---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 22:42:13 +0100 Subject: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d276423$1@news.zen.co.uk> -------- Every site I have seen and almost all of the arguments at the website for this newsgroup seem to indicate the federation could not defeat the empire, is this the generally held opinion of the group or is it still disputed. I ask this because I was discussing a piece of tech I had seen on trek at the stardestroyer.nets boards and someone came in and stated that warsies have claimed absolute victory - I am simply wondering if its true since they couldnt prove the tech I put forward was ineffectual and if it worked then the feds might have a chance. Im going to climb into a flame proof bunker and pray. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 23:47:00 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d276423$1@news.zen.co.uk... > Every site I have seen and almost all of the arguments at the website for > this newsgroup seem to indicate the federation could not defeat the empire, > is this the generally held opinion of the group or is it still disputed. Still disputed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 00:57:52 +0100 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2783ee@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:UjLV8.1425$7k6.189183@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > news:3d276423$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > Every site I have seen and almost all of the arguments at the website for > > this newsgroup seem to indicate the federation could not defeat the > empire, > > is this the generally held opinion of the group or is it still disputed. > > Still disputed. Ah a lone voice of resistance :) You may want to use subspace transporters then since I have yet to find proof against there use. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 00:30:54 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <2ZLV8.577233$Gs.37864437@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2783ee@news.zen.co.uk... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:UjLV8.1425$7k6.189183@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > news:3d276423$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > > Every site I have seen and almost all of the arguments at the website > for > > > this newsgroup seem to indicate the federation could not defeat the > > empire, > > > is this the generally held opinion of the group or is it still disputed. > > > > Still disputed. > > Ah a lone voice of resistance :) > > You may want to use subspace transporters then since I have yet to find > proof against there use. I could, but I don't need them. There's plenty to kill with. They have a lot of ships and a big infrastructure, but unless they use the Expanded Universe stuff, they don't have much else. Therefore, they don't have much else. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 01:47:23 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:2ZLV8.577233$Gs.37864437@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > news:3d2783ee@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:UjLV8.1425$7k6.189183@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > > news:3d276423$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > Every site I have seen and almost all of the arguments at the website > > for > > > > this newsgroup seem to indicate the federation could not defeat the > > > empire, > > > > is this the generally held opinion of the group or is it still > disputed. > > > > > > Still disputed. > > > > Ah a lone voice of resistance :) > > > > You may want to use subspace transporters then since I have yet to find > > proof against there use. > > I could, but I don't need them. There's plenty to kill with. They have a > lot of ships and a big infrastructure, but unless they use the Expanded > Universe stuff, they don't have much else. Therefore, they don't have much > else. > Using only non-EU material the average firepower of an ISD is in excess of 1e30 W. Using canon Trek the average firepower of a PhotTorp (TNG+ era) does not exceed 12 MT. Using only non-EU material Imperial and Alliance warships have FTL velocities in excess of 10,000,000 C. Using the basic premise of Voyager average cruise FTL velocities not in excess of 10,000 C. In other words a huge disparity in firepower to the Imps with a three order of magnitude advantage in speed AND a huge difference in resource base (1million members versus 150) in favor of the Imps. Any conventional conflict with the Imperials would involve little else besides total domination. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 21:44:18 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ag8kmc$joo2j$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:2ZLV8.577233$Gs.37864437@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > news:3d2783ee@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:UjLV8.1425$7k6.189183@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > > > news:3d276423$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > > Every site I have seen and almost all of the arguments at the > website > > > for > > > > > this newsgroup seem to indicate the federation could not defeat the > > > > empire, > > > > > is this the generally held opinion of the group or is it still > > disputed. > > > > > > > > Still disputed. > > > > > > Ah a lone voice of resistance :) > > > > > > You may want to use subspace transporters then since I have yet to find > > > proof against there use. > > > > I could, but I don't need them. There's plenty to kill with. They have a > > lot of ships and a big infrastructure, but unless they use the Expanded > > Universe stuff, they don't have much else. Therefore, they don't have > much > > else. > > > > Using only non-EU material the average firepower of an ISD is in excess of > 1e30 W. Using canon Trek the average firepower of a PhotTorp (TNG+ era) does > not exceed 12 MT. Using only non-EU material, the maximum firepower of an ISD is unknown, but has not been observed at any figure beyond the terawatt range, and is probably less. Using canon Trek the maximum firepower of a Galaxy Class ship is well into the terawatt range. > Using only non-EU material Imperial and Alliance warships have FTL > velocities in excess of 10,000,000 C. Using the basic premise of Voyager > average cruise FTL velocities not in excess of 10,000 C. Using only non-EU material, hyperdrive velocities are not known. Remember, you're supposed to leave out non-EU if you're going to say "using only non-EU", so you can't use EU stuff that talks about the canon. The only time we have a specific distance given is "less than a parsec" in Clones, but we don't know exactly how long it took them to get there (but there were several scenes in between). Ignoring Star Trek V and some other ultra-fast TOS examples, a ship can travel at up to 20,000c (warp 9.9 accoridng to Paris) for short periods. Cruising speeds seem to fall closer toward 800 - 2,500c. Voyager's premise involves 75,000 light years in 70 years, which would be an average of over 1,000c. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 07 Jul 2002 21:49:40 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020707174940.17443.00003975@mb-mu.aol.com> -------- >"Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message >news:ag8kmc$joo2j$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... >> "DarkStar" wrote in message >> news:2ZLV8.577233$Gs.37864437@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> > >> > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message >> > news:3d2783ee@news.zen.co.uk... >> > > >> > > "DarkStar" wrote in message >> > > news:UjLV8.1425$7k6.189183@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> > > > >> > > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message >> > > > news:3d276423$1@news.zen.co.uk... >> > > > > Every site I have seen and almost all of the arguments at the >> website >> > > for >> > > > > this newsgroup seem to indicate the federation could not defeat >the >> > > > empire, >> > > > > is this the generally held opinion of the group or is it still >> > disputed. >> > > > >> > > > Still disputed. >> > > >> > > Ah a lone voice of resistance :) >> > > >> > > You may want to use subspace transporters then since I have yet to >find >> > > proof against there use. >> > >> > I could, but I don't need them. There's plenty to kill with. They have >a >> > lot of ships and a big infrastructure, but unless they use the Expanded >> > Universe stuff, they don't have much else. Therefore, they don't have >> much >> > else. >> > >> >> Using only non-EU material the average firepower of an ISD is in excess of >> 1e30 W. Using canon Trek the average firepower of a PhotTorp (TNG+ era) >does >> not exceed 12 MT. > >Using only non-EU material, the maximum firepower of an ISD is unknown, but >has not been observed at any figure beyond the terawatt range, and is >probably less. Using canon Trek the maximum firepower of a Galaxy Class >ship is well into the terawatt range. > *rolls around laughing his ass off* You really think the asteroids would be vapped by a mere few terawatts? You're hilarious! Not to mention the 1e30J firepower comes from the Canon quote of Dodonna's. >> Using only non-EU material Imperial and Alliance warships have FTL >> velocities in excess of 10,000,000 C. Using the basic premise of Voyager >> average cruise FTL velocities not in excess of 10,000 C. > >Using only non-EU material, hyperdrive velocities are not known. Remember, > you're supposed to leave out non-EU if you're going to say "using only >non-EU", so you can't use EU stuff that talks about the canon. The only >time we have a specific distance given is "less than a parsec" in Clones, >but we don't know exactly how long it took them to get there (but there were >several scenes in between). Actually, we see a ship go from Core to Rim in hours in TPM(Maul), and if the galaxy is anything like the Milky Way, that's 40,000LY, or thereabouts. Nice try at dodging.. Pity it failed. >Ignoring Star Trek V and some other ultra-fast >TOS examples, a ship can travel at up to 20,000c (warp 9.9 accoridng to >Paris) for short periods. Cruising speeds seem to fall closer toward 800 - >2,500c. Voyager's premise involves 75,000 light years in 70 years, which >would be an average of over 1,000c. > What a pity that's terminally slow compared to every example of travel in Star Wars. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 01:58:06 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020707174940.17443.00003975@mb-mu.aol.com... > >"Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > >news:ag8kmc$joo2j$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > >> "DarkStar" wrote in message > >> news:2ZLV8.577233$Gs.37864437@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > >> > > >> > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > >> > news:3d2783ee@news.zen.co.uk... > >> > > > >> > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > >> > > news:UjLV8.1425$7k6.189183@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > >> > > > > >> > > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > >> > > > news:3d276423$1@news.zen.co.uk... > >> > > > > Every site I have seen and almost all of the arguments at the > >> website > >> > > for > >> > > > > this newsgroup seem to indicate the federation could not defeat > >the > >> > > > empire, > >> > > > > is this the generally held opinion of the group or is it still > >> > disputed. > >> > > > > >> > > > Still disputed. > >> > > > >> > > Ah a lone voice of resistance :) > >> > > > >> > > You may want to use subspace transporters then since I have yet to > >find > >> > > proof against there use. > >> > > >> > I could, but I don't need them. There's plenty to kill with. They have > >a > >> > lot of ships and a big infrastructure, but unless they use the Expanded > >> > Universe stuff, they don't have much else. Therefore, they don't have > >> much > >> > else. > >> > > >> > >> Using only non-EU material the average firepower of an ISD is in excess of > >> 1e30 W. Using canon Trek the average firepower of a PhotTorp (TNG+ era) > >does > >> not exceed 12 MT. > > > >Using only non-EU material, the maximum firepower of an ISD is unknown, but > >has not been observed at any figure beyond the terawatt range, and is > >probably less. Using canon Trek the maximum firepower of a Galaxy Class > >ship is well into the terawatt range. > > > > *rolls around laughing his ass off* > > You really think the asteroids would be vapped by a mere few terawatts? You're > hilarious! Proof of vaporization? Looks like the Slave I asteroid fragmentation to me. > > Not to mention the 1e30J firepower comes from the Canon quote of Dodonna's. Based on the completely unknown firepower of the Death Star (remember those rings?) > > >> Using only non-EU material Imperial and Alliance warships have FTL > >> velocities in excess of 10,000,000 C. Using the basic premise of Voyager > >> average cruise FTL velocities not in excess of 10,000 C. > > > >Using only non-EU material, hyperdrive velocities are not known. Remember, > > you're supposed to leave out non-EU if you're going to say "using only > >non-EU", so you can't use EU stuff that talks about the canon. The only > >time we have a specific distance given is "less than a parsec" in Clones, > >but we don't know exactly how long it took them to get there (but there were > >several scenes in between). > > Actually, we see a ship go from Core to Rim in hours in TPM(Maul), and if the > galaxy is anything like the Milky Way, that's 40,000LY, or thereabouts. Nice > try at dodging.. Pity it failed. In AOTC, an Outer Rim world was shown on the map in the archives to be well inside the galaxy, near the core. The rest is assumption based on the idea they are talking about something the size of the Milky Way. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 08 Jul 2002 02:26:04 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020707222604.17762.00004234@mb-mu.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20020707174940.17443.00003975@mb-mu.aol.com... >> >"Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message >> >news:ag8kmc$joo2j$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... >> >> "DarkStar" wrote in message >> >> news:2ZLV8.577233$Gs.37864437@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> >> > >> >> > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message >> >> > news:3d2783ee@news.zen.co.uk... >> >> > > >> >> > > "DarkStar" wrote in message >> >> > > news:UjLV8.1425$7k6.189183@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> >> > > > >> >> > > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message >> >> > > > news:3d276423$1@news.zen.co.uk... >> >> > > > > Every site I have seen and almost all of the arguments at the >> >> website >> >> > > for >> >> > > > > this newsgroup seem to indicate the federation could not defeat >> >the >> >> > > > empire, >> >> > > > > is this the generally held opinion of the group or is it still >> >> > disputed. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Still disputed. >> >> > > >> >> > > Ah a lone voice of resistance :) >> >> > > >> >> > > You may want to use subspace transporters then since I have yet to >> >find >> >> > > proof against there use. >> >> > >> >> > I could, but I don't need them. There's plenty to kill with. They >have >> >a >> >> > lot of ships and a big infrastructure, but unless they use the >Expanded >> >> > Universe stuff, they don't have much else. Therefore, they don't >have >> >> much >> >> > else. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Using only non-EU material the average firepower of an ISD is in excess >of >> >> 1e30 W. Using canon Trek the average firepower of a PhotTorp (TNG+ era) >> >does >> >> not exceed 12 MT. >> > >> >Using only non-EU material, the maximum firepower of an ISD is unknown, >but >> >has not been observed at any figure beyond the terawatt range, and is >> >probably less. Using canon Trek the maximum firepower of a Galaxy Class >> >ship is well into the terawatt range. >> > >> >> *rolls around laughing his ass off* >> >> You really think the asteroids would be vapped by a mere few terawatts? >You're >> hilarious! > >Proof of vaporization? Looks like the Slave I asteroid fragmentation to me. > We see glowing debris that vanish, with no remains. Vaporization. Fragmentation, like seen in Ep II, is very different. Unless you watch the movie with your ass. >> >> Not to mention the 1e30J firepower comes from the Canon quote of >Dodonna's. > >Based on the completely unknown firepower of the Death Star (remember those >rings?) > So? To propel the matter we see propelled, at the speed we see, minimum of 1e38J. Minimum. The rings can only add to that. >> >> >> Using only non-EU material Imperial and Alliance warships have FTL >> >> velocities in excess of 10,000,000 C. Using the basic premise of >Voyager >> >> average cruise FTL velocities not in excess of 10,000 C. >> > >> >Using only non-EU material, hyperdrive velocities are not known. >Remember, >> > you're supposed to leave out non-EU if you're going to say "using only >> >non-EU", so you can't use EU stuff that talks about the canon. The only >> >time we have a specific distance given is "less than a parsec" in Clones, >> >but we don't know exactly how long it took them to get there (but there >were >> >several scenes in between). >> >> Actually, we see a ship go from Core to Rim in hours in TPM(Maul), and if >the >> galaxy is anything like the Milky Way, that's 40,000LY, or thereabouts. >Nice >> try at dodging.. Pity it failed. > >In AOTC, an Outer Rim world was shown on the map in the archives to be well >inside the galaxy, near the core. The rest is assumption based on the idea >they are talking about something the size of the Milky Way. > No, the map showed the Galaxy and several 'captured' formations, looking like tiny Spiral galaxies attached. Anyway, we know from Han Solo that the Galaxy, the main one, is 120,000LY wide.. So it's 60,000LY's to the Rim. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 07:41:38 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020707222604.17762.00004234@mb-mu.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20020707174940.17443.00003975@mb-mu.aol.com... > >> >"Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > >> >news:ag8kmc$joo2j$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > >> >> "DarkStar" wrote in message > >> >> news:2ZLV8.577233$Gs.37864437@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > >> >> > news:3d2783ee@news.zen.co.uk... > >> >> > > > >> >> > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > >> >> > > news:UjLV8.1425$7k6.189183@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > >> >> > > > news:3d276423$1@news.zen.co.uk... > >> >> > > > > Every site I have seen and almost all of the arguments at the > >> >> website > >> >> > > for > >> >> > > > > this newsgroup seem to indicate the federation could not defeat > >> >the > >> >> > > > empire, > >> >> > > > > is this the generally held opinion of the group or is it still > >> >> > disputed. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Still disputed. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Ah a lone voice of resistance :) > >> >> > > > >> >> > > You may want to use subspace transporters then since I have yet to > >> >find > >> >> > > proof against there use. > >> >> > > >> >> > I could, but I don't need them. There's plenty to kill with. They > >have > >> >a > >> >> > lot of ships and a big infrastructure, but unless they use the > >Expanded > >> >> > Universe stuff, they don't have much else. Therefore, they don't > >have > >> >> much > >> >> > else. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Using only non-EU material the average firepower of an ISD is in excess > >of > >> >> 1e30 W. Using canon Trek the average firepower of a PhotTorp (TNG+ era) > >> >does > >> >> not exceed 12 MT. > >> > > >> >Using only non-EU material, the maximum firepower of an ISD is unknown, > >but > >> >has not been observed at any figure beyond the terawatt range, and is > >> >probably less. Using canon Trek the maximum firepower of a Galaxy Class > >> >ship is well into the terawatt range. > >> > > >> > >> *rolls around laughing his ass off* > >> > >> You really think the asteroids would be vapped by a mere few terawatts? > >You're > >> hilarious! > > > >Proof of vaporization? Looks like the Slave I asteroid fragmentation to me. > > > > We see glowing debris that vanish, with no remains. Vaporization. > Fragmentation, like seen in Ep II, is very different. Unless you watch the > movie with your ass. I'll grant that my copy is from a cam-grab, but scaling the asteroid against the Jedi fighter means we were looking at a fragmentation of a rock that was about 10-20 meters in size, much closer to us than when the asteroids were fragmented or vaporized in Empire. > > >> > >> Not to mention the 1e30J firepower comes from the Canon quote of > >Dodonna's. > > > >Based on the completely unknown firepower of the Death Star (remember those > >rings?) > > > > So? To propel the matter we see propelled, at the speed we see, minimum of > 1e38J. Minimum. The rings can only add to that. The rings are proof that that there wasn't a direct energy transfer, like a laser. Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star directly input 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. > >> >> Using only non-EU material Imperial and Alliance warships have FTL > >> >> velocities in excess of 10,000,000 C. Using the basic premise of > >Voyager > >> >> average cruise FTL velocities not in excess of 10,000 C. > >> > > >> >Using only non-EU material, hyperdrive velocities are not known. > >Remember, > >> > you're supposed to leave out non-EU if you're going to say "using only > >> >non-EU", so you can't use EU stuff that talks about the canon. The only > >> >time we have a specific distance given is "less than a parsec" in Clones, > >> >but we don't know exactly how long it took them to get there (but there > >were > >> >several scenes in between). > >> > >> Actually, we see a ship go from Core to Rim in hours in TPM(Maul), and if > >the > >> galaxy is anything like the Milky Way, that's 40,000LY, or thereabouts. > >Nice > >> try at dodging.. Pity it failed. > > > >In AOTC, an Outer Rim world was shown on the map in the archives to be well > >inside the galaxy, near the core. The rest is assumption based on the idea > >they are talking about something the size of the Milky Way. > > > > No, the map showed the Galaxy and several 'captured' formations, looking like > tiny Spiral galaxies attached. Anyway, we know from Han Solo that the Galaxy, > the main one, is 120,000LY wide.. So it's 60,000LY's to the Rim. 1. That isn't from the canon. 2. Lando said it, not Han. "Shield of Lies" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 21:17:48 +1200 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- snip > > > > So? To propel the matter we see propelled, at the speed we see, minimum of > > 1e38J. Minimum. The rings can only add to that. > > The rings are proof that that there wasn't a direct energy transfer, like a > laser. You are going to prove that right? Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star directly input > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. Yes you can. The planet was destroyed. snip ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 10:12:08 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:agbldf$kel9u$2@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > snip > > > > > > So? To propel the matter we see propelled, at the speed we see, minimum > of > > > 1e38J. Minimum. The rings can only add to that. > > > > The rings are proof that that there wasn't a direct energy transfer, like > a > > laser. > > You are going to prove that right? That's like asking me to prove the sky is blue. > > Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe > > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star directly > input > > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. > > Yes you can. The planet was destroyed. Okay, let me rephrase. You can't claim the Death Star generated a beam with an energy of 1e38J based on the destruction of the planet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 22:23:21 +1200 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:YzdW8.603044$Gs.38822288@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:agbldf$kel9u$2@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > snip > > > > > > > > So? To propel the matter we see propelled, at the speed we see, > minimum > > of > > > > 1e38J. Minimum. The rings can only add to that. > > > > > > The rings are proof that that there wasn't a direct energy transfer, > like > > a > > > laser. > > > > You are going to prove that right? > > That's like asking me to prove the sky is blue. Concession accepted. > > Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe > > > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star directly > > input > > > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. > > > > Yes you can. The planet was destroyed. > > Okay, let me rephrase. You can't claim the Death Star generated a beam > with an energy of 1e38J based on the destruction of the planet. Sure you can, others have done so. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 11:20:46 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:agbp8a$k8kmj$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:YzdW8.603044$Gs.38822288@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > news:agbldf$kel9u$2@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > snip > > > > > > > > > > So? To propel the matter we see propelled, at the speed we see, > > minimum > > > of > > > > > 1e38J. Minimum. The rings can only add to that. > > > > > > > > The rings are proof that that there wasn't a direct energy transfer, > > like > > > a > > > > laser. > > > > > > You are going to prove that right? > > > > That's like asking me to prove the sky is blue. > > Concession accepted. Sure, that's fine. Just so long as you understand what's going on: (DarkStar stands incredulous and dumbfounded when asked to prove the sky is blue) (in my best 'Fight with the Black Knight' voice:) DS: "You've fought bravely, good knight, but the day is mine!" SM: "Get back here! I'm not finished with you! Prove the sky is blue!" DS: (points up) "LOOOOOK!" SM: "Concession accepted" (shaking my head riding my coconuts away) > > > Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe > > > > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star directly > > > input > > > > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. > > > > > > Yes you can. The planet was destroyed. > > > > Okay, let me rephrase. You can't claim the Death Star generated a beam > > with an energy of 1e38J based on the destruction of the planet. > > Sure you can, others have done so. So we should all jump off the cliff? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:26:24 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:iAeW8.333346$_j6.15923689@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:agbp8a$k8kmj$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:YzdW8.603044$Gs.38822288@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > > news:agbldf$kel9u$2@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > snip > > > > > > > > > > > > So? To propel the matter we see propelled, at the speed we see, > > > minimum > > > > of > > > > > > 1e38J. Minimum. The rings can only add to that. > > > > > > > > > > The rings are proof that that there wasn't a direct energy transfer, > > > like > > > > a > > > > > laser. > > > > > > > > You are going to prove that right? > > > > > > That's like asking me to prove the sky is blue. > > > > Concession accepted. > > Sure, that's fine. Just so long as you understand what's going on: The rings in and of themselves are a complete unknown. We've never applied 1e38 J to a planet before so we don't know what would happen, can you prove that inputing 1e38 J would NOT create those rings? > > > > Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe > > > > > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star > directly > > > > input > > > > > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. > > > > > > > > Yes you can. The planet was destroyed. > > > > > > Okay, let me rephrase. You can't claim the Death Star generated a beam > > > with an energy of 1e38J based on the destruction of the planet. > > > > Sure you can, others have done so. > > So we should all jump off the cliff? > Measuring the debris from Alderaan's destruction we realize that the planet must have had 1e38 J added to its total energy content. let me repeat that we looked at Alderaan's energy state during point 1 (sitting there) we took measurements of its energy state at point 2 (rapidly expanding debris cloud). In order to go from point 1 to point 2 you must input a minimum of 1e38 J, the Death Star is the only object we can detect which adds energy to Alderaan thus we conclude that the Death Star supplied the 1e38J neccessary to go from point 1 to point 2. Now would you like to disprove that theory? -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 07:27:58 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <1gwW8.636535$%y.39569013@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:agdl62$l6i6n$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:iAeW8.333346$_j6.15923689@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > news:agbp8a$k8kmj$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:YzdW8.603044$Gs.38822288@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > > > news:agbldf$kel9u$2@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > snip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So? To propel the matter we see propelled, at the speed we see, > > > > minimum > > > > > of > > > > > > > 1e38J. Minimum. The rings can only add to that. > > > > > > > > > > > > The rings are proof that that there wasn't a direct energy > transfer, > > > > like > > > > > a > > > > > > laser. > > > > > > > > > > You are going to prove that right? > > > > > > > > That's like asking me to prove the sky is blue. > > > > > > Concession accepted. > > > > Sure, that's fine. Just so long as you understand what's going on: > > > The rings in and of themselves are a complete unknown. We've never applied > 1e38 J to a planet before so we don't know what would happen, can you prove > that inputing 1e38 J would NOT create those rings? You're claiming it does. Physics disagrees. If you would care to do the calculations which disprove physics, I'm all ears. > > > > > > Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe > > > > > > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star > > directly > > > > > input > > > > > > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. > > > > > > > > > > Yes you can. The planet was destroyed. > > > > > > > > Okay, let me rephrase. You can't claim the Death Star generated a > beam > > > > with an energy of 1e38J based on the destruction of the planet. > > > > > > Sure you can, others have done so. > > > > So we should all jump off the cliff? > > > > Measuring the debris from Alderaan's destruction we realize that the planet > must have had 1e38 J added to its total energy content. let me repeat that > we looked at Alderaan's energy state during point 1 (sitting there) we took > measurements of its energy state at point 2 (rapidly expanding debris > cloud). In order to go from point 1 to point 2 you must input a minimum of > 1e38 J, the Death Star is the only object we can detect which adds energy to > Alderaan thus we conclude that the Death Star supplied the 1e38J neccessary > to go from point 1 to point 2. > > Now would you like to disprove that theory? Your hypothesis is based on the notion that the Death Star input 1e38J directly. Well, phasers vaporize people, so do we calculate the energy input from the phaser by that? No, because vaporized people and things have a habit of not producing a cloud of hot gas, so obviously there is something else going on when a phaser vaporizes something. The Death Star destroys planets. Should we calculate the energy input from the Death Star by that? No, because the destroyed planets have a habit of producing perfect little rings that travel outward from the planet at near-light speed, so obviously there is something else going on when a Death Star destroys a planet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 20:42:42 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:1gwW8.636535$%y.39569013@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:agdl62$l6i6n$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:iAeW8.333346$_j6.15923689@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are going to prove that right? > > > > > > > > > > That's like asking me to prove the sky is blue. > > > > > > > > Concession accepted. > > > > > > Sure, that's fine. Just so long as you understand what's going on: > > > > > > The rings in and of themselves are a complete unknown. We've never > applied > > 1e38 J to a planet before so we don't know what would happen, can you > prove > > that inputing 1e38 J would NOT create those rings? > > You're claiming it does. Physics disagrees. If you would care to do the > calculations which disprove physics, I'm all ears. Perhaps I need to re explain the overall thing here...we have several knowns and one unknown. 1) We know the energy state before the DS beam was fired (we can call it 0) 2) We know the energy state afterwards ( >1e38J) 3) We know that the DS superlaser (a high energy laser/plasma weapon) was fired at the planet which then detonated. 4) The end state includes these unknown rings We surmise that 1) The DS input energy into the system If our surmise is correct then the DS, through some means, must add at least 1e38 J to the planetary system If your surmise is correct the DS must also produce the rings as a result of its use Now point to me where the rings will reduce the difference in end and beginning energy states. Show me how the rings prove that the DS did not add the ernergy to the system/ In other words we have a satisfactory explanation (the DS inputs the energy and has some unknown side effect as a result of its particular style of firing which is remarkably similair to what happens when you blow up a hypermatter reactor) We know the rings can be prudced by high energy detonations (both DS) therfore it is reasonable to conclude that the rings are a high energy phenomenon not previously encountered. Canon overrules physics and canon shows that high energy detonations produce rings thus they aren't really complete unknowns but they sure as HELL don't alter the beginning and end state of Alderaan which, for the upteenth time, is how we get the energy rating. > > > > > > > > Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe > > > > > > > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star > > > directly > > > > > > input > > > > > > > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes you can. The planet was destroyed. > > > > > > > > > > Okay, let me rephrase. You can't claim the Death Star generated a > > beam > > > > > with an energy of 1e38J based on the destruction of the planet. > > > > > > > > Sure you can, others have done so. > > > > > > So we should all jump off the cliff? > > > > > > > Measuring the debris from Alderaan's destruction we realize that the > planet > > must have had 1e38 J added to its total energy content. let me repeat that > > we looked at Alderaan's energy state during point 1 (sitting there) we > took > > measurements of its energy state at point 2 (rapidly expanding debris > > cloud). In order to go from point 1 to point 2 you must input a minimum of > > 1e38 J, the Death Star is the only object we can detect which adds energy > to > > Alderaan thus we conclude that the Death Star supplied the 1e38J > neccessary > > to go from point 1 to point 2. > > > > Now would you like to disprove that theory? > > Your hypothesis is based on the notion that the Death Star input 1e38J > directly. > > Well, phasers vaporize people, so do we calculate the energy input from the > phaser by that? No, because vaporized people and things have a habit of > not producing a cloud of hot gas, so obviously there is something else going > on when a phaser vaporizes something. > > The Death Star destroys planets. Should we calculate the energy input from > the Death Star by that? No, because the destroyed planets have a habit of > producing perfect little rings that travel outward from the planet at > near-light speed, so obviously there is something else going on when a Death > Star destroys a planet. Faulty analysis, we look at beginning and end states of a system (Alderaan) we observe that 1e38 J has been added to the system. We observe that the DS is the only object adding energy to the system we conclude that the DS inputs the energy. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:47:21 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b8409@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:agfvuo$ldees$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:1gwW8.636535$%y.39569013@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:agdl62$l6i6n$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:iAeW8.333346$_j6.15923689@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are going to prove that right? > > > > > > > > > > > > That's like asking me to prove the sky is blue. > > > > > > > > > > Concession accepted. > > > > > > > > Sure, that's fine. Just so long as you understand what's going on: > > > > > > > > > The rings in and of themselves are a complete unknown. We've never > > applied > > > 1e38 J to a planet before so we don't know what would happen, can you > > prove > > > that inputing 1e38 J would NOT create those rings? > > > > You're claiming it does. Physics disagrees. If you would care to do the > > calculations which disprove physics, I'm all ears. > > Perhaps I need to re explain the overall thing here...we have several knowns > and one unknown. > 1) We know the energy state before the DS beam was fired (we can call it 0) > 2) We know the energy state afterwards ( >1e38J) > 3) We know that the DS superlaser (a high energy laser/plasma weapon) was > fired at the planet which then detonated. > 4) The end state includes these unknown rings > > > We surmise that 1) The DS input energy into the system > If our surmise is correct then the DS, through some means, must add at least > 1e38 J to the planetary system > If your surmise is correct the DS must also produce the rings as a result of > its use > > Now point to me where the rings will reduce the difference in end and > beginning energy states. Show me how the rings prove that the DS did not add > the ernergy to the system/ In other words we have a satisfactory explanati on > (the DS inputs the energy and has some unknown side effect as a result of > its particular style of firing which is remarkably similair to what happens > when you blow up a hypermatter reactor) > > We know the rings can be prudced by high energy detonations (both DS) > therfore it is reasonable to conclude that the rings are a high energy > phenomenon not previously encountered. Canon overrules physics and canon > shows that high energy detonations produce rings thus they aren't really > complete unknowns but they sure as HELL don't alter the beginning and end > state of Alderaan which, for the upteenth time, is how we get the energy > rating. > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe > > > > > > > > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star > > > > directly > > > > > > > input > > > > > > > > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes you can. The planet was destroyed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, let me rephrase. You can't claim the Death Star generated > a > > > beam > > > > > > with an energy of 1e38J based on the destruction of the planet. > > > > > > > > > > Sure you can, others have done so. > > > > > > > > So we should all jump off the cliff? > > > > > > > > > > Measuring the debris from Alderaan's destruction we realize that the > > planet > > > must have had 1e38 J added to its total energy content. let me repeat > that > > > we looked at Alderaan's energy state during point 1 (sitting there) we > > took > > > measurements of its energy state at point 2 (rapidly expanding debris > > > cloud). In order to go from point 1 to point 2 you must input a minimum > of > > > 1e38 J, the Death Star is the only object we can detect which adds > energy > > to > > > Alderaan thus we conclude that the Death Star supplied the 1e38J > > neccessary > > > to go from point 1 to point 2. > > > > > > Now would you like to disprove that theory? > > > > Your hypothesis is based on the notion that the Death Star input 1e38J > > directly. > > > > Well, phasers vaporize people, so do we calculate the energy input from > the > > phaser by that? No, because vaporized people and things have a habit of > > not producing a cloud of hot gas, so obviously there is something else > going > > on when a phaser vaporizes something. > > > > The Death Star destroys planets. Should we calculate the energy input > from > > the Death Star by that? No, because the destroyed planets have a habit of > > producing perfect little rings that travel outward from the planet at > > near-light speed, so obviously there is something else going on when a > Death > > Star destroys a planet. > > > Faulty analysis, we look at beginning and end states of a system (Alderaan) > we observe that 1e38 J has been added to the system. We observe that the DS > is the only object adding energy to the system we conclude that the DS > inputs the energy. > Except according to ANH book it aint got that much power to give otherwise what you say would be bang on correct. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:57:48 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2b8409@news.zen.co.uk... > Except according to ANH book it aint got that much power to give otherwise > what you say would be bang on correct. No, according to an overly literal interpretation of a single quote with great metaphorical content in the ANH book, it ain't got that much power. According to everyone elses' interpretation, the contradiction doesn't exist. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 01:04:35 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b8817$1@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agg0ut$lt9q9$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > news:3d2b8409@news.zen.co.uk... > > > Except according to ANH book it aint got that much power to give > otherwise > > what you say would be bang on correct. > > No, according to an overly literal interpretation of a single quote with Not overley literial it was describing an event and is thus literal. > great metaphorical content in the ANH book, it ain't got that much It contained no metaphorical content just a statement of events. > power. According to everyone elses' interpretation, the contradiction > doesn't exist. Everyone else being Pro wars and wanting it not to be true? Also someone else up there agreed with me and I found a website that pointed this out so that guy obviously agrees with it aswell. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:07:29 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2b8817$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > No, according to an overly literal interpretation of a single quote with > > Not overley literial it was describing an event and is thus literal. No, it was painting an image of what happened. It is mere imagery and thus more metaphorical than literal. > > great metaphorical content in the ANH book, it ain't got that much > > It contained no metaphorical content just a statement of events. There is clearly a comparison there, pal. It is a metaphor. > > power. According to everyone elses' interpretation, the contradiction > > doesn't exist. > > Everyone else being Pro wars and wanting it not to be true? > Also someone else up there agreed with me and I found a website that pointed > this out so that guy obviously agrees with it aswell. OK, that's two other people. Let me correct that to say "to _virtually_ everyone elses' interpretation". Have you noticed that "everyone else" includes such people as Curtis Saxton, who doesn't even care about Trek and the official writers, and I doubt all of them have this agenda to crush Trek under Wars' foot either. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:30:32 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agg1jf$lbgn1$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > news:3d2b8817$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > No, according to an overly literal interpretation of a single quote > with > > > > Not overley literial it was describing an event and is thus literal. > > No, it was painting an image of what happened. It is mere imagery and > thus more metaphorical than literal. > > > > great metaphorical content in the ANH book, it ain't got that much > > > > It contained no metaphorical content just a statement of events. > > There is clearly a comparison there, pal. It is a metaphor. > > > > power. According to everyone elses' interpretation, the > contradiction > > > doesn't exist. > > > > Everyone else being Pro wars and wanting it not to be true? > > Also someone else up there agreed with me and I found a website that > pointed > > this out so that guy obviously agrees with it aswell. > > OK, that's two other people. Let me correct that to say "to _virtually_ > everyone elses' interpretation". Have you noticed that "everyone else" > includes such people as Curtis Saxton, who doesn't even care about Trek > and the official writers, and I doubt all of them have this agenda to > crush Trek under Wars' foot either. Even so, he is predisposed toward insanely high numbers. He accepts Wong's wild figure of 60GJ for X-Wing firepower, and mistakenly believes that neutronium in Star Wars comes from stars. He also codified the misrepresentation of the BDZ into "official fact". His allegiance is irrelevant; his actions speak for themselves. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Phil Skayhan" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:38:09 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agg0ut$lt9q9$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > news:3d2b8409@news.zen.co.uk... > > > Except according to ANH book it aint got that much power to give > otherwise > > what you say would be bang on correct. > > No, according to an overly literal interpretation of a single quote with > great metaphorical content in the ANH book, it ain't got that much > power. According to everyone elses' interpretation, the contradiction > doesn't exist. I don't think the quote is a problem in any way. An artificial sun fine, but made to duplicate a sun of what size? It says the artificial sun is small, not the power it is able to output. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:52:04 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2ba142$1@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message news:l6NW8.27057$5f3.19357@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > news:agg0ut$lt9q9$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > news:3d2b8409@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > > Except according to ANH book it aint got that much power to give > > otherwise > > > what you say would be bang on correct. > > > > No, according to an overly literal interpretation of a single quote with > > great metaphorical content in the ANH book, it ain't got that much > > power. According to everyone elses' interpretation, the contradiction > > doesn't exist. > > I don't think the quote is a problem in any way. An artificial sun fine, but > made to duplicate a sun of what size? It says the artificial sun is small, > not the power it is able to output. I have no figures to back this up or anything but I think that for a sun to be powerful enough to output in excess of 1E38 per day would put it at very high energy indeed if its posible (it may be but it would have to be aprox 2100000 times the output of out sun). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Phil Skayhan" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 03:11:54 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <_BNW8.27128$5f3.5998@nwrddc01.gnilink.net> -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2ba142$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > news:l6NW8.27057$5f3.19357@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > > > Except according to ANH book it aint got that much power to give > > > otherwise > > > > what you say would be bang on correct. > > > > > > No, according to an overly literal interpretation of a single quote with > > > great metaphorical content in the ANH book, it ain't got that much > > > power. According to everyone elses' interpretation, the contradiction > > > doesn't exist. > > > > I don't think the quote is a problem in any way. An artificial sun fine, > but > > made to duplicate a sun of what size? It says the artificial sun is small, > > not the power it is able to output. > > I have no figures to back this up or anything but I think that for a sun to > be powerful enough to output in excess of 1E38 per day would put it at very > high energy indeed if its posible (it may be but it would have to be aprox > 2100000 times the output of out sun). http://www.bluebirdobs.org/ObservatoryTools/startype.html just for info There was another link with a nice colour graph of Temperature vs Luminosity of all observed stars but it is now defunct. But anyway, I don't believe there is a natural star that can produce the energy observed from the DS in the same time frame. However, this does not preclude that an artificial one could not. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 03:22:04 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2ba84e$1@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message news:_BNW8.27128$5f3.5998@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > http://www.bluebirdobs.org/ObservatoryTools/startype.html > just for info > There was another link with a nice colour graph of Temperature vs Luminosity > of all observed stars but it is now defunct. > > But anyway, I don't believe there is a natural star that can produce the > energy observed from the DS in the same time frame. However, this does not > preclude that an artificial one could not. Thanks for the link. I think artificial sun means reactor using fusion since all a sun is, is a giant reactor. I believe there are some calcs trying to create a fusion reactor big enough to give the death star the energy it needs and im sure that the death star couldnt carry the correct amount of fuel to power it for one second - so if its Nuclear fusion based then the 1E38 goes out the window. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Phil Skayhan" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 03:39:14 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2ba84e$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > news:_BNW8.27128$5f3.5998@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > > > http://www.bluebirdobs.org/ObservatoryTools/startype.html > > just for info > > There was another link with a nice colour graph of Temperature vs > Luminosity > > of all observed stars but it is now defunct. > > > > But anyway, I don't believe there is a natural star that can produce the > > energy observed from the DS in the same time frame. However, this does not > > preclude that an artificial one could not. > > Thanks for the link. > > I think artificial sun means reactor using fusion since all a sun is, is a > giant reactor. > > I believe there are some calcs trying to create a fusion reactor big enough > to give the death star the energy it needs and im sure that the death star > couldnt carry the correct amount of fuel to power it for one second - so if > its Nuclear fusion based then the 1E38 goes out the window. Nor could it have accelerated it's mass like it did in ANH around Yavin, powered its defenses, and kept the lights on, if it is a simple nuclear fusion reactor. Now I'm curious about the theory that the super laser initated a chain reation in the planet that caused it to explode; how did the reaction sustain itself and not fizzle? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 03:48:08 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2bae6c$1@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message news:C%NW8.27226$5f3.10929@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > news:3d2ba84e$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > > news:_BNW8.27128$5f3.5998@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > > > > > > http://www.bluebirdobs.org/ObservatoryTools/startype.html > > Nor could it have accelerated it's mass like it did in ANH around Yavin, > powered its defenses, and kept the lights on, if it is a simple nuclear > fusion reactor. Well that depends on the power of the reactor, how the engine works and the defense power - remember (and this is why everyone is upset over a new theory) if the deaht stars main can takes dive then so does either the TL power or the fleet size (possible even both). We cant make judgements like those without figures on the table. > Now I'm curious about the theory that the super laser initated a chain > reation in the planet that caused it to explode; how did the reaction > sustain itself and not fizzle? You would have to ask Darkstar hes the man with the plan. My understanding is some mass is changed into energy and this energy provides the 1E38 or a chunk there of. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 03:49:46 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message news:l6NW8.27057$5f3.19357@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > news:agg0ut$lt9q9$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > news:3d2b8409@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > > Except according to ANH book it aint got that much power to give > > otherwise > > > what you say would be bang on correct. > > > > No, according to an overly literal interpretation of a single quote with > > great metaphorical content in the ANH book, it ain't got that much > > power. According to everyone elses' interpretation, the contradiction > > doesn't exist. > > I don't think the quote is a problem in any way. An artificial sun fine, but > made to duplicate a sun of what size? It says the artificial sun is small, > not the power it is able to output. Illogical. "the liberated energy of a small artificial sun". Either it is a small artificial sun or its liberated energy is on par with that of the liberated energy of a small artificial sun. There's really not much more you can do with that, since the fast-burning suns are highly inefficient over their lifetime compared to a more normal burner. Six in one, half-dozen the other. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:10:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:u9OW8.3557$iX5.186345@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > news:l6NW8.27057$5f3.19357@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > news:agg0ut$lt9q9$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > > news:3d2b8409@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > > > > Except according to ANH book it aint got that much power to give > > > otherwise > > > > what you say would be bang on correct. > > > > > > No, according to an overly literal interpretation of a single quote with > > > great metaphorical content in the ANH book, it ain't got that much > > > power. According to everyone elses' interpretation, the contradiction > > > doesn't exist. > > > > I don't think the quote is a problem in any way. An artificial sun fine, > but > > made to duplicate a sun of what size? It says the artificial sun is small, > > not the power it is able to output. > > Illogical. "the liberated energy of a small artificial sun". Either it > is a small artificial sun or its liberated energy is on par with that of the > liberated energy of a small artificial sun. There's really not much more > you can do with that, since the fast-burning suns are highly inefficient > over their lifetime compared to a more normal burner. Six in one, > half-dozen the other. > Alternatively we could consider that "liberated" means that it annihilated a mass equivalent to a small sun. Lets assume they want one smaller than our little Sol, say about 2e25 Kg. Plug into E= MC^2 E= 2e25 * (3e8^2) E= 2e25 * 9e16 E= 1.8e42 J Amazingly that would work with the destruction of Alderaan rather well. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 07:04:39 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:aggj58$lcqeu$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:u9OW8.3557$iX5.186345@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > > news:l6NW8.27057$5f3.19357@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > > news:agg0ut$lt9q9$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > > > news:3d2b8409@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > > > > > > Except according to ANH book it aint got that much power to give > > > > otherwise > > > > > what you say would be bang on correct. > > > > > > > > No, according to an overly literal interpretation of a single quote > with > > > > great metaphorical content in the ANH book, it ain't got that much > > > > power. According to everyone elses' interpretation, the contradiction > > > > doesn't exist. > > > > > > I don't think the quote is a problem in any way. An artificial sun fine, > > but > > > made to duplicate a sun of what size? It says the artificial sun is > small, > > > not the power it is able to output. > > > > Illogical. "the liberated energy of a small artificial sun". Either > it > > is a small artificial sun or its liberated energy is on par with that of > the > > liberated energy of a small artificial sun. There's really not much > more > > you can do with that, since the fast-burning suns are highly inefficient > > over their lifetime compared to a more normal burner. Six in one, > > half-dozen the other. > > > > > Alternatively we could consider that "liberated" means that it annihilated a > mass equivalent to a small sun. Lets assume they want one smaller than our > little Sol, say about 2e25 Kg. Plug into E= MC^2 > > E= 2e25 * (3e8^2) > E= 2e25 * 9e16 > E= 1.8e42 J > > Amazingly that would work with the destruction of Alderaan rather well. Instantaneous annihilation of that much mass is not a common event in the lifetime of a star. Further, your wild idea is taking the quote way, way, way out in left field. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:55:51 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:b0RW8.5395$iX5.362239@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:aggj58$lcqeu$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:u9OW8.3557$iX5.186345@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > > > news:l6NW8.27057$5f3.19357@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > > > > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > > > news:agg0ut$lt9q9$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > > > > news:3d2b8409@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > > > > > > > > Except according to ANH book it aint got that much power to give > > > > > otherwise > > > > > > what you say would be bang on correct. > > > > > > > > > > No, according to an overly literal interpretation of a single quote > > with > > > > > great metaphorical content in the ANH book, it ain't got that much > > > > > power. According to everyone elses' interpretation, the > contradiction > > > > > doesn't exist. > > > > > > > > I don't think the quote is a problem in any way. An artificial sun > fine, > > > but > > > > made to duplicate a sun of what size? It says the artificial sun is > > small, > > > > not the power it is able to output. > > > > > > Illogical. "the liberated energy of a small artificial sun". Either > > it > > > is a small artificial sun or its liberated energy is on par with that of > > the > > > liberated energy of a small artificial sun. There's really not much > > more > > > you can do with that, since the fast-burning suns are highly inefficient > > > over their lifetime compared to a more normal burner. Six in one, > > > half-dozen the other. > > > > > > > > > Alternatively we could consider that "liberated" means that it annihilated > a > > mass equivalent to a small sun. Lets assume they want one smaller than our > > little Sol, say about 2e25 Kg. Plug into E= MC^2 > > > > E= 2e25 * (3e8^2) > > E= 2e25 * 9e16 > > E= 1.8e42 J > > > > Amazingly that would work with the destruction of Alderaan rather well. > > Instantaneous annihilation of that much mass is not a common event in the > lifetime of a star. I'm not saying it ever happens naturally HOWEVER it is the ONLY way to liberate every joule of energy from a star. Even normal fusion rapidly accelerated will leave huge amounts of energy behind in the form of matter, only total annihilation liberates everything. > Further, your wild idea is taking the quote way, way, > way out in left field. > No I'm being very literal about the word "liberated." -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:56:28 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:agihji$m6j2n$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:b0RW8.5395$iX5.362239@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:aggj58$lcqeu$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:u9OW8.3557$iX5.186345@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > > > > news:l6NW8.27057$5f3.19357@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > > > > > > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > > > > news:agg0ut$lt9q9$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > > > > > news:3d2b8409@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except according to ANH book it aint got that much power to give > > > > > > otherwise > > > > > > > what you say would be bang on correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, according to an overly literal interpretation of a single > quote > > > with > > > > > > great metaphorical content in the ANH book, it ain't got that much > > > > > > power. According to everyone elses' interpretation, the > > contradiction > > > > > > doesn't exist. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think the quote is a problem in any way. An artificial sun > > fine, > > > > but > > > > > made to duplicate a sun of what size? It says the artificial sun is > > > small, > > > > > not the power it is able to output. > > > > > > > > Illogical. "the liberated energy of a small artificial sun". > Either > > > it > > > > is a small artificial sun or its liberated energy is on par with that > of > > > the > > > > liberated energy of a small artificial sun. There's really not much > > > more > > > > you can do with that, since the fast-burning suns are highly > inefficient > > > > over their lifetime compared to a more normal burner. Six in one, > > > > half-dozen the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alternatively we could consider that "liberated" means that it > annihilated > > a > > > mass equivalent to a small sun. Lets assume they want one smaller than > our > > > little Sol, say about 2e25 Kg. Plug into E= MC^2 > > > > > > E= 2e25 * (3e8^2) > > > E= 2e25 * 9e16 > > > E= 1.8e42 J > > > > > > Amazingly that would work with the destruction of Alderaan rather well. > > > > Instantaneous annihilation of that much mass is not a common event in the > > lifetime of a star. > > I'm not saying it ever happens naturally HOWEVER it is the ONLY way to > liberate every joule of energy from a star. Even normal fusion rapidly > accelerated will leave huge amounts of energy behind in the form of matter, > only total annihilation liberates everything. Correct. However, to make the assumptions you're making, you'd need the quote to say "liberated energy of the mass of a small artificial sun." > > > Further, your wild idea is taking the quote way, way, > > way out in left field. > > > > No I'm being very literal about the word "liberated." It was the liberated energy of a small artificial sun. That means it was the energy of a small artificial sun contained previously. You're assuming containment of all the energy in the form of matter, but this is unnecessary. The simple nuclear reactions of a star also liberate the energy of the matter, albeit not in 100% mass-energy conversion form, and this fits in a superior fashion with the quote provided. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 02:31:19 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:w_9X8.21276$iB1.1409523@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:agihji$m6j2n$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:b0RW8.5395$iX5.362239@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > news:aggj58$lcqeu$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > news:u9OW8.3557$iX5.186345@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > > > > > news:l6NW8.27057$5f3.19357@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > > > > > news:agg0ut$lt9q9$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > > > > > > news:3d2b8409@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except according to ANH book it aint got that much power to > give > > > > > > > otherwise > > > > > > > > what you say would be bang on correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, according to an overly literal interpretation of a single > > quote > > > > with > > > > > > > great metaphorical content in the ANH book, it ain't got that > much > > > > > > > power. According to everyone elses' interpretation, the > > > contradiction > > > > > > > doesn't exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think the quote is a problem in any way. An artificial sun > > > fine, > > > > > but > > > > > > made to duplicate a sun of what size? It says the artificial sun > is > > > > small, > > > > > > not the power it is able to output. > > > > > > > > > > Illogical. "the liberated energy of a small artificial sun". > > Either > > > > it > > > > > is a small artificial sun or its liberated energy is on par with > that > > of > > > > the > > > > > liberated energy of a small artificial sun. There's really not > much > > > > more > > > > > you can do with that, since the fast-burning suns are highly > > inefficient > > > > > over their lifetime compared to a more normal burner. Six in one, > > > > > half-dozen the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alternatively we could consider that "liberated" means that it > > annihilated > > > a > > > > mass equivalent to a small sun. Lets assume they want one smaller than > > our > > > > little Sol, say about 2e25 Kg. Plug into E= MC^2 > > > > > > > > E= 2e25 * (3e8^2) > > > > E= 2e25 * 9e16 > > > > E= 1.8e42 J > > > > > > > > Amazingly that would work with the destruction of Alderaan rather > well. > > > > > > Instantaneous annihilation of that much mass is not a common event in > the > > > lifetime of a star. > > > > I'm not saying it ever happens naturally HOWEVER it is the ONLY way to > > liberate every joule of energy from a star. Even normal fusion rapidly > > accelerated will leave huge amounts of energy behind in the form of > matter, > > only total annihilation liberates everything. > > Correct. However, to make the assumptions you're making, you'd need the > quote to say "liberated energy of the mass of a small artificial sun." Incorrect. The quote says "liberated the energy of a small sun." All I need is the implicaion of "all" in that quote. In other words if the quote is saying "libnerated [all] the energy of a small sun." Then the only way to have all the energy is by converting the mass. Otherwise some of the energy is still held together, it is unliberated. AS the word is in the past perfect tense this means an action is fully completed and I thus interpret this to mean (syntactically) as saying there was total liberation of energy which again can only be accomplished by mass-energy conversion. > > > > > Further, your wild idea is taking the quote way, way, > > > way out in left field. > > > > > > > No I'm being very literal about the word "liberated." > > It was the liberated energy of a small artificial sun. That means it was > the energy of a small artificial sun contained previously. > > You're assuming containment of all the energy in the form of matter, but > this is unnecessary. The simple nuclear reactions of a star also liberate > the energy of the matter, albeit not in 100% mass-energy conversion form, > and this fits in a superior fashion with the quote provided. > They liberate but not fully, again all I requrie is the implication of an "all" in the sentence while your theory (equivalent of fusion level energy) requires the assumption of the word "some." Each is equally valid but in light of the planet exploding by means of the DS my theory is more likely. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:01:38 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:aglt48$msat4$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:w_9X8.21276$iB1.1409523@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:agihji$m6j2n$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:b0RW8.5395$iX5.362239@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > > news:aggj58$lcqeu$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > > news:u9OW8.3557$iX5.186345@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > "Phil Skayhan" wrote in message > > > > > > news:l6NW8.27057$5f3.19357@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > > > > > > news:agg0ut$lt9q9$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > > > > > > > news:3d2b8409@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except according to ANH book it aint got that much power to > > give > > > > > > > > otherwise > > > > > > > > > what you say would be bang on correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, according to an overly literal interpretation of a single > > > quote > > > > > with > > > > > > > > great metaphorical content in the ANH book, it ain't got that > > much > > > > > > > > power. According to everyone elses' interpretation, the > > > > contradiction > > > > > > > > doesn't exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think the quote is a problem in any way. An artificial > sun > > > > fine, > > > > > > but > > > > > > > made to duplicate a sun of what size? It says the artificial sun > > is > > > > > small, > > > > > > > not the power it is able to output. > > > > > > > > > > > > Illogical. "the liberated energy of a small artificial sun". > > > Either > > > > > it > > > > > > is a small artificial sun or its liberated energy is on par with > > that > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > liberated energy of a small artificial sun. There's really not > > much > > > > > more > > > > > > you can do with that, since the fast-burning suns are highly > > > inefficient > > > > > > over their lifetime compared to a more normal burner. Six in > one, > > > > > > half-dozen the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alternatively we could consider that "liberated" means that it > > > annihilated > > > > a > > > > > mass equivalent to a small sun. Lets assume they want one smaller > than > > > our > > > > > little Sol, say about 2e25 Kg. Plug into E= MC^2 > > > > > > > > > > E= 2e25 * (3e8^2) > > > > > E= 2e25 * 9e16 > > > > > E= 1.8e42 J > > > > > > > > > > Amazingly that would work with the destruction of Alderaan rather > > well. > > > > > > > > Instantaneous annihilation of that much mass is not a common event in > > the > > > > lifetime of a star. > > > > > > I'm not saying it ever happens naturally HOWEVER it is the ONLY way to > > > liberate every joule of energy from a star. Even normal fusion rapidly > > > accelerated will leave huge amounts of energy behind in the form of > > matter, > > > only total annihilation liberates everything. > > > > Correct. However, to make the assumptions you're making, you'd need the > > quote to say "liberated energy of the mass of a small artificial sun." > > Incorrect. The quote says "liberated the energy of a small sun." No, it says "the liberated energy of a small artificial sun." > They liberate but not fully, again all I requrie is the implication of an > "all" in the sentence while your theory (equivalent of fusion level energy) > requires the assumption of the word "some." Each is equally valid but in > light of the planet exploding by means of the DS my theory is more likely. That's nonsense. Are you drunk? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:07:44 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:mGyX8.43910$iB1.2513003@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:aglt48$msat4$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > Incorrect. The quote says "liberated the energy of a small sun." > > No, it says "the liberated energy of a small artificial sun." And this is supposed to make a difference because? > > They liberate but not fully, again all I requrie is the implication of an > > "all" in the sentence while your theory (equivalent of fusion level > energy) > > requires the assumption of the word "some." Each is equally valid but in > > light of the planet exploding by means of the DS my theory is more likely. > > > That's nonsense. Are you drunk? It is no more nonsensical and insistent on literal intepretations than yours. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:09:43 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agmhge$mcroi$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:mGyX8.43910$iB1.2513003@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:aglt48$msat4$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > Incorrect. The quote says "liberated the energy of a small sun." > > > > No, it says "the liberated energy of a small artificial sun." > > And this is supposed to make a difference because? He misquoted. > > > > They liberate but not fully, again all I requrie is the implication > of an > > > "all" in the sentence while your theory (equivalent of fusion level > > energy) > > > requires the assumption of the word "some." Each is equally valid > but in > > > light of the planet exploding by means of the DS my theory is more > likely. > > > > > > That's nonsense. Are you drunk? > > It is no more nonsensical and insistent on literal intepretations than > yours. I'm not sure what's worse... the fact that he wrote that, or the fact that you think what you think. They are both pretty sad. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:55:29 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:mGyX8.43910$iB1.2513003@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:aglt48$msat4$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:w_9X8.21276$iB1.1409523@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > news:agihji$m6j2n$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > news:b0RW8.5395$iX5.362239@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alternatively we could consider that "liberated" means that it > > > > annihilated > > > > > a > > > > > > mass equivalent to a small sun. Lets assume they want one smaller > > than > > > > our > > > > > > little Sol, say about 2e25 Kg. Plug into E= MC^2 > > > > > > > > > > > > E= 2e25 * (3e8^2) > > > > > > E= 2e25 * 9e16 > > > > > > E= 1.8e42 J > > > > > > > > > > > > Amazingly that would work with the destruction of Alderaan rather > > > well. > > > > > > > > > > Instantaneous annihilation of that much mass is not a common event > in > > > the > > > > > lifetime of a star. > > > > > > > > I'm not saying it ever happens naturally HOWEVER it is the ONLY way to > > > > liberate every joule of energy from a star. Even normal fusion rapidly > > > > accelerated will leave huge amounts of energy behind in the form of > > > matter, > > > > only total annihilation liberates everything. > > > > > > Correct. However, to make the assumptions you're making, you'd need the > > > quote to say "liberated energy of the mass of a small artificial sun." > > > > Incorrect. The quote says "liberated the energy of a small sun." > > No, it says "the liberated energy of a small artificial sun." Fine I missed one word yet it changes little to nothign, at least nothing in your favor. Let us suppose that artificial does mean what the dictionary says, that the object must be constructed by human hands...it changes ntohing about the only way to totally liberate its energy. > > They liberate but not fully, again all I requrie is the implication of an > > "all" in the sentence while your theory (equivalent of fusion level > energy) > > requires the assumption of the word "some." Each is equally valid but in > > light of the planet exploding by means of the DS my theory is more likely. > > > That's nonsense. Are you drunk? > No I am quite sober, as I was when I wrote that. Your interpretation of the sentence requires us to state that teh liberated energy of a "small artificial sun" is only equivalent to the energy that could be produced by having fusable elements of that mass fuse...in other words release SOME of the ernergy possible. I look at the sentence and assume that the "liberated energy of a small artificial sun." is equal to ALL of the energy that could be produced (which in turn would be the energy from total annihilaiton of the item's mass). Once mroe, in as simple terms as I can get it, you assume without proof that the liberated energy is equivalent only to the energy that would be liberated by a normal small sun through fusion whereas I assume, without proof (but with acknowledgement as to the energy requirements of the DS) that the liberated energy is equivalent to the mass of said object being annihilated. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 01:38:42 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:agsvhh$o5fjo$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:mGyX8.43910$iB1.2513003@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:aglt48$msat4$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:w_9X8.21276$iB1.1409523@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > > news:agihji$m6j2n$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > > news:b0RW8.5395$iX5.362239@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alternatively we could consider that "liberated" means that it > > > > > annihilated > > > > > > a > > > > > > > mass equivalent to a small sun. Lets assume they want one > smaller > > > than > > > > > our > > > > > > > little Sol, say about 2e25 Kg. Plug into E= MC^2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > E= 2e25 * (3e8^2) > > > > > > > E= 2e25 * 9e16 > > > > > > > E= 1.8e42 J > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amazingly that would work with the destruction of Alderaan > rather > > > > well. > > > > > > > > > > > > Instantaneous annihilation of that much mass is not a common event > > in > > > > the > > > > > > lifetime of a star. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not saying it ever happens naturally HOWEVER it is the ONLY way > to > > > > > liberate every joule of energy from a star. Even normal fusion > rapidly > > > > > accelerated will leave huge amounts of energy behind in the form of > > > > matter, > > > > > only total annihilation liberates everything. > > > > > > > > Correct. However, to make the assumptions you're making, you'd need > the > > > > quote to say "liberated energy of the mass of a small artificial sun." > > > > > > Incorrect. The quote says "liberated the energy of a small sun." > > > > No, it says "the liberated energy of a small artificial sun." > > Fine I missed one word yet it changes little to nothign, at least nothing in > your favor. Let us suppose that artificial does mean what the dictionary > says, that the object must be constructed by human hands...it changes > ntohing about the only way to totally liberate its energy. > As bad as you are at quoting things accurately, I figured you could use the reminder. > > > They liberate but not fully, again all I requrie is the implication of > an > > > "all" in the sentence while your theory (equivalent of fusion level > > energy) > > > requires the assumption of the word "some." Each is equally valid but in > > > light of the planet exploding by means of the DS my theory is more > likely. > > > > > > That's nonsense. Are you drunk? > > > > No I am quite sober, as I was when I wrote that. Your interpretation of the > sentence requires us to state that teh liberated energy of a "small > artificial sun" is only equivalent to the energy that could be produced by > having fusable elements of that mass fuse...in other words release SOME of > the ernergy possible. I look at the sentence and assume that the "liberated > energy of a small artificial sun." is equal to ALL of the energy that could > be produced (which in turn would be the energy from total annihilaiton of > the item's mass). > > Once mroe, in as simple terms as I can get it, you assume without proof that > the liberated energy is equivalent only to the energy that would be > liberated by a normal small sun through fusion whereas I assume, without > proof (but with acknowledgement as to the energy requirements of the DS) > that the liberated energy is equivalent to the mass of said object being > annihilated. You forgot the metal fragments. An energy release on the order you claim would leave nothing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:26:23 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:CIpY8.88614$iB1.5100171@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:agsvhh$o5fjo$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:mGyX8.43910$iB1.2513003@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > news:aglt48$msat4$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > news:w_9X8.21276$iB1.1409523@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > They liberate but not fully, again all I requrie is the implication of > > an > > > > "all" in the sentence while your theory (equivalent of fusion level > > > energy) > > > > requires the assumption of the word "some." Each is equally valid but > in > > > > light of the planet exploding by means of the DS my theory is more > > likely. > > > > > > > > > That's nonsense. Are you drunk? > > > > > > > No I am quite sober, as I was when I wrote that. Your interpretation of > the > > sentence requires us to state that teh liberated energy of a "small > > artificial sun" is only equivalent to the energy that could be produced by > > having fusable elements of that mass fuse...in other words release SOME of > > the ernergy possible. I look at the sentence and assume that the > "liberated > > energy of a small artificial sun." is equal to ALL of the energy that > could > > be produced (which in turn would be the energy from total annihilaiton of > > the item's mass). > > > > Once mroe, in as simple terms as I can get it, you assume without proof > that > > the liberated energy is equivalent only to the energy that would be > > liberated by a normal small sun through fusion whereas I assume, without > > proof (but with acknowledgement as to the energy requirements of the DS) > > that the liberated energy is equivalent to the mass of said object being > > annihilated. > > You forgot the metal fragments. An energy release on the order you claim > would leave nothing. > Proof? Do you know what the DS1 was constructed of? Did you consider the possibilty that some 80 Km away from the source of the explosion (the surface) there would be the chance that pieces would fragment and be propelled away at great velocities rather than be immolated? -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 05:57:38 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:agtiu1$o7oa7$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > Once mroe, in as simple terms as I can get it, you assume without proof > > that > > > the liberated energy is equivalent only to the energy that would be > > > liberated by a normal small sun through fusion whereas I assume, without > > > proof (but with acknowledgement as to the energy requirements of the DS) > > > that the liberated energy is equivalent to the mass of said object being > > > annihilated. > > > > You forgot the metal fragments. An energy release on the order you claim > > would leave nothing. > > > > Proof? Do you know what the DS1 was constructed of? Did you consider the > possibilty that some 80 Km away from the source of the explosion (the > surface) there would be the chance that pieces would fragment and be > propelled away at great velocities rather than be immolated? > What was your figure? 1e42 joules? That's supernova-land, buddy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 03:35:09 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:mvtY8.92785$iB1.5303393@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:agtiu1$o7oa7$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > Once mroe, in as simple terms as I can get it, you assume without > proof > > > that > > > > the liberated energy is equivalent only to the energy that would be > > > > liberated by a normal small sun through fusion whereas I assume, > without > > > > proof (but with acknowledgement as to the energy requirements of the > DS) > > > > that the liberated energy is equivalent to the mass of said object > being > > > > annihilated. > > > > > > You forgot the metal fragments. An energy release on the order you > claim > > > would leave nothing. > > > > > > > Proof? Do you know what the DS1 was constructed of? Did you consider the > > possibilty that some 80 Km away from the source of the explosion (the > > surface) there would be the chance that pieces would fragment and be > > propelled away at great velocities rather than be immolated? > > > > What was your figure? 1e42 joules? That's supernova-land, buddy. > Your point? -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:53:25 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ah0ic0$ov4jv$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:mvtY8.92785$iB1.5303393@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:agtiu1$o7oa7$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > Once mroe, in as simple terms as I can get it, you assume without > > proof > > > > that > > > > > the liberated energy is equivalent only to the energy that would be > > > > > liberated by a normal small sun through fusion whereas I assume, > > without > > > > > proof (but with acknowledgement as to the energy requirements of the > > DS) > > > > > that the liberated energy is equivalent to the mass of said object > > being > > > > > annihilated. > > > > > > > > You forgot the metal fragments. An energy release on the order you > > claim > > > > would leave nothing. > > > > > > > > > > Proof? Do you know what the DS1 was constructed of? Did you consider the > > > possibilty that some 80 Km away from the source of the explosion (the > > > surface) there would be the chance that pieces would fragment and be > > > propelled away at great velocities rather than be immolated? > > > > > > > What was your figure? 1e42 joules? That's supernova-land, buddy. > > > > > Your point? > Oh, gee, I don't know... maybe that a supernova-strength blast should have made as many metal fragments as it would flying pigs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 20:44:49 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:p2SY8.225591$vq.12074464@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:ah0ic0$ov4jv$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:mvtY8.92785$iB1.5303393@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > news:agtiu1$o7oa7$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > Once mroe, in as simple terms as I can get it, you assume without > > > proof > > > > > that > > > > > > the liberated energy is equivalent only to the energy that would > be > > > > > > liberated by a normal small sun through fusion whereas I assume, > > > without > > > > > > proof (but with acknowledgement as to the energy requirements of > the > > > DS) > > > > > > that the liberated energy is equivalent to the mass of said object > > > being > > > > > > annihilated. > > > > > > > > > > You forgot the metal fragments. An energy release on the order you > > > claim > > > > > would leave nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Proof? Do you know what the DS1 was constructed of? Did you consider > the > > > > possibilty that some 80 Km away from the source of the explosion (the > > > > surface) there would be the chance that pieces would fragment and be > > > > propelled away at great velocities rather than be immolated? > > > > > > > > > > What was your figure? 1e42 joules? That's supernova-land, buddy. > > > > > > > > > Your point? > > > > Oh, gee, I don't know... maybe that a supernova-strength blast should have > made as many metal fragments as it would flying pigs. > You do realize that tiny atoms of metal would be fragments right? You do realize that even a supernova isn't going to fuse more than a few of the heavier metals involved in battle station construction which means LOTS of left over metal atoms all of which can be considered fragments. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 22:12:01 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ah2ems$pgaja$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > You do realize that tiny atoms of metal would be fragments right? You do > realize that even a supernova isn't going to fuse more than a few of the > heavier metals involved in battle station construction which means LOTS of > left over metal atoms all of which can be considered fragments. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=fragment http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=particle http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=atom ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 02:14:23 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:RYlZ8.151943$Bt1.8092476@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:ah2ems$pgaja$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > You do realize that tiny atoms of metal would be fragments right? You do > > realize that even a supernova isn't going to fuse more than a few of the > > heavier metals involved in battle station construction which means LOTS of > > left over metal atoms all of which can be considered fragments. > > http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=fragment > > http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=particle > > http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=atom > Hmmm "a small part broken off or detached." Why an atom, or many atoms, which were once part of a massive metallic structure but are now free floating could be considered fragments as they are small (microscopic even) and they are detached (from each other largely). -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:25:36 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:agfvuo$ldees$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:1gwW8.636535$%y.39569013@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:agdl62$l6i6n$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:iAeW8.333346$_j6.15923689@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are going to prove that right? > > > > > > > > > > > > That's like asking me to prove the sky is blue. > > > > > > > > > > Concession accepted. > > > > > > > > Sure, that's fine. Just so long as you understand what's going on: > > > > > > > > > The rings in and of themselves are a complete unknown. We've never > > applied > > > 1e38 J to a planet before so we don't know what would happen, can you > > prove > > > that inputing 1e38 J would NOT create those rings? > > > > You're claiming it does. Physics disagrees. If you would care to do the > > calculations which disprove physics, I'm all ears. > > Perhaps I need to re explain the overall thing here...we have several knowns > and one unknown. > 1) We know the energy state before the DS beam was fired (we can call it 0) > 2) We know the energy state afterwards ( >1e38J) > 3) We know that the DS superlaser (a high energy laser/plasma weapon) was > fired at the planet which then detonated. Bingo, problem. Assumption of superlaser composition, which leads to ... : > 4) The end state includes these unknown rings Voila, problem with canon. A high energy laser or plasma weapon is not going to cause a planet to emit rings along her equatorial plane, especially if the weapon was not fired parallel or perpendicular to it. > We surmise that 1) The DS input energy into the system > If our surmise is correct then the DS, through some means, must add at least > 1e38 J to the planetary system > If your surmise is correct the DS must also produce the rings as a result of > its use > > Now point to me where the rings will reduce the difference in end and > beginning energy states. Show me how the rings prove that the DS did not add > the ernergy to the system/ In other words we have a satisfactory explanation > (the DS inputs the energy and has some unknown side effect as a result of > its particular style of firing which is remarkably similair to what happens > when you blow up a hypermatter reactor) The rings only appear near superlasers. Depending on who you ask, Death Stars use simple fusion or hypermatter in the non-canon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:06:26 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:AWMW8.15051$Bt1.706798@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:agfvuo$ldees$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:1gwW8.636535$%y.39569013@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > news:agdl62$l6i6n$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > news:iAeW8.333346$_j6.15923689@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are going to prove that right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's like asking me to prove the sky is blue. > > > > > > > > > > > > Concession accepted. > > > > > > > > > > Sure, that's fine. Just so long as you understand what's going on: > > > > > > > > > > > > The rings in and of themselves are a complete unknown. We've never > > > applied > > > > 1e38 J to a planet before so we don't know what would happen, can you > > > prove > > > > that inputing 1e38 J would NOT create those rings? > > > > > > You're claiming it does. Physics disagrees. If you would care to do > the > > > calculations which disprove physics, I'm all ears. > > > > Perhaps I need to re explain the overall thing here...we have several > knowns > > and one unknown. > > 1) We know the energy state before the DS beam was fired (we can call it > 0) > > 2) We know the energy state afterwards ( >1e38J) > > 3) We know that the DS superlaser (a high energy laser/plasma weapon) was > > fired at the planet which then detonated. > > Bingo, problem. Assumption of superlaser composition, which leads to ... : > > > 4) The end state includes these unknown rings > > Voila, problem with canon. A high energy laser or plasma weapon is not > going to cause a planet to emit rings along her equatorial plane, especially > if the weapon was not fired parallel or perpendicular to it. Do you have proof of this? Have you experimented to determine otherwise? Have you ever attempted to figure out what might happen if you injected a huge volume of paslam and burst it directly at a planetary core? Have you considered that it might align itself with the planet's magnetic field? Plasma is highly ionized after all and personally I wouldn't be suprised if a large volume of plasma injected into the core of a planet didn't suddenly align itself with the planet's magnetic field. > > We surmise that 1) The DS input energy into the system > > If our surmise is correct then the DS, through some means, must add at > least > > 1e38 J to the planetary system > > If your surmise is correct the DS must also produce the rings as a result > of > > its use > > > > Now point to me where the rings will reduce the difference in end and > > beginning energy states. Show me how the rings prove that the DS did not > add > > the ernergy to the system/ In other words we have a satisfactory > explanation > > (the DS inputs the energy and has some unknown side effect as a result of > > its particular style of firing which is remarkably similair to what > happens > > when you blow up a hypermatter reactor) > > The rings only appear near superlasers. Depending on who you ask, Death > Stars use simple fusion or hypermatter in the non-canon. > Quote that proves your "simple fusion" is Nuclear Fusion? There are MANY types of fusion. Main Entry: fu·sion Pronunciation: 'fyü-zh&n Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Latin fusion-, fusio, from fundere Date: 1555 1 : the act or process of liquefying or rendering plastic by heat 2 : a union by or as if by melting: as a : a merging of diverse, distinct, or separate elements into a unified whole b : a political partnership : COALITION c : popular music combining different styles (as jazz and rock) 3 : the union of atomic nuclei to form heavier nuclei resulting in the release of enormous quantities of energy when certain light elements unite Here's the funny thing a M/AM reactor is actually a type of fusion reaction (it fuses a piece of matter and anti-matter). Now back to the point you keep dodging. The energy state of Alderaan increasd a minimum of 1e38J. That is indisputable. Once again the CHANGE IN ENERGY STATE equals 1e38J or more. Something must be responsible for this change. We claim it is the Death Star. Provide a counter claim which better explains the facts or shut up. Main Entry: fu·sion Pronunciation: 'fyü-zh&n Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Latin fusion-, fusio, from fundere Date: 1555 1 : the act or process of liquefying or rendering plastic by heat 2 : a union by or as if by melting: as a : a merging of diverse, distinct, or separate elements into a unified whole b : a political partnership : COALITION c : popular music combining different styles (as jazz and rock) 3 : the union of atomic nuclei to form heavier nuclei resulting in the release of enormous quantities of energy when certain light elements unite ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 07:13:15 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:aggitt$ljgoe$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:AWMW8.15051$Bt1.706798@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:agfvuo$ldees$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:1gwW8.636535$%y.39569013@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > > news:agdl62$l6i6n$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > > news:iAeW8.333346$_j6.15923689@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are going to prove that right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's like asking me to prove the sky is blue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Concession accepted. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, that's fine. Just so long as you understand what's going > on: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The rings in and of themselves are a complete unknown. We've never > > > > applied > > > > > 1e38 J to a planet before so we don't know what would happen, can > you > > > > prove > > > > > that inputing 1e38 J would NOT create those rings? > > > > > > > > You're claiming it does. Physics disagrees. If you would care to do > > the > > > > calculations which disprove physics, I'm all ears. > > > > > > Perhaps I need to re explain the overall thing here...we have several > > knowns > > > and one unknown. > > > 1) We know the energy state before the DS beam was fired (we can call it > > 0) > > > 2) We know the energy state afterwards ( >1e38J) > > > 3) We know that the DS superlaser (a high energy laser/plasma weapon) > was > > > fired at the planet which then detonated. > > > > Bingo, problem. Assumption of superlaser composition, which leads to ... > : > > > > > 4) The end state includes these unknown rings > > > > Voila, problem with canon. A high energy laser or plasma weapon is not > > going to cause a planet to emit rings along her equatorial plane, > especially > > if the weapon was not fired parallel or perpendicular to it. > > Do you have proof of this? Have you experimented to determine otherwise? It's physics. Common sense helps, too, even though I realize how uncommon it is around here. > Have you ever attempted to figure out what might happen if you injected a > huge volume of paslam and burst it directly at a planetary core? Have you > considered that it might align itself with the planet's magnetic field? I don't think you understand. Firing plasma into something like that will operate according to the physical laws. You will not magically develop not one, but two rings traveling at significant fractions of sublight. This would require some sort of magnetic acceleration, and with the second ring, it would only serve to support the Genesis Effect observations. > Plasma is highly ionized after all and personally I wouldn't be suprised if > a large volume of plasma injected into the core of a planet didn't suddenly > align itself with the planet's magnetic field. And appear out of nowhere? Twice? The second time at .9c? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? > > > We surmise that 1) The DS input energy into the system > > > If our surmise is correct then the DS, through some means, must add at > > least > > > 1e38 J to the planetary system > > > If your surmise is correct the DS must also produce the rings as a > result > > of > > > its use > > > > > > Now point to me where the rings will reduce the difference in end and > > > beginning energy states. Show me how the rings prove that the DS did not > > add > > > the ernergy to the system/ In other words we have a satisfactory > > explanation > > > (the DS inputs the energy and has some unknown side effect as a result > of > > > its particular style of firing which is remarkably similair to what > > happens > > > when you blow up a hypermatter reactor) > > > > The rings only appear near superlasers. Depending on who you ask, Death > > Stars use simple fusion or hypermatter in the non-canon. > > > > Quote that proves your "simple fusion" is Nuclear Fusion? There are MANY > types of fusion. > > Main Entry: fu·sion > Pronunciation: 'fyü-zh&n > Function: noun > Usage: often attributive > Etymology: Latin fusion-, fusio, from fundere > Date: 1555 > 1 : the act or process of liquefying or rendering plastic by heat > 2 : a union by or as if by melting: as a : a merging of diverse, distinct, > or separate elements into a unified whole b : a political partnership : > COALITION c : popular music combining different styles (as jazz and rock) > 3 : the union of atomic nuclei to form heavier nuclei resulting in the > release of enormous quantities of energy when certain light elements unite So, they either: 1. Generated power by liquefying something. That's absurd. 2. Generated power by melting things together. Also absurd. 2a. Generated power by having a multispecies orgy. Also absurd, though potentially entertaining. 2b. Generated power by forming a Senate. Also absurd, despite the high concentrations of hot air. 3. Generated power by nuclear fusion. Well, I don't know about you, but I'm going to go with #3, though #2a is a close second. > > Here's the funny thing a M/AM reactor is actually a type of fusion reaction > (it fuses a piece of matter and anti-matter). Not according to the definition you just provided. Besides, M/AM reactions are annihilation events, not fusion. > Now back to the point you keep dodging. I'm not dodging a point. But, now that you mention dodging, when are you going to acknowledge canon events? > The energy state of Alderaan increasd a minimum of 1e38J. That is > indisputable. Once again the CHANGE IN ENERGY STATE equals 1e38J or more. > Something must be responsible for this change. We claim it is the Death > Star. Provide a counter claim which better explains the facts or shut up. I did. You have yet to provide a disproof of the hypothesis. My hypothesis is superior to begin with, because it fits all the known facts and observations, whereas yours requires that we ignore the canon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:01:44 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:f8RW8.5430$iB1.367006@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:aggitt$ljgoe$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:AWMW8.15051$Bt1.706798@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > news:agfvuo$ldees$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > news:1gwW8.636535$%y.39569013@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > > > news:agdl62$l6i6n$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > > > news:iAeW8.333346$_j6.15923689@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are going to prove that right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's like asking me to prove the sky is blue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Concession accepted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, that's fine. Just so long as you understand what's going > > on: > > > > > > > > > > 4) The end state includes these unknown rings > > > > > > Voila, problem with canon. A high energy laser or plasma weapon is not > > > going to cause a planet to emit rings along her equatorial plane, > > especially > > > if the weapon was not fired parallel or perpendicular to it. > > > > Do you have proof of this? Have you experimented to determine otherwise? > > It's physics. Common sense helps, too, even though I realize how uncommon > it is around here. > > > Have you ever attempted to figure out what might happen if you injected a > > huge volume of paslam and burst it directly at a planetary core? Have you > > considered that it might align itself with the planet's magnetic field? > > I don't think you understand. Firing plasma into something like that will > operate according to the physical laws. You will not magically develop not > one, but two rings traveling at significant fractions of sublight. This > would require some sort of magnetic acceleration, and with the second ring, > it would only serve to support the Genesis Effect observations. I claim that the initial ring is composed of plasma created by the front end of the SL beam when it strikes dead center of the planet and flak bursts. As it bursts out the plasma (high energy) from the sl beam itself sudenly is afforded a wonderfully easy escape route now liberated from its carrier beam, aligns itself to the magetic poles (either of a DS or a planet) and spreads at extremely high velocity (its high energy plasma after all). It might be absurd but do you have a better explanation? > > Plasma is highly ionized after all and personally I wouldn't be suprised > if > > a large volume of plasma injected into the core of a planet didn't > suddenly > > align itself with the planet's magnetic field. > > And appear out of nowhere? Twice? The second time at .9c? Do you have > any idea how ridiculous that is? See above, doesn't matter if it is ridiculous so long as it is the best alternative which it is. > > > > We surmise that 1) The DS input energy into the system > > > > If our surmise is correct then the DS, through some means, must add at > > > least > > > > 1e38 J to the planetary system > > > > If your surmise is correct the DS must also produce the rings as a > > result > > > of > > > > its use > > > > > > > > Now point to me where the rings will reduce the difference in end and > > > > beginning energy states. Show me how the rings prove that the DS did > not > > > add > > > > the ernergy to the system/ In other words we have a satisfactory > > > explanation > > > > (the DS inputs the energy and has some unknown side effect as a result > > of > > > > its particular style of firing which is remarkably similair to what > > > happens > > > > when you blow up a hypermatter reactor) > > > > > > The rings only appear near superlasers. Depending on who you ask, > Death > > > Stars use simple fusion or hypermatter in the non-canon. > > > > > > > Quote that proves your "simple fusion" is Nuclear Fusion? There are MANY > > types of fusion. > > > > Main Entry: fu·sion > > Pronunciation: 'fyü-zh&n > > Function: noun > > Usage: often attributive > > Etymology: Latin fusion-, fusio, from fundere > > Date: 1555 > > 1 : the act or process of liquefying or rendering plastic by heat > > 2 : a union by or as if by melting: as a : a merging of diverse, distinct, > > or separate elements into a unified whole b : a political partnership : > > COALITION c : popular music combining different styles (as jazz and rock) > > 3 : the union of atomic nuclei to form heavier nuclei resulting in the > > release of enormous quantities of energy when certain light elements unite > > So, they either: > > 1. Generated power by liquefying something. That's absurd. > 2. Generated power by melting things together. Also absurd. You missed something BIG here, namely the "as if" which indicates a comparison rather than a literal meaning. > 2a. Generated power by having a multispecies orgy. Also absurd, though > potentially entertaining. > 2b. Generated power by forming a Senate. Also absurd, despite the high > concentrations of hot air. > 3. Generated power by nuclear fusion. > > Well, I don't know about you, but I'm going to go with #3, though #2a is a > close second. > > > > Here's the funny thing a M/AM reactor is actually a type of fusion > reaction > > (it fuses a piece of matter and anti-matter). > > Not according to the definition you just provided. Besides, M/AM reactions > are annihilation events, not fusion. Annihilation occures only as a particle and antiparticle are bound together (thus they join as if melting together fufilling the definition of fusion). > > Now back to the point you keep dodging. > > I'm not dodging a point. But, now that you mention dodging, when are you > going to acknowledge canon events? > I've acknolwedge them since I saw the movie at age six. > > The energy state of Alderaan increasd a minimum of 1e38J. That is > > indisputable. Once again the CHANGE IN ENERGY STATE equals 1e38J or more. > > Something must be responsible for this change. We claim it is the Death > > Star. Provide a counter claim which better explains the facts or shut up. > > I did. You have yet to provide a disproof of the hypothesis. My hypothesis > is superior to begin with, because it fits all the known facts and > observations, whereas yours requires that we ignore the canon. Please spell out your hypothesis then because I missed it somewhere in the "you guys are wrong" rant that contained no alternative theory. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:06:02 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:agihuj$m9gnv$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:f8RW8.5430$iB1.367006@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:aggitt$ljgoe$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:AWMW8.15051$Bt1.706798@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > > news:agfvuo$ldees$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > > news:1gwW8.636535$%y.39569013@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > > > > news:agdl62$l6i6n$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > > > > news:iAeW8.333346$_j6.15923689@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are going to prove that right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's like asking me to prove the sky is blue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Concession accepted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, that's fine. Just so long as you understand what's > going > > > on: > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) The end state includes these unknown rings > > > > > > > > Voila, problem with canon. A high energy laser or plasma weapon is > not > > > > going to cause a planet to emit rings along her equatorial plane, > > > especially > > > > if the weapon was not fired parallel or perpendicular to it. > > > > > > Do you have proof of this? Have you experimented to determine otherwise? > > > > It's physics. Common sense helps, too, even though I realize how > uncommon > > it is around here. > > > > > Have you ever attempted to figure out what might happen if you injected > a > > > huge volume of paslam and burst it directly at a planetary core? Have > you > > > considered that it might align itself with the planet's magnetic field? > > > > I don't think you understand. Firing plasma into something like that will > > operate according to the physical laws. You will not magically develop > not > > one, but two rings traveling at significant fractions of sublight. This > > would require some sort of magnetic acceleration, and with the second > ring, > > it would only serve to support the Genesis Effect observations. > > I claim that the initial ring is composed of plasma created by the front > end of the SL beam when it strikes dead center of the planet and flak > bursts. As it bursts out the plasma (high energy) from the sl beam itself > sudenly is afforded a wonderfully easy escape route now liberated from its > carrier beam, aligns itself to the magetic poles (either of a DS or a > planet) and spreads at extremely high velocity (its high energy plasma after > all). It might be absurd but do you have a better explanation? Yes, I do, because the flak burst idea does not make any sense. You're suggesting that flak burst began a planar ring moving at .3 lightspeed which does not begin on the surface of the planet, meaning that the flak burst had to magically create the ring right through the material of the planet without the matter of the flak burst actually making the trip through the material. The fact that no flak burst has done this or anything similar before should've been your first clue. Then, magically, it has to do this _a second time_, with the second ring larger and faster than the first. > > > Here's the funny thing a M/AM reactor is actually a type of fusion > > reaction > > > (it fuses a piece of matter and anti-matter). > > > > Not according to the definition you just provided. Besides, M/AM > reactions > > are annihilation events, not fusion. > > Annihilation occures only as a particle and antiparticle are bound together > (thus they join as if melting together fufilling the definition of fusion). Wow. Quick, call the physicists, they've been wrong all these years. > > > Now back to the point you keep dodging. > > > > I'm not dodging a point. But, now that you mention dodging, when are you > > going to acknowledge canon events? > > > > I've acknolwedge them since I saw the movie at age six. Unless you're only a few years older than six, we're talking about the Special Edition. That's the canon. > > > The energy state of Alderaan increasd a minimum of 1e38J. That is > > > indisputable. Once again the CHANGE IN ENERGY STATE equals 1e38J or > more. > > > Something must be responsible for this change. We claim it is the Death > > > Star. Provide a counter claim which better explains the facts or shut > up. > > > > I did. You have yet to provide a disproof of the hypothesis. My > hypothesis > > is superior to begin with, because it fits all the known facts and > > observations, whereas yours requires that we ignore the canon. > > > Please spell out your hypothesis then because I missed it somewhere in the > "you guys are wrong" rant that contained no alternative theory. Message is dated 7-9 at 12:03pm. You have responded to the same subthread in which the message is contained. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 02:39:43 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:u7aX8.135116$vq.7004846@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:agihuj$m9gnv$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:f8RW8.5430$iB1.367006@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > news:aggitt$ljgoe$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > news:AWMW8.15051$Bt1.706798@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think you understand. Firing plasma into something like that > will > > > operate according to the physical laws. You will not magically develop > > not > > > one, but two rings traveling at significant fractions of sublight. > This > > > would require some sort of magnetic acceleration, and with the second > > ring, > > > it would only serve to support the Genesis Effect observations. > > > > I claim that the initial ring is composed of plasma created by the front > > end of the SL beam when it strikes dead center of the planet and flak > > bursts. As it bursts out the plasma (high energy) from the sl beam itself > > sudenly is afforded a wonderfully easy escape route now liberated from its > > carrier beam, aligns itself to the magetic poles (either of a DS or a > > planet) and spreads at extremely high velocity (its high energy plasma > after > > all). It might be absurd but do you have a better explanation? > > > Yes, I do, because the flak burst idea does not make any sense. You're > suggesting that flak burst began a planar ring moving at .3 lightspeed which > does not begin on the surface of the planet, meaning that the flak burst had > to magically create the ring right through the material of the planet > without the matter of the flak burst actually making the trip through the > material. The fact that no flak burst has done this or anything similar > before should've been your first clue. Then, magically, it has to do this > _a second time_, with the second ring larger and faster than the first. You have my mechanism wrong. Step 1) Ionize the upper atmosphere with huge input of energy to form the initial ring along with impetus energy and additional plasma from teh visible porion of the SL beam. The detonation of the flak burst should (if anything like nuclear detonations) create an extreme EM pulse which (upon hitting the ionized gasses already aligned magnetically either by the planet or its shield) will begin propelling them outwards. Step 2) As the detonation has occurred and as the planet disassociates the remainder of the SL beam (along with plasma like pieces of the core) are propelled outwards through the rapidly expanding debris following the same orientation as ring 1 but at a greater velocity. Alternatively I could suggest that the SL acts as a giant flak detonating Seismic Charge which has similair ring formation capacity without any evidence of special normal-physics violating chain reactions neccessary. > > > > Here's the funny thing a M/AM reactor is actually a type of fusion > > > reaction > > > > (it fuses a piece of matter and anti-matter). > > > > > > Not according to the definition you just provided. Besides, M/AM > > reactions > > > are annihilation events, not fusion. > > > > Annihilation occures only as a particle and antiparticle are bound > together > > (thus they join as if melting together fufilling the definition of > fusion). > > Wow. Quick, call the physicists, they've been wrong all these years. Alternatively they use simple definitions when talking to the general public while those who actually can learn things realize there is a deeper level where the common public definitions are no longer completely accurate. This also would remind us why they refer to Nuclear Fusion as a whole name rather than short handing it to Fusion. > > > > Now back to the point you keep dodging. > > > > > > I'm not dodging a point. But, now that you mention dodging, when are > you > > > going to acknowledge canon events? > > > > > > > I've acknolwedge them since I saw the movie at age six. > > Unless you're only a few years older than six, we're talking about the > Special Edition. That's the canon. You missed my point entirely. > > > > The energy state of Alderaan increasd a minimum of 1e38J. That is > > > > indisputable. Once again the CHANGE IN ENERGY STATE equals 1e38J or > > more. > > > > Something must be responsible for this change. We claim it is the > Death > > > > Star. Provide a counter claim which better explains the facts or shut > > up. > > > > > > I did. You have yet to provide a disproof of the hypothesis. My > > hypothesis > > > is superior to begin with, because it fits all the known facts and > > > observations, whereas yours requires that we ignore the canon. > > > > > > Please spell out your hypothesis then because I missed it somewhere in the > > "you guys are wrong" rant that contained no alternative theory. > > Message is dated 7-9 at 12:03pm. You have responded to the same subthread > in which the message is contained. > Which doesn't mean I've noticed that particular bit . How about you just give me the Message ID so I can find it instead of being all cryptic. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 06:22:25 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:agltk1$mdo9h$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:u7aX8.135116$vq.7004846@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:agihuj$m9gnv$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:f8RW8.5430$iB1.367006@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > > news:aggitt$ljgoe$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > > news:AWMW8.15051$Bt1.706798@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think you understand. Firing plasma into something like that > > will > > > > operate according to the physical laws. You will not magically > develop > > > not > > > > one, but two rings traveling at significant fractions of sublight. > > This > > > > would require some sort of magnetic acceleration, and with the second > > > ring, > > > > it would only serve to support the Genesis Effect observations. > > > > > > I claim that the initial ring is composed of plasma created by the > front > > > end of the SL beam when it strikes dead center of the planet and flak > > > bursts. As it bursts out the plasma (high energy) from the sl beam > itself > > > sudenly is afforded a wonderfully easy escape route now liberated from > its > > > carrier beam, aligns itself to the magetic poles (either of a DS or a > > > planet) and spreads at extremely high velocity (its high energy plasma > > after > > > all). It might be absurd but do you have a better explanation? > > > > > > Yes, I do, because the flak burst idea does not make any sense. You're > > suggesting that flak burst began a planar ring moving at .3 lightspeed > which > > does not begin on the surface of the planet, meaning that the flak burst > had > > to magically create the ring right through the material of the planet > > without the matter of the flak burst actually making the trip through the > > material. The fact that no flak burst has done this or anything similar > > before should've been your first clue. Then, magically, it has to do > this > > _a second time_, with the second ring larger and faster than the first. > > > You have my mechanism wrong. > > Step 1) Ionize the upper atmosphere with huge input of energy to form the > initial ring along with impetus energy and additional plasma from teh > visible porion of the SL beam. Ionizing the atmosphere won't make a ring, and we don't see any atmospheric effects away from the superlaser target area. Also, the Death Stars didn't seem to have an atmosphere to ionize. >The detonation of the flak burst should (if > anything like nuclear detonations) create an extreme EM pulse which (upon > hitting the ionized gasses already aligned magnetically either by the planet > or its shield) will begin propelling them outwards. I don't think an electromagnetic pulse would be able to travel through the mass of the planet to propel the ring. > > > > > Here's the funny thing a M/AM reactor is actually a type of fusion > > > > reaction > > > > > (it fuses a piece of matter and anti-matter). > > > > > > > > Not according to the definition you just provided. Besides, M/AM > > > reactions > > > > are annihilation events, not fusion. > > > > > > Annihilation occures only as a particle and antiparticle are bound > > together > > > (thus they join as if melting together fufilling the definition of > > fusion). > > > > Wow. Quick, call the physicists, they've been wrong all these years. > > Alternatively they use simple definitions when talking to the general public > while those who actually can learn things realize there is a deeper level > where the common public definitions are no longer completely accurate. They call it annihilation to each other. Is it part of a big secret conspiracy to hide the truth? > This also would remind us why they refer to Nuclear Fusion as a whole name > rather than short handing it to Fusion. They do short-hand it to fusion. Nobody really refers to melting as fusion anymore, especially in situations where there could be confusion (no pun intended). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 13:58:51 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:agltk1$mdo9h$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > evidence of special normal-physics violating chain reactions neccessary. Some people have been parroting Mike Wong's line to me about how all chain reactions are material-dependent, as in nuclear chain reactions and more common ones. For the most part, it is true. All the chain reactions we know and love are based on common baryons... the protons and neutrons we're familiar with... and particular combinations of these into elements and molecules. Well, that's fine, but that is placing a blanket statement on all possible chain reactions, including those using particles and particle physics we're only now starting to learn. For example: The only "odd" chain reaction I'm familiar with was the one that caused the big stir when the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider was due to come online at Brookhaven. It is called the "Ice-9 Type Transition". Some physicists were nervous that the RHIC would end up doing more than creating quark-gluon plasma. They were concerned that it would end up creating a negatively-charged strangelet (a particle with three quarks like usual, but two of them strange), which would 'eat' all the nuclei of Earth, turning them into other strangelets. The problem would be that all these similar-charged strangelets would have repelled one another Naturally, this hasn't happened. As luck would have it, the worst that might have happened would be a positively-charged strangelet being created that lasts long enough to snatch electrons from some innocent nearby atom. But, in any case, there is precedent for the idea of a funky, non-material-dependent chain reaction in real physics. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 14 Jul 2002 16:23:09 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020714122309.01988.00000449@mb-md.aol.com> -------- >"Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message >news:agltk1$mdo9h$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... >> evidence of special normal-physics violating chain reactions neccessary. > > >Some people have been parroting Mike Wong's line to me about how all chain >reactions are material-dependent, as in nuclear chain reactions and more >common ones. > >For the most part, it is true. All the chain reactions we know and love are >based on common baryons... the protons and neutrons we're familiar with... >and particular combinations of these into elements and molecules. > >Well, that's fine, but that is placing a blanket statement on all possible >chain reactions, including those using particles and particle physics we're >only now starting to learn. For example: > >The only "odd" chain reaction I'm familiar with was the one that caused the >big stir when the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider was due to come online at >Brookhaven. It is called the "Ice-9 Type Transition". Some physicists were >nervous that the RHIC would end up doing more than creating quark-gluon >plasma. They were concerned that it would end up creating a >negatively-charged strangelet (a particle with three quarks like usual, but >two of them strange), which would 'eat' all the nuclei of Earth, turning >them into other strangelets. The problem would be that all these >similar-charged strangelets would have repelled one another > >Naturally, this hasn't happened. As luck would have it, the worst that might >have happened would be a positively-charged strangelet being created that >lasts long enough to snatch electrons from some innocent nearby atom. But, >in any case, there is precedent for the idea of a funky, >non-material-dependent chain reaction in real physics. > The exception to the rule does not prove the rule wrong, you miscreant. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:15:23 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <%cjY8.84656$iB1.4729539@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020714122309.01988.00000449@mb-md.aol.com... > >"Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > >news:agltk1$mdo9h$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > >> evidence of special normal-physics violating chain reactions neccessary. > > > > > >Some people have been parroting Mike Wong's line to me about how all chain > >reactions are material-dependent, as in nuclear chain reactions and more > >common ones. > > > >For the most part, it is true. All the chain reactions we know and love are > >based on common baryons... the protons and neutrons we're familiar with... > >and particular combinations of these into elements and molecules. > > > >Well, that's fine, but that is placing a blanket statement on all possible > >chain reactions, including those using particles and particle physics we're > >only now starting to learn. For example: > > > >The only "odd" chain reaction I'm familiar with was the one that caused the > >big stir when the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider was due to come online at > >Brookhaven. It is called the "Ice-9 Type Transition". Some physicists were > >nervous that the RHIC would end up doing more than creating quark-gluon > >plasma. They were concerned that it would end up creating a > >negatively-charged strangelet (a particle with three quarks like usual, but > >two of them strange), which would 'eat' all the nuclei of Earth, turning > >them into other strangelets. The problem would be that all these > >similar-charged strangelets would have repelled one another > > > >Naturally, this hasn't happened. As luck would have it, the worst that might > >have happened would be a positively-charged strangelet being created that > >lasts long enough to snatch electrons from some innocent nearby atom. But, > >in any case, there is precedent for the idea of a funky, > >non-material-dependent chain reaction in real physics. > > > > The exception to the rule does not prove the rule wrong, you miscreant. No, it proves Wong's blanket concept of material dependency to be wrong. He's the only one who thought it was a rule. Well, except for his disciples, who naturally agreed with him. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:01:52 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:%cjY8.84656$iB1.4729539@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Sir Nitram" wrote in message > news:20020714122309.01988.00000449@mb-md.aol.com... > > >"Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > >news:agltk1$mdo9h$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > >> evidence of special normal-physics violating chain reactions > neccessary. > > > > > > > > >Some people have been parroting Mike Wong's line to me about how all > chain > > >reactions are material-dependent, as in nuclear chain reactions and more > > >common ones. > > > > > >For the most part, it is true. All the chain reactions we know and love > are > > >based on common baryons... the protons and neutrons we're familiar > with... > > >and particular combinations of these into elements and molecules. > > > > > >Well, that's fine, but that is placing a blanket statement on all > possible > > >chain reactions, including those using particles and particle physics > we're > > >only now starting to learn. For example: > > > > > >The only "odd" chain reaction I'm familiar with was the one that caused > the > > >big stir when the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider was due to come online > at > > >Brookhaven. It is called the "Ice-9 Type Transition". Some physicists > were > > >nervous that the RHIC would end up doing more than creating quark-gluon > > >plasma. They were concerned that it would end up creating a > > >negatively-charged strangelet (a particle with three quarks like usual, > but > > >two of them strange), which would 'eat' all the nuclei of Earth, turning > > >them into other strangelets. The problem would be that all these > > >similar-charged strangelets would have repelled one another > > > > > >Naturally, this hasn't happened. As luck would have it, the worst that > might > > >have happened would be a positively-charged strangelet being created that > > >lasts long enough to snatch electrons from some innocent nearby atom. > But, > > >in any case, there is precedent for the idea of a funky, > > >non-material-dependent chain reaction in real physics. > > > > > > > The exception to the rule does not prove the rule wrong, you miscreant. > > No, it proves Wong's blanket concept of material dependency to be wrong. > He's the only one who thought it was a rule. Well, except for his > disciples, who naturally agreed with him. > I'd once again repeat that the above is a theory with, as yet, no experimental proof. Call me crazy but that just don't quite cut it for me yet. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:59:49 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:vsfY8.99287$iX5.4483363@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:agltk1$mdo9h$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > evidence of special normal-physics violating chain reactions neccessary. > > Naturally, this hasn't happened. As luck would have it, the worst that might > have happened would be a positively-charged strangelet being created that > lasts long enough to snatch electrons from some innocent nearby atom. But, > in any case, there is precedent for the idea of a funky, > non-material-dependent chain reaction in real physics. > There is ONE case where there is no experimental proof only theoretical hypothesizing. To apply such a small event to such a large scale event such as Alderaan requires an extreme leap of imagination no greater than the one which states that you have no counter proof to the simple statement that adding so much energy to a plentary system woudl produce such a ring. In other words provide me proof that it won't happen either theoretical (in which case you have no counter better than theorectical and we're left at stalemate) or experimental (which you can't because the only masive EM/KE hypbrid weapon action against a planet we've ever seen is at Alderaan). -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 01:58:37 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:agsvpl$ogoku$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:vsfY8.99287$iX5.4483363@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:agltk1$mdo9h$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > evidence of special normal-physics violating chain reactions neccessary. > > > > Naturally, this hasn't happened. As luck would have it, the worst that > might > > have happened would be a positively-charged strangelet being created that > > lasts long enough to snatch electrons from some innocent nearby atom. But, > > in any case, there is precedent for the idea of a funky, > > non-material-dependent chain reaction in real physics. > > > > There is ONE case where there is no experimental proof only theoretical > hypothesizing. To apply such a small event to such a large scale event such > as Alderaan requires an extreme leap of imagination no greater than the one > which states that you have no counter proof to the simple statement that > adding so much energy to a plentary system woudl produce such a ring. In Small event? Dude, they were talking about the end of life on Earth. As for other chain reactions, check out atom lasers. They are somewhat material dependent, but really all you need is a Bose-Einstein Condensate, where atoms are in a single quantum state. You can get nice chain reactions out of those. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 15 Jul 2002 02:01:54 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020714220154.03009.00000811@mb-cg.aol.com> -------- >"Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message >news:agsvpl$ogoku$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... >> "DarkStar" wrote in message >> news:vsfY8.99287$iX5.4483363@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> > >> > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message >> > news:agltk1$mdo9h$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... >> > > evidence of special normal-physics violating chain reactions >neccessary. >> > >> > Naturally, this hasn't happened. As luck would have it, the worst that >> might >> > have happened would be a positively-charged strangelet being created >that >> > lasts long enough to snatch electrons from some innocent nearby atom. >But, >> > in any case, there is precedent for the idea of a funky, >> > non-material-dependent chain reaction in real physics. >> > >> >> There is ONE case where there is no experimental proof only theoretical >> hypothesizing. To apply such a small event to such a large scale event >such >> as Alderaan requires an extreme leap of imagination no greater than the >one >> which states that you have no counter proof to the simple statement that >> adding so much energy to a plentary system woudl produce such a ring. In > >Small event? Dude, they were talking about the end of life on Earth. > >As for other chain reactions, check out atom lasers. They are somewhat >material dependent, but really all you need is a Bose-Einstein Condensate, >where atoms are in a single quantum state. You can get nice chain reactions >out of those. > Wow, there's a good solid reason for Alderaan to explode... Not. A Bose-Einstein Condensate is about the most exotic conditions you can get, hell, you can slow down Light in that stuff. What, are you going to next claim Alderaan was swathed in such? Or just claim that because this excessively exotic condition allowed an oddity, we must allow it here? -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 05:50:18 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020714220154.03009.00000811@mb-cg.aol.com... > >"Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > >news:agsvpl$ogoku$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > >> "DarkStar" wrote in message > >> news:vsfY8.99287$iX5.4483363@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > >> > > >> > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > >> > news:agltk1$mdo9h$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > >> > > evidence of special normal-physics violating chain reactions > >neccessary. > >> > > >> > Naturally, this hasn't happened. As luck would have it, the worst that > >> might > >> > have happened would be a positively-charged strangelet being created > >that > >> > lasts long enough to snatch electrons from some innocent nearby atom. > >But, > >> > in any case, there is precedent for the idea of a funky, > >> > non-material-dependent chain reaction in real physics. > >> > > >> > >> There is ONE case where there is no experimental proof only theoretical > >> hypothesizing. To apply such a small event to such a large scale event > >such > >> as Alderaan requires an extreme leap of imagination no greater than the > >one > >> which states that you have no counter proof to the simple statement that > >> adding so much energy to a plentary system woudl produce such a ring. In > > > >Small event? Dude, they were talking about the end of life on Earth. > > > >As for other chain reactions, check out atom lasers. They are somewhat > >material dependent, but really all you need is a Bose-Einstein Condensate, > >where atoms are in a single quantum state. You can get nice chain reactions > >out of those. > > > > Wow, there's a good solid reason for Alderaan to explode... Not. A > Bose-Einstein Condensate is about the most exotic conditions you can get, hell, > you can slow down Light in that stuff. What, are you going to next claim > Alderaan was swathed in such? Or just claim that because this excessively > exotic condition allowed an oddity, we must allow it here? Examples of chain reactions not based on element/molecule material dependency were being discussed, Tweezer-boy. That means I was giving examples of a particular concept, not saying that these examples were in any way related to what we saw on Alderaan. Dumbfuck. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:06:59 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- Ignore the second appearence of the Fusion quote, it was still on my clipboard as I attempted to post my .sig. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:57:08 +1200 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:aggiut$lirto$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > snip There is something about Darkstar that reminds me of TJ..cannot quite put my finger on it though, but it could be though. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: guppyshark@sagamers.com (GuppyShark) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:30:44 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2c36ec.34180328@news.internode.on.net> -------- >> 4) The end state includes these unknown rings > >Voila, problem with canon. A high energy laser or plasma weapon is not >going to cause a planet to emit rings along her equatorial plane, especially >if the weapon was not fired parallel or perpendicular to it. Have you observed a working model? The only working model I've observed was in ANH, and it produced the rings. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 18:55:32 +1200 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- snip > > > That's like asking me to prove the sky is blue. > > > > Concession accepted. > > Sure, that's fine. Just so long as you understand what's going on: > > (DarkStar stands incredulous and dumbfounded when asked to prove the sky is > blue) > (in my best 'Fight with the Black Knight' voice:) > DS: "You've fought bravely, good knight, but the day is mine!" > SM: "Get back here! I'm not finished with you! Prove the sky is blue!" > DS: (points up) "LOOOOOK!" > SM: "Concession accepted" > (shaking my head riding my coconuts away) As I said, concession accepted. You cannot prove what the planet debris mean one way or another. > > > > Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe > > > > > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star > directly > > > > input > > > > > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. > > > > > > > > Yes you can. The planet was destroyed. > > > > > > Okay, let me rephrase. You can't claim the Death Star generated a beam > > > with an energy of 1e38J based on the destruction of the planet. > > > > Sure you can, others have done so. > > So we should all jump off the cliff? *mutter* You said you can't claim something about the DS, when you damn well can, and it has been done. The warsie's on this NG don't claim something without evidence, in this case the DS blows up planet. A minimum amount of energy is required to destroy said planet, so it would be logical to assume the DS is own its own produce enough energy to destroy a planet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 07:23:05 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:age1em$ku23p$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > snip > > > > That's like asking me to prove the sky is blue. > > > > > > Concession accepted. > > > > Sure, that's fine. Just so long as you understand what's going on: > > > > (DarkStar stands incredulous and dumbfounded when asked to prove the sky > is > > blue) > > (in my best 'Fight with the Black Knight' voice:) > > DS: "You've fought bravely, good knight, but the day is mine!" > > SM: "Get back here! I'm not finished with you! Prove the sky is blue!" > > DS: (points up) "LOOOOOK!" > > SM: "Concession accepted" > > (shaking my head riding my coconuts away) > > As I said, concession accepted. You cannot prove what the planet debris mean > one way or another. Neither can you. Do you not understand that? > > > > > > > Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe > > > > > > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star > > directly > > > > > input > > > > > > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. > > > > > > > > > > Yes you can. The planet was destroyed. > > > > > > > > Okay, let me rephrase. You can't claim the Death Star generated a > beam > > > > with an energy of 1e38J based on the destruction of the planet. > > > > > > Sure you can, others have done so. > > > > So we should all jump off the cliff? > > *mutter* You said you can't claim something about the DS, when you damn well > can, and it has been done. > The warsie's on this NG don't claim something without evidence, in this case > the DS blows up planet. A minimum amount of energy is required to destroy > said planet, so it would be logical to assume the DS is own its own produce > enough energy to destroy a planet. They also claimed Alderaan resisted the Death Star blast based on green stuff around Alderaan, but the Special Edition removed that argument, too. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 20:03:08 +1200 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:tbwW8.41372$Im2.1497001@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:age1em$ku23p$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > snip > > > > > That's like asking me to prove the sky is blue. > > > > > > > > Concession accepted. > > > > > > Sure, that's fine. Just so long as you understand what's going on: > > > > > > (DarkStar stands incredulous and dumbfounded when asked to prove the sky > > is > > > blue) > > > (in my best 'Fight with the Black Knight' voice:) > > > DS: "You've fought bravely, good knight, but the day is mine!" > > > SM: "Get back here! I'm not finished with you! Prove the sky is blue!" > > > DS: (points up) "LOOOOOK!" > > > SM: "Concession accepted" > > > (shaking my head riding my coconuts away) > > > > As I said, concession accepted. You cannot prove what the planet debris > mean > > one way or another. > > Neither can you. Do you not understand that? No I cannot say what they mean other than _the DS destroyed a planet_, which is the point. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe > > > > > > > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star > > > directly > > > > > > input > > > > > > > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes you can. The planet was destroyed. > > > > > > > > > > Okay, let me rephrase. You can't claim the Death Star generated a > > beam > > > > > with an energy of 1e38J based on the destruction of the planet. > > > > > > > > Sure you can, others have done so. > > > > > > So we should all jump off the cliff? > > > > *mutter* You said you can't claim something about the DS, when you damn > well > > can, and it has been done. > > The warsie's on this NG don't claim something without evidence, in this > case > > the DS blows up planet. A minimum amount of energy is required to destroy > > said planet, so it would be logical to assume the DS is own its own > produce > > enough energy to destroy a planet. > > They also claimed Alderaan resisted the Death Star blast based on green > stuff around Alderaan, but the Special Edition removed that argument, too. Strawman, the fact remains that the DS detroyed a planet, there is no other possible evidence to suggest that the power to do this came from any other place other than the DS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 11:12:00 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <4yzW8.637243$%y.39631973@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:age5df$l1gmk$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > The warsie's on this NG don't claim something without evidence, in this > > case > > > the DS blows up planet. A minimum amount of energy is required to > destroy > > > said planet, so it would be logical to assume the DS is own its own > > produce > > > enough energy to destroy a planet. > > > > They also claimed Alderaan resisted the Death Star blast based on green > > stuff around Alderaan, but the Special Edition removed that argument, too. > > Strawman, the fact remains that the DS detroyed a planet, there is no other > possible evidence to suggest that the power to do this came from any other > place other than the DS. I'm not saying there were a million other Death Stars hiding on the other side of the planet or anything. I'm simply saying that the claim of the Death Star generating 1e38J on its own is not supported by the canon as anything more than hazarding a guess based on an assumption of directed energy transfer, not as a firm figure. The rings suggest something other than directed energy transfer was taking place, since they could not exist as a result of directed energy transfer. If anything, it acts like the seismic charges from AoTC, whatever those were. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: majsvetlanna@aol.comspamkill (Maj Svetlanna) Date: 09 Jul 2002 11:23:16 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020709072316.07105.00002418@mb-fk.aol.com> -------- < snip > Whatever happened, _in excess_ of 1e38J had to be produced by the reactor of the Death Star and focused through its main gun to create the destruction of Alderaan that we saw. The energy could not have come from anywhere else, and that is the required energy. The precise method that the Death Star's weapon used becomes irrelevent after that point - It was a weapon with an output in excess of 1e38J. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 11:34:16 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Maj Svetlanna" wrote in message news:20020709072316.07105.00002418@mb-fk.aol.com... > > > < snip > > > Whatever happened, _in excess_ of 1e38J had to be produced by the reactor of > the Death Star and focused through its main gun to create the destruction of > Alderaan that we saw. > > The energy could not have come from anywhere else, and that is the required > energy. The precise method that the Death Star's weapon used becomes irrelevent > after that point - It was a weapon with an output in excess of 1e38J. Thank you for sharing your assumption. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 14:03:37 +0100 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- DarkStar wrote: >> Whatever happened, _in excess_ of 1e38J had to be produced by the reactor of >> the Death Star and focused through its main gun to create the destruction of >> Alderaan that we saw. >> The energy could not have come from anywhere else, and that is the required >> energy. The precise method that the Death Star's weapon used becomes >> irrelevent after that point - It was a weapon with an output in excess of >> 1e38J. >> > Thank you for sharing your assumption. Use the assumption against them. It means that S8472 ships must be able to generate at least 1e32 J to blow up a planet, giving roughly 1e31 J per ship since 9 were sued for the shot, IIRC. Voyager survived a shot from one, though the shot was of shorter duration, let's assume a minimum of 1% duration - that puts Voyager's shield strength at a minimum of 1e29 J. Bring it on ISDs :^) -- Jonathan Boyd MSN/AIM: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 17:37:37 -0700 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" > Use the assumption against them. It means that S8472 ships must be able to > generate at least 1e32 J to blow up a planet, giving roughly 1e31 J per ship > since 9 were sued for the shot, IIRC. Well Jon, that would entail pointing out that you're wrong. The 8472 ships surrounded a larger ship in the middle, which collected all the power and made it into a planet killer beam. http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:43:02 +0100 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > > "Jonathan Boyd" > >> Use the assumption against them. It means that S8472 ships must be able to >> generate at least 1e32 J to blow up a planet, giving roughly 1e31 J per > ship >> since 9 were sued for the shot, IIRC. > > Well Jon, that would entail pointing out that you're wrong. The 8472 ships > surrounded a larger ship in the middle, which collected all the power and > made it into a planet killer beam. Was it a larger ship? Anyone got a screenshot? If it generated significantly more power than the others, then It wouldn't have bothered to collect their energy, so they must be within an order of magnitude of it. -- Jonathan Boyd MSN/AIM: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 10 Jul 2002 02:15:02 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020709221502.01779.00000182@mb-fo.aol.com> -------- >Wayne Poe wrote: > >> >> "Jonathan Boyd" >> >>> Use the assumption against them. It means that S8472 ships must be able to >>> generate at least 1e32 J to blow up a planet, giving roughly 1e31 J per >> ship >>> since 9 were sued for the shot, IIRC. >> >> Well Jon, that would entail pointing out that you're wrong. The 8472 ships >> surrounded a larger ship in the middle, which collected all the power and >> made it into a planet killer beam. > >Was it a larger ship? Anyone got a screenshot? If it generated significantly >more power than the others, then It wouldn't have bothered to collect their >energy, so they must be within an order of magnitude of it. It was noticably different. I keep trying to scale the speeds of the debris, but I'm getting something wrong, because it keeps coming out below 1e32. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:26:04 +0100 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- Sir Nitram wrote: >> Wayne Poe wrote: >> >>> >>> "Jonathan Boyd" >>> >>>> Use the assumption against them. It means that S8472 ships must be able to >>>> generate at least 1e32 J to blow up a planet, giving roughly 1e31 J per >>> ship >>>> since 9 were sued for the shot, IIRC. >>> >>> Well Jon, that would entail pointing out that you're wrong. The 8472 ships >>> surrounded a larger ship in the middle, which collected all the power and >>> made it into a planet killer beam. >> >> Was it a larger ship? Anyone got a screenshot? If it generated significantly >> more power than the others, then It wouldn't have bothered to collect their >> energy, so they must be within an order of magnitude of it. > > It was noticably different. I keep trying to scale the speeds of the debris, Even if it was different, it can't be much more powerful if it still needed the other ships. > but I'm getting something wrong, because it keeps coming out below 1e32. No having Scorpion, I don't think I can help I'm afraid. -- Jonathan Boyd MSN/AIM: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 10 Jul 2002 14:58:09 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020710105809.01737.00000001@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >Sir Nitram wrote: > >>> Wayne Poe wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> "Jonathan Boyd" >>>> >>>>> Use the assumption against them. It means that S8472 ships must be able >to >>>>> generate at least 1e32 J to blow up a planet, giving roughly 1e31 J per >>>> ship >>>>> since 9 were sued for the shot, IIRC. >>>> >>>> Well Jon, that would entail pointing out that you're wrong. The 8472 >ships >>>> surrounded a larger ship in the middle, which collected all the power and >>>> made it into a planet killer beam. >>> >>> Was it a larger ship? Anyone got a screenshot? If it generated >significantly >>> more power than the others, then It wouldn't have bothered to collect >their >>> energy, so they must be within an order of magnitude of it. >> >> It was noticably different. I keep trying to scale the speeds of the >debris, > >Even if it was different, it can't be much more powerful if it still needed >the other ships. > >> but I'm getting something wrong, because it keeps coming out below 1e32. > >No having Scorpion, I don't think I can help I'm afraid. Maybe you can help find my sanity, then. It was last seen running down Main Street to catch a plane to Heathrow. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:31:18 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message news:B9514FB6.3038%jonathanboyd@mac.com... > Wayne Poe wrote: > > > > > "Jonathan Boyd" > > > >> Use the assumption against them. It means that S8472 ships must be able to > >> generate at least 1e32 J to blow up a planet, giving roughly 1e31 J per > > ship > >> since 9 were sued for the shot, IIRC. > > > > Well Jon, that would entail pointing out that you're wrong. The 8472 ships > > surrounded a larger ship in the middle, which collected all the power and > > made it into a planet killer beam. > > Was it a larger ship? Anyone got a screenshot? If it generated significantly > more power than the others, then It wouldn't have bothered to collect their > energy, so they must be within an order of magnitude of it. The central ship was the same kind of ship, but it origamied itself into a new shape. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 20:26:11 -0700 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote > > Well Jon, that would entail pointing out that you're wrong. The 8472 ships > > surrounded a larger ship in the middle, which collected all the power and > > made it into a planet killer beam. > Was it a larger ship? Yup. > Anyone got a screenshot? Mike Wong does on the planetkillers page. > If it generated significantly > more power than the others, then It wouldn't have bothered to collect their > energy, so they must be within an order of magnitude of it. Proof? How do you know the other ships weren't energizing it, or any exotic mechanism inside it? Do we know if it added any power of its own at all? There would be no need for the ships to join beams if they each had a percentage of the power needed to crack that planet open. http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: guppyshark@sagamers.com (GuppyShark) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:27:22 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2c3625.33981683@news.internode.on.net> -------- >> If it generated significantly >> more power than the others, then It wouldn't have bothered to collect >their >> energy, so they must be within an order of magnitude of it. > >Proof? How do you know the other ships weren't energizing it, or any exotic >mechanism inside it? Do we know if it added any power of its own at all? >There would be no need for the ships to join beams if they each had a >percentage of the power needed to crack that planet open. Have you considered the similarity to the smaller subbeams on the DS? Could there be some sort of bottleneck here? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:39:17 +0100 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > > "Jonathan Boyd" wrote > >>> Well Jon, that would entail pointing out that you're wrong. The 8472 ships >>> surrounded a larger ship in the middle, which collected all the power and >>> made it into a planet killer beam. >> Was it a larger ship? > Yup. Not particularly important. >> Anyone got a screenshot? > > Mike Wong does on the planetkillers page. Where is that? I can't find it in the technology section. I find amusing, given his loathing of Windows, that the technology index page only renders right in IE. >> If it generated significantly more power than the others, then It wouldn't >> have bothered to collect their energy, so they must be within an order of >> magnitude of it. > > Proof? How do you know the other ships weren't energizing it, or any exotic > mechanism inside it? Lol What have you just been arguing with the DS? Occam's razor. > Do we know if it added any power of its own at all? > There would be no need for the ships to join beams if they each had a > percentage of the power needed to crack that planet open. Unless they just want it concentrated in a single beam, like the death Star. It does after all have secondary beams that focus to create the primary one. It's exactly the same. -- Jonathan Boyd MSN/AIM: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:49:52 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2c3b50.87873400@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:39:17 +0100, Jonathan Boyd wrote: >Wayne Poe wrote: > >> >> "Jonathan Boyd" wrote >> >>>> Well Jon, that would entail pointing out that you're wrong. The 8472 ships >>>> surrounded a larger ship in the middle, which collected all the power and >>>> made it into a planet killer beam. > >>> Was it a larger ship? > >> Yup. > >Not particularly important. > >>> Anyone got a screenshot? >> >> Mike Wong does on the planetkillers page. > >Where is that? I can't find it in the technology section. I find amusing, >given his loathing of Windows, that the technology index page only renders >right in IE. I have one at http://baronlowe.tripod.com/s8472.gif but it's not particularly high quality and was more designed to show the exploding planet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 20:45:23 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message news:B9509DB9.2E25%jonathanboyd@mac.com... > DarkStar wrote: > > >> Whatever happened, _in excess_ of 1e38J had to be produced by the reactor of > >> the Death Star and focused through its main gun to create the destruction of > >> Alderaan that we saw. > > >> The energy could not have come from anywhere else, and that is the required > >> energy. The precise method that the Death Star's weapon used becomes > >> irrelevent after that point - It was a weapon with an output in excess of > >> 1e38J. > >> > > Thank you for sharing your assumption. > > Use the assumption against them. It means that S8472 ships must be able to > generate at least 1e32 J to blow up a planet, giving roughly 1e31 J per ship > since 9 were sued for the shot, IIRC. Voyager survived a shot from one, > though the shot was of shorter duration, let's assume a minimum of 1% > duration - that puts Voyager's shield strength at a minimum of 1e29 J. Bring > it on ISDs :^) > Conversely we know that Borg shields are stronger than Federation shields, we observe how much energy the cubes can take from debris impact and other energy transfer mechanisms in the S8472 planet destruciton scene and come to a conclusion that 1e29J is horribly generous. :) -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:44:17 +0100 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- Cmdrwilkens wrote: >>> Thank you for sharing your assumption. >> Use the assumption against them. It means that S8472 ships must be able to >> generate at least 1e32 J to blow up a planet, giving roughly 1e31 J per ship >> since 9 were sued for the shot, IIRC. Voyager survived a shot from one, >> though the shot was of shorter duration, let's assume a minimum of 1% >> duration - that puts Voyager's shield strength at a minimum of 1e29 J. Bring >> it on ISDs :^) > Conversely we know that Borg shields are stronger than Federation shields, > we observe how much energy the cubes can take from debris impact and other > energy transfer mechanisms in the S8472 planet destruciton scene and come to > a conclusion that 1e29J is horribly generous. :) Nonsense, we conclude that the Borg blew themselves up rather than have their paint scratched. -- Jonathan Boyd MSN/AIM: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:11:41 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message news:B9515001.3039%jonathanboyd@mac.com... > Cmdrwilkens wrote: > > >>> Thank you for sharing your assumption. > > >> Use the assumption against them. It means that S8472 ships must be able to > >> generate at least 1e32 J to blow up a planet, giving roughly 1e31 J per ship > >> since 9 were sued for the shot, IIRC. Voyager survived a shot from one, > >> though the shot was of shorter duration, let's assume a minimum of 1% > >> duration - that puts Voyager's shield strength at a minimum of 1e29 J. Bring > >> it on ISDs :^) > > > Conversely we know that Borg shields are stronger than Federation shields, > > we observe how much energy the cubes can take from debris impact and other > > energy transfer mechanisms in the S8472 planet destruciton scene and come to > > a conclusion that 1e29J is horribly generous. :) > > Nonsense, we conclude that the Borg blew themselves up rather than have > their paint scratched. > Illogical excuse, far easier to say the central ship needed a power boost and that normal S8472 weaponry is far weaker than the Planet Killer beam. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:41:47 +0100 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- Cmdrwilkens wrote: >>> Conversely we know that Borg shields are stronger than Federation shields, >>> we observe how much energy the cubes can take from debris impact and other >>> energy transfer mechanisms in the S8472 planet destruciton scene and come to >>> a conclusion that 1e29J is horribly generous. :) >> Nonsense, we conclude that the Borg blew themselves up rather than have >> their paint scratched. > Illogical excuse, I wasn't being serious. > far easier to say the central ship needed a power boost > and that normal S8472 weaponry is far weaker than the Planet Killer beam. But that would only sense if the normal ships have power generation within an order of magnitude of the larger ship. If they were any less, they wouldn't be making an appreciable difference. -- Jonathan Boyd MSN/AIM: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:02:54 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message news:B951F82B.31AC%jonathanboyd@mac.com... > Cmdrwilkens wrote: > > >>> Conversely we know that Borg shields are stronger than Federation shields, > >>> we observe how much energy the cubes can take from debris impact and other > >>> energy transfer mechanisms in the S8472 planet destruciton scene and come to > >>> a conclusion that 1e29J is horribly generous. :) > > >> Nonsense, we conclude that the Borg blew themselves up rather than have > >> their paint scratched. > > > Illogical excuse, > > I wasn't being serious. > Oh I knew that the second the thread diverted here. > > far easier to say the central ship needed a power boost > > and that normal S8472 weaponry is far weaker than the Planet Killer beam. > > But that would only sense if the normal ships have power generation within > an order of magnitude of the larger ship. If they were any less, they > wouldn't be making an appreciable difference. Unless they use the same NDF shit as the feds in which case a litle fron end power turns into a LOT of back end power. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 01:13:54 +0100 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- Cmdrwilkens wrote: >>> Illogical excuse, >> I wasn't being serious. > Oh I knew that the second the thread diverted here. You're saying I can't do serious threads :^) >>> far easier to say the central ship needed a power boost and that normal >>> S8472 weaponry is far weaker than the Planet Killer beam. >> But that would only sense if the normal ships have power generation within >> an order of magnitude of the larger ship. If they were any less, they >> wouldn't be making an appreciable difference. > Unless they use the same NDF shit as the feds in which case a litle fron end > power turns into a LOT of back end power. But the planet exploded, rather than POOCing. -- Jonathan Boyd MSN/AIM: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 01:56:17 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message news:B9528C52.3336%jonathanboyd@mac.com... > Cmdrwilkens wrote: > > >>> Illogical excuse, > > >> I wasn't being serious. > > > Oh I knew that the second the thread diverted here. > > You're saying I can't do serious threads :^) No I'm saying I knew THIS piece of THIS thread wasn't serious...but I treated it as such because I was bored. > >>> far easier to say the central ship needed a power boost and that normal > >>> S8472 weaponry is far weaker than the Planet Killer beam. > > >> But that would only sense if the normal ships have power generation within > >> an order of magnitude of the larger ship. If they were any less, they > >> wouldn't be making an appreciable difference. > > > Unless they use the same NDF shit as the feds in which case a litle fron end > > power turns into a LOT of back end power. > > But the planet exploded, rather than POOCing. > -- NDF the core, see what happens to the planet as a whole. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:44:27 +0100 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- Cmdrwilkens wrote: >>> Oh I knew that the second the thread diverted here. >> You're saying I can't do serious threads :^) > No I'm saying I knew THIS piece of THIS thread wasn't serious...but I > treated it as such because I was bored. I know the feeling. >>> Unless they use the same NDF shit as the feds in which case a litle fron end >>> power turns into a LOT of back end power. >> But the planet exploded, rather than POOCing. > NDF the core, see what happens to the planet as a whole. Collapse inwards surely, or gradually break apart, rather than violently exploding. -- Jonathan Boyd MSN/AIM: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 02:40:31 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message news:B9533C3B.3456%jonathanboyd@mac.com... > Cmdrwilkens wrote: > > >>> Oh I knew that the second the thread diverted here. > > >> You're saying I can't do serious threads :^) > > > No I'm saying I knew THIS piece of THIS thread wasn't serious...but I > > treated it as such because I was bored. > > I know the feeling. > > >>> Unless they use the same NDF shit as the feds in which case a litle fron end > >>> power turns into a LOT of back end power. > > >> But the planet exploded, rather than POOCing. > > > NDF the core, see what happens to the planet as a whole. > > Collapse inwards surely, or gradually break apart, rather than violently > exploding. > I would thik more like spin apart since it is rotating and suddenly it lost a huge source of centripetal force. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 13:42:33 +0100 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- Cmdrwilkens wrote: >>> NDF the core, see what happens to the planet as a whole. >> >> Collapse inwards surely, or gradually break apart, rather than violently >> exploding. >> > > I would thik more like spin apart since it is rotating and suddenly it lost a > huge source of centripetal force. Well, I was wanted to get across the point that we wouldn't see the violent explosion we do. -- Jonathan Boyd MSN/AIM: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:19:25 +1200 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:4yzW8.637243$%y.39631973@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:age5df$l1gmk$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > The warsie's on this NG don't claim something without evidence, in > this > > > case > > > > the DS blows up planet. A minimum amount of energy is required to > > destroy > > > > said planet, so it would be logical to assume the DS is own its own > > > produce > > > > enough energy to destroy a planet. > > > > > > They also claimed Alderaan resisted the Death Star blast based on green > > > stuff around Alderaan, but the Special Edition removed that argument, > too. > > > > Strawman, the fact remains that the DS detroyed a planet, there is no > other > > possible evidence to suggest that the power to do this came from any other > > place other than the DS. > > I'm not saying there were a million other Death Stars hiding on the other > side of the planet or anything. I'm simply saying that the claim of the > Death Star generating 1e38J on its own is not supported by the canon as > anything more than hazarding a guess based on an assumption of directed > energy transfer, not as a firm figure. A planet requires a certain amount of energy to break its own gravitational pull. In the case of Alderaan, the energy to do this comes from the DS, it _could not_ come from anywhere else, and the film shows this. The DS fires at the planet, and it is destroyed, with rubble being all that is left. That is canon, and it is indisputable. > The rings suggest something other than directed energy transfer was taking > place, since they could not exist as a result of directed energy transfer. > If anything, it acts like the seismic charges from AoTC, whatever those > were. Prove this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 20:40:32 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:agekdv$kt5kt$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > The rings suggest something other than directed energy transfer was taking > > place, since they could not exist as a result of directed energy transfer. > > If anything, it acts like the seismic charges from AoTC, whatever those > > were. > > Prove this. Fine, assume it IS a seismic charge effect. Now tell me how is a Seismic Charge Effect supposed to reduce the figure and prove that it reduced the figure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 13:36:24 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agelo6$l74o1$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:agekdv$kt5kt$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > The rings suggest something other than directed energy transfer was > taking > > > place, since they could not exist as a result of directed energy > transfer. > > > If anything, it acts like the seismic charges from AoTC, whatever > those > > > were. > > > > Prove this. > > Fine, assume it IS a seismic charge effect. Now tell me how is a Seismic > Charge Effect supposed to reduce the figure and prove that it reduced > the figure. I'm still waiting for your people to explain just what the heck a seismic charge is in the first place. Then we'll talk. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:12:37 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:sFBW8.352423$_j6.16697614@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > news:agelo6$l74o1$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > news:agekdv$kt5kt$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > The rings suggest something other than directed energy transfer was > > taking > > > > place, since they could not exist as a result of directed energy > > transfer. > > > > If anything, it acts like the seismic charges from AoTC, whatever > > those > > > > were. > > > > > > Prove this. > > > > Fine, assume it IS a seismic charge effect. Now tell me how is a Seismic > > Charge Effect supposed to reduce the figure and prove that it reduced > > the figure. > > I'm still waiting for your people to explain just what the heck a seismic > charge is in the first place. Then we'll talk. :) > We don't have to, we observe there is a weapon. We observe its effects, we determine power and energy requirements neccessary to achieve results, we conclude about the weapons power. The rest is immaterial. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:08:25 +1200 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:sFBW8.352423$_j6.16697614@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > news:agelo6$l74o1$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > news:agekdv$kt5kt$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > The rings suggest something other than directed energy transfer was > > taking > > > > place, since they could not exist as a result of directed energy > > transfer. > > > > If anything, it acts like the seismic charges from AoTC, whatever > > those > > > > were. > > > > > > Prove this. > > > > Fine, assume it IS a seismic charge effect. Now tell me how is a Seismic > > Charge Effect supposed to reduce the figure and prove that it reduced > > the figure. > > I'm still waiting for your people to explain just what the heck a seismic > charge is in the first place. Then we'll talk. :) way to avoid the issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:20:59 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:aggtjv$lrlm9$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:sFBW8.352423$_j6.16697614@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > news:agelo6$l74o1$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > > news:agekdv$kt5kt$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > The rings suggest something other than directed energy transfer was > > > taking > > > > > place, since they could not exist as a result of directed energy > > > transfer. > > > > > If anything, it acts like the seismic charges from AoTC, whatever > > > those > > > > > were. > > > > > > > > Prove this. > > > > > > Fine, assume it IS a seismic charge effect. Now tell me how is a Seismic > > > Charge Effect supposed to reduce the figure and prove that it reduced > > > the figure. > > > > I'm still waiting for your people to explain just what the heck a seismic > > charge is in the first place. Then we'll talk. :) > > way to avoid the issue. No, it isn't. There's a similarity, you asked me to assess the energies. I cannot do so, because there is no information on the energies involved. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 17:03:32 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:agekdv$kt5kt$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:4yzW8.637243$%y.39631973@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > news:age5df$l1gmk$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > The warsie's on this NG don't claim something without evidence, in > > this > > > > case > > > > > the DS blows up planet. A minimum amount of energy is required to > > > destroy > > > > > said planet, so it would be logical to assume the DS is own its own > > > > produce > > > > > enough energy to destroy a planet. > > > > > > > > They also claimed Alderaan resisted the Death Star blast based on > green > > > > stuff around Alderaan, but the Special Edition removed that argument, > > too. > > > > > > Strawman, the fact remains that the DS detroyed a planet, there is no > > other > > > possible evidence to suggest that the power to do this came from any > other > > > place other than the DS. > > > > I'm not saying there were a million other Death Stars hiding on the other > > side of the planet or anything. I'm simply saying that the claim of the > > Death Star generating 1e38J on its own is not supported by the canon as > > anything more than hazarding a guess based on an assumption of directed > > energy transfer, not as a firm figure. > > A planet requires a certain amount of energy to break its own gravitational > pull. In the case of Alderaan, the energy to do this comes from the DS, it > _could not_ come from anywhere else, and the film shows this. The DS fires > at the planet, and it is destroyed, with rubble being all that is left. That > is canon, and it is indisputable. Actually, if you watch that segment slowly in the Special Edition, the Death Star blast need only destroy part of the planet directly. About five frames after the superlaser first makes contact with the planet, a firey explosion appears to cover most of the target hemisphere. The rest of the planet (observable, in part, on the leftmost side) is fine. By the next frame, the first ring has appeared all the way around the planet, even though that left side (with atmosphere, even) still seems to be stable. (That's the last frame of the superlaser.) Assuming anyone was still alive at this point on the other side of the planet, they must've wondered what the hell was going on. The next frame shows the superlaser target point much darker, with a band of greater brightness around it that reminds me of the Genesis Effect. I'm not sure if the darkness at the target zone represents debris clouding our view, or if there's some sort of Independence Day thing going on. A couple of frames later, the band of brightness has expanded, as have the rings, and the dark patch where the superlaser hit is darker. It is only when the leftmost section of the ring almost leaves the frame that the band of brightness seems to reach the leftmost horizon of the planet. As the frames pass, this explosion dissipates as the debris flies outward. Our view of whatever might remain of the planet is obscured by the mysterious ring and the expanding debris. A few frames later, a peculiar secondary explosion begins, with a corresponding second ring appearing shortly. Judging by the propagation speed of that weird band of brightness, the edges of the band may have met on the opposite side of the planet. This secondary explosion is apparently much larger than the first, though it doesn't appear as bright (it may have on the opposite side of the planet). It appears to be centered somewhere behind the core of the planet. The second ring is also larger and much faster than the first. The secondary explosion also gives us our first observation of large debris material, appearing to come from the former location of the center of the planet, headed in the general direction the superlaser had come from. This suggests that the superlaser only directly destroyed the part of the planet facing it in those first few milliseconds, since there would be no particular reason for a higher concentration of bulk material (from the core or otherwise) to head toward the original location of the beam. It would have to be either because that area of the planet no longer existed (providing no resistance), and/or because something (the secondary explosion, produced somehow by the bands) was giving it a good shove from behind. This also serves to explain why so much of the material of the secondary explosion seemed to fly away and behind the planet, while larger pieces flew forward. The only remotely similar occurence I could think of as an analog was the Big Whack Theory of the moon's origin, involving a large body two or three times the size of Mars striking a newly formed Earth. Nova Online has a nice Quicktime simulation here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/origins2.html ... which appears to be pretty close to the computer simulations I've seen. The problem is that the Big Whack Theory doesn't help us much. After all, Earth survived. But, the simulation does show the sort of planet-wide deformation that occurred. The superlaser blast caused no such planetwide deformation whatsoever (though, to be fair, the impact event as shown in the Nova video is time-compressed. In reality, the impact and immediate after-effects occurred over a matter of hours). Instead of deformation, the area directly targeted appeared to explode, causing a peculiar luminescent band to encircle the planet while, simultaneously, a mysterious ring appeared, departing the planet at about .3 lightspeed. At a time corresponding to the band coalescing on the opposite side of the planet, a second explosion occurred, sending out a corresponding second ring, departing the planet at about .9 lightspeed. So, what does this mean? What is the "Genesis Effect" thing (or, more appropriately, the "Anti-Genesis Effect From Hell") happening with the bands? Well, it could be some sort of normal shockwave caused by the near-instantaneous destruction of a large section of the planet. However, this makes little sense, since the magnitude of the secondary explosion (and second ring) would seem to have been far greater than the magnitude of the first. For a normal shockwave to do what was done, it would have had to gather additional energy along the way somehow. And what of the rings? Most people seem willing to ignore them, but that is a nonsense approach. You just don't get high-sublight rings flying out of something like that, no matter what just happened to it. In search of the answer, I happened upon this quote, a description of how the Death Star does its work. "Luke had seen the shattered remnants of Alderaan and knew that for those in the incredible battle station that the entire moon would present simply another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion"(ANH novel, p. 178). Mass-energy conversion can take many forms, of course, from combustion to fusion to matter/antimatter reactions. However, given the observed behavior of the superlaser, this quote would seem to imply that much of the energy of the Alderaan explosion came from Alderaan itself. The exact nature of this mass-energy conversion (or perhaps 'extraction') is a mystery, but it can be seen by way the "Genesis Effect" shockwave band appears to have caused the secondary and larger explosion, and may also serve as a sufficiently exotic explanation for the presence of the high-sublight rings. Now, this does mean that I have independantly ended up in the same place as several others, insofar as I have postulated that Alderaan supplied part (or most) of the energy of her destruction. Wong would suggest that such an idea simply comes from shocked disbelief or Evil Trekkiedom, and he has attempted refutation of several similar ideas on the Myths page of StarDestroyer.Net. None of the methods he refutes are sufficient to explain the rings and band, nor does he attempt to do so. Furthermore, I have arrived at this only by watching the film frame-by-frame, and searching the canon for further details (I had not noticed the "Anti-Genesis Effect" of the bands until writing this). I'll agree with Wong on the refutation of other methods, and also add to the list of refutable ideas the notion that an antimatter beam could have done the deed... it could, possibly, but even antimatter would not have produced the observed effects. Clearly, something more exotic is going on. Clearly, it has to do directly with the superlaser, since the only other explosions which have produced similar rings have been the destruction of Death Stars which have their superlasers charged. Just to see where it leads us, let's assume that there is a chain reaction of some sort. Based on observations of the explosion resulting from the target area 'impact' of the superlaser, up until the bands and ring are well on their way, the exotic mechanism of the Death Star superlaser may have only taken over after a significant portion of the planet had been directly destroyed. I would estimate that only between 10 and 30 percent of the mass of the planet was destroyed directly in order to get the chain reaction underway. On the other hand, if the superlaser mechanism did not require an energy release on the planet to take effect, then the entire planet would have been destroyed by that mechanism. "I wonder why they weren't vaporized?" -McCoy, Star Trek VI One question that this brings up is how some sort of mass-energy conversion mechanism of the sort I am hypothesizing could have avoided reducing the entire mass of the planet to energy. There are several potential solutions, ranging from simple inefficiency to the notion that only those materials near the surface contributed. In any case, it would be helpful to estimate the amount of material left over in the vicinity of the planet. However, this is extremely difficult, given the fact that we're only left to estimate based on a diffuse cloud with some bulk matter here and there, not to mention that some of the debris exits, stage left, and out of frame. Any attempt to perform an eyeball estimate will result in a huge margin of error, but I'll hazard a guess that between ten and fifty percent of the planet's mass is no longer present after the secondary explosion starts to die down. The notion that the mass-energy conversion mechanism of the superlaser stripped the planet of mass is not new... that would be the case even in the event of a powerful laser beam. However, the way in which the Anti-Genesis Effect seemed to draw energy from the planet's surface (or layers closest to it . . . or it might even have been dealing with the mantle exclusively) has apparently not been observed before. The only peril with what I shall refer to as the Anti-Genesis Effect hypothesis is that there is no known mechanism to explain it, and more direct references do not appear in the canon (besides Luke's quote) to my knowledge. (On the other hand, the nomenclature alone makes it awfully nifty, perfectly juxtaposing the philosophies of the Federation and Empire. And, based on the end of Star Trek IV and the likely result of the Alderaan blast, the Genesis Planet broke up rather violently, whereas the Alderaan debris will likely re-coalesce.) (And while we're on the subject of protomatter devices . . . hmm . . . Genesis Device, star reignition in "Second Sight"[DS9], and it was used by the Maquis to destroy a ship, the bomb being described as an "implosive protomatter device" ("The Maquis"[DS9]). It's been far too long since I saw "Second Sight" to recall what that device going off looked like, but the Genesis wave did put out a planet(oid) encircling band in the simulation, and also gave off a hellacious plume over the surface, though this certainly isn't a ring. There might just be something to the idea, though protomatter is quite the unknown, so I won't incorporate it as part of the official hypothesis.) In any case, the Anti-Genesis Effect hypothesis serves to attempt to explain the effects observed by the superlaser strike on Alderaan, giving the idea greater weight than the directed energy transfer hypothesis, which left unknowns such as the rings and bands as ignored unknowns. It also does not ignore the fact that the superlaser simply is not a laser, which the other ideas would seem to imply (in part due to the ICS, plus the notion espoused by some non-canon works that the superlaser is a really big turbolaser, in principle). Furthermore, it allows the Death Star to more easily meet the energy requirements of blowing up a planet, a feat which would not have been possible using fusion (the "artificial sun" reference in the ANH novel, plus the fusion reference in the Star Wars Technical Journal and Star Wars Encyclopedia), or any sort of fusion-like use of hyperon particles (aka 'hypermatter'). Indeed, the actual material necessary from Alderaan assuming 100% mass-energy conversion (matter-energy equivalence) would be on the order of 1.1e21 kilograms. That would produce the often-touted 1e38 joules thought necessary to destroy Alderaan in the manner shown. A planet like Earth weighs in at 5.97e24 kilograms, giving Earth over 5,000 times the necessary matter to perform the deed. Therefore, assuming that only 10 percent of Alderaan's matter was removed by the blast, the Anti-Genesis Effect did not need to be terribly efficient at all to produce the necessary explosion energy. Whew. That was a long one. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 09 Jul 2002 17:24:43 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020709132443.10772.00006654@mb-fp.aol.com> -------- You're a fucking tool. The Death Star is stated, Canonly, to have the power to blow up a planet. It does not play tricks. It is not stated to employ anything short of sheer power. That you refuse to accept this, along with the real Lucasfilms Canon policy, and the other issues you chatter on about, is merely proof of your overwhelming idiocy. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 18:05:08 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020709132443.10772.00006654@mb-fp.aol.com... > > > You're a fucking tool. > > The Death Star is stated, Canonly, to have the power to blow up a planet. It > does not play tricks. It is not stated to employ anything short of sheer power. > That you refuse to accept this, along with the real Lucasfilms Canon policy, > and the other issues you chatter on about, is merely proof of your overwhelming > idiocy. You've taken several opportunities to engage in foolish insults, without responding to posts. This suggests you're under the mistaken impression I give a damn about your small-minded opinion. Frankly, I think little trolls like you should serve as targets in scat videos. Canon_ical_ly, the Death Star is stated to have the firepower to blow up a planet. Visually, we get to see how this is done. Guess what? It isn't directed energy transfer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 09 Jul 2002 19:16:38 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020709151638.26032.00003947@mb-mq.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20020709132443.10772.00006654@mb-fp.aol.com... >> >> >> You're a fucking tool. >> >> The Death Star is stated, Canonly, to have the power to blow up a planet. >It >> does not play tricks. It is not stated to employ anything short of sheer >power. >> That you refuse to accept this, along with the real Lucasfilms Canon >policy, >> and the other issues you chatter on about, is merely proof of your >overwhelming >> idiocy. > >You've taken several opportunities to engage in foolish insults, without >responding to posts. This suggests you're under the mistaken impression I >give a damn about your small-minded opinion. Frankly, I think little >trolls like you should serve as targets in scat videos. > Big words from such a little brain. >Canon_ical_ly, the Death Star is stated to have the firepower to blow up a >planet. Visually, we get to see how this is done. Guess what? It isn't >directed energy transfer. > Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. There, is it in your brain yet? You say it isn't DET, but you provide not a shred of evidence to support it. And just in case your neutronium-impregnanted skull didn't accept the words the first(Nine times, by now?) Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 19:34:18 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <_UGW8.357224$_j6.16891188@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020709151638.26032.00003947@mb-mq.aol.com... > >Canon_ical_ly, the Death Star is stated to have the firepower to blow up a > >planet. Visually, we get to see how this is done. Guess what? It isn't > >directed energy transfer. > > > > Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. There, is it in your brain yet? You say it isn't > DET, but you provide not a shred of evidence to support it. And just in case > your neutronium-impregnanted skull didn't accept the words the first(Nine > times, by now?) Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. 1. Lasers (the most direct form of DET) do not produce that effect at any known or theorized power level. 2. No other form of DET known or theorized will produce that effect at any known or theorized power level. 3. Planetary collisions do not produce that effect. My question to you is, what do you think does? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:36:09 +1200 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:_UGW8.357224$_j6.16891188@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Sir Nitram" wrote in message > news:20020709151638.26032.00003947@mb-mq.aol.com... > > > >Canon_ical_ly, the Death Star is stated to have the firepower to blow up > a > > >planet. Visually, we get to see how this is done. Guess what? It > isn't > > >directed energy transfer. > > > > > > > Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. There, is it in your brain yet? You say it > isn't > > DET, but you provide not a shred of evidence to support it. And just in > case > > your neutronium-impregnanted skull didn't accept the words the first(Nine > > times, by now?) Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. > > 1. Lasers (the most direct form of DET) do not produce that effect at any > known or theorized power level. The DS main weopon is not a laser. This is canon fact. > 2. No other form of DET known or theorized will produce that effect at any > known or theorized power level. It is canon fact that the DS can destroy a planet and the power to do this comes froma hypermatter reactor. Your opinion on theorise power is irrelevant next to canon. > 3. Planetary collisions do not produce that effect. Irrelivant > My question to you is, what do you think does? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:22:40 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:aggv7u$k386j$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:_UGW8.357224$_j6.16891188@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Sir Nitram" wrote in message > > news:20020709151638.26032.00003947@mb-mq.aol.com... > > > > > >Canon_ical_ly, the Death Star is stated to have the firepower to blow > up > > a > > > >planet. Visually, we get to see how this is done. Guess what? It > > isn't > > > >directed energy transfer. > > > > > > > > > > Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. There, is it in your brain yet? You say it > > isn't > > > DET, but you provide not a shred of evidence to support it. And just in > > case > > > your neutronium-impregnanted skull didn't accept the words the > first(Nine > > > times, by now?) Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. > > > > 1. Lasers (the most direct form of DET) do not produce that effect at any > > known or theorized power level. > > > The DS main weopon is not a laser. This is canon fact. That's what I'm saying. However, I assume you refer to the plasma idea, which I handle next. > > 2. No other form of DET known or theorized will produce that effect at > any > > known or theorized power level. > > It is canon fact that the DS can destroy a planet and the power to do this > comes froma hypermatter reactor. Your opinion on theorise power is > irrelevant next to canon. It is canon fact that the Death Star can destroy a planet. It is not canon fact that this comes from a hypermatter reactor. You are confusing canon with non-canon. > > 3. Planetary collisions do not produce that effect. > > Irrelivant Perhaps. > > My question to you is, what do you think does? > > No answer? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Mackey Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:43:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- snip >> It is canon fact that the DS can destroy a planet and the power to do >> this comes froma hypermatter reactor. Your opinion on theorise power >> is irrelevant next to canon. > It is canon fact that the Death Star can destroy a planet. It is not > canon fact that this comes from a hypermatter reactor. You are > confusing canon with non-canon. Regardless, the DS can, and did dstroy the planet, your opinion of what can produse this power is irrelivant, particully when you use RL concepts of what can or cannot produse such power. >> > 3. Planetary collisions do not produce that effect. >> >> Irrelivant > > Perhaps. > >> > My question to you is, what do you think does? >> > > > No answer? Sorry, I was not going to answer that, I forgot to snip it. But since you ask, I dont know what could make such rings, and neither do you, unless you have seen a planet destroyed in RL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:05:14 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:agjgfe$h3s$1@lust.ihug.co.nz... > snip > >> It is canon fact that the DS can destroy a planet and the power to do > >> this comes froma hypermatter reactor. Your opinion on theorise power > >> is irrelevant next to canon. > > > It is canon fact that the Death Star can destroy a planet. It is not > > canon fact that this comes from a hypermatter reactor. You are > > confusing canon with non-canon. > > Regardless, the DS can, and did dstroy the planet, your opinion of what can > produse this power is irrelivant, In which case, yours is too. That is why we look to the canon. > >> > My question to you is, what do you think does? > >> > > > > > No answer? > > Sorry, I was not going to answer that, I forgot to snip it. But since you > ask, I dont know what could make such rings, and neither do you, unless you > have seen a planet destroyed in RL Perhaps I don't, but I know what couldn't. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 18:26:44 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b2ad6$1@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020709132443.10772.00006654@mb-fp.aol.com... > > > You're a fucking tool. > > The Death Star is stated, Canonly, to have the power to blow up a planet. It > does not play tricks. It is not stated to employ anything short of sheer power. > That you refuse to accept this, along with the real Lucasfilms Canon policy, > and the other issues you chatter on about, is merely proof of your overwhelming > idiocy. The power to destroy a planet could easily be seen as the ability to destroy a planet - very semantics based argument there. You could have at least addressed the issues he raised or the quotes he referenced which were cannon since they are from the Film books. Could someone at least address the issues from a pro wars angle since I would like to hear arguments against because the death stars power does have huge repercussions since we have the "Half the star fleet" quote which can determine weapons power etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:32:27 +1200 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:EHEW8.354938$_j6.16788986@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:agekdv$kt5kt$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:4yzW8.637243$%y.39631973@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > > news:age5df$l1gmk$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > The warsie's on this NG don't claim something without evidence, in > > > this > > > > > case > > > > > > the DS blows up planet. A minimum amount of energy is required to > > > > destroy > > > > > > said planet, so it would be logical to assume the DS is own its > own > > > > > produce > > > > > > enough energy to destroy a planet. > > > > > > > > > > They also claimed Alderaan resisted the Death Star blast based on > > green > > > > > stuff around Alderaan, but the Special Edition removed that > argument, > > > too. > > > > > > > > Strawman, the fact remains that the DS detroyed a planet, there is no > > > other > > > > possible evidence to suggest that the power to do this came from any > > other > > > > place other than the DS. > > > > > > I'm not saying there were a million other Death Stars hiding on the > other > > > side of the planet or anything. I'm simply saying that the claim of the > > > Death Star generating 1e38J on its own is not supported by the canon as > > > anything more than hazarding a guess based on an assumption of directed > > > energy transfer, not as a firm figure. > > > > A planet requires a certain amount of energy to break its own > gravitational > > pull. In the case of Alderaan, the energy to do this comes from the DS, it > > _could not_ come from anywhere else, and the film shows this. The DS fires > > at the planet, and it is destroyed, with rubble being all that is left. > That > > is canon, and it is indisputable. > > Actually, if you watch that segment slowly in the Special Edition, the Death > Star blast need only destroy part of the planet directly. > snip I think you are grasping at straws. It is canon thsat the DS can destroy a planet by itself, and this is stated in the novel and the movie. All this nonsence about anti-genisis is nothing but long winded malarky. I watched the film again and saw no evidence to suggest that that the DS did not do all of that byitself. From what we know the DS main gun is based on TL tech, perhaps that had something to do with it, but the canon statements still stand, and you cannot get around that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:24:46 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:aggv11$laalh$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:EHEW8.354938$_j6.16788986@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > news:agekdv$kt5kt$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:4yzW8.637243$%y.39631973@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > > > news:age5df$l1gmk$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > > The warsie's on this NG don't claim something without evidence, > in > > > > this > > > > > > case > > > > > > > the DS blows up planet. A minimum amount of energy is required > to > > > > > destroy > > > > > > > said planet, so it would be logical to assume the DS is own its > > own > > > > > > produce > > > > > > > enough energy to destroy a planet. > > > > > > > > > > > > They also claimed Alderaan resisted the Death Star blast based on > > > green > > > > > > stuff around Alderaan, but the Special Edition removed that > > argument, > > > > too. > > > > > > > > > > Strawman, the fact remains that the DS detroyed a planet, there is > no > > > > other > > > > > possible evidence to suggest that the power to do this came from any > > > other > > > > > place other than the DS. > > > > > > > > I'm not saying there were a million other Death Stars hiding on the > > other > > > > side of the planet or anything. I'm simply saying that the claim of > the > > > > Death Star generating 1e38J on its own is not supported by the canon > as > > > > anything more than hazarding a guess based on an assumption of > directed > > > > energy transfer, not as a firm figure. > > > > > > A planet requires a certain amount of energy to break its own > > gravitational > > > pull. In the case of Alderaan, the energy to do this comes from the DS, > it > > > _could not_ come from anywhere else, and the film shows this. The DS > fires > > > at the planet, and it is destroyed, with rubble being all that is left. > > That > > > is canon, and it is indisputable. > > > > Actually, if you watch that segment slowly in the Special Edition, the > Death > > Star blast need only destroy part of the planet directly. > > > > snip > I think you are grasping at straws. It is canon thsat the DS can destroy a > planet by itself, and this is stated in the novel and the movie. And by my hypothesis. What's the problem? >All this > nonsence about anti-genisis is nothing but long winded malarky. I watched > the film again and saw no evidence to suggest that that the DS did not do > all of that byitself. Then you did not look at what I looked at. I pointed out precisely what I was observing, how I was doing so, and what I thought about it. > From what we know the DS main gun is based on TL tech, > perhaps that had something to do with it, but the canon statements still > stand, and you cannot get around that. My hypothesis does not attempt to evade the canon. In fact, it is the classical theory that takes the canon and tries to skirt it by ignoring the known properties of the Alderaan blast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Mackey Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:50:25 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in news:idZW8.15472$iX5.688379@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com: > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:aggv11$laalh$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... >> >> "DarkStar" wrote in message >> news:EHEW8.354938$_j6.16788986@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> > >> > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message >> > news:agekdv$kt5kt$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... >> > > >> > > "DarkStar" wrote in message >> > > news:4yzW8.637243$%y.39631973@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> > > > >> > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message >> > > > news:age5df$l1gmk$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... >> > > > >> > > > > > > The warsie's on this NG don't claim something without > evidence, >> in >> > > > this >> > > > > > case >> > > > > > > the DS blows up planet. A minimum amount of energy is >> > > > > > > required >> to >> > > > > destroy >> > > > > > > said planet, so it would be logical to assume the DS is >> > > > > > > own > its >> > own >> > > > > > produce >> > > > > > > enough energy to destroy a planet. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > They also claimed Alderaan resisted the Death Star blast >> > > > > > based > on >> > > green >> > > > > > stuff around Alderaan, but the Special Edition removed that >> > argument, >> > > > too. >> > > > > >> > > > > Strawman, the fact remains that the DS detroyed a planet, >> > > > > there is >> no >> > > > other >> > > > > possible evidence to suggest that the power to do this came >> > > > > from > any >> > > other >> > > > > place other than the DS. >> > > > >> > > > I'm not saying there were a million other Death Stars hiding on >> > > > the >> > other >> > > > side of the planet or anything. I'm simply saying that the >> > > > claim of >> the >> > > > Death Star generating 1e38J on its own is not supported by the >> > > > canon >> as >> > > > anything more than hazarding a guess based on an assumption of >> directed >> > > > energy transfer, not as a firm figure. >> > > >> > > A planet requires a certain amount of energy to break its own >> > gravitational >> > > pull. In the case of Alderaan, the energy to do this comes from >> > > the > DS, >> it >> > > _could not_ come from anywhere else, and the film shows this. The >> > > DS >> fires >> > > at the planet, and it is destroyed, with rubble being all that is > left. >> > That >> > > is canon, and it is indisputable. >> > >> > Actually, if you watch that segment slowly in the Special Edition, >> > the >> Death >> > Star blast need only destroy part of the planet directly. >> > >> >> snip >> I think you are grasping at straws. It is canon thsat the DS can >> destroy a planet by itself, and this is stated in the novel and the >> movie. > > And by my hypothesis. What's the problem? That you dont know what you are talking about. That you try to explain away the destruction of Alderaan with what is mere tomfoolery. >>All this >> nonsence about anti-genisis is nothing but long winded malarky. I >> watched the film again and saw no evidence to suggest that that the >> DS did not do all of that byitself. > > Then you did not look at what I looked at. I pointed out precisely > what I was observing, how I was doing so, and what I thought about > it. > >> From what we know the DS main gun is based on TL tech, >> perhaps that had something to do with it, but the canon statements >> still stand, and you cannot get around that. > > My hypothesis does not attempt to evade the canon. In fact, it is > the classical theory that takes the canon and tries to skirt it by > ignoring the known properties of the Alderaan blast. Or perhaps it is you that read into it more than what is actually there? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:08:42 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:agjgsf$h3s$2@lust.ihug.co.nz... > "DarkStar" wrote in > news:idZW8.15472$iX5.688379@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com: > > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > news:aggv11$laalh$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > >> > >> "DarkStar" wrote in message > >> news:EHEW8.354938$_j6.16788986@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > >> > > >> > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > >> > news:agekdv$kt5kt$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > >> > > > >> > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > >> > > news:4yzW8.637243$%y.39631973@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > >> > > > > >> > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > >> > > > news:age5df$l1gmk$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > The warsie's on this NG don't claim something without > > evidence, > >> in > >> > > > this > >> > > > > > case > >> > > > > > > the DS blows up planet. A minimum amount of energy is > >> > > > > > > required > >> to > >> > > > > destroy > >> > > > > > > said planet, so it would be logical to assume the DS is > >> > > > > > > own > > its > >> > own > >> > > > > > produce > >> > > > > > > enough energy to destroy a planet. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > They also claimed Alderaan resisted the Death Star blast > >> > > > > > based > > on > >> > > green > >> > > > > > stuff around Alderaan, but the Special Edition removed that > >> > argument, > >> > > > too. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Strawman, the fact remains that the DS detroyed a planet, > >> > > > > there is > >> no > >> > > > other > >> > > > > possible evidence to suggest that the power to do this came > >> > > > > from > > any > >> > > other > >> > > > > place other than the DS. > >> > > > > >> > > > I'm not saying there were a million other Death Stars hiding on > >> > > > the > >> > other > >> > > > side of the planet or anything. I'm simply saying that the > >> > > > claim of > >> the > >> > > > Death Star generating 1e38J on its own is not supported by the > >> > > > canon > >> as > >> > > > anything more than hazarding a guess based on an assumption of > >> directed > >> > > > energy transfer, not as a firm figure. > >> > > > >> > > A planet requires a certain amount of energy to break its own > >> > gravitational > >> > > pull. In the case of Alderaan, the energy to do this comes from > >> > > the > > DS, > >> it > >> > > _could not_ come from anywhere else, and the film shows this. The > >> > > DS > >> fires > >> > > at the planet, and it is destroyed, with rubble being all that is > > left. > >> > That > >> > > is canon, and it is indisputable. > >> > > >> > Actually, if you watch that segment slowly in the Special Edition, > >> > the > >> Death > >> > Star blast need only destroy part of the planet directly. > >> > > >> > >> snip > >> I think you are grasping at straws. It is canon thsat the DS can > >> destroy a planet by itself, and this is stated in the novel and the > >> movie. > > > > And by my hypothesis. What's the problem? > > > That you dont know what you are talking about. That you try to explain away > the destruction of Alderaan with what is mere tomfoolery. No. I really don't know what else to tell you. I have pointed out all the things on the canon film that are there, I have explained in detail why the brute-force classical theory does not explain them, and I have explained why the ad hoc ideas which try to shore up the classical theory don't work. Whenever you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 18:39:03 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:SmbW8.90529$vq.4077814@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > The rings are proof that that there wasn't a direct energy transfer, like a > laser. Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star directly input > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. No, you idiot. The rings mean that there are rings. It means there is an anamoly with unknown meaning (once I hypothesized it as a specially arranged Tarkin SFX effect to add to the splendor of his new toy as a joke to show this point). To claim anything beyond that (like reducing the power requirement) will require additional evidence that YOU DO NOT HAVE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 22:45:12 +1200 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agbq84$jk7u4$3@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:SmbW8.90529$vq.4077814@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > The rings are proof that that there wasn't a direct energy transfer, > like a > > laser. Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe > > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star directly > input > > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. > > No, you idiot. The rings mean that there are rings. It means there is an > anamoly with unknown meaning (once I hypothesized it as a specially > arranged Tarkin SFX effect to add to the splendor of his new toy as a > joke to show this point). To claim anything beyond that (like reducing > the power requirement) will require additional evidence that YOU DO NOT > HAVE. He has gone six or so osts and you have not jumped on him..busy day? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 21:25:40 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:agbqh9$kfq3t$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > He has gone six or so osts and you have not jumped on him..busy day? After a few months of constantly trying to fight Trekkies, I've finally learned that I was supposed to be here to have FUN and _enjoy_ myself, not give myself heart attacks (along with strokes and heartburn) from reading Trekkie posts. I finally figured to have a view called "Ignore plus Ignore Trekkie" in OE. Guess what that view does. It is not exactly a full killfilter, so I can read them when I feel like raising my blood pressure or something interests me by changing the Viewing Mode. But otherwise, I keep my blood pressure within safe limits and my enjoyment high :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 18:32:38 +1200 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agc41b$koj2h$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:agbqh9$kfq3t$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > He has gone six or so osts and you have not jumped on him..busy day? > > After a few months of constantly trying to fight Trekkies, I've finally > learned that I was supposed to be here to have FUN and _enjoy_ myself, > not give myself heart attacks (along with strokes and heartburn) from > reading Trekkie posts. I finally figured to have a view called "Ignore > plus Ignore Trekkie" in OE. Guess what that view does. It is not exactly > a full killfilter, so I can read them when I feel like raising my blood > pressure or something interests me by changing the Viewing Mode. But > otherwise, I keep my blood pressure within safe limits and my enjoyment > high :-) Ahhh, I do exactly the same thing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 11:25:02 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agbq84$jk7u4$3@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:SmbW8.90529$vq.4077814@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > The rings are proof that that there wasn't a direct energy transfer, > like a > > laser. Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe > > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star directly > input > > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. > > No, you idiot. The rings mean that there are rings. It means there is an > anamoly with unknown meaning (once I hypothesized it as a specially > arranged Tarkin SFX effect to add to the splendor of his new toy as a > joke to show this point). To claim anything beyond that (like reducing > the power requirement) will require additional evidence that YOU DO NOT > HAVE. I took your advice, as you should notice. I'm not claiming the rings reduce the power requirement. I'm saying there is something anomalous which makes judgements of the actual power input by the Death Star extremely unreliable. The planet might have had _the effect of a 1e38J blast_ added to it, but we don't actually know what the Death Star dished out of her... well... dish. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 08 Jul 2002 16:48:56 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020708124856.21640.00004823@mb-ba.aol.com> -------- >"Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message >news:agbq84$jk7u4$3@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... >> "DarkStar" wrote in message >> news:SmbW8.90529$vq.4077814@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> >> > The rings are proof that that there wasn't a direct energy transfer, >> like a >> > laser. Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe >> > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star directly >> input >> > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. >> >> No, you idiot. The rings mean that there are rings. It means there is an >> anamoly with unknown meaning (once I hypothesized it as a specially >> arranged Tarkin SFX effect to add to the splendor of his new toy as a >> joke to show this point). To claim anything beyond that (like reducing >> the power requirement) will require additional evidence that YOU DO NOT >> HAVE. > >I took your advice, as you should notice. I'm not claiming the rings >reduce the power requirement. I'm saying there is something anomalous which >makes judgements of the actual power input by the Death Star extremely >unreliable. The planet might have had _the effect of a 1e38J blast_ added >to it, but we don't actually know what the Death Star dished out of her... >well... dish. > Wow, you are stupid. Go learn the basics of Conservation Of Energy, then come back, asscrab. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 22:16:20 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020708124856.21640.00004823@mb-ba.aol.com... > >"Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > >news:agbq84$jk7u4$3@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > >> "DarkStar" wrote in message > >> news:SmbW8.90529$vq.4077814@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > >> > >> > The rings are proof that that there wasn't a direct energy transfer, > >> like a > >> > laser. Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe > >> > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star directly > >> input > >> > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. > >> > >> No, you idiot. The rings mean that there are rings. It means there is an > >> anamoly with unknown meaning (once I hypothesized it as a specially > >> arranged Tarkin SFX effect to add to the splendor of his new toy as a > >> joke to show this point). To claim anything beyond that (like reducing > >> the power requirement) will require additional evidence that YOU DO NOT > >> HAVE. > > > >I took your advice, as you should notice. I'm not claiming the rings > >reduce the power requirement. I'm saying there is something anomalous which > >makes judgements of the actual power input by the Death Star extremely > >unreliable. The planet might have had _the effect of a 1e38J blast_ added > >to it, but we don't actually know what the Death Star dished out of her... > >well... dish. > > > > Wow, you are stupid. Go learn the basics of Conservation Of Energy, then come > back, asscrab. This is science fiction, considered to be in the same reality as Star Trek, yes? CoE is the least of our worries. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 08 Jul 2002 23:18:43 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020708191843.14753.00002481@mb-dh.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20020708124856.21640.00004823@mb-ba.aol.com... >> >"Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message >> >news:agbq84$jk7u4$3@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... >> >> "DarkStar" wrote in message >> >> news:SmbW8.90529$vq.4077814@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> >> >> >> > The rings are proof that that there wasn't a direct energy transfer, >> >> like a >> >> > laser. Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe >> >> > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star directly >> >> input >> >> > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. >> >> >> >> No, you idiot. The rings mean that there are rings. It means there is >an >> >> anamoly with unknown meaning (once I hypothesized it as a specially >> >> arranged Tarkin SFX effect to add to the splendor of his new toy as a >> >> joke to show this point). To claim anything beyond that (like reducing >> >> the power requirement) will require additional evidence that YOU DO NOT >> >> HAVE. >> > >> >I took your advice, as you should notice. I'm not claiming the rings >> >reduce the power requirement. I'm saying there is something anomalous >which >> >makes judgements of the actual power input by the Death Star extremely >> >unreliable. The planet might have had _the effect of a 1e38J blast_ >added >> >to it, but we don't actually know what the Death Star dished out of >her... >> >well... dish. >> > >> >> Wow, you are stupid. Go learn the basics of Conservation Of Energy, then >come >> back, asscrab. > >This is science fiction, considered to be in the same reality as Star Trek, >yes? CoE is the least of our worries. > CoE still works, sorry. Too bad, so sad. Trek dodges CoE, but Wars has never shown to do so, it simply carries insane amounts of power. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 01:15:53 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020708191843.14753.00002481@mb-dh.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20020708124856.21640.00004823@mb-ba.aol.com... > >> >"Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > >> >news:agbq84$jk7u4$3@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > >> >> "DarkStar" wrote in message > >> >> news:SmbW8.90529$vq.4077814@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > >> >> > >> >> > The rings are proof that that there wasn't a direct energy transfer, > >> >> like a > >> >> > laser. Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or maybe > >> >> > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star directly > >> >> input > >> >> > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. > >> >> > >> >> No, you idiot. The rings mean that there are rings. It means there is > >an > >> >> anamoly with unknown meaning (once I hypothesized it as a specially > >> >> arranged Tarkin SFX effect to add to the splendor of his new toy as a > >> >> joke to show this point). To claim anything beyond that (like reducing > >> >> the power requirement) will require additional evidence that YOU DO NOT > >> >> HAVE. > >> > > >> >I took your advice, as you should notice. I'm not claiming the rings > >> >reduce the power requirement. I'm saying there is something anomalous > >which > >> >makes judgements of the actual power input by the Death Star extremely > >> >unreliable. The planet might have had _the effect of a 1e38J blast_ > >added > >> >to it, but we don't actually know what the Death Star dished out of > >her... > >> >well... dish. > >> > > >> > >> Wow, you are stupid. Go learn the basics of Conservation Of Energy, then > >come > >> back, asscrab. > > > >This is science fiction, considered to be in the same reality as Star Trek, > >yes? CoE is the least of our worries. > > > > CoE still works, sorry. Too bad, so sad. Trek dodges CoE, but Wars has never > shown to do so, it simply carries insane amounts of power. You're _assuming_ Wars has never been shown to do so, even though most of the technologies that make sci-fi possible dodge it. Most of the huge power supply energy figures you guys toy with require CoE violations, especially based on the technologies you claim to use. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 09 Jul 2002 01:34:15 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020708213415.01577.00004791@mb-cg.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20020708191843.14753.00002481@mb-dh.aol.com... >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >news:20020708124856.21640.00004823@mb-ba.aol.com... >> >> >"Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message >> >> >news:agbq84$jk7u4$3@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... >> >> >> "DarkStar" wrote in message >> >> >> news:SmbW8.90529$vq.4077814@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > The rings are proof that that there wasn't a direct energy >transfer, >> >> >> like a >> >> >> > laser. Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or >maybe >> >> >> > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star >directly >> >> >> input >> >> >> > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. >> >> >> >> >> >> No, you idiot. The rings mean that there are rings. It means there >is >> >an >> >> >> anamoly with unknown meaning (once I hypothesized it as a specially >> >> >> arranged Tarkin SFX effect to add to the splendor of his new toy as >a >> >> >> joke to show this point). To claim anything beyond that (like >reducing >> >> >> the power requirement) will require additional evidence that YOU DO >NOT >> >> >> HAVE. >> >> > >> >> >I took your advice, as you should notice. I'm not claiming the rings >> >> >reduce the power requirement. I'm saying there is something anomalous >> >which >> >> >makes judgements of the actual power input by the Death Star extremely >> >> >unreliable. The planet might have had _the effect of a 1e38J blast_ >> >added >> >> >to it, but we don't actually know what the Death Star dished out of >> >her... >> >> >well... dish. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Wow, you are stupid. Go learn the basics of Conservation Of Energy, >then >> >come >> >> back, asscrab. >> > >> >This is science fiction, considered to be in the same reality as Star >Trek, >> >yes? CoE is the least of our worries. >> > >> >> CoE still works, sorry. Too bad, so sad. Trek dodges CoE, but Wars has >never >> shown to do so, it simply carries insane amounts of power. > >You're _assuming_ Wars has never been shown to do so, even though most of >the technologies that make sci-fi possible dodge it. Most of the huge power >supply energy figures you guys toy with require CoE violations, especially >based on the technologies you claim to use. > No, Dark Star, I'm not assuming, I'm using evidence. A Hypermatter core is directly stated to produce enough energy to blow apart any planet in the Galaxy. A Death Star uses a Hypermatter core. Enough said, no violation of CoE because it produces enough energy. Just because you don't like the results, just because they reveal Star Trek to be the pile of feces at the ass-bottom of sci-fi, doesn't make it wrong. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 07:29:55 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020708213415.01577.00004791@mb-cg.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20020708191843.14753.00002481@mb-dh.aol.com... > >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >> >news:20020708124856.21640.00004823@mb-ba.aol.com... > >> >> >"Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > >> >> >news:agbq84$jk7u4$3@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > >> >> >> "DarkStar" wrote in message > >> >> >> news:SmbW8.90529$vq.4077814@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The rings are proof that that there wasn't a direct energy > >transfer, > >> >> >> like a > >> >> >> > laser. Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or > >maybe > >> >> >> > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star > >directly > >> >> >> input > >> >> >> > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> No, you idiot. The rings mean that there are rings. It means there > >is > >> >an > >> >> >> anamoly with unknown meaning (once I hypothesized it as a specially > >> >> >> arranged Tarkin SFX effect to add to the splendor of his new toy as > >a > >> >> >> joke to show this point). To claim anything beyond that (like > >reducing > >> >> >> the power requirement) will require additional evidence that YOU DO > >NOT > >> >> >> HAVE. > >> >> > > >> >> >I took your advice, as you should notice. I'm not claiming the rings > >> >> >reduce the power requirement. I'm saying there is something anomalous > >> >which > >> >> >makes judgements of the actual power input by the Death Star extremely > >> >> >unreliable. The planet might have had _the effect of a 1e38J blast_ > >> >added > >> >> >to it, but we don't actually know what the Death Star dished out of > >> >her... > >> >> >well... dish. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Wow, you are stupid. Go learn the basics of Conservation Of Energy, > >then > >> >come > >> >> back, asscrab. > >> > > >> >This is science fiction, considered to be in the same reality as Star > >Trek, > >> >yes? CoE is the least of our worries. > >> > > >> > >> CoE still works, sorry. Too bad, so sad. Trek dodges CoE, but Wars has > >never > >> shown to do so, it simply carries insane amounts of power. > > > >You're _assuming_ Wars has never been shown to do so, even though most of > >the technologies that make sci-fi possible dodge it. Most of the huge power > >supply energy figures you guys toy with require CoE violations, especially > >based on the technologies you claim to use. > > > > No, Dark Star, I'm not assuming, I'm using evidence. A Hypermatter core is > directly stated to produce enough energy to blow apart any planet in the > Galaxy. ... so long as it has a superlaser to do it with, and that is technology we don't know about. Good job. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 20:09:55 +1200 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:ThwW8.1093$Bt1.28402@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Sir Nitram" wrote in message > news:20020708213415.01577.00004791@mb-cg.aol.com... > > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > > >news:20020708191843.14753.00002481@mb-dh.aol.com... > > >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > > >> >news:20020708124856.21640.00004823@mb-ba.aol.com... > > >> >> >"Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > >> >> >news:agbq84$jk7u4$3@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > >> >> >> "DarkStar" wrote in message > > >> >> >> news:SmbW8.90529$vq.4077814@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > The rings are proof that that there wasn't a direct energy > > >transfer, > > >> >> >> like a > > >> >> >> > laser. Maybe the funky physics added to the power required or > > >maybe > > >> >> >> > (probably) it reduced it, but you can't claim the Death Star > > >directly > > >> >> >> input > > >> >> >> > 1e38J of raw energy into Alderaan. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> No, you idiot. The rings mean that there are rings. It means > there > > >is > > >> >an > > >> >> >> anamoly with unknown meaning (once I hypothesized it as a > specially > > >> >> >> arranged Tarkin SFX effect to add to the splendor of his new toy > as > > >a > > >> >> >> joke to show this point). To claim anything beyond that (like > > >reducing > > >> >> >> the power requirement) will require additional evidence that YOU > DO > > >NOT > > >> >> >> HAVE. > > >> >> > > > >> >> >I took your advice, as you should notice. I'm not claiming the > rings > > >> >> >reduce the power requirement. I'm saying there is something > anomalous > > >> >which > > >> >> >makes judgements of the actual power input by the Death Star > extremely > > >> >> >unreliable. The planet might have had _the effect of a 1e38J > blast_ > > >> >added > > >> >> >to it, but we don't actually know what the Death Star dished out of > > >> >her... > > >> >> >well... dish. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> Wow, you are stupid. Go learn the basics of Conservation Of Energy, > > > >then > > >> >come > > >> >> back, asscrab. > > >> > > > >> >This is science fiction, considered to be in the same reality as Star > > >Trek, > > >> >yes? CoE is the least of our worries. > > >> > > > >> > > >> CoE still works, sorry. Too bad, so sad. Trek dodges CoE, but Wars has > > >never > > >> shown to do so, it simply carries insane amounts of power. > > > > > >You're _assuming_ Wars has never been shown to do so, even though most of > > >the technologies that make sci-fi possible dodge it. Most of the huge > power > > >supply energy figures you guys toy with require CoE violations, > especially > > >based on the technologies you claim to use. > > > > > > > No, Dark Star, I'm not assuming, I'm using evidence. A Hypermatter core is > > directly stated to produce enough energy to blow apart any planet in the > > Galaxy. > > ... so long as it has a superlaser to do it with, and that is technology we > don't know about. Good job. Of course we don't know about it, but we do have observed evidence from a canon source: In ANH the DS destroys a planet. We do know that the DS uses a hypermatter reactor to produce the power to do this.Ther is no evidence to suggest anything else. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:39:20 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:age5q6$kj35k$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > Of course we don't know about it, but we do have observed evidence from a > canon source: In ANH the DS destroys a planet. We do know that the DS uses a > hypermatter reactor to produce the power to do this.Ther is no evidence to > suggest anything else. DarkStar: Other than that silly blue ring... General pro-SW population: That no one other than you really thinks is meaningful, at least in the context of the energy required to destroy the planet. There, I think I just shaved two moves off this fight :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 21:42:58 +1200 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:age7kk$kmuqa$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:age5q6$kj35k$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > Of course we don't know about it, but we do have observed evidence > from a > > canon source: In ANH the DS destroys a planet. We do know that the DS > uses a > > hypermatter reactor to produce the power to do this.Ther is no > evidence to > > suggest anything else. > > DarkStar: Other than that silly blue ring... > > General pro-SW population: That no one other than you really thinks is > meaningful, at least in the context of the energy required to destroy > the planet. > > There, I think I just shaved two moves off this fight :-) Yah, he really is painfully obvious in his arguments ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 11:13:37 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:ageb8n$ksj2o$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > news:age7kk$kmuqa$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > news:age5q6$kj35k$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > Of course we don't know about it, but we do have observed evidence > > from a > > > canon source: In ANH the DS destroys a planet. We do know that the DS > > uses a > > > hypermatter reactor to produce the power to do this.Ther is no > > evidence to > > > suggest anything else. > > > > DarkStar: Other than that silly blue ring... > > > > General pro-SW population: That no one other than you really thinks is > > meaningful, at least in the context of the energy required to destroy > > the planet. > > > > There, I think I just shaved two moves off this fight :-) > > Yah, he really is painfully obvious in his arguments Almost as painfully obvious as the silly rings you guys ignore. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 09 Jul 2002 11:34:41 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020709073441.26042.00004866@mb-mq.aol.com> -------- >"Stuart Mackey" wrote in message >news:ageb8n$ksj2o$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... >> >> "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message >> news:age7kk$kmuqa$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... >> > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message >> > news:age5q6$kj35k$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... >> > >> > > Of course we don't know about it, but we do have observed evidence >> > from a >> > > canon source: In ANH the DS destroys a planet. We do know that the DS >> > uses a >> > > hypermatter reactor to produce the power to do this.Ther is no >> > evidence to >> > > suggest anything else. >> > >> > DarkStar: Other than that silly blue ring... >> > >> > General pro-SW population: That no one other than you really thinks is >> > meaningful, at least in the context of the energy required to destroy >> > the planet. >> > >> > There, I think I just shaved two moves off this fight :-) >> >> Yah, he really is painfully obvious in his arguments > >Almost as painfully obvious as the silly rings you guys ignore. :) > Alright, hatfucker. Tell you what. Find a legitimate, valid source in science to explain the rings, and why they indicate a CoE issue. I dare you. Bring it here, put forth a theory. Or shut the fuck up, you useless cocksucking idiot, because you obviously don't know what you're drooling about. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:27:18 +1200 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- snip > > > DarkStar: Other than that silly blue ring... > > > > > > General pro-SW population: That no one other than you really thinks is > > > meaningful, at least in the context of the energy required to destroy > > > the planet. > > > > > > There, I think I just shaved two moves off this fight :-) > > > > Yah, he really is painfully obvious in his arguments > > Almost as painfully obvious as the silly rings you guys ignore. :) We do not ignore them, we only know that they are the remains of a planet once called Alderaan. And you cannot, and have not proved that their presence has anything to do with the DS's firepower. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 17:34:41 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:ageksn$kuadn$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > snip > > > > DarkStar: Other than that silly blue ring... > > > > > > > > General pro-SW population: That no one other than you really thinks is > > > > meaningful, at least in the context of the energy required to destroy > > > > the planet. > > > > > > > > There, I think I just shaved two moves off this fight :-) > > > > > > Yah, he really is painfully obvious in his arguments > > > > Almost as painfully obvious as the silly rings you guys ignore. :) > > We do not ignore them, we only know that they are the remains of a planet > once called Alderaan. And you cannot, and have not proved that their > presence has anything to do with the DS's firepower. A. I shouldn't have to. It's obvious. B. You're still ignoring it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:38:43 +1200 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:R8FW8.642030$%y.39801926@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:ageksn$kuadn$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > snip > > > > > DarkStar: Other than that silly blue ring... > > > > > > > > > > General pro-SW population: That no one other than you really thinks > is > > > > > meaningful, at least in the context of the energy required to > destroy > > > > > the planet. > > > > > > > > > > There, I think I just shaved two moves off this fight :-) > > > > > > > > Yah, he really is painfully obvious in his arguments > > > > > > Almost as painfully obvious as the silly rings you guys ignore. :) > > > > We do not ignore them, we only know that they are the remains of a planet > > once called Alderaan. And you cannot, and have not proved that their > > presence has anything to do with the DS's firepower. > A. I shouldn't have to. It's obvious. Actually you have to explain everything, anything less is a concession. > B. You're still ignoring it. No I am not, you are trying to relate them to DS firepower levels when they have nothing to do with it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:27:51 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:aggvco$lis4t$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:R8FW8.642030$%y.39801926@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > news:ageksn$kuadn$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > snip > > > > > > DarkStar: Other than that silly blue ring... > > > > > > > > > > > > General pro-SW population: That no one other than you really > thinks > > is > > > > > > meaningful, at least in the context of the energy required to > > destroy > > > > > > the planet. > > > > > > > > > > > > There, I think I just shaved two moves off this fight :-) > > > > > > > > > > Yah, he really is painfully obvious in his arguments > > > > > > > > Almost as painfully obvious as the silly rings you guys ignore. :) > > > > > > We do not ignore them, we only know that they are the remains of a > planet > > > once called Alderaan. And you cannot, and have not proved that their > > > presence has anything to do with the DS's firepower. > > > A. I shouldn't have to. It's obvious. > > Actually you have to explain everything, anything less is a concession. I am assuming a certain level of intelligence and grasp of language in rational debate. If someone demands that I explain the obvious just because they don't believe it, they are placing themselves outside the limit of rational debate, and conceeding the argument. > > B. You're still ignoring it. > > No I am not, you are trying to relate them to DS firepower levels when they > have nothing to do with it. So they are magic? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Mackey Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:57:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in news:bgZW8.24201$Bt1.1297792@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com: > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:aggvco$lis4t$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... >> >> "DarkStar" wrote in message >> news:R8FW8.642030$%y.39801926@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> > >> > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message >> > news:ageksn$kuadn$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... >> > > >> > > snip >> > > > > > DarkStar: Other than that silly blue ring... >> > > > > > >> > > > > > General pro-SW population: That no one other than you >> > > > > > really >> thinks >> > is >> > > > > > meaningful, at least in the context of the energy required >> > > > > > to >> > destroy >> > > > > > the planet. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > There, I think I just shaved two moves off this fight :-) >> > > > > >> > > > > Yah, he really is painfully obvious in his arguments >> > > > >> > > > Almost as painfully obvious as the silly rings you guys ignore. >> > > > :) >> > > >> > > We do not ignore them, we only know that they are the remains of >> > > a >> planet >> > > once called Alderaan. And you cannot, and have not proved that >> > > their presence has anything to do with the DS's firepower. >> >> > A. I shouldn't have to. It's obvious. >> >> Actually you have to explain everything, anything less is a >> concession. > I am assuming a certain level of intelligence and grasp of language in > rational debate. If someone demands that I explain the obvious just > because they don't believe it, they are placing themselves outside the > limit of rational debate, and conceeding the argument. No it is not conceeding an argument that someone may not nesarly understnad something. To think so is utter rot, not to mention arrogant. I dont understand maths, you probably understand it a lot better than I could ever hope to, but that does not mean that you are right. >> > B. You're still ignoring it. >> >> No I am not, you are trying to relate them to DS firepower levels >> when > they >> have nothing to do with it. > > So they are magic? No, they are unexplained. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 11:18:22 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <2EzW8.637262$%y.39634024@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:age5q6$kj35k$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > No, Dark Star, I'm not assuming, I'm using evidence. A Hypermatter core > is > > > directly stated to produce enough energy to blow apart any planet in the > > > Galaxy. > > > > ... so long as it has a superlaser to do it with, and that is technology > we > > don't know about. Good job. > > Of course we don't know about it, but we do have observed evidence from a > canon source: In ANH the DS destroys a planet. We do know that the DS uses a > hypermatter reactor to produce the power to do this.Ther is no evidence to > suggest anything else. That's what I'm saying. The Death Star reactor produces the power to destroy a planet using the superlaser. But we don't know how the superlaser does that. There may be POOCing, or the weapons equivalent of AMRE, or something like phasering, or a hundred other weird sci-fi things. For all we know, the Death Star "reactor" for powering the superlaser is a giant Wookiee with a can of baked beans. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stuart Mackey" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:24:37 +1200 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:2EzW8.637262$%y.39634024@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:age5q6$kj35k$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > No, Dark Star, I'm not assuming, I'm using evidence. A Hypermatter > core > > is > > > > directly stated to produce enough energy to blow apart any planet in > the > > > > Galaxy. > > > > > > ... so long as it has a superlaser to do it with, and that is technology > > we > > > don't know about. Good job. > > > > Of course we don't know about it, but we do have observed evidence from a > > canon source: In ANH the DS destroys a planet. We do know that the DS uses > a > > hypermatter reactor to produce the power to do this.Ther is no evidence to > > suggest anything else. > > That's what I'm saying. The Death Star reactor produces the power to > destroy a planet using the superlaser. But we don't know how the > superlaser does that. There may be POOCing, or the weapons equivalent of > AMRE, or something like phasering, or a hundred other weird sci-fi things. > For all we know, the Death Star "reactor" for powering the superlaser is a > giant Wookiee with a can of baked beans. This is not what you are saying at all. You are reading into canon events more than what is stated. We know the DS can destroy a planet due to the power put out by a hypermatter reactor. Thats it! there is no more! what you have put forth is pure _unsupported assumption_, nothing more. If you want to put forth a theory, use canon sources to prove it, otherwise concede defeat with some grace. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 14:55:44 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2af962$1@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:ageknm$lautp$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... We do know that the DS > uses > > a > > > hypermatter reactor to produce the power to do this.Ther is no evidence > to > > > suggest anything else. Not wishing to get fried here but I had heard something about the Death star having a Fusion reactor, ANH novel. Since it seems a hypermatter generator is widely accepted why is this quote discarded? Im just asking a question, is this hypermatter generator mentioned elsewhere in cannon or something? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 06:34:56 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2af962$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:ageknm$lautp$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > Not wishing to get fried here but I had heard something about the Death star > having a Fusion reactor, ANH novel. Page numbers? I have the book, but the book has hundreds of pages, so a vector is _highly_ desirable. > Since it seems a hypermatter generator is widely accepted why is this quote > discarded? 1) Nuke fusion will bring the goal of getting enough power further away than ever. 2) Fusion as a word in of itself is pretty vague. It just means joining. It does not necessarily mean a nuke fusion reactor. A hypermatter reactor in no way necessarily contradicts a fusion reactor. > Im just asking a question, is this hypermatter generator mentioned elsewhere > in cannon or something? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 22:58:46 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b6a9b$1@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agforo$jutm0$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > Since it seems a hypermatter generator is widely accepted why is this > quote > > discarded? > > 1) Nuke fusion will bring the goal of getting enough power further away > than ever. > 2) Fusion as a word in of itself is pretty vague. It just means joining. > It does not necessarily mean a nuke fusion reactor. A hypermatter > reactor in no way necessarily contradicts a fusion reactor. Heres the quote - it doesnt come with a page number but its just as the death star is destroyed, "Space filled temporarily with trillions of microscopic metal fragments, propelled past the retreating ships by the liberated energy of a small artificial sun"(ANH Novel). Small sun ok - now wouldnt it take a sun longer than a day to make enough power to create the magic 1E38. This is from SD.net - The Death Star (a massive compound turbolaser) releases more energy than the Sun produces in over seven thousand years! So therefore this artificial sun quote indicates just that -Fusion reactor functioning the same as a sun, now if we accept that then theres is something funky going on because theres no way it can build up the power to destroy a planet without some sort of non brute force method. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 07:15:53 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2b6a9b$1@news.zen.co.uk... > Heres the quote - it doesnt come with a page number but its just as the > death star is destroyed, > > "Space filled temporarily with trillions of microscopic metal fragments, > propelled past the retreating ships by the liberated energy of a small > artificial sun"(ANH Novel). > > Small sun ok - now wouldnt it take a sun longer than a day to make enough > power to create the magic 1E38. > > This is from SD.net - > The Death Star (a massive compound turbolaser) releases more energy than the > Sun produces in over seven thousand years! > > So therefore this artificial sun quote indicates just that -Fusion reactor > functioning the same as a sun, now if we accept that then theres is > something funky going on because theres no way it can build up the power to > destroy a planet without some sort of non brute force method. This is how this one is generally prioritized: 1) The visuals clearly suggest 1E38. 2) Quotes like this are metaphorical rather than fully literal, based on the custom that a visual has priority over literature, the canon visual blast is the master, and these quotes are rationalized, rather than the REVERSE. 3) The officials back up our conclusions. That's how it works. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 23:36:21 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b7368@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agfqvm$ll34o$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > news:3d2b6a9b$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > > Heres the quote - it doesnt come with a page number but its just as > the > > death star is destroyed, > > > > "Space filled temporarily with trillions of microscopic metal > fragments, > > propelled past the retreating ships by the liberated energy of a small > > artificial sun"(ANH Novel). > > > > Small sun ok - now wouldnt it take a sun longer than a day to make > enough > > power to create the magic 1E38. > > > > This is from SD.net - > > The Death Star (a massive compound turbolaser) releases more energy > than the > > Sun produces in over seven thousand years! > > > > So therefore this artificial sun quote indicates just that -Fusion > reactor > > functioning the same as a sun, now if we accept that then theres is > > something funky going on because theres no way it can build up the > power to > > destroy a planet without some sort of non brute force method. > > This is how this one is generally prioritized: > > 1) The visuals clearly suggest 1E38. Not according to Darkstars theory therefore the visuals can be interpretted differently. > 2) Quotes like this are metaphorical rather than fully literal, based on > the custom that a visual has priority over literature, the canon visual > blast is the master, and these quotes are rationalized, rather than the > REVERSE. The film doesnt state 1E38 - the blast can be explained in other ways thus the quote comes into play and forces a non 1E38 answer. Now if it had said "energy of a star" thats kinda like metaphorical but "energy of a small artificial sun" seems to be saying the power of the death star was an artificial sun. > 3) The officials back up our conclusions. I though the ranking was 1.Films then Novels and so on. If they outrank the officials then they dont come into play. > That's how it works. not from my reading of the newsgroup rules but the rules may have be altered without the site being altered. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 09 Jul 2002 23:41:21 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020709194121.01759.00000152@mb-fo.aol.com> -------- >"Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message >news:agfqvm$ll34o$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... >> "Alan Pownall" wrote in message >> news:3d2b6a9b$1@news.zen.co.uk... >> >> > Heres the quote - it doesnt come with a page number but its just as >> the >> > death star is destroyed, >> > >> > "Space filled temporarily with trillions of microscopic metal >> fragments, >> > propelled past the retreating ships by the liberated energy of a small >> > artificial sun"(ANH Novel). >> > >> > Small sun ok - now wouldnt it take a sun longer than a day to make >> enough >> > power to create the magic 1E38. >> > >> > This is from SD.net - >> > The Death Star (a massive compound turbolaser) releases more energy >> than the >> > Sun produces in over seven thousand years! >> > >> > So therefore this artificial sun quote indicates just that -Fusion >> reactor >> > functioning the same as a sun, now if we accept that then theres is >> > something funky going on because theres no way it can build up the >> power to >> > destroy a planet without some sort of non brute force method. >> >> This is how this one is generally prioritized: >> >> 1) The visuals clearly suggest 1E38. > >Not according to Darkstars theory therefore the visuals can be interpretted >differently. > Dark Star's theory is not valid. We've been over why. Whatever he says, it takes 1e38 Joules to accelerate a planet in the manner seen. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 23:50:57 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b76d5$1@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020709194121.01759.00000152@mb-fo.aol.com... > >"Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > >news:agfqvm$ll34o$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > >> "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > >> news:3d2b6a9b$1@news.zen.co.uk... > >> >> > > >Not according to Darkstars theory therefore the visuals can be interpretted > >differently. > > > > Dark Star's theory is not valid. We've been over why. Whatever he says, it > takes 1e38 Joules to accelerate a planet in the manner seen. First he isnt sayying it doesnt require that energy hes saying that the mass of the planet provides that energy. That theory fits the book quote and the visuals the accepted theory ignores the book quote and just uses the visuals. Therefore his has more weight behind it so unless you can prove his theory incorrect it seems (at least at the moment) to be more valid. To condense for snipping purposes :- Since the visuals dont state how it happens we make a theory however that theory doesnt fit all canon evidence - does the theory rank higher than canon evidence? especially when another theory is supported by more canon evidence. The death stars blast doesnt conflict with the Book quote so therefore both exist and are canon thus the current theory doesnt hold water. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 09 Jul 2002 23:53:32 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020709195332.01759.00000158@mb-fo.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20020709194121.01759.00000152@mb-fo.aol.com... >> >"Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message >> >news:agfqvm$ll34o$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... >> >> "Alan Pownall" wrote in message >> >> news:3d2b6a9b$1@news.zen.co.uk... >> >> >>> > >> >Not according to Darkstars theory therefore the visuals can be >interpretted >> >differently. >> > >> >> Dark Star's theory is not valid. We've been over why. Whatever he says, it >> takes 1e38 Joules to accelerate a planet in the manner seen. > >First he isnt sayying it doesnt require that energy hes saying that the mass >of the planet provides that energy. > There is nothing in the visuals, dialogue, book, or comments on the tech that even remotely suggest it does this. >That theory fits the book quote and the visuals the accepted theory ignores >the book quote and just uses the visuals. > It does not ignore the book quote. It applies it in the more obvious fashion: It's referring to the power generation difficulties of a superlaser. >Therefore his has more weight behind it so unless you can prove his theory >incorrect it seems (at least at the moment) to be more valid. > His theory is done ass-backwards, and has too many unknowns. It is invalid. >To condense for snipping purposes :- > >Since the visuals dont state how it happens we make a theory however that >theory doesnt fit all canon evidence - does the theory rank higher than >canon evidence? especially when another theory is supported by more canon >evidence. > >The death stars blast doesnt conflict with the Book quote so therefore both >exist and are canon thus the current theory doesnt hold water. > The current theory holds water. It's his theory that holds water like a sieve. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:02:29 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b7989@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020709195332.01759.00000158@mb-fo.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20020709194121.01759.00000152@mb-fo.aol.com... > >> >"Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > >> >news:agfqvm$ll34o$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > >> >> "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > >> >> news:3d2b6a9b$1@news.zen.co.uk... > >> >> > >>> > > >> >Not according to Darkstars theory therefore the visuals can be > >interpretted > >> >differently. > >> > > >> > >> Dark Star's theory is not valid. We've been over why. Whatever he says, it > >> takes 1e38 Joules to accelerate a planet in the manner seen. > > > >First he isnt sayying it doesnt require that energy hes saying that the mass > >of the planet provides that energy. > > > > There is nothing in the visuals, dialogue, book, or comments on the tech that > even remotely suggest it does this. Nothing discounts it either yet a quote from the books discounts the 1E38 theory. As for the Visuals suggesting it read his breakdown again the visuals fit his theory just aswell as they fit the 1E38 theory. > >That theory fits the book quote and the visuals the accepted theory ignores > >the book quote and just uses the visuals. > > > > It does not ignore the book quote. It applies it in the more obvious fashion: > It's referring to the power generation difficulties of a superlaser. the book says the deathstar is powered by a sun thus 1E38 aint possible. > >Therefore his has more weight behind it so unless you can prove his theory > >incorrect it seems (at least at the moment) to be more valid. > > > > His theory is done ass-backwards, and has too many unknowns. It is invalid. True it does have unknowns but it doesnt invalidate canon. > >To condense for snipping purposes :- > > > >Since the visuals dont state how it happens we make a theory however that > >theory doesnt fit all canon evidence - does the theory rank higher than > >canon evidence? especially when another theory is supported by more canon > >evidence. > > > >The death stars blast doesnt conflict with the Book quote so therefore both > >exist and are canon thus the current theory doesnt hold water. > > > > The current theory holds water. It's his theory that holds water like a sieve. Hmm well just respond to this. 1E38 theory - Fits Film, doesnt fit book quote. His theory - Fits film, fits book. Only respond to this part so I can find out what you think. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 10 Jul 2002 00:05:46 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020709200546.01759.00000161@mb-fo.aol.com> -------- >> >That theory fits the book quote and the visuals the accepted theory >ignores >> >the book quote and just uses the visuals. >> > >> >> It does not ignore the book quote. It applies it in the more obvious >fashion: >> It's referring to the power generation difficulties of a superlaser. > >the book says the deathstar is powered by a sun thus 1E38 aint possible. > You do have metaphors in your world, right? -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:20:15 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b7d90$1@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020709200546.01759.00000161@mb-fo.aol.com... > >the book says the deathstar is powered by a sun thus 1E38 aint possible. > > > > You do have metaphors in your world, right? Ah now at least we are on the same page (I guess that answers you question). If it said with the brillance of a sun or the explosiveness of a sun - maybe classified as metaphors but it says Artificial sun now why say Artificial sun when if its a metaphor we could compare it just as easily to a real sun - easier in fact but they state " propelled past the retreating ships by the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" so it isnt the magnitude they are trying to get across its an actual reason behind the metal being thrown forward. I can tell that the people here think alot of Occam's Razor thus which is the simplest explanantion they are giving factual details or they have gone out of their way to create a bad metaphor. Liberated energy - that term indicates that the erengy bottled up in the death star is equal to a suns energy thus even if it isnt powered by fusion the explosion was fusion grade and it had the same ring effect which adds weight to the effect seen on the planet was also fusion grade. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 10 Jul 2002 00:25:57 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020709202557.01759.00000165@mb-fo.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20020709200546.01759.00000161@mb-fo.aol.com... > >> >the book says the deathstar is powered by a sun thus 1E38 aint possible. >> > >> >> You do have metaphors in your world, right? > >Ah now at least we are on the same page (I guess that answers you question). > >If it said with the brillance of a sun or the explosiveness of a sun - maybe >classified as metaphors but it says Artificial sun now why say Artificial >sun when if its a metaphor we could compare it just as easily to a real >sun - easier in fact but they state " propelled past the retreating ships by >the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" so it isnt the magnitude >they are trying to get across its an actual reason behind the metal being >thrown forward. > It is a figure of speech. Like 'Strong as a Sherman Tank'. Obviously they are not able to pull an artillery peice. >I can tell that the people here think alot of Occam's Razor thus which is >the simplest explanantion they are giving factual details or they have gone >out of their way to create a bad metaphor. > Occam's Razor demands you cut out the unknowable, like funky, CoE defying effects in Dark Star's suggestion. >Liberated energy - that term indicates that the erengy bottled up in the >death star is equal to a suns energy thus even if it isnt powered by fusion >the explosion was fusion grade and it had the same ring effect which adds >weight to the effect seen on the planet was also fusion grade. > A sun would not even propel the Death Star at the speeds seen. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:32:11 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b807e@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020709202557.01759.00000165@mb-fo.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20020709200546.01759.00000161@mb-fo.aol.com... > > > >> >the book says the deathstar is powered by a sun thus 1E38 aint possible. > >> > > >> > >> You do have metaphors in your world, right? > > > >Ah now at least we are on the same page (I guess that answers you question). > > > >If it said with the brillance of a sun or the explosiveness of a sun - maybe > >classified as metaphors but it says Artificial sun now why say Artificial > >sun when if its a metaphor we could compare it just as easily to a real > >sun - easier in fact but they state " propelled past the retreating ships by > >the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" so it isnt the magnitude > >they are trying to get across its an actual reason behind the metal being > >thrown forward. > > > > It is a figure of speech. Like 'Strong as a Sherman Tank'. Obviously they are > not able to pull an artillery peice. Try "it came over the hill at the same pace as a full speed sherman tank" - more factual description. > >I can tell that the people here think alot of Occam's Razor thus which is > >the simplest explanantion they are giving factual details or they have gone > >out of their way to create a bad metaphor. > > > > Occam's Razor demands you cut out the unknowable, like funky, CoE defying > effects in Dark Star's suggestion. It doesnt demand you ignore evidence. > >Liberated energy - that term indicates that the erengy bottled up in the > >death star is equal to a suns energy thus even if it isnt powered by fusion > >the explosion was fusion grade and it had the same ring effect which adds > >weight to the effect seen on the planet was also fusion grade. > > > > A sun would not even propel the Death Star at the speeds seen. Why not? The entire Vs debate comes down to if a certain quote is metaphor or not? On that basis just from a certain opinion we end up with two different universes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:33:12 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b8080.40042218@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On 10 Jul 2002 00:25:57 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) wrote: >>"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >>news:20020709200546.01759.00000161@mb-fo.aol.com... >> >>> >the book says the deathstar is powered by a sun thus 1E38 aint possible. >>> > >>> >>> You do have metaphors in your world, right? >> >>Ah now at least we are on the same page (I guess that answers you question). >> >>If it said with the brillance of a sun or the explosiveness of a sun - maybe >>classified as metaphors but it says Artificial sun now why say Artificial >>sun when if its a metaphor we could compare it just as easily to a real >>sun - easier in fact but they state " propelled past the retreating ships by >>the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" so it isnt the magnitude >>they are trying to get across its an actual reason behind the metal being >>thrown forward. >> > >It is a figure of speech. Like 'Strong as a Sherman Tank'. Obviously they are >not able to pull an artillery peice. > No, if it were a figure of speech it would be an EXTREMELY clumsy one. The word 'artificial' is completely unnecessary for a figure of speech and demands that it is taken to be literal. I.E. The author would not have included that word if it were not meant literally - it is UGLY GRAMMAR otherwise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:34:21 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b8100@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "The Baron" wrote in message news:3d2b8080.40042218@news.freeserve.co.uk... > On 10 Jul 2002 00:25:57 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir > Nitram) wrote: > > >>"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >>news:20020709200546.01759.00000161@mb-fo.aol.com... > >> > >>> >the book says the deathstar is powered by a sun thus 1E38 aint possible. > >>> > > >>> > >>> You do have metaphors in your world, right? > >> > >>Ah now at least we are on the same page (I guess that answers you question). > >> > >>If it said with the brillance of a sun or the explosiveness of a sun - maybe > >>classified as metaphors but it says Artificial sun now why say Artificial > >>sun when if its a metaphor we could compare it just as easily to a real > >>sun - easier in fact but they state " propelled past the retreating ships by > >>the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" so it isnt the magnitude > >>they are trying to get across its an actual reason behind the metal being > >>thrown forward. > >> > > > >It is a figure of speech. Like 'Strong as a Sherman Tank'. Obviously they are > >not able to pull an artillery peice. > > > No, if it were a figure of speech it would be an EXTREMELY clumsy one. > The word 'artificial' is completely unnecessary for a figure of speech > and demands that it is taken to be literal. I.E. The author would not > have included that word if it were not meant literally - it is UGLY > GRAMMAR otherwise. Thats what I was saying :-), but you put it much better than I. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:38:05 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b81cf.40377977@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:34:21 GMT, "Alan Pownall" wrote: > >"The Baron" wrote in message >news:3d2b8080.40042218@news.freeserve.co.uk... >> On 10 Jul 2002 00:25:57 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir >> Nitram) wrote: >> >> >>"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >>news:20020709200546.01759.00000161@mb-fo.aol.com... >> >> >> >>> >the book says the deathstar is powered by a sun thus 1E38 aint >possible. >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> You do have metaphors in your world, right? >> >> >> >>Ah now at least we are on the same page (I guess that answers you >question). >> >> >> >>If it said with the brillance of a sun or the explosiveness of a sun - >maybe >> >>classified as metaphors but it says Artificial sun now why say >Artificial >> >>sun when if its a metaphor we could compare it just as easily to a real >> >>sun - easier in fact but they state " propelled past the retreating >ships by >> >>the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" so it isnt the magnitude >> >>they are trying to get across its an actual reason behind the metal >being >> >>thrown forward. >> >> >> > >> >It is a figure of speech. Like 'Strong as a Sherman Tank'. Obviously they >are >> >not able to pull an artillery peice. >> > >> No, if it were a figure of speech it would be an EXTREMELY clumsy one. >> The word 'artificial' is completely unnecessary for a figure of speech >> and demands that it is taken to be literal. I.E. The author would not >> have included that word if it were not meant literally - it is UGLY >> GRAMMAR otherwise. > >Thats what I was saying :-), but you put it much better than I. > Yeah, I felt the need to clarify what you meant because it seemed that the SW side was ignoring/misunderstanding it;) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: guppyshark@sagamers.com (GuppyShark) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:50:20 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2c3b8e.35367031@news.internode.on.net> -------- >> >the book says the deathstar is powered by a sun thus 1E38 aint possible. >> >> You do have metaphors in your world, right? > >Ah now at least we are on the same page (I guess that answers you question). > >If it said with the brillance of a sun or the explosiveness of a sun - maybe >classified as metaphors but it says Artificial sun now why say Artificial >sun when if its a metaphor we could compare it just as easily to a real >sun - easier in fact but they state " propelled past the retreating ships by >the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" so it isnt the magnitude >they are trying to get across its an actual reason behind the metal being >thrown forward. Didn't Leia Organa write the trilogy? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:00:39 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2c3dfd.88559320@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:50:20 GMT, guppyshark@sagamers.com (GuppyShark) wrote: >>> >the book says the deathstar is powered by a sun thus 1E38 aint possible. >>> >>> You do have metaphors in your world, right? >> >>Ah now at least we are on the same page (I guess that answers you question). >> >>If it said with the brillance of a sun or the explosiveness of a sun - maybe >>classified as metaphors but it says Artificial sun now why say Artificial >>sun when if its a metaphor we could compare it just as easily to a real >>sun - easier in fact but they state " propelled past the retreating ships by >>the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" so it isnt the magnitude >>they are trying to get across its an actual reason behind the metal being >>thrown forward. > >Didn't Leia Organa write the trilogy? > Write THIS *GRABS CROTCH* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 10 Jul 2002 15:06:41 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020710110641.01737.00000003@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:50:20 GMT, guppyshark@sagamers.com (GuppyShark) >wrote: > >>>> >the book says the deathstar is powered by a sun thus 1E38 aint possible. >>>> >>>> You do have metaphors in your world, right? >>> >>>Ah now at least we are on the same page (I guess that answers you >question). >>> >>>If it said with the brillance of a sun or the explosiveness of a sun - >maybe >>>classified as metaphors but it says Artificial sun now why say Artificial >>>sun when if its a metaphor we could compare it just as easily to a real >>>sun - easier in fact but they state " propelled past the retreating ships >by >>>the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" so it isnt the magnitude >>>they are trying to get across its an actual reason behind the metal being >>>thrown forward. >> >>Didn't Leia Organa write the trilogy? >> >Write THIS *GRABS CROTCH* > *scribes* Baron extracted his tweezer, and with help from his magnifying glass, found his nads hiding behind a peice of lint. With great care, he held his manhood with the tweezer, striking a pose of victory. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:14:46 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2c4f57.2382660@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On 10 Jul 2002 15:06:41 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) wrote: >>On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:50:20 GMT, guppyshark@sagamers.com (GuppyShark) >>wrote: >> >>>>> >the book says the deathstar is powered by a sun thus 1E38 aint possible. >>>>> >>>>> You do have metaphors in your world, right? >>>> >>>>Ah now at least we are on the same page (I guess that answers you >>question). >>>> >>>>If it said with the brillance of a sun or the explosiveness of a sun - >>maybe >>>>classified as metaphors but it says Artificial sun now why say Artificial >>>>sun when if its a metaphor we could compare it just as easily to a real >>>>sun - easier in fact but they state " propelled past the retreating ships >>by >>>>the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" so it isnt the magnitude >>>>they are trying to get across its an actual reason behind the metal being >>>>thrown forward. >>> >>>Didn't Leia Organa write the trilogy? >>> >>Write THIS *GRABS CROTCH* >> > >*scribes* Baron extracted his tweezer, and with help from his magnifying glass, >found his nads hiding behind a peice of lint. With great care, he held his >manhood with the tweezer, striking a pose of victory. Pose this, MOTHERFUCKER *GRABS CROTCH* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 10 Jul 2002 15:15:46 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020710111546.01737.00000005@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >On 10 Jul 2002 15:06:41 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir >Nitram) wrote: > >>>On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:50:20 GMT, guppyshark@sagamers.com (GuppyShark) >>>wrote: >>> >>>>>> >the book says the deathstar is powered by a sun thus 1E38 aint >possible. >>>>>> >>>>>> You do have metaphors in your world, right? >>>>> >>>>>Ah now at least we are on the same page (I guess that answers you >>>question). >>>>> >>>>>If it said with the brillance of a sun or the explosiveness of a sun - >>>maybe >>>>>classified as metaphors but it says Artificial sun now why say >Artificial >>>>>sun when if its a metaphor we could compare it just as easily to a real >>>>>sun - easier in fact but they state " propelled past the retreating ships >>>by >>>>>the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" so it isnt the magnitude >>>>>they are trying to get across its an actual reason behind the metal being >>>>>thrown forward. >>>> >>>>Didn't Leia Organa write the trilogy? >>>> >>>Write THIS *GRABS CROTCH* >>> >> >>*scribes* Baron extracted his tweezer, and with help from his magnifying >glass, >>found his nads hiding behind a peice of lint. With great care, he held his >>manhood with the tweezer, striking a pose of victory. > >Pose this, MOTHERFUCKER *GRABS CROTCH* > Baron suddenly moved, screaming 'MOTHERFUCKER!' to the heavens, as his grip on his microscopic cock shifted, and the tweezers tore the nubbin of flesh from his body. He clutched at his crotch in pain, praying the emergency vehicles would be here soon. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:59:50 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2c59eb.5090923@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On 10 Jul 2002 15:15:46 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) wrote: >>On 10 Jul 2002 15:06:41 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir >>Nitram) wrote: >> >>>>On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:50:20 GMT, guppyshark@sagamers.com (GuppyShark) >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> >the book says the deathstar is powered by a sun thus 1E38 aint >>possible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You do have metaphors in your world, right? >>>>>> >>>>>>Ah now at least we are on the same page (I guess that answers you >>>>question). >>>>>> >>>>>>If it said with the brillance of a sun or the explosiveness of a sun - >>>>maybe >>>>>>classified as metaphors but it says Artificial sun now why say >>Artificial >>>>>>sun when if its a metaphor we could compare it just as easily to a real >>>>>>sun - easier in fact but they state " propelled past the retreating ships >>>>by >>>>>>the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" so it isnt the magnitude >>>>>>they are trying to get across its an actual reason behind the metal being >>>>>>thrown forward. >>>>> >>>>>Didn't Leia Organa write the trilogy? >>>>> >>>>Write THIS *GRABS CROTCH* >>>> >>> >>>*scribes* Baron extracted his tweezer, and with help from his magnifying >>glass, >>>found his nads hiding behind a peice of lint. With great care, he held his >>>manhood with the tweezer, striking a pose of victory. >> >>Pose this, MOTHERFUCKER *GRABS CROTCH* >> > >Baron suddenly moved, screaming 'MOTHERFUCKER!' to the heavens, as his grip on >his microscopic cock shifted, and the tweezers tore the nubbin of flesh from >his body. He clutched at his crotch in pain, praying the emergency vehicles >would be here soon. You son of a bitch. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 10 Jul 2002 18:43:17 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020710144317.01754.00000073@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >On 10 Jul 2002 15:15:46 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir >Nitram) wrote: > >>>On 10 Jul 2002 15:06:41 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir >>>Nitram) wrote: >>> >>>>>On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:50:20 GMT, guppyshark@sagamers.com (GuppyShark) >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> >the book says the deathstar is powered by a sun thus 1E38 aint >>>possible. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You do have metaphors in your world, right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Ah now at least we are on the same page (I guess that answers you >>>>>question). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If it said with the brillance of a sun or the explosiveness of a sun - >>>>>maybe >>>>>>>classified as metaphors but it says Artificial sun now why say >>>Artificial >>>>>>>sun when if its a metaphor we could compare it just as easily to a real >>>>>>>sun - easier in fact but they state " propelled past the retreating >ships >>>>>by >>>>>>>the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" so it isnt the >magnitude >>>>>>>they are trying to get across its an actual reason behind the metal >being >>>>>>>thrown forward. >>>>>> >>>>>>Didn't Leia Organa write the trilogy? >>>>>> >>>>>Write THIS *GRABS CROTCH* >>>>> >>>> >>>>*scribes* Baron extracted his tweezer, and with help from his magnifying >>>glass, >>>>found his nads hiding behind a peice of lint. With great care, he held his >>>>manhood with the tweezer, striking a pose of victory. >>> >>>Pose this, MOTHERFUCKER *GRABS CROTCH* >>> >> >>Baron suddenly moved, screaming 'MOTHERFUCKER!' to the heavens, as his grip >on >>his microscopic cock shifted, and the tweezers tore the nubbin of flesh from >>his body. He clutched at his crotch in pain, praying the emergency vehicles >>would be here soon. > >You son of a bitch. > Baron cursed the man who was controlling him like a puppet as the paramedics, equipped with an electron microscopic, attempted to re-attach his cock. The God that pulled the strings simply smiled, as he saved Baron from a far worse fate, feeling merciful that day. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:57:27 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2c9f96.22928157@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On 10 Jul 2002 18:43:17 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) wrote: >>On 10 Jul 2002 15:15:46 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir >>Nitram) wrote: >> >>>>On 10 Jul 2002 15:06:41 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir >>>>Nitram) wrote: >>>> >>>>>>On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:50:20 GMT, guppyshark@sagamers.com (GuppyShark) >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >the book says the deathstar is powered by a sun thus 1E38 aint >>>>possible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You do have metaphors in your world, right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Ah now at least we are on the same page (I guess that answers you >>>>>>question). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If it said with the brillance of a sun or the explosiveness of a sun - >>>>>>maybe >>>>>>>>classified as metaphors but it says Artificial sun now why say >>>>Artificial >>>>>>>>sun when if its a metaphor we could compare it just as easily to a real >>>>>>>>sun - easier in fact but they state " propelled past the retreating >>ships >>>>>>by >>>>>>>>the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" so it isnt the >>magnitude >>>>>>>>they are trying to get across its an actual reason behind the metal >>being >>>>>>>>thrown forward. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Didn't Leia Organa write the trilogy? >>>>>>> >>>>>>Write THIS *GRABS CROTCH* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>*scribes* Baron extracted his tweezer, and with help from his magnifying >>>>glass, >>>>>found his nads hiding behind a peice of lint. With great care, he held his >>>>>manhood with the tweezer, striking a pose of victory. >>>> >>>>Pose this, MOTHERFUCKER *GRABS CROTCH* >>>> >>> >>>Baron suddenly moved, screaming 'MOTHERFUCKER!' to the heavens, as his grip >>on >>>his microscopic cock shifted, and the tweezers tore the nubbin of flesh from >>>his body. He clutched at his crotch in pain, praying the emergency vehicles >>>would be here soon. >> >>You son of a bitch. >> >Baron cursed the man who was controlling him like a puppet as the paramedics, >equipped with an electron microscopic, attempted to re-attach his cock. The God >that pulled the strings simply smiled, as he saved Baron from a far worse fate, >feeling merciful that day. Did you know, when I was 4, I killed a man. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 10 Jul 2002 21:09:43 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020710170943.01754.00000116@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >On 10 Jul 2002 18:43:17 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir >Nitram) wrote: > >>>On 10 Jul 2002 15:15:46 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir >>>Nitram) wrote: >>> >>>>>On 10 Jul 2002 15:06:41 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir >>>>>Nitram) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:50:20 GMT, guppyshark@sagamers.com (GuppyShark) >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >the book says the deathstar is powered by a sun thus 1E38 aint >>>>>possible. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You do have metaphors in your world, right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Ah now at least we are on the same page (I guess that answers you >>>>>>>question). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If it said with the brillance of a sun or the explosiveness of a sun >- >>>>>>>maybe >>>>>>>>>classified as metaphors but it says Artificial sun now why say >>>>>Artificial >>>>>>>>>sun when if its a metaphor we could compare it just as easily to a >real >>>>>>>>>sun - easier in fact but they state " propelled past the retreating >>>ships >>>>>>>by >>>>>>>>>the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" so it isnt the >>>magnitude >>>>>>>>>they are trying to get across its an actual reason behind the metal >>>being >>>>>>>>>thrown forward. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Didn't Leia Organa write the trilogy? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>Write THIS *GRABS CROTCH* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>*scribes* Baron extracted his tweezer, and with help from his magnifying >>>>>glass, >>>>>>found his nads hiding behind a peice of lint. With great care, he held >his >>>>>>manhood with the tweezer, striking a pose of victory. >>>>> >>>>>Pose this, MOTHERFUCKER *GRABS CROTCH* >>>>> >>>> >>>>Baron suddenly moved, screaming 'MOTHERFUCKER!' to the heavens, as his >grip >>>on >>>>his microscopic cock shifted, and the tweezers tore the nubbin of flesh >from >>>>his body. He clutched at his crotch in pain, praying the emergency >vehicles >>>>would be here soon. >>> >>>You son of a bitch. >>> >>Baron cursed the man who was controlling him like a puppet as the >paramedics, >>equipped with an electron microscopic, attempted to re-attach his cock. The >God >>that pulled the strings simply smiled, as he saved Baron from a far worse >fate, >>feeling merciful that day. > >Did you know, when I was 4, I killed a man. > Baron spoke to the sky in his morphine-induced haze, in an attempt to scare the puppeteer from his cruel games. Yet the puppeteer was not done yet, plucking Baron's threads and rearranging his life. Later, when he emerged from the hospital, his genitals re-attached, he found a car waiting for him. In it was a sheep, smoking a cigar. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 02:31:02 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2cedbb.42936987@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On 10 Jul 2002 21:09:43 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) wrote: >>On 10 Jul 2002 18:43:17 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir >>Nitram) wrote: >> >>>>On 10 Jul 2002 15:15:46 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir >>>>Nitram) wrote: >>>> >>>>>>On 10 Jul 2002 15:06:41 GMT, nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir >>>>>>Nitram) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:50:20 GMT, guppyshark@sagamers.com (GuppyShark) >>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >the book says the deathstar is powered by a sun thus 1E38 aint >>>>>>possible. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You do have metaphors in your world, right? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Ah now at least we are on the same page (I guess that answers you >>>>>>>>question). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>If it said with the brillance of a sun or the explosiveness of a sun >>- >>>>>>>>maybe >>>>>>>>>>classified as metaphors but it says Artificial sun now why say >>>>>>Artificial >>>>>>>>>>sun when if its a metaphor we could compare it just as easily to a >>real >>>>>>>>>>sun - easier in fact but they state " propelled past the retreating >>>>ships >>>>>>>>by >>>>>>>>>>the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" so it isnt the >>>>magnitude >>>>>>>>>>they are trying to get across its an actual reason behind the metal >>>>being >>>>>>>>>>thrown forward. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Didn't Leia Organa write the trilogy? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Write THIS *GRABS CROTCH* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>*scribes* Baron extracted his tweezer, and with help from his magnifying >>>>>>glass, >>>>>>>found his nads hiding behind a peice of lint. With great care, he held >>his >>>>>>>manhood with the tweezer, striking a pose of victory. >>>>>> >>>>>>Pose this, MOTHERFUCKER *GRABS CROTCH* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Baron suddenly moved, screaming 'MOTHERFUCKER!' to the heavens, as his >>grip >>>>on >>>>>his microscopic cock shifted, and the tweezers tore the nubbin of flesh >>from >>>>>his body. He clutched at his crotch in pain, praying the emergency >>vehicles >>>>>would be here soon. >>>> >>>>You son of a bitch. >>>> >>>Baron cursed the man who was controlling him like a puppet as the >>paramedics, >>>equipped with an electron microscopic, attempted to re-attach his cock. The >>God >>>that pulled the strings simply smiled, as he saved Baron from a far worse >>fate, >>>feeling merciful that day. >> >>Did you know, when I was 4, I killed a man. >> > >Baron spoke to the sky in his morphine-induced haze, in an attempt to scare the >puppeteer from his cruel games. Yet the puppeteer was not done yet, plucking >Baron's threads and rearranging his life. Later, when he emerged from the >hospital, his genitals re-attached, he found a car waiting for him. > >In it was a sheep, smoking a cigar. Fucking hell, I am so drunk, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:53:26 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "The Baron" wrote in message news:3d2cedbb.42936987@news.freeserve.co.uk... > >Baron spoke to the sky in his morphine-induced haze, in an attempt to scare the > >puppeteer from his cruel games. Yet the puppeteer was not done yet, plucking > >Baron's threads and rearranging his life. Later, when he emerged from the > >hospital, his genitals re-attached, he found a car waiting for him. > > > >In it was a sheep, smoking a cigar. > > Fucking hell, I am so drunk, A drunk man with a sheep? Dude, he's going to take that set-up and run with it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:00:40 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2d9d88.87948725@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:53:26 GMT, "DarkStar" wrote: > >"The Baron" wrote in message >news:3d2cedbb.42936987@news.freeserve.co.uk... >> >Baron spoke to the sky in his morphine-induced haze, in an attempt to >scare the >> >puppeteer from his cruel games. Yet the puppeteer was not done yet, >plucking >> >Baron's threads and rearranging his life. Later, when he emerged from the >> >hospital, his genitals re-attached, he found a car waiting for him. >> > >> >In it was a sheep, smoking a cigar. >> >> Fucking hell, I am so drunk, > >A drunk man with a sheep? Dude, he's going to take that set-up and run >with it. > What can I say, I'm a nice guy. Fucking hell, I am so hungover. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: guppyshark@sagamers.com (GuppyShark) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:30:51 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2db27d.912226@news.internode.on.net> -------- >>>If it said with the brillance of a sun or the explosiveness of a sun - maybe >>>classified as metaphors but it says Artificial sun now why say Artificial >>>sun when if its a metaphor we could compare it just as easily to a real >>>sun - easier in fact but they state " propelled past the retreating ships by >>>the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" so it isnt the magnitude >>>they are trying to get across its an actual reason behind the metal being >>>thrown forward. >> >>Didn't Leia Organa write the trilogy? What my point *was* (although I realise I should have made it clear) is that if Leia Organa wrote the trilogy (Conference of Whills? something like that?) then she can be excused for not being aware of the precise method the DS used to generate its power. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:03:06 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2b7368@news.zen.co.uk... > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > news:agfqvm$ll34o$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > news:3d2b6a9b$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > 1) The visuals clearly suggest 1E38. > > Not according to Darkstars theory therefore the visuals can be interpretted > differently. DarkStar's "theory" is a convoluted mess of technobabble crap. He cannot really refute the 1E38, just that he had to insist that it didn't all come from the Death Star, that's all. Here are the two alternatives, ours and his: Our alternative postulates that it was DET (very simple mechanism), the blue ring is not necessarily significant, is backed by P.178, which implies it was "mass-energy conversion", is backed by the simplest read of the pretext, is backed by the officials (which implies the official writer sees it the same way as we do) and treats the P.216 quote as imagery. His alternative postulates an extremely complex Genesis device mechanism with no real world parallel (violating Occam's Razor for simplicity), the rings MUST be significant in a way that HAPPENS to be favorable to HIM, twists P.178, twists the pretext, contradicts every official (which means the writers can't see how DarkStar got his crappy idea) and with its only real support the P.216 quote. Somehow, I would say our theory is superior. We rationalized more of the general database with a simpler theory which does not have to draw parallels to fucking Star TREK to make it appear like it works. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:10:35 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b7b6e$1@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agfto9$lbvi2$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > news:3d2b7368@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > news:agfqvm$ll34o$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > > news:3d2b6a9b$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > 1) The visuals clearly suggest 1E38. > > > > Not according to Darkstars theory therefore the visuals can be > interpretted > > differently. > > DarkStar's "theory" is a convoluted mess of technobabble crap. He cannot > really refute the 1E38, just that he had to insist that it didn't all > come from the Death Star, that's all. > > Here are the two alternatives, ours and his: > > Our alternative postulates that it was DET (very simple mechanism), the > blue ring is not necessarily significant, is backed by P.178, which > implies it was "mass-energy conversion", is backed by the simplest read > of the pretext, is backed by the officials (which implies the official > writer sees it the same way as we do) and treats the P.216 quote as > imagery. > > His alternative postulates an extremely complex Genesis device mechanism > with no real world parallel (violating Occam's Razor for simplicity), > the rings MUST be significant in a way that HAPPENS to be favorable to > HIM, twists P.178, twists the pretext, contradicts every official (which > means the writers can't see how DarkStar got his crappy idea) and with > its only real support the P.216 quote. > > Somehow, I would say our theory is superior. We rationalized more of the > general database with a simpler theory which does not have to draw > parallels to fucking Star TREK to make it appear like it works. Comparing it to star trek was a grave mistake by him....... Yes as I have said based on the movie alone 1E38 works and is the simplest theory and thus seems correct. However the quote contradicts the theory but since it doesnt contradict the movie its valid - maybe his theory isnt correct but the 1E38 doesnt hold up without ignoring valid canon evidence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 18:22:35 -0600 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3D2B7E4B.9C953162@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Alan Pownall wrote: > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > news:agfto9$lbvi2$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > His alternative postulates an extremely complex Genesis device mechanism > > with no real world parallel (violating Occam's Razor for simplicity), > > the rings MUST be significant in a way that HAPPENS to be favorable to > > HIM, twists P.178, twists the pretext, contradicts every official (which > > means the writers can't see how DarkStar got his crappy idea) and with > > its only real support the P.216 quote. > > > > Somehow, I would say our theory is superior. We rationalized more of the > > general database with a simpler theory which does not have to draw > > parallels to fucking Star TREK to make it appear like it works. > > Comparing it to star trek was a grave mistake by him....... > > Yes as I have said based on the movie alone 1E38 works and is the simplest > theory and thus seems correct. > > However the quote contradicts the theory but since it doesnt contradict the > movie its valid - maybe his theory isnt correct but the 1E38 doesnt hold up > without ignoring valid canon evidence. If it works by converting the mass of the planet into energy, then why do the extrememely miniaturized versions in AOTC function in the same manner as all other SW beam weaponry? Graeme Dice -- Bad command or file name. Go stand in the corner. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 01:00:46 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b8733@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote in message news:3D2B7E4B.9C953162@sk.sympatico.ca... > Alan Pownall wrote: > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > news:agfto9$lbvi2$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > > > > > His alternative postulates an extremely complex Genesis device mechanism > > > with no real world parallel (violating Occam's Razor for simplicity), > > > the rings MUST be significant in a way that HAPPENS to be favorable to > > > HIM, twists P.178, twists the pretext, contradicts every official (which > > > means the writers can't see how DarkStar got his crappy idea) and with > > > its only real support the P.216 quote. > > > > > > Somehow, I would say our theory is superior. We rationalized more of the > > > general database with a simpler theory which does not have to draw > > > parallels to fucking Star TREK to make it appear like it works. > > > > Comparing it to star trek was a grave mistake by him....... > > > > Yes as I have said based on the movie alone 1E38 works and is the simplest > > theory and thus seems correct. > > > > However the quote contradicts the theory but since it doesnt contradict the > > movie its valid - maybe his theory isnt correct but the 1E38 doesnt hold up > > without ignoring valid canon evidence. > > If it works by converting the mass of the planet into energy, then why > do the extrememely miniaturized versions in AOTC function in the same > manner as all other SW beam weaponry? Im not saying it does, im simply saying the 1E38 doesnt hold up if we use a valid canon quote. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:08:58 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2b8733@news.zen.co.uk... > > If it works by converting the mass of the planet into energy, then why > > do the extrememely miniaturized versions in AOTC function in the same > > manner as all other SW beam weaponry? > > Im not saying it does, im simply saying the 1E38 doesnt hold up if we use a > valid canon quote. No, if we use your (and two other people's) interpretation of a canon quote. Stop pretending your interpretation is fact. As an aside, we know that DET is theory too, just that it is simple, and it is well backed, and even that errant quote can fit it easily. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 01:22:30 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b8c4b$1@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agg1jg$lbgn1$2@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > news:3d2b8733@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > If it works by converting the mass of the planet into energy, then > why > > > do the extrememely miniaturized versions in AOTC function in the > same > > > manner as all other SW beam weaponry? > > > > Im not saying it does, im simply saying the 1E38 doesnt hold up if we > use a > > valid canon quote. > > No, if we use your (and two other people's) interpretation of a canon > quote. Stop pretending your interpretation is fact. > > As an aside, we know that DET is theory too, just that it is simple, and > it is well backed, and even that errant quote can fit it easily. Im not pretending is fact but the truth is I know of 3 people who find it resonably and only 2 who have said they dont - since not everyone has commented I cant pretend its fact. However you need to believe what you say and I believe what I say so we arent going to come to a resolution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:51:41 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2b7b6e$1@news.zen.co.uk... > Comparing it to star trek was a grave mistake by him....... I'm glad you agree. Even if he's right, by having to compare it to Star TREK, it immediately turns half the people off. > Yes as I have said based on the movie alone 1E38 works and is the simplest > theory and thus seems correct. I'm glad you agree. > However the quote contradicts the theory but since it doesnt contradict the > movie its valid - maybe his theory isnt correct but the 1E38 doesnt hold up > without ignoring valid canon evidence. The quote does not necessarily contradict our theory (or the official world). The entire population other than you (I don't think DarkStar even thought of trying to use this one) seems to feel that it is metaphorical. In that case, there is no contradiction. Yeah, I'll agree Lucas was having a bad writing day when he thought up _that_ metaphor :-) Occam's Razor suggests we use the simplest theory. It is a lot simpler to say that the quote is a poorly worded metaphor than to have to make up a convoluted explanation that borders on the edge of killing CoE and wipes out all the other evidence. The rules of this newsgroup also demands we preserve as much of the evidence as possible. Our theory does that. Yours doesn't. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:59:33 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b86e9$1@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agg0n2$lr9hn$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > news:3d2b7b6e$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > > Comparing it to star trek was a grave mistake by him....... > > I'm glad you agree. Even if he's right, by having to compare it to Star > TREK, it immediately turns half the people off. > > > Yes as I have said based on the movie alone 1E38 works and is the > simplest > > theory and thus seems correct. > > I'm glad you agree. > > > However the quote contradicts the theory but since it doesnt > contradict the > > movie its valid - maybe his theory isnt correct but the 1E38 doesnt > hold up > > without ignoring valid canon evidence. > > The quote does not necessarily contradict our theory (or the official > world). The entire population other than you (I don't think DarkStar > even thought of trying to use this one) seems to feel that it is > metaphorical. In that case, there is no contradiction. Yeah, I'll agree > Lucas was having a bad writing day when he thought up _that_ metaphor > :-) > > Occam's Razor suggests we use the simplest theory. It is a lot simpler > to say that the quote is a poorly worded metaphor than to have to make > up a convoluted explanation that borders on the edge of killing CoE and > wipes out all the other evidence. The rules of this newsgroup also > demands we preserve as much of the evidence as possible. Our theory does > that. Yours doesn't. So because a canon quote is inconvient its discarded? Even you admit it doesnt seem to be a metaphor so why must it be?. Instead of saying its a badly worded metaphor could it not be what it appears to be - a description of events. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:03:04 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2b86e9$1@news.zen.co.uk... > So because a canon quote is inconvient its discarded? Stop using the word discarded. We are putting it into the appropriate context. We never really ignore evidence. We just evaluate them by reliability and context, and fit them into a theory. > Even you admit it doesnt seem to be a metaphor so why must it be?. Stop twisting my words. I never said it doesn't seem to be a metaphor. All I said was that Lucas could have chosen a better one. > Instead of saying its a badly worded metaphor could it not be what it > appears to be - a description of events. Because in order to maintain continuity with the rest of the evidence, and Occam's Razor requirement for the simplest explanation to explain the event, categorizing that thing as a metaphor is the simplest way to go. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 01:18:57 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b8b76$1@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agg18g$lcvkg$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > news:3d2b86e9$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > > So because a canon quote is inconvient its discarded? > > Stop using the word discarded. We are putting it into the appropriate > context. We never really ignore evidence. We just evaluate them by > reliability and context, and fit them into a theory. Yes but doesnt this mean that people can come up with crazy theories?, example coming up. The half the star fleet quote hmmm not sure what that means lets ignore it. Ok then we only see about 30 rebel ships in ROTJ and the emperor implies thats the lot of them so the imps cant number above a 1000 or else the rebels could never beat them - hey this validates that Solo quote , excellent more evidence. :). > > Even you admit it doesnt seem to be a metaphor so why must it be?. > > Stop twisting my words. I never said it doesn't seem to be a metaphor. > All I said was that Lucas could have chosen a better one. > > > Instead of saying its a badly worded metaphor could it not be what it > > appears to be - a description of events. > > Because in order to maintain continuity with the rest of the evidence, > and Occam's Razor requirement for the simplest explanation to explain > the event, categorizing that thing as a metaphor is the simplest way to > go. I understand now canon evidence can be dis..... igno.. deprioritised if it doesn't fit in with the current theory. The website says Films then Books of films - could someone correct that so newcomers arent confused by the rules. Something like We look at all the evidence and give the most weight to the films - we then make theories based on them alone. Once this is done we pick extra info from outside the films that support are theories - everything else is ignored. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:43:45 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2b8b76$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > news:agg18g$lcvkg$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > news:3d2b86e9$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > > So because a canon quote is inconvient its discarded? > > > > Stop using the word discarded. We are putting it into the appropriate > > context. We never really ignore evidence. We just evaluate them by > > reliability and context, and fit them into a theory. > > Yes but doesnt this mean that people can come up with crazy theories?, > example coming up. There is already a silly, crazy theory proposed by you, DarkStar, the Baron...etc. > The half the star fleet quote hmmm not sure what that means lets ignore it. Nope, you can't ignore it. That is an explicit quote with very little possible error. All you can do is trade off number of ships for power of ships. > Ok then we only see about 30 rebel ships in ROTJ and the emperor implies > thats the lot of them so the imps cant number above a 1000 or else the > rebels could never beat them - hey this validates that Solo quote , > excellent more evidence. :). No, that's just Alan's poor reasoning working. We see a few dozen Reb capships in ROTJ. True. Is it the lot of them? Highly possible. This is supposed to be a last-ditch, all out push after all. The last part is poor reasoning. The Imperials can number a million ships, but only a tiny percentage can engage a mobile guerilla force for any period of time. If they have one million planets, and they have 15 ships to defend each, then the 30 ship Rebel fleet might just be able to win in every planetary engagement, even though the whole Imperial fleet is 15 million ships strong! > > > Even you admit it doesnt seem to be a metaphor so why must it be?. > > > > Stop twisting my words. I never said it doesn't seem to be a metaphor. > > All I said was that Lucas could have chosen a better one. > > > > > Instead of saying its a badly worded metaphor could it not be what it > > > appears to be - a description of events. > > > > Because in order to maintain continuity with the rest of the evidence, > > and Occam's Razor requirement for the simplest explanation to explain > > the event, categorizing that thing as a metaphor is the simplest way to > > go. > > I understand now canon evidence can be dis..... igno.. deprioritised if it > doesn't fit in with the current theory. No, it can be taken into the proper context. There is a difference. > The website says Films then Books of films - could someone correct that so > newcomers arent confused by the rules. > > Something like We look at all the evidence and give the most weight to the > films - we then make theories based on them alone. > Once this is done we pick extra info from outside the films that support are > theories - everything else is ignored. Considering that somehow, most of us do understand what that thing means (excluding DarkStar, the Baron and you), I don't think it needs changes. Besides, I'm hardly the man to ask. Tell Kynes that you are an idiot that can't understand the explanations he put up, and I'm sure he'll idiot-proof it. Remember these generalities. They'll help: 1) With all things being equal, the simpler theory wins (so we win easily on that score), because that's how science works, and this is a scientific newsgroup. 2) With all things being equal, the theory that throws out as little evidence as possible wins (we win on that score too), because they are all part of the universe. 3) When there is no choice, then employ the Conflict Resolving Algorithm and throw out evidence (but that is not necessary on this case). However, when you do that, be forewarned that just about any theory that can do it without throwing out the evidence would most likely win over yours. This is a generality and not a kill all, because some rationalizations are REALLY DUMB, but that again does not apply here. Of course, there are always exceptions, but these apply at least 95% of the time, and they apply in this case too. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Enigma" Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:57:44 GMT Subject: Re: [TGOD-I] Aftermath of WMD Exchange Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:jTlM7.55437$Ze5.30733692@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... > "Enigma" wrote in message > news:NclM7.187740$5h5.82446274@news3.rdc2.on.home.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:1tdM7.53637$Ze5.29791886@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... > > > "Enigma" wrote in message > > > news:6zaM7.187549$5h5.81884555@news3.rdc2.on.home.com... > > > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > > news:kYVL7.51808$Ze5.28226203@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... > > > > > "Enigma" wrote in message > > > > > news:09RL7.186891$5h5.81148752@news3.rdc2.on.home.com... > > > > > > snip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I haven't destroyed it, I've destroyed the bonds > > > > > > > > that hold the philotes together with each other. But alas I > don't > > > have > > > > > all > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > knowledge. /OOC/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The basic premise was that the bonds between philotes really > could > > > not > > > > > be > > > > > > > altered by normal means as they appeared to bond with things > like > > > human > > > > > > > emotion or perhaps linknig two pieces that were once a rcok > > > together. > > > > > Its > > > > > > > all very crazy complex theory and I wish I had a copy of > "Xenocide" > > > > > handy > > > > > > > but right now doind something like what you propose is akin to a > > > system > > > > > > > busting version of MDD. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yeah and you don't have any more battlestars at this point, > not > > > with > > > > > the > > > > > > > Kzinti tearing each one they find a new asshole and Wilkens > merely > > > > > steeping > > > > > > > out of reality to turn them back into subatomic particles > wherever > > > he > > > > > finds > > > > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > They didn't say that they've destroyed all of the battlestars, > just > > > > > billions. > > > > > > I've got more. But right now the MW galaxy is reduced to a few > > > systems. > > > > > I've got > > > > > > a new body so I'm back and improved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wilkens sighed, he stepped out into the vastness of philote space > again. > > > > > Concentrating lightly he ripped apart Enigma's body and reformed it > with > > > his > > > > > ass stuck in his mouth and his dick jammed up his nose, this of > course > > > led > > > > > to some interesting digestive cycles as Engima slowly wasted away > unable > > > to > > > > > speak with the shit pouring down his throat and unable to think with > his > > > > > higher cognitive functions dissasociated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enigma laughed as the holo-decoy was being tortured. He sent a > telepathic > > > > message to Wilkens before merging with the megaverse. ~Nice try but > you > > > can't > > > > use the same move twice, crapsmear!~ > > > > > > > > With that Enigma made a small sign and atom by atom merged with the > > > megaverse > > > > only to return when the conflict is over. > > > > > > > > > > Laughing to himself Wilkens was almost stunned that Enigma would be dumb > > > enough to try and conrtact him when he had already read his mind. > > > Nonetheless he had gotten Enigma to do as he had wished: he had stepped > into > > > Wilkens's domain: the random chaos outside reality. Once there Wilkens > > > reformed Enigma's body as he had before and returned him to a new > reality: > > > one that clones of TOWNMNBS roamed as the only species. The sight was > > > gruesome but it was a pleasurable sacrifice for the Dark Gods. > > > > > > > > It seems that the laughter was contagious for now it was now Enigma's turn > to > > laugh. ~Silly fool. He can recreate my body but he cannot he cannot touch > my > > essence. I tire now for we are at a stalemate. He can twist my body into > any > > shape he wants but he cannot win, but nor will he lose.~ As much as he > wanted to > > fight Wilkens, he knew it would go nowhere, but what he could do and did > as a > > last gesture was to cause a inter-dimensional rift between the normal > universe > > and the TOWNMNBS reality. Causing untold horrors to be unleashed upon the > > remaining powers. > > > > /OOC/ Sorry Rog if this were to cause you trouble but it is necessary. > /OOC/ > > > > /OOC/ You do realize that Wilkens (evil) is aligned with the very same dark > gods who spawned TOWNMNBS and therefore unleashing him is akin to giving him > the victory as now the forces of darkness would simply march forth under > Wilkens' leadership with nothing short of Kynes, Dice, the Queen, and > perhaps other Wilkens(his path is to one day confront the other Wilkens but > he's hardly ready) able to stand against the invasion. In any way for this > TGOD I'll take the victory and thank you for your time. > /OOC/ No problem as long as your attention is away from me./OOC/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 06:24:44 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2bd321@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agghtu$l9kct$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > news:3d2b8b76$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > news:agg18g$lcvkg$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > > news:3d2b86e9$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > > > > So because a canon quote is inconvient its discarded? > > > > > > Stop using the word discarded. We are putting it into the > appropriate > > > context. We never really ignore evidence. We just evaluate them by > > > reliability and context, and fit them into a theory. > > > > Yes but doesnt this mean that people can come up with crazy theories?, > > example coming up. > > There is already a silly, crazy theory proposed by you, DarkStar, the > Baron...etc. > > > The half the star fleet quote hmmm not sure what that means lets > ignore it. > > Nope, you can't ignore it. That is an explicit quote with very little > possible error. All you can do is trade off number of ships for power of > ships. > > > Ok then we only see about 30 rebel ships in ROTJ and the emperor > implies > > thats the lot of them so the imps cant number above a 1000 or else the > > rebels could never beat them - hey this validates that Solo quote , > > excellent more evidence. :). > > No, that's just Alan's poor reasoning working. No its not the Fear Doctrine (something like that) that tarkin proposes ie The Death Star is designed to save the Imps from deploying ships to every system since this would be crippling. > We see a few dozen Reb capships in ROTJ. True. > > Is it the lot of them? Highly possible. This is supposed to be a > last-ditch, all out push after all. > > The last part is poor reasoning. The Imperials can number a million > ships, but only a tiny percentage can engage a mobile guerilla force for > any period of time. If they have one million planets, and they have 15 > ships to defend each, then the 30 ship Rebel fleet might just be able to > win in every planetary engagement, even though the whole Imperial fleet > is 15 million ships strong! Yes this is possible but when we are talking a minute or two for backup to arrive and since in ROTJ no Cap ships went down in 20 mins - the ships from the surrounding area could swarm and crush the rebels with numbers. > > > > Even you admit it doesnt seem to be a metaphor so why must it be?. > > > > > > Stop twisting my words. I never said it doesn't seem to be a > metaphor. > > > All I said was that Lucas could have chosen a better one. > > > > > > > Instead of saying its a badly worded metaphor could it not be > what it > > > > appears to be - a description of events. > > > > > > Because in order to maintain continuity with the rest of the > evidence, > > > and Occam's Razor requirement for the simplest explanation to > explain > > > the event, categorizing that thing as a metaphor is the simplest way > to > > > go. > > > > I understand now canon evidence can be dis..... igno.. deprioritised > if it > > doesn't fit in with the current theory. > > No, it can be taken into the proper context. There is a difference. > > > The website says Films then Books of films - could someone correct > that so > > newcomers arent confused by the rules. > > > > Something like We look at all the evidence and give the most weight to > the > > films - we then make theories based on them alone. > > Once this is done we pick extra info from outside the films that > support are > > theories - everything else is ignored. > > Considering that somehow, most of us do understand what that thing means > (excluding DarkStar, the Baron and you), I don't think it needs changes. > Besides, I'm hardly the man to ask. Tell Kynes that you are an idiot > that can't understand the explanations he put up, and I'm sure he'll > idiot-proof it. > > Remember these generalities. They'll help: > 1) With all things being equal, the simpler theory wins (so we win > easily on that score), because that's how science works, and this is a > scientific newsgroup. Yes except you are saying the quote is invalid from a starting point because you theory invalidates it - the problem is your theory discounts evidence due to its existence which is circular logic. > 2) With all things being equal, the theory that throws out as little > evidence as possible wins (we win on that score too), because they are > all part of the universe. Well the problm here is we dont know The 1E38 throws out the quote and may , I say again MAY discount the rings. The other theory includes both of these. > 3) When there is no choice, then employ the Conflict Resolving Algorithm > and throw out evidence (but that is not necessary on this case). > However, when you do that, be forewarned that just about any theory that > can do it without throwing out the evidence would most likely win over > yours. This is a generality and not a kill all, because some > rationalizations are REALLY DUMB, but that again does not apply here. > > Of course, there are always exceptions, but these apply at least 95% of > the time, and they apply in this case too. Lets just put it like this - we start with a clean slate. Im watching the film. Wow a planet just blew up - quick head calc (yeah right) wow that took 1E38 - that death stars mean. Later whilst reading the book - Die Tarkin Die.... skipping ahead a bit .... Hmmm Nuclear fusion or energy of a star - that cant blow up the planet however the quote doesnt contradict canon so ill accept it and go back to the drawing board. This is where Darkstar comes in and starts creating his theory. So you can see that the current theory discards this quote right? So this argument comes down to 2 things. 1.Is the quote valid? 2.Does the current theory explains the rings? (You got me on this one) Now if the quotes valid then the 1E38 falls. If the rings arent explained then smoething outside of the 1E38 is going on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:24:28 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2bd321@news.zen.co.uk... > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > news:agghtu$l9kct$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > No its not the Fear Doctrine (something like that) that tarkin proposes ie > The Death Star is designed to save the Imps from deploying ships to every > system since this would be crippling. But we know by the time the Death Star appeared, there was already a mighty big fleet. The Death Star is not the only tool of threatening that Tarkin ever devised. > Yes this is possible but when we are talking a minute or two for backup to > arrive and since in ROTJ no Cap ships went down in 20 mins - the ships from > the surrounding area could swarm and crush the rebels with numbers. Only if communications work. Only if the other commanders can risk enough ships from their own commitments. For all they know, it could be a trap to leave their own planets undefended, then they can do a quick strike. > Lets just put it like this - we start with a clean slate. > > Im watching the film. > > Wow a planet just blew up - quick head calc (yeah right) wow that took > 1E38 - that death stars mean. > Later whilst reading the book - Die Tarkin Die.... skipping ahead a bit .... > Hmmm Nuclear fusion or energy of a star - that cant blow up the planet > however the quote doesnt contradict canon so ill accept it and go back to > the drawing board. Actually, what anyone else but you would do when they read the book after working out the 1E38J is that they'll think "Imagery language" and go to BED rather than the drawing board to concoot a convoluted explanation. > This is where Darkstar comes in and starts creating his theory. That's where he comes in to spew his treknobabble. > So you can see that the current theory discards this quote right? No, it just evaluates its value correctly. It could in principle be literal but it doesn't have to be. > So this argument comes down to 2 things. > > 1.Is the quote valid? It is, just that you don't have to read it absolutely literally. > 2.Does the current theory explains the rings? (You got me on this one) We leave it blank. We have a few candidates ready to fill the gap. After all, we are not DarkStar. We know we don't know enough about that ring to really say for certain. So INSTEAD of leaping to a conclusion about its composition at the slightest impulsion, we prefer to sit back. > Now if the quotes valid then the 1E38 falls. Only if it is valid in the way you want it to be, not if it is metaphorically valid. This is a false dilemma. > If the rings arent explained then smoething outside of the 1E38 is going on. And we can explain it if we lower our requirements to technobabble like DarkStar. We prefer real science, and real science can acknowledge when it doesn't have enough data on one aspect. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:13:24 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2c4f08$1@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:aggnkb$lmbkt$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > news:3d2bd321@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > news:agghtu$l9kct$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > > Lets just put it like this - we start with a clean slate. > > > > Im watching the film. > > > > Wow a planet just blew up - quick head calc (yeah right) wow that took > > 1E38 - that death stars mean. > > Later whilst reading the book - Die Tarkin Die.... skipping ahead a > bit .... > > Hmmm Nuclear fusion or energy of a star - that cant blow up the planet > > however the quote doesnt contradict canon so ill accept it and go back > to > > the drawing board. > > Actually, what anyone else but you would do when they read the book > after working out the 1E38J is that they'll think "Imagery language" and > go to BED rather than the drawing board to concoot a convoluted > explanation. > > > This is where Darkstar comes in and starts creating his theory. > > That's where he comes in to spew his treknobabble. > > > So you can see that the current theory discards this quote right? > > No, it just evaluates its value correctly. It could in principle be > literal but it doesn't have to be. So you come up with a theory then choose not to take the quote as literal so the theory stays intact? You are using the existence of the theory to ignore evidence that doesnt fit - you basically say "we can get away with not taking the quote as evidence so lets do that". The fec of the matter is if I read the book first then watched the movie I couldnt come up with the !E38 but instead you use an interpretation of what you see to over rule canon evidence - even if it doesnt mean the deaht star is powered by a sun, it would indicate Nuclear Fusion and if we ignore that we come up with the exlosion was only on the same level as a sun and it had the ring effect meaning that the ring effect is produced by very small amounts of energy. Theres 3 Possible interpretations that refute the 1E38 theory - in short you choose to ignore the quote because theres a small margine to slip by in which you dont have to accept it. Honestly do you think its not literal or do you chose to view it in that light to make things easier? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:03:06 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2c4f08$1@news.zen.co.uk... Let's put it this way. In our eyes: Your Theory: Complex and Convoluted, an inevitable consequence of going away from DET (minus one point) Uses Canon Film Evidence (plus one) Uses one of a few Literal Uses of Canon Material (plus one) Ignores other sources (minus one) Score: 0 Our Theory: Simple (DET is as simple a mechanism as can be) (plus one) Uses Canon Film Evidence (Plus One) Uses either a metaphorical or even (as others have suggested) alternate ways of literally reading it. (Plus One if we managed to use it literally, OK...zero if we didn't but didn't have to flat out say it was wrong) Uses official sources. (Plus One). Score: 3-4 Guess which IS the superior theory in our book. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 00:43:40 +0100 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2cc6ac$1@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agievb$luv4s$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > news:3d2c4f08$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > Let's put it this way. In our eyes: > > Your Theory: > Complex and Convoluted, an inevitable consequence of going away from DET > (minus one point) > Uses Canon Film Evidence (plus one) > Uses one of a few Literal Uses of Canon Material (plus one) Actually another Quote makes more sense with his theory. > Ignores other sources (minus one) No the quote invalidates thoses souces - thats the quotes fault not his theory (His theory cans also exist without the quote and thus is independant of its actions) > Score: 0 > Our Theory: > Simple (DET is as simple a mechanism as can be) (plus one) > Uses Canon Film Evidence (Plus One) His theory attempts to justify the rings - the classic model does not, (An updated classic model was proposed that did attempt to explain the rings but it started to make conclusions without evidence - however it did bear some thought and thus may still be in the running. Also it would be above the classic model on your scale.) > Uses either a metaphorical or even (as others have suggested) alternate Is it hyperbole or actual evidence? I could go -1 here but we have to decide on the quote. I could also say that you choose 1 of 4 meanings whereas the other theory works with all 4 of the meanings. > ways of literally reading it. (Plus One if we managed to use it > literally, OK...zero if we didn't but didn't have to flat out say it was > wrong) > Uses official sources. (Plus One). > Score: 3-4 > > Guess which IS the superior theory in our book. We have two seperate decisions here. What do we consider the quote to say? - Note you cant mention any of the theories here since the quotes validity is independant. What do we Think of Darkstars Theory? - Im sure Darkstar is willing to discuss that with you. I believe where we are going wrong is that instead of gathering evidence first we are creating a theory and changing the evidence to fit it as we go along. Lets decide what we think of the quote - to see if its valid evidence or not. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:31:41 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2cc6ac$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > news:agievb$luv4s$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > Actually another Quote makes more sense with his theory. Oh, you mean the P.178 quote. That is also highly ambigious. No, your _interpretation_ of the quote invalidates those sources. Stop confusing your interpretations with fact. In fact, I'll give you a hint. Except for the very simplest statements, like "I am a dog", a great proportion of what we "see" in dialogue is our _interpretation_, unlike visuals. So try not to what you see as the absolute fact. There is NO WAY TO KNOW PRECISELY WHAT THE RINGS ARE. All DarkStar did was make an UNjustified assumption that he had to link to Star Trek, and called _that_ evidence. See the problem? It could be non-literal. Actually, a direct, irreconcilable contradiction with a higher source is actually negative infinity by the rules and instantly invalidates the theory. But that IMHO is not the case here, only with your interpretation, Got That? However, if your scenario requires the throw out of the official evidence, EVEN IF it can use any of the interpretations of a particular quote, that does not make it a superior scenario. These are very simple concepts. It is roughly equally possible that it is literal OR it could be metaphorical. You should know that there are very few certainties in literary analysis. We also consider the fact that in order to reconcile it with official sources (not our theory, just with official sources), it cannot be literal in the way you want. > What do we Think of Darkstars Theory? - Im sure Darkstar is willing to > discuss that with you. Let's start by having you imagine what would that theory look like in a Pure Star Wars board. He can't use the Genesis Device as any kind of link now, and what is left of his theory would be, "The Death Star uses magic to destroy Alderaan." Does that sound silly? In this case, his theory explains nothing at all. He just said Death Star, or X is equal to the inverse of Genesis, or negative Y, but we don't really know what Y is. Our theory equates X with relatively known factors. His does not. Got that? It is a theory to tear things apart. Instead of linking things to a known, he chooses to link things to an unknown. It is a doubt creator, not a solver. In fact, a theory that the Death Star used the Force to destroy Alderaan would almost be better. At least it doesn't have to lean on other universes' technobabble to describe its validity. It might even explain the rings, since great releases of the Force sometimes produce a blue energy release (watch the Emperor's death). It even explains the great tremor in the Force. It is not only from the deaths - it is how much Force the Death Star drew from the universe to destroy the planet. It is roughly equally scientific (not very). I can say it meets roughly the same amount of evidence and throws out roughly the same amount of evidence. Does it sound silly to you, though? It does to me. No, we are reconciling the evidence into a coherent rather than contradictory whole, THEN making the theory. Rather than insisting on taking everything too literally, seeing a contradiction too soon, and employing the CRA far too soon. The CRA is your last resort, not your first. If there is ONE interpretation out of about one million that does not have to use the CRA, and that interpretation is not totally ridiculous, then in general we use that interpretation. Suggested further reading: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/Debate-2f-2.html Except that this is worse. This is saying Evidence 1 and 2 can be explained by Theory B, then decreeing that based on the canonical laws, 3 and 4 are truly fucked. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 04:03:16 +0100 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2cf573@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agiqr4$lp0gt$2@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > news:3d2cc6ac$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > news:agievb$luv4s$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > Actually another Quote makes more sense with his theory. > > Oh, you mean the P.178 quote. That is also highly ambigious. > > > No, your _interpretation_ of the quote invalidates those sources. Stop > confusing your interpretations with fact. In fact, I'll give you a hint. > Except for the very simplest statements, like "I am a dog", a great > proportion of what we "see" in dialogue is our _interpretation_, unlike > visuals. So try not to what you see as the absolute fact. My interpretation of the quopte invalids official Info - Yes I agree. > > There is NO WAY TO KNOW PRECISELY WHAT THE RINGS ARE. All DarkStar did > was make an UNjustified assumption that he had to link to Star Trek, and > called _that_ evidence. See the problem? Yes I see what you are saying however his entire argument isnt based on that. > > It could be non-literal. Actually, a direct, irreconcilable > contradiction with a higher source is actually negative infinity by the > rules and instantly invalidates the theory. But that IMHO is not the > case here, only with your interpretation, Got That? My interpretation only invalidates lower info (as far as I know) > However, if your scenario requires the throw out of the official > evidence, EVEN IF it can use any of the interpretations of a particular > quote, that does not make it a superior scenario. These are very simple > concepts. No but the fact that it uses the quote is 0 Again you are linked the quote to the Theory - Gather evidence then form theory. T he quote should be decided upon before we form a theory. > > It is roughly equally possible that it is literal OR it could be > metaphorical. You should know that there are very few certainties in > literary analysis. We also consider the fact that in order to reconcile > it with official sources (not our theory, just with official sources), > it cannot be literal in the way you want. Im afraid I disagree the quote could be interpreted in another way that what I have said but it doesnt seem to be metaphorical it is much more likely to be more literal (however prehaps not totaly literal). > > What do we Think of Darkstars Theory? - Im sure Darkstar is willing to > > discuss that with you. > > Let's start by having you imagine what would that theory look like in a > Pure Star Wars board. He can't use the Genesis Device as any kind of > link now, and what is left of his theory would be, "The Death Star uses > magic to destroy Alderaan." Does that sound silly? (This is my understanding of his theory and may not be what he actually means). No he states the energy doesnt come from the death Star Supported By the Sun Quote. So where does it come from? - hmm the matter energy conversion quote - the energy comes from matter energy conversion. Hmm that explains What im seeing better than the current theory. (Prehaps not in that order) > In this case, his theory explains nothing at all. He just said Death > Star, or X is equal to the inverse of Genesis, or negative Y, but we > don't really know what Y is. Our theory equates X with relatively known > factors. His does not. Got that? It is a theory to tear things apart. > Instead of linking things to a known, he chooses to link things to an > unknown. It is a doubt creator, not a solver. > > In fact, a theory that the Death Star used the Force to destroy Alderaan > would almost be better. At least it doesn't have to lean on other > universes' technobabble to describe its validity. It might even explain > the rings, since great releases of the Force sometimes produce a blue > energy release (watch the Emperor's death). It even explains the great > tremor in the Force. It is not only from the deaths - it is how much > Force the Death Star drew from the universe to destroy the planet. It is > roughly equally scientific (not very). I can say it meets roughly the > same amount of evidence and throws out roughly the same amount of > evidence. Does it sound silly to you, though? It does to me. We havent seen Force using machines - this also doesntexlpain the Mass energy conversion line, also the fact that the guy who is singing the Death stars praise calls the force foolish seems to invalidate this - you see I used canon evidence to throw your theory into doubt, please do the same with deathstars since he has done it for the Current theory. > > No, we are reconciling the evidence into a coherent rather than > contradictory whole, THEN making the theory. Rather than insisting on > taking everything too literally, seeing a contradiction too soon, and > employing the CRA far too soon. The CRA is your last resort, not your > first. If there is ONE interpretation out of about one million that does > not have to use the CRA, and that interpretation is not totally > ridiculous, then in general we use that interpretation. You change the evidence to suit the theory - You should gather evidence, decide if its valid then base a theory on it. However it seems you do the following. Gather evidence. Create a theory based on evidence. Trim any evidence that doesnt fit the theory that accounts for most of the evidence. You see you did it in the wrong order - Evidence should only be held in doubt when no other theory will work - we have at least two other theories that work better than the classic model. > Suggested further reading: > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/Debate-2f-2.html Im sorry be from what I see that page supports me. > Except that this is worse. This is saying Evidence 1 and 2 can be > explained by Theory B, then decreeing that based on the canonical laws, > 3 and 4 are truly fucked. Whereas you go along gather evidence form a theory that sorta fits then chuck out conflicting evidence in favour of less valuable evidence. As I said earlier The quote must be decided upon First before we create a theory - Is the quote Canon and what do we think it means - hen if we can make a theory that uses that quote, great if not then we have to look again at the evidence. However I dont think we are going to agree since you ask the same questions and I give the same answers we obviously arent understanding each others positions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:47:03 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2cf573@news.zen.co.uk... No, here is what happens. Let's try this until you get it. You have stated that "My interpretation only invalidates 'lower' info." Yep, you are perfectly right. Considering that there are precisely 5 films, five novels and five radio dramas that are canon right now, it will be hard to find canon information that you can invalidate using your interpretations of your two chosen quotes! The problem is that you don't see what's the problem with that idea. Well, I can at least understand why DarkStar doesn't see the problem. He is currently suffering from a mental block that says the officials have no value. Actually, despite the official Lucasfilm policy, there are _some_ that choose to follow that, and that's OK - elsewhere. Let's try putting it this way. As a RULE, Official sources are superior to your _interpretations_ on the canon text. For instance (I'm sure I'm repeating myself, but what the hell) some people have chosen to interpret Dodonna as only talking about the turbolasers. Instead of mangling over it, we can simply look for even more _explicit_ official statements. Their _interpretation_ is not only moronic (but maybe their POV says it is brilliant), but it can't override the official. So eventually, they shut up. As a LAW, by the way, the facts of visually observable canon are indisputable. If an observation is done correctly, there is no room for any rationalization whatsoever. That's why the OBSERVABLE size of the Executor wins out easily over the official text. Therefore, if your interpretation invalidates "lower info," then you should look over it again. See if there are alternate interpretations. This has nothing to do with any theories yet. It is just getting the evidence together. You don't even need to be thinking about any specific theories you are going to make here. As an aside, you apparently are not getting how important involving Treknobabble into this debate is to DarkStar. The entire backbone, its entire "legitimacy" comes from involving the Genesis Device. Without it, his alternative mechanism might as well be magic altogether. He knows it, too, and just about admits that no known real world mechanism can possibly give him the effect he wants. The rest is cancelled for brevity purposes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:12:43 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <%CeX8.81859$Im2.3639176@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agjrcl$mc64m$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > news:3d2cf573@news.zen.co.uk... > > As an aside, you apparently are not getting how important involving > Treknobabble into this debate is to DarkStar. The entire backbone, its > entire "legitimacy" comes from involving the Genesis Device. How many times have I told you now that it was merely an aside? That's why it was in parentheses. The observations of the canon evidence are legitimate enough on their own, as are the ideas and conclusions I draw from the canon evidence. Your continued red herring attacks are meaningless. > Without it, > his alternative mechanism might as well be magic altogether. He knows > it, too, and just about admits that no known real world mechanism can > possibly give him the effect he wants. No real world mechanism can possibly explain what we see, you're correct. No real world mechanism, brute-force included, can possibly give you the effect you want, either. That is why we have moved on. Whenever you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 06:30:51 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agghtu$l9kct$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > Remember these generalities. They'll help: > 1) With all things being equal, the simpler theory wins (so we win > easily on that score), because that's how science works, and this is a > scientific newsgroup. You do not win, because valid hypotheses must first attempt to explain all the facts. Yours does not, and utterly ignores several. > 2) With all things being equal, the theory that throws out as little > evidence as possible wins (we win on that score too), because they are > all part of the universe. Shouldn't you like to weight this based on the known levels of canon? And, if you assume official to be part of the universe, would it not make sense to weight this material even less? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 06:38:31 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2bd65d@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:vwQW8.5025$iX5.338823@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > news:agghtu$l9kct$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > Remember these generalities. They'll help: > > 1) With all things being equal, the simpler theory wins (so we win > > easily on that score), because that's how science works, and this is a > > scientific newsgroup. > > You do not win, because valid hypotheses must first attempt to explain all > the facts. Yours does not, and utterly ignores several. > > > 2) With all things being equal, the theory that throws out as little > > evidence as possible wins (we win on that score too), because they are > > all part of the universe. > > Shouldn't you like to weight this based on the known levels of canon? And, > if you assume official to be part of the universe, would it not make sense > to weight this material even less? I believe I understand the problem here - Your theory it itself uses more evidence than the other theory however the introduction of the Sun quote throws out evidence (Mainly from non-canon) and therefore the quote ignores evidence (of a lower nature) however the theory itself ignores less evidence han the 1E38 theory. However that being said the theory still disregards less evidence if the quote is thrown away however it become less necessary to have a new theory and if the rings are explained away then the 1E38 becomes simplest and not ignoring evidence and thus wins. However for that to happen to pieces of evidence must be lost. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:06:44 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2bd65d@news.zen.co.uk... > I believe I understand the problem here - Your theory it itself uses more > evidence than the other theory however the introduction of the Sun quote > throws out evidence (Mainly from non-canon) and therefore the quote ignores > evidence (of a lower nature) however the theory itself ignores less evidence > han the 1E38 theory. > > However that being said the theory still disregards less evidence if the > quote is thrown away however it become less necessary to have a new theory > and if the rings are explained away then the 1E38 becomes simplest and not > ignoring evidence and thus wins. > > However for that to happen to pieces of evidence must be lost. You really should clarify the pronouns. It is hard to read. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:11:27 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2bd65d@news.zen.co.uk... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:vwQW8.5025$iX5.338823@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > news:agghtu$l9kct$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > Remember these generalities. They'll help: > > > 1) With all things being equal, the simpler theory wins (so we win > > > easily on that score), because that's how science works, and this is a > > > scientific newsgroup. > > > > You do not win, because valid hypotheses must first attempt to explain all > > the facts. Yours does not, and utterly ignores several. No, all we do is acknowledge we do not really know what the ring is made up of, but we can postulate it can be a dozen different events. And don't even try that sun quote with me. Dealing with it four times a day is too much. > > > 2) With all things being equal, the theory that throws out as little > > > evidence as possible wins (we win on that score too), because they are > > > all part of the universe. > > > > Shouldn't you like to weight this based on the known levels of canon? > And, > > if you assume official to be part of the universe, would it not make sense > > to weight this material even less? No, you take into account all the material. You try to create an explanation that explains it all in a simple way (as simple as possible). Only if you find yourself into a situation that you have to weigh do you use the Conflict Resolving Algorithm to figure out who to throw out. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 07:15:57 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in message news:3d2bd65d@news.zen.co.uk... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:vwQW8.5025$iX5.338823@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > news:agghtu$l9kct$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > Remember these generalities. They'll help: > > > 1) With all things being equal, the simpler theory wins (so we win > > > easily on that score), because that's how science works, and this is a > > > scientific newsgroup. > > > > You do not win, because valid hypotheses must first attempt to explain all > > the facts. Yours does not, and utterly ignores several. > > > > > 2) With all things being equal, the theory that throws out as little > > > evidence as possible wins (we win on that score too), because they are > > > all part of the universe. > > > > Shouldn't you like to weight this based on the known levels of canon? > And, > > if you assume official to be part of the universe, would it not make sense > > to weight this material even less? > > I believe I understand the problem here - Your theory it itself uses more > evidence than the other theory however the introduction of the Sun quote > throws out evidence (Mainly from non-canon) and therefore the quote ignores > evidence (of a lower nature) however the theory itself ignores less evidence > han the 1E38 theory. > > However that being said the theory still disregards less evidence if the > quote is thrown away however it become less necessary to have a new theory > and if the rings are explained away then the 1E38 becomes simplest and not > ignoring evidence and thus wins. > > However for that to happen to pieces of evidence must be lost. The hypermatter vs. fusion issue is not relevant. It constitutes a supporting branch, but it is not the trunk. The main case is based on the observations of Alderaan. If they are focusing on the hypermatter issue, it shows the red herring they are engaging in. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:54:22 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agg0n2$lr9hn$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > Occam's Razor suggests we use the simplest theory. Yes, yes, Occam's Razor, that the simplest theory of a phenomenon that requires the least logical leaping is superior. However, the part you're leaving out is that it is used to shave the unneeded bits off of hypotheses that actually explain the entire phenomenon! The "classical" theory does not explain the entire phenomenon. It is based on older evidence which is no longer considered to be correct. Just because you adhere to the old beliefs does not make them correct. The new evidence shows the classical theory to be defunct. Does the new evidence require a more intellectually challenging theory? Yes. However, that is not the fault of the hypothesis, or the theorist. It is the simple result of the observation of the evidence. Does the new evidence require that we take some old canon evidence and view it in a new light? Yes, because that is the nature of the evidence we are dealing with. The highest canon is the films. I know you don't like it. But that is not important. What is important is that my hypothesis explains the phenomena we see in the event, and yours does not. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:46:17 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agfto9$lbvi2$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > news:3d2b7368@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > news:agfqvm$ll34o$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > > > news:3d2b6a9b$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > 1) The visuals clearly suggest 1E38. > > > > Not according to Darkstars theory therefore the visuals can be > interpretted > > differently. > > DarkStar's "theory" is a convoluted mess of technobabble crap. He cannot > really refute the 1E38, just that he had to insist that it didn't all > come from the Death Star, that's all. I'm just going by the canon, dude. If you have a problem with that, the problem is not mine. > > Here are the two alternatives, ours and his: > > Our alternative postulates that it was DET (very simple mechanism), the > blue ring is not necessarily significant, is backed by P.178, which > implies it was "mass-energy conversion", is backed by the simplest read > of the pretext, is backed by the officials (which implies the official > writer sees it the same way as we do) and treats the P.216 quote as > imagery. So, you ignore the canon reference to the liberated energy of a small artificial sun (what else in the name of hell would be the liberated energy of a small artificial sun?), use one possible meaning of the mass-energy conversion quote (which is a very hazy interpretation, since the context makes it apparent he is discussing the weapon), and you postulate a mechanism that fails to account for the observed effects. That's what I call a piss-poor hypothesis. > His alternative postulates an extremely complex Genesis device mechanism It doesn't have to be abnormally complex. It is merely unknown. The only complexity comes from explaining the observed effects, which is a necessary complexity and not outside the bounds of reason. > with no real world parallel (violating Occam's Razor for simplicity), There is a "real world parallel" in the "real world" we're discussing. > the rings MUST be significant in a way that HAPPENS to be favorable to > HIM, Directed Energy Transfer is an insufficient cause for the rings. DET is also insufficient to explain the nature of the shockwave bands. DET is also insufficient to explain the secondary explosion. > twists P.178, twists the pretext, contradicts every official (which > means the writers can't see how DarkStar got his crappy idea) and with > its only real support the P.216 quote. I did not twist page 178, I viewed it in the light of higher canon. Your problem is that you alter your view of canon to fit the non-canon, which _must_ be based on the non-existent proto-canon of the original films (no wonder they couldn't see how I got my idea, since I was working with info they could not possibly have). The new canon corrects these foolish views. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 23:03:03 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agforo$jutm0$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Alan Pownall" wrote in message > news:3d2af962$1@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > news:ageknm$lautp$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > Not wishing to get fried here but I had heard something about the > Death star > > having a Fusion reactor, ANH novel. > > Page numbers? I have the book, but the book has hundreds of pages, so a > vector is _highly_ desirable. 176 > > Since it seems a hypermatter generator is widely accepted why is this > quote > > discarded? > > 1) Nuke fusion will bring the goal of getting enough power further away > than ever. Only if you assume... well, you know. :) > 2) Fusion as a word in of itself is pretty vague. It just means joining. > It does not necessarily mean a nuke fusion reactor. A hypermatter > reactor in no way necessarily contradicts a fusion reactor. Fusing hyperons isn't going to help matters significantly. Strange quarks only do so much. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 17:37:05 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <5bFW8.48438$Im2.1698494@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message news:ageknm$lautp$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:2EzW8.637262$%y.39634024@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > news:age5q6$kj35k$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > No, Dark Star, I'm not assuming, I'm using evidence. A Hypermatter > > core > > > is > > > > > directly stated to produce enough energy to blow apart any planet in > > the > > > > > Galaxy. > > > > > > > > ... so long as it has a superlaser to do it with, and that is > technology > > > we > > > > don't know about. Good job. > > > > > > Of course we don't know about it, but we do have observed evidence from > a > > > canon source: In ANH the DS destroys a planet. We do know that the DS > uses > > a > > > hypermatter reactor to produce the power to do this.Ther is no evidence > to > > > suggest anything else. > > > > That's what I'm saying. The Death Star reactor produces the power to > > destroy a planet using the superlaser. But we don't know how the > > superlaser does that. There may be POOCing, or the weapons equivalent of > > AMRE, or something like phasering, or a hundred other weird sci-fi things. > > For all we know, the Death Star "reactor" for powering the superlaser is a > > giant Wookiee with a can of baked beans. > > This is not what you are saying at all. You are reading into canon events > more than what is stated. We know the DS can destroy a planet due to the > power put out by a hypermatter reactor. Thats it! there is no more! what you > have put forth is pure _unsupported assumption_, nothing more. > If you want to put forth a theory, use canon sources to prove it, otherwise > concede defeat with some grace. Unsupported assumption? How about the unsupported assumption that the Death Star reactor is putting out the kind of energy necessary to destroy a planet through directed energy transfer? Just because you guys are unwilling to acknowledge your own assumptions doesn't make my hypothesis based on canon evidence less valid. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 09 Jul 2002 17:44:50 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020709134450.10772.00006658@mb-fp.aol.com> -------- >"Stuart Mackey" wrote in message >news:ageknm$lautp$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... >> >> "DarkStar" wrote in message >> news:2EzW8.637262$%y.39634024@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> > >> > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message >> > news:age5q6$kj35k$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... >> > >> > > > > No, Dark Star, I'm not assuming, I'm using evidence. A Hypermatter >> > core >> > > is >> > > > > directly stated to produce enough energy to blow apart any planet >in >> > the >> > > > > Galaxy. >> > > > >> > > > ... so long as it has a superlaser to do it with, and that is >> technology >> > > we >> > > > don't know about. Good job. >> > > >> > > Of course we don't know about it, but we do have observed evidence >from >> a >> > > canon source: In ANH the DS destroys a planet. We do know that the DS >> uses >> > a >> > > hypermatter reactor to produce the power to do this.Ther is no >evidence >> to >> > > suggest anything else. >> > >> > That's what I'm saying. The Death Star reactor produces the power to >> > destroy a planet using the superlaser. But we don't know how the >> > superlaser does that. There may be POOCing, or the weapons equivalent >of >> > AMRE, or something like phasering, or a hundred other weird sci-fi >things. >> > For all we know, the Death Star "reactor" for powering the superlaser is >a >> > giant Wookiee with a can of baked beans. >> >> This is not what you are saying at all. You are reading into canon events >> more than what is stated. We know the DS can destroy a planet due to the >> power put out by a hypermatter reactor. Thats it! there is no more! what >you >> have put forth is pure _unsupported assumption_, nothing more. >> If you want to put forth a theory, use canon sources to prove it, >otherwise >> concede defeat with some grace. > >Unsupported assumption? How about the unsupported assumption that the >Death Star reactor is putting out the kind of energy necessary to destroy a >planet through directed energy transfer? > This 'assumption' is not an assumption, but a directly stated Canon fact. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 18:06:24 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020709134450.10772.00006658@mb-fp.aol.com... > >"Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > >news:ageknm$lautp$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > >> > >> "DarkStar" wrote in message > >> news:2EzW8.637262$%y.39634024@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > >> > > >> > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > >> > news:age5q6$kj35k$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > >> > > >> > > > > No, Dark Star, I'm not assuming, I'm using evidence. A Hypermatter > >> > core > >> > > is > >> > > > > directly stated to produce enough energy to blow apart any planet > >in > >> > the > >> > > > > Galaxy. > >> > > > > >> > > > ... so long as it has a superlaser to do it with, and that is > >> technology > >> > > we > >> > > > don't know about. Good job. > >> > > > >> > > Of course we don't know about it, but we do have observed evidence > >from > >> a > >> > > canon source: In ANH the DS destroys a planet. We do know that the DS > >> uses > >> > a > >> > > hypermatter reactor to produce the power to do this.Ther is no > >evidence > >> to > >> > > suggest anything else. > >> > > >> > That's what I'm saying. The Death Star reactor produces the power to > >> > destroy a planet using the superlaser. But we don't know how the > >> > superlaser does that. There may be POOCing, or the weapons equivalent > >of > >> > AMRE, or something like phasering, or a hundred other weird sci-fi > >things. > >> > For all we know, the Death Star "reactor" for powering the superlaser is > >a > >> > giant Wookiee with a can of baked beans. > >> > >> This is not what you are saying at all. You are reading into canon events > >> more than what is stated. We know the DS can destroy a planet due to the > >> power put out by a hypermatter reactor. Thats it! there is no more! what > >you > >> have put forth is pure _unsupported assumption_, nothing more. > >> If you want to put forth a theory, use canon sources to prove it, > >otherwise > >> concede defeat with some grace. > > > >Unsupported assumption? How about the unsupported assumption that the > >Death Star reactor is putting out the kind of energy necessary to destroy a > >planet through directed energy transfer? > > > > This 'assumption' is not an assumption, but a directly stated Canon fact. And when, O Wise One, is it said that the Death Star reactor puts out the equivalent energy necessary to destroy a planet using directed energy transfer? Hmm? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 09 Jul 2002 19:08:20 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020709150820.26032.00003941@mb-mq.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20020709134450.10772.00006658@mb-fp.aol.com... >> >"Stuart Mackey" wrote in message >> >news:ageknm$lautp$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... >> >> >> >> "DarkStar" wrote in message >> >> news:2EzW8.637262$%y.39634024@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> >> > >> >> > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message >> >> > news:age5q6$kj35k$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... >> >> > >> >> > > > > No, Dark Star, I'm not assuming, I'm using evidence. A >Hypermatter >> >> > core >> >> > > is >> >> > > > > directly stated to produce enough energy to blow apart any >planet >> >in >> >> > the >> >> > > > > Galaxy. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > ... so long as it has a superlaser to do it with, and that is >> >> technology >> >> > > we >> >> > > > don't know about. Good job. >> >> > > >> >> > > Of course we don't know about it, but we do have observed evidence >> >from >> >> a >> >> > > canon source: In ANH the DS destroys a planet. We do know that the >DS >> >> uses >> >> > a >> >> > > hypermatter reactor to produce the power to do this.Ther is no >> >evidence >> >> to >> >> > > suggest anything else. >> >> > >> >> > That's what I'm saying. The Death Star reactor produces the power to >> >> > destroy a planet using the superlaser. But we don't know how the >> >> > superlaser does that. There may be POOCing, or the weapons >equivalent >> >of >> >> > AMRE, or something like phasering, or a hundred other weird sci-fi >> >things. >> >> > For all we know, the Death Star "reactor" for powering the superlaser >is >> >a >> >> > giant Wookiee with a can of baked beans. >> >> >> >> This is not what you are saying at all. You are reading into canon >events >> >> more than what is stated. We know the DS can destroy a planet due to >the >> >> power put out by a hypermatter reactor. Thats it! there is no more! >what >> >you >> >> have put forth is pure _unsupported assumption_, nothing more. >> >> If you want to put forth a theory, use canon sources to prove it, >> >otherwise >> >> concede defeat with some grace. >> > >> >Unsupported assumption? How about the unsupported assumption that the >> >Death Star reactor is putting out the kind of energy necessary to destroy >a >> >planet through directed energy transfer? >> > >> >> This 'assumption' is not an assumption, but a directly stated Canon fact. > >And when, O Wise One, is it said that the Death Star reactor puts out the >equivalent energy necessary to destroy a planet using directed energy >transfer? Hmm? > Opening word crawl, the Death Star is stated to have the power to destroy a planet. Various Official(Too bad, so sad, Official exists and is valid) sources denote the reactor as having enough power to crack open planets and fling them far and wide. Your proof it's not Direct Energy Transfer, please. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 19:18:38 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b3702$1@news.zen.co.uk> -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020709150820.26032.00003941@mb-mq.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20020709134450.10772.00006658@mb-fp.aol.com... > Opening word crawl, the Death Star is stated to have the power to destroy a > planet. Various Official(Too bad, so sad, Official exists and is valid) sources > denote the reactor as having enough power to crack open planets and fling them > far and wide. Your proof it's not Direct Energy Transfer, please. No offence but does his ANH book quote not outrank any official stuff? It has the power to destroy a planet - yes but how it that power used, to use a page for ST moving a ship requires more power at standard mass but if you low its mass using a device then move it it takes less power to move. In both cases you have the power to move the ship but dependant upon how you utilise that energy is the final amount needed. Thus you quote doesnt prove anything really and your official info is out ranked by his Canon info. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 09 Jul 2002 20:51:52 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020709165152.22791.00002976@mb-ba.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20020709150820.26032.00003941@mb-mq.aol.com... >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >news:20020709134450.10772.00006658@mb-fp.aol.com... > >> Opening word crawl, the Death Star is stated to have the power to destroy >a >> planet. Various Official(Too bad, so sad, Official exists and is valid) >sources >> denote the reactor as having enough power to crack open planets and fling >them >> far and wide. Your proof it's not Direct Energy Transfer, please. > >No offence but does his ANH book quote not outrank any official stuff? > >It has the power to destroy a planet - yes but how it that power used, to >use a page for ST moving a ship requires more power at standard mass but if >you low its mass using a device then move it it takes less power to move. >In both cases you have the power to move the ship but dependant upon how you >utilise that energy is the final amount needed. > >Thus you quote doesnt prove anything really and your official info is out >ranked by his Canon info. > Look at the quote, in context. It's not a reference to the beam's work, but a reference to the power generation difficulties of pulling 1e38J from a battlestation. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 19:36:34 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <6XGW8.49906$Im2.1770459@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020709150820.26032.00003941@mb-mq.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20020709134450.10772.00006658@mb-fp.aol.com... > >> >"Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > >> >news:ageknm$lautp$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > >> >> > >> >> "DarkStar" wrote in message > >> >> news:2EzW8.637262$%y.39634024@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > >> >> > news:age5q6$kj35k$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > No, Dark Star, I'm not assuming, I'm using evidence. A > >Hypermatter > >> >> > core > >> >> > > is > >> >> > > > > directly stated to produce enough energy to blow apart any > >planet > >> >in > >> >> > the > >> >> > > > > Galaxy. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > ... so long as it has a superlaser to do it with, and that is > >> >> technology > >> >> > > we > >> >> > > > don't know about. Good job. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Of course we don't know about it, but we do have observed evidence > >> >from > >> >> a > >> >> > > canon source: In ANH the DS destroys a planet. We do know that the > >DS > >> >> uses > >> >> > a > >> >> > > hypermatter reactor to produce the power to do this.Ther is no > >> >evidence > >> >> to > >> >> > > suggest anything else. > >> >> > > >> >> > That's what I'm saying. The Death Star reactor produces the power to > >> >> > destroy a planet using the superlaser. But we don't know how the > >> >> > superlaser does that. There may be POOCing, or the weapons > >equivalent > >> >of > >> >> > AMRE, or something like phasering, or a hundred other weird sci-fi > >> >things. > >> >> > For all we know, the Death Star "reactor" for powering the superlaser > >is > >> >a > >> >> > giant Wookiee with a can of baked beans. > >> >> > >> >> This is not what you are saying at all. You are reading into canon > >events > >> >> more than what is stated. We know the DS can destroy a planet due to > >the > >> >> power put out by a hypermatter reactor. Thats it! there is no more! > >what > >> >you > >> >> have put forth is pure _unsupported assumption_, nothing more. > >> >> If you want to put forth a theory, use canon sources to prove it, > >> >otherwise > >> >> concede defeat with some grace. > >> > > >> >Unsupported assumption? How about the unsupported assumption that the > >> >Death Star reactor is putting out the kind of energy necessary to destroy > >a > >> >planet through directed energy transfer? > >> > > >> > >> This 'assumption' is not an assumption, but a directly stated Canon fact. > > > >And when, O Wise One, is it said that the Death Star reactor puts out the > >equivalent energy necessary to destroy a planet using directed energy > >transfer? Hmm? > > > > Opening word crawl, the Death Star is stated to have the power to destroy a > planet. Various Official(Too bad, so sad, Official exists and is valid) sources > denote the reactor as having enough power to crack open planets and fling them > far and wide. Your proof it's not Direct Energy Transfer, please. I don't see either of your claims explaining that the reactor itself has the power, when liberated, to do this without the superlaser and its effect. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 09 Jul 2002 23:09:19 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <20020709190919.01759.00000137@mb-fo.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20020709150820.26032.00003941@mb-mq.aol.com... >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >news:20020709134450.10772.00006658@mb-fp.aol.com... >> >> >"Stuart Mackey" wrote in message >> >> >news:ageknm$lautp$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... >> >> >> >> >> >> "DarkStar" wrote in message >> >> >> news:2EzW8.637262$%y.39634024@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message >> >> >> > news:age5q6$kj35k$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > > No, Dark Star, I'm not assuming, I'm using evidence. A >> >Hypermatter >> >> >> > core >> >> >> > > is >> >> >> > > > > directly stated to produce enough energy to blow apart any >> >planet >> >> >in >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > > > > Galaxy. >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > ... so long as it has a superlaser to do it with, and that is >> >> >> technology >> >> >> > > we >> >> >> > > > don't know about. Good job. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Of course we don't know about it, but we do have observed >evidence >> >> >from >> >> >> a >> >> >> > > canon source: In ANH the DS destroys a planet. We do know that >the >> >DS >> >> >> uses >> >> >> > a >> >> >> > > hypermatter reactor to produce the power to do this.Ther is no >> >> >evidence >> >> >> to >> >> >> > > suggest anything else. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > That's what I'm saying. The Death Star reactor produces the power >to >> >> >> > destroy a planet using the superlaser. But we don't know how the >> >> >> > superlaser does that. There may be POOCing, or the weapons >> >equivalent >> >> >of >> >> >> > AMRE, or something like phasering, or a hundred other weird sci-fi >> >> >things. >> >> >> > For all we know, the Death Star "reactor" for powering the >superlaser >> >is >> >> >a >> >> >> > giant Wookiee with a can of baked beans. >> >> >> >> >> >> This is not what you are saying at all. You are reading into canon >> >events >> >> >> more than what is stated. We know the DS can destroy a planet due to >> >the >> >> >> power put out by a hypermatter reactor. Thats it! there is no more! >> >what >> >> >you >> >> >> have put forth is pure _unsupported assumption_, nothing more. >> >> >> If you want to put forth a theory, use canon sources to prove it, >> >> >otherwise >> >> >> concede defeat with some grace. >> >> > >> >> >Unsupported assumption? How about the unsupported assumption that >the >> >> >Death Star reactor is putting out the kind of energy necessary to >destroy >> >a >> >> >planet through directed energy transfer? >> >> > >> >> >> >> This 'assumption' is not an assumption, but a directly stated Canon >fact. >> > >> >And when, O Wise One, is it said that the Death Star reactor puts out the >> >equivalent energy necessary to destroy a planet using directed energy >> >transfer? Hmm? >> > >> >> Opening word crawl, the Death Star is stated to have the power to destroy >a >> planet. Various Official(Too bad, so sad, Official exists and is valid) >sources >> denote the reactor as having enough power to crack open planets and fling >them >> far and wide. Your proof it's not Direct Energy Transfer, please. > >I don't see either of your claims explaining that the reactor itself has the >power, when liberated, to do this without the superlaser and its effect. > What gibberish are you talking? The most common theory, supported by Official, is that the Superlaser draws power from the main reactor and fires a beam of a minimum of 1e38J into the planet. See, that's the problem with your theory. You're doing it ass-backwards. Instead of seeing what's there... That the Death Star fires a beam and blows up a planet.. Examining other evidence.. The Official sources stating the Hypermatter core generates the required power to blow up a planet... and working out that it's just some very, very, VERY powerful gun, you start from the conclusion it couldn't possibly generate that power, and begin trying to generate a series of unknown mechanisms to explain it away. No theory should be generated as such. You will obviously attack this, and me, but this doesn't change that you are attacking the whole process the wrong way round, to generate a theory, that, while it fits the facts, sort of, maybe, is not superior to the commonly accepted theory in any way, and actually falls short because it demands too many unknowns, most promenantly in the nature of the Superlaser. With DET and Conservation Of Energy intact, we can declare it simply a high-energy plasma beam that 'flaks', much like it's turbolaser cousins, at the center of the planet. But like so many victims of New Trek, you feel anything powerful can be ascribed to smoke and mirrors magic tech, thanks to Berman & Braga's constant pussification of anything remotely powerful, by attributing it to delicate technology that conveniently breaks. You'll complain, and you'll attack this, and you'll attack me, trying to make me seem like an unreasonable troll(HA!), but frankly I don't care. Rant and rave all you like, I've wasted enough time on you that could be better spent. So, in closing: Fuck you, Dark Star. And your crappy ass, technobabble ridden turd of a theory. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Pownall" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 23:29:05 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <3d2b71b5$1@news.zen.co.uk> -------- Ok heres what we know by levels. Film - Death Star destroys planets, simplest explaination it brute forces its way by giving the planet 1E38 j - enough energy to fly apart. Novel - Death star uses a small sun as power. hmm problem. A small sun cant possibly create 1E38 per day (not to mention power defenses and an engine). Therefore based on canon evidence something other than brute force is being employed. Offcial Hypermatter reactors are used - contradicts canon so its wrong. Therefore we need a new theory - the floor is open, so far we have only one that fits the facts, anyone else care to join in? By the way this means we have to recalc the fleet size based on canon since we can determine fire power from canon we can determine fleet size - watch it decrease either that or the current weapons calcs are way to high. Do you see how one new theory could turn around everything since too much relies on the death star half fleet quote. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stuart Mackey Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:42:10 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Alan Pownall" wrote in news:3d2b71b5$1@news.zen.co.uk: > > Ok heres what we know by levels. > > Film - Death Star destroys planets, simplest explaination it brute > forces its way by giving the planet 1E38 j - enough energy to fly > apart. Novel - Death star uses a small sun as power. hmm problem. > > A small sun cant possibly create 1E38 per day (not to mention power > defenses and an engine). > > Therefore based on canon evidence something other than brute force is > being employed. > > Offcial > Hypermatter reactors are used - contradicts canon so its wrong. > > Therefore we need a new theory - the floor is open, so far we have > only one that fits the facts, anyone else care to join in? > > By the way this means we have to recalc the fleet size based on canon > since we can determine fire power from canon we can determine fleet > size - watch it decrease either that or the current weapons calcs are > way to high. > > Do you see how one new theory could turn around everything since too > much relies on the death star half fleet quote. I do hope you are joking? A stardestroyer is stated to use more power than some civilisations to make the jump to hyperspace, but a civilisation is not trapped in the ISD's reactor spaces, so it must have the power in one go to do this. To claim the DS has a sun to do this is silly, and childish. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 03:02:38 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020709190919.01759.00000137@mb-fo.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20020709150820.26032.00003941@mb-mq.aol.com... > >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >> >news:20020709134450.10772.00006658@mb-fp.aol.com... > >> >> >"Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > >> >> >news:ageknm$lautp$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> "DarkStar" wrote in message > >> >> >> news:2EzW8.637262$%y.39634024@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > >> >> >> > news:age5q6$kj35k$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > > No, Dark Star, I'm not assuming, I'm using evidence. A > >> >Hypermatter > >> >> >> > core > >> >> >> > > is > >> >> >> > > > > directly stated to produce enough energy to blow apart any > >> >planet > >> >> >in > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > > > > Galaxy. > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > ... so long as it has a superlaser to do it with, and that is > >> >> >> technology > >> >> >> > > we > >> >> >> > > > don't know about. Good job. > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > Of course we don't know about it, but we do have observed > >evidence > >> >> >from > >> >> >> a > >> >> >> > > canon source: In ANH the DS destroys a planet. We do know that > >the > >> >DS > >> >> >> uses > >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> > > hypermatter reactor to produce the power to do this.Ther is no > >> >> >evidence > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> > > suggest anything else. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > That's what I'm saying. The Death Star reactor produces the power > >to > >> >> >> > destroy a planet using the superlaser. But we don't know how the > >> >> >> > superlaser does that. There may be POOCing, or the weapons > >> >equivalent > >> >> >of > >> >> >> > AMRE, or something like phasering, or a hundred other weird sci-fi > >> >> >things. > >> >> >> > For all we know, the Death Star "reactor" for powering the > >superlaser > >> >is > >> >> >a > >> >> >> > giant Wookiee with a can of baked beans. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> This is not what you are saying at all. You are reading into canon > >> >events > >> >> >> more than what is stated. We know the DS can destroy a planet due to > >> >the > >> >> >> power put out by a hypermatter reactor. Thats it! there is no more! > >> >what > >> >> >you > >> >> >> have put forth is pure _unsupported assumption_, nothing more. > >> >> >> If you want to put forth a theory, use canon sources to prove it, > >> >> >otherwise > >> >> >> concede defeat with some grace. > >> >> > > >> >> >Unsupported assumption? How about the unsupported assumption that > >the > >> >> >Death Star reactor is putting out the kind of energy necessary to > >destroy > >> >a > >> >> >planet through directed energy transfer? > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> This 'assumption' is not an assumption, but a directly stated Canon > >fact. > >> > > >> >And when, O Wise One, is it said that the Death Star reactor puts out the > >> >equivalent energy necessary to destroy a planet using directed energy > >> >transfer? Hmm? > >> > > >> > >> Opening word crawl, the Death Star is stated to have the power to destroy > >a > >> planet. Various Official(Too bad, so sad, Official exists and is valid) > >sources > >> denote the reactor as having enough power to crack open planets and fling > >them > >> far and wide. Your proof it's not Direct Energy Transfer, please. > > > >I don't see either of your claims explaining that the reactor itself has the > >power, when liberated, to do this without the superlaser and its effect. > > > > What gibberish are you talking? The most common theory, supported by Official, > is that the Superlaser draws power from the main reactor and fires a beam of a > minimum of 1e38J into the planet. The most common theory is in error. This is shown by the canon. > See, that's the problem with your theory. You're doing it ass-backwards. > Instead of seeing what's there... That the Death Star fires a beam and blows up > a planet.. Examining other evidence.. The Official sources stating the > Hypermatter core generates the required power to blow up a planet... and No, you're doing it ass-backwards. You are ignoring canon in favor of non-canon, apparently just because it is older. But you're missing the fact that the non-canon is based on the older evidence, a canon which no longer exists. You are therefore allowing the non-canon to rewrite what we see with our own eyes in the canon. That, sir, is ass-backwards. > working out that it's just some very, very, VERY powerful gun, you start from > the conclusion it couldn't possibly generate that power, and begin trying to > generate a series of unknown mechanisms to explain it away. No theory should be > generated as such. I did not start from the conclusion that it could not happen. I had my doubts, to be sure, but you saw my thought process unfold in that message. I only discovered the shockwave band while I was replying to that message. This spawned thoughts, which required me to perform observations, which spawned more thoughts. You're ignoring this in favor of a canon which no longer exists and a non-canon which cannot override canon. > You will obviously attack this, and me, but this doesn't change that you are > attacking the whole process the wrong way round, to generate a theory, that, You're the one who engages in and starts the petty personal attacks, so don't go trying to point fingers. > while it fits the facts, sort of, maybe, is not superior to the commonly > accepted theory in any way, and actually falls short because it demands too > many unknowns, most promenantly in the nature of the Superlaser. With DET and > Conservation Of Energy intact, we can declare it simply a high-energy plasma > beam that 'flaks', much like it's turbolaser cousins, at the center of the > planet. The DET-flak hypothesis also fails to explain the events we observe, for similar reasons. A flak burst would not produce the effects we observe. And at no point do we ever see a delayed-reaction flak burst of the sort you are describing. You have just introduced a new entity which does not have explanatory power, so that idea is trash. > But like so many victims of New Trek, you feel anything powerful can be > ascribed to smoke and mirrors magic tech, thanks to Berman & Braga's constant > pussification of anything remotely powerful, by attributing it to delicate > technology that conveniently breaks. Making claims about my motives or background is irrelevant. I have taken the facts from the canon and created a hypothesis which serves to explain them. The classical theory, widely held, fails to do so. > Fuck you, Dark Star. And your crappy ass, technobabble ridden turd of a theory. Good riddance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Henry Mundstock" Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:40:27 -0700 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:ACFW8.105631$vq.5222263@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > And when, O Wise One, is it said that the Death Star reactor puts out the > equivalent energy necessary to destroy a planet using directed energy > transfer? Hmm? > > In the Jedi Academy trilogy, a senior egghead of the Imperial superweapons development program, possibly Qwi Xux, said to a rebel, who I think was Wedge Antilles, a comparison of the Death Star and Sun Crusher, to the effect that what the DS accomplishes through brute force the SC does with finesse. Sorry I can't give a more exact quote but I haven't read those books in years. To me, that seems to imply that the Death Star uses brute force, ie direct energy transfer, to blow up planets without making use of any fancy tricks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 23:19:23 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: <%bKW8.359857$_j6.17102562@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Henry Mundstock" wrote in message news:agfp1a$kve18$1@ID-102589.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:ACFW8.105631$vq.5222263@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > And when, O Wise One, is it said that the Death Star reactor puts out the > > equivalent energy necessary to destroy a planet using directed energy > > transfer? Hmm? > > > > > > In the Jedi Academy trilogy, a senior egghead of the Imperial superweapons > development program, possibly Qwi Xux, said to a rebel, who I think was > Wedge Antilles, a comparison of the Death Star and Sun Crusher, to the > effect that what the DS accomplishes through brute force the SC does with > finesse. Sorry I can't give a more exact quote but I haven't read those > books in years. > > To me, that seems to imply that the Death Star uses brute force, ie direct > energy transfer, to blow up planets without making use of any fancy tricks. The Sun Crusher, AFAIK, is a fighter-size craft that fires an energy torpedo into the heart of a sun, destroying a system completely by using some sort of resonance effect in the stellar core, destabilizing the star. By comparison, indeed, the Death Star is a brute-force weapon, whether it uses "fancy tricks" or not. Also, in the hunt for information, I bumped into this. I don't know if it is accurate from a quick skim, but it looked interesting: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Sun+Crusher%22+%22brute+force%22+group: alt.startrek.vs.starwars&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=7sc3mk%24jug%241%4 0news01.cit.cornell.edu&rnum=3 For those of you interested in the non-canon, the Sun Crusher is proof that such "fancy tricks" exist in the SW universe, and are used. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Henry Mundstock" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:24:02 -0700 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:%bKW8.359857$_j6.17102562@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Henry Mundstock" wrote in message > news:agfp1a$kve18$1@ID-102589.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:ACFW8.105631$vq.5222263@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > And when, O Wise One, is it said that the Death Star reactor puts out > the > > > equivalent energy necessary to destroy a planet using directed energy > > > transfer? Hmm? > > > > > > > > > > In the Jedi Academy trilogy, a senior egghead of the Imperial superweapons > > development program, possibly Qwi Xux, said to a rebel, who I think was > > Wedge Antilles, a comparison of the Death Star and Sun Crusher, to the > > effect that what the DS accomplishes through brute force the SC does with > > finesse. Sorry I can't give a more exact quote but I haven't read those > > books in years. > > > > To me, that seems to imply that the Death Star uses brute force, ie direct > > energy transfer, to blow up planets without making use of any fancy > tricks. > > The Sun Crusher, AFAIK, is a fighter-size craft that fires an energy torpedo > into the heart of a sun, destroying a system completely by using some sort > of resonance effect in the stellar core, destabilizing the star. By > comparison, indeed, the Death Star is a brute-force weapon, whether it uses > "fancy tricks" or not. > I have not seen any evidence that the Death Star's superlaser is anything other than a very large turbolaser. In order to prove that it does not operate by direct energy transfer, you would either have to show that it does not operate under the same principles as smaller turbolasers or that turbolasers do not use direct energy transfer. > Also, in the hunt for information, I bumped into this. I don't know if it > is accurate from a quick skim, but it looked interesting: > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Sun+Crusher%22+%22brute+force%22+group: > alt.startrek.vs.starwars&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=7sc3mk%24jug%241%4 > 0news01.cit.cornell.edu&rnum=3 > Author assumes that the energy of the planet killing blast was released in the explosion. If I were to blow up a nuclear power plant, the explosion would not release the energy contained within the fuel rods. Same goes if I smash up a nuclear bomb. The conventional explosives used to detonate it might explode, but they would do so improperly so that the bomb does not achieve critical mass. The small DS explosion an be rationalized as a case of incompletely exploded munitions. > For those of you interested in the non-canon, the Sun Crusher is proof that > such "fancy tricks" exist in the SW universe, and are used. > > In any case, it is undeniable that the Death Star weapon produces destruction comparable to a 1E38 joule release of energy. The fleet firepower can be scaled off of that, no matter how that destruction is achieved. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:32:10 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Henry Mundstock" wrote in message news:aggnn7$lqj09$1@ID-102589.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:%bKW8.359857$_j6.17102562@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Henry Mundstock" wrote in message > > news:agfp1a$kve18$1@ID-102589.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:ACFW8.105631$vq.5222263@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > And when, O Wise One, is it said that the Death Star reactor puts out > > the > > > > equivalent energy necessary to destroy a planet using directed energy > > > > transfer? Hmm? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the Jedi Academy trilogy, a senior egghead of the Imperial > superweapons > > > development program, possibly Qwi Xux, said to a rebel, who I think was > > > Wedge Antilles, a comparison of the Death Star and Sun Crusher, to the > > > effect that what the DS accomplishes through brute force the SC does > with > > > finesse. Sorry I can't give a more exact quote but I haven't read those > > > books in years. > > > > > > To me, that seems to imply that the Death Star uses brute force, ie > direct > > > energy transfer, to blow up planets without making use of any fancy > > tricks. > > > > The Sun Crusher, AFAIK, is a fighter-size craft that fires an energy > torpedo > > into the heart of a sun, destroying a system completely by using some sort > > of resonance effect in the stellar core, destabilizing the star. By > > comparison, indeed, the Death Star is a brute-force weapon, whether it > uses > > "fancy tricks" or not. > > > > I have not seen any evidence that the Death Star's superlaser is anything > other than a very large turbolaser. In order to prove that it does not > operate by direct energy transfer, you would either have to show that it > does not operate under the same principles as smaller turbolasers or that > turbolasers do not use direct energy transfer. > Again, this is demanding that canon subscribe to the non-canon. Nowhere in the canon is it said the superlaser is a big turbolaser. The only evidence you have for that is that it is green. > > For those of you interested in the non-canon, the Sun Crusher is proof > that > > such "fancy tricks" exist in the SW universe, and are used. > > > > > > In any case, it is undeniable that the Death Star weapon produces > destruction comparable to a 1E38 joule release of energy. The fleet > firepower can be scaled off of that, no matter how that destruction is > achieved. Debatable, but irrelevant for our purposes at the moment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Henry Mundstock" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:05:05 -0700 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:ekZW8.24214$Bt1.1301343@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Henry Mundstock" wrote in message > news:aggnn7$lqj09$1@ID-102589.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:%bKW8.359857$_j6.17102562@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Henry Mundstock" wrote in message > > > news:agfp1a$kve18$1@ID-102589.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > news:ACFW8.105631$vq.5222263@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > And when, O Wise One, is it said that the Death Star reactor puts > out > > > the > > > > > equivalent energy necessary to destroy a planet using directed > energy > > > > > transfer? Hmm? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the Jedi Academy trilogy, a senior egghead of the Imperial > > superweapons > > > > development program, possibly Qwi Xux, said to a rebel, who I think > was > > > > Wedge Antilles, a comparison of the Death Star and Sun Crusher, to the > > > > effect that what the DS accomplishes through brute force the SC does > > with > > > > finesse. Sorry I can't give a more exact quote but I haven't read > those > > > > books in years. > > > > > > > > To me, that seems to imply that the Death Star uses brute force, ie > > direct > > > > energy transfer, to blow up planets without making use of any fancy > > > tricks. > > > > > > The Sun Crusher, AFAIK, is a fighter-size craft that fires an energy > > torpedo > > > into the heart of a sun, destroying a system completely by using some > sort > > > of resonance effect in the stellar core, destabilizing the star. By > > > comparison, indeed, the Death Star is a brute-force weapon, whether it > > uses > > > "fancy tricks" or not. > > > > > > > I have not seen any evidence that the Death Star's superlaser is anything > > other than a very large turbolaser. In order to prove that it does not > > operate by direct energy transfer, you would either have to show that it > > does not operate under the same principles as smaller turbolasers or that > > turbolasers do not use direct energy transfer. > > > > Again, this is demanding that canon subscribe to the non-canon. Nowhere in > the canon is it said the superlaser is a big turbolaser. The only evidence > you have for that is that it is green. > What evdence have you that it is not a giant turbolaser? In absense of canon evidence we use official. The only evidence you have is the ring. That ring can not be interpreted as support of your argument without the introduction of entirely new physics, new physics that are not supported by canon. > > > For those of you interested in the non-canon, the Sun Crusher is proof > > that > > > such "fancy tricks" exist in the SW universe, and are used. > > > > > > > > > > In any case, it is undeniable that the Death Star weapon produces > > destruction comparable to a 1E38 joule release of energy. The fleet > > firepower can be scaled off of that, no matter how that destruction is > > achieved. > > Debatable, but irrelevant for our purposes at the moment. > > Do you remember how this argument started? You were trying to prove low figures for Imperial firepower. Nitram defended higher figures, using, among other arguments, the following: "Not to mention the 1e30J firepower comes from the Canon quote of Dodonna's." You said: "Based on the completely unknown firepower of the Death Star (remember those rings?)" So the argument is over Imperial firepower. In that case, it does not matter how the Death Star operated. All that matters is that it produced a certain amount of destruction. For simplicity's sake, we'll say it caused 1E38 martins of damage. A martin is, for the purposes of argument, equivalent to damage done by a 1 joule energy release. Under certain interpretations of Dodonna's quote, you can scale the firepower in martins of the Imperial fleet from that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:12:18 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Henry Mundstock" wrote in message news:agiibr$maeba$1@ID-102589.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:ekZW8.24214$Bt1.1301343@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Henry Mundstock" wrote in message > > news:aggnn7$lqj09$1@ID-102589.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:%bKW8.359857$_j6.17102562@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "Henry Mundstock" wrote in message > > > > news:agfp1a$kve18$1@ID-102589.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > > news:ACFW8.105631$vq.5222263@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > And when, O Wise One, is it said that the Death Star reactor puts > > out > > > > the > > > > > > equivalent energy necessary to destroy a planet using directed > > energy > > > > > > transfer? Hmm? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the Jedi Academy trilogy, a senior egghead of the Imperial > > > superweapons > > > > > development program, possibly Qwi Xux, said to a rebel, who I think > > was > > > > > Wedge Antilles, a comparison of the Death Star and Sun Crusher, to > the > > > > > effect that what the DS accomplishes through brute force the SC does > > > with > > > > > finesse. Sorry I can't give a more exact quote but I haven't read > > those > > > > > books in years. > > > > > > > > > > To me, that seems to imply that the Death Star uses brute force, ie > > > direct > > > > > energy transfer, to blow up planets without making use of any fancy > > > > tricks. > > > > > > > > The Sun Crusher, AFAIK, is a fighter-size craft that fires an energy > > > torpedo > > > > into the heart of a sun, destroying a system completely by using some > > sort > > > > of resonance effect in the stellar core, destabilizing the star. By > > > > comparison, indeed, the Death Star is a brute-force weapon, whether it > > > uses > > > > "fancy tricks" or not. > > > > > > > > > > I have not seen any evidence that the Death Star's superlaser is > anything > > > other than a very large turbolaser. In order to prove that it does not > > > operate by direct energy transfer, you would either have to show that it > > > does not operate under the same principles as smaller turbolasers or > that > > > turbolasers do not use direct energy transfer. > > > > > > > Again, this is demanding that canon subscribe to the non-canon. Nowhere > in > > the canon is it said the superlaser is a big turbolaser. The only > evidence > > you have for that is that it is green. > > > > What evdence have you that it is not a giant turbolaser? In absense of canon > evidence we use official. > > The only evidence you have is the ring. That ring can not be interpreted as > support of your argument without the introduction of entirely new physics, > new physics that are not supported by canon. The non-canon evidence of large-scale turbolasery is not supported by the canon, either... the rings and bands do not allow it. That's why I stuck to the canon to derive a hypothesis. > > > > For those of you interested in the non-canon, the Sun Crusher is proof > > > that > > > > such "fancy tricks" exist in the SW universe, and are used. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In any case, it is undeniable that the Death Star weapon produces > > > destruction comparable to a 1E38 joule release of energy. The fleet > > > firepower can be scaled off of that, no matter how that destruction is > > > achieved. > > > > Debatable, but irrelevant for our purposes at the moment. > > > > > > Do you remember how this argument started? You were trying to prove low > figures for Imperial firepower. Nitram defended higher figures, using, among > other arguments, the following: I'm not trying to prove low figures for Imperial firepower with this hypothesis. The hypothesis makes no claims about Imperial firepower, and in fact I _use_ the 1e38J figure for Alderaan debris! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Henry Mundstock" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 01:32:54 -0700 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:mdaX8.79123$Im2.3509157@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Henry Mundstock" wrote in message > news:agiibr$maeba$1@ID-102589.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:ekZW8.24214$Bt1.1301343@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Henry Mundstock" wrote in message > > > news:aggnn7$lqj09$1@ID-102589.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > news:%bKW8.359857$_j6.17102562@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > "Henry Mundstock" wrote in message > > > > > news:agfp1a$kve18$1@ID-102589.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > > > news:ACFW8.105631$vq.5222263@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And when, O Wise One, is it said that the Death Star reactor > puts > > > out > > > > > the > > > > > > > equivalent energy necessary to destroy a planet using directed > > > energy > > > > > > > transfer? Hmm? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the Jedi Academy trilogy, a senior egghead of the Imperial > > > > superweapons > > > > > > development program, possibly Qwi Xux, said to a rebel, who I > think > > > was > > > > > > Wedge Antilles, a comparison of the Death Star and Sun Crusher, to > > the > > > > > > effect that what the DS accomplishes through brute force the SC > does > > > > with > > > > > > finesse. Sorry I can't give a more exact quote but I haven't read > > > those > > > > > > books in years. > > > > > > > > > > > > To me, that seems to imply that the Death Star uses brute force, > ie > > > > direct > > > > > > energy transfer, to blow up planets without making use of any > fancy > > > > > tricks. > > > > > > > > > > The Sun Crusher, AFAIK, is a fighter-size craft that fires an energy > > > > torpedo > > > > > into the heart of a sun, destroying a system completely by using > some > > > sort > > > > > of resonance effect in the stellar core, destabilizing the star. By > > > > > comparison, indeed, the Death Star is a brute-force weapon, whether > it > > > > uses > > > > > "fancy tricks" or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not seen any evidence that the Death Star's superlaser is > > anything > > > > other than a very large turbolaser. In order to prove that it does not > > > > operate by direct energy transfer, you would either have to show that > it > > > > does not operate under the same principles as smaller turbolasers or > > that > > > > turbolasers do not use direct energy transfer. > > > > > > > > > > Again, this is demanding that canon subscribe to the non-canon. > Nowhere > > in > > > the canon is it said the superlaser is a big turbolaser. The only > > evidence > > > you have for that is that it is green. > > > > > > > What evdence have you that it is not a giant turbolaser? In absense of > canon > > evidence we use official. > > > > The only evidence you have is the ring. That ring can not be interpreted > as > > support of your argument without the introduction of entirely new physics, > > new physics that are not supported by canon. > > The non-canon evidence of large-scale turbolasery is not supported by the > canon, either... the rings and bands do not allow it. That's why I stuck > to the canon to derive a hypothesis. > Do you know what a massive turbolaser falk burst looks like? What if it looked like a large explosion preceded by a rapidly-expanding ring? The argument for the rings as a product of the flak burst mechanism requires the following assumptions: 1:Turbolasers can flak burst. 2:Flak bursts are shaped like that. #1 is proven by official evidence, which you will naturally ignore. #2 has no evidence for or against. Your argument is, if I am not mistaken, that the energy from the explosion came from the planet itself. It comes with these assumptions: 1:The Empire has the knowledge of high energy physics required to produce gainful reactions out of common minerals at range. 2:Such a reaction would produce a ring. #1 has nothing more than circumstancial evidence. #2 has no evidence, for or against. > > > > > For those of you interested in the non-canon, the Sun Crusher is > proof > > > > that > > > > > such "fancy tricks" exist in the SW universe, and are used. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In any case, it is undeniable that the Death Star weapon produces > > > > destruction comparable to a 1E38 joule release of energy. The fleet > > > > firepower can be scaled off of that, no matter how that destruction is > > > > achieved. > > > > > > Debatable, but irrelevant for our purposes at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > Do you remember how this argument started? You were trying to prove low > > figures for Imperial firepower. Nitram defended higher figures, using, > among > > other arguments, the following: > > I'm not trying to prove low figures for Imperial firepower with this > hypothesis. The hypothesis makes no claims about Imperial firepower, and > in fact I _use_ the 1e38J figure for Alderaan debris! > Then I apologize for misrepresenting your argument. Clearly I misinterpreted your remarks in some way. Would it be correct to state that the sole purpose of this argument is to lower the Death Star's power generation capability? By this I mean that you are attempting to prove that the DS does not produce as much power as suggested by the weapon firing, to the ultimate conclusion that Imperial power generation technology is not as good as commonly claimed? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:16:10 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Henry Mundstock" wrote in message news:agjg44$m7as1$1@ID-102589.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > I have not seen any evidence that the Death Star's superlaser is > > > anything > > > > > other than a very large turbolaser. In order to prove that it does > not > > > > > operate by direct energy transfer, you would either have to show > that > > it > > > > > does not operate under the same principles as smaller turbolasers or > > > that > > > > > turbolasers do not use direct energy transfer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, this is demanding that canon subscribe to the non-canon. > > Nowhere > > > in > > > > the canon is it said the superlaser is a big turbolaser. The only > > > evidence > > > > you have for that is that it is green. > > > > > > > > > > What evdence have you that it is not a giant turbolaser? In absense of > > canon > > > evidence we use official. > > > > > > The only evidence you have is the ring. That ring can not be interpreted > > as > > > support of your argument without the introduction of entirely new > physics, > > > new physics that are not supported by canon. > > > > The non-canon evidence of large-scale turbolasery is not supported by the > > canon, either... the rings and bands do not allow it. That's why I stuck > > to the canon to derive a hypothesis. > > > > Do you know what a massive turbolaser falk burst looks like? What if it > looked like a large explosion preceded by a rapidly-expanding ring? The > argument for the rings as a product of the flak burst mechanism requires the > following assumptions: > > 1:Turbolasers can flak burst. > 2:Flak bursts are shaped like that. > > #1 is proven by official evidence, which you will naturally ignore. No, #1 is canon. I do not ignore canon. > #2 has no evidence for or against. No flak burst has ever demonstrated the rings you want them to. Further, the destruction of Alderaan cannot have resulted from a flak burst, because flak bursts only occur during the visible portion of a bolt. The superlaser beam had already terminated by the time the huge secondary explosion (which by necessity would have to be the time of the flak burst) hit, and given that there are two rings, you must argue that you can have two flak bursts from one bolt. That is also something we have never seen. > Your argument is, if I am not mistaken, that the energy from the explosion > came from the planet itself. In part, yes. >It comes with these assumptions: > > 1:The Empire has the knowledge of high energy physics required to produce > gainful reactions out of common minerals at range. > 2:Such a reaction would produce a ring. > > #1 has nothing more than circumstancial evidence. One would hope so. > #2 has no evidence, for or against. > Check out the new thread started by Skayhan. > > > > > > For those of you interested in the non-canon, the Sun Crusher is > > proof > > > > > that > > > > > > such "fancy tricks" exist in the SW universe, and are used. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In any case, it is undeniable that the Death Star weapon produces > > > > > destruction comparable to a 1E38 joule release of energy. The fleet > > > > > firepower can be scaled off of that, no matter how that destruction > is > > > > > achieved. > > > > > > > > Debatable, but irrelevant for our purposes at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you remember how this argument started? You were trying to prove low > > > figures for Imperial firepower. Nitram defended higher figures, using, > > among > > > other arguments, the following: > > > > I'm not trying to prove low figures for Imperial firepower with this > > hypothesis. The hypothesis makes no claims about Imperial firepower, and > > in fact I _use_ the 1e38J figure for Alderaan debris! > > > > Then I apologize for misrepresenting your argument. Clearly I misinterpreted > your remarks in some way. Would it be correct to state that the sole purpose > of this argument is to lower the Death Star's power generation capability? That would be incorrect. I am simply attempting to discover some method by which we can completely explain what is seen in the canon. > By this I mean that you are attempting to prove that the DS does not produce > as much power as suggested by the weapon firing, to the ultimate conclusion > that Imperial power generation technology is not as good as commonly > claimed? That may or may not be a side effect. The only reference I make to power generation in the post is that the Death Star may have a fusion core, as per the novel's reference. However, that is only a supporting arm to the hypothesis, not the main thrust. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Henry Mundstock" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:34:01 -0700 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:u1cX8.35823$iX5.1484123@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Henry Mundstock" wrote in message > news:agjg44$m7as1$1@ID-102589.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not seen any evidence that the Death Star's superlaser is > > > > anything > > > > > > other than a very large turbolaser. In order to prove that it does > > not > > > > > > operate by direct energy transfer, you would either have to show > > that > > > it > > > > > > does not operate under the same principles as smaller turbolasers > or > > > > that > > > > > > turbolasers do not use direct energy transfer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, this is demanding that canon subscribe to the non-canon. > > > Nowhere > > > > in > > > > > the canon is it said the superlaser is a big turbolaser. The only > > > > evidence > > > > > you have for that is that it is green. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What evdence have you that it is not a giant turbolaser? In absense of > > > canon > > > > evidence we use official. > > > > > > > > The only evidence you have is the ring. That ring can not be > interpreted > > > as > > > > support of your argument without the introduction of entirely new > > physics, > > > > new physics that are not supported by canon. > > > > > > The non-canon evidence of large-scale turbolasery is not supported by > the > > > canon, either... the rings and bands do not allow it. That's why I > stuck > > > to the canon to derive a hypothesis. > > > > > > > Do you know what a massive turbolaser falk burst looks like? What if it > > looked like a large explosion preceded by a rapidly-expanding ring? The > > argument for the rings as a product of the flak burst mechanism requires > the > > following assumptions: > > > > 1:Turbolasers can flak burst. > > 2:Flak bursts are shaped like that. > > > > #1 is proven by official evidence, which you will naturally ignore. > > No, #1 is canon. I do not ignore canon. When did we see a flak burst on screen? I don't recall seeing or hearing of them in the original trilogy or TPM. > > > #2 has no evidence for or against. > > No flak burst has ever demonstrated the rings you want them to. Further, > the destruction of Alderaan cannot have resulted from a flak burst, because > flak bursts only occur during the visible portion of a bolt. The > superlaser beam had already terminated by the time the huge secondary > explosion (which by necessity would have to be the time of the flak burst) > hit, and given that there are two rings, you must argue that you can have > two flak bursts from one bolt. That is also something we have never seen. > Okay, it wasn't a flak burst. I took a look at my special edition tape. I did see that secondary explosion. That is decidedly odd. Perhaps that is the gas plume coming out of the exit wound? It's coming from the right place, but the material is moving in the wrong direction for that. It's hard to tell what's going on there because everything's obscured by the first explosion. It appears that Alderaan involved a second explosion, this one behind the grassy knoll :) > > Your argument is, if I am not mistaken, that the energy from the explosion > > came from the planet itself. > > In part, yes. > > >It comes with these assumptions: > > > > 1:The Empire has the knowledge of high energy physics required to produce > > gainful reactions out of common minerals at range. > > 2:Such a reaction would produce a ring. > > > > #1 has nothing more than circumstancial evidence. > > One would hope so. > > > #2 has no evidence, for or against. > > > > Check out the new thread started by Skayhan. > I downloaded the file, but I got an error when I tried to unzip it. I'll use the tapes I have on site. Some notes, not all of them relevent: 1.The beams pulse. I have no idea what this means. 2.Ring appears at the same time as the primary explosion, seems complete. 3.There is a secondary explosion. 4.There was a big flash over the entire planet at the moment of impact, just before the ring appears. 5.There was a lot of soot at the left side of the planet. 6.Leia's collar was a little tight. You could see a bit of skin jutting out over it. Suggestion: The primary explosion is most of the frontward face getting flash vapourized by the beam, really flashy but not what destroys the planet. The secondary is the beam hitting the solid core and getting down to business. The ring is plasma leakage around the edges. Alternatively: The primary explosion is the beam hitting the planet and destroying much of it. The secondary is caused by an unknown reaction between the beam and the planets mass which somehow causes it to release energy. The ring is also caused by this effect in some way. Both explanations have their flaws. I'd like to hear better ones. > > > > > > > For those of you interested in the non-canon, the Sun Crusher is > > > proof > > > > > > that > > > > > > > such "fancy tricks" exist in the SW universe, and are used. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In any case, it is undeniable that the Death Star weapon produces > > > > > > destruction comparable to a 1E38 joule release of energy. The > fleet > > > > > > firepower can be scaled off of that, no matter how that > destruction > > is > > > > > > achieved. > > > > > > > > > > Debatable, but irrelevant for our purposes at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you remember how this argument started? You were trying to prove > low > > > > figures for Imperial firepower. Nitram defended higher figures, using, > > > among > > > > other arguments, the following: > > > > > > I'm not trying to prove low figures for Imperial firepower with this > > > hypothesis. The hypothesis makes no claims about Imperial firepower, > and > > > in fact I _use_ the 1e38J figure for Alderaan debris! > > > > > > > Then I apologize for misrepresenting your argument. Clearly I > misinterpreted > > your remarks in some way. Would it be correct to state that the sole > purpose > > of this argument is to lower the Death Star's power generation capability? > > That would be incorrect. I am simply attempting to discover some method by > which we can completely explain what is seen in the canon. > Neat. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:04:22 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Henry Mundstock" wrote in message news:agk1or$mglaj$1@ID-102589.news.dfncis.de... > > > Do you know what a massive turbolaser falk burst looks like? What if it > > > looked like a large explosion preceded by a rapidly-expanding ring? The > > > argument for the rings as a product of the flak burst mechanism requires > > the > > > following assumptions: > > > > > > 1:Turbolasers can flak burst. > > > 2:Flak bursts are shaped like that. > > > > > > #1 is proven by official evidence, which you will naturally ignore. > > > > No, #1 is canon. I do not ignore canon. > > When did we see a flak burst on screen? I don't recall seeing or hearing of > them in the original trilogy or TPM. Er, they happen all the time. Yes, the most notable examples are in AoTC, but you can see them in space and atmospheric combat, as well. That's where all the flashes come from during the snowspeeder vs. AT-AT battle. > > > #2 has no evidence for or against. > > > > No flak burst has ever demonstrated the rings you want them to. Further, > > the destruction of Alderaan cannot have resulted from a flak burst, > because > > flak bursts only occur during the visible portion of a bolt. The > > superlaser beam had already terminated by the time the huge secondary > > explosion (which by necessity would have to be the time of the flak burst) > > hit, and given that there are two rings, you must argue that you can have > > two flak bursts from one bolt. That is also something we have never > seen. > > > > Okay, it wasn't a flak burst. > > I took a look at my special edition tape. I did see that secondary > explosion. That is decidedly odd. Perhaps that is the gas plume coming out > of the exit wound? It's coming from the right place, but the material is > moving in the wrong direction for that. > It's hard to tell what's going on there because everything's obscured by the > first explosion. Indeed. > It appears that Alderaan involved a second explosion, this one behind the > grassy knoll :) I saw it there, too! There were two Death Stars behind the planet! :) > > > Your argument is, if I am not mistaken, that the energy from the > explosion > > > came from the planet itself. > > > > In part, yes. > > > > >It comes with these assumptions: > > > > > > 1:The Empire has the knowledge of high energy physics required to > produce > > > gainful reactions out of common minerals at range. > > > 2:Such a reaction would produce a ring. > > > > > > #1 has nothing more than circumstancial evidence. > > > > One would hope so. > > > > > #2 has no evidence, for or against. > > > > > > > Check out the new thread started by Skayhan. > > > > I downloaded the file, but I got an error when I tried to unzip it. I'll use > the tapes I have on site. :( Worked fine for me. If your connection is sufficiently speedy, you might want to try it again. > Some notes, not all of them relevent: > > 1.The beams pulse. I have no idea what this means. So far as I can tell, that's simply a natural component. It's not hard to explain, if necessary, but I don't see how it would be necessary. Besides, a pulsing beam is rather helpful against certain targets. We've been doing laser drilling experiments, for example, and pulsed beams sometimes work out better. > 2.Ring appears at the same time as the primary explosion, seems complete. True, and just at the tail end of the superlaser beam. > 3.There is a secondary explosion. > 4.There was a big flash over the entire planet at the moment of impact, just > before the ring appears. True. It starts with the clouds right under the beam seeming to brighten, and this effect spreads to other nearby cloud formations. Then, we can't see jack, except for the horizon on the left side of the planet. It seems unaffected. > 5.There was a lot of soot at the left side of the planet. Soot? > 6.Leia's collar was a little tight. You could see a bit of skin jutting out > over it. lol > Suggestion: > The primary explosion is most of the frontward face getting flash vapourized > by the beam, really flashy but not what destroys the planet. The secondary > is the beam hitting the solid core and getting down to business. The ring is > plasma leakage around the edges. But why would the plasma do that? And besides that, the beam has already terminated some time before the secondary explosion occurs. > Alternatively: > The primary explosion is the beam hitting the planet and destroying much of > it. The secondary is caused by an unknown reaction between the beam and the > planets mass which somehow causes it to release energy. The ring is also > caused by this effect in some way. I rather like this one. Sounds familiar, too. :) > Both explanations have their flaws. I'd like to hear better ones. Well, there are approximately two to choose from. There's the Classical 'brute-force' Model, which involves something like the first option you describe. It's based mostly on the original version of the movie, and hasn't really been altered to account for the band or the rings. Attempts have been made, but they end up in the same place as your first option, leaving more questions and no more answers. Or, worse yet, they contradict the movie or each other. The Classical Model is also silent about the rings around the Death Stars when they go up. The strength of this theory is simplicity. However, it requires that a canon quote in the novel about the power generation of the Death Star be ignored in favor of _some_ official quotes which are contradicted by other official quotes that agree with the canon novel. Then there's mine, which involves the beam hitting the planet and destroying some fraction, initiating some sort of mass-energy conversion effect that circles the globe, producing the rings we see. When it converges on the backside of the planet, we get a much larger secondary blast, and a second ring, much faster and larger than the first. The strengths of my theory revolve around the fact that it explains Alderaan, as well as the rings of the Death Stars, and also explains why no ring occurred when the Rebel ship was annihilated by the Death Star II. My theory is a little more complicated, and posits the existence of a mechanism we know little about, but it fits the facts and explains them, which is the first requirement of a good theory. It also allows the canon quote to live on without being ignored, though this is not the main thrust of the argument. I'm not aware of any valid competitors to the two above theories. > > That would be incorrect. I am simply attempting to discover some method > by > > which we can completely explain what is seen in the canon. > > > > Neat. Thanks. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Henry Mundstock" Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 20:47:33 -0700 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Henry Mundstock" wrote in message news:agfp1a$kve18$1@ID-102589.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:ACFW8.105631$vq.5222263@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > And when, O Wise One, is it said that the Death Star reactor puts out the > > equivalent energy necessary to destroy a planet using directed energy > > transfer? Hmm? > > > > > > In the Jedi Academy trilogy, a senior egghead of the Imperial superweapons > development program, possibly Qwi Xux, said to a rebel, who I think was > Wedge Antilles, a comparison of the Death Star and Sun Crusher, to the > effect that what the DS accomplishes through brute force the SC does with > finesse. Sorry I can't give a more exact quote but I haven't read those > books in years. > I went to the trouble of actually verifying my source. Source of minor embarrassment, I thought I would find it on page 281 of the second book. Imagine my chagrin at finding it on page 279 of the first. And she's talking to Han Solo, not Wedge. Nobody's perfect, I guess. "This craft is highly maneuverable, and small enough not to be noticed on a systemwide scan, but they still might encounter some resistance. Remember, the Death Star was the size of a small moon. This accomplishes through finesse what the Death Star brought about through brute force." _Jedi Search_, Kevin J. Anderson, page 279 This quote refers to defensive armament, before the superweapon was even mentioned. I was in error using this quote in a superlaser discussion. This point is retracted, but the rest of my argument stands. Furthermore, I am withdrawing from active participation in this debate. I have already presented my arguments and evidence. It is clear that neither of us will be moved. Given lack of new material, more discussion would be redundant. I trust you have no objections. PS Question to group: Is the rest of this trilogy as bad as the pages I have just read suggest? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 01:42:05 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Henry Mundstock" wrote in message news:agtgt5$oi8g1$1@ID-102589.news.dfncis.de... > > "Henry Mundstock" wrote in message > news:agfp1a$kve18$1@ID-102589.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:ACFW8.105631$vq.5222263@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > PS > Question to group: Is the rest of this trilogy as bad as the pages I have > just read suggest? Yes, stay away from it if at all possible. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:17:58 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:5bFW8.48438$Im2.1698494@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > news:ageknm$lautp$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:2EzW8.637262$%y.39634024@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > > news:age5q6$kj35k$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > No, Dark Star, I'm not assuming, I'm using evidence. A Hypermatter > > > core > > > > is > > > > > > directly stated to produce enough energy to blow apart any planet > in > > > the > > > > > > Galaxy. > > > > > > > > > > ... so long as it has a superlaser to do it with, and that is > > technology > > > > we > > > > > don't know about. Good job. > > > > > > > > Of course we don't know about it, but we do have observed evidence > from > > a > > > > canon source: In ANH the DS destroys a planet. We do know that the DS > > uses > > > a > > > > hypermatter reactor to produce the power to do this.Ther is no > evidence > > to > > > > suggest anything else. > > > > > > That's what I'm saying. The Death Star reactor produces the power to > > > destroy a planet using the superlaser. But we don't know how the > > > superlaser does that. There may be POOCing, or the weapons equivalent > of > > > AMRE, or something like phasering, or a hundred other weird sci-fi > things. > > > For all we know, the Death Star "reactor" for powering the superlaser is > a > > > giant Wookiee with a can of baked beans. > > > > This is not what you are saying at all. You are reading into canon events > > more than what is stated. We know the DS can destroy a planet due to the > > power put out by a hypermatter reactor. Thats it! there is no more! what > you > > have put forth is pure _unsupported assumption_, nothing more. > > If you want to put forth a theory, use canon sources to prove it, > otherwise > > concede defeat with some grace. > > Unsupported assumption? How about the unsupported assumption that the > Death Star reactor is putting out the kind of energy necessary to destroy a > planet through directed energy transfer? Just because you guys are > unwilling to acknowledge your own assumptions doesn't make my hypothesis > based on canon evidence less valid. > We see results: Alderaan system had 1e38 J added to it. We understand need: SOMETHING added 1e38 J to the system We provide explanation: DS adds 1e38 J to the system We have a theory which fits the facts (I can sit here and theorize all day to explain away the rings but it doesn't matter) YOU must provide a counter theory. Let me repeat that in a more obvious manner: YOU (DarkStar) must provide a THEORY (an explanation of events based upon evidence and logical deduction) which explains the FACTS (those things which are immutably true) BETTER (in a manner more useful than) the THEORY (see above) we, ASVS, have presented. In other words we have a theory which explains the events and you must do more than try to poke holes in it, you must provide a competing theory which better explains the facts. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 07:22:10 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:aggjjh$lgods$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:5bFW8.48438$Im2.1698494@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > news:ageknm$lautp$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:2EzW8.637262$%y.39634024@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > > > news:age5q6$kj35k$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > > No, Dark Star, I'm not assuming, I'm using evidence. A > Hypermatter > > > > core > > > > > is > > > > > > > directly stated to produce enough energy to blow apart any > planet > > in > > > > the > > > > > > > Galaxy. > > > > > > > > > > > > ... so long as it has a superlaser to do it with, and that is > > > technology > > > > > we > > > > > > don't know about. Good job. > > > > > > > > > > Of course we don't know about it, but we do have observed evidence > > from > > > a > > > > > canon source: In ANH the DS destroys a planet. We do know that the > DS > > > uses > > > > a > > > > > hypermatter reactor to produce the power to do this.Ther is no > > evidence > > > to > > > > > suggest anything else. > > > > > > > > That's what I'm saying. The Death Star reactor produces the power to > > > > destroy a planet using the superlaser. But we don't know how the > > > > superlaser does that. There may be POOCing, or the weapons > equivalent > > of > > > > AMRE, or something like phasering, or a hundred other weird sci-fi > > things. > > > > For all we know, the Death Star "reactor" for powering the superlaser > is > > a > > > > giant Wookiee with a can of baked beans. > > > > > > This is not what you are saying at all. You are reading into canon > events > > > more than what is stated. We know the DS can destroy a planet due to the > > > power put out by a hypermatter reactor. Thats it! there is no more! what > > you > > > have put forth is pure _unsupported assumption_, nothing more. > > > If you want to put forth a theory, use canon sources to prove it, > > otherwise > > > concede defeat with some grace. > > > > Unsupported assumption? How about the unsupported assumption that the > > Death Star reactor is putting out the kind of energy necessary to destroy > a > > planet through directed energy transfer? Just because you guys are > > unwilling to acknowledge your own assumptions doesn't make my hypothesis > > based on canon evidence less valid. > > > > We see results: > Alderaan system had 1e38 J added to it. Total rise in the energy of the system after the explosion, okay. > We understand need: > SOMETHING added 1e38 J to the system > > We provide explanation: > DS adds 1e38 J to the system And there lies the assumption that Alderaan had no part in it. You're assuming that the Death Star was the primary energy generator, and that it produced direct energy transfer. Direct Energy Transfer is not seen, and the Death Star may have only been the catalyst. > We have a theory which fits the facts (I can sit here and theorize all day > to explain away the rings but it doesn't matter) YOU must provide a counter > theory. Let me repeat that in a more obvious manner: I have. My theory fits _all_ the facts ... observation of the destruction event and the phenomena involved, canon statements, and so on ... but your theory leaves out such 'trifles'. That is why you are forced to create ad hoc notions of how the rings formed ... you have entrenched yourself in the direct energy transfer/primary generator theory, and must now work hard to sustain it in the face of a superior theory. > YOU (DarkStar) must provide a THEORY (an explanation of events based upon > evidence and logical deduction) which explains the FACTS (those things which > are immutably true) BETTER (in a manner more useful than) the THEORY (see > above) we, ASVS, have presented. That's been done. May I now accept your concession? > In other words we have a theory which explains the events and you must do > more than try to poke holes in it, you must provide a competing theory which > better explains the facts. I don't think you've been paying attention. I have not merely been poking holes in the classical theory. I have constructed a totally new theory. In the process, I have explained why the classical theory is crap, but that does not imply I'm tearing down one theory in favor of no theory at all. A competing and superior theory is on the table. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:13:46 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:CgRW8.117419$vq.5934407@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:aggjjh$lgods$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:5bFW8.48438$Im2.1698494@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Stuart Mackey" wrote in message > > > news:ageknm$lautp$1@ID-75806.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > This is not what you are saying at all. You are reading into canon > > events > > > > more than what is stated. We know the DS can destroy a planet due to > the > > > > power put out by a hypermatter reactor. Thats it! there is no more! > what > > > you > > > > have put forth is pure _unsupported assumption_, nothing more. > > > > If you want to put forth a theory, use canon sources to prove it, > > > otherwise > > > > concede defeat with some grace. > > > > > > Unsupported assumption? How about the unsupported assumption that the > > > Death Star reactor is putting out the kind of energy necessary to > destroy > > a > > > planet through directed energy transfer? Just because you guys are > > > unwilling to acknowledge your own assumptions doesn't make my hypothesis > > > based on canon evidence less valid. > > > > > > > We see results: > > Alderaan system had 1e38 J added to it. > > Total rise in the energy of the system after the explosion, okay. Well minimum but at elast we agree on something. > > We understand need: > > SOMETHING added 1e38 J to the system > > > > We provide explanation: > > DS adds 1e38 J to the system > > And there lies the assumption that Alderaan had no part in it. You're > assuming that the Death Star was the primary energy generator, and that it > produced direct energy transfer. Direct Energy Transfer is not seen, and > the Death Star may have only been the catalyst. > Yet we know it has mass-energy density enough to form a black hole upon its destruction. Go re-read the novelisation. In other words we know that it has a reactor of huge mass-density (enough to create a small black hole) which means it is perfectly capable of doing what we see (though I actually don't think Thermal DET is the method, rather I think explosive decoupling is the answer and it doesn't change the fact that the DS can do that). Once more read the quote both about liberated energy of a small sun AND collapsed residue "consuming itself" > > We have a theory which fits the facts (I can sit here and theorize all day > > to explain away the rings but it doesn't matter) YOU must provide a > counter > > theory. Let me repeat that in a more obvious manner: > > I have. My theory fits _all_ the facts ... observation of the destruction > event and the phenomena involved, canon statements, and so on ... but your > theory leaves out such 'trifles'. That is why you are forced to create ad > hoc notions of how the rings formed ... you have entrenched yourself in the > direct energy transfer/primary generator theory, and must now work hard to > sustain it in the face of a superior theory. Explain your theory agian...where does the 1e38 J come from if not the superlaser? > > YOU (DarkStar) must provide a THEORY (an explanation of events based upon > > evidence and logical deduction) which explains the FACTS (those things > which > > are immutably true) BETTER (in a manner more useful than) the THEORY (see > > above) we, ASVS, have presented. > > That's been done. May I now accept your concession? > No because you haven't done what I've asked. You have raised objections but you have NOT provided a better alternate theory. > > In other words we have a theory which explains the events and you must do > > more than try to poke holes in it, you must provide a competing theory > which > > better explains the facts. > > I don't think you've been paying attention. I have not merely been poking > holes in the classical theory. I have constructed a totally new theory. > In the process, I have explained why the classical theory is crap, but that > does not imply I'm tearing down one theory in favor of no theory at all. A > competing and superior theory is on the table. > Which is what? -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:09:07 +0800 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:agiil5$m5lsd$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > Explain your theory agian...where does the 1e38 J come from if not the > superlaser? DarkStar: The planet. In Wong's new discussion board, he tried to propose it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 03:40:32 +0100 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote: >> Explain your theory agian...where does the 1e38 J come from if not the >> superlaser? > DarkStar: The planet. > In Wong's new discussion board, he tried to propose it. Ow. -- Jonathan Boyd MSN/AIM: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 01:58:03 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:agiqr2$lp0gt$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:agiil5$m5lsd$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > Explain your theory agian...where does the 1e38 J come from if not the > > superlaser? > > DarkStar: The planet. > > In Wong's new discussion board, he tried to propose it. > Fine but how. That's the quesiton because the theory must be simpler than my counter theory of SL plasma forming a high speed ring. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:20:54 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:agj6qr$mctts$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > news:agiqr2$lp0gt$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:agiil5$m5lsd$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > Explain your theory agian...where does the 1e38 J come from if not the > > > superlaser? > > > > DarkStar: The planet. > > > > In Wong's new discussion board, he tried to propose it. > > > > Fine but how. That's the quesiton because the theory must be simpler than my > counter theory of SL plasma forming a high speed ring. Failure to understand Occam's Razor. A hypothesis must explain the phenomenon before you can start assigning rank based on simplicity. Those, like yours, which fail to explain the phenomenon are not superior. For example, I could say that Tarkin used his mind to do it (the simplest explanation), but that does not provide any explanation for the phenomenon, and only serves to raise more questions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 02:49:12 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:qlaX8.33916$iX5.1435352@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:agj6qr$mctts$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > news:agiqr2$lp0gt$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > news:agiil5$m5lsd$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > Explain your theory agian...where does the 1e38 J come from if not the > > > > superlaser? > > > > > > DarkStar: The planet. > > > > > > In Wong's new discussion board, he tried to propose it. > > > > > > > Fine but how. That's the quesiton because the theory must be simpler than > my > > counter theory of SL plasma forming a high speed ring. > > Failure to understand Occam's Razor. A hypothesis must explain the > phenomenon before you can start assigning rank based on simplicity. Those, > like yours, which fail to explain the phenomenon are not superior. For > example, I could say that Tarkin used his mind to do it (the simplest > explanation), but that does not provide any explanation for the phenomenon, > and only serves to raise more questions. > Lets try this without distorting the facts. My suggestion: Superlaser Flax burst (observed aciton of TLs upon which SL is based) generates huge lump of plasma in the core which could easily enough move outwards in a ring (explains 1 ring out of 2) and also generates a secon ring above atmosphere from plasma splash material. My alternate suggestion: The ring is a phuysics phenomenon which can occur with hypermatter and has nothing to do with wierd chain reaction bullshit but rather with hypermatter's FTL status as it interacts with STL particles (not compeltely unbelievabel but no direct support) My alternate suggestion 2: SL acts as seismic charge like wweapon employing force field like effects upon detonation (conforms to the actions of known SW weapons and still requires no wierd chain reaction bulshit) Your suggestion: Wierd chain reaction which produces the rings. Now tell me is your chain reaction (of a type we have never seen before) which produces rings (which we've never seen before) any more believable than my "its hyeprmatter related and has no bearing on energy content of the beam" explanation? It isn't both are complte conjecture based upon rampant speculaiton tyring to udnerstand why events occured in a way we don't udnerstand. My theory and alternate theory 2 are superior to both your theory and my alternate theory 1 because frankly they have les pure speculaiton and mroe observed characteristics in them, in toher words they have the fewest number of unknowns and are the simplest explanatiosn which fit the facts (see that statment, they fit the facts). My theories are not foolproof, they mgiht not be correct, but on the whole they incorporate more knowns, fewer unknowns, and require less manipulation than your theory which, to my knowledge, still hasn't suggested at all how you could generate those rings. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:03:53 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:aglu5q$mubs5$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > Superlaser Flax burst (observed aciton of TLs upon which SL is based) I promise to reply to this soon. But, right now, I can't tolerate your horrible english. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:51:56 -0700 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:sIyX8.43916$iB1.2514947@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:aglu5q$mubs5$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > Superlaser Flax burst (observed aciton of TLs upon which SL is based) > > I promise to reply to this soon. But, right now, I can't tolerate your > horrible english. > > Are you stupid enough to complain about Corp. Burnet or Hitman's English..... ok that requires a strategic anvil drop at the bare minimum. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:03:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:sIyX8.43916$iB1.2514947@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:aglu5q$mubs5$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > Superlaser Flax burst (observed aciton of TLs upon which SL is based) > > I promise to reply to this soon. But, right now, I can't tolerate your > horrible english. > I'd say fuck you but then you aren't worth it so whatever ass. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 02:02:24 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:aglu5q$mubs5$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:qlaX8.33916$iX5.1435352@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:agj6qr$mctts$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > > news:agiqr2$lp0gt$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > > news:agiil5$m5lsd$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > Explain your theory agian...where does the 1e38 J come from if not > the > > > > > superlaser? > > > > > > > > DarkStar: The planet. > > > > > > > > In Wong's new discussion board, he tried to propose it. > > > > > > > > > > Fine but how. That's the quesiton because the theory must be simpler > than > > my > > > counter theory of SL plasma forming a high speed ring. > > > > Failure to understand Occam's Razor. A hypothesis must explain the > > phenomenon before you can start assigning rank based on simplicity. > Those, > > like yours, which fail to explain the phenomenon are not superior. For > > example, I could say that Tarkin used his mind to do it (the simplest > > explanation), but that does not provide any explanation for the > phenomenon, > > and only serves to raise more questions. > > > > Lets try this without distorting the facts. > > My suggestion: > > Superlaser Flax burst (observed aciton of TLs upon which SL is based) > generates huge lump of plasma in the core which could easily enough move > outwards in a ring (explains 1 ring out of 2) and also generates a secon > ring above atmosphere from plasma splash material. > A huge lump of plasma is not going to move easily outwards, nor will it magically create a ring. > My alternate suggestion: > > The ring is a phuysics phenomenon which can occur with hypermatter and has > nothing to do with wierd chain reaction bullshit but rather with > hypermatter's FTL status as it interacts with STL particles (not compeltely > unbelievabel but no direct support) According to your non-canon, hypermatter would not have been fired at Alderaan, and the only way Alderaan could get a ring with that is if they had a big hypermatter reactor in the core of the planet. > My alternate suggestion 2: > > SL acts as seismic charge like wweapon employing force field like effects > upon detonation (conforms to the actions of known SW weapons and still > requires no wierd chain reaction bulshit) I suggested this once and you guys screamed bloody murder. > My theory and alternate theory 2 are superior to both your theory and my > alternate theory 1 because frankly they have les pure speculaiton and mroe > observed characteristics in them, in toher words they have the fewest number > of unknowns and are the simplest explanatiosn which fit the facts (see that > statment, they fit the facts). No, your theories are stupid and don't fit the facts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:32:05 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:Q2qY8.109060$iX5.5121193@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:aglu5q$mubs5$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:qlaX8.33916$iX5.1435352@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > news:agj6qr$mctts$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > > > news:agiqr2$lp0gt$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > > > news:agiil5$m5lsd$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > My suggestion: > > > > Superlaser Flak burst (observed aciton of TLs upon which SL is based) > > generates huge lump of plasma in the core which could easily enough move > > outwards in a ring (explains 1 ring out of 2) and also generates a secon > > ring above atmosphere from plasma splash material. > > > > A huge lump of plasma is not going to move easily outwards, nor will it > magically create a ring. We've seen TLs flak burst and do so in a manner that rapidly expands the visible elements of the bolt so we know that this kind of bursting can occur spherically with TLs (and thus could be applied to SLs, though you'd have to accept the EU "SLs are TL based" bit) and the only chalenge becomes turnign it spherical. > > My alternate suggestion: > > > > The ring is a phuysics phenomenon which can occur with hypermatter and has > > nothing to do with wierd chain reaction bullshit but rather with > > hypermatter's FTL status as it interacts with STL particles (not > compeltely > > unbelievabel but no direct support) > > According to your non-canon, hypermatter would not have been fired at > Alderaan, and the only way Alderaan could get a ring with that is if they > had a big hypermatter reactor in the core of the planet. I could figure ways of factoring in hypermatter (we know that there is plasma involved but plasma is a state of matter rahter than a type of matter so perhaps its plasma hypermatter eh?) > > My alternate suggestion 2: > > > > SL acts as seismic charge like wweapon employing force field like effects > > upon detonation (conforms to the actions of known SW weapons and still > > requires no wierd chain reaction bulshit) > > I suggested this once and you guys screamed bloody murder. > Which thread was that? > > My theory and alternate theory 2 are superior to both your theory and my > > alternate theory 1 because frankly they have les pure speculaiton and mroe > > observed characteristics in them, in toher words they have the fewest > number > > of unknowns and are the simplest explanatiosn which fit the facts (see > that > > statment, they fit the facts). > > No, your theories are stupid and don't fit the facts. > They fit a hell of a lot better than your ideas. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 05:52:48 GMT Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:agtj8n$o1318$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:Q2qY8.109060$iX5.5121193@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:aglu5q$mubs5$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:qlaX8.33916$iX5.1435352@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > > news:agj6qr$mctts$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > > > > news:agiqr2$lp0gt$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > > > > news:agiil5$m5lsd$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > My suggestion: > > > > > > Superlaser Flak burst (observed aciton of TLs upon which SL is based) > > > generates huge lump of plasma in the core which could easily enough move > > > outwards in a ring (explains 1 ring out of 2) and also generates a secon > > > ring above atmosphere from plasma splash material. > > > > > > > A huge lump of plasma is not going to move easily outwards, nor will it > > magically create a ring. > > We've seen TLs flak burst and do so in a manner that rapidly expands the > visible elements of the bolt so we know that this kind of bursting can occur > spherically with TLs (and thus could be applied to SLs, though you'd have to > accept the EU "SLs are TL based" bit) and the only chalenge becomes turnign > it spherical. It's already spherical. You want a ring, and you want it to make this happen twice, even though flak bursts are single events per bolt. > > No, your theories are stupid and don't fit the facts. > > > > They fit a hell of a lot better than your ideas. Riiiight. That's why your ideas don't explain the rings, contradict turbolasers, and all that? Sure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 03:36:32 -0400 Subject: Re: Federation cant win? Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:QqtY8.110836$Bt1.5869395@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:agtj8n$o1318$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:Q2qY8.109060$iX5.5121193@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > news:aglu5q$mubs5$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > > news:qlaX8.33916$iX5.1435352@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > > > news:agj6qr$mctts$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > > > > > news:agiqr2$lp0gt$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > > > > > news:agiil5$m5lsd$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > > My suggestion: > > > > > > > > Superlaser Flak burst (observed aciton of TLs upon which SL is based) > > > > generates huge lump of plasma in the core which could easily enough > move > > > > outwards in a ring (explains 1 ring out of 2) and also generates a > s