ZOMG the E-D can drill a 3000km hole in 19 seconds!!!!!!!!!!

[Serafina]

Had a feeling it was for a reason, but I get what you're saying, and yeah, I do know very little about physics, but I am willing to take note and accept corrections from people who do.

Your claim was, if i understand it correctly, not that bad.

However, that little wanker made quite the delicious mistake: Equating temperature with heat.4
Just because something has a very, very temperature does not mean that it contains a lot of energy - especially if we are talking about things of vastly different size.
The easiest way to understand that fallacy is this example:
You want to heat water by dropping something into it. What's better - something with a temperature of 500°C but only a mass of 1 gram, or something with only a temperature of 100°C but a mass of 1 kilogram?#

Temperature is just the ability to move heat. It doesn't really say that much about the heat that can be moved - just how good something is at it.
That doesn't cover all of it, but you have to start somewhere.

[Azron_Stoma]

Would I be terribly mistaken to liken that to one object traveling 500 kph and with a mass of 1 gram would have much less total momentum/kinetic energy than an object moving 100 kph and a mass of 1 kilogram, because even though the smaller one is moving 5x faster, the larger one has 1,000x the other one's mass?

[Serafina]

This is getting better by the minute!

Now, this is from someone else on that forum, not from our little banned troll:

Oh, and - if it is a chain reaction, that would actually make Wars stronger! Just like the NDF-reaction is usefull - it allows you to get a lot of bang for the buck! If a fast chain reaction allows to destroy something with only a small amount of energy, it is clearly much better than having to do so via DET.]

So, in other words, Phasers are more efficient then Turbolasers, and they make ST stronger because they get a big bang for a small buck...
Wow, thanks for boosting ST over SW...

Yes, because i totally did not say that the effect is what matters
But i guess just because i never saw phasers blowing up planets, or getting even close to a BDZ, doesn't mean they can't do it!
Except, you know, not.

Anyway, let's continue having fun with our little "i don't know what the average 15year old knows" uneducated moron.
Yet more ignorance and fallacies. Again, if only Trek ships would run on bullshit, then they could propably match the Culture, Xelee or even the Timelords!

Ah yes the first resort of a wongite in a corner, still considering the size of the post i should consider only 4 insults and 3 of them the same word almost polite considering the source.

Oooh, i insulted him. How terrible

TRANSLATION:

I have no explanation why the roids behaved as they did so il again ignore it and mention a few things and say a few words that make it seem i have a explanation without actually making any definitive claims that can obviously be debunked by the visual evidence.

"I have no explanation". Well, neither do you. Which is hardly suprising, given that you do not even graps high-school phyiscs. However, it can easily be explained by kinetic energy, given that these asteroids do not get vaporized.
Furthermore, your claim of "explosion" is flat-out wrong.

TRANSLATION:

Yes - yes it is! You are absolutely right in you basic premise!

That's why we establish firepower not from ship-to-ship combat - because in order for that to be meaningfull, we would have to know what kind of punishment the ships can take.

Hence, IGNORE other clearer examples anfdfocus on UNnaturally occuring things like oddly exploding rocks in space.

Asteroids are unnaturall now?

Hey, guess what: Unless someone deliberately built them, they have to occur naturally. That's what the word means, in case you don't know that.
Furthermore, in ANH we know what the asteroids are made of - the remnants of Alderaan.

Meaning the WMD's/tech exists as it is in many of the series episodes and movies.

Your political/moral OPINION on the fact genocide should be commited during the wars in trek however are directly contradicted by the policies, morality and treaties that are all in the movies, series and are as such canon.

So stuff in series and movies count, your opinions do not.

WMDs?
Oh, yes, certainly. Just nothing very impressive - megatons at best. We can do better than that today - and it's not even close to turbolasers.

Oh, and of course my oppionons do not count. Neither do yours.

Wrong the glow was part/the begining of the chain reaction that eventually encircled the planet.

You truly are an uneducated kid, aren't you?
Well, either that or an uneducated adult - your choice.

If it was a chain reaction and started on one side, that side would blow up first. Even if it is delayed - say, you have a buildup of 2-3 seconds and then it blows up - the side that was illuminate fist should blow up first.
Yet, we do not see such a thing. Rather, the whole planet blows up at once.

The two explosions are inconsistant with a DET effect and consistant with a chain reaction.

So is the fact that the explosion was long after the beam had been expended, this is in direct contradiction with a DET effect and fully consistant with a chain reaction.

Two explosions? Ooh, you mean that one? (Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djZFHTa6TfA )
Yes, you can call that two explosions.
Doesn't change a thing about them occuring symetrically. You do not see an irregualar explosion from one side and then another irregullary shaped explosion from the other.

You point out how powerful you feel chain reaction weapons are by claiming the DS using such a method would make it more powerful...."more bang for buck".

Then you you use your not only noncanon but COUNTER to canon opinion about trek policies regarding the existance of well documented and cannon tech/wmd's because you are aware of how powerful they are being mostly chain reaction weapons.

NO non sequitur present just you establishing WHY you make a absurd denial of canon trek tech....because of the power it gives trek..."more bang for buck".

Trek has WMDs.
But their WMDs are evidently not good enough to blow up planets, they are not good enough to ensure MAD.

You reall should have read the post above before saying that because the guy admits to being the person garat has been kicking the crap out of on another forum.......so he does have a name its "Azron_Stoma".

I do not lie because i do not need to.

Hey, because you do it all the time, too:

Translation:
I, Kor_Dahar_Master, am too dumb to understand timestamps.

Every post you do makes me a little happier and proves my points about you ignoring trek canon in preferance to your opinion on politics as well as usingspeculation on really a single dubious event to base all your calcs on.

SPLODINGASTROIDS!!!!.

Point to a single sentence where i ignored Trek canon.

Relating to the other user, he wrote the following:

Yo.

As i mentioned she slipped up on that one by raving about the power of xchain reaction weapons in the same post she makes up a irrational counter to canon political argument about ST canon WMD/tech that are mostly chain reaction weapons.

Now in not familiar with these "fallacy/style over substance" things but im sure a personal political opinion that denies and is in direct oposition to several well documented canon events, technologies AND well documented canon political policies must be covered?.

Just how banned would she be on SDN if it was not in support of SW!!!!.

*Yawn*. Do you honestly not understand why it doesn't matter wether something is a chain reaction or not, as long as it works on pretty much everything and doesn't take much time? Even after i explained it to you?

[Serafina]

1. A very small piece of rock slowly lands inside the crater of a much bigger asteroid (roughly 4 times the Millennium Falcon's width I'd say), and produces a red flash.

Since all that drivel basically says the same thing:

Those are not explosions. They are collisions.
Your GIFs are extemely slowed down. If you look at them in real time, you'll see that those asteroids move at significant speeds.
Collsions between objects of significant mass tend to, you know, release quite a lot of energy, especially at such speeds.
Guess what - some of that energy was released as heat. Not enough to cause vaporization, but enough for a short flash.

2. A TIE hits an asteroid that's slightly bigger than itself. While the pilot was ejected and his suit burning as well, it's understandable since it's a material that could burn. But iron?

Significant speed, possibly volatile materials (reactor, payload) on the TIE.
Also, we know that TIEs can leave an atmosphere within seconds. Which gives us a lower limit for their resilience, due to friction. Which in turn means that those are pretty solid, normal asteroids.
Furthermore, the asteroids can not be made from burning or volatile material - we see TIE-Bombers bombing large asteroids. If they were volatile/inflammable material, they would have burned/exploded in that case - which was clearly NOT the case.

EVERY asteroid collision we see reacts in a inconsistant way from what we know a normal asteroid moving at those speeds would do. Thus ANY calculations made regarding the "SPLODINGasteroids" in that belt must either include a reliable and reasonable explanation for all the odd behavior shown or be disgarded for more reliable material.

They are neither inconsistent, nor have you presented a viable alternate model, as i explained above.

WMD's and tech capable of destroying suns and causing novas is well documented and available to the federation and is canon, in fact in some cases the ability has been refined so much that the reactions can now be controlled to the point the federation can reignite dead stars or dying stars if they wish to instead of causing them to explode...this ability is also canon.

Novas?
Yes, we actually see that once or twice. But it clearly doesn't exist as a common technology, due to not being used in the Dominion war by either side.
Furthermore, it might have depened on specific conditions inside suns, but it doesn't really matter.

We see the planet engulfed slowly from the point of contact in the chain reaction effect, this effect builds to its critical point and then the planet explodes, the visuals support this but are totally inconsistant with a DET effect.

Most importantly because the explosion occours long after the beam has hit we can say that it is completly contrary to a DET effect.

Slowly?
You have to go trough it frame by frame to see it.
It is simply a lie that it occurs "long after" the beam hit. Even if it was a chain reation (for which you have not presented evidence), it would not weaken the actual effect.

Furthermore, planetary shields ARE canon - read the books.
You can't deny them without denying canon policy by Lucas Arts.
We only see the Hoth-theater shield, but that was built by rag-tag rebels and still could withstand the bombarement of the Executor (a Super Star Destroyer) and the rest of Death Squadron (several SDs) indefinately.

Your claim that Trek does not have the tech to cause novas and or destroy planets is in direct contradiction to canon evidence in several episodes and at least one movie if not 2 movies.

Show a single instance where the Federation destroys a planet. I never said they can not cause novas, tough they evidently can not do so consistently (due to, well, they never use it).
The only instance of destroying a planet was a chain reaction from that bio-wank species in Voyager.

Your only basis for this contradiction is you personal opinion about trek policies and politics, YOUR "they do not use them all the time during conflicts/wars so they do not have them" OPINION.

So, you can have it one of two ways:
-they have the ability, but they never use it even in times of desperate war (against the Dominion). Which makes them stupid. Furthermore, they would not use it against the GE either.
-they don't have that ability, or can not apply it reliably.

Not only is this a personal opinion in direct contradiction to the fact they DO exist and have canon status but your opinion is also a direct contradiction to the well known and also established canon policies of the federation and trek.

Simply put your pointless opinion (formed because of your "more bang for buck" fear and paranoia as mentioned earlier) is getting you well and truely spit roasted by 2 large canon facts it directly contradicts.

The federation doesn't have canon policies

Oh and i understand time stamps i just enjoyed pointing out that your claim of me lying was a false as the rest of your rubbish and that the idoit was in fact the OP.

You evidently still do not understand that i was typing a post before that other user said that you misquoted him.
The misquote alone makes you a liar, accusing Saxton from participating in SWvsST debates makes you a liar (there is no instance of him doing so - otherwise, find one) and you lied again above.

Very normal although considering the personality type SDN attracts considerably less abusive than the usual SDN member.

Yes, i actually call stupid people, such as you, stupid.

I fact your lack of abuse (obviously relative to the norm on SDN) is the only supprise your posts have given me, the rest is pretty standard fare and easily debunked as you can see.

Oh, i am merely toying with you and i do not want you to run away like a crybaby, lest that might spoil my fun.

[Serafina]

Yet another user of that board, spewing unintelligent - well, at least they are still qualifiable as toughts.

Does this idiot really believe that shit? I mean Seriously? If we need proof that these weapons at some point will be used, just look at TDiC (large-scale planetary bombardment intented to wipe out the Founders by destroying their world down to the core), the more than 40 billion dead in the Klingon-Federation war of the alternate timeline seen in "Yesterday's Enterpise", and the estimated 900 billion Federation casulaties of "Statistical Probabilities". These are entire planetary populations being wiped out here. So how could they not have superweapons in use? Let's also add that the Dominion was willing to use a trilithium=protomatter weapon on the Bajoran sun that would have resulted in a supernova that would have wiped out Bajor and DS9 along possibly with the allied fleet there in "By Inferno's Light". And the Son'a had little qualms about using banned subspace weapons in "Insurrection" against the E-E, nor did Nero hold back on using red matter on Vulcan in ST 2009. The list goes on.

No superweapons, my ass.

Ahh, TDiC.
Of course, if they could blow up a sun - wouldn't that have been easier? Taking a single, possibly cloaked ship, fire a single shot and get out of there, instead of sitting in orbit for hours with a large fleet?
Besides, while you might argue from the visuals that the surface was destroyed, this is CLEARLY not down to the core - after all, we do NOT see the planet reduced to 1/10th of it's size and glowing red-hot, now do we?
(in case you do not know (what a surprise!), below the crust is the mantle, not the core).

Neither the Dominion nor Son'a have demonstrated planet-busting capability, and the Sona weapon was clearly stated to follw Warp Cores, which neither GE-ships nor planets have.

[Serafina]

Hey, he's still standing.
You know what they say about quitters and winners.


Anyway, here we go - again.

The drivel is yours the speed in real time is nowhere near enough for iron and the other materials your calculations claim the roids are made of to achieve the effects we see.

Proove it.
Describe what would happen if they were made of nickel-iron and collide under those instances.

We only see the bombers bombing in craters, the craters are caused by collisions that ignited the local materials leaving none for the bombs to ignite.

You don't get it - what shocking newsflash!
If the asteroids were made of explosive material, then ANY part of them exploding would make the whole thing go BOOM.
Hence, the sheer fact that there are impact craters prooves that what we see is based on pure mechanical impact.

Yout alternative explanation ignores the real time speed of the asteroids during the collisions and the fact that IF they consisted on the materials you claim they do in your firepower figures they would not react or explode/flash the way they do.

My "alternate explanation" is consistent with the existance of impact craters, the results of collisions, and how the asteroids look like.
Yours...well, so far you did not even formulate a coherent alternative.

Your explanation fails on the most basic scientific level........but then its a SW theory so the normal rules you apply to others arguing against you are ignored.......

Does it? Proove it!
Furthermore - how is your explanation consistent with anything?

Your personal opinion of the stategies during the dominion war is directly in contradiction to canon federation policies on such use.

My personal oppinions happen to be based on common sense in warfare - you use the assets you have.
You can circumvent this if you are not in an all-out war (such as against the Romulans or Klingons, who were never an actual threat due to sheer size differences). But against the Dominion, they were loosing despite mobilizing everything they had. Does that sound like a situation where you hold back your best weapons?

What a particular one of the technologies MIGHT depend on id irrelavant to canon fact, the torpedoes were initially to increase the fusion withn a star and stabilise it so the temperature was at the normal levels of a star in its mid life. The torpedoes failed to stabilise the fusion and continued to increase the fusion within the star way beyond that point eventually causing it to explode. As such it is perfectly reasonable to say that a normal star in mid life would be even easier to over heat as it has considerably lessof a climb to make to overheat.

They clearly must have done something else. Merely increasing the amount of fusion does NOT cause an instant supernovae, even if you would increase it to 100% (which is itself impossible).
Furthermore - older stars would require LESS work to make them go supernova - it's like ageing. Ageing a 80-year old to the point where he dies of old age is easier than doing the same with a 10-year old.

None the less the abilities and reasons why these technologies EXIST but are not used are canon, your personal opinion is not and actually directly contradicts canon material......twice.

Then why do neither the Federation, nor the Romulans, Klingons and Dominion use their supposedly existing superweapons?
Especially since the three latter are not held back by morality in such issues.

Ah so you have seen it?...Consession accepted

No concession here, dipshit. I explained the glow, there is a canon explanation readily available.

Long is a relative term considering the time of the entire event and the planet explodes way to many frames AFTER the beam hits for it to be a DET effect.

"Long" is certainly not an appropriate term for what doesn't even last two seconds.

Suck it up and move on, you claim that a chain reaction is better anyway and it has the advantage of being accurate in regards to visual effrects....

It is better in the sense that it needs less energy. It is not better if the results are the same.
Furthermore, a chain reaction directly violates canon.

OH cool a False Dilemma fallacy coupled with a no limit fallacy as well i think, i recognise False Dilemma as its a favorite of certain warsies who try to focus attenting on "the math" instead of what instances the math is derived from (like the splodingasteroids).

Propose other possibilities then.

The tech exists it is undeniable canon material, the fact they do not use it against the dominion is supported by canon federation politics regarding that particular war and the way it progressed. Considering our own history and how we avoided M.A.D by having smaller conventional wars in various locations around the globe during the arms race ST is consistant with actual factual events regarding the use of WMD'S that can cause M.A.D. Claiming that star ship captains or the federation would NEVER use them if a race began destroying planet after planet of populated worlds is a no limit fallacy i believe.

What about the Romulans? Klingons? Borg? Dominion?
If it is so easy that a SINGLE SCIENCE TEAM could figure it out, why do other factions not use it?
We never had an all-out nuclear war because there was never a war of life and death between any states with nuclear weapons. That's what weapons of such scale DO - you simply do not fight on a level that would require such a responce, because such a thing would bring on your own demise.
And yet we see how the Dominion and Federation fought a war of life and death, were failure would have resulted in the destruction of the Federation. This is where, if you have such weapons, you say "until here and no further, or we will all die!".

The Federation never did that, despite that being an easy way out.

The prime directive, The Kitomer accords, The omega directive, Several "general orders" mentioned during the movies and series ESPECIALLY General Order 24...you really should pay more attention to what you are discussing.

Which are not canon policies
They are policies that are canon - but not canon policies
Oh, and we never SAW general order 24. To quote Memory Alpha:

General Order 24: An order to destroy all life on an entire planet. This order has been given by Captain Garth (Antos IV) and Captain Kirk (Eminiar VII). On neither occasion was the order actually fulfilled.

Destroying all life on a planet is rather easy, especially if such a definition only encompasses your enemies and/or major lifeforms.
It IS orders of magnitude less powerfull than a BDZ.
Furthermore, a BDZ only requires three SDs to prevent anyone from escaping - with one SD, it merely takes three times as long, but is still possible.

Pay attention to what you are discussing, wanker.

I did mention i got the info second hand and i never claimed or argued that the quote"the heat of a nuke focused in a small area, causing a fireball" i posted was perfectly accurate.

There is a significant difference between heat and temperature. You said temperature, thereby not only misrepresenting him but demonstrating that you do not understand what temperature is.

His words were exactly "blast the heat of a nuclear bomb into one small spot, creating a blazing fireball" ...so what i was wrong by a few words?, how is than important or make me a liar considering i conceed i did not see the actual full quote and only got a brief comment about it?.

Red herring with a ad hom maybe?, either way i just posted the full quote and conceed i only had a brief comment about it to go on initally and considering the differances its hardly a big deal unless you make it one...

A red herring is intended to distract from the subject of discussion. But since you brought it into the discussion, this is not a red herring.
A Ad Hominem dismisses an argument based on the person who makes it. Note that this does not include dismissing an argument because it (and therefore the person) is just plain wrong and stupid.

Saxons prior bias is well documented on this forum and others.

Proove it.
Links to reliable sources will suffice.

Keep telling yourself that im sure its a salve for your inability to ban the truth away like you normally do.

Psssh, like i care that much. For all i care, Trek could assrape Wars - then again, communism is not that great in most instances, so if i had to actually live in such a universe, i would prefer Wars.
Either way, this is merely a source of good laughs for me, where i do not actually care that much about the outcome.

What i do care about, however, is scientific education and logic capability. You lack both. For that, i pity you.
Guess we should consider doing it like Futurama regarding to Trek.

[Serafina]

I hope no one minds if i go on to toy with this uneducated (and apparently only partially literate) kid.

The burden of proof is not mine its yours to explain what your theory does not.

My exlanation is consistant with canon visual referances, yours is consistant with a assumption that ignores such.

"Your explanation"?

You have not even FORMULATED an explanation. All you said was, basically "they explode on their own". That's not an explanation, that's a handwave - it doesn't adress how such a thing can even exist, why there can be impact cracters if both impactor and target are so volatile, why small objects hitting large ones do not set off a chain reaction etc. etc.

And you are making the extraordinary claim (whatever it may be), while i am doing no such thing.
Just because you don't know science if it bites you in your unwashed ass doesn't mean you can shift the burden of proof around.

When your personal opinion is acknowledged as comon sense and is considered a higher canon than the series and movies please get back to me.

Until then do try to control your zealotish behaviour regarding YOUR opinion over riding such things.

Zealot? Oh boy, you must have quite the sheltered life - do you actually think a zealot would even acknowledge what you say?

Either way, that's beside the point - but you still have to explain why NO ONE ever uses such weapons in warfare. I am merely pointing out that they should.

That depends on how they make it go supernova, in this case they were trying to extend the suns life so essentially making it younger and as such a younger star would need less not more.

How the hell is making a star YOUNGER go it nova? How do they even do that? They obviously can't add a significant amount of fresh hydrogen (the torpedoe is just to small). If they make the fusion products undergo fission - that TAKES energy and should stabilize the star.
That explanation just makes no sense. Oh, and source your claim that it makes the star younger.

If you see them ask them, but making up crap that contradicts canon is pointless.

It requires explanation.
The weapons being nonexistant (due to blueprints being destroyed etc.) or impractical as weapons (due to working only on specific stars) explains it without making all those races blithering idiots.
If you claim they have them - why do they never use them? Stop dodging the question.

2 seconds or 10 it disproves the DET crap.

Planetary shields are canon. Stop ignoring canon.

NITPICK, is that the best you can do?.

They still directly contradict your comment and non canon theory.

What comment? Honestly, how do unnamed federation policies contradict anything i said?
Oh, and by the way - remember that i am doing this for fun? Guess what - your stupidity is funny.

Oh dear i am getting to you aint i, its just so hard when you do not have the i-win ban switch to get rid of all these inconvienient truths is it not?.

Hehehe.
Just because i used a naughty word, you must be getting to me - right?
Or maybe - not.
And if i was too afraid to argue without the possiblity to ban you (which i do not have on SD.Net anyway) - then why am i doing this in the first place?
Well, i already told you - fun.

This is my original comment.

"the heat of a nuke focused in a small area, causing a fireball"

This is his.

"blast the heat of a nuclear bomb into one small spot, creating a blazing fireball"

Ok so i got a few words out of place as it was third hand info but im pretty sure i do not confuse and thing important.

No educated person would have every claimed that just because a laser has a temperature of several million degrees, it is in any way comparable to a nuke.
Oh, and the comment you were critizising said:

Anyhow I simply referred to the fact that the"Blast the heat of a nuclear bomb into one small spot" for the Turbolasers isn't any more ridiculous than the concept of a Heisenberg Compensator, and if one can suspend disbelief for the later the former should be no problem.

Of course, that is somewhat of an invalid argument, due to violation of SoD - but your comment was truly stupid and showed that you do not know what temperature actually is.
Go back to school, kid.

TRANSLATION:

Even though his bias is well documented by adding the provision "reliable sources" i can dismiss anything short of a statment written accross the heavens signed by GOD (well if there is a god).

Hey - if it is so well documented, why can't you link to a site where it IS documented?
If you asked me for something that was "well documented", i could point you to at least one source. You are either lazy - or, as i suspect, a liar, and thus can't link to your nonexistant documentation.

I understand that you ignore on or the other depending on whitch serves your bias.

Say, why should i be biased?
If you look at my post history, you should find that my first posts relating to SWvsST argued FOR Trek. I was, however, convinced by actual arguments.
Either way, i do not care that much about the outcome - this is merely an idle way to get some laughs. Why should i care?

Ignore science for slodingasteroids, use science to calculate non-splodingasteroids...ignore the illogic of doing so.

"Sloding"? Geez, learn to type. You have presented NO calculation OR explanations for your "exploding asteroids". Why should i, then, prefer your "explanation"? It's exactly on the same level as creationist arguments - you claim that there is an inconistency and hold up a supposedly working alternative - but if you expose that alternative to scrutiny, it turns out that it is either incalculabe, or doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Illogically ignore canon facts regarding observed tech in trek........claim to use use personal logic to justify doing so.

Why do i ignore them? Just because they show something once, and it is subsequently shown to be destroyed - why should it be readily available as a weapon? Especially if it get's mentioned never again?

Claim its a scientific fact that DET weapon continues to add/create energy to/in a target long after it has hit...........claim that its unscientific to say that a chain reaction weapon would do so....

I claimed no such thing. The plantary shield (which you can see and is backed up by canon) readily explains what we see without any addition of energy.

The list goes on..........

Given that your list consisted of lies - yeah, you are not even a good liar.

[Serafina]

Ah, so someone is actually willing to try to back up the claim that Curtis Saxton work is biased.
Looks like a big, effing failure, tough - and there are no points for effort.

The site that is linked basically relies on the fact that Curtis Saxton sometimes commented on SWvsST debates.
It fails to show how that constitutes bias, at least by a logic that can not be applied to everyone participating in such a debate.
It further claims that an astrophysicist exchanging emails with an Engineer to share analytical ideas somehow consitutes bias.

In essense, the whole thing relies on "corruption by affiliation": Because Curtis Saxton apparently had contact with several SWvsST debaters, his whole work must inevitably be biased.
Of course, this logic is not applied when you are affiliated with the pro-Trek side of the now dead debate - again, a double standard remarkably reminiscent of creationists.

The only non-broken link on the linked site merely shows how Curtis Saxton corrected an undeducated person on such a simple concept as binding energy (which you learn when you are about 14, at least in Germany). Everyone who remembers at least a bit of high-school physics should be able to see that.


All that aside - none of this would renounce the canonicity of Curtis Saxtons official Star Wars work, which includes the AotC ICS.

[Srelex]

On the topic of bias, how seriously is DarkStar taken on that site?

[Serafina]

On the topic of bias, how seriously is DarkStar taken on that site?

Given that in the post i mention above, the Admin (and owner, IIRC) of that site links to Darkstars webpage...apparently they take him seriously
Do i have to say it? Yes, i do: METAL SPINES!!!

[Serafina]

Ah its so good to see that SDN never changes its tune.

You are obviously not educated - no educated person would confuse temperature and heat with each other.
I asked you wether you are an uneducated kid or an uneducated adult - and i went with the former, since that is the less insulting alternative.

I am pointing out a MASSIVE inconsistancy in your theory that is as per usual i direct contradiction to canon evidence, show that iron asteroids cause such flashes and explosions while colliding at such slow speeds or conceed.

*yawn*
You did no such thing. You claimed that the inconsistency exist, but you did not debunk it at all. No numbers whatsoever - just saying so doesn't cut it.
Besides, you would have to present an alternative, which you have not yet done.

Furthermore - what about AotC? These Asteroids had no such visual effects (since they never collided) and yet were easily pulverized by both the blasters and the bomb from Jango Fetts ship.
Firepower calculations have been based on that scene. Your theory can not adress that. Hence, SW firepower is still orders of magnitude greater even if your "explosive asteroids"-drivel is taken seriously.

Your OPINION that "THEY SHOULD" is not canon nor is it a valid or reasonable opinion considering our own arms race and use of conventional weapons and smaller engagments during it.

Yaddaydaddayadda.
Why can't you give me a reasony why they do not use them?
When at war, you use your weapons. If you do not do so, there must be a reason.

I said essentially makes the star younger. The star in questons core was cooling as it got older so they used the torps to try and restore its core temperature to the temperature it was earlier in its life, essentially making it younger.

No normal star goes cooler when it ages.
If what you said is true and it DID go cooler, then it was no normal star.
Hence, the device would only work on specific stars.

However, that still makes no sense - when you make it younger, it goes to a stage where it already WAS. But if it does go supernova at that stage - then why is there still a star?

No YOU want a answer because you know their is no canon one and because of that you think you can make one up that serves your bias. A very interesting idea and quite inovative but it does not hold water it is not canon and it actually contradicts a considerable quantity of canon political examples.

Yes, i DO want an answer.
The mere fact that they never mention these supposedly existing superweapons when at war implies that they do not exist.
If you want to claim that they do, based solely on one-shot devices, you have to offer an explanation for that.

Planetary shields canon status is irrelevant (i say non canon) as the beam hits the planet the reaction starts the beam ends and the reaction still continues for a considerable time gaining momentum and power before it finally reaches the point of explosion.

Oh, so you say they are not canon?
Congratulations, you just declared that you ignore canon!
Since there was a planetary shield, the visual effects are already explained - your additions violate both the principle of parimony and canon.

A steady increase in insult and bad language says it all.

Hehe.
You still do not understand that this is fun for me. I like toying with little wankers like you. The insults merely spice it up and go along with your increasingly less sane arguments.

Nor did i, the comment was from your OP warsie buddy remember.

No, the part where temperature and heat were exchanged was your doing. Prooving, as i said, that you have no scientific education whatsoever.

Maybe you should educate your pets better then.

"My pets"?
Honestly - you claim that someone who has been registered on SD.Net longer than me and with whom you exhanged your points prior to our discussion, before i even knew about you - is my "pet"?
Wow, you are truly deranged -apparently, you believe in timetravel!

My comment was consistant with the material i was shown, he may have clarified it for you but what he showed you was not what i was shown.

I explained why it was not.
You choose to ignore that, raveling in your filthy stupidity.

Done.

And rebutted.
Someone who claims that SW-humans have naturally metallic spines (along with a ton of other insanities) and has a track record of distortions and lies is no reliable source, especiall if it is not backed up by any verifiable source.
Apparently, you do not understand what a source is. No suprise tough, since you apparently never passed highschool.

In favor of SW making derogatory referances in regards to trek fans along with comparisons of abilities regarding tech in regards to st/sw.

There is a significant number of fanwhores in every fandom. Referring to them negatively hardly shows any bias.

While on his FAQ is said..."has nothing to do with the SW vs ST online debate nor any debate like it"...

No suprise, since his site never adresses SWvsST at all. Merely mentioning Star Trek in one sentence is hardly proof of this, especially if this is "backed up" only by a dead link.

Ah the no limit fallacy coupled with the Red Herring another traditional SDN one two and a especially common and well used one in regards to darkstar.

No limits fallacy? Where?
Red Herring? Pointing out that a source has no crediblity and is known for lies and distortion is hardly a red herring.

I actually disagree with the metal spines theory and i also disagree with a few other of his ideas but some of his stuff is exceptionally good and well presented and hold considerably more water than some of the theories and personal opinions you have tried to pitch.

Gee, really?
That you think that any of Darkstars works have even a shred of crediblity shows that you are inable to see trough his drivel. Which is harldy surprising, given that you lack an education not only in basic science but also formal logic.

[Serafina]

Yet another one joins the fray. At least attemting to adress a specific point.

The whole "they don't use superweapons, so they don't have them" stuff is so ridiculously stupid it's highly amusing.

The fact it doesn't even enter in the debaters mind that they would not want to use said weapons for fear of the other side doing the same is comical at best, downright delusional at worst. The UFP does not have a million worlds. It can't afford to start the doomsday weapon stuff even if it wanted too - if their enemies retaliated in kind there would be serious trouble.

So you honestly think that if, say, the USA got invaded, they would not use their superweapons for fear of annihilation?
Or Russia, Israel, China, Pakistan, India?

Superweapons are a big stop sign - "until here and no further".
That line includes, obviously, when your home terriory is endangered. Every power with superweapons knows that rule, including nearly every other goverment. You simply do not invade someone with WMD capacity, lest your own population would be annihilated.
This simple fact of life is what restriced the USSR and USA to proxy warfare. It also worked with Israel and it's arab neighbours and India/Pakistan - open warfare ceased.
Superweapons guarantee that no one else can destroy or invade you without horrible consequences, it's as simple as that.

Now, the Federation was in a situation where it was LOOSING. No one foresaw that wormhole-deus ex machina in SoA.
This is precisely the situation were one would say "you stop right there, or we pull the trigger". It's precisely analogous to a theorectical war between any two members of the atomic club.
Yet, they never did this. This demonstrates either insufficient deployment capacity, or the sheer absense of superweapons.

To put this in the context of the dominion war (UFP side): what kind of sane leader would start removing entire planets (or even starsystems) from the equation just because he seems to be losing a conflict? A conflict which can still go either way for almost the entire war? A conflict in which the 'good guys' have lost all of one major world after all is said and done? A conflict, which if eventually lost, would still cost far less lives and resources than flinging about planet killers/star killers would achieve in mere months? A conflict in which the other side will likely not be wiped out totally, so you're going to have to deal with 'the enemy' in peacetime again later? A conflict in which one of the key factors for resistance is to protect the UFP citizens from the aggressor?

Right. No sane one, that's for damn sure!

Any sane leader would say "if you stop here, none of us will get annihilated". Any sane leader would listen to such a warning.

Now, the Dominion side would have more reasons to use weapons of this nature (and lo and behold - they actually try, but fail!) but only really started having big reasons to actually use them when they where losing. In the grand scheme of things, them losing happened so fast that it's doubtfull they'd have the time to actually carry out any retaliation. Besides, they too where trying to protect something - their founder. Starting the M.A.D. scenario when your 'god' is dangerously close to the line of fire is hardly a good argument!

Yes, they tried.
This is precisely analogous to real life, again. There is no such thing as a limited nuclear exchange. If one flies, they all fly.
The Dominion would have never dared to even try to use a superweapon if their enemies had them, too. Because this would have escalated the conflict to the next step - total annihilation.
The fact that they DID try it shows that the Federation has no superweapons.

See, the idea behind the above is: the attitude that a 'smart' commander will grab the biggest weapon he can find as soon as the situation gets serious shows a profound lack of understanding of how war is actually waged and why certain decisions get made. There is more to war than merely eleminating the enemy as quickly as possible. Almost all the casualties of such weapons would be civilians or non-combatants. And yet, here we have people proclaiming that a Federation which has never shown a willingness to slaughter billions of innocents before would resort to such tactics almost immediately.

LO and behold:
Nuclear Warfare 101
[url=ttp://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_102.html]Nuclear Warfare 102[/url]
Nuclear Warfare 103
Again - superweapons are the perfect deterrent against conquest. That the Federation never threatened to use them in such a way shows that they do not have them.
Furthermore - if they have them and did not use them against the Dominion, they would not use them against other threats either, because the Dominion war was about as bad as it gets.

This, with the background that the 'oh so cornered and beaten' UFP had lost virtually none of it's key assets barring a few ships left and right. And that the Dominion invasion force was pretty secure for a long time - even the last battle still could have gone in their favour easilly enough.

Why fight a war in your own territory if you can just say "stop right there"?

[Serafina]

Oh, i overlooked that our originall BANNED TROLL answered that other poster.
So here it goes, more FUN - Dwarf Fortress style.
All of those are in reply to another user of that forum, not to me.

All of your arguments are fine and make sense.

Yeah, frankly - no comment.

What the "nuke em" and "M.A.D makes sense" proponents fail to see is how immature their ideas are. What gives the right for anybody even a government EVEN with a 100% support from their population to deny the existance of the future generations of humanity?.

Stop watching Treknobabble and learn something about real life. Such has been the realtiy for decades now - you are obviously too young for you (and possibly your parents!) to remember the cold war.

Only a self important arrogant idiot would consider ending the human race because they may be or even are losing a fight, so you may end up in a occupied country for a generation or even 10 generations or more and maybe even a slave. To support or think that M.A.D is a preferable solution to a few generations of slavery and then a struggle for and eventual freedom is the behaviour of a fool with no foresight.

Given that even the threath of such weapons is enough and you do not have to use them - yeah, clearly only an idiot would do so.
LO and behold how that Trektard (switching to that now, since he clearly ignores real life) declares himself better than most polticans and strategists!

For a person or even group of ppl/generation to think that they have the right to make a decision like that when they cannot consult every future generation and get their consent is a act of supreme arrogance.

Well - given that we never see an election in any Trek episode - we truly do not know how they are governed.
However, if they ARE a democracy (for which there is no evidence), then they DO have the right (and duty) to end the war.

EXINCTION means you lost even if you took ppl with you, staying alive even while suffering means that in the grand scheme of things there is hope that things can improve.

So, why is it then that we do it in real life?
And what about other species, for whom slavery would be the ultimate defeat (Romulans, Klingons)?

For Serafina to be a proponent of such a thing shows her to be a idiotic arrogant fool with the maturity of a petulant child and no understanding about what she thinks is a "real scenario".

It's called Realpolitk. A lost art in most of the USA, i know - but fortunately, not in the military.
And in times and matters of war, the military tends to pull the strings.

[Serafina]

And our original troll responds.

Considering i did not do so my education or lack of it it a non issue.

You think that education is a non issue?
Gee, what a surpise

Oh, and it's also an issue for this argument - since it casts a shadow of doubt on your claim that these asteroids are not standard nickel-iron asteroids.

Im not sure why you think that 20ish gigajoules (assming and overestimating that the roids are ALL nikel-iron and not made from more comon materials) is particularly impressive especially from a ship much larger than a fighter and owned by a rather wealthy bounty hunter.

You think that 20+gigajoules are nothing impressive?
Plus - Nickel-Iron asteroids ARE common, and other materials actually need MORE energy.
But thanks for accepting that figure - if such a small ship can put out 20+ gigajoules with a single bomb, think about what a Star Destroyer can do!

I have explained and a mature minded adult would understand, you are incapable of doing so.

You clearly do not understand the strategic impact of WMDs. Read a book or good webpage about it.

The effect did not stabilise and the core continued to get hotter until the sun exploded.

So...why did that not happen when this ominous star was younger?
You claimed that the device rejuvinated the star somehow. But that would mean that earlier in it's original lifecycle, it would have already been that young and therefore hot (according to your "explanation") - and therefore went nova (according to your "explanation").
Your response does not adress that.
Neither does it adress why that star behaves exactly backwards (according to your "explanation") than any other star. Or that, according to your "explanation", that would mean that it does not work on normal stars (since they get hotter when they get older and colder when younger).

Your argument that the sun was rejuvinated doesn't make sense. If taken at face-value, it means that that device would only work on extraordinary stars.

The answer has been given but it only makes sense if you are a mature minded adult.

The answer boils down to "they are too stupid or frightened to use their weapons even a a deterrent", and does not adress while all other factions ignore the results of having superweapons.

Shield or no shield the effect continues long after the beam has hit the planet this is in direct contradiction to a DET weapon, i am not ignoring G canon, their is more "sci-fi magic" or "technobabble" required for the DET effect than a chain reaction effect.

No. The beam hit's the shield, which can hold it back for a split-second. During that time, the energy is spread all over the shield (which is usefull for damage dissipation). When the shield breaks that split-second later, the planet goes boom.
No chain reaction happens. The glow is readily explained by the canonic shield.

I have found that ppl only swear and make insults when something hurts, annoys or upsets them..but what ever you need to tell yurself.

Really?
Gosh, you must live in quite a sheltered enviorment.

No, the part where temperature and heat were exchanged was your doing. Prooving, as i said, that you have no scientific education whatsoever.

Wrong.

Really? So you claim that you did not said what you said?

Considering you do not know what i was shown you cannot make that determination, but when has that stopped you leaping to the wrong conclusion........"filthy stupidity"...your anger is getting very transparant.

Hihihi...anger. Pfff...why should i get angry about some kid saying stupid stuff about something i do not care about?

And yet he does not refer to SW fanwhores in derogatory terms.

Because SW fanwhores do not make such outlandish claims in SWvsST debates, mostly because they do not have to.
Some, however, do so when they debate Wars vs a stronger Sci-Fi universe, such as the Culture or Time Lords.
Furthermore - is it a surprise that someone who analyzes Star Wars tends to correct people when they make erroneous claims about Star Wars?

The referance was made while discussing material for the site, and yes the link went dead AFTER the material was exposed, fortunatly it was cached and copied.

No proof, no gain.

You introduced a irellavant bit of material that took the argumet away from the original subject being discussed hence a "red herring", then you tried to use that bit of material to show that ALL darkstars ideas were wrong hence a no limit fallacy maybe a Hasty Generalization or Leap in Logic?.

You choose.

Either way a single error or disproved point does not disprove everything a person has ever said and doing so shows your type of mentality.

It WOULD be a hasty generalization if i did so based on a single claim.
However, EVERY piece of DarkStar is a hillarious attempt at obfuscation, packed with lies and distortion.
Oh, and sorry - but i just can not take someone seriously who argues with the creators of a show that his interpretation is right and theirs is wrong

You use those words a lot but your science is flawed because of your bias making deliberatly you ignore obvious canon facts and material

While your formal logic is mearly your excuse to ignore canon material when it also does not suit your bias.

You actually disgrace the words logic and science considering the way you abuse them to serve you own personal needs while preaching about them like you are a honest individual instead of a liar.

You seem to think you are clever but you are actually very obvious and lack the maturity to undestand by just how much.

Oh, again with the "ignore canon material".

Tell me, then - which canon material shows that Trek has planet-busters or supernove-inducers aside from the single episodes where they show up? That they can reproduce them and have significant stockpiles.
Quote canon material that says so. Interferring it from single episodes does not count - otherwise i could interferre that the Empire has thousands of Death Stars and Suncrushers.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
And just to safe posts, here is his answer to the WMD-part.

im older than a child like you.

Hmm - english might not be my first language, but i am pretty sure that this is not a correct sentence.
I suppose it implies that i am a child and that you are older than me - but you should know that greater age does not automatically translates into "i am right". Me calling you a kid is merely generous - or do you think that it is less embarassing to be an uneducated adult than to be an uneducated child?
Either way, given that i am capable of typing fluent english despite it being my secondary language (which is quite obvious, given that i announce in my profile that i live in germany), you should be able to make inferrences about both my education and age all on your own. Not that it is relevant at all - as i said, i am doing you a favor calling you a kid.

SO YOU HAVE YOUR ANSWER THEN, THEY ARE NOT USED BECAUSE THE THREAT OF DOING SO IS ENOUGH.

What i and others have been saying all along.

CONSESSION ACCEPTED.

No concession given.

If the THREAT would have been ENOUGH, then the Dominion would not have attacked them in the first place, or stopped after the threat was revealed.
However, the Dominion clearly attacked and never stopped until beaten by deus-ex-machina.
Which means that there was no such threat, either not issued or not existent.

Im sorry when did the human race become extinct?, i must have missed it.....

You answered your own argument and now look like a fool....time to ban me i suppose...oh no you cannot can you lol..

Aah, the smell of burning strawmen - of course, yours are quite rotten.

What i was saying (pretty clearly, too) is that in real life, WMDs are a deterrrent against enemy conquest - because no enemy would risk being wiped out.
Unless you claim that no nuclear power would actually use their weapons, your claim is simply wrong.

Oh, and the human race would not go extinct in a nuclear war. About 1-2 billion people would die - and the rest would be plunged back into anything from the 17th to 19th century, most of them slowly dieing off from lack of food unless we get really lucky.
Either way, about a billion people would survive in the long run.
What, you tought that "nuclear war=everyone dead"? Sorry, but that's just a media scare.

[takemeout_totheblack]

It is plainly obvious that these people are shoulders deep up their own asses. Serafina, despite your logical and largely irrefutable argument, it seems these troglodytes are too far gone to wring any sort of satisfactory concession out of them. The best we can hope for at this point is for them to degenerate into childish tantrums and stop responding once all the big words and logic damage their underdeveloped brains.

Of course we all knew that is how any given debate with the fine throwbacks at SFJ would end. I'd actually be surprised if they conceded in any dignified way.

[Serafina]

Well - the meat of your whole post can be packed into one tight package:
You refuse to accept the canonic planetary shield, and therefore post a few pictures without any numbers .

But of course, there would be no FUN Dwarf Fortress style if i did not rip your horseshit apart.7

Considering i was referancing anothers comments my education is unimportant.

Yours obviously is, since nonexistant things are rarely of any importance.
However, your evident lack of education gives your arguments little credibility, combined with your lack of calculations.

It is not a claim it is a fact that nickel-iron asteroids do not react by exploding in a flash of light because of such low impact velocities.

It wasn't an explosion. It was an impact, shattering the asteroids while the heat from the impact was quickly radiated into space.
That's basic physics - you can not have an impact without heat. The heat has to go somewhere and mostly does so in the form of radiation. Which is, in large quantities, accompanied by visible light.

You have NOT calculated that the collision would not release enough energy. Until you do so, your argument has no basis whatsoever.

Actually i was refering to Slave I's blaster weaponry not the bomb.

Even better, since the blasters were obviously weaker, and still could pulverize asteroids with ease.

What part of "the effect did not stabilise and the sun continued to heat up until it exploded" do you not understand?. The sun was supposed to stabilise and stop getting hotter at a certain point but it did not stop, in fact it got hotter and hotter until it exploded.

Soo...how does it have anything to do with stabilizing?
Look, it's quite simple: As a star burns it's materials (well, it's actually fusion, but eh), it tends to get hotter inside (since there is more energy released from the fusions that occur with heavier elements). A star can NOT do it any other way - that's just basic physics for you.
You have presented NO evidence that the star get's any younger - ZERO.

Oh, and nuclear fusion is by definition an uncontrolled process. Controlling it is quite difficult. No such mechanism (besides basic gravity and strong nuclear force) exists inside a sun.

So to the question "can the federation cause a sun to over heat to the point it explodes with a few modified photon torpedoes" is quite simply YES.

We see that they could do it ONE TIME to one (or were it two or three?) SPECIFIC stars. We see NO evidence that it
-works for every star
-is still possible for them.
You would have presented that evidence if it would exist. You can't just handwave it away - you don't have any. Again.

Also, they were not "modified photon torpedoes". That's equivalent to claiming that a nuclear bomb (or torpedo) is equal to a "modified iron bomb". If the whole weapon system (except the drive) is exchanged, it's a new weapon.

The beam is almost finished hitting alderaan and already we can see darker planetary material ejecta near the centre so either their is NO shield or it is collapsed (i say no shield tbh but it is hardly important as the darker ejecta shows the planet is being hit).

There are NO ejecta while the blue illumination effect still occurs. You can clearly see that on your OWN pictures.
After the shields break, there is of course ejecta - quite a lot, in fact. The whole damn planet blew up - something the Ferderation NEVER did.

The next images show the beam hitting and then that the beam has expended its energy into the planet and we see more and more planetary ejecta as the chain reaction effect continue AND grow, LONG after a DET beam would have expended its energy.

Furthermore, you mixed up the order of the images. Your first image shows an explosion ring - your second doesn't, the third does it again.
You are attempting to make it seem like a long process - but if you look at the video i linked earlier, you will see that it doesn't even take half a second.
The video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djZFHTa6TfA

The last 2 images are later and even longer after the beam is expended, it shows the chain reaction reaching the point that the planet explodes and we see vast quantities of planetary ejecta thrown clear, then more planetary ejecta leading to a eventual kablammo.

Umm - excuse me, but even a blind idiot can see that the explosion occurs in the second or third picture.

Your theory fails on many levels but mostly because we can clearly see that the laser hits the planet long before the planet explodes.

Planetary shield are canon, and even seen in the movies twice (hoth shied - use multiple generators, you cover the whole planet. Endor shield, covering a large moon AND a 900km battlestation).
Deal with it.

Not really i just spend to spend my time with mature adults.

As i said - sheltered. What, you have never seen people farting around, calling each other names for fun?

I will say that when i was young and a bit imature and spent time with those like that i agree swearing and casual insults were quite regular, but i grew out of it as i got older and i hope you do also.

Since when does fun have anything to do with immaturity?

You care enough to comment and make insults.

Look - if i WOULD care, i would avoid insults. What part of FUN do you not understand?

You mean like your pets comment regarding heisenberg compensators some how helping SW tech?....

Pets...hehehe. Nice ignorance, there. How can someone who contacted you before me and who i don't even know be my "pet"?
Besides, from all i gather he said "why do you object that it is so bad and unscientific, if Trek has Heisenberg compensators"? Of course, i doubt you understand even the slightes of quantum physics - since you do not even know the difference between temperature and heat.
Which has nothing to do with SWvsST in a direct fight and with the influence of repsective techs on each other.

The proof is there your choice to not believe it is the issue here not its accuracy or existance.

Say:
Why should i believe someone who has LIED before, just because he claims that there once was evidence for something?
I literary can NOT see the evidence, due to the link being DEAD.

Oh so its confirmed it was a red herring and a no limit fallacy.

Consession accepted.

Wait - someone corrected your spelling one post earlier - and you still can't get it right?
Either way - since it was relevant to the argument, it was no red herring. And a "no limits fallacy" is normally related to, well, numerical limits. Which...is something completely different.

The conflict was fought with conventional weapons just like the conventional weapon conflicts during the cold war. Your consession is valid and applies, and it is a rather large embarresment considering you screwed yourself doing it.

And when did the USSR ever attack the USA or one of it's allies on their own territory?
Oh, that's right - they DID NOT, despite them having a vastly superior conventional military.
Guess why - because that would have provoced nuclear retaliation.

So - did the Dominion threaten to directly attack the Federations territory?
Yes, absolutely. So - why did they not even mention their supposedly existing superweapons?

When both sides have the ability to totally destroy the other with WMD's they find other ways to fight rather than M.A.D, this is supported by actual historical fact as the cold war shows and it is undeniable.

No.
You do not fight directly at all, lest you provoce nuclear (or equivalent) escalation.
Everyone with at least a bit of experience in such things can tell you that. You evidently ignored my earlier links to "Nuclear Weapons 101", an essay from a professional nuclear targeteer.




Let's summarize your claims:
-You claimed that the asteroid collisions in TESB were too bright to be mere nickel-iron asteroids. Instead, you claim that they are made out of volatile materials.
You ignored that in these cases, we should see no large asteroids with impact craters, and the same asteroids going up of hit by bombs. I challenged you to calculate the energy release from a conventional impact, thereby prooving that it would no be enough. You did no such thing, and provided no other proof for your "theory".
You also ignored that that scene is consistent with AotC, thereby wholly disproving your claim that it was wrong.
Furthermore, the whole firepower calculations are canon - how they came to be does not matter the least, since it does not change that status.

-You claimed that Curtis Saxton was biased and unreliable. As i said, that does not change the canonicity of his works.
Furthermore, your proof consisted of the site of a prooven liar and bullshiter (such as the claim that SW-humans naturally have metal skeletons) and dead links. In other words: No original proof at all.

-You claimed that Star Trek has a large stockpile of anti-stellar and anti-planetar WMDs. You provided no evidence, merely extrapolating their existance from single appearances, where said weapons were subsequently lost.

-You claimed that if a nuclear power would loose a war on their own territory, they would not attempt to use their nuclear weapons. This flies in the face of 70 years of history and nearly all strategic planning.

-You claim that the sun that was forced to undergo supernova essentially aged backwards. You presented ZERO proof for this, and failed to provide evidence why it then did not happen earlier on it's own. Your theory necessiates an impossible star, and would mean that your weapon only works on specific (non-existant in the SW-galaxy) stars.
Furthermore, you claimed that it was a simple "modified photon torpedoe", ignoring that the whole weapon system had to be replaced.

-You claimed that Alderaan was destroyed by a chain reaction. To do so, you have to ignore G-canon planetary shields, but also misinterpreated images - claiming that a long period of time elapsed between them, instead of miliseconds. Further, even if it was a chain reaction that would not make the Death Star any weaker.

By my count, you made five seperate claims. You presented NO calculations for them, neither were any of them coherent or consistent with reality. You failed to adress most of my criticism, producing even more nonsensical claims when doing so.
Furthermore, you ignored canon at least once (planetary shields).

Three words: You had FUN Dwarf Fortress style
I had fun regular stlye, and i will continue to do so.

[Serafina]

It is plainly obvious that these people are shoulders deep up their own asses. Serafina, despite your logical and largely irrefutable argument, it seems these troglodytes are too far gone to wring any sort of satisfactory concession out of them. The best we can hope for at this point is for them to degenerate into childish tantrums and stop responding once all the big words and logic damage their underdeveloped brains.

Of course we all knew that is how any given debate with the fine throwbacks at SFJ would end. I'd actually be surprised if they conceded in any dignified way.

Well...he can't even spell it right .
Is it really that much of a surprise tough? Propably some kind of mental blockade - can wanking cause that?

[Batman]

When did the Federation EVER intentionally make a sun go supernova? The only mention of that I can recall is Soren's trilithium torpedo which was said to STOP all fusion reactions in a star. Shouldn't that make it collapse into a brown dwarf or something? Anyway, the thing was sort of lost with Soren in Generations?
Those 'modified torpedoes' if memory serves were supposed to REIGINITE the star, not make it go nova. IF I remember that episode correctly (which is not necessarily a given) the point was to prevent the planet from freezing due to lack of solar radiation. While the experiment RESULTED in the sun going nova it is decidedly dubitable that was the INTENT of it,as that would FRY the planet they're trying to save, which means it's really dubious to assume they could reproduce it. Especially as they say IN THAT VERY EPISODE (TNG episode#96, Half a Life) that Starfleet searched THREE YEARS for a star the process would work on even if it worked as predicted which pretty much means it DOES only work on rather unusual stars.

[Serafina]

SPLODING ASTEROIDS AT LOW SPEEDS!!!!. MY argument about the composition of the asteroids has no basis whatsoever.

Correct.

Do the math, child.
What, you can't do it? It's a simple calculation of kinetic energy...you should be able to do that in highschool!

Oh, and again - no explosion there.

Even better, since the blasters were obviously weaker, and still could pulverize asteroids with ease.

Well at least we agree on summat, 20 gigajoules it is although i overestimated as you seemed to need it.

Eh - still vastly better than Fed-ships.

They were to increase the temperature to the point it was when it was younger, they did increase the temperature to that point but the method they used failed to stabilise and the sun over heated.

Suns do NOT get a higher internal temperature when younger - it rises when they get OLDER.

For somebody who claims i should provide numbers on the "sploding asteroids!!" (although the burden of proof is actually yours as you are claiming to know the composition) you really should oh WATCH THIS EPISODE before you decide to make claims about it and what they used to achieve things as well as what is said.

Why should i? Can't you paraphrase the important parts? You know, give us some evidence?

A lie, shields are irelavant to the fact a DET weapon is totally disproved....and they are not G canon only theatre shields have that level of canon because of hoth.

Now, THIS is an example of a LIE.
Not only did you ignore the Endor-shield (which i specifically mentioned), but you also ignore that the presence of the shield explains all the effects that you attribute to your chain reaction.

The dark spot near the centre of the planet just refuted your entire argument.

High-speed ejecta do not look like that.
You obviously do not understand radiation-based luminiosity - or the simple fact that at that point, the shield was already breached.

The next 6 images shown in order refute your argument even more as the dark area of planetary ejecta grows as the reaction continues and more material is thrown out long after the beam has hit.

Two words: Time scale
You still argue that any of this takes an significant amount of time. Given that each frame only takes about ~1/25th of a second (depending on where you get the pictures), this is simply wrong.

Your silly pointless argument is refuted, shield or no shield and i say no shield not that it matters due to your theory being refuted either way.

Waah, waah, NO SHIELDZ - you still ignore both G-canon and many other canon sources.

Your consession is noted even if you refuse to accept the truth of it.

Still with the spelling, eh?

You gather wrong......AGAIN....dpo you ever argue from a point of actual personal experiance and knowledge?

Say, if you have such great knowledge - would you kindly explain Heisensbergs Uncertainity principle and why it is vital to quantum mechanics?

Your premise is faulty because you cannot accept you are wrong, YOUR OPINION of how they should have fought does not over ride canon. And part from that rather gigantic hole in your reasoning there is the fact that superweapons were mentioned easily identified from a simple scan done by the least scientific ship in starfleet.

Concession accepted.....YET AGAIN.

Present evidence that such weapons exist in the first place.
Oh, and my oppinion just happens to be compatible with military analysits - you know, actual experts?
Oh, and speaking of expertise - you finally got the spelling right!

The fact the asteroids were nickel-iron is part of your theory and as such it is up to you to prove the inconsistancies.

Actually, no - they look like nickel-iron asteroids, so that's the null hyptothesis you have to refute.
Furthermore - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and "volatile asteroids" certainly are an extraordinary claim.

Proof in your next post regarding asteroid composition including figures explaining the SPLOSIONZ!!! or a consession are both acceptable.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Burden of proof and parsimony seem to be unknown concepts to you.
Go directly back to school. Do not draw 200€.

Several examples of such bias was documented and given, one was deleted but fortunatly was cached.

Which, again, does not change their canonicity, even if true.

CANON proof they were lost or il accept a consession, and CANON proof not your worthless opinion on trek politics.

You can't proof a negative, junior. Elementary logic.
You have to show that something exists. Do it.

A lie i made no such claim although losing a small amount of terratory would not mean instant M.A.D in my opinion...but like your my opinion is unimportant to trek canon.

Au contrare, my dear Dr. WatsonShithead.
Your oppinion is just as irrelevant as mine. However, mine is backed up by actual evidence on superweapon-policies - yours is evidently not. You did nothing but cry "nooo, that's not true" - that's hardly enough to refute evidence.

It is directly quoted in the episode and figures are given while the process is underway....your argument is a DISGRACE considering you have not even watched the episode you are trying to argue about...but then look at your other argument and it does fit with a pattern of personal opinion and bias over riding canon, rationality, science and logic when ever it serves you.

Quote it then.
If it is true that it only works against suns that age backwards - then it won't work in the SW-galaxy.

The fact that it was a modified torpedo is a direct canon comment, i made no claims on the extent of the modification....i suggest you watch the episode before you make a even bigger fool of your self.

Yeah, that's what i would like to call obfuscation.

I did not think the maturity level of your posts could drop any lower but here we have FINALLY proving me wrong on something.......do not expect any congratulations considering the circumstances.

Hmm - could that be an ad hominem? Gee, it just might be.
To elaborate - trying to refute arguments based on the person (or attributes of that person) constitutes no valid argument. My maturity is, therefore, completely irrelevant to any of my points.


So, let's see:
I challenged you to provide proof . To quote myself:

-You claimed that the asteroid collisions in TESB were too bright to be mere nickel-iron asteroids. Instead, you claim that they are made out of volatile materials.
You ignored that in these cases, we should see no large asteroids with impact craters, and the same asteroids going up of hit by bombs. I challenged you to calculate the energy release from a conventional impact, thereby prooving that it would no be enough. You did no such thing, and provided no other proof for your "theory".
You also ignored that that scene is consistent with AotC, thereby wholly disproving your claim that it was wrong.
Furthermore, the whole firepower calculations are canon - how they came to be does not matter the least, since it does not change that status.

-You claimed that Curtis Saxton was biased and unreliable. As i said, that does not change the canonicity of his works.
Furthermore, your proof consisted of the site of a prooven liar and bullshiter (such as the claim that SW-humans naturally have metal skeletons) and dead links. In other words: No original proof at all.

-You claimed that Star Trek has a large stockpile of anti-stellar and anti-planetar WMDs. You provided no evidence, merely extrapolating their existance from single appearances, where said weapons were subsequently lost.

-You claimed that if a nuclear power would loose a war on their own territory, they would not attempt to use their nuclear weapons. This flies in the face of 70 years of history and nearly all strategic planning.

-You claim that the sun that was forced to undergo supernova essentially aged backwards. You presented ZERO proof for this, and failed to provide evidence why it then did not happen earlier on it's own. Your theory necessiates an impossible star, and would mean that your weapon only works on specific (non-existant in the SW-galaxy) stars.
Furthermore, you claimed that it was a simple "modified photon torpedoe", ignoring that the whole weapon system had to be replaced.

-You claimed that Alderaan was destroyed by a chain reaction. To do so, you have to ignore G-canon planetary shields, but also misinterpreated images - claiming that a long period of time elapsed between them, instead of miliseconds. Further, even if it was a chain reaction that would not make the Death Star any weaker.

You provided neither proof nor rebuttal to any of those, despite this being trivial, should such proof exist.
All you need is
-a pyhsics textbook and a calculator.
-an actual quote from Curtis Saxton
-A quote speaking of WMD-stockpiles in Trek - most likely to be found in DS9.
-A white paper showing that if only parts of the USA were invaded (say, Hawaii or Alaska) that no nuclear retaliation would be considered, or that any nation would consider such an invasion in the first place.
-A quote providing us with proof for backwards-ageing suns. If such a quote exists, it would necessiate further proof for such suns in the SW-galaxy - lacking that, your weapon simply only works on rare stars which do not exist there.

All this could be done via Google. With a bit of skill, you could easily find the calculation already made.
Since you provided all of these claims originally, it is your job to put up evidence. Refuting a non-backed claim, on the other hand, takes absolutely no evidence - again, basic logic.

Oh, and i followed my own advice: Proof that impacts release light: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dryvDlB1hWA
SCIENCE - suck it.

[Serafina]

LOLOLOL....so pitiful from somebody who raves and "science" and "logic" guiding her theories.

You just made my point about how you ignore it when it serves your intentions.....so thanks for the proof yet agai and concession accepted once again.


Il tell you what you go away and come back showing that at least ONE the impacts we see in the links i gave you had a inpact velocity of 10.3km per second (37,000 km/h or 23,000 mph) or even close to it.

Yet again you disgrace the very things you claim to believe in, science and logic.

This clearly refuted your claim that kinetic impacts do not look the way we see it in TESB.
Granted, these asteroids were propably slower - but they also had greater mass - therefore, you have to proove that they did not have sufficient KE to look like they did.

The burden of proof is yours.

No, it's not.
Sigh...i can't believe i have to explain that. Or rather, i can - but it's sad nonetheless.

You see, burden of proof means that you have to provide PROOF for a CLAIM. You made the claim "these asteroids are made out of explosive material". That claim requires proof. You have none.

Wrong again the drilling scene shows a NDF effect from the phasers that would take a DET weapon a minimum of 10-19 gigaTONS per second.

Only if we take your obviously wrong numbers, which have already been refuted.

Besides - 20 gigatons is still an order of magnitude less than a single gun on an Acclamator class troop transport, and about two OOMs less than one on a Star Destroyer.

Why should you?....so you think your arguments regarding canon material are valid without having personal knowledge of what it is you are discussing?.

Actually that is consistant with your idea of a argument tactic...

Again - burden of proof.

Nice of you to admit it and with a fine example put underneath.

The shield from endor covered a small area around the generator as it was projected around the DS.

It covered the whole moon. This is made clear in the G-canon novelization, and also in the movie where they have to steal codes so that an opening in the shield is made. If the shield did not cover the whole moon, they could have slipped in on the other side of the moon, like the Imperials did on Hoth.

A glow from a shield would not progressivly darken in places as the beam hits and most certainly not after the beam had finished, the only explanation is that the beam had hhit the surface and the darker areas that grew were from planetary material.

Did you miss the part where i explain the obvious:
At the part were your "dark places" are visible, the shield is already broken.

Now the beam being blocked by your imaginary shield or not those facts disprove the DET theory as a DET beam would not continue to dump or create energy into a target after its had finished.

By my canonic shield, you mean. Stop ignoring canon.

The planet is still intact and the efect continues to increase seconds after the beam hits it, this is direct oposition to a DET theory...suck it up and move on.

Seconds? Did you even watch the movie?
The whole explosion did not even LAST a second. Seriously - can't you think of a better lie?

Conceed or not but your theory is dead because of the very science you claim to use but actually abuse.

Aah, yes, projection

That is a burden you required of your pet because it is his theory.

In other words, you do not know even the most basic principles of quantum mechanics.
Which is fine - but that also means that you have no idea how ridiculous a "heisenberg compensator" is.
Which is fine - but again, your lack of education is telling.

The existance of the technology within the trek verse and the federation is canon......concession accepted yet again.

The existance of a specific technology does not result in it's widespread application.
We have motors that are orders of magnitudes more fuel efficient than current ones. They are not used due to production limitations.
We have fusion reactors, but they are not used due to engineering problems.
We once built a 50 megaton atomic bomb - yet most nukes are in the kiloton range.

Your firepower calculations along with all the other overly inflated junk is based in this highly dubious bit of material and the composition of the asteroids as such the burden of proof for you is undeniable and VAST because of the ghouse of cards you piled on top of it.

They are not my calculations, and i never claimed so.
Furthermore, other materials than nickel-iron would require more energy - assuming that they are nickel-iron is quite generous.

Confirm the composition and explain the explosions and flashes from such low speed impacts or conceed.

The explosions are simply results of kinetic impacts. I already showed that these can result in flashes of light.
The composition is derived from the looks of the asteroids.

Furthermore, the null hypothesis is always the simplest natural explanation.
Which in this case consists of the observed phenomena of impacts on nickel-iron asteroids, which are known to exist abundantly.
Your hypothesis that these asteroids are made out of explosive material has no basis in anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gzf0kR5AvE
Here is a video of the whole chase szene. The asteroid fields appears at ~ 2 minutes, the collisions at ~2:20.
You can see that these asteroids had significant speed, and that there was a large, still glowing asteroid hurled away after the collision.
This is consistend with the KE-theory (since the energy was too low for pulverization, no high speed is required).
It is inconsistend with the "explosive asteroids" hypothesis, since a explosion would not leave larger solid remnants.

Concession accepted, oh and G and now T canon refute his rubbish.

It doesn't. You have shown no evidence that it does. Baseless accusations do not constitute valid arguments.

They have full canon status in the trek verse...consession accepted yet again.

They have shown a single weapon. They have NOT shown that a large stockpile, or even single copies of that technology (not even blueprints) exist.

That is what i said learn to read.

Fortunatly my opinion on ST WMD' tech is supported by canon yours is not no matter how you try to spin your political opinion.

I never refuted the existance of a single trilithium torpedoe in ST:6. However, i question your claim that they have
-the knowledge to build it again
-the facilities to do so on a large scale
-that sufficient stockpiles of trilithium exist
-that they have indeed built such weapons
-that it works on every sun
You have presented no proof for any of those. Unless you do so, they are baseless claims.

1. The burden is yours.
2. We have those you ingnored them.
3. Not required, the tech exists as canon.
4. Irellavant as the tech under debate exsists and is canon, ST is under no obligation to follow the dictates of what fron trek perspective would be a outdated and rather paranoid and foolish military policy (at the time), and doing so does not and never will refute canon material.
5. The material is available during the episode if you wish to continue to discuss it i suggest you at least watch it.

1: Already refuted
2: Already adressed in an earlier post
3: Already adressed in this post
4: Strategic principles only change when the technology or strategic situation change. When both are unchanged, the strategic situations remains the same. Claiming that thousands of military analysits over the last 70 years are "foolish" is simply arrrogant.
5: The burden of proof is yours. You can not demand that i do your homework for you. However, Memory Alpha contains no such mention of physics-violating properties of Veridian Prime or other stars.

The U.S.S. Enterprise takes aboard Dr. Timicin of Kaelon II. Timicin has been brought aboard to conduct an experiment which he hopes will save his threatened home planet. The lives of the people of Kaelon II are in jeopardy as the sun their planet orbits is in a state of near-collapse. The Federation has enlisted the Enterprise to take Timicin to a sun in a similar state of decay to conduct experiments which may yield a method for saving the Kaelon system from destruction, a peril which will certainly occur if its sun fails.

Upon arrival at their destination, the crew assists Timicin in modifying a photon torpedo to be fired into the proxy sun in the hopes that it will repair the damaged star and prove that the technique can be safely applied to the Kaelon sun. The torpedo is fired and, although the experiment seems initially to rectify the damage, the effect is short-lived and the sun explodes.

Blimey - look at that. We were talking about totally different things.
So you readily admit that that technology only worked on already unstable stars. Hence, it will not work on stable stars. You have been challenged to show that it would work on stable suns, you have failed to do so. Now that you've finally admitted that it, in fact, depends on an already unstable sun, it is clear that it is not viable as a weapon.
Concession - accepted, citizen. Please report for termination. Friend computer wishes you a happy day.



Now, an elaboration, specifically extrated from the point-by-point refutation to increase consistency of the former.
Why should you provide proof for your explosive asteroids hypothesis?

Well, for starters - in order to make the claim that they do not have enough kinetic energy, you presumably have done them. If you have not, then your claim is simply founded on nothing.
Now, what would such calculations look like?
-estaminate speed and size of the asteroids. Easily done by a frame-to-frame examination.
-calculate kinetic energy from the impact. Basic phyiscs, no higher math required.
-look at what that energy would do. Basic physics, no higher math required.
-check if it is consistent with the visuals

Now, what would happen if you found that they are NOT consistent - that there is a large difference between what we see and what should happen from a KE-impact?
Why, you would have a valid, reliable, testable argument that ALL calculations based on that scene are WRONG.
That would be a BIG strike for the Star Trek side of the debate. It would not topple every calculation, but it would be an excellent starting point. You would be famous for prooving that several people made a huge mistake - and with further work, you could potentially reduce the power of SW-guns by orders of magnitude.

It should clearly be in your best interest to perform such calculations. That you do not do so means that you are either incapable of doing so (which would make your original claim a lie) or that you already know that the results would not be consistent with your hypothesis (again, you would be a liar).
I gave you exact instructions what you have to do to earn a lot of points. Do it, or conceed your claim.

[Serafina]

Ladies and gentlemen - I give you: A Strawman!

Yup, it has been proven without a doubt that the Federation doesn't have these superweapons because they never used them.

Just like it has been proven without a doubt that nobody today has Nuclear weapons, because no one has threatened to bomb Korea into submission even though it keeps threatening everyone and keeps defying the US and the world policies...
No one has Nuclear weapons, since no one fears Iran because of its Nuclear program...
Oh wait...

Which is not what i said. Like...yeah.

To elaborate: I said that IF they had such superweapons, we should see effects like we do with our superweaons (nukes).
So, what do we see? Quite simple - a country with superweapons does not get attacked on it's own territory.
No one would dare to invade the USA, China, Russia, Great Britain, France, Israel, India or Pakistan.
In the case of the latter, and the famous Cold War, we saw how the mere presence of superweapons stopped open warfare. Instead, we only see proxy warfare/small border conflicts.
That's why nukes are so popular - not because you can use them as an offensive threat (that would get you destroyed), but because they make you unbeatable (as far as invading you goes). If someone beats you - he get's nuked. Thus, no one is willing to beat you.

We do NOT see that in Star Trek. The Dominion openly attacks the Federation on it's own territory. What's more, the Federation was loosing.
That is analogous to Russia attacking Europe, or the USA. They did not do it since if they did it, their country would be destroyed by nukes. That they could, in turn, do the same to their enemies would not have stopped this.
If the Federation had superweapons, they would not have been attacked by the Dominion like they did - because no sane goverment would risk that. The Dominion would have risked it's existance - if not of all of it's population, then off it's existance as a state/goverment.

Proxy Warfare, border struggles etc. could have still happend - but nothing on the scale we saw.
The same goes for every other war between major powers - and yet, no such implication get's mentioned, ever.

I seem to recall that when only the US had Nuclear weapons (like the Empire and the DS), they did indeed use them (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to end a war and force surrender of an enemy.
I also seem to recall that today, no one actually used Nuclear weapons against enemies in a war because they would fear retaliation, and MAD, and that even countries that have Nuclear capabilities continue building up standard forces because they know no one will use their Nukes...
The treat of MAD is pretty strong, and respected even by the mighiest countries, just like the Federation respects its enemies WMD capabilities, and vice versa...

Precisely.
However, the exact same retaliation would happen if you INVADED them. Which is why Russia did not invade Europe and India and Pakistan no longer try to invade one another. Their enemy would nuke them - a risk which is just not worth it.

It's really quite simple: Nukes are the ultimate stopsign. No sane goverment would ignore it.
The Dominion saw no such stopsign - otherwise, no Dominon War.


You can try to explain why they did it anyway:
-They were suicidal. Quite unlikely, the founders do not seem to be retarded.
-The Federation has a reputation for being cowards, hence the Dominon did not think they would use their superweapons (not using them would be stupid).
-The superweapons can not be deployed effectively. Perhaps they are easily interceptable, thus not being analogous to nukes (note that bombers, while interceptable, were still too great a risk).
-The superweapons simply do not exist.

Your choice. There is no viable alternate explanation. The mere way the Dominion War went is not compatible to nuke-analoges. They either do not have them, or do not realize the political implications.

[Srelex]

And even if the Feds did have these weapons, what good would they do against an enemy with far superior tactical mobility and individual firepower, and whose main assets cannot be touched by them for that matter? I mean, even if we assume that, say, North Korea or Iran has a nuclear arsenal, it still wouldn't be enough to defeat the US in a time of war, because their missiles can't reach the US and are too few in number. Of course, they could pull off a nuclear kamikaze by dropping it on enemy forces in their own land, but that's hardly a victory. Basically, especially in a galactic war, simply possessing superweapons doesn't guarantee victory.

[Serafina]

I made no such overly dimplistic claim, my ssertion was for you to proove that roids at the speed we see in tesb would behave the way we see....with SPLOSIONS!!!.

YOU have yet to do so....i suggest you do or you conceed.

Stop shifting the burden of proof. I explained to you in excruciating detail why it is on you.

YOU claim that roids composed of nickel-iron would EXPLODE the way we see in tesb, you entire house of cards is built on the fact those roids are composed of nickel-iron. So show a roid moving at the speeds we see in tesb would explode the way they do or conceed.

There is no explosion. Do you even know what an explosion is? Define it, then!

You cannot refute canon materil with personal opinion.....how many times do you need to be told?.

"Personal opinion".
Your bad luck that the pictures we see happen to be canon material, too.
Oh, and by the way - the core of a planet is SOLID, not molten. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be near the molten core of a planet, since it does not exist (unless your are referring to the outer core). There is no way that was close to the center of a planet. If it was, you would have
-no sunlight. Try standing in a deep well - you will only see the sun if you happen to be at the equator and it's noon.
-toased star fleet personell. A molten core is, by definition, HOT. The first part where you get any plasticity is the Asthenosphere - 500°C. Try standing in an oven - which is not even close.

The shield (shown in red in the G canon movie that over rides any other material and especially personal opinions) covered the DS and a small section of the planet, THAT is the part of the shield they needed to get through.

The novel IS G-Canon.
Besides - don't you understand the purpose of a diagram? That representation did not have to show the whole shield. It therefore does NOT refute the fact that Endor was wholly enclosed by it's shield.

Bull, even if their was a shield it does not work like a bunch of planes of glass where you break one and the rest are intact and even if it did the material was being spewed out all over the planet long after the beam had hit and well before it exploded.

The DET theory is refuted.

I never claimed that.
Rather, the shield was overwhelmed. Plain and simple. The dark spots are easily explainable by different crust thickness - which can range from 5km (ocean floor) to 50km (continents). These would, logically, expose the underlying core differntly.

Theatre shields are G canon no planetary shield is mentioned in any of the movies.....but shield or no shield the DET theory is refuted.

The Endor-shield is clearly a complete shield in the G-canon novelisation. The G-canon movie also implies a complete shield - otherwise, no opening in the shield would have been necessary.
Planetary shields are also mentioned quite often in other canonic sources. They are also mentioned in the RotS canon novelisation.

Your chain reaction hypothesis relies solely on the initial blue glow, and the fact that this glow stops the explosion from occuring for ~1/10th of a second. The shield readily explains both.

Oh right you mean the first explosion caused by the chain raction not the second?, now i understand your issue you think that the first explosion was the one i was refering too?.

No no i was refering to the second explosion, you know the one that also disproves a DET effect due to the fact that a DET weapon would not cause 2 explosions, the one that was well after the beam had hit?

Did you just click stop after the first part of the chain reaction and think it was over?, you really should watch the entire scene as their is a later explosion that you obviously missed.

You are clearly incapable of grasping the thermal differences between partially-molten rock and solid, 6000°C iron. Another piece of proof that you know nothing about planets.
Thermodynamics readily explains the secondary explosion.

1. Actually i do.

Proove it. Explain why the Heisenberg uncertainity principle is a core foundation of quantum mechanics.

2. A "heisenberg compensator" is canon your OPINION of it again is not...dear god how many canon issues do you just decide to ignore because of your personal bias, you know that most of your argument do that right?....YOU CANONT DISREGARD CANON MATERIAL BECAUSE YOU DO NOT LIKE IT.

I never refuted it's existance is Star Trek. Stop lieing

Are we clear?, i know it means you will have very little to post if you follow the above comment but then lets ace it your arrogance will never accept that you are wrong and cannot over ride canon but i can at least say i told you.

Again - i NEVER said that such a device does not exist in Star Trek. You are either incapable of grasping the english language, or you are a liar.

You mean like the worlds nuclear arsenal?, that is true and just like trek we have never used our nukes in a widespread application even during times of conflict.

Still at last you admit the tech exists so consession accepted.

This is no concession. The mere existance of a single piece of technology does NOT result in it's widespread application. I provided numerous examples - you ignored all of them.

Consession accepted.

No concession given. While i checked the calculations to the extent of my knowledge (i am hardly an engineer), i would never be so arrogant to claim that they are my work.
The fact that you try to spin that into a concession indicates that you do not understand why you do not claim another persons work to be your own.

the first roids are seen at 1:53 and the falcon is moving while either they are not or they are moving in total uniformity in the oposite direction of the falcon lol.

Obviously, i was referring to the colliding asteroids. Since you use them as your main argument, they are the relevant ones. I honestly do not understand how one can fail to grasp that simple fact.

The first collision is at 2:04 and is absurdly slow.

Barely visible, hence not readily analyzable. Or would you rather analyze something barely visible instead of an collision that is plain in our field of view? Quite telling, i think.
Either way, those are just nitpicks and do nothing to refute anything i said.

The next is at 2:25 and is again pitifully slow but it does give a large explosion and the small roid and large roid are both destroyed.

You still do not undersand what an explosion is.
Furthermore, you can clearly see how a large piece of rock is hauled towards the upper middle of our point of view, and how various pieces of debris fly off into other directions.

2:33 is a classic, 2 small roids at again slow speeds collide, one is destroyed and one partly survives ACTUALLY CATCHES FIRE AND CONTINUES TO BURN as it passes below the falcon, we see another BURNING ASTEROID at 2:36 passing down the side pf the falcon.

This is not a burning asteroid. Do you even know how something that burns looks like?
Heck, even if it IS burning: You know what rust is? Oxydized iron. Now, what does oxygen do if released and exposed to energy and fuel?

But even if it WAS burning: Explosive materials do NOT BURN! They EXPLODE!
If two pieces of Nitrogylcerin collide, do you think they would throw out burning pieces?

Very nice of you to post that vid and make my pint and remind me of the burning asteroids as well as the SPLODINGASTEROIDS.........Consession accepted.

No explosions are observerd. Again, explain what an explosion actually IS.
The asteroid might be burning - but the sheer fact that a solid piece survived PROOVES that they are NOT made out of explosive material.

Furthermore - even if this WOULD constitue proof that the asteroids are not made out of nickel-iron - then you still lack proof that these asteroids are made out of volatile materials. Such materials can not behave in the observed ways, while nickel-iron can - at worst, it requires higher speeds.

I am pretty sure i say no such thing.

God forbid that you might actually admit the obvious.
They SAID that they used it SPECIFICALLY on an old, unstable star.

That is a leap that requires your first comment is accurate and as it is not as i nor anybody else limits the effect to dying stars, try again.

Stopping the fusion in a normal star (like our sun) will not result in a supernova. This is, quite simply, because it does not contain the necessary inner pressure and heat.
There is also no way to "destabilize it" so that it goes nova - not without pumping about as much energy into it as a nova actually produces - which is about 10^44 joules. This is clearly far out of reach of even the most wankiest incarnation of the federation. Indeed, it would be exceedingly difficult for the Empire to produce such an amount of energy (the Death Star being about 2.4E32 J).

Get on with it then, good luck and il enjoy you FLAMINGASTERROIDS explanation as well....or il accept your concession now.

So you admit that you are not willing to take a chance to be a great hero of Trekkies, disproving all calculations based on the TESB asteroid scenes?
Hmm...may i ask why not?

Gee, at least post a frame-by-frame analysis that shows that those speeds are actually slow - given those angles, they can easily be quite fast (they certainly are not slow). This requires no math beyond simple addition and muliplication, plus a DVD of the movie.
At least prove that the asteroids are slow - given that this is your basic premise.



Again, you provide NO NUMBERS - despite doing so (correctly) could earn you great respect and possibly fame.
You continue to ignore canonic planetary shields, as well as a majority of my points.
You are futhermore demonstrating that you have knowledge of thermodynamics, planets, supernovas (and stars), explosions and simple chemistry. Oh, and quantum mechanics, but that's hardly relevant.
You also provide no proof that a fast stockpile of superweapons is available to the Federation (or at all). You are merely extrapolating it from a single device - by that logic, all cars are Ferraries and we fly around in Space Shuttles.

[Serafina]

I just saw that i forgott a tiny snippet. It's not relevant (since i never disputed this), but i like to be honest.

"The system's star heats up according to plan. However, the heating process fails to stop, and the star explodes".

Which prooves what exactly?

Oh, right - nothing. Unless you are willing to employ an (actual) no-limits fallacy and conclude that this device will heat up any star (regardless of stated requirements) in perpetuity - something for which there is absolutely NO PROOF.



Edit: Furthermore, he made another small post.

Calculations are not required by me it is you who require them.

Au contraire. You make the claim that their speed is not sufficient.
Since what we see is consistent with a sufficient-speed asteroid collision, you have to PROOVE IT!
Numbers are the best way to do it.

However you can save time by forstly explaining how these 2 very small and very slow roids explode when they collide destroying one and causing the other one to catch fire and continue burning....

I did that in my previous post. Of course, small size is actually BENEFICIAL - don't you know basic phyiscs?

Good luck and happy calculating.

Tell me why you refuse to do so stubbornly? Doing so would give your argument crediblity, mine does not require such since it is simply the null hypothesis for the visual evidence.

[Serafina]

Then again, i had to ask myself: Heck, why not?
So, here i am, doing pittyfull calculations. You are free to refute them, i do not claim that they are that accurate. And i might have made an error - however, if i did you have to show where i made it. Just saying that they are wrong without doing your own work doesn't count.

Here is how i did it:
I assumed that the asteroids are a mere shiplenght away from the falcon (in other words, really, really close). They hence had to travel a distance of 86 meters (a pittyfully small distance, most likely much higher). They take no more than a second to do so. I gave them the small diameter of 1 meter.
I had to made all these assumptions, since there are no points of reference in the video, and i simply lack the equipment (such as a DVD) to make a frame-by-frame analysis. However, i was extremely conversative with my assumptions.
Oh, and i also assumed that they are actually made of mere silicon - less than a third of the density of nickel-iron. Just to make sure that you don't complain about it, kid.

Either way:
The asteroids travels a distance of 86 meters in 1 second. That gives us a speed of....43 meters per seconds (since every asteroids moves only over half the screen).
A sphere with a diameter of 1 meter has an radius of...half a meter.
4/3*pi*r³=0,523598 m³ about 0.525m³
At a density of 2330 kg/m³ (for silicone), that gives us a mass of:
2330 kg/m³*0.525m³=1220 kg or about 1.2 tons

An object with a speed of 43 meters per second and a mass of 1.2 tons has a kinetic energy of:
0,5*1220 kg*43m/s²=1127890 joules or 1.12 megajoules

Now, how much of that energy is converted into heat?
Well, since there is nothing else to convert it into (the gravitational binding energy of such a small object is negligible, there is no medium for soundwaves) - about all of it?
What do you think - sufficient to produce a short flash of light? If you want to deny it - how about you doing the next part and showing that it is NOT enough energy? Furthermore, how about establishing an amount of energy that would be required for the observed phenomenon?


A conventional lightbulb (100 watts) uses 100 joules per second. Therefore, we could power the equivalent of 11.278 100-watt lightbulbs. Those only convert about 3% of their energy into light - the rest is in non-visible spectrums. That is likely also the case here - giving us about 339 conventional lightbulbs of visible light.


I was quite generous with that calculation. These asteroids had most likely way more distance to the Falcon (given it's speed) - which would increase their speed AND mass (since they would appear smaller and would therefore scale to a larger size, and would have to cross a larger distance in the same amount of time). I am also pretty sure that it takes less than a second - and those are, according to astrophysicics, nickel-iron asteroids - trippling their mass and KE.
Numerous other things are also taken at low values - there is far more room for them to be bigger than smaller.
All in all, this is likely an extremely LOW-fetched calculation.

Edit:
By the way, the whole thing took less than half an hour - about half of that was spent digging out my old physics textbook and watching the video over and over again for estaminations.