CrossoverManiac's little calculation...

Crossover_Maniac · Post by **Crossover_Maniac** » 2003-02-02 02:21pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Crossover_Maniac wrote:
Ender wrote:Iron makes up a large part of the planet. If this chain reaction uses the matter of the planet for fuel, that means it consumes iron. Meaning you and Darkstar and all other chain reactionists believe that iron is volatile.
I said it was one of the explanations.
Actually, "explanations" have to make sense. Small detail you apparently left out, as usual.

As you said earlier, it's makes as much as sense as all of the other sci-fi crap.

I also said the Death Star's superlaser could be composed of a mix of particles with possitive mass and negative mass allowing for a net momentum of zero, the superlaser particles are not only massless but doesn't have any momentum or the structural integrity field is strong enough on the Death Star to counter the stress caused by the superlaser (I'd explained this in my thread) although I have some doubts about the last one.
You're an idiot. Such a beam would have zero energy, since the positive and negative masses would cancel out.

Equal mass doesn't always equal to equal energy, moron. Or do you think 1 lb block of C-4 has as much energy as a one lb stationary piece of wood. Also, the key word is 'momentum'. Two object can have the same momentum but different amounts of kinetic energy.

Object A:

Mass=1 kg
velocity=3000 km/s

Object B:

Mass=2 kg
velocity=1500 km/s

momentum(A)=1 kg* 3000 km/s=3,000,000 kg*m/s
momentum(B)=2 kg*15000km/s=3,000,000 kg*m/s

kinetic energy(A)=0.5*1 kg*(3000km/s)^2=4.5E12 joules
kinetic energy(B)=0.5*2 kg*(1500 km/s)^2=2.25E12 joules

I hate having to spell everything out for the mental impaired.

And speaking of calculations, wouldn't the mass-lightning effect of hypermatter change the conclusions you made about the Executor and Death Star in your Size Matters essay?

The 'volatile iron' theory is just one possiblity. But I did manage to find at least one instance where iron is volatile.
This actually disproves your point (not that I've ever been a big fan of the Galaxy Gun; such Trek-like chain reactions are a brain-bug IMHO and it's g good thing we don't see them in the canon films),

But that shouldn't matter, according to you.

From http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Misc/Canon.html:

The novels, comics, and tech books are of distinctly lower quality than the canon sources (hence their "official" status), but they are part of the continuity of Star Wars nonetheless, and should be treated as such (in other words, valid information sources but subordinate to direct observations, scientific analysis, and canon printed material).

since a miniscule Galaxy Gun missile can do this. If an insignificant Galaxy Gun missile can do this, why would the Death Star need a gigantic moon-sized reactor and gun in order to do it?
The reactor made up a small percentage of the DS's volume. Also, the reactor also provided power for the Death Star's sublight propulsion, shieldings, artifical gravity, heavy turbolasers, and hyperdrive.

Small wonder you posted your bullshit on SB but not here. Always best to keep stupid ideas away from people who will actually call you on it, eh?

Not when His Divine Shadow keeps running under your skirt crying over the things the big, evil Federation cultists says about Star Wars, it doesn't. Besides, these are open forums that anyone can visit and make posts. Get out of your ivory castle and come visit us common folks in the dirty, shabby SB.com forums.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-02-02 02:36pm

Not when His Divine Shadow keeps running under your skirt crying over the things the big, evil Federation cultists says about Star Wars

Note that I didn't post any links to your debate at all to begin with, until you pissed me off that is.

Crossover_Maniac · Post by **Crossover_Maniac** » 2003-02-02 02:49pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Not when His Divine Shadow keeps running under your skirt crying over the things the big, evil Federation cultists says about Star Wars
Note that I didn't post any links to your debate at all to begin with, until you pissed me off that is.

I don't care if you do. In fact, I knew Wong was going to find out about it sooner or later anyway. And I wouldn't tease you about your math errors either if you didn't piss me off with your insults. Otherwise, I'd just point out your error, gave you a correct answer, and drop the matter altogether.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-02-02 02:59pm

Crossover_Maniac wrote:I don't care if you do. In fact, I knew Wong was going to find out about it sooner or later anyway. And I wouldn't tease you about your math errors either if you didn't piss me off with your insults. Otherwise, I'd just point out your error, gave you a correct answer, and drop the matter altogether.

Surely you must come up with something better than something that occured due to a faulty program.

Crossover_Maniac · Post by **Crossover_Maniac** » 2003-02-02 03:02pm

And runs to Wong everytime I make a post.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-02-02 03:06pm

Crossover_Maniac wrote:And runs to Wong everytime I make a post.

Thats a pretty lame insult too.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-02-02 03:15pm

Crossover_Maniac wrote:
The 'volatile iron' theory is just one possiblity. But I did manage to find at least one instance where iron is volatile.
This actually disproves your point (not that I've ever been a big fan of the Galaxy Gun; such Trek-like chain reactions are a brain-bug IMHO and it's g good thing we don't see them in the canon films),

I see you chose to ignore my post

Crossover_Maniac · Post by **Crossover_Maniac** » 2003-02-02 03:19pm

He could be referring exclusively to the Galaxy Gun's long range ability. Did he say the disintegrator itself was a brand new technolgoy?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-02-02 03:28pm

Crossover_Maniac wrote:He could be referring exclusively to the Galaxy Gun's long range ability. Did he say the disintegrator itself was a brand new technolgoy?

The long range ability is alreay well established in Probe driods and messanger pods. Show he was not refering to the nucleonic tech.

Crossover_Maniac · Post by **Crossover_Maniac** » 2003-02-02 04:07pm

Ender wrote:
Crossover_Maniac wrote:He could be referring exclusively to the Galaxy Gun's long range ability. Did he say the disintegrator itself was a brand new technolgoy?
The long range ability is alreay well established in Probe driods and messanger pods. Show he was not refering to the nucleonic tech.

True, the probes would set a precedence for long range projectiles. However, just because he said 'why didn't we think of it sooner' doesn't mean they were using a revolutionary technology. It could also mean that the technology was always there but never applied in that manner. The steam engine was invented in the early 1700's and was first used to pump water out of coal mines. But it wasn't applied to transportation until 1827 in steamboats. When the steam engine was further refined, it was used in transportation across the Continential United States. It won't have been out of the question for someone at that time to ask why haven't we done that years ago even though the technology has been around for quite some time.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-02-02 04:09pm

Crossover_Maniac wrote: True, the probes would set a precedence for long range projectiles. However, just because he said 'why didn't we think of it sooner' doesn't mean they were using a revolutionary technology. It could also mean that the technology was always there but never applied in that manner.

That's the fucking point. It was never used as a weapon before, so your claiming it is similar to the Death Star blast is total bullshit. What about this is so hard to understand?

*snip steam engine redherring*.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-02 04:10pm

Crossover_Maniac wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Actually, "explanations" have to make sense. Small detail you apparently left out, as usual.
As you said earlier, it's makes as much as sense as all of the other sci-fi crap.

Bullshit. It requires amazing new properties in matter whose properties are already known to us.

You're an idiot. Such a beam would have zero energy, since the positive and negative masses would cancel out.
Equal mass doesn't always equal to equal energy, moron. Or do you think 1 lb block of C-4 has as much energy as a one lb stationary piece of wood. Also, the key word is 'momentum'. Two object can have the same momentum but different amounts of kinetic energy.

Sorry, but you're wrong, dumb-fuck. A negative mass literally cancels out a positive mass. You said "positive mass and negative mass allowing for a net momentum of zero". If it has zero momentum, then it has zero mass and zero energy, you fucking idiot.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with old pound of feathers vs pound of wood analogy.

Object A:

Mass=1 kg
velocity=3000 km/s

Object B:

Mass=2 kg
velocity=1500 km/s

momentum(A)=1 kg* 3000 km/s=3,000,000 kg*m/s
momentum(B)=2 kg*15000km/s=3,000,000 kg*m/s

kinetic energy(A)=0.5*1 kg*(3000km/s)^2=4.5E12 joules
kinetic energy(B)=0.5*2 kg*(1500 km/s)^2=2.25E12 joules

I hate having to spell everything out for the mental impaired.

Wrong, idiot. You said positive and negative masses. Object A= +2 kg. Object B = -2 kg. +2kg-2kg = 0 kg. I believe they teach this around grade 3, you blithering dipshit.

And speaking of calculations, wouldn't the mass-lightning effect of hypermatter change the conclusions you made about the Executor and Death Star in your Size Matters essay?

No, because the real-mass component of the ship is what we see.

This actually disproves your point (not that I've ever been a big fan of the Galaxy Gun; such Trek-like chain reactions are a brain-bug IMHO and it's g good thing we don't see them in the canon films),
But that shouldn't matter, according to you.

From http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Misc/Canon.html:
On that page, I clearly state that if we can't make sense out of an official reference, it should be considered subordinate to science. Sorry, dumb-fuck, but that's why the Galaxy Gun gets little mention and little interest from me.
since a miniscule Galaxy Gun missile can do this. If an insignificant Galaxy Gun missile can do this, why would the Death Star need a gigantic moon-sized reactor and gun in order to do it?
The reactor made up a small percentage of the DS's volume. Also, the reactor also provided power for the Death Star's sublight propulsion, shieldings, artifical gravity, heavy turbolasers, and hyperdrive.
Excuse me dipshit, but the Galaxy Gun missiles also have turbolasers, hyperdrive, sublight propulsion, and shielding.
Small wonder you posted your bullshit on SB but not here. Always best to keep stupid ideas away from people who will actually call you on it, eh?
Not when His Divine Shadow keeps running under your skirt crying over the things the big, evil Federation cultists says about Star Wars, it doesn't. Besides, these are open forums that anyone can visit and make posts. Get out of your ivory castle and come visit us common folks in the dirty, shabby SB.com forums.

Why? Anything you say which is stupid enough to make fun of here can be discussed here, and I have enough demands on my time without participating in any forum but my own.

Crossover_Maniac · Post by **Crossover_Maniac** » 2003-02-02 04:46pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Crossover_Maniac wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Actually, "explanations" have to make sense. Small detail you apparently left out, as usual.
As you said earlier, it's makes as much as sense as all of the other sci-fi crap.
Bullshit. It requires amazing new properties in matter whose properties are already known to us.
You're an idiot. Such a beam would have zero energy, since the positive and negative masses would cancel out.
Equal mass doesn't always equal to equal energy, moron. Or do you think 1 lb block of C-4 has as much energy as a one lb stationary piece of wood. Also, the key word is 'momentum'. Two object can have the same momentum but different amounts of kinetic energy.
Sorry, but you're wrong, dumb-fuck. A negative mass literally cancels out a positive mass. You said "positive mass and negative mass allowing for a net momentum of zero". If it has net momentum of zero, then it has zero mass and zero energy, you fucking idiot.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with old pound of feathers vs pound of wood analogy.

Object A:

Mass=1 kg
velocity=3000 km/s

Object B:

Mass=2 kg
velocity=1500 km/s

momentum(A)=1 kg* 3000 km/s=3,000,000 kg*m/s
momentum(B)=2 kg*15000km/s=3,000,000 kg*m/s

kinetic energy(A)=0.5*1 kg*(3000km/s)^2=4.5E12 joules
kinetic energy(B)=0.5*2 kg*(1500 km/s)^2=2.25E12 joules

I hate having to spell everything out for the mental impaired.
Wrong, idiot. You said positive and negative masses. Object A= +2 kg. Object B = -2 kg. +2kg-2kg = 0 kg. I believe they teach this around grade 3, you blithering dipshit.

Nitpitch all you want, it won't save you.

If you'd like, I'll add on the little minus sign for you.

Mass=1 kg
velocity=3000 km/s

Object B:

Mass=-2 kg
velocity=1500 km/s

momentum(A)=1 kg* 3000 km/s=3,000,000 kg*m/s
momentum(B)=-2 kg*15000km/s=-3,000,000 kg*m/s
momentum(A)+momentum(B)=0

kinetic energy(A)=0.5*1 kg*(3000km/s)^2=4.5E12 joules
kinetic energy(B)=0.5*-2 kg*(1500 km/s)^2=-2.25E12 joules
kinetic energy (A)+kinetic energy(B)=2.25E12 joules

Oh look, a net positive energy and but no net momentum. But who are you going to believe, Wong or your own eyes?

And speaking of calculations, wouldn't the mass-lightning effect of hypermatter change the conclusions you made about the Executor and Death Star in your Size Matters essay?
No, because the real-mass component of the ship is what we see.[/qoute]

And what's stopping a SW ship from shifting its hypermatter into negative mass component and canceling out the ship's positive mass?

This actually disproves your point (not that I've ever been a big fan of the Galaxy Gun; such Trek-like chain reactions are a brain-bug IMHO and it's g good thing we don't see them in the canon films),
But that shouldn't matter, according to you.

From http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Misc/Canon.html:
On that page, I clearly state that if we can't make sense out of an official reference, it should be considered subordinate to science. Sorry, dumb-fuck, but that's why the Galaxy Gun gets little mention and little interest from me.
It's gets little interest from you because you don't like the implications. Canon isn't something you cherry-pick or do we ignore the fact that whenever someone is vaporized by a phaser there is no cloud of steam that appears and pretend it's direct-energy transfer and not an NDF effect. Either the EU is canon or it isn't. Which one is it going to be?

The reactor made up a small percentage of the DS's volume. Also, the reactor also provided power for the Death Star's sublight propulsion, shieldings, artifical gravity, heavy turbolasers, and hyperdrive.
Excuse me dipshit, but the Galaxy Gun missiles also have turbolasers, hyperdrive, sublight propulsion, and shielding.

Not when His Divine Shadow keeps running under your skirt crying over the things the big, evil Federation cultists says about Star Wars, it doesn't. Besides, these are open forums that anyone can visit and make posts. Get out of your ivory castle and come visit us common folks in the dirty, shabby SB.com forums.
Why? Anything you say which is stupid enough to make fun of here can be discussed here, and I have enough demands on my time without participating in any forum but my own.

Show some backbone for once and get out of your little blockade. At least make your case in a neutral forum like SB.com or even the CBUB forum. I made the time to come to yours, you can make the time to come to mine.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-02-02 04:50pm

Show some backbone for once and get out of your little blockade. At least make your case in a neutral forum like SB.com or even the CBUB forum. I made the time to come to yours, you can make the time to come to mine.

CM, do you have any idea how badly mauled you're being in this thread? Mike has crushed your insignificant points. The fact that you didn't even bother to TRY to understand what he was saying is laughable at best.

Moreover, you insist that Mike take his case to a "Neutral" forum, claim that SD.net is NOT neutral, and then demand that he comes to "your" forum (implying that the forums you brought up were not neutral, either). Make up your damn mind before you post something. You'll earn more respect that way.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-02-02 04:58pm

Show some backbone for once and get out of your little blockade. At least make your case in a neutral forum like SB.com or even the CBUB forum. I made the time to come to yours, you can make the time to come to mine.

You're feeling opressed here, perhaps? Although you've once had a single debate with Mike and I don't see any of your posts getting deleted od modified, or flames pointed at you just for the fun of it.

You've lost, again (duh), and you probably want to have a debate in a place where Mike calling you "idiot" will get him warned, flamed and banned, and will proclaim you the sole victor by default.

You know perfectly well people here do not run from single debate challenges, especially Mike. And yet, you dare to keep squealling "I demand neutrality"?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-02-02 05:05pm

Crossover_Maniac wrote: This has nothing whatsoever to do with old pound of feathers vs pound of wood analogy.

Nitpick rather than respond. I'm detecting a very distinct pattern here.

And what's stopping a SW ship from shifting its hypermatter into negative mass component and canceling out the ship's positive mass?

Nothing, that's when hyperspace travle occurs.

It's gets little interest from you because you don't like the implications. Canon isn't something you cherry-pick or do we ignore the fact that whenever someone is vaporized by a phaser there is no cloud of steam that appears and pretend it's direct-energy transfer and not an NDF effect. Either the EU is canon or it isn't. Which one is it going to be?

False dilema, "it's either canon or it's crap". Doesn't work that way. Official but not canon is well established.

[
Show some backbone for once and get out of your little blockade. At least make your case in a neutral forum like SB.com or even the CBUB forum. I made the time to come to yours, you can make the time to come to mine.

Wow, this is a rehash of the old SB arguments back from the Gothmog era. And like Ossus pointed out, if he is coming to your forum, he is hardly going to neutral ground. If you want neutral ground, challenege him to a debate like Edam, Darkstar, and everyone else did.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-02 05:49pm

Crossover_Maniac wrote:Nitpitch all you want, it won't save you.

If you'd like, I'll add on the little minus sign for you.

Mass=1 kg
velocity=3000 km/s

Object B:

Mass=-2 kg
velocity=1500 km/s

momentum(A)=1 kg* 3000 km/s=3,000,000 kg*m/s
momentum(B)=-2 kg*15000km/s=-3,000,000 kg*m/s
momentum(A)+momentum(B)=0

kinetic energy(A)=0.5*1 kg*(3000km/s)^2=4.5E12 joules
kinetic energy(B)=0.5*-2 kg*(1500 km/s)^2=-2.25E12 joules
kinetic energy (A)+kinetic energy(B)=2.25E12 joules

Oh look, a net positive energy and but no net momentum. But who are you going to believe, Wong or your own eyes?

Since the whole beam is moving at the same speed, this analogy is obviously wrong, you fucking moron. You're also ignoring the fact that any negative mass would have a negative contribution to net energy, so it accomplished nothing (worse than nothing, actually). It does not solve the problem; it only exacerbates it by adding yet another problem.

It's quite obvious you're looking for excuses to wriggle out of admitting your own glaring mistakes or discussing the matter here at all, instead of at SB where scientific ignorance is OK as long as you're polite.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-02-02 07:25pm

Ah, Crossover Maniac... a living, breathing argument both in favor of euthanization and abortion, and against the theory of evolution.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with old pound of feathers vs pound of wood analogy.

Actually, it does. A pound of one kind of matter will have the same amount of energy as a pound of any other kind of matter. E=MC^2, and all that (assuming both examples of matter are under the same gravitational pressure, that is, since mass and weight aren't the same thing...)

And what's stopping a SW ship from shifting its hypermatter into negative mass component and canceling out the ship's positive mass?

Probably some technological or natural limitation of hypermatter, ya mental midget.

Canon isn't something you cherry-pick

Are you claiming that Dark Empire II is canon? Not even the most rabid of warsies will claim that.

Wong doesn't IGNORE the Galaxy Gun, you simpering puddle of congealing swine semen, he just doens't give it much attention.

or do we ignore the fact that whenever someone is vaporized by a phaser there is no cloud of steam that appears and pretend it's direct-energy transfer and not an NDF effect.

The fact that there is no cloud of steam is what indicates that a phaser blast isn't a DET.

Either the EU is canon or it isn't. Which one is it going to be?

You've yet to make such a all-or-nothing case. Gonna give it a try, or are you STILL relying on your dinky-brained tactic of "just repeat my arguments all over again, they'll give up eventually!"?

At least make your case in a neutral forum like SB.com or even the CBUB forum.

This is rich. SD.net is "biased" because you're getting your ass handed to you? And you have the gall to tell someone ELSE to get some backbone. Let your testicles drop, Junior, and stop whining like a snivelling, spoiled little child! Grow some skin, you obstinate goat-felching pile of steaming donkey shit...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-02 07:30pm

And what's stopping a SW ship from shifting its hypermatter into negative mass component and canceling out the ship's positive mass?

Wow, I didn't even notice this little gem until SPOOFE pointed it out in his reply. First, he assumes that this is possible (in other words, he assumes that if they can shift matter between real (and positive) and imaginary, they must also be able to shift matter between imaginary and NEGATIVE.

The second problem is his self-contradiction: he is simultaneously claiming that you can use negative mass to cancel out the momentum of the Death Star superlaser, as if this negative mass wouldn't simply cancel out positive mass in the beam. Then he turns around and claims that imaginary matter should cancel out positive matter!

But the third, and most laughable assumption is that if it were possible, it should be happening all the time, as if an Imperial starship engineer would not build in some safeguards to prevent this.

Crossover_Maniac · Post by **Crossover_Maniac** » 2003-02-02 07:55pm

Darth Wong wrote:
And what's stopping a SW ship from shifting its hypermatter into negative mass component and canceling out the ship's positive mass?
Wow, I didn't even notice this little gem until SPOOFE pointed it out in his reply. First, he assumes that this is possible (in other words, he assumes that if they can shift matter between real (and positive) and imaginary, they must also be able to shift matter between imaginary and NEGATIVE.

And why not? If the ship has to have an imaginary mass in order to travel faster than light, then it would have to get rid of its positive mass component and only have an imaginary one. Otherwise, the ship still has positive mass and the hypermatter is just circling around the ship > c. It's still has a real mass component. And since hypermatter can shift between positive real mass and imaginary, what's stopping it from becoming negative and imaginary?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-02-02 08:01pm

Crossover_Maniac wrote:And since hypermatter can shift between positive real mass and imaginary, what's stopping it from becoming negative and imaginary?

Sigh..

I'll give you a hint: IT'S NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING.

Just an example, in real life physics it's perfectly normal to have a system with imaginary part poles. But you can never have systems with positive part poles. Nature has a way of stopping it, it seems, according to your reasoning.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-02 08:03pm

Crossover_Maniac wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
And what's stopping a SW ship from shifting its hypermatter into negative mass component and canceling out the ship's positive mass?
Wow, I didn't even notice this little gem until SPOOFE pointed it out in his reply. First, he assumes that this is possible (in other words, he assumes that if they can shift matter between real (and positive) and imaginary, they must also be able to shift matter between imaginary and NEGATIVE.
And why not? If the ship has to have an imaginary mass in order to travel faster than light, then it would have to get rid of its positive mass component and only have an imaginary one.

Correct. How does this translate to positive going negative?

Otherwise, the ship still has positive mass and the hypermatter is just circling around the ship > c. It's still has a real mass component. And since hypermatter can shift between positive real mass and imaginary, what's stopping it from becoming negative and imaginary?

Because now you're adding two new phenomena (stable negative mass and stable imaginary mass) instead of one (stable imaginary mass, which is basically NECESSARY to explain hyperspace travel and is even explicitly described in the literature).

And I notice you ignored the other, larger point in which I noted both your hypocrisy in recognizing positive/negative mass cancellation here but in relation to your own theory, or your idiotic assumption that if it were possible, it would happen all the time because you assume no one would ever design safeguards to prevent it.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-02-02 08:16pm

CM's latest trick: Trying to disprove a fictional technology by pointing out that it can't perform an unrelated phenomenon.

Hey, CM! If Warp travel allows one to achieve speeds that are faster than light, how come it can't spontaneously generate whole flocks of fluffy bunnies?!? Oh, it CAN'T? That means Warp doesn't travel faster than C!

Crossover_Maniac · Post by **Crossover_Maniac** » 2003-02-02 08:22pm

Darth Wong wrote:And I notice you ignored the other, larger point in which I noted both your hypocrisy in recognizing positive/negative mass cancellation here but in relation to your own theory, or your idiotic assumption that if it were possible, it would happen all the time because you assume no one would ever design safeguards to prevent it.

Why would they want to prevent it? If hypermatter has a negative mass, then it would work just like a repulsorlift. So long it could be done it a controlled manner, it would be useful.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-02-02 08:27pm

Crossover_Maniac wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:And I notice you ignored the other, larger point in which I noted both your hypocrisy in recognizing positive/negative mass cancellation here but in relation to your own theory, or your idiotic assumption that if it were possible, it would happen all the time because you assume no one would ever design safeguards to prevent it.
Why would they want to prevent it? If hypermatter has a negative mass, then it would work just like a repulsorlift. So long it could be done it a controlled manner, it would be useful.

WTF is this? Speculation without a shred of evidence. Repulsorlifts have NEVER been mentioned to use hypermatter, and some craft with hypermatter do not have repulsorlifts.