[m.castaldo] Didn't grasp Physics 101

[m.castaldo]

Look at the MoO2 animation of a stellar converter: beam hits planet, penetrates planet and the planet is split appart slowly.

Look at AnH: beam hits planet, planet explodes like a stick of dynamite.

I think it's clear which one is more powerful...

You're right. The SC is more powerful, since it doesn't even get absorbed by the planet in question, just rips right through it and keeps going, while the DS beam simply smashes into it. And of course the fact that the SC can be mounted on a smaller ship.

[Sharpshooter]

You're right. The SC is more powerful, since it doesn't even get absorbed by the planet in question, just rips right through it and keeps going, while the DS beam simply smashes into it. And of course the fact that the SC can be mounted on a smaller ship.

::Lights pipe::

[Professor Bullshit]Is it really an indication of power levels? The energy of the Steller Converter's beam might actually be substantially weaker than that of the Death Star, but simply maintains a much higher level of attraction between the energy particles of the weapons through some mechanism or quirk, producing a beam that doesn't dissipate nearly as much as the Death Star's does and just runs through the planet from one end to the other without imparting all of its energy.[/Professor Bullshit]

[Darth Wong]

Look at the MoO2 animation of a stellar converter: beam hits planet, penetrates planet and the planet is split appart slowly.

Look at AnH: beam hits planet, planet explodes like a stick of dynamite.

I think it's clear which one is more powerful...

You're right. The SC is more powerful, since it doesn't even get absorbed by the planet in question, just rips right through it and keeps going, while the DS beam simply smashes into it. And of course the fact that the SC can be mounted on a smaller ship.

What level of education have you attained, and is there an option for remedial coursework?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Look at the MoO2 animation of a stellar converter: beam hits planet, penetrates planet and the planet is split appart slowly.

Look at AnH: beam hits planet, planet explodes like a stick of dynamite.

I think it's clear which one is more powerful...

You're right. The SC is more powerful, since it doesn't even get absorbed by the planet in question, just rips right through it and keeps going, while the DS beam simply smashes into it. And of course the fact that the SC can be mounted on a smaller ship.

I fail to follow how "Beam goes through planet" = "Greater power than Death Star." The only thing it says is that the MoO weapon transfers far less of its energy to the target than the Death Star does. It says nothing about their comparative firepower. For that matter, they could have had identical starting energies, while producing two entirely different results.

Real-life example. Compare two bullets of the same weight fired from the same gun. One is a standard lead ball, the other is a hollowpoint. Both carry the exact same kinetic energy. The lead ball hits, blows completely through the person, leaving two small holes in them. The hollowpoint hits, expands, stops inside the target, and causes serious trauma while doing so. End result, the lead ball only has a 70% chance of stopping the target, while the hollowpoint has a 90% chance. Same kinetic energy, but dramatically different outcomes. Why? Energy transfer. The lead ball doesn't expand, and therefore doesn't encounter as much drag going through the target. End result, the bullet still carries most of its kinetic energy with it. The hollowpoint expands, experiences substantial drag and transfers much more of its energy to the target, in spite of their identical starting energies.

[m.castaldo]

Wong, if I'm wrong in assuming that a beam that is able to completely punch through a planet in 5 seconds, while losing no cohesiveness or even causing a strain, a beam that, quite simple, just passes through a planet almost as if it's not even there, isn't stronger then a beam that simply causes a large pulse-like explosion, please, show me where it's wrong. Because from a laymans POV, a beam that can simple slice completely through a planet in less then 10 seconds time (once charged up), while mountable on a Star Destroyer sized capital ship with its inherent smaller power source, is stronger then one that simple powers up and creates a large explosion deep in the core of a world. At the very least, it's more efficent in its use of energy and resources. Of course, the DS was meant to be a mobile base and terror weapon, so the total size of the DS isn't as much of an issue. However, the actual power needs are. And the only other example we have of DS-laser type energy requirements being met come from the DS prototype which took several minutes to recharge, and Darksaber, while in MoOII the SC can be added on as an additional weapon to a Star Destroyer sized ship, while still having full functionality.

[Noble Ire]

Wong, if I'm wrong in assuming that a beam that is able to completely punch through a planet in 5 seconds, while losing no cohesiveness or even causing a strain, a beam that, quite simple, just passes through a planet almost as if it's not even there, isn't stronger then a beam that simply causes a large pulse-like explosion, please, show me where it's wrong. Because from a laymans POV, a beam that can simple slice completely through a planet in less then 10 seconds time (once charged up), while mountable on a Star Destroyer sized capital ship with its inherent smaller power source, is stronger then one that simple powers up and creates a large explosion deep in the core of a world. At the very least, it's more efficent in its use of energy and resources. Of course, the DS was meant to be a mobile base and terror weapon, so the total size of the DS isn't as much of an issue. However, the actual power needs are. And the only other example we have of DS-laser type energy requirements being met come from the DS prototype which took several minutes to recharge, and Darksaber, while in MoOII the SC can be added on as an additional weapon to a Star Destroyer sized ship, while still having full functionality.

You didn't hurt your back, I hope. Moving goal posts is hard work.

Honestly, there is no question that the Stellar converter is more versitile, and energy effiecent. But you clearly stated that you believed that it was more impressive in sheer energy output, which is plainly not true.

[m.castaldo]

Actually, if you read a little deeper, you'd see that I didn't move goal posts, but rather added other reasons why I believe it's better, along with my (admittedly) layman's esque reasoning as to why I believe it to be a stronger weapon. Which, again, is why I want to see the why you seem to think a weapon that creates an explosion is stronger then a weapon that simply bores through a planet with little-to-no resistance.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Which, again, is why I want to see the why you seem to think a weapon that creates an explosion is stronger then a weapon that simply bores through a planet with little-to-no resistance.

Ok, MOO fan-whore I am, Im going to have to defend the DS...

Look, if you shoot something, and it instantly goes BOOM Do you hounestly think that it has LESS energy then something that slowly burns a hole through the same object?

[The Kernel]

Look, if you shoot something, and it instantly goes BOOM Do you hounestly think that it has LESS energy then something that slowly burns a hole through the same object?

To be fair, the SC didn't slowly burn a hole through the planet, it was a pretty quick puncture. But I certainly agree that the Death Star Superlaser is several orders of magnitude stronger.

[m.castaldo]

Well the way I see it, the fact that it quickly burns through, without any loss of energy cohesion, shows that the beam itself is stronger then that of the DS. It's like this: If I have enough kinetic energy to blast my way through a window, while a same massed object cannot, shattering along WITH the window, then odds are that I have more energy, yes?

[Noble Ire]

Well the way I see it, the fact that it quickly burns through, without any loss of energy cohesion, shows that the beam itself is stronger then that of the DS. It's like this: If I have enough kinetic energy to blast my way through a window, while a same massed object cannot, shattering along WITH the window, then odds are that I have more energy, yes?

Not if the other object manages to litterally atomize the window with the impact, which would be roughly what a DS blast would do scaled up. Its not the fact that it can make a planet blow up that makes it more powerful, its the sheer energy and speed with which it accomplishes the feat.

[m.castaldo]

Except that it wasn't atomized. It was blasted into smaller parts, but all that shows is that the DS blast was a more concentrated one shot/one kill, while the SC is a continious effect, which could actually require more effort to maintain, especially with no loss whatsoever of beam cohesion

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Wong, if I'm wrong in assuming that a beam that is able to completely punch through a planet in 5 seconds, while losing no cohesiveness or even causing a strain, a beam that, quite simple, just passes through a planet almost as if it's not even there, isn't stronger then a beam that simply causes a large pulse-like explosion, please, show me where it's wrong. Because from a laymans POV, a beam that can simple slice completely through a planet in less then 10 seconds time (once charged up), while mountable on a Star Destroyer sized capital ship with its inherent smaller power source, is stronger then one that simple powers up and creates a large explosion deep in the core of a world. At the very least, it's more efficent in its use of energy and resources. Of course, the DS was meant to be a mobile base and terror weapon, so the total size of the DS isn't as much of an issue. However, the actual power needs are. And the only other example we have of DS-laser type energy requirements being met come from the DS prototype which took several minutes to recharge, and Darksaber, while in MoOII the SC can be added on as an additional weapon to a Star Destroyer sized ship, while still having full functionality.

You've neglected to address points made about relative energy transfers, dipshit. We can say that the Death Star can transfer enough energy to a planet in a short enough period of time that the entire thing flies apart at many orders of magnitude faster than the escape velocity dictated by it's gravitational binding energy. This implies both high energy and high power (i.e. energy per unit of time.)

However the MoO superweapon apparently takes a fairly significant amount of time (compared to the DS) to penetrate the planet, and in that time, manages to barely deposit enough energy to overcome the planet's gravitational binding energy. Basically it sounds like it hits the planet, and the planet does a reasonable approximation of moseying out of the way. This implies that the weapon has a lower energy, and as it took more time to deposit that energy, much lower power.

Another real-life example. A small meteoroid hit an asteroid. It carries relatively little kinetic energy and leaves a small crater in its wake. A small asteroid smacks our asteroid. It carries more kinetic energy and leaves a bigger crater. Now let's say an asteroid a third of the size of our first asteroid hits. It carries enough energy to cause the first asteroid to break apart into a jumble of large, slow moving fragments. These fragments may or may not coalesce into a pile of rubble. Now let's repeat the same experiment, except we make the impactor much faster, giving it much greater kinetic energy. The impact imparts enough energy that both impactor and impactee fragment into a lot of little fragments, which fly off at great speed and disperse.

All that the MoO beam drilling through the planet and continuing on afterwards proves is that the weapon was still firing. It could muster just enough energy to fragment the planet to a sufficient degree that none of it was in the firing path of the beam. It did not, unlike the Death Star's weapon, impart so much energy on the planet at once that the whole thing was superheated and flew apart with great violence. Of course, this all ignores the fact that Alderaan was equipped with a planetary shield that the Death Star had to spend a fraction of a second overcoming before imparting its orders of magnitude of overkill on the planet beneath it.

[Winston Blake]

Well the way I see it, the fact that it quickly burns through, without any loss of energy cohesion, shows that the beam itself is stronger then that of the DS. It's like this: If I have enough kinetic energy to blast my way through a window, while a same massed object cannot, shattering along WITH the window, then odds are that I have more energy, yes?

I haven't played MoO2, but i think you're mental image is comparing apples to oranges. It would be valid if an SC created an explosion just like the one of a DS, but had leftover energy shooting through to spare, but the effects aren't the same so you can't use that intuition.

Keep in mind that very large scale stuff like this can't be simply compared to day-to-day physical experience, for example, when an SC shoots through a planet, the column of material that was in that hole is extremely massive and has to be evacuated over time, it's not like pushing a pencil through an apple vs not penetrating.

The fact you've used 'loss of energy cohesion' to prove a beam's 'strength' indicates you probably shouldn't be pushing this sort of point too hard and serious, or you might get into difficulties eventually.

[m.castaldo]

You've neglected to address points made about relative energy transfers, dipshit. We can say that the Death Star can transfer enough energy to a planet in a short enough period of time that the entire thing flies apart at many orders of magnitude faster than the escape velocity dictated by it's gravitational binding energy. This implies both high energy and high power (i.e. energy per unit of time.)

Actually all the DS weapon shows is the ability to cause large amounts of fragmentation rather then a simple drilling process. Smaller particles would travel faster in such a case, since by the time they've been broken up into said smaller particles the relative energy would make them move faster.

However the MoO superweapon apparently takes a fairly significant amount of time (compared to the DS) to penetrate the planet, and in that time, manages to barely deposit enough energy to overcome the planet's gravitational binding energy.

Actually the large hemisphere sized chunks of planet move away from the planet at such a speed that they can travel the distance of half the planets size in a few seconds, thus showing that the energy which causes the break up could be a little more energetic then you claim.

Basically it sounds like it hits the planet, and the planet does a reasonable approximation of moseying out of the way. This implies that the weapon has a lower energy, and as it took more time to deposit that energy, much lower power.

Actually the beam impacts the planet, and seconds later drills completely through the planet, which is in the process of fragmenting, with, again, no loss of energy drop off from a visual of the beam itself. It's not 'chipping' off anything. In fact, I'd say it's cleaving it apart.

All that the MoO beam drilling through the planet and continuing on afterwards proves is that the weapon was still firing. It could muster just enough energy to fragment the planet to a sufficient degree that none of it was in the firing path of the beam.

Within five seconds of firing. With no loss of speed visually.

Of course, this all ignores the fact that Alderaan was equipped with a planetary shield that the Death Star had to spend a fraction of a second overcoming before imparting its orders of magnitude of overkill on the planet beneath it.

SC's work regardless of MOO planetary defenses, which include shields, thus showing it too has the ability to ignore such defenses or overcome them, with no loss of time or destructive capability. However, with the SW Alderaan shield being the only on-screen example of a shield ever seen, we can't compare how it would do compared against an MoO planetary flux shield.

[SirNitram]

Except that it wasn't atomized. It was blasted into smaller parts, but all that shows is that the DS blast was a more concentrated one shot/one kill, while the SC is a continious effect, which could actually require more effort to maintain, especially with no loss whatsoever of beam cohesion

Hey. Crack-smoking donkey fucker. C'mere. Here's where I introduce you to something we here at SDNet call math. You know any of it? How about you show how the SC is more powerful instead of asserting it, fucktard? Or is the basics of math and physics beyond your pea-brain, despite you claiming to know better than everyone here?

Fucktard trolling dipshits.

[Darth Wong]

Wong, if I'm wrong in assuming that a beam that is able to completely punch through a planet in 5 seconds, while losing no cohesiveness or even causing a strain, a beam that, quite simple, just passes through a planet almost as if it's not even there, isn't stronger then a beam that simply causes a large pulse-like explosion, please, show me where it's wrong.

CALCULATE THE FUCKING OUTPUT, MORON

I hate "no math, no science" dipshits. Do you even know what the word "powerful" means? A fucking neutrino can punch right through a planet as if it's not even there, and it doesn't even have enough power to move an electron.

[m.castaldo]

*Calculations showing me wrong snippet*

That's all one had to say, rather then get pissy. Conceded.

[AdmiralKanos]

*Calculations showing me wrong snippet*

That's all one had to say, rather then get pissy. Conceded.

If you've got a problem with my attitude, then I have a problem with yours. And my problems are your problems. Understand?

[m.castaldo]

Since I'm not the type to rise to petty bait, take it as you will, and leave it at that.

[SirNitram]

A small reminder to our uppity little poster in question. Failling to respond to points because of profanity is a bannable offense. But you knew that, you read the rules coming into this forum, didn't you?

[m.castaldo]

Yes, but when I said in my own posts that I'm looking at this from a laymans perspective, one should assume that calculations would not be forthcoming. Especially since I asked if someone could show me how I was mistaken, if I was mistaken (which Grand Admiral T did), I'd concede I was wrong.

[Rogue 9]

Yes, but when I said in my own posts that I'm looking at this from a laymans perspective, one should assume that calculations would not be forthcoming. Especially since I asked if someone could show me how I was mistaken, if I was mistaken (which Grand Admiral T did), I'd concede I was wrong.

If you're going to debate matters like this here, you need to either be prepared to do your own calculations or have a source for someone else's. The exact numbers weren't even needed; I showed on the previous page how doing the job faster necessarily means more power, not less. It's a basic principle of physics.

[SirNitram]

Yes, but when I said in my own posts that I'm looking at this from a laymans perspective, one should assume that calculations would not be forthcoming. Especially since I asked if someone could show me how I was mistaken, if I was mistaken (which Grand Admiral T did), I'd concede I was wrong.

If you are unable to perform the basic calculations of this stuff, do not debate it. Period. You'll find this place is full of 'laymen' who can do this math. If you are unable to back yourself up with math and logic, do not debate. It's that simple. This place is known for this stuff.

[AdmiralKanos]

Since I'm not the type to rise to petty bait, take it as you will, and leave it at that.

Obviously, you don't understand that I have developed an increasingly short fuse for assholes who come in here and lecture me on my manners in my own fucking place. Never mind those who do it in a smarmy fashion as you do.

The fact that you are too ignorant to even participate in an intelligent sci-fi debate gives me even less reason to keep you around, not that I need much less reason than zero.