Power of Antimatter

[greenmm]

So your assumption is that he didn't have the first clue about antimatter.

Keep your ignorant words out of my mouth, child. I made zero assumptions... I'm merely going by what the text says. The text specficially says that he underestimated the yield of the explosion. YOU concluded that this means that he "does have the first clue about antimatter". Learn how to read, please. I am here for debate, not to give lessons in argumentative logic.

And the French underestimated the German commanders when WWII kicked off. Does that mean they didn't know shit about warfare? Of course not.

Underestimating something doesn't mean you don't know jack shit about it. It means you made a mistake that could potentially mean you don't know shit, but could also mean a host of other possibilities.

What evidence do you have that this is more likely than any of the following scenarios?

The text, you illiterate simpleton. You quoted it, just now, in your response to Connor.

"But Mako had underestimated the power of the antimatter he'd stolen."

Does it say "But Mako misread the label on the cylinder"? Does it say "The cylinder that Mako stole was mislabeled before delivery to the lab"? Does it say "The label was worn"? Does it say "There was something about the moon..."? (Actually, that last one isn't necessarily excluded). No. It says that he had "UNDERESTIMATED THE POWER OF THE ANTIMATTER HE'D STOLEN".

An ambiguous sentence that has many potential answers. You claim it has to absolutely 100% mean that Mako didn't know antimatter from Auntie May, or it's being interpreted wrong. There are any number of other explanations that could fit just as well. I can't help it if you suffer from blindness.

Always nice to see that, when you want to make a point, it's OK, but when someone else wants to make sure that they present all the facts, it's "windbaggery".

There's a difference between making a point cogent to the topic at hand, and spewing a lot of unnecessary bilge that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

One man's bilge is another man's evidence. So far all I've seen from you is bilge...

So Mako was a real dipshit when it came to working out AM calculations, but he wasn't a dipshit when it came to figuring out how to use the capsule it was stored in and rig it so that he could detonate it or turn off the containment system remotely and from a distance?

Apparently. I didn't write the book. Do you see anything in the book that would suggest otherwise?

Sorry, I don't buy that.

That's fine. There are still people who don't buy the notion that man landed on the Moon, either.

Yeah, and they need to get a real clue. Nice to know at least we agree on one thing.

And what makes you so sure they are identical?

You said so yourself... the situation calls for an EVA suit. The text says he grabbed a "spacesuit". You admitted that a spacesuit may also be an EVA suit.

If they already had an EVA suit for the TIE fighter pilot -- a suit already visually based off of standard stormtrooper armor -- then why develop the Armored Spacetrooper armor with its EVA capabilities?

Because the Spacetrooper suit is meant for zero-G combat. A TIE pilot suit is not.

And that's my point. The TIE Fighter Pilot's suit is a spacesuit, but you claimed that spacesuit had to mean EVA suit. You've now acknowledged that a) not all spacesuits are EVA suits, and b) that the 2 terms are different. Concession accepted.

Quick, pop quiz: What's the difference between a shirt and a kevlar vest?

one is an article of clothing, that is worn for ornamental (i.e. making a fashion statement, trying to pick someone up at a bar) or functional reasons (i.e. avoiding a public nudeness charge, meeting minimum requirements for obtaining service from a restaurant). The other one is a piece of body armor, whose sole purpose is to protect the wearer from bullets and fragments.

Ah, so you know from firsthand experience that every spacesuit ever made has been designed with EVA conditions in mind?

You just committed the fallacy of the excluded middle, my intellectually deprived chum. I said that ONE spacesuit, the one mentioned in the text, was also an EVA suit. Check that, actually... I said that just because the text described it as a "spacesuit", that doesn't rule out that it is also an EVA suit. Heck, you conceded that point already.

No, it doesn't rule it out... but if we're going by the author's words, then we have to use the general meaning for his words. If he'd meant for Mako to have an EVA suit, then it would be logical for him to use that word. He didn't, though... so while it's possible for a spacesuit to be an EVA suit, you can't use the word spacesuit to prove that Mako had an EVA suit. Concession accepted.

Please point out where I tried to place any blanket generalizations. It would be much appreciated.

'Semantic nonsense. Please provide evidence that, in Star Wars jargon, a "space suit" and an "EVA suit" are significantly different. .'

You claimed that, in SW, 'spacesuit' and 'EVA suit' are not significantly different. If that's true, then the terms are interchangable... but they're not. If it were, then NASA wouldn't have needed to design their EVA suit for the Space Shuttle program, since we had those great spacesuits from the Mercury program that could double as EVA suits...

Where's your proof that all SW spacesuits have EVA capabilities?

You're asking me to prove a contention I never made. Please don't do so. It only makes you look more the fool.

You claimed that they're not significantly different in SW. So, hypothetically, if you were outside a SW starship, wearing a generic spacesuit, with no tether line, floating away from said starship, and no one available to help you get back to and onboard the starship, you would feel just as safe wearing a generic spacesuit as if you were wearing an EVA suit, since they're not significantly different?

And again, the event was witnessed by Han and the other cadets.

Cite a passage from the book that says that the explosion was seen WITH THE NAKED EYE. I'm sure the other cadets had access to a simple device known as a "telescope".

By the way, the explosion is not the important part (actually, it's a red herring). What is important is the size of the moon. Please provide evidence that the moon was visible with the naked eye.

No, it's not a red herring. The explosion is what destroyed the moon; it's central to the whole argument.

And Macleod already provided us with the fact that the explosion was "cataclysmic" (from his quote). There are only 2 ways for people on the ground to notice the explosion when it occurred:

-- be in on the prank. They would have had to know that Mako was planning the prank, known when he planned on detonating the AM, and be watching that part of the sky with telescopic devices to witness it.
-- the explosion or event was big enough that they couldn't help noticing it in the sky.

The more people who know a secret, particularly a secret involving actions against the law or against an institution's regulations, the greater likelihood of the secret becoming known to the wrong people (in this case, the professors and administrators). Especially given how Publius just pointed that Mako didn't acquire the AM all at once, but went to the lab multiple times, the time frame would have made it extremely difficult for Mako to be able to hide his prank from the authorities before pulling it off, and stretches belief in his ability to pull it off. That makes the first option less probable (not impossible, just improbable).

The second option relies on either a larger explosion than accounted for by 1 g of AM, or on a larger moon that was more visible on the surface. Again, Publius pointed out that one of the professors said Mako's placement was "perfect", and suggested that the moon was perhaps more vulnerable to the explosion than a solid, stable mass would have been. That would make the situation similar to bringing down a multistory skyscraper by destroying the few main loadbearing columns in its foundation, where you don't need enough explosion energy to shatter all the concrete in the building, just enough to shatter the supports.

Yes, that does mean I'm retracting my claim that more antimatter was needed. I freely admit I had missed the possibility that the moon might not have been solid, or geologically stable. By the same token, though, that means that just because a 43.2 kT explosion can only fracture a 300m or smaller solid planetoid, it doesn't mean that this moon could only be 300m or smaller in diameter. All that was needed was 43.2 kT in the right spot to fracture an already-weakened moon of undetermined size.

Destroyed a 300m rock? Then I suppose the destruction of the planetoid that formed our asteroid belt was the End of the Universe by your definition.

You truly are an imbecile of cosmic proportions. Are you claiming that only LARGE objects can have any value? Are you claiming that a 50 carat diamond is worthless because it is not kilometers in diameter? Are you claiming that ancient Egyptian artifacts have no worth because they have no significant graviational pull?

No, of course not. But tell me how the destruction of a miniscule 300m planetoid would be considered "cataclysmic" to the Empire.

The destruction of Alderaan was cataclysmic. The destruction of the Caamasi home planet was cataclysmic. The destruction of the entire star system Carida was in by the Sun Crusher was cataclysmic in the extreme. The destruction of both the DS1 and the DS2 was cataclysmic. How does destroying a 300m chunk of rock compare to these in scale?

A 43.2 kT explosion to blow up a 300m rock isn't cataclysmic

You're right. Nobody has claimed otherwise. What WAS cataclysmic was the loss of an ancient symbol, with personal value to the academy. You DO know that the symbol on the moon was centuries old, right?

Yes, I did. It might be a blow to morale and/or pride, depending on the student (not every student, after all, gives a shit about their school's mascot). But again, how is that cataclysmic?

No, it's an inference. It may be based in logic, but you're still inferring that he went EVA, which is based on another as-yet-unproven inferrence, that the moon was only 300m in diameter.

Do you have another alternative? One that is possible, of course.

Yes, thanks to Publius. See above.

As I responded to MacLeod, you're insisting that we allow for a very loose interpretation of the word "landed", while insisting on a strict interpretation of the stated yield of the antimatter.

Please explain how it is "loose" to say that someone "landed on a 300-meter rock". Furthermore, please provide any alternate maximum yields for the annihilation of one gram of antimatter with one gram of matter.

And actually, you made the logical goof:

All Jet Fighters are Aircraft
Therefore, all Aircraft are Jet Fighters

For the third time, that is not my contention. A better analogy would be:

-All jet fighters are aircraft.
-Some aircraft are jet fighters.
-Only jet fighters have capabilities X, Y, and Z.
-Aircraft N has capabilities X, Y, and Z.
-Therefore, Aircraft N is a jet fighter.

Again, this is just another giant red herring, but the fact remains that there is nothing in the text to make us think that the "spacesuit" Mako Spince grabbed is not also an EVA suit. Ergo, it is wholly plausible to assume that the spacesuit was used for an EVA operation.

There is nothing that specifically identifies it, either. Without more specific information, your claim that it had to be an EVA suit is just as valid as my claim that it was a spacesuit without EVA capability.

And no, it's not a red herring, it's an illustration of a logical fallacy. In this case, the assumption and error is in saying that Aircraft N has capabilities X, Y, and Z, which are the capabilities of jet fighters. You've assumed that it had those capabilities without direct evidence; without that evidence, the last conclusion is false.

Like a normal spacesuit, an EVA suit protects the wearer against the effects of space. However, it has additional systems in it so that the wearer can safely perform EVA's, and is purpose-built for that purpose.

But you have to prove that NO "spacesuit" can be an EVA suit. That is the burden of proof. You have already admitted that SOME spacesuits are also EVA suits. Ergo, barring a more specific excerpt from the text, and assuming that Mako actually performed some sort of extra-vehicular activity, there is plenty of evidence to assume that his spacesuit was also an EVA suit.

And now you've gone from saying he definitely performed an EVA to assuming he performed an EVA. Without more evidence, all you have is an assumption, which isn't conclusive.

So tell me... which School of Illogic did you teach at?

Apparently the same one where "I know you are, but what am I?" is considered the epitome of witty comebacks.

Funny, considering you were the one that decided to start the witticisms. Didn't realize you couldn't take it when someone else uses them on you. I'll remember to be more considerate of your tender feelings next time...

[greenmm]

An inaccurate contention, though it did provide me with amusement.

Nice to know I can provide comic relief, since it's what I live for. [/sarcasm]

I missed the sarcastic remark...

Oh, so you thought I do live to provide comic relief for other people. Damn, I knew I should have run away to join the circus and be a clown, I would have been so much more fulfilled in life...

[greenmm]

Wrong page, it was on page 3... and lo and behold, it was from your own posting (bold added for the quote you say doesn't exist)...

Here's the incidetn as put forth in Han's Memory from "The Hutt Gambit"

*****

"That night, while Han plotted orbits and worked on ihs "Economics of Hyperspace Troop Movmeent" presentation, Mako broke into Professor Cal-Meg's physics lab. He stole a gram of antimatter, then a small, one-man shuttle and a spacesuit from the Academy shuttle hanger, and took off.

Landing on the small planetoid that was Carida's nearest of three satellites, Mako planted the antimatter capsule in the middle of the huge Academy Seal that had been laser-carved into the satellite decades ago, back when Carida was still a training planet for the troops of the now-vanished Republic. Mako triggered the antimatter explosion from a safe distance in spac, intending to blast the seal right off the face of the little moon.

But Mako had underestimated the power of the antimatter he'd stolen. The entire satellite blew up in a cataclysmic diplay that Han and the otehr cadets witnessed from the planet's surface.

Mako was immediately one of the prime suspects. He'd pulled so many pranks in his time, caused so much mayhem, that the officers began checking on him alomst before the debris from the shattered satellite had either plunged planetward or drifted into alignment, forming a disjointed ring around Carida."

The Hutt Gambit, page 55-56.

*****

Really, I don't see what is so "pseudoscientific" about it.

You quoted straight from the book, right? Well, guess what, there's the "cataclysmic" adjective you claimed didn't exist. And again, the event was witnessed by Han and the other cadets. It didn't specify a select group... and unless they all had macrobinoculars trained on the right vicinity, how did they observe it if it wasn't visible to the naked eye?

Concession accepted.

Actually, I was referring to your repeated notion that the "explosion" must be visible to the naked eye. Nice how you used that to completely DODGE the point about proving that the moon OR the explosion had to be visible to the naked eye, by the way.

Point is. If they observed it, and it WASN't visible to the naked eye, then they must have had assistance of some kind. The amount of antimatter used (and hence the size of the moon) and its distance are fixed. How they observed it is not stated. Hence it is the variable open to interpretation, and visual aids fit the interpretation. Everyone seems able to grasp this fact except you.

Actually, you're right on one point. I was wrong to assume that the explosion had to be visible. However, the event of the moon fracturing into tiny pieces still had to be visible on the surface, as I pointed out in my last reply to SPOOFE, thanks to publius reminding me that the placement of the antimatter was important.

However, as for proving the moon had to be visible, that was already handled on a previous page by GrandMasterTerwynn on page 2 of this topic, who was responding to your postings. Which reminds me: you were worried about a moon that close causing gravitational problems. Unfortunately, the gravitational pull on Earth from its orbit is about 7 trillion times as strong as the pull of a 300m-diameter nickel-iron planetoid would be if the planetoid were in a geosynchronous orbit -- in fact, said planetoid would have to be 471 m away from the center of the Earth in order to cause tidal forces equal to our Moon. In order for said moon to be able to cause Moon-sized tides in a geosynch orbit, the minimum size required for a nickel-iron body would be roughly 571 km (858 km for a granite-composed body).

And yes, we know that SW has exceptional telescopic enhancement devices available without needing a really huge telescope. But you still have to either see the event or know when and where the event is going to occur to be prepared to use said devices to view the event.

The facts have to match up with the information provided. You can't "land" on an object 300m in diameter in a traditional sense, because of the extremely small gravity. If he used some other method to attach to the moon, then why didn't the author use that term? The simplest reason: it wouldn't have described what Mako did. Did the MF "land" on the Star Destroyer with its landing claw? No, it grabbed onto the hull with the claw.

1.) Provide this "Traditional" definition of landing.

2.) Provide that "landing" by definition would preclude using measures to attach the ship to KEEP it landed, such as a tractor beam or claw.

3.) I should mention that both the TESB novelization and the Galaxy Guide 3: The Empire Strikes back, both mention the Falcon using a *LANDING* claw to attach itself to the Avenger. I guess that means Mako could have used a kind of *LANDING CLAW* to attach itself to the planet.

4.) While we're on the subject of the Avenger, how does semantically nitpicking whether or not the Falcon's attachment to the Avenger's bridge tower can be called "landing" somehow disprove that similar methods can be used to attach to other objects? ("Well Chewie, I want to attach to that Star Destroyer, but this is a LANDING CLAW, and you can't Land on a STar Destroyer.. I guess my plan won't work.")

And I just know you're going to argue semantics and meanings... except that meanings are extremely important. Landing, grabbing, and tractoring have different meanings because different actions are being done and different results are being achieved. You pick the term based on which one describes it best. How can you claim that the author meant something other than the traditional meaning for "landed", and expect us to automatically give you the authority to do so?

You're a fine one to complain about nitpicking.

Landing, grabbing, and tractoring may be different terms, but that does not preclude the use of both at once... landing and THEN tractoring, for example.)

Anyhow, its irrelevant, since I already specified the Falcon used a LANDING claw to attach to the Avenger. I do suppose Mako could use a LANDING claw to LAND on the moon. Therefore, your semantic nitpicking of the defintions are automatically pointless (not like they wouldn't be anyhow even WITHOUT the TESB quote)

Actually, the complaint was about accusing me of

Even worse, how can you stop there? If the author messed up on his word choice in this part of the narrative, then how can we take any other word he uses at face value? How can we be sure he truly meant to say "gram", and not "kilogram"? You're accusing me of focusing on one portion of the author's words, and saying that those words are misinterpreted, yet insist that you are positive that every other part is a 100% faithful account of the incident. Only you can't know that... and without another source of evidence, or an alternate account of the incident to corroborate the details, you can't reinterpret the terms of one portion without allowing people to reinterpret any other part of the narrative.

The only one reinterpeting details is you. You're the one insisting that the scene is "wrong" and that reinterpretation is required. You're the only one obsessed with proving that the scene has something wrong with it, which has required you to repeatedly attempt to come up with "problems" in the quote (usually after someone has debunked your prior "attempts" because you cannot admit you're wrong.) first the amount of antimatter had to be correct, then The moon could not be the size it was, then the moon could not be at the distance it was, then Mako could not have landed on the moon... you're even nitpicking about the fricking SUIT he wore!

This is obviously a sign of desperation, although why proving this scene is inconsistent is so despareately important to you is beyond me. You have demonstrated a complete disregard for wishing to maintain continuity or even ATTEMPT to rationalize it WITHOUT resorting to assuming that someone is lying. That, if nothing else, invalidates any theory you come up with (because its obviously NOT neccesary to assume there is something wrong with the data we are given, despite the fact you assume there is.)

Actually, they were meant to show multiple reasons for why the interpretation of the scene was incorrect. Or do you suppose that I should only rely on one point when submitting an argument? Am I for some reason not allowed to show multiple points pointing out a flaw in someone else's argument? Oh, yes, that makes so much sense now.

I've admitted that I was wrong about the antimatter point, but I just know you're going to claim that that means I'm wrong about every other point. Well, guess what: it doesn't mean anything. In fact, thanks to Publius' posting, we have information that shows that a larger moon would be possible. If the moon was just 300m in diameter, then placement wouldn't have been important, because any explosion of that size anywhere on its surface would have been enough to break it up into chunks. You only need placement when your explosion normally wouldn't be big enough to cause the desired result. The conclusion, then, is that, had Mako put the antimatter in another location, or had the moon been more solid/stable, it would have only created a big crater and dislodged the seal (the effect he was going for), but not fragmented the entire moon. That points to a larger moon, one that would be more visible from the planet's surface.

You also got the orbital distance point wrong. I didn't start that one, I just built on it. My point was that, with an object that small and that far away, you would need telescopic enhancement to see any details on it... including its destruction. But that doesn't automatically prove that the observors on Carida were using telescopic instruments. In this case, basing your claim on the moon's size on the fact that it could be seen with telescopic enhancement doesn't mean anything, because it relies on an inference that the spectators were using said instruments to view the event. And as I already pointed out, the most probable reason for that to occur would be for them to have prior knowledge. Now, unless you can provide other information from the source material that Han and the others had knowledge about Mako's plan, including the time he planned on detonating it, there's no basis in the passage that we can say with certainty that they were viewing it in macrobinoculars or other devices. That leaves naked-eye observation, which would require either a much closer orbit or a larger moon.

As for the suit... I was pointing out that, if the author meant for Mako to have an EVA suit, it was a poor choice of words for him to use "spacesuit" instead, because the two terms are not completely interchangeable. That's a sloppy use of language, which in this case is the only source of information we have to even infer any other details like the moon's size. If people can't agree on the definitions of the terms used by the author, then we come to an impass, because the arguments are based on how those terms are interpreted, and neither argument has a solid base to stand on.

Nor have I accused you of lying. I accused you of claiming I was basing my theories on mere assumptions and focusing them on a single idea, when you've done the same thing with yours. You've assumed that, because the amount of AM could only fragment a solid planetoid with a very small diameter, that the moon had to be extremely small. My assumption was that the moon had to be larger than that, and that thus the AM yield was greater than the text listed. I was wrong in my assumption, but only because I never considered that the moon might have had a weak spot, irregularities in its composition, or been unstable (i.e. large cracks internally). Did you consider that possibility when choosing your position? If not, perhaps you should. We've both been assuming extreme positions: that if one of us is wrong, the other has to be right. What if we were both wrong?

Actually, let me think about this a second...

1. Given the right placement (which the quote from Professor Cal-Meg would seem to bear out), it would be very possible for a 43.2 kT explosion, normally unable to do more than make a big crater in the moon, to fragment a much larger moon. Thus, we can accept the 1 g of AM quote without qualification. In fact, it would even be possible that the carving of the academy's symbol in the moon either created the flaw or contributed to an already existing one.

2. With a much larger moon, it would be visible enough in the sky that no telescopic enhancement would be needed to see it or its destruction. Thus, there's no need to worry about explaining how the observors on the surface were able to quickly view the event with their macrobinoculars or other instruments, let alone worry about how Mako was able to let people know he was planning something while expecting him to keep it hidden for the amount of time and preparation he needed to pull it off.

3. With a larger moon, there would be no need to argue about how strong the gravity was on it, whether he landed it like he would land on Carida or used a landing claw-type device, or whether he used a spacesuit or an EVA suit.

4. Related to #1, which is easier to assume: that Mako knew nothing of how to handle or use antimatter, yet managed to safely turn multiple storage cylinders into a makeshift bomb without blowing himself up (i.e. he had an extremely huge amount of dumb luck); or that Mako wasn't aware that the moon was unstable, and that only a small amount of antimatter next to or below the laser-cut seal would be enough to blast the moon into fragments? IMVHO, the second option is more likely, as it involves much less luck and less mistakes on Mako's part. In either case, however, the question of Mako's knowledge of antimatter physics becomes moot, because it would come down to his placement of the antimatter.

And yes, this is boiling down to dictionary definitions... but then, you're doing it as well. You're putting your own definition of what the verb "to land" means into this, while claiming I've lost for bringing dictionary definitions into this. Here's another definition for you to look up: hypocrite.

Concession accepted.

Red Herring. How Mako lands on the planet has no relevance to the details, beyond being one of your desperate attempts to somehow "prove" this incident is wrong. You have not proven why the insignificant gravity of the planet precludes landing at ALL, and even if it does, there is still the other options (landing claws from tESB, tractoring to the moon, which was done in Wraith Squadron) to MAINTAIN a landing on the moon. The fact he "landed" rather than docked, or boarded, or WHATEVER does not in any way preclude the use of other devices to assist in remaining so, unless you can provide evidence otherwise.

Stop obsessing over why you think the scene is wrong and deal with the facts as they are stated, like the rest of us are apparently able to do.

I don't really feel like debating this, as I think I may have come up with a solution, thanks to Publius, that would make debating this irrelevant.

I guess the question is: do you want to see if the new theory satisfies the evidence, or do you want to try and continue a fight that may no longer have any bearing on the situation?

Actually, I quoted you. Or did you forget that you were the one that provided us with the "cataclysmic" quote?

As for the visibility of a 350m moon (which is bigger than the 300m moon you're assuming), someone else already covered that on page 2. But since you're apparantly suffering from a vision deficiency as well as a swiss-cheese memory, I'll provide it again...

Actually, it's something more like 1.80E+14 joules, since the gram of antimatter annhilates an equal quantity of matter (the total amount is two grams total.) This is something like 43 kT. This bumps up the size of the asteroid moon to around 350 meters in diameter. This makes it 10X bigger than our ISS, but it's angular size is still only 0.0097 degrees (0deg33'25.51".) For reference, the Moon has an angular size of 0.5 degrees. You'd need a telescope that could magnify up to 51X in order for it to look as 'big' as the Moon. In order to actually see anything on it, you'd need a telescope that could magnify 510 - 765X (Assuming 10 - 15 times beyond the basic value . . . like looking at the Moon with a pair of binoculars.) So you'd need really hefty visual enhancement gear. Short story, the writer of the book is an effing idiot.

The inability of a 300m diameter moon to be seen from the surface of a planet at 36,000 km above the surface (geosynch orbit for an Earth-size and Earth-mass planet) was already disproven. And, you were kind enough to provide us with the information that said explosion was cataclysmic, and seen by numerous cadets on the ground... an explosion that you claim was only enough to fracture the moon.

1.) If you bothered reading it, you might notice he included the possibiltiy of "visual enhancement gear" - which I mentioned in response to his post. Small, personal binoculars like the ones Luke used to view the Devastator" provide 500x magnificationm, and larger devices like electrotelescopes (devices similar to electrobinoculars used to supplement planetary sensor grids that the Academy probably has and which cadets could have borrowed) can see things light mintues away. Since we are not told specifically HOW they view this event, and IF visual enhacement is required, then that IS the answer by default. Not this needless degree of "assuming something is wrong" crap you keep trying to insist on. Therefore, this does not disprove ANYTHING.

(and before you leap on the part about the magnification he stated, you might remember that it was an ASSUMPTION on his part, and even then this does not neccesarily mean that there were NO means available for detection. The fact they NEED magnification to view the event by default means they must have had it. THAT is the simplest theory, not this roundabout "someone must have fucked up" bullshit you keep spouting.)

2.) Who ever said anything about "numerous" cadets? We're not told how many see it, how they view it, or other relevant variables. Only that they saw it. I see you continue to insist on "improving" the evidence to make your position seem stronger.

Again, this may be a moot point now, as it was brought up as a counter to your "small, solid moon" theory. If you think there's no merit in a "large but flawed moon" theory, then I'll come back to it. Otherwise, it would just be a waste of time, and make our moods worse than they already are (waste of energy).

Again, there's only 2 solutions. Either the moon is a lot closer than a geosynch orbit (which allows for your "moon smaller than expected but antimatter amount was right" theory), or the moon is a lot bigger (which allows for my "moon is too big to be damaged by the amount of antimatter listed, so Mako misjudged how much antimatter he had with him" theory). Unfortunately, the information provided has just enough problems with it that either theory is equally valid, particularly since we have no visual evidence to use for comparisons and estimates.

That doesn't mean a loss, that means a tie.

No, it means you keep assuming that we must assume the scene is fucked up or flawed somehow because you have an inability to get any facts through that neutronium-dense structure you call a skull. You have been *repeatedly" corrected by not only myself but two other people, yet you persist in this pointless attempt to "disprove" a scene for some meaningless reason. We only have to accept those two conclusions IF we assuem that your own narrow interpretation of events is correct, which we obviously do not.

Concession accepted.

See my response to the prior point. And no, I'm not going to say you conceded, because it was actually Publius' idea.

[Publius]

Thank you for your corrections, Spartan. The relevent points are duly retracted in light of hitherto unknown data.

Publius

[Connor MacLeod]

[quote="greenmm]
Actually, you're right on one point. I was wrong to assume that the explosion had to be visible. However, the event of the moon fracturing into tiny pieces still had to be visible on the surface, as I pointed out in my last reply to SPOOFE, thanks to publius reminding me that the placement of the antimatter was important.
[/quote]

Visible on the surface yes, but we've already been over that part.

However, as for proving the moon had to be visible, that was already handled on a previous page by GrandMasterTerwynn on page 2 of this topic, who was responding to your postings.

Yes, and as I said, I addressed it. Terwynn did not explicitly EXCLUDE the possiblity of magnification tech, remember. If that is a requirement to see the explosion, then that must be how they saw the explosion (How they saw the fracturing/explosion/moon from the surface was a variable - naked eye, magnification, etc.)

Which reminds me: you were worried about a moon that close causing gravitational problems. Unfortunately, the gravitational pull on Earth from its orbit is about 7 trillion times as strong as the pull of a 300m-diameter nickel-iron planetoid would be if the planetoid were in a geosynchronous orbit -- in fact, said planetoid would have to be 471 m away from the center of the Earth in order to cause tidal forces equal to our Moon. In order for said moon to be able to cause Moon-sized tides in a geosynch orbit, the minimum size required for a nickel-iron body would be roughly 571 km (858 km for a granite-composed body).

Fine. Odds are though it would be a granite body, given the descriptions I recall (Barren and rocky, if I remember Dark Empire correctly.)

And yes, we know that SW has exceptional telescopic enhancement devices available without needing a really huge telescope. But you still have to either see the event or know when and where the event is going to occur to be prepared to use said devices to view the event.

As I recall, none of the sources used explicitly mentioned one way or another if Han knew about it or not beforehand. Hutt Gambit mentions him working on a project, but its entirely possible he and some others whom Mako had told were supposed to watch. And there could be cadets performing other activities that would require them being present or around to witness teh event in other ways.

Actually, they were meant to show multiple reasons for why the interpretation of the scene was incorrect. Or do you suppose that I should only rely on one point when submitting an argument? Am I for some reason not allowed to show multiple points pointing out a flaw in someone else's argument? Oh, yes, that makes so much sense now.

This assumes the interpretation was wrong to begin with. If one is not required to assume that data is flawed, it is simpler to not do so. Since we had no legitimate reasons to believe it was flawed (and explanations were available to maintain continuity) there IS no reason to argue over interpretation, especially if those interpretations require assuming the data involved is wrong.

I've admitted that I was wrong about the antimatter point, but I just know you're going to claim that that means I'm wrong about every other point. Well, guess what: it doesn't mean anything. In fact, thanks to Publius' posting, we have information that shows that a larger moon would be possible. If the moon was just 300m in diameter, then placement wouldn't have been important, because any explosion of that size anywhere on its surface would have been enough to break it up into chunks. You only need placement when your explosion normally wouldn't be big enough to cause the desired result. The conclusion, then, is that, had Mako put the antimatter in another location, or had the moon been more solid/stable, it would have only created a big crater and dislodged the seal (the effect he was going for), but not fragmented the entire moon. That points to a larger moon, one that would be more visible from the planet's surface.

Yes, Publius' explanation is another acceptable theory. The absence/presence of cracks or weaknesses in the moon is not stated (nor is it denied) so it can become an acceptable explanation for the event. This does nto mean however that the moon HAS to be huge, it simply means we are not as restricted as previously imagined.

[qipte]
You also got the orbital distance point wrong. I didn't start that one, I just built on it. My point was that, with an object that small and that far away, you would need telescopic enhancement to see any details on it... including its destruction. But that doesn't automatically prove that the observors on Carida were using telescopic instruments. In this case, basing your claim on the moon's size on the fact that it could be seen with telescopic enhancement doesn't mean anything, because it relies on an inference that the spectators were using said instruments to view the event. And as I already pointed out, the most probable reason for that to occur would be for them to have prior knowledge. Now, unless you can provide other information from the source material that Han and the others had knowledge about Mako's plan, including the time he planned on detonating it, there's no basis in the passage that we can say with certainty that they were viewing it in macrobinoculars or other devices. That leaves naked-eye observation, which would require either a much closer orbit or a larger moon.
[/quote]

I don't HAVE to prove they had foreknowledge. If its a requirement and it does not directly contradict what is stated, it can be assumed as part of the theory.

If prior knowledge were required, then they would have it (we're not told exactly HOW many cadets remember, and its not explicitly forbidden for Han or others to have foreknowledge. Another of those "Variables" I mentioned.) The orbit is fixed as a detail, but now the moon's size is not neccesarily.

This does not mean that "naked eye observation" becomes a requirement, however, nor does it mean a "big moon" becomes required either.

As for the suit... I was pointing out that, if the author meant for Mako to have an EVA suit, it was a poor choice of words for him to use "spacesuit" instead, because the two terms are not completely interchangeable. That's a sloppy use of language, which in this case is the only source of information we have to even infer any other details like the moon's size. If people can't agree on the definitions of the terms used by the author, then we come to an impass, because the arguments are based on how those terms are interpreted, and neither argument has a solid base to stand on.

SPOOFE has already argued about this. I don't see a reason to begin it over. I merely mentioned it as an example of your repetitive attempts to "prove" the flawed nature of the event because you believed the event WAS flawed and required we assume that someone's data was wrong.

Nor have I accused you of lying. I accused you of claiming I was basing my theories on mere assumptions and focusing them on a single idea, when you've done the same thing with yours. You've assumed that, because the amount of AM could only fragment a solid planetoid with a very small diameter, that the moon had to be extremely small. My assumption was that the moon had to be larger than that, and that thus the AM yield was greater than the text listed. I was wrong in my assumption, but only because I never considered that the moon might have had a weak spot, irregularities in its composition, or been unstable (i.e. large cracks internally). Did you consider that possibility when choosing your position? If not, perhaps you should. We've both been assuming extreme positions: that if one of us is wrong, the other has to be right. What if we were both wrong?

Your solution was wrong because it required us to assume that one or more of the datapoints were flawed when we had not eliminated all variables taht would NOT require dismissing one of the known facts. No matter how awkward the theory may have appeared to you, it does not require making the assumption that the data we WERE given was flawed.

Actually, let me think about this a second...

1. Given the right placement (which the quote from Professor Cal-Meg would seem to bear out), it would be very possible for a 43.2 kT explosion, normally unable to do more than make a big crater in the moon, to fragment a much larger moon. Thus, we can accept the 1 g of AM quote without qualification. In fact, it would even be possible that the carving of the academy's symbol in the moon either created the flaw or contributed to an already existing one.

This would not contradict known data, so it is quite possible.

2. With a much larger moon, it would be visible enough in the sky that no telescopic enhancement would be needed to see it or its destruction. Thus, there's no need to worry about explaining how the observors on the surface were able to quickly view the event with their macrobinoculars or other instruments, let alone worry about how Mako was able to let people know he was planning something while expecting him to keep it hidden for the amount of time and preparation he needed to pull it off.

You're still assuming naked eye viewing is a requirement. The evidence did NOT rule out the possibility of either magnification (which Terwynn also accepted as a possibility) OR foreknowledge. Since we are not told, no contradiction can exist. Without a contradiction, there IS no requirement for naked-eye viewing.

Not that it matters. Publius' theory can work with either naked eye OR visual enhancement or both. And neither magnification/foreknowledge OR naked eye viewing are requirements, since the theory can accomodate both.

3. With a larger moon, there would be no need to argue about how strong the gravity was on it, whether he landed it like he would land on Carida or used a landing claw-type device, or whether he used a spacesuit or an EVA suit.

Because Publius theory works equally well with both theories. I can admit that its possible the moon was larger now, but despite what you say, it is still NOT a requirement, and you are wrong for treating it as such.

4. Related to #1, which is easier to assume: that Mako knew nothing of how to handle or use antimatter, yet managed to safely turn multiple storage cylinders into a makeshift bomb without blowing himself up (i.e. he had an extremely huge amount of dumb luck); or that Mako wasn't aware that the moon was unstable, and that only a small amount of antimatter next to or below the laser-cut seal would be enough to blast the moon into fragments? IMVHO, the second option is more likely, as it involves much less luck and less mistakes on Mako's part. In either case, however, the question of Mako's knowledge of antimatter physics becomes moot, because it would come down to his placement of the antimatter.

Yes. Any fractures or stress would have to be accounted for in his "calculations", but if he didnt know about them, or underestimated them, or calculated their impact incorrectly, then its possible that he inadvertantly fragmented the moon rather than blowing the seal off.

If Mako intended to only blow off the seal, but overestimated the amoutn of antimatter required to do it (because he did not correctly factor in any weakness or fractures in the moon, possibly as you said from a result of the drilling as well as Age.) he would therefore have generated a bigger blast than he had intended, which therefore shattered the moon rather than merely blowing the seal off. Basically as you just said.

I don't really feel like debating this, as I think I may have come up with a solution, thanks to Publius, that would make debating this irrelevant.

I guess the question is: do you want to see if the new theory satisfies the evidence, or do you want to try and continue a fight that may no longer have any bearing on the situation?

Its not neccesary. Either theory works equally well, so it becomes a matter of opinion. Once we factor in the possibility of stresses, your assumption that the moon must be large enough to be seen with the naked eye no longer requires that we assume the yield Mako used was wrong. Since it fits the known fact without assuming they are wrong, and does not contradict the facts in any way, it is acceptable.

I really do not care whether or not you respond to this, as I intend this to be my last post on the topic.

Again, this may be a moot point now, as it was brought up as a counter to your "small, solid moon" theory. If you think there's no merit in a "large but flawed moon" theory, then I'll come back to it. Otherwise, it would just be a waste of time, and make our moods worse than they already are (waste of energy).

I've said Publius' theory works without violating known facts. Therefore, assuming the moon would be visible to the naked eye, and therefore must be larger, is no longer contradictory to known facts, and hence is a viable theory. It merely becomes a matter of personal opinion.

See my response to the prior point. And no, I'm not going to say you conceded, because it was actually Publius' idea.

You already claimed my concession once. You can't do so again. But since Publius has offered an alteranative that settles the issue, there is no longer any reason to argue against the moon being large enough to see with the naked eye (assuming no problems crop up with that part) since it does not contradict the known facts.

[SPOOFE]

And the French underestimated the German commanders when WWII kicked off. Does that mean they didn't know shit about warfare? Of course not.

Bad analogy, as I'll describe...

Underestimating something doesn't mean you don't know jack shit about it.

I agree. Now please tell me what that has to do with any of my comments. YOU were the one to make the claim that Mako knew "jack shit" about antimatter. Not me. I simply re-iterated what the text said... Mako underestimated the power of antimatter. This statement that I made in no way can be taken, by a rational person, to mean "Mako knows jack shit about antimatter".

My dear sir, please take a Q-tip and swab REALLY deeply in your ear canal, for clearly you have large amounts of waxy buildup that's preventing your brain from functioning.

An ambiguous sentence that has many potential answers.

You are an idiot. The sentence is very unambiguous. It states, quite clearly, that Mako underestimated the power of the antimatter he had stolen. I cannot see how this sentence can be interpreted as anything other than "Mako underestimated the power of the antimatter he had stolen". FOR THE THIRD FUCKING TIME, you drooling primate, MAKO SPINCE UNDERESTIMATED THE POWER OF THE ANTIMATTER HE HAD STOLEN.

I feel like I should make you write it on a blackboard a hundred times, just so you understand what a simple and clear sentence says. Is English not your first language?

One man's bilge is another man's evidence. So far all I've seen from you is bilge...

More of this "I know you are but what am I?" mentality. Were you just born yesterday, son? That'd explain a lot.

And that's my point. The TIE Fighter Pilot's suit is a spacesuit, but you claimed that spacesuit had to mean EVA suit.

Didn't I already tell you to keep your ignorant words out of my mouth? I claimed that this spacesuit - ONE SINGLE FUCKING SPACESUIT - was also an EVA suit. I never, ever, EVER said that "all" spacesuits were also EVA suits. Do you get that, you bumbling blockhead? Do I need to paint it any clearer? Should I write "Only this ONE spacesuit is also an EVA suit" on a sledgehammer and beat you upside the head with it?

My dear sir, you are a simpleton of the highest order. Please TRY to put SOME effort into reading comprehension. This mind-numbing attempt at arguing that you are putting forth has already dragged out for twice as long as it should have.

You've now acknowledged that a) not all spacesuits are EVA suits, and b) that the 2 terms are different. Concession accepted.

You are an idiot.

My claim: The one - ONE - spacesuit that Mako Spince stole was also an EVA suit.

Your claim: Some spacesuits are also EVA suits.

So, my logically-lacking friend, please explain to me how your argument counters mine.

No, it doesn't rule it out... but if we're going by the author's words, then we have to use the general meaning for his words. If he'd meant for Mako to have an EVA suit, then it would be logical for him to use that word.

Now you're getting desperate. Are you claiming that you have some sort of secret, special knowledge as to the author's intentions that I do not? No, my mental midget... you are now merely following the age-old argumentative tactic known as "Pulling Shit Out Of One's Ass". This is usually used by those who have already lost an argument and know it.

He didn't, though... so while it's possible for a spacesuit to be an EVA suit, you can't use the word spacesuit to prove that Mako had an EVA suit. Concession accepted.

Didn't I go through this already?

Logic:

1. Mako grabbed a "spacesuit".
2. A "spacesuit" may also be an "EVA suit".
3. You claim that the situation demands an "EVA suit".
4. Mako managed to operate just fine in the situation.
5. Ergo, the spacesuit he had is also an EVA suit.

Nevermind that I find your distinction between "spacesuit" and "EVA suit" to be so idiotically boneheaded that I feel as if I just killed off a quarter of my brain cells by simply entertaining it for five minutes.

I'll make it simple for your felch-addled noggin: There is no significant difference, in this situation, between "spacesuit" and "EVA suit". None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Your argument has no substance. In short, you are wrong.

You claimed that, in SW, 'spacesuit' and 'EVA suit' are not significantly different.

Yup. And you claimed otherwise, and used some bullshit logic to back it up.

If that's true, then the terms are interchangable... but they're not. If it were, then NASA wouldn't have needed to design their EVA suit for the Space Shuttle program, since we had those great spacesuits from the Mercury program that could double as EVA suits...

More semantic quibbling. You have to provide evidence that "spacesuit" and "EVA suit" are mutually exclusive terms, in Star Wars jargon. So far, all you have done is show that the interchangeability isn't always a given, in real-life jargon.

My dear child, do you not see the difference between the modern space program, which has barely existed for a few decades, and the Star Wars universe, which has had space travel going for millenia?

I'll put it simple: Until you can prove that a spacesuit is NEVER an EVA suit, there is no counter to my interpretation of the scene.

You claimed that they're not significantly different in SW.

No, I said that they're not mutually exclusive terms.

No, it's not a red herring. The explosion is what destroyed the moon; it's central to the whole argument.

The brightness of the explosion is irrelevant when judging the size of the moon. That's why it's a red herring.

Do you have any evidence that a 40 kiloton explosion will not be visible from geosync orbit?

No, of course not. But tell me how the destruction of a miniscule 300m planetoid would be considered "cataclysmic" to the Empire.

Nobody ever said it was cataclysmic "to the Empire", you dumb fuck. It was "cataclysmic", period.

And as I've already said, the destruction of a 300-meter planetoid wasn't the cataclysm - do you even read my posts at all? - but the destruction of the ancient symbol of the academy on Carida was.

In short, the moon had nothing but PERSONAL VALUE to the academy. It is that personal value that made its loss cataclysmic.

It might be a blow to morale and/or pride, depending on the student (not every student, after all, gives a shit about their school's mascot). But again, how is that cataclysmic?

cat·a·clysm : a momentous and violent event marked by overwhelming upheaval and demolition; broadly : an event that brings great changes

Clearly, the occasion was violent (big boom), momentous (people at the academy were greatly affected by it on a personal level), marked by overwhelming upheaval and demolition (they lost a symbol that was precious to them), and it was an event that brough great changes (hey, they lost their proud symbol, a blow to morale, as you put it).

Obviously, there is no contradiction here with the definition of the word "cataclysm". The only person who refuses to acknowledge that is you.

There is nothing that specifically identifies it, either. Without more specific information, your claim that it had to be an EVA suit is just as valid as my claim that it was a spacesuit without EVA capability.

Wrong. There is the situation as you described it: Mako was in a situation that required an EVA suit for his survival. Clearly, he survived. Ergo, he had an EVA suit.

Or do you wish to contend that Mako Spince did NOT survive his prank? I'd sure love to hear that....

And no, it's not a red herring, it's an illustration of a logical fallacy. In this case, the assumption and error is in saying that Aircraft N has capabilities X, Y, and Z, which are the capabilities of jet fighters. You've assumed that it had those capabilities without direct evidence; without that evidence, the last conclusion is false.

Again, you are wrong. I have explained this numerous times already. Do you need help with your reading? Perhaps I should send you the Phonics Game?

I'll keep this brief: There is NO evidence that my interpretation of the events as occurred is not possible. It IS possible that Mako's "spacesuit" was also an EVA suit. Therefore, until you can prove that it is NOT possible - that NO "spacesuit" can be an EVA suit - then you have no counter to my interpretation of the events.

And now you've gone from saying he definitely performed an EVA to assuming he performed an EVA.

No, I have not. The claim that he performed an EVA action was YOURS. I simply entertained that notion.

The ultimate point of contention is the power of antimatter, and the possibility that it is stronger in the SW universe. The only way we can conclude that antimatter is stronger is to assume that the planetoid that was destroyed was too large to be destroyed by a 40 kiloton explosion. So far, there is NO EVIDENCE that the planetoid was larger than 300 meters in diameter.

YOU have attempted to convolute the issue by insisting that the planetoid was visible with the naked eye, with semantic quibbling about the nature of "landing" and about whether a "spacesuit" can also be an "EVA suit", and by misrepresenting the arguments that you are attempting to counter.

I'll clear things up for you: I do not know, nor care, whether or not Mako went EVA at all. Hell, he could've just dropped the antimatter capsule out of an airlock, or used a droid to do it. HOW he did it is irrelevant.

YOU have to prove that my interpretation of events is NOT POSSIBLE... so far, you have admitted that it IS. Ergo, you have no argument, and are now simply making yourself a nuisance since you are too egotistical to just back down when you've lost. Learn how to debate properly, wouldja, chuckles?

Funny, considering you were the one that decided to start the witticisms. Didn't realize you couldn't take it when someone else uses them on you.

My dear child, I've been called far worse by far better than you. I've been flamed by people who had brains... what chance do you have?

[greenmm]

Actually, you're right on one point. I was wrong to assume that the explosion had to be visible. However, the event of the moon fracturing into tiny pieces still had to be visible on the surface, as I pointed out in my last reply to SPOOFE, thanks to publius reminding me that the placement of the antimatter was important.

Visible on the surface yes, but we've already been over that part.

Agreed. Actually, it becomes a null issue if we go with a hollow or unstable moon, since we can take at face value that the antimatter was enough to destroy the moon by striking at a key point even if we can't know how big it was... and the bigger the moon, the less relevent any argument regarding telescopic enhancement devices becomes, since a larger moon would require less enhancement to see details (or in some cases not even require visual enhancement).

However, as for proving the moon had to be visible, that was already handled on a previous page by GrandMasterTerwynn on page 2 of this topic, who was responding to your postings.

Yes, and as I said, I addressed it. Terwynn did not explicitly EXCLUDE the possiblity of magnification tech, remember. If that is a requirement to see the explosion, then that must be how they saw the explosion (How they saw the fracturing/explosion/moon from the surface was a variable - naked eye, magnification, etc.)

Again, I'm more than willing to concede on this. If accepting a hollow or unstable moon allows for a bigger moon, then magnification tech becomes less of a requirement to view the moon's destruction.

Which reminds me: you were worried about a moon that close causing gravitational problems. Unfortunately, the gravitational pull on Earth from its orbit is about 7 trillion times as strong as the pull of a 300m-diameter nickel-iron planetoid would be if the planetoid were in a geosynchronous orbit -- in fact, said planetoid would have to be 471 m away from the center of the Earth in order to cause tidal forces equal to our Moon. In order for said moon to be able to cause Moon-sized tides in a geosynch orbit, the minimum size required for a nickel-iron body would be roughly 571 km (858 km for a granite-composed body).

Fine. Odds are though it would be a granite body, given the descriptions I recall (Barren and rocky, if I remember Dark Empire correctly.)

heck, I'd be willing to see it be a nickel-iron asteroid, just for the bigger shock factor. However, if it's barren and rocky, that's fine with me.

Besides, I think it's probably a moot point anyway.

And yes, we know that SW has exceptional telescopic enhancement devices available without needing a really huge telescope. But you still have to either see the event or know when and where the event is going to occur to be prepared to use said devices to view the event.

As I recall, none of the sources used explicitly mentioned one way or another if Han knew about it or not beforehand. Hutt Gambit mentions him working on a project, but its entirely possible he and some others whom Mako had told were supposed to watch. And there could be cadets performing other activities that would require them being present or around to witness teh event in other ways.

Again, probably no longer a very relevant argument, unless we want to start discussing how big the moon really was. I'm happy just saying that it was big enough for them to easily see it breakup, even if they would have needed magnifaction to see the seal itself, but I don't know if we can really say how big it was if we go with a hollow/unstable moon theory.

In any case, the main question would be whether he wanted people to see the seal break off the moon, or if he just happened to do it when a lot of cadets would be able to see the moon break up. Without more information, I don't know if we can get a good answer on that.

Actually, they were meant to show multiple reasons for why the interpretation of the scene was incorrect. Or do you suppose that I should only rely on one point when submitting an argument? Am I for some reason not allowed to show multiple points pointing out a flaw in someone else's argument? Oh, yes, that makes so much sense now.

This assumes the interpretation was wrong to begin with. If one is not required to assume that data is flawed, it is simpler to not do so. Since we had no legitimate reasons to believe it was flawed (and explanations were available to maintain continuity) there IS no reason to argue over interpretation, especially if those interpretations require assuming the data involved is wrong.

Concession granted. I had assumed, I think like others did, that the moon had to be solid and stable; when I assumed the moon's destruction had to be visible to the naked eye, that implied to me that the AM amount was wrong.

Having accepted the idea of a hollow/unstable moon, however, then the AM amount can still fit neatly with a larger, more visible moon, IMHO. So, yes, I was wrong in my initial theory. Mea culpa; feel free to hit me over the head with a baseball bat.

I've admitted that I was wrong about the antimatter point, but I just know you're going to claim that that means I'm wrong about every other point. Well, guess what: it doesn't mean anything. In fact, thanks to Publius' posting, we have information that shows that a larger moon would be possible. If the moon was just 300m in diameter, then placement wouldn't have been important, because any explosion of that size anywhere on its surface would have been enough to break it up into chunks. You only need placement when your explosion normally wouldn't be big enough to cause the desired result. The conclusion, then, is that, had Mako put the antimatter in another location, or had the moon been more solid/stable, it would have only created a big crater and dislodged the seal (the effect he was going for), but not fragmented the entire moon. That points to a larger moon, one that would be more visible from the planet's surface.

Yes, Publius' explanation is another acceptable theory. The absence/presence of cracks or weaknesses in the moon is not stated (nor is it denied) so it can become an acceptable explanation for the event. This does nto mean however that the moon HAS to be huge, it simply means we are not as restricted as previously imagined.

Nope, doesn't have to be huge at all. Heck, even a small moon like Deimos would look larger than the Moon from Mars' surface, thanks to its rather close orbit (about 5 times closer than most other planet's closest moons) and relative size (only a few km in any dimension, but on a rough calculation would look to be about 2-3 times as wide as the Moon in our sky). And even a moon that only looked half as wide as our moon would still be fairly impressive and noticable in the sky.

Without knowing exactly how far away the moon was from Carida (and I think even the geosynch orbit was an assumption everyone's been using), and without confirmation from any other SW sources (I even tried looking on the Web for further information, but most Carida sites either talk about Mako's incident word-for-word or mention how Kyp destroyed Carida's star system by making its star go nova), I think it's going to be really hard to figure out how big the moon really was.

[qoute]
You also got the orbital distance point wrong. I didn't start that one, I just built on it. My point was that, with an object that small and that far away, you would need telescopic enhancement to see any details on it... including its destruction. But that doesn't automatically prove that the observors on Carida were using telescopic instruments. In this case, basing your claim on the moon's size on the fact that it could be seen with telescopic enhancement doesn't mean anything, because it relies on an inference that the spectators were using said instruments to view the event. And as I already pointed out, the most probable reason for that to occur would be for them to have prior knowledge. Now, unless you can provide other information from the source material that Han and the others had knowledge about Mako's plan, including the time he planned on detonating it, there's no basis in the passage that we can say with certainty that they were viewing it in macrobinoculars or other devices. That leaves naked-eye observation, which would require either a much closer orbit or a larger moon.

I don't HAVE to prove they had foreknowledge. If its a requirement and it does not directly contradict what is stated, it can be assumed as part of the theory.

If prior knowledge were required, then they would have it (we're not told exactly HOW many cadets remember, and its not explicitly forbidden for Han or others to have foreknowledge. Another of those "Variables" I mentioned.) The orbit is fixed as a detail, but now the moon's size is not neccesarily.

This does not mean that "naked eye observation" becomes a requirement, however, nor does it mean a "big moon" becomes required either.
[/quote]

Where is the orbital distance fixed at? And by "fixed", what details do we know? All I've been able to find on Carida, for example, is that it was larger than normal in diameter, and had a higher-than-normal gravity; I can't even tell you if that translates to a higher-than-normal density, since it's technically possible for a slightly larger but slightly less dense planet to have a higher gravity than Earth. Without knowing Carida's mass and rotational period, even saying it was in a geosynch orbit tells us nothing. Without an orbital distance, we can't compare how big a particularly-sized moon would appear to be to a surface observor, especially in contrast to our own Moon.

As for the suit... I was pointing out that, if the author meant for Mako to have an EVA suit, it was a poor choice of words for him to use "spacesuit" instead, because the two terms are not completely interchangeable. That's a sloppy use of language, which in this case is the only source of information we have to even infer any other details like the moon's size. If people can't agree on the definitions of the terms used by the author, then we come to an impass, because the arguments are based on how those terms are interpreted, and neither argument has a solid base to stand on.

SPOOFE has already argued about this. I don't see a reason to begin it over. I merely mentioned it as an example of your repetitive attempts to "prove" the flawed nature of the event because you believed the event WAS flawed and required we assume that someone's data was wrong.

And I've conceded that I was wrong in my initial claim that there was a flaw in the stated facts. Again, here's a baseball bat, feel free to whack the mole anyday.

Nor have I accused you of lying. I accused you of claiming I was basing my theories on mere assumptions and focusing them on a single idea, when you've done the same thing with yours. You've assumed that, because the amount of AM could only fragment a solid planetoid with a very small diameter, that the moon had to be extremely small. My assumption was that the moon had to be larger than that, and that thus the AM yield was greater than the text listed. I was wrong in my assumption, but only because I never considered that the moon might have had a weak spot, irregularities in its composition, or been unstable (i.e. large cracks internally). Did you consider that possibility when choosing your position? If not, perhaps you should. We've both been assuming extreme positions: that if one of us is wrong, the other has to be right. What if we were both wrong?

Your solution was wrong because it required us to assume that one or more of the datapoints were flawed when we had not eliminated all variables taht would NOT require dismissing one of the known facts. No matter how awkward the theory may have appeared to you, it does not require making the assumption that the data we WERE given was flawed.

Damn, this is really going to hurt when you start swinging that bat...

Actually, let me think about this a second...

1. Given the right placement (which the quote from Professor Cal-Meg would seem to bear out), it would be very possible for a 43.2 kT explosion, normally unable to do more than make a big crater in the moon, to fragment a much larger moon. Thus, we can accept the 1 g of AM quote without qualification. In fact, it would even be possible that the carving of the academy's symbol in the moon either created the flaw or contributed to an already existing one.

This would not contradict known data, so it is quite possible.

OMG...

Macleod actually agreed with me on a point... I don't know if my heart can take the strain...

All joking aside, thank you. I can't claim the idea as my own, so I'm definitely not taking it as a concession. To be honest, I'm glad you didn't go for an "I told you so", even though I probably deserve one...

2. With a much larger moon, it would be visible enough in the sky that no telescopic enhancement would be needed to see it or its destruction. Thus, there's no need to worry about explaining how the observors on the surface were able to quickly view the event with their macrobinoculars or other instruments, let alone worry about how Mako was able to let people know he was planning something while expecting him to keep it hidden for the amount of time and preparation he needed to pull it off.

You're still assuming naked eye viewing is a requirement. The evidence did NOT rule out the possibility of either magnification (which Terwynn also accepted as a possibility) OR foreknowledge. Since we are not told, no contradiction can exist. Without a contradiction, there IS no requirement for naked-eye viewing.

Not that it matters. Publius' theory can work with either naked eye OR visual enhancement or both. And neither magnification/foreknowledge OR naked eye viewing are requirements, since the theory can accomodate both.

Agreed. And without more evidence about Carida's size, let alone the moon's, we couldn't even really debate how big the moon had to be.

You're being a lot more reasonable than I'd come to believe. I apologize for thinking you were an opinionated asshole... especially since I probably came across as a much bigger one. Chalk it up to the typical human reaction to being told they're wrong about a point...

3. With a larger moon, there would be no need to argue about how strong the gravity was on it, whether he landed it like he would land on Carida or used a landing claw-type device, or whether he used a spacesuit or an EVA suit.

Because Publius theory works equally well with both theories. I can admit that its possible the moon was larger now, but despite what you say, it is still NOT a requirement, and you are wrong for treating it as such.

Actually, I'm not. I was wrong to even bring it into the whole argument, since we'd have no way of verifying it without further information.

Point conceded to you.

4. Related to #1, which is easier to assume: that Mako knew nothing of how to handle or use antimatter, yet managed to safely turn multiple storage cylinders into a makeshift bomb without blowing himself up (i.e. he had an extremely huge amount of dumb luck); or that Mako wasn't aware that the moon was unstable, and that only a small amount of antimatter next to or below the laser-cut seal would be enough to blast the moon into fragments? IMVHO, the second option is more likely, as it involves much less luck and less mistakes on Mako's part. In either case, however, the question of Mako's knowledge of antimatter physics becomes moot, because it would come down to his placement of the antimatter.

Yes. Any fractures or stress would have to be accounted for in his "calculations", but if he didnt know about them, or underestimated them, or calculated their impact incorrectly, then its possible that he inadvertantly fragmented the moon rather than blowing the seal off.

If Mako intended to only blow off the seal, but overestimated the amoutn of antimatter required to do it (because he did not correctly factor in any weakness or fractures in the moon, possibly as you said from a result of the drilling as well as Age.) he would therefore have generated a bigger blast than he had intended, which therefore shattered the moon rather than merely blowing the seal off. Basically as you just said.

Again, agreement. I must say, this is a lot nicer than the arguments.

It doesn't even bother me that I didn't come up with that....

Its not neccesary. Either theory works equally well, so it becomes a matter of opinion. Once we factor in the possibility of stresses, your assumption that the moon must be large enough to be seen with the naked eye no longer requires that we assume the yield Mako used was wrong. Since it fits the known fact without assuming they are wrong, and does not contradict the facts in any way, it is acceptable.

I really do not care whether or not you respond to this, as I intend this to be my last post on the topic.

Well, hopefully the last debating one, at least. Even if you don't respond, though, you're more gracious in winning than I might have been...

*tips hat to Macleod*

You already claimed my concession once. You can't do so again. But since Publius has offered an alteranative that settles the issue, there is no longer any reason to argue against the moon being large enough to see with the naked eye (assuming no problems crop up with that part) since it does not contradict the known facts.

Actually, I should have said that I was wrong to concede in the first place, as well as saying that I wasn't claiming a concession from you on this one.

Heck, by my tabulation, I conceded points to you without you conceding anything to me, so that makes you the winner.

Hopefully no hard feelings, eh?

*sticks hand out to shake with Macleod*

[greenmm]

And the French underestimated the German commanders when WWII kicked off. Does that mean they didn't know shit about warfare? Of course not.

Bad analogy, as I'll describe...

Underestimating something doesn't mean you don't know jack shit about it.

I agree. Now please tell me what that has to do with any of my comments. YOU were the one to make the claim that Mako knew "jack shit" about antimatter. Not me. I simply re-iterated what the text said... Mako underestimated the power of antimatter. This statement that I made in no way can be taken, by a rational person, to mean "Mako knows jack shit about antimatter".

My dear sir, please take a Q-tip and swab REALLY deeply in your ear canal, for clearly you have large amounts of waxy buildup that's preventing your brain from functioning.

Oh, so your assertion is that, if someone makes a mistake, it's because they didn't know what they were doing at all? So there's no possibility of entering information in error, of hitting the wrong key on the terminal/keyboard, of inverting an equation at the wrong point... in short, of making an honest mistake for some reason other than ignorance of the subject? How much better that is: now we can blame all auto crashes on the fact that the drivers didn't know how to turn the key in the ignition, let alone how to drive safely on the road; that when a building collapses due to construction faults, it's because the crews that built it didn't know how to mix concrete, let alone pour it into molds and add rebar to it; that when a student misses a question on their calculus test, it has nothing to do with them making a simple addition or subtraction mistake, and everything to do with not having the slightest bit of knowledge regarding calculus; that when a person can't balance their checkbook, it's because they don't have the math skills to add 1+1, and not because they forgot to write down a few ATM transactions they made.

You claimed Mako's mistake was due to him not knowing the first thing about antimatter, yet deny that he could have made an honest mistake while still being knowledgeable. Your assertion completely ignores the multitude of observations you can find in real life of people making mistakes who literally did know better, but made a small or simple mistake.

Of course, if you'd bothered to read the rest of the topic before repyling, you'd have seen that the argument about Mako's knowledge had become moot. But I guess you just got so excited about trying to insult me that you were too blind to read the screen in front of you.

An ambiguous sentence that has many potential answers.

You are an idiot. The sentence is very unambiguous. It states, quite clearly, that Mako underestimated the power of the antimatter he had stolen. I cannot see how this sentence can be interpreted as anything other than "Mako underestimated the power of the antimatter he had stolen". FOR THE THIRD FUCKING TIME, you drooling primate, MAKO SPINCE UNDERESTIMATED THE POWER OF THE ANTIMATTER HE HAD STOLEN.

I feel like I should make you write it on a blackboard a hundred times, just so you understand what a simple and clear sentence says. Is English not your first language?

And again, Macleod and I already went over this. A larger yet hollow or unstable moon allows for a lower amount of AM to destroy it, and explains his underestimating of the power.

Here, maybe you should use my parent's bifocals, since you're having trouble reading the screen in front of you... or maybe you should adjust your screen resolution so that you can read it better...

One man's bilge is another man's evidence. So far all I've seen from you is bilge...

More of this "I know you are but what am I?" mentality. Were you just born yesterday, son? That'd explain a lot.

Actually, it was because your comment about bilge reminded me of some of the rabid Trekkies on Wong's Hate Mail page, and how they tend to take a few words out of his paragraphs and claim that the entire paragraph is irrelevent, or how they'll say that an entire paragraph of Wong's evidence is irrelevent without showing how it's irrelevent.

And no, I'm not claiming to be the equal of Mike Wong. But this isn't some STvSW debate where I've brought up centuries-old ST arguments that were dismissed back when the planets were still cooling down; we were discussing a purely SW topic, one that apparantly hasn't come up before, and you tried to dismiss paragraphs of debate with a single sentence using insulting terms. That's a debating technique I see not only being used on Wong's Hate Mail site from rabid Trekkers, but also being smashed by Wong as being examples of how not to debate a topic rationally.

But then, rational thinking doesn't seem to be your forte, does it?

And that's my point. The TIE Fighter Pilot's suit is a spacesuit, but you claimed that spacesuit had to mean EVA suit.

Didn't I already tell you to keep your ignorant words out of my mouth? I claimed that this spacesuit - ONE SINGLE FUCKING SPACESUIT - was also an EVA suit. I never, ever, EVER said that "all" spacesuits were also EVA suits. Do you get that, you bumbling blockhead? Do I need to paint it any clearer? Should I write "Only this ONE spacesuit is also an EVA suit" on a sledgehammer and beat you upside the head with it?

My dear sir, you are a simpleton of the highest order. Please TRY to put SOME effort into reading comprehension. This mind-numbing attempt at arguing that you are putting forth has already dragged out for twice as long as it should have.

Again, you missed the point. Your claim was that, since you claimed that an EVA was necessary, the spacesuit had to be an EVA suit, even though it wasn't labeled as such. I pointed out that was an assumption on your part, and said it was based on a prior assumption, yet you were parading it around as a fact.

However, if you'd bothered to notice the post prior to yours, you'd have realized that this is now a moot point. It was relevent when the debate was focused on a 300m moon vs. a larger moon; however, the consensus between Macleod and I is that there's room for a larger but unstable/hollow moon of indeterminate size, so whether an EVA suit was needed or a regular spacesuit sufficed has become irrelevent.

Sorry to stop you from getting your jollies, but you're flogging a dead "horse", so to speak...

You've now acknowledged that a) not all spacesuits are EVA suits, and b) that the 2 terms are different. Concession accepted.

You are an idiot.

My claim: The one - ONE - spacesuit that Mako Spince stole was also an EVA suit.

Your claim: Some spacesuits are also EVA suits.

So, my logically-lacking friend, please explain to me how your argument counters mine.

Just went over it... and unlike you, I'm not in love with the sound of my own voice. I'll just leave you to your portable mini-recorder now.

No, it doesn't rule it out... but if we're going by the author's words, then we have to use the general meaning for his words. If he'd meant for Mako to have an EVA suit, then it would be logical for him to use that word.

Now you're getting desperate. Are you claiming that you have some sort of secret, special knowledge as to the author's intentions that I do not? No, my mental midget... you are now merely following the age-old argumentative tactic known as "Pulling Shit Out Of One's Ass". This is usually used by those who have already lost an argument and know it.

Then I bow to the Ass-Master himself, since you were claiming similar knowledge as well (i.e. that landing = Mako performed an EVA maneuver, and that therefore spacesuit = EVA suit).

Again, I haven't seen debating techniques like this since the last time I checked Wong's website.

He didn't, though... so while it's possible for a spacesuit to be an EVA suit, you can't use the word spacesuit to prove that Mako had an EVA suit. Concession accepted.

Didn't I go through this already?

Logic:

1. Mako grabbed a "spacesuit".
2. A "spacesuit" may also be an "EVA suit".
3. You claim that the situation demands an "EVA suit".
4. Mako managed to operate just fine in the situation.
5. Ergo, the spacesuit he had is also an EVA suit.

Nevermind that I find your distinction between "spacesuit" and "EVA suit" to be so idiotically boneheaded that I feel as if I just killed off a quarter of my brain cells by simply entertaining it for five minutes.

I'll make it simple for your felch-addled noggin: There is no significant difference, in this situation, between "spacesuit" and "EVA suit". None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Your argument has no substance. In short, you are wrong.

#3 was your claim, not mine, because you claimed that the moon couldn't be bigger than 300m.

However, just to make you happy, then yes, if an EVA was required, then the spacesuit had to be an EVA suit. But first, you have to prove conclusively that an EVA was needed. If you'd bothered to read Macleod's post, however, you'd have realized that the moon's size is pretty much up in the air now. Without knowing its radius and mass, you can't calculate its surface gravity... and without that as a comparison, you can't show conclusively that an EVA was needed. Thus, you're back to your claim of an EVA suit being used being nothing more than an unproven assumption being based on an unproven assumption, with your sole evidence being that "some spacesuits are EVA suits".

Macleod and I already agreed this is a moot point, now, since we can't know the size of the moon for sure, and that the 300m diameter for the moon has become a low-end estimate rather than the high-end estimate. So unless you can find some official information beyond what's in Dark Empire or Hutt's Gambit that shows an actual size for this moon, you can't prove conclusively that the spacesuit was an EVA suit... and even worse for you, it's immaterial now.

You claimed that, in SW, 'spacesuit' and 'EVA suit' are not significantly different.

Yup. And you claimed otherwise, and used some bullshit logic to back it up.

Ah, so now based on your unproven assumption for this case, there is now no spacesuit in the SW universe that isn't also an EVA suit.

Wow, it's amazing; I feel like I've also seen this debating tactic pointed out as an example of what not to do in a rational debate. I'd say it was deja vu, but I've come to expect it from you.

If that's true, then the terms are interchangable... but they're not. If it were, then NASA wouldn't have needed to design their EVA suit for the Space Shuttle program, since we had those great spacesuits from the Mercury program that could double as EVA suits...

More semantic quibbling. You have to provide evidence that "spacesuit" and "EVA suit" are mutually exclusive terms, in Star Wars jargon. So far, all you have done is show that the interchangeability isn't always a given, in real-life jargon.

My dear child, do you not see the difference between the modern space program, which has barely existed for a few decades, and the Star Wars universe, which has had space travel going for millenia?

I'll put it simple: Until you can prove that a spacesuit is NEVER an EVA suit, there is no counter to my interpretation of the scene.

Wrong. The evidence doesn't allow us to prove conclusively either way whether an EVA was required or not. You have this personal belief/assumption that an EVA was needed; however, you have not as yet proven conclusively that the EVA was needed or in fact occured, so you still haven't proven your assumption that Mako's suit was an EVA suit. And with the paltry facts we have about the incident, you're not going to be able to conclusively prove it -- unless you plan on performing a rectal examination on yourself in the near future.

No, it's not a red herring. The explosion is what destroyed the moon; it's central to the whole argument.

The brightness of the explosion is irrelevant when judging the size of the moon. That's why it's a red herring.

Do you have any evidence that a 40 kiloton explosion will not be visible from geosync orbit?

If you'd bothered to pay more attention (gotta hate that adult ADD), the explosion I was talking about wasn't just the AM explosion, but the entire destruction of the moon.

But again, you were only concerned with jumping on my case and slinging insults my way, instead of following the overall debate, so you missed the fact that this has become a moot point as well.

No, of course not. But tell me how the destruction of a miniscule 300m planetoid would be considered "cataclysmic" to the Empire.

Nobody ever said it was cataclysmic "to the Empire", you dumb fuck. It was "cataclysmic", period.

And as I've already said, the destruction of a 300-meter planetoid wasn't the cataclysm - do you even read my posts at all? - but the destruction of the ancient symbol of the academy on Carida was.

In short, the moon had nothing but PERSONAL VALUE to the academy. It is that personal value that made its loss cataclysmic.

Again, cataclysmic to who? And did everyone think it was cataclysmic? If anything, a moon with a decoration cut thousands of years previously by a defunct Republic that was, if anything, less technologicaly advanced than the current Empire would argue for it being much less cataclysmic.

Think about it, too: if you want an enduring symbol of your academy, why pick a piddly little 300m moon, especially one that could be easily destroyed by a single snub fighter with just its laser cannons, or will be snuffed out by a few decent-sized meteors (all you'd need is a 100m-diameter ice meteor travelling at 874 m/sec to provide the equivelent kinetic energy needed -- a piddling little killoton-class iceball travelling only as fast as a rifle bullet, pathetically slow by interstellar standards), meteors which normally wouldn't even bother the planetary defense systems due to their small size and propensity to disintigrate after entering the atmosphere. Oh, yes, there's an enduring symbol for the academy students to admire for thousands of years.

So, you claim that it was only a symbolic cataclysm. Fine, then. What are some real-life instances of an event that was only cataclysmic in its symbolic definition? That if the event that occurred, or the object that was destroyed, hadn't had such deep and personal meaning to the people involved, it wouldn't have been labeled cataclysmic? You've made the clami, now show the proof.

It might be a blow to morale and/or pride, depending on the student (not every student, after all, gives a shit about their school's mascot). But again, how is that cataclysmic?

cat·a·clysm : a momentous and violent event marked by overwhelming upheaval and demolition; broadly : an event that brings great changes

Clearly, the occasion was violent (big boom), momentous (people at the academy were greatly affected by it on a personal level), marked by overwhelming upheaval and demolition (they lost a symbol that was precious to them), and it was an event that brough great changes (hey, they lost their proud symbol, a blow to morale, as you put it).

Obviously, there is no contradiction here with the definition of the word "cataclysm". The only person who refuses to acknowledge that is you.

A 43.2 kT bomb isn't a big boom to a culture where fighters have energy cannons capable of releasing that much energy per shot, and capital ships with "light" weapons superior to the largest nuclear warheads ever developed on this planet. You also claim that they were deeply and personally affected by the destruction of a tiny rock with a seal that would easily be duplicated (unless you claim that the ancient Republic's technology was superior to that of the Empire), but you don't show any proof that that is the reaction they had. Where do we hear that they were so deeply hurt emotionally by the destruction of this rock? Where is the evidence that this was the only explanation for it being a cataclysm?

My only refusal is to say that your personal opinion is superior to anyone else's, mine included. And since you have yet to prove unequivocally that their reaction was purely emotional, and solely in response to the loss of the academy's seal, it remains nothing more than a personal opinion.

There is nothing that specifically identifies it, either. Without more specific information, your claim that it had to be an EVA suit is just as valid as my claim that it was a spacesuit without EVA capability.

Wrong. There is the situation as you described it: Mako was in a situation that required an EVA suit for his survival. Clearly, he survived. Ergo, he had an EVA suit.

Or do you wish to contend that Mako Spince did NOT survive his prank? I'd sure love to hear that....

Oh, now another wonderful debate tactic: putting words into your opponent's mouth. Of course he survived, dipshit, or he wouldn't have appeared in Dark Empire. In fact, going back to an earlier argument you had, since he obviously remotely triggered the detonation from a safe distance, he knew how far away he'd have to be from the antimatter explosion, which implies that he did know jack shit about antimatter. And it's fully understandable for Mako to understand antimatter interaction physics without knowing anything about geology.

And no, it's not a red herring, it's an illustration of a logical fallacy. In this case, the assumption and error is in saying that Aircraft N has capabilities X, Y, and Z, which are the capabilities of jet fighters. You've assumed that it had those capabilities without direct evidence; without that evidence, the last conclusion is false.

Again, you are wrong. I have explained this numerous times already. Do you need help with your reading? Perhaps I should send you the Phonics Game?

I'll keep this brief: There is NO evidence that my interpretation of the events as occurred is not possible. It IS possible that Mako's "spacesuit" was also an EVA suit. Therefore, until you can prove that it is NOT possible - that NO "spacesuit" can be an EVA suit - then you have no counter to my interpretation of the events.

I wasn't disputing the possibility, you moron, I was disputing your claim of an EVA due to a lack of proof on your part.

And now you've gone from saying he definitely performed an EVA to assuming he performed an EVA.

No, I have not. The claim that he performed an EVA action was YOURS. I simply entertained that notion.

The ultimate point of contention is the power of antimatter, and the possibility that it is stronger in the SW universe. The only way we can conclude that antimatter is stronger is to assume that the planetoid that was destroyed was too large to be destroyed by a 40 kiloton explosion. So far, there is NO EVIDENCE that the planetoid was larger than 300 meters in diameter.

YOU have attempted to convolute the issue by insisting that the planetoid was visible with the naked eye, with semantic quibbling about the nature of "landing" and about whether a "spacesuit" can also be an "EVA suit", and by misrepresenting the arguments that you are attempting to counter.

I'll clear things up for you: I do not know, nor care, whether or not Mako went EVA at all. Hell, he could've just dropped the antimatter capsule out of an airlock, or used a droid to do it. HOW he did it is irrelevant.

YOU have to prove that my interpretation of events is NOT POSSIBLE... so far, you have admitted that it IS. Ergo, you have no argument, and are now simply making yourself a nuisance since you are too egotistical to just back down when you've lost. Learn how to debate properly, wouldja, chuckles?

A solid moon, correct. However, there is no proof that the moon was 100% solid, and in fact Publius provided additional SW information that pointed to the moon having an instability, or perhaps being hollow, which would allow for a larger moon to be destroyed. Unless you think Macleod was off base as well.

So unless you can provide irrefutable evidence that the moon was solid, the actual size of the moon has become irrelevent, as long as the explosion was powerful enough and in the right place. Macleod already said that was a workable theory after I suggested it to him... but again, I guess you were too blind to read that post, huh?

Funny, considering you were the one that decided to start the witticisms. Didn't realize you couldn't take it when someone else uses them on you.

My dear child, I've been called far worse by far better than you. I've been flamed by people who had brains... what chance do you have?

Oh, and so now the worth of a man is in how well he flames and insults someone else online? Yes, I'm sure that really impresses the people you try to date. And of course, the debates on this site are always won by the poster that throws out the best insults aimed at their opponents, or who uses the most demeaning terms and labels to refer to those who dare to disagree with them.

I'd love to see a rational explanation as to how your insults added so much weight and authority to your arguments, although I'm sure I'll have to wait a long time to even see one, given your propensity to engage in shallow character attacks.

Oh, and I guess you never learned that brains isn't everything. A high IQ means squat if you can't apply it correctly, just as a small amount of force in the right place can be more effective than a larger force in the wrong spot. In this case, your overeagerness to fling more slander and slurs in my direction blinded you to the fact that the debate has been profoundly changed, if not resolved pending further evidence.

In closing, I'll say this: you and Macleod may have shared an initial position. But Macleod not only defended his position better, but also showed himself to be a better person than you'll ever be.

[Slartibartfast]

Nice to know I can provide comic relief, since it's what I live for. [/sarcasm]

I missed the sarcastic remark...

Oh, so you thought I do live to provide comic relief for other people. Damn, I knew I should have run away to join the circus and be a clown, I would have been so much more fulfilled in life...

Hm... Ok.

[Connor MacLeod]

To Green: Having read over your last post, I felt a need to write back. Since you're being so polite about admitting your errors (which is quite a bit more than others can do) I feel it is not neccesary to accept your concession. The issue has been settled, there is no lingering animosity, and really, either theory works.

I really have no desire or reason to lord yoru concession or errors over you. It would be rude of me to meet your polite acceptance with such, and your behaviour does not warrant it (if you were responding in the Darkstar-type 'deny everything' mode, things would have been different..) I am merely content that you see the point I tried to make, and acknowledged it. Anything else to that is secondary, and forgivable. I accept your apologies, and make my own for any insults, flames, or Darkstar-like references I made as well.

No need to be crass about these things, after all. I know of debates like this that have turned out much worse

[greenmm]

To Green: Having read over your last post, I felt a need to write back. Since you're being so polite about admitting your errors (which is quite a bit more than others can do) I feel it is not neccesary to accept your concession. The issue has been settled, there is no lingering animosity, and really, either theory works.

I really have no desire or reason to lord yoru concession or errors over you. It would be rude of me to meet your polite acceptance with such, and your behaviour does not warrant it (if you were responding in the Darkstar-type 'deny everything' mode, things would have been different..) I am merely content that you see the point I tried to make, and acknowledged it. Anything else to that is secondary, and forgivable. I accept your apologies, and make my own for any insults, flames, or Darkstar-like references I made as well.

No need to be crass about these things, after all. I know of debates like this that have turned out much worse

Thank you. I really appreciate your response, even though you didn't need to.

Hopefully next time, I won't find myself on the opposite side of a debate from you...