My hypothesis is based on the canon evidence. Yours is not.Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:WTF?Eleas wrote: It is only "plasma" if there is some sort of statement in play identifying it as such. I would like to understand just why you fellows so vehemently
disagree with this idea. So, here's my full argument, and please show where you think the faults are:
Deal with it.
1. I do not understand how you could be so mistaken. The first time you watched TNG, how did you know what those zooming stars meant? Did you simply guess, or did you listen to the characters and situation and see what was going on?Please, Eleas. Are you saying that poor FX in Star Trek can be used as excuse for Trek technology? I've seen this kind of claim before in Wayne Poe's hate mail page, and believe me, I don't wanna be the one who made that claim.Eleas wrote: As I have stated before, Star Trek is a phenomenon largely restricted to television. Not only is television resolution poorer than film, but it is also true that television involves smaller screens, different aspect ratio, and other factors. It is drama, and the visual department will alter certain things when visual dramatic effect is called for.
"Oh, I see, they're at warp, and that represents it!"
The problem is that the Warsies have failed to realize that we were also shown warp without warp stars, and this representation is just as canon as that with warp stars. Just an example on how we shouldn't take every Warsie explanation at face value.
2. That page is crap. I do not have various calculations and warsie-attempted counterarguments memorized, nor should I be expected to.
I have never made such a claim, nor was it implicit in my theory.But it is. Nobody said that there is only one way to destroy a planet.Eleas wrote: There are several possible options:
A. There are shortcuts in physics . . . it simply involves better use of the physical laws. For instance, you could either get to space via chemical rocket, nuclear rocket, ion powered rocket, laser (see Scientific American's "Flagships of the Space Fleet" from 1999), magnetics, or any other such thing. Just as there's more than one way to skin a cat, there's probably more than one way to destroy a planet.
The first objective of any theory which hopes to be able to survive against another in the light of the Law of Parsimony is that it sufficiently explain the observations. Because DET fails to do so, it doesn't even make it to the arena.The problem is that which way is more likely than another, which theory makes more sense, and which theory has a LOT more speculation.
Really? Given your habit of mixing non-canon and canon, I hope you won't mind if I ask for a reference.Are you saying that, because Star Wars also has subspace physics, it also means that Star Wars also use "physic shortcuts" ala Star Trek? Far as I'm concerned, none of SW tech is described to use such Trek-like "physic shortcuts", both in canon and official sources.Eleas wrote: B. Since you guys claim that Star Wars has subspace physics (and, by extension, effectively claim that Star Trek science and Star Wars science would have the same properties), then it is clear that there *are* what we might consider to be shortcuts in physics, since such things are used all the time on Star Trek to get massive amounts of work done at little cost to the ship.
Yes, I know, "everything's interpretation and nothing means anything", blah blah blah, the fact that Lucas chose to employ the name 'laser' nonewithstanding.How can it consistent with all canon SW when all onscreen, CANON evidence shows that SW lasers do NOT behave like real lasers?Eleas wrote: Do the math. But everyone I know or have ever talked to knows quite well that SW use lasers. My position is perfectly consistent, and is consistent with all canon SW. As for "working on assumptions", that is incorrect. I am working from the canon, and attempting to build hypotheses that fit with that the canon shows us and tells us. Further, Conservation of Energy is maintained, in spite of our ignorance as to how this occurred. Work from there. You might figure it out.
A bald-faced lie.No. Can't you see the problem? DarkStar was ass-raped NOT because he disagrees nor he dares to paint Star Wars as less powerful or vice versa.
-He propose theories which are more complex and have LOT more speculation than the theories he challenges (can you say Occam's Razor?)
-He claim that he has evidence which in reality just his interpretation of facts
-He is dishonest and inconsistent in his theory (ie. if he can claim that no projectiles have been fired at the drones due to lack of evidence, why doesn't he admit that they don't have selective KE shielding either, due to lack of evidence?)
-and worst of all, he couldn't see his own defeat while *everyone else* can.[
It is DarkStar who use stupid counterargument as proof, ignore any evidence which doesn't fit within his biases, and twisting it to suit theories instead of changing theories to suit facts.
I already did. Of course I repeat things without modification after you make some stupid claim about them. I'm right... why change?How so? Please explain.Eleas wrote: As for it being a "cowardly attempt to avoid criticism", that is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. By that reasoning, any website (including StarDestroyer.Net in the years before the message board) is a cowardly effort to avoid criticism.
Of course, such an assumption is totally ad hoc. I won't accept any more ad hominem attacks from you in this debate.Dear God, Eleas, I can't believe if you are really SERIOUS on this posting. Are you just kidding? Please tell me you're just kidding. PLEASE tell me you're just kidding.
Thanks ever so much.
