---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "His Divine Shadow {PHX}" Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:52:53 +0200 Subject: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: -------- I have heard alot of babble about how TIE's would be nothing but fodder against fed ships because they would use proximity detonation torpedoes and their phasers can target and slice and dice TIE's as fast as they can throw them at them. Really I'd like to know when photon torps have demonstrated such ability against fighters, or when phasers have been shown to carve small fighters up without breaking a sweat, as far as I can tell this is trekkie fantasies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 01:07:03 -0600 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <3C1EEB17.D738361B@mac.com> -------- His Divine Shadow {PHX} wrote: > > I have heard alot of babble about how TIE's would be nothing but fodder > against fed ships because they would use proximity detonation torpedoes and > their phasers can target and slice and dice TIE's as fast as they can throw > them at them. Depends on the model, really. Normal TIE Fighters would be essentially toast. > Really I'd like to know when photon torps have demonstrated such ability > against fighters, or when phasers have been shown to carve small fighters up > without breaking a sweat, as far as I can tell this is trekkie fantasies. You're being a little extreme, here. Phasers are more than capable of blasting unshielded fighters into space dust. TIE Defenders and Advanced, on the other hand, won't be as easily destroyed. TIE Bombers would inflict damage before they go, but they'd be destroyed. -- Damien Sorresso [AIM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] Nobody knows everything. I am nobody. I know everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "His Divine Shadow {PHX}" Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:29:54 +0200 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: -------- > > Really I'd like to know when photon torps have demonstrated such ability > > against fighters, or when phasers have been shown to carve small fighters up > > without breaking a sweat, as far as I can tell this is trekkie fantasies. > > You're being a little extreme, here. Phasers are more than capable of > blasting unshielded fighters into space dust. TIE Defenders and > Advanced, on the other hand, won't be as easily destroyed. TIE Bombers > would inflict damage before they go, but they'd be destroyed. Ofcourse I know that a standard Tie cant take a hit, I'm questioning the notion that one can send 30 TIE standards on a fed ship and it'll fire a couple of phaser blasts with 123% accuracy and blow all the TIEs to hell immediatly. I'd also like to know of this photon proximity blast theory and where it has been used successfully against fighters. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 07:23:09 -0600 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <9vng5l$gfv6f$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "His Divine Shadow {PHX}" wrote in message news:ucDT7.49$dN.11479@read2.inet.fi... > > > Really I'd like to know when photon torps have demonstrated such ability > > > against fighters, or when phasers have been shown to carve small > fighters up > > > without breaking a sweat, as far as I can tell this is trekkie > fantasies. > > > > You're being a little extreme, here. Phasers are more than capable of > > blasting unshielded fighters into space dust. TIE Defenders and > > Advanced, on the other hand, won't be as easily destroyed. TIE Bombers > > would inflict damage before they go, but they'd be destroyed. > > Ofcourse I know that a standard Tie cant take a hit, I'm questioning the > notion that one can send 30 TIE standards on a fed ship and it'll fire a > couple of phaser blasts with 123% accuracy and blow all the TIEs to hell > immediatly. Well, I don't know about "a couple of phaser blasts", but 30 TIEs (depending on formation) could be taken out of action relatively quickly, either by using the phaser array in "multi-shot mode" (see "Conundrum"[TNG] . . . Enterprise-D phaser banks were firing more than one shot simultaneously against small "easy pickens" targets), or alternately with a few shot from the phasers set to a wider beam. > I'd also like to know of this photon proximity blast theory and where it has > been used successfully against fighters. I believe this comes from "Preemptive Strike"[TNG] . . . a spread of photon torpedoes is fired from Enterprise into the midst of Maquis vessels which are attacking a Cardassian Galor-Class ship . . . Picard had ordered Worf to detonate a torpedo spread between the Maquis and the Cardassians. We are shown the last of three torpedoes detonate right beside two of these, one of the large Bajoran assault vessels and a common Maquis raider, which were minding their own business firing on the Cardassian ship. Neither Maquis vessel is hit directly, but the blast knocks them both for a loop. The Maquis scatter and withdraw. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Hyde Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:36:04 -0500 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <3C1F6264.22707252@mtu.edu> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > "His Divine Shadow {PHX}" wrote in > message news:ucDT7.49$dN.11479@read2.inet.fi... > > > > Really I'd like to know when photon torps have demonstrated such > ability > > > > against fighters, or when phasers have been shown to carve small > > fighters up > > > > without breaking a sweat, as far as I can tell this is trekkie > > fantasies. > > > > > > You're being a little extreme, here. Phasers are more than capable of > > > blasting unshielded fighters into space dust. TIE Defenders and > > > Advanced, on the other hand, won't be as easily destroyed. TIE Bombers > > > would inflict damage before they go, but they'd be destroyed. > > > > Ofcourse I know that a standard Tie cant take a hit, I'm questioning the > > notion that one can send 30 TIE standards on a fed ship and it'll fire a > > couple of phaser blasts with 123% accuracy and blow all the TIEs to hell > > immediatly. > > Well, I don't know about "a couple of phaser blasts", but 30 TIEs (depending > on formation) could be taken out of action relatively quickly, either by > using the phaser array in "multi-shot mode" (see "Conundrum"[TNG] . . . I'd LOVE to, just to see the command and control in that one. "XO, change to um [BOOM!] SHIT! that uh, mode [BOOM! CRASH!]" "Multi-shot mode?" [WHUMP! popopopopop! popopopop!] "YES, dammit! Why isn't in multi-shot mode by defaul-" [BAAARRRRRRROOOOMMMMMMM!!!!!!] -- Matt Hyde http://www.mathlab.mtu.edu/~mdoughy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:18:20 -0600 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <3C1F7A5C.2FB04C40@yahoo.com> -------- Matthew Hyde wrote: > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > "His Divine Shadow {PHX}" wrote in > > message news:ucDT7.49$dN.11479@read2.inet.fi... > > > > > Really I'd like to know when photon torps have demonstrated such > > ability > > > > > against fighters, or when phasers have been shown to carve small > > > fighters up > > > > > without breaking a sweat, as far as I can tell this is trekkie > > > fantasies. > > > > > > > > You're being a little extreme, here. Phasers are more than capable of > > > > blasting unshielded fighters into space dust. TIE Defenders and > > > > Advanced, on the other hand, won't be as easily destroyed. TIE Bombers > > > > would inflict damage before they go, but they'd be destroyed. > > > > > > Ofcourse I know that a standard Tie cant take a hit, I'm questioning the > > > notion that one can send 30 TIE standards on a fed ship and it'll fire a > > > couple of phaser blasts with 123% accuracy and blow all the TIEs to hell > > > immediatly. > > > > Well, I don't know about "a couple of phaser blasts", but 30 TIEs (depending > > on formation) could be taken out of action relatively quickly, either by > > using the phaser array in "multi-shot mode" (see "Conundrum"[TNG] . . . > > I'd LOVE to, just to see the command and control in that one. "XO, > change to um [BOOM!] SHIT! that uh, mode [BOOM! CRASH!]" > > "Multi-shot mode?" > > [WHUMP! popopopopop! popopopop!] > > "YES, dammit! Why isn't in multi-shot mode by defaul-" > > [BAAARRRRRRROOOOMMMMMMM!!!!!!] > > -- > > Matt Hyde > http://www.mathlab.mtu.edu/~mdoughy I don't know what the appropriate designation is for when a phaser array is rigged to fire multiple shots simultaneously instead of a single shot, but I would assume that the multi-shot mode is exquisite against smaller, weaker targets that don't require a full shot. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Hyde Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:00:39 -0500 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <3C1F8447.D7502A94@mtu.edu> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > Matthew Hyde wrote: > > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > "His Divine Shadow {PHX}" wrote in > > > message news:ucDT7.49$dN.11479@read2.inet.fi... > > > > > > Really I'd like to know when photon torps have demonstrated such > > > ability > > > > > > against fighters, or when phasers have been shown to carve small > > > > fighters up > > > > > > without breaking a sweat, as far as I can tell this is trekkie > > > > fantasies. > > > > > > > > > > You're being a little extreme, here. Phasers are more than capable of > > > > > blasting unshielded fighters into space dust. TIE Defenders and > > > > > Advanced, on the other hand, won't be as easily destroyed. TIE Bombers > > > > > would inflict damage before they go, but they'd be destroyed. > > > > > > > > Ofcourse I know that a standard Tie cant take a hit, I'm questioning the > > > > notion that one can send 30 TIE standards on a fed ship and it'll fire a > > > > couple of phaser blasts with 123% accuracy and blow all the TIEs to hell > > > > immediatly. > > > > > > Well, I don't know about "a couple of phaser blasts", but 30 TIEs (depending > > > on formation) could be taken out of action relatively quickly, either by > > > using the phaser array in "multi-shot mode" (see "Conundrum"[TNG] . . . > > > > I'd LOVE to, just to see the command and control in that one. "XO, > > change to um [BOOM!] SHIT! that uh, mode [BOOM! CRASH!]" > > > > "Multi-shot mode?" > > > > [WHUMP! popopopopop! popopopop!] > > > > "YES, dammit! Why isn't in multi-shot mode by defaul-" > > > > [BAAARRRRRRROOOOMMMMMMM!!!!!!] > > > > -- > > > > Matt Hyde > > http://www.mathlab.mtu.edu/~mdoughy > > I don't know what the appropriate designation is for when a phaser array > is rigged to fire multiple shots simultaneously instead of a single > shot, but I would assume that the multi-shot mode is exquisite against > smaller, weaker targets that don't require a full shot. > > G2k I wouldn't assume, I would conclude, that Starflap weapons and warfare philosophies are seriously FUBAR. I am glad that they're not humans. -- Matt Hyde http://www.mathlab.mtu.edu/~mdoughy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ted Archbold" Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:05:29 -0500 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <9vr6a2$h9nh2$1@ID-121890.news.dfncis.de> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote in message news:9vng5l$gfv6f$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > I believe this comes from "Preemptive Strike"[TNG] . . . a spread of photon > torpedoes is fired from Enterprise into the midst of Maquis vessels which > are attacking a Cardassian Galor-Class ship . . . Picard had ordered Worf to > detonate a torpedo spread between the Maquis and the Cardassians. We are > shown the last of three torpedoes detonate right beside two of these, one of > the large Bajoran assault vessels and a common Maquis raider, which were > minding their own business firing on the Cardassian ship. Neither Maquis > vessel is hit directly, but the blast knocks them both for a loop. The > Maquis scatter and withdraw. > But that's not proxy detinations, thats being remotely detonated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 20:57:45 -0600 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <9vrk8u$he6dj$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Ted Archbold" wrote in message news:9vr6a2$h9nh2$1@ID-121890.news.dfncis.de... > > Guardian 2000 wrote in message > news:9vng5l$gfv6f$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > I believe this comes from "Preemptive Strike"[TNG] . . . a spread of > photon > > torpedoes is fired from Enterprise into the midst of Maquis vessels which > > are attacking a Cardassian Galor-Class ship . . . Picard had ordered Worf > to > > detonate a torpedo spread between the Maquis and the Cardassians. We are > > shown the last of three torpedoes detonate right beside two of these, one > of > > the large Bajoran assault vessels and a common Maquis raider, which were > > minding their own business firing on the Cardassian ship. Neither Maquis > > vessel is hit directly, but the blast knocks them both for a loop. The > > Maquis scatter and withdraw. > > > > But that's not proxy detinations, thats being remotely detonated. Point taken. However, as there was argument as to whether torpedoes could even cause such a scatter, I felt it necessary to point out the evidence. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne Poe" Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 04:39:29 -0800 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: -------- "His Divine Shadow {PHX}" wrote > I have heard alot of babble about how TIE's would be nothing but fodder > against fed ships because they would use proximity detonation torpedoes and > their phasers can target and slice and dice TIE's as fast as they can throw > them at them. If TIEs stayed still, then yes they'd be hit easily. But TIEs are highly maneuverable, and as shown in VOY's "Dragon's Teeth", highly maneuverable craft can confound a phaser lock. Proximity detonation torpedoes are probably a fanboy creation; I haven't heard of them for the Trek side. Proton torpedoes on the other hand, CAN be set for proximity detonation (Isard's Revenge) Now, Trekkies will bring up TNG episodes like "Conundrum" and say, "See? A GCS can easily target fighter sized craft!" Trouble with that example is, those Lysian drones were NOT maneuvering, and traveling slowly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sith79@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) Date: 22 Dec 2001 18:10:53 -0800 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <89c4bcfd.0112221810.5fec6554@posting.google.com> -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:... > "His Divine Shadow {PHX}" wrote > > I have heard alot of babble about how TIE's would be nothing but fodder > > against fed ships because they would use proximity detonation torpedoes > and > > their phasers can target and slice and dice TIE's as fast as they can > throw > > them at them. > > If TIEs stayed still, then yes they'd be hit easily. But TIEs are highly > maneuverable, and as shown in VOY's "Dragon's Teeth", highly maneuverable > craft can confound a phaser lock. Proximity detonation torpedoes are > probably a fanboy creation; I haven't heard of them for the Trek side. > Proton torpedoes on the other hand, CAN be set for proximity detonation > (Isard's Revenge) Voyager was doing very well against those fighters in Dragons Teeth, not to mention they had their targetting sensors knocked out, and Tuvok was still hitting multiple targets with multiple arrays. If I remember correctly I got 60% accuracy. (Keep in mind this number would be far higher if the sensors weren't knocked offline.) > Now, Trekkies will bring up TNG episodes like "Conundrum" and say, "See? A > GCS can easily target fighter sized craft!" Trouble with that example is, > those Lysian drones were NOT maneuvering, and traveling slowly. That's true they weren't but that's a good example of what a Type X phaser arrays firing rate is against small craft. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paradox" Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:46:05 -0700 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <9vnp1d$g9kj9$1@ID-109635.news.dfncis.de> -------- His Divine Shadow {PHX} wrote in message news:ZGBT7.17$dN.4632@read2.inet.fi... > I have heard alot of babble about how TIE's would be nothing but fodder > against fed ships because they would use proximity detonation torpedoes and > their phasers can target and slice and dice TIE's as fast as they can throw > them at them. > > Really I'd like to know when photon torps have demonstrated such ability > against fighters, or when phasers have been shown to carve small fighters up > without breaking a sweat, as far as I can tell this is trekkie fantasies. > > Assuming phasers could do a wide beam, then maybe they could fry some of the electronics, but TIE's do actually have armor, and isn't that what phasers have trouble breaking through? They are doubly screwed if its the same durasteel/neutronium mix that ISD's have. But nonetheless, if the Empire made a stab into the milky way, they'd want to have shielded TIE's, since they couldn't just throw them away willy nilly, because resupply could become a problem at any time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:23:36 -0600 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <3C1F7B98.BB073073@yahoo.com> -------- Ooh, look, it's the "Navigational Deflector" fallacy in reverse! Paradox wrote: > Assuming phasers could do a wide beam, then maybe they could fry some of the > electronics, but TIE's do actually have armor, and isn't that what phasers > have trouble breaking through? They are doubly screwed if its the same > durasteel/neutronium mix that ISD's have. So, they are singly screwed if the TIE is wearing some old chain mail. Riiiight. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 18 Dec 2001 17:36:49 GMT Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <20011218123649.20077.00001169@mb-ba.aol.com> -------- >Ooh, look, it's the "Navigational Deflector" fallacy in reverse! > > >Paradox wrote: > >> Assuming phasers could do a wide beam, then maybe they could fry some of >the >> electronics, but TIE's do actually have armor, and isn't that what phasers >> have trouble breaking through? They are doubly screwed if its the same >> durasteel/neutronium mix that ISD's have. > >So, they are singly screwed if the TIE is wearing some old chain mail. > >Riiiight. > Wow, Guardian once again misses the point and subsequently creates a strawman. Are we surprised? No. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sith79@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) Date: 22 Dec 2001 18:13:14 -0800 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <89c4bcfd.0112221813.696ca83e@posting.google.com> -------- "Paradox" wrote in message news:<9vnp1d$g9kj9$1@ID-109635.news.dfncis.de>... > His Divine Shadow {PHX} wrote in message > news:ZGBT7.17$dN.4632@read2.inet.fi... > > I have heard alot of babble about how TIE's would be nothing but fodder > > against fed ships because they would use proximity detonation torpedoes > and > > their phasers can target and slice and dice TIE's as fast as they can > throw > > them at them. > > > > Really I'd like to know when photon torps have demonstrated such ability > > against fighters, or when phasers have been shown to carve small fighters > up > > without breaking a sweat, as far as I can tell this is trekkie fantasies. > > > > > > Assuming phasers could do a wide beam, then maybe they could fry some of the > electronics, but TIE's do actually have armor, and isn't that what phasers > have trouble breaking through? They are doubly screwed if its the same > durasteel/neutronium mix that ISD's have. But nonetheless, if the Empire > made a stab into the milky way, they'd want to have shielded TIE's, since > they couldn't just throw them away willy nilly, because resupply could > become a problem at any time. This is a fallacy created by warsies. Phasers are effective against everything but PURE neutronium. Sure, they are less effective against armoured starship, but even HTL are less effective against armored targets. Since we don't know how much neutronium is in an ISD armor it's really a moot point. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kazuaki Shimazaki Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 10:45:25 +0800 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <3C254545.7E59@netvigator.com> -------- Kamakazie Sith wrote: > > "Paradox" wrote in message news:<9vnp1d$g9kj9$1@ID-109635.news.dfncis.de>... > > His Divine Shadow {PHX} wrote in message > > news:ZGBT7.17$dN.4632@read2.inet.fi... > > Assuming phasers could do a wide beam, then maybe they could fry some of the > > electronics, but TIE's do actually have armor, and isn't that what phasers > > have trouble breaking through? They are doubly screwed if its the same > > durasteel/neutronium mix that ISD's have. But nonetheless, if the Empire > > made a stab into the milky way, they'd want to have shielded TIE's, since > > they couldn't just throw them away willy nilly, because resupply could > > become a problem at any time. > > This is a fallacy created by warsies. Phasers are effective against > everything but PURE neutronium. Sure, they are less effective against > armoured starship, but even HTL are less effective against armored > targets. Of course they are, the problem is that the effectiveness drops out of normal proportions. > Since we don't know how much neutronium is in an ISD armor it's really > a moot point. There is no mention or how much is needed, all we know is that neutronium does stop phasers. A single angstrom's worth of neutronium layering, AFAIK, is potentially enough. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sith79@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) Date: 23 Dec 2001 12:08:15 -0800 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <89c4bcfd.0112231208.49fefbcb@posting.google.com> -------- Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote in message news:<3C254545.7E59@netvigator.com>... > Kamakazie Sith wrote: > > > > "Paradox" wrote in message news:<9vnp1d$g9kj9$1@ID-109635.news.dfncis.de>... > > > His Divine Shadow {PHX} wrote in message > > > news:ZGBT7.17$dN.4632@read2.inet.fi... > > > > Assuming phasers could do a wide beam, then maybe they could fry some of the > > > electronics, but TIE's do actually have armor, and isn't that what phasers > > > have trouble breaking through? They are doubly screwed if its the same > > > durasteel/neutronium mix that ISD's have. But nonetheless, if the Empire > > > made a stab into the milky way, they'd want to have shielded TIE's, since > > > they couldn't just throw them away willy nilly, because resupply could > > > become a problem at any time. > > > > This is a fallacy created by warsies. Phasers are effective against > > everything but PURE neutronium. Sure, they are less effective against > > armoured starship, but even HTL are less effective against armored > > targets. > > Of course they are, the problem is that the effectiveness drops out of > normal proportions. What are normal proportions? Phasers can vaporize miles of rock, but only 20-50 meters of starship hull. HTL can vaporize whatever you like to think they can, but they don't have an equal effect against starships. > > Since we don't know how much neutronium is in an ISD armor it's really > > a moot point. > > There is no mention or how much is needed, all we know is that > neutronium does stop phasers. A single angstrom's worth of neutronium > layering, AFAIK, is potentially enough. Actually potentially it would need to be as thick as what we've seen in the episodes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 06:04:01 GMT Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: -------- "Kamakazie Sith" wrote in message news:89c4bcfd.0112221813.696ca83e@posting.google.com... > "Paradox" wrote in message news:<9vnp1d$g9kj9$1@ID-109635.news.dfncis.de>... > > His Divine Shadow {PHX} wrote in message > > news:ZGBT7.17$dN.4632@read2.inet.fi... > > This is a fallacy created by warsies. Phasers are effective against > everything but PURE neutronium. You do realize that neutronium, due to being degeneret stellar matter, is ALWAYS pure? I mean if you stuck something else in the middle of neutronium the sheer gravitational forces would tear it down...into neutronium. Basically you can't alloy it so it will always be pure, the only qustion is one of density and/or palcement the density question never being answered and the distribution of neutronium throughout the armor belt also never being fully answered. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R USMCR Bridge Company A, 6th EngnrSptBN, 4th FSSG "There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion." -Unknown ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:56:10 -0600 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:lteV7.23935$fo.3010341@news1.rdc1.md.home.com... > "Kamakazie Sith" wrote in message > news:89c4bcfd.0112221813.696ca83e@posting.google.com... > > "Paradox" wrote in message > news:<9vnp1d$g9kj9$1@ID-109635.news.dfncis.de>... > > > His Divine Shadow {PHX} wrote in > message > > > news:ZGBT7.17$dN.4632@read2.inet.fi... > > > > > This is a fallacy created by warsies. Phasers are effective against > > everything but PURE neutronium. > > You do realize that neutronium, due to being degeneret stellar matter, is > ALWAYS pure? I mean if you stuck something else in the middle of neutronium > the sheer gravitational forces would tear it down...into neutronium. No, that is incorrect. The neutronium requires the pre-existing gravitational forces to be created. Outside of a gravitational envelope (or a reasonably-created facsimile thereof), the neutronium will break down, not the "something else". Of course, the simple fact that Star Wars neutronium is mined from a moon means that it cannot be what is referred to in our neck of the woods as neutronium. > Basically you can't alloy it so it will always be pure, the only qustion is > one of density and/or palcement the density question never being answered > and the distribution of neutronium throughout the armor belt also never > being fully answered. As to the question of neutronium density (assuming we grant the erroneous notion that SW neutronium is "real" neutronium) see the following: http://www.trek-wars.co.uk/neutroni.htm G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 19:06:35 GMT Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:56:10 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >Of course, the simple fact that Star Wars neutronium is mined from a moon >means that it cannot be what is referred to in our neck of the woods as >neutronium. Of course, the simple fact that Star Trek neutronium can be observed in small stellar fragments ("Evolution") or made into doorways, temples, and alloyed with carbon means it's not RL neutronium either. SW neutronium: -> Comes from neutron stars ("Rebel Dawn") -> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn -> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor ST neutronium: -> Same on all points They sound the same to me. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "But I've never seen *anything* that's going to even have the clearly designed and hoped-for effect of running me out of these groups or debates." -- TOWNMNBS, Six Days Before The Final Solution ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 15:24:21 -0600 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:wyomPEDT4cVdKFUXvFHi=A8qt6f7@4ax.com... > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:56:10 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > > >Of course, the simple fact that Star Wars neutronium is mined from a moon > >means that it cannot be what is referred to in our neck of the woods as > >neutronium. > > Of course, the simple fact that Star Trek neutronium can be observed in small > stellar fragments ("Evolution") Stellar fragment? "Evolution"[TNG] took place in the Kavis Alpha system, where Dr. Stubbs was going to study the Kavis Alpha *neutron star*! Try again, Ian. > or made into doorways, temples, In a prior thread on the topic, the fact that neutronium could be held together by way of finely-tuned graviton-based shielding was established. As I recall, the Rabid Warsie position was "oh, yeah, well we can do it, too!", despite the fact that your neutronium comes from a moon. > and alloyed with carbon means it's not RL neutronium either. The Carbon-neutronium alloy of the Dyson Sphere is perplexing, but not necessarily impossible. After all, whoever built it was capable of far greater engineering feats than either the Federation or the Empire. They could very well fulfill Arthur C. Clarke's comment that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." But, under the presumption that there is method to the madness: If we take http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Size.html to be accurate, the material of the Dyson Sphere would have to be some 10,000 times stronger than 20th Century steel, at least. Further, we do not know the nature of the neutronium in the Dyson Sphere shell. Within real neutron stars, there are points in the region of the inner crust (on the boundary of the core) which can contain both neutron superfluid as well as protons, electrons, et cetera. Deeper in, subatomic particles simply break down into neutronium. See the following: http://www.th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~hanauske/pics/NStar_l.gif The Carbon-Neutronium alloy of the Dyson Sphere may not be an alloy in the classical sense (i.e. melt two things together), but may merely be a "frozen" form of this superfluidic neutronium with carbon (which could refer to anything from simple carbon atoms to buckminsterfullerenes) interspersed. It would be easier to maintain this form of neutronium with graviton-based forcefields, I would think, than the undifferentiated neutrons as found in the core of a neutron star, as the pressure requirements would be very much lower. Of course, as the episode did not go into detail about the containment of the neutronium, the above is only a workable hypothesis. > SW neutronium: > > -> Comes from neutron stars ("Rebel Dawn") It comes from a moon, too. Therefore, either SW neutron stars are not real neutron stars, or there are two types of neutronium . . . real, "stellar" neutronium, and whatever the crap mined out of a moon is. > -> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn > -> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor The "light" form of neutronium would have to be "moon" neutronium, and cannot be real, "stellar" neutronium. Otherwise, you're just talking about neutrons. Big frickin' whoop. > ST neutronium: > > -> Same on all points False. Star Trek neutronium is never stated to come from moon mining. Further, we do not know the exact mass of those objects which have been stated to have a neutronium composition, though we do know that the Dyson Sphere was very, very massive. The neutronium door, which would've been held together by shielding, did not appear to have any particularly impressive mass, and thus this mass was either shielded in the same way or by some other method. Again, the fact that your neutronium is found on a moon is the paramount issue. Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and cannot possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. Since Star Wars neutronium has already demonstrated properties that are absolutely impossible and cannot possibly be explained (the moon mining), it must not be the same as real-world neutronium. > They sound the same to me. Wishful thinking. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:53:47 GMT Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 15:24:21 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >> >Of course, the simple fact that Star Wars neutronium is mined from a moon >> >means that it cannot be what is referred to in our neck of the woods as >> >neutronium. >> >> Of course, the simple fact that Star Trek neutronium can be observed in >small >> stellar fragments ("Evolution") > >Stellar fragment? "Evolution"[TNG] took place in the Kavis Alpha system, >where Dr. Stubbs was going to study the Kavis Alpha *neutron star*! Starring things doesn't make them true. The scientist came to observe the explusion of large globules from the star, not the star itself. Those globules never decayed in the episode. Another demonstration of this is in "The Masterpiece Society." This is actually the one I was thinking of originally -- the E-D observes a fragment of a neutron star, free of the star itself. Shouldn't it be decaying? yes >> or made into doorways, temples, > >In a prior thread on the topic, the fact that neutronium could be held >together by way of finely-tuned graviton-based shielding was established. Scoot, if you think you can get away with saying "I've proven this before" as if it's a real argument, you are even stupider than I imagined. >As I recall, the Rabid Warsie position was "oh, yeah, well we can do it, >too!", despite the fact that your neutronium comes from a moon. SW neutronium comes from neutron stars. ref: Rebel Dawn >> and alloyed with carbon means it's not RL neutronium either. > >The Carbon-neutronium alloy of the Dyson Sphere is perplexing, but not >necessarily impossible. Is it impossible? obviously not, it's canon However, that requires us to accept that our RL understanding of neutronium is wrong on many points and further-advanced civilizations like the UFP and Empire, who actually work with it unlike us, will sometimes appear to use it in ways and find it in places that seem impossible to us. [snip] Your speculation is just that, speculation. You are a hypocrite; you are willing to concoct vast, unlikely explanations for seemingly impossible uses and locations of ST neutronium but want SW judged on a different standard. I reject that. SW and ST both violate the RL principles of neutronium; what's more, they do it in similar ways related to their apparent mass. Thus, given the fact that they have the same and thus a very strong presumption of being the same anyway, they are the same. >Of course, as the episode did not go into detail about the containment of >the neutronium, the above is only a workable hypothesis. I will be using this "workable hypothesis with no proof" standard in further discussion with you. >> SW neutronium: >> >> -> Comes from neutron stars ("Rebel Dawn") > >It comes from a moon, too. Therefore, either SW neutron stars are not real >neutron stars, or there are two types of neutronium . . . real, "stellar" >neutronium, and whatever the crap mined out of a moon is. Neutron stars are real neutron stars; they have all the same properties of the real thing, which is why Han needed to be there in the first place, as you'd know if you read the novel, or any evidence for that matter. Workable Hypothesis: A ship with neutronium armor crashed there long ago. Its armor was permanently mass-reduced by some Clarkean "magic" technology. >> -> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn >> -> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor > >The "light" form of neutronium would have to be "moon" neutronium, and >cannot be real, "stellar" neutronium. Ah, then ST's "light" form of neutronium, as seen in armor, doorways, and temples of pre-warp civilizations is also different from real, "stellar" neutronium. >> ST neutronium: >> >> -> Same on all points > >False. Star Trek neutronium is never stated to come from moon mining. The Iconians, who are pre-warp, could build a temple out of it. Thus it must be mineable on the ground. ("To the Death") >Sphere was very, very massive. The neutronium door, which would've been >held together by shielding, did not appear to have any particularly >impressive mass, and thus this mass was either shielded in the same way or >by some other method. 1) No proof of being held together by shielding 2) No proof of mass reduction >Again, the fact that your neutronium is found on a moon is the paramount >issue. Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until >it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and cannot >possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. An explanation for this appears above. Further, see "The Masterpiece Society." -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "But I've never seen *anything* that's going to even have the clearly designed and hoped-for effect of running me out of these groups or debates." -- TOWNMNBS, Six Days Before The Final Solution ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 21:11:57 -0600 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:clomPOikLcraxZMJYgao97WeI+1D@4ax.com... > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 15:24:21 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > > >> >Of course, the simple fact that Star Wars neutronium is mined from a moon > >> >means that it cannot be what is referred to in our neck of the woods as > >> >neutronium. > >> > >> Of course, the simple fact that Star Trek neutronium can be observed in > >small > >> stellar fragments ("Evolution") > > > >Stellar fragment? "Evolution"[TNG] took place in the Kavis Alpha system, > >where Dr. Stubbs was going to study the Kavis Alpha *neutron star*! > > Starring things doesn't make them true. The scientist came to observe the > explusion of large globules from the star, not the star itself. Those globules > never decayed in the episode. That's funny . . . I've never heard of the episode you're trying to describe. Now, there was an episode of TNG called "Evolution", where a scientist, Dr. Paul Stubbs, came aboard with a probe he'd been working on for 20 years. The Kavis Alpha neutron star was part of a binary, and the neutron star would suck material off of its companion for 196 years until the material exploded off of the neutron star, including some of the neutronium, at relativistic speeds. The experiment at Kavis Alpha was referred to as a being a neutron decay experiment. Nanites almost interfered with the experiment, but this was averted through diplomacy. I don't know what these globules of yours are, but you'd better start collecting some quotes to back that up. > Another demonstration of this is in "The Masterpiece Society." This is actually > the one I was thinking of originally -- the E-D observes a fragment of a neutron > star, free of the star itself. Shouldn't it be decaying? yes Another false recollection, Ian? Tsk, tsk. The Enterprise-D was tracking a "stellar core fragment" . . . I recall no mention being made as to whether this was from a neutron star or not. But even if it was a fragment from a neutron star, did you not see that bright blue glow? This could very well indicate that the fragment, if from a neutron star which had disintegrated, was itself breaking down. > > >> or made into doorways, temples, > > > >In a prior thread on the topic, the fact that neutronium could be held > >together by way of finely-tuned graviton-based shielding was established. > > Scoot, if you think you can get away with saying "I've proven this before" as if > it's a real argument, you are even stupider than I imagined. I did establish it before. If you're a glutton for punishment, we can go through the whole rigamarole again, but not being a sadist, I wouldn't want to do that to you. > > >As I recall, the Rabid Warsie position was "oh, yeah, well we can do it, > >too!", despite the fact that your neutronium comes from a moon. > > SW neutronium comes from neutron stars. ref: Rebel Dawn Edam has quite nicely deflated your position on this. Besides, there would have to be two types of "neutronium", stellar (i.e. "real") and lunar (i.e. "fake"), since the two cannot be the same. > >> and alloyed with carbon means it's not RL neutronium either. > > > >The Carbon-neutronium alloy of the Dyson Sphere is perplexing, but not > >necessarily impossible. > > Is it impossible? obviously not, it's canon I was referring to reality, not canon. > However, that requires us to accept that our RL understanding of neutronium is > wrong on many points and further-advanced civilizations like the UFP and Empire, > who actually work with it unlike us, will sometimes appear to use it in ways and > find it in places that seem impossible to us. Thank you for copping out of the debate. I'll accept your concession that Imperial neutronium is not real neutronium. > Your speculation is just that, speculation. You are a hypocrite; you are willing > to concoct vast, unlikely explanations for seemingly impossible uses and > locations of ST neutronium but want SW judged on a different standard. I reject > that. I'm judging Star Trek and Star Wars according to the exact same standard. If it were said that Star Destroyer hulls were an alloy of neutronium, I would allow the same hypothesis to hold. However, as it has been demonstrated that Star Wars neutronium is a moon rock, I find that there can be nothing to save Star Wars from the fate of having something called neutronium, but which is not true neutronium. If a Star Trek episode were to have an instance where someone was playing with a neutronium ping-pong ball, bouncing it against the wall and explaining that there was nothing in the universe . . . not technobabble, not Q, nothing . . . holding it together, I would quite happily declare Star Trek neutronium to be nothing more than a mislabeled substance, a la Star Wars neutronium. However, as Star Wars has managed to turn a blind eye to science on this topic, we must, if we are to consider it openly and honestly, confess that Star Wars "neutronium" just isn't neutronium. > SW and ST both violate the RL principles of neutronium; How does Star Trek violate RL principles of neutronium? It is ultrastrong, ultradense, ultramassive, impervious to weapons, et cetera. These are sound notions of neutronium to me. The fact that technologically advanced races could find a way to use it as a construction material does not violate real life principles of neutronium. On the other hand, Star Wars claims that neutronium is something you can just head for your local moon and dig for. *That* violates all real life principles of neutronium. > what's more, they do it in similar ways related to their apparent mass. AMRE is a known quantity in Star Trek lore. Graviton-based shielding is a known quantity in Star Trek lore. Antigravity systems are a known quantity in Star Trek lore. Those cultures who have managed to pull off the use of real neutronium in Star Trek lore could quite easily exhibit a mastery of the control of these technologies. No such technology was in place on the moon from which Star Wars neutronium is mined, and the moon, being a moon, must orbit something more massive than itself. What the hell is heavier than a moon with a high neutronium concentration, besides a neutron star? (Brain fart: did anyone who encountered an Interdictor cruiser ever think to turn on their antigravity generators?) > Thus, given the fact that they have the same and thus a very strong presumption > of being the same anyway, they are the same. Show me a neutronium ping-pong ball on Star Trek, and we'll talk. > >Of course, as the episode did not go into detail about the containment of > >the neutronium, the above is only a workable hypothesis. > > I will be using this "workable hypothesis with no proof" standard in further > discussion with you. In order to keep to my standard of hypotheses, you'll need to be sure that these hypotheses have some basis in the technology of whomever you're discussing, and you'll need to be sure that the hypothesis reasonably explains whatever you're discussing in the context of the universe you're referring to. Y'know, like a real hypothesis (i.e. not one mined from your sphincter). > >> SW neutronium: > >> > >> -> Comes from neutron stars ("Rebel Dawn") > > > >It comes from a moon, too. Therefore, either SW neutron stars are not real > >neutron stars, or there are two types of neutronium . . . real, "stellar" > >neutronium, and whatever the crap mined out of a moon is. > > Neutron stars are real neutron stars; they have all the same properties of the > real thing, which is why Han needed to be there in the first place, as you'd > know if you read the novel, or any evidence for that matter. Then there are two separate types of neutronium. The real/stellar neutronium, and the lunar crap. > Workable Hypothesis: A ship with neutronium armor crashed there long ago. Its > armor was permanently mass-reduced by some Clarkean "magic" technology. Do you have any evidence or points to support this view? Mining neutronium from a moon makes it sound like a natural occurence, not a smattering of neutronium near an impact site. Further, permanent mass-reduction is not something I've heard of in the Star Wars universe, nor even the Star Trek universe. Would you care to provide some explanation of how this occurred? > >> -> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn > >> -> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor > > > >The "light" form of neutronium would have to be "moon" neutronium, and > >cannot be real, "stellar" neutronium. > > Ah, then ST's "light" form of neutronium, as seen in armor, doorways, and > temples of pre-warp civilizations is also different from real, "stellar" > neutronium. Again, this is not necessary, thanks to technologies known to exist in the Star Trek universe. Your "pre-warp" bullshit is taken care of below. > > >> ST neutronium: > >> > >> -> Same on all points > > > >False. Star Trek neutronium is never stated to come from moon mining. > > The Iconians, who are pre-warp, could build a temple out of it. Thus it must be > mineable on the ground. ("To the Death") It is foolish to refer to the Iconians as pre-warp. If anything, they were beyond warp. The Iconians managed to build dimensional gateways capable of taking a person to damn near anywhere, without the need for a gateway on the other side (the bridge of the Haakona, the Romulan Warbird to which Picard escaped, was available in "Contagion"[TNG]). This allowed them to maintain control of their vast interstellar empire 200,000 years before the Federation came to be. The reach of these gateways spanned from the Romulan Neutral Zone to the planet in the Gamma Quadrant seen in "To the Death"[DS9] and beyond. It is ludicrous to refer to this civilization as pre-warp. > >Sphere was very, very massive. The neutronium door, which would've been > >held together by shielding, did not appear to have any particularly > >impressive mass, and thus this mass was either shielded in the same way or > >by some other method. > > 1) No proof of being held together by shielding Alrighty, then, prove to me that it wasn't held together by shielding, and thus was not neutronium (not counting the Star Wars universe garden variety). > 2) No proof of mass reduction The fact that the characters near it didn't turn into chunky salsa against it is a good clue. > >Again, the fact that your neutronium is found on a moon is the paramount > >issue. Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and until > >it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and cannot > >possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. > > An explanation for this appears above. Further, see "The Masterpiece Society." Stellar core fragments, again, need not be neutronium. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 06:25:07 GMT Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <4Z4mPBJp99Dbz+Kna0gNEvTn8pGz@4ax.com> -------- On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 21:11:57 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >> >> Of course, the simple fact that Star Trek neutronium can be observed in >> >small >> >> stellar fragments ("Evolution") >> > >> >Stellar fragment? "Evolution"[TNG] took place in the Kavis Alpha >system, >> >where Dr. Stubbs was going to study the Kavis Alpha *neutron star*! >> >> Starring things doesn't make them true. The scientist came to observe the >> explusion of large globules from the star, not the star itself. Those >globules >> never decayed in the episode. > >That's funny . . . I've never heard of the episode you're trying to >describe. [snip long description] Great. Thanks for proving you can look up episode summaries. Like it matters whether Dr. Greybeard has blue eyes or brown eyes. Retards should make fun of you. Do you honestly think these sort of stupid, asinine displays of Trekkie geekdom do anything except exacerbate your position as Group Moron? No, excuse me. Of course you don't think. If you put an ounce of thought into any of the drivel you spew, the newsgroup's collective IQ would quadruple. The important part about Evolution was that the scientist wanted to study the expulsions of neutronium ("globules," in case you haven't figured that out) from the star. As you have not contested this, concession accepted on the first example of ST neutronium displaying properties that are "impossible" in RL. Oh, and your request for quotes? Eat my shit. You may "note that" in your little Logbook of Kynesian Wrongs, if you wish. OFFICIAL RESPONSE. LIET KYNES. 12/23/2001. TOLD TO "EAT SHIT" WHEN REQUESTING QUOTES TO PROVE THE PLOT OF EVOLUTION. >> Another demonstration of this is in "The Masterpiece Society." This is >actually >> the one I was thinking of originally -- the E-D observes a fragment of a >neutron >> star, free of the star itself. Shouldn't it be decaying? yes > >Another false recollection, Ian? Tsk, tsk. > >The Enterprise-D was tracking a "stellar core fragment" . . . I recall no >mention being made as to whether this was from a neutron star or not. Hey Scoot, I don't give a shit whether you "recall" it one way or another. You have just admitted you fundamentally know zero about this episode and are in no position to question my stance on the matter. Debating with you is amazingly boring. At least Edam uses trickery which must be watched; discussion with you is the functional equivalent of discourse with a 12-year-old. [snip assertion] A small piece of a neutron star would do more than glow lightly in the visible light spectrum were it separated. It would decay almost immediately. The burden is on you to prove otherwise, and you may wish to submit this proof to major astrophysical journals, as they are currently on my side. >> >> or made into doorways, temples, >> > >> >In a prior thread on the topic, the fact that neutronium could be held >> >together by way of finely-tuned graviton-based shielding was established. >> >> Scoot, if you think you can get away with saying "I've proven this before" >as if >> it's a real argument, you are even stupider than I imagined. > >I did establish it before. Wrong. You had the shit kicked out of you by everyone here, just like every argument you bring up. Not only on the total lack of real proof for this magic ability, but on why we should assume this set of magic technologies and apply them rabidly in any situation where we would otherwise need to conclude that ST neutronium has different properties than RL neutronium. >> >As I recall, the Rabid Warsie position was "oh, yeah, well we can do it, >> >too!", despite the fact that your neutronium comes from a moon. >> >> SW neutronium comes from neutron stars. ref: Rebel Dawn > >Edam has quite nicely deflated your position on this. Edam has asked me to prove that neutron stars are composed of neutronium, when that is, by definition, what they are made of. Wow, my position is even more deflated than your prom date. > Besides, there would >have to be two types of "neutronium", stellar (i.e. "real") and lunar (i.e. >"fake"), since the two cannot be the same. I would love to see your positive disproof. Of course, as a possible explanation has already been put forth, that's not going to happen. >> >> and alloyed with carbon means it's not RL neutronium either. >> > >> >The Carbon-neutronium alloy of the Dyson Sphere is perplexing, but not >> >necessarily impossible. >> >> Is it impossible? obviously not, it's canon > >I was referring to reality, not canon. Yeah, you're referring to "reality" and then go on a long-winded version of "I'm sure they managed it because their tech level was so high." Fine, that's my explanation for everything the Empire does with neutronium. I'm sure the tech level of their mining equipment is so high, they can mistake a neutron star (very small, you know) for a moon. >> However, that requires us to accept that our RL understanding of >neutronium is >> wrong on many points and further-advanced civilizations like the UFP and >Empire, >> who actually work with it unlike us, will sometimes appear to use it in >ways and >> find it in places that seem impossible to us. > >Thank you for copping out of the debate. I'll accept your concession that >Imperial neutronium is not real neutronium. None offered, Scott; all you've done is ignore the reasoning I gave above. Do you feel some hollow victory when you put your fingers in your ears, or do you simply do it to see what it's like to have something filling the empty space up there? >> Your speculation is just that, speculation. You are a hypocrite; you are >willing >> to concoct vast, unlikely explanations for seemingly impossible uses and >> locations of ST neutronium but want SW judged on a different standard. I >reject >> that. > >I'm judging Star Trek and Star Wars according to the exact same standard. >If it were said that Star Destroyer hulls were an alloy of neutronium, I >would allow the same hypothesis to hold. However, as it has been >demonstrated that Star Wars neutronium is a moon rock, I find that there can >be nothing to save Star Wars from the fate of having something called >neutronium, but which is not true neutronium. No, Scottie. It has not been established that SW neutronium is a "moon rock;" it has been established that, in a one-time extraordinary find, neutronium was found on a moon. For all we know, it was put there by an ancient civilization after being mass-reduced. >If a Star Trek episode were to have an instance where someone was playing >with a neutronium ping-pong ball, bouncing it against the wall and >explaining that there was nothing in the universe . . . not technobabble, >not Q, nothing . . . holding it together, I would quite happily declare >Star Trek neutronium to be nothing more than a mislabeled substance, a la >Star Wars neutronium. And here your hypocrisy raises its head. In ST, you want to assume technical wizardry until proven otherwise. Within any other context, you want the reverse. I'm sorry, but those aren't the rules played by here; you are free to take your hypocrisy elsewhere. Perhaps the mental midgets at sb.com would be more receptive. >> SW and ST both violate the RL principles of neutronium; > >How does Star Trek violate RL principles of neutronium? It is ultrastrong, >ultradense, ultramassive, impervious to weapons, et cetera. * Doesn't decay when separated from its star * can be mined on planets (evidenced by pre-warp civilizations doing so) * Not heavy unless we assume magic tech >The fact that technologically advanced >races could find a way to use it as a construction material does not violate >real life principles of neutronium. Concession accepted then; the Empire, as just such a technologically advanced race, has done so. >On the other hand, Star Wars claims that neutronium is something you can >just head for your local moon and dig for. *That* violates all real life >principles of neutronium. Only when you insist on an interpretation that requires us to assume that when people say "neutronium," sometimes they mean neutronium, except when they don't, and oh yeah, this is never true in the ST galaxy. >> what's more, they do it in similar ways related to their apparent mass. > >AMRE is a known quantity in Star Trek lore. Graviton-based shielding is a >known quantity in Star Trek lore. Antigravity systems are a known quantity >in Star Trek lore. SW has the ability to accurately simulate the gravitational pull of a stellar body, artificially generate gravity on everything from a snub fighter to a capital ship and extend gravity fields in any arbitrary direction, setting "down" to any direction you like (as was done in ESB), etc. etc. etc. Mere "antigravity systems" are unimpressive to me. >No such technology was in place on the moon from which Star Wars neutronium >is mined Proof? Prove there was no such technology was in place. You can't; you just want to assume it. Fine. Then I'll assume no such technology was in place on the Iconian temple, which makes sense, as they were pre-warp anyway and AMRE is a warp field. >> Thus, given the fact that they have the same and thus a very strong >presumption >> of being the same anyway, they are the same. > >Show me a neutronium ping-pong ball on Star Trek, and we'll talk. Show me the same in SW, and I'll need to. Until then, you are wrong. >> >Of course, as the episode did not go into detail about the containment of >> >the neutronium, the above is only a workable hypothesis. >> >> I will be using this "workable hypothesis with no proof" standard in >further >> discussion with you. > >In order to keep to my standard of hypotheses, you'll need to be sure that >these hypotheses have some basis in the technology of whomever you're >discussing, and you'll need to be sure that the hypothesis reasonably >explains whatever you're discussing in the context of the universe you're >referring to. Fine by me; SW has mastery over a great deal more of gravitational technology than the pathetic nerds of the ST universe. We've certainly never seen the ST universe display the technology needed to mine neutronium and that doesn't stop you; nor have we ever seen an AMRE field generated large enough to reduce an entire star's mass to the mass of a normal temple, as in "To The Death." That doesn't stop you. Why? Because you are a moron. >> >It comes from a moon, too. Therefore, either SW neutron stars are not >real >> >neutron stars, or there are two types of neutronium . . . real, "stellar" >> >neutronium, and whatever the crap mined out of a moon is. >> >> Neutron stars are real neutron stars; they have all the same properties of >the >> real thing, which is why Han needed to be there in the first place, as >you'd >> know if you read the novel, or any evidence for that matter. > >Then there are two separate types of neutronium. The real/stellar >neutronium, and the lunar crap. Proof? Oh, none. Fine by me; there are then two types of ST neutronium. The kind pre-warp civilizations can mine out of the ground and built temples from ("To the Death") and the kind in stars that's heavy sometimes. >> Workable Hypothesis: A ship with neutronium armor crashed there long ago. >Its >> armor was permanently mass-reduced by some Clarkean "magic" technology. > >Do you have any evidence or points to support this view? I have exactly as much evidence as you have for your "magic carbon-neutronium" hypothesis; none. > Mining neutronium >from a moon makes it sound like a natural occurence It occurred *ONE* time and was a very extraordinary find. Try reading the source material instead of masturbating to crayon drawings of Deanna Troi for an afternoon. >neutronium near an impact site. Further, permanent mass-reduction is not >something I've heard of in the Star Wars universe, nor even the Star Trek >universe. Would you care to provide some explanation of how this occurred? Why should I need to? You have extended mass reduction's abilities to encompass a massive temple made of pure neutronium; I have extended its abilities to encompass permanancy. If you get to wave a magic wand and extend tech to cover your assumptions, so do I. >> >> -> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn >> >> -> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor >> > >> >The "light" form of neutronium would have to be "moon" neutronium, and >> >cannot be real, "stellar" neutronium. >> >> Ah, then ST's "light" form of neutronium, as seen in armor, doorways, and >> temples of pre-warp civilizations is also different from real, "stellar" >> neutronium. > >Again, this is not necessary, thanks to technologies known to exist in the >Star Trek universe. Really? I've never seen any technology in Star Trek reduce that much mass. Just small starship masses. Which episode am I missing where they put an AMRE field around Sol and dragged it around? Oh, you just want us to ASSUME that... I see... well, if you get an assumption for free... >> >> ST neutronium: >> >> >> >> -> Same on all points >> > >> >False. Star Trek neutronium is never stated to come from moon mining. >> >> The Iconians, who are pre-warp, could build a temple out of it. Thus it >must be >> mineable on the ground. ("To the Death") > >It is foolish to refer to the Iconians as pre-warp. Blah, blah, blah. Did they have warp? No. They had gateways that they needed to use for travel. Thus, they COULD NOT have had AMRE -- as that is based on warp technology. You want to gift magic tech to species that are never said to have had that, and are explicitly stated to have a DIFFERENT form of FTL travel. Yeah, right. Pull the other one. No one ever says the Iconians had AMRE. So the Iconians, a pre-warp civilization, obviously mined their neutronium from planetary surfaces. Unless you want to gift them the magic ability to open a gateway to a neutron star, walk on, collect up some neutronium in sacks, and go home? That was Lord Edam's idea the last time this subject came up. Maybe you two can compare notes and realize how idiotic the idea is in advance this time. >> >Sphere was very, very massive. The neutronium door, which would've >been >> >held together by shielding, did not appear to have any particularly >> >impressive mass, and thus this mass was either shielded in the same way >or >> >by some other method. >> >> 1) No proof of being held together by shielding > >Alrighty, then, prove to me that it wasn't held together by shielding, and >thus was not neutronium (not counting the Star Wars universe garden >variety). The SW and ST universe are the same universe for the purposes of these discussions. Thus any "garden variety" inventions you make are perfectly likely to occur in the ST galaxy. So, my explanation is your explanation: that neutronium was light neutronium which obviously still worked perfectly well. Isn't that neat and tidy? >> 2) No proof of mass reduction > >The fact that the characters near it didn't turn into chunky salsa against >it is a good clue. Or it was light to begin with, like you assume SW neutronium is. >> >Again, the fact that your neutronium is found on a moon is the paramount >> >issue. Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and >until >> >it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and cannot >> >possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. >> >> An explanation for this appears above. Further, see "The Masterpiece >Society." > >Stellar core fragments, again, need not be neutronium. Apparently I have two things you don't. 1) Knowledge of the episode in question 2) Human friends -- -LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series." - net.movies, 6/8/1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 03:39:19 -0600 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: -------- "Kynes" wrote in message news:4Z4mPBJp99Dbz+Kna0gNEvTn8pGz@4ax.com... > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 21:11:57 -0600, "Guardian 2000" wrote: > > >> >> Of course, the simple fact that Star Trek neutronium can be observed in > >> >small > >> >> stellar fragments ("Evolution") > >> > > >> >Stellar fragment? "Evolution"[TNG] took place in the Kavis Alpha > >system, > >> >where Dr. Stubbs was going to study the Kavis Alpha *neutron star*! > >> > >> Starring things doesn't make them true. The scientist came to observe the > >> explusion of large globules from the star, not the star itself. Those > >globules > >> never decayed in the episode. > > > >That's funny . . . I've never heard of the episode you're trying to > >describe. > > [snip long description] > > Great. Hey, it's not my fault you made up non-existent elements of an episode, dumbass. > The important part about Evolution was that the scientist wanted to study the > expulsions of neutronium ("globules," in case you haven't figured that out) from > the star. As you have not contested this, concession accepted on the first > example of ST neutronium displaying properties that are "impossible" in RL. You dare claim that I've conceeded, when in the reply you snipped I pointed out the fact that no such globules exist in the episode, as you wish them to? What a fucking idiot you are! The neutronium that was to get carried outward in the explosion of the other star's material was being studied for the very reason that it was going to decay! Star Trek neutronium is therefore in exact line with real life neutronium, in that it decays outside some sort of envelope that will keep it in existence (be that its natural environment or whatever sort of neutronium containment field keeps neutronium as neutronium outside neutron stars). > Oh, and your request for quotes? Eat my shit. You may "note that" in your little > Logbook of Kynesian Wrongs, if you wish. OFFICIAL RESPONSE. LIET KYNES. > 12/23/2001. TOLD TO "EAT SHIT" WHEN REQUESTING QUOTES TO PROVE THE PLOT OF > EVOLUTION. Inability to prove misrepresentation of a Star Trek episode = concession accepted. Thanks for playing. Please come back when you have something worthwhile, bandwidth vampire. > >> Another demonstration of this is in "The Masterpiece Society." This is > >actually > >> the one I was thinking of originally -- the E-D observes a fragment of a > >neutron > >> star, free of the star itself. Shouldn't it be decaying? yes > > > >Another false recollection, Ian? Tsk, tsk. > > > >The Enterprise-D was tracking a "stellar core fragment" . . . I recall no > >mention being made as to whether this was from a neutron star or not. > > Hey Scoot, I don't give a shit whether you "recall" it one way or another. You > have just admitted you fundamentally know zero about this episode and are in no > position to question my stance on the matter. Since you are unable to properly recall episodes as demonstrated in reference to "Evolution"[TNG], I find it highly doubtful that you actually know jack shit about "The Masterpiece Society"[TNG]. So, provide quotes or you can fuck right off. > Debating with you is amazingly boring. I'm sure you find it intensely boring to lose time after time. > A small piece of a neutron star would do more than glow lightly in the visible > light spectrum were it separated. It would decay almost immediately. The burden > is on you to prove otherwise, and you may wish to submit this proof to major > astrophysical journals, as they are currently on my side. Actually, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it's the core of a neutron star to begin with. It's identified as a "stellar core fragment", Ian. At no point did Picard say "we're trackin' a big honkin' piece of neutronium randomly floating about the cosmos". Now, given the fact that stellar core fragments of stars which have supernovaed can, in fact, *be* neutron stars, you might be able to prove the notion that what we see is, in fact, a complete neutron star. However, until such time as you can prove any of your bullshit statements, we'll hold off on that for the time being. > >> >> or made into doorways, temples, > >> > > >> >In a prior thread on the topic, the fact that neutronium could be held > >> >together by way of finely-tuned graviton-based shielding was established. > >> > >> Scoot, if you think you can get away with saying "I've proven this before" > >as if > >> it's a real argument, you are even stupider than I imagined. > > > >I did establish it before. > > Wrong. You had the shit kicked out of you by everyone here, just like every > argument you bring up. You say that as if it has any truth value to it. I find that very amusing. Is that how you sleep at night, by revising your mental version of history (with the help of your Rabid Warsie friends who do the same) to convince yourself that you weren't just ass-raped by reason, logic, fact, and canon every time you disagree with me on those topics? > Not only on the total lack of real proof for this magic > ability, but on why we should assume this set of magic technologies and apply > them rabidly in any situation where we would otherwise need to conclude that ST > neutronium has different properties than RL neutronium. The proof is in the pudding. We know that real-life neutronium and Star Trek neutronium come from the same place. We know that neutronium in manufactured form does not squish people who are nearby. We know what mechanisms and technologies exist in the Star Trek universe which would quite readily explain how this is so. You have never managed to disprove these notions. On the other hand, Star Wars neutronium is nothing more than a metallic element mined on moons. Cry, Ian, cry all you wish. Just shut the fuck up and confess that your argument is crap. > >> >As I recall, the Rabid Warsie position was "oh, yeah, well we can do it, > >> >too!", despite the fact that your neutronium comes from a moon. > >> > >> SW neutronium comes from neutron stars. ref: Rebel Dawn > > > >Edam has quite nicely deflated your position on this. > > Edam has asked me to prove that neutron stars are composed of neutronium, when > that is, by definition, what they are made of. Well, since the Star Wars universe (and its rabid defenders) don't even know what neutronium is, his questions to you aren't out of line. > Wow, my position is even more deflated than your prom date. Hey, just because you go for the big nasties doesn't mean my slim and trim beauties are deflated. > > Besides, there would > >have to be two types of "neutronium", stellar (i.e. "real") and lunar (i.e. > >"fake"), since the two cannot be the same. > > I would love to see your positive disproof. Of course, as a possible explanation > has already been put forth, that's not going to happen. Lunar neutronium is a metallic element. Deal with it. > >> >> and alloyed with carbon means it's not RL neutronium either. > >> > > >> >The Carbon-neutronium alloy of the Dyson Sphere is perplexing, but not > >> >necessarily impossible. > >> > >> Is it impossible? obviously not, it's canon > > > >I was referring to reality, not canon. > > Yeah, you're referring to "reality" and then go on a long-winded version of "I'm > sure they managed it because their tech level was so high." Fine, that's my > explanation for everything the Empire does with neutronium. Mine is the hypothesis that fits the facts. Yours would be a desperate effort to rewrite Star Wars to exclude the fact that SW neutronium is a metallic element mined on moons. > I'm sure the tech > level of their mining equipment is so high, they can mistake a neutron star > (very small, you know) for a moon. Ah, okay, sure, yeah, that's great, Ian. A bunch of high-tech rednecks who can't tell the difference between a neutron star and a moon. Riiiiight. Oh, and thanks for proving my point. > >> However, that requires us to accept that our RL understanding of > >neutronium is > >> wrong on many points and further-advanced civilizations like the UFP and > >Empire, > >> who actually work with it unlike us, will sometimes appear to use it in > >ways and > >> find it in places that seem impossible to us. > > > >Thank you for copping out of the debate. I'll accept your concession that > >Imperial neutronium is not real neutronium. > > None offered, Scott; all you've done is ignore the reasoning I gave above. You gave no reasoning above. All you said was that SW neutronium, because it can be found on moons and is a metallic element, is a concept of neutronium far more advanced than the real life garden variety neutron star neutronium. That's bullshit, I identified it as such, and accepted your concession. > Do you feel some hollow victory when you put your fingers in your ears, or do you > simply do it to see what it's like to have something filling the empty space up > there? Oh, granted, if I were to shut my eyes and put my fingers in my ears, it would serve to halt the perilous reduction of my IQ which occurs every time I have to read your stupid bullshit. But, fortunately, I can manage to read your crap without getting stupider in the process, thanks to my brain's exquisite bullshit filter. (I don't turn it on all the way . . . otherwise your messages would just be big blank spaces.) > >> Your speculation is just that, speculation. You are a hypocrite; you are > >willing > >> to concoct vast, unlikely explanations for seemingly impossible uses and > >> locations of ST neutronium but want SW judged on a different standard. I > >reject > >> that. > > > >I'm judging Star Trek and Star Wars according to the exact same standard. > >If it were said that Star Destroyer hulls were an alloy of neutronium, I > >would allow the same hypothesis to hold. However, as it has been > >demonstrated that Star Wars neutronium is a moon rock, I find that there can > >be nothing to save Star Wars from the fate of having something called > >neutronium, but which is not true neutronium. > > No, Scottie. It has not been established that SW neutronium is a "moon rock;" it > has been established that, in a one-time extraordinary find, neutronium was > found on a moon. It's a metallic element found in veins of ore on a moon. "Moon rock" might be a bit of overkill, but not much. > For all we know, it was put there by an ancient civilization after being mass-reduced. Praytell, how did they turn real neutronium into a metallic element? Fuck the mass-reduction, *that* is the feat I'd love to know about. > >If a Star Trek episode were to have an instance where someone was playing > >with a neutronium ping-pong ball, bouncing it against the wall and > >explaining that there was nothing in the universe . . . not technobabble, > >not Q, nothing . . . holding it together, I would quite happily declare > >Star Trek neutronium to be nothing more than a mislabeled substance, a la > >Star Wars neutronium. > > And here your hypocrisy raises its head. In ST, you want to assume technical > wizardry until proven otherwise. Within any other context, you want the reverse. There can be no technical wizardry when the definition of neutronium in the Star Wars universe is "a metallic element found as veins of ore on a moon". Don't bitch and moan just because you don't get to use the same technical wizardry thanks to stupidity on the part of Star Wars authors. > I'm sorry, but those aren't the rules played by here; you are free to take your > hypocrisy elsewhere. Perhaps the mental midgets at sb.com would be more > receptive. It is your hypocrisy to sit here trying to defend Star Wars neutronium. > > >> SW and ST both violate the RL principles of neutronium; > > > >How does Star Trek violate RL principles of neutronium? It is ultrastrong, > >ultradense, ultramassive, impervious to weapons, et cetera. > > * Doesn't decay when separated from its star Does decay when separated by its star ("Evolution"[TNG]), unless prevented from doing so or created artificially by advanced societies. > * can be mined on planets (evidenced by pre-warp civilizations doing so) Supposition, based on the faulty assertion that the Iconians were pre-warp, despite having a vast galactic empire and technology far beyond Federation science. > * Not heavy unless we assume magic tech Properly rephrased: It does not give the appearance of extraordinary mass when manufactured into useful components/structures, and in an effort to explain this fact we quite readily hit upon the empirical knowledge we have of Federation technology and its capabilities, extrapolating along reasonable lines in an effort to explain how neutronium can exist outside a neutron star while maintaining the characteristics of extraordinary strength and density. > >The fact that technologically advanced > >races could find a way to use it as a construction material does not violate > >real life principles of neutronium. > > Concession accepted then; the Empire, as just such a technologically advanced > race, has done so. Not so, for the Empire's version of neutronium is a metallic element mined on moons. > >On the other hand, Star Wars claims that neutronium is something you can > >just head for your local moon and dig for. *That* violates all real life > >principles of neutronium. > > Only when you insist on an interpretation that requires us to assume that when > people say "neutronium," sometimes they mean neutronium, except when they don't, SW neutronium is not proper neutronium. Neutronium in the Star Wars galaxy is a metallic element one can find in veins on a moon. > and oh yeah, this is never true in the ST galaxy. If and when they make up something stupid like "ooh, look, here's some neutronium, a metallic element, sitting here on this moon", then we'll talk. > >> what's more, they do it in similar ways related to their apparent mass. > > > >AMRE is a known quantity in Star Trek lore. Graviton-based shielding is a > >known quantity in Star Trek lore. Antigravity systems are a known quantity > >in Star Trek lore. > > SW has the ability to accurately simulate the gravitational pull of a stellar > body, artificially generate gravity on everything from a snub fighter to a > capital ship and extend gravity fields in any arbitrary direction, setting > "down" to any direction you like (as was done in ESB), etc. etc. etc. Mere > "antigravity systems" are unimpressive to me. These are all "field effect" applications of gravity control. I am unimpressed by them. Fine manipulation of gravitons into coherent beams, though, is a remarkable achievement, and one apparently far beyond Imperial science. > >No such technology was in place on the moon from which Star Wars neutronium > >is mined > > Proof? Prove there was no such technology was in place. You can't; you just want > to assume it. I don't have to prove it, because Star Wars neutronium is a simple metallic element, automatically disqualifying it from contention as real-life neutronium. The fact that it is found on the moon in ore form is just a happy bonus. > Fine. Then I'll assume no such technology was in place on the > Iconian temple, which makes sense, as they were pre-warp anyway and AMRE is a > warp field. Calling the Iconians, with their galaxy-spanning empire, pre-warp is like calling the Empire pre-warp. I suppose, then, that both are incapable of producing FTL spacecraft. Aww, shucks. > >> Thus, given the fact that they have the same and thus a very strong > >presumption > >> of being the same anyway, they are the same. > > > >Show me a neutronium ping-pong ball on Star Trek, and we'll talk. > > Show me the same in SW, and I'll need to. Until then, you are wrong. No, you're wrong. Star Wars neutronium is a metallic element found on moons. I shall continue to repeat that fact until such time as you get it through your Rabid Warsie Fuckwit skull. > > >> >Of course, as the episode did not go into detail about the containment of > >> >the neutronium, the above is only a workable hypothesis. > >> > >> I will be using this "workable hypothesis with no proof" standard in > >further > >> discussion with you. > > > >In order to keep to my standard of hypotheses, you'll need to be sure that > >these hypotheses have some basis in the technology of whomever you're > >discussing, and you'll need to be sure that the hypothesis reasonably > >explains whatever you're discussing in the context of the universe you're > >referring to. > > Fine by me; SW has mastery over a great deal more of gravitational technology > than the pathetic nerds of the ST universe. They may or may not have more and more powerful applications of field-effect graviton manipulation technology. However, they are without finesse, and have not been shown or described to have the capability of producing localized or coherent graviton effects, a la beams. > We've certainly never seen the ST universe display the technology needed to mine neutronium > and that doesn't stop you; The Star Trek universe need not mine neutronium, for neutronium is not a metallic element in the Star Trek universe. Also, for all we know, the manufactured items composed of neutronium use artificially-generated neutronium. At any rate, since all we've ever seen is the finished products, your notion that we've never seen the earlier stages is irrelevant. We did not see the birth of Picard or the construction of Data, but that does not mean these events did not occur or that the Star Trek universe did not have the required technology. > nor have we ever seen an AMRE field generated large enough to reduce an > entire star's mass to the mass of a normal temple, as in "To The Death." The temple was not 10 kilometers in diameter, and therefore did not have the mass of a star. > That doesn't stop you. Why? Because you are a moron. The fact that SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon hasn't stopped you. That makes you far worse of a moron than you could ever hope for me to be. > >> >It comes from a moon, too. Therefore, either SW neutron stars are not > >real > >> >neutron stars, or there are two types of neutronium . . . real, "stellar" > >> >neutronium, and whatever the crap mined out of a moon is. > >> > >> Neutron stars are real neutron stars; they have all the same properties of > >the > >> real thing, which is why Han needed to be there in the first place, as > >you'd > >> know if you read the novel, or any evidence for that matter. > > > >Then there are two separate types of neutronium. The real/stellar > >neutronium, and the lunar crap. > > Proof? Oh, none. Star Wars neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon. That's lunar crap. > Fine by me; there are then two types of ST neutronium. The kind pre-warp > civilizations can mine out of the ground and built temples from ("To the Death") Supposition . . . based on the false notion that the Iconians had to get the neutronium out of the ground, which is itself based on the false notion that the Iconians were pre-warp. > and the kind in stars that's heavy sometimes. All the time. > >> Workable Hypothesis: A ship with neutronium armor crashed there long ago. > >Its > >> armor was permanently mass-reduced by some Clarkean "magic" technology. > > > >Do you have any evidence or points to support this view? > > I have exactly as much evidence as you have for your "magic carbon-neutronium" > hypothesis; none. Ah, I see . . . so you have no evidence whatsoever, and a hypothesis which contradicts the facts. Good, Ian, good. I, on the other hand, have supporting evidence for the capabilities described, and a hypothesis which brings all facts together into happy union. Oh, yes, and I forgot to add: SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon. > > Mining neutronium > >from a moon makes it sound like a natural occurence > > It occurred *ONE* time and was a very extraordinary find. Try reading the source > material instead of masturbating to crayon drawings of Deanna Troi for an > afternoon. Doesn't matter if it was extraordinary or not . . . SW neutronium is a metallic element. > >neutronium near an impact site. Further, permanent mass-reduction is not > >something I've heard of in the Star Wars universe, nor even the Star Trek > >universe. Would you care to provide some explanation of how this occurred? > > Why should I need to? You have extended mass reduction's abilities to encompass > a massive temple made of pure neutronium; I have extended its abilities to > encompass permanancy. If you get to wave a magic wand and extend tech to cover > your assumptions, so do I. You've not extended tech, you've abandoned physics. Besides, it hardly matters (can you guess what's coming?): SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon. > > >> >> -> Is sometimes heavy, as in Rebel Dawn > >> >> -> Sometimes light, as in moons or in armor > >> > > >> >The "light" form of neutronium would have to be "moon" neutronium, and > >> >cannot be real, "stellar" neutronium. > >> > >> Ah, then ST's "light" form of neutronium, as seen in armor, doorways, and > >> temples of pre-warp civilizations is also different from real, "stellar" > >> neutronium. > > > >Again, this is not necessary, thanks to technologies known to exist in the > >Star Trek universe. > > Really? I've never seen any technology in Star Trek reduce that much mass. Just > small starship masses. Which episode am I missing where they put an AMRE field > around Sol and dragged it around? The Federation has never been claimed to have the technology necessary to produce or manufacture products from neutronium. Indeed, if you had any idea what you're talking about, you'd know that such was referred to in "Think Tank"[VOY]. > Oh, you just want us to ASSUME that... I see... well, if you get an assumption > for free... I've paid for each assumption with reason and evidence. You might want to try that. > > >> >> ST neutronium: > >> >> > >> >> -> Same on all points > >> > > >> >False. Star Trek neutronium is never stated to come from moon mining. > >> > >> The Iconians, who are pre-warp, could build a temple out of it. Thus it > >must be > >> mineable on the ground. ("To the Death") > > > >It is foolish to refer to the Iconians as pre-warp. > > Blah, blah, blah. > > Did they have warp? > > No. Proof that a galactic empire spanning from the Beta Quadrant to the Gamma Quadrant did not have FTL drive for starships? > They had gateways that they needed to use for travel. They had gateways that they used for travel. Proof that they *needed* to use them for travel? > Thus, they COULD NOT have had AMRE -- as that is based on warp technology. Proof they did not have AMRE? Proof they were not familiar with warp technology? Proof that they were unfamiliar with AMRE, even if I grant your erroneous assumption that they did not have warp technology as FTL drives? > You > want to gift magic tech to species that are never said to have had that, and are > explicitly stated to have a DIFFERENT form of FTL travel. Yeah, right. Pull the > other one. No one ever says the Iconians had AMRE. Proof that they did not? > So the Iconians, a pre-warp civilization, obviously mined their neutronium from > planetary surfaces. Faulty reasoning. Besides, for all we know, the Iconians didn't need to go and mine anything. They could have either sent small mining craft through the gateways to the neutron star, or just opened the gateway on the star to begin with. However, needing to do that would presuppose that the Iconian empire managed to exist without ever figuring out FTL travel for starships. > Unless you want to gift them the magic ability to open a > gateway to a neutron star, walk on, collect up some neutronium in sacks, and go > home? That was Lord Edam's idea the last time this subject came up. Maybe you > two can compare notes and realize how idiotic the idea is in advance this time. Maybe you should go back and figure out that just because the Iconians had and used dimensional gateways, they are not restricted from warp drive or FTL flight with starships. > >> >Sphere was very, very massive. The neutronium door, which would've > >been > >> >held together by shielding, did not appear to have any particularly > >> >impressive mass, and thus this mass was either shielded in the same way > >or > >> >by some other method. > >> > >> 1) No proof of being held together by shielding > > > >Alrighty, then, prove to me that it wasn't held together by shielding, and > >thus was not neutronium (not counting the Star Wars universe garden > >variety). > > The SW and ST universe are the same universe for the purposes of these > discussions. Thus any "garden variety" inventions you make are perfectly likely > to occur in the ST galaxy. It may well be the case, then, that some lunar-crap-metallic-element-neutronium exists in the Star Trek galaxy. However, dollars to donuts those damned Federation types are smart enough not to start naming things neutronium that aren't neutronium. > So, my explanation is your explanation: that neutronium was light neutronium > which obviously still worked perfectly well. Isn't that neat and tidy? No, because we've seen no evidence of a metallic element mineable from moons referred to as neutronium in the Star Trek galaxy. > >> 2) No proof of mass reduction > > > >The fact that the characters near it didn't turn into chunky salsa against > >it is a good clue. > > Or it was light to begin with, like you assume SW neutronium is. I don't assume SW neutronium is light. I accept the fact that it is, based on the fact that SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon. > > >> >Again, the fact that your neutronium is found on a moon is the paramount > >> >issue. Star Trek neutronium must be assumed to be real, unless and > >until > >> >it begins to display properties that are absolutely impossible and cannot > >> >possibly be explained . . . such as being mined on a moon. > >> > >> An explanation for this appears above. Further, see "The Masterpiece > >Society." > > > >Stellar core fragments, again, need not be neutronium. > > Apparently I have two things you don't. > > 1) Knowledge of the episode in question Given your faulty knowledge of "Evolution"[TNG], I question your knowledge of "The Masterpiece Society"[TNG]. Would you like to back up your bullshit with quotes? > 2) Human friends Desperate efforts at insults will not win you the argument. SW neutronium is a metallic element found in veins on a moon. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lurker" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 16:30:01 -0000 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <_GIV7.35757$4z5.4677464@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com> -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message Here is a thought for you to mull over The average Neutron star (in theory) is 10km across and is a minimum of 1.4 solar masses. A moon can be anywhere in the range of 5 - 5000km, maybe more Now using logic (try it yourself sometime), can you see that by accumulating an extra few km's of debris over the millenia it could become known as a moon? --- I'm stuck in this pit; working for less than slave wages, working on my day off. The goddamn steel shutters are closed, I deal with every backwards-arsed fuck on the planet, I smell like shoe polish, my ex-girlfriend is catatonic after fucking a dead guy and my present girlfriend has sucked 36 dicks!.... My lifes in the shitter right now and if you don't mind I'd like to stew a bit. - Dante Hicks ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:00:12 -0600 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: -------- "Lurker" wrote in message news:_GIV7.35757$4z5.4677464@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... > "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > > > > Here is a thought for you to mull over > > The average Neutron star (in theory) is 10km across and is a minimum of 1.4 solar masses. > > A moon can be anywhere in the range of 5 - 5000km, maybe more > > Now using logic (try it yourself sometime), can you see that by accumulating an extra few > km's of debris over the millenia it could become known as a moon? > It would have a gravitational field greater than that of the star, dude. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 24 Dec 2001 18:10:37 GMT Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <20011224131037.25705.00002978@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >"Lurker" wrote in message >news:_GIV7.35757$4z5.4677464@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message >> >> >> >> Here is a thought for you to mull over >> >> The average Neutron star (in theory) is 10km across and is a minimum of >1.4 solar masses. >> >> A moon can be anywhere in the range of 5 - 5000km, maybe more >> >> Now using logic (try it yourself sometime), can you see that by >accumulating an extra few >> km's of debris over the millenia it could become known as a moon? >> > >It would have a gravitational field greater than that of the star, dude. > Endor and Yavin 4 had gravity fields equal or greater than Earth. Yet they were called moons. The gravity field doesn't determine it's name. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 14:35:09 -0600 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011224131037.25705.00002978@mb-fi.aol.com... > >"Lurker" wrote in message > >news:_GIV7.35757$4z5.4677464@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... > >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > >> > >> > >> > >> Here is a thought for you to mull over > >> > >> The average Neutron star (in theory) is 10km across and is a minimum of > >1.4 solar masses. > >> > >> A moon can be anywhere in the range of 5 - 5000km, maybe more > >> > >> Now using logic (try it yourself sometime), can you see that by > >accumulating an extra few > >> km's of debris over the millenia it could become known as a moon? > >> > > > >It would have a gravitational field greater than that of the star, dude. > > > > Endor and Yavin 4 had gravity fields equal or greater than Earth. Yet they were > called moons. The gravity field doesn't determine it's name. You're right, the name does. The fact that the moon orbited, along with other moons, a planet . . . and that this planet orbited a star . . . those are good clues right there that Star Wars neutronium, being a metallic element found on the moon . . . does not have the density characteristics of real-world neutronium. Thank you for playing. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 24 Dec 2001 20:42:26 GMT Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <20011224154226.06255.00001354@mb-mq.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011224131037.25705.00002978@mb-fi.aol.com... >> >"Lurker" wrote in message >> >news:_GIV7.35757$4z5.4677464@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... >> >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Here is a thought for you to mull over >> >> >> >> The average Neutron star (in theory) is 10km across and is a minimum of >> >1.4 solar masses. >> >> >> >> A moon can be anywhere in the range of 5 - 5000km, maybe more >> >> >> >> Now using logic (try it yourself sometime), can you see that by >> >accumulating an extra few >> >> km's of debris over the millenia it could become known as a moon? >> >> >> > >> >It would have a gravitational field greater than that of the star, dude. >> > >> >> Endor and Yavin 4 had gravity fields equal or greater than Earth. Yet they >were >> called moons. The gravity field doesn't determine it's name. > >You're right, the name does. The fact that the moon orbited, along with >other moons, a planet . . . and that this planet orbited a star . . . those >are good clues right there that Star Wars neutronium, being a metallic >element found on the moon . . . does not have the density characteristics of >real-world neutronium. > >Thank you for playing. > You have successfully defined what a moon is. Now, we're waiting for how a neutron star or chunk thereof(Since both ST and SW neutronium can exist outside a neutron star) cannot orbit a planet, thus making it a moon. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 15:22:35 -0600 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011224154226.06255.00001354@mb-mq.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20011224131037.25705.00002978@mb-fi.aol.com... > >> >"Lurker" wrote in message > >> >news:_GIV7.35757$4z5.4677464@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... > >> >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Here is a thought for you to mull over > >> >> > >> >> The average Neutron star (in theory) is 10km across and is a minimum of > >> >1.4 solar masses. > >> >> > >> >> A moon can be anywhere in the range of 5 - 5000km, maybe more > >> >> > >> >> Now using logic (try it yourself sometime), can you see that by > >> >accumulating an extra few > >> >> km's of debris over the millenia it could become known as a moon? > >> >> > >> > > >> >It would have a gravitational field greater than that of the star, dude. > >> > > >> > >> Endor and Yavin 4 had gravity fields equal or greater than Earth. Yet they > >were > >> called moons. The gravity field doesn't determine it's name. > > > >You're right, the name does. The fact that the moon orbited, along with > >other moons, a planet . . . and that this planet orbited a star . . . those > >are good clues right there that Star Wars neutronium, being a metallic > >element found on the moon . . . does not have the density characteristics of > >real-world neutronium. > > > >Thank you for playing. > > > > You have successfully defined what a moon is. Now, we're waiting for how a > neutron star or chunk thereof(Since both ST and SW neutronium can exist outside > a neutron star) cannot orbit a planet, thus making it a moon. A neutron star cannot orbit a planet because the planet, sun, et cetera will orbit it. The most you'd get out of a planet around a neutron star is a wobbly neutron star. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 24 Dec 2001 21:34:31 GMT Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <20011224163431.12961.00002299@mb-cu.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011224154226.06255.00001354@mb-mq.aol.com... >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >news:20011224131037.25705.00002978@mb-fi.aol.com... >> >> >"Lurker" wrote in message >> >> >news:_GIV7.35757$4z5.4677464@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... >> >> >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Here is a thought for you to mull over >> >> >> >> >> >> The average Neutron star (in theory) is 10km across and is a minimum >of >> >> >1.4 solar masses. >> >> >> >> >> >> A moon can be anywhere in the range of 5 - 5000km, maybe more >> >> >> >> >> >> Now using logic (try it yourself sometime), can you see that by >> >> >accumulating an extra few >> >> >> km's of debris over the millenia it could become known as a moon? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >It would have a gravitational field greater than that of the star, >dude. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Endor and Yavin 4 had gravity fields equal or greater than Earth. Yet >they >> >were >> >> called moons. The gravity field doesn't determine it's name. >> > >> >You're right, the name does. The fact that the moon orbited, along >with >> >other moons, a planet . . . and that this planet orbited a star . . . >those >> >are good clues right there that Star Wars neutronium, being a metallic >> >element found on the moon . . . does not have the density characteristics >of >> >real-world neutronium. >> > >> >Thank you for playing. >> > >> >> You have successfully defined what a moon is. Now, we're waiting for how a >> neutron star or chunk thereof(Since both ST and SW neutronium can exist >outside >> a neutron star) cannot orbit a planet, thus making it a moon. > >A neutron star cannot orbit a planet because the planet, sun, et cetera will >orbit it. The most you'd get out of a planet around a neutron star is a >wobbly neutron star. > I'm sure you also beleive black holes can't orbit stars. They do, in fact. So you still have no proof. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 15:52:25 -0600 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011224163431.12961.00002299@mb-cu.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20011224154226.06255.00001354@mb-mq.aol.com... > >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >> >news:20011224131037.25705.00002978@mb-fi.aol.com... > >> >> >"Lurker" wrote in message > >> >> >news:_GIV7.35757$4z5.4677464@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... > >> >> >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Here is a thought for you to mull over > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The average Neutron star (in theory) is 10km across and is a minimum > >of > >> >> >1.4 solar masses. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> A moon can be anywhere in the range of 5 - 5000km, maybe more > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Now using logic (try it yourself sometime), can you see that by > >> >> >accumulating an extra few > >> >> >> km's of debris over the millenia it could become known as a moon? > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >It would have a gravitational field greater than that of the star, > >dude. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Endor and Yavin 4 had gravity fields equal or greater than Earth. Yet > >they > >> >were > >> >> called moons. The gravity field doesn't determine it's name. > >> > > >> >You're right, the name does. The fact that the moon orbited, along > >with > >> >other moons, a planet . . . and that this planet orbited a star . . . > >those > >> >are good clues right there that Star Wars neutronium, being a metallic > >> >element found on the moon . . . does not have the density characteristics > >of > >> >real-world neutronium. > >> > > >> >Thank you for playing. > >> > > >> > >> You have successfully defined what a moon is. Now, we're waiting for how a > >> neutron star or chunk thereof(Since both ST and SW neutronium can exist > >outside > >> a neutron star) cannot orbit a planet, thus making it a moon. > > > >A neutron star cannot orbit a planet because the planet, sun, et cetera will > >orbit it. The most you'd get out of a planet around a neutron star is a > >wobbly neutron star. > > > > I'm sure you also beleive black holes can't orbit stars. They do, in fact. So > you still have no proof. Proof that more massive objects orbit less massive objects? G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 26 Dec 2001 02:26:07 GMT Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <20011225212607.24464.00001827@mb-fc.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011224163431.12961.00002299@mb-cu.aol.com... >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >news:20011224154226.06255.00001354@mb-mq.aol.com... >> >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >> >news:20011224131037.25705.00002978@mb-fi.aol.com... >> >> >> >"Lurker" wrote in message >> >> >> >news:_GIV7.35757$4z5.4677464@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... >> >> >> >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Here is a thought for you to mull over >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The average Neutron star (in theory) is 10km across and is a >minimum >> >of >> >> >> >1.4 solar masses. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A moon can be anywhere in the range of 5 - 5000km, maybe more >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Now using logic (try it yourself sometime), can you see that by >> >> >> >accumulating an extra few >> >> >> >> km's of debris over the millenia it could become known as a moon? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >It would have a gravitational field greater than that of the star, >> >dude. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Endor and Yavin 4 had gravity fields equal or greater than Earth. >Yet >> >they >> >> >were >> >> >> called moons. The gravity field doesn't determine it's name. >> >> > >> >> >You're right, the name does. The fact that the moon orbited, along >> >with >> >> >other moons, a planet . . . and that this planet orbited a star . . . >> >those >> >> >are good clues right there that Star Wars neutronium, being a metallic >> >> >element found on the moon . . . does not have the density >characteristics >> >of >> >> >real-world neutronium. >> >> > >> >> >Thank you for playing. >> >> > >> >> >> >> You have successfully defined what a moon is. Now, we're waiting for >how a >> >> neutron star or chunk thereof(Since both ST and SW neutronium can exist >> >outside >> >> a neutron star) cannot orbit a planet, thus making it a moon. >> > >> >A neutron star cannot orbit a planet because the planet, sun, et cetera >will >> >orbit it. The most you'd get out of a planet around a neutron star is a >> >wobbly neutron star. >> > >> >> I'm sure you also beleive black holes can't orbit stars. They do, in fact. >So >> you still have no proof. > >Proof that more massive objects orbit less massive objects? > Pluto-Charon. Binary star systems. Newtonian Physics. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 23:31:47 -0600 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011225212607.24464.00001827@mb-fc.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20011224163431.12961.00002299@mb-cu.aol.com... > >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >> >news:20011224154226.06255.00001354@mb-mq.aol.com... > >> >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >> >> >news:20011224131037.25705.00002978@mb-fi.aol.com... > >> >> >> >"Lurker" wrote in message > >> >> >> >news:_GIV7.35757$4z5.4677464@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... > >> >> >> >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Here is a thought for you to mull over > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> The average Neutron star (in theory) is 10km across and is a > >minimum > >> >of > >> >> >> >1.4 solar masses. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> A moon can be anywhere in the range of 5 - 5000km, maybe more > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Now using logic (try it yourself sometime), can you see that by > >> >> >> >accumulating an extra few > >> >> >> >> km's of debris over the millenia it could become known as a moon? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >It would have a gravitational field greater than that of the star, > >> >dude. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Endor and Yavin 4 had gravity fields equal or greater than Earth. > >Yet > >> >they > >> >> >were > >> >> >> called moons. The gravity field doesn't determine it's name. > >> >> > > >> >> >You're right, the name does. The fact that the moon orbited, along > >> >with > >> >> >other moons, a planet . . . and that this planet orbited a star . . . > >> >those > >> >> >are good clues right there that Star Wars neutronium, being a metallic > >> >> >element found on the moon . . . does not have the density > >characteristics > >> >of > >> >> >real-world neutronium. > >> >> > > >> >> >Thank you for playing. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> You have successfully defined what a moon is. Now, we're waiting for > >how a > >> >> neutron star or chunk thereof(Since both ST and SW neutronium can exist > >> >outside > >> >> a neutron star) cannot orbit a planet, thus making it a moon. > >> > > >> >A neutron star cannot orbit a planet because the planet, sun, et cetera > >will > >> >orbit it. The most you'd get out of a planet around a neutron star is a > >> >wobbly neutron star. > >> > > >> > >> I'm sure you also beleive black holes can't orbit stars. They do, in fact. > >So > >> you still have no proof. > > > >Proof that more massive objects orbit less massive objects? > > > > Pluto-Charon. Binary star systems. Newtonian Physics. Lack of knowledge of basic physics observed . . . concession accepted. You refer to co-orbital systems (i.e. the sort with La Grange points between the two, like Terra and Luna), not the orbit of a more massive object around a less massive one. G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 26 Dec 2001 14:58:11 GMT Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <20011226095811.12937.00002603@mb-cu.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011225212607.24464.00001827@mb-fc.aol.com... >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >news:20011224163431.12961.00002299@mb-cu.aol.com... >> >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >> >news:20011224154226.06255.00001354@mb-mq.aol.com... >> >> >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >> >> >news:20011224131037.25705.00002978@mb-fi.aol.com... >> >> >> >> >"Lurker" wrote in message >> >> >> >> >news:_GIV7.35757$4z5.4677464@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... >> >> >> >> >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Here is a thought for you to mull over >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The average Neutron star (in theory) is 10km across and is a >> >minimum >> >> >of >> >> >> >> >1.4 solar masses. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A moon can be anywhere in the range of 5 - 5000km, maybe more >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Now using logic (try it yourself sometime), can you see that >by >> >> >> >> >accumulating an extra few >> >> >> >> >> km's of debris over the millenia it could become known as a >moon? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >It would have a gravitational field greater than that of the >star, >> >> >dude. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Endor and Yavin 4 had gravity fields equal or greater than Earth. >> >Yet >> >> >they >> >> >> >were >> >> >> >> called moons. The gravity field doesn't determine it's name. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >You're right, the name does. The fact that the moon orbited, >along >> >> >with >> >> >> >other moons, a planet . . . and that this planet orbited a star . . >. >> >> >those >> >> >> >are good clues right there that Star Wars neutronium, being a >metallic >> >> >> >element found on the moon . . . does not have the density >> >characteristics >> >> >of >> >> >> >real-world neutronium. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Thank you for playing. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> You have successfully defined what a moon is. Now, we're waiting for >> >how a >> >> >> neutron star or chunk thereof(Since both ST and SW neutronium can >exist >> >> >outside >> >> >> a neutron star) cannot orbit a planet, thus making it a moon. >> >> > >> >> >A neutron star cannot orbit a planet because the planet, sun, et >cetera >> >will >> >> >orbit it. The most you'd get out of a planet around a neutron star >is a >> >> >wobbly neutron star. >> >> > >> >> >> >> I'm sure you also beleive black holes can't orbit stars. They do, in >fact. >> >So >> >> you still have no proof. >> > >> >Proof that more massive objects orbit less massive objects? >> > >> >> Pluto-Charon. Binary star systems. Newtonian Physics. > >Lack of knowledge of basic physics observed . . . concession accepted. >You refer to co-orbital systems (i.e. the sort with La Grange points between >the two, like Terra and Luna), not the orbit of a more massive object around >a less massive one. > Actually, Newtonian physics quite definately works in my favour. If you knew the basics of gravity theory, you would understand this, but instead you claim others don't know it and spout technobabble and fanboy fantasies. A more massive object will orbit a less massive one, though it will pull the less massive object around. Also, since you are a complete fucking moron, you forget that a neutron star has a minimal mass of 1.5 Solar Masses. Red giants have masses several times that. And nothing stops a planet from being that heavy(A theoretical Jupiter sized M-type world, for example). You just cling to the notions you have in your head from watching Trek and lash out. ------------------------------------ SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius "We can reconstitute dead friends and lovers. Those who were us, can be yours again. We will make you Gods amongst your people!" -Last words of the Beast. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 16:19:53 -0600 Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20011226095811.12937.00002603@mb-cu.aol.com... > >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >news:20011225212607.24464.00001827@mb-fc.aol.com... > >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >> >news:20011224163431.12961.00002299@mb-cu.aol.com... > >> >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >> >> >news:20011224154226.06255.00001354@mb-mq.aol.com... > >> >> >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message > >> >> >> >news:20011224131037.25705.00002978@mb-fi.aol.com... > >> >> >> >> >"Lurker" wrote in message > >> >> >> >> >news:_GIV7.35757$4z5.4677464@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... > >> >> >> >> >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Here is a thought for you to mull over > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> The average Neutron star (in theory) is 10km across and is a > >> >minimum > >> >> >of > >> >> >> >> >1.4 solar masses. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> A moon can be anywhere in the range of 5 - 5000km, maybe more > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Now using logic (try it yourself sometime), can you see that > >by > >> >> >> >> >accumulating an extra few > >> >> >> >> >> km's of debris over the millenia it could become known as a > >moon? > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >It would have a gravitational field greater than that of the > >star, > >> >> >dude. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Endor and Yavin 4 had gravity fields equal or greater than Earth. > >> >Yet > >> >> >they > >> >> >> >were > >> >> >> >> called moons. The gravity field doesn't determine it's name. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >You're right, the name does. The fact that the moon orbited, > >along > >> >> >with > >> >> >> >other moons, a planet . . . and that this planet orbited a star . . > >. > >> >> >those > >> >> >> >are good clues right there that Star Wars neutronium, being a > >metallic > >> >> >> >element found on the moon . . . does not have the density > >> >characteristics > >> >> >of > >> >> >> >real-world neutronium. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Thank you for playing. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You have successfully defined what a moon is. Now, we're waiting for > >> >how a > >> >> >> neutron star or chunk thereof(Since both ST and SW neutronium can > >exist > >> >> >outside > >> >> >> a neutron star) cannot orbit a planet, thus making it a moon. > >> >> > > >> >> >A neutron star cannot orbit a planet because the planet, sun, et > >cetera > >> >will > >> >> >orbit it. The most you'd get out of a planet around a neutron star > >is a > >> >> >wobbly neutron star. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> I'm sure you also beleive black holes can't orbit stars. They do, in > >fact. > >> >So > >> >> you still have no proof. > >> > > >> >Proof that more massive objects orbit less massive objects? > >> > > >> > >> Pluto-Charon. Binary star systems. Newtonian Physics. > > > >Lack of knowledge of basic physics observed . . . concession accepted. > >You refer to co-orbital systems (i.e. the sort with La Grange points between > >the two, like Terra and Luna), not the orbit of a more massive object around > >a less massive one. > > > > Actually, Newtonian physics quite definately works in my favour. If you knew > the basics of gravity theory, you would understand this, but instead you claim > others don't know it and spout technobabble and fanboy fantasies. A more > massive object will orbit a less massive one, though it will pull the less > massive object around. Take two more or less stationary items, one of which is, by necessity, several times the mass of the other. Impart a velocity on each which will lead them to settle into a comfortable co-orbit of each other. Now, observe the fact that the more massive object will be at the center of this, with little more than a wobble to indicate that there's another, less massive object in orbit of it. This is how we find large planets around other stars today. Even Phobos and Deimos no doubt give Mars a little variance in its otherwise happy orbit of the Sun, but that does not mean that Mars orbits Phobos and Deimos. Your willful misunderstanding of the concept of "orbit" does not alter the fact that a more massive object will not orbit a less massive one. Further, since moon upon which veins of the metallic element known in the Star Wars universe as neutronium is one of four moons of the planet, I'd be very interested to see how that orbital system would work if we suddenly turned the Star Wars neutronium into the real thing. That, friends and neighbors, would be utter and complete chaos. > Also, since you are a complete fucking moron, you forget that a neutron star > has a minimal mass of 1.5 Solar Masses. Red giants have masses several times > that. And nothing stops a planet from being that heavy(A theoretical Jupiter > sized M-type world, for example). You just cling to the notions you have in > your head from watching Trek and lash out. No, I cling to science and lash out. You're projecting the fact that your Star Wars "fanboy fantasies" are at odds to science. A theoretical Jupiter-sized world could not be class-M, because the gravity of the world would be absolutely crushing. It would have picked up all the stray gases in its formation, and would thus end up having a toxic, crushing environment anyway. Further, if this enormous solid planet were to be in possession of a moon with significant concentrations of real-life neutronium on it (ignoring the scientific impossibility of this for the moment), that planet and its moon would certainly have disrupted the formation of the next innermost and next outermost planets (see Bode-Titus Law), leading the system to have two asteroid fields which would fling giant rocks of death every which way, including the surface of your stupid megaworld. Praytell, does Dathomir have any of these problems? G2k ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 26 Dec 2001 22:25:25 GMT Subject: Re: TIE's and fed ships Message-ID: <20011226172525.25721.00003148@mb-fi.aol.com> -------- >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20011226095811.12937.00002603@mb-cu.aol.com... >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >news:20011225212607.24464.00001827@mb-fc.aol.com... >> >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >> >news:20011224163431.12961.00002299@mb-cu.aol.com... >> >> >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >> >> >news:20011224154226.06255.00001354@mb-mq.aol.com... >> >> >> >> >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >> >> >> >> >news:20011224131037.25705.00002978@mb-fi.aol.com... >> >> >> >> >> >"Lurker" wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >news:_GIV7.35757$4z5.4677464@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> "Guardian 2000" wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Here is a thought for you to mull over >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The average Neutron star (in theory) is 10km across and is >a >> >> >minimum >> >> >> >of >> >> >> >> >> >1.4 solar masses. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A moon can be anywhere in the range of 5 - 5000km, maybe >more >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Now using logic (try it yourself sometime), can you see >that >> >by >> >> >> >> >> >accumulating an extra few >> >> >> >> >> >> km's of debris over the millenia it could become known as a >> >moon? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >It would have a gravitational field greater than that of the >> >star, >> >> >> >dude. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Endor and Yavin 4 had gravity fields equal or greater than >Earth. >> >> >Yet >> >> >> >they >> >> >> >> >were >> >> >> >> >> called moons. The gravity field doesn't determine it's name. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >You're right, the name does. The fact that the moon orbited, >> >along >> >> >> >with >> >> >> >> >other moons, a planet . . . and that this planet orbited a star >. . >> >. >> >> >> >those >> >> >> >> >are good clues right there that Star Wars neutronium, being a >> >metallic >> >> >> >> >element found on the moon . . . does not have the density >> >> >characteristics >> >> >> >of >> >> >> >> >real-world neutronium. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Thank you for playing. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You have successfully defined what a moon is. Now, we're waiting >for >> >> >how a >> >> >> >> neutron star or chunk thereof(Since both ST and SW neutronium can >> >exist >> >> >> >outside >> >> >> >> a neutron star) cannot orbit a planet, thus making it a moon. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >A neutron star cannot orbit a planet because the planet, sun, et >> >cetera >> >> >will >> >> >> >orbit it. The most you'd get out of a planet around a neutron >star >> >is a >> >> >> >wobbly neutron star. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm sure you also beleive black holes can't orbit stars. They do, in >> >fact. >> >> >So >> >> >> you still have no proof. >> >> > >> >> >Proof that more massive objects orbit less massive objects? >> >> > >> >> >> >> Pluto-Charon. Binary star systems. Newtonian Physics. >> > >> >Lack of knowledge of basic physics observed . . . concession accepted. >> >You refer to co-orbital systems (i.e. the sort with La Grange points >between >> >the two, like Terra and Luna), not the orbit of a more massive object >around >> >a less massive one. >> > >> >> Actually, Newtonian physics quite definately works in my favour. If you >knew >> the basics of gravity theory, you would understand this, but instead you >claim >> others don't know it and spout technobabble and fanboy fantasies. A more >> massive object will orbit a less massive one, though it will pull the less >> massive object around. > >Take two more or less stationary items, one of which is, by necessity, >several times the mass of the other. Impart a velocity on each which will >lead them to settle into a comfortable co-orbit of each other. Now, >observe the fact that the more massive object will be at the center of this, >with little more than a wobble to indicate that there's another, less >massive object in orbit of it. This is how we find large planets around >other stars today. Even Phobos and Deimos no doubt give Mars a little >variance in its otherwise happy orbit of the Sun, but that does not mean >that Mars orbits Phobos and Deimos. > Ah, so you agree that a Red Giant or Blue Supergiant would have no trouble at all capturing a black hole or neutron star. Excellent. Onto the next point, proving one can be a moon.... >Your willful misunderstanding of the concept of "orbit" does not alter the >fact that a more massive object will not orbit a less massive one. >Further, since moon upon which veins of the metallic element known in the >Star Wars universe as neutronium is one of four moons of the planet, I'd be >very interested to see how that orbital system would work if we suddenly >turned the Star Wars neutronium into the real thing. That, friends and >neighbors, would be utter and complete chaos. > Suddenly magnifying anything's density would cause chaos, like turning an Iconian Gateway into Stellar Neutronium. But, you've already agreed with me on a star capturing a neutronium chunk or star. >> Also, since you are a complete fucking moron, you forget that a neutron >star >> has a minimal mass of 1.5 Solar Masses. Red giants have masses several >times >> that. And nothing stops a planet from being that heavy(A theoretical >Jupiter >> sized M-type world, for example). You just cling to the notions you have >in >> your head from watching Trek and lash out. > >No, I cling to science and lash out. You're projecting the fact that your >Star Wars "fa