"Ultimate" contains falsehood
Guardian2000
sake of convenience. Apologies if it is found to be confusing.)
A total falsehood perpetrated by UVD:
In the Troops section, we find under the Battle of Hoth
subsection the following, as the position of the Star Wars fan:
"Are you going to argue that phaser rifles would have ended the
battle
of Hoth? The Tech Manual says that against dense alloys (read:
armor),
a Type II phaser blast on maximum setting will be
"absorbed/rebounded". "
This is entirely false, and in numerous ways (see p. 136-7).
First, the only times absorption/rebound is mentioned are in
Phaser II Settings 10, 11, and 12 . . . maximum setting is 16.
Second, the only time the term "dense" is used in reference to
alloys is within the text for Phaser II Settings 11 and 12,
where the reference is to "ultradense". Third, in each of the
three mentioned power settings, the sentence referring to
absorbed/rebounded energy does not stop there, but gives the
number of fractions of a second before the material vaporizes.
Now, you'd think one such error would be sufficient . . . alas,
no. The UVD fellow must not only make further errors, but must
also (as is his habit) cop an attitude, and display a remarkably
undeserved arrogance. Let's watch:
"Wrong. Go read the manual again. Even on setting 16, a Type II
phaser's energy will have absolutely no effect on dense armor;
"absorbed/rebounded" is the term they use. It will "explosively
uncouple" 650 cubic metres of 6 g/cm^3 rock (remember that iron
is
about 36 g/cm^3), and the word "disintegrate" or "vaporize" is
nowhere
to be seen. Don't deliberately misquote the Technical Manual to
your
advantage- it only makes you look intellectually dishonest."
First we have a repetition of the earlier falsehood . . . then
we have an error in regards to the density of iron . . . then we
have yet another falsehood in reference to the term "vaporize".
Finally, we have the tactical error . . . that last sentence
only fits the UVD author.
Iron's density, by the way, is 7.86 g/cm^3. His figure for the
density of iron would put it at over three times the density of
Earth's core!
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Rob Dalton
argument is blown apart.
Dalton
Guardian2000
canon, and logic. I will be more than happy to admit error in
my calculations, hypotheses, theories, and whatnot . . . but I
must be *shown* this error.
I've been watching ASVS for some time, might I add, though I was
previously unable to post due to ISP peculiarities. Thus, I
apologize in advance if I take on a tone of familiarity with the
personalities here that seems unjustified. It's not.
Dalton
>
> I do hope the confidence you display can be backed up with fact,
> canon, and logic. I will be more than happy to admit error in
> my calculations, hypotheses, theories, and whatnot . . . but I
> must be *shown* this error.
>
It has already begun.
> I've been watching ASVS for some time, might I add, though I was
> previously unable to post due to ISP peculiarities. Thus, I
> apologize in advance if I take on a tone of familiarity with the
> personalities here that seems unjustified. It's not.
Damn, that means we can't break you :(
--
Dalton | AIM: RobPDalton | ICQ: 50342303
"A five-ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut!"
--Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Da ASVS Fanfic Archive: [http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380/fanfics]
Da ASVS FUQ: [http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380/fuq]
Guardian2000
>It has already begun.
What, by saying you gave my arguments about two weeks? Or are
you saying that you've all gotten together to work on this one?
I trust it's not the latter . . . I try to keep my ego as small
as possible.
>Damn, that means we can't break you :(
Now *there's* a good debating tactic. Sheesh! :-)
Rob Dalton
Guardian2000 <randers2...@ocean.otr.usm.edu.invalid> wrote:
>
>>It has already begun.
>
>What, by saying you gave my arguments about two weeks? Or are
>you saying that you've all gotten together to work on this one?
>I trust it's not the latter . . . I try to keep my ego as small
>as possible.
>
No, I just mean that people have started debating your page, but
I think I'll extend your grace period to a few months :) We
haven't had debate this interesting for a while.
>>Damn, that means we can't break you :(
>
>Now *there's* a good debating tactic. Sheesh! :-)
>
Hey, gotta break in the newbies somehow! It's how we give them
their thick skins.
Dalton
Wayne Poe
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Guardian2000 wrote:
[snip. Haven't got much free time these days; getting to the point:]
>"Are you going to argue that phaser rifles would have ended the
>battle of Hoth? The Tech Manual says that against dense alloys (read:
>armor), a Type II phaser blast on maximum setting will be "absorbed/rebounded". "
>This is entirely false, and in numerous ways (see p. 136-7).
>First, the only times absorption/rebound is mentioned are in
>Phaser II Settings 10, 11, and 12 . . . maximum setting is 16.
Oh my god!! Call the sheriff! You've found the Trekkie holy grail!! Too
bad you can't add flashing lights and an air siren to this post!
>Second, the only time the term "dense" is used in reference to
>alloys is within the text for Phaser II Settings 11 and 12,
>where the reference is to "ultradense".
Why yes, you're right. You can have a cookie on me.
>Third, in each of the three mentioned power settings, the sentence referring to
>absorbed/rebounded energy does not stop there,
But the post does, and is therefore not wrong.
>Now, you'd think one such error would be sufficient . . . alas,
>no. The UVD fellow must not only make further errors, but must
>also (as is his habit) cop an attitude, and display a remarkably
>undeserved arrogance.
Oh, PLEASE go fuck yourself.
>"Wrong. Go read the manual again. Even on setting 16, a Type II
>phaser's energy will have absolutely no effect on dense armor;
>"absorbed/rebounded" is the term they use. It will "explosively
>uncouple" 650 cubic metres of 6 g/cm^3 rock (remember that iron
>is about 36 g/cm^3), and the word "disintegrate" or "vaporize" is
>nowhere to be seen. Don't deliberately misquote the Technical Manual to
>your advantage- it only makes you look intellectually dishonest."
>First we have a repetition of the earlier falsehood . . . then
>we have an error in regards to the density of iron . . . then we
>have yet another falsehood in reference to the term "vaporize".
Well, I just read the TM, and lo and behold, the word "vaporize" IS
nowhere to be seen in reference to setting 16.
>Iron's density, by the way, is 7.86 g/cm^3.
Yes, admittedly, this is another error. I don't know what the original
poster was trying to say, but I can find out:
"If I said the density of iron was 36 g/cm^3, it must have been a careless
error. All of the figures on my site have always said 7870 kg/m^3, which is
7.87 g/cm^3. In any case, that's clearly MUCH higher than 650 kg/m^3, which
is the figure for rock that is "explosively uncoupled"."
I'll change these soon and give you full credit, Scott. As I always do to
those that point out errors on my site. I find a few, such as incorrect
episode names, but there are more that I don't see, including grammatical
errors.
The MF maneuvering numbers however, stand. I'll keep the correct numbers.
You do what you will on your site.
Guardian2000
>Oh my god!! Call the sheriff! You've found the Trekkie holy
grail!! Too
>bad you can't add flashing lights and an air siren to this post!
Yeah, RemarQ wouldn't let me add the animated gifs. :-)
>>Third, in each of the three mentioned power settings, the
sentence referring to
>>absorbed/rebounded energy does not stop there,
>
>But the post does, and is therefore not wrong.
What post? I'm talking about what the Technical Manual says,
which is precisely what you were describing.
>
>>Now, you'd think one such error would be sufficient . . . alas,
>>no. The UVD fellow must not only make further errors, but must
>>also (as is his habit) cop an attitude, and display a
remarkably
>>undeserved arrogance.
>
>Oh, PLEASE go fuck yourself.
Just going by what's on your site, dude.
>
>>"Wrong. Go read the manual again. Even on setting 16, a Type II
>>phaser's energy will have absolutely no effect on dense armor;
>>"absorbed/rebounded" is the term they use. It will "explosively
>>uncouple" 650 cubic metres of 6 g/cm^3 rock (remember that iron
>>is about 36 g/cm^3), and the word "disintegrate" or "vaporize"
is
>>nowhere to be seen. Don't deliberately misquote the Technical
Manual to
>>your advantage- it only makes you look intellectually
dishonest."
>
>>First we have a repetition of the earlier falsehood . . . then
>>we have an error in regards to the density of iron . . . then
we
>>have yet another falsehood in reference to the term "vaporize".
>
>Well, I just read the TM, and lo and behold, the
word "vaporize" IS
>nowhere to be seen in reference to setting 16.
>
I wasn't referring to setting 16, I was referring to 10, 11, and
12. However, I should have made that more clear.
>I'll change these soon and give you full credit, Scott. As I
always do to
>those that point out errors on my site. I find a few, such as
incorrect
>episode names, but there are more that I don't see, including
grammatical
>errors.
Exquisite. I shall revise my site also.
>The MF maneuvering numbers however, stand. I'll keep the
correct numbers.
>You do what you will on your site.
How did you figure up your numbers? I'm just curious why you
feel my method was flawed.
Wayne Poe
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Guardian2000 wrote:
>>> Third, in each of the three mentioned power settings, the sentence
>>> referring to absorbed/rebounded energy does not stop there,
>> But the post does, and is therefore not wrong.
> What post? I'm talking about what the Technical Manual says,
> which is precisely what you were describing.
Missed point number one.
>>> Now, you'd think one such error would be sufficient . . . alas,
>>> no. The UVD fellow must not only make further errors, but must
>>> also (as is his habit) cop an attitude, and display a remarkably
>>> undeserved arrogance.
>> Oh, PLEASE go fuck yourself.
> Just going by what's on your site, dude.
Missed point number two.
>>> First we have a repetition of the earlier falsehood . . . then
>>> we have an error in regards to the density of iron . . . then
>>> we have yet another falsehood in reference to the term "vaporize".
>> Well, I just read the TM, and lo and behold, the word "vaporize" IS
>> nowhere to be seen in reference to setting 16.
> I wasn't referring to setting 16, I was referring to 10, 11, and
> 12. However, I should have made that more clear.
I agree.