Wong Collision Corrections

[DasBastard]

Concession? My ass. You're going to have to do better than a questionable scan-job.

You are going to have to do better than questioning the scan job. It says ~11; it is your burden to prove it wrong. The reference > your speculation about missing decimal points.

1. You are forced to defend the notion that this one asteroid out of all the ones we have found has somehow managed to be the only one that is even close to being that dense.

I will use the smallest words possible: that is the only class m space rock with a listed density.

2. You must also defend the notion that, if you can do #1, this one asteroid's existence offers weight to Wong's overestimation.

You "refuted" the 7000kg/m^3 figure with the statement that the density was more than double that of any known asteroid. You have been conclusively and repeatedly shown to be wrong.

Hey, that's a cute trick, given that we don't have much of that kind of data about less-common types. For instance, we know Kleopatra and her companion are low-density, but few are willing to venture a numerical guess.

http://occsec.wellington.net.nz/planet/ ... ws0005.htm

Excuse me if I am not shocked by your dishonesty - nowhere in the article is it stated or even implied that kleopatra is "low-density" - simply that is is a porous agglomeration rather than a solid hunk of metal. The porosity of moon rock (to which Kleopatra is explicitly compared in the article) is typically less than 15%.

Math quiz: what is the density of a 50% iron, 50% Ni asteroid with 15% porosity?

Answer: 7140kg/m^3

Holy shit! You lose. Again.

Ah, but there's the catch. You mistakenly assume that asteroids are usually solid.

Care to cite a single source to the effect that the majority of asteroids are porous?

Regardless, your little red herring is irrelevant: the asteroid in the clip is clearly solid. It did not shatter harmlessly into its constituent pebbles (or boulders) upon impact, as would a significantly porous object - rather like the difference between hitting someone in the head with a loose handful of snow -vs- hitting them with a ball of solid ice of equal mass.

It is your burden to prove otherwise.

[DasBastard]

False. I really don't understand how you could be so mistaken.

Of course not. If you were capable of understanding when you have been proven wrong, this discussion (and pretty much every other discussion you engage in here) would be long over.

We don't have much data on M-type asteroids, though we know enough about one, Kleopatra, to know that she disproves your ravings.

Tranaslation: "We don't have much info on M-class asteroids, therefore, rather than employ some basic logic and materials science, we will assume they have the same properties as asteroids of wildly different composition"

Fer Chrissakes, are you really this stupid, or are you simply so incapable of admitting you are wrong that you will say things that you know to be idiotic?

As for your claims regarding Kleopatra (and your implicit contention that the Hoth asteroid was porous), they have been murdered above.

7000 > 3000 ... you lose, too. Besides, weren't you bitching just two seconds ago about the data not being for M-types?

It is increasingly obvious that the facts here are beyond your grasp. M-class asteroids (being primarily or entirely metallic rather than only partially)will be denser than V-class asteroids, imbecile. Your moronic claim that 7000kg/m^3 was more than double that of any known asteroid is in indisputable tatters, in any case.

[Captain Hornblower]

Just a quick update, the Rotational KE would be about 1.5E14J or about 16 kT. Not as trivial as I first thought. This would give the asteroid about 55-60 kT worth in energy.

[DarkStar]

First, he suggests that the bridge tower asteroid was 70 meters and spherical. It is not spherical... it is shaped like a potato. Judging by the 31.5 meter bridge tower globes, the asteroid could not have been more than 60 meters in length, with an approximate width and depth of 42 meters.

Provide screenshots to justify this claimed scaling (note: you are claiming that the globes are smaller than the Millenium Falcon).

Well, they are: http://www.synicon.com.au/sw/mf/isd.htm

Also, in the "Pure Star Wars" section we have the thread running about the size of the scanner globes. http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=594

Then, he uses a density for the asteroid almost twice that of any
known asteroid. A better average figure would be about 3,000 kg/m^3.

Not for nickel-iron asteroids, which these asteroids are. Not only are they described that way in the literature, but the Hoth asteroid field is supposedly formed by the collision of two planets, which will produce far denser asteroids than the mere agglomeration of material during a star system's formation.

1. What is your canon evidence for nickel-iron composition of this particular asteroid?
2. If two planets collided, they would not just randomly decide to only leave behind their densest material. Earth has a density in the 5500 kg/m^3 range, which is a bit higher than one would expect. The moon and Mars, for example, are in the 3000's. On the other hand, Mercury and Venus have somehow managed to achieve a similar density. (Does the non-canon make any comments about how far from the sun the asteroid field is located?) In any case, there would be a lot of lower-density material left over from a planetary collision.

Finally, he estimates the speed to be 1000 meters per second, when photographic analysis shows the speed was approximately half of this. Using the vidcap he makes available, one can see that it takes 15 frames for the asteroid (after becoming fully visible at frame 35) to collide (at frame 50). With the size known (and using the same axis to offset the effect of the asteroid's spin), it is easy to see that the asteroid was moving no faster than about 550 meters per second.

Actually, I just used Curtis' scaling. By the way, you are assuming a distance from the camera to the bridge tower in order to produce this figure. Justify this implied distance.

I'm not assuming a distance. We know that our "documentary footage" of Star Wars is on 35mm film. (The effects were shot on Vista Vision 35mm and then transferred to standard film.) This allows us to use the following:

Object Distance / Object Length = Image Distance to Lens / Image Length

Object distance is what we want to know. Object Length is the known size of the object. The Image Distance will be 35mm. The Image Length will be the size of the object on the film (count the pixels of the object and the width of the film. Your bridge-tower-asteroid clip is 496 pixels wide. I use a calculator for exactness, but you can ballpark it at 0.071mm/px, and then you just have to multiply the number of pixels counted for a known object.)

So, counting frame 50 as showing 24 pixels for the globes and 50 for the asteroid length-wise, you end up with a globe distance of 651 meters, and an asteroid distance of 594 meters. Given that the longest part of the asteroid wasn't quite touching the ship yet, and allowing for the angles and such, that is just about right. Further, if we were only 651 meters away from the bridge tower, we wouldn't expect to be able to see the entire ship's length in our field of view, and it just so happens that we wouldn't be able to, even if the camera panned down.

In other words, he made it bigger, heavier, and faster, thereby bumping up the kinetic energy to a whopping 625 terajoules, or almost 20 times my calculated figure of 36 terajoules (3.57e13J).

My page discusses momentum, not KE. Get your facts straight.

You aim for a discussion on momentum, but also chose to mention the KE figures that I noticed as contradicting my own. That's how my focus on the KE aspects of your page originated.

Then, he talks about the ramming of the Odyssey (which he misidentifies as a hit to the primary hull). After foolishly assuming that a Stardock Alpha clip of the special effects of that episode was representing the total time of the battle (hence that silly "30 seconds" comment), he gives the Jem'Hadar fighter an estimated size and estimated mass. What he doesn't mention is that the density he uses for the Jem'Hadar fighter is 50 kg/m^3, or 5% of water's density!

Really! Please let us know how you figured out this volume figure for a Jem'Hadar cockroach fighter. Since my mass figure was 10,000 tons and you claim this is just 50 kg/m^3, you are claiming that the volume of a Jem'Hadar cockroach is 200,000 cubic metres, which is equivalent to a 72m wide sphere! Anyone who looks at a spindly Jem'hadar cockroach knows that this is absolutely ridiculous. But by all means, enlighten us on your method of determining that a 100 metre long skinny, flat Jem'Hadar cockroach has the same volume as a 72m wide sphere.

You estimate the JH ship to be a "100 metre diameter, 25 metre high saucer". At the time, I simply calculated the volume of a cylinder with such proportions, but now that I look at "saucer" I wonder if you were thinking of a "saucer" along the lines of Odyssey's, with tapering edges. If so, that will (just as an eyeball estimate) double your density estimate to 10% of water's density. Still not a big change.

My own personal estimate of the JH ship's volume is based on mentally squashing the bug until the empty space is removed. It's an estimate, but I get a rectangle of 70 x 55 x 20 meters out of that, which at your 10,000 tons would still only be a density of 12% of water for the entire ship. Even if we only assume that ten percent of the ship is hull and heavy equipment, that would still only leave the ship's hull and heavy equipment with an average density of 1298 kg/m^3, or roughly six times less than iron.

He does make up for this a bit by "generously" quadrupling the actual
speed of the Jem'Hadar fighter.

Very generously, since 10,000 tons is already 4 times the DS9 TM's stated mass, and you are basing your figures on a ridiculous volume estimate of 200,000 cubic metres.

The DS9TM is not canon, and the ship it is giving figures for is only 68 meters long. Further, the 68 meter long ship is still much, much lighter than it should be, given that the other JH ship would appear to use the same materials densities as common ships, whereas the JH ship would just about have to be a hot air balloon.

And that volume estimate came from you, so don't bitch about it.

He also doesn't mention other interesting facts ... for instance, a fat potato hitting a ship is going to impart less energy per unit area than a fighter with a small cross-section, suggesting much higher resistance for the Odyssey. Further, the novelisation suggests that the ISD was destroyed, just like Odyssey.

Go Darkstar! Thanks for proving (yet again) that you're a scientific ignoramus! Actually, the "fat potato" will be a much more dangerous impactor because it's solid, which makes it 10 times denser, Mr. Village Idiot.

You think that asteroid was some impressive solid hunk of metal? Please. It fragmented one frame after impact, and it poofed into dust just a few frames later. Even so, the fragments flew through the paper hull of the ISD as if it weren't even there.

And what is this "10 times denser" crap? With the mass spread out all over the asteroid, it is going to impart force everywhere it touches, and with the instant fragmentation and near-instant total fragmentation, you can hardly claim that the asteroid was a tougher projectile than the slender, comparatively sharp-nosed JH fighter.

Not only does this increase the focus of the impact, but it also means that the impactor's physical resistance to deformation will be much higher (read: harder impactor; I hope I don't need to painstakingly explain to you why a harder impactor is bad; we are testing the depths of your scientific ignorance now).

The focus of the impact will not be increased, because the asteroid is little more than a big dirtball, based on its behavior, as opposed to the solid ball of iron you claim it to be. What I can't figure out is why you're arguing against the dispersive effects of a collision with a larger, less dense target. As an example, high-rise buildings are designed to resist the pressure of winds up to a certain velocity. But, if you take an equal amount of energy and put it into the KE of a wrecking ball, you're going to crack that building wide open at the point of impact.

And if the ISD was destroyed, you would have to explain why the captain was still standing there, alive, in the holo-transmission after the impact.

In that scene as the novel describes it, the smaller ship was destroyed by asteroid impact. It's canon.

As to why he was still standing there, I can think of several possibilities. If he was on the bridge of his ship, he might have been a little more lucky... the actual bridge room might have fragmented off of the ship. Of course, we don't know where he was at that point. He could have been in the engineering section, for all we know.

Oops- that would require observational skills on your part rather than your customary bullshit and made-up imaginary figures (eg- 200,000 cubic metre volume for a JH cockroach, sensor globes smaller than the MF).

The volume figure was yours; the globe figure is correct.

Also, the actual collision itself only wiped out a volume of about 430,000m^3 of the Odyssey, whereas a collision with nine times the KE destroyed a volume of approximately 1,839,000 m^3 of the ISD. If we were to assume similar structural and internal design (rather silly if you think about it, given the thick armor claims and "robust design" philosophy of the Empire), that would mean (judging by the volume of the ships eliminated) that the ISD hull strength was only twice the hull strength of the Odyssey (something closer to parity or even a stronger Odyssey would result if you account for the thick armor claims and robust design philosophy).

More bullshit. The Odyssey was struck in its primary hull, which is its strongest structure.

No, it was struck at the neck and secondary hull, near the torpedo tube. The actual structural supports would be designed to withstand forces due to ship maneuvers, but there's no reason to assume that the hull would be any stronger. You'll note that the point of impact, though cracked open and burning, was not totally destroyed.

The ISD was struck in its bridge tower, which is its weakest structure.

By comparison to the rest of the ship, perhaps. But, according to warsies, any part of the ISD should be stronger than any part of a GCS.

The bad part of this is that the asteroid hit near a corner. One would expect this to have enhanced the ISD's survivability somewhat, but clearly it didn't.

The same asteroid against its primary hull would most likely have done nothing.

Oh, I doubt that very seriously, given that the entire tower (including the neck, which ought to have been quite tough) was blown away.

And your comparison of volumes is irrelevant; you have no way of determining how much of the ISD was actually destroyed, or how much damage was caused by internal explosions in either case.

True, I have not accounted for the possibility that the bridge tower was a bomb waiting to go off. Since we have not seen any other bridge tower (such as the one hit by an A-wing, another one hit by a fighter, and one with the scanner globe shot out (actually the same as one of the others, as I recall)) explode on contact, though, I don't think secondary explosions are going to cause too much more damage.

The point is merely that structural failure occurred; you are introducing red herrings.

Actually, I am assuming no red herrings. You can say the ISD bridge tower had damage from internal explosions. Okay, I can rebut with the fact that the JH ship had a warp core and antimatter on board.

The way I figure it, I'm reducing the possible BS by not introducing such things.

Sure, both ships were destroyed when it was all said and done, but the Odyssey held together much better than Wong would give her credit for, and the ISD fared much worse. One might go so far as to say that the Trek figures were deflated and the Wars figures inflated...

Nobody is buying your bullshit, Darkstar. Didn't you notice that you can't even get backup on this nitpicky bullshit from other Trek people like SCVN812 or TheDarkling? Everybody is wise to your lies disguised as nitpicks disguised as genuine issues.

If it makes you feel better to believe that, go ahead. As we've seen by the way you operate, you'd rather chalk things up to "nitpicks" and call the person a liar without any basis than actually deal with the problems you have caused yourself due to your biased accounts of events in both universes.

I didn't even really have to bother answering this latest bullshit post on your part because everybody else said it already, except for the part about your idiotic 200,000 cubic metre volume for a JH cockroach, which I simply had to point out.

That was your idiotic volume, idiot. Even if you meant "saucer" as in a saucer like that of the Odyssey, the figure is still going to be larger than it ought to be, and that's all your doing. Don't blame me for your mistakes.

[DarkStar]

As to the density issue, iron-nickel asteroids (S-type and M-type) have densities closer to 8000kg/cu.m.

That is simply false. There are no S-type asteroids I am aware of with densities in that range, and though we have very little info on the densities of rarer M-types, the ones we know of also don't fit that range.

The only thing I can think of that might be the origin of your false information (thus leaving you innocent) would be that you're getting info about meteors that have come down. Those have already had most of their material burned off, though, so they usually have better densities by the time they get to our hands.

Your numbers are purely for stony asteroids and porous ones at that. Stony asteroids (C-type) make up about 75% of OUR asteroid belt. If you want to claim that the Hoth asteroid belt has a similar composition to ours then show us your justification.

Wong gave it with the claim of two planets colliding. If these were planets like Earth and Venus, the average density of the material would be ~5500kg/m^3. If it were two planets like Mars and a body like the moon, the average density would be ~3500kg/m^3.

However, you might want to be careful in that regard because an asteroid belt as dense as Hoth’s would quickly pulverize the lower density asteroids to dust with the frequent collisions that occur as shown in the movie.

And these fragments would get picked up by the slower moving asteroids. The main problem with your idea, though, is that a belt as hostile as that would phase itself out without something maintaining it, like a strong gravity source nearby.

So, if I were to use your number for the 60-meter rock, my number for the density and split the difference for the velocity between your number and Mikes the calcs would come out something like this….

V = volume = 4/3*pi*R^3 = 4/3*3.1416*30^3 = 113,100 m^3

You used a sphere. The asteroid is not a sphere.

[DarkStar]

IIRC, the ESB novelization(Which is Canon) states the belt is nickel-iron. High iron content is also suggested by the hues of the asteroids we see during the chase.

That is the first time I've heard this claim, so I would assume you remember incorrectly. I think you were thinking of the Tales quote, which does not prove that all of the asteroids were nickel-iron... just the ones he was near.

[DarkStar]

That's using YOUR calculations, which are clearly erroneous.

Oh, yes, of course, clearly, since all warsies have to do is call a person names to disprove their arguments.

[SirNitram]

IIRC, the ESB novelization(Which is Canon) states the belt is nickel-iron. High iron content is also suggested by the hues of the asteroids we see during the chase.

That is the first time I've heard this claim, so I would assume you remember incorrectly. I think you were thinking of the Tales quote, which does not prove that all of the asteroids were nickel-iron... just the ones he was near.

I'd love to know another metal which causes a rock to appear very red on closeups, Dark Star. How about you bring up some proof to your claims they aren't M-class, instead of talking out your ass. Kthx.

[DarkStar]

Concession? My ass. You're going to have to do better than a questionable scan-job.

You are going to have to do better than questioning the scan job. It says ~11; it is your burden to prove it wrong. The reference > your speculation about missing decimal points.

Given that the moon Miranda is given (assuming that, as if by magic, this crappy-looking scan is perfect as per your belief) a density of 13 (for 13000 kg/m^3) on the page afterward, I think it is quite safe and quite reasonable to request a better source. Modern estimates of Miranda's density are 1100-1200 kg/m^3.

1. You are forced to defend the notion that this one asteroid out of all the ones we have found has somehow managed to be the only one that is even close to being that dense.

I will use the smallest words possible: that is the only class m space rock with a listed density.

You are basing your entire argument off of two things:

1. that the ISD asteroid was M-type
2. A lone data point on a low-quality scan job which uses very, very bad data in some cases.

2. You must also defend the notion that, if you can do #1, this one asteroid's existence offers weight to Wong's overestimation.

You "refuted" the 7000kg/m^3 figure with the statement that the density was more than double that of any known asteroid. You have been conclusively and repeatedly shown to be wrong.

I was right. Your assertion about the low-quality scan job is not conclusive, though it has been quite repetitive.

Hey, that's a cute trick, given that we don't have much of that kind of data about less-common types. For instance, we know Kleopatra and her companion are low-density, but few are willing to venture a numerical guess.

http://occsec.wellington.net.nz/planet/ ... ws0005.htm

Excuse me if I am not shocked by your dishonesty - nowhere in the article is it stated or even implied that kleopatra is "low-density" - simply that is is a porous agglomeration rather than a solid hunk of metal.

Well, excuuuuuse me for not posting every single link I got data from. If you look up Kleopatra in Google, you'll find comments just like those I made.

The porosity of moon rock (to which Kleopatra is explicitly compared in the article) is typically less than 15%.

Oh, now you're just a damned liar. And here you keep trying to accuse me of such things. The article doesn't say that Kleopatra is like moon rock, he says it is like the moon's surface. He also says it is "porous and loosely consolidated," where loose consolidation is precisely how he describes a fragment-and-rubble pile idea of Kleopatra's origin in the paragraph above.

Ah, but there's the catch. You mistakenly assume that asteroids are usually solid.

Care to cite a single source to the effect that the majority of asteroids are porous?

Here's a succinct quote about the issue, but I've seen it all over the place. You really don't do your homework, do you?:

"Not long ago, astronomers thought of asteroids as rocks, perhaps rubble covered, but still mainly single bodies. But evidence has accumulated that asteroids are rubble piles all the way through, loosely bound together by what is generously called "gravity" (escape velocity is 11,000 meters per second on Earth but less than 1 meter per second on a typical small asteroid)." . . . "Crater chains on the moons of Jupiter, on Earth's moon, and on Earth itself also point to the gravity-induced disintegration of many asteroids prior to impact. Asteroids which rotate fast enough to fling pieces clear are extremely rare -- only two are known -- which suggests that these are the rare single-rock objects."
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/oberg.html

Regardless, your little red herring is irrelevant: the asteroid in the clip is clearly solid. It did not shatter harmlessly into its constituent pebbles (or boulders) upon impact, as would a significantly porous object - rather like the difference between hitting someone in the head with a loose handful of snow -vs- hitting them with a ball of solid ice of equal mass.

It is your burden to prove otherwise.

Idiot ... have you even seen the scene we're discussing?

[DarkStar]

IIRC, the ESB novelization(Which is Canon) states the belt is nickel-iron. High iron content is also suggested by the hues of the asteroids we see during the chase.

That is the first time I've heard this claim, so I would assume you remember incorrectly. I think you were thinking of the Tales quote, which does not prove that all of the asteroids were nickel-iron... just the ones he was near.

I'd love to know another metal which causes a rock to appear very red on closeups, Dark Star. How about you bring up some proof to your claims they aren't M-class, instead of talking out your ass. Kthx.

I have yet to see a hint of red to that asteroid. It is gray... more muted than the Star Destroyer, but muted gray does not equal red. The asteroid most people use to claim redness to the asteroids in the field is a lone dark asteroid the Falcon passes under.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html

Note also the quote on that page about the Hoth asteroid field from the Star Wars website.

[Wicked Pilot]

[SirNitram]

Yes, the collision of two planets, which produces more iron asteroids than anything else. Or are you such a moron you don't know what goes into the core of a world?

[DasBastard]

Given that the moon Miranda is given (assuming that, as if by magic, this crappy-looking scan is perfect as per your belief) a density of 13 (for 13000 kg/m^3) on the page afterward, I think it is quite safe and quite reasonable to request a better source. Modern estimates of Miranda's density are 1100-1200 kg/m^3.

You are as blind as you are stupid... there is clearly a decimal point inbetween the 1 and the 3, and the units line up perfectly with those of its neighbours. Concession accepted.



And to further debunk your "poor scan made it 11" bullshit:



You lose. Yet again. I await your next set of pathetic excuses with bated breath.

You are basing your entire argument off of two things:

1. that the ISD asteroid was M-type
2. A lone data point on a low-quality scan job which uses very, very bad data in some cases.

You said that 7000kg/m^3 was more than double the density of any known asteroid, I have proven you wrong with the densities of both Vespa and Loreley. Deal with it.

That you are oblivious to the implications of elementary logic and materials science is neither my fault nor my problem.

I was right. Your assertion about the low-quality scan job is not conclusive, though it has been quite repetitive.

Your contention fails on numerous counts: Vespa alone crushes your lame argument. Loreley (as well as the aforementioned but DarkStar-anaethema logic and science) show that there are asteroids considerably more dense than 7000kg/m^3. You are like a chicken with its head freshly cut off: flailing wildly and too stupid to know you are dead.

Well, excuuuuuse me for not posting every single link I got data from. If you look up Kleopatra in Google, you'll find comments just like those I made.

You realize that when you make a claim, it is YOUR job too back it up with sources, not mine, right? You conspicuously left out any links to any article that puts a specific number (or even range) to the density of Kleopatra. Concession accepted.

Oh, now you're just a damned liar. And here you keep trying to accuse me of such things. The article doesn't say that Kleopatra is like moon rock, he says it is like the moon's surface. He also says it is "porous and loosely consolidated," where loose consolidation is precisely how he describes a fragment-and-rubble pile idea of Kleopatra's origin in the paragraph above.

Nice job in evading the point; you have yet to provide any source which shows Kleopatra has a density anywhere near what you implicitly claim. You have further failed to show that the porosity of Kleopatra is significantly greater than 15%. Concession accepted.

Here's a succinct quote about the issue, but I've seen it all over the place. You really don't do your homework, do you?:

Ah, fallacy, your best friend. It is your burden to provide references for your claims, not mine.

Idiot ... have you even seen the scene we're discussing?

Have you, you impotent mongoloid?

Did you notice that there were no pieces of the asteroid left large enough to be seen?

Do you have even the most simplistic understanding of failure mechanics? Does your ignorance know no bounds?

Agglomerated objects will not disappear in a puff of smoke in a collision - they will immediately break into pieces along the weakest grain surfaces. For the asteroid to be completely obliterated by explosive disintegration (as was observed), an enormous quantity of elastic strain energy must be stored in the bulk prior to mechanical failure - porous objects (especially if they are ceramic) will break apart long before sufficient energy is stored. That quantity of energy can only be stored in an object that is not only non-porous, but virtually free of microvoids, cracks or alternate-phase particles.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Look it up on google. Wait, that's YOUR job Darkie.

[Master of Ossus]

DarkStar, you started this thread by making a series of erroneous claims that you said *proved* that Wong's estimates were completely off. We have shown that none of this was true. You then made sorry excuses for yourself when confronted with evidence, and then repeated your arguments again, rather than just modifying your original claims. If you had done that, you would have found out that Wong's estimates are very reasonable. BTW, what you also failed to even acknowledge was that your volume for the Jem'Hadar ship we saw ramming the Odyssey was TOTALLY wrong. You have never even bothered to refute that, yet you AGAIN claimed that your figures which you gave us at the start of the thread were correct. Your estimates need to be revised. Once you DO revise your estimates, then you will be discover the Wong's estimates were very reasonable. In short, do your homework before you return.

[DarkStar]

You are as blind as you are stupid... there is clearly a decimal point inbetween the 1 and the 3, and the units line up perfectly with those of its neighbours. Concession accepted.



And to further debunk your "poor scan made it 11" bullshit:

My, my, my... I find it very interesting that your posted images are at a resolution far greater than what we see in the original scan-job. For instance, the original scan doesn't give us the right side of the U in Miranda's U3, nor is there a decimal point between 1 and 3 ... indeed, the 3 isn't even complete.

Where did you get these? Or, did you simply make them yourself?

You said that 7000kg/m^3 was more than double the density of any known asteroid, I have proven you wrong with the densities of both Vespa and Loreley. Deal with it.

No, I said "almost twice", so mark Vesta off. Since you feel it necessary to use straw men against me, you might also consider marking 'honesty' out of your self-opinion.

Your contention fails on numerous counts: Vespa alone crushes your lame argument.

1. It is Vesta. Idiot.
2. Vesta crushes only your straw man version of my argument.

Loreley (as well as the aforementioned but DarkStar-anaethema logic and science) show that there are asteroids considerably more dense than 7000kg/m^3.

And where does he get that figure, hmm? There is no other data on Loreley's density or mass available, that I have found, and he didn't even get the spelling right. For all we know, he got the density from the same place he got his other weird ideas: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... mePage.htm

All I'm suggesting is that it would behoove you to find something to confirm the Expanding Earth guy's story, because basing your entire argument off of a single data point in a shoddy scan-job from a weird guy's page is pretty weak.

You conspicuously left out any links to any article that puts a specific number (or even range) to the density of Kleopatra.

Well, then, let's just do it ourselves, shall we?

Kleopatra's shape: dogbone
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/pictures/kleopatra/

Kleopatra's size: 217km x 94km (x 94km)
http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/files/images/c ... a02454.txt

Kleopatra's mass: ~2e18kg (using solar mass of 1.99e30kg and rounding up)
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/hilton/asteroid_masses.htm

So, we know it is a dogbone and we know the maximum size of the bone. We can therefore find upper and lower limits on density by using the maximum and minimum radii of the bone, and solving for volume on the basis of a cylinder.

A 47,000 meter cylinder yields a density of 1,328 kg/m^3.

A 23,500 meter cylinder yields a density of 5,312 kg/m^3.

Given that this is a dogbone, the actual density will fall somewhere near the middle. The middle happens to be about 3,300 kg/m^3.

Well, well, lookie at that...

Oh, now you're just a damned liar. And here you keep trying to accuse me of such things. The article doesn't say that Kleopatra is like moon rock, he says it is like the moon's surface. He also says it is "porous and loosely consolidated," where loose consolidation is precisely how he describes a fragment-and-rubble pile idea of Kleopatra's origin in the paragraph above.

Nice job in evading the point; you have yet to provide any source which shows Kleopatra has a density anywhere near what you implicitly claim.

Oooooh, stinging.

Here's a succinct quote about the issue, but I've seen it all over the place. You really don't do your homework, do you?:

Ah, fallacy, your best friend. It is your burden to provide references for your claims, not mine.

It is your burden not to be a total idiot about the basic facts of what we are discussing.

Agglomerated objects will not disappear in a puff of smoke in a collision - they will immediately break into pieces along the weakest grain surfaces. For the asteroid to be completely obliterated by explosive disintegration (as was observed), an enormous quantity of elastic strain energy must be stored in the bulk prior to mechanical failure - porous objects (especially if they are ceramic) will break apart long before sufficient energy is stored. That quantity of energy can only be stored in an object that is not only non-porous, but virtually free of microvoids, cracks or alternate-phase particles.

I've noticed a very high "bullshit density" in what you say, but this is still an impressive amount of BS, even for you.

1. You confuse the "rubble pile" with "porous".
2. You then use "porous" exclusively.
3. You claim that the asteroid's disintegration could only have been due to elastic strain, ignoring the fact that a simple dirtball will dissociate quite nicely.
3a. Further, you fail to account for the volatiles (water ice or other frozen substances) present in asteroids (which, given your assumption that the muted gray asteroid is somehow reddish and therefore M-type (which means "solid hunk'o'metal" in your mind), is understandable... if wrong. This means that the violence of the collision event and heat involved could cause these volatiles to liquify or vaporize, which will add to the dissociation during the collision, depending on how much of the asteroid these volatiles represented.

Finally, take a look at this, and notice the behavior of the asteroids:

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~dcr/Research/rubble.html

Hmm... doesn't look like your story at all, does it?

[DarkStar]

Ooh, it's revisionist-history time! Watch as the "Master of Ossus" rewrites the entire history of the thread which lay before us all to see!

DarkStar, you started this thread by making a series of erroneous claims that you said *proved* that Wong's estimates were completely off. We have shown that none of this was true.

You have attempted to show that none of this is true, but you have not been successful in the slightest. I'm curious to know what you're counting as the devastating proof that what I said was untrue ... maybe the reading off of degrees as density? Perhaps a lone, unsupported data point off of a scan-job of horrible quality from the website of a very odd person? Or maybe the straw man? Hey, maybe it's the idea that a muted gray asteroid is magically rusty-red, and thus M-type? Oooh, ooh, I know! The proof must be the statements in your official texts which describe the collision as occuring between two planets, leaving a few nickel-iron asteroids, with the majority being boulders and rocky asteroids! Yes, yes, clearly this makes any asteroid we are interested in a lump of solid iron fresh out of the foundry!

You then made sorry excuses for yourself when confronted with evidence, and then repeated your arguments again, rather than just modifying your original claims.

Sorry excuses for myself? What, like counterarguments that showed the massive flaws in the posts with arguments contrary to mine?

If you had done that, you would have found out that Wong's estimates are very reasonable.

ROFLMAO

BTW, what you also failed to even acknowledge was that your volume for the Jem'Hadar ship we saw ramming the Odyssey was TOTALLY wrong.

No, my volume is fairly accurate. Wong's volume was incorrect. He's the one who described a 100m, 25m high saucer. Whether we treat this as a cylinder or a tapering Odyssey-like saucer, Wong still only gives densities less than or equal to 10% of water.

You have never even bothered to refute that, yet you AGAIN claimed that your figures which you gave us at the start of the thread were correct.

Now that is revisionist history. Who is the one who pointed out that these were Wong's figures? Me. Who is the one who pointed out that these figures were incorrect? Well, everyone. Who is the one who pointed out more accurate figures? Me. Who is the one who was making fun of the figures by pointing them out in the first place? Me.

Me, me, me. Yep, I see how you could say I was claiming the volume figures were correct. Well, if you smoke crack, that is.

Your estimates need to be revised.

What, like the history you present? Nah. I'm much more comfortable with fact than fiction.

[His Divine Shadow]

The ESB novel does mention that the ship was destroyed. Here's the appropriate quote (chapter :

"As Vader watched, one of his smaller ships disintegrated under the impact of an enormous asteroid." ... "The image of the commander was fading rapidly, almost as quickly as the glowing particles of his exploded ship were being flung to oblivion."

Sound like it was destroyed by secondary explosions as shown onscreen since the holotransmitter was functioning after the impact. Curiously, it describe the ship as an "Imperial battleship".

The novel, at least this one, does not describe the asteroids as nickel-iron. It doesn't really describe them at all.


Aaron

An interesting piece of info here is that Vader did not have any vantage point to even see another ship in space in the scene we see after the asteroid impact.
It is clear this was not the same event.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The ESB novel does mention that the ship was destroyed. Here's the appropriate quote (chapter :

"As Vader watched, one of his smaller ships disintegrated under the impact of an enormous asteroid." ... "The image of the commander was fading rapidly, almost as quickly as the glowing particles of his exploded ship were being flung to oblivion."

Sound like it was destroyed by secondary explosions as shown onscreen since the holotransmitter was functioning after the impact. Curiously, it describe the ship as an "Imperial battleship".

The novel, at least this one, does not describe the asteroids as nickel-iron. It doesn't really describe them at all.


Aaron

An interesting piece of info here is that Vader did not have any vantage point to even see another ship in space in the scene we see after the asteroid impact.
It is clear this was not the same event.

That is interesting, and a good point.

[DarkStar]

An interesting piece of info here is that Vader did not have any vantage point to even see another ship in space in the scene we see after the asteroid impact.
It is clear this was not the same event.

The script disagrees:

"INT. VADER'S STAR DESTROYER - BRIDGE

Asteroids collide, creating a fireworks display outside the bridge
window. Darth Vader stands, staring out the window above the control
deck. Then slowly turns toward the bridge. Before him are the
hologram images of twenty battleship commanders. One of these images,
the commander of a ship that has just exploded, is fading away quickly."

http://www.filmscape.co.uk/features/scripts/esb.html

[Master of Ossus]

An interesting piece of info here is that Vader did not have any vantage point to even see another ship in space in the scene we see after the asteroid impact.
It is clear this was not the same event.

The script disagrees:

"INT. VADER'S STAR DESTROYER - BRIDGE

Asteroids collide, creating a fireworks display outside the bridge
window. Darth Vader stands, staring out the window above the control
deck. Then slowly turns toward the bridge. Before him are the
hologram images of twenty battleship commanders. One of these images,
the commander of a ship that has just exploded, is fading away quickly."

http://www.filmscape.co.uk/features/scripts/esb.html

Are you trying to use the script to refute what was seen in the Movie?

[DarkStar]

An interesting piece of info here is that Vader did not have any vantage point to even see another ship in space in the scene we see after the asteroid impact.
It is clear this was not the same event.

The script disagrees:

"INT. VADER'S STAR DESTROYER - BRIDGE

Asteroids collide, creating a fireworks display outside the bridge
window. Darth Vader stands, staring out the window above the control
deck. Then slowly turns toward the bridge. Before him are the
hologram images of twenty battleship commanders. One of these images,
the commander of a ship that has just exploded, is fading away quickly."

http://www.filmscape.co.uk/features/scripts/esb.html

Are you trying to use the script to refute what was seen in the Movie?

(sigh)

No, dumbass, I'm using the script to refute the claim that the book's scene was another scene entirely than what we see in the movie.

[Master of Ossus]

Even when the movie clearly showed a different incident? Even when Vader could not possibly have seen the Star Destroyer's destruction? Even when there were only a few people having a conference call with Vader? You disregard yet another example of canon evidence in favor of a BIZARRE interpretation of the movie that allows you to get your point across in a slightly more favorable light.

[DarkStar]

Even when the movie clearly showed a different incident? Even when Vader could not possibly have seen the Star Destroyer's destruction? Even when there were only a few people having a conference call with Vader? You disregard yet another example of canon evidence in favor of a BIZARRE interpretation of the movie that allows you to get your point across in a slightly more favorable light.

No, fuckwit, I'm not disregarding canon evidence... indeed, you are. The novel and the script... both canon... describe the event. I posted the script quote because of stupid claims by you and others that the event in the novel is a totally different occasion. The script and movie are in agreement that it is the same scene, even if differences between what was scripted and what was shown exist.

[SPOOFE]

No, fuckwit, I'm not disregarding canon evidence... indeed, you are. The novel and the script... both canon... describe the event.

And the movie - the highest canon - shows a completely different scene.