tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post114725274744511722..comments2023-09-02T21:41:54.953-05:00Comments on ST-v-SW.Net: The Blog: "Saxtonite" at WookieepediaGuardianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01284444370958467313noreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-15528276182938019532009-11-02T23:31:57.655-06:002009-11-02T23:31:57.655-06:00I have a point about the Superlaser that no one me...I have a point about the Superlaser that no one mentioned: <br /><br />the quoted energy-figure for the planet's destruction, is MORE than enough to vaporize all of it; and the planet was mostly LIQUID to begin with.<br /><br />So why are all the pieces of the planet SOLID?<br /><br />This makes NO sense, if it was a DET weapon.<br /><br />Likewise, it can't "convert matter to energy," unless it was MADE of anti-matter (like "The Doomsday Machine;" since matter can't be converted to energy without causing an energy-deficit, since matter is the lowest energy-state; and matter can neither be created nor destroyed.<br /><br />Rather, it makes more sense that the Superlaser is simply a beam that converts the planet's ambient heat to kinetic energy, dissipating it out into space- under the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. that heat always flows to a colder surface.<br />Since the planet's core and mantle are very hot, and outer space is very cold, then the beam would simply create a hyper-field conduit from the the planet to the surrounding space.<br /> <br />This would cause the planet's entire liquid structure to solidify, while accelerating it outward in all directions.<br /><br />As for the "ring" effect, that's the inevitable effect of a planet's Van Allen belt going "nova."IMR2D2https://www.blogger.com/profile/09434896673441895171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1151212030549829692006-06-25T00:07:00.000-05:002006-06-25T00:07:00.000-05:00It's about time I saw a counterpart to SD.net.Than...It's about time I saw a counterpart to <A HREF="http://www.stardestroyer.net" REL="nofollow">SD.net</A>.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for that site.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1151169137956462322006-06-24T12:12:00.000-05:002006-06-24T12:12:00.000-05:00Uhuh sure:This webpage is my way of airing my own ...Uhuh sure:<BR/><B>This webpage is my way of airing my own analysis on the vehicles that routinely accomplish the impossible...whether it be transmitting matter from one point to another in perfect condition, maneuvering and accelerating/decelerating at sublight speeds with a casual disregard of inertia, exiting from the event horizon of a black hole, or traveling at superluminal velocities between the stars.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>And:<BR/><BR/><B>As such, I tend to err on the side of the more powerful technology - my logic being that it's far more plausible to believe that the characters failed to fully utilize what was at their disposal (or that other factors not mentioned onscreen might be responsible for the mitigation), than to presume that the technology has regressed to a much less capable level that what was available a century before.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Taken directly from his introduction page.<BR/><BR/>And to paraphrase Lord Refa from Babylon 5 his page has just the right ring of wank to be true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1151161455165797012006-06-24T10:04:00.000-05:002006-06-24T10:04:00.000-05:00Never heard of satire, have you?That was created b...Never heard of satire, have you?<BR/><BR/>That was created by a self-described former "anti-Trek Warsie" who was buying into everything the main 'anti-Trek Warsies' were spouting, until he woke up.<BR/><BR/>The site itself came about because he wanted to reverse the situation, much as I joked about here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/weblog/2006/02/moderation-and-extremism.html<BR/><BR/>So, he took Star Wars material derived from West End Games (the original SW tech stuff) and related material and aimed for the low end, just as the anti-Trek crowd does with old non-canon ST tech material.<BR/><BR/>And then he took canon Trek and aimed for the highest possible end, reason be damned . . . just as the anti-Trek crowd does with SW canon.<BR/><BR/>But he did it years ago, and so was rather ahead of his time in that regard.Authorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04784914528396175700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1151083292134387262006-06-23T12:21:00.000-05:002006-06-23T12:21:00.000-05:00Talking about rabid fans whatever you may say and ...Talking about rabid fans whatever you may say and think about "rabid Warsies" they cannot hold a candle to rabid Trekkies.<BR/>I'm sure that some of the people here are already familiar with this page:<BR/>http://home.att.net/~tomjlee/index.html<BR/><BR/>Check out his TIE fighter specs:<BR/><BR/><B>TIE/ln Fighter<BR/>Sienar Fleet Systems <BR/>Length 6.3m, Mass 1 ton <BR/>100 MGLT top speed <BR/>100 degree/sec maneuverability <BR/>2 Type-4 laser cannons (100 watts) <BR/>Titanium single hull with quadanium steel solar panels <BR/>5 J instantaneous directed KE resist <BR/>700 J instantaneous directed KE capacity </B><BR/>So the firepower of a TIE fighter is less than a lightbulb. I guess those X-wings were made out of styrofoam...and splashed with gasoline.<BR/><BR/>Let's see how ISD fares:<BR/><BR/><B>Imperial Star Destroyer<BR/>Kuat Drive Yards <BR/>Length 1600m, Mass 6,500,000 tons <BR/>10 MGLT top speed <BR/>2 degrees/sec maneuverability <BR/>1.4 cochrane hyperdrive core <BR/>48 Type-5 turbolaser cannons (2 kilowatts) <BR/>16 Type-5 ion cannons (1 kilowatt) <BR/>48 Type-4b laser cannons (400 watts) <BR/>8 tractor beam projectors <BR/>Titanium-reinforced alusteel single hull <BR/>30 J instantaneous directed KE resist <BR/>2.4*105 J instantaneous directed KE capacity (hull) <BR/>3*104 J instantaneous directed KE capacity (per deflector tower) <BR/>EM polarized hull plating <BR/>320 watt repolarization rate <BR/>300 J instantaneous directed KE resist <BR/>4.8*105 J instantaneous directed KE capacity <BR/>288 Fighters</B><BR/><BR/>Ouch 131.2 kW for a total ISD firepower. In comparison an average bullet fired from a rifle has energy of of 2kJ. I guess 60 men armed with rifles equal the firepower of a 1.6km long warship built by a space faring civilization.<BR/><BR/>Of course his SW ship analysis is nothing compared to his ST ship analysis. Let's take a look of Sovereign class specification:<BR/><B>Heavy Explorer USS Enterprise, NCC-1701-E<BR/>Launched 2372 <BR/>Sovereign Class <BR/>Length 16764m, Mass 4,000,000,000 tons <BR/>0 to Warp 1 in 5.8 seconds <BR/>270 degrees/sec maneuverability <BR/>16 kilocochrane hyperdrive core <BR/>256 megacochrane warp core <BR/>Warp 15 (11,390,625c) Cruise, Warp 24 (191,102,976c) Emergency <BR/>5250 Type-12 megaphasers (7.2 megayottawatts) in 18 arrays <BR/>2500 Type-11 megaphasers (720 kiloyottawatts) in 30 arrays <BR/>6 Type-10 rapid-fire quantum torpedo tubes (@15 torpedoes / s) with @4500 casings <BR/>12 Type-8 rapid-fire quantum torpedo tubes (@10 torpedoes / s) with @3000 casings <BR/>24 Type-6 burst-fire quantum torpedo tubes (@12 torpedoes / 2s) with @1800 casings <BR/>500 isoteraton superheavy quantum torpedoes <BR/>5 isoteraton heavy quantum torpedoes, 100 isogigaton heavy ion torpedoes <BR/>50 isogigaton quantum torpedoes, 1 isogigaton ion torpedoes, 20 isomegaton photon torpedoes <BR/>Castrodium/neutronium triple hull <BR/>710cm active deflector plating, 420cm high-density reactive armor, 245cm multilayer ablative armor <BR/>Subspace-amplified EM/gravitic structural integrity field system <BR/>320 gigayottawatt secondary energy dissipation rate (hull) <BR/>20 terayottawatt primary energy dissipation rate (armor) <BR/>9.75*1055 J instantaneous directed KE capacity <BR/>Subspace-amplified EM/gravitic navigational deflector system <BR/>Triple-redundant automodulating regenerative subspace-amplified EM/gravitic defensive grid <BR/>800 terayottawatt tertiary energy dissipation rate (defense fields) <BR/>32 petayottawatt secondary energy dissipation rate (deflector screens) <BR/>2 exayottawatt primary energy dissipation rate (forcefield shields) <BR/>9.76*1060 J instantaneous directed KE capacity <BR/>Saucer separation capability <BR/>Transhield transporter capability <BR/>"...to boldly go where no one has gone before."</B><BR/><BR/>Whew! Did you catch all that? A Sovereign can withstand 10^60J worth of kinetic impact. This means that if you flung two Earth sized planets towards each other at 99% speed of light and put Sovereign in the middle it would effortlesly shake off the impact.<BR/>I especially like his ridiculous prefix usage: megayottawatts, petayottawat.<BR/>Oh and yes that is 16km length for Sovereign. Galaxy of course is 5km long but only has 10^41J shields.<BR/>Of course no starship would be complete without it's Triple-redundant automodulating regenerative subspace-amplified EM/gravitic defensive grid and Type-12 MEGAPHASERS so naturally Sovereign has those too. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1150334697008276872006-06-14T20:24:00.000-05:002006-06-14T20:24:00.000-05:00Anonymous,"Saxtonian" or "Saxtonite" I believe is ...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>"Saxtonian" or "Saxtonite" I believe is described in the blog entry already. My guess on "Wongies" are followers of Michael Wong in the usage of non-canon Star Wars material (Curtis Saxton's material included) when pitting Star Wars against Star Trek, dare challenging anybody who disagrees with them in their "Pro-Wars" view, perhaps going too far (as referenced before in other comments and blog entries).<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>Another AnonymousAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1150251718290869422006-06-13T21:21:00.000-05:002006-06-13T21:21:00.000-05:00Are saxtonians of the same calibre as Wongies? Esp...<B>Are saxtonians of the same calibre as Wongies? Especially in terms of... ethics?<BR/><BR/>We already know that in terms of data analysis, from time to time, they can be biased towards EU-inflated wank misinterpretations. <BR/><BR/>Wed May 10, 08:28:49 AM 2006 <BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Saxtonians? Wongies? Just what kind of language is this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1150107170777880742006-06-12T05:12:00.000-05:002006-06-12T05:12:00.000-05:00We got a funny thread at SB.com, the unofficial br...We got a funny thread at SB.com, the unofficial branch of SD.net.<BR/><BR/>http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=101793<BR/><BR/>Not saying that I'm necessarily agreeing with all of Sharp Thorn's points, I see that the classical Front of Defense of the Wankics has issues understanding that in physics, fusion means nothing else but <B>nuclear fusion</B>.<BR/><BR/>So, either they accept that, and then we see that high canon sources disagree with the lower ones, notably on how the hypermatter is used.<BR/>Annihilated, says the ICS. Nothing to do with fusion, and of course, not agreeing in the slightest with the fanon retconning of hypermatter fusion.<BR/><BR/>Poor thing is that with reasonnable argumentation, the only thing the guy gets is mod warnings (the surprise), half veiled insults and mockery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1149315649023039532006-06-03T01:20:00.000-05:002006-06-03T01:20:00.000-05:00Forgot a divide by two in the formula. Should be ...Forgot a divide by two in the formula. Should be T = Iω^2 / 2.<BR/><BR/><B>All right. So what do you come up with, Anon?</B><BR/>Having just done it I can understand why you wouldn't want to do it properly yourself (and I've still got lots of approximations).<BR/><BR/>Now:<BR/><BR/>I = ∫ ρ * R dV where R is the distance from the rotation axis.<BR/><BR/>This gives I = ∫∫∫ &rho(r,θ,φ) * r^2 * sin(θ) * r * sin(θ) dr dθ dφ = ∫∫∫ &rho(r,θ,φ) * r^3 * sin^2(θ) dr dθ dφ<BR/><BR/>Now assume a spherically symetric sun and exponential pressure profile and use values of 150 Mg/m^3 for the core pressure (r=0) and about 1 Mg/m^3 at 350 Mm radius (r = 3.5e8) from <A HREF="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:T39StIO3N2oJ:astronomy.nju.edu.cn/astron/AT3/AT31602.HTM+solar+density&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a" REL="nofollow" .>this</A>.<BR/><BR/>So ρ(r) = 1.5e5 * exp(-1.43e-8 * r)<BR/><BR/>Thus I = ∫∫∫ 1.5e5 * exp(-1.43e-8 * r) * r^3 * sin^2(θ) dr dθ dφ = 1.5e5 ∫ exp(-1.43e-11 * r) * r^3 dr ∫ sin^2(θ) dθ ∫ dφ<BR/><BR/>Now <A HREF="http://integrals.wolfram.com" REL="nofollow">the Integrator</A> gives me (after a couple of steps):<BR/>I = (-1.05e13 * (1.12e8 + r) * (1.84e16 + r*(9.82e7 + r)))/ exp(1.43e-8*r) * (θ - cos[θ]*sin[θ])/2 * φ<BR/><BR/>Limits are r = 0 to 7e9, &theta = 0 to π and &phi = 0 to 2π.<BR/><BR/>I = { [(-1.05e13 * (1.12e8 + 7e9) * (1.84e16 + 7e9*(9.82e7 + 7e9)))/ exp(1.43e-8*7e9)] - [(-1.05e13 * (1.12e8 + 0) * (1.84e16 + 0*(9.82e7 + 0)))/ exp(1.43e-8*0)] } * { [(π - cos[π]*sin[π])/2] - [(0 - cos[0]*sin[0])/2] } * {2π - 0}<BR/><BR/>I = { [(-1.05e13 * (7.112e9) * (1.84e16 + 4.97e19))/exp(1e2)] - [(-1.05e13 * 1.12e8 * 1.84e16)/exp(0)] } * { [(π - -1*0)/2] - [(0 - 1*0)/2] } * 2π<BR/><BR/>I = { [(-7.47e22 * 4.97e19)/exp(1e2)] - [-2.16e37] } * { [π/2] - [0] } * 2π<BR/><BR/>I = { [-3.71e42 / exp(1e2)] + 2.16e37 } * π/2 * 2π = (-1.38e-1 + 2.16e37) * π^2 = 2.13e38 kg m^2 assuming I did everything right.<BR/><BR/>Now let ω = 30 days (rotational period at the sun's equator, good for a lower limit and probably more accurate than the average rotation rate of once every 27 days) which gives ω = 2.424e-6 rad/s angular velocity.<BR/><BR/>Now putting into Kinetic Energy Formula:<BR/><BR/>T = I * &omega^2 / 2 = 2.13e38 * (2.424e-6)^2 / 2 = 6.28e26 JAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1149145906818942082006-06-01T02:11:00.000-05:002006-06-01T02:11:00.000-05:00Well that is all wrong.The speed of the gases will...Well that is all wrong.<BR/><BR/>The speed of the gases will not be anything even approaching constant throughout the sun so you can not just just figure out how fast the 'surface' rotates and then put it and the sun's mass into the KE formula (if you do that you'll massively over-estimate).<BR/><BR/>The way to do it properly is to calculate the moment of inertia (you'll need the density profile of the sun or at least a decent approximation to it) and then multiply that by the angular velocity squared and divide by two (i.e. T = Iω^2).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1149058898456993802006-05-31T02:01:00.000-05:002006-05-31T02:01:00.000-05:00Could you go into more detail about how you calcul...Could you go into more detail about how you calculated the kinetic energy of sol's rotation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1148783008111772462006-05-27T21:23:00.000-05:002006-05-27T21:23:00.000-05:00Mike Wong ignoring canon for anticanon nonsense.&l...Mike Wong ignoring canon for anticanon nonsense.<BR/><BR/><SARCASM>What a suprise!</SARCASM>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1148744111662216402006-05-27T10:35:00.000-05:002006-05-27T10:35:00.000-05:00YAA,I'm not much of a debater, but as an observer ...YAA,<BR/><BR/>I'm not much of a debater, but as an observer (<I>which I'd rather be as</I>) of the debate, I can safely say yes.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>Another AnonymousAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1148737931895186822006-05-27T08:52:00.000-05:002006-05-27T08:52:00.000-05:00Well I think we sacared that warsie away.Mike I wo...Well I think we sacared that warsie away.<BR/><BR/>Mike I would be interested in see some more detailed calculations from TMP novel.<BR/><BR/>Finally I was looking through SD.net's forum :shudder: and came a cross this:<BR/><BR/>http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=2096040#2096040<BR/><BR/>Remember copy and paste into the adress bar because Wong links every thing from this site to a porn site. Anyway does anyone else notice the overwelming irony in that post by Wong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1148681393157738982006-05-26T17:09:00.000-05:002006-05-26T17:09:00.000-05:00That's ok. We like you anyway :)That's ok. We like you anyway :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1148666743107782742006-05-26T13:05:00.000-05:002006-05-26T13:05:00.000-05:00And there is that little piece of hull that mustn'...And there is that little piece of hull that mustn't have had neutronium in it, that piece that got bent by GG's foot claw, as well as the other piece that got shot with GG's grappling claw that he fired after geting sucked out the window that he shattered. Isn't it a strange idea that the window could be shattered by just having something thrown hard at it, yet is supposed to be able to repel gigatons (presumably without being distorted) and presumably by the armor pieces by the windows, too, or it'd just really suck for the crew. Uncontrolled atmo re-entry thermal energy and multiple gigaton blasts are not the same. If GG really was super strong, to break through neutronium laced glass or transparent neutronium that cracks like glass and bend neutronium metal that had no apparent damge until he actualy gripped the damn thing, he would have killed Ben with one punch. Or stomp on the ground hard enough and Ben stumbles and then, slash at him with a lightsabre.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1148635008437346592006-05-26T04:16:00.000-05:002006-05-26T04:16:00.000-05:00Concession accepted.:blink, blink: Ok, so, now tha...<B>Concession accepted.</B><BR/>:blink, blink: Ok, so, now that you agree that "small artificial sun" quote is still literal, then... well, concession accepted.<BR/><BR/><B>Right beacuse "small artificial sun" accuratley describes a nuclear fusion reactor.</B><BR/>Yup. Glad you agree.<BR/><BR/><B>And you have no evidence to disprove it.</B><BR/>I don't have to - it haven't been proven yet. Though break gramps.<BR/><BR/><B>What other targets?</B><BR/>Other ships, gramps. The one that were destroyed, as you yourself admit. Not to mention that, as mentioned above, Republic Forces weren't aware that the Chancellor is there. Stop making stuff up.<BR/><BR/><B>There are no explanations.</B><BR/>Yes there is.<BR/><BR/><B>He doesn't explain what superlaser particles are</B><BR/>Because he doesn't have to. DET theory doesn't explain any mechanism either, but somehow you think it is a viable theory... Nice double standard you have here.<BR/><BR/><B>Where doesn canon material state that?</B><BR/>I've already told you that. Twice.<BR/><BR/><B>I don't need to because it comes from an offcial source.</B><BR/>Even official sources can be wrong, when based on faulty data.<BR/><BR/><B>So you are saying that there are no white dwarfs or neutron stars in SW galaxy?</B><BR/>And thus your poor undestanding of written word is revealed. Again.<BR/><BR/><B>Don't lie</B><BR/>I don't.<BR/><BR/><B>They needed to send a signal to the surface of the planet and Data said it would take a terrawat to do so.</B><BR/>Incorrect. Data said it originates from terawatt source. Again, see any "1"s here?<BR/><BR/><B>More pathetic evasions eh?</B><BR/>No. At this point I'm only reminding you what has been said for you to remember.<BR/><BR/><B>As long there is power why not?</B><BR/>Now this is ironic...<BR/>"Let me repeat it since you seem to be a bit slow on the uptake: When you make a claim you must back up that claim with evidence."<BR/>In this case you are claiming that neutronium is being held in hull by gravity control, even in wreckages. Never mind that EU claims that neutronium forms alloy with two other metals...<BR/><BR/><B>Invisible Hand crash disproves neutron inside a hull therefore you must prove it.</B><BR/><I>Invisible Hand</I> crash itself proves it. Haven't you watched the movie?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1148627993182295672006-05-26T02:19:00.000-05:002006-05-26T02:19:00.000-05:00Yet Another Anonymous:Concession acepted. A small ...<I>Yet Another Anonymous:</I><BR/><B>Concession acepted. A small sun at the very most would have 1e26w, too little to produce 1e38j in any resonable time. So by your own words DET superlasers are impossible. pwned.</B><BR/>I wouldn't be accepting it because the artificial sun powering the Death Star was specifically stated to be small therefore meaning it would have a lower power output and total energy when compared to a G type main sequence star.<BR/><BR/><I>Yet Another Anonymous:</I><BR/><B>When it is a single power conduit to a single sub system that is in no way related to tactical systems on a light cruiser/</B><BR/>I think Voyager was actually a medium cruiser, it seemed a bit too well armed to be a light cruiser (old ships would fill that role).<BR/><BR/><B>Because he has no theory which I could attack imbecile.</B><BR/>Well you do have a conjecture called Direct Energy Transfer but the problem with that is that it says too much. So much so that we can even predict what would happen and when we compare those predictions we find that they are wrong.<BR/><BR/><B>Actually we do you moron. White dwarfs and neutron stars are not powered by fusion and they can just as easily be suns.</B><BR/>White Dwarfs and Neutron Star are not suns.<BR/><BR/><B>What evidence? The only evidence you have is your insistence to interpret "small artifical sun" as nuclear fusion which conveniently has the same power limitations as real fusion but at the same time can mimic sun's mechanism at the diameter of 10km.</B><BR/>Do you not read?<BR/><BR/>It has been stated before why an artificial sun can be so much smaller than a natural one.<BR/><BR/><B>I have stopped debating it since it soesn't affect my argument. SW posseses gravity technology with which they could easily maintain neutronium blobs inside their hulls.</B><BR/>Yet there is no evidence that they actually have blobs of neutronium inside their hulls.<BR/><BR/>The more advanced United Federation of Planets can't use neutronium so why would we expect the backward 'Galactic' Empire to be able to?<BR/><BR/><B>So you are saying that there are no white dwarfs or neutron stars in SW galaxy? Are you that much of an idiot?</B><BR/>Are you so much of an idiot as to actually believe that was said?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1148609195480349732006-05-25T21:06:00.000-05:002006-05-25T21:06:00.000-05:00'Kay, my turn again.First, I want to apologize for...'Kay, my turn again.<BR/><BR/>First, I want to apologize for my earlier ad hominim attack. It was unnecessary and was a flawed debate tactic.<BR/><BR/>Second, I must comment on my abhorrance for the Warsie debating his points. Mr. Warsie, you do not need to be so violent and hostile. This is a debate, not a personal argument. Furthermore, it has been proven that people who tend to insult in debates are often either unsure of their positions or know they are wrong but argue them anyway due to beliefs or outright stubborness. One can see this demonstrated in creationist/intelligent design vs. evolution arguments.<BR/><BR/>Third, Mr. Voxrepublicanis, you are also out of line. You may be giving solid points, but you are scattering ad hominim attacks throughout it, which are entirely unnecessary.<BR/><BR/>In fact, <I>noone</I> should let loose a single insult in this debate. It's not personal, gang! It's just fun debate. Or so I would hope, at least. I'm a reasonable man, and I would like to think the rest of you are as well.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I'll part with this:<BR/><BR/>http://anightatthehothberry.ytmnd.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1148607376793902192006-05-25T20:36:00.000-05:002006-05-25T20:36:00.000-05:00Oh this is getting insane!Okay you moron Warsies, ...Oh this is getting insane!<BR/><BR/>Okay you moron Warsies, here is HOW we know that the Death Star was using a FUSION reactor:<BR/><BR/>1) suns are powered by FUSION reactions.<BR/><BR/>2) novelizations compare the reactors to "small artificial suns" and whatnot.<BR/><BR/>whether the author is being literal or being pretty with his words is IRRELEVANT - it is DESCRIBED as an ARTIFICIAL SUN.<BR/><BR/>Fusion reactors IN REAL LIFE use the SAME PRINCIPALS to generate energy as the SUN DOES NOW:<BR/><BR/>http://ippex.pppl.gov/fusion/fusion4.htm<BR/><BR/>THEREFORE:<BR/>ARTIFICIAL SUN = FUSION REACTOR<BR/>DEATH STAR + ARTIFICIAL SUN = DEATH STAR + FUSION REACTOR<BR/><BR/>Apply the logic to the description of the reactors used by vessels and pod racers in the SW universe.<BR/><BR/>AS FOR NEUTRONIUM:<BR/><BR/>1) neutronium is formed by massive gravitional and pressure forces (almost that of a black hole)<BR/><BR/>2) without the forces, neutronium decays quickly<BR/><BR/>If SW hulls had been made with neutronium, they would have required SO MUCH FREAKING gravity to KEEP THE NEUTRONIUM (well, neutronium) that the energy required would have NEGATED THE NEED FOR NEUTRONIUM HULLS IN THE FIRST PLACE.<BR/><BR/>That and the fact simply standing within a million miles of the hull would have pulled you towards it! But that is what happens when you have super dense materials, they generate a GRAVITY WELL!<BR/><BR/>oh, for fun, keep in mind that in the ST universe, maintaining super dense materials is apparently not a problem as Romulans power their warp reactors with small, artificial quantum singularities - in other words, BLACK HOLES!<BR/><BR/>So, bring on your SW neutronium hulls, we in the ST universe will just start tossing black holes at it!<BR/><BR/>god, I hope you Warsies don't vote or breed.Chicken Sock Puppethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04333568432035802635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1148599609073958902006-05-25T18:26:00.000-05:002006-05-25T18:26:00.000-05:00About "artificial sun"You claim that articial sun ...<B>About "artificial sun"<BR/>You claim that articial sun quote is literal and then go on to claim that we should assume that the same mechanism is found in Death Star reactor. When I point out that sun cannot possibly be scaled down to a size of 10km or so you retort that the mechanism actually isn't the same thereby admitting that we shouldn't use that quote literaly in the first place.</B><BR/><BR/>Does the word "artifical" have any meaning to you? No one is saying a natural sun can be scaled down to 10km but an artifical one can, like that one in spiderman 2 that was less than 10m.<BR/><BR/><B>Read the novel again it said liberated energy. That means total energy not what it produced inside one second. A sun does indeed have a power output of 4*10^26W but it takes about a million years for the created energy to exit to the surface which means that our sun contains some 10^40J. Which means that "liberated energy" of our sun would be 100 times greater than 10^38J leaving plenty of room for a "small artifical sun" to have 10^38J. <BR/>Another one bites the dust. Commence Trekkie whining.</B><BR/><BR/>Did the explosion in ANH look any thing like 1e40 joules to you. Saying it has the energy of a single second of sun's power is generous.<BR/><BR/><B>And evidence that shield were down is?</B><BR/><BR/>Turbolasers blasting chunks out of the ship.<BR/><BR/><B>Evidence that turbolasers were on full power was?</B><BR/><BR/>They are in the middle of a f*cking battle. Of course by your logic it would be like two WWII battle ships shotting 9mm pistol rounds at each other and tearing through each other's armour.<BR/><BR/><B>Need I remind you that Palpatine the mastermind behind the attack was aboard Invisible Hand at that time?</B><BR/><BR/>Read the novel at the time Needa though that the General was bluffing and Palpatine was not on the IH.<BR/><BR/><B>Because he has no theory which I could attack imbecile. You migth find this shocking but "The superlaser particles produce an energy field in the target matter, setting off a mass-energy conversion effect related to the hyperspace domain." is not a theory. It doesn't explain a damned thing and it offers no equations or predictions through which we could test it. What are these superlaser particles? How do they create this energy field? Why does this energy field sets of a mass-energy conversion? How is this related to hyperspace domain? What is hyperspace domain?</B><BR/><BR/>Read the link then bring up the points you find objectable:<BR/><BR/>http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWsuperlasereffect.html<BR/><BR/><B>Actually we do you moron. White dwarfs and neutron stars are not powered by fusion and they can just as easily be suns.</B><BR/><BR/>But neither are described as suns, but as stars. All suns may be stars but not all stars are suns.<BR/><BR/><B>And you of course have evidence that other power systems will come anywhere close to 200 billion TW? More usual Trekkie made up bullshit.</B><BR/><BR/>Riiiiiiight, because one conduit to one minor sub system is representitive of the total power of the ship. Considering that Voyager can fly at warp 9, use phasers, shields, holodecks, replicators and transporters as well as numberous advanced sensor arrays at once with out any mention of runing lower on power I can saftly say that a ship should be able to generat thousand, if not millions of times more power than what is running through one minor conduit at cruising speed.<BR/><BR/><B> By the way I seem to recall a certain XO who said that entire Enterprise couldn't generate more than 1TW.</B><BR/><BR/>That was the comm system you ignorant warsie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1148598412299838122006-05-25T18:06:00.000-05:002006-05-25T18:06:00.000-05:00No. I admit it's less literal that "artificial fus...<B>No. I admit it's less literal that "artificial fusion furnance" :)</B><BR/>Concession accepted.<BR/><BR/><B>But those quotes are anything but vague, despite your best efforts to claim otherwise.</B><BR/>Right beacuse "small artificial sun" accuratley describes a nuclear fusion reactor. Get real.<BR/><BR/><B>I believe it's the first time you are actually right. Yeah, I haven't considered that possibility, since, well, it's a claim without any evidence to back it up.</B><BR/>And you have no evidence to disprove it. I guess that leaves us with ICS. Though break kiddo.<BR/><BR/><B>"And let's use those dialed down weapons to hit other targets, in case the chancellor is being held here as well!" :D<BR/>Get real.</B><BR/>What other targets? Other ships were destroyed kid. Stop making stuff up.<BR/><BR/><B>And we're not accepting it without explanation. So, what's the deal?</B><BR/>There are no explanations idiot. He doesn't explain what superlaser particles are nor how do they create the energy field thet "sets off" a mass energy conversion.<BR/><BR/><B>>>Respones to what? Your idiotic claim that the reactor can mimic sun at 10km? You need to prove those claims<BR/>Canon materials tell us so. That's all the proof I need.</B><BR/>Where doesn canon material state that? Provide me a quote that states "nuclear fusion in <I>all</I> reactors is the same as in a sun".<BR/><BR/><B>Give me calculations that prove that Acclamators can produce 200 gigatons, old man.</B><BR/>I don't need to dipshit because it comes from an offcial source. I don't ask you to provide calculations for 5000TW do I? Only for your claims that total power will be much greater which does not come from canon material.<BR/><BR/><B>ROTS novelisation states that suns are powered by fusion, gramps.</B><BR/>So you are saying that there are no white dwarfs or neutron stars in SW galaxy? Are you that much of an idiot?<BR/><BR/><B>No, you don't recall correctly. Really. Riker was talking about being unable to generate signal from terawatt source. Do you see any "1"s there?</B><BR/>Don't lie you piece of shit. They needed to send a signal to the surface of the planet and Data said it would take a terrawat to do so.<BR/><BR/><B>The only thing that's incorrect here are your informations.<BR/>I mean, honestly - your were given examples in this very "thread". You even responded to them. Is your memory so weak?</B><BR/>More pathetic evasions eh? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, you are after all an idiot.<BR/><BR/><B>>>SW posseses gravity technology with which they could easily maintain neutronium blobs inside their hulls.<BR/>Again: even on wreckages and half-destroyed ships? </B><BR/>As long there is power why not? <BR/>Let me repeat it since you seem to be a bit slow on the uptake: When you make a claim you must back up that claim with evidence.<BR/>In this case you are claiming that Invisible Hand crash disproves neutron inside a hull therefore you must prove it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1148595255744379802006-05-25T17:14:00.000-05:002006-05-25T17:14:00.000-05:00// There is no way that it could refer to the amou...<B>// There is no way that it could refer to the amount of energy.</B><BR/><BR/>Actually, it might. But it would then tell us that the debris were scattered by the level of energy of a small artificial sun, which wouldn't be that much in comparison to what is claimed, imho.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1148594561114264642006-05-25T17:02:00.000-05:002006-05-25T17:02:00.000-05:00What is love?http://anightatthehothberry.ytmnd.com...<B>What is love?<BR/><BR/>http://anightatthehothberry.ytmnd.com/<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>Another Anonymous</B><BR/><BR/>http://www.devilducky.com/media/41727/<BR/><BR/>:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1148592821251720092006-05-25T16:33:00.000-05:002006-05-25T16:33:00.000-05:00Then you admitt that "artificial sun" was not a li...<B>Then you admitt that "artificial sun" was not a literal description of the mechanism?</B><BR/>No. I admit it's less literal that "artificial fusion furnance" :)<BR/><BR/><B>A vauge quote can be interpreted in many ways.</B><BR/>But those quotes are anything but vague, despite your best efforts to claim otherwise.<BR/><BR/><B>Of course you haven't considered the possibility that shields were on but a certain percentage was overpowering the shields.</B><BR/>I believe it's the first time you are actually right. Yeah, I haven't considered that possibility, since, well, it's a claim without any evidence to back it up.<BR/><BR/><B>Exactly.</B><BR/>"And let's use those dialed down weapons to hit other targets, in case the chancellor is being held here as well!" :D<BR/><BR/>Get real.<BR/><BR/><B>"Superlaser theory" is nothing but ramblings of a fan therefore we don't have to accept them without him explaining it.</B><BR/>And we're not accepting it without explanation. So, what's the deal?<BR/><BR/><B>Hmmm what do we have here? Claims without any explanations.</B><BR/>Yes, that's precisely why I called your claims false. So, care to provide explanations this time?<BR/><BR/><B>Respones to what? Your idiotic claim that the reactor can mimic sun at 10km? You need to prove those claims</B><BR/>Canon materials tell us so. That's all the proof I need.<BR/><BR/><B>Give me calculations that prove Voyager can produce orders of magnitude more than 5000TW.</B><BR/>Give me calculations that prove that Acclamators can produce 200 gigatons, old man.<BR/><BR/><B>ROTS novelisations states that neutron stars are powered by fusion? Do tell.</B><BR/>ROTS novelisation states that suns are powered by fusion, gramps.<BR/><BR/><B>No I recall correctly</B><BR/>No, you don't recall correctly. Really. Riker was talking about being unable to generate signal from terawatt source. Do you see any "1"s there?<BR/><BR/><B>And nowhere has it been proven incorrect.</B><BR/>The only thing that's incorrect here are your informations.<BR/><BR/>I mean, honestly - your were given examples in this very "thread". You even responded to them. Is your memory so weak?<BR/><BR/><B>SW posseses gravity technology with which they could easily maintain neutronium blobs inside their hulls.</B><BR/>Again: even on wreckages and half-destroyed ships?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com