tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post113979103829430646..comments2023-09-02T21:41:54.953-05:00Comments on ST-v-SW.Net: The Blog: Moderation and ExtremismGuardianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01284444370958467313noreply@blogger.comBlogger187125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-55730186752945526972017-01-25T05:35:56.987-06:002017-01-25T05:35:56.987-06:00Of course, the Empire wouldn't let a Rebel pla...Of course, the Empire wouldn't let a Rebel planet get a shield generator.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-82380472048399793002017-01-25T05:32:17.660-06:002017-01-25T05:32:17.660-06:00If it's an error you want, look at the tech ov...If it's an error you want, look at the tech overview. It says the Federation includes fighters in their ship counts, while actually, we don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1141423599478595802006-03-03T16:06:00.000-06:002006-03-03T16:06:00.000-06:00Well, for example, Trek side has weapons than have...Well, for example, Trek side has weapons than have bigger equivalent firepower than Wars side. Whether it's the result of DET, or chain reactions (Trek weapons not possessing necessary firepower to produce observed effects using DET method) or not, to me, this certainly makes them technologically superior to Wars weapons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1141184397351629852006-02-28T21:39:00.000-06:002006-02-28T21:39:00.000-06:00You know, the Rabid Warsies just don't like the fa...<B>You know, the Rabid Warsies just don't like the fact that in a fair comparison, Star Trek technology is on the whole far superior to the Star Wars analogues. As obvious as that may be, I feel it needs saying still, as it can explain much about how they act the way they do. It's a childish way of reacting, but some people never grow up in some respects, and it seems that Mike Wong and his gang are some of those. Pity. They might actually be friends of yours otherwise.</B><BR/> How would you define technological superiority? Wood is a technologically better electrical insulator than steel, but is technologically inferior as a material for a support beam.<BR/><BR/> Repulsorlifts are superior to tank treads when going over water, but inferior when it comes to steep grades and high winds.<BR/><BR/> Superiority always depends on the context.<BR/><BR/><BR/> MichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140980042738044012006-02-26T12:54:00.000-06:002006-02-26T12:54:00.000-06:00Did we see any rings when the capital ships were d...<B>Did we see any rings when the capital ships were destroyed by the DS II in ROTJ?</B><BR/><BR/>No. However I mentionned two effects.<BR/><BR/><B> And what about the "matter disapperance"? It's only the figment of your imagination.</B><BR/><BR/>Ah no. That is extremely well shown on Robert's site. You may not agree with his theories, but at least please try to acknowledge basic facts:<BR/><BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWsuperl-4.html<BR/><BR/>Oh no, this beam is definitely weird!<BR/><BR/><B>As for not being an SPHA-T that fired that shot because of what you mentioned, did you thought of it being modified and fitted inside the hangar so it could fire?</B><BR/><BR/>Modified? Okay, so who talked about it being a SPHA-T? Why do half the job? Why not mention that it is a <I>modified</I> one? I think the reference comes from a guide which is quite abundant with such trivial details.<BR/>Secondly, why bother with supposedly modified honky SPHA-Ts specifically meant to fire from inside the ship instead of simply installing a real turbolaser?<BR/>Oh, I see, because it's still a SPHA-T, which can be moved around.<BR/>Needless to say that the SPHA-T is one of the most useless vessels ever designed, but that's another story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140977397459777782006-02-26T12:09:00.000-06:002006-02-26T12:09:00.000-06:00Matter disappearance IS there. Flat distribution I...Matter disappearance IS there. Flat distribution IS there. <BR/><BR/>There is indeed an effect on places not yet reached by the beam. However it is not immediate after shot, but rather 1-2 frames before impact , while once in ANH it afffects Tie NOT on beam course. The most likely explanation is NOT invible beam, but rather simply that SW beams can affect things at short distance. The reason is that SW beams are most likely electrical in nature, simular to ball lighning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140940252974982222006-02-26T01:50:00.000-06:002006-02-26T01:50:00.000-06:00Anon #2 here.Kazeite argues that we didn't see the...Anon #2 here.<BR/><BR/><B>Kazeite argues that we didn't see the beam coming out on the other side (forgetting things like perspective etc.), but he's also forgetting another thing: in ROTS, we saw a Seperatist Munificent-class star frigate being destroyed by a compound beam (a shot fired by SPHA-T inside the hangar of a Venator-class Star Destroyer). Did we see the beam coming out on the other side (i.e., the bottom of the ship)? No.</B><BR/><BR/><B><I>Did we see rings either? Did we see matter disappearance?<BR/>Oh, btw, I just love how EU sources claim that it is a SPHA-T that fired despite the fact that these vessels are literally unable to fire on a horizontal plane, even less downard. Their legs aren't even long nor flexible enough to let the vehicle bend over to gain a couple of necessary degrees down.<BR/><BR/>http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/aotc/bog54s526.jpg<BR/>http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/doc_aotc/sphat_egress06.jpg<BR/>http://scifi3d.theforce.net/downloads/Star_Wars/SWRepublic/1423_lge_republic_SPHA-T.jpg<BR/><BR/>So either something lifted the vessel's bum, or it's not a SPHA-T.</B></I> <BR/><BR/>Did we see any rings when the capital ships were destroyed by the DS II in ROTJ? And what about the "matter disapperance"? It's only the figment of your imagination. As for not being an SPHA-T that fired that shot because of what you mentioned,did you thought of it being modified and fitted inside the hangar so it could fire?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140928795980026602006-02-25T22:39:00.000-06:002006-02-25T22:39:00.000-06:00In SB.com there was a ICS debate. It ultimately we...<B>In SB.com there was a ICS debate. It ultimately went down to the fact that conservation of energy resoundingly disproving at least one aspect of the ICS; the seismic charge being anywhere near what was stated in that book. However, the SW fanboys there are simple too stupid or too close minded to accept that obvious fact.</B><BR/><BR/>You mean like here:<BR/><BR/>http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?p=2531895#post2531895<BR/><BR/>There's obviously a lot of work to accomplish to correct all that BS. I've been mentionning the geonosian fighter firepower for ages. It was coveniently ignored, or misadressed, as you can see with Enderwastaken's very good example:<BR/><BR/>"Yes, because its a good idea to release nuclear level yields in atmosphere when you are flying around. Totally not going to make you crash. Further, the yields of fighters must be comparable. When an X-wing attacks an Imperial bridge tower in ROTJ the explosion works out to TJ level. So does Jango's laser cannons. The Geonosian fighter cannons must be on the same level for similar ships to fight each other."<BR/><BR/>Of course, the idea that shielded fighters and bombers, in SW, should easily withstand kiloton or megaton level blasts is just flabbergasting when you consider that the republican dropship was shot down by pea shooters in AOTC.<BR/><BR/>Check for example those small puffs of sands, when cannon bolts hit the tip of Geonosis' dunes. See how, despite the angle, the bolts do not "drill" through - at best - two meters of freshly and naturally blown sand, to pop out on the other side... you know, since they're supposedly "focused" (big magic word here).<BR/>See how, later on, these same bolts barely scorch the rocky cliff of Dooku's secret landing bay (eventually releasing sparks or, if you're lucky, small clouds of smoke), while they completely perforate the dropship.<BR/>Even with the unprovable and too often used excuse that the shields were already severely drained, according to the EU's shield systems, they should have easily recharged, or more precisely, bled off the exceding energy a long time ago before the geonosian fighters started to shoot at the dropship.<BR/>In fact, the shields, supposedly able to withstand at the very least, kiloton levels of energy, should have never been bothered by such pityful pee-wee shots, even if they were down to 0.0001% (which, again, would be sooo convenient).<BR/><BR/>Ah, funny as well as how dialing down weapons suddenly either means full overkill power, or stupid fire cracker level. No in-between, of course. Too complicated to design, I guess.<BR/><BR/>Of course, there's that whole absurd caliber scaling method, which is only used between the Death Star and capship cannons, but never used down to blasters then. Or how they may come with the excuse that it wouldn't work because they're "blasters" you see, and not turbolasers (aahh...), no matter if the blasters are thousand times closer to turbolasers in behaviour and effects than the Death Star's funky beam might be.<BR/>Was the OS databank describing the DS' beam as a beefed up TL?<BR/><BR/>To quote Kazeite:<BR/><BR/>"The interior mechanisms of a tiny hold-out blaster, a blaster pistol, a large blaster rifle, and a turbolaser cannon are based on the same theories and principles." - Star Wars databank.<BR/><BR/>Cherry picking anyone?<BR/><BR/>Then the guy with no identity says "The fact that they are based on the same principles does not mean that they will exibit all of the same charachteristics."<BR/><BR/>You got to wonder what's so complicated in the meaning of <B>same theories and principles</B>. Of course, admitting this is right, then it means that the "invisible beam" effect directly witnessed for TLs and blasters doesn't automatically apply to the DS' superlaser, or that it has different properties, which makes their typical scaling method completely worthless since the DS' beam is not your regular TL, and thus not usable as a basis for caliber estimations. Thus we see Anonymous Guy building over complex theories upon theories upon assumptions and confusions.<BR/><BR/>There's also that point about shields, even when dumping all the exceding energy into neutrinos, would still radiate significant levels of energy (despite the low interaction particles) that would be easily noticeable in atmosphere, considering the insane yields the ICS is speaking of.<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>Kazeite argues that we didn't see the beam coming out on the other side (forgetting things like perspective etc.), but he's also forgetting another thing: in ROTS, we saw a Seperatist Munificent-class star frigate being destroyed by a compound beam (a shot fired by SPHA-T inside the hangar of a Venator-class Star Destroyer). Did we see the beam coming out on the other side (i.e., the bottom of the ship)? No.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>Did we see rings either? Did we see matter disappearance?<BR/>Oh, btw, I just love how EU sources claim that it is a SPHA-T that fired despite the fact that these vessels are literally unable to fire on a horizontal plane, even less <B>downard</B>. Their legs aren't even long nor flexible enough to let the vehicle bend over to gain a couple of necessary degrees down.<BR/><BR/>http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/aotc/bog54s526.jpg<BR/>http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/doc_aotc/sphat_egress06.jpg<BR/>http://scifi3d.theforce.net/downloads/Star_Wars/SWRepublic/1423_lge_republic_SPHA-T.jpg<BR/><BR/>So either something lifted the vessel's bum, or it's not a SPHA-T.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140883487320887522006-02-25T10:04:00.000-06:002006-02-25T10:04:00.000-06:00Anon #2 here.Kazeite argues that we didn't see the...Anon #2 here.<BR/><BR/>Kazeite argues that we didn't see the beam coming out on the other side (forgetting things like perspective etc.), but he's also forgetting another thing: in ROTS, we saw a Seperatist <B>Munificent</B>-class star frigate being destroyed by a compound beam (a shot fired by SPHA-T inside the hangar of a <B>Venator</B>-class Star Destroyer). Did we see the beam coming out on the other side (i.e., the bottom of the ship)? No.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140874664918974432006-02-25T07:37:00.000-06:002006-02-25T07:37:00.000-06:00You really are slow arent you?Compared to you, I s...<B>You really are slow arent you?</B><BR/>Compared to you, I seem to be the equal of Wally West.<BR/><BR/><B>Every explosion is obviously going to be centered somewhere wether is symmetric or not.</B><BR/>And since this explosion is not centered around superlaser impact point...<BR/><BR/><B>The energy that was spread with the shield hit the surface upon it's failure and superheated the surface material to such an extent that it shot up in the air.</B><BR/>And then it stopped. Your explanation doesn't conform to the facts.<BR/><BR/><B>Stop lying kazeite.</B><BR/>Can't stop doing something I wasn't doing.<BR/><BR/><B>Obviously anyone with an intact brain stem can see that the ability to shoot through x meters doesn't automatically mean it can shoot through 2x meters.</B><BR/>Well, my point is sure lucky - you missed it completely. You see, the point is that beam has shot through 6000km in a matter of, what, one, two frames? And then... it stopped. Why? "Superdense core", you say? That's fine and dandy, but compared to weapons that can pierce supposedly (see? "supposedly" again) neutronium laced hulls this makes superlaser beam absolutely pitful.<BR/><BR/><B>I didn't think your evasions could get any more pathetic</B><BR/>Since you have no material to base your claim on, you're just guessing now. :)<BR/><BR/><B> but now it seems that even sarcasm is beyond you grasp.</B><BR/>I'll grant you that, in your case it's extremely difficult to conclude whether you're serious, joking, evading, misrepresenting, or merely being sarcastic.<BR/><BR/>Either way, you have really no way to prove the invisible componenent and such sarcastic reply is your attempt to save face. Well, too late.<BR/><BR/><B>I asked you to show a consistency in invisible beam length and you reply with one example.</B><BR/>Wrong. You already know about three examples.<BR/><BR/><B>And of course you yourself admitted that this is not a certain example using the word "supposedly" several times.</B><BR/>No, I pointed out that such thing doesn't or shouldn't have happened, this the word "supposedly".<BR/><BR/><B>Stop lying kazeite.</B><BR/>Can't stop doing something I wasn't doing.<BR/><BR/><B>The sources are official, Behind the magic states that superlaser is created by several turbolaser pulses therefore it is a turbolaser.</B><BR/>If it was turbolaser, then we would see only one single gun, instead of superlaser dish.<BR/><BR/>Face it: superlaser is precisely refined blaster technology, operating on the same principles, but not necessarily having the same properties.<BR/><BR/><B>Yes both of them.</B><BR/>Must be that Super Special Edition of yours again...<BR/><BR/><B>For reason which you naturally won't share with us. Try again.</B><BR/>Sure. It can't expand, because... wait for it... wait for it...<BR/><BR/>it doesn't expand.<BR/><BR/>What we see instead is beam producing first explosion, and simultaneously we see that part of the planet not obscured starts to expand, for one frame, then it stops expanding.<BR/><BR/>I wonder, though, how can you claim that loss of density due to the expansion "disproves" chain reaction, while simultaneously having no effect whatsoever on DETT. So, somehow, despite blowing up once, the planet has decided to blow up <B>again</B>, despite having no source of external energy to feed on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140868270388446332006-02-25T05:51:00.000-06:002006-02-25T05:51:00.000-06:00Assymetry? Like, explosion centered on the center ...<B>Assymetry? Like, explosion centered on the center of the planet? That's assymetry for you?</B><BR/>You really are slow arent you? Every explosion is obviously going to be centered somewhere wether is symmetric or not. What makes explosion assymetric is expanding at different speeds in different directions.<BR/><BR/><B>No, I didn't. I've told you, three times, that planets starts expanding immediately for one frame, then stops. Under your model this shouldn't have happen.</B><BR/>Show me two consectuive frames where the planet as a whole stops expanding. Otherwise it is simply assimetry in explosion.<BR/><BR/><B>AIMB before, it does expand visibly. For one frame. Can you explain that?</B><BR/>Sure. The energy that was spread with the shield hit the surface upon it's failure and superheated the surface material to such an extent that it shot up in the air. A few frames later expanding innards of the planet pushed through the surface layers.<BR/><BR/><B>No, you were the one that ignored your own point by saying that it didn't penetrate the other side because there's 6000km of rock. I was merely following your lead.</B><BR/>Stop lying kazeite. I said that superlaser drilled through the planet and then reached the core where it deposited most of it's energy since the core is densest. You then asked why didn't it shot through <I>another</I> 6000km if it could shoot through first 6000km. Obviously anyone with an intact brain stem can see that the ability to shoot through x meters doesn't automatically mean it can shoot through 2x meters.<BR/><BR/><B>That, I will do. (as soon as you find Shift again, kane)</B><BR/>I didn't think your evasions could get any more pathetic but you just keep outdoing yourself.<BR/><BR/><B>Another failed evasion. We were talking how supposedly (see? "supposedly" again) fire rings and stuff are bloopers.</B><BR/>I already knew that you are so ignorant you cannot even understand simple physics concepts but now it seems that even sarcasm is beyond you grasp. <BR/>My reply about fire rings and secondary explosion was a sarcastic reply to your desperate wish to declare invisible beams as bloopers so you can conveniently sweep the under the rug. No such luck kid.<BR/><BR/><B>I already DID! Hello! Earth to Kane! Lukes example!</B><BR/>At this point I must wonder wether you are a liar or merley an idiot. I asked you to show a <I>consistency</I> in invisible beam length and you reply with one example. News flash: you cannot determine any kind of consistency based on a single example nor can we determine how far in front of the visible beam does invisible component extend. And of course you yourself admitted that this is not a certain example using the word "supposedly" several times.<BR/><BR/><B>You deny the correlation between two weapons that seem to have similiar characteristics (blasters and turbolasers), and yet at the same time you insist that weapons looking unlike any other (superlaser) is merely "few turbolaser pulses combined."<BR/>Amazing.</B><BR/>Stop lying kazeite. The sources are official, Behind the magic states that superlaser is created by several turbolaser pulses therefore it is a turbolaser. Blasters and turbolaser are said to operate on the same principles not that they are the same weapons.<BR/><BR/><B>Yes it is, as your next sentences prove. Tell me: was either of the Death Stars expanding?</B><BR/>Yes both of them.<BR/><BR/><B>No, it can't.</B><BR/>For reason which you naturally won't share with us. Try again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140828493230916822006-02-24T18:48:00.000-06:002006-02-24T18:48:00.000-06:00*wanders in*...You guys are STILL at it? Sheesh. W...*wanders in*<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>You guys are STILL at it? Sheesh. Well, looking over it, it seems that kazeite is the only one who's actually thinking--apart from the random dudes who popped in--so ra-ra and all that stuff.<BR/><BR/>*wanders out*Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140824089037809872006-02-24T17:34:00.000-06:002006-02-24T17:34:00.000-06:00Kazeite you once again ingonred my points that exp...<B>Kazeite you once again ingonred my points that explain a certain assimetry in explosion</B><BR/>Assymetry? Like, explosion centered on the center of the planet? That's assymetry for you?<BR/>(but there's a bit of good news: you've finally found the Shift key :))<BR/><BR/><B>You ignored my explanation that expanding core will require a few frames to reach the surface which easily explains that apparent delay on the left side of the planet.</B><BR/>No, I didn't. I've told you, three times, that planets starts expanding immediately for one frame, then stops. Under your model this shouldn't have happen.<BR/><BR/><B>You also assume that the left side wansn't expanding at all</B><BR/>AIMB before, it does expand visibly. For one frame. Can you explain that?<BR/><BR/><B>Of course you once again ignored my points that plasma is highly opaque medium</B><BR/>No, you were the one that ignored your own point by saying that it didn't penetrate the other side because there's 6000km of rock. I was merely following your lead.<BR/><BR/><B>Now, kazeite, show me two consecutive frames in which planet pauses expansion.</B><BR/>That, I will do. (as soon as you find Shift again, kane)<BR/><BR/><B>And since we saw an invisible beam in Yoda scene it is obvious that invisible beam is not a blooper.</B><BR/>Another failed evasion. We were talking how supposedly (see? "supposedly" again) fire rings and stuff are bloopers.<BR/><BR/><B>Demonstrate that consistency by pointing out a few examples of blaster invisible components.</B><BR/>I already DID! Hello! Earth to Kane! Lukes example!<BR/><BR/><B>You do realize that there is a difference between two weapons operating on the same principle and being the same weapon don't you?</B><BR/>Kane Starkiller: lord of the dance.<BR/><BR/>You deny the correlation between two weapons that seem to have similiar characteristics (blasters and turbolasers), and yet at the same time you insist that weapons looking unlike any other (superlaser) is merely "few turbolaser pulses combined."<BR/><BR/>Amazing.<BR/><BR/><B>It is not an assumption kazeite. </B><BR/>Yes it is, as your next sentences prove. Tell me: was either of the Death Stars expanding?<BR/><BR/><B>But it can be used to prove that entire planet was expanding</B><BR/>No, it can't.<BR/><BR/><B>If the Superlaser is just a bunch of turbolasers, Why even build a Death Star?</B><BR/>BILC: <B>B</B>ecause <B>I</B>t <B>L</B> <B>C</B>ool! :DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140819253336083912006-02-24T16:14:00.000-06:002006-02-24T16:14:00.000-06:00Anonymous, did you just claim that the superlaser ...Anonymous, did you just claim that the superlaser is just a few turbolaser pulses combined? That has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read claimed about the Death Star. If the Superlaser is just a bunch of turbolasers, Why even build a Death Star? Just use a bunch of individual ships, instead of a ridiculously huge station that shows an astonishing weakness to very small ships.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140817753716405042006-02-24T15:49:00.000-06:002006-02-24T15:49:00.000-06:00Kazeite you once again ingonred my points that exp...Kazeite you once again ingonred my points that explain a certain assimetry in explosion will always occur which will cause certain parts of a planet to apparently stop expanding. You ignored my explanation that expanding core will require a few frames to reach the surface which easily explains that apparent delay on the left side of the planet. You also assume that the left side wansn't expanding at all even though a single pixel in that scene is hundreds of km wide and we wouldn't be able to register any expansion even if the left side expanded at 100km/s during those few frames of "pause".<BR/>Now, kazeite, show me two consecutive frames in which planet pauses expansion. I mean entire planet, not a part of the planet which can be easily explained as explosion assimetry.<BR/><BR/><B>The beam pierced first 6000km in a matter of frames, so why wouldn't it pierce another 6000km? It got tired or something?</B><BR/>Aaahahahahaha! Ah man you crack me up. It pierced for 6000km so why not 12000km right? But if it could pierce 12,000km why not 24,000km, why not 48,000km? Think before you open your mouth.<BR/>Of course you once again ignored my points that plasma is highly opaque medium and that it will absorb most of the beams energy thereby preventing it to reach the other side of the planet.<BR/><BR/><B>I see that you've missed word "supposedly" again. Please, please, please pay more attention next time.</B><BR/>Cut the bullshit kazeite. You said that there is consistency in how far blasters invisible component extends in front of the invisible beam. Demonstrate that consistency by pointing out a few examples of blaster invisible components.<BR/><BR/><B>The difference is, I'm not the one that claims that effects specifically added in SE and refined in DVD are bloopers.</B><BR/>And since we saw an invisible beam in Yoda scene it is obvious that invisible beam is not a blooper.<BR/><BR/><B>Guess what: if weapons operating on same principles don't exibit the same properties, then you have no basis whatsoever to claim that superlaser has invisible component. Again... no matter the outcome, you're screwed.</B><BR/>You do realize that there is a difference between two weapons operating on the same principle and being the same weapon don't you? Superlaser is nothing more than few turbolaser pulses combined.<BR/><BR/><B>Which means that entire planet is expanding... how? It seems to me that you've made an assumption here: "since we see fire ring, it must mean that entire planet is expanding."</B><BR/>It is not an assumption kazeite. The fire rings are an byproduct of explosion involving superlaser technology, it is alligned with the center of the explosion. We can see that when Death Star explode therefore it is a direct observation.<BR/><BR/><B>In case you forgot - DET theory doesn't concern itself with fire rings. Therefore, existence and behaviour of the fire fings doesn't prove DET theory at all. </B><BR/>No it doesn't. But it can be used to prove that entire planet was expanding ever since the primary explosion and that second explosion is alligned with the first thereby disproving chain reaction theory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140813361327257512006-02-24T14:36:00.000-06:002006-02-24T14:36:00.000-06:00Yes the entire planet starts to expandTrue. and co...<B>Yes the entire planet starts to expand</B><BR/>True.<BR/><BR/><B> and continues to expand.</B><BR/>False.<BR/><BR/><B>Beacues there is additional 6000km of rock behind the core.</B><BR/>The beam pierced first 6000km in a matter of frames, so why wouldn't it pierce another 6000km? It got tired or something?<BR/><BR/><B>Uhuh sure you did.</B><BR/>Uhuh. Now's your turn.<BR/><BR/><B>Hehe. One post you claim it's a blooper and the next you claim that there is some kind of consistency to the lenght of invisible part.</B><BR/>I see that you've missed word "supposedly" <B>again</B>. Please, please, <B>please</B> pay more attention next time.<BR/><BR/><B>No you are since you were the one who first wanted to use bloopers as an explanation.</B><BR/>The difference is, I'm not the one that claims that effects specifically added in SE and refined in DVD are bloopers.<BR/><BR/><B>Don't know what's the point of this</B><BR/>The point is, you are so deep in denial that when faced with facts that invalidate your claims you simply shrug them beside.<BR/><BR/>Guess what: if weapons operating on same principles don't exibit the same properties, then you have no basis whatsoever to claim that superlaser has invisible component. Again... no matter the outcome, you're screwed.<BR/><BR/><B>And how did you disprove that entire planet is expanding when fire rings that were centered on the planet expanded equally in all directions</B><BR/>Which means that entire planet is expanding... how? It seems to me that you've made an assumption here: "since we see fire ring, it must mean that entire planet is expanding."<BR/><BR/>In case you forgot - DET theory doesn't concern itself with fire rings. Therefore, existence and behaviour of the fire fings doesn't prove DET theory at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140807511850709962006-02-24T12:58:00.000-06:002006-02-24T12:58:00.000-06:00And how did you disprove that entire planet is exp...And how did you disprove that entire planet is expanding when fire rings that were centered on the planet expanded equally in all directions thus proving the <I>entire</I> planet was expanding long before the secondary explosion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140807412502346102006-02-24T12:56:00.000-06:002006-02-24T12:56:00.000-06:00Indeed I did. And I disproved your claim that the ...<B>Indeed I did. And I disproved your claim that the entire planet was expanding. Indeed, it seems that most of the planet starts to expand, then "changes its mind", which makes DET theory false.</B><BR/>Yes the entire planet stats to expand and continues to expand. There is only assimetry in expansion.<BR/><BR/><B>And we haven't seen the beam on the other side of the planet because?...</B><BR/>Beacues there is additional 6000km of rock behind the core. Beacuse the plasma created when the planet is heated is highly opaque.<BR/><BR/><B>Already did. Now's your turn.</B><BR/>Uhuh sure you did. Show the quote where it states that Death Star runs on nuclear fusion.<BR/><BR/><B>It consistently extends far enough to supposedly affect its target one frame before visible part of the beam.</B><BR/>Hehe. One post you claim it's a blooper and the next you claim that there is some kind of consistency to the lenght of invisible part. Make up your mind.<BR/><BR/><B>Oh, I see you're getting desperate...</B><BR/>No you are since you were the one who first wanted to use bloopers as an explanation.<BR/><BR/><B>"Denial is one of the most controversial defense mechanisms, since it can be easily used to create unfalsifiable theories: anything the subject says or does that appears to disprove the interpreter's theory is explained, not as evidence that the interpreter's theory is wrong, but as the subject's being "in denial"." </B><BR/>Don't know what's the point of this but you still haven't answered my point that weapons operating on same principles will not neccesarily exibit the same properties.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140801098488596522006-02-24T11:11:00.000-06:002006-02-24T11:11:00.000-06:00You claimed that parts of the planet were intact b...<B>You claimed that parts of the planet were intact by the time of secondary explosion</B><BR/>Indeed I did. And I disproved your claim that the entire planet was expanding. Indeed, it seems that most of the planet starts to expand, then "changes its mind", which makes DET theory false.<BR/><BR/><B>The beam hit the planet and drilled into it's interior.</B><BR/>And we haven't seen the beam on the other side of the planet because?...<BR/><BR/><B>Wrong kid.</B><BR/>Oh, so go call you older brother or something :)<BR/><B>You are claiming that Death Star runs un fusion, provide a quote that states it.</B><BR/>Already did. Now's your turn.<BR/><BR/><B>And since the invisible bolt is invisible how pray tell can you see how far in front of the visible bolt it extends?</B><BR/>It consistently extends far enough to supposedly affect its target one frame before visible part of the beam.<BR/><BR/><B>Yeah the fire rings are also bloopers, and the secondary explosion too.</B><BR/>Oh, I see you're getting desperate...<BR/><BR/><B>The fact that they are based on the same principles does not mean that they will exibit all of the same charachteristics.</B><BR/><I>"Denial is one of the most controversial defense mechanisms, since it can be easily used to create unfalsifiable theories: anything the subject says or does that appears to disprove the interpreter's theory is explained, not as evidence that the interpreter's theory is wrong, but as the subject's being "in denial"."</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140796460591252412006-02-24T09:54:00.000-06:002006-02-24T09:54:00.000-06:00Have you? You've just admitted that DET doesn't wo...<B>Have you? You've just admitted that DET doesn't work here. You've said it yourself: "If you look at the first explosion on Alderaan you will see that the fire rings are alligned with the center of the planet", which is something that shouldn't have happened if DET theory is true.<BR/>But wait, it gets better.<BR/>If you look at the secondary explosion you will see that its fire rings are perfectly alligned with the first fire rings. If DET were true, they would've been centered around impact point, but they're not.Try to figure out what that means before reading further.</B><BR/>Wrong kid, a rapidly heated object <I>will</I> start to spread from it's center of mass. The beam hit the planet and drilled into it's interior. Since the core is denser than crust and mantle it absorbed more of energy thus the planet started to expand from the center. In any case the chain reaction theory is disproven.<BR/><BR/><B>What's the deal with you and "intact planet" fallacy?</B><BR/>You claimed that parts of the planet were intact by the time of secondary explosion which I disproved. Don't play stupid.<BR/><BR/><B>Provide the quote that states "Death Star doesn't run on nuclear fusion" first.<BR/>And, while you're at it, provide the quote that states "mass-energy conversion won't take place on the moon", and then we'll talk.<BR/>It is your claim that those two quote don't mean what they mean, so it's up to you to prove that claim.</B><BR/>Wrong kid. You are claiming that Death Star runs un fusion, provide a quote that states it.<BR/><BR/><B>No, he won't. As we could see in the ROTS, Anakin and Obi-wan were deflecting beams by swinging their lightsabres, so they connect with visible parts only.<BR/>Really, try to understand the difference... (Entering five-year old mode) Imagine invisible part of the bolt as green ball, and visible part as red ball. Someone throws those two balls at you, one after another. And then you turn around, led by your trusty precognition and swing your bat so it will intersect the path of the red ball, deflecting it away from you. The trouble is, green ball remains unaffected - you've deflected only the red ball that came after it.<BR/>And thus, you're hit by the green ball. Do you understand now?</B><BR/>And since the invisible bolt is <I>invisible</I> how pray tell can you see how far in front of the visible bolt it extends?<BR/><BR/><B>Yes, I continue with the blaster bolt angle, just as I continue with the turbolaser bolt angle. Both are bloopers. Sorry.</B><BR/>Yeah the fire rings are also bloopers, and the secondary explosion too.<BR/><BR/><B>"The interior mechanisms of a tiny hold-out blaster, a blaster pistol, a large blaster rifle, and a turbolaser cannon are based on the same theories and principles." - Star Wars databank.<BR/>So sorry. </B><BR/>The fact that they are based on the same principles does not mean that they will exibit all of the same charachteristics. Now a superlaser is not only based on the same principle as turbolaser it <I>is</I> a turbolaser. You loose kid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140793164830572032006-02-24T08:59:00.000-06:002006-02-24T08:59:00.000-06:00Ok kazeite since you won't stop floating your idio...<B>Ok kazeite since you won't stop floating your idiotic "the planet didn't expand but it was merley obscured by the fragments" theory</B><BR/>Stop? I haven't even begun to float it. It's not my theory. So, again, you screwed up.<BR/><BR/><B>First I notice that you haven't even realized what fire rings mean to your entire fantasy.</B><BR/>Have you? You've just admitted that DET doesn't work here. You've said it yourself: <I>"If you look at the first explosion on Alderaan you will see that the fire rings are alligned with the center of the planet"</I>, which is something that shouldn't have happened if DET theory is true.<BR/><BR/>But wait, it gets better.<BR/>If you look at the secondary explosion you will see that its fire rings are perfectly alligned with the first fire rings. If DET were true, they would've been centered around impact point, but they're not. Try to figure out what that means before reading further.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Which naturally means that there is no "intact" parts of the planet.</B><BR/>What's the deal with you and "intact planet" fallacy?<BR/><BR/><B>Actually there are two as other anon already showed.</B><BR/>"Same size doesn't imply the same mechanism." Sorry.<BR/><BR/>Or, alternately, the other one <B>is</B> a turbolaser, which means that you've just admitted that blasters and turbolasers are the same thing. Again, either way you're screwed.<BR/><BR/><B>Yes you do. You see in addition to Death Star's reactor, the nature of superlaser and fire rings you are introducing another unknown: the superlaser effect.</B><BR/>nature of superlaser=superlaser effect (fire rings included).<BR/><BR/>You, on the other hand, you have to explain Death Stars reactor, the nature of superlaser, nature of the shield, nature of the secondary explosion, and nature of the fire rings.<BR/><BR/>So, again, DET is simpler because?...<BR/><BR/><B>And you do know that there are only 24 frames in a second of film right?</B><BR/>And you do know that one of the burbolaser bolts in TESB supposedly displays invisible component? I'll reiterate: if 24fps is sufficient to see such behaviuour, why is that there's only one, single bolt that shows such behaviour?<BR/><BR/><B>It is not semantics game to point out that the superlaser=compound turbolaser comes from an official source rather than me.</B><BR/>It is when you use it to pretend that it changes the fact that you agree with it.<BR/><BR/><B>Provide the quote that states "Death Star runs on nuclear fusion" and then we'll talk.</B><BR/>Provide the quote that states "Death Star doesn't run on nuclear fusion" first.<BR/><BR/>And, while you're at it, provide the quote that states "mass-energy conversion won't take place on the moon", and then we'll talk.<BR/><BR/>It is your claim that those two quote don't mean what they mean, so it's up to you to prove that claim.<BR/><BR/><B>No he will see that the beam will be fired and move his lightsaber into place before the enemy even fires, before the invisible beasm even comes rushing out of the gun.</B><BR/>No, he won't. As we could see in the ROTS, Anakin and Obi-wan were deflecting beams by swinging their lightsabres, so they connect with visible parts only.<BR/><BR/>Really, try to understand the difference... (Entering five-year old mode) Imagine invisible part of the bolt as green ball, and visible part as red ball. Someone throws those two balls at you, one after another. And then you turn around, led by your trusty precognition and swing your bat so it will intersect the path of the red ball, deflecting it away from you. The trouble is, green ball remains unaffected - you've deflected only the red ball that came after it.<BR/><BR/>And thus, you're hit by the green ball. Do you understand now?<BR/><BR/><B>No the planet is gone by the time Falcon Shows up.</B><BR/>So? Was I denying that Alderaan blew up? No, I wasn't.<BR/><BR/><B>So you cnotinue with the blaster bolt angle even though you yourself admitt you have no proof of?</B><BR/>Yes, I continue with the blaster bolt angle, just as I continue with the turbolaser bolt angle. Both are bloopers. Sorry.<BR/><BR/><B>Hand blasters on the other hand never exibited invisible beam and no official sources ever described them as being the same as turbolasers.</B><BR/>"The interior mechanisms of a tiny hold-out blaster, a blaster pistol, a large blaster rifle, and a turbolaser cannon are based on the same theories and principles." - Star Wars databank.<BR/><BR/>So sorry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140788634113321682006-02-24T07:43:00.000-06:002006-02-24T07:43:00.000-06:00Anon #2 here.I was just wondering: since you guys ...Anon #2 here.<BR/><BR/>I was just wondering: since you guys have debated in this rather unsuitable form, have anyone heard anything from Omega about when and where the forum will be reestablished?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140776860953813832006-02-24T04:27:00.000-06:002006-02-24T04:27:00.000-06:00Ok kazeite since you won't stop floating your idio...Ok kazeite since you won't stop floating your idiotic "the planet didn't expand but it was merley obscured by the fragments theory" I think it's time I finally rip it apart.<BR/>First I notice that you haven't even realized what fire rings mean to your entire fantasy. If you look at the Death Stars exploding you will see the fire rings are alligned with the center of the explosion which is only natural since they are a byproduct of it. If you look at the first explosion on Alderaan you will see that the fire rings are alligned with the center of the planet. This means that the first explosion's point of origin was the center of planet which is how all heated objects will expand. Therefore the explosion that we see is not any kind of "obscuring debris" or wathever but the planet itself expanding from it's center of mass as is proven by the location of the fire rings. Which naturally means that there is no "intact" parts of the planet.<BR/>But wait it gets better.<BR/>If you look at the secondary explosion you will see that it's fire rings are perfectly alligned with the first fire rings. Try to figure out what that means before reading further.<BR/>In case you couldn't figure it out yourself this means that the secondary explosion originates <I>in the same place</I> as the first explosion. So it doesn't even matter wether there were intact parts of the planet, the part of the planet the explosion took place <I>was</I> destroyed and it expanded at speeds of 6700km/s. By the time second explosion formed the matter had significantly lost density which would suffocate any chain reaction and not increase it. Therefore the secondary explosion disproves the chain reaction.<BR/>Could you follow all this kazeite? Or should I draw you a picture with crayons?<BR/><BR/><B>I don't have to, just like you don't have to explain the mechanism of the DET effect and direct energy transfer.</B><BR/>Yes you do. You see in addition to Death Star's reactor, the nature of superlaser and fire rings you are introducing <I>another</I> unknown: the superlaser effect. You claim that this superlaser effect is superior to conventional theory but refuse to explain it. That doesn't fly.<BR/><BR/><B>Except ANH novelisation, that is.</B><BR/>Provide the quote that states "Death Star runs on nuclear fusion" and then we'll talk.<BR/><BR/><B>Yes. You do need to prove it. Explanations like "there was shield present because I need it for my theory to make sense to me" aren't going to cut it, bub.</B><BR/>No, we are trying to find an explanation that works best. I use shield technology (a known mechanism in Star Wars universe) and conventional energy transfer theory. You on the other hand use two words "chain reaction" for which you refuse to define a mechanism. Sorry but shields+conventional explanation is far superior to two undefiend words.<BR/><BR/><B>Because the quote tells us that.</B><BR/>Uhuh sure. Provide the quote that states "mass-energy conversion will take place on the moon" and then we'll talk.<BR/><BR/><B>I haven't seen it, but that's not going to stop me, since, of course, it is impossible to "see" something invisible :)<BR/>What I saw was invisible part of the beam supposedly interacting with Luke's hand (which is supposedly evident by his artificial skin showing damaged before visible part of the bolt impacted it).<BR/>I say "supposedly", because everyone who owns DVD now can clearly see that beam actually have struck his sleeve, producing shower of the sparks upon the impact of visible bolt.</B><BR/>So you cnotinue with the blaster bolt angle even though you yourself admitt you have no proof of?<BR/><BR/><B>Again... what you have is one, single, lone turbolaser bolt displaying "invisible part" behaviour. Perhaps you'd care to explain why other bolts in the same scene show no signs of such behaviour?</B><BR/>Actually there are two as other anon already showed. In RotS when it almost hits Yoda. And you do know that there are only 24 frames in a second of film right? Some of the turbolasers simply won't be shown at the point where they are heating up the target before the visible beam reaches it.<BR/><BR/><B>Then what's the deal with the semantics game?</B><BR/>It is not semantics game to point out that the superlaser=compound turbolaser comes from an official source rather than me. Behind the magic makes it official and not just a fan theory.<BR/><BR/><B>So... you have ANH edition that shows Alderaan still blowing up when Falcon shows up? I've read about those Super Special Editions you Warsies posess :D</B><BR/>No the planet is <I>gone</I> by the time Falcon Shows up.<BR/><BR/><B>"Why not?"? *smacks his forehead*<BR/>Are you seriously suggesting that Jedi is capable to deflect blaster bolt not because that he deflects them with his lightsabre, but because his precognition allows him to disperse invisible portion of the beam?</B><BR/>No he will see that the beam will be fired and move his lightsaber into place <I>before</I> the enemy even fires, <I>before</I> the invisible beasm even comes rushing out of the gun. Jebus, but you just insist that everything is spelled out for you like a retarded 5 year old.<BR/><BR/><B>On the contrary. I see that you've managed to mangle my another argument, commited logical fallacy in your own mind, and promptly blamed me for it.<BR/>You see, it's quite simple: Turbolasers supposedly have invisible components.<BR/>Blasters supposedly have invisible components.<BR/>Superlaser is supoosedly simply scaled up turbolaser.<BR/>Turbolaser is supposedly simply scaled up blaster.<BR/>Any Jedi attempting to block only part of the beam (visible part) would die. Plain and simple.</B><BR/>No kazeite. Turbolsers <I>do</I> have invisible components as is <I>shown by the films</I>. Superlaser <I>is a compound turbolaser</I> as written on Behind the magic. <BR/>Hand blasters on the other hand never exibited invisible beam and no official sources ever described them as being the same as turbolasers.<BR/>And provide evidence that Jedi would die if trying to deflect the invisible beam since we know they can see things <I>before</I> they happen.<BR/><BR/><B>(and besides, we've seen Jedi (namely Luke) deflecting turbolaser sized bolts in comics :)) </B><BR/>Same size doesn't imply the same mechanism. Though luck.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140761978311989292006-02-24T00:19:00.000-06:002006-02-24T00:19:00.000-06:00(and besides, we've seen Jedi (namely Luke) deflec...<B>(and besides, we've seen Jedi (namely Luke) deflecting turbolaser sized bolts in comics :))</B><BR/><BR/>I think I remember reading in one of the recent novels how Jacen was able to deflect Turbolaser orbital attacks with his new powers or whatever. I can't remember which book it is, and I'm not even sure it was Jacen. I've contributed nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1140734098325360112006-02-23T16:34:00.000-06:002006-02-23T16:34:00.000-06:00Wathever you meantThank you for admitting your mis...<B>Wathever you meant</B><BR/>Thank you for admitting your mistake.<BR/><BR/><B>there is no was any of the matter remained in place since it was hit by over 10^37J.</B><BR/>No, it wasn't. And, as demonstrated on DVD, no, it didn't.<BR/><BR/><B>Yes there is a shield since the atmopshere is unaffected.</B><BR/>Explanations like that are the reason why your claim fails. "Shields were there because I need them for my theory to make sense to me"? Oh, come one!<BR/><BR/><B>And your claim that the planet is "covered" by this explosion is a pure invention of yours.</B><BR/>I take that you haven't seen the movie, then...<BR/><BR/><B>The entire planet blows up as is proven by the fact that fire rings form around the entire planet rather than just around the part that is "affected" as you claim.</B><BR/>I wasn't claiming that fire rings form only around affected parts. Again, please pay more attention more time.<BR/><BR/><B>Explain the mechanism of the superlaser effect and chain reaction</B><BR/>I don't have to, just like you don't have to explain the mechanism of the DET effect and direct energy transfer.<BR/><BR/><B>Nowhere are we told that Death Star works on nuclear fusion.</B><BR/>Except ANH novelisation, that is.<BR/><BR/><B>I don't need to prove it.</B><BR/>And again you bare your ignorance for all to see.<BR/><BR/>Yes. You do need to prove it. Explanations like "there was shield present because I need it for my theory to make sense to me" aren't going to cut it, bub.<BR/><BR/><B>How does that mean the mass energy conversion takes place on the moon?</B><BR/>Because the quote tells us that.<BR/><BR/><B>Did you see any invisble components in blasters or not?</B><BR/>I haven't seen it, but that's not going to stop me, since, of course, it is impossible to "see" something invisible :)<BR/><BR/>What I saw was invisible part of the beam supposedly interacting with Luke's hand (which is supposedly evident by his artificial skin showing damaged before visible part of the bolt impacted it).<BR/><BR/>I say "supposedly", because everyone who owns DVD now can clearly see that beam actually have struck his sleeve, producing shower of the sparks upon the impact of visible bolt.<BR/><BR/>Again... what you have is one, single, lone turbolaser bolt displaying "invisible part" behaviour. Perhaps you'd care to explain why other bolts in the same scene show no signs of such behaviour?<BR/><BR/><B>Of course I do, it's an official source.</B><BR/>Then what's the deal with the semantics game?<BR/><BR/><B>Stop lying.</B><BR/>Buy DVD.<BR/><BR/><B>it is exploding as we can se a few moments later when Falcon arrives</B><BR/>So... you have ANH edition that shows Alderaan still blowing up when <I>Falcon</I> shows up? I've read about those Super Special Editions you Warsies posess :D<BR/><BR/><B>Why not?</B><BR/>"Why not?"? *smacks his forehead*<BR/>Are you seriously suggesting that Jedi is capable to deflect blaster bolt not because that he deflects them with his lightsabre, but because his precognition allows him to disperse invisible portion of the beam?<BR/><BR/><B>Man but you are slow.</B><BR/>On the contrary. I see that you've managed to mangle my another argument, commited logical fallacy in your own mind, and promptly blamed me for it.<BR/><BR/>You see, it's quite simple: Turbolasers supposedly have invisible components.<BR/>Blasters supposedly have invisible components.<BR/>Superlaser is supoosedly simply scaled up turbolaser.<BR/>Turbolaser is supposedly simply scaled up blaster.<BR/><BR/>Any Jedi attempting to block only part of the beam (visible part) would die. Plain and simple.<BR/><BR/>(and besides, we've seen Jedi (namely Luke) deflecting turbolaser sized bolts in comics :))Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com