Wong Collision Corrections

[DasBastard]

Invincible Ignorance strikes again.

[DasBastard]

Let's play a game: try to name all of the fallacies in DarkStar's most recent post. I'll start... in order of appearance:

ad hominem abusive
ad hominem tu quoque
outright falsehood
invincible ignorance
argumentum ad ignorantium
strawman
hasty generalization

[His Divine Shadow]

No thanks, reading his tripe makes my head hurt.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

An M-class asteroid is iron-nickle right?

[DarkStar]

Let's play a game: try to name all of the fallacies in DarkStar's most recent post.

Riiiiight. Without even a reference to the statements you claim are fallacious? Puh-leeze.

Oh, and of course I must assume that you believe your own posts to be the very flower of dispassionate reason.

[Master of Ossus]

Let's play a game: try to name all of the fallacies in DarkStar's most recent post.

Riiiiight. Without even a reference to the statements you claim are fallacious? Puh-leeze.

Oh, and of course I must assume that you believe your own posts to be the very flower of dispassionate reason.

I like your rebuttal, DarkStar. The old "less is more" approach, eh?

[omegaLancer]

We get from various sources that it took 10 minutes for the Falcon to reach the Asteroid field from Hoth, since she was being pursued by fleet of Star destroyers, the Falcon was under maxium acceleration..

The Pursuing star destroyers were also under full throttle ( remember Ledia comment about that the destroyer where catching up), from SWIC for AOTC we see that acceleration of several thousand g are not uncommon for SW ships.

If this is true 10 minute at 2 to 3000 G would have both the falcon and the imperial pursue ships moving at relativitic Velocities..

At normal orbital velocities, Multi- ton Meteors would strike like atomic bombs, at Relativitic Velocities the meteor would have impacts measured in the gigatons range and the freqency of strikes would have been very high ( like rain the various written account stated). ( and this would explain the Why the Imperial would have been a little concern about entering the field)

A normal commander would have his ships avoid the asteroid field and decelerate to safe speed, but it apparent that the Imperial were force to plunge into the field after the falcon (Vader had no fear for his command ship)..

At this time we would have expected the maxium damage to fleet to have occur, weaken and draining the shields of the fleet, damage to various structure on ship who shields had drop.

Later when the falcon went into hidding ( meaning the pursuing vessels endure many minutes plowing thru an asteriod field at relatitivitic Velocities), Vader would have allow the fleet to slow to what would have appear to be a safe velocity, but he force the fleet to remain in the field. At this point the damage was done.

From the Film we can see the Asteroid striking the bridge structure, un like other frames where we see meteors explode before striking, so it obivious that the in this case the shield unit of the ship struck where damage or down.

If the hit had occur on the Main hull it would have not be as damaging, instead on the lightily armor bridge structure it had devasting effect, especially if it struck the Transparent steel window of the bridge..

from various novel and comics this glass window is similar to glass portal on tie fighters and were design to withstand kilotons worth of damage, so striking meteor must have hit with a force greater than the window could stand or the bridge structure was weaken from it intial plunge into the Field...

If Vader had given the fleet time to slow to safe speed, or even allow damage ships to leave the field for repairs, this would not have happen, the amazing part is that even after spending days searching for the falcon that more ships were not cripple. In one case we see a star destroyer chasing the falcon after she left her hidding spot, wading thru the field without it taking any damage ( from the "Anakin the story of Vader", the event is describe as meteors struck like a rain of multimegaton Concussion missiles, against the bow shield of the pursuing ISD )

To show you the strength of the SW shield technology, when the Falcon originily enter the field, most of her power was reroute to rear shields, at this time she impact into a hail of small micro meteors ( some the size of footballs) and was not harm in the least.

[DasBastard]

ad hominem tu quoque

Fun!

[DarkStar]

ad hominem tu quoque

Fun!

Neat trick you discovered, there. You, as fallacy-user extraordinaire, start claiming numerous fallacies on the part of your opponent (naturally without providing evidence)... and if he points out that you use them, you simply accuse him of another fallacy.

Cute. But logical gamesmanship doesn't win arguments, facts do.

You may consider gamesmanship a convenient method of clouding the issues so no one pays attention to the weaknesses of your argument, but those who know better can see right through it.

[His Divine Shadow]

Yes facts win arguments DarkStar, this is why you loose all the arguments.

[DasBastard]

I have proven my points to the satisfaction of all interested 3rd party observers; I feel no need to force your concession- they call it invincible ignorance for good reason.

Oh, and:

ad hominem tu quoque
argumentum ad misercordiam
invincible ignorance
prejudicial language
style over substance

[DarkStar]

Yes facts win arguments DarkStar, this is why you loose all the arguments.

Fact: The asteroid was not M-type.
Fact: Average asteroid density is ~3000 kg/m^3.
Fact: The asteroid was not a 70m sphere, but roughly 60 x 42 x 42.
Fact: The asteroid was moving at ~550m/s.
Therefore, the bridge tower was destroyed by ~36TJ of kinetic energy.


Further argument-specific facts:

Fact: DasBastard's entire argument rests on a lone data point.
Fact: This data point claims knowledge of Loreley which is unsupported.
Fact: This data is contrary to all other knowledge of asteroids.
Fact: This unsupported data is unavailable anywhere else.
Fact: The author is not an authority in the field of asteroids.
Fact: This data, if culled from other sources, must be from sources ~15 years old, as per his reference list.
Fact: As per the graphs on http://aa.usno.navy.mil/hilton/ephemeri ... oid_masses , masses were unreliably estimated in the 1980's, even for the often-studied largest asteroids.
Fact: The size of Loreley is incorrect in DasBastard's reference.
Fact: Density = Mass / Volume ... or in this case, the referenced density = unreliable estimate of mass (even granting the notion that it was culled from another source) / incorrect estimation of volume.

Draw your own conclusion, but it certainly strikes me as obvious that this lone data point is worthless in this discussion.

Fact: DasBastard challenged me to find densities for M-type asteroids in the 3,000kg/m^3 range.
Fact: I have provided two, Kleopatra and Psyche.
Fact: DasBastard has attempted to refute my Kleopatra figures by use of less precise data from a small telescope, versus my figures derived from a large observatory's highly-detailed radar observation.

Draw your own conclusion, but it strikes me as obvious that DasBastard has a habit of using poor sources to try to disprove arguments he disagrees with.

Fact: DasBastard's argument is based on attacking the density I use for the asteroid, and making an assertion that the asteroid demonstrated the property of solidity due to the nature of its destruction.
Fact: There is nothing wrong with the density I have offerred, since DasBastard's density preferences are based on the false assertion that the asteroid in question was M-type, and that lone, unsupported data points constitute "magic trump cards" over all other data.
Fact: DasBastard's claims about the event in question are in clear defiance to what is seen in the canon event, as demonstrated previously.

Draw your own conclusions, but it strikes me as obvious that DasBastard has presented no argument which constitutes trouble for my argument

[Cpt_Frank]

DarkStar, all of your points have been dealt with. And you know that. I'm sure you do, either that, or you're really incredibly stupid.
So why not just go and admit that not a single point of yours survived, admit you've lost.
Just go and admit your defeat. It won't kill you. It will even be better for your reputation. Be smart just one time.

[DarkStar]

DarkStar, all of your points have been dealt with.

'Yelled about', 'moaned about', and 'bitched about' do not equal 'dealt with' or 'disproven'.

You mistake the fact that argument has taken place for victory on the part of the counterarguments. By that logic, the earth is flat and evolution never occurred.

[Cpt_Frank]

They have been disproven!
Every single point, and not only one but many times by many different debaters. All you did as a response for all these rebuttals was to repeat the same arguments of yours over and over again! Now please stop this show of your ignorance. Give up. I say this in your interest, admit your defeat.

[DasBastard]

Fact: Your scaling is wrong. You have evaded every request for supporting screenshots. In debate, that is equivalent to a concession.

Fact: The asteroid was M-type. You have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. IIRC, your only "evidence" was the gray colour which actually supports the notion that it is iron-nickel. In the absence of oxygen, hematite will react with iron to form wustite, which is gray. The most stable oxides of nickel are gray. The colour of the metals themselves: gray.

Fact: The actual full publication of the "large observatory's highly detailed radar observation" indicates that the range of probable densities for Kleopatra is 3500-7500kg/m^3, despite its high apparent porosity (and the planar shape of the 'stem' of the dogbone).

Fact: The Hoth asteroid was solid, rendering the densities of porous and/or 'rubble-pile' asteroids moot. Basic materials science tells us that a solid iron-nickel asteroid cannot have a density less than 7800kg/m^3.

Fact: You have falied to prove that the Loreley data is wrong. You have attacked it with fallacy after fallacy, but provided zero evidence that it is in error.

Oh, and:

outright falsehood
invincible ignorance
ad hominem
silver bullet fallacy

[DarkStar]

Fact: Your scaling is wrong. You have evaded every request for supporting screenshots. In debate, that is equivalent to a concession.

Evaded a request for a screen shot? You already have the link to the page which contains the movie clip, fool ... it appears in my post which opens this thread. Your inability to read or download does not equal a concession on my part.

Fact: The asteroid was M-type. You have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.

Oh please. The basis of the warsie claim is that the asteroid is reddish... it is not reddish in the slightest.

IIRC, your only "evidence" was the gray colour which actually supports the notion that it is iron-nickel. In the absence of oxygen, hematite will react with iron to form wustite, which is gray. The most stable oxides of nickel are gray. The colour of the metals themselves: gray.

Well, well, well. First it is claimed that it is M-type because it is red... now it is considered M-type because it isn't red.

Gentlemen, make up your minds.

Fact: The actual full publication of the "large observatory's highly detailed radar observation" indicates that the range of probable densities for Kleopatra is 3500-7500kg/m^3, despite its high apparent porosity (and the planar shape of the 'stem' of the dogbone).

You still assert that their inclusion of escape velocity calculations using that density for the sake of comparison must mean that they are giving that as a credible density figure. That is absurd.

Additional facts from the revised publication:

1. "The main asteroid belt contains 42 objects whose optical spectra reveal the presence, but not the dominance, of NiFe metal. These M-class objects may include the parent bodies of some iron meteorites..."

2. "M-class meteorite analogs are irons, which are NiFe metal, and enstatite chondrites, which are assemblages of NiFe metal and enstatite."

(Enstatite... density ~3200 kg/m^3: http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/s ... statit.htm)

3. "... we find that our reflectivity estimates imply a surface bulk density no less than 3.5 g/cm^3, consistent with either a solid enstatite-chondritic surface or a metallic surface with porosity less than 60%. Nearly all estimates of the porosity of lunar soil fall between 35% and 55%."

Since they later assert that the idea of a solid enstatite-chondritic surface is unlikely, the surface must be porous.

4. "Each of these scenarios suggests that much of Kleopatra's interior might be relatively unconsolidated debris, perhaps including some number of large monolithic shards."

Strange, then, that since they think the interior is mostly relatively unconsolidated debris, and that the NiFe metal is not dominant, and that the surface porosity is apparently rather high, that they might use a density equal to solid NiFe for the escape velocity calculation. Could this mean that they were not offering that as a credible density, but merely as a comparison? Nah, of course not!

Fact: The Hoth asteroid was solid,

That is your belief, based on your observations of the canon which are not in line with actual canon events. There is nothing in the canon to prove your belief that the asteroid exploded.

Fact: You have falied to prove that the Loreley data is wrong.

Wrong? No one knows if it is wrong or not ... what you have been asked for but have refused to present is supporting evidence for this figure. The guy didn't have the size right, nor even the spelling... and yet you insist that this lone figure contrary to all other asteroid knowledge is spot-on and infallible.

Well, you can push on with your weak argument, but while you're doing that I'm going to go play with real scientific knowledge over here...

You have attacked it with fallacy after fallacy, but provided zero evidence that it is in error.

Fallacy after fallacy? By this argument, you are saying that if you walked in here and said the Earth's atmosphere was blood red for a day 1 million years ago, you are right because I could not disprove it, even if I pointed out all the many reasons why that idea was unlikely.

That is a dumb argument. Find support for your assertion, or accept the fact that a lone data point doesn't render all other scientific knowledge suspect.

silver bullet fallacy

Looks like you've taken to identifying your own fallacies. Good work.

[Cpt_Frank]

DarkStar, have you got any proof that the Asteroid was not of M type?
Any proof? Any? The Hoth asteroid field originated from a collision between 2 planets. Now have you got anything to disprove that? Anything? A single bit of evidence which contradicts the assumption the Asteroid was not of the M-type? Spell it out for me!

[DarkStar]

DarkStar, have you got any proof that the Asteroid was not of M type?
Any proof? Any? The Hoth asteroid field originated from a collision between 2 planets. Now have you got anything to disprove that? Anything? A single bit of evidence which contradicts the assumption the Asteroid was not of the M-type? Spell it out for me!

Since warsies are using contradictory arguments trying to show that it is M-type, I'll let you guys pick one and go with it first before I smack it down.

Or, to expedite matters, which one do you prefer: the the asteroid is reddish, therefore it is M-type argument, or the the asteroid is not reddish, therefore it is M-type argument?

[Cpt_Frank]

Our argument has nothing to do with the Asteroid's color.
The argument is: the novelisation (or was it Anakin: the story of Vader? I don't remember it anymore, but not that it matters) states the Asteroid is M-type. Visual evidence does not contradict it. Therefore, the Asteroid is M-type. Color is merely irrelevant.

[Ender]

I'm reminded of this line after reading this thread:

"You can swim in the sea of knowledge all day, and not come out wet" - Tock the Dog, The Magic TollBooth

I love that book.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Well, it looks like this debate is coming to a close. DarkStar is just about to run out of arguments. Any post-debate notes?

[DarkStar]

Our argument has nothing to do with the Asteroid's color.
The argument is: the novelisation (or was it Anakin: the story of Vader? I don't remember it anymore, but not that it matters) states the Asteroid is M-type. Visual evidence does not contradict it. Therefore, the Asteroid is M-type. Color is merely irrelevant.

That is false. One non-canon reference gives some of the asteroids as being nickel-iron... the Starwars.com site refers to them as rocky boulders. Either they are both correct (as would be the case in an asteroid belt such as ours), or one is wrong, but you sure as hell can't just pick one of them and say "this is what I shall believe, the other be damned!"

[DarkStar]

I'm reminded of this line after reading this thread:

"You can swim in the sea of knowledge all day, and not come out wet" - Tock the Dog, The Magic TollBooth

I love that book.

That's a very good quote. In debating with warsies, I often think of a variation on the old "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" saying:

'You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think.'

[SirNitram]

You can lead Dark Star to Wong, but he still won't think.