Accuracy of Wong's calculations.....

[seanrobertson]

But the point still remains: Are Wong's calcs accurate? Does any official cannon guide book concur with him to some degree?

No flames plz....

Official cannons all back up Mike. They blast whenever he gives the signal

Which calculations are you thinking about? There are so many.

Regardless of the one you pick, I'd have to say yes.

I'd also like to see this moron that claims he has "proven Mike wrong." Psh...we've never heard THAT before

[Shroom Man 777]

Here: http://www.perilith.com/~lode/scii/phpB ... 7&start=30

Ummm..... please do not cause much ruckus to that beutiful place. Don't mindlessly flame, okay? Respect that place. Keep the debate at a lukewarm level.

Don't go overboard on this guy....

[Darth Wong]

Please direct him to http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... nutes.html and if/when he claims that my calculations are all bullshit, ask him which specific part of that page is wrong.

[Shroom Man 777]

Please direct him to http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... nutes.html and if/when he claims that my calculations are all bullshit, ask him which specific part of that page is wrong.

Can't you people go there and do it?! :p

This is one of the things he quoted from somewhere which states that you are wrong.

when sd.net talks about the weapons firepower of the ISD, it does some bad math here and there. for example, sd.net refers to the asteroids to come up with an average power of 1500 J to vaporize an asteroid. ok, i'll go with that. however, bad math comes into play next. this is what the site calculates:

since Watts = Joules/sec ... and the asteroid was vaporized in 1/15 sec...

1500 TJ / (1/15 sec) = 22500 TW

woah woah woah. you can't do that. i'll explain in a bit, but let me show u how he arrives at the conclusion of 22 GT turbolasers.

(what sd.net says...) 22500 TW per small turbolaser (TL). the large ones are roughly 125 times the size, so they should be roughly 125 times more powerful (2.8 million TW). there are 12 large turbolasers and 120 small ones on an ISD. each turbolaser shoots roughly once every 2 seconds. therefore, the large turbolasers equal roughly 94 million TJ (22 GT), and the small ones equal 750,000 TJ (179 MT).

Power of Small Turbolaser
22500 TW
Power of Large Turbolaser
22500 TW * 125 = 2,812,500 (or 2.8 million) TW

however, according to calculation:

Power of all Large Turbolasers (combined)
2,812,500 TW * 12 = 33,750,000 TW = 67.5 million TJ (NOT 94 million) = 16 GT

Power of all Small Turbolasers (combined)
22500 TW * 120 = 2,700,000 TW = 5.4 million TJ (NOT 750,000) = 1.3 GT

of course, 16 GT and 1.3 GT is still really powerful. heck, even though sd.net screwed up, the smaller turbolasers are actually more powerful than what the site stated.

however, this is all still wrong. let me point out all the flaws with the site.

1. First of all, he started with a value of joules (1500 TJ), then changed it to watts (22500 TW), then somehow changed it back to joules and made the original value even larger (750,000 TJ).
2. the change from 1500 TJ to 22500 TW shouldn't have been done in the first place, because that would be saying that the turbolasers can fire every 1/15 of a second. that's not the case, since turbolasers can only fire every 2 seconds according to sd.net. so what would the TW value be? 750 TW. not very impressive, eh?
3. also, the 1500 TJ, converted to gigatons, is only 0.00036 GT, or 0.36 MT. that's rediculously small.
4. you can't do a direct proportion of size to increase the power of the larger turbolasers. sd.net says that large ones are 125 times the size of small ones; therefore, it should be roughly 125 times more powerful. WRONG! SORRY! there's actually no way to tell how much more powerful the large turbolasers are. heck, they might even be just as powerful as the small ones. it could be that the larger size means an older model, or perhaps they have more stability than the smaller ones, or have better targeting.
5. he is also taking the COMBINED TOTAL of all weapons and massing them together as one. this means that, in order for the ISD to be that powerful, ALL turbolasers must hit its target. that, of course, is impossible.

so what does all of this mean? an ISD, having 12 large turbolasers and 120 small ones, has a minimum output of 198,000 TJ, or 47.37 MT. that is for the COMBINED strength of ALL their turbolasers. granted, that's only the MINIMUM, but that's still WAAAAAY small.

And here's one thing he posted:

im not a member of sd.net... i visited once or twice and found many of their members to be quite idiotic.

but the link for where i refuted all of that stuff... omg, i'd have to dig through a ton of crap to find it...

but anyways, i refuted his arguments on turbolaser power (he did something like multiplied a number by another number, then multiplied the new number by the original number and it became huge)... i dont remember what else. i think i talked about star destroyer shielding a bit, but it was mostly a big discussion on TL power.

but mind you, i didn't take into account the cross-sections manual thingy, where it rates the power of TLs to be some gigantic quantity. i only took into account footage from the movies, where for some reason the TLs have an extremely lower power level.

[Darth Wong]

I remember that one. His arguments were shot full of holes, of course, which is probably why he's reluctant to lead you to the thread he made. Ask him what userid he was using, so that you can find the thread and everyone can view the rebuttals. No need to address his various distortions TWICE.

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

I remember that fuckwit too. He made quite a good afternoon slaughter

[Joe Momma]

Jesus Fucking Christ. I know there's already a thread devoted to wiping SD.Net's collective ass with this guy's skull, but I felt compelled to throw this in. I'm a total math/science ignoramus (having only gone through the basic college requirements and done some reading on my own), but even I can see this guy is a fucktard.

1500 TJ / (1/15 sec) = 22500 TW
(SNIP)
1. First of all, he started with a value of joules (1500 TJ), then changed it to watts (22500 TW), then somehow changed it back to joules and made the original value even larger (750,000 TJ).

Let's see, a Joule is N*m and a Watt is N*m/s. So if I take a Joule Measurement and divide it by a number of seconds, it becomes a Watt measurement! And if I later multiply by a number of seconds, it goes back to a Joule! Is it a secret of the ancients? Is it magic? No, it's basic fucking math.

2. the change from 1500 TJ to 22500 TW shouldn't have been done in the first place, because that would be saying that the turbolasers can fire every 1/15 of a second. that's not the case, since turbolasers can only fire every 2 seconds according to sd.net. so what would the TW value be? 750 TW. not very impressive, eh?

Urg. The 1/15 of a second is the length of time it took the turbolaser blast to vaporize the target, the 2 seconds is the interval between shots. The difference between them and the importance thereof would be obvious to anyone with reading comprehension skills beyond those of a blind retarded spastic crack baby half-mad with end-stage syphillis.

But he says he proved all the calcs wrong, so I guess we just have to take his word for it. What an asshat.

-- Joe Momma

[Darth Servo]

I remember that one. His arguments were shot full of holes, of course, which is probably why he's reluctant to lead you to the thread he made. Ask him what userid he was using, so that you can find the thread and everyone can view the rebuttals. No need to address his various distortions TWICE.

Right here[/url]

[Crown]

I knew I remembered it too!

Page 5 of the link Darth Servo gave us;

when sd.net talks about the weapons firepower of the ISD, it does some bad math here and there. for example, sd.net refers to the asteroids to come up with an average power of 1500 J to vaporize an asteroid. ok, i'll go with that. however, bad math comes into play next. this is what the site calculates:

since Watts = Joules/sec ... and the asteroid was vaporized in 1/15 sec...

1500 TJ / (1/15 sec) = 22500 TW

woah woah woah. you can't do that. i'll explain in a bit, but let me show u how he arrives at the conclusion of 22 GT turbolasers.

Actually, modern pulse lasers are rated for the pulse, not averaged to include downtime. He's full of sh*t.

(what sd.net says...) 22500 TW per small turbolaser (TL). the large ones are roughly 125 times the size, so they should be roughly 125 times more powerful (2.8 million TW). there are 12 large turbolasers and 120 small ones on an ISD. each turbolaser shoots roughly once every 2 seconds. therefore, the large turbolasers equal roughly 94 million TJ (22 GT), and the small ones equal 750,000 TJ (179 MT).

He's a lying cunt. The 750,000 TJ figure comes from BDZ calcs, not the asteroids. He's mixing and matching conclusions from different parts of the page to make it appear as if I've played with the numbers, the lying little sh*t.

however, this is all still wrong. let me point out all the flaws with the site.

1. First of all, he started with a value of joules (1500 TJ), then changed it to watts (22500 TW), then somehow changed it back to joules and made the original value even larger (750,000 TJ).

Pure bullshit; the 750,000 TJ figure comes from the BDZ section of the page, not the asteroid section.

2. the change from 1500 TJ to 22500 TW shouldn't have been done in the first place, because that would be saying that the turbolasers can fire every 1/15 of a second. that's not the case, since turbolasers can only fire every 2 seconds according to sd.net. so what would the TW value be? 750 TW. not very impressive, eh?

Five hundred times the entire combined power generation of present-day planet Earth is not very impressive? Sure, whatever

3. also, the 1500 TJ, converted to gigatons, is only 0.00036 GT, or 0.36 MT. that's rediculously small.

Notice how he completely ignores the fact that this is a Hoth-asteroid lower limit, and other incidents indicate a much higher lower limit.

4. you can't do a direct proportion of size to increase the power of the larger turbolasers. sd.net says that large ones are 125 times the size of small ones; therefore, it should be roughly 125 times more powerful. WRONG! SORRY! there's actually no way to tell how much more powerful the large turbolasers are. heck, they might even be just as powerful as the small ones. it could be that the larger size means an older model, or perhaps they have more stability than the smaller ones, or have better targeting.

It is a reasonable assumption; most weapons do, in fact, follow such scaling laws. The onus is on him to show why the error in this method would be greater than an order of magnitude.

5. he is also taking the COMBINED TOTAL of all weapons and massing them together as one. this means that, in order for the ISD to be that powerful, ALL turbolasers must hit its target. that, of course, is impossible.

Actually, it is that powerful regardless of whether it can bring all of that power to bear on one target. He is actually arguing that it is NOT "that powerful" if it can't bring all of its power to bear at one point; what kind of logic is that? By that token, since a nuclear power plant's output is split up among countless 120V AC sockets in peoples' homes, its rated power output is wrong

so what does all of this mean? an ISD, having 12 large turbolasers and 120 small ones, has a minimum output of 198,000 TJ, or 47.37 MT. that is for the COMBINED strength of ALL their turbolasers. granted, that's only the MINIMUM, but that's still WAAAAAY small.

Where's the errors? *snicker* Here's a list:

He assumes that a huge turbolaser has no more firepower than a small one (a precise multiplier of 125 as opposed to, say, 50 may be debatable, but a multiplier of 1 is ridiculous).

He ignores every piece of evidence on the entire turbolaser page except for the asteroid calcs

He treats a lower limit as an upper limit

And he generally makes an ass out of himself. This is the kind of bullshit debating tactic that anyone can clearly see is wrong if they bother to read the page he's critiquing (which he obviously hopes they won't). Classic Trekkie bullshitter.

Editors Note; It was actually quite easy to know which person said what in this conversation, just by the *colourfull* language used-err- I mean the logic used.

Ohh and a direct link would be here. Look for Darth Servo's first post on this page.

[Crown]

Seems that this cunt (same user name) has just 'cut and pasted' his entire arguement that he used to 'smack' Mike down with, and just conviniently forgot (totally innocently I am sure) to post the embarrasing rebuttle.

What an ass. *Shakes head*

[seanrobertson]

Please direct him to http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... nutes.html and if/when he claims that my calculations are all bullshit, ask him which specific part of that page is wrong.

Yeah, no kidding.

Shroom, if that guy's so adamant that he's got Mike over a barrel, what does have to lose by coming here?

You can pass this along to him:

im not a member of sd.net... i visited once or twice and found many of their members to be quite idiotic.

Tell him he is a coward. If I'm such a big idiot, come in here and whip my ass with what he calls "reasoning."

but the link for where i refuted all of that stuff... omg, i'd have to dig through a ton of crap to find it...

Tell him he is a liar. Whining about his sloppiness in keeping up with links is no substitute for an argument.

but anyways, i refuted his arguments on turbolaser power (he did something like multiplied a number by another number, then multiplied the new number by the original number and it became huge)... i dont remember what else. i think i talked about star destroyer shielding a bit, but it was mostly a big discussion on TL power.

LOL.

Can this guy not capitalize anything? I have a sneaking suspicion who he might be on other webboards...I am uncanny at recognizing writing styles given just a small sampling.

but mind you, i didn't take into account the cross-sections manual thingy, where it rates the power of TLs to be some gigantic quantity. i only took into account footage from the movies, where for some reason the TLs have an extremely lower power level.

Yeah, right Those LIGHT, TINY turbolasers that vaporized three asteroids, casually, in one scene were sure "extremely low-powered," weren't they?

Shroom, I'm not trying to bash you, but seriously, it's a bit insulting to think you're questioning Michael's figures on the basis of little dipshits like THIS.

[Darth Servo]

Seems that this cunt (same user name) has just 'cut and pasted' his entire arguement that he used to 'smack' Mike down with, and just conviniently forgot (totally innocently I am sure) to post the embarrasing rebuttle.

Thats his whole MO. He would ignore rebuttals and just post his defeated claim unaltered. IIRC, he tried to cite scooters webpage as evidence. I guess Firefly learned his style of debate from the master himself.

[Master of Ossus]

I remember this guy, too. I cannot BELIEVE that he still feels his arguments were reasonable. Simply copy-paste the relevant posts from the thread that he started, shut him up when everyone sees how much of a dumb-ass he is, then move on. I hardly see him as being worth our time.

Incidentally, this is EXACTLY the kind of person I figured it was immediately upon seeing his statements from the other board. I don't know where Mike "agreed" with him, but he's trying to pull the wool over their eyes in a manner not unlike the infamous DarkStar's use of the self-proclaimed victory.

[KK]

I've never found a mathematical flaw in Wong's calculations. He pretty clearly manipulates which numbers to use and which to not use to make the gap between SW and ST as large as possible, but that's just what you do in a debate. It's a tiem tested tactic. If the ST guys wanted to make their own calculations instead of argue against his, they could probably lowball SW and find more impressive things to base calculations on for ST, but they don't seem to choose to do that, and instead take a more petty route.

It's pretty apparant some of the categories aren't as lopsided as his calculations would make them, even though SW does have the edge. Do we really think the standard low-end SW weapon utterly owns the best the ST universe has to offer? That's stretching it. But debating against that should be a matter of trying to make different ST calculations; not a matter of desperately trying to find mathematical flaws in his calculations.

In the end, I think it would be possible to come up with some new calculations to close the gap a bit, but I doubt they'd ever be able to actually turn the tables. It's not Mike's job to supply an argument for the opposing side. If they want one, they've got to come up with one.

[Ghost Rider]

I've never found a mathematical flaw in Wong's calculations. He pretty clearly manipulates which numbers to use and which to not use to make the gap between SW and ST as large as possible, but that's just what you do in a debate. It's a tiem tested tactic. If the ST guys wanted to make their own calculations instead of argue against his, they could probably lowball SW and find more impressive things to base calculations on for ST, but they don't seem to choose to do that, and instead take a more petty route.

It's pretty apparant some of the categories aren't as lopsided as his calculations would make them, even though SW does have the edge. Do we really think the standard low-end SW weapon utterly owns the best the ST universe has to offer? That's stretching it. But debating against that should be a matter of trying to make different ST calculations; not a matter of desperately trying to find mathematical flaws in his calculations.

In the end, I think it would be possible to come up with some new calculations to close the gap a bit, but I doubt they'd ever be able to actually turn the tables. It's not Mike's job to supply an argument for the opposing side. If they want one, they've got to come up with one.

So are you going to point out these flaws or are you just saying you don't believe Wong because obviously he's just making shit up ?

[Shroom Man 777]

I've never found a mathematical flaw in Wong's calculations. He pretty clearly manipulates which numbers to use and which to not use to make the gap between SW and ST as large as possible, but that's just what you do in a debate. It's a tiem tested tactic. If the ST guys wanted to make their own calculations instead of argue against his, they could probably lowball SW and find more impressive things to base calculations on for ST, but they don't seem to choose to do that, and instead take a more petty route.

It's pretty apparant some of the categories aren't as lopsided as his calculations would make them, even though SW does have the edge. Do we really think the standard low-end SW weapon utterly owns the best the ST universe has to offer? That's stretching it. But debating against that should be a matter of trying to make different ST calculations; not a matter of desperately trying to find mathematical flaws in his calculations.

In the end, I think it would be possible to come up with some new calculations to close the gap a bit, but I doubt they'd ever be able to actually turn the tables. It's not Mike's job to supply an argument for the opposing side. If they want one, they've got to come up with one.

So are you going to point out these flaws or are you just saying you don't believe Wong because obviously he's just making shit up ?

He's saying that maybe the Trek turds should make their own calcs instead of trying to argue Wong's solid calcs. Also he says that maybe with Trek real calcs the gap between SW and ST will closen up a bit, but still he says SW pwnz Trek.

[Ghost Rider]

What real Trek calcs is he speaking of?

That's my point...while Wong favors SW(and he at no point denies this) to say he somehow is fucking ST over to make SW look good(espeically given some of his older calcs were less the ICS) is a fallacy saying Wong was purposefully lowering ST strength so he could win arguments and given his past competition he would've been proven wrong some time ago.

[Darth Servo]

The thread over there has been closed on the grounds that its a Starcraft forum and not a Star Wars one. Gee, maybe whom ever started the thread in the first place should have thought of that.

[Shroom Man 777]

The thread over there has been closed on the grounds that its a Starcraft forum and not a Star Wars one. Gee, maybe whom ever started the thread in the first place should have thought of that.

I started the thread.

And it was in the chit chat forum, not a SC one.

[Master of Ossus]

The problem that most Trek people have with making their own calculations to "defeat" Mike's is twofold:

1. Most of the people who disagree strongly with Mike do so because they are scientifically and mathematically ignorant. Therefore, they are incapable of making their own calculations based on what they see.
2. Most of Mike's SW figures are lower limits. Most of the Trek figures he uses are upper limits. For them to successfully challenge his work, they must first show why these limits should be disregarded--something that is impossible for even the best, brightest, most seasoned debater.

KK, I do indeed believe that the low-end SW weaponry is as powerful as Mike and many others assert. I also believe that ST weaponry is far less powerful, as depicted by Mike and his calculations. Why is this a startling revelation?

[Darth Servo]

The thread over there has been closed on the grounds that its a Starcraft forum and not a Star Wars one. Gee, maybe whom ever started the thread in the first place should have thought of that.

I started the thread.

And it was in the chit chat forum, not a SC one.

Hey, I'm just repeating what the final post in the thread said.

[KK]

So are you going to point out these flaws or are you just saying you don't believe Wong because obviously he's just making shit up ?

"I've never found a mathematical flaw in Wong's calculations."

I thought I made that pretty clear right from the get-go.



I was just saying it's all too easy to manipulate numbers so that you can make just about anything prove what you want it to. SW definitely trumps ST, but Mike's calculations would damn near have us believe Han Solo's blaster beats the best weapons on Federation starships.

[omegaLancer]

I've never found a mathematical flaw in Wong's calculations."

I thought I made that pretty clear right from the get-go.



I was just saying it's all too easy to manipulate numbers so that you can make just about anything prove what you want it to. SW definitely trumps ST, but Mike's calculations would damn near have us believe Han Solo's blaster beats the best weapons on Federation starships.

Any one can easily see that Solo blasters is more powerful than any Federation Ship Phaser....only kidding.. But your point about number sis sooo wrong. Numbers donot lie only the poeple who manipulate the facts to come up with numbers to fit their view point...

I have yet seen any ST supporter actually come up with a detail examination of ST weapons that yield clear cut numbers that match the Wongs analysis of Turbolasers.

It all moot anyway, since the AOTC ICS give us a good starting value for Turbolaser, the Troop transport TL yield of 200 GT is way beyond the reach of Federations technology to defend against....

[His Divine Shadow]

I was just saying it's all too easy to manipulate numbers so that you can make just about anything prove what you want it to. SW definitely trumps ST, but Mike's calculations would damn near have us believe Han Solo's blaster beats the best weapons on Federation starships.

Could you prove that?

[Ghost Rider]

I was just saying it's all too easy to manipulate numbers so that you can make just about anything prove what you want it to. SW definitely trumps ST, but Mike's calculations would damn near have us believe Han Solo's blaster beats the best weapons on Federation starships.

And?

His numbers nowhere display this, but in conjucntion with the ICS show the sheer difference in power.

And like MoO stated...he uses low end for Wars and upper end(at times taking from sources that Paramount does not consider canon) for Trek.

So please what's your point?