Blaster fire speed

[McC]

Note: This is where I put my foot in my mouth, in part, since I realized that the number of frames being counted for the superlaser firing sequence was actually wrong. Given the 75,000km figure from the novel and the number of frames that pass in the movie, this actually yields a very satisfactory figure

Trig.

That's what I used The lens focal length determines the FOV, which tells us necessary angles.

Or just time the damn thing.

We know how far DSI was from Alderaan, we have a good idea of how big both are, and we know how long the shot took to reach the planet.

Just multiply Alderaan's diameter by the number of PDs DSI was, subtract the radii of both DSI and Alderann, and then divide by the time. Done.

Yeah, but we don't know how far DS1 was from Alderaan on screen. The novel states 75,000km. If this 75,000 km figure is accurate, then consider the following:

Code: Select all

FRAMES:
[00:00] Tributary beams have not yet come out of their ports on the DS surface
[00:27] Superlaser tributaries have formed maximum beam launch point, but no beam is yet visible
[00:28] Beam begins to streak away from DSI
[02:18] Beam impacts Alderaan (defense shield, but effectively 'surface' for our concerns

So, it took 51 frames (the 7-8 frame figure is only for when the beam appears on screen with Alderaan, not for the whole sequence of beam travel). If you wanted to exclude the frames wherein Princess Leia's on screen reacting to what she's seeing (assuming you think this is happening during what we were shown before/after rather than everything being shown in realtime), then this number drops to 28 frames.

Code: Select all

75,000 km / 51 frames * 30 frames/sec = 44,000 km/s ± 500 km/s
75,000 km / 28 frames * 30 frames/sec = 80,000 km/s ± 500 km/s

Definitely sub-luminal. I'd also like to point out that the lower of these two figures falls nicely within the range of speeds I gathered via trigonometric analysis using stop motion lens focal lengths But that's irrelevant. Even visual evidence coupled with the vaunted novelization distance corroborates my assertion that superlaser velocity is at least 0.25c and definitely not c as was previously assumed.

[Connor MacLeod]

Okay, I'm having an extremely hard time reading SoD the way you're using it. To me, suspension of disbelief is the acceptance that what we see on screen can have happened. As such, what I'm proposing is quite compatible. What is your intention behind SoD?

Try looking under "How to analyze Sci-fi" in the "essays" section of the website. Mike goes into "Suspension of Disbelief" in great detail.

How do you know it's not? Really, this point is becoming somewhat trivial. Any lens of any focal length can be plugged into this situation to come up with figures. My point is that the math works, even if the constants are incorrect. Determining the constants is the only X factor at this point.

You're assuming a connection exists where none has been proven to. You also cannot demand that I prove a negative, since if we have no reason to believe if something exists, it is perfectly reasonable to dismiss it.

A particle beam travelling at c when it clearly is not doing so is not a reasonably accurate conclusion either It's worthwhile for its method. My calculations may be wrong, due to wrong input constants, but the method is sound. So instead of trying to say why my constants are wrong (which I have accepted as a distinct possibility), why not set about trying to determine the right constants?

The superlaser isn't a "particle beam" in the conventional sense. Its velocity is established by measuring the time from firing to striking, and the known distance involved (which is established in the ANH novelization, which is canonical.) Its not that complicated.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Exactly. At most it only takes you about 25 seconds to do it.

Methinks that you just wanted to do it the hard way to make yourself look smart or because you have some kind of agenda.

[McC]

Exactly. At most it only takes you about 25 seconds to do it.

Methinks that you just wanted to do it the hard way to make yourself look smart or because you have some kind of agenda.

Actually, I did it the hard way because people were saying the easy way resulted in figures that were preposterous. Hence the foot-in-mouth thing. The easy way provides good figures; the people saying the easy way resulted in the figures they were espousing were simply flat wrong

[McC]

Try looking under "How to analyze Sci-fi" in the "essays" section of the website. Mike goes into "Suspension of Disbelief" in great detail.

Ahhh, that's much clearer. Thanks!

You're assuming a connection exists where none has been proven to. You also cannot demand that I prove a negative, since if we have no reason to believe if something exists, it is perfectly reasonable to dismiss it.

*nod* Fair. See some of my more recent previous posts.

The superlaser isn't a "particle beam" in the conventional sense. Its velocity is established by measuring the time from firing to striking, and the known distance involved (which is established in the ANH novelization, which is canonical.) Its not that complicated.

See most recent calculation post. Turns out that the c beam theory is still wrong, based on the union of novelization and film information, and actually closely coincides with the figures I was deriving with my FOV method (although this could easily simply be sheer luck).

I concede that my previous method was flawed due to lack of knowledge of materials used, but not due to the methodology. It's probably quite evident (and I confess this openly) that my sudden turn-around on this point is due to the fact that the other method works to give me figures that I feel are more reasonable anyway

In any case, as I said earlier, this is the first time I've really jumped in and debated anything like this with people that had a realtively solid grounding in physics, so please forgive my 'newbie' mistakes when I make them. I'm just trying to contribute to finding the most accurate information that I think we're all seeking.

So...

...with all that said, what say we get back to the topic at hand -- namely, the speed of blasters (and by extension, turbolasers and superlasers) and (as an outgrowth of this topic) the nature of these weapons!

[Ender]

Note: This is where I put my foot in my mouth, in part, since I realized that the number of frames being counted for the superlaser firing sequence was actually wrong. Given the 75,000km figure from the novel and the number of frames that pass in the movie, this actually yields a very satisfactory figure

Thank you for proving me 100% right when I said you were not interested in the facts, only your adgenda here.

*snip bullshit calcs*

And like I fucking told you pages back, you count from the damage point; not when the visable tracer appears. I also fucking told you that doing it the latter yielded sub C and the former C. And note that as soon as you are getting your ass kicked all over the place for doing something wrong just like Bobby did you come back to what I tell you is also wrong because it is what Bobby did. Amazing

[McC]

Thank you for proving me 100% right when I said you were not interested in the facts, only your adgenda here.

Actually, I'm interested in getting the right facts, and a c beam does not seem to fit those facts in the slightest. So if by 'my agenda here' you refer to the search for a more accurate answer than some mystical c beam, you are correct that such a search is my agenda.

And like I fucking told you pages back, you count from the damage point; not when the visable tracer appears.

This inherently makes no sense. If you count from when the damage appears on the target, you can't possibly calculate a travel time, because the target has already been reached by this point. Your notion that the invisible portion outruns the 'tracer' (and I still don't accept the notion that the visible portion is merely a tracer) by an enormous margin has yet to be proven to anything remotely resembling conclusive. Either I've misread what you're trying to say, or you typed this while sleeping

I also fucking told you that doing it the latter yielded sub C and the former C.

*blink* What? If I read this correctly, you're saying that calculating from the 'damage point' yields a sub-c speed whereas calculating from the 'tracer' yields a c+ speed. That's, well, wrong. If you took the time to look at my statements, you might understand why.

And note that as soon as you are getting your ass kicked all over the place for doing something wrong just like Bobby did you come back to what I tell you is also wrong because it is what Bobby did. Amazing

Bobby being...? The RSA guy? Didn't I tell you that his method and my method were very different?

In any case, no, "getting my ass kicked" (incidentally, I do not feel that anything anyone has said, other than pointing out the fallacy of the assumption about lenses I made, has put my math into doubt) is not the reason I have released the use of the lens-as-data argument. The reason I released that notion is that it's much easier to use the information that you yourself rate so highly to come to a conclusion using actual, exact visual evidence that is more in keeping with what has been consistently shown for beam/bolt speed in Star Wars (namely, sub-c).

Also, it is, in fact, a combination of Mike, Connor, and Spanky that led me to re-examine the "Saxton" method of calculating the superlaser speed. You had nothing to do with it Your "you are wrong because I choose to attempt to demean you and say you're wrong" arguments do very little to sway my opinion, I'm afraid. I fail to see why you insist on being so hostile about something that should be a fun mental exercise, though.

[Mad]

Turns out that the c beam theory is still wrong, based on the union of novelization and film information, and actually closely coincides with the figures I was deriving with my FOV method (although this could easily simply be sheer luck).

Actually, at worst, it means the superlaser acts just like turbolasers, with the power ramp-up and visible ripple propagating along the beam.

and I still don't accept the notion that the visible portion is merely a tracer

This stuff says there's a visible tracer:

Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible "bolt" is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed.

A hard green beam of light flashed between the two ships. The sighting ray of a big ship's cannon--you couldn't see the laser itself in vacuum, of course, but it followed the ionized marker you could see precisely.

More tracer evidence is here:

The TIEs opened fire, and tiny lances of green light stabbed out of Tatooine's yellow glow. The lines faded to nothingness kilometers shy of the Falcon, but distant blossoms of laser energy began to burgoen against the shields almost before Leia could disengage the Lead adjustment on her sights.

Here's another reference to the speed of the damaging portion of the beam:

He triggered the first pair of concussion missiles, knowing that unlike the laser cannon, they did not strike at the speed of light.

The c-speed theory incorporates all this data together and further explains the bolt redirection seen in the movies.

[Ender]

Actually, I'm interested in getting the right facts, and a c beam does not seem to fit those facts in the slightest. So if by 'my agenda here' you refer to the search for a more accurate answer than some mystical c beam, you are correct that such a search is my agenda.

You are attempting to disregard evidence rather then attempting to harmonize it. That is pure, unadultered antiscientific bullcrap.

And by all means, explain how they can do damage with the invisible part if it is not EM in nature and will thus propegate at C. Explain away the massless nature, which you havent' done aside from say "Oh, but thats wrong" and refusing to provide the proof and ignoring HDSs explanation.

This inherently makes no sense. If you count from when the damage appears on the target, you can't possibly calculate a travel time, because the target has already been reached by this point.

Since you are clearly retarded I shall explain again, despite having already said this twice.

From when the beams meet to when the damage appears is the time.

Your notion that the invisible portion outruns the 'tracer' (and I still don't accept the notion that the visible portion is merely a tracer)

Really, that's great, Shadows of the Empire says differently. But I forgot, you keep trying to throw out evidence in favor of some Mysterious Unnamed Mechanism.

by an enormous margin has yet to be proven to anything remotely resembling conclusive. Either I've misread what you're trying to say,

I'd say ignoring is a more accurate term

or you typed this while sleeping

Quit that pussey "I'm gonna flame but couch it with a smiley" bullshit right now.

*blink* What? If I read this correctly, you're saying that calculating from the 'damage point' yields a sub-c speed whereas calculating from the 'tracer' yields a c+ speed. That's, well, wrong. If you took the time to look at my statements, you might understand why.

This is fucking ironic as hell.

Quit passing off your failings as mine.

Bobby being...? The RSA guy? Didn't I tell you that his method and my method were very different?

Which is totally irrelevent as you both tried the exact same shit of using lenses to get distance which does not work.

In any case, no, "getting my ass kicked" (incidentally, I do not feel that anything anyone has said, other than pointing out the fallacy of the assumption about lenses I made, has put my math into doubt) is not the reason I have released the use of the lens-as-data argument.

You stopped because every attempt to justfy it was shot to hell. You could not provide an argument to support your methods. That is indeed getting your ass handed to you in a debate.

The reason I released that notion is that it's much easier to use the information that you yourself rate so highly to come to a conclusion using actual, exact visual evidence that is more in keeping with what has been consistently shown for beam/bolt speed in Star Wars (namely, sub-c).

And yet you cannot explain the massless nature other then say its wrong and refuse to provide images or address HDS when he provides an explanation. You are yet to provide any sort of mechanism by which to explain the damage preceeding and following the tracer. Your entire approach is based off the idea of disregarding other canon evidence.

Also, it is, in fact, a combination of Mike, Connor, and Spanky that led me to re-examine the "Saxton" method of calculating the superlaser speed. You had nothing to do with it

Flat out lie, you are now doing exactly what I said to do pages ago.

Your "you are wrong because I choose to attempt to demean you and say you're wrong" arguments do very little to sway my opinion, I'm afraid. I fail to see why you insist on being so hostile about something that should be a fun mental exercise, though.

I am being hostile because being nice did not work to penetrate your wall of ignorance.

You did not provide shots supporting your claim that blasts have mass
You did not address any issues with the existing theory and its explanations for what you think are contradictions
You are yet to offer any sort of mechansim for the course shifting
You have yet to explain how damage is done both before and after the bolt.
Your entire premise is based off totally disregarding other canon and official evidence.

Your entire argument thus far is nothing more then unscientific bullshit.

[Lord Poe]

Hmm.. Kazeite is back, I see. Moved from Poland, did you?

[McC]

Actually, at worst, it means the superlaser acts just like turbolasers, with the power ramp-up and visible ripple propagating along the beam.

Well, don't we already know that superlasers and turbolasers function in very similar manners? Ergo, whatever we figure out for the turbolaser/superlaser will apply to the other.

This stuff says there's a visible tracer: <snip>
The c-speed theory incorporates all this data together and further explains the bolt redirection seen in the movies.

Well, at the risk of enraging Ender even more, all of this stuff refers to super/turbo/lasers essentially as if they are lasers. I was under the impression that this was definitely not the case.

And now to respond to my good buddy here...

You are attempting to disregard evidence rather then attempting to harmonize it. That is pure, unadultered antiscientific bullcrap.

I'm actually going exclusively with the movies for source material right now. Reconciling with any secondary material is not one of my objectives at the moment. Getting a solid working theory down for the movies and then reconciling it with the secondary material (and I regard anything not in the movies as secondary, including the ICS). After all, Mike's own canon hiearchy puts the movies above everything else. Getting conformity with the second-tier canon is important as well, though, so those would definitely hold more weight with me than any EU novelizations or what-have-you. GL himself has said that the EU is essentially a parallel universe, so if the EU authors say something that contradict with the films, it's entirely acceptable to anlayze them as totally separate subjects (canon TLs/SLs/etc and EU TLs/SLs/etc).

And by all means, explain how they can do damage with the invisible part if it is not EM in nature and will thus propegate at C. Explain away the massless nature, which you havent' done aside from say "Oh, but thats wrong" and refusing to provide the proof and ignoring HDSs explanation.

I haven't refused to provide anything. I haven't had time to do it yet. Writing up a quick rebuttal to you doesn't take a lot of time. Sitting down and analyzing footage frame by frame does. My schedule not suiting your convenience does not equate to my refusal to provide proof.

Since you are clearly retarded I shall explain again, despite having already said this twice.

Your inability to explain things adequately is not a failing on my part.

From when the beams meet to when the damage appears is the time.

Fine. This time is even longer than 58 frames, then, completely destroying the notion of a c beam. Do you want me to post every single frame? I'll be happy to if it'll resolve this matter.

Really, that's great, Shadows of the Empire says differently. But I forgot, you keep trying to throw out evidence in favor of some Mysterious Unnamed Mechanism.

See above. EU does not necessarily need to be reconciled with canon. Shadows is definitely EU. Once a theory can be worked out from the canon sources, then the EU can be examined. This isn't unscientific -- it's limiting variables and examining a problem in a piecewise manner.

I'd say ignoring is a more accurate term

Your consumate civility does not make one particularly inclined to pay close attention, so I may have missed something

Quit that pussey "I'm gonna flame but couch it with a smiley" bullshit right now.

It's sarcasm. I tend to use sarcasm a lot in my day-to-day interactions. It's not meant to be inflammatory, but simply amusing. You, on the other hand, seem to be actively attempting to get me into a flame war with you, which I frankly resent.

This is fucking ironic as hell.

Quit passing off your failings as mine.

Care to elaborate on what the failing is? I understand now what you were trying to say, but your phrasing at the time did not convey it to me, so what I understood you to be saying was wrong.

Which is totally irrelevent as you both tried the exact same shit of using lenses to get distance which does not work.

And? I conceded the point that the lens idea doesn't work because we don't know what lens the 'documentor' used. It's a valid point, and I acknowledge it. The math isn't wrong, the concept behind it is. So? I was wrong for assuming a constant that wasn't actually known, even though I thought it was based on the method I was using. Sue me. I was directed to look over the SoD page, and once I had, I stopped this line of thinking and went with another one.

You stopped because every attempt to justfy it was shot to hell. You could not provide an argument to support your methods. That is indeed getting your ass handed to you in a debate.

Actually, the only thing that was shot to hell was the notion that the real world lens and the 'documentary' lens were the same. Using accepted methods, I still came up with figures that agreed with my initial calculations. Method was wrong, conclusion was not.

And yet you cannot explain the massless nature other then say its wrong and refuse to provide images or address HDS when he provides an explanation. You are yet to provide any sort of mechanism by which to explain the damage preceeding and following the tracer. Your entire approach is based off the idea of disregarding other canon evidence.

See above. "Yet to provide" being the operative term. As I said, I'm sorry if my schedule does not meet your demands, but I'm not going to reshape my work and social schedules to justify my theory on a bulletin board, as much as I might enjoy this kind of analysis. And all that's going on now is you trying to aggrivate me, which I don't entirely regard as enjoyable, and certainly not why I'm here.

Flat out lie, you are now doing exactly what I said to do pages ago.

Yes, but you had nothing to do with it. That was my point. I totally forgot that you even brought it up until you said so just now.

I am being hostile because being nice did not work to penetrate your wall of ignorance.

I have yet to actually see you be nice. In any case, hostility alone is just going to make me more defensive and resolved. It's not helping you at all. Presenting good reasons why I'm actually wrong in my calculations (which I have only begun to provide with the superlaser speed situation, so there's not enough to refute yet, and I acknowledge that -- again, I ask that you be patient and give me time) and explaining why yours are correct, on the other hand, would help prove your point.

You did not provide shots supporting your claim that blasts have mass

Yet.

You did not address any issues with the existing theory and its explanations for what you think are contradictions

Yet.

You are yet to offer any sort of mechansim for the course shifting

Yet.

You have yet to explain how damage is done both before and after the bolt.

Yet. (Is this getting repetitive?)

Your entire premise is based off totally disregarding other canon and official evidence.

No, my method of attacking the problem is examining canon sources only before trying to reconcile with EU sources that are not even necessarily regarded as the same "universe."

Your entire argument thus far is nothing more then unscientific bullshit.

My entire argument thus far consists of the superlaser travelling at subluminal velocity. I have made points about other aspects of the 'current theory' that I think are wrong that I intend to address, but I have not yet made an argument to that end yet. My only argument so far has been examined in the same method as Dr. Saxton's (but using the correct number of frames) and the very one you suggested as well. It has provided results which corroborate my assertion that the superlaser's damaging portion (tracer or no, invisible or no) does not travel at c.

As for my other points, as I've been saying, give me time to address them individually. So far, I've said the superlaser does not travel at c. I've provided evidence as such, using Tier-1 and Tier-2 canon sources. The burden is now on you to prove my findings inaccurate.

Hmm.. Kazeite is back, I see. Moved from Poland, did you?

I'm going to assume this was directed at me and no, I'm not Kazeite, nor do I know who that is. Mike may or may not remember me from a waaays back (I doubt it; I sent him a few e-mails a year or more ago), but this it the first time I've ever registered on these boards. I'll give you an entire life story, if you want, complete with pictures

[Illuminatus Primus]

What a tool. DS tactics including creative denial and intentional fabrication of movie-second tier canon contradictions to facilitate your own agendas.

Perhaps he could actually take Mad's theory, and challenge how it can't work. How his theory explains bolt redirection and all that, and is superior in not throwing out all the evidence--the best theory should take its premier focus from the films, but throw out as little total information as possible. That is scientific.

[McC]

What a tool. DS tactics including creative denial and intentional fabrication of movie-second tier canon contradictions to facilitate your own agendas.

Care to clarify? Creative denial? Intentional fabrication?

Perhaps he could actually take Mad's theory, and challenge how it can't work. How his theory explains bolt redirection and all that, and is superior in not throwing out all the evidence--the best theory should take its premier focus from the films, but throw out as little total information as possible. That is scientific.

I agree. The ideal solution is to unify everything (or at least almost everything). But the way to go about that isn't to examine everything all at once, but in pieces.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Care to clarify? Creative denial? Intentional fabrication?

You create a false dichotomy between the movies and everything else.

I agree. The ideal solution is to unify everything (or at least almost everything). But the way to go about that isn't to examine everything all at once, but in pieces.

You've established no alternative theory, and have yet to refute Mad, so I don't see any reason why we should except a nonexistant alternative explanation.

[McC]

You create a false dichotomy between the movies and everything else.

I don't think it's as false as you're suggesting:

"There are two worlds here," explained Lucas. "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe - the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don't get too involved in the parallel universe."

You've established no alternative theory, and have yet to refute Mad, so I don't see any reason why we should except a nonexistant alternative explanation.

I've been so busy replying to most of Ender's screaming that I haven't actually sat down to look at what Mad's saying (although I suspect I've even replied to some of it!). But for the time being, ignore any assertion I've made beyond the superlaser speed discussion (bolded for emphasis, not to suggest belligerence). Everything else is just hot air (or hot text) right now, and I do not currently have anything to support those claims. I do not assert that they are absolutely true, only that I think that they are and would like to investigate the matter further to examine whether or not this is the case or not. The only actual argument I am making right now is superlaser speed. Everything else is blatant and outright conjecture on my part based on assumptions I have held about SW tech since seeing it (well, since seeing it and thinking about it at all).

Does that make everyone a bit happier?

Incidentally, I'm reading up on the DS guy -- I realized you were probably referring to someone in the hate mail section, so I went over to check it out. You really think my tactics are like his? I'm still reading -- haven't even gotten into the debate proper yet, still reading the background -- but from what I can tell, the only thing he and I share is the desire for a civil discussion (and on his part it seems insincere, whereas I really would like to remain civil).

[Ender]

Rather then wade through your bullshit here, I'll summarize.

You are yet to provide any proof for your claims, any rebuttal to the existing theory. This is classic village idiot behavior. Your entire response is that you will do all this at some vague time in the future, and that I am in some way unreasonable for demanding you support your position. You refuse to address the rebuattals that point to the existing theory and instead just say "yet". You refuse to consider all the evidence, instead just saying it is better to do it in parts for some bizarre reason, saying again that you will do it eventually. You attempt to create a false dichotomy between the films and the other evidence, repeating Bobby's incredibly fucked up Alternate Universe bullshit. You refuse to follow Lucasfilms canon stance by claiming the ICS and such are not canon.

In short, you have shown zero interest in debate, zero interest in the scientific method, and zero interest in anything aside from trolling.

[Ender]

You really think my tactics are like his?

100% identical.

[McC]

You attempt to create a false dichotomy between the films and the other evidence, repeating Bobby's incredibly fucked up Alternate Universe bullshit. You refuse to follow Lucasfilms canon stance by claiming the ICS and such are not canon.

Actually, I'd ideally like to unify ICS in the first go, but I don't have them on-hand to know what their claims are, beyond what's been quoted here already. And it's not "Bobby's incredibly fucked up Alternate Universe bullshit" -- it's on Mike's site itself, right up front (well, not literally, but it is stated there).

In short, you have shown zero interest in debate, zero interest in the scientific method, and zero interest in anything aside from trolling.

I am interested in debating and doing so scientifically, but I'm trying to tackle it in a piecewise fashion rather than everything all at once which I simply don't have time to do. If I could sit down and analyze all the footage to address all the points in one giant post, I would. I don't have that time. I'm sorry. I'm sorry for bringing up points before I have sufficient (any) proof to back them up. I'm sorry for misunderstanding some people's points or statements when they make them. I'm not only trying to debate a point (a point -- SL speed; that's the only point I'm debating at the moment), but trying to stave off a tirade of attacks and insults. Forgive me if my comprehension fails occasionally (frequently).

Nevertheless, I stand by my assessment of superlaser speed and request that someone either confirm or refute it.

[revprez]

In short, you have shown zero interest in debate, zero interest in the scientific method, and zero interest in anything aside from trolling.

Just out of curiousity, what is the definition of "trolling?" I haven't reviewed McC's work, but at a glance it looks like he's put in a lot of effort--inconsistent as it may be with the analysis preferred here it represents too much of an effort to be called "trolling" as the term is known on the newsgroups.

Rev Prez

[Spanky The Dolphin]

If you don't know what trolling is, then you're a fucking idiot.

Not to mention that this isn't the first question of yours that hasn't sounded veiled.

[Illuminatus Primus]

If you don't know what trolling is, then you're a fucking idiot.

Not to mention that this isn't the first question of yours that hasn't sounded veiled.

Shut up Spanky if you're not going to say anything of substance or constructiveness.

He's being evasive, refusing to debate logically, refusing to clarify points, nitpickes and refuses to awknowledge or develop his own alternative theory, and doesn't refute the existing theory. He simply repeats his claims ad nauseum.

[Ender]

If you don't know what trolling is, then you're a fucking idiot.

Not to mention that this isn't the first question of yours that hasn't sounded veiled.

Shut up Spanky if you're not going to say anything of substance or constructiveness.

He's being evasive, refusing to debate logically, refusing to clarify points, nitpickes and refuses to awknowledge or develop his own alternative theory, and doesn't refute the existing theory. He simply repeats his claims ad nauseum.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to revprez

[revprez]

If you don't know what trolling is, then you're a fucking idiot.

This coming from a guy who needed to come here to get his unit conversion checked and almost went home with the wrong answer.

Not to mention that this isn't the first question of yours that hasn't sounded veiled.

It's not. It's a question about board culture. I intend to weigh in on this discussion as soon as I finidh thoroughly reading through all the posts.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

He's being evasive, refusing to debate logically, refusing to clarify points, nitpickes and refuses to awknowledge or develop his own alternative theory, and doesn't refute the existing theory. He simply repeats his claims ad nauseum.

Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the focus of this debate on lens assumption?

Rev Prez

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Ender: Yes, I was.

Rez: I was having a bad day, what with backbending stomack cramps and the fuckers down the hall screaming obscenities, I just couldn't concentrate, and my tendency to freak out and get paranoid intensified. Besides, I was right in the first place.