Accuracy of Wong's calculations.....

[KK]

Any one can easily see that Solo blasters is more powerful than any Federation Ship Phaser....only kidding.

Thing is, I'd bet 50 bucks that Mike could actually prove that true if he desired.

[Ghost Rider]

Any one can easily see that Solo blasters is more powerful than any Federation Ship Phaser....only kidding.

Thing is, I'd bet 50 bucks that Mike could actually prove that true if he desired.

No, he can't and unless you have some proof to show that Wong has done so?

Seriously either show Wong has obviously fudged his math or just shut the fuck up.

[YT300000]

Wong's Math: Good

Stupid Asshat Trektards who question the math's validity: Bad

This does not require much explanation.

[Darth Wong]

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.

By this rationale, all of science and engineering are bunk because it's "all too easy to manipulate numbers"

[Montcalm]

Wong's Math: Good

Stupid Asshat Trektards who question the math's validity: Bad

This does not require much explanation.

The highest level of SD.net buttkissing you are.

[YT300000]

Wong's Math: Good

Stupid Asshat Trektards who question the math's validity: Bad

This does not require much explanation.

The highest level of SD.net buttkissing you are.

Thank you, Oh great Jedi Council Member.

[KK]

By this rationale, all of science and engineering are bunk because it's "all too easy to manipulate numbers"

Real science does not start with a biased outlook from the get-go.

Do you honestly think even if the ST calcs could match the SW ones, that you would have shown that?

Your math works fine, as I said only two times now. It's just that you base it on frame by frame analyzations of flashy SFX.

[Darth Wong]

By this rationale, all of science and engineering are bunk because it's "all too easy to manipulate numbers"

Real science does not start with a biased outlook from the get-go.

And what is a "biased outlook", exactly? Falsified data? No, you admit that's not happening. Selective use of data? Find me examples where data known at the time I did the analysis was ignored and would have significantly changed the conclusions (note that there are several requirements there).

Do you honestly think even if the ST calcs could match the SW ones, that you would have shown that?

Yes, otherwise somebody else would have pointed it out. I'm not foolish.

Your math works fine, as I said only two times now. It's just that you base it on frame by frame analyzations of flashy SFX.

What else do you suggest I base it on? Loopy analyses of subjective semantic interpretations of vague possibilities implied by character dialogue?

[Lord Poe]

Real science does not start with a biased outlook from the get-go.

Do you honestly think even if the ST calcs could match the SW ones, that you would have shown that?

So are you saying that Wong is being deliberately dishonest? Go on, have the courage of your convictions. Don't dance around the issue.

Your math works fine, as I said only two times now. It's just that you base it on frame by frame analyzations of flashy SFX.

Dude, grow some fucking balls and make a solid accusation, or shut the fuck up.

[Master of Ossus]

Real science does not start with a biased outlook from the get-go.

Explain how Mike's work is more biased than typical science, and then explain how that affects his conclusions.

Do you honestly think even if the ST calcs could match the SW ones, that you would have shown that?

Irrelevant. Point to an example of a calculation, based on ST material, that shows someone in ST to be more powerful than Mike's calculations for SW. It's obvious that if Mike was refusing to post such material, someone else would have demonstrated that by now. As it is, all that people like Mr. Anderson, Graham Kennedy, and the like can do is claim that Mike is biased or attempt to show MINISCULE traces of uncertainty in his information. More often than not, they fail even at that task.

Your math works fine, as I said only two times now. It's just that you base it on frame by frame analyzations of flashy SFX.

What other premise do you think he should use? You're moving in circles, claiming that Mike's math is accurate but that he is biased. Now you claim that it is somehow incorrect to base calculations on FILM CLIPS OF THE EVENTS IN QUESTION?

[KK]

Explain how Mike's work is more biased than typical science, and then explain how that affects his conclusions.

Analyze the two to discover which is more powerful.

vs.

Prove that one is more powerful.

Irrelevant. Point to an example of a calculation, based on ST material, that shows someone in ST to be more powerful than Mike's calculations for SW. It's obvious that if Mike was refusing to post such material, someone else would have demonstrated that by now. As it is, all that people like Mr. Anderson, Graham Kennedy, and the like can do is claim that Mike is biased or attempt to show MINISCULE traces of uncertainty in his information. More often than not, they fail even at that task.

What he does is find the one example that he knows he can best form an argument out of and he bases everything on that. He doesn't take the overall into mucn consideration. Instead he finds a scene of an asteroid being destroyed and goes to town to prove that because they could destroy an asteroid with so much yield, that means their shields can take so much damage, and keeps compounding until the numbers become insane.

What other premise do you think he should use? You're moving in circles, claiming that Mike's math is accurate but that he is biased. Now you claim that it is somehow incorrect to base calculations on FILM CLIPS OF THE EVENTS IN QUESTION?

There's a difference between making calculations about clips and analyzing frame by frame to the point where a 6 pixel change in light intensity is fundamental to his calculation. He's trying to take way more out of it than Lucas put into it; digging in an empty sandbox and finding gold.

[Darth Wong]

Explain how Mike's work is more biased than typical science, and then explain how that affects his conclusions.

Analyze the two to discover which is more powerful.

vs.

Prove that one is more powerful.

That does not answer the man's demand. If you successfully prove that A is more powerful than B, you necessarily had to analyze the two in the process.

Irrelevant. Point to an example of a calculation, based on ST material, that shows someone in ST to be more powerful than Mike's calculations for SW. It's obvious that if Mike was refusing to post such material, someone else would have demonstrated that by now. As it is, all that people like Mr. Anderson, Graham Kennedy, and the like can do is claim that Mike is biased or attempt to show MINISCULE traces of uncertainty in his information. More often than not, they fail even at that task.

What he does is find the one example that he knows he can best form an argument out of and he bases everything on that. He doesn't take the overall into mucn consideration. Instead he finds a scene of an asteroid being destroyed and goes to town to prove that because they could destroy an asteroid with so much yield, that means their shields can take so much damage, and keeps compounding until the numbers become insane.

Notice how you mumble generalizations but you don't even TRY to find the EXAMPLE he asked for. Typical.

There's a difference between making calculations about clips and analyzing frame by frame to the point where a 6 pixel change in light intensity is fundamental to his calculation. He's trying to take way more out of it than Lucas put into it; digging in an empty sandbox and finding gold.

Again, notice the empty generalizations without an example. Where does a "6 pixel change in light intensity" support my entire group of analyses and conclusions? While we're at it, what is a 6 pixel change in light intensity, since light intensity is not measures in pixels?

[KK]

You take 3 to 4 seconds of film and use them to quantify the entire universe. You want everyone to believe that because the turbolasers may or may not have melted asteroids which may or may not have been a certain size and may or may not have been of a certain composition, that means the average ship could withstand a million Hiroshima bombs concentrated on a sigle point because they withstood multiple turbolasers which can each devistate entire cities.

The turbolasers weren't generally presented as city destroying uber-powerful avatars of destruction. You manipulated them into that status by the use of a few frames that made them more powerful than Lucas realized.

That's fundamentally flawed, no matter how good your math is. Asking over and over for me to find flaws in your math is poitless given what I am arguing.

[AdmiralKanos]

You take 3 to 4 seconds of film and use them to quantify the entire universe.

No, I use them to set lower limits for related technologies, dumb-ass. If I have one incident of an M-1 tank blasting through a particular type of target, it is perfectly reasonable to state that M-1 tanks can do so.

You want everyone to believe that because the turbolasers may or may not have melted asteroids which may or may not have been a certain size and may or may not have been of a certain composition, that means the average ship could withstand a million Hiroshima bombs concentrated on a sigle point because they withstood multiple turbolasers which can each devistate entire cities.

"May or may not?" Sorry, but all of your "may or may not"s are bullshit. The asteroids WERE vapourized; we can see that. They WERE nickel-iron; that was clearly stated in the literature. Therefore, simple calculations derived from those facts are meaningful.

The turbolasers weren't generally presented as city destroying uber-powerful avatars of destruction. You manipulated them into that status by the use of a few frames that made them more powerful than Lucas realized.

You're full of shit; why do you think Lucas approved the notion of a BDZ in the official literature, in which a single ISD can reduce the entire surface of a world to molten slag? What do you think it'll be using its turbolasers for during this operation? And how do you think we scale up to the Death Star if turbolasers are so piss-weak that they can't even vapourize a 40m wide asteroid?

That's fundamentally flawed, no matter how good your math is. Asking over and over for me to find flaws in your math is poitless given what I am arguing.

In other words, you can't find flaws in the math and you can't find flaws in the evidence, so you simply try to generate vague uncertainties. Pathetic.

[The Yosemite Bear]

ST: V main phasor battary suceeds in knocking over some rocks
SW IV: Han Solo's blaster shatters a body sized slab of Concrete.

ok, done

Then agian that's taking the lowend and the highend. But that should be familiar to everyone from trek....

Oh wait HTL's can only cause forestfires. (Knight Hammer)

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Actually, the higher calcs don't come from the asteroid scence. They come from official literature, BDZ (which has been aproved a dozen times by LFL). Hell, the highest calcs found in the canon ICS are a order of magnitude higher!

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

From the board

/me walks by post. reads...

Oke darth servo i like star wars just as much as the next guy, but THIS is a STARCRAFT forum. i you want to join this forum for the single purpose of debating with firefly than leave...

you girls stop fighting on this forum about so stupid a matter...

TAKE IT OUTSIDE (this forum ) OR PM!

Thread Status: Closed

Man that's funny.

[Uber-conspiracy mode] Also note the thread was around for a MONTH, but when people starting smacking down the claims of Wong is Wrong...[Uber-conspiracy mode]

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Wait, the moderator had posted in the thread before...

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

I FOUND THE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT COLLAPSES MIKE'S ENTIRE WEBSITE!!!


On the Campaign page, you say there are 3 crucial differences between the UFP and the NR, and you list 4! THERE ARE FOUR REASONS, NOT THREE!

[Joe Momma]

I FOUND THE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT COLLAPSES MIKE'S ENTIRE WEBSITE!!!


On the Campaign page, you say there are 3 crucial differences between the UFP and the NR, and you list 4! THERE ARE FOUR REASONS, NOT THREE!

[Picard]There are...FOUR...reasons![/Picard]

-- Joe Momma