Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 
Want to support this site? Click

Quote of the Week: "History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives." - Abba Eban, Israeli statesman (1915-2002)


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 472 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 19  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-20 08:49am
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Posts: 2424
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Can you blow up a planet with a 'slow' input of energy though? I would expect that you would tend to waste more energy that way due to not sublimating things and instead possibly just melting them and then transitioning them into a gaseous state. Obviously if you put in the energy slowly enough you'd just get a purely molten planet that slowly vents gas into the atmosphere.



School requires more work than I remember it taking...

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-20 09:09am
Offline
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 2011-01-16 09:48pm
Posts: 1070
Given that the whole process took around a minute IIRC, the energy input couldn't be too slow.

How the fuck an input of direct energy is meant to induce a metastable state upon a whole planet would be an interesting theory to hear.

It's somewhat of a logical leap to suggest "boiling retardation can occur in an undisturbed liquid, therefore a planet could be brought to a metastable state before being destroyed."



"Darth Tedious just showed why women can go anywhere they want because they are, in effect, mobile kitchens." - RazorOutlaw

"That could never happen because super computers." - Stark

"Don't go there girl! Talk to the VTOL cause the glass canopy ain't listening!" - Shroomy

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-20 09:40am
Offline
Padawan Learner
User avatar

Joined: 2008-10-18 08:37am
Posts: 353
Location: HIMS Korthox III, Assertor Class Star Dreadnought
Mercenario wrote:
Well, I gave you an example for one. So I guess I know what they are.


No, you don't, a nuke functions internally by a chain reaction to create the blast used to destroy, It does not start a chain reaction after going off causing random particles in the surrounding buildings to undergo fission/fusion.

The 8472 gun DOES start a chain reaction, as do phasers, into the target. You are confusing Chain Reaction causes and Chain Reaction effects. If for example the weapon's energy came from a chain reaction within some sort of pre-fire chamber and then fired said energy out of the barrel (Like a Yamato Cannon from Starcraft) then your comparison would be apt, but since the weapons we are talking about start the chain reaction when the energy hits the target the comparison is indeed poor.



As an aside is anyone even going to bother responding to his Darkstar link?

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-20 10:12am
Offline
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 2011-01-16 09:48pm
Posts: 1070
I think a large part of the reasoning behind it being a chain reaction stems from the implications that would arise if were DET- if S8472 had that kind of firepower, they should have been killpwning the Borg on a much grander scale than they were. It's an indirect line of reasoning, but makes sense.



"Darth Tedious just showed why women can go anywhere they want because they are, in effect, mobile kitchens." - RazorOutlaw

"That could never happen because super computers." - Stark

"Don't go there girl! Talk to the VTOL cause the glass canopy ain't listening!" - Shroomy

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-20 10:30am
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2010-09-02 09:08am
Posts: 2393
Location: Little Korea in Big Germany
8472 (anyone opposed to using the name STO gave them, "Undine"?) was killpwning the Borg on a grand scale. When Seven led the Voyager into fluid space the Borg were on the verge of total defeat. What exactly should have topped that? I mean Borg space is honking big and the Undine ships weren't shown to be any faster than the "standard".



People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)

Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula

O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-20 11:06am
Offline
Redshirt

Joined: 2011-06-14 07:05am
Posts: 40
@Darth Tedious
Quote:
How the fuck an input of direct energy is meant to induce a metastable state upon a whole planet would be an interesting theory to hear.

You know that metastabil states are more the rule than the exeption?
They are only ignored in most cases, because they are not observed. They just come back and bite you in theoretical chemestry.



@Azron_Stoma
You make the big mistake believing chain reactions are somehow slow. They are not. Exotherm chain reaktion in high temperatures are damn fast. The nuklear one is the only(real, today used) one which is close to the regions we are talking.
(Here you got your energy input in form of a TNT explosion)
But even if you get lower scale boiling a liquid with a exotherm chain reaction is mostly much faster than heating it up.
This is a reason I do not like this kind of explaination for anything. It is just to damn powerfull. (Because it could do that to almost every material)

In short: A guy with a "chainreactionpistol" could shoot at the death star and it would blow up in a matter of seconds or even less.
Thats kind of the supervillian weapon. Because there is simply nothing you could do about it. Thats the kind of death ray you know from some comic books. Kills everything one shot. No questions asked and no refound.

@Destructionator XIII
This is mostly due to the fact, that the state of a substance is not only depending on the current situation but also on the situation it went through before. Mostly this has neglectable.
But there are instances where those factors might even get the upper hand.
Neural networks, weather for example.
(Now it is getting hard for me because of the translation. If you have systems, which are only depends on the input (and they change their state without delay) you sometimes call them "perfect" because there is no error caused by their "history".)
They normaly only exist in theory.

@Darth Tedious
Quote:
I would have a fucking great laugh at your attempt to explain how the Death Star is chain reaction based. Explain away.

Why should I try? You have already proofen, that you would have no idea what I would talk about. So you would just jump to conclusion based on your delusion. There is no sence in theorizing anything if there is no one interested in it who has at least a grasp on the physics behind it. (And it does not give me anything if there is not anyone who has a (much) better grasp on this matter than I do, so...)

@Norade
Space is quite a good isolator, even considering how cold it is out there. Thats why you got a lot of radiators at all the space stations. Just getting rid of the heat is quite an issue. So the enery loss should not be that severe I guess.

How it exactly works I could only guess. I would say it depends on the size of the planet and the compostion.
For a small astoroid you would be right. How it is for a Planet is quite hard to say, because you would need to factor in Gravity.
But yes, if you do it extreamly slow you should have a molten planet at some point. But due to the fact, that the gravity is holding the "liquid" together you might already reached the temperature you would need for "vapor".
So if it overcomes the gravity (thus reducing its impact) the "parts of the molten planet" would meet the environement of space, having 0 bar of pressure and expanding in volume extreamly fast. (Oh well, and here was the metastabil state already)
If nothing like this happens it would just cool off.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-20 11:25am
Offline
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 2011-01-16 09:48pm
Posts: 1070
Wow, really? Actually using the "my argument is too intelligent for everyone here" line?

:lol: :lol: :wanker: :wtf:

Seriously though, the funniest thing about the Death Star being chain reaction based would be that it would put it into the realm of "comic book death ray" superweapons you're saying you don't think S8472 could possibly have.

Before you claim hyperintellect, you might want to learn to string together an internally consistant argument. Otherwise you just come across as a trolling fucktard.



"Darth Tedious just showed why women can go anywhere they want because they are, in effect, mobile kitchens." - RazorOutlaw

"That could never happen because super computers." - Stark

"Don't go there girl! Talk to the VTOL cause the glass canopy ain't listening!" - Shroomy

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-20 01:04pm
Offline
Redshirt

Joined: 2011-06-14 07:05am
Posts: 40
@Darth Tedious
I said I could arguee for that point, that does not mean I think it should be that way.
There is a huge differance.

Quote:
Wow, really? Actually using the "my argument is too intelligent for everyone here" line?

No, actually not. It is just nobody intelligent interested, as it seems.
(Thats quite an give away: Why should somebody who knows his way around and really wants to discuss possible physics behind it be interested in me arguing for solution which is seen as suboptimal from anyone from the start?)

You are the only one asking, and sorry since you seem to only interested in a flame war, which was made quite obvious from your first response to me, I see really no reason to proceed.

I mean one argument ad homin and backed up with a line clearly indicating you did not read nor understood what I was writing?
Thats quite the definition of flame.

Quote:
Before you claim hyperintellect

Beeing able to read is not hyperintellect. But honestly I think it is more a thing of attitude than intellect in your case. You do not even try to understand what someone else is writing. You just assume everyone around you is a moron and would contradict themselve in the most obvious way possible.
So you go with the interpretation of the text which would make your counterpart look the most stupid instead of the one beeing the most probable or reasonable assumption (or just reading the text).



@In General
I was simply asking the question, why there is such a fixation around some numbers, which say crap?
Neither the amount of energy needed to negate gravitie nor some calculation about an astroid says anything important. (Yes, they are fun to do if would not just consist in the use of a single forular, which makes them quite "cheap".

There is a lot you could really talk about:
Approch of AI in StarTrek/StarWars.
Form of government.
Approach and value of technology in the story.
Storyarc, systematic structures of the stories written.
Etc. etc. Yes, this would not be discussion of "who has the longer dong", but some which could really have a result and the potential to be interesting beyond flaming. So my question is, if this is just not wanted or do people feel unable of doing so for whatever reason there might be?

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-20 01:42pm
Offline
Padawan Learner
User avatar

Joined: 2011-03-18 07:46pm
Posts: 186
Location: Unknown World in the Galactic South
Mercenario wrote:
Quick google search and allready found someone who crunched the numbers. So you do not just get the video this time.
http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWrise.html
I do not want to get into detail about that one or any other, because it is quite beside the point I am trying to make.
You may arguee up and down. But this is can be said about the SW scence too. So there can't be any contradiction to what I am trying to say.


.......................................

I'm going to be brutally honest here, and say straight up that you're an idiot for presenting things from Robert Scott Anderson's site, as the man is known to be a liar and spin-doctor, who is obsessed with the STvsSW debate to the point of arguing about canon with the people who decide canon for SW and ST!

Mercenario wrote:
I linked the damn vid.


And the video was of no use, as it's resolution was so poor that, I, at the very least, could draw very little conclusion from the clip. It also provides no evidence to show that the S8472 bioships are several orders of magnitude more powerful than the Death Star.

Mercenario wrote:
But this is besides the point anyway. The point was, that the calculation of the death star was used to show who mighty StarWars ships are. Well, now you would assume this (and arguably even worse*) for much smaller StarTrek ships.
*Since the sxplosion of the planet was much more violent and destructive to the ships around. (I could now start to argue about how far away the cubes where and how much energy is needed to vaporise everything even in this distance, but that is not the point)


*facepalm* The Death Star is manufactured using similar techniques, weaponry, and power generation systems to every other bloody ship used by the Empire. S8472 bioships have no bloody bearing on any other ST power's capabilities. It's also somewhat of a poor showing; S8472 requires a very vulnerable array of 8 normal, power-supplying bioships and a specialized beam-shooter. Take out the beam shooter, and you have an instantly useless planet-killer, because the actual "killship" no longer exists. I'll also note that it's likely that, considering the amounts of energy used, the normal bioships are probably unable to retaliate against attack whilst supplying the beam-shooter power.

Mercenario wrote:
Radiation would be enough to vaporise those cubes. Given the imagery it is the most likely assumption. But well, the energy requirements for that will go through the top though.


*facepalms again* You're daft, you know that right? I mean really; while I wasn't able to tell a whole lot thanks to the terrible terrible resolution of the video clip, I was still able to see quite plainly that some fucking rocks took out the two Cubes, and not bloody "radiation".

Incidentally, energy requirements ostensibly go through the roof; given ST's love for chain-reaction type weapons, a la the phaser and disruptor, it's quite possible that a sufficiently large phaser could phaserize a planet into nothingness.

Mercenario wrote:
From the bioships, most likely. (The huge beam made it quite a give away.)


Completely Missing the Point

We know that the bioships supplied some energy, because it's quite obvious. What we don't know is how much, and given the visuals and the delay, I'm inclined to say that there was some sort of chain reaction induced in the target.

Mercenario wrote:
Well, same is true for everything.
You just would have to find something you could fire at them, as they tend to not care about energy weapons at all.


They tend not to care about the energy weapons used by the Borg and presumably the Federation, you mean. Seeing as how, AFAIK, we've only ever seen S8472 in combat with the Borg and the Voyager, your blanket statement is quite fallacious. We have no idea how '8472 would react with, say, Romulan or Klingon disruptors, or the phaser cannons used by the Defiant class, or the numerous torpedo types used by the various ST powers.

More to the point in a vs debate, we have no idea how they'd react/respond to, say, SW turbolasers or 40K lance batteries.

Azron_Storma wrote:
As an aside is anyone even going to bother responding to his Darkstar link?


Done.

Mercenario wrote:
Space is quite a good isolator, even considering how cold it is out there. Thats why you got a lot of radiators at all the space stations. Just getting rid of the heat is quite an issue. So the enery loss should not be that severe I guess.


Just thought I'd point out that space is a good insulator because it's a vacuum, and that space itself has no temperature. Objects in space, are however, quite cold themselves........well, depending on the object. A ship is obviously quite a bit hotter than a piece of dust.

EDIT:

Mercenario wrote:
There is a lot you could really talk about:
Approch of AI in StarTrek/StarWars.
Form of government.
Approach and value of technology in the story.
Storyarc, systematic structures of the stories written.


And it wouldn't be a versus debate if we did so, now would it? That's the point of all the number-derivations and the calcs. To provide objective evidence with which to determine an outcome. That the 'problem' is a "who wins in a war?" is fairly irrelevant.



Image

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-20 03:55pm
Offline
Redshirt

Joined: 2011-06-14 07:05am
Posts: 40
Quote:
I'm going to be brutally honest here, and say straight up that you're an idiot for presenting things from Robert Scott Anderson's site, as the man is known to be a liar and spin-doctor, who is obsessed with the STvsSW debate to the point of arguing about canon with the people who decide canon for SW and ST!

Just took the first fitting link out of google. Seem to have been a 100%, judging from your reaction.

Quote:
And the video was of no use, as it's resolution was so poor that, I, at the very least, could draw very little conclusion from the clip. It also provides no evidence to show that the S8472 bioships are several orders of magnitude more powerful than the Death Star.

Let me think. Planet blown to pieces and planet turned mostly to gas + vaporising 3*3*3 km ships several thousend kilometers away.

Quote:
Completely Missing the Point

Link not working...
Quote:
More to the point in a vs debate, we have no idea how they'd react/respond to, say, SW turbolasers or 40K lance batteries.

But pulling numbers out of dark places makes things comparable? Seriously I do not get that logic.

Quote:
Just thought I'd point out that space is a good insulator because it's a vacuum, and that space itself has no temperature. Objects in space, are however, quite cold themselves........well, depending on the object. A ship is obviously quite a bit hotter than a piece of dust.

Whats your point? The stuff I wrote is a simple fact. Consult a book of thermodynamics of your trust. In space there is only radiation to emmit energy. Thats quite a bad form, because the factor (Boltzmann) of 5.87*10^-8. Objects in space are mostly cold, because well, they do not tend to have any source of energy.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-20 04:17pm
Offline
Padawan Learner
User avatar

Joined: 2011-03-18 07:46pm
Posts: 186
Location: Unknown World in the Galactic South
Mercenario wrote:
Just took the first fitting link out of google. Seem to have been a 100%, judging from your reaction.


Excuse me? TBH, I haven't got a god damn clue what you're saying here. Because around this board, Darkstar, the common Internet handle that RSA goes by, is known to be a fucking liar. As a result, every god damn thing on his website is fucking suspect!

Mercenario wrote:
Let me think. Planet blown to pieces and planet turned mostly to gas + vaporising 3*3*3 km ships several thousend kilometers away.


Let me put it this way: we have no evidence that the S8472 event was a direct-energy transfer. While we have little evidence that the event was a chain reaction, it's also something we have a slight amount of. So instead of being a case of "shoot planet with laser, watch planet go boom", it's "shoot planet with magic beam which does [technobabble] and creates vaporized, exploding planet".

I'll also note that turning the planet mostly to gas is completely unsubstantiated; while there seems to be some gas, there is still debris. However, the biggest point against this is that phasers, a common weapon used in Star Trek, to the point that 99% of all species seem to have developed some kind of variation on the design, are very similar, and are known to be some kind of chain reaction weapon which does not vaporize.

I'll ONCE AGAIN note that the Borg cubes were NOT vaporized, but were instead struck by GODDAMN DEBRIS.

Mercenario wrote:
Link not working...


Besides the point, as the link actually had no bearing on the discussion and was more a comedic note of your continued habit of COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT.

OTOH, I would be quite grateful if a mod were to fix the link to point to the appropriate TV Tropes page.

Mercenario wrote:
But pulling numbers out of dark places makes things comparable? Seriously I do not get that logic.


For one, I didn't pull any numbers out, I was simply illustrating the point that not all energy weapons are the same, and so how '8472 reacts to Borg DEW isn't necessarily the same way they'd react to, say, the Empire's DEWs.

I'll further note that you evidently don't understand basic science, or else you'd realize the logic and simple physics that are used to analyze the feats of both SW and ST.

Mercenario wrote:
Whats your point? The stuff I wrote is a simple fact. Consult a book of thermodynamics of your trust. In space there is only radiation to emmit energy. Thats quite a bad form, because the factor (Boltzmann) of 5.87*10^-8. Objects in space are mostly cold, because well, they do not tend to have any source of energy.


If you had better reading comprehension and weren't an idiot you'd realize that what I was disputing was your ridiculous claim that the vacuum of space is COLD. It's a fucking vacuum, it can't have a temperature! I never said that there were other ways to get rid of heat in space, and I never said anything about why the average astronomical object is cold. I simply noted that said objects tend to be very cold, and that space itself, being a vacuum, has no temperature.

It's called reading. You should try it some time.



Image

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-20 10:17pm
Offline
Sith Apprentice
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Posts: 14053
Mercenario wrote:
Yes.
So there are two options?
First: It takes as long to recover from a high power shot as it takes from a low power shot.
Second: The planet was not destroyed by brute force.


Why should I accept your assertion that there are only two answers, rather than treating it as the false dilemma fallacy that it appears to be?

Quote:
Yes, it will. If the recharge rate is about a day, you do not have to take cover, because it won't refire.
So to stay consistant I would go the way of saying there is some mojo to make it blow up planets and to reload this mojo takes around a day. (Would not have any impact on lesser shots, which could be fired at any rate you need for the story)


What the hell does any of this have to do with what I am saying? I made no mention of a day long recharge rate, or anything even pertaining to that. Frankly, it seems like we're talking about two completely different things, for whatever reason.

Quote:
I do not think my english is the problem, since you tend to understand my sentences quite well.
I have to admit, that my point is quite hard to grasp since it is quite a meta topic of the VS debate.


I don't give a flying fuck about vs debating anymore. Vs debating is intellectually poisonous.

Quote:
But the essance is quite an easy one: Sifi TV shows tend to be drawn to higher and higher power levels.
The best example here is StarGate. Started out with a punch of guys with MPs shooting up a bunch of guys looking like big iron snakes.
Ended up with a bunch of guys having ships arguably far superior to StarWars and StarTrek.
In StarTrek you find this mostly in Voyager. Started with a little ship lost in space. (Well, they had to take back some travel time from the movies, but was a nice concept) ended with a little ship having the punch to blow up borg cubes or even planets in the end.)

StarWars on the other hand is mainly based on the six films. So due to amount of material it is quite likely you find everything in StarWars also in StarTrek. If you are looking for on screen evidence.

This leads to my question why there is any merit in trying to establish the superiority of StarWars by holding up some numbers from calculations based on stuff which is mostly down in StarTrek too.
This had some merit if you looked at TOS, granted.


In other words, we ARE talking about cross purposes. You apparently approach it from a method that I find to be, frankly, inconsistent and to be blunt full of shit. I'm sure you feel the same way about any approach I have, and you're entitled to that opinion, but in that case further debate is meaningless because we can't resolve it. The two approaches are fundamentally incompatible.



Image

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-21 08:15am
Offline
Redshirt

Joined: 2011-06-14 07:05am
Posts: 40
Quote:
Excuse me? TBH, I haven't got a god damn clue what you're saying here. Because around this board, Darkstar, the common Internet handle that RSA goes by, is known to be a fucking liar. As a result, every god damn thing on his website is fucking suspect!

My guess: He would say the same about this side.
Quote:
I'll ONCE AGAIN note that the Borg cubes were NOT vaporized, but were instead struck by GODDAMN DEBRIS.

Yes, but as you have to know the cube which was shown to be hit by some debris survived and the explosion took part much later.
And it does not change much, because the debris still woul need the energy to do that kind of damage in a huge area.

Quote:
So instead of being a case of "shoot planet with laser, watch planet go boom", it's "shoot planet with magic beam which does [technobabble] and creates vaporized, exploding planet".

There was no technobabble.
Quote:
For one, I didn't pull any numbers out, I was simply illustrating the point that not all energy weapons are the same, and so how '8472 reacts to Borg DEW isn't necessarily the same way they'd react to, say, the Empire's DEWs.

We have as many clues on how the death star works as we have clues about the weapons of 8472.
Quote:
I never said that there were other ways to get rid of heat in space, and I never said anything about why the average astronomical object is cold. I simply noted that said objects tend to be very cold, and that space itself, being a vacuum, has no temperature.

This forum, does not allow edits, so I could not add the part about what I meant with cold. If you do the calculation for energy transfer based on radiation you compare the objects surface to the background, which is mostly set to 0K.
That I did not mean the surrounding was quite clear (I thought), since I have been talking about radiation. The temperature of the surrounding is interesting for other ways of heat transfer. (Which I said are unusable in space)

Quote:
I'll further note that you evidently don't understand basic science, or else you'd realize the logic and simple physics that are used to analyze the feats of both SW and ST.

They are all based on assumptions. Made to go one way or the other. Since those assumptions are quite cherry picked...
I mean our discussion about the weapon 8472 used shows this quite clear. You have to insist on some "magic reaction" because otherwise you would not like the results.
So please, do not try to hide behind physics if they have nothing to do with it at all.

@Connor MacLeod
Quote:
Why should I accept your assertion that there are only two answers, rather than treating it as the false dilemma fallacy that it appears to be?

I had a third one, but you did to approve. So I was left with those.
There are not many options to start with:
1. The main weapon is limited by energy supply.
2. The main weapon is limited by cooling/reloading.
3. The main weapon has different operation modes.

Every one of those leads to different conclusions. The frist two can actually lead to the same conclusions.

Quote:
You apparently approach it from a method that I find to be, frankly, inconsistent and to be blunt full of shit.

What a great feat of argumentation.
Quote:
I'm sure you feel the same way about any approach I have

No, I do not. Has less to do with your approach than with my way of thinking.

But anyhow I would not describe the things I have written as an approach. It is more a hint on why I do not understand someone would go with the approach taken here.

A simple real life example would be to compare the war in Iraq with the WW2. The firepower displayed in WW2 was "bigger". (Alone due to the use of atom bombs)
But nobody would arguee, that the technology during WW2 was better than today.
The same is true for any kind of SiFi series. But here you not only dealing with the problem of "not showing the full potential" but also of "showing stuff which does not fit into the rest of the setting or is just utter bullshit". Second of all you are left with the problem, that the means by which the shown is achieved are mostly left in the dark.
So if you want to compare technology you would need a look at stuff regulary used and shown.
Comunication devices, computers, monitors/hologramms, AIs, robots etc.
This is one of those things, which just has to work. They are the core of canon in any book/film used by any author.
So you eliminate the problems the single author might have with physics or the understanding of the world.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-21 09:08am
Offline
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 2011-01-16 09:48pm
Posts: 1070
A blatant liar and likely troll wrote:
We have as many clues on how the death star works as we have clues about the weapons of 8472.

Bull and shit.

We have little to no clue about how S8472's planet killer works, beyond what we saw in one single episode of Voyager.

We have a wealth of not just clues, but information on how the Death Star Superlaser works.
Check this shit out...
Image
:shock: Wow! Fucking blueprints and everything!

There's been an entire novel about the constuction and workings of the DS (funnily enough, it was called Death Star), facts given in the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology (and the later New EGWT) along with information from many other sources including (but not limited to):
The Power of the Force (1995)
Rebellion: Prima's Official Strategy Guide
Behind the Magic
Death Star Designer
Inside the Worlds of Star Wars: Attack of the Clones
The Force Unleashed Campaign Guide
The Unknown Regions
Battlefront II
The Illustrated Star Wars Universe
Episode IV: A New Hope
(novelisation)

Your dishonesty aside, what you were supposedly responding to was this:
Whiskey144 wrote:
For one, I didn't pull any numbers out, I was simply illustrating the point that not all energy weapons are the same, and so how '8472 reacts to Borg DEW isn't necessarily the same way they'd react to, say, the Empire's DEWs.
Once again, demonstrating your talent at Completely Missing The Point.



"Darth Tedious just showed why women can go anywhere they want because they are, in effect, mobile kitchens." - RazorOutlaw

"That could never happen because super computers." - Stark

"Don't go there girl! Talk to the VTOL cause the glass canopy ain't listening!" - Shroomy

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-21 10:04am
Offline
Redshirt

Joined: 2011-06-14 07:05am
Posts: 40
@Darth Tedious
Yeah, a blue print is explaining the physical details. Ahm, no.
So yeah, all we know about the deathstar is:
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/death-star4.htm
Several big lasers focues into one laser, but not acting like a Laser power by a fusion reactor with the energy output of a small sun.
(Seems fitting since stars are fusion reactors and fusion technologie is used all over star wars)
Further it has a reloading time (planet blast) of around 24 hours.

Bioships:
Focusing the energy of 8 bioships by using a bit bigger one as focus.
So yes, we lack the power source of the bioships and their reloading time. And?

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-21 10:51am
Offline
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 2011-01-16 09:48pm
Posts: 1070
The Death Star's Superlaser derives power directly from the hypermatter reactor.

Mercenario wrote:
Several big lasers focues into one laser, but not acting like a Laser power by a fusion reactor with the energy output of a small sun.
(Seems fitting since stars are fusion reactors and fusion technologie is used all over star wars)
Firstly, you might want to read your own sources. The DS's power comes from a hypermatter reactor, not fusion.

Secondly, if you're going to use non-canon sources, you'd be better off with Wookieepedia, which has a fuckton more information and is actually sourced and referenced.

Thirdly, you're full of shit. You claim that all we know about the DS is what howstuffworks.com has to say about it. I listed thirteen different canonical sources of information in my last post.

Destructionator XIII wrote:
You've gotta look at what he actually said and see if he was right here. If he's wrong, just say why, it shouldn't be hard to find a reason.
It isn't terribly hard.
The power calcs were based on dialogue stating Chakotay's expectation that the entire asteroid (which they thought to be Nickel-Iron) should have been vapourised. The same scene featured a contradictory statement from Kim (who was manning the sensors) saying that the asteroid should have been fragmented.
Not that it hasn't been pointed out before.
Though, I'd agree with you DXIII- just dismissing Darkstar's point because he made it is a little rash. It would have been better for Whiskey144 to point out that the page had already been debunked (around 9 years ago).



"Darth Tedious just showed why women can go anywhere they want because they are, in effect, mobile kitchens." - RazorOutlaw

"That could never happen because super computers." - Stark

"Don't go there girl! Talk to the VTOL cause the glass canopy ain't listening!" - Shroomy

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-21 11:51am
Offline
Padawan Learner
User avatar

Joined: 2011-03-18 07:46pm
Posts: 186
Location: Unknown World in the Galactic South
Mercenario wrote:
My guess: He would say the same about this side.


Of course he would; to him, everything that disagrees with him is a "Warsie conspiracy". OTOH, even proponents of the side he supports have acknowledged that he is a liar and dishonest debater.

Darth Tedious wrote:
Once again, demonstrating your talent at Completely Missing The Point.


I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The part you quoted was meant to illustrate that just because Borg weapons are ineffective against S8472 bioships, that doesn't mean we can rule all DEW to be useless against said craft.

If you could perhaps explain why you said this, I would greatly appreciate that.

Destructionator XIII wrote:
LOL, could you post a more blatent ad hominem dismissal?

Idiots and liars are sometimes right too. You've gotta look at what he actually said and see if he was right here. If he's wrong, just say why, it shouldn't be hard to find a reason.


Look, my point with saying that is you can't trust anything Darkstar says because of his history with debating. I wasn't saying "that source is useless". I was saying it can't be trusted.

I also rather make a point to not read Darkstar's site, because I don't want to take the chance that I might be sucked in to his logic.



Image

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-21 12:46pm
Offline
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 2011-01-16 09:48pm
Posts: 1070
W144: I wasn't actually replying to what you had said, I was referring to Mercenario's ability to completely miss the point.

And you're probably right, reading Darkstar's shit is liable to cause mild brain damage.
In general, the main problem with people bringing up his arguments here is that they have already been ripped to shreds repeatedly. In ancient SD.net history.



"Darth Tedious just showed why women can go anywhere they want because they are, in effect, mobile kitchens." - RazorOutlaw

"That could never happen because super computers." - Stark

"Don't go there girl! Talk to the VTOL cause the glass canopy ain't listening!" - Shroomy

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-21 03:44pm
Offline
Transphobic Ignoramus

Joined: 2011-04-21 07:44am
Posts: 57
Darth Tedious wrote:
It isn't terribly hard.
The power calcs were based on dialogue stating Chakotay's expectation that the entire asteroid (which they thought to be Nickel-Iron) should have been vapourised. The same scene featured a contradictory statement from Kim (who was manning the sensors) saying that the asteroid should have been fragmented.


As you point out Chakotay did say that the torp should have vaporised the entire asteroid and that means that they had scanned its size ect and set the yield of the torpedo to have that effect and due to that we cannot assume the torpedoes were set to full power.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-21 04:30pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Posts: 2424
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Lord Helmet wrote:
Darth Tedious wrote:
It isn't terribly hard.
The power calcs were based on dialogue stating Chakotay's expectation that the entire asteroid (which they thought to be Nickel-Iron) should have been vapourised. The same scene featured a contradictory statement from Kim (who was manning the sensors) saying that the asteroid should have been fragmented.


As you point out Chakotay did say that the torp should have vaporised the entire asteroid and that means that they had scanned its size ect and set the yield of the torpedo to have that effect and due to that we cannot assume the torpedoes were set to full power.


Did we ever actually see this asteroid get nuked? If not, this could be another blow up a small planet reference.



School requires more work than I remember it taking...

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-21 04:53pm
Offline
Redshirt

Joined: 2011-06-14 07:05am
Posts: 40
@Darth Tedious
Quote:
Little is actually known about the details of the highly classified reactor design, but we do know that it is a massive fusion reactor fed by stellar fuel bottles that line the periphery of the main reactor chamber.

Mhm, fusion you see. Hypermatter does say as much as sliberischbisch. Nothing. So no information there. Fusion, well tells us something about the process.
(Yeah, I know hypermatter is important because you may ignore any rule of physics that way. The same with StarTrek using some kind of Antimatter nobody has heard about in real physics so they do not need make any calculation of energy or bring in all kind of story hooks.)


@Norade
Yes, we did.

@Whiskey144
Quote:
I also rather make a point to not read Darkstar's site, because I don't want to take the chance that I might be sucked in to his logic.

THAT sounds like fanatism (mixed in with an inferiority complex) to me. Holy crap. I really hope you were making fun here.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-21 06:34pm
Offline
Padawan Learner
User avatar

Joined: 2011-03-18 07:46pm
Posts: 186
Location: Unknown World in the Galactic South
Darth Tedious wrote:
W144: I wasn't actually replying to what you had said, I was referring to Mercenario's ability to completely miss the point.


Ah.

Mercenario wrote:
Mhm, fusion you see. Hypermatter does say as much as sliberischbisch. Nothing. So no information there. Fusion, well tells us something about the process.


First off, PROVIDE A SOURCE for your quote. Otherwise, I think it's safe to assume that you just MADE SHIT UP.

Mercenario wrote:
THAT sounds like fanatism (mixed in with an inferiority complex) to me. Holy crap. I really hope you were making fun here.


Not, it's just that Darkstar can cloak lies and illogical concepts in such reasonable and logical words, that it's really easy to think "hey, he might be right", when he's saying the most shit-stupid things. I know, too; I stumbled upon his site before knowing who he was and that it was indeed his site, and thought some of the arguments were quite reasonable.......until I found out who he was and learned that everything he says is suspect.

Keep in mind, that Darkstar is the debater who is considered dishonest by both sides of the SW/ST versus debate. And:

Darth Tedious wrote:
In general, the main problem with people bringing up his arguments here is that they have already been ripped to shreds repeatedly. In ancient SD.net history.


Darkstar's arguments have been already been defeated so soundly and repeatedly that you're not beating the dead horse anymore. You're munching on the tattered remnants of its corpse.



Image

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-21 07:38pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Posts: 2424
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Quote:
Yes, we did.


Episode name, and frame of reference for the size of the rock.



School requires more work than I remember it taking...

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-21 10:24pm
Offline
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 2011-01-16 09:48pm
Posts: 1070
Norade wrote:
Episode name, and frame of reference for the size of the rock.
VOY:'Rise'
Darkstar calculated the size of the rock based on scaling compared to the photon torpedo, which he estimated was 10 meters in diameter. :roll:



Lord Helmet wrote:
Darth Tedious wrote:
It isn't terribly hard.
The power calcs were based on dialogue stating Chakotay's expectation that the entire asteroid (which they thought to be Nickel-Iron) should have been vapourised. The same scene featured a contradictory statement from Kim (who was manning the sensors) saying that the asteroid should have been fragmented.


As you point out Chakotay did say that the torp should have vaporised the entire asteroid and that means that they had scanned its size ect and set the yield of the torpedo to have that effect and due to that we cannot assume the torpedoes were set to full power.
Did you read what you quoted me as saying? Kim was the one who scanned the asteroid, and he expected fragmentation (into much smaller pieces than were observed). Chakotay eyeballed it, and thought it would be vapourised.



Mercenario wrote:
An unnamed source wrote:
Little is actually known about the details of the highly classified reactor design, but we do know that it is a massive fusion reactor fed by stellar fuel bottles that line the periphery of the main reactor chamber.
Mhm, fusion you see. Hypermatter does say as much as sliberischbisch. Nothing. So no information there. Fusion, well tells us something about the process.
Source? See, if you're going to provide a quote, you need to source it.
Like this:
Death Star, page 22 wrote:
The greatest challenge in designing the battle station, he had said, was not creating a beam cannon big enough to destroy a planet, nor was it building
a moon-sized station that would be driven by a Class Three hyperdrive. The greatest challenge was powering both of them. There must be tradeoffs, he had said. In order to mount a weapon of mundicidal means, shielding capabilities would have to be downgraded to a rudimentary level.
Power, Bevel had said, was not infinite, even on a station this size, fueled by the largest hypermatter reactor ever built.
Now, even if we assume your quote was from a canon source, it is pretty worthless. It is written from the point of view of someone who knew fuck all about the DS's reactor.



"Darth Tedious just showed why women can go anywhere they want because they are, in effect, mobile kitchens." - RazorOutlaw

"That could never happen because super computers." - Stark

"Don't go there girl! Talk to the VTOL cause the glass canopy ain't listening!" - Shroomy

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-21 11:12pm
Offline
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Posts: 13453
Location: Looking for another drawer
What in Valen's name is a 'stellar fuel bottle'?



'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kids with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 472 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 19  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group