More Trektardism

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-24 03:56pm

Assuming he means that the beam converts mass to energy, that would not explain why its initial effects were so weak compared to the act of destroying a planet. Watch the effects when the beam first hits the planet.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2007-09-24 04:28pm

Video of the event:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCZE3SAjzp4

No definitive proof whatsoever that the whole planet was destroyed.

If the current VS Trekkies want to nitpick the facts, let's do it across the board. We see NO INDICATION that the whole planet was destroyed.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2007-09-24 06:05pm

Eh, call me ignorant, but I do not exactly understand what this is about now.
Why are you now saying that that planet wasn't destroyed, while it actually was?
Have I missed something important?

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-09-24 06:06pm

If the planet hadn't been destroyed, wouldn't something of it be visible through the debris field, or at least heating a portion of the debris field, after the explosion?

That said, is the debris field even expanding quickly enough for this to be a mass-scattering event?

Oh, and edit in this observation: the 8572 beam that hit Voyager earlier in the youtube video recap obviously has *some* power, and orders of magnitude more than your usual Federation phaser. In fact, it knocked Voyager around like the light TL knocked the MF around in ESB.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-24 06:16pm

Tribun wrote:Eh, call me ignorant, but I do not exactly understand what this is about now.
Why are you now saying that that planet wasn't destroyed, while it actually was?
Have I missed something important?

We're saying that if we use the Trekkies' standard of evidence, then the planet was not destroyed.

Surlethe wrote:Oh, and edit in this observation: the 8572 beam that hit Voyager earlier in the youtube video recap obviously has *some* power, and orders of magnitude more than your usual Federation phaser. In fact, it knocked Voyager around like the light TL knocked the MF around in ESB.

Of course it has some power, but it is many, many orders of magnitude below that necessary to destroy a planet.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-09-24 06:26pm

Darth Wong wrote:Of course it has some power, but it is many, many orders of magnitude below that necessary to destroy a planet.

Oh, yes. I don't dispute that. Perhaps the chief damage mechanism for an 8472 weapon is this "MCR", and any damage from direct energy transfer is incidental. This probably explains the initial ejecta we see.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-09-24 06:41pm

Darth Wong wrote:Precisely how would that picture be inconsistent with the effects of superheated ejecta from one side of the planet?

Just to clarify I wasn't arguing that the planet was vaporized, or some very extreme definition for the word destroyed. I just read the last page to see if there was anything of interest, and I saw Wayne's comment. I couldn't remember if we actually saw the planet blasted apart, so I went and looked up a screen shot.

Now that I know what's going on I have to agree that it's not destroyed on the same order as Alderaan.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2007-09-24 07:00pm

Surlethe wrote:Oh, yes. I don't dispute that. Perhaps the chief damage mechanism for an 8472 weapon is this "MCR", and any damage from direct energy transfer is incidental. This probably explains the initial ejecta we see.

Keep in mind, Trek planets can inded blow up like powder kegs. Witness the Kingon moon Praxis, which exploded from over-mining dilithium.

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2007-09-24 07:03pm

Surlethe wrote:That said, is the debris field even expanding quickly enough for this to be a mass-scattering event?

Yes. The debris field doubles in size over the course of a second or so. Assuming an earth-size planet of ~6000 km radius, that's ~6000 km/s. Compare this with the escape velocity of earth, ~11 km/s. Remember that a planet that is just barely blowing up is an unspectacular event.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2007-09-24 07:04pm

Surlethe wrote:If the planet hadn't been destroyed, wouldn't something of it be visible through the debris field, or at least heating a portion of the debris field, after the explosion?

The camera didn't stick around long enough to tell. So we can't say the entire planet exploded.

To add on to my Praxis example, also recall that Ceti Alpha 6 exploded as well, due to unknown circumstances, and it wasn't even inhabited.

Darth Ruinus · Post by **Darth Ruinus** » 2007-09-25 02:57pm

Oh Jesus, Ive been reading this thing more closely, and some of this shit is just stupid.

"Try twenty years for the first one [Death Star], and five for the second."

Small nitpick, but wasnt it 4 years?

"Actually, the Star Destroyers seem to be more in the low exawatt range for peak power consumption. Their guns usually impact in the megaton range or lower, as seen in TESB and ROTS."

Im no math wiz, so I dont know how to calculate this but, what part of "NEEDS TO CONTRADICT THE MOVIE" doesnt he understand? Just because we see an ISD using some firepower doesnt mean it doesnt have more. (We never seen a ISD shot with something OTHER than its anti-fighter guns do we?)

"Actually, there's very little suggesting that..."

Right, I guess ever single instance of Hyperdrive travel in ALL THE DAMN MOVIES takes weeks and weeks, because Luke has a restroom in that X-wing, and food for weeks and weeks.

"the evidence suggesting that the Star Wars galaxy is a tiny fraction of the size of ours."

He's kidding right?

chitoryu12 · Post by **chitoryu12** » 2007-09-25 03:08pm

"Try twenty years for the first one [Death Star], and five for the second."

Of course, he has proof that the Death Star seen in Episode III was THE Death Star and that they made prototypes just for fun, or the prototypes were around forty years old and built around the time of the Battle of Geonosis......right?

"the evidence suggesting that the Star Wars galaxy is a tiny fraction of the size of ours."

This shows how little Trektards actually know about their opponent. They go on and on about how Mike is totally wrong, yet don't seem to acknowledge the fact that he already explained this all on his site. Either that or they REALLY worship Darkstar, almost as much as that one board I found.

Darth Ruinus · Post by **Darth Ruinus** » 2007-09-25 03:08pm

Small nitpick, but wasnt it 4 years?

Wait, nevermind, forget I said that.

Darth Ruinus · Post by **Darth Ruinus** » 2007-09-25 03:17pm

I just saw Aratech say

"Riker makes the claim once that a single terrawatt is more power than the Enterprise can produce. "

Someone back him up with:

"Dauphin":

DATA: "Sensors indicate that the communication originated from a terawatt source on the planet"
RIKER: "That's more power than our entire ship can generate."
DATA: "It is what is needed to penetrate the atmosphere."
RIKER: "Which means we lack the ability to respond, sir."

and:

TNG episode, "The Mastepiece Society" where this LaForge guy says that the warp core output is in "the terawatt range"

Just thought I would be usefull and try to help.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-09-25 03:54pm

Darth Ruinus wrote:Oh Jesus, Ive been reading this thing more closely, and some of this shit is just stupid.

"Try twenty years for the first one [Death Star], and five for the second."

Small nitpick, but wasnt it 4 years?

For the 2/3 of the DS2 seen in ROTJ, it was six months.

And its been proven to death that the construction project seen in ROTS was NOT the DS from ANH. The proportions of the superlaser dish, trench, etc are all different.

"Actually, the Star Destroyers seem to be more in the low exawatt range for peak power consumption. Their guns usually impact in the megaton range or lower, as seen in TESB and ROTS."

Im no math wiz, so I dont know how to calculate this but, what part of "NEEDS TO CONTRADICT THE MOVIE" doesnt he understand? Just because we see an ISD using some firepower doesnt mean it doesnt have more. (We never seen a ISD shot with something OTHER than its anti-fighter guns do we?)

Those were almost invariably the LIGHT guns seen in the films, not the heavies. Besides, who wants to bet that trektard didn't even bother crunching the numbers but just copy-and pasted from the Rabid Stupid Asshole's site.

"Actually, there's very little suggesting that..."

Right, I guess ever single instance of Hyperdrive travel in ALL THE DAMN MOVIES takes weeks and weeks, because Luke has a restroom in that X-wing, and food for weeks and weeks.

TPM: Pod race is 'tomorrow'
Darth Maul leaves Coruscant that same day, arrives at Tatooine that evening.

"the evidence suggesting that the Star Wars galaxy is a tiny fraction of the size of ours."

He's kidding right?

He's mindlessly parroting Asshole-star's bullshit.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-25 04:25pm

Bottom line: trektards generally have no math/science skills, so they cannot tell whether RSA's calculations are bullshit or not. A lot of people like to compare RSA's site to mine but they are utterly lacking in the technical skills they need in order to actually perform this comparison, and they reject the importance of actual education in determining whose work is more likely to be valid.

A lot of them think it's a matter of comparing the "authority" or "credibility" of my site to his, and they believe they can knock down my credibility in various ways. But the real way to test the credibility of the site is to get scientifically knowledgeable people to look at the work and pass judgment on it. And overwhelmingly, anyone who does compare the two sites and has a modicum of education in the subject comes down on my side of it. That's a hard reality that they can't handle and have no answer for, so they simply ignore it.

Peptuck · Post by **Peptuck** » 2007-09-25 05:35pm

I left a message to DMSpock inviting him to come here to debate the point on Stardestroyer.net, but I doubt he'd actually take it up. The bluntly glaring error in his logic regarding ST speeds when one considers the strategic importance of the Bajoran Wormhole and his inability to distinguish between sensor problems and human error show he's able to crunch the numbers but not synthesize the information into anything resembling a realistic picture.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-25 05:40pm

One-line response to people like him: ever heard of peer review? Ever wonder why people with science and engineering backgrounds always reject RSA's work and prefer mine? Maybe Mr. "Dipshit Who Flunked High-School Science And Couldn't Do Calculus To Save His Life" thinks RSA's work is as good or better than mine, but that doesn't mean a whole lot.

kinnison · Post by **kinnison** » 2007-09-25 07:48pm

Darth Wong wrote:Assuming he means that the beam converts mass to energy, that would not explain why its initial effects were so weak compared to the act of destroying a planet. Watch the effects when the beam first hits the planet.

The total-conversion beam in Niven's "The Soft Weapon" was of relatively low power, as it was in a hand weapon. The effect seemed to be that of converting matter in the beam path to energy; hence the beam would be invisible in the vacuum of space but have a spectacular effect on any solid (or liquid!) matter it struck.

I once did a rough calculation about this. Assuming a 1cm beam diameter, the energy yield is about a megaton per kilometre of Terrestrial sea-level atmosphere - about four or five thousand times that if fired through rock. Assuming a hit on the centre of an Earth-sized planet, the yield is therefore approximately 12000x5000 megatons - 60 teratons, in the first thirtieth of a second (roughly) of firing a 1cm beam. I somewhat doubt, also, that the matter of an Earth-sized planet could get out of the way fast enough to prevent further conversion. 1000 teratons would be the low end of estimates, I think. And remember, again, that this is for a 1cm beam - the beam diameter could probably be enhanced substantially from that.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-25 09:46pm

kinnison wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Assuming he means that the beam converts mass to energy, that would not explain why its initial effects were so weak compared to the act of destroying a planet. Watch the effects when the beam first hits the planet.
The total-conversion beam in Niven's "The Soft Weapon" was of relatively low power, as it was in a hand weapon. The effect seemed to be that of converting matter in the beam path to energy; hence the beam would be invisible in the vacuum of space but have a spectacular effect on any solid (or liquid!) matter it struck.

For the second time, this begs the question of why the beam did not produce a more violent impact with the planet. Did you not read what I wrote?

Darwin · Post by **Darwin** » 2007-09-25 10:12pm

I browsed about 20 pages worth of that thread.

GOD THE STUPID IT BURNS

And yet another trektard yammering directly out of Skippy's playbook. Jeebus. Black Knight, Appeal to Ignorance, Appeal to the public, Ad Hominem, repeat. Circle the wagons boys! Nothing can penetrate our stubborn refusal of logic!

Darwin · Post by **Darwin** » 2007-09-25 11:56pm

This just in..

Phoenixtard wrote: The light effect on alderaan happens within the planets atmosphere. Watch closely, now look at the clouds and then look at the light effect. Now remember Light plus heat plus water = massive steam cloud reflecting light which funny enough explains the glow on alderaan.

So a massive steam cloud can spread at how many times the speed of sound to cover half the planet in about a third of a second? Somehow illuminating yet not disturbing existing cloud cover? JEEZUS.
[/quote]

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-09-26 12:22am

Darwin wrote:This just in..

Phoenixtard wrote: The light effect on alderaan happens within the planets atmosphere. Watch closely, now look at the clouds and then look at the light effect. Now remember Light plus heat plus water = massive steam cloud reflecting light which funny enough explains the glow on alderaan.
So a massive steam cloud can spread at how many times the speed of sound to cover half the planet in about a third of a second? Somehow illuminating yet not disturbing existing cloud cover? JEEZUS.

[/quote]
Not to mention that in the initial couple frames, the clouds brighten WITHOUT changing their shape in spite of this alleged phase change. Or the fact that the coulds brighten REGARDLESS of whether they were directly hit by the superlaser

This is only slightly less amusing than when Darkstar tried to claim the source of the cloud's illumination was beneath the clouds, inspite of the easily observed fact that clouds are opaque. Really, those morons will literally make up ANYTHING,no matter how retarded, to deny Alderaan having a shield.

Aratech · Post by **Aratech** » 2007-09-26 01:18am

Sigh, hope I'm responding properly. *crosses fingers*

Darth Ruinus · Post by **Darth Ruinus** » 2007-09-26 01:22am

For most of those, we don't have an actual time figure, let alone the ones you claim, or an explicit distance;

Can someone show this guy an official or canon map?

we do, however, have an explicit distance of "hundreds of light years" in the 6-12 hour trip of the Rebel fleet to Endor, and the "less than a parsec" trip in AOTC seems to take forever.

Due to a recent brain fart on my part, I cant remember what he is talking about, so... what is he talking about?