More Trektardism

[Alien-Carrot]

By definition a process like that has to involve some sort of funky technobabble, because otherwise it would take more than infinite energy

Hope you dont mind if i qoute that to them.
Lets see them say trek is superior when thay themselves are now saying the deathstar has more than infinite energy.

[Junghalli]

Hope you dont mind if i qoute that to them.
Lets see them say trek is superior when thay themselves are now saying the deathstar has more than infinite energy.

Sure if you want, but isn't their whole argument that the Death Star can't be used as a reliable estimate of firepower because it involves some unquantifiable technobabble mechanism?

What is the board's take on this anyway?

[Ghost Rider]

Hope you dont mind if i qoute that to them.
Lets see them say trek is superior when thay themselves are now saying the deathstar has more than infinite energy.

Sure if you want, but isn't their whole argument that the Death Star can't be used as a reliable estimate of firepower because it involves some unquantifiable technobabble mechanism?

What is the board's take on this anyway?

It blows up a planet, and it's using technology that is established by latter prequel films. No one knows the exact method how, other then it is a rather large gun, but we know what it does do, and that it is by no means unique or unheard technology.

The Death Star destroys a planet in a short span of time. Alderaan had a shield powerful enough to counter this beam for a fraction of time. From what is shown and how long it took you derive calculations of what the low end would have to be to recreate these events.

Ultimately this is where these retards fail as well. People can be curious HOW a thing works, but ultimately one is more concerned WHAT it does. They do not derive any sort of objective knowledge from facts to derive a conclusion; they instead derive a conclusion and slam unsubstantiated factiods to fit their so called conclusions.

[Junghalli]

The Death Star destroys a planet in a short span of time. Alderaan had a shield powerful enough to counter this beam for a fraction of time. From what is shown and how long it took you derive calculations of what the low end would have to be to recreate these events.

The thing is, shifting part of a planet's mass into hyperspace to cause it to blow up may be less energetic than destroying one through DET.

I'm not arguing for them (and anyway, even if it's true we have lots of other examples of high end firepower), I'm just curious about what the people on the board have to say about this.

[Ghost Rider]

The Death Star destroys a planet in a short span of time. Alderaan had a shield powerful enough to counter this beam for a fraction of time. From what is shown and how long it took you derive calculations of what the low end would have to be to recreate these events.

The thing is, shifting part of a planet's mass into hyperspace to cause it to blow up may be less energetic than destroying one through DET.

I'm not arguing for them (and anyway, even if it's true we have lots of other examples of high end firepower), I'm just curious about what the people on the board have to say about this.

Ummm...and how does one prove that it is less energetic?

Seriously saying it shifted mass into a Technobabble dimensional rift means what again? It may as well said the beam was a Tri Polar Hyper Tacyonic Parabolic Photonizer. and yes, I read Death Star...it did little to actually explain it beyond what pseudoscience they could push to make it sound like something.

So it all goes back to what evidence you can get to being as close as to objectively possible as you can get it.

[Junghalli]

Ummm...and how does one prove that it is less energetic?

It doesn't, but wouldn't the possibility render any power generation estimates for the DS suspect?

Not that it ultimately matters, as we have plenty of other examples of high firepower.

[Ghost Rider]

Ummm...and how does one prove that it is less energetic?

It doesn't, but wouldn't the possibility render any power generation estimates for the DS suspect?

Not that it ultimately matters, as we have plenty of other examples of high firepower.

Let's see....I'll take it nice and slow since you're either acting stupid or you don't grasp what unknown means.

We have a technobabblish jargon about shunting mass somewhere, which means using an unknown amount of energy to do an unknown amount of work, on said unknown amount of mass. So tell me from this, what taints the end result. We don't know the mass, nor the amount of energy, nor how the work is accomplished to move said mass.

The process is never described in any detail except to make it sound...inane. So we have absolutely nothing EXCEPT it could,maybe, possibly change something in an unknown way. We have not a single clue what said result is except the end result of the beam is the same.

How can you ask whether or not it taints the end result when you cannot even begin to derive anything except it does something extra, but of a completely unknown quantity.

In the end, what is calculated is the MINIMAL needed energy. Unless one can demonstrate the dimensional shunting changes something that which is seen, it's an X-Factor that is a curiosity.

[Darth Ruinus]

Damn, this JMSpock guy is getting on my nerves and Im not even in the fucking debate!

And the Federation pays attention to science, while in Star Wars, the technology of 5,000 years ago is virtually indistinguishable - i.e., severely stagnant.

Stagnant, right, fucking stagnant, he doesnt ONCE assume that they simply dont NEED any fucking new tech.

Antimatter, black hole engines? Why, fucking Hypermatter and their fusion engines have reactor outputs far higher than anything in Trek.

Phasers? Please, SW weapon engineers would fucking at phaser yields.

Transporters? Why would anyone want to walk into an instant suicide machine?

Star Wars uses fusion power as its common source of power; Star Trek uses antimatter and artificial black holes.

HAHAHA, nice, because antimatter and artificial black holes SOUNDS more advanced and powerful than fusion, it MUST be better, nevermind the fact that never is NUCLEAR Fusion stated anywhere.

We can give all sorts of qualitative reasons as to why one should be more advanced (or more powerful) than the other, but the simple fact is that they're different (if related) visions of futuristic technology. What some people think would take 300 years to develop, others don't see happening in 30,000.

The Federation has never built anything a hundred miles across.

And the Empire can build 900km superweapons that have enough firepower in their defensive weaponry to take out entire fleets of ISDs or SSDs.

Hell, in SW, Kuat Drive Yards, a fucking construction company built a ring around their entire goddamn star system.

The fucking ICS built armies of quintillions of droids. THe fucking government put together by a bunch of companies and seperatist worlds!

The Empire hasn't got a single ship that's as nimble as the oldest and most decrepit starships in Starfleet.

Does he count the starfighters that can fly circles around Starfleets nimbles ships or shuttles? The starfighters that can carry enough bombs to glass islands?

Besides that, who the fuck cares about nimbleness? In a straight up fight between an ISD and a Galaxy class, the Galaxy class can fly in circles all it wants, it will just waste fuel and not get anything done.

That, and it probably wont get the chance to do anything, since SW ships carry fucking multi gigaton and higher weaponry.

Jesus Freaking Christ, this guy is a fucking... Trektard!

[Vympel]

The fucking ICS built armies of quintillions of droids. THe fucking government put together by a bunch of companies and seperatist worlds!

CIS.

And let's cut down on the angry profanity laden me-too posts, please.

I hate to sound like I may be supporting these guys in any way, but how the heck would you quantify the energy it takes to "boost much of the planet's mass past c" anyway? By definition a process like that has to involve some sort of funky technobabble, because otherwise it would take more than infinite energy, which just plain doesn't even make sense.

The point is the automatic assumption that it "severely lowers" the Death Star's firepower, based on nothing at all - of course, the same book credits the Death Star's reactor with the ability to produce an energy burst equivalent to a week's output of several main sequence stars total - they tried to semantic whore that particular quote away, as well ("oh, it can only do that in the event of an uncontrolled runaway reaction").

(note how perfectly that bit of semantics whoring fits into their method of not going with the most reasonable and straightforward interpretation, but any old interpretation which they think helps them that they think they can get away with)

Of course, the OT:ITW says that the Death Star II, in order to deliver a planet-destroying blast, generates power equivalent to hundreds of super-giant stars, so their sad attempt at semantic whoring doesn't mean dick anyway.

[Junghalli]

The point is the automatic assumption that it "severely lowers" the Death Star's firepower, based on nothing at all

Which is, of course, stupid.

Of course, the OT:ITW says that the Death Star II, in order to deliver a planet-destroying blast, generates power equivalent to hundreds of super-giant stars, so their sad attempt at semantic whoring doesn't mean dick anyway.

I'd say that pretty firmly puts the issue to rest, yeah.

[Junghalli]

Stagnant, right, fucking stagnant, he doesnt ONCE assume that they simply dont NEED any fucking new tech.

Why does it matter? If it wanted to the Empire would take over the Trek galaxy long before reverse-engineering could become an issue. Why bother wasting time arguing with him whether the Empire is stagnant or not - it won't make any difference.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Does nimbleness really matter when you're fighting a Star Destroyer, which can do full broadsides 360 degrees along all 3 major axes? It doesn't matter which direction you are, they can fucking hit you.

[Zablorg]

Oh us silly warsies. Always falling back on the force to win their debates.


Wait, what?

[Connor MacLeod]

Ummm...and how does one prove that it is less energetic?

It doesn't, but wouldn't the possibility render any power generation estimates for the DS suspect?

Not that it ultimately matters, as we have plenty of other examples of high firepower.

This has been already covered. Even disregarding the relatavistic acceleration up to near-c (which still requires energy, and you have to explain where that energy comes from, because it IS an established fact in canon) we know from other sources (like the EGW&T) that hyperspace travel IS an energy intensive process. And Mike has calced a lower limit on energy expenditure for an ISD-massed object on the main site, which can easily be applied to here.

And there is, of course, centerpoint station, where the energy needed to pull a planet through hyperspace can also set off novas/CMEs in stars. The medstar 2 books had something similar happen from a "OR" superweapon. Mike rather indicated what a full power superlaser blast would do to a star, so the energies probably are comparable.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Oh us silly warsies. Always falling back on the force to win their debates.


Wait, what?

Really, I have ever heard an argument for Wars winning based on the Sith, Jedi, or Dark Siders, simply because there's only two Sith, before Order 66 there were at max 10k Jedi, and any Dark Sider strong enough to matter is going to be culled by Palpy and Vader, excluding the Secret Apprentice, who isn't going to do anything but the odd assassination to keep him a secret from Palpy and avoid said culling.

[Vympel]

The Force is really only relevant in tactical scenarios.

One of the most amusing arguments I came across was a Federation assassination attempt against the Emperor - leaving aside the amusing assertion that the Emperor would be incapable of defending himself against some douche with a dustbuster (auto-aiming wide-beam long range kill with the firepower of a battleship salvo FTW!!!) - the proposed scenario also completely neglected to account for his guards.

[lord Martiya]

Well, in this scenario Palpatine could sense the attack and the position of the attacker. So, the attacker would be killed in the moment before the press of the button.

[NecronLord]

Does nimbleness really matter when you're fighting a Star Destroyer, which can do full broadsides 360 degrees along all 3 major axes?

Err... No it can't. It can't deliver its full weapons load in its ventral or aft arcs, nor can it fire them all forward without doing that 'dip the nose' thing.

It doesn't matter, because point defence weapons can provide the required energy (Invisible Hand ICS) but still.

[Jark]

Let's see....I'll take it nice and slow since you're either acting stupid or you don't grasp what unknown means.

We have a technobabblish jargon about shunting mass somewhere, which means using an unknown amount of energy to do an unknown amount of work, on said unknown amount of mass. So tell me from this, what taints the end result. We don't know the mass, nor the amount of energy, nor how the work is accomplished to move said mass.

The process is never described in any detail except to make it sound...inane. So we have absolutely nothing EXCEPT it could,maybe, possibly change something in an unknown way. We have not a single clue what said result is except the end result of the beam is the same.

How can you ask whether or not it taints the end result when you cannot even begin to derive anything except it does something extra, but of a completely unknown quantity.

In the end, what is calculated is the MINIMAL needed energy. Unless one can demonstrate the dimensional shunting changes something that which is seen, it's an X-Factor that is a curiosity.

Does this put the Death Star in the same area as all of those Star Trek planet destroyers that use unknown methods to accomplish their means? From what I've heard, we can work out the total energy to do that to those planets, we don't know how exactly it's achieved though other then it was not done directly through DET. Is that what's going on now with the Superlaser?

[Stark]

Why? The wording doesn't suggest the phenomena HELPS, instead that it's a side-effect. It doesn't say 'makes a trick vortex that sucks everything in for less energy than it would take to do normally'.

[Ghost Rider]

Let's see....I'll take it nice and slow since you're either acting stupid or you don't grasp what unknown means.

We have a technobabblish jargon about shunting mass somewhere, which means using an unknown amount of energy to do an unknown amount of work, on said unknown amount of mass. So tell me from this, what taints the end result. We don't know the mass, nor the amount of energy, nor how the work is accomplished to move said mass.

The process is never described in any detail except to make it sound...inane. So we have absolutely nothing EXCEPT it could,maybe, possibly change something in an unknown way. We have not a single clue what said result is except the end result of the beam is the same.

How can you ask whether or not it taints the end result when you cannot even begin to derive anything except it does something extra, but of a completely unknown quantity.

In the end, what is calculated is the MINIMAL needed energy. Unless one can demonstrate the dimensional shunting changes something that which is seen, it's an X-Factor that is a curiosity.

Does this put the Death Star in the same area as all of those Star Trek planet destroyers that use unknown methods to accomplish their means? From what I've heard, we can work out the total energy to do that to those planets, we don't know how exactly it's achieved though other then it was not done directly through DET. Is that what's going on now with the Superlaser?

Y'know you could try and explain how this unknown mechanism doing an unknown amount of work makes it a chain reaction weapon. You do understand the whole thought of actually performing a hypothesis, point to evidence that supports your position, and then finally reaching a conclusion based upon this.

I know it's asking too much of you retards to explain yourself, but I still enjoy the approach to see whether or not you passed Physics 101.

[Alien-Carrot]

Don't feel too flustered GR. I may not have a degree in physics, or starship construction, or even fucking cooking, but even a poorly educated moron like me can tell that, THE PLANET WENT BOOM.

And that would take a hell of alot of power. The exact number should be irrelivent, cause a starship is NOT gonna survive that blast.

All the trektards can spout all the technobabble they want, it wont change the fact that the Deathstar was designed to do one thing. Blow up planets.

Shield or not, shunted to hyperspace or not, the planet still is no longer there, except ass random space debris.

I dont care if the enterprise can survive a multi-megaton M/AM torpedo, (if thats even how powerful it is), said ship is NOT gonna survive,
|
v

[Aratech]

Question: Does anyone happen to have a picture of the DS2 as seen from Endor's surface? Such as during scene when Luke's being brought to Vader.

[Kristoff]

Something like this? (Stiched from camera panning down.)

[Tribun]

Something like this? (Stiched from camera panning down.)

You know this shot tells us two things:

Trekkie argument A is, that the DS2 is much smaller then the canon 900km.
Conclusions>If you take the claim at face value, it means the DS2 is much closed to Endor than we thought, then Endor holocaust is even more possible. (Although you know that their claim is bullshit, you can point this out to them) Btw., how absurdly closer does DS2 have to be according to the picture, if it has the Trekkie size (I gues 160km)?

Trekkie argument B is, that the DS2 is much farther away from Endor, thus preventing the holocaust.
Conclusions>That's even more fun, because then you can point out to be that big in the sky, the DS2 has to be ENORMOUS, since it is, as they claim, farther away (although you know this is a bullshit claim). How much bigger however, I can't say, although it must be a lot.

Any more Trekkie claims this picture can demolish?