TIE's and fed ships
His Divine Shadow {PHX}
against fed ships because they would use proximity detonation torpedoes and
their phasers can target and slice and dice TIE's as fast as they can throw
them at them.
Really I'd like to know when photon torps have demonstrated such ability
against fighters, or when phasers have been shown to carve small fighters up
without breaking a sweat, as far as I can tell this is trekkie fantasies.
Durandal
His Divine Shadow {PHX} wrote:
>
> I have heard alot of babble about how TIE's would be nothing but fodder
> against fed ships because they would use proximity detonation torpedoes and
> their phasers can target and slice and dice TIE's as fast as they can throw
> them at them.
Depends on the model, really. Normal TIE Fighters would be essentially
toast.
> Really I'd like to know when photon torps have demonstrated such ability
> against fighters, or when phasers have been shown to carve small fighters up
> without breaking a sweat, as far as I can tell this is trekkie fantasies.
You're being a little extreme, here. Phasers are more than capable of
blasting unshielded fighters into space dust. TIE Defenders and
Advanced, on the other hand, won't be as easily destroyed. TIE Bombers
would inflict damage before they go, but they'd be destroyed.
--
Damien Sorresso
[AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859]
Nobody knows everything.
I am nobody.
I know everything.
His Divine Shadow {PHX}
> > against fighters, or when phasers have been shown to carve small
fighters up
> > without breaking a sweat, as far as I can tell this is trekkie
fantasies.
>
> You're being a little extreme, here. Phasers are more than capable of
> blasting unshielded fighters into space dust. TIE Defenders and
> Advanced, on the other hand, won't be as easily destroyed. TIE Bombers
> would inflict damage before they go, but they'd be destroyed.
Ofcourse I know that a standard Tie cant take a hit, I'm questioning the
notion that one can send 30 TIE standards on a fed ship and it'll fire a
couple of phaser blasts with 123% accuracy and blow all the TIEs to hell
immediatly.
I'd also like to know of this photon proximity blast theory and where it has
been used successfully against fighters.
Wayne Poe
"His Divine Shadow {PHX}" <hisdivi...@forpresident.com> wrote
> I have heard alot of babble about how TIE's would be nothing but fodder
> against fed ships because they would use proximity detonation torpedoes
and
> their phasers can target and slice and dice TIE's as fast as they can
throw
> them at them.
If TIEs stayed still, then yes they'd be hit easily. But TIEs are highly
maneuverable, and as shown in VOY's "Dragon's Teeth", highly maneuverable
craft can confound a phaser lock. Proximity detonation torpedoes are
probably a fanboy creation; I haven't heard of them for the Trek side.
Proton torpedoes on the other hand, CAN be set for proximity detonation
(Isard's Revenge)
Now, Trekkies will bring up TNG episodes like "Conundrum" and say, "See? A
GCS can easily target fighter sized craft!" Trouble with that example is,
those Lysian drones were NOT maneuvering, and traveling slowly.
Guardian 2000
"His Divine Shadow {PHX}" <hisdivi...@forpresident.com> wrote in
message news:ucDT7.49$dN.1...@read2.inet.fi...
> > > Really I'd like to know when photon torps have demonstrated such
ability
> > > against fighters, or when phasers have been shown to carve small
> fighters up
> > > without breaking a sweat, as far as I can tell this is trekkie
> fantasies.
> >
> > You're being a little extreme, here. Phasers are more than capable of
> > blasting unshielded fighters into space dust. TIE Defenders and
> > Advanced, on the other hand, won't be as easily destroyed. TIE Bombers
> > would inflict damage before they go, but they'd be destroyed.
>
> Ofcourse I know that a standard Tie cant take a hit, I'm questioning the
> notion that one can send 30 TIE standards on a fed ship and it'll fire a
> couple of phaser blasts with 123% accuracy and blow all the TIEs to hell
> immediatly.
Well, I don't know about "a couple of phaser blasts", but 30 TIEs (depending
on formation) could be taken out of action relatively quickly, either by
using the phaser array in "multi-shot mode" (see "Conundrum"[TNG] . . .
Enterprise-D phaser banks were firing more than one shot simultaneously
against small "easy pickens" targets), or alternately with a few shot from
the phasers set to a wider beam.
> I'd also like to know of this photon proximity blast theory and where it
has
> been used successfully against fighters.
I believe this comes from "Preemptive Strike"[TNG] . . . a spread of photon
torpedoes is fired from Enterprise into the midst of Maquis vessels which
are attacking a Cardassian Galor-Class ship . . . Picard had ordered Worf to
detonate a torpedo spread between the Maquis and the Cardassians. We are
shown the last of three torpedoes detonate right beside two of these, one of
the large Bajoran assault vessels and a common Maquis raider, which were
minding their own business firing on the Cardassian ship. Neither Maquis
vessel is hit directly, but the blast knocks them both for a loop. The
Maquis scatter and withdraw.
G2k
Matthew Hyde
>
> "His Divine Shadow {PHX}" <hisdivi...@forpresident.com> wrote in
> message news:ucDT7.49$dN.1...@read2.inet.fi...
> > > > Really I'd like to know when photon torps have demonstrated such
> ability
> > > > against fighters, or when phasers have been shown to carve small
> > fighters up
> > > > without breaking a sweat, as far as I can tell this is trekkie
> > fantasies.
> > >
> > > You're being a little extreme, here. Phasers are more than capable of
> > > blasting unshielded fighters into space dust. TIE Defenders and
> > > Advanced, on the other hand, won't be as easily destroyed. TIE Bombers
> > > would inflict damage before they go, but they'd be destroyed.
> >
> > Ofcourse I know that a standard Tie cant take a hit, I'm questioning the
> > notion that one can send 30 TIE standards on a fed ship and it'll fire a
> > couple of phaser blasts with 123% accuracy and blow all the TIEs to hell
> > immediatly.
>
> Well, I don't know about "a couple of phaser blasts", but 30 TIEs (depending
> on formation) could be taken out of action relatively quickly, either by
> using the phaser array in "multi-shot mode" (see "Conundrum"[TNG] . . .
I'd LOVE to, just to see the command and control in that one. "XO,
change to um [BOOM!] SHIT! that uh, mode [BOOM! CRASH!]"
"Multi-shot mode?"
[WHUMP! popopopopop! popopopop!]
"YES, dammit! Why isn't in multi-shot mode by defaul-"
[BAAARRRRRRROOOOMMMMMMM!!!!!!]
--
Matt Hyde
http://www.mathlab.mtu.edu/~mdoughy
Paradox
Assuming phasers could do a wide beam, then maybe they could fry some of the
electronics, but TIE's do actually have armor, and isn't that what phasers
have trouble breaking through? They are doubly screwed if its the same
durasteel/neutronium mix that ISD's have. But nonetheless, if the Empire
made a stab into the milky way, they'd want to have shielded TIE's, since
they couldn't just throw them away willy nilly, because resupply could
become a problem at any time.
Guardian 2000
I don't know what the appropriate designation is for when a phaser array
is rigged to fire multiple shots simultaneously instead of a single
shot, but I would assume that the multi-shot mode is exquisite against
smaller, weaker targets that don't require a full shot.
G2k
Guardian 2000
Paradox wrote:
<snip>
> Assuming phasers could do a wide beam, then maybe they could fry some of the
> electronics, but TIE's do actually have armor, and isn't that what phasers
> have trouble breaking through? They are doubly screwed if its the same
> durasteel/neutronium mix that ISD's have.
So, they are singly screwed if the TIE is wearing some old chain mail.
Riiiight.
G2k
Sir Nitram
Wow, Guardian once again misses the point and subsequently creates a strawman.
Are we surprised? No.
------------------------------------
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.
Matthew Hyde
I wouldn't assume, I would conclude, that Starflap weapons and warfare
philosophies are seriously FUBAR. I am glad that they're not humans.
Ted Archbold
Guardian 2000 <usm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9vng5l$gfv6f$1...@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de...
> I believe this comes from "Preemptive Strike"[TNG] . . . a spread of
photon
> torpedoes is fired from Enterprise into the midst of Maquis vessels which
> are attacking a Cardassian Galor-Class ship . . . Picard had ordered Worf
to
> detonate a torpedo spread between the Maquis and the Cardassians. We are
> shown the last of three torpedoes detonate right beside two of these, one
of
> the large Bajoran assault vessels and a common Maquis raider, which were
> minding their own business firing on the Cardassian ship. Neither Maquis
> vessel is hit directly, but the blast knocks them both for a loop. The
> Maquis scatter and withdraw.
>
But that's not proxy detinations, thats being remotely detonated.
Guardian 2000
"Ted Archbold" <tedman...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9vr6a2$h9nh2$1...@ID-121890.news.dfncis.de...
Point taken. However, as there was argument as to whether torpedoes could
even cause such a scatter, I felt it necessary to point out the evidence.
G2k
Kamakazie Sith
> "His Divine Shadow {PHX}" <hisdivi...@forpresident.com> wrote
> > I have heard alot of babble about how TIE's would be nothing but fodder
> > against fed ships because they would use proximity detonation torpedoes
> and
> > their phasers can target and slice and dice TIE's as fast as they can
> throw
> > them at them.
>
> If TIEs stayed still, then yes they'd be hit easily. But TIEs are highly
> maneuverable, and as shown in VOY's "Dragon's Teeth", highly maneuverable
> craft can confound a phaser lock. Proximity detonation torpedoes are
> probably a fanboy creation; I haven't heard of them for the Trek side.
> Proton torpedoes on the other hand, CAN be set for proximity detonation
> (Isard's Revenge)
Voyager was doing very well against those fighters in Dragons Teeth,
not to mention they had their targetting sensors knocked out, and
Tuvok was still hitting multiple targets with multiple arrays.
If I remember correctly I got 60% accuracy. (Keep in mind this number
would be far higher if the sensors weren't knocked offline.)
> Now, Trekkies will bring up TNG episodes like "Conundrum" and say, "See? A
> GCS can easily target fighter sized craft!" Trouble with that example is,
> those Lysian drones were NOT maneuvering, and traveling slowly.
That's true they weren't but that's a good example of what a Type X
phaser arrays firing rate is against small craft.
Kamakazie Sith
This is a fallacy created by warsies. Phasers are effective against
everything but PURE neutronium. Sure, they are less effective against
armoured starship, but even HTL are less effective against armored
targets.
Since we don't know how much neutronium is in an ISD armor it's really
a moot point.
Kazuaki Shimazaki
>
> "Paradox" <l33ta0...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<9vnp1d$g9kj9$1...@ID-109635.news.dfncis.de>...
> > His Divine Shadow {PHX} <hisdivi...@forpresident.com> wrote in message
> > news:ZGBT7.17$dN....@read2.inet.fi...
> > Assuming phasers could do a wide beam, then maybe they could fry some of the
> > electronics, but TIE's do actually have armor, and isn't that what phasers
> > have trouble breaking through? They are doubly screwed if its the same
> > durasteel/neutronium mix that ISD's have. But nonetheless, if the Empire
> > made a stab into the milky way, they'd want to have shielded TIE's, since
> > they couldn't just throw them away willy nilly, because resupply could
> > become a problem at any time.
>
> This is a fallacy created by warsies. Phasers are effective against
> everything but PURE neutronium. Sure, they are less effective against
> armoured starship, but even HTL are less effective against armored
> targets.
Of course they are, the problem is that the effectiveness drops out of
normal proportions.
> Since we don't know how much neutronium is in an ISD armor it's really
> a moot point.
There is no mention or how much is needed, all we know is that
neutronium does stop phasers. A single angstrom's worth of neutronium
layering, AFAIK, is potentially enough.
Cmdrwilkens
news:89c4bcfd.01122...@posting.google.com...
> "Paradox" <l33ta0...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<9vnp1d$g9kj9$1...@ID-109635.news.dfncis.de>...
> > His Divine Shadow {PHX} <hisdivi...@forpresident.com> wrote in
message
> > news:ZGBT7.17$dN....@read2.inet.fi...
>
> This is a fallacy created by warsies. Phasers are effective against
> everything but PURE neutronium.
You do realize that neutronium, due to being degeneret stellar matter, is
ALWAYS pure? I mean if you stuck something else in the middle of neutronium
the sheer gravitational forces would tear it down...into neutronium.
Basically you can't alloy it so it will always be pure, the only qustion is
one of density and/or palcement the density question never being answered
and the distribution of neutronium throughout the armor belt also never
being fully answered.
--
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
Dalton
[snip]
> This is a fallacy created by warsies.
Ride that generalization a little more, fucktard.
--
Rob "Roby" Dalton
http://daltonator.net
"I need a drink."
"You don't drink."
"Yeah, but I've been meaning to start."
---UHF
Guardian 2000
"Cmdrwilkens" <cmdrw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lteV7.23935$fo.30...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> "Kamakazie Sith" <sit...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:89c4bcfd.01122...@posting.google.com...
> > "Paradox" <l33ta0...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<9vnp1d$g9kj9$1...@ID-109635.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > His Divine Shadow {PHX} <hisdivi...@forpresident.com> wrote in
> message
> > > news:ZGBT7.17$dN....@read2.inet.fi...
> <snip>
> >
> > This is a fallacy created by warsies. Phasers are effective against
> > everything but PURE neutronium.
>
> You do realize that neutronium, due to being degeneret stellar matter, is
> ALWAYS pure? I mean if you stuck something else in the middle of
neutronium
> the sheer gravitational forces would tear it down...into neutronium.
No, that is incorrect. The neutronium requires the pre-existing
gravitational forces to be created. Outside of a gravitational envelope
(or a reasonably-created facsimile thereof), the neutronium will break down,
not the "something else".
Of course, the simple fact that Star Wars neutronium is mined from a moon
means that it cannot be what is referred to in our neck of the woods as
neutronium.
> Basically you can't alloy it so it will always be pure, the only qustion
is
> one of density and/or palcement the density question never being answered
> and the distribution of neutronium throughout the armor belt also never
> being fully answered.
As to the question of neutronium density (assuming we grant the erroneous
notion that SW neutronium is "real" neutronium) see the following:
http://www.trek-wars.co.uk/neutroni.htm
G2k
Kynes
>This is a fallacy created by warsies. Phasers are effective against
>everything but PURE neutronium.
Wrong.
In "Relics," the E-D couldn't do shit to "carbon-neutronium." In "Think Tank,"
Janeway said neutronium-based armor was impervious to their weapons. Etc etc
etc. All that's required is that the armor be composed at least partly of
neutronium, as ISD hulls are.
--
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
Kynes
>Of course, the simple fact that Star Wars neutronium is mined from a moon
>means that it cannot be what is referred to in our neck of the woods as
>neutronium.
Of course, the simple fact that Star Trek neutronium can be observed in small
stellar fragments ("Evolution") or made into doorways, temples, and alloyed with
carbon means it's not RL neutronium either.
SW neutronium:
-> Comes from neutron stars ("Rebel Dawn")
-> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn
-> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor
ST neutronium:
-> Same on all points
They sound the same to me.
Kamakazie Sith
> Kamakazie Sith wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > This is a fallacy created by warsies.
>
> Ride that generalization a little more, fucktard.
Listen bitch, I only here that bullshit coming from warsies, so till I
hear otherwise I will say it is a fallacy created by warsies....I hope
this wasn't too hard for you to understand.
Kamakazie Sith
> Kamakazie Sith wrote:
> >
> > "Paradox" <l33ta0...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<9vnp1d$g9kj9$1...@ID-109635.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > His Divine Shadow {PHX} <hisdivi...@forpresident.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ZGBT7.17$dN....@read2.inet.fi...
> <snip>
> > > Assuming phasers could do a wide beam, then maybe they could fry some of the
> > > electronics, but TIE's do actually have armor, and isn't that what phasers
> > > have trouble breaking through? They are doubly screwed if its the same
> > > durasteel/neutronium mix that ISD's have. But nonetheless, if the Empire
> > > made a stab into the milky way, they'd want to have shielded TIE's, since
> > > they couldn't just throw them away willy nilly, because resupply could
> > > become a problem at any time.
> >
> > This is a fallacy created by warsies. Phasers are effective against
> > everything but PURE neutronium. Sure, they are less effective against
> > armoured starship, but even HTL are less effective against armored
> > targets.
>
> Of course they are, the problem is that the effectiveness drops out of
> normal proportions.
What are normal proportions? Phasers can vaporize miles of rock, but
only 20-50 meters of starship hull. HTL can vaporize whatever you
like to think they can, but they don't have an equal effect against
starships.
> > Since we don't know how much neutronium is in an ISD armor it's really
> > a moot point.
>
> There is no mention or how much is needed, all we know is that
> neutronium does stop phasers. A single angstrom's worth of neutronium
> layering, AFAIK, is potentially enough.
Actually potentially it would need to be as thick as what we've seen
in the episodes.
Guardian 2000
"Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
news:wyomPEDT4cVdKFUXvFHi=A8q...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:56:10 -0600, "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >Of course, the simple fact that Star Wars neutronium is mined from a moon
> >means that it cannot be what is referred to in our neck of the woods as
> >neutronium.
>
> Of course, the simple fact that Star Trek neutronium can be observed in
small
> stellar fragments ("Evolution")
Stellar fragment? "Evolution"[TNG] took place in the Kavis Alpha system,
where Dr. Stubbs was going to study the Kavis Alpha *neutron star*!
Try again, Ian.
> or made into doorways, temples,
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.
> and alloyed with carbon means it's not RL neutronium either.
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.
> SW neutronium:
>
> -> Comes from neutron stars ("Rebel Dawn")
It comes from a moon, too. Therefore, either SW neutron stars are not real
neutron stars, or there are two types of neutronium . . . real, "stellar"
neutronium, and whatever the crap mined out of a moon is.
> -> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn
> -> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor
The "light" form of neutronium would have to be "moon" neutronium, and
cannot be real, "stellar" neutronium. Otherwise, you're just talking about
neutrons. Big frickin' whoop.
> ST neutronium:
>
> -> Same on all points
False. Star Trek neutronium is never stated to come from moon mining.
Further, we do not know the exact mass of those objects which have been
stated to have a neutronium composition, though we do know that the Dyson
Sphere was very, very massive. The neutronium door, which would've been
held together by shielding, did not appear to have any particularly
impressive mass, and thus this mass was either shielded in the same way or
by some other method.
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.
> They sound the same to me.
Wishful thinking.
G2k
Guardian 2000
> On 22 Dec 2001 18:13:14 -0800, sit...@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) wrote:
>
> >This is a fallacy created by warsies. Phasers are effective against
> >everything but PURE neutronium.
>
> Wrong.
>
> In "Relics," the E-D couldn't do shit to "carbon-neutronium." In "Think
Tank,"
> Janeway said neutronium-based armor was impervious to their weapons. Etc
etc
> etc. All that's required is that the armor be composed at least partly of
> neutronium, as ISD hulls are.
Again, false, as you have two choices in reference to the neutronium content
of ISD hulls:
1. It is not real neutronium, since it's mined from a moon.
2. The neutronium is real, but the neutronium content of the hull is so
astronomically tiny as to be irrelevant:
http://www.trek-wars.co.uk/neutroni.htm
G2k
Kynes
>> >This is a fallacy created by warsies. Phasers are effective against
>> >everything but PURE neutronium.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> In "Relics," the E-D couldn't do shit to "carbon-neutronium." In "Think
>Tank,"
>> Janeway said neutronium-based armor was impervious to their weapons. Etc
>etc
>> etc. All that's required is that the armor be composed at least partly of
>> neutronium, as ISD hulls are.
>
>Again, false, as you have two choices in reference to the neutronium content
>of ISD hulls:
>
>1. It is not real neutronium, since it's mined from a moon.
It's as real as ST neutronium, which can be found occurring naturally in small
stellar fragments, temples built by pre-warp civilizations, etc.
>2. The neutronium is real, but the neutronium content of the hull is so
>astronomically tiny as to be irrelevant:
1) I don't recall Janeway or anyone else ever saying the amount of neutronium
mattered.
2) That blueprint is for a ship which was never shown on screen.
3) The "Think Tank" had no adverse gravity effects to things around it, so the
percentage of neutronium must have been small there. Small with the Iconian
temple.
Kamakazie Sith
>
> >This is a fallacy created by warsies. Phasers are effective against
> >everything but PURE neutronium.
>
> Wrong.
>
> In "Relics," the E-D couldn't do shit to "carbon-neutronium." In "Think Tank,"
> Janeway said neutronium-based armor was impervious to their weapons. Etc etc
> etc. All that's required is that the armor be composed at least partly of
> neutronium, as ISD hulls are.
Do you have a quote?
Lord Edam de Fromage
Kynes
> >Of course, the simple fact that Star Wars neutronium is mined from a moon
> >means that it cannot be what is referred to in our neck of the woods as
> >neutronium.
> SW neutronium:
>
> -> Comes from neutron stars ("Rebel Dawn")
> -> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn
> -> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor
Guardian: Is Star Wars neutronium the Real Thing?
Kynes: If I assume Star Wars neutronium is the material found in neutron
stars, yes it is The Real Thing.
Rebel Dawn makes no reference to neutronium. The only way you can derive
a reference from that source is if you assume what must be proven.
This is a classic example of circular reasoning.
--
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
Kynes
>> >Of course, the simple fact that Star Wars neutronium is mined from a moon
>> >means that it cannot be what is referred to in our neck of the woods as
>> >neutronium.
>>
>> Of course, the simple fact that Star Trek neutronium can be observed in
>small
>> stellar fragments ("Evolution")
>
>Stellar fragment? "Evolution"[TNG] took place in the Kavis Alpha system,
>where Dr. Stubbs was going to study the Kavis Alpha *neutron star*!
Starring things doesn't make them true. The scientist came to observe the
explusion of large globules from the star, not the star itself. Those globules
never decayed in the episode.
Another demonstration of this is in "The Masterpiece Society." This is actually
the one I was thinking of originally -- the E-D observes a fragment of a neutron
star, free of the star itself. Shouldn't it be decaying? yes
>> or made into doorways, temples,
>
>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.
Scoot, if you think you can get away with saying "I've proven this before" as if
it's a real argument, you are even stupider than I imagined.
>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.
SW neutronium comes from neutron stars. ref: Rebel Dawn
>> and alloyed with carbon means it's not RL neutronium either.
>
>The Carbon-neutronium alloy of the Dyson Sphere is perplexing, but not
>necessarily impossible.
Is it impossible? obviously not, it's canon
However, that requires us to accept that our RL understanding of neutronium is
wrong on many points and further-advanced civilizations like the UFP and Empire,
who actually work with it unlike us, will sometimes appear to use it in ways and
find it in places that seem impossible to us.
[snip]
Your speculation is just that, speculation. You are a hypocrite; you are willing
to concoct vast, unlikely explanations for seemingly impossible uses and
locations of ST neutronium but want SW judged on a different standard. I reject
that.
SW and ST both violate the RL principles of neutronium; what's more, they do it
in similar ways related to their apparent mass. Thus, given the fact that they
have the same and thus a very strong presumption of being the same anyway, they
are the same.
>Of course, as the episode did not go into detail about the containment of
>the neutronium, the above is only a workable hypothesis.
I will be using this "workable hypothesis with no proof" standard in further
discussion with you.
>> SW neutronium:
>>
>> -> Comes from neutron stars ("Rebel Dawn")
>
>It comes from a moon, too. Therefore, either SW neutron stars are not real
>neutron stars, or there are two types of neutronium . . . real, "stellar"
>neutronium, and whatever the crap mined out of a moon is.
Neutron stars are real neutron stars; they have all the same properties of the
real thing, which is why Han needed to be there in the first place, as you'd
know if you read the novel, or any evidence for that matter.
Workable Hypothesis: A ship with neutronium armor crashed there long ago. Its
armor was permanently mass-reduced by some Clarkean "magic" technology.
>> -> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn
>> -> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor
>
>The "light" form of neutronium would have to be "moon" neutronium, and
>cannot be real, "stellar" neutronium.
Ah, then ST's "light" form of neutronium, as seen in armor, doorways, and
temples of pre-warp civilizations is also different from real, "stellar"
neutronium.
>> ST neutronium:
>>
>> -> Same on all points
>
>False. Star Trek neutronium is never stated to come from moon mining.
The Iconians, who are pre-warp, could build a temple out of it. Thus it must be
mineable on the ground. ("To the Death")
>Sphere was very, very massive. The neutronium door, which would've been
>held together by shielding, did not appear to have any particularly
>impressive mass, and thus this mass was either shielded in the same way or
>by some other method.
1) No proof of being held together by shielding
2) No proof of mass reduction
>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.
An explanation for this appears above. Further, see "The Masterpiece Society."
Kynes
<$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote:
>> -> Comes from neutron stars ("Rebel Dawn")
>> -> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn
>> -> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor
>
>Guardian: Is Star Wars neutronium the Real Thing?
>
>Kynes: If I assume Star Wars neutronium is the material found in neutron
>stars, yes it is The Real Thing.
Edam: Prove humans can't breathe water.
Kynes: On page fifty-three of the "Big Book of Humans," it's said that if you
throw a human into an ocean, he will die, because he won't be able to breathe.
Edam: Circular reasoning; you assume oceans are made of water.
Kynes
>Do you have a quote?
Why, yes I do.
"The Temple is constructed out of neutronium. As such, even with a direct hit
from a quantum torpedo we can not be assured of destruction."
- Vorta, DS9's "To The Death"
"The Think Tank is out there somewhere, hiding in subspace. How do we find them?
And even if we can, their ship's hull is neutronium-based alloy, impervious to
our weapons."
- Janeway, "Think Tank"
"The exterior is composed of carbon neutronium. Our weapons would be
ineffective."
- Worf, "Relics"
I think there might be more, but that were the first few that came up.
--
-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
Dalton
Aha, typical trektard bigot. Fuck off, smallmind.
Guardian 2000
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 15:24:21 -0600, "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >> >Of course, the simple fact that Star Wars neutronium is mined from a
moon
> >> >means that it cannot be what is referred to in our neck of the woods
as
> >> >neutronium.
> >>
> >> Of course, the simple fact that Star Trek neutronium can be observed in
> >small
> >> stellar fragments ("Evolution")
> >
> >Stellar fragment? "Evolution"[TNG] took place in the Kavis Alpha
system,
> >where Dr. Stubbs was going to study the Kavis Alpha *neutron star*!
>
> Starring things doesn't make them true. The scientist came to observe the
> explusion of large globules from the star, not the star itself. Those
globules
> never decayed in the episode.
That's funny . . . I've never heard of the episode you're trying to
describe.
Now, there was an episode of TNG called "Evolution", where a scientist, Dr.
Paul Stubbs, came aboard with a probe he'd been working on for 20 years.
The Kavis Alpha neutron star was part of a binary, and the neutron star
would suck material off of its companion for 196 years until the material
exploded off of the neutron star, including some of the neutronium, at
relativistic speeds. The experiment at Kavis Alpha was referred to as a
being a neutron decay experiment. Nanites almost interfered with the
experiment, but this was averted through diplomacy.
I don't know what these globules of yours are, but you'd better start
collecting some quotes to back that up.
> Another demonstration of this is in "The Masterpiece Society." This is
actually
> the one I was thinking of originally -- the E-D observes a fragment of a
neutron
> star, free of the star itself. Shouldn't it be decaying? yes
Another false recollection, Ian? Tsk, tsk.
The Enterprise-D was tracking a "stellar core fragment" . . . I recall no
mention being made as to whether this was from a neutron star or not. But
even if it was a fragment from a neutron star, did you not see that bright
blue glow? This could very well indicate that the fragment, if from a
neutron star which had disintegrated, was itself breaking down.
>
> >> or made into doorways, temples,
> >
> >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.
>
> Scoot, if you think you can get away with saying "I've proven this before"
as if
> it's a real argument, you are even stupider than I imagined.
I did establish it before. If you're a glutton for punishment, we can go
through the whole rigamarole again, but not being a sadist, I wouldn't want
to do that to you.
>
> >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.
>
> SW neutronium comes from neutron stars. ref: Rebel Dawn
Edam has quite nicely deflated your position on this. Besides, there would
have to be two types of "neutronium", stellar (i.e. "real") and lunar (i.e.
"fake"), since the two cannot be the same.
> >> and alloyed with carbon means it's not RL neutronium either.
> >
> >The Carbon-neutronium alloy of the Dyson Sphere is perplexing, but not
> >necessarily impossible.
>
> Is it impossible? obviously not, it's canon
I was referring to reality, not canon.
> However, that requires us to accept that our RL understanding of
neutronium is
> wrong on many points and further-advanced civilizations like the UFP and
Empire,
> who actually work with it unlike us, will sometimes appear to use it in
ways and
> find it in places that seem impossible to us.
Thank you for copping out of the debate. I'll accept your concession that
Imperial neutronium is not real neutronium.
> Your speculation is just that, speculation. You are a hypocrite; you are
willing
> to concoct vast, unlikely explanations for seemingly impossible uses and
> locations of ST neutronium but want SW judged on a different standard. I
reject
> that.
I'm judging Star Trek and Star Wars according to the exact same standard.
If it were said that Star Destroyer hulls were an alloy of neutronium, I
would allow the same hypothesis to hold. However, as it has been
demonstrated that Star Wars neutronium is a moon rock, I find that there can
be nothing to save Star Wars from the fate of having something called
neutronium, but which is not true neutronium.
If a Star Trek episode were to have an instance where someone was playing
with a neutronium ping-pong ball, bouncing it against the wall and
explaining that there was nothing in the universe . . . not technobabble,
not Q, nothing . . . holding it together, I would quite happily declare
Star Trek neutronium to be nothing more than a mislabeled substance, a la
Star Wars neutronium.
However, as Star Wars has managed to turn a blind eye to science on this
topic, we must, if we are to consider it openly and honestly, confess that
Star Wars "neutronium" just isn't neutronium.
> SW and ST both violate the RL principles of neutronium;
How does Star Trek violate RL principles of neutronium? It is ultrastrong,
ultradense, ultramassive, impervious to weapons, et cetera. These are
sound notions of neutronium to me. The fact that technologically advanced
races could find a way to use it as a construction material does not violate
real life principles of neutronium.
On the other hand, Star Wars claims that neutronium is something you can
just head for your local moon and dig for. *That* violates all real life
principles of neutronium.
> what's more, they do it in similar ways related to their apparent mass.
AMRE is a known quantity in Star Trek lore. Graviton-based shielding is a
known quantity in Star Trek lore. Antigravity systems are a known quantity
in Star Trek lore. Those cultures who have managed to pull off the use
of real neutronium in Star Trek lore could quite easily exhibit a mastery of
the control of these technologies.
No such technology was in place on the moon from which Star Wars neutronium
is mined, and the moon, being a moon, must orbit something more massive than
itself. What the hell is heavier than a moon with a high neutronium
concentration, besides a neutron star?
(Brain fart: did anyone who encountered an Interdictor cruiser ever think to
turn on their antigravity generators?)
> Thus, given the fact that they have the same and thus a very strong
presumption
> of being the same anyway, they are the same.
Show me a neutronium ping-pong ball on Star Trek, and we'll talk.
> >Of course, as the episode did not go into detail about the containment of
> >the neutronium, the above is only a workable hypothesis.
>
> I will be using this "workable hypothesis with no proof" standard in
further
> discussion with you.
In order to keep to my standard of hypotheses, you'll need to be sure that
these hypotheses have some basis in the technology of whomever you're
discussing, and you'll need to be sure that the hypothesis reasonably
explains whatever you're discussing in the context of the universe you're
referring to.
Y'know, like a real hypothesis (i.e. not one mined from your sphincter).
> >> SW neutronium:
> >>
> >> -> Comes from neutron stars ("Rebel Dawn")
> >
> >It comes from a moon, too. Therefore, either SW neutron stars are not
real
> >neutron stars, or there are two types of neutronium . . . real, "stellar"
> >neutronium, and whatever the crap mined out of a moon is.
>
> Neutron stars are real neutron stars; they have all the same properties of
the
> real thing, which is why Han needed to be there in the first place, as
you'd
> know if you read the novel, or any evidence for that matter.
Then there are two separate types of neutronium. The real/stellar
neutronium, and the lunar crap.
> Workable Hypothesis: A ship with neutronium armor crashed there long ago.
Its
> armor was permanently mass-reduced by some Clarkean "magic" technology.
Do you have any evidence or points to support this view? Mining neutronium
from a moon makes it sound like a natural occurence, not a smattering of
neutronium near an impact site. Further, permanent mass-reduction is not
something I've heard of in the Star Wars universe, nor even the Star Trek
universe. Would you care to provide some explanation of how this occurred?
> >> -> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn
> >> -> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor
> >
> >The "light" form of neutronium would have to be "moon" neutronium, and
> >cannot be real, "stellar" neutronium.
>
> Ah, then ST's "light" form of neutronium, as seen in armor, doorways, and
> temples of pre-warp civilizations is also different from real, "stellar"
> neutronium.
Again, this is not necessary, thanks to technologies known to exist in the
Star Trek universe.
Your "pre-warp" bullshit is taken care of below.
>
> >> ST neutronium:
> >>
> >> -> Same on all points
> >
> >False. Star Trek neutronium is never stated to come from moon mining.
>
> The Iconians, who are pre-warp, could build a temple out of it. Thus it
must be
> mineable on the ground. ("To the Death")
It is foolish to refer to the Iconians as pre-warp. If anything, they were
beyond warp. The Iconians managed to build dimensional gateways capable of
taking a person to damn near anywhere, without the need for a gateway on the
other side (the bridge of the Haakona, the Romulan Warbird to which Picard
escaped, was available in "Contagion"[TNG]). This allowed them to
maintain control of their vast interstellar empire 200,000 years before the
Federation came to be. The reach of these gateways spanned from the Romulan
Neutral Zone to the planet in the Gamma Quadrant seen in "To the Death"[DS9]
and beyond.
It is ludicrous to refer to this civilization as pre-warp.
> >Sphere was very, very massive. The neutronium door, which would've
been
> >held together by shielding, did not appear to have any particularly
> >impressive mass, and thus this mass was either shielded in the same way
or
> >by some other method.
>
> 1) No proof of being held together by shielding
Alrighty, then, prove to me that it wasn't held together by shielding, and
thus was not neutronium (not counting the Star Wars universe garden
variety).
> 2) No proof of mass reduction
The fact that the characters near it didn't turn into chunky salsa against
it is a good clue.
> >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.
>
> An explanation for this appears above. Further, see "The Masterpiece
Society."
Stellar core fragments, again, need not be neutronium.
G2k
Guardian 2000
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:43:16 -0000, Lord Edam de Fromage
> <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> -> Comes from neutron stars ("Rebel Dawn")
> >> -> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn
> >> -> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor
> >
> >Guardian: Is Star Wars neutronium the Real Thing?
> >
> >Kynes: If I assume Star Wars neutronium is the material found in neutron
> >stars, yes it is The Real Thing.
>
> Edam: Prove humans can't breathe water.
>
> Kynes: On page fifty-three of the "Big Book of Humans," it's said that if
you
> throw a human into an ocean, he will die, because he won't be able to
breathe.
>
> Edam: Circular reasoning; you assume oceans are made of water.
Ooh, I haven't seen an utter lack of reply like that since the last message
Ian wrote!
G2k
Guardian 2000
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 15:26:37 -0600, "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >> >This is a fallacy created by warsies. Phasers are effective against
> >> >everything but PURE neutronium.
> >>
> >> Wrong.
> >>
> >> In "Relics," the E-D couldn't do shit to "carbon-neutronium." In "Think
> >Tank,"
> >> Janeway said neutronium-based armor was impervious to their weapons.
Etc
> >etc
> >> etc. All that's required is that the armor be composed at least partly
of
> >> neutronium, as ISD hulls are.
> >
> >Again, false, as you have two choices in reference to the neutronium
content
> >of ISD hulls:
> >
> >1. It is not real neutronium, since it's mined from a moon.
>
> It's as real as ST neutronium, which can be found occurring naturally in
small
> stellar fragments, temples built by pre-warp civilizations, etc.
Only you would put out bullshit like the galaxy-spanning Iconian
civilization being pre-warp.
Further, even though you've yet to show that the stellar core fragment in
"Masterpiece Society"[TNG] was composed of neutronium, how large was the
stellar fragment, and how fast was it spinning?
> >2. The neutronium is real, but the neutronium content of the hull is so
> >astronomically tiny as to be irrelevant:
>
> 1) I don't recall Janeway or anyone else ever saying the amount of
neutronium
> mattered.
Well, hell's bells, Ian, why not claim that since neutronium is basically
just a bunch of neutrons, that therefore Starfleet weapons can't affect
*anything*, because neutrons are everywhere?
Not like it matters, though, since what Janeway refers to as neutronium and
what is part of an ISD hull are two totally different things.
> 2) That blueprint is for a ship which was never shown on screen.
Maybe, but the principle is sound.
> 3) The "Think Tank" had no adverse gravity effects to things around it, so
the
> percentage of neutronium must have been small there. Small with the
Iconian
> temple.
And, of course, through careful scrutiny of the electromagnetic spectrum on
your television set, you've determined without a shadow of a doubt that
there was no technobabble in place holding these items together and reducing
their apparent mass to an outside observer.
Riiiight.
G2k
Guardian 2000
<snip>
> "The Temple is constructed out of neutronium. As such, even with a direct
hit
> from a quantum torpedo we can not be assured of destruction."
> - Vorta, DS9's "To The Death"
>
Why, that's very interesting . . . a direct hit from a quantum torpedo will
not *assure* destruction. Hmm . . . sounds like quantum torpedoes might be
able to damage neutronium structures, after all.
> "The Think Tank is out there somewhere, hiding in subspace. How do we find
them?
> And even if we can, their ship's hull is neutronium-based alloy,
impervious to
> our weapons."
> - Janeway, "Think Tank"
It's neutronium-based . . . your line in another post about there being no
mention of how much neutronium is in the alloy is thus full of shit. That
would be like calling steel a carbon-based alloy.
G2k
Sir Nitram
>news:KGEmPM7m3P54DY...@4ax.com...
><snip>
>> "The Temple is constructed out of neutronium. As such, even with a direct
>hit
>> from a quantum torpedo we can not be assured of destruction."
>> - Vorta, DS9's "To The Death"
>>
>
>Why, that's very interesting . . . a direct hit from a quantum torpedo will
>not *assure* destruction. Hmm . . . sounds like quantum torpedoes might be
>able to damage neutronium structures, after all.
>
I don't think anyone said Torps can damage neutronium armour. Of course,
Phaser's are utterly useless against them. But, as I said in the other thread,
where you so ungracefully conceded, that means they rely on torps mostly.. Like
we always suspected they would.
>> "The Think Tank is out there somewhere, hiding in subspace. How do we find
>them?
>> And even if we can, their ship's hull is neutronium-based alloy,
>impervious to
>> our weapons."
>> - Janeway, "Think Tank"
>
>It's neutronium-based . . . your line in another post about there being no
>mention of how much neutronium is in the alloy is thus full of shit. That
>would be like calling steel a carbon-based alloy.
>
No gravitic distortions around it, nor mention of technobabble contrivances.
Ergo, it must have been very little. Or concede that the same can be applied to
SW ships.
------------------------------------
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.
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> "Kynes" wrote:
> > >Of course, the simple fact that Star Wars neutronium is mined from a
> > >moon means that it cannot be what is referred to in our neck of the
> > >woods as neutronium.
> >
> > Of course, the simple fact that Star Trek neutronium can be observed
> > in small stellar fragments ("Evolution")
>
> Stellar fragment? "Evolution"[TNG] took place in the Kavis Alpha
> system, where Dr. Stubbs was going to study the Kavis Alpha *neutron
> star*!
Have you seen the episode? A chuck was spat out.
> > and alloyed with carbon means it's not RL neutronium either.
>
> The Carbon-neutronium alloy of the Dyson Sphere is perplexing,
And impossible using real life neutronium. The very definition of alloy
prevents that.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> "Kynes" wrote:
> > or made into doorways, temples,
>
> 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.
When exactly was this proven? AFAIK, It was just an assumption needed to
prove STN was RLN.
C.S.Strowbridge
Durandal
Wonder if he has any clue as to what a graviton is. Maybe a slight one, but he has no clue what the implications of a graviton "forcefield" (about as useful as a "photon forcefield") would be.
--
Damien Sorresso
[AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859]
Nobody knows everything.
I am nobody.
Therefore, I know everything.
Guardian 2000
"C.S.Strowbridge" <csstro...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3C26B513...@shaw.ca...
> Guardian 2000 wrote:
> >
> > "Kynes" wrote:
>
> > > >Of course, the simple fact that Star Wars neutronium is mined from a
> > > >moon means that it cannot be what is referred to in our neck of the
> > > >woods as neutronium.
> > >
> > > Of course, the simple fact that Star Trek neutronium can be observed
> > > in small stellar fragments ("Evolution")
> >
> > Stellar fragment? "Evolution"[TNG] took place in the Kavis Alpha
> > system, where Dr. Stubbs was going to study the Kavis Alpha *neutron
> > star*!
>
> Have you seen the episode? A chuck was spat out.
You're confusing "Evolution"[TNG] with "The Naked Now"[TNG] and/or
"Masterpiece Society"[TNG].
> > > and alloyed with carbon means it's not RL neutronium either.
> >
> > The Carbon-neutronium alloy of the Dyson Sphere is perplexing,
>
> And impossible using real life neutronium. The very definition of alloy
> prevents that.
What else would he be expected to call superfluidic neutronium plus some
other crap?
Guardian 2000
It's not an assumption. It is a hypothesis, based upon known capabilities
of the Federation and more advanced cultures in the Star Trek universe,
coupled with the characteristics of real-life neutronium (i.e. that
neutronium not found in moons).
G2k
Guardian 2000
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
news:20011223223208...@mb-dh.aol.com...
> >"Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
> >news:KGEmPM7m3P54DY...@4ax.com...
> ><snip>
> >> "The Temple is constructed out of neutronium. As such, even with a
direct
> >hit
> >> from a quantum torpedo we can not be assured of destruction."
> >> - Vorta, DS9's "To The Death"
> >>
> >
> >Why, that's very interesting . . . a direct hit from a quantum torpedo
will
> >not *assure* destruction. Hmm . . . sounds like quantum torpedoes might
be
> >able to damage neutronium structures, after all.
> >
>
> I don't think anyone said Torps can damage neutronium armour. Of course,
> Phaser's are utterly useless against them. But, as I said in the other
thread,
> where you so ungracefully conceded, that means they rely on torps mostly..
Like
> we always suspected they would.
I conceeded to your bullshit argument? When in the name of hell was that?
> >> "The Think Tank is out there somewhere, hiding in subspace. How do we
find
> >them?
> >> And even if we can, their ship's hull is neutronium-based alloy,
> >impervious to
> >> our weapons."
> >> - Janeway, "Think Tank"
> >
> >It's neutronium-based . . . your line in another post about there being
no
> >mention of how much neutronium is in the alloy is thus full of shit.
That
> >would be like calling steel a carbon-based alloy.
> >
>
> No gravitic distortions around it, nor mention of technobabble
contrivances.
Why mention technobabble contrivances? It would be obvious.
> Ergo, it must have been very little.
Why?
> Or concede that the same can be applied to SW ships.
It doesn't matter how much neutronium is in SW ships, for SW neutronium is
not real neutronium. It's just moon rocks.
G2k
Kynes
>> >> Of course, the simple fact that Star Trek neutronium can be observed in
>> >small
>> >> stellar fragments ("Evolution")
>> >
>> >Stellar fragment? "Evolution"[TNG] took place in the Kavis Alpha
>system,
>> >where Dr. Stubbs was going to study the Kavis Alpha *neutron star*!
>>
>> Starring things doesn't make them true. The scientist came to observe the
>> explusion of large globules from the star, not the star itself. Those
>globules
>> never decayed in the episode.
>
>That's funny . . . I've never heard of the episode you're trying to
>describe.
[snip long description]
Great. Thanks for proving you can look up episode summaries. Like it matters
whether Dr. Greybeard has blue eyes or brown eyes. Retards should make fun of
you.
Do you honestly think these sort of stupid, asinine displays of Trekkie geekdom
do anything except exacerbate your position as Group Moron? No, excuse me. Of
course you don't think. If you put an ounce of thought into any of the drivel
you spew, the newsgroup's collective IQ would quadruple.
The important part about Evolution was that the scientist wanted to study the
expulsions of neutronium ("globules," in case you haven't figured that out) from
the star. As you have not contested this, concession accepted on the first
example of ST neutronium displaying properties that are "impossible" in RL.
Oh, and your request for quotes? Eat my shit. You may "note that" in your little
Logbook of Kynesian Wrongs, if you wish. OFFICIAL RESPONSE. LIET KYNES.
12/23/2001. TOLD TO "EAT SHIT" WHEN REQUESTING QUOTES TO PROVE THE PLOT OF
EVOLUTION.
>> Another demonstration of this is in "The Masterpiece Society." This is
>actually
>> the one I was thinking of originally -- the E-D observes a fragment of a
>neutron
>> star, free of the star itself. Shouldn't it be decaying? yes
>
>Another false recollection, Ian? Tsk, tsk.
>
>The Enterprise-D was tracking a "stellar core fragment" . . . I recall no
>mention being made as to whether this was from a neutron star or not.
Hey Scoot, I don't give a shit whether you "recall" it one way or another. You
have just admitted you fundamentally know zero about this episode and are in no
position to question my stance on the matter.
Debating with you is amazingly boring. At least Edam uses trickery which must be
watched; discussion with you is the functional equivalent of discourse with a
12-year-old.
[snip assertion]
A small piece of a neutron star would do more than glow lightly in the visible
light spectrum were it separated. It would decay almost immediately. The burden
is on you to prove otherwise, and you may wish to submit this proof to major
astrophysical journals, as they are currently on my side.
>> >> or made into doorways, temples,
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>> Scoot, if you think you can get away with saying "I've proven this before"
>as if
>> it's a real argument, you are even stupider than I imagined.
>
>I did establish it before.
Wrong. You had the shit kicked out of you by everyone here, just like every
argument you bring up. Not only on the total lack of real proof for this magic
ability, but on why we should assume this set of magic technologies and apply
them rabidly in any situation where we would otherwise need to conclude that ST
neutronium has different properties than RL neutronium.
>> >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.
>>
>> SW neutronium comes from neutron stars. ref: Rebel Dawn
>
>Edam has quite nicely deflated your position on this.
Edam has asked me to prove that neutron stars are composed of neutronium, when
that is, by definition, what they are made of. Wow, my position is even more
deflated than your prom date.
> Besides, there would
>have to be two types of "neutronium", stellar (i.e. "real") and lunar (i.e.
>"fake"), since the two cannot be the same.
I would love to see your positive disproof. Of course, as a possible explanation
has already been put forth, that's not going to happen.
>> >> and alloyed with carbon means it's not RL neutronium either.
>> >
>> >The Carbon-neutronium alloy of the Dyson Sphere is perplexing, but not
>> >necessarily impossible.
>>
>> Is it impossible? obviously not, it's canon
>
>I was referring to reality, not canon.
Yeah, you're referring to "reality" and then go on a long-winded version of "I'm
sure they managed it because their tech level was so high." Fine, that's my
explanation for everything the Empire does with neutronium. I'm sure the tech
level of their mining equipment is so high, they can mistake a neutron star
(very small, you know) for a moon.
>> However, that requires us to accept that our RL understanding of
>neutronium is
>> wrong on many points and further-advanced civilizations like the UFP and
>Empire,
>> who actually work with it unlike us, will sometimes appear to use it in
>ways and
>> find it in places that seem impossible to us.
>
>Thank you for copping out of the debate. I'll accept your concession that
>Imperial neutronium is not real neutronium.
None offered, Scott; all you've done is ignore the reasoning I gave above. Do
you feel some hollow victory when you put your fingers in your ears, or do you
simply do it to see what it's like to have something filling the empty space up
there?
>> Your speculation is just that, speculation. You are a hypocrite; you are
>willing
>> to concoct vast, unlikely explanations for seemingly impossible uses and
>> locations of ST neutronium but want SW judged on a different standard. I
>reject
>> that.
>
>I'm judging Star Trek and Star Wars according to the exact same standard.
>If it were said that Star Destroyer hulls were an alloy of neutronium, I
>would allow the same hypothesis to hold. However, as it has been
>demonstrated that Star Wars neutronium is a moon rock, I find that there can
>be nothing to save Star Wars from the fate of having something called
>neutronium, but which is not true neutronium.
No, Scottie. It has not been established that SW neutronium is a "moon rock;" it
has been established that, in a one-time extraordinary find, neutronium was
found on a moon. For all we know, it was put there by an ancient civilization
after being mass-reduced.
>If a Star Trek episode were to have an instance where someone was playing
>with a neutronium ping-pong ball, bouncing it against the wall and
>explaining that there was nothing in the universe . . . not technobabble,
>not Q, nothing . . . holding it together, I would quite happily declare
>Star Trek neutronium to be nothing more than a mislabeled substance, a la
>Star Wars neutronium.
And here your hypocrisy raises its head. In ST, you want to assume technical
wizardry until proven otherwise. Within any other context, you want the reverse.
I'm sorry, but those aren't the rules played by here; you are free to take your
hypocrisy elsewhere. Perhaps the mental midgets at sb.com would be more
receptive.
>> SW and ST both violate the RL principles of neutronium;
>
>How does Star Trek violate RL principles of neutronium? It is ultrastrong,
>ultradense, ultramassive, impervious to weapons, et cetera.
* Doesn't decay when separated from its star
* can be mined on planets (evidenced by pre-warp civilizations doing so)
* Not heavy unless we assume magic tech
>The fact that technologically advanced
>races could find a way to use it as a construction material does not violate
>real life principles of neutronium.
Concession accepted then; the Empire, as just such a technologically advanced
race, has done so.
>On the other hand, Star Wars claims that neutronium is something you can
>just head for your local moon and dig for. *That* violates all real life
>principles of neutronium.
Only when you insist on an interpretation that requires us to assume that when
people say "neutronium," sometimes they mean neutronium, except when they don't,
and oh yeah, this is never true in the ST galaxy.
>> what's more, they do it in similar ways related to their apparent mass.
>
>AMRE is a known quantity in Star Trek lore. Graviton-based shielding is a
>known quantity in Star Trek lore. Antigravity systems are a known quantity
>in Star Trek lore.
SW has the ability to accurately simulate the gravitational pull of a stellar
body, artificially generate gravity on everything from a snub fighter to a
capital ship and extend gravity fields in any arbitrary direction, setting
"down" to any direction you like (as was done in ESB), etc. etc. etc. Mere
"antigravity systems" are unimpressive to me.
>No such technology was in place on the moon from which Star Wars neutronium
>is mined
Proof? Prove there was no such technology was in place. You can't; you just want
to assume it. Fine. Then I'll assume no such technology was in place on the
Iconian temple, which makes sense, as they were pre-warp anyway and AMRE is a
warp field.
>> Thus, given the fact that they have the same and thus a very strong
>presumption
>> of being the same anyway, they are the same.
>
>Show me a neutronium ping-pong ball on Star Trek, and we'll talk.
Show me the same in SW, and I'll need to. Until then, you are wrong.
>> >Of course, as the episode did not go into detail about the containment of
>> >the neutronium, the above is only a workable hypothesis.
>>
>> I will be using this "workable hypothesis with no proof" standard in
>further
>> discussion with you.
>
>In order to keep to my standard of hypotheses, you'll need to be sure that
>these hypotheses have some basis in the technology of whomever you're
>discussing, and you'll need to be sure that the hypothesis reasonably
>explains whatever you're discussing in the context of the universe you're
>referring to.
Fine by me; SW has mastery over a great deal more of gravitational technology
than the pathetic nerds of the ST universe. We've certainly never seen the ST
universe display the technology needed to mine neutronium and that doesn't stop
you; nor have we ever seen an AMRE field generated large enough to reduce an
entire star's mass to the mass of a normal temple, as in "To The Death." That
doesn't stop you. Why? Because you are a moron.
>> >It comes from a moon, too. Therefore, either SW neutron stars are not
>real
>> >neutron stars, or there are two types of neutronium . . . real, "stellar"
>> >neutronium, and whatever the crap mined out of a moon is.
>>
>> Neutron stars are real neutron stars; they have all the same properties of
>the
>> real thing, which is why Han needed to be there in the first place, as
>you'd
>> know if you read the novel, or any evidence for that matter.
>
>Then there are two separate types of neutronium. The real/stellar
>neutronium, and the lunar crap.
Proof? Oh, none.
Fine by me; there are then two types of ST neutronium. The kind pre-warp
civilizations can mine out of the ground and built temples from ("To the Death")
and the kind in stars that's heavy sometimes.
>> Workable Hypothesis: A ship with neutronium armor crashed there long ago.
>Its
>> armor was permanently mass-reduced by some Clarkean "magic" technology.
>
>Do you have any evidence or points to support this view?
I have exactly as much evidence as you have for your "magic carbon-neutronium"
hypothesis; none.
> Mining neutronium
>from a moon makes it sound like a natural occurence
It occurred *ONE* time and was a very extraordinary find. Try reading the source
material instead of masturbating to crayon drawings of Deanna Troi for an
afternoon.
>neutronium near an impact site. Further, permanent mass-reduction is not
>something I've heard of in the Star Wars universe, nor even the Star Trek
>universe. Would you care to provide some explanation of how this occurred?
Why should I need to? You have extended mass reduction's abilities to encompass
a massive temple made of pure neutronium; I have extended its abilities to
encompass permanancy. If you get to wave a magic wand and extend tech to cover
your assumptions, so do I.
>> >> -> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn
>> >> -> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor
>> >
>> >The "light" form of neutronium would have to be "moon" neutronium, and
>> >cannot be real, "stellar" neutronium.
>>
>> Ah, then ST's "light" form of neutronium, as seen in armor, doorways, and
>> temples of pre-warp civilizations is also different from real, "stellar"
>> neutronium.
>
>Again, this is not necessary, thanks to technologies known to exist in the
>Star Trek universe.
Really? I've never seen any technology in Star Trek reduce that much mass. Just
small starship masses. Which episode am I missing where they put an AMRE field
around Sol and dragged it around?
Oh, you just want us to ASSUME that... I see... well, if you get an assumption
for free...
>> >> ST neutronium:
>> >>
>> >> -> Same on all points
>> >
>> >False. Star Trek neutronium is never stated to come from moon mining.
>>
>> The Iconians, who are pre-warp, could build a temple out of it. Thus it
>must be
>> mineable on the ground. ("To the Death")
>
>It is foolish to refer to the Iconians as pre-warp.
Blah, blah, blah.
Did they have warp?
No.
They had gateways that they needed to use for travel.
Thus, they COULD NOT have had AMRE -- as that is based on warp technology. You
want to gift magic tech to species that are never said to have had that, and are
explicitly stated to have a DIFFERENT form of FTL travel. Yeah, right. Pull the
other one. No one ever says the Iconians had AMRE.
So the Iconians, a pre-warp civilization, obviously mined their neutronium from
planetary surfaces. Unless you want to gift them the magic ability to open a
gateway to a neutron star, walk on, collect up some neutronium in sacks, and go
home? That was Lord Edam's idea the last time this subject came up. Maybe you
two can compare notes and realize how idiotic the idea is in advance this time.
>> >Sphere was very, very massive. The neutronium door, which would've
>been
>> >held together by shielding, did not appear to have any particularly
>> >impressive mass, and thus this mass was either shielded in the same way
>or
>> >by some other method.
>>
>> 1) No proof of being held together by shielding
>
>Alrighty, then, prove to me that it wasn't held together by shielding, and
>thus was not neutronium (not counting the Star Wars universe garden
>variety).
The SW and ST universe are the same universe for the purposes of these
discussions. Thus any "garden variety" inventions you make are perfectly likely
to occur in the ST galaxy.
So, my explanation is your explanation: that neutronium was light neutronium
which obviously still worked perfectly well. Isn't that neat and tidy?
>> 2) No proof of mass reduction
>
>The fact that the characters near it didn't turn into chunky salsa against
>it is a good clue.
Or it was light to begin with, like you assume SW neutronium is.
>> >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.
>>
>> An explanation for this appears above. Further, see "The Masterpiece
>Society."
>
>Stellar core fragments, again, need not be neutronium.
Apparently I have two things you don't.
1) Knowledge of the episode in question
2) Human friends
--
-LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]
"I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster.
Kynes
>Ooh, I haven't seen an utter lack of reply like that since the last message
>Ian wrote!
HAHAHHAHA U R FUNY
--
-LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]
"I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster.
Kynes
>> It's as real as ST neutronium, which can be found occurring naturally in
>small
>> stellar fragments, temples built by pre-warp civilizations, etc.
>
>Only you would put out bullshit like the galaxy-spanning Iconian
>civilization being pre-warp.
Did they have warp? No, they had gateways that they used instead. Eat my shit
and die; I'm sorry if I don't give a shit about the glory and might of your
precious Iconians. The facts are, they didn't have warp, and your haughty
defenses of what nice people they are don't change that.
>Further, even though you've yet to show that the stellar core fragment in
>"Masterpiece Society"[TNG] was composed of neutronium
Eat shit, Scott.
>> >2. The neutronium is real, but the neutronium content of the hull is so
>> >astronomically tiny as to be irrelevant:
>>
>> 1) I don't recall Janeway or anyone else ever saying the amount of
>neutronium
>> mattered.
>
>Well, hell's bells, Ian, why not claim that since neutronium is basically
>just a bunch of neutrons, that therefore Starfleet weapons can't affect
>*anything*, because neutrons are everywhere?
"Hell's bells?"
Are you kidding me? What are you, eighty fucking years old?
If you think neutronium is the same as scattered neutrons intermixed with other
things, you are even dumber than I thought. I realize I say that a lot to you;
you just keep lowering the bar.
>Not like it matters, though, since what Janeway refers to as neutronium and
>what is part of an ISD hull are two totally different things.
Yeah, one is light and one is.... light.... uh........
>> 2) That blueprint is for a ship which was never shown on screen.
>
>Maybe, but the principle is sound.
The principle is stupid. Show me where "blueprints of ships never seen on
screen" are on the canon scale.
>> 3) The "Think Tank" had no adverse gravity effects to things around it, so
>the
>> percentage of neutronium must have been small there. Small with the
>Iconian
>> temple.
>
>And, of course, through careful scrutiny of the electromagnetic spectrum on
>your television set, you've determined without a shadow of a doubt that
>there was no technobabble in place holding these items together and reducing
>their apparent mass to an outside observer.
Oh, so we need negative proof of technological intervention?
Where's your negative proof for SW?
--
-LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]
"I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster.
Kynes
>> "The Temple is constructed out of neutronium. As such, even with a direct
>hit
>> from a quantum torpedo we can not be assured of destruction."
>> - Vorta, DS9's "To The Death"
>>
>
>Why, that's very interesting . . . a direct hit from a quantum torpedo will
>not *assure* destruction. Hmm . . . sounds like quantum torpedoes might be
>able to damage neutronium structures, after all.
Destruction of what's inside, you idiot; they weren't trying to destroy the
temple, just its contents. Watch the episode. Or is it marginalizing your
welfare-drawing ass too much to demand you own a TV?
>> "The Think Tank is out there somewhere, hiding in subspace. How do we find
>them?
>> And even if we can, their ship's hull is neutronium-based alloy,
>impervious to
>> our weapons."
>> - Janeway, "Think Tank"
>
>It's neutronium-based . . . your line in another post about there being no
>mention of how much neutronium is in the alloy is thus full of shit.
Yeah, because we all know about how, when I say "this cake is based on a recipe
my mom gave me," I have mixed in the recipe with the ingredients. Because, after
all, "based" always means "primary ingredient," right Scoot?
What is your major? I hope to Christ it's not a physical science. If so I think
science is doomed.
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
> > > > or made into doorways, temples,
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > When exactly was this proven? AFAIK, It was just an assumption needed
> > to prove STN was RLN.
>
> It's not an assumption. It is a hypothesis,
Without direct evidence it's the same thing. You assume STN is RLN and
you assume there's a logical explanation whenever there's evidence that
contradicts that assumption.
The Pro-SW side could do that too, you know. You're no farther ahead.
C.S.Strowbridge
Cmdrwilkens
news:a06g56$j47hk$1...@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "C.S.Strowbridge" <csstro...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:3C26B85B...@shaw.ca...
> > Guardian 2000 wrote:
> > >
> > > "Kynes" wrote:
> >
> > > > or made into doorways, temples,
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > When exactly was this proven? AFAIK, It was just an assumption needed to
> > prove STN was RLN.
> >
> > C.S.Strowbridge
>
> It's not an assumption. It is a hypothesis,
<snip>
So again where did you prove this hypothesis?
--
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
Cmdrwilkens
> Guardian 2000 wrote:
> >
> > "Kynes" wrote:
>
> > > >Of course, the simple fact that Star Wars neutronium is mined from a
> > > >moon means that it cannot be what is referred to in our neck of the
> > > >woods as neutronium.
> > >
> > > Of course, the simple fact that Star Trek neutronium can be observed
> > > in small stellar fragments ("Evolution")
> >
> > Stellar fragment? "Evolution"[TNG] took place in the Kavis Alpha
> > system, where Dr. Stubbs was going to study the Kavis Alpha *neutron
> > star*!
>
> Have you seen the episode? A chuck was spat out.
>
It was spitting Chucks? I need to see this episode to watch our man in
action.
Cmdrwilkens
> > On 22 Dec 2001 18:13:14 -0800, sit...@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) wrote:
> >
> > >This is a fallacy created by warsies. Phasers are effective against
> > >everything but PURE neutronium.
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > In "Relics," the E-D couldn't do shit to "carbon-neutronium." In "Think
> Tank,"
> > Janeway said neutronium-based armor was impervious to their weapons. Etc
> etc
> > etc. All that's required is that the armor be composed at least partly
of
> > neutronium, as ISD hulls are.
>
> Again, false, as you have two choices in reference to the neutronium
content
> of ISD hulls:
"Now children watch as G2k ignores the true substance of the rebuttal which
address the fact that pure neutronium is not required and simply address the
minor point of SW neutronium already being debated elsewhere, what do we
call this?"
"Evading so as to not have to admit defeat on a point?"
"Correct Billy, well done."
C.S.Strowbridge
> What is your major? I hope to Christ it's not a physical science. If so
> I think science is doomed.
I think it's mighty nice of you to assume he's in university, or capable
of getting into university, or even capable of spelling university.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
> > Have you seen the episode? A chuck was spat out.
>
> It was spitting Chucks? I need to see this episode to watch our man in
> action.
Shut up. I don't need you pointing out my typos.
C.S.Strowbridge
Cmdrwilkens
I know I have no right but it was a funny typo.
Kynes
Guardian 2000
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 21:19:02 -0600, "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >> It's as real as ST neutronium, which can be found occurring naturally
in
> >small
> >> stellar fragments, temples built by pre-warp civilizations, etc.
> >
> >Only you would put out bullshit like the galaxy-spanning Iconian
> >civilization being pre-warp.
>
> Did they have warp? No, they had gateways that they used instead. Eat my
shit
> and die; I'm sorry if I don't give a shit about the glory and might of
your
> precious Iconians. The facts are, they didn't have warp, and your haughty
> defenses of what nice people they are don't change that.
How do you know they did not have warp? What sense would it make for a
galaxy-spanning empire to be unable to get anywhere close to deep space?
And tell me, in what instance have we seen a pre-warp civilization
demonstrate understanding and development of technology far beyond
Federation science?
> >Further, even though you've yet to show that the stellar core fragment in
> >"Masterpiece Society"[TNG] was composed of neutronium
>
> Eat shit, Scott.
Concession accepted, then.
> >> >2. The neutronium is real, but the neutronium content of the hull is
so
> >> >astronomically tiny as to be irrelevant:
> >>
> >> 1) I don't recall Janeway or anyone else ever saying the amount of
> >neutronium
> >> mattered.
> >
> >Well, hell's bells, Ian, why not claim that since neutronium is basically
> >just a bunch of neutrons, that therefore Starfleet weapons can't affect
> >*anything*, because neutrons are everywhere?
>
> "Hell's bells?"
>
> Are you kidding me? What are you, eighty fucking years old?
Eh? What's that ya say, ya little whipper-snapper?
>
> If you think neutronium is the same as scattered neutrons intermixed with
other
> things, you are even dumber than I thought. I realize I say that a lot to
you;
> you just keep lowering the bar.
You're the one making asinine arguments about how a smidgen of neutronium
will instantly make Federation weapons useless. Don't get pissy just
because I took your argument to its (il)logical conclusion.
> >Not like it matters, though, since what Janeway refers to as neutronium
and
> >what is part of an ISD hull are two totally different things.
>
> Yeah, one is light and one is.... light.... uh........
One is an aggregate of neutrons under intense pressure. The other is a
metallic element found on moons. Do the math.
>
> >> 2) That blueprint is for a ship which was never shown on screen.
> >
> >Maybe, but the principle is sound.
>
> The principle is stupid. Show me where "blueprints of ships never seen on
> screen" are on the canon scale.
The principle is to attempt to find the mass of an ISD and determine her
real-life neutronium content from there.
Of course, you're actually right, albeit for the wrong reasons, since SW
neutronium is a metallic element found on moons, and ST/RL neutronium isn't.
> >> 3) The "Think Tank" had no adverse gravity effects to things around it,
so
> >the
> >> percentage of neutronium must have been small there. Small with the
> >Iconian
> >> temple.
> >
> >And, of course, through careful scrutiny of the electromagnetic spectrum
on
> >your television set, you've determined without a shadow of a doubt that
> >there was no technobabble in place holding these items together and
reducing
> >their apparent mass to an outside observer.
>
> Oh, so we need negative proof of technological intervention?
You're the one trying to disprove a reasonable hypothesis.
> Where's your negative proof for SW?
The fact that SW neutronium is a metallic element found on moons is disproof
enough, thanks.
G2k
Guardian 2000
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 21:23:06 -0600, "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >> "The Temple is constructed out of neutronium. As such, even with a
direct
> >hit
> >> from a quantum torpedo we can not be assured of destruction."
> >> - Vorta, DS9's "To The Death"
> >>
> >
> >Why, that's very interesting . . . a direct hit from a quantum torpedo
will
> >not *assure* destruction. Hmm . . . sounds like quantum torpedoes might
be
> >able to damage neutronium structures, after all.
>
> Destruction of what's inside, you idiot; they weren't trying to destroy
the
> temple, just its contents. Watch the episode.
Proof they were not trying to destroy the temple?
(If you wish to avoid future misunderstandings, it would behoove you to
quote relevant passages in their entirety.)
<snip>
> >It's neutronium-based . . . your line in another post about there being
no
> >mention of how much neutronium is in the alloy is thus full of shit.
>
> Yeah, because we all know about how, when I say "this cake is based on a
recipe
> my mom gave me," I have mixed in the recipe with the ingredients.
False analogy, comparing physical basis with informational basis.
> Because, after all, "based" always means "primary ingredient," right
Scoot?
Only in your fucked up little mind, Ian.
G2k
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
> > > > Have you seen the episode? A chuck was spat out.
> > >
> > > It was spitting Chucks? I need to see this episode to watch our man
> > > in action.
> >
> > Shut up. I don't need you pointing out my typos.
>
> I know I have no right but it was a funny typo.
Actually, I think it's a guaranteed right of all registered ASVS voters
to mock people's typos.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> "Kynes" wrote:
> > Did they have warp? No, they had gateways that they used instead.
>
> How do you know they did not have warp?
Cause not once did they say they had warp. Not once.
> > >> 2) That blueprint is for a ship which was never shown on screen.
> > >
> > >Maybe, but the principle is sound.
> >
> > The principle is stupid. Show me where "blueprints of ships never seen
> > on screen" are on the canon scale.
>
> The principle is to attempt to find the mass of an ISD and determine her
> real-life neutronium content from there.
But that wasn't an ISD. So you can't use it to determine the neutronium
content of an ISD.
> > Oh, so we need negative proof of technological intervention?
>
> You're the one trying to disprove a reasonable hypothesis.
We don't have to disprove anything till after you supply some proof. And
we want direct evidence, not what you consider logical.
C.S.Strowbridge
Guardian 2000
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 21:11:57 -0600, "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >> >> Of course, the simple fact that Star Trek neutronium can be observed
in
> >> >small
> >> >> stellar fragments ("Evolution")
> >> >
> >> >Stellar fragment? "Evolution"[TNG] took place in the Kavis Alpha
> >system,
> >> >where Dr. Stubbs was going to study the Kavis Alpha *neutron star*!
> >>
> >> Starring things doesn't make them true. The scientist came to observe
the
> >> explusion of large globules from the star, not the star itself. Those
> >globules
> >> never decayed in the episode.
> >
> >That's funny . . . I've never heard of the episode you're trying to
> >describe.
>
> [snip long description]
>
> Great.
Hey, it's not my fault you made up non-existent elements of an episode,
dumbass.
<snip>
> The important part about Evolution was that the scientist wanted to study
the
> expulsions of neutronium ("globules," in case you haven't figured that
out) from
> the star. As you have not contested this, concession accepted on the first
> example of ST neutronium displaying properties that are "impossible" in
RL.
You dare claim that I've conceeded, when in the reply you snipped I pointed
out the fact that no such globules exist in the episode, as you wish them
to? What a fucking idiot you are!
The neutronium that was to get carried outward in the explosion of the other
star's material was being studied for the very reason that it was going to
decay! Star Trek neutronium is therefore in exact line with real life
neutronium, in that it decays outside some sort of envelope that will keep
it in existence (be that its natural environment or whatever sort of
neutronium containment field keeps neutronium as neutronium outside neutron
stars).
> Oh, and your request for quotes? Eat my shit. You may "note that" in your
little
> Logbook of Kynesian Wrongs, if you wish. OFFICIAL RESPONSE. LIET KYNES.
> 12/23/2001. TOLD TO "EAT SHIT" WHEN REQUESTING QUOTES TO PROVE THE PLOT OF
> EVOLUTION.
Inability to prove misrepresentation of a Star Trek episode = concession
accepted. Thanks for playing. Please come back when you have something
worthwhile, bandwidth vampire.
> >> Another demonstration of this is in "The Masterpiece Society." This is
> >actually
> >> the one I was thinking of originally -- the E-D observes a fragment of
a
> >neutron
> >> star, free of the star itself. Shouldn't it be decaying? yes
> >
> >Another false recollection, Ian? Tsk, tsk.
> >
> >The Enterprise-D was tracking a "stellar core fragment" . . . I recall no
> >mention being made as to whether this was from a neutron star or not.
>
> Hey Scoot, I don't give a shit whether you "recall" it one way or another.
You
> have just admitted you fundamentally know zero about this episode and are
in no
> position to question my stance on the matter.
Since you are unable to properly recall episodes as demonstrated in
reference to "Evolution"[TNG], I find it highly doubtful that you actually
know jack shit about "The Masterpiece Society"[TNG]. So, provide quotes
or you can fuck right off.
> Debating with you is amazingly boring.
I'm sure you find it intensely boring to lose time after time.
> A small piece of a neutron star would do more than glow lightly in the
visible
> light spectrum were it separated. It would decay almost immediately. The
burden
> is on you to prove otherwise, and you may wish to submit this proof to
major
> astrophysical journals, as they are currently on my side.
Actually, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it's the core of a
neutron star to begin with. It's identified as a "stellar core fragment",
Ian. At no point did Picard say "we're trackin' a big honkin' piece of
neutronium randomly floating about the cosmos".
Now, given the fact that stellar core fragments of stars which have
supernovaed can, in fact, *be* neutron stars, you might be able to prove the
notion that what we see is, in fact, a complete neutron star. However,
until such time as you can prove any of your bullshit statements, we'll hold
off on that for the time being.
> >> >> or made into doorways, temples,
> >> >
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> Scoot, if you think you can get away with saying "I've proven this
before"
> >as if
> >> it's a real argument, you are even stupider than I imagined.
> >
> >I did establish it before.
>
> Wrong. You had the shit kicked out of you by everyone here, just like
every
> argument you bring up.
You say that as if it has any truth value to it. I find that very amusing.
Is that how you sleep at night, by revising your mental version of history
(with the help of your Rabid Warsie friends who do the same) to convince
yourself that you weren't just ass-raped by reason, logic, fact, and canon
every time you disagree with me on those topics?
> Not only on the total lack of real proof for this magic
> ability, but on why we should assume this set of magic technologies and
apply
> them rabidly in any situation where we would otherwise need to conclude
that ST
> neutronium has different properties than RL neutronium.
The proof is in the pudding. We know that real-life neutronium and Star
Trek neutronium come from the same place. We know that neutronium in
manufactured form does not squish people who are nearby. We know what
mechanisms and technologies exist in the Star Trek universe which would
quite readily explain how this is so. You have never managed to disprove
these notions.
On the other hand, Star Wars neutronium is nothing more than a metallic
element mined on moons. Cry, Ian, cry all you wish. Just shut the fuck
up and confess that your argument is crap.
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> SW neutronium comes from neutron stars. ref: Rebel Dawn
> >
> >Edam has quite nicely deflated your position on this.
>
> Edam has asked me to prove that neutron stars are composed of neutronium,
when
> that is, by definition, what they are made of.
Well, since the Star Wars universe (and its rabid defenders) don't even know
what neutronium is, his questions to you aren't out of line.
> Wow, my position is even more deflated than your prom date.
Hey, just because you go for the big nasties doesn't mean my slim and trim
beauties are deflated.
> > Besides, there would
> >have to be two types of "neutronium", stellar (i.e. "real") and lunar
(i.e.
> >"fake"), since the two cannot be the same.
>
> I would love to see your positive disproof. Of course, as a possible
explanation
> has already been put forth, that's not going to happen.
Lunar neutronium is a metallic element. Deal with it.
> >> >> and alloyed with carbon means it's not RL neutronium either.
> >> >
> >> >The Carbon-neutronium alloy of the Dyson Sphere is perplexing, but not
> >> >necessarily impossible.
> >>
> >> Is it impossible? obviously not, it's canon
> >
> >I was referring to reality, not canon.
>
> Yeah, you're referring to "reality" and then go on a long-winded version
of "I'm
> sure they managed it because their tech level was so high." Fine, that's
my
> explanation for everything the Empire does with neutronium.
Mine is the hypothesis that fits the facts. Yours would be a desperate
effort to rewrite Star Wars to exclude the fact that SW neutronium is a
metallic element mined on moons.
> I'm sure the tech
> level of their mining equipment is so high, they can mistake a neutron
star
> (very small, you know) for a moon.
Ah, okay, sure, yeah, that's great, Ian. A bunch of high-tech rednecks who
can't tell the difference between a neutron star and a moon. Riiiiight.
Oh, and thanks for proving my point.
> >> However, that requires us to accept that our RL understanding of
> >neutronium is
> >> wrong on many points and further-advanced civilizations like the UFP
and
> >Empire,
> >> who actually work with it unlike us, will sometimes appear to use it in
> >ways and
> >> find it in places that seem impossible to us.
> >
> >Thank you for copping out of the debate. I'll accept your concession
that
> >Imperial neutronium is not real neutronium.
>
> None offered, Scott; all you've done is ignore the reasoning I gave above.
You gave no reasoning above. All you said was that SW neutronium, because
it can be found on moons and is a metallic element, is a concept of
neutronium far more advanced than the real life garden variety neutron star
neutronium.
That's bullshit, I identified it as such, and accepted your concession.
> Do you feel some hollow victory when you put your fingers in your ears, or
do you
> simply do it to see what it's like to have something filling the empty
space up
> there?
Oh, granted, if I were to shut my eyes and put my fingers in my ears, it
would serve to halt the perilous reduction of my IQ which occurs every time
I have to read your stupid bullshit. But, fortunately, I can manage to
read your crap without getting stupider in the process, thanks to my brain's
exquisite bullshit filter. (I don't turn it on all the way . . .
otherwise your messages would just be big blank spaces.)
> >> Your speculation is just that, speculation. You are a hypocrite; you
are
> >willing
> >> to concoct vast, unlikely explanations for seemingly impossible uses
and
> >> locations of ST neutronium but want SW judged on a different standard.
I
> >reject
> >> that.
> >
> >I'm judging Star Trek and Star Wars according to the exact same standard.
> >If it were said that Star Destroyer hulls were an alloy of neutronium, I
> >would allow the same hypothesis to hold. However, as it has been
> >demonstrated that Star Wars neutronium is a moon rock, I find that there
can
> >be nothing to save Star Wars from the fate of having something called
> >neutronium, but which is not true neutronium.
>
> No, Scottie. It has not been established that SW neutronium is a "moon
rock;" it
> has been established that, in a one-time extraordinary find, neutronium
was
> found on a moon.
It's a metallic element found in veins of ore on a moon. "Moon rock"
might be a bit of overkill, but not much.
> For all we know, it was put there by an ancient civilization after being
mass-reduced.
Praytell, how did they turn real neutronium into a metallic element? Fuck
the mass-reduction, *that* is the feat I'd love to know about.
> >If a Star Trek episode were to have an instance where someone was playing
> >with a neutronium ping-pong ball, bouncing it against the wall and
> >explaining that there was nothing in the universe . . . not technobabble,
> >not Q, nothing . . . holding it together, I would quite happily declare
> >Star Trek neutronium to be nothing more than a mislabeled substance, a la
> >Star Wars neutronium.
>
> And here your hypocrisy raises its head. In ST, you want to assume
technical
> wizardry until proven otherwise. Within any other context, you want the
reverse.
There can be no technical wizardry when the definition of neutronium in the
Star Wars universe is "a metallic element found as veins of ore on a moon".
Don't bitch and moan just because you don't get to use the same technical
wizardry thanks to stupidity on the part of Star Wars authors.
> I'm sorry, but those aren't the rules played by here; you are free to take
your
> hypocrisy elsewhere. Perhaps the mental midgets at sb.com would be more
> receptive.
It is your hypocrisy to sit here trying to defend Star Wars neutronium.
>
> >> SW and ST both violate the RL principles of neutronium;
> >
> >How does Star Trek violate RL principles of neutronium? It is
ultrastrong,
> >ultradense, ultramassive, impervious to weapons, et cetera.
>
> * Doesn't decay when separated from its star
Does decay when separated by its star ("Evolution"[TNG]), unless prevented
from doing so or created artificially by advanced societies.
> * can be mined on planets (evidenced by pre-warp civilizations doing so)
Supposition, based on the faulty assertion that the Iconians were pre-warp,
despite having a vast galactic empire and technology far beyond Federation
science.
> * Not heavy unless we assume magic tech
Properly rephrased: It does not give the appearance of extraordinary mass
when manufactured into useful components/structures, and in an effort to
explain this fact we quite readily hit upon the empirical knowledge we have
of Federation technology and its capabilities, extrapolating along
reasonable lines in an effort to explain how neutronium can exist outside a
neutron star while maintaining the characteristics of extraordinary strength
and density.
> >The fact that technologically advanced
> >races could find a way to use it as a construction material does not
violate
> >real life principles of neutronium.
>
> Concession accepted then; the Empire, as just such a technologically
advanced
> race, has done so.
Not so, for the Empire's version of neutronium is a metallic element mined
on moons.
> >On the other hand, Star Wars claims that neutronium is something you can
> >just head for your local moon and dig for. *That* violates all real
life
> >principles of neutronium.
>
> Only when you insist on an interpretation that requires us to assume that
when
> people say "neutronium," sometimes they mean neutronium, except when they
don't,
SW neutronium is not proper neutronium. Neutronium in the Star Wars
galaxy is a metallic element one can find in veins on a moon.
> and oh yeah, this is never true in the ST galaxy.
If and when they make up something stupid like "ooh, look, here's some
neutronium, a metallic element, sitting here on this moon", then we'll talk.
> >> what's more, they do it in similar ways related to their apparent mass.
> >
> >AMRE is a known quantity in Star Trek lore. Graviton-based shielding
is a
> >known quantity in Star Trek lore. Antigravity systems are a known
quantity
> >in Star Trek lore.
>
> SW has the ability to accurately simulate the gravitational pull of a
stellar
> body, artificially generate gravity on everything from a snub fighter to a
> capital ship and extend gravity fields in any arbitrary direction, setting
> "down" to any direction you like (as was done in ESB), etc. etc. etc. Mere
> "antigravity systems" are unimpressive to me.
These are all "field effect" applications of gravity control. I am
unimpressed by them. Fine manipulation of gravitons into coherent beams,
though, is a remarkable achievement, and one apparently far beyond Imperial
science.
> >No such technology was in place on the moon from which Star Wars
neutronium
> >is mined
>
> Proof? Prove there was no such technology was in place. You can't; you
just want
> to assume it.
I don't have to prove it, because Star Wars neutronium is a simple metallic
element, automatically disqualifying it from contention as real-life
neutronium. The fact that it is found on the moon in ore form is just a
happy bonus.
> Fine. Then I'll assume no such technology was in place on the
> Iconian temple, which makes sense, as they were pre-warp anyway and AMRE
is a
> warp field.
Calling the Iconians, with their galaxy-spanning empire, pre-warp is like
calling the Empire pre-warp. I suppose, then, that both are incapable of
producing FTL spacecraft. Aww, shucks.
> >> Thus, given the fact that they have the same and thus a very strong
> >presumption
> >> of being the same anyway, they are the same.
> >
> >Show me a neutronium ping-pong ball on Star Trek, and we'll talk.
>
> Show me the same in SW, and I'll need to. Until then, you are wrong.
No, you're wrong. Star Wars neutronium is a metallic element found on
moons.
I shall continue to repeat that fact until such time as you get it through
your Rabid Warsie Fuckwit skull.
>
> >> >Of course, as the episode did not go into detail about the containment
of
> >> >the neutronium, the above is only a workable hypothesis.
> >>
> >> I will be using this "workable hypothesis with no proof" standard in
> >further
> >> discussion with you.
> >
> >In order to keep to my standard of hypotheses, you'll need to be sure
that
> >these hypotheses have some basis in the technology of whomever you're
> >discussing, and you'll need to be sure that the hypothesis reasonably
> >explains whatever you're discussing in the context of the universe you're
> >referring to.
>
> Fine by me; SW has mastery over a great deal more of gravitational
technology
> than the pathetic nerds of the ST universe.
They may or may not have more and more powerful applications of field-effect
graviton manipulation technology. However, they are without finesse, and
have not been shown or described to have the capability of producing
localized or coherent graviton effects, a la beams.
> We've certainly never seen the ST universe display the technology needed
to mine neutronium
> and that doesn't stop you;
The Star Trek universe need not mine neutronium, for neutronium is not a
metallic element in the Star Trek universe. Also, for all we know, the
manufactured items composed of neutronium use artificially-generated
neutronium. At any rate, since all we've ever seen is the finished
products, your notion that we've never seen the earlier stages is
irrelevant. We did not see the birth of Picard or the construction of
Data, but that does not mean these events did not occur or that the Star
Trek universe did not have the required technology.
> nor have we ever seen an AMRE field generated large enough to reduce an
> entire star's mass to the mass of a normal temple, as in "To The Death."
The temple was not 10 kilometers in diameter, and therefore did not have the
mass of a star.
> That doesn't stop you. Why? Because you are a moron.
The fact that SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon
hasn't stopped you. That makes you far worse of a moron than you could
ever hope for me to be.
> >> >It comes from a moon, too. Therefore, either SW neutron stars are
not
> >real
> >> >neutron stars, or there are two types of neutronium . . . real,
"stellar"
> >> >neutronium, and whatever the crap mined out of a moon is.
> >>
> >> Neutron stars are real neutron stars; they have all the same properties
of
> >the
> >> real thing, which is why Han needed to be there in the first place, as
> >you'd
> >> know if you read the novel, or any evidence for that matter.
> >
> >Then there are two separate types of neutronium. The real/stellar
> >neutronium, and the lunar crap.
>
> Proof? Oh, none.
Star Wars neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon.
That's lunar crap.
> Fine by me; there are then two types of ST neutronium. The kind pre-warp
> civilizations can mine out of the ground and built temples from ("To the
Death")
Supposition . . . based on the false notion that the Iconians had to get the
neutronium out of the ground, which is itself based on the false notion that
the Iconians were pre-warp.
> and the kind in stars that's heavy sometimes.
All the time.
> >> Workable Hypothesis: A ship with neutronium armor crashed there long
ago.
> >Its
> >> armor was permanently mass-reduced by some Clarkean "magic" technology.
> >
> >Do you have any evidence or points to support this view?
>
> I have exactly as much evidence as you have for your "magic
carbon-neutronium"
> hypothesis; none.
Ah, I see . . . so you have no evidence whatsoever, and a hypothesis which
contradicts the facts. Good, Ian, good. I, on the other hand, have
supporting evidence for the capabilities described, and a hypothesis which
brings all facts together into happy union.
Oh, yes, and I forgot to add: SW neutronium is a metallic element found
in veins on a moon.
> > Mining neutronium
> >from a moon makes it sound like a natural occurence
>
> It occurred *ONE* time and was a very extraordinary find. Try reading the
source
> material instead of masturbating to crayon drawings of Deanna Troi for an
> afternoon.
Doesn't matter if it was extraordinary or not . . . SW neutronium is a
metallic element.
> >neutronium near an impact site. Further, permanent mass-reduction is
not
> >something I've heard of in the Star Wars universe, nor even the Star Trek
> >universe. Would you care to provide some explanation of how this
occurred?
>
> Why should I need to? You have extended mass reduction's abilities to
encompass
> a massive temple made of pure neutronium; I have extended its abilities to
> encompass permanancy. If you get to wave a magic wand and extend tech to
cover
> your assumptions, so do I.
You've not extended tech, you've abandoned physics.
Besides, it hardly matters (can you guess what's coming?):
SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon.
>
> >> >> -> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn
> >> >> -> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor
> >> >
> >> >The "light" form of neutronium would have to be "moon" neutronium, and
> >> >cannot be real, "stellar" neutronium.
> >>
> >> Ah, then ST's "light" form of neutronium, as seen in armor, doorways,
and
> >> temples of pre-warp civilizations is also different from real,
"stellar"
> >> neutronium.
> >
> >Again, this is not necessary, thanks to technologies known to exist in
the
> >Star Trek universe.
>
> Really? I've never seen any technology in Star Trek reduce that much mass.
Just
> small starship masses. Which episode am I missing where they put an AMRE
field
> around Sol and dragged it around?
The Federation has never been claimed to have the technology necessary to
produce or manufacture products from neutronium. Indeed, if you had any
idea what you're talking about, you'd know that such was referred to in
"Think Tank"[VOY].
> Oh, you just want us to ASSUME that... I see... well, if you get an
assumption
> for free...
I've paid for each assumption with reason and evidence. You might want to
try that.
>
> >> >> ST neutronium:
> >> >>
> >> >> -> Same on all points
> >> >
> >> >False. Star Trek neutronium is never stated to come from moon mining.
> >>
> >> The Iconians, who are pre-warp, could build a temple out of it. Thus it
> >must be
> >> mineable on the ground. ("To the Death")
> >
> >It is foolish to refer to the Iconians as pre-warp.
>
> Blah, blah, blah.
>
> Did they have warp?
>
> No.
Proof that a galactic empire spanning from the Beta Quadrant to the Gamma
Quadrant did not have FTL drive for starships?
> They had gateways that they needed to use for travel.
They had gateways that they used for travel. Proof that they *needed* to
use them for travel?
> Thus, they COULD NOT have had AMRE -- as that is based on warp technology.
Proof they did not have AMRE? Proof they were not familiar with warp
technology? Proof that they were unfamiliar with AMRE, even if I grant
your erroneous assumption that they did not have warp technology as FTL
drives?
> You
> want to gift magic tech to species that are never said to have had that,
and are
> explicitly stated to have a DIFFERENT form of FTL travel. Yeah, right.
Pull the
> other one. No one ever says the Iconians had AMRE.
Proof that they did not?
> So the Iconians, a pre-warp civilization, obviously mined their neutronium
from
> planetary surfaces.
Faulty reasoning. Besides, for all we know, the Iconians didn't need to
go and mine anything. They could have either sent small mining craft
through the gateways to the neutron star, or just opened the gateway on the
star to begin with.
However, needing to do that would presuppose that the Iconian empire managed
to exist without ever figuring out FTL travel for starships.
> Unless you want to gift them the magic ability to open a
> gateway to a neutron star, walk on, collect up some neutronium in sacks,
and go
> home? That was Lord Edam's idea the last time this subject came up. Maybe
you
> two can compare notes and realize how idiotic the idea is in advance this
time.
Maybe you should go back and figure out that just because the Iconians had
and used dimensional gateways, they are not restricted from warp drive or
FTL flight with starships.
> >> >Sphere was very, very massive. The neutronium door, which would've
> >been
> >> >held together by shielding, did not appear to have any particularly
> >> >impressive mass, and thus this mass was either shielded in the same
way
> >or
> >> >by some other method.
> >>
> >> 1) No proof of being held together by shielding
> >
> >Alrighty, then, prove to me that it wasn't held together by shielding,
and
> >thus was not neutronium (not counting the Star Wars universe garden
> >variety).
>
> The SW and ST universe are the same universe for the purposes of these
> discussions. Thus any "garden variety" inventions you make are perfectly
likely
> to occur in the ST galaxy.
It may well be the case, then, that some
lunar-crap-metallic-element-neutronium exists in the Star Trek galaxy.
However, dollars to donuts those damned Federation types are smart enough
not to start naming things neutronium that aren't neutronium.
> So, my explanation is your explanation: that neutronium was light
neutronium
> which obviously still worked perfectly well. Isn't that neat and tidy?
No, because we've seen no evidence of a metallic element mineable from moons
referred to as neutronium in the Star Trek galaxy.
> >> 2) No proof of mass reduction
> >
> >The fact that the characters near it didn't turn into chunky salsa
against
> >it is a good clue.
>
> Or it was light to begin with, like you assume SW neutronium is.
I don't assume SW neutronium is light. I accept the fact that it is,
based on the fact that SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on
a moon.
>
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> An explanation for this appears above. Further, see "The Masterpiece
> >Society."
> >
> >Stellar core fragments, again, need not be neutronium.
>
> Apparently I have two things you don't.
>
> 1) Knowledge of the episode in question
Given your faulty knowledge of "Evolution"[TNG], I question your knowledge
of "The Masterpiece Society"[TNG]. Would you like to back up your
bullshit with quotes?
> 2) Human friends
Desperate efforts at insults will not win you the argument.
SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon.
G2k
Kamakazie Sith
> Kamakazie Sith wrote:
> >
> > Dalton <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message news:<3C257576...@daltonator.net>...
> > > Kamakazie Sith wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > This is a fallacy created by warsies.
> > >
> >
> > Listen bitch, I only here that bullshit coming from warsies, so till I
> > hear otherwise I will say it is a fallacy created by warsies....I hope
> > this wasn't too hard for you to understand.
>
> Aha, typical trektard bigot. Fuck off, smallmind.
Still don't understand eh? Lets take a look at the facts....
By watching ST we learn that phasers are ineffective against
neutronium, so warsies (not all) translate that into "phasers are
ineffective against dense materials." Which is complete BS.
BTW your trying too hard with your insults...trektard? smallmind? wtf
I've seen you do better....try again.
Kamakazie Sith
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 21:12:53 -0600, "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Ooh, I haven't seen an utter lack of reply like that since the last message
> >Ian wrote!
>
> HAHAHHAHA U R FUNY
> --
Well you could at least try to disprove them, instead of trying to
dish out lame insults.
Kamakazie Sith
> "Kamakazie Sith" <sit...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:89c4bcfd.01122...@posting.google.com...
> > "Paradox" <l33ta0...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<9vnp1d$g9kj9$1...@ID-109635.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > His Divine Shadow {PHX} <hisdivi...@forpresident.com> wrote in
> message
> > > news:ZGBT7.17$dN....@read2.inet.fi...
> <snip>
> >
> > This is a fallacy created by warsies. Phasers are effective against
> > everything but PURE neutronium.
>
> ALWAYS pure? I mean if you stuck something else in the middle of neutronium
> the sheer gravitational forces would tear it down...into neutronium.
> Basically you can't alloy it so it will always be pure, the only qustion is
> one of density and/or palcement the density question never being answered
> and the distribution of neutronium throughout the armor belt also never
> being fully answered.
That may be how it is in RL, but not in the ST world. The gravitation
forces would crush those that occupied anything made out of it, unless
it had some sort of SIF, or IDF.
One thing has always bothered me about neutronium in the ST universe,
if renders most weapons ineffective, why not construct all your
buildings out of it?
Guardian 2000
I thought about mentioning something crass about not wanting to know what
Chuck's wife does with all those little Sonnenbergs, but I decided against
it.
G2k
Guardian 2000
> Guardian 2000 wrote:
> >
> > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>
> > > > > or made into doorways, temples,
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > When exactly was this proven? AFAIK, It was just an assumption needed
> > > to prove STN was RLN.
> >
> > It's not an assumption. It is a hypothesis,
>
> Without direct evidence it's the same thing.
There is supporting evidence, unlike in SW. After all, SW neutronium is a
metallic element found in veins on a moon.
> You assume STN is RLN and
> you assume there's a logical explanation whenever there's evidence that
> contradicts that assumption.
I'd be willing to grant Star Wars the same leeway, but for the fact that SW
neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon. Star Trek
neutronium, on the other hand, is only known to naturally occur in neutron
stars, and the substance within them is referred to as neutronium.
> The Pro-SW side could do that too, you know. You're no farther ahead.
No, they can't, because SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins
on a moon.
C'mon guys, I've got that in the clipboard and I'm fucking pasting it now.
When are you going to give it up?
G2k
Guardian 2000
> "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a06g56$j47hk$1...@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "C.S.Strowbridge" <csstro...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3C26B85B...@shaw.ca...
> > > Guardian 2000 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Kynes" wrote:
> > >
> > > > > or made into doorways, temples,
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > When exactly was this proven? AFAIK, It was just an assumption needed
to
> > > prove STN was RLN.
> > >
> > > C.S.Strowbridge
> >
> > It's not an assumption. It is a hypothesis,
>
> <snip>
>
> So again where did you prove this hypothesis?
I never claimed to prove the hypothesis. I have simply offerred up a
reasonable hypothesis that fits the facts. Potential proof for the
hypothesis might be found in the color-shift of the dying Doomsday Machine
in the TOS episode of the same name, but I can't be certain that the flash,
the color change, and et cetera are indicative of a neutronium containment
system failure.
G2k
Guardian 2000
You haven't been around Ian all that much, have you? Lame insults *are*
disproof, to him.
G2k
Guardian 2000
> Guardian 2000 wrote:
> >
> > "Kynes" wrote:
>
> > > Did they have warp? No, they had gateways that they used instead.
> >
> > How do you know they did not have warp?
>
> Cause not once did they say they had warp. Not once.
And why would their FTL drive have come up in conversation?
And hell's bells, you get right down to it and they could have whatever FTL
they wanted that existed within their sphere of influence. After all, the
Iconian gateway on Iconia presented the Romulan bridge. Send in a few
"demons of air and darkness" and voila!, one enemy starship with FTL drive.
>
> > > >> 2) That blueprint is for a ship which was never shown on screen.
> > > >
> > > >Maybe, but the principle is sound.
> > >
> > > The principle is stupid. Show me where "blueprints of ships never seen
> > > on screen" are on the canon scale.
> >
> > The principle is to attempt to find the mass of an ISD and determine her
> > real-life neutronium content from there.
>
> But that wasn't an ISD. So you can't use it to determine the neutronium
> content of an ISD.
The principle, though, is sound . . . just as I fucking said.
> > > Oh, so we need negative proof of technological intervention?
> >
> > You're the one trying to disprove a reasonable hypothesis.
>
> We don't have to disprove anything till after you supply some proof. And
> we want direct evidence, not what you consider logical.
Since, when I give you evidence, you say "hey, where's the evidence?", and
since, when I give you logic, you say "hey, where's the evidence?", I see
little point to your demand. But, I'll play along . . . what sort of
evidence will please you?
G2k
Guardian 2000
Where the fuck do you see an evasion? Cocksmack was trying to claim that
since ISD's have some neutronium, they must have hulls impervious to
Federation weapons. I demonstrated that ISD hull neutronium either A.
isn't neutronium or B. isn't sufficient to make the hulls impervious.
That's a direct reply, fuckwit.
G2k
Dalton
>
> Dalton <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message news:<3C2671DD...@daltonator.net>...
> > Kamakazie Sith wrote:
> > >
> > > Dalton <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message news:<3C257576...@daltonator.net>...
> > > > Kamakazie Sith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > This is a fallacy created by warsies.
> > > >
> > > > Ride that generalization a little more, fucktard.
> > >
> > > Listen bitch, I only here that bullshit coming from warsies, so till I
> > > hear otherwise I will say it is a fallacy created by warsies....I hope
> > > this wasn't too hard for you to understand.
> >
> > Aha, typical trektard bigot. Fuck off, smallmind.
>
> Still don't understand eh? Lets take a look at the facts....
>
> By watching ST we learn that phasers are ineffective against
> neutronium, so warsies (not all) translate that into "phasers are
> ineffective against dense materials." Which is complete BS.
Oh, so now you modify it. "warsies (not all)" Try doing that next time.
I don't subscribe to every crackpot theory that shows up here. I don't
take kindly to "Unknown Warsie" attacks.
> BTW your trying too hard with your insults...trektard? smallmind? wtf
> I've seen you do better....try again.
Limp-wristed SB child-bitch trekkie cocksmoker.
--
Rob "Roby" Dalton
http://daltonator.net
"I need a drink."
"You don't drink."
"Yeah, but I've been meaning to start."
---UHF
Dalton
What? That was a comeback to an insult. What was there to disprove?
Lord Edam de Fromage
Kynes
> >> Starring things doesn't make them true. The scientist came to observe the
> >> explusion of large globules from the star, not the star itself. Those
> >globules
> >> never decayed in the episode.
> >
> >That's funny . . . I've never heard of the episode you're trying to
> >describe.
>
> [snip long description]
>
> Great. Thanks for proving you can look up episode summaries. Like it matters
> whether Dr. Greybeard has blue eyes or brown eyes. Retards should make fun of
> you.
>
> Do you honestly think these sort of stupid, asinine displays of Trekkie geekdom
> do anything except exacerbate your position as Group Moron? No, excuse me. Of
> course you don't think. If you put an ounce of thought into any of the drivel
> you spew, the newsgroup's collective IQ would quadruple.
>
> The important part about Evolution was that the scientist wanted to study the
> expulsions of neutronium ("globules," in case you haven't figured that out) from
> the star. As you have not contested this, concession accepted on the first
> example of ST neutronium displaying properties that are "impossible" in RL.
PICARD: Our eminent guest, Doctor Paul Stubbs, will attempt to study the
decay of globules of neutronium expelled at relativistic speeds by a
massive stellar explosion which will occur here in a matter of hours.
This quote shows Dr Stubbs was planing on investigating the DECAY of
neutronium.
STUBBS:Do you know how long the experiment will last, Wesley... ?
WESLEY:One billionth of a second.
Must be decaying pretty fast, if you can measure it in under a second
RL Neutnrium: comes from neutron stars, decays quickly.
In this episode, ST neutronium: comes from neutron stars, decays
quickly.
Please explain how this episode shows ST neutronium has properties that
are impossible IRL
> A small piece of a neutron star would do more than glow lightly in the visible
> light spectrum were it separated. It would decay almost immediately.
no, it would decay over time, based on the amount and half life of
material present.
This wasn't a small chunk of material, BTW - it was several kilometres
across (though I'm afraid I'm going to have to marginalise you further
Ian, and inist you watch the episode for that little bit of info)
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> SW neutronium comes from neutron stars. ref: Rebel Dawn
> >
> >Edam has quite nicely deflated your position on this.
>
> Edam has asked me to prove that neutron stars are composed of neutronium,
No, I asked you to prove SW neutronium is the stuff that comes from
neutron stars, despite displaying properties to the contrary. Your first
step in attempting this was assuming what you are required to prove.
I quite happily insist the same standards be applied to Trek, but
Evolution seems to complicate matters there.
> >How does Star Trek violate RL principles of neutronium? It is ultrastrong,
> >ultradense, ultramassive, impervious to weapons, et cetera.
>
> * Doesn't decay when separated from its star
This is a blatant misrepresentation of numerous episodes.
> * can be mined on planets (evidenced by pre-warp civilizations doing so)
There is no proof iconians mined it from planets. They have technology
far superior to any species shown in Trek or Wars that would make mining
neutrnium from stars (or neutron star explosions as in Evolution) a
trivial technique.
> * Not heavy unless we assume magic tech
In the case of ISD hulls or other obviously constructed examples, I'd
quite happily assume some tech dropping the mass as we always use for
ST's examples, but then we have the poblem with the moon. Oh, I know you
say we can apply the same assumption there, but they aren't NEEDED.
Other explanations fit all the facts better.
(and, as I've already pointed out, if it weren't for Evolution we'd have
to do the same for Trek. Evolution complicates matters there)
> Fine by me; SW has mastery over a great deal more of gravitational technology
> than the pathetic nerds of the ST universe. We've certainly never seen the ST
> universe display the technology needed to mine neutronium
And yet the Hirogen can walk through the neutron mantle of a collapsed
star (read: neutronium). Do you still insist they don't have the
technology to mine what they can walk through?
> Thus, they COULD NOT have had AMRE -- as that is based on warp technology.
And shielding technology. and communications technology. And subspace
technology in general.
feh, enough. I'll leave guardian fuck up this debate like he has every
other one he's got invovled with here. The greatest threat to ST on this
group isn't the pro-Wars side, or saxton, or Wong. It's Guardian.
did you ever add that bit about shield/sensor domes to the past threads
thingy? You know, the one about how useless a debate it was because you
have to bring the shields down before attacking them anyway, and once
the shields are down the target is basically fucked?
How about adding another one - arguing about neutronium being real or
notis useless. SW ships are shown to be have specific thermal and
mechanical properties. If ST weapons can be shown to have greater
effects than these properties they WILL be effective (anything else is
ignoring the whole basis of science)
--
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:20011223223208...@mb-dh.aol.com...>> >news:KGEmPM7m3P54DY...@4ax.com...
>> ><snip>
>> >> "The Temple is constructed out of neutronium. As such, even with a
>direct
>> >hit
>> >> from a quantum torpedo we can not be assured of destruction."
>> >> - Vorta, DS9's "To The Death"
>> >>
>> >
>> >Why, that's very interesting . . . a direct hit from a quantum torpedo
>will
>> >not *assure* destruction. Hmm . . . sounds like quantum torpedoes might
>be
>> >able to damage neutronium structures, after all.
>> >
>>
>> Phaser's are utterly useless against them. But, as I said in the other
>thread,
>> where you so ungracefully conceded, that means they rely on torps mostly..
>Like
>> we always suspected they would.
>
>I conceeded to your bullshit argument? When in the name of hell was that?
>
Yesterday sometime. You throw some much of your own feces, it's hard to
time/date stamp it all.
>> >> "The Think Tank is out there somewhere, hiding in subspace. How do we
>find
>> >them?
>> >> And even if we can, their ship's hull is neutronium-based alloy,
>> >impervious to
>> >> our weapons."
>> >> - Janeway, "Think Tank"
>> >
>> >It's neutronium-based . . . your line in another post about there being
>no
>> >mention of how much neutronium is in the alloy is thus full of shit.
>That
>> >would be like calling steel a carbon-based alloy.
>> >
>>
>> No gravitic distortions around it, nor mention of technobabble
>contrivances.
>
>Why mention technobabble contrivances? It would be obvious.
>
This is Trek, they mention technobabble at every possible moment.
>> Ergo, it must have been very little.
>
>Why?
>
Otherwise it would have been mentioned.
>> Or concede that the same can be applied to SW ships.
>
>It doesn't matter how much neutronium is in SW ships, for SW neutronium is
>not real neutronium. It's just moon rocks.
>
No proof, yet again...
------------------------------------
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.
Lurker
<snip>
Here is a thought for you to mull over
The average Neutron star (in theory) is 10km across and is a minimum of 1.4 solar masses.
A moon can be anywhere in the range of 5 - 5000km, maybe more
Now using logic (try it yourself sometime), can you see that by accumulating an extra few
km's of debris over the millenia it could become known as a moon?
---
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
Guardian 2000
"Lurker" <lee.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:_GIV7.35757$4z5.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> Here is a thought for you to mull over
>
> The average Neutron star (in theory) is 10km across and is a minimum of
1.4 solar masses.
>
> A moon can be anywhere in the range of 5 - 5000km, maybe more
>
> Now using logic (try it yourself sometime), can you see that by
accumulating an extra few
> km's of debris over the millenia it could become known as a moon?
>
It would have a gravitational field greater than that of the star, dude.
G2k
Sir Nitram
Endor and Yavin 4 had gravity fields equal or greater than Earth. Yet they were
called moons. The gravity field doesn't determine it's name.
Guardian 2000
"Lord Edam de Fromage" <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.169136d17...@news.cis.dfn.de...
<snip>
> > The important part about Evolution was that the scientist wanted to
study the
> > expulsions of neutronium ("globules," in case you haven't figured that
out) from
> > the star. As you have not contested this, concession accepted on the
first
> > example of ST neutronium displaying properties that are "impossible" in
RL.
>
>
> PICARD: Our eminent guest, Doctor Paul Stubbs, will attempt to study the
> decay of globules of neutronium expelled at relativistic speeds by a
> massive stellar explosion which will occur here in a matter of hours.
>
> This quote shows Dr Stubbs was planing on investigating the DECAY of
> neutronium.
I had no idea the term "globules" had been used . . . I happily concede on
that point, provided Ian concedes that decay, which he claimed did not
exist, is in fact at the very heart of the matter.
I wonder if he'll actually do so.
> STUBBS:Do you know how long the experiment will last, Wesley... ?
> WESLEY:One billionth of a second.
>
> Must be decaying pretty fast, if you can measure it in under a second
Excellent work.
<snip>
> > >> >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.
> > >>
> > >> SW neutronium comes from neutron stars. ref: Rebel Dawn
> > >
> > >Edam has quite nicely deflated your position on this.
> >
> > Edam has asked me to prove that neutron stars are composed of
neutronium,
>
> No, I asked you to prove SW neutronium is the stuff that comes from
> neutron stars, despite displaying properties to the contrary. Your first
> step in attempting this was assuming what you are required to prove.
>
> I quite happily insist the same standards be applied to Trek, but
> Evolution seems to complicate matters there.
Actually, since SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a
moon, he'll have a damned hard time doing that.
> > >How does Star Trek violate RL principles of neutronium? It is
ultrastrong,
> > >ultradense, ultramassive, impervious to weapons, et cetera.
> >
> > * Doesn't decay when separated from its star
>
> This is a blatant misrepresentation of numerous episodes.
Then we are in agreement. (see below)
>
> > * can be mined on planets (evidenced by pre-warp civilizations doing so)
>
> There is no proof iconians mined it from planets. They have technology
> far superior to any species shown in Trek or Wars that would make mining
> neutrnium from stars (or neutron star explosions as in Evolution) a
> trivial technique.
>
Then we are in agreement. (see below)
> > * Not heavy unless we assume magic tech
>
> In the case of ISD hulls or other obviously constructed examples, I'd
> quite happily assume some tech dropping the mass as we always use for
> ST's examples, but then we have the poblem with the moon. Oh, I know you
> say we can apply the same assumption there, but they aren't NEEDED.
> Other explanations fit all the facts better.
>
> (and, as I've already pointed out, if it weren't for Evolution we'd have
> to do the same for Trek. Evolution complicates matters there)
>
Again, we are in agreement. (see below)
> feh, enough. I'll leave guardian fuck up this debate like he has every
> other one he's got invovled with here. The greatest threat to ST on this
> group isn't the pro-Wars side, or saxton, or Wong. It's Guardian.
Well, fuck you, bitch. Would you care to explain this bullshit comment of
yours, 'cause it looks to me like you're just trying to suck Rabid Warsie
cock.
Don't come in here agreeing with my arguments as I stand here, the last
bastion and sole defender of them, and then question the manner in which I
provide them. If you want to take part in the debate, then do so, but do
not dare come waltzing in saying "Yes, Guardian is right on every count, but
I dare not stand beside those arguments for more than an instant because
he's not popular." The greatest threat to ST in this group is not me . .
. it's you, and others who are willing to brush truth aside in favor of
keeping the Rabid Warsies happy.
"There's battle lines being drawn.
Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong.
People speaking their minds . . .
Getting so much resistance
From behind . . . "
- Buffalo Springfield, "For What It's Worth"
I never once imagined ASVS was a popularity contest.
G2k
Guardian 2000
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
Concession on the foolish notion I conceded accepted.
> >> >> "The Think Tank is out there somewhere, hiding in subspace. How do
we
> >find
> >> >them?
> >> >> And even if we can, their ship's hull is neutronium-based alloy,
> >> >impervious to
> >> >> our weapons."
> >> >> - Janeway, "Think Tank"
> >> >
> >> >It's neutronium-based . . . your line in another post about there
being
> >no
> >> >mention of how much neutronium is in the alloy is thus full of shit.
> >That
> >> >would be like calling steel a carbon-based alloy.
> >> >
> >>
> >> No gravitic distortions around it, nor mention of technobabble
> >contrivances.
> >
> >Why mention technobabble contrivances? It would be obvious.
> >
>
> This is Trek, they mention technobabble at every possible moment.
Utter lack of argument observed . . . shall I accept your concession now, or
give you one more chance?
> >> Ergo, it must have been very little.
> >
> >Why?
> >
>
> Otherwise it would have been mentioned.
Proof?
>
> >> Or concede that the same can be applied to SW ships.
> >
> >It doesn't matter how much neutronium is in SW ships, for SW neutronium
is
> >not real neutronium. It's just moon rocks.
> >
>
> No proof, yet again...
No proof? Fuck you, bitch . . . Wayne posted it. SW neutronium is a
metallic element found in veins on a moon.
G2k
Kamakazie Sith
> Kamakazie Sith wrote:
> >
> > Dalton <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message news:<3C2671DD...@daltonator.net>...
> > > Kamakazie Sith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dalton <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message news:<3C257576...@daltonator.net>...
> > > > > Kamakazie Sith wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > > This is a fallacy created by warsies.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ride that generalization a little more, fucktard.
> > > >
> > > > Listen bitch, I only here that bullshit coming from warsies, so till I
> > > > hear otherwise I will say it is a fallacy created by warsies....I hope
> > > > this wasn't too hard for you to understand.
> > >
> > > Aha, typical trektard bigot. Fuck off, smallmind.
> >
> > Still don't understand eh? Lets take a look at the facts....
> >
> > By watching ST we learn that phasers are ineffective against
> > neutronium, so warsies (not all) translate that into "phasers are
> > ineffective against dense materials." Which is complete BS.
>
> Oh, so now you modify it. "warsies (not all)" Try doing that next time.
> I don't subscribe to every crackpot theory that shows up here. I don't
> take kindly to "Unknown Warsie" attacks.
Oh please, it's not like you show the same courtesy to trekkies....
> > BTW your trying too hard with your insults...trektard? smallmind? wtf
> > I've seen you do better....try again.
>
> Limp-wristed SB child-bitch trekkie cocksmoker.
Much better...
Dalton
>
> Dalton <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message news:<3C270BD9...@daltonator.net>...
> > Kamakazie Sith wrote:
> > >
> > > Dalton <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message news:<3C2671DD...@daltonator.net>...
> > > > Kamakazie Sith wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dalton <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message news:<3C257576...@daltonator.net>...
> > > > > > Kamakazie Sith wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is a fallacy created by warsies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ride that generalization a little more, fucktard.
> > > > >
> > > > > Listen bitch, I only here that bullshit coming from warsies, so till I
> > > > > hear otherwise I will say it is a fallacy created by warsies....I hope
> > > > > this wasn't too hard for you to understand.
> > > >
> > > > Aha, typical trektard bigot. Fuck off, smallmind.
> > >
> > > Still don't understand eh? Lets take a look at the facts....
> > >
> > > By watching ST we learn that phasers are ineffective against
> > > neutronium, so warsies (not all) translate that into "phasers are
> > > ineffective against dense materials." Which is complete BS.
> >
> > Oh, so now you modify it. "warsies (not all)" Try doing that next time.
> > I don't subscribe to every crackpot theory that shows up here. I don't
> > take kindly to "Unknown Warsie" attacks.
>
> Oh please, it's not like you show the same courtesy to trekkies....
Actually, I do, and you've committed yet another Unknown Warsie attack.
When I want to insult someone, I do it outright. I don't hide behind a
generalization in the hope that nobody retaliaties.
> > > BTW your trying too hard with your insults...trektard? smallmind? wtf
> > > I've seen you do better....try again.
> >
> > Limp-wristed SB child-bitch trekkie cocksmoker.
>
> Much better...
Kamakazie Sith
> Kamakazie Sith wrote:
> >
> > Kynes <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message news:<PcomPBvcrVftFW...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 21:12:53 -0600, "Guardian 2000" <usm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Ooh, I haven't seen an utter lack of reply like that since the last message
> > > >Ian wrote!
> > >
> > > HAHAHHAHA U R FUNY
> > > --
> >
> > Well you could at least try to disprove them, instead of trying to
> > dish out lame insults.
>
> What? That was a comeback to an insult. What was there to disprove?
What are you talking about? What insult was there to comeback
against?
That the neutronium mined from the moons is different then the
neutronium from ST, that renders their weapons ineffective.
Sir Nitram
You did. If you don't like the fact you did, well, tough shit.
>> >> >> "The Think Tank is out there somewhere, hiding in subspace. How do
>we
>> >find
>> >> >them?
>> >> >> And even if we can, their ship's hull is neutronium-based alloy,
>> >> >impervious to
>> >> >> our weapons."
>> >> >> - Janeway, "Think Tank"
>> >> >
>> >> >It's neutronium-based . . . your line in another post about there
>being
>> >no
>> >> >mention of how much neutronium is in the alloy is thus full of shit.
>> >That
>> >> >would be like calling steel a carbon-based alloy.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> No gravitic distortions around it, nor mention of technobabble
>> >contrivances.
>> >
>> >Why mention technobabble contrivances? It would be obvious.
>> >
>>
>> This is Trek, they mention technobabble at every possible moment.
>
>Utter lack of argument observed . . . shall I accept your concession now, or
>give you one more chance?
>
Actually, it is an argument, just because you don't like it doesn't change
that.
>> >> Ergo, it must have been very little.
>> >
>> >Why?
>> >
>>
>> Otherwise it would have been mentioned.
>
>Proof?
>
Because every other time they notice something like that in Trek, they mention
it. And yes, that's proof, however much you wish it wasn't.
>>
>> >> Or concede that the same can be applied to SW ships.
>> >
>> >It doesn't matter how much neutronium is in SW ships, for SW neutronium
>is
>> >not real neutronium. It's just moon rocks.
>> >
>>
>> No proof, yet again...
>
>No proof? Fuck you, bitch . . . Wayne posted it. SW neutronium is a
>metallic element found in veins on a moon.
>
Wayne posted a hypothesis.. I said it fit the facts. You ignorant slut, go back
to your hole. Of course, you have no such capacity to accept alternate ideas,
as you've shown again and again. Multiple hypothesis, all of which could be
true for SW neutronium.
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
> > > It's not an assumption. It is a hypothesis,
> >
> > Without direct evidence it's the same thing.
>
> There is supporting evidence,
No there isn't. Your 'evidence' is wishful thinking, you're trying to
use your assumptions to prove your assumptions are correct. And we all
know what you think about that.
> > You assume STN is RLN and you assume there's a logical explanation
> > whenever there's evidence that contradicts that assumption.
>
> I'd be willing to grant Star Wars the same leeway, but for the fact that
> SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon. Star
> Trek neutronium, on the other hand, is only known to naturally occur in
> neutron stars, and the substance within them is referred to as
> neutronium.
Neither of them have the same properties as RLN. You keep ignoring that
fact.
> C'mon guys, I've got that in the clipboard and I'm fucking pasting it
> now. When are you going to give it up?
When you realize your only fighting half of the argument.
C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
>
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
> > > > Did they have warp? No, they had gateways that they used instead.
> > >
> > > How do you know they did not have warp?
> >
> > Cause not once did they say they had warp. Not once.
>
> And why would their FTL drive have come up in conversation?
Stop right there. You ASSUME they had FTL technology and your only
'evidence' is, 'They must have!' Why? With the gateways they don't need
FTL ships. You say as much right below.
> And hell's bells, you get right down to it and they could have whatever
> FTL they wanted that existed within their sphere of influence. After
> all, the Iconian gateway on Iconia presented the Romulan bridge. Send
> in a few "demons of air and darkness" and voila!, one enemy starship
> with FTL drive.
So why would they need to develop FTL technology?
> > > The principle is to attempt to find the mass of an ISD and determine
> > > her real-life neutronium content from there.
> >
> > But that wasn't an ISD. So you can't use it to determine the
> > neutronium content of an ISD.
>
> The principle, though, is sound . . . just as I fucking said.
Just cause you said it doesn't make it so. The principle is fatally
flawed, just like I have PROVEN.
1.) The ship used is not as ISD.
2.) The ship used was never seen on screen.
3.) The ship used is different in almost every way except style.
> > > > Oh, so we need negative proof of technological intervention?
> > >
> > > You're the one trying to disprove a reasonable hypothesis.
> >
> > We don't have to disprove anything till after you supply some proof.
> > And we want direct evidence, not what you consider logical.
>
> Since, when I give you evidence, you say "hey, where's the evidence?",
What evidence? When was the last time you gave a quote?
> since, when I give you logic, you say "hey, where's the evidence?",
Logical extrapolation is not allowed. Says so right in the R&R.
> I see little point to your demand. But, I'll play along . . . what
> sort of evidence will please you?
Direct evidence. Maybe you could watch a few episodes of ST.
C.S.Strowbridge
Guardian 2000
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
> >"Lurker" <lee.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >news:_GIV7.35757$4z5.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> Here is a thought for you to mull over
> >>
> >> The average Neutron star (in theory) is 10km across and is a minimum of
> >1.4 solar masses.
> >>
> >> A moon can be anywhere in the range of 5 - 5000km, maybe more
> >>
> >> Now using logic (try it yourself sometime), can you see that by
> >accumulating an extra few
> >> km's of debris over the millenia it could become known as a moon?
> >>
> >
> >It would have a gravitational field greater than that of the star, dude.
> >
>
> Endor and Yavin 4 had gravity fields equal or greater than Earth. Yet they
were
> called moons. The gravity field doesn't determine it's name.
You're right, the name does. The fact that the moon orbited, along with
other moons, a planet . . . and that this planet orbited a star . . . those
are good clues right there that Star Wars neutronium, being a metallic
element found on the moon . . . does not have the density characteristics of
real-world neutronium.
Thank you for playing.
G2k
Sir Nitram
You have successfully defined what a moon is. Now, we're waiting for how a
neutron star or chunk thereof(Since both ST and SW neutronium can exist outside
a neutron star) cannot orbit a planet, thus making it a moon.
Guardian 2000
> Guardian 2000 wrote:
> >
> > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>
> > > > It's not an assumption. It is a hypothesis,
> > >
> > > Without direct evidence it's the same thing.
> >
> > There is supporting evidence,
>
> No there isn't. Your 'evidence' is wishful thinking,
No, it's known technologies being extrapolated You're like an 18th
Century guy holding a musket claiming that sniper rifles could never exist,
while you stand over a corpse with a little feather on it shot from 1000
yards.
> you're trying to
> use your assumptions to prove your assumptions are correct. And we all
> know what you think about that.
No, I'm using reason and canon. I know how you hate both reason and
canon, but they are nevertheless primary components of what ASVS ought to
be.
> > > You assume STN is RLN and you assume there's a logical explanation
> > > whenever there's evidence that contradicts that assumption.
> >
> > I'd be willing to grant Star Wars the same leeway, but for the fact that
> > SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon. Star
> > Trek neutronium, on the other hand, is only known to naturally occur in
> > neutron stars, and the substance within them is referred to as
> > neutronium.
>
> Neither of them have the same properties as RLN. You keep ignoring that
> fact.
Star Trek neutronium exhibits the same properties as real-life neutronium in
its natural environment. Star Wars neutronium does not.
Star Trek neutronium only exhibits different properties than real life
neutronium as found in its natural environment when used in applications
constructed by technologically advanced races, but even then many
characteristics are the same. There is no logic to denying the hypothesis
that the technologically advanced races have the ability to control
neutronium . . . that's how they managed to build shit out of it in the
first place . . . and so your arguments to the contrary are nothing more
than Rabid Warsie Fuckwit bitching.
> > C'mon guys, I've got that in the clipboard and I'm fucking pasting it
> > now. When are you going to give it up?
>
> When you realize your only fighting half of the argument.
So do you confess that SW neutronium is not real neutronium? That's step
one, and I can't even get you whiny bitches to relent on that point despite
the fact that SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon.
G2k
Guardian 2000
> Guardian 2000 wrote:
> >
> > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>
> > > > > Did they have warp? No, they had gateways that they used instead.
> > > >
> > > > How do you know they did not have warp?
> > >
> > > Cause not once did they say they had warp. Not once.
> >
> > And why would their FTL drive have come up in conversation?
>
> Stop right there. You ASSUME they had FTL technology
No, we know they had FTL technology. The dimensional gateways are proof
that they developed at least dimensional FTL technology. Referring to them
as pre-warp as if they never figured out FTL is fucking stupid.
> and your only 'evidence' is, 'They must have!' Why? With the gateways they
don't need
> FTL ships. You say as much right below.
Just because they could take whatever FTL ships they required does not mean
that they did not develop FTL technology on their own.
> > And hell's bells, you get right down to it and they could have whatever
> > FTL they wanted that existed within their sphere of influence. After
> > all, the Iconian gateway on Iconia presented the Romulan bridge. Send
> > in a few "demons of air and darkness" and voila!, one enemy starship
> > with FTL drive.
>
> So why would they need to develop FTL technology?
To make the gateways. What, do you think they were just sitting on their
thumbs at their equivalent of a 20th Century level and suddenly a guy came
up with dimensional gateways? Technology evolves, shitwit.
> > > > The principle is to attempt to find the mass of an ISD and determine
> > > > her real-life neutronium content from there.
> > >
> > > But that wasn't an ISD. So you can't use it to determine the
> > > neutronium content of an ISD.
> >
> > The principle, though, is sound . . . just as I fucking said.
>
> Just cause you said it doesn't make it so. The principle is fatally
> flawed, just like I have PROVEN.
>
> 1.) The ship used is not as ISD.
> 2.) The ship used was never seen on screen.
> 3.) The ship used is different in almost every way except style.
The *principle*, you fucking retard, is to take the mass of an ISD and
determine any real-life neutronium content. You're arguing against the
*application* of the principle, not the principle itself.
Get a fucking clue. It's English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?
>
> > > > > Oh, so we need negative proof of technological intervention?
> > > >
> > > > You're the one trying to disprove a reasonable hypothesis.
> > >
> > > We don't have to disprove anything till after you supply some proof.
> > > And we want direct evidence, not what you consider logical.
> >
> > Since, when I give you evidence, you say "hey, where's the evidence?",
>
> What evidence? When was the last time you gave a quote?
Just a few messages ago. Of course, the fact that you never actually read
my messages, instead using some bullshit response generator, is not my
problem.
> > since, when I give you logic, you say "hey, where's the evidence?",
>
> Logical extrapolation is not allowed. Says so right in the R&R.
That's logical extrapolation of Federation technologies in Federation
applications. The proof of the fact that more advanced races have the
technology is demonstrated in the fact that we see the result.
Don't bullshit with the rules. You'll just turn into an Ian clone, then.
> > I see little point to your demand. But, I'll play along . . . what
> > sort of evidence will please you?
>
> Direct evidence. Maybe you could watch a few episodes of ST.
>
You've never bothered doing so.
G2k
Guardian 2000
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
You can't provide anything to suggest that I did. That's tough shit all
over you.
You're arguing about how Star Trek is written, not about canon evidence.
Concession accepted.
> >> >> Ergo, it must have been very little.
> >> >
> >> >Why?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Otherwise it would have been mentioned.
> >
> >Proof?
> >
>
> Because every other time they notice something like that in Trek, they
mention
> it. And yes, that's proof, however much you wish it wasn't.
Not according to ASVS. Besides, it's not like every time they see an
alien starship make a maneuver they branch off into a discussion of its IDF.
Concession accepted.
> >> >> Or concede that the same can be applied to SW ships.
> >> >
> >> >It doesn't matter how much neutronium is in SW ships, for SW
neutronium
> >is
> >> >not real neutronium. It's just moon rocks.
> >> >
> >>
> >> No proof, yet again...
> >
> >No proof? Fuck you, bitch . . . Wayne posted it. SW neutronium is a
> >metallic element found in veins on a moon.
> >
>
> Wayne posted a hypothesis.. I said it fit the facts.
Wayne posted quotes you ignorant fucking retard. In the quotes were the
veins on the moon and the fact that SW neutronium is a metallic element.
That's not a hypothesis, that's the fucking SW universe!
> You ignorant slut, go back to your hole.
Oh, of course, I correctly identify quotes as quotes, not hypotheses as you
would desperately try to have them be, and all the sudden I'm an ignorant
slut. Well, cocksmack, you're cordially invited to disembowel yourself.
> Of course, you have no such capacity to accept alternate ideas,
> as you've shown again and again. Multiple hypothesis, all of which could
be
> true for SW neutronium.
Except, of course, for the fact that SW neutronium is a metallic element
found in veins on a moon.
G2k
Guardian 2000
"Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote in message
A neutron star cannot orbit a planet because the planet, sun, et cetera will
orbit it. The most you'd get out of a planet around a neutron star is a
wobbly neutron star.
G2k
Kynes
>> >Ooh, I haven't seen an utter lack of reply like that since the last message
>> >Ian wrote!
>>
>> HAHAHHAHA U R FUNY
>> --
>
>Well you could at least try to disprove them, instead of trying to
>dish out lame insults.
"Disprove them?" How do you "disprove" a whiny, behind-the-skirt insult like the
kind Scottie deals in?
--
-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
Kynes
>> Did they have warp? No, they had gateways that they used instead. Eat my
>shit
>> and die; I'm sorry if I don't give a shit about the glory and might of
>your
>> precious Iconians. The facts are, they didn't have warp, and your haughty
>> defenses of what nice people they are don't change that.
>
>How do you know they did not have warp?
No one's ever said they do have it, so we assume they don't until you prove (not
assert) otherwise.
>> If you think neutronium is the same as scattered neutrons intermixed with
>other
>> things, you are even dumber than I thought. I realize I say that a lot to
>you;
>> you just keep lowering the bar.
>
>You're the one making asinine arguments about how a smidgen of neutronium
>will instantly make Federation weapons useless.
Don't talk to me, talk to the scientifically ignorant ST writers who prove it
every time they mention the substance.
>> >Not like it matters, though, since what Janeway refers to as neutronium
>and
>> >what is part of an ISD hull are two totally different things.
>>
>> Yeah, one is light and one is.... light.... uh........
>
>One is an aggregate of neutrons under intense pressure. The other is a
>metallic element found on moons. Do the math.
"Aggregate of neutrons under pressure?" Is that supposed to describe the rocky
stuff the pre-warp Iconians found when they were digging in the dirt?
>> >> 2) That blueprint is for a ship which was never shown on screen.
>> >
>> >Maybe, but the principle is sound.
>>
>> The principle is stupid. Show me where "blueprints of ships never seen on
>> screen" are on the canon scale.
>
>The principle is to attempt to find the mass of an ISD and determine her
>real-life neutronium content from there.
Great! Find a blueprint of an ISD then.
>> >And, of course, through careful scrutiny of the electromagnetic spectrum
>on
>> >your television set, you've determined without a shadow of a doubt that
>> >there was no technobabble in place holding these items together and
>reducing
>> >their apparent mass to an outside observer.
>>
>> Oh, so we need negative proof of technological intervention?
>
>You're the one trying to disprove a reasonable hypothesis.
I don't have to disprove every stupid theory you think of. YOU make a claim, YOU
have to supply the evidence.
>> Where's your negative proof for SW?
>
>The fact that SW neutronium is a metallic element found on moons is disproof
>enough, thanks.
That must apply to the rocky stuff the Iconian temple is made of then.
Kynes
>> Destruction of what's inside, you idiot; they weren't trying to destroy
>the
>> temple, just its contents. Watch the episode.
>
>Proof they were not trying to destroy the temple?
Watch the briefing scene of the episode when it's explained to the men what
their goal is.
>> >It's neutronium-based . . . your line in another post about there being
>no
>> >mention of how much neutronium is in the alloy is thus full of shit.
>>
>> Yeah, because we all know about how, when I say "this cake is based on a
>recipe
>> my mom gave me," I have mixed in the recipe with the ingredients.
>
>False analogy, comparing physical basis with informational basis.
"based" doesn't mean highest content, percentage-wise; it means the most
important element. Apparently, it's just important that neutronium be there.
Sir Nitram
I'm sure you also beleive black holes can't orbit stars. They do, in fact. So
you still have no proof.
Kynes
<$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote:
>> The important part about Evolution was that the scientist wanted to study the
>> expulsions of neutronium ("globules," in case you haven't figured that out) from
>> the star. As you have not contested this, concession accepted on the first
>> example of ST neutronium displaying properties that are "impossible" in RL.
>
>
>PICARD: Our eminent guest, Doctor Paul Stubbs, will attempt to study the
>decay of globules of neutronium expelled at relativistic speeds by a
>massive stellar explosion which will occur here in a matter of hours.
>
>This quote shows Dr Stubbs was planing on investigating the DECAY of
>neutronium.
I can investigate the decay of oranges. my investigation would yield: oranges
don't decay.
>STUBBS:Do you know how long the experiment will last, Wesley... ?
>WESLEY:One billionth of a second.
>
>Must be decaying pretty fast, if you can measure it in under a second
Or he'll get all the data he needs really fast.
>Please explain how this episode shows ST neutronium has properties that
>are impossible IRL
No decay is ever shown.
>> A small piece of a neutron star would do more than glow lightly in the visible
>> light spectrum were it separated. It would decay almost immediately.
>
>no, it would decay over time, based on the amount and half life of
>material present.
Yet we never saw any of this decay and it didn't mess with the planet the way
we'd expect a huge chunk of a star to do.
>This wasn't a small chunk of material, BTW - it was several kilometres
>across (though I'm afraid I'm going to have to marginalise you further
>Ian, and inist you watch the episode for that little bit of info)
curse your welsh hide
>> >> >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.
>> >>
>> >> SW neutronium comes from neutron stars. ref: Rebel Dawn
>> >
>> >Edam has quite nicely deflated your position on this.
>>
>> Edam has asked me to prove that neutron stars are composed of neutronium,
>
>No, I asked you to prove SW neutronium is the stuff that comes from
>neutron stars, despite displaying properties to the contrary. Your first
>step in attempting this was assuming what you are required to prove.
All I assume is that neutron stars are made of neutonium. This is reasonable.
>I quite happily insist the same standards be applied to Trek, but
>Evolution seems to complicate matters there.
Well, that's something at least.
>> >How does Star Trek violate RL principles of neutronium? It is ultrastrong,
>> >ultradense, ultramassive, impervious to weapons, et cetera.
>>
>> * Doesn't decay when separated from its star
>
>This is a blatant misrepresentation of numerous episodes.
Show me one episode in which we saw it decay.
>> * can be mined on planets (evidenced by pre-warp civilizations doing so)
>
>There is no proof iconians mined it from planets. They have technology
>far superior to any species shown in Trek or Wars that would make mining
>neutrnium from stars (or neutron star explosions as in Evolution) a
>trivial technique.
Prove the Iconians ever built one solitary starship. That's all I ask.
>> * Not heavy unless we assume magic tech
>
>In the case of ISD hulls or other obviously constructed examples, I'd
>quite happily assume some tech dropping the mass as we always use for
>ST's examples, but then we have the poblem with the moon. Oh, I know you
>say we can apply the same assumption there, but they aren't NEEDED.
>Other explanations fit all the facts better.
We can either assume there are two kinds of neutronium or that Zsinj was lying
about finding neutronium, or anything really. We have to make an assumption
which does not have direct evidence somehow.
>> Fine by me; SW has mastery over a great deal more of gravitational technology
>> than the pathetic nerds of the ST universe. We've certainly never seen the ST
>> universe display the technology needed to mine neutronium
>
>And yet the Hirogen can walk through the neutron mantle of a collapsed
>star (read: neutronium). Do you still insist they don't have the
>technology to mine what they can walk through?
OK, the Hirogen could probably do it.
>> Thus, they COULD NOT have had AMRE -- as that is based on warp technology.
>
>And shielding technology. and communications technology. And subspace
>technology in general.
>
>
>feh, enough. I'll leave guardian fuck up this debate like he has every
>other one he's got invovled with here. The greatest threat to ST on this
>group isn't the pro-Wars side, or saxton, or Wong. It's Guardian.
Couldn't agree more. the ST side needs a version of Kaz.
>did you ever add that bit about shield/sensor domes to the past threads
>thingy? You know, the one about how useless a debate it was because you
>have to bring the shields down before attacking them anyway, and once
>the shields are down the target is basically fucked?
>
>How about adding another one - arguing about neutronium being real or
>notis useless. SW ships are shown to be have specific thermal and
>mechanical properties. If ST weapons can be shown to have greater
>effects than these properties they WILL be effective (anything else is
>ignoring the whole basis of science)
Will probably add both of those.
Dalton
aye yi yi...
Kynes
>> >That's funny . . . I've never heard of the episode you're trying to
>> >describe.
>>
>> [snip long description]
>>
>> Great.
>
>Hey, it's not my fault you made up non-existent elements of an episode,
>dumbass.
Right, the non-existent element of parts of the star being expelled
periodically, which Edam, Wayne, Strowbridge, Nitram, and everyone else in the
world seems to remember. The whole point of the episode.
You're a sad, stupid little man.
>> The important part about Evolution was that the scientist wanted to study
>the
>> expulsions of neutronium ("globules," in case you haven't figured that
>out) from
>> the star. As you have not contested this, concession accepted on the first
>> example of ST neutronium displaying properties that are "impossible" in
>RL.
>
>You dare claim that I've conceeded
Oh, I dare, little Scoot; you can scream that there were no neutronium globules
in the episode all you want, but it doesn't change the facts. You must live near
Elim; you both get alternate-reality versions of Trek broadcasts.
>The neutronium that was to get carried outward in the explosion of the other
>star's material was being studied for the very reason that it was going to
>decay!
So were there globules? Or not?
They were not being studied because they were going to decay; he was just there
to study decay. Perhaps he was there to study it because it hadn't been observed
yet and he was curious why, as that was contrary to earlier theories of
neutronium.
>> >> Another demonstration of this is in "The Masterpiece Society." This is
>> >actually
>> >> the one I was thinking of originally -- the E-D observes a fragment of
>a
>> >neutron
>> >> star, free of the star itself. Shouldn't it be decaying? yes
>> >
>> >Another false recollection, Ian? Tsk, tsk.
>> >
>> >The Enterprise-D was tracking a "stellar core fragment" . . . I recall no
>> >mention being made as to whether this was from a neutron star or not.
>>
>> Hey Scoot, I don't give a shit whether you "recall" it one way or another.
>You
>> have just admitted you fundamentally know zero about this episode and are
>in no
>> position to question my stance on the matter.
>
>Since you are unable to properly recall episodes as demonstrated in
>reference to "Evolution"[TNG]
Your own statements are at odds with even Edam's, the closest thing in the group
you have to someone arguing on your side. You also just admitted you do not even
understand the basic details of "The Masterpiece Society" and are unable to look
them up. You lose.
>> Debating with you is amazingly boring.
>
>I'm sure you find it intensely boring to lose time after time.
HUHUHUHUHUHUHUHUH GOODE ON
>> A small piece of a neutron star would do more than glow lightly in the
>visible
>> light spectrum were it separated. It would decay almost immediately. The
>burden
>> is on you to prove otherwise, and you may wish to submit this proof to
>major
>> astrophysical journals, as they are currently on my side.
>
>Actually, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it's the core of a
>neutron star to begin with.
Which I've done; watch the episode.
Or look at startrek.com, smallmind.
>> >> Scoot, if you think you can get away with saying "I've proven this
>before"
>> >as if
>> >> it's a real argument, you are even stupider than I imagined.
>> >
>> >I did establish it before.
>>
>> Wrong. You had the shit kicked out of you by everyone here, just like
>every
>> argument you bring up.
>
>You say that as if it has any truth value to it.
Yes, I do, since it reflects reality. Even the pro-ST side in this group won't
associate with you. You are uniformly regarded as a fucktard, and that concensus
is an accurate one.
>> Not only on the total lack of real proof for this magic
>> ability, but on why we should assume this set of magic technologies and
>apply
>> them rabidly in any situation where we would otherwise need to conclude
>that ST
>> neutronium has different properties than RL neutronium.
>
>The proof is in the pudding. We know that real-life neutronium and Star
>Trek neutronium come from the same place.
And we know, thanks to Rebel Dawn, that SW has neutron stars, which are by
definition composed of neutronium; we also know that these neutron stars display
all normal characteristics of RL neutron stars. Do I need to connect the dots,
or do you want proof that neutron stars are composed of neutronium again?
> We know that neutronium in
>manufactured form does not squish people who are nearby.
Known for SW as well.
> We know what
>mechanisms and technologies exist in the Star Trek universe which would
>quite readily explain how this is so.
Known for SW as well. Wow, very good, you've constructed exactly one half of the
argument. Better than you usually get.
>On the other hand, Star Wars neutronium is nothing more than a metallic
>element mined on moons.
We know that one Rebel field officer believes it was found on a moon. This
finding was made under extremely suspect conditions and is explainable by a
number of plausible hypotheses. Of course, you're a hypocrite, so you won't play
the "necessary assumptions" game with SW, just ST -- even willing to invent
separate versions of the same material to avoid admitting that ST hasn't got a
chance.
> Cry, Ian, cry all you wish.
"Cry all you wish." Golly! What a zinger! I am stung!
Now suck my fucking dick, if you're not too busy in your official capacity as
Nursing Home Felcher.
>> Edam has asked me to prove that neutron stars are composed of neutronium,
>when
>> that is, by definition, what they are made of.
>
>Well, since the Star Wars universe (and its rabid defenders) don't even know
>what neutronium is, his questions to you aren't out of line.
"The Star Wars universe." Do you actually believe that universes can "know"
things, or has syphilis just degraded your brain to the point that your only
thoughts are Kate Mulgrew fantasies interspersed with "UIhhh, uhhhh, Kynes is a
meanie hed$#@!#"
>> Wow, my position is even more deflated than your prom date.
>
>Hey, just because you go for the big nasties doesn't mean my slim and trim
>beauties are deflated.
LOLOL
Let's see your picture, Scott. I've never hidden any aspect of myself from this
or any other online group, because unlike you, I have no need to hide behind a
shield of anonymity because my life isn't a pathetic mess and I don't have to
invent lies for strangers.
Jesus, you are such a little-kid moron. I can see you now: toddling around your
trailer park, wrapped up in an American-flag diaper, speaking made-up Latin
phrases to the local bucktoothed Down's syndrome "beauties" who are "slim and
trim" because they hyperventilate while eating and usually vomit out most of
their meals.
>> > Besides, there would
>> >have to be two types of "neutronium", stellar (i.e. "real") and lunar
>(i.e.
>> >"fake"), since the two cannot be the same.
>>
>> I would love to see your positive disproof. Of course, as a possible
>explanation
>> has already been put forth, that's not going to happen.
>
>Lunar neutronium is a metallic element. Deal with it.
I'm sorry, did I ask for your opinion? Much as with every time you will hear
this phrase, the answer is no.
>> >> >> and alloyed with carbon means it's not RL neutronium either.
>> >> >
>> >> >The Carbon-neutronium alloy of the Dyson Sphere is perplexing, but not
>> >> >necessarily impossible.
>> >>
>> >> Is it impossible? obviously not, it's canon
>> >
>> >I was referring to reality, not canon.
>>
>> Yeah, you're referring to "reality" and then go on a long-winded version
>of "I'm
>> sure they managed it because their tech level was so high." Fine, that's
>my
>> explanation for everything the Empire does with neutronium.
>
>Mine is the hypothesis that fits the facts.
Hypothesis: "Uh, magic tech exists in ST but not SW hahahaahah SW is poop
heads#!!@"
Wow, how stunningly advanced.
>> I'm sure the tech
>> level of their mining equipment is so high, they can mistake a neutron
>star
>> (very small, you know) for a moon.
>
>Ah, okay, sure, yeah, that's great, Ian. A bunch of high-tech rednecks who
>can't tell the difference between a neutron star and a moon.
For someone living in the middle of the Deep South, you seem to have an
extraordinary deal of self-hate. It reminds me of when Boyd used to say
masturbating was a sin. Love yourself, Scott; no one else is going to take up
the job.
>> >> However, that requires us to accept that our RL understanding of
>> >neutronium is
>> >> wrong on many points and further-advanced civilizations like the UFP
>and
>> >Empire,
>> >> who actually work with it unlike us, will sometimes appear to use it in
>> >ways and
>> >> find it in places that seem impossible to us.
>> >
>> >Thank you for copping out of the debate. I'll accept your concession
>that
>> >Imperial neutronium is not real neutronium.
>>
>> None offered, Scott; all you've done is ignore the reasoning I gave above.
>
>You gave no reasoning above. All you said was that SW neutronium, because
>it can be found on moons and is a metallic element, is a concept of
>neutronium far more advanced than the real life garden variety neutron star
>neutronium.
And you once again demonstrate an inability to think or read. What I said was
the ST and SW neutronium both display properties that seem impossible. You are
willing to invent hypotheses for ST but not SW. This is unacceptable hypocrisy.
>> Do you feel some hollow victory when you put your fingers in your ears, or
>do you
>> simply do it to see what it's like to have something filling the empty
>space up
>> there?
>
>Oh, granted, if I were to shut my eyes and put my fingers in my ears, it
>would serve to halt the perilous reduction of my IQ which occurs every time
>I have to read your stupid bullshit. But, fortunately, I can manage to
>read your crap without getting stupider in the process, thanks to my brain's
>exquisite bullshit
Thanks for telling me, but I knew your head was full of crap long ago.
>> >I'm judging Star Trek and Star Wars according to the exact same standard.
>> >If it were said that Star Destroyer hulls were an alloy of neutronium, I
>> >would allow the same hypothesis to hold. However, as it has been
>> >demonstrated that Star Wars neutronium is a moon rock, I find that there
>can
>> >be nothing to save Star Wars from the fate of having something called
>> >neutronium, but which is not true neutronium.
>>
>> No, Scottie. It has not been established that SW neutronium is a "moon
>rock;" it
>> has been established that, in a one-time extraordinary find, neutronium
>was
>> found on a moon.
>
>It's a metallic element found in veins of ore on a moon.
Or so said one Imperial commander who was looking for a reason to stay
in-system.
>> For all we know, it was put there by an ancient civilization after being
>mass-reduced.
>
>Praytell, how did they turn real neutronium into a metallic element? Fuck
>the mass-reduction, *that* is the feat I'd love to know about.
Doesn't matter. We just assume it, like we assume the Iconians had AMRE....
>> >If a Star Trek episode were to have an instance where someone was playing
>> >with a neutronium ping-pong ball, bouncing it against the wall and
>> >explaining that there was nothing in the universe . . . not technobabble,
>> >not Q, nothing . . . holding it together, I would quite happily declare
>> >Star Trek neutronium to be nothing more than a mislabeled substance, a la
>> >Star Wars neutronium.
>>
>> And here your hypocrisy raises its head. In ST, you want to assume
>technical
>> wizardry until proven otherwise. Within any other context, you want the
>reverse.
>
>There can be no technical wizardry when the definition of neutronium in the
>Star Wars universe is "a metallic element found as veins of ore on a moon".
No, Scoot, SWN is found in the same place as RLN -- neutron stars. One time, an
Imperial commander said that he found some on a moon because he was looking for
a reason to stay in-system. BFD.
You're doing an excellent job proving that SWN isn't RLN. Too bad STN isn't
either.
You have further ignored the point. You assume STN is RLN because it was found
in a neutron star once and will invent any explanation to keep this so. However,
when the same is said about SWN (found in a neutron star) you want to use the
first instance of it appearing in an unusual context to invalidate the claim.
Sorry, but that kind of game isn't going to work here.
>> I'm sorry, but those aren't the rules played by here; you are free to take
>your
>> hypocrisy elsewhere. Perhaps the mental midgets at sb.com would be more
>> receptive.
>
>It is your hypocrisy to sit here trying to defend Star Wars neutronium.
"No, the thing you said about me is actually YOU!" Wow, good one!
I forget, am I rubber, or glue?
>> >> SW and ST both violate the RL principles of neutronium;
>> >
>> >How does Star Trek violate RL principles of neutronium? It is
>ultrastrong,
>> >ultradense, ultramassive, impervious to weapons, et cetera.
>>
>> * Doesn't decay when separated from its star
>
>Does decay when separated by its star ("Evolution"[TNG])
It never decayed in the episode. The scientist was probably there to study why
neutron stars don't decay the way people thought.
>, unless prevented
>from doing so or created artificially by advanced societies.
Such as the Empire. Thank you, drive thru.
>> * can be mined on planets (evidenced by pre-warp civilizations doing so)
>
>Supposition, based on the faulty assertion that the Iconians were pre-warp,
Show me the proof of them having warp drive or any starships at all. You can't,
because all evidence says they used gateways to go from planet-to-planet, never
even getting in a starship. They thus MUST have mined their neutronium from a
planet.
Bullshit arguments that they were "higher tech" than the Federation are just
that -- bullshit. You act as if there's a linear progression of technology, a
set of steps which are always followed in the same order, and thus anyone "more
advanced" than the Federation must have had warp drive.
This is obviously NOT the case; the Iconians took a different path and all the
little-girl bitching from you in the world won't change that. Now kindly eat my
shit.
>> * Not heavy unless we assume magic tech
>
>Properly rephrased: It does not give the appearance of extraordinary mass
>when manufactured into useful components/structures, and in an effort to
>explain this fact we quite readily hit upon the empirical knowledge we have
>of Federation technology and its capabilities, extrapolating along
>reasonable lines in an effort to explain how neutronium can exist outside a
>neutron star while maintaining the characteristics of extraordinary strength
>and density.
Extrapolation of known tech is banned by the Rules.
ROE5: "Extrapolation may not be applied blindly to conclude what might be
possible."
Example #2 in this rule is exactly what you're trying to do
>> >The fact that technologically advanced
>> >races could find a way to use it as a construction material does not
>violate
>> >real life principles of neutronium.
>>
>> Concession accepted then; the Empire, as just such a technologically
>advanced
>> race, has done so.
>
>Not so, for the Empire's version of neutronium is a metallic element mined
>on moons.
Doesn't matter. Technology must explain the discrepancy. They must have a
process which changes it to a metallic element or whatever else. I don't care.
You want to make assumptions, let's make assumptions.
>> >On the other hand, Star Wars claims that neutronium is something you can
>> >just head for your local moon and dig for. *That* violates all real
>life
>> >principles of neutronium.
>>
>> Only when you insist on an interpretation that requires us to assume that
>when
>> people say "neutronium," sometimes they mean neutronium, except when they
>don't,
>
>SW neutronium is not proper neutronium. Neutronium in the Star Wars
>galaxy is a metallic element one can find in veins on a moon.
And neutronium in ST is something pre-warp civilizations can find in veins on a
planet. What's the difference?
>> and oh yeah, this is never true in the ST galaxy.
>
>If and when they make up something stupid like "ooh, look, here's some
>neutronium, a metallic element, sitting here on this moon", then we'll talk.
"To the Death" DS9.
(Scoot: "uhhhh, wots that. stop marginalizaing meeee. go USA!#!@")
A temple built on a planet is constructed of neutronium and was built by a
non-spacefaring society. Looks like STN is just a rock you can mine on planets.
>> >> what's more, they do it in similar ways related to their apparent mass.
>> >
>> >AMRE is a known quantity in Star Trek lore. Graviton-based shielding
>is a
>> >known quantity in Star Trek lore. Antigravity systems are a known
>quantity
>> >in Star Trek lore.
>>
>> SW has the ability to accurately simulate the gravitational pull of a
>stellar
>> body, artificially generate gravity on everything from a snub fighter to a
>> capital ship and extend gravity fields in any arbitrary direction, setting
>> "down" to any direction you like (as was done in ESB), etc. etc. etc. Mere
>> "antigravity systems" are unimpressive to me.
>
>These are all "field effect" applications of gravity control. I am
>unimpressed by them.
Too bad nothing in ST has ever come close to this.
> Fine manipulation of gravitons into coherent beams
Oh gosh. Lasers! Wow! You get pocket lasers for free in cereal. Show me a
lightublb anywhere that will illuminate a 3' radius sphere and, beyond that
sphere, have *nothing* be visible.
>> >No such technology was in place on the moon from which Star Wars
>neutronium
>> >is mined
>>
>> Proof? Prove there was no such technology was in place. You can't; you
>just want
>> to assume it.
>
>I don't have to prove it, because Star Wars neutronium is a simple metallic
>element
"uhhh, uhhh, I don't have to prove my assumption, because, here's the assumption
again!!!!"
>> Fine. Then I'll assume no such technology was in place on the
>> Iconian temple, which makes sense, as they were pre-warp anyway and AMRE
>is a
>> warp field.
>
>Calling the Iconians, with their galaxy-spanning empire, pre-warp is like
>calling the Empire pre-warp.
Hardly. The Empire has developed a propulsion system that can be used on
starships. The Iconians never did that; they had to use primitive "gateways" to
get around, and obviously mined their neutronium from the ground.
>> >> Thus, given the fact that they have the same and thus a very strong
>> >presumption
>> >> of being the same anyway, they are the same.
>> >
>> >Show me a neutronium ping-pong ball on Star Trek, and we'll talk.
>>
>> Show me the same in SW, and I'll need to. Until then, you are wrong.
>
>No, you're wrong. Star Wars neutronium is a metallic element found on
>moons.
And ST neutronium s a rocky element found in planets.
>I shall continue to repeat that fact until such time as you get it through
>your Rabid Warsie Fuckwit skull.
Cling to your stupid insults, Scootie; I know real debaters must be terribly
frightening to you.
>> >> >Of course, as the episode did not go into detail about the containment
>of
>> >> >the neutronium, the above is only a workable hypothesis.
>> >>
>> >> I will be using this "workable hypothesis with no proof" standard in
>> >further
>> >> discussion with you.
>> >
>> >In order to keep to my standard of hypotheses, you'll need to be sure
>that
>> >these hypotheses have some basis in the technology of whomever you're
>> >discussing, and you'll need to be sure that the hypothesis reasonably
>> >explains whatever you're discussing in the context of the universe you're
>> >referring to.
>>
>> Fine by me; SW has mastery over a great deal more of gravitational
>technology
>> than the pathetic nerds of the ST universe.
>
>They may or may not have more and more powerful applications of field-effect
>graviton manipulation technology. However, they are without finesse, and
>have not been shown or described to have the capability of producing
>localized or coherent graviton effects, a la beams.
What a bullshit, meaningless statement. Localized effects are seen all the time
-- see the MF, with right-angle local gravity fields. The SW universe has shown
far finer control of gravitons than ST. The only thing we ever see in the ST
world is spewing in a line. SW gravity tech can emit gravitons and have them
stop at a predetermined distance. Show me one instance of ST doing that. You
can't. Concession accepted.
>> We've certainly never seen the ST universe display the technology needed
>to mine neutronium
>> and that doesn't stop you;
>
>The Star Trek universe need not mine neutronium, for neutronium is not a
>metallic element in the Star Trek universe.
"We don't need a way to get it. It's not metallic."
> Also, for all we know, the
>manufactured items composed of neutronium use artificially-generated
>neutronium.
LOL
Wow! You're creating your own little world there. Let me know when you're done.
>> nor have we ever seen an AMRE field generated large enough to reduce an
>> entire star's mass to the mass of a normal temple, as in "To The Death."
>
>The temple was not 10 kilometers in diameter, and therefore did not have the
>mass of a star.
The temple was gigantic and would have massed far more than any starship we've
ever seen. Thus, you can't assume known AMRE tech would work -- that would be a
violation of the Rules.
>> That doesn't stop you. Why? Because you are a moron.
>
>The fact that SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon
>hasn't stopped you.
"LA LA LA! NOT LISTENING! HERE'S MY ASSERTION AGAIN!"
The fact that STN is a rocky element found naturally in planets by
non-spacefaring races hasn't stopped you.
> That makes you far worse of a moron than you could
>ever hope for me to be.
UH, GOOD ONE!
>> >> >It comes from a moon, too. Therefore, either SW neutron stars are
>not
>> >real
>> >> >neutron stars, or there are two types of neutronium . . . real,
>"stellar"
>> >> >neutronium, and whatever the crap mined out of a moon is.
>> >>
>> >> Neutron stars are real neutron stars; they have all the same properties
>of
>> >the
>> >> real thing, which is why Han needed to be there in the first place, as
>> >you'd
>> >> know if you read the novel, or any evidence for that matter.
>> >
>> >Then there are two separate types of neutronium. The real/stellar
>> >neutronium, and the lunar crap.
>>
>> Proof? Oh, none.
>
>Star Wars neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon.
>That's lunar crap.
"Here, in case you have forgotten, is my assertion."
STN is a rocky element found in the ground on planets.
>> Fine by me; there are then two types of ST neutronium. The kind pre-warp
>> civilizations can mine out of the ground and built temples from ("To the
>Death")
>
>Supposition . . . based on the false notion that the Iconians had to get the
>neutronium out of the ground, which is itself based on the false notion that
>the Iconians were pre-warp.
Proof that Iconians ever built ONE starship?
There isn't any.
They may have been advanced but that does NOT mean they had starships; they
developed an alternate way of getting around.
>> and the kind in stars that's heavy sometimes.
>
>All the time.
Except in "The Masterpiece Society."
>> >> Workable Hypothesis: A ship with neutronium armor crashed there long
>ago.
>> >Its
>> >> armor was permanently mass-reduced by some Clarkean "magic" technology.
>> >
>> >Do you have any evidence or points to support this view?
>>
>> I have exactly as much evidence as you have for your "magic
>carbon-neutronium"
>> hypothesis; none.
>
>Ah, I see . . . so you have no evidence whatsoever, and a hypothesis which
>contradicts the facts.
Show me the evidence for your magic tech. You have none, and want to break the
rules so you can extend tech in a desperate bid to prevent the door from being
shut on a ST ship even scratching an ISD.
>Oh, yes, and I forgot to add: SW neutronium is a metallic element found
>in veins on a moon.
STN is a rocky element found in planets by pre-warp societies.
>> > Mining neutronium
>> >from a moon makes it sound like a natural occurence
>>
>> It occurred *ONE* time and was a very extraordinary find. Try reading the
>source
>> material instead of masturbating to crayon drawings of Deanna Troi for an
>> afternoon.
>
>Doesn't matter if it was extraordinary or not . . . SW neutronium is a
>metallic element.
Then ST neutronium is a rocky planet-bound element.
>> >neutronium near an impact site. Further, permanent mass-reduction is
>not
>> >something I've heard of in the Star Wars universe, nor even the Star Trek
>> >universe. Would you care to provide some explanation of how this
>occurred?
>>
>> Why should I need to? You have extended mass reduction's abilities to
>encompass
>> a massive temple made of pure neutronium; I have extended its abilities to
>> encompass permanancy. If you get to wave a magic wand and extend tech to
>cover
>> your assumptions, so do I.
>
>You've not extended tech, you've abandoned physics.
Must be magic!
ST neutronium is a rocky element found on planets, by pre-warp civilizations
who, despite being the most advanced race ST has ever boasted (aside from the Q,
who uses tricks of technology to appear godlike), didn't have starships. oooh,
too bad, scottie poo!
>> >> >> -> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn
>> >> >> -> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor
>> >> >
>> >> >The "light" form of neutronium would have to be "moon" neutronium, and
>> >> >cannot be real, "stellar" neutronium.
>> >>
>> >> Ah, then ST's "light" form of neutronium, as seen in armor, doorways,
>and
>> >> temples of pre-warp civilizations is also different from real,
>"stellar"
>> >> neutronium.
>> >
>> >Again, this is not necessary, thanks to technologies known to exist in
>the
>> >Star Trek universe.
>>
>> Really? I've never seen any technology in Star Trek reduce that much mass.
>Just
>> small starship masses. Which episode am I missing where they put an AMRE
>field
>> around Sol and dragged it around?
>
>The Federation has never been claimed to have the technology necessary to
>produce or manufacture products from neutronium.
Show me when ANY race has demonstrated this ability -- especially the
Cardassians, to explain the DS9 finale.
>> Oh, you just want us to ASSUME that... I see... well, if you get an
>assumption
>> for free...
>
>I've paid for each assumption with reason and evidence.
Reason: "Because I need it to be true for STN == RLN"
Evidence: "STN == RLN"
>> >> The Iconians, who are pre-warp, could build a temple out of it. Thus it
>> >must be
>> >> mineable on the ground. ("To the Death")
>> >
>> >It is foolish to refer to the Iconians as pre-warp.
>>
>> Blah, blah, blah.
>>
>> Did they have warp?
>>
>> No.
>
>Proof that a galactic empire spanning from the Beta Quadrant to the Gamma
>Quadrant did not have FTL drive for starships?
I don't have to disprove your assumption. Prove that they DID have it, when it
is explicitly stated that they used gateways instead.
>> They had gateways that they needed to use for travel.
>
>They had gateways that they used for travel. Proof that they *needed* to
>use them for travel?
The burden of proof is on you; it's your argument that they had starships. Lack
of Evidence = Evidence of Lack, as far as this group is concerned.
>> Thus, they COULD NOT have had AMRE -- as that is based on warp technology.
>
>Proof they did not have AMRE? Proof they were not familiar with warp
>technology? Proof that they were unfamiliar with AMRE, even if I grant
>your erroneous assumption that they did not have warp technology as FTL
>drives?
I don't have to disprove even one of your goofy assumptions. Sorry!
>> You
>> want to gift magic tech to species that are never said to have had that,
>and are
>> explicitly stated to have a DIFFERENT form of FTL travel. Yeah, right.
>Pull the
>> other one. No one ever says the Iconians had AMRE.
>
>Proof that they did not?
Prove they did. It is, after all, your claim.
>> So the Iconians, a pre-warp civilization, obviously mined their neutronium
>from
>> planetary surfaces.
>
>Faulty reasoning. Besides, for all we know, the Iconians didn't need to
>go and mine anything. They could have either sent small mining craft
>through the gateways to the neutron star
... and, as soon as they opened the gateway, they would be instantly crushed as
gravity flowed through the gateway. Great idea. I see why they're extinct.
>> Unless you want to gift them the magic ability to open a
>> gateway to a neutron star, walk on, collect up some neutronium in sacks,
>and go
>> home? That was Lord Edam's idea the last time this subject came up. Maybe
>you
>> two can compare notes and realize how idiotic the idea is in advance this
>time.
>
>Maybe you should go back and figure out that just because the Iconians had
>and used dimensional gateways, they are not restricted from warp drive or
>FTL flight with starships.
It doesn't prove they did have them, that's for sure. So you'd better start
looking for any evidence of that.
>> >> >Sphere was very, very massive. The neutronium door, which would've
>> >been
>> >> >held together by shielding, did not appear to have any particularly
>> >> >impressive mass, and thus this mass was either shielded in the same
>way
>> >or
>> >> >by some other method.
>> >>
>> >> 1) No proof of being held together by shielding
>> >
>> >Alrighty, then, prove to me that it wasn't held together by shielding,
>and
>> >thus was not neutronium (not counting the Star Wars universe garden
>> >variety).
>>
>> The SW and ST universe are the same universe for the purposes of these
>> discussions. Thus any "garden variety" inventions you make are perfectly
>likely
>> to occur in the ST galaxy.
>
>It may well be the case, then, that some
>lunar-crap-metallic-element-neutronium exists in the Star Trek galaxy.
Like the kind the pre-warp Iconians mined out of the ground?
Concession accepted.
>However, dollars to donuts those damned Federation types are smart enough
>not to start naming things neutronium that aren't neutronium.
LOL
Yeah, the Federation: so smart their technical manuals measure power in joules.
Pull the other one.
>> So, my explanation is your explanation: that neutronium was light
>neutronium
>> which obviously still worked perfectly well. Isn't that neat and tidy?
>
>No, because we've seen no evidence of a metallic element mineable from moons
>referred to as neutronium in the Star Trek galaxy.
"To the Death"
>> >> 2) No proof of mass reduction
>> >
>> >The fact that the characters near it didn't turn into chunky salsa
>against
>> >it is a good clue.
>>
>> Or it was light to begin with, like you assume SW neutronium is.
>
>I don't assume SW neutronium is light. I accept the fact that it is,
>based on the fact that SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on
>a moon.
Oh, then I accept the fact that STN is a rock element found on planets by
pre-warp civilizations.
>>
>> >> >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.
>> >>
>> >> An explanation for this appears above. Further, see "The Masterpiece
>> >Society."
>> >
>> >Stellar core fragments, again, need not be neutronium.
>>
>> Apparently I have two things you don't.
>>
>> 1) Knowledge of the episode in question
>
>Given your faulty knowledge of "Evolution"[TNG]
Everyone else agrees with me. As usual, you must just be too marginalized to own
or know about what a television is.
>> 2) Human friends
>
>Desperate efforts at insults will not win you the argument.
I've already won. I'm just making fun of you now. You have no idea how hard I
laugh imagining you furled up at the keyboard, foaming at the mouth and writhing
around. "UHHH, UHHHH, DAMNIT, SW NETRRRMN IS BADE"
>SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon.
STN is a rocky element found on planets by pre-warp civilzations.
Kynes
>> No there isn't. Your 'evidence' is wishful thinking,
>
>No, it's known technologies being extrapolated
Which is banned by the Rules.
Graeme Dice
>
> Dalton <r...@daltonator.net> wrote in message news:<3C2671DD...@daltonator.net>...
> > Kamakazie Sith wrote:
> > >
> By watching ST we learn that phasers are ineffective against
> neutronium, so warsies (not all) translate that into "phasers are
> ineffective against dense materials." Which is complete BS.
So you admit that you haven't actually read Mike Wong's webpage on NDF
then?
--
"Hahaha, Hey boys have you heard this? Mutated squirrels indeed. The
very
idea that humble 6 foot rodents like ourselves could conquer the world
through a plan of nuclear blackmail and worldwide hacking by
supercomputers
all backed up by a massed army of Squirrels in power armour - why it's
too
silly for words."
-- rob.wn5, ASVS regular
Lord Edam de Fromage
Guardian 2000
> > feh, enough. I'll leave guardian fuck up this debate like he has every
> > other one he's got invovled with here. The greatest threat to ST on this
> > group isn't the pro-Wars side, or saxton, or Wong. It's Guardian.
>
> Well, fuck you, bitch. Would you care to explain this bullshit comment of
> yours, 'cause it looks to me like you're just trying to suck Rabid Warsie
> cock.
I think you make my point for me quite nicely, Scottie.
> Don't come in here agreeing with my arguments as I stand here, the last
> bastion and sole defender of them, and then question the manner in which I
> provide them.
HA!! I haven't heard anything that funny since Paradox said he was the
greatest metal head here, but couldn't answer a single one of my
(relatively easy) trivia questions.
I bet you think of yourself as some sort of trekkie debate god, don't
you?
last bastion and sole defender.
Great, so who keeps this place ticking over for the nine months you
aren't here? Do you think it just devolves into a Warsie WankFest?
Do you want to know WHY you seem to be the last man standing for trek in
these debates?
Because when you turn up, the rest of us fuck off. We know there will be
no productive debate in this goup whilst you are here, so we don't even
try (that's right - my latest contributions have been complete no-
brainers as far as I'm concerned, and for the regulars here it shows.
Still far superior to your long thought out ideas, though, aren't they?)
you fuck things up. Like you did with this neutronium debate, like you
did with the canon debates. Like you did with the warp maneuvering
thread (I can think of six examples that show wayne to be wrong in every
incarnation o f his definition of the term - but you were more
interested in throwing insults than actually proving anything, weren't
you?).
you have almost zero Trek knowledge, even less Wars knowledge, and your
debate skills don't stretch beyond demand more proof that won't be
verified and throw an insult when it doesn't go your way.
You offer no actual evidence, because you don't know enough to find the
quotes that support your case, so you simply state your opinion and
insist everybody else provides full quotes to support their rebuttals
(and when they DO provide those quotes, you don't know if they are true,
mildly twisted or blatant lies)
Your complete lack of knowledge in the subjects you debate and general
skills in debate in general means any thread you get involved in rapidly
degenerates into insults and everyone stubbornly refusing to accept what
anyone says.
For the rest of us, the ones who know exactly what you need to support
your argument, we can't supply it because by the time we get round to
replying you've gone ten posts of mud flinging past the point and no one
cares anymore. The thread has turned into a wind-up, where the pro-Wars
side are laughing at the idiot trekkie getting more and more angry with
every passing post.
And then you fuck off for six months, and leave the rest of us to try
and clear up the mess you left and actually turn the debates you fucked
up into something useful, when all the pro-Wars side are interested in
is reminding us how easily they won the debate last time (when they
didn't - all they did was run rings around the idiot and wind him up
something rotten)
> If you want to take part in the debate, then do so,
Oh, you're so kind, allowing me to dabble in the means to glory. you
mean, like I've done here? Providing points you should have picked up on
straight away but didn't, because you'd been fooled into another of your
"rabid warise" rants (just like I managed to do to you with this bit)
but do
> not dare come waltzing in saying "Yes, Guardian is right on every count, but
> I dare not stand beside those arguments for more than an instant because
> he's not popular."
Oh, I think you're right(or rather, have a very good point, even though
you can't prove it). Same as I thought Tim Jones very often made superb
contributions to this group(and he could even name his source for Trek)
- but I supported the FS(not the FAQ) when it was suggested, because his
lack of (wars)knowledge and lack of debate skills turned any thread
where he was involved into a circus. The reason I'm not supporting your
arguments now is because I know exactly where your threads are going.
Nothing useful will come of them, beyond arguments myself and others
were supplying three years ago without getting half the group to turn
against us in the process. Anything I supply will be quickly ignored in
favour of watching you go off on another rabid warsie rant.
But don't worry, when you fuck off crying again I'll still be here,
trying to find a way to rescue sometihng from your cockups. same as I do
everytime. Same as I used to do with TJ. I'm sure a couple of friends
will come to join me, as well. You could call us the last bastions -
without us, there would be no standing trek defence in this group.
If you ever bother reading google for past threads before making a
contribution you'd see how far we can get when you aren't here. Shame
you always have to start from square one, and knock the rest of us back
there with your idiocy.
> The greatest threat to ST in this group is not me . .
> . it's you, and others who are willing to brush truth aside in favor of
> keeping the Rabid Warsies happy.
Riiiight. So I've managed to get through four and a half years as a
vehemently pro-Trek debater here by brushing the truth aside? During my
ten years in on-line Vs debates I've only really been interested in
making people like me?
I've managed to turn three quarters of the pro-Wars side of this group
against me (infact, every single one of your Rabid Warsies) by going out
of my way to keep them happy?
fuck that.
I've been here since the start, and I will be here until the end. I have
NEVER avoided speaking the truth when I can get something from it, and
not one of the posts I have made has ever been an attempt to make myself
popular. And I can guarantee you now they never will be.
So, when you get fed up of being the last bastion and defender of the
faith or whatever fucked up little fantasy you have of your time here
spare a thought for the rest of us - the long timers, the ones who don't
plonk everybody and run off crying because they wouldn't accept our
insults as valid arguments. The ones who were here before you even had
net access, the ones who will be here long after you've tired of the
struggling to prove a single one of your ideas. The ones who are going
to be working their arses off to get something of value from the chaos
you have caused, so you can come back when you are bored and fuck it all
up again.
Oh, but don't expect us to always speak out about what we know or
believe. Some of us have enough restraint to limit our contributions to
something we think we can get actual debate gains from. That's one of
the skills of debate - knowing when to open up and when to shut up.
Maybe that's the difference between you and I - I'm not here to be the
last chance of Trek in the group. I'm not interested in glory, or
demonstrating my prowess to people who don't care. I'm here because this
is what I am, have always been and will always be, through defeat and
hatred, victory and adoration, irrespective of "the truth" or
"popularity", whether I am the last man standing or just another one of
the vocal majority. I'm pretty sure I've been both and everything in
between during my time.
fuck off, scottie.
you aren't a god
you aren't a good debater.
you most certainly aren't our final hope.
you're just a no-friend loser who doesn't know when to shut up.
--
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