---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "LT.Hit-Man" Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 03:05:43 -0400 Subject: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <9ie9vg$inlg4$2@ID-36661.news.dfncis.de> -------- Like the header says sixty SSD's find themselves in borg space the borg send a hundred cubes to deal with the SSD's after losing a few cubes. Just as the hundred cubes and sixty SSD's are about to lock horns two hundred Sovren class ships drop out of warp, they got pulled into borg space by a wrom hole(damm them worm holes are so handy) So what happens? LT.Hit-Man ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Transcend" Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 03:19:32 +0000 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <20010710.031929.1585908542.2321@localhost.localdomain> -------- In article <9ie9vg$inlg4$2@ID-36661.news.dfncis.de>, "LT.Hit-Man" wrote: > Like the header says sixty SSD's find themselves in borg space the borg > send a hundred cubes to deal with the SSD's after losing a few cubes. > Just as the hundred cubes and sixty SSD's are about to lock horns two > hundred Sovren class ships drop out of warp, they got pulled into borg > space by a wrom hole(damm them worm holes are so handy) So what happens? > LT.Hit-Man I'm not sure, but this battle may actually be over in *less* than a second... And the Federation would probably end up liking the Empire for helping them beat the Borg. -- When man took to his bed the Computer, there was great rejoicing, and great fear too, for their children were almost like gods. The mainbrains bestrode the galaxy at will, and changed its very face. The Silicon God, The Solid State Entity, Al Squared, Enth Generation - their names are many. And there were the Carked and Symbionts, whose daughters were the Neurosingers, Warrior-Poets, the Neurologicians and the Pilots of the Order of Mystic Mathematicians. --Horthy Hosthoh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 07:28:45 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <+K1KO=GhJvn7rgUjIgbcINsl8sSr@4ax.com> -------- On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 03:05:43 -0400, "LT.Hit-Man" wrote: >Like the header says sixty SSD's find themselves in borg space the borg send >a hundred cubes to deal with the SSD's after losing a few cubes. >Just as the hundred cubes and sixty SSD's are about to lock horns two >hundred Sovren class ships drop out of warp, they got pulled into borg space >by a wrom hole(damm them worm holes are so handy) >So what happens? The SSDs pummel the Cubes with no losses. The Sovereigns notice that they are seriously outclassed and go back into the wormhole. -- 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: Kazuaki Shimazaki Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:42:03 +0800 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <3B4AB1CB.6B60@netvigator.com> -------- LT.Hit-Man wrote: > > Like the header says sixty SSD's find themselves in borg space the borg send > a hundred cubes to deal with the SSD's after losing a few cubes. > Just as the hundred cubes and sixty SSD's are about to lock horns two > hundred Sovren class ships drop out of warp, they got pulled into borg space > by a wrom hole(damm them worm holes are so handy) > So what happens? > LT.Hit-Man Let's see, 60 Executors, 100 Cubes and 200 Sovereigns. Tactically speaking, 60 Executors got more than enough firepower to handle one hundred cubes and two hundred Federation starships. Realistically speaking, the Imps and Feds would probably cooperate to deal with the Borg cubes, since the Borg would probably change course to deal with the Sovereigns as well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "92knight" <92knight@home.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 08:49:17 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- Hello, I am a BIG Star Trek fan, having seen every episode from every series, as well as all of the movies, but I do not know much about Star Wars. I was just wondering, what is an SSD? And what are the specs on it? What kind, and how many weapons does it have? I require this information to accurately compare the SSD to the Sovereign class StarShip. Thanks "LT.Hit-Man" wrote in message news:9ie9vg$inlg4$2@ID-36661.news.dfncis.de... > Like the header says sixty SSD's find themselves in borg space the borg send > a hundred cubes to deal with the SSD's after losing a few cubes. > Just as the hundred cubes and sixty SSD's are about to lock horns two > hundred Sovren class ships drop out of warp, they got pulled into borg space > by a wrom hole(damm them worm holes are so handy) > So what happens? > LT.Hit-Man > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "LT.Hit-Man" Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 04:57:55 -0400 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <9ieghs$i7ta9$2@ID-36661.news.dfncis.de> -------- 92knight <92knight@home.com> wrote in message ... >Hello, I am a BIG Star Trek fan, having seen every episode from every >series, as well as all of the movies, but I do not know much about Star >Wars. >I was just wondering, what is an SSD? And what are the specs on it? What >kind, and how many weapons does it have? I require this information to >accurately compare the SSD to the Sovereign class StarShip. > >Thanks Np but I don't have the specs for the SSD at hand right now, have you seen the Empire strikes back and return of the jedi? if so you know that big ass ship that Darth Vader travles around in? that's an SSD from what I remember about the SSD's tech specs it is about 10 to 12 kms long have a few hundread heavy turbo lasers(let me save you some pain don't make that quite about last not being able to harm a Fed ship's sheilds trust me you don't want to go there) and I'm sure some here will give you the info you seek. Welcome to ASVS the last stronghold of the insane and what ever you do don't anoy me, read my fan fic reviews and you'll understand why otherwise I hope you will enjoy your stay here. LT.Hit-Man ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bdiller@.BLARGNESS!.ipass.net (Cyborg Stan of CyKoLaJx, Inc.) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 09:24:52 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <3b4ac9c7.13303641@news.ipass.net> -------- On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 04:57:55 -0400, "LT.Hit-Man" got killed and eaten while screaming: >Np but I don't have the specs for the SSD at hand right now, have you seen >the Empire strikes back and return of the jedi? if so you know that big ass >ship that Darth Vader travles around in? that's an SSD from what I remember >about the SSD's tech specs it is about 10 to 12 kms long Around 17.6 km long actually. Cyborg Stan, Aimless Wanderer and Part-Time Galatic Hero Outlyer Base : http://www.ipass.net/~bdiller/ email : bdiller@ipass.net ICQ : 32779556 "I wanna be a rotten corpse when I grow up!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "The Dancing Borg" Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 13:53:28 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <9ieu90$uc$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> -------- not necessarily. amny conflicting descriptions -- Me - "I'm sorry, it's a bad habit, due to my laziness and general contempt for humanity." Chas - "Oh well, that's alright then. magical.pixie@ntlworld.com.despam remove ".despam" to reply. "Cyborg Stan of CyKoLaJx, Inc." wrote in message news:3b4ac9c7.13303641@news.ipass.net... > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 04:57:55 -0400, "LT.Hit-Man" > got killed and eaten while screaming: > > >Np but I don't have the specs for the SSD at hand right now, have you seen > >the Empire strikes back and return of the jedi? if so you know that big ass > >ship that Darth Vader travles around in? that's an SSD from what I remember > >about the SSD's tech specs it is about 10 to 12 kms long > > Around 17.6 km long actually. > > Cyborg Stan, Aimless Wanderer and Part-Time Galatic Hero > Outlyer Base : http://www.ipass.net/~bdiller/ > email : bdiller@ipass.net ICQ : 32779556 > "I wanna be a rotten corpse when I grow up!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Transcend" Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 08:10:10 +0000 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <20010710.081008.527022954.2321@localhost.localdomain> -------- In article <9ieu90$uc$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, "The Dancing Borg" wrote: > not necessarily. amny conflicting descriptions From official, in canon we know the exact length however. Official may disagree, but canon overrides official every time. -- When man took to his bed the Computer, there was great rejoicing, and great fear too, for their children were almost like gods. The mainbrains bestrode the galaxy at will, and changed its very face. The Silicon God, The Solid State Entity, Al Squared, Enth Generation - their names are many. And there were the Carked and Symbionts, whose daughters were the Neurosingers, Warrior-Poets, the Neurologicians and the Pilots of the Order of Mystic Mathematicians. --Horthy Hosthoh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kazuaki Shimazaki Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:37:02 +0800 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <3B4B04FE.2420@netvigator.com> -------- Transcend wrote: > > In article <9ieu90$uc$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, "The Dancing Borg" > wrote: > > > not necessarily. amny conflicting descriptions > > From official, in canon we know the exact length however. Official may > disagree, but canon overrides official every time. We don't know the *exact* length, but we do know it is about 11 miles long (17 or so kilometers). 17.6km is commonly accepted but anywhere between 17 and 18, IIRC, is acceptable. Still, your fundamental point that the canon clearly crushes the official here is correct. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jedi Knight Toren Depor Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:09:14 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <3B4B369C.1000400@home.com> -------- Curtis Saxton's Star Wars Technical commentaries, and most other sites I have found, put the SSD at 17.6km long. the ASVS auxillery archive concurs with this. LT.Hit-Man wrote: > 92knight <92knight@home.com> wrote in message ... > >> Hello, I am a BIG Star Trek fan, having seen every episode from every >> series, as well as all of the movies, but I do not know much about Star >> Wars. >> I was just wondering, what is an SSD? And what are the specs on it? What >> kind, and how many weapons does it have? I require this information to >> accurately compare the SSD to the Sovereign class StarShip. >> >> Thanks > > > Np but I don't have the specs for the SSD at hand right now, have you seen > the Empire strikes back and return of the jedi? if so you know that big ass > ship that Darth Vader travles around in? that's an SSD from what I remember > about the SSD's tech specs it is about 10 to 12 kms long have a few hundread > heavy turbo lasers(let me save you some pain don't make that quite about > last not being able to harm a Fed ship's sheilds trust me you don't want to > go there) and I'm sure some here will give you the info you seek. > Welcome to ASVS the last stronghold of the insane and what ever you do don't > anoy me, read my fan fic reviews and you'll understand why otherwise I hope > you will enjoy your stay here. > LT.Hit-Man -- Jedi Knight Toren Depor (aka Filmmaker Matt Pfingsten) E-Mail: jeditoren@home.com Phone: 360.281.7618 ICQ: JediToren, 69348681 AIM: JediToren The Matt Pfingsten Home Page: http://www.pfing.cjb.net Toren Depor's Jedi Temple: http://www.jeditoren.cjb.net --Links-- 24FPS.Com, filmmaking resources: http://www.24fps.com TheForce.Net, your daily dose of Star Wars: http://www.theforce.net Animation:Master, high-end 3D app: http://www.hash.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kazuaki Shimazaki Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:14:54 +0800 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <3B4AC78E.77C4@netvigator.com> -------- 92knight wrote: > > Hello, I am a BIG Star Trek fan, having seen every episode from every > series, as well as all of the movies, but I do not know much about Star > Wars. > I was just wondering, what is an SSD? And what are the specs on it? What > kind, and how many weapons does it have? I require this information to > accurately compare the SSD to the Sovereign class StarShip. > > Thanks In short, there is *no* comparison, in favor of the SSD. The SSD is the short hand for an Executor class command ship (often colloquially called the "Super Star Destroyer"). You may not know much about Star Wars, but I'm sure you wouldn't come in here without seeing "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi". Vader's flagship is the Executor. Ahh, the hell with it, I'll give you a web page, and you can look it up: http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:59:01 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994777139.20560.0.nnrp-10.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:3B4AC78E.77C4@netvigator.com... > http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html ...including the laughable DS "horizon method" calc, laughable because they used flat scenery for that shot... DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kazuaki Shimazaki Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:10:06 +0800 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <3B4B1ACE.A7E@netvigator.com> -------- DMZ wrote: > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > news:3B4AC78E.77C4@netvigator.com... > > > > http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html > > ...including the laughable DS "horizon method" calc, laughable because they used > flat scenery for that shot... 1)In our form of analysis, scenery is not relevant. We take it as if it were all real. And real does not allow for scenery. 2)Saxton seems perfectly aware of this flaw in the method, so he said: "Even if it were not for this unreliability, the measurement is under fundamental doubt. The section of the battle station's surface seen near the point of collision was in fact produced from miniature model tiles laid on a flat horizontal surface. It is quite possible that the apparent curvature of the horizon is wholly illusory." 3)Even if this method is totally unreliable, he used a bunch of other methods. Managing to punch out this method hardly puts a serious dent in his analysis. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:18:55 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994778333.21122.0.nnrp-10.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:3B4B1ACE.A7E@netvigator.com... > DMZ wrote: > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > news:3B4AC78E.77C4@netvigator.com... > > > > > > > http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html > > > > ...including the laughable DS "horizon method" calc, laughable because they used > > flat scenery for that shot... > > 1)In our form of analysis, scenery is not relevant. We take it as if it > were all real. And real does not allow for scenery. But I can still laugh, since I *know* that it is an attempt to measure the curvature of a flat surface. =) > 2)Saxton seems perfectly aware of this flaw in the method, so he said: > "Even if it were not for this unreliability, the measurement is under > fundamental doubt. The section of the battle station's surface seen near > the point of collision was in fact produced from miniature model tiles > laid on a flat horizontal surface. It is quite possible that the > apparent curvature of the horizon is wholly illusory." "Quite possible" - why not just say "there is no curvature" and be done with it? > 3)Even if this method is totally unreliable, he used a bunch of other > methods. Managing to punch out this method hardly puts a serious dent in > his analysis. That method *is* unreliable. Obviously this does not bear on the other methods, and hence is not an attack on the conclusion. To summarise: Bwahahahahaha =) DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:19:06 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:59:01 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: >> http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html > >...including the laughable DS "horizon method" calc, laughable because they used >flat scenery for that shot... You know better than this; arguments from "oh, they used weird stuff in that shot" are banned. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:17:50 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994796270.19108.0.nnrp-02.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:VDhLO1k4Il=7rQBXJAAhoIXyOJly@4ax.com... > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:59:01 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > >> http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html > > > >...including the laughable DS "horizon method" calc, laughable because they used > >flat scenery for that shot... > > You know better than this; arguments from "oh, they used weird stuff in that > shot" are banned. So what you're saying is - and correct me if I'm wrong (like I need to ask) that even though we *know* that the scenery is flat, that a calculation based on a supposed measured curvature in said scenery is valid? And I quote: "Bwahahahahaha" DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:24:13 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:17:50 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: >> >> http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html >> > >> >...including the laughable DS "horizon method" calc, laughable because they >used >> >flat scenery for that shot... >> >> You know better than this; arguments from "oh, they used weird stuff in that >> shot" are banned. > >So what you're saying is - and correct me if I'm wrong (like I need to ask) that >even though we *know* that the scenery is flat, that a calculation based on a >supposed measured curvature in said scenery is valid? And I quote: Yes, just like even though we *know* that there is no such thing as an X-Wing, we can still measure its acceleration. It's called suspension of disbelief. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:30:24 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994797025.19553.0.nnrp-02.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:rWNLOwY4yC7wjvvmWbXIGI+7lHE9@4ax.com... > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:17:50 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > >> >> http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html > >> > > >> >...including the laughable DS "horizon method" calc, laughable because they > >used > >> >flat scenery for that shot... > >> > >> You know better than this; arguments from "oh, they used weird stuff in that > >> shot" are banned. > > > >So what you're saying is - and correct me if I'm wrong (like I need to ask) that > >even though we *know* that the scenery is flat, that a calculation based on a > >supposed measured curvature in said scenery is valid? And I quote: > > Yes, just like even though we *know* that there is no such thing as an X-Wing, > we can still measure its acceleration. It's called suspension of disbelief. Please excuse me while my belief fails to be suspended in this instance. It's like claiming an X-Wing is pear shaped when you set out to prove all rebel spacecraft look like fruits. Not very believable, and completely contrary to the evidence. Sure, I can suspend believe - but don't ask me to take it seriously. =) DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:46:13 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:30:24 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: >> Yes, just like even though we *know* that there is no such thing as an X-Wing, >> we can still measure its acceleration. It's called suspension of disbelief. > >Please excuse me while my belief fails to be suspended in this instance. It's like >claiming an X-Wing is pear shaped when you set out to prove all rebel spacecraft >look like fruits. Not very believable, and completely contrary to the evidence. >Sure, I can suspend believe - but don't ask me to take it seriously. =) It isn't contrary to any canon evidence. The DS would look very nearly flat from that vantage point. X-Wings don't look like pears. I don't see why this is any worse than measuring the energy required to destroy Alderaan when we "know" that it was really just a little model, not an actual planet, that got destroyed. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:58:46 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994798726.15539.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:qWhLOw2xPK821q2GwG49IWByvQVx@4ax.com... > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:30:24 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > >> Yes, just like even though we *know* that there is no such thing as an X-Wing, > >> we can still measure its acceleration. It's called suspension of disbelief. > > > >Please excuse me while my belief fails to be suspended in this instance. It's like > >claiming an X-Wing is pear shaped when you set out to prove all rebel spacecraft > >look like fruits. Not very believable, and completely contrary to the evidence. > >Sure, I can suspend believe - but don't ask me to take it seriously. =) > > It isn't contrary to any canon evidence. The DS would look very nearly flat from > that vantage point. X-Wings don't look like pears. I don't see why this is any > worse than measuring the energy required to destroy Alderaan when we "know" that > it was really just a little model, not an actual planet, that got destroyed. Indeed - and if the surface were a scale replica of the DS, then there wouldn't be any argument. But to take a surface we *know* is flat, and claim to see a curvature, then base calculations on that curvature is just dishonest. Anyone who doesn't see a problem with this is deserving to be laughed at. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:01:22 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:58:46 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: >> It isn't contrary to any canon evidence. The DS would look very nearly flat from >> that vantage point. X-Wings don't look like pears. I don't see why this is any >> worse than measuring the energy required to destroy Alderaan when we "know" that >> it was really just a little model, not an actual planet, that got destroyed. > >Indeed - and if the surface were a scale replica of the DS, then there wouldn't be >any argument. But to take a surface we *know* is flat, and claim to see a >curvature, then base calculations on that curvature is just dishonest. Anyone who >doesn't see a problem with this is deserving to be laughed at. To take an object we *know* is small, and claim it's huge, and then base calculations on that hugeness is just dishonest. Anyone who doesn't see a problem with this is deserving to be laughed at. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:05:01 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994799102.15776.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:YGxLO5awNq+Cfoe2+94u0ENREWCI@4ax.com... > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:58:46 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > >> It isn't contrary to any canon evidence. The DS would look very nearly flat from > >> that vantage point. X-Wings don't look like pears. I don't see why this is any > >> worse than measuring the energy required to destroy Alderaan when we "know" that > >> it was really just a little model, not an actual planet, that got destroyed. > > > >Indeed - and if the surface were a scale replica of the DS, then there wouldn't be > >any argument. But to take a surface we *know* is flat, and claim to see a > >curvature, then base calculations on that curvature is just dishonest. Anyone who > >doesn't see a problem with this is deserving to be laughed at. > > To take an object we *know* is small, and claim it's huge, and then base > calculations on that hugeness is just dishonest. Anyone who doesn't see a > problem with this is deserving to be laughed at. False argument. Size matters not, shape does when scale replicas talking we are. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:31:08 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:05:01 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > >"Kynes" wrote in message >news:YGxLO5awNq+Cfoe2+94u0ENREWCI@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:58:46 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: >> >> >> It isn't contrary to any canon evidence. The DS would look very nearly flat >from >> >> that vantage point. X-Wings don't look like pears. I don't see why this is >any >> >> worse than measuring the energy required to destroy Alderaan when we "know" >that >> >> it was really just a little model, not an actual planet, that got destroyed. >> > >> >Indeed - and if the surface were a scale replica of the DS, then there wouldn't >be >> >any argument. But to take a surface we *know* is flat, and claim to see a >> >curvature, then base calculations on that curvature is just dishonest. Anyone >who >> >doesn't see a problem with this is deserving to be laughed at. >> >> To take an object we *know* is small, and claim it's huge, and then base >> calculations on that hugeness is just dishonest. Anyone who doesn't see a >> problem with this is deserving to be laughed at. > >False argument. Size matters not, shape does when scale replicas talking we are. And mass matters when we're talking about planet destruction. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:18:13 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994803493.18448.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:eXNLO9tholSSSqJPlQPqH19RrY77@4ax.com... > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:05:01 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > > > >"Kynes" wrote in message > >news:YGxLO5awNq+Cfoe2+94u0ENREWCI@4ax.com... > >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:58:46 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > >> > >> >> It isn't contrary to any canon evidence. The DS would look very nearly flat > >from > >> >> that vantage point. X-Wings don't look like pears. I don't see why this is > >any > >> >> worse than measuring the energy required to destroy Alderaan when we "know" > >that > >> >> it was really just a little model, not an actual planet, that got destroyed. > >> > > >> >Indeed - and if the surface were a scale replica of the DS, then there wouldn't > >be > >> >any argument. But to take a surface we *know* is flat, and claim to see a > >> >curvature, then base calculations on that curvature is just dishonest. Anyone > >who > >> >doesn't see a problem with this is deserving to be laughed at. > >> > >> To take an object we *know* is small, and claim it's huge, and then base > >> calculations on that hugeness is just dishonest. Anyone who doesn't see a > >> problem with this is deserving to be laughed at. > > > >False argument. Size matters not, shape does when scale replicas talking we are. > > And mass matters when we're talking about planet destruction. Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand? DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:32:19 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:18:13 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > >"Kynes" wrote in message >news:eXNLO9tholSSSqJPlQPqH19RrY77@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:05:01 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: >> >> > >> >"Kynes" wrote in message >> >news:YGxLO5awNq+Cfoe2+94u0ENREWCI@4ax.com... >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:58:46 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: >> >> >> >> >> It isn't contrary to any canon evidence. The DS would look very nearly >flat >> >from >> >> >> that vantage point. X-Wings don't look like pears. I don't see why this is >> >any >> >> >> worse than measuring the energy required to destroy Alderaan when we >"know" >> >that >> >> >> it was really just a little model, not an actual planet, that got >destroyed. >> >> > >> >> >Indeed - and if the surface were a scale replica of the DS, then there >wouldn't >> >be >> >> >any argument. But to take a surface we *know* is flat, and claim to see a >> >> >curvature, then base calculations on that curvature is just dishonest. >Anyone >> >who >> >> >doesn't see a problem with this is deserving to be laughed at. >> >> >> >> To take an object we *know* is small, and claim it's huge, and then base >> >> calculations on that hugeness is just dishonest. Anyone who doesn't see a >> >> problem with this is deserving to be laughed at. >> > >> >False argument. Size matters not, shape does when scale replicas talking we >are. >> >> And mass matters when we're talking about planet destruction. > >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand? Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand? -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:50:21 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994805421.19405.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:y4FLO=hoH9leARamWXcUnYgAP4Gy@4ax.com... > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:18:13 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > > > >"Kynes" wrote in message > >news:eXNLO9tholSSSqJPlQPqH19RrY77@4ax.com... > >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:05:01 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >"Kynes" wrote in message > >> >news:YGxLO5awNq+Cfoe2+94u0ENREWCI@4ax.com... > >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:58:46 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >> It isn't contrary to any canon evidence. The DS would look very nearly > >flat > >> >from > >> >> >> that vantage point. X-Wings don't look like pears. I don't see why this is > >> >any > >> >> >> worse than measuring the energy required to destroy Alderaan when we > >"know" > >> >that > >> >> >> it was really just a little model, not an actual planet, that got > >destroyed. > >> >> > > >> >> >Indeed - and if the surface were a scale replica of the DS, then there > >wouldn't > >> >be > >> >> >any argument. But to take a surface we *know* is flat, and claim to see a > >> >> >curvature, then base calculations on that curvature is just dishonest. > >Anyone > >> >who > >> >> >doesn't see a problem with this is deserving to be laughed at. > >> >> > >> >> To take an object we *know* is small, and claim it's huge, and then base > >> >> calculations on that hugeness is just dishonest. Anyone who doesn't see a > >> >> problem with this is deserving to be laughed at. > >> > > >> >False argument. Size matters not, shape does when scale replicas talking we > >are. > >> > >> And mass matters when we're talking about planet destruction. > > > >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand? > > Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand? ...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with size, shape doesn't. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:55:12 -0400 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <3B4B87D0.B3727957@daltonator.net> -------- DMZ wrote: > > "Kynes" wrote in message > news:y4FLO=hoH9leARamWXcUnYgAP4Gy@4ax.com... > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:18:13 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: [snip] > > >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand? > > > > Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand? > > ...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with size, > shape doesn't. Not necessarily. A tiny neutron star can be as massive as the Sun, but I think that's a red herring :) -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "Kynes sets the stove on fire." ---ASVS House ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:58:11 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994805891.19674.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3B4B87D0.B3727957@daltonator.net... > DMZ wrote: > > > > "Kynes" wrote in message > > news:y4FLO=hoH9leARamWXcUnYgAP4Gy@4ax.com... > > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:18:13 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > [snip] > > > > >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand? > > > > > > Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand? > > > > ...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with size, > > shape doesn't. > > Not necessarily. A tiny neutron star can be as massive as the Sun, but I > think that's a red herring :) Can't be. Wrong shape. =) DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:59:35 -0400 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <3B4B88D7.C2BCC03B@daltonator.net> -------- DMZ wrote: > > "Dalton" wrote in message > news:3B4B87D0.B3727957@daltonator.net... > > DMZ wrote: > > > > > > "Kynes" wrote in message > > > news:y4FLO=hoH9leARamWXcUnYgAP4Gy@4ax.com... > > > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:18:13 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand? > > > > > > > > Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand? > > > > > > ...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with > size, > > > shape doesn't. > > > > Not necessarily. A tiny neutron star can be as massive as the Sun, but I > > think that's a red herring :) > > Can't be. Wrong shape. =) Hey, they are both spherical! -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "Kynes sets the stove on fire." ---ASVS House ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:01:26 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994806087.19816.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3B4B88D7.C2BCC03B@daltonator.net... > DMZ wrote: > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > news:3B4B87D0.B3727957@daltonator.net... > > > DMZ wrote: > > > > > > > > "Kynes" wrote in message > > > > news:y4FLO=hoH9leARamWXcUnYgAP4Gy@4ax.com... > > > > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:18:13 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand? > > > > > > > > ...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with > > size, > > > > shape doesn't. > > > > > > Not necessarily. A tiny neutron star can be as massive as the Sun, but I > > > think that's a red herring :) > > > > Can't be. Wrong shape. =) > > Hey, they are both spherical! Since when is a herring spherical? DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 19:02:07 -0400 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <3B4B896F.FFF7D41D@daltonator.net> -------- DMZ wrote: > > "Dalton" wrote in message > news:3B4B88D7.C2BCC03B@daltonator.net... > > DMZ wrote: > > > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > > news:3B4B87D0.B3727957@daltonator.net... > > > > DMZ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "Kynes" wrote in message > > > > > news:y4FLO=hoH9leARamWXcUnYgAP4Gy@4ax.com... > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:18:13 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > > > Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > ...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with > > > size, > > > > > shape doesn't. > > > > > > > > Not necessarily. A tiny neutron star can be as massive as the Sun, but I > > > > think that's a red herring :) > > > > > > Can't be. Wrong shape. =) > > > > Hey, they are both spherical! > > Since when is a herring spherical? I've seen spherical chickens, why not spherical herrings? -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "Kynes sets the stove on fire." ---ASVS House ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:27:23 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994807643.20428.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3B4B896F.FFF7D41D@daltonator.net... > DMZ wrote: > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > news:3B4B88D7.C2BCC03B@daltonator.net... > > > DMZ wrote: > > > > > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > > > news:3B4B87D0.B3727957@daltonator.net... > > > > > DMZ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "Kynes" wrote in message > > > > > > news:y4FLO=hoH9leARamWXcUnYgAP4Gy@4ax.com... > > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:18:13 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > > > ...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with > > > > size, > > > > > > shape doesn't. > > > > > > > > > > Not necessarily. A tiny neutron star can be as massive as the Sun, but I > > > > > think that's a red herring :) > > > > > > > > Can't be. Wrong shape. =) > > > > > > Hey, they are both spherical! > > > > Since when is a herring spherical? > > I've seen spherical chickens, why not spherical herrings? Hmmm... good question. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martichi@aol.com (SirNitram) Date: 10 Jul 2001 18:18:43 -0700 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <1e5517e2.0107101718.6881d409@posting.google.com> -------- "DMZ" wrote in message news:<994806087.19816.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>... > "Dalton" wrote in message > news:3B4B88D7.C2BCC03B@daltonator.net... > > DMZ wrote: > > > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > > news:3B4B87D0.B3727957@daltonator.net... > > > > DMZ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "Kynes" wrote in message > > > > > news:y4FLO=hoH9leARamWXcUnYgAP4Gy@4ax.com... > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:18:13 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > > > Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > ...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with > size, > > > > > shape doesn't. > > > > > > > > Not necessarily. A tiny neutron star can be as massive as the Sun, but I > > > > think that's a red herring :) > > > > > > Can't be. Wrong shape. =) > > > > Hey, they are both spherical! > > Since when is a herring spherical? > > DMZ > --- When it eats too much. As for the 'Executor crash was on a flat DS' argument, I'll just post this URL(From Saxton's site, oh no, it must be digitally altered to defend conclusions he himself mentions are flimsy!) http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/zs/rotj/execdive7.jpg And say that it looks like there's a definate, althought slight, curvature on the horizon. Of course, if our Saxton Attacker had been wise, he wouldn't have attacked the DS size estimations, as I beleive the commonly used one(900km for DSII, I think), is more established by CINEFEX(" The Deathstar, I think, will be a lot more interesting than the one in the first Star Wars --- mainly because it is under construction ... Plus, it will be MUCH bigger. In Star Wars, it was really difficult to establish the scale. It was supposed to be miles in diameter, but with a full sphere it was hard to tell. The NEW one is SUPPOSED TO BE MORE like FIVE HUNDRED MILES in diameter, but since we're not dealing with a sphere all the time, we'll be able to establish landmarks and get a better sense of scale. ")(For the metrically impaired, 500 miles is in the neighbourhood of 800km, and the planetary physics of it all pegs it nearer to 900km.) Yea, attack the calc he himself labels the result as 'Indeterminable'..... That's a good way to make us beleive the ludicrous statements by WEG for a 8km SSD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 03:50:01 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994819802.17242.0.nnrp-14.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "SirNitram" wrote in message news:1e5517e2.0107101718.6881d409@posting.google.com... > Yea, attack the calc he himself labels the result as > 'Indeterminable'..... That's a good way to make us beleive the > ludicrous statements by WEG for a 8km SSD. Excuse me, but where have I attacked the length of the SSD, or supported the WEG claim? Answer - I haven't. No need to get sniffy just because I feel the methodology used in one of the many supporting calculations is suspect. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 04:02:58 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994820578.17364.0.nnrp-14.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "SirNitram" wrote in message news:1e5517e2.0107101718.6881d409@posting.google.com... > "DMZ" wrote in message news:<994806087.19816.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>... > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > news:3B4B88D7.C2BCC03B@daltonator.net... > > > DMZ wrote: > > > > > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > > > news:3B4B87D0.B3727957@daltonator.net... > > > > > DMZ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "Kynes" wrote in message > > > > > > news:y4FLO=hoH9leARamWXcUnYgAP4Gy@4ax.com... > > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:18:13 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > > > ...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with > > size, > > > > > > shape doesn't. > > > > > > > > > > Not necessarily. A tiny neutron star can be as massive as the Sun, but I > > > > > think that's a red herring :) > > > > > > > > Can't be. Wrong shape. =) > > > > > > Hey, they are both spherical! > > > > Since when is a herring spherical? > > > > DMZ > > --- > > When it eats too much. As for the 'Executor crash was on a flat DS' > argument, I'll just post this URL(From Saxton's site, oh no, it must > be digitally altered to defend conclusions he himself mentions are > flimsy!) > > http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/zs/rotj/execdive7.jpg > > And say that it looks like there's a definate, althought slight, > curvature on the horizon. Nope - must be your imagination. Taking the image and overlaying a straight line shows it to be flat, not curved. The only region where we see any "curvature" rising above the line is in a quite pronounced localised area, and is part of the explosion (big red circle in case someone misses it) :-) http://www.alfar.demon.co.uk/exec.jpg DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:08:36 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:50:21 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: >> >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand? >> >> Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand? > >...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with size, >shape doesn't. Apparently you misunderstood all of the word "mass." Shape scales with size, mass doesn't. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:42:40 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994808561.20722.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:CIpLOw0wbgt559uer40mEISSv=3j@4ax.com... > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:50:21 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > >> >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand? > >> > >> Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand? > > > >...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with size, > >shape doesn't. > > Apparently you misunderstood all of the word "mass." Shape scales with size, > mass doesn't. Actual mass changes with scale. The mass represented does not. Shape remains constant when scaling. This was the original point - shape is constant regardless of the scale of the model. Otherwise, you're talking about a deformation, not a scaling operation. No matter how many hoops you want to jump through, you cannot avoid this inexorable fact - regardless of the scaled size of a model, its shape is the same as the object it represents, by definition. We are now left with 2 options (unless you can suggest any others) 1) The surface accurately represents the Death Star. Hence, since the surface is flat - the Death Star is infinite in size. 2) The surface does not accurately represent the Death Star. And hence we cannot use it to perform calculations based on an attribute of the Death Star. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:47:53 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:42:40 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: >> >> >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand? >> >> >> >> Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand? >> > >> >...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with size, >> >shape doesn't. >> >> Apparently you misunderstood all of the word "mass." Shape scales with size, >> mass doesn't. > >Actual mass changes with scale. The mass represented does not. Shape remains >constant when scaling. This was the original point - shape is constant regardless >of the scale of the model. Otherwise, you're talking about a deformation, not a >scaling operation. No matter how many hoops you want to jump through, you cannot >avoid this inexorable fact - regardless of the scaled size of a model, its shape >is the same as the object it represents, by definition. This entire line of argumentation is bogus; the "shape represented" is the same, just like the "mass represented" is the same. The actual mass of the model is small. The actual curvature of the model is none. However, this is not what's depicted. The Death Star is shown to be curved and Alderaan is shown to be a real planet. This is what we base our calculations on, not what we "know" about the circumstances of the shot. >We are now left with 2 options (unless you can suggest any others) > >1) The surface accurately represents the Death Star. > >Hence, since the surface is flat - the Death Star is infinite in size. Please prove the surface is flat, not just very slightly curved. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:16:00 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994810560.21502.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:oJJLO5ZeWwG1zjxMPJbfVPGC18x8@4ax.com... > On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:42:40 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > >> >> >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand? > >> >> > >> >> Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand? > >> > > >> >...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales with size, > >> >shape doesn't. > >> > >> Apparently you misunderstood all of the word "mass." Shape scales with size, > >> mass doesn't. > > > >Actual mass changes with scale. The mass represented does not. Shape remains > >constant when scaling. This was the original point - shape is constant regardless > >of the scale of the model. Otherwise, you're talking about a deformation, not a > >scaling operation. No matter how many hoops you want to jump through, you cannot > >avoid this inexorable fact - regardless of the scaled size of a model, its shape > >is the same as the object it represents, by definition. > > This entire line of argumentation is bogus; the "shape represented" is the same, > just like the "mass represented" is the same. The shape is not the same, since the model is not curved. Hence, the argument is valid. (What is this "argumentation" thing?) > The actual mass of the model is > small. The actual curvature of the model is none. Agreed. > However, this is not what's depicted. I agree it's not what is depicted, but "depicted" isn't scientifically useful. Cubist paintings can depict real objects, yet you couldn't use them to calculate the physical properties of the original. > The Death Star is shown to be curved and Alderaan is shown to be a > real planet. This is what we base our calculations on, not what we "know" about > the circumstances of the shot. If you want to base your calculations on properties that are not present, go ahead - I'll keep laughing. It has no scientific credence whatsoever and makes a mockery of the entire process that this group wishes to support. > >We are now left with 2 options (unless you can suggest any others) > > > >1) The surface accurately represents the Death Star. > > > >Hence, since the surface is flat - the Death Star is infinite in size. > > Please prove the surface is flat, not just very slightly curved. Well, we've all seen the flat surface. But, as a stalling tactic, this may succeed if you do indeed wish to inconvenience me to dredge up relevant evidence. Watch this space, as they say. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:25:05 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:16:00 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: >> >Actual mass changes with scale. The mass represented does not. Shape remains >> >constant when scaling. This was the original point - shape is constant >regardless >> >of the scale of the model. Otherwise, you're talking about a deformation, not a >> >scaling operation. No matter how many hoops you want to jump through, you >cannot >> >avoid this inexorable fact - regardless of the scaled size of a model, its >shape >> >is the same as the object it represents, by definition. >> >> This entire line of argumentation is bogus; the "shape represented" is the same, >> just like the "mass represented" is the same. > >The shape is not the same, since the model is not curved. Hence, the argument is >valid. (What is this "argumentation" thing?) Then the mass of Alderaan is not the same, since the model is not massive. >> The actual mass of the model is >> small. The actual curvature of the model is none. > >Agreed. > >> However, this is not what's depicted. > >I agree it's not what is depicted, but "depicted" isn't scientifically useful. I guess we should toss the ANH calcs -- and for that matter, all visual evidence -- out the window. Luckily, this kind of ridiculous stance is not what the group has chosen. >Cubist paintings can depict real objects, yet you couldn't use them to calculate >the physical properties of the original. We could if they were canon. >> The Death Star is shown to be curved and Alderaan is shown to be a >> real planet. This is what we base our calculations on, not what we "know" about >> the circumstances of the shot. > >If you want to base your calculations on properties that are not present, go >ahead - I'll keep laughing. Neither of these universes are present. For you to insist that only parts of them are real is funnier than every error you've ever made. >> >We are now left with 2 options (unless you can suggest any others) >> > >> >1) The surface accurately represents the Death Star. >> > >> >Hence, since the surface is flat - the Death Star is infinite in size. >> >> Please prove the surface is flat, not just very slightly curved. > >Well, we've all seen the flat surface. It is, to the naked eye, flat; however, the curvature that close to the surface would seem nearly flat. You have yet to prove that it is ACTUALLY flat. > But, as a stalling tactic, this may succeed >if you do indeed wish to inconvenience me to dredge up relevant evidence. Watch >this space, as they say. Dredge up that evidence. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:35:15 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994811715.21890.0.nnrp-07.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:vZtLO+puBBvkLyp2T0UsMVW=ARoE@4ax.com... > >Cubist paintings can depict real objects, yet you couldn't use them to calculate > >the physical properties of the original. > > We could if they were canon. ...and now I know you're joking... DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:31:34 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994876294.18967.0.nnrp-12.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:vZtLO+puBBvkLyp2T0UsMVW=ARoE@4ax.com... > Dredge up that evidence. http://www.alfar.demon.co.uk/exec.jpg Dredged. The edge is perfectly flat, the only "curved" area is a bump around the explosion, and is in fact part of the explosion. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:42:21 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:31:34 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: >> Dredge up that evidence. > >http://www.alfar.demon.co.uk/exec.jpg > >Dredged. The edge is perfectly flat, the only "curved" area is a bump around the >explosion, and is in fact part of the explosion. It does look flat. So does the edge here: http://www.galactec.com/kynes/images/ds2vsgsc.gif However, neither are actually flat. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:48:50 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994877331.19547.0.nnrp-12.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:D51MO8SZYdvl2mrzUuaHcyYN6GDU@4ax.com... > On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:31:34 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > >> Dredge up that evidence. > > > >http://www.alfar.demon.co.uk/exec.jpg > > > >Dredged. The edge is perfectly flat, the only "curved" area is a bump around the > >explosion, and is in fact part of the explosion. > > It does look flat. So does the edge here: > > http://www.galactec.com/kynes/images/ds2vsgsc.gif > > However, neither are actually flat. You didn't actually look at the picture, did you? It shows a green straight line that precisely corresponds to the horizon. As for your link, I hardly think it counts as admissable evidence. So - hard evidence. It is flat. I await your sticking your fingers in your ears and mouthing the same flawed drivel at me. =) DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:20:20 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <3qVMO9XPikRRy6rLCkq=9uBwLp1T@4ax.com> -------- On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:48:50 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: >> >> Dredge up that evidence. >> > >> >http://www.alfar.demon.co.uk/exec.jpg >> > >> >Dredged. The edge is perfectly flat, the only "curved" area is a bump around >the >> >explosion, and is in fact part of the explosion. >> >> It does look flat. So does the edge here: >> >> http://www.galactec.com/kynes/images/ds2vsgsc.gif >> >> However, neither are actually flat. > >You didn't actually look at the picture, did you? It shows a green straight line >that precisely corresponds to the horizon. Of course it corresponds to the horizon. The view of the mountains from my window lines right up with the horizon, that doesn't make them flat. What do you think makes the horizon, exactly? You have yet to prove that this is actually a flat surface. It doesn't look flat at all to me. > As for your link, I hardly think it >counts as admissable evidence. Why? Don't believe me? Do the scaling yourself. Open up Photoshop and make shapes of the appropriate size, zoom in and see if you get a different result. It is perfectly admissable evidence. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:51:49 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994881110.22819.0.nnrp-02.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:3qVMO9XPikRRy6rLCkq=9uBwLp1T@4ax.com... > On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:48:50 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > >> >> Dredge up that evidence. > >> > > >> >http://www.alfar.demon.co.uk/exec.jpg > >> > > >> >Dredged. The edge is perfectly flat, the only "curved" area is a bump around > >the > >> >explosion, and is in fact part of the explosion. > >> > >> It does look flat. So does the edge here: > >> > >> http://www.galactec.com/kynes/images/ds2vsgsc.gif > >> > >> However, neither are actually flat. > > > >You didn't actually look at the picture, did you? It shows a green straight line > >that precisely corresponds to the horizon. > > Of course it corresponds to the horizon. The view of the mountains from my > window lines right up with the horizon, that doesn't make them flat. What do you > think makes the horizon, exactly? > > You have yet to prove that this is actually a flat surface. It doesn't look flat > at all to me. A straight line corresponds to the horizon. Hence, there is no _perceptable_ curvature from which to base any calculations. The point of whether this is due to it actually being a flat surface or not is moot. If you wish to claim that "the straight line doesn't look straight to you" after I have shown that it is, I have only one thing to say - concession accepted. > > As for your link, I hardly think it > >counts as admissable evidence. > > Why? Don't believe me? Rules of evidence. > Do the scaling yourself. Open up Photoshop and make > shapes of the appropriate size, zoom in and see if you get a different result. Why? Your point is moot. Zoom in so far that all you can see is a straight line, and all you have is... a straight line. Any curvature is inperceptable (present, but unmeasurable by any means), and thus there is nothing to perform a calculation with. > It is perfectly admissable evidence. ...said Kynes, with eyes shut and fingers in both ears. And so his journey to the dark side was complete. He took his place at spacebattle's side, drawing pretty pictures with crayons showing ISD's blowing up entire star systems with a single shot, and claiming it as evidence. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:08:00 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:51:49 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: >> Of course it corresponds to the horizon. The view of the mountains from my >> window lines right up with the horizon, that doesn't make them flat. What do you >> think makes the horizon, exactly? >> >> You have yet to prove that this is actually a flat surface. It doesn't look flat >> at all to me. > >A straight line corresponds to the horizon. Hence, there is no _perceptable_ >curvature from which to base any calculations. If there is curvature, it's measurable. If there's not, it's not. You have yet to prove that this line is actually straight; you just posted a picture and said, "There, see!" > The point of whether this is due to >it actually being a flat surface or not is moot. If you wish to claim that "the >straight line doesn't look straight to you" after I have shown that it is You've "shown" that it is? I'm sorry, did you do anything more than repost an image from Curtis Saxton's site? No, you didn't. You haven't "shown" shit and remain unresponsive when I have shown how a curved surface can, to the naked eye, appear flat. >> > As for your link, I hardly think it >> >counts as admissable evidence. >> >> Why? Don't believe me? > >Rules of evidence. The rules of evidence give us the size of the DS2. That is all the image contains -- the size of the DS2 expressed as a circle, and zoomed in to an edge. I think I know the rules a little better than you do. >> Do the scaling yourself. Open up Photoshop and make >> shapes of the appropriate size, zoom in and see if you get a different result. > >Why? Your point is moot. Zoom in so far that all you can see is a straight line, >and all you have is... a straight line. I see you flunked high school math. You can zoom in fifty thousand times on the apex of a parabola and it will never look straight. Curves are always curvy. > Any curvature is inperceptable (present, >but unmeasurable by any means) As this statement is still unproven, you are inching closer to admitting defeat every time you say it. >> It is perfectly admissable evidence. > >...said Kynes, with eyes shut and fingers in both ears. And so his journey to the >dark side was complete. He took his place at spacebattle's side, drawing pretty >pictures with crayons showing ISD's blowing up entire star systems with a single >shot, and claiming it as evidence. DMZ, I realize you're still a novice at this whole "answering arguments" thing, but here's a hint. Ignoring what your opponent says and shouting "NUH UH! LOSER! SPACEBATTLER!" instead is an argumentative fallacy. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:39:13 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994883953.24453.0.nnrp-02.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:a7BMO9QHHHhr66TCFZrh1g7TB=8i@4ax.com... > On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:51:49 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > >> Of course it corresponds to the horizon. The view of the mountains from my > >> window lines right up with the horizon, that doesn't make them flat. What do you > >> think makes the horizon, exactly? > >> > >> You have yet to prove that this is actually a flat surface. It doesn't look flat > >> at all to me. > > > >A straight line corresponds to the horizon. Hence, there is no _perceptable_ > >curvature from which to base any calculations. > > If there is curvature, it's measurable. If there's not, it's not. Wrong. If there is a curvature, that does not imply that it is measurable. > You have yet > to prove that this line is actually straight; you just posted a picture and > said, "There, see!" I posted the picture from Curtis Saxton's site, with a straight line positioned against the horizon - which it matches precisely. Now, your argument appears to be "it might be straight, but it looks curved to me", which is patently absurd. It has been shown to be indistinguishable from a straight line - your belief that it is not is irrelevant without any evidence to support it. > > The point of whether this is due to > >it actually being a flat surface or not is moot. If you wish to claim that "the > >straight line doesn't look straight to you" after I have shown that it is > > You've "shown" that it is? I'm sorry, did you do anything more than repost an > image from Curtis Saxton's site? No, you didn't. You still aren't looking or listening, are you? Please read the above. > You haven't "shown" shit and > remain unresponsive when I have shown how a curved surface can, to the naked > eye, appear flat. Let's see - we know the original model was flat, not curved (although this is not admissable). I have shown that the horizon in the picture is indeed flat, not curved (which is admissable). You believe it is curved, with no evidence. Concession accepted. > >> > As for your link, I hardly think it > >> >counts as admissable evidence. > >> > >> Why? Don't believe me? > > > >Rules of evidence. > > The rules of evidence give us the size of the DS2. That is all the image > contains -- the size of the DS2 expressed as a circle, and zoomed in to an edge. > I think I know the rules a little better than you do. So try acting like they apply to you, then. I am not arguing the size of the DS2, just this one calculation, which is deemed to be dubious in any case. Frankly, the argument that any curvature can be measured, no matter how slight, is absurd. This applies in any real life calculation, much more so in cases where the source data is comprised of pixels. > >> Do the scaling yourself. Open up Photoshop and make > >> shapes of the appropriate size, zoom in and see if you get a different result. > > > >Why? Your point is moot. Zoom in so far that all you can see is a straight line, > >and all you have is... a straight line. > > I see you flunked high school math. You can zoom in fifty thousand times on the > apex of a parabola and it will never look straight. Curves are always curvy. Since when does a circle (or horizon of a sphere) describe a parabola? I'm afraid it doesn't - it's a completely different class of curve. Zoom in on the edge of a circle, and the line becomes flattened, eventually reaching a point where the curvature is so slight as to be unmeasurable, effectively indistinguishable from a straight line. Please try and be more reasonable about this, rather than mudslinging and introducing fallacious arguments. > > Any curvature is inperceptable (present, > >but unmeasurable by any means) > > As this statement is still unproven, you are inching closer to admitting defeat > every time you say it. Look at the evidence. Saying I'm "inching closer to admitting defeat" doesn't make it true, unfortunately, as much as you might like to believe it. > >> It is perfectly admissable evidence. > > > >...said Kynes, with eyes shut and fingers in both ears. And so his journey to the > >dark side was complete. He took his place at spacebattle's side, drawing pretty > >pictures with crayons showing ISD's blowing up entire star systems with a single > >shot, and claiming it as evidence. > > DMZ, I realize you're still a novice at this whole "answering arguments" thing, > but here's a hint. Ignoring what your opponent says and shouting "NUH UH! LOSER! > SPACEBATTLER!" instead is an argumentative fallacy. I shall cease taking my example from you immediately, then. In your post you have attempted to introduce several fallacious arguments (any curvature, no matter how slight, is measurable, and that a parabola has the same curvature a circle.) You also have yet to actually listen to me, or to look at the evidence. If this is what an "expert" is capable of, what hope have I got? DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Transcend" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:16:19 +0000 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <20010711.161617.500410351.3512@localhost.localdomain> -------- In article <994883953.24453.0.nnrp-02.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>, "DMZ" wrote: What are you trying to claim, that the DS was really a giant flat disk? -- When man took to his bed the Computer, there was great rejoicing, and great fear too, for their children were almost like gods. The mainbrains bestrode the galaxy at will, and changed its very face. The Silicon God, The Solid State Entity, Al Squared, Enth Generation - their names are many. And there were the Carked and Symbionts, whose daughters were the Neurosingers, Warrior-Poets, the Neurologicians and the Pilots of the Order of Mystic Mathematicians. --Horthy Hosthoh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:45:06 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994887906.26700.0.nnrp-02.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Transcend" wrote in message news:20010711.161617.500410351.3512@localhost.localdomain... > In article <994883953.24453.0.nnrp-02.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>, "DMZ" > wrote: > > > > What are you trying to claim, that the DS was really a giant flat disk? Naah - just that since the visible horizon in the Executor collision shot is for all intents and purposes flat, it shouldn't have been used to calculate the size of either the Executor or the DS. Since there are many other sources of evidence for both, it doesn't effect any existing calculations, nor would I argue against those other calculations, or the sizes implied. That is being in the way of it - I've already shown that the horizon on the shot is indistinguishable from a straight line, so I suspect it's a case of arguing for the sake of it now. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:37:19 -0400 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <3B4CD51F.7674504E@daltonator.net> -------- DMZ wrote: > > "Transcend" wrote in message > news:20010711.161617.500410351.3512@localhost.localdomain... > > In article <994883953.24453.0.nnrp-02.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>, "DMZ" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > What are you trying to claim, that the DS was really a giant flat disk? > > Naah - just that since the visible horizon in the Executor collision shot is for > all intents and purposes flat, it shouldn't have been used to calculate the size > of either the Executor or the DS. Since there are many other sources of evidence > for both, it doesn't effect any existing calculations, nor would I argue against > those other calculations, or the sizes implied. That is being in the way of it - > I've already shown that the horizon on the shot is indistinguishable from a > straight line, so I suspect it's a case of arguing for the sake of it now. Please shut up. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "Kynes sets the stove on fire." ---ASVS House ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:12:21 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994893142.14463.0.nnrp-08.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3B4CD51F.7674504E@daltonator.net... > Please shut up. Sorry. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hooloovoo@acmemail.net (Beowulf) Date: 11 Jul 2001 23:50:12 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- Transcend wrote: >In article <994883953.24453.0.nnrp-02.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>, "DMZ" > wrote: > > > >What are you trying to claim, that the DS was really a giant flat disk? > > Thank you Transcend. Beowulf ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:17:17 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:39:13 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: >> >> Of course it corresponds to the horizon. The view of the mountains from my >> >> window lines right up with the horizon, that doesn't make them flat. What do >you >> >> think makes the horizon, exactly? >> >> >> >> You have yet to prove that this is actually a flat surface. It doesn't look >flat >> >> at all to me. >> > >> >A straight line corresponds to the horizon. Hence, there is no _perceptable_ >> >curvature from which to base any calculations. >> >> If there is curvature, it's measurable. If there's not, it's not. > >Wrong. If there is a curvature, that does not imply that it is measurable. So there go all your arguments about how, since you can't measure a curvature in MSPAINT.EXE, there isn't one. Oh, how sad. >> You have yet >> to prove that this line is actually straight; you just posted a picture and >> said, "There, see!" > >I posted the picture from Curtis Saxton's site, with a straight line positioned >against the horizon - which it matches precisely. Congratulations, you can draw a line. This proves nothing. You haven't proven that it "matches precisely." And don't expect me to squint at the image for you -- burden of proof is on you. >> > The point of whether this is due to >> >it actually being a flat surface or not is moot. If you wish to claim that "the >> >straight line doesn't look straight to you" after I have shown that it is >> >> You've "shown" that it is? I'm sorry, did you do anything more than repost an >> image from Curtis Saxton's site? No, you didn't. > >You still aren't looking or listening, are you? Please read the above. Right, pardon me. Posted an image from Curtis' site with a green line drawn on it. PROOF POSITIVE! >> You haven't "shown" shit and >> remain unresponsive when I have shown how a curved surface can, to the naked >> eye, appear flat. > >Let's see - we know the original model was flat, not curved (although this is not >admissable). I have shown that the horizon in the picture is indeed flat, not >curved (which is admissable). You have not shown it is flat. You just posted the image and said "look, it's flat." The only answer I need to give to that is "look, it's curved," and we're on equal footing. Try posting some analysis. >> >> > As for your link, I hardly think it >> >> >counts as admissable evidence. >> >> >> >> Why? Don't believe me? >> > >> >Rules of evidence. >> >> The rules of evidence give us the size of the DS2. That is all the image >> contains -- the size of the DS2 expressed as a circle, and zoomed in to an edge. >> I think I know the rules a little better than you do. > >So try acting like they apply to you, then. I am not arguing the size of the DS2, >just this one calculation, which is deemed to be dubious in any case. > >Frankly, the argument that any curvature can be measured, no matter how slight, is >absurd. This applies in any real life calculation, much more so in cases where the >source data is comprised of pixels. Banned by the Rules. >> >> Do the scaling yourself. Open up Photoshop and make >> >> shapes of the appropriate size, zoom in and see if you get a different >result. >> > >> >Why? Your point is moot. Zoom in so far that all you can see is a straight >line, >> >and all you have is... a straight line. >> >> I see you flunked high school math. You can zoom in fifty thousand times on the >> apex of a parabola and it will never look straight. Curves are always curvy. > >Since when does a circle (or horizon of a sphere) describe a parabola? I'm afraid >it doesn't - it's a completely different class of curve. You are completely wrong. They're both conic sections and are not different "classes" of curves. You've hinted at some sort of higher education. Was this conducted at a university that didn't believe in math? >> > Any curvature is inperceptable (present, >> >but unmeasurable by any means) >> >> As this statement is still unproven, you are inching closer to admitting defeat >> every time you say it. > >Look at the evidence. The evidence is curved. >> >> It is perfectly admissable evidence. >> > >> >...said Kynes, with eyes shut and fingers in both ears. And so his journey to >the >> >dark side was complete. He took his place at spacebattle's side, drawing pretty >> >pictures with crayons showing ISD's blowing up entire star systems with a >single >> >shot, and claiming it as evidence. >> >> DMZ, I realize you're still a novice at this whole "answering arguments" thing, >> but here's a hint. Ignoring what your opponent says and shouting "NUH UH! LOSER! >> SPACEBATTLER!" instead is an argumentative fallacy. > >I shall cease taking my example from you immediately, then. Nice try, but you're the one who started getting insulting first. If you were really attempting to "take example" from me you'd abandon this moronic line of reasoning and realize that the Rules forbid it so it's go-nowhere anyhow. >In your post you have >attempted to introduce several fallacious arguments (any curvature, no matter how >slight, is measurable, and that a parabola has the same curvature a circle.) Please name the fallacies that make these arguments invalid. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:18:49 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994897130.15937.0.nnrp-08.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:grlMO3=zdKv1W7odMRRafal2bZUH@4ax.com... > On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:39:13 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > >> >> Of course it corresponds to the horizon. The view of the mountains from my > >> >> window lines right up with the horizon, that doesn't make them flat. What do > >you > >> >> think makes the horizon, exactly? > >> >> > >> >> You have yet to prove that this is actually a flat surface. It doesn't look > >flat > >> >> at all to me. > >> > > >> >A straight line corresponds to the horizon. Hence, there is no _perceptable_ > >> >curvature from which to base any calculations. > >> > >> If there is curvature, it's measurable. If there's not, it's not. > > > >Wrong. If there is a curvature, that does not imply that it is measurable. > > So there go all your arguments about how, since you can't measure a curvature in > MSPAINT.EXE, there isn't one. Oh, how sad. Interesting. Feel free to use whatever you like, personally I use Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, and various Linux utils like Gimp and the Image Magick libraries. > >> You have yet > >> to prove that this line is actually straight; you just posted a picture and > >> said, "There, see!" > > > >I posted the picture from Curtis Saxton's site, with a straight line positioned > >against the horizon - which it matches precisely. > > Congratulations, you can draw a line. This proves nothing. You haven't proven > that it "matches precisely." And don't expect me to squint at the image for you > -- burden of proof is on you. Since you lack the ability to enlarge the image, would you like blow ups of the relevant sections? Perhaps a contour trace? The 'curvature' you see is an optical illusion caused by the darkening of the surface towards the corners. It's far from absolute, any zooming clearly shows the sky/horizon interface. > >> > The point of whether this is due to > >> >it actually being a flat surface or not is moot. If you wish to claim that "the > >> >straight line doesn't look straight to you" after I have shown that it is > >> > >> You've "shown" that it is? I'm sorry, did you do anything more than repost an > >> image from Curtis Saxton's site? No, you didn't. > > > >You still aren't looking or listening, are you? Please read the above. > > Right, pardon me. Posted an image from Curtis' site with a green line drawn on > it. PROOF POSITIVE! Well, I assumed you would be able to discern that the section above the line is devoid of Death Star, and is just starry background whereas the section below is completely surface. Since the line was drawn at the finest discernable thickness, this would tend to indicate that there is no measurable curvature. > >> You haven't "shown" shit and > >> remain unresponsive when I have shown how a curved surface can, to the naked > >> eye, appear flat. > > > >Let's see - we know the original model was flat, not curved (although this is not > >admissable). I have shown that the horizon in the picture is indeed flat, not > >curved (which is admissable). > > You have not shown it is flat. You just posted the image and said "look, it's > flat." The only answer I need to give to that is "look, it's curved," and we're > on equal footing. Try posting some analysis. Since I've shown that it follows a straight line, whereas you have not shown any indication of curvature, I'd say we're far from equal footing. What sort of analysis will satisfy you? > >> >> > As for your link, I hardly think it > >> >> >counts as admissable evidence. > >> >> > >> >> Why? Don't believe me? > >> > > >> >Rules of evidence. > >> > >> The rules of evidence give us the size of the DS2. That is all the image > >> contains -- the size of the DS2 expressed as a circle, and zoomed in to an edge. > >> I think I know the rules a little better than you do. > > > >So try acting like they apply to you, then. I am not arguing the size of the DS2, > >just this one calculation, which is deemed to be dubious in any case. > > > >Frankly, the argument that any curvature can be measured, no matter how slight, is > >absurd. This applies in any real life calculation, much more so in cases where the > >source data is comprised of pixels. > > Banned by the Rules. Calculations are banned by the rules? Alternatively, present some evidence which doesn't have this limitation. My argument doesn't rely on it, after all, only that there is a limit to the accuracy with which any measurement can be made, and a degree of error in all measurements. In this instance, it places an effective limit on the ability to determine curvature. > >> >> Do the scaling yourself. Open up Photoshop and make > >> >> shapes of the appropriate size, zoom in and see if you get a different > >result. > >> > > >> >Why? Your point is moot. Zoom in so far that all you can see is a straight > >line, > >> >and all you have is... a straight line. > >> > >> I see you flunked high school math. You can zoom in fifty thousand times on the > >> apex of a parabola and it will never look straight. Curves are always curvy. > > > >Since when does a circle (or horizon of a sphere) describe a parabola? I'm afraid > >it doesn't - it's a completely different class of curve. > > You are completely wrong. They're both conic sections and are not different > "classes" of curves. I stand corrected, they are indeed both conic sections. > You've hinted at some sort of higher education. Was this > conducted at a university that didn't believe in math? Ironically, I've dealt with both the two and three dimensional forms of those curves in some depth. Parabola and ellipses can be used to describe orbital elements, not to mention their use in newtonian and cassegrain telescopes. The three dimensional forms were as second order polynomial surfaces. Feel free to check out my MSc dissertation "A Portable Raytracer in C++", Cardiff University should have a copy, as I believe should the British library. That should show some practical examples. > >> > Any curvature is inperceptable (present, > >> >but unmeasurable by any means) > >> > >> As this statement is still unproven, you are inching closer to admitting defeat > >> every time you say it. > > > >Look at the evidence. > > The evidence is curved. It's like arguing with a child. Seriously. > >> >> It is perfectly admissable evidence. > >> > > >> >...said Kynes, with eyes shut and fingers in both ears. And so his journey to > >the > >> >dark side was complete. He took his place at spacebattle's side, drawing pretty > >> >pictures with crayons showing ISD's blowing up entire star systems with a > >single > >> >shot, and claiming it as evidence. > >> > >> DMZ, I realize you're still a novice at this whole "answering arguments" thing, > >> but here's a hint. Ignoring what your opponent says and shouting "NUH UH! LOSER! > >> SPACEBATTLER!" instead is an argumentative fallacy. > > > >I shall cease taking my example from you immediately, then. > > Nice try, but you're the one who started getting insulting first. If you were > really attempting to "take example" from me you'd abandon this moronic line of > reasoning and realize that the Rules forbid it so it's go-nowhere anyhow. I'm operating within the rules. My argument is currently based on canon visual evidence, which cannot be trumped, and is entirely legal. > >In your post you have > >attempted to introduce several fallacious arguments (any curvature, no matter how > >slight, is measurable, and that a parabola has the same curvature a circle.) > > Please name the fallacies that make these arguments invalid. You imply that a measurement can be made with infinite degree of accuracy, and no error. You imply that a section of a circle, when scaled, shares the same special property as the apex of a parabola, specifically that it maintains the same curvature. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:25:30 -0400 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <3B4CEE7A.C9DABFE@daltonator.net> -------- DMZ wrote: [snip] This is a meaningless argument. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "Kynes sets the stove on fire." ---ASVS House ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:31:51 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994897911.16249.0.nnrp-08.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3B4CEE7A.C9DABFE@daltonator.net... > DMZ wrote: > > [snip] > > This is a meaningless argument. It shall continue until there is only one. Who shall then proceed to argue with himself, no doubt. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:03:30 -0500 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <9ijamm$j20rp$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Dalton wrote in message <3B4CEE7A.C9DABFE@daltonator.net>... >DMZ wrote: > >[snip] > >This is a meaningless argument. > But it is great fun to watch. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:50:03 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994938603.4317.0.nnrp-14.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:9ijamm$j20rp$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > Dalton wrote in message <3B4CEE7A.C9DABFE@daltonator.net>... > >DMZ wrote: > > > >[snip] > > > >This is a meaningless argument. > > > > But it is great fun to watch. Finished now (hopefully.) Kynes is the only person I know who makes a concession look like a great victory. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:33:42 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:18:49 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: >> >> If there is curvature, it's measurable. If there's not, it's not. >> > >> >Wrong. If there is a curvature, that does not imply that it is measurable. >> >> So there go all your arguments about how, since you can't measure a curvature in >> MSPAINT.EXE, there isn't one. Oh, how sad. > >Interesting. Feel free to use whatever you like, personally I use Photoshop, Paint >Shop Pro, and various Linux utils like Gimp and the Image Magick libraries. You're avoiding the argument. You say yourself that a surface might be immeasurably curved. I'll certainly accept that, and it voids almost all of your argumentation below. Canon shows that the DS is curved; visual analysis shows it to be immeasurably so. No problem for me. Actually, it voids *all* your argumentation below. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:54:03 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994899243.16637.0.nnrp-08.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:Be9MO+gh1rjKYqQwdwSNo4hxfOtV@4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:18:49 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > >> >> If there is curvature, it's measurable. If there's not, it's not. > >> > > >> >Wrong. If there is a curvature, that does not imply that it is measurable. > >> > >> So there go all your arguments about how, since you can't measure a curvature in > >> MSPAINT.EXE, there isn't one. Oh, how sad. > > > >Interesting. Feel free to use whatever you like, personally I use Photoshop, Paint > >Shop Pro, and various Linux utils like Gimp and the Image Magick libraries. > > You're avoiding the argument. You bought the point up. What happened to the rest of the argument? Conveniently snipped, I notice. You, sir, are the one to avoid the argument, not I. Since I suspect this is to appease Dalton and bring this argument to an end, rather than any other considerations, so be it. > You say yourself that a surface might be immeasurably curved. I've been saying it for the last 6 odd posts. > I'll certainly accept that, and it voids almost all of your > argumentation below. I have been saying ad naseum that for all intents and purposes the surface is flat for the purposes of measurement in that scene. It validates my argument, not voids it. > Canon shows that the DS is curved; visual analysis shows it > to be immeasurably so. No problem for me. Nor me. > Actually, it voids *all* your argumentation below. Again, my argument the the curvature is immeasurable in that scene is precisely upheld and supported by that viewpoint. PS - although I doubt there will be any online reference to dissertations (there are literally tens of thousands of them produced each year, after all), I'd be happy to supply you with the files it was printed from, if you're at all interested. =) DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "The Third Man" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:38:14 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- DMZ wrote: > >"Kynes" wrote in message >news:3qVMO9XPikRRy6rLCkq=9uBwLp1T@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:48:50 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: [snip] > >> Do the scaling yourself. Open up Photoshop and make >> shapes of the appropriate size, zoom in and see if you get a different result. > >Why? Your point is moot. Zoom in so far that all you can see is a straight line, >and all you have is... a straight line. Any curvature is inperceptable (present, >but unmeasurable by any means), and thus there is nothing to perform a calculation >with. > Well, just for the sake of daftness I took the Kynes image and like you said I opened it in Photoshop (actually Piss Pot Pro since I don't have Photoshop), and drew a line just like DMZ did to the Saxton image. And it does in fact show a very small, but noticeable, curvature. But I can't show you my results because I don't have a readily available website. TTM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:10:33 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994893033.14417.0.nnrp-08.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "The Third Man" wrote in message news:yy437.114$os1.488384@newsr2.u-net.net... > DMZ wrote: > > > >"Kynes" wrote in message > >news:3qVMO9XPikRRy6rLCkq=9uBwLp1T@4ax.com... > >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:48:50 +0100, "DMZ" wrote: > > [snip] > > > > >> Do the scaling yourself. Open up Photoshop and make > >> shapes of the appropriate size, zoom in and see if you get a different > result. > > > >Why? Your point is moot. Zoom in so far that all you can see is a straight > line, > >and all you have is... a straight line. Any curvature is inperceptable > (present, > >but unmeasurable by any means), and thus there is nothing to perform a > calculation > >with. > > > > Well, just for the sake of daftness I took the Kynes image and like you said > I opened it in Photoshop (actually Piss Pot Pro since I don't have > Photoshop), and drew a line just like DMZ did to the Saxton image. And it > does in fact show a very small, but noticeable, curvature. But I can't show > you my results because I don't have a readily available website. Feel free to email it to me, if you like. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hooloovoo@acmemail.net (Beowulf) Date: 11 Jul 2001 20:22:21 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- DMZ wrote: > >"Kynes" wrote in message >news:D51MO8SZYdvl2mrzUuaHcyYN6GDU@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:31:34 +0100, "DMZ" >> wrote: >> >> >> Dredge up that evidence. >> > >> >http://www.alfar.demon.co.uk/exec.jpg >> > >> >Dredged. The edge is perfectly flat, the only "curved" area is a bump >> >around >the >> >explosion, and is in fact part of the explosion. >> >> It does look flat. So does the edge here: >> >> http://www.galactec.com/kynes/images/ds2vsgsc.gif >> >> However, neither are actually flat. > >You didn't actually look at the picture, did you? It shows a green >straight line that precisely corresponds to the horizon. As for your >link, I hardly think it counts as admissable evidence. > >So - hard evidence. It is flat. I await your sticking your fingers in >your ears and mouthing the same flawed drivel at me. =) It's on the Earth, it curved. Beowulf ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:42:02 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994884122.24551.0.nnrp-02.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Beowulf" wrote in message news:Xns90DB8DFF2TIEbeowulf@130.133.1.4... > DMZ wrote: > > > > >"Kynes" wrote in message > >news:D51MO8SZYdvl2mrzUuaHcyYN6GDU@4ax.com... > >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:31:34 +0100, "DMZ" > >> wrote: > >> > >> >> Dredge up that evidence. > >> > > >> >http://www.alfar.demon.co.uk/exec.jpg > >> > > >> >Dredged. The edge is perfectly flat, the only "curved" area is a bump > >> >around > >the > >> >explosion, and is in fact part of the explosion. > >> > >> It does look flat. So does the edge here: > >> > >> http://www.galactec.com/kynes/images/ds2vsgsc.gif > >> > >> However, neither are actually flat. > > > >You didn't actually look at the picture, did you? It shows a green > >straight line that precisely corresponds to the horizon. As for your > >link, I hardly think it counts as admissable evidence. > > > >So - hard evidence. It is flat. I await your sticking your fingers in > >your ears and mouthing the same flawed drivel at me. =) > > It's on the Earth, it curved. Beowulf - that argument might work if the Earth were perfectly spherical, paticularly at a localised scale. ;-) DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hooloovoo@acmemail.net (Beowulf) Date: 11 Jul 2001 23:49:39 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- DMZ wrote: > >"Beowulf" wrote in message >news:Xns90DB8DFF2TIEbeowulf@130.133.1.4... >> DMZ wrote: >> >> > >> >"Kynes" wrote in message >> >news:D51MO8SZYdvl2mrzUuaHcyYN6GDU@4ax.com... >> >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:31:34 +0100, "DMZ" >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Dredge up that evidence. >> >> > >> >> >http://www.alfar.demon.co.uk/exec.jpg >> >> > >> >> >Dredged. The edge is perfectly flat, the only "curved" area is a >> >> >bump around >> >the >> >> >explosion, and is in fact part of the explosion. >> >> >> >> It does look flat. So does the edge here: >> >> >> >> http://www.galactec.com/kynes/images/ds2vsgsc.gif >> >> >> >> However, neither are actually flat. >> > >> >You didn't actually look at the picture, did you? It shows a green >> >straight line that precisely corresponds to the horizon. As for your >> >link, I hardly think it counts as admissable evidence. >> > >> >So - hard evidence. It is flat. I await your sticking your fingers in >> >your ears and mouthing the same flawed drivel at me. =) >> >> It's on the Earth, it curved. > >Beowulf - that argument might work if the Earth were perfectly >spherical, paticularly at a localised scale. ;-) > It's on Earth, the Earth is round, therefore the floor is curved, therefore the surface depicted in ROTJ is curved. It may appear flat, but that's due to the limited amount of spcae shown. The Earth does not have to be perfectly spherical, it just has to be round. Beowulf ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:20:14 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994897214.15997.0.nnrp-08.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Beowulf" wrote in message news:Xns90DBAD619TIEbeowulf@130.133.1.4... > DMZ wrote: > > > > >"Beowulf" wrote in message > >news:Xns90DB8DFF2TIEbeowulf@130.133.1.4... > >> DMZ wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >"Kynes" wrote in message > >> >news:D51MO8SZYdvl2mrzUuaHcyYN6GDU@4ax.com... > >> >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:31:34 +0100, "DMZ" > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >> Dredge up that evidence. > >> >> > > >> >> >http://www.alfar.demon.co.uk/exec.jpg > >> >> > > >> >> >Dredged. The edge is perfectly flat, the only "curved" area is a > >> >> >bump around > >> >the > >> >> >explosion, and is in fact part of the explosion. > >> >> > >> >> It does look flat. So does the edge here: > >> >> > >> >> http://www.galactec.com/kynes/images/ds2vsgsc.gif > >> >> > >> >> However, neither are actually flat. > >> > > >> >You didn't actually look at the picture, did you? It shows a green > >> >straight line that precisely corresponds to the horizon. As for your > >> >link, I hardly think it counts as admissable evidence. > >> > > >> >So - hard evidence. It is flat. I await your sticking your fingers in > >> >your ears and mouthing the same flawed drivel at me. =) > >> > >> It's on the Earth, it curved. > > > >Beowulf - that argument might work if the Earth were perfectly > >spherical, paticularly at a localised scale. ;-) > > > > It's on Earth, the Earth is round, therefore the floor is curved, therefore > the surface depicted in ROTJ is curved. It may appear flat, but that's due > to the limited amount of spcae shown. The Earth does not have to be > perfectly spherical, it just has to be round. Unfortunately, it's a semi-oblate spheroid, and on top of which does not demonstrate curvature at a non-macroscopic scale. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:22:53 -0500 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <9ijbr0$ja56l$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- DMZ wrote in message <994897214.15997.0.nnrp-08.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>... > >"Beowulf" wrote in message >news:Xns90DBAD619TIEbeowulf@130.133.1.4... >> DMZ wrote: >> >> > >> >"Beowulf" wrote in message >> >news:Xns90DB8DFF2TIEbeowulf@130.133.1.4... >> >> DMZ wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >"Kynes" wrote in message >> >> >news:D51MO8SZYdvl2mrzUuaHcyYN6GDU@4ax.com... >> >> >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:31:34 +0100, "DMZ" >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dredge up that evidence. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >http://www.alfar.demon.co.uk/exec.jpg >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Dredged. The edge is perfectly flat, the only "curved" area is a >> >> >> >bump around >> >> >the >> >> >> >explosion, and is in fact part of the explosion. >> >> >> >> >> >> It does look flat. So does the edge here: >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.galactec.com/kynes/images/ds2vsgsc.gif >> >> >> >> >> >> However, neither are actually flat. >> >> > >> >> >You didn't actually look at the picture, did you? It shows a green >> >> >straight line that precisely corresponds to the horizon. As for your >> >> >link, I hardly think it counts as admissable evidence. >> >> > >> >> >So - hard evidence. It is flat. I await your sticking your fingers in >> >> >your ears and mouthing the same flawed drivel at me. =) >> >> >> >> It's on the Earth, it curved. >> > >> >Beowulf - that argument might work if the Earth were perfectly >> >spherical, paticularly at a localised scale. ;-) >> > >> >> It's on Earth, the Earth is round, therefore the floor is curved, therefore >> the surface depicted in ROTJ is curved. It may appear flat, but that's due >> to the limited amount of spcae shown. The Earth does not have to be >> perfectly spherical, it just has to be round. > >Unfortunately, it's a semi-oblate spheroid, and on top of which does not >demonstrate curvature at a non-macroscopic scale. > >DMZ Alternately, of course, the table itself upon which the model was built need not have demonstrated even the small curvature of the Earth, or even a large curvature. Example: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/here.jpg ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "The Third Man" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:38:18 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- Beowulf wrote in message ... >It's on the Earth, it curved. Not necessarily. It could have been on a perfectly flat glass table ... TTM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hooloovoo@acmemail.net (Beowulf) Date: 11 Jul 2001 02:42:54 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- DMZ wrote: > >"Kynes" wrote in message >news:CIpLOw0wbgt559uer40mEISSv=3j@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:50:21 +0100, "DMZ" >> wrote: >> >> >> >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand? >> >> >> >> Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand? >> > >> >...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales >> >with size, shape doesn't. >> >> Apparently you misunderstood all of the word "mass." Shape scales with >> size, mass doesn't. > >Actual mass changes with scale. The mass represented does not. Shape >remains constant when scaling. This was the original point - shape is >constant regardless of the scale of the model. Otherwise, you're talking >about a deformation, not a scaling operation. No matter how many hoops >you want to jump through, you cannot avoid this inexorable fact - >regardless of the scaled size of a model, its shape is the same as the >object it represents, by definition. > >We are now left with 2 options (unless you can suggest any others) > >1) The surface accurately represents the Death Star. > >Hence, since the surface is flat - the Death Star is infinite in size. Wrong. The surface is not flat. Its curvature is actually the same as the Earth's. Therefore, the Death Star is several thousand times larger than the Earth. >2) The surface does not accurately represent the Death Star. > >And hence we cannot use it to perform calculations based on an attribute >of the Death Star. Beowulf ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 04:04:19 +0100 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994820659.17386.0.nnrp-14.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Beowulf" wrote in message news:Xns90DACBC61TIEbeowulf@130.133.1.4... > DMZ wrote: > > > > >"Kynes" wrote in message > >news:CIpLOw0wbgt559uer40mEISSv=3j@4ax.com... > >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:50:21 +0100, "DMZ" > >> wrote: > >> > >> >> >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand? > >> >> > >> >> Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand? > >> > > >> >...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales > >> >with size, shape doesn't. > >> > >> Apparently you misunderstood all of the word "mass." Shape scales with > >> size, mass doesn't. > > > >Actual mass changes with scale. The mass represented does not. Shape > >remains constant when scaling. This was the original point - shape is > >constant regardless of the scale of the model. Otherwise, you're talking > >about a deformation, not a scaling operation. No matter how many hoops > >you want to jump through, you cannot avoid this inexorable fact - > >regardless of the scaled size of a model, its shape is the same as the > >object it represents, by definition. > > > >We are now left with 2 options (unless you can suggest any others) > > > >1) The surface accurately represents the Death Star. > > > >Hence, since the surface is flat - the Death Star is infinite in size. > > Wrong. The surface is not flat. Its curvature is actually the same as the > Earth's. Therefore, the Death Star is several thousand times larger than > the Earth. Heh. =) DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paradox" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:40:58 -0700 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <994891352.606643@globe.atl2.mindspring.net> -------- "DMZ" wrote in message news:994820659.17386.0.nnrp-14.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk... > > "Beowulf" wrote in message > news:Xns90DACBC61TIEbeowulf@130.133.1.4... > > DMZ wrote: > > > > > > > >"Kynes" wrote in message > > >news:CIpLOw0wbgt559uer40mEISSv=3j@4ax.com... > > >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:50:21 +0100, "DMZ" > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> >> >Which part of the word "scale" didn't you understand? > > >> >> > > >> >> Which part of the word "mass" didn't you understand? > > >> > > > >> >...apparently you misunderstood all of the word "scale". Mass scales > > >> >with size, shape doesn't. > > >> > > >> Apparently you misunderstood all of the word "mass." Shape scales with > > >> size, mass doesn't. > > > > > >Actual mass changes with scale. The mass represented does not. Shape > > >remains constant when scaling. This was the original point - shape is > > >constant regardless of the scale of the model. Otherwise, you're talking > > >about a deformation, not a scaling operation. No matter how many hoops > > >you want to jump through, you cannot avoid this inexorable fact - > > >regardless of the scaled size of a model, its shape is the same as the > > >object it represents, by definition. > > > > > >We are now left with 2 options (unless you can suggest any others) > > > > > >1) The surface accurately represents the Death Star. > > > > > >Hence, since the surface is flat - the Death Star is infinite in size. > > > > Wrong. The surface is not flat. Its curvature is actually the same as the > > Earth's. Therefore, the Death Star is several thousand times larger than > > the Earth. > > Heh. =) Wtf? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Crayz9000 Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 08:10:34 -0700 Subject: Re: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- Before he rembered his life-jacket on Tue, 10 Jul 2001 08:49:17 GMT, "92knight" <92knight@home.com> found "Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships" while drowning in alt.startrek.vs.starwars: >Hello, I am a BIG Star Trek fan, having seen every episode from every >series, as well as all of the movies, but I do not know much about Star >Wars. >I was just wondering, what is an SSD? And what are the specs on it? What >kind, and how many weapons does it have? I require this information to >accurately compare the SSD to the Sovereign class StarShip. 17.6 KM in length, carries over 200 (each) of heavy turbolasers and missile batteries, and some 400 of both medium and light turbolasers, plus so many ant-starfighter cannon that I don't think anybody's bothered to count. The Executor was Darth Vader's command ship in The Empire Strikes Back. == Crayz9000 - - - - - - - - mhm28x12 http://asvsaa.8m.net (ASVS Auxiliary Archive) http://crayz9000.htmlplanet.com (Crayz9000's Hideout) Don't forget to validate my address. "What version of the Bible would that be? The Gospel according to St. Gorblat? Paul's first letter to the Daleks?" --Chuck, commenting on a fan's review of Battlefield Earth ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: observer_20000@yahoo.com (Charlie Dillon) Date: 10 Jul 2001 20:18:34 -0700 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- "92knight" <92knight@home.com> wrote in message news:... > Hello, I am a BIG Star Trek fan, having seen every episode from every > series, as well as all of the movies, but I do not know much about Star > Wars. > I was just wondering, what is an SSD? And what are the specs on it? What > kind, and how many weapons does it have? I require this information to > accurately compare the SSD to the Sovereign class StarShip. > > Thanks > > > "LT.Hit-Man" wrote in message > news:9ie9vg$inlg4$2@ID-36661.news.dfncis.de... > > Like the header says sixty SSD's find themselves in borg space the borg > send > > a hundred cubes to deal with the SSD's after losing a few cubes. > > Just as the hundred cubes and sixty SSD's are about to lock horns two > > hundred Sovren class ships drop out of warp, they got pulled into borg > space > > by a wrom hole(damm them worm holes are so handy) > > So what happens? > > LT.Hit-Man > > > > Try watching Star Wars ESB, and ROTJ, you'll see more then enough of the SSD... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "92knight" <92knight@home.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:13:39 GMT Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: -------- Ok, now, I know someone said not to get into this, but, what is the difference in power and destruction powers between Star Trek Phasers, and Star Wars Lasers? Inquiring minds would like to know.... Thanks Again "92knight" <92knight@home.com> wrote in message news:hkz27.141034$Mf5.38535893@news3.rdc1.on.home.com... > Hello, I am a BIG Star Trek fan, having seen every episode from every > series, as well as all of the movies, but I do not know much about Star > Wars. > I was just wondering, what is an SSD? And what are the specs on it? What > kind, and how many weapons does it have? I require this information to > accurately compare the SSD to the Sovereign class StarShip. > > Thanks > > > "LT.Hit-Man" wrote in message > news:9ie9vg$inlg4$2@ID-36661.news.dfncis.de... > > Like the header says sixty SSD's find themselves in borg space the borg > send > > a hundred cubes to deal with the SSD's after losing a few cubes. > > Just as the hundred cubes and sixty SSD's are about to lock horns two > > hundred Sovren class ships drop out of warp, they got pulled into borg > space > > by a wrom hole(damm them worm holes are so handy) > > So what happens? > > LT.Hit-Man > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 03:35:17 -0500 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <9ijn3q$j2ejk$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- 92knight <92knight@home.com> wrote in message ... >Ok, now, I know someone said not to get into this, >but, what is the difference in power and destruction powers >between Star Trek Phasers, and Star Wars Lasers? >Inquiring minds would like to know.... > >Thanks Again That, son, is a question long-debated. The pro-Wars faction (which, as obviated by most of the replies to this thread, has the numerical advantage) has a variety of calculations and/or arguments which purport to show that: 1. Star Wars lasers (and, by extension, Star Trek lasers (not counting Locutus' headlight)) are not lasers at all, because you can see them from the side. Now, by the rules of the group, wherein canon visuals override damn near everything else, this is pretty reasonable. Also, official sources occasionally support that view (though occasionally disagree with it), but it seems to hold. The alternative is that the weapons are some sort of plasma weapon, a la the Romulan plasma torpedo from "Balance of Terror"[TOS], but lacking the warp speeds and mysterious guidance/tracking systems. 2. Star Wars lasers are more powerful than Star Trek phasers. Now, here is the tricky part. You'll mainly see it argued from several directions simultaneously, roughly encapsulated here: 2a. Dodonna's comment in Star Wars that the Death Star had more firepower than half of the Imperial star fleet. From calculations given for the Death Star's weapons energy in the destruction of Alderaan, plus guesses at the number of ships in the Empire, people can finagle any desired outcome. 2b. Base Delta Zero, an operation and an order not unlike Starfleet General Order 24 ("A Taste of Armageddon"[TOS]). In short, the civilization (cities, assets of production, et cetera) is wiped from the surface. Some Star Wars novelizations also refer to slagging the surface, rendering the tip-top of the crust molten. Other sources do not. No clear time frame has been offerred for the slagging, but you'll usually see extremely short time frames given by the pro-Wars faction based on a number of unproven suppositions. Also, if you want to go for absolute lowest limits, there was one book where *full-power* turbolaser bombardment of a planetary surface caused forest fires and left charred bodies, which is an altogether unimpressive feat. However, several of the members of this group like to argue by insult or intentionally misconstruing what you say (some almost exclusively argue that way), so be prepared for that when you bring up anything that doesn't support their view (like forest fires). 2c. There's a scene in The Empire Strikes Back where an ISD is shooting at asteroids. The pro-Wars faction claims that the asteroids were vaporized, and that the asteroid was on the order of dozens of meters wide. However, the vaporization hypothesis has no proof (we wouldn't be able to see even small fragments, much less vapor, but since vaporization means higher weapons energy, that's the chosen option). Further, there are various ways one can go about scaling the asteroid, and the pro-Wars faction will go to great lengths . . . even admitting extremely low weapons range due to turbolaser bolt "blooming" (i.e. diameter increase as the bolt travels, leading to weapon inefficiency at greater ranges) . . . to ignore the fact that the asteroid was on the order of five meters wide (if scaled off the known bolt width of the smallest turbolaser emplacements, as used in the Falcon chase scene later on in the same movie). 2d. Another common example is a scene wherein an X-Wing fires down onto the Death Star surface, creating a massive explosion. Despite the fact that no other such large explostions are seen to result from similar weapons fire hits, some members of the pro-Wars faction claim that the explosion is entirely the result of Death Star armor vaporization, and thence construct extreme power levels for fighters. This ignores the singular nature of the event, as well as the entire concept of "secondary explosions" due to weapons emplacements, the storage of fuel or other volatiles, et cetera. 3. That phasers are weak/ useless against shields / useless against dense armor. If you're a Trekker, you know enough examples on your own to realize the silly nature of such arguments. In short, it is quite possible to survive quite happily as a Trekker. Certain members of the pro-Wars faction will hound you as much as possible if you demonstrate the audacity to argue with them, but all you have to do is bear in mind that a lot of the arguments they make are flawed, and a lot of the calculations are based upon false assumptions/arguments/other calculations. Of course, in my own opinion, we pro-Trek debaters are often like scientists engaging creationists in a debate . . . there are way more of them (of course, I'm stuck in the Bible Belt USA), and they fling such massive volumes of BS that there's a lot to wade through, and a lot of it looks almost decent, so long as you don't think about it too hard. :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Transcend" Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 04:01:53 +0000 Subject: Re: Sixty SSD's VS 100 Borg Cubes and 200 Sovren class ships Message-ID: <20010712.040150.1760957693.3963@localhost.localdomain> -------- In article <9ijn3q$j2ejk$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de>, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > 92knight <92knight@home.com> wrote in message ... >>Ok, now, I know someone said not to get into this, but, what is the >>difference in power and destruction powers between Star Trek Phasers, >>and Star Wars Lasers? Inquiring minds would like to know.... >> >>Thanks Again > > > That, son, is a question long-debated. The pro-Wars faction (which, > as obviated by most of the replies to this thread, has the numerical > advantage) has a variety of calculations and/or arguments which purport > to show that: Yes and you show your bias even here... > > 1. Star Wars lasers (and, by extension, Star Trek lasers (not counting > Locutus' headlight)) are not lasers at all, because you can see them > from the side. Now, by the rules of the group, wherein canon visuals > override damn near everything else, this is pretty reasonable. Also, > official sources occasionally support that view (though occasionally > disagree with it), but it seems to hold. The alternative is that the > weapons are some sort of plasma weapon, a la the Romulan plasma torpedo > from "Balance of Terror"[TOS], but lacking the warp speeds and > mysterious guidance/tracking systems. Yes, it's a plasma weapon. > > 2. Star Wars lasers are more powerful than Star Trek phasers. Now, > here is the tricky part. You'll mainly see it argued from several > directions simultaneously, roughly encapsulated here: No "tricky part" just more powerful period. > > 2a. Dodonna's comment in Star Wars that the Death Star had more > firepower than half of the Imperial star fleet. From calculations > given for the Death Star's weapons energy in the destruction of > Alderaan, plus guesses at the number of ships in the Empire, people can > finagle any desired outcome. Not really, it depends on whether you believe in extremely high fleet numbers or extremely low fleet numbers. At any rate it still leaves Star Destroyers capable of pulling off a BDZ. > > 2b. Base Delta Zero, an operation and an order not unlike Starfleet > General Order 24 ("A Taste of Armageddon"[TOS]). In short, the > civilization (cities, assets of production, et cetera) is wiped from > the surface. Some Star Wars novelizations also refer to slagging the > surface, rendering the tip-top of the crust molten. Other sources do > not. No clear time frame has been offerred for the slagging, but > you'll usually see extremely short time frames given by the pro-Wars > faction based on a number of unproven suppositions. The more time it takes the more energy they actually have to apply to do it. And there have been ample references that BDZs, even with slagging, takes little time. >Also, if you want > to go for absolute lowest limits, there was one book where *full-power* > turbolaser bombardment of a planetary surface caused forest fires and > left charred bodies, which is an altogether unimpressive feat. > However, several of the members of this group like to argue by insult or > intentionally misconstruing what you say (some almost exclusively argue > that way), so be prepared for that when you bring up anything that > doesn't support their view (like forest fires). Ah yes the "Darksaber" bullshit. The turbolaser power levels in this book, if even assumed to be at max, fly in the face of canon, directly contradicting it. They also contradict every other reference to turbolaser power official or otherwise. They are therefore, invalid. > > 2c. There's a scene in The Empire Strikes Back where an ISD is shooting > at asteroids. The pro-Wars faction claims that the asteroids were > vaporized, and that the asteroid was on the order of dozens of meters > wide. However, the vaporization hypothesis has no proof (we wouldn't > be able to see even small fragments, much less vapor, but since > vaporization means higher weapons energy, that's the chosen option). Actually blasting it to fragments and accellerating all fragments out of frame so fast we cannot see them would require more energy than a simple vaporization. > Further, there are various ways one can go about scaling the asteroid, > and the pro-Wars faction will go to great lengths . . . even admitting >