[TECH] This neutronium issue
His Divine Shadow {PHX}
and has a
reddish color.
This has been used to claim that SW neutronium is not RL neutronium.
Honestly I dont have any of the sources where neutronium
has been mentioned, so I dont know what to make of this.
Sir Nitram
I've no idea where the reddish colour comes from, but SW neutronium has traits
that make it different from RL neutronium. It can be made lighter,
apparantly(Dura-Armour), it's naturally heavy and in neutron stars(Rebel Dawn),
and can be found outside Neutron Stars.
Of course, the same is found in ST Neutronium, as a chunk of Neutronium outside
it's neutron star flew by the Main Character Ship once, and it's been found in
doorways/structures/ships without any adverse gravity fields, only the downside
of completely negating phasers.
------------------------------------
SirNitram
ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius
"We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours
again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!"
-Last words of the Beast.
His Divine Shadow {PHX}
traits
> that make it different from RL neutronium. It can be made lighter,
> apparantly(Dura-Armour),
Contains small amounts of neutronium most likely.
> it's naturally heavy and in neutron stars(Rebel Dawn),
Thats like RL then.
> and can be found outside Neutron Stars.
Thats weird, possibility of exploding neutron star flinging small chunks of
it across the universe?
That reddish thing found in that planet, or moon, could have simply been
very very miniscule
amounts of neutronium, individual atoms perhaps?
Sir Nitram
There's the rub, RL neutronium can't exist outside it's star. Of course, both
ST and SW neutronium can, so I continue to think those who demand they can't be
the same are crackheads.
Guardian 2000
"His Divine Shadow {PHX}" <denni...@pp.inet.fi> wrote in message
news:k4rV7.154$571....@read2.inet.fi...
Here's some stuff from a recent message in another thread. Might be of
interest to you:
In a prior thread on the topic, the fact that neutronium could be held
together by way of finely-tuned graviton-based shielding was established.
As I recall, the Rabid Warsie position was "oh, yeah, well we can do it,
too!", despite the fact that your neutronium comes from a moon.
**********
The Carbon-neutronium alloy of the Dyson Sphere is perplexing, but not
necessarily impossible. After all, whoever built it was capable of far
greater engineering feats than either the Federation or the Empire. They
could very well fulfill Arthur C. Clarke's comment that "any sufficiently
advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." But, under the
presumption that there is method to the madness:
If we take http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Size.html to be
accurate, the material of the Dyson Sphere would have to be some 10,000
times stronger than 20th Century steel, at least.
Further, we do not know the nature of the neutronium in the Dyson Sphere
shell. Within real neutron stars, there are points in the region of the
inner crust (on the boundary of the core) which can contain both neutron
superfluid as well as protons, electrons, et cetera. Deeper in, subatomic
particles simply break down into neutronium. See the following:
http://www.th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~hanauske/pics/NStar_l.gif
The Carbon-Neutronium alloy of the Dyson Sphere may not be an alloy in the
classical sense (i.e. melt two things together), but may merely be a
"frozen" form of this superfluidic neutronium with carbon (which could refer
to anything from simple carbon atoms to buckminsterfullerenes) interspersed.
It would be easier to maintain this form of neutronium with graviton-based
forcefields, I would think, than the undifferentiated neutrons as found in
the core of a neutron star, as the pressure requirements would be very much
lower.
Of course, as the episode did not go into detail about the containment of
the neutronium, the above is only a workable hypothesis.
Again, the fact that your neutronium is found on a moon is the paramount
issue. Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until
it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and cannot
possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. Since Star Wars
neutronium has already demonstrated properties that are absolutely
impossible and cannot possibly be explained (the moon mining), it must not
be the same as real-world neutronium.
Sir Nitram
>it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and cannot
>possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. Since Star Wars
>neutronium has already demonstrated properties that are absolutely
>impossible and cannot possibly be explained (the moon mining), it must not
>be the same as real-world neutronium.
>
*Giggle* Oh, look, it's the return of the 'Any excuse can be made for Trek but
everything must be face value for Wars' fallacy. Why am I not surprised G2K
revived it.
Lord Edam de Fromage
Divine Shadow {PHX}
> I've heard plenty of times people saying that SW neutronium exists in moons
> and has a
> reddish color.
SW neutronium was found in a vein of reddish material on a moon
according to Cracken's Field Guide (IIRC - search for posts from
Rvalencia to this newsgroup last year for the full qoute).
Beyond the fact that it is used in starship's armour this is the only
reference we have to SW neutronium.
We have no knowledge of its natural physical properties.
Some people (most often Kynes, though SirNitram has started doing the
same) will often try to pass off false information, but it's been
pointed out before that he is engaged in circular reasoning.
K>SW neutronium:
K>
K>-> Comes from neutron stars ("Rebel Dawn")
K>-> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn
K>-> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor
The first point (Comes from neutron stars - reference Rebel Dawn) points
to the fact that Rebel Dawn has two ships flying close to a neutron
star. This material is never described as neutronium in the source, and
is merely assumed to be such.
In the context of the discussion the above quote is taken from this is,
in actual fact, circular reasoning. Guardian questions whether SW
neutronium was the real thing, and Kynes' first piece of evidence
included the assumption that SW neutronium is the real thing.
However, once you think about it a little you will realise the
discussion is largely irrelevant. SW neutronium alloys are shown to have
specific thermal and mechanical properties. If ST weaponry can be
demonstrated to have greater thermal and mechanical effects than those
properties ST weaponry WILL be effective against SW neutronium alloys
(unless you want to start throwing every basis for scientific comparison
out the window)
--
Lord Edam de Fromage
aka Sorborus
www.trek-wars.co.uk
Expect arguments about what the words mean since when people
discuss the meaning of words instead of simply using them they
generally forget about context and duplication. -- C. Fiterman, aam
Sir Nitram
>reference we have to SW neutronium.
Flip through Vector Prime, it's got a reference there that is roughly the same
as 'What am I, built like a Sherman Tank?' proving Neutronium is a common
enough armour substance to enter casual language... Of course, Edam and
Guardian ignore this...
Lord Edam de Fromage
Nitram
> >Beyond the fact that it is used in starship's armour this is the only
> >reference we have to SW neutronium.
>
> Flip through Vector Prime, it's got a reference there that is roughly the same
> as 'What am I, built like a Sherman Tank?' proving Neutronium is a common
> enough armour substance to enter casual language... Of course, Edam and
> Guardian ignore this...
As anyone who read my posts for comprehension rather than an excuse to
show their stupidity could see, I already accept that SW uses a material
called neutronium in its armour. Infact, I admit as much in the part
quoted above.
This doesn't change the fact that the only references we have to SW
neutronium is its use in armour, and its existance on a moon.
This doesn't change the fact that we know nothing of the natural
physical properties of SW neutronium.
This doesn't change the fact that the only way to prove SW neutronium is
The Real Thing is to engage in a classic example of circular reasoning.
Kynes
<$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote:
>The first point (Comes from neutron stars - reference Rebel Dawn) points
>to the fact that Rebel Dawn has two ships flying close to a neutron
>star. This material is never described as neutronium in the source, and
>is merely assumed to be such.
Neutron stars are composed of neutronium by definition. That's like saying "the
ocean was never described to be composed of water, so it wasn't."
--
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
Durandal
> Again, the fact that your neutronium is found on a moon is the paramount
> issue. Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until
> it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and cannot
> possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. Since Star Wars
> neutronium has already demonstrated properties that are absolutely
> impossible and cannot possibly be explained (the moon mining), it must not
> be the same as real-world neutronium.
No, the fact that neutronium is found somewhere BUT a neutron star is
the issue. Star Trek neutronium can't be the same as real world
neutronium, either, because neutronium can't exist outside of the
immense pressures of a neutron star. Neither can Star Wars neutronium.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Star Wars neutronium can't
be the same stuff as real life, neither can Star Trek's.
--
Damien Sorresso
[AIM: durandal64] [ICQ: 12183859]
Nobody knows everything.
I am nobody.
Therefore, I know everything.
Guardian 2000
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
news:20011223171511...@mb-fc.aol.com...
> >Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until
> >it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and cannot
> >possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. Since Star
Wars
> >neutronium has already demonstrated properties that are absolutely
> >impossible and cannot possibly be explained (the moon mining), it must
not
> >be the same as real-world neutronium.
> >
>
> *Giggle* Oh, look, it's the return of the 'Any excuse can be made for Trek
but
> everything must be face value for Wars' fallacy. Why am I not surprised
G2K
> revived it.
I would grant Star Wars neutronium the same assumption of reality, but it
has already gone beyond what is possible.
What you would like to claim as bias is in fact simply empirical data.
G2k
Guardian 2000
"Durandal" <duran...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:3C267B71...@mac.com...
> Guardian 2000 wrote:
>
>
> > Again, the fact that your neutronium is found on a moon is the paramount
> > issue. Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and
until
> > it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and
cannot
> > possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. Since Star
Wars
> > neutronium has already demonstrated properties that are absolutely
> > impossible and cannot possibly be explained (the moon mining), it must
not
> > be the same as real-world neutronium.
>
> No, the fact that neutronium is found somewhere BUT a neutron star is
> the issue. Star Trek neutronium can't be the same as real world
> neutronium, either, because neutronium can't exist outside of the
> immense pressures of a neutron star. Neither can Star Wars neutronium.
> You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Star Wars neutronium can't
> be the same stuff as real life, neither can Star Trek's.
>
You're missing an important distinction. Star Trek neutronium, when found
outside a neutron star, is found in technologically advanced settings,
manufactured into doors, planet killers, Dyson Spheres, et cetera, with
who-knows-what technological underpinning allowing it to continue to exist
as neutronium (the graviton-based forcefield idea, though a reasonable
hypothesis, remains a hypothesis, and one of several possible hypotheses).
On the other hand, Star Wars neutronium is found outside of neutron stars in
altogether common places, such as just beneath the surface of moons, with no
explanation of its survival there, nor even the recognition that anything is
wrong. Hell, the very fact that there's neutronium present on the moon
ought to wreak havoc with the moon's structure, as well as make *it* that
about which the planet (and depending on the concentration, the star itself)
ought to revolve.
That's the difference.
G2k
Guardian 2000
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
> >Beyond the fact that it is used in starship's armour this is the only
> >reference we have to SW neutronium.
>
> Flip through Vector Prime, it's got a reference there that is roughly the
same
> as 'What am I, built like a Sherman Tank?' proving Neutronium is a common
> enough armour substance to enter casual language... Of course, Edam and
> Guardian ignore this...
> ------------------------------------
Well, whooptee-doo . . . it's common enough to enter casual language!
Hell's bells,
Trekkers, close up shop! Sir Nitram has demonstrated beyond a doubt that
SW
neutronium is real neutronium straight from a neutron star to a theatre near
you!
G2k
Guardian 2000
"Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
news:rGAmPBBrCVpb8C...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:43:21 -0000, Lord Edam de Fromage
> <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >The first point (Comes from neutron stars - reference Rebel Dawn) points
> >to the fact that Rebel Dawn has two ships flying close to a neutron
> >star. This material is never described as neutronium in the source, and
> >is merely assumed to be such.
>
> Neutron stars are composed of neutronium by definition. That's like saying
"the
> ocean was never described to be composed of water, so it wasn't."
Do you have quotes, Ian, or are you just going to babble on?
G2k
Kynes
>> Neutron stars are composed of neutronium by definition. That's like saying
>"the
>> ocean was never described to be composed of water, so it wasn't."
>
>Do you have quotes, Ian, or are you just going to babble on?
"In fact, not only is the neutron stable, but under these circumstances the
proton becomes unstable against electron capture, so the electrons at the center
disappear into protons forming "neutronium" and the electrons away from the
center with no support fall down. Now it gets even worse. The central density
rises faster and faster and within seconds the thousand km radius white dwarf
becomes a 10 km radius ball of neutronium, a neutron star."
- http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/ross/ph227/evolve/whitey.htm
There you are. Proof of what was already known; that neutron stars are composed
of neutronium.
--
-LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]
"I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster.
I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts
of the Star Wars series."
- net.movies, 6/8/1982
Sir Nitram
*Roars with laughter* Right. It's beyond what's possible for Wars, despite
their having far more advanced gravity control. Hint: We did this last time,
and you lost.
Sir Nitram
Pretty much. The neutronium cache could easily be from a crashed starship.
Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those. You've shown
no proof, except for dodges where you give Trek massively more leeway, showing
your obvious bias. So yes, there is neutronium in Wars hulls, and it's the same
thing as the stuff that stops Fed weapons. Will it be enough to stop all
damage? Doubt it, it's probably only a monomolelcular layer to cause NDF-style
weapons to be ineffective. Oh well, Trek always has to depend on Torps for
heavy hitting power anyways.
Cry
<denni...@pp.inet.fi> wrote:
>I've heard plenty of times people saying that SW neutronium exists in moons
>and has a
>reddish color.
Is that the actual neutronium or the neutronium ore?
Cheers,
Cry
Durandal
> You're missing an important distinction. Star Trek neutronium, when found
> outside a neutron star, is found in technologically advanced settings,
> manufactured into doors, planet killers, Dyson Spheres, et cetera, with
> who-knows-what technological underpinning allowing it to continue to exist
> as neutronium (the graviton-based forcefield idea, though a reasonable
> hypothesis, remains a hypothesis, and one of several possible hypotheses).
>
> On the other hand, Star Wars neutronium is found outside of neutron stars in
> altogether common places, such as just beneath the surface of moons, with no
> explanation of its survival there, nor even the recognition that anything is
> wrong. Hell, the very fact that there's neutronium present on the moon
> ought to wreak havoc with the moon's structure, as well as make *it* that
> about which the planet (and depending on the concentration, the star itself)
> ought to revolve.
If you're worried about realism and neutronium, then have you ever
thought about the amount of energy it would take to generate a
forcefield capable of simulating the immense pressures found in neutron
stars? Do you even have the slightest clue about what the consequences
of a graviton force field would be, or are you just throwing around
technobabble? The presence of neutronium on starship hulls and Dyson
Spheres would have just a many noticeable effects as the presence of it
on moons.
Durandal
No such thing as "neutronium ore." It only occures in neutron stars, and
it's just there. No ore, just neutronium.
C.S.Strowbridge
> Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until
> it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and
> cannot possibly be explained
And that's been shown. Neither SW nor ST Neutronium have the same
properties as RL Neutronium.
http://members.home.net/strowbridge/ASVS/PTopics/PR35.html
C.S.Strowbridge
Guardian 2000
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
A. I did not lose. The Rabid Warsie inability to comprehend the
difference of control between a laser and a lightbulb amuses me to this day.
B. Advanced gravity control would not be present in the moons from which SW
neutronium is mined.
G2k
Guardian 2000
The Doomsday Machine chopped up entire star systems for fuel. I figure
that would be a good start for producing whatever power was necessary to
hold it together.
> Do you even have the slightest clue about what the consequences
> of a graviton force field would be, or are you just throwing around
> technobabble?
Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was looking into
using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he was
planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion sufficient to
incapacitate them.
> The presence of neutronium on starship hulls and Dyson
> Spheres would have just a many noticeable effects as the presence of it
> on moons.
Why? The field distortion, sufficiently localized, could be cancelled out
on the opposite side. Further, when would we have noticed? It's not
like Kirk stood on the hull of the planet killer as one would stand upon a
moon.
G2k
Guardian 2000
"C.S.Strowbridge" <csstro...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3C26B5F6...@shaw.ca...
The arguments on your page have been shown false in this thread.
G2k
Guardian 2000
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
> >"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
> >news:20011223174400...@mb-ch.aol.com...
> >> >Beyond the fact that it is used in starship's armour this is the only
> >> >reference we have to SW neutronium.
> >>
> >> Flip through Vector Prime, it's got a reference there that is roughly
the
> >same
> >> as 'What am I, built like a Sherman Tank?' proving Neutronium is a
common
> >> enough armour substance to enter casual language... Of course, Edam and
> >> Guardian ignore this...
> >> ------------------------------------
> >
> >Well, whooptee-doo . . . it's common enough to enter casual language!
> >Hell's bells,
> >Trekkers, close up shop! Sir Nitram has demonstrated beyond a doubt
that
> >SW
> >neutronium is real neutronium straight from a neutron star to a theatre
near
> >you!
> >
>
> Pretty much. The neutronium cache could easily be from a crashed starship.
A crashed starship would no longer generate the fields necessary to contain
the neutronium, if it were real. A crashed starship would not have broken
up in the first place if it had a pure (or even impure) hull made of real
neutronium.
> Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those.
No, SW neutronium comes from moons.
> You've shown
> no proof, except for dodges where you give Trek massively more leeway,
showing
> your obvious bias.
I'd happily give Star Wars the very same amount of leeway, but for the fact
that its neutronium comes from moons, and is therefore not true neutronium.
> So yes, there is neutronium in Wars hulls, and it's the same
> thing as the stuff that stops Fed weapons.
I await your proof of this notion.
> Will it be enough to stop all
> damage? Doubt it, it's probably only a monomolelcular layer to cause
NDF-style
> weapons to be ineffective.
Solid neutronium, neutronium-based alloys (i.e. neutronium is a primary
constituent), and carbon-neutronium alloy (where we may assume that they are
the only constituents, meaning that neutronium makes up a significant
fraction of the alloy) have been stated as stopping phasers.
Whatever paltry amount is in ISD hulls might be enough to give the hull a
little resilience, but only in those few areas where there'd be any
neutronium. Since everything around the rare little bits of neutronium
would be boiled or blown away, it would hardly do any good.
> Oh well, Trek always has to depend on Torps for heavy hitting power
anyways.
Oh, yes, and statements by Weyoun have indicated that quantum torpedoes may
be able to damage neutronium structures.
G2k
Guardian 2000
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 20:05:10 -0600, "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >> Neutron stars are composed of neutronium by definition. That's like
saying
> >"the
> >> ocean was never described to be composed of water, so it wasn't."
> >
> >Do you have quotes, Ian, or are you just going to babble on?
>
> "In fact, not only is the neutron stable, but under these circumstances
the
> proton becomes unstable against electron capture, so the electrons at the
center
> disappear into protons forming "neutronium" and the electrons away from
the
> center with no support fall down. Now it gets even worse. The central
density
> rises faster and faster and within seconds the thousand km radius white
dwarf
> becomes a 10 km radius ball of neutronium, a neutron star."
>
> - http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/ross/ph227/evolve/whitey.htm
>
> There you are. Proof of what was already known; that neutron stars are
composed
> of neutronium.
Pardon me, dumbass, but I refer to quotes from "Rebel Dawn".
Or should I assume that the answer to my question is "No, Guardian, not at
all."
G2k
Durandal
>>If you're worried about realism and neutronium, then have you ever
>>thought about the amount of energy it would take to generate a
>>forcefield capable of simulating the immense pressures found in neutron
>>stars?
>>
>
> The Doomsday Machine chopped up entire star systems for fuel. I figure
> that would be a good start for producing whatever power was necessary to
> hold it together.
If the Doomsday machine were made of neutronium, the Constitution would
have been crushed when it entered it so quickly it wouldn't have had
time to explode. Furthermore, a pithy warpcore breach wouldn't have
dented it.
>>Do you even have the slightest clue about what the consequences
>>of a graviton force field would be, or are you just throwing around
>>technobabble?
>>
>
> Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was looking into
> using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he was
> planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion sufficient to
> incapacitate them.
That's a pathetic attempt at a dodge. Do you even know what a graviton
is without looking on Google and pasting the definition? I do.
> Why? The field distortion, sufficiently localized, could be cancelled out
> on the opposite side. Further, when would we have noticed? It's not
> like Kirk stood on the hull of the planet killer as one would stand upon a
> moon.
Wrong. The graviton field is precisely what would CAUSE the effects I'm talking about.
Wayne Poe
"Lord Edam de Fromage" <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote
> SW neutronium was found in a vein of reddish material on a moon
> according to Cracken's Field Guide (IIRC - search for posts from
> Rvalencia to this newsgroup last year for the full qoute).
SW RPG: "Cracken's Threat Dossier"
pg.12: The Quelii sector - home to Dathomir - comes under the control of
Warlord Zsinj. While fearing the Nightsisters destructive power, Zsinj is
unwilling to waste a large portion of his fleet guarding a relatively
unimportant planet. As luck would have it, a remarkable find is made on
Koratas, Dathomir's fourth moon. Digging through the thick, red - tinted
soil, Imperial scientists stumble across several rich veins of neutronium,
lommite and zersium. These minerals are the primary components in the alloy
known as durasteel, the most common warship - grade armour used in Imperial
ship construction. Excited by the discovery, Zsinj moved all his
shipbuilding facilities to Dathomir, producing huge docks of scaffolding
that stretched over ten kilometers in length. Since the Star Destroyers
would have to guard the shipyard anyway, they could also keep watch over the
planet . . .and the Nightsisters. (Quote from Christopher G. McElroy's
execellent SW:Timetales May 2000 edition)
Interesting. If it weren't for that "remarkable" find, Zsinj wouldn't have
moved ALL his shipbuilding facilities to Dathomir. I don't have the entire
"Cracken's Threat Dossier", but it would be interesting to read through to
see if there are any other relevant passages.
> Beyond the fact that it is used in starship's armour this is the only
> reference we have to SW neutronium.
Neutronium is also said to be a heavy metallic element used in the formation
of not only dura-armor, but durasteel as well. (SWSB, RD,)
> We have no knowledge of its natural physical properties.
We have no knowledge of the exact natural physical properties of the heavy
metallic element that is used in dura-armor and durasteel.
> Some people (most often Kynes, though SirNitram has started doing the
> same) will often try to pass off false information, but it's been
> pointed out before that he is engaged in circular reasoning.
No, what Kynes and Sir Nitram are pointing out is the base hypocrisy when ST
neutronium is rolled out by the Trekkies.
> K>SW neutronium:
> K>
> K>-> Comes from neutron stars ("Rebel Dawn")
> K>-> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn
> K>-> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor
>
> The first point (Comes from neutron stars - reference Rebel Dawn) points
> to the fact that Rebel Dawn has two ships flying close to a neutron
> star. This material is never described as neutronium in the source, and
> is merely assumed to be such.
Kynes pointed out that neutron stars exist in SW. He never said anything (to
my knowledge) that stated that neutronium was mined from that star in Rebel
Dawn.
> In the context of the discussion the above quote is taken from this is,
> in actual fact, circular reasoning. Guardian questions whether SW
> neutronium was the real thing, and Kynes' first piece of evidence
> included the assumption that SW neutronium is the real thing.
Nope. As Kynes has pointed out before:
Sometimes SW neutronium is dense and in stars (Rebel Dawn)
Sometimes ST neutronium is dense and in stars (Evolution)
Sometimes SW neutronium is seemingly light and not in stars (Imperial armor)
Sometimes ST neutronium is seemingly light and not in stars (Iconian temple)
The answer for ST? Technology
The answer for SW? The same.
> However, once you think about it a little you will realise the
> discussion is largely irrelevant. SW neutronium alloys are shown to have
> specific thermal and mechanical properties. If ST weaponry can be
> demonstrated to have greater thermal and mechanical effects than those
> properties ST weaponry WILL be effective against SW neutronium alloys
> (unless you want to start throwing every basis for scientific comparison
> out the window)
No need. We just have to avoid throwing out canon. In at least three
instances, it has been stated that a neutronium alloy is impervious to ST
weaponry. This same correlation is found in "cotorsis ore" (sp?) in SW,
which stops TLs and lightsabers. I don't know what kind of material the
Massassi temple was made of, but canonically, it can withstand TLs too.
Wayne Poe
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote
> Pretty much. The neutronium cache could easily be from a crashed starship.
I no longer think that's the case, although the Jedi trainee ship Chu'unthor
crashed on Dathomir. Take a good look at the passage from "Cracken's Threat
Dossier"
pg.12: The Quelii sector - home to Dathomir - comes under the control of
Warlord Zsinj. While fearing the Nightsisters destructive power, Zsinj is
unwilling to waste a large portion of his fleet guarding a relatively
unimportant planet. As luck would have it, a remarkable find is made on
Koratas, Dathomir's fourth moon. Digging through the thick, red - tinted
soil, Imperial scientists stumble across several rich veins of neutronium,
lommite and zersium. These minerals are the primary components in the alloy
known as durasteel, the most common warship - grade armour used in Imperial
ship construction. Excited by the discovery, Zsinj moved all his
shipbuilding facilities to Dathomir, producing huge docks of scaffolding
that stretched over ten kilometers in length. Since the Star Destroyers
would have to guard the shipyard anyway, they could also keep watch over the
planet . . .and the Nightsisters.
Doesn't it seem strange that Zsinj just "happens" upon that "remarkable"
find, near a place he didn't want to be in the first place? The Nightsisters
were screwing with the Imps at the garrison for a long time in CoPL. This
may have been yet another ploy to keep Zsinj in-system, so the Nightsisters
could get off the planet Palpatine imprisoned them on.
> Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those.
Stellar neutronium does. Neutronium used in SW ships is described as a heavy
metallic element in the SWSB and RD. Its the same with ST. They don't use RL
or stellar neutronium in their structures or ships either.
[snippo]
Guardian 2000
> Guardian 2000 wrote:
>
>
> >>If you're worried about realism and neutronium, then have you ever
> >>thought about the amount of energy it would take to generate a
> >>forcefield capable of simulating the immense pressures found in neutron
> >>stars?
> >>
> >
> > The Doomsday Machine chopped up entire star systems for fuel. I figure
> > that would be a good start for producing whatever power was necessary to
> > hold it together.
>
>
> If the Doomsday machine were made of neutronium, the Constitution would
> have been crushed when it entered it so quickly it wouldn't have had
> time to explode. Furthermore, a pithy warpcore breach wouldn't have
> dented it.
First, you ignore the concept of neutronium containment.
Second, it was the impulse reactor, not a warp core.
> >>Do you even have the slightest clue about what the consequences
> >>of a graviton force field would be, or are you just throwing around
> >>technobabble?
> >>
> >
> > Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was looking
into
> > using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he was
> > planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion sufficient
to
> > incapacitate them.
>
> That's a pathetic attempt at a dodge.
Um, no . . . you asked about the consequences of a graviton force field as
if they'd never been seen before. I pointed out that they have. There's
no reason to assume that the consequences would be any different than those
seen in common Federation applications of graviton-based shielding.
> Do you even know what a graviton is without looking on Google and pasting
the definition? I do.
Do you even know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground?
> > Why? The field distortion, sufficiently localized, could be cancelled
out
> > on the opposite side. Further, when would we have noticed? It's not
> > like Kirk stood on the hull of the planet killer as one would stand upon
a
> > moon.
>
> Wrong. The graviton field is precisely what would CAUSE the effects I'm
talking about.
Oh, look, you utterly failed to read what you replied to, and (gasp!) it
answers your question already! I'm not surprised.
G2k
Wayne Poe
"Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote
> > Pretty much. The neutronium cache could easily be from a crashed
starship.
> A crashed starship would no longer generate the fields necessary to
contain
> the neutronium, if it were real. A crashed starship would not have
broken
> up in the first place if it had a pure (or even impure) hull made of real
> neutronium.
Why not? The PK in "Doomsday Machine" was dead in space, no power at the
end, yet the Enterprise didn't suddenly mash itself against its hull.
> > Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those.
>
> No, SW neutronium comes from moons.
Proof?
> > You've shown no proof, except for dodges where you give Trek massively
more leeway,
> > showing your obvious bias.
> I'd happily give Star Wars the very same amount of leeway, but for the
fact
> that its neutronium comes from moons, and is therefore not true
neutronium.
Proof?
> > So yes, there is neutronium in Wars hulls, and it's the same thing as
the stuff that stops Fed weapons.
> I await your proof of this notion.
Sorry, you'll have to prove your assumption above.
> > Will it be enough to stop all damage? Doubt it, it's probably only a
monomolelcular layer to cause
> NDF-style weapons to be ineffective.
> Solid neutronium, neutronium-based alloys (i.e. neutronium is a primary
> constituent), and carbon-neutronium alloy (where we may assume that they
are
> the only constituents, meaning that neutronium makes up a significant
> fraction of the alloy) have been stated as stopping phasers.
> Whatever paltry amount is in ISD hulls might be enough to give the hull a
> little resilience,
Which is what Sir Nitram said above.
> but only in those few areas where there'd be any
> neutronium.
Those *few* areas? Neutronium is a heavy metallic element used in the
formation of dura-armor and durasteel. (SWSB, RD)
> Since everything around the rare little bits of neutronium
> would be boiled or blown away, it would hardly do any good.
Since that "everything" comprises the entire hull of the ship, I doubt that
will be a problem.
> > Oh well, Trek always has to depend on Torps for heavy hitting power
> anyways.
> Oh, yes, and statements by Weyoun have indicated that quantum torpedoes
may
> be able to damage neutronium structures.
Not what he said.
Wayne Poe
"Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote
> > - http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/ross/ph227/evolve/whitey.htm
> > There you are. Proof of what was already known; that neutron stars are
> > composed of neutronium.
> Pardon me, dumbass, but I refer to quotes from "Rebel Dawn".
>
> Or should I assume that the answer to my question is "No, Guardian, not at
> all."
I suppose you have proof and quotes of your assertion; that the neutron star
in "Rebel Dawn" wasn't really a neutron star? Please post them.
Kynes
>Federation starships use graviton-based shields
Prove this ridiculous lie.
Kynes
wrote:
>http://members.home.net/strowbridge/ASVS/PTopics/PR35.html
Hey, when did you do this?
Stop eclipsing my work.
Kynes
>> http://members.home.net/strowbridge/ASVS/PTopics/PR35.html
>>
>> C.S.Strowbridge
>
>
>The arguments on your page have been shown false in this thread.
In other words:
False. Ad hominem detected. Deleted unread.
Kynes
>Doesn't it seem strange that Zsinj just "happens" upon that "remarkable"
>find, near a place he didn't want to be in the first place? The Nightsisters
>were screwing with the Imps at the garrison for a long time in CoPL. This
>may have been yet another ploy to keep Zsinj in-system, so the Nightsisters
>could get off the planet Palpatine imprisoned them on.
Ah, very cool, Wayne. Another plausible explanation that will no doubt be
shouted down as having "no proof"...
... while the Trekkies of the group assume that when Kira said "doorway," she
then said, quietly, under her breath, "which is in an AMRE field."
Kynes
>Pardon me, dumbass, but I refer to quotes from "Rebel Dawn".
Oh, I now need to prove that each term used within every book means what we know
it to mean in the real world?
I'll get right on that; hold your breath till you see my post.
Wayne Poe
"Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "Durandal" <duran...@mac.com> wrote
> > No, the fact that neutronium is found somewhere BUT a neutron star is
> > the issue. Star Trek neutronium can't be the same as real world
> > neutronium, either, because neutronium can't exist outside of the
> > immense pressures of a neutron star. Neither can Star Wars neutronium.
> > You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Star Wars neutronium can't
> > be the same stuff as real life, neither can Star Trek's.
> You're missing an important distinction. Star Trek neutronium, when
found
> outside a neutron star, is found in technologically advanced settings,
> manufactured into doors, planet killers, Dyson Spheres, et cetera, with
> who-knows-what technological underpinning allowing it to continue to exist
> as neutronium (the graviton-based forcefield idea, though a reasonable
> hypothesis, remains a hypothesis, and one of several possible hypotheses).
> On the other hand, Star Wars neutronium is found outside of neutron stars
in
> altogether common places, such as just beneath the surface of moons,
In one, remarkable instance.
> with no explanation of its survival there, nor even the recognition that
anything is
> wrong. Hell, the very fact that there's neutronium present on the moon
> ought to wreak havoc with the moon's structure, as well as make *it* that
> about which the planet (and depending on the concentration, the star
itself)
> ought to revolve.
> That's the difference.
I think I know what you're getting for Christmas: a wheelchair. You'll need
it after shooting yourself in the foot so much. Here's a hint: you can't
compare a manufactured item to a non-manufactured item and draw a
conclusion.
Cmdrwilkens
news:a06ho3$j0s4d$1...@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Durandal" <duran...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:3C26C2C7...@mac.com...
> > Guardian 2000 wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>If you're worried about realism and neutronium, then have you ever
> > >>thought about the amount of energy it would take to generate a
> > >>forcefield capable of simulating the immense pressures found in
neutron
> > >>stars?
> > >>
> > >
> > > The Doomsday Machine chopped up entire star systems for fuel. I
figure
> > > that would be a good start for producing whatever power was necessary
to
> > > hold it together.
> >
> >
> > If the Doomsday machine were made of neutronium, the Constitution would
> > have been crushed when it entered it so quickly it wouldn't have had
> > time to explode. Furthermore, a pithy warpcore breach wouldn't have
> > dented it.
>
> First, you ignore the concept of neutronium containment.
Which does not matter here, it simply does not matter if you are compressing
the matter to a degree that will keep it as neutronium, that IS NOT the
issue.
> Second, it was the impulse reactor, not a warp core.
>
Which would do even less if it were real neutronium.
> > >>Do you even have the slightest clue about what the consequences
> > >>of a graviton force field would be, or are you just throwing around
> > >>technobabble?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was
looking
> into
> > > using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he was
> > > planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion
sufficient
> to
> > > incapacitate them.
> >
> > That's a pathetic attempt at a dodge.
>
> Um, no . . . you asked about the consequences of a graviton force field as
> if they'd never been seen before. I pointed out that they have.
There's
> no reason to assume that the consequences would be any different than
those
> seen in common Federation applications of graviton-based shielding.
>
First off there is no proof of Federation graviton-shielding so your entire
paragraph is a continuation of your meaningless dodge. Secondly the issue
here is one of simple physics and mass, one whereby you can't get around
certain limitations even by claiming 'graviton-based technobabble.'
> > Do you even know what a graviton is without looking on Google and
pasting
> the definition? I do.
>
> Do you even know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground?
So the answer is you don't know and don't realize how it completely defeats
your argument.
> > > Why? The field distortion, sufficiently localized, could be
cancelled
> out
> > > on the opposite side. Further, when would we have noticed? It's
not
> > > like Kirk stood on the hull of the planet killer as one would stand
upon
> a
> > > moon.
> >
> > Wrong. The graviton field is precisely what would CAUSE the effects I'm
> talking about.
>
> Oh, look, you utterly failed to read what you replied to, and (gasp!) it
> answers your question already! I'm not surprised.
>
You idiot, if you have a graviton field holding enutronium together then the
fuield must be as strong as that at the core of a neutron star which
will...shock...be indistinguishable to the outside world insofar as
gravitational effects.
--
Lcpl Burnett, G.R
USMCR
Bridge Company A, 6th EngnrSptBN, 4th FSSG
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the
enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."
-Unknown
Guardian 2000
"Wayne Poe" <lo...@h4h.com> wrote in message
news:u2dhl7i...@corp.supernews.com...
Excellent work, Wayne.
> > Beyond the fact that it is used in starship's armour this is the only
> > reference we have to SW neutronium.
>
> Neutronium is also said to be a heavy metallic element used in the
formation
> of not only dura-armor, but durasteel as well. (SWSB, RD,)
Thereby being another instance where SW neutronium is stated to have
different properties than real-life neutronium. Neutronium is not a
metal, nor is it an element.
>
> > We have no knowledge of its natural physical properties.
>
> We have no knowledge of the exact natural physical properties of the heavy
> metallic element that is used in dura-armor and durasteel.
>
. . . besides the fact that it isn't real-life neutronium.
> > Some people (most often Kynes, though SirNitram has started doing the
> > same) will often try to pass off false information, but it's been
> > pointed out before that he is engaged in circular reasoning.
>
> No, what Kynes and Sir Nitram are pointing out is the base hypocrisy when
ST
> neutronium is rolled out by the Trekkies.
What hypocrisy? If it weren't for the fact that SW neutronium is a
metallic element mined from a moon, it would have available to it the very
same arguments.
There's no point in whining just because SW neutronium isn't the genuine
article.
> > K>SW neutronium:
> > K>
> > K>-> Comes from neutron stars ("Rebel Dawn")
> > K>-> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn
> > K>-> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor
> >
> > The first point (Comes from neutron stars - reference Rebel Dawn) points
> > to the fact that Rebel Dawn has two ships flying close to a neutron
> > star. This material is never described as neutronium in the source, and
> > is merely assumed to be such.
>
> Kynes pointed out that neutron stars exist in SW. He never said anything
(to
> my knowledge) that stated that neutronium was mined from that star in
Rebel
> Dawn.
Then it all comes from the moon, to your knowledge?
> > In the context of the discussion the above quote is taken from this is,
> > in actual fact, circular reasoning. Guardian questions whether SW
> > neutronium was the real thing, and Kynes' first piece of evidence
> > included the assumption that SW neutronium is the real thing.
>
> Nope. As Kynes has pointed out before:
>
> Sometimes SW neutronium is dense and in stars (Rebel Dawn)
Is there mention of neutronium in the neutron star of Rebel Dawn? If not,
it may be that the Empire refers to what is within neutron stars as
something else entirely.
> Sometimes ST neutronium is dense and in stars (Evolution)
>
> Sometimes SW neutronium is seemingly light and not in stars (Imperial
armor)
This is the metallic element mined from moons.
> Sometimes ST neutronium is seemingly light and not in stars (Iconian
temple)
Since Star Trek writers have some inkling of where neutronium is supposed to
come from, we must look to the fact that the technology of the Iconians must
provide the answer for how the neutronium exists.
> The answer for ST? Technology
Yup.
> The answer for SW? The same.
Nope. Neutronium is not a metallic element, nor can you get it out of
moons.
>
> > However, once you think about it a little you will realise the
> > discussion is largely irrelevant. SW neutronium alloys are shown to have
> > specific thermal and mechanical properties. If ST weaponry can be
> > demonstrated to have greater thermal and mechanical effects than those
> > properties ST weaponry WILL be effective against SW neutronium alloys
> > (unless you want to start throwing every basis for scientific comparison
> > out the window)
>
> No need. We just have to avoid throwing out canon. In at least three
> instances, it has been stated that a neutronium alloy is impervious to ST
> weaponry. This same correlation is found in "cotorsis ore" (sp?) in SW,
> which stops TLs and lightsabers. I don't know what kind of material the
> Massassi temple was made of, but canonically, it can withstand TLs too.
Tritanium. :-D
G2k
Durandal
> First, you ignore the concept of neutronium containment.
No, I don't. It uses gravitons, according to you. Thus, crushing the
Constitution, or tearing it apart. Either way, it'd be destroyed before
it could even think about exploding.
> Second, it was the impulse reactor, not a warp core.
Pardon me. In that case, there's no way the explosion of an impulse
reactor could damage the neutronium-composed Doomsday. But, it did. So,
the Doomsday wasn't made of neutronium.
> Um, no . . . you asked about the consequences of a graviton force field as
> if they'd never been seen before. I pointed out that they have. There's
> no reason to assume that the consequences would be any different than those
> seen in common Federation applications of graviton-based shielding.
No, I asked about them as if you had no fucking clue what you were
talking about, which is abhorrently obvious, at this point.
> Do you even know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground?
So, you have no idea what a graviton is, and yet you're throwing the
term around as if it means something to you? There's a term for this
kind of crap: pseudoscience.
> Oh, look, you utterly failed to read what you replied to, and (gasp!) it
> answers your question already! I'm not surprised.
Since you obviously have no idea what a graviton is, you can't possibly
make any kind of explanation for any kind of phenomena involving them,
so why are you trying? You're doing the same shit that the ST writers
do: throwing around terms that you have absolutely NO idea about. You're
teeming with pseudoscience bullshit.
This whole exchange is comparable to watching struggling high school
physics students.
"Now, why does something on Earth eventually come to a rest, even though
Newton's laws of motion say that is should keep going?"
"Umm...gravity?"
C.S.Strowbridge
> The arguments on your page have been shown false in this thread.
I see you're a believer in the, 'If you say it enough it will become
true' school of debating.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
> >http://members.home.net/strowbridge/ASVS/PTopics/PR35.html
>
> Hey, when did you do this?
>
> Stop eclipsing my work.
Didn't I e-mail you about that?
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> "Guardian 2000" wrote:
> >> http://members.home.net/strowbridge/ASVS/PTopics/PR35.html
> >
> >The arguments on your page have been shown false in this thread.
>
> In other words:
>
> False. Ad hominem detected. Deleted unread.
Ad hominem? I don't think he ever spelt it right in his many years on
usenet.
C.S.Strowbridge
Kynes
wrote:
>> >http://members.home.net/strowbridge/ASVS/PTopics/PR35.html
>>
>> Hey, when did you do this?
>>
>> Stop eclipsing my work.
>
>Didn't I e-mail you about that?
Probably. :) Oh well. Nice writeup. I think I'll steal it. BTW, for anyone
reading this, the Rules are now totally up-to-date, except where they're not.
Kynes
>> Sometimes ST neutronium is seemingly light and not in stars (Iconian
>temple)
>
>Since Star Trek writers have some inkling of where neutronium is supposed to
>come from, we must look to the fact that the technology of the Iconians must
>provide the answer for how the neutronium exists.
This is rich.
"The writers just COULDN'T have gotten it wrong!"
I can't count on one hand how many rules this violates. 1 and 3 I'm sure of.
Guardian 2000
"Cmdrwilkens" <cmdrw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zcAV7.26103$fo.39...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
Er, yeah, it is. If the neutronium containment technology displays the
ability to *not* have painful and gut-wrenching gravity spilling out
everywhere around it, that's very much part of the issue.
> > Second, it was the impulse reactor, not a warp core.
> >
>
> Which would do even less if it were real neutronium.
The reactor overload was not meant to damage the hull, but to destroy the
innards.
You'll also note that when the fusion reactors went, the hull of the beast
let loose a flash, followed by it changing colors. This could be construed
as evidence for some sort of neutronium containment field failure. What
would be interesting is if they were to return to the site of the planet
killer later and observe that it had pretty much dissipated away, leaving
the remaining innards exposed.
> > > >>Do you even have the slightest clue about what the consequences
> > > >>of a graviton force field would be, or are you just throwing around
> > > >>technobabble?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was
> looking
> > into
> > > > using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he
was
> > > > planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion
> sufficient
> > to
> > > > incapacitate them.
> > >
> > > That's a pathetic attempt at a dodge.
> >
> > Um, no . . . you asked about the consequences of a graviton force field
as
> > if they'd never been seen before. I pointed out that they have.
> There's
> > no reason to assume that the consequences would be any different than
> those
> > seen in common Federation applications of graviton-based shielding.
> >
>
> First off there is no proof of Federation graviton-shielding so your
entire
> paragraph is a continuation of your meaningless dodge.
Actually, all I require to prove that is a picture of the shield frequency
modulation screen from Star Trek: Generations (the one with 257.4 on it).
However, I've been looking online for an hour and I'll be damned if I can
find it yet.
> Secondly the issue
> here is one of simple physics and mass, one whereby you can't get around
> certain limitations even by claiming 'graviton-based technobabble.'
Canon must overrule physics in some cases, such as FTL drive and the
graviton-based shielding.
> > > Do you even know what a graviton is without looking on Google and
> pasting
> > the definition? I do.
> >
> > Do you even know the difference between your ass and a hole in the
ground?
>
> So the answer is you don't know and don't realize how it completely
defeats
> your argument.
No, the answer is "I do know, but I don't have to prove that to the likes of
you, and it in no way defeats my argument". If you would care to elucidate
your peculiar belief as to how it does, I'm all ears.
>
> > > > Why? The field distortion, sufficiently localized, could be
> cancelled
> > out
> > > > on the opposite side. Further, when would we have noticed? It's
> not
> > > > like Kirk stood on the hull of the planet killer as one would stand
> upon
> > a
> > > > moon.
> > >
> > > Wrong. The graviton field is precisely what would CAUSE the effects
I'm
> > talking about.
> >
> > Oh, look, you utterly failed to read what you replied to, and (gasp!) it
> > answers your question already! I'm not surprised.
> >
>
> You idiot, if you have a graviton field holding enutronium together then
the
> fuield must be as strong as that at the core of a neutron star which
> will...shock...be indistinguishable to the outside world insofar as
> gravitational effects.
Why? As I've already stated, the effect need not continue on the other
side, and could be reversed if it did. Star Trek technology has something
known as an antigraviton, and despite the fact that a graviton is, for all
intents and purposes, its own antiparticle, this antigraviton would be a
good candidate for being a part of a neutronium containment system.
G2k
Kynes
>A. I did not lose. The Rabid Warsie inability to comprehend the
>difference of control between a laser and a lightbulb amuses me to this day.
The "lightbulb" in question, of course, has a fixed area of illumination, beyond
which no light is even visible; find me a lightbulb that can do this and I'll
trade it for a thousand lasers.
Guardian 2000
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:37:43 -0600, "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >Federation starships use graviton-based shields
>
> Prove this ridiculous lie.
Why? You never bother proving yours. :-)
I'm still hunting for a screen shot from Generations (the view of the
engineering console from Geordi's VISOR). I'll get back to you when I
do.
G2k
Guardian 2000
>
> "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > "Durandal" <duran...@mac.com> wrote
>
> > > No, the fact that neutronium is found somewhere BUT a neutron star is
> > > the issue. Star Trek neutronium can't be the same as real world
> > > neutronium, either, because neutronium can't exist outside of the
> > > immense pressures of a neutron star. Neither can Star Wars neutronium.
> > > You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Star Wars neutronium can't
> > > be the same stuff as real life, neither can Star Trek's.
>
> > You're missing an important distinction. Star Trek neutronium, when
> found
> > outside a neutron star, is found in technologically advanced settings,
> > manufactured into doors, planet killers, Dyson Spheres, et cetera, with
> > who-knows-what technological underpinning allowing it to continue to
exist
> > as neutronium (the graviton-based forcefield idea, though a reasonable
> > hypothesis, remains a hypothesis, and one of several possible
hypotheses).
>
> > On the other hand, Star Wars neutronium is found outside of neutron
stars
> in
> > altogether common places, such as just beneath the surface of moons,
>
> In one, remarkable instance.
You've also provided the other piece of evidence, that being that Star Wars
neutronium is a metallic element. That's not real neutronium.
>
> > with no explanation of its survival there, nor even the recognition that
> anything is
> > wrong. Hell, the very fact that there's neutronium present on the moon
> > ought to wreak havoc with the moon's structure, as well as make *it*
that
> > about which the planet (and depending on the concentration, the star
> itself)
> > ought to revolve.
>
> > That's the difference.
>
> I think I know what you're getting for Christmas: a wheelchair. You'll
need
> it after shooting yourself in the foot so much. Here's a hint: you can't
> compare a manufactured item to a non-manufactured item and draw a
> conclusion.
Why not? Star Trek neutronium is either naturally occurring in a neutron
star, or exists in applications created by societies with extremely advanced
technology.
Star Wars neutronium is a naturally occurring metallic element found on
moons.
G2k
Guardian 2000
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:40:39 -0600, "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >> http://members.home.net/strowbridge/ASVS/PTopics/PR35.html
> >>
> >> C.S.Strowbridge
> >
> >
> >The arguments on your page have been shown false in this thread.
>
> In other words:
>
> False. Ad hominem detected. Deleted unread.
Um, no. It meant that I have addressed and defeated each of his points on
his webpage.
G2k
Kynes
>> >Federation starships use graviton-based shields
>>
>> Prove this ridiculous lie.
>
>Why? You never bother proving yours. :-)
>
>I'm still hunting for a screen shot from Generations (the view of the
>engineering console from Geordi's VISOR). I'll get back to you when I
>do.
Stop marginalizing me by assuming I have a computer on which to view such a
thing.
Guardian 2000
>
> "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > "Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote
>
> > > Pretty much. The neutronium cache could easily be from a crashed
> starship.
>
> > A crashed starship would no longer generate the fields necessary to
> contain
> > the neutronium, if it were real. A crashed starship would not have
> broken
> > up in the first place if it had a pure (or even impure) hull made of
real
> > neutronium.
>
> Why not? The PK in "Doomsday Machine" was dead in space, no power at the
> end, yet the Enterprise didn't suddenly mash itself against its hull.
Why would it? The Enterprise was within transporter range, not right on
top of the thing. Further, without some knowledge of the field dissipation
rate of the neutronium containment system of the planet killer, there's no
need to assume that the effect would have been instantaneous.
> > > Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those.
> >
> > No, SW neutronium comes from moons.
>
> Proof?
You've got to be kidding me. You're the one that posted it! Further,
it's a metallic element, which real neutronium is not.
>
> > > You've shown no proof, except for dodges where you give Trek massively
> more leeway,
> > > showing your obvious bias.
>
> > I'd happily give Star Wars the very same amount of leeway, but for the
> fact
> > that its neutronium comes from moons, and is therefore not true
> neutronium.
>
> Proof?
Logic, physics, and an understanding of the English language.
SW neutronium sits happily as an ore within the fourth(!) moon of a planet.
It is a metallic element.
Real neutronium only sits happily as the core of a neutron star. It is
neither a metal nor an element.
A does not equal not-A.
>
> > > So yes, there is neutronium in Wars hulls, and it's the same thing as
> the stuff that stops Fed weapons.
>
> > I await your proof of this notion.
>
> Sorry, you'll have to prove your assumption above.
Been there, done that.
> > > Will it be enough to stop all damage? Doubt it, it's probably only a
> monomolelcular layer to cause
> > NDF-style weapons to be ineffective.
>
> > Solid neutronium, neutronium-based alloys (i.e. neutronium is a primary
> > constituent), and carbon-neutronium alloy (where we may assume that they
> are
> > the only constituents, meaning that neutronium makes up a significant
> > fraction of the alloy) have been stated as stopping phasers.
>
> > Whatever paltry amount is in ISD hulls might be enough to give the hull
a
> > little resilience,
>
> Which is what Sir Nitram said above.
>
> > but only in those few areas where there'd be any
> > neutronium.
>
> Those *few* areas? Neutronium is a heavy metallic element used in the
> formation of dura-armor and durasteel. (SWSB, RD)
Ah, then there's no misunderstanding. SW neutronium isn't real neutronium,
for SW neutronium is a heavy metallic element.
>
> > Since everything around the rare little bits of neutronium
> > would be boiled or blown away, it would hardly do any good.
>
> Since that "everything" comprises the entire hull of the ship, I doubt
that
> will be a problem.
True, the merciful Federation captain would probably stop before boiling
away the entire hull. After all, that would just be rude.
>
> > > Oh well, Trek always has to depend on Torps for heavy hitting power
> > anyways.
>
> > Oh, yes, and statements by Weyoun have indicated that quantum torpedoes
> may
> > be able to damage neutronium structures.
>
> Not what he said.
If I cannot assure your death by hitting you with a car, does it not follow
that it is likely that hitting you with a car will still do damage?
G2k
Guardian 2000
<snip>
> > Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those.
>
> Stellar neutronium does. Neutronium used in SW ships is described as a
heavy
> metallic element in the SWSB and RD.
. . . and is therefore not stellar neutronium.
G2k
Guardian 2000
I've made no such assertion. I'm awaiting evidence from Ian that those
were, in fact, neutron stars.
G2k
Guardian 2000
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:48:33 -0600, "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >Pardon me, dumbass, but I refer to quotes from "Rebel Dawn".
>
> Oh, I now need to prove that each term used within every book means what
we know
> it to mean in the real world?
No, I'm just asking you for proof that there were neutron stars mentioned in
"Rebel Dawn".
>
> I'll get right on that; hold your breath till you see my post.
Well, until that happens, concession accepted.
G2k
Dalton
>
> "Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
> news:+8wmPHSNPliQFW...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:48:33 -0600, "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >Pardon me, dumbass, but I refer to quotes from "Rebel Dawn".
> >
> > Oh, I now need to prove that each term used within every book means what
> we know
> > it to mean in the real world?
>
> No, I'm just asking you for proof that there were neutron stars mentioned in
> "Rebel Dawn".
"She came outta hyperspace within the magnetic field of that neutron
star up ahead!" --p126
> > I'll get right on that; hold your breath till you see my post.
>
> Well, until that happens, concession accepted.
*holds up "joke" placard*
--
Rob "Roby" Dalton
http://daltonator.net
"I need a drink."
"You don't drink."
"Yeah, but I've been meaning to start."
---UHF
Dalton
"She came outta hyperspace within the magnetic field of that neutron
star up ahead!" --p126
--
Dalton
No fucking duh, isn't that what he just said?
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
> >> >http://members.home.net/strowbridge/ASVS/PTopics/PR35.html
> >>
> >> Hey, when did you do this?
> >>
> >> Stop eclipsing my work.
> >
> >Didn't I e-mail you about that?
>
> Probably. :) Oh well. Nice writeup. I think I'll steal it. BTW, for
> anyone reading this, the Rules are now totally up-to-date, except where
> they're not.
For anyone not reading this, my web site has been updated no less than 6
times on my hard drive. I swear on all that is holy that I will update
my web site before hell freezes over, or thaws out if it's normally
really, really cold.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> "Kynes" wrote:
> > In other words:
> >
> > False. Ad hominem detected. Deleted unread.
>
> Um, no. It meant that I have addressed and defeated each of his points
> on his webpage.
Have you read the TJ FAQ? If not, someone will supply you with a URL
soon enough.
C.S.Strowbridge
Guardian 2000
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:31:53 -0600, "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >A. I did not lose. The Rabid Warsie inability to comprehend the
> >difference of control between a laser and a lightbulb amuses me to this
day.
>
> The "lightbulb" in question, of course, has a fixed area of illumination,
beyond
> which no light is even visible; find me a lightbulb that can do this and
I'll
> trade it for a thousand lasers.
You were never able to prove that the gravitational distortion came to an
abrupt end (i.e. that no field existed past some boundary), as opposed to
the far more reasonable notion that navicomputers disabled hyperdrive only
when a certain field strength was encountered.
Fuckwit.
G2k
Guardian 2000
> Guardian 2000 wrote:
>
>
> > First, you ignore the concept of neutronium containment.
>
>
> No, I don't. It uses gravitons, according to you. Thus, crushing the
> Constitution, or tearing it apart. Either way, it'd be destroyed before
> it could even think about exploding.
>
The neutronium containment hypothesis has, as a part of it, cancellation of
that gravity field away from the neutronium object.
Like I said, you've been ignoring the concept of neutronium containment.
> > Second, it was the impulse reactor, not a warp core.
>
>
> Pardon me. In that case, there's no way the explosion of an impulse
> reactor could damage the neutronium-composed Doomsday. But, it did. So,
> the Doomsday wasn't made of neutronium.
Like I already said, the 97.835 megaton explosion was not intended to
destroy the hull, but the innards. No one ever claimed the innards were
neutronium, and no one has ever claimed that the 97.835 megaton blast did
jack shit to the hull, except cause it to turn grey.
> > Um, no . . . you asked about the consequences of a graviton force field
as
> > if they'd never been seen before. I pointed out that they have.
There's
> > no reason to assume that the consequences would be any different than
those
> > seen in common Federation applications of graviton-based shielding.
>
>
> No, I asked about them as if you had no fucking clue what you were
> talking about, which is abhorrently obvious, at this point.
Stupid bitch. Try to get a clue before you start claiming that others
don't have them.
> > Do you even know the difference between your ass and a hole in the
ground?
>
> So, you have no idea what a graviton is, and yet you're throwing the
> term around as if it means something to you? There's a term for this
> kind of crap: pseudoscience.
Stupid bitch. I don't have to prove my knowledge to known assholes and
fuckwits. I was replying to his stupid question with a similarly phrased
question. He had the same choice I did with his question . . . either sit
there and explain it for no reason, or ignore the question because it was
irrelevant and a childish effort at one-upsmanship. I chose the best
option, throwing the same kind of question back at him.
And so here you go presuming that because I refused to answer the question I
did not have the answer. Well, come on, bitch, do you know the difference
between your ass and a hole in the ground? I don't think you do.
> > Oh, look, you utterly failed to read what you replied to, and (gasp!) it
> > answers your question already! I'm not surprised.
<snip>
G2k
Guardian 2000
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:53:25 -0600, "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >> >Federation starships use graviton-based shields
> >>
> >> Prove this ridiculous lie.
> >
> >Why? You never bother proving yours. :-)
> >
> >I'm still hunting for a screen shot from Generations (the view of the
> >engineering console from Geordi's VISOR). I'll get back to you when I
> >do.
>
> Stop marginalizing me by assuming I have a computer on which to view such
a
> thing.
Don't worry, Ian. I can't marginalize you any more than you already
marginalize yourself.
G2k
Guardian 2000
"C.S.Strowbridge" <csstro...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3C26F2CF...@shaw.ca...
Have you read this thread? Your webpage bullshit is torn apart all over
it.
Or how about the short version, my quote-of-the-week:
SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon.
G2k
Guardian 2000
No, that's Wayne "Yeah, they can (synonym of turn), but they can't (synonym
of turn)!" Poe and Ian "Is so real neutronium!" Samuels.
Also any other Rabid Warsie Fuckwit who can't take truth for an answer and
keeps repeating the same bullshit, though those two were the first to come
to mind.
Besides, what you quote and reply to above was said once. Then, since Ian
failed to comprehend what I'd said, I said it a second time. How the fuck
is that repeating something over and over and over again, a la the Rabid
Warsie Repetitive Fuckwits?
G2k
Guardian 2000
"Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
news:3C26E5E3...@daltonator.net...
> Guardian 2000 wrote:
> >
> > "Wayne Poe" <lo...@h4h.com> wrote in message
> > news:u2dig91...@corp.supernews.com...
> > <snip>
> > > > Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those.
> > >
> > > Stellar neutronium does. Neutronium used in SW ships is described as a
> > heavy
> > > metallic element in the SWSB and RD.
> >
> > . . . and is therefore not stellar neutronium.
>
> No fucking duh, isn't that what he just said?
Several individuals, predominately those in the Rabid Warsie Fuckwit
contingent, have failed to grasp this notion.
Thank you for giving me hope that the Pro-Wars contingent understands
(whether the Rabid Warsie Fuckwit contingent will or not, though, is still
up in the air).
G2k
Guardian 2000
> Guardian 2000 wrote:
> >
> > "Wayne Poe" <lo...@h4h.com> wrote in message
> > news:u2dj261...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >
> > > > "Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote
> > >
> > > > > -
http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/ross/ph227/evolve/whitey.htm
> > >
> > > > > There you are. Proof of what was already known; that neutron stars
are
> > > > > composed of neutronium.
> > >
> > > > Pardon me, dumbass, but I refer to quotes from "Rebel Dawn".
> > > >
> > > > Or should I assume that the answer to my question is "No, Guardian,
not
> > at
> > > > all."
> > >
> > > I suppose you have proof and quotes of your assertion; that the
neutron
> > star
> > > in "Rebel Dawn" wasn't really a neutron star? Please post them.
> >
> > I've made no such assertion. I'm awaiting evidence from Ian that those
> > were, in fact, neutron stars.
>
> "She came outta hyperspace within the magnetic field of that neutron
> star up ahead!" --p126
Thanks! Ian seems unwilling to argue in any semblance of a worthwhile
fashion this evening.
Happy Holidays,
G2k
Guardian 2000
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:01:05 -0600, "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >> Sometimes ST neutronium is seemingly light and not in stars (Iconian
> >temple)
> >
> >Since Star Trek writers have some inkling of where neutronium is supposed
to
> >come from, we must look to the fact that the technology of the Iconians
must
> >provide the answer for how the neutronium exists.
>
> This is rich.
>
> "The writers just COULDN'T have gotten it wrong!"
Unlike SW writers, for whom SW neutronium is a metallic element found in
veins on a moon.
> I can't count on one hand how many rules this violates. 1 and 3 I'm sure
of.
Don't hide behind the rules, you little bitch. You'll probably just
rewrite them as needed anyway. I want to see your punk ass try to weasel
your way out of the fact that SW neutronium is a metallic element found in
veins on a moon.
"Don't wait for the translation! Answer me now!"
-General Chang, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
G2k
Lord Edam de Fromage
Kynes
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:43:21 -0000, Lord Edam de Fromage
> <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >The first point (Comes from neutron stars - reference Rebel Dawn) points
> >to the fact that Rebel Dawn has two ships flying close to a neutron
> >star. This material is never described as neutronium in the source, and
> >is merely assumed to be such.
>
> Neutron stars are composed of neutronium by definition.
But that's the problem. In the real world, neutron stars are composed of
a material we call neutronium.
We ask : "Is Star [Wars/Trek] Neutronium The Real thing" (ie, is it the
same material as found in neutron stars).
You can't start off assuming what you need to prove. you have to find
evidence within Star [Wars/Trek] that shows what it really is.
In the case of Star Wars, current evidence indicates it most certainly
is NOT the same stuff as real life neutronium.
In the case of Trek, we have the problem that it can't be the same stuff
by current understanding, but we have a direct statement that ST
neutronium is stuff from neutron stars (TNG Evolution).
--
Lord Edam de Fromage
aka Sorborus
www.trek-wars.co.uk
Expect arguments about what the words mean since when people
discuss the meaning of words instead of simply using them they
generally forget about context and duplication. -- C. Fiterman, aam
Sir Nitram
>news:20011223215119...@mb-dh.aol.com...
>> >"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
>> >news:20011223171511...@mb-fc.aol.com...
>> >> >Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until
>> >> >it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and
>cannot
>> >> >possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. Since
>Star
>> >Wars
>> >> >neutronium has already demonstrated properties that are absolutely
>> >> >impossible and cannot possibly be explained (the moon mining), it must
>> >not
>> >> >be the same as real-world neutronium.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> *Giggle* Oh, look, it's the return of the 'Any excuse can be made for
>Trek
>> >but
>> >> everything must be face value for Wars' fallacy. Why am I not surprised
>> >G2K
>> >> revived it.
>> >
>> >I would grant Star Wars neutronium the same assumption of reality, but it
>> >has already gone beyond what is possible.
>> >
>> >What you would like to claim as bias is in fact simply empirical data.
>> >
>>
>> *Roars with laughter* Right. It's beyond what's possible for Wars, despite
>> their having far more advanced gravity control. Hint: We did this last
>time,
>> and you lost.
>
>A. I did not lose. The Rabid Warsie inability to comprehend the
>difference of control between a laser and a lightbulb amuses me to this day.
>
Your inability to notice that Interdictor Gravwells are defined in every
dimension with no 'spill' amuses me as well. The problem being, you keep using
false analogies.
>B. Advanced gravity control would not be present in the moons from which SW
>neutronium is mined.
>
Of course, since you give endless excuses to Trek, I'll use one for Wars here.
The neutronium deposit is an ancient starship whose neutronium mass is
permenantly held together/lightened via gravity manipulation.
------------------------------------
SirNitram
ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius
"We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours
again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!"
-Last words of the Beast.
Sir Nitram
>> Guardian 2000 wrote:
>>
>>
>> > You're missing an important distinction. Star Trek neutronium, when
>found
>> > outside a neutron star, is found in technologically advanced settings,
>> > manufactured into doors, planet killers, Dyson Spheres, et cetera, with
>> > who-knows-what technological underpinning allowing it to continue to
>exist
>> > as neutronium (the graviton-based forcefield idea, though a reasonable
>> > hypothesis, remains a hypothesis, and one of several possible
>hypotheses).
>> >
>> > On the other hand, Star Wars neutronium is found outside of neutron
>stars in
>> > altogether common places, such as just beneath the surface of moons,
>> > explanation of its survival there, nor even the recognition that
>anything is
>> > wrong. Hell, the very fact that there's neutronium present on the moon
>> > ought to wreak havoc with the moon's structure, as well as make *it*
>that
>> > about which the planet (and depending on the concentration, the star
>itself)
>> > ought to revolve.
>>
>> thought about the amount of energy it would take to generate a
>> forcefield capable of simulating the immense pressures found in neutron
>> stars?
>
>The Doomsday Machine chopped up entire star systems for fuel. I figure
>that would be a good start for producing whatever power was necessary to
>hold it together.
>
>> of a graviton force field would be, or are you just throwing around
>> technobabble?
>
>Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was looking into
>using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he was
>planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion sufficient to
>incapacitate them.
>
Ah... When all else fails, throw treknobabble around. Well, since Trek shields
do not produce a gravity distortion around the ship, rendering them invisible,
the word 'Graviton' must either be misused here(Unlikely, Geordi is a
professional), or it has changed meanings. The latter will be assumed in light
of no other evidence.
And the Borg weapon need not have precision, mere brute force. Hell, the Kushan
built gravity weapons in Homeworld, they only discovered FTL travel less than a
century before then.
>> The presence of neutronium on starship hulls and Dyson
>> Spheres would have just a many noticeable effects as the presence of it
>> on moons.
>
>Why? The field distortion, sufficiently localized, could be cancelled out
>on the opposite side. Further, when would we have noticed? It's not
>like Kirk stood on the hull of the planet killer as one would stand upon a
>moon.
>
You don't get it, as usual. Neutronium is excessively heavy. A tablespoon is
two tons. Therefore, there would be distortions on both sides(Gravity is
effective at infinite range. Andromeda's gravity effects us.), so sorry to
burst your bubble.
Sir Nitram
>> >"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
>> >> >Beyond the fact that it is used in starship's armour this is the only
>> >> >reference we have to SW neutronium.
>> >>
>> >> Flip through Vector Prime, it's got a reference there that is roughly
>the
>> >same
>> >> as 'What am I, built like a Sherman Tank?' proving Neutronium is a
>common
>> >> enough armour substance to enter casual language... Of course, Edam and
>> >> Guardian ignore this...
>> >> ------------------------------------
>> >
>> >Well, whooptee-doo . . . it's common enough to enter casual language!
>> >Hell's bells,
>> >Trekkers, close up shop! Sir Nitram has demonstrated beyond a doubt
>that
>> >SW
>> >neutronium is real neutronium straight from a neutron star to a theatre
>near
>> >you!
>> >
>>
>> Pretty much. The neutronium cache could easily be from a crashed starship.
>
>A crashed starship would no longer generate the fields necessary to contain
>the neutronium, if it were real. A crashed starship would not have broken
>up in the first place if it had a pure (or even impure) hull made of real
>neutronium.
>
I'm sure you'll be providing proof that you know SW mass-lightening isn't
permenant.
>> Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those.
>
>No, SW neutronium comes from moons.
>
In one occasion it was found on a moon, and much like your ludicrous excuses
for ST, we make one for SW. Otherwise it comes from Neutron Stars.
>> You've shown
>> no proof, except for dodges where you give Trek massively more leeway,
>showing
>> your obvious bias.
>
>I'd happily give Star Wars the very same amount of leeway, but for the fact
>that its neutronium comes from moons, and is therefore not true neutronium.
>
One occasion on a moon.
>> So yes, there is neutronium in Wars hulls, and it's the same
>> thing as the stuff that stops Fed weapons.
>
>I await your proof of this notion.
>
Proved it, you evaded.
>> Will it be enough to stop all
>> damage? Doubt it, it's probably only a monomolelcular layer to cause
>NDF-style
>> weapons to be ineffective.
>
>Solid neutronium, neutronium-based alloys (i.e. neutronium is a primary
>constituent), and carbon-neutronium alloy (where we may assume that they are
>the only constituents, meaning that neutronium makes up a significant
>fraction of the alloy) have been stated as stopping phasers.
>
Very good, you proved what I said.
>Whatever paltry amount is in ISD hulls might be enough to give the hull a
>little resilience, but only in those few areas where there'd be any
>neutronium. Since everything around the rare little bits of neutronium
>would be boiled or blown away, it would hardly do any good.
>
And your proof it needs more than a monomolecular layer is.....
>> Oh well, Trek always has to depend on Torps for heavy hitting power
>anyways.
>
>Oh, yes, and statements by Weyoun have indicated that quantum torpedoes may
>be able to damage neutronium structures.
>
You are correct! Just as I hypothesized. Of course, due to his own statements,
their efficiency will be reduced.
Sir Nitram
It's a good hypothesis, fits the facts. So does the assumption that Trek
Neutronium is not stellar. Of course, your fanatical ramblings refuse to accept
this as a possiblity.
Lurker
<snip>
> You don't get it, as usual. Neutronium is excessively heavy. A tablespoon is
> two tons. Therefore, there would be distortions on both sides(Gravity is
> effective at infinite range. Andromeda's gravity effects us.), so sorry to
> burst your bubble.
Try, a teaspoonfull of neutronium has a mass of about 100 million tons.
---
I'm stuck in this pit; working for less than slave wages, working on my
day off. The goddamn steel shutters are closed, I deal with every
backwards-arsed fuck on the planet, I smell like shoe polish, my
ex-girlfriend is catatonic after fucking a dead guy and my present
girlfriend has sucked 36 dicks!.... My lifes in the shitter right now and
if you don't mind I'd like to stew a bit.
- Dante Hicks
Sir Nitram
>
><snip>
>
>> You don't get it, as usual. Neutronium is excessively heavy. A tablespoon
>is
>> two tons. Therefore, there would be distortions on both sides(Gravity is
>> effective at infinite range. Andromeda's gravity effects us.), so sorry to
>> burst your bubble.
>
>Try, a teaspoonfull of neutronium has a mass of about 100 million tons.
>
Is it? What's the shit that two tons per teaspoon?
Lurker
>
> "Wayne Poe" wrote in message
<snip>
> > Why not? The PK in "Doomsday Machine" was dead in space, no power at the
> > end, yet the Enterprise didn't suddenly mash itself against its hull.
>
> Why would it? The Enterprise was within transporter range, not right on
> top of the thing. Further, without some knowledge of the field dissipation
> rate of the neutronium containment system of the planet killer, there's no
> need to assume that the effect would have been instantaneous.
Neutronium is only stable under extreme gravitational pressures, and is never found in a
mass less than approximately that of the Sun; it explosively decays back into protons and
electrons if the pressure is reduced.
Lurker
>
> Blah, Veins, Blah, Blah, Blah, Mining, Blah, Blah, Blah, Proof?, Blah, Blah, Blah, Star
> Trek rulz, Blah, Blah, Blah, I'm so far up my own arse, Blah, Blah, Blah, Moon rocks, >
Blah, Blah, Blah.
Lurker
> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> You don't get it, as usual. Neutronium is excessively heavy. A tablespoon
> >is
> >> two tons. Therefore, there would be distortions on both sides(Gravity is
> >> effective at infinite range. Andromeda's gravity effects us.), so sorry to
> >> burst your bubble.
> >
> >Try, a teaspoonfull of neutronium has a mass of about 100 million tons.
> >
>
> Is it? What's the shit that two tons per teaspoon?
Probably material from a White Dwarf.
Durandal
> The neutronium containment hypothesis has, as a part of it, cancellation of
> that gravity field away from the neutronium object.
You total, TOTAL idiot. The containment is what CREATES THE PROBLEM.
> Like I said, you've been ignoring the concept of neutronium containment.
No, I haven't. YOU have been ignoring its effects.
> Like I already said, the 97.835 megaton explosion was not intended to
> destroy the hull, but the innards. No one ever claimed the innards were
> neutronium, and no one has ever claimed that the 97.835 megaton blast did
> jack shit to the hull, except cause it to turn grey.
The Constitution would have been crushed or torn apart by the immense
gravitational forces.
> Stupid bitch. Try to get a clue before you start claiming that others
> don't have them.
I HAVE a clue, two in fact. They're called particle physics and general
relativity.
> Stupid bitch. I don't have to prove my knowledge to known assholes and
> fuckwits. I was replying to his stupid question with a similarly phrased
> question. He had the same choice I did with his question . . . either sit
> there and explain it for no reason, or ignore the question because it was
> irrelevant and a childish effort at one-upsmanship. I chose the best
> option, throwing the same kind of question back at him.
So, you don't know what a graviton is, and now you're saying that you
don't have to in order to venture explanations for phenomena that
supposedly involve them? I'll ask again, do you know what a graviton is
without looking around Google for it?
> And so here you go presuming that because I refused to answer the question I
> did not have the answer. Well, come on, bitch, do you know the difference
> between your ass and a hole in the ground? I don't think you do.
Irrelevant. Your concession on the point due to ignorance of particle
physics and the laws of gravitation is accepted.
--
Damien Sorresso
[AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859]
Nobody knows everything.
I am nobody.
Therefore, I know everything.
Guardian 2000
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
> >Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was looking
into
> >using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he was
> >planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion sufficient
to
> >incapacitate them.
> >
>
> Ah... When all else fails, throw treknobabble around. Well, since Trek
shields
> do not produce a gravity distortion around the ship, rendering them
invisible,
> the word 'Graviton' must either be misused here(Unlikely, Geordi is a
> professional), or it has changed meanings. The latter will be assumed in
light
> of no other evidence.
"Graviton" has been shown to refer to the same concept as real-life
gravitons. The fact that you do not comprehend how shield technology
succeeds in not producing the effect you would expect is not my problem, nor
does it shed any doubt on the meaning of the term "graviton" in Star Trek.
> And the Borg weapon need not have precision, mere brute force. Hell, the
Kushan
> built gravity weapons in Homeworld, they only discovered FTL travel less
than a
> century before then.
ROFL! You're trying to argue a point on Star Trek vs. Star Wars using the
computer game "Homeworld"?!?! It's a great game, sure, but that's the
stupidest line of argument I've seen since your last post!
The graviton beam would have needed precision, or else it would have acted
on the Borg ship as nothing better than a plain old tractor beam.
> >> The presence of neutronium on starship hulls and Dyson
> >> Spheres would have just a many noticeable effects as the presence of it
> >> on moons.
> >
> >Why? The field distortion, sufficiently localized, could be cancelled
out
> >on the opposite side. Further, when would we have noticed? It's not
> >like Kirk stood on the hull of the planet killer as one would stand upon
a
> >moon.
> >
>
> You don't get it, as usual.
No, you don't get it, as usual.
At first, I was worried about you, thinking that with your head up your ass
your sphincter could clench and choke you to death. However, as
well-practiced as you are with having large items up your ass, I realized it
wasn't a problem.
> Neutronium is excessively heavy.
No, you don't say! Of course, that's only Star Trek neutronium . . . SW
neutronium is a metallic element found on veins on a moon.
> A tablespoon is two tons. Therefore, there would be distortions on both
sides(Gravity is
> effective at infinite range. Andromeda's gravity effects us.), so sorry to
> burst your bubble.
My "bubble" is just fine. And so, all of the sudden, Star Trek is
incapable of affecting change to gravity fields? Get a fucking clue.
We've seen antigravs in use on equipment and vessels ("The Changeling"[TOS],
Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier), we've seen
the apparent mass reduction effects of the Federation and other
civilizations, and we've witnessed the fine control of gravitons and
antigravitons.
Oh, but because *you* say it's not possible, well, hell's bells, let's just
throw all of ST canon out the window!
Fuck off.
G2k
Guardian 2000
"Lurker" <lee.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:iRJV7.36402$4z5.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message
> >
> > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Why not? The PK in "Doomsday Machine" was dead in space, no power at
the
> > > end, yet the Enterprise didn't suddenly mash itself against its hull.
> >
> > Why would it? The Enterprise was within transporter range, not right
on
> > top of the thing. Further, without some knowledge of the field
dissipation
> > rate of the neutronium containment system of the planet killer, there's
no
> > need to assume that the effect would have been instantaneous.
>
> Neutronium is only stable under extreme gravitational pressures, and is
never found in a
> mass less than approximately that of the Sun; it explosively decays back
into protons and
> electrons if the pressure is reduced.
Ahem . . . "without some knowledge of the field dissipation rate of the
neutronium containment system of the planet killer, there's no need to
assume that the effect would have been instantaneous".
That means, in case the plain statement wasn't sufficiently obvious, that
the neutronium containment field need not have dissipated instantly, and
therefore the neutronium need not have dissipated instantly.
G2k
Guardian 2000
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
You're the one presupposing permanent AMRE, you have to show that it is
possible in some way. Where's some evidence for SW AMRE anyway?
> >> Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those.
> >
> >No, SW neutronium comes from moons.
> >
>
> In one occasion it was found on a moon, and much like your ludicrous
excuses
> for ST, we make one for SW. Otherwise it comes from Neutron Stars.
It's a metallic element in SW . . . the fact that it is naturally occurring
in veins on a moon is an added bonus.
> >> You've shown
> >> no proof, except for dodges where you give Trek massively more leeway,
> >showing
> >> your obvious bias.
> >
> >I'd happily give Star Wars the very same amount of leeway, but for the
fact
> >that its neutronium comes from moons, and is therefore not true
neutronium.
> >
>
> One occasion on a moon.
One occasion of a metallic element being found on a moon.
> >> So yes, there is neutronium in Wars hulls, and it's the same
> >> thing as the stuff that stops Fed weapons.
> >
> >I await your proof of this notion.
> >
>
> Proved it, you evaded.
You've proved nothing, except that you're willing to claim, beyond all
reason, that a metallic element found in veins on a moon is the same stuff
as one would find in the core of a neutron star.
Moron.
> >> Will it be enough to stop all
> >> damage? Doubt it, it's probably only a monomolelcular layer to cause
> >NDF-style
> >> weapons to be ineffective.
> >
> >Solid neutronium, neutronium-based alloys (i.e. neutronium is a primary
> >constituent), and carbon-neutronium alloy (where we may assume that they
are
> >the only constituents, meaning that neutronium makes up a significant
> >fraction of the alloy) have been stated as stopping phasers.
> >
>
> Very good, you proved what I said.
That is not a "monomolecular layer" causing "NDF-style weapons to be
ineffective". What I said and what you said are not in agreement, and
you'd know that if you had any more reading comprehension than a two year
old.
> >Whatever paltry amount is in ISD hulls might be enough to give the hull a
> >little resilience, but only in those few areas where there'd be any
> >neutronium. Since everything around the rare little bits of neutronium
> >would be boiled or blown away, it would hardly do any good.
> >
> And your proof it needs more than a monomolecular layer is.....
The fact that the only times we've seen neutronium be an issue, it has been
a primary component of the substance that is impervious.
> >> Oh well, Trek always has to depend on Torps for heavy hitting power
> >anyways.
> >
> >Oh, yes, and statements by Weyoun have indicated that quantum torpedoes
may
> >be able to damage neutronium structures.
> >
>
> You are correct! Just as I hypothesized. Of course, due to his own
statements,
> their efficiency will be reduced.
Fortunately, however, since SW neutronium is a metallic element found in
veins on a moon, that doesn't present a problem for ST vs. SW.
G2k
Guardian 2000
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
> >"Dalton" <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message
> >news:3C26E5E3...@daltonator.net...
> >> Guardian 2000 wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Wayne Poe" <lo...@h4h.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:u2dig91...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > <snip>
> >> > > > Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from
those.
> >> > >
> >> > > Stellar neutronium does. Neutronium used in SW ships is described
as a
> >> > heavy
> >> > > metallic element in the SWSB and RD.
> >> >
> >> > . . . and is therefore not stellar neutronium.
> >>
> >> No fucking duh, isn't that what he just said?
> >
> >Several individuals, predominately those in the Rabid Warsie Fuckwit
> >contingent, have failed to grasp this notion.
> >
> >Thank you for giving me hope that the Pro-Wars contingent understands
> >(whether the Rabid Warsie Fuckwit contingent will or not, though, is
still
> >up in the air).
> >
>
> It's a good hypothesis, fits the facts. So does the assumption that Trek
> Neutronium is not stellar. Of course, your fanatical ramblings refuse to
accept
> this as a possiblity.
I refuse to accept it as a possibility because it is not a possibility given
the facts provided. Star Trek neutronium comes from neutron stars. SW
neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon. Neutronium
containment technology in ST is a distinct possibility, given the level of
Federation science and reasonable extrapolation to those societies who use
neutronium. The simple fact that ST neutronium is understood as RL
neutronium, coupled with the fact that manufactured neutronium objects do
not exhibit intense gravitational fields and do not break down, proves that
some neutronium containment technology is active. Neutronium containment
technology in SW is unnecessary, because SW neutronium is a metallic element
found in veins on a moon, and they've not demonstrated the technological
level necessary to contain real neutronium.
G2k
Sir Nitram
>news:20011224101211...@mb-md.aol.com...
>> >Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was looking
>into
>> >using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he was
>> >planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion sufficient
>to
>> >incapacitate them.
>> >
>>
>> Ah... When all else fails, throw treknobabble around. Well, since Trek
>shields
>> do not produce a gravity distortion around the ship, rendering them
>invisible,
>> the word 'Graviton' must either be misused here(Unlikely, Geordi is a
>> professional), or it has changed meanings. The latter will be assumed in
>light
>> of no other evidence.
>
>"Graviton" has been shown to refer to the same concept as real-life
>gravitons. The fact that you do not comprehend how shield technology
>succeeds in not producing the effect you would expect is not my problem, nor
>does it shed any doubt on the meaning of the term "graviton" in Star Trek.
>
A gravity based shield would cause the ship to be invisible. If this were the
case, cloaking devices would not need to be made. Concession accepted.
>> And the Borg weapon need not have precision, mere brute force. Hell, the
>Kushan
>> built gravity weapons in Homeworld, they only discovered FTL travel less
>than a
>> century before then.
>
>ROFL! You're trying to argue a point on Star Trek vs. Star Wars using the
>computer game "Homeworld"?!?! It's a great game, sure, but that's the
>stupidest line of argument I've seen since your last post!
>
>The graviton beam would have needed precision, or else it would have acted
>on the Borg ship as nothing better than a plain old tractor beam.
>
Not really. A true gravitic weapon would impart obscene acceleration on one
point, like the mother of all mass-drivers. Of course, you need a
high-schoolers understanding of gravity to understand this, so I'll understand
if you don't get it.
>> >> The presence of neutronium on starship hulls and Dyson
>> >> Spheres would have just a many noticeable effects as the presence of it
>> >> on moons.
>> >
>> >Why? The field distortion, sufficiently localized, could be cancelled
>out
>> >on the opposite side. Further, when would we have noticed? It's not
>> >like Kirk stood on the hull of the planet killer as one would stand upon
>a
>> >moon.
>> >
>>
>> You don't get it, as usual.
>
>No, you don't get it, as usual.
>
>At first, I was worried about you, thinking that with your head up your ass
>your sphincter could clench and choke you to death. However, as
>well-practiced as you are with having large items up your ass, I realized it
>wasn't a problem.
>
You have a point to this ramble?
>> Neutronium is excessively heavy.
>
>No, you don't say! Of course, that's only Star Trek neutronium . . . SW
>neutronium is a metallic element found on veins on a moon.
>
Well, I suppose you could describe ultra-dense silvery material as metallic...
But you've not proved that STN is RLN yet. Keep trying little one.
>> A tablespoon is two tons. Therefore, there would be distortions on both
>sides(Gravity is
>> effective at infinite range. Andromeda's gravity effects us.), so sorry to
>> burst your bubble.
>
>My "bubble" is just fine. And so, all of the sudden, Star Trek is
>incapable of affecting change to gravity fields? Get a fucking clue.
>We've seen antigravs in use on equipment and vessels ("The Changeling"[TOS],
>Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier), we've seen
>the apparent mass reduction effects of the Federation and other
>civilizations, and we've witnessed the fine control of gravitons and
>antigravitons.
>
And you have yet to show me how they can create amounts of gravity equal to
1.5x stellar masses minimum. Oh, yes, and that would cause the ship to buckle
under the stress. And you can't 'lighten' neutronium, it would cause it to
explosively dissassociate.
>Oh, but because *you* say it's not possible, well, hell's bells, let's just
>throw all of ST canon out the window!
>
I'm the one who accepts what's Canon: That neutronium in that universe does not
exhibit the properties of RLN.
>Fuck off.
>
Have a nice Christmas.
Guardian 2000
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
This idea of "no spill" never had any supporting evidence. I pointed out a
perfectly reasonable counterargument, being that if a hyperdrive were set to
turn off at X gravity level, then even if it encountered X-Z on its way to
X, it would not shut down. Ian never gave anything to show that X-Z did
not exist.
> >B. Advanced gravity control would not be present in the moons from which
SW
> >neutronium is mined.
> >
>
> Of course, since you give endless excuses to Trek, I'll use one for Wars
here.
> The neutronium deposit is an ancient starship whose neutronium mass is
> permenantly held together/lightened via gravity manipulation.
Proof of, even support of, the notion of permanent AMRE (or AMRE at all, for
that matter) in Star Wars?
G2k
Guardian 2000
> Guardian 2000 wrote:
>
>
> > The neutronium containment hypothesis has, as a part of it, cancellation
of
> > that gravity field away from the neutronium object.
>
>
> You total, TOTAL idiot. The containment is what CREATES THE PROBLEM.
And fucking solves it, cocksmack! READ!
> > Like I said, you've been ignoring the concept of neutronium containment.
>
>
> No, I haven't. YOU have been ignoring its effects.
No, I've been using empirical data to gather what its effects are. You, on
the other hand, have sat there playing with yourself instead of reading.
> > Like I already said, the 97.835 megaton explosion was not intended to
> > destroy the hull, but the innards. No one ever claimed the innards
were
> > neutronium, and no one has ever claimed that the 97.835 megaton blast
did
> > jack shit to the hull, except cause it to turn grey.
>
>
> The Constitution would have been crushed or torn apart by the immense
> gravitational forces.
The neutronium containment field dissipation rate is not established. There
is no reason to assume that it would instantly cease to exist and that the
gravitational field would suddenly pull the Constellation or the Enterprise
into the hull.
> > Stupid bitch. Try to get a clue before you start claiming that others
> > don't have them.
>
>
> I HAVE a clue, two in fact. They're called particle physics and general
> relativity.
We're discussing canon and physics in a debate of two imagined spacefaring
civilizations. We know canon overrides physics to an extent, thanks to the
FTL propulsion systems of both powers. You're trying to claim that
physics overrides canon proof of gravity manipulation just because you say
so. Suck my dick.
> > Stupid bitch. I don't have to prove my knowledge to known assholes
and
> > fuckwits. I was replying to his stupid question with a similarly
phrased
> > question. He had the same choice I did with his question . . . either
sit
> > there and explain it for no reason, or ignore the question because it
was
> > irrelevant and a childish effort at one-upsmanship. I chose the best
> > option, throwing the same kind of question back at him.
>
> So, you don't know what a graviton is, and now you're saying that you
> don't have to in order to venture explanations for phenomena that
> supposedly involve them?
I'm saying I don't have to answer your childish question, asshole, which is
already clearly answered by my understanding and use of the concept.
> I'll ask again, do you know what a graviton is without looking around
Google for it?
Yes, I do. Thanks for playing.
> > And so here you go presuming that because I refused to answer the
question I
> > did not have the answer. Well, come on, bitch, do you know the
difference
> > between your ass and a hole in the ground? I don't think you do.
>
>
> Irrelevant.
I'll take a page from your book: "Ah, so you don't know the difference
between your ass and a hole in the ground! Well, concession accepted on
all topics, then, because someone who does not know the difference between
their ass and a hole in the ground is certainly incapable of contributing
anything of value to the debate."
> Your concession on the point due to ignorance of particle
> physics and the laws of gravitation is accepted.
No concession offerred, for your presumption of my ignorance is incorrect.
I'm not here to play your games. I'm here to debate.
As soon as you are willing to do the same, we'll talk. Until then, fuck
off.
G2k
Guardian 2000
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
You cannot accept a concession, for none has been offered implicitly or
explicitly. Please provide proof of your notion that Federation shielding
should cause the ship to become invisible along all spectrums and at all
strengths, or bugger off.
> >> And the Borg weapon need not have precision, mere brute force. Hell,
the
> >Kushan
> >> built gravity weapons in Homeworld, they only discovered FTL travel
less
> >than a
> >> century before then.
> >
> >ROFL! You're trying to argue a point on Star Trek vs. Star Wars using
the
> >computer game "Homeworld"?!?! It's a great game, sure, but that's the
> >stupidest line of argument I've seen since your last post!
> >
> >The graviton beam would have needed precision, or else it would have
acted
> >on the Borg ship as nothing better than a plain old tractor beam.
> >
>
> Not really. A true gravitic weapon would impart obscene acceleration on
one
> point, like the mother of all mass-drivers.
You want it to impart obscene acceleration on one point, but you also don't
think it needs to be precise (i.e. it can fling gravitons every which way).
Would you mind making up your fucking mind for me? Thanks.
> Of course, you need a
> high-schoolers understanding of gravity to understand this, so I'll
understand
> if you don't get it.
I understand all too well that you can't understand the difference between a
light bulb and a laser, since you don't comprehend the fact that a light
bulb (i.e. something that doesn't need precision) has photons flinging every
which way, whereas a laser (a precision instrument) provides that "point"
you refer to. Stupid bitch.
> >> >> The presence of neutronium on starship hulls and Dyson
> >> >> Spheres would have just a many noticeable effects as the presence of
it
> >> >> on moons.
> >> >
> >> >Why? The field distortion, sufficiently localized, could be
cancelled
> >out
> >> >on the opposite side. Further, when would we have noticed? It's
not
> >> >like Kirk stood on the hull of the planet killer as one would stand
upon
> >a
> >> >moon.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You don't get it, as usual.
> >
> >No, you don't get it, as usual.
> >
> >At first, I was worried about you, thinking that with your head up your
ass
> >your sphincter could clench and choke you to death. However, as
> >well-practiced as you are with having large items up your ass, I realized
it
> >wasn't a problem.
> >
>
> You have a point to this ramble?
Just that you're a moron, though that did not need to be reiterated.
> >> Neutronium is excessively heavy.
> >
> >No, you don't say! Of course, that's only Star Trek neutronium . . .
SW
> >neutronium is a metallic element found on veins on a moon.
> >
>
> Well, I suppose you could describe ultra-dense silvery material as
metallic...
Oh my fucking god . . . you're not really going to try to claim that RL
neutronium is a metallic element, are you?
> But you've not proved that STN is RLN yet. Keep trying little one.
ST neutronium comes from neutron stars, not from moons, and is a substance
composed of neutrons packed under intense gravity, unlike SW neutronium,
which is a metallic element found in veins on moons.
ST neutronium equals real life neutronium. SW neutronium does not.
> >> A tablespoon is two tons. Therefore, there would be distortions on both
> >sides(Gravity is
> >> effective at infinite range. Andromeda's gravity effects us.), so sorry
to
> >> burst your bubble.
> >
> >My "bubble" is just fine. And so, all of the sudden, Star Trek is
> >incapable of affecting change to gravity fields? Get a fucking clue.
> >We've seen antigravs in use on equipment and vessels ("The
Changeling"[TOS],
> >Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier), we've
seen
> >the apparent mass reduction effects of the Federation and other
> >civilizations, and we've witnessed the fine control of gravitons and
> >antigravitons.
> >
>
> And you have yet to show me how they can create amounts of gravity equal
to
> 1.5x stellar masses minimum.
The Dyson Sphere is all that and more.
> Oh, yes, and that would cause the ship to buckle under the stress.
When did I say I referred to Federation starships as using neutronium?
> And you can't 'lighten' neutronium, it would cause it to explosively
dissassociate.
Who said anything about lightening neutronium?
> >Oh, but because *you* say it's not possible, well, hell's bells, let's
just
> >throw all of ST canon out the window!
> >
>
> I'm the one who accepts what's Canon: That neutronium in that universe
does not
> exhibit the properties of RLN.
It's neutronium as found in neutron stars. The fact that technologically
advanced spacefaring races have managed to develop the technology to apply
it as a construction material does not negate the fact that it is neutronium
just because you say so.
G2k
Guardian 2000
> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message
> >
> > Blah, Blah, Blah, Moon!, Blah, Blah, Blah, Not real neutronium!, Blah,
Blah,
> > Blah, Veins, Blah, Blah, Blah, Mining, Blah, Blah, Blah, Proof?, Blah,
Blah, Blah, Star
> > Trek rulz, Blah, Blah, Blah, I'm so far up my own arse, Blah, Blah,
Blah, Moon rocks, >
> Blah, Blah, Blah.
>
Star Wars neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon.
Bitching about it like a little cuntscrub isn't going to help your argument.
G2k
Sir Nitram
A graviton shield, as fanboys claim, would warp spacetime around it's ship.
This would cause curvature of spacetime.. You know, how those demonstrations of
gravity are done with a rubber sheet and small iron balls? The curvature causes
everything to go back to the source, including light. A gravitic shield, using
the RL definition, is a black hole.
<Snip G2K rambling endlessly without any proof or rhyme or reason>
Guardian 2000
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
You lack imagination and knowledge of canon. Gravity control, including
the nullifying of gravity, is a known quantity in Star Trek.
> This would cause curvature of spacetime.. You know, how those
demonstrations of
> gravity are done with a rubber sheet and small iron balls? The curvature
causes
> everything to go back to the source, including light. A gravitic shield,
using
> the RL definition, is a black hole.
Further, you don't even understand the physics basis of the bullshit you're
trying to prove.
G2k
Durandal
> And fucking solves it, cocksmack! READ!
No, it doesn't. It CAN'T. Don't you get it? You're putting the cart
before the horse. The enormous forces required to hold the neutronium
together in its ultradense state will create warps in spacetime that
will act exactly like gravitational ones because they ARE gravitational
warps. You, yet AGAIN, demonstrate your complete and total ignorance of
particle physics, basic laws of gravitation and general relativity.
> No, I've been using empirical data to gather what its effects are. You, on
> the other hand, have sat there playing with yourself instead of reading.
"Empirical data"? In a SCI-FI universe? Are you THAT scientifically
ignorant?
> The neutronium containment field dissipation rate is not established. There
> is no reason to assume that it would instantly cease to exist and that the
> gravitational field would suddenly pull the Constellation or the Enterprise
> into the hull.
Throwing around terms you don't understand again, are you? "The
neutronium containment field dissipation rate is not established."? What
the fuck does that mean? Neutronium is an ultradense material. Lots of
mass packed into tiny spaces creates huge amounts of acceleration due to
gravity. Pumping gravitons into the material to hold it together is the
cause of this effect, in this case.
> We're discussing canon and physics in a debate of two imagined spacefaring
> civilizations. We know canon overrides physics to an extent, thanks to the
> FTL propulsion systems of both powers. You're trying to claim that
> physics overrides canon proof of gravity manipulation just because you say
> so. Suck my dick.
Your ludicrous fantasies about containing neutronium without having it
crush everything around it don't count as canon. This is a quote, NOT an
irrefutable observance. You're being a hypocrite by saying that we can't
apply the same to SW. I admit freely that SW neutronium isn't the same
stuff as RL, but ST neutronium, by the same token, can't be either,
because it doesn't demonstrate the properties of RL neutronium.
> I'm saying I don't have to answer your childish question, asshole, which is
> already clearly answered by my understanding and use of the concept.
Horseshit. You've got the understanding of particle physics that infants
have of "go poopy in the potty." Your refusal to meet my challenge to
provide an adequate definition of a graviton based upon your own
knowledge is utterly obvious proof that you've no clue what you're
talking about.
> I'll take a page from your book: "Ah, so you don't know the difference
> between your ass and a hole in the ground! Well, concession accepted on
> all topics, then, because someone who does not know the difference between
> their ass and a hole in the ground is certainly incapable of contributing
> anything of value to the debate."
MY challenge was relevant to the matter at hand. Yours is completely
inapplicable to the debate at hand. I'm trying to establish your ability
to even delve into the matter of neutronium confinements utilizing
graviton forcefields because your own statements make it appear as if
you're just pulling terminology out of your ass. You're throwing around
principles of whose implications you have absolutely zero idea.
> No concession offerred, for your presumption of my ignorance is incorrect.
> I'm not here to play your games. I'm here to debate.
Yes, you're here to debate. Part of debate is credibility. I've
established mine in prior threads dealing with particle interactions and
such. You, on the other hand, have not. In fact, you've demonstrated
your utter lack of knowledge in the area by failing to consider the
effects of a graviton field large enough to condense matter to
neutron-star density and then failing to answer my very simple challenge
that you demonstrate your proficiency in the area of physics at hand.
You're being a little chickenshit.
> As soon as you are willing to do the same, we'll talk. Until then, fuck
> off.
Concession accepted due to ignorance in relevant areas of physics. You
can't debate something you have no idea about.
Sir Nitram
And in Wars. What's your point? This doesn't remove the effect of such
manipulations. It will still bend light back in. And back out.
>> This would cause curvature of spacetime.. You know, how those
>demonstrations of
>> gravity are done with a rubber sheet and small iron balls? The curvature
>causes
>> everything to go back to the source, including light. A gravitic shield,
>using
>> the RL definition, is a black hole.
>
>Further, you don't even understand the physics basis of the bullshit you're
>trying to prove.
>
Gravity curves spacetime. Light follows the curve. A gravity shield, being a
perfect sphere(Or at least the funky bubbles we see) would bend light back into
itself. This is really very simple, but I'm not surprised you don't grasp it.
Kynes
<$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >The first point (Comes from neutron stars - reference Rebel Dawn) points
>> >to the fact that Rebel Dawn has two ships flying close to a neutron
>> >star. This material is never described as neutronium in the source, and
>> >is merely assumed to be such.
>>
>> Neutron stars are composed of neutronium by definition.
>
>But that's the problem. In the real world, neutron stars are composed of
>a material we call neutronium.
Indeed. A working definitin of "neutron star" is "a really small star made of
neutronium."
>We ask : "Is Star [Wars/Trek] Neutronium The Real thing" (ie, is it the
>same material as found in neutron stars).
Thus, an examination of said neutron stars -- which are made of neutronium --
should be a fair thing to start with, no? See about the properties of the ocean
and we can see about the properties of water.
>You can't start off assuming what you need to prove. you have to find
>evidence within Star [Wars/Trek] that shows what it really is.
That's what I'm doing. My evidence is the behaviour of neutron stars.
>In the case of Star Wars, current evidence indicates it most certainly
>is NOT the same stuff as real life neutronium.
I agree. It is different. So is ST neutronium. Both of them can be found in
neutron stars.
--
-LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]
"I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster.
I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts
of the Star Wars series."
- net.movies, 6/8/1982
Guardian 2000
> Guardian 2000 wrote:
>
>
> > And fucking solves it, cocksmack! READ!
>
>
> No, it doesn't. It CAN'T. Don't you get it? You're putting the cart
> before the horse. The enormous forces required to hold the neutronium
> together in its ultradense state will create warps in spacetime that
> will act exactly like gravitational ones because they ARE gravitational
> warps. You, yet AGAIN, demonstrate your complete and total ignorance of
> particle physics, basic laws of gravitation and general relativity.
And still, you cannot read. The very fact that the neutronium containment
system does not show these qualities outside the containment field means
that they are nullified outside the containment field, which is a damn good
idea considering the fact that these are objects you're supposed to be able
to fucking use! You are such a stupid little nothing!
> > No, I've been using empirical data to gather what its effects are.
You, on
> > the other hand, have sat there playing with yourself instead of reading.
>
>
> "Empirical data"? In a SCI-FI universe? Are you THAT scientifically
> ignorant?
Gathering evidence and forming hypotheses is a process useful in any sphere,
even interpersonal relations. For example, based on all the evidence that
you're a stupid fuckwit, I came to develop the hypothesis that you're a
stupid fuckwit, and would continue demonstrating qualities of a stupid
fuckwit in the future. You have consistently continued to demonstrate
those qualities, thereby supporting the hypothesis.
> > The neutronium containment field dissipation rate is not established.
There
> > is no reason to assume that it would instantly cease to exist and that
the
> > gravitational field would suddenly pull the Constellation or the
Enterprise
> > into the hull.
>
>
> Throwing around terms you don't understand again, are you? "The
> neutronium containment field dissipation rate is not established."? What
> the fuck does that mean? Neutronium is an ultradense material. Lots of
> mass packed into tiny spaces creates huge amounts of acceleration due to
> gravity. Pumping gravitons into the material to hold it together is the
> cause of this effect, in this case.
And you've given no reason above why my statement is not accurate. Try
again.
> > We're discussing canon and physics in a debate of two imagined
spacefaring
> > civilizations. We know canon overrides physics to an extent, thanks to
the
> > FTL propulsion systems of both powers. You're trying to claim that
> > physics overrides canon proof of gravity manipulation just because you
say
> > so. Suck my dick.
>
>
> Your ludicrous fantasies about containing neutronium without having it
> crush everything around it don't count as canon. This is a quote, NOT an
> irrefutable observance.
Canonically, neutronium can be used as a construction material by
technologically advanced cultures.
Canonically, neutronium comes from neutron stars, just like real neutronium.
So, as I said, suck my dick.
> You're being a hypocrite by saying that we can't apply the same to SW.
> I admit freely that SW neutronium isn't the same stuff as RL,
HOLY FUCKING SHIT! That's the most incredible thing I've seen all day.
Concession accepted.
> but ST neutronium, by the same token, can't be either,
> because it doesn't demonstrate the properties of RL neutronium.
Bullshit. It exists in neutron stars, it is ultradense and ultrastrong, et
cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum. Just because you cannot grasp how
technologically advanced civilizations could mold it into what they desire
without killing themselves is not my problem, nor is it a problem for Star
Trek neutronium being real neutronium.
> > I'm saying I don't have to answer your childish question, asshole, which
is
> > already clearly answered by my understanding and use of the concept.
>
> Horseshit. You've got the understanding of particle physics that infants
> have of "go poopy in the potty." Your refusal to meet my challenge to
> provide an adequate definition of a graviton based upon your own
> knowledge is utterly obvious proof that you've no clue what you're
> talking about.
And the fact that you don't know the difference between your ass and a hole
in the ground means that you have no clue about what you're talking about on
any subject. Tit for tat, bitch.
> > I'll take a page from your book: "Ah, so you don't know the difference
> > between your ass and a hole in the ground! Well, concession accepted
on
> > all topics, then, because someone who does not know the difference
between
> > their ass and a hole in the ground is certainly incapable of
contributing
> > anything of value to the debate."
>
>
> MY challenge was relevant to the matter at hand. Yours is completely
> inapplicable to the debate at hand.
On the contrary, my "challenge" speaks to every issue at hand.
<snip>
> > No concession offerred, for your presumption of my ignorance is
incorrect.
> > I'm not here to play your games. I'm here to debate.
>
>
> Yes, you're here to debate. Part of debate is credibility. I've
> established mine in prior threads dealing with particle interactions and
> such.
As have I, on such topics as Hawking Radiation, quantum singularities,
possible gravity control systems, et cetera.
<snip>
> In fact, you've demonstrated
> your utter lack of knowledge in the area by failing to consider the
> effects of a graviton field large enough to condense matter to
> neutron-star density
You have demonstrated your inability to determine the difference between
your ass and a hole in the ground by failing to take notice of the fact that
neutron containment systems need not demonstrate the property you wish to
ascribe to them.
<snip>
> > As soon as you are willing to do the same, we'll talk. Until then,
fuck
> > off.
>
>
> Concession accepted due to ignorance in relevant areas of physics. You
> can't debate something you have no idea about.
No concession offerred. Besides, you don't know the difference between
your ass and a hole in the ground. You wouldn't know what to do with a
concession even if I gave you one.
G2k
Kynes
>> The "lightbulb" in question, of course, has a fixed area of illumination,
>beyond
>> which no light is even visible; find me a lightbulb that can do this and
>I'll
>> trade it for a thousand lasers.
>
>You were never able to prove that the gravitational distortion came to an
>abrupt end (i.e. that no field existed past some boundary), as opposed to
>the far more reasonable notion that navicomputers disabled hyperdrive only
>when a certain field strength was encountered.
Because otherwise you could steer around them as you started to detect them far
away, idiot.
Kynes
>> This is rich.
>>
>> "The writers just COULDN'T have gotten it wrong!"
>
>Unlike SW writers, for whom SW neutronium is a metallic element found in
>veins on a moon.
To ST writers it's something to be alloyed with carbon and mined on planets.
>> I can't count on one hand how many rules this violates. 1 and 3 I'm sure
>of.
>
>Don't hide behind the rules, you little bitch.
Fuck you. It's not my fault you're ignorant of the practices of the group. Your
argument is invalid on face; concession accepted.
>"Don't wait for the translation! Answer me now!"
> -General Chang, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
And by the way, you pedantic cunt, this may surprise you, but that was Adlai
Stevenson. Get some fresh air.
Lurker
> "Lurker" wrote in message
>
> > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message
> > >
> > > Blah, Blah, Blah, Moon!, Blah, Blah, Blah, Not real neutronium!, Blah,
> > > Blah, Blah, Veins, Blah, Blah, Blah, Mining, Blah, Blah, Blah, Proof?,
> > > Blah, Blah, Blah, Star Trek rulz, Blah, Blah, Blah, I'm so far up my
> > > own arse, Blah, Blah, Blah, Moon rocks, Blah, Blah, Blah.
> >
>
> Star Wars neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon.
What just one moon?, must be a fucking busy place!
Star Trek neutronium is a rocky element found underground on planets.
> Bitching about it like a little cuntscrub isn't going to help your argument.
It's a little in joke, but this time half the NG won't threaten to KF me like last
time!
Oh, I'm not bitching and I haven't even started to argue yet, I'll see if I can be
bothered to take part again later tonight.
Durandal
> And still, you cannot read. The very fact that the neutronium containment
> system does not show these qualities outside the containment field means
> that they are nullified outside the containment field, which is a damn good
> idea considering the fact that these are objects you're supposed to be able
> to fucking use! You are such a stupid little nothing!
What an excellent display of circular logic. "It has to because it's
required to prove my assumption!"
> Gathering evidence and forming hypotheses is a process useful in any sphere,
> even interpersonal relations. For example, based on all the evidence that
> you're a stupid fuckwit, I came to develop the hypothesis that you're a
> stupid fuckwit, and would continue demonstrating qualities of a stupid
> fuckwit in the future. You have consistently continued to demonstrate
> those qualities, thereby supporting the hypothesis.
That evidence isn't TESTABLE. Have you taken the quantum singularity
from whichever episode of TNG and tested it in a lab?
> And you've given no reason above why my statement is not accurate. Try
> again.
Aside from that fact that you have no clue what you're talking about
and, thus, no place putting forth an explanation?
> Canonically, neutronium can be used as a construction material by
> technologically advanced cultures.
One of the gansters upon being beamed up to the Enterprise chewed
neutronium (Piece of Action, TOS).
> Canonically, neutronium comes from neutron stars, just like real neutronium.
Proof?
> So, as I said, suck my dick.
I love watching depserate debaters degenerate into insult.
> HOLY FUCKING SHIT! That's the most incredible thing I've seen all day.
>
> Concession accepted.
I'm sure it is. I've been thinking of giving you a Christmas present and
letting you in on the definition of a graviton, but I just decided
against it.
> Bullshit. It exists in neutron stars, it is ultradense and ultrastrong, et
> cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum. Just because you cannot grasp how
> technologically advanced civilizations could mold it into what they desire
> without killing themselves is not my problem, nor is it a problem for Star
> Trek neutronium being real neutronium.
See above example from TOS. You can't chew neutronium, or even pick it
up in small amounts.
> And the fact that you don't know the difference between your ass and a hole
> in the ground means that you have no clue about what you're talking about on
> any subject. Tit for tat, bitch.
"Bla bla bla, bitch! Hahahah! I win!!"
> As have I, on such topics as Hawking Radiation, quantum singularities,
> possible gravity control systems, et cetera.
Then why haven't you met my very simple challenge?
> You have demonstrated your inability to determine the difference between
> your ass and a hole in the ground by failing to take notice of the fact that
> neutron containment systems need not demonstrate the property you wish to
> ascribe to them.
Because they don't work the way you want them to. Or, it's just not
neutronium. You're ignoring the very simple fact that a pithy nuclear
explosion, like the one of the Constitution's impulse engines, would
fail to do jackshit to the Doomsday. If that were the case, you could
just blast the ship with an anti-graviton beam and be done with it.
> No concession offerred. Besides, you don't know the difference between
> your ass and a hole in the ground. You wouldn't know what to do with a
> concession even if I gave you one.
You've obviously degenerated into your usual web of hypocrisy and
stupidity. I think it's about time for you standard 6 month sojourn away
from the group.
I'll pick this up later. I can only take so much stupidity at one time.