Hey Sovereign, you lying sack of shit ...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-15 08:38pm

Sovereign wrote:This still meens it is 118.8 m vs 27.6 m.How many megatons does it take to destroy 27 meters of rock.

Concession accepted: the "mountain" is fifty times smaller than you claimed it to be.

As for your subject change, the 40m asteroids in TESB (which you downscale to the precise length of the MF for some fucking reason which you have yet to explain) represent a LOWER LIMIT, not an upper limit. In AOTC, Slave-1's seismic charges blasted asteroids in a region TEN FUCKING KILOMETRES WIDE.

The asteroids in TESB were blasted so completely that there was not a single visible trace left. The small hill in Enterprise was only shattered. But as long as you're going to cling to this bullshit:

Energy to blast out a 120m wide crater in igneous rock: 1.7 kilotons
Energy to completely vapourize 40m wide nickel-iron asteroid: 480 kilotons

Sorry, you lose. Even if we employ your ridiculous "bury my head in the sand and pretend AOTC never happened" technique in conjunction with the longstanding Trektard "TESB is an upper limit, not a lower limit" bullshit, we STILL find that any one of the >100 point-defense guns on a typical ISD is hundreds of times more powerful than your popgun.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-03-15 08:41pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:The fact that he ran away from this thread pretty much says he conceded.

His last post was only a few hours ago.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-03-15 08:42pm

Sovereign wrote:Everyone seems to like to talk about me, I thought they would like to talk to me IM wise.

Ah, yes. The "Innocence Abused" facade. Sovereign, EVERYONE was screaming at you to admit defeat on this thread, or to come back and defend your arguments. EVERYONE. We were posting it in practically every post here, and some of us even signed your frickin' guest book with this information. You can't pretend anyone was talking about you behind your back, because we were all telling you about this thread.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-03-15 08:43pm

Sovereign wrote:This still meens it is 118.8 m vs 27.6 m.How many megatons does it take to destroy 27 meters of rock.

The difference is that the alleged "mountain" (which is no where NEAR as large as you claimed in the other thread) was merely fragmented. The asteroid in ESB was vaporized. It actually takes considerably more energy to vaporize a 40 meter asteroid than fragment a 120 meter mountain.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-03-15 08:46pm

Sovereign wrote:The rock is clearly far away from the Ship.

WTF is this supposed to show? Yes. The asteroid is some distance from both the MF and the ISD. What does this have to do with the scaling involved in the incident?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-03-15 08:47pm

Sovereign wrote:This still meens it is 118.8 m vs 27.6 m.How many megatons does it take to destroy 27 meters of rock.

Why does the asteroid suddenly become smaller just because the Falcon is some distance away from it? That doesn't make any sense.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-03-16 01:57am

Grabs trusty Dinosaur clone, loads nitrus express rifle. Dons pith helmet.

Now off to the land of trolls and ignorant savages!!

Someone notify Col. Kurtz that I am on my way.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2003-03-16 03:49am

Howedar wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:The fact that he ran away from this thread pretty much says he conceded.
His last post was only a few hours ago.

I think that's only because I brought the thread back from the dead, I bet that if I would not have done that he wouldn't have posted in this thread or any others.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-16 04:01am

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Howedar wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:The fact that he ran away from this thread pretty much says he conceded.
His last post was only a few hours ago.
I think that's only because I brought the thread back from the dead, I bet that if I would not have done that he wouldn't have posted in this thread or any others.

Not to mention the fact that he has never admitted bullshitting about this incident, and tries to merely divert attention to a new subject.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-03-16 04:35am

Can we also point out that the most Excellent Turbolaser commentaries site has cited asteroids that are MUCH larger than 40 meters? Some were as large as 100 meters and were readily vaporized

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2003-03-17 07:39am

Wow, this topic is still here? Sovereign must be much more of a wimp than I thought...

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2003-03-17 10:27am

I think it's more that he's just young, and thinks that a partial high school education and the fact that he watches star trek gives him a fucking degree in physics.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-03-17 10:41am

The moron has returned yet again I see. Why am I always away when the idiot shows his face.

I was on a road trip most of last week with the band.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-03-17 10:19pm

Darth Servo wrote:The moron has returned yet again I see. Why am I always away when the idiot shows his face.

I was on a road trip most of last week with the band.

Well, he hasn't said anything here in over a day, he's either gone for good or thinking of a weak rebuttal.

Galaxy · Post by **Galaxy** » 2003-03-18 01:25am

You people are dumb as hell. None of you have proved the mountain is smaller than Captain Archer compared it to be. Just a bunch of morons trying to assure themselves that it's much smaller.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-03-18 01:43am

Galaxy wrote:You people are dumb as hell. None of you have proved the mountain is smaller than Captain Archer compared it to be. Just a bunch of morons trying to assure themselves that it's much smaller.

Christ, Galaxy, you really are an idiot, aren't you?

Captain Archer declared the mountain to be of comparable size to Mount McKinley. Mt. McKinley is 20,320 feet high! (http://americasroof.com/ak.html)

The "mountain" shown in the visuals from the episode was nowhere near that high. How do we know? People have long since explained this to you, but I will do so once again in an effort to dissuade you from attempting to bombard this board with continuing bullshit in the future.

The beams fired from the Enterprise in the episode have been shown to be converging on the mountain. That means that the distance between the beams when they actually hit the mountain will be smaller than the distance between the beams when they were fired. We have an excellent idea of how large the Enterprise is, and we know quite accurately how far apart those beams were when they were fired. We may thus arrive at an upper limit as to how wide the "mountain" could have been, and from that we may easily deduce that it was no more than about 150m high. That is FAR smaller than Mt. McKinley. You lose.

BTW, you also admitted to the "mountain" we saw in the episode being FAR smaller than the size that you claimed from Archer's obviously mistaken statement. That's what this whole fucking thread is about--PROVING YOU WRONG. Present your evidence as to why you believe that:

a. Our calculations have been inaccurate, and have underestimated the size of the rock-formation destroyed by the Enterprise's weapons in the episode.
b. Archer's statement was correct, in spite of the explicit and non-ambiguous statement from another crewman in the same episode describing the firepower of the weapons involved.

If you can do either of these, you have a case. Appealing to ignorance, however, will get you nowhere.

Galaxy · Post by **Galaxy** » 2003-03-18 03:28am

Maybe you're not aware that the distance between parallel lines travelling away from your point of view will look smaller the farther away they get.
Its sad when you don't even accept that bit of common sense.

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2003-03-18 03:42am

Galaxy wrote:Maybe you're not aware that the distance between parallel lines travelling away from your point of view will look smaller the farther away they get.
Its sad when you don't even accept that bit of common sense.

Hey, it's nowhere near as sad as someone who is so desperate for their favourite sci-fi to come out on top that they would use the most blatantly obvious hyperbole to pull out some bullshit that fools nobody, all the while discarding a solid figure that was provided in a serious manner. Talk about scraping the barrel.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-03-18 03:51am

Maybe you're not aware that the distance between parallel lines travelling away from your point of view will look smaller the farther away they get.

This is true. HOWEVER, the distance between those lines will NOT change. We see how wide apart the beams are when fired, and see how wide apart they are on impact. Assuming that they're the same width apart - which they won't be, due to the fact that they're converging (do you know what "converging" means?) - that distance will remain the same.

ERGO, we can scale the distance between the beams at impact of the mountain, and scale the size of the mountain from there.

For your benefit, I have shrunk down and cut a selected piece from the first image that Mr. Wong posted, and placed the originator points on Enterprise over the impact points of the mountain:

As you can see, the mountain is not much larger than Enterprise herself. THAT is where the scaling comes from, my dear rabid friend. Now please have this nice big slice of humble pie, free of charge. It also comes with a nice tall glass of "Shut the fuck up, you stupid piece of dripping smegma" juice.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-03-18 03:53am

Heh... actually, looking at the pictures again, I must say that it looks like that Enterprise might actually be larger than the mountain...

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-03-18 05:01am

Mountains out of Molehills AGAIN!

Galaxy, you tried to claim that some god like bieng artificially overclocking the warp drives, to the pouint where they totally burned out after only a few minutes as something typical of Federation travel speeds. That's like saying my Geo Metro can travel at 220 MPH!

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-03-18 11:29am

Galaxy and Sovereign are both in dire need of good flamings.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-03-18 02:22pm

Why isn't this thread HOS'd yet?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-03-18 10:55pm

Galaxy wrote:Maybe you're not aware that the distance between parallel lines travelling away from your point of view will look smaller the farther away they get.
Its sad when you don't even accept that bit of common sense.

I find it sad that you ignore the evidence from BOTH the visuals AND the fact that another officer on the SAME EPISODE quantifies the firepower of the Enterprise's weapons. You are a complete idiot. Provide your EVIDENCE that the mountain was substantially larger than what we are claiming.

And BTW, LMAO! If the lines were parallel, and the spread was only caused by the distance, then the mountain would STILL be about the same size that everyone here is estimating. That would mean that the distance between the two beams is the same as the distance between the weapons firing them--only a few tens of meters (as scaled from the Enterprise). In other words, you lose yet again, bitch. Please don't try again.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-03-18 10:59pm

Galaxy wrote:Maybe you're not aware that the distance between parallel lines travelling away from your point of view will look smaller the farther away they get.
Its sad when you don't even accept that bit of common sense.

Really you should read your own statment to yourself in a mirror...for that will do the most good.

Or are you just really stupid?