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.