Mike vs Stewie

Executor32 · Post by **Executor32** » 2004-03-10 02:05am

Yep, it's just me.

*dies from decapitation*

Butterbean569 · Post by **Butterbean569** » 2004-03-10 05:50pm

I have a Chemistry Midterm to study for, and decided I'd read this thread as a nice study break. The bad thing is that my IQ has dropped 10's of points

Maybe I shoulda just watched some mindless sitcom....

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-03-10 08:12pm

*rips Stewie's head off and starts gnawing on it*

Blech! Concrete!

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-03-10 08:33pm

Stewart at SDI wrote:I went to the local Office Max last night to post photos, but they were unable to send them to you because your web site said that photos must be "Stored on line"? I have the files saved to disk to send to you but I still have to learn how. Can and more importantly, will you tell me how to send my pic's to your page?

Let me get this straight, you actually thought the Office Max could take your photos and do everything for you? Also, you don't know what it means to store or host photos online? Furthermore, you don't know how to use the post office to send disks to Mike? Question for you, have you figured out how to take your pants off to shit or piss or are you still in diapers?

That I am not a debater and have poor spelling, garmer and computer skills does not change the validity of my conclusions. Address them, do not attack me.

Thank you for stating the obvious...in case it went over your head it means you're a whack-a-loon and your conclusions are completely invalid.

I am going to a different Kinko's to try again.

Whatsamatter? Did the mean clerk laugh at you and make you cry?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-10 10:10pm

The grammar discussion of proper apostrophe usage has been split to a new thread in the OT forum. Come on guys, with all of the clay pidgeons Mr. Dean of Technology threw in the air, you could have found something better to shoot at than an improper use of apostrophes.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-03-11 01:10pm

Here's a question Stewie: if these "PhD plus guys' thought you were writing an article, wouldn't they think beforehand there names would be published?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-03-11 01:21pm

Hell I wanna know what a PhD plus guy is.

That and nice to see he spends $800 to go around asking folks...but doesn't spend the $800 on a man calling him out.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-11 01:25pm

personally i could find much better things to spend $800.00 on than an ST vs. SW debate. like. . . .say. . . .porn. this stewie person is either filthy fucking rich, or he has no concept of monetary value.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-03-11 01:35pm

Darth_Zod wrote:personally i could find much better things to spend $800.00 on than an ST vs. SW debate. like. . . .say. . . .porn. this stewie person is either filthy fucking rich, or he has no concept of monetary value.

Remember he works at home with his ultra high tech secret society...he probably doesn't even pay taxes

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-11 01:39pm

Ghost Rider wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote:personally i could find much better things to spend $800.00 on than an ST vs. SW debate. like. . . .say. . . .porn. this stewie person is either filthy fucking rich, or he has no concept of monetary value.
Remember he works at home with his ultra high tech secret society...he probably doesn't even pay taxes

well, if you consider living in your parents' basement as ultra high tech, i suppose. and that would also explain the lack of paying taxes. he's not old enough to legally work yet.

Butterbean569 · Post by **Butterbean569** » 2004-03-11 03:50pm

Filthy rich? How about lying out of his ass. Comon everyone...the odds that this guy is telling the truth have to be worse than 1 in 100,000. We shouldn't even entertain the idea that he is anything more than a lying retard

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-11 03:51pm

Butterbean569 wrote:Filthy rich? How about lying out of his ass. Comon everyone...the odds that this guy is telling the truth have to be worse than 1 in 100,000. We shouldn't even entertain the idea that he is anything more than a lying retard

your sarcasm radar doesn't seem to be working.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-03-11 04:12pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote:personally i could find much better things to spend $800.00 on than an ST vs. SW debate. like. . . .say. . . .porn. this stewie person is either filthy fucking rich, or he has no concept of monetary value.
Remember he works at home with his ultra high tech secret society...he probably doesn't even pay taxes
well, if you consider living in your parents' basement as ultra high tech, i suppose. and that would also explain the lack of paying taxes. he's not old enough to legally work yet.

Well if he made a decent sum of money...age really isn't that much an issue...but he's gonna have to try reeeeeeeeeallly hard with the lemonade stand he has.

Butterbean569 · Post by **Butterbean569** » 2004-03-12 03:53am

Oh my sarcasm radar is working. I just think that this is so pathetic it's not worthy of sarcasm

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2004-03-13 11:00pm

Stewie, I love how you approach PhD's, and when they turn down a free lunch at their favourite restaurant, they agree to an interview for a submarine sandwich and an 'adult drink'. You've just fucking admitted (assuming we take your laughable story for truth) that you interviewed intoxicated ficticious professors about a sci-fi debate. You seem to boast about how $800 was all it cost for you to get anally violated by MW.

I hope your parents come downstairs to remove that tinfoil hat from your head that saus 'Dean of Technology' and tuck you into bed- you seem to need to know you're lvoed very badly. Maybe they can tell you some plausible fairy-tales.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-03-14 12:15am

LOL, "adult drinks". WTF is that. Sounds like something a 10-year old would say.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-03-14 12:37am

He's stopped replying. Either he's building up a new pile of shit to fling, or he's run away for good.

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2004-03-14 09:40pm

Once our HTL's of Criticism start ripping into their Ablative Armour of Bullshit, most people have a Warp Core Breach of Some Kind.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-03-15 04:11pm

Very Nice Metaphor

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-03-16 12:19am

And now you resort to outright lies. Pathetic. From http://www.theforce.net/swtc/isd.html#w ... -asteroids we can see that he actually says this:

This has nothing to do with the part of his page that I was quoting. The part that I was quoting, had to do with the energy required to gennerate any given size of fireball. In that chart, it gives figures for the expected energy of several different size of blast's. I simply chose the one that had a radius of 50M since the largest asteroid that we had discussed was 40m LOA. You should look up that part of his page and then answer my question.

Did you really think that you could simply lie about the contents of his page and expect people not to check?

But you obviously did not check the whole page, or you would have been able to find the part that I referanced.

As for your so-called "points", I have addressed them, many times.

But always using the same flawed arguments, without addressing my points. You claim that we can not see the expansion required by your theory because it happens in the interfraim period, rather than the three times longer part that we see. That it expands so quickly that it fades into the distance and from view in the 10-12Ms between fraims, yet it glowed for two consecutive fraims for all to see. RIGHT! Yet there is no realitivistic expansion between fraims 2 and 3, where the same cloud is visable in two fraims. This is absolutly imposable if the asteroid was "vaporised" in fraim 2.

You have never answered this with any grain of truth in the statement you maid.

Your absurd attempt to misrepresent Curtis Saxton is just the icing on the cake.

I did not attempt to missrepresent him at all. I just quoted the part of his page that tends to support my views, just like you use the parts of NASA's site that supports your's but ignore the parts that show my claims to be suppirior. In you posting of the free electron chart that is at least 4 OoM less than the chart I posted, from your own site, I might add, and has nothing to do with with our discussion, you muddle the issue and claim that the difference between ZERO and 1x10^-11 is more significant than the dencity of the visable cloud we all see on film, wich for your theory to work must be 12 OoM higher! RIGHT! Look up the chart on his site that I used then rebut that!

Good luck, "Dean of Technology of the Strategic Defense Institute". Maybe you should ask them if they accept payment in "Chuck E Cheese" tokens.

Kinko's does not and has not for some time supported the service that was recomended to me from your posters. They will not up load to the internet at all any more since there is no way to prove it's reciept and thus authenticate billing.

I still have pictures to post if the member of you site who lives in Barrington will meet me at the location of his choise, I will turn all of the photos and other documents over to him. He can then post them to your site for all to see.

In very simple terms so that every reader on the site can understand my objections to your arguments and why my possition is the correct one I will now explain in simple terms why your argument is defective.

To understand the effects that are neccessary for Mikies theory to work you have to visualise what is required. If the asteroid is Vaporised in fraim 2, then the resulting gas MUST expand in subsequent fraims. If it does expand it follows some fairly simple rules. To visualise this best, let's reduce it to one dimention and four atoms of gas. The more dimentions and vectors that we add the more certain the results will follow this model. Imagine a line with the center as zero. to the right and left, numbers represent range from the center of asteroid mass. There are two atoms on each side of zero. The possable vectors for those four atoms are;
1. All four are moving away from zero. After two units of movement, there is nothing left inside the origional asteroid's dimentions.
2. All four atoms are moving toward the center of the mass, IE toward zero. Since gas is perfectly elastic for our test, the atomes from possitions +1 and -1 will meet at zero and then bounce away. Then they will hit the atoms from +2 and-2 that are still moving toward the center and will rebound again toward the center (zero poss.) The atoms that started in the + & -2 possitions will then rebound to +3 and -3 respectivly. Since they are in "Deep Space" there is nothing further to hit and will expand forever. The atoms that started in poss+ & -1 will then impact at zero a second time and then follow the other atoms out into space. This leaves a vacume behind and in space nothing will fill this void untill it is the same dencity as the space itself! Because the expandind gas "sweeps" all before it, there is nothing left behind to form a cloud that we see on the film. Mike if you dissagree with this get some "Expert" who agrees with you to say so "On the record".

There are other possable senarios, such as one atom on each side going each way but the results are always the same! Eventialy all the gas is moving away from the center of the mass that it started from.

If we add dimentions it only increases the number of permutations, but not the results, eventialy all the gass is flowing away from the center of the point of origen! With out an "atmosphere" to push against the expansion continues untill it is the same dencity as the surrounding medium. (As Dr. Saxton points out on his site. Another point that you failed to rebut or even check on!)

If we were to compute the mass of gas at a few fixed intervals it would look something like this.

1. At the start; All the gas is in a spherical cloud of radius TWO AND THE DENCITY IS 100% FOR OUR PURPOSSES.
2. After one turn of movement, the new radius is three. 89% of the origional gas is now between radius TWO and radius THREE! 11% is still between radius zero and radius TWO, of wich 1.2% is between radius zero and radius ONE.
3. After a second turn of movement, the 1.2% above will expand to fill the origional volume to a radius of TWO. The 9.8% between radius ONE and TWO will expand into the radius THREE zone while the 89% in zone THREE will expand into zone FOUR!

I know that this is much over simplified, but it is basicaly if not EXACTLY TO THE MILLIONTH DESIMAL PLACE, true. As you can see there is very little left behind after only 100% expansion, or, about what we see in fraim THREE! The dencity of the volume in the part of the sphere between radius THREE and radius FOUR is now 1/64th of the origional, or less than 2%. Yet it is still visable in fraim 3 as the "blindingly bright cloud of incandesant gas"! This cloud of gas is still between 23.4375 Kg/M^3 and 125Kg/M^3 depending on the origional density of the starting asteroid. IE my soft lump of talq at 1.5 tons/M^3 and the stony iron version at 8 tons/M^3. In either case, after TWO fraims of expansion, the resulting dencity is 20 to 100 times higher than air and we can see it glow as we should at the energys required for the Direct Energy Transfer, or DET model to work. However in the next fraim or I should say between the end of fraim 3 and the start of fraim 4, the cloud of gas accelerates to realitivistic velosities and "Dissapiers" from view. This requires that the rate of expansion demonstraited in the first THREE friams, IE, zero expansion in fraim ONE, 50% in fraim TWO and <100% in fraim THREE were the density is 20 to 100 times sea level, suddenly accellerate to some fraction of "C"! RIGHT!

At this point lets review the fraims one by one again.
1. We see the undamaged asteroid and the shot/bolt just leaving the ship as a bright line supperimposed over/near the bow.
2. The asteroid is replaced by a cloud of "incandesant" gas that is about 50% larger than the origional asteroid. (Somebody count the pixels, so we can then find an "Exact" rate of expansion!)
3. The "incandesant" cloud expands untill it is now <100% larger than the origional asteroid. ( Again somebody count the pixels.)
4. The "incandesant" cloud is replaced by a redish/brown cloud of marginaly larger size that is just as obviously not "INCANDESANT"!
5 to the end. The redish/brown cloud fades from view without expanding and in fact appiers to shrink as it fades.

Since the above sequince of film dissagrees with the DET Model, we must conclude that the DET Model is wrong. IE fraim 4 should show the "Incandesant" cloud to be about 150% of the origional asteroid's size.

Now Mikie, all you have to do is find a single PHD "EXPERT" who dissagrees with this anallisis and is willing to go "ON THE RECORD" with the coments.

Sincerely, Stewart.

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-03-16 12:27am

Let me get this straight, you actually thought the Office Max could take your photos and do everything for you? Also, you don't know what it means to store or host photos online? Furthermore, you don't know how to use the post office to send disks to Mike?

I would if I knew his address! I am not the computer wiz! Dr.'s Bob and Geodude have that responcability. I've told you all before, It's not my yob, man!

Thank you for stating the obvious...in case it went over your head it means you're a whack-a-loon and your conclusions are completely invalid.

How does my incompetence with computers equate to all of my arguments lacking validity?

I am going to a different Kinko's to try again.

Whatsamatter? Did the mean clerk laugh at you and make you cry?[/quote]

No. Kinko's does not offer that service either! Now if anyone out there is truely knowledgable and can name a service that actualy DOES, I will go right down there and send it off right away!

Sincerely, Stewart.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-03-16 12:29am

You should use the earnings of your Instatute to buy a scanner.

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-03-16 12:30am

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Here's a question Stewie: if these "PhD plus guys' thought you were writing an article, wouldn't they think beforehand there names would be published?

No, most did not want to be associated with mindless drivel like this but were willing to shair lunch for the "FUN" of it.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-03-16 12:36am

You gotta admire the sheer tenacity of someone who's either thinking he's either

A. Making fun of geeks and thinks he's cool by doing so.

B. A retard with the brain the size of a small peanut, thus the idea of giving up or debating coherently is just too difficult to grasp.

C. Too stupid to realize that he's not winning any sort of arguement and is being used as an example of how NOT to conduct debates.

With the amount of bullshit laid before us, I'd say he's likely a bit more of A with a healthy helping of B.

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-03-16 12:48am

Ghost Rider wrote:Hell I wanna know what a PhD plus guy is.

That and nice to see he spends $800 to go around asking folks...but doesn't spend the $800 on a man calling him out.

I did not need to spend more than $40.00 to prove them all wrong. All they had to do is accept the rangemasters word or have the guy in Barrington go and watch. I had and have other things to do than fly to wherever to do something that I can do here for free without disrupting my life.

The fact that none was willing to accept my chalenge of open and fair terms, but tried to make me look like I was the one trying to duck out but instead making ever more extreem wagers (ACCEPTED) or requiring me to travle in stead of taking a third parties word or having a local board poster watch, shows what your made of.

The wager is still open, for any amount, at long odds! Nobody got the guts to loose a "C" note?

When your retired with nothing better to do and do not mind spending $800 on a road trip to prove a point to you folks, what does that say, if you'de bothered to think about it. But then again thinking isn't anones strong suite there is it?

How much did anyone there make last year? (That they can't afford to blow a hundred bucks to find out if I can do the things I claim.) I made +-$50,000 for +-35 hours spread over two months, culminating in this weeks deal. It's only a hobby.

Sincerely, Stewart.

P.S. Will send photocopies of the closing statements to any who will post them if they do not belive me!

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Mike vs Stewie

Re: Photo posting

Re: Photo posting

Re: Photo posting