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

[Wyrm]

Fucksakes, this moron's arguing the feddies installed a lamp at the very top of a bitch-long shaft that formed no part of the workspace? A lamp that may be more economically replaced by a bunch of smaller lamps down in the workspace itself... which they had to do anyways? Shit, man. Even if the feddies did have the amazing tech necessary to accomplish these feats, they'd kill themselves before even getting a chance to be invaded from their sheer ineptitude.

The laws of physics are universal across the universe. They do not spontaneously change because you are on another planet.

And we can prove it, too. We can prove, by observing the light from distant objects, that important quantities like the speed of light, the fine structure constant, the relative strenths between the fundamental forces, and so on, remain constant over large distances and time to very high precision. The laws of physics cannot change without obvious and very detrimental effect — the laws are the universe are dictated by its symmetries, and when those symmetries are formed or broken, ridonkulous amounts of energy are created and destroyed, to the ruin of any civilization that dares breech them.

[Serafina]

Um-you DO know spoilerized quotes take up just as much space as ordinary quotes, right?

Hmm....yes, they do.
However, i still think it allows you to skip to the important parts, seperating repetition from actual arguments.


Either way, he made another post, which i did not adress yesterday.

I do or you would have sown irrefutable proof instead of vague hand waves towards implausable, seperate and highly unique instances.

So...math is not enough proof for you know?
Hey, kid - if my proof is refutable - REFUTE IT.
Can't do that? Hmmm...perhaps my proof is correct then?

Considering i am discussing the events the calculations are based on the later math is not THE or A issue in that regard.

Sorry, still no can do.
You have to show why my premises are false. Specificallly, you would have to show that these asteroids are smaller and/or slower. However, if you actually bother to get them from this scence carefully (instead of making a low-end estaminate like me), you would find that they are much bigger and faster.
You can't just attack the phyiscs my calculations are based on either - because under suspension of disbelief, we do not say "fictional universe, therefore other rules" - that would violate suspension of disbelief. Instead, we say "due to these examples, we see that these laws of science do not apply". However, you have no evidence that newtinian&light wave mechanic and thermoydnamics do not work like that in Star Wars. Hence - they work.

Again - start actually refuting my calculations, instead of just saying that they are invalid. You are debating like a creationist

Of course, i know that his style of debating won't shape up.

Dear god a comment like this from the person who thinks her opinion over rides canon material...

Not only is that a non-sequitur - i explained why i treat canon the way i do (and i do not ignore it with oppinion, i merely do not take falliable dialogue for absolute thruth.) But your style of debating is still horribly creationist like, regardless of how bad mine might be.

Essentially i am showing that your dishonest tactics of using:

1. Personal opinion instead of canon material.

Nope, never did that. I am using logic and science - if i did it wrong, you could attack that instead of the method.

2. Using math in a false cause type fallacy (by misinterpreting events the math based off and then shifting the focus to the accuracy of the math alone).

How am i trying to establish a false causal connection? Because that's what a "false cause" fallacy would be.
Because we obviously SEE the asteroids interact - why do you think that two objects interacting with each other do not cause effects that affect both of them?

3. Mentioning seperate events that could scientificaly happen under certain very specific circumstances and claiming they would work under totally differant circumstances, pretty much abusing the scientific method for personal bias.

No abuse here. I already explained how the rapid oxidisation of iron could happen in space - chemistry still applies in space. Given a sufficient starting energy (check - energy from the impact), free iron and oxygen (check - would seperate from ironoxide under high temperatures) and sufficent contact between the both (check - we see it happen. However, this is where you could actually try to disproove this. Do so), chemical reactions do happen.

4. Ignoring "suspension of disbelief" as and when it serves your bias in favor of points one, two or three.

Nope, i don't do that. Rather, you breach suspension of disbelief by arguing that "it's a fictional universe". Remember my "analyze it like they were documentaries"-comparision? If we want to do that (which is supsension of disbelief), you can't do that.

And my posts are not getting shorter now are they?......

You can use a lot of words without actually saying anything.
You are at a point where i do not even have to debate anymore. I could pretty much refute your points with copy&paste, since i already refuted them many times. I do not do so because that would be boring - but you still do not have any new points.

[Serafina]

Okay, Kor, listen up:

I am now going to take a break from point-by-point debates.
I will still do it, you can still do it - it's fun, after all. But i ask you to base your posts on this summary of our arguments, rather than on our exchange so far.
Failure to do so will indicate that you can not adress my arguments, and instead have to rely on stalling tactics so that you don't have to admit defeat.



The asteroid collision:
Your initial argument was that the collision of these asteroids does not explain the flash of light and "burning" we see after the collision. Your proposed alternate explanation was that they are instead made of out a highly volatile material.
You never provided evidence that the collision is not the explanation, nor for your exploding asteroids.
However, i performed calculations that show that the collision is, in fact, sufficient to explain both.
You never refuted that calculation.
You have to refute either the calculation or the premise to show that your argument even has a basis. Even if you have done that, you have to show how your "exploding asteroids" are an alternate theory.



The planetary shield:
You claimed that there is no canonic evidence for planetary shields.
I pointed out G and C canon that refutes this point. You dismissed them without explanation, violating Star Wars canon policies.
This is pretty much an argument from voluntary ignorance. You need to refute planetary shield for your next argument - but you can't do it, so you lie instead.



The Death Star chain reaction:
You argue that the Death Star is not a direct energy transfer (DET) weapon.
You base this on the visuals of the destruction of Alderaan. You point out three apparent inconsistencies:
-the blue glow that stops the explosion for miliseconds.
-darker and lighter spots after the explosion already started
-a second explosive shockwave

The first is readily explained by a planetary shield - hence your ignorance of canon.
The second is indeed expected from an explosion - unless the exploding body is extremely uniform, it will not produce an uniform explosion. Planets are not extremely uniform. You ignored this rebuttal.
The third is hard to explain - but a chain reaction does not explain it either. I basically gave you the explanation that the secondary explosion is from the planets core - due to thermodynamic differences, it exploded miliseconds later. Again, you ignored this and did not bother to show how your explanation is better.

You never gave us an explanation how the chain reaction is supposed to work. Do so.
You also never showed us that such technology exists anywhere else in Star Wars. Do so.
You never explained how your chain reaction explains the supposed inconsistencies better than DET in the first place. Do so.

You also made it appear like all this takes a "long time" - like the explosion takes several seconds to form. This would indeed support a chain reaction, but anyone who watches the video in real time sees that this is simply a lie.




The Star Trek supernova torpedo
You claim that, based on a TNG-episode, the Federation can cause stars to go supernova with simple modified photon torpedoes.
You ignored that they used it on a very old star, a Red Giant.
You ignored that they choose that star specifically due to being old. Which indicates that it would work differently on a younger one, if at all.
You ignored that such a star is vastly different from main sequence star.
You ignored that they expected it to stop sooner. Unless they are total idiots, this would be the case if the star is not already too old.
You never provided evidence that it would work on a normal main sequence star. You say it would, but you never provide evidence.

The star trek WMD stockpile
Based on the supposed existance of sun-busting torpedoes, you claim that the Federation (and presumably other ST-powers) has a vast stockpile of these weapons.
You never explained why no one uses them.
You tried to explain it with "mutually assured destruction". However, a total war (such like the Dominon war) will already result in ones side destruction. Hence, they would actually use such weapons if possible. I explained this with real-life policies and politics, which you dismissed without explanation.
I explained that MAD would prevent the invasion of a nation capable of doing so. Yet the Dominion did just that with the Feederation. Again, you dismissed that without explanation.
I also explained that when one side starts using their WMDs, the other would respond in full force. The Dominion attempted to do so - yet there is no response.
I asked why they never mention weapons that would be so important. Your claim is literarly based on absolutely no evidence. You totally ignored that problem.


The phaser drilling
Based on the TNG-episode "Inheritance", you claim that a Federation starship phaser can drill a 2000 km deep hole within 19 seconds.
However, you never provided a citation from that episode that states that depth.
You also ignored that we would not see a cave at such depths.
You also ignored that the shaft would collapse due to pressure.
You also ignored that a cave at such depths would be extremely hot.
You tried to dismiss the visible sky as a lamp, ignoring that they have no reason to place a lamp at the top of the shaft.

Your ignorance here is based on the "suspension of disbelief"-part of our argument. You claim that i ignore canon by not accepting the 2000 km depth (which you never showed), even tough it is at most based on dialogue.


Suspension of disbelief
You repedeately claimed that i ignore suspension of disbelief.
However, you do not understand what suspension of disbelief actually is:

Suspension of Disbelief (SoD) means that we ignore the fact that the sci-fi we see is not real, for the sake of discussion.
We stop disbelieving it.
This is done by analyzing it like it was a documentary. This means that science is fully applicable, until we have evidence that it is not. This also means that we analyze it like we would analyze real life - which also means that dialogue is unreliable.

Suspension of disbelief allows us to disregard canon as evidence - just like we are capable of dismissing things in real life as evidence. Pictures can be forged or altered, dialogue can be wrong.
This does not apply to visuals we see by the (supposedly neutral) cameraman - for expample, if we see a planet from orbit, we can not dismiss it as a forgery. However, we can do so with the diagram of a planet (which doesn't have to be 100% accurate in the first place). Likewise, we can do so with the verbal description of the planet.
If there is a conflict, direct visuals always take precedence - like they do in real life.
We can find an in-universe explanation for diagrams or dialogue that are wrong.

You attacked this, claiming that it ignored canon. However, if we never do this, it becomes impossible to analyze sci-fi under SoD. As an example, it is impossible that Han Solos dialogue is always correct in ANH - the Empire destroyed Alderaan, and the Death Star was not a moon. Here, direct visual evidence has to take precedence, we can not explain it otherwise.

Your only alternative to SoD is authors intent. However, this can not be applied to crossovers, since they are by definition never intended by the author.



Adress these points.
Failure to adress something (like, say, the WMD-argument) will be taken as a concession.

[Serafina]

So, let's see: Is he actually adressing any points?
Nope, not at all. Anyone surprised?

Actually you are a very rude person, i find it very easy to point oyt your disgraceful abuse of science to serve your bias without resorting to foul abuse.

You have not pointed out anything. You claimed you did, but that is obviously not the same thing.
Personally, i think that lying straight into a persons face is way ruder than using some harsh words.

And considering you either do know enough science to abuse or know somebody who is helping you do so you are far worse than somebody who is answering from ignorance.

Proove that i "abuse science". Now - or shut the fuck up, kid.

And in sci-fi debates canon events dictate reality.

Yes, absolutely.
But if it DIVERGES from reality (ours), then there has to be a reason. No reason is given by your for anything.

Declaring something unknown is fine as it clearly shows that relying purely on science can fail when debating sci-fi, some times you just need to accept that something happened, you cannot explain it satisfactorly and MOVE ON.

Bullshit. Just because we don't know everything about something doesn't meant that we can't apply science.
And you still imply that i ignore canon in favor of science. This is a pure lie.

Then explain them using what we know the federation has available and that they are on a alien world, disregarding canon material is a unacceptable method.

Canon dialogue is NOT gospel. Unless you are willing to conceede that, in Star Trek, fish are amphibians.

I am willing to accept the speed and size calculations unless better ones are shown or i find a flaw in them.

Hence, the calculation is correct, since it contains nothing else - i used just that to get the KE of the impact.

No you did not.

Yes i did.
The fact that you are not able to understand black body radiation doesn't constitute proof for anything but your ignorance.

Actually basic chemistry can show circumstances where iron will burn, however the circumstance required are not available to see the burning we see.

Proove that the circumstances are not right. Until you can do that, my explanation stands.

On its own that would be a big leap, coupled with the fact the drilling is descriped in detail as his finger is sliding down through the sections of the planet the canon evidence would have to be disregarded to support such a leap.

Yes, on it's own that would be a leap.
However, since we SEE lot's of things that tell us that they do not drill that far, it does not stand on it's own.


Besides: I watched that episode four-five times now (four times completely, repeating some parts of it multiple times).
THEY DO NOT MENTION your 2500km figure.
In fact, they say the following:
[quote="Canon Dialogue from "Inheritance""]JULIANA: The mantle is less resistant than I thought it would be.

DATA: We are within two kilometers of the magma pocket.

JULIANA: Another five seconds should do it. We've broken through.[/quote]
Do you know what that means?
They need five seconds to drill trough two kilometers of rock! Yes, that's CANON.
How is it possible that they need 1/4th of the time they spend drilling (19 seconds) to drill trough 1/1000th (!) of the material they are drilling trought?
If we extrapolate the figure given here, they drilled a mere eight kilometers. I am easily willing to more than double that, accounting for supposedly higher drilling speeds closer to the surface.

Canon dialogue. By your own logic, you can't deny it. Deal with it, punk.

Everthing is fallable, laser blasts that take the same time to cross a room and hit somebody as they do to cross miles upon miles of space or ground. The DS super laser taken from the perspective as it hits the planet shows that it some how expanded to 100's of miles in diameter or we would never see it from the distance we are supposedly at.

Blasters and turbolasers are two different weapons. By your logic, the projectile from a tank gun and a pistol should have the same speed.
Show how the superlaser is supposedly inconsistent, and why it spreading would be impossible or a negative thing (given that it, not being a laser, would not loose any destructive power by this).

I could go on but the fact is that their comes a point where canon over rides all visual and verbal limits placed on what we see and hear because of the limitations placed upon it by the mechanics of movie making, that is one of the defining reasons we need to use suspension of disbelief because it allows us to disregard these errors the limitations force on us.

Soo...how is canon going to override visuals AND dialogue?
You have nothing else - that's all that canon is!

And your undersanding of SoD is still horribly wrong, despit being given numerous explanations.

I do not remember any being mentioned in any of the movies so i guess your ships cannot exist if we follow your rule of thumb.

Just out of memory:
The tails of Naboo ships serve as radiators, as do TIE-fighter panels.
Not movie-canon, but IIRC still G canon - and even if it is not, it's still canon.

The light is white when you focus in on it, the blue is a reflection off the walls, i do not need to calculate anything to describe what my eyes clearly see.

So - why do they need a lamp up there?

Our currant level of newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics is not EXPANDED enough to currantly do so.

BULLSHIT.
We understand thermoydnamics and newtonian mechanics PERFECTLY.
You apparently have no knowledge about both, which shows that you flunked high school education.

Nobody has claimed that the light source is at the top of the shaft near the surface.

So - why do they need a lamp in that shaft? It's like putting a lamp in your water pipes - scratch that, that could even make sense if you send repair robots trough. There is NO REASON to put a lamp in there. Stop dodging the question.

Nope the activity was already a issue and did not begin heating until after they left the tunnel, they activated the plasma infusers from orbit. The drilling did increase the local siesmic activity and that is mentioned and dealt with by adjusting phaser power.

Which...actually adresses my point. Wow. Eh, i guess you had to hit something sometimes.

Our currant level of newtonian mechanics, alien worlds, exotic/undecovered materials, and thermodynamics is not EXPANDED enough to currantly do so.

As is said - BULLSHIT.

However the fact they exist is canon so accept it using the suspension of disbelief and MOVE ON.

Their existance is prooven, but you have presented no proof that they are that deep down except "i say so".

I like that movie and found it very entertaining.....however in regards to suspension of disbelief and canon, plot over riding scientific method and even your abuse of it for personal bias id say its a perfect example of evidence just not in the way you want.

Given that i actually did not adress any issues in "The Core" - yes, that's another lie, hatfucker.

Another lie to allow a insult (maybe regarding the fact you watched it at all but cetainly in regards to giving your brain a rest).

So....how do you know that i did NOT watch it? Are you psychic now?
Because the second part of the subject is also purely subjective, requiring mind-reading (or at least knowing me in person) to determine wether right or wrong.

Dear god you do nitpick.

The B-plot was about injecting plasma INTO the molten iron core of a planet from pockets a few KM from it.

Yes, that's what i said. How convenient that you snipped it out, so that you can make it appear like i did not.
Yes, counting another lie here.

LOL talk about entertainment, ignoring the fact that i have not check to see if there have been instances where such a material exists in trek the fact is:-

WE HAVE NOW SEEN A EXAMPLE IN TREK THAT A MATERIAL CAN DO SO.

Given that i have evidence (canon dialogue) that the cave is only 8km down, no extraordinary material is required.

It is now canon that a un named or explained material that can do so exists in trek...how do you think canon material is created anyway?......oh thats right from examples of it or its effects in the series lol.....

I never denied that. I merely think it would be strange for technobabble-heavy season seve not to mention such a thing - but then again, a 8km deep cave can easily be made from normal rock anyway.
So - we now have proof that rock exists in Star Trek. I am underwhelmed.

The FAIL is in your question and assumption.

You mean where did it go when they only had a entire planetary mass to distribute it over?........what a silly question.

Ah , nice ignorance of thermodynamics here. Pumping heat into a hotter region requires energy.
They never demonstrated the capability to move heat from thousands of kilometers away trough solid (or liquid) rock.
Not that it matter, since the cave is only 8km down.

Covered this above in regards to canon material.

You did not adress that question at all. Another lie.

No you chose to re-interpret a limited section in such a way that it is in direct conflict with other direct canon material, as such your theory fails.

Show the conflict -given that the episode never mentions your supposed 2000 km.

If that dialog is correct then he clearly says the DS is protected by a powerful shield from the planet/moon, he does not say the planet is shielded, this is reinforced by the visual of the shield coming out from the endor but not covering the moon/planet.

Yes, he does not say that.
However, NOT mentioning something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If it tell you that i went shopping today, and i do not mention any sales assistants, does that mean that these shops run automatically?
If he HAD said that there is no shield around the moon, then we would have a canon conflict. However, he doesn't say such a thing. Hence, the novel describing it otherwise is canon.

The diagram was ALL about 3 things the PLANET, the DS and the SHIELD to claim they left out the fact it covered the planet when the ground mission was essential and required to get through it is absurd.

No details about the ground mission are mentioned. Likewise, no details about the space mission are mentioned.
Again, by your logic, there was no imperial fleet at Endor.

Personal and biased interpretations doth not canon make.

Proove that bias.
Oh, right, you think that bias and oppinion are the same, regardless of how the oppinion is formed.

So you see a floating car in SW and you throw Newton's laws of motion and at least some of the conservation laws out of the window, but A CAVE UNDERGROUND IN ST MUST CONFORM!!!!!...

A cave is not formed by technology.
Besides, anti-gravity harldy throws newton out of the window. It merely removes gravity from the equotation - or do you think that newtonian mechanics do not apply in space, too?

That the fact the DS needed fuel so it had to be fueled at least once?.......and considering that it cannot hold a INFINITE amount of fuell then id say it would eventually need refueling....

Fueling during construction is not refuelling.
Yep, another lie.

Can i consider this a consession regarding your above comments then?.

A conCession for what?

At one quintillion tons per shot id say you just won the understatment award.

Which doesn't invalidate my point.
Say, do you catch these herrings red, or do you use paint?

Perhaps but it does add a few more levels of complications to the DET theory.

Nonesense. The DET-effect stays the same.

The DET theory requires it in spades and because of that we have many layers of complications that cannot be solved using our "UNEXPANDED" physics knowledge.

Guess what - the energy from the chain reaction also has to come from somewhere. You and me both - except i have an explanation, while you do not.

Yes i am, in fact i pointed it out to yet another one of you warsies who was making the assertion that:

"It stores its matter and anti-matter by turning them into Neutrino's then LATER turning them back into M/AM on demand in planet popping portions to anhialate each other and generate the energy to blow stuff up".

Now that i told you that it was yet another warie idea im sure you will find some way to defend it however........

So...making a statement that icnludes Neutrinos somehow prooves that you know anything about them?

With the process thet used to try and stabilse it not the one they used to heat it.

Ah, i see - another violation of the principle of parsimony.
If i want to stop something from heating up further, i turn down/switch off the source of that heat. Apparently, you do not do that. Yep, another process invented out of thin air.

Because it was simular to the one they wanted to fix, the answer is in the question.

Aaaand that shows that...in order for the process to work in a similar way, they need a similar star.

I mentioned it would up set you because of what they said, but regardless that is the reason they gave for the process not stabilising.

Given that it does not make any sense, it is useless.

But you calculations assume a direct collision rather than i indirect one and that all the KE from it is used to create heat and light.

Are you retarded?
We SEE how they collide. What the hell is an "indirect collision" supposed to be?
And yes, in space, the only way to get rid of energy is RADIATION and (change in) MOMENTUM.
I generously assumed that the KE of the second asteroid accounts for the small change in momentum. Which leaves a shitload of energy that has to be radiated away. If enough energy is radiated, we see it as visible light. That's why the sun is yellow, because the surface temperature is at a specific point. You obviously have no understanding of black body radiation.

When the fact is one roid is clearly deflected by 90 degrees, the other seemed to get shattered i all directions, the flash of light is so bright it fills the entire view, and we see afterwards a explosion of expanding burning gas/material from witch emerges the deflected asteroid that is also on fire.

All accounted for.
Oh, and stil no explosion.

It looks exactlu like a explosion to be, however if you wish to enlighten me go ahead.

Go back to school. It's not my job to educate you on everything.

It is supported by visual material.

Provide evidence for the the depth, other than an amibguous diagram.

Closer examination of the light confirms the source is not blue.

I see. You do, of couse, have evidence for this.
And even if - so what? Does your sky always look blue?

On earth with our currand understanding yes, in trek it is not inpossable.

Hey, retard - the laws of phyiscs are constant troughout the universe.

That mearly confirms the mass is simular not the composition.

Evidently, you fail to understand...well, i can't even categorize that now.
Due to gravity, the heavies elements always gather at the core. Only traces remain above (which is why most of our iron is in the core). If your planet is so much heavier, it would have heavier elements of the surface (say, it contains a shitload of uranium - that would mean you have uranium at the core, and iron above that).
The pressure would still change - but if you want to make the planet SMALLER; you necessiate a greater mass in order to maintain the gravity - which would necessiate heavier upper layers, thereby maintaining high pressure.
Indeed, all that matters is the supposed depth. Even if we assume that the upper layers only have the denisty of water, there would still be a fuckload of pressure.

Cooling is rarely if ever mentioned in any franchise and it is essential to them all.

Yes.
However, we do not SEE their ability to move massive amounts of heat from thousands of kilometers away. We do not need dialogue, we just have to see it. We never see such a capability.

The height of the ceiling is impossable to judge from the perspective we have.

Wrong. We can judge it in the scene he looks up, and even better later on.
At most, it's five times as high as Data. That's an upper limit, three times is more likely. Given that Data is smaller than 2m, that gives us 10 meters as an upper limit.

Like ignoring mass?....we have covered this.

You keep saying that you adressed something without actually doing so. Another lie.

Your assertions regarding some simularities regarding size and math coupled with canon visuals and verbal material confirm 2500km as a bare minmum.

Bullshit.
Stop dodging, give us a quote that says 2500 km.

What we do not see is irelavant, they must have the capability to cool the cave as they do, MOVE ON.

So they had that ability for one episode, but never again?

It is there, we see it, it is not blue therefore good or bad they had a reason, MOVE ON.

Repetition doesn't constitute an argument, ignorance not an explanation.

OMFG YOU DO HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..

Asking me to forgive spelling errors when im not even likely to notice them and tell you have spelled summat wrong in the first place...ROFLMAO.

This was obviously adressed to more capable readers.

Not really, i just start my arguments at the begining and not at the point you wish. You want to leap str8 to the math, meaning it will be based a lot of the time on your perceptions and opinions, i prefer to debate the initial perceptions. Now i do not ignore math or say it is irelavant but what the math is based on is like the foundation of a house and as i am in the ground work and landscaping business i know that if you build on a flaw it just gets larger as you get higher.

Yes, just like creationits, you start from your preconceived notion (they are able to drill trough 2500 km of rock within seconds.) Just like creationits, you ignore all evidence that says otherwise, including simple calcuatlions that shows their utter impossiblity.

Actually you use canon, science and logic......the problem is that you use them like weapons instead of tools to get the truth. If logic shows a result you do not like you use science and if science does the same you refer to canon or visa versa, you sometimes even mix them up but all in all as i said they are not tools for the truth in your hands they are weapons that you use to serve your bias.

Ah, nice try turning one of my own arguments around.
Of course, you fail utterly. Science and logic are connected - you can not use one to disproove the other.
Oh, and since i never actually tried that - another lie.

Actually i meant a false dilemma my mistake i was tired when i did that bit, and yes i mentioned it above how you try to force the focus to the accuracy of your math instead of your interpretation of events and what the math is based on.

Keep your fallacies straight.
Oh, and since you did not provide evidence where i actually used a false dilemma fallacy - another lie.

As i said above and in my comments regarding the roid impacts higher up in my post i will not be pulled past debating perspective and into a false dilemma regarding the math your flawed perspective is based on.

That would not be a false dilemma fallacy. In fact, it would not be a fallacy at all.
Here's a free piece of education for you: If you use a word, understand what it means first.

My argument is not essentially that it a fictionl universe because i do agree that is breaking suspebsion of disbelief, my arguments are based on canon material and acceptance that we do not understand certain abilities (like ignoring mass).

Aah, gibberish.
So you admit that you are basically appealing to ignorance - you can not understand it, hence no one else should try?
And if someone does and finds something you do not lik,e he must be a liar?
Again, you are exactly like a creationist - they do the same all the time. "I can not understand X (say, the origin of life). Therefore, God did it (it just happened without explanation). Scientists that claim to understand it are just trying to deceive me, since their conclusions must be wrong (due to contradicting my "explanation")".



I counted 9 straight lies, along with numerous other attempts at deception.

[Serafina]

He actually tries to adress my points now.
Of course, as expected, he fails.



Asteroids:

The asteroid collision:

However, i performed calculations that show that the collision is, in fact, sufficient to explain both

False

You are supposed to show HOW it is false, rather than just saying so.

You have to refute either the calculation or the premise

The premise obviously and i have done it twice now.
But you calculations assume a direct collision rather than i indirect one and that all the KE from it is used to create heat and light.

When the fact is one roid is clearly deflected by 90 degrees, the other seemed to get shattered i all directions, the flash of light is so bright it fills the entire view, and we see afterwards a explosion of expanding burning gas/material from witch emerges the deflected asteroid that is also on fire.

I already adressed that. This does nothing to invalidate my premise, but it shows that you do not understand basic physics.
(thermodynamics and newtonian mechanics).



Planetary Shields:

ROTJ contradicts the existance of planetary shields, verbally and visually.

The chain reaction works with or without shields.

As always, you choose to look at a reprentation of the actual thing (the diagram) rather than the actual thing itself.
I presume this also describes your sexlife
Either way - we SEE that they have to order a shield to be (partially) deactivated to land on the planet. If it does NOT cover the whole planet, this would not be necessary (it was not necessary on Hoth, where it was only a theater shield).
Furthermore, if the shield was projected like we see it in the diagram, they could have just dropped a bomb on the unproteced shield projector.



Death Star

1. A lie i never mention a blue glow.
2. Correct about the dark spots although the explosion has not started it was the chain rection effect.
3. There was a later main explosion.

Repeating your assertion is not proof.
The first part is a blatant lie. You posted material by Robert Scott Anderson (also know as DorkStar) which clearly adressed the "blue glow".

DorkStar, by the way, is a blatant liar and bullshitter.

The first is readily explained by a planetary shield - hence your ignorance of canon.

False cause fallacy.

Again, BS. If two things clearly interact with each other, it is not a false cause fallacy.
Oh, and nice dodge on the fact that you ignore canon.

A DET hitting one spot on a planet would not give a uniform explosion even if a non existant shield has caused it to pause for a milisecond or two.

A chain reaction encirciling the planet and building up to a explosion is consistant with or without a shield.

So you conceede that we should NOT see an uniform explosion. Great - we do not. Concession accepted.

A chain reaction explains it very well due to the fact it requires time for the effect to reach a critical point.

Again: Show how it is supposed to work. Explain why a chain reaction would continue after the material is violently diverted by an explosion.

The beam is capable of causing the planetary matter to undergo a form of fusion, due to material densities we see the effect encircle the planet plus 2 explosions.

This is inconsitent with what we see. If this would happen, there would be no asteroid remmants (since the chain reaction would compress them tight). Yet, we do see such a thing.
Furthermore, you invented an effect out of thin air. This is also known as an ad-hoc argument, which is fallacious.

Comments about the Empires ability to create a form of fusion in virtually any material are widely known, if fact it is mentioned and confirmed on this very web site im told.

Provide evidence. Saying "everyone knows" is not evidence".

Just did.

It does not explain the blue glow. It does not explain anything else. A blatant lie.

The time between the bean hitting alderaan and expending its energy and the final explosion is in direct contradiction to the level of power the DET theory claims is being used.

Bullshit. Also, completely unprooven. Provide evidence. Regardless of the amount of energy, it would still need time to travel



Supernova torpedo:

I did not, in fact it was me who mentioned it was a old star and posted the screenie of it.

But you ignored the results of that fact, even when repedeatly explained to you.

A red giant is a old main sequance star, is a old human no longer a human?.

False analogy.
I already explained this to you. By your logic, a pile of rust is still a car. By your logic, a decomposing corpse is still a living animal.

I did not, again i clearly pointed it out with acompanying dialog and "yay's" in grackets for humor...so much for that effort.

There are no points for humour.
And again, you ignored the results of that fact.

See old human comment above.

A blatantly false analogy. An old human still works the same way as a young human. An old star does not - it has begun to use another fuel source, it is hundreds of times bigger and much, much hotter inside.



WMD stockpiles

A direct lie, i clearly say there is no canon material to say they have a stockpile..

...but i also say they can modify standard weaponry so fast stockpiles are rather redundant.

Hey, dipshit: If they can turn it into solar busters within a short order, they effectively HAVE a stockpile of such weapons.
By your logic, having both a weapon and ammo doesn't mean you are owning a weapon, as long as it is not loaded.

They have been used, you mean why "nobody uses them in regards to my personal opinion on politcs"...well your opinion aint canon dude.

So you conceede that they are either to stupid/gutless to use their weapons, or that they do not actually have them?



Phaser drilling

2500km-3000km actually, thanks to you confirming the size of the planet.

You keep changing that figure. Propably because you made it up.

You helped define the planets diameter canon visuals and verbal material did the rest.

Citation, please. Here is a citation that shows that they only drill about 8 km deep:

[quote="Dialogue from "Inheritance""]JULIANA: The mantle is less resistant than I thought it would be.

DATA: We are within two kilometers of the magma pocket.

JULIANA: Another five seconds should do it. We've broken through.[/quote]
So, they need five seconds to drill two kilometers. Therefore, in 20 seconds, they drill 8 kilometers.

Now, you can say that they drill faster in the beginning. But if we take YOUR figures - then they drill 1000 times faster during the first 15 seconds. Seems rather unlikely.

We live on earth in the 21st century.

Physical laws are constant all over the universe.
Apparently, you live in the 17th century, since you do not understand basic newtonian mechanics.

It is not "blue sky" as closer examination of the material has proved.

Provide evidence. Besides, you still need a reason for that bloody imaginary lamp.



'Suspension of disbelief:

Suspension of Disbelief (SoD) means that we ignore the fact that the sci-fi we see is not real, for the sake of discussion.

Correct.

Yay, nice pointless posts to lenghten your drivel.

We stop disbelieving it.

Correct.

Again, Yay.

This is done by analyzing it like it was a documentary. This means that science is fully applicable, until we have evidence that it is not.

Like when it bumps heads with canon.

Hey, guess what - you actually seem to get it. Too bad it won't last.

That can be considered subjective and a possable no limit fallacy in regards to "all dialog must be disgaurded"..

A lie. I said no such thing. Dialogue IS inherently unreliable, but that does not mean all dialogue is inapplicable.

Many thngs CAN be wrong, see earlier comments on DS beam width as its hits alderaan or blaster phaser fire taking the same speed to cross a room or a solar system due to it actually only crossing a bit of film. Verbal and visual limitations must be accepted as part of the film making process and suspension of disbelief must recognise those limitations and make allowances.

Again - by your logic, a tank gun and a pistol produce projectiles of identical speed. You are truly an imbecile.
If you accept visual limitations, you VIOLATE SoD! You step outside the boundaries of the sci-fi universe and treat it like a piece of fiction - which is the exact opposite of SoD.

Thanks for admitting that you do not understand Suspension of Disbelief and do not use it.

No consession will ever be given from a threat, and i do not normally well respond to ultimatums but as have already refuted and answered most of those points il do so again.

Thanks for admitting that you will never conceede anything, regardless of the evidence presnted.
Your belief that you refuted anything is simply sad.


Here is what you are supposed to do:
Do some actual work. Post a consistent explanation of your alternate theories, along with visual evidence and quotations from the movie/episode (or other sources).
You have not done that at all. Instead, you mostly respod in tiny contentless one liners. Your explanations consist of "this and that would happen", without any evidence for how, why or even if.

When debating with adults, you are supposed to put some effort into your work. Indeed, that pretty neatly sums up being an adult. You are obviously a child that is incapable or unwilling to do so - at least i hope so, because otherwise i truly pity you. I have seen 40year olds who behave in the exact same way like you - their lives are normally not all that good.

[Serafina]

Replying to "Who is like God arbour" again.

I think I understand your method. You are trying to stay as close to what you know from the real world as possible. That means that you are willing to discard parts of what you have seen.

No, i'm not.
I am, however, willing to analyze it. We do not take everything we see in real life for granted, either.
If i show you a diagram in real life, do you assume that it is 100% accurate? Of course not, especially if it shows something that is evidently impossible.

I on the other side try to stay as close as possible at what was shown and said in a movie. While doing that, I'm ready to discard my knowledge of how it should be if it would happen in the real world and accept that the viewed world is different. With other words: I suspend my disbelief.

So am i - otherwise, i would not readily accept warpdrives, phasers, energy shields, lightsabers etc.
However, just suspend my disbelief. You, however, appear to suspend your critical thinking as well.
While i merely treat the sci-fi universe as real, you treat everything in it as infalliable - apparently, even if it contradicts itself!
Of course, you won't actually do the latter - i do not believe that you think that Han Solo was correct when he stated that the Empire could not destroy Alderaan, given that it just happened. To be blunt, that makes your method inconsistent and dishonest - you just can't take every word for absolute truth all the time.

The problem with your method is that it precludes any analysis, if applied properly. This will invariably lead to any question (especially regarding crossovers) as being unanswerable. However, people who follow that line of tought invariably do not apply your method consistently - sometimes they analyze, sometimes they don't, whatever suits them.
In contrast, i am willing to analyze anything.

The problem is that you can't argue with Parsimony using your methods.

Parsimony is the use of the simplest or most frugal route of explanation available.

Actually, it isn't.
Parsimony is the principle that out of equally descriptive explanations, the one that requires the least new models/explanations is the preferable.
Put simply: You see a couple of knocked-down trees.
Now, you can assume that a recent storm knocked them over. We know that storms happen, we know how they work.
Or you could assume that it was done by some other method. However, that method will invariably require additional, unknown terms.
Now, if you actually find evidence that is not consistent with a storm, the first theory is no longer descriptive enough.

How does this apply to our debate? Taking the phaser drilling as an example, we have two options:
1: The cave was not that deep down. That only requires that (the description of) one particular diagram is wrong. We know that diagrams are often not entirely accurate, often even by purpose to make them more viewable. It has no problems with physics or observed capabilites of Federation technology.
2: The cave actually is as deep down as the diagram indicates. That requires that one piece of dialogue (quoted in my posts above) that indicates that they drilled only about 8km is wrong. In additon, you have to introduce extra terms such as unknown technological capabilites and various violations of phyiscal laws.

By parsimony, the first theory is clearly superior - it only requires one additional term, the diagram being wrong.
Yours requires that a piece of dialogue is wrong (or heavily interpretated, which is no different from doing the same with the diagram). It also requires several other additional terms. Worst of all, it adds NO more accurary or descriptive ability to the theory.

But you are not explaining what has happened in a movie in the simplest or most frugal route of explanation. You are changing what has happened because you think that what has happened is impossible. You are not trying to find a way to explain what has happened without ignoring some of the given facts.

As i just showed, so are you.
Consider this exchange:
[quote="TNG "Inheritance""]JULIANA: The mantle is less resistant than I thought it would be.

DATA: We are within two kilometers of the magma pocket.

JULIANA: Another five seconds should do it. We've broken through.[/quote]
This clearly indicates that their drilling rate is 400 meters per second, 8 kilometers in 20 seconds.
You can add the additional term that their drilling rate was much faster at first - so you are no better of than me.

When I see something that should be impossible, I either suspend my disbelief or conclude that there have to be unknown variables and that these are making possible what seems to be impossible.

This is precisely what's wrong with your way of thinking.
For you, suspension of disbelief means "do not question the episode".
For me, it means "analyze the episode as it if were real".
The problem is, you suspend critical thinking - and while this is not harmfull while discussing sci-fi (since that is hardly of any consequence), it certainly is in real life.

In the TNG episode »Inheritance« they have said that
the molten core of Atrea was not just cooling but had begun to solidify.
if the cooling would had continued at this rate, Atrea was supposed to become uninhabitable within thirteen months.
the pockets in the magma layer were only a few kilometres away from the molten region of the core.
they wanted to use the ship's phasers to drill down through the planet's surface and into the pockets.
they wanted to monitor the density of the rock layers and adjust the strength of the particle beam as they were going because that was supposed to minimize the seismic stress they were generating while they have drilled.
they wanted to set up a series of plasma infusion units in the pockets in the magma layer, which should be triggered by firing a modulated energy burst down through the shafts. The injecting of sufficient plasma directly into the core was supposed to trigger a chain reaction that should have reliquefied the magma and stabilized the core temperature at ninety-three per cent of normal and kept the core molten for centuries.
This is how they described their problem and what they wanted to do to solve this problem.


If I understand you correct, you would have already a problem with this dialogue because how they were describing Atrea is not possible to our understanding of the structure of a planet. A core of a planet does not suddenly stop to "generate" heat. And even if it would suddenly stop to "generate" heat, it would need a much longer time for the in the matter stored heat to dissipate through the mantle. It would be impossible for a core to cool down so fast, that it begins to solidify and makes a planet uninhabitable within only thirteen months.

Yes, this is something that is not explicable with current science.
However, that does not actualy consitute a problem for me, in the same way as warp drive does not constitute a problem for me: I can still analyze it.

Furthermore their whole plan to reliquefy the planet can not work. At least not when they are only doing what they said they wanted to do. It is impossible to drill a stable shaft into a planet through the mantle (without doing something to stabilize it). And as I have described in my prior post, the matter in the mantle would start to melt as soon as the pressure on the matter is reduced due to the drilling (unless they have done something to prevent exactly that). Let allone that I have no clue, how the injecting of sufficient plasma directly into the core is supposed to trigger a chain reaction that reliquefies the magma and stabilizes the core temperature at ninety-three percent of normal and keeps the core molten for centuries.

I admit that all this does not makes sense.

You are correct that it makes no scientifc sense.
But that's the beauty of (actual) suspension of disbelief: In real life, things pften do not make sense at first, too. A mere hundred years ago, light appeared to make no sense at all. It's behaviour was totally inconsistent. It was the same with plate tectonics, quantum mechanics etc.
Now, we do of course lack actual data here. But we still know some things, given sufficient time that would allow us to construct a model explaining it.

The question now is what we do with that dialogue?

Do we disqualify it because it describes something that can't possibly happen?

Or do we suspend our disbelief and accept that this planet seems to be very peculiar where such things are possible and/or that they have found a way to make it possible?

If we have sufficient reason to believe that their dialogue is wrong, we discard it. We do the same in real life - if an eyewitness describes how someone flew away on angel wings, we do not believe him either. Now, if we have actual reason to believe him (more than eyewitness testimony).

A simple solution here would be:
-They are wrong about their statement that it affects gravity. This could be a simple mixup, it happens to the best. Or they have a unified theory of EM-fields and gravity, therefore making the mixup more excusable.
-They do not have to drill that deep down - just to a point where they can set up their equipment (presumably, doing so on the surface is not sufficent)
-The process would become irreversible/unfixable instead of instantly fatal within thirteen months. It could take another decade or even longer - depending on the lifespan of that species and/or their willingness/capability to leave their planet, that could still be really, really bad.
-Reducing the stress from drilling actually makes a lot of sense, no problem here.
-"For" can easily be replaced with "it will have normalize within centuries". Again, mixups happen - especially when an universal translator is involved. The plasma is...well, i have no idea how it is supposed to work, Perhaps they want to push radioactive elements deeper into the core, or infuse neutron radiators that would lead to more nuclear decay, producing additional heat.

Now, i am not a geophyicist, so this is not an actual good analysis. But i think i have shown that this consitutes no problem under suspension of disbelief.
This is NOT ignoring the dialogue. I do not pretend it never happend, i have just analyzed it. In oder to to challange that analysis, you do have to do your own.

I think that to ignore this dialogue equals watching the episode without any sounds. In both cases you would not know what happened at all in that episode. Try it! Try to watch that episode without any sounds. You wouldn't be able to understand what they are trying to do. The visuals would become meaningless because you can't interpret them out of the by the dialogue given context.

Why should i ignore it? You appear to be the one who would just "take it on faith", which is equal to ignorance to me.

Do not mistake me. I know that not all what is said has to be true. They can be mistaken or liying. But this is something for which I have to find evidence in-universe.

There IS evidence. I have listed it numerous times.

There is no such evidence in the TNG episode »Inheritance«. In-universe their plan seems to be sound. Otherwise there would have been enough other people who would have objected to it. And that it has worked in the end speaks for it too. If they all were stupid, their plan couldn’t have worked. But that means that they can't have been mistaken.

A flat-out lie, since i listed the evidence.

And I do not think that your interpretation, that they meant only the depth they wanted to affect with their equipment and didn’t want to drill to that depth, does make sense.
That is not supported by their dialogue. It is clear what they have said and I do not see room for such an interpretation.
If we assume that they have only meant that, then there remains the question how the injected plasma was supposed to reach the core through the more or less 3.000 kilometres thick mantle.
Why drill at all? They wanted to affect the core by injecting sufficient plasma directly into it. By drilling only 20 km deep into the crust, they have shorten the distance to the core by 0,0016 per cent (assuming a 3.000 km mantle).

Cite the dialogue. No one has done that so far, and i am tired of doing the homwork for my debate opponents.
The latter is easily explained: They have to get trough the crust, the lower layers are easily more permeable due to being more-or-less liquid.

And concerning my speculations: I think you have problems with unknown variables. My position is that there are things that are not shown on-screen. Most of these things are irrelevant. But sometimes – and oftentimes only because we are asking questions – a few things become relevant. But because we have not seen, what has happened off-screen and because it was not mentioned on-screen, we can only speculate, what has happened off-screen.

I LIKE unknown things. They challenge me, they amuse me, they interest me and are a nice hobby.

It is similar to mathematic: You have a equation with a few known and a few unknown variables. Known is what I have summarized above. Unknown is, how they have solved the described problems. But it is known, that they have solved these problems. And now we can try to find a solution for the unknown variables. It is possible that there are more than only one solution.

Yes, it is.
However, you are someone who just makes up his variables. I am someone who hunts for additional evidence.
Now, the latter is (generally) not possible in mathematics - but this is not math, this is science.

I have proposed several in my prior post.

You have decided to ignore some of these known variables to make sense out of the equation without looking for the unknown variables.

Another lie. I have adressed your points.

Further, there is nothing wrong with asssuming that one piece of data is wrong if it makes it impossible to solve the equotation. We actually had this in several math tests (back in school), where we were supposed to spot the wrong pice given information (such as one lenght of a geometrical figure) in geometric figures - and of course the correct value for that lenght/whatever.

(I hope that what I have written makes sense to you. After I read that you have the complete (German) collection of Jules Vernes work, I noticed that you location is stated to be Germany. I assume you are German or at least are able to speak German. Maybe we can try to find another way to continue that debate, a way where we could use our mother tongue.)

No, thanks, i would actually prefer to keep this in english, mostly because my vocuabulary for debating (particulary sci-fi) is actually greater in the english language as it is in german.
Furthermore, i don't wish to expand this to email or anything else unless absoltely necessary - and i most certainy intend to keep posting it on SD.Net for general amusement, which would be worthless if not done in english.


I commend you for making solid, apparently well-tought out posts. I would however urge you to consider this point:
When debating, suspension of disbelief does not equate to taking things on faith, into believing in them. It equates into treating them as real, and then analyzing them.
I do the same in real life, say with stories in the media. Critical thinking is a very important skill, and sci-fi debating is a playfull way to train it.
You are wasting a great opportunity, and ignorance can always be a pitfall.

[Serafina]

You failed to address it.

-1

Provide an explanation why it fails to adress this.
Given that you have demonstrated an astounding lack of knowledge, saying so doesn't cut it.

Representation of the REAL thing....

The shield shown in red clearly covers the generator and a large area of endor that is what was deactivated and why they could not bombard it.

-1

So - nice ignorance of my point.
A representation is, by definition, not the real thing. I gave a detailed explanation why we do not see the shield in the diagram and why we see the shield at the actual moon.
The latter trums the former with ease.

I posted a screen shot and acompanied it with why that included a explanation...IT DID NOT include a blue glow explanation at all.

You lack of attention tom detail is a massive flaw, i suppose it is from hiding on SDN for so long.

-1...you are not doing well..

"Hiding on SDN"?
How and why would you hide somewhere where you are subject to actual scrutiny? I actually have to worry that someone points out if i make invalid arguments here - heck, i actually DO worry about that.

Diverted to where MR laws of thermodynamics?...and yes this time it was not a error.

-1, this time with your own foolishness.

Ah, you admit that you are deliberately trolling. Nice one, chap
Of course, you should realize that i am actually mocking your demonstrated lack of evidence and education, along with your stupid arguments - while you are attacking me for being who i am.
This is the exact equivalent to attacking someone due to race. I suppose racism is not banned on your precious forum?
Or sexism, for that matter?
Either way, it will hardly scare me off - but this makes you not only stupid and uneducated, it makes you SCUM.
Let's hope you never procreate - as unlikely as it is in the first place.

It is fully consistant Aand the chain reaction does not compress them tight. The DET theory is the one that is disproved.

It would have to due to it's proposed nature. Ignorance of your own "theory": Fail.
Besides, nitpicks do not constitute a disproval of anything, not even in decent politics.

Read the web site, after all you are the member that supports it not me.

LINK the website - how about that?
Oh, you mean your forums main site? The one that contains neither calculations nor quotations?
If it does not contain either, it is not admissable evidence.

Quality rebuttal

-1

Are you serious?
It's not like you would know how a qualitative rebuttal would even look like - after all, you never gave one.

Wrong, one is dead one is not, my logic is and 2 living humans od differing age.

-1.

Stars are not alive.
There are significant differences between main sequence stars and red giants. Only your ignorance can allow you to dismiss them with this ludicrous "comparision".

Hey, dipshit: If they can turn it into solar busters within a short order, they effectively HAVE a stockpile of such weapons.

Consession accepted.

-1

Aah, quotemining. Did you know that this is a favorite creationist tactic? You should really join them - at least, they can make money out of their bullshit.
Of course, i was actually saying that in context that makes it pretty clear that i did not conceede anything. Rather, it dismissed your "point" that they do not need to stockpile them because they can reconfigure existing weapons. That's like saying that if you do not load your weapon, it's no longer a weapon. Try getting trough a security check with a pistol and a clip of ammo - it won't matter wether they are combined or not.

Your diameter + visual and verbal canon material.

Does not constitute evidence by YOUR criteria. At least TRY to be consistant, instead of switching sides.

That is not conrrect dialog, and when it is devided and used in its correct order with other canon and accurate dialog we see that she adjusts phaser power to reduce stress near the pockets.

Lie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbC8-EvH ... re=related
At about 6:02, you hear these exact lines.

Apparently, your hearing is damaged. I would advise visiting a doctor - nudies of Doctor Crusher do not count.

Physical laws are constant all over the universe.

Our knowledge is not nor does your opinoin over ride canon.

So you think that on other planets, the laws of phyics change?
Stop getting your education from Trek

Eyesight and focusing in on the imahe.

Consession accepted.

-1

How about actual screenshots?

A lie. I said no such thing. Dialogue IS inherently unreliable, but that does not mean all dialogue is inapplicable.

Consession accepted.

Hehe...grasping at straws much?

Wrong learn to comprehend.

I said that due to movie making a blaster bolt from a storm trooper crosses a room in the same time it could cross a solar system, or even a gaklaxy simply due to the film making process.

Film-making techniques are not admissable evidence under suspension of disbelief.
Even if they were, that observation hardly constitutes an inaccuracy.

Grow a bloody brain.

If you accept visual limitations, you VIOLATE SoD!

No you do not understand.

Oh?
Expain how you can account for film making techniques under SoD then.

Thanks for admitting that you do not understand Suspension of Disbelief and do not use it.

It is you who does not understand what i am saying either deliberatly or because you are not able.

-1.

Ah, claiming that i understand it wrongly without explaining how.
Make-believe sure is fun, isn't it?

ME = "No consession will ever be given from a threat".

Your reply:- Thanks for admitting that you will never conceede anything, regardless of the evidence presnted.

How sickeningly arrogant must your mind work.

Nice going checking up the formatting.

-9 out of 9....your arrogance screwed you on this one pal.

Ah, yes, claiming that your opponent is arrogant - how DARE i DISAGREEING with you!!1
Of course, putting up any consistent arguments might help more than cheap rethoric tactics. Try it - after you finish high school and can do simple multiplications.

[Serafina]

Apparently, you can not adress my posts that adress you, so you try to score points when i adress other users.

The diagram is canon.

Yes it is. So?

By your own logic, interpretating stuff is not admissable. But you ARE interpretating it - you are assuming that it is not only 100% accurate, but actually shows everything you could possiby see in that area. Or that it's scaling is correct, or that the dialogue just happens to coincidice.
Either way - if you interpretate it, you are violating your own logic.

It actually includes analysis within ALL the canon materil, your requires that some be disgaurded.

Flat-out lie.
I stated and showed several times that i do not ignore canon.
Say, why do you treat canon like creationists treat their bible? Really, drop Trek, switch to Creationism - you might make money AND get chicks.

Parsimony does not over ride canon.

Another lie, i never stated that it did,

Noy only is it inaccurate dialog it ignores the fact the power was to be adjusted to reduce strss, also canon material and part of the plot.

You ignore plot and canon and use sniping comments that are not even continous.

Another lie. I already presented that you can hear it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbC8-EvH ... re=related) at about 6:02

Suspending disbelief of the impossable is not the same as not questioning the episode, it is finding explanations that are acceptable to all the canon material and plot.

And what do you do if that is IMPOSSIBLE?
I already showed situations where this is the case - the most famous bein Han Solos statement that the Empire did not destroy Alderaan and that the Death Star is a moon.
Try reconciling that without interpretating anything.

And ignoring canon means your results are worthless.

Another lie. I do not ignore anything, while YOU ignore the aforementioned canonic dialogue - something which by your logic is heresy.

Sci-fi is set mostly in the distant future, so accept that they have a expanded understanding and available tech and material.

*Handwave*
You do not understand how science works. It won't contradict things that have been shown to work billions of times (such as newtoninan mechanics or thermodynamics).

Sufficienct = not supporting my bias.

Why is it that you assume that i am biased?
Oh, right - because you assume that no one who is not biased can not see your HOLY TRUTH.
Did i mention that you debate like a creationist already?

Find a way to explain within the boundries it is the right way....but you only do that for SW..

Another lie.
Provide evidence/examples for that claim.

You ingnored canon, lied about dialog and misinterpreted visual material..

What, you REALLY did not watch that episode? Isn't that your holy duty as a trekkie - or were you out of paper towels?

They give you the chance to serve your bias through misinterpretation and ignoring canon.

You know, i happen to have a live outside of sci-fi debating?

The only variables worth a damn are those that do not conflict with plot or canon....yours tend to do both a lot.

Another lie.

TRANSLATION:

I ignore canon or assign canon to any material i feel like whenever it serves my bias.

Hmm...should i count it when you lie about the same thing several times?
I guess i should.

Pretty much the theme of your entire debate style.

At least my style is consistent. You switch yours to uphold your holy truth.


Lie-O-Meter: 7

[Serafina]

I did both liar..

Only in your mind. Oh, and if you do both - do you admit that you try to score cheap points?

You cannot disregaurd canon plot material..

Never did. How long are you going to keep that up?
You, however, DO - because that dialogue is quoted is canon.

And you also choose to mindlessly worship your holy series, instead of thinking critically.

Some throw away dialog can be disgaurdede but canon plot material?...never.

So you admit that dialogue is unreliable?
Tell me then, what do you base your argument on?

Truth.

You not only ignore it but you also think your opinion and speculation can creaste it when it suits you.

If that would be the case, my statement would have been wrong.
Apparently, you are incapable of discerning between truth and false.

Your theories act like it does.

Parsimony is not a theory.

You hear the second two lines not the first and they are consistant with the canon material that points out she would be adjusting phaser str to reduce stress.

So bloody what? The lines wether the mantle is resistant or not have no bearing on the argument.

In this case it is not.

EASY.

We also have the fact that the DS was new and not been used before...PLOT CANON.

Solo was not looking at a cross section of the DS.....CANON.

He was instantly corrected as part of the plot in both cases, in fact one we knew was already incorrect cos we saw the planet destroyed.


So very easy..

So you admit that people can be wrong. Great. So if dialogue can be wrong, what do you base your theory on?

I did not ignore it, it mearly confirms earlier dialog about manually adjusting the beams str to reduce stresses.

You are just sniping out comments instead of following the canon plot.....a weak, obvious and dishonest tactic.

Bullshit. No stress levels are mentioned.
However, a rate of drilling is mentioned. Taking that rate and your proposed depthk, they would have to drill 125 minutes - more than two hours.

You are the one hiding in your sanctuary pal not me and clinging to your fanatical rubbish.

You set your little rules up that do not allow debate on the base aspects of SW canon material.....and you ban those that do for "heresies against doctorine"...

A few hundred years ago you would likely be burning ppl for disagreeing with you instead of just banning them.

No one is banned for arguing against Star Wars. Heck, Alyeska is a Mod over here (the only reason he is no longer a supermod is that the forum in general has been restructured). I also once argued for Trek - of course, i am actually capable of reconciling my oppinon, unlike you.
You ARE, however, banned for stupidity, dishonesty, racism/sexism and lies. Hmmm...i guess it'S obvious why you were banned, isn't it?

You posts cover that, try reading them from a non biased perspective.

Ah, your bias again.
And referring to "my posts", which at this points cover several sites. Can't you be specific?

I did you added dialog like it was part of the conversation and ignored the fact it was part of the overall plot material.

It was taken from the script of that episode, and had no bearing on my argument.
Oh, and "overall plot" - of what does the plot consist then? What is your source for that plot, if not dialogue and visuals?

So do i, i own a very successful ground work and landscaping company in the UK, i built it up myself and when im working on my PC doing quotations i also releave the boredon doing this.

Ah, so you are a succesfull bussinessman who can't even spell properly?
Nice going there - totally believable, and also has no bearing on any arguments.

Actually the only consistancy yours has is its bias and arrogance regarding you thinking you can create or dismiss canon material by sheer opinion.

plain english, properly spelled translation:
*waah, i can't refute anything! She is sooo biased"


You know what?
You are a sexist, dishonest, unintelligent piece of shit. Your arse would be banned on any half-decent forum for the lies and sexism alone. Either the mods here are not very active, or they don't ban you because you suit their doctrine. Given the makeup of the rules in this forum, the latter would be absolutely no surprise to me. By all means, i would be glad if they proove me wrong - but that would require action.
Oh, and don't try to use this for an attempt for censoring you for your arguments - your personal attacks just went too low, which should not be allowed on any forum with any sense of morality at all.

Your posts consist entirely of circular claims. You did not post a single piece of evidence, not even a bit of dialogue (except some pretty pictures who you interpretate freely). You do not back up your argument, you nitpick whenever possible, you lie about evidence, you have no understanding of science, logic or suspension of disbelief, you ignore canon, you are incapable of performing even the simples calculations and you lie whenever it suits you.

People like you make me wish we would apply Futuramas policy on Trek.
Of course, you are going to use this to show that i am "getting desperate", that you are "getting to me". The latter is somewhat true - your stupidity has reached stupendous levels. Which IS annoying.

Any reasonable person can see that you have no argument at all.

[Serafina]

Until you stop doing it most likely.

Ah.
So you lie as long as we are having this "discussion". Good to know.

Actually id list my preferance as:

1. B5.

2. DS9.

Good to know that DS 9 is your second-most favorite show. Really nice was to disproove that you like Trek
Which is not a bad thing, of course, i just wanted to point out the arsenine logic.

Everything is unreliable, or to put it better NOTHING is totally reliable.

Aaah, typical moron-philosophy.
Concession accepted.

Yet i see through yours instantly.

Then why did you say it was true? If your assumption would be correct, it would not be true!
Could it be that at some level, you know that you are wrong, but you have to keep up your defense?

I never said it was.

Learn to use proper english then. Mine is apparently better, and i'm a young uneducated (well...no high education at least) german woman.

The l;ines regarding reducing the power as they drilled to reduce the stresses i notice you juist left out....as i said you are doing biased sniping of comments then trying tio link them TOTALY distorting the canon plot and material.

That would ALSO have no bearing on their statement about the drilling speed. Geez.
EVERY drilling causes stress. That they have to reduce it just shows that their tunnel is not very wide, or they would not have to bother.

Everything CAN be wrong, or to put it better NOTHING is totally reliable.

As i said, child-level pseudo-philosophy.
Of course, it is not surprising that someone who can't even use his own language known nothhing about philosophy.

Yes they are she says she will ajust manually as they go.

IN RELATION TO THE DRILLING SPEED. Do i REALLY have to point this out for you?

You are likely a second account of a long term warsie playing the convert.... "I SAW THE LIGHT OF TRUTH IN THE LORD OUR SAVIOUS NAME" (how apt was it blue?).

No, i was just pointing out that you do not get banned on SD.Net for arguing in favor of Star Trek.

Can't you be specific?

The biased ones.

And this is what you call specific?
How about actually quoting anything - but then again, you constanlty falsify my posts anyway.

Well i suppose that is one way of putting it thanks but i suppose i could also be described as a sucessful ground worker and gardener with several employees..........who can't even spell properly.

You do not get a lot of spelling contests pricing up jobs and organising materials ect.

Yeah, right - non-existant spelling capabilites sure are no hurdle when trying to get a job

Nor does your... "i has life" but you included it.

That was not an argument. That was mockery. Of stupid people (i.e. you).

I am not sexist, i do not lie, i have a high IQ although i am lacking somewhat in a educaton....but then im 39 and my lfe is good plus i have no need to use foul abuse when things do not go my way.

So, you are thirty-nine, know absolutely nothing about science...oh bloody hell, i truly pity you.
And knowingly trying to use inproper pronouns IS an attempt to belittle me for my gender - the very definition of being sexist.

My personal attacks?...wtf are you on?, all you have done is fling foul abuse when things did not go your way.

My critiuqes have all been light sarcasm or regarding your bias and arrogant attitude towards debating and within the debate. But then i suppose with your arrogance pointing out your flaws is what you would considser a heracy and harsh personal attack...lol.

"Light sarcasm"? 'You think attacking someone for his or her gender is "light sarcasm"?
Especially after you earlier promised not to do it again. I guess promises are not worth that much for you.

Wrong my posts are consistant with the truth and canon.

THE TRUTH

You did not post a single piece of evidence, not even a bit of dialogue (except some pretty pictures who you interpretate freely).

That applies to you not me.

Flat-out shameless lie.
I posted videos, dialogue, citations and calculations.
Here is a hint: Try not to lie about things everyone can check.

You do not back up your argument, you nitpick whenever possible, you lie about evidence,

Agin that is you proven multiple times.

Do you really think you have enough crediblity left that anyone takes your word for true?
Here is a hint: Try showing where i do it. That would actually proove to people that i do it.
Of course, i did no such thing - hence, you resort to lies.

I understand enough and you rewrite canon or think your opinion over rides it at liberty...you are a joke.

You did not even understand the difference between heat and temperature!
You did not even understand what an explosion is!
You do not even understand simple oxidisation!
You do not even understand that the laws of bloody god-damn physics are constant!
And you think you know ANYTHING about science at all?
Here is a hint: The first step to learning is admitting that you do not know something. Try it.

I am discussing the foundations the calculations are based on, i will not be dragged into a warsie math false dillema.

*waah, 40-year old gardener can't understand high-school math*
Here is a hint: TRY TO DISPROOVE ME.
You did not show where the foundations for my calculations are flawed. That the asteroids do not collide in a 0° angle is not all that important - considering that i only took one asteroid into account and therefore have lot's of energy left to explain this.
The rest was just you saying "calculations proove nothing".

Well at least you got that right even if its actually exposing your tripe while posting the truth that really gets to you....poor baby with no ban hammer i-win button a mod can press for you to chase away the nasty man ...heh.

I can kick your ass completely on my own. Guess what - if i do not want to deal with you anymore, i can simply stop posting. I could not care less if you claim victory afterwards in your little "no math or evidence allowed" forum.

Oh, and how cute that you did exactly the thing i predicted - using the "you can't ban me"-argument.




Here is a hint:
Try engaging in actual discussion. That includes making solid points, using evidence and math.
I did that repedeately - you always try to drag it down in little line-by-line rebuttals, because you KNOW that you can not stand up to me in honest debate.
In any academic debate, i would have crushed you and you would have been laughed off the floor along with a weekly supply of vegtables - properly small ones to suit your cranial vegtable.
I have seen 12-year olds who have better debate skills. Your claim of a "high IQ" is simply laughable - you type like someone who doesn't know better, and you barely produce anything of intelectual value. You have no knowledge of nothing (not even of Trek apparently), and your math skills are evidently non-existant.

Try to do what i already did multiple times:
Formulate a short, detailed summary of your actual arguments.
Supply each argument with some evidence, and then elaborate on it.
If you can do that, we have a debate. Otherwise, you are mentally wresteld down by a young girl. Deal with it.

[Serafina]

Actually il will be pointing out your lies until you stop telling them.

You know - how about actually quoting where i lie?

Oh, you can't? Perhaps there have been no lies from this side of the fence?

Damn str8, its number one sometimes depending on my mood, but B5 is more consistanlty number one.

STR8? You know, that's hardly the right way to compensate for your atrocious spelling.

A anyalitical and open minded philosophy actually.

No Concession given.

Say - if you are analytical-minded, why don't you ANALYZE anything?

I am way to old to re-educate my self on summat i do not care about just to keep the occasional grammar nazi i come accross in my forum discussions happy.

Bollocks. If my 87-year old grandfather can learn another language, you can damn well learn your own.
Proper spelling is about politeness - expecting other people to correct (ly read) your mistakes is just outright rude.

If you say so but i like the idea of no absolutes.

Say, did you ever actually take any courses in philosophy? Name three philosophy books you have read (or better yet, own).

TO REDUCE THE SIESMIC STRESSES AROUND THE POCKETS ECT...HENSE SLOWER DRILLING NEAR THEM..

So they had to reduce their speed of drilling by three orders of magnitude? That would indicate that their faster drilling caused AT LEAST three orders of magniture more stress - you know what that would cause? Earthquakes. On a populated planet.
Then again, Starfleet never cares all that much about civilian lives.

Yes you do.

Spoken like a true imbecile - without even the slightest evidence.
Hey, dipshit - how about actually prodiving EVIDENCE?

Been doing so for a day or two now.........

Flat-out lie. You were repedeately challenged to quote where they mention that 3000km (or whatever) figure - because the episode sure as hell doesn't mention it.

I discuss the job with the customer, i price it up then send them a writted price or give it them verbally depending on thecircumstances, its ground work and gardening/landscaping im doing for them not a novel.

Yes, because you would be utterly incapable of anything else, evidently.

Nothing is a ovestatment but im sure il make it to 40 or even older with what i know about science................

Guess what - a lot of people know jack shit about science and get old.
Those are typically people that do not value knowledge.

Toyal nitpick, i did it one time by mistake and the second after multiple insults......and im not sure you even are female to be honest you do not post like one and you ae way too sensitive in regards to gender.

Id say a long term rabid warsie male playing the converted to SW "i saw the light" trekkie female.

No, you did it several times by mistaken. I told you, and you PROMISED to stop. Do you know the value of a promise?
You continued to so so right in your next post - apparently, you do not know.
And the difference between my insults and yours is that i attack you for what you DO, while you attack me for who i AM.
Everyone with at least a bit of decency can see the difference.

You abuse the terms you claim to hold dear, its a disgrace.

Yet is still posted them. How can you claim to value science if you do not actually provide evidence for anything you say?

I do and i pointed them out.

Bollocks. At most, they were minor flaws, if not outright nitpicks. They do not invalidate the calculation in any way.

143 although that was when i last got it checked in 2006 and that has been a pretty consistant score give or take a bit since 1990.

Hey - every dipshit on the internet can claim an high IQ.
Say - would you kindly describe
-how the test was called
-what kind of answers were asked
-where the test was performed
-how much it did cost you

It supprised me the first time i got it checked and the resuts were explained as i was a bit of a hooligan from the age of 14 who did not care a jot about anything but alcohol and other unpleasant behaviour.

Still i grew out of it and here i am annoying a MR i abuse logic, science and truth...LOL, just think one day you may grow out of your need to pretend to be female, a converted trekkie, and to use foul abuse.

"pretend to be female"?

That's it - i award you the Federal Medal of Sexism. You are truly an pure, unfiltered piece of toxic shit.
At this point, any decent admin would have at least a rough talk with you.
But then again - your forum propably has no female members. Which would not surprise me the least.

[Darth Holbytlan]

Your conclusions were vague in regards to how much light would be generated if any at all, your explanation for the flaming roids were overly simplistic representations of certain effects in conditions and unrealistic in regards to the reality of the situation. Oh and you failed to explain the explosions at all.

Wrong. I (with a bit help) showed how much light would be generated.
Besides - show how it actually fails. You can't just say "it doesn't satisify me". I took extremely low figures - the actual ones could easily be OOMs higher.

I do not remember him saying exactly how bright the flash it would be.

Are you daft? Can't you add 1 and 2?
Look here: I gave you the energy. He gave us the light that would be emitted. I gave you a size estaminate for the asteroid.
Simply calculate how long the energy could sustain the necessary temperatures for emitting visible light. Take the surface of the asteroid (that is visible from our perspective). Calculate how much visible light would be given out for how long.
I can do a rough calculation in my head. However, for the sake of you learning something, i will leave it to you to do it on your own (it's trivial).

You know, as much as I hate defending the moron, I think he is right that your calculation of the light released by the asteroid collision is bunk. bz249's figures do not support your position; he had the asteroids traveling 20–40x faster than you did, which amounts to a 400–1600x the increase in temperature, post-collision. Where as he has a collision resulting in a 500–1700 K ΔT, you have a collision with a measly 1 K ΔT, which isn't going to be noticeable to anyone.

The model is a simple inelastic collision. The heat energy generated is just the kinetic energies of the colliding asteroids (assuming that the kinetic energy of the detritus are negligible):

Q = ½m1v12 + ½m2v22.

The heat energy produces a temperature rise in the detritus, based on its specific heat, c:

Q = c(m1 + m2)ΔT.

Combining, we get:

ΔT = [(m1/m)v12 + (m2/m)v22]/(2c),

where m = m1 + m2.

Simplifying the model with m1 = m2, and v1 = v2 = v, we get:

ΔT = v2/(2c).

Plugging in c = 800 J/kg K and v = 43 m/s gives you the 1 K mentioned earlier. Since the flash from the impact is basically the black-body radiation produced by the extra heat, it should be pretty clear that your sample collision won't produce jack or squat. The comparison to a car crash is pretty much accurate, too—It doesn't produce a flash because of the velocities involved, not because it happens outside a vacuum.

Of course, this is all because you were extremely generous with your original setup. Anyone sane would look at the color of the glow to derive the velocities of the asteroids (such as bz249 did), not pull—good lord—explosive asteroids out of his ass.

[Serafina]

Thanks - of course, he will try to use that to claim victory.
Of course, he would have to SHOW that the asteroids are too slow - which would require simple scaling.

Oh, and Kor - this neatly disprooves that you are somehow forbidden to argue pro-Trek (or against Wars), or that i am a fanatic who can't stand to loose.
That just neatly disprooved the results of my calculation (due to my extremely generously low velocity and mass estaminates) - but do you see me angry? No, of course not - i am actually happy, because i just learned something.
Oh, and it also shows that you did not bother to actually check my calculation, or were incapable of doing so properly.

[Serafina]

Ghetto-Edit:
Oh, by the way:
If we want to get the right KE by velocity-increase alone, we have to take my estaminate (96m=~100m) and scale it up 20-40 times (30 average) to about 3000 meters.
Simple geometry shows that those asteroids are now about 1500m away from the Falcon - hardly that much, given it's speed.
Of course, that would ALSO increase their size (things further away appear smaller, in case you do not know that). If we combine both, you can cut that distance further down.

[Serafina]

You know - how about actually quoting where i lie?

Oh, you can't? Perhaps there have been no lies from this side of the fence?

Done that multiple times over the last few days inc examples.

So, there should be numerous examples, but you can't point out a single one?

Yeah, i guess everyone can see how you are lying out of your ass.

Remember earlier when you complained i was not addressing all your points?.....and i said its cos i ignored the irelavant crap?...

If i did that, i could easily ignore your every word, since they contain neither argument nor evidence.

You are right i CAN, i just aint gonna....

So you have a high IQ (or at least claim it), but you ain't gonna use it.
Guess what - having a high IQ doesn't make you smart. It measures learning ability, nothing else. Learning things makes you smart, but you are evidently unwilling to learn even fundamental skills.

Proper spelling is about politeness

Well looking at these samples below id say your spelling is ok but im not sure these and the many other comments you make could be considered polite just cos you spelled em correctly.

I am impolite towars you, since your stupidity deserves mockery.
You, howeverk, are impolite towards everony who has to read trough your horrible spelling.

I do not expect nor did i ask you to correct my spelling, however i have corrected you silly ideas on how your opinion over rides canon or can create it along with other mistakes.

In your dreams, pal.

I grew up so life took care of that.

"i am old, therefore i know stuff" is just plain wrong.

It has been a long time since i read them but i do own:

Beyond Good and Evil
The Dawn of Day
On the Genealogy of Morality

I do have a few others but like i said i have not read even my favorite (Beyond Good and Evil) for nearly 10 years.

So you own some Nietsche - the preferred philosopher for pretend-philosophists.
And you did not read them in more than ten years.
I think i do not have to say anything else here, you already took care of that

Perhaps but then perhaps not so much considering the relative densities at the lower points compared to the higher. For somebiody who has whined because of the pressure and densities ect at those depths you do tend to ignore them when it suits you..........but them i am

Still i would be interested once again how you can go from a canon quote and visual of her adjusting the str to REDUCE the stresses to claiming in your opinion canon says they caused global armageddon....

So, your answer to "why do they have to reduce their drilling speed by three OOMs for the last five second" is handwaving it away with "higher density".
Of course, that doesn't work out. It would mean that their drilling speed goes down lineary with density - but density rises lineary the further down you get, so your drilling speed should also go down lineary.
If that would be the case, there is simply no way for them to drill that deep if their drilling speed for the last 5km is only 400m/second. It doesn't work out mathematically.

Thank you for that ray of sunshine MR happy, and your personal trek canon comment regarding them not caring about saving ppl......im sure you will have some really interesting perspectives on treks inhumanity toward man.

They put CIVILIANS aboard WARSHIPS.
The USS Yamato had civilans aboard when they went into the Neutral Zone!
Sisko did not evactuate his civilains BEFORE heading into battle in the first DS9 episode, even tough it only took a minute or two DURING battle.
This shows an astonishing disregard for the lives of civilians.

Not really i do it cos that is all that is needed, i do have a few guides for aftercare i wrote myself but cos they are paying customers and not foul mouthed, lying rabid warsies i used word spell checker before i saved them.

I explained it earlier (and everyone should be capable of figuring this out on his own, especially highly-intelligent philosophers): You are impolite towards everyone who tries to read your posts.

And the difference between my insults and yours is that i attack you for what you DO, while you attack me for who i AM.

I actally attack your silly theories basis and your lies and arrogance, i do now enjoy calling you a dude though as you do post like one...a immature and emotional one but still a dude.

Spoken like a true sexist - figuring out my gender solely on a single piece of my behaviour.

Is was a test done at a locally run education centre, i cannot remember how much it cost but it was not a lot and my wife paid for it anyway as it was her idea for me to do it in the first place, it may have even been free.

I do not know what the tests official name was and i do not recall any of the specific questions tbut i do remember that they were not about actual knowledge like "who was the king of spain in 1352AD" as i remember saying that that i did not have much of a education.

So you don't remember anything about it.
Surely, a sign of great intellect.

How is thinking that you are lying about your gender sexism?.

Because you think you have the ability to judge my gender based purely on my posting behaviour here.
This is simply not the case - only a sexist thinks that one can judge someones gender based on such limited information - or that women have to conform to a specific way of posting!

For somebody who claims to be analyitical and educated you really should know the differance between a sexist comment and a comment regarding simple honesty.

As i said - you assume (you said so) that i lie solely based on the way i behave in this discussion.
You have no proof that i am lying, you base it purely on stereotypes.

In fact i just pointed this out to a female i know and she agrees that you are very likely a guy just from the stupid sexism comment alone.

Ah, yes, of course - because it is totally inexplicable that i am otherwise fed up with your stupidity
Besides, woman can easily be as sexist as men.

Doubtful but then you being tucked away on SDN gives you no real experiance with "decent admins" who know fool well that many "female" posters are actually males... and thinking such about somebody is hardly sexist or a crime.

Again, you think that you can judge someones gender purely based on the way they post on the internet

I do not care enough either way to ask as its not particularly important in regards to the discussion topics, at least not as far as im concered or them if there are any as they have never made a big thing out of a MR/MRS error.

Unlike you.................lol.

Neither did i - i just pointed it out, especially since you ORIGINALLY adressed me correctly as female. Otherwise, i would not have cared.
However, i do care that you try to use it as an insult.

I am still not getting how spelling all that correctly some how makes you a polite...

Oh and it is pretty obvious who the one filled with toxin is as it keeps spilling over in your posts..........is it from a single traumatic event or has your young life been a constant barrage of inadequacy and humiliation?, how about you tell me where the bad man touched you?.

Yay, internet psychology


In case anyone likes to know why i am that fed up with his attempted usage of my gender as an insult: Spoiler

I am a transwoman (transsexual male-to-female).
Put simply, that means that i actually have to defend my gender against assholes quite often. Kor obviously knew my gender in his first posts (no one uses female pronouns by default). Given that he is a former member of SD.Net and that this information is available from public forums there, i think it is quite likely that he knows this.
He is simply trying to use who i am to insult me in one of two ways:
-he knows that i am transgendered, and attempts to outrage my by adressing me as male. This is simply extremely intolerant, and any mature forum should not allow this
-he doesn't know that i am transgendered, but thinks that he can judge someones gender purely by the way they post on the internet. This betrays extremely stereotypical thinking - sexist thinking. Again, no mature forum should tolerate this.

So. There you have it. Either way, he is an asshole who tries to insult people for being who they are.
I am not trying to end this "debate" this way - this has no bearing on either side of the argument. However, i DO want to point out that Kor simply is a giant, intolerant asshole.
However, i am hereby dropping this point. It's simply pointless to argue with such people, especially at his age.
Continuing to argue this point would detract from the actual hillarity of his stupidity and add an truly annoying point, spoiling the fun - and what little argument is left.


Oh, and by the way:
You are evidently incapable to returning to an actual discussion. I did so previously, you dragged it down into pointless bickering.
I challenged you to do this:

Try to do what i already did multiple times:
Formulate a short, detailed summary of your actual arguments.
Supply each argument with some evidence, and then elaborate on it.
If you can do that, we have a debate. Otherwise, you are mentally wresteld down by a young girl. Deal with it.

You did not do so, despite it being a chance to formulte your arguments clearly. Anyone interested in actual debate would do so.

[Serafina]

Yay, obvious quotemining.

WUT?...Oh right..... yay i win.

No you don't.
You have to show that the distance between Falcon and Asteroids is too low to explainthe impact results.
Just saying so won't cut it. I still have proof that they can reasonably produce what we see - you have no proof that they can't.

Oh, and Kor - this neatly disprooves that i am a fanatic who can't stand to loose.

Really?....so you have nothing more to add on the matter then?....

Hehe....if i WERE as fanatical as you, i would just have cried that calculation are invalid.
Of course, instead of doing that, i admitted my error and remedied it.

1. That just neatly disprooved the results of my calculation (due to my extremely generously low velocity and mass estaminates).

2. If we want to get the right KE by velocity-increase alone, we have to take my estaminate (96m=~100m) and scale it up 20-40 times (30 average) to about 3000 meters.

1. You mean extreeme honesty regarding velocity and size estimates?.

2. LOL.......

Where is the dishonesty?
I SPECIFICALLY used the lowest conceivalbe number for my first calculation.
1.5 km already appear quite short at car speeds (100-140 km/h). The Falcon is easily capable of much more than that. That is by no means an outlandish number.

Of course, if it WAS, you could easily show the actual distance. Every good landscape designer should be capable of doing so (i had to do that for a simple hobby project, i think a professional should be able to do it in his sleep). By your own admission, you should have the qualifications for this. That you don't do it shows neatly that 1.5km is totally possible - or that the actual number is higher still.


Go on - show us that the asteroid-falcon distance is shorter than 1.5 km!

By the way, this is my original post:

Thanks - of course, he will try to use that to claim victory.
Of course, he would have to SHOW that the asteroids are too slow - which would require simple scaling.

Oh, and Kor - this neatly disprooves that you are somehow forbidden to argue pro-Trek (or against Wars) (on SD.Net), or that i am a fanatic who can't stand to loose.
That just neatly disprooved the results of my calculation (due to my extremely generously low velocity and mass estaminates) - but do you see me angry? No, of course not - i am actually happy, because i just learned something.
Oh, and it also shows that you did not bother to actually check my calculation, or were incapable of doing so properly.

Italics mark an ghetto-edit. Curse you editing time limit.

[Serafina]

So, your answer to "why do they have to reduce their drilling speed by three OOMs for the last five second" is handwaving it away with "higher density".

Yup.

So, you admit that this is not a valid explanation - because that's what handwaving means.

Linear density is not the issue as it was the density near the pockets that it the part they needed to be most careful near to keep the pockets stable as mentioned they could not drill elsewhere when the later one had issues.

No proof given at all.
Furthermore - if it would really cause great stress, if they had drilled at 1000 times of that speed before - that would still have affected the cave. That's why your handwave does not work - they would have to constantly lower their speed, but if you do that you do not get anywhere near your unquoted 3000 km figure.

But go on, try to put up a calculation how they did it. You could take 2 km steps where they lower their drilling speeds more and more - down until 400m/second.

Well i remember quark was on the defiant a few times as a rep of the ferengi and that merchant dude as well as garak (hardly a harmless bunny thogh is he?).

But i do not remember other civillians on the defiant unless it was a rescue or part of the mission....but then WARSHIPS in the federation only really came about in the later eras in DS9 ect.

Bullshit.
All Federation ships we see are just as heavily armed as those of their neighbors and are often quite superior.
If a real-life ships has powerful radar, missiles, cannons and whatnot - do you think it's not a military ship just because it says so?
Even if they were not warships - they do routinely run into danger. Putting people on board of such a ship risks their life.
For the crew, that's part of their job - but not for their families or CHILDREN!

A captian against the treaty to investigate the Tkon before the romulans got hold of the tech and likely would have used it to kill billions?.........i suppose he did.

So - you admit that he recklessly endangered Civilians?
Then tell me, why does Picard the same whenever they encounter an anomaly or unknown alien lifeform?

Also true although we do not know what other circumstances prior to the fight caused that....and sisko awas not in command (Martok was in command, although he looked like he was in disgused (that was humor btw as it was the actor who played martok).

Sisko was in command of his own ship, wasn't he?
At least, he should have dropped the civilians off at the START of the battle - instead, he waited until his ship was damaged!

Still the galaxy class in DS9 dropped off all its civillians before going into womhole...good job as well........so maybe they learned OR maybe the FEW times we see that happen their are other reasons.

Yeah, so they figured it out during the Dominion War. Still, how low must they value the lives of their families if they take them into danger all the time?

See?
That happens when you reduce your posts to their actual content.
Barely anything. You dropped any and all arguments regarding the Death Star and your supernova-weapons.
And you are not putting up any actual proof, even if i describe exactly how such proof should look like and how you would get it.

[Serafina]

Yea its easy, i normally get my tape measure and unwind it until one end it touching the starting point and the other is touching the finishing point.

Then i look at the number on the tape.....

I have never given a quote or needed to derive distance over a television screen in space.

In other words, you can't do basic math, and your estimation is based upon nothing.

Considering the falcons very vey slow speed at the time of the impact 1.5km is way over, a few 100 mtrs or lest at best id say.

Prove the slow speed. We see it pass kilometer-wide (based on the known size of the falcon) in a couple of seconds.
Take a half-kilometer-wide asteroid and pass it in 2 seconds - that's a speed of 250 m/s, or 69 km/h.
That is, again, a low-end estimation.

Federation ships at the points you mention were ships of exploration NOT WARSHIPS....dear god your arrogant to think you can just disregard canon material.

Even their exploration involves danger on a regular base.
Furthermore, they were STILL heavily armed. If a nuclear missile sub comes to a foreign port and claims that it's just doing floor mapping, do you think it's not a warship?

Ships of space exploration can carry weapons, but they are still classed as exploration ship in canon, stop dictating and changing canon material.

Yes, they are called by Federation-propaganda.
And yet they use military ranks and the Federation has no other military. They are always called upon when a fight is at hand.
You might compare them to exploration/trading vessels of the age of sail - and the sailors there did not take their families on board either - they would not have wanted to do so either, since these endeavors were quite dangerous.

Yup for the crew its a job for the family its a choice, although it is noted that either during somewhere after generations families were not on starships, the E-E was doing a nice safe shake down cruise and did not have any.

The Galaxy-class is specifically DESIGNED to carry that many people. It's not like only a couple of families choose to be aboard these ships - they make up quite a significant number.

So the policy must have changed.

Yes, it did during the Dominion war. Even the Federation is not that stupid.

Needlessly?, if the romulans had figured out Tkon tech billions would have been at risk.

Yes, needlessly - there was no NEED to take the civilians.
If we were talking about civilian archaeologists, maybe - but we do not.

I suppose that would have made sense, but then we would have lost the whole "de Borgs did killed my wife" plot...

You are breaking suspension of disbelief.
Unless you want to imply that Sisko wanted to loose his wife.

You know plot does not need to make total sense right?, like a commando team wearing camo gear and then having a bright shiny gold 6ft ish robot along who walks like he needs a dump, and another shorter one that is bright blue and white and looks like a novelty butt plug....

Suspension of disbelief. Lazy writers are no excuse.

Why go over them again?, i WON so i moved on to other stuff you were raving about....

You did no such thing.

I proved that Alderaan had planetary shields. You did not provide the demanded proof for your chain reaction.
You did not prove that that torpedo would work on every star (specifically main sequence stars). You did not explain why no one behaves like such a weapon exists, why it is never mentioned.

In other words, you proved nothing.

By the way, here is canon-novelisation proof for Alderaans shield:

"The defense systems on Alderaan, despite the Senator's protestations to the contrary, were as strong as any in the Empire. I should think that our demonstration was as impressive as it was thorough."

And ROTJ-novelisation (also canon) that Endor has a full planetary shield:

At the center of the briefing room was a large, circular light-table, projected above which a holographic image of the unfinished Imperial Death Star hovered beside the Moon of Endor, whose scintillating protective deflector shield encompassed them both.

[Serafina]

It is based on what i see, unlike you who will likely base it on what you WANT it to show.

You provide NOTHING.
Give us evidence. Screenshots with size&range estimations. That's really not that hard.

Watch a few secs before and after the collision, you see the speed has been slowed considerably from what it was doing earlier while being chased by the TIES.

A blatant lie. The asteroids outside do not slow down at all, and they are the only thing that you can use as a speed estimate.

That coupled with the FLAMINGASTEROIDZZZ!!! speed as it was approaching them makes the flacons speed at that particular time very slow.

So you ASSUME that it was approaching them?
By that logic, if i race towards a wall in my car, the wall is approaching me

A nuclear missile sub is a warship because that is its classification...while i agree starfleet ships are armed it is canon that they are ships of exploration, MOVE ON.

They are CALLED that.
But wouldn't you call a ship that has enough firepower and shields to take on the warships of it's neighbors a warship?

True but then the merchant navy on earth also has a military ranking system and names.

It also has it's own military navy. The Federation has no such thing.

True, but then that was TNG all over as it was supposed to show a kind of semi peaceful era ect ect.

Yes, very peaceful - that's why the Galaxy-class is also so heavily armed
If you design a ship that is as heavily armed as any other military ship and to put civilians on it, you obviously do not hold the lives of those civilians in high value.

Voyager had no crew either and it launched 2371, that was before the dominion war.

I assume you mean "civilians", not crew?
And Voyager was actually a DEDICATED Exploration vessel. Curious that the heavily armed ships carry civilians (and are designed to), while the fast, lightly armed exploration vessels do not, don't you think?

He could hardly dump them all in shuttles and he was against the clock in regards to the romulans AND breakling a treaty.

But he DID. Granted, they were escape pods, but he did EXACTLY that.

Whatever, the reason they did not drop them off is unknown, maybe the thought the borg would be easy to beat with a fleet, maybe another reason but your guess is no better than anybody elses without more info.

He could drop them off during battle within a couple of minutes and without disrupting combat. It was clearly not too dangerous, or he would not have done it at all (if lifepods are sitting ducks that are in danger in battle, he would not have used them to put civilians on them). But he only did so AFTER the ship took critical damage.
Why not do it before the battle, or at the beginning? No logical reason at all.

I say i did.

EXACTLY.
You SAY that you did it, but saying so doesn't make it true!

Wrong, you proved you are so arrogant that you think that your personal opinion can write canon material and disregard canon visuals contradicting planetary shields (ROTJ MOVIE).

Again with "ignoring canon"?
You ignore what this passage says:

"The defense systems on Alderaan, despite the Senator's protestations to the contrary, were as strong as any in the Empire. I should think that our demonstration was as impressive as it was thorough."

Alderaan has very, very good defense systems. Those will obviously include planetary shields - especially since Alderaan is peaceful, and a shield is purely defensive.
Alone, that does not prove the existence of a planetary shield. But look at the next quote:

At the center of the briefing room was a large, circular light-table, projected above which a holographic image of the unfinished Imperial Death Star hovered beside the Moon of Endor, whose scintillating protective deflector shield encompassed them both.

See? The "impenetrable shield" (according to ROTJ-dialogue) encompasses the whole moon.
A very strong shield that covers an entire moon/planet. That's the exact definition of a planetary shield.

Apparently, you always cry "you ignore canon" when i add 1+1 together and you do not like the result.

I clearly pointed out visual material that disproved conclusivly the DET theory and was fully consistant with a chain reaction.

You ignored it.

No, i disproved it. Nothing of what we see requires a chain reaction. Parsimony as well as the planetary shield dictates DET.

You did not prove that that torpedo would work on every star (specifically main sequence stars).

The star they used is mearly a old main sequance star, considering the way it was done there is no reason it would not work on a younger version....and that is just one of many sun popping WMD type tech available.

Red giants are BY DEFINITION not main sequence star.
Red giants use the triple-alpha process to gain energy (helium fusion).
Main sequence stars like our sun use very different proton–proton process (hydrogen fusion).
Dialogue specifically refers to helium fusion:

TIMICIN: The basic theories for helium fusion enhancement have been discussed for over a century, but there's been no method of practical application until now.

(taken from the script of that episode).
You can't just assume that something that works on Helium-fusion will work on Proton-Proton fusion.

It is mentioned as they have a entire episode about it, other sun popping tech is also mentioned and they even expand on the tech regarding suns to allow them to reignite dead stars....interestingly with a device that used protomatter.

It is NEVER mentioned as a widely available weapon. They mention that the Dominion TRIES it once (and just because they tried doesn't mean it could actually work), but they never mention that a vast stockpile of such weapons exist.
By your logic, because the Germans started to build an aircraft carrier in WWII, they were a dangerous naval carrier force!

In other words, you kicked my butt and i cannot deal with it.

Yup, now you are getting it.

I NEVER used these words. You are not only a liar, but also an idiot if you think that no one can check that. A simple ctrl-F search will reveal that i never even used the words "my butt".

See? That's why i warn people away from rabid sci-fi fans - including, but not limited to Trektards.
You do not only make up dialogue for sci-fi, you also do it in real life!
These behaviors eventually leak out - or are indicative of an already existing problem.

[Serafina]

Considering the roids are not stationary the only one worth using to judge the falcons speed is the flamingasteriod and that is heading towards the falcon.

Bullshit.
You can't just assume that the asteroids will speed up - where would they get the energy for that?

Given the incoming angles of the collision that deflected it id say yes.

Do you know at what speed and angle?
You can't just ignore the movement of the Falcon, you know?

But go ahead, actually demonstrate the low speed of the falcon, instead of just saying so.

What i or you would call it is irrelavant, CANON says they are ships of exploration....how many times lol..

And i suppose if the US Navy starts to call their aircraft carriers luxury cruisers, you will believe that as well?

Interesting interpretation..

If you ever get to write a trek episode maybe you could get a admiral, captain or the federation president to say words to that effect so it becomes canon.

It IS taken from canon.
Or do they have to spell out everything for you?

It was a federation Starship and hardly lightly armed when compared to a galaxy class.

Yeah, probably because they did not waste space on civilians.

And when and why did he do that?....

After his ship took heavy damage.

Well that is a issue then but "they do not give a crap about civillians" considering the sheer number of times they are willing to sacrifice themselves ect for the whole "needs of the many" bit shows that it is unusual.

I said that the government doesn't care that much. It's also obvious that they are willing to let complete foreign civilizations die out to uphold the prime directive.

If G canon film material contradicts anything in the novelisations the novel lses....the rotj shows no planetary shield so no shields.

There is NO CONTRADICTION.
I already explained why - a diagram does not have to show anything.
Besides, ROTJ SHOWS the shields - they have to be partially deactivated when the captures shuttle arives.
That shows that there are shields - else, there would be no need to deactivate them.

Visuals disprove DET and supports the chain reaction, also Parsimony screws the DET theory due to huge complications in creating, storing, directing such energy fro a 160km sphere, fueling issues also add at least one if not move levels.

You completely ignore that the chain reaction would ALSO create huge amounts of energy.
Besides, we KNOW that Star Wars has tremendous energy production capabilities. We know that from their star fighters (who can achieve orbit in seconds - that takes a lot of energy), their weapons (gigatons are well established, BDZ requires even more), their shields (Star Destroyers can withstand thousands of asteroid impacts) and much much more.

Chain reaction requires the empire to have the ability to cause fusion in virtually any material.........a ability supported by the SDN site.

Link it then.

Oh, you mean this?

Unlike Federation engineers who seem to restrict themselves exclusively to matter/antimatter reactors for warp drive and fusion reactors for impulse drive, Imperial engineers use any and all means of power generation depending on applicability. The extreme high-density energy requirements of the Death Star called for hypermatter (ref. Star Wars Incredible Cross-Sections), since the Death Star's massive interior cavity could effectively isolate crewmembers from the hazardous effects of hypermatter. The World Devastators used artificially sustained miniature black holes in conjunction with the consumption of planets. Small, poorly maintained vehicles like landspeeders, airskiffs, and similar repulsorlift vehicles use fusion reactors because of their convenience and high safety factor (ref. Star Wars Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels).

Our fusion reactors operate on a completely different principle than the primitive fusion reactors of 20th century Earth science, and are related to those reactors only through the use of the word "fusion", which is actually an extremely oversimplified way of describing what happens in our reactors. The "fusion reactors" used in all standard Imperial starfighters are obviously not based on conventional nuclear fusion, because they can induce fusion in "heavy metals, liquid reactants, or virtually any substance" (ref. Star Wars Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels). Nuclear fusion is impossible in those situations, so our "fusion reactors" are clearly based on a completely different principle than nuclear fusion. This should dispel the unfounded rumours that Imperial power generation is based on nuclear fusion.

Note the word REACTORS.
You lack any sense of logic. Just because you can do something in a controlled environment (a reactor) that doesn't translate into the ability to induce it in a highly mixed enviorment such as a planet.
By your logic, we have ray guns that can blow up deposits of uranium and can infuse fission in anything just because we can do so in nuclear reactors!


I see that you ignored my argument that shows that there are significant differences between Red Giants and sun-like stars.
I guess i can take that as a concession that they can not blow up a main-sequence star with their modified torpedoes?

Also, consider the following piece of dialogue from the episode "Captain's Holiday":

AJUR: Have you heard of the Tox Uthat?

...

BORATUS: It was invented by a scientist named Kal Dano in the mid 27th century. The Uthat is a quantum phase inhibitor... capable of halting all nuclear reaction within a star. (causing a supernova.)

PICARD: But why bring such a powerful weapon into the past?

BORATUS: Criminals attempted to steal the device from Dano. He was determined to keep it out of their hands, so he fled back to the twenty-second century... where he hid it.

Italics by me.
See? That one is explicitly called a WEAPON.
When was it invented? In the 27th century!
Which means...they DON'T have it in the 24th century.

WRONG.

In that situation i would say that the germans had the ability to build a aircraft carrier in WWII.

While this is indeed the direct conclusion, this uses actual logic instead of Kor-logic.
Your Kor-logic assumes that if something is mentioned only once, it is available in large quantities.

I know i did it tp irritate you emoBOY...and considering your over the top reply id say it worked and yea EVERYBODY can see i changed your quote DUHHHH...

So you actually admit that this was a deliberate lie?
Nice going there, chap. A brilliant move to reassure everyone of your intellectual superiority, as well as the merit of your word when you spout unproven claims.

Even though i actually did kicK your butt and you cannot deal with it.

Ah, wishful thinking.
Perhaps you should actually get some medication against that - just like you claimed that i do (which i don't, btw).

[Serafina]

You can't just assume that the asteroids will speed up - where would they get the energy for that?

Where do i say the flaming roid speeds up?...

You said this:

Considering the roids are not stationary the only one worth using to judge the falcons speed is the flamingasteriod and that is heading towards the falcon.

The first part obviously refers to all the other asteroids we see flying outside trough the windows of the Falcon.
Those can be used to judge the Speed of the Falcon, just like cars on the other side of a road.
Now, cars can actually speed up on their own, and so can the Falcon - but the asteroids can not.
Therefore, it is a safe assumption that the asteroids we see have a constant speed.
This allows us to measure the relative speed (not the absolute, but we don't need that right now) of the Falcon - and since the asteroids seen outside pass at the same speed all the time, the Falcon is neither slowing down nor speeding up significantly.

Therefore, your statement that he was suddenly braking just before the two asteroids collide is not true - nor would it make sense, given that they were surprised by the impact.

We can also determine the absolute speed of the Falcon when the ship flies past larger asteroids. Those are relatively slow, and we can measure their length in "x times the length of the Falcon". We know the length of the Falcon (35m).
We can measure the amount of time the Falcon needs to pass these asteroids (about 2 seconds for a distance of about 500m). Obviously, we can use that to determine it's speed (69km/h). While this is not particularly impressive, we must remember that the scaling is again generous (and can easily be much more) and that the Falcon is obviously not flying at it's maximum speed due to maneuvering a dense asteroid field.

And i suppose if the US Navy starts to call their aircraft carriers luxury cruisers, you will believe that as well?

If they do get back to me il let you know.

So you can't even answer a hypothetical question? And you want to debate sci-fi VS?
Now, even i believe that you could - but you don't want to, since you would have to admit that my analogy is correct:
Starfleet ships are warships, and putting civilians on the is just reckless.

Your interpretation of canon is not canon.

Bushwah.
This is just basic logic:
If you endanger someones live without any need, you do not care for his live that much.
Unless you can show why they should put civilians on board of warships (and no, being explorers is no excuse - that's still dangerous and there is still no need for the civilians to be there), Starfleet is doing just that.

Consession accepted.

Intrepid class starships are newer as well.

What concession?
They put civilians on their ships even tough that hampers the effectiveness of the ship. That doesn't disprove the point that Starfleet is reckless - indeed, it undermines the point that their "we are peaceful explorers" attitude (not to call it an hippie-attitude) blocks out their common sense.

After his ship took heavy damage.

There we are then.

Yes, there we are.
He does not think of the possibility that the civilians on board of his ship might be in danger UNTIL his ship is heavily damaged.
Any commander in real life would feel the responsibility to protect civilians (especially his own!) and get them to safety ASAP. Sisko doesn't do that, that problem doesn't even occur to him until it is nearly too late!

Suppose the British government took the Queen Elizabet II to ferry soldier to the Falkland islands during the Falkland War (they did). Now, instead of getting the passengers off board ASAP, they waited until they are there (supposedly to safe time) and then shove them into the lifeboats once the ship is under fire and already damaged!
This is pretty much what Sisko apparently did - he want to battle ASAP, and did not think of the civilians on board until the ship was damaged.

That is a oversimplification of a complex issue that i also do not always agree to.

No, the prime directive is simply idiotic.
Originally, it was obviously intended to prevent malevolent meddling with primitive societies. This is a noble, if somewhat ignorant goal (you could easily help them quite a lot if you are carefull).
But in TNG and later shows, it is apperently mutated into Dogma "Do not interact no matter what".

In "Pen Pals, we have the following:

DATA: Captain, Drema Four is enduring the same geological stresses we have found in the other systems.

PICARD: Then your pen pal is in trouble.

DATA: Yes, sir.

PICARD: What are you proposing?

DATA: If we can determine the cause of the geological instability, we might be able to reverse the process.

PICARD: And violate the Prime Directive.

They could have easily helped that planet (that "geological stress" was quite dangerous"), but they choose not to do so - to sit idly by why people die.

In "Who watches the Watchers":

BEVERLY: Before you start quoting the Prime Directive -- he'd already seen us; the damage was done. It was bring him aboard or let him die.

PICARD: Then why didn't you let him die?

BEVERLY: Because we were responsible for his injuries!

PICARD: I don't know if I concur with that reasoning, Doctor. But now that he's here, you must remove all memory of his encounter with the away team.

BEVERLY: By erasing short-term recall?

PICARD: It's been accomplished before.

BEVERLY: Yes, I'm familiar with Doctor Pulaski's technique. Though I can't guarantee it will be effective on Mintakan brain chemistry --

(Liko awakens and sees Picard, but Dr. Crusher administers a tranquilizer)

PICARD: Doctor, your next task is clear.

They are willing to temper with the brain of a species they NEVER met before, just to uphold the prime directive!
That could have easily killed the boy! No real-life doctor who honors the Hippocratic Oath would risk that, unless there is a very grave reason. Apparently, a Starfleet doctor would.

From "The Masterpiece Society":

PICARD: If we ever needed a reminder of the importance of the Prime Directive, we have it now.

RIKER: They're Human. The Prime Directive doesn't apply.

PICARD: Doesn't it? Our very presence damaged, perhaps destroyed, a way of life.

...

RIKER: We had to respond to the threat from the core fragment... didn't we?

PICARD: Yes. Of course we did. And I wish I could see any other course we could have taken. But I would submit, in the end, we proved ourselves just as dangerous to that colony as any stellar fragment could ever be.

Look at this!
Suppose there was a tribe on earth in some jungle who had never before met an outsider.
Now, it turns out that they - oh, i don't know, sit in the path of a lavaflow or something.
Would you airlift them to safety if you could? (there is not other way for them to get out).
Would you think that ruining their "way of life" is AS BAD as them being dead?

Same in '"Homeward":

NIKOLAI: I propose we create an atmospheric shield on the planet. We can camouflage the equipment just like my observation post. No one will ever know it's there.

RIKER: You can't be serious.

NIKOLAI: I realize it would only provide atmosphere for a limited area of the surface. But it would be enough to save one village.

PICARD: I have no intention of compounding what you've already done by committing another gross violation of the Prime Directive.

Note that they don't even have to worry about "cultural contamination" - that shield would be cloaked!

Picard sums that one up pretty neatly, too:

PICARD (addressing the crew): This is one of the times when we must face the ramifications of the Prime Directive... and honor the lives we cannot save.

Yeah, they sure will be glad to know that you let them die to preserve their "way of life".


Of course, Starfleet and Trekkies always try to justify this: ("Pen Pals" again)

PULASKI: The Prime Directive was designed to protect, not destroy.

PICARD: So Doctor, you draw the line at the death of millions.

PULASKI: Yes.

PICARD: Same situation if it's an epidemic rather than a geological catastrophe?

PULASKI: Absolutely.

PICARD: How about a war? A generations-long conflict that is killing millions. Do we interfere?

(everyone falls silent)

PICARD (continuing): Now we're less secure in our moral certitude. And what if it's not death. What if it's an oppressive government which is enslaving millions?

The Prime Directive serves many purposes. Not the least of which is to protect  us. It keeps us from allowing our emotions to overrule our judgement.

How repulsive!
Morals are not made from absolute rules! By their logic, every crime is equally bad, every tampering not worth it.

Getting involved in a war is one thing - you might end up letting a despot become ruler.
But saving people from natural disasters? Where the hell is the moral justification for that?
Interfering with their "Way of life" is no excuse - so what, they see some people helped them?
Either they already believe in gods and now have some new legends, or they don't and now know that aliens exist.
Is any of that worse than being DEAD?

Your opinion is cannot give material canon status...

How many times do you need to be told that?.

"your opinion doesn't count".
Why do you even think that will convince anyone?
Do you think it's my "opinion" that diagrams are not accurate? That's a FACT. Deal with it.

You completely ignore that the chain reaction would ALSO create huge amounts of energy.

No i do not.

Since you never explained how they get the energy to punch trough the planetary shield (a chain reaction that affects matter would not work on a matter-less shield) and where the chain reaction get's it's energy from - yeah, you did ignore it.

Not with the anti-grav stuff you claim they have.

That won't violate conversation of energy. When you lift something out of a gravity well, it gains potential energy. You have to add that energy somehow. Anti-grav doesn't violate CoE, at least not in Star Wars.

BDZ?, is that the melted planet that the dude went for a stroll on afterwards?...yea ok and apart from that i did not see it in the movie or the firepower figures certain ppl claim to have got from abusing the material.

Hey, dipshit:
BOOKS ARE CANON.
Even low-end estaminates for BDZs (just melting one feet of the surface and vaporizing the oceans) need exatons of energy.

You mean very few impacts and one knocking off the entire bridge tower of a star destroyer?.....

They flew trough the field for at least hours, possibly days.
Simple geometry tells us that they were hit by at least thousands of asteroids during that time.
We also know that shields have to be down for good holo transmissions - and guess what, they just had one during the time the bridge tower was hit.

My logic is fine and after reading the rest of that page my idea wins principle of parsimony by a long chalk.

Ok, so by your logic, we can shoot a ray at uranium depostits and they will do the same thing as a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb?

That particular weapon was invented in the past by Kal Dano (Who ever he is) it was brought to the past so they did have it.....in fact it was around from the 22nd century.

But it was INVENTED during the 27th century. That's the point - you can't invent something when it doesn't exist!
He brought it to the 22th century for some reason and it was discovered in the 24th century - but you apparently make another leap in logic and assume that they could therefore replicate it. Too bad the dumbass Picard destroyed it.

Picard mearly refer5s to it as a powerful weapon....a bit like he does sorins weapon in generations that does the same thing interestingly enough.

I think the Tox Uthat got destroyed or was sent back to the future in that episode right?.

So congratulaions you have shown that in this case the Tox Uthat is gone...although i never mentioned it or even considered it actually.

Listen up, moron:
You can only INVENT something if...it doesn't already EXIST.
If it exists in the 24th century (as you claim,), then how can you invent it in the 27th century?

While this is indeed the direct conclusion, this uses actual logic instead of Kor-logic.
Your Kor-logic assumes that if something is mentioned only once, it is available in large quantities.

My Kor-logic says if somebody has the tech to build something they can build it, the only limitation is construction time and perhaps materials.

And those are SEVERE limitations.
Oh, and you forgot politics.
Either way - you still did not prove that something that affects HE-HE fusion will affect H-H fusion - that your weapon would work on main-sequence stars.

It was a deliberate attempt to annoy you by rewording your post so it told the truth, the fact you did not actually post it is the only issue and BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS considering we are on a forum with it clearly adjusted by me.

Guess what: Pretending that someone said something that that person never said is a LIE.
You are still incapable of differentiating between truth and lie.

Nope i have a busy week next week as il be taking half a day on wednesday for a CONSIDERABLE quantity of liquid medication during the game.

Ah. Why i am not surprised that you think alcohol is medication?

[Serafina]

Okay, time to get back from your useless wank and to go back to the discussion.
By the way, i challenged you to do this on your own. Apparently, you are not interested in a good discussion.



TESB asteroids
You claimed that these asteroids contained some volatile substance, that they were "explosive".
Your entire claim is based on one collision, which you claim can not explain
-a flash of light
-and the burning remains that get hauled away
However, you never provided any calculations or evidence that show that neither can be explained this way. That alone should be enough to disregard your argument, but i actually provided evidence that both can be explained by the collisons kinetic energy alone.
I provided a calculation that showed that these two asteroids release enough KE to explain the flash. However, two other users at SD.Net (not you) pointed out that my calculated KE would not provide enough energy.
However, they also provided me with a way to show that it WOULD, given that the asteroids are far enough away.
Simple geometry shows that a distance of just 1.500 kilometers from the falcon is enough for this.
You tried to challenge that calculation, but all you ever did was claiming that you attacked the "foundations", without ever actually doing so.
The burning asteroid can easily be explained by released oxygen and iron. Both are obviously contained in nickel-iron asteroids (oxygen in rust), and the impact easily releases them.
You claimed that it would not happen, without explaining why a reaction with sufficient energy and reactant would not happen.


Planetary Shields
You claimed that there are no planetary shields in Star Wars.
To do that, you have to dismiss a large amount of C-canon, which is canon unless directly contradicting G-canon. Note that C-canon that is written AFTER a piece of G-canon is already checked for this - so all the novels which came out after ANH won't contradict it (since they have been checked for such contradictions).
Also note that contradiction means "say something where the movie explicitly says otherwise". NOT "say something which the movie doesn't mention". Otherwise, these novels would be pretty pointless. If the movie had said and shown that Alderaan had no shields, then your argument had merit. However, it said no such thing and even showed the shield stopping the DS-laser for a split second.

You also tried to claim that Endor had no planetary shields (obviously since you have to deny their existence altogether). You claimed that the hologram we see during a short briefing in ROTJ showed no such shield. However, the film also shows that they have to open the shield for the rebel shuttle to land - how is that possible or necessary if no shield exists?
You also ignored the following quote from the ROTJ-novelistion.

At the center of the briefing room was a large, circular light-table, projected above which a holographic image of the unfinished Imperial Death Star hovered beside the Moon of Endor, whose scintillating protective deflector shield encompassed them both.

The movie novelizations ARE G-canon.
Your claim rests on a single diagram which does not show the whole shield for sake of simplicity. Diagrams do not have to be 100% accurate, to claim that they have to is simply ignorant.


Since planetary shield obviously exist, the following quote from the ANH-novelizations proves that Alderaan had them:

Vader: "The defense systems on Alderaan, despite the Senator's protestations to the contrary, were as strong as any in the Empire. I should think that our demonstration was as impressive as it was thorough."

Powerful defense systems would obviously include planetary shields. Especially on a peaceful planet - such a planet is much more likely to invest in shields rather than guns.

G-canon proves that planetary shields exist. G-canon proves that Alderaan had them.



Death Star chain reaction
You claim that the Death Star destroyed Alderaan with a chain reaction.
You base this on two pieces of visual evidence:
-if we look at Alderaan frame by frame, we see 2-3 frames where different parts of the planet glow in different red colors.
-very shortly (<1 second) after the explosion, there is a second explosion.

The first is easily explained:
Massive amounts of energy are dumped into the planet. No matter how much energy, that energy still needs time to travel. The explosions simply looks different at different locations - hardly surprising, since explosions always do that (unless very carefully balanced).
You said that this was instead the result of the chain reaction, but other than claiming it you did nothing. The short time frame alone disproves that.

The second is a bit harder to explain, but still doable:
The energy simply exploded everything but the solid planetary core first, then the solid core.
This is easily explained by thermodynamics - the heat first goes to the areas it can reach more easily.
You did not address that either, simply claiming that this is not valid.

You tried to claim that the Empire can induce some kind of non-nuclear fusion in every kind of matter.
However, you provided no original source for this claim, eventually admitting that you had it from Stardestroyer.Net.
However, this claim is simply ignorant:
Just because they can do it in their reactors, they can not necessarily do it with everything. Everyone with half a brain can see why this is a giant leap in logic.

Furthermore, the existence of a planetary shield neatly disproves the whole claim, since a chain reaction that reacts with matter would not affect a matterless shield.

Put shortly:
Other than pointing at things where you reject every non-chain reaction explanation, you did nothing to prove your points. However, in an actual discussion, your are expected to formulate your own theory and provide evidence for it, something which you did not do.


Supernova torpedoes
You claim that the Federation has torpedoes that can make every sun go supernova.
You base this on the TNG-episode "Half a life", where the Enterprise tries to stabilize a Red Giant with modified torpedoes. They fail, which causes the star to go supernova.
However, you make the ludicrous assumption that what works on a Red Giant would work on every other star (specifically sun-like stars). This is baseless, because the torpedo specifically affects Helium-Helium fusion:

TIMICIN: The basic theories for helium fusion enhancement have been discussed for over a century, but there's been no method of practical application until now.

GEORDI: Shock wave patterns within predicted range. 1700% rise in gamma radiation levels. Helium fusion rate increasing...

However, sun-like stars use HYDROGEN-fusion. The both are massively different, and your device would most likely have no effect at all on a normal star.

You have provided absolutely no proof that your device would work on any star that does not use HE-HE fusion.


Supernova weapons stockpiles
I have already adressed this in detail, you never adressed any of this.
Simple copy&paste would take care of it, but i will instead just say the following:

Since your device works only on Red Giants, it would be useless as a weapon - practically no one lives on planets that orbit Red Giants.


Phaser Drilling
You claimed that Federation phasers can drill trough 3000 kilometers of planet (rock) in 20 seconds.
You base this on a diagram in "Inheritance" (TNG again), where they basically say "we want to affect this region (you say it is 3000km deep, based on scaling) and therfore have to drill to a cave".

You never show that the cave is actually at or close to the depth they want to affect.
You also ignore the basic problem that a cave at such depths would be crushed by the sheer pressure of the rock above. You tried to explain this with a cave that is made out of extremely sturdy material - but such a material simply can not exist naturally. Furthermore, such a cave would be incredibly hot. However, they only mention that it had been heated by the drilling itself:

DATA: The drilling process has raised the temperature inside the magma pocket by almost three hundred degrees C. It will be several hours before it cools enough for us to enter.

No heat from the environment is mentioned, but the heat would be tremendous if it was within kilometers of a molten planetary core!

Furthermore, they actually tell us the rate of their drilling:

DATA: We are within two kilometers of the magma pocket.

JULIANA: Another five seconds should do it. We've broken through.

This comes out to 400 meters per second, or 8 kilometers over 20 seconds.
You claimed that they had to slow down in to reduce "stress" on the surrounding rock. However, if phaser-drilling at high speeds caused such high stress, you run into another problem:
They would have to drill at 1000 times the speed they drill for the last 2 kilometers. That would mean that the stress at 6 km and above is more than 1000 times greater (at least. instead, the stress would rise exponentially). That would easily destroy the cave (shockwaves easily pass trough 6 kilometers of rock, just look at earthquakes).
You tried to claim that they were reducing their drilling speed gradually.
However, that would mean that their drilling speed had been even HIGHER further above - more than a millon times most likely. This would cause tremendous earthquakes - on a populated planet.

Overall, it is much easier to rationalize that they just drilled a hole to a cave about eight kilometers deep.



Adress these points adequately.
You have NOT done so before. Do it now, or concede every point that you can not address.

[Serafina]

Well, to be fair, i was one post ahead.
Let's see if he actually addresses the arguments in his next post.

The first part obviously refers to all the other asteroids we see flying outside trough the windows of the Falcon.

Well duh.

You acted like it refereed to the asteroids in front of the Falcon.

Those can be used to judge the Speed of the Falcon, just like cars on the other side of a road.

RELATIVE speed, you dumbass. I mention that later on. You ignore it.

Now, cars can actually speed up on their own, and so can the Falcon - but the asteroids can not.

No roids cannot usually do so.

Really?
So, not only are your asteroids explosive now, they also have rocket thrusters strapped to them?

That each roid we see has its OWN individual constant speed barring collisions that would remain the same...

Didn't you just claim that the asteroids can speed up on their own?
We SEE that the asteroids at the side of the falcon do not collide. They all appear to move at roughtly the same speed, there is absolutely no indication that the Falcon slows down.

LOL nope, the roids had a variety of INDIVIDUAL speeds that would change due to individual collisions and the falcon was dodging, slowing and speeding up to avoid roids.....

We do not see it speeding up or slowing down. We do see that the asteroids do not actually move that much relative to each other. Thus, they are either not moving at all, very slowly or at about the same speed.

He had just lost the persuing ties and flown throgh a debris field caused by a collision in front of the ship so it is unlikely he speeded up so it hit his ship harder and more likely he slowed down, and then the two roids collided causing the flash, explosion and the surviving roid to be deflected towards the ship..

He was still running from the Star Destroyers, dumbass. And the measurements are taken after the shower of micrometeorites. Besides, slowing down risks being hit by a larger asteroid, a far more devastating event as several small ones.

...unless you are going to say the impact was just the PERFECT amount of KE to halt all of the surviving roids momentum?......

Not necessary at all, i never claimed nor implied that.

It's really quite simple. We see a number of asteroids out of the right window of the Falcon before and after the two asteroids collide. We can use that to determine the relative speed of the Falcon, and we see that there is no significant change.
But go ahead - SHOW us that the two colliding asteroids were not at least 1000 meters away. It should be trivial to do.

I can but once again its one of your pointless questions that you think will allow you to rewrite canon...they are classd as ships of EXPLORATION...MOVE ON FOR GODS SAKE..

Ships who are as heavily armed as their neighbors warships. Why do you resist calling them warships?

True, i would have done summat personally i did not agree with that call.

So you agree that the strict application of the Prime Directive is amoral?
And that an organization (The Federation) t hat excepts people to follow it to the letter is also immoral for doing so?

That is quite a interesting episode as it did show that interfearing could have had very large repercussions in regrds to a primitive society.

One mas memory being harmlessly adjusted to prevent what almost became a intolerant and violent creationalist subculture within it?. I supported that call tbh, but then i have a rather large personal dislike for religon.

Ah, so you think that cultural contamination is a bad thing?
Also, note that there was no good reason to interact with that society - they were just studying it!
That is of course not a bad thing - but if you are willing to risk "cultural contamination" for knowledge alone, why not for saving peoples live?

I would have saved them in "The Masterpiece Society" as well.

So again, you agree that the Prime Directive and hence the Federation is bad?
(the latter not necessarily totally - once can have a bad policy without being totally bad).

I disagreed with the call in '"Homeward", i would have saved em.

Same question.

I agree, i remember the TNG episode "justice" where it was commented "there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute." and that "life itself is an exercise in exceptions." Riker adds, "When has justice ever been as simple as a rulebook?".

As such i do think that Sta fleet captains should be allowed to judge each situation on its individual merits.

Not only that, but the Prime Directive should be rewritten. A law that has to be ignored on numerous occasions to be moral is obviously a bad law.

I never said the DS beam contained NO energy what so ever....stop putting words into my mouth.

Judging from the fact that the entire Rebel fleet in ROTJ was not capable of just blowing that reactor to smithereens, planetary shields can take an awful lot of punishment.
In order to push trough it, the superlaser already has to contain enormous amounts of energy, easily exatons.

Says who?....let me take a guess....er would it be those who want to look for reasonons to justify stupidly high calcs?...yea.

Do you know what violating CoE means? Infinite energy.
So - your choice:
-SW has infinite Energy at it's disposal
-They don't, but have enough energy to lift several tons out of a gravity well within seconds. Still a shitload, but a lot better than infinite energy.

NOT G CANON THEY AINT.

And the same book claims a dude climbed out of a hole and took a stroll......on a minimum of 12 inches of molten rock......HOOOT FEEEET!!!!.

Novelization of the movies are G-canon.
And the other books are still part of Star Wars canon - being C-canon just means that George Lucas can choose to override them when he wishes to do so.
You can't deny that without denying LucasArts canon policy, and admitting that you do not want to debate actual Star Wars.

Oh, and if i am not mistaken, that guy survived in a deep planetary shelter deep inside the planet.

Days?, the convo lea and solo have is virtually the same during the cut backs, minutes likely perhaps a hour.

Uh...the What? Convoy? Conversation?
Either way - they could have easily flown trough it for days, since they searched for them without knowing if they are still there.
Furthermore, minutes is impossible unless you think Han fixed the Hyperdrive within minutes.

Rubbish the belt was sparse where the ISD and SSD was, you can see barely 15 to 20 roids and the volume of space visable is VAST especially behind the ships where it can be described as well essentially endless due to it being well space...

Flat-out lie.
They flew after the Falcon, and we saw that this field was incredibly dense.
That the small asteroids are not visible when we see the SDs is no wonder, since they are
-blowing up lot's of them
-the small ones are too small to see from that distance.

Not only that but for all we know it only took a tiny fraction of a % of the KE of the roid hitting to knock the entire bridge tower off.

You are aware that this was a multi-gigaton asteroid?
Any ST-ship would have been annihilated by such an asteroid, while the SW-ship could have easily taken multiple of them. Their shields were deliberately switched off during that time, remember?

Really?, is that what you think i was saying?....try harder, i know its hard but do try to contain your frustration over losing.

YES IT IS.
You say that the Empire can create some kind of fusion within heavy metals within their reactors.
You extrapolate that to mean that they can do it with planets by shooting beams at them!
This is an incredible leap of faith, and everyone should see why it is just wrong.

So some guy from some unknown race invented the Tox Uthat in the future?, so what?.

Its not like the federation does not already have plenty of its own WMD's that can achieve the same effect of what ever race the dude who made that one was, who cares if they did not get that particular one and it was destroyed?.

So i guess Picard tought "what a horrible weapon" because the Federation already has thousands of them?
Suppose a US-American soldier finds a nuke. Will he be shocked by the existance of such a weapon (it not being on hostile territory)?

AGAIN SO WHAT?.

THERE ARE LOTS OF RACES IN THE GALAXY AND IM SURE THAT EACH AT SOME ADVANCED POINT OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT CAN INVENT SOME SORT OF WMD, WHY SHOULD THE INVENTION OF ONE SPECIFIC WEAPON FROM SOME ALIEN RACE MAKE ANY DIFFERANCE TO THE FEDERATIONS EXISTING TECH?......

All caps=fail.

Either way, you have no proof that he was not a member of the Federation. Given that he hid it on Risa (a member of the Federation), we have at least reason to assume that he was also a member of the Federation.

How is some alien races future invention anything to do wth contemporary federation tech apart from superficial simularities in ability?.

Didn't you notice that the Federation contains lot's of aliens?

They modified the photon torps pretty quick (within a day) and protomatter along with other canon sun popping materials used in WMD's were quite available in several episodes.

Protomatter is readily available now?
Besides, the modified torpedo used no protomatter.

And you are still ignoring that Red Giants work on a totally different process than normal stars. That alone is enough to show that they won't work on normal stars, unless you can show that they do.

Why am i bothering to continue to add a bit of humor is a better question.....

God, your so-called humor is worse than the so-called humor in "The Outrageous Okana"

[Serafina]

Aha, he has replied.
Well - let's see his performance.


TESB Asteroids

Actually it is based on several, the smallest is just the best one to use.

So, which other asteroid collisions do you refer to? Why don't you name them?

And the effects we see are not consistant with standard roids as they do not cause flashes of light like we see, explode like we see and combust like we see after such weak impacts. Therefore the roids in that belt likely at least partly composed of some sort of material that does make those effects consistant (a volatile one) and must be declared invalid material to base fire power calcs on.

There is no explosion.
Kinetic impacts can produce flashes of light.
Iron + Oxygen + Energy=Burning Iron.

They are simple Nickel-Iron asteroids, there is no reason to assume otherwise.

Your entire rebuttal was basically "they must be special because i say so".
You did not provide a single calculation or piece of evidence, you just repeated your claim that there is something we can't explain, ignoring previous explanations.

You are actually expected to provide evidence for claims. You did not do so. Start putting some actual work into your arguments.


Planetary Shields

Correct, supported by G canon visual movie material.

So, where exactly does it say that planetary shields DO NOT EXIST?

Simply - nowhere.
You took ONE SCENE and concluded "that diagram does not show a planetary shield, therefore it doesn't exist".

You did not address any of my points, nor did you actually provide evidence.
You are expected to both. Do so, or concede.


Chain Reaction

It was.

1. Lies, it is over many frames.

2. Well over one second after the beam hits the planet.

Provide frame-by frame analysis then.
Also, a frame is actually a very short timespan, less than 1/50th of a second (depending on the visual medium, of course). Even 10 frames would only add up to a fraction of a second.

Note that in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djZFHTa6TfA), the Death Star fires at 1:14, while Alderaan is completely destroyed at 1:16. The whole process, including the planet expanding to ~5 planetary diameters takes only 2 seconds, including the beams travel time.

This would be an awfully quick chain reaction.

Wrong we can still see some of the planets outline during the process.

The lower middle and lower right image of the 6 still shows the outline of alderaans surface as the chain reaction effect moves around the planet.



In fact the curvature of the planet in the top right is vaguely visable through the ejected material almost up to the main explosion that destroys the planet.

So - because we see that parts of the planet appear unharmed for 1/25th of a second, it must be a chain reaction?

Again, that's an awfully quick chain reaction. It is so quick, it could almost be DET!

Oh be quiet that entire page is a leap, if you wanna dismiss my theory you gotta start by tearing that page and most of the site its on apart pal.

My theory is sound , consistant and contains a bucket ton less components required to make a DET theory work.

So - the assumption that a process that happens in a reactor can be induced in a planet is now "consistent" and "sound"?

If you ADMIT that the page (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... ower2.html) you refer to is a "leap", why do you base your whole theory on it?
Note that the page never actually states that the "fusion" can be artificially induced in anything or over a distance.

Again, no actual evidence. Your entire theory goes like this:
"We can see details of the explosion for a split-second. I do not understand what a exposion is (you demonstrated that earlier), therefore it can not be DET. I take something that happens inside a reactor under unknown conditions and assume that it can be used as a weapon".



Supernova Torpedoes

Not just half a life actually and not just one type of tech that can achieve those results as there are a few.

You never referd to any others. Provide evidence for them being viable as WMDs.
Sorens weapon was destroyed.
The Dominion weapons requires materials of unknown rarity and was created by the Dominion, not the Federation. It also failed, never proving whether it would work at all.
Your own modified torpedo has been soundly disproved to be viable as a WMD, due to working solely on Red Giants.
The future-device was destroyed by Picard.
I do not know of any other supernova-inducing devices, and you never provided any evidence for them.


Supernova Weapon Stockpiles

Pointless due to the canon modification speed seen and readily available materials.

Your torpedo has been shown to work only on Red Giants. It is therefore useless as a weapon.
Sorens device is lost and can therefore not be replicated.
The Federation has most likely no plans for a Dominion weapon. We do not know how available or expensive the materials are.

You have no proof that any other weapons exist that can be
-modified on the spot
-assembled quickly.

Furthermore, you completely ignored the point that if they could create them in short order, the political impact would be nearly the same as with stockpiles.
Just because we take bomb-fuses out of the bombs for storage doesn't mean we have no stockpile of bombs,
An unarmed weapon is still a weapon.


Phaser Drilling

Canon Diagram and canon dialog AND canon plot material....oh and before i forget your insistance the planet was m-type and earth sized.

Diagrams are not necessarily accurate.
Dialogue is not necessarily accurate.
This has been pointed out many times, you ignored it.

A planet with earth-like gravity and atmosphere must necessarily be quite similar to Earth.

Verbally and visually they do DO.

And contradict that with more numerous dialogue and visuals.
This has been pointed out, you ignored it.

Not ignored, suspension of disbelief in support of canon material saying and showing that is what is happening, to support any other depth requires we disregard the plot and canon material.

No disregard of the plot is required. This has been pointed out repeatedly.

Again the heat from the enviroment would not need to be mentioned as it would be accepted as part of the plan, the extra heat from the phasers would be a extra problem worth mentioning and require dealing with.

Quite simply the cooling units needed longer to get the job done due to the extra heat caused by the phasers.

So...they did not wait for the natural heat to dissipate? Why did they only refer to the heat from the drilling?
Furthermore, no cooling units were shown to be inserted prior to the cave being cool. Indeed, it is quite unlikely that a cooling unit could survive the 2000+°C at such depths.

Consistant with other canon material about adjusting the str of the beam, and no the adjustments would not be linear that is why she did them manually.

DATA: "These scans indicate the pockets where we plan to setup the infusion units are some what unstable"

JULIANNA: Im going to monitor the dentisty of the rock layers and adjust the str of the particle beam as we go, that should minimise the siesmic stress we generate while were drilling".

EARLIER DIALOG:

GEORDIE: These pockets how close are they to the molten core.

JULIANNA: A few km why?.

DATA: The proceedure will involve drilling down through the planet into the pockets where we would set up a series of plasma infuser units.

This refers to density, not distance.

The latter refers to the pockets they want to influence, not the caves they drill to.

You completely ignored the scaling problem. If they slow down so fast, then the "stress" they cause at the beginning would cause planet-wide earthquakes.
Since seismic waves travel quite well into the depth of a planet, this would also destroy the cave.

Until you show a mathematical solution for this problem, you have no argument whatsoever.
Your entire argument relies on a single piece of dialogue. You interpret other dialogue to support this, but you gain your actual depth from one piece of dialogue.
You completely ignore the heat problem, the problem of pressure, the stress problem (when they would actually slow down), the fact that it can neatly be explained by drilling just 8 km and the dialogue that supports this.


You have actually provided evidence, but you still failed to provide the evidence for the actual depth.


Furthermore, consider this piece of dialogue from "Legacy":

GEORDI: We could use the ship's phasers to cut a shaft through the bedrock to this storage tunnel here. With a clear path through the rock, we'd be able to transport down to the tunnel. That would put us close enough to get to the crewmen. It would take me a few hours to adjust the phasers for drilling.

...

PICARD: How far must we penetrate to safely allow transporter function?

GEORDI: One point six kilometers.

PICARD: Fire phasers.

GEORDI: Aye, Sir.

...

GEORDI: One point three kilometers. One point four. One point five. One point six. Deep enough for transport, Sir.

This gives us another drilling speed.
Geordi counts the depth as they go along, and it increases by 100 meters every 1-2 seconds.
This is within the same order of magnitude as my drilling estimate, and can easily be explained by drilling trough different material.

Done and as per your ultimatum il accept your concession on all those i did.

Since you failed to do so, no concession is given on anything.

You failed to provide evidence for four out of six claims. The two instances where you even tried consisted of an already posted picture where you draw an unjustified, ridiculous conclusion, and a piece of dialogue that does not actually refer to any depth.
You also failed to consistently outline your arguments, instead starting your "nitpick individually" . Your longest post consisted of five lines (not counting quoted dialogue) and did not actually contain a logical argument.

You have failed. I explained to you what evidence you should present to convince me and other people. I explained to you how you should formulate your arguments, and how to back them up.
You failed to do any of this. Literary guided, you have failed at a walk to the mall.
Your phaser argument is your strongest one, and you fail to address all it's inconsistencies. Your handwaves have been demolished as being impossible due to basic science, and you ignore a large amount of dialogue and visuals to uphold it.

Any intelligent person can see that you are just making stuff up. You fail at logic, science and basic reading comprehension. "
On a debating scale from 1 to 10, i give you a 2 - for at least some effort and some understandable errors.
Compared to other Trek-debaters, you are sub-standard, tough you are not the worst.
You also get a prize for being an "annoying dipshit" and "failure at basic science". You also get an honorary "Janeway Pie" for destroying several of your arguments yourself.

[Wyrm]

Fucksake, doesn't he know we enrich nuclear fuels for nukes precisely because the natural stuff doesn't explode? Also, doesn't it occur to this moron that both fission and fusion explosions are very hard to pull off even if you have the right isotopes, which most of the earth is not?

...unless you are going to say the impact was just the PERFECT amount of KE to halt all of the surviving roids momentum?......

Doesn't he realize this would be just as much a problem for his explode-a-roids, too?