations on that hugeness is just dishonest. Anyone who doesn't see a
> problem with this is deserving to be laughed at.
False argument. Size matters not, shape does when scale replicas talking we are.
DMZ
---
Kynes
>> It isn't contrary to any canon evidence. The DS would look very nearly flat from
>> that vantage point. X-Wings don't look like pears. I don't see why this is any
>> worse than measuring the energy required to destroy Alderaan when we "know" that
>> it was really just a little model, not an actual planet, that got destroyed.
>
>Indeed - and if the surface were a scale replica of the DS, then there wouldn't be
>any argument. But to take a surface we *know* is flat, and claim to see a
>curvature, then base calculations on that curvature is just dishonest. Anyone who
>doesn't see a problem with this is deserving to be laughed at.
To take an object we *know* is small, and claim it's huge, and then base
calculations on that hugeness is just dishonest. Anyone who doesn't see a
problem with this is deserving to be laughed at.
Kynes
And mass matters when we're talking about planet destruction.
DMZ
Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand?
DMZ
---
Kynes
Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand?
DMZ
...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with size,
shape doesn't.
DMZ
---
Dalton
>
> "Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
> news:y4FLO=hoH9leARamW...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:18:13 +0100, "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand?
> >
> > Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand?
>
> ...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with size,
> shape doesn't.
Not necessarily. A tiny neutron star can be as massive as the Sun, but I
think that's a red herring :)
--
Rob "Roby" Dalton
http://daltonator.net
"Kynes sets the stove on fire." ---ASVS House
DMZ
"Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
news:3B4B87D0...@daltonator.net...
> DMZ wrote:
> >
> > "Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
> > news:y4FLO=hoH9leARamW...@4ax.com...
> > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:18:13 +0100, "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand?
> > >
> > > Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand?
> >
> > ...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with
size,
> > shape doesn't.
>
> Not necessarily. A tiny neutron star can be as massive as the Sun, but I
> think that's a red herring :)
Can't be. Wrong shape. =)
DMZ
---
Dalton
Hey, they are both spherical!
DMZ
> DMZ wrote:
> >
> > "Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
> > news:3B4B87D0...@daltonator.net...
> > > DMZ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:y4FLO=hoH9leARamW...@4ax.com...
> > > > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:18:13 +0100, "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand?
> > > > >
> > > > > Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand?
> > > >
> > > > ...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with
> > size,
> > > > shape doesn't.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. A tiny neutron star can be as massive as the Sun, but I
> > > think that's a red herring :)
> >
> > Can't be. Wrong shape. =)
>
> Hey, they are both spherical!
Since when is a herring spherical?
DMZ
---
Dalton
I've seen spherical chickens, why not spherical herrings?
Kynes
>> >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand?
>>
>> Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand?
>
>...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with size,
>shape doesn't.
Apparently you misunderstood all of the word "mass." Shape scales with size,
mass doesn't.
DMZ
Hmmm... good question.
DMZ
---
DMZ
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:50:21 +0100, "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand?
> >>
> >> Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand?
> >
> >...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with size,
> >shape doesn't.
>
> Apparently you misunderstood all of the word "mass." Shape scales with size,
> mass doesn't.
Actual mass changes with scale. The mass represented does not. Shape remains
constant when scaling. This was the original point - shape is constant regardless
of the scale of the model. Otherwise, you're talking about a deformation, not a
scaling operation. No matter how many hoops you want to jump through, you cannot
avoid this inexorable fact - regardless of the scaled size of a model, its shape
is the same as the object it represents, by definition.
We are now left with 2 options (unless you can suggest any others)
1) The surface accurately represents the Death Star.
Hence, since the surface is flat - the Death Star is infinite in size.
2) The surface does not accurately represent the Death Star.
And hence we cannot use it to perform calculations based on an attribute of the
Death Star.
DMZ
---
Kynes
>> >> >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand?
>> >>
>> >> Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand?
>> >
>> >...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with size,
>> >shape doesn't.
>>
>> Apparently you misunderstood all of the word "mass." Shape scales with size,
>> mass doesn't.
>
>Actual mass changes with scale. The mass represented does not. Shape remains
>constant when scaling. This was the original point - shape is constant regardless
>of the scale of the model. Otherwise, you're talking about a deformation, not a
>scaling operation. No matter how many hoops you want to jump through, you cannot
>avoid this inexorable fact - regardless of the scaled size of a model, its shape
>is the same as the object it represents, by definition.
This entire line of argumentation is bogus; the "shape represented" is the same,
just like the "mass represented" is the same. The actual mass of the model is
small. The actual curvature of the model is none. However, this is not what's
depicted. The Death Star is shown to be curved and Alderaan is shown to be a
real planet. This is what we base our calculations on, not what we "know" about
the circumstances of the shot.
>We are now left with 2 options (unless you can suggest any others)
>
>1) The surface accurately represents the Death Star.
>
>Hence, since the surface is flat - the Death Star is infinite in size.
Please prove the surface is flat, not just very slightly curved.
DMZ
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:42:40 +0100, "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand?
> >> >>
> >> >> Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand?
> >> >
> >> >...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with
size,
> >> >shape doesn't.
> >>
> >> Apparently you misunderstood all of the word "mass." Shape scales with size,
> >> mass doesn't.
> >
> >Actual mass changes with scale. The mass represented does not. Shape remains
> >constant when scaling. This was the original point - shape is constant
regardless
> >of the scale of the model. Otherwise, you're talking about a deformation, not a
> >scaling operation. No matter how many hoops you want to jump through, you
cannot
> >avoid this inexorable fact - regardless of the scaled size of a model, its
shape
> >is the same as the object it represents, by definition.
>
> This entire line of argumentation is bogus; the "shape represented" is the same,
> just like the "mass represented" is the same.
The shape is not the same, since the model is not curved. Hence, the argument is
valid. (What is this "argumentation" thing?)
> The actual mass of the model is
> small. The actual curvature of the model is none.
Agreed.
> However, this is not what's depicted.
I agree it's not what is depicted, but "depicted" isn't scientifically useful.
Cubist paintings can depict real objects, yet you couldn't use them to calculate
the physical properties of the original.
> The Death Star is shown to be curved and Alderaan is shown to be a
> real planet. This is what we base our calculations on, not what we "know" about
> the circumstances of the shot.
If you want to base your calculations on properties that are not present, go
ahead - I'll keep laughing. It has no scientific credence whatsoever and makes a
mockery of the entire process that this group wishes to support.
> >We are now left with 2 options (unless you can suggest any others)
> >
> >1) The surface accurately represents the Death Star.
> >
> >Hence, since the surface is flat - the Death Star is infinite in size.
>
> Please prove the surface is flat, not just very slightly curved.
Well, we've all seen the flat surface. But, as a stalling tactic, this may succeed
if you do indeed wish to inconvenience me to dredge up relevant evidence. Watch
this space, as they say.
DMZ
---
Kynes
>> >Actual mass changes with scale. The mass represented does not. Shape remains
>> >constant when scaling. This was the original point - shape is constant
>regardless
>> >of the scale of the model. Otherwise, you're talking about a deformation, not a
>> >scaling operation. No matter how many hoops you want to jump through, you
>cannot
>> >avoid this inexorable fact - regardless of the scaled size of a model, its
>shape
>> >is the same as the object it represents, by definition.
>>
>> This entire line of argumentation is bogus; the "shape represented" is the same,
>> just like the "mass represented" is the same.
>
>The shape is not the same, since the model is not curved. Hence, the argument is
>valid. (What is this "argumentation" thing?)
Then the mass of Alderaan is not the same, since the model is not massive.
>> The actual mass of the model is
>> small. The actual curvature of the model is none.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> However, this is not what's depicted.
>
>I agree it's not what is depicted, but "depicted" isn't scientifically useful.
I guess we should toss the ANH calcs -- and for that matter, all visual evidence
-- out the window. Luckily, this kind of ridiculous stance is not what the group
has chosen.
>Cubist paintings can depict real objects, yet you couldn't use them to calculate
>the physical properties of the original.
We could if they were canon.
>> The Death Star is shown to be curved and Alderaan is shown to be a
>> real planet. This is what we base our calculations on, not what we "know" about
>> the circumstances of the shot.
>
>If you want to base your calculations on properties that are not present, go
>ahead - I'll keep laughing.
Neither of these universes are present. For you to insist that only parts of
them are real is funnier than every error you've ever made.
>> >We are now left with 2 options (unless you can suggest any others)
>> >
>> >1) The surface accurately represents the Death Star.
>> >
>> >Hence, since the surface is flat - the Death Star is infinite in size.
>>
>> Please prove the surface is flat, not just very slightly curved.
>
>Well, we've all seen the flat surface.
It is, to the naked eye, flat; however, the curvature that close to the surface
would seem nearly flat. You have yet to prove that it is ACTUALLY flat.
> But, as a stalling tactic, this may succeed
>if you do indeed wish to inconvenience me to dredge up relevant evidence. Watch
>this space, as they say.
Dredge up that evidence.
DMZ
> >Cubist paintings can depict real objects, yet you couldn't use them to
calculate
> >the physical properties of the original.
>
> We could if they were canon.
...and now I know you're joking...
DMZ
---
SirNitram
When it eats too much. As for the 'Executor crash was on a flat DS'
argument, I'll just post this URL(From Saxton's site, oh no, it must
be digitally altered to defend conclusions he himself mentions are
flimsy!)
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/zs/rotj/execdive7.jpg
And say that it looks like there's a definate, althought slight,
curvature on the horizon. Of course, if our Saxton Attacker had been
wise, he wouldn't have attacked the DS size estimations, as I beleive
the commonly used one(900km for DSII, I think), is more established by
CINEFEX(" The Deathstar, I think, will be a lot more interesting than
the one in the first Star Wars --- mainly because it is
under construction ... Plus, it will be MUCH bigger. In Star
Wars, it was really difficult to establish the scale. It
was supposed to be miles in diameter, but with a full sphere it
was hard to tell. The NEW one is SUPPOSED
TO BE MORE like FIVE HUNDRED MILES in diameter, but since we're
not dealing with a sphere all the time,
we'll be able to establish landmarks and get a better sense of
scale. ")(For the metrically impaired, 500 miles is in the
neighbourhood of 800km, and the planetary physics of it all pegs it
nearer to 900km.)
Yea, attack the calc he himself labels the result as
'Indeterminable'..... That's a good way to make us beleive the
ludicrous statements by WEG for a 8km SSD.
Beowulf
>
>"Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
>news:CIpLOw0wbgt559uer40mEISSv=3...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:50:21 +0100, "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand?
>> >>
>> >> Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand?
>> >
>> >...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales
>> >with size, shape doesn't.
>>
>> Apparently you misunderstood all of the word "mass." Shape scales with
>> size, mass doesn't.
>
>Actual mass changes with scale. The mass represented does not. Shape
>remains constant when scaling. This was the original point - shape is
>constant regardless of the scale of the model. Otherwise, you're talking
>about a deformation, not a scaling operation. No matter how many hoops
>you want to jump through, you cannot avoid this inexorable fact -
>regardless of the scaled size of a model, its shape is the same as the
>object it represents, by definition.
>
>We are now left with 2 options (unless you can suggest any others)
>
>1) The surface accurately represents the Death Star.
>
>Hence, since the surface is flat - the Death Star is infinite in size.
Wrong. The surface is not flat. Its curvature is actually the same as the
Earth's. Therefore, the Death Star is several thousand times larger than
the Earth.
>2) The surface does not accurately represent the Death Star.
>
>And hence we cannot use it to perform calculations based on an attribute
>of the Death Star.
Beowulf
DMZ
"SirNitram" <Mart...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1e5517e2.01071...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> Yea, attack the calc he himself labels the result as
> 'Indeterminable'..... That's a good way to make us beleive the
> ludicrous statements by WEG for a 8km SSD.
Excuse me, but where have I attacked the length of the SSD, or supported the WEG
claim? Answer - I haven't. No need to get sniffy just because I feel the
methodology used in one of the many supporting calculations is suspect.
DMZ
---
DMZ
Nope - must be your imagination. Taking the image and overlaying a straight line
shows it to be flat, not curved. The only region where we see any "curvature"
rising above the line is in a quite pronounced localised area, and is part of the
explosion (big red circle in case someone misses it) :-)
http://www.alfar.demon.co.uk/exec.jpg
DMZ
---
DMZ
"Beowulf" <hool...@acmemail.net> wrote in message
news:Xns90DACBC6...@130.133.1.4...
> DMZ wrote:
>
> >
> >"Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
> >news:CIpLOw0wbgt559uer40mEISSv=3...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:50:21 +0100, "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand?
> >> >>
> >> >> Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand?
> >> >
> >> >...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales
> >> >with size, shape doesn't.
> >>
> >> Apparently you misunderstood all of the word "mass." Shape scales with
> >> size, mass doesn't.
> >
> >Actual mass changes with scale. The mass represented does not. Shape
> >remains constant when scaling. This was the original point - shape is
> >constant regardless of the scale of the model. Otherwise, you're talking
> >about a deformation, not a scaling operation. No matter how many hoops
> >you want to jump through, you cannot avoid this inexorable fact -
> >regardless of the scaled size of a model, its shape is the same as the
> >object it represents, by definition.
> >
> >We are now left with 2 options (unless you can suggest any others)
> >
> >1) The surface accurately represents the Death Star.
> >
> >Hence, since the surface is flat - the Death Star is infinite in size.
>
> Wrong. The surface is not flat. Its curvature is actually the same as the
> Earth's. Therefore, the Death Star is several thousand times larger than
> the Earth.
Heh. =)
DMZ
---
Charlie Dillon
> Hello, I am a BIG Star Trek fan, having seen every episode from every
> series, as well as all of the movies, but I do not know much about Star
> Wars.
> I was just wondering, what is an SSD? And what are the specs on it? What
> kind, and how many weapons does it have? I require this information to
> accurately compare the SSD to the Sovereign class StarShip.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> "LT.Hit-Man" <Doo...@microsith.com> wrote in message
> news:9ie9vg$inlg4$2...@ID-36661.news.dfncis.de...
> > Like the header says sixty SSD's find themselves in borg space the borg
> send
> > a hundred cubes to deal with the SSD's after losing a few cubes.
> > Just as the hundred cubes and sixty SSD's are about to lock horns two
> > hundred Sovren class ships drop out of warp, they got pulled into borg
> space
> > by a wrom hole(damm them worm holes are so handy)
> > So what happens?
> > LT.Hit-Man
> >
> >
Try watching Star Wars ESB, and ROTJ, you'll see more then enough of the SSD...
92knight
but, what is the difference in power and destruction powers
between Star Trek Phasers, and Star Wars Lasers?
Inquiring minds would like to know....
Thanks Again
DMZ
<snip>
> Dredge up that evidence.
http://www.alfar.demon.co.uk/exec.jpg
Dredged. The edge is perfectly flat, the only "curved" area is a bump around the
explosion, and is in fact part of the explosion.
DMZ
---
Kynes
>> Dredge up that evidence.
>
>http://www.alfar.demon.co.uk/exec.jpg
>
>Dredged. The edge is perfectly flat, the only "curved" area is a bump around the
>explosion, and is in fact part of the explosion.
It does look flat. So does the edge here:
http://www.galactec.com/kynes/images/ds2vsgsc.gif
However, neither are actually flat.
DMZ
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:31:34 +0100, "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:
>
> >> Dredge up that evidence.
> >
> >http://www.alfar.demon.co.uk/exec.jpg
> >
> >Dredged. The edge is perfectly flat, the only "curved" area is a bump around
the
> >explosion, and is in fact part of the explosion.
>
> It does look flat. So does the edge here:
>
> http://www.galactec.com/kynes/images/ds2vsgsc.gif
>
> However, neither are actually flat.
You didn't actually look at the picture, did you? It shows a green straight line
that precisely corresponds to the horizon. As for your link, I hardly think it
counts as admissable evidence.
So - hard evidence. It is flat. I await your sticking your fingers in your ears
and mouthing the same flawed drivel at me. =)
DMZ
---
Kynes
>> >> Dredge up that evidence.
>> >
>> >http://www.alfar.demon.co.uk/exec.jpg
>> >
>> >Dredged. The edge is perfectly flat, the only "curved" area is a bump around
>the
>> >explosion, and is in fact part of the explosion.
>>
>> It does look flat. So does the edge here:
>>
>> http://www.galactec.com/kynes/images/ds2vsgsc.gif
>>
>> However, neither are actually flat.
>
>You didn't actually look at the picture, did you? It shows a green straight line
>that precisely corresponds to the horizon.
Of course it corresponds to the horizon. The view of the mountains from my
window lines right up with the horizon, that doesn't make them flat. What do you
think makes the horizon, exactly?
You have yet to prove that this is actually a flat surface. It doesn't look flat
at all to me.
> As for your link, I hardly think it
>counts as admissable evidence.
Why? Don't believe me? Do the scaling yourself. Open up Photoshop and make
shapes of the appropriate size, zoom in and see if you get a different result.
It is perfectly admissable evidence.
DMZ
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:48:50 +0100, "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Dredge up that evidence.
> >> >
> >> >http://www.alfar.demon.co.uk/exec.jpg
> >> >
> >> >Dredged. The edge is perfectly flat, the only "curved" area is a bump around
> >the
> >> >explosion, and is in fact part of the explosion.
> >>
> >> It does look flat. So does the edge here:
> >>
> >> http://www.galactec.com/kynes/images/ds2vsgsc.gif
> >>
> >> However, neither are actually flat.
> >
> >You didn't actually look at the picture, did you? It shows a green straight
line
> >that precisely corresponds to the horizon.
>
> Of course it corresponds to the horizon. The view of the mountains from my
> window lines right up with the horizon, that doesn't make them flat. What do you
> think makes the horizon, exactly?
>
> You have yet to prove that this is actually a flat surface. It doesn't look flat
> at all to me.
A straight line corresponds to the horizon. Hence, there is no _perceptable_
curvature from which to base any calculations. The point of whether this is due to
it actually being a flat surface or not is moot. If you wish to claim that "the
straight line doesn't look straight to you" after I have shown that it is, I have
only one thing to say - concession accepted.
> > As for your link, I hardly think it
> >counts as admissable evidence.
>
> Why? Don't believe me?
Rules of evidence.
> Do the scaling yourself. Open up Photoshop and make
> shapes of the appropriate size, zoom in and see if you get a different result.
Why? Your point is moot. Zoom in so far that all you can see is a straight line,
and all you have is... a straight line. Any curvature is inperceptable (present,
but unmeasurable by any means), and thus there is nothing to perform a calculation
with.
> It is perfectly admissable evidence.
...said Kynes, with eyes shut and fingers in both ears. And so his journey to the
dark side was complete. He took his place at spacebattle's side, drawing pretty
pictures with crayons showing ISD's blowing up entire star systems with a single
shot, and claiming it as evidence.
DMZ
---
Kynes
>> Of course it corresponds to the horizon. The view of the mountains from my
>> window lines right up with the horizon, that doesn't make them flat. What do you
>> think makes the horizon, exactly?
>>
>> You have yet to prove that this is actually a flat surface. It doesn't look flat
>> at all to me.
>
>A straight line corresponds to the horizon. Hence, there is no _perceptable_
>curvature from which to base any calculations.
If there is curvature, it's measurable. If there's not, it's not. You have yet
to prove that this line is actually straight; you just posted a picture and
said, "There, see!"
> The point of whether this is due to
>it actually being a flat surface or not is moot. If you wish to claim that "the
>straight line doesn't look straight to you" after I have shown that it is
You've "shown" that it is? I'm sorry, did you do anything more than repost an
image from Curtis Saxton's site? No, you didn't. You haven't "shown" shit and
remain unresponsive when I have shown how a curved surface can, to the naked
eye, appear flat.
>> > As for your link, I hardly think it
>> >counts as admissable evidence.
>>
>> Why? Don't believe me?
>
>Rules of evidence.
The rules of evidence give us the size of the DS2. That is all the image
contains -- the size of the DS2 expressed as a circle, and zoomed in to an edge.
I think I know the rules a little better than you do.
>> Do the scaling yourself. Open up Photoshop and make
>> shapes of the appropriate size, zoom in and see if you get a different result.
>
>Why? Your point is moot. Zoom in so far that all you can see is a straight line,
>and all you have is... a straight line.
I see you flunked high school math. You can zoom in fifty thousand times on the
apex of a parabola and it will never look straight. Curves are always curvy.
> Any curvature is inperceptable (present,
>but unmeasurable by any means)
As this statement is still unproven, you are inching closer to admitting defeat
every time you say it.
>> It is perfectly admissable evidence.
>
>...said Kynes, with eyes shut and fingers in both ears. And so his journey to the
>dark side was complete. He took his place at spacebattle's side, drawing pretty
>pictures with crayons showing ISD's blowing up entire star systems with a single
>shot, and claiming it as evidence.
DMZ, I realize you're still a novice at this whole "answering arguments" thing,
but here's a hint. Ignoring what your opponent says and shouting "NUH UH! LOSER!
SPACEBATTLER!" instead is an argumentative fallacy.
Beowulf
It's on the Earth, it curved.
Beowulf
DMZ
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:51:49 +0100, "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:
>
> >> Of course it corresponds to the horizon. The view of the mountains from my
> >> window lines right up with the horizon, that doesn't make them flat. What do
you
> >> think makes the horizon, exactly?
> >>
> >> You have yet to prove that this is actually a flat surface. It doesn't look
flat
> >> at all to me.
> >
> >A straight line corresponds to the horizon. Hence, there is no _perceptable_
> >curvature from which to base any calculations.
>
> If there is curvature, it's measurable. If there's not, it's not.
Wrong. If there is a curvature, that does not imply that it is measurable.
> You have yet
> to prove that this line is actually straight; you just posted a picture and
> said, "There, see!"
I posted the picture from Curtis Saxton's site, with a straight line positioned
against the horizon - which it matches precisely. Now, your argument appears to be
"it might be straight, but it looks curved to me", which is patently absurd. It
has been shown to be indistinguishable from a straight line - your belief that it
is not is irrelevant without any evidence to support it.
> > The point of whether this is due to
> >it actually being a flat surface or not is moot. If you wish to claim that "the
> >straight line doesn't look straight to you" after I have shown that it is
>
> You've "shown" that it is? I'm sorry, did you do anything more than repost an
> image from Curtis Saxton's site? No, you didn't.
You still aren't looking or listening, are you? Please read the above.
> You haven't "shown" shit and
> remain unresponsive when I have shown how a curved surface can, to the naked
> eye, appear flat.
Let's see - we know the original model was flat, not curved (although this is not
admissable). I have shown that the horizon in the picture is indeed flat, not
curved (which is admissable). You believe it is curved, with no evidence.
Concession accepted.
> >> > As for your link, I hardly think it
> >> >counts as admissable evidence.
> >>
> >> Why? Don't believe me?
> >
> >Rules of evidence.
>
> The rules of evidence give us the size of the DS2. That is all the image
> contains -- the size of the DS2 expressed as a circle, and zoomed in to an edge.
> I think I know the rules a little better than you do.
So try acting like they apply to you, then. I am not arguing the size of the DS2,
just this one calculation, which is deemed to be dubious in any case.
Frankly, the argument that any curvature can be measured, no matter how slight, is
absurd. This applies in any real life calculation, much more so in cases where the
source data is comprised of pixels.
> >> Do the scaling yourself. Open up Photoshop and make
> >> shapes of the appropriate size, zoom in and see if you get a different
result.
> >
> >Why? Your point is moot. Zoom in so far that all you can see is a straight
line,
> >and all you have is... a straight line.
>
> I see you flunked high school math. You can zoom in fifty thousand times on the
> apex of a parabola and it will never look straight. Curves are always curvy.
Since when does a circle (or horizon of a sphere) describe a parabola? I'm afraid
it doesn't - it's a completely different class of curve. Zoom in on the edge of a
circle, and the line becomes flattened, eventually reaching a point where the
curvature is so slight as to be unmeasurable, effectively indistinguishable from a
straight line. Please try and be more reasonable about this, rather than
mudslinging and introducing fallacious arguments.
> > Any curvature is inperceptable (present,
> >but unmeasurable by any means)
>
> As this statement is still unproven, you are inching closer to admitting defeat
> every time you say it.
Look at the evidence. Saying I'm "inching closer to admitting defeat" doesn't make
it true, unfortunately, as much as you might like to believe it.
> >> It is perfectly admissable evidence.
> >
> >...said Kynes, with eyes shut and fingers in both ears. And so his journey to
the
> >dark side was complete. He took his place at spacebattle's side, drawing pretty
> >pictures with crayons showing ISD's blowing up entire star systems with a
single
> >shot, and claiming it as evidence.
>
> DMZ, I realize you're still a novice at this whole "answering arguments" thing,
> but here's a hint. Ignoring what your opponent says and shouting "NUH UH! LOSER!
> SPACEBATTLER!" instead is an argumentative fallacy.
I shall cease taking my example from you immediately, then. In your post you have
attempted to introduce several fallacious arguments (any curvature, no matter how
slight, is measurable, and that a parabola has the same curvature a circle.) You
also have yet to actually listen to me, or to look at the evidence. If this is
what an "expert" is capable of, what hope have I got?
DMZ
---
DMZ
Beowulf - that argument might work if the Earth were perfectly spherical,
paticularly at a localised scale. ;-)
DMZ
---
Transcend
<d...@nospamfreeuk.com> wrote:
<snip>
What are you trying to claim, that the DS was really a giant flat disk?
--
When man took to his bed the Computer, there was great rejoicing,
and great fear too, for their children were almost like gods. The
mainbrains bestrode the galaxy at will, and changed its very face.
The Silicon God, The Solid State Entity, Al Squared, Enth Generation -
their names are many. And there were the Carked and Symbionts,
whose daughters were the Neurosingers, Warrior-Poets, the
Neurologicians and the Pilots of the Order of Mystic Mathematicians.
--Horthy Hosthoh
DMZ
"Transcend" <tran...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:20010711.161617...@localhost.localdomain...
> In article <994883953.24453.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, "DMZ"
> <d...@nospamfreeuk.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> What are you trying to claim, that the DS was really a giant flat disk?
Naah - just that since the visible horizon in the Executor collision shot is for
all intents and purposes flat, it shouldn't have been used to calculate the size
of either the Executor or the DS. Since there are many other sources of evidence
for both, it doesn't effect any existing calculations, nor would I argue against
those other calculations, or the sizes implied. That is being in the way of it -
I've already shown that the horizon on the shot is indistinguishable from a
straight line, so I suspect it's a case of arguing for the sake of it now.
DMZ
---
Dalton
Please shut up.
--
Rob "Roby" Dalton
http://daltonator.net
"Kynes sets the stove on fire." ---ASVS House
The Third Man
>
>"Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
>news:3qVMO9XPikRRy6rLCkq=9uBw...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:48:50 +0100, "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>> Do the scaling yourself. Open up Photoshop and make
>> shapes of the appropriate size, zoom in and see if you get a different
result.
>
>Why? Your point is moot. Zoom in so far that all you can see is a straight
line,
>and all you have is... a straight line. Any curvature is inperceptable
(present,
>but unmeasurable by any means), and thus there is nothing to perform a
calculation
>with.
>
Well, just for the sake of daftness I took the Kynes image and like you said
I opened it in Photoshop (actually Piss Pot Pro since I don't have
Photoshop), and drew a line just like DMZ did to the Saxton image. And it
does in fact show a very small, but noticeable, curvature. But I can't show
you my results because I don't have a readily available website.
TTM
The Third Man
Beowulf wrote in message ...
>It's on the Earth, it curved.
Not necessarily. It could have been on a perfectly flat glass table ...
TTM
Paradox
"DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote in message
Wtf?
DMZ
"The Third Man" <t...@top-notch.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yy437.114$os1.4...@newsr2.u-net.net...
Feel free to email it to me, if you like.
DMZ
---
DMZ
<snip>
> Please shut up.
Sorry.
DMZ
---
Kynes
>> >> Of course it corresponds to the horizon. The view of the mountains from my
>> >> window lines right up with the horizon, that doesn't make them flat. What do
>you
>> >> think makes the horizon, exactly?
>> >>
>> >> You have yet to prove that this is actually a flat surface. It doesn't look
>flat
>> >> at all to me.
>> >
>> >A straight line corresponds to the horizon. Hence, there is no _perceptable_
>> >curvature from which to base any calculations.
>>
>> If there is curvature, it's measurable. If there's not, it's not.
>
>Wrong. If there is a curvature, that does not imply that it is measurable.
So there go all your arguments about how, since you can't measure a curvature in
MSPAINT.EXE, there isn't one. Oh, how sad.
>> You have yet
>> to prove that this line is actually straight; you just posted a picture and
>> said, "There, see!"
>
>I posted the picture from Curtis Saxton's site, with a straight line positioned
>against the horizon - which it matches precisely.
Congratulations, you can draw a line. This proves nothing. You haven't proven
that it "matches precisely." And don't expect me to squint at the image for you
-- burden of proof is on you.
>> > The point of whether this is due to
>> >it actually being a flat surface or not is moot. If you wish to claim that "the
>> >straight line doesn't look straight to you" after I have shown that it is
>>
>> You've "shown" that it is? I'm sorry, did you do anything more than repost an
>> image from Curtis Saxton's site? No, you didn't.
>
>You still aren't looking or listening, are you? Please read the above.
Right, pardon me. Posted an image from Curtis' site with a green line drawn on
it. PROOF POSITIVE!
>> You haven't "shown" shit and
>> remain unresponsive when I have shown how a curved surface can, to the naked
>> eye, appear flat.
>
>Let's see - we know the original model was flat, not curved (although this is not
>admissable). I have shown that the horizon in the picture is indeed flat, not
>curved (which is admissable).
You have not shown it is flat. You just posted the image and said "look, it's
flat." The only answer I need to give to that is "look, it's curved," and we're
on equal footing. Try posting some analysis.
>> >> > As for your link, I hardly think it
>> >> >counts as admissable evidence.
>> >>
>> >> Why? Don't believe me?
>> >
>> >Rules of evidence.
>>
>> The rules of evidence give us the size of the DS2. That is all the image
>> contains -- the size of the DS2 expressed as a circle, and zoomed in to an edge.
>> I think I know the rules a little better than you do.
>
>So try acting like they apply to you, then. I am not arguing the size of the DS2,
>just this one calculation, which is deemed to be dubious in any case.
>
>Frankly, the argument that any curvature can be measured, no matter how slight, is
>absurd. This applies in any real life calculation, much more so in cases where the
>source data is comprised of pixels.
Banned by the Rules.
>> >> Do the scaling yourself. Open up Photoshop and make
>> >> shapes of the appropriate size, zoom in and see if you get a different
>result.
>> >
>> >Why? Your point is moot. Zoom in so far that all you can see is a straight
>line,
>> >and all you have is... a straight line.
>>
>> I see you flunked high school math. You can zoom in fifty thousand times on the
>> apex of a parabola and it will never look straight. Curves are always curvy.
>
>Since when does a circle (or horizon of a sphere) describe a parabola? I'm afraid
>it doesn't - it's a completely different class of curve.
You are completely wrong. They're both conic sections and are not different
"classes" of curves. You've hinted at some sort of higher education. Was this
conducted at a university that didn't believe in math?
>> > Any curvature is inperceptable (present,
>> >but unmeasurable by any means)
>>
>> As this statement is still unproven, you are inching closer to admitting defeat
>> every time you say it.
>
>Look at the evidence.
The evidence is curved.
>> >> It is perfectly admissable evidence.
>> >
>> >...said Kynes, with eyes shut and fingers in both ears. And so his journey to
>the
>> >dark side was complete. He took his place at spacebattle's side, drawing pretty
>> >pictures with crayons showing ISD's blowing up entire star systems with a
>single
>> >shot, and claiming it as evidence.
>>
>> DMZ, I realize you're still a novice at this whole "answering arguments" thing,
>> but here's a hint. Ignoring what your opponent says and shouting "NUH UH! LOSER!
>> SPACEBATTLER!" instead is an argumentative fallacy.
>
>I shall cease taking my example from you immediately, then.
Nice try, but you're the one who started getting insulting first. If you were
really attempting to "take example" from me you'd abandon this moronic line of
reasoning and realize that the Rules forbid it so it's go-nowhere anyhow.
>In your post you have
>attempted to introduce several fallacious arguments (any curvature, no matter how
>slight, is measurable, and that a parabola has the same curvature a circle.)
Please name the fallacies that make these arguments invalid.
Beowulf
It's on Earth, the Earth is round, therefore the floor is curved, therefore
the surface depicted in ROTJ is curved. It may appear flat, but that's due
to the limited amount of spcae shown. The Earth does not have to be
perfectly spherical, it just has to be round.
Beowulf
Beowulf
>In article <994883953.24453.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, "DMZ"
><d...@nospamfreeuk.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>What are you trying to claim, that the DS was really a giant flat disk?
>
>
Thank you Transcend.
Beowulf
DMZ
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:39:13 +0100, "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Of course it corresponds to the horizon. The view of the mountains from my
> >> >> window lines right up with the horizon, that doesn't make them flat. What
do
> >you
> >> >> think makes the horizon, exactly?
> >> >>
> >> >> You have yet to prove that this is actually a flat surface. It doesn't
look
> >flat
> >> >> at all to me.
> >> >
> >> >A straight line corresponds to the horizon. Hence, there is no _perceptable_
> >> >curvature from which to base any calculations.
> >>
> >> If there is curvature, it's measurable. If there's not, it's not.
> >
> >Wrong. If there is a curvature, that does not imply that it is measurable.
>
> So there go all your arguments about how, since you can't measure a curvature in
> MSPAINT.EXE, there isn't one. Oh, how sad.
Interesting. Feel free to use whatever you like, personally I use Photoshop, Paint
Shop Pro, and various Linux utils like Gimp and the Image Magick libraries.
> >> You have yet
> >> to prove that this line is actually straight; you just posted a picture and
> >> said, "There, see!"
> >
> >I posted the picture from Curtis Saxton's site, with a straight line positioned
> >against the horizon - which it matches precisely.
>
> Congratulations, you can draw a line. This proves nothing. You haven't proven
> that it "matches precisely." And don't expect me to squint at the image for you
> -- burden of proof is on you.
Since you lack the ability to enlarge the image, would you like blow ups of the
relevant sections? Perhaps a contour trace? The 'curvature' you see is an optical
illusion caused by the darkening of the surface towards the corners. It's far from
absolute, any zooming clearly shows the sky/horizon interface.
> >> > The point of whether this is due to
> >> >it actually being a flat surface or not is moot. If you wish to claim that
"the
> >> >straight line doesn't look straight to you" after I have shown that it is
> >>
> >> You've "shown" that it is? I'm sorry, did you do anything more than repost an
> >> image from Curtis Saxton's site? No, you didn't.
> >
> >You still aren't looking or listening, are you? Please read the above.
>
> Right, pardon me. Posted an image from Curtis' site with a green line drawn on
> it. PROOF POSITIVE!
Well, I assumed you would be able to discern that the section above the line is
devoid of Death Star, and is just starry background whereas the section below is
completely surface. Since the line was drawn at the finest discernable thickness,
this would tend to indicate that there is no measurable curvature.
> >> You haven't "shown" shit and
> >> remain unresponsive when I have shown how a curved surface can, to the naked
> >> eye, appear flat.
> >
> >Let's see - we know the original model was flat, not curved (although this is
not
> >admissable). I have shown that the horizon in the picture is indeed flat, not
> >curved (which is admissable).
>
> You have not shown it is flat. You just posted the image and said "look, it's
> flat." The only answer I need to give to that is "look, it's curved," and we're
> on equal footing. Try posting some analysis.
Since I've shown that it follows a straight line, whereas you have not shown any
indication of curvature, I'd say we're far from equal footing. What sort of
analysis will satisfy you?
> >> >> > As for your link, I hardly think it
> >> >> >counts as admissable evidence.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why? Don't believe me?
> >> >
> >> >Rules of evidence.
> >>
> >> The rules of evidence give us the size of the DS2. That is all the image
> >> contains -- the size of the DS2 expressed as a circle, and zoomed in to an
edge.
> >> I think I know the rules a little better than you do.
> >
> >So try acting like they apply to you, then. I am not arguing the size of the
DS2,
> >just this one calculation, which is deemed to be dubious in any case.
> >
> >Frankly, the argument that any curvature can be measured, no matter how slight,
is
> >absurd. This applies in any real life calculation, much more so in cases where
the
> >source data is comprised of pixels.
>
> Banned by the Rules.
Calculations are banned by the rules? Alternatively, present some evidence which
doesn't have this limitation. My argument doesn't rely on it, after all, only that
there is a limit to the accuracy with which any measurement can be made, and a
degree of error in all measurements. In this instance, it places an effective
limit on the ability to determine curvature.
> >> >> Do the scaling yourself. Open up Photoshop and make
> >> >> shapes of the appropriate size, zoom in and see if you get a different
> >result.
> >> >
> >> >Why? Your point is moot. Zoom in so far that all you can see is a straight
> >line,
> >> >and all you have is... a straight line.
> >>
> >> I see you flunked high school math. You can zoom in fifty thousand times on
the
> >> apex of a parabola and it will never look straight. Curves are always curvy.
> >
> >Since when does a circle (or horizon of a sphere) describe a parabola? I'm
afraid
> >it doesn't - it's a completely different class of curve.
>
> You are completely wrong. They're both conic sections and are not different
> "classes" of curves.
I stand corrected, they are indeed both conic sections.
> You've hinted at some sort of higher education. Was this
> conducted at a university that didn't believe in math?
Ironically, I've dealt with both the two and three dimensional forms of those
curves in some depth. Parabola and ellipses can be used to describe orbital
elements, not to mention their use in newtonian and cassegrain telescopes. The
three dimensional forms were as second order polynomial surfaces. Feel free to
check out my MSc dissertation "A Portable Raytracer in C++", Cardiff University
should have a copy, as I believe should the British library. That should show some
practical examples.
> >> > Any curvature is inperceptable (present,
> >> >but unmeasurable by any means)
> >>
> >> As this statement is still unproven, you are inching closer to admitting
defeat
> >> every time you say it.
> >
> >Look at the evidence.
>
> The evidence is curved.
It's like arguing with a child. Seriously.
> >> >> It is perfectly admissable evidence.
> >> >
> >> >...said Kynes, with eyes shut and fingers in both ears. And so his journey
to
> >the
> >> >dark side was complete. He took his place at spacebattle's side, drawing
pretty
> >> >pictures with crayons showing ISD's blowing up entire star systems with a
> >single
> >> >shot, and claiming it as evidence.
> >>
> >> DMZ, I realize you're still a novice at this whole "answering arguments"
thing,
> >> but here's a hint. Ignoring what your opponent says and shouting "NUH UH!
LOSER!
> >> SPACEBATTLER!" instead is an argumentative fallacy.
> >
> >I shall cease taking my example from you immediately, then.
>
> Nice try, but you're the one who started getting insulting first. If you were
> really attempting to "take example" from me you'd abandon this moronic line of
> reasoning and realize that the Rules forbid it so it's go-nowhere anyhow.
I'm operating within the rules. My argument is currently based on canon visual
evidence, which cannot be trumped, and is entirely legal.
> >In your post you have
> >attempted to introduce several fallacious arguments (any curvature, no matter
how
> >slight, is measurable, and that a parabola has the same curvature a circle.)
>
> Please name the fallacies that make these arguments invalid.
You imply that a measurement can be made with infinite degree of accuracy, and no
error.
You imply that a section of a circle, when scaled, shares the same special
property as the apex of a parabola, specifically that it maintains the same
curvature.
DMZ
---
DMZ
Unfortunately, it's a semi-oblate spheroid, and on top of which does not
demonstrate curvature at a non-macroscopic scale.
DMZ
---
Dalton
[snip]
This is a meaningless argument.
DMZ
> DMZ wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> This is a meaningless argument.
It shall continue until there is only one. Who shall then proceed to argue with
himself, no doubt.
DMZ
---
Kynes
>> >> If there is curvature, it's measurable. If there's not, it's not.
>> >
>> >Wrong. If there is a curvature, that does not imply that it is measurable.
>>
>> So there go all your arguments about how, since you can't measure a curvature in
>> MSPAINT.EXE, there isn't one. Oh, how sad.
>
>Interesting. Feel free to use whatever you like, personally I use Photoshop, Paint
>Shop Pro, and various Linux utils like Gimp and the Image Magick libraries.
You're avoiding the argument. You say yourself that a surface might be
immeasurably curved. I'll certainly accept that, and it voids almost all of your
argumentation below. Canon shows that the DS is curved; visual analysis shows it
to be immeasurably so. No problem for me.
Actually, it voids *all* your argumentation below.
DMZ
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:18:49 +0100, "DMZ" <d...@NOSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> If there is curvature, it's measurable. If there's not, it's not.
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. If there is a curvature, that does not imply that it is measurable.
> >>
> >> So there go all your arguments about how, since you can't measure a curvature
in
> >> MSPAINT.EXE, there isn't one. Oh, how sad.
> >
> >Interesting. Feel free to use whatever you like, personally I use Photoshop,
Paint
> >Shop Pro, and various Linux utils like Gimp and the Image Magick libraries.
>
> You're avoiding the argument.
You bought the point up. What happened to the rest of the argument? Conveniently
snipped, I notice. You, sir, are the one to avoid the argument, not I. Since I
suspect this is to appease Dalton and bring this argument to an end, rather than
any other considerations, so be it.
> You say yourself that a surface might be immeasurably curved.
I've been saying it for the last 6 odd posts.
> I'll certainly accept that, and it voids almost all of your
> argumentation below.
I have been saying ad naseum that for all intents and purposes the surface is flat
for the purposes of measurement in that scene. It validates my argument, not voids
it.
> Canon shows that the DS is curved; visual analysis shows it
> to be immeasurably so. No problem for me.
Nor me.
> Actually, it voids *all* your argumentation below.
Again, my argument the the curvature is immeasurable in that scene is precisely
upheld and supported by that viewpoint.
PS - although I doubt there will be any online reference to dissertations (there
are literally tens of thousands of them produced each year, after all), I'd be
happy to supply you with the files it was printed from, if you're at all
interested. =)
DMZ
---
Guardian 2000
Dalton wrote in message <3B4CEE7A...@daltonator.net>...
>DMZ wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>This is a meaningless argument.
>
But it is great fun to watch.
Guardian 2000
DMZ wrote in message
<994897214.15997.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Alternately, of course, the table itself upon which the model was built need
not have demonstrated even the small curvature of the Earth, or even a large
curvature.
Example:
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/here.jpg
Guardian 2000
92knight <92kn...@home.com> wrote in message ...
>Ok, now, I know someone said not to get into this,
>but, what is the difference in power and destruction powers
>between Star Trek Phasers, and Star Wars Lasers?
>Inquiring minds would like to know....
>
>Thanks Again
That, son, is a question long-debated. The pro-Wars faction (which, as
obviated by most of the replies to this thread, has the numerical advantage)
has a variety of calculations and/or arguments which purport to show that:
1. Star Wars lasers (and, by extension, Star Trek lasers (not counting
Locutus' headlight)) are not lasers at all, because you can see them from
the side. Now, by the rules of the group, wherein canon visuals override
damn near everything else, this is pretty reasonable. Also, official
sources occasionally support that view (though occasionally disagree with
it), but it seems to hold. The alternative is that the weapons are some
sort of plasma weapon, a la the Romulan plasma torpedo from "Balance of
Terror"[TOS], but lacking the warp speeds and mysterious guidance/tracking
systems.
2. Star Wars lasers are more powerful than Star Trek phasers. Now, here
is the tricky part. You'll mainly see it argued from several directions
simultaneously, roughly encapsulated here:
2a. Dodonna's comment in Star Wars that the Death Star had more firepower
than half of the Imperial star fleet. From calculations given for the
Death Star's weapons energy in the destruction of Alderaan, plus guesses at
the number of ships in the Empire, people can finagle any desired outcome.
2b. Base Delta Zero, an operation and an order not unlike Starfleet General
Order 24 ("A Taste of Armageddon"[TOS]). In short, the civilization
(cities, assets of production, et cetera) is wiped from the surface. Some
Star Wars novelizations also refer to slagging the surface, rendering the
tip-top of the crust molten. Other sources do not. No clear time frame
has been offerred for the slagging, but you'll usually see extremely short
time frames given by the pro-Wars faction based on a number of unproven
suppositions. Also, if you want to go for absolute lowest limits, there
was one book where *full-power* turbolaser bombardment of a planetary
surface caused forest fires and left charred bodies, which is an altogether
unimpressive feat. However, several of the members of this group like to
argue by insult or intentionally misconstruing what you say (some almost
exclusively argue that way), so be prepared for that when you bring up
anything that doesn't support their view (like forest fires).
2c. There's a scene in The Empire Strikes Back where an ISD is shooting at
asteroids. The pro-Wars faction claims that the asteroids were vaporized,
and that the asteroid was on the order of dozens of meters wide. However,
the vaporization hypothesis has no proof (we wouldn't be able to see even
small fragments, much less vapor, but since vaporization means higher
weapons energy, that's the chosen option). Further, there are various ways
one can go about scaling the asteroid, and the pro-Wars faction will go to
great lengths . . . even admitting extremely low weapons range due to
turbolaser bolt "blooming" (i.e. diameter increase as the bolt travels,
leading to weapon inefficiency at greater ranges) . . . to ignore the fact
that the asteroid was on the order of five meters wide (if scaled off the
known bolt width of the smallest turbolaser emplacements, as used in the
Falcon chase scene later on in the same movie).
2d. Another common example is a scene wherein an X-Wing fires down onto
the Death Star surface, creating a massive explosion. Despite the fact
that no other such large explostions are seen to result from similar weapons
fire hits, some members of the pro-Wars faction claim that the explosion is
entirely the result of Death Star armor vaporization, and thence construct
extreme power levels for fighters. This ignores the singular nature of the
event, as well as the entire concept of "secondary explosions" due to
weapons emplacements, the storage of fuel or other volatiles, et cetera.
3. That phasers are weak/ useless against shields / useless against dense
armor. If you're a Trekker, you know enough examples on your own to
realize the silly nature of such arguments.
In short, it is quite possible to survive quite happily as a Trekker.
Certain members of the pro-Wars faction will hound you as much as possible
if you demonstrate the audacity to argue with them, but all you have to do
is bear in mind that a lot of the arguments they make are flawed, and a lot
of the calculations are based upon false assumptions/arguments/other
calculations.
Of course, in my own opinion, we pro-Trek debaters are often like scientists
engaging creationists in a debate . . . there are way more of them (of
course, I'm stuck in the Bible Belt USA), and they fling such massive
volumes of BS that there's a lot to wade through, and a lot of it looks
almost decent, so long as you don't think about it too hard. :-)
Dalton
[snip]
> Of course, in my own opinion, we pro-Trek debaters are often like scientists
> engaging creationists in a debate . . . there are way more of them (of
> course, I'm stuck in the Bible Belt USA), and they fling such massive
> volumes of BS that there's a lot to wade through, and a lot of it looks
> almost decent, so long as you don't think about it too hard. :-)
This is not a very healthy thing to say.
Transcend
<usm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 92knight <92kn...@home.com> wrote in message ...
>>Ok, now, I know someone said not to get into this, but, what is the
>>difference in power and destruction powers between Star Trek Phasers,
>>and Star Wars Lasers? Inquiring minds would like to know....
>>
>>Thanks Again
>
>
> That, son, is a question long-debated. The pro-Wars faction (which,
> as obviated by most of the replies to this thread, has the numerical
> advantage) has a variety of calculations and/or arguments which purport
> to show that:
Yes and you show your bias even here...
>
> 1. Star Wars lasers (and, by extension, Star Trek lasers (not counting
> Locutus' headlight)) are not lasers at all, because you can see them
> from the side. Now, by the rules of the group, wherein canon visuals
> override damn near everything else, this is pretty reasonable. Also,
> official sources occasionally support that view (though occasionally
> disagree with it), but it seems to hold. The alternative is that the
> weapons are some sort of plasma weapon, a la the Romulan plasma torpedo
> from "Balance of Terror"[TOS], but lacking the warp speeds and
> mysterious guidance/tracking systems.
Yes, it's a plasma weapon.
>
> 2. Star Wars lasers are more powerful than Star Trek phasers. Now,
> here is the tricky part. You'll mainly see it argued from several
> directions simultaneously, roughly encapsulated here:
No "tricky part" just more powerful period.
>
> 2a. Dodonna's comment in Star Wars that the Death Star had more
> firepower than half of the Imperial star fleet. From calculations
> given for the Death Star's weapons energy in the destruction of
> Alderaan, plus guesses at the number of ships in the Empire, people can
> finagle any desired outcome.
Not really, it depends on whether you believe in extremely high fleet
numbers or extremely low fleet numbers. At any rate it still leaves Star
Destroyers capable of pulling off a BDZ.
>
> 2b. Base Delta Zero, an operation and an order not unlike Starfleet
> General Order 24 ("A Taste of Armageddon"[TOS]). In short, the
> civilization (cities, assets of production, et cetera) is wiped from
> the surface. Some Star Wars novelizations also refer to slagging the
> surface, rendering the tip-top of the crust molten. Other sources do
> not. No clear time frame has been offerred for the slagging, but
> you'll usually see extremely short time frames given by the pro-Wars
> faction based on a number of unproven suppositions.
The more time it takes the more energy they actually have to apply to do
it. And there have been ample references that BDZs, even with slagging,
takes little time.
>Also, if you want
> to go for absolute lowest limits, there was one book where *full-power*
> turbolaser bombardment of a planetary surface caused forest fires and
> left charred bodies, which is an altogether unimpressive feat.
> However, several of the members of this group like to argue by insult or
> intentionally misconstruing what you say (some almost exclusively argue
> that way), so be prepared for that when you bring up anything that
> doesn't support their view (like forest fires).
Ah yes the "Darksaber" bullshit. The turbolaser power levels in this book, if even
assumed to be at max, fly in the face of canon, directly contradicting
it. They also contradict every other reference to turbolaser power
official or otherwise. They are therefore, invalid.
>
> 2c. There's a scene in The Empire Strikes Back where an ISD is shooting
> at asteroids. The pro-Wars faction claims that the asteroids were
> vaporized, and that the asteroid was on the order of dozens of meters
> wide. However, the vaporization hypothesis has no proof (we wouldn't
> be able to see even small fragments, much less vapor, but since
> vaporization means higher weapons energy, that's the chosen option).
Actually blasting it to fragments and accellerating all fragments out of
frame so fast we cannot see them would require more energy than a simple
vaporization.
> Further, there are various ways one can go about scaling the asteroid,
> and the pro-Wars faction will go to great lengths . . . even admitting
> extremely low weapons range due to turbolaser bolt "blooming" (i.e.
> diameter increase as the bolt travels, leading to weapon inefficiency at
> greater ranges) . . . to ignore the fact that the asteroid was on the
> order of five meters wide (if scaled off the known bolt width of the
> smallest turbolaser emplacements, as used in the Falcon chase scene
> later on in the same movie).
Ah yes, the "The Flacon and the Turbolaser" fallacy. The bolt that hit
was more on the scale of a point defense weapon like a quad laser and not
a TL. Furthermore we have visual evidence of a weapon smaller than LTLs
mounted on ISDs. Furthermore we don't know even if it was a shot by an
ISD, it could have very well been a laser blast from a TIE. But keep
argueing your fallacy that it's a LTL bolt...
BTW *every* other scaling meathod agrees on a much larger size on the
asteroid, 20 meters or more I believe.
>
> 2d. Another common example is a scene wherein an X-Wing fires down
> onto the Death Star surface, creating a massive explosion. Despite the
> fact that no other such large explostions are seen to result from
> similar weapons fire hits, some members of the pro-Wars faction claim
> that the explosion is entirely the result of Death Star armor
> vaporization, and thence construct extreme power levels for fighters.
> This ignores the singular nature of the event, as well as the entire
> concept of "secondary explosions" due to weapons emplacements, the
> storage of fuel or other volatiles, et cetera.
Let's keep this about turbolasers shall we?
>
>
> 3. That phasers are weak/ useless against shields / useless against
> dense armor. If you're a Trekker, you know enough examples on your
> own to realize the silly nature of such arguments.
Yeah like neutronium....oops. Oh wait, you mean why Klingon and other
ships don't have heavy armor.....oops again. Oh wait, you mean the
massive amount of evidence about phaser power....oh wait that supports
the Pro-Wars side.
>
>
> In short, it is quite possible to survive quite happily as a Trekker.
> Certain members of the pro-Wars faction will hound you as much as
> possible if you demonstrate the audacity to argue with them, but all you
> have to do is bear in mind that a lot of the arguments they make are
> flawed, and a lot of the calculations are based upon false
> assumptions/arguments/other calculations.
Translation: You don't have to worry about such things as calcs and
logic, just pull stuff out of your ass and hold your hands to your ears
going, "LALALALALALALALAL" when any SW debator says anything to
contradict you. And above all, no matter how much proof is thrown your
way keep argueing the same disproven theory.
>
> Of course, in my own opinion, we pro-Trek debaters are often like
> scientists engaging creationists in a debate . . . there are way more
> of them (of course, I'm stuck in the Bible Belt USA), and they fling
> such massive volumes of BS that there's a lot to wade through, and a lot
> of it looks almost decent, so long as you don't think about it too hard.
> :-)
HAHAHAHAHAHAhaha, I think you have that backwards boy.
Kazuaki Shimazaki
>
> In article <9ijn3q$j2ejk$1...@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de>, "Guardian 2000"
> <usm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Also, if you want
> > to go for absolute lowest limits, there was one book where *full-power*
> > turbolaser bombardment of a planetary surface caused forest fires and
> > left charred bodies, which is an altogether unimpressive feat.
> > However, several of the members of this group like to argue by insult or
> > intentionally misconstruing what you say (some almost exclusively argue
> > that way), so be prepared for that when you bring up anything that
> > doesn't support their view (like forest fires).
>
> Ah yes the "Darksaber" bullshit. The turbolaser power levels in this book, if even
> assumed to be at max, fly in the face of canon, directly contradicting
> it. They also contradict every other reference to turbolaser power
> official or otherwise. They are therefore, invalid.
I'm not planning to say anything. Here is an analysis of the Darksaber
article. That's a summary of the situation. After that, look around in
Groups Google for pages concerning BDZ and stuff:
http://www.h4h.com/louis/bdz.html
Look around this thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&ic=1&th=9c32122a6f753143,87&seekm=9a0j70%2435uut%241%40ID-82121.news.dfncis.de#p
There are some power estimates here too, based on statements that an ISD
bombardment could cause atmosphere to leave the planet entirely and some
other BDZ estimates.
OK, instead of flaming back and forth, I'll just let 92Knight see what
happened here. Click here for a full archive of Guardian's fight against
everyone else on this section. Decide for yourself:
> > 2d. Another common example is a scene wherein an X-Wing fires down
> > onto the Death Star surface, creating a massive explosion. Despite the
> > fact that no other such large explostions are seen to result from
> > similar weapons fire hits, some members of the pro-Wars faction claim
> > that the explosion is entirely the result of Death Star armor
> > vaporization, and thence construct extreme power levels for fighters.
> > This ignores the singular nature of the event, as well as the entire
> > concept of "secondary explosions" due to weapons emplacements, the
> > storage of fuel or other volatiles, et cetera.
>
> Let's keep this about turbolasers shall we?
He ignores the conservatism of that calculation, which was against
simple iron. Actually, sources like the BTM CD suggests much higher
power for those laser cannons.
<snip>
Oh, and one more thing. After reading the stuff I tell you to read, I
would strongly suggest you read some of the other threads on the same
topic too, just to get a more extensive purview.
Make the decision for yourself, and then we'll debate this.
92knight
"Yeah like neutronium....oops. Oh wait, you mean why Klingon and other
ships don't have heavy armor.....oops again. Oh wait, you mean the
massive amount of evidence about phaser power....oh wait that supports
the Pro-Wars side."
There are Starfleet ships which *do* have armor. The Defiant
for one. Also, in the last Voyager episode "Endgame" Admiral
Janeway's shuttle craft is equipped with ablative armor.
Who knows, by her time, perhaps EVERY vessel is equipped
with this technology.
Unfortunately, Transcend continued showing us his talents, with this clever
piece of creative writing:
Translation: You don't have to worry about such things as calcs and
logic, just pull stuff out of your ass and hold your hands to your ears
going, "LALALALALALALALAL" when any SW debator says anything to
contradict you. And above all, no matter how much proof is thrown your
way keep argueing the same disproven theory.
I have to say, that I believe that there is A LOT more info on Star Trek
and its weapons then there is about star wars and its stuff.
And it is quite plain and simple. I would take the
Enterprise - D ANY DAY over ANY poorly created, suck assing
star wars ship. I mean, the Enterprise - D is big (around 645.5
meters long) but, she could fly circles around that big death star.
And hell, Voyager, or the Defiant, being much smaller, would
do even better!!!
And if you REALLY want to bring it on, send in the Sovereign
class Enterprise - E, and that battle would be over soon!!!
Though, from what you all have said, it would seem that
star wars weapons are more powerful than Star Trek
weapons (I still do not believe it though. Star wars has
lasers, which in one episode of TNG, the Enterprise
was under attack from a ship with lasers, and
Picard said that they could fire at the Enterprise all
day, and would not even scratch the surface) I would like
to see the death star, try to get a targeting lock on the Defiant.
*That* would be impressive.
--
"Maybe it's not the destination that
matters...Maybe it's the journey."
92kn...@home.com
www.92knight.homestead.com
"Transcend" <tran...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:20010712.040150...@localhost.localdomain...
Kazuaki Shimazaki
>
> Person who just likes to insult everyone, oops, I mean Transcend Said:
> "Yeah like neutronium....oops. Oh wait, you mean why Klingon and other
> ships don't have heavy armor.....oops again. Oh wait, you mean the
> massive amount of evidence about phaser power....oh wait that supports
> the Pro-Wars side."
>
> There are Starfleet ships which *do* have armor. The Defiant
> for one. Also, in the last Voyager episode "Endgame" Admiral
> Janeway's shuttle craft is equipped with ablative armor.
> Who knows, by her time, perhaps EVERY vessel is equipped
> with this technology.
Yes, I've heard that they recently got armor, but you have shown zero
evidence that every ship was equipped with armor. Try again.
<snip>
> I have to say, that I believe that there is A LOT more info on Star Trek
> and its weapons then there is about star wars and its stuff.
> And it is quite plain and simple. I would take the
> Enterprise - D ANY DAY over ANY poorly created, suck assing
> star wars ship. I mean, the Enterprise - D is big (around 645.5
> meters long) but, she could fly circles around that big death star.
> And hell, Voyager, or the Defiant, being much smaller, would
> do even better!!!
> And if you REALLY want to bring it on, send in the Sovereign
> class Enterprise - E, and that battle would be over soon!!!
> Though, from what you all have said, it would seem that
> star wars weapons are more powerful than Star Trek
> weapons (I still do not believe it though. Star wars has
> lasers, which in one episode of TNG, the Enterprise
> was under attack from a ship with lasers, and
> Picard said that they could fire at the Enterprise all
> day, and would not even scratch the surface) I would like
> to see the death star, try to get a targeting lock on the Defiant.
> *That* would be impressive.
Let's see, no evidence for any of this man's claims. Just guesses and
beliefs. Who gave you your ST education? Graham Kennedy? Or Ted Rogers?
Or was it Stilgar?
I see pure subjectivism, no math, and no evidence. It is beneath dignity
to reply to most of this. I'll reply *when* you post some real evidence.
Only your last claim about those lasers have any evidence at all. But
let me kick it out of your hand (and disable it in the process).
1)SW lasers aren't true lasers - that much can be seen by any guy who
watches single SW film. Therefore, Picard's statement does not apply.
2)Those two ships in The Outrageous Okona are hopelessly primitive and
weak. Picard never said the nav deflector can deflect lasers of infinite
power. It is pretty clear to most of us that he is just saying that the
nav deflectors can handle lasers *of that power level*.
Read these:
http://www.asvs.org/kynes/
Click on Previous Threads, then on Laser Immunity.
See you again later.
Transcend
<92kn...@home.com> wrote:
> Person who just likes to insult everyone, oops, I mean Transcend Said:
> "Yeah like neutronium....oops. Oh wait, you mean why Klingon and other
> ships don't have heavy armor.....oops again. Oh wait, you mean the
> massive amount of evidence about phaser power....oh wait that supports
> the Pro-Wars side."
>
> There are Starfleet ships which *do* have armor. The Defiant for one.
> Also, in the last Voyager episode "Endgame" Admiral Janeway's shuttle
> craft is equipped with ablative armor. Who knows, by her time, perhaps
> EVERY vessel is equipped with this technology.
Yes I know, that was sarcasm.....sheesh. My point is, if armor is not
effective against phasers then why did they have it?
>
> Unfortunately, Transcend continued showing us his talents, with this
> clever piece of creative writing:
> Translation: You don't have to worry about such things as calcs and
> logic, just pull stuff out of your ass and hold your hands to your ears
> going, "LALALALALALALALAL" when any SW debator says anything to
> contradict you. And above all, no matter how much proof is thrown your
> way keep argueing the same disproven theory.
>
> I have to say, that I believe that there is A LOT more info on Star Trek
> and its weapons then there is about star wars and its stuff. And it is
> quite plain and simple. I would take the Enterprise - D ANY DAY over ANY
> poorly created, suck assing star wars ship. I mean, the Enterprise - D
> is big (around 645.5 meters long) but, she could fly circles around that
> big death star. And hell, Voyager, or the Defiant, being much smaller,
> would do even better!!!
Yes, because the DS is a battleSTATION not a ship. It isn't meant to be
manuverable. As for ships of comparable size....the Carrack-class cruiser
is as fast as an X-Wing, something you won't see in a Galaxy class ship.
> And if you REALLY want to bring it on, send in the Sovereign class
> Enterprise - E, and that battle would be over soon!!! Though, from what
> you all have said, it would seem that star wars weapons are more
> powerful than Star Trek weapons (I still do not believe it though. Star
> wars has lasers, which in one episode of TNG, the Enterprise was under
> attack from a ship with lasers, and Picard said that they could fire at
> the Enterprise all day, and would not even scratch the surface) I would
> like to see the death star, try to get a targeting lock on the Defiant.
> *That* would be impressive.
Star Wars "lasers" are not lasers, but some type of plasma canon. And
again, the DS is a battlestation, not a ship. However, they wouldn't need
the superlaser, just the turbolasers mounted across it's surface.
I would like to see the Defiant try and outfight a strike class ship,
or even a skipray blastboat. but at any rate quoting "Outrageous Okana" (or whatever
the name was) puts you firmly in the area of moron......as all here will
agree.
Guardian 2000
Dalton wrote in message <3B4D66F2...@daltonator.net>...
>Guardian 2000 wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Of course, in my own opinion, we pro-Trek debaters are often like
scientists
>> engaging creationists in a debate . . . there are way more of them (of
>> course, I'm stuck in the Bible Belt USA), and they fling such massive
>> volumes of BS that there's a lot to wade through, and a lot of it looks
>> almost decent, so long as you don't think about it too hard. :-)
>
>This is not a very healthy thing to say.
>
No one ever accused me of subtlety or diplomacy. :-)
Transcend
<usm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Or intelligence.
:-)
DMZ
"Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9ijamm$j20rp$1...@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de...
Finished now (hopefully.) Kynes is the only person I know who makes a concession
look like a great victory.
DMZ
---
SirNitram
> In article <Lbe37.159381$Mf5.43...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>, "92knight"
> <92kn...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Person who just likes to insult everyone, oops, I mean Transcend Said:
> > "Yeah like neutronium....oops. Oh wait, you mean why Klingon and other
> > ships don't have heavy armor.....oops again. Oh wait, you mean the
> > massive amount of evidence about phaser power....oh wait that supports
> > the Pro-Wars side."
> >
> > There are Starfleet ships which *do* have armor. The Defiant for one.
> > Also, in the last Voyager episode "Endgame" Admiral Janeway's shuttle
> > craft is equipped with ablative armor. Who knows, by her time, perhaps
> > EVERY vessel is equipped with this technology.
>
> Yes I know, that was sarcasm.....sheesh. My point is, if armor is not
> effective against phasers then why did they have it?
>
I'll take 'Massive Stupidity On The Part Of Starfleet' for 1000, Alex.
> >
> > Unfortunately, Transcend continued showing us his talents, with this
> > clever piece of creative writing:
> > Translation: You don't have to worry about such things as calcs and
> > logic, just pull stuff out of your ass and hold your hands to your ears
> > going, "LALALALALALALALAL" when any SW debator says anything to
> > contradict you. And above all, no matter how much proof is thrown your
> > way keep argueing the same disproven theory.
> >
> > I have to say, that I believe that there is A LOT more info on Star Trek
> > and its weapons then there is about star wars and its stuff. And it is
> > quite plain and simple. I would take the Enterprise - D ANY DAY over ANY
> > poorly created, suck assing star wars ship. I mean, the Enterprise - D
> > is big (around 645.5 meters long) but, she could fly circles around that
> > big death star. And hell, Voyager, or the Defiant, being much smaller,
> > would do even better!!!
>
> Yes, because the DS is a battleSTATION not a ship. It isn't meant to be
> manuverable. As for ships of comparable size....the Carrack-class cruiser
> is as fast as an X-Wing, something you won't see in a Galaxy class ship.
>
And it has cupholders and fuzzy dice as optional extras. Or so Bob told me.
> > And if you REALLY want to bring it on, send in the Sovereign class
> > Enterprise - E, and that battle would be over soon!!! Though, from what
> > you all have said, it would seem that star wars weapons are more
> > powerful than Star Trek weapons (I still do not believe it though. Star
> > wars has lasers, which in one episode of TNG, the Enterprise was under
> > attack from a ship with lasers, and Picard said that they could fire at
> > the Enterprise all day, and would not even scratch the surface) I would
> > like to see the death star, try to get a targeting lock on the Defiant.
> > *That* would be impressive.
>
> Star Wars "lasers" are not lasers, but some type of plasma canon. And
> again, the DS is a battlestation, not a ship. However, they wouldn't need
> the superlaser, just the turbolasers mounted across it's surface.
> I would like to see the Defiant try and outfight a strike class ship,
> or even a skipray blastboat. but at any rate quoting "Outrageous Okana" (or whatever
> the name was) puts you firmly in the area of moron......as all here will
> agree.
>
>
Can I bludgeon him? Pwease?
Transcend
<Mart...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Transcend" <tran...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
> news:<20010712.050810...@localhost.localdomain>...
>> In article <Lbe37.159381$Mf5.43...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>,
>> "92knight" <92kn...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Person who just likes to insult everyone, oops, I mean Transcend
>> > Said: "Yeah like neutronium....oops. Oh wait, you mean why Klingon
>> > and other ships don't have heavy armor.....oops again. Oh wait, you
>> > mean the
>> > massive amount of evidence about phaser power....oh wait that
>> > supports
>> > the Pro-Wars side."
>> >
>> > There are Starfleet ships which *do* have armor. The Defiant for one.
>> > Also, in the last Voyager episode "Endgame" Admiral Janeway's shuttle
>> > craft is equipped with ablative armor. Who knows, by her time,
>> > perhaps EVERY vessel is equipped with this technology.
>>
>> Yes I know, that was sarcasm.....sheesh. My point is, if armor is not
>> effective against phasers then why did they have it?
>>
>>
> I'll take 'Massive Stupidity On The Part Of Starfleet' for 1000, Alex.
Heh. I'll take the "Phasers are not very effective against armor"
explanation.
>
>
>> > Unfortunately, Transcend continued showing us his talents, with this
>> > clever piece of creative writing:
>> > Translation: You don't have to worry about such things as calcs and
>> > logic, just pull stuff out of your ass and hold your hands to your
>> > ears going, "LALALALALALALALAL" when any SW debator says anything to
>> > contradict you. And above all, no matter how much proof is thrown
>> > your way keep argueing the same disproven theory.
>> >
>> > I have to say, that I believe that there is A LOT more info on Star
>> > Trek and its weapons then there is about star wars and its stuff. And
>> > it is quite plain and simple. I would take the Enterprise - D ANY DAY
>> > over ANY poorly created, suck assing star wars ship. I mean, the
>> > Enterprise - D is big (around 645.5 meters long) but, she could fly
>> > circles around that big death star. And hell, Voyager, or the
>> > Defiant, being much smaller, would do even better!!!
>>
>> Yes, because the DS is a battleSTATION not a ship. It isn't meant to be
>> manuverable. As for ships of comparable size....the Carrack-class
>> cruiser is as fast as an X-Wing, something you won't see in a Galaxy
>> class ship.
>>
>>
> And it has cupholders and fuzzy dice as optional extras. Or so Bob told
> me.
LOL.
>
>> > And if you REALLY want to bring it on, send in the Sovereign class
>> > Enterprise - E, and that battle would be over soon!!! Though, from
>> > what you all have said, it would seem that star wars weapons are more
>> > powerful than Star Trek weapons (I still do not believe it though.
>> > Star wars has lasers, which in one episode of TNG, the Enterprise was
>> > under attack from a ship with lasers, and Picard said that they could
>> > fire at the Enterprise all day, and would not even scratch the
>> > surface) I would like to see the death star, try to get a targeting
>> > lock on the Defiant. *That* would be impressive.
>>
>> Star Wars "lasers" are not lasers, but some type of plasma canon. And
>> again, the DS is a battlestation, not a ship. However, they wouldn't
>> need the superlaser, just the turbolasers mounted across it's surface.
>> I would like to see the Defiant try and outfight a strike class ship,
>> or even a skipray blastboat. but at any rate quoting "Outrageous Okana"
>> (or whatever the name was) puts you firmly in the area of moron......as
>> all here will agree.
>>
>>
>>
> Can I bludgeon him? Pwease?
Sure, you can bludgeon him, but be kind and leave some for everyone else
to bludgeon.
Jedi Knight Toren Depor
> There are Starfleet ships which *do* have armor. The Defiant
> for one. Also, in the last Voyager episode "Endgame" Admiral
> Janeway's shuttle craft is equipped with ablative armor.
> Who knows, by her time, perhaps EVERY vessel is equipped
> with this technology.
Really? Then why is it that Admiral Janeway's armor never funcitoned
after it was installed on Voyager. And Harry Kim's USS Rhode Island
didn't deploy armor when attacking the Klingons, nor did it appear to
have the ablative armor generators anywhere on the surface as Voyager
had them.
The ablative armor technology is certainly powerful, but it as come up
here more than once and basically everything that can be said about it,
as well as the transphasic torps introduced in that episode, has already
been said and the debate can't really go anywhere it hasn't already been
until we see it/don't see it in the next couple of Trek films. If by
Trek 11 or 12 we don't see or hear anything about ablative armor it can
be called lost/unique technology.
It's quite possible that the ablative armor generation tech was acquired
from a Delta Quadrant species, though I must admit there is no evidence
to support this other than the above evidence that the tech is not
reproducable by modern Federation tech in the time that Admiral Janeway
comes from.
>Star wars has
> lasers, which in one episode of TNG, the Enterprise
> was under attack from a ship with lasers, and
> Picard said that they could fire at the Enterprise all
> day, and would not even scratch the surface) I would like
> to see the death star, try to get a targeting lock on the Defiant.
> *That* would be impressive.
Dood, although I am somewhat of a Newbie here, I know enough to know
that the SW weapons are lasres is looong dead. Here is why they aren't
lasers:
SW Laser weapons do all of the following
1) Move slower than the speed of light
2) Are visible in a vacuum as well as oxygen environments
3) Have KE, as seen that all SW guns recoil when fired as well as the
scene in which the Falcon is truck by an ISD weapon and rocked rather
violently in TESB.
4) They explode eventually, best seen as the Falcon is eluding 3 ISD"s
while escaping from Tatooine in ANH.
As you can see lasers do none of the above. As for why they are called
lasers, as <http://www.stardestroyer.net> puts it, a language evolves
over time. We call things by certain names even if the original meaning
of those names no longer applies.
For examples, I quote from StarDestroyer.Net
"Amazingly, I routinely get mail from fans of both Star Wars and Star
Trek, insisting that turbolasers must be lasers. The usual justification
is that they have the word "laser" in the name, so they must be lasers,
right? Well, this idea stems from an extremely simplistic and
close-minded interpretation of language. A language grows over time,
rather than being invented or created. As a result, it will invariably
incorporate countless archaic meanings, holdovers, cultural references,
etc. One could probably expend huge amounts of space describing the
various archaic terms in the English language, but a few examples are
easily applied to the turbolaser issue.
Blueprints
In both Star Wars and Star Trek, engineering schematics are invariably
described as "blueprints". That is the same linguistic convention used
today. But where did it come from? The answer is one which I have
personal experience with. Before large-format photocopiers were
invented, engineers used to reproduce drawings with a machine called a
"blueprint machine." This machine operated on principles which were
completely different from a modern photocopier or printer. To use it,
you would put your drawing on top of a piece of specially coated yellow
paper. The blueprint machine would then shine an ultraviolet light on
your drawing, and the light would get through the white parts of the
drawing (thus breaking down the yellow coating underneath) and be
blocked by the black parts of the drawing. The result was a piece of
paper which had yellow lines where all of the black lines on the
original drawing were. This paper was then passed through an
ammonia-based chemical process which made the yellow coating turn blue.
The result was a reproduced drawing that was quite literally blue.
These machines were beastly and unpleasant. The ammonia smelled terrible
(although it was good for clearing out sinus congestion), you had to
draw on special vellum paper which was translucent rather than opaque
like heavy bond paper, and the copies were always "dirty" because the UV
radiation was not 100% effective at breaking down the underlying coating
layers after passing through the vellum drawing. But they produced
copies of drawings at a time when there was no other way. Of course,
modern engineering photocopiers produce black lines on white paper
without requiring special paper or ammonia treatment, just like any
other photocopier. And since most modern engineering drawings are
generated in CAD systems, a photocopier isn't really required. Drawings
can be simply printed in multiple copies on a large-format laser
printer. But the term "blueprint" has persisted to this day, even though
the vast majority of the population has absolutely no idea where it came
from. When the TM describes the blueprints of the Galaxy Class starship,
should you assume that they are using primitive blueprint machines to
reproduce their engineering drawings? I wouldn't.
Cannons
Science fiction is replete with cannons. Phaser cannons, turbolaser
cannons, isokinetic cannons, disruptor cannons, laser cannons, ion
cannons, and various other permutations upon the word "cannon" are
liberally sprinkled throughout various science fiction series such as
Star Wars and Star Trek. But what is a cannon?
Cannons are primitive projectile weapons, which hurl projectiles through
the air after being ejected from the barrel through gas pressure, which
is created by combustion of explosive chemicals. Does this mean that we
should assume that every science fiction "cannon" is therefore a
primitive projectile weapon? Of course not- in the science fiction
world, the term "cannon" obviously has grown to encompass beam weapons
as well as projectile weapons.
Rifles
Have you ever noticed that Imperial stormtroopers carry blaster rifles,
and Federation troopers carry phaser rifles? This may not strike you as
odd, unless you ask yourself what a rifle is.
A rifle is a type of projectile weapon. By cutting spiral grooves into
the inner surface of a gun barrel, it is possible to direct the bullet
so that it has a significant spin as it emerges from the muzzle. This
spin changes the aerodynamic characteristics of the bullet, and tends to
increase its range and accuracy. Therefore, a rifle is a projectile
weapon with spiral grooves cut into the inner surface of its barrel.
However, the concept of rifling is completely inapplicable to an energy
weapon, or even a particle beam. Therefore, it is quite obvious that
neither phaser rifles or blaster rifles can possible be rifles. In the
language of the Empire and the Federation, the word "rifle" has
obviously changed from the very precise, specific definition of "gun
with grooved barrel" to a much more generalized, vague definition such
as "large handheld weapon".
In conclusion, although there are countless examples of archaic terms in
the English language, the above examples are highly applicable to
science fiction and demonstrate the foolishness of trying to guess what
something is, based entirely on its name.
It is actually very easy to determine that turbolasers cannot possibly
be lasers. Lasers are merely a coherent assembly of photons, and photons
have several important characteristics:
They always travel at the speed of light in vacuum, which is hardly
surprising since they are light.
They do not interact with one another. If two lasers intersect, an
interference pattern may appear in the region of intersection, but they
will not impede one another in any way. The beams won't "bounce off" one
another, stop at the collision point, or change direction or speed. They
will continue as if nothing had happened.
They do not radiate energy in any direction other than their direction
of travel. In other words, you will never see a laser in vacuum until it
hits something. This is how laser pointers work- you can see the red dot
but you can't see the beam. When lasers are filmed for dramatic
purposes, they are invariably filmed in an extremely smoky or dusty
environment, so the viewer will see the laser scattering off the dust
and smoke. In a vacuum, a laser will always be invisible.
Obviously, turbolasers cannot possibly be lasers. They exhibit none of
the characteristics of lasers. They travel much slower than the speed of
light, they interact with one another (as demonstrated by the combining
Death Star beam), and they are visible in vacuum. To put a twist on an
old saying, if something doesn't walk like a duck, doesn't look like a
duck, and doesn't quack like a duck, it probably ain't a duck."
I should let you know that this NG differs from 99% off the rest of the
Trek vs. Wars "debates" on the net. Most of these are simply fans from
either side saying "Trek would win!!!" "No Wars would win!!" and
basically people making outrageous claims and insiisting that they are
right. In this NG, you must cite evidence that is accepted in the rules
stated in the FAQ's.
--
Jedi Knight Toren Depor (aka Filmmaker Matt Pfingsten)
E-Mail: jedi...@home.com
Phone: 360.281.7618
ICQ: JediToren, 69348681
AIM: JediToren
The Matt Pfingsten Home Page: http://www.pfing.cjb.net
Toren Depor's Jedi Temple: http://www.jeditoren.cjb.net
--Links--
24FPS.Com, filmmaking resources: http://www.24fps.com
TheForce.Net, your daily dose of Star Wars: http://www.theforce.net
Animation:Master, high-end 3D app: http://www.hash.com
Crayz9000
"Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com> found "Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes
and 200 Sovren class ships" while drowning in alt.startrek.vs.starwars:
>
>92knight <92kn...@home.com> wrote in message ...
>>Ok, now, I know someone said not to get into this,
>>but, what is the difference in power and destruction powers
>>between Star Trek Phasers, and Star Wars Lasers?
>>Inquiring minds would like to know....
>>
>>Thanks Again
<snip technobabble>
Guarduan, Guardian, you'll just confuse the poor newbie.
==
Crayz9000 - - - - - - - - mhm28x12
http://asvsaa.8m.net
(ASVS Auxiliary Archive)
http://crayz9000.htmlplanet.com
(Crayz9000's Hideout)
Don't forget to validate my address.
"What version of the Bible would that be? The Gospel according to
St. Gorblat? Paul's first letter to the Daleks?" --Chuck, commenting
on a fan's review of Battlefield Earth
Kynes
>Of course, in my own opinion, we pro-Trek debaters are often like scientists
>engaging creationists in a debate . . . there are way more of them (of
>course, I'm stuck in the Bible Belt USA), and they fling such massive
>volumes of BS that there's a lot to wade through, and a lot of it looks
>almost decent, so long as you don't think about it too hard. :-)
And in my opinion, your "we *Trek8 supporters" rhetoric is tired and irritating.
You make arguing for one side of this debate out to be some noble endeavour,
when really, you're just being thick-headed.
For example, you spend paragraphs and paragraphs debunking side issues for SW
weaponry, leaving totally untouched the most devastating statement in all of
canon: "... firepower greater than half the star fleet." That statement damns
the Federation. Either they will face literally trillions of ships of their own
firepower or millions of ships that are invincinble to their weapons due to
sheer force of shielding.
And of course, you also offer no actual *arguments* in favor of strong phasers.
Just like the last time you were here and had the floors wiped with your drool.
There are a great many pro-ST debaters that I respected; none of them still
present, of course, but the people do exist. The hallmark of these individuals
was an absence of the self-righteousness that is the true reason for your being
"hounded."
92knight
--
"Maybe it's not the destination that
matters...Maybe it's the journey."
92kn...@home.com
www.92knight.homestead.com
"Jedi Knight Toren Depor" <jedi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B4DE5E2...@home.com...
Dalton
>
> Ablative armour is not *lost* technology. The Defiant had ablative armour.
And you ignored everything ELSE??
--
Rob "Roby" Dalton
http://daltonator.net
The best defense against fanaticism is indifference.
Of course, a flamethrower helps.
92knight
--
"Maybe it's not the destination that
matters...Maybe it's the journey."
92kn...@home.com
www.92knight.homestead.com
"Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
news:3B4E7C52...@daltonator.net...
Dalton
>
> Sorry, I did not have the time to waste reading his 10 page reply.
Damn, there's an implicit concession if I've ever seen one.
Guardian 2000
Transcend wrote in message
<20010712.040150...@localhost.localdomain>...
>In article <9ijn3q$j2ejk$1...@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de>, "Guardian 2000"
><usm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> 92knight <92kn...@home.com> wrote in message ...
>>>Ok, now, I know someone said not to get into this, but, what is the
>>>difference in power and destruction powers between Star Trek Phasers,
>>>and Star Wars Lasers? Inquiring minds would like to know....
>>>
>>>Thanks Again
>>
>>
>> That, son, is a question long-debated. The pro-Wars faction (which,
>> as obviated by most of the replies to this thread, has the numerical
>> advantage) has a variety of calculations and/or arguments which purport
>> to show that:
>
>Yes and you show your bias even here...
So, to be pro-Trek is biased, and to be pro-Wars is not? I was never
attempting to hide my beliefs from a fellow Trekker.
>> 1. Star Wars lasers (and, by extension, Star Trek lasers (not counting
>> Locutus' headlight)) are not lasers at all, because you can see them
>> from the side. Now, by the rules of the group, wherein canon visuals
>> override damn near everything else, this is pretty reasonable. Also,
>> official sources occasionally support that view (though occasionally
>> disagree with it), but it seems to hold. The alternative is that the
>> weapons are some sort of plasma weapon, a la the Romulan plasma torpedo
>> from "Balance of Terror"[TOS], but lacking the warp speeds and
>> mysterious guidance/tracking systems.
>
>Yes, it's a plasma weapon.
Okay, then, but that leaves it slower, dumber, less powerful, and less
far-reaching than the Romulan weapon from the Original Series.
>> 2. Star Wars lasers are more powerful than Star Trek phasers. Now,
>> here is the tricky part. You'll mainly see it argued from several
>> directions simultaneously, roughly encapsulated here:
>
>No "tricky part" just more powerful period.
"Tricky part" = highly debatable part
Or is that too biased, period? :-)
>> 2a. Dodonna's comment in Star Wars that the Death Star had more
>> firepower than half of the Imperial star fleet. From calculations
>> given for the Death Star's weapons energy in the destruction of
>> Alderaan, plus guesses at the number of ships in the Empire, people can
>> finagle any desired outcome.
>
> Not really, it depends on whether you believe in extremely high fleet
>numbers or extremely low fleet numbers. At any rate it still leaves Star
>Destroyers capable of pulling off a BDZ.
Only if that is supported and not overruled by the rest of canon, especially
visuals. Also, it requires that the assumptions made in the calculations
of Death Star firepower be correct.
I do not think it satisfies sentence one. I have not yet gone in-depth
with what's mentioned in sentence two.
>> 2b. Base Delta Zero, an operation and an order not unlike Starfleet
>> General Order 24 ("A Taste of Armageddon"[TOS]). In short, the
>> civilization (cities, assets of production, et cetera) is wiped from
>> the surface. Some Star Wars novelizations also refer to slagging the
>> surface, rendering the tip-top of the crust molten. Other sources do
>> not. No clear time frame has been offerred for the slagging, but
>> you'll usually see extremely short time frames given by the pro-Wars
>> faction based on a number of unproven suppositions.
>
>The more time it takes the more energy they actually have to apply to do
>it. And there have been ample references that BDZs, even with slagging,
>takes little time.
On the first sentence:
1. Why? You can slag an area and move on.
2. More time would result in less overall firepower, even if the overall
energy input were higher.
On the second sentence:
I have not seen an unambiguous reference that says that slagging occurs in a
short time frame, nor have I seen it specified just what this short time
frame would be.
>>Also, if you want
>> to go for absolute lowest limits, there was one book where *full-power*
>> turbolaser bombardment of a planetary surface caused forest fires and
>> left charred bodies, which is an altogether unimpressive feat.
>> However, several of the members of this group like to argue by insult or
>> intentionally misconstruing what you say (some almost exclusively argue
>> that way), so be prepared for that when you bring up anything that
>> doesn't support their view (like forest fires).
>
>Ah yes the "Darksaber" bullshit. The turbolaser power levels in this book,
if even
>assumed to be at max, fly in the face of canon, directly contradicting
>it. They also contradict every other reference to turbolaser power
>official or otherwise. They are therefore, invalid.
Thanks for the book name, I had forgotten it.
I do not see how those power levels fly in the face of canon or directly
contradict it.
>> 2c. There's a scene in The Empire Strikes Back where an ISD is shooting
>> at asteroids. The pro-Wars faction claims that the asteroids were
>> vaporized, and that the asteroid was on the order of dozens of meters
>> wide. However, the vaporization hypothesis has no proof (we wouldn't
>> be able to see even small fragments, much less vapor, but since
>> vaporization means higher weapons energy, that's the chosen option).
>
>Actually blasting it to fragments and accellerating all fragments out of
>frame so fast we cannot see them would require more energy than a simple
>vaporization.
There is no need to include speed to the fragments. There is no reason to
posit the idea that they were accelerated out of frame. They could have
been sitting there and we would not be able to detect them due to small
size.
>> Further, there are various ways one can go about scaling the asteroid,
>> and the pro-Wars faction will go to great lengths . . . even admitting
>> extremely low weapons range due to turbolaser bolt "blooming" (i.e.
>> diameter increase as the bolt travels, leading to weapon inefficiency at
>> greater ranges) . . . to ignore the fact that the asteroid was on the
>> order of five meters wide (if scaled off the known bolt width of the
>> smallest turbolaser emplacements, as used in the Falcon chase scene
>> later on in the same movie).
>
>Ah yes, the "The Flacon and the Turbolaser" fallacy. The bolt that hit
>was more on the scale of a point defense weapon like a quad laser and not
>a TL. Furthermore we have visual evidence of a weapon smaller than LTLs
>mounted on ISDs. Furthermore we don't know even if it was a shot by an
>ISD, it could have very well been a laser blast from a TIE. But keep
>argueing your fallacy that it's a LTL bolt...
Ooh, now you guys are naming contrary arguments "fallacies"? Wonderful!
I'll go look and see if and how the arguments continued after I left, but at
last check way back when the arguments seemed to point toward LTLs and HTLs,
with possible unspecified point-defense and a big maybe on MTLs.
>BTW *every* other scaling meathod agrees on a much larger size on the
>asteroid, 20 meters or more I believe.
Actually, *every* other scaling method does not agree on what you say it
agrees on.
>
>>
>> 2d. Another common example is a scene wherein an X-Wing fires down
>> onto the Death Star surface, creating a massive explosion. Despite the
>> fact that no other such large explostions are seen to result from
>> similar weapons fire hits, some members of the pro-Wars faction claim
>> that the explosion is entirely the result of Death Star armor
>> vaporization, and thence construct extreme power levels for fighters.
>> This ignores the singular nature of the event, as well as the entire
>> concept of "secondary explosions" due to weapons emplacements, the
>> storage of fuel or other volatiles, et cetera.
>
>Let's keep this about turbolasers shall we?
Why? The question was about "Star Wars lasers" (i.e. beam weapons).
>
>>
>>
>> 3. That phasers are weak/ useless against shields / useless against
>> dense armor. If you're a Trekker, you know enough examples on your
>> own to realize the silly nature of such arguments.
>
>Yeah like neutronium....oops. Oh wait, you mean why Klingon and other
>ships don't have heavy armor.....oops again. Oh wait, you mean the
>massive amount of evidence about phaser power....oh wait that supports
>the Pro-Wars side.
Star Wars ships don't have neutronium hulls. Klingon and other ships do
have armor, but we don't need it because we have fine shields and structural
integrity fields that make our paper-thin hulls far stronger than wimpy ISD
bridge tower armor (see asteroid-shearing-off-the-bridge-tower scene in TESB
versus the Jem'Hadar suicide run on the Odyssey in DS9). And when in the
world did superior phaser power support Star Wars?
>> In short, it is quite possible to survive quite happily as a Trekker.
>> Certain members of the pro-Wars faction will hound you as much as
>> possible if you demonstrate the audacity to argue with them, but all you
>> have to do is bear in mind that a lot of the arguments they make are
>> flawed, and a lot of the calculations are based upon false
>> assumptions/arguments/other calculations.
>
>Translation: You don't have to worry about such things as calcs and
>logic, just pull stuff out of your ass and hold your hands to your ears
>going, "LALALALALALALALAL" when any SW debator says anything to
>contradict you. And above all, no matter how much proof is thrown your
>way keep argueing the same disproven theory.
Calculations in this game are based on assumptions. If your assumptions are
faulty, so are your calculations. It's really quite simple . . . I do not
understand why that concept eluded you.
BTW, let me know when you disprove a pro-Trek theory (not one of Tim's or
Elim's . . . I'm not sure they count as pro-Trek). I'll mark the historic
occasion.
Oh, and do remember that truth is not democratic. You may outnumber us here
and hold the power base, but that doesn't make you right.
>> Of course, in my own opinion, we pro-Trek debaters are often like
>> scientists engaging creationists in a debate . . . there are way more
>> of them (of course, I'm stuck in the Bible Belt USA), and they fling
>> such massive volumes of BS that there's a lot to wade through, and a lot
>> of it looks almost decent, so long as you don't think about it too hard.
>> :-)
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAhaha, I think you have that backwards boy.
Hardly. Certain pro-Wars debaters/authors share most if not all of their
tactics with creationists.
Transcend
<usm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
A totally different type of plasma weapon, and certainly a more powerful
one.
>
>>> 2. Star Wars lasers are more powerful than Star Trek phasers. Now,
>>> here is the tricky part. You'll mainly see it argued from several
>>> directions simultaneously, roughly encapsulated here:
>>
>>No "tricky part" just more powerful period.
>
> "Tricky part" = highly debatable part
It isn't though, except to morons like you.
>
> Or is that too biased, period? :-)
>
>>> 2a. Dodonna's comment in Star Wars that the Death Star had more
>>> firepower than half of the Imperial star fleet. From calculations
>>> given for the Death Star's weapons energy in the destruction of
>>> Alderaan, plus guesses at the number of ships in the Empire, people
>>> can finagle any desired outcome.
>>
>> Not really, it depends on whether you believe in extremely high fleet
>>numbers or extremely low fleet numbers. At any rate it still leaves Star
>>Destroyers capable of pulling off a BDZ.
>
>
> Only if that is supported and not overruled by the rest of canon,
> especially visuals. Also, it requires that the assumptions made in the
> calculations of Death Star firepower be correct.
It is not overruled by canon. Also unless you want to argue the idiocy
that Alderaan to be much more dense, or much less dense, the energy
required to destroy it in the manner in which it was destroyed is known.
I don't have the exact number, I don't have a good memory for such
things, but there are plenty here who do have that number and most
trekkies agree with it.
>
> I do not think it satisfies sentence one. I have not yet gone in-depth
> with what's mentioned in sentence two.
>
>>> 2b. Base Delta Zero, an operation and an order not unlike Starfleet
>>> General Order 24 ("A Taste of Armageddon"[TOS]). In short, the
>>> civilization (cities, assets of production, et cetera) is wiped from
>>> the surface. Some Star Wars novelizations also refer to slagging the
>>> surface, rendering the tip-top of the crust molten. Other sources do
>>> not. No clear time frame has been offerred for the slagging, but
>>> you'll usually see extremely short time frames given by the pro-Wars
>>> faction based on a number of unproven suppositions.
>>
>>The more time it takes the more energy they actually have to apply to do
>>it. And there have been ample references that BDZs, even with slagging,
>>takes little time.
>
>
> On the first sentence:
>
> 1. Why? You can slag an area and move on.
Yes, rapidly.
>
> 2. More time would result in less overall firepower, even if the
> overall energy input were higher.
True, however that is in contradiction with the asteroid and DS calcs.
>
> On the second sentence:
>
> I have not seen an unambiguous reference that says that slagging occurs
> in a short time frame, nor have I seen it specified just what this short
> time frame would be.
Ok hows this one.... That planet (don't recall the name) in that RPG suppliment (yes it's
official) had it's atmosphere ripped away. Notice the wording there,
*ripped* as in rapidly torn away from the planet in a short amount of
time. The energy required to do that is more than that which is required
to do a crust slagging one-hour BDZ. The planet had topsoil atomised and
the rest of the surface slagged.
>
>>>Also, if you want
>>> to go for absolute lowest limits, there was one book where
>>> *full-power* turbolaser bombardment of a planetary surface caused
>>> forest fires and left charred bodies, which is an altogether
>>> unimpressive feat. However, several of the members of this group like
>>> to argue by insult or intentionally misconstruing what you say (some
>>> almost exclusively argue that way), so be prepared for that when you
>>> bring up anything that doesn't support their view (like forest fires).
>>
>>Ah yes the "Darksaber" bullshit. The turbolaser power levels in this
>>book,
> if even
>>assumed to be at max, fly in the face of canon, directly contradicting
>>it. They also contradict every other reference to turbolaser power
>>official or otherwise. They are therefore, invalid.
>
>
> Thanks for the book name, I had forgotten it.
>
> I do not see how those power levels fly in the face of canon or directly
> contradict it.
Oh really, you don't see high powered TLs only starting fires and barely
causing surface damage to be in any way contradictory to low powered
shots blowing up whole asteroids..... Interesting world you live in.
>
>>> 2c. There's a scene in The Empire Strikes Back where an ISD is
>>> shooting at asteroids. The pro-Wars faction claims that the
>>> asteroids were vaporized, and that the asteroid was on the order of
>>> dozens of meters wide. However, the vaporization hypothesis has no
>>> proof (we wouldn't be able to see even small fragments, much less
>>> vapor, but since vaporization means higher weapons energy, that's the
>>> chosen option).
>>
>>Actually blasting it to fragments and accellerating all fragments out of
>>frame so fast we cannot see them would require more energy than a simple
>>vaporization.
>
>
> There is no need to include speed to the fragments. There is no reason
> to posit the idea that they were accelerated out of frame. They could
> have been sitting there and we would not be able to detect them due to
> small size.
1) The fragments would have glowed due to heat from the blast.
Hence they would have been visible.
2) The fragments would have impacted the ship anyway and that much mass
impacting would still be a threat, or at least wear down shields alittle.
3) Did you even look at the explosion? Fragmentation to any significant
degree is not consistant.
>
>>> Further, there are various ways one can go about scaling the
>>> asteroid, and the pro-Wars faction will go to great lengths . . . even
>>> admitting extremely low weapons range due to turbolaser bolt
>>> "blooming" (i.e. diameter increase as the bolt travels, leading to
>>> weapon inefficiency at greater ranges) . . . to ignore the fact that
>>> the asteroid was on the order of five meters wide (if scaled off the
>>> known bolt width of the smallest turbolaser emplacements, as used in
>>> the Falcon chase scene later on in the same movie).
>>
>>Ah yes, the "The Flacon and the Turbolaser" fallacy. The bolt that hit
>>was more on the scale of a point defense weapon like a quad laser and
>>not a TL. Furthermore we have visual evidence of a weapon smaller than
>>LTLs mounted on ISDs. Furthermore we don't know even if it was a shot by
>>an ISD, it could have very well been a laser blast from a TIE. But keep
>>argueing your fallacy that it's a LTL bolt...
>
>
> Ooh, now you guys are naming contrary arguments "fallacies"?
> Wonderful!
No, we call false arguments and bad logic fallacies.
>
> I'll go look and see if and how the arguments continued after I left,
> but at last check way back when the arguments seemed to point toward
> LTLs and HTLs, with possible unspecified point-defense and a big maybe
> on MTLs.
Except we have visual, canon evidence that there are smaller weapons
mounted. Only Edam continues to argue that it's a LTL and Poe (I think)
has shown conclusively that it could not have been.
>
>>BTW *every* other scaling meathod agrees on a much larger size on the
>>asteroid, 20 meters or more I believe.
>
>
> Actually, *every* other scaling method does not agree on what you say it
> agrees on.
Well, it agrees to a degree. There is generally a few meters difference.
Still none make the leap that this claim does, a claim that has no real
backing or proof.
>
>
>>
>>> 2d. Another common example is a scene wherein an X-Wing fires down
>>> onto the Death Star surface, creating a massive explosion. Despite
>>> the fact that no other such large explostions are seen to result from
>>> similar weapons fire hits, some members of the pro-Wars faction claim
>>> that the explosion is entirely the result of Death Star armor
>>> vaporization, and thence construct extreme power levels for fighters.
>>> This ignores the singular nature of the event, as well as the entire
>>> concept of "secondary explosions" due to weapons emplacements, the
>>> storage of fuel or other volatiles, et cetera.
>>
>>Let's keep this about turbolasers shall we?
>
> Why? The question was about "Star Wars lasers" (i.e. beam weapons).
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> 3. That phasers are weak/ useless against shields / useless against
>>> dense armor. If you're a Trekker, you know enough examples on your
>>> own to realize the silly nature of such arguments.
>>
>>Yeah like neutronium....oops. Oh wait, you mean why Klingon and other
>>ships don't have heavy armor.....oops again. Oh wait, you mean the
>>massive amount of evidence about phaser power....oh wait that supports
>>the Pro-Wars side.
>
> Star Wars ships don't have neutronium hulls.
Actually Neutronium is a listed ingredient in ISD hull materials.
>Klingon and other ships
> do have armor, but we don't need it because we have fine shields and
> structural integrity fields that make our paper-thin hulls far stronger
> than wimpy ISD bridge tower armor (see
Yes, I was being sarcastic. I know Klingon ships have armor, I know the
Defiant class also is armored. However my point is that if armor is not
effective against phasers then why is it used?
> asteroid-shearing-off-the-bridge-tower scene in TESB versus the
> Jem'Hadar suicide run on the Odyssey in DS9). And when in the world
> did superior phaser power support Star Wars?
Oh you mean when the ISDs shields were down to allow for better
communications or were worn down by days of constant impacts? And you
compare a mostly hollow fighter ship (it has to be to contain crew and
equipment) most likely operating under an AMRE field to a dense, solid
asteroid and *then* claim ST hull superiority because of it?
>
>>> In short, it is quite possible to survive quite happily as a Trekker.
>>> Certain members of the pro-Wars faction will hound you as much as
>>> possible if you demonstrate the audacity to argue with them, but all
>>> you have to do is bear in mind that a lot of the arguments they make
>>> are flawed, and a lot of the calculations are based upon false
>>> assumptions/arguments/other calculations.
>>
>>Translation: You don't have to worry about such things as calcs and
>>logic, just pull stuff out of your ass and hold your hands to your ears
>>going, "LALALALALALALALAL" when any SW debator says anything to
>>contradict you. And above all, no matter how much proof is thrown your
>>way keep argueing the same disproven theory.
>
>
> Calculations in this game are based on assumptions. If your assumptions
> are faulty, so are your calculations. It's really quite simple . . . I
> do not understand why that concept eluded you.
Yes, but most of the SW assumptions are based on real physics.
>
> BTW, let me know when you disprove a pro-Trek theory (not one of Tim's
> or Elim's . . . I'm not sure they count as pro-Trek). I'll mark the
> historic occasion.
You mean the theory that ISDs don't have weapons smaller than a LTL? I
did that. I've blown away a few other theories now and then as well.
>
> Oh, and do remember that truth is not democratic. You may outnumber us
> here and hold the power base, but that doesn't make you right.
No, the calcs make us right.
>
>>> Of course, in my own opinion, we pro-Trek debaters are often like
>>> scientists engaging creationists in a debate . . . there are way more
>>> of them (of course, I'm stuck in the Bible Belt USA), and they fling
>>> such massive volumes of BS that there's a lot to wade through, and a
>>> lot of it looks almost decent, so long as you don't think about it too
>>> hard.
>>> :-)
>>
>>HAHAHAHAHAHAhaha, I think you have that backwards boy.
>
>
> Hardly. Certain pro-Wars debaters/authors share most if not all of
> their tactics with creationists.
I'd like some proof of that please.
SirNitram
Prove any of these statements. :) Then watch us put up Canon evidence
to prove you wrong. Laser cannon technology is plasma based, and has
been proven to have an upper limit of planet-destroying levels.
> >> 2. Star Wars lasers are more powerful than Star Trek phasers. Now,
> >> here is the tricky part. You'll mainly see it argued from several
> >> directions simultaneously, roughly encapsulated here:
> >
> >No "tricky part" just more powerful period.
>
> "Tricky part" = highly debatable part
>
> Or is that too biased, period? :-)
>
Yea, I suppose it's debatable how many orders of magnitude more
effective a single HTL bolt is than a full Phaser blast from a GCS. We
have the calc's. A single HTL blast is measured in gigatons, and is
NOT dependent on the target. So, while Phaser's drop their efficiency
to a few megawatt laser on armor, the TL is still going strong.
> >> 2a. Dodonna's comment in Star Wars that the Death Star had more
> >> firepower than half of the Imperial star fleet. From calculations
> >> given for the Death Star's weapons energy in the destruction of
> >> Alderaan, plus guesses at the number of ships in the Empire, people can
> >> finagle any desired outcome.
> >
> > Not really, it depends on whether you believe in extremely high fleet
> >numbers or extremely low fleet numbers. At any rate it still leaves Star
> >Destroyers capable of pulling off a BDZ.
>
>
> Only if that is supported and not overruled by the rest of canon, especially
> visuals. Also, it requires that the assumptions made in the calculations
> of Death Star firepower be correct.
>
> I do not think it satisfies sentence one. I have not yet gone in-depth
> with what's mentioned in sentence two.
>
Well, unfortunately 'I do not think' means very, very little in this
debate. Show a scrap of evidence that can override the sources from
which we know a ISD(And a VSD, in fact) can perform a BDZ. And I will
show you the Spectre of the Past/Vision of the Future
pair(Republic-era warships doing it, New Republic era ships doing it),
which are official and not contradicted anywhere.
> >> 2b. Base Delta Zero, an operation and an order not unlike Starfleet
> >> General Order 24 ("A Taste of Armageddon"[TOS]). In short, the
> >> civilization (cities, assets of production, et cetera) is wiped from
> >> the surface. Some Star Wars novelizations also refer to slagging the
> >> surface, rendering the tip-top of the crust molten. Other sources do
> >> not. No clear time frame has been offerred for the slagging, but
> >> you'll usually see extremely short time frames given by the pro-Wars
> >> faction based on a number of unproven suppositions.
> >
> >The more time it takes the more energy they actually have to apply to do
> >it. And there have been ample references that BDZs, even with slagging,
> >takes little time.
>
>
> On the first sentence:
>
> 1. Why? You can slag an area and move on.
>
The faster you do it, the less heat radiates away into the atmosphere.
So you need more power to do a long BDZ than a short one, plus the
power to intercept and blow away any escaping starships before they
make the jump to Lightspeed.
> 2. More time would result in less overall firepower, even if the overall
> energy input were higher.
>
Gonna prove it, or just make a vague statement?
> On the second sentence:
>
> I have not seen an unambiguous reference that says that slagging occurs in a
> short time frame, nor have I seen it specified just what this short time
> frame would be.
>
You could, of course, bang your brain cells together and realize that
if a fully civilized planet was vaporized, the only survivors being
off planet, it might occour to you that the timeframe MUST be short,
as SW transports achieve orbit in seconds.
> >>Also, if you want
> >> to go for absolute lowest limits, there was one book where *full-power*
> >> turbolaser bombardment of a planetary surface caused forest fires and
> >> left charred bodies, which is an altogether unimpressive feat.
> >> However, several of the members of this group like to argue by insult or
> >> intentionally misconstruing what you say (some almost exclusively argue
> >> that way), so be prepared for that when you bring up anything that
> >> doesn't support their view (like forest fires).
> >
> >Ah yes the "Darksaber" bullshit. The turbolaser power levels in this book,
> if even
> >assumed to be at max, fly in the face of canon, directly contradicting
> >it. They also contradict every other reference to turbolaser power
> >official or otherwise. They are therefore, invalid.
>
>
> Thanks for the book name, I had forgotten it.
>
> I do not see how those power levels fly in the face of canon or directly
> contradict it.
>
Cause the power exerted is far less than it should be.
> >> 2c. There's a scene in The Empire Strikes Back where an ISD is shooting
> >> at asteroids. The pro-Wars faction claims that the asteroids were
> >> vaporized, and that the asteroid was on the order of dozens of meters
> >> wide. However, the vaporization hypothesis has no proof (we wouldn't
> >> be able to see even small fragments, much less vapor, but since
> >> vaporization means higher weapons energy, that's the chosen option).
> >
> >Actually blasting it to fragments and accellerating all fragments out of
> >frame so fast we cannot see them would require more energy than a simple
> >vaporization.
>
>
> There is no need to include speed to the fragments. There is no reason to
> posit the idea that they were accelerated out of frame. They could have
> been sitting there and we would not be able to detect them due to small
> size.
>
This is a nice little attempt to kill the DS energy calc's. Allow me
to correct you, lad. Yes, we need the speed. Why? Because we aren't
talking about 'accelerating the fragments to escape velocity', which
is the bare-bones minimum to smoke a planet. Bare-bones. Alderaan was
not on this scale of power. It exploded like a bomb. From the speed of
the average fragments, we can determine the energy state the planet
was raised to. From that, we get the ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY BARE BONES
BARGAIN BASEMENT lower limit of the power used on it. Not counting
inefficiencies in the weapon, energy used overcoming the planetary
shield, and so forth.
> >> Further, there are various ways one can go about scaling the asteroid,
> >> and the pro-Wars faction will go to great lengths . . . even admitting
> >> extremely low weapons range due to turbolaser bolt "blooming" (i.e.
> >> diameter increase as the bolt travels, leading to weapon inefficiency at
> >> greater ranges) . . . to ignore the fact that the asteroid was on the
> >> order of five meters wide (if scaled off the known bolt width of the
> >> smallest turbolaser emplacements, as used in the Falcon chase scene
> >> later on in the same movie).
> >
> >Ah yes, the "The Flacon and the Turbolaser" fallacy. The bolt that hit
> >was more on the scale of a point defense weapon like a quad laser and not
> >a TL. Furthermore we have visual evidence of a weapon smaller than LTLs
> >mounted on ISDs. Furthermore we don't know even if it was a shot by an
> >ISD, it could have very well been a laser blast from a TIE. But keep
> >argueing your fallacy that it's a LTL bolt...
>
>
> Ooh, now you guys are naming contrary arguments "fallacies"? Wonderful!
>
> I'll go look and see if and how the arguments continued after I left, but at
> last check way back when the arguments seemed to point toward LTLs and HTLs,
> with possible unspecified point-defense and a big maybe on MTLs.
>
No, lad, we name fallacies fallacies. Read up on the subject of how to
debate honestly sometime.
> >BTW *every* other scaling meathod agrees on a much larger size on the
> >asteroid, 20 meters or more I believe.
>
>
> Actually, *every* other scaling method does not agree on what you say it
> agrees on.
>
Name the method, show the calc's, prove us wrong. Or shut up.
> >
> >>
> >> 2d. Another common example is a scene wherein an X-Wing fires down
> >> onto the Death Star surface, creating a massive explosion. Despite the
> >> fact that no other such large explostions are seen to result from
> >> similar weapons fire hits, some members of the pro-Wars faction claim
> >> that the explosion is entirely the result of Death Star armor
> >> vaporization, and thence construct extreme power levels for fighters.
> >> This ignores the singular nature of the event, as well as the entire
> >> concept of "secondary explosions" due to weapons emplacements, the
> >> storage of fuel or other volatiles, et cetera.
> >
> >Let's keep this about turbolasers shall we?
>
> Why? The question was about "Star Wars lasers" (i.e. beam weapons).
>
Turbolasers is the beam weapon to, yo-yo. Perhaps removing my grammer
will make it simpler for you to understand.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 3. That phasers are weak/ useless against shields / useless against
> >> dense armor. If you're a Trekker, you know enough examples on your
> >> own to realize the silly nature of such arguments.
> >
> >Yeah like neutronium....oops. Oh wait, you mean why Klingon and other
> >ships don't have heavy armor.....oops again. Oh wait, you mean the
> >massive amount of evidence about phaser power....oh wait that supports
> >the Pro-Wars side.
>
> Star Wars ships don't have neutronium hulls. Klingon and other ships do
> have armor, but we don't need it because we have fine shields and structural
> integrity fields that make our paper-thin hulls far stronger than wimpy ISD
> bridge tower armor (see asteroid-shearing-off-the-bridge-tower scene in TESB
> versus the Jem'Hadar suicide run on the Odyssey in DS9). And when in the
> world did superior phaser power support Star Wars?
>
*Far-reaking dies* Neutronium is a component in Imperial Star
Destroyer Armor. Official, never contradicted. According to ST canon,
that means phasers are all but useless against it. As for 'structural
integrity fields that make our paper-thin hulls far stronger than
wimpy ISD bridge tower armor', prove it. Yes, I said PROVE IT. Provide
Calc's that prove your precious SIF's are stronger. Then prove that a
simple ion cannon blast won't shut down the SIF so the ISD can laugh
as the ship tears itself apart from stress.
> >> In short, it is quite possible to survive quite happily as a Trekker.
> >> Certain members of the pro-Wars faction will hound you as much as
> >> possible if you demonstrate the audacity to argue with them, but all you
> >> have to do is bear in mind that a lot of the arguments they make are
> >> flawed, and a lot of the calculations are based upon false
> >> assumptions/arguments/other calculations.
> >
> >Translation: You don't have to worry about such things as calcs and
> >logic, just pull stuff out of your ass and hold your hands to your ears
> >going, "LALALALALALALALAL" when any SW debator says anything to
> >contradict you. And above all, no matter how much proof is thrown your
> >way keep argueing the same disproven theory.
>
>
> Calculations in this game are based on assumptions. If your assumptions are
> faulty, so are your calculations. It's really quite simple . . . I do not
> understand why that concept eluded you.
>
Show us the faulty calc's. Prove us wrong. Or shut the hell up.
> BTW, let me know when you disprove a pro-Trek theory (not one of Tim's or
> Elim's . . . I'm not sure they count as pro-Trek). I'll mark the historic
> occasion.
>
It's a daily thing, even a newbie like me sees it enough.
> Oh, and do remember that truth is not democratic. You may outnumber us here
> and hold the power base, but that doesn't make you right.
>
No, the calc's and evidence we provide make us right and make you
grumpy. Nice ad homimumememememem(Sp)
> >> Of course, in my own opinion, we pro-Trek debaters are often like
> >> scientists engaging creationists in a debate . . . there are way more
> >> of them (of course, I'm stuck in the Bible Belt USA), and they fling
> >> such massive volumes of BS that there's a lot to wade through, and a lot
> >> of it looks almost decent, so long as you don't think about it too hard.
> >> :-)
> >
> >HAHAHAHAHAHAhaha, I think you have that backwards boy.
>
>
> Hardly. Certain pro-Wars debaters/authors share most if not all of their
> tactics with creationists.
Gonna prove this statement or just flame some more? Yer pathetic. You
can't prove a single statement you made and you just resort to insults
and lies.
92knight
Destroyer Armor. Official, never contradicted. According to ST canon,
that means phasers are all but useless against it. As for 'structural
integrity fields that make our paper-thin hulls far stronger than
wimpy ISD bridge tower armor', prove it. Yes, I said PROVE IT. Provide
Calc's that prove your precious SIF's are stronger. Then prove that a
simple ion cannon blast won't shut down the SIF so the ISD can laugh
as the ship tears itself apart from stress.
YOU provide proof that he is wrong. Let us see YOUR calc's.
A. Polinger
> *Far-reaking dies* Neutronium is a component in Imperial Star
> Destroyer Armor. Official, never contradicted.
Except of course for the teensy weensy problem that it has the density of
packing material, of course. Unlike ST neutronium.
> According to ST canon,
> that means phasers are all but useless against it.
Yep - against neutronium that actually comes from neutron stars.
> As for 'structural
> integrity fields that make our paper-thin hulls far stronger than
> wimpy ISD bridge tower armor', prove it. Yes, I said PROVE IT. Provide
> Calc's that prove your precious SIF's are stronger.
Simple - the hull of E-D can reach 12,000 degrees without any problems.
ISD hulls receive major damage (with full shields on) from a few minutes
in a sun that's a bit bright.
BTW, presumably ISD bridge tower armor includes those huge and moronic
windows (yes, made out of that transparisteel crap). E-D's hull survived
uncontrolled re-entry and a very long skid along the ground. Didn't
buckle, we never saw it break, etc. While the bridge windows of an
Executor were broken by a relatively slowly moving fighter.
I will get you the calcs on this when I get home.
> Then prove that a
> simple ion cannon blast won't shut down the SIF so the ISD can laugh
> as the ship tears itself apart from stress.
Umm... They are not electricity based but work instead on plasma? ST
shields block ion blasts with ease?