Turbo laser cannons power.

[Tribun]

I think the Imperial Smackdown did it again!

One more one list list of smacked assholes!

[Stewart at SDI]

I am sorry that I could not respond sooner, I have a life and spent the last three days on a hot date.

In direct responce to your smak down attack I make the following points;

1. All known gases glow at 1,200K. Almost all gases glow at 1,000K andmore than a few will glow at 700 if the ambient light level is low. The failure of your possition in stating, parafraising, "what makes you think that gas at 2,000K will glow just because an iron bar does?" Why would any normal person think that it would not if an iron bar does? I can see the flaims from my stove that are only 900K.

2. Why would the explosion differ from 400 Km altitude to hard vacume? What exactly is the difference in density between the two environments? With the density of "air pressure" being such a point of contention between us, How many more atoms per cubic meter of air at 400 Km altitude are there than in inter-steller space? The answer is "too few to mater".

3. That the starfish shot was not in hard vacume is a ludicris assumption. You must define hard vacum and why the reagion of space around the Hoth system is different from the space around earth. I state that there is so little air at that altitude that it would have no effect. It now falls to you to prove that the density at 400Km, is high enough to matter, not just to state that it does. I refer you to the following books: THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS published by the DoE in 1954, THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB and DARK SUN both by Richard Rhodes and the OPERATION PLOWSHAIR reports also published by the DoE.

4. That the halo effect is missing and is also not understood by your selves, does not mean that it is not a valid effect and point in our discussion. It is caused by the nearly spherical expansion of the products of an explosion in space. The gas forms a shell or membrain like structure that might enclose a sphere. Any time gas is released into space, it will form this type of structure. Period. If the gas is luminesant, then the eye will percieve a hollow ring like construct because when you look threw the diamiter you only see the two sides wich appier reallitivly dark. The closer that the line of sight gets to the tangent of the sphere, the more gas the line of sight must pass threw, thus appiering much brighter. No halo, no incandesant gas, no incandesant gas no large relise of energy mesured in kilo, mega, giga or any other tons!

As a final point. Does anyone there have any expiriance or expertise in any of the following subjects? Explosives, Nuclear Weapons, Demolitions, Lasers, Masers, any other Beam Weapons or Devices, Satilites, Electronic Warfare, Aerospace Engineering, Weapons Systems Annalysis, Military Technologies or the Martial Arts? ( Not Karate, the arts of war, Logistics, Tactics and Stratigy!)

If not, then you are taking someone elses word, second hand, without direct first hand knowledge. The proofs may look good, but if they are based on false assumptions, how good can they be? I have some expertise in each of those arias above and I am prepaired to debate any points that you might wish to test my fundamental knowledge. That you think that you know something is evident and the arguments that you cite clearly show that you have no personal knowledge to draw on, only that you must parrot back what others have said.

Pick a single point and we will argue that point to the exclusion of all others untill it is agreed or we tire of the pointlessness of it. It is two hard to remember all the things said.

You claim that the Turbo Laser is a beam weapon, yet the article elswere on this site is unshure of the exact nature of the device. My question to you is. If it is a beam, how come it apears to move from fraim to fraim at such a low reallitivistic velosity?

[StarshipTitanic]

You claim that the Turbo Laser is a beam weapon, yet the article elswere on this site is unshure of the exact nature of the device. My question to you is. If it is a beam, how come it apears to move from fraim to fraim at such a low reallitivistic velosity?

Psst, damage occurs before the visible bolt hits. That's because the beam's invisible. His Divine Shadow has a gif that illustrates this perfectly.

[Keevan_Colton]

I am sorry that I could not respond sooner, I have a life and spent the last three days on a hot date.

Grampa on a three day long date?
Why do you insist on spewing bullshit anyway?

In direct responce to your smak down attack I make the following points;

Really, please, pretty pretty please....use a fucking spell checker or at least just cut and paste real words together.

1. All known gases glow at 1,200K. Almost all gases glow at 1,000K andmore than a few will glow at 700 if the ambient light level is low. The failure of your possition in stating, parafraising, "what makes you think that gas at 2,000K will glow just because an iron bar does?" Why would any normal person think that it would not if an iron bar does? I can see the flaims from my stove that are only 900K.

Density fuckhead.

2. Why would the explosion differ from 400 Km altitude to hard vacume? What exactly is the difference in density between the two environments? With the density of "air pressure" being such a point of contention between us, How many more atoms per cubic meter of air at 400 Km altitude are there than in inter-steller space? The answer is "too few to mater".

A fuck load of matter you idiot.
400km is still within the atmosphere, with gasses all around for it to interact with, this is VERY FUCKING DIFFERENT FROM A VACCUM.

3. That the starfish shot was not in hard vacume is a ludicris assumption. You must define hard vacum and why the reagion of space around the Hoth system is different from the space around earth. I state that there is so little air at that altitude that it would have no effect. It now falls to you to prove that the density at 400Km, is high enough to matter, not just to state that it does. I refer you to the following books: THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS published by the DoE in 1954, THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB and DARK SUN both by Richard Rhodes and the OPERATION PLOWSHAIR reports also published by the DoE.

For fuck's sake, where do you get your bullshit from?

A satellite, orbiting around the Earth, would continue to orbit forever if gravity were the only force acting on it. However, satellites below 2000 kilometers, are actually travelling through the Earth's atmosphere. Collisions with air particles, even at these high altitudes, slowly act to circularize the orbit and slow down the spacecraft causing it to drop to lower altitudes.

That good enough for you retard?

4. That the halo effect is missing and is also not understood by your selves, does not mean that it is not a valid effect and point in our discussion. It is caused by the nearly spherical expansion of the products of an explosion in space. The gas forms a shell or membrain like structure that might enclose a sphere. Any time gas is released into space, it will form this type of structure. Period. If the gas is luminesant, then the eye will percieve a hollow ring like construct because when you look threw the diamiter you only see the two sides wich appier reallitivly dark. The closer that the line of sight gets to the tangent of the sphere, the more gas the line of sight must pass threw, thus appiering much brighter. No halo, no incandesant gas, no incandesant gas no large relise of energy mesured in kilo, mega, giga or any other tons!

Yet again, where do you get your bullshit from?

As a final point. Does anyone there have any expiriance or expertise in any of the following subjects? Explosives, Nuclear Weapons, Demolitions, Lasers, Masers, any other Beam Weapons or Devices, Satilites, Electronic Warfare, Aerospace Engineering, Weapons Systems Annalysis, Military Technologies or the Martial Arts? ( Not Karate, the arts of war, Logistics, Tactics and Stratigy!)

Appealing to your own made up credentials, fuck off looser.
You have demonstrated that you have NO real knowledge of any of the shit you claim. You are nothing but a lying sack of shit.

If not, then you are taking someone elses word, second hand, without direct first hand knowledge. The proofs may look good, but if they are based on false assumptions, how good can they be? I have some expertise in each of those arias above and I am prepaired to debate any points that you might wish to test my fundamental knowledge. That you think that you know something is evident and the arguments that you cite clearly show that you have no personal knowledge to draw on, only that you must parrot back what others have said.

What the fuck do arias have to do with this shit eh? Are we doing opera now?
You have demonstrated no knowledge and appealing to your own expertise is a sad excuse for a position. A logical argument can stand based upon its own logic irrespective of the person putting it forth, welcome to the world of the ad homien.

Pick a single point and we will argue that point to the exclusion of all others untill it is agreed or we tire of the pointlessness of it. It is two hard to remember all the things said.

Let me guess, senile dementia been added to your bullshit resume?

You claim that the Turbo Laser is a beam weapon, yet the article elswere on this site is unshure of the exact nature of the device. My question to you is. If it is a beam, how come it apears to move from fraim to fraim at such a low reallitivistic velosity?

Why dont you fuck off back under what ever steaming heap of bullshit you crawled out from under?

[Tribun]

Oh my God.

He only got 16 posts, but already has produced more mish-mashed shit than Andrew Joshua Talon or Darkstar had managed to produce in that short time span.
He disgraced the Imperial Smackdown by misspelling it!

[Keevan_Colton]

Also, since you are such a fucking retard with little or no grasp of how any of this shit works...might I suggest starting here you idiotic lying sack of shit.

[Keevan_Colton]

Oh my God.

He only got 16 posts, but already has produced more mish-mashed shit than Andrew Joshua Talon or Darkstar had managed to produce in that short time span.
He disgraced the Imperial Smackdown by misspelling it!

Well, what do you expect from someone who considers his pay cheque a valid point in a V's debate....

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

This is simply amazing...

[Master of Ossus]

I am sorry that I could not respond sooner, I have a life and spent the last three days on a hot date.

I seem to remember pointless bluster about having a life and apologizing for not responding sooner from one ANDREW JOSHUA TALON. If you begin down the Dark Path, forever will it dominate your destiny!

In direct responce to your smak down attack I make the following points;

How DARE you disgrace Mike's signature move with your atrocious spelling. Here's a tip: while you are obviously jerking off while posting your bullshit, your dick should not be used to actually strike the keys. It makes it more difficult to understand what you are trying to say. Similarly, you should not type with a catcher's mit.

1. All known gases glow at 1,200K. Almost all gases glow at 1,000K andmore than a few will glow at 700 if the ambient light level is low. The failure of your possition in stating, parafraising, "what makes you think that gas at 2,000K will glow just because an iron bar does?" Why would any normal person think that it would not if an iron bar does? I can see the flaims from my stove that are only 900K.

Oh, geez. Your unconscionable ignorance is showing even more strongly, here. Do you even understand what causes things to glow? Are you seriously attempting to compare your kitchen stove to a recently vaporized asteroid?

2. Why would the explosion differ from 400 Km altitude to hard vacume?

Mike explained that in his post, dumbass. Here it is, for your reading pleasure and convenience, now in bold!

[quote="Mike Wong]What did you think causes this persistent halo of yours, dumb-ass? Much of the gas ejected from a nuclear explosion in true vacuum would be travelling at significant fractions of lightspeed, fool. It would not hang around to form a halo of its own accord. The halo is caused by the interaction of the blast energy with the thin but very real atmosphere at 400km altitude! Do you think the gas pops out of the explosion and just decides to hang around? Do you think it puts on little braking systems so it won't fly away? Your arrogance is unbelievable; throughout your entire time on this board you have utterly failed to support your attempt to equate "Starfish" to the Hoth asteroid. Every time an obvious discrepancy was found, you simply ignored it and said "please answer the point". [/quote]

Did you get that? The atmosphere CAUSES this persistent halo effect. In hard vacuum, when there's no atmosphere, there's not going to be a halo because it's CAUSED BY THE ATMOSPHERE!

What exactly is the difference in density between the two environments? With the density of "air pressure" being such a point of contention between us, How many more atoms per cubic meter of air at 400 Km altitude are there than in inter-steller space? The answer is "too few to mater".

No it's not, moron. Mike specifically explained this to you in his last post. Did you even read it?

Starfish went off in the ionosphere. There's obviously enough gas up there to create glowing halos like the one you claimed wouldn't have been caused by the atmosphere, and if you live in the right areas you can even SEE THIS from the ground. That's because the ionosphere is where aurora borealis is "created," dumbass.

BTW, most scientists would describe the "boundary" between space and the atmosphere at about 800 miles, or over 1200 kilometers, above the Earth. Starfish didn't make a third of that altitude, junior.

3. That the starfish shot was not in hard vacume is a ludicris assumption.

WTF are you talking about? It was only 400km's above the Earth. That is a PART OF THE EARTH's UPPER ATMOSPHERE, dumbass.

You must define hard vacum and why the reagion of space around the Hoth system is different from the space around earth.

Maybe because the ionosphere contains lots of ions and other particles (hence the name), while the Hoth asteroid belt wouldn't? Hard vacuum is described as the absence of any appreciable pressure, or any persistent pressure created by gases. Those pressures would and do exist in the ionosphere, but not in the Hoth asteroid belt.

I state that there is so little air at that altitude that it would have no effect. It now falls to you to prove that the density at 400Km, is high enough to matter, not just to state that it does.

AURORA BOREALIS IS CREATED IN THE IONOSPHERE, PROVING THAT THERE IS ENOUGH GAS THERE TO CAUSE A HALO AND GLOW WHEN SUBJECTED TO SUFFICIENT ENERGY.

I refer you to the following books: THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS published by the DoE in 1954, THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB and DARK SUN both by Richard Rhodes and the OPERATION PLOWSHAIR reports also published by the DoE.

Nice pointless name-dropping. I will, however, admit that your appeals to authority are growing stronger. The books are a better source than you are.

4. That the halo effect is missing and is also not understood by your selves, does not mean that it is not a valid effect and point in our discussion. It is caused by the nearly spherical expansion of the products of an explosion in space. The gas forms a shell or membrain like structure that might enclose a sphere.

I see little reason to continue referring you back to Mike's original post. He already explained what causes the halo effect. You completely ignored it.

Any time gas is released into space, it will form this type of structure. Period.

True, and (again, as Mike fucking told you the first time), in an explosion of this magnitude a lot of that gas is going to be moving VERY quickly unless there's something (like, say, an atmosphere) to stop it and slow it down.

If the gas is luminesant, then the eye will percieve a hollow ring like construct because when you look threw the diamiter you only see the two sides wich appier reallitivly dark. The closer that the line of sight gets to the tangent of the sphere, the more gas the line of sight must pass threw, thus appiering much brighter. No halo, no incandesant gas, no incandesant gas no large relise of energy mesured in kilo, mega, giga or any other tons!

Or it could simply mean that the gas was thrown away from the point of detonation so quickly that it exited the frame before we could see it (and also, that would reduce its density to the point where we couldn't see it). Mike already explained this to you. Please do not ask me to repeat this, again.

As a final point. Does anyone there have any expiriance or expertise in any of the following subjects? Explosives, Nuclear Weapons, Demolitions, Lasers, Masers, any other Beam Weapons or Devices, Satilites, Electronic Warfare, Aerospace Engineering, Weapons Systems Annalysis, Military Technologies or the Martial Arts? ( Not Karate, the arts of war, Logistics, Tactics and Stratigy!)

LMAO! Do you realize that much of that doesn't have ANY bearing on the current topic of discussion? If you want to go back and explain why everyone's response to your OP was wrong, then go right ahead, but so far you've been concentrating exclusively on tiny snippets of the whole conversation, cutting out VAST quantities of relevant arguments that slice apart your original post.

If not, then you are taking someone elses word, second hand, without direct first hand knowledge. The proofs may look good, but if they are based on false assumptions, how good can they be?

Show where these false assumptions are, Mr. "Expert." You're the one who's been claiming that there's going to be a halo effect in hard vacuum that's visible to an observer less than a kilometer away from the origin when hit with a MT-level blast.

I have some expertise in each of those arias above and I am prepaired to debate any points that you might wish to test my fundamental knowledge.

I have some expertise in speaking and writing in English. I am prepared to discuss any points which you may bring up.

However, here's a quick test for your fundamental knowledge: How big would the halo be within one frame of the explosion? How quickly do these expand in hard vacuum? If you said "Really really big," and "really really fast," you're right! The most energetic gases would be expanding outwards at relativistic velocities, and would be invisible to the camera and their density would probably be invisibly small, by then.

That you think that you know something is evident and the arguments that you cite clearly show that you have no personal knowledge to draw on, only that you must parrot back what others have said.

Here's the "Force Projection" technique that DarkStar made famous. Assigning your own personality flaws to someone else does NOT help you win a debate, dumbass.

Pick a single point and we will argue that point to the exclusion of all others untill it is agreed or we tire of the pointlessness of it. It is two hard to remember all the things said.

So you can't be bothered to go through an entire post, like I'm doing to you, and refute the points in that post? That would be good if you went back to the beginning and did things like that with the first post or two that refuted all of your bullshit claims.

[Darth Wong]

I am sorry that I could not respond sooner, I have a life and spent the last three days on a hot date.

Yeah, sure. After all of your obvious lies, we believe you.

In direct responce to your smak down attack I make the following points;

1. All known gases glow at 1,200K. Almost all gases glow at 1,000K andmore than a few will glow at 700 if the ambient light level is low. The failure of your possition in stating, parafraising, "what makes you think that gas at 2,000K will glow just because an iron bar does?" Why would any normal person think that it would not if an iron bar does? I can see the flaims from my stove that are only 900K.

Yet again you demonstrate your ignorance. The ionosphere is already over 1200K. Why don't we see constant glowing over the entire sky, day and night? Because it is not dense enough, fool. The density of gas controls its luminous intensity, measured in watts per square metre of radiating area.

2. Why would the explosion differ from 400 Km altitude to hard vacume? What exactly is the difference in density between the two environments? With the density of "air pressure" being such a point of contention between us, How many more atoms per cubic meter of air at 400 Km altitude are there than in inter-steller space? The answer is "too few to mater".

Too few to glow visibly even at 2000K, fool. But when you heat them up to millions of K, they glow, hence the halo.

3. That the starfish shot was not in hard vacume is a ludicris assumption.

Fact, not assumption. 400km is within the upper atmosphere, and it is at such an altitude that satellite lifetimes are limited by atmospheric drag. Do I honestly need to explain to you why atmospheric drag indicates the presence of ... atmosphere? Are you honestly this dense?

You must define hard vacum and why the reagion of space around the Hoth system is different from the space around earth. I state that there is so little air at that altitude that it would have no effect.

Then why can we see the aurora borealis, moron? Obviously, there's enough gas up there to produce easily visible patterns when energized by something. By the way, here's NASA's profile of ionospheric electron densities (note that the electron density drops at low altitudes because the lower atmosphere is not ionized):

It would appear that the electron density at 400km altitude ranges from 2E4 electrons/cm^3 to 1E6 electrons/cm^3 (the actual particle density should be somewhat higher, since the parent nuclei are not counted). By comparison, interplanetary gas density is less than 10 particles/cm^3 in the Earth's vicinity, and drops as you get farther from the Sun. In short, the difference in gas density is at least three orders of magnitude.

It now falls to you to prove that the density at 400Km, is high enough to matter, not just to state that it does.

Since it is physically impossible for the blast energy to not interact with the gas, that burden of proof has been more than satisfied by simply demontrating that the gas is present, and in many orders of magnitude greater density than would be present in the interstellar medium. Now would you care to explain the reasoning behind your claim that a density difference of more than three orders of magnitude should have "no effect"?

For that matter, why should we have any burden of proof at all? You are claiming that a phenomenon should occur solely because of "Starfish", and we have produced not one, but two reasons why Starfish is not analogous to the Hoth asteroid vapourization. The burden of proof therefore falls on you to explain why it should be considered a useful analogy despite these serious distinctions.

I refer you to the following books: THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS published by the DoE in 1954, THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB and DARK SUN both by Richard Rhodes and the OPERATION PLOWSHAIR reports also published by the DoE.

I notice you don't actually quote the portions of those documents which prove that a nuclear detonation would not produce visible interactions with upper atmospheric gas.

4. That the halo effect is missing and is also not understood by your selves,

You act as though it is understood by you. Very well then, please produce your calculations and physical theories to explain why we should expect to see a persistent glowing halo of only a few hundred metres diameter. Get this through your thick skull: you have not presented anything remotely resembling a physics theory or explanation for this so far; your entire argument is to claim that "Starfish" was precisely analogous, and we have shown numerous times in multiple ways that it is not, so your argument becomes utterly nonexistent.

does not mean that it is not a valid effect and point in our discussion. It is caused by the nearly spherical expansion of the products of an explosion in space. The gas forms a shell or membrain like structure that might enclose a sphere. Any time gas is released into space, it will form this type of structure. Period.

Since you are obviously too stupid to understand what I said in my previous post, this gas is hurled out at a significant fraction of the speed of light. The "structure" you speak of will not hang around within a range of a few dozen metres from the source for several minutes, and any attempt on your part to claim that it will do so is simply nonsense.

If the gas is luminesant, then the eye will percieve a hollow ring like construct because when you look threw the diamiter you only see the two sides wich appier reallitivly dark. The closer that the line of sight gets to the tangent of the sphere, the more gas the line of sight must pass threw, thus appiering much brighter. No halo, no incandesant gas, no incandesant gas no large relise of energy mesured in kilo, mega, giga or any other tons!

For the third time, this ring-like structure will expand at a significant fraction of the speed of light, moron. You won't even see it on 24fps film when a 40m wide asteroid takes up a significant portion of the frame.

As a final point. Does anyone there have any expiriance or expertise in any of the following subjects? Explosives, Nuclear Weapons, Demolitions, Lasers, Masers, any other Beam Weapons or Devices, Satilites, Electronic Warfare, Aerospace Engineering, Weapons Systems Annalysis, Military Technologies or the Martial Arts? ( Not Karate, the arts of war, Logistics, Tactics and Stratigy!)

Didn't you know that "experience with" is the professional resume version of "I read the operations manual once"? There's a huge difference between saying "I have experience with" aerospace engineering and saying "I have an aerospace engineering degree and a P.Eng". As for "military technologies" and "the martial arts", I would love to see how you explain why those should be considered relevant to a discussion of energetic gas cloud physics in vacuum.

It is painfully, embarrassingly obvious that you're desperately trying to appeal to your (unverifiable) credentials in order to back up your laughable claims that the luminescent intensity of gas is unrelated to its density, or that the upper atmosphere is no different from interplanetary space. Your bullshit will not avail you.

If not, then you are taking someone elses word, second hand, without direct first hand knowledge.

An ironic statement from someone whose argument relies on name-dropping.

The proofs may look good, but if they are based on false assumptions, how good can they be?

False assumptions like your moronic claim that the gas density in the Earth's upper atmosphere is not significantly different from the gas density in interplanetary space?

I have some expertise in each of those arias above and I am prepaired to debate any points that you might wish to test my fundamental knowledge. That you think that you know something is evident and the arguments that you cite clearly show that you have no personal knowledge to draw on, only that you must parrot back what others have said.

And what is your personal knowledge? Do you have a physics degree? An engineering degree? What are your credentials? Or do you think that a vague "I have expertise in" statement covers it all? You have already stated that gas glows visibly at 2000K regardless of density, which is utterly, blatantly wrong and any first-year physics student would know that. You have also stated that 400km altitude is interplanetary space rather than upper atmosphere, even though NASA disagrees. And finally, you claimed that the asteroids in TESB were "soft lumps of talc", an utterly moronic statement in light of their appearance and the fact that metallic TIE fighters exploded against them without even denting them. Your credibility lays in tatters, no matter how fervently you may wish otherwise.

Pick a single point and we will argue that point to the exclusion of all others untill it is agreed or we tire of the pointlessness of it. It is two hard to remember all the things said.

Then go back and quote my previous response to you, as I have been doing for you. So far, you have refused to respond directly to any single point I have made, while I have been responding directly to every single point you have made.

You claim that the Turbo Laser is a beam weapon, yet the article elswere on this site is unshure of the exact nature of the device. My question to you is. If it is a beam, how come it apears to move from fraim to fraim at such a low reallitivistic velosity?

What does this have to do with the energy yield of the TESB turbolaser vapourization event? You came storming in here saying that a visible, long-term persistent "halo" should be visible onscreen in TESB if the energy release is in the hundreds of kilotons as estimated on my webpage. Your rationale for this statement has been thoroughly shredded, and what is your response? To appeal to your own authority and attempt to change the subject. Pathetic.

[Connor MacLeod]

I am sorry that I could not respond sooner, I have a life and spent the last three days on a hot date.

In direct responce to your smak down attack I make the following points;

*yawn* Yeah, yeah, whatever.

1. All known gases glow at 1,200K. Almost all gases glow at 1,000K andmore than a few will glow at 700 if the ambient light level is low. The failure of your possition in stating, parafraising, "what makes you think that gas at 2,000K will glow just because an iron bar does?" Why would any normal person think that it would not if an iron bar does? I can see the flaims from my stove that are only 900K.

Iron Bar? WTF are you talking about? Mike hasn't mentioned any sort of iron bar. For that matter, what does *any* of this have to do with Mike's counterargument? Mike's argument is relating to density (the density of atmosphere is much less than say, a piece of iron, even though the gasses are much hotter.)

Maybe if you want to claim Mike is wrong, you should explain how density is *not* a factor. For all your screaming about your scientific qualifcations, you're not very capable at explaining things the way Mike is able to.

2. Why would the explosion differ from 400 Km altitude to hard vacume? What exactly is the difference in density between the two environments? With the density of "air pressure" being such a point of contention between us, How many more atoms per cubic meter of air at 400 Km altitude are there than in inter-steller space? The answer is "too few to mater".

And of course, you provide evidence to substantiate... no you don't.

The atmosphere we breathe has a density of ~3e19 atoms per cubic centimeter, whereas the "interstellar medium" has an average density of 1 atom per cubic centimeter according to this site here

In fact, the largest statement of density of the interstellar medium was here indicating 1000 atoms per cubic centimeter.

According to this chart the difference in density between our breathable atmosphere and the atmosphere at 400 km is about e11-e12 kg*m^3.

Simply put, this means that the atmosphere at 400 km has an average density of at least 3e7 atoms per cubic centimeter, a substantial difference of easily many orders of magnitude.

Again, do you care to actually provide some sort of substantial evidencec to refute this aside from saying "I know more than you so I'm right?"

3. That the starfish shot was not in hard vacume is a ludicris assumption. You must define hard vacum and why the reagion of space around the Hoth system is different from the space around earth.

Vaccuum in reference to outer space (rather than "pure" vaccuum, since outer space is not totally "empty" - we don't want you playing semantics whore now, do we?) is quite a different matter than atmosphere - I've seen no sources indicating that 400 km above space is "vaccuum" - it has been labeled as part tof the upper atmosphere (the thermosphere/ionosphere, more specifically.) How can you not be aware of the fact that the Earth's atmosphere extends hundreds, even thousands, of kilometers above the planet? If you want proof, you can look here - oh wait, I'm betting your knowledge is greater than the sum total of NASA too, isnt it?

I state that there is so little air at that altitude that it would have no effect. It now falls to you to prove that the density at 400Km, is high enough to matter, not just to state that it does.

You provide no evidence to back up your position. Despite the fact this is repeatedly mentioned, you continue to ignore this requirement.

I refer you to the following books: THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS published by the DoE in 1954, THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB and DARK SUN both by Richard Rhodes and the OPERATION PLOWSHAIR reports also published by the DoE.

Sorry, but the Burden of Proof is upon you to provide the references to back up your position. Its not up to us to do your damn research for you. Just what sort of education have you had that makes you think you can make other people do your research for you, anyhow?

4. That the halo effect is missing and is also not understood by your selves, does not mean that it is not a valid effect and point in our discussion.

Ah, more "I'm smarter than you and its too technical for you to understand" bullshit.

It is caused by the nearly spherical expansion of the products of an explosion in space. The gas forms a shell or membrain like structure that might enclose a sphere. Any time gas is released into space, it will form this type of structure. Period. If the gas is luminesant, then the eye will percieve a hollow ring like construct because when you look threw the diamiter you only see the two sides wich appier reallitivly dark.

So? We're discussing how *long* this so called effect is supposed to last. You insist it takes minutes, but have yet to prove that this is in fact the minimum time required for the effect in all cases (instead you're insisting that it takes the same amount of time irrespective of temperature OR Density. Thus a 32 million kg asteroid heated to several thousand degrees will have a halo that lasts supposedly as long as a much less massive nuclear detonation that is heated to millions of degrees.)

The closer that the line of sight gets to the tangent of the sphere, the more gas the line of sight must pass threw, thus appiering much brighter. No halo, no incandesant gas, no incandesant gas no large relise of energy mesured in kilo, mega, giga or any other tons!

Nothing of which tells us why you insist that the vaporized asteroid must have lingered for several minutes, of course. OH wait, I'm sure there is some sort of complicated nuances that my neanderthal brain neglected to realize. Maybe I should wait until your unparalleled genius can illuminate my ignorance.

As a final point. Does anyone there have any expiriance or expertise in any of the following subjects? Explosives, Nuclear Weapons, Demolitions, Lasers, Masers, any other Beam Weapons or Devices, Satilites, Electronic Warfare, Aerospace Engineering, Weapons Systems Annalysis, Military Technologies or the Martial Arts? ( Not Karate, the arts of war, Logistics, Tactics and Stratigy!)

Oh, so we're all supposed to shut up and bow down before your supposedly superior intellect just because you claim to have expertise on those subjects even though fi your logic is faulty?

If not, then you are taking someone elses word, second hand, without direct first hand knowledge. The proofs may look good, but if they are based on false assumptions, how good can they be?

Same can be said for you, Stewie. you're making alot of claims about your qualifications and expecting us to take your word on it without being able to verify them. Maybe you'd like to give us the opportunity to check up on you to make sure you're telling the truth?

I have some expertise in each of those arias above and I am prepaired to debate any points that you might wish to test my fundamental knowledge.

Your "Fundamental knowledge" has already been tested. Either you are lying about your education or you are being deliberately twisting science to justify your position.

That you think that you know something is evident and the arguments that you cite clearly show that you have no personal knowledge to draw on, only that you must parrot back what others have said.

Newsflash, Stewie. I KNOW Mike. I know his qualifications. I understand what he is claiming, and I can verify what he says independently. He has, unlike you, thoroughly explained his position in such a fashion that anyone who does some simple research can understand and verify what he is saying. You, on the other hand, spout off alot of vague references without actually citing them, never bother to explain the logic behind your statements, and hide behind your supposed credentials and insist we simply don't understand. Gee, I wonder who I'm more inclined to believe?

Pick a single point and we will argue that point to the exclusion of all others untill it is agreed or we tire of the pointlessness of it. It is two hard to remember all the things said.

Its only "pointless" when one side refuses to back up his or her claims with evidence, and only touts their education as proof of the validity of their position. (IE you.)

You claim that the Turbo Laser is a beam weapon, yet the article elswere on this site is unshure of the exact nature of the device. My question to you is. If it is a beam, how come it apears to move from fraim to fraim at such a low reallitivistic velosity?

Irrelevant. We're discussing the "output" of a turbolaser, not its nature. Stop trying to change the subject.

[Connor MacLeod]

Incidentally, if one does a google search on the "Starfish prime nuclear detonation", one learns that it was a 1.4-1.5 megaton nuclear warhead. Various links tended to in fact link it to atmospheric detonations (as well as EMP effects.)

linky

Evidence here indicates that Starfish, part of Operation Dominic, was indeed concerned with atmospheric nuclear tests.

Clearly, we have two interesting facts Stewie neglects to mention:

the "Starfish" detonation involves a warhead that is many times more energy than the asteroid vaporization of TESB (particularily since he is using the 20 meter diameter asteroid, as opposed to say, the 40 meter.) Apparently energy, like matter, density, and temperature, do not matter to Stewie's logic.

Also, the fact they treat Starfish as an atmospheric detonation tends to make his claims about the altitude being irrelevant (since there is no discernable atmosphere in the asteroid vaporization in TESB.)

Gee, I wonder what else Stewie might be lying about....

[Connor MacLeod]

Incidentally, the Thor missile used in Starfish Prime weighed at most ~50 tons...

thor missile

warhead weight

Again, of course, this doesn't matter, since Stewart refuses to acknowledge the importancee of mass, material type/density, energy, or temperature as factors relevant to his argument.

[harbringer]

OK stewart your a moron. Mrs. Palmer and her five daughters do not a date make. I can't debate your scientific knowledge but I DO understand tactics, strategy and the principals of warfare. These arts are NOT martial arts for a reason they are as Sun Tzu put it the ART OF WAR. Martial arts is methods of hand to hand combat. I would bet on any person posting on this board to beat you on a sand table any day. Again your a moron.

BTW don't go quoting Sun Tzu or Clauswitz or even Napoleon if your too stupid to be able to say "400 km's up is not part of the atmosphere becuase XXX" you are too stupid to learn anything from the above.

[Stewart at SDI]

It occured to me that I had the proof that you seek all along. This morning I dug threw all the boxes piled in the basement to find my "NUCLEAR BOMB EFFECTS COMPUTER", a circular slide rule developed by E. Royce Fletcher for the DIVISION OF BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION under contract No. E(29-2)-1013, based on data from "THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS" revised eddition 1977.

This device is available from yours truely at a discount yet to be determined or directly from the DoE at full list price. You might also find one to borrow, at any major library in any big city, in the pocket, inside the back cover of the above mentioned book.

Setting the inner wheel at aproximately 333 kilotons yeald, I read the THERMAL ENERGY EMITED in time to be 20% in .52 S., 30% in .38S., 40% in .84S. 50% in 1.16S., 60% in 1.67S., 70% in 2.7S. and 5.7 seconds for 80% of the total. The time taken to give up the last 20% of the total thermal radiation energy is more than three times what it took to yeald the first 80%!

Since none of the times listed are within the paramiters needed to jibe with the films, we could reasonably conclude that some other mechanism must have caused the asteroid to vanish besides being "vaporised" by radiations unknown from some beam weapon.

I will read your replies to both posts when I return from todays frivolities. or maby Tuesday. Sincerely,
Stewart.

[Ghost Rider]

It occured to me that I had the proof that you seek all along. This morning I dug threw all the boxes piled in the basement to find my "NUCLEAR BOMB EFFECTS COMPUTER", a circular slide rule developed by E. Royce Fletcher for the DIVISION OF BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION under contract No. E(29-2)-1013, based on data from "THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS" revised eddition 1977.

Damn...sheer babble.

Like everything else.

This device is available from yours truely at a discount yet to be determined or directly from the DoE at full list price. You might also find one to borrow, at any major library in any big city, in the pocket, inside the back cover of the above mentioned book.

And?

Setting the inner wheel at aproximately 333 kilotons yeald, I read the THERMAL ENERGY EMITED in time to be 20% in .52 S., 30% in .38S., 40% in .84S. 50% in 1.16S., 60% in 1.67S., 70% in 2.7S. and 5.7 seconds for 80% of the total. The time taken to give up the last 20% of the total thermal radiation energy is more than three times what it took to yeald the first 80%!

Since none of the times listed are within the paramiters needed to jibe with the films, we could reasonably conclude that some other mechanism must have caused the asteroid to vanish besides being "vaporised" by radiations unknown from some beam weapon.

I will read your replies to both posts when I return from todays frivolities. or maby Tuesday. Sincerely,
Stewart.

More babble. In fact it completely avoids what canon evidence we have seen and substitues it with an unknown mechanism.

So it's not gravity pulling me down but an unknown force I will now call "Dennions"?

Would you actually rebute some of the arguements instead this ad nauseum technobabble avoidence routine you've developed.

And oh yes, learn to spell better because you are literally making piss poor mistakes and not to occasional spelling error.

[aerius]

Setting the inner wheel at aproximately 333 kilotons yeald, I read the THERMAL ENERGY EMITED in time to be 20% in .52 S., 30% in .38S., 40% in .84S. 50% in 1.16S., 60% in 1.67S., 70% in 2.7S. and 5.7 seconds for 80% of the total.

That's for thermal energy emmisions inside the Earth's atmosphere, for stuff like airbursts at a few thousand feet. Try again. Oh, and quit poaching off the Nuclear Weapons FAQ you dork.

[Robert Walper]

Hey, fellas, while I in no way support or agree with Stewart's position or arguements, wouldn't it be easier for just one person to debate him at this time?

1) This prevents any parties from crying "Hey, you're ignoring my posts! Concession accepted!" Also, the virtual unknowns jumping in with "yeah, you're a moron" mantra gets irritating at times.

2) This prevents any potential cry "I'm debating multiple people, I got my posts mixed up" defense, etc. I mean, seriously, the guy is outnumbered. Kinda hard to debate multiple persons due to (possible) time constraints and possible appeal to post mixup.

3) Repetative rebuttals/arguements can be avoided, on both sides.

4) We don't need half a dozen people to prove him wrong...one will suffice.

So...should I just shutup or will someone step forward with the task of attempting to reason with Steward on behalf of the SD.net gang?

[Tribun]

If he continues with that speed, Steward will be the first Village Idiot with a posting counter with only two decimals.......

[Ghost Rider]

Hey, fellas, while I in no way support or agree with Stewart's position or arguements, wouldn't it be easier for just one person to debate him at this time?

1) This prevents any parties from crying "Hey, you're ignoring my posts! Concession accepted!" Also, the virtual unknowns jumping in with "yeah, you're a moron" mantra gets irritating at times.

2) This prevents any potential cry "I'm debating multiple people, I got my posts mixed up" defense, etc. I mean, seriously, the guy is outnumbered. Kinda hard to debate multiple persons due to (possible) time constraints and possible appeal to post mixup.

3) Repetative rebuttals/arguements can be avoided, on both sides.

4) We don't need half a dozen people to prove him wrong...one will suffice.

So...should I just shutup or will someone step forward with the task of attempting to reason with Steward on behalf of the SD.net gang?

Given he hasn't once responded beyond his babble of what he think he knows.

Does it really matter one person talking to him or a half dozen?

Everyone is asking the same thing.

[Darth Wong]

It occured to me that I had the proof that you seek all along. This morning I dug threw all the boxes piled in the basement to find my "NUCLEAR BOMB EFFECTS COMPUTER", a circular slide rule developed by E. Royce Fletcher for the DIVISION OF BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION under contract No. E(29-2)-1013, based on data from "THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS" revised eddition 1977.

This device is available from yours truely at a discount yet to be determined or directly from the DoE at full list price. You might also find one to borrow, at any major library in any big city, in the pocket, inside the back cover of the above mentioned book.

Setting the inner wheel at aproximately 333 kilotons yeald, I read the THERMAL ENERGY EMITED in time to be 20% in .52 S., 30% in .38S., 40% in .84S. 50% in 1.16S., 60% in 1.67S., 70% in 2.7S. and 5.7 seconds for 80% of the total. The time taken to give up the last 20% of the total thermal radiation energy is more than three times what it took to yeald the first 80%!

Those figures are for atmospheric detonations, you idiot.

Since none of the times listed are within the paramiters needed to jibe with the films, we could reasonably conclude that some other mechanism must have caused the asteroid to vanish besides being "vaporised" by radiations unknown from some beam weapon.

I will read your replies to both posts when I return from todays frivolities. or maby Tuesday. Sincerely,
Stewart.

I love the way you take the emission profiles for an atmospheric detonation and simply assume that they will apply to a detonation in interstellar space despite the fact that atmospheric detonation physics are entirely dominated by the interaction of the blast energy with the surrounding atmosphere. It is increasingly clear to everyone present that you are an imbecile.

[Darth Wong]

By the way Stewart, don't bother with this "it's hard to debate multiple people" bullshit. I challenge you to answer my last two posts and ignore everyone else.

[Tribun]

Mike!

Why not challange him to a five rounds debate?
There you could show him, that even when only debating ONE person, he is easily in the defensive.

[Darth Wong]

Good idea. Stewart, I challenge you to debate this subject with me. Alone.

[Robert Walper]

Good idea. Stewart, I challenge you to debate this subject with me. Alone.

*looks up* Umm...guys...are you seeing those dark clouds and lightening flashes too? *trembles in both excitement and fear*