---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "His Divine Shadow {PHX}" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 20:24:48 GMT Subject: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- I've heard plenty of times people saying that SW neutronium exists in moons and has a reddish color. This has been used to claim that SW neutronium is not RL neutronium. Honestly I dont have any of the sources where neutronium has been mentioned, so I dont know what to make of this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 23 Dec 2001 20:38:09 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011223153809.05966.00001138@mb-cu.aol.com> -------- >I've heard plenty of times people saying that SW neutronium exists in moons >and has a >reddish color. >This has been used to claim that SW neutronium is not RL neutronium. >Honestly I dont have any of the sources where neutronium >has been mentioned, so I dont know what to make of this. > > I've no idea where the reddish colour comes from, but SW neutronium has traits that make it different from RL neutronium. It can be made lighter, apparantly(Dura-Armour), it's naturally heavy and in neutron stars(Rebel Dawn), and can be found outside Neutron Stars. Of course, the same is found in ST Neutronium, as a chunk of Neutronium outside it's neutron star flew by the Main Character Ship once, and it's been found in doorways/structures/ships without any adverse gravity fields, only the downside of completely negating phasers. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "His Divine Shadow {PHX}" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 20:49:45 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- > I've no idea where the reddish colour comes from, but SW neutronium has traits > that make it different from RL neutronium. It can be made lighter, > apparantly(Dura-Armour), Contains small amounts of neutronium most likely. > it's naturally heavy and in neutron stars(Rebel Dawn), Thats like RL then. > and can be found outside Neutron Stars. Thats weird, possibility of exploding neutron star flinging small chunks of it across the universe? That reddish thing found in that planet, or moon, could have simply been very very miniscule amounts of neutronium, individual atoms perhaps? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 23 Dec 2001 21:07:48 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011223160748.06196.00000980@mb-mq.aol.com> -------- >> I've no idea where the reddish colour comes from, but SW neutronium has >traits >> that make it different from RL neutronium. It can be made lighter, >> apparantly(Dura-Armour), > >Contains small amounts of neutronium most likely. > >> it's naturally heavy and in neutron stars(Rebel Dawn), > >Thats like RL then. > >> and can be found outside Neutron Stars. > >Thats weird, possibility of exploding neutron star flinging small chunks of >it across the universe? > >That reddish thing found in that planet, or moon, could have simply been >very very miniscule >amounts of neutronium, individual atoms perhaps? > > There's the rub, RL neutronium can't exist outside it's star. Of course, both ST and SW neutronium can, so I continue to think those who demand they can't be the same are crackheads. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 16:01:06 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "His Divine Shadow {PHX}" wrote in message news:k4rV7.154$571.11910@read2.inet.fi... > I've heard plenty of times people saying that SW neutronium exists in moons > and has a > reddish color. > This has been used to claim that SW neutronium is not RL neutronium. > Honestly I dont have any of the sources where neutronium > has been mentioned, so I dont know what to make of this. > Here's some stuff from a recent message in another thread. Might be of interest to you: In a prior thread on the topic, the fact that neutronium could be held together by way of finely-tuned graviton-based shielding was established. As I recall, the Rabid Warsie position was "oh, yeah, well we can do it, too!", despite the fact that your neutronium comes from a moon. ********** The Carbon-neutronium alloy of the Dyson Sphere is perplexing, but not necessarily impossible. After all, whoever built it was capable of far greater engineering feats than either the Federation or the Empire. They could very well fulfill Arthur C. Clarke's comment that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." But, under the presumption that there is method to the madness: If we take http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Size.html to be accurate, the material of the Dyson Sphere would have to be some 10,000 times stronger than 20th Century steel, at least. Further, we do not know the nature of the neutronium in the Dyson Sphere shell. Within real neutron stars, there are points in the region of the inner crust (on the boundary of the core) which can contain both neutron superfluid as well as protons, electrons, et cetera. Deeper in, subatomic particles simply break down into neutronium. See the following: http://www.th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~hanauske/pics/NStar_l.gif The Carbon-Neutronium alloy of the Dyson Sphere may not be an alloy in the classical sense (i.e. melt two things together), but may merely be a "frozen" form of this superfluidic neutronium with carbon (which could refer to anything from simple carbon atoms to buckminsterfullerenes) interspersed. It would be easier to maintain this form of neutronium with graviton-based forcefields, I would think, than the undifferentiated neutrons as found in the core of a neutron star, as the pressure requirements would be very much lower. Of course, as the episode did not go into detail about the containment of the neutronium, the above is only a workable hypothesis. Again, the fact that your neutronium is found on a moon is the paramount issue. Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and cannot possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. Since Star Wars neutronium has already demonstrated properties that are absolutely impossible and cannot possibly be explained (the moon mining), it must not be the same as real-world neutronium. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 23 Dec 2001 22:15:11 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011223171511.24455.00001107@mb-fc.aol.com> -------- >Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until >it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and cannot >possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. Since Star Wars >neutronium has already demonstrated properties that are absolutely >impossible and cannot possibly be explained (the moon mining), it must not >be the same as real-world neutronium. > *Giggle* Oh, look, it's the return of the 'Any excuse can be made for Trek but everything must be face value for Wars' fallacy. Why am I not surprised G2K revived it. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 16:25:58 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011223171511.24455.00001107@mb-fc.aol.com... > >Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until > >it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and cannot > >possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. Since Star Wars > >neutronium has already demonstrated properties that are absolutely > >impossible and cannot possibly be explained (the moon mining), it must not > >be the same as real-world neutronium. > > > > *Giggle* Oh, look, it's the return of the 'Any excuse can be made for Trek but > everything must be face value for Wars' fallacy. Why am I not surprised G2K > revived it. I would grant Star Wars neutronium the same assumption of reality, but it has already gone beyond what is possible. What you would like to claim as bias is in fact simply empirical data. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 24 Dec 2001 02:51:19 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011223215119.07215.00002419@mb-dh.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011223171511.24455.00001107@mb-fc.aol.com... >> >Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until >> >it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and cannot >> >possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. Since Star >Wars >> >neutronium has already demonstrated properties that are absolutely >> >impossible and cannot possibly be explained (the moon mining), it must >not >> >be the same as real-world neutronium. >> > >> >> *Giggle* Oh, look, it's the return of the 'Any excuse can be made for Trek >but >> everything must be face value for Wars' fallacy. Why am I not surprised >G2K >> revived it. > >I would grant Star Wars neutronium the same assumption of reality, but it >has already gone beyond what is possible. > >What you would like to claim as bias is in fact simply empirical data. > *Roars with laughter* Right. It's beyond what's possible for Wars, despite their having far more advanced gravity control. Hint: We did this last time, and you lost. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:31:53 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011223215119.07215.00002419@mb-dh.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20011223171511.24455.00001107@mb-fc.aol.com... > >> >Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until > >> >it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and cannot > >> >possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. Since Star > >Wars > >> >neutronium has already demonstrated properties that are absolutely > >> >impossible and cannot possibly be explained (the moon mining), it must > >not > >> >be the same as real-world neutronium. > >> > > >> > >> *Giggle* Oh, look, it's the return of the 'Any excuse can be made for Trek > >but > >> everything must be face value for Wars' fallacy. Why am I not surprised > >G2K > >> revived it. > > > >I would grant Star Wars neutronium the same assumption of reality, but it > >has already gone beyond what is possible. > > > >What you would like to claim as bias is in fact simply empirical data. > > > > *Roars with laughter* Right. It's beyond what's possible for Wars, despite > their having far more advanced gravity control. Hint: We did this last time, > and you lost. A. I did not lose. The Rabid Warsie inability to comprehend the difference of control between a laser and a lightbulb amuses me to this day. B. Advanced gravity control would not be present in the moons from which SW neutronium is mined. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 07:56:18 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:31:53 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >A. I did not lose. The Rabid Warsie inability to comprehend the >difference of control between a laser and a lightbulb amuses me to this day. The "lightbulb" in question, of course, has a fixed area of illumination, beyond which no light is even visible; find me a lightbulb that can do this and I'll trade it for a thousand lasers. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 03:52:54 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:MMsmPF19nsY2KpPYZB=xJGB9FyuT@4ax.com... > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:31:53 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > > >A. I did not lose. The Rabid Warsie inability to comprehend the > >difference of control between a laser and a lightbulb amuses me to this day. > > The "lightbulb" in question, of course, has a fixed area of illumination, beyond > which no light is even visible; find me a lightbulb that can do this and I'll > trade it for a thousand lasers. You were never able to prove that the gravitational distortion came to an abrupt end (i.e. that no field existed past some boundary), as opposed to the far more reasonable notion that navicomputers disabled hyperdrive only when a certain field strength was encountered. Fuckwit. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 22:08:42 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 03:52:54 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >> The "lightbulb" in question, of course, has a fixed area of illumination, >beyond >> which no light is even visible; find me a lightbulb that can do this and >I'll >> trade it for a thousand lasers. > >You were never able to prove that the gravitational distortion came to an >abrupt end (i.e. that no field existed past some boundary), as opposed to >the far more reasonable notion that navicomputers disabled hyperdrive only >when a certain field strength was encountered. Because otherwise you could steer around them as you started to detect them far away, idiot. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 24 Dec 2001 15:07:10 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011224100710.24784.00001120@mb-md.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011223215119.07215.00002419@mb-dh.aol.com... >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >news:20011223171511.24455.00001107@mb-fc.aol.com... >> >> >Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until >> >> >it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and >cannot >> >> >possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. Since >Star >> >Wars >> >> >neutronium has already demonstrated properties that are absolutely >> >> >impossible and cannot possibly be explained (the moon mining), it must >> >not >> >> >be the same as real-world neutronium. >> >> > >> >> >> >> *Giggle* Oh, look, it's the return of the 'Any excuse can be made for >Trek >> >but >> >> everything must be face value for Wars' fallacy. Why am I not surprised >> >G2K >> >> revived it. >> > >> >I would grant Star Wars neutronium the same assumption of reality, but it >> >has already gone beyond what is possible. >> > >> >What you would like to claim as bias is in fact simply empirical data. >> > >> >> *Roars with laughter* Right. It's beyond what's possible for Wars, despite >> their having far more advanced gravity control. Hint: We did this last >time, >> and you lost. > >A. I did not lose. The Rabid Warsie inability to comprehend the >difference of control between a laser and a lightbulb amuses me to this day. > Your inability to notice that Interdictor Gravwells are defined in every dimension with no 'spill' amuses me as well. The problem being, you keep using false analogies. >B. Advanced gravity control would not be present in the moons from which SW >neutronium is mined. > Of course, since you give endless excuses to Trek, I'll use one for Wars here. The neutronium deposit is an ancient starship whose neutronium mass is permenantly held together/lightened via gravity manipulation. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:10:58 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011224100710.24784.00001120@mb-md.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20011223215119.07215.00002419@mb-dh.aol.com... > >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >> >news:20011223171511.24455.00001107@mb-fc.aol.com... > >> >> >Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until > >> >> >it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and > >cannot > >> >> >possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. Since > >Star > >> >Wars > >> >> >neutronium has already demonstrated properties that are absolutely > >> >> >impossible and cannot possibly be explained (the moon mining), it must > >> >not > >> >> >be the same as real-world neutronium. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> *Giggle* Oh, look, it's the return of the 'Any excuse can be made for > >Trek > >> >but > >> >> everything must be face value for Wars' fallacy. Why am I not surprised > >> >G2K > >> >> revived it. > >> > > >> >I would grant Star Wars neutronium the same assumption of reality, but it > >> >has already gone beyond what is possible. > >> > > >> >What you would like to claim as bias is in fact simply empirical data. > >> > > >> > >> *Roars with laughter* Right. It's beyond what's possible for Wars, despite > >> their having far more advanced gravity control. Hint: We did this last > >time, > >> and you lost. > > > >A. I did not lose. The Rabid Warsie inability to comprehend the > >difference of control between a laser and a lightbulb amuses me to this day. > > > > Your inability to notice that Interdictor Gravwells are defined in every > dimension with no 'spill' amuses me as well. The problem being, you keep using > false analogies. This idea of "no spill" never had any supporting evidence. I pointed out a perfectly reasonable counterargument, being that if a hyperdrive were set to turn off at X gravity level, then even if it encountered X-Z on its way to X, it would not shut down. Ian never gave anything to show that X-Z did not exist. > >B. Advanced gravity control would not be present in the moons from which SW > >neutronium is mined. > > > > Of course, since you give endless excuses to Trek, I'll use one for Wars here. > The neutronium deposit is an ancient starship whose neutronium mass is > permenantly held together/lightened via gravity manipulation. Proof of, even support of, the notion of permanent AMRE (or AMRE at all, for that matter) in Star Wars? G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 18:48:49 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C267B71.1090409@mac.com> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > Again, the fact that your neutronium is found on a moon is the paramount > issue. Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until > it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and cannot > possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. Since Star Wars > neutronium has already demonstrated properties that are absolutely > impossible and cannot possibly be explained (the moon mining), it must not > be the same as real-world neutronium. No, the fact that neutronium is found somewhere BUT a neutron star is the issue. Star Trek neutronium can't be the same as real world neutronium, either, because neutronium can't exist outside of the immense pressures of a neutron star. Neither can Star Wars neutronium. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Star Wars neutronium can't be the same stuff as real life, neither can Star Trek's. -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 19:43:23 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:3C267B71.1090409@mac.com... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > Again, the fact that your neutronium is found on a moon is the paramount > > issue. Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until > > it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and cannot > > possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. Since Star Wars > > neutronium has already demonstrated properties that are absolutely > > impossible and cannot possibly be explained (the moon mining), it must not > > be the same as real-world neutronium. > > No, the fact that neutronium is found somewhere BUT a neutron star is > the issue. Star Trek neutronium can't be the same as real world > neutronium, either, because neutronium can't exist outside of the > immense pressures of a neutron star. Neither can Star Wars neutronium. > You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Star Wars neutronium can't > be the same stuff as real life, neither can Star Trek's. > You're missing an important distinction. Star Trek neutronium, when found outside a neutron star, is found in technologically advanced settings, manufactured into doors, planet killers, Dyson Spheres, et cetera, with who-knows-what technological underpinning allowing it to continue to exist as neutronium (the graviton-based forcefield idea, though a reasonable hypothesis, remains a hypothesis, and one of several possible hypotheses). On the other hand, Star Wars neutronium is found outside of neutron stars in altogether common places, such as just beneath the surface of moons, with no explanation of its survival there, nor even the recognition that anything is wrong. Hell, the very fact that there's neutronium present on the moon ought to wreak havoc with the moon's structure, as well as make *it* that about which the planet (and depending on the concentration, the star itself) ought to revolve. That's the difference. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 21:01:58 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C269AA6.70202@mac.com> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > You're missing an important distinction. Star Trek neutronium, when found > outside a neutron star, is found in technologically advanced settings, > manufactured into doors, planet killers, Dyson Spheres, et cetera, with > who-knows-what technological underpinning allowing it to continue to exist > as neutronium (the graviton-based forcefield idea, though a reasonable > hypothesis, remains a hypothesis, and one of several possible hypotheses). > > On the other hand, Star Wars neutronium is found outside of neutron stars in > altogether common places, such as just beneath the surface of moons, with no > explanation of its survival there, nor even the recognition that anything is > wrong. Hell, the very fact that there's neutronium present on the moon > ought to wreak havoc with the moon's structure, as well as make *it* that > about which the planet (and depending on the concentration, the star itself) > ought to revolve. If you're worried about realism and neutronium, then have you ever thought about the amount of energy it would take to generate a forcefield capable of simulating the immense pressures found in neutron stars? Do you even have the slightest clue about what the consequences of a graviton force field would be, or are you just throwing around technobabble? The presence of neutronium on starship hulls and Dyson Spheres would have just a many noticeable effects as the presence of it on moons. -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:37:43 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:3C269AA6.70202@mac.com... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > You're missing an important distinction. Star Trek neutronium, when found > > outside a neutron star, is found in technologically advanced settings, > > manufactured into doors, planet killers, Dyson Spheres, et cetera, with > > who-knows-what technological underpinning allowing it to continue to exist > > as neutronium (the graviton-based forcefield idea, though a reasonable > > hypothesis, remains a hypothesis, and one of several possible hypotheses). > > > > On the other hand, Star Wars neutronium is found outside of neutron stars in > > altogether common places, such as just beneath the surface of moons, with no > > explanation of its survival there, nor even the recognition that anything is > > wrong. Hell, the very fact that there's neutronium present on the moon > > ought to wreak havoc with the moon's structure, as well as make *it* that > > about which the planet (and depending on the concentration, the star itself) > > ought to revolve. > > If you're worried about realism and neutronium, then have you ever > thought about the amount of energy it would take to generate a > forcefield capable of simulating the immense pressures found in neutron > stars? The Doomsday Machine chopped up entire star systems for fuel. I figure that would be a good start for producing whatever power was necessary to hold it together. > Do you even have the slightest clue about what the consequences > of a graviton force field would be, or are you just throwing around > technobabble? Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was looking into using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he was planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion sufficient to incapacitate them. > The presence of neutronium on starship hulls and Dyson > Spheres would have just a many noticeable effects as the presence of it > on moons. Why? The field distortion, sufficiently localized, could be cancelled out on the opposite side. Further, when would we have noticed? It's not like Kirk stood on the hull of the planet killer as one would stand upon a moon. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:53:11 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C26C2C7.1080108@mac.com> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: >>If you're worried about realism and neutronium, then have you ever >>thought about the amount of energy it would take to generate a >>forcefield capable of simulating the immense pressures found in neutron >>stars? >> > > The Doomsday Machine chopped up entire star systems for fuel. I figure > that would be a good start for producing whatever power was necessary to > hold it together. If the Doomsday machine were made of neutronium, the Constitution would have been crushed when it entered it so quickly it wouldn't have had time to explode. Furthermore, a pithy warpcore breach wouldn't have dented it. >>Do you even have the slightest clue about what the consequences >>of a graviton force field would be, or are you just throwing around >>technobabble? >> > > Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was looking into > using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he was > planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion sufficient to > incapacitate them. That's a pathetic attempt at a dodge. Do you even know what a graviton is without looking on Google and pasting the definition? I do. > Why? The field distortion, sufficiently localized, could be cancelled out > on the opposite side. Further, when would we have noticed? It's not > like Kirk stood on the hull of the planet killer as one would stand upon a > moon. Wrong. The graviton field is precisely what would CAUSE the effects I'm talking about. -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 00:22:17 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:3C26C2C7.1080108@mac.com... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > >>If you're worried about realism and neutronium, then have you ever > >>thought about the amount of energy it would take to generate a > >>forcefield capable of simulating the immense pressures found in neutron > >>stars? > >> > > > > The Doomsday Machine chopped up entire star systems for fuel. I figure > > that would be a good start for producing whatever power was necessary to > > hold it together. > > > If the Doomsday machine were made of neutronium, the Constitution would > have been crushed when it entered it so quickly it wouldn't have had > time to explode. Furthermore, a pithy warpcore breach wouldn't have > dented it. First, you ignore the concept of neutronium containment. Second, it was the impulse reactor, not a warp core. > >>Do you even have the slightest clue about what the consequences > >>of a graviton force field would be, or are you just throwing around > >>technobabble? > >> > > > > Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was looking into > > using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he was > > planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion sufficient to > > incapacitate them. > > That's a pathetic attempt at a dodge. Um, no . . . you asked about the consequences of a graviton force field as if they'd never been seen before. I pointed out that they have. There's no reason to assume that the consequences would be any different than those seen in common Federation applications of graviton-based shielding. > Do you even know what a graviton is without looking on Google and pasting the definition? I do. Do you even know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground? > > Why? The field distortion, sufficiently localized, could be cancelled out > > on the opposite side. Further, when would we have noticed? It's not > > like Kirk stood on the hull of the planet killer as one would stand upon a > > moon. > > Wrong. The graviton field is precisely what would CAUSE the effects I'm talking about. Oh, look, you utterly failed to read what you replied to, and (gasp!) it answers your question already! I'm not surprised. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 06:47:59 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:a06ho3$j0s4d$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > "Durandal" wrote in message > news:3C26C2C7.1080108@mac.com... > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > >>If you're worried about realism and neutronium, then have you ever > > >>thought about the amount of energy it would take to generate a > > >>forcefield capable of simulating the immense pressures found in neutron > > >>stars? > > >> > > > > > > The Doomsday Machine chopped up entire star systems for fuel. I figure > > > that would be a good start for producing whatever power was necessary to > > > hold it together. > > > > > > If the Doomsday machine were made of neutronium, the Constitution would > > have been crushed when it entered it so quickly it wouldn't have had > > time to explode. Furthermore, a pithy warpcore breach wouldn't have > > dented it. > > First, you ignore the concept of neutronium containment. Which does not matter here, it simply does not matter if you are compressing the matter to a degree that will keep it as neutronium, that IS NOT the issue. > Second, it was the impulse reactor, not a warp core. > Which would do even less if it were real neutronium. > > >>Do you even have the slightest clue about what the consequences > > >>of a graviton force field would be, or are you just throwing around > > >>technobabble? > > >> > > > > > > Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was looking > into > > > using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he was > > > planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion sufficient > to > > > incapacitate them. > > > > That's a pathetic attempt at a dodge. > > Um, no . . . you asked about the consequences of a graviton force field as > if they'd never been seen before. I pointed out that they have. There's > no reason to assume that the consequences would be any different than those > seen in common Federation applications of graviton-based shielding. > First off there is no proof of Federation graviton-shielding so your entire paragraph is a continuation of your meaningless dodge. Secondly the issue here is one of simple physics and mass, one whereby you can't get around certain limitations even by claiming 'graviton-based technobabble.' > > Do you even know what a graviton is without looking on Google and pasting > the definition? I do. > > Do you even know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground? So the answer is you don't know and don't realize how it completely defeats your argument. > > > Why? The field distortion, sufficiently localized, could be cancelled > out > > > on the opposite side. Further, when would we have noticed? It's not > > > like Kirk stood on the hull of the planet killer as one would stand upon > a > > > moon. > > > > Wrong. The graviton field is precisely what would CAUSE the effects I'm > talking about. > > Oh, look, you utterly failed to read what you replied to, and (gasp!) it > answers your question already! I'm not surprised. > You idiot, if you have a graviton field holding enutronium together then the fuield must be as strong as that at the core of a neutron star which will...shock...be indistinguishable to the outside world insofar as gravitational effects. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R USMCR Bridge Company A, 6th EngnrSptBN, 4th FSSG "There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion." -Unknown ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:51:58 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:zcAV7.26103$fo.3990680@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > news:a06ho3$j0s4d$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Durandal" wrote in message > > news:3C26C2C7.1080108@mac.com... > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>If you're worried about realism and neutronium, then have you ever > > > >>thought about the amount of energy it would take to generate a > > > >>forcefield capable of simulating the immense pressures found in > neutron > > > >>stars? > > > >> > > > > > > > > The Doomsday Machine chopped up entire star systems for fuel. I > figure > > > > that would be a good start for producing whatever power was necessary > to > > > > hold it together. > > > > > > > > > If the Doomsday machine were made of neutronium, the Constitution would > > > have been crushed when it entered it so quickly it wouldn't have had > > > time to explode. Furthermore, a pithy warpcore breach wouldn't have > > > dented it. > > > > First, you ignore the concept of neutronium containment. > > Which does not matter here, it simply does not matter if you are compressing > the matter to a degree that will keep it as neutronium, that IS NOT the > issue. Er, yeah, it is. If the neutronium containment technology displays the ability to *not* have painful and gut-wrenching gravity spilling out everywhere around it, that's very much part of the issue. > > Second, it was the impulse reactor, not a warp core. > > > > Which would do even less if it were real neutronium. The reactor overload was not meant to damage the hull, but to destroy the innards. You'll also note that when the fusion reactors went, the hull of the beast let loose a flash, followed by it changing colors. This could be construed as evidence for some sort of neutronium containment field failure. What would be interesting is if they were to return to the site of the planet killer later and observe that it had pretty much dissipated away, leaving the remaining innards exposed. > > > >>Do you even have the slightest clue about what the consequences > > > >>of a graviton force field would be, or are you just throwing around > > > >>technobabble? > > > >> > > > > > > > > Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was > looking > > into > > > > using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he was > > > > planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion > sufficient > > to > > > > incapacitate them. > > > > > > That's a pathetic attempt at a dodge. > > > > Um, no . . . you asked about the consequences of a graviton force field as > > if they'd never been seen before. I pointed out that they have. > There's > > no reason to assume that the consequences would be any different than > those > > seen in common Federation applications of graviton-based shielding. > > > > First off there is no proof of Federation graviton-shielding so your entire > paragraph is a continuation of your meaningless dodge. Actually, all I require to prove that is a picture of the shield frequency modulation screen from Star Trek: Generations (the one with 257.4 on it). However, I've been looking online for an hour and I'll be damned if I can find it yet. > Secondly the issue > here is one of simple physics and mass, one whereby you can't get around > certain limitations even by claiming 'graviton-based technobabble.' Canon must overrule physics in some cases, such as FTL drive and the graviton-based shielding. > > > Do you even know what a graviton is without looking on Google and > pasting > > the definition? I do. > > > > Do you even know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground? > > So the answer is you don't know and don't realize how it completely defeats > your argument. No, the answer is "I do know, but I don't have to prove that to the likes of you, and it in no way defeats my argument". If you would care to elucidate your peculiar belief as to how it does, I'm all ears. > > > > > Why? The field distortion, sufficiently localized, could be > cancelled > > out > > > > on the opposite side. Further, when would we have noticed? It's > not > > > > like Kirk stood on the hull of the planet killer as one would stand > upon > > a > > > > moon. > > > > > > Wrong. The graviton field is precisely what would CAUSE the effects I'm > > talking about. > > > > Oh, look, you utterly failed to read what you replied to, and (gasp!) it > > answers your question already! I'm not surprised. > > > > You idiot, if you have a graviton field holding enutronium together then the > fuield must be as strong as that at the core of a neutron star which > will...shock...be indistinguishable to the outside world insofar as > gravitational effects. Why? As I've already stated, the effect need not continue on the other side, and could be reversed if it did. Star Trek technology has something known as an antigraviton, and despite the fact that a graviton is, for all intents and purposes, its own antiparticle, this antigraviton would be a good candidate for being a part of a neutronium containment system. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:14:42 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C26D5E2.4030004@mac.com> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > First, you ignore the concept of neutronium containment. No, I don't. It uses gravitons, according to you. Thus, crushing the Constitution, or tearing it apart. Either way, it'd be destroyed before it could even think about exploding. > Second, it was the impulse reactor, not a warp core. Pardon me. In that case, there's no way the explosion of an impulse reactor could damage the neutronium-composed Doomsday. But, it did. So, the Doomsday wasn't made of neutronium. > Um, no . . . you asked about the consequences of a graviton force field as > if they'd never been seen before. I pointed out that they have. There's > no reason to assume that the consequences would be any different than those > seen in common Federation applications of graviton-based shielding. No, I asked about them as if you had no fucking clue what you were talking about, which is abhorrently obvious, at this point. > Do you even know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground? So, you have no idea what a graviton is, and yet you're throwing the term around as if it means something to you? There's a term for this kind of crap: pseudoscience. > Oh, look, you utterly failed to read what you replied to, and (gasp!) it > answers your question already! I'm not surprised. Since you obviously have no idea what a graviton is, you can't possibly make any kind of explanation for any kind of phenomena involving them, so why are you trying? You're doing the same shit that the ST writers do: throwing around terms that you have absolutely NO idea about. You're teeming with pseudoscience bullshit. This whole exchange is comparable to watching struggling high school physics students. "Now, why does something on Earth eventually come to a rest, even though Newton's laws of motion say that is should keep going?" "Umm...gravity?" -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 04:00:30 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:3C26D5E2.4030004@mac.com... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > First, you ignore the concept of neutronium containment. > > > No, I don't. It uses gravitons, according to you. Thus, crushing the > Constitution, or tearing it apart. Either way, it'd be destroyed before > it could even think about exploding. > The neutronium containment hypothesis has, as a part of it, cancellation of that gravity field away from the neutronium object. Like I said, you've been ignoring the concept of neutronium containment. > > Second, it was the impulse reactor, not a warp core. > > > Pardon me. In that case, there's no way the explosion of an impulse > reactor could damage the neutronium-composed Doomsday. But, it did. So, > the Doomsday wasn't made of neutronium. Like I already said, the 97.835 megaton explosion was not intended to destroy the hull, but the innards. No one ever claimed the innards were neutronium, and no one has ever claimed that the 97.835 megaton blast did jack shit to the hull, except cause it to turn grey. > > Um, no . . . you asked about the consequences of a graviton force field as > > if they'd never been seen before. I pointed out that they have. There's > > no reason to assume that the consequences would be any different than those > > seen in common Federation applications of graviton-based shielding. > > > No, I asked about them as if you had no fucking clue what you were > talking about, which is abhorrently obvious, at this point. Stupid bitch. Try to get a clue before you start claiming that others don't have them. > > Do you even know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground? > > So, you have no idea what a graviton is, and yet you're throwing the > term around as if it means something to you? There's a term for this > kind of crap: pseudoscience. Stupid bitch. I don't have to prove my knowledge to known assholes and fuckwits. I was replying to his stupid question with a similarly phrased question. He had the same choice I did with his question . . . either sit there and explain it for no reason, or ignore the question because it was irrelevant and a childish effort at one-upsmanship. I chose the best option, throwing the same kind of question back at him. And so here you go presuming that because I refused to answer the question I did not have the answer. Well, come on, bitch, do you know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground? I don't think you do. > > Oh, look, you utterly failed to read what you replied to, and (gasp!) it > > answers your question already! I'm not surprised. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:46:22 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C2777FE.6080902@mac.com> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > The neutronium containment hypothesis has, as a part of it, cancellation of > that gravity field away from the neutronium object. You total, TOTAL idiot. The containment is what CREATES THE PROBLEM. > Like I said, you've been ignoring the concept of neutronium containment. No, I haven't. YOU have been ignoring its effects. > Like I already said, the 97.835 megaton explosion was not intended to > destroy the hull, but the innards. No one ever claimed the innards were > neutronium, and no one has ever claimed that the 97.835 megaton blast did > jack shit to the hull, except cause it to turn grey. The Constitution would have been crushed or torn apart by the immense gravitational forces. > Stupid bitch. Try to get a clue before you start claiming that others > don't have them. I HAVE a clue, two in fact. They're called particle physics and general relativity. > Stupid bitch. I don't have to prove my knowledge to known assholes and > fuckwits. I was replying to his stupid question with a similarly phrased > question. He had the same choice I did with his question . . . either sit > there and explain it for no reason, or ignore the question because it was > irrelevant and a childish effort at one-upsmanship. I chose the best > option, throwing the same kind of question back at him. So, you don't know what a graviton is, and now you're saying that you don't have to in order to venture explanations for phenomena that supposedly involve them? I'll ask again, do you know what a graviton is without looking around Google for it? > And so here you go presuming that because I refused to answer the question I > did not have the answer. Well, come on, bitch, do you know the difference > between your ass and a hole in the ground? I don't think you do. Irrelevant. Your concession on the point due to ignorance of particle physics and the laws of gravitation is accepted. -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 14:21:29 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:3C2777FE.6080902@mac.com... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > The neutronium containment hypothesis has, as a part of it, cancellation of > > that gravity field away from the neutronium object. > > > You total, TOTAL idiot. The containment is what CREATES THE PROBLEM. And fucking solves it, cocksmack! READ! > > Like I said, you've been ignoring the concept of neutronium containment. > > > No, I haven't. YOU have been ignoring its effects. No, I've been using empirical data to gather what its effects are. You, on the other hand, have sat there playing with yourself instead of reading. > > Like I already said, the 97.835 megaton explosion was not intended to > > destroy the hull, but the innards. No one ever claimed the innards were > > neutronium, and no one has ever claimed that the 97.835 megaton blast did > > jack shit to the hull, except cause it to turn grey. > > > The Constitution would have been crushed or torn apart by the immense > gravitational forces. The neutronium containment field dissipation rate is not established. There is no reason to assume that it would instantly cease to exist and that the gravitational field would suddenly pull the Constellation or the Enterprise into the hull. > > Stupid bitch. Try to get a clue before you start claiming that others > > don't have them. > > > I HAVE a clue, two in fact. They're called particle physics and general > relativity. We're discussing canon and physics in a debate of two imagined spacefaring civilizations. We know canon overrides physics to an extent, thanks to the FTL propulsion systems of both powers. You're trying to claim that physics overrides canon proof of gravity manipulation just because you say so. Suck my dick. > > Stupid bitch. I don't have to prove my knowledge to known assholes and > > fuckwits. I was replying to his stupid question with a similarly phrased > > question. He had the same choice I did with his question . . . either sit > > there and explain it for no reason, or ignore the question because it was > > irrelevant and a childish effort at one-upsmanship. I chose the best > > option, throwing the same kind of question back at him. > > So, you don't know what a graviton is, and now you're saying that you > don't have to in order to venture explanations for phenomena that > supposedly involve them? I'm saying I don't have to answer your childish question, asshole, which is already clearly answered by my understanding and use of the concept. > I'll ask again, do you know what a graviton is without looking around Google for it? Yes, I do. Thanks for playing. > > And so here you go presuming that because I refused to answer the question I > > did not have the answer. Well, come on, bitch, do you know the difference > > between your ass and a hole in the ground? I don't think you do. > > > Irrelevant. I'll take a page from your book: "Ah, so you don't know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground! Well, concession accepted on all topics, then, because someone who does not know the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground is certainly incapable of contributing anything of value to the debate." > Your concession on the point due to ignorance of particle > physics and the laws of gravitation is accepted. No concession offerred, for your presumption of my ignorance is incorrect. I'm not here to play your games. I'm here to debate. As soon as you are willing to do the same, we'll talk. Until then, fuck off. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 15:25:34 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C279D4E.7080500@mac.com> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > And fucking solves it, cocksmack! READ! No, it doesn't. It CAN'T. Don't you get it? You're putting the cart before the horse. The enormous forces required to hold the neutronium together in its ultradense state will create warps in spacetime that will act exactly like gravitational ones because they ARE gravitational warps. You, yet AGAIN, demonstrate your complete and total ignorance of particle physics, basic laws of gravitation and general relativity. > No, I've been using empirical data to gather what its effects are. You, on > the other hand, have sat there playing with yourself instead of reading. "Empirical data"? In a SCI-FI universe? Are you THAT scientifically ignorant? > The neutronium containment field dissipation rate is not established. There > is no reason to assume that it would instantly cease to exist and that the > gravitational field would suddenly pull the Constellation or the Enterprise > into the hull. Throwing around terms you don't understand again, are you? "The neutronium containment field dissipation rate is not established."? What the fuck does that mean? Neutronium is an ultradense material. Lots of mass packed into tiny spaces creates huge amounts of acceleration due to gravity. Pumping gravitons into the material to hold it together is the cause of this effect, in this case. > We're discussing canon and physics in a debate of two imagined spacefaring > civilizations. We know canon overrides physics to an extent, thanks to the > FTL propulsion systems of both powers. You're trying to claim that > physics overrides canon proof of gravity manipulation just because you say > so. Suck my dick. Your ludicrous fantasies about containing neutronium without having it crush everything around it don't count as canon. This is a quote, NOT an irrefutable observance. You're being a hypocrite by saying that we can't apply the same to SW. I admit freely that SW neutronium isn't the same stuff as RL, but ST neutronium, by the same token, can't be either, because it doesn't demonstrate the properties of RL neutronium. > I'm saying I don't have to answer your childish question, asshole, which is > already clearly answered by my understanding and use of the concept. Horseshit. You've got the understanding of particle physics that infants have of "go poopy in the potty." Your refusal to meet my challenge to provide an adequate definition of a graviton based upon your own knowledge is utterly obvious proof that you've no clue what you're talking about. > I'll take a page from your book: "Ah, so you don't know the difference > between your ass and a hole in the ground! Well, concession accepted on > all topics, then, because someone who does not know the difference between > their ass and a hole in the ground is certainly incapable of contributing > anything of value to the debate." MY challenge was relevant to the matter at hand. Yours is completely inapplicable to the debate at hand. I'm trying to establish your ability to even delve into the matter of neutronium confinements utilizing graviton forcefields because your own statements make it appear as if you're just pulling terminology out of your ass. You're throwing around principles of whose implications you have absolutely zero idea. > No concession offerred, for your presumption of my ignorance is incorrect. > I'm not here to play your games. I'm here to debate. Yes, you're here to debate. Part of debate is credibility. I've established mine in prior threads dealing with particle interactions and such. You, on the other hand, have not. In fact, you've demonstrated your utter lack of knowledge in the area by failing to consider the effects of a graviton field large enough to condense matter to neutron-star density and then failing to answer my very simple challenge that you demonstrate your proficiency in the area of physics at hand. You're being a little chickenshit. > As soon as you are willing to do the same, we'll talk. Until then, fuck > off. Concession accepted due to ignorance in relevant areas of physics. You can't debate something you have no idea about. -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 15:43:08 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:3C279D4E.7080500@mac.com... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > And fucking solves it, cocksmack! READ! > > > No, it doesn't. It CAN'T. Don't you get it? You're putting the cart > before the horse. The enormous forces required to hold the neutronium > together in its ultradense state will create warps in spacetime that > will act exactly like gravitational ones because they ARE gravitational > warps. You, yet AGAIN, demonstrate your complete and total ignorance of > particle physics, basic laws of gravitation and general relativity. And still, you cannot read. The very fact that the neutronium containment system does not show these qualities outside the containment field means that they are nullified outside the containment field, which is a damn good idea considering the fact that these are objects you're supposed to be able to fucking use! You are such a stupid little nothing! > > No, I've been using empirical data to gather what its effects are. You, on > > the other hand, have sat there playing with yourself instead of reading. > > > "Empirical data"? In a SCI-FI universe? Are you THAT scientifically > ignorant? Gathering evidence and forming hypotheses is a process useful in any sphere, even interpersonal relations. For example, based on all the evidence that you're a stupid fuckwit, I came to develop the hypothesis that you're a stupid fuckwit, and would continue demonstrating qualities of a stupid fuckwit in the future. You have consistently continued to demonstrate those qualities, thereby supporting the hypothesis. > > The neutronium containment field dissipation rate is not established. There > > is no reason to assume that it would instantly cease to exist and that the > > gravitational field would suddenly pull the Constellation or the Enterprise > > into the hull. > > > Throwing around terms you don't understand again, are you? "The > neutronium containment field dissipation rate is not established."? What > the fuck does that mean? Neutronium is an ultradense material. Lots of > mass packed into tiny spaces creates huge amounts of acceleration due to > gravity. Pumping gravitons into the material to hold it together is the > cause of this effect, in this case. And you've given no reason above why my statement is not accurate. Try again. > > We're discussing canon and physics in a debate of two imagined spacefaring > > civilizations. We know canon overrides physics to an extent, thanks to the > > FTL propulsion systems of both powers. You're trying to claim that > > physics overrides canon proof of gravity manipulation just because you say > > so. Suck my dick. > > > Your ludicrous fantasies about containing neutronium without having it > crush everything around it don't count as canon. This is a quote, NOT an > irrefutable observance. Canonically, neutronium can be used as a construction material by technologically advanced cultures. Canonically, neutronium comes from neutron stars, just like real neutronium. So, as I said, suck my dick. > You're being a hypocrite by saying that we can't apply the same to SW. > I admit freely that SW neutronium isn't the same stuff as RL, HOLY FUCKING SHIT! That's the most incredible thing I've seen all day. Concession accepted. > but ST neutronium, by the same token, can't be either, > because it doesn't demonstrate the properties of RL neutronium. Bullshit. It exists in neutron stars, it is ultradense and ultrastrong, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum. Just because you cannot grasp how technologically advanced civilizations could mold it into what they desire without killing themselves is not my problem, nor is it a problem for Star Trek neutronium being real neutronium. > > I'm saying I don't have to answer your childish question, asshole, which is > > already clearly answered by my understanding and use of the concept. > > Horseshit. You've got the understanding of particle physics that infants > have of "go poopy in the potty." Your refusal to meet my challenge to > provide an adequate definition of a graviton based upon your own > knowledge is utterly obvious proof that you've no clue what you're > talking about. And the fact that you don't know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground means that you have no clue about what you're talking about on any subject. Tit for tat, bitch. > > I'll take a page from your book: "Ah, so you don't know the difference > > between your ass and a hole in the ground! Well, concession accepted on > > all topics, then, because someone who does not know the difference between > > their ass and a hole in the ground is certainly incapable of contributing > > anything of value to the debate." > > > MY challenge was relevant to the matter at hand. Yours is completely > inapplicable to the debate at hand. On the contrary, my "challenge" speaks to every issue at hand. > > No concession offerred, for your presumption of my ignorance is incorrect. > > I'm not here to play your games. I'm here to debate. > > > Yes, you're here to debate. Part of debate is credibility. I've > established mine in prior threads dealing with particle interactions and > such. As have I, on such topics as Hawking Radiation, quantum singularities, possible gravity control systems, et cetera. > In fact, you've demonstrated > your utter lack of knowledge in the area by failing to consider the > effects of a graviton field large enough to condense matter to > neutron-star density You have demonstrated your inability to determine the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground by failing to take notice of the fact that neutron containment systems need not demonstrate the property you wish to ascribe to them. > > As soon as you are willing to do the same, we'll talk. Until then, fuck > > off. > > > Concession accepted due to ignorance in relevant areas of physics. You > can't debate something you have no idea about. No concession offerred. Besides, you don't know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground. You wouldn't know what to do with a concession even if I gave you one. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 21:13:19 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C27EECF.8040308@mac.com> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > And still, you cannot read. The very fact that the neutronium containment > system does not show these qualities outside the containment field means > that they are nullified outside the containment field, which is a damn good > idea considering the fact that these are objects you're supposed to be able > to fucking use! You are such a stupid little nothing! What an excellent display of circular logic. "It has to because it's required to prove my assumption!" > Gathering evidence and forming hypotheses is a process useful in any sphere, > even interpersonal relations. For example, based on all the evidence that > you're a stupid fuckwit, I came to develop the hypothesis that you're a > stupid fuckwit, and would continue demonstrating qualities of a stupid > fuckwit in the future. You have consistently continued to demonstrate > those qualities, thereby supporting the hypothesis. That evidence isn't TESTABLE. Have you taken the quantum singularity from whichever episode of TNG and tested it in a lab? > And you've given no reason above why my statement is not accurate. Try > again. Aside from that fact that you have no clue what you're talking about and, thus, no place putting forth an explanation? > Canonically, neutronium can be used as a construction material by > technologically advanced cultures. One of the gansters upon being beamed up to the Enterprise chewed neutronium (Piece of Action, TOS). > Canonically, neutronium comes from neutron stars, just like real neutronium. Proof? > So, as I said, suck my dick. I love watching depserate debaters degenerate into insult. > HOLY FUCKING SHIT! That's the most incredible thing I've seen all day. > > Concession accepted. I'm sure it is. I've been thinking of giving you a Christmas present and letting you in on the definition of a graviton, but I just decided against it. > Bullshit. It exists in neutron stars, it is ultradense and ultrastrong, et > cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum. Just because you cannot grasp how > technologically advanced civilizations could mold it into what they desire > without killing themselves is not my problem, nor is it a problem for Star > Trek neutronium being real neutronium. See above example from TOS. You can't chew neutronium, or even pick it up in small amounts. > And the fact that you don't know the difference between your ass and a hole > in the ground means that you have no clue about what you're talking about on > any subject. Tit for tat, bitch. "Bla bla bla, bitch! Hahahah! I win!!" > As have I, on such topics as Hawking Radiation, quantum singularities, > possible gravity control systems, et cetera. Then why haven't you met my very simple challenge? > You have demonstrated your inability to determine the difference between > your ass and a hole in the ground by failing to take notice of the fact that > neutron containment systems need not demonstrate the property you wish to > ascribe to them. Because they don't work the way you want them to. Or, it's just not neutronium. You're ignoring the very simple fact that a pithy nuclear explosion, like the one of the Constitution's impulse engines, would fail to do jackshit to the Doomsday. If that were the case, you could just blast the ship with an anti-graviton beam and be done with it. > No concession offerred. Besides, you don't know the difference between > your ass and a hole in the ground. You wouldn't know what to do with a > concession even if I gave you one. You've obviously degenerated into your usual web of hypocrisy and stupidity. I think it's about time for you standard 6 month sojourn away from the group. I'll pick this up later. I can only take so much stupidity at one time. -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 20:41:29 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:3C27EECF.8040308@mac.com... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > And still, you cannot read. The very fact that the neutronium containment > > system does not show these qualities outside the containment field means > > that they are nullified outside the containment field, which is a damn good > > idea considering the fact that these are objects you're supposed to be able > > to fucking use! You are such a stupid little nothing! > > > What an excellent display of circular logic. "It has to because it's > required to prove my assumption!" > No, shitwit, you're wrong again. The hypothesis is that there is a neutronium containment field. Its properties are determined from observation. As nullification is one of the observed properties, it is a part of the hypothetical containment field. Congratulations. You just judged the opening steps of the scientific method an exercise in circular reasoning. Fuckwit. > > Gathering evidence and forming hypotheses is a process useful in any sphere, > > even interpersonal relations. For example, based on all the evidence that > > you're a stupid fuckwit, I came to develop the hypothesis that you're a > > stupid fuckwit, and would continue demonstrating qualities of a stupid > > fuckwit in the future. You have consistently continued to demonstrate > > those qualities, thereby supporting the hypothesis. > > > That evidence isn't TESTABLE. Have you taken the quantum singularity > from whichever episode of TNG and tested it in a lab? No, and no reasonable individual would expect such a thing or even ask that question. > > And you've given no reason above why my statement is not accurate. Try > > again. > > Aside from that fact that you have no clue what you're talking about > and, thus, no place putting forth an explanation? Oh, goodie! The guy who doesn't know the difference between his ass and a hole in the ground thinks I have no clue what I'm talking about! How silly I've been by using reason, logic, and evidence in this debate! > > Canonically, neutronium can be used as a construction material by > > technologically advanced cultures. > > One of the gansters upon being beamed up to the Enterprise chewed > neutronium (Piece of Action, TOS). Bull-fucking-shit. That is the most desperate piece of crap I've seen written today (though this is my first message of the day, so I'm sure I'll see something worse from you soon). > > Canonically, neutronium comes from neutron stars, just like real neutronium. > > Proof? Oh, I don't know, "Evolution"[TNG], maybe? > > So, as I said, suck my dick. > > > I love watching depserate debaters degenerate into insult. Desperate? You're the one desperately trying to rewrite old episodes. Don't get pissed off because I've started delivering the insults you deserve. > > HOLY FUCKING SHIT! That's the most incredible thing I've seen all day. > > > > Concession accepted. > > > I'm sure it is. I've been thinking of giving you a Christmas present and > letting you in on the definition of a graviton, but I just decided > against it. I already know what a graviton is. The only one of us in a position to give a present of information is me, in reference to your ignorance of the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground. > > Bullshit. It exists in neutron stars, it is ultradense and ultrastrong, et > > cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum. Just because you cannot grasp how > > technologically advanced civilizations could mold it into what they desire > > without killing themselves is not my problem, nor is it a problem for Star > > Trek neutronium being real neutronium. > > > See above example from TOS. You can't chew neutronium, or even pick it > up in small amounts. Nor was such bullshit ever represented in TOS. > > As have I, on such topics as Hawking Radiation, quantum singularities, > > possible gravity control systems, et cetera. > > > Then why haven't you met my very simple challenge? Because not only have you offerred nothing challenging, but you also do not care to admit that the principle behind your question was flawed. > > You have demonstrated your inability to determine the difference between > > your ass and a hole in the ground by failing to take notice of the fact that > > neutron containment systems need not demonstrate the property you wish to > > ascribe to them. > > > Because they don't work the way you want them to. Oh? Then praytell, son, how do neutronium containment systems work on Star Trek, hmm? > Or, it's just not neutronium. You still have to prove that statement. You've conceeded that SW neutronium is not neutronium, and hopefully your concession was based on the fact that there is ample proof to that effect. I have not conceeded that ST neutronium is not neutronium, for there is no proof to that effect. > You're ignoring the very simple fact that a pithy nuclear > explosion, like the one of the Constitution's impulse engines, would > fail to do jackshit to the Doomsday. The fusion explosion was not intended to damage the hull of the Doomsday Machine, nor did it give any appearance of doing so. Only the hull was referred to as being made of neutronium. Furthermore, from the very same episode, we have a clear and visible demonstration of hull damage to a space vessel, referring to the scarred hull of Decker's ship. Oh, and by the way, would you please fucking accept the fact that it was the CONSTELLATION, not the Constitution? > > No concession offerred. Besides, you don't know the difference between > > your ass and a hole in the ground. You wouldn't know what to do with a > > concession even if I gave you one. > > You've obviously degenerated into your usual web of hypocrisy and > stupidity. I think it's about time for you standard 6 month sojourn away > from the group. > I'll pick this up later. I can only take so much stupidity at one time. Hypocrisy my ass. You ask a question which is only a veiled insult and attempt at one-upsmanship. When I ask you the very same type of question, you refuse to answer, but claim that my decision not to answer means I don't know the answer, but your failure to answer means nothing. That's hypocrisy . . . willing to dish out bullshit and not take it. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: the.chimaera@hungerfordtownband.fsnet.co.uk (The Chimaera) Date: 26 Dec 2001 12:35:23 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- In article , usmguy@yahoo.com says... > > >"Durandal" wrote in message >news:3C27EECF.8040308@mac.com... >> Guardian 2000 wrote: >> >> >> > And still, you cannot read. The very fact that the neutronium >containment >> > system does not show these qualities outside the containment field means >> > that they are nullified outside the containment field, which is a damn >good >> > idea considering the fact that these are objects you're supposed to be >able >> > to fucking use! You are such a stupid little nothing! >> >> >> What an excellent display of circular logic. "It has to because it's >> required to prove my assumption!" >> > >No, shitwit, you're wrong again. The hypothesis is that there is a >neutronium containment field. Its properties are determined from >observation. As nullification is one of the observed properties, it is a >part of the hypothetical containment field. > >Congratulations. You just judged the opening steps of the scientific >method an exercise in circular reasoning. Fuckwit. This is really pathetic. Look, you're trying to prove ST neutronium is RL neutronium by creating a device for keeping it stable. But you need the device to prove the neutronium is RL neutronium. This has been spelled out to you several times. How can it be made clearer? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- the.chimaera@hungerfordtownband.fsnet.co.uk ICQ: 81386358 AIM: The Chimaera UK YIM: the_chimaera_uk MSN: the_chimaera@hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 15:03:46 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "The Chimaera" wrote in message news:a0cg6b$dkf$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk... > In article , usmguy@yahoo.com says... > > > > > >"Durandal" wrote in message > >news:3C27EECF.8040308@mac.com... > >> Guardian 2000 wrote: > >> > >> > >> > And still, you cannot read. The very fact that the neutronium > >containment > >> > system does not show these qualities outside the containment field means > >> > that they are nullified outside the containment field, which is a damn > >good > >> > idea considering the fact that these are objects you're supposed to be > >able > >> > to fucking use! You are such a stupid little nothing! > >> > >> > >> What an excellent display of circular logic. "It has to because it's > >> required to prove my assumption!" > >> > > > >No, shitwit, you're wrong again. The hypothesis is that there is a > >neutronium containment field. Its properties are determined from > >observation. As nullification is one of the observed properties, it is a > >part of the hypothetical containment field. > > > >Congratulations. You just judged the opening steps of the scientific > >method an exercise in circular reasoning. Fuckwit. > > This is really pathetic. > > Look, you're trying to prove ST neutronium is RL neutronium by creating a > device for keeping it stable. But you need the device to prove the neutronium > is RL neutronium. > > This has been spelled out to you several times. How can it be made clearer? I understand the false reasoning of you and yours. What is clear is that there are two hypotheses in competition. The Warsie hypothesis requires that Star Trek can have two substances of the same name. There's the real-life-type neutronium seen in its natural environment and sharing all the same qualities as real-life neutronium, and then for no apparent reason there's another material by the same name which happens to share several qualities with the other stuff. The only proof you have for the multiplication of entities is that one quality appears to be missing. However, there are no other instances (not counting ensigns and starships) of two things having the same name, and certainly no instance of two materials having the same name anywhere else in Trek. The Trek hypothesis explains the one discrepancy between the natural neutronium and items made with neutronium by actually looking at Star Trek canon and realizing that the neutronium containment system in no way defies reason, canon, or real-life neutronium requirements. The technologies required for it are in existence in Federation science, but in keeping with Janeway's comments that the Federation has not been able to perform feats with neutronium, and in keeping with the fact that those who have neutronium constructs are technologically more advanced, I have postulated something based upon a more advanced version of known Federation technology. Your argument requires that canon be ignored or rewritten. My argument is based upon canon knowledge. Mine is superior. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 26 Dec 2001 21:05:57 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011226160557.25721.00003132@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >"The Chimaera" wrote in >message news:a0cg6b$dkf$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk... >> In article , usmguy@yahoo.com >says... >> > >> > >> >"Durandal" wrote in message >> >news:3C27EECF.8040308@mac.com... >> >> Guardian 2000 wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > And still, you cannot read. The very fact that the neutronium >> >containment >> >> > system does not show these qualities outside the containment field >means >> >> > that they are nullified outside the containment field, which is a >damn >> >good >> >> > idea considering the fact that these are objects you're supposed to >be >> >able >> >> > to fucking use! You are such a stupid little nothing! >> >> >> >> >> >> What an excellent display of circular logic. "It has to because it's >> >> required to prove my assumption!" >> >> >> > >> >No, shitwit, you're wrong again. The hypothesis is that there is a >> >neutronium containment field. Its properties are determined from >> >observation. As nullification is one of the observed properties, it is >a >> >part of the hypothetical containment field. >> > >> >Congratulations. You just judged the opening steps of the scientific >> >method an exercise in circular reasoning. Fuckwit. >> >> This is really pathetic. >> >> Look, you're trying to prove ST neutronium is RL neutronium by creating a >> device for keeping it stable. But you need the device to prove the >neutronium >> is RL neutronium. >> >> This has been spelled out to you several times. How can it be made >clearer? > >I understand the false reasoning of you and yours. > >What is clear is that there are two hypotheses in competition. > Star Trek Neutronium is a light material used in the construction of doors and temples by pre-warp societies with no decay problems. He was right, it's remarkably relaxing. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 19:37:27 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- No surprise as Sir Nitram jumps on the "Suck Rabid Warsie Cock" bandwagon. Let's see how much bandwidth we can waste this way, hmm? "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011226160557.25721.00003132@mb-fi.aol.com... > >"The Chimaera" wrote in > >message news:a0cg6b$dkf$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk... > >> In article , usmguy@yahoo.com > >says... > >> > > >> > > >> >"Durandal" wrote in message > >> >news:3C27EECF.8040308@mac.com... > >> >> Guardian 2000 wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > And still, you cannot read. The very fact that the neutronium > >> >containment > >> >> > system does not show these qualities outside the containment field > >means > >> >> > that they are nullified outside the containment field, which is a > >damn > >> >good > >> >> > idea considering the fact that these are objects you're supposed to > >be > >> >able > >> >> > to fucking use! You are such a stupid little nothing! > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> What an excellent display of circular logic. "It has to because it's > >> >> required to prove my assumption!" > >> >> > >> > > >> >No, shitwit, you're wrong again. The hypothesis is that there is a > >> >neutronium containment field. Its properties are determined from > >> >observation. As nullification is one of the observed properties, it is > >a > >> >part of the hypothetical containment field. > >> > > >> >Congratulations. You just judged the opening steps of the scientific > >> >method an exercise in circular reasoning. Fuckwit. > >> > >> This is really pathetic. > >> > >> Look, you're trying to prove ST neutronium is RL neutronium by creating a > >> device for keeping it stable. But you need the device to prove the > >neutronium > >> is RL neutronium. > >> > >> This has been spelled out to you several times. How can it be made > >clearer? > > > >I understand the false reasoning of you and yours. > > > >What is clear is that there are two hypotheses in competition. > > > > > > Star Trek Neutronium is a light material used in the construction of doors and > temples by pre-warp societies with no decay problems. > > He was right, it's remarkably relaxing. Star Wars neutronium is nothing more than a metallic element which one can find in veins on a moon. Star Trek neutronium is an ultra-dense, ultra-strong material, found naturally in neutron stars, which decays rapidly when outside a neutron star. It is not an assumption to believe that this is exactly similar to real-life neutronium. The exception to the decay is when neutronium has been manufactured into something by an advanced civilization, such as the builders of the Dyson Sphere, the builders of the Doomsday Machine, the Iconians, and the Dominion or whoever built two of their doors. As these objects have not been shown to be wrapped in extraordinarily powerful gravity fields that pull all nearby objects into the objects, and as neutronium's natural density and pressure requirements would, if not created by the powerful gravity fields, be created by whatever was keeping the neutronium intact, I postulate that a neutronium containment system is in place which both keeps the neutronium neutronium and nullifies the deadly gravity to keep neutronium as something worth building with. Having demonstrated that the advanced civilizations which use neutronium as a construction material and which are more advanced than the Federation could use concepts known to Federation science to contain the neutronium, I have posited neutronium containment systems along those lines, though my hypothesis about the technology behind the neutronium containment systems may be in error . . . it could be other things entirely. I do not see why you are unable to grasp this thought process. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 27 Dec 2001 01:43:14 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011226204314.25721.00003195@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >No surprise as Sir Nitram jumps on the "Suck Rabid Warsie Cock" bandwagon. >Let's see how much bandwidth we can waste this way, hmm? Translation follows: G2K: He beat my arguments! He's not supposed to do that! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kazuaki Shimazaki Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 10:12:03 +0800 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C2A8373.1B0F@netvigator.com> -------- Sir Nitram wrote: > > >No surprise as Sir Nitram jumps on the "Suck Rabid Warsie Cock" bandwagon. > >Let's see how much bandwidth we can waste this way, hmm? > > Translation follows: > > G2K: He beat my arguments! He's not supposed to do that! > WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH > HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Actually, that's wrong. It is more like RSA: He didn't beat my arguments! You're all nuts! I have no evidence, no support, none of everything! But MY EXTRAPOLATIONS ARE STILL RIGHT! WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE ME! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH! (There is a lot more WAH, but let's skip the rest) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 00:13:14 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011226204314.25721.00003195@mb-fi.aol.com... > >No surprise as Sir Nitram jumps on the "Suck Rabid Warsie Cock" bandwagon. > >Let's see how much bandwidth we can waste this way, hmm? > > Translation follows: > > G2K: He beat my arguments! He's not supposed to do that! Ah, yes, the old Rabid Warsie tactic of claiming absolute victory at random moments. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 27 Dec 2001 15:06:09 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011227100609.20315.00001833@mb-ba.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011226204314.25721.00003195@mb-fi.aol.com... >> >No surprise as Sir Nitram jumps on the "Suck Rabid Warsie Cock" >bandwagon. >> >Let's see how much bandwidth we can waste this way, hmm? >> >> Translation follows: >> >> G2K: He beat my arguments! He's not supposed to do that! > >Ah, yes, the old Rabid Warsie tactic of claiming absolute victory at random >moments. > Or claiming random victory at absolute moments. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 21:24:56 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C2A9488.1070208@mac.com> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > Star Wars neutronium is nothing more than a metallic element which one can > find in veins on a moon. Thus, it is not real life neutronium. > Star Trek neutronium is an ultra-dense, ultra-strong material, found > naturally in neutron stars, which decays rapidly when outside a neutron > star. It is not an assumption to believe that this is exactly similar to > real-life neutronium. No, it is used in door constuction by pre-warp civilizations. Thus, it's not the real stuff. No one's claiming SW neutronium is the real stuff. No reasonable person would claim ST neutronium is the real stuff. -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 00:20:13 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:3C2A9488.1070208@mac.com... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > Star Wars neutronium is nothing more than a metallic element which one can > > find in veins on a moon. > > > Thus, it is not real life neutronium. > Well, holy shit. > > > Star Trek neutronium is an ultra-dense, ultra-strong material, found > > naturally in neutron stars, which decays rapidly when outside a neutron > > star. It is not an assumption to believe that this is exactly similar to > > real-life neutronium. > > > No, it is used in door constuction by pre-warp civilizations. Thus, it's > not the real stuff. > > > A. You snipped the part that discusses neutronium as a construction material, while posting "yeah, but it's a construction material" right after the part discussing natural neutronium, as if I never said anything of the sort. That's a retarded effort at dishonest debating. B. The Iconians, for the last time, are not pre-warp. Pre-warp in the Star Trek universe usually refers to races incapable of leaving their own systems by FTL means . . . apparently warp drive is generally considered the easiest to master. Referring to the Iconians as pre-warp is a connotatively dishonest move, hence Ian's use of it and your continuance. > No one's claiming SW neutronium is the real stuff. . . . yeah, today. > No reasonable person would claim ST neutronium is the real stuff. False. No reasonable person would claim it isn't. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 01:27:32 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C2ACD64.6080705@mac.com> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > A. You snipped the part that discusses neutronium as a construction > material, while posting "yeah, but it's a construction material" right after > the part discussing natural neutronium, as if I never said anything of the > sort. That's a retarded effort at dishonest debating. I snipped it because it's utterly irrelevant speculation with incredible amounts of holes in it. > B. The Iconians, for the last time, are not pre-warp. Pre-warp in the > Star Trek universe usually refers to races incapable of leaving their own > systems by FTL means . . . apparently warp drive is generally considered the > easiest to master. Referring to the Iconians as pre-warp is a connotatively > dishonest move, hence Ian's use of it and your continuance. No, it references cultures who have not discovered warp drive. Were the temples made of neutronium, they'd be gravitationally smoothed out, not rocky. > False. No reasonable person would claim it isn't. Except for those of us well-versed in general relativity. -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 21:42:24 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C2A98A0.4080601@mac.com> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > No, shitwit, you're wrong again. The hypothesis is that there is a > neutronium containment field. Its properties are determined from > observation. As nullification is one of the observed properties, it is a > part of the hypothetical containment field. Hypothesis with zero supporting evidence. You are assuming that the neutronium is the real thing for Star Trek, and looking for a way to support that assumption with incredible vigor, invoking terminology you don't understand. Yet, you don't give the same effort or consideration to Wars. > Congratulations. You just judged the opening steps of the scientific > method an exercise in circular reasoning. Fuckwit. The Creationist scientific method, maybe. The REAL scientific method starts out with an observation, not an unverifiable statement. You're saying, "OK, it must be neutronium, in spite of all these observations that contradict it. So, I'm going to use the term 'graviton' a few times, and hope that everyone on this board is stupid enough to buy what I'm saying." > No, and no reasonable individual would expect such a thing or even ask that > question. That evidence is testable? So, all scientists are now unreasonable by your standards? > Oh, goodie! The guy who doesn't know the difference between his ass and a > hole in the ground thinks I have no clue what I'm talking about! How > silly I've been by using reason, logic, and evidence in this debate! Irrelevant. I gave you a challenge to determine your competency, and you have not given any reason other than stubborn pride not to answer it. You issued me a challenge in pure spite with no relevance to this debate at all. I refuse to go into this any further. > Bull-fucking-shit. That is the most desperate piece of crap I've seen > written today (though this is my first message of the day, so I'm sure I'll > see something worse from you soon). No actual response, then? Concession accepted. > Desperate? You're the one desperately trying to rewrite old episodes. > Don't get pissed off because I've started delivering the insults you > deserve. So, you challenge the information I gave? Fine. Present evidence to the contrary. > I already know what a graviton is. The only one of us in a position to > give a present of information is me, in reference to your ignorance of the > difference between your ass and a hole in the ground. You've absolutely refused to meet my challenge of inquiry. As far as I'm concerned, you're just another Trekkie pseudo-scientist. > Nor was such bullshit ever represented in TOS. Fine, present information to the contrary. > Because not only have you offerred nothing challenging, but you also do not > care to admit that the principle behind your question was flawed. I asked if you could tell me what a graviton was without looking on Google. Since all you've done is insult me, I gather that you don't know. > Oh? Then praytell, son, how do neutronium containment systems work on Star > Trek, hmm? They don't. > You still have to prove that statement. You've conceeded that SW > neutronium is not neutronium, and hopefully your concession was based on the > fact that there is ample proof to that effect. I have not conceeded that > ST neutronium is not neutronium, for there is no proof to that effect. There is plenty. The Iconians use it in the construction of their doors. Their doors, Scott. It's the strongest material in the known universe, they can apparently mine it with ease enough to use it in such a mundane piece of technology, yet they can't go FTL. > The fusion explosion was not intended to damage the hull of the Doomsday > Machine, nor did it give any appearance of doing so. Only the hull was > referred to as being made of neutronium. Furthermore, from the very same > episode, we have a clear and visible demonstration of hull damage to a space > vessel, referring to the scarred hull of Decker's ship. As I recall, the Doomsday exploded. But, I could be wrong. > Oh, and by the way, would you please fucking accept the fact that it was the > CONSTELLATION, not the Constitution? Oh, I'm so sorry. Did my blasphemy make you cry because I got the name wrong? > Hypocrisy my ass. You ask a question which is only a veiled insult and > attempt at one-upsmanship. When I ask you the very same type of question, > you refuse to answer, but claim that my decision not to answer means I don't > know the answer, but your failure to answer means nothing. No, I asked the question out of genuine curiosity as to your knowledge in an area of science particularly relevant to this debate. You just insulted me in return, so I have no recourse but to assume that you're just trying to cover up your ignorance by dragging me into a flame war. It won't work. It hasn't worked. You've had ample time to answer the simple challenge. > That's hypocrisy . . . willing to dish out bullshit and not take it. Right. Keep believing that, Scott. -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 00:55:37 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:3C2A98A0.4080601@mac.com... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > No, shitwit, you're wrong again. The hypothesis is that there is a > > neutronium containment field. Its properties are determined from > > observation. As nullification is one of the observed properties, it is a > > part of the hypothetical containment field. > > > Hypothesis with zero supporting evidence. You are assuming that the > neutronium is the real thing for Star Trek, and looking for a way to > support that assumption with incredible vigor, No, retard, that's not it at all, and saying it over and over isn't going to make it so. You don't seem to understand the difference between "assumption" and "that which has been demonstrated". I have demonstrated that Star Trek neutronium is the real thing, and that the objects constructed from it share all of the same properties, but two (apparent gravity and decay). The fact that you cannot comprehend its use as a construction material is none of my concern. > invoking terminology you > don't understand. You ignore known canon because you do not understand it. Frankly, I don't give a fuck whether you believe it or not. > Yet, you don't give the same effort or consideration > to Wars. > If Star Wars neutronium were not a metallic element whose natural environment is veins on a moon, I'd happily give them the same consideration. > > > Congratulations. You just judged the opening steps of the scientific > > method an exercise in circular reasoning. Fuckwit. > > > The Creationist scientific method, maybe. Bitch, now you're just trying to piss me off. I eat creationists for breakfast. > The REAL scientific method > starts out with an observation, not an unverifiable statement. And I did start with observation, you retard. The fact that you wish to rewrite what I say doesn't change that. > You're > saying, "OK, it must be neutronium, in spite of all these observations > that contradict it. So, I'm going to use the term 'graviton' a few > times, and hope that everyone on this board is stupid enough to buy what > I'm saying." No, I'm saying that there is no reason to assume that Federation personnel, equipment, et cetera would suddenly fail to identify neutronium when they've encountered it before. I'm saying that there is no reason to assume the multiplication of entities that you assume. And I'm saying that there are technologies, known to the Federation but not at the required levels, which could allow for neutronium containment. > > No, and no reasonable individual would expect such a thing or even ask that > > question. > > > That evidence is testable? So, all scientists are now unreasonable by > your standards? No, you are unreasonable by my standards. Pay attention to what I'm saying. (Of course, I say the latter in the knowledge that you probably won't, but I'm always open to pleasant surprises.) > > Oh, goodie! The guy who doesn't know the difference between his ass and a > > hole in the ground thinks I have no clue what I'm talking about! How > > silly I've been by using reason, logic, and evidence in this debate! > > > Irrelevant. I gave you a challenge to determine your competency, and you > have not given any reason other than stubborn pride not to answer it. You have not given me a challenge to determine my competency. You questioned my competency for no reason, as a debate tactic. I am not going to play your games. I'm here for the facts, not the petty bickering you seem interested in. > You issued me a challenge in pure spite with no relevance to this debate > at all. Yes, I did. "Turnabout is fair play." > > Bull-fucking-shit. That is the most desperate piece of crap I've seen > > written today (though this is my first message of the day, so I'm sure I'll > > see something worse from you soon). > > > No actual response, then? Concession accepted. No concession offerred, for I'm waiting for you to try to prove your lies about a Star Trek episode. At no point has any gangster chewed neutronium you lying fuck. > > Desperate? You're the one desperately trying to rewrite old episodes. > > Don't get pissed off because I've started delivering the insults you > > deserve. > > > So, you challenge the information I gave? Fine. Present evidence to the > contrary. I've challenged you for proof, proof which you cannot possibly provide, because you're lying. > As far as I'm concerned, you're just another Trekkie pseudo-scientist. Better than a Rabid Warsie Fuckwit pseudo-scientist who feels he must lie about Star Trek in desperate efforts to prove his points. > > Nor was such bullshit ever represented in TOS. > > Fine, present information to the contrary. I'm the one asking you for documentation . . . quotes . . . anything. You can't give anything to prove your bullshit statement that a gangster actually chewed neutronium. > > Because not only have you offerred nothing challenging, but you also do not > > care to admit that the principle behind your question was flawed. > > I asked if you could tell me what a graviton was without looking on > Google. Since all you've done is insult me, I gather that you don't know. Stop playing games and try to engage in rational debate for a change. I know I'm asking a lot of you, but if you'd stop being a fuckwit, maybe we could get some real debating done. > > Oh? Then praytell, son, how do neutronium containment systems work on Star > > Trek, hmm? > > They don't. You're claiming absolute and irrefutable knowledge of their operation, saying that they don't work the way I want them to. I've pointed out that you're wrong on multiple counts. Deal with it. > > You still have to prove that statement. You've conceeded that SW > > neutronium is not neutronium, and hopefully your concession was based on the > > fact that there is ample proof to that effect. I have not conceeded that > > ST neutronium is not neutronium, for there is no proof to that effect. > > > There is plenty. The Iconians use it in the construction of their doors. You nitwit. You can't even keep the facts straight when you're trying to weave your bullshit in amongst them. > Their doors, Scott. It's the strongest material in the known universe, > they can apparently mine it with ease enough to use it in such a mundane > piece of technology, yet they can't go FTL. I do not see any reason why I should be expected to continue debating with you if you're going to engage in such easily disproven lies. > > The fusion explosion was not intended to damage the hull of the Doomsday > > Machine, nor did it give any appearance of doing so. Only the hull was > > referred to as being made of neutronium. Furthermore, from the very same > > episode, we have a clear and visible demonstration of hull damage to a space > > vessel, referring to the scarred hull of Decker's ship. > > > As I recall, the Doomsday exploded. But, I could be wrong. You recall wrong. A gassy blue-gray soup enshrouded the ship, but dissipated. > > Oh, and by the way, would you please fucking accept the fact that it was the > > CONSTELLATION, not the Constitution? > > Oh, I'm so sorry. Did my blasphemy make you cry because I got the name > wrong? No, I just grew weary of your ignorance. > > Hypocrisy my ass. You ask a question which is only a veiled insult and > > attempt at one-upsmanship. When I ask you the very same type of question, > > you refuse to answer, but claim that my decision not to answer means I don't > > know the answer, but your failure to answer means nothing. > > No, I asked the question out of genuine curiosity as to your knowledge > in an area of science particularly relevant to this debate. You just > insulted me in return, so I have no recourse but to assume that you're > just trying to cover up your ignorance by dragging me into a flame war. No, you insulted my intellect by trying to play a debate game. I gave you the insult you deserved, and turned the table on you to see how you liked it. Obviously, you don't, so stop whining about it. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 02:09:57 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C2AD755.7080003@mac.com> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > No, retard, that's not it at all, and saying it over and over isn't going to > make it so. You don't seem to understand the difference between > "assumption" and "that which has been demonstrated". I have demonstrated > that Star Trek neutronium is the real thing, and that the objects > constructed from it share all of the same properties, but two (apparent > gravity and decay). The fact that you cannot comprehend its use as a > construction material is none of my concern. Explain why the temples allegedly made out of it do not gravitationally smooth themselves out into nice, round semispheres. > You ignore known canon because you do not understand it. Frankly, I don't > give a fuck whether you believe it or not. You should. I'm the one you're debating with. > If Star Wars neutronium were not a metallic element whose natural > environment is veins on a moon, I'd happily give them the same > consideration. Then the fact that STN doesn't gravitationally smooth itself out doesn't bother you? > Bitch, now you're just trying to piss me off. I eat creationists for > breakfast. I don't care. You're being just as stubborn and unreasonable as they are. Maybe you should tailor your behavior not to reflect their mindset. > And I did start with observation, you retard. The fact that you wish to > rewrite what I say doesn't change that. So, you objectively came to the conclusion, through observing the Doomsday, Iconian temples and doorways, that they must have been made of neutronium, in spit of their non-uniformity and no apparent gravitational effects? > No, I'm saying that there is no reason to assume that Federation personnel, > equipment, et cetera would suddenly fail to identify neutronium when they've > encountered it before. I'm saying that there is no reason to assume the > multiplication of entities that you assume. And I'm saying that there are > technologies, known to the Federation but not at the required levels, which > could allow for neutronium containment. You assumed Tom Paris to be wrong when he said "faster than light, no left of right," and he's a pilot. Yet, you don't bother trying to throw out explanations involving subatomic particles of which you have no knowledge of the properties. You just declared him wrong. > No, you are unreasonable by my standards. Pay attention to what I'm saying. > (Of course, I say the latter in the knowledge that you probably won't, but > I'm always open to pleasant surprises.) I'm paying more attention to what you're saying that you are. Were you paying as much attention as I, you'd have seen the flaws in your argument already and shamefully conceeded. > You have not given me a challenge to determine my competency. You > questioned my competency for no reason, as a debate tactic. I am not going > to play your games. I'm here for the facts, not the petty bickering you > seem interested in. Yes I have. I asked you to tell me what a graviton was without looking on Google, because you threw the term around like 5-year-olds throw around "poo." When asked, "Do you even know what a graviton is?", you reply with a barrage of uninspired insults. > Yes, I did. "Turnabout is fair play." Wrong. That doesn't work, here. I was asking a relevant and reasonable question. You were not. You can ask me what a graviton is, and I'll tell you, because it's relevant. In case you're wondering, my ass is something I sit on. A hole in the ground is an opening in the surface of the Earth. > No concession offerred, for I'm waiting for you to try to prove your lies > about a Star Trek episode. At no point has any gangster chewed neutronium > you lying fuck. I'm waiting for you to disprove them. I got it from a referenced site, right here: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/5130/particle.htm Calling this guy a liar, are you? Any reason I shouldn't trust his portrayal of events? > I've challenged you for proof, proof which you cannot possibly provide, > because you're lying. Prove it. > Better than a Rabid Warsie Fuckwit pseudo-scientist who feels he must lie > about Star Trek in desperate efforts to prove his points. No proof that I'm lying, then? I've given you the episode. I've given you the occurence. Go and prove me wrong, instead of this ridiculous hearsay. > I'm the one asking you for documentation . . . quotes . . . anything. You > can't give anything to prove your bullshit statement that a gangster > actually chewed neutronium. I gave you the site. You think this isn't an accurate portrayal? E-mail the site's author. > Stop playing games and try to engage in rational debate for a change. I > know I'm asking a lot of you, but if you'd stop being a fuckwit, maybe we > could get some real debating done. You're calling me a liar without even trying to disprove or find error in my statements or my sources. I am not the one standing in the way of productive debating. > You're claiming absolute and irrefutable knowledge of their operation, > saying that they don't work the way I want them to. I've pointed out that > you're wrong on multiple counts. Deal with it. How so? Some scientists believed that the Sun produced its energy by converting its gravitational binding energy into luminousity. No one really knew how it did it before atomic physics, but they knew it wasn't through the GBE mechanism, because calculations said that the sun would have dissipated long ago. All I have to do is point out the flaws in your mechanism, which I have. > You nitwit. You can't even keep the facts straight when you're trying to > weave your bullshit in amongst them. Then try rebutting my statements, rather than slinging pointless insults. > I do not see any reason why I should be expected to continue debating with > you if you're going to engage in such easily disproven lies. Did the Iconians have starships? Did they have FTL drives? > You recall wrong. A gassy blue-gray soup enshrouded the ship, but > dissipated. Fine. > No, you insulted my intellect by trying to play a debate game. I gave you > the insult you deserved, and turned the table on you to see how you liked > it. Obviously, you don't, so stop whining about it. Scott, if I felt like insulting you, I'd use obscure and funny sounding references. I am interested in whether or not you know enough about particle physics to throw the term "graviton" around the way you have been. If it's shown that you don't, THEN I'll insult you for being a fraud. Until such time as you actually meet my challenge, I'll just continue to see you as a cowardly pseudoscientist. You're no better than creationists. -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 13:32:11 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:3C2AD755.7080003@mac.com... > > You ignore known canon because you do not understand it. Frankly, I don't > > give a fuck whether you believe it or not. > > > You should. I'm the one you're debating with. No, you're the fencepost I'm arguing with. > > Bitch, now you're just trying to piss me off. I eat creationists for > > breakfast. > > > I don't care. You're being just as stubborn and unreasonable as they > are. No, I'm being as stubborn and unreasonable as any pro-science debater when a creationist pops in and says "well, yeah, that's what you think" or displays a complete failure to understand the nature of a theory or what it means. > > And I did start with observation, you retard. The fact that you wish to > > rewrite what I say doesn't change that. > > > So, you objectively came to the conclusion, through observing the > Doomsday, Iconian temples and doorways, that they must have been made of > neutronium, in spit of their non-uniformity and no apparent > gravitational effects? That's right. > > No, I'm saying that there is no reason to assume that Federation personnel, > > equipment, et cetera would suddenly fail to identify neutronium when they've > > encountered it before. I'm saying that there is no reason to assume the > > multiplication of entities that you assume. And I'm saying that there are > > technologies, known to the Federation but not at the required levels, which > > could allow for neutronium containment. > > > You assumed Tom Paris to be wrong when he said "faster than light, no > left of right," and he's a pilot. No, I assumed that the Warsie misinterpretation of the quote was wrong, because it was contrary to canon fact and known capabilities . . . just like your bullshit neutronium line of argument. > > No concession offerred, for I'm waiting for you to try to prove your lies > > about a Star Trek episode. At no point has any gangster chewed neutronium > > you lying fuck. > > > I'm waiting for you to disprove them. I got it from a referenced site, > right here: > > http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/5130/particle.htm > > Calling this guy a liar, are you? Any reason I shouldn't trust his > portrayal of events? You fucking retard! ROFLMAO . . . the site replicates Scotty's phrasing to Kirk, "he's mad enough to chew neutronium", and you utterly failed to grasp that, instead assuming that Scotty *actually* meant that the guy was chewing neutronium. Good grief. > > I've challenged you for proof, proof which you cannot possibly provide, > > because you're lying. > > Prove it. Just did, now that you grew the balls to try to defend that lie with a reference you couldn't understand. > > I'm the one asking you for documentation . . . quotes . . . anything. You > > can't give anything to prove your bullshit statement that a gangster > > actually chewed neutronium. > > I gave you the site. You think this isn't an accurate portrayal? E-mail > the site's author. The fault rests not with the site's author, but with a moronic reader who, in utter ignorance, completely misconstrued the quote. > > Stop playing games and try to engage in rational debate for a change. I > > know I'm asking a lot of you, but if you'd stop being a fuckwit, maybe we > > could get some real debating done. > > > You're calling me a liar without even trying to disprove or find error > in my statements or my sources. I am not the one standing in the way of > productive debating. You're the one who would not give the source of your lie, and you're the one who has to provide proof of such a lie. You finally provided your reference, which you had grossly misrepresented, and now everything is clear. See what happens when you actually do what I suggest? > > You're claiming absolute and irrefutable knowledge of their operation, > > saying that they don't work the way I want them to. I've pointed out that > > you're wrong on multiple counts. Deal with it. > > How so? Some scientists believed that the Sun produced its energy by > converting its gravitational binding energy into luminousity. No one > really knew how it did it before atomic physics, but they knew it wasn't > through the GBE mechanism, because calculations said that the sun would > have dissipated long ago. All I have to do is point out the flaws in > your mechanism, which I have. But, to extend the analogy, you're claiming that since the old hypothesis was wrong, that therefore the sun does not shine. > > You nitwit. You can't even keep the facts straight when you're trying to > > weave your bullshit in amongst them. > > Then try rebutting my statements, rather than slinging pointless insults. You're the one confusing who has neutronium doors. > You're no better than creationists. You're not in a position to judge . . . after all, it is a common creationist tactic to deny an event if indeed there are holes (or alternately, they can give the appearance of holes) in a particular theory or sub-theory of evolution. That is your exact modus operandi. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 16:18:52 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C2B9E4C.4060108@mac.com> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > No, you're the fencepost I'm arguing with. See it however you wish. If you want to make yourself look so foolish as to talk at a fencepost, so be it. > No, I'm being as stubborn and unreasonable as any pro-science debater when a > creationist pops in and says "well, yeah, that's what you think" or displays > a complete failure to understand the nature of a theory or what it means. You're using circular logic, just like creationists. >>So, you objectively came to the conclusion, through observing the >>Doomsday, Iconian temples and doorways, that they must have been made of >>neutronium, in spit of their non-uniformity and no apparent >>gravitational effects? >> > > That's right. I came to the conclusion that the the temples were simple rocks through simple observation. > No, I assumed that the Warsie misinterpretation of the quote was wrong, > because it was contrary to canon fact and known capabilities . . . just like > your bullshit neutronium line of argument. How do you interpret your way out of, "we can't turn left of right while travelling at superluminal speeds"? This is eerily similar to Bible thumpers who wish to excuse the atrocities of the Old Testament by saying that they can be "interpreted" differently. > You fucking retard! ROFLMAO . . . the site replicates Scotty's phrasing to > Kirk, "he's mad enough to chew neutronium", and you utterly failed to grasp > that, instead assuming that Scotty *actually* meant that the guy was chewing > neutronium. Good grief. Fine. I'd never seen the episode. The site never said anything about Scotty's phrasing; it objectively stated something. You've got quite a few more hurdles than this to overcome. > Just did, now that you grew the balls to try to defend that lie with a > reference you couldn't understand. I'm not trying to defend a lie; that was my interpretation, and it was wrong. I saw it as "he was crazy enough to chew it." Had the page said, "Scotty said he was...", there would have been no mistake. > But, to extend the analogy, you're claiming that since the old hypothesis > was wrong, that therefore the sun does not shine. No, I'm claiming that a containment mechanism can't produce the observed results and still work the way you have proposed. That's all. > You're the one confusing who has neutronium doors. So, the doors aren't made of neutronium? > You're not in a position to judge . . . after all, it is a common > creationist tactic to deny an event if indeed there are holes (or > alternately, they can give the appearance of holes) in a particular theory > or sub-theory of evolution. That is your exact modus operandi. I've pointed out the fact that neutronium should be gravitationally smoothed out. So has Sir Nitram. This is a large problem with your theory. Even neutronium containment can't explain it. Therefore, your theory is wrong unless you come up with a good rebuttal that can explain why neutronium isn't gravitationally smoothed out in Trek. Neutronium containment is your god, and you'll defend it to the very last despite all the problems it raises, thinking in vain that it explains all discrepancie by its mere presence. Were I acting like a creationist, I'd say that the disproof of your theory was proof of mine. I don't even have an alternate theory as to how the neutronium sticks together, so your accusation is baseless. Neither am I setting up a false dilemma. I am simply saying that all the problems presented by neutronium being in something as mundane as a doorway and a temple without being gravitationally smoothed out leads me to believe that it is not real neutronium, just the Trek version of it. Trek has redefined energy, as well. In the TNG episode with the people evolving into giant pillars of light (the name escapes me), they are described as "pure energy," even though they don't travel at c. Saying that they've redefined neutronium isn't exactly a leap in logic. Hell, according to Worf, the watt is the new unit of energy. Are you going to defend that, too? -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 02:44:09 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:3C2B9E4C.4060108@mac.com... > > No, I'm being as stubborn and unreasonable as any pro-science debater when a > > creationist pops in and says "well, yeah, that's what you think" or displays > > a complete failure to understand the nature of a theory or what it means. > > > You're using circular logic, just like creationists. No, you, like a creationist, are attempting to revise my arguments so that you can claim circular logic. Perhaps you would like to look up the term "straw man". > > No, I assumed that the Warsie misinterpretation of the quote was wrong, > > because it was contrary to canon fact and known capabilities . . . just like > > your bullshit neutronium line of argument. > > How do you interpret your way out of, "we can't turn left of right while > travelling at superluminal speeds"? This is eerily similar to Bible > thumpers who wish to excuse the atrocities of the Old Testament by > saying that they can be "interpreted" differently. That's funny you bring up the Bible, since it is the Warsies who wish to take a quote as the "gos-pel-ah!" and ignore what their eyes can tell them. > > You fucking retard! ROFLMAO . . . the site replicates Scotty's phrasing to > > Kirk, "he's mad enough to chew neutronium", and you utterly failed to grasp > > that, instead assuming that Scotty *actually* meant that the guy was chewing > > neutronium. Good grief. > > > Fine. I'd never seen the episode. Then don't give me shit about it when I point out that your interpretation is false. > Were I acting like a creationist, I'd say that the disproof of your > theory was proof of mine. I don't even have an alternate theory as to > how the neutronium sticks together, so your accusation is baseless. Um, no, actually we know that evolution occurred. Creationism is not a theory . . . they consider it the only alternative to evolution, and so when they can put two competing theories at odds, or can demonstrate flaws in one particular theory of evolution (i.e. punctuated equilibrium), they then claim that evolution never occurred. Much as you claim that shields are not graviton-based, or that neutronium is not in the doors, and so on. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 21:29:41 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C2D38A5.9030606@mac.com> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > No, you, like a creationist, are attempting to revise my arguments so that > you can claim circular logic. Perhaps you would like to look up the term > "straw man". I am doing no such thing. You are arguing your premise (ST Neutronium is the real thing) to support your conclusion (ST Neutronium is the real thing). > That's funny you bring up the Bible, since it is the Warsies who wish to > take a quote as the "gos-pel-ah!" and ignore what their eyes can tell them. Hasty generalization. > Then don't give me shit about it when I point out that your interpretation > is false. I didn't. I admitted that you were right. > Um, no, actually we know that evolution occurred. Creationism is not a > theory . . . they consider it the only alternative to evolution, and so when > they can put two competing theories at odds, or can demonstrate flaws in one > particular theory of evolution (i.e. punctuated equilibrium), they then > claim that evolution never occurred. Yes, but those are all phantom flaws or easily explainable ones. You can't explain why STN doesn't gravitationally assume a spherical shape with your theory, so it is wrong because it does not match observation. We've never seen neutronium containment occur. > Much as you claim that shields are not graviton-based, or that neutronium is > not in the doors, and so on. That's because we've never seen the process of containment occur. I never claimed that ST shields are not graviton based. I never claimed that they were. I hadn't entered into the argument. -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 16:38:13 -0800 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > No concession offerred, for I'm waiting for you to try to prove your lies > > about a Star Trek episode. At no point has any gangster chewed neutronium > > you lying fuck. > I'm waiting for you to disprove them. I got it from a referenced site, > right here: > > http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/5130/particle.htm > > Calling this guy a liar, are you? Any reason I shouldn't trust his > portrayal of events? ROTFLMAO!!!!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 05:55:35 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:a087mk$jbtc9$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > "Durandal" wrote in message > news:3C279D4E.7080500@mac.com... > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > > And fucking solves it, cocksmack! READ! > > > > > > No, it doesn't. It CAN'T. Don't you get it? You're putting the cart > > before the horse. The enormous forces required to hold the neutronium > > together in its ultradense state will create warps in spacetime that > > will act exactly like gravitational ones because they ARE gravitational > > warps. You, yet AGAIN, demonstrate your complete and total ignorance of > > particle physics, basic laws of gravitation and general relativity. > > And still, you cannot read. The very fact that the neutronium containment > system Now here's the problem: you have NO PROOF of a neutronium containment system. You are stating as fact that they have a containment system which you have shown no proof of beyond the fact that it fits neatly into your fanboy fantasies. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R USMCR Bridge Company A, 6th EngnrSptBN, 4th FSSG "There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion." -Unknown ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 20:45:49 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:rxUV7.27588$fo.4886170@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > news:a087mk$jbtc9$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Durandal" wrote in message > > news:3C279D4E.7080500@mac.com... > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > And fucking solves it, cocksmack! READ! > > > > > > > > > No, it doesn't. It CAN'T. Don't you get it? You're putting the cart > > > before the horse. The enormous forces required to hold the neutronium > > > together in its ultradense state will create warps in spacetime that > > > will act exactly like gravitational ones because they ARE gravitational > > > warps. You, yet AGAIN, demonstrate your complete and total ignorance of > > > particle physics, basic laws of gravitation and general relativity. > > > > And still, you cannot read. The very fact that the neutronium > containment > > system > > Now here's the problem: you have NO PROOF of a neutronium containment > system. I have the exact amount of proof in reference to neutronium containment systems as I have for inertial dampeners on the Enterprise-Prime. Though neither was ever mentioned, we see their effects, and understand that they would have been a required technology which would fit within the tech levels of the discussed parties. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 26 Dec 2001 02:48:23 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011225214823.24464.00001833@mb-fc.aol.com> -------- >"Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message >news:rxUV7.27588$fo.4886170@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message >> news:a087mk$jbtc9$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... >> > >> > "Durandal" wrote in message >> > news:3C279D4E.7080500@mac.com... >> > > Guardian 2000 wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > > And fucking solves it, cocksmack! READ! >> > > >> > > >> > > No, it doesn't. It CAN'T. Don't you get it? You're putting the cart >> > > before the horse. The enormous forces required to hold the neutronium >> > > together in its ultradense state will create warps in spacetime that >> > > will act exactly like gravitational ones because they ARE >gravitational >> > > warps. You, yet AGAIN, demonstrate your complete and total ignorance >of >> > > particle physics, basic laws of gravitation and general relativity. >> > >> > And still, you cannot read. The very fact that the neutronium >> containment >> > system >> >> Now here's the problem: you have NO PROOF of a neutronium containment >> system. > >I have the exact amount of proof in reference to neutronium containment >systems as I have for inertial dampeners on the Enterprise-Prime. Though >neither was ever mentioned, we see their effects, and understand that they >would have been a required technology which would fit within the tech levels >of the discussed parties. > Except of course you've yet to prove it's stellar neutronium, so unless you prove that, there's no need for containment.... Oh yes, and to those of you who still want to seriously debate this, take a look at a capture or, better yet, the episode, The Doomsday Machine. The outer hull is not stellar neutronium for one simple reason: The real stuff is so dense it smooths out any imperfection. The hull is bumpy, warped. There is no logical reason to shape it so, so it must be natural. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 02:52:16 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011225214823.24464.00001833@mb-fc.aol.com... > >"Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > >news:rxUV7.27588$fo.4886170@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... > >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > >> news:a087mk$jbtc9$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > >> > > >> > "Durandal" wrote in message > >> > news:3C279D4E.7080500@mac.com... > >> > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > And fucking solves it, cocksmack! READ! > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > No, it doesn't. It CAN'T. Don't you get it? You're putting the cart > >> > > before the horse. The enormous forces required to hold the neutronium > >> > > together in its ultradense state will create warps in spacetime that > >> > > will act exactly like gravitational ones because they ARE > >gravitational > >> > > warps. You, yet AGAIN, demonstrate your complete and total ignorance > >of > >> > > particle physics, basic laws of gravitation and general relativity. > >> > > >> > And still, you cannot read. The very fact that the neutronium > >> containment > >> > system > >> > >> Now here's the problem: you have NO PROOF of a neutronium containment > >> system. > > > >I have the exact amount of proof in reference to neutronium containment > >systems as I have for inertial dampeners on the Enterprise-Prime. Though > >neither was ever mentioned, we see their effects, and understand that they > >would have been a required technology which would fit within the tech levels > >of the discussed parties. > > > > Except of course you've yet to prove it's stellar neutronium, so unless you > prove that, there's no need for containment.... Ah, so you're going to claim that the neutronium from neutron stars in Star Trek is dissimilar from the neutronium in items made of neutronium, despite the fact that you have no evidence for that. How, then, do you account for the fact that this neutronium is apparently stronger and denser than cast rodinium, the hardest substance known to Federation science ("Balance of Terror"[TOS])? > > Oh yes, and to those of you who still want to seriously debate this, take a > look at a capture or, better yet, the episode, The Doomsday Machine. The outer > hull is not stellar neutronium for one simple reason: The real stuff is so > dense it smooths out any imperfection. The hull is bumpy, warped. So what? That proves nothing, besides the fact that the ship has a bumpy hull. Imperfections or variances in the hypothesized neutronium containment system could explain that. Alternately, it's simply space matter or planetary debris accumulated on the hull. And before you start bitching about it, deposits on the hull would not make a report of the composition of the hull any different . . . no warp-driven starship has ever been referred to as being composed of its normal materials plus other baryons, despite the fact that the ships have to have baryon sweeps every once in a while ("Starship Mine"[TNG], et al.). > There is no logical reason to shape it so, so it must be natural. Natural what? G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 26 Dec 2001 15:09:35 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011226100935.12937.00002609@mb-cu.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011225214823.24464.00001833@mb-fc.aol.com... >> >"Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message >> >news:rxUV7.27588$fo.4886170@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... >> >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message >> >> news:a087mk$jbtc9$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... >> >> > >> >> > "Durandal" wrote in message >> >> > news:3C279D4E.7080500@mac.com... >> >> > > Guardian 2000 wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > And fucking solves it, cocksmack! READ! >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > No, it doesn't. It CAN'T. Don't you get it? You're putting the cart >> >> > > before the horse. The enormous forces required to hold the >neutronium >> >> > > together in its ultradense state will create warps in spacetime >that >> >> > > will act exactly like gravitational ones because they ARE >> >gravitational >> >> > > warps. You, yet AGAIN, demonstrate your complete and total >ignorance >> >of >> >> > > particle physics, basic laws of gravitation and general relativity. >> >> > >> >> > And still, you cannot read. The very fact that the neutronium >> >> containment >> >> > system >> >> >> >> Now here's the problem: you have NO PROOF of a neutronium containment >> >> system. >> > >> >I have the exact amount of proof in reference to neutronium containment >> >systems as I have for inertial dampeners on the Enterprise-Prime. >Though >> >neither was ever mentioned, we see their effects, and understand that >they >> >would have been a required technology which would fit within the tech >levels >> >of the discussed parties. >> > >> >> Except of course you've yet to prove it's stellar neutronium, so unless >you >> prove that, there's no need for containment.... > >Ah, so you're going to claim that the neutronium from neutron stars in Star >Trek is dissimilar from the neutronium in items made of neutronium, despite >the fact that you have no evidence for that. How, then, do you account >for the fact that this neutronium is apparently stronger and denser than >cast rodinium, the hardest substance known to Federation science ("Balance >of Terror"[TOS])? > It's dense. So? So's lead. It's strong. So? So's steel. This hardly proves that it's stellar neutronium, just a particularly strong mineral..... .....Just like SWN. >> >> Oh yes, and to those of you who still want to seriously debate this, take >a >> look at a capture or, better yet, the episode, The Doomsday Machine. The >outer >> hull is not stellar neutronium for one simple reason: The real stuff is so >> dense it smooths out any imperfection. The hull is bumpy, warped. > >So what? That proves nothing, besides the fact that the ship has a bumpy >hull. Imperfections or variances in the hypothesized neutronium containment >system could explain that. Alternately, it's simply space matter or >planetary debris accumulated on the hull. And before you start bitching >about it, deposits on the hull would not make a report of the composition of >the hull any different . . . no warp-driven starship has ever been referred >to as being composed of its normal materials plus other baryons, despite the >fact that the ships have to have baryon sweeps every once in a while >("Starship Mine"[TNG], et al.). > You don't get it. Neutronium is too heavy to allow imperfections in it. It flattens itself. It's like having a raindrop shaped like a square: Can't happen. Stellar neutronium cannot be anything other than smooth, perfectly. It's also theorized that it's silvery and reflective, though I can't cast my vote there. Your neutronium containment theory again reeks of circular logic: In trying to prove it's real neutronium, you assume it is to begin with. In short, you have to prove using something other than your theory, like Canon or science, that the neutronium could be both imperfectly smooth and still stellar in origin. Or concede. >> There is no logical reason to shape it so, so it must be natural. > >Natural what? > Naturally occouring, I'm sorry I expected you to have two operating braincells. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 15:54:28 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011226100935.12937.00002609@mb-cu.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20011225214823.24464.00001833@mb-fc.aol.com... > >> >"Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > >> >news:rxUV7.27588$fo.4886170@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... > >> >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > >> >> news:a087mk$jbtc9$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > >> >> > > >> >> > "Durandal" wrote in message > >> >> > news:3C279D4E.7080500@mac.com... > >> >> > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > And fucking solves it, cocksmack! READ! > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > No, it doesn't. It CAN'T. Don't you get it? You're putting the cart > >> >> > > before the horse. The enormous forces required to hold the > >neutronium > >> >> > > together in its ultradense state will create warps in spacetime > >that > >> >> > > will act exactly like gravitational ones because they ARE > >> >gravitational > >> >> > > warps. You, yet AGAIN, demonstrate your complete and total > >ignorance > >> >of > >> >> > > particle physics, basic laws of gravitation and general relativity. > >> >> > > >> >> > And still, you cannot read. The very fact that the neutronium > >> >> containment > >> >> > system > >> >> > >> >> Now here's the problem: you have NO PROOF of a neutronium containment > >> >> system. > >> > > >> >I have the exact amount of proof in reference to neutronium containment > >> >systems as I have for inertial dampeners on the Enterprise-Prime. > >Though > >> >neither was ever mentioned, we see their effects, and understand that > >they > >> >would have been a required technology which would fit within the tech > >levels > >> >of the discussed parties. > >> > > >> > >> Except of course you've yet to prove it's stellar neutronium, so unless > >you > >> prove that, there's no need for containment.... > > > >Ah, so you're going to claim that the neutronium from neutron stars in Star > >Trek is dissimilar from the neutronium in items made of neutronium, despite > >the fact that you have no evidence for that. How, then, do you account > >for the fact that this neutronium is apparently stronger and denser than > >cast rodinium, the hardest substance known to Federation science ("Balance > >of Terror"[TOS])? > > > > It's dense. So? So's lead. It's strong. So? So's steel. This hardly proves that > it's stellar neutronium, just a particularly strong mineral..... The strongest mineral outcropping we've seen on Star Trek is tritanium ("Obsession"[TOS]). It was not impervious to phaser fire, for Spock phasered off a specimen. The hardest mineral or metallic substance we've seen on Star Trek is cast rodinium. That was available for use as a construction material on old Earth Outposts ("Balance of Terror"[TOS]). You assume what you seek to prove, by the way, by calling it a mineral. > > .....Just like SWN. No, because Star Wars neutronium is nothing more than a metallic element found in veins on a moon. That is its natural environment. The natural environment of Star Trek neutronium is neutron stars, just like the real stuff. > >> > >> Oh yes, and to those of you who still want to seriously debate this, take > >a > >> look at a capture or, better yet, the episode, The Doomsday Machine. The > >outer > >> hull is not stellar neutronium for one simple reason: The real stuff is so > >> dense it smooths out any imperfection. The hull is bumpy, warped. > > > >So what? That proves nothing, besides the fact that the ship has a bumpy > >hull. Imperfections or variances in the hypothesized neutronium containment > >system could explain that. Alternately, it's simply space matter or > >planetary debris accumulated on the hull. And before you start bitching > >about it, deposits on the hull would not make a report of the composition of > >the hull any different . . . no warp-driven starship has ever been referred > >to as being composed of its normal materials plus other baryons, despite the > >fact that the ships have to have baryon sweeps every once in a while > >("Starship Mine"[TNG], et al.). > > > > You don't get it. Neutronium is too heavy to allow imperfections in it. I never said the neutronium had imperfections. > It > flattens itself. It's like having a raindrop shaped like a square: Can't > happen. Stellar neutronium cannot be anything other than smooth, perfectly. In its natural environment, that's true. > It's also theorized that it's silvery and reflective, though I can't cast my > vote there. Your neutronium containment theory again reeks of circular logic: > In trying to prove it's real neutronium, you assume it is to begin with. In > short, you have to prove using something other than your theory, like Canon or > science, that the neutronium could be both imperfectly smooth and still stellar > in origin. Or concede. You don't seem to get it. You have to have evidence for the multiplication of entities and an ignorance of Star Trek canon to try to disprove the fact that it is real neutronium. Further, you assume that the Doomsday Machine neutronium is stellar in origin, and not artificially generated, either by use of a gravity-based neutronium containment system or some system based upon the strong nuclear force, 10^39 more powerful than gravity. You Warsies tried to maintain your neutronium as the real stuff, until such time as it was proved that it could not be the real thing because Star Wars neutronium is nothing more than a metallic element found in veins on a moon. The origin of naturally occurring neutronium in Star Trek is neutron stars. That last little bit ("In short . . . ") of your question is priceless . . . my theory is the exemplification of canon requirement, but you demand that I prove canon without it. I've already shown that canon both demands and supports it. You therefore ask that canon be removed from the equation, but that I then show via canon or science the answer to your question. Well, with canon removed, I'm left with science, and modern science will naturally show that to be improbable, unless it is an accretion of various crap on or near the surface. You're basically asking me to prove inertial dampening fields on the Enterprise-Prime by use of science only, and you wish to tie a hand behind my back by not allowing me to point out that the fact they didn't turn into chunky salsa when they accelerated and that therefore IDF must have been there. That's bullshit. > >> There is no logical reason to shape it so, so it must be natural. > > > >Natural what? > > > > Naturally occouring, I'm sorry I expected you to have two operating braincells. I see I gave you too much credit, for when the possibility that you were thinking "naturally occurring" crossed my mind, I dismissed it because it would be stupid. Automobile fenders have imperfections and are not perfectly smooth . . . there's no logical reason to shape it that way. Ancient metal or stone implements have peculiar shapes without logical reason for it to be shaped that way. The answer to both of these is that the variances are artifacts of the technology used to create them . . . imperfections that were unavoidable with the technology used. If indeed the neutronium hull of the Doomsday Machine is actually bumpy (as opposed to whatever deposits/accretions may exist on or near the hull), it need only imply that the neutronium containment system itself could not produce smooth shapes. Large sections of the field might have to exist at peculiar angles compared to other sections. Or, perhaps it is intentional, to allow for machinery or systems within the hull . . . sensors, tractor beams (either facing in or facing out), warp drive, et cetera. Your basic argument is "I lack the imagination to comprehend why this would occur, but it occurred, therefore there is no 'why' that will allow the theory to survive." That's bullshit. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 26 Dec 2001 22:06:42 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011226170642.25721.00003144@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011226100935.12937.00002609@mb-cu.aol.com... >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >news:20011225214823.24464.00001833@mb-fc.aol.com... >> >> >"Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message >> >> >news:rxUV7.27588$fo.4886170@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... >> >> >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message >> >> >> news:a087mk$jbtc9$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > "Durandal" wrote in message >> >> >> > news:3C279D4E.7080500@mac.com... >> >> >> > > Guardian 2000 wrote: >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > And fucking solves it, cocksmack! READ! >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > No, it doesn't. It CAN'T. Don't you get it? You're putting the >cart >> >> >> > > before the horse. The enormous forces required to hold the >> >neutronium >> >> >> > > together in its ultradense state will create warps in spacetime >> >that >> >> >> > > will act exactly like gravitational ones because they ARE >> >> >gravitational >> >> >> > > warps. You, yet AGAIN, demonstrate your complete and total >> >ignorance >> >> >of >> >> >> > > particle physics, basic laws of gravitation and general >relativity. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > And still, you cannot read. The very fact that the neutronium >> >> >> containment >> >> >> > system >> >> >> >> >> >> Now here's the problem: you have NO PROOF of a neutronium >containment >> >> >> system. >> >> > >> >> >I have the exact amount of proof in reference to neutronium >containment >> >> >systems as I have for inertial dampeners on the Enterprise-Prime. >> >Though >> >> >neither was ever mentioned, we see their effects, and understand that >> >they >> >> >would have been a required technology which would fit within the tech >> >levels >> >> >of the discussed parties. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Except of course you've yet to prove it's stellar neutronium, so unless >> >you >> >> prove that, there's no need for containment.... >> > >> >Ah, so you're going to claim that the neutronium from neutron stars in >Star >> >Trek is dissimilar from the neutronium in items made of neutronium, >despite >> >the fact that you have no evidence for that. How, then, do you account >> >for the fact that this neutronium is apparently stronger and denser than >> >cast rodinium, the hardest substance known to Federation science >("Balance >> >of Terror"[TOS])? >> > >> >> It's dense. So? So's lead. It's strong. So? So's steel. This hardly proves >that >> it's stellar neutronium, just a particularly strong mineral..... > >The strongest mineral outcropping we've seen on Star Trek is tritanium >("Obsession"[TOS]). It was not impervious to phaser fire, for Spock >phasered off a specimen. The hardest mineral or metallic substance we've >seen on Star Trek is cast rodinium. That was available for use as a >construction material on old Earth Outposts ("Balance of Terror"[TOS]). > And this history lesson invalidates none of what I've said. All it says is that it's a particularly dense material. So what? That complies with the NDF theory re: phasers being density dependent. >You assume what you seek to prove, by the way, by calling it a mineral. > You haven't proven your side either, yet you shout to the heavens it's gospel truth. >> >> .....Just like SWN. > >No, because Star Wars neutronium is nothing more than a metallic element >found in veins on a moon. That is its natural environment. The natural >environment of Star Trek neutronium is neutron stars, just like the real >stuff. > One occourance on a moon, which I've proven could be a neutron star, and suddenly it's the natural enviroment. Damn, Guardian. Share your crystal ball. Or your weed. >> >> >> >> Oh yes, and to those of you who still want to seriously debate this, >take >> >a >> >> look at a capture or, better yet, the episode, The Doomsday Machine. >The >> >outer >> >> hull is not stellar neutronium for one simple reason: The real stuff is >so >> >> dense it smooths out any imperfection. The hull is bumpy, warped. >> > >> >So what? That proves nothing, besides the fact that the ship has a >bumpy >> >hull. Imperfections or variances in the hypothesized neutronium >containment >> >system could explain that. Alternately, it's simply space matter or >> >planetary debris accumulated on the hull. And before you start bitching >> >about it, deposits on the hull would not make a report of the composition >of >> >the hull any different . . . no warp-driven starship has ever been >referred >> >to as being composed of its normal materials plus other baryons, despite >the >> >fact that the ships have to have baryon sweeps every once in a while >> >("Starship Mine"[TNG], et al.). >> > >> >> You don't get it. Neutronium is too heavy to allow imperfections in it. > >I never said the neutronium had imperfections. > You are correct. Those who watch the episode see it clearly. >> It >> flattens itself. It's like having a raindrop shaped like a square: Can't >> happen. Stellar neutronium cannot be anything other than smooth, >perfectly. > >In its natural environment, that's true. > In any enviroment. >> It's also theorized that it's silvery and reflective, though I can't cast >my >> vote there. Your neutronium containment theory again reeks of circular >logic: >> In trying to prove it's real neutronium, you assume it is to begin with. >In >> short, you have to prove using something other than your theory, like >Canon or >> science, that the neutronium could be both imperfectly smooth and still >stellar >> in origin. Or concede. > >You don't seem to get it. You have to have evidence for the multiplication >of entities and an ignorance of Star Trek canon to try to disprove the fact >that it is real neutronium. Further, you assume that the Doomsday Machine >neutronium is stellar in origin, and not artificially generated, either by >use of a gravity-based neutronium containment system or some system based >upon the strong nuclear force, 10^39 more powerful than gravity. > Any neutronium will flatten(Or, more accurately, make itself a perfect sphere). Period. Exclamation point. It's surface tension and gravity at work. You can't have bumpy neutronium any more than you can have square raindrops. >You Warsies tried to maintain your neutronium as the real stuff, until such >time as it was proved that it could not be the real thing because Star Wars >neutronium is nothing more than a metallic element found in veins on a moon. >The origin of naturally occurring neutronium in Star Trek is neutron stars. > But not the origin of the construction neutronium. That is apparantly availiable to cultures without starflight. >That last little bit ("In short . . . ") of your question is priceless . . . >my theory is the exemplification of canon requirement, but you demand that I >prove canon without it. I've already shown that canon both demands and >supports it. You therefore ask that canon be removed from the equation, >but that I then show via canon or science the answer to your question. >Well, with canon removed, I'm left with science, and modern science will >naturally show that to be improbable, unless it is an accretion of various >crap on or near the surface. > You've not proven it, no matter how hard you scream you have. >You're basically asking me to prove inertial dampening fields on the >Enterprise-Prime by use of science only, and you wish to tie a hand behind >my back by not allowing me to point out that the fact they didn't turn into >chunky salsa when they accelerated and that therefore IDF must have been >there. > No, I'm asking you to prove the neutronium is what you claim it is. Nothing more. It's very simple. >That's bullshit. > No, your argument is bullshit. >> >> There is no logical reason to shape it so, so it must be natural. >> > >> >Natural what? >> > >> >> Naturally occouring, I'm sorry I expected you to have two operating >braincells. > >I see I gave you too much credit, for when the possibility that you were >thinking "naturally occurring" crossed my mind, I dismissed it because it >would be stupid. Automobile fenders have imperfections and are not >perfectly smooth . . . there's no logical reason to shape it that way. Steel does not force itself into a perfect sphere due to it's gravitational field. >Ancient metal or stone implements have peculiar shapes without logical >reason for it to be shaped that way. Remarkably, bone and wood and stone do not force themselves into perfect spheres due to their gravitational field. The answer to both of these is that >the variances are artifacts of the technology used to create them . . . >imperfections that were unavoidable with the technology used. If indeed >the neutronium hull of the Doomsday Machine is actually bumpy (as opposed to >whatever deposits/accretions may exist on or near the hull), it need only >imply that the neutronium containment system itself could not produce smooth >shapes. Large sections of the field might have to exist at peculiar angles >compared to other sections. Or, perhaps it is intentional, to allow for >machinery or systems within the hull . . . sensors, tractor beams (either >facing in or facing out), warp drive, et cetera. > It's random, bumpy, and distinctly organic in appearance. It is not the smooth cone neutronium could cause to exist. It does not exhibit tidal forces on nearby ships. It is not stellar neutronium, but something else which shares the name. Occam's Razor will take my theory over yours, as yours adds the unknown element of neutronium containment which simultaniously nulls out the tidal forces while stellar neutronium needs. >Your basic argument is "I lack the imagination to comprehend why this would >occur, but it occurred, therefore there is no 'why' that will allow the >theory to survive." That's bullshit. > No, not really. That's not my argument at all. But we realize you can't comprehend multisyllabic words. Or basic gravitation theory. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 19:13:23 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011226170642.25721.00003144@mb-fi.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20011226100935.12937.00002609@mb-cu.aol.com... > >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >> >news:20011225214823.24464.00001833@mb-fc.aol.com... > >> >> >"Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > >> >> >news:rxUV7.27588$fo.4886170@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... > >> >> >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > >> >> >> news:a087mk$jbtc9$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > "Durandal" wrote in message > >> >> >> > news:3C279D4E.7080500@mac.com... > >> >> >> > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > And fucking solves it, cocksmack! READ! > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > No, it doesn't. It CAN'T. Don't you get it? You're putting the > >cart > >> >> >> > > before the horse. The enormous forces required to hold the > >> >neutronium > >> >> >> > > together in its ultradense state will create warps in spacetime > >> >that > >> >> >> > > will act exactly like gravitational ones because they ARE > >> >> >gravitational > >> >> >> > > warps. You, yet AGAIN, demonstrate your complete and total > >> >ignorance > >> >> >of > >> >> >> > > particle physics, basic laws of gravitation and general > >relativity. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > And still, you cannot read. The very fact that the neutronium > >> >> >> containment > >> >> >> > system > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Now here's the problem: you have NO PROOF of a neutronium > >containment > >> >> >> system. > >> >> > > >> >> >I have the exact amount of proof in reference to neutronium > >containment > >> >> >systems as I have for inertial dampeners on the Enterprise-Prime. > >> >Though > >> >> >neither was ever mentioned, we see their effects, and understand that > >> >they > >> >> >would have been a required technology which would fit within the tech > >> >levels > >> >> >of the discussed parties. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Except of course you've yet to prove it's stellar neutronium, so unless > >> >you > >> >> prove that, there's no need for containment.... > >> > > >> >Ah, so you're going to claim that the neutronium from neutron stars in > >Star > >> >Trek is dissimilar from the neutronium in items made of neutronium, > >despite > >> >the fact that you have no evidence for that. How, then, do you account > >> >for the fact that this neutronium is apparently stronger and denser than > >> >cast rodinium, the hardest substance known to Federation science > >("Balance > >> >of Terror"[TOS])? > >> > > >> > >> It's dense. So? So's lead. It's strong. So? So's steel. This hardly proves > >that > >> it's stellar neutronium, just a particularly strong mineral..... > > > >The strongest mineral outcropping we've seen on Star Trek is tritanium > >("Obsession"[TOS]). It was not impervious to phaser fire, for Spock > >phasered off a specimen. The hardest mineral or metallic substance we've > >seen on Star Trek is cast rodinium. That was available for use as a > >construction material on old Earth Outposts ("Balance of Terror"[TOS]). > > > > And this history lesson invalidates none of what I've said. All it says is that > it's a particularly dense material. So what? That complies with the NDF theory > re: phasers being density dependent. Oh, so now you're relying on a theory to prove your point? :-) Your "bullshit neutronium", if a material along conventional lines, would have to be a lesser material than tritanium. It would certainly have to be less hard than tritanium, and could thus be cut by it. If it were such a material, there's no reason the Federation could not use it, since tritanium and cast rodinium are used. However, since Janeway has indicated that they can't use it at all, then ST neutronium cannot possibly be your BN. > > >You assume what you seek to prove, by the way, by calling it a mineral. > > > > You haven't proven your side either, yet you shout to the heavens it's gospel > truth. > Your arguments are full of shit, whereas mine are full of reason and canon. Why shouldn't I consider the matter settled? > >> > >> .....Just like SWN. > > > >No, because Star Wars neutronium is nothing more than a metallic element > >found in veins on a moon. That is its natural environment. The natural > >environment of Star Trek neutronium is neutron stars, just like the real > >stuff. > > > > One occourance on a moon, which I've proven could be a neutron star WHAT?!?!? What the fuck are you talking about? Holy fucking shit, stop the presses! You think a neutron star can orbit a planet!! Good grief . . . concession fucking accepted. ROFLMAO >, and > suddenly it's the natural enviroment. Damn, Guardian. Share your crystal ball. > Or your weed. > > >> >> > >> >> Oh yes, and to those of you who still want to seriously debate this, > >take > >> >a > >> >> look at a capture or, better yet, the episode, The Doomsday Machine. > >The > >> >outer > >> >> hull is not stellar neutronium for one simple reason: The real stuff is > >so > >> >> dense it smooths out any imperfection. The hull is bumpy, warped. > >> > > >> >So what? That proves nothing, besides the fact that the ship has a > >bumpy > >> >hull. Imperfections or variances in the hypothesized neutronium > >containment > >> >system could explain that. Alternately, it's simply space matter or > >> >planetary debris accumulated on the hull. And before you start bitching > >> >about it, deposits on the hull would not make a report of the composition > >of > >> >the hull any different . . . no warp-driven starship has ever been > >referred > >> >to as being composed of its normal materials plus other baryons, despite > >the > >> >fact that the ships have to have baryon sweeps every once in a while > >> >("Starship Mine"[TNG], et al.). > >> > > >> > >> You don't get it. Neutronium is too heavy to allow imperfections in it. > > > >I never said the neutronium had imperfections. > > > > You are correct. Those who watch the episode see it clearly. You're assuming those are imperfections in the neutronium. > > >> It > >> flattens itself. It's like having a raindrop shaped like a square: Can't > >> happen. Stellar neutronium cannot be anything other than smooth, > >perfectly. > > > >In its natural environment, that's true. > > > > In any enviroment. Why? Why can neutronium not be shaped by a culture experienced in its use? > > >> It's also theorized that it's silvery and reflective, though I can't cast > >my > >> vote there. Your neutronium containment theory again reeks of circular > >logic: > >> In trying to prove it's real neutronium, you assume it is to begin with. > >In > >> short, you have to prove using something other than your theory, like > >Canon or > >> science, that the neutronium could be both imperfectly smooth and still > >stellar > >> in origin. Or concede. > > > >You don't seem to get it. You have to have evidence for the multiplication > >of entities and an ignorance of Star Trek canon to try to disprove the fact > >that it is real neutronium. Further, you assume that the Doomsday Machine > >neutronium is stellar in origin, and not artificially generated, either by > >use of a gravity-based neutronium containment system or some system based > >upon the strong nuclear force, 10^39 more powerful than gravity. > > > > Any neutronium will flatten(Or, more accurately, make itself a perfect sphere). > Period. Exclamation point. It's surface tension and gravity at work. . . . and nothing can go faster than light, and you can't have artificial gravity, and you can never know a particle's location and velocity, and yadda-yadda-yadda. Big fucking whoop, you've just denied all of ASVS. > > >You Warsies tried to maintain your neutronium as the real stuff, until such > >time as it was proved that it could not be the real thing because Star Wars > >neutronium is nothing more than a metallic element found in veins on a moon. > >The origin of naturally occurring neutronium in Star Trek is neutron stars. > > > > But not the origin of the construction neutronium. Proof? > That is apparantly > availiable to cultures without starflight. The Iconians are not a culture without starflight. They have FTL capability to any point they wish. > >That last little bit ("In short . . . ") of your question is priceless . . . > >my theory is the exemplification of canon requirement, but you demand that I > >prove canon without it. I've already shown that canon both demands and > >supports it. You therefore ask that canon be removed from the equation, > >but that I then show via canon or science the answer to your question. > >Well, with canon removed, I'm left with science, and modern science will > >naturally show that to be improbable, unless it is an accretion of various > >crap on or near the surface. > > > > You've not proven it, no matter how hard you scream you have. I have provided a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, no matter how much you scream that you don't like it. > >You're basically asking me to prove inertial dampening fields on the > >Enterprise-Prime by use of science only, and you wish to tie a hand behind > >my back by not allowing me to point out that the fact they didn't turn into > >chunky salsa when they accelerated and that therefore IDF must have been > >there. > > > > No, I'm asking you to prove the neutronium is what you claim it is. Nothing > more. It's very simple. No, you're asking me to prove, by analogy, that inertia exists in the Star Trek universe and is the same as real-life inertia. > > >That's bullshit. > > > > No, your argument is bullshit. No, your lack of argument is bullshit. > >> >> There is no logical reason to shape it so, so it must be natural. > >> > > >> >Natural what? > >> > > >> > >> Naturally occouring, I'm sorry I expected you to have two operating > >braincells. > > > >I see I gave you too much credit, for when the possibility that you were > >thinking "naturally occurring" crossed my mind, I dismissed it because it > >would be stupid. Automobile fenders have imperfections and are not > >perfectly smooth . . . there's no logical reason to shape it that way. > > Steel does not force itself into a perfect sphere due to it's gravitational > field. Nor does artificially contained neutronium have to. > > >Ancient metal or stone implements have peculiar shapes without logical > >reason for it to be shaped that way. > > Remarkably, bone and wood and stone do not force themselves into perfect > spheres due to their gravitational field. Nor does artificially contained neutronium have to. > >the variances are artifacts of the technology used to create them . . . > >imperfections that were unavoidable with the technology used. If indeed > >the neutronium hull of the Doomsday Machine is actually bumpy (as opposed to > >whatever deposits/accretions may exist on or near the hull), it need only > >imply that the neutronium containment system itself could not produce smooth > >shapes. Large sections of the field might have to exist at peculiar angles > >compared to other sections. Or, perhaps it is intentional, to allow for > >machinery or systems within the hull . . . sensors, tractor beams (either > >facing in or facing out), warp drive, et cetera. > > > > It's random, bumpy, and distinctly organic in appearance. Random, angular, and non-organic, actually. > It is not the smooth cone neutronium could cause to exist. It's a sphere, or its a cone . . . take your pick. > It does not exhibit tidal forces on nearby ships. It is not stellar neutronium, but something else > which shares the > name. Occam's Razor will take my theory over yours, as yours adds the unknown > element of neutronium containment which simultaniously nulls out the tidal > forces while stellar neutronium needs. No, Occam's Razor supports my argument, for you are needlessly adding the unknown element of another material also known as neutronium. You cannot prove the existence of Bullshit Neutronium. The element of neutronium containment and its effects are, at a lesser technological level, known quantities in the Star Trek universe, and thus not a needless multiplication of entities. > >Your basic argument is "I lack the imagination to comprehend why this would > >occur, but it occurred, therefore there is no 'why' that will allow the > >theory to survive." That's bullshit. > > > > No, not really. That's not my argument at all. But we realize you can't > comprehend multisyllabic words. Or basic gravitation theory. And you can't comprehend canon, which is what this argument is based on. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 27 Dec 2001 01:20:45 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011226202045.25721.00003185@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- Not one speck of proof as usual. Especially in claiming a Tritanium -must- be the most dense material in all universes, and in how, despite my detailed thought experiment to the contrary proving it, you can't have a neutron star orbiting anything. Do you have anything intelligent, or are you just in desperation now? Come on. Prove one of your statements by reference and canon sources, since you claim they are so backed up. Just one. Just post it right here, for all to see. Or concede. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 01:04:14 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011226202045.25721.00003185@mb-fi.aol.com... > contradicting himself, Canon, logic, physics, common sense, and all theories > about minimum intelligence> Utter lack of topical reply observed, concession accepted. > Not one speck of proof as usual. Especially in claiming a Tritanium -must- be > the most dense material in all universes, No, I never claimed that. Had you actually paid attention to my message instead of snipping it unread, you'd have noticed that I was referring to the hardness of the material, not the density. > and in how, despite my detailed > thought experiment to the contrary proving it, you can't have a neutron star > orbiting anything. No, you've failed to read and comprehend yet again. I'm getting about sick of your mental retardation. I said that a neutron star cannot orbit an entity less massive than itself. You've claimed (and conveniently snipped) that the moon of a class-M world is a neutron star in disguise. That's one of the stupidest loads of crap I've heard on ASVS, and that's saying a lot. > Do you have anything intelligent, or are you just in desperation now? You're the one snipping whole messages in an effort to go back in time to a day when you could believe the bullshit you were spouting. > Prove one of your statements by reference and canon sources, I see no need to continually repeat myself. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 27 Dec 2001 15:10:50 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011227101050.20315.00001834@mb-ba.aol.com> -------- >> Prove one of your statements by reference and canon sources, > >I see no need to continually repeat myself. > So you won't prove any of it? Concession accepted on all points, via the rules of engagement in the R&R, then! http://www.asvs.org In case you need a refresher course. Those are the rules. You have provided no proof. Therefore you have conceded. Have a nice day. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 13:34:26 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011227101050.20315.00001834@mb-ba.aol.com... > >> Prove one of your statements by reference and canon sources, > > > >I see no need to continually repeat myself. > > > > So you won't prove any of it? Your claiming victory by virtue of your failure to read what I have repeated over and over is a common Warsie tactic, Timothy, and I'm not at all surprised at your attempt to use it. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 27 Dec 2001 19:51:55 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011227145155.05308.00000465@mb-fo.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011227101050.20315.00001834@mb-ba.aol.com... >> >> Prove one of your statements by reference and canon sources, >> > >> >I see no need to continually repeat myself. >> > >> >> So you won't prove any of it? > >Your claiming victory by virtue of your failure to read what I have repeated >over and over is a common Warsie tactic, Timothy, and I'm not at all >surprised at your attempt to use it. > You have not repeated your proof, and thus are breaking RoE 3: If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Many members of the newsgroup, even veteran debaters who have been here for years, seem to have trouble with this concept, so I will say it again, and in bold: If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Failure to do so is the quickest way to waste everyone's time, since all you'll get are a flood of replies asking for a source. There's the rule. You failed to abide by it. You conceded. Fling insults all you like, but you lost. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 02:47:37 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011227145155.05308.00000465@mb-fo.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20011227101050.20315.00001834@mb-ba.aol.com... > >> >> Prove one of your statements by reference and canon sources, > >> > > >> >I see no need to continually repeat myself. > >> > > >> > >> So you won't prove any of it? > > > >Your claiming victory by virtue of your failure to read what I have repeated > >over and over is a common Warsie tactic, Timothy, and I'm not at all > >surprised at your attempt to use it. > > > > You have not repeated your proof, and thus are breaking RoE 3: > > If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Many members of the > newsgroup, even veteran debaters who have been here for years, seem to have > trouble with this concept, so I will say it again, and in bold: If you make a > claim, you have to supply the evidence. Failure to do so is the quickest way to > waste everyone's time, since all you'll get are a flood of replies asking for a > source. > > > There's the rule. You failed to abide by it. You conceded. Fling insults all > you like, but you lost. If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. That was done. I see nothing above which suggests that I have to supply the same evidence to you again and again in the very same thread. To suggest that the rule demands such is foolhardy, for all a dishonest debater such as yourself need do is pretend never to have seen it, and claim victory when the protagonist refuses to acquiesce to your bullshit. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 12:00:04 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C28BEA4.5030501@mac.com> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > As have I, on such topics as Hawking Radiation, quantum singularities, > possible gravity control systems, et cetera. Oh, and by the way, I don't know about the other two, but your understanding of Hawking Radiation was fairly limited, last time I checked. All you could say was that it "popped out of the vacuum," which any idiot with a Scientific American could say. When you got into an argument with Strowbridge about it, it took me to adequately explain it to both of you. -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 20:47:55 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:3C28BEA4.5030501@mac.com... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > As have I, on such topics as Hawking Radiation, quantum singularities, > > possible gravity control systems, et cetera. > > Oh, and by the way, I don't know about the other two, but your > understanding of Hawking Radiation was fairly limited, last time I > checked. All you could say was that it "popped out of the vacuum," which > any idiot with a Scientific American could say. When you got into an > argument with Strowbridge about it, it took me to adequately explain it > to both of you. It was Rabid Warsie Fuckwit misunderstanding that led to there being a side debate on the topic. I gave him a more than adequate layman's variety of the definition of what it was (far more than your "popped out of the vacuum" bullshit misquote), which you then echoed. You are invited to stop lying or fuck off. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 02:56:05 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C2A8E19.9F64E692@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "Durandal" wrote: > > > And fucking solves it, cocksmack! READ! > > > > No, it doesn't. It CAN'T. Don't you get it? You're putting the cart > > before the horse. The enormous forces required to hold the neutronium > > together in its ultradense state will create warps in spacetime that > > will act exactly like gravitational ones because they ARE > > gravitational warps. You, yet AGAIN, demonstrate your complete and > > total ignorance of particle physics, basic laws of gravitation and > > general relativity. > > And still, you cannot read. The very fact that the neutronium > containment system does not show these qualities outside the containment > field means that they are nullified outside the containment field, No, you ASSUME the containment field has all these special properties never hinted at on the show. You have no evidence of this, only circular reasoning supporting you. For the last time, this is not good enough. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 01:07:02 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3C2A8E19.9F64E692@shaw.ca... > No, you ASSUME the containment field has all these special properties > never hinted at on the show. You have no evidence of this, only circular > reasoning supporting you. > > For the last time, this is not good enough. You and the other Rabid Warsie Fuckwits have consistently misrepresented the reasoning, rewriting it in such a way as to give the appearance of circularity. I am not obligated to respond to criticisms of your straw man arguments. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Crayz9000 Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 23:41:02 -0800 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <70kl2uglu0t503b620tj7o39jgfn8a14c9@4ax.com> -------- In alt.startrek.vs.starwars, "Guardian 2000" found on Thu, 27 Dec 2001 01:07:02 -0600... >You and the other Rabid Warsie Fuckwits have consistently misrepresented the >reasoning, rewriting it in such a way as to give the appearance of >circularity. I am not obligated to respond to criticisms of your straw >man arguments. I hereby propose two new FUQ flame warrior types for you: Tireless Rebutter, and Ferrous Cranus. -- Crayz9000 - - - - - - - - mhm28x12 UT: {AGUT}Freak'o'Nature http://asvsaa.8m.net/index2.html (ASVS Auxiliary Archive) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 03:27:19 -0500 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C2ADB67.35DE8028@daltonator.net> -------- Crayz9000 wrote: > > In alt.startrek.vs.starwars, "Guardian 2000" found > on Thu, 27 Dec 2001 01:07:02 > -0600... > > >You and the other Rabid Warsie Fuckwits have consistently misrepresented the > >reasoning, rewriting it in such a way as to give the appearance of > >circularity. I am not obligated to respond to criticisms of your straw > >man arguments. > > I hereby propose two new FUQ flame warrior types for you: Tireless Rebutter, > and Ferrous Cranus. Don't worry, he's getting those and more. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "I need a drink." "You don't drink." "Yeah, but I've been meaning to start." ---UHF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 12:12:17 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C2B6481.8090806@mac.com> -------- Dalton wrote: > Crayz9000 wrote: > >>In alt.startrek.vs.starwars, "Guardian 2000" found >> on Thu, 27 Dec 2001 01:07:02 >>-0600... >> >> >>>You and the other Rabid Warsie Fuckwits have consistently misrepresented the >>>reasoning, rewriting it in such a way as to give the appearance of >>>circularity. I am not obligated to respond to criticisms of your straw >>>man arguments. >>> >>I hereby propose two new FUQ flame warrior types for you: Tireless Rebutter, >>and Ferrous Cranus. >> > > Don't worry, he's getting those and more. > > Can I be the one battling him? -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:19:34 -0500 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C2B9E76.D81FF1C5@daltonator.net> -------- Durandal wrote: > > Dalton wrote: > > > Crayz9000 wrote: > > > >>In alt.startrek.vs.starwars, "Guardian 2000" found > >> on Thu, 27 Dec 2001 01:07:02 > >>-0600... > >> > >> > >>>You and the other Rabid Warsie Fuckwits have consistently misrepresented the > >>>reasoning, rewriting it in such a way as to give the appearance of > >>>circularity. I am not obligated to respond to criticisms of your straw > >>>man arguments. > >>> > >>I hereby propose two new FUQ flame warrior types for you: Tireless Rebutter, > >>and Ferrous Cranus. > >> > > > > Don't worry, he's getting those and more. > > > > > > Can I be the one battling him? Well, Chuck had some very funny posts battling him (check your email Chuck) but I'm willing to consider yours. Send me some examples. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "I need a drink." "You don't drink." "Yeah, but I've been meaning to start." ---UHF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 08:14:23 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C2AD8B6.77CB8994@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > No, you ASSUME the containment field has all these special properties > > never hinted at on the show. You have no evidence of this, only > > circular reasoning supporting you. > > > > For the last time, this is not good enough. > > You and the other Rabid Warsie Fuckwits have consistently misrepresented > the reasoning, rewriting it in such a way as to give the appearance of > circularity. I am not obligated to respond to criticisms of your > straw man arguments. If your reasoning was so sound you could easily point out these misrepresentations and strawmen. Instead you accuse of but offer no details and certainly no evidence. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 13:36:10 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3C2AD8B6.77CB8994@shaw.ca... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > > No, you ASSUME the containment field has all these special properties > > > never hinted at on the show. You have no evidence of this, only > > > circular reasoning supporting you. > > > > > > For the last time, this is not good enough. > > > > You and the other Rabid Warsie Fuckwits have consistently misrepresented > > the reasoning, rewriting it in such a way as to give the appearance of > > circularity. I am not obligated to respond to criticisms of your > > straw man arguments. > > If your reasoning was so sound you could easily point out these > misrepresentations and strawmen. And that has been done repeatedly, but the straw men continue. I am not obligated to respond to criticisms of Warsie straw man arguments. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 23:46:40 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:a0ft78$kvqlj$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message > news:3C2AD8B6.77CB8994@shaw.ca... > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > > > > No, you ASSUME the containment field has all these special properties > > > > never hinted at on the show. You have no evidence of this, only > > > > circular reasoning supporting you. > > > > > > > > For the last time, this is not good enough. > > > > > > You and the other Rabid Warsie Fuckwits have consistently misrepresented > > > the reasoning, rewriting it in such a way as to give the appearance of > > > circularity. I am not obligated to respond to criticisms of your > > > straw man arguments. > > > > If your reasoning was so sound you could easily point out these > > misrepresentations and strawmen. > > And that has been done repeatedly, but the straw men continue. I am not > obligated to respond to criticisms of Warsie straw man arguments. > We haven't offered straw men but rather have repeatedly pointed out that you have provided your own hypothesis (that ST neutronium is the real thing) as proof that you other hypothesis (gravitational nullification and containment) is correct and which in turn proves your first hypothesis. You have failed to find independent suprot, i.e. support WITHOUT assuming that ST neutronium is the real thing or that they use gravitational nullification and containment. You have not provided a SINGLE phenomological, dialouge-based , or logical piece of evidence independent of your assumption that ST neutronium is the real thing. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R USMCR Bridge Company A, 6th EngnrSptBN, 4th FSSG "There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion." -Unknown ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 02:49:14 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ApOW7.31194$fo.7581607@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > news:a0ft78$kvqlj$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message > > news:3C2AD8B6.77CB8994@shaw.ca... > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > > > > > > No, you ASSUME the containment field has all these special > properties > > > > > never hinted at on the show. You have no evidence of this, only > > > > > circular reasoning supporting you. > > > > > > > > > > For the last time, this is not good enough. > > > > > > > > You and the other Rabid Warsie Fuckwits have consistently > misrepresented > > > > the reasoning, rewriting it in such a way as to give the appearance of > > > > circularity. I am not obligated to respond to criticisms of your > > > > straw man arguments. > > > > > > If your reasoning was so sound you could easily point out these > > > misrepresentations and strawmen. > > > > And that has been done repeatedly, but the straw men continue. I am not > > obligated to respond to criticisms of Warsie straw man arguments. > > > > We haven't offered straw men but rather have repeatedly pointed out that you > have provided your own hypothesis (that ST neutronium is the real thing) as > proof that you other hypothesis (gravitational nullification and > containment) is correct and which in turn proves your first hypothesis. You > have failed to find independent suprot, i.e. support WITHOUT assuming that > ST neutronium is the real thing or that they use gravitational nullification > and containment. You have not provided a SINGLE phenomological, > dialouge-based , or logical piece of evidence independent of your assumption > that ST neutronium is the real thing. You clearly have failed to pay attention, for you continue to profess your straw man argument. Try reading one of the posts I wrote earlier in this thread, for a change. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 19:05:39 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <7o3X7.32763$fo.8526048@news1.rdc1.md.home.com> -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:a0hbm5$l3qmm$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:ApOW7.31194$fo.7581607@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... > > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > news:a0ft78$kvqlj$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message > > > news:3C2AD8B6.77CB8994@shaw.ca... > > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > We haven't offered straw men but rather have repeatedly pointed out that > you > > have provided your own hypothesis (that ST neutronium is the real thing) > as > > proof that you other hypothesis (gravitational nullification and > > containment) is correct and which in turn proves your first hypothesis. > You > > have failed to find independent suprot, i.e. support WITHOUT assuming that > > ST neutronium is the real thing or that they use gravitational > nullification > > and containment. You have not provided a SINGLE phenomological, > > dialouge-based , or logical piece of evidence independent of your > assumption > > that ST neutronium is the real thing. > > You clearly have failed to pay attention, for you continue to profess your > straw man argument. Try reading one of the posts I wrote earlier in this > thread, for a change. > Fool I've read almost 95% of the posts in this thread including all of your original items from the initial hypothesis on down and you have NOT provided proof independent of your own assumptions that either a containment system exists or that ST neutronium is th real thing. Rather you have used each assumption to prove the other. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R USMCR Bridge Company A, 6th EngnrSptBN, 4th FSSG "There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion." -Unknown ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 02:00:18 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C2BD292.FAE3FAFB@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > > > No, you ASSUME the containment field has all these special > > > > properties never hinted at on the show. You have no evidence of > > > > this, only circular reasoning supporting you. > > > > > > > > For the last time, this is not good enough. > > > > > > You and the other Rabid Warsie Fuckwits have consistently > > > misrepresented the reasoning, rewriting it in such a way as to give > > > the appearance of circularity. I am not obligated to respond to > > > criticisms of your straw man arguments. > > > > If your reasoning was so sound you could easily point out these > > misrepresentations and strawmen. > > And that has been done repeatedly, When? You claim we've misrepresented your arguments, you've even claimed we lied about what you said. But we can post google links, what can you do? > I am not obligated to respond to criticisms of Warsie straw man > arguments. But you are obligated to post evidence each time you make a claim. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 06:36:22 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:37:43 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >Federation starships use graviton-based shields Prove this ridiculous lie. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:53:25 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:issmPLjopGpQIX8B==VlZm8m87Nw@4ax.com... > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:37:43 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > > >Federation starships use graviton-based shields > > Prove this ridiculous lie. Why? You never bother proving yours. :-) I'm still hunting for a screen shot from Generations (the view of the engineering console from Geordi's VISOR). I'll get back to you when I do. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 08:00:04 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:53:25 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >> >Federation starships use graviton-based shields >> >> Prove this ridiculous lie. > >Why? You never bother proving yours. :-) > >I'm still hunting for a screen shot from Generations (the view of the >engineering console from Geordi's VISOR). I'll get back to you when I >do. Stop marginalizing me by assuming I have a computer on which to view such a thing. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 04:01:17 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:ZuAmPAMjVqs=J5R5FTa5z8HroQfJ@4ax.com... > On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:53:25 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > > >> >Federation starships use graviton-based shields > >> > >> Prove this ridiculous lie. > > > >Why? You never bother proving yours. :-) > > > >I'm still hunting for a screen shot from Generations (the view of the > >engineering console from Geordi's VISOR). I'll get back to you when I > >do. > > Stop marginalizing me by assuming I have a computer on which to view such a > thing. Don't worry, Ian. I can't marginalize you any more than you already marginalize yourself. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 24 Dec 2001 15:12:11 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011224101211.24784.00001121@mb-md.aol.com> -------- >"Durandal" wrote in message >news:3C269AA6.70202@mac.com... >> Guardian 2000 wrote: >> >> >> > You're missing an important distinction. Star Trek neutronium, when >found >> > outside a neutron star, is found in technologically advanced settings, >> > manufactured into doors, planet killers, Dyson Spheres, et cetera, with >> > who-knows-what technological underpinning allowing it to continue to >exist >> > as neutronium (the graviton-based forcefield idea, though a reasonable >> > hypothesis, remains a hypothesis, and one of several possible >hypotheses). >> > >> > On the other hand, Star Wars neutronium is found outside of neutron >stars in >> > altogether common places, such as just beneath the surface of moons, >with no >> > explanation of its survival there, nor even the recognition that >anything is >> > wrong. Hell, the very fact that there's neutronium present on the moon >> > ought to wreak havoc with the moon's structure, as well as make *it* >that >> > about which the planet (and depending on the concentration, the star >itself) >> > ought to revolve. >> >> If you're worried about realism and neutronium, then have you ever >> thought about the amount of energy it would take to generate a >> forcefield capable of simulating the immense pressures found in neutron >> stars? > >The Doomsday Machine chopped up entire star systems for fuel. I figure >that would be a good start for producing whatever power was necessary to >hold it together. > >> Do you even have the slightest clue about what the consequences >> of a graviton force field would be, or are you just throwing around >> technobabble? > >Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was looking into >using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he was >planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion sufficient to >incapacitate them. > Ah... When all else fails, throw treknobabble around. Well, since Trek shields do not produce a gravity distortion around the ship, rendering them invisible, the word 'Graviton' must either be misused here(Unlikely, Geordi is a professional), or it has changed meanings. The latter will be assumed in light of no other evidence. And the Borg weapon need not have precision, mere brute force. Hell, the Kushan built gravity weapons in Homeworld, they only discovered FTL travel less than a century before then. >> The presence of neutronium on starship hulls and Dyson >> Spheres would have just a many noticeable effects as the presence of it >> on moons. > >Why? The field distortion, sufficiently localized, could be cancelled out >on the opposite side. Further, when would we have noticed? It's not >like Kirk stood on the hull of the planet killer as one would stand upon a >moon. > You don't get it, as usual. Neutronium is excessively heavy. A tablespoon is two tons. Therefore, there would be distortions on both sides(Gravity is effective at infinite range. Andromeda's gravity effects us.), so sorry to burst your bubble. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lurker" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 17:18:12 -0000 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <9oJV7.36130$4z5.4727619@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com> -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message > You don't get it, as usual. Neutronium is excessively heavy. A tablespoon is > two tons. Therefore, there would be distortions on both sides(Gravity is > effective at infinite range. Andromeda's gravity effects us.), so sorry to > burst your bubble. Try, a teaspoonfull of neutronium has a mass of about 100 million tons. --- I'm stuck in this pit; working for less than slave wages, working on my day off. The goddamn steel shutters are closed, I deal with every backwards-arsed fuck on the planet, I smell like shoe polish, my ex-girlfriend is catatonic after fucking a dead guy and my present girlfriend has sucked 36 dicks!.... My lifes in the shitter right now and if you don't mind I'd like to stew a bit. - Dante Hicks > ------------------------------------ > SirNitram > ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius > > "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours > again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" > -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 24 Dec 2001 17:23:21 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011224122321.05616.00002493@mb-fo.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > > > >> You don't get it, as usual. Neutronium is excessively heavy. A tablespoon >is >> two tons. Therefore, there would be distortions on both sides(Gravity is >> effective at infinite range. Andromeda's gravity effects us.), so sorry to >> burst your bubble. > >Try, a teaspoonfull of neutronium has a mass of about 100 million tons. > Is it? What's the shit that two tons per teaspoon? ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lurker" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 18:24:27 -0000 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > > > > > > > >> You don't get it, as usual. Neutronium is excessively heavy. A tablespoon > >is > >> two tons. Therefore, there would be distortions on both sides(Gravity is > >> effective at infinite range. Andromeda's gravity effects us.), so sorry to > >> burst your bubble. > > > >Try, a teaspoonfull of neutronium has a mass of about 100 million tons. > > > > Is it? What's the shit that two tons per teaspoon? Probably material from a White Dwarf. --- I'm stuck in this pit; working for less than slave wages, working on my day off. The goddamn steel shutters are closed, I deal with every backwards-arsed fuck on the planet, I smell like shoe polish, my ex-girlfriend is catatonic after fucking a dead guy and my present girlfriend has sucked 36 dicks!.... My lifes in the shitter right now and if you don't mind I'd like to stew a bit. - Dante Hicks ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:54:26 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011224101211.24784.00001121@mb-md.aol.com... > >Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was looking into > >using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he was > >planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion sufficient to > >incapacitate them. > > > > Ah... When all else fails, throw treknobabble around. Well, since Trek shields > do not produce a gravity distortion around the ship, rendering them invisible, > the word 'Graviton' must either be misused here(Unlikely, Geordi is a > professional), or it has changed meanings. The latter will be assumed in light > of no other evidence. "Graviton" has been shown to refer to the same concept as real-life gravitons. The fact that you do not comprehend how shield technology succeeds in not producing the effect you would expect is not my problem, nor does it shed any doubt on the meaning of the term "graviton" in Star Trek. > And the Borg weapon need not have precision, mere brute force. Hell, the Kushan > built gravity weapons in Homeworld, they only discovered FTL travel less than a > century before then. ROFL! You're trying to argue a point on Star Trek vs. Star Wars using the computer game "Homeworld"?!?! It's a great game, sure, but that's the stupidest line of argument I've seen since your last post! The graviton beam would have needed precision, or else it would have acted on the Borg ship as nothing better than a plain old tractor beam. > >> The presence of neutronium on starship hulls and Dyson > >> Spheres would have just a many noticeable effects as the presence of it > >> on moons. > > > >Why? The field distortion, sufficiently localized, could be cancelled out > >on the opposite side. Further, when would we have noticed? It's not > >like Kirk stood on the hull of the planet killer as one would stand upon a > >moon. > > > > You don't get it, as usual. No, you don't get it, as usual. At first, I was worried about you, thinking that with your head up your ass your sphincter could clench and choke you to death. However, as well-practiced as you are with having large items up your ass, I realized it wasn't a problem. > Neutronium is excessively heavy. No, you don't say! Of course, that's only Star Trek neutronium . . . SW neutronium is a metallic element found on veins on a moon. > A tablespoon is two tons. Therefore, there would be distortions on both sides(Gravity is > effective at infinite range. Andromeda's gravity effects us.), so sorry to > burst your bubble. My "bubble" is just fine. And so, all of the sudden, Star Trek is incapable of affecting change to gravity fields? Get a fucking clue. We've seen antigravs in use on equipment and vessels ("The Changeling"[TOS], Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier), we've seen the apparent mass reduction effects of the Federation and other civilizations, and we've witnessed the fine control of gravitons and antigravitons. Oh, but because *you* say it's not possible, well, hell's bells, let's just throw all of ST canon out the window! Fuck off. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 24 Dec 2001 19:11:24 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011224141124.25725.00002559@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011224101211.24784.00001121@mb-md.aol.com... >> >Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was looking >into >> >using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he was >> >planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion sufficient >to >> >incapacitate them. >> > >> >> Ah... When all else fails, throw treknobabble around. Well, since Trek >shields >> do not produce a gravity distortion around the ship, rendering them >invisible, >> the word 'Graviton' must either be misused here(Unlikely, Geordi is a >> professional), or it has changed meanings. The latter will be assumed in >light >> of no other evidence. > >"Graviton" has been shown to refer to the same concept as real-life >gravitons. The fact that you do not comprehend how shield technology >succeeds in not producing the effect you would expect is not my problem, nor >does it shed any doubt on the meaning of the term "graviton" in Star Trek. > A gravity based shield would cause the ship to be invisible. If this were the case, cloaking devices would not need to be made. Concession accepted. >> And the Borg weapon need not have precision, mere brute force. Hell, the >Kushan >> built gravity weapons in Homeworld, they only discovered FTL travel less >than a >> century before then. > >ROFL! You're trying to argue a point on Star Trek vs. Star Wars using the >computer game "Homeworld"?!?! It's a great game, sure, but that's the >stupidest line of argument I've seen since your last post! > >The graviton beam would have needed precision, or else it would have acted >on the Borg ship as nothing better than a plain old tractor beam. > Not really. A true gravitic weapon would impart obscene acceleration on one point, like the mother of all mass-drivers. Of course, you need a high-schoolers understanding of gravity to understand this, so I'll understand if you don't get it. >> >> The presence of neutronium on starship hulls and Dyson >> >> Spheres would have just a many noticeable effects as the presence of it >> >> on moons. >> > >> >Why? The field distortion, sufficiently localized, could be cancelled >out >> >on the opposite side. Further, when would we have noticed? It's not >> >like Kirk stood on the hull of the planet killer as one would stand upon >a >> >moon. >> > >> >> You don't get it, as usual. > >No, you don't get it, as usual. > >At first, I was worried about you, thinking that with your head up your ass >your sphincter could clench and choke you to death. However, as >well-practiced as you are with having large items up your ass, I realized it >wasn't a problem. > You have a point to this ramble? >> Neutronium is excessively heavy. > >No, you don't say! Of course, that's only Star Trek neutronium . . . SW >neutronium is a metallic element found on veins on a moon. > Well, I suppose you could describe ultra-dense silvery material as metallic... But you've not proved that STN is RLN yet. Keep trying little one. >> A tablespoon is two tons. Therefore, there would be distortions on both >sides(Gravity is >> effective at infinite range. Andromeda's gravity effects us.), so sorry to >> burst your bubble. > >My "bubble" is just fine. And so, all of the sudden, Star Trek is >incapable of affecting change to gravity fields? Get a fucking clue. >We've seen antigravs in use on equipment and vessels ("The Changeling"[TOS], >Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier), we've seen >the apparent mass reduction effects of the Federation and other >civilizations, and we've witnessed the fine control of gravitons and >antigravitons. > And you have yet to show me how they can create amounts of gravity equal to 1.5x stellar masses minimum. Oh, yes, and that would cause the ship to buckle under the stress. And you can't 'lighten' neutronium, it would cause it to explosively dissassociate. >Oh, but because *you* say it's not possible, well, hell's bells, let's just >throw all of ST canon out the window! > I'm the one who accepts what's Canon: That neutronium in that universe does not exhibit the properties of RLN. >Fuck off. > Have a nice Christmas. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 14:31:51 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011224141124.25725.00002559@mb-fi.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20011224101211.24784.00001121@mb-md.aol.com... > >> >Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was looking > >into > >> >using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he was > >> >planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion sufficient > >to > >> >incapacitate them. > >> > > >> > >> Ah... When all else fails, throw treknobabble around. Well, since Trek > >shields > >> do not produce a gravity distortion around the ship, rendering them > >invisible, > >> the word 'Graviton' must either be misused here(Unlikely, Geordi is a > >> professional), or it has changed meanings. The latter will be assumed in > >light > >> of no other evidence. > > > >"Graviton" has been shown to refer to the same concept as real-life > >gravitons. The fact that you do not comprehend how shield technology > >succeeds in not producing the effect you would expect is not my problem, nor > >does it shed any doubt on the meaning of the term "graviton" in Star Trek. > > > > A gravity based shield would cause the ship to be invisible. If this were the > case, cloaking devices would not need to be made. Concession accepted. You cannot accept a concession, for none has been offered implicitly or explicitly. Please provide proof of your notion that Federation shielding should cause the ship to become invisible along all spectrums and at all strengths, or bugger off. > >> And the Borg weapon need not have precision, mere brute force. Hell, the > >Kushan > >> built gravity weapons in Homeworld, they only discovered FTL travel less > >than a > >> century before then. > > > >ROFL! You're trying to argue a point on Star Trek vs. Star Wars using the > >computer game "Homeworld"?!?! It's a great game, sure, but that's the > >stupidest line of argument I've seen since your last post! > > > >The graviton beam would have needed precision, or else it would have acted > >on the Borg ship as nothing better than a plain old tractor beam. > > > > Not really. A true gravitic weapon would impart obscene acceleration on one > point, like the mother of all mass-drivers. You want it to impart obscene acceleration on one point, but you also don't think it needs to be precise (i.e. it can fling gravitons every which way). Would you mind making up your fucking mind for me? Thanks. > Of course, you need a > high-schoolers understanding of gravity to understand this, so I'll understand > if you don't get it. I understand all too well that you can't understand the difference between a light bulb and a laser, since you don't comprehend the fact that a light bulb (i.e. something that doesn't need precision) has photons flinging every which way, whereas a laser (a precision instrument) provides that "point" you refer to. Stupid bitch. > >> >> The presence of neutronium on starship hulls and Dyson > >> >> Spheres would have just a many noticeable effects as the presence of it > >> >> on moons. > >> > > >> >Why? The field distortion, sufficiently localized, could be cancelled > >out > >> >on the opposite side. Further, when would we have noticed? It's not > >> >like Kirk stood on the hull of the planet killer as one would stand upon > >a > >> >moon. > >> > > >> > >> You don't get it, as usual. > > > >No, you don't get it, as usual. > > > >At first, I was worried about you, thinking that with your head up your ass > >your sphincter could clench and choke you to death. However, as > >well-practiced as you are with having large items up your ass, I realized it > >wasn't a problem. > > > > You have a point to this ramble? Just that you're a moron, though that did not need to be reiterated. > >> Neutronium is excessively heavy. > > > >No, you don't say! Of course, that's only Star Trek neutronium . . . SW > >neutronium is a metallic element found on veins on a moon. > > > > Well, I suppose you could describe ultra-dense silvery material as metallic... Oh my fucking god . . . you're not really going to try to claim that RL neutronium is a metallic element, are you? > But you've not proved that STN is RLN yet. Keep trying little one. ST neutronium comes from neutron stars, not from moons, and is a substance composed of neutrons packed under intense gravity, unlike SW neutronium, which is a metallic element found in veins on moons. ST neutronium equals real life neutronium. SW neutronium does not. > >> A tablespoon is two tons. Therefore, there would be distortions on both > >sides(Gravity is > >> effective at infinite range. Andromeda's gravity effects us.), so sorry to > >> burst your bubble. > > > >My "bubble" is just fine. And so, all of the sudden, Star Trek is > >incapable of affecting change to gravity fields? Get a fucking clue. > >We've seen antigravs in use on equipment and vessels ("The Changeling"[TOS], > >Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier), we've seen > >the apparent mass reduction effects of the Federation and other > >civilizations, and we've witnessed the fine control of gravitons and > >antigravitons. > > > > And you have yet to show me how they can create amounts of gravity equal to > 1.5x stellar masses minimum. The Dyson Sphere is all that and more. > Oh, yes, and that would cause the ship to buckle under the stress. When did I say I referred to Federation starships as using neutronium? > And you can't 'lighten' neutronium, it would cause it to explosively dissassociate. Who said anything about lightening neutronium? > >Oh, but because *you* say it's not possible, well, hell's bells, let's just > >throw all of ST canon out the window! > > > > I'm the one who accepts what's Canon: That neutronium in that universe does not > exhibit the properties of RLN. It's neutronium as found in neutron stars. The fact that technologically advanced spacefaring races have managed to develop the technology to apply it as a construction material does not negate the fact that it is neutronium just because you say so. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 24 Dec 2001 20:41:06 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011224154106.06255.00001352@mb-mq.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011224141124.25725.00002559@mb-fi.aol.com... >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >news:20011224101211.24784.00001121@mb-md.aol.com... >> >> >Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was >looking >> >into >> >> >using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he was >> >> >planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion >sufficient >> >to >> >> >incapacitate them. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Ah... When all else fails, throw treknobabble around. Well, since Trek >> >shields >> >> do not produce a gravity distortion around the ship, rendering them >> >invisible, >> >> the word 'Graviton' must either be misused here(Unlikely, Geordi is a >> >> professional), or it has changed meanings. The latter will be assumed >in >> >light >> >> of no other evidence. >> > >> >"Graviton" has been shown to refer to the same concept as real-life >> >gravitons. The fact that you do not comprehend how shield technology >> >succeeds in not producing the effect you would expect is not my problem, >nor >> >does it shed any doubt on the meaning of the term "graviton" in Star >Trek. >> > >> >> A gravity based shield would cause the ship to be invisible. If this were >the >> case, cloaking devices would not need to be made. Concession accepted. > >You cannot accept a concession, for none has been offered implicitly or >explicitly. Please provide proof of your notion that Federation shielding >should cause the ship to become invisible along all spectrums and at all >strengths, or bugger off. > A graviton shield, as fanboys claim, would warp spacetime around it's ship. This would cause curvature of spacetime.. You know, how those demonstrations of gravity are done with a rubber sheet and small iron balls? The curvature causes everything to go back to the source, including light. A gravitic shield, using the RL definition, is a black hole. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 15:21:07 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011224154106.06255.00001352@mb-mq.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20011224141124.25725.00002559@mb-fi.aol.com... > >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >> >news:20011224101211.24784.00001121@mb-md.aol.com... > >> >> >Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was > >looking > >> >into > >> >> >using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he was > >> >> >planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion > >sufficient > >> >to > >> >> >incapacitate them. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Ah... When all else fails, throw treknobabble around. Well, since Trek > >> >shields > >> >> do not produce a gravity distortion around the ship, rendering them > >> >invisible, > >> >> the word 'Graviton' must either be misused here(Unlikely, Geordi is a > >> >> professional), or it has changed meanings. The latter will be assumed > >in > >> >light > >> >> of no other evidence. > >> > > >> >"Graviton" has been shown to refer to the same concept as real-life > >> >gravitons. The fact that you do not comprehend how shield technology > >> >succeeds in not producing the effect you would expect is not my problem, > >nor > >> >does it shed any doubt on the meaning of the term "graviton" in Star > >Trek. > >> > > >> > >> A gravity based shield would cause the ship to be invisible. If this were > >the > >> case, cloaking devices would not need to be made. Concession accepted. > > > >You cannot accept a concession, for none has been offered implicitly or > >explicitly. Please provide proof of your notion that Federation shielding > >should cause the ship to become invisible along all spectrums and at all > >strengths, or bugger off. > > > > A graviton shield, as fanboys claim, would warp spacetime around it's ship. You lack imagination and knowledge of canon. Gravity control, including the nullifying of gravity, is a known quantity in Star Trek. > This would cause curvature of spacetime.. You know, how those demonstrations of > gravity are done with a rubber sheet and small iron balls? The curvature causes > everything to go back to the source, including light. A gravitic shield, using > the RL definition, is a black hole. Further, you don't even understand the physics basis of the bullshit you're trying to prove. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 24 Dec 2001 21:33:54 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011224163354.12961.00002298@mb-cu.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011224154106.06255.00001352@mb-mq.aol.com... >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >news:20011224141124.25725.00002559@mb-fi.aol.com... >> >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >> >news:20011224101211.24784.00001121@mb-md.aol.com... >> >> >> >Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was >> >looking >> >> >into >> >> >> >using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he >was >> >> >> >planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion >> >sufficient >> >> >to >> >> >> >incapacitate them. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Ah... When all else fails, throw treknobabble around. Well, since >Trek >> >> >shields >> >> >> do not produce a gravity distortion around the ship, rendering them >> >> >invisible, >> >> >> the word 'Graviton' must either be misused here(Unlikely, Geordi is >a >> >> >> professional), or it has changed meanings. The latter will be >assumed >> >in >> >> >light >> >> >> of no other evidence. >> >> > >> >> >"Graviton" has been shown to refer to the same concept as real-life >> >> >gravitons. The fact that you do not comprehend how shield >technology >> >> >succeeds in not producing the effect you would expect is not my >problem, >> >nor >> >> >does it shed any doubt on the meaning of the term "graviton" in Star >> >Trek. >> >> > >> >> >> >> A gravity based shield would cause the ship to be invisible. If this >were >> >the >> >> case, cloaking devices would not need to be made. Concession accepted. >> > >> >You cannot accept a concession, for none has been offered implicitly or >> >explicitly. Please provide proof of your notion that Federation >shielding >> >should cause the ship to become invisible along all spectrums and at all >> >strengths, or bugger off. >> > >> >> A graviton shield, as fanboys claim, would warp spacetime around it's >ship. > >You lack imagination and knowledge of canon. Gravity control, including >the nullifying of gravity, is a known quantity in Star Trek. > And in Wars. What's your point? This doesn't remove the effect of such manipulations. It will still bend light back in. And back out. >> This would cause curvature of spacetime.. You know, how those >demonstrations of >> gravity are done with a rubber sheet and small iron balls? The curvature >causes >> everything to go back to the source, including light. A gravitic shield, >using >> the RL definition, is a black hole. > >Further, you don't even understand the physics basis of the bullshit you're >trying to prove. > Gravity curves spacetime. Light follows the curve. A gravity shield, being a perfect sphere(Or at least the funky bubbles we see) would bend light back into itself. This is really very simple, but I'm not surprised you don't grasp it. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 15:51:20 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011224163354.12961.00002298@mb-cu.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20011224154106.06255.00001352@mb-mq.aol.com... > >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >> >news:20011224141124.25725.00002559@mb-fi.aol.com... > >> >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >> >> >news:20011224101211.24784.00001121@mb-md.aol.com... > >> >> >> >Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was > >> >looking > >> >> >into > >> >> >> >using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever he > >was > >> >> >> >planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion > >> >sufficient > >> >> >to > >> >> >> >incapacitate them. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Ah... When all else fails, throw treknobabble around. Well, since > >Trek > >> >> >shields > >> >> >> do not produce a gravity distortion around the ship, rendering them > >> >> >invisible, > >> >> >> the word 'Graviton' must either be misused here(Unlikely, Geordi is > >a > >> >> >> professional), or it has changed meanings. The latter will be > >assumed > >> >in > >> >> >light > >> >> >> of no other evidence. > >> >> > > >> >> >"Graviton" has been shown to refer to the same concept as real-life > >> >> >gravitons. The fact that you do not comprehend how shield > >technology > >> >> >succeeds in not producing the effect you would expect is not my > >problem, > >> >nor > >> >> >does it shed any doubt on the meaning of the term "graviton" in Star > >> >Trek. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> A gravity based shield would cause the ship to be invisible. If this > >were > >> >the > >> >> case, cloaking devices would not need to be made. Concession accepted. > >> > > >> >You cannot accept a concession, for none has been offered implicitly or > >> >explicitly. Please provide proof of your notion that Federation > >shielding > >> >should cause the ship to become invisible along all spectrums and at all > >> >strengths, or bugger off. > >> > > >> > >> A graviton shield, as fanboys claim, would warp spacetime around it's > >ship. > > > >You lack imagination and knowledge of canon. Gravity control, including > >the nullifying of gravity, is a known quantity in Star Trek. > > > > And in Wars. What's your point? This doesn't remove the effect of such > manipulations. It will still bend light back in. And back out. Proof that would be the effect? > > >> This would cause curvature of spacetime.. You know, how those > >demonstrations of > >> gravity are done with a rubber sheet and small iron balls? The curvature > >causes > >> everything to go back to the source, including light. A gravitic shield, > >using > >> the RL definition, is a black hole. > > > >Further, you don't even understand the physics basis of the bullshit you're > >trying to prove. > > > > Gravity curves spacetime. Light follows the curve. A gravity shield, being a > perfect sphere(Or at least the funky bubbles we see) would bend light back into > itself. This is really very simple, but I'm not surprised you don't grasp it. You fucking retard. A shield as you describe would have to be as powerful as a black hole. Your argument suggests that you must be fucking shocked to see the moon. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 26 Dec 2001 02:25:15 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011225212515.24464.00001826@mb-fc.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011224163354.12961.00002298@mb-cu.aol.com... >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >news:20011224154106.06255.00001352@mb-mq.aol.com... >> >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >> >news:20011224141124.25725.00002559@mb-fi.aol.com... >> >> >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >> >> >news:20011224101211.24784.00001121@mb-md.aol.com... >> >> >> >> >Federation starships use graviton-based shields, and Geordi was >> >> >looking >> >> >> >into >> >> >> >> >using a "heavy graviton beam" against the Borg, though whatever >he >> >was >> >> >> >> >planning was incapable of producing a local field distortion >> >> >sufficient >> >> >> >to >> >> >> >> >incapacitate them. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ah... When all else fails, throw treknobabble around. Well, since >> >Trek >> >> >> >shields >> >> >> >> do not produce a gravity distortion around the ship, rendering >them >> >> >> >invisible, >> >> >> >> the word 'Graviton' must either be misused here(Unlikely, Geordi >is >> >a >> >> >> >> professional), or it has changed meanings. The latter will be >> >assumed >> >> >in >> >> >> >light >> >> >> >> of no other evidence. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >"Graviton" has been shown to refer to the same concept as real-life >> >> >> >gravitons. The fact that you do not comprehend how shield >> >technology >> >> >> >succeeds in not producing the effect you would expect is not my >> >problem, >> >> >nor >> >> >> >does it shed any doubt on the meaning of the term "graviton" in >Star >> >> >Trek. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> A gravity based shield would cause the ship to be invisible. If this >> >were >> >> >the >> >> >> case, cloaking devices would not need to be made. Concession >accepted. >> >> > >> >> >You cannot accept a concession, for none has been offered implicitly >or >> >> >explicitly. Please provide proof of your notion that Federation >> >shielding >> >> >should cause the ship to become invisible along all spectrums and at >all >> >> >strengths, or bugger off. >> >> > >> >> >> >> A graviton shield, as fanboys claim, would warp spacetime around it's >> >ship. >> > >> >You lack imagination and knowledge of canon. Gravity control, including >> >the nullifying of gravity, is a known quantity in Star Trek. >> > >> >> And in Wars. What's your point? This doesn't remove the effect of such >> manipulations. It will still bend light back in. And back out. > >Proof that would be the effect? > Basic Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. Therefore, to maintain the existance of both physics and Canon, I propose the path of least resistance: Graviton means something different in the future. It fits all the facts, unlike your fanboy fantasies. >> >> >> This would cause curvature of spacetime.. You know, how those >> >demonstrations of >> >> gravity are done with a rubber sheet and small iron balls? The >curvature >> >causes >> >> everything to go back to the source, including light. A gravitic >shield, >> >using >> >> the RL definition, is a black hole. >> > >> >Further, you don't even understand the physics basis of the bullshit >you're >> >trying to prove. >> > >> >> Gravity curves spacetime. Light follows the curve. A gravity shield, being >a >> perfect sphere(Or at least the funky bubbles we see) would bend light back >into >> itself. This is really very simple, but I'm not surprised you don't grasp >it. > >You fucking retard. A shield as you describe would have to be as powerful >as a black hole. Your argument suggests that you must be fucking shocked >to see the moon. > Does Earth's gravity deflect incoming energy at the capacity of a Trek shield? No. Classifying it as a black hole is a simplification for your primitive grasp of such concepts, as it's more like a White Hole, repelling everything around it. Of course, if that were the case, you couldn't wear them down either: Gravity doesn't weaken from having to do work. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 22:43:36 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011225212515.24464.00001826@mb-fc.aol.com... > >> >> >> >> Ah... When all else fails, throw treknobabble around. Well, since > >> >Trek > >> >> >> >shields > >> >> >> >> do not produce a gravity distortion around the ship, rendering > >them > >> >> >> >invisible, > >> >> >> >> the word 'Graviton' must either be misused here(Unlikely, Geordi > >is > >> >a > >> >> >> >> professional), or it has changed meanings. The latter will be > >> >assumed > >> >> >in > >> >> >> >light > >> >> >> >> of no other evidence. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >"Graviton" has been shown to refer to the same concept as real-life > >> >> >> >gravitons. The fact that you do not comprehend how shield > >> >technology > >> >> >> >succeeds in not producing the effect you would expect is not my > >> >problem, > >> >> >nor > >> >> >> >does it shed any doubt on the meaning of the term "graviton" in > >Star > >> >> >Trek. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> A gravity based shield would cause the ship to be invisible. If this > >> >were > >> >> >the > >> >> >> case, cloaking devices would not need to be made. Concession > >accepted. > >> >> > > >> >> >You cannot accept a concession, for none has been offered implicitly > >or > >> >> >explicitly. Please provide proof of your notion that Federation > >> >shielding > >> >> >should cause the ship to become invisible along all spectrums and at > >all > >> >> >strengths, or bugger off. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> A graviton shield, as fanboys claim, would warp spacetime around it's > >> >ship. > >> > > >> >You lack imagination and knowledge of canon. Gravity control, including > >> >the nullifying of gravity, is a known quantity in Star Trek. > >> > > >> > >> And in Wars. What's your point? This doesn't remove the effect of such > >> manipulations. It will still bend light back in. And back out. > > > >Proof that would be the effect? > > > > Basic Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. You're full of horseshit. First, Newtonian physics has nothing to say about gravitons, light-bending, and the like. Second, you're utterly ignoring the nullification option I just described to you. Third, you've still failed to provide evidence for the notion that a graviton shielding system would in any way demonstrate the effects you wish to attribute to it. Fourth, you ignore the fact that there are other options available to graviton shielding systems, such as spatial distortion levels below that of a black hole, multidirectional distortion, et cetera, et cetera. > Therefore, to maintain the existance > of both physics and Canon, I propose the path of least resistance: Graviton > means something different in the future. It fits all the facts, unlike your > fanboy fantasies. Graviton has been shown in multiple instances to mean the same damn thing as the term "graviton" we currently use. The canon fact that a spacefaring civilization can do more with gravitons than you think can be done with them does not mean that we must abandon canon fact . . . it simply means that canon fact shows knowledge of gravity manipulation removed 400 years from ours, and derived from 400 years of research and contact with other more advanced civilizations. > >> >> This would cause curvature of spacetime.. You know, how those > >> >demonstrations of > >> >> gravity are done with a rubber sheet and small iron balls? The > >curvature > >> >causes > >> >> everything to go back to the source, including light. A gravitic > >shield, > >> >using > >> >> the RL definition, is a black hole. > >> > > >> >Further, you don't even understand the physics basis of the bullshit > >you're > >> >trying to prove. > >> > > >> > >> Gravity curves spacetime. Light follows the curve. A gravity shield, being > >a > >> perfect sphere(Or at least the funky bubbles we see) would bend light back > >into > >> itself. This is really very simple, but I'm not surprised you don't grasp > >it. > > > >You fucking retard. A shield as you describe would have to be as powerful > >as a black hole. Your argument suggests that you must be fucking shocked > >to see the moon. > > > > Does Earth's gravity deflect incoming energy at the capacity of a Trek shield? > No. And when in the name of fuck did I suggest that it ought to? You fucking retard, you don't seem to get it . . . although with your limited Rabid Warsie intellect, I'm not surprised. You sit there apparently thinking something like "oh, look, a graviton-based shielding system . . . must be just like a gravity field from a SW interdictor, flung all around . . . but since it deflects shit, it must be as strong as a black hole". Well, ass, you're wrong. > Classifying it as a black hole is a simplification for your primitive grasp > of such concepts, as it's more like a White Hole, repelling everything around > it. Oh, look, now gravity repels things. You are *such* a fucking retard. So, what, now you're saying that it's a black-hole-strength gravity field turned inside-out? Oh, yeah, like *that* wouldn't destroy the ship. Dumbass. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 26 Dec 2001 23:55:33 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011226185533.25721.00003164@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011225212515.24464.00001826@mb-fc.aol.com... > >> >> >> >> >> Ah... When all else fails, throw treknobabble around. Well, >since >> >> >Trek >> >> >> >> >shields >> >> >> >> >> do not produce a gravity distortion around the ship, rendering >> >them >> >> >> >> >invisible, >> >> >> >> >> the word 'Graviton' must either be misused here(Unlikely, >Geordi >> >is >> >> >a >> >> >> >> >> professional), or it has changed meanings. The latter will be >> >> >assumed >> >> >> >in >> >> >> >> >light >> >> >> >> >> of no other evidence. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >"Graviton" has been shown to refer to the same concept as >real-life >> >> >> >> >gravitons. The fact that you do not comprehend how shield >> >> >technology >> >> >> >> >succeeds in not producing the effect you would expect is not my >> >> >problem, >> >> >> >nor >> >> >> >> >does it shed any doubt on the meaning of the term "graviton" in >> >Star >> >> >> >Trek. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A gravity based shield would cause the ship to be invisible. If >this >> >> >were >> >> >> >the >> >> >> >> case, cloaking devices would not need to be made. Concession >> >accepted. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >You cannot accept a concession, for none has been offered >implicitly >> >or >> >> >> >explicitly. Please provide proof of your notion that Federation >> >> >shielding >> >> >> >should cause the ship to become invisible along all spectrums and >at >> >all >> >> >> >strengths, or bugger off. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> A graviton shield, as fanboys claim, would warp spacetime around >it's >> >> >ship. >> >> > >> >> >You lack imagination and knowledge of canon. Gravity control, >including >> >> >the nullifying of gravity, is a known quantity in Star Trek. >> >> > >> >> >> >> And in Wars. What's your point? This doesn't remove the effect of such >> >> manipulations. It will still bend light back in. And back out. >> > >> >Proof that would be the effect? >> > >> >> Basic Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. > >You're full of horseshit. First, Newtonian physics has nothing to say >about gravitons, light-bending, and the like. Newton is the father of modern gravity theory. Einstein expanded on it, corrected mistakes near lightspeed, but it was largely right. Newtonian physics is gravity. Light bends around the curves of spacetime that are gravity. You might not like this, but this is how it is. > Second, you're utterly >ignoring the nullification option I just described to you. By virtue of it being ridiculous. Null out the very gravity you need to keep the neutronium stable? > Third, you've >still failed to provide evidence for the notion that a graviton shielding >system would in any way demonstrate the effects you wish to attribute to it. Multiple laws of physics dictate it. >Fourth, you ignore the fact that there are other options available to >graviton shielding systems, such as spatial distortion levels below that of >a black hole, multidirectional distortion, et cetera, et cetera. > In other word, you're realizing your beginning to lose, so you toss technobabble. I know what those words mean, luckily, so I can fight back. Spatial distortions below a black hole? How much then? Keep in mind black holes can be distortions the size of subatomic particles. Keep in mind unless the distortion is /very/ near black hole levels(Although inside out, obviously), it's useless as a shielding system. Multidirectional distortions? Well, duh. It is a multidirectional distortion, if it's gravity based, because it's around the whole ship. This does not change the fact that distortion is curvature of spacetime, and light will follow the curve around the ship, just like the enemy fire you're deflecting. >> Therefore, to maintain the existance >> of both physics and Canon, I propose the path of least resistance: >Graviton >> means something different in the future. It fits all the facts, unlike >your >> fanboy fantasies. > >Graviton has been shown in multiple instances to mean the same damn thing as >the term "graviton" we currently use. The canon fact that a spacefaring >civilization can do more with gravitons than you think can be done with them >does not mean that we must abandon canon fact . . . it simply means that >canon fact shows knowledge of gravity manipulation removed 400 years from >ours, and derived from 400 years of research and contact with other more >advanced civilizations. > But the shields are not gravitic. I've proven this. Many have proven this. They do not act as gravity-based shields would do. For one thing, they weaken over time. For another, they don't cloak the ship. For a third, weapons don't glide along the curved spacetime and fly out on the other side. >> >> >> This would cause curvature of spacetime.. You know, how those >> >> >demonstrations of >> >> >> gravity are done with a rubber sheet and small iron balls? The >> >curvature >> >> >causes >> >> >> everything to go back to the source, including light. A gravitic >> >shield, >> >> >using >> >> >> the RL definition, is a black hole. >> >> > >> >> >Further, you don't even understand the physics basis of the bullshit >> >you're >> >> >trying to prove. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Gravity curves spacetime. Light follows the curve. A gravity shield, >being >> >a >> >> perfect sphere(Or at least the funky bubbles we see) would bend light >back >> >into >> >> itself. This is really very simple, but I'm not surprised you don't >grasp >> >it. >> > >> >You fucking retard. A shield as you describe would have to be as >powerful >> >as a black hole. Your argument suggests that you must be fucking >shocked >> >to see the moon. >> > >> >> Does Earth's gravity deflect incoming energy at the capacity of a Trek >shield? >> No. > >And when in the name of fuck did I suggest that it ought to? You fucking >retard, you don't seem to get it . . . although with your limited Rabid >Warsie intellect, I'm not surprised. You sit there apparently thinking >something like "oh, look, a graviton-based shielding system . . . must be >just like a gravity field from a SW interdictor, flung all around . . . but >since it deflects shit, it must be as strong as a black hole". > >Well, ass, you're wrong. > Very well. I may be wrong. It's been known to happen, and unlike some hypocritical, self important fucks like youself, I've admitted it. You can't prove me wrong now, though. Think you can? Do it. Reference science to prove a gravity-based shield would not act exactly as I describe. Or STFU and concede. This bickering simply proves you are unable to prove me wrong. >> Classifying it as a black hole is a simplification for your primitive >grasp >> of such concepts, as it's more like a White Hole, repelling everything >around >> it. > >Oh, look, now gravity repels things. You are *such* a fucking retard. > Things follow the curvature which is gravity. If you bend space right, it will follow the curve away from the ship. >So, what, now you're saying that it's a black-hole-strength gravity field >turned inside-out? That is the requirement for an effective gravity-based shield, yes. >Oh, yeah, like *that* wouldn't destroy the ship. >Dumbass. > You'd have to make the ship very resistant to it... But Trek can't do that, proving(You saw this coming) their shields are not gravity based. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 19:28:28 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011226185533.25721.00003164@mb-fi.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20011225212515.24464.00001826@mb-fc.aol.com... > > > >> >> >> >> >> Ah... When all else fails, throw treknobabble around. Well, > >since > >> >> >Trek > >> >> >> >> >shields > >> >> >> >> >> do not produce a gravity distortion around the ship, rendering > >> >them > >> >> >> >> >invisible, > >> >> >> >> >> the word 'Graviton' must either be misused here(Unlikely, > >Geordi > >> >is > >> >> >a > >> >> >> >> >> professional), or it has changed meanings. The latter will be > >> >> >assumed > >> >> >> >in > >> >> >> >> >light > >> >> >> >> >> of no other evidence. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >"Graviton" has been shown to refer to the same concept as > >real-life > >> >> >> >> >gravitons. The fact that you do not comprehend how shield > >> >> >technology > >> >> >> >> >succeeds in not producing the effect you would expect is not my > >> >> >problem, > >> >> >> >nor > >> >> >> >> >does it shed any doubt on the meaning of the term "graviton" in > >> >Star > >> >> >> >Trek. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> A gravity based shield would cause the ship to be invisible. If > >this > >> >> >were > >> >> >> >the > >> >> >> >> case, cloaking devices would not need to be made. Concession > >> >accepted. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >You cannot accept a concession, for none has been offered > >implicitly > >> >or > >> >> >> >explicitly. Please provide proof of your notion that Federation > >> >> >shielding > >> >> >> >should cause the ship to become invisible along all spectrums and > >at > >> >all > >> >> >> >strengths, or bugger off. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> A graviton shield, as fanboys claim, would warp spacetime around > >it's > >> >> >ship. > >> >> > > >> >> >You lack imagination and knowledge of canon. Gravity control, > >including > >> >> >the nullifying of gravity, is a known quantity in Star Trek. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> And in Wars. What's your point? This doesn't remove the effect of such > >> >> manipulations. It will still bend light back in. And back out. > >> > > >> >Proof that would be the effect? > >> > > >> > >> Basic Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. > > > >You're full of horseshit. First, Newtonian physics has nothing to say > >about gravitons, light-bending, and the like. > > Newton is the father of modern gravity theory. Einstein expanded on it, > corrected mistakes near lightspeed, but it was largely right. Newtonian physics > is gravity. Light bends around the curves of spacetime that are gravity. You > might not like this, but this is how it is. Thank you for agreeing that Newtonian physics has nothing to say on the subject. > > Second, you're utterly > >ignoring the nullification option I just described to you. > > By virtue of it being ridiculous. Null out the very gravity you need to keep > the neutronium stable? Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem. I never postulated the foolish notion you above describe. > > Third, you've > >still failed to provide evidence for the notion that a graviton shielding > >system would in any way demonstrate the effects you wish to attribute to it. > > Multiple laws of physics dictate it. Only when misapplied as you would have them done. > >Fourth, you ignore the fact that there are other options available to > >graviton shielding systems, such as spatial distortion levels below that of > >a black hole, multidirectional distortion, et cetera, et cetera. > > > > In other word, you're realizing your beginning to lose, so you toss > technobabble. I know what those words mean, luckily, so I can fight back. No, I'm not tossing technobabble, nor is any such realization a reality. This entire subargument is based on the fact that you lack the imagination to figure out how in Star Trek such things could be accomplished with your puny physics understanding. I'm offerring you the imagination you lack. It doesn't matter, though, whether I show you anything you comprehend or not . . . it's canon, and if there's to be even the slightest modicum of debate, canon must override physics, at least in certain necessary cases. The fact that shielding aboard Federation starships works this way is a fact, and is not open to your attempts to ignore it. > Spatial distortions below a black hole? How much then? Keep in mind black holes > can be distortions the size of subatomic particles. Keep in mind unless the > distortion is /very/ near black hole levels(Although inside out, obviously), > it's useless as a shielding system. Why? Why must a shield operate according to the lines you would place upon it? Why must canon fall by the wayside in favor of your limited understanding? > Multidirectional distortions? Well, duh. It > is a multidirectional distortion, if it's gravity based, because it's around > the whole ship. This does not change the fact that distortion is curvature of > spacetime, and light will follow the curve around the ship, just like the enemy > fire you're deflecting. Moron, you missed the point . . . here's a hint: Federation technology has been demonstrated the ability to produce a gravitational pull in the directions of the operator's choice. > >> Therefore, to maintain the existance > >> of both physics and Canon, I propose the path of least resistance: > >Graviton > >> means something different in the future. It fits all the facts, unlike > >your > >> fanboy fantasies. > > > >Graviton has been shown in multiple instances to mean the same damn thing as > >the term "graviton" we currently use. The canon fact that a spacefaring > >civilization can do more with gravitons than you think can be done with them > >does not mean that we must abandon canon fact . . . it simply means that > >canon fact shows knowledge of gravity manipulation removed 400 years from > >ours, and derived from 400 years of research and contact with other more > >advanced civilizations. > > > > But the shields are not gravitic. I've proven this. Many have proven this. They > do not act as gravity-based shields would do. For one thing, they weaken over > time. For another, they don't cloak the ship. For a third, weapons don't glide > along the curved spacetime and fly out on the other side. You haven't proven squat, except that you cannot understand what is canonically shown. That doesn't mean canon is wrong, it means you are. > >> >> >> This would cause curvature of spacetime.. You know, how those > >> >> >demonstrations of > >> >> >> gravity are done with a rubber sheet and small iron balls? The > >> >curvature > >> >> >causes > >> >> >> everything to go back to the source, including light. A gravitic > >> >shield, > >> >> >using > >> >> >> the RL definition, is a black hole. > >> >> > > >> >> >Further, you don't even understand the physics basis of the bullshit > >> >you're > >> >> >trying to prove. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Gravity curves spacetime. Light follows the curve. A gravity shield, > >being > >> >a > >> >> perfect sphere(Or at least the funky bubbles we see) would bend light > >back > >> >into > >> >> itself. This is really very simple, but I'm not surprised you don't > >grasp > >> >it. > >> > > >> >You fucking retard. A shield as you describe would have to be as > >powerful > >> >as a black hole. Your argument suggests that you must be fucking > >shocked > >> >to see the moon. > >> > > >> > >> Does Earth's gravity deflect incoming energy at the capacity of a Trek > >shield? > >> No. > > > >And when in the name of fuck did I suggest that it ought to? You fucking > >retard, you don't seem to get it . . . although with your limited Rabid > >Warsie intellect, I'm not surprised. You sit there apparently thinking > >something like "oh, look, a graviton-based shielding system . . . must be > >just like a gravity field from a SW interdictor, flung all around . . . but > >since it deflects shit, it must be as strong as a black hole". > > > >Well, ass, you're wrong. > > > > Very well. I may be wrong. It's been known to happen, and unlike some > hypocritical, self important fucks like youself, I've admitted it. You can't > prove me wrong now, though. Think you can? Do it. Reference science to prove a > gravity-based shield would not act exactly as I describe. Or STFU and concede. > This bickering simply proves you are unable to prove me wrong. Um, no. Canon proves you wrong. I am being nice to you by participating in this discussion, but my mission is not to prove you wrong, because that would be redundant. > > >> Classifying it as a black hole is a simplification for your primitive > >grasp > >> of such concepts, as it's more like a White Hole, repelling everything > >around > >> it. > > > >Oh, look, now gravity repels things. You are *such* a fucking retard. > > > > Things follow the curvature which is gravity. If you bend space right, it will > follow the curve away from the ship. Oh, so *now* they have this ability? You've been arguing that they don't. > >So, what, now you're saying that it's a black-hole-strength gravity field > >turned inside-out? > > That is the requirement for an effective gravity-based shield, yes. Obviously not. > >Oh, yeah, like *that* wouldn't destroy the ship. > >Dumbass. > > > > You'd have to make the ship very resistant to it... But Trek can't do that, > proving(You saw this coming) their shields are not gravity based. No, proving that your notions of how the shields work are flawed, dumbfuck. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 27 Dec 2001 01:40:30 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011226204030.25721.00003192@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >> Newton is the father of modern gravity theory. Einstein expanded on it, >> corrected mistakes near lightspeed, but it was largely right. Newtonian >physics >> is gravity. Light bends around the curves of spacetime that are gravity. >You >> might not like this, but this is how it is. > >Thank you for agreeing that Newtonian physics has nothing to say on the >subject. Excuse me? I just pointed out he is the authority on this, please show how it is otherwise. With references. >> > Second, you're utterly >> >ignoring the nullification option I just described to you. >> >> By virtue of it being ridiculous. Null out the very gravity you need to >keep >> the neutronium stable? > >Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem. I never postulated >the foolish notion you above describe. > It's just what you postulate: To maintain neutronium consistancy, you need massive gravity. Neutronium containment, is your term. Fair enough, but that would cause massive gravitic distortions(You know, curvature of spacetime) around the ship. You then say that's nulled out by the same mechanism. If you think it works in another way, describe it here. In detail, so we can pick it apart. >This entire subargument is based on the fact that you lack the imagination >to figure out how in Star Trek such things could be accomplished with your >puny physics understanding. I could argue the same thing for your lack of imagination for Wars. After all, they are the society that can casually blow up worlds. >> Spatial distortions below a black hole? How much then? Keep in mind black >holes >> can be distortions the size of subatomic particles. Keep in mind unless >the >> distortion is /very/ near black hole levels(Although inside out, >obviously), >> it's useless as a shielding system. > >Why? Why must a shield operate according to the lines you would place >upon it? Why must canon fall by the wayside in favor of your limited >understanding? It's called science. It's called the way gravity works. If you have a theory which fits both science and Canon, post it here and now. Failure is a concession. What you posted above is a concession, but I'm being a nice guy. So is everyone else, as you descend faster and faster towards The One Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken's depths of stupidity. >> Multidirectional distortions? Well, duh. It >> is a multidirectional distortion, if it's gravity based, because it's >around >> the whole ship. This does not change the fact that distortion is curvature >of >> spacetime, and light will follow the curve around the ship, just like the >enemy >> fire you're deflecting. > >Moron, you missed the point . . . here's a hint: Federation technology has >been demonstrated the ability to produce a gravitational pull in the >directions of the operator's choice. > If you mean their ability to generate artificial gravity in starships, yes. But that doesn't mean a thing: The distortion is around the whole ship, pushing matter around it. Where are you disagreeing? You're really getting wierd at this point, saying the same thing as me while disagreeing. >> But the shields are not gravitic. I've proven this. Many have proven this. >They >> do not act as gravity-based shields would do. For one thing, they weaken >over >> time. For another, they don't cloak the ship. For a third, weapons don't >glide >> along the curved spacetime and fly out on the other side. > >You haven't proven squat, except that you cannot understand what is >canonically shown. That doesn't mean canon is wrong, it means you are. > Then prove it. Bring the alternate theory up and let's debate it, since you think it's omnithingy and untouchable. >> Very well. I may be wrong. It's been known to happen, and unlike some >> hypocritical, self important fucks like youself, I've admitted it. You >can't >> prove me wrong now, though. Think you can? Do it. Reference science to >prove a >> gravity-based shield would not act exactly as I describe. Or STFU and >concede. >> This bickering simply proves you are unable to prove me wrong. > >Um, no. Canon proves you wrong. I am being nice to you by participating >in this discussion, but my mission is not to prove you wrong, because that >would be redundant. You will of course show where Canon proves me wrong. Still waiting for this. >> Things follow the curvature which is gravity. If you bend space right, it >will >> follow the curve away from the ship. > >Oh, so *now* they have this ability? You've been arguing that they don't. Yea, because it's not demonstrated. If you had been paying attention, you'd notice this whole line is a explanation of how they would work, if your fanboy delusions were reality. > >> >So, what, now you're saying that it's a black-hole-strength gravity field >> >turned inside-out? >> >> That is the requirement for an effective gravity-based shield, yes. > >Obviously not. Your proof? >> >Oh, yeah, like *that* wouldn't destroy the ship. >> >Dumbass. >> > >> >> You'd have to make the ship very resistant to it... But Trek can't do >that, >> proving(You saw this coming) their shields are not gravity based. > >No, proving that your notions of how the shields work are flawed, dumbfuck. > So you will now bring the other theory up, of course. Or else this whole post of yours is an implicit concession, via the R&R. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 01:29:16 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011226204030.25721.00003192@mb-fi.aol.com... > >> Newton is the father of modern gravity theory. Einstein expanded on it, > >> corrected mistakes near lightspeed, but it was largely right. Newtonian > >physics > >> is gravity. Light bends around the curves of spacetime that are gravity. > >You > >> might not like this, but this is how it is. > > > >Thank you for agreeing that Newtonian physics has nothing to say on the > >subject. > > Excuse me? I just pointed out he is the authority on this, please show how it > is otherwise. With references. Well, damn. And here I was giving you credit for intelligence . . . but off you go, trying to claim that Newton is an authority on gravitons and other particles of quantum physics. Just shut the fuck up and go home. > > >> > Second, you're utterly > >> >ignoring the nullification option I just described to you. > >> > >> By virtue of it being ridiculous. Null out the very gravity you need to > >keep > >> the neutronium stable? > > > >Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem. I never postulated > >the foolish notion you above describe. > > > > It's just what you postulate: To maintain neutronium consistancy, you need > massive gravity. Neutronium containment, is your term. Fair enough, but that > would cause massive gravitic distortions(You know, curvature of spacetime) > around the ship. You then say that's nulled out by the same mechanism. If you > think it works in another way, describe it here. In detail, so we can pick it > apart. I've already described it, but you've ignored it. I'm not obligated to repeat myself. > >This entire subargument is based on the fact that you lack the imagination > >to figure out how in Star Trek such things could be accomplished with your > >puny physics understanding. > > I could argue the same thing for your lack of imagination for Wars. After all, > they are the society that can casually blow up worlds. And as long as they do that with the knowledge that what they call neutronium isn't the same thing as the stuff in neutron stars, I'm all for it. > >> Spatial distortions below a black hole? How much then? Keep in mind black > >holes > >> can be distortions the size of subatomic particles. Keep in mind unless > >the > >> distortion is /very/ near black hole levels(Although inside out, > >obviously), > >> it's useless as a shielding system. > > > >Why? Why must a shield operate according to the lines you would place > >upon it? Why must canon fall by the wayside in favor of your limited > >understanding? > > It's called science. It's called the way gravity works. If you have a theory > which fits both science and Canon, post it here and now. It's been done. You've ignored it. > What you posted above is a concession, but I'm being a nice guy. So > is everyone else, as you descend faster and faster towards The One Whose Name > Must Not Be Spoken's depths of stupidity. Based on your argument style, he is your king. > >> Multidirectional distortions? Well, duh. It > >> is a multidirectional distortion, if it's gravity based, because it's > >around > >> the whole ship. This does not change the fact that distortion is curvature > >of > >> spacetime, and light will follow the curve around the ship, just like the > >enemy > >> fire you're deflecting. > > > >Moron, you missed the point . . . here's a hint: Federation technology has > >been demonstrated the ability to produce a gravitational pull in the > >directions of the operator's choice. > > > > If you mean their ability to generate artificial gravity in starships, yes. But > that doesn't mean a thing: The distortion is around the whole ship, pushing > matter around it. Where are you disagreeing? You're really getting wierd at > this point, saying the same thing as me while disagreeing. Your inability or unwillingness to grasp a simple point is not my problem. You automatically deny the very mechanism that would bring science and canon together for your limited understanding, and then bitch bitch bitch about how they don't do something you understand. > >You haven't proven squat, except that you cannot understand what is > >canonically shown. That doesn't mean canon is wrong, it means you are. > > > > Then prove it. Bring the alternate theory up and let's debate it, since you > think it's omnithingy and untouchable. Omnipotent is, methinks, the word you were searching for, or maybe omniscient. As to your request, it is denied, for any of our theories as to respective technologies are moot. Not only would you ignore and reject out of hand any theory, but even if there were flaws and you managed to find and exploit them, it would only serve to defeat the theory . . . *not* the canonically observable phenomenon. For instance, I have certain ideas of the functioning of warp drive . . . if they are wrong or impossible, so what? Archer says "let's go", and they're gone. > >> Very well. I may be wrong. It's been known to happen, and unlike some > >> hypocritical, self important fucks like youself, I've admitted it. You > >can't > >> prove me wrong now, though. Think you can? Do it. Reference science to > >prove a > >> gravity-based shield would not act exactly as I describe. Or STFU and > >concede. > >> This bickering simply proves you are unable to prove me wrong. > > > >Um, no. Canon proves you wrong. I am being nice to you by participating > >in this discussion, but my mission is not to prove you wrong, because that > >would be redundant. > > You will of course show where Canon proves me wrong. Still waiting for this. Star Trek: Generations. On the Klingon viewscreen, we see a Geordi's-VISOR-view of Engineering. The graviton component of Federation shields is mentioned on the screen. Screen shots unavailable (as many Star Trek pictures as there are online, there are just some things you can't find), though I'll happily mail you a trace. And I promise, no anthrax. :-) > >> Things follow the curvature which is gravity. If you bend space right, it > >will > >> follow the curve away from the ship. > > > >Oh, so *now* they have this ability? You've been arguing that they don't. > > Yea, because it's not demonstrated. If you had been paying attention, you'd > notice this whole line is a explanation of how they would work, if your fanboy > delusions were reality. No, those are your fanboy delusions of how they would work. > >> >So, what, now you're saying that it's a black-hole-strength gravity field > >> >turned inside-out? > >> > >> That is the requirement for an effective gravity-based shield, yes. > > > >Obviously not. > > Your proof? It's called Star Trek, remember? That sci-fi show with Klingons, red alert, warp, all that stuff? > > >> >Oh, yeah, like *that* wouldn't destroy the ship. > >> >Dumbass. > >> > > >> > >> You'd have to make the ship very resistant to it... But Trek can't do > >that, > >> proving(You saw this coming) their shields are not gravity based. > > > >No, proving that your notions of how the shields work are flawed, dumbfuck. > > > > So you will now bring the other theory up, of course. Or else this whole post > of yours is an implicit concession, via the R&R. No, because canon fact does not require explanation to remain canon fact, dumbfuck. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 27 Dec 2001 15:20:42 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011227102042.20315.00001836@mb-ba.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011226204030.25721.00003192@mb-fi.aol.com... >> >> Newton is the father of modern gravity theory. Einstein expanded on it, >> >> corrected mistakes near lightspeed, but it was largely right. Newtonian >> >physics >> >> is gravity. Light bends around the curves of spacetime that are >gravity. >> >You >> >> might not like this, but this is how it is. >> > >> >Thank you for agreeing that Newtonian physics has nothing to say on the >> >subject. >> >> Excuse me? I just pointed out he is the authority on this, please show how >it >> is otherwise. With references. > >Well, damn. And here I was giving you credit for intelligence . . . but >off you go, trying to claim that Newton is an authority on gravitons and >other particles of quantum physics. > >Just shut the fuck up and go home. > Nothing Quantum in this argument, sonny boy. Gravitons are gravity, Newtonian science is about gravity, ergo you are wrong.(Ergo is latin for Therefore, since I know you lack that knowledge) Quantum physics is not here. Gravitonics is. The two are not the same. In fact, the search for the Unified Field Theorem is the search to link the two, you ignorant fuck. >> >> >> > Second, you're utterly >> >> >ignoring the nullification option I just described to you. >> >> >> >> By virtue of it being ridiculous. Null out the very gravity you need to >> >keep >> >> the neutronium stable? >> > >> >Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem. I never >postulated >> >the foolish notion you above describe. >> > >> >> It's just what you postulate: To maintain neutronium consistancy, you need >> massive gravity. Neutronium containment, is your term. Fair enough, but >that >> would cause massive gravitic distortions(You know, curvature of spacetime) >> around the ship. You then say that's nulled out by the same mechanism. If >you >> think it works in another way, describe it here. In detail, so we can pick >it >> apart. > >I've already described it, but you've ignored it. I'm not obligated to >repeat myself. > Actually you are. But since you don't, I accept your concession based on the R&R. >> >This entire subargument is based on the fact that you lack the >imagination >> >to figure out how in Star Trek such things could be accomplished with >your >> >puny physics understanding. >> >> I could argue the same thing for your lack of imagination for Wars. After >all, >> they are the society that can casually blow up worlds. > >And as long as they do that with the knowledge that what they call >neutronium isn't the same thing as the stuff in neutron stars, I'm all for >it. > I'm sorry, your lack of imagination to figure out how in Star Wars things happen does not alter what happens. >> >> Spatial distortions below a black hole? How much then? Keep in mind >black >> >holes >> >> can be distortions the size of subatomic particles. Keep in mind unless >> >the >> >> distortion is /very/ near black hole levels(Although inside out, >> >obviously), >> >> it's useless as a shielding system. >> > >> >Why? Why must a shield operate according to the lines you would place >> >upon it? Why must canon fall by the wayside in favor of your limited >> >understanding? >> >> It's called science. It's called the way gravity works. If you have a >theory >> which fits both science and Canon, post it here and now. > >It's been done. You've ignored it. > Post it again. It's very much required of you. But since you did it, Concession Accepted via the R&R. >> What you posted above is a concession, but I'm being a nice guy. So >> is everyone else, as you descend faster and faster towards The One Whose >Name >> Must Not Be Spoken's depths of stupidity. > >Based on your argument style, he is your king. > Not really. I provide proof, unlike you. >> >> Multidirectional distortions? Well, duh. It >> >> is a multidirectional distortion, if it's gravity based, because it's >> >around >> >> the whole ship. This does not change the fact that distortion is >curvature >> >of >> >> spacetime, and light will follow the curve around the ship, just like >the >> >enemy >> >> fire you're deflecting. >> > >> >Moron, you missed the point . . . here's a hint: Federation technology >has >> >been demonstrated the ability to produce a gravitational pull in the >> >directions of the operator's choice. >> > >> >> If you mean their ability to generate artificial gravity in starships, >yes. But >> that doesn't mean a thing: The distortion is around the whole ship, >pushing >> matter around it. Where are you disagreeing? You're really getting wierd >at >> this point, saying the same thing as me while disagreeing. > >Your inability or unwillingness to grasp a simple point is not my problem. >You automatically deny the very mechanism that would bring science and canon >together for your limited understanding, and then bitch bitch bitch about >how they don't do something you understand. > Lack Of Argument = Concession Of Defeat. Concession Accepted. > >> >You haven't proven squat, except that you cannot understand what is >> >canonically shown. That doesn't mean canon is wrong, it means you are. >> > >> >> Then prove it. Bring the alternate theory up and let's debate it, since >you >> think it's omnithingy and untouchable. > >Omnipotent is, methinks, the word you were searching for, or maybe >omniscient. > Actually, the word would be something like 'Omni-Proof', or all proven. But that's not a real word. > As to your request, it is denied, Then concession accepted since you won't bring the theory here. >> >> Very well. I may be wrong. It's been known to happen, and unlike some >> >> hypocritical, self important fucks like youself, I've admitted it. You >> >can't >> >> prove me wrong now, though. Think you can? Do it. Reference science to >> >prove a >> >> gravity-based shield would not act exactly as I describe. Or STFU and >> >concede. >> >> This bickering simply proves you are unable to prove me wrong. >> > >> >Um, no. Canon proves you wrong. I am being nice to you by >participating >> >in this discussion, but my mission is not to prove you wrong, because >that >> >would be redundant. >> >> You will of course show where Canon proves me wrong. Still waiting for >this. > >Star Trek: Generations. On the Klingon viewscreen, we see a >Geordi's-VISOR-view of Engineering. The graviton component of Federation >shields is mentioned on the screen. Screen shots unavailable (as many Star >Trek pictures as there are online, there are just some things you can't >find), though I'll happily mail you a trace. And I promise, no anthrax. >:-) > I have seen Generations many times, unfortunately. And yes, part of it is called Graviton. But you have yet to prove it's the same Graviton as the kind linked to Newtonian physics, IE, Gravity. So, lack of argument, concession accepted. >> >> Things follow the curvature which is gravity. If you bend space right, >it >> >will >> >> follow the curve away from the ship. >> > >> >Oh, so *now* they have this ability? You've been arguing that they >don't. >> >> Yea, because it's not demonstrated. If you had been paying attention, >you'd >> notice this whole line is a explanation of how they would work, if your >fanboy >> delusions were reality. > >No, those are your fanboy delusions of how they would work. > Lack of argument? Guess what? Concession accepted. >> >> >So, what, now you're saying that it's a black-hole-strength gravity >field >> >> >turned inside-out? >> >> >> >> That is the requirement for an effective gravity-based shield, yes. >> > >> >Obviously not. >> >> Your proof? > >It's called Star Trek, remember? That sci-fi show with Klingons, red alert, >warp, all that stuff? > Yes, where is your proof the shields are gravity based? Or do you not have any? Glancing at your replies here, you don't. >> >> >> >Oh, yeah, like *that* wouldn't destroy the ship. >> >> >Dumbass. >> >> > >> >> >> >> You'd have to make the ship very resistant to it... But Trek can't do >> >that, >> >> proving(You saw this coming) their shields are not gravity based. >> > >> >No, proving that your notions of how the shields work are flawed, >dumbfuck. >> > >> >> So you will now bring the other theory up, of course. Or else this whole >post >> of yours is an implicit concession, via the R&R. > >No, because canon fact does not require explanation to remain canon fact, >dumbfuck. > Lack of argument = Concession of defeat. Thank you for making this so easy. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 13:58:33 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011227102042.20315.00001836@mb-ba.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20011226204030.25721.00003192@mb-fi.aol.com... > >> >> Newton is the father of modern gravity theory. Einstein expanded on it, > >> >> corrected mistakes near lightspeed, but it was largely right. Newtonian > >> >physics > >> >> is gravity. Light bends around the curves of spacetime that are > >gravity. > >> >You > >> >> might not like this, but this is how it is. > >> > > >> >Thank you for agreeing that Newtonian physics has nothing to say on the > >> >subject. > >> > >> Excuse me? I just pointed out he is the authority on this, please show how > >it > >> is otherwise. With references. > > > >Well, damn. And here I was giving you credit for intelligence . . . but > >off you go, trying to claim that Newton is an authority on gravitons and > >other particles of quantum physics. > > > >Just shut the fuck up and go home. > > > > Nothing Quantum in this argument, sonny boy. Gravitons are gravity, Newtonian > science is about gravity, ergo you are wrong.(Ergo is latin for Therefore, > since I know you lack that knowledge) Quantum physics is not here. Gravitonics > is. The two are not the same. In fact, the search for the Unified Field Theorem > is the search to link the two, you ignorant fuck. Newton wouldn't have known a graviton if it had walked up and shook his hand, you idiot. I have the utmost respect for Newton, but your attempt to attribute to him knowledge that was far beyond his day is fucking stupid. > > >> > >> >> > Second, you're utterly > >> >> >ignoring the nullification option I just described to you. > >> >> > >> >> By virtue of it being ridiculous. Null out the very gravity you need to > >> >keep > >> >> the neutronium stable? > >> > > >> >Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem. I never > >postulated > >> >the foolish notion you above describe. > >> > > >> > >> It's just what you postulate: To maintain neutronium consistancy, you need > >> massive gravity. Neutronium containment, is your term. Fair enough, but > >that > >> would cause massive gravitic distortions(You know, curvature of spacetime) > >> around the ship. You then say that's nulled out by the same mechanism. If > >you > >> think it works in another way, describe it here. In detail, so we can pick > >it > >> apart. > > > >I've already described it, but you've ignored it. I'm not obligated to > >repeat myself. > > > > Actually you are. But since you don't, I accept your concession based on the > R&R. I am in no way obligated to repeat my argument to you over and over when you are only going to ignore, fail to comprehend, or willfully misunderstand it. > >> >Why? Why must a shield operate according to the lines you would place > >> >upon it? Why must canon fall by the wayside in favor of your limited > >> >understanding? > >> > >> It's called science. It's called the way gravity works. If you have a > >theory > >> which fits both science and Canon, post it here and now. > > > >It's been done. You've ignored it. > > > > Post it again. It's very much required of you. But since you did it, Concession > Accepted via the R&R. If you feel it necessary to cower behind your interpretation of the rules instead of actually trying to present a counterargument to an argument which has been presented, so much the better. > >> What you posted above is a concession, but I'm being a nice guy. So > >> is everyone else, as you descend faster and faster towards The One Whose > >Name > >> Must Not Be Spoken's depths of stupidity. > > > >Based on your argument style, he is your king. > > > > Not really. I provide proof, unlike you. Lies become you. > >> >> Multidirectional distortions? Well, duh. It > >> >> is a multidirectional distortion, if it's gravity based, because it's > >> >around > >> >> the whole ship. This does not change the fact that distortion is > >curvature > >> >of > >> >> spacetime, and light will follow the curve around the ship, just like > >the > >> >enemy > >> >> fire you're deflecting. > >> > > >> >Moron, you missed the point . . . here's a hint: Federation technology > >has > >> >been demonstrated the ability to produce a gravitational pull in the > >> >directions of the operator's choice. > >> > > >> > >> If you mean their ability to generate artificial gravity in starships, > >yes. But > >> that doesn't mean a thing: The distortion is around the whole ship, > >pushing > >> matter around it. Where are you disagreeing? You're really getting wierd > >at > >> this point, saying the same thing as me while disagreeing. > > > >Your inability or unwillingness to grasp a simple point is not my problem. > >You automatically deny the very mechanism that would bring science and canon > >together for your limited understanding, and then bitch bitch bitch about > >how they don't do something you understand. > > > > Lack Of Argument = Concession Of Defeat. > > Concession Accepted. None offerred, for the argument was not lacking, it first misunderstood, then misrepresented, then ignored. > > > > >> >You haven't proven squat, except that you cannot understand what is > >> >canonically shown. That doesn't mean canon is wrong, it means you are. > >> > > >> > >> Then prove it. Bring the alternate theory up and let's debate it, since > >you > >> think it's omnithingy and untouchable. > > > >Omnipotent is, methinks, the word you were searching for, or maybe > >omniscient. > > > > Actually, the word would be something like 'Omni-Proof', or all proven. But > that's not a real word. Ah. My mistake. > > As to your request, it is denied, > > > Then concession accepted since you won't bring the theory here. The theory is in this thread a hundred times over. Your unwillingness to read it is none of my concern. > >> >Um, no. Canon proves you wrong. I am being nice to you by > >participating > >> >in this discussion, but my mission is not to prove you wrong, because > >that > >> >would be redundant. > >> > >> You will of course show where Canon proves me wrong. Still waiting for > >this. > > > >Star Trek: Generations. On the Klingon viewscreen, we see a > >Geordi's-VISOR-view of Engineering. The graviton component of Federation > >shields is mentioned on the screen. Screen shots unavailable (as many Star > >Trek pictures as there are online, there are just some things you can't > >find), though I'll happily mail you a trace. And I promise, no anthrax. > >:-) > > > > I have seen Generations many times, unfortunately. And yes, part of it is > called Graviton. As you've argued against that several times, I accept the concession on that point. > But you have yet to prove it's the same Graviton as the kind > linked to Newtonian physics, IE, Gravity. > > So, lack of argument, concession accepted. No, you are the one who has failed to show that a graviton cannot possibly be used that way by 24th century Federation science. > >> Your proof? > > > >It's called Star Trek, remember? That sci-fi show with Klingons, red alert, > >warp, all that stuff? > > > > Yes, where is your proof the shields are gravity based? Or do you not have any? > Glancing at your replies here, you don't. Ah, see! And you wonder why I think you a liar! Concession previously accepted on this point, since you have confessed to seeing the exact same screen in Generations. > >> >> proving(You saw this coming) their shields are not gravity based. > >> > > >> >No, proving that your notions of how the shields work are flawed, > >dumbfuck. > >> > > >> > >> So you will now bring the other theory up, of course. Or else this whole > >post > >> of yours is an implicit concession, via the R&R. > > > >No, because canon fact does not require explanation to remain canon fact, > >dumbfuck. > > > > Lack of argument = Concession of defeat. Thank you for making this so easy. No concession of defeat offerred. At most, you can claim that I was unwilling or unable to provide an explanation which you would find satisfactory of the operations of equipment no less than 370 years more advanced than ours, in its theory and application. Well, no shit, Sherlock. First, it's beyond our grasp, akin to asking someone in 1631 for a detailed explanation of a computer, or the accelerator at the Fermi Lab. Second, you're a stupid cocksmack, a 1631 cohort demanding that these explanations occur in the framework of your limited (even for 1631) understanding. I've got a surprise for you . . . they don't have to occur in the framework of your limited understanding, because it's canon fact. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 27 Dec 2001 20:06:06 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011227150606.05308.00000470@mb-fo.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011227102042.20315.00001836@mb-ba.aol.com... >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >news:20011226204030.25721.00003192@mb-fi.aol.com... >> >> >> Newton is the father of modern gravity theory. Einstein expanded on >it, >> >> >> corrected mistakes near lightspeed, but it was largely right. >Newtonian >> >> >physics >> >> >> is gravity. Light bends around the curves of spacetime that are >> >gravity. >> >> >You >> >> >> might not like this, but this is how it is. >> >> > >> >> >Thank you for agreeing that Newtonian physics has nothing to say on >the >> >> >subject. >> >> >> >> Excuse me? I just pointed out he is the authority on this, please show >how >> >it >> >> is otherwise. With references. >> > >> >Well, damn. And here I was giving you credit for intelligence . . . but >> >off you go, trying to claim that Newton is an authority on gravitons and >> >other particles of quantum physics. >> > >> >Just shut the fuck up and go home. >> > >> >> Nothing Quantum in this argument, sonny boy. Gravitons are gravity, >Newtonian >> science is about gravity, ergo you are wrong.(Ergo is latin for Therefore, >> since I know you lack that knowledge) Quantum physics is not here. >Gravitonics >> is. The two are not the same. In fact, the search for the Unified Field >Theorem >> is the search to link the two, you ignorant fuck. > >Newton wouldn't have known a graviton if it had walked up and shook his >hand, you idiot. > Nor would you, but that's because you're a fucking moron. >I have the utmost respect for Newton, but your attempt to attribute to him >knowledge that was far beyond his day is fucking stupid. > But Newtonian physics is still the branch of physics for dealing with gravity. You don't understand this, but that's alright. You also can't fathom that Quantum Physics has jack shit to do with gravity, which falls under Relativity. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Second, you're utterly >> >> >> >ignoring the nullification option I just described to you. >> >> >> >> >> >> By virtue of it being ridiculous. Null out the very gravity you need >to >> >> >keep >> >> >> the neutronium stable? >> >> > >> >> >Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem. I never >> >postulated >> >> >the foolish notion you above describe. >> >> > >> >> >> >> It's just what you postulate: To maintain neutronium consistancy, you >need >> >> massive gravity. Neutronium containment, is your term. Fair enough, but >> >that >> >> would cause massive gravitic distortions(You know, curvature of >spacetime) >> >> around the ship. You then say that's nulled out by the same mechanism. >If >> >you >> >> think it works in another way, describe it here. In detail, so we can >pick >> >it >> >> apart. >> > >> >I've already described it, but you've ignored it. I'm not obligated to >> >repeat myself. >> > >> >> Actually you are. But since you don't, I accept your concession based on >the >> R&R. > >I am in no way obligated to repeat my argument to you over and over when you >are only going to ignore, fail to comprehend, or willfully misunderstand it. > Actually, you are required to post your evidence when it's requested. If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Many members of the newsgroup, even veteran debaters who have been here for years, seem to have trouble with this concept, so I will say it again, and in bold: If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Failure to do so is the quickest way to waste everyone's time, since all you'll get are a flood of replies asking for a source. > >> >> >Why? Why must a shield operate according to the lines you would >place >> >> >upon it? Why must canon fall by the wayside in favor of your limited >> >> >understanding? >> >> >> >> It's called science. It's called the way gravity works. If you have a >> >theory >> >> which fits both science and Canon, post it here and now. >> > >> >It's been done. You've ignored it. >> > >> >> Post it again. It's very much required of you. But since you did it, >Concession >> Accepted via the R&R. > >If you feel it necessary to cower behind your interpretation of the rules >instead of actually trying to present a counterargument to an argument which >has been presented, so much the better. > If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Many members of the newsgroup, even veteran debaters who have been here for years, seem to have trouble with this concept, so I will say it again, and in bold: If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Failure to do so is the quickest way to waste everyone's time, since all you'll get are a flood of replies asking for a source. >> >> What you posted above is a concession, but I'm being a nice guy. So >> >> is everyone else, as you descend faster and faster towards The One >Whose >> >Name >> >> Must Not Be Spoken's depths of stupidity. >> > >> >Based on your argument style, he is your king. >> > >> >> Not really. I provide proof, unlike you. > >Lies become you. > If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Many members of the newsgroup, even veteran debaters who have been here for years, seem to have trouble with this concept, so I will say it again, and in bold: If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Failure to do so is the quickest way to waste everyone's time, since all you'll get are a flood of replies asking for a source. >> >> >> Multidirectional distortions? Well, duh. It >> >> >> is a multidirectional distortion, if it's gravity based, because >it's >> >> >around >> >> >> the whole ship. This does not change the fact that distortion is >> >curvature >> >> >of >> >> >> spacetime, and light will follow the curve around the ship, just >like >> >the >> >> >enemy >> >> >> fire you're deflecting. >> >> > >> >> >Moron, you missed the point . . . here's a hint: Federation >technology >> >has >> >> >been demonstrated the ability to produce a gravitational pull in the >> >> >directions of the operator's choice. >> >> > >> >> >> >> If you mean their ability to generate artificial gravity in starships, >> >yes. But >> >> that doesn't mean a thing: The distortion is around the whole ship, >> >pushing >> >> matter around it. Where are you disagreeing? You're really getting >wierd >> >at >> >> this point, saying the same thing as me while disagreeing. >> > >> >Your inability or unwillingness to grasp a simple point is not my >problem. >> >You automatically deny the very mechanism that would bring science and >canon >> >together for your limited understanding, and then bitch bitch bitch about >> >how they don't do something you understand. >> > >> >> Lack Of Argument = Concession Of Defeat. >> >> Concession Accepted. > >None offerred, for the argument was not lacking, it first misunderstood, >then misrepresented, then ignored. > If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Many members of the newsgroup, even veteran debaters who have been here for years, seem to have trouble with this concept, so I will say it again, and in bold: If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Failure to do so is the quickest way to waste everyone's time, since all you'll get are a flood of replies asking for a source. Did you do this? No, you didn't. So you conceded. Have a nice day. >> >> > >> >> >You haven't proven squat, except that you cannot understand what is >> >> >canonically shown. That doesn't mean canon is wrong, it means you >are. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Then prove it. Bring the alternate theory up and let's debate it, since >> >you >> >> think it's omnithingy and untouchable. >> > >> >Omnipotent is, methinks, the word you were searching for, or maybe >> >omniscient. >> > >> >> Actually, the word would be something like 'Omni-Proof', or all proven. >But >> that's not a real word. > >Ah. My mistake. > >> > As to your request, it is denied, >> >> >> Then concession accepted since you won't bring the theory here. > >The theory is in this thread a hundred times over. Your unwillingness to >read it is none of my concern. > No, you provided no theory. What you repeated again and again is 'No, they don't work like that', you never gave an alternate theory for how they worked. And if you did, you have to show it when asked. > >> >> >Um, no. Canon proves you wrong. I am being nice to you by >> >participating >> >> >in this discussion, but my mission is not to prove you wrong, because >> >that >> >> >would be redundant. >> >> >> >> You will of course show where Canon proves me wrong. Still waiting for >> >this. >> > >> >Star Trek: Generations. On the Klingon viewscreen, we see a >> >Geordi's-VISOR-view of Engineering. The graviton component of >Federation >> >shields is mentioned on the screen. Screen shots unavailable (as many >Star >> >Trek pictures as there are online, there are just some things you can't >> >find), though I'll happily mail you a trace. And I promise, no anthrax. >> >:-) >> > >> >> I have seen Generations many times, unfortunately. And yes, part of it is >> called Graviton. > >As you've argued against that several times, I accept the concession on that >point. > I never said it wasn't called graviton based. I said it's not the same gravitons as we refer to, because it works differently. Your lack of reading comprehension shows again. >> But you have yet to prove it's the same Graviton as the kind >> linked to Newtonian physics, IE, Gravity. >> >> So, lack of argument, concession accepted. > >No, you are the one who has failed to show that a graviton cannot possibly >be used that way by 24th century Federation science. > I've shown it would not behave the way you want it to, thus defeating your argument. You now cry, but that's expected at this point. > >> >> Your proof? >> > >> >It's called Star Trek, remember? That sci-fi show with Klingons, red >alert, >> >warp, all that stuff? >> > >> >> Yes, where is your proof the shields are gravity based? Or do you not have >any? >> Glancing at your replies here, you don't. > >Ah, see! And you wonder why I think you a liar! Concession previously >accepted on this point, since you have confessed to seeing the exact same >screen in Generations. > Yes, it said graviton. I never said they didn't call it graviton. If there's a concession here, it's that I concede they call it graviton based. Of course, my whole argument is that their use of the word is not the same as ours. You're really desperate now, it seems. > >> >> >> proving(You saw this coming) their shields are not gravity based. >> >> > >> >> >No, proving that your notions of how the shields work are flawed, >> >dumbfuck. >> >> > >> >> >> >> So you will now bring the other theory up, of course. Or else this >whole >> >post >> >> of yours is an implicit concession, via the R&R. >> > >> >No, because canon fact does not require explanation to remain canon fact, >> >dumbfuck. >> > >> >> Lack of argument = Concession of defeat. Thank you for making this so >easy. > >No concession of defeat offerred. At most, you can claim that I was >unwilling or unable to provide an explanation which you would find >satisfactory of the operations of equipment no less than 370 years more >advanced than ours, in its theory and application. Well, no shit, >Sherlock. First, it's beyond our grasp, akin to asking someone in 1631 for >a detailed explanation of a computer, or the accelerator at the Fermi Lab. >Second, you're a stupid cocksmack, a 1631 cohort demanding that these >explanations occur in the framework of your limited (even for 1631) >understanding. > If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Many members of the newsgroup, even veteran debaters who have been here for years, seem to have trouble with this concept, so I will say it again, and in bold: If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Failure to do so is the quickest way to waste everyone's time, since all you'll get are a flood of replies asking for a source. >I've got a surprise for you . . . they don't have to occur in the framework >of your limited understanding, because it's canon fact. > If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Many members of the newsgroup, even veteran debaters who have been here for years, seem to have trouble with this concept, so I will say it again, and in bold: If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Failure to do so is the quickest way to waste everyone's time, since all you'll get are a flood of replies asking for a source. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 02:51:58 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011227150606.05308.00000470@mb-fo.aol.com... > If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Many members of the > newsgroup, even veteran debaters who have been here for years, seem to have > trouble with this concept, so I will say it again, and in bold: If you make a > claim, you have to supply the evidence. Failure to do so is the quickest way to > waste everyone's time, since all you'll get are a flood of replies asking for a > source. And the evidence was supplied. Your attempt to engage in dishonest debating by pretending never to have seen the evidence is a misuse of the rules . . . all you need to do is operate under that pretense until your opponent stops responding, and then you simply claim victory. That's playing games. I'm not here to play games. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 30 Dec 2001 02:07:40 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011229210740.05099.00001459@mb-mp.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011227150606.05308.00000470@mb-fo.aol.com... > >> If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Many members of the >> newsgroup, even veteran debaters who have been here for years, seem to >have >> trouble with this concept, so I will say it again, and in bold: If you >make a >> claim, you have to supply the evidence. Failure to do so is the quickest >way to >> waste everyone's time, since all you'll get are a flood of replies asking >for a >> source. > >And the evidence was supplied. Your attempt to engage in dishonest >debating by pretending never to have seen the evidence is a misuse of the >rules . . . all you need to do is operate under that pretense until your >opponent stops responding, and then you simply claim victory. > Thank you for clearing that up. We'd all forgotten that was your SOP. >That's playing games. I'm not here to play games. Oh yes. You are delusional and think you're the 'Last Bastion' of the Trek side. You think there's crushing evidence against SW, but it exists only in your mind. And, of course, you think this argument is so important as to /not/ be a game. Christ. This is a game, a hobby, and for me, a source of amusement. You take it more seriously? That's scary. What, do you think this will net you some great life advantage? Now, I will resume reading 'fics, waiting for STGOD stuff, and then go back to enjoying my vacation. Ta, cretin. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 30 Dec 2001 02:07:40 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011229210740.05099.00001459@mb-mp.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011227150606.05308.00000470@mb-fo.aol.com... > >> If you make a claim, you have to supply the evidence. Many members of the >> newsgroup, even veteran debaters who have been here for years, seem to >have >> trouble with this concept, so I will say it again, and in bold: If you >make a >> claim, you have to supply the evidence. Failure to do so is the quickest >way to >> waste everyone's time, since all you'll get are a flood of replies asking >for a >> source. > >And the evidence was supplied. Your attempt to engage in dishonest >debating by pretending never to have seen the evidence is a misuse of the >rules . . . all you need to do is operate under that pretense until your >opponent stops responding, and then you simply claim victory. > Thank you for clearing that up. We'd all forgotten that was your SOP. >That's playing games. I'm not here to play games. Oh yes. You are delusional and think you're the 'Last Bastion' of the Trek side. You think there's crushing evidence against SW, but it exists only in your mind. And, of course, you think this argument is so important as to /not/ be a game. Christ. This is a game, a hobby, and for me, a source of amusement. You take it more seriously? That's scary. What, do you think this will net you some great life advantage? Now, I will resume reading 'fics, waiting for STGOD stuff, and then go back to enjoying my vacation. Ta, cretin. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 12:22:53 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C2B66FD.4040702@mac.com> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > Well, damn. And here I was giving you credit for intelligence . . . but > off you go, trying to claim that Newton is an authority on gravitons and > other particles of quantum physics. Newton's laws of universal gravitation are, in no way, superceded by quantum physics. Gravity has not yet been quantized. The prevailing theory for explaining gravitational attraction is general relativity. -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:42:20 -0800 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote > "Durandal" wrote > > No, the fact that neutronium is found somewhere BUT a neutron star is > > the issue. Star Trek neutronium can't be the same as real world > > neutronium, either, because neutronium can't exist outside of the > > immense pressures of a neutron star. Neither can Star Wars neutronium. > > You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Star Wars neutronium can't > > be the same stuff as real life, neither can Star Trek's. > You're missing an important distinction. Star Trek neutronium, when found > outside a neutron star, is found in technologically advanced settings, > manufactured into doors, planet killers, Dyson Spheres, et cetera, with > who-knows-what technological underpinning allowing it to continue to exist > as neutronium (the graviton-based forcefield idea, though a reasonable > hypothesis, remains a hypothesis, and one of several possible hypotheses). > On the other hand, Star Wars neutronium is found outside of neutron stars in > altogether common places, such as just beneath the surface of moons, In one, remarkable instance. > with no explanation of its survival there, nor even the recognition that anything is > wrong. Hell, the very fact that there's neutronium present on the moon > ought to wreak havoc with the moon's structure, as well as make *it* that > about which the planet (and depending on the concentration, the star itself) > ought to revolve. > That's the difference. I think I know what you're getting for Christmas: a wheelchair. You'll need it after shooting yourself in the foot so much. Here's a hint: you can't compare a manufactured item to a non-manufactured item and draw a conclusion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:56:12 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:u2djigk5ifivd9@corp.supernews.com... > > "Guardian 2000" wrote > > > "Durandal" wrote > > > > No, the fact that neutronium is found somewhere BUT a neutron star is > > > the issue. Star Trek neutronium can't be the same as real world > > > neutronium, either, because neutronium can't exist outside of the > > > immense pressures of a neutron star. Neither can Star Wars neutronium. > > > You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Star Wars neutronium can't > > > be the same stuff as real life, neither can Star Trek's. > > > You're missing an important distinction. Star Trek neutronium, when > found > > outside a neutron star, is found in technologically advanced settings, > > manufactured into doors, planet killers, Dyson Spheres, et cetera, with > > who-knows-what technological underpinning allowing it to continue to exist > > as neutronium (the graviton-based forcefield idea, though a reasonable > > hypothesis, remains a hypothesis, and one of several possible hypotheses). > > > On the other hand, Star Wars neutronium is found outside of neutron stars > in > > altogether common places, such as just beneath the surface of moons, > > In one, remarkable instance. You've also provided the other piece of evidence, that being that Star Wars neutronium is a metallic element. That's not real neutronium. > > > with no explanation of its survival there, nor even the recognition that > anything is > > wrong. Hell, the very fact that there's neutronium present on the moon > > ought to wreak havoc with the moon's structure, as well as make *it* that > > about which the planet (and depending on the concentration, the star > itself) > > ought to revolve. > > > That's the difference. > > I think I know what you're getting for Christmas: a wheelchair. You'll need > it after shooting yourself in the foot so much. Here's a hint: you can't > compare a manufactured item to a non-manufactured item and draw a > conclusion. Why not? Star Trek neutronium is either naturally occurring in a neutron star, or exists in applications created by societies with extremely advanced technology. Star Wars neutronium is a naturally occurring metallic element found on moons. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 04:57:41 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C26B5F6.41059BDD@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until > it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and > cannot possibly be explained And that's been shown. Neither SW nor ST Neutronium have the same properties as RL Neutronium. http://members.home.net/strowbridge/ASVS/PTopics/PR35.html C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:40:39 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3C26B5F6.41059BDD@shaw.ca... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until > > it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and > > cannot possibly be explained > > And that's been shown. Neither SW nor ST Neutronium have the same > properties as RL Neutronium. > > http://members.home.net/strowbridge/ASVS/PTopics/PR35.html > > C.S.Strowbridge The arguments on your page have been shown false in this thread. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 06:36:23 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:40:39 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >> http://members.home.net/strowbridge/ASVS/PTopics/PR35.html >> >> C.S.Strowbridge > > >The arguments on your page have been shown false in this thread. In other words: False. Ad hominem detected. Deleted unread. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 07:28:08 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C26D93A.A247F181@shaw.ca> -------- Kynes wrote: > > "Guardian 2000" wrote: > >> http://members.home.net/strowbridge/ASVS/PTopics/PR35.html > > > >The arguments on your page have been shown false in this thread. > > In other words: > > False. Ad hominem detected. Deleted unread. Ad hominem? I don't think he ever spelt it right in his many years on usenet. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:56:48 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:S8wmPBvLbIkXzCkrgv4IhwbYZOue@4ax.com... > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:40:39 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > > >> http://members.home.net/strowbridge/ASVS/PTopics/PR35.html > >> > >> C.S.Strowbridge > > > > > >The arguments on your page have been shown false in this thread. > > In other words: > > False. Ad hominem detected. Deleted unread. Um, no. It meant that I have addressed and defeated each of his points on his webpage. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 09:17:16 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C26F2CF.98C41BBE@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "Kynes" wrote: > > In other words: > > > > False. Ad hominem detected. Deleted unread. > > Um, no. It meant that I have addressed and defeated each of his points > on his webpage. Have you read the TJ FAQ? If not, someone will supply you with a URL soon enough. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 04:02:57 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3C26F2CF.98C41BBE@shaw.ca... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "Kynes" wrote: > > > > In other words: > > > > > > False. Ad hominem detected. Deleted unread. > > > > Um, no. It meant that I have addressed and defeated each of his points > > on his webpage. > > Have you read the TJ FAQ? If not, someone will supply you with a URL > soon enough. Have you read this thread? Your webpage bullshit is torn apart all over it. Or how about the short version, my quote-of-the-week: SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 05:16:25 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C280B2B.BDFEDF7@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "Kynes" wrote: > > > > In other words: > > > > > > False. Ad hominem detected. Deleted unread. > > > > Um, no. It meant that I have addressed and defeated each of his points > > on his webpage. > > Have you read the TJ FAQ? If not, someone will supply you with a URL > soon enough. http://www.galactec.com/timothy/index.php3 Graeme Dice -- "You are 87% water; the other 13% keeps you from drowning." — P. E. Morris. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 07:14:52 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C26D61D.A7F3692D@shaw.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > The arguments on your page have been shown false in this thread. I see you're a believer in the, 'If you say it enough it will become true' school of debating. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 04:05:56 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3C26D61D.A7F3692D@shaw.ca... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > The arguments on your page have been shown false in this thread. > > I see you're a believer in the, 'If you say it enough it will become > true' school of debating. No, that's Wayne "Yeah, they can (synonym of turn), but they can't (synonym of turn)!" Poe and Ian "Is so real neutronium!" Samuels. Also any other Rabid Warsie Fuckwit who can't take truth for an answer and keeps repeating the same bullshit, though those two were the first to come to mind. Besides, what you quote and reply to above was said once. Then, since Ian failed to comprehend what I'd said, I said it a second time. How the fuck is that repeating something over and over and over again, a la the Rabid Warsie Repetitive Fuckwits? G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 06:36:23 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 04:57:41 GMT, "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >http://members.home.net/strowbridge/ASVS/PTopics/PR35.html Hey, when did you do this? Stop eclipsing my work. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 07:27:06 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C26D8FC.453D32A3@shaw.ca> -------- Kynes wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > >http://members.home.net/strowbridge/ASVS/PTopics/PR35.html > > Hey, when did you do this? > > Stop eclipsing my work. Didn't I e-mail you about that? C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 07:45:22 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <8dwmPOhDkfaXaUdAkgqXewQRBZC6@4ax.com> -------- On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 07:27:06 GMT, "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >> >http://members.home.net/strowbridge/ASVS/PTopics/PR35.html >> >> Hey, when did you do this? >> >> Stop eclipsing my work. > >Didn't I e-mail you about that? Probably. :) Oh well. Nice writeup. I think I'll steal it. BTW, for anyone reading this, the Rules are now totally up-to-date, except where they're not. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 09:09:36 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C26F102.EAB3FB43@shaw.ca> -------- Kynes wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > >> >http://members.home.net/strowbridge/ASVS/PTopics/PR35.html > >> > >> Hey, when did you do this? > >> > >> Stop eclipsing my work. > > > >Didn't I e-mail you about that? > > Probably. :) Oh well. Nice writeup. I think I'll steal it. BTW, for > anyone reading this, the Rules are now totally up-to-date, except where > they're not. For anyone not reading this, my web site has been updated no less than 6 times on my hard drive. I swear on all that is holy that I will update my web site before hell freezes over, or thaws out if it's normally really, really cold. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:43:21 -0000 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- Today's news is brought to you by the number 7, and the letter from His Divine Shadow {PHX} > I've heard plenty of times people saying that SW neutronium exists in moons > and has a > reddish color. SW neutronium was found in a vein of reddish material on a moon according to Cracken's Field Guide (IIRC - search for posts from Rvalencia to this newsgroup last year for the full qoute). Beyond the fact that it is used in starship's armour this is the only reference we have to SW neutronium. We have no knowledge of its natural physical properties. Some people (most often Kynes, though SirNitram has started doing the same) will often try to pass off false information, but it's been pointed out before that he is engaged in circular reasoning. K>SW neutronium: K> K>-> Comes from neutron stars ("Rebel Dawn") K>-> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn K>-> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor The first point (Comes from neutron stars - reference Rebel Dawn) points to the fact that Rebel Dawn has two ships flying close to a neutron star. This material is never described as neutronium in the source, and is merely assumed to be such. In the context of the discussion the above quote is taken from this is, in actual fact, circular reasoning. Guardian questions whether SW neutronium was the real thing, and Kynes' first piece of evidence included the assumption that SW neutronium is the real thing. However, once you think about it a little you will realise the discussion is largely irrelevant. SW neutronium alloys are shown to have specific thermal and mechanical properties. If ST weaponry can be demonstrated to have greater thermal and mechanical effects than those properties ST weaponry WILL be effective against SW neutronium alloys (unless you want to start throwing every basis for scientific comparison out the window) -- Lord Edam de Fromage aka Sorborus www.trek-wars.co.uk Expect arguments about what the words mean since when people discuss the meaning of words instead of simply using them they generally forget about context and duplication. -- C. Fiterman, aam ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 23 Dec 2001 22:44:00 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011223174400.01481.00001011@mb-ch.aol.com> -------- >Beyond the fact that it is used in starship's armour this is the only >reference we have to SW neutronium. Flip through Vector Prime, it's got a reference there that is roughly the same as 'What am I, built like a Sherman Tank?' proving Neutronium is a common enough armour substance to enter casual language... Of course, Edam and Guardian ignore this... ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:54:43 -0000 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- Today's news is brought to you by the number 7, and the letter from Sir Nitram > >Beyond the fact that it is used in starship's armour this is the only > >reference we have to SW neutronium. > > Flip through Vector Prime, it's got a reference there that is roughly the same > as 'What am I, built like a Sherman Tank?' proving Neutronium is a common > enough armour substance to enter casual language... Of course, Edam and > Guardian ignore this... As anyone who read my posts for comprehension rather than an excuse to show their stupidity could see, I already accept that SW uses a material called neutronium in its armour. Infact, I admit as much in the part quoted above. This doesn't change the fact that the only references we have to SW neutronium is its use in armour, and its existance on a moon. This doesn't change the fact that we know nothing of the natural physical properties of SW neutronium. This doesn't change the fact that the only way to prove SW neutronium is The Real Thing is to engage in a classic example of circular reasoning. -- Lord Edam de Fromage aka Sorborus www.trek-wars.co.uk Expect arguments about what the words mean since when people discuss the meaning of words instead of simply using them they generally forget about context and duplication. -- C. Fiterman, aam ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 19:55:32 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011223174400.01481.00001011@mb-ch.aol.com... > >Beyond the fact that it is used in starship's armour this is the only > >reference we have to SW neutronium. > > Flip through Vector Prime, it's got a reference there that is roughly the same > as 'What am I, built like a Sherman Tank?' proving Neutronium is a common > enough armour substance to enter casual language... Of course, Edam and > Guardian ignore this... > ------------------------------------ Well, whooptee-doo . . . it's common enough to enter casual language! Hell's bells, Trekkers, close up shop! Sir Nitram has demonstrated beyond a doubt that SW neutronium is real neutronium straight from a neutron star to a theatre near you! G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 24 Dec 2001 02:54:08 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011223215408.07215.00002420@mb-dh.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011223174400.01481.00001011@mb-ch.aol.com... >> >Beyond the fact that it is used in starship's armour this is the only >> >reference we have to SW neutronium. >> >> Flip through Vector Prime, it's got a reference there that is roughly the >same >> as 'What am I, built like a Sherman Tank?' proving Neutronium is a common >> enough armour substance to enter casual language... Of course, Edam and >> Guardian ignore this... >> ------------------------------------ > >Well, whooptee-doo . . . it's common enough to enter casual language! >Hell's bells, >Trekkers, close up shop! Sir Nitram has demonstrated beyond a doubt that >SW >neutronium is real neutronium straight from a neutron star to a theatre near >you! > Pretty much. The neutronium cache could easily be from a crashed starship. Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those. You've shown no proof, except for dodges where you give Trek massively more leeway, showing your obvious bias. So yes, there is neutronium in Wars hulls, and it's the same thing as the stuff that stops Fed weapons. Will it be enough to stop all damage? Doubt it, it's probably only a monomolelcular layer to cause NDF-style weapons to be ineffective. Oh well, Trek always has to depend on Torps for heavy hitting power anyways. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:47:24 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011223215408.07215.00002420@mb-dh.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20011223174400.01481.00001011@mb-ch.aol.com... > >> >Beyond the fact that it is used in starship's armour this is the only > >> >reference we have to SW neutronium. > >> > >> Flip through Vector Prime, it's got a reference there that is roughly the > >same > >> as 'What am I, built like a Sherman Tank?' proving Neutronium is a common > >> enough armour substance to enter casual language... Of course, Edam and > >> Guardian ignore this... > >> ------------------------------------ > > > >Well, whooptee-doo . . . it's common enough to enter casual language! > >Hell's bells, > >Trekkers, close up shop! Sir Nitram has demonstrated beyond a doubt that > >SW > >neutronium is real neutronium straight from a neutron star to a theatre near > >you! > > > > Pretty much. The neutronium cache could easily be from a crashed starship. A crashed starship would no longer generate the fields necessary to contain the neutronium, if it were real. A crashed starship would not have broken up in the first place if it had a pure (or even impure) hull made of real neutronium. > Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those. No, SW neutronium comes from moons. > You've shown > no proof, except for dodges where you give Trek massively more leeway, showing > your obvious bias. I'd happily give Star Wars the very same amount of leeway, but for the fact that its neutronium comes from moons, and is therefore not true neutronium. > So yes, there is neutronium in Wars hulls, and it's the same > thing as the stuff that stops Fed weapons. I await your proof of this notion. > Will it be enough to stop all > damage? Doubt it, it's probably only a monomolelcular layer to cause NDF-style > weapons to be ineffective. Solid neutronium, neutronium-based alloys (i.e. neutronium is a primary constituent), and carbon-neutronium alloy (where we may assume that they are the only constituents, meaning that neutronium makes up a significant fraction of the alloy) have been stated as stopping phasers. Whatever paltry amount is in ISD hulls might be enough to give the hull a little resilience, but only in those few areas where there'd be any neutronium. Since everything around the rare little bits of neutronium would be boiled or blown away, it would hardly do any good. > Oh well, Trek always has to depend on Torps for heavy hitting power anyways. Oh, yes, and statements by Weyoun have indicated that quantum torpedoes may be able to damage neutronium structures. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:31:03 -0800 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote > "Sir Nitram" wrote > > Pretty much. The neutronium cache could easily be from a crashed starship. > A crashed starship would no longer generate the fields necessary to contain > the neutronium, if it were real. A crashed starship would not have broken > up in the first place if it had a pure (or even impure) hull made of real > neutronium. Why not? The PK in "Doomsday Machine" was dead in space, no power at the end, yet the Enterprise didn't suddenly mash itself against its hull. > > Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those. > > No, SW neutronium comes from moons. Proof? > > You've shown no proof, except for dodges where you give Trek massively more leeway, > > showing your obvious bias. > I'd happily give Star Wars the very same amount of leeway, but for the fact > that its neutronium comes from moons, and is therefore not true neutronium. Proof? > > So yes, there is neutronium in Wars hulls, and it's the same thing as the stuff that stops Fed weapons. > I await your proof of this notion. Sorry, you'll have to prove your assumption above. > > Will it be enough to stop all damage? Doubt it, it's probably only a monomolelcular layer to cause > NDF-style weapons to be ineffective. > Solid neutronium, neutronium-based alloys (i.e. neutronium is a primary > constituent), and carbon-neutronium alloy (where we may assume that they are > the only constituents, meaning that neutronium makes up a significant > fraction of the alloy) have been stated as stopping phasers. > Whatever paltry amount is in ISD hulls might be enough to give the hull a > little resilience, Which is what Sir Nitram said above. > but only in those few areas where there'd be any > neutronium. Those *few* areas? Neutronium is a heavy metallic element used in the formation of dura-armor and durasteel. (SWSB, RD) > Since everything around the rare little bits of neutronium > would be boiled or blown away, it would hardly do any good. Since that "everything" comprises the entire hull of the ship, I doubt that will be a problem. > > Oh well, Trek always has to depend on Torps for heavy hitting power > anyways. > Oh, yes, and statements by Weyoun have indicated that quantum torpedoes may > be able to damage neutronium structures. Not what he said. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 02:04:50 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:u2ditarbgtud6a@corp.supernews.com... > > "Guardian 2000" wrote > > > "Sir Nitram" wrote > > > > Pretty much. The neutronium cache could easily be from a crashed > starship. > > > A crashed starship would no longer generate the fields necessary to > contain > > the neutronium, if it were real. A crashed starship would not have > broken > > up in the first place if it had a pure (or even impure) hull made of real > > neutronium. > > Why not? The PK in "Doomsday Machine" was dead in space, no power at the > end, yet the Enterprise didn't suddenly mash itself against its hull. Why would it? The Enterprise was within transporter range, not right on top of the thing. Further, without some knowledge of the field dissipation rate of the neutronium containment system of the planet killer, there's no need to assume that the effect would have been instantaneous. > > > Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those. > > > > No, SW neutronium comes from moons. > > Proof? You've got to be kidding me. You're the one that posted it! Further, it's a metallic element, which real neutronium is not. > > > > You've shown no proof, except for dodges where you give Trek massively > more leeway, > > > showing your obvious bias. > > > I'd happily give Star Wars the very same amount of leeway, but for the > fact > > that its neutronium comes from moons, and is therefore not true > neutronium. > > Proof? Logic, physics, and an understanding of the English language. SW neutronium sits happily as an ore within the fourth(!) moon of a planet. It is a metallic element. Real neutronium only sits happily as the core of a neutron star. It is neither a metal nor an element. A does not equal not-A. > > > > So yes, there is neutronium in Wars hulls, and it's the same thing as > the stuff that stops Fed weapons. > > > I await your proof of this notion. > > Sorry, you'll have to prove your assumption above. Been there, done that. > > > Will it be enough to stop all damage? Doubt it, it's probably only a > monomolelcular layer to cause > > NDF-style weapons to be ineffective. > > > Solid neutronium, neutronium-based alloys (i.e. neutronium is a primary > > constituent), and carbon-neutronium alloy (where we may assume that they > are > > the only constituents, meaning that neutronium makes up a significant > > fraction of the alloy) have been stated as stopping phasers. > > > Whatever paltry amount is in ISD hulls might be enough to give the hull a > > little resilience, > > Which is what Sir Nitram said above. > > > but only in those few areas where there'd be any > > neutronium. > > Those *few* areas? Neutronium is a heavy metallic element used in the > formation of dura-armor and durasteel. (SWSB, RD) Ah, then there's no misunderstanding. SW neutronium isn't real neutronium, for SW neutronium is a heavy metallic element. > > > Since everything around the rare little bits of neutronium > > would be boiled or blown away, it would hardly do any good. > > Since that "everything" comprises the entire hull of the ship, I doubt that > will be a problem. True, the merciful Federation captain would probably stop before boiling away the entire hull. After all, that would just be rude. > > > > Oh well, Trek always has to depend on Torps for heavy hitting power > > anyways. > > > Oh, yes, and statements by Weyoun have indicated that quantum torpedoes > may > > be able to damage neutronium structures. > > Not what he said. If I cannot assure your death by hitting you with a car, does it not follow that it is likely that hitting you with a car will still do damage? G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lurker" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 17:49:18 -0000 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > Why not? The PK in "Doomsday Machine" was dead in space, no power at the > > end, yet the Enterprise didn't suddenly mash itself against its hull. > > Why would it? The Enterprise was within transporter range, not right on > top of the thing. Further, without some knowledge of the field dissipation > rate of the neutronium containment system of the planet killer, there's no > need to assume that the effect would have been instantaneous. Neutronium is only stable under extreme gravitational pressures, and is never found in a mass less than approximately that of the Sun; it explosively decays back into protons and electrons if the pressure is reduced. --- I'm stuck in this pit; working for less than slave wages, working on my day off. The goddamn steel shutters are closed, I deal with every backwards-arsed fuck on the planet, I smell like shoe polish, my ex-girlfriend is catatonic after fucking a dead guy and my present girlfriend has sucked 36 dicks!.... My lifes in the shitter right now and if you don't mind I'd like to stew a bit. - Dante Hicks ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:57:29 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Lurker" wrote in message news:iRJV7.36402$4z5.4757879@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > > > > > Why not? The PK in "Doomsday Machine" was dead in space, no power at the > > > end, yet the Enterprise didn't suddenly mash itself against its hull. > > > > Why would it? The Enterprise was within transporter range, not right on > > top of the thing. Further, without some knowledge of the field dissipation > > rate of the neutronium containment system of the planet killer, there's no > > need to assume that the effect would have been instantaneous. > > Neutronium is only stable under extreme gravitational pressures, and is never found in a > mass less than approximately that of the Sun; it explosively decays back into protons and > electrons if the pressure is reduced. Ahem . . . "without some knowledge of the field dissipation rate of the neutronium containment system of the planet killer, there's no need to assume that the effect would have been instantaneous". That means, in case the plain statement wasn't sufficiently obvious, that the neutronium containment field need not have dissipated instantly, and therefore the neutronium need not have dissipated instantly. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 05:58:16 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:a07u02$jc1j2$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > "Lurker" wrote in message > news:iRJV7.36402$4z5.4757879@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... > > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > > > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > Why not? The PK in "Doomsday Machine" was dead in space, no power at > the > > > > end, yet the Enterprise didn't suddenly mash itself against its hull. > > > > > > Why would it? The Enterprise was within transporter range, not right > on > > > top of the thing. Further, without some knowledge of the field > dissipation > > > rate of the neutronium containment system of the planet killer, there's > no > > > need to assume that the effect would have been instantaneous. > > > > Neutronium is only stable under extreme gravitational pressures, and is > never found in a > > mass less than approximately that of the Sun; it explosively decays back > into protons and > > electrons if the pressure is reduced. > > Ahem . . . "without some knowledge of the field dissipation rate of the > neutronium containment system of the planet killer, there's no need to > assume that the effect would have been instantaneous". > > That means, in case the plain statement wasn't sufficiently obvious, that > the neutronium containment field need not have dissipated instantly, and > therefore the neutronium need not have dissipated instantly. > Prove they have a containmetn system without relying on the assumption that ST neutronium is the real thing. You haven't shown this yet you parade about as if you have. Once more PROVE (show evidence) that there is a containment system WITHOUT (do not use) the assumtion that ST naeutrionium is the real thing. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R USMCR Bridge Company A, 6th EngnrSptBN, 4th FSSG "There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion." -Unknown ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 23:26:56 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:YzUV7.27589$fo.4888047@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > news:a07u02$jc1j2$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Lurker" wrote in message > > news:iRJV7.36402$4z5.4757879@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... > > > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > > > > > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not? The PK in "Doomsday Machine" was dead in space, no power at > > the > > > > > end, yet the Enterprise didn't suddenly mash itself against its > hull. > > > > > > > > Why would it? The Enterprise was within transporter range, not right > > on > > > > top of the thing. Further, without some knowledge of the field > > dissipation > > > > rate of the neutronium containment system of the planet killer, > there's > > no > > > > need to assume that the effect would have been instantaneous. > > > > > > Neutronium is only stable under extreme gravitational pressures, and is > > never found in a > > > mass less than approximately that of the Sun; it explosively decays back > > into protons and > > > electrons if the pressure is reduced. > > > > Ahem . . . "without some knowledge of the field dissipation rate of the > > neutronium containment system of the planet killer, there's no need to > > assume that the effect would have been instantaneous". > > > > That means, in case the plain statement wasn't sufficiently obvious, that > > the neutronium containment field need not have dissipated instantly, and > > therefore the neutronium need not have dissipated instantly. > > > > Prove they have a containmetn system without relying on the assumption that > ST neutronium is the real thing. You haven't shown this yet you parade about > as if you have. Star Trek neutronium is an ultra-dense, ultra-strong material, found naturally in neutron stars, which decays rapidly when outside a neutron star. It is not an assumption to believe that this is exactly similar to real-life neutronium. The exception to the decay is when neutronium has been manufactured into something by an advanced civilization, such as the builders of the Dyson Sphere, the builders of the Doomsday Machine, the Iconians, and the Dominion or whoever built two of their doors. As these objects have not been shown to be wrapped in extraordinarily powerful gravity fields that pull all nearby objects into the objects, and as neutronium's natural density and pressure requirements would, if not created by the powerful gravity fields, be created by whatever was keeping the neutronium intact, I postulate that a neutronium containment system is in place which both keeps the neutronium neutronium and nullifies the deadly gravity to keep neutronium as something worth building with. Having demonstrated that the advanced civilizations which use neutronium as a construction material and which are more advanced than the Federation could use concepts known to Federation science to contain the neutronium, I have posited neutronium containment systems along those lines, though my hypothesis about the technology behind the neutronium containment systems may be in error . . . it could be other things entirely. I do not see why you are unable to grasp this thought process. > Once more PROVE (show evidence) that there is a containment system WITHOUT > (do not use) the assumtion that ST naeutrionium is the real thing. I don't know what ST "naeutrionium" is, but I know what neutronium is in Star Trek. It is not an assumption . . . it is a conclusion based on the perfect union between the Star Trek definition of neutronium and the real-world definition of neutronium. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 21:00:25 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Tue, 25 Dec 2001 23:26:56 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >Star Trek neutronium is an ultra-dense, ultra-strong material, found >naturally in neutron stars, which decays rapidly when outside a neutron >star. It is not an assumption to believe that this is exactly similar to >real-life neutronium. Everyone, any time Scottie starts spewing this shit, feel free to simply repeat the following: STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lurker" Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 22:20:08 -0000 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Kynes" wrote: > "Guardian 2000" wrote: > > >Star Trek neutronium is an ultra-dense, ultra-strong material, found > >naturally in neutron stars, which decays rapidly when outside a neutron > >star. It is not an assumption to believe that this is exactly similar to > >real-life neutronium. > > Everyone, any time Scottie starts spewing this shit, feel free to simply repeat > the following: > > STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which > can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. > -- > -LK! STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. --- I'm stuck in this pit; working for less than slave wages, working on my day off. The goddamn steel shutters are closed, I deal with every backwards-arsed fuck on the planet, I smell like shoe polish, my ex-girlfriend is catatonic after fucking a dead guy and my present girlfriend has sucked 36 dicks!.... My lifes in the shitter right now and if you don't mind I'd like to stew a bit. - Dante Hicks ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 00:47:53 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 22:20:08 -0000, "Lurker" wrote: >> >Star Trek neutronium is an ultra-dense, ultra-strong material, found >> >naturally in neutron stars, which decays rapidly when outside a neutron >> >star. It is not an assumption to believe that this is exactly similar to >> >real-life neutronium. >> >> Everyone, any time Scottie starts spewing this shit, feel free to simply repeat >> the following: >> >> STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which >> can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. >> -- >> -LK! > >STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which >can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. See? Isn't it relaxing? Fun almost. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lurker" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 02:05:14 -0000 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Kynes" wrote in message > "Lurker" wrote: > > >> >Star Trek neutronium is an ultra-dense, ultra-strong material, found > >> >naturally in neutron stars, which decays rapidly when outside a neutron > >> >star. It is not an assumption to believe that this is exactly similar to > >> >real-life neutronium. > >> > >> Everyone, any time Scottie starts spewing this shit, feel free to simply repeat > >> the following: > >> > >> STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which > >> can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. > >> -- > >> -LK! > > > >STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which > >can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. > > See? Isn't it relaxing? Fun almost. It sure is :) --- I'm stuck in this pit; working for less than slave wages, working on my day off. The goddamn steel shutters are closed, I deal with every backwards-arsed fuck on the planet, I smell like shoe polish, my ex-girlfriend is catatonic after fucking a dead guy and my present girlfriend has sucked 36 dicks!.... My lifes in the shitter right now and if you don't mind I'd like to stew a bit. - Dante Hicks ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 27 Dec 2001 02:17:33 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011226211733.25721.00003208@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >"Kynes" wrote in message > >> "Lurker" wrote: >> >> >> >Star Trek neutronium is an ultra-dense, ultra-strong material, found >> >> >naturally in neutron stars, which decays rapidly when outside a neutron >> >> >star. It is not an assumption to believe that this is exactly >similar to >> >> >real-life neutronium. >> >> >> >> Everyone, any time Scottie starts spewing this shit, feel free to simply >repeat >> >> the following: >> >> >> >> STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, >which >> >> can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. >> >> -- >> >> -LK! >> > >> >STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, >which >> >can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. >> >> See? Isn't it relaxing? Fun almost. > >It sure is :) > There's definate theraputic value in it. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 19:32:17 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Lurker" wrote in message news:a%rW7.42998$US4.6985882@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com... > "Kynes" wrote: > > > "Guardian 2000" wrote: > > > > >Star Trek neutronium is an ultra-dense, ultra-strong material, found > > >naturally in neutron stars, which decays rapidly when outside a neutron > > >star. It is not an assumption to believe that this is exactly similar to > > >real-life neutronium. > > > > Everyone, any time Scottie starts spewing this shit, feel free to simply repeat > > the following: > > > > STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which > > can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. > > -- > > -LK! > > STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which > can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. Star Wars neutronium is nothing more than a metallic element which one can find in veins on a moon. Star Trek neutronium is an ultra-dense, ultra-strong material, found naturally in neutron stars, which decays rapidly when outside a neutron star. It is not an assumption to believe that this is exactly similar to real-life neutronium. The exception to the decay is when neutronium has been manufactured into something by an advanced civilization, such as the builders of the Dyson Sphere, the builders of the Doomsday Machine, the Iconians, and the Dominion or whoever built two of their doors. As these objects have not been shown to be wrapped in extraordinarily powerful gravity fields that pull all nearby objects into the objects, and as neutronium's natural density and pressure requirements would, if not created by the powerful gravity fields, be created by whatever was keeping the neutronium intact, I postulate that a neutronium containment system is in place which both keeps the neutronium neutronium and nullifies the deadly gravity to keep neutronium as something worth building with. Having demonstrated that the advanced civilizations which use neutronium as a construction material and which are more advanced than the Federation could use concepts known to Federation science to contain the neutronium, I have posited neutronium containment systems along those lines, though my hypothesis about the technology behind the neutronium containment systems may be in error . . . it could be other things entirely. I do not see why you are unable to grasp this thought process. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lurker" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 02:17:40 -0000 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > I do not see why you are unable to grasp this thought process. I think your theory is fundamentally flawed. I'm no good at maths but I urge someone to work out how much energy it would take to put a containment field around the doorway to keep the neutroniums shape whilst simultainiously dampening the effects of such a gravity fields. My guess is astronomical, how about connecting 10 Death Star hypermatter reactors together in series. I don't think any culture in the ST galaxy has demonstrated that sort of power generating ability AFAIK. --- I'm stuck in this pit; working for less than slave wages, working on my day off. The goddamn steel shutters are closed, I deal with every backwards-arsed fuck on the planet, I smell like shoe polish, my ex-girlfriend is catatonic after fucking a dead guy and my present girlfriend has sucked 36 dicks!.... My lifes in the shitter right now and if you don't mind I'd like to stew a bit. - Dante Hicks ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 21:49:23 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C2A9A43.8070901@mac.com> -------- Lurker wrote: > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > >>I do not see why you are unable to grasp this thought process. >> > > I think your theory is fundamentally flawed. > I'm no good at maths but I urge someone to work out how much energy it would take to put a > containment field around the doorway to keep the neutroniums shape whilst simultainiously > dampening the effects of such a gravity fields. Energy density of a neutron star multiplied by the volume of the doorway. -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 08:00:26 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C2AD571.DD10249D@shaw.ca> -------- Lurked wrote: > I don't think any culture in the ST galaxy has demonstrated that sort of > power generating ability AFAIK. Certainly not the Cardassians. And, IIRC, they had a neutronium door as well. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 03:39:05 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 19:32:17 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >The exception to the decay is when neutronium has been manufactured into >something by an advanced civilization, such as the builders of the Dyson >Sphere, the builders of the Doomsday Machine, the Iconians, and the Dominion >or whoever built two of their doors. Fellas, for this followup he seems to have saved to disk for easy cut-and-paste, I recommend two shots of rum (nothing else can get you through Scott's drivel, trust me) and the following: The Iconians, while they may have been advanced, were not spacefaring; they were destroyed by a race that was and needed gateways to get around, not ships. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 27 Dec 2001 03:41:23 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011226224123.05612.00002642@mb-fo.aol.com> -------- >On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 19:32:17 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > >>The exception to the decay is when neutronium has been manufactured into >>something by an advanced civilization, such as the builders of the Dyson >>Sphere, the builders of the Doomsday Machine, the Iconians, and the Dominion >>or whoever built two of their doors. > >Fellas, for this followup he seems to have saved to disk for easy >cut-and-paste, >I recommend two shots of rum (nothing else can get you through Scott's >drivel, >trust me) and the following: > I'm starting to think we need to institute a two drink minimum around here. >The Iconians, while they may have been advanced, were not spacefaring; they >were >destroyed by a race that was and needed gateways to get around, not ships. 'Wah, they had to be warp-capable! They had to!' ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lurker" Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 22:35:01 -0000 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <7dsW7.43039$US4.6997236@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message > > Everyone, any time Scottie starts spewing this shit, feel free to simply repeat > the following: > > STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which > can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. Hey Kynes, is it true that the Iconians were bombed into extinction from space and that the only form of space travel they possessed was sub-light probes. STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. --- I'm stuck in this pit; working for less than slave wages, working on my day off. The goddamn steel shutters are closed, I deal with every backwards-arsed fuck on the planet, I smell like shoe polish, my ex-girlfriend is catatonic after fucking a dead guy and my present girlfriend has sucked 36 dicks!.... My lifes in the shitter right now and if you don't mind I'd like to stew a bit. - Dante Hicks ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 00:54:23 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 22:35:01 -0000, "Lurker" wrote: >> Everyone, any time Scottie starts spewing this shit, feel free to simply repeat >> the following: >> >> STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which >> can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. > >Hey Kynes, is it true that the Iconians were bombed into extinction from space and that >the only form of space travel they possessed was sub-light probes. Why, yes. I had forgotten about that. >STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which >can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. That is also true! -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lurker" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 02:05:18 -0000 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Kynes" wrote in message > "Lurker" wrote: > > >> Everyone, any time Scottie starts spewing this shit, feel free to simply repeat > >> the following: > >> > >> STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which > >> can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. > > > >Hey Kynes, is it true that the Iconians were bombed into extinction from space and that > >the only form of space travel they possessed was sub-light probes. > > Why, yes. I had forgotten about that. Thought so. > >STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which > >can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. > > That is also true! Knew it was! --- I'm stuck in this pit; working for less than slave wages, working on my day off. The goddamn steel shutters are closed, I deal with every backwards-arsed fuck on the planet, I smell like shoe polish, my ex-girlfriend is catatonic after fucking a dead guy and my present girlfriend has sucked 36 dicks!.... My lifes in the shitter right now and if you don't mind I'd like to stew a bit. - Dante Hicks > -LK! > [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] > > "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. > I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts > of the Star Wars series." > > - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 19:32:41 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Lurker" wrote in message news:7dsW7.43039$US4.6997236@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com... > "Kynes" wrote in message > > > > Everyone, any time Scottie starts spewing this shit, feel free to simply repeat > > the following: > > > > STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which > > can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. > > Hey Kynes, is it true that the Iconians were bombed into extinction from space and that > the only form of space travel they possessed was sub-light probes. > > STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which > can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. Star Wars neutronium is nothing more than a metallic element which one can find in veins on a moon. Star Trek neutronium is an ultra-dense, ultra-strong material, found naturally in neutron stars, which decays rapidly when outside a neutron star. It is not an assumption to believe that this is exactly similar to real-life neutronium. The exception to the decay is when neutronium has been manufactured into something by an advanced civilization, such as the builders of the Dyson Sphere, the builders of the Doomsday Machine, the Iconians, and the Dominion or whoever built two of their doors. As these objects have not been shown to be wrapped in extraordinarily powerful gravity fields that pull all nearby objects into the objects, and as neutronium's natural density and pressure requirements would, if not created by the powerful gravity fields, be created by whatever was keeping the neutronium intact, I postulate that a neutronium containment system is in place which both keeps the neutronium neutronium and nullifies the deadly gravity to keep neutronium as something worth building with. Having demonstrated that the advanced civilizations which use neutronium as a construction material and which are more advanced than the Federation could use concepts known to Federation science to contain the neutronium, I have posited neutronium containment systems along those lines, though my hypothesis about the technology behind the neutronium containment systems may be in error . . . it could be other things entirely. I do not see why you are unable to grasp this thought process. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lurker" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 02:20:36 -0000 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- > > Hey Kynes, is it true that the Iconians were bombed into extinction from > space and that > > the only form of space travel they possessed was sub-light probes. > > > > STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, > which > > can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 01:35:18 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Lurker" wrote in message news:BwvW7.43679$US4.7167325@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com... > Hey, shithead, tell ya what . . . you stop sucking Ian's cock, and let's both stop wasting bandwidth. I know the Rabid Warsies do nothing but waste bandwidth by repeating their bullshit over and over again no matter what is said that totally defeats it, but I think we can all do without you demonstrating that fact. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 09:53:07 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 01:35:18 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > >"Lurker" wrote in message >news:BwvW7.43679$US4.7167325@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com... >> > >Hey, shithead, tell ya what . . . you stop sucking Ian's cock, and let's >both stop wasting bandwidth. I know the Rabid Warsies do nothing but waste >bandwidth by repeating their bullshit over and over again no matter what is >said that totally defeats it, but I think we can all do without you >demonstrating that fact. Hey Scott, ever since you've "killfilled" me, you've mentioned me and my penis at least ten times an hour. Did you suddenly see my webpage and the girlfriend thereon, thus busting your fantasies up to a degree that you had to pretend I didn't even exist? Let it out; let it all out. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 23:07:25 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:a0bn32$jrc2g$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:YzUV7.27589$fo.4888047@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... > > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > news:a07u02$jc1j2$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "Lurker" wrote in message > > > news:iRJV7.36402$4z5.4757879@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... > > > > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not? The PK in "Doomsday Machine" was dead in space, no power > at > > > the > > > > > > end, yet the Enterprise didn't suddenly mash itself against its > > hull. > > > > > > > > > > Why would it? The Enterprise was within transporter range, not > right > > > on > > > > > top of the thing. Further, without some knowledge of the field > > > dissipation > > > > > rate of the neutronium containment system of the planet killer, > > there's > > > no > > > > > need to assume that the effect would have been instantaneous. > > > > > > > > Neutronium is only stable under extreme gravitational pressures, and > is > > > never found in a > > > > mass less than approximately that of the Sun; it explosively decays > back > > > into protons and > > > > electrons if the pressure is reduced. > > > > > > Ahem . . . "without some knowledge of the field dissipation rate of the > > > neutronium containment system of the planet killer, there's no need to > > > assume that the effect would have been instantaneous". > > > > > > That means, in case the plain statement wasn't sufficiently obvious, > that > > > the neutronium containment field need not have dissipated instantly, and > > > therefore the neutronium need not have dissipated instantly. > > > > > > > Prove they have a containmetn system without relying on the assumption > that > > ST neutronium is the real thing. You haven't shown this yet you parade > about > > as if you have. > > Star Trek neutronium is an ultra-dense, ultra-strong material, found > naturally in neutron stars, which decays rapidly when outside a neutron > star. It is not an assumption to believe that this is exactly similar to > real-life neutronium. Yes it is because you have provided ZERO proof. You have created a double assumption circular argument that supports itself: 1) ST neutronium is the real thing 2) Therefore they must have some tech to stave off decay and adverse effects 3) Because they have this tech we can conclude that ST neutronium is the real thing. All along you have run around in this little circle without ever providing independent proof. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R USMCR Bridge Company A, 6th EngnrSptBN, 4th FSSG "There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion." -Unknown ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 19:35:05 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:NKsW7.29726$fo.6484726@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... > > > Prove they have a containmetn system without relying on the assumption > > that > > > ST neutronium is the real thing. You haven't shown this yet you parade > > about > > > as if you have. > > > > Star Trek neutronium is an ultra-dense, ultra-strong material, found > > naturally in neutron stars, which decays rapidly when outside a neutron > > star. It is not an assumption to believe that this is exactly similar > to > > real-life neutronium. > > Yes it is because you have provided ZERO proof. Um, no, I just did dumbass. > You have created a double > assumption circular argument that supports itself: > 1) ST neutronium is the real thing As demonstrated by how it shares exactly the same qualities. > 2) Therefore they must have some tech to stave off decay and adverse effects Since, as proven, ST neutronium is the real thing. > 3) Because they have this tech we can conclude that ST neutronium is the > real thing. No, the tech is not a premise. > > All along you have run around in this little circle without ever providing > independent proof. Your inability to comprehend an argument using reason is not my problem. Star Wars neutronium is nothing more than a metallic element which one can find in veins on a moon. Star Trek neutronium is an ultra-dense, ultra-strong material, found naturally in neutron stars, which decays rapidly when outside a neutron star. It is not an assumption to believe that this is exactly similar to real-life neutronium. The exception to the decay is when neutronium has been manufactured into something by an advanced civilization, such as the builders of the Dyson Sphere, the builders of the Doomsday Machine, the Iconians, and the Dominion or whoever built two of their doors. As these objects have not been shown to be wrapped in extraordinarily powerful gravity fields that pull all nearby objects into the objects, and as neutronium's natural density and pressure requirements would, if not created by the powerful gravity fields, be created by whatever was keeping the neutronium intact, I postulate that a neutronium containment system is in place which both keeps the neutronium neutronium and nullifies the deadly gravity to keep neutronium as something worth building with. Having demonstrated that the advanced civilizations which use neutronium as a construction material and which are more advanced than the Federation could use concepts known to Federation science to contain the neutronium, I have posited neutronium containment systems along those lines, though my hypothesis about the technology behind the neutronium containment systems may be in error . . . it could be other things entirely. I do not see why you are unable to grasp this thought process. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 03:51:50 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:a0dts8$kbnog$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:NKsW7.29726$fo.6484726@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... > > > > > Prove they have a containmetn system without relying on the assumption > > > that > > > > ST neutronium is the real thing. You haven't shown this yet you parade > > > about > > > > as if you have. > > > > > > Star Trek neutronium is an ultra-dense, ultra-strong material, found > > > naturally in neutron stars, which decays rapidly when outside a neutron > > > star. It is not an assumption to believe that this is exactly similar > > to > > > real-life neutronium. > > > > Yes it is because you have provided ZERO proof. > > Um, no, I just did dumbass. > > > You have created a double > > assumption circular argument that supports itself: > > 1) ST neutronium is the real thing > > As demonstrated by how it shares exactly the same qualities. > You have NEVER demonstrated this. > > 2) Therefore they must have some tech to stave off decay and adverse > effects > > Since, as proven, ST neutronium is the real thing. Again you have no proof > > 3) Because they have this tech we can conclude that ST neutronium is the > > real thing. > > No, the tech is not a premise. > It is the ONLY proof you have submitted. Show me your proof that ST neutronium is the same as the real thing and I will publicly bow before you on the Ides of March if I can't refute it in three posts. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R USMCR Bridge Company A, 6th EngnrSptBN, 4th FSSG "There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion." -Unknown ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kazuaki Shimazaki Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 12:42:04 +0800 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C2AA69C.2216@netvigator.com> -------- Cmdrwilkens wrote: > > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > news:a0dts8$kbnog$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:NKsW7.29726$fo.6484726@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... > It is the ONLY proof you have submitted. Show me your proof that ST > neutronium is the same as the real thing and I will publicly bow before you > on the Ides of March if I can't refute it in three posts. And who judges whether you've successfully refuted it? We all know RSA too well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 01:39:10 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:qVwW7.29815$fo.6788390@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... > > As demonstrated by how it shares exactly the same qualities. > > > > You have NEVER demonstrated this. Yeah, I have. > > > > 2) Therefore they must have some tech to stave off decay and adverse > > effects > > > > Since, as proven, ST neutronium is the real thing. > > Again you have no proof Yeah, I do. > > > > 3) Because they have this tech we can conclude that ST neutronium is the > > > real thing. > > > > No, the tech is not a premise. > > > > It is the ONLY proof you have submitted. No, it's not. > Show me your proof that ST > neutronium is the same as the real thing and I will publicly bow before you > on the Ides of March if I can't refute it in three posts. I'm waiting for your bow. Really, though, I grow tiresome of giving you the same evidence over and over and you utterly ignoring it, as well as the actual thought process behind it. I do not need to defend the straw men of your creation. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 23:52:05 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:a0ej6s$k88g5$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:qVwW7.29815$fo.6788390@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... > > > > > Show me your proof that ST > > neutronium is the same as the real thing and I will publicly bow before > >you on the Ides of March if I can't refute it in three posts. > > I'm waiting for your bow. I'm waiting for the proof. As an aside do you even know when the Ides of March are? > Really, though, I grow tiresome of giving you the same evidence over and > over and you utterly ignoring it, as well as the actual thought process > behind it. I do not need to defend the straw men of your creation. > I have no strawmen here. I'll say it again give me proof without: 1) The assumption that ST neutronium is the real thing (prove this OR point to a thread where you have already proven this) 2) The assumption that they use gravitational containment and/or nullification (again prove or point to a thread where you proved this) 3) Using either assumption to prove the other before proving the assumption. You have not done the above which is what the rules of evidence require. You stated a hypothesis that ST uses gravitational nullification and containment however you had at the core of that the assumption that ST neutronium was the Real life material of neutron stars. Basically you concluded, without proof, that which was neccessary for your arguments to make sense. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R USMCR Bridge Company A, 6th EngnrSptBN, 4th FSSG "There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion." -Unknown ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 00:54:06 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 23:52:05 GMT, "Cmdrwilkens" wrote: >> > Show me your proof that ST >> > neutronium is the same as the real thing and I will publicly bow before >> >you on the Ides of March if I can't refute it in three posts. >> >> I'm waiting for your bow. > >I'm waiting for the proof. > >As an aside do you even know when the Ides of March are? That would be actual knowledge. Scoot is better at made-up Latin and confusing gravitation with quantum mechanics. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 08:42:03 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:iMIrPPC7jHNfJhHEE=t8xknkzVD3@4ax.com... > On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 23:52:05 GMT, "Cmdrwilkens" wrote: > > >> > Show me your proof that ST > >> > neutronium is the same as the real thing and I will publicly bow before > >> >you on the Ides of March if I can't refute it in three posts. > >> > >> I'm waiting for your bow. > > > >I'm waiting for the proof. > > > >As an aside do you even know when the Ides of March are? > > That would be actual knowledge. Scoot is better at made-up Latin and confusing > gravitation with quantum mechanics. > Personally I'd like to see how much he can muster, I took four years of Latin and have three Silver medals in the National Latin Exam so I think debating the finer points of Rome and Latin might fail him here. In other words I'd love to crucify him but since he is somewhat lacking in followers to string up along with him and I have no real acess to Appia Via then I'll have to suffice with destroying his hopeless arguments. I know that didn't make sense but I'm drunk so fuck off. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R USMCR Bridge Company A, 6th EngnrSptBN, 4th FSSG "There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion." -Unknown ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 24 Dec 2001 15:16:25 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011224101625.24784.00001122@mb-md.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011223215408.07215.00002420@mb-dh.aol.com... >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >news:20011223174400.01481.00001011@mb-ch.aol.com... >> >> >Beyond the fact that it is used in starship's armour this is the only >> >> >reference we have to SW neutronium. >> >> >> >> Flip through Vector Prime, it's got a reference there that is roughly >the >> >same >> >> as 'What am I, built like a Sherman Tank?' proving Neutronium is a >common >> >> enough armour substance to enter casual language... Of course, Edam and >> >> Guardian ignore this... >> >> ------------------------------------ >> > >> >Well, whooptee-doo . . . it's common enough to enter casual language! >> >Hell's bells, >> >Trekkers, close up shop! Sir Nitram has demonstrated beyond a doubt >that >> >SW >> >neutronium is real neutronium straight from a neutron star to a theatre >near >> >you! >> > >> >> Pretty much. The neutronium cache could easily be from a crashed starship. > >A crashed starship would no longer generate the fields necessary to contain >the neutronium, if it were real. A crashed starship would not have broken >up in the first place if it had a pure (or even impure) hull made of real >neutronium. > I'm sure you'll be providing proof that you know SW mass-lightening isn't permenant. >> Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those. > >No, SW neutronium comes from moons. > In one occasion it was found on a moon, and much like your ludicrous excuses for ST, we make one for SW. Otherwise it comes from Neutron Stars. >> You've shown >> no proof, except for dodges where you give Trek massively more leeway, >showing >> your obvious bias. > >I'd happily give Star Wars the very same amount of leeway, but for the fact >that its neutronium comes from moons, and is therefore not true neutronium. > One occasion on a moon. >> So yes, there is neutronium in Wars hulls, and it's the same >> thing as the stuff that stops Fed weapons. > >I await your proof of this notion. > Proved it, you evaded. >> Will it be enough to stop all >> damage? Doubt it, it's probably only a monomolelcular layer to cause >NDF-style >> weapons to be ineffective. > >Solid neutronium, neutronium-based alloys (i.e. neutronium is a primary >constituent), and carbon-neutronium alloy (where we may assume that they are >the only constituents, meaning that neutronium makes up a significant >fraction of the alloy) have been stated as stopping phasers. > Very good, you proved what I said. >Whatever paltry amount is in ISD hulls might be enough to give the hull a >little resilience, but only in those few areas where there'd be any >neutronium. Since everything around the rare little bits of neutronium >would be boiled or blown away, it would hardly do any good. > And your proof it needs more than a monomolecular layer is..... >> Oh well, Trek always has to depend on Torps for heavy hitting power >anyways. > >Oh, yes, and statements by Weyoun have indicated that quantum torpedoes may >be able to damage neutronium structures. > You are correct! Just as I hypothesized. Of course, due to his own statements, their efficiency will be reduced. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:03:59 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011224101625.24784.00001122@mb-md.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20011223215408.07215.00002420@mb-dh.aol.com... > >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >> >news:20011223174400.01481.00001011@mb-ch.aol.com... > >> >> >Beyond the fact that it is used in starship's armour this is the only > >> >> >reference we have to SW neutronium. > >> >> > >> >> Flip through Vector Prime, it's got a reference there that is roughly > >the > >> >same > >> >> as 'What am I, built like a Sherman Tank?' proving Neutronium is a > >common > >> >> enough armour substance to enter casual language... Of course, Edam and > >> >> Guardian ignore this... > >> >> ------------------------------------ > >> > > >> >Well, whooptee-doo . . . it's common enough to enter casual language! > >> >Hell's bells, > >> >Trekkers, close up shop! Sir Nitram has demonstrated beyond a doubt > >that > >> >SW > >> >neutronium is real neutronium straight from a neutron star to a theatre > >near > >> >you! > >> > > >> > >> Pretty much. The neutronium cache could easily be from a crashed starship. > > > >A crashed starship would no longer generate the fields necessary to contain > >the neutronium, if it were real. A crashed starship would not have broken > >up in the first place if it had a pure (or even impure) hull made of real > >neutronium. > > > > I'm sure you'll be providing proof that you know SW mass-lightening isn't > permenant. You're the one presupposing permanent AMRE, you have to show that it is possible in some way. Where's some evidence for SW AMRE anyway? > >> Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those. > > > >No, SW neutronium comes from moons. > > > > In one occasion it was found on a moon, and much like your ludicrous excuses > for ST, we make one for SW. Otherwise it comes from Neutron Stars. It's a metallic element in SW . . . the fact that it is naturally occurring in veins on a moon is an added bonus. > >> You've shown > >> no proof, except for dodges where you give Trek massively more leeway, > >showing > >> your obvious bias. > > > >I'd happily give Star Wars the very same amount of leeway, but for the fact > >that its neutronium comes from moons, and is therefore not true neutronium. > > > > One occasion on a moon. One occasion of a metallic element being found on a moon. > >> So yes, there is neutronium in Wars hulls, and it's the same > >> thing as the stuff that stops Fed weapons. > > > >I await your proof of this notion. > > > > Proved it, you evaded. You've proved nothing, except that you're willing to claim, beyond all reason, that a metallic element found in veins on a moon is the same stuff as one would find in the core of a neutron star. Moron. > >> Will it be enough to stop all > >> damage? Doubt it, it's probably only a monomolelcular layer to cause > >NDF-style > >> weapons to be ineffective. > > > >Solid neutronium, neutronium-based alloys (i.e. neutronium is a primary > >constituent), and carbon-neutronium alloy (where we may assume that they are > >the only constituents, meaning that neutronium makes up a significant > >fraction of the alloy) have been stated as stopping phasers. > > > > Very good, you proved what I said. That is not a "monomolecular layer" causing "NDF-style weapons to be ineffective". What I said and what you said are not in agreement, and you'd know that if you had any more reading comprehension than a two year old. > >Whatever paltry amount is in ISD hulls might be enough to give the hull a > >little resilience, but only in those few areas where there'd be any > >neutronium. Since everything around the rare little bits of neutronium > >would be boiled or blown away, it would hardly do any good. > > > And your proof it needs more than a monomolecular layer is..... The fact that the only times we've seen neutronium be an issue, it has been a primary component of the substance that is impervious. > >> Oh well, Trek always has to depend on Torps for heavy hitting power > >anyways. > > > >Oh, yes, and statements by Weyoun have indicated that quantum torpedoes may > >be able to damage neutronium structures. > > > > You are correct! Just as I hypothesized. Of course, due to his own statements, > their efficiency will be reduced. Fortunately, however, since SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon, that doesn't present a problem for ST vs. SW. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:24:05 -0800 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote > Pretty much. The neutronium cache could easily be from a crashed starship. I no longer think that's the case, although the Jedi trainee ship Chu'unthor crashed on Dathomir. Take a good look at the passage from "Cracken's Threat Dossier" pg.12: The Quelii sector - home to Dathomir - comes under the control of Warlord Zsinj. While fearing the Nightsisters destructive power, Zsinj is unwilling to waste a large portion of his fleet guarding a relatively unimportant planet. As luck would have it, a remarkable find is made on Koratas, Dathomir's fourth moon. Digging through the thick, red - tinted soil, Imperial scientists stumble across several rich veins of neutronium, lommite and zersium. These minerals are the primary components in the alloy known as durasteel, the most common warship - grade armour used in Imperial ship construction. Excited by the discovery, Zsinj moved all his shipbuilding facilities to Dathomir, producing huge docks of scaffolding that stretched over ten kilometers in length. Since the Star Destroyers would have to guard the shipyard anyway, they could also keep watch over the planet . . .and the Nightsisters. Doesn't it seem strange that Zsinj just "happens" upon that "remarkable" find, near a place he didn't want to be in the first place? The Nightsisters were screwing with the Imps at the garrison for a long time in CoPL. This may have been yet another ploy to keep Zsinj in-system, so the Nightsisters could get off the planet Palpatine imprisoned them on. > Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those. Stellar neutronium does. Neutronium used in SW ships is described as a heavy metallic element in the SWSB and RD. Its the same with ST. They don't use RL or stellar neutronium in their structures or ships either. [snippo] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 06:36:30 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:24:05 -0800, "Wayne Poe" wrote: >Doesn't it seem strange that Zsinj just "happens" upon that "remarkable" >find, near a place he didn't want to be in the first place? The Nightsisters >were screwing with the Imps at the garrison for a long time in CoPL. This >may have been yet another ploy to keep Zsinj in-system, so the Nightsisters >could get off the planet Palpatine imprisoned them on. Ah, very cool, Wayne. Another plausible explanation that will no doubt be shouted down as having "no proof"... ... while the Trekkies of the group assume that when Kira said "doorway," she then said, quietly, under her breath, "which is in an AMRE field." -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 02:07:59 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:u2dig91k784623@corp.supernews.com... > > Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those. > > Stellar neutronium does. Neutronium used in SW ships is described as a heavy > metallic element in the SWSB and RD. . . . and is therefore not stellar neutronium. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 03:22:59 -0500 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C26E5E3.E451FDC1@daltonator.net> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > news:u2dig91k784623@corp.supernews.com... > > > > Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those. > > > > Stellar neutronium does. Neutronium used in SW ships is described as a > heavy > > metallic element in the SWSB and RD. > > . . . and is therefore not stellar neutronium. No fucking duh, isn't that what he just said? -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "I need a drink." "You don't drink." "Yeah, but I've been meaning to start." ---UHF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 04:08:15 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3C26E5E3.E451FDC1@daltonator.net... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > news:u2dig91k784623@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those. > > > > > > Stellar neutronium does. Neutronium used in SW ships is described as a > > heavy > > > metallic element in the SWSB and RD. > > > > . . . and is therefore not stellar neutronium. > > No fucking duh, isn't that what he just said? Several individuals, predominately those in the Rabid Warsie Fuckwit contingent, have failed to grasp this notion. Thank you for giving me hope that the Pro-Wars contingent understands (whether the Rabid Warsie Fuckwit contingent will or not, though, is still up in the air). G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 24 Dec 2001 15:18:26 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011224101826.24784.00001123@mb-md.aol.com> -------- >"Dalton" wrote in message >news:3C26E5E3.E451FDC1@daltonator.net... >> Guardian 2000 wrote: >> > >> > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message >> > news:u2dig91k784623@corp.supernews.com... >> > >> > > > Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those. >> > > >> > > Stellar neutronium does. Neutronium used in SW ships is described as a >> > heavy >> > > metallic element in the SWSB and RD. >> > >> > . . . and is therefore not stellar neutronium. >> >> No fucking duh, isn't that what he just said? > >Several individuals, predominately those in the Rabid Warsie Fuckwit >contingent, have failed to grasp this notion. > >Thank you for giving me hope that the Pro-Wars contingent understands >(whether the Rabid Warsie Fuckwit contingent will or not, though, is still >up in the air). > It's a good hypothesis, fits the facts. So does the assumption that Trek Neutronium is not stellar. Of course, your fanatical ramblings refuse to accept this as a possiblity. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:07:36 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011224101826.24784.00001123@mb-md.aol.com... > >"Dalton" wrote in message > >news:3C26E5E3.E451FDC1@daltonator.net... > >> Guardian 2000 wrote: > >> > > >> > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > >> > news:u2dig91k784623@corp.supernews.com... > >> > > >> > > > Neutron stars are mentioned, and neutronium only comes from those. > >> > > > >> > > Stellar neutronium does. Neutronium used in SW ships is described as a > >> > heavy > >> > > metallic element in the SWSB and RD. > >> > > >> > . . . and is therefore not stellar neutronium. > >> > >> No fucking duh, isn't that what he just said? > > > >Several individuals, predominately those in the Rabid Warsie Fuckwit > >contingent, have failed to grasp this notion. > > > >Thank you for giving me hope that the Pro-Wars contingent understands > >(whether the Rabid Warsie Fuckwit contingent will or not, though, is still > >up in the air). > > > > It's a good hypothesis, fits the facts. So does the assumption that Trek > Neutronium is not stellar. Of course, your fanatical ramblings refuse to accept > this as a possiblity. I refuse to accept it as a possibility because it is not a possibility given the facts provided. Star Trek neutronium comes from neutron stars. SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon. Neutronium containment technology in ST is a distinct possibility, given the level of Federation science and reasonable extrapolation to those societies who use neutronium. The simple fact that ST neutronium is understood as RL neutronium, coupled with the fact that manufactured neutronium objects do not exhibit intense gravitational fields and do not break down, proves that some neutronium containment technology is active. Neutronium containment technology in SW is unnecessary, because SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon, and they've not demonstrated the technological level necessary to contain real neutronium. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:55:08 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:43:21 -0000, Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote: >The first point (Comes from neutron stars - reference Rebel Dawn) points >to the fact that Rebel Dawn has two ships flying close to a neutron >star. This material is never described as neutronium in the source, and >is merely assumed to be such. Neutron stars are composed of neutronium by definition. That's like saying "the ocean was never described to be composed of water, so it wasn't." -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "But I've never seen *anything* that's going to even have the clearly designed and hoped-for effect of running me out of these groups or debates." -- TOWNMNBS, Six Days Before The Final Solution ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 20:05:10 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:rGAmPBBrCVpb8C4diBPJDoXetLIX@4ax.com... > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:43:21 -0000, Lord Edam de Fromage > <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote: > > >The first point (Comes from neutron stars - reference Rebel Dawn) points > >to the fact that Rebel Dawn has two ships flying close to a neutron > >star. This material is never described as neutronium in the source, and > >is merely assumed to be such. > > Neutron stars are composed of neutronium by definition. That's like saying "the > ocean was never described to be composed of water, so it wasn't." Do you have quotes, Ian, or are you just going to babble on? G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 02:40:18 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 20:05:10 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >> Neutron stars are composed of neutronium by definition. That's like saying >"the >> ocean was never described to be composed of water, so it wasn't." > >Do you have quotes, Ian, or are you just going to babble on? "In fact, not only is the neutron stable, but under these circumstances the proton becomes unstable against electron capture, so the electrons at the center disappear into protons forming "neutronium" and the electrons away from the center with no support fall down. Now it gets even worse. The central density rises faster and faster and within seconds the thousand km radius white dwarf becomes a 10 km radius ball of neutronium, a neutron star." - http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/ross/ph227/evolve/whitey.htm There you are. Proof of what was already known; that neutron stars are composed of neutronium. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:48:33 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:BJUmPFgoy7oQh99EvcOvpgkwhGhV@4ax.com... > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 20:05:10 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > > >> Neutron stars are composed of neutronium by definition. That's like saying > >"the > >> ocean was never described to be composed of water, so it wasn't." > > > >Do you have quotes, Ian, or are you just going to babble on? > > "In fact, not only is the neutron stable, but under these circumstances the > proton becomes unstable against electron capture, so the electrons at the center > disappear into protons forming "neutronium" and the electrons away from the > center with no support fall down. Now it gets even worse. The central density > rises faster and faster and within seconds the thousand km radius white dwarf > becomes a 10 km radius ball of neutronium, a neutron star." > > - http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/ross/ph227/evolve/whitey.htm > > There you are. Proof of what was already known; that neutron stars are composed > of neutronium. Pardon me, dumbass, but I refer to quotes from "Rebel Dawn". Or should I assume that the answer to my question is "No, Guardian, not at all." G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:33:38 -0800 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote > "Kynes" wrote > > - http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/ross/ph227/evolve/whitey.htm > > There you are. Proof of what was already known; that neutron stars are > > composed of neutronium. > Pardon me, dumbass, but I refer to quotes from "Rebel Dawn". > > Or should I assume that the answer to my question is "No, Guardian, not at > all." I suppose you have proof and quotes of your assertion; that the neutron star in "Rebel Dawn" wasn't really a neutron star? Please post them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 02:09:00 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:u2dj261r4h707f@corp.supernews.com... > > "Guardian 2000" wrote > > > "Kynes" wrote > > > > - http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/ross/ph227/evolve/whitey.htm > > > > There you are. Proof of what was already known; that neutron stars are > > > composed of neutronium. > > > Pardon me, dumbass, but I refer to quotes from "Rebel Dawn". > > > > Or should I assume that the answer to my question is "No, Guardian, not at > > all." > > I suppose you have proof and quotes of your assertion; that the neutron star > in "Rebel Dawn" wasn't really a neutron star? Please post them. I've made no such assertion. I'm awaiting evidence from Ian that those were, in fact, neutron stars. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 03:22:27 -0500 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C26E5C3.BAAD0540@daltonator.net> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > news:u2dj261r4h707f@corp.supernews.com... > > > > "Guardian 2000" wrote > > > > > "Kynes" wrote > > > > > > - http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/ross/ph227/evolve/whitey.htm > > > > > > There you are. Proof of what was already known; that neutron stars are > > > > composed of neutronium. > > > > > Pardon me, dumbass, but I refer to quotes from "Rebel Dawn". > > > > > > Or should I assume that the answer to my question is "No, Guardian, not > at > > > all." > > > > I suppose you have proof and quotes of your assertion; that the neutron > star > > in "Rebel Dawn" wasn't really a neutron star? Please post them. > > I've made no such assertion. I'm awaiting evidence from Ian that those > were, in fact, neutron stars. "She came outta hyperspace within the magnetic field of that neutron star up ahead!" --p126 -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "I need a drink." "You don't drink." "Yeah, but I've been meaning to start." ---UHF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 04:09:15 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3C26E5C3.BAAD0540@daltonator.net... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > news:u2dj261r4h707f@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > "Guardian 2000" wrote > > > > > > > "Kynes" wrote > > > > > > > > - http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/ross/ph227/evolve/whitey.htm > > > > > > > > There you are. Proof of what was already known; that neutron stars are > > > > > composed of neutronium. > > > > > > > Pardon me, dumbass, but I refer to quotes from "Rebel Dawn". > > > > > > > > Or should I assume that the answer to my question is "No, Guardian, not > > at > > > > all." > > > > > > I suppose you have proof and quotes of your assertion; that the neutron > > star > > > in "Rebel Dawn" wasn't really a neutron star? Please post them. > > > > I've made no such assertion. I'm awaiting evidence from Ian that those > > were, in fact, neutron stars. > > "She came outta hyperspace within the magnetic field of that neutron > star up ahead!" --p126 Thanks! Ian seems unwilling to argue in any semblance of a worthwhile fashion this evening. Happy Holidays, G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 06:37:24 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <+8wmPHSNPliQFW3PfNK1Q1CEc7ux@4ax.com> -------- On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:48:33 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >Pardon me, dumbass, but I refer to quotes from "Rebel Dawn". Oh, I now need to prove that each term used within every book means what we know it to mean in the real world? I'll get right on that; hold your breath till you see my post. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 02:10:14 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:+8wmPHSNPliQFW3PfNK1Q1CEc7ux@4ax.com... > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:48:33 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > > >Pardon me, dumbass, but I refer to quotes from "Rebel Dawn". > > Oh, I now need to prove that each term used within every book means what we know > it to mean in the real world? No, I'm just asking you for proof that there were neutron stars mentioned in "Rebel Dawn". > > I'll get right on that; hold your breath till you see my post. Well, until that happens, concession accepted. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 03:21:58 -0500 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C26E5A6.6237382@daltonator.net> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "Kynes" wrote in message > news:+8wmPHSNPliQFW3PfNK1Q1CEc7ux@4ax.com... > > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:48:33 -0600, "Guardian 2000" > wrote: > > > > >Pardon me, dumbass, but I refer to quotes from "Rebel Dawn". > > > > Oh, I now need to prove that each term used within every book means what > we know > > it to mean in the real world? > > No, I'm just asking you for proof that there were neutron stars mentioned in > "Rebel Dawn". "She came outta hyperspace within the magnetic field of that neutron star up ahead!" --p126 > > I'll get right on that; hold your breath till you see my post. > > Well, until that happens, concession accepted. *holds up "joke" placard* -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "I need a drink." "You don't drink." "Yeah, but I've been meaning to start." ---UHF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:16:22 -0000 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- Today's news is brought to you by the number 7, and the letter from Kynes > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:43:21 -0000, Lord Edam de Fromage > <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote: > > >The first point (Comes from neutron stars - reference Rebel Dawn) points > >to the fact that Rebel Dawn has two ships flying close to a neutron > >star. This material is never described as neutronium in the source, and > >is merely assumed to be such. > > Neutron stars are composed of neutronium by definition. But that's the problem. In the real world, neutron stars are composed of a material we call neutronium. We ask : "Is Star [Wars/Trek] Neutronium The Real thing" (ie, is it the same material as found in neutron stars). You can't start off assuming what you need to prove. you have to find evidence within Star [Wars/Trek] that shows what it really is. In the case of Star Wars, current evidence indicates it most certainly is NOT the same stuff as real life neutronium. In the case of Trek, we have the problem that it can't be the same stuff by current understanding, but we have a direct statement that ST neutronium is stuff from neutron stars (TNG Evolution). -- Lord Edam de Fromage aka Sorborus www.trek-wars.co.uk Expect arguments about what the words mean since when people discuss the meaning of words instead of simply using them they generally forget about context and duplication. -- C. Fiterman, aam ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 21:38:01 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:16:22 -0000, Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote: >> >The first point (Comes from neutron stars - reference Rebel Dawn) points >> >to the fact that Rebel Dawn has two ships flying close to a neutron >> >star. This material is never described as neutronium in the source, and >> >is merely assumed to be such. >> >> Neutron stars are composed of neutronium by definition. > >But that's the problem. In the real world, neutron stars are composed of >a material we call neutronium. Indeed. A working definitin of "neutron star" is "a really small star made of neutronium." >We ask : "Is Star [Wars/Trek] Neutronium The Real thing" (ie, is it the >same material as found in neutron stars). Thus, an examination of said neutron stars -- which are made of neutronium -- should be a fair thing to start with, no? See about the properties of the ocean and we can see about the properties of water. >You can't start off assuming what you need to prove. you have to find >evidence within Star [Wars/Trek] that shows what it really is. That's what I'm doing. My evidence is the behaviour of neutron stars. >In the case of Star Wars, current evidence indicates it most certainly >is NOT the same stuff as real life neutronium. I agree. It is different. So is ST neutronium. Both of them can be found in neutron stars. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:09:40 -0800 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Lord Edam de Fromage" <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote > SW neutronium was found in a vein of reddish material on a moon > according to Cracken's Field Guide (IIRC - search for posts from > Rvalencia to this newsgroup last year for the full qoute). SW RPG: "Cracken's Threat Dossier" pg.12: The Quelii sector - home to Dathomir - comes under the control of Warlord Zsinj. While fearing the Nightsisters destructive power, Zsinj is unwilling to waste a large portion of his fleet guarding a relatively unimportant planet. As luck would have it, a remarkable find is made on Koratas, Dathomir's fourth moon. Digging through the thick, red - tinted soil, Imperial scientists stumble across several rich veins of neutronium, lommite and zersium. These minerals are the primary components in the alloy known as durasteel, the most common warship - grade armour used in Imperial ship construction. Excited by the discovery, Zsinj moved all his shipbuilding facilities to Dathomir, producing huge docks of scaffolding that stretched over ten kilometers in length. Since the Star Destroyers would have to guard the shipyard anyway, they could also keep watch over the planet . . .and the Nightsisters. (Quote from Christopher G. McElroy's execellent SW:Timetales May 2000 edition) Interesting. If it weren't for that "remarkable" find, Zsinj wouldn't have moved ALL his shipbuilding facilities to Dathomir. I don't have the entire "Cracken's Threat Dossier", but it would be interesting to read through to see if there are any other relevant passages. > Beyond the fact that it is used in starship's armour this is the only > reference we have to SW neutronium. Neutronium is also said to be a heavy metallic element used in the formation of not only dura-armor, but durasteel as well. (SWSB, RD,) > We have no knowledge of its natural physical properties. We have no knowledge of the exact natural physical properties of the heavy metallic element that is used in dura-armor and durasteel. > Some people (most often Kynes, though SirNitram has started doing the > same) will often try to pass off false information, but it's been > pointed out before that he is engaged in circular reasoning. No, what Kynes and Sir Nitram are pointing out is the base hypocrisy when ST neutronium is rolled out by the Trekkies. > K>SW neutronium: > K> > K>-> Comes from neutron stars ("Rebel Dawn") > K>-> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn > K>-> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor > > The first point (Comes from neutron stars - reference Rebel Dawn) points > to the fact that Rebel Dawn has two ships flying close to a neutron > star. This material is never described as neutronium in the source, and > is merely assumed to be such. Kynes pointed out that neutron stars exist in SW. He never said anything (to my knowledge) that stated that neutronium was mined from that star in Rebel Dawn. > In the context of the discussion the above quote is taken from this is, > in actual fact, circular reasoning. Guardian questions whether SW > neutronium was the real thing, and Kynes' first piece of evidence > included the assumption that SW neutronium is the real thing. Nope. As Kynes has pointed out before: Sometimes SW neutronium is dense and in stars (Rebel Dawn) Sometimes ST neutronium is dense and in stars (Evolution) Sometimes SW neutronium is seemingly light and not in stars (Imperial armor) Sometimes ST neutronium is seemingly light and not in stars (Iconian temple) The answer for ST? Technology The answer for SW? The same. > However, once you think about it a little you will realise the > discussion is largely irrelevant. SW neutronium alloys are shown to have > specific thermal and mechanical properties. If ST weaponry can be > demonstrated to have greater thermal and mechanical effects than those > properties ST weaponry WILL be effective against SW neutronium alloys > (unless you want to start throwing every basis for scientific comparison > out the window) No need. We just have to avoid throwing out canon. In at least three instances, it has been stated that a neutronium alloy is impervious to ST weaponry. This same correlation is found in "cotorsis ore" (sp?) in SW, which stops TLs and lightsabers. I don't know what kind of material the Massassi temple was made of, but canonically, it can withstand TLs too. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:01:05 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:u2dhl7i0iie59b@corp.supernews.com... > > "Lord Edam de Fromage" <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote > > > SW neutronium was found in a vein of reddish material on a moon > > according to Cracken's Field Guide (IIRC - search for posts from > > Rvalencia to this newsgroup last year for the full qoute). > > SW RPG: "Cracken's Threat Dossier" > > pg.12: The Quelii sector - home to Dathomir - comes under the control of > Warlord Zsinj. While fearing the Nightsisters destructive power, Zsinj is > unwilling to waste a large portion of his fleet guarding a relatively > unimportant planet. As luck would have it, a remarkable find is made on > Koratas, Dathomir's fourth moon. Digging through the thick, red - tinted > soil, Imperial scientists stumble across several rich veins of neutronium, > lommite and zersium. These minerals are the primary components in the alloy > known as durasteel, the most common warship - grade armour used in Imperial > ship construction. Excited by the discovery, Zsinj moved all his > shipbuilding facilities to Dathomir, producing huge docks of scaffolding > that stretched over ten kilometers in length. Since the Star Destroyers > would have to guard the shipyard anyway, they could also keep watch over the > planet . . .and the Nightsisters. (Quote from Christopher G. McElroy's > execellent SW:Timetales May 2000 edition) > > Interesting. If it weren't for that "remarkable" find, Zsinj wouldn't have > moved ALL his shipbuilding facilities to Dathomir. I don't have the entire > "Cracken's Threat Dossier", but it would be interesting to read through to > see if there are any other relevant passages. Excellent work, Wayne. > > Beyond the fact that it is used in starship's armour this is the only > > reference we have to SW neutronium. > > Neutronium is also said to be a heavy metallic element used in the formation > of not only dura-armor, but durasteel as well. (SWSB, RD,) Thereby being another instance where SW neutronium is stated to have different properties than real-life neutronium. Neutronium is not a metal, nor is it an element. > > > We have no knowledge of its natural physical properties. > > We have no knowledge of the exact natural physical properties of the heavy > metallic element that is used in dura-armor and durasteel. > . . . besides the fact that it isn't real-life neutronium. > > Some people (most often Kynes, though SirNitram has started doing the > > same) will often try to pass off false information, but it's been > > pointed out before that he is engaged in circular reasoning. > > No, what Kynes and Sir Nitram are pointing out is the base hypocrisy when ST > neutronium is rolled out by the Trekkies. What hypocrisy? If it weren't for the fact that SW neutronium is a metallic element mined from a moon, it would have available to it the very same arguments. There's no point in whining just because SW neutronium isn't the genuine article. > > K>SW neutronium: > > K> > > K>-> Comes from neutron stars ("Rebel Dawn") > > K>-> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn > > K>-> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor > > > > The first point (Comes from neutron stars - reference Rebel Dawn) points > > to the fact that Rebel Dawn has two ships flying close to a neutron > > star. This material is never described as neutronium in the source, and > > is merely assumed to be such. > > Kynes pointed out that neutron stars exist in SW. He never said anything (to > my knowledge) that stated that neutronium was mined from that star in Rebel > Dawn. Then it all comes from the moon, to your knowledge? > > In the context of the discussion the above quote is taken from this is, > > in actual fact, circular reasoning. Guardian questions whether SW > > neutronium was the real thing, and Kynes' first piece of evidence > > included the assumption that SW neutronium is the real thing. > > Nope. As Kynes has pointed out before: > > Sometimes SW neutronium is dense and in stars (Rebel Dawn) Is there mention of neutronium in the neutron star of Rebel Dawn? If not, it may be that the Empire refers to what is within neutron stars as something else entirely. > Sometimes ST neutronium is dense and in stars (Evolution) > > Sometimes SW neutronium is seemingly light and not in stars (Imperial armor) This is the metallic element mined from moons. > Sometimes ST neutronium is seemingly light and not in stars (Iconian temple) Since Star Trek writers have some inkling of where neutronium is supposed to come from, we must look to the fact that the technology of the Iconians must provide the answer for how the neutronium exists. > The answer for ST? Technology Yup. > The answer for SW? The same. Nope. Neutronium is not a metallic element, nor can you get it out of moons. > > > However, once you think about it a little you will realise the > > discussion is largely irrelevant. SW neutronium alloys are shown to have > > specific thermal and mechanical properties. If ST weaponry can be > > demonstrated to have greater thermal and mechanical effects than those > > properties ST weaponry WILL be effective against SW neutronium alloys > > (unless you want to start throwing every basis for scientific comparison > > out the window) > > No need. We just have to avoid throwing out canon. In at least three > instances, it has been stated that a neutronium alloy is impervious to ST > weaponry. This same correlation is found in "cotorsis ore" (sp?) in SW, > which stops TLs and lightsabers. I don't know what kind of material the > Massassi temple was made of, but canonically, it can withstand TLs too. Tritanium. :-D G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 07:46:56 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:01:05 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >> Sometimes ST neutronium is seemingly light and not in stars (Iconian >temple) > >Since Star Trek writers have some inkling of where neutronium is supposed to >come from, we must look to the fact that the technology of the Iconians must >provide the answer for how the neutronium exists. This is rich. "The writers just COULDN'T have gotten it wrong!" I can't count on one hand how many rules this violates. 1 and 3 I'm sure of. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 04:12:24 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:Td0mPBINGeUUs87Tzu+k7zw=OnXJ@4ax.com... > On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:01:05 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > > >> Sometimes ST neutronium is seemingly light and not in stars (Iconian > >temple) > > > >Since Star Trek writers have some inkling of where neutronium is supposed to > >come from, we must look to the fact that the technology of the Iconians must > >provide the answer for how the neutronium exists. > > This is rich. > > "The writers just COULDN'T have gotten it wrong!" Unlike SW writers, for whom SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon. > I can't count on one hand how many rules this violates. 1 and 3 I'm sure of. Don't hide behind the rules, you little bitch. You'll probably just rewrite them as needed anyway. I want to see your punk ass try to weasel your way out of the fact that SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon. "Don't wait for the translation! Answer me now!" -General Chang, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lurker" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 18:14:55 -0000 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > Blah, Blah, Blah, Moon!, Blah, Blah, Blah, Not real neutronium!, Blah, Blah, > Blah, Veins, Blah, Blah, Blah, Mining, Blah, Blah, Blah, Proof?, Blah, Blah, Blah, Star > Trek rulz, Blah, Blah, Blah, I'm so far up my own arse, Blah, Blah, Blah, Moon rocks, > Blah, Blah, Blah. --- I'm stuck in this pit; working for less than slave wages, working on my day off. The goddamn steel shutters are closed, I deal with every backwards-arsed fuck on the planet, I smell like shoe polish, my ex-girlfriend is catatonic after fucking a dead guy and my present girlfriend has sucked 36 dicks!.... My lifes in the shitter right now and if you don't mind I'd like to stew a bit. - Dante Hicks ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 14:33:37 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Lurker" wrote in message news:kdKV7.36623$4z5.4782152@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > > > Blah, Blah, Blah, Moon!, Blah, Blah, Blah, Not real neutronium!, Blah, Blah, > > Blah, Veins, Blah, Blah, Blah, Mining, Blah, Blah, Blah, Proof?, Blah, Blah, Blah, Star > > Trek rulz, Blah, Blah, Blah, I'm so far up my own arse, Blah, Blah, Blah, Moon rocks, > > Blah, Blah, Blah. > Star Wars neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon. Bitching about it like a little cuntscrub isn't going to help your argument. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lurker" Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 00:20:25 -0000 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > "Lurker" wrote in message > > > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > > > > > Blah, Blah, Blah, Moon!, Blah, Blah, Blah, Not real neutronium!, Blah, > > > Blah, Blah, Veins, Blah, Blah, Blah, Mining, Blah, Blah, Blah, Proof?, > > > Blah, Blah, Blah, Star Trek rulz, Blah, Blah, Blah, I'm so far up my > > > own arse, Blah, Blah, Blah, Moon rocks, Blah, Blah, Blah. > > > > Star Wars neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon. What just one moon?, must be a fucking busy place! Star Trek neutronium is a rocky element found underground on planets. > Bitching about it like a little cuntscrub isn't going to help your argument. It's a little in joke, but this time half the NG won't threaten to KF me like last time! Oh, I'm not bitching and I haven't even started to argue yet, I'll see if I can be bothered to take part again later tonight. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 23:28:57 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Lurker" wrote in message news:YzPV7.38597$4z5.5099194@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > > "Lurker" wrote in message > > > > > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > > > > > > > Blah, Blah, Blah, Moon!, Blah, Blah, Blah, Not real neutronium!, Blah, > > > > Blah, Blah, Veins, Blah, Blah, Blah, Mining, Blah, Blah, Blah, Proof?, > > > > Blah, Blah, Blah, Star Trek rulz, Blah, Blah, Blah, I'm so far up my > > > > own arse, Blah, Blah, Blah, Moon rocks, Blah, Blah, Blah. > > > > > > > Star Wars neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon. > > What just one moon?, must be a fucking busy place! Hey, don't look at me. It's your universe. > Star Trek neutronium is a rocky element found underground on planets. You lying little bitch . . . outright lies will contribute nothing to the debate . . . I suggest you stop using them. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lurker" Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 22:23:06 -0000 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > "Lurker" wrote in message > > > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > > > > "Lurker" wrote in message > > > > > > > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > Blah, Blah, Blah, Moon!, Blah, Blah, Blah, Not real neutronium!, > Blah, > > > > > Blah, Blah, Veins, Blah, Blah, Blah, Mining, Blah, Blah, Blah, > Proof?, > > > > > Blah, Blah, Blah, Star Trek rulz, Blah, Blah, Blah, I'm so far up my > > > > > own arse, Blah, Blah, Blah, Moon rocks, Blah, Blah, Blah. > > > > > > > > > > Star Wars neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon. > > > > What just one moon?, must be a fucking busy place! > > Hey, don't look at me. It's your universe. > > > Star Trek neutronium is a rocky element found underground on planets. > > You lying little bitch . . . outright lies will contribute nothing to the > debate . . . I suggest you stop using them. STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. --- I'm stuck in this pit; working for less than slave wages, working on my day off. The goddamn steel shutters are closed, I deal with every backwards-arsed fuck on the planet, I smell like shoe polish, my ex-girlfriend is catatonic after fucking a dead guy and my present girlfriend has sucked 36 dicks!.... My lifes in the shitter right now and if you don't mind I'd like to stew a bit. - Dante Hicks ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 19:36:20 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- More sucking of Rabid Warsie cock from Lurker. No surprise. Let's just see how much bandwidth we can waste in this exercise in futility, shall we? "Lurker" wrote in message news:X1sW7.43007$US4.6985671@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com... > STN is a light material, used for door construction and temple-building, which > can be mined by pre-warp societies with no problem of decay. > Star Wars neutronium is nothing more than a metallic element which one can find in veins on a moon. Star Trek neutronium is an ultra-dense, ultra-strong material, found naturally in neutron stars, which decays rapidly when outside a neutron star. It is not an assumption to believe that this is exactly similar to real-life neutronium. The exception to the decay is when neutronium has been manufactured into something by an advanced civilization, such as the builders of the Dyson Sphere, the builders of the Doomsday Machine, the Iconians, and the Dominion or whoever built two of their doors. As these objects have not been shown to be wrapped in extraordinarily powerful gravity fields that pull all nearby objects into the objects, and as neutronium's natural density and pressure requirements would, if not created by the powerful gravity fields, be created by whatever was keeping the neutronium intact, I postulate that a neutronium containment system is in place which both keeps the neutronium neutronium and nullifies the deadly gravity to keep neutronium as something worth building with. Having demonstrated that the advanced civilizations which use neutronium as a construction material and which are more advanced than the Federation could use concepts known to Federation science to contain the neutronium, I have posited neutronium containment systems along those lines, though my hypothesis about the technology behind the neutronium containment systems may be in error . . . it could be other things entirely. I do not see why you are unable to grasp this thought process. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 27 Dec 2001 01:42:28 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011226204228.25721.00003194@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >More sucking of Rabid Warsie cock from Lurker. No surprise. > >Let's just see how much bandwidth we can waste in this exercise in futility, >shall we? *Puts the message through his Sekrit Decoder Ring(tm)* G2K: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This has been a public service message, brought to you by Eggnog. It's what's for breakfast. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lurker" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 02:29:35 -0000 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <0FvW7.43773$US4.7172633@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com> -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >More sucking of Rabid Warsie cock from Guardian 2000. No surprise. > > > >Let's just see how much bandwidth we can waste in this exercise in futility, > >shall we? I think you've wasted more than enough so far! I take it you are conceeding. > WAAAAHHH Hey Nitram, I know it's not a pretty sight but please stick to fucking his face! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 27 Dec 2001 02:34:48 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <20011226213448.25721.00003210@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >> >More sucking of Rabid Warsie cock from Guardian 2000. No surprise. >> > >> >Let's just see how much bandwidth we can waste in this exercise in >futility, >> >shall we? > >I think you've wasted more than enough so far! I take it you are conceeding. > >> WAAAAHHH > >Hey Nitram, I know it's not a pretty sight but please stick to fucking his >face! > I swear, you can't tell the difference between his ass and his face. Both spout so much shit.... ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 03:44:16 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 19:36:20 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >Let's just see how much bandwidth we can waste in this exercise in futility, >shall we? How cute. Scootie thinks that by trolling with giant form-posts in response to everything anyone says, he'll advance his cause. Edam, Chris, anyone else left out there: I am sincerely sorry you guys had to have this dude. Morons are morons, and it's a toss of the dice which side of the aisle they're going to land on. For every Guardian there's a Transcend. So, if there's anything we, the pro-SW side, your brothers in combat, can do... don't hesitate. Just ask. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 22:08:46 GMT Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 04:12:24 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >> This is rich. >> >> "The writers just COULDN'T have gotten it wrong!" > >Unlike SW writers, for whom SW neutronium is a metallic element found in >veins on a moon. To ST writers it's something to be alloyed with carbon and mined on planets. >> I can't count on one hand how many rules this violates. 1 and 3 I'm sure >of. > >Don't hide behind the rules, you little bitch. Fuck you. It's not my fault you're ignorant of the practices of the group. Your argument is invalid on face; concession accepted. >"Don't wait for the translation! Answer me now!" > -General Chang, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country And by the way, you pedantic cunt, this may surprise you, but that was Adlai Stevenson. Get some fresh air. -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cry Date: 23 Dec 2001 21:02:20 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 20:24:48 GMT, "His Divine Shadow {PHX}" wrote: >I've heard plenty of times people saying that SW neutronium exists in moons >and has a >reddish color. Is that the actual neutronium or the neutronium ore? Cheers, Cry ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 21:22:02 -0600 Subject: Re: [TECH] This neutronium issue Message-ID: <3C269F5A.9090603@mac.com> -------- Cry wrote: > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 20:24:48 GMT, "His Divine Shadow {PHX}" > wrote: > > >>I've heard plenty of times people saying that SW neutronium exists in moons >>and has a >>reddish color. >> > > Is that the actual neutronium or the neutronium ore? No such thing as "neutronium ore." It only occures in neutron stars, and it's just there. No ore, just neutronium. -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. Therefore, I know everything.